Text

Forwards Sandia Ltrs Re USI A-45, Shutdown DHR Requirements, for Placement in Pdr.Encls Should Not Be Placed in Docket Files
	ML20211D495
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/18/1987
From:	Minners W; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Mcknight J; NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
	REF-GTECI-A-45, REF-GTECI-DC, TASK-A-45, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8702200457
	Download: ML20211D495 (13)
	v • d • e

o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n

N WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 k,

j/

FEB 181987 MEMORANDUM FOR:

JamesL.McKnight%

N Technical Information Assistant Records and Services Branch Division of Technical Information and Document Control FROM:

Warren Minners, Chief Reactor Safety Issues Branch Division of Safety Review & Oversight

SUBJECT:

LETTERS AND GENERIC REPORTS FOR PLACEMENT IN PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM We are providing letters from our contractor, Sandia National Laboratories, for placement in the Public Document Room (PDR). The enclosed letters transmit generic reports relative to the resolution of Unresolved Safety Issue (USI)

A-45 on " Shutdown Decay Heat Removal Requirements." Sandia will be submitting

" camera ready" copies of the generic reports to NRC for publication.

It is our understanding that as part of the publication process, copies of the generic reports will automatically be placed in the PDR; therefore, we are not enclosing copies of said reports.

Please place the enclosed letters in the generic issue file under A-45.

After you receive copies of the generic reports, they should also be placed in the USI A-45 generic issue file. The enclosed letters and generic reports should not be placed in individual plant docket files.

Thank you for your assistance and please contact A. Marchese (x27477) of my staff if you have any questions.

/

'Wa & w. f h u ut N rren Minners, Chief l

Reactor Safety Issues Branch Division of Safety Review & Oversight

Enclosures:

l Five Letters Transmitting Generic l

Reports Relative to USI A-45 l

cc w/o enclosures:

T. Speis B. Sheron G. Mazetis I. Bailey B70220o457 870218 J. Rathze pgg GTECI GDCA V. Yanez l

P. Larkins A. Marchese USI A-45 File i

~

t Sandia NationalI.aboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 871Bb February 6, 1987 Decay Heat Removal Technical Support Group (See Distribution)

This letter is to advise you that copies of the USI A-45 Case Studies are being forwarded under separate cover for your review and/or comment as part of the Decay Heat Removal Technical Support Group activities.

These are prepublication drafts which fall into two categories.

Three of the reports, Quad Cities, Point Beach and ANO-1, have received necessary approvals and have been forwarded to NRC for publication.

Two of the reports, St. Lucie and Turkey Point, are in the final approval process now and will be submitted for eublication within a few weeks.

The final report, Cooper, will follow in about mid-February.

Copies are also being forwarded to the applicable utilities at the same time.

Although the decision has been made to proceed with publication, that does not preclude your review and comment.

We have agreed with the NRC that if substantive comments are received that warrant some action, either an addendum or a revision will be issued.

I suspect that there will be some differences of opinion with respect to data and perhaps level of detail, particularly as regards recovery actions.

A number of earlier comments indicated that certain assumptions were viewed as too conservative.

Clearly, estimates developed in this work may be larger, or even smaller, than those for other programs depending upon how well the data for any specific plant agrees with the generic data employed here.

However, I believe that you will find that many of the comments made during earlier reviews of Point Beach and Quad Cities have been addressed in these reports.

Certainly, they were all considered even though some may not have led to any changes.

Your participation in this process is appreciated.

Once we have received written feedback from the group, say within about 60 days, we will advise you as to whether a meeting of the DHRTSG is deemed necessary.

It should be understood, of course, that this review relates,only to (Lt technical content o

of the case studies.

Any comments or concerns you or your organization may have with respect to reg'ulatory decisions is a separate issue which will be handled by the NRC public comment period which will be provided on any draft documentation published for the resolution of USI A-45.

DHRTSG Page 2 February 5, 1987 Two final administrative notes:

First, because these are

[

prepublication drafts and publication is in process, I would appreciate it if you do not make multiple copies.

If you do need to make copies for use in your internal review that will be acceptable, but it should be kept to a minimum.

If you feel you have a need for distribution outside your organization j

please contact me first.

Copies will be in the PDR soon.

Second, any reference to these studies outside the DHRTSG should refer to them by the generic titic, e.g.,

Shutdown Decay Heat Removal Analysis General Electric BWR3/ Mark 1 Case Study, and not the plant name.

Thanks for all your cooperation in this regard.

Yours truly, r

D. M. E cson, Jr.,

upervisor Advanced Nuclear Power Systems Safety Division 6512 I

Distribution:

D. Paddleford, Westinghouse R. Turk, C-E K. Holt 2clau, GE E. Swanson, B&W J. Lingenfelter, Toledo Edison G.

Swindlehurst, Duke G. Vine, EPRI l

-w s

s Sandia National Laboratodes Albuquerque, New Mexico 87186 February 9, 1987 Gary Spedl Quad Cities Nuclear Plant P. O. Box 216 Cordova, IL 61242

Dear Gary:

Enclosed is a copy of the USI A-45 Case Study relating to one (or more) of your units for your review and/or comment as part of the Decay Heat Removal Technical Support Group (DHRTSG) activities.

This is a prepublication draft which has received necessary internal approvals and has been forwarded to NRC for publication.

Although the decision has been made to proceed with publication, that does not preclude your review and comment.

We have agreed with the NRC that if substantive comments are received that warrant some action, either an addendum or a revision will be issued.

I suspect that there will be some differences of opinion with respect to data and perhaps level of detail, particularly as regards recovery actions.

A number of earlier comments indicated that certain assumptions were viewed as too conservative.

Clearly, estimates developed in this work may be larger, or even smaller, than those for other programs depending upon how well the data for any specific plant agrees with the generic data employed here.

However, I believe that you will find that many of the comments made during earlier reviews of Point Beach and Quad Cities have been addressed in these reports.

Certainly, they were all considered even though some may not have led to any changes.

Your participation in this process is appreciated.

Once we have received written feedback from the group, say within about 60 days, we will advise you as to whether a meeting of the DHRTSG is deemed necessary.

It should be understood, of course, that this review relates only to the technical content of the case studies.

Any comments or concerns you or your organization may have with respect to regulatory decisions is a separate issue which will be handled by the NRC public comment period which will be provided on any draft documentation published for the resolution of USI A-45.

Two final administrative notes:

First, because these ire prepublication drafts and publication is in process, I would appreciate it if you do not make multiple copies.

If you do need to make copies for use in your internal review that will be acceptable, but it should be kept to a minimum.

If you feel you have a need for distribution outside your organization

4

- s Gary Spedl Page 2 February 9.

1987 please contact me first.

Copies will be in the PDR soon.

Second, any reference to these studies outside the DHRTSG should refer to them by the generic title, e.g.,

Shutdown Decay Heat Removal Analysis General Electric BWR3/ Mark 1 Case Study, and not the plant name.

Thanks for all your cooperation in this regard.

Yours truly, n

L D. M.

ricson. Jr.. Supervisor Advanced Nuclear Power Systems Safety Division 6512 Letter Only Info:

X Polanski Commonwealth Edison P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690-0767 f

i o

G

T.' D.....

Sandia National Laboratories AlbcQuerque. New Mexico 8718a February 9, 1987 Wisconsin Electric Company Attn:

Charles Krause 231 W. Michigan Street P. O. Box 2046 Milwaukee, WI 53201

Dear Charles:

Enclosed is a copy of the USI A-45 Case Study relating to one (or more) of your units for your review and/or comment as part of the Decay Heat Removal Technical Support Group (DHRTSG) activities.

This is a prepublication draft which has received necessary internal approvals and has been forwarded to NRC for publication.

Although the decision has been made to proceed with publication, that does not preclude your review and comment.

We have agreed with the NRC that if substantive comments are received that warrant some action, either an addendum or a revision will be issued.

I sus 7ect that there will be some differences of opinion with respect to data and perhaps level of detail, particularly as regards recovery actions.

A number of earlier comments indicated that certain assumptions were viewed as too conservative.

Clearly, estimates developed in this work may be larger, or even smaller, than those for other programs depending upon how well the data for any specific However, I plant agrees with the generic data employed here.

believe that you will find that many of the comments made during earlier reviews of Point Beach and Quad Cities have been addressed in these reports.

Certainly, they were all considered even though some may not have led to any changes.

Your participation in this process is appreciated.

Once we have received written feedback from the group, say within about 60 days, we will advise you as to whether a meeting of the DNRTSG is deemed necessary.

It should be understood, of that this review relates only to the technical content

course, of the case studies.

Any comments or concerns you or your organization may have with respect to regulatory decisions is a separate issue which will be handled by the NRC public comment period which will be provided on any draft documentation published for the resolution of USI A-45.

Two final administrative notes:

First, because these are I would prepublication drafts and publication is in process.

appreciate it if you do not make multiple copies.

If you do need to make copies for use in your internal review that will be acceptable, but it should be kept to a minimum.

If you feel you have a need for distribution outside your organization

s Charles Krause Page 2 February 9, 1987 please contact me first.

Copies will be in the PDR soon.

Second, any reference to these studies outside the DHRTSG should refer to them by the generic title, e.g.,

Shutdown Decay Heat Removal Analysis General Electric BWR3/ Mark 1 Case Study, and not the plant name.

Thanks for all your cooperation in this regard.'

Yours truli.

D. M. Er cson, Jr., Supervisor Advanced Nuclear Power Systems Safety Division 6512 l

l l

..c

.,,.._,y_

's t

Sandia Nationallaboratories Albuquerque. New Mexico 87186 j

February 9, 1987 4

Arkansas Muclear One Attn:

Larry Taylor Highway 333 West Russellville, AR 72801

Dear Larry:

Enclosed is a copy of the USI A-45 Case Study relating to one (or more) of your units for your review and/or comment as part of the Decay Heat Removal Technical Support Group (DHRTSG) activities.

This is a prepublication draft which has received necessary internal approvals and has been forwarded to NRC for publication.

Although the decision has been made to proceed with publication, that does not preclude your review and comment.

i We have agreed with the NRC that if substantive comments are i

received that warrant some action, either an addendum or a revision will be issued.

I suspect that there will be some differences of opinion with respect to data and perhaps level l

of detail, particularly as regards recovery actions.

A number of earlier comments indicated that certain assumptions were viewed as too conservative.

Clearly, estimates developed in this work may be larger, or even smaller, than those for other t

programs depending upon how well the data for any specific plant agrees with the generic data employed here.

However, I believe that you will find that many of the comments made l

during earlier reviews of Point Beach and Quad Cities have been addressed in these reports.

Certainly, they were all considered even though some may not have led to any changes.

Your participation in this process is appreciated.

Once we have received written feedback from the group, say within about 60 days, we will advise you as to whether a meeting of the DHRTSG is deemed necessary.

It should be understood, of course, that this review relates only to the technical content of the case studies.

Any comments or concerns you or your organization may have with respect to regulatory decisions is a separate issue which will be handled by the NRC public comment period which will be provided on any draft documentation published for the resolution of USI A-45.

Two final administrative notes: 'First, because these a're prepublication drafts and publication is in process. I would appreciate it if you do not make multiple copies.

If you do need to make copies for use in your internal review that will be acceptable, but it should be kept to a minimum.

If you feel you have a need for distribution outside your organization

--,wm--wn,--

w

,,, ~, - -, _.

_,,,w,,,

--n--n

, m m,

- -. ~, -

g Larry Taylor Page 2 February 9, 1987 please contact me first.

Copies will be in the PDR soon.

Second, any reference to these studies outside the DHRTSG should refer to them by the generic title, e.g.,

Shutdown Decay Heat Removal Analysis General Electric BWR3/ Mark 1 Case Study, and not the plant name.

Thanks for all your cooperation in this regard.

Yours truly,

!n L

D. M.

ricson, Jr...

Supervisor Advanced Nuclear Power Systems Safety Division 6512 k

E i

A Sandia Nationallaboratories Albuquerque, New Meuco 8718t>

February 9, 1987 i

Florida Power and Light Company Atta:

M. A. Schoppman Nuclear Licensing Department Room C2062 P. O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420

Dear Mr. Schoppaan:

Enclosed is a copy of the USI A-45 Case Study relating to one l

(or more) of your units for your review and/or comment as part of the Decay Heat Removal Technical Support Group (DHRTSG) activities.

This is a preapproval/ prepublication draft.

After required internal reviews it will be forwarded to NRC for publication.

Although the decision has been made to proceed with l

publication, that does not preclude your review and comment.

l We have agreed with the NRC that if substantive comments are received that warrant some action, either an addendum or a revision will be issued.

I suspect that there will be some l

differences of opinion with respect to data and perhaps level of detail, particularly as regards recovery actions.

A number of earlier comments indicated that certain assumptions were viewed as too conservative.

Clearly, estimates developed in this work may be larger, or even smaller, than those for other programs depending upon how well the data for any specific plant agrees with the generic data employed here.

However, I believe that you will find that many of the comments made during earlier reviews of Point Beach and Quad Cities have been addressed in these reports.

Certainly, they were all considered even though some may not have led to any changes.

Your participation in this process is appreciated.

Once we have received written feedback from the group, say within about 60 days, we will advise you as to whether a meeting of the DHRTSG is deemed necessary.

It should be understood, of that this review relates only to the technical content

course, of the case studies.

Any comments or concerns you or your organization may have with respect to regulatory decisions is a separate issue which will be handled by the NRC public comment period which will be provided on any draft documentation published for the resolution of USI A-45.

Two final administrative notes:

First, because these are prepublication drafts and publication is in process. I would appreciate it if you do not make multiple copies.

If you do need to make copies for use in your internal review that will be acceptable, but it should be kept to a minimum.

If you feel you have a need for distribution outside<your organization ll.---

s

s.

Mr. Schoppaan Page 2 February 9, 1987 please contact me first.

Copies will be in the PDR soon.

Second, any reference to these studies outside the DHRTSG should refer to them by the generic title, e.g.,

Shutdown Decay Heat Removal Analysis General Electric BWR3/ Mark 1 Case Study, and not the plant name.

Thanks for all your cooperation in this regard.

Yours truly.

0

'I i

D. M. Ericson, JI(., Supervisor Advanced Nuclear Power Systems Safety Division 6512 i

i l

't Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque. New Mexico 87186 February 9, 1987 Mr. Frederick W. Buckman, Chairman Committee on Licensing and Safety Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.

7101 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814-4891 l

Dear Mr. Buckman:

This letter is to advise you that copies of the USI A-45 Case Studies are being forwarded under separate cover for your j

review and/or comment as part of the Decay Heat Removal Technical Support Group activities.

These are prepublication drafts which fall into two categories.

Three of the reports, l

Quad Cities, Point Beach and ANO-1, have received necessary approvals and have been forwarded to NRC for publication.

Two of the reports, St. Lucie and Turkey Point, are in the final approval process now and will be submitted for publication within a few weeks.