ML20234E781

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Preparation of Document Re GE 251-BWR/6 Nuclear Steam Supply Sys Design.Conversion of 238 Gessar to 251 Gessar Requires Technical Changes to Size Parameters
ML20234E781
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, 05000531
Issue date: 06/13/1974
From: Hinds J
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To: Oleary J
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20234C970 List:
References
FOIA-87-40 183-447-74, 5438, NUDOCS 8707070681
Download: ML20234E781 (21)
v • d • e


Text

m m r - e m m # w i e ssam mhes m a sB M M y

~

1

?!.

e PROJECT 538 M

a

].,

GEN ER AL $' ELECTRIC d

q

~

NUCLEAR ENERGY DIVISION

}f GENERAL ELECTg COMPANY,175 CURTNER AVENUE. SAN JOSE, CAUFORNIA 95125 Mau Co:le Phone (408) 297-3000, TWX NO. 910 338-0116

j '

b.;

Letter No'. 183-447-74

$0 f.'

.3 June 13, 1974 O

a L, ' < A u

g t,

q 8w

_)

Q c

JUNITlB74 " :?

Mr. J.F. O' Leary,. Directo'r g'.

,wn Directorate of Licensing pawm y';

U.S. Atomic Energy Comission t

gg~.,-

..; j Washington, D.C.

20545 y

s 1

SUBJECT:

251 GESSAR PROGRAM hi

Dear Mr. O' Leary:

59 As I have discussed with you on a number of occasions, we arc. in the process n

of preparing a GESSAR document which reflects the General Electric 251 BWR/6 Y

nuclear steam supply system design.

y1 One of our objectives in preparing this document is to minimize the timb W

required for Staff review by utilizing to the greatest possible extent the information in the current 238 GESSAR that has already been review 6d by the id Staff and which is applicable also to the 251 GESSAR. We have found that the BA technical changes needed to convert from the 238 size plant to the 251 size b

plant are costly related to size parameters and involve approximately 200 pages.

It is these 200 pages which reflect new information and are to be lQ:

reviewed by the Staff in the 251 GESSAR project.

i d

Other GESSAR changes will, of course, be necessary to convert the current y

nuclear island scope to the nuclear steam supply. However, these changes f

are of the nature of deletions to remove the nuclear island information, and q

paragraph rearrangements to develop a cohesive document. These changes should h

result in a 251 NSSS GESSAR consisting of about 2500 pages, of which only 200 g?ij easily identifiable pages will contain new, unreviewed information.

@'j Enclosed are five draft copies of those approximately 200 pages which are to be changed. We have indicated by circling on each page those size-related parameters which will be changed. Please note that many of these pages will M

undergo no text change - only a single flow rate, size, or other size related s.,1 variable is changed.

d 8707070691 870527 l

m

'W PDR FOIA s

i N

THOMAS 87-40 PDR 1

5438 l

4,

{

4

~ ~ ~

.~.~.~,-, ~ _ ~. _..

-_~_ - -- -

p g..?., $ p : g M G q g i N M,+.6:<9 A WJ R W. g; :GG._d.wwg.gplJgT. G.yir/Wg?%,v_ag:.yJ.?i:n1GpasL.F..f. j eg q

st 5vY.,.

um u.us n

,..- u,;.:

.~

a

. r.

u..

g

.g.

l} y 4

1

{

w M+ja,

q' i

]

i

'7 A #

GENER ALM ELECTRIC l

u:n m

.,p

' Mr. J.F. O' Leary June 13,1974 l

l :s E

.)

.ri.

$[

These draft pag'es are provided at this time to aid in your-assessment of the j'

g

. efforts needed by your Staff.in reviewing the 251-NSSS GESSAR.

J 1

h-

- This package, the'related filing method and the review schedule will be the g'

subjects of our dfs ussion in your office on June 25, 1974 reI Si r

I (4

)

i h!.

J l

A s

ohn A. Hinds, Manager d

Safety and Licensing A

.i i

p.4 Enclosures i

M.

D.M.. Crutchfield 3

cc:-

7 v.

41 l

Q i

(

ft

%6-n' -

l. h i

y ;j' -

1 id.

m a.1O l

0

,b re l.

f H

y1

.s I,t -

L.

W t.;c e,

l k' $

l m

u l:).

i 1

1

.ltj

>A' N1 w

1 6

s

7.__ - _?__;; :.T!?%_2G D;.". K QQJ_;U..ff.G. M.. u _.W%QmQ,...f~>,_.:D..

7.'. pm. s.R. %. 2 X Q.Q.,, [ ; f_ f f

3 &

n

~-

m m

~

~-

m 4

{

a

{.I 3

AEC DI"RIBUTION FOR PART_50 DOCKET MATPRIAL (TEMPORARY FORM)

CONTROL NO:

5438 FILE: SUB. File 1

2" FRGi: General Electric Co.

DATZ OF DOC DATE REC'D LTR TWX RPT OTHER

,.l 175 Curtner Ave.

6 13-74 6-17-74 X

rg San Joss, Calif. 95125 tj f

10: J,y, ceLEARY ORIG CC OTHER SENT AEC PDR Yes 9J SENT LOCAL PDR n

M CLASS UNCLASS PROP INFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D D00KBt^&6tu h'

PROJ. 538

$)

mdD DESCRIPTION: Ltr trans the following for ENCLOSURES:

"if i review of material to " GENERAL ELECTRIC '

1,, (200) hundred pages of Tech Info for

,N '

~ 2 51-15WR-6".....Tende re d application to be review....

?

submitted 9-1-74...PM(L) D.CRUTCHFIELD) v M.

(5) cys of above ree' d DIST. PER.

H. Smith

  • . DENOTES LTR ONLY FOR INFO.

34 GG JAR U

PLANT NAME: gEKEXE-251-BWR/6 FOR ACTION /INFORMATION 9

BUTLER (L) -

SC1ffENCER(L)

ZIEM/3N(L)

REGAN(E)

W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies M

CLARK (L) f,,,.STOLZ (L)

DICKER (E) tj W/ Copies W/3sCopies W/ Copies W/ Copies PARR(L)

VASSALLO(L)

KNIGHTON(E) v/ C:pic:

"/ c:pic:

w/ C:pi :

9/ ce;ies f;j KNIEL(L)

PURPLE (L)

YOUNGBLOOD(E) j fj W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies O'

T INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION

$j UB2RE!2 FILEW/Ene1J TECH REVIEW DENTON A/T IND

[g ClbR W/ Enc 1 4

  • HENDRIE' GRIMES LIC ASST BRAIIMAN OGC, ROOM P-506A L,* SCHROEDER CAMMILL piggs (t)

SALTZMAN

],

t.
  • MUNTZING/ STAFF MACCARY KASINER GEARIN (L)
3. HURT j

y v* CASE KNIGHT BALIED GOULBCJRNE (L)

PLANS n 4 A GIAMBUSSO PAWLICKI SPariGLER LEE (L)

MCDONALD PC BOYD SHA0 s.)j f c MOORE (L)(BWR)

MAIGRET (L)

DUBE w/ input i

STELLO ENVIRO f

REED (E)

CHAPMAN f

gj DEYOUNG(L)(PWR)

HOUSTON MULLER SERVICE (L)

NO j

C. MILES l

'1 SKOVHOLT (L)

NOVAK DICKER SHEPPARD (L)

ENR

[p COLLER(L)

ROSS KNIGHTON SLATER (E)

EEENHUT C

P. COLLINS IPPOLITO YOUNGELOOD SMITH (L)

^

hl DE,NISE TEDESCO REGAN TEETS (L) 4

((

REC OPR LONG PROJECT LDR WADE (E)

,?

FILE & REGION (3)

LAiNAS WILLIAMS (E) j,gHKPS0N(2)

D ri MORRIS BENAROYA HARLESS WILSON (L)

~

(I

~STEELE VOLIEER EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION 1 - LOCAL PDR N/A

)

J 1 - TIC (ABERNATHY)

(1)(2)(10). NATIONAL LAB'S 1-PDR-SAN /LA/NY 1 - NSIC(BUCHANAN) 1-ASLBP(E/W Bldg,Rm 529) 1-LIBRARIAN 1 - ASLB

.1-W. PENNINGTON, Rm E-201 GT BROOKHAVEM NAT. LAB 1 - P. R. DAVIS (AEROJET NUCLEAR) 1-CONSULTANT'S 1-AGMED(Ruth Gussman) 16 - CYS ACRS HOLDING NEWMARK/BLUME/AGBABIAN RM-B_ _12 7 ; GT. _ _ l

jyfM %r4L M55.J.TdSm.m?'"EE N 5. W M T. GMe 9 mfRi f.

"nWGW C 82-M hi h i;.&u V

3 m

o APR 17 Y

.J

[7, R. C. DeYoung, Assistan[ Director for Light Water Reactors, Group 1, [RL

/.

Y. A. Woore Assistant Director for. Light Water Raseters, Group 2, RL 1

M;.!

R. R. Coller, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors, RL d

FRDPOSED METHOD FOR REVIEW OF MARE I, II, AND III POOL DYRAMIC LOADS 9^

In our menos to you of February 25, 1975. April 10,'1975. and April 11, a

1975, we pr M & d standard letters concerning pool dynamic loads and relief valve loads. This information has either been sent or will be q.

sent to' all applicants / licensees for plants with Mark I, II, and III d

containments. Recognizing that several RF and TR branches will be L.ci involved in the review of these responses from each of the applicants and. licensees, and the complex nature of the problum, we have prepared the following recommended procedures to effect these reviews in an 3.,

~,

officiant manners

n 1.

We would suggest that one LFM be designated to coordinate the DRL effort for pool dynamic and relief valve load reviews and to facilitata and provide efficient contact between DTR and DRL.

Each of the 71 branches will have a corresponding designess CSB - R. Cudlin, Fool Dynamics; L. Slagers, Relief Yalve Loads r.

[

MER - S. Hou ij gER - A. Gluckmann f.

2.

The review of each response should be initiated by a TAR from DRL

(,'

to Dft and should include SRB, MEB, and CSB.

,e 3.

Any additional information requesta from MEB, SEB, or CSB should d'

be sent to DRL individually.

rt ac3-4.

The final evaluation for each plant will be coordinated by CSB.

M 3;

5.

The following review functions and interfaces will be performed by

.~';

the designsted TR branchess

'n.

?

a.

C8B Review Functions

.-fi (1) CSS will identify those containment structures, piping and q

1 cosponents which could be subject to pool dynamic loads.

'i i

)y O

' (2) CSB will evaluate and determine the acceptability of the h[

i selection, quantification, and combination of pool dynamic C0}A [

/

loads specified for each of the structures, piping and

?

.'[

components. This evaluation will be based on appropriate I

V

.S !

g i

f L

fhN g

/

i f

' A g

b

(

p a

JM'E.Ti&L ?iLW.Gb.:..cd lb5?WW%:MiR MEiDV f* ' w: W5 ; " V - V ', M; ' '

\\

[j -

R. C. DeYoung gpg g 9 W5

(

V. A. Moore

~2-K. R. Goller s-21 M

experimental data and analyses and the relative magnitude t'

of the pool dynamic load compared to the design basta load

{

for sach of the structures, piping, and components.

,g

'(3) CSB will evaluate the potential for asymmetric load profiles g,j due to pool dynamic phenomena.

v.

7 (4) CSB will evaluati the applicant's response to the ACRS' "3

i concerns; i.e., that additienal analytical models be developed

,l for pressure suppression phenoanna to supplement test data.

M jl b.

SEB Review Functions

n (1) SEB will verify the applicant's determination of the relative magnitudes of pool dynamic loads compared to design basis lj loads for those structures subject to pool dynamic loads.

p

~

(2) SEB will verify that the combinations and values of pool L,g dynamic loads that are approved by CSA have been correctly factored into the structural load combination egetions for each structure. SEB will determine the regtdrement for 3j application of dyna =fc load factors to the pool dynamic load values.

g (3) 8EB will evaluate the capability of the affected containment structures to tolarate asymetric loading profiles.

..ll

.1 (4) SEB will conclude as to the adequacy of the structural design of each of the structuras which could be subject to pool l

dynamic loads.

}:

c.

MEB Review Functions y

N MKB will perform functions (1), (2) and (4), as described for SEB as related to piping and components which could be subject to pool dynamic loads, f

s d,

i g

I M

W a

?'

I

.,._.__.~.,.-.,.m.._...

,,. o...,

1

MWM%i:.'l5 D:X:D2WS:'1:.t %I.s-21'.MuZTG5WtSi:WGT6iDG *

'.Y

, ;..S 3:

""4 V.,

.5 p

~

g r."

,f.

9 s.

+-

i-i

'.4 0*:-

A 1. C. DeYoung

,1 V. A. Moore -

4 F'

K. R. Coller AP9.17 gg

]

i;t i

f,j -

We would be happy to discusa our recommendations with you.

j

=

n k

ririnal strued by!

4; Rabert I. Tedeseo

s A

Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director

'd for Containment Safety

  • U Division of Technical Review

?:2 7.

Orl inai Signoit tg 6

A,j

' ' Maccery

<.v E?

Raymond R. Maccary, Assistant Director

);

for Engineering

=

Division of Technical Review

,y

,1

'y l

cc:

F. Schroeder C

A. Giambusso

'd R. Boyd 1

G. Lainas O

L. Shao J,

J. Knight hi J. Kud' rick R. Cudlis

,.eW L. Siegers

%7 bec: NRR Reading File CS Reading File

~j CSB Rcading File Central Files /

q

.?

J 4,';

ced J

%i.

~

4 e

%)

3 s.

1 l

.4 TR:

TR:CSB p

- J,i$ CSB

. T...R..g: CSg K

ou.....,

5u n:lw JKudrici d

inas.,,,,,,,

m y,,,,,7

, RTEdesco,,,_

F ede:

G'

[

l 4/.h75 4/ f,(,,/ 75' 4/%/75

_4/f(MS, 4/l,f/75., '

4//(/75 p.

9 l *, '

Peres ABC-SIS (Rev. P.55) ABCM 0240

  • v. s. oovsawusur paintine orrisse i.74.sa see h!

=

Y' i 3.,.,u,.

, ~, _.,,...,,,,...,, _....

--._.s.

p 3 M P.05pM2 WEM W % 9%M:lliiD# W:1

.,.:,Y L..'

! ; y a vW~* "? -

G.

.e ro

~

W.

l 6

i

>,:b CoventEr 30, 1971

~

/g;

(

f.]:

1 R. S. Boyd, Assistant Director, Boiling Water Beactors, IEL 1

, 81EAM ETPASS PEGEJM & BWR PREBSURE SUPPRESSIN CMTAUDG!NTE M.e 7,.

M Per your memo, dated November 19,19T1, a review (by G. Iainas, S. Varga, I

y J. Glynn and R. Powell) was made of the av=41=hle informatica en the steam i

T bypass problem cf BifR pressure suppressica containments. Bis informatica l

W was provided en Zimmmer and Liarrick (both of.which are-ecacrete type'ece-tainments) and Batch 2. (which is a steel type contmi-st).

  • ir.:

flj he problem results if the ' steam generated by a less-cf-coolant accident is allowed to bypass the suppressica pool by leakage back through the vacuum bnakers or directly from leak paths in the drywell-to-suppression-

r.,

chamber vent piping, headers,= downcomers or through the.drywell/downcomer M(

and drprell/ containment wall joints of concrete contaimants. Steam that t

N bypasses the. suppression pool does act condense and given sufficient

)

bypass leakage, overpressurization of the ecut+4nment could result.

1 Analyses have been presented on Hatch 2 (typical of steel containments)'

and indicate that a bypass area of about 0.5 ft2 could be tolerated for i f the spectrum of reactor coolant system break sizes. However, operator c

action to initiate contain=*nt sprays is aquired for small reactor

{

<J coolant system breaks. The ' time for actuation of the sprays was assumed j

by the applicant as 10 minutes. A ecuplete failure of a vacuum breaker 2

(

l.7 ft ) cannot be tolerated for the spectaan of breaks.. haalyses-were presented on Limerick and Zimaner but caly for the design basta largest reactor coolant break accident. The affects af===11 breaks j

T were not analyzed. pm Limerick & 7i m r s showed that a bypass 9-area of about 0 5 ft' for 7ti==*r and 1.0 t for Limerick could be 2

tolerated for the design basis break. A ecuplete failure of a vacuum i

breaker can be tolerated for these plants for the largest reactor. coolant

/

breek. There is same uncertainty and disagreement by us em the ecn.

servatism of the analyses which will be discussed later in this meno.

)

< ^ -

We believe that we are in a positics to make some minimma reemmendations if now, but additional information and discussien with GE will be necessary.

Additional discussion may also be needed with applicants en a case-by-l' case basis since some equipment like the vacuum breakers may not be in GE's scope of supply. Our current reccamendations are to require (R)

~,

periodic leak tests of the piping, ficer and vacuum breakers to detect y;j -

leakage which could result in bypassing of the suppressim pool (b) visual inspection at the foregoing at each refueling (c) position

.,3 I

indication ce the vacuum breakers and (d) more fzequent c.perability tests af the vacuum breakers. In addition, the possibility of our requiring 6

4 h

omct>

.............fV p:

SURNAME >

b..

ME>

Form AEC-818 (Rav. 9-68)

U.smana PanNG WFmem+ man

,) n l '

yn

_f 67 / f 04 W j

.. i srt_

_m

.,,. y m.

]

WhME &TW?RE 7 W9ER MN G T c M:

't"" %S' 7

.:#'"a W I 2/

R. 8. Bcyd 2

November 30, 1971 eutomatic containment spray actuation or other means to suppress or pnvent bypassing is possible dependin~g upon the outcome of futun dis.

cussicas with GE.

Se following describes our roccessendations more fully and the kind of additional infomation we vill need af GE:

7j ici

'l 1.

leak 'Msting and Inspection of Piping, Downconers, etc.

j e

Isak. tests have been proposed en Zinser, Limerick, auf la Salle but the frequency, test method and sensitivity have not been

.y presented. Sesting cf the downecuers after. installation has.

1 e

(

not been preposed. Isak tests have not been proposed for. steel 4

4 type containments. We believe that leak tests should be per--

C

formed on both types of containments prior to and after operation 2,

en a periodic basis to detect leakage in the drywell to suppression

~

i chamber vent piping, headers, downceners, vacuum breakers and the containment flocar of concrete type containments. Surveillance is f

leak tests, i.e. after plant operatice, should be performed at the same frequency as the integrated containment lesk test which F

i is about 3-year intervals. Sere is no apparent reason that the,

leak detection fnquencies for the drywell/ suppression chamber k'.

should be any different than the requirements of the integrated

  • 1 containment leak test. Although, we believe that a test can be

?;

developed with sufficient sensitivity to detect bypass leakages i

f,(

well below that which presents a problem, we will need additional J

discussion with GE cn the specifics of the kind of test that they ej would propose.

.'t We also believe that a visual inspection be conducted to detect

'l possible leak paths at each refueling outage.

t.

2.

Surveillance of Yaeuun Breakers

[

Position indicators should be placed on all vacuum breakers vith indication and alarms in the centrol roca. Alternates p>

I such as very frequent local inspections will have to be reviewed d

en a case-by-case basis. Most of the recent applications have

")

such indicators. It seems that position indicators are provided if the vacuum breakars are located internal to the suppression y

8 chamber which is the case for the concreta containments.

Internal vacuum bnakers have been provided ce most of the G

neent steel containments with the exception of FitzPatrick,

.t probably to reduce the nundber of penetrations in the suppnssice L,' '

9 chamber. Operating plants such as Dresden 2 & 3 have externally 3

located bnakers without remote position indicators.

4 Currently, Technical Specifications require the vacuum breakers j

to be tested for operability during each pfueling outage. We believe that the valves should be tested for operability at the Nm*m y as the ECC8 valves, i.e. at least enee per month.

a -~

omcc>

SURNAME >

DATE>

Fortu AEC-stb (R.v. 0 68)

UA sortmson memne ar7KI.M as.r.ses

(

l.

__1E_~ilE_ E ' ' ~" P

$ V, / " *

  • * " ' ' ~

M D H W & L ] ]% W T v Mt. i W W : Gi N

',', a:.-

2.

wtby

~

. s R. 8. Boyd

-3 November 30, 1971 he vacuum breakers of the more-recent plants with internany

,M located valves hays remote operated mechanisms for checking operability.

Alternate equivalent scluticca vill be necessary on a case-by. case basis for others without this feature, ad M-With the exception of Hatch 2, we do not have details of the valve design. We need to discuss with GE the types of velves that an being selected for this application to ge.n assurance that the valves are reliable and win function as required. We A.

have less concern that the valves win open after the accident L,

but we need assurance that they win not be partially cpen and V-bypass steam at the beginning of the accident. De valves may not be within the secpe of supply of GE in which case it vill P

be necessary to discuss these items with each applicant on a esse-by case basis, s

3 Other Means to Suppress or Prevent Steam Bypass 4

?;

Other means to suppress or prevent the affects of steam bypassing

'7 should be discussed with GE.

Se pros and cens of (a) automatic k.

spray actuation, (b) redundant vacuum breaker valves, (c) limit.

ing the size a? vacuum bresters en future plants so that complete h,

failum can be accrMated, (d) piping the discharge of the spring-actuated safoty valves directly to the suppression pool H

to further Mait possible direct steam to the containment and (e) a possible reduction in the number of vacuum breakers.

g We vill need additional clarification of the analyses and f

conservatism in the GE model. Se affects of small breaks l:2 developing into large breaks should be studied. Se conservatism lT of the assumed flow discharge coefficient of 0.6 should be l-verified and the consequences of using ECCS flow for coolant spray k

determined. We vin need the analyses of the affects of small reactor coolant breaks for La Bane, Fi===r and otheritypes of d

b ecacrete containments, m

I<

(C G. Lainas l f Pro.iect Imader M, DEL Distribution:

Central FiledWantudr G. Arlotto J. Glynn pd DRL Reading E. Case R. S. Boyd R. Powell A

BWRf2 Reading L. Low BWR Branch Chiefs S. Varga

]

P. A. Morris F. Schroeder Lainas Reading b

GFFICE >

G. t k

11/30/71

-~

~'

Form AE:C-318 (R.v.9-63) usu mp.mem,w,,,

}.;

W 2. w :.:2 A u x x a K -. M x.u M

.aW O:.L.n.. a,T5MW m5MHmT U

gh'.f bh j.

,1 b

fPR 1 Q N

.]

o-4 R. C. DeYoung, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors, Group 1, RL V. A.. Moore, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors, Croup 2, RL y

- STANDARD LETTER TO APPLICANTS CONCERNING PRII%RY SYSTEli PRESSURE RELIEF M

VALVE LOADS FOR plt.NTS WITH InRK II TYPE CONTAINM UIS

?

k Enclosed is a draf t of a generic letter requesting applicants of plants M

with Mark II type containments to.. describe their design provisions to acconnodate loads-in the suppre'iiba' pool resulting from operation of the 3

s

,.,j primary system pressure relief valves. These loads are due to two distinct y

phenomens. First, pressure waves are generated within tha suppression pool when, on first opening, relief valves discharge high pressure air

[

followed by steam into the pool water. These are referred to as the steam 9

vent clearing loads. Second, steam quenching vibrations can accompany q

extended relief valve discharge into the pool if the pool water is at an y

elevated temperature.

.i y ;.,

We bave maintained periodic contact with GE on a generic basis regarding d

their progress in resolving these problems. Specific revious of plants with !! ark I type containments arc.being coordinated by Operating Reactors (OR) using a standard letter transmittal to each licensee. GE has stated 9I in a letter to R. L. Tedesco from I. F. Stuart, dated March 10, 1975, 1

that it has no contractual involvement in either the design or supply of Mark II containments in the U. S.

We consider it necessary that a standard

'.l,

letter be transmitted to all Mark II applicants requesring.information on loads due to relief valve actuation which may not have been fully considered l

at the time that CP's were issued. It is recom:nended that each applicant J

be informed of this outstanding issue and that their documentation be n

completed in a timely raanner. The inference in the GE letter would indicate i

that this category of plants is proceeding on the basis of relief valvo discharge line designs and load analysca done by their respective architect /

j1 engineers. This precludes a strictly generic review in this area and we therefore recorcend that a standard letter, of the type enclosed, snould be sent to the applicants for plants with liark II type containments as 3

listed below:

q AFFECTED MAP,Z II PLANTS YE Shoreham Bailly, Unit 1 9

Zimmer La Salle Hanford 2 Susquehanna, Units 1 & 2 3r' Limerick, Units 1 & 2

. Nice Mile Point 2

I r

/

df.5 g

w,41 A. ! r D Q

h

[.

n, I

- p u -f ] 7 -- - r --- "

7gp q

reic. p TR:ESB R.tSB...

C S..

TR:CSB LSlegers w JKudr e inas

.c.ca ry.._

.,,. e des.co

.wc q f essas 4/ /. ?

UJ2/5... -.AL$/.75..-

...419 175. -.4/fI75.

Forse AEC.518 (!W 9 5)) 1ECM 0240 -

W t. s. oovsawuswT raswTowe orru.si son cas.tes

,8

'T "&

  • t*W.-"

4 5

1 3

}F*[}QsE;WMK58'(bN*jjfR{fl0;????jQQT*N s;'.fR*Q((Tjajik'?lgifl*>}.'rj?}}'*. '[;Q'.}*[f[s~g f[f;}M fidff tj,}} [ .L.,...... L.. -( o .,.............s. l L #sques, Dait Of DCif't)"f NI pa s t me t.t evt p to .e 10/29/76 - 11/1/76 11070 CENERAL' ELECTRIC L'a-at *

      • oai o'aia c.

,o. l. r ^ !.l 'V. STELLO acto Nbassaav - O co cv*a*><ct O "^'"$**" l, noactio==ciss av' O O cov=<a' ct.sa.,_ eosi o,ncs ,,ti cou. l: Non-Proprietary ..c o 1 l oescas,riou u-u... .,s.,o so - . o ie arca.vio e, o.si Ltr.:re. their October 15,1976 Ltr. .L. SHAO-6 SCHROEDER trans. the gffollowing. MCCARY ....a.6 I' inrr nHT-3 TEDESCO L g. t n reggg.T VARCA .E 4 _ _m KINTNER s=ctosua<s. v ACRh 16 ic_.,, - MARK'I LONG TERM PROGRAM ACTION PIAN. d STELLO l EISENMUT ,,,,,r.,, l STOLZ SCHWENCER 70 copies received sTum:'Ti. .va m ZIEMAN J. GUIBERT ' 1ran ew nns REID MOORE DeYOUNG t COLLER e s$U%.7iT u s nuets a escu6.roav craiuisons, (' Mall CONTROL FORM + I 1 I I J 4-ME i:M :.:__:A: ,'?~'~* :- ,~ , m7'n. . ~rm v m . p-m w m ur-

$%%A".tf'-f.OWrQ,1%%QGylf.Qf:'?)R'iNji fj},..}} Q-f,f}QQQQ;}.[y[;3r}"}}h%:Qh, l } f l [ +: N GENER AL @ ELECTRIC NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS DIVISION GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,175 CURTNER AVENUE, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95125 Phone (408) 297-3000 TWX No. 910-336-0116 October 29, 1976 <;9 r . Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulations ~ /: / v, vy = ATTN: V. Stello, Director - O <% v* Division'of Operating Reactors U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission 4 V Washington, D.C. 20555 ~

SUBJECT:

Mark I Long Term Program Action Plan

Dear Mr. Stello:

On October 15 1976 draft copies of the Mark I Owners Group report on their Program Action Plan for the remaining eval-uation of their Mark I Containments was transmitted to you for your information. The purpose of this letter is to transmit 70 copies of the final Program Action Plan report in behalf of the Mark-I Owners Group. Separate utility correspondence will reference this G.E. transmittal for use on their docket. If you have any questions or comments on this submittal, please call me or R. H. Buchholz. Sincerel L. J. Sobon, Manager BWR Containment Licensing Mail Code 682 - Ext. 3495 LJS:dap cc: L.S. Gifford (GE-Bethesda) J. C. Guibert (NRC) R. L. Tedesco (NRC) L. Shao (NRC) MFN: 365-76 g m" w,, ~ w l/070 - - - - -}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20234E781&oldid=3954981"