ML20244D524
| ML20244D524 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1985 |
| From: | Rubenstein L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lainas G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195F761 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-714, RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.E.1.1, TASK-TM GL-81-14, TAC-43643, TAC-43644, TAC-43645, NUDOCS 8510250261 | |
| Download: ML20244D524 (3) | |
Text
s ENCLOSURE 1 i
/pe nag'o UNITED STATES
' ! } 3 5.s [,(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
S
- a WASHINGTON,0. C. 20555
- YC.uf !
g*% /
...+
r 121%5 MEMORANDUM FOR: Gus C. Lainas, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors, Div.. ion of Liu nsing FROM:
L. S. Rubenstein, Assistant Director for Core and Plant Systems, Division of Systems Integration SU5 JECT:
SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF THE AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM AT THE OCONEE NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 - TAC NOS.
43643, 43644, AND 43645 - SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT is a copy of our Safety Evaluation Report for Oconee, Units 1, 2 and 3 which was developed based on the licensee's response to the February 10, 1981 letter on Multiplant Action Item C-14 " Seismic Qualification of Auxiliary feedwater Systems," and the TER, which was developed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The TER is an attachment to our Safety Evaluation Report and is considered a part of our SER. The open' items in our report involve the following areas:
1.
Capability of the auxiliary feedwater system and/or safe shutdown facility to withstard a safe shutdow-earthquake concurrent with a single active failure. This issue was previously addressed in the memorandum from L. Rubenstein to G. L61nas dated June 6, 1984 and in the memorandum from O. Parr to L. Rubenstein dated June 27, 1984 2.
Requirements for the isolation boundary between seismic and nonseismic portions of the AFWS.
3.
Walkdown cf the currently nonseismically qualified areas of the AFWS.
In our SSER for NUREG-0737, Item 11.E.1.1 for Oconee 1, 2 & 3 we stated that there was only one open item regarding the capability of Oconee to deliver AFW flow following a seismic event or a tornado. Our evaluation of the seismic capability (MPA C-14) of the Oconee AFWS is contained in Enclosure 1.
In order to demonstrate the acceptability of the Oconee AFWS, which is not 6. signed to withstand tornado generated missiles, we require acceptable responses to the attached questions contained in Enclosure 2.
Any modifications that are required to upgrade the capability of Oconee to deliver AFW flow following a seismic event or a tornado are not considered to be "backfits" in accordance with Draft Manual Chapter 0514, *hRC Program for Management of Plant Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants." NUREG-0737 required a deterministic review of the AFWS using the acceptance criteria of SRP Section 10.4.9.
In addition, Generic Letter 81-14 (MPA C-14) required
Contact:
P. Hearn X29461
)
l S SipSCW p 3 9
)
Gus c. Lainas 307 ? 2 1985 cor'ormance with GDC 2 and 34 of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50. These are existico, fus y-approved Commission requirements, not new staff-imposed requirements. A copy of our SALP input is enclosed.
0
. h-l (ss\\
L. S. Ru6e tein Assistant Director for Core and Plant Systems Division of Systems Integration
Enclosures:
As Stated cc w/o enclosures:
R. Bernero H. Thompsen
- 0. Parr J. Wilson J. Wermiel cc w/ enclosures:
J. Stolz R. Anand O. Thompson H. Nicholares P. Hearn J. T. Beard I
l l
l l
^,
SALP INPUT Plant: Oconee 1.
Management Involvemr9t and Control in Assuring Quality: Not Applicable 2.
Approach to Resolut).n of Technical Issues from a Safety'Standp int:
Category 3 The licensee approach to resolving the issue of seis ic qualification of auxiliary feedwater system was insufficient and showed little appreciation for the importance of the auxiliary feedwater system and the consequences of sharing of systems between units.
3.
Responsiveness to NRC Initiatives: Category 3 The licensee required an excessively long time to respond to our initiatives. The responses were also lacking important details.
4.
Enforcement History: Not Applicable 5.
Reporting and Analysis of Reportable Events: Not Applicable 6.
Staff (Including Management): Not Applicable 7.
Training and Qualification Effectiveness: Not Applicable 1
l P
_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _