ML20245D156
| ML20245D156 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/19/1988 |
| From: | Rosalyn Jones Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Schwink W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245D160 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-52FR6334, FRN-52FR6344, RULE-PR-50 AC44-2-04, AC44-2-4, NUDOCS 8801290168 | |
| Download: ML20245D156 (2) | |
Text
- - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ . - - _ - - - _ - - _ - _ _ , _ _ - . - _ - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - ,
'N Acyy-z pp
'o UNITED STATES
~
8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'{
JAN 191988
(....+,/
MEMORANDUM FOR: Walter S. Schwink, Chief Generic Activities Integration Section Inspection Licensing & Research Integration Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation -
FROM: Robert C. Jones, Section Chief Thermal-Hydraulic Performance Section Reactor Systems Branch Division of Engineering & Systems Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISION OF THE ECCS RULE (10CFR50, APPENDIX K AND SECTION 50.46) (OEST 88-4)
Per your request of December 28, 1987, we have completed our review of the draft Comission package on the proposed revision to the ECCS rule. Our coments are given below. .
- 3. It is noted that the draft package does not reflect the final version of the proposed regulatory guide. Thus, prior to our approval of the proposed package, it will be necessary for us to review the final version -
of this guide. q
- 2. On page 9 (item 12) of the Commission paper, as well as page 14 of Enclosure E, the paragraphs should be revised as follows:
"One commenter requested that the rule language be modified to explicitly state that ECCS evaluation models that have previously -
been approved under SECY-83-472 continue to be considered acceptable. The staff notes that SECY-83-472 provides an alternative, acceptable method for developing ECCS evaluation models.
Licensees were still required, however, to demonstrate that evaluation models developed using the SECY-83-472 approach complied with the requirements of Appendix K to 10CFR50. Since the final rule, proposed herein, explicitly finds that ECCS previously approved as satisfying the requirements of Appendix K remain acceptable, the staff feels further clarification of this issue is not necessary."
- 3. Page 10 of the draft Comission paper, and page 31 of Enclosure E, states that GE already has a revised evaluation model under the existing Appendix K for the jet pump plants and is currently working on a new evaluation model for the non-jet pump plants. These sections should be revised to note that GE has revised evaluation models for both the jet pump and non-jet pump plants.
- 4. In Appendix A, Part B, Section 2 of the proposed Regulatory Guide (Enclosure F to the Comission packagel, the following changes are suggested.
50 020
- q. ---- - - _-___
t.
, t Walter S. Schwink a. Replace the sentence "In addition, a code scaling evaluation should f be performed for other important parameter (s) for the transient of l interest to evaluate compensating errors" with "In addition, i comparison of code predictions to other important parameter (s) should be performed to determine whether compensating errors '
existed."
- b. Delete the sentence " Codes not having scaling capability will not be acceptable if their predictions are nonconservative."
DEST supports a meeting with RES to discuss these comments. Please contact Bob Jones (x-29461) of my staff to determine an acceptable time and date for such a meeting.
7 D Robert C. Jones Section Chief Thermal-Hydraulic Performance Section Reactor Systems Branch Division of Engineering & Systems Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: R. Colmar H. Tovmassian G. N. Lauben f
l l
l
___-___.m___ ___