ML20246P964
| ML20246P964 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/18/1989 |
| From: | Remick F Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-40, REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-40, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR ACRS-R-1366, NUDOCS 8907200385 | |
| Download: ML20246P964 (2) | |
Text
'
yD g;
~
- ~
~
BMh#
.I
~..
h
(
- UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'g j
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS '
o WASHINGTON, D. C. 20556 July 18,1989 The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555.
Dear Chairman Carr:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE A-40, " SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA" Dur6ng the 351st n;eeting of' the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safe-guards, July-13-14,-1989, we met with representatives of the NRC staff and their consultants to discuss the staff's proposed resolution of Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) - A-40, " Seismic Design Criteria." _ Our Subcommittee on Extreme External Phenomena discussed this matter during
,I a meeting on June-22, 1989.
We also had the benafit of the documents referenced.
The proposed resolution of USI-A-40 consists of changes to Sections 2.5.2, 3.7.1, 3.7.2, and 3.7.3 of the NRC's Standard Review Plan (SRP).
Some of these changes are simply clarifications of staff positions, and others are required to conform the SRP to current staff practices as they have evolved over the 12 years required to achieve formal. resolu-tion of this issue.
The more substantive _ changes all relate to methods of analysis, usually to make them more realistic or more rational, and sometimes simpler.
With one exception, discussed below, the staff's regulatory analyses determined that.the proposed changes would have no signific' ant effect on safety, and thus, no backfits are being required for these items.-
-The exception noted above relates to the method of analysis for above-ground steel-tanks.
Staff reviews in connection with the implementation of the resolution-of USI A-46, " Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Operating Nuclear Power Plants," have found only four plants (6 units) for which there may be concern, and the staff proposes to deal with these in the implementation of the resolution of USI A-46.
We find the staff's proposed resolution of USI A-40 acceptable, includ-ing the decision that no backfits be required.
We believe that the g 72 g s spo71g g
R-1366 PDC N
V
4 j.
1 The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr' July 18,1989 concerns about above-ground. steel tanks can appropriately be handled as part of the implementation of the resolution of USI A-46.
Sincerely 4
/
orrest J. Remick Chairman
References:
1.
Memorandum dated April 12, 1989 from R. Wayne Houston, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, NRC, to Raymond Fraley, ACRS, trans-mitting the following documents:-
a.
Revision 2 to SRP Sections 2.5.2, 3.7.1, 3.7.2, and 3.7.3 b.
NUREG-1233, Regulatory Analysis for USI A-40, " Seismic Design Criteria," March 1989 c.
NUREG/CR-5347, Recommendations.for Resolution of Public Coments on USI A-40, " Seismic Design Criteria," February 1989 f
i 1
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _