ML25197A084

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
10-17-75 Alternatives to Staff Position Regarding Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS)
ML25197A084
Person / Time
Issue date: 10/17/1975
From: Kerr W
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To: Gossick L
NRC/EDO
References
Download: ML25197A084 (1)


Text

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Mr. lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Washington, D.C. 20555 October 17, 1975

Subject:

ALTERNATIVES 'IO STAFF POSITICN REX.;ARDING ANTICIPATED TRANSIEm'S WITHOUI' SCRAM (ATIVS)

Dear Mr. Gossick:

Q1 September 12, 1975, Mr. Ben C. Rusche, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, transmitted to the Advisory Committee on P,,eactor safeguards a working paper, dated September 12, 197:5, :md entitled "Discussion of Alternatives to the Previous Staff Fofdtion on Antici-pated Transients Without Scram for Construction Permit Applications Made After Cctober 1, 1976. 11

~e working paper primarily discusses various J;X)Ssible new regulatory approaches to "Class A" plants as categorized in WASH-1270, "Antici-pated Transients Without Scram for Water-Cooled Fower Reactors,"

dated September, 1973. 'Ihe Class A category of WASH-1270 requires design changes that \\\\'Ould improve significantly the reliability of the shutdown system. 'Ihis category was to apply to those applica-tions docketed subsequent to Cctober 1, 1976.

'Ihe Class B category of WASH-1270 applies to reactors docketed from early 1968 to Cctober 1, 1976, and requires that the consequences of a postulated A'Il'lS must be acceptable and that those J;X)rtions of the reactor shutdown system which might be particularly vulnerable to comrron mode failures be identified and corrected.

Subsequent to the publication of WASH-1270, the NRC Staff has con-tinued to review the several vendor proposals for reet~ Class A and Class B requirements. 'Ihe NRC Staff has advised the Corrmittee that it now believes it \\\\'OUld be appropriate that Class 1. plants be treated in the same manner as Class B plants.

1901

lee v. G:>ssick October 17, 1975

~e ACRS has reviewed the working paper and discussed the matter with the NRC Staff during the Corr~ttee's 186th Meeting, October 9-11, 1975. ~e COrrmi.ttee concurs with the NRC recornrrendation.

REFERENCES:

Sincerely yours, w-13/4~

W. Kerr Olaianan

1. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Regulatory Staff'<! Technical Report on Anticipated Transients Without Scram For Water*.. -.:_:ooled Power Reactors, WASH-1270, dated September, 1973.
2.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff's i;~rking Paper: Dis-cussion of Alternatives To The Previous Staff Position on Antici-pated Transients Without Scram for Construction Permit Applications Made After October I, 1976, dated September 12, 1975.

1902