NRC-84-0054, Responds to 840131 Request for Clarification of Replacements for Water Bags for Reactor Cavity Shielding.Proposal to Utilize Rigid Shielding Contingent on Conclusion That Large Break in RCS Need Not Be Postulated

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to 840131 Request for Clarification of Replacements for Water Bags for Reactor Cavity Shielding.Proposal to Utilize Rigid Shielding Contingent on Conclusion That Large Break in RCS Need Not Be Postulated
ML20080R360
Person / Time
Site: Wolf Creek, Callaway, 05000000
Issue date: 02/17/1984
From: Petrick N
STANDARDIZED NUCLEAR UNIT POWER PLANT SYSTEM
To: Harold Denton
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
SLNRC-84-0054, SLNRC-84-54, NUDOCS 8402280258
Download: ML20080R360 (2)


Text

, _ . .

SNUPPS Stenderdized Nucieer Unit Power Mont system 5 choke cherry need Nicholes A. Petrick

" '*** W *"d N Executive Director

.(301)8804010 February 17, 1984 SLNRC 84- 0054 FILE: 0278 SUBJ: Reactor Cavity Shielding Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nucl"a. Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docket Nos. STN 50-482 and STN 50-483

References:

1. NRC letter (B. Youngblood) to Union Electric (D. Schnell) and Kansas Gas & Electric (G. Koester) dated January 31, 1984: Replacement of Water Bags for Radiation Shielding
2. SLNRC 83-0045, dated August 30, 1983: Alternate Pipe Break Criteria
3. NRC letter (Eisenhut) to all operating PWR licensees, construction permit holders, and applicants for construction permits, dated February 1,1984: Safety Evaluation of Westinghouse Topical Reports Dealing with Elimination of Postulated Pipe Breaks in PWR Primary Main Loops (Generic Letter 84-04)

Dear Mr. Denton:

In response to your letter dated January 31, 1984 (Reference 1) regarding replacements for water bags for reactor cavity shielding, the following clarifications are provided to Reference 2.

1. Our proposal to utilize a form of rigid shielding is contingent on acceptance by the NRC of the conclusion that a large break in a reactor coolant system (RCS) pipe within the reactor cavity need not be postulated. The technical bases for this conclusion have been presented by representatives of Westinghouse, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, and other industry organizations to the NRC Staff and the ACRS, as summarized in our referenced letter. SNUPPS has contract-ed with Westinghouse to prepare documentation confirming that the conclusions reached on a generic basis are applicable to SNUPPS. We expect to submit this documentation for NRC review by April 1,1984.

An exemption request will also be submitted in accordance with the procedure described in Reference 3. The existing leakage detection 8402280258 840217 PDR ADOCK 05000482 A PDR p

j

. SLNRC 84-0054 Page 2.

detection systems of the SNUPPS plants, which fully comply with Regulatory Guide 1.45, satisfy the leakage detection requirements described in Reference 3. Thus all of the requirements of Reference 3 will be~ satisfied by the SNUPPS Utilities.

2. Presuming acceptance by the NRC of.the _ conclusion that RCS pipe breaks in the SNUPPS plants need not be. postulated, the subcompart-ment analysis of the reactor cavity to satisfy Standard Review Plan Section 6.2.1.2 can be limited to the pressurization effect of leakage from a postulated, detectable crack in the RCS piping.
3. The rigid shielding for the reactor cavity will meet.all three of the conditions stated in Reference 1, subject to the clarification that stainless steel is considered an acceptable material to contain the shielding material. ' Activation of stainless steel in this application has been determined to be sufficiently low so as not to constitute a handling and storage problem.

Very truly yours, Nicholas A. Petrick MHF/nid8b24&25 cc: D. _T. McPhee KCPL G. L. Koester KGE D. F. Schnell UE J. Neisler/B. Little' USNRC/ CAL W. Schum/A. Smith USNRC/WC J. Korklin USNRC/RIII