W3P89-1930, Responds to Generic Ltr 88-20, Individual Plant Exam for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities - 10CFR50.54(f). Util Expects to Submit Results by Mar 1992
| ML19324B520 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1989 |
| From: | Burski R LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| GL-88-20, W3P89-1930, NUDOCS 8911070041 | |
| Download: ML19324B520 (3) | |
Text
.
-o QP I^
Louisiana / 3ireAnoNNesineer e.o. sox 0340
' i, (504) 595-3100 P O W E R & L I fi H T New ORLEANS, LoVISLANA 70160 j
NT00MsE W3P89-1930 A4.05 QA October 30, 1989 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555
.r
Subject:
Waterford Steam Electric Station - Unit Number 3 t
Docket Number 50-382 Initial' Response to Generic Letter 88-20 l
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter submits Louisiana Power & Light Company's (LP&L's) initial response to Generic Letter (GL) 88-20, " Individual Plant Examination for Severo Accident Vulnerabilties -
10 CFR 50. 54 (f) ".
LP&L is in the process of performing a Level I Probabilistic Risk Assessnent (PRA) for Waterford Steam Electric Station -
Unit Number 3 (Waterford 3) to address internal events.
The PRA methodology can be characterized as a.small event tree, large fault tree approach, and is consistent with the general guidelines of NUREG-2300.
The Level I analysis will be followed by a limited scope Level II analysis which will meet LP&L's understanding of the intent of Appendix I to GL 88-20.
The Level II assessment will entail a comparison t o existing containment performance analyses for containment designs similar to that of Waterford 3.
Containment event trees will L
be developed, and key design differences between Waterford 3 and the reference plant will be accounted for in the model.
If warranted, some plant specific analyses may be performed using a well known computer code, such as MAAP, for certain important sequences.
LP&L personnel are conducting the IPE with the assistance of a consultant.
Utility engineers are directly involved with all aspects of the effort, including model development and analysis of the results.
System walk-downs will be performed only to the extent necessary, such as when documentation is insuffi-f cient to provide the required information.
L' An independent in-house review of the IPE is being conducted to l
the extent allowed by resources.
System analysis packages are l
reviewed by members of the PRA group other than those directly h[k bbbK g2 k
P
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER" I \\\\0 s
i 4
4 J
Waterford Steam Electric Station - Unit Number 3 i
Docket Number 50-382 Initial Response to Generic Letter 88-20 Page 2
+
involved with preparation of the specific package.
In addition, a review team consisting of Operations and Engineering personnel has been established to review the models and results.
LP&L expects to submit the results of the IPE by March 1992.
This proposed date is based upon current regulatory guidance for performance of the IPE.
Should the NRC provide' additional clarifications to the scope of the IPE, or other factors affect LP&L's ability to meet this submittal date, LP&L may find it necessary to reassess its schedule.
Should a new submittal date be established, LP&L will apprise the NRC accordingly.
In accordance with the guidelines of GL 88-20, resolution of the internal flooding and USI A-45, " Shutdown Decay Heat Removal Requirements" issues will be included in the submittal scheduled for March 1992.
A review of outstanding USIs and GSIs will be conducted to determine which, if any, can be resolved during LP&L's IPE effort.
Any which are resolved during the course of the IPE will be appropriately identified in LP&L's submittal.
The standard submittal format presented in NUREG-1335 may not l
be entirely consistent with the current documentation plan for the Waterford 3 IPE.
Therefore, LP&L's submittal may deviate somewhat from the prescribed format. However, all required information will be provided in an easily followed format, and the submittal will provide the requested " road map" through the l
IPE documentation so that the staff review will not be l
significantly impeded by the slightly different organization of l
the information.
l l
Should you have any questions relating to this matter, please l
contact Ms. Chadi D. Groome of our Nuclear Licensing and l
Regulatory Affairs Department at (504) 595-2846.
Very truly yours,
/( u.+1
[
4 i
R.F. Burski RFB/CDG/dc l
Attachment cc:
R.D. Martin, F.J. Hebdon, D.L. Wigginton, E.L.
- Blake, W.M. Stevenson, NRC Resident Inspectors Office, 1
Administrator Nuclear Energy Division (State of l
Louisiana), American Nuclear Insurers l
1
- - ~ -
..e.
y,, y 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
In the matter of
)
)
Louisiana' Power 6 Light Company
) Docket No. 50-382 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station
)
R.F. Burski, being duly swcrn,.hereby deposes and says that he is Nuclear Safety & Regulatory Affairs Manager of Louisiana Power & Light Company; that he is duly. authorized to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the attached Initial Response to Generic Letter 88-20; that he is familiar
[
with the content thereof; and that the matters set forth therein are true and correct to.the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
N
'R.F. Burski Nuclear Safety 6 Regulatory Affairs Manager i
STATE OF LOUISIANA)
)ss PARISil 0F ORLEANS )
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for the Parish and State above named this J'C%
day of Odshw 1989.
GM d/O
/
Notary Public- []
r l
l
/4)/d [l,/L My Commission expires
..