ML20010H771

From kanterella
Revision as of 20:14, 26 January 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to NRC 810821 Ltr Requesting Util Response within 30 Days If Any Delay Was Expected in Schedule for Providing Info Re Pressurized Thermal Shock.Info Justifying Continued Facility Operation Will Be Included w/150-day Response
ML20010H771
Person / Time
Site: Fort Calhoun Omaha Public Power District icon.png
Issue date: 09/24/1981
From: William Jones
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To: Eisenhut D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8109290281
Download: ML20010H771 (2)


Text

s.

  • Omaha Public Power District 16?3 HARNEY a OMAHA, NEBRASKA 68102 m TELEPHONE S36.4000 AREA CODE 402 September 24, 1981

, yh  %[Q9 Sw Q 'r_\

., is f\

$c o kl Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director '

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation '

'j Division of Licensing

%T'6@

Washington, D.C. 20555

Reference:

Docket No. 50-285 Na f

Dear Mr. Eisenhut:

The Commission's letter to Omaha Public Power District dated August 21, 1981 regarding pressurized thermal shock requested certain information be provided for the Fort Calhoun Station within 60 days and additional information be provided within 150 days of the date of your letter. Your letter also requested that the District advise you within 30 days if there would be any delay in responding on the above schedule.

This letter provides our response to the 30-day request.

For the information requested to be provided in 60 days, the District plans to provide the information requested in items 1, 2, 4, and 5 within the 60 days requested. The response to items 1 and 2 will utilize baseline RT_NDT measurements for only plate material. We will provide revised information using baseline measurements for weld material in the 150-day response. Additionally, the 9istrict does rat consider it appropriate to define a single value of RTNDT as an uprer limit for continued operation of the Fort Calhoun Station, as requested in item 3.

The capability of the vessel to withstand the effects of pressurized thermal shock cannot be represented independent of the pressure-temper-ature transient which might cause the pressurized thermal shock ccndi-tion. The prog.am the District is working on considers the many variables involved in establishing the vessel capabilities to withstand system transient responses, without violation of .he pressure boundary. The District will provide a detailed response to item 4, which will provide the basis for our position on item 3 of your letter.

The information requested for the 150-day response in the body of the letter will be provided. In addition, the District will provide the information requested in items 1 through 7 of the enclosure to your h0 S E

/!O 8109290281 810924 PDR ADOCK 05000285 P PDR

Mr. Darrell G. . Eisenhut September 24, 1981 .

Page Two letter. The District's 150-day response will also indlude sufficient analysis to justify continued operation of the Fort Calhoun Station.

The analyses presented at that time will form our interim response. The final analyses will be submitted in accordance with the schedule that will be detailed in our program plan.

Sinceraly, u

W. C. Jones DivisipnManager Production Operations WCJ/KJM/TLP:jmm cc: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 i

f I

(

i I

..v-- , . .y-,-..

% - . --- .ne- 4 ,-- + , ,m. . , . . , , - , . , . ~ . , ,,y, , , - , , e- a #