ML20137B336

Summarizes 970306 Telcon Between NRC & BWR Owners Group Re Topical Rept NEDC-31858P Rev 2, BWROG Rept for Increasing MSIV Leakage Rate Limits & Elimination of Leakage Control Systems

ML20137B336
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	03/19/1997
From:	Stolz J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Donovan K BABCOCK & WILCOX FUEL ASSEMBLY OWNERS GROUP, CENTERIOR ENERGY
References
TAC-M87911, NUDOCS 9703210282
Download: ML20137B336 (7)

Text

. .

po

{ p & UNITED STATES

~ ?

g j t

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20066-0001 l

k ..., .. / March 19, 1997 Mr. Kevin P. Donovan Chairman l BWR Owners' Group I c/o Centerior Energy '

Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Mail Code A210 10 Center Road ,

Perry. OH 44081 l

SUMMARY

OF MARCH 6, 1997 TELECONFERENCES BETWEEN NRC AND BWR OWNERS' GROUP (BWROG) REGARDING THE TOPICAL REPORT NEDC-31858P REVISION 2.

"BWROG REPORT FOR INCREASING MSIV LEAKAGE RATE LIMITS AND ELIMINATION OF LEAKAGE CONTROL SYSTEMS" (TAC NO. M87911)

Dear Mr. Donovan:

On March 6.1997, the staff held two teleconferences regarding the proaosed ,

Topical Report NEDC-31858P. Revision 2. "BWROG Report for Increasing [iain l Steam Isolation Valve] MSIV Leakage Rate Limits and Elimination of Leakage '

Control Systems (LCS)" (MSIV LCS Topical Report) with representatives of  ;

BWROG. The purpose of the telecon discussions was to address the staff's i concerns on the inadequate response to the Request for Additional Information (RAI) submitted by BWROG, dated January 9, 1997, on the MSIV LCS To)ical I Report questions. The staff's concerns were first conveyed to the 3WROG in an RAI dated March 29. 1995. BWROG responded to the RAI on February 19, 1996.

Since the information provided in the response was not totally acceptable to the staff, a teleconference was held on May 9.1996, between the staff and BWROG. to further clarify the staff's request. Based on the agreement made in the conference call. the BWROG subsequently provided its updated response on January 9. 1997. The particular issue involved the weakness in the earthquake ,

experience data and the fact that, after repeated efforts, the staff is still having difficulties in obtaining the proper response from the BWROG on the earthquake experience data. Enclosure 1 contains the s)ecific question, question 11. that the staff has repeatedly asked the BW10G regarding the earthquake experience data.

The first telecon was to Mr. Thomas Rausch. Vice Chairman of BWROG to provide a management-level perspective on what the staff's concerns were. The staff l concluded, as a result of the telecon, that the BWROG management gained a clear understanding of the insufficiencies of the proposed Topical Report and was made aware of the possible paths that NRR and/or the BWROG could take to ,'

proceed. l The second telecon was made to Mr. Tom Green of General Electric Nuclear I Energy (GE) and Mr. Steven P. Harris of E0E International, consultant to s BWROG. both representing BWROG to discuss the specific technical 3roblems p l)d@

related to the Topical Report on the earthquake experience data. Juring the technical discussion, the staff explained to the BWROG representatives step-by-step the earthquake site data for several sites and pointed out the missing j information. Although the BWROG representatives expressed that the data was j acceptable to them. they appeared to understand the reasons why the staff  ;

cannot evaluate the sites as good reference sites without the specifics, such 97o32102e2 97031 F NRC HLE CENTER COPY l DR ADOCK 0500 0

~

.-~

(

4 K. Donovan March 19, 1997 as distance from database facility to fault, distance from seismic instrument to fault, specific response spectra., equations for calculations they may have made, etc. The staff and the BWROG representatives jointly acknowledged that this information is probably not obtainable'for some sites and, the BWROG may have to take these sites out of the proposed reference database contained in-the' Topical Report. The BWROG representatives agreed to take action and stated they would contact the staff to inform them of the steps that will be taken. The proposed steps may be, as. discussed in the telecon, a meeting, an additional teleconference to go through all the reference sites to identify the deficiencies, or a " qualified" safety evaluation, which is likely to be of.

limited value. Enclosure 2 lists the names of the NRC staff who participated in the two teleconferences.

The staff concluded that the purpose of the teleconferences was well achieved.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Tilda Liu at (301) 415-1413. 1 Sincerely. l (Original signed by)

John F. Stolz Director Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Question 11  !

2. NRC Staff Participants cc w/encls: See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket File PUBLIC PDI-2 Reading RZimmerman AThadani SVarga JZwolinski JStolz RWessman GBagchi KManoly

.RRothman Atee (0-7E23)

JWilson TLiu OGC ACRS RIngram THarris (EMail SE. TLH3) -n *Previously Concurred 0FFICE PDI-2/PM PDI-2/Lk[ ECGB* EMEB* frDL-2/D NAME- TLiu:rb ,//_/ M0'BrieIth GBagchi RWessman JSDd-DATE J/le/97 h h/T/97' 03/13/97 03/14/97 3/d/97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: BWR87911.LTR

i 1

K. Donovan March 19, 1997 as distance from database facility to fault distance from seismic instrument to fault, specific response spectra, equations for calculations they may have made, etc. The staff and the BWROG representatives jointly acknowledged that ,

this information is probably not obtainable for some sites and the BWROG may I have to take these sites out of the proposed reference database contained in '

the Topical Report. The BWROG representatives agreed to take action and '

stated they would contact the staff to inform them of the steps that will be l taken. The proposed steps may be, as discussed in the telecon, a meeting, an additional teleconference to go through all the reference sites to identify i the deficiencies, or a " qualified" safety evaluation, which is likely to be of '

limited value. Enclosure 2 lists the names of the NRC staff who participated I in the two teleconferences.

The staff concluded that the purpose of the teleconferences was well achieved.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Tilda Liu at (301) 415-1413.

Sincerely.

G '

b

/,

l J F. Stolz. Director l P ect Directorate I-2 i Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

Enclosures:

1. Question 11

2. NRC Staff Participants j cc w/encls: See next page

A i i

cc:

Mr. Tom A. Green, GE Project Manager GE Nuclear Energy i

175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, CA 95125 1

C. D. Terry Vice President, Nuclear Engineering 4 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation '

Nine Mile Point-2 P.O. Box 63 l Lycoming, NY 13093 D. B. Feters PECO Energy Nuclear Group Headquarters MC 62C-3 965 Chesterbrook Blvd.

Wayne, PA 19087 L. A. England Entergy Operations Inc.

P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286 K. K. Sedney GE Nuclear Energy 175 Curtner Ave., M/C 182 San Jose, CA 95125 Thomas J. Rausch Commonwealth Edison Company Nuclear Fuel Services 1400 Opus Place, 4th Floor ETWIII Downers Grove, IL 60515

]

. 1

. i NRC Question 11 I 1

Table 3-1 of Appendix D to the Topical Report contains a list of about 110

{ earthquake-facility pairs, while Table 3-2 lists about 30 earthquake-facility i pairs. Subsequent to publication of Revision 2 to the Report, some BWR plant

applicants have submitted additional earthquake-facility pairs to support  !

! their site specific amendment reviews. Clarify which earthquake-facility )

j pairs constitute the Earthquake Experience Database that is being relied on to l demonstrate the adequacy of the structures, systems and components necessary to support the Report. For each of the earthquake-facility pairs in the j

l j experience database, provide the following:

2 l

, a. The name, location (latitude and longitude), and foundation j geology (ie. rock, deep soil, shallow soil) of the facility. '

i

b. The name, date, time, epicenter (latitude and longitude), and magnitude i of the earthquake and tie closest distance from the facility to the j earthquake rupture. J i c. The 5 percent of critical damping response spectra of the ground i

motion estimated at the facility from the earthquake.

! d. The method used to estimate the ground motion at the facility. If the j ground motion is based on actual ground motion recordings, provide the

{ location (latitude and longitude) and foundation geology of the j recording station and its di m.nce from the facility and its distance to i the closest part of the fault rupture. If the estimation is based on a i method other than an actual recording of the earthquake ground motion or

! if the recording station is not collocated with the facility, describe i

the method used to estimate the ground motion in detail and provide any i ground motion attenuation equations which may have been used to obtain l the estimate.

I INFORMATION REQUESTED BUT NOT INCLUDED IN JANUARY 9. 1997 BWR OWNERS GROUP j RESPONSE i

j No additional information was provided about the earthquake-facility pairs'in j Table 3-1 (Table 1 of the response) 1 Table 3 of the response. contains 17 earthquake-facility pairs.

The latitude and longitude of only three facilities were provided.

The latitude and longitude of only three of earthquake epicenters were l provided.

j In no case was the closest distance from the facility to the earthquake i

rupture provided.

i I

l 1 f

)

1 j ENCLOSURE 1 I

' The only earthquake ground motion response spectra prsvided were the

, same six which were provided in the earlier report.

The latitudes and longitudes of the strong motion recording stations j were not provided.

The distances from the strong ground motion recording stations to the closest part of the fault ruptures were not provided.

1 The details the method used to estimate the ground motion and the ground l motion attenuation equations which may have ben used to obtain the '

estimates for facilities where the estimation is based on a method other than an actual recording of the earthquake ground motion or if the recording station is not collocated with the facility were not provided.

1 I

e e

e 2

4 i

TELECONFERENCES WITH BWROG REGARDING PROPOSED TOPICAL REPORT NEDC-31858P, REVISION 2 "BWROG REPORT FOR INCREASING MSIV LEAKAGE RATE LIMITS AND ELIMINATION OF LEAKAGE CONTROL SYSTEMS" MARCH 6, 1997 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION STAFF PARTICIPANTS First telecon: Management perspective discussion

', ' Richard Wessman 4

James Wilson Kar.ial Manoly Seccnd telecon: Specific technical problems discussion Richard Wessman Kamal Manoly James Wilson Robert Rothman Arnold Lee Tilda Liu ENCLOSURE 2