ML20064K773

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Marked-up Memo Re 810323 Engineering Evaluation Rept on 810129 RCS Leak.Event & Recommendations Will Be Taken Into Consideration for Further Evaluation.Info Has Been Transmitted to Utils
ML20064K773
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Robinson
Issue date: 06/15/1981
From: Harold Denton
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Michelson C
NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD)
Shared Package
ML20064E577 List:
References
FOIA-82-389 NUDOCS 8107010140
Download: ML20064K773 (2)


Text

Co @ G

'*?

UNITED STATES N

/[N h

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

^%)

r,,

W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\\..../

s June 15,1981 pfdiORANDUMFOR:

Carlyle Michelson, Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data.

FROM:

Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

H. B. ROBINSON RCS LEAK ON JANUARY 29, 1981 We have reviewed your Engineering Evaluation Report on the H. B. Robinson RCS leak, prepared by Wayne D. Lanning on March 23, 1981, and we find the matter of interest.

As you pointed out in your transmittal letter, no safety issues were identified and no immediate action is warranted by the NRC.

However, we plan to take the event and your recommendations into consideration for further evaluation by our staff, and we did pass the information along to the utilities.

As you know, the SPEB of DST is developing a methodology to be used to priori-

~

tize new safety issues, and, based on the prioritization, to make recommendations regarding allocation of NRR resources to develop and implement new requirements.

These requirements would be applicable t'o license -application reviews and-to plants already having an Operating License, as ap~jiropriate.

Details of this methodology are currently being developed.

However, it is clear that the methodology will involve the following two key elements:

1.

The safety benefit achieved by developing and implementing a new require-ment, and 2.

The cost of developing and implementing new requirements.

Cost includes both staff cost (manpower resources and contractor cost) and the cost to the industry.

In order for us to evaluate and prioritize the concern you have identified and determine whether it merits the allocation of NRR resources, relative to other safety concerns, staff in the appropriate NRR Divisions and perhaps AE0D may have to develop additional pertinent information.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

MY Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See next page N

R ro\\

A v

\\

~

r

/.~ June 15,1981 o

cc:

V. Stello H. Denton E. Case R. Mattson

~

D. Eisenhut S. Hanauer T. Murley

~

M. Ernst P. Collins N. Haller J. LaFleur R. Bernero J. Sniezek E. Jordan N. Moseley E. Blackwood B. Grier J. O'Reilly J. Keppler K. Seyfrit R. Engelken W. Cottrell V. Panciera -

~-

J. Hannon

-7 E. Zebroski, NSAC E..Wilkinson, INPO R. Colmar ACRS t.