ML20135C503
| ML20135C503 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200003 |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1996 |
| From: | Mcintyre B WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | Quay T NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135C487 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9612060328 | |
| Download: ML20135C503 (2) | |
Text
- --.
5 From:
Brian A. McIntyre <mcintyba9wesmall.com>
To:
WN02.WNP5(trq) gym Date:
11/27/96 3:51pm
Subject:
RAP phone call On Monday, November 25, 1996 a conference call was held between the NRC and Westinghosue to discuss the proposed AP600 RAP. The purpose of the telecon was for the NRC to provide Westinghouse with a list of SSCs, with a RAW between 5 and 10, that they want us to run through our expert panel.
Selection Criteria:
System 80+ used RAW > 5 AP600 uses RAW > 10.
Westinghouse has explained in previous meetings how RAW of 10 was derived and the justification. We sumamrized that explanation during the phone call.
Nick Saltos (NRC) appeared that he wasn't involved in prior meetings on this topic. He thinks RAW of 5 is acceptable and RAW of 10 is not. He says even if our core damage frequency (CDF) is calculated as an order of magnitude lower than System 80+, he really doesn't believe it is because of T-H uncertainty, other uncertainties, "RTNSS", etc. Clearly a red herring.
He thinks these uncertainties would raise our CDF to at least System 80+
CDF. Nick also said he doesn't believe our PRA.
We asked NRC to explain the rationale / reasoniriq / or basis for their acceptance of RAW of 5 for System 80+ so that we might better explain why we believe that our value is appropriate for our design. They really couldn't provide any sort of basis beyond that was what was used for the System 80+.
Nick said there was no guidance, but that since it worked before it should be OK here.
It would be " easier" to pass thru ACRS due to precident, rather than RAW of 10.
NRC's list of specific SSCs they want us to evaluated with a RAW between 5 and 10 is "look at all entries between 5 and 10" and justify why it is not in the RAP.
(in other words, make RAW > 5)
The call did not go well.
I think that in the words of the NRC, "Unfortunatly, this teleconference did not prove productive".
I believe that this subject might well be in the category of one we need to have face-to-face discussions on rather than phone calls.
From what I experienced during my 30 minutes on the call, the staff was not in the listening mode and in hindsight the call should have been terminated, like the IVR call was.
It does not make sense to waste each other's time.
There must be a more productive venue for 9612060328 961204
[
PDR ADOCK 0520 3
j Attachment 1
e O
9 k
j this interaction.
Please discuss this with Bill Huffman and let me know your thoughts on how 2
i best to go forth on this subject.
4 Thanks!
Brian A. McIntyre f
412.374.4334 WIN 284.4334 FAX 374.4887 CC:
WN02.WNP5(wch) 1 i
1 j
1 l
e 4
f i
4