ML022000129
| ML022000129 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/19/2002 |
| From: | Pulsifer R NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1 |
| To: | Jacob Zimmerman NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1 |
| Pulsifer R M, NRR/DLPM, 415-3016 | |
| References | |
| TAC MB4610 | |
| Download: ML022000129 (3) | |
Text
July 19, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO: Jacob I. Zimmerman, Acting Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Robert M. Pulsifer, Project Manager
/RA/
Project Directorate I, Section 2 Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION, DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) TO BE DISCUSSED IN A CONFERENCE CALL (TAC NO. MB4610)
The attached draft RAI was transmitted by facsimile on July 1, 2002, to Mr. Gautam Sen of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (VY). This draft RAI was transmitted to facilitate a conference call to clarify the licensees application dated March 19, 2002, regarding deletion of scram signals from the main steam line radiation monitors. Review of the RAI would allow VY to determine and agree upon a schedule to respond to the RAI. This memorandum and the attachment do not convey a formal request for information or represent an NRC staff position.
Docket No. 50-271
Enclosure:
Draft Request for Additional Information
July 19, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO: Jacob I. Zimmerman, Acting Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Robert M. Pulsifer, Project Manager
/RA/
Project Directorate I, Section 2 Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION, DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) TO BE DISCUSSED IN A CONFERENCE CALL (TAC NO. MB4610)
The attached draft RAI was transmitted by facsimile on July 1, 2002, to Mr. Gautam Sen of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (VY). This draft RAI was transmitted to facilitate a conference call to clarify the licensees application dated March 19, 2002, regarding deletion of scram signals from the main steam line radiation monitors. Review of the RAI would allow VY to determine and agree upon a schedule to respond to the RAI. This memorandum and the attachment do not convey a formal request for information or represent an NRC staff position.
Docket No. 50-271
Enclosure:
Draft Request for Additional Information DISTRIBUTION:
PDI-2 Rdg PUBLIC JKnox, EEIB RPulsifer Accession No.: ML022000129 *Input received 6/25/002. No major changes made.
OFFICE PDI-2/PM SC/SPSB NAME RPulsifer MReinhart*
DATE 7/19/02 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Concerning the Vermont Yankee PCN-250 1.
In your submittal you stated that you have an additional potential release pathway that was not included in the GE topical report NEDO-31400A. You have not documented the details of this site-specific analysis in the submittal. Please submit a description of the analysis and all calculation inputs and assumptions.
2.
The atmospheric dispersion factor (X/Q) values for the exclusion area boundary (EAB) you used in your evaluation are 1.7 x 10-3 s/m3 for a turbine building release and 2.0 x 10-4 s/m3 for a release from the stack. These values do not appear to be documented in the FSAR. Are these values the same as were used in the FSAR section 14.9 control rod drop accident (CRDA) dose analysis or are they newly calculated for this amendment request?
- a. If these values have been previously approved by the NRC staff, please provide a reference to this approval.
- b. If these X/Qs are new values, please provide a description of the analysis, the calculation inputs and assumptions, and the meteorological data used to determine the values.
3.
You have not addressed the impact of the proposed changes on the design basis accident radiological consequences in the control room. Please provide an evaluation.
If this evaluation includes a control room dose analysis, please provide a description of the analysis, the calculation inputs and assumptions, and the control room dose results from a CRDA.