ML18043B145
| ML18043B145 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Hatch, Monticello, Dresden, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Nine Mile Point, Fermi, Oyster Creek, Hope Creek, Cooper, Pilgrim, Brunswick, Vermont Yankee, Duane Arnold, Quad Cities, FitzPatrick |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1979 |
| From: | Sobon L GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Stello V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18043B146 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-07, REF-GTECI-CO, TASK-A-07, TASK-A-7, TASK-OR MFN-007-79, MFN-077-79, MFN-77-79, NUDOCS 7904110234 | |
| Download: ML18043B145 (3) | |
Text
consumers Power company General Offices: 212 West Michigan Avenue,.Jackson, Michigan 49201
- Area Code 517 788-0550 April 6, 1978 Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation Att Mr Dennis L Ziemann, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No 2 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC _20555 DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE DPR PALISADES PLANT - REVIEW OF NRC DRAFT EVALUATIONS OF SEP TOPICS XV-17, XV-18 AND A PORTION OF XV-12
©lPW In accordance with your March 5, 1979 letter, we have reviewed the Draft Evalua-tions for SEP Topics XV-17, XV-18 and a portion of XV-12.
Our comments are enclosed as Attac~..ment I.
David P Hoffman (Signed)
David P Hoffman Assistant Nuclear Licensing Administrator CC JGKeppler, USNRC 7904110 ~3.'f
ATTACHMENT I I. XV-17 Radiological Consequences of Steam Generator Tube Failure.
Comment A.
Page 1, Paragraph 2 -
The Technical Specification references in the last two sentences should be 4.14 instead of 3.4.5 and 3.1.5 instead of 3.4.6.
The revised references are applicable sections of our current approved Technical Specifications rather than the proposed Standard Technical Specifications.
B.
Page 2, Faragraph 2 -
The Technical Specification references in sentence 3 should be 3.1.4 and 3.1.5, respectively, for the reasons stated in A above.
C.
Page 3 -
Add current Palisades Technical Specifications to the reference list.
II. XV-18 Radiological Consequences of Main Steam Line Failure Outside Containment.
Comment A.
Page 2, Paragraph 2 -
Change the Technical Specification references from 3.4.8 to 3.1.4 and 3.7.1 to 3.1.5.
The revised references are from the current approved Technical Specifications rather than from the proposed Standard Technical Specifications.
B.
Page 3 -
Add the Palisades Technical Specifications to the reference list.
III. All Three Topics (XV-17, XV-18 and XV-12) Referencing Table XV-2.
The subject SEP evaluations have been reviewed against FSAR evaluations of those topics.
Where necessary for comparison of accident doses, FSAR data were used to calculate off-site doses if the doses themselves were not presented in the FSAR.
Table I compares SEP doses with those derived from FSAR parameters.
Table I shows that in all cases, SEP values are considerably higher than FSAR derived values.
Typically, SEP values are a factor of from 3 to 10 higher than those related to the FSAR.
The SEP evaluations use a X/Q approximately a factor of 3 times that of the FSAR and in the case of steam generator tube rupture, iodine spiking is assumed.
These factors account for most of the differences shown in Table I.
The NRC has requested that Consumers Power Company examine the "facts" upon which their analyses are based.
Those "facts" appear to be generously conservative hypothetical assumptions.
\\",,,,
Tube Failure Accident Tube Failure Accident With Previous Iodine Spike*
Steam Line Failure Accident' Steam Line Failure Accident With Previous Iodine Spike*
Rod Ejection Accident***
Case 1 Case 2 NOTES:
TABLE I Co~parison of NRC and CP Co Doses 2-Hour Dose to the Thyroid (rem) 12 60 1.7 2.6 3.6 LO NRC 2-Hour Whole Body Dose (rem) o.4
- o.4
< 0.01
< 0.01 0.05
< 0.01 2-Hour Dose to the Thyroid (rem) 1.12 (0.28)**
(o.66)**
(0.38)**
FSAR 2-Hour Whole Body Dose (rem) 0.058
- For this accident sequence it is assumed that an iodine spike was initiated some time before the accident resulting in the highest coolant activity allowed by the Technical Specifications.
- Not given in FSAR.
Values in parentheses are estimated based on FSAR parameters.
- Case 1 assumes all releases through the secondary side safety and relief valves.
Case 2 assumes all rel~ases through the containment.
i
--