ML19211C519
| ML19211C519 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/20/1979 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-09, REF-GTECI-SY, TASK-A-09, TASK-A-9, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8001110564 | |
| Download: ML19211C519 (2) | |
Text
{
KW. :
Ur:ITED ST ATEJ, p
/
- g NUCLEAR REGULATORi COMI11sslON e
5 1h $d[
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
APR 2 0 iT9
- j
')'g/
NOTE T0:
Thomas H. Novak, Chief, Reactor Systems Branch, DSS.
1/
FROM:
B. J. Youngblood, Chief, Cost-Benefit Analysis Branch, DSE p
SUBJECT:
ATWS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL In order to complete our evaluation of alternatives with respect to an environmental impact statement for an ATWS rule, we need responses to the enclosed questions.
A. Thadani has been given a copy and we would like to discuss them at his earliest convenience.
hI q
'/
Qi y
. LV l'. J. Y ungblood, Chief Cost-Benefit Analysis Branch Division of Site Safety and Environmental Ar.alysis I
Enclosure:
As stated i
cc:
R. DeYoung R. Matson M. Ernst k
an l
$. Coplan h.
{e
> 'L -- -
h, x
1736 069 8001110
~
s 1.
What is the shape of the proposed rule - i.e., specified hardware, criteria for hardware, what?
2.
How would the resulting hardware and degree of protection differ from making ATWS a DBA' not to exceed Part 100 guidelines?
3.
The thrust of this question is,would the proposed rule make ATWS an incredible event - specifically: is the 10-6 per RY estimate of probability conservative as opposed to realistic?
4.
How do the probabilities in Appendix F apply to:
a.
operating plants before Dresden 2 (Class 1)?
b.
CP's before January 1,1978 (Classes 2 and some 3)?
a
/
s O
n 1736 070