ML19329A662
| ML19329A662 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1972 |
| From: | Peltier I US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001090649 | |
| Download: ML19329A662 (1) | |
Text
d([, C db "O
^
- s
~
f.
SE? 21372 NOTE TO FILES TELECON WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY (CANADY), BABC0CK & WILCOX (STRAUB, STEINKE, LO"LLE) AND LICENSING (PELTIER, GLYNN, FERELL)
SEPTEMBER 19, 1972 HYDROGEN PURGE - OCONEE The assumptions used to. calculate the time of reactor building purge and the purge rate and the assumptions used to calculate the doses at the site boundary were reviewed by phone.
The Duke-B&W calculations do not take into consideration spray water pH adjustment or iodine clean up by the spray. The major disagreement is that Duke-B&W feels that the doses should be calculated at the LPZ (low population zone) instead of the site boundary to meet the 107, of Part 100 criteria.
In any event the incremental doses at the site boundary after thirty (30) days of purging are small compared to the accident doses without purging at the end of e.he same time period.
Oconee is under the backfit provision of Safety Guide 7 (according to Brian Grimes) for which the decision for backfitting is made on a case-by-case basis and does not necessarily have to meet the 30 Rem guideline. Duke was informally asked to consider realistic doses at tha site boundary so that we may consider the acceptability of purging under this provision of the Guide (will backfitting substantially improve safety?).
~.f N
\\;.
I. A. Peltier, Project Manager Pressurized Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Directorate of Licensing cc:
R. C. DeYoung A. Schwencer J. Glynn C. Ferrell B. Grimes I. Peltier e
8 00 1 090
. g
-