ML19332A710
| ML19332A710 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, Zion  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1980 |
| From: | Ernst M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009180144 | |
| Download: ML19332A710 (5) | |
Text
"
e, 4
,5
',]* I
^
t 9
~
b
.., 7,r pm'3;g$,i
\\
Docket flos. Sn-795/2na SEP 111980 s
( $0-247/285 ]
MENORAtlDUM FOR:
T. M. flovak, Assistar.t Director for Operating Reactors, DL FROM:
M. L. Ernst, Assistar.t Director for Technology,-DST
'~
1
/,
s L
j S,UBJECT:
jREVIEW0F. ZION /INDIANPOIriTRISKSTUDIE.S l;
,;I 6
i r
j-
/.:
../
The review of the Zion / Indian Point Risk Study has been proceeding on two
~
separate tracks, namely, a preliminary assessment of the OPS report and a detailed ieview of the future Pickard, Lowe, and Garrick study. As indicated in our July 2, 1980 memo (Mattson to Eisenhut), the prelininary assessment of the risk profile for the Indian Point plants is essentially the work performed by PAS in the Task Force report, SECY-80-283, as supplemented by additional documentation being prepared by PAS which will not be completed until October.
The assessment of the Zion risk profile will be a combination of a Brookhaven evaluation of the dominant accident sequences (reflecting unique Zion features) and containment failure and consequence analyses performed by the Reactor Systems Branch. This preliminary assessment is based primarily on past experience on other studies with only a superficial review of the actual plant design aimed at identifying major differences between the Zion plant and Surry.
It will be patterned to a large extent on the methodology used to develop SECY-80-283. An outline of our preliminary assessment report is r esented in, and a draft should be completed in early Movember.
In June, the ZIP risk study managers indicated that substantial information on the PLG~ detailed study would be available by this time with input starting in July; however, their original schedule has slipped badly and the current estimate for any input from them is early October and a final report in early-1981.
In the interim, we have contracted with Sandia Laboratory to perform a detailed review of. PLG study.when available. We have arranged for. Zion and _
Indian Point plant'information to be sent to Sandia to aid in their review.
Because of the delay in the.PLG report, our evaluation will probably not be completed until June 1981. An outline of the final evaluation-is presentied in Enclosure ~2.
~
Contact:
Sandy Israel, NRR
~
"" 2"C5
~
omc = n a>
...... 1.
ean >
.............. ~..
- h..-
me t u n - = a - n.
, mc romu ne is.763 nacu o24o.
8 0 0 91 s o/y//.
j
s.-
a
.w l
T. M. Novak SEP 11 1980 Both of the above represent substantial slips in previously established schedules, due principally to'leck of timely documentation of other tark important to.these reviews.
Originalsigned by Malcolin L Ernst Malcolm L. Ernst, Assistant Director y
for. Technology Division of Safety Technology
Enclosures:
I As Stated cc:
H. Denton Distribution:
E. Case Docket Files (4) i D. Ross RRAB r/f-D. Eisenhut MLE'.nst F. Schroeder Israel chron T. Speis S. Varga A. Thadani S. Israel L. 01shan
\\
9 DST..:.R..R. A..y....[....
... D. S..T..:R.R. AB..([.
...D.S.../..T....... '...
. l'...............
., ne.,.
..S..L..I..s..r..a..e..l..:..c.,j,..
.. A..C.T..h..a.d..a...n..i...
......L..E..r..n..s..t........
. m..
09L ',,[80,,
U
. 094.!.048.0..
,.,09//,p,/80,,
~
om a
me a u,,.<,.u m cuau.
- : -.~
J