ML20003C311
| ML20003C311 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1981 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Boyer V PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102270688 | |
| Download: ML20003C311 (4) | |
Text
.
j((W o.
,( Sa rro,I u
o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
{
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%?* * " *,/
JAN 2 61981 Docket No. 50-352/353 e
W<)b O
q } r-b
- [ (i U L Mr. Vincent Boyer I'ED 0 '3 631 ]l Senior Vice President
@A o.o g g,% P,,,"
ti Nuclear Operations Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street
/.x
(
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 b'>.
,y
//3e
Dear Mr. Boyer:
J'
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - LIMERICK As a result of our meeting in Pottstown on Decer.ber 9,1980, the sta" 9:
identified several areas and issues which need to be considered or e.s,:anded upon in the final report of the Limerick Risk Study.
The enclosure to this letter lists the eight items identified by the staff.
It is hoped that this will not result in a delay in completing the final report ay March 1981.
If such a delay seems likely I would like to be advised as soon as possible when you can finish the report and the specific items in
,the enclosure that are primarily responsible for the delay.
If you have any questions contact the Limerick project manager, D. Sells, (301) 492-7792.
Sincerely, h
l Robert L. Tedesco Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As' stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page bC
~
-8102270(o@ @
s Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Vice President & General Counsel Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 cc: Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Mr.iorV$cePr2sident Vinc nt Boyer Sen Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Nuclear Operatlons Washington, D. C.
20006 Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Deputy Attorney General Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Room 512, Main Capitol Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Mr. Robert W. Adler Assistant Attorney General Bureau of Regulatory Counsel 505 Executive House P. O. Bor. 2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Honorable Lawrence Coug5lin House of Representatives Congress of the United States Washington, D. C.
20515 Roger B. Reynolds, Jr., Esq.
324 Swede Street Norristown, Pennsylvania 19401 Lawrence Sager, Esq.
Sager & Sager Associates 45 High Street Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464 Joseph A. Smyth Assistant County Solicitor County of Montgome.'
Courthouse Norristown, Pennsylvania 19404 Eugene J. Bradley Philadelphia Electric Company Associate General Counsel 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Mr. Jacque Durr Resident Reactor Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission P. O. Box' 47 Sanatoga, Pennsylvania 19464
/.
ENCLOSURE LIMERICK RISK STUDY COMMENTS 1.
Emergency procedures
' he applicant should discuss how and where the emergency procedures are In addi ion, he considered in the quantification of the risk study.
t should identify those situations where conflicts in procer action may arise because of other considerations, such as operational efficiency or competing safety requirements, that the operator may be aware of or trained to consider. The applicant should discuss how he has assurance that the operators will perform the appropriate action in a conflicting emergency si tuation.
2.
System Interdependencies The applicant should describe how he nas assured completeness in identif-ication and treatment of system interdependencies that could fail several safety functions simultaneously, thus decreasing the plant's reliability.
3.
Data Base The applicant should provide adequate supporting information on the data base for component failure rates /unavailabilities, common cause failures, and treatment of human errors.
4.
Decontamination Factors The applicant should provide adequate supporting information on the decontamination factors used in his analysis.
5.
Containment Failure Modes The applicant should provide an expanded discussion of the containment failure modes considered and their probabilities.
6.
Consequence Analyses The applicant should provide CCDFs of latent cancers and property damage so that they can be compared to WASH-1400 reference plant.
7.
Bounds The applicant should provide a discussion of the upper bounds of his risk curves with respect to uncertainty in data, human actions, common mode failures, unidentified sequences, and external events.
j 4
,J i
i 2
i
[
s 4
8.
Comparison with WASH-1400 i
The applicant should provide sufficient analyses that will permit i
independent assessments of the impact of:
a.
unique plant features, compared to the WASH-1400 reference plant; b.
modifications to the data base and data treatment, compared to WASH-1400; c.
assumptions regarding containment failure modes, compared to the 4
j WASH-1400 plant; d.
assumptions regarding operator actions and common mode failure, compared to WASH-1400; assumptions regarding decontamination factors, compared to WASH-1400; I
e.
and; f.
assumptions regarding meteorology and evacuation, compared to WASH-1400.
a I
b i
i i
i i
j i
i t
i i
i t
j -.
l
.-_.....,,-___=.,
,,. _ _ -... _... ~