ML20003H672

Responds to Re Facilities Probabilistic Risk Assessment.Util Expected to Supply Property Damage Info & mid-life Population Analysis Prior to Completion of Technical Review

ML20003H672
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	04/29/1981
From:	Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Nogee A KEYSTONE ALLIANCE
References
NUDOCS 8105070014
Download: ML20003H672 (2)

Text

t

/

i i

f f

Docket Nos. 50-352 s

50-353 g

8 APR 29 gggy 4,P

[f Alan J. Nogee t

<<,4 O

I Keystone Alliance 1

49g/

-t)

(@ x ~

AQ 3700 Chestnut Stmet Philadelphia, PA 19104

>% 7/

Dear Mr. Nogee:

Thank you for your letter of March 31, 1981, relative to your pmlimin-ary assessment of the Pmbabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) submitted by Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) for the Limerick Generating Station (LGS) as a part of their application for an operating license.

Our connants on each of the numbered points that you made are as follows:

1.

Appendix E of the PRA describes the offsite consequence model that was used by PECo. For health effects, the standard CRAC methodology and input coefficients were used and these /*44ded early ano latent cancers. PECo's comparisons wem done for the WASH-1400 BWR on the WASH-1400 Site versus the LGN Site (Figure 4.1), the WASH-1400 BWR on the WASH-1400 Site (Figure 4.3) and WASH-1400 BWR and site versus the LGN BWR and Site (Figure 4.4).

Therefore, comparisons wem made of both site and design changes with both the ASH-1400 and LGN data base. Of course, we have not made our detailed technical review of the subject data yet and must reserve judgment on it until we do.so.

2.

We agree that the PRA does not include the property damage information we requested in my letter of January 26, 1981. We expect PEco to supply this before we complete our technical review of the PRA.

3.

Relative to populatiog, we u.ne.9PECo to use the 1970 data for comparison with WASH-1400, but also to complete a similar analysis for the projected facility mid-life pppulation. We expect PECo to supply this before we com-l plete our technical eview of the PRA.

j 4.

Relative to the evacuation time asstanptions used in the PRA, we will examine thesa critically during the detailed technical review of the PRA.

t

~

I i

. cm i

9 C'4v.)

we }-

i l

I 1

8145(J 7 00/

C FF C;.ai_ iiE C O R O C..A'r a~~--

i f

f f

n Alan J. Nogee 2

l We are still in the pmcess of conducting our acceptance review of the infomation submitted by PECo in connection with their application for an operating license. When that review is completed, a decision will be made whether or not to accept the application for docketing.

We appreciate the assessment of the PRA that you made and will keep your points in mind as we conduct our acceptance review.

Sincerely.

Cristnal dand Dr Robert I. Tedesco Robert L. Tedesco. Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing DISTRIBUTION Docket or Central File NRC PDR Local PDR LB#2 File DEisenhut RPurple RTedesco ASchwencer Licensing Project Manager Licensing Assistant I&E (3 o G L. D) bec: E RG-416)

[ NSIC )

iLKA TIC i 1 c,a.CY

-- -- - a l

.qg A/D Cj)

"co _ LB62 LB#

RRAB i

GDgl'ns:sp ASc wencer; SIsrael Rt e co l'

s _ c.

. t,,

1 i 4/t,y81 4/ 3 / 81 I 4[' y / Yi,

i l

et>

4//5 81 4/p/81 a: =.

a.

m c??;c'.g ?5:C3 c 3 F"

• -; ~ -

-