ML20135F401
| ML20135F401 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/10/1985 |
| From: | King T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Speis T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8509170257 | |
| Download: ML20135F401 (8) | |
Text
m
~ LUb Vh
. September 10, 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Themis P. Spets, Director, Division of Safety Technology, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Thomas L. King, Chief, ARG, Division of Safety Technology, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL ON LIQUID METAL REACTOR (LMR) TORNADO DESIGN CRITERIA On August 29, 1985 representatives of Rockwell International briefed us on their proposed approach for tornado design criteria for their liquid metal reactor - SAFR concept. This briefing was conducted as part of DOE's proposed interaction with us on LMRs and represents an area where Rockwell is of the opinion that there is technical justification and a significant cost saving (Rockwell estimates 1% of plant cost) to be realized by designing to tornado criteria less severe than applied to LWRs. The agenda and list of attendees are enclosed.
Significent items from the meeting were:
- 1) Rockwell proposed to use for design purposes conditions associated with less severe tornados than normally appli usingconditionsfortornadoswitha10gdtoLWRs. They 6 per yearproposed frequency versus-the 10-7 applied to LWRs. The 10-7 would then be used as the maximum allowable frequency per year of exceeding 10 CFR 100 dose guidelines at the site boundary.
The rational presented was that their approach is more in line with what is done for other external hazards (such as the industrial /trans-portation hazards addressed in Standard Review Plan Section 2.2.3).
While it can be argued that there are some inconsistencies in the staff's treatment of external hazards the endorsement of the Rockwell approach for tornado criteria would represent a change in policy from what is applied to LWRs and the members of the staff present at the briefing could not agree to such a change.
- 2) Rockwell was informed that on a case by case basis portions of plants q,'l, which cannot withstand a 10-7 tornado are accepted if their safety s o function is backed up by another system, component or structure which can withstand the 10-7 tornado. In addition, it may be possible to s
_ g,[%
design for smaller tornados on a site specific basis by using National -
,f Y-Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data. ' v ph.y ,N
{ p) 8509170257 850910 -
emcep .. .
g,yg pg . . .. . .. .
sua.u = > . . . . . . . . . . . ./....... .. . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .
oney .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . .
r:a: soau ne no eomacu oua OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usc o e-m *o
I
- 3) Rockwell stated that the tornado model and missile spectrum they use is based upon EPRI's TORMUS Code; however, the staff has not accepted the tornado model portion of the TORMUS Code.
Based on the above Rockwell plans to reassess their recommendations on tornado design criteria and to continue interaction with us on this subject at a later date. Whether or not they will request us to consider a change in our policy regarding the treatment of tornados (as discussed in item 1 above) remains to be seen.
If you have any questions or would like to see the handouts from the meeting please let me know.
/
Thomas L. King, Chief Advanced Reactors Group 1 Division of Safety Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc: W. Gammill, METB I. Spickler, METB M. El-Zeftawy, ACRS R. Curtis, RES ARG Staff Distribution 4 Central File 7 NRC PDR T. King DST /CHRON ARG r/f-caricap .R , D , ,, ,, , , ,, , , ,
suamme > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,, ,
ourp 9/..,.p /. 8 5 r.ac roau ra no so3 sacu o2.o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom mi-awm
f o .
e Enclosure l
< 1
- l SAFR PRESENTATION TO THE NRC PROPOSED TORNADO DESIGN BASIS AGENDA INTRODUCTION R. T. LANCET OVERALL PLANT DESCRIPTION R. T. LANCET DESIGN OF SOME TORNADO IMPACTED STRUCTURES A. R. BAILEY-RATIONALE FOR REDUCED TORNADO DESIGN BASES P. RUTHERFORD
SUMMARY
R. T. LANCET DISCUSSION ALL L- -u-
l l
Enclosure ATTENDEES 8/29/85 BRIEFING BY ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL ON LIQUID METAL REACTOR TORNADO DESIGN REQUIREMENTS NAME 0'RGANIZATION T. King NRC/NRR I. Spickler NRC/NRR J. Fairobent NRC/NRR P. Wood NRC/RES G. Sherwood DOE R. Lancet AI/Rockwell P. Rutherford AI/Rockwell R. Rogers AI/Rockwell A. Bailey Bechtel l
h t
t l
r i '
w
p ucoq 100 C. Pbk
,[, ,g k UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ys 3Y}(gg/, ; y
,, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
.N'[e, September 10, 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Themis P. Speis, Director, Division of Safety Technology, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Thomas L. King, Chief, ARG, Division of Safety Technology, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL ON LIQUID METAL REACTOR (LMR) TORNADO DESIGN CRITERIA On August 29, 1985 representatives of Rockwell International briefed us on their proposed approach for tornado design criteria for their liquid metal reactor - SAFR concept. This briefing was conducted as part of DOE's proposed interaction with us on LMRs and represents an area where Rockwell is of the opinion that there is technical justification and a significant cost saving (Rockwell estimates 1% of plant cost) to be realized by designing to tornado criteria less severe than applied to LWRs. The agenda and list of attendees are enclosed.
Significant items from the meeting were:
- 1) Rockwell proposed to use for design purposes conditions associated with less severe tornados than normally applied to LWRs. They proposed using conditions for tornados with a 10 10-6 per year frequency versus the 10-7 applied to LWRs. The 10-7 would then be used as the maximum allowable frequency per year of exceeding 10 CFR 100 dose guidelines at the site boundary.
The rational presented was that their approach is more in line with what is done for other external hazards (such as the industrial /trans-portation hazards addressed in Standard Review Plan Section 2.2.3).
While it can be argued that there are some inconsistencies in the staff's treatment of external hazards the endorsement of the Rockwell approach for tornado criteria would represent a change in policy from what is applied to LWRs and the members of the staff present at the briefing could not agree to such a change.
- 2) Rockwell was informed that on a case by case basis portions of plants which cannot withstand a 10-7 tornado are accepted if their safety function is backed up by another system, component or structure which can withstand the 10-7 tornado. In addition, it may be possible to design for smaller tornados on a site specific basis by using National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data.
l l ,-. , . _ -
~
2-
- 3) Rockwell stated that the tornado model and missile spectrum they use is based upon EPRI's TORMUS Code; however, the staff has not accepted the tornado model portion of the TORMUS Code.
Based on the above Rockwell plans to reassess their recommendations on tornado design criteria and to continue interaction with us on this subject at a later date. Whether or not they will request us to consider a change in our policy regarding the treatment of tornados (as discussed in item 1 above) remains to be seen.
If you have any questions or would like to see the handouts from the meeting please let me know.
Thomas L. King, Chief Advanced Reactors Group Division of Safety Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc: W. Gammill, METB I. Spickler, METB M. El-Zeftawy, ACRS R. Curtis, RES ARG Staff 1
i w - ,
Enclosure SAFR PRESENTATION TO THE NRC PROPOSED TORNADO DESIGN BASIS AGENDA INTRODUCTION R. T. LANCET OVERALL PLANT DESCRIPTION , R. T. LANCET DESIGN OF SOME TORNADO IMPACTED STRUCTURES A. R. BAILEY-RATIONALE FOR REDUCED TORNADO DESIGN BASES P. RUTHERFORD
' SUtWARY R. T. LANCET DISCUSSION ALL j
l
Enclosure e
ATTENDEES 8/29/85 BRIEFING BY ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL t
ON LIQUID METAL REACTOR TORNADO DESIGN REQUIREMENTS NAME ORGANIZATION T. King NRC/NRR I. Spickler NRC/NRR J. Fairobent NRC/NRR P. Wood NRC/RES G. Sherwood DOE R. Lancet AI/Rockwell P. Rutherford AI/Rockwell R. Rogers AI/Rockwell A. Bailey Bechtel
'l l
l l
~ .
l l .
O s
, . , . -.- . i- - ,, _ . . _ . - - - . _ ~ . , - - -