ML20215D092
| ML20215D092 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/12/1986 |
| From: | Rossi C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ward G SIEMENS POWER CORP. (FORMERLY SIEMENS NUCLEAR POWER |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8612160199 | |
| Download: ML20215D092 (2) | |
Text
y a.
Mr.LG.-N. Ward Reload-Licensing Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc.
DEC 12 S
- 2101 Horn Rapids Road
'P.;0.: Box 130 Richland, WA 19935?'
Dear Mr. Ward:
SUBJECT:
-TOPICAL REPORT XN-NF-719(P)-
-We are in the process-of reviewing your Topical Report XN-NF-719(P) entitled
" Assessment.of Potential Radiological Consequences for High Exposure Fuel."
.Although our review is not complete, we have determined.that your methodology
-has a good 1 technical basis, however some of your assumptions are plant specific and, as a result of these assumptions, the analysis could not be
-applied in a generic review. Therefore, we suggest.that you continue to perform radiological consequence analyses on a plant specific basis.
- The NRC staff performs a totally independent review in the area of radiological
. consequence analysis. 'The licensee's analysis is used primarily to get a general overview as to which ' safety systems the applicant can be credited with in mitigating radiological consequences of an accident and the fundamental
~
systems parameters used in evaluating the accident. The calculated offsite doses are a result of the independent staff analysis..The licensee's offsite dose results are used only to determine if a significant difference exists due
_.to the omission of credit for a safety system or error in a system parameter.
used in the staff's analysis. Therefore, an approval of your generic methodology would probably have very little impact on the licensing process.
In addition, if.the methods of the Standard Review Plan are used in the
--licensee's-analysis, the. calculated radioloaical consequences should be reasonably close to those calculated by the staff's independent evaluation.
In view of these considerations, it is our opinion that a topical report on generic methodology as applied to. radiological consequence analysis is not needed.
If you have any further questions in this matter, contact Larry Pell on (301) 492-85d3.
Sincerely, e
kk o$
. Original signedty, c.
Charles E. Rossi, Assistant Director Division of PWR Licensing-A DISTRIBUTION:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation MSMiiERQsse B. Clayton J. Wilson AD Reading File
~~
NRC PDR DPLA RDG H. Thompson L. Bell C. Rossi R. Diggs R. Emch QD 4h D. Crutchfield C. Berlinger G. Lainas
- See Previous Concurrences
[)LNod RSB:PWR-A RSB:PWR-A RSB:
-A
- LBell:sl
- JWilson CBerlinger CERossi 12/f/86 12/f/86 12$86 12//pl86
2Mr. G. N. Ward-4 Reload Licensing
- Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc.
,2101 Horn Rapids Road P. 0;-Box 130 Richland WA~ 99352
Dear Mr. Ward:
SUBJECT:
TOPICAL REPORT.XN-NF-719(P)
.We are in the process of reviewing your Topical Report XN-NF-719(P) entitled
" Assessment of Potential Radiological Consequences for High Exposure Fuel."
Although, cur review.is not complete, we have determined that your methodology has a. good; technical basis, however some of your assumptions are plant specific and, as a result of these assumptions, the analysis could.not be
~ applied in a generic rev.iew. Therefore.we suggest that you continue to perform radiological consequence analyses on a plant specific basis, n
.1 The NRC staff performs a totally independent review in the area of radiological consequence analysis. The licensee's analysis is used primarily to get a peneral: overview as to which safety systems the applicant can be credited with in mitigating radiological consequences of an accident and the fundamental systems parameters used in evaluating the accident. The calculated offsite doses are a result of the independent staff analysis. The licensee's offsite t
. dose results are-used only to-determine if a significant difference exists due to the omission of credit for a safety system or error in a system parameter used in the staff's analysis. Therefore, an approval of your generic methodology would probably have very little impact on the licensing process.
In addition, if the methods of the Standard Review Plans are used in the licensee's analysis, the calculated radiological consequences should be reasonably close to those calculated by the staff's independent evaluation.
In view of these considerations, it is our opinion that a topical report on generic methodology as applied to radiological consequence analysis is not needed.
If you have any further questions in this matter, contact Larry Bell on (301) 492-8543.
Sincerely, i
i Charles E. Rossi, Assistant Director Division of PWR Licensing-A DISTRIBUTION:
Central Files R. Clayton J. Pilson NRC PDR DPLA RDG H. Thompson C. Rossi R. Diggs R. Emch D. Crutchfield C. Berlinger G. Lainas L. B 11 AD RF R '.
-A h SB:PWR-A RSB:PVR-A PWR-A:AD 1
LRell:sl 12/f/86 (pWilson CBerlinger CERossi 12/4/86 12/ /86 12/ /86
-