ML20217N999
| ML20217N999 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1997 |
| From: | Craig C NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Matthews D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9708260408 | |
| Download: ML20217N999 (44) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ - _ - _ - _ _ - - - _ - - - - . .. .
, /
ey fUtu f UNITED STATES g }R NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
%, p August 21, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: David D Matthews, Acting Chief Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 7 FROM: Claudia M. Craig, Senior Project Manager '
Generic issues and Environmental Proje s r Division of Reactor Program Managem Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES (SAMA) METHODOLOGY MEETING WITH BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC (BGE) The subject meeting was held at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) offices in Rockville, Maryland on July 31,1997 between NRC staff and representatives of Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE). Attachment 1 is a list of meeting participants. Attachment 2 is a copy of the BGE I presentation material. The revised BGE template of the Environmental Report (ER) for license renewal was presented to NRC on April 8,1997. However, the template did not include a discussion of Severe Accident Mitigation Altematives (SAMAs). Since there was a lack of guidance on developing this SAMA discussion, BGE decided it would perform a line-by-line comparison with the Watts Bar Severe Accident Mitigation Design Attematives (SAMDA) review and would develop a work scope from that effort. This meeting was held to discuss BGE's preliminary approach to SAMAs. BGE's presentation consisted of an overview of BGE's objectives, a background review,its methodology for SAMA, and a status of the project. BGE's objectives for the meeting included identifying SAMA assumptions, and methodology, providing status of Calvert Cliff's Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) ER for license renewal, and allowing an opportunity for staff comment and questions. In the background review, BGE detailed applicabla Federal Regulations, NRC requirements, and prevsus NRC SAMA analyses. BGE's SAMA development process was guided by previous studies such as the Limerick Final Environmental Statenient (FES), the Watts Bar Individual Plant Evaluation (IPE) and FES, and the license renewal generic environmental impact statement (GEIS). BGE then explained the assumptions and analytical process of its SAMA methodology. The
- major assumptions were as follows: a $2,000 per person-rem conversion factor; no factor for averted replacement power cost; averted onsite cost factor limited to costs not covered by insurance; core damage frequency (CDF) and probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) model updated from CCNPP IPE; no consideration of the IPE for extemally initiated events (IPEEE);
twenty year period of study; and Severe Accident Mitigation Guidelines (SAMG) effort complete and included in baseline. The analytical process was to develop an initiallist of SAMAs, develop and apply a screening criteria, establish a base case, quantify accident frequency and risk change, evaluate benefits and cost and finally calculate the net value. The SAMA analysis is g expected to be completed by Fall 1997.
\
9708260408 970821 Cp,(,,, -O\ PDR ADOCK 05000317 P PDR o
, /
2
- The discussion of NRC staff and BGE focused on several of the assumptions b BGE's methodology such as the rational for not including replacement power costs and limiting averted onsite costs to costs not covered by insurance. Discussion also focused on the use of IPEEE results in the BGE methodology. It was noted that the CCNPP IPEEE would be submitted to the NRC by August 31,1997.
BGE concluded the presentation with a chart showing a summary of differences between Watts Bar and CCNPP SAMA approaches. Topics compared included factor for converting person rem to dollars, quantification of offsite economic impacts, the time-factor used in calculation averted occupational exposure, measure of cost effectiveness, time-frame analyzed and used in discounting, averted replacement power cost, and averted onsite cleanup ensts. The chart showed the Watts Bar approach, CCNPP approach, and the reascns for the CCNPP difference. l The NRC staff stated that BGE was on courso in developing the SAMA methodology, BGE will continue to keep steady contact with the NRC on the issue of SAMA methodology in regards to license renowal. i Docket Nos. 50 317, 50-318 cc w/atts: See next page Attachments: As stated w +
t.7 3 _____7_______ s- ,J 2 The discussion of NRC staff and BGE focused on severcl of the assumptions in BGE's methodology such as the rationale for not including replacement power costs and limiting averted onsite costs to costs not covered by insurance. Discussion also focused on the use of IPEEE results in the BGE methodology. It was noted that the CCNPP IPEEE would be submitted to the NRC by August 31,1997. BGE concluded the presentation with a chart showing a summary of differences between Watts car and CCNPP SAMA approaches. Topics compared included the factor for converting person-rem to dollars, quantification of offsite economic impacts, the time-factor used in calculation averted occupational exposure, measure of cost effectiveness, time-frame analyzed and used in discounting, averted replacement power cost, and averted onsite cleanup costs. The chart showed the Watts Bar approach, CCNPP approach, and the reasons for the CCNPP difference. The NRC staff stated that BGE was generally on course in developing the SAMA methodology and it would continue to discuss internally some of the unique features of BGE's approach. BGE l will continue to keep steady contact with the NRC on the issue of SAMA methodology in regards to license renewal. l Docket Nos. 50-317, 50 318 cc w/atts: See next page Attachments: As stated DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ked\mtsum731 To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = Ne copy OFFICE P GIEBA L M PGEB:SC PGE4PtlyBC NAME CCrW'# /A MCase 6M DATE. M/97 1
/ /97 [M97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
l bJ.y;cr-{;7--:>: N
.e{
/
DISTRIBUTION:w/ attachments: Mtg. Summary w/BGE Hard Conv Central File
- PUBLIC PGEB R/F MCase CCraig DISTRIBUT: 0N: w SCollins/FNiraglia /o attachment 2 RZimmerman -
BSheron JRoe
, CGrimes SFlanders DMatthews BZaleman LChandler, OGC -
JMoore, OGC CMarco, OGC DCleary, RES JWilson ADromerick i i . . . .
s
*r MEETING WITH BALTIMORE GAS &ELCTRIC SAMA METHODOLOGY JULY 31,1997 ATTENDEES Name Organization Micheal Case NRR/PGEB Jon Cudworth HNUS Jim Fulictd SCIENTECH ; Claudia Craig NRC/NRR l Jules Bradley HNUS/BGE Barth W. Doroshuk BGE David Lewis SHAW/PITTMAN Jim Bennet BGE Dino Scaletti NRC/NRR/PDST Bruce Mrowca BGE Bob Palla NRR/SCSB Chuck Negin OAK TECHNOLOGIES Robert Gill DUKE POWER Chris Grimes - NRR/PDLR Anne Cottingham WINSTON&STRAWN Tricia Herowy FOR EPR Dan O'Neal NRC/NRR 4 Adel El-Bassioni NRC/NRR/SPSB Barry Zalcman NRC/NRR/PGEB Don Cleary - NRC/RES Neil Haggerty BGE E. Robert Schmidt SCIENTECH Catherine Marco NRC/OGC Kim Campbell NRC/NRR ATTACHMENTI l
r F' Life Cycle Management Unit i e
' Severe AccidentMitigation Alternatives Analysis Calvert Cliffs Xuclear Power Plant July 31,1997 Presentation to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of NucIcar Reactor Regulation Presentation by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 97-055 g-g9 i
Attachment 2
)
.i Life Cycle Management Uni Agenda Topic Speaker
- Introduction Barth Doroshuk, BGE
- Background Jon Cudworth, HNUS
- Methodology Jim Fulford, SCIENTECH Assumptions
- AnalyticalProcess
- Status Barth Doroshuk 97-055 ymg
,1 Life Cycle Management Unit Introduction l = Objectives Identify CCNPP SAMA assumptions, methodology, and status Provide opportunity for questions, input - Disclaimer:
This presentation describes approaches that BGE is considering using for its analysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives at CCNPP. This information represents preliminary work in progress subject to change, and is not intended to create any final positions or commitments. The examples in this presentation are based on hypothetical data and do not represent actual or plant-specific results. Note: see Attachinent I forlist orscronyms 97-055 ggg 3 l
Life Cycle Management Unit i l Background l
- NEPA regulations require consideration of environmentalimpact mitigation 1 i
- NRC generic letter 88-20 required analysis of severe accident risks and vulnerabilities (IPE)
- NRC license renewal environmental regulations require SAMA analysis2
- GEIS conclusion - site-specific SAMAs required because some IPEs identify cost-effective improvements and not allIPEs done
- 1. 40 CFR 1502.14(f) and 1502.16(h); 10 CFR S t.71(d) 2.10 CFR 51.53(cX3XI).
87
- Slide 4
Life Cycle Management Unit l Background, Continued i Previous NRC SAMA analyses:
- Limerick FES - First (court-ordered). Analyzed 11 SAMAs in detail.
Concluded none cost beneficial
- Comanche Peak FES - Analyzed 11 SAMAs in detail. Concluded none cost beneficial
- Watts Bar FES - Analyzed 26 SAMAs in some detail,5 in most detail.
Concluded none cost beneficial. NRR staff recommended that BGE use as guide
- Advanced reactors (CE80+, AP600, and ABWR)- SAMAs included at design stage Note: See Attachneemt 2 for complete references m 5s Slide 5
Life Cycle Management Unit-Background, Continued Summary of NRC approach for Watts Barr: 1 - '$/ person-rem ratio = (COE - AOSC) / (APE + AOE)
- Value/ impact ratio = ($ APE + $AOE + AOSC) / COE AOE = averted occupational exposure AOSC = averted onsite cost APE = averted public exposure COE = cost of enhancement (implementing the SAMA)
$AOE = AOE converted to $
SAPE = APE converted to $
- 1. Based on NRC 1983 Regulatory Anelysis Guidelines 97-055 SHde 6
Life Cycle Management Unit Background, Continued Summary of NRC approach Watts Bar (continued): - $1,000.per person-rem conversion factor. Covers:
- Public health effects Offsite costs [ ratios did not include averted offsite costs (AOFC)}
= . Averted replacement power cost = $6.2B
- Averted onsite cleanup cost = $1.5B
= Period of study (original license term) = 40 years 97-05s Sh7
- . )
Life Cycle Management Unit Background, Continued Post-Watts Bar developments: NRC regulatory analysis guidelines revision (1995) Conversion factor changed to $2,000 per person-rem Conversion factor applicable to health effects only (not ofTsite costs) a i
$/ person-rem and value/ impact ratios replaced with " net value" =
APE + AOFC + AOE + AOSC - COE Discounting future costs to present worth
. Anticipated deregulation 4
97-055 SH6 8 i
q Life Cycle Management Unit Methodology
- Assumptions
- Guidance
- Data
- Analytical process 97-055 Slide 9
Life Cycle Management Unit Assumptions, Guidance Regulatory analysis Previous studies guidance documents
- Limerick FES
- Cost-Benefit Considerations a Comanche Peak FES - Regulatory Analysis Guidelines
. Watts Bar FES - Conversion Factor Reassessment
- Watts BarIPE - Regulatory Analysis llandbook
- Advanced reactors
- License Renewal GEIS
= IPE Program Report
- PWR Dry Containment Reports
- Forsberg paper Note: See Attachment 2 for complete references 97-055 Slide 10 L-_____.-.--- ___.----.
Life Cycle Management Unit Assumptions, Data
- $2,000 per person-rem conversion factor, present worth
- Due to anticipated deregulation, there will be no obligation to serve; therefore, no averted replacement power cost
- Averted onsite costs limited to costs not covered by insurance - CDF and PRA model updated from CCNPP IPE - No consideration ofIPEEE - Period ofstudy = 20 years
- Assume SAMG efforts complete and in baseline 97-055 Slide 11
Life Cycle Management Unit Analytical Process Develop initial list of SAMAs Develop and apply screening criteria Establish base case Quantify accident frequency and risk changes Evaluate benefits and costs Calculate net value m 5s SHde 12
Life Cycle Management Unit Develop Initial List of SAMAs
- List SAMAs from previous studies
- Limerick, Commanche Peak, Watts Bar, advanced reactors t
- IPEs and NRC analyses
- NRC research reports
- Generalliterature
- Eliminate duplication and finalize list Note: See Attachment 2 for complete references j 97-055 gggg $3 l
Life Cycle Management Unit Develop Initial List of SAMAs, continued System or Accident Category . No.
- RCP seal LOCAs, loss of CCW and loss of SW 22
+ HVAC systeres and alternate ventilation 5
- Ex-vessel accident mitigation / containment ph::..x;;a 28
- AC/DC power relialnTety/ availability 26
- Identification and mitigation cf containment bypass 19
+ Reduce internal flooding frequency 4
- Feedwaterseed & bleed reliability and availability 18
- Core cooling 16
- Instraraent air / gas systems 3
- ATWS coping 8
- Other alternatives 9 Total 158 97-055 ggg g
Life Cycle Management Unit i Develop Initial List of SAMAs, Continued Examples: - Modify the fire protection system to rtilow manual alignment to the CCW system - Provide portable generators to connect to the turbine driven AFW, after battery depletion - Provide detailed procedural guidance and training on coping with a loss ofCCW
= sride ts
Life Cycle Management Uni Develop and Apply Screening Criteria f
- Preliminary screening
- Duplicative or already implemented at CCNPP
=
- Obviouslyinapplicable Very high cost or very low change in CDF
=
Quantitative Bounding estimates Conceptual estimates
- Best estimate of costs and benefits 8*5 Slide 16
i Life Cycle Management Unit Preliminary Screening 66 candidates screened out Example screened out: Install a redundant spray system to depressurize the primary system
- during a sGTR Primary system depressurization during a SGTR can greatly reduce or even stop leakage to the secondary side n SGTR initiating event frequency set to zero. Engineering assessment is that total impact benefit is less than $100,000 CE System 80+ estimr.ted cost of enhancement was $5,000,000.
Existing plant cost would be more i n Cost ofenhancement far outweighs the benefit l 87
- Slide 17 ;
Life Cycle Management Unit Quantitative Screening
- Ongoing,42 Screened out,50 candidates remaining - Example of remaining candidates
- Improve SG1 R coping abilities; instrumentation to detect SGTR SGTR CDF dominated by operator failure to manually isolate SG from control room within 20 minutes n No cost information currently available for additional instrumentation n Cost of additional instrumentation needed; potential value will be analyzed further s7-055 SHde 18
I ( M ure cycle management uni Screening Status Projecting 30 candidates for detailed analysis 97-055 gg jg
[M Lire cycie management uni Establish Base Case Use CCNPP updated IPE PRA model (RISKMAN) Place IPE Level 2 into integrated code (NUCAP+) to facilitate study of containment concepts Perform Level 3 analysis of risk (offsite exposure and offsite costs) using available MACCS CCNPP results for year 2030 out to 50 miles Calculate occupational exposure and onsite costs 97-05:: ,g g
. . -l Life Cycle Management Uni Ouantify Accident Frequency and Risk Changes
- CCNPP IPE updated Level 1 PRA model
- Find CDF and PDS frequency for SAMA-related Level 1 concepts
- Change split fractions for RISKMAN sequences (cut sets) or
- Change modeland requantify
- Extend to risk values using prior MACCS conditional results 97455 Slide 21 L - - _ - - - - _ - - - -
Life Cycle Management Unit Evaluate Benefits and Costs - Averted public exposure - Averted occupational exposure - Averted offsite costs - Averted onsite costs (if any? - Cost of enhancement
= sr,* n
[M tire cycie management uni Evaluate Averted Public Exposure Watts Bar approach: Monetized APE = (annual reduction in public exposure) x (plant life) x ($1,000 conversion factor) CCNPP approach: NRC Regulatory Analysis Handbook Section 5.7.1 Basis for CCNPP change: Revised NRC Regulatory Analysis Guidelines 97-055 gy L_ _____ . - - _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . . _ . . . .
= ;
M tire cycie management uni Evaluate Averted Public Exposure, Continued
- Example: (Eliminate Bypass Sequences)
Annual reduction in public exposure = 1 person-rem Discount factor = 10.8 (20-year study period at 7%)
- Benefit = $22,700 97-055 gg y l . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
Life Cycle Management Unit Evaluate Averted Occupational Exposure Watts Bar approach: Monetized AOE = (annual CDF reduction) x (occupational exposure per core-damage event) x (operating license period) x ($1,000 conversion factor) CCNPP approach: - NRC Regulatory Analysis Handbook Section 5.7.3 Basis for CCNPP change: - Revised NRC Regulatory Analysis Guidelines 97-055 g3
. . oI Life Cycle Management Uni Evaluate Averted Occupational Exposure, Continued
'
- Example: (Eliminate Bypass Sequences)
' Annual CDF reduction = 5.3E-6 (modeled) ~
i Occupational exposure = 3,300 person-rems (immediate),20,000 person-rems (long-term) Discount factor = 10.8 (20-year study period at 7%) Benefit = $2,000 97-055 g
D c M tire cycie management uni Evaluate Averted Offsite Costs Watts Barr approach: Not separately calculated; included in $1,000 per person-rem conversion factor CC:NPP approach: NRC Regulatory Analysis Handbook Section 5.7.5 Basis for CC:NPP change: Revised NRC Regulatory Analysis Guidelines 97455 gg y
Life Cycle Management Unit Evaluate Averted Offsite Costs, Continued . Example: (Eliminate Bypass Sequences) Reduction in offsite property damage = $436/yr (MACCS modeling) Discount factor = 10.8 -(20 yearstudy period at 7%)
- Benefit =$4,700 97-055 gg
[M ute cycie management unit Evaluate Averted Onsite Costs Watts Barr approach: AOSC = [ averted cleanup cost (ACC)] + [ averted replacement power cost (ARPC)]
- ACC = (annual CDF reduction) x (present value of cleanup costs per core-damage event) x (discount factor for remaining plantlife)
- ARPC = Taken from NRC Replacement Energy Costs 97-055 g3
Life Cycle Management Unit Evaluate Averted Onsite Costs, Continued CCNPP approach:
- NRC Regulatory Analysis Handbook Section 5.7.6
- Modify by deducting insurance coverage
- Modify by excluding replacement power Basis for CCNPP change:
- Revised NRC Regulatory Analysis Guidelines s
- Portion covered by insurance premiums already paid
- Due to anticipated deregulation, no obligation to replace power 97-055 my
.. 'O.
Life Cycle Management Unit Evaluate Averted Onsite Costs, Continued c Example: < Eliminate Bypass Sequences) Annual CDF reduction = 5.3 E-6 (modeled)
- Handbook estimate = $1.5B / event for cleanup and decontamination
- Assumed insurance available = $0.6B Discount factor = 10.8 (20-yesr study period at 7%)
- Benefit =$37,300 97-055 g 39
. . . .y.
Life Cycle Management Unit Evaluate Cost of Enhancement Watts Bar and CCNPP approaches similar: Use previous SAMA analyses where possible
- Increase level of detail and accuracy through succeeding screening cuts. Range:
- Based on bounding estimate Based on plant-specific engineering judgment i
CCNPP uses NRC Regulatory Analysis Handbook Section 5.7.7 guidance Example: Hypothetical Bypass Elimination SAMA =-$200,000 97-055 g-gy s
. = ,
Life Cycle Management Uni Calculate Net Value Watts Barr approach: Not done (used S/ person-rem and value/ impact ratios) CC:NPP approach:
- Follow NRC Regulatory Analysis Handbook Sections 5.2 and 5.8 Basis for CC NPP change:
- Revised NRC Regulatory Analysis Guidelines 97-055 gg y
....7 Life Cycle Management Unit '
Calculate Net Value, Continued Example: (Eliminate Bypass Sequences)
= Public Health + Occupational Exposure + Offsite Property +
Onsite Cleanup + Implementation
= $22,700 + $2000 + $4,700 + $37,300 - $200,000 = -$133,300 This has negative net value. Do not consider further.
Implement a SAMA to eliminate all bypass sequences, only ifit can be done for $66,700 e7-c55 my
Q .. q
,..,-l
^
M Life Cycle Management Unit
SUMMARY
OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WATTS BAR AND CCNPP SAMA APPROACHES s sis r.c CCNrr Topic Watts Ber Approach CCNPP Appeweek Differesee Factor forconvening $1,000 $2,000 New NRC regtdmeory person-rem so ( . flars analysis gedelines (60 FR 656M,12/20/95) Q -:"' <_- oroffsite
. None (within $1,000 Quantified New NRC $2,000 econcenic sepects comersson factor) comersion facsor scope finneed so heskh effects (60 FR 656M,12/20f95)
Tinse-factor used in Number cryears of Present worth facsor Consessent with present-calculatmg aversed license worth approach of$2.000 campetsonst vym comerses facsor Measure ofmst Dollars perm _ . m.. Net valoc Reconumended by new errectiveness and vahserimpact ratio regulatory analysis gudelines (NUREG/BR-005s) rune-trame anarymd. 40 years 20 years reriod ormudy heiras song used in dismenting as ongmat 1.=nse serm Aversed .As Quantired as benefit None Deregulation will clinueste powercon BGEobhgrm m replace Pewer Averted onsseecleanup Folly quantified Net anerdeductrng Mon cleanup cast paid for ants insurance cmerage by :=====s 97-055 g-g3
Life Cycle Management Uni Status SAMA analysis completion expected Fall 1997 97-055 gg-g3
a '; , LIFE CYCLE hiANAGEh!ENT UNIT Attachment 1 Acronyms ABWR Advanced Boiling Water Reactor ACC avened cleanup mst AC/DC Alternating Cunent/ Direct Cunent AFW at,xiliary feed mater AOE avened omipadonal exposure AOFC svened offsite msts AOSC evened onsite msts l APE avened pubtle exposure ARPC avened replacement power cost ( ATWS andelpated transient without scram BGE Baldmore Gas and Electric Company . CCNPP Calven Cliffs Nuclear Powtr Plant CCW component cooling witer CDF core damage frequency CE Combustion Engineering COE cost of enhancement FES final emironmental statement Gels Generic Environmentalimpact Statementfor License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG 1431) HVAC headng, ventilation, and air condidoning PE individual plant evaluadon for internally initiated events, response to NRC Generic letter 88 20 FEEE FE for externally initiated events, response to NRC Generic Letter 88 20 LOCA lossef<ooling accident MACCS Melcor Accident Consequences Code S)*cm NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation PDS plant damage state PRA probabilisde risk assessment (used in preparing FE and FEEE, for example) FWR pressurized water reactor RCP eesctor coolant pump SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative SAMG Severe Accident Midgadon Guidelines SG steam generator SGTR steam generator tube ruptuit SW senice witer July 31,1997 h
. t, 's M' LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT UNIT Attachment 2 References AP600 Letter from N.J. Liparulo, Westinghouse, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Submittal of Material Pertinent to AP600 Design Certification Rniew," December 5,1992 CCNPP - Calvert Citis Nuclear Pow er Plant IndividualPlant Examination, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, December 1993 CE80+ U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Review ofABBCESystem 80+ Submittal, NUREG 1462 Comanche Peak FES Final F>ntronmentalStatement related to the opemtion ofComanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units / and 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1989 Conversion Factor Reassessment Reassessment ofNRC's Dollar Per Person Rem Conversion 1%ctor Policy, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG 1530, December 1995 Cost Benefit Considerations Cost BenefI Considemtions in Regulatory Analysis, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR 6349, October 1995 Forsberg paper Forsberg, et.al., Coresfelt Source Reduction Syrtem (COMSORS) to Daninate Ltght Water Reactor Core 4(cit Accidents, Second Intemational Conference on Nuclear Engineering (ICONE 2), San Fransisco, California, March 2124,1993 l IPE Program Report IndividualPlant Examination Progmm: Perspectives on Reactor Safety andPlant Performance, Draji Reportfor Comment, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG 1560, October 1996 1 License Renewal GEIS - Generic Environmentalimpact Statementfor JJcense Renewal ofNuclear i Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG 1437, May 1996 Limerick VES - F)nal Em1ronmental Statement related to the opemtion ofLimerick Genemttng Station, Units 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG 0974 Supplement, August 1989 PWR Dry Containment Reports -
PWR Dry Containment issue Chamcterization, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-
$567,1990 PWR Dry Containment Pommetric Studies, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR.
5630,1991 Quantitative Analysis ofPotentialPerformance impmvementsfor the Dry PWR Containment, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR 5575,1990 Replacement Energy Costs - Replacement Energy, Capacity, and Reliability Costsfor Permanent Nuclear Reactor Shutdowns, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR 6080, October 1993 Regulatory Ann)ysis - Regulatory Ana!>sts Guidelines ofthe U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR 0058 Raision 2, Novembes 1995 Regulatory Analysis Handbook - Regulatory Analysis Technical Emluation Handbook, U.S.Nuclent Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR 0184, January 1997 Watts Dnr FES - Anal Em1ronmental Statement related to the opemtion of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, l Units 1 and 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG 0498 Supplement No.1, April 1995 July 31,1997
cc: President Mr. Joseph H. Walter, Chief Engineer Calvert County Board of Public Service Commission of Commissioners Maryland 175 Main Street Engineering Division Prince Frederick, MD 20678 6 St. Paul Centre Baltimore, MD 21202 6806 D. A. Brune, Esquire General Counsel Kristen A. Burger, Esquire Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Maryland People's Counsel P.O. Box 1475 6 St. Paul Centre Baltimore, MD 21203 Suite 2102 Baltimore, MD 21202 1631 Jay E. Silberg, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge Patricia T. Birnle, Esquire 2300 N Street, NW Co-Director Washington, DC 20037 Maryland Safe Energy Coalition P.O. Box 33111 Mr. Thomas N. Pritchett, Director, NRM Baltimore, MD 21218 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Mr. Larry Bell Lusby, MD 20057-47027 NRC Technical Training Center 5700 Brainerd Road l Resident inspector Chattanooga, TN 37411 4017 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Barth Doroshuk P.O. Box 287 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant St. Leonard, MD 20685 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657-47027 Mr. Richard I. McLean I Administrator - Radioecology Mr. Doug Walters Department of Natural Resources Nuclear Energy Institute 580 Taylor Avenue 1776 i Street, NW Tawes State Office Building, B3 Suite 400 Annapolis, MD 21401 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Regional Administrator, Region l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Pruasia, PA 19406
--- - - - - - - - - - - - - J}}