ML103090382

E-mail - Submission of Generic Westinghouse Document for Common H* Results

ML103090382
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	11/05/2010
From:	Boyle P G Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Chernoff H K, Hess T A, Miller G E, Sanders C, Renee Taylor Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
Boyle, Patrick, NRR/DORL/LPL2-1/415-3936
References
Download: ML103090382 (2)

Text

From: Boyle, Patrick Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 7:27 AM To: Sanders, Carleen; Chernoff, Harold; Hess, Thomas A.; Taylor, Robert; Miller, Ed Cc: Martin, Robert

Subject:

submission of generic Westinghouse document for common H* results Based on the ongoing discussions about the documents being produced to support the license amendments for the H* based IARC the question was raised about the best approach for common information. Each plant will be required to perform a separate analysis and the basis and interface limitations of that analysis will be part of the application. However, it is my understanding that Westinghouse is generating one or two documents that will be used by all of the applicants with no modification to the Westinghouse report.

It makes sense to submit this particular item only one time the question arises as to the best method to achieve this. Normally, Westinghouse would submit the document (as a generic WCAP) to the NRC for incorporation in the Topical Review process. However, the review time for a normal TR is outside of our needs for the IARC.

I am soliciting opinions and concerns on the other options that have been suggested.

1) Incorporate all of the documents into the lead submittal (Vogtle) and allow all of the other plants to reference the appropriate attachments with justification for applicability to their site 2) Allow Westinghouse to submit the generic documents directly to the NRC as a general communication

Primary concern with option 1 is the limitations imposed on the plants referencing the Vogtle submittal versus approved licensing action and other concerns regarding applicable details for each facility. Primary concern with option 2 is it is outside of the normal TR process, but the documents still need to be reviewed and evaluated and will form a basis for multiple Safety Evaluations.

Please share your thoughts and concerns on these options and indicate your preferred course of action.

Thanks, Patrick G. Boyle Project Manager (Hatch and Vogtle)

NRR-DORL Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Office: O-8D09

Phone: 301-415-3936 E-mail Properties Mail Envelope Properties ()

Subject:

submission of generic Westinghouse document for common H* results Sent Date: 11/5/2010 10:11:13 AM Received Date: 11/5/2010 7:27:00 AM From: Boyle, Patrick

Created By: Patrick.Boyle@nrc.gov

Recipients:

Carleen.Sanders@nrc.gov (Sanders, Carleen)

Tracking Status: None Harold.Chernoff@nrc.gov (Chernoff, Harold)

Tracking Status: None TAHess@southernco.com (Hess, Thomas A.)

Tracking Status: None Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov (Taylor, Robert)

Tracking Status: None Ed.Miller@nrc.gov (Miller, Ed)

Tracking Status: None Robert.Martin@nrc.gov (Martin, Robert)

Tracking Status: None

Post Office:

Files Size Date & Time

MESSAGE 13718 11/5/2010

Options Expiration Date:

Priority: olImportanceNormal ReplyRequested: False Return Notification: False

Sensitivity: olNormal Recipients received: