ML20138P303
| ML20138P303 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/17/1985 |
| From: | Berkow H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ladieu A YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138P306 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512260042 | |
| Download: ML20138P303 (3) | |
Text
_ _ __ _ _
' mer
-(, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- a WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
t
\,,,,,/ December 17, 1985 I
f t Mr. Alan E. Ladieu, Chaiman SGTR Subgroup Westinghouse Owners Group Yankee Atomic Electric Company l 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
Dear Mr. Ladieu:
P
SUBJECT:
ACCEPTANCEFORREFERENCING0FLICENSINGTOPICALREPORTWMCP-10698
, SUPPLEMENT 1 " EVALUATION OF 0FFSITE RADIATION DOSES FOR A STEAM f GENERATOR TUBE RUPTURE ACCIDENT" L We have completed our review of the subject topical report submitted by the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTR) Subgroup i
!- by letter dated May 24, 1985. We find the report to be acceptable for referencing in license applications to the extent specified and under the limitations delineated in the report and the associated NRC evaluation, which is enclosed. The evaluation defines the basis for acceptance of the report.
- Our review of Supplement I to WCAP-10698 leads us to conclude that the dose analysis methodology used in the evaluation is generally consistent with the procedures outlined in Section 15.6.3 of the SRP with one exception. The exception is the detemination of iodine transport to the atmosphere for which explicit models and assumptions were not provided. It is the staff's position that plant specific analyses should provide a detailed description e'
of, or reference, the explicit iodine transport models used in the analysis.
It should be noted that the evaluation presented in Supplement I used results p from WCAP-10698. In addition, staff review of the subgroup's evaluation of the consequences of steam generator overfill (to be submitted in November t 1985) could potentially lead to changes in the analysis assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of a design basis SGTR accident.
Thus, the results and conclusions of our enclosed SER will be modified as appropriate if staff review identifies the need for significant changes in the methodology presented in WCAP-10698.
The staff's review of the results presented in Supplement I concludes that I the offsite dose calculations were based on a reference plant and reference site and thus did not constitute bounding cases. Plant specific analyses
- will be necessary to demonstrate that the radiological consequences of a postulated SGTR accident at an individual plant meet the acceptance criteria e
of Section 15.6.3 of the SRP. A section in the SER discussed the plant specific implementation of the methodology presented in Supplement 1 to
~
WCAP-10698. '
'Q
/
8512260042 851217 TOPRP EMVW Y
{ {DR r
~
n . - ..- _ . - - - ..
t Mr. Alan E. Ladieu i c
We do not intend to repeat our review of the matters described in the report and found acceptable when the report appears as a reference in license applications, except to assure that the material presented is applicable to
. the specific plant involved. Our acceptance applies only to the matters described in the report.
{
I In accordance with procedures established in NUREG-0390, it is requested that WOG STGR publish accepted versions of this report, proprietary and non-proprietary, within three months of receipt of this letter. The accepted versions shall incorporate this letter and the enclosed evaluation between the title page and the abstract. The accepted versions shall include an -A (designating accepted) following the report identification symbol.
Should our criteria or regulations change such that our conclusions as to the acceptability of the report are invalidated, WOG STGR and/or the applicants referencing the topical report will be expected to revise and resubmit their r respective documentation, or submit justification for the continued effective applicability of the topical report without revision of their respective documentation.
Sincerely, L
O=& &'
Herbert N. Berkow, Dire or Standardization and Special
.. Projects Directorate Division of PWR Licensing-B I
Enclosure:
As stated I
k i
4 l
l E
December 17, 1985 Mr. Alan E. Ladieu We do not intend to repeat our review of the matters described in the report and found acceptable when the report appears as a reference in license applications, except to a >sure that the material presented is applicable to the specific plant involved. Our accepta,ce applies only to the matters described in the report.
In accordance with procedures established in NUREG-0390, it is requested that WOG STGR publish accepted versions of this report, proprietary and non-proprietary, within three months of receipt of this letter. The accepted versions shall incorporate this letter and the enclosed evaluation between the title page and the abstract. The accepted versions shall include an -A (designating accepted) following the report identification symbol.
Should our criteria or regulations change such that our conclusions as to the acceptability of the report are invalidated, WOG STGR and/or the applicants referencing the topical report will be expected to revise and resubmit their respective documentation, or submit justification for the continued effective applicability of the topical report without revision of their respective documentation.
Sincerely,
$ = O- M &
Herbert N. Berkow, Directo.
Standardization and Specia Projects Directorate Division of PWR Licensing-B
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION icentralsF11e' BMann
'SSPD Redding VNerses POR GSuh DCS PNoonan HBernard DTondi HBerkow RDiggs
$PD DP :SSPD DPWRL-B D DPWRL-B l
i an:ac .# DTondi HBerkow (p/85 HB[
12 5 12/j//85 12/j7/85 f
-- _ ,