Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: dbd67338-fe87-44c6-8578-3715167e447b
Document Type: srp
Title: SPENT FUEL CASK DROP ACCIDENTS
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0523/ML052350315.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 15
Section ID: 15.7.5
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
lculated at the exclusion area boundary and the boundary of the LPZ. 7. The calculated doses are compared with the acceptance criteria in subsection II. Where results of the dose calculations indicate the guidelines may be exceeded, the applicant will be requested to modify the design or procedures which would reduce the doses to acceptable levels. IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer verifies that sufficient information has been provided by the applicant and-the staff's independent dose calculations to support conclusions of the following type, to be included in the staff's safety evaluation report for the case that the cask drop height is 30 feet or more: The staff finds that the applicant has provided an adequate system to mitigate the radiological consequences of a postulated spent fuel cask drop accident in the fuel building. The staff concludes that the spent fuel cask drop accident is acceptable and meets the relevant requirements of General Design Criterion 61. This conclusion is based on the following: The staff concludes that the distances to the exclusion area and to the low population zone boundaries for the (INSERT PLANT NAME) site, in con- junction with the operation of dose mitigating ESF and implementation of plant procedures, are sufficent to provide reasonable assurance that the calculated offsite radiological consequences of a postulated spent fuel cask drop accident are well within the 10 CFR Part 100 exposure guidelines. The staff's conclusion is based on (1) the staff's determination that the design features and plant procedures at the (INSERT PLANT NAME) facility meet the requirements of General Design Criterion 61 with respect to radioactivity control; (2) the staff review of the applicant's assumptions and analyses of the radiological consequences from the spent fuel cask drop accident and (3) the staff's independent analysis using conservative assumptions including those in Regulatory Guide 1.25 Position C.1.d, e, and f with respect to gap