IR 05000400/1991020
| ML18010A461 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1991 |
| From: | Rankin W, Salyers G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18010A459 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-91-20, NUDOCS 9112030145 | |
| Download: ML18010A461 (5) | |
Text
gpss RECy P0 Cy I
nO IVl0
/J +w*w+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 NOVO6 N>
Report Nos.:
50-400/91-20 and 50-400/91-20 Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company P. 0.
Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 Docket Nos.:
50-400 Facility Name:
Shearon Harris Inspection Conduct d: September 23-
,
1991 r
Inspector:
)
G.
W.
Sa yers License Nos.:
NPF-63 ate signed Accompanying Personnel:
E. Fox, NRR W. Rankin Approved by:VA~~~~
an sn, se Emergency Preparedness Section Radiological Protection and Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
//s e ate sgne SUMMARY Scope:
This special, announced inspection was conducted in the area of emergency preparedness.
The licensee's program was reviewed to determine whether the licensee was maintaining a capability for emergency detection and classifica-tion.
This inspection was necessary to examine in more detail the information relative to the technical basis and to more fully assess the rationale for the EAL Flowpaths.
Results:
This was a, Regional Initiative inspection intended to resolve emergency classification concerns related to Revision 18 of Shearon Harris's Emergency Action Level (EAL) Fl owpaths.
In conclusion, Revision 18 of the Shearon Harris EAL Flowpaths for emergency detection and classification were found to be thorough and accurate, and in agreement with the guidance in NUREG-0654.
9112030145 911108 PDR ADOCK 05000400
REPORT DETAILS Person Contacted Licensee Employees
- R. Bassett, Senior Specialist, Emergency Preparedness
- D. Braund, Manager, Security
- J. Collins, Manager, Operations
- C. Fleming, Senior Specialist, Operator Training
+A. Garrou, Project Specialist, Emergency Preparedness C. Gibson, Manager, Programs and Procedures
- H. Goodwin, Project Specialist, Emergency Preparedness C. Hinnant, General Manager, Harris Plant R. Indelicato, Manager, Corporate Emergency Preparedness
- J. McKay, Manager, Engineering/Technical Support C. Olexik, Manager, Regulatory Compliance
- M. Wallace, Senior Specialist, Regulatory Compliance Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included members of the emergency response organization, training staff, and office personnel.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- S. Tedrow, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit meeting Emergency Detection and Classification (82201)
Pursuant to
CFR 50.47(b)(4)
and
CFR Part 50, Appendix E,
Section IV.B and IV.C and Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654, this program area was inspected to determine if the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures contain measurable and observable EALs based on in-plant conditions, as well as onsite and offsite radiological monitoring results, in order to allow event classifications which are in agreement and consistent with the regulatory requirements for classification stated in
CFR 50.47(b)(4)
and the guidance in Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654.
In an effort to fully demonstrate the correctness of emergency classification resulting from the EALs, the inspector reviewed background information pertaining to the technical basis document for the licensee's EAL Flowpaths, developed NUREG-0654 based
"table top" scenarios and compiled twelve table top scenarios for use in evaluating correctness of licensee emergency classification The technical basis document for the flowpaths addressed each EAL in NUREG-0654, Appendix 1, and how the EAL was satisfied in the flowpath.
The inspector noted that the basis document was detailed, but the document needed to be revised so as to correctly reflect the latest revision of the flowpath.
The licensee stated the basis document was under review for revision as needed.
The inspectors as a team developed table top scenarios to exercise all of the EALs listed in NUREG-0654.
These scenarios were then applied to the specific flowpaths affected to verify that these flowpaths would result in the same emergency classification as NUREG-0654.
Scenarios which required plant specific knowledge were verified with the assistance of the p'lant operations department, training department, and with members of the Harris Emergency Preparedness staff.
Once sufficient scenarios were developed, the EAL Flowpath validation process involved presenting the scenario to a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO).
For each of the several scenarios presented, the SRO worked through the decision logic of the EAL flowpath with the SRO providing details at each step as to the reasoning for the flowpath selected.
Although this process was much more protracted than what would occur during a real event, the underlying decision basis at each point became apparent.
This evaluation process
=
verified that the key elements examined of the EAL flowpaths were in agreement with the guidance of NUREG-0654.
Several relatively unique characteristics of the Harris plant resulted in some unique EAL Flowpath logic in places that, on initial review, resulted in some apparently nonconservative classifications per NUREG-0654.
(1)
The makeup pump capacity (greater than 450 gpm at normal system operating pressure)
is approximately three times the capacity of industry average; (2)
The relatively shor t time to initiate a Safety Injection Signal based on Containment pressure vs. various size leak rates; and (3)
The integration of the Main Steam Line Monitors in the EAL's as a means of identifying a boundary failure.
However, when presented with scenario data involving these systems, the SRO was able to consider all factors in an integrated fashion and make an emergency classification consistent with NUREG-065 Overall, based on the above review, the inspector concluded that Revision 18 of Shearon Harris EAL Flowpaths for emergency detection and classification results in correct, sufficiently prompt, and correct emergency classifications, and which are in agreement with the guidance in NUREG-0654.
3.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)
(Closed)
Inspector Follow-up Item (IFI) 50-400/91-14-04:
Discrepancy in classification between Harris EAL Flowpath and NUREG-0654.
4.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on September 26, 1991, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results.
No proprietary information was reviewed during this inspection.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.