ML17059A853
| ML17059A853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17059A851 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9506280633 | |
| Download: ML17059A853 (8) | |
Text
ghee REGS e
(4
~o O
I
.r
+a*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON< D.C. 20555-0001 AF Y
VALU TION BY THE OFFICE OF UCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION F REVISED EMERGENCY CTION LEVELS FOR AGA OHAWK'NE ILE PO N
UCL AR S TION UNIT
~DO KET NQ. 50- I 1.0 INTRODUCTIO By letter dated July 11,
- 1994, as supplemented by letters dated March 20,
- 1995, and April 18, 1995, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (the licensee) proposed changes to the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station's emergency action levels (EALs) for Unit 2.
Specifically, the licensee provided a Plant-Specific EAL Guideline, a Fission Product Barrier Evaluation, and a technical basis document that describe how the proposed EALs incorporated the guidance in NlNARC/NESP-007, "Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,"
Revision 2, January 1992.
The NRC has endorsed NUMARC/NESP-007 as an acceptable method by which licensees may develop site-specific emergency classification schemes.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The EAL changes proposed for Nine Mile Point, Unit 2, were reviewed against the requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.
10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) specifies that onsite emergency plans must meet the following standard:
"A standard emergency classification and action level
- scheme, the bases of which include facility system and effluent parameters, is in use by the nuclear facility licensee....
Appendix E, Subsection IV.C, specifies that "emergency action levels (based not only on onsite and offsite radiation monitoring information but also on readings from a number of sensors that indicate a potential emergency, such as pressure in containment and response of the Emergency Core Cooling System) for notification of offsite agencies shall be described....
The emergency classes defined shall include (1) notification of unusual
- events, (2) alert, (3) site area emergency, and (4) genera1 emergency."
In Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide 1.101, "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors,"
the NRC endorsed NUMARC/NESP-007, Revision 2, (NESP-007),
"Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,"
as an acceptaMe method for licensees to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)
Enclosure 2
9506280633 9506l5 PDR ADOCK 05000220 P
",PDR
r.
(4) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.
The NRC staff relied upon the guidance in NUHARCJNESP-007 as the basis for its review of the Nine Hile Point, Unit 2 EAL changes.
3. 6 KBILUU5 The licensee has divided eighty site-specific EALs into nine subcategories:
(1) CSFST Status, (2) Reactor Fuel, (3) Reactor Coolant System, (4)
Containment, (5) Radioactivity Release, (6) Electrical Failures, (7) Equipment Failures,.(8) Hazards, and (9) Other.
Each EAL is identified by a unique number sequence designation.
The initiating conditions associated with each EAL, that relate the EAL to its respective emergency classification, are defIned in the licensee's EAL Technical Bases Document (TBD).
Each of the EALs proposed by the licensee that address fission product barrier degradation explicitly reference the barriers which are affected by the described condition.
A majority of the proposed EALs conform closely to the guidance; however,:several of the licensee's proposed changes depart from the example EALs in MHARC/NESP-007.
Review of the licensee's justification for these variations, as discussed below, found the variations to be acceptable.
1.
NUNARC example EALs AA2-3 and AA2-4 state:
3.
I'ater level less than (site-specific) feet for the Reactor Refueling Cavity that will result in Irradiated Fuel Uncovering.
4.
,N'ater level less than (site-specific) feet for the Spent Fuel Pool
-and Fuel Transfer Canal that will result in Irradiated Fuel Uncovering.
Due to lack of instrumentation to measure water level in the spent fuel pool, fuel transfer canal, or refueling cavity, the licensee does not include site-specific EALs to address these examples.
The licensee does inc3ade an example EAL for visual observation of water level to address in;adi ated fuel uncovery.
2.
NUNARC example EAL AU2-4 states:
4.
Valid Direct Area Radiation Honitor readings increase by a factor of 1000 over normal levels.
The licensee has related its site-specific threshold for this example EAL to Area Radiation Honitor (ARH) alarm setpoints as these are more readily idenii,fiable.
Since ARH alarm setpoints are nominally set by the licensee at one decade over normal levels, 100 times the alarm setpoint was clIosen as an appropriate threshold.
3.
The 3>icensee has included the following site-specific indicators and thresholds for declaration of an Unusual Event or Alert, based upon lake or avftake water level:
8.4.3 Unusual Event Lake water level > 248 ft OR Intake water level < 237 ft AND 8.4.4 Alert Lake water level
> 254 ft OR Intake water level < 233 ft The Unusual Event and Alert thresholds for these site-specific indicators are consistent with the definitions of the associated emergency classes and are, therefore, acceptable.
4.
NUMARC example EAL HA1-6 states:
E.
Turbine failure generated missiles result in any visible structural damage to or penetration of any of the following plant areas:
(site-specific list)
Based upon site-specific design considerations, damage from main turbine failures would be limited to the turbine building which does not contain any safety related equipment.
Therefore, this example EAL is not applicable to the Nine Mile Point, Unit 2 plant and is not included in the licensee's classification scheme.
5.
NUMARC example EALs AUl-3 and AU1-4 state:
3.
Valid reading on perimeter radiation monitoring system greater than 0.10 mR/hr above normal background for 60 minutes (for sites having telemetered perimeter monitors'.
4.
Valid indication on auto'matic real-time dose assessment capability greater than (site-specific value) for 60 minutes or longer (for sites having such capability'.
The licensee states that it does not currently possess a telemetered radiation monitoring system or real-time dose assessment capability and, therefore, does not include site-specific EALs for these examples.
This comment is also applicable to NUMARC example EALs AA1-3, AA1-4, AS1-2, and AG1-2.
I
- 4. 0 CONCHS)g The proposed EAL changes for Nine Mile Point, Unit 2, are consistent with the guidance in NUMARC/NESP-007, with variations as identified and accepted in this review, and, therefore, meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.
Principal Contributor:
S. Boynton Date:
dune 15, 1995