ML17298A448

Forwards Request for Addl Info & Comments on SER Suppl 4 Re Revised Emergency Plan.Notification of Submittal Date Requested

ML17298A448
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	06/20/1983
From:	Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
References
NUDOCS 8307080637
Download: ML17298A448 (9)

Text

e Docket Nos.: 50-529, 50-529 and 50-530 Hr. E.

E.

Van Brunt, Jr.

Vice President - Nuclear Projects Arizona Public Service Company Post Office Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036 DISTRIBUTION LDocument Control 58-528~/529/530 NRC PDR L PDR NSIC PRC System LB¹3 Reading JLee EALicitra Attorney,.OELD

Jordan, IE

Taylor, IE ACRS (16)

Subject:

Request for Additional Information - Palo Verde Emergency Plan In Supplement No. 4 to the Palo Verde SER, the staff identified several areas of the revised Palo Verde Emergency Plan which were still under review.

Based on that review, the staff has determined that additional information is required as discussed in Enclosure l.

He request that you provide tljQinformation requested in Enclosure 1

in a timely manner so that we may complete our review.

Please advise us as to when you plan to respond to this request.

If you have any questions regarding the request,<=-pou should contact Nanny Licitra, the Licensing,.Project 'ganager.

Sincerely,

Enclosure:

/'s stated George H. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No.

3 Division of Licensing cc:

See next page 8307080637 830620 PDR ADOCK 05000528

~i PDR-

...QL.~L.PX EALicitra/y

"'6~)'~7E$---

~ ~ ~0%0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

OFF1CE$

SURNAME/

DATEf NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240

~ ~ ~oP

~ 0 ~

s hton

""6/So7B'3--'FFICIAL RECORD COPY

~e

Pa o Verde Mr. E., E.

Van Brunt, Jr.

Vice President - Nuclear Projects Arizona Public Service Company P. 0.

Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036 cc:

Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

Snell 5 Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Charles S. Pierson Assistant Attorney General 200 State Capitol 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Charles R. Kocher, Esq., Assistant Counsel James A. Boeletto, Esq.

Southern California 'dison Company P. 0.

Box 800

Rosemead, California 91770 M's. Margaret Walker Deputy Oirector of Energy Programs Economic Planning and Development Office 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Mr. Rand L. Greenfield Assistant Attorney General Bataan Memorial Building Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 Resident Inspector Palo Verde/NPS U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.

0.

Box 21324 Phoenix, Arizona 85001 Regional Adminstrator-Region V

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, Cal iforni a 94596 Kenneth Berlin, Esq.

Winston 8 Strawn Suite 500 2550 M Street, N.

W.

Washington, D.

C.

20037 Lynne Bernabei Government Accountability Project of the Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street, N.

W.

Washington, D.

C.

20009 Ms. Patricia Lee Hourihan 6413 S. 26th Street Phoenix-. Arizona 85040

~p 0

Et/CLOSURE P.,uest for Additional Information F

P 1

1 ll i G>>.

S ~~P1~ilt l.

The staff requires additional information in order to resolve item H(3) of NURE(-:-0857, Supplement 4, section 13.3.2.2.

It is requested that you provide a discussion of your capability to characterize meteorological conditions in the vicinity (up to 10 miles) of the plant site.

2.

The staff reouires additional information in order to resolve item 1/3) of !."-:REG-0857, Supplement 4, section 13.3.2.2.

It is requested that you pr:vide a discussion of the bases used for your offsite dose assessment me'.'ds (i.e.,

computer and hand calculational methods).

3.

Eased on,a review of Revision 2, to the emergency plan dated June

1982, the following comments with respect to evacuation time estimates should be addressed.

This req -.est for upgraded information corresponds to item J(6) of NURE6-0857, Suppl-..ent 4, section 13.3.2.2..

The maps of the site and roadways should be upgraded to provide su ficient detai l in the vicinity of the plant to determine if four lanes of capacity exi'st.

Additional detail is requi red on how plant traffic is routed.

Nore information should be provided concerning how the 2395 transient vehicle fi-;ure was determined.

For example, what is the number of workers ~ per vehicle for those usi'ng cars and how many workers are t: ansported by bus and how.many buses're used?

The evacuation tim. estimate information should be reviewed by appropriate State and local officials.

4.

Bas d on a review of your emergency classificaticn and action level scheme as presented in Rev-ision 2 of the emergency p'.an, dated June 1982, the staff has developed the attached comments on your ;mergency action levels.

These comments reflect the cors derations of, items D(1). and I(i) of sec-tion 13.3.2.2 of.'~URER-0857, Supplement 4 and should be incorporated into the emergency plan.

~6

CC'(NEHTS OH EALs FOP.

PALO VERDE NUCLEAR PK'(ER GENERATING STATION UNUSUAL EV"=NT CLASSIFICATION Initiatin< Condition 10 (fire within the plant lasting more than 10 mi':Jtes).

The applicant should consider using the initiating condi.ion version oiven in hUREG-0654 Appendix 1.

Any fire lasting more than 10 minu es ss sufficient reason for.he shift supervisor to declare an Unusual Event.

Initiatino Condi:ion 17 (rapid dcpressurization of PHR secondary side).

The applicant did not address this initiating condition.

ALERT CLASSIFICATION Initiatiro cndition 9 (coo1ant pump seizure leading to fuel failure).

Th appl ican should consider listing the alarms, instrument readings, etc.,

th-t are ind-cations of no coolant flow in the EAL set (e.g.,

"Reacto.

coolant p'mp auto trip alarm" ).

Initiatin Condition 1 0 (compl ete loss of any funct ion needed for plant cold s lu cdown

~

The applicant should consider using. the initiating condition version given in NUREG-0554 Appendix 1.

Initiatino Condition 12 (fuel damage accident}.

The applicant should consider using the initiating condition version given in NUR-"G-0554 A pendix 1.

The applicant should also consider adding a "Shift Supervisor's Opinion" EAL to eke into account false alarms or radiation I cl eases

.1 G'3 ot ier events that would give the same instrument readings on the monitoJ.s listed in the EALs.

Initia.ino 'Condition 17 (flood, low water ).

The app I ical t did no.. address this initiating condition.

SI f AR=-', CLASSIFICATION (complete loss of any function needed for plant hot clear what is meant by the applicant's "Shutdown l~" EAL.

Initiatino Condition 8

shutdown It is not nargin cannot be made 0 (major damage to spent fuel).

ist the same radia ion monitors as given in Alert 2.

The applicant should cons i der 1 is ting seperate Initiia ino Condition 1

The a ppl 1 cant s

EALs 1

initiatin, Condi.ion 1

I Initia. ino Condition 2 (degraded core with possible loss of eoolable oeometry).

Tne a ppl 1 ca n 5

EAL f vlfi 1 1 s the requirements for indicating core damage.

However, the EAL does not indicate possible loss of eoolable geometry.

l

m".nitor, se plaint's;.or Site Area Emser gency.

The aoplicant should also consider add'.~g a "Shiit Supervisor's Opinion" EAL.o take into account false a'id)trms or rad!ation releases form other events that would give the same in ~riant readings on the rionitors.

Initiatino Condition 11 E fire compromising the function of safety systems).

T,",e applicartt's EPLs give good indications that a fire is in progress or is b yond the capability of the PYH"-S Fire Team.

However, the intent of NUREG-0654'in this case is an EAL which indicates that any fire compromising the funct'... of safety svstems is sufficient reason for declaring a Site Area Ewerc)e~<I)t.

TI e applicant s:.-

~.!:ld consider using an EAL such as "Any fire, in t$ e, 5hift S!.',"- rvisor's Opinion, that is compromising the funct;ion of sa fet;p sys te~s."

Initiat-no Condition 13 (effluent monitor rc,.adings

.exceeded)..

The specific s 'points that have bf <<n pre-chlntated to exceed the dose rates uiider acvcrse ri eteoro1 og ical cond itions shoul d be specified.

Initi.ti..o Condition 1gb (flood, low water ).

The applicant did not address t'nis initiating condition.

GENERAL

".-!'ERGE!T'CY CLASSIFICATION Initiatiin~Condition 2 (loss of 2 or 3 fiss'ion product barriers).

The applicant's EAL is inadequate because specific EALs have not been provided.

1R~5. -

5 d 5b.

The applicant's DLs are inadequate because s;~=:cific EALs havenot been provided.

PROTECTIYE ACTION DECISION YiAI:ING EALs G,,l E. ~!i i i

C di i 4 ('h pl dilly,.

The applic nt did not address this initiating condition.

Tn order to assure th:.t all criteria in General Emergency Inibiatina Condition 4 are met, the applicaret must prepare EAL sets and protective actions that specifically address the conditions and actions given in notes a, b, c, and d of General Emergency Initiating Condition 4'of HUREG-0654 Appendix l.

In order to aid in this task, two attachments are included:

(1) protective action decision flo'w chart (2) g7-9g information notice on EALs.

with respect to protective action decision making in general as it concerns General Emergencies, each decision point "A" on the flow chart should be associated with EALs.

FLOIV CHART FOR GENERAL EIVlERGEItjCY OFFSlTE PROTECTlVE DEClSlONS The fbllowing actions will be based on predetermined observable Instrumentation and plant status indicators IEAls) cortained in the emergency plan and that have been reviewed by offsite of:icials. However, responsible o'.fsite o!!)cia)a must decide on the feasib)l)ty of implementing the protective actions at thc time of the accident.

CONTROL FIOOM STAFF DETECT GENERAL ENIERGENCY RECOMMEND SHELTER 2 hIILE RADIUS 5 MILES DOWNWIND

~ Ill CONTINUE ASSKSSMENT NO NO Y'ES LARGK FISSION PRODUCT INVENTORY IN CGNTAINMKNTF IMORE THAN GAPI SUBSTANTIAL CORK DAMAGE IN PROGRK55 OR PROJECTED7 IACTVALOR POTENTIAL FOR 3'AA FUEL DAMAGEI e IZI YES

~

I EPA PAGs NO PROJECT KD TO BE EXCEEDED)

YES RECOMMEND PROTECTI'VE ACTIONS LN ACCORDANCE p Wl H EPA PAGr IMMINENT PRO JF CTED CONTAINh(fNT F AIL'J RE ND Cohf DAM GE OR RELEASE UNDERWAY

~ Lal YES RECOMMEND SHELTER FOR ARK*5THAT CAN'T BE KVACVATED BfrCRK PLUME ARRIVAI

'VACUATE OTHERS ~ IIII~lis)

I2 5 MILESI Y'ES IMMINENT PROJECTKO CONTAINMENT FAILURE OR, RELEASE VNDERWAY7

~ I3l NO NO "

RECOMMEND Ev'CVATION OF 2 MILE RADIUS.

5 Ml' 5 tlOWNWINO IIRrl PECOMMENO EVACUATIONOF S.MILE RADIUS.

10 MILf5NGWNWIND

'tiiri SOURCE: ApernAIiA 1. IIVREGJISSA'FEMA REP 1. Rev.

1 Il)

SITUATIONS REOUIRING URGENT ACTION BY OFFSITE OFFICIALS IBased on Control Room Indicators. No Dose Projections Required)

~ 15-Minute Decisionmakirg. Activation of Alerting System and EBS Message

'2)

Actual or projected release of 207r gap from core or loss of physical cor:trol of the plant to intruoers.

'l3) -Puff-release irate much greater than designed leak rate).

'(C)

For all evacuations.

shelter the remainder of the plurne EPZ and promptly relocate the population af'.ected by any grourd contamination

'.ollowing plume passage.

'l5) Concentrate on evacuation of areas near the plant le.g. may be time to evacuate 2 mile radius and not the S.mile radius).

A A