ML20039B808
| ML20039B808 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1981 |
| From: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | William Jones OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039B809 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-81-10, NUDOCS 8112230582 | |
| Download: ML20039B808 (5) | |
Text
g 3 glf-9
(-
e c
n c
4 p tiro UNITED STATES j
'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON g
f g
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 E':
kg % <
- j/
NOV 2 3 B81 no \\ m, i f '; ?
!Y ' /g[ j
/p,'g
., ;n Docket No. 50-285 s
i MC3 3
Mr. W. C. Jones r %g DS/A $]
Division Manager, Production Operations Q
%Q%gy-Omaha Public Power District f)y[@ 4@ \\,yf 1623 Harney Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102
Dear Mr._ Jones:
This letter is in response to the design plan for the Emergency Response Facilities of the Fort Calhoun Station - Unit I which was submitted by the Omaha Public Power District (0 PPD).in response to Generic Letter 81-10 from the Director of Licensing.
Enclosed is an evaluation of how'well this design plan meets the overall design concepts of NUREG-0696, " Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities".
The conceptual design approach of the Fort Calhoun Station-Emergency Response Facilities appears to follow the broad concepts given in NUREG-0696, however, the information submitted is inadequate to determine if a number of details of this design meet the specific criteria set forth in the NUREG.
The principal information inadequacies with the Fort Calhoun Station design plan are the following:
1.
The work stations, data and communications hardware locations, data and information flow and personnel protective equipment for the TSC*
and EOF *are not described.
2.
The functions, layout and size for the TSC and OSC*are not proviaed.
3.
The TSC functional areas, radiological habitability and records availability and management are not adequately described.
4.
The control room communications, equipment and procedures to interface with the emergency ' response facilities are not described.
5.
The location, communications, habitability or backup procedures, staffing and radiological monitoring for the OSC are not given.
6.
The EOF accessability, structure and radiological monitoring are not adequately described.
8112230582 8111'23 PDR ADOCK 05000285 F
PDR j
wTCr _ Technieml Ronnnet Iontoe
^
E O
UgeScy deEa&d Fad 1Ry l
o,,,c,4 05t""'0..........Visfaf 6Hs".50Y56ft" "EHt sP" '""" '.... '...........
.. " " " " '...............3
~ """"' 7
" ~ ~
suauusF
...............i...
6 ATE) nac ronu sia no-so) nacu oua OFF1ClAL RECORD COPY usam. im-mm
r
\\hY Qr~
gf Q
e, V y ;
1 7.
-Jae parameter set, layout, data communications, hardware and software fpecifications, reliability, security, SPDS* data displays and trending, operator interface, documentation, validation, training, maintenance ar.d quality control are not adequately described for the data acquisition system.
Your conceptual design plan is considered acceptable providing you correct the deficiencies given above and assuming that the items for which no
~ evaluation could be made because of inadequate infomation meet the criteria Dof NUREG-0696.
It'is re' commended thet you review this evaluation based on draft NUREG-0814, " Methodology for Evaluation of Emergency Response Facilities" in detail and revise the design of the Fort Calhoun Station Emergency
. Response Facilities'accordingly.
Deficiencies and items for which inadequate information was provided will receive special attention during the NRC 3
post-implementation inspection.
Should you desire an additional review of
_ your revised design prior to our post-implementation,, inspection you must submit the revised material within 45 days of the date'of tiifs letter? We
~
- would then provide you with the results of our review within '40 ~ days of.the date of receipt of your resubmittal. '-
~ _ ' '
.P.
~
OPPD will be responsible for the timely implementation of,the NUREG-0696 criteria regardless of whether you request an additional design review by the NRC staff. However, any resubmitted items reviewed and~found acceptable
~ ill not be included with the ~ items tb ' rec'eive special ~ attention'during ~the
~
w NRC post-implementation inspection.
.. - - Sincerely,
& %f cTned by Rcbat A. Clark Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File PMKreutzer-3 i
NRC PDR RAClark L PDR CTramell NSIC ETourigny TERA EWilliams ORB #3 Rdg Gray File DEisenhut 1
OELD
- 4 I&E-3
~
ACRS-10 JHeltemes j
1 fD RB#3:pl
.0
,,# 3 : D L,,,,,',,,
omce > *5PDS---Safety. Parameter.J.isp. lay..Systen.
g,,,
..h,,,...,j,,
"k#
sun-e >
.1.1/C /8.1....
.1.1/p/8.1........1.1/kJB1.... 11/2/8.1.....
oney OFFIClAL RECORD COPY ase,a,u,_m.
Nac reau ais oo-ea nacu cua s..
4
.. v k
nn at U..tlTE3 STATts jo,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMissCN O
t' Ihc WASHINGTOH D. C. 20566 NOV 231981 w j; Docket No. 50-285 Mr. W. C. Jones Division Manager, Production Operations Omaha Public Power District 1623 Harney Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102
Dear Mr. Jones:
This letter is in response to the design pla.n for the Emergency Response Facilities of the Fort Calhoun Station - Unit I which was submitted by the Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) in response to Generic Letter 81-10 from the Director of Licensing.
Enclosed is an evaluation of how well. this design plan mests the overall design concepts of NUREG-0696, " Functional Criteria for f.mergency Response Facilities".
The conceptual design approach of the Fort Calhoun Station Emergency Response Facilities appears to follow the broad concepts given in NUREG-0696, however, the information submitted is inadequate to determine if a number of details of this design meet tha specific criteria set forth in the NUREG.
The principal information inadequacies with the Fort Calhoun Station design plan are the folicwing:
1.
The work stations, data and communications hardware locations, data and information flow and personnel protective equipment for the TSC*
l atd EOF *are not described.
2.
The functiens, layout and size for the TSC and OSC*are not provided.
3.
The TSC functional areas, radiological habitability and records' availability and management are not adequately described.
4.
The control room communications, equipment and procedures to interface with the emergency response facilities are not described.
5.
The location, comunications, habitability or backbp procedures, staffing and radiological monitoring for_ the OSC are not given.,
6.
The EOF accessability, structure and radiological monitoring are not adequately described.
- T5C - Tecnnical Support Center
- 0SC - Operations Support Center m-.-
...,w,.
,v..-.-*t---^w-
"w-*-=mm---'*
- ---f
-*v~--*-'*N-Fv'-*
- '*e---
ev
--v
- -P---"*-
- --~=--' ' * -"-**+-* * *
- e*--47-~5 w
3 8-
-- ~
7.
The parameter set, layout, data communications,' har63ere and software specifications, reliability, sect.rity, SPDS* data disptays and trending, operator interface, documentation, validation, trainir.g. maintenance and quality control are not adequately described for the data acquisition system.
Your conceptual design plan is considered acceptable providing you correct the deficiencies given above and assuming that the items for which no evaluation could be made because of inadequate infomation meet the criteria of NUREG-0696.
It is recommended that you review this evaluation based on draft 'iUREG-0814, " Methodology for Evaluation of Emergency Response Facilities' in detail and revise the design of the Fort Calhoun Station Emergency Response Facilities accordingly.
Deficiencies and items for which inadequate information was provided will receive special attention.during the NRC post-implementation inspection.
Should you desire an additional review of.
your revised design prior to our post-implementation inspection you must submit the revised material within 45 days of the date of this letter. We would then provide you with the results of our review within 40 days of the date of receipt of your resubmittal.
OPPD will be responsible for the timely implementation of the NUREG-0696 criteria regardless of whether you request an additional design review by the NRC staff.
However, any resubmitted items reviewed and found acceptable will not be included with the items to receive special attention during the NRC post-implementation inspection.
Sincerely, Al AE/
~
Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
. As stated cc: See next page
..,,,-..,,----.,n--
,e
c.
.s I
0maha Public Power District CC:
Marilyn T. Shaw, Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. '20036 Mr. Emmett Rogert Chairman, Washington County Board of Supervisors Blair, Nebraska 58023 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VII ATTN: Regional Radiation
. Representative 324 East lith Street Kcnsis City, Missouri 64106 i'
Mr. Frank Gibson W. Dale Clark Library 215 Scuth 15th Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Alan H. Kirshen, Esq.
Fell 39, Rarsey & Kirshen 1155.4cocmen Tower Omaha, t.'eb'rasia 55102 Mr. Dennis Kelley U.S.S.R.C. Resider. Inspector
- . 3. Box 55 F:rt Calhoun, Nebraska,,53023 Mr. Charles 3. Brinkman "anager - b'ashington !;uclear Operations C-E Power Systems Combustion Engineering, Inc.
4853 Cordell Avenue, Suite A-1 Sethesda, Maryland 20014 e
O
.