ML20045D279

Forwards Request for one-time Exemption from 10CFR50,App E,Section IV.F.2 to Conduct 1993 Partial Participation Exercise Presently Scheduled for 930818.Emergency Response Capability Implemented During 930424 Alert at Unit 2

ML20045D279
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	06/18/1993
From:	Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
93-374, NUDOCS 9306280170
Download: ML20045D279 (10)

Text

. . _ _ _ _ ____ _ ____ _ _ __-

VIHOINIA EU!CTHIC AND POWEH COMI%NY llicII M ox u, VIIWINI A 20061 June 18, 1993 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Serial No.93-374 Attention: Document Control Desk NOAVFR R2 Washington, D. C. 20555 Docket Nos. 50-338 50-339 License Nos. NPF-4 NPF-7 Gentlemen:

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY NORTH ANNA POWER STATION UNIT 1 AND 2 10 CFR 50 APPENDIX E EXEMPTION REQUEST Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.12, Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) requests a one-time exemption from the requirement, specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2., for each licensee at each site to annually exercise its emergency plan. Specifically, we request a one-time exemption from the requirement to conduct the 1993 North Anna Power Station Emergency Plan partial par'icipation exercise presently scheduled for August 18,1993.

The request for exemption is based on the implementation of VEPCO's emergency response capability during the April 24,1993 Alert at the North Anna Power Station.

The implementation of the North Anna and Corporate emergency plans, along with the demonstration of the response capability, satisfy the requirements for the partial participation (small scale) exercise demonstration as specified in the North Anna Emergency Plan. Furthermore, this response demonstration included involvement of the cognizant State and local jurisdictions and was critiqued by VEPCO and evaluated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

As the implementation of the emergency plan was demonstrated and evaluated, we conclude that the adequacy of the emergency preparedness program implementation has already been demonstrated during 1993. There are numerous examples throughout the industry of similar licensee requests receiving relief from the subject requirement when there has been an actual emergency response. Attachment 1 provides a supporting rationale for this request.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has made a similar request of the Federal Emergency Management Agency with respect to select six year plan demonstration requirements and is in full agreement and support of our request. We note that emergency plan commitments will continue to be met with the exception of the subject exercise.

2300% 4, 9306280170 930618 a PDR ,\

ADOCK 05000338 F PDR

We would appreciate your review of this request prior to the currently scheduled August 18,1993 North Anna Power Station Emergency Plan partial participation exercise. To facilitate your review, we are prepared to meet with you at your earliest-convenience.

Should you have any questions, please contact us.

Very truly yours, W. L. Stewart h

Senior Vice President ~- Nuclear Attachment

1. Appendix E Exemption Request - Supporting Rationale -

2. References cc: Mr. Stewart D. Ebneter Region ll l

101 Marietta Street, N. W.

I Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 ,

l Mr. K. P. Barr Region 11 101 Marietta Street, N. W.

Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 NRC Resident inspector North Anna Power Station Mr. George O'N. Urquhart Department of Emergency Services 310 Turner Road Richmond, Virginia 23225

a --

4 .

f ,

0

(

h 4

1 4

T i

d 5

i i

.i i

i I

1 i

1 4

!, ATTACHMENT 1 1

4 l

4 4

de 5

4 4

Y i

4 i

A i

1 s

J i

Y I

g - , -- . .

NORTH ANNA POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 10CFR50 APPENDIX E EXEMPTION REQUEST ANNUAL EMERGENCY EXERCISE SUPPORTING RATIONALE EXEMPTION REQUEST

SUMMARY

Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.12, Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) requests a one-time exemption from the requirement to conduct the 1993 North Anna Power Station Emergency Plan partial participation exercise. Specifically, we request a one-time exemption from the provision requiring each site to annually exercise its emergency plan as specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.

Generically, this requirement has been interpreted as the conduct of an integrated exercise scheduled for NRC evaluation. The 1993 NRC evaluated Emergency Plan partial participation exercise for North Anna Power Station is presently scheduled for August 18,1993.

The request for exemption from the requirement to conduct the scheduled annual exercise with NRC evaluation is based on the implementation of VEPCO's response capability during the April 24,1993 Alert at the North Anna Power Station. That response met the requirements for the partial participation (small scale) exercise demonstration as specified in the North Anna Emergency Plan in Section 8.6.2.

Pursuant to the April 24,1993 Alert, the NRC conducted an inspection that evaluated the adequacy of VEPCO's implementation of the North Anna Emergency Plan in response to that event.

BACKGROUND Emergency planning regulations, promulgated as a result of the March,1979 accident at Three Mile Island, govern virtually all aspects of a licensee's emergency preparedness program and have done much to lay the basis for a structured formal response capability. These requirements cover a broad spectrum, including emergency organizational structure, emergency equipment and response facilities, and emergency assessment mechanisms such as the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS), and dose assessment methodologies. The requirement for a licensee to hold an exercise on an annual basis is but one of many indicators designed to provide reasonable assurance that actions can and will be taken during an emergency situation that will provide for the health and safety of the public.

The purpose for conducting an annual exercise is to demonstrate the adequacy of the licensee's emergency response capability and emergency preparedness program.

The licensee's demonstration of its ability to respond to an event, coupled with it's ability to assess the adequacy of it's own response, is routinely assessed and evaluated by the NRC. An evaluation of an annual exercise provides an indication of the adequacy and level of a licensee's emergency response program. To that end, VEPCO's response to the April 24,1993 Alert was critiqued by VEPCO and evaluated by the NRC.

l TECHNICAL BASIS The North Anna Power Station Emergency Plan, at Section 8.6.2, states that "(s) mall scale exercises shall include:

a) An emergency classification of at least Alert b) Use of communication systems c) Activation of at least one offsite emergency response plan action (e.g., >

medical transport, fire assistance, offsite monitoring, law enforcement assistance)" ,

Meeting the requirement of an emergency classification of at least an Alert is self evident.

Internal communications systems were activated and utilized throughout the various emergency response facilities as evidenced by numerous responder logs available for review during the NRC inspection. Communications with offsite authorities included ,

coordination with State officials from the Department of Emergency Services and the Bureau of Radiological Health responding to the Local Emergency Operations Facility (EOF). Additionally,13 formal notifications were made to the State and local risk '

jurisdictions over the Insta-phone telecommunications system and~ communications '

with federal authorities included activation of the Emergency _ Response Data System (ERDS) and use of the FTS-2000 system for Emergency Notification System (ENS) and Health Physics Network (HPN) communications. The NRC inspection of VEPCO's implementation of the plan resulted in the identification of an inspector Follow-up Item (IFI) pedaining to ENS communications with the NRC. That IFl (50-338,339/93-14-01) -

is documented within inspection Report Nos. 50-338/93-14 and 50-339/93-14 (Reference 1).

With respect to the third requirement of the plan, we note that the State staffed, 3 activated and operated their Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and, as mentioned earlier, dispatched personnel from the Department of Emergency-Services and the Bureau of Radiological Health to coordinate with the VEPCO emergency response ,

organization members in the Local EOF. Coordination between the State and VEPCO i included accident assessment and public information activities.

DISCUSSION 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2. states that "Each licensee at each site shall annually exercise its emergency plan." Generically, this requirement has been interpreted as an integrated exercise conducted and assessed by the licensee. This conduct and assessment of the demonstrated response capability is then subject to NRC evaluation.

On April 24,1993, an Alert was declared at the North Anna Power Station due to observed vibrations of the Unit 2 feedwater piping and reports that indicated a possible leak in the feedwater line. As a result of the Alert declaration, and-as-provided for under the North Anna Emergency Plan, all VEPCO emergency response 3 facilities were fully staffed, activated, and operated in accordance with Emergency l Plan' implementing Procedures.

- - - m- --.-. g ,, p - . . . ,9p- ,

e.. .

ypq ly ay'ew"ygyv -

g.r-7w't e

In consideration of the commitment of resources and as a result of the implementation of the North Anna Emergency Plan in response to the Alert, we request a one-time exemption for North Anna from the provision requiring each licensee at each site to annually exercise its emergency plan. Approval of this exemption is requested in order to reduce the duplication of demonstration of emergency response elements. We believe that the conduct of a partial participation exercise would be an unnecessary use of Federal, Company, State and local resources that would only serve to reconfirm the established adequacy of the plan as well as the Company's capability to implement the plan. Performance of the 1993 North Anna Emergency Plan partial participation exercise, given our specific circumstances and performance in this area, represents an undue regulatory burden with minimal benefit to public safety.

It is noted that an NRC inspection of the North Anna Power Station 1992 Emergency Exercise, detailed in Inspection Report Nos. 50-338/92-01 and 50-339/92-01 (Reference 2), identified no violations or deviations. The NRC noted that full participation exercise, which was also evaluated by FEMA, demonstrated "[t]he licensee's . . . ability to implement the Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures in a manner which provided adequate protection of the health and safety of the public and site personnel. Exercise strengths included a challenging scenario, a well-trained controlling staff, and a thorouch criticue orocess." (emphasis added).

North Anna's latest SALP of record covered the period from September 1,1990 through November 2,1991 and resulted in a repeat Category 1 rating. The report further comirms VEPCO's sustained commitment and positive performance in emergency preparedness (Reference 3). The NRC cover letter transmitting North Anna's SALP ratings stated that with respect to emergency preparedness, the Company had ". . . maintained their superior level of performance" and that ". . .

[i]mproved performance in several activities was influenced significantly by initiatives implemented during the assessment period . . ." The SALP report identified six program strengths and discussed Company initiatives regarding enhancements, as well as taking ". . . the initiative (during) this assessment period to install an Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) well in advance of ERDS becoming.a regulatory requirement." These regulatory observations confirm the state of operational i readiness at an overall Company level. l JUSTIFICATION 10 CFR 50.12 states that the Commission may grant exemptions from the ,

requirements of the regulations contained in the 10 CFR 50 provided that: (1) the i I

exemption is authorized by law, (2) the exemption will not precent an undue risk to the public health and safety, (3) the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security, and (4) special circumstances as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) are present.  ;

1. The Recuested Exemotion is Authorized by Law No law exists which would preclude the activities covered by this exemption request. Also, this exemption, if approved, would not create a conflict with any existing law.

l

2. The Recuested Exemotion Does Not Present an Undue Risk to the Public Health and Safety Considering the implementation of the North Anna Power Station Emergency Plan in response to the April 24,1993 Alert, the one-time exemption from the requirement to annually exercise the emergency plan at each site does not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. A significant portion of the Company's emergency response capability has been evaluated by the NRC pursuant to the Alert. No plant components are affected by this exemption.

Therefore, an exemption from the North Anna annual exercise does not increase the risk to the public health and safety.

3. The Recuested Exemotion Will Not Endancer the Common Defense and Security The common defense and security are not an issue in this exemption request.

4. Soecial Circumstances as Defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)

The following special circumstances pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) are identified as applicable to this exemption request:

Item (ii) " Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule." As discussed above, we contend that the provisions of the North Anna Power Station Emergency Plan have been met and, therefore, the underlying intent of the rule has already been met by virtue of the Company's implementation of the plan in response to the April 24, 1993 Alert. Furthermore, the implementation of the plan was evaluated within the context of an NRC inspection. See inspection Report Nos. 50-338/93-14 and 50-339/93-14 (Reference 1). Requiring the scheduled annual exercise at North Anna is merely duplicative confirmation and unneeded to establish an assessment of the adequacy of the emergency preparedness program.

Item (v) "The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faiih efforts j to comply with the regulation." A one-time exemption, based on already 1 established performance is not permanent, but rather, provides relief only for 1993. VEPCO's performance to date has shown " good faith" to comply with the intent of the regulation.

l item (vi) "There is present any other material circumstances not considered l when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption. . ." The regulation does not anticipate the occurrence of events that would prompt the classification of an emergency and its associated response. Therefore, the regulation does not specifically anticipate an actual emergency response satisfying the annual requirement to demonstrate the licensee's response capability. Furthermore, "other material circumstances"

Include an additional basis whereby.the public interest would be served by applying resources, now directed to duplicating response capability confirmation, to other safety priority issues.

CONCLUSION As the implementation of the emergency plan was demonstrated during the response

to the April 24,1993 Alert at North Anna and the implementation of the plan was subsequently evaluated by the NRC, we conclude that the adequacy of the emergency

. preparedness program has been demonstrated and the provisions of the plan have

been satisfied. An additional partial participation exercise at North Anna during .1993 i will do nothing to further demonstrate that adequate protective measures can and will j be taken in the event of a radiological emergency and is not necessary to establish j reasonable assurance of the health and safety of the public.

Approval of this exemption is requested to reduce the duplication of demonstration of

emergency response elements. We believe the conduct of the exercise to be an j unnecessary use of Federal, Company, State and local resources that would only i serve to reconfirm the established adequacy of the plan as well as the Company's i capability to implement the plan. Performance of the 1993 North Anna Emergency i Plan partial participation exercise, given our specific circumstances and performance

! in this area, represents an undue regulatory burden with. minimal benefit to public j safety.

j Granting a one-time exemption from conducting the scheduled annual partial j participation emergency exercise at the North Anna. Power Station on August 18,1993 i is warranted based on the adequate implementation of_VEPCO's Emergency Plan in

response to the April 24,1993 Alert and, therefore, by virtue of already meeting the intent of the regulation.

j For these reasons, we conclude that the requested exemption will.not present an i undue risk to the public health and safety and is consistent with the common defense j and security, and meets the special circumstance described in 10 CFR' Part j 50.12(a)(2)(ii).

).

4 0

h I

4 l

s.--- .*

4 9 6

d 9 4

l 1

1 l

l 4

I ATTACHMENT 2 J

4 9

i 4

1

)

REFERENCES

1. NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-338/93-14 and 50-339/93-14 dated June 3, 1993

2. NRC Inspection Report 50-338,339/92-01 dated February 12,'1992

3. NRC Inspection Report 50-338,339/91-25 dated January 13,1992 l

1 l

l

- _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _