ML20057E302
| ML20057E302 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057E300 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9310080302 | |
| Download: ML20057E302 (2) | |
Text
__
pm Ric
[ f./t, k
UNITED STATES j
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
(
'^ f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20E0001 j
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-68 AND AMENDMENT NO.
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-81 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. ET AL.
V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-424 AND 50-425
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 10, 1993, as supplemented by letter dated September 10, 1993, Georgia Power Company, et al. (the licensee) proposed changes to the emergency plan for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle), Units 1 and 2.
Specifically, Revision 15 to Vogtle's emergency plan incorporated revised emergency action levels (EALs) based upon NUMARC/NESP-007, Revision 2 January 1992, " Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels." NUMARC/NESP-007 has been endorsed by the NRC as an acceptable method for licensees to develop site-specific emergency classification schemes.
2.0 EVALUATION The EAL changes associated with Revision 15 to Vogtle's emergency plan were reviewed against the requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.
In accordance with Subsection IV.B. of Appendix E, the proposed EAls have been discussed and agreed on by the licensee and the States of Georgia and South Carolina, the local county governmental authorities, and the Savannah River Site.
IC 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.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 the 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 event, (2) alert, (3) site area emergency, and (4) general emergency."
The staff, in Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide 1.101, " Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors," endorsed NUMARC/NESP-007, Revision 2, " Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels," as an acceptable method for licensees to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and 9310080302 931004 PDR ADDCK 05000424 p
I L Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. The staff relied upon the guidance in NUMARC/NESP-007 as the basis for its review of Vogtle's EAL changes.
The licensee formatted their EAls into four separate tables that correspond to the four recognition categories described in NUMARC/NESP-007: (1) Hazards and Other Conditions Affecting Plant Safety in All Modes, (2) System Malfunction, (3) Abnormal Rad Levels / Radiological Effluent, and (4) Fission Product Barriers Status. The EALs are subdivided under twenty-seven (27) initiating conditions in escalating order of classification.
A majority of the proposed EAls conform closely to the guidance in NUMARC/NESP-007; however, the licensee has omitted several of the example EAls. Review of these omissions, as discussed below, found the licensee's justification to be acceptable.
1.
Table 4 in NUMARC/NESP-007, "PWR EMERGENCY ACTION LEVEL FISSION PRODUCT BARRIER REFERENCE TABLE THRESH 0LDS FOR LOSS OR POTENTIAL LOSS OF BARRIERS," provides example EALs for evaluating the status of the fuel clad barrier based upon core exit thermocouple readings and reactor vessel water level. The licensee argues that these indicators are redundant to Critical Safety Function Status Tree Monitoring (CSFST) inputs, which are covered under a separate EAL, and has omitted them from Vogtle's site-specific classification scheme. The omission of these example EAls reduces the complexity of the classification procedure without compromising timely classification based upon fission product barrier status. Therefore, the licensee's departure from the guidance in NUMARC/NESP-007 is acceptable.
2.
Table 4 in NUMARC/NESP-007, "PWR EMERGENCY ACTION LEVEL FISSION PRODUCT BARRIER REFERENCE TABLE THRESHOLDS FOR LOSS OR POTENTIAL LOSS OF BARRIERS," provides an example EAL for evaluating the status of the containment barrier based upon containment pressure. The licensee argues that this indicator is redundant to Critical Safety Function Status Tree
~
Monitoring (CSFST) inputs, which are covered under a separate EAL, and has omitted it from Vogtle's site-specific classification scheme. The i
omission of this example EAL reduces the complexity of the classification procedure without compromising timely classification based upon fission product barrier status.
Therefore, the licensee's departure from the i
guidance in NUMARC/NESP-007 is acceptable.
3.0 CONCLUSION
Review of the proposed EAL changes in Revision 15 to the Vogtle emergency plan concludes that the revised EALs are consistent with the guidance in NUMARC/NESP-007 and, therefore, continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.
Principal Contributor:
S. Boynton, PEPB/NRR Date: 9/29/93