ML20059J006

Safety Evaluation Supporting Rev 15 to Emergency Plan for Plant

ML20059J006
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	11/03/1993
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20059J004	List: ML20059J001 ML20059J006
References
NUDOCS 9311100316
Download: ML20059J006 (2)

Text

u

/ p "sc ,,'%

UNITED STATES

"!' 3m i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h- cfe WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 0001 g- "

,0 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIO ON REVISION 15 TO THE EMERGENCY PLAN FOR ,

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. ET AL.

V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 I DOCKET NOS. 50-424 AND 50-425

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated February 10, 1993, as supplemented 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." The NRC has endorsed NUMARC/NESP-007 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 i Georgia and South Carolina, the local county governmental authorities, and the Savannah River Sit . l Subsection 47(b)(4) to 10 CFR Part 50 specifies that onsite emergency plans must meet the following standard: "A standard emergency classification and '

action level scheme, the bases of which include facility s parameters, is in use by the nuclear facility licensee..."ystem and effluent j

Appendix E, subsection IV.C specifies that " Emergency action levels (based not only on oncite and offsite radiation monitoring information but also on readings free 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:

(3) site area emergency, and (4) general emergency."(1) notification of unusual e 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 Appendixfor method E licensees to 10 CFRto meet Part 50.theThe requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) and staff relied upon the guidance in  ;

NUMARC/NESP-007 as the basis for its review of Vogtle's EAL changes.

9311100316 931103 PDR ADOCK 050004 4 l F i

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 l 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 P0TENTIAL 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 classif; cation 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 THRESH 0LDS 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 omission of this example EAL reduces the  ;

complexity of the classification procedure without compromising timely J classification based upon fission product barrier status. Therefore, '

the licensee's departure from the guidance in NUMARC/NESP-007 is acceptable.

3.0 CONCLUSION

l

)

Review of the proposed EAL changes in Revision 15 to the Vogtle Emergency Plan l 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. j i

Principal Contributor: S. Boynton, PEPB/NRR l Date: November 3, 1993 1

. l

.l

!^

_ . - - -