ML20094C182
| ML20094C182 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/24/1975 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-75-087, NUREG-75-087-09.5.2, NUREG-75-87, NUREG-75-87-9.5.2, SRP-09.05.02, SRP-9.05.02, NUDOCS 9511020083 | |
| Download: ML20094C182 (3) | |
Text
NU REG.75/087 fpua }
f y $,,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIGN i
N STANDARD REVIEW PLAN W
O OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SECTION 9.5.2 C0 HJNICATIONS SYSTEMS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary - Auxiliary and Power Conversion Systems Branch (APCSB)
Secondary - Electrical, Instrumentation and Control Systems Branch (EICSB)
Industrial Security and Emergency Planning Branch (ISEPB) 1.
AREAS OF REVIEW The APCSB review of the communication system is limited to that portion of the system used in intra-plant and plant-to-offsite comunications during accident conditions. The system is reviewed with respect to the following considerations: capability of the system to provide effective intra-plant comunications and effective plant-to-offsite communications during accident conditions, including loss of offsite power.
The review of the communication system involves secondary review evaluations performed by other branches. The conclusions from their evaluations are used by the APCSB to complete the overall evaluation of the system. The evaluations provided by other branches are as follows.
The ISEPB verifies that the offsite communication system provided will satisfy emergency plan requirements, including notification of personnel and implementation of evacuation procedures (Standard Review Plan 13.3). The EICSB will determine, upon request. the adequacy of the communication system with respect to its dependency upon a reliable power source during various operating conditions.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, Acceptability of the design of the comunication system, as described in the applicant's safety analysis report (SAR), is based on the degree of similarity of the design with that for previously reviewed plants with satisfactory operating experience. There are no general design criteria or regulatory guides that directly apply to the safety-related performance requirements for the communication system. The APCSB will use the following criterion to assess the system design capability: the comunication system is acceptable if the inte-grated design of the system will provide effective communication between plant personnel in all vital areas during the full spectrum of accident or incident conditions under maximum potential noise levels.
USNRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
.____...._........W_.._._.t_.._.t..._.t
-:=.w=====.. ========.=.=
- .======:==.=:=::- ---~ ~--
.._...._ _...t.
C.etspi.nt..M..ugg tb.p. f 10Mp v.fhent.41,..
A.4
.n..h.un. be nt t. the U $ No.d R.g t y C.mme.W.n.0ffl
.f No.6 R et R.gts4.W.A. WF hingt.A. O C. M 11/24/75 jO 751124 75/0g7 g PDR
III.
REVIEW PROCEDURES The information provided in the SAR pirtaining to the design of the communication system will be evaluated to determine that intra-plant comunication equipment needed in vital areas during recovery actions from transient or accident conditions is provided. The reviewer will select and emphasize material from this review plan, as may be appropriate for a particular case.
The design basis, design criteria, system description sections, and the analyses that demonstrate the effectiveness of the system when maximum plant noise levels are being generated during incident and accident conditions are reviewed to verify that the comunica-tion system will function effectively. The reviewer uses engineering judgment and compares the system capabilities with equipment provided for previously approved plants. The APCSB will accept the comunication system if a statement in the SAR commits the applicant to perform a functional test under conditions that simulate the maximum plant noise levels being generated during the various operating conditions, including the accident condition, to demonstrate system capabilities.
IV.
EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer verifies that sufficient information has beem provided and that his review supports conclusions of the following type, to be included in the staff's safety evaluation report:
"The communication system includes all components for intra-plant and plant-to-offsite l
comunications. The scope of review of the communications system for the plant included verification that offsite equipment is capable of providing for notifica-tion of personnel and implementation of evacuation procedures, and verification that onsite communications are adequate in the event of an emergency. [The review has determined the adequacy of the applicant's proposed design criteria and bases for the communication system and the requirements for all conditions of plant operation. (Cp)]
[The review has determined that the design of the communications system and auxiliary supporting systems is in conformance with the design criteria and bases. (0L)]
"The basis for acceptance in the staff review has been conformance of the applicant's designs, design criteria and design bases for the communications system and necessary auxiliary supporting systems to staff positions and industry standards, and the ability of the systems to provide effective communications between plant personnel in all vital areas during the full spectrum of accident or incident conditions under maximum potential noise levels.
"The staff concludes that the design of the communications system conforms to all applicable staff positions and industry standards and is acceptable."
V.
REFERENCES 1.
None.
,9.5.2-2 11/24/75 k
i
/
I l
l
(
l
,