ML20141C408

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to NRC Re Deficiencies Noted in Insp Repts 50-313/85-25 & 50-368/85-26.Corrective Actions: Emergency Action Levels in Emergency Plan Compared to FSAR Postulated Accidents & App 1 to NUREG-0654
ML20141C408
Person / Time
Site: Arkansas Nuclear  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 02/21/1986
From: Enos J, Enos J
ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
To: Martin R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20141C382 List:
References
RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-654 0CANO28606, CANO28606, OCANO28606, NUDOCS 8604070243
Download: ML20141C408 (2)


Text

_ ,

Q ,

i um 31986 i L ~_ l-ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 551 UTTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72203 (501)371-4000 February 21, 1986

/

,0 h 8,3 3 58 SCAN 028606 gg.jff Mr. Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator . b ddgg r 8/3#'d U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Pyan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011

SUBJECT:

Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368 License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 EAL Classification Criteria

Dear Mr. Martin:

Arkansas Power and Light Company is in receipt of your correspondence of January 16, 1986 (OCNA018610). We have reviewed the deficiencies noted in the aforementioned letter and provide the attached response.

Should you have questions regarding this information, please contact my office.

Very truly yours, i f, L-()$

/ J. Ted Enos, Manager l Nuclear Engineering & Licensing JTE/MWT/sa Attachment l

l l

8604070243 860401 l PDR ADOCK OSO g 3 gC-OS$% l MEMGEF4 MsOOLE SOUTH UTILITIES SYSTEM

+

}s NRC Findings The AN0 EALs listed in the E/P and EPIP'(event oriented) were compared to the NUREG-0654, " Example Initiating Conditions," of Appendix 1, and it was noted that numerous EALs of NUREG-0654 were not addressed.

Table D-2 of the Emergency Plan lists the correlation of Design Basis Accidents of the FSAR to various emergency classes. However, no scheme of classification is provided in the EPIPs that assures all FSAR accidents have applicable EALs listed.

The EAL (classification criteria) for SAE (paragraph 8.1.1, EPIP 1903.10) dealing with offsite dose rates, addresses only " Projected summed offsite dose rates..." rather than in-situ results of monitoring (also) as is required by 10CFR50, Appendix E, paragraph B and NUREG-0654.

AP&L Response s

Following NRC inspection 50-313/368-84-23 conducted July 9-13, 1984, AP&L evaluated the emergency action levels presently contained in the Emergency Plan and compared them to the FSAR postulated accidents and to the example initiating conditions of Appendix 1 to NUREG-0654. The results of that analysis indicate that the existing emergency action level classification criteria adequately respond to the pre-defined FSAR scenarios and address the NUREG-0654, Appendix 1 initiating conditions. During the next emergency planning inspection, AP&L would like to review and discuss our analysis with the inspector. Some format changes to our present EAL system are being evaluated; however, we believe that most of the concerns expressed during the exit meeting following the October 30-November 1, 1985 inspection have been addressed by our analysis.

The results of offsite monitoring are utilized in the decision-making process for classification when such data is available. The EAL at site area emergency relating to " Projected summed offsite dose rates..." has been revised in the Emergency Plan to state " Projected or measured summed offsite dose rates...". A corresponding change to the Implementing Procedures is in progress.

>