ML20215N011

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Advises That Certain Changes in Rev 85-2 to Emergency Plan Reduce Effectiveness,Contrary to Requirements of 10CFR50.54. Plan Must Be Modified within 45 Days to Correct Identified Deficiencies
ML20215N011
Person / Time
Site: Oconee  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 10/29/1986
From: Walker R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To: Tucker H
DUKE POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8611040171
Download: ML20215N011 (2)


Text

.

',. 0(1 lOCd 00T 2 01986 Duke PoA r Company ATTN:VNr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President Nuclear Production Department 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

EMERGENCY PLAN DEFICIENCIES - OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-287 Thank you for your response of May 5,1986, '.o our letter dated March 31, 1986, which identified deficiencies in your Oconee Nuclear. Station Emergency. Plan. A preliminary acknowledgement of your response was provided in our letter of June 16, 1986. We have completed our evaluation of your response in conjunction with a reevaluation of Emergency ~ Plan Revision 85-2, the source of the subject deficiencies.

Our review of the changes contained in Revision 85-2 indicates that certain initiating events were either deleted from the classification scheme or were downgraded to a less severe classification in comparison with the criteria defined in Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654. The changes at issue involve three initiating conditions listed in NUREG-0654: (1) evacuation of the Control Room anticipated or required with control of shutdown systems' established from local station (formerly an Alert, now deleted from the Emergency Plan); (2) evacuation of the Control Rocm with control of shutdown systems not established from local stations within 15 minates (formerly a Site Area Emergency, now deleted); and (3) most or all alarms (annunciators) lost (formerly an Alert, now a Notification of Unusual Event, with a 15 minute criterion added in both cases).

These modifications do not constitute an acceptable alternative to the guidance in NUREG-0654 because they abrogate the ~ anticipatory intent of that guidance.

The graded response delineated in NUREG-0654 provides for early classification of potential problems that could require prompt warning and notification to offsite authorities so that appropriate actions may be taken in preparation for the possibility of more serious indicators.

After careful consideration of your letter of May 5, .1986, which presented the bases for your disagreement with the subject findings, we have again concluded, for the reasons stated above and in our letter of March 31, 1986, that Revision 85-2 of the Oconee Emergency Plan contained changes which significantly reduced -the effectiveness of the Plan, contrary to the requirements of

~

10CFR50.54(q).

To preclude enforcement action on this matter, you must not continue to implement the changes which produced the previously cited deTEiencies related to event classification in Emergency Plan Revision 85-2. You must modify your Emergency Plan and appropriate implementing > procedures to correct the identified deficiencies. These modifications are to be provided to us within 45 days of the date of this letter. .Should you have any questions concerning our review of 8611040171 861029 DR ADOCK0500g9 Y sG3<

Duke Power Company 2 Emergency Plan Revision 85-2, we will be happy to arrange a meeting in the Regional Office to discuss our findings with you. If such a meeting is desired, or if there are questions regarding the requirements specified in this letter, please contact Thomas R. Decker of our staff on (404) 331-2559.

Sincerely,

/

/ Roger D. Wal , Director Division of ,eactor Projects cc:/M.S.Tuckman,StationManager bcc C Resident Inspector Ai. Nicolaras, NRR State of South Carolina Document Control Desk

[!I- 1 CCM G gn i

  1. g& /%

/0/ lg ,M  %

P . g. O*W 4 RII RII R RII RII RII g il ?fW V JKyeh TDe er DCollins JP ohr TPeebles VBrownlee 10/2f/86 10/i 86 ( 10gj t86 10yf/86 10/17/86 10/(1/86