ML20248L375

Requests Addl Info Needed Before Final Action Can Be Taken on Approval of Revised Site Emergency Plan.Specified Addl Info Needed,Encl

ML20248L375
Person / Time
Site:	Westinghouse
Issue date:	03/12/1998
From:	Flack E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Goodwin W WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
References
TAC-L31030, NUDOCS 9803200052
Download: ML20248L375 (5)

Text

. - _ _

March 12, 1998 Mr. W. L. Goodwirt. Manager

{

y, Regulatory Affairs 1

i Westinghouse Electric Corporation Commertfal Nuclear Fuel Division Drawer R Columbia, South Carolina 29250

SUBJECT:

SITE EMERGENCY PLAN (TAC NO. L31030)

Dear Mr. Goodwin:

This refers to your submittal dated November 6,1997, of your revised site emergency plan (SEP) in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 70.32(1).

Our review of your revised SEP has identified additional information that is needed before final action can be taken on its approval. The additional information, specified in the enclosure, should be provided within 30 days of the date of this letter. Please reference the above tar, No. in future correspondence related to this request.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (301) 415-8115.

Sincerely.

Original signed by:

Edwin D.

Flack Licensing Section 1 Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards. NMSS

Enclosure:

As stated Distribution: w/ encl.

(Control No. 7G05)

Docket 70-1151 PUBLIC NRC File Center Region II t

FCLB R/F FCSS R/F NMSS R/F DAyres, RII g

[G:\\ west-rai.wpd]

j OFC FCLB e

FCLB FCLB f}[

FCLB C

NAME EM CGa6fnd PShea

^

/)h Madams /h[)

DATE 3/a/98 3/0/98 3//J98 3//2 98 mno r rq -

M O M: bid- @ @@fy 9803200052 980312 PDR ADOCK 07001151

.,l!TllllK,,lll.lnl[Il!K..

c u.

p# 8to:.q\\

,a

(

p UNITED STATES g

[

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20656 0001 o%,,,,, /

March 12, 1998

^ Mr. W.'L Goodwin, Manager Regulatory Affairs Westinghouse Electric Corporation Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division Drawer R Columb1a, South-Carolina 29250 1

j

SUBJECT:

SITE EMERGENCY PLAN (TAC NO. L31030)

Dear Mr. Goodwin:

This refers to.your submittal dated November 6,1997, of your-revised site emergency plan (SEP) in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 70.32(1).

Our review of your revised SEP has identified additional information that is needed before final action can be taken on its approval. The additional information, specified in the enclosure, should be provided within 30 days of the date of this letter. Please reference the above TAC No. in future correspondence related to this request.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (301) 415-8115.

Sincerely, Sm.

w

_A Edwin D. Flack Licensing Section 1 Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS

Enclosure:

As stated i

L l

l l

1 i

.....,_,.,o.

~.. +--

-.+.-> +~-.~~

- - - - - - - - + - -

4+

re. + -

• • -=%*,+.

L______-__

7 c

y ENCLOSURE i

Request for Additional Information Submittal Dated November 6, 1997 Westinghouse Electric Corporation Docket 70 1151 Please provide the following information:

1.

Section 2.1.2 of the site emergency plan (SEP) (Conversion) describing conditions which automatically terminate flow to the precipitation column was revised. Previous wording stated " Flow to the precipitation column will be terminated by the following process conditions: (1) high or low level." The revised statement reads " Flow to the precipitation column will be terminated by the following process conditions: (1) high precipitator level "

Comment: Please provide justification for deleting " low level," or if the deletion was an administrative oversight, please so state.

2.

Section 2.1.2 of the SEP (Conversion), Page 2-2 previously described an alarm installed on the centrifuge to assure proper bowl balance and spin rotation. The revised section deleted the statement regarding the centrifuge alarm.

Comment: Please provide justification for deleting the statement j

regarding the centrifuge alarm, or if the deletion was an administrative l

oversight.-please so state.

3.

Section 7.2 (Training), requirements for training were revised for both ER0 and non-ERO personnel.

The general training requirements for the ERO were clarified. However, revised requirements for non-ERO personnel appears to result in a decrease in the effectiveness of the program.

The previous revision' read as follows: "All Columbia Site personnel will receive a thorough orientation on all emergency plans and procedures required to ensure their safety. These personnel will be informed of changes in energency plans and procedures at scheduled safety meetings."

The revised wording reads "On-site personnel who are not members of the response orgar,ization will receive bionnial training as a minimum to l

make them aware of what actions they may have to take during an saergency situation." Although the previous training requirements did not indicate a frequency, the inference was That training was provided at least annually based on the frequency of training discussed elsewhere in Section 7.2 (7.2.1-Emergency Director. 7.2.2-Emergency Monitoring.

l t

-~

~,. _, -

m,.-

,..i e

a f

7.2.5-Security 7.2.6-Offsite Groups etc.). The revised description had no impact on the training frequency for ERO personnel (annual).

Comat: The change in training frequency from annual to biennial for non ERO personnel appears to result in a decrease in the ef festiveness of the site training program. A frequency of biennial would not appear to be adequate for maintaining familiarity with what actions to take during an emergency (particularly with the exercise frequency being on a I

biennial basis).

4.

Section 3.1 of the SEP (Emergency Classification) contains examples of initiating conditions that were not included in the Classification Logic Flow Chart included in the Emergency Procedure A-04. Rev. 2 dated 8/25/97 (pages 6 thru 9 of 9). The examples noted were as follows:

(a)

Local Response Event i

e Loss of primary power / city water supply s

Rupture of a containment vessel or line.

(b)

Alert Emergency n

Ongoing security intrusions (greater than 15 minutes)

Comment: Each of the above mentioned examples were noted as missing from i

the logic flow chart. Therefore, there appears to be an inconsistency

)

between the SEP emergency action levels (EALs) for event classification

)

and the Classification Logic Flow Chart included in the Emergency Procedure which provides guidelines for classification (Procedure A-04).

Please revise the flow chart or change the EALs and provide justification.

l

~_

-