ML070300227

Facsimile Transmission of Draft Request for Additional Information on Emergency Action Level Revision (TAC Nos. MC9456, MC9459, MC9460, MC9461, and MC9462)

ML070300227
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch, Vogtle, Farley
Issue date:	02/06/2007
From:	Martin R NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLII-1
To:	Marinos E NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLII-1
Martin R, NRR/DORL, 415-1493
References
TAC MC9456, TAC MC9457, TAC MC9459, TAC MC9460, TAC MC9461, TAC MC9462
Download: ML070300227 (4)

Text

February 6, 2007MEMORANDUM TO:Evangelos C. Marinos, ChiefPlant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationFROM:Robert E. Martin, Sr. Project Manager/RA/Plant Licensing Branch II-1Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OF DRAFT REQUEST FORADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON EMERGENCY ACTION LEVEL REVISIONS (TAC NOS. MC9457, MC9456, MC9459, MC9460, MC9461, AND MC9462)The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff transmitted the enclosed draft request foradditional information (RAI) to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), on January 17, 2007. The draft RAI supported a conference call that was held with SNC on January 25, 2007, regarding SNC's submittal dated October 13, 2006, on the revisions of the emergency action levels for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, the Edwin I.

Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, and the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2.Docket Nos. 50-348, 50-364, 50-321, 50-366, 50-424 and 50-425

Enclosure:

Draft RAI February 6, 2007MEMORANDUM TO:Evangelos C. Marinos, Chief, Branch 2-1Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationFROM:Robert E. Martin, Sr. Project Manager /RA/Plant Licensing Branch II-1Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OF DRAFT REQUEST FORADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON EMERGENCY ACTION LEVEL REVISIONS (TAC NOS. MC9457, MC9456, MC9459, MC9460, MC9461, AND MC9462)The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff transmitted the enclosed draft request foradditional information (RAI) to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), on January 17, 2007. The draft RAI supported a conference call that was held with SNC on January 25, 2007, regarding SNC's submittal dated October 13, 2006, on the revisions of the emergency action levels for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, the Edwin I.

Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, and the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2.Docket Nos. 50-348, 50-364, 50-321, 50-366, 50-424 and 50-425

Enclosure:

Draft RAIDISTRIBUTION: PUBLICPDII-1 R/F RidsNrrDorl (CHaney/TMcGinty)RidsNrrPMRMartin RidsNrrLAMO'BrienRidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter RidsOgcRpRidsNrrPM(BSingal)

RidsRgn2MailCtr (SShaeffer)RidsNrrPMKCotton RidsNsirDJohnsonRidsNrrLARSolaADAMS Accession Number: ML070300227NRR-106OFFICENRR/LPL2-1/PMNRR/LPL2-1/LA NRR/LPL2-1/BCNAMERMartinMO'BrienEMarinosDATE02/5/0702/5/0702/6/07OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Enclosure DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI)REVISION OF EMERGENCY ACTION LEVELS (EAL)SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, INC (SOUTHERN NUCLEAR)IJoseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant1.RAI-024(1) - RCS L4: The RAI response did not justify this logic as being "AND". This isinconsistent with the other fleet EALs. Also, the hard-copy of the EAL Basis Document provided by the licensee does not match the electronic copy as the hard-copy shows a logic "OR". Change to logic "OR" or provide rationale for the logic "AND" to allow NRC staff to reach the same conclusion. Also, verify that the hard-copy and electronic copy of the EAL Basis Document provided by the licensee are the same.2.RAI-055(1) - SU4.1: The response to this RAI is unacceptable. The licensee needs toprovide an acceptable alternative or prove that this condition is bounded by other EALs.3.RAI-065(2) - SS6: Criteria 'a' should be "Significant Transient in Progress" not "Inabilityto Monitor a Significant Transient in Progress." These are two different statements and this was discussed during the 6/27/06 Teleconference. Correct the EAL.IIEdwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant1.RAI-001(4) - RU1.2: This EAL was deleted due to the licensee stating that they have nounmonitored release paths. However, this EAL is for non-routine release paths for which a discharge permit would not normally be prepared. Provide an acceptable alternative for this EAL or provide more justification as to why this EAL, or an alternative, cannot be provided.2.RAI-003(4) - RA1.2: This EAL was deleted due to the licensee stating that they have nounmonitored release paths. However, this EAL is for non-routine release paths for which a discharge permit would not normally be prepared. Provide an acceptable alternative for this EAL or provide more justification as to why this EAL, or an alternative, cannot be provided.3.RAI-019(5) - CA4: The notes are incorrect on the hard-copy provided by the licensee butis correct on the electronic copy. These are supposed to be identical. Correct the error and ensure that both documents are identical.4.RAI-065(2) - SS6: Criteria 'a' should be "Significant Transient in Progress" not "Inabilityto Monitor a Significant Transient in Progress." These are two different statements and this was discussed during the 6/27/06 Teleconference. Correct the EAL. IIIVogtle Electric Generating Plant1.RAI-004(2) - RA2: Based on your RAI response, explain why the alarm does not say"Alert Alarm."2.RAI-045(3) - HA1.5: Did not adequately address original RAI. Your justification fordeleting this EAL does not account for the potential industrial safety hazards (e.g.,

electric shock) that preclude actions necessary to operate or monitor safety equipment.

Provide more justification or re-instate EAL.3.RAI-055(1) - SU4.1: The response to this RAI is unacceptable. The licensee needs toprovide an acceptable alternative or prove that this condition is bounded by other EALs.4.RAI-065(2) - SS6: Criteria 'a' should be "Significant Transient in Progress" not "Inabilityto Monitor a Significant Transient in Progress." These are two different statements and this was discussed during the 6/27/06 Teleconference. Correct the EAL.5.CU2.1: Another example of inattention to detail. The hard copy states "greater than"and the electronic copy states "greater than or equal." These are supposed to be the same documents. Correct the error and make sure both documents are identical.