Re: Accident Consequences

["dama" <dama@waterw.com>]

Excellent question.  I was recently a member of a Station Operation 
Review Committee (SORC) that was reviewing a change to the facility 
that would require an operator to reposition a ventilation damper in 
the event that one train of control room ventilation became 
inoperable.  

The limiting case was that the control room ventilation became 
inoperable after a design basis accident that threatened GDC 19 
criteria.  The TEDE for the operator to perform this action was 
approximately 25 - 50 mrem.

SORC concluded that an Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ) did not exist 
because:  1) this action did not increase the consequences of 
an accident since equipment operator actions are part of a licensee's 
emergency response, 2) the action ensured that GDC 19 dose limits 
were not exceeded, and 3) the operator's TEDE was a small
fraction of the annual limits (emergency dose limits not invoked).

I'm replying from home so I don't have the references I would at 
work.  I believe that there is guidance in NSAC 125 for similar 
issues.

> Date:          Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:43:26 -0600 (CST)
> Reply-to:      radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> From:          "Gerry W. Kindred" <gwkindred@centerior.com>
> To:            Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject:       Accident Consequences

> If a change was made to your facility that required an
> operator action to mitigate the consequence of an
> accident.  Would the operator dose required to perfom
> the action (in itself) be considered an increase in the 
> consequence of the accident? 
> 
> gwkindred@FirstEnergyCorp.com
> 
> 
Dave Ruyter

dama@waterw.com