ML062680361
| ML062680361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 09/20/2006 |
| From: | Dante Johnson Entergy Operations |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2006-0159 | |
| Download: ML062680361 (4) | |
Text
,
EPD Office Instruction EPD-100 Revision tr*Pe1o1 Paae 11 of 18 ATTACHMENT 1 ACCEPTABILITY REVIEW OF LICENSEE SHIFT STAFFING/AUGMENTATION TIME CHANGE REQUESTS (pg 1 of 2)
Site:
f f',v.
I Date received by EPD:
_____o
- __o__,
Technical reviewer:
Date acceptability review completed: '_lt-id c.
Change request acceptable?
El YES 0K
<1> Review the documentation provided by the licensee and ascertain the acceptability of the submittal package by determining if the following elements are addressed in the submittal package. Note that some of these attributes may not be applicable to the specific area being evaluated.
APPLICATION CONTENT YES NO NIA Did the licensee specifically state what change(s) the licensee has requested review and approval for?
v_
Did the licensee state why the change(s) are being requested?
Did the licensee identify which regulation or NRC guidance document under which the application is being submitted, i.e., acceptability determination of an alternate method of compliance (RG 1.101) or review of a decrease in V/
COVER LETTER effectiveness of the emergency plan (10 CFR 50.54(q)?
Did the licensee provide the names of the licensing and technical contacts?
V Did the licensee request a specific date for NRC approval? If less than one year, did the licensee provide an acceptable reason? Can EPD support this
/
date request?
Did the licensee reference all attachments?
Did the licensee state each proposed change and discuss the justification for the change and any measures that will be implemented?
Did the licensee state the new basis for the change and how it is as effective as or more effective than the current basis for the change?
Did the licensee define any terms that are unique to the site, related to new technology, etc.?
Did the licensee provide a table showing the current NRR approved shift staffing/augmentation procedure, the proposed shift staffing/augmentation procedure, and the basis for the change(s)?
Did the licensee provide an acceptable level of detail to support a technical review of the proposed change(s)?
SUBMITTAL Did the licensee discuss the use of any precedents and a justification for why 7
BODY these stated precedents are applicable to this submittal?
V Did the licensee validate these proposed change(s) via drills, table-tops, or walkthroughs?
v" Did the licensee change their augmentation process in such a way to compromise notifications (state, local, federal), ERO staffing, or ERO activation? Did the licensee provide an acceptable level of detail in support of V"
these changes?
Did the licensee clearly define when the augmentation clock starts?
Did the licensee provide sufficiently detailed justification for changing the response time for each position/function being changed?
Did the licensee provide sufficiently detailed justification for adding duties to existing positions and did this detail evaluate the impact these additional duties have on this position's performance?
31, toLJ Ap
EPD Office Instruction EPD-1 00 Revision/t(-**"5*
Page 12 of 18 ATTACHMENT 1 ACCEPTABILITY REVIEW OF LICENSEE SHIFT STAFFING/AUGMENTATION TIME CHANGE REQUESTS (pg 2 of 2)
Comments:
'0 *,,
,X.4-1 4.,9
÷,,o'*° 2, 'fL..,*,
LA r*
e, 9i4
/(~e~fe~
d*~~
W~ 4-Q
~
/
4/'./~&r~
cp
~~
( 2 ~~~gcoski ct19tSoO
%%,o)t p9jy 4
1
EPD Office Instruction EPD-100 Revision Vvrit-i7 Pame 13 of 18 ATTACHMENT 2 (page I of 2)
COMPARISON TABLES FOR SHIFT STAFFING ANALYSIS (NUREG-0654 vs Current NRR Approved Plan)
Site:
-*\\<5-f Staffing levels (per reactor for Plant Ops, per site for all others)
On-Shift*
30-Min 60-Min Major Tasks Position 0654 Licensee 0654 Licensee 0654 Licensee Shift Supv (SRO)
I I
Shift Foreman (SRO)
I Plant Ops CR Operators 2-..
Aux Operators 2
IOther
___1 1_
El l
II Emergency Direction"**
1____
1____
Other L
E_
1__1 Notification/ Communication Communicators I
I 11 2
Other Direct-I J
Rad Assessment & Ops EOF Director Assessment Support Sr. HP Dose Assessor I
l Other Offsite Surveys HP Techs 2
___2 _._
Onsite (outside) Surveys Other I
_1 Jnplant Surveys 1
i l
I Chemistry / Radiochemistry Otherm Techs I
1 II I_
I STA 1
Core/Thermal Hydraulics Eng i
l Technical Support Electrical Engineer I
Mechanical Engineer I
l Other Mechanics 1"*
I 1--
I l
Rad Waste Operators I
Repair & Corrective Actions Electricians 1 **
c, -)
1 1 I 1
I&C Techs 1
Other Radiation Protection (access HP Techs 2**
2 0-2 control, HP coverage, personnel Other monitoring, dosimetry issuance)
Firefighting Fire Brigade Members TehSe j
N/A N/A___ii I Other i
II II First Aid First Aid Qualified Personnel 2*_______
N/A N/A Security & Personnel Security Personnel Security N/A N/A Accountability Plan Other Totals (check for double counting)[I 10 1:
11 I
I1 Notes:
.............. For each unaffected nuclear unit in operation, maintain at least one shift foreman, one control room operator and one auxiliary operator except that units sharing a control room may share a shift foreman if all functions are covered.
............ May be provided by shift personnel assigned other functions.
.......... Overall direction of facility response to be assumed by EOF director when all centers are fully staffed. Director of minute to minute facility operations remains with senior manager in TSC or control room.
......... May be performed by engineering aide to shift supervisor.
EPD Office Instruction EPD-1 00 Revision /*-#"
Pace 14 of 18 EPD Office Instruction EPD-1 00 Revision Paae 14 of 18 ATTACHMENT 2 (page 2 of 2)
COMPARISON TABLES FOR SHIFT STAFFING ANALYSIS (Current NRR Approved Plan vs Proposed Plan)
Site:
Sta S
ing levels (per reactor for Plant Ops, per site for all others)
Major Tasks Position On-Shift*
30-Min 60-Min Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Shift Supv (SRO)
Shift Foreman (SRO)
Plant Ops CR Operators Aux Operators Other Emergency Direction***
fSTA, SS or designated mgr.
II II Notification/ Communication ****
Communicators_____
Other____
Rad Assessment & Ops EOF Director Assessment Support Sr. HP Dose Assessor Other Offsite Surveys HP Techs Onsite (outside) Surveys Other Inptant Surveys Chem Chemistry / Radiochemistry Core/ther malhs
's"
° i ________ i'-
11
__I STA Core/Thermal Hydraulics Eng Technical Support Electrical Engineer Mechanical Engineer IOther
_1IL-Mechanics Rad Waste Operators Repair & Corrective Actions Electricians I&C Techs Other Radiation Protection (access HP Techs control, HP coverage, personnel Other monitoring, dosimetry issuance)
Firefighting Fire Brigade Members_______
First Aid AirstAid Qualified Personnel II E
ll II__
Security & Personnel Security Personnel Accountability PC Other Totals (check for double counting) I I i III I
II1 I
Notes:
- .............. For each unaffected nuclear unit in operation, maintain at least one shift foreman, one control room operator and one auxiliary operator except that units sharing a control room may share a shift foreman if all functions are covered.
- ............ May be provided by shift personnel assigned other functions.
.......... Overall direction of facility response to be assumed by EOF director when all centers are fully staffed. Director of minute to minute facility operations remains with senior manager in TSC or control room.
......... May be performed by engineering aide to shift supervisor.