ML17266A474
| ML17266A474 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1981 |
| From: | Boissy G, Fincher P, Wethy C FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Nerses V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17212A280 | List: |
| References | |
| 229, NUDOCS 8107070325 | |
| Download: ML17266A474 (6) | |
Text
ACCESSION NBR FACILi!50 335 50.<<389 AUTH'AME" F INCHER i P e L"e BOI SSYi G ~ L'e NETHYgC ~ MD REC IP ~ NAME>>
NERSESr V ~
REGULA Y INFORMATION DISTR IBUTIO'STKI>>i, (RIDS)
! 8107070325 DOC ~ DATE! 81/06/30 NOTARIZED:
NO St'e Luc ie'lant i Unit 1 ~
F 1 or'i da Power E Light Co.
St. Lucie Plant~
Unit 2< Flor ida Power E Light Co.
AUTHOR AFFILIATION Florida Power L Light Co,"
F1 or-ida, Power E Light Co.
F 1 or.i da Power E Light Co, RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Division of Licensing DOCKET 0
05000389
SUBJECT:
"'esponds to items discussed in 810608 meeting re dual 1 i censabi 1 i ty of oper ator s.Oper ations/sys di ffer ence.
analysis rept encl for>> official ruling on dual
>>>>censab>>1>> ty,. ~ ~ Q~~ f ~~ gy7g g+ r DISTRIBUTION CODE B021S COPIES RECEIVED!lTR ENCL
'IZE:
t l,
TITLE'! Correspondence>>
for Operating, E, Non"Operating Fac71i ty (e~,g,'orth'Ann NOTES!
ACTION; RECIPIENT IO CODE/NAME(
NELSONgC ~
05>>
COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME, LIC BR rar3 BC 04 L'IC BR Ir3 LA NKRSESgV,"
05.
COPIES LTTR ENC 1
1 INTERNAl'. A/D CORE E
CS'UX SYS'BR 08 CottT SYS BR 10.
DIR CHUM FAC S12".
EFF TR SYS BR13 EMRG PRP LIC FERA. REP DIV HUI>>1 FACT ENG 16 HYD/GEO BR 17 IEE>>
07 LIC: QUAL BR MECH ENG BR 20 NRC PDR 02.
OP LIC BR POWER SYS BR 21 QA BR 23 REAC SYS BR 25'IT ANAL>> BR 26 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
ACCID EVAL~ BR28 CHEM ENG BR 09 CORE PERF BR 11 D IR g L'I CENSING EMRG PRP DKV EQUIP QUAL BR14 GEOSC IEN BR 15 HUM FACT'NG BR IEC SYS BR 18 LXC QUID BR MATL'NG BR 19 MPA OELD OR ASSESS BR PROC/TST REV 22 R
S BR24 G
F ILE-01 NG BR27 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 CI 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
EXTERNAL; ACRS NSIC 29 06 1,6 1
LPDR'TIS 03 0 ~L JUL 09 1981 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED!
LTTR 68 ENCL 61
0 4
1 ll lt A
k n
CI 1i e
a 1l Jl f(
1'
POST
'E BOX 128, FT. PIERCE, FLORIDA 33454
,'(% II'1
~
JUL 06 198)t Iha> tera IIMNAmm coMMlss NN
/Pkv A%
FLORIDAPOWER & LIGHTCOMPANY Ltr ~ Bk. 229 June 30, 1981 Victor Nerses U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 g( ->$5 so-Sa
Dear Sir:
In response to the items discussed in our meeting of June 8, 1981 concerning dual licensability of Unit 1 and 2 operators, the following information is provided
~
1.
Revised Sections 13.1, 13.2 and 13.5 fo the Unit fI2 FSAR.
(Enclosure 1) 2.
Unit 1/2 Differences Analysis-(Enclosure 2)
The basis for the Differences Analysis was to identify those differences which could affect the Control Room Operators ability to make operating and emergency decisions.
Systems with significant safety impact were reviewed.
Systems which in themselves do not have safety significance were not reviewed.
Ho~ever, there will be a continuing review program which should ultimately identify differences in systems with no safety impact.
The Difference Analysis will be the basis for developing a training program to prepare Unit 81 operators for licensing on Unit P2.
All differences subsequently identified will be factored into this training. It is also expected that some of these differences will be eliminated by backfitting on Unit 1.
The scope of these backfit items can not be identified at this time.
The analysis identifies the differences by describing the Unit 1 and Unit 2 arrangements, categorizing the significance of the differences as they relate to risk of error, and stating our position as to why the difference is acceptable in terms of the dual licensing concept.
Significance categories are defined as follows:
Category 1 High risk of error in Safety-Related activity.
Category 2 Moderate risk of error in Safety-Related activity.
Category 3 - Low risk of error in Safety-Related activity.
Category 4 High risk of error in Non Safety-Related activity.
Category 5 Low risk of error in Non Safety-Related activity-8i0707p325 Bfpg30)
PDR ADOCK 05000335 V
PDR gpss PEOPLE... SERVING, PEOPLE
t 1
Victor Nerses Page Two June 29, 1981 After careful review of this analysis it is our position that the granting of dual Unit licenses to PSL operators will not cause undue risk of operational errors.
It is also our position that since training on these differences will require review of Unit 1 and Unit 2 information, we will utilize this training to satisfy the Unit Pl Requalification Program requirements.
We therefore request that your staff review the attached data and provide an official ruling as to the acceptability of our position.
Pat L. Pincher Training Supervisor St. Lucie Plant Unit Pl G. J. Boissy Startup Superintendent St. Lucie Plant Unit g2 C. M. Wethy Plant Manager St. Lucie Plant Unit 81 PLF:ls enc
I I4,4
~'
4 4
P ll I
P4
'I I
I P
P
~
4