ML17277A665
| ML17277A665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1983 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ferguson R WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8307200386 | |
| Download: ML17277A665 (7) | |
Text
JUL 8 1S83 Docket No. 50-397 Mr. R. L. Ferguson Managing Director Washington Public Power Supply System P. 0. Box 968 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99352
Dear Mr. Ferguson:
DISTRIBUTION:
Document Control
(.50-397)
NRC PDR L
EHylton RAuluck
- BPaton, OELD ACRS (16)
- ELJordan, DEJA:IE
- JMTaylor, DRP:IE Region V,
Subject:
Request for Additional Information:
Procedures Generation Package for WNP-2 As a result of our review of your Procedures Generation Package (PGP),
submitted by a letter dated March 23, 1983, we find that we need additional information.
The specific information is described in Enclosure l.
To maintain our licensing review schedule for the WNP,'-2, we will need responses to the enclosed request by July 22, 1983. If you cannot meet this date, please inform us within seven days after receipt of this letter of the date you plan to submit your responses so that we may review our schedule for. any necessary changes.
Please contact Raj Auluck, Licensing Project Manager, ifyou desire any discussion or clarification of the enclosed request.
Sincerely, Q9Q %BI st@led by
Enclosure:
As stated A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No.
2 Division of Licensing cc w/enclosure:
See next page 830720038b 830708 PDR ADOCK 05000397 A
.DL.:
kw
~8 ooooo
~ ohio ~
~ o ~ O
~ ~\\ ~ o ~ o ~
~ ~ o
~ o
~ ~ o ~
OFFICE/
SURNAME/
DATE Q NRO FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 BL..
oloCo ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~
ASc encer
~
~
~ ~
o
~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ o ~
~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~\\ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~i
~
~ i'ooooooo ~ ~
~
OFFICIAL RE.CORD COPY uSeFO: 19S1~seO
II
Nr.
R. L. Ferguson Managing Director Mashington Public Power Supply System P. 0.
Box 968 3000 George Vashington Vay Richland, Vashington 99352 cc:
Hicholas Reynolds, Esquire
~ Debevoise
& Liberman 1200 Seventeenth
- Street, H. M.
Vashington, D. C.
20036 Mr. G. E. Doupe, Esquire Vashington Public Power Supply System P.O.
Box 968 3000 George Vashington hay
- Pichland, Vashington 99352 Hicholas Lewis, Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council Nail Stop PY-ll Olympia, Vashington 98504 Roger Helson, Licensing Manager Vashington Public Power Supply System P.O.
Box 968 Richland, Vashington 99352 Nr. M. G. Conn, Sr.
H/M Group Supervisor Burns and Roe, incorporated 60l Villiams Boulevard Richland, Vashington 99352 Nr. Richard Feil U.S.
HRC Resident Inspector RPPSS-2 HPS P.O.
Box 69
- Richland, washington 99352 3r.
G.
D. Bouchey, Manager Huclear Sa=ety
& Reaulatory Proarams
'Rash-ngton Public Power Supply System P.O.
Box 968, MD 650
- Richland,
'Washington 99352
Enclosure RE VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Emergency Operating Procedure Guidelines;:the process for developing plant-specific technical guidelines from generic technical guidelines needs to be explained.
For this item, the following'are the staff information needs:
a.
A description of the process used to determine the applicability of the actions specified in the generic technical guidelines to the specific plant.
This
'should be a detailed description of an engineering evaluation or analysis, to the specific operator task level, that evaluates the applicability of the generic technical guidelines to WNP-2.
- b. If the process descr ibed in item 640.01(a) of this letter identifies any deviations from the generic technical guidelines (because of different plant equipment, operating characteristics, or design),
the PGP needs to identify the deviations, describe the analysis performed to determine the safety significance of the deviations, and provide the technical justification (i.e., the analysis) for the plant-specific approach.
c.
A description of the process for identifying the information and control system needs of the operators, and a description of the analysis or process used to ensure the availability and adequacy of the instrumentation and controls to meet the identified needs.
The GE generic guide-lines provide a significant portion of the required analysis.
That is they provide a listing of general information (e.g.,
RPV water level) to use in determining the need for an action, and the tasks that need to be performed for the action.
The listing of information is based on existing instrumentation in the General Electric NSSS, and does not in our view go far enough in identifying the need for more effective or accurate indications of the necessary information.,
f"
The tasks that need to be performed to complete a given action are available in the generic guidelines at a system or component level.
To complete the task analysis, WPPSS should take the information regarding instrumentation and tasks that is provided in the'E generic guidelines, the plant specific equipment operating characteristics, shift manning, and operating philosophy, and determine for MNP-2 whether improved instrumentation (type, range, display forget and location) and controls (design and location) are necessary for the tasks identified.
Information from the task analysis should be used to determine the adequacy of the parameters, instrumentation and controls for the specific plant needs'he task analysis may identify necessary instrumentation not currently available in the control room.
This information can contribute significantly to meeting operator infor-mation needs, and thus could contribute significantly to plant safety.
The task analysis will provide a
sense of the adequacy of the information currently used in the procedures and will provide the basis for the detailed control room design review (DCRDR).
lhe DCRDR will then provide the basis for developing a plan for correcting and improving the information referenced in the guidelines.
In the PGP, provide a description of the analysis that will be performed for WNP-2 and a schedule for its completion.
Specifically, for MNP-2, which has undergone a prelicensing control room design review (TMI Action Plan Item I.D.l), the detailed task analysis should be performed on a
schedule consistent with Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, "Requirements or Emergency
Response
Capability."
In this case, a clear commitment to complete the task analysis is necessary.
640.02 Plant-Specific Writer's Guide, page 5, Item 4.1; information should be presented so that interruptions in ihe flow of information are minimal:
This section should state that each action step will be wholly contained on a single pageos
A 640.03 640. 04 640.05 l7 Plant-Specific Writer's Guide, page 6, Item 4.3; warnings and cautions should be written so that they can be read completely without interruptions by intervening steps or page turning.
Section 4,3 should state that each warning or caution statement will be wholly contained on a single page..
Plant-Specific Writer's Guide, page 8, Item 4.'6; Operators may need to locate a specific section of a= procedure or other procedures quickly.
The GE generic technical guidelines'tructure may cause the operator to flip between several different procedures or sub-sections (e.g.,
RC/L, RC/P, RC/g concurrently, to Cl, to C4, back to RC/L).
A technique should be selected to provide quick identification of these various parts, such as tabbing or colored dividers.
Plant-Specific Writer s Guide, Section 4; concurrent steps are those that have to be performed at the same time.
The EOPs should explicitly indicate which steps or procedures are concurrent so that operators can easily refer to all such steps or procedures.
The maximum number of concurrent steps or procedures should not be beyond the capability of the control room staff to perform them.
A good method of distinguishing concurrent steps or procedures is to write a "NOTE" prior to these steps or procedures advising the operator that'they are to be performed concurrently.
Although the GE generic technical guidelines advise the operator of upcoming con-current steps or procedures, a discussion of this item should be addressed in Section 4.
640. 06 Training Program; a description of your plan for addressing major and minor revisions to EOPS is needed.
Hinor revisions are those that are editorial in nature, but may impact the interpre-tation or meaning of the affected part of the EOP.
.Major revisions are those that affect the sequence or content of actions.
The staff believes that minor revisions can be addressed using briefings, lectures and required reading, and riajor revisions can be addressed by the above methods, with con-sideration for using walkthroughs and simulation to the type of learning taking place.
640. 07 I
Training Program; throughout your training program, an evaluation method will be needed to ensure that operators can demonstrate that they have met each training objective.
A description of these,-evaluation methods should be discussed in this section along with a description of how the evaluation methods will meet the objectives.
These methods should be appropriate for the type of learning to be measured.
For example, performance on a simulator might best be evaluated by observation using tested performance checklists, and the ability to describe specific aspects of the EOPs or their development could be evaluated by written tests.
640.08 The following items were noted during the staff's review and are being provided for information only:
a ~
An operator should be able to locate specific sections of an EOP in a minimum amount of time and without confusion.
To help achieve....-.:-:..
this goal, a table of contents may be used.
b.
A binding method should be selected based on the intended use of the procedures in the control room.
The binding should not obscure any information and should allow for ease of handling.
c.
Placekeeping aids should be used when it is determined to be helpful when cross-referencing is required.
Placekeeping
- aids, such as sign-offs for each step or a book marker type arrangement could be used to facilitate transitions from one procedure or sub-seotion to another.