ML20091C358
| ML20091C358 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1992 |
| From: | Kovach T COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9204030195 | |
| Download: ML20091C358 (2) | |
Text
._.
_ _ ~.
._... _. _. ~ _.. _...
+
a_
'h
- C:mmtnwealth Edistn
..1400 opus Place Downers Grove. Illinois 605151 March 30,1992 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Washington, DC 20555
. Attn: Document Control Desk
Subject:
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2
. Response to Open item
- Inspection Repori Nos.- 50 254/92002; 50 205/92002 NBC_DacketNoL50a54.ani50 265
Reference:
.. G.C. Wright letter to Cordell Reed dated March 9,199P. transmitting NRC Inspection Report _50 254/92002; 50 265/92002 _
Enclosed is Commonwealth Edison Company's (CECO) response to the Open.
Item which was transmitted with the reference letter and Inspection Report.,The Open item concerned the completion, a aproval, and control of the Emergency Operating.
Procedures (EOP) development c ocument which describes the differences between plant
-specific guidelines and the EOPs. CECO's response is provided in the attachment.
.. lf your staff has any_ questions concerning this transmittal, please refer them to
--James Watsons Compliance Engineer at (708) 515 7205.
Sincerely, Y$
&.hy T.J. Kovach Nuclear Licensing Manager-Attachment o
cc:
A.B. Davis, Regional Administrator - Region Ill L.N. Olshan, Project Manager, NRR-
- _T. Taylor,' Senior Resident Inspector -
Do[o$o$$js4 vvG-.-
$ 'l ZNLD/1643/1
~
~..
.. m --.
V
,se
' h ~I!
.~
AIIACBMENIA RESPONSE TO.OPEN IIEM NR0_INSPECIlONBEEDBI 50 251/92002L50 265z92002 1
OpeniteffL25d(265)/9200201
-The inspector noted numerous differences between the Plant Specific Technical Guidelines (PSTG) and the EOP flowcharts which were not documented and were not
- IdentiN +"'-ihe licensee's Verification and Valldation of the EOPs. These differences 1 Gen trahy,*i >. ': M sequence, changes in logic, and relocation of s invole anges in EOP structure appeared to enhance the useability of the
'fic *hans'_ #:
these differences were not reflected in the EOP/PSTG Comparison.
JD'
,e>
<c.
9 of the uncontrolled nature of these changes, the potential exists for in c -
J the operational strategy. intended by the PSTG. From a procedure vision standpoint, the differences between the PSTG and "lowcharts mai a
shot lied and lustified. The licensee had reco0nized the need for this docu.,
and had init ated an effort to document all differences between the PSTG 1
- and EOrs - i ne inspectors reviewed the draft " Development Document" for the three EOP flowcharts, which had nearly completed documentation, and found the level of detail was :
acceptable.- Licensee completion, approval, and control of the development document will ibe tracked as an Open item.-
D L
BESPONSE L
Development of the.."OGA Development Tracking" document began in September of 1991 Tnis document will provide for the tracking of each step from the BWR Owners
. Group Guidelines to the actual OGA flowchart implementation. Identified differences will
<be discussed, documented, and justified as necessary, Currently 6 of 19 Owners Group
> Guidelines have been completec.
The draft "OGA Development Tracking" document should be developed by August 31,
=1992. Allowing adequate time for_ a On-Site Review, applicable document revisions, and p
emerging Unit 1 refuel outage work, the document is expected to be implemented and
- controlled by. December 31,- 1992.
n i
l ZNLD/1643/2 -
-,-