ML20148G982
| ML20148G982 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1980 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011140568 | |
| Download: ML20148G982 (5) | |
Text
,. -
I r
hh h QDy Mr. Cordell Reed Comonwealth Edison Comany Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 j
Dear Mr,
Reed:-
By a letter dated June 30, 1980 Mr. R. H. Suchholz forwarded the GE' Emergen:y Proce&re Guidelines to D. G. Eisenhut.. On August 7 and 8, 1980, we met with representatives of the GE Owners' Group, General Electric Company and Connonwealth Edison (LaSalle Nuclear Station) to discuss the Emergency Procedure Guidelines, Revision 0, June 30,1980. Based on the results of that meeting and the review conducted te date by the staff, we find the Emergency Procedure Guidelines acceptable for trial implementation
- at the LaSalle, Zimmer, Shoreham, Fermi 2, Susquehanna, and Washington Nuclear Project 2 stations. This letter is sent to you as Chairman of the BWR Owners' Group cn beha!' of the participants.
During the course of implementation we may identify areas that require modification or further analysis and justification. Since we anticipate that changes will be nuessary regarding detailed widance, your training program should properly secount for such future procedural revisions. We will inform you of these areas as our review proceeds.
We recognize that postulating multiple equipment failures and operator errors j
can lead to situations that place a plant outside the limits of its technical specifications. While we in no way encourage deliberate operation outside of technical specification limits, we agree that the pidance provided in the draft guidelines is necessary to encompass the range of contingencies required when multiple failures are postulated. Operator training in use of f he new procedures developed from these guidelines naast stress this point and will l
be raiewed during our plant-specific reviews.
In our review to date, we have identified several areas where additional information is required. These areas are identified in the enclosure to this letter. Please inform us tg October 10, 1980, of your schedule for submitting this information.
)
THIS DOCUMENT CONTMlS SI"C'"'I '
Y POOR QUAUTY PAGES Darrell G. Eisenhut. Director Division of Licensing Enclosurc:
nfef.T SEF PREVIOUS YELLOWS FOR CONCURRENCES AND DISTRIBt! TION on DHFS:DI
. D.L :DI R, OFFICE su~,ME) Sb.a..iMe r..
.DGEisenhut..
DATEh,y 0,,
. ?./... /.@.,
NRC FORM 318 (946) NRCM 0240 D U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289 369
Mr. Cordell Reed Commonwealth Edison Company
. Post Office Box 767 Chicago,1111acis. 60690
~
Dear Mr. Reed:
. By a letter dated June 30, 1900, Mr. P, M. Suchholz forwarded the GE Emergency Procedum Guidelines to 0. G. Eisenhut. On August 7 and 8, 1980, we met with representatives of the GE Ocers Group, General Electric Company and Commonwealth Edison (LaSalle Nuclear Statica) to discuss the Emet aancy Procedure Guidelines, Revision 0, June 30,1980. S o *d on
-the resuits of that meeting.nd the review conducted to date by the staff, we find the Emergency Procedure Guidelines acceptable for trial implementation at the LaSalle, Zimmer, Shoreham, Fermi' 2, Susquehanna, and Washington Nuclear Project 2 stations. During the course of implementation we may identify areas that require modification or further analysis and justification. Since we anticipate that changes will be necessary regarding detailed guidance, your training program should properly account for such future procedural revisions.
We will inform you of these areas as our review proceeds.
We recognize that postulating multiple equi mnt failures and opt,rator erors. -
can lead to situations that place a plant outside the limits of its technical specifications. While we in no way encourage deliberate operation outside of technical-specification limits, we agree that the guidance provided in the draft gnidelines is necessary to encompass the range.of contingencies required when sultiple failures are postulated., Operator training in use of the new procedures developed from these guidelines must stress this point and will be reviewed during our plant-specific reviews.
In our review in date, we have identified several areas where additional information is required. These areas are identified in the enclosure to this letter. Please inform us by September 26,1980, of your schedule for submitting this information.
Sincerely,
\\
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Addktional /
Information M / SEE PREVIOUS YELLOW FOR ALL OTHER CONCURRENCES orrice >AHfS.:.0 PL; D.IR.
suRNme).SHHa ex.... DGE.isenhut...
o, >e >.9/.(\\ /.S0..... 94. /.80..
.r NRCrORM 318 (9 76) NRCM D24 DU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OF Fict.:19's.139 369
rv i
DISTRIBUTION Centra! Files KKniel P&TRB Reading.
DZiemann NRR Reading DFischer
~
HDenton DBeckham ECase PTRB Reviewers FSchroeder WHodges RVo11mer GMazetis DEisenhut
. Dross PCheck SHHanauer Mr. Cordell Reed VAMoore Cosmorarealth Edison Company he Post Office Box 767
[sjey Chicago,'1111ests 60690 RWessman
Dear Mr. Reed:
m B.' a letter dated June 30, 1980 Mr. R. W. Suchholz forwarded the GE Erergency Procedure Guidelines to D. G. Eisenhut. - On August 7 and 8 1580, we met with representatives of the GE Qwners Group, General Electric Campany and Commomealth Edison.(LaSalle Nuclear Station) to discuss the Emergency Procedure Guidelines, Revision 0, June 30,'1980.. Based on the results of that meeting and the review conducted to dati: by the staff, we find the Emergency Procedure Guidelines acceptable for trial implementation at the LaSalle,'Zimmer, Shaeham, Fermi 2.- Susquehanne, and Washington Wuclear Project 2 stations. During the course of implementation we may identify areas
- that require modification or further analysis and justification. Since we anticipate that changes will be necessary regarding detailed guidance, your training program should properly account for such future procedural revisions.
We will infors you of these areas as our review proceeds.
We recognize that postulating sultiple equipment failures and operator errors can lead to situations that place a plant outside the limits of its technical specifications. While we in ac way condone deliberate operation outside of technical specification limits, we agree that the guidance provided in the draft guidelines is necessary to encompass the range of contingencies required when mitiple failures are postulated. Operator training in use of the new procedures developed from these guidelines aust stress this point and will be reviewed during our plant-specific reviews.
In our review to date, we have identified several areas where additional infomation is required. These areas are identified in the enclosure to this letter. Please inform us by September-5,1980, of your schedale for submitting this information.
Sincerely.
- See previous yellow for concurrence Stephee H. Manauer, Director
~
sion of Human Factors Safe,tx j
Enclosum.
DST:GI R.
IE IE y
DHFS:DIR KKniel eda RWes man SBry n SHanauer i
Non 8/2 7/80 8/W80 _T F/ c; /80 4/ 'f/80 8/ /80 a
DHFS :P&T" DHFS:P&TRB DSI:RSB DST on e
DSfiDTR
.DBeckham:at
.DLZieman.n*
.GMazeti.s*,
PC&
.k
.DRsps.
sua E
8/ /80 8/n/8o 8/2s/*
env8o 8c489.
acust NRC FORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 t u.S. GOVERNMENT D AINTING OFFICE r 1979 289 369
g
[
f DISTRIBUTION Central Files KKniel P&TRB Reading DZiemann NRR Reading DFischer HDenton DBeckham ECase PTRB Reviewers FSchroeder WHodges-RVollmer GMazetis DEisenhut Dross PCheck SHHanauer Mr. Cordell Reed TSpeia VAMoore Comonwealth Edison Company VStello Post Office Box 767 NMoseley Chicago, Illinois 60690 SBryan RWessman
Dear Mr.. Reed:
By'a letter dated June 30, 1980, Mr. R. H. Buchholz : forwarded the GE Emergency Procedure Guidelines to D. G. Eisenhut.
On August 7 and 8, 1980, we met with representatives of the GE Owners Group, General Eleu -ic Company i: and Comonwealth Edison (LaSille: Nuclear Station) to discust the Emergency Procedure Guidelines, Revision 0, June 30, 1980. Based on the results of that meeting and the review conducted to date by the staff, we find the Emergency Procedure Guidelines acceptable for trial implementa ion at the LaSalle, Zimmer, Shoreham, Fermi 2, Susquehanna, and Washington Nuclear Project 2 stations. During the course of implementation we may identify areas that require modification or further analysis and justification. We will
. inform you of any such areas as they are identified. -
We recognize that postulating multiple equipment failures and operator errors can lead to situations that place a plant outside the limits of its technical i
specifications. While we in no way condone deliberate operation outside of technical specification limits, we agree that the guidance provided in the
- draft guidelines is necessary to encompass the range of contingencies required when multiple failures are postulated. Operator training in use of the new procedures developed from these guidelines must stress this.po. int and will be reviewed during our plant-specific reviews.
i In our review to date, we have identified several areas where additional information is required. These areas are identified in the enclosure to this letter. Please inform us by September 5,1980, of your schedule for submitting this information.
I
, Sincerely, l
DHFS:DIR i
SHHanauer Sterhen H. Hanauer, Director D M s1 DSI:DIR DST:GIB DSN A g Fa gors' Safety IE Dross KXniel FSchroeder RWessman SBryan Enclosure,_:_ m 4 m_.,8/
/80 8L /Rd 8/ /80 8/ /80 8/ /80 o_-,+
m,..,jdormation DHFS,:P& RB D,h,hTRB
- RSB DS I,; RS B..,,
,,DS I ; P S,,,,,,,,
. 9...
...t A h....D.L7,1.emann....
.ti.sg....T.Sp.e.i.s..........
..P.Ch.e.c.k..,...
.u -. -
h
~.m o.
.BDA'BQ......
.Bl%B0......
. 8t ).60.1)...
- 21... 1 B.0......
.Bl...]90....
Iac max m a.m acu om
- ........................'r...........
1
.l ENCLOSURE'
[.;..
)
't i-REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INF0P.SATION' l
. EMERGENCY' PROCEDURE GUIDELINES DRAFT 0, JUNE 30, 1980 u
i['
1.
'The guidelines' reference an Appendix A.
Thf understand that Appendix A provides the methods of calculating. the' limits specified.in the guidelines and the bases for those guideline steps for which the bases are not
- i obvious.
Please provide 5 copies of Appendix A'to the guidelines.
~
6 jf 2.
Step C1-7.2 on page Cl-4 calls for manual actuation of the ADS ' valves
.i~
when the water level reaches the top of the cctive fuel.
Analyses.
previously submitted have assumed earlier. ADS actuation.
Provide
~
analyses to show that actuation when the water level reaches the top a
of the active fuel provides adequate core cooling.
H 3'
3.
Step C3-1 "~ page C3-1 calls for staged opening of SRV's for the case Li lof core cuoling without injection.
Provide analyses to support the i
i table given in step C3-1.
mj 4.
Cautions 4, 5,'13,.18 and step CC-2.4.2 require'the operator to veriff
?
adequate core cooling.
Describe the various means available to the i
operator for doing so' Where reliance is cn1 observation that -various i
systems are functioning, provide analyses to show that'those systems
{
are adequate.
b
=
N w
4 3
re r
r I
.a i
h l
i -
I
.. _ -, _....... -