ML20153B913
| ML20153B913 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1988 |
| From: | Mcdonald R GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| 0414I, 414I, HL-27, NUDOCS 8808310146 | |
| Download: ML20153B913 (6) | |
Text
_ _____-_________
.l Georg a Fbwer Corpany 333 Prednwt Aenue A:!arta. Georg'a 30303
- Te:ephone 404 526-6526 Maihng Ad@ess' Post Off ce Box 4545 A!:arta, Georg>c 30302 R. P. Mc Donald tre southem (Wic system Executse %ce President Nuctear C$erations HL-27 0414I X7GJ17-H120 August 25, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Document Control Desk Hashington, D.C.
20555 PLANT HATCH - UNITS 1, 2 NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 RESPONSE TO INSPECTION REPORT 88-12 Gentlemen:
In response to your letter of July 6, 1988, Georgia Power Company (GPC) is providing the enclosed response to the request for plans and schedules relative to the corrective actions GPC is taking for Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) deficiencies.
A copy of this response is being provided to NRC Region II for review.
In the enclosures, a transcription of the NRC request precedes GPC's response.
Should you have any questions in this regard, please contact this office at any time.
Sincerely, t
I
(
[Af
/
y bt/
R. P. McDonal'd~
LGB/lg
Enclosures:
Inspection Report 88-12 Findings and GPC Response c:
(see next page) 8808310146 880825 g3f ADOCK05000p PDR Q
O GeorgiaPower d U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 25, 1988 Page Two-c: Georaia Power Comoany Mr. H. C. Nix, General Manager - Plant Hatch Mr. L. T. Gucwa, Manager Licensing and Engineering GO-NORMS s
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washinoton. D.'C.
Mr. L. P. Crocker, Licensing Project Manager - Hatch U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission. Reaion II Dr. J. N. Grace, Regional Administrator Mr. J. E. Henning, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch 0414I
Georgia Powerd ENCLOSURE PLANT HATCH - UNITS 1, 2 NRC 00CKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 INSPECTION REPORT 88-12 AND GPC RESPONSE LnJpartion Report 88-12 stated. in oart:
"The inspection findings identified several items that require actions to be taken on the Emergency Operating Procedures, associated supporting documentation, and training.
At the exit, your staff indicated that a well disciplined approach would be taken to correct the findings and that a plan would be developed and prov.ded to the NRC.
He also consider that a well disciplined timely approach to resolve the inspection findings is required.
Please formally transmit your plans and schedule to Region II within 30 days of receipt of this letter."
RESPONSE TO INSPECTION REPORT 88-12 GPC has reviewed the results of the NRC's review of Plant Hatch's Emergency Operating Procedures (E0Ps).
At the site exit for this inspection, members of the Plant Hatch staff discussed, with the NRC inspection team members, the approach-which would be taken to correct the findings and stated a plan would be developed and provided to the NRC.
On July 29, 1988, a meeting between representative of GPC and the NRC was held in Atlanta.
At that
- meeting, formal presentations were made to the NRC by GPC personnel.
The presentations included GPC's E0P improvement goals, the initial and current Plant Hatch E0P philosophy, and the E0P improvement plan and schedule.
0414I E-1 8/25/88 HL-27
Georgia Power d ENCLOSURE (Continued)
INSPECTION REPORT 88-12 AND GPC RESPONSE As discussed in the July 29 meeting, the goals of the improvement plan are:
1.
Improve the useability of the E0Ps.
2.
Use a multi-discipline team approach in development.
3.
Follow accepted industry practices more closely.
4.
Document and justify deviations from the Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPGs).
5.
Increase emphasis on concurrent actions for containment control and radiation release.
6.
Improve the maintenance and administrative control for the E0P family of procedures.
These goals will be implemented in a phased approach to correct the noted deficiencies.
There are four phases that will be implemented.
The details of each phase are discussed below.
PHASE 1 Phase 1 of the improvement plan included four major topics.
These topics were:
1.
Improved E0P flowchart production quality.
2.
Increased emphasis on concurrent containment control actions.
3.
Enhanced E0P training.
4.
Shift Supervisor and operator evaluations.
Phase 1 has been completed.
0414I E-2 8/25/88 HL-27
Georgia Power d ENCLOSURE (Continued)
JNSPECTION REPORT 88-12 AND GPC RESPONSE PHASE 2 Phase 2 of the improvement plan includes seven major topics.
These topics are:
1.
Simplification of the E0P flowcharts.
The simplification involves seven general areas as noted below:
a.
Removal of blocks of information, b.
Performance of a
line-by-line review of steps including technical, shift supervisor, and human factors inputs.
c.
Incorporation of human factors guidelines.
d.
Production of the new charts, e.
Performance of E0P verification and validation.
f.
Revision of support procedures, g.
Conduct training.
2.
Consolidation of the End Path Manuals.
3.
Improvement of Annunciator Response Procedure (ARP),
Abnormal Operating Procedure (A0P),
and Emergency Implementing Procedure (EIP) interface with the E0Ps in the areas of containment control and -radiation release guidelines.
4.
Human factors enhancement of the E0Ps.
0414I E-3 8/25/88 HL-27
Georgia Power d ENCLOSURE (Continued)
JNSPECTION REPORT 88-12 AND GPC RESPONSE 5.
Use of limited parallel paths.
6.
Use of immediate scram action placards.
7.
Revision to the E0P administrative control program.
Phase 2 is scheduled to be completed by December 31, 1988.
PHASE 3 Phase 3 of the improvement plan includes two_ major topics:
1.
Development of a flowchart for. containment control and radiation release.
i 2.
Possible further simplification of the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) control flowchart.
l Phase 3 is scheduled to be completed by June 30, 1989.
PHASE 4 Phase 4,
the final phase of the improvement plan, involves implementation of Revision 4 of the EPGs.
Current efforts underway are:
1.
Evaluating required procedure changes.
2.
Evaluating required design changes.
3.
Obtaining cost, manpower, and time estimates.
1 The schedule for completion of Phase 4 will be developed pending evaluation of the results of the current efforts and NRC issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for Revision 4 of the EPGs.
I 0414I E-4 8/25/88 HL-27
_.,,