ML20212H811
| ML20212H811 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212H808 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703060227 | |
| Download: ML20212H811 (4) | |
Text
_
f~
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY CALLAWAY PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-483 j
RP.ckoround i
The Safety Evaluation Report,- Supplement 3 (NUREG-0830, May 1984) concluded that the Union Electric Company emergency operating procedures (EOPs1 were acceptable for issuance of the Callaway full power license and that-there was a need for additional analysis to identify operator tasks and information and control needs. License Condition 7(a) required the licensee to submit the results of-its function and task analysis.
Following submittal of the licensee's " Final Report for the Task Analysis 4
for SNUPPS Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR)" April 26, 1985, as clarified by the licensee's letter of May 24, 1985, the staff requested additional information in its letter dated November 4, 1985. The licensee responded to this request by letter dated January 14, 1986 and amended its response in its letter dated July 9, 1986.
l Evaluation c
The staff's request for additional infomation included six items. The staff's review of the response to each item is described below.
l Item 1.
It was apparent that Callaway was using E0Ps based on a Revision 0 l
of the Westinghouse Emergency Response Guidelines (ERGS) and that the function l
and task analysis was based on Revision 1 of the ERGS. The licensee was asked to demonstrate that the function and task analysis was applicable to l
Callaway.
l I
G703060227 8703o4 hDR ADOCK 05000403 PDR I
I
. The licensee's response indicated that E0Ps based on Revision 1 of the ERGS were implemented January 1,1986. Therefore, the function and task analysis should be applicable to the FDPS since they are now both based i
on the same revision to the ERGS. This resolves the staff's concern with regard to Item 1.
Item 2.
The staff requested the licensee to modify its Procedures Generation Package (PGP) to state that the task analysis which supported the E0P upgrade program was described as part of the DCRDR. This provides a cross-reference and, as such, valuable background information for making future changes to the E0Ps.
I The licensee's response stated that the PGP had been revised to indicate that the task analysis which was performed as part of the DCRDR was also used in the E0P upgrade program. This resolves the staff's concern with regard to Item 2.
1 Item 3.
The staff requested the licensee to justify the deviations from the ERGS identified in the Task Analysis Final Report as Findings 1, 6, 8, I
9, and 10.
i The licensee's response indicates that the deviations from the ERGS do not involve safety concerns for the reasons described and that justifications for these deviations would be included in the PGP. The Finding 1 deviation is not a concern because it is not applicable for plants that have boron injection tank boron concentration of less than 7,000 ppm because of solu-bility considerations. The injection tank boron concentration at Callaway is approximately 2,000 ppm. The staff agrees that this deviation is not a safety concern. Finding 6 related to a procedural step that required an n
the i ti on to roo nstr nt t o T
con e s respen e indicated that the applicable E0P was revised to use a value which could be l
read from the instruments without interpolation. The. staff considers this concern resolved.
Findings 8, 9, and 10 related to instrumentation used in the ERGS which does not exist at the Callaway plant. The licensee's response
l t indicates in each case that alternative instruments are available and that the operators are instructed to use these instruments to accomplish the applicable steps in the E0Ps. The staff considers this concern resolved.
Item 4 The staff requested the licensee to identify and justify all potentially safety-significant deviations from the ERGS which the staff did not identify in Items 1, 2, and 3.
The licensee described its method for identifying potentially safety-significant deviations from the ERGS and listed the ones it had identified.
It provided justification for those deviations and concluded that they were not safety-significant. The staff agrees with the licensee's assessment of these deviations and considers this item resolved.
Item 5.
The staff requested the licensee to identify E0P steps which listed component cooling water flow to the seal water heat exchanger as an instrumentation requirement.
The licensee's response listed the applicable ERG steps.
In addition, in response to Item 3. Finding 8, the licensee described alternative instrumen-tation available to be used to assure that adequate seal water cooling is available. The staff considers this item resolved.
Item 6.
The staff requested the licensee to describe indications other than steam generator water level that would be used to identify a ruptured steam generator (i.e., a steam generator with ruptured tube (sil.
The licensee's response identified alternative indications for identifying ruptured steam generators in a manner which is consistent with the ERG background information. Therefore, the staff considers this item resolved.
. Conciusion The staff has reviewed the differences between the EPGs and the Callaway E0Ps that were identified in the staff's examination of the DCRDR and the licensee's review to identify deviations from the ERGS. Based on this review, the staff concludes that these procedural changes at Callaway provide adequate guidance and information to the operator for coping with emergencies and that they achieve the pertinent objectives of the ERGS.
Therefore, we conclude that they are acceptable and consider License Condition 7(a) satisfied.
e o
9 4
!