ML20214W404

Forwards Draft Comments on Emergency Operating Procedure Review on 870518-22

ML20214W404
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	05/27/1987
From:	Defferding L Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION
To:	Linda Watson NRC
References
NUDOCS 8706160007
Download: ML20214W404 (9)

Text

--s

)

" ? ,tr 6sisy 28 P 'd *. 2 ,

OBallelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories P.O. Box 999 ,

i Rkhland, Washington U.S.A. 99352

' Telephone (509)

Telex 15 2en - 375-2925

\

May 27, 1987

Linda J.~ Watson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta St., NW Atlanta, GA 30303 i

Dear Linda,

Attached is a draft copy of my comments on' the Emergency Operating Procedure Review that was held at the Catawba Nuclear Station on May 18-22, 1987.

If you have any questions, please give me a call.

Sincerely ,

(

L. J. Defferding Nuclear Systems and Concept Analysis l

.f o

l e

\

l 4

8706160007 B7 g 4

PDR ADOCK O pg ,;

P i

• CE3S'

. - -~

-.-..g...__ _ __ ,, . . . , _ __ _ _ __ - -- .-. .-

, g ... . g p_,. e ,,

\ A g .

• _- .

r I' r. i

• h.

l.

r. M-

' r' ,v.,

- I

~

DRAFT

,P.-

i r

/ .5 f I. . t. , - .

p. ,. .

,e 3t ), --

yl t

' - ) /r 1 i . ,

k, I ,. -

1 l

'er u e

/ i

'I f-

"" E0P. Review Comments ,

3, p, -.

, e; ; '

t

e '.

i ',

g 4

\

=

/

.~

s- CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION May 18 22, 1987 '

f.

N g- L 1

...e .

/ ,e r

• - v-

)

A

. f,f

s t .

... ft.

- er Leo J. Defferding * ,

k (

r

')

T I f a F

{

4 4

l a

a

)

i

}

n t

,.--.-.-,.m1-.__, .___w.. .a . . _ . . - - - - - , , , - . - . . . . .-,_e,, , ...- _v m. . ., r., _ . - . ,3-. ,

4.;

t

, Technical Review of_EOP EP/1/A/5000/2C1 - Loss of Secondary Heat Sink M

I. Step by step comparison with WOG-Emergency Response Guidelines and.the

. -Ouke' Power Emergency Procedure Guidelines

'E.P. Step No. Comment

1. Replaced caution with'an action step that checks the entry condition and returns the operatcrs to the procedure they entered from-(an improvement).

5,.

2. RNO Logic terms IF and OR are lost in the bold face EP

. title.

Caution before Better as an action step. S/G wide range level Step 3 different from EPG. (3% level versus 7% in EPG.

3. a. SG WR values different than EPG (same as in caution f above).

3. a. RNO Feed AND bleed is not a logic statement and should not be capitalized.

3. b. Feed AND bleed is not a logic statement and should i not be capitalized.

3. and 4. IF logic tem included in high level step.

4. Step is an addition to ERGS. Deviation noted in-June 18 letter to NRC.

4. a and b S/G wide range level values different from EPG 10%

versus 15% in the EPG.

5. a. Valve numbers were checked with flow diagram, all ok. i

5. c. Pump numbers were checked-against flow diagram, all ok.

6. --

! 7. --

8. --

4

9. a-b. Pump and valve numbers were checked against the flow-

diagram, all.ok.

j' 10. b. Added step that-supplies operator information to ensure adequate pump head to provide flow to S/G (good addition)'.

, -- ,.E,--.--,-c ,, , 4 ,_---w,-e,._. . , - - - - - - - , - , , - - --, ., % -

, ,-r-- ,w -, , -, - , - - -

^

. -. f 0 l

l E.P. Step No. Comment

10. c. (A suggested improvement)

Provide a list for operator. If valve ICA-14a from 9.b is open, then use bypass control ICF30 as ICA 149 - ICF 30 ICA 150 - ICF 39 ICA 151 - ICF 48 ICA 152 - ICF 57

11. a. RNO Logic statement is not written well.

12. RNO This logic statement is not a subset of ist bullet second bullet and should not be indented.

13. --

Caution before 14. Added caution which is good information for operator, but would be better as a note.

15. Bullet Statement is a little unclear. The rate listed is the set point for main steam isolation.

16. --

17. --

18. --

19. --

20. --

21. a. RNO Checked the pump numbers, all ok.

21. b. 1 Checked the valve numbers, all ok.

21. b. 2 Checked the pump numbers, all ok.

22. --

23. --

24. --

25. 2 PORVs are safety grade.

26. Logic statement poorly written.

27. --

Comment: J. Lee stated ~the EPs will be revised to reflect the new steam generator WR level values listed in the EPG.

s'

• P Technical Review of'EOP EP/1/A/5000/2C1 - Loss of Secondary Heat Sink

. II. Verification / Validation  ;

i

.The discrepancies identified during the technical verification by H. J. ,

Lee on 1/6/86 as listed in Attachment 2 were all resolved and the procedure 4 modified as needed.

The discrepancies that were identified by W. W. Hicks and K. W. Abshire on the real time walk through on 1/19/86, as listed in Attachment 2, were resolved and included in the revised procedure. Form 4s were not included.

Comment:

! There does not appear to be a traceable link between Attachment 1 and 2.

l If a reviewer checks a statement as no, such as "Each step is concise, readable, i and understandable", you can not tell which of.the attachment 2s cover this.

III. Technical Issues

}

A. O F Subcooled Margin Ref. 5 SRC-MCA-SA-83-019-0 Document has a table NC loop saturation temperature margin versus pressurizer WR pressure. This table lists an _ error .about 12+"F at operating pressure and >50 F at low pressures. J. Lee stated the formula for the error -

band is put into subcooled monitor and SPDS so a O subcooled margin is adequate 4 since the potential instrument error is already accounted for. When a shift supervisor was asked how to determine subcooled margin, he stated SPDS or use, '

steam tables. The use of the steam tables alone would not. allow for' instrument error and an indication of 0 F subcooled could be from-12*F to greater than 50 F above saturation depending on the NC pressure. The training program does not stress this potential problem.

IV. Training A. Simulator scenarios  :

1 The training program contains single failures for initial exercises on the simulator for each E0P. Then the program includes a number of multiple failures to exercise the more complex procedures. Each scenario worksheet includes forms to be used to rate the operators on how they functioned in the scenario.

1

B. The requalification training includes a list (see attached) of.the malfunctions that each operator is exposed to during training. The list includes annual and biennial requirements.  !

4 4

l l

C. These scenarios appear adequate to train and evaluate the operators on the use of the EPs.

1

OP-CN-IO-S-RM SNptember 29, 1986/RHY PEga 7 of 9 2.0 ANNUAL AND BIENNIAL MALFUNCTION REQUIREMENT

' A. Malfunction Numbers that may be used for Annual Requirements MALFUNCTION NUMBERS

• VARIABLE' ANNUAL REQUIREMENT PLANT STARTUP TO > 1% POWER N/A PLANT SNUTDOWN TO S.R. N/A MANUAL CONTROL OF S/G DURING SU/SD 124 125 147 148 152 155 6 48 49 63 76 245 246 247 10% PWR CHANGE (Rods in Man)

I SIGNIFICANT S/G TUBE LEAK 200 201 202 203 SMALL LOCA 32 41 53 54 58/ 59/ 60 242 244 (Inside containment SMALL LOCA 243 (Outside Containment LARGE LOCA 34 53 217 218 219/220/221/222 (Inside containment

• WITH ECC f

• 34 41/218/ WITH ECCS FAILURE 53 OR 54/ FAILURE j (NCS AT SATURATION)

! 54 LEAKAGE CALCULATION LOCA 41 53 22 36 45 55 56 57 120 121 179 237 238 LOSS OF NC FLOW LOSS OF NATURAL CIRCULATION SEE TMI SCENARIO (IE-01) i FOR VARIATIONS 1

COMPLETE LOSS OF I 252 253 254 255 251 FEEDWATER (CF/CA)

REACTOR TRIP TMF l

TURBINE GENERATOR TRIP 169 -I 1

LOAD REJECTION 168 179 TMF TMF 240 241  ;

l I l

217 219 221 62 61 INADVERTENT NCS DEPRESS t

NATURAL CIRC. OPERATION 22 l

73 TMF TMF ATWS

. LOSS OF CONTROL ROOM N/A 21 103 i BORATION/ DILUTION AT POWER

' Rev:01/10-16-86/RHY

OP-CN-IO-S-RM  ;

Ssptember.29, 1986/RHY Paga 8 of 9 B. Malfunction Numbers that may be used for Biennial Requirements MALFUNCTION' NUMBERS

• VARIABLE BIENNIAL REQUIREMENT LOSS OF VI 188 LOSS OF ELECTRICAL POWER 14 164 165 167 168 170 171 179 240 241 LOSS OF CONDENSER VACUUM 134 135 149 256 LOSS OF RN 14 LOSS OF ND 120 121 122 123 195 248 P LOSS OF KC 17 27 46 47 104 109 i FFEDFATER SYSTEM FAILURE 124 125 126 130 131 133 143 144 145 146 147 148 150 151 152 153 154 157 158 160 254 255 LOSS OF PROT. SYSTEM CHANNEL 33 73 3 8 9 10 12 13

CONTROL ROD (s) MISALIGNMENT 4 15 16 18 '19 20 CONTROL ROD (s) DROP I INABILITY TO DRIVE CONTROL RODS 1 3 63 CONDITION REQUIRING 21 I

EMERGENCY BORATION HI ACTIVITY (NCS) 116

, HI ACTIVITY (OFF GAS) 200 201 202 203 CONTROL SYSTEM MALF 1 3 6 25 48 49 64 75 76 103 126 128 AFFECTING REACTIVITY h

136 137 168 245 246 247 37 38 42 43 44 61 62 217 219 221

' MALF OF NC PRESSURE CONTROL MALF OF VOLUME CONTROL SYS. 58 59 60 102 103 105 106 107 108 110 111 112 113 115 117 118 119 Rev:01/10-16-86/RHY  !

1

- .-- ._. . - - - .- ... _ , . . . - . - _ _ . . _ _ , - _ - . . - - - -- , . - - . _ ~ - - . , = . . --

OP-CN-IO-S-RM S:ptembtr 29, 1986/RHY P:gn 9 of 9 MALFUNCTION NUMBERS

• VARIABLE BIENNIAL REQUIREMENT MAIN STEAM BREAK 30 (INSIDE CONTAINMENT)

MAIN STEAM BREAK 31 236 (OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT)

NUCLEAR 86 87 88 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 INSTRUMENTATION FAILURE LOSS OF MAKEUP / LETDOWN 102 110 111 113 118 242 243 3.0 EXERCISE PRESENTATION 3.1 Complete section 1.0 and 2.0 of the selected Scenario Worksheet(s) 3.2 Present the evolutions using sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the scenario worksheet.

3.3 Complete the evaluation section of the scenario (as applicable) using sectioh 5.0, and then critique the scenario using section 6.0 Rev:01/10-16-86/RHY

<