ML20235Z769
| ML20235Z769 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1989 |
| From: | Creel G BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903160228 | |
| Download: ML20235Z769 (2) | |
Text
m,,
..F
').
BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC CHARLES CENTER. P.O. BOX 1475 BALTIMORE MARYLAND 21203 March 10,1989 l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:
Document Control Desk
SUBJECT:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos.1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318 Reply to NRC Examination Report Nos. 50-317/88-26 (OL) and 50-318/86-M (OL)
Gentlemen:
The subject report provided concerns identified during a
license examination administered by the NRC on December 6 - 8, 1988. Our actions taken to address these concerns are provided in Enclosure (1).
Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Very truly yours,
{
Geo ge C. Creel l
Vice President - Nuclear Energy GCC/LSL/ dim
-s 1
Enclosure I
g/ $e b I
cc:
D. A. Brune, Esquire
.l I
I 0f A 8A[fjf /g #2/I l
J. E.
Silberg, Esquire
/
R. A.Capra, NRC S. A.McNeil,NRC
'(lI l
W. T. Russell, NRC 1
R. M.Gallo, NRC H. Eichenholz/V. L. Pritchett, NRC T. Magette, DNR Nb
'.[
V
f
/.
A ENCLOSURE (1)
. a.
7 1
k CALVERT CLIFFS REPLY TO NRC EXAMINATION REPORT 50-317/88-26 (OL) AND 50-318/88-26 (OL) l I
The subject report providad concerns regarding use of Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) during a recent NRC administered license examination (December 6-8, 1988).
I Our license candidates did not implement two EOPs in a manner consistent with the guidance provided in each EOP. The following specific examples were provided:
1.
Candidates either did nc,t use EOP-0 (Post Trip Immediate Actior.s) flow I
charts, which identify the optimal Recove' Procedure, or when used, did i
not follow the guidance ptovided.
2.
Contrary to the instructions provided in EOP-8 (Functional Recovery Procedure), when candidates entered the EOP, they often transferred out of the EOP prior to completion. In addition, the candidates evaluated l
the Safety Function Acceptance Criteria in the order in which they weie l
presented in the EOP, instead of evaluating those which were in hignest jeopardy.
The above concerns were discussed with the examiners following the license examination.
Based on these discussions and a review of the subject EOPs and our initial license operator training program, the following actions have been tt. ken:
o The flowcharts for EOP-0 have been revised. The flowcharts provide additional guidance for both entering the appropriate Recovery Procedure based on specific plant conditions, and responding to moltiple or undiagnosed events, o
Consistent with the changes to EOP-0, the Entry Conditions for EOP-8 have been revised to include multiple events, o
The priority and method of monitoring EOP-8 Safety Function Acceptance Criteria and implementing recovery actions have been clarified.
o The Exit Conditions have been separated from the Entry Conditions and now provide clearly defined circumstances under which EOP-8 may be exited.
o Extensive classroom and simulator training on these revised EOPs has since been provided to licensed operators as part of the requalification training program.
o Our initial license operator training program will include additional training on the proper implementation of EOP-0 and EOP-8.
License candidates will receive additional simulator training for multiple major i
events requiring use of EOP-8.
o All training programs will continue to place strong emphasis on procedure compliance.
_