NRC Generic Letter 1989-06
.4°^UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
4-f April 12, 1989 TO: ALL LICENSEES OF OPERATING PLANTS, APPLICANTS FOR OPERATING LICENSES,
AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
SUBJECT: TASK ACTION PLAN ITEM I.D.2 - SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM -
10 CFR §50.54(f) - (GENERIC LETTER NO. 89-06)
On October 31, 1980, the NRC staff issued NUREG-0737 which provided guidance for implementing Three Mile Island (TM1)action items. On December 17, 1982, Generic Letter No. 82-33 transmitted Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 to all licensees and applicants to clarify the TMI action items related to Emergency Response Capability, including item I.D.2, Safety Parameter Display System.
Supplement 1 extracted the fundamental requirements for emergency response capability from the wide range of regulatory documents issued on the subject.
It was written at the conceptual level to allow for a high degree of flexibility in scheduling and design. In recognition of the interrelationships among the action items addressed in Supplement 1, the staff made allowance for each licensee to negotiate a reasonable, achievable schedule for implementing its emergency response capability. However, the staff stated that because the SPDS can provide an important contribution to plant safety, it should be implemented promptly.
The staff evaluated licensee/applicant implementation of the safety parameter display system (SPDS) requirements at 57 units and found that a large percentage of designs do not fulfill the requirements identified in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737. Enclosed with this letter is NUREG-1342 which provides to all licensees, applicants, and construction permit holders the benefit of the staff's experience to aid them in implementing SPDS requirements. NUREG-1342 describes methods used by some licensees/applicants to implement SPDS
requirements in a manner found acceptable by the staff. NUREG-1342 also documents design features that the staff found unacceptable and gives the staff's reasons for finding them unacceptable. The information in NUREG-1342 does not constitute new requirements. Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 establishes the legal requirements for SPDS. These requirements can be met with a relatively simple SPDS as well as with a more elaborate system.
Also enclosed is a checklist concerning SPDS implementation. The purpose of the checklist is to provide licensees with a guide to assist them in determining the status of their SPDS with respect to NRC requirements.
8904120042
. . <
- 2 -
The checklist, when completed and used in conjunction with NUREG-1342 and photographs of the SPDS layout, will provide licensees with comprehensive information that will facilitate establishing the implementation status of their SPDS. Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f), operating reactor licensees and holders of construction permits are requested to furnish within
90 days of the date of this letter, one of the following:
1. Certification that the SPDS fully meets the requirements of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, taking into account the information provided in NUREG-1342.
Licensees should maintain supporting documentation for three years, including the completed checklist and photographs used to establish SPDS implementation status.
2. Certification that the SPDS will be modified to fully meet the requirements of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, taking into account the information provided in NUREG-1342. The implementation schedule for the modifications shall be provided.
Licensees should maintain supporting documentation for three years, including the completed checklist and photographs used to establish SPDS implementation status.
3. If a certification cannot be provided, the licensee shall provide a discussion of the reasons for that finding and a discussion of the compensatory action the licensee intends to take or has taken.
Staff review has verified that the following nuclear units have a fully satisfactory SPDS: Catawba 1 and 2, Clinton, Hatch 1 and 2, McGuire 1 and 2, Millstone 3, River Bend, Susquehanna 1 and 2, and Yankee Rowe. No response is required for these units. Because of the very recent full power license reviews conducted for these units, South Texas Project 2 and Vogtle 2 will not be required to respond to this generic letter. Big Rock Point will not be required to respond to this generic letter because of the staff's ongoing review of their proposal for SPDS.
This request is covered by Office of Management and Budget Clearance Number
3150-0011 which expires December 31, 1989. The estimated average burden hours is 25 person hours per owner response, including searching data sources, gathering and analyzing the data, and preparing the required letters. These estimated average burden hours pertain only to these identified response- related matters and do not include the time for actual implementation of the requested actions. Comieints on the accuracy-of this estimate and suggestions to reduce the burden may be directed to the Paperwork Reduction Project
(3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503, and to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Records and Reports Management Branch, Division of Information Support Sources, Office of Information Resources Management, Washington, D.C. 20555.
-3 -
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Richard J. Eckenrode, Section Chief of the Human Factors Engineering Section, Human Factors Assessment Branch, at (301) 492-1105.
Sincerely, Janes G. Partlow As ociate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosures:
1. NUREG-1342 - A Status Report Regarding Industry Implementation of Safety Parameter Display System
2. Licensee Checklist for Safety Parameter Display System Status
3. Listing of Recently Issued Generic Letters
- 4 -
Distribution:
Central Files TEHurFey IRR (NUREG-1342 will be sent out by Publications)
CERossi, NRR Enclosure 1 JHSniezek CHBerlinger, NRR
FMiraglia, HRR
JRoe, HRR
FGillespie, NRR
JZwolinski, NRR
JConran, AEOD
STreby, OGC
KCyr, OGC
BGrimes, NRR
WRegan, NRR
REckenrode, NRR
GLapinsky, NRR
RCorreia, NRR
CGoodman, NRR
SVarga, NRR
W4inners, RES
GBurdick, RES
FKoffman, RES
ENCLOSURE 2 LICENSEE CHECKLIST
FOR
SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM
STATUS
PURPOSE
The purpose of this checklist is to provide all licensees with a guide that will facilitate a comprehensive and consistent means for determining status of their safety parameter display system (SPDS) implementation.
ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT INSTRUCTIONS
Each licensee should maintain supporting documentation including the completed checklist and any photographs used to determine safety parameter display system implementation status. Recommended photography instructions are on the next page. With regard to format, each licensee should use the enclosed checklist to document the SPDS implementation information. If more space is needed, simply add pages to the applicable checklist section. For multi-unit plants, if the SPDS' are not identical in design, implementation and/or location across units, all differences should then be reflected appropriately in the checklist. If you have any questions about this checklist contact Richard J. Eckenrode, Section Chief of the Human Factors Engineering Section, Human Factors Assessment Branch, at (301) 492-1105.
PHOTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTIONS
Photographs, should be taken in the actual control room include the following:
a. Control room overview depicting the SPDS workspaces.
b. All parts of the SPDS and their workspace locations.
c. All individual SPDS display pages taken during power operations.
d. The SPDS keyboard.
e. Any hard-wired displays that are part of the SPDS.
Simulator photographs are not recommended. A record of plant conditions at the time the photograph is taken should be maintained. At least one of the photographs should be taken from the location where the primary user of SPDS
would most likely be stationed during a transient. For a multi-unit plant with differences in SPDS design, implementation and/or location, photographs should reflect the differences. If modifications or changes to the SPDS are planned, current photographs are acceptable but should be noted to indicate that changes are planned. It is not necessary to provide details of the planned changes on the photographs.
The photographs should be in color, 8"x1O" in size, and labeled to include a description of the display. Photographs should have sufficient resolution to ensure that CRT and hard-wired displays are readable. In addition, the photographs of the CRT display pages should be sufficiently detailed to allow identification of all of the selected parameters.
2
SPDS CHECKLIST
This checklist is intended to aid licensees in determining the status of their SPDS. Bracketed, [ ], information refers to the section in NUREG-1342 where discussions on the specific question(s) may be found.
1.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
1.1 Plant Name:_
1.2 Who/What organization developed the original version of the SPDS software implemented at your site?
Utility (in-house)
_ Utility Owner's Group; which?
Contractor; which?
__ Other; who?
3
1.3 If the SPDS software has undergone significant modification (i.e., more than 25 percent of software replaced or modified) since original implementation, list the organization performing the modification:
Utility (in-house)
Utility Owner's Group Contractor Other
1.4 What is the hardware host on which the current SPDS software is implemented?
Westinghouse P250
Westinghouse P250U
Gould/SEL, Model Number Digital (DEC), Model Number IBM, Model Number MODCOMP, Model Number Babcock & Wilcox (Recall)
Honeywell, Model Number Burroughs, Model Number Other: Manufacturer, Model
4
1.5 How many total CPUs are accessible by SPDS software on the computer system described in the previous question?
1.6 What is the approximate MIPS rating of all the CPUs counted above?
MIPS NOTE: Use a decimal fraction if less than 1.0
If SPDS does not run on a single computer system, provide the following information for the minority parameter set provided by a second computer system. For example, a frequent occurrence of this case is where a separate but adjacent computer terminal provides radiological parameters.
1.7 Manufacturer
1.8 Model Number
1.9 List parameters provided:
(on the second system) _
1.10 Are significant changes in hardware or software planned in the next two years? __YES __NO.
If YES, briefly describe planned changes and list a schedule of major milestones.
5
2.0 PARAMETER SELECTION
This section is divided into two parts: the safety functions, and the parameters used to depict each safety function.
2.1 Plant-Specific Safety Functions [III.F.J
List the title of the plant-specific safety function(s) displayed on your SPDS that is (are) equivalent to the safety function in Supplement 1 to NUREG-
0737.
Supplement 1 To NUREG-0737 Plant-Specific Safety Functions Safety Functions
2.1.1. Reactivity Control
2.1.2 Core Cooling and Heat Removal
2.1.3. RCS Integrity
2.1.4. Radioactivity Control
2.1.5. Containment Conditions
6
2.2 Parameters Selected to Display Each Safety Function The purpose of this section is to specify a list of parameters used to depict each of the five safety functions identifed in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737.
Lists of parameters that have been found acceptable to NRC through previous SPDS
post-implementation reviews have been provided. One list of parameters applies to pressurized water reactors in general, and the other list applies to boiling water reactors.
NOTE: Check any parameters that have been selected as an SPDS parameter.
List any additional parameters under the relevant "Others" category.
Include additional safety functions and parameters that are a part of your SPDS.
PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR SPDS PARAMETER SELECTION CHECKLIST [III.F.1]
Supplement 1 To NUREG-0737 Safety Functions Parameters
2.2.1 Reactivity Control Neutron Flux Source Range Intermediate Range Power Range Other: (List)
2.2.2 Reactor Core Cooling and RCS Level Heat Removal from the Subcooling Margin Primary System Hot Leg Temperature Cold Leg Temperature Core Exit Thermocouples Steam Generator Level Steam Generator Pressure RHR Flow Other: (List) .
7
2.2.3 RCS Integrity RCS Pressure Cold Leg Temperature Containment Sump Level Steam Generator (Pressure, Level, Radiation)
Other: (List)
2.2.4 Radioactivity Control Stack Monitor Steamline Radiation Containment Radiation Other: (List)
2.2.5 Containment Conditions Containment Pressure Containment Isolation Containment Hydrogen Concentration Other: (List)
2.2.6 Other Safety Functions Yes __No If yes, list functions and parameters.
8
BOILING WATER REACTOR SPDS PARAMETER SELECTION CHECKLIST [III.F.2J
Supplement 1 To NUREG-0737 Safety Functions Parameters
2.2.6 Reactivity Control APRM
Other: (List)
2.2.7 Reactor Core Cooling and RPV Water Level Removal Drywell Temperature Other: (List)
2.2.8 Pressure Vessel Integrity RPV Pressure Other: (List)
-
2.2.9 Radioactivity Control Main Stack or Offgas (Pretreatment)
Monitor Containment Radiation Monitor
__ Other: (List) _
2.2.10 Containment Integrity Drywell Pressure Drywell Temperature
_ Suppression Pool Temperature
_ Suppression Pool Level Containment Isolation Valve Status Drywell Hydrogen Concentration Drywell Oxygen Concentration
__ Other: (List)
9
2.2.11 Other Safety Functions Yes _ No If yes, list functions and parameters.
2.3 Detailed Parameter Questions [III.F.1.e and III.F.2.e]
2.3.1 Are containment isolation demand signals input to SPDS (e.g., PWR -
Phase A/B Isolation Demand Signal or BWR - Group Isolation Demand Signals)?
YES NO
2.3.2 Does the SPDS use actual containment isolation valve position as an input to monitor successful isolation? YES _ NO
3.0 DISPLAY OF SAFETY FUNCTIONS [III.F.]
3.1 Does the SPDS provide the status of all five safety functions on one display page? _ YES _ NO
3.2 Are the individual parameters that support the safety functions grouped by safety function? _ YES NO
3.3 Is the status of all five safety functions always displayed on the SPDS? [III.B.2J _ YES NO
4.0 RELIABLE DISPLAY [III.A.3 except as noted]
4.1 Is the SPDS hosted on the same computer system as the plant process computer? YES _ NO
If NO, does the SPDS computer receive some of the computer point inputs from the process computer? YES _ NO
10
4.2 List location of accessible (e.g., keyboards) devices capable of changing SPDS data. [III.A.3.a]
4.3 Are SPDS hardware availability data documented? YES NO
IF YES, what is the documented percent availability of the SPDS hardware over the past 12 months? NOTE: Availability should be based on power operation, startup, hot standby, and hot shutdown only and not include other plant modes. % Available
4.4 Are the SPDS computer points included in routine instrument loop surveillances? LIII.A.3.a] _ YES No.
4.5 What percentage of software verification and validation has been completed?
__ 100%
Approximately half Planned in the future Other, describe _
4.6 Have changes to the SPDS host computer and software been maintained under a formal Software/Hardware Change Request (or equivalent) system? Check all that apply below:
Yes; For how long? _ _ years
__ No Have plans to in the future
11
4.7 How frequently does the SPDS display invalid or erroneous information?
[III.A.3.a]
frequent (above 5 percent)
infrequent (1-5 percent)
rare (less than 1 percent of the time)
4.8 How frequently have any of the critical safety functions been in a false alarm condition? [III.A.3.a]
frequent (above 5 percent)
infrequent (1-5 percent)
rare (less than 1 percent of the time)
4.9 Does the SPDS display valid parameter information during adverse containment conditions? YES NO
5.0 HUMAN FACTORS [III.E except as noted]
Human factors in the context of SPDS design includes the usefulness of the technical information displayed on the screen to users and their performance during emergency operations. Human factors also includes display design techniques, such as labeling, display layout, and control/display integration.
Ihis section provides a sample of the kinds of questions to be asked to help determine the degree to which the SPDS'design incorporates accepted human factors principles.
5.1 Who is the prime user of the SPDS? Shift Supervisor
[III.B.1] Shift Technical Advisor Board Operators Other (specify)_
12
5.2 Are all SPDS controls located at the SPDS workstation? _ YES NO
[III.B.1]
If NO, where are the controls located? _
5.3 Is all SPDS-related information physically displayed such that the information can clearly be read from the SPDS user's typical position? [III.A.1 and III.B.1]
_ YES NO
If NO, what specific information is available at other locations?
5.4 How are SPDS displays accessed? [III.A.2]
Continuous display, no interaction possible.
Keyboard, one or two keystroke function key.
Keyboard, greater than 2 keystrokes.
_ Touchscreen.
Cursor/menu (mouse, joystick, up/down key).
5.5 Does the SPDS consistently respond to user commands in less than
10 seconds? [III.A.2]
_ YES NO
If NO, is feedback provided to the user regarding delays in response?
_ YES NO
5.6 Does the SPDS sampling rate for parameters match the display update rate for those parameters? [III.A.2]
YES NO
13
If NO, what specific parameters do not match?
5.7 Are all parameter units of measure displayed on the SPDS consistent with the units of measure included in the emergency operating procedures?
YES NO
5.8 Are all parameter labels and abbreviations consistent with the labels and abbreviations included in the emergency operating procedures?
YES NO
5.9 Is any of the displayed information in a form that requires transformation or calculation?'
YES NO
IF YES, what types of transformations or calculations are necessary?
5.10 Are the high-and low-level setpoints consistent with hard-wired parameter instrumentation and reactor protection system setpoints?
YES NO
5.11 Does SPOS display high-and low-level setpoints?
_ YES NO
5.12 Are the SPDS calculated values such as subcooling margin, consistent with calculated values on the plant process computer?
YES _ NO
14
5.13 Are all parameter units of measure displayed on SPDS consistent with the hard wired instrumentation?
YES _ NO
5.14 Are all parameter labels and abbreviations consistent with hard-wired instrument labels and abbreviations?
_ YES NO
5.15 Were the technical basis for software specifications verified with plant-specific data (for example, heat-up and cool-down limits, variable steam generator setpoints and high and low level alarm setpoints)?
_ YES NO
5.16 List LERs written as a result of SPDS software problems.
6.0 TRAINING [III.C.2 all questions]
6.1 Does simulator training include training in the use of the SPDS7 YES NO
6.2 How long is formal classroom training for SPDS users?
No formal classroom training Less than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />
__ 2-4 hours More than 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />
6.3 Is there periodic requalification training for SPDS? _ YES _ NO
If YES, how often?
15
6.4 When are SPDS users given training regarding the relationship of the parameters to the plant safety functions? Check all that apply below:
Not trained On the job or required reading During requalification training During an initial SPDS training program
7.0 ELECTRICAL ISOLATION [III.C.1 all questions]
7.1 What isolation devices are currently used?
7.2 Are these devices the same ones that were originally installed and approved by NRC? YES NO
16
ENCLOSURE 3 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED GENERIC LETTERS
Generic Date of Letter No. Subject Issuance Issued To
89-06 TASK ACTION PLAN ITEM I.D.2 - 4/12/89 LICENSEES OF ALL
SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY POWER REACTORS,
SYSTEM - 10 CFR §50.54(f) BWRS, PWRS, HTGR,
AND NSSS VENDORS
IN ADDITION TO
GENERAL CODES
APPLICABLE TO
GENERIC LETTERS
89-05 PILOT TESTING OF THE 4/4/89 LICENSSES OF ALL
FUNDAMENTALS EXAMINATION POWER REACTORS AND
APPLICANTS FOR A
REACTOR OPERATOR'S
LICENSE UNDER
10 CFR PART 55
89-04 GUIDANCE ON DEVELOPING 4/3/89 ALL HOLDERS OF LIGHT
ACCEPTABLE INSERVICE WATER REACTOR OPERATING
TESTING PROGRAMS LICENSES AND CONSTRUCTION
PERMITS
89-03 OPERATOR LICENSING NATIONAL 3/24/89 ALL POWER REACTOR
EXAMINATION SCHEDULE LICENSEES AND
APPLICANTS FOR AN
OPERATING LICENSE
89-02 ACTIONS TO IMPROVE THE 3/21/89 ALL HOLDERS OF
DETECTION OF COUNTERFEIT OPERATING LICENSES
AND FRAUDULENTLY MARKETED AND CONSTRUCTION
PRODUCTS PERMITS FOR NUCLEAR
POWER REACTORS
89-01 IMPLEMENTATION OF 1/31/89 ALL LICENSEES HOLDING
PROGRAMMATIC CONTROLS OPERATING LICENSES
FOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFLUENT AND CONSTRUCTION
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS PERMITS FOR NUCLEAR
IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE POWER REACTOR FACILITIES.
CONTROLS SECTION OF THE
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
AND THE RELOCATION OF
PROCEDURAL DETAILS OF
RETS TO THE OFFSITE DOSE
CALCULATION MANUAL OR TO
88-20 INDIVIDUAL PLANT 11/23/88 ALL LICENSEES HOLDING
EXAMINATION FOR SEVERE OPERATING LICENSES
ACCIDENT VULNERABILITIES - AND CONSTRUCTION
10 CFR 50.54(f) PERMITS FOR NUCLEAR
POWER REACTOR FACILITIES
-3 -
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Richard J. Eckenrode, Section Chief of the Human Factors Engineering Section, Human Factors Assessment Branch, at (301) 492-1105.
Sincerely,
/s/James G. Partlow James G. Partlow Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosures:
1. NUREG-1342 - A Status Report Regarding Industry Implementation of Safety Parameter Display System
2. Licensee Checklist for Safety Parameter Display System Status
3. Listing of Recently Issued Generic Letters Distribution:
Central Files BGrimes, NRR
HFAB RF WRegan, NRR
JHSniezek RCorreia, NRR
CHBerlinger, NRR CGoodman, NRR
FMiraglia, NRR MPA Project Manager, NRR
FGillespie, NRR CRGR Staff JZwolinski, NRR BSheron, RES
LETTER - NUREG/1
- See previous concurrence OFC :*HFAB:DLPQ :*HFAB:DLPQ :*HFAB:DLPQ :*HFAB:DLPQ :*D:DLPQ :*NRR:DUEA
NAME :RCorreia:jn :GLapinsky :REckenrode :WRegan :JWRoe :CHBerlinger DATE :01/09/89 :01/09/89 :01/09/89 :01/10/89 : 03/31/8 :01/27/89
______ ________________-:--------------- .________ --- ________---__-________ --- --
NAME :STreby :JRHall :F a la :JH zek :JGPar DATE :03/23/89 :03/26/89 :i/(/89 : / 89 : / I)/89
41 ; AIA*y
-3 -
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Richard J. Eckenrode, Section Chief of the Human Factors Engineering Section, Human Factors Assessment Branch, at (301) 492-1105.
Sincerely, James G rtlow, Associate Director for Pr jects Office Nuclea actor Regulation Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
Central Files BGrimes, NRR
HFAB RF WRegan, NRR
TEMurley, NRR REckenrode, NRP
CERossi, NRR GLapinsky, N13, JHSniezek RCorreia, NKR
CHBerlinger, NRR CGoodman,ARR
FMiraglia, NRR MPA Projeit Manager, NRR
FGillespie, NRR CRGR Staff JZwolinski, NRR BSheron RES
// I
LETTER - NUREG/1
- See previous concurrence fk3l /
OFC :*HFAB:DLPQ :*HFAB:DLPQ :*HFAB:DLPQ :*HFAB:DLPQ :D:DLPQ :*NRR:DOEA
NAME :RCorreia:jn :GLapinsky :REckenrode :WRegan :JW e :CHBerlinger DATE :01/09/89 :01/09/89 :01/09/89 :01/10/89 :S /SI / aq :01/27/89 OFC :*OGC :*MPA-PM:NRR :ADT:NRR :DD:NRR :ADP:NRR
NAME :STreby :JRHall :FMiraglia :JHSniezek :JGPartlow DATE :03/23/89 :03/26/89 : / /89 : / /89 : / /89
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Ri ard J. Eckenrode, Section Chief of the Human Factors Engineering Section, Human actors Assessment Branch, at (301) 492-1105.
Sincerely, Steven A. Varga, Acting Associate Director for Projects Office of Nucl ar Reactor Regulation Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
Central Files BGrimes, NRR
HFAB RF WRegan, NRR
JHSniezek RCorreia, NRR
CHBerlinger, NRR CGoodman, NRR
FMiraglia, NRR MPA Project Manager, RR
FGillespie, NRR CRGR Staff JZwolinski, NRR BSheron, RES
9 Qe .U-t LETTER - NUREG/1
- See previous concurrence OFC :*HFAB:DLPQ :*HFAB:DLPQ,/ :*HFAB:DLPQ :*HFAB:DLPQ :D:DLPQ :*NRR:DOEA
NAME :RCorreia:jn :GLapins :REckenrode :WRegan :JV!Roe :CHBerlinger DATE :01/09/89 :01/09/ 9 :01/09/89 :01/10/89 : / / :01/27/89 OFC :*OGC ::*M 7A-PM:NRR :ADT:NRR :DD:NRR :ADP:NRg NAME :STreby ::JRHall :FMiraglia :JHSniezek DATE :03/23/89 : :03/26/89 : / / : / / : / /89
-2 -
2. If the SPDS incorporates features other than those described in NUREG-1342 to meet one or more requirements outlined in NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, a detailed description of the alternative features along with justification as to how these features satisfy the requirements. A copy of the completed questionnaire, in- cluding photographs should be included with the submittal.
3. If the SPDS does not fully satisfy the requirements ot NUREG-073 , Supple- ment 1, a description of proposed actions which the licensee intends to take to attain compliance, including a schedule for these actions. Includ with the submittal a copy of the completed questionnaire, including photog phs.
Staff review has verified that the following nuclear units have a fully satis- factory SPDS: Catawba 1 and 2, Clinton, Hatch 1 and 2, McGuir 1 and 2, Millstone 3, River Bend, Susquehanna 1 and 2, and Yankee Rowe No response is required for these units.
This request is covered by Office Management and Budget Cl rance Number 3150-
0011 which expires December 31, 1989. The estimated aver e burden hours is 25 person hours per owner response, including searching dat/ sources, gathering <
and analyzing the data, and preparing the required lettes. These estimated average burden hours pertain only to these identified rsponse-related mattersft Comments on the accuracy of this estimate and suggesti ns to reduce the burden may be directed to the Office of Management and Budg , Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503, and to th U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Records and Reports Management Branch, ffice of Administration and Resource Management, Washington, D.C. 20555.
If you have any questions about this matter, pl se contact Richard J. Eckenrode, Section Chief of the Human Factors Engineering ection, Human Factors Assess- ment Branch, at (301) 492-1105.
Since ely, ennis Crutchfield, Acting Associate Director for Projects Oftice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Distribution: See next page LETTER - NUREG
- See previous concurrence UFC :*HFAB:DLPQ :*HFAB:DLPQ :* AB:DLPQ :*HFAB:DLPQ :D:DLPQ :NRR:DUEA
_
________ -------------
_____
__
_ -_____________ --------------
NAME :RCorreia:jn :GLapinsky Eckenrode :WRegan :JWRoe :CHBerlinger DATE :01/09/89 :01/09/89 :01/09/89 :01/10/89 / : 1/47/89
7 N__ ..-. - -_ .- - -_
OFC :tOGC :LKEK :wNKK:MFA-FM :NKK:AUI :DD:NKK :NKK:AUP
NAME :STreby :JConran :JRHall :FMiraglia :JHSniezek :SAYarga DATE :U1/23/89 : / i :01/26/89 : / / : / / : / /89
-2 -
2. If the SPDS incorporates features other than those described in NUREG-1342 to meet one or more requirements outlined in NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, a detailI
description of the alternative features along with justification as to how thene features satisfy the requirements. A copy of the completed questionnaire, i cluding photographs should be included with the submittal.
3. If the SPDS does not fully satisfy the requirements of NUREG-0737, S ple- ment 1, a description of proposed actions which the licensee intends to ke to attain compliance, including a schedule for these actions. Include wi the submittal a copy of the completed questionnaire, including photograph .
Staff review has verified that the following nuclear units have a liy satis- factory SPDS: Catawba 1 and 2, Clinton, Hatch 1 and 2, McGuire and 2, Millstone 3, River Bend, Susquehanna 1 and 2, and Yankee Rowe. o response is required for these units.
This request is covered by Office Management and Budget C arance Number 3150-
0011 which expires December 31, 1989. The estimated av age burden hours is 25 person hours per owner response, including searching daa sources, gathering and analyzing the data, and preparing the required 1 ters. These estimated average burden hours pertain only to these identif d response-related matters.
Comments on the accuracy of this estimate and su estions to reduce the burden may be directed to the Office of Management an udget, Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503, an o the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Records and Reports Management anch, Office of Administration and Resource Management, Washington, D.C. 20 5.
If you have any questions about this tter, please contact Richard J. Eckenrode, Section Chief of the Human Factors gineering Section, Human Factors Assess- ment Branch, at (301) 492-1614 /
/Iols Sincerely, Dennis Crutchfield, Acting Associate Director for Projects Oftice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Distribution: Se next page LETTER - NUR
- See previ concurrence UFC :*HFAB:DLPQ/ :*HFAB:DLPQ :*HFAB:DLPQ :*HFA:DLPQ :D:DLPQ :NRR:DUEA
NAME :RCorreia:jn :GLapinsky :REckenrode :WRegan :JWRoe :CHBerlinger DATE :01/09/89 :01/09/89 :01/09/89 :01/10/89 : / / : / /89 OFC :*OGC :CRGR :NRR:MPA-PH1 :NRR:ADT :DD:NRR :NRR:ADP
NAME :STreby :JConran :JRHall -4 :FMiraglia :JHSniezek
- SAVarga
:---------------- -------------------- ------ -------------- :--------------
DATE :01/23/89 :/ I /Z / / :4 /: / /89
- 2 -
2. If the SPDS incorporates features other than those described in NU G-1342 to meet one or more requirements outlined in NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, detailed description of the alternative features along with justification as to how these features satisfy the requirements. A copy of the completed questionn ire, in- cluding photographs should be included with the submittal.
3. If the SPDS does not fully satisfy the requirements of NUREG- 737, Supple- ment 1, a description of proposed actions which the licensee inte ds to take to attain compliance, including a schedule for these actions. Inclde with the submittal a copy of the completed questionnaire, including pho graphs.
Staff review has verified that the following nuclear units h e a fully satis- factory SPDS: Catawba 1 and 2, Clinton, Hatch 1 and 2, McG re 1 and 2, Millstone 3, River Bend, Susquehanna 1 and 2, and Yankee R e. No response is required for these units.
This request is covered by Office Management and Budge Clearance Number 3150-
0011 which expires December 31, 1989. The estimated erage burden hours is 25 person hours per owner response, including searching ata sources, gathering and analyzing the data, and preparing the required etters. These estimated average burden hours pertain only to these identif ed response-related matters.
Comments on the accuracy of this estimate and su estions to reduce the burden may be directed to the Office of Management and udget, Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503, and o the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Records and Reports Management Br;nch, Office of Administration and Resource Management, Washington, D.C. 2055 If you have any questions about this mat r, please contact Richard J. Eckenrode, Section Chief of the Human Factors Engi ering Section, Human Factors Assess- ment Branch, at (301) 492-1014.
Sincerely, Dennis Crutchfield, Acting Associate Direct or for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Distribution: See next age LETTER - NUREG / 4 A
- See previous concu ence
-
OFC :HF :DQ : : :H :LHA Q :D:DLPQ -NRR:DOEA
NAME :RCorreia:jn Lapinsky :REckenrode :WRegan :JWRoe :CHBerlinger DATE :01/09/89 :01/09/89 :01/09/89 :01/10/89 : / : / /89
- :CRGR :NRR:MPA-PM :NRR:ADT :DD:NRR :NRR:ALW
- O§i <D~g/ :CRGR -:NRR:MPA-PM :NRR7:ADTr - :DD:NRR :NRR:ADP
- - ^V---e-,r---:-------------- :-------------- :----------------_-------_____ _____________-
NAME ,' :JConran :JRHall :FMiraglia :JHSniezek :DCrutchfield DATE :/ /,Z/ t5 : / / : / / : / / : / / : / /89
- 2 -
2. If the SPDS incorporates features other than those described in NUREG-1342 to meet one or more requirements outlined in NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, a detailed description of the alternative features along with justification as to how these features satisfy the requirements. A copy of the completed questionnair4 in- cluding photographs should be included with the submittal.
3. If the SPDS does not fully satisfy the requirements of NUREG-077, Supple- ment 1, a description of proposed actions which the licensee intens to take to attain compliance, including a schedule for these actions. Inclde with the submittal a copy of the completed questionnaire, including pho graphs.
Staff review has verified that the following nuclear units yee a fully satis- factory SPDS: Catawba 1 and 2, Clinton, Hatch 1 and 2, M4 uire 1 and 2, Millstone 3, River Bend, Susquehanna 1 and 2, and Yankee owe. No response is required for these units.
This request is covered by Office Management and Bud t Clearance Number 3150-
0011 which expires December 31, 1989. The estimate average burden hours is 25 person hours per owner response, including searchig data sources, gathering and analyzing the data, and preparing the requir letters. These estimated average burden hours pertain only to these iden ifled response-related matters.
Cofmments on the accuracy of this estimate and uggestions to reduce the burden may be directed to the Office of Management d Budget, Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503, d to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Records and Reports Managemen Branch, Office of Administration and Resource Management, Washington, D.C. 555.
If you have any questions about this atter please contact Richard J. Eckenrode, Section Chief of the Human Factors gineering Section, Human Factors Assess- ment Branch, at (301) 492-1014.
Sincerely, Dennis Crutchfield, Acting Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Distribution: See net page LETTER - NUREG
e_
OFC :HFAB:DLPQ :yFAI
NAME :RCorv& /:GLaI W> .WRe'iXg>:JWRoe :CHBerlinger DATE : /I /5 , : l/ i f :/ //,o/If : / / -: / /89 l
-- - __ - _ K lbwr
-1 ME,
OFC ::OGC :CRGiR : NKK: MA-FM :NKK:A1I :UU: NKK :14KK:.Aur
______: -------
________________ - - _ --------------
______________ -------------- ___ __--__ __ __ _
NAME ::STreby :JConran :JRHall :FMiraglia :JHSniezek :DCrutchfield DATE : / / : / I : / I : / I : / I : / /89