NRC Generic Letter 1983-22: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| issue date = 06/03/1983 | | issue date = 06/03/1983 | ||
| title = NRC Generic Letter 1983-022: Safety Evaluation of Emergency Response Guidelines. | | title = NRC Generic Letter 1983-022: Safety Evaluation of Emergency Response Guidelines. | ||
| author name = Eisenhut D | | author name = Eisenhut D | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR | | author affiliation = NRC/NRR | ||
| addressee name = | | addressee name = | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| page count = 3 | | page count = 3 | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:-j-w ::.S00t;l | {{#Wiki_filter:- j-w ::.S00t;l > | ||
June 3, 1983 TO ALL OPERATING REACTOR LICENSEES, APPLICANTS FOR AN OPERATING | |||
REACTOR LICENSEES, APPLICANTS | LICENSE AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR WESTINGHOUSE | ||
FOR AN OPERATING LICENSE AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION | PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS | ||
PERMITS FOR WESTINGHOUSE | Gentlemen: | ||
PRESSURIZED | SUBJECT: SAFETY EVALUATION OF *EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDELINESU | ||
WATER REACTORS Gentlemen: | (GENERIC LETTER 83-22) | ||
SUBJECT: SAFETY EVALUATION | The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed Westinghouse Emergency Response Guideline (ERG) Program as described in Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) | ||
OF *EMERGENCY | letters of November 30, 1981, July 21, 1982 and January 4, 1983, and in the material accompanying those letters. We have concluded that the guidelines are acceptable for implementation and will provide improved guidance for emergency operating procedure development. We suggest that implementation of the guidelines proceed in three steps: | ||
RESPONSE GUIDELINESU (GENERIC LETTER 83-22)The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed Westinghouse Emergency Response Guideline (ERG) Program as described in Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG)letters of November 30, 1981, July 21, 1982 and January 4, 1983, and in the material accompanying those letters. We have concluded that the guidelines are acceptable for implementation and will provide improved guidance for emergency operating procedure development. | (1) Preparation of plant specific procedures which, in general, conform to the Emergency Response Guidelines referenced above and fiplemen- tation of these procedures as required by Generic Letter 82-33, dated December 17, 1982; | ||
(2) Preparation of supplements to the guidelines which cover changes, new equipment, or new knowledge and incorporation of these supplements into the procedures; and | |||
(3) Completion and improvement of the guidelines to meet our long term . | |||
requirements, followed by incorporation of improvements into plant specific procedures. | |||
We | The prompt implementation of Step 1 will allow the benefits of the significant improvements you have achieved to be realized soon. We note however, that the guidelines are written for the procedure writers, not control room operators, and therefore preparation and implementation of! | ||
procedures will require additional Human Factors input. Step 2 refers to a program for guideline or procedure updates which will be generated as a matter of routine after the implementation. This essentially is a main- tenance function., Step 3 refers to a program for addressing those aspects of the guidelines and procedures where additional long term work may be needed, either in your emergency procedure program or as part of abnormal procedure updates. | |||
OFFICEt. | |||
-.__ | |||
8306060070 | |||
....... .................. | _AL_ | ||
........ .................. | FICO................... ....... .................. | ||
......... | _ | ||
................. | ........ .................. ......... ................. ........ ................. ........ ................. | ||
........ ................. | ) ir | ||
........ ................. | ........ ............... | ||
........ ............... | |||
SURNAMEbIII | SURNAMEbIII | ||
S..............;... | S..............;... ......... .... ,................... ........................... ..................... ........... ........... .......... ........... .................... | ||
......... | VATE _.. _ _ _I . . . ._ _ _ _ | ||
.... ,................... | .................................................... | ||
........................... | _ _ _ _ | ||
..................... | .......... ...... .......... ...... ....... .... | ||
........... | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | ||
........... | *a U.S. G PO 1983-400-247 | ||
.......... | .NRC FORM 318110/801 NRCM 0240 O FFICIA L R EC O RD C OPY | ||
........... | |||
.................... | |||
VATE _ _ _ | |||
.......... | |||
...... .......... | |||
...... ....... .....NRC FORM | |||
Therefore, we have requested in the enclosed letter that the Westinghouse Owners' Group provide a plan for addressing the SER items and a description of the program for steps 2 and 3 above | -2 -June 3, 1983 We have Identified in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) a number of items associated with the guidelines which need further work by the Westinghouse Owners. We require that these items be addressed by either Incorporating them into a future guideline revision or otherwise Justifying the disposition of the item. Additionally, because the Emergency Procedure Guidelines must be dynamic in that changes must be made to reflect changes in equipment or new knowledge, we expect the Westinghouse Owners' Group or a similar coali- tion of utilities and vendors to accept responsibility for continued maintenance of the guidelines. Therefore, we have requested in the enclosed letter that the Westinghouse Owners' Group provide a plan for addressing the SER items and a description of the program for steps 2 and 3 above. | ||
The staff also compared the ERGs with the Item I.C.1 requirements of NUREG-0737. | As discussed in the enclosed SER, the staff reviewed each step of individual guidelines to determine if the expected results would be obtained, if suffi- cient alternatives were provided for equipment failure, and if the set of instructions would bring the plant to a safe shutdown condition. The staff also compared the ERGs with the Item I.C.1 requirements of NUREG-0737. The staff concluded that (1) a sufficient portion of the final ERG package has been completed so that implementation of the ERGs into plant procedures can begin, (2) the ERGs meet the most significant requirements of N4UREG-0737, and (3) overall plant safety will be Improved by prompt implementation since the ERGs provide a significant improvement over existing plant procedures. The staff has also concluded that the guidelines can be trans- lated into emergency operating procedures, that they are sufficiently function-oriented, and that acceptable procedures can be developed based on the guidelines using the guidance of MIUREG-0899, *Guidelines for the Preparation of Emergency Operating Procedures." We therefore find the | ||
.guidelines acceptable for implementation. | |||
Sincerely, origiflal s -i~nedbV | |||
Parrell G. Llep Darrell G. Elsenhut, Director Division of Licensing Enclosures: 3 -~ | |||
1. Letter to Mr. Sheppard, dated | |||
2. SER on Guidelines | |||
*Ple__ as~ieseprevious concurrence page. ____ ____ | |||
OFFICEI .. P.k. QRAU.#.. Dk:,QRf ... .... 1 ............. .......... | |||
.L.~ | |||
SRAE HSmith:ajs JLyons* D1rWdNTe1 d l a DE4~1~ | |||
FfW~gi | |||
05/2.PI?4/83 05/24/83 05 1 | |||
0/ j'8 ...../&_83 ... . ........ | |||
FOR | |||
DAC3 8 ..0.............. ...... | |||
0240.OFF.CI.. ...... RECOR COPY..I.................... | |||
NRC FORM 318 110-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY MGM.1981-335-OW | |||
-2- We have identified In the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) a number of items associated with the guidelines which need further work by the Westinghouse Owners. We require that these items be addressed by either incorporating them into a future guideline revision or otherwise Justifying the disposition of the item. Additionally, because the Emergency Procedure Guidelines must be 6jnamic in that changes must be made to reflect changes in equipment or new knowledge, we expect the Westinghouse Owners' Group or a similar coali- tion of utilities and vendors to accept responsibility for continued maintenance of the guidelines. Therefore, we have requested in the enclosed letter that the Westinghouse Owners' Group provide a plan for addressing the SER items and a description of the program for steps 2 and 3 above. | |||
As discussed In the enclosed SER, the staff reviewed each step of individual guidelines to determine if the expected results would be obtained, if suffi- cient alternatives were provided for equipment failure, and if the set of instructions would bring the plant to a safe shutdown condition. The staff also compared the ERGs with the Item I.C.1 requirements of NUREG-0737. The staff concluded that (1) a sufficient portion of the final ERG package has been completed so that implementation of the ERGs into plant procedures can begin, (2)the ERGs meet the most significant requirements of NUREG-0737, and (3) overall plant safety will be improved by immediate implementation since the ERGs provide a significant improvement over existing plant procedures. The staff has also concluded that the guidelines can be trans- lated into emergency operating procedures, that they are sufficiently function-oriented, and that acceptable procedures can be developed based on the guidelines using the guidance of UUREG-0899, *Guidelines'for the Preparation of Emergency Operating Procedures." We therefore find the guidelines acceptable for implementation. | |||
The staff also compared the ERGs with the Item I.C.1 requirements of NUREG-0737. | |||
The staff concluded that (1) a sufficient portion of the final ERG package has been completed so that implementation of the ERGs into plant procedures can begin, (2) the ERGs meet the most significant requirements of NUREG-0737, and (3) overall plant safety will be improved by immediate implementation since the ERGs provide a significant improvement over existing plant procedures. | |||
The staff has also concluded that the guidelines can be trans-lated into emergency operating procedures, that they are sufficiently function-oriented, and that acceptable procedures can be developed based on the guidelines using the guidance of UUREG-0899, *Guidelines'for the Preparation of Emergency Operating Procedures." We therefore find the guidelines acceptable for implementation. | |||
Sincerely, Darrell 6. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Enclosures: | Sincerely, Darrell 6. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Enclosures: | ||
.1. Letter to Mr. Sheppard, dated 2. SER on Guidelines FFCO 1 f DLO~ .... .....~ i PL~.R trICtp~f5 L3# ............ | .1. Letter to Mr. Sheppard, dated | ||
.... D. . | 2. SER on Guidelines FFCO 1 f DLO~ .... ..... ~ i PL~.R | ||
..... ..... | trICtp~f5 L3# ............ .... D. ..... ..... D.L.Z.D | ||
........ ................... | .R.B.f... .-$........Pl.U l R........ .............. ........ ................... | ||
........ Jrichf.ied | EflT~h ais...... | ||
.. ..... FMiragl.ia. | .NAI ........ Jrichf.ied .. ..... FMiragl.ia. ..-lE.i~senbut .......................... .................... | ||
'FORM _ 05fO/2483 | |||
..-lE.i~senbut | 08. 054 . P.5J! 1983Q....... | ||
.......................... | NRC FORM 318 (lOIS I NRCM 0240 O FFICIAL R ECO RD C OPY * us. GPO lga3-400-247 | ||
.................... | .s T 'IYt | ||
'FORM _ 05fO/2483 | -" - >_ ir . American,.--.,;}} | ||
FORM 318 (lOIS I NRCM 0240 O | |||
* us. GPO lga3-400-247 | |||
{{GL-Nav}} | {{GL-Nav}} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:18, 24 November 2019
| ML031080193 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley, Millstone, Salem, Mcguire, Indian Point, Kewaunee, Catawba, Harris, Wolf Creek, Point Beach, Watts Bar, Sequoyah, Byron, Braidwood, Summer, Seabrook, Surry, North Anna, Turkey Point, Haddam Neck, Ginna, Diablo Canyon, Callaway, Vogtle, Farley, South Texas, San Onofre, Cook, Comanche Peak, Yankee Rowe, Zion, McGuire, 05000000, Trojan, Marble Hill |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1983 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| GL-83-022, NUDOCS 8306060070 | |
| Download: ML031080193 (3) | |
- j-w ::.S00t;l >
June 3, 1983 TO ALL OPERATING REACTOR LICENSEES, APPLICANTS FOR AN OPERATING
LICENSE AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR WESTINGHOUSE
PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: SAFETY EVALUATION OF *EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDELINESU
(GENERIC LETTER 83-22)
The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed Westinghouse Emergency Response Guideline (ERG) Program as described in Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG)
letters of November 30, 1981, July 21, 1982 and January 4, 1983, and in the material accompanying those letters. We have concluded that the guidelines are acceptable for implementation and will provide improved guidance for emergency operating procedure development. We suggest that implementation of the guidelines proceed in three steps:
(1) Preparation of plant specific procedures which, in general, conform to the Emergency Response Guidelines referenced above and fiplemen- tation of these procedures as required by Generic Letter 82-33, dated December 17, 1982;
(2) Preparation of supplements to the guidelines which cover changes, new equipment, or new knowledge and incorporation of these supplements into the procedures; and
(3) Completion and improvement of the guidelines to meet our long term .
requirements, followed by incorporation of improvements into plant specific procedures.
The prompt implementation of Step 1 will allow the benefits of the significant improvements you have achieved to be realized soon. We note however, that the guidelines are written for the procedure writers, not control room operators, and therefore preparation and implementation of!
procedures will require additional Human Factors input. Step 2 refers to a program for guideline or procedure updates which will be generated as a matter of routine after the implementation. This essentially is a main- tenance function., Step 3 refers to a program for addressing those aspects of the guidelines and procedures where additional long term work may be needed, either in your emergency procedure program or as part of abnormal procedure updates.
OFFICEt.
-.__
8306060070
_AL_
FICO................... ....... ..................
_
........ .................. ......... ................. ........ ................. ........ .................
) ir
........ ...............
SURNAMEbIII
S..............;... ......... .... ,................... ........................... ..................... ........... ........... .......... ........... ....................
VATE _.. _ _ _I . . . ._ _ _ _
....................................................
_ _ _ _
.......... ...... .......... ...... ....... ....
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
- a U.S. G PO 1983-400-247
.NRC FORM 318110/801 NRCM 0240 O FFICIA L R EC O RD C OPY
-2 -June 3, 1983 We have Identified in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) a number of items associated with the guidelines which need further work by the Westinghouse Owners. We require that these items be addressed by either Incorporating them into a future guideline revision or otherwise Justifying the disposition of the item. Additionally, because the Emergency Procedure Guidelines must be dynamic in that changes must be made to reflect changes in equipment or new knowledge, we expect the Westinghouse Owners' Group or a similar coali- tion of utilities and vendors to accept responsibility for continued maintenance of the guidelines. Therefore, we have requested in the enclosed letter that the Westinghouse Owners' Group provide a plan for addressing the SER items and a description of the program for steps 2 and 3 above.
As discussed in the enclosed SER, the staff reviewed each step of individual guidelines to determine if the expected results would be obtained, if suffi- cient alternatives were provided for equipment failure, and if the set of instructions would bring the plant to a safe shutdown condition. The staff also compared the ERGs with the Item I.C.1 requirements of NUREG-0737. The staff concluded that (1) a sufficient portion of the final ERG package has been completed so that implementation of the ERGs into plant procedures can begin, (2) the ERGs meet the most significant requirements of N4UREG-0737, and (3) overall plant safety will be Improved by prompt implementation since the ERGs provide a significant improvement over existing plant procedures. The staff has also concluded that the guidelines can be trans- lated into emergency operating procedures, that they are sufficiently function-oriented, and that acceptable procedures can be developed based on the guidelines using the guidance of MIUREG-0899, *Guidelines for the Preparation of Emergency Operating Procedures." We therefore find the
.guidelines acceptable for implementation.
Sincerely, origiflal s -i~nedbV
Parrell G. Llep Darrell G. Elsenhut, Director Division of Licensing Enclosures: 3 -~
1. Letter to Mr. Sheppard, dated
2. SER on Guidelines
- Ple__ as~ieseprevious concurrence page. ____ ____
OFFICEI .. P.k. QRAU.#.. Dk:,QRf ... .... 1 ............. ..........
.L.~
SRAE HSmith:ajs JLyons* D1rWdNTe1 d l a DE4~1~
FfW~gi
05/2.PI?4/83 05/24/83 05 1
0/ j'8 ...../&_83 ... . ........
FOR
DAC3 8 ..0.............. ......
0240.OFF.CI.. ...... RECOR COPY..I....................
NRC FORM 318 110-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY MGM.1981-335-OW
-2- We have identified In the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) a number of items associated with the guidelines which need further work by the Westinghouse Owners. We require that these items be addressed by either incorporating them into a future guideline revision or otherwise Justifying the disposition of the item. Additionally, because the Emergency Procedure Guidelines must be 6jnamic in that changes must be made to reflect changes in equipment or new knowledge, we expect the Westinghouse Owners' Group or a similar coali- tion of utilities and vendors to accept responsibility for continued maintenance of the guidelines. Therefore, we have requested in the enclosed letter that the Westinghouse Owners' Group provide a plan for addressing the SER items and a description of the program for steps 2 and 3 above.
As discussed In the enclosed SER, the staff reviewed each step of individual guidelines to determine if the expected results would be obtained, if suffi- cient alternatives were provided for equipment failure, and if the set of instructions would bring the plant to a safe shutdown condition. The staff also compared the ERGs with the Item I.C.1 requirements of NUREG-0737. The staff concluded that (1) a sufficient portion of the final ERG package has been completed so that implementation of the ERGs into plant procedures can begin, (2)the ERGs meet the most significant requirements of NUREG-0737, and (3) overall plant safety will be improved by immediate implementation since the ERGs provide a significant improvement over existing plant procedures. The staff has also concluded that the guidelines can be trans- lated into emergency operating procedures, that they are sufficiently function-oriented, and that acceptable procedures can be developed based on the guidelines using the guidance of UUREG-0899, *Guidelines'for the Preparation of Emergency Operating Procedures." We therefore find the guidelines acceptable for implementation.
Sincerely, Darrell 6. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Enclosures:
.1. Letter to Mr. Sheppard, dated
2. SER on Guidelines FFCO 1 f DLO~ .... ..... ~ i PL~.R
trICtp~f5 L3# ............ .... D. ..... ..... D.L.Z.D
.R.B.f... .-$........Pl.U l R........ .............. ........ ...................
EflT~h ais......
.NAI ........ Jrichf.ied .. ..... FMiragl.ia. ..-lE.i~senbut .......................... ....................
'FORM _ 05fO/2483
08. 054 . P.5J! 1983Q.......
NRC FORM 318 (lOIS I NRCM 0240 O FFICIAL R ECO RD C OPY * us. GPO lga3-400-247
.s T 'IYt
-" - >_ ir . American,.--.,;