ML20040D265
| ML20040D265 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 01/06/1982 |
| From: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040D136 | List: |
| References | |
| PROC-820106-03, NUDOCS 8202010123 | |
| Download: ML20040D265 (7) | |
Text
.__
O Telephone 815/942-29;0 Commonwealth Edison Dresden Nuclear Power Station R.R #1 Morris, fillnois 60450
]
DatehnrD11f}O]) $_ l0&
DJS LTR: 81-264 I
i I
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director j
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D.C.
20555
-1 4
Subject:
Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures for Dresden Station i
Units 1, 2, and 3; NRC Docket Nos. 50-10, 50-237, and 50-249
References:
(a) D. J. Scott letter to H. R. Denton, dated March 12, 1981 l
(b) Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Appendix E, Part V
}
}
Dear Mr. Denton:
Enclosed are ten (10) copies of revisions to Dresden Station Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures.
No return of transmittals is necessary.
Sincerely, I
(A D.
Scott Station Superintendent Dresden Nuclear Power Station
'DJS:TGB:mt p
g Enclosures 4s g
cc:
T. Blackmon File /NRC JAN151982" 'S File / Numerical 4
g g,awy essent amenmasam e u 1
T10C D
s
+
F3 goof Sil ;
8202010123 820122 P"" ADOCK 05000010 F
DAP 9-2 ORESDEN STATION PROCEDURE ROUTING Revision 11 PROCED,URESC00RDINATORhl0TFIED
() '
OATE
]
Inoex Number
]
-7 Unit a//
Procedure 6/T/ S 00 - ~7 Revision No.
- /
Title ( % $
.L b~~ I m^ $8 j %)e_)W l
i
/
g Req'd. Comp 1. Date Record Retention Requirements:
I a]
Action Item No.
1.
Is a Surveillance affected? NO j
(Submit DAP 11-2 pgs. 5 or 6)
Modification No.
2.
. Is a Station Record Type being established?
Yo Draft Review:-
a.
If "yes", specify record Deletion?
Mn retention requirements.
Posted Procecure?
A/ s (as per Tech. Spec. Sec.
Posted Location?
wa 6.5, ANSI N45.2.9 App. A Typing Required?
VE5 or DAP 2-3)
. Incax Change Requireal VM s b.
If "yes", obtain record type number -
(see R3 Coordinator) i
..k _d 1
Originator Routing
- 2. d $ 0 $-
7A~ IC 8.
W_- A J U~8 Department Supervisor
\\Jech. Staff Supervisor N!8
///4 3.
M 0
9.
Verifier
/
jy Surveillance Coorcinatorf
/
4 4.
~A l'Yk 5
13 10.
lY 0' N/R rocedures Coorcinator nt. Asset. Sup, Rad./ Chem.
Eeni
/.g i
s.dd2 /u k 73 3
- ~
.JUL 091981,.
I Procecures Manager gpe ing Engineer or SRO Y=~
TW
S 7.
12.
1 0,gigina tor ( groofreaa),___,_________
5tationg25/
j TRANSMITTAL RECEIPT R
er No.
b-Q fj]
E S P aco
, >em. o
" " W " Aeenoveo REMOVE:
INSERT: f_pjp g(g_q gu j N M2
\\\\
D.O.S.R.
j
{, I hereby acknowledge receipt of the above.
1 Signed Date 1
(Sign and return this fom to the Procedures Manager.)
'j F0 m 9-2A 18 of 24 a
i l
I a.. _... -, _
-.-.-.______,_.,._...,.,,....g.
.--,_r m,___,77
f t
MP 9-2 Revision 11 PROCEDURE HISTORY Procedure 202~l2n-1 Rev. No.
/
Description of Procedure Revision or of New Procedure rn DJ2/
yo msA JJ ~' A ~ n i
dM MetJuex n2L: 1
.A.
/M J k no'asA Mel d )somoA d d,;A, 4 Af" L,
'Mw m py i
I j
Justification for New or Revised Procedure i
f1,
,)
fa' ~/ 2 wa 2 dNl BG 2 cik J nL-
~
i l
} $/ T~/5 2co-7/.
i
't 5
i 7
Supp'artive References YE
}~
E~/ 1~k 2 Cp-Y /
l C
/ t ' A $ ~ G. A f,- s s #
~
i Fom 9-23 i
APPROVED i
Os j
JAN 0612 l
19 or 24 D.O.S.R.~
- - -. ---.- ---.... -..-.. ~--. - -_ -.- - - --..,- - - ---.--,
- ~ = - - ~.... ---. _ _ _ _. -..
.a.
d DAP 9-2 J
^ '~
Revisica 1 SAFETY E'.'Ai.!.!ATI0:t l
b].
(10 CFR 50.53) 1 7
J
.i Does this procadure/ revision ccastitute a c ange to orocedures as described in Safety Anaivris F.ccor:7
}
j Yes ( )
No M e
i r
j is a enange in the Tecnnical i
'soecification involved?
a No ( )
1 6
SAFETI EVAL.UATION: Answer tne foilowing questicas wi cn a "yes" cr "no", and provide specific reascas Justifying the decisien:
Is the probability of an occurrence, the censequence of an acci--
1.
dent, or malfunctieri of safety related equip:r.ent, as previously l
evaluated in the Final Safety Analysi-Report, increa ed?
Yes 1 No, because: [
g7 g
i
]
Y~
$ e;L h hS~50 A
4 is the possibility for' an.gcciden or malfunction of a di fferent:
2
^
O'--
type than any previcusly evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis r
~
3 Report created?
Yes X No, because:
i 3
Is the margin of safety, as defined irr the basis for any Tech-i nical Specification, reducedt Yes 8 No, because:
i Any Answer
- Yes ( )
All Answers No frd v
Aeque.sc anc receive Muclear APPROVED negutatery cor=rssion au the r t :stien for chance.
^
JM 06'82 D.O.S.R.
Authori:ation accerved c >
?
lI
- NOTE:
ini tiate ?r:n:ccure -l Any answer chech:d "yes" lecie enestien should be reported in :he Performed 3y a
ar.u::. cc--
.m e
- .~.C.
y t i.
l Date
}-[
T O.".!! * - 1C.
li 20 of 2f+
I,
,---.y-m
= - - -
.*.m*
- en-
.ge..
y
^
DAP 9-2 DRESDEN STATION PROCEDURE ROUTING Revision 11 C
//-5/o/
~PROCEDURESCOORDINATORNOTfFIED
~
o^ra Incex Number Unit NA Procedure E9to qm -4 Revision No. i Title % @ g h h d m i h iemn h 9M.
Req'd. Compl. Date Record Retention Requirements:
Action Item No. M A 1.
Is a Surveillance affected? Nn (Submit DAP 11 2 pgs. $ or 6' Modification No. NPt 2.
,Is a Station Record Type being established?
un Draft Review:
a.
If "yes", specify record Deletion? ums; j
' retention requirements.
Posted Procecure? No (as per Tech. Spec. Sec.
Posted Location? No 6.5, ANSI N45.2.9 App. A Typing Required? yea or DAP 2-3) s j
ndex Change Requireo? as" <-es b.
If "yes", obtain record type i
g'
/
number (see R3 Coordinator) 1.O % M A h
________________________________L__Ericinator i
Routinc 2.
WI A
ca m 8.
/
m DepgPt=ent Supefvlsor yn. Staff Supervisor 3.
O/h MIA 9.
//
W/Pt N/A f
e Verifier Suryc1 nce Coorcinator bd!
i 4.
rn O_
5 13.
10.
w 6 ryP Pro ecury Co c1nator nt Ass t r RaQChem.Sup3 l
5.
TA 11.
M siE i
Proceu s Manager
(/
/ 0 ating-gf or SRO
,II
.dts 12.
W 7.
DS
__F_Inaner_gdggeaa)
Statp_Sg________________.
7d.
TRANSMITT L RECEIPT Eh9 ter No.
@/
REMOVE: Emp wow
%.O APPROVED INSERT: EDe Sco-9
%,1 JAN 06'82 O nere3,aanomi m e receipt of the seove.
D.O.S.R.
I signed Date i
(Sign and return this fann to the Procedures Manager.)
f FM M 18 of 24 4
04P 9-2 Revision 11 0
enoceouas utsroar l
.j Procedure 6et9 Sno-4 Rev. No.
t
'I Description of Procedure Revision or of New Procedure A ** "
OA rt oh dieb'h w.-ch em % % un_
. dnn u
twd E m7 u se O
- 'l j
(]
Justification for New or Revised Procedure
($Yf -L_
-) -_
_- l _ = ___ _
'3
,ks c bun
$w is s, i
i
.I l
4 l
Supportive References IO APPROVED JAN 06'82 D.O.S.R.
i 19 of 24
.i 4
?
^^
k s
j 1
DAP 9-2 O
surv cAwma Revision n (T0- CFR 50 53) 1 Does this procaccre/ revision ::nsti tute a :nanga to j l}
orocedures as described in Safety Analvsis F.ecer-7 l L
Yes ( )
No (
4 4
Is a change in :ne Tecnnical l
Soecification involved?
l l
i No (J 6
o SAFETf EVALUATION: Answer :ne following questions witn a "yes" or "nc", and provide specific reasons jus:I fying the decision:
1.
Is the probability of an omr enca, the c=nset;uence of an acci-j' dent, or malfunctieri of saft:y related equiement, as previously evaluated in :he Final Safety Analysis Report, increased?
Yes
./ No, because:
~"
' ~
W 2
Is the possibifity for ange=ident or mal-function of a different:
^
O-
~
type than any ;rreviously evaluated in the Final Saft:y Analysis S
Report created?
Yes
/ No, because:
>=
m ao ob.reA.-
3 Is :he awrgin of safe:y, as defined in the basis for any Tech-nical Specification, reduced?
Yes t/ No, because:
e=
m Any Answer
- Yes ()
All Answers Ne Aeque.st anc recei ve.".uclear Reguiatory ce==issren APPROVED au thori za t,i on for change.
J#l 06'82 Authorizzeien Received c )
D.O.S.R.
4
?
- NOTE:
i ini tiate er: :ccure Any answer check d "yes" Im=le: entarien should be racer:cd in :he
,-2.t Oi d k n,
annual report :o :he M.%.
Perfor:ned By cat Q
3 Date 5-G 4:
70? 1 3
- I 23 of 2h i
_ _ - - - -. - -