ML20049J234

Forwards Public Version of Revision 2 to Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure EPIP 100-C3, Technical Director (Checklist of Initial Generating Station Emergency Plan Responsibilities). Receipt Form & Safety Evaluation Encl

ML20049J234
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	02/19/1982
From:	Scott D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20049J208	List: ML20049J207 ML20049J234 ML20049J239
References
81-264, NUDOCS 8203120289
Download: ML20049J234 (4)

Text

i O

Commonwealth Edison s

i) Dresden Nuclear Power Sttion C

(g R.R. #1 g

Morris. lilinois 60450 Telephone 815/942-2920 l

Date

.)hn!)natl l l

.50 DJS LTR:

81-264

/

/

...Y t

M z..<. :.:.::

Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Q

E,13 ]Oggw iO

~

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation N acu sea m U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission numeramassa ff Washington, D.C.

20555

/

Subject:

Emergency Plan I,tplementing Procedures for Dresden Stat's Units 1, 2, and 3; NRC Docket Nos. 50-10, 50-237, and 50-24

References:

(a) D. J. Scott letter to H. R. Denton, dated March 12, 1981 (b) Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Appendix E, Part V

Dear Mr. Denton:

6 Enclosed are ten (10) copies of revisions to Dresden Station Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures.

No return of transmittals is necessary.

Sincerely, O

D.

. Scott Station Superintendent Dresden Nuclear Power Station

'DJS :TGB:mt Enclosures cc:

T. Blackmon File /NRC i

File / Numerical 1

I l

SG9e'EibOG94-9902TT 8203120289 820305 PDR ADOCK 05000010 F

PDR 1

DAP 9-2 DRESDEN STATION PROCEDURE ROUTING Revision 11 PROCEDURESCOORDINATORNOTiFIED 9 ?-f/

[

~

DATE Incex NumDer Unit Procedure E#/# eo o - c 3 Revision No.

J?L I

Title Men'.en has ru (C-truusi~ w m'. = n. MD 4:rstohdianas).

Req'd. Comp 1. Date 9 U - f/

Record Retention Requirements:

Action Item No.

1.

Is a Surveillance affected?

M' (Submit DAP 11-2 pgs. 5 or 6)

Modification No.'

2.

Is a Station Record Type being established?.

a/o Draft Review:

a.

If "yes", specify record Deletion?

No retention requirements.

Posted Procecuret dc (as per Tech. Spec. Sec.

Posted Location?

6.5, ANSI N45.2.9 App. A Typing Required?

ves or DAP 2-3)

Index Change Requireo7 yn b.

If "yes", obtain record type number " (see R3 Coordinator) h 1.

D. h b= =~

l J

l t

(/

Originator Routing 2.Jl?

b-

~9C a.

Bn~d

TA Department-Supervisor U Tech. Staff Supervisor 9.

)!!A YAl-3.

N

~~

/

Surveillance Cooroinator /

t Verifier

4. hzu U aZ4 E*L i.

13.

10.

N N4 froctoures Catgginator Maint.

t. Sup, Rao, /Chenr. Sup 5.

M

$EP 10 IggL

.Ig M

Proceoures Manager Og@iting En i ed or 5RO -

7.

W Y

l 01L4 i i c

,DS Originator igroofreaa),__

Station,gtt/

Re rN.

b TRANSMITTALRECEIPT[h[

EN /co-c3 #w /

A W MPROVED Rm0vE:

INSERT: [h

)_gg 4w g_,

E 10M D.O.S.R.

I hereby acknowledge receipt of the above.

Signed Date (Sign and return this fon:: to the Procedures Manager.)

[

FORM 9-2A 18 of 24 I

e

i DLP 9-2 Revision 11 '

t PROCEDURE HISTORY

~

l l

Procedure E#e#

/ 0 0 -(/ 3 Rev. No.

A I

r Description of Procedure Revision or of New Procedure 44 A M

h / d m L==4 2v d j

na.~ s*,

>~ 2, A. s! A 'd,. =,..L~ -

'l 1

V t

I

'-?

s i

i

'i f

l Justification for New or Revised Procedure f

A d n & GSE9 ddd.s.. Wa se ekdd dx dn a -- O /Tb-wdae e/eA / a.<a~7En

/

r

/

v 1

l mn -

l t

r i

i I

i I

i Supportive References l

l

- - 72 L:s Da

=u;

~\\

t Fonn 9-23 APPROVED

\\

RB 1012 l

8 f 24 D.O.S.R.

l

I CAP 9-2 SAF~TY O!AU.'ATION

?.evisien 11 (TO CFR 50 53) i i

Does this precacure/ revision c:nstitute a enange to l

orocedures as described in Safety Analvsis F.coor:7 l

no M I

l Yes ( )

e I

l is a change in ene Tecnnical

[

,Soectficacion involved?

{

l No ( )

(

6 9

SAFET( iD/ALUA? !ON: Answer tne folicwing questicas wi tn a "yes" or

[

"no", and provide specific reasons juscifying the decision:

1.

Is the probability of an occuresnee, the c=nsequenes of an acci-t dent, or malfunct'en of safety related equipment, as previously evaluated in the Final fafety Analysis Report, increased 7 i

. g ggQ j

Yes

/ No, because:

h.

l m 4 ~Af / sat <. s s. f e,m./A.

c.

.ra.

w-s

^

2.

is the p 'ssibility for an9eci(ene or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis

~

~

Report created?

Yes v' No, because:

e>

w

'l '

3 Is the :nsegin of safecy, as defined in the basis for any Tech-nical Spectfication, reducedT Yes V no, kecauset J y _'

/

n t

l f

v.

All Answers No (d

Any Answer

• Yes ( )

r

~

Aequase ana receive.'tuclear Regulato'ry Coenrission APPROVED ~

~ "!

l&Io'82

- l authorf:ation for change.

.0ag Authorf stien Recalved ( )

i

~

~

~

~

~~ ~ ~ - - -

4

• MOTE:

1 iniciate Precacure

~

~

Any answer chech2d "yes" l

'Imo l e:-en es t ion shoutd be escorted in the Performed !y j 8. M annual escort to :he Mll0 Date 9~ V ~ f/

I i

FOP.!i 3-20.

r l

23 of 24

]

1 o

_-