ML20077F481
| ML20077F481 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1991 |
| From: | William Cahill, Woodlan D TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| TXX-91216, NUDOCS 9106190021 | |
| Download: ML20077F481 (2) | |
Text
3
,I
- =. =
Log # TXX-91216
{.
]
File # 10130 IR 91-10 j
920 illELECTRIC June 12, 1991 William J. Cahlit, Jr.
Esecums Vice Presulens U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
Attn: Document Ccntrol Desk Washington, D. C.
20555
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES) - UNIT 1 DOCKET N0, 50-445 RESPONSE TO NRC INSPECTION REPORT WEAKNESS 445/9110-01 REF:
NRC letter from Samuel J. Collins to W. J. Cahill, Jr.
dated May 9, 1991.
Gentlemen:
The referenced correspondence was received on May 13, 1991, and has been
(
reviewed by the appropriate TV Electric personnel.
TV Electric's response to the weakness noted in the CPSES Emergency Plan program are provided in attachment to this letter.
Also, there were a number of observations listed in the Inspection Report.
These observations are being studied as possible enhancements the Emergency Plan Program.
No further correspon-dence is expected regarding the observations.
If there are any questions regarding this response, contact Mr. Greg Bell at (214) 812-4373.
Sincerely.
W. J. Cahill Jr.
By:
D. R. Woodlan Docket Licensing Manager GLB/gj Attachment c - Mr. R tin - USNRC-RIV Mr.
...Derlain - USNRC-RIV Mr.
- o. Clifford - USNRC-NRR Resident Inspectors - (2) CPSES i
0106190021 910610 i
PDR ADOCK 05000345 400 N nh olive street L B. 81 Dattas, Texas 75201 3
I g
g Q
PDR v
3
.b-Attachment to TXX-91216 Page 1 of 1 Response to Weakness noted in the CPSES Emergency Plan Program N.R1_WJ ahnf3s 445/9110-011 The inspectors reviewed the emergency preparedness program and interviewed emergency responders to verify that the training program was established and i
maintained in accordance with 10CFR50.47(b)(15), to determine whether the amount and type of training and retraining received by emergency responders was edequate....
The above observations pertaining to:
the difficulties completing the fuel damage block of event classification, the difficulties in making dose assessment calculations, and the issuance of nonconservative PARS are considered to be an exercise weakness (445/9110-01).
l TU E_1gc_thp_Rssp_qnlq_tg_11Le Weak _n_qn:
1 The response has been divided into three parts in order to conc?ntrate on specific issues.
Each response is preceded by the clause listed in the concluding paragraph of the Inspection Report section on Training.
1)
"...the difficulties completing the fuel damage block of event classification [in CPSES Procedure EPP-201, Assessment of Emergency Action levels Emergency Classification and Plan Activation].
l This procedure shall be reviewed and revised to aid individuals in its use, by November 18, 1991.
l 1
l
- 2) "..the difficulties in making dose assessment calculations,.
l l
The results of the review by the Emergency Planning staff determined that the Dose Assessment subject was not reviewed frequently enough by the Lead Radiation Protection (RP) Technicians, therefore, this subject will be integrated into requalification training.
The requalification training program shall be updated by November 18, 1991.
- 3) "..the issuance of nonconservative PARS [ Protective Action Recommendations]...."
The Shif t Technical Advisor (STA) is specifically trained to assist the Shift Supervisor concerning review of PARS.
The STA receives the same training as the Lead Radiation Protection Technician in dose assessment and is available to review dose projections and PARS.
Consequently, the corrective action taken above will also address this issue.