ML20248D234
| ML20248D234 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1989 |
| From: | Warnick R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | William Cahill TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248D237 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8910040168 | |
| Download: ML20248D234 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000445/1989059
Text
-
-
l
p1 4
- a t
j
,
p
<
s.
,
,
pv
L'
SEP 2 9 G89
In Reply Refer To:
Dockets:
50-445/89-59
50-446/89-59
TV Electric
,
ATTN: ' W. J.: Cahill, Jr. , Executive
Vice President, Nuclear
Skyway Tower
400 North Olive, L.B. 81
,
Dallas, Texas' 75201
Dear Mr. Cahill:
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE. PEAK EMERGENCY ~ RESPONSE GUIDELINES INSPECTION
'(50-445/89-59;.50-446/89-59)
This letter forwards the report of the emergency response guidelines (ERGS)
inspection performed by an NRC inspection team from August 14-25, 1989, at
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unit 1.
The activities involved are
authorized by NRC Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for'the Comanche
. Peak Steam Electric Station. At the conclusion of the inspection, the team
discussed the findings with the members of your staff identified in Attachment C
of<the. enclosed inspection' report.
Arees exami.ned during the inspection included: review of the ERGS, the documents
used.to develop the ERGS, the verification and validation program, and the ERG
training program.
In. addition, the inspection included a walkdown of the ERGS
in the control room and plant, evaluation of operator performance of ERGS on
your site-specific simulator, and performance of a human factors evaluation of
the ERGS. Details of the inspection are provided in the enclosed inspection
report.
The team-determined that the Comanche Peak ERGS, when used by trained operators,
can function to mitigate the consequences of an accident. However, the team
identified a number of weaknesses involving the development and. implementation
of the ERGS. These included the lack of timely engineering involvement in ERG
development and revision, calculation errors, lack of availability of tools and
equipment in the plant, inadequacy of the verification and validation process,
lack of lighting in some areas of the plant during accident conditions, questionable
ability-of certain safety injection isolation valves to close with a differential
pressure across them. and inadequate ERG modeling capability of the simulator.
The team observed that in the last year, the applicant has taken aggressive
actions to impron the plant-specific ERGS. These actions included perfonnance
,of three ERG au? 3 condrMd by the app icant s qua ity assurance department,
l
l
'
an independent consultant, and Westinghouse. Findings from these audits were
D:DR @lan
ADIP /NRR
- RIV:0PS
- C:0PS
LJCal
RFWarnick
'
JCummins
JEGagliardo
. / '/89
/ /89
y/p/89
'?//f/89
- previously concurred
r
3
h
1
)
8910040168 890929
ig
ADOCK 05000445
G
PNU
mL_ __
i __
l
.
,
.!
u
,
%
7"
UNITED STATES
E'
!
o'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~'
7
l{
j '
- WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665
v.
3y.....J
SEP 2 91989
h
~
'
,
In. Reply Refer To:
Dockets:: 50-445/89-59
'
50-446/89-59-
. TU Electric-
..
-
ATTN ' W. J. Cahill, Jr., Executive
'
'
Vice President, Nuclear
.
E.
Skyway Tower
!
'
400 North Olive, L.B. 81
. Dallas, Texas :75201
' ;
'
Dear Mr.L Cahill:
.
SUBJECT:- COMANCHE PEAK EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDELINES INSPECTION
'
'
~
- (50-445/89-59;50-446/89-59)-
This letter forwards the report of the emergency response guidelines (ERGS)
inspection performed by an NRC inspection. team from August 14-25. 1989, at
- Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unit 1.
The activities involved are
authorized by NRC Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for the Comanche
Peak Steam Electric Station. At the conclusion of the inspection, the team
. discussed the findings'with the members of your staff identified in Attachment C
-
of the enclosed inspection report.
L
Areas examined during the inspection included review of the ERGS, the documents
used to develop the ERGS, the verification and validation program, and the ERG
training program.
In addition, the inspection included a walkdown of the ERGS
_
.
in the control room and plant, evaluation of operator performance of ERGS on
'
your site-specific simulator, and performance of a human factors evaluation of
the ERGS. Details of the inspection are provided in the enclosed inspection
report.
The team determined that the Comanche Peak ERGS, when used by trained operators,
can function to mitigate the consequences of an accident. However, the team
-identified a rumber of weaknesses involving the development and implementation
of:the ERGS. These included the lack of timely engineering involvement in ERG
development anti revision, calculation errors, lack of availability of tools and
. equipment in the plant, inadequacy of the verification and validation process,
lack of lighting in some areas of the plant during accident conditions, questionable
ability of certain safety injection isolation valves to close with a differential
pressure across them. and inadequate ERG modeling capability of the simulator.
The team observed that in the last year, the applicant has taken aggressive
-actions to improve the plant-specific ERGS. These actions included performance
of three ERG audits conducted by the applicant's quality assurance department,
an independent consultant, and Westinghouse. Findings from these audits were
_
-__-- ------- _- ----- _ - -- - - ---
,
,
.
. .
4
1
TU Electric.
-2-
SEP 2 91989
used to upgrade and enhance the ERGS.
In addition, an engineering task group
has been developed to resolve a number of engineering items related to the
ERGS.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.70(a) of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
l
'
this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC Public
Document Room.
One unresolved item is identified in Section 2.2 of the enclosed report.
We will be pleased to discuss any questions you have concerning this
inspection.
Sincerely,
0
}&
R. F. Warnick, Assistant Director
for Inspection Programs
Comanche Peak Project Division
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures':
Appendix - NRC RIV Inspection Report
50-445/89-59 w/ Attachments
50-446/89-59 w/ Attachments
cc w/ enclosures:
TU Electric
ATTN: Roger D. Walker, Manager.
Nuclear Licensing
Skyway Tower
400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81
Dallas, TX 75201
Juanita Ellis
President - CASE
1426 South Polk Street
Dallas, TX 75224
GDS Associates Inc.
Suite 720
1850 Parkway Place
Marietta, GA 30067-8237
Billie Pirner Garde, Esq.
Robinson, Robinson, et. al.
103 East Wisconsin Avenue
'Appleton, WI 54911
- - _ - - -
.<
Le
~(:
,
-
TU Electric-
-3-
,
l
TU Electric.
E
Bethesda Licensing
3 Metro Center, Suite 610
Bethesda, MD 20814
Seron, Burchette 'Ruckert, & Rothwell
ATTN: William A. Burchette Esq.
Counsel for Tex-La Electric
p
Cooperative of-Texas
,
1025 Thomas Jefferson St., N.W.
. Washington, DC 20007
[
E. F.-Ottney
L
P.O. Box.1777-
Glen Rose, TX 76043
Newman &'Holtzinger, P.C.
ATTH: Jack R. Newman, Esq.
1615 L. Street, N.W..
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
1
Texas Department of- Labor &. Standards
ATTN:
G. R. Bynog, Program Manager /
Chief Inspector
Boiler Division-
P.O. Box 12157, Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711
Honorable George Crump
County Judge
Glen Rose, TX 76043
Texas. Department of Health
1100 West 49th Street
I
' Texas' Radiation Control Program Director
s
--
- - -
-_
- - - - - _ _ - _
-