ML20248D234

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Emergency Response Guidelines (Ergs) Insp Repts 50-445/89-59 & 50-446/89-59 on 890814-25.Weaknesses & Unresolved Item Noted.Engineering Task Group Developed to Resolve Number of Engineering Items Re ERGs
ML20248D234
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
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)
v • d • e


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 l s' qua ity

l assurance department,

an independent consultant, and Westinghouse. Findings from these audits were

  • RIV:0PS *C:0PS ADIP /NRR  ;

D:DR @lan

'

JCummins JEGagliardo LJCal RFWarnick

. / '/89 / /89 y/p/89 '?//f/89

  • previously concurred r 3

h )

1

8910040168 890929 ig

PDR 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

h

~

SEP 2 91989

'

,  ;

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.

l

'

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.70(a) of the Commission's regulations, a copy of

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

Austin.. Texas 78756-

I ' Texas' Radiation Control Program Director

s

-- - - - -_ - - - - - _ _ - _ -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20248D234&oldid=3149695"