ML17199F653
| ML17199F653 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1986 |
| From: | Zwolinski J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Farrar D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8603030593 | |
| Download: ML17199F653 (3) | |
Text
1,..
Docket No. 50-249 Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Director -0f Nuclear Licensing Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. Farrar:
Re:
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 The NRC staff is in the process of evaluating the effects of the fire at Dresden Unit 3 on January 20, '1986.
As part of the staff's review, NRR staff representatives visited the Dresden site on February 6, 1986 to observe the effects of the fire and to discuss the event with plant and Region III personn~l. During our site visit, we learned that Commonwealth Edison is performing a study of the event on site and, with your contractor Sargent and Lundy, is conducting an engineerfog assessment of the structural effects of the fire on the drywel l. The staff is interested, not only from the standpoint*.
of continued safe operation of the unit, but also because of potential generic
- concerns arising from the event.
In order that we may better understand the significance of the event, we* request that you keep us informed of findings resulting from your evaluation.
Regarding broader aspects of the fire, the presence of the polyurethane layer in the containment walls was not considered in the fire protection review conducted for Dresden and like nuclear units having Mark I containments. It
- now appears that most, if not all, such containments contain a similar polyurethane layer.
In such cases, it appears that the separation criteria of 10 CFR, Appendix R are not met.
We request that prior to startup and
- Operation of Unit 3, you address this matter of compliance with Appendix R, showing either why the unit is in compliance or how compliance can be achieved, or request an exemption from any requirement of Appendix R that is not met.
Any action required to be taken by.the staff.will be based on the evaluation requested above and the results of your review.
Our review does not have to be finalized prior to plant restart.
We appreciated the help and cooperation extended to us by Dresden plant personnel during our site visit on February 6, 1986.
I I
C.--Ef6"0303-0593. 860225.
. ~*
I *...
- PDR. *ADOCK' 0509()249 * *.1
.
- S '.. *. ' -...
- PDR *
. I
. \\..___* -- --~r ~*--~ ---
- ~
O DJSTRIBUTION Docket File j N-RC-PDR __.
Local PDR OELD EJordan BG rimes JPartlow Sincerely,
~.~tiiyt~Wt
'John A. Zwolinski, Director BWR Project Directorate #1 Division of BWR Licensing CJamerson JZwolinski ACRS (19)
BWD#l Reading RBernero
~
1 JDonohew,J)... O~
DBL ;.fJi/hl;-*, \\~D#l RBe~m C,j JZwol inski
~ IJ.1186 G'~£.---W86 CJ a on
/8
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 February 25, 1986 Docket No. 50-249 Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Director of Nuclear Licensing Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. Farrar:
Re:
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 The NRC staff is in the process of evaluating the effects of the fire at Dresden Unit 3 on January 20, 1986.
As part of the staff's review, NRR staff representatives visited the Dresden site on February 6, 1986 to observe the effects of the fire and to discuss the event with plant and Region III personnel. During our site visit, we learned that Commonwealth Edison is performing a study of the event on site and, with your contractor Sargent and Lundy, is conducting an engineering assessment of the structural effects of the fire on the drywell.
The staff is interested, not only from the standpoint of continued safe operation of the unit, but also because of potential generic concerns arising from the event.
In order that we may better understand the significance of the event, we request that you keep us informed of findings resulting from your evaluation.
Regarding broader aspects of the fire, the presence of the polyurethane layer in the containment walls was not considered in the fire protection review conducted for Dresden and like nuclear units having Mark I containments.
It now appears that most, if not all, such containments contain a similar polyurethane layer. In such cases, it appears that the separation criteria of 10 CFR, Appendix R are not met.
We request that prior to startup and operation of Unit 3, you address this matter of compliance with Appendix R, showing either why the unit is in compliance or how compliance can be achieved, or request an exemption from any requirement of Appendix R that is not met.
Any action required to be taken by the staff will be based on the evaluation requested above and the results of your review.
Our review does not have to be finalized prior to plant restart.
We appreciated the help and cooperation extended to us by Dresden plant personnel during our site visit on February 6, 1986.
cc: See next page
~. *-.
Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Co1TUTionwealth Edison Company cc:
Robert G. Fitzgibbons Jr.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Mr. Doug Scott Plant Superintendent Dresden Nuclear Power Station Rural Route #1 Morris, Illinois 60450 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co1TUTiission Resident Inspectors Office Dresden Station Rural Route #1 Morris, Illinois 60450 Chairman Board of Supervisors of Grundy County Grundy County Courthouse Morris, Illinois 60450 Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Co1TUTiission, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Gary N. Wright, Manager Nuclear Facility Safety Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor Springfield, Illinois 62704 Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3