ML18068A349
| ML18068A349 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1998 |
| From: | Robert Schaaf NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Haskell N CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR GL-87-02, GL-87-2, TAC-M69468, NUDOCS 9805190057 | |
| Download: ML18068A349 (4) | |
Text
~*
- Mr. Nathan L. Haskell Director, Licensing Palisades Plant 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043 May 12, 1998
SUBJECT:
PALISADES PLANT - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO NRC GENERIC LETTER 87-02, "VERIFICATION OF SEISMIC ADEQUACY OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT IN OPERATING REACTORS, UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE (USI) A-46" (TAC NO. M69468)
Dear Mr. Haskell:
The staff requires additional information in order to complete its review of Consumers
- Energy Company's May 23, 1995, response to the subject generic letter. Please provide a response to the enclosed questions within 60 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact'me at (301) 415-1312.
Docket No. 50-255 Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Robert G. Schaaf, Project Manager
. Project Directorate 111-1 Division of Reactor Projects - Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File OGC PUBLIC ACRS RPelton PD#3-1 Reading B. Burgess, Riii EAdensam (EGA 1)
GGalletti DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\WPDOCS\\PALISADE\\PAL69468.RAI To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box C=Copy w/o attachment/enclosure E=Copy with attachment/enclosure N = No copy OFFICE PM:PD31 LA:PD31 E
D:PD31 NAME RSchaaf:
CACarpenter DATE 5/
Z. /98 5/,.,,,, /98 5/ \\)., /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
(~~~o9aaon5e1~9~ouou5~7;--.;;9~ao~5~1~2~~~~~~,
i PDR ADOCK 05000255 1
I p
PDR I
oZOI
,.. ~ :*. ~.... ' **~:'I.~'*:*~;
Mr. Nathan L. Haskell Consumers Energy Company cc:
Mr. Thomas J. Palmisanq Site Vice President Palisades Plant.
27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, Michigan 49043 Mr. Robert A. Fenech, Sr Vice Pres Nuclear, Fossil, and Hydro Operations Consumers Energy Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 M. I. Miller, Esquire Sidley & Austin 54th Floor One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 Mr. Thomas A. McNish Vice President & Secretary Consumers Energy Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Judd L. Bacon, Esquire Consumers Energy Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Regional Administrator, Region Ill U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351 Jerry Sarno Township Supervisor Covert Township
. 36197 M-140 Highway Covert, Michigan 49043 Office of the Goverr;ior Room 1 - Capitol Building Lansing, Michigan 48913 Palisades Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office Palisades Plant 27782 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, Michigan 49043 Drinking Water and Radiological Protection Division Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 3423 N. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd P. 0. Box 30630 CPH Mail room Lansing, Michigan 48909-8130 Gerald Charnoff, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N. W.
Washington DC 20037 Michigan Department of Attorr:iey General Special Litigation Division 630 Law Building P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, Michigan 48909 March 1998
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO NRG GENERIC LETTER 87-02, "VERIFICATION OF SEISMIC ADEQUACY OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT IN OPERATING REACTORS, UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE CUSI) A-46" PALISADES NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NUMBER 50-255 The staff has completed its review of the licensee's May 23, 1995, response to the subject generic letter. In order to complete its review, the staff requires additional information regarding operator actions specified in the response. The licensee is requested to provide responses to the following questions.
- 1.
Describe what reviews were performed to determine if any local operator actions required to safely shut down the reactor (i.e., implement the SSEL [safe shutdown equipment list])
could be affected by potentially adverse environmental conditions (such as loss of lighting, excessive heat or humidity, or in-plant barriers) resulting from the seismic event. Describe how staffing was evaluated.and describe the reviews that were conducted to ensure
- operators had adequate time and resources to respond to such events.
- 2.
As part of the review, were any control room structures that could impact the operators' ability to respond to the seismic event identified? Such items might include but are not limited to main control room ceiling tiles, nonbolted cabinets, and nonrestrained pieces of equipment (i.e., computer keyboards; monitors, stands, printers, etc.). Describe how each of these potential sources of interactions has been evaluated and describe the schedule for implementation of the final resolutions.
- 3.
Describe what reviews were performed to determine if any local operator actions were required to reposition "bad actor relays." For any such activities, describe how adverse environmental conditions (such as loss of lighting, excessive heat or humidity, or in-plant barriers) resulting from the seismic event were analyzed and dispositioned. Describe how staffing was evaluated and describe the reviews that were conducted to ensure operators had adequate time an.d resources to respond to such events.
- 4.
Describe which of the operator actions associated with resetting SSEL equipment affected by postulated relay chatter are considered to be routine and consistent with the skill of the craft. If not considered skill of the craft, what training and operational aids were developed to ensure the operators will perform the actions required to reset affected equipment?
Enclosure
- 5.
- 6.
2 Assume the alarms associated with " bad actor relays" are expected to annunciate during the seismic event. Do the operators have to respond to those annunciators and review the annunciator response procedures associated with them for potential action? How would those additional actions impact the operators' ability to implement the Normal, Abnormal, and Emergency Operating Procedures required to place the reactor in a safe shutdown condition?
To the extent that Normal, Abnormal, and Emergency Operating Procedures were modified to provide plant staff with additional guidance on mitigating the A-46 Seismic Event, describe what training was required and provided to the licensed operators, non-.
licensed operators, and other plant staff required to respond to such events.