ML19247B281
| ML19247B281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1979 |
| From: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Bixel D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908080295 | |
| Download: ML19247B281 (4) | |
Text
.x.
f')
+f pana,I%
u b \\
UNITE.D STATE:s E,.,
[h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5
t,\\ [,',.
- JULY 2 0 1979 Docket No. 50-155 Mr. David Bixel Nuclear Licensing Administrator Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Bixel:
RE: BIG ROCK POINT We are reviewing your !
ttal dated May 4,1979 in response to IE Bulletin 79-08. We have detemined that the additional infomation requested in the enclosure is necessary in order to complete our safety evaluation.
We request that responses to the items in the enclosure be forwarded to this office within two weeks of yo'ir receipt of the enclosure, which was previously transmitt d to you by telecopy.
Please contact William F. Kane at (301) 492-7745 if you require additional discussions or clarification regarding the infomation requested.
Si ncerely, lm Dennis Ziemann, C f
Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Operating Reactors Enclosurc:
Request for Additional Infomation cc w/ enclosure:
~
See next page c p r.
'j i ) 7 Juu
'/J
?90808o99gs
Mr. David Bixel July 2 o ig79 Cc Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Consumers Power Company 21? West Michigan Avenue
..ackson, Michigan 49201 Judd L. Bacon, Esquire Consumers Power Company
?!2 Watt Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Hunton & Williams George C. Freeman, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virgini? 23212 Peter W. Steketee, Esquire 505 Peoples Building Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 Charlevoix Public Library 107 Clinton Street Cnarlevoix, Michigan 49720 50u
.? 9 A
ENCLOSURE BIG ROCK ?OINT RECUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IE3 79-08 Item No. 2 1.
Your response is incomplete in that it does not address whether your review included crocedures fer containment isolation.
In addition you state that certain lines (in isolation category E) do not reauire isolation.
However, Item No. 2 of IE3 79-08 explicitly recuires that all non-essential lines be isolated. Further the response does not state explicitly that containment isolation is initiated orior to or concurrent with all automatic initiations of safety injection.
Confirm that you have reviewed containment isolation initiation design and crocedures to assure that all automatic ini ciations of safety iniectinn will result in 1 solation of those lines not recuired for safety features or cooling capaDility including those designed to transfer potentially radioactive gases anc liquids out of the primary containment.
2.
Precare and implement all changes necessary to initiate containment isolation of all lines discussed above and describe how they comoly with the recuirements of the Bulletin.
In addition provide a schedule for imolementation of the necessary changes.
Item 10. a 1.
Your resconse is incomplete. Describe the types of vessel level indication for both automatic and manual initiation of safety systems.
In addition describe other ins *r"- ntation which the operator might have to determine changes in reactor coolant inventory, e.g., radioactivity levels, hign containment and equicment area temceratures, containment sumo como operation, etc.
! tem No. 5 1.
Your resocnses items 5a and 5b do not address ccerati g procedures n
or training instructions. Amend your resconse to acdress this matter.
2.
Your resconse to items 5a and 5b is inco-ciete.
Ycur review of ocerating' crocedures and traininc instructions should assure that coerators are proviced acditional information and instruct'cns to (1) not override mutcmatic actions of engineered features unless centinued oceraticn of engineered safety features will result in unsafe alant conditions an:
'2' to not rely upon vessel level indication alone for -anual actions c to also examine other clant parameter indicaticns in evaluating clint ccnditions. Amend your res:cnse accorcingly.
3.
Provide a scnedule for any acticns on item 5 that nave not jet been ccmoleted.
cqp n,
J L (!
<J
BIG ROCK POINT
_2_
Iten No. 6_
l.
It is not clear from your response that safety related valve positioning requirements were reviewed to ensure proper operation of engineered safety features.
Please supplement your response to provide a commitment to conduct this review and a schedule for completion.
2.
Your resconse did not clearly indicate that all accessible safety-related valves had been inspected to verify proper position.
Nor was a schedule for perf orming the position verification for all safety-related valves provided.
Please supplement your response to provide this i n fo rma tion.
Item No. 7 1.
Your response contained no discussion regarding how you assure against inadvertent transfer when resetting engineered safety features. Amend your response to provide this information.
Item No. 8 1.
We understand from your response that operability is verified for redundant safety related systens prior to removal of any safety related system from service.
Since you may be relying on prior operability verifi-cation within the current technical specification surveillance interval, operability should be further verified by at least a visual check of the system status to the extent practicable, prior to removing the redundant equipment from service.
Please supplement your response to provide a commitment that you will revice your maintenance and test procedures to adopt this position.
2.
It is not clear from your response that all involved reactor operational personnel in the oncoming shif t are explicitly notified about the status of systems removed from or returned to service. Please indicate how this information is transferred at shift turnover.
500 276
.