ML19326D493
| ML19326D493 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1976 |
| From: | Boyd R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Howell S CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006110527 | |
| Download: ML19326D493 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l
- m m n,.
.-; n~ n,, _.. ;_
.,.c,w
_; _n 4.4 s,
- M.n% Wg ',%.,&.. r. :~.w,.
A n
,a
~,
.3
~+
s.
., y
. ~.,
s
.v 4,
W 3-
, _,,,,W,[
.f
.~
4o q
',P'**
aMT v
, %.e.. s.
s
'A June 2, 1976 Docket Nos. 50-329 50-330 i
J
.:gd Q, \\
s
. ~ < IMM
= o ' d,y f[@
. Consumers Power Company
/1 V C
-- l,
.1 p y.;,
ATTH: Mr. Stephen H. Howell This DOCUgENT C0HT41HS E tz Vice President 1
~ ' -
P00R QUAN PAGES 212 West Michigan Avenue l
~ " '
y ~
Jackson, Michigan 49201 Gentlemen:
_ (~ f '
% =. n p.,-
J J,yjg'y a l c.
a L.
w w.:m v.9,
. Thank you for your letter of March 3,1976, regarding the fomat.
"iMfMW. ;
to be used and the expected content of the Final Safety Analysis Report W.j&j )
3 4
e '.
., y& ;,,,
for the Midland Plant.
y1 3
.,s yg%s <
- We have reviewed the letter and your proposed staff position enclosed' k'
g our views on the matter of implementation of Re with the letter. We find that the proposed position generally follows q x-
$j several minor changes and_ one significant change as noted below for preparation of the FSAR for the Midland Plant. There are, however,'
/M ;
p
- .. < +; r. d. %. 3,4 W -
o, on the enclosure to this letter..
. :. w, w.
'n',
L Since our meeting with you on January 13, 1976, the staff has determined O
that a decision on the need to have a particular piece of infomation
~...
1 or a particular analysis in the FSAR would be very difficult to make i
h without having the FSAR in hand. The design aspects of the directly
)
d affected system or component and even of related plant systems may
~,
be important for such a determination. Further, taking a broad view, y:i the information and analysis items in Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide i
1.70 have already been determined generically to be necessary for the staff's evaluation of nuclear plant safety. Such infomation and m
analyses could be particularly important to show that a plant of
'^ -
,(
older design adequately satisfies our needs for safety, especially if
~
.~:
no changes to hardware result. In view of this, we have changed 1
[
Section III A of your proposal to Section III C in our enclosed staff p
position.
t In accordance with the enclosed staff position, we would not expect to m
perform a pretendering review of exceptions you wish to take to the
.1
~
L content called for by Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.70.
- Rather, we would expect you to make these deteminations and to present in j!
the FSAR your rationale justifying why these exceptions can be taken.
-\\
~
3s
.v
- 3. x
.8 0,0,6'110 M. ;
. 1 ' 'N-
. '[,1. bMi
.h g
(,, 'y..,,
gy.
Q G y ;; p r,y m ;,
. J., ty.
~L
-e
. L,,' j, 1, n
%R M a.W L K
.y-
. 4G:f' 46%qy E.5,h;gyej
_ y..e g MTG
~E,
. xnjF gn,pyn g;9y:
gg,g w gl e "-
~
7
..,...... _..... ~ _. _
m
-'3m-'.W.n.QgI,Q' }
Q:,i;.y pQg+.fpaf,a.1ff,gy
,'.~mh)qpe'yl_Y,2., m%n.,-
v< >a, ~..n. :_. y.:
,,. n..
.- <; 4 -
R * ? bd'e.._ $'<
,,)e-
- :f. '.-R.;;;p.. v%.Ie~?-y a.9.. 7.'q%,.) % ~f Q,'l d
~
. f G {
s L
w e :.re :3 % V % K l y., Q *:,;g j
1
~
g-gu a
. c.
A x ;. c e.;, -
m t -,,g A,
.~
., Consumers Power Company
^
'.w., ji' Z-- - j. :.,:.'rs '.
y,v,.,.q.
C J%L4
. s,.y... m.
' - s.s.
l Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this
.._q,a
,. a.
- g _
/.
j matter.
Sincerely,
.\\
k Y
l B
\\
Roger S. Boyd, Director
- z..
- s ', 5 A '?:
Division of Project Management '
' ' 2'/~{G l
-.,W+.,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation s
Enclosure:
01 F
+
As stated
?
1
M q l :
o 6
ccs:-
.M. >
w ~-
'. e W s. a. m w.. M m
- 7. w.3w m. -i t'
Listed on page 3
.v.
~,
s mm
- c.. :
s.
m
(_ _ ~ ;- -
-p;3^.) y.rgqs., n,
~.. r.
-. +.
w.r..
~
l Q
y '. ~ ; ;Q ' VX.H 34'nQ>:m, 9
~,n
,.. J ' y.;, i.. -
cy-I
~..,,
q %., :..
4 v
,.m.o.m a n
n
-SV DISTRIBUTION:
e T*. * - g.c
,:.e._3,..
s;
~.. -
3
, 4 uiiA M -&,=.. Y".k V....:r ~..". 6 :..' /.,p
":+
~s
+ac,V: N.-~
..y 4
{
NRC PDR
- w,:'tv,+nl;d. W 9%.s.M.
m,
^
Local PDR.
I 'VMc~';&. : ;;h-f:&g):.p>gq$ffQ.@. >.;j
.:. R ' (.,'ew;g:. - <
g.pf.;(.3-M.gQ:
Docket f11e l
LMR-2. Reading m :"4.'. (&;. s,.,W,W,..,W ;p %2 :
. m L.~ r a.
5.:
..h 3 ; 4;'.t' A.e, M ;**: %
- -?
W.
geW.y x
4
~.c..
1,; n 2 y %y m' W..
RCDeYoung
^
c
.~x v
. u m.
l FJWilliams i
XKniel
~c l ' M % -
l MService
' 9~S
- -~~
RHeineman DSkovholt
' ?/ " M HDenton '
WHaass
?'
j VAMoore RHVollmer MLErnst WPGammill ELD IE (3)
?
~
.4 ACRS(16)
- " ' E.'.[.
l s
l c.
.' f.r / s t
bec: J.R. Buchanan
' ~
t l
T.B. Abernathy 4.
.g.,
r
~
1 l
N-]
SS&EA
- g. QDQQ:p AD/ LWR.
DPg o,,,c.
- k, R[Rb 5/ g /76
~
Neineman HNnto N DS.koElbt R
ig n el f
5/i /7'6 ~
5/
[76 5/,;2.//76 4/1/76 5/ 4.0/76 l.. Form ABC.318 (Rev. P.53) ABCM O2_40_..-.
_m.. a. _.** m,1,.T. T u_._se_sovs_anuswy pa_surine opriesa te74.sas.e se
.9
,.m_
- . fj. v -
.__m_,
w o u
...,z ~.<Lst,d
k o
s 9
STAFF POSITION 7
i FORMAT AND CONTENT E
FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FOR THE MIDLAND PLANT, UNITS'l AND 2
}
I.
The staff's review and evaluation of the operating license application for the Midland Plant will be performed using the staff's published Standard Review Plans, with due consideration being given to the status of the design, procurement and con-struction of the plant at the time the acceptance criteria contained in those plans became available.
2 II.
The 'FSAR shall conform to the Format contained in Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 2, Standard Format-and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants - LWR. Edition.
III.
With respect to Content, the FSAR shall contain information required by' Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.70 with exceptions allowed under the following conditions.
A.
If the required information is covered by a Consumers Power, Bechtel, or B&W Topical Report approved by the NRC, additional analysis beyond that contained in the Topical Report is not required unless specifically indicated in the staff's evalua-2 tion of the Topical Report.
B.
If the subject'has been resolved during the review by the 4
staff to determine applicability of new Regulatory Guides for the Midland Plant, additional analysis beyond that contained in the finally approved Regulatory Guide Position is not required.
C.
If required information is not available due to completion i
of associated engineering, manufacturing, or construction prior to issuance of Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.70 and if the information would require significant engineering analysis, _ testing, or inspection to develop, the applicant
.may elect not-to submit such information in the FSAR.
However, in these cases, the applicant has responsibility to determine whether or not the information is necessary to demonstrate'an adequate level of safety for the plant and the rationale-for a decision tc omit specific information must be included in the FSAR for staff review.
1
,_