ML19329E626
| ML19329E626 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1974 |
| From: | Schwencer A US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Howell S CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006160407 | |
| Download: ML19329E626 (3) | |
Text
__.
. w 4 --. gm%
._,~.-#
g E
- .v
~g--
.m
~ ~
3
^
g 1,
~
V
$_j Q Q h.$[ AA WM.%.a M
~,-$g.?
r., m
_..;.4_ _. >
~
_' N.,,
-n-
.y.
M gZ l
Docket Nos._5_Q-M9 and 50-330 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS Mr. 5. H. Rove 11 POOR QUAUTY PAGES Vice President i
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue
~ Jackson,' Michigan 44201 cm n: '.
Dear Mr. Howells
~
~
We have completed our reviews for the upgrading of the Electrical Power System as stated in Amendment 25 and Appendix 8A of Amendment 26 to your application for the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2.
On pages 4 and 5 of the enclosure to the cover letter of Amendment 25 you state that cartain changes intended to upgrade the electrical power system are plannad and that review of these changes is not considered r
-necessary prior to the Final Safety Analysis Report review. Since no preliminary: design information on these changes was submitted for our review, it is impossible for us to consent on their seceptability at this time.
Our positions with respect to your Appendiz 8A of Amendment 25 are provided in the enclosure to this. letter. With the exception of these stated positions and subject to their. satisfactory resolution we find your criteria for physical independence of electric systeps to be acceptable.
l
'Please inform as within two weeks after receipt of this letter of your intent -
regarding. compliance with the positions as stated in the enclosure. We aj -
5
' ~
~suggest' th'at'you amend your;spplication inclog appropriate revisions tF.; [1 4
the Preliminary Safety Evaluation Baport by February 2,1975 with respect'; *c
^
~
_j
~, -
uf
. 'to these positions.:
2 s
If you disagree with the staff positions relating to your application, you
' may have the. opportunity to bring the==t$er to the attention of Licensing 7 management. This may be done either. elly or in writing, but ybu dBould ~
specify the maters to be discussed 5.nd lodhate your reasons for disagree-ment with the staff reviewers.
~
L
,5 e s
4 F /*
y
...... 4.. ~
- g.m.
x,wj 1_
g_
e;l m e.y _ gggym
,.x gg 3. c *. '-
a3 3
,, l
, ; eu "'* * ~ = >
2-;
a.y.
- ** '~
_w& *~;
. - Y...
s r:
3..
- ,,, - 1..,. g.1
/ Q T :,
L
- li.:tt ? :< Y'* e e?
c
~
z w
~
u.:
e w.-
n>
.s v a
?. p_ y. m.
, g m.,s
...,.,,,.,.m.gm.g,ag,g
.~
3_ - w
~ a.-
- e..
p.
,s A-2-
Consumers Power Cxpany Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the staff positions.
Sincerely, Cr$d !!;5d W A. Schwencer, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch 2-3 Directorate of Licensing i.
Enclosure:
Regulatory Staff Positions I. -
ces: Harold F. Reis, Esquire Irving Like, Esquire Newman, Reis, Axelrad Reilly, Like and Schneider i
1025 Connecticut Avenus, N.V.
200 West Main Street Washington, D.C.
20036 Babylon, New York 11702 Honorable William H. Ward Myron M. Cherry, Esquire p
Assistant Attorney General Jenner and Block
+
Topeka, Kansas 66601 1 IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 f
Howard J. Vogel, Esquire Knittle and Vogel James A. Kendall, Esquire 814 Flour Exchange Building 135 N. Saginaw Road 310 Fourth Avenue South Midland, Michigan 48640 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 DISTR OUTION:
/ EGoulbourne Dockets (2)/ TR BCs Lk% 2-3 Rdg LWR 162 BCs VAMoore ACRS (16)
FSchroeder AKenneke RKlecker OGC R0 (3) a LBEnalerrm ASchw r
o,,,c.,
x7o '/IIR2-3 C-Lk
-3
. u..a.,
- 12/q/74 12/1/74 l
m,,,
f.
imm arc.3i, < n,. 9 33 > rrcx c:<o t u.... ev = ~
v u ri o c = i.7. -.>.. -
3 r
y e
REGULATORY STAFF POSITIONS REGARDING PHYSICAL INDEPENDENCE OF ELECTRIC SYSTEMS Consumers Power Company Midland Plant,. Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330 1.
In paragraph 1.5 (c) you define an isolation device to include "such devices as circuit breakers, fuses, fused disconnect switches current limiting devices, etc."
This is contrary to our position transmitted to you on December 12, 1973 following our review of Amendment No. 22.
It is the staff's position that these devices, as quoted above, are not acceptable isolation devices.
2.
In paragraph 2.1.1.3 (a) the sentence "except for pigtails at the electrical penetrations" should be deleted. It is the staff's position that junction boxes outside the cable trays should be used for all splice requirements.
3.
In aragraph 2.1.1.3 (c) the sentence "where a single layer of cable is to be installed" appears to be irrelevant. Clarify the intent and applicability of this provision.
4.
The last sentence in Section 3.3 "should a fill be exceeded, the race-way section will be reviewed by a design engineer to assure that the cable can provide the required service" is not acceptable and should be removed.
l i