ML20003G463
| ML20003G463 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1981 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Abel J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-02-02.A, TASK-2-2.A, TASK-RR LSO5-81-04-036, LSO5-81-4-36, NUDOCS 8104290506 | |
| Download: ML20003G463 (2) | |
Text
.
y 1
z'
.l
./
/
April 24,1981
[' '. 6/(-
Docket No.
5C-10 50-237 LS05-81-04-036
}C.
O
'(
Mr. J. S. Abel
.J 4A e Y
S p
4/Sg7-[N%
Director of Nuclear Licensing OJ h 8 Corrnorwealth Edison Co@any H
q Post Offic:= Box 767
\\p A g/
i Chicago, Illinois 60600 y
Q
'k
Dear Mr. Abel:
SUBJECT:
DRESDEN 1 AND 2 - SEP TOPIC II-2.A SEVERE WEATHER PHENOMENA By letter dated January 22, 1981, you provided coments in response to the draft safety evaluation report (SER) of SEP Topic II-2.A. " Severe Weather Phenomena" which was sent to you by letter dated December 15, 1980. Your comments regarding the extreme values of te@erature and the design straight wind speed indicate that the Dresden 2 facility was designed to more severe criteria than the topic safety evaluation requires. Therefore, we do not feel it is necessiry to :hange the appropriate design parameters given in our evaluation.
Your comment regarding the design basis tornado stated thatthe paraceters suggested in our topic evaluation and the magnitude of the tornado proposed in the Dresden 2 SAR are roughly equivalent in the loads they impose and that therefore the SAR values which were assumed in your previous calculations should be used. Since you have not provided an adequate justification in support of this coment, the design basis tornado provided in our topic evaluation will be retained.
i For the reasons given above, we have determined that no changes to SEP Topic II-2.A are necessary and therefore we now consider the topic as co@leted.
This evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated safety assesswnt for your facility. This assessment may be revised in the future if your facility design is changed or if the NRC criteria relating to the subject is modified before the integrated assessment is complete.
Sincerely.
0@WI..h c y
A p:DL Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief DC hfield p
GL ihas Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 4/ l1,/81 4/g/81 Division of Licensing t
810A2D0SN
@t cc: See next page SEP 1,,
SEPB:DL
' SEPB:DL ORB #5:DL:PM G
"a:dk JCBerliriger' WRusseT1
'PO*Connor-4/M/81
'4/)C/8'l ~
4/)s/81'
'4/ ~>I/81'
^
n >
/ 9 htty*o 4:
UNITED STATES
~g 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
E w AsHINGTON, D. C. 20565
~
t
,1, April 24, 1981 DifcdtNo.
50-10 50-237 LS05-81 04-036 Mr. J. S. Abel Director of Nuclear Licensing Comonwealth Edison Cogany Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. Abel:
SUBJECT:
3RESDEN 1 AND 2 - SEP TOPIC II-2.A. SEVERE WEATHER PHENOMENA By letter dated January 22, 1981, you provided coments in response to the draft safety evaluation report (SER) of SEP Topic II-2.A. " Severe Weather Phenomena" which was sent to you by letter dated December 15, 1980. Your coments regarding the extreme values of tegerature and the design straight wind speed indicate that the Dresden 2 facility was designed to more severe criteria than the topic safety evaluation requires. Therefore, we do not feel it is necessary to change the appropriate design parameters given in our evaluation.
Your comment regarding the design basis tornado stated thatthe parameters suggested in cur topic evaluation and the magnitude of the tornado proposed in the Dresden 2 SAR are roughly equivalent in the loads they impose and that therefore the SAR values which were assumed in your previous calculations should be used. Since you have not provided an adequate justification in support of this comment, the design basis tornado provided in our topic evaluation will be retained.
For the reasons given above, we have determined that no changes to SEP Topic II-2.A are necessary and therefore we now consider the topic as cogleted.
This evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated safety assessment for your facility. This assessment may be revised in the future if your facility design is changed or if the NRC criteria relating to the subject is modified before the integrated assessment is complete.
l Sincerely, Dennis M. Crutchfield, lief t
l Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 1
Division of Licensing cc:.See next page l
.... ~ -
f
Mr. J'. S. Abel cc Isham, Lincoln & Baale Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety Counselors at Law 1035 Outer Park Drive 5th Floor One First National Plaza, 42nd Floor Springfield, Illinois 62704 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Director, Standards and Criteria Mr.' B. B. Stephenson Division Plant Superintendent Office of Radiation Programs Dresden Nuclear Power Station (ANR-460)
Rural Route #1 U. S. Environmental Protection Morris, Illinois 60450 Agency Washington, D. C.
20460 Natural Resources Defense Council U. S. Environmental Protection 91715th Street, N. W.
Agency Washington, D. C.
20005 Federal Activities Branch Region V Office U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: EIS C0ORDINATOR Resident Inspectors Office 230 South Dearborn Street Dresden Station Chicago, Illinois 60604 RR #1 Morris, Illinois 60450 Dr. Forrest J. Remick 305 East Hamilton Avenue Susan N. Sekuler State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 188 W. Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Morris Public Library 604 Liberty Street Morris, Illinois 60451 Chai rman Board of Supervisors of Grundy County Grundy County Courthouse Morris, Illinois 60450 t
John F. Wolfe, Esquire 3409 Shepherd Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 Dr. Linda W. Little 500 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
.