ML20005G852
| ML20005G852 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/18/1990 |
| From: | Pulsifer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Berry K CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| GL-88-20, TAC-74381, NUDOCS 9001230194 | |
| Download: ML20005G852 (3) | |
Text
January 18, 1990 Docket Np. 50-155 DISTRIBUTION
,5RETITIM EJORDAN
- Hr Kenneth W. Berry PD31 R/F ACRS(10)
Director, Nuclear Licensing NRC & LOCAL PDRS OGC Consumers Power Company RFULSIFER JZWOLINSKI 1945 West Parnell Poad PSHUTTLEWORTH HBOYLE Jackson, Michigan 497.01 JfLACK
Dear Hr. Berry:
SUDJECT: REVIEW OF 60-DAY RESPONSE 10 GENERIC LETTER 88-20, INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATIONS (IPE)(TACNO.74381)
Re:
Big Rock Point Plant Generic Letter 88-20 requires, in part, that each operating reactor licensee and construction permit holder:
(1) identify the approach and method selected for performing the IPE, (2) describe the roethod to be used, and (3) identify the schedule for performing the IPE and submitting the results to the NRC..This information was to be submitted to the NRC within 60 days of issuance of Supplerrtnt I of the generic letter.
We have reviewcd your letter dated October 25, 1989, submitted in response to the reporting requirercents of the generic letter.
We conclude that your IPE approach,rnethodology, and schedule are acceptable.
However, as we stated in Gerieric Letter 88-?0, we expect that utilities with extensive PRA experience, such as yours, will subtrit their IPE results on a shorter schedule than three years. We, therefore, encourage you to submit your IPE results on a more expe-ditious schedule to help avoid any possible delays between your completion of the IPE and our review process due to the expected backlog at the end of the three-year period. We anticipate that any oossible additional analysis or reporting requirements, such as those from external events or from the Contain-rcent Performance Inprovement Program, will rot have any adverse effect on your schedule.
However, if your schedule should change, please notify the NRC of the proposed change and the reason for the change.
Should you have any questions concerning the requirements of the generic letter, please contact Mr. Michael L. Boyle, NRR at (301) 492-1308 or Mr. John H. Flack, RES at (301) 492-3979.
Sincerely, Original sfgrant liy Robert M. Pulsifer, Project Manager Project Directorate 111-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V & Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
See next page d
/
PH/PD31:DR P
(
DRD31:DRSP t\\ g LA/PD31:DRSP PSHUTTLEWORTH RPULSIFER
@ft
\\
1////90 1/p/90 1 y/90 BIG ROCK IPE ACCEPTANCE LETTER 9001230194 90011o PDR ADoCK 05000155 P
=- -
1
[a no i
'o UNITED $TATES
!\\
Tg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
?
n i.
,E W ASHING TON, D. C. 20$55 l
k.'.~.. +,e/
January 18, 1990 Docket No. 50-155 Mr Kenneth W. Berry Director, Nuclear Licensing Consumers Power Company i
1945 k'est Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Berry:
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF 60-DAY RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 88-20, INDIVIDUAL PLANT l
EXAMINATIONS (IPE)(TACNO.74381) i Re:
Big Rock Point Plant I
Generic Letter 88-20 requires (1) identify the approach and method selected forthat eac in part construction permit holder:
performing the IPE, (2) describe the method to be used, and (3) identify the schedule for performing the IPE and submitting the results to the NRC. This inforn,ation was to be submitted to the NRC within 60 days of issuance of l
Supplen,ent 1 of the generic letter.
l l
We have reviewed your letter dated October 25, 1989, submitted in response to the reporting requirenients of the generic letter. We conclude that your IPE approach, methodology, and schedule are acceptable.
However, as we stated in Generic Letter 88-20, we expect that utilities with extensive FRA experience, such as yours, will submit their IPE results on a shorter schedule than three years. We, therefore, encourage you to submit your IPE results on a more expe-ditious schedule to help avoid any possible delays between your completion of the IPE and our review process due to the expected back* log at the end of the three-year period. We anticipate that any possible additional analysis or reporting requirements, such as those from external events or from the Contain-ment Performance Improvement Program, will not have any adverse effect on your schedule. However, if your schedule should change, please notify the NRC of the proposed change and the reason for the change.
Should you have any questions concerning the requirements of the generic letter, please contact Nr. Michael L. Boyle NRR at (301) 492-1308 or Mr. John H. Flack, RESat(301)492-3979.
l Sincerely, Robert H. Pulsifer, Project Manager 4
Project Directorate ~111-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V & Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ec: See next page
..,. _... ~.
.,g
, -, ~ - -
)
l*r. Kenneth W. Berry
, Con'sumers Power Company Big Rock Point Plant Cc:
Mr. Thomas A. McNish, Secretary Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Judd L. Bacon, Esquire Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 i
Mr. Thomas W. Elward Plant lianager Big Rock Point Plant 10269 U.S. 31 North Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Mr. Walter flufford County Comissioner 114 Belevedere Avenue Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Office of the Governor l
Rocn,1 - Capitol Building Lansing, Michigan 48913 i
Region 61 Administrator, Region III U.S.1:uclear Regulatory Comission 709 Recsevelt Read Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Nuclear Facilities and Environmental leonitoring Section Office Division of Radiological Health P. O. Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Resident Inspector Office Big Rock Point Plant 10253 U.S. 31 North Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 i--
,s
--