ML20034H247
| ML20034H247 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1981 |
| From: | Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18058B973 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 2.206, SECY-81-086, SECY-81-086-01, SECY-81-86, SECY-81-86-1, NUDOCS 9303160245 | |
| Download: ML20034H247 (39) | |
Text
w n.__mmm..:m.m.nu.m _.~ m
)
L
..f*
i I
/p* *ec I
'c
(,)
l f Y p /j!
SECY-81-86 t-@s.4 February 3, 1981 t
ADJUDICATORY ISSUE (Notation Vote)
The Commissioners For:
i Martin G. Malsch Fron:
Deputy General Counsel REVIDi OF DIRECTOR'S DENI AL OF 2.206 PETITION
Subject:
(IN THE MATTER,OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY OF 2
~
Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant-Facility:
i To inform the Commission of a Direcpr's hy Decision under 10 CFR 2.206, whig,/ in our l
Purcose:
y
- opinion, j
L i
l I
Review Time Exoires I February 13, 1981-(as extended).
^
i The Big Fock Point Nuclear Power Plant had Discussion:
been shut down for modifications arising-from
~ ct i the TMI Lesson's"Learisd -requirMenti.1 By 2 a-letter dated November 4, 1979, Ms. JoAnn Bier and Ms. Shirley Johnson, concerned citizens living near the plant, requested that the j
even i
facility not be permitted to restart i
af ter implementation of those requirements. -
'l Mr. Denton responded to their requests, I
received stating that the petitions were not before restart of the plant, and explaining that they would be treated under 10 CFR 2.206.
Notice was published to that effect i
in e Federal Redster, 4 Fed. M. m 89
[
IrJ:rm;ti:n in this tc:Ord was deie:cd (Dec. 11, 1979).
On January 6,.1980, petitioners supplemented their initial request, repeating:
1
-in 3 :ordant:' wdh the freedom cf Informati 3 FOM-M - D/
most of their previous claims.
By letter Act. exemp!! ns _S I
dated March 5, 1980, Mr. Denton denied, for-the most part, the ' requests insof ar. as they l
concerned restart of the plant ' but indicated l
th at final responses were-unavailable without j
h
~
CONTACT:
Richard A.
Parrish, OGC j
634-3224 I
h L
t
'I 9303160245 921207 k
~ GILINSK92-436 PDR
m.
t:
1 f>
2 s
4 ad:
kf (hi.
f.u_r__ther evaluations in-severalareas)(~
l e
' hat"tRe Commissioner Gilinsky did request t
staf f more thoroughly address the issue of repetitive malfunction of containment isolation valves.
The staff responded to the-Commissioner's j concerns in a memorandum dated April 25,-
1980.
[ Attachment 4.]
l Evaluation of the issues raised in the petitions i
has now been completed and reflects staff.
satisf action with progress made in _ accordance -
with the TMI Aption - Plan.
By letter dated December 18, 1980, Mr. Denton issued a final-denial of petitioners' request.
The bases._
for the Director's Denial were further explained in a letter dated January 29, 1981.
Th e two request letters raised nine distinct issues concerning specific safety matters and i
compliance with NRC regulations.
They are listed with Mr. Denton's response as follows:.
1.
Petition Demand: Adequate evacuation plans.
Director's Response: Approved Emergency Plan conforms to previcpst regulations ;.a Revi9ed)l,"1g,<
' " ~
plan, submitted pursuant to regulations jenerally effective as of November 3,
- 1980, currently undergoing review which has been satisf actory to this point.
There are no special circumstances requiring immediate i
action.
2.
Petition Demand: Accountability for diffuser -
pieces in reactor vessel.
Director's Response: All plates'and bolts were accounted for; worn pieces replaced during shutdown.
3.
Petition Demand: Design alteration of reactor Tvessel level instrumentation.
-l Director's Response: Staff concluded design alteration of instrument adequate (copy of i
license amendment was enclosed with the March 5, 1980, partial denial).
4
7 3
- t 4
4.
Petition Demand: Suf ficient biological shield.
Director's Response: Shielding.being upgraded as result of TMI Lessons Learned.. Delay in l
completion is consistent with compliance schedule' approved by the Commission as indicated in NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements. Current operation deened reasonable in light of safety evaluation and i
present improvements in location of vital areas and radiation protection therein.
5/6.
Petition Demand: Resolution of specific valve malfunctions, especially regarding containment isolation valves.
Director's Response: Licensee undertook corrective measures where necessary.
Staff judgment is that these malfunctions do not indicate significant pattern of. valve failures and that plant shutdown is therefore not required.
Staf f will continue to ronitor the operation and testing of these valves.
l 7.
Petition Demand: Ability to withstand bomber crash.
Director's Response:~ Air _ Force no, longer uses',
facility area for training exercises and deems chance of crash remote.
Staff satisfied upon review of documentation. Flight patterns recently adjusted to pass at greater' distance from plant.
8.
Petition Demand: Compliance with URC Fire Frotection requirements.
Director's Resoonse: Licensee in process of l
compliance r staf f satisfied that continued plant operation warranted by -improvements to date, will monitor progress.
Revised regulations regarding fire protection which become. effective j
February 17, 1981 will be applicable to this i
facility.
j t
[
l 1
'4 l
m i
9.
Petition Demand: Compliance with NRC orders after Oyster Creek loss of feedwater. transient.
j Director's'ResponseLS taff. satisfied with '.
licensee compliance (copy of license amendment
~
was enclosed with' March 5, 1980,' partial-denial).
C Thelnine issues raised involve specific areas-where the Big Rock f acility. required. NRC -
I attention.
In each instance, Mr. Denton was-satisfied that the licensee had adequately
'I complied with NRC regulations and the TMI j
Lessons Learned so that' the facility could I
continue to op'erate safely. 'In several-l l
instances, the. staff promised continued monitoring of licensee compliance ~ actions f
(such as new shielding requirements. and valve test. issues) or completion of staff-reviews j
(such1 as the plane crash and tha amarnancy-planning issues).
l t
\\
i 1
i I
%/
e' k
I
\\
i
}
.5 I
I I
f t
l l
t i
?
z-g., -
I 5
z.-
1.;
l
~[
f l
f,
'J I
~
Recommendation:
B-s n,
'Rlb!?2 / W
- \\
t Martin G..Malsch Deputy General. Counsel f
Attachments :
1.
Request letters 2.
Director's letters of denial l
3.
Director's Decision 4.
Staff Memorandum to Commissioner l
Gilinsky
.i l
Comissioners' coments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b.
Friday, February 13, 1981.
. Comission Staff Office coments, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NLT February 6.1981, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper
- i is' of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and coment.-the Comissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coments may be expected.
i DISTRIBUTION' Comissioners
-i Comission Staff Offices Exec Dir'for Operations Secretariat
(
l
~
7 l
l a
4
~
t
-;p';; -
t
- I L
t 5
I
!t
=
1
'?
)
f t
S k
E 7
-4 g
-.t
-}
g h
i 1
+
ATTACnMENT~1 b
E
'Y a
'hn v
e Ms e
-h L
5
.I a
e%*
d* -.9
-4 a
we,
e 4
_ y, ;.,
e j
+
e a
S
'. p i
.s t
'e
?
i P
- W t
'4 h
s
.6, D
T t
-n-9 g-M
-Iw q
)
el trs*T W
4
z.
p' 1
w....
- ...:2...
- . 3 i
i Di ector, !!:cletr EeLetor dep:1stien Attn:
P.. Dennis L. 2.ier. Ann,. Chief i
e
. Cnertting *.eseters 3rtnch No. 2
- i 1*. S. Nuclet-Reg:1ratory C =nission a
'Washingten D. C.,
2C555 l>
r e
i e
t We, the undersigned, wish to petition the NEC, in persuust to 2206,,to interv,ene j
.i.=ediately en behair of curselves and of lovei enes, in the natter of Consumers
.n,..a.at.,.n g s,.t-+. un n,.,. u.e
_G w h. PC..e. C w-n.., a.r. tac.u m..
.w
.am cu rower Conrany.:.
3efore.he KEC Ell:ws the II3.02 PCD:7 LTCL?.J. PFd. FACII.I!! to ' start us:
- e d==And trat cur schoci syste=s hava ve9.tble safety evacuttien ple.si J
1.
r fcr cur children, and thtt all citicens be infer ted of an:rceriate individuti.
i evacua.icn actions.
I
-2.
We deced accountability for all diffuser fis ener pieces, hich if j
left viti.in the reacter vessie could interfere **i.h red cventn End could eture
. ~
=....
-I
}.5 flew blockage.
j 3
e de:End that the integrity cf tre RIO 9 s: ste. be assu"d.
}
3 F
~le dennnd that all N?.C requirenents issued to Censumers ' Fower*Cempe.y'.
L.
e regardinr the C. ster Creek occu ence be i=clenented with no. pro osed changes, j
technical s ecifications or ad=inistr&tive centrol ecmre ises Elleved.
j i
E 5.
We da:End assurar.ce that the bie'.esicAl'srield is sufficient to contain.
.z.==t rsys,n the even,. c., a....
u
.,3 r
6.
Ue de End that re >-titive rAlfunctions of Valves C7/L0i7, CV/iO96, C7/1117,.
C7/402'7 and C7/L105 be resolved.
J i
7, "Je der,End evidence that the EIG T-03 PJDC LTCLEAP. ?ChT.. TACILI*"Y could-withstan:' the e-ssh ef & E-52 without disaster to t..e surrounding trec..
We re=ind the N?.C that Eig Iock w.s built to withstand a crash of & 707, not a 3-52 berber.
We feel that the h?.C has in tr.e nast put th* financial consideratiens of.
j j
Censu.ers Forer Coc-Any before tre rights cf the y,ielic. We Esh that-you tet inmediately to nrotect tre retitn, safet-and well teit of the ruhlic. We wish j
- be $nycived in a31 as.ects of t!is oroceeding.
.i
),
cc/ President Ji= y Carter, Cengressman Bob Dtvis, Senato: s Ch-1 Le rin, Dent 1d Eeigr !
n.,
Gove rner Uillia:n Filliken, 3enator Fiten Iruin, 3 tite Re;:resen.Ative Charl-s Var- ]
4:
j
.I r
I
- f..
.ln'!
h e
~-
. ~
.=.
e
. b. C W "..~.~ =P A Wr.y w.4.' hb is:.* d,wn b..d..
[..,.O Lt a
o 4 4: /
d pe..*
.ieg.$.....g.+
+
...e Cee.
3..
.........g.
...u.,.
O e..
w....
.w, a r.... -
- g '.,. n p.-..-t,
....$ g. g(.. gg
't w
%4.
.. a.*... =..s.e.g.
y..,... * - ; ;..;.r*L ;Aw.4
- 6. a.
...v......%
.YE-10C??. Section 2.71L.
':e, *.t.e undersi.nef, JoAnn Bier, ar.d 3r.irle:r J. Jor.s, being duly sw:rn due de cse End shy th:.t we tre citi:e..s living *.i. thin s fifty ile radius of the EI.~, ?.0CK P'GT WCLU.. ?C171. F.40II.ITI a.d we wish to intervene in kny Ls~ects of this r.Ltter, c,.. s. e....
.t s.
c e
+o...e s...
r~
e.r...,.a.. e.: 2 n. s. e..a. e.,.. t a.z e..
l s...
best of cu-infe stien, knowledre, i:..ci 'celiefs.
4 s
1 J n =.e.
.e
(
t 2*.1 a1.4,. on d.
, e *.
a w
[
. "' 7..~.')
g. ' g.,.
..,.,..:. C.' # *'.'.*.
t
=c.:.
p p
hk-
{\\
f e...4..y a. Jc. s y*
\\
'l d
'V E.C O *.,e.* 1 3 0 % $ 3
'\\ )
Jr' l'
......s,;..~., y.ew..
..n
- c 2 a,
.a
.~ <=
.u.. _ _
~:.
- .ys.
.ee. g A. n.. a. a.,. u... e...
- e..r - c.e a.
e +.,:.
.r.a. g s
.. t a.
.a
- 1. C..s
- e. u....
a......
r.
w.
s
~
% k, z c.L u c.
.\\..... w..
- a.. y'
.. s..
...p r.'
sS..
,'/.s es.
- P t'
/j&,(,
j
~
k l
l e
I t
- .r a
f t
7 p.. --- - -
3.
n.
'a..
r f"
0 6
.g
.t
.s
., 1
~,.
. o. 1...
.n..+~..~v....'..
c.'1
.nC.C s.
. C a.
, a. a. c. n.. n z
.c n..'.- 1..
- *.c r...,
- w..' c.'
0,ss.. C '. d..-
h.....C '. C.
~2 -- 1 *. '.l ?.'....
a.t.U.3.C.
3......s.... :.. :.
I.l..e.,.
,. i : n,... c,.-:..<..
- 3..
A..
- s.. *,. c r.
9 :
s....'..
- *1 c **u c '. e..'. R e.-.t '..*. c,* C.w.. i.... d.. a.n.' a..n. u -
C * ** e un.' a. ~.. '."".. c i, )c *. '.. '. d. C.
.a n n.
- .k..e. W..
- *" ~ ** ~.1 V a *. c. l..'e*.*.-
eum.4
- 4. e 1 ", **. '.e.'.s.. p. *c..,
A. n g r.a. e..Vc..a..
' * ' I. *. #. a. l'g' t.
w
..e.
w Rec': I'ucicer Twcr Pi~.nt.
~,sp n *..$ g
.. 4..~. ~.. ~.. '.
c..e s,
%.. ". e
.'. '. c, n ', :,'~..,*<.t."....
. ' v. e. ', a... ~.. ", '.. w.
~
S c. e.'
..se.,,...,,:s
.>c.
c.s.e... c,.. e
- r....,.....
.e.
4.,...
e..
s.
........u...
n.,......,......' c,.-..~..~ c v.~.......-
r..""c e..nc.r.. ou.
c : 1 :.......
- a. u.....-
....e v.....e c:......,..
n : a..............c.. c.....:c
..a....
. :..e
.a
. c.~. ~....1 '.. -. -.. '. - ' ' '. ' '..~.'. ~.'.'..'. '..'n. v. ~,'. c c ~.,. n' '. c h i.*.' c *.
^ -
.. ;.. : n. u. e. c.. a.
e,.,..
....c,....
..e
.1 c... e
.c. c..
.. a, c
.~..e. '.' : '.. ".. w~'...'.
- e. '..
.'. '. 5. c ".. ~.
. '... '. '. t. ~..s+...~".'..
- w. oi.
3
~ e..;.... o. a..n.,....... i m c.~ ~.Y ; s. s.,* - ".. '..~.'. '... >.'.' ) ~.'.. s%..
~
.4
- a.. e.... < ~..., 4
.. e. e ~..
- 4.... S..c y 3
......s.
, c.., e,...,. e s.
e
- 2. o c e.....,
.43
".nr.t ru c"t ::. ri e-L.:;.T@.,*: I.T. 2
.M r *1 ' n' t ' r' er rc.ac'.'P se.rcinyt.t ni.n ent 4.,
,.,,3
.... c,..
..... c..
e.
s.
- .. a.
- s. 9.....,,. ;
t.. <. n c
... a c.a. c
- a. s.. c.
.a. s<
e., a......... c c....,
.c,...n),
t._,.
< 7....c
...c...,
. 9. :, :,.,
z;,
.s.......
4 t..
C
..,e.;..n,,1
.C s.c <.
,.C..-
. C,:. n4. 5..D.. i.
s.-
.,... s g 3. C...
a
........g.g.. c..
e.n.
- s,
.A.z
- n..;..,.. e. * - t l -
- 4. '. e.
. e e..,
i p
c,..
g J....
- 4. :. <
- 4. e 4 e \\..
. i % C e. 4. _,.T C
- 4. *.:
u,. 4.
C n. a r,.
4
.. ~..
C..*....
.Ci. D.: VOAVCC T-.. 's Pc
".r
.YC v W., ;.,
..i.-... -
.u C..
%.....c
."v./,,,
<. i c..,.,.. e.. :.. C
,...4...
.. C - :.
.,.,s,.
f. 4. g el
.....r-p.e.r,*I,,. 3, C y:?o.1 r.,
. ~. o \\.r, <.
n
=
..: : c.. C s....s.
o.s,.
.n... s ts.-.
0.. s -.. s. s.. a..
a.3..c i c, E.s,
..tC
., C.
41 g.
c..-)~. '.~.-. c n*..
3
.".p' Y 2 D...
'.S c ~. '. '..'. D" '
'...-'.c.-...t'.~.~'m*.14.'....
s,....:
- a. s..,.4... *
,1
.% c.~. e.re e..'.-
-e c.'. t '. '..A. c '.. *.". '. S c I:u c'-
ic..*alnt 07'" Oc
- . O O - C". IO:
.'3 0 ( '#- 2*f ~d f W. 0" D$ C-1 0 ' C '*.
s.t
',t e-i t
[
..d...; O.
.s.3..ra+.
a.wC
- . 1 %.,.
..,4.,
- 4... o "..C.6a
%.,,.J *.
- 4. C.. v Cr
..g
.. - w. P. *,. *.- *. *'O! C
- h. $.*****'V..'..**. "4 'C '* y ' C' '* ;l t
- *C.'
r.'.. *. {.*.. C.' ~. '. '. v# e.".'..'..; C.". ~.
t
^ ^ ~.. *. '. ' * ! * * ' '.'. '.'. '..' c.~ ".~. C '"i..".'.." '.".,* *' a., *. *..*...
- C D.. c.' *I t.' t k.C : C *. n*. #.~.". C -.'
.i.. 4., i.,)C
.eYC 6
A.... A......aC
,. t.
r
- 4 c..,,. 3.,sC
- 3. 4
,4
". U.. t.. -
.J..... 'J.'r
..,44.}
e.vne.g e%..U~. Og.. O.e
..w..
..a.
., y. :..y
~..c.4..~. t '4.
.c..m.' " '.. - ' * * ' * -~~ o c c ~...; ~.. t...
~
~
a 1
-q t
t
't w
j f
J v...4.*..'". c.-
>j f
2 1
i
\\ _ wh '
N H cy.'.. J O..:
g n.z.i s o 5 s g @
l
. v.. -...,.. t 1
~ C n - ' s:'.:r..: i e r,000 M ' l$'?2.
l Ucras n cd A?wNeAn duuryll f>7 dCM,
?
. -3 1
c : Frc *,Gir.' Or.rt c:-
T
- n. 4..,..
e..,...,...
s......
t evi:.4 Lrc '.ei Reic1e-31 c,
.* hcl.'c.,
..: c:.. & ' e 1:::.a or.r. r.r.: Ste cr. ; I: '.* c.r. :.. t
-.re n* : r.
O c ' (' u l
j
- l..
.or s' f v.
e 9
P b
9
- p E
I 5
t t
I n
- h.,~c 2
~.
t i
?
t
.'-p
.r
_,m
- n
?
e t
-.r i
i t
- 1,
?
u i
P a
t
/ -
h
?i ATTACiDiENT 2
?
P f
i i
^ ~
't a
'* i g,
I r
b
'h
. e
. [
- e
-ep-
~W gr-~~~
@*S e
.m as-.~_.
w e y.
s-
.S b
f
?
.i t
)
7
{
i a
?
i i
r 5
s
- P
?
I e
t 9
t
M
/ge,s r: c
(*
UNITED STATES
!k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f d,Mg) %
k, h.I wa smucioN. o. c. 2 515
[
Srch 5,1930 Docket No. 50-155 s
\\
r 93
-T Ms. JoAnn Bier 204 Clinton Street Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Ms. Shirley J. Johns Route il, Box SS Ellsworth, Michigan 49729
Dear Ms. Bier and Ms. Johns:
Your petition of January 6,1980 addressed to Mr. Dennis Ziemann, Chief, Cperating Reactors Branch No. 2, requested that eight issues be resolved before the Nuclear Regulatcry Comission allowed the Big Rock Point Plant to start up.
The' Big Rock facility was shutdewn on Decerter 31, 1979, for irclerentaticn cf TMI Lessens Learned require:Ents.
Essentially all cf the concerns identified in your petition of January 6, 1920, are identical to those contained in your petition of Neverber 4, 1979.
By letter of Decerter 4,19@<rred you that we were treating your earlier petition, under 10 C P 2.205 e the Cort::ission's re9ulations, e
J the operating license for Big as a request for an order to shev Rock Point should net be suspended pending resolution of the seven issues you identified.
(Receipt of your request was ncticed in the Federal Register on Decerter 11, 1979, 44 FR 714B9).
We are carefully evaluating each cf the issues you have identified to assure that our reply is fully responsive to your concerns.
When our evaluatien is complete, we will rule on your request.
However, our evaluation of your concerns has pro-gressed to the extent that we can conclude there is sufficient assurance of safety to permit the Big Rock Point facility to continue operating pending the final disposition of the issues raised in your petition; there-fore, there is no need for imediate or erergency actions.
Our assessment in support of this conclusion is enclosed.
l The r.ew issues identified in your petition of January 6,1980, will be con-solidated for consideration with those raised in your earlier request.
Please be assured that I have instructed my staff to give its highest prior-ity to your petitions to enable me to rule on the request for an order.
l
'i l
1 1
a 2-March'5, 1930 9
I appreciate the efforts you have rade to research the public record and to
~
bring to our attention specific cetters which you feel are not adequately addressed and are of concern to you.
Sincerely,,
ANk n
Harold R. Denton, Director -
Office of Nuclear Regulation
Enclosure:
r Safety Assessment i
cc:
See next page I
t
=_
====.e-
.=
e.
O ep- @ +-
O9'"Mb P__%
t t
+
-t i
?
i l-
g.o u c
,(,
J, UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y ; ;,}f.(,
WAss m orou.o.c.rosss
':p
% ' ga,$
%=**
DEC.: :95 3
- Docket No. 50-155 i
Ms. JoAnn Bier 204 Clinton Street Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Ms. Shirley J. Johns Route fl, Box 88 Ellsworth, Michigan 49729
Dear Ms. Bie-and Ms. Johns:
This letter is in response to your petitions dated Novemer 4,1979 and January 6,1980 requesting that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issue an order to Consumers Power Cocpany to delay restart of the Big Rock Point Plant pending resciution of certain concerns considered by you to be safety issues.
As stated in our letter dated December 4,1979, the petitions were not received before restart of the plant. Consequently, the petitions have been treated as a request for an order to shty cause why Facility Operating License No. DPR-6 for the Big Rock Point Plant should not be suspended pending resolution of the issues you raised.
By letter dated March 5,1980 we issued a Safety Assessment relating to these concerns and concluded that there was sufficient assurance of safety to per-mit the plant to continue coerating, pending final disposition of the issues raised.
Based on the evaluation contained in the Safety Assessment we advised you that there was no need for emergency actions. By letter dated April 14, 1980, the Acting Secretary of the Cornission issued a statement related to the Comission's review of our March 5,1980 Assessment. That statement indicated that the Comission was taking no action with respect to ry decision of March-5, 1980.
Your petitions have been considered under the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.205 of the Comission's regulations.
This office has determined, for reasons set i
forth in the enclosed " Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206," not to issue an order to shcw cause why Facility Operating License DPR-6 for Consumers Power i
Cocpany's Big Rock Point Plant should not be suspended.
t k
"s. Bier and Ms. Johns.
i A ccpy of the decision is being filed with the Secretary for furtner Commission reviey in accordance with 10 CFR Section 2.206(c).
As provided in 10 CFR 2.205 (c), the decision will constitute'the final action of the Commission twenty days after the date of issuance of the decision unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the decision within that time.
A copy of the Notice of Issuance of the Director's Decision, which is being filed with the Office of Federal Register for publication, is also enclosed.
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
Enclosures:
1.
Director's Decision 2.
Notice of Issuance 1
i
.f I
- f * * *L,,e, b
9:4 1
/) /y
- ,.}gv,"'j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
// /
f Li t
usecTow. o. c. nsss
- +. 1 E
Q
%,...../
January 29, 1981
- Docket No. 50-155 LS05-81-01-045 P
':s. JoAnn Bier 204 Clinton Street Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 "s. Shirley J, Johns "oute #1, B:,x 88 Ellsworth, Michigan 49729 Cear Ms.- Bier & Ms. Johns:
On December 18, 1980,- I issued a decision (DD-80-34) under 10 CFR 2.206 a.hich denied your petition requesting the issuance of an order to show
'oint Plant should not be suspended.
I have determir.ed that it would be uuse why the operating license for Consumers Power Company's Big Rock r.apropriate to amplify the bases for my decision. Therefore, I an enclos-ing revised pages with the modifications.
copy of this letter and'the modif'ications will be filed with the Secretary
~
cf the Corr.ission..
Sincerely,
/i PfS Harold R. Der on, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Replacement pages for l
Director's Decision 2.
Modifications for DD-80-34 2.
Director's Decision dated 12/18/80 with new pages e
c: w/ enclosures:
See next page i
e
- c w/ enclosures:
"r. Paul A. Perry, Secretary U. 5. Environmental Protection Consumers Power Cogany Agency 212 West Michigan Avenue Federal Activities Branch Jackson, Michigan 49201 Region Y Office ATTN: EIS C00RDINATOR J.dd L. Bacon, Esquire 230 Soutn Dearoorn Street "onsumers Power Cogany Chicago, Illinois 60504.
212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Heroert Grossman, Esq., Chair.an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Joseph Gallo, Esquire U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
- sham, Lincoln & Beale Washington, D. C.
20555'
'i20 Connecticut Avenue Loom 325 Dr. Oscar H. Paris v ashington, D. C.
20035 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Comission H:er W. Steketee, Esquire WashinSton, D. C.
20555 505 Peoples Builcing Grand Rapids, Michigan 495C3 Mr. Frecerick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-sian 5. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Comission atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Washington, D. C. -20555 L. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Comission k ashington, D. C.
20555 Big Rect Point Nuclear Po.er Plant ATTN:
Mr. C. J. Hartman -
P. John O'Neill,11 Plant Superintendent E:ute 2, Box 44 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Maple City, Michigan 49664 Christa-Maria C.arievoix Puolic Library Route 2, Ecx 10BC 137 Clinton Street Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 C tarlevoix, Michigan William J. Scanlon, Esquire C.airma n 2034 Pauline Boulevard County Board of Supervisors Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 Charlevoix County Cnarlevoix, Michigan 49720 Resicent inspector Big Rock Point Plant Cffice of the Governor (2) c/o U.S. KRC Rccm 1 - Capitol Building RR r3, Box 600 Lansing, Michigan 48913 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720
'I Cirector, Criteria and Mr. Jim E. Mills Standards Division Route. 2 Box 10BC C## ice of Radiation Programs Cnarlevoix, Michigan 49720 (ANR-460)
L. 5. Environmental Protection Thomas 5. Moore 2gency Atomic Safety & Licensing' Appeal Board Lasnington, D. C.
20450 U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 t
t c: w/ enclosures:
Cr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board L. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission vashington, D.'C.
20555 "r.~ David P. Hoffman
.; clear Licensing Administrator
- nsumers Power Company ~
1?;5 W. Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 s
i k
L 5
f t
a
y..
1 I
J y.
. s x,
5
/
ATTACriPINT 3
~
b 46.*
har m e. *,
IL,
f
?
k f
I t
s t
I f
I P
1 I
4 a
5 e
P
DD-SC-34 ENCLOSURE 3 UNITED STATES OF A" ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
l OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Harold R. Denton, Director Ir. the Matter of CC"SUMERS P0h'ER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-155 (EigRockPointPlant)
)
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 2.206 By petitions dated November 4,1979, and January 6,1980. Ms. JoAnn Bier and Ms. Shirley J. Johns requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's i
(tG: or the Comission) Director of Nuclear F2 actor Regulation issue an order tc :ensumers Power Company (the licensee) to delay startup of the Big Rock l
i Peint Plant pending resolution of eight items considered by them to be safety l
is:ues. Six of the seven issues identified in the November 4,1979 request t
wee repeated, with clarifications, in the request of January 6,1980. An ei; nth issue was added in the January 6,1980 submittal. Notice of receipt of the November 4,1979 petition was published in the Federal Reaister on December 11, 1 F9 (44 FR 71489).
The petitions were not received by the Comission prior to restart of the j
Bi; Rock Plant.
Consequently, the petitions have been treated as requests for an l
orcer to show cause why facility Operating License No. DPR-6 for the Big Rock Point Plant should not be suspended pending resolution of the issues raised.
A ;reliminary safety assessment of the issues raised in the petitions was issued j
on March 5,1980.
Based on that assessment I concluded that sufficient assurance
.l of safety existed to permit the Big Rock facility to continue operating pending fir.al disposition of the issues raised in the petitions.
Evaluation of the issues raised in the petitions has now been completed. Based on analysis of each of the issues raised which is set forth below, I have
4 I
1 determined that the operating license for the Big Rock facility should not be suspended. The analyses for Items 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the. November 4,1979 pe:ition and Item 4 of the January 6,1980 petition are unchanged from those ccncained in the March 5,1930 Safety As sessment.
DISCUSSION
^
Issue:
"1 We demand that our school systems have workable, safe evacuation plans for our children and that all private citizens be informed of appropriate individual evacuation actions."
Re:ponse:
The Big Rock Point Emerge,ncy Plan currently approved by the NRC requires notification of a number of government organizations including the local sheriffs, Michigan State Police and the Michigan State Department of Health in the event of a serious emergency. Local and State officials would be responsible for notification of local school systems and evacuation, if needed.
New emergency planning regulations were published i
in the Federal Recister on August 19, 1980 (45 FR 55402).
These new regulations (copy attached) became effective on November 3,1980 and are generally to be implemented i
by April 1,1981 by licensees of operating plants.
t Section II A, S, and C of the revised Appendix E i
states:
i l
l
{
I i
v t
"As a minimum, the following items shall be described:
A.
Onsite and offsite organizations for coping with emergencies and the means for notification, in the event of an emergency,
(
of persons assigned to the emergency organi-zations.
B.
Contacts and arrangements made and documented with local, State, and Federal t
governmer.tal agencies with responsibility for coping with emergencies, including i
identification of the principal agencies.
C.
Protective measures to be taken within the site boundary and w,ithin each EPZ to _
protect health and safety in the event of an accident; procedures by which these measures are to be carried out (e.g., in the case cf an evacuation, who authorizes the evacuation, how the public is to be notified anc instructed, how the evacuation is to be carried out); ard the expected response of offsite agencies in the event of ar. emergency."
The Big Rock Point Plant's Emergency Plap is being evaluated against these requirements.
On Septe-ter 5,1930, we requested Consumers Pcwer Company to i
hegic implementation of their Jtne 9,19SD version of the Big Rock Point Energency Plan, although we have not yet completed our review.
This request was based on our finding that this version provides an improvement over the previous plan, affords a greater margin for protection of public health and safety, and does not decrease the effectiveness of emergency preparedness. Consumers Power Company has recently informed us that they expect to implement the June 9, 1980 version of the Emergency Plan by December 31, 1980.
~
4 Based on:
(1) the existence of an approved Emergency Plan which conforms to our current regulaticns, and (2) the results so far of our review of the draft revision of the plan, we have not identified any deficiencies in emergency planning which are so significant as to require suspension of the operating license.
I: sue: "2.
We demand accountability for all diffuser pieces, which if left within the reactor vessel could interfere with rod movement and cause flow bicckage as in the partial reltdown at the Fermi I Plant in Detroit."
+
F.2:conse.
On April 20, 1979, during shutdown conditions, Big Rcck Point personnel detected a vibration-type noise in the icser pressure vessel when the No. I recirculation pump was in service.
Because of an unrelated problem (a leak in a certrol rod drive housing) the reactor core was cefueled and vessel internals removet.
Sut-j sequent inspection revealed that the NO. I recirculation inlet baffle plate was loose frca its mounting brackets on the vessel wall. The recirculation inlet baffle ;lates were nct cos;1etely effective, and in 1953 a new skir: baffle was installed on the core support plate and completely encircled all the support tubes.
The old baffle plates had been left in place and over the years the three hold-down bolts were worn through allowing the baffle plate vibrate against the new skirt baffle.
The safety consequences t
si this failure were minimal since the plates are designed such that they cannot enter the core or constitute a flow blockage.
During the 1979 outage, new diffuser plates were installed using larger hold down bolts and positive nut locking devices.
r
All the bolt ends and nuts from the old plates were accounted for and the reactor vessel was cleaned and inspected to assure that there were no other loose materials that could affect reactor operations.
E 1: sue: "3 We demand that Consurers Power Company systematically and absolutely 3
make the necessary design alterations in the reactor level vessel L
instrument system LERE09 & LSRE09 which initiates reactor scram, containment isolation and core spray actuations."
0.i s t ens e:
By Licensee Event Report 79-22 submitted to the NRC to letter f
of September 22,1979, tha licensee reported a potential deficiency l
f in the water level instrumer..ation used for reactor scram and initi-ation of engineered safety features.
CPCo modified the instrumen-tation and submitted an evaluation of the acceptability of the modification to us by letters of October 23 and October 31, 1979.
By Amendment No. 31 dated November 2,1979 (copy attached to our 14 arch 5,1930 Assessment) we approved revised license Technical Specifications for the modified instruments. The Safety Evaluation accompanying that amendment addresses the acceptability of changes to the Technical Specifications and the acceptability of the modifi.
cation made to the water level instruments. 1.s explained in that document, we have concluded that the design alterations are acceptable and that no further actions are necessary.
3 i
I t
Issue:
"4 We demand that the biological shield be made sufficient to contain deadly)ga :.a rays. in the' event of loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA, area residents would be protected and plant j
personnel would be able.to perform necessary functions to j
bring the-plant under ccntrol."
l t
Rtsoonse:
One of the Lessons Learned from the THI-2 accident is that radiation fields resulting from contained radiation sources after'
.i an accident may make it difficult to effectively perform accident' d
recovery operations or may impair safety equipment. As a result, by letter of October 30,1979 we asked. nuclear power plant licensees to perform a design review of plant shielding by.
January 1,1980 and to implement needed changes by January 1,1981.
Consumers Power Company submitted the design review by letter of December 27, 1979 and identified areas of the plant which
(
would need acditional shielding protection if NRC design criteria i
were to be met.-
I
~
l By letter dated February 22, 1980 and supplements dated q
April 2, May 6, August 25 and September 2,1980, Consumers Pcwer jt Company requested a delay in implementing the plant shielding i
requirement until the completion of an ongoing risk assessment of i
J I
the plant.
Consumers Power Company has estimated that this risk j
assessment will be completed by April 1981.
On September 5,1980 in a letter to all licensees, we provided clarification of the TMI Action Plant requirements including 1
modifications to the implementation schedules for certain items.
l s
These proposed changes included a delay in the scheduled implementation of post accident shielding until January 1,1982. This schedule for I
the implementation of post accident shielding was subsequently l
t approved by the Commission as indicated in NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements." By letter dated October 14, 1980, l
i
'i the staff responded to the licensee's request for this delay. Because the implecentation date for these requirements has been delayed until January 1,1982 for all licensees, as discussed above, we concluded that no additional delay specifically for the Big Rock facility is needed at,.,
this time.
As required by the staff, the licensee has completed a review of vital areas in which personnel occupancy may be limited by radiation during post-accident operations.' Our safety evaluation of the imple-mentation of " Category A" Lessons Learned requirements was issued on May 2,1980 and stated that the control room, the interim Technical Support Center and the Operational Support Center are sufficiently shielded that they would remain accessible for continuous occupancy.
The vital areas in which personnel occupancy may be limited are the-backup emergency diesel, backup cooling water supply hose to the core spray heat exchanger and the emergency diesel general fuel supply.
The licensee initiated work to implement changes for these three items, and two of them, the relocation of the backup emergency diesel and the modification to the emergency diesel general fuel supply, should be completed shortly. With respect to the third item, the licensee began implementation of the modifications but has recently informed us that preliminary results from the probabilistic risk assessment being con-ducted for the Big Rock Point plant could affect the need for 1.e modification to the backup cooling water supply hose to core spray heat exhanger. Accordingly, th'ey indicated that work on this third item has been stopped.
Because of the delay in the implementation of i
additional shielding requirements until January 1,1982, as discussed above, the licensee had additional time to further assess this modification.
.s.
The NRC design criteria assume a very severe accident with a very large radiation source term and assume that stringent limits on radiation exposure to personnel would be met.
Because of the staff safety evaluation which concluded that the control room, the interim Technical Support Center and the Operational Support Center would remain accessible under i
post accident conditions, and the steps already taken to pro-tect two of the three remaining. vital areas of concern, it is our judgment that a deferral of implementation of additional shielding protection requirements until 1982 will not result in exposure of plant personnel to significant risk from a loss-of-coolan't accident ar a greater risk to the public than previctsly'
[
evaluated, if such an accident should occur. However, we will require more immediate actions if further review indicates they are warranted.
i Is ;e: "5.
L'e demand that repetitive malfunction of their containment isolation valves CV/4096, CV/4097 be resolved."
Israe: "6.
We demand that the repetitive malfunctions of valves CV/4027, CV/4117, CV/4105,10/7050 be resolved."
Rctoonse:
Repetitive malfunctions have occurred in several containment isolation valves.
Valve CV/4097 is a butterfly valve in the supply r
line of the containment ventiliation system. The valve is a replace-ment valve installed in April 1974.
Excessive leakage through this valve was reported March 31,1975, June 5,1975, May 3,1976, July 2, 1976. February 1,1978, September 12, 1978 and February 1,1979. Our records indicate that with the possible exception of one test, the leak rate through the line during accident conditions would have been
acceptably limited by another operable insolation valve (CY/4096) in the same line.
In one ihstance (LER RD-12-76 dated July 2, 1976) our readily available records do not indicate whether the leak rate through the line would have been acceptably low.
In each case, the licensee tock corrective action to bring the leak-age back to within acceptable limits and after repetitive failures the licensee initiated a review with the vendor to bring about long term improverents.
We will continue to monitor the test results on CV/4097 to determine if additional corrective actions are needed.
4 Our records do act indicate re'petitive f ailures of valve CV/4096.
M3/7050 is a rain steam isolation valve. A failure of tnis valve to close was reported April 5,1973. The licensee ordered a new type of valve packing as a 1cng term corrective action.
We will also con-tinue to monitor the test results on this valve to ass re ena: :ne corrective action taken is. sufficient.
CV/4027 is an autocatic isolation valve in the react:r and fuel
.cn..
pit drain line.
Leakage in excess of technical specification limits for this line was reported by Licensee Event Reports (LERs) dated June 10, 1975, and September 27, 1978.
In each instar.ce, Yalve CV/4117, which is redundant to Valve CV/4027, was operable and would have prevented
' ce'ssive leakage through the line. The valve seats cf CY/4027 have ex been rachined to reduce the leak rate and the licensee has committed to installation of new valve seats.
A recent LER dated October 17, 1980 reported through seat leakage in excess of technical specifi-cations limits.
Backup valve CV/4117 has been disabled in the closed condition until repairs can be rade.
We have no record of failures on valve CV/4117. This ' valve was identified in several Licensee Event Reports noted above as the valve which provided redundancy to a valve with excessive leakage.
=
t r
CV/alC5 is an air operated isolation valve on the deminerali:ed i
water line inside containment. Our recores do not indicate a repeti-tive failure of this valve.
l
~ -
Based on our review of these valve malfunctions and the l
corrective actions taken by the licensee, it is our judgment that these events did not significantly affect the health and safety of the public.
It is our further judgment that these valve malfunc-I tions do not indicate a significant pattern of valve failures.
Therefore, we conclude that these valve malfunctions do not require shutting down the Big Rock Point Plant.
j i
1:.ue: *7 We demand evidence that the ERNPF could withstand the crash of a B-52 Bomber without disaster to surrounding environment.
Re:ro se:
The concern with overflight cf the Big Rock facility by aircraf:
l began in 1963, when the Air Force instafled an aircraft tracking station ~
at Bayshere, Michigan, which ~is loacted i!ipproximately five~miTef H.
- V the Eig Rock Poin: Plant.
Following this installation, the Ai
~crce began training the trackine station personnel in the detectier :#
approaching aircraf t.
Concurrently, the Air Force was train"; :ne flight crews in avoiding detection by the radar station.
j 1
In the beginning it a:peared that the Air Force was using the Big Rock Point Plant as a flight target, since there were many close overflights.
Consumers Pcwer Company management complained to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) regarding this matter, and an agree-ment was reached with the Air Force at that time to discontinue the direct icw level overflights'. l.ow level overflights in the near r
vicinity of the plant continued until 1970 when the Big Rock Point Plant insurer raised the insurance rates because of these training
i
- f i
flights in the near vicinity cf the plant.
At that time, the Consumers
[
Power President, James H. Campbell, contacted Congressman Gerald Ford, i
requesting that these training flights in the near vicinity of :5e Big Rock Point Plant be distontinuTd.
At about thit sae time, in January of 1971, a flight crashed into the Little Traverse Bay aopro-4 2etely two miles from shore and about two miles from the plant.
As a result of these events the Air Force established a training corridor which misses the Big P.ock Plant by three miles.
Air Force charts were also marked to show that everflights of the Big Rock Point Plant were "Off-1.icits* and all training flights were to be confined to the corridor.
From that tire unti' July -
1979 no low-level overflights have been cbserved by plant personnel.
i t
In July 1979 a low level overflight was observed and 2 tomplais^
h was registered by Consumers Power Company management.
The Air force stated that restrictions on overflights would als: de added to the flight checklists.
k'e reviewed the risk ass:ciated with aircraft near Eig Dec.
Point in the Systematic Evaluation Program.
At the recuest of i
the NRC staff, the Air Force undertook a study to update an earlier analysis of the risk 'of a military aircraft on training route ID. 600/601 crashing into the plant.
The study was based en t
recorded data on flight frequency, navigation error, and crash rate. The Air Force calculated that the probability of a crash at the plant (represented by a square target area 3.45 miles on a side) was approximately 10-8 per year.
The staff has reviewed the Air Force analysis and is in essential agreement with the methodology a-eM
employed and the finding that a military aircraft crash at the plant is an extremely remote event.
Furthermore, in the course of this review, the staff was informed by the Air Force that permission had been requested from the Federal Aviation Administration (FM)
~
to adjust route IR 600/601 so that in effect it would be located P
at a greater distance frc.' the plant. The staff was subsequently infomed that the request had been approved and the Air Force has published the new route.
The adjusted route will pass.
approximately 12 miles west of the plant.
We conclude that the risk to plant safety of military aircraft on route IR 600/601 in its present configuration meets the acceptance criteria of section 2.2.3 of the NRC Standard Review Plan for new plants and is therefore acceptable.
!!Ive: "B.
We demand that minimum require.?ents as established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the Fire. Protection System be met."
RE3conse:
By License Amendent No.17, 'date'd' Na'r'ch 6,1978l f(o. 25,
~
dated April 4,19 79, and No. 32 dated March 27, 1980, we issued license conditions to assure that an acceptable level of fire protection is achieved at the Big Rock Point Plant.
Amendments No.17 and No. 25 added limiting conditions of operation and surveillance requirements to assure that existing fire protection equipment is operable and to require that modifications be made on a time schedule specified in Amendment No. 25 to further enhance.
fire protection at the plant. The staff safety evaluations associated with these amendments summarize our considerations in imposing these limiting conditions. Amendment No. 32 increased the number of fire brigade members from three to five.
it is our judgement that sufficient measures have been taken to permit
13 continued plant operation prior to full implementation of all identified improvements identified in License Amendment No. 25.
In addition, the Commission published on November 19,1980 (45 FR 76602),
i a revised Section 10 CFR 50.48 and a new Appendix R to 10 CFR 50 regarding fire I
protection features of nuclear power plants.
The revised Secti,on 50.48 and Appendix R will become effective February 17, 1981. A copy of this Federal.
Re;ister Notice is enclosed. Appendix R and Section 10 CFR 50.48 contain provisions and implementation dates applicable to the Big Rock Point Plant.
y T e petition of November a,1979 included one concern not repeated in the petetion
~
or January 6, 1980.
That item (concern number a) is adcressed below.
t Issue: "4 k'e demand that all NRC requiremer.ts issued to Consumers power Company regarding the Oyster Creek occurence [ sic] be implemented with no proposed changes, technical specifications or acministrative t
control compromises allowed."
Ees:::r : e:
Following a loss of feedsater event at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating station on May 2,1979, we determir.ed that Big Rock h
Point was susceptible to a similar problem and would re:;uire a char.ge in the technical specifications appended to the license price to startup from the 1979 outage.
Our evaluation indicated i
that two additional technical specifications were appropriate t
for Big Rock Point and these technical specifications were issued October 30, 1979 prior to plant startup. Amend;nent No. 30, which changed the technical specifications and a copy of the associated NRC Staff Evaluation was included with our Assessment f
dated March 5, 1980.
It is our judgerent that the changes made are appropriate for Big Rock Point and do not constitute any F
corpromise of safety.
I
- la -
CONCLUSION t
i Based on the forgoing discussion and the provisions of 10 CFR {2.206,'I have determined that there is no adequate basis for the issuance of an order to show cause why Facility Operating License 140. DPR-6 for the Big R~ock'Poird Plant should not be suspended.
The requests of Ms. JoAnn Bier and Ms. Shirley Johns are, therefore, denied.
A copy of this decision will be placed in the Comission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N. W. Washington, D. C.
20555 and the Local Public E:cument Room f or the Big Rock Flant, located at the Charievoix Public Library, D7 Clinton Street, Charlevoix, Michigan 49720. A copy of this decision will also be filed with tne Secretary for furcher Comission review in accorcance
{
with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the Cornission's regulations.
I As proviSed in 10 CFR 2.205(c) of the Commission's regulations, this ce:ision will constitute the final action of the Co=ission twenty (20) cays a ~ter tne date of issuance, unless the Co=ission, on its own motion,
.stitt.tes a review of this decision within that time.
sf*fSf e
Harolc R. Denton, 01 rector Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation E 2:ed at Bethesda, Maryland thisp4 day offen /jP/4 s
Attachment:
Federal Recister Notice cated August 19, 1980
...f 1,y,
- 1
. UNITED STATES '0F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
i
-OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l
, HAROLD R. DENTON, DIRECTOR.
r j
In' the Matter of -
)
1'
)
Docket No. 50-155 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)-
(J. Bier and S. Johns).
(Big Rock Point Plant)
)
)
l ISSUANCE OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10' CFR 2.206 On December 11,1979, notice was published in the Federal Reoister-j i
(44 FR 71489) that by petition dated November 4,1973, Ms. JoAnn Bier l
and Ms. Shirley Johns, had requested that an order be issued to delay l
restart of the Big Rock Point Plant Unit 1.
Seven alleged safety l
questions identified in the petition were resolved.
Six of the'seven
~
f issues identified in November 4,1979, request were. repeated with-clarifications, in a request of January 6,1980.- 'Moreover, the eighth ~
safetyzissue was added in the latter submittal.
The petitions were not received by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Commission) be-fore restart of the facility.
Consequently, the petitions have been
_i I
treated as a request for an order to show cause why Facility Operating
]
License No. DPR-6 issued to Consumers Power Company for the Big Rock i
i Point Plant should not be suspended pending resolution of the' issues raised.
The Cor:rnission's Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has treated j
these requests as requests for action under 10.CFR 2.206.
Upon review-1 of records pertinent to the issues raised by Ms. Bier and Ms.- Johns, the Director has determined that the requests do not provide an adequate basis
.j 1
a s-.
7590-01
'. ' ' t i
to issue an. order to show cause why License No. DPR-6 for the Big Rock Point Plant should not be suspended. Accordingly, the requests have been denied.
Copies of the Director's decision are available for inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N. W. Washington.
D. C.,
20555 and at the Local Public Document Room for Big Rock Point, located at the Charlevoix Public Library,107 Clinton Street, Charlevoix, Michigan 49720.
A copy of this decision will also be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the Commission's regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), the decision will co: stitute the final action of the Conmission twenty (20) days after the date of issuance, unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review-of the decision within that time.
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this DEC181333 I
l l
./*..Sr A
4-u.
-J--3-+
=a d
D
/4-F,-
e N
L e
-t e<
=
f' g
- t e
F
.h.
i.
a t.
P 4
0
?
I e
r
-f I
h
/,
8
\\
?
9 ATTACliMENT 4 e
s s
[
I r.,a O
e s
-. 7 4
.s L
b v
< )
-.t f
b k
Y t
F b
P N
T 6
- i L
s
.+
t f
r b
C f
i 4
7 l
a 9
-l t
n y
a
[/ e Eseg%,
UNITED STATES h
~ 7, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c,
3 yv ASHINGToN, c. c. 20$15 g
u...
t s.,"... /
APR 2 51990 Docket No. 50-155 MDORANDUM FOR: Comissioner Gilinsky
~ igntM*
(S THRU:
William J. Dircks l
Acting Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation SUEJE CT:
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMTION REGARDING SECY-A-80-38 REVIEW 0F DIRECTOR'S PARTI AL DENI AL (MATTER OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY OF MICHIGAN)
We have provided below the responses to three questions regarding the Big Rock Point Plant listed in the March 25, 1950 memorandum from S. J. Chilt to L. Bickwit, J r. :
1.
"What is the justification for permitting Big. Rock. Point _to~
continuously pure the containment?
The containrent'6uilding for Big Rock Point Plant was designed and' constructed on the basis that the containment would be continuously ventilated.
This design was described in the Preliminary Hazards Sumary Report and in the Final Hazards Sum.ary Report and was reviewed by the staff prior to issuance of a construction permit and operating license.
Continuous purging of containment was reviewed again during our consideration of the generic issue of containment purging.
On November 29, 1978, we issued a generic letter which requested that pwer reactor licensees terminate containrent purging during normal operation or provide specific justification of the acceptability of such purging. By letter dated December 28, 1978 Consumers Pwer Corpany sumarized the need for continuous ventilation as follows:
" Big Rock Point is designed to continuously ventilate the reactor contaircent building.
Plant design utilizes con-tinuous ventilation to provide contamination control for access to operating equipment and cooling to raintain critical equipment operable. During warm weather, the 4
T C
r.issioner Gilinsky,
y continuous ventilation is essential to raintain the i
centainment temperature within the limits described-F in the Final Hazards Summary Report for large. break accident initial conditions.
During winter months, inlet _ air mst be heated to maintain containment
^'
te@erature above the lower limit considered'in the Final Hazards Summary Report."
j By letter dated October 23,1979, we requested Consumers Power Co@any to conform to our Interim Position for Containment Purge and Vent Valve l
Operability.
By letter dated December 17, 1979 Consumers Power Co@any stated that they had taken actions to achieve full cogliance with the interim position and provided a detailed tabulation and description of i
actions requiring containment entry.
The list of actions included monitoring operation of equipment, obtaining sa@les for chemical _ and i
radioactive analysis, performing maintenance, maintaining consumable 1
items at prescribed levels, changing recorded charts and performing required Technical Specification surveillance tests.
2.
"To what extent do the malfunctions draw into question the
)
ability to isolate the containment on derand?"
i Repetitive malfunctions of each of the redundant isolation valves i
for a containment penetration would draw into question the ability to isolate containmnt on demand.
The seriousness of.the problem 3
would depend on the magnitude of the leakage past the valves.
One N
instance, as noted in our response to issue number 6. may have
,~
resulted in unacceptable containrent leak rates.
That instance-j lhvolved ' valve CV/4097'Wh'ich had repetitive ralfunctions and itsM w-t; redundant valve CV/.4096.
{
i As discussed in our response to question 3, it appears the problem of repetitive malfunctions has been resolved. However, as stated i
in our reply to the' petitioners, we intend to continue to monitor _
the test results of the isolation valves to determine if additional corrective actions are needed.
In addition, several ongoing ' programs i
will enhance our capability to assess the containment isolation capability.
The Systematic Evaluation Program will include a review l
of the containment isolation system.
The licensee has proposed to' perform an overall plant risk assessment this. year.
This risk I
assessment is likely to improve our capability to evaluate the significance of malfunctions at the Big Rock Point Plant.- Third, we now have' staff dedicated to the review of cperational problems and we are in a better position to identify and correct repetitive problems.
i lh 4
3 c - 3 _ -~-
Comissioner Gilinsky 3.. "Why has the repetitive nature of the leakage not been corrected over a five-year period?"
Based on our records it appears that the repetitive nature of the leakage has been corrected.
In accordance with.the Technical ii Specifications for the Big Rock Point Plant, the licensee has been performing local. leak rate tests of containment supply and-exhaust i
l ventilation valves (including CV/4096 'and~CV/4097) at least once every six months and-has been performing local leak rate. tests-These test frequencies are more stringent than required by 10 CFR _
of valves CV/4027 and M0/7050 at least once every twelve months.
(
Part 50 Appendix J which requires tests at each refueling shutdown but at intervals no greater than 2 years.
Our records indicate.
-l there have been no reported instances of excessive. leakage since those_ reported in the reply to the petition.
With respect to the ventilation supply valve CV/4097, the licensee I
performed a modification in early 1979 to improve the seal arrangement.
[
The modification consisted of machining the valve disc and installing a new type rubber seat and retaining ring which eliminate the design i
feature that was causing the leakage. -It is our understanding that the valve has been subjected to two routine local leak rate tests since the modification, each of which was successful.
]
f OT"' 0:nd Q _
Y f
E. G. Cn:
\\
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
cc:
Chairman Ahearne l
Comissioner Kennedy l
Comissioner Hendrie Comissioner Bradford OPE OGC SECY i
1 l
r I
2
-i E
~
-