ML20126E130
| ML20126E130 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/17/1977 |
| From: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sewell R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101120371 | |
| Download: ML20126E130 (3) | |
Text
'
DISTRIBUTION _
Docket NRC PDR Local PDR ORB #2 Reading TJCarter DLZiemann Docket ' o. 50-155 RMDiggs (2)
JM N EAReeves RPSnaider Consumers Power Company (3)
ATT N '. ftr. Ralph B. Sewell DEisenhut TBAbernathy Nuclear Licensing Administrator JRBuchanan 212 West flichiqan Avenue ACRS (16)
Jacksoo,ilichican 49201 Gentlemen:
RE: BIG ROCK POINT Enclosed for your information is a copy of a letter dated January 3, 1977 fro"i Robert D. Pollard, which is being considered as a Request for Action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.?.05, regarding your License lio. DPR-6 and others.
A copy of the flotice we are filing with the Office of the Federal Register relating to this request is also enclosed for your infer ation.
The letter from fir. PollerA among other thinos, states that a refueling accident inside the containment building may not have been atiequately considered during the licensing review of your facility. tfe recently rade an independent assessment of such a postulated accident at your f acil i ty.
Based on our preliainary review, potential site boundary radiation exposures due to such an accident at your facility would ce nelcw the exposure guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100 if known characteristics cf the containnent isolation or effluent filtration systens of your facility are credited in limiting releases from a refueling accident inside containment.
In ords.r to confirm these results and to docunent the factors involved in the evaluation, we request that you provide a detailed evaluation of the potential consecuences of such an accident at your facility within M days of receipt of this letter. Your analysis should utilize usu,ptions connarabic to tFose qiven in Reculatory C.uide 1.25, "Assumotions Used for Evaluatinq the Pot?ntial 9adinloqical Conse-cuences of a Fuel Handling Accid 9nt in the Fuel Handlinc and Storage Facili ty for Dolling and Pressurized '!ater Reactors" and consider, in a conservative nanner, any 'aixing in t1e containe'ent atmosphere which
, f-f NS h q;
- *f f
OF FIC s P eu.~ s u s >
l oAvs >
is orrecss ser4.sae.ees W u.e.oovammusutpainti I
IMra AEC.)l3 (Rev. 9.$)) AECM 0240 THIS DOCUMENT CONTT TDOR'QUAdTY PAGE.;
I
(
[
~
~
Consuners Power Company,
would delay release of material, any filtration of effluent which would reduce releases and any automatic isolation of the containment which would limit releases.
Your evaluation should consist of two parts:
(1) a conservative analysis using paraneters (e.g., maximum allowable valve closure tines) as limited by the technical specifica-tions and (2) an analysis using parameters associated with current known facility operating conditions (e.g., actual valve closure times).
Clearly indicate tne environment for which the equipment is qualified, including seismic, and whether the equipment can withstand a single failure.
You should review your technical specifications related to this postulated accident and, as appropriate, propose changes (e.g.,
valve closure times, filter-testing) which will provide assurance that paraneters important in the evaluation are maintained at levels which will assure that conservatively calculated offsite consequences are well within the exposure guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100 over the facility li fe tine.
In addition, provide a list of those chances to facility cauipment which would provide added assurance that potential offsite exposures are low (e.g., relocation of radiation nonitors or modifica-tion of the containnent isolation logic). For each such potential inprovenent, you should provide an assessment of the inpact of the i
change on facility onerations and discuss the extent to which it would provide added assurance of reducing the r,otential consequences.
You are requested to also provide an evaluation of the consequences of this accident in which a single failure is assumed and propose any chanqes l
to facility e.:uipment (e.o., redundant radiation r.1onitors) which are necessary to assure that Part 100 guidelines are not exceeded.
You shnold include an assessnent of the i'npact of any such equipment chanqes on facility operations.
Sincerely, n as geanu t-Dennis L. Ziemann, Chirf Operating Reactors Franch #2 Division of Operating Peactors
Enclosures:
1.
I.etter dtd.1/3/77 fron R. D. Pollard 7
Federal Pegister flotice
~. a.,,. w..
m.
,,,jpg 1 ext pane DOR:0RB #2 D6R:TC/0R DOR:0RB #2
. Skia ~
4AReeves:ro
_ TJCyrter
.. DLZ i ema nn.....
.e.~.m*
///7/77-lll 7117.
.LLGL1L
\\
Zm.u..>...., n - -
(
}
r Consumers Power Company JAN 171977 cc 4/ enclosures:
Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Consumers Power Company 212 West litchigan Avenue Jackson, Ilichigan 49201 Charles F. Bayless Of Counsel Cnnsumers Power Company 212 West litchigan Avenue Jackson,!!ichiqan 49201 George C. Freeman, Jr., Escuire I:unton, llilliams, Gay and Gibson 709 East Main Street Richnond, Virginia 23212 Peter el. Stoketee, Esquire Freihofer, Cook, Hecht, Oosterhouse ahfl00 Goer
'Jnion Bank Building, S,uite 950 firand Raoids, liichigan 4W92 Charlevoix Public Library 107 Clinton Street Charlevoix, Ilichigan 49720 Y
t D'* *CI W v
.n,..
.-u
.-~.
. ~.. '
w *c ~
- u aaa = s >
oara >
f orn AIC.318 (Rev. 9-53) AECM 0240 W u. a. novannus=v enintme orrecas sera.sas.ese
-