ML20141G628
| ML20141G628 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1997 |
| From: | Jamila Perry COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| JSPLTR:97-0124, JSPLTR:97-124, NUDOCS 9707100084 | |
| Download: ML20141G628 (2) | |
Text
.
Commonwealth Ediv>n G>mpany Dresden Generating Station 65(M) North Dresden Road Morris, 11.60150 Tel H15-9 62-2920 June 26,1997 JSPLTR: 97-0124 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk t
Washington, D. C. 20555
Subject:
Response to NRC Request for Clarification in A. Bill Beach letter to J. S. Perry dated May 30,1997.
NRC Docket Numbers50-010. 50-237. and 50-249
Reference:
(1)
Dresden Station LER No. 249/95-007, Rev. 2, dated March 26,1997.
(2)
J. S. Perry Letter to USNRC dated January 28,1997 transmitting Response to Apparent Violation in Inspection Report Nos. 50-237; 249/96013.
(3)
A. Bill Beach letter to J. S. Perry, dated May 30,1997 transmitting Notice of Violation.
In Reference (3) the NRC requested clarification concerning some inconsistent statements in References (1) and (2). Specifically, in Reference (1), it was stated that, in the event of a worst case break of Main Steam Line Drain Pipe in the Turbine Building, a preliminary analysis showed that:
"Under worst case conditions, dose limits for Control Room Operators established by General Design (GDC) 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50 as well as EAB and LPZ dose limits established by 10 CFR 100 would have been (emphasis added) exceeded during the Design Basis Accident."
Q 9707100084 970626 PDR ADOCK 05000010 kk\\\\hkhk,khkI 080141 A Iinicom Q>mp.ui)
4 l
USNRC Page 2 June 26,1997 i
In Reference'(2), it was stated that:
i "During the root cause evaluation of this event, preliminary r,nalysis based on 4-worst case assumptions showed that during the Design Basis Accident,'
containment leakage minht have (emphasis added) resulted in exceeding dose l
limits for the operators as well as Exclusion Area Boundary and Low Population
- Zone dose limits."
In both cases, our intent was to indicate that our preliminary analysis showed that if worst case conditions prevailed, then the applicable dose limits would have been exceeded. As noted in Reference (2), subsequent analyses based upon more realistic assumptions indicated that the applicable 10 CFR 100 and 10 CFR 50 (Appendix A, General Design Criteria 19) limits would not have been exceeded.
t We recognize that use of the words "would have been" in Reference 1 and "might have"
. in Reference 2 was confusing, and apologize for any misunderstanding this may have caused. Based on discussions with the author of Reference 2, this was an instance of imprecise drafting. I have personally reviewed this matter with personnel in the Dresden I
Licensing organization responsible for preparation and approval ofNRC submittals to confirm that they understand the need for care, accuracy, and precision in our communications with the NRC and in other records.
If there are any questions concerning this letter, please' refer them to 1
Mr. Frank Spangenberg, Dresden Station Regulatory Assurance Manager, at (815) 942-2920, extension 3800.
I l
Sincerely,
.-Stephen Perry j
Site Vice President Dresden Station i
I 3
cc:
A. Bill Beach, Regional Administrator, Region III d
W. J. Kropp, Branch Chief, Division of Reactor Projects, Region III J. F. Stang, Project Manager, NRR (Unit 2/3) 1 K. Riemer, Senior Resident Inspector, Dresden Office of Nuclear Facility Safety - IDNS File: Numerical i
~
v w*
e-
, r w +
-v
+e
-m a
e
+
.--r--
,