ML13311B066
| ML13311B066 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Dresden, Palisades, Oyster Creek, Haddam Neck, Ginna, San Onofre, Yankee Rowe, La Crosse, Big Rock Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1980 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Knuth D KMC, INC. |
| References | |
| TASK-***, TASK-03-12, TASK-3-12, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8007280076 | |
| Download: ML13311B066 (4) | |
Text
DISTRIBUTION:
Please see-attached sheet JUL 16 Mr. Donald F. Knuth, President
- KNC, Incorporated 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Dear Mr. Knuth:
I am writing in response to your letter of., March 18, 1980, to Chairrman Ahearne.
You objected, on behalf of the owners of plants being reviewed under the System atic Evaluation Program (SEP), to the staff's current plans for an expedited review of the Environmental Qualification'of Electrical Equipment for the SEP plants.
As you are aware, there has been considerable activity regarding this subject both within the NRC and by the industry during the interim and that all nuclear power facilities are being reviewed rather than just the SEP facilities. The general approach outlined at the February 21, 1930 meeting between owners of SEP facilities and the NRC staff and summarized in the penultimate paragraph of your letter has been adopted by the Commission. A copy of the Commission Memorandum and Order of May 23, 1980 is enclosed. The NRC staff is presently implementing the requirements of the Memorandum and Order.
The original Systematic Evaluation Program, provided in our letters of December 1, 1977 to SEP licensees, indicated that topics considered to be of special safety significance would undergo an accelerated evaluation on a case-by-case basis prior to completing the overall program.
Our current environmental qualification review is consistent with that provision.
In addition, the Commission's Memorandum and Order of May 23, 1980 has added impetus to this review and established a short review schedule for its completion.
We appreciate your comments on this important issue and trust that you will find this letter responsive to your concerns.
Sincerely, Original signed by:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation D:NRR
Enclosure:
HDenton Cormission Memorandum and *See previous yellow for additional 7/ /80 C-1 r
.4n' MFk"lo nc currence OFFIC EPB:DL SSEPB:DL AD SA.D1..............p Q L..........
R.
PB :D Ai l 4.......
DL VRI.EA.E, D li son*
DCrutc h f i.e..*d..Lainest............. DEis.enhut?...... Rer....
..... ECa.sQ.?......
~~~~............... I.........
61280.
/(j ase CAmE--
.. /. /0
.6 1-
-.38.
............6./..3/.8..........
6/26/80.......
..../2 / 0.
C FORM 318 (9.76) NRCM 0240 U.S. GOVERNMUENT PRINTNN o7:Cc:
sc7
- aSs 709 800.8 7.
DISTRIBUTION:
Please see attached sheet Mr. Donald F. Knuth, President
- KHC, Incorporated 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Dear Mr. Knuth:
I am writing in r ponse to your letter of March 18, 1980, to Chairman Ahearne.
On behal of the owners of plants being reviewed under the Systematic Evaluati n Program (SEP), you objected to the staff's current plans for an expediteb-review of the Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment for the SEP plants.
The original Systematic Eva uation Program, provided in our letters of December 1, 1977 to SEP licensees, indicated that topics considered to be of special safety significance would continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis prior to completing the overall program. This review is consistent with that provision.
The guidelines werare using were prepaied to assist in evaluating equip ment qualification. They were intended to be used as a screening tool and to obtain, for staff review, the justifications used for deviations from modern qualification standards. Under these' quidelines the licensees identify the equipment needed to mitigate pipe.breaks and the environmental conditions that could occur.
The licensees also-determine whether or not the equipment's qualification meets the criteria in the guidelines.
If it does not, the licensees either propose remedial action or provide justification for acceptability of the equipment as it stands.
The enclosed Commission Memorandum and Order of Vy 23,\\1980 addresses, in further detail what is to be done.
1 I.trust you *ill find this responsive to your letter.
Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Dommission Memorandum and Order of May 23, 1930 o
Ice SEPB:DL)
SEPB:D A A DLD R
D:NRR SUR EDNAliSOD:dkA
.DCr kields..
DEise.nhut......Etase............
HDentn
...6/ /0.8O 6/
/80.
6/.6.
./.....6
/80.........
/80
'C FORM
(
RC
.3122
- U.S.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket 50-10 LPDR 50-245 Docket 50-29 LPDR 50-219
'Docket 50-155 LPDR 50-255 Docket 50-237 LPDR 50-206 Docket 50-244 WDircks Docket 50-213 Cornell Docket 50-409 TRehm Docket 50-245 VStello Docket 50-219 DMuller Docket 50-255 DRoss' Docket 50-206 RMattson TERA HBerkow NSIC EDO Reading SEPB Reading Donna Nottingham NRR Reading SEP Licensees (11)
SEP Intervenors SEPB Members(13)
Attorney, OELD ORB #2 Members (8)
MGroff EHughes NRC PDR 50-10 NRC PDR 50-29 NRC PDR 50-155 NRC PDR 50-237 NRC PDR 50-244 NRC PDR 50-409 NRC PDR 50-245 NRC PDR 50-219 NRC PDR 50-255 NRC PDR 50-206 HDenton ECase DEisenhut GLainas RVollmer DCrutchfield EButcher WRussell Ertter (G) -
ED008630 LPDR 50-10 LPDR 50-29 LPDR 50-155 LPDR 50-237 LPOR 50-244 LPDR 50-213 LPDR 50-409 OFFICE DATE..
NP FC)RM *,1 7 61 N R C
.7.1 ni~
.NuED OIRINTIN OFFICE: 1 7S289-367
DISTRIBUTION:
Please see attached sheet Mr. Donald F. Knuth, President
- K04C, Incorporated 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Dear Mr. Knuth:
I am writing in response to your letter of March 18, 1980, to Chairman Ahearne. On behalf of the owners of plants being reviewed under the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP), you objected to the staff's current plans for an expedited review of the Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment for the SEP plants.
The original Systematic Evaluation Program, provided in our letters of December 1, 1977 to SEP licensees, indicated that topics considered to be of special safety significance would continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis prior to completing the overall program. This review is consistent with that provision.
The guidelines werare using were prepared to assist in evaluating equip ment qualification. They were intended to be used as a screening tool and to obtain, for staff review, the justifications used for deviations from modern qualification standards. Under these guidelines the licensees identify the equipment needed to mitigate pipe breaks and the environmental conditions that could occur.
The licensees also determine whether or not the equipment's qualification meets the criteria in the guidelines.
If it does not, the licensees either propose remedial action or provide justification for acceptability of the equipment as it stands.
The enclosed Commission Memorandum and Order of May 23, 1980 addresses, in further detail what is to be done.
I trust you will find this responsive to your letter.
Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Bommission Memorandum and Order of May 23, 1980 OFFICE SEPB:DL SEPB:DL A :
DL D:DL NRR D:NRR SURNAME. DAl.lison:dk DC 0ield G A aI s.
DEisenhut.
ECase.............
HDenton DATE 6/p /80 6/.6
/
83/6180
....6/. /80..
.. 6/
.......... 6/
/80