ML15238B313
| ML15238B313 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1981 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104070381 | |
| Download: ML15238B313 (4) | |
Text
I Local PDR ORB Rdg DOcket Nos. O-269, 50-270 D. Eisenhut and 50-287 J. Stoltz I P. Waqner AP,'
M. Wi ia ms 0 2 19 Mr. William 0. Parker, Jr.
OELD 94r l
Vice President - Steam Production I&E (3).
L e
Duke Power Company NSIC P. 0. Box 33189 TERA-3 '
422 South Church Street ACRS (10):
Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 R. Ingram Gray File
Dear Mr. Parker:
This letter is in response to your letter of March 19, 1981 in which you requested a meeting between the NRC staff and the Duke staff to discuss the applicable requirements for safety-related electrical equipment exposed to a mild environment. On March 27, 1981, the NRC staff contacted your staff.
We identified that the NRC would issue additional clarification of the existing mild environment requirements, forall licensees, near the end of April, 1981.
We also understand that the basis for your meeting date (not later than April 15, 1981) was a desire to meet with us prior to issuance of such clarification by our staff.
Since all licensees are effected by the subject requirements, we requested that the comments of a number of licensees be factored into the Duke proposal via a mass meeting with a group of licensees. This alternative appeared unsatifactory to your staff. Therefore, we suggested the two additional alternatives. The first was a telephone discussion between our cognizant technical staff members, and the second was a written submittal, by Duke, describing your recommendations in detail.
Subsequent to either of these alternatives, the staff would determine whether a meeting was appropriate.
The determination would consider-the technical merit of the proposal and the common interest of all licensees.
We also stated that the NRC staff plans to meet with all interested licensees subsequent to the issuance of their Safety Evaluations.
Please consider our presented alternatives and inform us of your plans through your project manager.
Sincerely, Original signed by John F. Stolkz, Chief 81140703S Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing cc: See next page DL FFICEDE..
.............. DL:.0RB.#
DL.:.
SURNAMEO E /8/
/81 13/
81 NcFORM 31800/80)NRCM0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- USGPO 1980-329-82
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File.
NRC PDR Local PDR ORB Rdg D. Eisenhut Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 J. Stoltz and 50-287 M. Williams OELD 4Mr. William 0. Parker, Jr.
I&E (3)
Vice Presteit - Steam Production NSIC Duke Power Company TERA P. 0. Box 33189 ACRS (10) 422 South Church Street Charlotte, 'North Carolina 28242
Dear Mr. Parker:
This letter is in response to your letter of March 19, 1981 in which you requested a meeting with the NRC staff and the Duke staff'tto discuss the applicable requirements for safety-related electrical equipment exposed to a mild environment. On March 27-1981, the NRC staff contacted your staff.
We identified that the NRC would issue additional clarification of the existing mild environment requirements, for all licensees, near the end of April, 1981.
We also understand that the basis for your meeting date (not later than April 15, 1981) was a desire to meet with us prior to issuance of such clartfication by our staff.
Since all licensees are effected by the subject requtrements, we requested that the comments of a number of licensees be factored into the Duke proposal via a mass meeting with a group of licensees.
This alternative appeared unsatisfacdiory to your staff. 'Therefore, we suggest the two additional alternatives.
The first.was a telephone discussion between our cognizant technical staff members, and the second was a written submittal, by Duke, describing the points of the proposed meeting in detail.
Subsequent to either of these alternatives, the staff would determine whether a meeting was appropriate.
The determination would consider the technical merit of the proposal and the common interest of all Ticensees.
We also stated that the NRC staff plans to meet with all interested liceniees subsequent to the issuance of their Safety Evaluations.
Please consider our presented alternatives and inform us of your plans through your project manager.
Sincerely, John.F. Stltz,Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing cc:pplicant's/Attorney of Record rfipq fn/Prneding OFFICEO DL, 2
DE DL:ORB#4 DL:ORB#4 SURNAME 1 ams ZRosztoczy PWagner JStoltz DATE) 3/30 8
/Z0/81 3/
/81 3/
/81 NRC FORM 318 10/80)NRCM e240 OFFICIAL RIECORD COPY
- USGPO: 1980-329-8241
p, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D_ C. 20555 of-,
March 30, 1981 Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 Mr. William 0. Parker, Jr.
Vice President -
Steam Production Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 33189 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina: 28242
Dear Mr. Parker:
This letter is in response to your letter of March 19, 1981 in which you requested a meeting between the NRC staff and the Duke staff to discuss the applicable requirements for safety-related electrical equipment exposed to a mild environment. On March 27, 1981, the NRC staff contacted your staff.
We identified that the NRC would issue additional clarification of the existing mild environment requirements, for all licensees, near the end of April, 1981.
We also understand that the basis for your meeting date (not later than April 15, 1981) was a desire to meet with us prior to issuance of such clarification by our staff.
Since all licensees are effected by the subject requirements, we requested that the comments of a number of licensees be factored into the Duke proposal via a mass meeting with a group of licensees. This alternative appeared unsatifactory to your staff. Therefore, we suggested the two additional alternatives. The first was a telephone discussion between our cognizant technical staff members, and the second was a written submittal, by Duke, describing your recommendations in detail.
Subsequent to either of these alternatives, the staff would determine whether a meeting was appropriate.
The determination would consider the technical merit of the proposal and the common interest of all licensees.
We also stated that the NRC staff plans to meet with all interested licensees subsequent to the issuance of their Safety Evaluations.
Please consider our presented alternatives and inform us of your plans through your project manager.
Sincerely, Jhn F. Stolyz, Chie erating Reactors Branch #4 ivision of Licensing cc:
See next page
low Duke Power Company cc w/enclosure(s):
Mr. William L. Porter Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 33189 422 South Church Street Office of Intergovernmental Relations Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Oconee County Library 501 West Southbroad Street Walhalla, South Carolina 29691 Honorable James M. Phinney County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621 Director, Criteria and Standards Division Office of Radiation Programs (ANR-460)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C. 20460 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV Office ATTN:
EIS COORDINATOR 345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Mr. Francis Jape U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 2, Box 610 Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 420, 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Manager, LIS NUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 J. Michael McGarry, I.II, Esq.
DeBevoise & Liberman 1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036