ML17320A503

Requests Review of Responses to SER for Environ Qualification Equipment Items for Which Justification for Continued Operation Not Previously Submitted

ML17320A503
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	04/27/1983
From:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Dolan J INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG
References
NUDOCS 8305040649
Download: ML17320A503 (6)

Text

ggg 27

)983 Docket Hos.

50-315 and 50-316 tlr. John Dolan, Vice President Indiana and thfchfgan Electrfc Company Post Office Box 18 Bowling Green Station Hew York, tIew York 10004

Dear Hr. Dolan:

DISTRIBUTION Docket NRC PDR PDR NSIC ORBII1 Rdg DFisenhut OELD IHTaylor FLJordan ACRS-10 CParrish PAfggfnton JCalvo Gray lAN

&~A

', CLIPlA lgO

'HO Cga

,! OQ

'I<A

!OC

'!oc!.

!HR

] ma.a.

Subject:

Clarification of Environmental gualfffcatfon Safety Evaluation Reports - D. C.

Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2

On December 30, 1982, the NRC staff issued Safety Evaluations (SEs) for both D. C.

Cook Units on the environmental qualification of safety-related electr al equipment.

The SEs were based on Technical Evaluation Reports (TERs) prepared by our contractor, Franklin Research Cehter (Franklin).

Appendix D of the above TERs provide a technical review of your statements regarding the justification for continued operation (JCO) that was submitted in the 90-day response to an earlier staff safety evaluation (published in mfd-1981).

Appendix D fs not necessarily applicable to the deficiencies identified in the TERs.

In the AEP letter dated Harch 4, 1983, additional justification for continued operation was provided.

You should continue to review all JCOs submitted to date to ensure that a JCO exists for all equipment which may be found not to be qualified.

The thirty (30) day response required by the current SE should address equipment items in NRC Categories I.B, II.A and IV (note that Category IV was not mentioned fn the previous SER) for which,justification for continued operation was not previously submitted to the t/RC or Franklin. Guidelines for justification for continued operation are provided in paragraph (i) of 10 CFR 50.49.

These gufdelines should be utilized in developing your justi-fication for continued operation.

Even though your thirty (30) day response has already been submitted to NRC by letter dated tlarch 4, 1983, you are requested to review your responses in accordance with this clarification and notify the NRC of any changes.

The due date of these responses as stated in the above referenced SE are revised and are now due within thirty (30) days of receipt of this 'letter.

r The staff developed a special expedited procedure to address equipment presented in the TERs which were classified as Category II.B (Equipment Hot gualfffed).

These Category II.B items were resolved on an interim basis for plants have have currently identified II.B items.

OFFICEI SURNAME$

DATE$

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240

~

~ ~

~ ~

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USOPO: 1981 335.900

I

~

V i

0

Nr. John Dolan 2

Upon completion of the plant specific review for all plants,ja cross-reference of non-qualified equipment existing in any plant will be connducted by the.tiRC staff to determine if the same equipment exists on other plants and has been declared qualified.

Should the cross-reference indicate that they do exist in.

your plant, the staff will contact you to reconfirm the qualification of these items for your plant.

The ninety (90) day response required by the above referenced SE transmittal letter regarding the schedule for accomplishing proposed corrective actions has been superseded by the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49.

Paragraph (g) of the rule requires that by Hay 20, 1983, licensees identify electrical equipment important to safety, within the scope of the rule, that is already qualified, and submit a schedule for the qualification or replacement of the remaining electrical equipment within the scope of the rule fn accordance with the qualification deadline specified in paragraph (g).

The submittal required by the rule should specifically indicate whether your previous submittals comply with paragraphs (a) and (b) of 10 CFR 50.49.

In addition, you are requested to describe in your submittal the methods used to identify the equipment covered by paragraph 10 CFR 50.49(b)(2) and to establish any qual)fication programs not previously described for such equipment.

The TERs contained certain identified information which you have previously claimed to be proprietary.

On tiarch 29, 1983, AEP provided the justification for withholding of proprietary information in the TER.

The AEP submittal is under review. If we need additional information or justification, we wil'I let you know.

Sincerely, Original signed bgC

8. k. Varga Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch gl Division of Licensing cc:

See next page OFFICE/

SUANAME$

DATE P ORBk'1:DL Dlliggin in:d rinjjjpp QD

~ 4

~ 0

~ 0

~ ~

S

~nnn ~

NRC FOAM 318 {10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981~@960

1

~

~

lt 1

0 A

's

~ f

Mr. John'Dolan Indiana@nd Michigan Electric Company cc:

Mr. M. P. Alexich Assistant Vice President for Nuclear Engineering American Electric Power Service Corporation 2 Broadway New York, New York 10004 Gerald Charnoff, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.

C.

20036 W. G. Smith Jr., Plant Manager Donald C.

Cook Nuclear Plant P. 0.

Box 458 Bridgman, Michigan 49106 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office 7700 Red Arrow Highway Stevensville, Michigan 49127 William J. Scanlon, Esquire 2034 Pauline Boulevard Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 The Honorable Tom Corcoran United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.

20515 James G. Keppler Regional Administrator - Region III,

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen El lyn, Illinois 60137