ML17345B039
| ML17345B039 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1983 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8304070466 | |
| Download: ML17345B039 (10) | |
Text
NR 3 f
)983 Docket Hos.
50-250 and 50-251 Dr. Robert E. Uhrig, Vice President Advanced Systems and Technology Florida Power and Light Company Post Office Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408
Dear Or. Uhrig:
DISTRIBUTION Docket NRC PDR L
PDR HSIC ORBPl Rdg DEisenhut OELD JNTaylor ELJordan ACRS-10 CParrish DMcDonald JCalvo (iray
Subject:
Clarfffcatfon of Environmental gualiffcation Safety Evaluation Report for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4
On December 13, 1982, the NRC staff issued a Safety Evaluation (SE) for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 on the environmental qualification of safety-related elec-trical equipment.
The SE was based on a Technical Evaluation Reports (TERs) prepared by our contractor, Franklin Research Center.
By letter dated February 1, 1983, you provided your 30 day response to our SE.
During discussions with members of your staff we indicated that Appendix D of the TERS may not be applicable, and requested that all the items in Category II.B be reassessed.
The results of your review and justification for continued operation (LCO) was provided by letter dated March 1, 1983.
You further indicated that the items in the remaining categories are being reviewed and you expect to complete this effort by ttarch 31, 1983.
Our letter dated triarch 23, 1983 provided the results of our revfew of the JCOs for Category II.G items.
The bases for acceptability and the details of our review were provided in the letter and enclosed SE.
In addition, we indicated the triarch 31, 1983 date is acceptable for the JCOs for remaining categories.
Due to the confusion in this area, the staff has revised the due date to 30 days from receipt of this letter.
Category IV items were not mentioned fn the SER, however, they are to be included in your response for any items that are in this category.
Upon-completfon of the plant specific review for all plants, a cross-reference of non-qualified equipment existing in any plant will be conducted by the NRC staff to determine if the same equipment exists in other plants and has been declared qualified.
Should the cross-reference indicate that they do exist fn your plant, the staff will contact you to reconfirm the qualification of these items for your plant.
8304070466 830331 PDR "ADQCK '05000250 P'.-" 'DR OFFICE/
SURNAME$
DATE 5 NRC FORM 318 u0-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USQ PO: 1981~960
0 Y
I[
I f
P: % P ~
d"
- ~
Dr. Robert E. Uhrig 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 May 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 in 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 qualification programs not previously described for such equipment.
Your letter dated March 1, 1983 indicates that your review of the proprietary information in the TERs will be completed by April 29', 1983.
It should be noted that the NRC's policy on proprietary information, as specified in SECY 81-119, is that summary data on equipment qualification testing wi11 not be treated as proprietary by the HRC.
A general guideline is enclosed for your information.
Sincerely, Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 81 Division of Licensing Fnclosur e:
Propr ietary Review Informat ion cc w/encl osure:
See next page OFFICE/
SURNAME/
DATE &
ORB 0 ~ 0 ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 0
~ ~
DMc nald 03/~83:dm
~
~ ~
~
~ ~ 0 ~ ttO ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 1 ~ ~
~
SVarga
~
~
~ ~
0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~
~ 0
~ 0 03
/83
~ tO ~ ~ 00tt JCalvo 03fZ-g/83 ARAB pg
'ORB Pl NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFlClAL RECORD COPY USGPO; 1981~960
l1 0
- v 4
ik
Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power and Light Company 0
cc:
Harold F. Reis, Esquire Lowenstein, Newman, Reis and Axelrad 1025 Connecticut
- Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1214 Washington, D.
C.
20036 Norman A. Coll, Esquire
- Steel, Hector and Davis 1400 Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Mr. Henry Yaeger, Plant Manager Turkey Point Plant Florida Power and Light Company P. 0.
Box 013100 Miami, Florida 33101 Mr. Jack Shreve Office of the Public Counsel Room 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Administrator Department of Environmental Regulation Power Plant Siting Section State of Florida 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Resident Inspector Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 1207 Homestead, Florida 33030 James P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator - Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street - Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
ii 0
ENCLOSUPE PROPRIETARY REYIEW GUI DELINES 0
It is the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the records of the agency are available for inspection and copying in the NRC Public Cocument Room, except for matters that are exempt from public disclosure pursuant to.the nine exemptions of the Freedom of Information Act.
(See 10.C.F.R.
2.790)
- Recently, the NRC has had 'its contractor;- Franklin Research Center (FRC),
prepare Technical Evaluation Reports. for all 10 CFR Part 50 licensees.
These reports evaluate and comment upon the references cited by the licensee as evidence of qualification in accordance with the docamentation reference instructions established by IE Bulletin 79-..01B.
In a typical evaluation, FRC generates a report of approximately 750 pages.
Any page which mentions or comments upon a licensee's referenced material that was marked or claimed to be proprietary is marked at 'the top of the page with the legend "Proprietary Information".
FRC has used this marking in a liberal manner and has not fully investigated the licensee's claim to determine whether portions of proprietary reports that they reproduced or mentioned were--in fact "proprietary".
A report typically contains 15 to 25 pages that are marked "Propri.etary Information"..
Usually, no more than 4 licensee proprietary references are so Nscussed In order to make any of the reports available to the public, FRC has produced two versions of each:
those containing proprieTary information and.those having the pro-prietary information removed.
The NRC now seeks the assistance of. licensees i'n reviewing the proprie.ary versions of the FRC reports to determine whether still more informat'ion can be made available to the public.
For this reason, each licensee has been sent the Staff Equi pment gualification SER and a copy of the proprietary version of the FRC TEchnical Evaluation Report.
It is believed that the licensee can review the few pages containing proprietary information in a relatively short period of time.
The licensee is to send the third party owner of the reference report, which has been claimed to be proprietary, a copy of those pages from the FRC report that relates to its test report.
The third party owner can quickly review these pages and determine whether the information -claimed to be proprietary must still be so categori zed.
All reviewers should be aware of the NRC's policy, as specified in SECY-81-119, that su+nary data on Equipment (vali'fication testing will not be treated as proprietary by the NRC. If the review identifies no data that requires protectioy, the NRC should be notified and that portion of the report,.yi31 be placed in the Public Document Room.
If, however, the licensee i'dentif$es to the NRC portions that are still claimed to require proprietary protection, then compl.iance must be maGe with the requirements for withholding under "10 C.F.R. 2.790.
This can be accomplished in two ways:
(1) If the reference proprietary rapport has ~eviously been submitted to the NRC pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.790 and the HRC has made a determination that portions are proprietary, then 0
0 Ik
~i
those same portions can be. protected again simply by notifying the NRC tha. this matet ial i
. covered in the NRC's acceptance letter of a given date.
If the reference proprietary report has not previously been submitted to the NRC pursuant to 1 0 C. F. R. 2.790, then the licensee and the proprietary owner must at this time make such an application and request for withholding from
'ublic disclosure.
The NRC recognizes that this proprietary review places an administrative burden upon its licensees and any third party owners.,
However, it is the policy of the NRC to. make.all nqn-proprietary information pub) ic, and the only way to protect the owner of proprietary information is to insure
'hat the Franklin reports have been 'appropriately scrutinized.
The NRC will-grant extensions of time for'hese reviews if necessary, on
.a case-by-case basis.
4f-you have any further questi'ons reg'arding this
- review, please contact either Edward Shomaker, OELD, at 492-8653 or Veal Abrams, Patent Counsel, at 492-8662.
il