ML18139B236
| ML18139B236 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1981 |
| From: | Sylvia B VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | Harold Denton, Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 213, IEB-79-01B, IEB-79-1B, NUDOCS 8104090437 | |
| Download: ML18139B236 (2) | |
Text
'
Vepco VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23261 April 6, 1981 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn:
Mr. Stephen A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Serial No. 213 PSE&C/HHB Docket Nos. 50-280 50-281 License No.
Dear Mr. Denton:
"PARTIAL REVIEW" EQUIPMENT EVALUATION REPORT BY NRC I.E. BULLETIN 79-0lB 90 DAY REVIEW SURRY POWER STATION UNIT 1 & 2
~
t,'t'{!:j~..,., 'o
..21 fl~
- n. \\C::i 0~
1
"\\~
C)J #
s
"\\ ~ ~"" ~.P"
-va.
"'\\)~'\\
-... V;*
1,j'. \\)~*'o*
C 0/
This letter is in response to the NRC letter of March 26, 1981,
.6rif
~
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors.
Mr. Novak -
~
letter transmitted the "Partial Review, Equipment Evaluation Report by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation," which identified a number of potential environmental qualification of class lE equipment deficiences for Surry Units 1 and 2 and requested review of the impact on safety.
It is not clear, in all cases, what technical bases were used to determine the potential inadequacies identified by the staff in their review.
Therefore, we request a meeting with the staff at your earliest convenience to discuss bases to be used for any reevaluation by the staff and Vepco.
Vepco has reviewed each of the identified potential deficiencies for its impact on safety.
We have concluded, based on our interpretation of the staff's comments, that the environments used in our qualification program are appropriate.
Further, we have concluded that the equipment identified as having potential deficiencies will not result in any unacceptable impact on the safety of Surry Units 1 and 2 operation while the required item by item reevaluation referred to in your March 26, 1981 letter is completed.
Our conclusions are based on the information contained in the following submittals and our review referenced above:
- 1.
Letter dated October 31, 1980, (Serial No. 887) transmitted the Bulletin 79-0lB 90 Day Review.
I.E./} ool
.s
- 2.
Letter dated December 1, 1980, (Serial No. 957)transmitted the revision 2 to the I.E. Bulletin 79-0lB 90 Day Review.
,Iv
. -~
- 3.
Letter dated January 30, 1981, (Serial No. 061) transmitted revision 3 of the I.E. Bulletin 79-0lB 90 Day Review.
The information contained in this letter is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Very truly yours,
~
Manager - Nuclear Operations and Maintenance City of Richmond Commonwealth of Virginia
-t,L,.
Acknowledged before me this fe.__ day of~' 19 31 a"=4c:-c c.. h ~
Notary Public My Commission expires:
..:Z - J-t
, 19,p.~--
Attachments cc: Mr. Victor Stello, Director NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement Division of Reactor Operations Inspection Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Zoltan R. Rosztoczy, Branch Chief NRC Equipment Qualification Branch Division of Engineering Washington, DC 20555