ML19254D215
| ML19254D215 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1979 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Waffard A LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910230131 | |
| Download: ML19254D215 (4) | |
Text
.
aa8%q g
.fo,,
UNITED STAT ES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
h WASHINGTON, D. C. 2055$
%,*****/
OCT 9 1979 Docket No: 50-322 Mr. Andrew W. Wofford Vice President Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801
SUBJECT:
MARK II POOL DYNAMIC LOADS PROGRAM - SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION
Dear Mr. Wofford:
The Mark II lead plant program is essentially complete, and we are now planning our review of the closure program for the Mark II pool dynamic loads. A growing tendency of applicants to depend on plant-unique pro-grams, rather than generic programs, during the past year makes it nec-essary for us to request definition of the pool dynamic loads programs being relied on by each Mark II owner, especially that part which falls outside the scope of the generic Mark II pool dynamic loads program.
We have believed for some time that joint efforts toward resolution of issues on a generic basis results in substantial cost and schedule savings to the NRC, the industry, and thus to the public. We stated this view in April 1976 during the early stages of our review of the Mark II program, and again in September 1978 when the Mark II lead plant acceptance criteria were issued. On July 24, 1979 the staff met with the Mark II owners to discuss the closure efforts associated with the Mark II Long Term Program. At this meeting, the Mark II owners stated that the generic programs associated with SRV and LOCA pool dynamic loads would be completed in 1979 and 1980, respectively. However, the Mark II owners identified a number of plants requesting relief from the generic pool dynamic loads specifications. This resulted in a comparable number of new plant-unique programs. Little information has been pro-vided to the NRC defining these new plant-unique pool dynamic programs.
Considering the design differences between Mark II plants, and the various licensing schedules for plants, we see a limited need for re-liance on plant-unique pool dynamic load programs. The limitations on staff technical resources, homver, make it possible for us to complete 1189 228
/
7910280l3l
0C7 6 1979 Mr. Andrew W. Wofford
aur licensing activities for these plants in a timely manner only if the Mark II owners pursue a generic approach to resolution of pool dynamic load issues to the maximum extent practicable. For those areas where a completely generic approach is not acceptable, we encourage use of semi-generic approaches, as in the case of the lead plant owners and the KTG "T" quencher. Another possible sub-grouping would be to combine analyses for plants with a common architect engineer.
We ask that you provide a description of those pool dynamic load tasks, outside the generic Mark II pool dynamic loads program, that are a part of your pool dynamic loads definition program. Your response should in-clude the following information:
task description rationale for plant unique program task schedule docunentation (contents and schedule).
This information should be provided to us by November 15, 1979, so that we can plan our review efforts. We anticipate a meeting to discuss these items at an early date following the submittal of the letters. The pur-pose of this meeting would be to determine the extent to which a generic or semi-generic approach has been pursued, and to obtain information needed by us to establish priorities for the review of the various plants. Until that time, we will continue to review the pool dynamic load program on a primarily generic basis. We intend to review non-generic pool dynamic load programs on the basis of available NRC resources, with review priorities for these program:. established by the licensing schedule for each facility.
Sincerely, 1
1 Y.
arga c ng Assistant Director for Light ter Reactors Division of Project Management cc: See next page i189 229
c.
Long Island Lighting Company ccs:
Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Blau and Cohn, P.C.
2)? Kehbridge Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.
Deputy Commissioner and Counsel New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza
. Albany, New York 12223 Energy Research Group, Inc.
400-1 Totten Pond Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Irving Like, Esq.
Reilly, Like and Schnieder 200 West Main Street Babylon, New York 11702 J. P. Novarro Project Manager Shoreham tbclear Power Station P. O. Box 618 Wading River, hew York il792 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Hunton & Willisns P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Vi rginia, 23212 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Cammer & Shapiro No. 9 East 40th Street New York, New York 10016 Ed wa r d J. kla 9.n, Es q.
General Attorney Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road-Mineola, New York 11501
./
DISTRIBUTION:
NRC PDR bec:
NSIC Local PDR TIC Docket' Files ACRS (16)
WRf LWR-4 File S. Varga M. Williams B. Moore R. Denise, DSS L. Rubenstein Project Manager Licensing Assistant (2)
Attorney, ELD I&E (3) 1189 231