ML19256B136

Responds to 790111 Ltr.Makes Commitment to Design Stations Which Will Not Foreclose Possible Implementation of NRC Specified Design Options

ML19256B136
Person / Time
Site:	Perkins, Cherokee
Issue date:	01/18/1979
From:	Dail L DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
P81-1412.01, NUDOCS 7901240148
Download: ML19256B136 (2)

Text

- a -

DUKE POWER COMPANY ELncTitic OnxTnit. Hox 33189. Cli.uttorrn. N. C. 2m242 ecEa's ". 'a ' Ina n

January 18, 1979 Mr. Steve A. Varga, Chief Light Water Reactors, Branch 4 Division of Project Management U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Re: Cherokee Nuclear Station Perkins Nuclear Station Docket No's: STN 50-488, -489, -490, -491, -492, -493 Duke File: P81-1412.01

Dear Mr. Varga:

This letter is in response to the request made in your letter of January 11, 1979, that Duke Power Company provide a conmitment not to foreclose specified design options on the Cherokee and Perkins Nuclear Stations. Because the specified options relate to design of both the nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) and the balance of plant, we have discussed your letter and our response with our NSSS supplier, Combustion Engineering. Duke Power Company shares the concerns and supports the recommendations stated in the Combustion Engineering letter dated January 12, 1979, to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Based upon our understanding of the three requirements in your letter, we submit the following:

1) The NSSS design for both the Cherokee and Perkins Nuclear Stations includes provision for the Supplementary Protection System (SPS) which is specified in Item 1, Option (a) of your letter.

2) The pressurizer design for all units includes sufficient nozzle capacity to allow installation of pressurizer safety valves to meet the requir ments of Item 2 of your letter. It also appears that sufficier.u space can be resersed for installation of the valves and their discharge piping.

3) Nothing in our design will prevent a demonstration of the function-ability of valves needed for long-term cooling as described in Item 3 of your letter.

Thus,that such implementation of the three potential requirements in yourthe Perkins and. Cher letter will not be foreclosed. However, it should be noted that the D

\

vso1246i4%

b

Mr. Steve A. Varga, Chief Light Water Reactors, Branch 4 Division of Project Management U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page Two January 18, 1979 final, detailed requirements of the NRC are not known at this time and our commitment is based on our current understanding of NRC Staff requirements ar outlined in your letter.

Please let me know if you have additional questions.

Very truly yours, gh7lhtjuN L. C. Dail RFW/sr