ML19310A631
| ML19310A631 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/23/1980 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006200574 | |
| Download: ML19310A631 (4) | |
Text
5 p
1.4 Y'
p ateg fi jo,,
UNITED STATES f'
\\ {s y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f.'f 3
j WA "HINGTON, D. C. 20555 l.y 3,,, g g
MAY 2 3 icB0
,-l.. , H ipp ', 7,;
.-i a ?::?.i,.
./
'Q*\\
.CQ, w. W&.;9 MEMORANDUM FOR: Joseph M. Hendrie, Comissioner ge7, -
y.
FROM:
William J. Dircks, Acting Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF.. SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Your memorandum of May 22, 1980 requested clarification of some statements made during the April 15 Comission meeting on the above subject. The following informatien is provided in response to the two questions in your memorandum.
~
1.
Question - What has been done when equipment has been identified l
as not being in compliance with the 00R guidelines?
Resocnse - Licensees, othar than SEP licensees, are required by' I&E Bulletin 79-OlB to identify with respect to each component, whether such items confonn to the D0R guidelines.
If it does not conform, the licensee must propose a schedule for qualification or replace-ment.
The licensee must also identify whether any such item will not perfom its required safety function.
For any such item, the licensee must, within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />,
-RIca cc::::a--
either provide acceptable justification or replace the item.
23 C.Y 60 5 : 3!
During the course of the staff review of responses to Bulletin 79-01B the staff will assure that for any item on the list which does not conform to the DOR guidelines, either that it is reasonably obvious that the item will adequately perform or that the licensee has provided an adequate justification for continued operation or has replaced the item.
For the SEP plants, the staff has explicitly required the licensee to provide a written justification for continued operation or replacement for each case in which a component does not conform to the D0R guide-lines.
,3,
Q' Y-
-.m.
~. ~. _.. - - - - -..
--,r-
1
.E e
- n. - %
e- -
d*
~
- 4..
g,.
2 2.
Question - Has any equipment been identified which could not perform as required following an accident?
Resoonse - Equipment has been identified which does not conform to DOR guidelines.
In addition, using the procedure outlined in answer to Question 1, equipment has been identified as not being able to perform its required safety function.
Such equipment has either been replaced or the licensee has provided adequate justification for continued operation.
[ 2b p bN Yilliam J. Dircks, Acting Executive Director for Operations cc: Chaiman Ahearne Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Kennedy Comissioner Bradford l
l 9
.-s-4
., - - + -
-_...7
6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
John F. Ahearne, Chairman
's.2M " * D,.
Victor Gilinsky
./
~
\\,c;,
Richard T. Kennedy
[y g
\\ q, Joseph M.
Hendrie
- N
'[ Mygs.E, SU e,23
[
3 Peter A. Bradford
\\ h ",*i tf!t h
~?
.?i U' v 7/'
)
e In the Matter of
)
9
- T"y.
)
.4 PETITION FOR EMERGENCY
)
IW
~#
AND REMEDIAL ACTION
)
)
1 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
(.CLI-80-21 )
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) initiated this matter on November 4, 1977 by filing with the Commission a " Petition for Emergency and Remedial Relief."
The petition sought action in two areas:
fire protection for electrical cables, and environmental qualification of electrical components.
Af ter an extended period of review by the NRC staf f, and having received numerous submissions from the staff and UCS in addition to public comments, the Commission issued a Memorandum and order on April 13, 1978.1/
Although the emergency relief sought by UCS _/ was not granted, the Commission 2
ordered its staff to take several actions related to petitioner's request.
filed a peti UCS m-s-
.2-By order dated June 27, 1978 t discretion DUPLICATE DOCUMENT to consider this peti ivide its Entire document previously h7C 6I j(g g g }(3-entered into system under:
OM[
O O
") b 1/ 7 NRC 400.
j No. of pages:
r2 b l
2_/ The petition asked all l
operating plants, and to halt construction of new plants.
l
2-views on all issues raised by the UCS independent of the Commission's April 13 decision.
In addition to its overall evaluation of the petition, the staff was asked to respond to specific questions which reflected the Commission's view of the discrete issues raised by the petition.
Certain items of immediate safety interest were reported to the Commission on July 6, the remainder of the staf f analysis was provi.ded to the Commission on August 31 with additional clarification provided on September 19, 1978.1/
Additional Commission questions directed to the staff on October 6, December 5 and December 12, 1978 were responded to in a staff memorandum dated October 26, 1978 and in staf f papers SECY-79-ll2 (February 12, 1979) and S ECY-79-ll2A (March 15, 1979).
On March 7, 1979, UCS filed a Motion for Expedited Decision Making, and requested a meeting with the Commission.
This motion restated the UCS arguments previously presented.
On March 21, UCS submitted a letter concerning fire protection at nuclear plants, repeating previous UCS contentions, and making reference to the November 1977 UCS Petition.
In response to Commission questions, the staff submitted further information on August 24, 1979.
On No'vember 5, 1979 UCS submitted a letter again requesting Commission action.
1/ Nineteen public comments on the petition for reconsideration were received in response to the June 27 order.
The comments represented views from private cititens, public interest groups, and the nuclear indastry, and ranged from strong support for the April 13 decision to strong support for the UCS position.
The staff reviewed these ccaments, and reached the conclusion that no new safety information was provifed which might call into doubt the conclusions reached in our April 13 decision.
As a result of the actions taken in
- day's order, the Commission concurs with the staf f conclusions.
v
'b
)
Ei1TED STATES OF AlfERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0hSilSSION In the Matter of-
)
)
)
)
PETITION FOR EMERGENCY AND
)
l REMEDIAL RELIEF
)
)
)
)
)
SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing docu=ent(s)* upon each person designated on the official service list co= piled by the Office of the Secretary of the Co= mission in this proceeding in accordance with the
- requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2 - Rules of Fractice, of the
. Nuclear Regulatory Cet: mission's Rules and Regulations.
Dat'ed at k'ashington, D.C. this Mf day of 19 8d.
~
f J
Arnu /
Offi6e'df the Secretary of the Commission Adh/Xb
~
s E
4 4
D t
m...,_
w
7 1
i
~
USC Petition Page 3
~
Brent N. Rushforth, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Interest 10203 Santa Monica Boulevard
~
Los Angeles, California 90087 Mr. Albert Bates Farm Legal Service The Farm Summertown, Tennessee 38483 Ms. Zelia M. Jensen Route 1, Box 86A Grandview, Tennessee 37337
- 53. Katherine S. Doherty Aquidneck Island Ecciogy Box 573 Newport, Rhode Island 02840
- l Tho=as M. Dattilo, Esq.
404 East Main Street i
Madison, Tennessee 47250 Mr. Rick Plunkett Arthur L. Reuter, Esq.
Minnesota Public Interest Research Group Sharpe's Landing 3036 University Avenue, S.E.
Ger=antown, New York 12526 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 Mrs. June Allen
}M. Faith Young North Anna Environmental Coalition Concerned Citizens of Tennessee P. O. Box 3951 110 Pe= broke Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Nashville, Tennessee 37205 Mrs. A. W. Dietrich NW. Diane Tegtmeier Route 2, Box 568 Mid-America Coalition for Energy Alternatives Gordonsv111e, Virginia 22942 5130 Mission Road Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66205 Mr. David Winship 105 Beechwood Road Bristol, Tennessee 37620 1
j
.