ML19318A998
| ML19318A998 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1980 |
| From: | Bayne J POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| JPN-80-30, NUDOCS 8006240501 | |
| Download: ML19318A998 (2) | |
Text
.- -
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK to CoLUMeus CIRCLE NEW YORK. N. Y. loo 19 t212e 397 6200 G EO R G,E,,T E,R p
Cwat,
O'"*"O 0"'***
TRUSTEES
" "g g'c
,vg v7eg JoMN s.DvsCN or P *sm opEnaticN.
GEORGE L. ING ALLS gg vsCE CMalRM AN E X ECUTIVE VICE RICH AR D M. FLYN N NG EER ROBERT 1. MILLO N Zl LERQY W. SINC.A June 19, 1980
. c-. ar ~ ~cm
,REoERicx R.cL4R<
' *".^,?.L 'v"c.., o ~,
Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Attention:
Mr. Thomas A.
Ippolito, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Operating Reactors
Subject:
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 Five Additional TMI2 Related Requirements to Operating Reactors
References:
(1)
Letter from NRC to All Operating Nuclear Power Plants, "Five Additional TMI2 Related Requirements to Operating Reactors", May 7, 1980.
(2)
" Generic Evaluation of Feedwater Transients and Small Break Loss of Coolant Accidents in GE-designed Operating Plants and Near-term Operating Applications", NUREG-0626, dated January, 1980.
(3)
Letter, S.J.
Stark (GE), to C.O. Thomas (NRC),
"B&O Prospective Safety Evaluation Report Requirements for BWR's," December 7, 1979.
Dear Sir:
In Reference 1, the Authority was requested to commit to implementation of the requirements contained therein per the implementation schedule provided.
It is the intention of the Authority to be fully responsive to the requirements of Reference 1; however, well-defined acceptance criteria for many of the recommendations are needed in order to ensure timely implementation.
These acceptance criteria, when fully developed, may impact implementation schedules due to the availability of resources for conducting the required studies and developing the required designs..
t
[
8006240 TO/
. A total assessment of the collective impact of all the requirements has not yet been conducted.
Such an assessment was recommended by Item B.15 of Reference 2, which does not appear in the requirements of Reference 1.
Following a comprehensive review of the requirements, the Authority may wish to discuss with the NRC staff alternatives to the strict interpretation of some requirements.
Such alternatives may include:
a) modifications other than those suggested by the requirement of equal or better safety improvement; b) design and test of hardware modifications on a single typical plant followed by implementation on remaining plants; c) exception to some recommendations whose implementation is believed unnecessary (see, for example, BWR Owners' Group positions in Reference 3).
Thus, we believe a degree of flexibility is necessary in the implementation schedules for good cause shown.
However, within the constraints described above, it is our intent to meet the requirements and schedules of Reference 1.
We trust this letter is responsive to your requirements at this time.
If additional clarification of our position is necessary, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours, h
k< N J.
P. Bayne v
Senior Vice President N clear Generation