ML19318C437
| ML19318C437 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1980 |
| From: | Widner W GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007010474 | |
| Download: ML19318C437 (1) | |
Text
Georg a Poser Compar ;
230 Peaceree Street Pcs: C"ce acx 4545 A: aria Geoga 30302 Te'ectore 404 522-6060 b
June 20, 1980 GeorgiaPower W. A. Widner Yea',?ile0,a:?c*" ' *^*'
tre scavern ecc system Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-f EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1, 2 COMMITMENTS REGARDING FIVE ADDITIONAL TMI-2 RELATED REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATING REACTORS Gentlemen:
In a May 7,1980, letter the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued five additional TMI-2 related requirements for operating reactors.
Since receipt of that letter on May 20, Georgia Power Company has given careful considera-tion to your request for a commitment to implement those additional items on a schedule compatible with that suggested in Enclosure 1 of the May 7th letter. Georgia Power Compary intents to be fully responsive to concerns raised by those requirements. Conformity with your schedule will be pursued with our best effort within the constraints of available technology and resources. However, as was initially the case with the short-term recommenda-tions of the Lessons Learned Task Force, further definition of the acceptance criteria is needed before an effective implementation program can be achieved.
Georgia Power Company is working with the BWR Owners Group wherever possible to develop suitable implementation criteria. Should these criteria, when developed, affect scheduling such that the completion dates proposed by the NRC cannot be met, notifica'. ion of that variance will be made.
Georgia Power Company wishes to reserve the following options: modifica-tions of equal or better safety rather than the strict interpretation of some recommendations; exception to some recommendations whose implementation after careful review and consideration is agreed to be unnecessary; ar,d flexibility in scheduling where sufficient justification has been demonstrated.
We believe this letter is responsive to your May 7,1980, request.
Additional clarification and amplification of our positions will be the subject of future correspondence.
If there are comments or questions in this regard, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
. A l ~ "
-f_.,
W. A. Widner Od/
WEB /mb S
xc: Ruble A. Thomas
/ C)
George F. Trowbridge, Esquire R. F. Rogers, III 007010
[