ML19322D242
Text
Qfs
[p.a tergD UNTIED ST ATES y'
NUCLEAn nEGULATORY COMMisslON
{ r-l WASHING TON, D C. 20555 o,
N....*'
flarch 28, 1978 m
HEMORAfiDUll FOR:
Harold R. Denton, Director, Division of Site Safety
~
and Environmental Analysis, flRR Roger J. Mattson, Director, Division of Systems Safety, flRR Victor Stello, Director, Division of Operating Reactors, flRR FR0il:
Roger S. Boyd, Director, Division of Project Management, flRR
~
SUBJECT:
IMPLE!!Ef1TATI0ft 0F flew REGULATORY REQUIRE!1ErlTS REC 0f1*1Ef4DED BY RRRC AftD APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR, flRR REFEREf4CE:
ile nrandum dated February 10, 1978, Subject.
Implementation of Regulatory Requirements Recommended by RRRC and Approved by the Director, ilRR - to H. Denton and R. flattson from R. Boyd As a result of the discussion we had concerning my February 10, 1978 memorandum on the same subject, we are proceeding as follows.
~ represents those plants that D0R has agreed to include in their scope of responsibility regarding the implementation of these requirements.
The plants and designs within the DP!1 scope of responsibility are listed in Enclosure 2 along with the requested dates for responses by Qe applicants and licensees. We intend to send these licensees, applicants, and PDA-holders a letter based on the model letter presented in Enclosure 3.
He anticipate that we will start sending these letters the first week in April 1978 and finish by April 15, 1978.
O P
Roger S. Boyd, Director h
Division of Project !1anagement Q.
Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation V
Enclosures:
9
?.
1.
List of Projects l
to be resolved by D0R T'
At
- /
2.
List of Replies due by 49
[ '
I i
June 15, 1978, August 15, 1978, g/"*'
t October 15,19/8, and
[
//
t-L December 15, 1978 3.
Sample letter 1
W l
h 8 0 0 21,0 0D(7_g
C' j,
liarold R. Denton j R'oger J. flattson Victor Stello i.i..
l f*
i i
ccs w/ enclosures t
l E. Case J. Knight K. Goller R. Bosnak i
D. Eisenhut S. Paulicki D.11uller I. Sihweil M. Grossman V. Benaroya
,[
I J. Scinto G. Lainas M;,
J. !! iller T. Ippolito d
J. Miller F. Rosa R. DeYoung D. Ross F. Schroeder Z. Rosztoczy J. Reece P. Check l
D. Vassallo T. flovak i
J. Stolz R. Vollmer I
K. Kniel D. Bunch
(~
~-
- 0. Parr J. Collins R. Denise S. Varga P:
i W. Kreger T. Speis i
W. llaass D. Skovholt t
t j
W. Gammill P. Collins j
J. Stepp R. Houston L. Ilulman C. lleltemes L. Crocker i
?
n, 1
h?
cc d.%.
Y i
6
.,.. i
.I s,
k*
r 1
E., '
l M,
s D$ .d; m..~,A.
g----.
,,-n.
-.ng,
,,v,--
,,.,.,va---
-, - -,r-,
--r w
w,-,,
, --,, -,, ~,,.,-,
ev,,,c,
-a~.,
.ww
..,a.-.-.
.a-..,-
1 ErlCLOSURE 1 TO BE RESOLVED BY DOR iTHREE.iilLE ISLAt1D' 2 /
fl0RTil AriflA 1 & 2 COOK 2 r' DAVIS BESSE 1._
FARLEY l & 2
~.
l 9
e 4
I
+=
Eb s,
YvX 5.^
x.
D
- f. '
?Y' r,
s-q.o e
E.L t
f i
i l
l 1
l I
. (page 1)
REPLIES _DlJE JUNE 15, 1978_
F'C APPLICATION TYPE CESSAR Combustion Engineering - PDA SWESSAR-CESSAR Stone & Webster PDA referencing Combustion Engineering PDA Harris 1-4 Westinghouse Design l,
Beaver Valley 2 Westinghouse Design k---
IIcGuire 1-2 Westinghouse Design Diablo Canyon 1-2 Westinghouse Design
~
Palo Verde 1-3 CESSAR c:
~
Yellow Creek 1-2 CESSAR
^-
p Cherokee 1-3 CESSAR Perkins 1-3 CESSAR WPPSS 3-5 CESSAR Forked River Combustion Engineer ng Design Waterford 3 Combustion Engineering Design
{---
St. Lucie 2 Combustion Engineering Design k'w p',<
Pilgrim 2 Combustion Engineering Design
-[
Arkansas 2 Combustion Engineering Design pg; f.c rh.
N' t..-
L*J:
km e
T r
L zw.a w
.,.a e %ys's u
~
_ = - _
s
"'^
' (page 2)
REPL_lE_S DUE AUGUST 15, 1978
- s
- -
APPLICAT10ft TYPE Callaway 1 & 2 SNUPPS (RESAR 3)
Wolf Creek StiUPPS (RESAR 3) y Sterling SilVPPS (RESAR 3)
P/.
w Tyrone SflVPPS (RESAR 3)
RESAR-3S Westinghouse PDA South Texas 1-2 RESAR-41 Design Vogtle 1-2 RESAP,-3 Design g
tiillstone 3 RESAR-3 Design l
Comanche Peak 1-2 RESAR-3 *1esign l
Catawba 1-2 RESAR-3 Design i
Byron 1-2 RESAR-3 Design Braidwood 1-2 RESAR-3 Design m
3 Seabrook 1-2 RESAR-3 Design Jamesport 1-2 RESAR-3 Design flarble Hills 1-2 RESAR-3 Design t...
FNP l-8 RESAR-3 Design (Floating fluclear Plant Rr
.p.e i
@l~ '
I b;..,
r 1..
L.
t
- c.,
{l.
l I
g..
.~ -.
..c.
.~J.,-
- -,., -,...,. ~ =,. -
^
i.
,, (page 3)
REPLIES DUE OCTOBER 15, 1978 APPLICATION TYPE
(~
GESSAR-238 NI General Electric fluclear Island GESSAR-238 ftSSS General Electric PDA GESSAR-251 flSSS
' General Electric PDA T
1 Hartsville 1-4 GESSAR-238 ft!
r.;..
Phipps Bend 1-2 GESSAR-238 til Grand Gulf 1-2 General Electric CWR-6 Design 7
i Clinton 1-2 General Electric BUR-6 Design l
River Bend 1-2 General Electric BWR-6 Design k.
~
Perry 1-2 General Electric BWR-6 Design 1
I i
Skagit 1-2 General Electric BWR-6 Design 1
1 Black Fox l-2 GESSAR-238 flSSS Fermi 2 General Electric BUR-4 Design Zimmer 1 General Electric BWR-4 Design F
Hatch 2 General Electric BUR-4 Design
~
k R':<
M...
Y-f,*.
Pl-.
y;?:
r>
[~-
1 V
j' M'
c I
L
.c 4
^%R6%..,
. =
e.
i
! (page 4)~
1 R_.EPLI ES DUE DECEMBER 15, 1978 i
se APPLICATION TYPE O1 BSAR-20S Babcock & Wilcox PDA i
SWESSAR-BSAR-205 Stone & Webster PDA Referencing B&W PDA SWESSAR-RESAR-35 Stone & Webster PDA Referencing e
',L
(
[
Westinghouse PDA I
Bailly General Electric BWR-4 Design I
Limerick 1-2 General Electric BWR-4 Design Nine Mile Point'2 General Electric BWR-5 Design Hope Creek 1-2 General Electric BWR-4 Design v,
t l
WPPSS-1 Babcock & Wilcox Design sm='
j WPPSS-4 Babcock & Wilcox Design i
1 Pebble Springs 1-2 Babcock & Wilcox Design i
Greene Ccanty Babcock & Wilcox Design
)
North Anna 3 -4 Babcock & Wilcox Design
[
2 l
l i'
4'.
er P.
1 rp.-
?*
I/
1 D3..
- i.
L.-
V i
{
I i
e,.
=.#,
- F
- * * =
-A t s*n Agg h N'o y.4 y
4*
. n ;.. -,_
^
p
c i
i TO BE RESOLVED IN ONG0ING REVIEUS, UPON REACTIVATION, OR PRIOR TO USE ONGOING REVIEW UPON REACTIVATION PRIOR TO USE RESAR 414 Greenwood 2&3 RESAR 41 GIBBSSAR-RESAR 414 Montague 1&2 SWESSAR RESAR 41 B0PSSAR-BSAR 205 Atlantic 1 & 2 B0PPSAR RESAR 41 ESSAR-CESSAR Douglas Point BRAU'lSliR TI Shoreham
)
LaSalle 1&2 San Onofre 2&3 Sumrer 1 UPPSS 2 Midland 1&2 Davis Besse 2&3 New England 1&2 Erie 1&2 Sundesert l&2 Haven 1&2 Susquehanna 1&2 f
Allens Creek Bellefonte 1&2 Salera 2 Sequoyah 1&2 g
Matts Bar 1&2
[
8
%~
\\
^c T
{
I l', 7.~r' ! Y si {?'El.T2'?
I~
'l
'If}.
l'.*'-
~
e
l c
n (sample..i i
[orre w
b UNITED STMES l
.^
rJUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
e
{..,rt
. 1 WASWNG TON, C C 20555 0
- SAMPLE-law Docket Nos. SIN 50-SSt>
SIN S0-557 Public Service Compan/ of Jklanoma Attn:
Mr. B.11. Morpnis Assistant Vice Presiaent - duelear P. O. Box 201
'luisa, Oklahoma 741uJ Gentlemen:
SULLilfT:
IMPIEMEttfM1uJ Of UtaFF RA)UIRLMENTS A review of staf f ueci:; ions on inaplementation of cer tain regulatory require-nents, including tiione associated with t<egulator f Guidec and branch Tecunical Positions, has indicated the need for further infornation regarding the i
~
status of the dlack Fox Station design with regard to tne provisions of the IJsues listed in Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2.
These issues are associateo P
with revisions of existing guides or relatively recently proposed anu I
approved new guides or Branch Technical Positions. A review of the satety f-significance of each of tnese items anu its associated value/inq>act assess-ment was conaucted by the Regulatory dequirements Review Conunittee (RRFC) and its recoimiendation for inplementation was suoseguently c.pproveo by tne Director, uffice of tJuclear Reactor Regulation. The following is tne result of their actions:
(1) Enclosure 1 lists those matters waere statt action needs to be taken to a; ply the requirement in its entirety to all licensed facilities, i
plants unaer construction, and applications unuer review.
For tnese matters. listed in Enclosure 1, for which the plant uesign already pF meets the applicanle provisions, proviae or reterence appropriate T*
confirming documentation. Where your plant aesign ooes not meet the b'
applicable provisions, indicate your plans for corrective action.
f.7:
(2) lists tnose matters where staff action needs to be taken C
to cetermine the extent to which application of the requirement is S/
necessary and practical to all licensed facilities, plants under T'
construction, and applications unoer review, considering the status
/
of design, constr uction, operation, and licensing review. Accordingly, please inoicate the status of your plant design with regard to the P-applicaole provisions of each of the matters in Enclosure 2.
To the extent you may wish, your assessment-as to the necessity ano practicality of the degree of comaliance warranted for your facility would be 7-nelpful to us in our considerations in making this determination.
?
' d(Md W';[*g,. %.$ i.
.uO T
/
u
~
Puolic Service Company of Oklahoma We are reviewing all plants, including operating plants, and plant designs with regard to the issues listed in Enclosures 1 and 2.
In oroer to efficiently allocate ourl limited statf manpower to resolution of tnis uatter, consioering our other workloads, we nave developed.a plan for a sequential receipt 9,
of responses from licensees and applicants. Your response is requestea i
I by June 15, 1978.. 'We recognize that in many instances you may already meet some or all of the provisions of the guides listed (or an acceptaole alternative) ana nave previously proviaed documntation to that effect.
A reference to the documentation will be satisfactory.
- It'you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact your assignea licensing project manager.
r;, :,
t
,n*.
Sincerely,
[*
t Roger S. Boyd, Director Division of Project 'lanagement Office of Wuclear Reactor alegulation p-g
Enclosures:
1.
2.
,7 i.
i' ccs:
Listed on following page 4
g.
b 4
- t.? '.
(*'Y '
t
't.
f.
s f
M*er '
?
7 r-I L-
- 8
.O
['
[,
'8 4
.v gj w) 4.em.a;-
, p
,p 8
- p quy,,a j, p,7, oe,s p
g 9', e4 ['
p
,ggg,
_g
-