ML19327A600
| ML19327A600 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1980 |
| From: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ferguson J VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008060450 | |
| Download: ML19327A600 (3) | |
Text
.
neo UNITED STATES y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
r.
E WASHWGTON,0. C. 20555 l
%,*****[
JUL 2 5 lo'0 I
Docket No. 50-338 l
Mr. J. H. Ferguson Executive Vice President - Power Virginia Electric and Power Cogany Post Office Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261
Dear Mr. Ferguson:
~
We have reviewed the information provided in your letter dated June 6,1980 regarding the North Anna, Unit 1 Multiple Structure Aglified Response Spectnam (ARS) Concern. Your letter describes the actions which are being taken by you to resolve our concern regarding the response spectra used for calculating the response of systems attached to two or more structures with l
independent structural responses.
In order to coglete our review of these matters for North Anna, Unit 1, it is necessary for us to obtain the additional information provided in the Enclosure to this letter. We request that you submit this information within 10 days following the cogletion of your evaluations.
We understand that these evaluations are currently scheduled to be cogleted by you on Septenber 15, 1980. Please inform us of any change in this completion date.
Sincerely,
}Ds omas Novak, Assistant Director for Operating React. ors Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated I
cc w/ enclosure:
l See next page.
l l
l l
8008060/50 ' 7 e
~
Mr. J. H. Ferguson Virginia Electric and Power Conpany cc: Richard M. Foster, Esquire Mrs. June Allen 1230 A Pearl Street 412 Owens Drive Denver, Colorado 80203 Huntsville, Alabama 35801 Michael W. Maupin, Esquire Mr. James Torson Hunton, Williams, Gay and Gibson 501 Leroy P. O. Box 1535 Socorro, New Mexico 87801 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Mrs. Margaret Dietrich Alderman Library Route 2, Box 568 Manuscripts Department Gordonsville, Virginia 22042 University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 ~
Mr. James C. Dunstance State Corporation Comission Mr. Edward Kube Commonwealth of Virginia Board of Supervisors Blandon Building Louisa County Courthouse Richmond, Virginia 23209 P. O. Box 27 Louisa, Virginia 23093 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III Office Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire ATTN: EIS COORDINATOR Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman and Weiss Curtis Building 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 6th and Walnut Streets Washington, D. C.
20006 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 Commonwealth of Virginia Of rector, Technical Assessment Divisior Council on the Environment Office of Radiation Programs (AW-459) 903 Ninth Street Office Building U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Richmond, Virginia 23129 Crystal Mall #2 Arlington, Virginia 20460 Mr. W. R. Cartwright, Station Manager P. O. Box 402 Mr. Paul W. Purdom Mineral, Virginia 23117 Environmental Studies Institute Drexel University Mr. Anthony Gambardella 32nd and Chestnut Streets Office of the Attorney General Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 11 South 12th Street - Room 308 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U
S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Mr. Allan Tattersall Washington, D. C.
20555 Resident Inspector / North Anna c/o U.S. NRC P. O. Box 128 Spotsylvania, Virginia 22553 l
l
ENCLOSURE
~
l C
NORTH ANNA UNIT'l' ~ MULTIPLE STRUCTURE ARS CONCERN REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION l.
Summarize the results of your Phase I evaluations Include a descrip-tion of the evaluations perforned. and provide the bases for their acceptability. List the problems and systems found acceptable after the Phase I evaluations and the bases for their acceptability.
l 2.
List the problems and systems requiring further evaluation under Phase II.
For each problem, describe in detail the evalu~ations performed and provided detailed bases for the acceptability of these i
evaluations. Where the Independent Support Method of ARS is used to calculate system response, provide a detailed description of the program used and a detailed basis for the acceptability of both the program and the method of calculation. Where any method of evaluation has been accepted by the NRC on North Anna Unit 2, it is sufficient to refer to those evaluations for acceptability of the method.
In cases where NRC acceptance has not been attained, a committment to implement any restrictions on or modifications to the method required for NRC acceptability is appropriate.
3.
Describe any modifications to the systems which were required, the reason (s) for these modifications, and the bases for their acceptability.
e I
,w
--c-.
--o r
+y-r