ML19337B250
| ML19337B250 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1980 |
| From: | Rich Smith VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| To: | Grier B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| IEB-80-11, WVY-80-126, NUDOCS 8010010760 | |
| Download: ML19337B250 (2) | |
Text
...
g i '
VERMONT Y AN KEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION V
SEVENTY SEVEN GROVE STREET WVY-80-126
'4*1'1 RUTLAND, VERMONT 05701 REPLY TO ENGINEERING OFFICE TURNPH<E RO AD WESTBORO. M ASSACHUSETTS 01581 TELEPHONE 617 344 90ll September 4, 1980 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Attention:
Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director
References:
(a)
License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271)
(b)
IE Bulletin No. 80-11, " Masonry Wall Design" dated May 8, 1980 (c)
Letter, L. H. Heider to B. H. Grier, dated July 7,1980
Subject:
Request for Extention of Response Time for IE Bulletin 80-11,
" Masonry Wall Design"
Dear Sir:
Reference (b) required that Vermont Yankee " Submit the information requested in Item 1, 2a, and 3 within 60 days of this Bulletin. Within 180 days of the date of this Bulletin, submit the information requested in Item 2b".
Reference (c) forwarded the information requested within 60 days, providing a description of Vermont Yankee's masonry wall re-evaluation program, and stating that a written report on our re-evaluation program would l
be submitted by the end of Vermont Yankee's 1980 refueling outage.
At this time Vermont Yankee wishes to extend the reporting period required by the subject bulletin to allow us to submit our final report by February 27, 1981.
Our reasons for requesting this extension include the facts that the development of acceptance criteria for these walls took more time than we had originally anticipated, and that our scheduled analysis time has been increased due to the development of loads requiring the combination of displacement and inertial forces. We believe that this extention is justified for the following reasons.
1)
The as-built condition of all the walls identified in Reference (c) has been determined, including the development of as-built sketches, location of safety-related systems in proximity to the subject walls, material propert13s and construction practices used in wall construction based on historical records, and reinforcement used in the walls.
60100107(oO dp
Unittd Stntco Nucicer Rrgulttory Commiccion Sept;mbsr 4, 1980 Attcntion:
Mr. Boyca H. Grice, Dirsctor Pzga 2 2)
Generally, block was not used as load carrying members at Vermont Yankee, but was used for closure after equipment installation, removable shielding or " fill in" around pipes passing through poured walls.
3)
There are no major attachment loads applied to the walls in question.
4)
Investigations completed to date give Vermont Yankee reasonable assurance that the additional time requested to complete the required analysis raises no significant safety considerations.
Vermont Yankee currently plans to subtit a report within the original 180 day time frame containing all the as-built information required by I
Reference (b), the criteria to be used for the final evaluation and the justification for the criteria used, and the results of all the analysis completed at that time. The remaining information required by Reference (b) will be submitted by February 27, 1981.
1 We trust this information is satisfactory; however, should you have any questions, please call us.
Very truly yours, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION R. L. Smith Licensing Engineer RLS/ dis
___