ML19339B658
| ML19339B658 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1980 |
| From: | Wyatt J LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| LPL-15296, NUDOCS 8011070402 | |
| Download: ML19339B658 (2) | |
Text
.
i LOUISIANA P O W E R & L I G H T! P O. BOX 6008. NEW CRLEANS. LOUISIANA 70174 342 m Rouos s e 1504) 366-2345
$uiIsSsYIU l. O?
.) M WYA TT Presrdenc end November 3 1980
- , n;;3 LPL 15296 3-A1.10 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D. C. 20555 i
ATTENTION:
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director
SUBJECT:
Waterford 3 SES Docket No. 50-382 SER Status Report Approach To Licensing
REFERENCE:
NRC letter to LP&L dated September 4, 1980
Dear Mr. Denton:
During the week of September 29, 1980, Louisiana Power & Light Company (LP&L) participated in an innovative approach to the review of Sub-section 3.6.2 through 3.9.6 of the Final Safety Analysis Report.
As described in the referenced letter, NRC's Mechanical Engineering Branch (MEB) and its contractor, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, chose to proceed directly to a safety evaluation status report rather than provide the customary two rounds of questions. We met with members of the staff and consulting reviewers in New York to discuss and resolve the open items identified in the status report.
The majority of these open items were satisfactorily resolved at our meeting. LP&L will document resolutions to nearly all open items in November and December FSAR amendments.
We endorse this method of licensing review and encourage its continued use.
Regarding.our meeting we have the following comments:
(1) The status report approach exhibits several advantages over the formal question and response method. Direct communica-tion between both of our engineering staffs reduces misunderstanding, provides sufficiently detailed responses l$0C> /
including the inspection of calculations and detailed 3
drawings, and provides justification for and better under-standing of positions anc criteria.
()
sonoro g
e I
Mr.' Harold R..Denton Page 2 (2) -Better understanding will result in fewer open SER issues when we proceed to ACRS in July,-1981. Fewer open items.
will permit us both to concentrate our resources more efficiently on the few remaining open items.
4 L
.(3) There is a significant time saving factor. MEB will be able to have their final draft SER completed several months ahead of schedule.
I (4) As compared to the formal question and response approach, j
we estimate a savings on our part of approximately 400 work-hours in the MEB areas due to the status report approach.
We-presume that MEB also saved on work-hours needed to obtain information required for their safety review and comparisons with the Standard Review Plans.
(5) We sincerely appreciate the fact that your staff and con-sultants worked well beyond the normal workday in order to finish the meeting in 3 days as compared to the 5 days-projected in the referenced letter.
(6) An appreciable gain in the efficiency of the meeting would have been realized had we provided draft resolutions to all parties a week or so in advance of the meeting. We will do this for all such future meetings.
(7) As experience is gained, certain minor logistic problems j
such as agenda flexibility, new open items, review of meeting minutes, and the extent and method of resolution documentation will be improved.
4 We believe that the status report approach is needed in other areas in l
order to support the June 1,.1981 issuance of the Safety Evaluation i
Report. _Therefore, we would welcome similar meetings in Bethesda, New Orleans or New York for the remaining areas of FSAR review cspecially I
in areas where we have not yet received round 1 questiens.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please i
contact Mr. Lee V. Maurin, Waterford 3 Project Director.
I Yo. very truly, O
f
~
J. M. W t
JMW:RWP:bms cc:
E. Blake W. M. Stevenson 4-
-e,
,m.,,
.c-.
+
e,
- - -, -