ML19350D056
| ML19350D056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1981 |
| From: | Sylvia B VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 222, IEB-79-01B, IEB-79-1B, NUDOCS 8104130209 | |
| Download: ML19350D056 (2) | |
Text
VIRGINI A ELECTRIC AND PonER COMP ANY, RICHMOND, VIRGINI A 23261 April 9, 1 3
.9 I Q)
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Serial No.
222 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
,p dPSE&C/HHB Attn:
Mr. Robert A. Clark, Chief C
[%gN@ (j Operating Reactors Branch No.
_- locket Nos.
50-338 Division of Licensing
(
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission C icense No. NPF-4 Washington, DC 20555 Gt g,b
.s-
Dear Mr. Denton:
4/
" PARTIAL REVIEW" EQUIPMENT EVALUATION REPORT BY NRC I.E. BULLETIN 79-018 90 DAY REVIEW NORTH ANNA POWER STATION UNIT NO. 1 This letter is in response to the NRC letter of March 27, 1981, from Mr.
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors.
Mr. Novak's let.ter transmitted the " Partial Review, Equipment Evaluation Report by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation," which identified a number of potential environmental qualification of class lE equipment deficiences for North Anna Unit 1 and requested review of the impact on safety.
It is not clear, in all cases, what technical bases were used to determine the potential inadequacies identified by the staff in their review.
Therefore, we request a meeting with the staff at your earliest convenience to discuss bases to be used for any reevaluation by the staff and Vepco.
Vepto has reviewed each of the identified poetntial deficiencies for its impact on safety. We have concluded, based on our interpretation of the staff's comments, that the environments used in our qualification program are appropriate.
Further, we have concluded that the equipment identified as having potential deficiencies will not result in any unacceptable impact on the safety of North Anna Unit 1 operation while the required item by item reevaluation referred to in your March 27, 1981 letter is completed.
Our conclusions are based on the information contained in the following submittals and our review referenced above:
1.
Letter dated October 31, 1980, (Serial No.
887 ) transmitted the I.E. Bulletin 79-01B 90 Day Review, Revision 1.
2.
Letter dated December 1, 1980, (Serial No.
957 ) transmitted the revision 2 to the I.E.Bulletin 79-018 90 Day Review.
81041304d
[
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY TO Mr. Harold R. Denton SHEET NO. 2 3.
Letter dated January 30, 1981, (Serial No.
061 ) transmitted revision 3 of the I.E. Bulletin 79-01B 90 Day Review.
The information contained in this letter is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Very truly yours,
. R. Sylvia ianager - Nuclear Operations and Maintenance City of Richmond Commonwealth of Virginia 9 ( day of f
, 19 3 /
Acknowledged before me this lbv.v 0.NW Notary Public My commission expires:
2-26 19 P s' 5eal cc: Mr. Victor Stello, Director NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement Division of Reactor Operations Inspection Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Zoltan R. Rosztoczy, Branch Chief NRC Equipment Qualification Branch Division of Engineering Washington, DC 20555