ML20003A904
| ML20003A904 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek, 05000363 |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1981 |
| From: | Finfrock I JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102100036 | |
| Download: ML20003A904 (4) | |
Text
.
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION JCP&L GPU w con;iai g aj g (609) 693-1951 P.O. BOX 388
- FORKED RIVER
- 08731 Dhuac uim.s sa-February 4, 1981 Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Eisenhut:
This is in response to your letter of January 14, 1981 regarding the SEP program. The lead topic approach proposed b, the SEP Owner's Group was formulated ii. meetings with the NRC staff in November and December 1980 as an alternative to the planned redirection of the program by the NRC to a lead plant approach.
In the lead topic approach discussed in our letter of December 5,1980 to you and summari::ed in your January 14 letter we agree to:
1.
Assist the NRC staff in their preparation of lead topic safety evaluation reports (SER) for each of the remaining SEP topics and 2.
Prepare draft assessments for the balance of the topics following the criteria, scope and guidelines established by the NRC in each lead topic SER.
The objective of the next phase of the SEP will be to complete at l
1 east 60'. of the total SEP topics by June,1981. The number of these topic i
assessments to be completed by JCPSL by June, 1981 is approximately 20.
The l
candidate topics for completion by June are listed in Enclosure 1 together with l
a schedule for their submittal. This represents a substantial commitment of company resources.
As we discussed during our meetings in November and December, 1980 l
and reitecated in our letter of December 5,1980, completion of 60*6 of the total l
SEP topic assessments in the next several months represents a marked accelera-tion in the progress of this program and requires an increased and concentrated effort on the part of the NRC staff as well as the licensees if the objectives N(i are to be met.
i 81 0 2 $0 00bbp
0 February 4,1981 With regard to the specific conditions outlined in your letter of January 14, you indicated that the NRC will assume that if the licensees have not responded to draft SERs transmitted for license review within a 30 day period, you will consider that the licensee concurs in the contents of the SER. Considering that in some cases NRC correspondence has not been re-ceived within two to three weeks after the date of issuance and that it may not be possible to review each SER within a 30 day period, the NRC should not assume that we concur in an SER until such time as we respond in writing to that affect. Where more than 30 days is required for us to complete our review of an SER, we will so advise you in writing within 30 days of our re-ceipt of the SER.
We have also noted with interest and concern the issuance of SECY-81-13 from William Dircks to the Commissioners which addresses the sys-tematic safety evaluation of all currently operating nuclear power reactors.
This program as we understand it would require comparison of operating reac-tors with safety criteria established in a revised set of Standard Review Plans to be issued in the Spring of 1981.
It is our understanding based on discussions with your staff that satisfactory completion of the Systematic Evaluation Program as presently defined and ongoing for our plant will satis-fy the intent of the safety assessment program described in SECY-81-13. Since we do not consider it necessary or possible to carry out the present SEP pro-gram as well as the program described in SECY-81-13, our agreement to under-take the lead topic approach to completion of the next phase of the SEP is contingent upon this understanding.
If this is not a correct interpretation of the relationship between the two programs, we request further discussions on the subject as soon as possible.
Very truly yours, l
gf/M e
Ivan R. Finfr k,
Vice Presid t -
PSL Director - Oyster Creek j
I ENCLOSURE 1 TOPIC SCHEDULE II-1A Exclusion Area February 2, 1981 II-1B Population Distribution to II-1C Transportation Ha::ards April 30, 1981 II-2C Atmos. Transport 6 Diffusion II-3A Hydrologic Description II-3B Flooding Potential II-3B1 Capability to Cope with DB Flood II-4A Tectonic Provinces II-4B Prox. of Capable Structures II-4C Historical Seismicity III-5A HELB Inside Containment v
III-7D Containment S.I. Tests February 2, 1981 IV-2 Reactivity Control, Single Failures to V-3 RCPB Leakage Detection June 30, 1981 V-12A Water Purity in BWRs VI-7A3 ECCS Actuation Sys.
VI-10A Testing of Reactor Trip XV-16 Failure of Small Lines Outside Containment XV-20 Fuel Damaging Accidents II-3C' Ultimate Heat Sink III-2 Wind 6 Tornado Loads III-3A High Water Level on-Structures III-3C ISI of Water Control Structures -
N/
i o-ENC!DSURE 1 (cont.)
4 TOPIC SCHEDULE III-4D Site Proximity Missiles February 2, 1981 VI-4 Containment Isolation Sys.
to VI-7C ECCS Single Failure Criterion June 30, 1981 IX-1 Fuel Storage XV-1 Decrease in FW Temp XV-3 Loss of Load XV-4 Loss of Non-Emerg. A-C XV-S Loss of FW XV-7 Recire Pump Seizure XV-8 Control Rod Misoperation XV-9 Starting of Idle Loop v
1 i
r
.,..c.
-y
- -,c
,e--
.sy
,