ML20003E835
| ML20003E835 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1981 |
| From: | Morisi A BOSTON EDISON CO. |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 81-77, NUDOCS 8104170319 | |
| Download: ML20003E835 (2) | |
Text
f~~Xu I
v BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
- [6L/[h.A aswam.c orrics. eco sav6. rom stesst
....=..............
4.v. ~o=<=i 97 MR'l 51sg
~ " g g,7 E^=u',"noar oceaaracur M
uucoc4= encarr n
9 April 13, 1981 47g g -
BECo Ltr. #81-77 Mr. Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Resctor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 License No. DPR-35 Docket No. 50-293 Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment - Response to Partial Review Ref. (a)
U. S. NRC Letter to Boston Edison Company dated 3/30/81 (b) Boston Edison Company Letter #80-272 dated 10/29/80
Dear Sir:
Your letter, Reference (a), transmitted the preliminary results of your review of environmental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. The attachments toyour letter provided a list of potential equipment deficiencies which you requested us to review and provide a written statement supporting the safe operation of Pilgrim Station that takes this list into account.
We have reviewed the data provided in Reference (a) and have concluded that the information did not cause us to alter our previous positions as presented in Reference (b). During our review, however, it was noted that l
your list of potential deficiencies included many items which we had judged to be resolved.
Our judgement was based on qualification test reports, vendor information, or our own analytical work.
Since this information was neither required nor requested to be submitted your list of potential deficiencies was prepared without the benefit of this data.
\\
I Jo0
's de 83 04 n osq P
EQ'JTCN EHCON CIMPANY-fir. Thomas M. flovak April 13,1981 It is possible that you possess supporting documentation that we have not seen which led to your conclusion that an item was potentially deficient.
It would be to our mutual advantage to meet and discuss your review prior to issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report. The idvantages of this are twofold.
First, it would ensure that the SER accurately reflects the status of equipment installed in Pilgrim Station. Second, it would enable us to properly direct our post-SER efforts, having reached agreement with the Staff on the need and substance of additional infomation. Please contact us at your earliest convenience to arrange the meeting.
In conclusion, please be advised that there are no concerns indicated in your letter which would interfere with the continued safe operation of Pilgrim fiuclear Power Station.
Very truly yours, i
Commonwealth of Massachusetts)
County of Suffolk
)
Then personally appeared before ce A. Victor Morisi, who, being duly sworn, did state that he is Manager of the fluclear Operations Support Department -
Boston Edison Company, the applicant herein, and that he is duly authorized to execute and file the submittal contained herein in the name and on behalf of Boston Edison Company and that the statements in said submittal are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
NbiOf
- J>
My Comission Expires: July 6, 1984 ye, y
.,-,...---.,_m.,,,,,.,n.-..
-,w..--m.._
.---,,g..,-
.,m.