ML20005A162
| ML20005A162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/19/1981 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-97 NUDOCS 8106290464 | |
| Download: ML20005A162 (2) | |
Text
OwME<tk 6N %
O * %,h yV W'
UNITED STATES
,f f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
t-
- y WAsmNGTON,0. C. 70555
\\...../
% 19, 1981 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire Debevoise and Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W.
IN RESPONSE REFER Washington, DC 20036 TO F0IA 81-97
Dear Mr. Reynolds:
This is in partial response to your letter dated March 10, 1981 in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, copies of documents relating to 18 categories on CLI-80-21 regarding environmental qualifications of safety-related electrical equipment.
The documents listed on the appendix are enclosed.
The NRC has not completed its review of the remaining documents subject to your request. We will respond as soon as the review is completed.
Sincerely,
, %,vf kMG.1-
/[~ Division of Rules and Records
. M. Felton, Director
[
Office of Administration tnclosures: As stated
- 9 O
U5 q
,r * -
o f;5-na
- !a ii5 O-
- ,i =
N5IN re NU y
=w M
c1 5
~~~
8106200
r
,a t
APPENDIX 81-97 1.
July 21,1971 Ltr'to J.-Foster, GE,'from Stephen Hanauer 2.
Undated Questions and Answers re environmental qualification (This document is a part of the staff responses to Commission questions on June 21, 1978 and also an attachment to the 6/6/79 memo to Commissioner Bradford fromTomGibbon) i I
i h
t I
V i
l r
i.
i r
a _:.
-r a
Law orreccs or DEGEVOISE & LIBERMAN IrOO $ EVENTE CNTH STN r gT, N w.
WASHING TON. O C 10036 vrttewoNc (ror) es,.osoo March 10, 1981 J. M.
Felton ERE,.EDOM OF INFORMATION Director
. ACT REQUEST Division of Rules and Records kOTA -8/- Q J Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission pnM#cIJ~M Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear Mr. Felton:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.
$552) and NRC Regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 9), Debevoise &
Liberman requests copies of all documents prepared by the NRC, its Staff and consultants relative to the following:
1.
Any assessment (including, but not limited to, those generated by OELD and/or OGC) regarding the decision not to issue the draft " Final Rule,"
transmitted to Thomas R.
Gibbon, Jr., by Howard Shapar on August 29, 1980, to codify re-quirements related to environmental qualifica-tions of safety-related electrical equipment, announced by the Commission in CLI-80-21 (May 30, 1980, 11 NRC 707, "CLI-80-21").
2.
The September 2, 1980 letter from H.
R.
Denton to R.
B.- Minogue concerning "the advisability of developing in a broad single rulemaking action an amendment to 10 C.F.R. 50 which would include (1) the rulemaking directed by the Commission, on environmental qualification of electrical equipment (CLI-80-21), (2) the rulemaking proposed in the Commission paper from I&E (Secy-80-139), on inde-pendent verification and testing and inspection of equipment's environmental qualification, and (3) broadly assess the qualification of both electrical b 0 -t b JGh] $#
o J.
M.
Felton March 10, 1981 Page two and mechanical e"quipment... for seismic and dynamic loading conditions...", all responses thereto, any assess:.nnts.thereof, and a list of persons to whosa copies of the letter were sent.
3.
The July 11, 1979 Commission briefing by the Staff concerning licensing responses to I&E Bulle-tin 79-01 and any resulting documenta.
4.
The schedule for revising NUREG-0588 in response to any previously received public comments and any status reports concerning achievement of such schedule.
5.
The basis for the assertion in H.
R.
Denton's August 24, 1979 memorandum to Commissioner Kennedy entitled "UCS Petition for Rulemaking" at p.
II.3 that compliance with IEE STD 323-1974 could be demonstrated in three to four years.
6.
The basis for the assertion in H.R.
Denton's August 24, 1979 memorandum to Commissioner Kenr.edy enti-tied "UCS Petition for Reconsideration" at p.
II.3 that there are adequate test facilities to enable affected NRC licensees to demonstrate compliance with IEE STD 323-1974.
7.
All bi-monthly progress reports advising the Commission and public of the status of int ;mplete environmental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment, along with corrective actions taken or planned, prepared pursuant to CLI-80-21 and/or all statements concerning the status of such progress reports if they were not prepared.
8.
The basis for the statement on page 9 of CLI-80-21 that "some licensees did not meet the time dead-lines imposed and did not provide the information required by Bulletin 79-01, that others had un-qualified equipment in their plants, that others did not have the documentation required to show qualification and that still others did not in-clude such documentation".
9.
The basis for the statement in CLI-80-21 at page 12 that "by no later than June 30, 1982, all L
C o
a J. M.
Felton March 10, 1981 Page three sa fety-related electrical equipment in all oper-ating plants shall be qualified to DOR Guidelines or NUREG-0588."
10.
All Commission questions directed to the Staff in-cluding but not limited to those of October 6, December 6, and December 12, 1978 concerning issues raised by the UCS May 2, 1978 Petition for Recon-sideration.
11.
The July 6, 1978 Staff' responses to the June 27, 1978 Commission order that the Staff provided views on all issues raised by the UCS Petition for Recon-sideration submitted on May 2, 1978.
12.
The October 26, 1978 Staff response to questions directed to it by the Commission in response to issues raised in the May 2, 1978 UCS Petition for reconsideration.
13.
The August 4, 1978 memorandum from Commissioner Bradford to the Staff requesting it to provide generic Staff responses to industry questions on the DOR Guidelines and NUREG-0588.
14.
The August 24, 1979 Staff response to Commission questions raised by the May 2, 1978 UCS Petition for Reconsideration and the March 7, 1979 UCS Motion for Expedited Decision Making.
15.
The August 31, 1978 Staff response to tne June 27, 1978 Commission request that the Staff provide its views on all issues raised by the UCS Petition for Reconsideration submitted on May 2, 1978.
16.
The September 19, 1978 Staff clarification of its response to the June 27, 1978 Commission request that the Staff provide its views on all issues raised by the May 2, 1978 UCS Petition for Recon-sideration.
17.
Any assessments, evaluations, or surveys regarding the ability of operating plant licensees to comply with the requirements for environmental qualifica-tion of safety-related electrical equipment by June 30, 1982 as required in the CLI-80-21.
~
.o J. M. Felton March 10, 1981 Page four 18.
Secy-80-370.
Such documents should include any drafts, supporting materials, studies, or other such reports, correspondence, or testimony, regarding the aforementioned areas of interest.
We would appreciate your prompt response to this request within the ten working day period af forded by 10 C.F.R. Part 9.
Sincer 1 f
A N
Nichol Reynolds 1
.(
ATTACHF. INT D
~
- f..N. '
h UNITED fiTATES I-(. A. :,/\\*A ATOMIC ENERO COMMIS510N s,T
- wxssisc io.. o.c. nsas b
j.
5.
. 1,.
e,,,, :-
July 21, 1971
.~A 1 ?
4 s
N Mr. J. Forscer
- l"no Ato=ic Pc er Iquipment Department g.
Ce=eral Electric Company - M/Co3)
NOV 4 ;37I >/-(
t_
175 Curtner Avenue
~~
os.
San Jose, California 95125 o
c+4."s.es.%
i y -c
Subject:
IEEE-323 *
%nt,s,/\\
Dear Jay:
My co==eh:s on this decu=en: vere solici:ed by Mr. Sherr in his lette r of June 21, 1971.
He should not have done it.
/
I cannot find a single redeeming feature in this worthless document.
Far fro = being wh : its title sugges:s; it contains only the most gene -
>g al kind of s:uff on how to qualify some:hing - anything.
The body of the docunen: is not even specific enough to be related to electrical equipment.
_Turther cre, the various clauses are so general that it's essentially i=possible to determine compliance.
Fcr these reasons the referenced docu=ent in its present for= is, as I'said above, withou:
value./
Sincerely yours,'
- f. T 1
\\
M 1
i St phen H. Hanauer i
Louis Costrell,6.
cc:
Sava I Sherr
\\
e*
t R k b'.
f (-
,b '
d
.e red
{
s r
s
\\
p. i t c,,?g 1'
s r
,, g NUCLE AR REGULATORY CO..'*41s510N h
WASHINGT ON. D. C. 20555 We/i APP ti 1979
)
%, v'f i
tiOTE TO:
Attached List -
l FF.Gi:
S. H. Hanauer, Assistant Director for Plant Syster.s, DSS
SUBJECT:
1.
EINIR0'iMEf4TAL QUAllFICATION 2.
IliSTRUMEllTATION TO FOLLOW THE COURSE OF AN ACCIDENT
~
I believe that as a result of the TMI accident, we have to rethink:
.I 1.
Environmental Qualification envelope 2.
Things which have to be qualified 3.
RG 1.97 implementation T
4.
Backfitting Changes in my thinking include:
~
1.
Core damage is credible 2.
Long-tenn plant operation is essential; initiation isn't.
j enough j
3.
LOCA and SLB may not give an envelope that includes the TMI experience i
4.
t!e are relying heaviTy on things not defined as " safety-related" (Browns Ferry was like that, also) i:
')'
I believe that we will be required, ju.stifiably, to hasten the pace of 1
review and backfitting decisions. 1!e can't be definitely quantitative i
'.[
until we have better data than now available (for eyample, dose rates),
1 but we can start thinking in principle.,
.f Please start thinking'about this problem.
I will set a due date for l
. li yo.ur ideas as soon as we get off the night shif t.
I
};
,M
,y S;
i 1
.... Hanauer,'A sistant Director
~
'g
- 2. '
. - ~. :"
/ or Plant Systems
.. l f
_f
,.. Division of Systems Safety
.}
p
_.-]-
cc:
G. Arlotto R..Boyd
.g R. 9eYoung g.
M.
R. Mattson,
5 D. Ross J. Sniezek of V. Stello
.e "Y
_=
p y
p
.