ML20052H855
| ML20052H855 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 05/19/1982 |
| From: | Swanson D NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Buck J, Quarles L, Rosenthal A NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052H856 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8205240080 | |
| Download: ML20052H855 (2) | |
Text
..
j DEI (RIGIEAD N, y
- %i44{l V
D SO 7 May 19, 1982 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Dr. John Buck-Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor.dssion Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Larence R. Quarles Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 In the Matter of Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-338 0.L. and 50-339 0.L.
Dear Members of the Appeal Board:
In response to your letter to me dated May 10, 1982 in the above referenced proceeding, I am sending to the Appeal Board as an attachment to this letter a copy of " Supplemental Testimony of Warren S. Hazelton and Clifford D. Sellers Regardint Turbine Inspection Schedules For North Anna 1 and 2," dated May 19, 1982. The Staff is hopeful that the attached testimony is fully responsive to the questions posed by the Appeal Board in-its May 10, 1982 letter.
Consistent with the position taken by counsel for VEPC0 in his letter to the Appeal Board dated October 21, 1981, at page 15, the Staff does not intend to impose the inspection interval schedule referenced in the attached testimony of Messrs. Hazelton and Sellers on VEPC0 in the form of a license condition or technical specification in the North Anna Units 1 and 2 operating licenses.
Rather, the Staff intends to rely on the commitment from VEPC0 to adhere to the schedule as an acceptable resolution of the turbine missile issue, as it has done for all other operating facilities having Westinghouse turbines.
Counsel for VEPC0 has assured me that VEPC0 does indeed commit to abide by the inspection interval spelled out by the Staff in the attached testimony (i.e. 34.9 months and 32.5 months, S
//
B205240080 820519 PDR ADOCK 05000333 T
. respectively, for Units 1 and 2) until at least the next turbine inspection for each unit using these intervals.
At that time, the Staff should be prepared to conclude whether credit can be taken for containment of poten-tial turbine disc missiles for the number 1 discs for each unit. Since these numbers are slightly lower than the numbers committed to by VEPC0 earlier, counsel for VEPC0 has indicated that he will be sending written confirmation of this revised commitment next week, a copy of which will be sent to the Appeal Board by Mr. Christman.
Counsel for VEPC0 has also assured me that VEPC0 will be revising its FSAR for North Anna 1 and 2 to reflect, among other things, the turbine inspection intervals committed to.
By incorporating these inspection intervals into_the FSAR, the inspection schedule would then be subject to the restrictions set forth in 10 C.F.R. 50.59.
Sincerely, Daniel T. Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff cc w/ encl: Service List DISTRIBUTION:
DTSwanson HJMcGurren SATreby MKarman ELD FF (2)
Cunningham/Murray Christenbury/Scinto LEngle DMB-PDR/LPDR Chron i
- l-p ' amatW3 l0FC
_____:____________:_____"__'_____: W___ _ /_
g -
- ggg p j,4 -
~~
+
i__:___gJ.7__[L:_'
! NAME : 9 Siw w * % :
4(
1 s
,.G_____:.___ ~_ _w ~__:.____________:.___
_____:-___________:___________~_:___/_D/
1 :
DATE : 5 //7 /r 1:
Sh/44: $
.n/f3' M \\Q(SM "I
/
\\'
\\
t