ML20070U925

Reaffirms Justification for Continued Operation & Submits Info Re Category I.B,Ii.A & Ii.B Items,Per Forwarding Safety Evaluation for Environ Qualification of safety-related Electrical Equipment

ML20070U925
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	02/04/1983
From:	Daltroff S PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8302140086
Download: ML20070U925 (2)

Text

i

/

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 2301 M ARKET STREET P.O. BOX 8699 PHILADELPHI A PA.19101 SHIELDS L DALTROFF ELacTmc n o CTiom February 4, 1983 Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 Mr . Joht. F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Stolz:

In your letter of December 20, 1982 forwarding the Safety Evaluation for Environmental Qualification (EQ) of Safety Related Electrical Equipment, you r~e quested that we 1) reaffirm the justification for continued operation and 2) submit.

information regarding items in NRC categories I.B, II.A and II.B (presented in the enclosed Technical Evaluation Reports). This

information was requested to be submitted within 30 days of l receipt of your letter. As discussed with the Peach Bottom i Project Manager, Mr. G. Gears, there was a delay until January 5, 1983 in Philadelphia Electric Company receiving the Technical Evaluation Report (TER) which had been mailed separately.

We have reviewed the environmental qualification documentation for the equipment in NRC categories I.B (Qualification Pendi::g Modification) and II.A. (Qualification Not Established). As confirmed by a review of the PBAPS TER's, no equipment exists in category II.B (Not Qualified). Based upon our review, we have concluded that the continued operation of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station does not constitute an undue risk to public health and safety due to the failure, for ,

environmental causes, of safety related electrical equipment ()h k which would be required to mitigate the consequences of a postulated accident.

The category I.B items, with the exception of item 125, which we believe to be an incorrect categorization, were addressed in our Justification for Continued Operation (JCO),

8302140086 830204 i PDR ADOCK 050002{

P 1 . .-. - - -- . - - - - . . - - - . - . ..

S Mr. John F2 Stolz, Chief Page 2 which was forwarded by letter dated February 11, 1982 (S. L.

Daltroff to J. F. Stolz) and revised February 19, 1932. We have no reason to believe that this JCO has changed.

With regard to the Category II.A items, we have evaluated the review contained in the TER prepared by the NRC's consultants. After reviewing the available environmental qualification documentation in concert with the TER, we have concluded that the equipment contained in this category is environmentally qualified to the D.O.R. guidelines. Further, we have requested, through our project manager, that a meeting be arranged with the NRC equipment qualification branch to present our bases for this conclusion.

Our testing prograin is continuing and we shall promptly report and correct any problem that may be revealed. This has recently been demonstrated with respect to radiation effects on a General Electric Company Type CR2940 switch as reported in License Event Report 2-83-01/lT-0.

If there are any questions or should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

%sK)lf

/- s

/ Wj cc: Site Inspector I