ML20148J617
| ML20148J617 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1976 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011250083 | |
| Download: ML20148J617 (2) | |
Text
.
a nta.
.I.
UNITED ST ATES
.[i,,
L. [3
.?. e
.#4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
- L
'(
'[
. WASHINGTON, D, c. 2035s f
f.y '
g g s..,
' g,d/ ~
d
~
June 25, 1976 iyl
~
.,g.
Docket'Nos.
,. 50-271
-E and 50-309 i
/
Memo to Files TELEPHONE CONVERSATION: 'NEWSMEDIAINQUIRYbNREQUESTFORISSUANCE OF SHON CAUSE ORDER TO YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY
~
On June 16, 1976,. I returned a call from Ms. Pat Dolo of the Springfield Daily News (413)-787-5171.
She was seeking information related to a petition 'or issuance of a show cause order, related to QA of Yankee Atomic Electric Company.
Said petition being the one submitted June 11, 1976, by The New E.'
E England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, Inc. (NECNP) and Safe Power for Maine (SPM).
(.y She asked whether Mr. Stello had ac.tually stated:
"The three plants have no acceptable Quality Assurance Program..." as claimed in that f:
5 June 11, 1976 petition. I said no, that.what he actually stated in an i:i April 9, 1976 Ictter to the company was that Yankee Atomic Elcetric Company had not docketed a QA Program description that meets current p.
G NRC requirements.
By way of clarification, I pointe,d out that the staff had reviewed and approved the company's Quality Assurance Program in 1972 during I
the licensing review of the Mainc Yankee and Vermont Yankco plants.
it I also noted that, although Yankee-Rowe was licensed in 1961, well U
before the NRC issued its 10 CFR 50 Appendix B QA criteria, that QA Progran has be'en applied there also.
1 Ms. Delo said she understood that the company felt that the NRC had been changing its requirements on what standards and guides its QA program must be shown to meet.
l?
For perspective, I said that since these three plants were licensed, the staff and industry have developed and continue to actually develop more specific and improved guidance related to how the QA requirements of Appendix B can be satisfied.
THIS DOCUMENT CONT
[
POOR QUAUTY PAGES
(
,/
.a
/
8011250C[]
f
(.
s s
o Files June 25, 1976 r-As to a' firm set of guidelines to be used by Yankee Atomic Electric Company to prepare its revised QA Program for submittal to the NRC, I told her this had now been resolved and that this resolution is documented in a May 6, 1976 letter from NRC and a May 26, 1976 reply from the company and that the company has stated its intention to submit its revised QA program based on thr/sc guidelines by September 1, 1976.
She asked whether adherence to this revised QA program would require design changes at the plants and I replied that they should not.
She also asked if future QA guidelines would be imposed on these plants and whether such guidelines might require further revisions a
to the company's QA Program.
In responding, I tried to get across the idea that the nuclear regulatory process is dynamic, not static, and l
l that changes which will result in significant safety' improvements
. can be expected from time to time.
C eh A, Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors cc:
V. Stello D. J. Skovholt R. Reid DISTRIBUTION C. J. Heltcmes Docket 50-29 W. R. Butler Docket 50-271' V. Rooney Decket 50-309 P. DiBenedetto ORB-1 Reading A. Burger ASchwencer, C. Miles SSheppard W, Olmstead R.Reid I'
NRC PDR (3)
RIngram KRGoller T. J. Carter DDR:0RB-1 l
ASfi J5heer: esp l
0/ 25/76
.