ML20244B536
| ML20244B536 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/12/1989 |
| From: | Marsh L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Smith N SEISMIC QUALIFICATION UTILITY GROUP |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20244B539 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8906130159 | |
| Download: ML20244B536 (2) | |
Text
--
l g[p.S RIGg,_ I*g UNITED STATES U ^>TR A l-FlLE g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J
wAsmNoTON, D, C. 20555
%,.... j' W ! ! 1SEg Neil Smith, Chairman Seistic Qualification Utility Group 801 18th Street, H.W.
Suite 300 Washingtor., D.C.
20006
Dear Mr. Smith:
As presented to you on April 25, 1989, the staff has agreed in general vith your March 17, 1989 proposed approach for relay review. The steff alco presented to you the positions on the initial screening criteria and their application. We hope that the application of the new approach will eliminate the use of cabinet amplification factors. However, if there is a need to use cabinet amplification factors for detennining input motion to devices in the cabinet, the following are the staff positions for the imple-mentation of USI A-46:
Notor Control Center 4.0 Switchgear 9.0 Other (to be determined on a case-by-case basis)
The caveats and provisions for the use of the above criteria and the basis for the staff positions are described in Enclosure 1, Technical Evaluation Report (TER), which was completed by the NRC contractor, Southwest Research Institute. The 1ER also provides the evaluations of SQUG positions on the cabinet amplification factors, incorporates the available data from other sources, and provides recomended amplification factors for Motor Control Center and Switchgear.
In the latest SQUG/3SRAP/NRC meeting on May 2, 3 and 4, 1989 in the Crown Plaza, you requested the staff to clarify some of the positions described in ry April 28, 1989 letter. The clarifications are given in Enclosure 2 to this letter.
As the staff mentioned during the meeting, the positions given in the letter represent staff decisions precipitated by your March 17, 1989 letter as well as other related documents and meetings. We urge you to carefully consider these pcsitions and to take issue with only those positions that cause you pagticular concern. Progress in the resolution of this important safety issue l
f
()fs3 f
gaeins m%
r
<@V Eum10 REGUJM CE!al EL!S V
l l
Mr. Neil Smith l will not take place if we devote our efforts to controversial matters that have relatively minor impact on implementation.
If you have any further questions, I
please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely, Ledyard B. Marsh, Chief Mechanical Engineering Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
l As stated I
cc:
L. Shao l
F. Miraglia l
R. Schaffstall, KMC 1
l l
DISTRIBUTION:
Central file EMEB RF AThadani GBagchi SUewberry DJeng JStewart PYChen Chen Chron PTKuo I
LMarsh JRichardson LShao l
PDR l
WHodges LPhillips 1-
'See previous concurrence DEST:EMEB*
DEST:EMEB*
DEST:EMEB EAD: DES PYChen:rst PTKuo LBMarsh JRichard n 5/12/89 5/12/89 5/nL/89 5//pB9
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _