ML13336A028: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 19: Line 19:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:7AUG 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR: Jesse L. Funches, Chief DISTRIBUTION:
{{#Wiki_filter:7AUG 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR:     Jesse L. Funches, Chief                 DISTRIBUTION:
Policy Development and Technical Docket Files Support Branch NRC PDR Local PDR THRU: George W. Knighton, Director PDV Memo Project Directorate V GKnighton Division of Reactor Projects -III, JLee IV, V and Special Projects RDudley HRood FROM: Richard F. Dudley, Jr., Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects -III, IV, V and Special Projects  
Policy Development and Technical         Docket Files Support Branch                         NRC PDR Local PDR THRU:               George W. Knighton, Director             PDV Memo Project Directorate V                   GKnighton Division of Reactor Projects - III,     JLee IV,V and Special Projects             RDudley HRood FROM:               Richard F. Dudley, Jr., Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV,V and Special Projects


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
OPERATOR LICENSING BACKFIT DETERMINATION:
OPERATOR LICENSING BACKFIT DETERMINATION: SAN ONOFRE UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 On July 20, 1987, I spoke with Dennis Cox, the Southern California Edison (SCE) Licensing Supervisor who is responsible for the subject issue. Mr. Cox stated that SCE had contracted with a law firm for an independent evaluation of the staff's Backfit Determination issued on October 31, 1986.
SAN ONOFRE UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 On July 20, 1987, I spoke with Dennis Cox, the Southern California Edison (SCE) Licensing Supervisor who is responsible for the subject issue. Mr. Cox stated that SCE had contracted with a law firm for an independent evaluation of the staff's Backfit Determination issued on October 31, 1986. Mr. Cox stated that the results of the evaluation indicated that SCE had adequate grounds to appeal the staff's determination for all three units. However, with the issuance on March 19, 1987 of the new 10 CFR Part 55, which clearly requires the five facility reactivity control manipulations which formed the basis for the backfit, the licensee has concluded that they will not formally appeal the staff's determination.
Mr. Cox stated that the results of the evaluation indicated that SCE had adequate grounds to appeal the staff's determination for all three units.
However, the licensee's legal consultant has advised that the Backfit Rule may be used as the basis for a request for Exemption from the new 10 CFR Part 55. Mr. Cox then stated that SCE plans to submit such an Exemption request for staff evaluation in approximately one month. The above information is provided so that you may update the NRR Monthly Backfitting Status Report as appropriate.
However, with the issuance on March 19, 1987 of the new 10 CFR Part 55, which clearly requires the five facility reactivity control manipulations which formed the basis for the backfit, the licensee has concluded that they will not formally appeal the staff's determination. However, the licensee's legal consultant has advised that the Backfit Rule may be used as the basis for a request for Exemption from the new 10 CFR Part 55. Mr. Cox then stated that SCE plans to submit such an Exemption request for staff evaluation in approximately one month.
We recommend that the Backfit appeal issue be indicated as closed and that the anticipated Exemption request be handled as a separate licensing action. Original signed by: George W. Knighton Richard F. Dudley, Jr., Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects -III, IV, V and Special Projects cc: D. Crutchfield G. Holahan B. Boger J. Hannon S. Black J. Scinto Office: PM/6P PM/PDV P Surname: RDudley/tg HRood G ton Date: 08/ /87 08/ /87 08/ /87 870813000e 870807 PDR ADOCK 05000206 V ~PDR~}}
The above information is provided so that you may update the NRR Monthly Backfitting Status Report as appropriate. We recommend that the Backfit appeal issue be indicated as closed and that the anticipated Exemption request be handled as a separate licensing action.
Original signed by:
George W.Knighton Richard F. Dudley, Jr., Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV,V and Special Projects cc:   D. Crutchfield G. Holahan B. Boger J. Hannon S. Black J. Scinto Office:   PM/6P           PM/PDV           P Surname:   RDudley/tg     HRood           G       ton Date:     08/ /87         08/ /87         08/   /87 870813000e 870807 PDR ADOCK 05000206 V           ~PDR~}}

Latest revision as of 11:49, 4 November 2019

Discusses Util Contract W/Lawfirm for Independent Evaluation of NRC 861031 Operator Licensing Backfit Determination.D Cox Stated Util Justified in Appealing Determination.Util Will Seek Exemption from 10CFR55 Instead of Formal Appeal
ML13336A028
Person / Time
Site: San Onofre  Southern California Edison icon.png
Issue date: 08/07/1987
From: Dudley R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Funches J
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-61842 NUDOCS 8708130008
Download: ML13336A028 (1)


Text

7AUG 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR: Jesse L. Funches, Chief DISTRIBUTION:

Policy Development and Technical Docket Files Support Branch NRC PDR Local PDR THRU: George W. Knighton, Director PDV Memo Project Directorate V GKnighton Division of Reactor Projects - III, JLee IV,V and Special Projects RDudley HRood FROM: Richard F. Dudley, Jr., Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV,V and Special Projects

SUBJECT:

OPERATOR LICENSING BACKFIT DETERMINATION: SAN ONOFRE UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 On July 20, 1987, I spoke with Dennis Cox, the Southern California Edison (SCE) Licensing Supervisor who is responsible for the subject issue. Mr. Cox stated that SCE had contracted with a law firm for an independent evaluation of the staff's Backfit Determination issued on October 31, 1986.

Mr. Cox stated that the results of the evaluation indicated that SCE had adequate grounds to appeal the staff's determination for all three units.

However, with the issuance on March 19, 1987 of the new 10 CFR Part 55, which clearly requires the five facility reactivity control manipulations which formed the basis for the backfit, the licensee has concluded that they will not formally appeal the staff's determination. However, the licensee's legal consultant has advised that the Backfit Rule may be used as the basis for a request for Exemption from the new 10 CFR Part 55. Mr. Cox then stated that SCE plans to submit such an Exemption request for staff evaluation in approximately one month.

The above information is provided so that you may update the NRR Monthly Backfitting Status Report as appropriate. We recommend that the Backfit appeal issue be indicated as closed and that the anticipated Exemption request be handled as a separate licensing action.

Original signed by:

George W.Knighton Richard F. Dudley, Jr., Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV,V and Special Projects cc: D. Crutchfield G. Holahan B. Boger J. Hannon S. Black J. Scinto Office: PM/6P PM/PDV P Surname: RDudley/tg HRood G ton Date: 08/ /87 08/ /87 08/ /87 870813000e 870807 PDR ADOCK 05000206 V ~PDR~