ML20080C596: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:- | ||
CC' ' M ' | CC' ' M ' | ||
;/~ | |||
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMNISSId84 FEB -6 P1 :04 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _ . | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMNISSId84 FEB -6 P1 :04 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _. | ||
60$fIi$N'SkIV: | 60$fIi$N'SkIV: | ||
BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES | BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES ERANCH Lawrence Brenner, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Peter A. Morris In the Matter of Docket Nos. 30-3 2-0? | ||
iS-953-OL PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY | iS-953-OL PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY | ||
/ | |||
(Limerick Generating Station, | (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) | ||
Units 1 and 2) | |||
INTERROGATORIES 0F THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TECHNICAL STAFF Kindly respond to the following requests as they apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ("NRC") review of the environmental qualification of equipment at the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station. | INTERROGATORIES 0F THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TECHNICAL STAFF Kindly respond to the following requests as they apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ("NRC") review of the environmental qualification of equipment at the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station. | ||
22. | |||
Did the NRC request a list from PECO of all systems and components important-to-safety? | |||
( | If yes, please provide the response. | ||
23. | |||
l | Has the NRC determined that PECO is using the proper definitions | ||
( | |||
of safety-related and important-to-safety in their Environmental Qualification program and classification of structures, systems, and components? | |||
24. | |||
What review did the NRC perform of the Appedix A list in the LGS l | |||
l Environmental Qualification program for: | |||
a. | |||
completeness b. | |||
accuracy c. | |||
correct use of safety classifiction terms and definitions 25. | |||
a. | |||
Has the Staff concluded that PECO has properly considered 8402080146 840203 i | |||
i PDR ADOCK 05000352 g | |||
PDR | |||
all important-to-safety equipment. | |||
b. | |||
: 26. Have you requested that PECO provide a list of all important-to safety equipment which is subject to a harsh environment during an accident for which exception is taken with respect to that harsh environment? | If yes, provide the basis. | ||
: 26. Have you requested that PECO provide a list of all important-to safety equipment which is subject to a harsh environment during an accident for which exception is taken with respect to that harsh environment? | |||
items important-to safety and in a harsh environment but not qualified? | If yes, provide a copy of their response. | ||
If no, explain the basis for concluding PECO complies with 10 CFR $50.49. | |||
27. | |||
Did the Staff review the basis for exclusions from the Q List of items important-to safety and in a harsh environment but not qualified? | |||
Describe the review performed. | Describe the review performed. | ||
28. | |||
Has the NRC accepted the exceptions PECO is taking to installing the Regulatory Guide 1.97, Rev. 2 equipment? | |||
If so, please identify all equipment PECO is not installing and the NRC's basis for accepting this position. | |||
29. | |||
Has the NRC reviewed the alternate equipment used instead of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Rev. 2 equipment for adequacy in the Environmental Qualification program? | |||
l | If yes, provide the basis for acceptance of each piece of a. | ||
alternate equipment. | |||
LGS equipment operability is not inpaired due to | b. | ||
If no, provide the basis for not conduction such a review. | |||
~ | |||
l 30. | |||
Kindly provide any actions the NRC Staff has taken to insure that i | |||
LGS equipment operability is not inpaired due to a. | |||
qualification methodology shortcomings; h. | |||
design bases shortcomings; l | |||
c. | |||
inadequate equipment. | |||
l | l | ||
==Reference:== | ==Reference:== | ||
Environmental Qualification Briefing of Chairman By Sandia (Board Notification 044), January 5,1984. | Environmental Qualification Briefing of Chairman By Sandia (Board Notification 044), January 5,1984. | ||
l l | l l | ||
( | Dated: | ||
February.3, 1984 | |||
(.}} | |||
Latest revision as of 22:27, 14 December 2024
| ML20080C596 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1984 |
| From: | PHILADELPHIA, PA |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080C572 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8402080146 | |
| Download: ML20080C596 (2) | |
Text
-
CC' ' M '
- /~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMNISSId84 FEB -6 P1 :04 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD _.
60$fIi$N'SkIV:
BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES ERANCH Lawrence Brenner, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Peter A. Morris In the Matter of Docket Nos. 30-3 2-0?
iS-953-OL PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
/
(Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
INTERROGATORIES 0F THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TECHNICAL STAFF Kindly respond to the following requests as they apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ("NRC") review of the environmental qualification of equipment at the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station.
22.
Did the NRC request a list from PECO of all systems and components important-to-safety?
If yes, please provide the response.
23.
Has the NRC determined that PECO is using the proper definitions
(
of safety-related and important-to-safety in their Environmental Qualification program and classification of structures, systems, and components?
24.
What review did the NRC perform of the Appedix A list in the LGS l
l Environmental Qualification program for:
a.
completeness b.
accuracy c.
correct use of safety classifiction terms and definitions 25.
a.
Has the Staff concluded that PECO has properly considered 8402080146 840203 i
i PDR ADOCK 05000352 g
all important-to-safety equipment.
b.
If yes, provide the basis.
- 26. Have you requested that PECO provide a list of all important-to safety equipment which is subject to a harsh environment during an accident for which exception is taken with respect to that harsh environment?
If yes, provide a copy of their response.
If no, explain the basis for concluding PECO complies with 10 CFR $50.49.
27.
Did the Staff review the basis for exclusions from the Q List of items important-to safety and in a harsh environment but not qualified?
Describe the review performed.
28.
Has the NRC accepted the exceptions PECO is taking to installing the Regulatory Guide 1.97, Rev. 2 equipment?
If so, please identify all equipment PECO is not installing and the NRC's basis for accepting this position.
29.
Has the NRC reviewed the alternate equipment used instead of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Rev. 2 equipment for adequacy in the Environmental Qualification program?
If yes, provide the basis for acceptance of each piece of a.
alternate equipment.
b.
If no, provide the basis for not conduction such a review.
~
l 30.
Kindly provide any actions the NRC Staff has taken to insure that i
LGS equipment operability is not inpaired due to a.
qualification methodology shortcomings; h.
design bases shortcomings; l
c.
inadequate equipment.
l
Reference:
Environmental Qualification Briefing of Chairman By Sandia (Board Notification 044), January 5,1984.
l l
Dated:
February.3, 1984
(.