ML19347D913

Responds to NRC 810227 Ltr Re Environ Qualification of safety-related Electrical Equipment.No Concerns Indicated in Ltr Which Would Interfere W/Continued Safe Operation

ML19347D913
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	04/09/1981
From:	Utley E CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NO-81-627, NUDOCS 8104140460
Download: ML19347D913 (3)

Text

__

. 2 3

April 9, 1981 File: NG-3514(B) Serial No.: NO- 81-627

/ i.._--

I- . . s'e

'[,./','#hq'.

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation , '

ATTENTION: Mr. T. A. Ippolito, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 2 / ;>y United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission / < ..

Washington, D. C. 20555 I:j ((s, g$D p BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 N DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324 \'i,s 9e .

s, r,;f LICENSE NOS. DPR-71 AND DPR-62 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL f g ,- 5 EQUIPMENT - RESPONSE TO PARTIAL REVIEh  %

Dear Mr. Ippolito:

Summary We have received and reviewed Mr. Novak's letter of March 27, 1981 concerning the Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment for our Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Novak requested that we review the alleged defi-ciencies identified in the " Partial Review, Equipment Evaluation Report by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for Carolina Power & Light Company's Brunswick Units 1 & 2," and their ramifications and provide to you an overall finding regarding the continued safe operation of our facility. Our conclusion is that there are no concerns indicated in your letter which would interfere with the continued safe operation of Brunswick Units 1 and 2.

General Comments and Conclusions The comments below deal with what we perceive to be the main points identified by your Partial Review, but there has been insuffi-cient time to permit us to completely analyze each of your alleged deficiencies, nor have we been able to verify whether or not we agree that any of the identified concerns actually constitute a deficiency.

This letter is not intended to provide a complete response to each of the items you have identified and we trust that we will be given an opportunity to deal with these items more fully at a later date.

t 3

i

s. -

After a review of this matter by the responsible personnel, I can state that Carolina Power & Light Company knows of no concerns relating to the environmental qualification of safety-re19ted elec-trical equipment which would interfere with the safe, continued operation of Brunswick Units 1 and 2. Support for this conclusion may be found in our submittals of March 10, 1980, September 15, 1980, October 31, 1980, and January 30, 1981, and in the central qualification data file.

Additional comments on the alleged deficiencies identified in your Partial Review are given below.

One general comment which must be made is that several of the alleged " deficiencies" in the Partial Review appear to be, in fact, new requirements which have never before been articulated. Examples of this are the control room display instrumentation list, the new temperature criteria, and the detailed data requested on the aging programs. More-over, much of the information to resolve the alleged deficiencies is available either in the submittals themselves or in the central qualifi-cation data file.

Comments on Specific Areas Carolina Power & Light Company will provide additional infor-mation as required to resolve your concerns in the areas of qualification method, water spray, and aging when your specific concerns are further defined and clarified. Our review indicates no concerns which would adversely impact the continued safe operation of Brunswick Units 1 and 2.

Schedule Information Carolina Power & Light Company is making every effort to ensure compliance with the June 30, 1982 deadline for achieving environ-mental qualification for our electrical equipment at the Brunswick Plant.

However, this deadline was based on the issuance of the final SER by February 1, 1981. It must be recognized that further delays in our receiving the final Safety Evaluation Report as well as changes in envi-ronmental qualification bases from those which have been established consistent with the DOR Guidelines may seriously jeopardize our ability to meet the June 30, 1982 deadline. It.would be most beneficial if the

4 .

l l

1 final SER provided statements of the factual basis for each identified deficiency, as the lack of specificity in the Partial Review makes it difficult to develop additional data for your staff. It would also be most helpful if the Technical Evaluation Report prepared by Franklin Institute could be transmitted to us.

Yours very truly, p .

~

~$ /~j E. E. Utley Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering & Construction BRM/je (0057) cc: Mr. J. N. Hannon NRC Resident Inspector (BSEP)

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9th day of April, 1981 T w Ad L M m _4 > # ','O"'Er, r Notary Public ,7.'.'.'..,N//

4, My commission expires: October 4, 1981  :

,M E !60TARyt 5 h k#U B l. t C: f 3

t, S

. . . . . . . 4. p counf

,,,,,, , , , ,,,,,qf 1

I 1

l e