ML20236F970: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, NRC TO UTILITY, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE | | document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, NRC TO UTILITY, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE | ||
| page count = 2 | | page count = 2 | ||
| project = TAC:52925, TAC:52926, TAC:53761, TAC:53762 | |||
| stage = Approval | |||
}} | }} | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:F | {{#Wiki_filter:F am ato | ||
am ato | 'o UNITED STATES 8 | ||
g g | |||
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g | |||
e t WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s | |||
E JUL 2 9 1987 Docket Nos.: 50-321 | |||
Docket Nos.: 50-321 and 50-366 Mr. James P. O'Reilly Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operation Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 | ~ | ||
and 50-366 Mr. James P. O'Reilly Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operation Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 | |||
==Dear Mr. O'Reilly:== | ==Dear Mr. O'Reilly:== | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Safety Evaluation for Generic Letter 83-28 Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 (TACS 52925/52926/53761/53762) | Safety Evaluation for Generic Letter 83-28 Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 (TACS 52925/52926/53761/53762) | ||
Re: Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 By letters dated November 7,1983 and February 29, 1984, Georgia Pcwer Company provided infomation regarding its response to Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of Gereric Letter 83-28. Our initial review of these responses found them to be incomplete and a Request for Additional Infomation was forwarded to GPC by NRC letter dated December 23, 1985. | Re: Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 By letters dated November 7,1983 and February 29, 1984, Georgia Pcwer Company provided infomation regarding its response to Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of Gereric Letter 83-28. Our initial review of these responses found them to be incomplete and a Request for Additional Infomation was forwarded to GPC by NRC {{letter dated|date=December 23, 1985|text=letter dated December 23, 1985}}. | ||
By letter dated August 21,1986 (SL-1105), you supplemented your earlier-letters. You indicated that your response to Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 still was not complete, due to your identified need to incorporate vendor and engineering recommendations and post-maintenance testing into all plant procedures, not just safety-related procedures. | By {{letter dated|date=August 21, 1986|text=letter dated August 21,1986}} (SL-1105), you supplemented your earlier-letters. You indicated that your response to Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 still was not complete, due to your identified need to incorporate vendor and engineering recommendations and post-maintenance testing into all plant procedures, not just safety-related procedures. | ||
stated that approximately 5,000 procedures were involved and you estimated | You stated that approximately 5,000 procedures were involved and you estimated i | ||
that your programs would not be complete for the mechanical and electrical i | |||
complete the remaining procedures. | procedures until late 1986, and that it would be late 1987 before you would complete the remaining procedures. | ||
In response to several telephone conversations with Region II during June 1987, you submitted an additional supplemental res four GL 83-28 items by letter dated July 1,1987 (ponse | In response to several telephone conversations with Region II during June 1987, you submitted an additional supplemental res four GL 83-28 items by {{letter dated|date=July 1, 1987|text=letter dated July 1,1987}} (ponse regarding these SL-2709). Our review of this letter indicated that your program regarding these items still was not complete. During an additional telephone conversation with your repre-sentative on July 7,1987, we learned that the program had slipped such that the estimated date for completion of surveillance procedures is now December 1987, and for all other procedures, December 1988. | ||
that the estimated date for completion of surveillance procedures is now December 1987, and for all other procedures, December 1988. | |||
l l | l l | ||
We discussed the status of the review and your procedure upgrade program. | We discussed the status of the review and your procedure upgrade program. | ||
December 1987 and December 1988 acceptable. However, should there be l | l Based upon the information submitted in your letters and the discussions j | ||
during our telephone conversation, we find that your current actions re-a garding procedure roview and upgrade are acceptable. | |||
Further, in view of 1 | |||
the large number of procedures involved, we find the completion dates of December 1987 and December 1988 acceptable. However, should there be l | |||
S M S A 8cl N !!P e | |||
e | |||
1 | 1 Mr. J. P. O'Reilly JUL 2 9 7987 - | ||
further slippage in your procedure upgrade program, you should provide adequate justification for any extension of time requested.- Details re-garding our evaluation are presented in the enclosed Safety Evaluation. | further slippage in your procedure upgrade program, you should provide adequate justification for any extension of time requested.- Details re-garding our evaluation are presented in the enclosed Safety Evaluation. | ||
We shall continue to monitor the progress of your procedure upgrade program. | We shall continue to monitor the progress of your procedure upgrade program. | ||
However, a'; noted in the enclosed Safety Evaluation, we have concluded that your responses relating to Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 meet the intent of Generic Letter 83-28 and are acceptable. We therefore consider these items to be closed. | However, a'; noted in the enclosed Safety Evaluation, we have concluded that your responses relating to Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 meet the intent of Generic Letter 83-28 and are acceptable. | ||
Sincerely, | We therefore consider these items to be closed. | ||
l6k Lawrence P. Crocker, Project Manager-Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II | Sincerely, l6k Lawrence P. Crocker, Project Manager-Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II | ||
==Enclosure:== | ==Enclosure:== | ||
As stated cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION: | As stated cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION: | ||
Docket File | Docket File | ||
NRC PDR Local PDR PRC System PD#23 Reading MDuncan LCrocker | { | ||
ACRS (10) | NRC PDR Local PDR PRC System PD#23 Reading MDuncan LCrocker l | ||
EJordan JPartlow Glainas SVarga MSinkule. RII TConlon, RII AHerdt, RII | OGC-Bethesda ACRS (10) | ||
j | EJordan JPartlow Glainas SVarga MSinkule. RII TConlon, RII AHerdt, RII 1 | ||
PD#II-3/DRP-1/II | NMerriweather, RII T!4acArthur, RII I | ||
l | j PD#II-3/DRP-1/II | ||
-// | |||
I/II MDun'c}'anPD#j p/DRP-I/II PD#1J LCrocker/mac BJYo ood 07/A9/87 07/f//87 07 l | |||
- - - _ - - - _ - - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ -}} | - - - _ - - - _ - - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ -}} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:02, 3 December 2024
| ML20236F970 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1987 |
| From: | Crocker L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | James O'Reilly GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236F972 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, TAC-52925, TAC-52926, TAC-53761, TAC-53762, NUDOCS 8708040079 | |
| Download: ML20236F970 (2) | |
Text
F am ato
'o UNITED STATES 8
g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
e t WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s
E JUL 2 9 1987 Docket Nos.: 50-321
~
and 50-366 Mr. James P. O'Reilly Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operation Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Subject:
Safety Evaluation for Generic Letter 83-28 Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 (TACS 52925/52926/53761/53762)
Re: Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 By letters dated November 7,1983 and February 29, 1984, Georgia Pcwer Company provided infomation regarding its response to Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of Gereric Letter 83-28. Our initial review of these responses found them to be incomplete and a Request for Additional Infomation was forwarded to GPC by NRC letter dated December 23, 1985.
By letter dated August 21,1986 (SL-1105), you supplemented your earlier-letters. You indicated that your response to Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 still was not complete, due to your identified need to incorporate vendor and engineering recommendations and post-maintenance testing into all plant procedures, not just safety-related procedures.
You stated that approximately 5,000 procedures were involved and you estimated i
that your programs would not be complete for the mechanical and electrical i
procedures until late 1986, and that it would be late 1987 before you would complete the remaining procedures.
In response to several telephone conversations with Region II during June 1987, you submitted an additional supplemental res four GL 83-28 items by letter dated July 1,1987 (ponse regarding these SL-2709). Our review of this letter indicated that your program regarding these items still was not complete. During an additional telephone conversation with your repre-sentative on July 7,1987, we learned that the program had slipped such that the estimated date for completion of surveillance procedures is now December 1987, and for all other procedures, December 1988.
l l
We discussed the status of the review and your procedure upgrade program.
l Based upon the information submitted in your letters and the discussions j
during our telephone conversation, we find that your current actions re-a garding procedure roview and upgrade are acceptable.
Further, in view of 1
the large number of procedures involved, we find the completion dates of December 1987 and December 1988 acceptable. However, should there be l
S M S A 8cl N !!P e
e
1 Mr. J. P. O'Reilly JUL 2 9 7987 -
further slippage in your procedure upgrade program, you should provide adequate justification for any extension of time requested.- Details re-garding our evaluation are presented in the enclosed Safety Evaluation.
We shall continue to monitor the progress of your procedure upgrade program.
However, a'; noted in the enclosed Safety Evaluation, we have concluded that your responses relating to Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 meet the intent of Generic Letter 83-28 and are acceptable.
We therefore consider these items to be closed.
Sincerely, l6k Lawrence P. Crocker, Project Manager-Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File
{
NRC PDR Local PDR PRC System PD#23 Reading MDuncan LCrocker l
OGC-Bethesda ACRS (10)
EJordan JPartlow Glainas SVarga MSinkule. RII TConlon, RII AHerdt, RII 1
NMerriweather, RII T!4acArthur, RII I
j PD#II-3/DRP-1/II
-//
I/II MDun'c}'anPD#j p/DRP-I/II PD#1J LCrocker/mac BJYo ood 07/A9/87 07/f//87 07 l
- - - _ - - - _ - - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ -