ML19309H342

Submits Schedule for Response to IE Bulletin 79-01B, Environ Qualification of Class IE Equipment. Response to Items 1,2 & 3 Will Be Forwarded by 800430.Response to Items 4 & 5 Will Be Forwarded by 800731

ML19309H342
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	04/11/1980
From:	Clayton F ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
IEB-79-01, IEB-79-1, NUDOCS 8005130077
Download: ML19309H342 (2)

Text

f' , uaoama %er company N

,,

• sm nonn iern snee pes e .ceso 2s /Q e,rmingnam, kabama 35291 Telephone 205 323 5341 -

8 0 0513 0#7~7 a' -Svg

-

• }tt m

,

F. L CLMTON, JR senior v,ce Prescent . MahamaPOWer l, 't. \

41 Q980 the southem etectnc systom NRC IE Bulletin No.79.01B Docket No. 50-348

.

Mr. Jaraes P. O'Reilly, Director

' U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Suite 3100 101 Marietta Street N. W.

Atlanta, reorgia 30303

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

Alabama Power Company submits the following information and revised response dates for the subject bulletin.

.

Subsequent to issuance of IEB 79-01B on January 14, 1980, meeting was held at the IE Region II offices to discuss and clarify the bulletin. As a result of this meeting, which was held on

.

January 31, a number of questions were raised by the Region II utilities regsrding clarification of the bulletin and its scope.

These clariff stions were received on February 29, 1980. As a result of this delay plus the magnitude of work involved in the assimilation of the data required for equipment analysis, a longer time period than that requested by the NRC was required to provide the response. The work sheets are now being finalized and the first response (items 1, 2 and 3) will be ready for transmittal by April 30, 1030.

The second response (items 4 and 5) will require considerable effort, also, due to a more in-depth review of equipment qualification with respect to the bulletin guidelines. It is expected to require 2500 man-hours or more to complete the second response due to the following reasons:

1) The considerable design analyses required to re-evaluate equipment per the new guidelines. For example, it is expected  !

that a substantial design effort will be required to re- l calculate post accident radiation levels to match the guide-line requirements, which include the effects of beta radiation.

2) The requirement of the bulletin to provide a detailed

" Equipment Qualification Plan" for those items which are found not to meet the guideline requirements. It may not

.

, '

- . - - .

._

.- _ . . .-

-... ~. _ _m._

- ' - - - - - - - - ~ - -

'

_ _ . . . _ . .

- . . . . . . - - ..__ .v...._ __ __. _a_.._....., ~. T --

.,. .

i

, Mr. James P. O'Reilly April 11, 1980 be readily apparent as to what action should be taken to correct deficiencies. Engineering evaluations plus con-siderable coordination may be involved.

It is anticipated that the second response will be ready by July 31, 1980.

If you have any questions, please advise.

Yours very truly, F. L. Clayton, Jr.

TLC /rt ec: Mr. R. A. Thomas Mr. G. F. Trowbridge Office of I & E, Div. of Reactor Operations Inspection Washington, D. C. 20555 l

-

>

,