ML20073L563

Telecopy Message of Ro:On 730124,condenser Low Vacuum Sensor Drifted High.Caused by Instrument Drift.Sensor Recalibr

ML20073L563
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	01/24/1973
From:	Worden W COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Grier B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20073L568	List: ML20073L563 ML20084F255 ML20084F267
References
NUDOCS 8304210072
Download: ML20073L563 (1)

Text

.

APR 8 1983

' Docket flos, 50-325/324 Mr. E. E. Utley Executive Vice President Carolina Power & Light Conpany P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

SUBJECT:

CLARIFICATION OF ENVIRONf1 ENTAL QUALIFICATION SAFETY EVALUATION Re: - Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, linits 1 and 2 On Decenber 20, 1982 the NRC staff issued a Safety Evaluation (SE) for Brunswick Stean Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 on the environnental qualification of safety-related electrical equipnent. The SE was based on a Technical Evaluation Report (TER) prepared by our contractor, Franklin Research Center (Franklin).

Appendix D of the above TER provides a technical review of the licensee's state-nents regarding the justification for continued operation (JCO) that was sub .

nitted in the 90-day response to an earlier staff safety evaluation (published in mid-1981). Appendix D is not necessarily applicable to the deficiencies identified in the enclosed TER. You should review all JCOs subnitted to date to ensure that a JC0 exists for all equipnent which nay not be qualified.

The thirty (30) day response required by the current SE should address equipnent itens in NRC Categories I.b, II.a and IV (note that Category IV was not nentioned in the previous SE) for which justification for continued operation was not pre-viously subnitted to the NRC or Franklin. Guidelines for justification for continued operation are provided in paragraph (1) of 10 CFR 50.49. These guide-lines should be utilized in developinq your justification for continued operation.

'If your thirty (30) day response has already been subnitted to NRC, you are requested to review your response in accordance with this clarification and notify the NRC of any changes. The due date of these responses as stated in the above referenced SE are revised and are now due within thirty (30) days J$

geva.

of receipt of this letter.

The staff has developed a special procedure to address equipnent presented 3n in the TER which is classified as Category II.h (Equipment Not Qualified).

O These itens must be resolved as soon as possible. For the Category II.b N:s: itens, justification for continued operation nust be provided or the technical 88 issua, which has placed the equipnent in Category II.h nust be resolved within

@ ten (10) days of receipt of this letter. Should your plant have equipnent in

.e Category II.b, telephone contacts regardinq this special procedure should be

@@ exnected from the IRC Project flanager. Should issues or conflicts exist, which

'o)a.cl prohibit a response in a tinely nanner, a 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter will be issued.

C FFICE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .

suaame > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............

om) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

une ronu sia coan nacu oua OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usom mi-mm

Upon completion of the plant specific review for all plants, a cross-reference of non-qualified equipment existing in any plant will be conducted by the NRC staff to detemine if the same equipnent exists on other plants and has been declared qualif_ied. Should the cross-reference indicate that they do exist in your plant, the staff will contact you to reconfim the qualification of these itens for your plant.

The' ninety (90) day response required by the above referenced SE transmittal letter regarding the schedule for accomplishing proposed corrective actions has been superseded by the requirenents of 10 CFR 50.49. Paragraph (g) of the rule requires that by May 20, 1983, licensees identify electrical equipnent important to safety. within the scope of the rule, that is already qualified, and submit a schedule for the qualification or replacenent of the remaining electrical equipment within the scope of the rule in accordance with the qualification deadline specified in paragraph.(g). The subnittal required by the rule should specifically indicate whether your previous submittals comply with paragraphs (a) and (b) of 10 CFR 50.49. In addition, you are requested to describe in your submittal the nethods used to identify the equipment covered by paragraph 10 CFR 50.49(b)(2) and to establish any qualification prograns not previously described for such equipment.

The Technical Evaluation Report contains certain identified infomation which you have previously clained to be proprietary. tie request that you infom us as indicated in the proprietary review section of the Safety Evaluation whether any pnrtions of the identified pages still require proprietary protection. It should be noted that the NRC's policy on proprietary infomation, as specified in SECY 81-119 is that sunnary data on equipnent qualification testing will not be treated as proprietary by the NRC. This infomation shall be snhnitted within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter. A general guideline is enclosed.

Tho reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter af fect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OM8 clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.

. Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGHED BY Donenic B. Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

t Proprietary Review Infomation i cc wo/ Enclosure See next page DISTRIBUTION: Docket File NRC PDR LPDR Gray ORB #2 Rdg DEisenhut

. JHeltemes-AE00 SNorris S acKay OELD NSIC JMTaylor ACRS-10 g ,)CMao YS> vow >lw DLpBS 'DL:( R'B#2 D .:018#2 EQB omce> .................g3,g .g. .... .......ggc ggy..p.g........D rsrralm .

PSh an t" - -- - - - ~ ~ - - - --~~~~~

suRme) .... ......... 4 j n fga... .... 4/.y /83.___. .... 4 yf../83........... 4/.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

omy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM ONO OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usceo.im _ m..

fir. E. E. ' Utl ey Carolir.a Power & Light Company cc:

Richard E. Jones,' Esquire .

Carolina Power & Light Company 336 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 .

George F. Trowbridge, Eso.uire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Mr. Charles R. Dietz Plant Manager P. O. Box 458 Southport, North Carolina 28461 Mr. Franky Thomas, Chairman ~

Board of Com:issioners P. O. Sox 249 Bolivia, North Carolina 28422 Mrs. Chrys Baggett State Clearinghouse Budget & Management ,

116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV Office Regional Radiation Representative 345 Courtland Street, N. W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30308 L

i Resident Inspector '

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 1057 Southport, North Carolina 28461 -

(

James P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 :1arietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 i

~ l l

PR')?RIETARY REVIEW GUIDELINES It is the pMicy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the records of, the agency are available for inspection and copying in the ERC public -

Document Room, except for matters that'are exempt from public. disclosure pursuant to the nine exemptions of the Freedom of Infomation Act.

(See 10 C.F.R. 2.790)

Recently, the NRC has had'its contrattor Franklin Research Center (FRC),

prepare Technical Evaluation Reports. for all 10 CFR Part 50 licensees. -

These reports evaluate and comment upon the references cited by the licensee as evidence of qualification in accordance with the documentatib6 reference instructitons' established by IE Bulletin 79' 01B. -

In. a typical evaluation, FRC generates a report of approximately 750 pages.

Any page which mentions or comments upon a licensee's referenced' material

.that was marked or claimed to be proprietary is marked at the top of the page wi,th the legend " Proprietary Infomation". FRC has used this marking in a liberal manner and has not fully investigated the licensee's claim to detemine,whether portions of pro,prietary reports that they reproduced or ~ "

m'entioned were in fact " proprietary". A report typically contains 15 to 25 pages that are marked " Proprietary Infomation", Usually, no more than

.4 licensee proprietary references are so discussed. In order td make any of the reports available to the public FRC has produced two versions of each: those containing proprietary in,fomation and those having the pro-prieta ry'.informatica removed.

Th.e NRC now seeks the assistance of licensees in reviewing the proprietary versions of the FRC reports to detemine whether still more information can be made available to the public.

For this reason, each licensee has been sent the Staff Equipment Qualification SER-and 3 copy of the proprietary version of the FRC Technical Evaluation Report. It is believed that the licensee can review the few pages containing proprietary information in a relatively short period of t-ime. The licensee is to send the third party owner of the reference report, which has been ciaimed to be proprietary, a copy of those pages from the FRC report that relates to its test report. The third party owner can quickly revi,ew these pages and determine whether the infomatien claimed to be proprietary must still be so categorized. All reviewers should be aware of the NRC's policy, as specified in SECY-81-119, that sumary data on Equipment Qualification ~ testing will not be treated as proprietary by the NRC. If the review identifies no data that requires protection, the NRC should'be notified and that portion of the report will be placed.in the Public feu ent ?cra. If. 6 ever, the licensee identifies to the N.RC portions that are still ciaired to require prcorietary pretection, then compliance

.. n oe ::.a a wi t$ tr.e riq.,i re.:.tr.:s for withhol dir g ur.dir 10 C.F.R. 2.790.

This can be accomplished in two ways: (1) If the reference proprietary .

rpport has previously been submitted to the NRC pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.790 and the NRC has made a detemination that portions are proprietary, then

~

tr.:se sac.e ' portions can be. protected again simply by notifying the NRC that this reteriti is covered in the NRC's acceptance letter of a given date.

If the reference proprietary report has not previously been submitted to the NRC pursdent to 10 C.F.R. 2.790, then the licensee and the proprietary owner must at this time make such an application and request for withholding from -

'public dis closure.

The NRC recognizes that this proprietary review places an administrative burden Upon its licensees and any third party owners. However, it is the-policy of the NRC ta make.all non.-pr.oprietary information public, and the only way to protect the owner of proprietary information is to insure that the Franklin reports have been ' appropriately scrutinized.

.The NRC will grant extensions of time for' these reviEds if necessary, on a case-by-case basis. If you have any fu~r ther questions regarding this review, please contact either Edward Shomaker, OELD, at 492-8553 or.

Heal Abrams, Patent Counsel, at 492-8662.. --

i f

e l

l