W3P83-2915, Requests 60-day Extension for Responding to Generic Ltr 83-28, Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events. Util Did Not Receive Generic Ltr Until 830808.Util May Request 120-day Extension on 831007
| ML20024F305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 08/30/1983 |
| From: | Drummond F LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, W3P83-2915, NUDOCS 8309090257 | |
| Download: ML20024F305 (2) | |
Text
o l OUISIANA P O W E R & L i G H T ! New OALEANS LOUSANA 44 oeL.no~Oeermeer. ac eox eOOe 70174-8000 S (504)388-2345 MIDDLE SDUTH umnES SYSTEM August 30, 1983 W3P83-2915 Q-3-A20.02.02 L.02 Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
SUBJECT:
Waterford SES Unit 3 Docket No. 50-382 Generic Letter 83-28 Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events
Dear Mr. Eisenhut:
The subject Generic Letter indicates that requests for an extension of the 120 day time period for filing a response must be submitted no later than 60 days from July 8, 1983, and must include a proposed schedule for response as well as a justification for delay.
With this letter LP&L is requesting an extension to the 60 day period for deferring a response to the Generic Letter. We base this request on the following:
- 1) The NRC has not transmitted the subject Generic Letter to LP&L. We did not obtain a copy until August 8, 1983 and then, only through the Licensing Information Service.
- 2) LP&L is evaluating various proposals and plans to address the NRC's requirements. Because of the short time since first receipt of the Generic Letter, and the extensive nature of the requirements, we are unable to assess the need for an extension of the 120 day response period within the 60 days allotted.
- 3) The CE Owners Group is developing a proposal to address generic portions of the requirements. This proposal is not expected to be complete before the end of September, 1983.
Its implementation may require an extension of the 120 day response period.
8309090257 830830 k
D PDR ADOCK 05000382
%D A
FDR v
fl D j
9 e-Page 2 W3P83-2915 Q-3-A20.02.02 L.02 For these reasons, LP&L proposes that the 60 day period for requesting an extension of the 120 day response be extended to October 7, 1983. At that time we will, if necessary, request an extension of the 120 day response and provide a proposed schedule for response as well as a justification for delay.
Please contact Mike Meisner at (504) 363-8938 should you require further information on this matter.
Yours very truly, W*
F.J. Drummond Manager, Engineering & Technical Services FJD/SJD/ch cc:
W.M. Stevenson, E.L. Blake, J. Wilson (NRC), G.L. Constable (NRC-Resident Inspector) i e
e i
.