ML20003F115

Forwards Second Security Personnel Training & Qualification Plan.Plan Withheld (Ref 10CFR2.790)

ML20003F115
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	04/10/1981
From:	Marsolais L VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
To:	Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FVY-81-67, NUDOCS 8104200200
Download: ML20003F115 (2)

Text

,

i MIR0l[DPEV10.

l VERMONT YAN KEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION r

'{

]

SEVENTY sEVEN GROVE STREET f[

RUTLAND, VERMONT 05701 2

g 3 '.,1 - -

REPLV To:

J

,rr ; >

{

N:

'Nh!

ENGINEERING OFFICE

]

D 1671 WORCESTER ROAD g,;

FR AMINGH AM. M ASS ACH US ETTS O17ot Os TELEPHONE 817 872-8100 s

2 April 10, 1981 g

f.fr,ited States Nuclear. Regula tory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Attention:

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Mr. Thomas A. Ippolito, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Opera ting Reactors

Reference:

(a) License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271)

(b)

Ltr. VYNPC to NRC (WVY 79-19) dated August 17, 1979 (c)

Ltr. NRC to VYNPC dated February 25, 1981 (d) Telephone coversa tion Mr. B. Manili, USNRC with Mr. W. Penniman, VYNPC of March 6, 1981

Subject:

Security Personnel Training and Qualification Plan

Dear Sir:

Vermont Yankee submitted reference (b), a Training r.nd Qualification Plan for Security Personnel, to the NRC for review and subsequently received Reference (c) from the NRC which requested some changes and additions be made to the submitted plan prior to approval. This letter forwards our second submittal of VINPC's Training and Qualification Plan for Security which has been changed to address the concerns of Reference (c).

Attachment A provides an explanation of the changes in Submittal #2.

As a result of reference (d), a number of the concerns were found to already be addressed in the submitted plan and therefore, are not addressed in Attachment A but are not as resolved by that phone conversation.

One significant area of disagreement remains which is addressed in Attachment B.

10 CFR 2.7901NFORMATl0

~

Withhold Attachment From Public Disclosure 8104200#00 f

en4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 10, 1981 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Page 2 i

In reviewing the plan you will note that all pages are marked " Submittal

1. 2" and the addition of a list of effective pages and approval signatures.

i These changes were made to provide the bases for Document Control of the final approved plan. Approval signatures will not appear on this document until it I is approved by the NRC and issued as approved document. Where changes appear,

_ they have been marked with a line in the right hand margin.

j is coasidered proprietary in accordance with Title' 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2.790.

Public disclosure of this material should be withheld.

We trust this information is adequate. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. William F. Conway, Vice President and Manager of Operations, at i

'our West Brattleboro, Vermont Offices.

Very truly yours, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION Sf u. ' L 'a

• y *I rv%[%

L. D. Marsolais VY Operational Project Manager Enclosuras:

1 Attachment A 2 Attachment B 3 VYNic Training and Qualification Plan for Security i

10 CFR 2790 g0RM Withheld pmachment From Public Disclosure c

.=

f I.

O 1

. Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute i

1 1

^*

April 16, 1981 d

L1

a United States Nuclear Regulatory Commisssion Washington, D.C.

20555 Attention:

Mr. Edward J. Butcher, Jr.

Project Officer (MS 416)

References:

1.

Letter to Dr. S. Carfagno (FRC) from E. J. Butcher (NRC) dated March 11, 1981.

Subject:

NRC Contract No.

NRC-03-79-il8, Tentative Work Assignments N and O.

2.

NRC Contract No.:

NRC-03-79-ll8; FRC Project No. C5257

Subject:

Proposed Schedule and Level of Technical Effort Required for Accomplishing Work Assignments N and O (Equipment Environmental Qualification), as identified in Reference 1.

Dear Mr. Butcher:

In accordance with your letter dated March 11, 1981 and the terms of our (References 1 and 2, respectively), we are transmitting herewith our Contract proposed schedule and level of effort of staff technical resources required to accomplish the subject assignments. This proposed schedule and estimated level of effort was prepared by our Group Leader, C. J. Crane, after a preliminary review meeting on this subject with NRC's Z. Rosztoczy on March 25, 1981.

FRC's proposed schedule and technical resource allocation for the subject assignments is presented in the attached enclosures:

e Enclosure 1 - Assignment N: Evaluation of Equipment Required for Cold Shutdown and TMI Lessons Learned Implementation (67 operating reactors) e Enclosure 2 - Assignment 0: Review of Licensees' Resolution of Outstanding Issues from NRC Equipment Environmental Qualification ;ERs (67 operating reactors) - List of Nuclear Plants Grouped According to NSSS Vendor, e

b7

(

The Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, Pa.19103 (215)448-1000 TWX-710 6701889

As requested, we have estimated the assignments using as a basis both a 27-plant and 67-plant work scope.

In" addition, a cost estimate for engineering staff hours is also provided.

Very truly yours,

, jY /

b' S. P. Carf gno Project Manager SPC/CJC/sm Enclosure cc:

Z. Rosztoczy i

P. DiBenedetto N. B. Le A. F. Glagola (MS 286-SS)

M. J. Mattia l

ENCLOSURE 1 -

FRC PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND LEVEL CF TEX'ENICAL EFFORT REQUIRED FOR ACCOMPLISHING WORK ASSIGNMENT N - EVALUATION OF EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR COLD SHUTDOWN AND TMI LESSONS LEARNED IMPLEMENTATION (67 OPERATING REACTORS) 1.

General This assignment is limited to the evaluation of environmental qualification documentation for all of the safety-related electrical equipment located in plant areas exposed to harsh environmental conditions. Equipment required for cold shutdown will be identified by the licensees. Equipment within the scope of WI Action Plan Implementation is limited to installed equipment (prior to January 1, 1981). FRC proposes to acccmplish the subject assignment using the following work sequence:

Task 1 - Preliminary Review of Licensees' Submittals A preliminary review of information submitted by each licensee in response to IE Bulletin 79-OlB Supplement No. 3 will be performed at FRC's offices to determine if a licensee's submittal provides sufficient technical detail (quality and completeness of information) to allow the evaluation to proceed. On the basis of 'this review, licensee submittals will either be scheduled for full evaluation (Task 2), or rejected due to major deficien-cies. The NRC Lead Engineer will be notified when a licensee submittal is deferred from further review due to deficiencies.

Ir. addition, a suwary checklist will be transmitted to the NRC indicating the specific technical leficiencies which formed the basis for rejection.

It is expected that a licensee will be requested by the NRC to submit the necessary information so that the review may proceed.

All licensee submittals that are considered acceptable for further detailed review will be scheduled using the Licensing Action Tracking System (LATS) milestone summary status.

Task 2 - Cetailed Review of Licensee' Submittals A full and detailed evaluation of the technical information submitted by the licensees will be performed at FRC's offices in accordance with the criteria presented in item 2.B (Enclosure 1).

4.... Frank 5n Research Center w e nerm.anneue

The review will consist of:

Familiarization with plant design and equipment arrangement and o

location.

Identification of safety-related equipment which would form the basis o

for the equipment environmental qualification review. Further details are presented in item 2.D (Enclosure 1).

Gathering of support documents such as operating. procedures, P& ids, o

FSARs, plant arrangement drawings, operating procedures, and generic qualification documents referenced by the licensee.

o Definition of plant zones (areas) where equipment is located.

Definition of environmental service conditions within plant zones for o

both normal and accident conditions.

Tabulation and grouping of safety-related equipment into " equipment o

types."

Listing of qualification documentation references cited as evidence of o

qualification, Establishment of contact (coordinated by the NRC Lead Engineer or o

Plant Project Manager) with the licensee to request supplemental information necessary to complete the review:

Discussion of qualification documentation references cited as evidence of qualification by the licensee. Determination of proprietary test reports and documentation. Transmittal of copies of all qualification documentation not in FRC's possession to FRC's offices for review.

Discussion of submittal deficiencies or areas requiring clarification.

Discussion (as necessary) of systems and equipment required to achieve cold shutdown.

- Discussion (as necessary) of installed TMI Action Plan Implementation equipment.

Identification of all action items and corresponding target dates for completion. Action items will consist of submittal of additional information, drawings, or test reports.

Task 3 - Site visit Plant site visits will be made to only those plants for which information necessary to complete the technical evaluation report can be obtained only by pp MJ Franklin Research Center A C>ws.on W N Frana$n W

meeting with the licensee. A visit to the utility's engineering headquarters or a meeting at NRC offices would also be a feasible alternative. The NRC Lead Engineer or Plant Project Manager will participate in the site visit. In general, the actual equipment installations will not be inspected unless the reviewer judges that an inspection may resolve a discrepancy.

Inspection of equipment could be accomplished during the site visit or independently by telephone contact with the resident I&E inspector (coordinated by the NRC Lead Engineer or Project Manager).

Task 4 - Final Technical Evaluation Report Using the list of safety-related equipment types compiled as a result of Task 2, FRC will evaluate each equipment type in relation to:

Technical data derived from the licensee submittal.

o The NRC screening guidelines discussed in item 2.B, Enclosure 1.

o The licensee definition of harsh service environments, o Technical information received as a result of the telephone contact and site visit (if applicable).

o Equipment qualification documentation.

o Equipment qualification analysis and/or justification for qualification.

o Licensee-proposed remedies for resolution of qualification deficiencies.

o Licensee technical arguments concerning the adequacy of equipment based on system operational considerations.

A detailed final technical evaluation report (TER) will be prepared by FRC which clearly identifies all deficiencies within the qualification program. The TER will include completed checklists to aid in compiling all technical information necessary to conduct the evaluation. Parameters listed on these checksheets will be derived from the appropriate NRC screening criteria. Qualification status summary checklists and guideline requirement summary checklists will also be used. Extensive use of checklists will tend to reduce the written text as well as typing and editorial efforts, thus 4A LU Franklin Research Center 4 om.on ce n. Fr.aoa e

facilitating the schedule. However, the TER text will remain sufficiently clear to a wide spectrum of technical readers. Based on the review, FRC will group equipment in accordance with the following evaluation categories.

Qualified Equipment I.a Equipment that satisfies all applicable requirements of the NRC guidelines or has deviations from the guidelines that are judged to be insignificant.

• I.b Equipment for which deviations from the NRC guidelines are conditionally acceptable provided that specific modifications are made (for example, equipment replacement, relocation, submittal of qualification documentation for review after release by the equipment vendor, and hardware modification) as proposed by the licensee.

Unqualified Equipment

• II.a Equipment whose qualification documentation has significant deficiencies.

(Where possible, FRC will recommend a resolution.)

• II.b Equipment important to system operation whose qualification documentation shows there are significant deficiencies that could affect the ability of the equipment to perform its intended safety function (for example, failure or severe anomalies during testing).

Equipment Exempt from Qualification Review III.a Equipment exempt from qualification because it provides no safety function.

III.b Equipment for which qualification review is deferred because it is located in a mild environment.

• Note: FRC will evaluate the technical arguments presented by the licensee concerning justification for continued plant operation.

In those cases where FRC has performed an earlier review, either complete or partial, the final TER will be a supplement to the original FRC final TER.

FRC will provide a draf t of the final TER (or a draf t supplement) to the NRC Lead Engineer for review and comment prior to formally transmitting the final document. Both a proprietary and a non-proprietary version (if applicable) of the final TER will be issued to NRC.

g Od Franklin Research Center 4 Dus.on of The Fraruen instnute

2.

Environmental Qualification Review of Equipment Required for TMI Action Plan Implementation and Cold Shutdown W'rk Scope A.

o 1.

Using the licensee submittal, list of safety-related equipment types, supplemental technical information, and documentation referenced as evidence of qualification, develop a final technical evaluation report in accordance with Item 1, Enclosure 1.

B.

Criteria for Review o

" Guidelines for Evaluating Environmental Qualification of Class IE Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors" (DOR Guidelines) -

applicable for existing equipment in operating reactors, o

NUREG-0588, " Interim Staff Position on Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment (Category I)" - applicable for new or replacement equipment or for requalification of existing equipment.

o NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements" -

applicable for identification of equipment within scope.

C.

Assumptions 1.

The TMI action plan equipment review will be limited to equipment installed as of January 1, 1981.

2.

The NRC will provide FRC with a complete list of equipment identifying the TMI Action Plan Implementation equipment within the scope of FRC's review. This will eliminate the need for FRC to review NUREG-0737 in order to identify equipment within scope.

3.

TMI Action Plan Implementation equipment required to be installed prior to January 1,1981 in accordance with NUREG-0737:

o (II.B.3) Post-Accident Sampling Capability, Interim Position -

solenoid valves, motor operated valves, radiation monitors o

(II.D.3) Direct Indication of Relief and Safety Valve Position -

position switch o

(II.E.1.2) Auxiliary Feedwater System Automatic Initiation and Flow Indication - level switches, flow transmitters o

(II.F.2) Subcooling Meter - temperature element and pressure transmitter

~S~

/k OJ Franklin Research Center acm av w.n.,*namaam

o (II.E.4.2) Containment Purge Valves - solenoid valves, motor operated valves, electro-hydraulic valves.

o (II.K.3.9) Proportional Integral Derivative Controller -

transmitters, motor operated valves, electro-hydraulic valves, actor Trip Upon Turbine Trip -

o (II.K.3.12) Anticipator) 1 transmitter.

o (II.D.3.3) Improved In-plant Iodine Instrumentation - radiation detectors, pumping system, preamplifier 4.

The number of test reports required to be reviewed is listed in item 2.D, Enclosure 1.

5.

The number of site visits required is estimated to ben o 67-plant scope - 20 site visits /3 staff-days each o 27-plant scope - 10 site visits /3 staff-days each 6.

The number of plant reviews is based on the list of operating plants presented in Enclosure 3 (credit is taken for identical plant designs in estimating the total number of individual reviews):

o Based on a 27-plant scope (projects CS257 and C5417):

C5417 6 reviews CS257 13 reviews 19 reviews Total o Based on a 67-plant scope:*

C5417 6 reviews CS257 13 reviews remaining 79-OlB plants 28 reviews 47 reviews Total l

D.

Basis for Staff-hour Estimate 1.

The following estimate is based on FRC's sample of February 1, 1981 submittals received to date.

• Note: Humboldt Bay, Dresden 1, and Fort St. Vrain are not included in the list of operating reactors.

_nklin Rese_ arch C_ enter

Number of TMI Action Plan Test Reports to Equipment

_be Reviewed Staf f-hours Motor Operated valves 2

20 Electro-Hydraulic Valves 1

20 Solenoids 2

20 Position Switches 1

5 Level Switches 2

10 Pressure Switches 2

10 Transmitters (Flow, Pressure) 5 100 Radiation Monitors 2

20 Radiation Monitor Subsystem 2

20 Temperature Elements 6

50 Contingency hours 50 325 Number of Test Reports to Cold Shutdown be Reviewed Staff-hours Motors 6

100 Solenoids 1

10 Motor Operated Valves 1

10 E-P Transducers 2

10 Transmitters 5

50 Temperature Elements 2

20 i

Cable / Splices 2

20 Contingency hours 50 270 2.

Specific work tasks and staff-hour esticate:

Work Task Staff-hours l

• (l)

Develop a "go/no-go" checksheet to establish submittals to be rejected or reviewed 5

• (2)

Interface with NRC to obtain delinquent submittals 10

• Staf f-hours independent of the number of plants involved in the scope review.

+Staf'-hours required to be epended for each plant review.

nklin Research Center 4 Dresion of The Franda insanee

(3)

Preliminary review of licensee submittals (Task 1) 50

• (4)

Development of TER model, review check-sheets, and guideline criteria checklist 60

• (5) Test report review (see item 2 D) 595

• (6)

Development of a position on aging and qualified life.

100 (7)

Site visits (see item 2.C.5) 480

+* (8)

Development of the TER (individual review) including review of submittal, communication with the Licensee, in-corporation of checksheets, and evaluation 100

+* (9)

Development of the TER for identical plants 20

+* (10 ) Cortingency hours to obtain information on a partial or incomplete licensee submittal 5

3.

Cold Shutdown Systems Review (Systems Engineering)

A.

Work Scope 1.

Using the licensee submittal, FSAR, operating procedures, etc., as necessary, verify that sufficient systems have been identified by the licensee to provide one train of equipment to bring the plant to cold shutdown.

2.

Spot-check plant drawings, FSAR, etc., to ensure that the equipment list is complete for the systems identified. Verify that equipment to be addressed by EEQ review has been identified by the licensee.

l 3.

Resolve systems questions and special considerations as indicated by i

the individual submittals.

(Note: since hot shutdown was previously considered to be a safe plant condition, there should be no need for i

review of licensee technical arguments presented as justification for l

interim operation).

4.

Identify discrepencies in the licensee's submittal.

5.

Where applicable, information provi.ed by licensees for FRC Task 10, Systens Needed for Safe Shutdown, will be used to expedite the review and achieve consistency.

l

_nklin Rese_ arch._ Center

B.

Criteria for Cold Shutdown Systems Review o

Regulatory Guide 1.139 Standard Review Plan 5.4.7 with Branch Technical Position RSB5-1 o

Standard Review Plan 10.4.9 with Branch Technical Position ASB10-1 o

C.

Staff-hour Estimates Technical No. of Reviews Staff-hours GE BWR 1975 or later 4

48 GE BWR 1974 or earlier 7

96 Westinghouse PWR 1975 or later 7

72 Westinghouse PWR 1974 or earlier 9

132 Combustion Engineering 1975 or later 4

48 Combustion Engineering.1974 or earlier 2

48 10 240 SEP Plants B&W PWR 1975 or later 3

40 B&W PWR 1974 or earlier 3

60 7

56 Near Term Operating Licensee 56 840 D.

Basis for Staff-hour Estimate o

New Plants (1975 and later) -

16 staff-hours per review for first two reviews of each NSSS '

vendor, and 8 staff-hours per review thereafter.

o Older Plants (1974 and earlier) 24 staff-hours per review for first two reviews of each NSSS vendor, and 12 staff-hours per review thereaf ter.

l o

SEP Plants -

24 staff-hours per review.

E.

Assumptions 1.

Typical systems of concern are: 4 200U Franklin Research Center a om on or n. Fr n. n m.ou.

~

PWRs Chemical Volume Control System (CVCS)

Main Steam / Auxiliary Feedwater System Pressurizer Spray and Relief System Residual Heat Removal System BWRs Staidby Liquid Control System Main Feed / Main Condensors RCIC System Residdal Heat Removal System / Suppression Pool 2.

Review criteria are presented in item B (Enclosure 1).

3.

The licensee submittal will identify the specific systems required to achieve cold shutdown.

4.

The licensee submittal will identify the equipment needed to achieve cold shutdown.

5.

FRC will have access to plant documents such as P&ID's, FSARs, operating procedures, and plant arrangement drawings.

6.

The estimate of the amount of equipment involved in the review is as follows:

BWR PWR Pump Motors 5

6 Fan Motors 1

1 Motor Operated valves 10 10 Solenoid valves 7

4 Electro / Pneumatic Transducers 1

4 Level Transmitters 1

3 Pressure Transmitters 1

1 Temperature Elements 1

1 1 Squid valve 1

- 4

'.;U Franklin Research. Center

• ow wre

4.

Overall Staff-Hours Summary and Cost Information Staff-Hours for Staff-Hours for Work Description 27-Plant Scope 67-Plant Scope (1)

Develop go/no-go checkaheet 5

5 (2)

Interface with NRC to obtain delinquent submi*.tals 10 10 (3)

Preliminary review of licensee submittals 15 50 (4) Development of TER model and checksheets 60 60 (5) Test report revie'w 595 595 (6)

Development of position on aging and qualified life 100 100 (7) Site visits 240 480 (8)

Development of individual TERs 1900 4700 (9)

Development of identical TERs 160 400 (10) Contingency hours to obtain information 95 235 (11)

Systems engineering (cold shutdown) 344 840 3,524 7,475 or 130 staff-hours / plant or 111 staff-hours / plant

$246,680

$523,250 or or

$9,136/ plant +

$7,809/ plant +

+ Cost estimate based on $70/ staff-hour (includes management and support costs).

1

1. 4 Ub Franklin Research Center

• om.oa on Th. r=wa m u.

_ - - - -. - - _,. -. _. _ - ~ _, _ _

ENCLOSURE 2 -

FRC PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND LEVELS OF TECHNICAL EFFORT REQUIRED FOR ACCOMPLISHING WORK ASSIGNMENT O - REVIEW OF LICENSEE'S RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES FROM NRC EQUIPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION SERs (67 OPERATING REACTOR)

This assignment requires the Contractor to evaluate the licensee's responses to the NRC equipment environmental qualificatio: SERs. The licensees were requested to submit the response within 90 days after receipt of the SER.

It is anticipated that the licensees will propose corrective measures for all unresolved qualification deficiencies.

FRC believes that it is unrealistic to estimate the staff-hours to evaluate the licensees' responses at this time. The complexity of the responses, and therefore the magnitude of the assignment, can be estimated only by performing a brief review (possibly spot-checking) of the licensee 90-day responses when they are received (mid-June 1081). However, a preliminary work assignment (during the 90-day response period) can be estimated based on the FRC/NRC March 25, 1981 meeting at the NRC Offices:

Task 1 - FRC will provide engineering support services to NRC for the preparation of equipment qualification status seminars to be held at NRC offices in Bethesda, Md.

Licensees and equipment vendors will be invited to attend these seminars to acquire general qualification information necessary to complete the 90-day response to the EEQ SER.

The seminar agenda will include:

Communication of the generic qualification deficiencies found by EEQ o

reviewers for various equipment types (cable, solenoids, motors, transmitters, etc.)

Communication of the overall result of the EEQ program to date o

Communication of NRC expectations for the licensee 90-day response o

setting forth groundrules for the response so that valuable engineering hours will be conserved.

Conveying NRC policy and positions with respect to environmental o

qualification.

Discussion of qualified life and aging.

o.<y!,d Franklin Research Center gg3 d

A mw.oa or Tw. Fr.,ua.n ir ive.

FRC estimates that 400 staff-hours will be required to accomplish this task.

Task 2 - Consistent with the above discussion, the second phase of this preparatory effort will consist of develooment of:

A detailed 90-day licensee responsee review plan o

Checksheets to evaluate licensees' responses o

Determination of acceptable modifications.

o FRC estimates that 200 staff hours will be required to accomplish this task.

Task 3 - FRC will provide an estimate of schedule and technical resource allocation once the majority of licensee submittals are available for preliminary review.

! 43 2du Franklin Research Center A c>m.on or n. re m

ENCLOSURE 3 -

LIST OF NUCLEAR PLANTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO NSSS VENDOR GE-NSSS Unit Utility MWe A/E CO*

+ Pilgrim 1 Boston Edison 670 B

72 Oyster Creek Jersey Central P&L 620 GE/B&R 69

+ Nine Mile Point 1 Niagara Mohawk 610 S&W 69 Millstone 1 NNECO 652 E

70

+ Peach Bottom 2,3 Philadelphia Electric 1070 B

74 FitzPatrick PASNY 821 S&W 75 Vermont Yankee Vermont Yankee 514 E

72

+ Dresden 2,3 Commonwealth Edison 794 S&L 70, 71

+ Quad Cities 1,2 Commonwealth Edison 789 S&L 72 Big Rock Point Consumers Power 63 B

62 Duane Arnold Iowa Electric L&P 545 B

74 Cooper Nebraska Public Power 778 B&R 74 Monticello Northern States Power, 536 B

71 Brunswick 1,2 Carolina P&L 790 UEC 77, 75

+ Hatch 1,2 Georgia Power 786 B

75,79 Browns Ferry 1,2,3 TVA 1070 Utility 74,75,77 B&W NSSS

+ TMI-l Metropolitan Edison 792 G

74

+ Davis Besse 1 Toledo Edison 906 B

77 Nuclear One 1 Arkansas P&L 836 B

74

+ Jconee 1,2,3 Duke Power 860 Utility 73,74 Crystal River 3 Florida Power Corp 825 G

77 Rancho Seco Sacramento Municipal 913 B

75 Utility District (SMUD)

• CO Comiercial Operaticn Date.

+FRC has received the licensee February 1,1981 EEQ submittal

& 'Jbj Franklin Research Center a cm at m rew.a -

CE-NSSS Unit Utility MWe A/E CO*

+ Calvert Cliffs 1&2 Baltimore G&E 850 B

75,77 Maine Yankee Maine Yankee Atomic 790 S&W 72 Millstone 2 Northeast Utilities 870 B

75 Palisades Consumers Power 740' B

71

+ Fort Calhoun Omaha Public Power 490 G&H 73

+ Nuclear One 2 Arkansas P&L 858 8

80

+

St. Lucie.1 Florida P&L 777 E

76 W-NSSS Unit Utility MWe A/E g*

Haddam Neck Connecticut Yankee 575 S&W 68 Indian Point 2 Consolidated Edison 873 UEC 74

+ Indian Point 3 PASNY 965 UEC 76 833 S&W 77

+ Beaver Valley 1 Duquesne Salem 1 Public Service E&G 1090 UEC 77 Ginna Rochester G&E 490 GAI 70

~

Yankee Rowe Yankee Atomic 175 S&W 61 Zion 1,2 Commonwealth Edison 1040 S&L 73,74 Cook 1,2 Indiana & Michigan Power 778 B&R 74

+ Prairie Island 1,2 Northern States 520 FPS 73,74

+ Point Beach 1,2 Wisconsin Electric 497 B

70,72

+ Kewaunee Wisconsin Public Service 535 FPS 74 W-NSSS Unit Utility MWe A/E Q*

Farley 1 Alabama Power 860 SS/B 77

+ Robinson 2 Carolina P&L 665 E

71

+ Turkey Point 3,4 Florida P&L 666 B

72,73

+ Surry 1,2 VEPCO 775 S&W 72,73

+ North Anna 1,2 VEPCO 850 S&W 78,80 Trojan Portland General Electric 1130 B

76 San Onofre 1 So. California Edison 436 B

68 s

d. Franklin Research Center A w er ne rv.na me

AC-NSSS Unit Utility MWe A/E Q*

Lacrosse Dairyland Power 50 S&L 72 Near Term List

_C_P_*

• NSSS P

Unit Utility MWe A/E San Onofre 2,3 So. California Edison 1100 B

10/73 CE

+ Sumreer So. Carolina E&G 900 GAI 3/73 W

Diablo Canyon 1,2 Pacific GEE 1100 Utility 68/70 W

+ Farley 2 Alabama Power 860 SS/B 8/72 W

Sequoyah 1 IVA 1150 Utility W

LaSalle 1,2 Commonwealth Edison 107 S&L 9/73 GE

+ McGuire 1,2 Duke Power 1180 Utility 2/73 W

• • CP Constructio:t Permit Date.

& SC Franklin Research Center

% snrw m

A/E Abbreviations 4

B - Bechtel G6H - Gibbs & Hill.

B&R - Burns & Roe S&L - Sargent & Lundy E - Ebasco SS - Southern Services FPS - Fluor Power S&W - Stone & Webster GAI - Gilbert Associates, Inc.

UEC - United Engineers 4

.I t

.i i

J i

1

.i d, bp Frankun Research Center i

som.anatm vusu m J

y.---g-weer--y

+

y-y.

.-.,,-g-.

me.--,-----,---y-ww-w.-e---y 4,-,-%,-w,-

-wr,w,,r-9%o,ww w w-u w--y-- -. -. - -- -- ww,

--e.----+www-<-w---e+,--we-.--

ATTACllHENT 1 EQ/FRC TECll. ASSIST. PROGRAM StilEDULE 1981 1982 4-1 5-1 6-1 7-1 8-1 9-1 10-1 11-1 12-1 1-1 7-j ASSIGN. "u" i REVIEW LIC. Sull. (DUE 2-1-B1) i COLD SiluT/

- SITE VISITS THI

- PREPARE TER(s)

NRC/SER(s)

- - --l ASSIGN "o"

NRC OW-ON ggSUE TO SER(s)

REVIEW SElt( s )

H SUBMITTALS

" 90 JAY ltESPON5E PREPARE TER(s)-i LICENSEE NRC/SSER(s)

ALL H0DS. COMPLETED BY ticinsEt I

ASSIGN-N FRC RCHFDtil E REC'V $8TLS.

g,,,.,,,,3

, sys r s a hea, 27 PL ANTS

'. 6 E d T E R's /3 menI

<<. o,<.o.

. s u.-t e m s, m -, >

67 PLANTS

!= Ea T C KW (SErmed