ML15244A696
| ML15244A696 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1991 |
| From: | Lainas G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Merschoff E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC-81753, NUDOCS 9112090274 | |
| Download: ML15244A696 (2) | |
Text
November 25, 1991 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Ellis W. Merschoff, Acting Director Division of Reactor Projects FROM:
Gus C. Lainas, Assistant Director for Region II Reactors Division of Reactor Projects I/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - OCONEE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS DURING REFUELING AND COLD SHUTDOWN (TIA 91-31)
Your memorandum dated September 27, 1991, requested NRR to review the Oconee Technical Specifications (TS) and determine if any changes were needed. In response to the recent shutdown events at Oconee, NRR had requested that Duke Power Company (DPC) perform a self-review of the Oconee TS and then meet with the NRC to present their findings and discuss any proposed corrective actions. A meeting was held with DPC on October 9, 1991, where DPC identified a number of differences between the Oconee TS and standard TS. DPC in most cases did not propose TS revisions to address these differences. Instead, interpretations of existing TS, which would be documented in the control room copies of TS for reference by the operators, would be made when existing TS were determined to be correct but prone to misinterpretation. If no TS existed where requirements were determined to be appropriate, DPC proposed to issue such requirements as a change to the Selected Licensee Commitment Manual.
Because of the continuing nature of the NRC initiative in the area of shutdown TS, the NRC staff concurred in the approach proposed by DPC. In a letter dated October 21, 1991, DPC has committed to make the changes proposed in the meeting. If the need for further changes is identified as a result of the NRC initiative in this area, NRR will address the issue with new plant-specific tasks. Therefore, this concludes our efforts on TAC Nos. 81753, 81754, and 81755.
If you have any questions, you or your staff may contact Len Wiens of my staff on FTS 492-1495.
/s/
Gus C. Lainas, Assistant Director
. for Region II Reactors Division of Reactor Projects - I/Il Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION:
SVarga OGC 15B18 Docket File GLainas Edordan MNBB3701 NRC & Local PDRs LBerry ACRS (10) P-315 PD 11-3 R/F LWiens LReyes RIT Oconee R/F DMatthews 4
RC F L CETE COP1 OFC
- PDTI-3/LA 1-3/PM
- PD11-3
/TI NAME : LBerry:lb Wiens
- DMatt ew a
DATE
- 11/
)/91 11/202/91 11/92/91
- 11/.
/91 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: MEMO FOR ELLIS MERSCHOFF 9112090274 911125i PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
10 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 November 25, 1991 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Ellis W. Merschoff, Acting Director Division of Reactor Projects FROM:
Gus C. Lainas, Assistant Director for Region II Reactors Division of Reactor Projects 1/IT Office of Nuclear Reactov Regulation
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - OCONEE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS DURING REFUELING AND COLD SHUTDOWN (TIA 91-31)
Your memorandum dated September 27, 1991, requested NRR to review the Oconee Technical Specifications (TS) and determine if any changes were needed. In response to the recent shutdown events at Oconee, NRR had requested that Duke Power Company (DPC) perform a self-review of the Oconee TS and then meet with the NRC to present their findings and discuss any proposed corrective actions. A meeting was held with DPC on October 9, 1991, where DPC identified a number of differences between the Oconee TS and standard TS. DPC in most cases did not propose TS revisions to address these differences. Instead, interpretations of existing TS, which would be documented in the control room copies of TS for reference by the operators, would be made when existing TS were determined to be correct but prone to misinterpretation. If no TS existed where requirements were determined to be appropriate, DPC proposed to issue such requirements as a change to the Selected Licensee Commitment Manual.
Because of the continuing nature of the NRC initiative in the area of shutdown TS, the NRC staff concurred in the approach proposed by DPC. In a letter dated October 21, 1991, DPC has committed to make the changes proposed in the meeting. If the need for further changes is identified as a result of the NRC initiative in this area, NRR will address the issue with new plant-specific tasks. Therefore, this concludes our efforts on TAC Nos. 81753, 81754, and 81755.
If you have any questions, you or your staff may contact Len Wiens of my staff on FTS 492-1495.
Gus C. Lainas, Assistant Director for Region II Reactors Division of Reactor Projects -
I/IT Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation