ML17258A923
| ML17258A923 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna, Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1981 |
| From: | Russell W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Cottrell W OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| References | |
| LSO5-81-03-041, LSO5-81-3-41, NUDOCS 8104020401 | |
| Download: ML17258A923 (6) | |
Text
~ ~p,o otoo
~C Wp0
+***+
LS05-81-03-041 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR R EG 0 LATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Harch 17, 1981 William B. Cottrell, Director National Safety Information Center Oak Ridge National Laboratory Post Office Box Y
Oak Ridge, Tenn.
37830
Dear Sir:
~ iO+
0~1i cp~
sEE. Rep6.~
p]g ( g 5gp>~
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE FOR THE GINNA AND PALISADES PLANTS We have reviewed your report on the review of operating experience for the Ginna and Palisades plants as transmitted by your letter of December 31, 1980.
Based on this review, we request that'he report be modified to incorporate the coII.Ients provided in the enclosure.
Also enclosed is a marked-up copy of the report, showing other changes.
Your response is requested in 30 days upon recei pt of thi s 1 etter.
Si ncerely, gl)c(glE William T. Russell, Chief Systematic Evaluation Program Branch Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
G. T. Hays, ORNL/NSIC
.Sxocooo gOI
H p H
,e
ENCLOSURE SEP COMMENTS ON REVIEW OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE FOR THE GINNA AND PALISADES PLANTS General
&&\\'a '%'%W l.
There are distinct differences between Section 4 (Ginna) and Section 5
(Palisades).
The two sections need to be more consistent in terminology, review objectives and criteria.
2.
The criteria used to identify degr adati on i n plant safety (i.e., significant events as defined in Section 5.5.1) in the Palisades Section are not adequately presented for Ginna.
3.
Termi nol ogy:
- Use design basis events (DBE) rather than DBA, SRP event
- Don't abbreviate
- hours, days in the text.
Section 1
pg.
1 Why were corments included on reportable event tables for Ginna,,but not for Palisades?
Section 2
pg.
2-1
- Explain "series publications."
Section 4
~ %w&&w'%%'%
pg. 4-4
- It appears that shutdowns with no ascertainable causes could be significant.
pg. 4 Section 4.5 - Was there any change in the AEC/NRC reporting requirements for Ginna which would have resulted in the significant increase in reports per year.
pg. 4 Section 4.5.2.1
- Could the number of operator errors reported after 1975 be correlated with any changes in reporting requirements?
pgo 4-32 5 4-50 Lack of effort in investigating - An obvious deficiency here also is attributed to i nconsistent NRC requirements
- the problem is not uniquely exclusive.
Either delete comment or expand on known deficiency in area of NRC reporting requirements.
pg. 4 What is the basis for statement "Staggered Tests are not necessary"?
Section 5
pg.
5-1
- The review criteria for this section seem to be different from those stated on pg. 3-1.
Why?
pg.
5-1
- (see also pg. 5-16) 5 5-2 The discussion of core rating and electrical rating is confusing, since pages 5-1 and 5-2 do not mention the subsequent increase in power rating (pg. 5-16) pg.
5-1
-"State the basis for such comparatives as "abnormally high number",
8 5-44
'excessive failures."
Wording changes marked in report (attached) on the following pages:
1-3 1-7 3-1 3-11 4-1 4-8 4-13 4-20 4-23 4-29 4-30 4-32 4-34 4-43 44 4-46 4-50 4-51 4-53 5-1 5-4 5-16 5-17 5-18 5-32 5-40 6-1