ML17318A294

Proposes Mods to Inservice Insp & Inservice Testing Program Review Responsibilities to Minimize Duplication of Effort at NRC & Maximize Contractor Review Activities.Sister Nuclear Facilities Should Be Managed by Same NRC Ofc

ML17318A294
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch, Cook, 05000000
Issue date:	09/14/1979
From:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Schroeder F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-07811, TAC-7811, NUDOCS 7910030123
Download: ML17318A294 (3)

Text

. gp,R RE0y

~ ~4

~o q )')

~i/

E)

++*++

UNITEDSTATEKMUliff+gKDPff @PAL NUCLEAR R EG ULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 September'4, 1979 Dockets Nos.

50-and

-315

SUBJECT:

MEMIORANDUM FOR:

Frank Schroeder, Acting Director, Division of System Safety e

FROM:

Darrell Eisenhut, Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactors INSERVICE INSPECTION AND INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM REVIEW:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REASSIGNMENT OF REVIEW RESPONSIBILITY FOR HATCH 2, DC COOK 1

It has been brought to the attention of the Division of Operating Reactors (DOR) that a contract with. INEL (EG&G) to review Inservice Testing Programs for

'SS will be. finalized through the Department of Energy in the near future.

This contract involves three DOR nuclear facilities; Hatch 2, D.

C.

Cook 2 and Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2.

Based upon the current status of operation for

, each of these facilities, I propose the following modifications to the present delineation of ISI/IST review responsibilities to minimize the duplication of

'ffort

'by'DOR 'and DSS in the review of sister nuclear facilities while maximizing the contractor's review activities.

recommend the deletion of Hatch 2 from DSS review responsibility and propose that the review be conducted by DOR for both Hatch Units 1

and 2.

This recomm-endation is based upon a submittal from Georgia Power Company dated July 11, 1979,

~which proposes to standardize the Inspection and Testing Program between the two units.

The review for Hatch Unit 1 is being managed by the Engineering Branch (DOR).

G. Johnson is the primary reviewer and coordinates with the contractor, PNL.

The review on Hatch 1 is scheduled for completion in September 1979.

The project manager, D. Verrelli, (DOR), and the primary reviewer would coordinate with the transfer of review of Hatch 2 to DOR.

An interim relief was issued on'arch 14, 1979 regarding the Inservice Testing Program for Hatch Unit 2, which began commercial operation on August 16, 1979.

I recommend the transfer of the ISI/IST review for D. C. Cook Unit 1 to DSS from DOR.

This recommendation is based on the concept of similarity of testing programs for sister facilities.

DOR has not started the review process for D. C. Cook 1, therefore no duplication of effort is involved.

The D.

C.

Cook Nuclear Facility, Unit 1

began commercial operation on August 27, 1975 and is currently in the fourth fuel cycle.

D. C. Cook Unit 2 began commercial operation on July 1, 197',l and is currently completing its first fuel cycle.

The DOR operating reactor project manager is D. Wigginton.

Prank Schroeder The Inservice Testing Program for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 was submitted on June 15, 1978.

The review of the submittal was to be completed prior to conmercial operation.

Commercial operation is currently scheduled for a date between September 20-25, 1979.

The assigned operating reactors project manager, G. Vissing (DOR) will coordinate with H. Brammer of the Mechanical Engineering Branch (DSS) to issue a standard interim relief prior to the commercial operation date pending the DSS indepth review of the Inservice Testing Program.

The initial Inservice Inspection Program Review has been completed for ANO-2 and the

~

SER was included in Amendment No.

1 to the Facility Operating License.

The.priority of review for the IST/ISI Testing Programs should be based upon the review periods described in 10 CFR 50.55(g)4.

In view of the commercial operation dates, the D. C. Cook Units should be revi'ewed first, followed by the

'review of AN0-2.

I

.It is not intended that the DOR technical review group will review the DSS IST/

ISI. package.

Instead, the DOR project manager will interact with the assigned DSS primary review group and prepare the SER based on draft input from that review group.

I have attached a copy of Amendment No. 46, for Fort Calhoun, Unit 1, issued on

.July 2, 1979, which addressed the Inservice Testing Program.

The supporting safety evaluation included in the enclosure provides a model for the SERs that will be required by DOR for amendment changes involving'b. C. Cook Units 1

and 2,

'nd AN0-2.

I would appreciate receiving your comments on this issue prior tosEpTB~BER 38 fS~

to allow timely resolution of this matt.r.

Enclosure:

Amendment 46-Fort Calhoun, Unit 1

dtd. 7/2/79 Darre i s nh, Acti r ctor Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:

RYollmer BGrimes JRMiller WGammill LShao VNoonan PCheck ASchwencer RReid TIppolito TJCarter WRussell RIng ram PKreutzer SSheppard CParrish DVerrelli DWigginton GYissing LEngle JStol z SYar ga GJohnson JWetmore HBraraner

/s WA PI

~

"g s

I 1>'