ML19276H395
| ML19276H395 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1975 |
| From: | Jaffe D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910160729 | |
| Download: ML19276H395 (3) | |
Text
.
".: 4 q
DCC)IT NO. :
50-239 LICE::SEE:
METROFOLITAN EDISON CO.PANY (fte Ed)
FACILITY: THREE MILE ISLA'iD U'iIT 1 SU! NARY OF TIE MEETING HELD IN BEDESDA, ON SECTION 6.0 (ADl!INISTRATIVE PROCEDURES) 0F TIE STANDARD TECICJICAL SPECIFICATION FOR THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 1 On February 24, 1975, representatives from the NRC and HetEd met at the Phillips Building, Bethesda, Maryland. A list of attendees is enclosed.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Meted's proposed Section 6.0 of the Standard Technical Specifications submitted December 26, 1974.
A detailed account of the meeting and its conclusions is presented in.
D. Jaffe Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Reactor Licensing
Enclosures:
1.
List of Attendees 2.
Details of Meetin;
!/20 109 1
rt 91016 0 '., %..s$
'V CB..
ORB!5...
o "'c = *
~< i
.7_
DJaf..dg1
..GLear... _
.a.....
oaes D.
Foran AIC.5ta (Rev. 9 55) AECM 0240 W u. e4 eovsnmassm? Paimrius orrects tot 4.sas. nee
ENCLCSU.E I LIST OF ATTENDEES NRC F. A11enspach D. Jaffe B. Washburn Meted R. Arnold L. Lawyer
120 110 orrec s
- sunwaws
- O Avs
- Foran AIC 313 (Rev. 9 3)) AECM 02 0 W u. e. oovannessur eninvane orricas esr4.sas. tee
E:iCLOSU?" 2 DETAILS CF 'rIE E TI:;C 1.
The.;T.C Staff indicated that the Meted submittal was well prepared and corresponded quite closely to the desired fornat and content. The only najor eres of disagreenent was Section 6.S (Review and Audit).
2.
The NRC Staff stated that Section 6.0 for the Taree Mile Island Unit 2 Technical Specifications was currently under review and that it should be identical to that of Unit 1.
3.
HetEd stated that in Section 6.5 of their subnittal, the Meted Corporate Technical Support Staff performed the function of the Company Nur: lear Review and Audit Group (CNRAG).
The HetEd Corporate Technical Support Staff was intentionally structured to operate without a committee structure.
The NRC Staff in-dicated that the comittee structure was preferable but would not be required in this case.
4.
The NRC Staff stated that the Technical Specifications for the General Office Review Board (GORB) were not required but could be included. HetEd indicated that they believed that the func-tion of the GORB was important and should be governed by Technical Specifications.
S.
The NRC Staff indicated that Section 6.1 of the submittal was overly detailed. Meted stated that the responsibilities of the Station Superintendent, especially with regard to 10 CFR 50 Part S0.59 reviews, are important and should be included in the Technical Specifications.
1120 111 "I
O ATE N Form AIC 319 (Rev. 9-53) A.ECM 0240 TT u. s. oovsmmutar eninvine orricas sete.sae. nee