ML19329B707
| ML19329B707 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1976 |
| From: | Klingler G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Knop R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002060715 | |
| Download: ML19329B707 (2) | |
Text
o I
O g
gg Distribution:
pQ g
Files t-D IE Reading g
y U
1 g gg DEC LWRPB Chron
" (Klingler)
RIP Reading R. C. Knop, Chief, Reactor Projects Section No. 1, Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch, NRC:III THRU:
J. H. Sniesek, Chief, Light Water Reactor Programs Branch, IE:HQ DAVIS-BESSE UNIT T.O.1 - PRESSU2L*.IR SAFETY VALVES VC '~0 Yb In response to your memo to B. H. Grier, dated October 13, 1976, relating to the Davis-Besse Unit No.1 pressurizer safety valves, the following information is provided:
Question 1:
What specific steps should we follow in applying Technical Specifica-tions 3.4.2, 3.4.3 and 3.7.1.1 to Davis-Besse Unit No. 1 in light of the information we have on tepperature dependence of safety valve settings?
Response
The licensee cannot be per:mitted to knowingly violate the requirements of the Tarh4 cal Specifications. He should take immediate steps to have any changes made that are requirsd. If the inspector known of a condition which violates the Technical Specifications, the licenace should be cited for en item of noncogliance.
'Je have sent a :neno to Licensing that identifies the probins with the apparent temperature dependency of the pressurizer safety valves, and have asked for their prompt attention to this problem.
(Salezek to Coller dtd 12/9/76, copy enclosed.)
Question 2:
What generie implications, if any, azist with regard to the need to revise existing and Standardised Tee h 4==1 Specifications?
Response
iTe have akkad Licensing to review the Standardized Technical Specifica-tions with regard to the temperature der 4e y problem.
(Saissak to coller seus dtd 12/9/76.)
),fff f
0"'8 8 *
... ~ ~ - *
.-e*
Form AEC 518 (Rev. 9-55) AECM 0240
- u. e; eovsanusur enintime opwicss seva.eae. nee 80020607/5 /I
R. C. Knop Question 3:
Should additional information be required to be included in the FSAR to document the " agreement" between the licensee and NRR on conducting the safety valve tests inferred by PTC 25.2-1966?
Responses No.
PTC 25.2 establishes the requirements for a vide spectrum of possihie tests, and Section 3 merely requires agreement on which tests are intended to be performed, and how.
The " agreement" is between NR1 and the licensee, and consists of infor-mation now provided in the FSAR, supplemented by the TS requirements for set point, etc.
IZ's responsibility is to determine whether the testing is being performed in accordance with the " agreement."
In addition, as is the case for our entire inspection progra::, if in examining testing procedures or resnits, the inspector identifies a prot. lee which requires resolution beyond Regional Offica capabilities, the :nnttar should be referred to IE Peadquart rs.
(/
Cersid 2. Klingler Senior Reactor Inspection Specialist Light Water Reactor Programs 3 ranch Division of Reactor Inspection Programs, IE 7' 0 D
?F r
D
[
>v d h
U O
=~'e=*
.IE:LWEPB -
II:LWRPR-.
=== min *
.. CRKlingher-JHSaissek..-
. 12/10/76-12/. -./76 u
=ars
- Forum A3c.518 (Rev. 9 55) 1CM 0240
- u. s. eovanaisant reinvine orricus nova.see.ies
-