ML20066B320

Forwards Safety Evaluation Comments on Review Entitled, Closure of Differing Prof Opinion Issues Re McGuire Tech Specs

ML20066B320
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	01/02/1991
From:	Licciardo R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20066B322	List: ML20066B320 ML20066B328
References
TAC-55435, TAC-55436, TAC-67757, NUDOCS 9101070063
Download: ML20066B320 (4)

Text

. -

- - - - - - - - " ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '

^~

4 l

f UNITED STATES i

e' s

ik NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION usmNoT oN. o. c. 20n6

• n**

JkN u 2 Mi MEMORANDUM FOR:

Thomas E. Murley, Director Office Of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

i FRO'. :

Robert B.A. Licciardo Planning, Program and Management Support Branch Technical Assistance Management Section Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

SAFETY EVALUATION COMMENTS ON REVIEW BY THE NRC ENTITLED

• CLOSURE OF DP0 ISSUES REGARDING MCGUIRE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TACs $5435/55436/67757)

SEPTEMBER 10, 1990; HEMO FROM OR. T. MURLEY TO ROBERT LICCIAR00" The writer has reviewed the subject memorandum (Enclosure 3) and has provided Safety evaluation comments and a related executive summary in Enclosure 1.

ThewritersubmittedaDifferingProfessionalOpinion(DPO)onDecember7,1983 with a procedural entitlement for an independent external review of his concerns.

At-the request of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, this entitlement was waived by the writer on fulfillment of two conditions which were subsequently incorporated by Dr. Denton, Direct 0r, Office Of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, into the following Directives to 0.G. Eisenhut, Director Division Of Licensing, and R. Mattson, Director of Systems Integration, respectively:

"1.

The Divisien Of Licensing should review the adequacy of staff procedures and the actual practices used in the development of technical specifications for an Operating License.

2.

The Division of Systems Integration in coordination with the Division of Licensing, shall have people that are knowledgeable about the technical subjects raised by Mr Licciardo, the standard technical.

' specifications, and the McGuire technical specifications, and review the broad technical subjects raised in the DPO."

Directive 1 contributed significantly to the formulation of policy and implementation of regulatory requirements and related procedures regarding technical specifications within the NRC.

Concerning Directive 2: The writer prepared the Safety Evaluation Report of the Proof And Review copy of the Technical Specifications ~ proposed for McGuire L

Units 1 & 2.

This-report was entitled, " Review Of McGuire Technical-Specifications, dated June 11 1984" (Enclosure 2).-

This report.became the subject of-the prescribed review and then pasted through approximately five separate low priority review attempts-before the current _high priority Action by J. Sniezek and Dr. T. M. Murley in 1990.

D\\

i

[

$$R2 $880 $8b8569 h

PDR p

1

1 L

Dr. T. Murley 2-During the writer's evaluation of Enclosure 3), he determined that 1) An original categorization by Reactor Systems Branch regarding Open items is no longer valid 2) that his original Safety Evaluation of the McGuire TS (Enclosure. 2) has remained valid for all items 3) approximately 6% of the number of concerns may be closed by later clarification without additional Licensing Action An overall review shows a revised total of 421 items of concern, of which 308 were ultimately evaluated as stated in Enclosure 1.

The remaining 86 residual items are valid for completion by the appropriate licensing action deriving from the writer's original Safety Evaluation.

The following comments address the cover letter of the SUBJECT memorandum of September 10, 1990.

For the related plant-specific issues, additional Amendments are required to the Licensing Basis documents, and elements of these include the need for additional information to Complete these issues.

In a memorandum to Reference 37, Ashok Thadani identified 51 items-as plant-specific. Three items (6%) were closed out by licensee clarification only and the remaining 48 have or will require plant specific or generic action such as Amendments to the existing)TS, Final Safety Analysis Report, FSAR, In Service--Program, Set Inspection (151 (NSTS),ortheWestinghouseStandardTS(WSTS).

For generic issues, the writer has identified 240 items for generic consideration from the principal issues being considered by all the various Entities. The total number of necessary additions to the HSTS is 207, and of this number many are also included inside the current WSTS.

Of these additions, the NRC staff admitted only 17, arising from invalid and incomplete reviews of Enclosure 3.-

The total number of actions required to be added to the WSTS is 100.

The reviewers have not provided the required detailed review of the Writer's 1984-TS Review regarding'the comments on the events ~at Diablo Canyon and Votgle: This reflects the fact that Regulatory provisions that would have_ protected both these events were reported by the writer in that Review, and also that prior to the submittal of his DP0 his related l

Concerns were evaluated by the NRC staff as being unimportant and rejected from further consideration. The subsequent low priority reviews described earlier continued until af ter the Diablo Canyon event until James Sniezek and-later Dr Murley accelerated the review to its current status in early 1990, after-the Braidwood LOCA-in Mode 4 Event (also principally considered in the McGuire TS Review): And at the same time Dr Hurley initiated the now major research program in the area of Reactor Risk in these related l

Modes 3-6.

The apparent reluctance of the Reviewers to treat this current assignment in a-Complete and Regulatory manner _ manifests the earlier unwillingness to accept the writer's work for review, and or grant

-it a higher priority, and later for the particular case of the Diablo Canyon event, and nw also for the Votgle event as well as the Diablo Canyon event.

If this were true, this would make the NRC staff potentially L

u

- et e a T-wr-+3---u-r-w-

- ~ '

TT aw'1-M'dt"T1st=N

• e'-W"**"T'te--?UmWT**"*1

='Nwue sveM-*--=='m-ma-e9-=-m

-:'rm' 9e v

w T-m*wc-'T em-rname+

e' m

J

^

A

(_--.

l J

1 J

Dr. T. Murley a culpable of serious deficiencies in the performance of their primary responsibility for Public Health and Safety, in respect of Vogtle, the comment on Station Blackout is invalid as the prime cause was the violation of Regulatory Requirements for Protection which then resulted in the l

Station Blackout from a Regulatory provision for a single failure.

The comment on the 160 items, labelled as OPEN (0) items in Enclosure 1

_ for this evaluation, is invalid and incorrect as evidenced, for example, by the fact that the Diablo Canyon Event was included in these items so that the assigned reviewers have not factually checked their statement.

Furthermore, as described earlier, the writer has affirmed by detailed review, their validity fer completion by appropriate Licensing Action.

The memorandum of September 10th cannot close out the MCGulRE TS REVIEW without addressing the deficiencies of the Reviewers of Enclosure 3 as i

described in these Safety Evaluation Comments, and including especially i

the invalid treatment of all Transients and Accidents in Modes 3-5 and 6.

Completion on the basis'of the writer's 1984 Review as confirmed by his Safety Evaluation Comments of Enclosure 1) in response to the later reviews by others, would complete the necessary Actions to the Licensing Basis and provide the' bases for TS protection in Modes 3-6, for McGuire, It would also provide generic protection for all Westinghouse Reactor i

Systems; and for remaining Pressurized Water Reactor systems as appropriately evaluated.

i Robert B.A Licciardo Registered Professional Engineer, California Nuclear Engineering License-No. NV 1056 Mechanical Engineering License _No. M 015380 l:

- - w

.~,_-...._..__.--,_w_____...__...___.-._

e e

[NCLOSURES:

1. Safety Evaluation Comments On Review By The NRC Entitled " Closure Of 000 1ssues Regarding McGuire Technical Specifications (TACS 55435/5 5436/67757)":

Deted September 10 1990; Memo From Dr. Robert B.A. Licciardo to Thomas E Murley.

2. Review Of McGuire Technical Specifications: Dated June 11 1984 Memo from Robert B. A. Licciardo to Brian W. Sheron.

3. Closure Of OP0 lssues Regarding McGuire Technical Specifications (tat $ 55435/55436/67757): Dated September 10, 1990, Memo from T.E. Murley to Robtrt Licciardo.

Distribution:

Docket file NRt/PDR LPOR T.M. Furley/Miraglia J.M. Trylor 0.4. Sr.iezet D.B. Mntthews 0.$. Hood A.C. Thodani K.D. Desai H.l. Smith (4 Copies)

R.B.A. Licciardo (2 Copies)

Chairn.on K.M. Carr Concissioner K.C. Rogers Com:nie.sioner f.J. Remick Commissioner J.R. Curtiss