ML20105C217
| ML20105C217 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Crane |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1983 |
| From: | Scinto J NRC |
| To: | Stolz J NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20102A920 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-166 NUDOCS 8502090344 | |
| Download: ML20105C217 (1) | |
Text
--_
November 14, 1983 4
Note to J. Stolz
SUBJECT:
TMI-1 STEAM GENERATOR REPAIR LICENSE AMENDMENT PACKAGE l.
The report indicates the inaccuracy of our comunications with licensees. I presume we got our information over the phone and didn't get confirmation in writing. We noted this problem in the original SER.
2.
Comission paper - The notice only covered resumption of operation with repaired SG. The repair work was okayed originally as no unreviewed safety question.
- 3.. Page 2, SER - What was standard used to decide what is
" unacceptable"? Why is that " insignificant"?
4.
Page 4 - What is the test story all about?
-.}'
- 5.. Page 12 - On buckling - How does this match page 7 on buckling? Sounds like we changed our story and are trying to rationalize.
6.
Page 19 - Basis for concluding that its okay not to flush 1 " piping"?
7.
Need'to see original coments. Any new coments on Sholly law or Regs - need to be reviewed by Olmstead.
8.
Page 10 - Needs to be changed because changes' on not having replaced all' corroded parts.
9.
The'SER is probably as good a defense of the NSHC detemi-nation as can be developed. However, it.does not sound like this matter was insignificant from the standpoint of plant operating safely.
-1d.
I may have another coment on the story on the 7-9 of the NSHC Determination.
ce Scinto cc: R.Rawson 6
J. Gray' O
t-ib eso2 g o m *
- PDR P
TOS -166
=
=
~
o November 16, 1983 Note to:
J. Scinto From:
R. Rawson
SUBJECT:
ficGUIRE AMENDMENT PACKAGE (838988) RELATING TO
" DENIAL" 0F AMENDMENT ON DIESEL GENERATOR SURVEILLANCE On August 1, 1983, Duke submitted a request for separate amendments to McGuire 1 and 2 licenses. This request was supplemented on September 7, 1983.
For Unit 1, Duke requested a change in its schedule for surveillance testing of-turbine _ overspeed protection system valves from once every 7 days to once every 31 days.
For Unit 2, Duke requested a change in the surveillance interval for certain diesel generator tests from 18 months to each refueling outage. These amendment requests were both noticed on September 15, 1983 with proposed no significant hazards
' consideration determinations.
No coments or requests for hearing were
.)
received.
N-On October 26, the' Staff issued the amendment for Unit 1.
The Staff also denied Duke's request for a change in the surveillance interval for Unit 2, but granted a one-time extension to no later than March 31, 1984 for the next set of tests. Duke's application did specifically_
request this. alternative relief in the event that the primary request was-not authorized.
Failure to have granted this relief would have required shutdown on October 27, 1983 to perform the tests.
Thus, both amendments have already been issued by the Staff.
OELD has now been asked to concur in a package regarding the issuance of these amendments.
A single FRN is framed as a " Notice of Denial'of Amendments."
I understand that this was.done in response to an earlier comment by you. _ It addresses only the amendment for Unit 2 and discusses the_one-time extension.
(I understand that the issuance of the amendment for
~
Unit 1-is not intended to be covered by this FRN and has been or will be the subject of a separate monthly or individual FRN.) The FRN for the Unit'2 amendment also states that the required findings will have been made before issuance of the proposed amendments.
No' findings are TncTuded in-the notice. The October 26 letter issuing the amendments encloses the
. amendments themselves; these contain the appropriate findings. The basis
- for these findings.is contained.in the SER.
As to the Unit 1 turbine overspeed protection system valves, the Staff relies on " preliminary indications" of turbine valve operability and reliability presented by Westinghouse, together with licensee's maintenance, inspection and turbine valve. test program and licensee's "all volatile ~ treatment program for maintaining water chemistry." The Staff approves -the change to 31 day testing as an interim condition, h '.
26C L.
q[.
^.g sub'ect1to review and confirmation of a Westinghouse turbine missile j
. generation probability analysis.
Licensee agrees to this condition.
As to Unit 2, the Staff provides ample justification for denying Duke's request to lengthen the surveillance interval.
The Staff goes on,
. however, to ' approve a one-time extension of up to five months " based on previously-performed successful tests and other system and component testing performed at more frequent intervals at McGuire."
~
c To-summarize, then:
~
~
both amendment' requests were noticed
' the amendment for Unit I has been issued as requested but the postnotice of issuance.is not made as part of this package
- th'e amendment for Unit 2 has been denied as requested but a s
. lesser alternative request was granted and is the subject of the FRN:in this package.
I 'cannot recomend OELD concurrence on this package for the following reasons:
g x w
'The FRN title should clearly reflect ihat it is noiice of
,. 1.
- issuance of amendment and denial of amendments.
It is misleading to the public to call:this 'only a notice of denial when an La'mendment is _ in fact being issued.
2..
- The FRN should state clearly.that it does not encompass the amendment for Unit 1. We,should be sure that the Unit 1 amendment has been or_ gets final notice and does not slip 29
+
M-
<between the cracks.-
s3.
The FRN is inadequ' ate in that-it fails to state that the NRC has'made appropriate' findings that the amendment granted
. comply _with the requirements of the= Atomic Energy Act and the Comission's regulations (the statement on.the first page
.that:the'. Commission will have made the findings'is obviously inapplicable here);-
447 sThe. FRN should state clearly that Duke specifically requested.
1the ;one-time extens_ ion on diesel generator surveillance'as an alternative to its primary request to, lengthen the surveillance interval;
~ - ;
b j 5.
- The SER-do~es not-adequately explain the basis for granting the
'- one-time' extension.to the Unit.2 diesel generator surveillance e testing interval. (see. SER page:2).- - The statement that approval of the' amendment is:" based 'on;previously performed
~
successful-tests and :otherl system and ! component testing
- performed at more frequent intervals"'provides a -good starting 4
s J-
,4
+
c.
?
z-w.
~
e
y
.k w w. -
~
point _but,is r.ot enough to support issuance of the amendment without:- (1) some specificity as-to the nature of the tests relied.upon; and (2) some statement as to why those successful tests support:the extension. Too much is left unsaid by the present language.
(I recognize that the SER has already been issued without OELD concurrence and note this comment primarily
- for the purpose of facilitating future amendment packages.)
Richard J. Rawson
'-cc:
J. Gray 9
- w,
,..n n.y ;_
E-a e
J.
9 L
b a
r S'
d b
- w w
og
,-,1li>me
',e-.
- h
=*O
--- +
%e.**
i v
_T4
.,