ML20212K376

Suggests That Future Development of Tech Specs Should Be Reassessed Upon Conclusion of Current Review.Normal,As Opposed to Accelerated,Schedule More Realistic Due to Serious Problems & Deficiencies in Facility Procedures

ML20212K376
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	05/01/1985
From:	Houston D NRC - TECH SPEC REVIEW GROUP
To:	Butcher E NRC - TECH SPEC REVIEW GROUP
Shared Package
ML20209E496	List: IA-85-511, Discusses Remarks Re Util Awareness of Errors,Discrepancies & Problems in Current Tech Specs.Caution Should Be Employed in Final Audit & Review of App A.Util Already Demonstrated Inability to Identify All Errors in Final Draft ML20209E489 ML20209E497 ML20212K372 ML20212K376 ML20212K388 ML20212K400 ML20212K411
References
FOIA-85-511 NUDOCS 8608220039
Download: ML20212K376 (2)

Text

-

df/

1. peg \\

i UNITED STATES

.,j g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,

-)

wasenectom. o. c. zosss s

i

\\

May 1,1985 i

Note To:

E. Butcher, Group Leader, TSRG, DL From:

D. Houston, TSRG, DL t

Subject:

Concerns About River Bend Technical Specification Development Initial feedback from Region IV auditors and NRR reviewers in regard to River Bend Tech Spec review would indicate that: (1) this draft of Tech Specs has l

some serious problems to be resolved (2) numerous deficiencies in plant cedures exist in about all areas when compared against this draft and (3) pro-

.)

the plant itself will not be ready for licensing before September,1985. It would appear that our accelerated review schedule is inappropriate and our " Final Draft" questionable. Therefore. I feel that the future development of RBTS should be reassessed upon the conclusion of the current review, on or about i

May 15,1985, and see if a normal schedule (enclosed) would not be the better l

way to proceed.

The licensing process for River Bend follows that for Grand Gulf during the last 1

year of review. Grand Gulf was always to be ready for licensing in the next month or two from November 1981 to June 1982. Due to this anticipated action, technical reviews and Tech Spec development could not be performed under ideal conditions.

We are all aware of the problems that surfaced afterwards on GGTS but yet it appears to me that we have ignored some of the lessons learned from the GG case i

by accelerating the RBTS development, thus giving reviewers less time to perform their review and eliminating some logical steps in our established procedure.

On River Bend, the basic problem with the review is that the utility has failed to 1

pursu[ solution of numerous issues in a timely manner. When confronted with the restr' citons on containment purge, their licensing contact said they were pre-paring a submittal for next week to address the problem that has been known to exist for months. Currently, the LPM carries 67 open items for resolution in the SER and SSERs. This resolution in many cases depends upon future FSAR-amendments,

{

t i

not just the ones in the past few weeks which have yet to be reviewed. As of now, ASB CSB.EQB.ICSB.PSB andRSB branches are looking at or are awaiting information.

{

all of which might affect RB Tech Specs. Compare this to Perry which expects a license in June-July,1985, only a total of 21 items remain open.

i j

From the Regival Audit viewpoint, we have turned the Audit Team loose with a i

i i

cet s m nf7ech Specs right off the press. On a normal schedule, they would j

have had the TS for 5 weeks to review, comment and resolve outstanding items i

prior to their audit function. The utility would also have had 5 weeks to review their procedures before the audit. By^ accelerating the schedule, both the Region l

and the utility are poorly prepared for this important step in the TS process.

l The same can be said for our consultant review and for the utility certification, j

All of these functions were again an aftermath of the Grand Gulf fiasco and we

{

have lessened the review.

Due to the uncertainties associated with the current safety review. I would rec-l ommend that the TS situation be reassessed in the near future and a realistic schedule be set. If many problems exist or are still to be resolved, a normal schedule ending in August should be adopted. Obviously, with current and future TSRG resources available, my participation in the realiktic schedule should not i

be required and a near-future departure to ACRS-can be arranged. Please inform

~

me of a suitable transfer date.

g R _ p4 Bg s2 g 9 860815 D. Hou'ston, TSRG.DL j

PLETTIN85-511 PDR

[% j I

y cc: D.Crutchfield, AD/SA, DL

I y

__o j

4 lN.E ?2*Nsw;r4 All!!ij e

~

,{O---_547 ppa- -2 ff 5

~~

g

it il

~

Dil!!!ih!*-ygr **/#g]- ]jjij[jj}'}5-1

)9 g

li]}[Jito--- p,7j = 793N#3 1 i u ,,.!IIhlll!C o, o, gg iJr! a ~ _fpyys tte E j~glhlg ~ Obi 8j$) E~ ~ 81 !fl*-_yg7Jpg. _M 1 d! hillnie-yigfj-- , y, o 4 :88 I 3:n}I5sIfh - ~ ~, ~ ~ / r g.:8 in gg_ _ .g w a/z n.

---

O E Idd,il

>\\fihle .!i. SM:13M h..JMill}}