ML20236N271

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Work Request Requesting Review of Region I TIA Re Interpretation of TS at Vermont Yankee
ML20236N271
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 08/11/1997
From: Beckner W
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To: Berkow H
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
Shared Package
ML20236J990 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-98-155 50-271-96-11, NUDOCS 9807150071
Download: ML20236N271 (2)
v • d • e


Text

V

,- . as, .

!' ' f \ unirso sTArms

,.f

  • i g ] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS810N wASMm0 ton, o.C. Age 0 Hem

...,, Augus.t 11, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Herbert N. Berkow, Director OWM Project Directorate,11-2 Division of Reactor Projects, NRR O FROM: William D. Beckner, Chief

/ - -

Technical Specifications Branch Associate Director for Projects, NRR  !

SUBJECT:

WORK REQUEST DATED AUGUST 4,1997 REQUESTING  !

REVIEW OF A REGION I TASK INTERFACE AGREEMENT (TIA)

REGARDING INTERPRETATION OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TS) AT VERMONT YANKEE i in the subject Work Request, you requested that the Technical Specifications Branch (TSB) review a TIA from Region 1, dated August 4,1997, and Vermor:t Yankee LER 96-029, and i to document our conclusions. We have reviewed the TIA and LER and provide the following comments. l 1

The Vermont Yankee TS(4.10.C.2) requires that a sample of stored fuel oil be obtained I overy 30 days and checked for quality. While it is implied that the results of the fuel oil snelysis be provided within 30 days, the Vermont Yankee TS do not explicitly state this.

Therefore, failure to obtain analysis results within 30 days does not constitute a TS -

violation. In this regard we are in agreement with the conclusions stated in Attachment 1 to the TIA (excerpt from inspection report 50-271/96-11).

With respect to LER 96 029, we are of the opinion that the licensee's interpretation of their TS is incorrect. As stated above, the Vermont Yankee TS does not explicitly state that the analysis results must be available within 30 days of obtaining the sample.

Moreover, there would not have been a TS violation even if the 30 day interval was applicable to receipt of the fuel oil analysis. This is because the 30 days would be referenced to when the sample was obtained, not to the time between receipt of analysis results. Speelfically, the analysis results of the 10/18/96 sample would have been due no later than 11/18/96, and the analysis results of the 11/22/96 sample would have been due no later than 12/2216. If the results of the 10/18/96 sample had been available on 10/19/96 and the 11/22/96 results available on 12/21/96, there still would not have been a TS violation, in each case, the analysis results would have been received within 30 days

! of obtaining the sample even though the time between receipt of the analysis results was almost 60 days. As stated above, the 30 day time constraint on receipt of analysis would be the maximum time that is allowed to receive analysis results and would be keyed to when the sample was obtained, if the TS 30 days was explicitly applicable to receipt of analysis.

ATTAtlEENT

^

[8[ 1 g 1 980624 ___ g erie. -

. H, hrkow 2- August 11, 1997 The proceeding is the TSB interpretation of the Vermont Yankee TS and of LER 96-02g.

In summary, the TSB is of the opinion that there was no TS violation at Vermont Yankee 2 because the TS do not apply to receipt of fuel oil analysis. Furthermore, the TSB is of the opinion that there would not have been a TS violation even if the TS were applicable to receipt of fuel oil analysis.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Ed Tomlinson of my staff on 415-3137.

g I

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20236N271&oldid=3273767"