IR 05000244/1975001

Letter Regarding Inspection Report No. 05000244/75-01

ML18143A618
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	03/28/1975
From:	Nolan F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Brunner E Rochester Gas & Electric Corp
References
F14060H1 IR 1975001
Download: ML18143A618 (6)

Text

ggR 2 8 $ 75 E, 0. Brunner, Chief, Reactor Operations Branch, IE;I THRU: il. H. Snieze Chief, Facility Inspection Branch, IE ROCH ER GAS 5 ELECTRIC COMPANY - RO INSPECTION REPORT N Z4~ 5-01 - GI'S - (F14OGOH1)

The transmittal memorandum for the subject. repor t requests the full term license technical specifications (TS) include a specific definition regarding what constitutes a physics test at power. The'transmittal memorandum also states that such a definition would help minimize confusion in this area during future testing at power A review of Detai'ts 9.f.(6)

of the inspection report and discussions with the assigned inspector revealed the confusion was concerned >>ith possible differences behieen physics tests and experiments.

At operating 'tight-water power reactors there is very little difference between a physics test and an experiment. The administrative section of the standard TS requires the onsite safety review comoittee to review all proposed tests and experiments which affect nuclear safety. Me note that Section 6.1.4.1 of'he licensee's TS is more restrictive $ n that the plant operations. review committee is required to review al't proposed tests and experiment' In our view, Regulatory has established appropriate requirements for the conduct of tests or experiments at water-cooled powe'r reactors, e.g., prior review by the onsite review committee and conformance with TS or 'lO CFR 60.59 requirements. We believe that any action to provide specific definitions for tests and experiments can only establish an interface problem >>hich will result in additional confusion4

I

~j l

I.

e s* " c P

t

IR a ~ J. Brunner tNR 2 8 1% )lith respect to the problelll identified in the sub)ect report, we believe the inspector took the proper course of action, i.e., questioning the test. However, we believe this is an isolated case which doesn't warrant development of a special definition for an at-power physics test. The basic problem appears to be a breakdown in RL policy relating to informal approval. As a result, the IF/RL interface meeting appears to be the proper forum for resolving such problems, and we plan to include it on the agenda for future meeting Based on the above information, we do not plan any further action regarding your request. If you require additional information or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact men OAglnol Signao <>

F' Nolan F, J. Nolan Senior Reactor Inspection Specialist Facility Inspection Branch Office of Insp ction 8 Enforcement cc! DISTRI BUT ION:

HDThornburg, IE:HQ 4E Files (2)

FIB-8 (STS 5 SAR Cmts) IE Rdg FIB Rdg-JHS Nolan Reading E'BC F14060H1 3a'/28

...F JNol.an...g...,

7451/mib 4URNAMC~ tezek DATE 3/ /75 3/n 75 n hEC-318 (Rer. 9-33)" hZChf 0240 4 U 4 OOVRRNMKNT PRINTINO OPPICEI IOTA 624

I44

t I I

I l'-

P

~ ~

V NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

631 PARK AVENUE KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 FEB 14 1975 H. Thornburg,Chief, Field Inspection and Enforcement Branch, HQ RO INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-244/75-01 ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION LICENSE NO. DPR-18 (TRACK fj F14060HO)

The subject inspection .report is forwarded for appropriate Headquarters

'action.. The"action requested is discussed below:

Detail'.b of the inspection report discusses an inspection finding

,related to,the lack of-specific definition in the Technical Specifica-tions regarding what constitutes a physics test at power. IE:I requests

.,that an appropriate definition be included in,the:full term license Technical Specifications which would help minimize confusion in this area during future testing, at powe El n Brunner,,Chief'e ctor Operations Branch pLUTIOy

b lyly, ge

~

~

0 e n

l I

P ~

'\

C I I

"i