ML20134P354
| ML20134P354 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1985 |
| From: | Jaudon J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Bennett W, Breslau B, Chamberlain D NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132C450 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-511 NUDOCS 8509060251 | |
| Download: ML20134P354 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000429/2005003
Text
p
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
l
[ *%,
UNITED STATES
[.
NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION
,
,
$J
j
REGION IV
S'
f
611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. sulTE 1000
\\ ,. ,
,8
,
^ CD
MEMORANDUM FOR: Distribution
FROM:
J. P. Jaudon, Chief, Project Section A, Reactor Project
Branch 1
SUBJECT:
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW AT RIVER BEND
Purpose. To promulgate supplemental inspection and administrative
i
instructions for the review of Technical Specifications (TS) at River Bend.
Inspection Dates. The inspection will begin at the start of business, Monday,
April 29, 1985. This will necessitate Sunday travel, for which overtime will
be paid. The inspection is scheduled to complete on Friday, May 3, 1985.
However, the inspection will be extended into the weekend, and the following
week if necessary, to complete a sufficient review of TS.
Inspection Plan. The draft TS will be published in Washington on April 22,
1955. Copies will be sent to inspection participants by overnight mail. In
all cases, these should be in hand by April 24, 1985. The TS have been
sabdivided into sections as indicated in enclosure 1.
The inspection plan is
that each inspector will determine if the TS in his section is in general
agreement with the River Bend FSAR. This inspection is not an as-built
walkdown inspection, but it is necessary to identify any gross deficiencies
between the FSAR/SER and the TS. The detailed inspection will be to verify
that the licensee has implementing procedures prepared for each TS requirement.
These procedures will be reviewed, and as many as possible will be walked
down. Documentation of inspection findings will be on the forms provided.
Examples are prosided as enclosures 2 and 3.
These will be appended to the
inspection report directly. Accordingly, they should be filled out cerefully
and completely. This is an announced inspection. The licensee ht.s been
requested to assemble procedures and to provide guides for the walkdown. This
should increase individual inspector efficiency.
W. R. Bennett has done.most of the planning for this inspection. He is
designated as the inspection team leader. There will be at least two status
meetings held by the team during the inspection. The inspection team leader
will schedule these.
I
The inspection team leader is responsible for the report preparation.
It will
be a short sumary of the findings; the findings will be promulgated directly
l
from the enclosure 2 and 3 forms filled out by inspectors. It is important to
promulgate the report promptly so that corrective actions on TS can be taken.
It is equally important that all TS problems be identified and documented.
)
8509060251 850820
[T
f'
PETTIN85-511
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
2
Tc meet this requirement it will be necessary to complete all required forms
(enclosures 2 and 3) and submit for team leader approval prior to final site
departure.
The licensee will provide office space, as well as copies of procedures and
personnel to act as guides / escorts. For information on additional details
concerning motels and transportation, contact W. R. Bennett ,(A1).
l
J
P.
ie
P o' ct Sectio
1
l
Enclosures:
As stated
Distribution:
W. R. Bennett
B. A. Breslau
D. D. Chamberlain <
W. Holley
D. L. DuBois-
R. E. Farrell'
M. E. Murphy
D. A. Powers
W. F. Smith
C. C. Harbuck
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
.
.
i
ENCLOSURE 1
,
{
The assignments for the Tech Spec review team are as follows:
Tech Spec Section(s)
Inspector
3/4
.1, .2, and .9
D. A. Powers
3/4 .3
W. R. Bennett, W. F. Smith, and
one contractor
3/4 .4
B. A. Breslau
3/4 .5 plus RCIC
D. L. DuBois
3/4 .6
R. E. Farrell
3/4 .7 less RCIC
M. E. Murphy
3/4 .8
C. C. Harbuck and one contractor
3/4 .10 plus general overview
D. D. Chamberlain
3/4 .11 and .12
W. L. Holley
i
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW DATA SHEET
TS PARA:
PAGE NO..
TS REQUIREMENT:
LIC. PROCEDURE N0.:
ISSUE DATE:
REV..
TITLE:
YES
M
Is there any difference between FSAR/SER and TS?
Is installed systen consistent with TS?
Are there any problems with the TS (factual or
editorial)?
Does procedure carry out TS requirement?
Does the procedure walkdown indicate that it should
work as written?
Has licensee completed procedure walkdown?
REMARKS (Explain all "N0s"):
STATUS OF ITEM
OPEN
CLOSED
FOR "0 PENS", WHO MUST 00 WHAT BY WHEN?
INSPECTOR (S):
FOLLOWUP ACTION:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
YES
g
Were problems corrected?
_
Were any other problems identified?
STATUS OF ITEM
OPEN
CLOSED
REMARKS:
INSPECTOR (5):
INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/
PAGE NO.:
)
- ..
. _ _ .
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION DATA CONTINUATION SHEET
TS PARA:
PAGE NO.:
INSPECTION REPORT 50-485/
PAGE NO.: