ML20148F805
| ML20148F805 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1974 |
| From: | Brunner E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Thornburg H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148F808 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011060766 | |
| Download: ML20148F805 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000029/1974014
Text
_
a.
,
. . . .
, i
et
,
-
UNITEo ST ATES
[.
N
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
'-
Dt R EC T Q H A T E Olr H EC U LA TO R Y CPC se A TION S
.' \\
'
.
, ' . '. I
'}
REctoN i
'
631 P ARe( AVENUE
y
KIN G or PRUS$1 A, PENNSYLV ANI A 194C6
s;<; e '
NOV 'l 41974
H. D. Thornburg, Chief, Field Support and Enforcement Branch
RO:HQ
RO INSPECTION REPORT No. 50-29/74-14
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY
LICENSE NO. DPR-3
The subject report is forwarded for action on the following two items.
1.
As indicated in the report (Detail 19), the licensee is currently
planning to perform rated load discharge tests on his station
batteries at lea.st every three years. The licensee's Technical
Specifications or proposed Technical Specifications do not include
any requirements for battery discharge tests. Additionally, three
Yankee plants having the same corporate organization have three
different requirements for the same type of battery test. These
plants and their required surveillance intervals is as follows:
Yankee Rowe - every third refueling but not more than
three year interval.
Maine Yankee - every third refueling.
Vermont Yankee - every refueling.
It should be noted that none of these. meet the interval of one year
recoe: tended in IEEE Std 308-1971 which is endorsed by Regulatory
Guide 1.32 (Safety Guide 32).
It is requested that Headquarters determine the appropriate sur-
veillance interval for Yankee Rowe rated load discharge tests of
station batterics and that this interval be included in the
licensee's Technical Specifications.
2.
On January 3,1974, the licensee submitted (as Proposed Change
No. 112) to Licensing proposed T2chnical Specifications written
in the format set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.70.
To aid Licensing
in its review of this submittal the licensee also included the
" Hazards Summary Report" rewritten in Final Safety Analysis Report"
format.
-
- -
-- .
-
F
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS
8013og,9 ygg
P00R QUMlN pgggs
.
.
-
-
.-
-
.
!
'
..
'
.
'
.
,
.
.
4
At the'present time, Yankee Rowe has very poor Technical Speci-
fications. The TS incorporate by reference many sections of the
old Final Hazards Summary Report (FHSR) which is maintained up-to-
- date by very few, if any, individuals. As a matter of fact, R0
- I
'does~not even have most of the sections of the FHSR.
'As of this 'date, Licensing has not established a schedule for the
review of the proposed Technical Specifications and TSAR. This
.
delay in review is causing problems for the licensee and RO:I since
the FHSR has very few surveillance requirements and requirements
for other inspection items in TI 1800/2.
(The licencee requested
-in an October 21,.1974, letter to A.,Giambusto that the subject
revizw be established and expedited.)
It is requested that Headquarters expedite the Technical Speci-
fication.and FSAR review effort.
l4 fl ?;VL-... <.4
O
s
/,
'Eldon J. Brunner, Chief
Reactor Operations Branch
cci
F. A. Dreher, RO:HQ
!
- K. Seyfrit, RO:HQ
,
.
.
..
._ .
.
-
-
- ...