ML17312B628

Summary of 970709 & 10 Meeting W/Util at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station to Discuss Improved Std TSs

ML17312B628
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	08/19/1997
From:	Thomas C NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9708210314
Download: ML17312B628 (12)

Text

~pe RE00~

~o nO EA C

0

~O

++*++,

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 August 19, 1997 LICENSEE:

Arizona Public Service Company FACILITY:

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.

1. 2.

and 3

SUBJECT:

The NRC staff also attended the OSRC meeting on July 10.

1997. where changes to ISTS Sections 3.4. 3.8, 3.9, and 5.0 were reviewed and approved.

These submittals were in response to the staff's RAIs dated April 22. April 10.

May 16, and April 25, 1997. respectively.

The APS Project Manager for the ISTS conversion process presented these ISTS sections to the OSRC members for approval.

The NRC staff discussed the Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG)

Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) changes with the licensee.

The APS representative stated that it was reviewing the NRC-approved CEOG TSTF changes that are applicable to the Palo Verde site.

The licensee stated it will identify the TSTF changes in the applicable ISTS sections of its submittal and in its cover letter in response to the staff's RAIs for improved accountability.

gf~(

j708pi03~

O5ooog28 9708<9

@OR goQCK pDR P

-.-'. v ~38 Q lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll+CM ClmFII

SUMMARY

OF MEETINGS HELD ON JULY 9 AND 10, 1997.

TO DISCUSS THE IMPROVED STANDARD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS The NRC staff met with Arizona Public Service Company (APS) on July 9 and 10.

1997, at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, to discuss the Improved Standard Technical Specifications (ISTSs).

NRC participants were Charles-Thomas and Angela Chu.

APS participants, including the APS Plant Review Board (PRB) and Offsite Safety Review Committee (OSRC) members, are listed in Attachment 1.

Charles Thomas and Angela Chu also met with Jim Levine.

APS, Senior Vice-President.

Highlights of the meetings are summa ized below.

The NRC staff attended an APS PRB meeting on July 9. 1997. where changes to ISTS Section 3.4 were reviewed and approved.

The submittal was in response to the staff's request for additional information (RAI) dated April 22.

1997.

The APS Project Manager for the ISTS conversion process presented these ISTS sections to the PRB members f'r approval.

The NRC staff discussed with APS representatives the licensee's matrix of Technical Specification (TS) requirements that are being relocated from the current Technical Specifications (CTS) to the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM), the Updated Final Safety Analyses Report (UFSAR). the Bases and the QA Program.

The TS requirements being relocated to the TRM. the UFSAR and the Bases are licensee-controlled documents governed by the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.

The TS requirements being relocated to the QA Program are governed by the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54.

The licensee is also updating and issuing a

revision of its matrix of relocated TS requirements.

Ch Chh C

J 11, f'

t CJ[4 Ll

(

The NRC Pr'oject Manager met with James Levine.

APS. Senior Vice-President.

The discussion centered on the licensee's ISTS submittal and the staff's RAIs.

In general, the licensee's submittal was good and was in accordance with Nuclear Energy Institute conversion guidelines and NRC Administrative Letter 96-04.

The NRC staff's RAIs for most ISTS sections were minimal; however, the RAIs for ISTS Sections 3.3, 3.6, and 3.8, were average compared to other plants.

During the exit meeting, the licensee stated that its RAI process is on schedule and in accordance with its review schedule submitted to the NRC staff on June 6.

1997.

The licensee also stated that ISTS Section 3.3.

was identified as critical path.

The NRC staff has also identified this section

. as critical path.

The licensee has committed to make every effort to respond to this section ahead of its June 6. 1997, review schedule.

The licensee has committed to meet with the NRC staff after receipt of the ISTS final Safety Evaluation but before ISTS implementation in 1998, to discuss its proposed implementation process.

The licensee plans to discuss operator training and training aids, procedure changes.

and verbatim compliance.

The licensee stated that the NRC staff's RAI for ISTS Section 3.3. dated June 6.

1997, found weaknesses in the licensee's discussion of changes (DOCs) for the less-restrictive (L) and more-restrictive (M) changes.

These L and M

changes lacked sufficient justification of why NUREG-1432 applies to their plant (i.e.,

a plant-specific justification of applicability and acceptability).

The APS representative pro-actively stated that in order to ensure that ISTS Sections 3.6 and 3.8 did not have the same problems associated with ISTS Section 3.3, APS had committed to complete an additional review of the L and M changes and would provide additional justification, if required and where necessary.

The NRC staff stated that it had conducted a

random independent review of the DOCs in ISTS Sections 3.5 and 4.0 to see if this weakness existed in these ISTS sections.

The NRC staff found these ISTS sections to be satisfactory.

Docket Nos.

STN 50-528, STN 50-529 and.STN 50-530

Attachment:

Attendance List Char les R. Thomas.

Project Manager Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

r

~

At cc w/encl:

Nr. Steve Olea Arizona Corporation Commission 1200 W. Washington Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Douglas Kent Porter Senior Counsel Southern California Edison Company Law Department, Generation.Resources P.O.

Box 800

Rosemead, Cali fornia 91770 Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC P. 0.

Box 40 Buckeye, Arizona 85326 Regional Administrator, Region IV U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harris Tower 8 Payillion 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

Chairman, Board of Supervisors

'ATTN:

Chairman 301 W. Jefferson, 10th Floor

Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Hr. Aubrey V. Godwin, Director Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 4814 South 40 Street Phoenix. Arizona 85040 Ms. Angela K. Krainik. Manager Nuclear Licensing Arizona Public Service Company P.O.

Box 52034

Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034 Mr. John C. Horne, Vice President Power Supply Palo Verde Services 2025 N. Third Street, Suite 220 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Mr. Robert Burt Los Angeles Department of Water 8

Power Southern California Public Power'Authority ill North Hope Street, Room 1255-B Los Angeles, California "90051 Nr. David Summers Public Service Company of New Mexico 414 Silver SW, ¹0604 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 Mr. Robert D. Bledsoe Southern California Edison Company 14300 Mesa Road.

Drop D41-SONGS San Clemente, California 92672 Mr. Robert Henry Salt River Project 6504 East Thomas Road Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 Terry Bassham, Esq.

General Counsel El Paso Electric Company 123 W. Mills El Paso, Texas 79901 Nr. James N. Levine Executive Vice President, Nuclear Arizona Public Service Company Post Office Box 53999

Phoenix, Arizona 95072-3999

C

~

~

~

~

.f k

I

~qJ Attachment 1

1 MEETING WITH ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION ATTENDANCE LIST ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

-Plant Review Board A. Krainik N. Henry D. Smith.

C. Maulden T.

Radke P. Crawley

. G. Shanker J.

Hesser B. Rush J. Scott T. Weber G. Michael APS Re resentatives Wray Wong Allan Hartwig Bruce McCaskey NRC C.

Thomas A. Chu Offsite Safet Review Committee G. Overbeck R. Fullmer S.

Levy W. Hartley E. Oneil A. Krainik T. Weber R. Roehler K. Roberson G. Michael

ul I

The NRC Project Manager met with James. Levine, APS, Senior Vice-President.

The discussion centered on the licensee's ISTS, submittal and the staff's RAIs.

In general, the licensee's submittal was good and was in accordance with Nuclear Energy Institute conversion guidelines and NRC Administrative Letter 96-04.

The NRC staff's'AIs for most ISTS sections were minimal; however, the RAIs for ISTS Sections 3.3, 3.6, and 3.8, were average compared to other plants.

During the exit meeting, the licensee stated that its RAI process is on schedule and in accordance with its review schedule submitted to the NRC staff on June 6,

1997.

The licensee also stated that ISTS Section 3.3, was identified as critical path.

The NRC staff has also identified this section as critical path.

The licensee has committed to make every effort to respond to this section ahead of its June 6,

1997, review schedule.

The licensee has committed to meet with the NRC staff after receipt of the ISTS final Safety Evaluation but before ISTS implementation in 1998, to discuss its proposed implementation process.

The licensee plans to discuss operator training and training aids, procedure

changes, and verbatim compliance.

The licensee stated that the NRC staff's RAI for ISTS Section 3.3

~ dated June 6,

1997, found weaknesses in the licensee's discussion of changes (DOCs) for the less-restrictive (L) and more-restrictive (M) changes.

These L and M

changes lacked sufficient justification of why NUREG-1432 applies to their plant (i.e.,

a plant-specific justification of applicability and acceptability).

The APS representative pro-actively stated that in order to ensure that ISTS Sections 3.6 and 3.8 did not have the same problems associated with ISTS Section 3.3, APS had committed to complete an additional review of the L and M changes and would provide additional justification, if required and where necessary.

The NRC staff stated that it had conducted a

random independent review of the DOCs in ISTS Sections 3.5 and 4.0 to see if this weakness existed in these ISTS sections.

The NRC staff found these ISTS sections to be satisfactory.

~@]ggned yiy, Charles R. Thomas, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of'uclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos.

STN 50-528, STN 50-529 and STN 50-530

Attachment:

Attendance List cc w/encl:

See next page Document Name:

PVMTG.SUM DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File PUBLIC PDIV-2 Reading CThomas KThomas E-mail SCol lins (SJCl)

FMiraglia (FJM)

RZimmerman (RPZ).

JRoe (JWR)

EAdensam (EGAl)

OGC ACRS

KPerkins, WCFO

PGwynn, RIV AChu WBateman (WHB)

EPeyton (ESP)

THi 1tz DRoss WBeckner (WDB)

PDIV-2

~ey 8/IB./97 AL PY OFC PDIV-2 NAME CThomas Ql DATE 8/)2/97 N R:TS ec ner 8/lb/97

J gl V'

1 I

Pl 1

I "I

The NRC Project Manager met with James. Levine, APS, Senior Vice-President.

The discussion centered on the licensee's ISTS submittal and the staff's RAIs.

In general, the licensee's submittal was good and was in accordance with Nuclear Energy Institute conversion guidelines and NRC Administrative Letter 96-04.

The NRC staff's RAIs for most ISTS sections were minimal; however, the RAIs for ISTS Sections 3.3. 3.6, and 3.8, were average compared to other plants.

During the exit meeting, the licensee stated that its RAI process is on schedule and in accordance with its review schedule submitted to the NRC staff on June 6, 1997.

The licensee also stated that ISTS Section 3.3, was identified as critical path.

The NRC staff has also identified this section as critical path.

The licensee has committed to make every effort to respond to this section ahead of its June 6,

1997, review schedule.

The licensee has committed to meet with the NRC staff after receipt of the ISTS final Safety Evaluation but before ISTS implementation in 1998, to discuss its proposed implementation process.

The licensee plans,to discuss operator training and training aids, procedure

changes, and verbatim compliance.

I The licensee stated that the NRC staff's RAI for ISTS Section 3.3

~ dated June 6,

1997, found weaknesses in the licensee's discussion of changes (DOCs) for the less-restrictive (L) and more-restr'ictive (M) changes.

These L and M

changes lacked sufficient justification of why NUREG-1432 applies to thei r plant (i.e.,

a plant-specific justification of applicability and acceptability).

The APS representative pro-actively stated that in order to ensure that ISTS Sections 3.6 and 3.8 did not have the same problems associated with ISTS Section 3.3, APS had committed to complete an additional review of the L and M changes and would provide additional justification, if required and where necessary.

The NRC staff stated that it had conducted a

random independent review of'he DOCs in ISTS Sections 3.5 and 4.0 to see if this weakness existed in these ISTS sections.

The NRC staff found these ISTS sections to be satisfactory., ygglgnppy; Charles R. Thomas, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos.

STN 50-528, STN 50-529 and STN 50-530

Attachment:

Attendance List cc w/encl:

See next page Document Name:

PVMTG.SUM DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File PUBLIC PDIV-2 Reading CThomas

. KThomas E-mail SCollins (SJC1)

FMiraglia (FJM)

RZimmerman (RPZ).

JRoe (JWR)

EAdensam (EGA1)

OGC ACRS KPerkins.

WCFO PGwynn.

RIV AChu WBateman (WHB)

EPeyton (ESP)

THi 1tz DRoss WBeckner (WDB)

OFC NAME DATE PDIV-2 CThomas 8/A/97 PDIV-2 8/IG./97 N R:TS ec ner 8t//b/97

~

4

~

l fl I

f