ML20056D980

Summary of 930720 Meeting W/Util in Rockville,Md to Discuss Plans & Schedule to Implement Improved STS at Plant.Meeting Attendees Listed in Encl 1

ML20056D980
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	07/30/1993
From:	Hebdon F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9308190123
Download: ML20056D980 (9)

Text

P I

ca nog u je

• g UNITED STATES j fg , ,3 qE g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 j# July 30, 1993 Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260 and 50-296 LICENSEE: Tennessee Valley Authority FACILITY: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3

SUMMARY

OF THE JULY 20, 1993 MEETING REGARDING IMPROVED STANDARD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT On July 20, 1993, representatives of the NRC staff and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) met in Rockville, Maryland to discuss plans and schedule to implement the Improved Standard Technical Specifications (ISTS) at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN). Meeting attendees are listed in Enclosure 1. >

Enclosure 2 contains handouts provided by the staff.

TVA began their BFN ISTS conversion effort early this year. They currently plan a complete conversion from their current custom technical specifications to the ISTS. Because of the considerable resources required for the conversion, TVA wished to discuss the staff's expectations for documentation and the expected duration of staff review.

The staff noted that in the near-term, resource priority will be given to 1515 implementation for lead plants. The Hatch plant is the lead facility for the BWR-4/5 plants which are similar to Browns Ferry. The staff does not expect to be able to consider applications for other plants until the Fall of 1994.

Presently, the staff anticipates a complete ISTS review will take about 9 months, but hopes to reduce this span as the staff and industry gain experience in this effort.

The staff stated that licensee submittals should identify the exact, plant-specific, changes from the ISTS which is contained in NUREG-1433 for the typical BWR-4 Plant. The licersee's discussion of no significant hazards consideration, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.92, provide the detailed justification for the new specifications. When BFN is very similar to the

. configuration assumed for the ISTS, the staff expects the proposed changes to be very similar to the ISTS, and the justification can be derived from the ISTS Bases. Licensees will be expected to describe plant-specific differences, and justify why proposed specifications provide an adequate level of safety. It will not be sufficient to state that the proposed changes are adequate merely because they implement the ISTS. Licensees will also be expected to certify that the bases provided for the new technical specifications accurately describe and fulfill the plant design basis. b 03-100 . rQ ti

\

9308190123 930730

~

$ fs ' -

PDR ADOCK 0500025'?

P PDR

I r.

.i The ISTS requirements may be either more or less restrictive than existing requirements. The staff believes that, if the conversion only reformats  !

existing license requirements, ISTS implementation will ~ result in safer plant-operation because of human-factors improvements. The . staff emphasized that it l does not intend to use the ISTS process as a means to inappropriately achieve

" design basis reconstitution." '

TVA representatives noted that within the next few months, they will complete a prototype conversion package. At that time, an additional meeting with the '

staff is expected to provide additional feedback on expectations regarding ,

submittal content, cost, and schedule. t t

Original signed by Frederick J. Hebdon, Director [

~

Project Directorate 11-4 Division of Reactor Projects - I/11 i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,

\

Enclosures:

1. Attendance List

2. Staff Handout cc w/ enclosures: -

See next page :i I

• See Previous Concurrence OfC PDII-4/LA PDIl-4/PM PDII-4/PM f . PDII-4/0 OSTB* ,

i\ ' lAv . ~  ;

NAME BC1ayton [ TRoss M # JWilli[ms FHebdon k CGrimes DATE 7/39\ /93 7/ 39 /93 7/ 30 /93 7/Jo /93 ) 7/27/93 DOCUMENT NAME: ISTSMlG. SUM 9

's

[

l o  :

4 i CC*

Mr. W. H. Kennoy, Director State Health Officer Tennessee Valley Authority Alabama Dept. of Public Health ET 12A 434 Monroe Street  ;

400 West Summit Hill Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1701 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Mr. R. M. Eytchison, Vice President Regional Administrator Nuclear Operations U.S.N.R.C. Region II 1 Tennessee Valley Authority 101 Marietta Street, N.W.

3B Lookout Place l Suite 2900 -

1101 Market Street Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 Mr. Charles Patterson Site Licensing Manager Senior Resident Inspector Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority U.S.N.R.C.

P.O. Box 2000 Route 12, Box 637 '

Decatur., Alabama 35609-2000 Athens, Alabama 35611 ,

t Mr. O. J. Zeringue, Vice President Manager, Nuclear Assurance Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and Licensing Tennessee Valley Authority Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 2000 Tennessee Valley Authority i Decatur, Alabama 35609-2000 P. O. Box 2000 Decatur, Alabama 35609-2000 t

Mr. B. S. Schofield, Manager Dr. Mark 0. Medford, Vice President Nuclear Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Technical Support Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority 5B Lookout Place 3B Lookout Street '

1101 Market Street 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 TVA Representative Tennessee Valley Authority '

11921 Rockville Pike '

Suite 402 '

Rockville, Maryland 20852 General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority ET 11H <

400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, Tennessee 37902

)

Chairman, Limestone County Commission i P.O. Box 188 Athens, Alabama 35611 P

h

-9,

.g ENCLOSURE I ATTENDEES JULY-20, 1993 TVA/NRC MEETING i

IMPROVED STANDARD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR BROWNS FERRY -. ;

l NAME ORGANIZATION L!

, Joe Williams NRR/PD 11-4 '!

Linda Watson

• Region II l' Pedro Salas TVA/ Licensing Jim Maddox TVA - BFN Engineering  ;

Dave Trimble NRR/PD II-4 i Fred Hebdon NRR/PD 11-4 '

C. I. Grimes NRR/0TSB Mark Reinhart NRR/0TSB Craig Harbuck NRR/0TSB Ronnie Lo NRR/0TSB

• via telephone

.e j.j er EllCLOSUPr 2 f 4 UNITED STATES  !

j l* I ) .; } NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

,. a -r wAssimarow, o.c. aouuooi February 24,1993 f a

Docket No. 50-255

}

Mr. Patrick M. Donnelly Plant Safety and Licensing Director l Palisades Nuclear Plant  :

27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, Michigan 49043

~

Dear Mr. Donnelly:

In your letter to Christopher Grimes, dated September 22, 1992, you requested .

information concerning the estimated NRC costs and schedules for converting the existing Falisades technical specifications to the improved standard technical specifications (STS). ,

As you know, the NRC and the industry have expended considerable resources to develop the improved STS. We believe that these STS offer significant safety benefits, particularly for older plants. However, we also recognize that the  !

conversion for older plants is more difficult to justify because of the associated costs of procedure changes, operator training, and clarification of  ;

the plant licensing basis.

( l My staff has reviewed the technical information in your letter. We did not  !

note any insurmountable technical obstacles to such a conversion. For  !

planning purposes, the staff has estimated that the initial conversion reviews I will require about I to 2 staff-years of NRC effort and $50,000 of contractor  !

support for each site. The lead plant:i for each of the owners groups have '

volunteered to conduct conversions, in part so.that an efficient conversion process can be developed. The staff expects that the'1essons learned from the lead-plants will lead to a more efficient and effective conversion process and 'i a better cost estimate for the plants that follow the lead-plant I implementation.

With regard to the duration of the review, the staff expects that once a {

formal amendment request is docketed, our review would take about nine months. i An early submittti might, however, compete with the resources available to conduct the lead-plant reviews and extend this somewhat. He recommend that, as the lead-plant reviews proceed, we continue to exchange information '

concerning the longer lead time items such as bases deve'opment which you may choose to initiate. I

N b

, e Patrick M..Donnelly- February 24, 1993 .,.

- We appreciate your participation and support thus far in the Technical

- Specifications It.rovement Program.. We hope that a way can be defined for Palisades to achieve the benefits of the improved STS.

Sincerely, ,

b #n Ledyard B. Marsh, Director Project Directorate-III-1 .

Division of Reactor' Projects III/IVfV ,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i cc. See next page '

i t

'i i

S 5

i y

F 1

i h

l k

. +

.. a T

STS Conversion Process-Lead Plant STS Changes ,

i 1

Plant-Specific 9s At ditions leneric Changes E Typographical l Design Features & . orrections Corrections u .-

/

1 i Generic issues Review Process l NRC Review l NRC Review Process 4 , -

Approved STS Changes Conversion SER

& Plant Tech Specs Appeal issues l Update STS l

1. 1 - 3/93 m_..__.m_m ____m_.mm__m-___._._-____ mum _ _-_.__..__.<_.______m___________m

__.___________.+._.__m

--r- _m.____-__ +- . -. = --_.--e-._my,- .. o, e <., .,,w. -.=m ,e,,e.- - - - *. . .

• we .. w-r+n-

STS: Conversion Process Generic issues Review Process LCO & SR Other. Owners

• • • "" " ^**" **"

Corrections & - Corrections &

Addedissues . Screening issues ,

Improvements improvements I I .

NUMARC Distribute & Track

, , i Owners Groups Review  : NRC Review f ,

OG Rejected NRC / Owners Groups i ' Changes Meeting - ,

Possible

Plant-Specifc ' -

. Proposed Difference - Appeal Issues - Approved STS Changes

1. 2 - 3/93

m. _ - ___.________m.__m_m _2_ __ _ _m____'iv._-m __...,....om- -+__..___._.m_-_.m . . . - _._-.-+--.--...,.,--.---.--o--.,w....,,g -w_. ..h.w,,...,.m,-,.-, ..w.-,..-.r.,..-

STS Conversion Process Plant-Specific Review Process .

nsider f Proposed Plant-Specific I

STS Alternatives '

Differences 4

Confirm Bases Yes Additions & Changes EVALUATE STS Change? l Consistent With Difference Justified by Licensing Basis Unique Design or No Different Plant Practice Voluntary No

' " Backfit?

Backfit Unwarranted i

Explain l Appeal?

in SER n

Yes No Explain NRR #901  : NRC Backfit? , .

in SER i

1. 3 - 3/93 ,

- - - . . . - . . . ._,.~.....e c.,.. <,e....,m4w. e..,4 ..,.,...~r.., .._,..,.+-,..~w. r,...---....e. .,e-. e ........-....,.,-,,w, ,-.,.--..s ,1-- --=4m ...e.- ,w-... ,, ..-,v.--., m.r.

[ c.rhY 1

,4. -

Distribution NRC & Local PDRs BfN Rdg. File T. Murley/F. Miraglia 12-G-18 J. Partlow 12-G-18 S. Varga 14-E-4 G. Lainas 14-H-3 F. Hebdon J. Williams '

T. Ross D. Trimble B. Clayton OGC 15-B-18 E. Jordan MNBB-3701 C. Grimes ll-E-22 ACRS (10)

OPA 2-G-5 L. Plisco 17-G E. Merschoff RII K. Clark R11 P. Kellogg Ril J. Crlenjak RIl

?