ML20133M267

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 961212 Meeting W/Util Re Status of Staff Review of Licensee Request to Convert Plant TS to Improved Std TS Format.List of Attendees Encl
ML20133M267
Person / Time
Site: South Texas  STP Nuclear Operating Company icon.png
Issue date: 01/15/1997
From: Kennedy J
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9701220321
Download: ML20133M267 (7)
v • d • e


Text

l f"*% k

p
  • UNITED STATES go y S

,j .. j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566-0001 -

,o I

January 15, 1997 LICENSEE: HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER FACILITY: South Texas Project

SUBJECT:

SumARY OF DECEMBER 12, 1996, MEETING ON THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT REQUEST TO CONVERT TO THE IMPROVED STANDARD

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS A meeting was held on Thursday, December 12, 1996, for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and the licensee to discuss the states of the staff's review of the licensee's request to convert the South Texas Project (STP)

Technical Specifications (TSs) to the improved Standard Technial Specification format. The meeting was held at the request of the staff at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. A notice of this meeting was issued on December 5, 1996. Attachment 1 is the list of attendees. Attaciiment 2 is the licensee's handout used during the meeting.

In a letter to the licensee dated November 27, 1996, the staff identified l numerous deficiencies in the licensee's amendment request to convert the STP TSs to the improved Standard Technical Specification format. In that letter, the staff suggested that a meeting be held to discuss how best to supplement the original application.

During the meeting the staff noted that there were a number of areas where the licensee's request was beyond the scope of the conversion process, the l technical justification was inadequate, or the change was justified as administrative in nature when it was in fact a less restrictive change. The staff and the licensee proceeded to go through examples of where the licensee's submittal needed augmentation. The licensee noted that a thorough review of the submittal had not been done prior to sending it to the staff due to time constraints.

After reviewing examples of where the staff had identified deficiencies, the licensee provided its plan for reviewing their submittal and providing a supplement. The staff requested that the licensee include the following in the next submittal:

i -

A table listing the applicable Technical Specification Task Force

[ (TSTF) generic changes that the licensee has included in their l submittal. This list should identify what the licensee's plans are l for pending changes, rejected changes, and possible new generic

! changes not yet identified as TSTF.

A table listing all relocated TS material including what the TS is, where it was relocated (Final Safety Analysis Report, Technical Requirements Manual, etc.), and how it will be controlled in the future.

l l

[

< 9701220321 970115 EC RLE CENER COPY l

PDR ADOCK 05000498 p PDR

l .

)

A listing of all beyond scope issues. This list should include those beyond scope issues that were included in the licensee's initial conversion submittal along with a discussion of whether or not the licensee plans to pursue the issue as part of the conversion process or whether it will be pursued as a separate TS amendment request outside of the conversion process. l A listing of TS amendments submitted separate from the initial conversion submittal which will have to be accounted for in the conversion review.

A document describing the licensee's philosophy on adopting the three-train STP design into the two-train improved Standard l Technical Specification format.

l The licensee plans to perform a review of their initial submittal including a review of current TS markups against the discussion of changes (DOCS),

verification that the DOCS adequately support the requested changes, review of l

NUREG-1431 markups against the justification for deviations (JFDs), and verification that the JFDs adequately support the identified deviations from the standard TSs. The licensee showed the staff how they intend to physically I markup the current submittal to clearly identify the new changes.

The staff noted that a review of the staff's safety evaluation issued for the Vogtle plant would be a good starting point for determining the type of i information needed to support a safety evaluation for a conversion amendment.

In addition, the staff clarified that justification is needed for any and all changes in which the words used in the licensee's TSs differ from either the licensee's current TSs or the improved Standard TSs.

The licensee proposed sending in one section of the supplemental submittal as a pilot prior to submittal of the entire supplement. The staff agreed to review the pilot section as time permits. The licensee proposed to send in the pilot section in early February.

i ud L. b whp

Janet L. Kennedy, Project Manager l Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499 Attachments
1. List of Meeting Attendees
2. Licensee's Handout cc w/atts: See next page

A listing of all beyond scope issues. This list should include those beyond scope issues that were included in the licensee's initial conversion submittal along with a discussion of whether or l not the licensee plans to pursue the issue as part of the conversion i process or whether it will be pursued as a separate TS amendment l request outside of the conversion process.

A listing of TS amendments submitted separate from the initial l conversion submittal which will have to be accounted for in the

- conversion review. , ,

l -

A documentd 'escribing the licensee's philosophy on adopting the l three-train ~STP design into the two-train improved Standard

! Technical Specification . format.

The licensee plans to perform a review of their initial submittal including a

, review of current TS markups against the discussion of changes (DOCS),

l verification that the DOCS adequately support the requested changes, review of f

NUREG-1431 markups against the justification for deviations (JFDs), and verification that the JFDs adequately support the identified deviations from the standard TSs. The licensee showed the staff how they intend to physically markup the current submittal to clearly identify the new changes.

l The staff noted that a review of the staff's safety evaluation issued for the l Vogtle-plant would be a good starting point for determining the type of l information needed to support a safety evaluation for a conversion amendment.

l In addition, the staff clarified that justification is needed for any and all changes in which the words used in the licensee's TSs differ from either the licensee's current TSs or the improved Standard TSs.

The licensee proposed sending in one section of the supplemental submittal as a pilot prior to submittal of the entire supplement. The staff agreed to review the pilot section as time permits. The licensee proposed to send in the pilot section in early February.

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:

Janet L. Kennedy, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV 22004(; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499 r

Attachments: 1. List of Meeting Attendees i

2. Licensee's Handout y Qt \

l cc w/atts: See next page l DISTRIBUTION: J. Kennedy PUBLIC PD4-1 r/f OGC i

iDocket.Filei E. Adensam (EGA1) C. Grimes T. Alexion J. Roe ACRS C. Hawes W. Beckner C. Schulten A. Chu E. Tomlinson M. Reardon J. Luehman B. Tjader l

Document Name: ST12I296.MTS OFFICE PM/PD4-1 LA/PD4-1 TSB /W PD/PD4-1_1 NAME JKennedy/dw CHawesb/IIN CGrime WBeckne

DATE //N/97 l /M /97 t/d/97 l/d/97 COPY kE)/NO YES'/N0 O/NO YES/N0

! 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY l

. Houston Lighting & Power Company South Texas, Units 1 & 2 l

cc:

i Mr. David P. Loveless Jack R. Newman, Esq.

l Senior Resident Inspector Morgan, Lewis & Bockius U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1800 M Street, N.W.

P. O. Box 910 Washington, DC 20036-5869 Bay City, TX 77414 Mr. Lawrence E. Martin Mr. J. C. Lanier/M. B. Lee General Manager, Nuclear Assurance Licensing City of Austin Houston Lighting and Power Company Electric Utility Department P. O. Box 289 721 Barton Springs Road Wadsworth, TX 77483 Austin, TX 78704 Rufus S. Scott Mr. M. T. Hardt Associate General Counsel l Mr. W. C. Gunst Houston Lighting and Power Company City Public Service Bo:Ard P. O. Box 61867 P. O. Box 1771 Houston, TX 77208 San Antonio, TX 78296 l Joseph R. Egan, Esq.

l Mr. G. E. Vaughn/C. A. Johnson Egan & Associates, P.C.

j Central Power and Light Company 2300 N Street, N.W.

l P. O. Box 289 Washington, DC 20037 Mail Code: N5012 Wadsworth, TX 74483 Office of the Governor l ATTN: Andy Barrett, Director INP0 Environmental Policy Records Center P. O. Box 12428 700 Galleria Parkway Austin, TX 78711 Atlanta, GA 30339-3064 i

Arthur C. Tate, Director i Regional Administrator, Region IV Division of Compliance & Inspection

! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bureau of Radiation Control 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Texas Department of Health Arlington, TX 76011 1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 78756 Dr. Bertram Wolfe 15453 Via Vaquero J. W. Beck l Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Little Harbor Consultants, Inc.

l 44 Nichols Road j Judge, Matagorda County Cohasset, MA 02025-1166 l Matagorda County Courthouse l 1700 Seventh Street Bay City, TX 77414 Mr. William T. Cottle Executive VP & General Manager Nuclear Houston Lighting & Power Company South Texas Project Electric Generating Station P. O. Box 289

. Wadsworth, TX 77483 i

ATTENDEES AT MEETING OF DECEMBER 12. 1996 ON THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT CONVERSION SUBMITTAL M8BE AFFILIATION J. Kennedy NRR/DRPW/PD4-1 C. Grimes NRR/TSB C. Schulten NRR/TSB B. Tjader NRR/TSB J. Luehman NRR/TSB W. Beckner NRR/DRPW/PD4-1 M. Reardon NRR/TSB E. Tomlinson NRR/TSB A. Chu NRR/TSB J. Self Excel Services M. Felix HL&P T. Koser HL&P W. Harrison HL&P M. McBurnett HL&P ATTACHMENT 1 l

i I

AGENDA STP/NRCITSSUBMITTAL MEETING Desired Outcome : Clear review process identified.

Discuss NRC Comments l

  • Categories
  • Three Train l
  • Adir' .strative l
  • Dialog Required Propose Plan for Remainder of Review i

STP Perform Submittal Review Based on NRC Feedback i

t Obtain Understanding of Review Process l

  • Review Schedule
  • Question / Answer Fonnat 1

ATTACHMENT 2 1

1

d O ProposedITS Plan

  • Perform ITS Submittal Review
  • Administrative j e Review Current Technical Specification markups against Discussion of Changes (DOCS) e Verify DOCS adequately support changes i e Review NUREG markups against Justification for 1 Deviations (JFDs)

)

  • Verify JFDs adequately support deviations e Add new CTS changes to ITS

]

  • Provide additional technicaljustification as determined l

e Develop Generic Change Packages as necessary l, J

  • Delete changes related to rejected TSTFs
  • Provide Results ofITS Review e Initiate Communication with Reviewers
  • Establish acceptable methods for transferring information
  • Work with reviewers as issues arise l
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20133M267&oldid=2878762"