ML20195H821
| ML20195H821 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/28/1988 |
| From: | Butcher E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Rossi C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8812010074 | |
| Download: ML20195H821 (5) | |
Text
- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _. _ _ - - _. _ _
l UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REEULATORY COMMISSION g
C' ASHING TON, D. C. 20666 T.
\\'.i lI NOV 2 81983 MEMORANDUH FOR:
Charles E. Rossi, Director Division of Operational Events Assessment, NRR FROM:
Edward J. Butcher, Chief Technical Specifications Branch Division of Operational Events Assessment, NRR
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF MEETING WITH NUMARC TASK GROUP WHICH IS WRITING NEW STS FOR CONTAINMENT On Wednesday, October 26, 1988, the staff met with the NUMARC task group which is, writing the r.ew Standard Technical Specifications (STS) containment sections to hear their early estimate of anticipated technical changes. The staff was also interested in discerning any technical change that might requ5 a review effort outside the normal STS process.
owners grou)s comented that the following technical changes are to be myosed with tie new STS for large dry containments:
1.
A new definition of "CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY."
{
The owners groups commented that a more clear definition was required to accoglish tne following:
A.
Resolve conflicts between the allowed outage times (A0T) for restoration of CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY and restoration of individual components required for CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY. For example, the owners groups comented that some specifications have a 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> A0T to restore CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY, while other specifications have only a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> A0T to restore certaia containment isolation valves, ir l
B.
Establish consistency among the owners groups definitions.
2.
The owners groups comented that they were considering combining all attributes of containment integrity, consistent with the new definition, into a single specification.
3.
The "split report" allowed tha specification for "Containment Leakage" to be relocated outside technical specifications; however, it required Pa.
La, Ld, and Lt to be retained in technical specifications or in the bases of the appropriate containment LCO. The owners groups propose to relocate Pa, La, Ld, and Lt to section 5 of the technical specifications.
4.
The owners groups propose to modify the specification for containment air locks to require one door to be closed instead of two doors.
1 The owners groups are to provide justification for this proposal in their submittals.
/ // qI j
p u %
( $i se-
'C
2 5.
Crystal River (lead plant) representatives commented that they 'ntended to reformat their containment air lock specification to be closer to the standard than it is currently; e.g., two LCOs instead of one.
6.
The owners groups commented that they would propose a clarification of operability of containment purge valves; i.e., a closed valve would be
" ope rabl e. "
7.
The owners groups propose to relocate the requirements for containment isolation valve post maintenance operatten and stroke time verification to section 4.0 of technical specifications.
They plan to include all ASME Code,Section XI surveillance requirements in section 4.0 of technical specifications.
8.
The owners groups propose to combined the containment spray and containment ccoling requirements into a single specification, especially for B&W plants. Their goal is to justify increased allowed outage times.
The owners groups commented that they would provide justification based on qualitative analyses in the FSARs. They stated that these analyses show (1) that each of two coolers, and in some cases each of three, provide 50%
i of the required cooling; and (2) that each of two sprays provide 50% of the required cooling.
9.
The owners groups also commented that they were considering a proposition to delete staggered testing for hydrogen analyzers and containrent cooling. However, at the time of the meeting they were not ready to address the issue.
The owners groups corrented that while other technical changes could develop, the above are the most significant ones known at the time of the meeting.
i The staff did not identify any technical change that would reouire a review effort outside the normal STS review process, i
I Edward J. Butcher, Chief Technical Specifications Branch i
Division of Operational Events Assessment, NRR
Enclosures:
Meeting Attendees DISTRIBUTION:
FTease see Ittached 3 4* rd G-l (MINUTES /10/26/CONihIN/ MARK)
//
(J A,0/tr/tr
".%fLB:hPR)CEKcCrackenEJButcher Q: ECEB:hRR C:TSB:00EA:NRR TSB: D0EA:NRR TSB:DOEA:NRR
/88 ('11/.0,//88 (n'Craig FMReinbart:pmc DCFischer i
11//o/88 11/l6/88 11/)6 11/ /88 ll
-r-----
m_
.,c.,
_ -, -, = _ _ _ _.
___,-__---_7
. 5.
Crystal River (lead plant) representatives connented that they intended to refomat their containment air lock specification to be closer to the standard than it is currently; e.g., two LCOs instead of or,e.
6.
The owners groups corrented that they would propose a clarification of operability of containnent purge valves; i.e., a closed valve would be "operable."
7.
The owners groups propose to relocate the requirements for containment isolation valve post maintenance operation and stroke time verification to section 4.0 of technical specifications.
They plan to include all ASME Code.Section XI surveillance requirements in section 4.0 of technical specifications.
8.
The owners groups propose to combine the containment spray and containment cooling requirements into a single specification, especially for B&W plants. Their goal is to justify increased allowed outage times.
The owners grcups commented that they would provide justification based on qualitative analyses in the FSARs.
They stated that these analyses show (1) that each of two coolers, and in some cases each of three, provide 50%
of the required cooling; and (2) that each of two sprays provide 50% of the required cooling.
I 9.
The owners groups also comented that they were considering a proposition to delete staggered testing for hydrogen ana'yzers and containment cooling.
However, at the time of the meeting they were not ready to address the issue.
The owners groups commented that while other technical changes could develop, the above are the most significant ones known at the time of the meeting, The staff did not identify any technical change that would require a review i
J effort outside the normal STS review process.
Odsid S7ned by RI:hrd L Emcn, Jr. d v' Edward J. Butcher, lef Technical Specifications Branch i
Divisien of Operational Events Assessment, NRR
Enclosures:
Meeting Attendees DISTRIBUr10N:
Please see attached (MINUTES /10/26/CONTAIN/ MARK) *(see previous concurrence)
- TSB:00EA:NRR
- TSB:00EA:NRR *C:SPLB:NRR *C:ECEB:NRRf:TSB:00A:NRR l
FMReinhart:pmc DCFischer JWCraig CEMcCracke -
J cher 11/16/88 11/16/E8 11/25/88 11/28/88
- 11 88
r NOV 2 81988 DISTRIBUTION:
TEMurley JHConran POR JHSniezek CHBerlinger OTSB Members FJMiraglia W0Lanning OTSB R/F OMCrutchfield JLieberman. OE 00EA R/F SAvarga LShao Central Files BKGrimes JWRoe JGPartlow. OSP ELJordan. AE00 FJCongel CIGrimes FGillespie HLThompson, Jr. NMSS Regional Administrators GHolahan MMalsch NRC Particip&nts 50 Richardson WGKennedy OTSB S/F - (MEETING NOTICE)
(
e IFETItU ATTENDEFS h
Affiliation Jerry C. Jones GFC BWROG Walt Smith
! MARC Rob Woolley OnISC-SPEC-SERVICES Ccurtney Smyth GFt1 thelear B&WOG Steve Wilson PGSE J un B2fe-Carr FPC B&WCG Chris Morgan Westinghouse Rccer Quellette Duke Power BRROG Dan Green FFC B&WOG Dan Foley Ccetustion Engineering CEOG Harold Chemoff Wolf Creek Kent D. Daschke Westinghouse David Flecher
!EC N RR/MSB Mark Reinhart NRC/tBR/WSB Millard Wohl NRCNRR/MSB Kulin Desai tGCAC/MSB Frank J. Witt NPCAER/ECEB Chang-Yang Li NRC/NRR/SPLB
.