ML20216D652
| ML20216D652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/10/1998 |
| From: | Beckner W NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Jennifer Davis NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT & |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804150373 | |
| Download: ML20216D652 (3) | |
Text
l /
c2 l
April 10, 1998 Mr. James Davis Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 Eye Street, N. W.
Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006-2496
Dear Mr. Davis:
This is to inform you that disposition has been made on seven proposed changes to the Standard Technical Specification NUREGs made by the NEl Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF). Disposition for TSTF-207, -210, -216, -220, -222, and -230 is Approve; TSTF-209 is Modify: and TSTF-135 is Reject. The disposition summary for TSTF-209 and -
135 is enclosed.
Please contact me at (301) 415-1161 or e-mail wdb@nrc. gov if you have any questions or need further information on these dispositions.
Sincerely, Original Signed By William D. Beckner, Chief Technical Specifications Branch Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
N. Clarkson, BWOG D. Wuokko, BWOG B. Ford, BWROG J. Volkoff, CEOG L. Bush, WOG D. Hoffman, EXCEL i
y DISIRIB11 TION:
NFile Center PUBLIC fjp/p TSB Reading File WDBeckner
($
TSB Staff Ii
/
oocourut Naur eqwmTsmo4 onors tra j.t{
l (#I 'N OFFICE NRR/ADPR/TSB NRR/ADPR/TSB 4 NRR/ADPR/TSB j ; p s.,
NAME DLJohnson dIC FMReinhart /NI WDBeckner ub6 f
DATE 04/10/98 0
04/#2 /98 04/ h) /98
(; f 1-5 '$
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
~-
7804150373 980410 PDR REVGP ERGNUMRC PDR s
hFtE/
]
( u o
4 j#
%,4 e
UNITED STATES O*
j
.j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[$
t WASHINGTON, o.c. 206MM001 o
%Q,,Ci4p April 10, 1998 l
l Mr. James Davis Nuclear Energy institute 1776 Eye Street, N. W.
Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006-2496
Dear Mr. Davis:
This is to inform you that disposition has been made on seven proposed changes to the Standard Technical Specification NUREGs made by the NEl Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF). Disposition for TSTF-207, -210, -216, -220, -222, and -230 is Approve; TSTF-209 is Modify: and TSTF-135 is Reject. The disposition summary for TSTF-209 and -
135 is enclosed.
Please contact me at (301) 415-1161 or e-mail wdb@nrc. gov if you have any questions or need further information on these dispositions.
Sincerely,
- b. /b M -
W2./
William D. Beckner, Chief Technical Specifications Branch Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
N. Clarkson, BWOG D. Wuokko, BWOG B. Ford, BWROG J. Volkoff, CEOG L. Bush, WOG D. Hoffman, EXCEL l
l l
]
l l
DISPOSITION
SUMMARY
TSTF-209: Modify The proposed change to STS 3.7.2 CONDITION D is acceptable; the change makes BWOG STS consistent with the WOG and CEOG STS. iiowever, the associated Bases changes should either be deleted such that the BWOG STS is consistent with the WOG and CEOG
)
STS, or the WOG and CEOG STS Bases should be changed to be consistent with the proposed BWOG Bases change. Either change would be acceptable to the staff.
TSTF 1.'M R=f--emal TSTF-135 is rejected for the following reasons: (1) The package proposes extensive changes with inadequate justification. Adequate justification would be that the format is not usable or that requirements represent unsafe practices or may result in an operational hardship. Changes appear to be based on preference of style rather than safety or clarity.
(2) The package proposes changes that would require the staff to re-evaluate its,; proval of
)
Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP-10271-P-A and other staff positions. Such other staff positions include specifying interlocks as functions for the RTS and ESFAS and entering TS conditions on function basis rather than on a channel basis. (3) Justification for many of the proposed changes is scant, and the TSTF has not been completely responsive to staff l
requests for additional information. (4) There does not appear to be industry consensus that many of the proposed changes are needed or would be incorporated. Currently 6 Westinghouse units have converted to the improved STS and 18 units are under review. Of these 24 units, only 4 (2 plants) propose to adopt TSTF-135.
The staff feels that it could work with a proposal that addressed 4 items of TSTF-135 if l
submitted separately. These items relate to the following TSTF-135 Justification numbers:
(1) The part of justification number 3 that addresses LCO 3.0.3; (2) Justification number 4, regarding the capability of rod withdrawal; (3) Justification number 5, regarding Source Range Monitors; and (4) Justification number 7, regarding intermediate Range Monitors.
The staff finds a number of licensees wanting to use one or more of these proposed changes.
i l
f L