ML20237C575
| ML20237C575 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1998 |
| From: | Kugler A NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9808210281 | |
| Download: ML20237C575 (7) | |
Text
- _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
August 20, 1998 LICENSEE: Detroit Edison Company (DECO)
FACILITY:
Fermi 2 Nuclear Plant
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY TO DISCUSS THE FERMI 2 IMPROVED STANDARD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CONVERSION The NRC staff met with DECO at NRC Headquarters on July 28 and 29,1998, to discuss issues related to the Fermi 2 submittal for the conversion to the improved standard technical specifications (STS). The primary focus of the meeting was a review of Section 3.6 of the STS.
However, some more general issues were also discussed. Enclosure 1 lists the meeting participants.
The participants discussed the proposed Section 3.6 of the Fermi 2 conversion to the STS. The staff did not note any significant concerns with this section. Some items were raised that require resolution. These items are listed in Enclosure 2. The licensee and the staff also discussed the outstanding proposed amendments to the current technical specifications in this section.
The staff and the licensee then discussed the licensets near-term plans for updating the submittal. The update would address typographical errors, items identified by license and staff reviews, and recent and pending amendments. The participants also discussed generalissues related to the staff's review, requests for additionalinformation, and budgeting of resources.
Additional meetings to discuss other sections of the conversion are planned for the future.
Original signed by R. Schaaf for:
Andrew J. Kugler, Project Manager l
Project Directorate lll-1 Division of Reactor Projects - lil/IV l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-341 0f91
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See attached list
. DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\WPDOCS\\ FERMI \\FE-STS02.MTS Yo receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box: *C" s Copy without attachment / enclosure "E's Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" a No copy OFFICE PM:PD31
_,,lE LA:PD31 h N, PD:PD3-1 lf, NAME AKugler:dbMf..- CJamerson (il/
CCarpenter ( 1 DATE 08/ F/ /98 08/12./98
/
08/M /98 ~
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
,4
' 11 a 9808210281 980820 NM
;in %
PDR ADOCK 05000341 P
PDR 9h_n},
9 j
DISTRIBUTION FOR FERMl-2 MEETING
SUMMARY
DATED: 8/20/98 Hard Cooy Docket File (50-341)
PUBLIC l
PD3-1 R/F l
OGC ACRS AKugler E-mail SCollins/FMiraglia (SJC1/FJM)
BBoger (BAB2)
EAdensam (EGA1)
BBurgess (BLB)
Eschweibinz (ERS)
TMartin (SLM3)
'THiltz (TGH)
JFoster (JWF)
RGiardina (RJG1)
CJamerson (CAJ1) l l
\\
L_
August 20, 1998 LICENSEE: Detroit Edison Company (DECO)
FACILITY:
Fermi 2 Nuclear Plant
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY TO DISCUSS THE FERMI 2 IMPROVED STANDARD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CONVERSION The NRC staff met with DECO at NRC Headquarters on July 28 and 29,1998, to discuss issues related to the Fermi 2 submittal for the conversion to the improved standard technical specifications (STS). The primary focus of the meeting was a review of Section 3.6 of the STS.
However, some more general issues were also discussed. Enclosure 1 lists the meeting participants.
The participants discussed the proposed Section 3.6 of the Fermi 2 conversion to the STS. The staff did not note any significant concerns with this section. Some items were raised that require resolution. These items are listed in Enclosure 2. The licensee and the staff also discussed the outstanding proposed amendments to the current technical specifications in this section.
The staff and the licensee then discussed the licensee's near-term plans for updating the submittal. The update would address typographical errors, items identified by license and staff reviews, and recent and pending amendments. The participants also discussed generalissues related to the staff's review, requests for additional information, and budgeting of resources.
Additional meetings to discuss other sections of the conversion are planned for the future.
Original signed by R. Schaaf for:
Andrew J. Kugler, Project Manager Project Directorate ill-1 Division of Reactor Projects - Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-341
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See attached list DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\WPDOCS\\ FERMI \\FE-STS02.MTS To receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the bos: "C* = Copy without attachment / enclosure T e Copy with st'achmenuenclosure *N* = No copy OFFICE PM:PD31
_,,lE LA:PD31 h N)PD:PD3-1 f,
NAME AKugler:dbMf.<
CJamerson (Jj, /
CCarpenter (_ k
_DATE 08/14 /98 08/12./98
/
08/M /98 ~
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
e Carog p
t UNITE 3 STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o,
[
WASHINGTON, D.C. 3066Hmo1 9.....,[
August 20, 1998 LICENSEE: Detroit Edison Company (DECO)
FACILITY:
Fermi 2 Nuclear Plant
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY TO DISCUSS THE FERMI 2 IMPROVED STANDARD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CONVERSION The NRC staff met with DECO at NRC Headquarters on July 28 and 29,1998, to discuss issues related to the Fermi 2 submittal for the conversion to the improved standard technical specifications (STS). The primary focus of the meeting was a review of Section 3.6 of the STS.
However, some more general issues were also discussed. Enclosure 1 lists the meeting participants.
The participants discussed the proposed Section 3.6 of the Fermi 2 conversion to the STS. The staff did not note any significant concems with this section. Some liems were raised that require resolution. These items are listed in Enclosure 2. The licensee and the staff also discussed the outstanding proposed amendments to the current technical specifications in this section.
The staff and the licensee then discussed the licensee's near-term plans for updating the submittal. The update would address typographical errors, items identified by license and staff reviews, and recent and pending amendments The participants also discussed generalissues related to the staff's review, requests for additional information, and budgeting of resources.
Additional meetings to discuss other sections of the conversion are planned for the future, r
Andrew J. Kugler, Project anager Project Directorate lll-1 Division of Reactor Projects -Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-341
Enclosures:
As stated i
cc w/ encl: See next page
4 1
' Detroit Edison Company Fermi 2 i
cc:
Mr. Dougla's R. Gipson Senior Vice President Nuclear Generation Detroit Edison Company 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, MI 48166 John Flynn, Esquire Senior Attorney Detroit Edison Ccmpany 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Drinking Water and Radiological Protection Division Michigan Department of Enwonmental Quality 3423 N. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd j
P. O. Box 30630 CPH Mailroom Lansing, Michigan 48909-8130 l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident inspector's Office 6450 W. Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Monroe County Emergency Management Division 963 South Raisinville Monroe, Michigan 48161 Regional Administrator, Region ill i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
801 Warrenville Road l-Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351
{
Norman K. Peterson j
Director, Nuclear Licensing Detroit Edison Company Fermi 2 - 280 TAC 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 l
August 1997 i
I l
MEETING ATTENDEES FOR JULY 28 AND 29,1998, FERMI 2 MEETING ON THE IMPROVED STANDARD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CONVERSION NAME AFFILIATION Andrew Kugler NRC/NRR/DRPW/PD31, Project Manager Jack Foster * -
NRC/NRR/ADPR/TSB, Conversion Lead Reviewer Robert Giardina*
NRC/NRR/ADPR/TSB, Fermi Section 3.6 Lead Reviewer Glenn Ohlemacher Detroit Edison, Licensing Charles Boyce Excel Inc. (contractor to Detroit Edison)
Dan Williamson Excel Inc. (contractor to Detroit Edison) i
)
l l
l l
- Part-time participant ENCLOSURE 1 l
ITEMS IDENTIFIED FROM THE FERMI-2 STS SUBMITTAL, SECTION 3.6
- 1. The licensee needs to add references in the markup of the standard technical specification (STS) 3.6.1.1 for justifications for differences (JFDs) P.5 and P.6.
- 2. In STS 3.6.1.3, the licensee proposed wording in discussion of change A.3 to exclude the scram discharge volume vent and drain valves from the specification. Instead, the licensee proposed to use STS 3.1.8 to provide the appropriate limiting conditions and actions for these valves. This item will require additional review by the NRC staff and may be a beyond-scope issue.
- 3. In JFD P.5 for STS 3.6.1.3, the licensee proposed a completion time of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> for an inoperable excess flow check valve or for a valve in a hydrostatically tested line. This completion time does not correspond to either the current technical specification (CTS) or i
the STS. The licensee is preparing a proposal for a generic change addressing this issue.
- 4. STS surveillance requirement 3.6.1.3.11 addresses testing for the combined secondary containment bypass leakage. The CTS has no similar requirement. In JFD P.9 the licensee has proposed to adopt the STS surveillance requirement with a modification to exclude penetrations that are provided with a seal system. This item will require additional review by the NRC staff.
- 5. In JFD P.4 for STS 3.6.2.1, the licensee proposed changes to the STS that it feels better reflect the intended actions when the suppression pool temperature exceeds 110*F. The licensee also indicated the changes are in keeping with the CTS. This item will require additional review by the NRC staff.
- 6. The licensee proposed relocating the information in STS 3.6.2.4 for the residual heat removal system suppression pool spray to the Technical Requirements Manual. The licensee indicated that, based on its evaluation, the suppression pool spray function did not meet the criteria in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii). This item will require additional review by the NRC staff and may be a beyond-scope issue.
1
- 7. The licensee's submittal does not address STS 3.6.2.5 for the differential pressure between the drywell and the suppression chamber. During the meeting the licensee indicated that l
there is no corresponding CTS requirement. The licensee will need to address STS 3.6.2.5 in a future submittal.
l ENCLOSURE 2 l
(
.