ML20247E364

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 890717 Meeting W/Numarc,B&W Owners Group & Representatives of Lead Plants Re Status of STS Amends & Outstanding Issues Associated W/Lead Plant STS Submittals
ML20247E364
Person / Time
Site: Hatch, Grand Gulf, North Anna, Crystal River, San Onofre, 05000000
Issue date: 09/06/1989
From: Emch R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Calvo J
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8909150267
Download: ML20247E364 (5)


Text

-- . _ _

k.

7 pyjurag[og UNITED STATES

.j . p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, _ ;5 'j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k**..+,/ September 6,1989 MEMORANDUM.FOR: Jose A. Calvo, Chief .

' Technical Specifications Branch Division of. Operational Events Assessment, NRR FROM: Richard L. Emch, Jr., Section Chief Review and Assessment Section Technical Specifications Branch Division of Operational Events Assessment, NRR

SUBJECT:

MINUTES OF MEETING WITH LEAD PLANTS ON THE NEW STANDARD TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS(STS)

On July 17, 1989 the NRC staff met with representatives of the lead plants, the Owners' groups and NUMARC to discuss the status of the lead plant STS amendments '

and eight outstanding issues associated with the lead plants STS submittals.

The eight outstanding issues are:

a. Type of amendment request and prenoticing b '. Draft FSAR changes
c. . Ongoing amendments
d. Communications with licensees
e. TS development for plant specific features not covered by STS
f. Control of relocated requirements
g. Implementation schedule
h. Review fees
a. Type of Amendment Request and Prenoticing Since the status of the lead plant submittals is directly related to the type of amendment request to be submitted and prenoticing~of the proposed amendment, the first part of the meeting centered around these issues. The lead plant spokesperson stated that the submittals would be in two phases.

Phase I would include the Technical Specifications and Bases for the lead plant.

Phase II would include the formal submittal of a license amendment request including a no significant hazards analysis. Each lead plant provided the dates they would submit each phase.

Phase I Phase II l North Anna 1 & 2 10/04/89 01/25/90 Hatch 1 & 2 09/04/89 09/04/89 Grand Gulf 1 10/15/89 12/31/89 ,

San Onofre 2 & 3 10/15/89 10/15/89 J Crystal River 3 09/01/89 09/01/89 The staff stated that if the submittals (Phase I and II) were coming at different times, the cover letter for Phase I should request a review of the enclosed TS Tq'$ ,

package and that the formal request would be submitted at a later date.

8909150267 890906 fh 7 1 PDR' ADDCK 05000302 ' '

1 P PDR

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___$__________________ __ _ __ -i

pg ,Hr. Jose'A. Calv September 6,1989 The review process for the lead plants and the status of the STS were briefly discussed.

b. Draft FSAR Changes i The staff stated that the Phase I portion of the submittals needs to provide j the changes that will be made to the FSAR. The basis for the request was that '

it was needed to review the TS and the associated bases to ensure conformance between the FSAR and the TS. The licensees stated that they normally do not  !

submit FSAR changes or a description of FSAR changes with TS amendments. However, because of the nature and scope of the review, the licensees agreed to provide either descriptions of changes to be made or marked-up pages to the FSAR.-

c. Ongoing Admendments The staff noted that there were TS amendments currently under staff review and that the current plant TS would require additional changes during the new STS review period. The staff cautioned the licensees to limit the number of TS amendments proposed during this period of time to only those that are absolutely required for the safe operation of the plant. Once the TS amendment for the new STS is submitted for the lead or follow-on plant (s), the staff expects the following:
1. Any amendments to change the current plant TS are to be submitted in both formats.
2. The TS amendments currently under review will need to be submitted in the new format.
3. TS changes made as a result of Generic Letters may be incorporated immediately.

The licensees agreed with this proposal.

d. Communications It was stressed that the principal point of contact with the staff during the review would be the Project Manager. However, because of the scope of the TS changes and of the TS review, a lead reviewer for each plant from the Technical Specifications Branch (OTSB) would be assigned for the amendment review. This person could in some cases become the point of contact for the TS amendment review between the staff and the licensee. The lead plants representatives were also encouraged to attend all meetings between the staff and the owners groups on the new STS.
e. TS Development for Plant Specific Features Not Governed by STS The staff recognized that the plant TS may contain specifications that are plant specific and were not covered by the May 9, 1986 " Split Report." For those specifications the licensee needs to evaluate the specifications per ,

the guidelines of the Commission Policy Statement. Those specifications based j on the evaluation that are recuired to remain in the TS should be submitted in j the new format with the Phase 1 package. The licensees agreed with this procedure. l l

l l

Mr. Jose A. Calvo September 6,1989

f. Control of Relocated Requirements i

The staff stated that it needs to know in which document the relocated TS are going to be located, and what controls and procedures will be used for changing and maintaining those relocated TS. This information should be submitted with the Phase I package. The staff also stated that the licensee would need to certify that the relocated TS and their controls are ready to be implemented at the same time as the new TS are implemented. The licensees agreed to provide this information and certification.

g. Implementation Schedule (Procedure Development)

The staff recognized the fact that once the staff review on the TS is complete, the licensee.will need time in which to develop procedures, and train operators and plant personnel in the new TS prior to implementation at the plant. This time period was estimated to be about twelve (12) months. The staff proposed two methods of accomplishing the issuance of the license amendment.

The first proposal would have the staff issue the license amendment with an implementation date of twelve (12) months later. This would allow the licensee to develop procedures and train personnel. However, any problems in the TS that would surface as a result of the procedure development or personnel training would require a new TS amendment.

The second proposal would have the staff issue a final draft TS package to the licensee. The licensee would then proceed to develop procedures and train personnel. Any problems in the new TS would be resolved by staff / licensee submittals, meetings, and/or discussions. At the end of this implementation period the licensee would sign-off or certify the final draft TS as being correct. The staff would then issue the license amendment which would take effect immediately. This proposal facilitates changes to the TS and was deemed by the staff the better of the two proposals. The licensees agreed with the staff that this proposal was better and preferable to them,

h. Review Fees The staff stated that it was still exploring the feasibility of reduced )

i amendment review fees for the lead plants. j i

Richard L. Emch, Jr., Section Chief Review and Assessment Section Technical Specifications Branch Division of Operational Events Assessment, NRR

Enclosures:

List of Attendees 4 I

, 1 1 _ _ - _ . _ _______-_____-___--____--___--_--Q

o..

re ,

a ,

LEAD PLANTS MEETING JULY 17, 1989

, NAME AFFILIATION ,

Carl S. Schulten NRC/NRR/0TSB John Powler SERI-GGNS Matt Crawford SERI-GGNS Courtney Smyth GPUN/B&WOG Dan Green FPC - CR-3 Jerry Jones GPC - Hatch Steve Bethey GPC - Hatch Cal Moon NRC/NRR/0TSB Sheri Juergens NRC/NRR/0TSB-Bob White LLNL/0TSB Don Hickman .NRC/NRR/PDV Bob Turner Babcock & Wilcox Les Kintner NRC/NRR/PD21 Larry Crocker- NRC/NRR/PDII-3 Tim Reed NRC/NRR/PDII-3 Barry Young Consumers Power Co.

Thomas McLeod SCE/ SONGS 2&3 Brian Woods .SCE/ SONGS 2&3 Marty Bryan TVA/ Watts Bar Jacquie Hinds WOG/PGIE Warren H. Hall NUMARC Richard A. Bernier APS/CEOG Joe Hegner Virginia Power George Smith Westinghouse Ed Lozito Virginia Power /WOG James R. Whetsel Va. Power / North Anna MERITS Coordinator David Fischer NRC/NRR/0TSB Jose Calvo NRC/NRR/0TSB Bob Giardina NRC/NRR/0TSB Mark Reinhart NRC/NRR/0TSB Rich Emch NRC/NRR/0TSB {

Jim Miller NRC/NRR/0TSB Roger Johnson Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Kent D. Daschke Westinghouse Tech. Specs. ,

Page Kemp Va. Power / Licensing / NAPS 1 H. L. Bowling Va. Power / North Anna ,

L. B. Engle NRC/NRR/PM PDII-2 North Anna i Stu Webster Combustion Engineering Tom Buczwinski Consumers Power, Palisades Tech. Spec.

Jim Kuemin Consumers Power, Palisades Licensing Brian Gutherman FPC/ Nuclear Engineering Chris L. Hoxie NRC/NRR/0TSB G. Wunder NRC/NRR/PD22 Ken Wilson NGR, Nuclear Licensing, Flordia Power Serita Sanders NRC/NRR/0TSB Richard Correa NRC/NRR/DLPQ/ Human factor A, B i 1

l

.______________A

___ _ .r .

, ..7:,...:g..

Si  :<

rv Jose A.;Calvo.- September 6,1989.-

DISTRIBUTION:-

"TEMurley/JHSniezek.~OTSB' Members. .

FJMiraglia. Regional. Administrators I. II.:lli, IV. V  ;

CERossi- NRC participants SAVarga. RLEmch

.CHBerlinger RJGiardina-CJHaughney GMHolahan JAZwolinski iFJCongel

'JWRoe JERichardson--

BDLiaw:

LACThadani

CIGrimes WGKennedy JHConran ,

LJLieberman i;

s 1

3 l '

________..___.___-_____._-______m______.____-____.m_____