ML20154D539

Forwards Summary of Joint Nrc/Tstf Owners Group Meeting at NRC in Rockville,Md on 980924

ML20154D539
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/02/1998
From:	Beckner W NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Jennifer Davis NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT &
References
NUDOCS 9810070257
Download: ML20154D539 (11)

Text

-.

October 2, 1998 Mr. James Davis Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 Eye Street, N. W.

Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006-2496

Dear Mr. Davis:

Enclosed is a summary of our joint NRC/ Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)

Owner's Group meeting at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Rockville, Maryland, on September 24,1998. Should the TSTF have any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me on 301-415-1161 or by e-mail at wdb@nrc. gov.

Sincerely, Original Signed By William D. Beckner, Chief Associate Director for Projects Technical Specifications Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

Those on Attendees List (Attachment 1)

DISTRIBUTION:

\\

FILE CENTER PUBLIC RZimmerman BBoger TSB Staff DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\DLJ\\mtasum.pmc OFFICE NRR/ADPR/TSB.

NRR/ADPR/TSB NRR/ADPR/TSB o

NAME DLJohnson MN FMReinhart//#1 WDBeckner l' JL4

(( C '

DATE 10/ A /98 10l,2 /98/

10/ % 198 u

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

.s,

(.'-

)

sch9

') - k[ J$5N \\ '

g.". uj v

s.

9810070257 981002 1

PDR REVQP ERONUMRC PDR D Vf/

0@013f11 @EidTIEB BOPY gg

ssM20 p

3 UNITED STATES g

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s

WASHINGTON, D.C. J0656 4001

%,,,,,+

October 2, 1998 Mr. James Davis Nuclear Energy institute 1776 Eye Street, N. W.

Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006-2496

Dear Mr. Davis:

Enclosed is a summary of ourjoint NRC/ Technical Specifications Task Force ('ISTF)

Owner's Group meeting at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Rockville, Maryland, on September 24,1998. Should the TSTF have any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me on 301-415-1161 or by e-mail at wdb@nrc. gov.

Sincerely, gg A b. ly.A-William D. Beckner, Chief Technical Specifications Branch Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated ec:

Those on Attendees List (Attachment 1)

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TASK FORCE MEETING

SUMMARY

September 24,1998 The Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) and NRC staff met on September 24,1998 to discuss proposed revisions to the improved Standard Technical Specifications. Attendees are listed in Attachment 1.

Process Improvement

~

The first half-hour of the meeting was devoted to a process-improvement brainstorming session. Proposed discussion topics are listed in Attachment 2. The next hour was devoted to a discussion of the two topic areas decided upon for immediate consideration: Communication and Priorities. Following are points agreed to for each of the two topic areas during the discussions.

Communication:

TSTF will provide a contact, with telephone number and e-mail address, for each traveler.

TSTF will provide contacts for previously submitted, open travelers.

NRC will provide a contact, with telephone number and e-mail address, for each Technical Specification Section.

NRC will notify the industry contact before forwarding proposed changes to a technical branch for review.

NRC will notify the industry contact if there is a question regarding a proposed change or before making a recommendation to modify or reject the proposed change.

TSTF will provide advance notification to NRC when a new traveler submittal is imminent.

TSTF will discuss proposed changes with the NRC via teleconference before submittal.

TSTF will e-mail proposed changes to NRC prior to formal submittal.

Priorities:

High Priority, proposed changes are those that address technical specifications that are incorrect with respect to plant ooerations or technical specifications usage conventions or that provide significant safaty, stional flexibility, or cost savings enhancements.

Target dates for review will be ss iased on High, Medium, and Low priorities.

TSTF will propose an initial target uste for review; NRC will discuss changes to the target date if necessary.

TSTF will notify NRC when their priority list has changed.

Travelers affecting plant conversions will be uniquely identified.

TSTF will propose a scheme to identify which travelers involve near term regulatory issues.

TSTF will submit an updated priority list with submittal of new travelers.

April 22,1998 Meeting Summary There were no objections to the meeting summary of the April 22,1998 Joint NRC/TSTF Owner's Group meeting.

i ENCLOSURE

=r in-w w

. Ice Condenser issues

' A summary of Ice Condenser Technical Specifications issues is included in Attachment 3.

Representatives of the NRC Containment Systems and Technical Specifications Branches will work with TSTF and Duke Power (Bryan Dolan) representatives in a focus group to clearly identify and resolve the issues and to develop an appropriate technical specifications improvement. TSTF contact Dennis Buschbaum will get back to NRC with information on the issues by November 2,1998.

Discussion of Selected Travelers TSTF-111, Rev.1 (Response Time Testing)

It was agreed that NRC will place TSTF-111, Revision 1 (Response Time Testing (RTT)) on hold. The Westinghouse Owner's Group has prepared Revision 2. Additionally, the BWR Owners Group plans to submit a new traveler for BWR TS after the Westinghouse Topical Report on RTT is resolved. Carl Schulten, NRC, agreed to review a draft of Revision 2 and respond to the Owner's Groups by October 1,1998, on wording; TSTF will formally submit Revision 2 by Octcber 15,1998. NRC will review and make a determination within one week of receipt.

TSTF-135, Rev. 2 (RPS and ESFAS Instrumentation)

The TSTF agreed to more clearly justify or withdraw proposed changes to the Steam Line-Negative Rate engineering unit and footnote (h) to TS 3.3.2-1, to correct typographical errors, and to discuss LCO Bases change. NRC and TSTF will resolve modifications by October 1, 1998. TSTF will submit Revision 3 to NRC by October 8,1998, and NRC will review and make a determination within one day.

TSTF-205, Rev.1 (Channel Calibration, CFT Definitions)

NRC provided suggestions and agreement to new words for Revision 2. TSTF will look at the suggestions and contact NRC by October 9,1998 to discuss. If agreement is reached, TSTF will submit Revision 2 to NRC by November 2,1998 and NRC will make a recommendation within one day.

TSTF-258 (Administrative Controls).

TSTF will contact NRC by October 15,1998, to discuss. TSTF will submit Revision 2 by November 2,1998. NRC will review make a determination immediately.

, -. ~,.

.-.7 9

y

. Discussion of Other Proposed Changes TSTF-018, R.1 NRC had not formally received the revision, but a draft was discussed during the meeting. The submittat should appear as discussed and should also apply to CE and Westinghouse (shield building). NRC received TSTF-018, R.1 on September 28,1998. The NRC approved Revision 1 on October 2,1998.

TSTF-161, R.1 NRC approved on September 25,1998.

TSTF-168 NRC approved on September 25,1998.

TSTF-171 TSTF withdrew.

TSTF-211 NRC approved on September 25,1998.

TSTF-217 NRC will reconsider disposition, re-review, and contact BWOG Chairman to discuss by November 2,1998.

TSTF-226 To be forwarded to Reactor Systems Branch by September 25,1998. NRC, Carl Schulten agreed to meet with the Chief, Reactor Systems Branch, on September 28 and contact the BWROG Chairman by September 29,1998 TSTF-234 The NRC technical branch recommended rejection. NRC will consider the technical branch's recommendation and contact Dennis Buschbaum by October 15,1998 with status.

TSTF-235 The NRC presented its position to retain the four hour requirement to reset the reactor trip setpoints. TSTF felt that TSTF-095 set a precedent to allow the subject Completion Time to be changed to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. NRC, Bob Giardina agreed to look at TSTF-095. TSTF agreed to develop Bases for the 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.

Dennis Buschbaum will contact Mr. Giardina by October 15,1998 to discuss.

TSTF-241 NRC will reconsider their rejection and contact Dennis Buschbaum by October 5,1998 to discuss.

TSTF-242 Pending NRC review.

TSTF-245 SR 3.7.5.1 Note removal will be reconsidered and Bob Giardina will contact Dennis Buschbaum by September 25,1998 to discuss.

TSTF-246 Pending NRC review TSTF-255 TSTF will submit Revision 1 by November 2,1998.

TSTF-260 NRC will reconsider rejection and give TSTF a status by November 2,1998.

TSTF-261 Pending NRC review.

. TSTF-262 Pending NRC review.

TSTF-263 Pending NRC review.

TSTF-264 Pending NRC review.

TSTF-265 Pending NRC review.

]

TSTF-266 To bo forwarded to a technical branch (Instrumentation and Control) by September 25,1998. A schedule for review will be established.

TSTF-273 NRC will reconsider rejection and contact Bryan Ford by November 2,1998 to discuss further.

TSTF-276 TSTF changed to Medium Priority.

TSTF-283 It was agreed ths.t the issues will take longer to resolve than there is time for the Four Locp Group conversion schedule. Therefore, the traveler will be withdrawn from the conversion submittal. TSTF will consider establishing a focus group to discuss and contact NRC by November 16,1998.

TSTF-287 NRC, Bob Giardina consider the TSTF response to NRC's disposition of Modify and contact Bryan Ford by October 9,1998 to discuss further.

Approved Proposed Changes Since last NRC Correspondence to TSTF TSTF-002, R.1 TSTF-116, R.2 TSTF-243 TSTF-256 TSTF-021, R.1 TSTF-151, R.1 TSTF-246 TSTF-096, R.1 TSTF-219 TSTF-249 Agenda for Future Meeting Discussion of Revision 2 to the improved Standard Technical Specifications.

NRC anticipates issuing Revision 2 in 1999.

NRC and TSTF will consider which entire sections have priority for review of open travelers.

TSTF volunteered to proof read Revision 2 before it is issued.

An NRC/TSTF Conference Call was proposed for November 12,1998 at 9:00 a.m.

=

TSTF will confirm by October 2,1998

ATTENDEES LIST NRC/TSTF OWNER'S GROUP MEETING April 22,1998 i

NAME ORGANIZATION ADDRESS PHONE #

E-MAIL ID James Davis Nuclear Energy 1776 Eye Street, NW 202-739-8105 jwd@nei.org Institute (NEI)

Washington, DC 20006 Vince Gilbert Nuclear Energy 1776 Eye Street, NW 202-739-8138 jvg@nei.org Institute (NEI)

Washington, DC 20006 Donald Hoffman EXCELTTSTF 11921 Rockville Pike 301-984-4400 donaldh@

Suite 100 excelsves.

Rockville, MD 20852 com Noel Clarkson BWOG/ Duke P.O. Box 1439 864-885-3077 ntclarks@ duke-Energy Seneca, SC 29679 energy.com Bryan Ford BWROG/Entergy 1340 Echelon Parkway, 601-368-5792 bford@

M-ECH-660 entergy.com Jackson, MS 39213-8298 Carl Schulten, NRRTTSB OWFN 301-415-1192 css 1@nrc. gov William Beckner NRRTTSB OWFN 301-415-1161 wdb@nrc. gov Mark Reinhart NRR/TSB OWFN 301-415-1161 fmr@nrc. gov Nanette Gilles NRR/TSB OWFN 301-415-1180 nvg@nrc. gov Jack Foster NRR/TSB OWFN 301-415-3647 jwf@nrc. gov Ed T0mlinson NRR/TSB OWFN 301-415-3137 ebt@nrc. gov Bob Tjader NRR/TSB OWFN 301-415-1187 trt@nrc. gov Tilda Liu NRR/TSB OWFN 301-415-1315 tyl1@nrc. gov Jared Wermiel NRR/HICB OWFN, 0-8H3 301-415-2821 jswi@nrc. gov Jack Donohew NRR/PDIV-1 OWFN, 0-13H3 301-415-1307 jnd@nrc. gov l

NAME ORGANIZATION ADDRESS PHONE #

E-Mall ID Barry Marcus NRR/HICB OWFN, 0-8H3 301-415-2823 bsm@nrc. gov Hukam Garg NRR/HICB OWFN, 0-8H3 301-415-2929 hcg @nrc. gov Angelo Marinos NRR/HICB OWFN, 0-8H3 301-415-2911 ecm@nrc. gov J. Kudrick NRR/SCSB OWFN 301-415-2871 none Jim Wigginton NRC/PERB OWFN 301-415-1059 none Robert J.

NRR/TSB OWFN 301-415-3152 none Giardina Dennis E.

WOG/TU CPSES 254-897-5851 dbuschb1@

Buschbaum tuelectric.com Thomas N.

CEOG/Palo Verde Palo Verde Nuclear G.S.

602-393-5764 tweber01@apsc.

Weber APS com Dan Williamson TSTF/ EXCEL 271 Glenlyon Dr.

904-272-5300 dwdan@

Orange Park, FL 32073 msn.com Tim Polich NRR/DRPW OWFN 301-415-1038 tjp1@nrc. gov Debbie Johnson NRR/TSB OWFN 301-415-3060 dij@nrc. gov

I I

Brainstorm: Suggested improvement Topics Grouped Toolca Votes for immediate Discussion (2 votes ner person)

Communication

• Communication 14 e Early discussion of Question, Reject or Modify e Electronic Communication e Teleconferencing e More Responsive & Staff Support j

e Early Discussion of 1ssues 4

Less Formal Process e Less Formal Process 5

e Beneficial Editorial Changes e Less Paper i

e Bases-Only Changes Priorities e Focus on Near-Term issues 13 l

e Criticalissues - Define i

e Set Goals / Objectives / Targets e Bin Category e Priority - Understanding l

)

Meetings I

e Review by Section 2

e Meeting Frequency e Focussed Teams e Meeting Locations - Rotation Document Control e Rev. 2 of STS-Target 5

o Continuous Change Revising Approved TSTFs 0

l I

--..=.- - - -

Summary of Ice Condenser Technical Specification issues Over the past several weeks, a numbers of issues havs been raised relative to licensee compliance with technical specifications (TS). These TS involve ice condenser plants with TS similar to the Westinghouse improved Standard Technical Specifications (iSTS) 3.6.15 " Ice Bed". These issues involved several different surveillances in this section and have highlighted problems literally complying with the TS, ambiguities in the requirements, and in at least one case a TS with no apparent relationship to the design basis.

SR 3.6.15.2 requires weighing a sample of ice baskets to ensure that "... each basket contain >

[1400] Ib.." and calculating the total weight of ice at a 95% confidence limit. While it is obvious that calculating sufficient total weight of ice is required to pass the surveillance, use of the word "each" would also imply that any basket found less than the required weight of ice would also result in failuro of the surveillance. However, the Bases would appear to contradict this interpretation of the TS by providing specific guidance on expanding the sample if baskets without sufficient ice are found. Clearly the total weight of ice is the intent of the surveillance so why have an apparent requirement on the individual baskets which is then contradicted by the TS Bases.

SR 3.6.15.5 is a similar surveillance requirement to check that the boron concentration in the ice and pH are adequate. Unlike SR 3.6.15.2, the requirement does not seem to necessarily imply that each basket must meet the appropriate limits, but then neither is there a requirement to calculate the total or average concentration. Licensees have focused on ensuring that the average of all samples meet the limits by melting and mixing samples in the past. More recently, individual samples have been analyzed separately and have resulted in some samples falling below the limit. It is not clear if an individual sample falling below the limit would result in failure of the surveillance or if the total or average values may be calculated in a manner used in the weight surveillance.

SR 3.6.15.5 also has a potential problem relative to the action statements if the surveillance is not met. If based on limited sampling it is determined that either the pH or boron concentrations are not met, the plant is placed in a 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> action statement to either restore operability or shut down. However, a more prudent path would be to perform additional testing, such as using an expanded sample similar to the guidance contained in the Bases of SR 3.6.15.2 for the weight of the ice, to better understand the overall characteristics of the ice bed.

SR 3.6.15.4 requires inspection of the flow channels to ensure that ice buildup is not restricting the channels. Either the TS or, in the case of the iSTS, the Bases, further define specific locations to be inspected which include the lower inlet plenum and turning vanes. Inspection of the lower plenum and tuming vanes is not possible during power operation and thus presents a problem since the frequency is 9 months in the iSTS. Inspection of these same locations is also probably not necessary since these areas do not represent the minimum flow areas which would be most susceptible to blockage by ice buildup. Licensees have avoided problems in the past by either modifying the frequency from the iSTS value to every 18 months or simply

(incorrectly?) interpreting the TS to not require inspection of these inaccessible areas.

SR 3.6.15.4 requires verification of ice on structural members of < [0.38] inch. This value has nothing to do with the design basis of the plant. A uniform coating of this thickness would provide significantly more flow blockage than assumed in design basis calculations while at the same time, isolated areas with greater than this thickness of ice may not provide excess flow blockage.

k