ML20246P136

Summary of 890822 Meeting W/Util in Rockville,Md Re Tech Spec Change Mgt Program for Plant.List of Attendees & Viewgraphs Encl

ML20246P136
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	08/31/1989
From:	Tourigny E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8909110052
Download: ML20246P136 (45)

Text

-

p f

eq

• gMac L

o,

, UNITED STATES

+

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o-E WASMNGTON, D. C. 20555

(,.

f

....+

j Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324 LICENSEE:

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (CP&L)

FACILITY:

BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2

SUMMARY

OF AUGUST 22, 1989 MEETING HELD WITH CP&L REGARDING BRUNSWICK TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Introduction l

A' meeting was held on August 22, 1989 in Rockville, Marylana with CP&L to discuss the technical specifications (TS) change management program for the i

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (Brunswick). A list of attendees is given in Enclosure 1.

Discussion

)

i

' Brunswick f s perceived as requiring a significant number of TS changes over the i

last few years. This perception has been brought to the licensee's attention on a number of occasions. The licensee met with the staff on August 22, 1989, and presented the TS change management program for Brunswick.

The licensee discussed (a) the history and culture associated with the TS change requests, (b) the initiating factors for TS chan management of TS change initiating factors, (d) ge requests, (c) past and present future management of TS change l

initiating factors, and (e)-the Brunswick plant comparison to the industry.

l Details of these discussion points can be found in Enclosure 2.

The licensee concludes that the number of TS change requests and license amenonents for l

Brunswick is not out of line with the number of similar BWR-4's in the i

industry.

It was obvious from the licensee's presentation, that a significant amount of work was expended in preparing for the presentation. The licensee was commended for the work performed.

l l

i jfof 8909110052 890831

{DR ADOCK 05000324 I

FDC

-_.I

4 g

i..

The meeting enabled the staff to obtain a better appreciation of the TS change 1

management program at Brunswick and the relationship between Brunswick TS changes and TS changes that are needed for similar BWR-4's.

Original Signed By:

'l E. G. Tourigny, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 11-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Regulation-

Enclosures:

As. stated l

ec w/encls:

See next page l

l

)

l l

l t

PDII-I PDII-1 PDII-1 4

PAnderson ETourigny:sw EAdensam 31 89 8/30/89 8/31/89 8/

/

A

y-4 V

Mr. L. W. Eury Brunswick Steam Electric Plant

-l Carolina Power & Light Company Units 1 and 2

. cc:

Mr. Russell B. Starkey, Jr.

Mr. H. A. Cole f

Project Manager.

Special Deputy Attorney General Brunswick Nuclear Project State of North Carolina P. 0.-Box 10429 P. O. Box 629 Southport, North Carolina 28461 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. R. E. Jones, General Counsel Mr. Robert P. Gruber Carolina. Power & Light Company Executive Director P. O. Box 1551 Public Staff - NCUC Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 P. O. Box 29520 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0520 Ms. Frankie Rabon-Board of Commissioners P. O. Box 249

' Bolivia, North Carolina 28422 Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Star Route l' P. O. Box 208 Southport, North Carolina 28461 Regional' Administrator, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulato:y Commission 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Dayne H. Brown, Chief Radiation Protection Branch Division of Facility Services N. C. Department of Human Resources 701 Barbour Drive Raleigh, North Carolina-27603-2008 Mr. J.. L. Harness Plant General Manager Brunswick Steam Electric Plant P. O. Box 10429 Southport, North Carolina 28461

NRC/CP&L.NEETING Brunswick Technical. Specifications August-22. 1989 NAME AFFILIATION E.G. Tourigny NRC/NRR/ Brunswick,PN S.D. Floyd CP&L, Brunswick Licensing K.E. Enzor CP&L, Brunswick Plant W.E. Hurray CP&L, Brunswick Licensing Leonard Loflin CP&L, Nuclear Licensing Russ Starkey CP&L, Brunswick Plant S. Varga NRR/DRP E. Rossi NRR/DOEA G. Lainas NRR/ADR2 E. Adensam NRR/PRII-I D. Verrelli NRR/RII R. Emch NRR/0TSB T. Le NRC/NRR/ Brunswick, PN-i k

l L,,

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE MANAGEMENT FOR THE BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT August 22,1989 Slide #1

l OBJECTIVES o

Describe History and Culture associated with Technical Specification Change requests at Brunswick Plant.

l o

Describe the initiating Factors for Technical Specification L

Change requests o

Discuss Past and Present Management of Technical Specification Change initiating Factors o

Discuss Future Management of Technical Specification Change initiating Factors o

Discuss Brunswick Plant in Comparison to the Industry i

M Slide #2

+

l l

l l

EVOLUTION OF BRUNSWICK TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INITIATING FACTORS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INTERPRETATIONS TECHNICAL SPECIFICAT!ON CHANGE PROCESS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS INDUSTRY COMPARISON CONCLUSIONS l

Slide #3

L

~

BRUNSWICK TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION EVOLUTION HISTORY 1974 Brunswick-2 licensed using Custom Format Technical Specifications (1974)

Circa 1976

. BWR Standard Technical Specifications (STS) developed following Brunswick-2 licensing 1977 CP&L accepted Standard Technical Specifications during licensing process for Brunswick-1 1977 Brunswick-2 converted to BWR STS Format at approximate tin.e of Brunswick-1 licensing (1977) 1982 Identification of Technical Specification surveillance problems resulted in increased number of Technical

~

Specification Change requests Late 1983 NRC/CP&L Program to Reduce Technical Specification Backlog 1989 NRC Technical Specification backlog reduction effort and increased focus on Technical Specification Management process Slide #4

/

4 BRUNSWICK TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION EVOLUTION i

IMPLEMENTATION OF STANDARD VERSUS CUSTOM TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS l

POL!.VE IMPACTS l

_1 o

Acceptance of STS assured comnion requirements between both Brunswick Units o

Acceptance of STS avoided difficulties experienced at Plant Hatch Differing requirements between virtually identical units Differing level of detail for items covered by the Technical Specifications Operator training problems Potential for operator error More resource intensive to maintain and change the Technical Specifications NEGATIVE IMPACTS o

The STS requirements were not yet fully developed (Brunswick based on 1976 draft BWR-4 STS) i o

Early versions of STS were not " human engineered" L

o Acceptance has resulted in a set of STS issued to Brunswick Plant with sometimes vague, confusing, incomplete, or incorrect requirements L

I Slide #5

4 1.,

EVOLUTION OF BRUNSWICK TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS i

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INITIATING FACTORS l

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INTERPRETATIONS l

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE PROCESS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

)

INDUSTRY COMPARISON CONCLUSIONS l

i Slide #6

l ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE BRUNSWICK IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (BIP) 1 o

BIP created an organizational culture which emphasized l

l.

l verbatim compliance with plant procedures and Technical Specifications.

c This organizational culture identified the need for a formal process for Technical Specification Interpretations o

This organizational culture also resulted in submittal of additional Technical Specification Change requests that increased the Technical Specification backlog Slide #7

EVOLUTION OF BRUNSWICK TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INITIATING FACTORS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INTERPRETATIONS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE PROCESS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS INDUSTRY COMPARISON I

CONCLUSIONS Slide #8

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE INITIATING FACTORS o

An evaluation of license amendments issued from 1984 to present has been performed. Each amendment was placed into one of five categories. The results are summarized below:

CATEGORY CONTRIBUTION Safety / Reliability improvement 20.2 %

Reload 10.7%

NRC Required 25.0 %

Technical Specification improvement 3.6%

Cost Reduction /

Operational Flexibility /

40.5 %

Miscellaneous

• Includes requests not classified into the four other categories.

Slide #9 I

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE INITIATING FACTORS o

Technical Specification Interpretations represent 10.7 percent of the total of the five categories discussed previously o

Fifty-seven (57) percent of the Technical Specification interpretations resolved via license amendments represented categories other than Cost Reduction /

Operational Flexibility / Miscellaneous issues I

(

Slide #10

n TECHNICAL SPECIF! CATION CHANGE INITIATING FACTORS CONCLUSIONS o

Technical Specification interpretations have added to, but not represented, the largest initiation factor for Technical Specification Changes '

o The majority of the Technical Specification Interpretations.

generated represent legitimate issues that require resolution o

Even with the elimination of Technical Specification Change requests that may be classified as " discretionary" (approximately two-thirds of the Cost Reduction /

Operational Flexib;;ity/ Miscellaneous category),60 to 70 percent of the total number of requests generated would still need to be processed I

o The Company recognizes the need for a more effective process for assessing and prioritizing Technical Specification Change requests I

i

)

l.

1 Slide #11

)

EVOLUTION OF BRUNSWICK TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS l

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INITIATING FACTORS I

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INTERPRETATIONS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE PROCESS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS INDUSTRY COMPARISON j

CONCLUSIONS 4

Slide #12 i

____ _ ____ _ 2 _ ___ _ _-_

Y

s.

'.}

3.

- TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INTERPRETATIONS PROCESS o

Regulatory Compliance Instruction (RCl) 2.3 provides -

process for requesting, processing, and maintaining Technical Specification Interpretations (TSis).

o Brunswick Plant Policy is that Technical Specification interpretations represent a distraction to Operations personnel o

Therefore, a Technical Specification Change is required to resolve an issue raised by a Technical Specification Interpretation o

A Technical Specification interpretation is issue.d ONLY if the existing Technical Specifications:

Are not consistent with the physical or intended design of the plant Do not adequately demonstrate operability or are not sufficiently conservative Contain typographical or administrative errors that represent operability or surveillance concerns Are otherwise determined as necessary by the Plant Nuclear Safety Committee Slide #13

y TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INTERPRETATIONS (TSis)

PROCESS RCI-2.3 provides the process for individuals to request o

Technical Specification Interpretations Process requires concurrence from the requestor's suporvisor Regulatory Compliance reviews and develops / concurs with each TSI request Denied TSI requests result in a memorandum to the Unit Manager providing the basis for denial and a response to the cor. ern raised Plant Nuclear Safety Committee reviews and approves / denies each TSI request o

Technical Specification interpretations are distributed to controlled onsite copy holders of Technical Specifications l

Slide #14

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INTERPRETATIONS The number of Technical Specificatica interpretation o

Requests and Technical Specification interpretations generated each year since 1984 is as follows:

TSI YEAR REQUESTS TSis 1984 30 20 1985 26 14 1986 9

2 1987 22 3

1988 8

2 1989 4

1 o

The rate of TecItaical Specification Interpretations has dropped significantly because most interpretational issues have already been identified Slide #15

' ~

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INTERPRETATIONS RESULTS o

As a result of this scrooning process, only a fraction of the Technical Specification Interpretation requests generated become Technical Specification Change requests o

The decreasing rate of identifying Technical Specification interpretations is expected to continue its trend Silde #16 a

I EVOLUTION OF BRUNSWICK TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INITIATING FACTORS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION ! INTERPRETATIONS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE PROCESS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS INDUSTRY COMPARISON CONCLUSIONS Slide #17

n

~

s TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE PROCESS l

f o

'An individual identifies the need for a Technical Specification Change request resulting from:

Plant Modification Response to an NRC Initiative Technical Specification Interpretation

. Correction to Potentially Unsafe Condition Cost Savings or Operational Flexibility improvement o

The request is reviewed and approved / rejected by the requestor's supervisor o

The Change package is forwarded to Regulatory Compliance /Onsite Licensing o

Following Onsite Licensing review, the package is either forwarded to Corporate Licensing for processing or returned to the requestor o

..Upon receipt of the request, Corporate Licensing reviews the package for adequacy and evaluates the changes proposed o

if the request appears appropriate, Licensing prepares the NRC submittal package 4

o Licensing forwards the request to the site for procedure change review, Plant Nuclear Safety Committee Review, and management approval o

Corporate management approval is obtained in parallel with site management approval Slide #18

~

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE PROCESS o.

Upon receiving management approval, the request is transmitted to the NRC o

in parallel with NRC review, the Company's Corporate Nuclear Safety group reviews the package for technical adequacy Slide #19

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE PROCESS ASSESSMENT o

The Company has a comprehensive process for screening / rejecting Technical Specification Change requests o

While the Company has a strong Technical Specification Change process, the process did not have a method for prioritizing thnso requests Siide #20

9

\\

EVOLUTION OF BRUNSWICK TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INITIATING FACTORS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE PROCESS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INTERPRETATIONS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS INDUSTRY COMPARISON CONCLUSIONS l

Slide #21 l

'4 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS PRESENT o

The Company is sensitive to NRC resource limitations o

The Company has sought approval of several Technical Specification Change packages that will reduce the number of future submittals o

These actions have been completed and issued:

Removal of Snubber Listing par NRC Generic Letter 84-13 (issued 9/10/84)

Removal of instrument Tag Numbers (issued 5/22/89)

Removal of Cycle Specific Fuel Parameters per NRC Generic Letter 88-16 (issued 5/25/89) o Brunswick Plant was lead BWR for this issue o

Positions Bruriswick Plant for 50.59 reloads o

Reduces the number of future submittals o

These actions are under active review with the NRC:

Relocation of Organizational Charts per NRC Generic Letter 88-06

_ Relocation of Containment isolation Valve Listings (part of CP&L's Primary Containment isolation System request) o The Company has recently developed and is beginning implementation of a Company-wide nuclear prioritization process Slide #22

NUCLEAR PRIORITIZATION PROCESS INCLUDED ACTIVITIES EXAMPLES OF INCLUDED ACTIVITIES:

O CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR SIGNIFICANT CONDITIONS ADVERSE TO:

QUALITY / NUCLEAR SAFETY PERSONNEL SAFETY RELIABILITY COMMERCIAL CONCERNS O

CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE O

PLANT MODIFICATIONS 0

PLANT EHNANCEMENTS/ IMPROVEMENTS p

O ACTIONS TO MEET CHANGING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND/OR OTHER EXTERNAL TASKS O

MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES w

N D

I EX DI E

Y NR T

T ET U

I TA S

B R1234 XM I

O E

SE R

I C

T R

O T

P R

X A

I P

R T

E T

N U

N A

A LA8CDEfGHIJK O

M T

A I

R V

T N

O A

O P

Z I

M IT T

I :

A Y

I R

Z TT I

SI O

T OV I

I MI R

R T

N P

O EC O

I LA I

R R

G T

T A

P NN A

Y N

E L

I A YL T

E C

S TO E

M U

G EI E F

E N

SN FVG Y

A C

RI A

A T

S N

ET SYTTI EAA DA RUNL L CRH I U YTOOEI YA NAN SL RNT MBTI ALE NA OEADEAI TIA OV GNLEGLCNL/TR CE EI UCAI AEPTNE TMGRNAPTMsAH AMEOAVAOOOLT O

CIRFMACPCCPO wS

L.

NUCLEAR PRIORITIZATION PROCESS REGULATORY MANAGEMENT CATEGORY D 1.

ACTION REQUIRED TO MEET AN EXPLICIT COMMITMENT {S)

TO A REGULATORY AGENCY.

2.

ACTION REQUIRED TO CORRECT A CONDITION FOR WHICH COMPENSATORY MEASURES TO MEET REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED.

3.

ACTION TO IMPROVE NUCLEAR SAFETY BEYOND THAT REQUIRED BY REGULATION.

4.

ACTION TO IMPROVE THE COMPANY'S

" REGULATORY POSTURE."

5.

ACTION REQUIRED TO MEET MANAGEMENT STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE.

(,

a p.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS PRESENT The Company is examining Technical Specification Change o

requests prior to submittal for combining with other related Technical Specification Change requests-o Current NRR Project Manager has expressed recent willingness to process Technical Specification Change requests applicable to both units simultaneously and issue separate amendments, when required Slide #26

j u

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS THE FUTURE o

The Company is evaluating additional Technical Specification Change requests to implement other process improvements:

Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (NRC Generic Letter 89-01)

Fire Protection Technical Specifications (NRC Generic Letter 88-12) o The Company is evaluating adoption of the improved BWR Standard Technical Specifications:

Being human-engineered and better technically established is a potential improvement Significant impact on training and procedures represent a pc.>ntial disadvantage A decision has not yet been made o

The Company is adopting a nuclear prioritization process that will provide stronger assessment of each Technical Specification Change prior to submittal to the NRC Slide #27

p

\\

L l

EVOLUTION OF BRUNSWICK TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INITIATING FACTORS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INTERPRETATIONS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE PROCESS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS INDUSTRY COMPARISON CONCLUSIONS Slide #28

~

INDUSTRY COMPARISON o

Industry demographics for Operating BWRs with Standard Technical Specifications:

REACTOR TYPE CUSTOM TS STS BWR-2/3 10 0

BWR-4 10 9

BWR-5 0

4 BWR-6 0

4 o

BWR-4 Standard Technical Specifications have never received formal NRC review and approval, unlike the BWR-5 and BWR-6 Standard Technical Specifications.

Slide #29

j

\\

INDUSTRY COMPARISON BRUNSWICK PLANT LICENSE AMENDMENTS ISSUED (BY YEAR) o Review of Brunswick plant-specific license amendments Indicates that the rate of issuance has remained relatively constant (or is easily explainable) since 1981.

LICENSE AMENDMENTS YEAR (TWO UNITS COMBINED) 1989 23 1988 18 1987 23 1986 23 1985 25 1984 32 1983 23 1982 22 1981 22 1980 13 l

1979 15 1978 8

l

• Tnrough 7/89 4

Slide #30 t

i INDUSTRY COMPARISON BRUNSWICK PLANT LICENSE AMENDMENTS ISSUED (BY YEAR) o Since 1981, an average of 23.4 license amendments for Brunswick have been issued per year (both units combined) o The 1984 number of amendments is attributable to the NRC/CP&L Technical Specification backlog reduction -

program o

The 1988 number of amendments is attributable to the lack of a full-time NRR Project Manager being assigned for the Brunswick Plant from 6/1/88 to 12/1/88 Slide #31

n.

o

}

w.

INDUSTRY COMPARISON-

)

AVERAGE NUMBER OF LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUESTS PER YEAR (1984 - 1988)

BWR.4 STS:

PLANT 84 85 86 87 88 TOTAL AVG Brunswick-1 16 22 13 11 11 73 14.6 Brunswick-2 15 20 13 16 7

71 14.2 l

Fermi 2 11 20 31 15.5 Hatch 2 10 9

20 11 7

57 11.4 Hope Creek 1 15 7

22 11.0 Limerick 1 6

9 15 7.5 Susquehanna 1 29 15 11 16 9

80 16.0 Susquehanna 2 15 21 12 12 8

68 13.6 Group Average = 13.0 BWR-4 CTS:

PLANT 84 85 86 87 88 TOTAL AVG Browns Ferry 1 16 10 8

14 20 68 13.6 Browns Ferry 2 17 8

8 13 23 69 13.8 Browns Ferry 3 18 8-7 13 20 66 13.2 Cooper 6

8 10 10 8

42 8.4 Duane Arnold 30 9

15 6

3 63 12.6 Fitzpatrick 10 12 13 5

15 55 11.0 Hatch i 10 14 20 13 8

65 13.0 Peach Bottom 2 10 7

6 11 6

40 8.0 Peach Bottom 3 10 9

6 8

5 38 7.6 Vermont Yankee 9

6 7

8 2

33 6.6 Group Average = 10.78 Slide #32

INDUSTRY COMPARISON AVERAGE NUMBER OF LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUESTS PER YEAR (1984 - 1988)

BWR-5 STS:

PLANT 84 85 86 87 88 TOTAL AVG Lasalle 1 6

19 10 11 10 56 11.2 Lasalle 2 14 13 10 10 47 11.8 Nine Mile 2 7

7 7.0 WNP2 25 18 12 9

64 16.0 Group Average = 12.43 BWR-6 STS:

PLANT 84 85 86 87 88 TOTAL AVG Clinton 1 23 23 23.0 Grand Gulf 1 1

15 25 13 21 75 15.0 Perry 1 12 11 23 11.5 River Bend 1 7

18 12 37 12.3 Group Average = 14.36 Slide #33

j INDUSTRY COMPARISON AVERAGE NUMBER OF LICENSE AMENDMENTS ISSUED PER YEAR (1984 -1988)

BWR-4 STS:

PLANT 84 85 86 87 88 TOTAL AVG Brunswick-1 16 13 9

13 6

55 11.0 Brunswick-2 16 12 14 10 12 63 12.6 Fermi 2 8

16 24 12.0 Hatch 2 8

14 10 15 10 57 11.4 Hope Creek 1 12 7

19 9.5 Limerick 1 3

5 8

4.0 Susquehanna 1 8

24 8

15 10 65 13.0 Susquehanna 2 5

16 10 8

12 51 10.2 Group Average = 10.67 BWR-4 CTS:

PLANT 84 85 86 87 88 TOTAL AVG Browns Ferry 1 21 10 6

6 23 66 13.2 Browns Ferry 2 21 11 7

7 23 69 13.8 Browns Ferry 3 24 12 5

6 23 70 14.0 Cooper 6

6 9

7 12 40 8.0 Duane Arnold 16 18 8

8 8

58 11.6 Fitzpatrick 9

12 2

10 9

42 8.4 Hatch 1 8

14 12 17 9

60 12.0 Peach Bottom 2 13 11 6

5 11 46 9.2 Peach Bottom 3 15 12 6

2 10 45 9.0 Vermont Yankee 4

7 6

5 6

32 5.6 Group Average = 10.56 Slide #34

1 INDUSTRY COMPARISON AVERAGE NUMBER OF LICENSE AMENDMENTS ISSUED PER YEAR (1984 - 1988)

BWR 5 STS:

PLANT 84 65 86 87 88 TOTAL AVG Lasalle 1 4

11 15 4

8 42 8.4 Lasalle 2 10 11 5

6 32 8.0 Nine Mile 2 6

6 6.0 WNP2 12 15 11 14 60 13.0 Group Average = 9.43 BWR-6 STS:

{

Pt. ANT 84 85 86 87 88 TOTAL AVG Clinton 1 16 16 16.0 Grand Gulf 1 2

8 22 14 12 53 11.6 Perry 1 6

8 14 7.0 River Bend 1 2

12 14 28 9.3 Group Average = 10.55 PWR STS:

PLANT 84 85 86 87 88 TOTAL AVG Beaver Valley 12 11 6

12 14 53 10.6 Farley 1 19 4

8 6

5 42 8.4 North Anna 1 13 12 14 4

15 58 11.6 Salem 1 4

10 6

6 5

31 6.2 Group Average = 9.2 Slide #35

~

INDUSTRY COMPARISON

SUMMARY

o The number of Technical Specification Change requests and License Amendments for the Brunswick Plant are not out of line with the numbers for similar BWR-4s in the industry i

l l

Slide #36 iL--_--___-______________

EVOLUTION OF BRUNSWICK TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INITIATING FACTORS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INTERPRETATIONS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE PROCESS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS INDUSTRY COMPARISON CONCLUSIONS Slide #37

E e.

CONCLUSIONS o

CP&L has a reasonable and effective process for the management of Brunswick Technical Specification Change requests and the process is being improved o

CP&L is sensitive to NRC concerns expressed on the number of Technical Specification Change requests being submitted for Brunswick o

CP&L has taken action to reduce the number of future Technical Specification Change requests o

CP&L plans to continue with actions intended to reduce the number of Technical Specification Change requests o

The Technical Specification Change review / screening /

rejection process will be strengthened through the addition of the Nuclear Prioritization Matrix -

o For the foreseeable future, the current level of NRC support for processing Technical Specification Change requests is likely to be needed i

Silde #38

y,,.::.

.. e r

The meeting enabled the staff to obtain a better appreciation of. the TS change management program at Brunswick and the relationship between Brunswick TS

-changes-and TS changes that are needed for similar BWR-4's.

Original-Signed By:

E. G. Tourigny, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate II-I-Division of Reactor' Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Regulation l

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls:

l See next page L

PDII-1 PDIl-1 PDII-1 PAnderson ETourigny:sw EAdensam 8/30/89 8/31/89 8/31 89

/

___-_E.

]

=,;...

so.:,f DISTRIBUTION.FOR MEETING.

SUMMARY

. DATED: August 22, 1989

. Facility: Brunswick Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR T..Murley 12-G-18 J. Sniezek 12-G-18 E. Adensam 14-B-20 P. Anderson 14-B-20 E. Tourigny 14-B-20 OGC 15-B-18 E. Jordan MNBB-3302 B. Grimes 9-A-2 S. Varga E. Rossi 12-G-18 1..

G. Lainas D. Verrelli RII R. Emch 11-F-23 T. Le

^

ACRS(10)

P-315

-B. Borchardt G-21 B. Pulsipher G. Gears J. Hickman

~P. O'Connor B. Siegel

.R.~ Hall J. Stang D. LaBarge L. Kintner L. Crocker C. Shiraki P. Shemanski R. Clark ~

. M. Boyle W. Long M. Slosson A. Dromerick R. Martin T. Colburn D. Mcdonald

~T.

Ross W. Paulson S. Brown M.-Thadani j-M. Fairtile l

R. Samworth i

w_-

U f. oT **

• l

_ y q ' ;; s.

4*.

{L,

?

DISTRIBUTION.FOR. MEETING.

SUMMARY

. DATED: August 22, 1989

' Facility: Brunswick Docket.Ftle NRC'PDR' Local PDR-

~T. Murley 12-G-18 J. Sniezek 12-G E. Adensam 14-B-20 P. Anderson 14-B-20

, E. Tourigny 14-B-20 i

OGC 15-B-18 E. Jordan MNBB-3302 B. Grimes 9-A-2 S. Varga E. Rossi 12-G-18 G. Lainas D. Verrelli R11 R. Emch.

11-F-23 T. Le L

ACRS'(10)

P-315 B. Borchardt 17-G-21 B. Pulsipher G. Gears J. Hickman P. O'Connor B. Siegel R. Hall J. Stang D. LaBarge L. Kintner L. Crocker C. Shiraki P. Shemanski R. Clark

. M. Boyle W. Long M. Slosson A. Dromerick R. Martin T. Colburn D. Mcdonald T. Ross W. Paulson S. Brown M. Thadani M. Fairtile R. Samworth j

1