ML20207B978
| ML20207B978 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Saint Vrain  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1986 |
| From: | Hinson C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Berkow H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8612290446 | |
| Download: ML20207B978 (25) | |
Text
,# p %q% UNITED STATES
, ! c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f s I W ASHING TON, D. C. 2065$
%,,,,,# December 15, 1986 Docket No. 50-267 MEMORANDUM FOR: Herbert N. Berkow, Director Standardization and Special Projects Directorate Division of PWR Licensing-B THRU: 0. D. T. Lynch, Jr. , Section ader Standardization and Special Projects Directorate
< Division of PWR Licensing-B FROM: Charles S. Hinson, Project Manager Standardization and Special Projects Directorate Division of PWR Licensing-B
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF OCTOBER 27-30, 1986 MEETINGATFORTST.VRAIN(FSV)
TO DISCUSS STAFF COMMENTS ON THE FSV TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION UPGRADEPROGRAM(TSUP)
Reference:
- 1. Letter: K. L. Heitner (NRC) to R. F. Walker (PSC), "Coments on the Final Draft of the Fort St. Vrain (FSV) Upgraded TechnicalSpecifications(TS),"datedMay 30, 1986.
- 2. Memorandum: C. S. Hinson to H. N. Berkow, "Sumary of t October 1-2, 1986 Meeting with PSC to Discuss Staff Coments ;
on the FSV TSUP," dated October 28, 1986.
- 3. Letter: D. L. Moses (ORNL) to G. L. Plumlee, III (NRC),
" Technical Evaluation of the Redrafted Technical t i Specifications for Subsystems / Components of the Fort St.
( Vrain Safe Shutdown Cooling Systems and PCRV and Confinement Systems," dated September 2, 1986.
, On October 27-30, 1986, the NRC staff met with the Public Service Company of l Colorado (PSC) staff and the NRC contractors from Idaho National Engineering l Laboratory (INEL) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to discuss the l
status of the FSV TSUP, The attendees of this meeting are indicated in the enclosedListofAttendees(Enclosure 1).
The NRC staff had previously met with the PSC staff and the NRC contractors in l Bethesda on October 1-2, 1986, to discuss resolution of the staff's coments on the FSV TSUP (Reference 1). As a result of this meeting, each of the coments contained in Reference 1 were reviewed and categorized into one c of the six categories listed below (Reference 2):
8612290446 861215 PDR ADOCK 05000267 p PDR
o A Incorporate coment as is B No action needed (resolved by discussion)
C PSC to explain in proposed TSUP amendment safety evaluation D PSC/NRC discussion needed to resolve E Outside TSUP scope - no further discussion planned F Outside TSUP scope - further discussion possible The primary objective of the October 27-30, 1986, meeting was to discuss in greater detail the category D comments (comments requiring further discucsion to resolve) and to resolve these coments by recategorizing them into one of the categories, other than D, listed above. Alternatively, a comment could be placed in one of the two new categories listed below:
A# PSC action item D* NRC action item Category A comments were also discussed at this meeting and recategorized, in a few cases. Enclosure 2 is a complete listing of all the coments discussed at the October 27-30, 1986 meeting, the current resolution category of these coments, and a brief description of the nature of resolution. These coments comprise all of the category D and A coments identified at the October 1-2, 1986 TSUP meeting with the exception of the coments relating to FSV's electrical system (TechnicalSpecificationSection3/4.8). The staff is currently reviewing FSV's proposed Technical Specifications (TS) in this area and will submit new coments to PSC at a later date.
During the preparation of Enclosure 2. NRC Coment Resolution - FSV Final Draf t Technical Specification, the staff recategorized three of the coments as follows:
LCO 3.7.1.2-5 Was categorized "B" at the meeting. However, it was recategorized as a "C", since it is an existing Fort St. Vrain TS that will be deleted.
LCO 3.9.3-2 Was categorized "Af" at the meeting. However, it was recategorized as a "C", since it is an existing Fort St. Vrain TS (of channel calibration) that will be changed from a frequency of annual to once per 18 months.
AC 6.12 Was categorized "A" at the meeting. However, it was recategorized as a "Af". Although PSC added words at the beginning of the paragraph, they did not address other deviations from within the paragraph. See STS Rev. 5, p. 6-23.
Of the 223 comments (many having several subparts) listed in the resolution list, there are 12 NRC action items and 42 PSC action items. The staff is working on the resolution of the NRC actions items. PSC plans to submit a formal NRC closcout package on all of the NRC comments contained in Peference I soon af ter they receive the NRC meeting sumary report for this meeting. This
submittal will consist of: (1) a markup of the final draft TS indicating revisions in response to NRC comments; (2) the PSC response documentation (revised PSC meeting handouts) covering each coment discussed at the October 27-30, 1986 meeting;and(3)PSC'srevisedresponsesbasedonthePSC action items. Upon receipt of this TSUP closeout package from PSC, the staff will review this information for acceptability and issue a safety evaluation on this portion of the TSUP.
Following the discussion and categorization of the TSUP comments, we discussed the ifcensee's concerns with ORNL's Technical Evaluation Report (TER) for the FSVsafety-relatedcoolingsystemsTechnicalSpecificationUpgrade(Reference 3).
The TER stated that there wert. several existing requirements associated with the current FSV Ifcensing basis which should be included in the proposed FSV TS. The licensee stated that the systems described in the TER fell outside the scope of the FSV TS. The PSC and NRC staff each agreed to review and categorize the twenty pages of TER coments using the categories defined for the TSUP comments, and then compare coment categories as a first step towards resolving these comments.
The staff also discussed its concerns with PSC's interpretation of LC0 4.1.9 regarding the 760'F bulk core temperature concept. The staff is concerned that potentially all decay heat removal paths from the core would be interrupted based solely on a calculation that the bulk core temperature was less than 760*F. During this period when the heat removal paths were interrupted, there could be no monitoring of core temperatures. The staff said that a more conservative approach would be to maintain at least one decay heat removal aath operating, and a second path operable, except for a specified periodw1ereoperationwasnotpossible(i.e.,circulatorremoval,etc.). The licensee stated that the provisions of LCO 4.2413 and LCO 4.2.15 require that one loop of the liner cooling system (LCS) always be in operation during shutdown when the bulk core temperature is less than 760'F. The staff stated that the TS were unclear on this requirement and requested that PSC make an explicit comitment to maintain one loop of the LCS in operation under the provisions of the above stated LCOs. The staff suggested that PSC revise the proposed TS to include curves which the operators can use to determine approximately how long they can be shut down before the bulk core temperature exceeds 760*F. PSC agreed to discuss these issues with the staff in more detail at a later date.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 pm on October 30, 1986.
l > . ) iy !,..< %
Charles S. Hinson, Project Manager Standardization and Special Projects Directorate Division of PWR Licensing-D
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/rnclosures:
See next page
Pr. R. O. Williams Public Service Company of Colorado Fort St. Vrain cc:
Mr. D. W. Warembourg, Manager Albert J. Hazle, Director Nuclear Engineering Division Radiation Control Division Public Service Company Department of Health of Colorado- 4210 East lith Avenue P. O. Box 840 Denver, Colorado 80220 Denver, Colorado 80201 Mr. David Alberstein, 14/159A Mr. J. W. Gehm. Manager GA Technologies, Inc. . Nuclear Production Division Post Office Box 85608 Public Service Company of Colorado San Diego, California 92138. 16805 Weld County Road 19-1/2 Platteville, Colorado 80651 Mr. H. L. Brey, Manager Nuclear Licensing and Fuel Division Mr. P. F. Tomlinson, Manager Public Service Company of Colorado Quality Assurance Division P. O. Box 840 Public Service Company of Colorado Denver, Colorado 80201 16805 Weld County Road 19-1/2 Platteville, Colorado 8C651 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. R. F. Walker P. 0. Box 840 Public Service Company of Colorado Platteville, Colorado 80651 Post Office Box 840 Denver, Colorado 92138 Kelley, Stansfield A 0'Donnell Public Service Company Building Corrriitment Control Program Room 900 Coordinator 550 15th Street Public Service Company of Colorado Denver, Colorado 80202 2420 W. 26th Ave. Suite 100-D Denver, Colorado 80211 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Chairman, Board of County Commissioners of k' eld County, Colorado Greeley, Colorado 80631 Regional Representative Radiation Programs Environmental Protection Agency 1 Nnver Place 999 18th Street, Suite 1300 Denver, Colorado 80202-2413
5 Enclosure 1 NRC-PSC TSUP Meeting October 27-30, 1986 ATTENDANCE LIST Name Organization Ken Ne'IIner NRC/NRR/PB55 Charles Hinson NRC/NRR/PBSS Scott Hofstetter PSC/ Nuclear Licensing Jim Gramling PSC/ Nuclear Licensing Mike Holmes PSC/ Nuclear Licensing Sam Chesnutt PSC/ Nuclear Licensing Consultant Donald R. Hoffman PSC/ Nuclear Licensing Consultant Ronald E. Collins PSC/ Nuclear Licensing Consultant Richard J. Nirschl PSC/ Nuclear Licensing Consultant Marty Deniston PSC/ Operations Mark Joseph PSC/ Tech Services G. L. Plumlee, III NRC/NRR J. C. Stachew EG8G, Idaho Inc.
David L. Moses ORNL
NRC CMtfENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. NRC Categorization Spec. Comment Prior Current Nature of Resolution Gen. A4 A A Gen. #S D D* NRC to resolve in conjunction with the LCO 4.1.9 review.
Gen. #6 0 D* PSC proposed resolutions need to be checked by NRC.
De f. 1.11 -
D A PSC agreed to change "except for control rod pairs" to "except for control rod pair or reserve shutdown system insertio " in the definition of core alteration.
Def. 1.14 -
D B Calculational method is covered in licensee's Core Management Guide procedures.
Def. 1.17 -
A A De f. 1.24 -
A A Table 1.0-1 -
D A# PSC agreed that note should not apply to the reactor mode switch.
PSC to clarify exactly to what positions of the ISS this note applies.
SL2.1.1 2 A A 3 8 A Power Peaking Uncertainty will be clarified in later UFSAR revision.
A A Power Peaking Uncertainty has been clarified in TS.
4 A A 5 D B See PSC response document.
A PSC to reference UFSAR section in Basis.
NRC COMMENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. NRC Categorization Spec. Comment Prior Current Nature of Resolution SL2.2.1 1 0 B Setpoint tolerance format is acceptable.
A Included circulator inlet tenpera-ture condition.
F TRIP SETPOINT vs. Temp. deferred to resolution of Instrument Setpoint Study.
8 Psia used for instruments, Psig for Mechanical setpoints.
LC03.0 3 D A 4 A A 5 D A Accepted PSC proposed resolution. See PSC response document.
LC03.1.1 1 A A# Extrapolated Scram Time will be clearly defined.
2 D A Purge Flow Condensed Moisture will be defined in LCO.
D B TS on Dry Purge Source, too prescrip-tive.
D F Moisture Sources outside of scope.
3 D* B Instruments do not effect automatic and/or manual protective action.
4 D A Reference provided on lack of moisture effects during CRD tests.
NRC COMMENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. NRC Categorization Spec. Conaent Prior Current Nature of Resolution LC03.1.1 5 0 A SHUTDOWN MARGIN will be determined for " immovable" rod pair.
6 D B Partial scram test cannot be auto-mated.
8 A A Proper cross reference made to appro-priate SR.
16 A A LCO added on " slack cable."
LC03.1.2.2 12 A A NRC Markup incorporated.
13 D B STS action time not appropriate.
LC03.1.3 2 0 B Rods can be inserted, if not scramable; very impractical because of Rod Sequence Limits.
A Action A.2 reduced to 12 hrs.
B No LCO change needed.
4 D A " Verified" replaced with " Assessed."
8 D A Same as LCO 3.1.3, Comment 4.
LC03.1.4.1 1 A A Words in title reordered.
3 A A Source power level enumeration clarified.
8 A A Peaking Factor Uncertainties in DF 5.3.4.
9 A A UFSAR ref. corrected.
n 4
NRC COMMENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. NRC Categorization Spec. Coment Prior Current Nature of Resolution LC03.1.4.2 3 D A SHUTDOWN MARGIN " assessment," not "verficiation."
6 D A " Assessed" replaces "verifled."
LC03.1.6 1 D A# PSC to specify criteria for determin-ing condensed moisture in hopper purge.
4 A A Included in PSC's Markup.
5 A A# PSC to add words about RSD hopper spare availability.
LC03.1.7 4 A A NFSC Approval, included in PSC's markup.
10 D A Deleted term " excess reactivity" in PSC markup; explanation added.
LC03.2.1 1 0 A Reference to FSV FAS deleted in PSC markup.
LC03.3.1 - D B PSC explained their response.
LC03.3.2.1 1 D A 2 A B See PSC response document.
LC03.3.2.2 1 D A PSC markup in their response document agreed with the NRC resolution to M make item 2.b in Tables 3.3.21 and 4.3.2 1 applicable to all modes.
PSC also will make Item 2.a in the same tables applicable to all modes.
LC03.3.2.3 1 A A# See PSC response document.
2 0 A l
l
NRC COMMENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. NRC Categorization Spec. Coment Prior Current Nature of Resolution LC03.3.2.3 3 D A l
D* NRC to review PSC proposal.
4 A A# PSC to add "*" in CHANNEL C) 'A .
l column.
l D* NRC to review PSC proposal on
! quarterly CHANNEL CHECK.
l LC03.3.2.4 - A A LC03.3.2.7 1 D 8 See PSC response document.
l 2 D A# FSC to revise basis to delete l post-accident monitoring system l comparison.
3 D A# PSC to revise proposed wording.
1 i LC03.3.2.8 1 D A l 2 D A# PSC to revise: (1)actionstoindicate only one region is affected; (2) specification to reflect UFSAR wording;
- . and (3) specification providing backup l local indication. '
3 D A l
l 4 0 A -
LC03.3.3 - A A LC03.4.1 5 0 B SR 90 activity saturates, not a good index.
6 0 A Basis updated in PSC proposed markup.
l l
t
s
-6 !
NRC COP 9 TENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. NRC Categorfration Spec. Comment Prior Current Nature of Resolutior, *'
LC03.4.2 2 D 8 Same as LC03.1.1, Coment 4.
3 D A Alarms cited in basis, see PSC proposed markup.
LC03.4.3 3 D B Sane as LC03.1.1, Comment 4.
4 D A Alarms cited in basis, see PSC proposed markup.
LC03.5.4 2 0 A 3 D* 8 Same as LC03.1.1, Coment 3.
5 D F# To be addressed in Appendi< R and safe shutdown problem followup by project manager.
LC03.6.1.1 2 D* B Same as LC03.1.1, Comment 3. !
4 0 8 Consistent with existing TS.
LC03.6.1.2 1 A A l l
4 D* 8 Same as LC03.1.1, Coment 3.
5 D* B See PSC response document.
6 A A 7 0 B STS action time not applicable. l LC03.6.1.3 1 D* 8 Same as LC03.1.1, Comment 3.
l 3 D B STS action time not applicable. !
l LC03.6.1.4 1 D* 8 Same as LC03.1.1, Comment 3.
4 0 B STS action time not applicable.
1 1
i o . .
NRC COMMENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. NRC Categorization Spec. Comment Prior Current Nature of Resolution LC03.6.1.5 1 D A 2 D A 3 D- A 4 D A LC03.6.4 1 D A# PSC to propose actions.
2 D A# PSC to provide values.
I 3 D A 4 D A 5 D A 6 D A# PSC to propose change.
7 D B See PSC response document.
8 D A 9 D A LC03.6.5.1 1 D B See PSC response document.
2 D D* In addition to the PSC action on this item, NRC will investigate whether it is routine at other commercial Nuclear Power Plants to allow cooldown even though the action statement said " suspend all operations involving core alter-ations or positive reactivity changes...". In particular, is i
=-
NRC COMMENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. NRC Categorization Spec. Comment Prior Current Nature of Resolution LC03.6.5.1 2(Continued) switching from feedwater cooldown to condensate cooldown routinely permitted under this action state-ment.
D A# PSC will provide justification specific to the LCO for the action under shutdown and refueling of
" Control rod movements resulting in positive reactivity changes" versus "Any evolution resulting in positive reactivity changes".
PSC also agreed to replace "or" with "and" after the word " changes,"
in Action b. and in other similar LC0 Actions.
3 D B See PSC response document.
4 D A# PSC will reevaluate using the existing wording in FSV TS LC04.5.1 for Items 4.5.la) 4 and 5.
5 D A# PSC will add a discussion on louver surveillance requirements to the basis.
6 D A# PSC to delete NRC's reference to personnel control.
LC03.6.5.2 1 D A# See PSC action for 3.6.5.1-2.
D* See NRC action for 3.6.5.1-2.
2 D B See PSC response document.
NRC COMMENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. NRC Categorization Spec. Comment Prior Current Nature of Resolution LC03.6.5.2 3 D A 4 D B See PSC response document.
5 D B An existing FSV TS requirement.
7 D A# PSC to propose some changes.
8 D* B Same as LC03.1.1, Comment 3.
9 D C 10 D B See PSC response document.
11 D A# PSC to verify acceptance criteria.
12 D A# PSC to verify whether or not UFSAR specifies a value.
LC03.6.5.3 1 D C 2 D' A# PSC will reevaluate in 4.6.5.3.b.1
"... Louver group opens as designed within one second..." versus
"... Louver group opens fully within one second...".
LC03.7.1.1 1 D B See PSC response document.
2 D A# See PSC action for 3.6.5.1-2.
D* See NRC action for 3.6.5.1-2.
l 3 D A# PSC will add "SLRDIS" discussion on 60 minutes to get the auxiliary boiler operating.
)
NRC COMMENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. .NRC Categorization Spec. Comment Prior Current Nature of Resolution LC03.7.1.2 1 D A# PSC will add and .iustify a lower setpoint on the dump tank safety valve setpoint.
2 D C 3 D A# PSC to reevaluate actions.
4 D A 5 D C 6 D A 7 D B See PSC response document.
8 D B Same as LC03.1.1, Comment 3.
9 D A LC03.7.1.3 1 A A 2 D C PSC to delete specification.
D A PSC to incorporate the word "line" as proposed by NRC.
LC03.7.1.4 -
D A D B The words "plus gamm'a" will not be incorporated. This analysis is integral to the FSV Dose Equivalent analysis.
D B Table proposal not incorporated.
Consistent with existing TS.
i l
l t
NRC COMMENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. NRC Categorization Spec. Comment Prior Current Nature of Resolution LC03.7.2 1 D C 2 D B See PSC response document.
3 D C Only for deleting functionals and calibration in 4.7.2b and 4.7.2c.
4 D B See PSC response document.
7 D B See PSC response document.
8 D B 9 D B 10 D B 11 D* B Same as LC03.1.1, Comment 3.
LC03.7.3 1 D* C 2 D A LC03.7.4.1/ 1 D A# PSC to clarify in the basis.
3.7.4.2 2 D B See PSC response document.
3 D B 4 D B
NRC COMMENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. NRC Categorization Spec. Comment Prior Current Nature of Resolution LC03.7.5 1 D 8 See PSC response document.
2 D A Change to 4.6.4.5.d acceptable A# PSC to reevaluate Action b.
A# PSC to delete 4.7.5.c since spool piece is now hard-piped.
3 D A LC03.7.6.1 -
D B See PSC response document.
LC03.7.6.2 1 D C 2 D A 3 D A LC03.7.6.3 1 D C 2 D C 3 D D* Confirm Halon bottle design acceptance to resolve surveillance problem.
4 D A# PSC to propose changes to the basis, Specification 4.7.6.3a, and Action c.
LC03.7.6.4 2 D A# In Action c., PSC will insert "Whether" after " Determine" and -
delete "That" in the first line.
LC03.7.6.5 -
A A LC03.7.7 -
D B See PSC response document.
NRC COMMENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. NRC Categorization Spec. Comment Prior Current Nature of Resolution LC03.7.8 1 D A# PSC to reevaluate Actions.
C PSC identified a deviation from existing SR requirements and will provide justification for deviation.
2 D B See PSC response document.
3 D A 4 D A# PSC to add ACM day tank to SRs on emergency diesel.
5 D A 6 D F Project manager to include this in Appendix R review.
LC03.7.9 1 D B See PSC response document.
2 0 -
A# PSC to evaluate options proposed:
(1) 72 hrs. versus 7 days, or (2)
! referencing backup breathing air system.
3 D D* Generic Letter 83-36/37 review.
A# See PSC action for 3.6.5.1-2.
4 D B See PSC response document.
5 D A
$ 6 D C 7 D B See PSC response document.
8 D B
NRC COMMENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. NRC Categorization Spec. Comment Prior Current' Nature of Resolution LC03.7.10 1 D C For deletion of snubber list and not requiring shutdown per existing FSV TS Item d p.4.3-7.
2 D A 3 D A 4 D A 5 D A 6 D C LC03.9.1 2 D A# PSC will reevaluate the wording in the applicability.
3 D A# See PSC action for 3.6.5.1-2.
D* See NRC action for 3.6.5.1-2.
4 D B See PSC response document.
5 D B 6 D A# PSC to revise change.
7 D A LC03.9.2 1 D E See PSC response document.
2 D B 3 D B 4 A A
l
~
l
\
.- l NRC COMMENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. .NRC Categorization Spec. Comment Prior Current Nature of Resolution LC03.9.2 5 D A 6 D A LC03.9.3 1 D B See PSC response document.
2 D C 3 D C 4 D B PSC provided a response.
5 D B Consistent with STS.
6 D B See PSC response document.
7 D 8 " " " "
8 D C Sec. 5.0 -
A A Sec. 5.1 1 D A 2 D B Consistent with STS.
4 A A Sec. 5.3 1 D A PSC will use fixed convention consistent with word processor being used.
2 A A l
1
! 3 D A# PSC to propose change.
i 4
5 D F Criticality safety basis not in UFSAR.
i l
NRC COMMENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. NRC Categorization Spec. Comment Prior Current Nature of Resolution Sec. 6.1 1 D B See PSC response document.
2 D B Sec. 6.2.3 -
D B l Sec. 6.3/ 1 D D* Project manager will clarify the i
6.4 applicability of the NRC March 28, 1980 letter to FSV on supplemental qualifications for licensed opera-tors.
I l 2 D A 3 D A Sec. 6.5 1(6.5.1.4) D A (6.5.1.6a) D B See PSC response document.
(6.5.1.6.e) D C (6.5.1.6.h) D A (6.5.1.5.1) D A (6.5.1.6.j) D B See PSC response document.
(6.5.1.7.b) D A# PSC will evaluate if.their Modus Operandi permits adding "... prior to their implementation" to the end of the existing paragraph.
(6.5.1.7.d) D A (6.5.1.8) D A
NRC COMMENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. NRC Categorization Spec. Comment Prior Current Nature of Resolution Sec. 6.5 (6.5.2.3) D Af PSC will reevaluate if th'ey want to continue to propose the words in their response document presented at the meeting.
(6.5.2.10.a) D B See PSC response document.
(6.5.2.10.b)D B (6.5.2.10.c) D A Item 1 D A# PSC will evaluate adding this to 6.5.1.6 under PORC responsibility.
2 D B See PSC response document.
Sec. 6.8 -
0 A Sec. 6.9 1(6.9.1) D A (6.9.1.1.b) D B See PSC response document.
(6.9.1.2.a) D A (6.9.1.3) D A 2 D C NRC recommended PSC retain RETS as is.
3 D B See PSC response document.
4 D C NRC recommended PSC retain RETS as is.
5 D A 6 D A i
i
__ .-. _ . . . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ , , _ . _ . _ _ , - _ , - - _ - _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ - . _ , ~ _ - . _ _ . . . _ , . . . - . - _ . - - . _ -
r P'
NRC COMMENT RESOLUTION - FSV FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Tech. NRC Categorization Spec. Comment Prior Current- Nature of Resolution Sec. 6.10 1 D A 2 D F Sec. 6.12 - D Af PSC did not resolve all deviations from the STS Rev. 5, p. 6-23, 6.12.1. PSC should resolve all the deviations not just the one at the beginning of the sentence.
Sec. 6.17 - D B See PSC response document.
F _ ((j. '
~
D':STRIBUTION:
7 ERST;FI O J NRC POR Local PDR PBSS Reading JPartlow H9erkow-CHinson PNoonan KHeitner Olynch OGC-BETH EJordan BGrimes ACRS(10)
NRC Participants
e ,
, December 15, 1986 submittal will' consist of: (1) a markup of the final draft TS indicating revisions in response to NRC comments; (2) the PSC response documentation (revised PSC meeting handouts) covering each comment discussed at the October 27-30, 1986 meeting; and (3) PSC's revised responses based on the PSC action items. Upon receipt of this TSUP closecut package from PSC, the staff will review this information for acceptability and issue a safety evaluation on this portion of the TSUP.
Following the discussion and categorization of the TSUP comments, we discussed the licensee's concerns with ORNL's Technical Evaluation Report (TER) for the FSV safety-related cooling systems Technical Specification Upgrade (Reference 3).
The TER stated that there were several existing requirements associated with the current FSV licensing basis which should be included in the proposed FSV TS. The licensee stated that the systems described in the TER fell outside the scope of the FSV TS. The PSC and NRC staff each agreed to review and categorize the twenty pages of TER comments using the categories defined for the TSUP comments, and then compare comment categories as a first step towards resolving these coments.
The staff also discussed its concerns with PSC's interpretation of LC0 4.1.9 regarding the 760 F bulk core temperature concept. The staff is concerned that potentially all decay heat removal paths from the core would be interrupted based solely on a calculation that the bulk core temperature was less than 760 F. During this period when the heat removal paths were interrupted, there cculd be no monitoring of core temperatures. The staff said that a more conservative approach would be to maintain at least one decay heat removal path operating, and a second path operable, except for a specified period where operation was not possible (i.e., circulator removal, etc.). The licensee stated that the provisions of LC0 4.2.13 and LC0 4.2.15 require that one loop of the Ifner cooling system (LCS) always be in operation during shutdown when the bulk core temperature is less than 760 F. The staff stated that the TS were unclear on this requirement and requested that PSC make an explicit commitment to maintain one loop of the LCS in operation under the provisions of the above stated LCOs. The staff suggested that PSC revise the proposed TS to include curves which the operators can use to determine approximately how long they can be shut down before the bulk core temperature exceeds 760 F. PSC agreed to discuss these issues with the staff in more detail at a later date.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 pm on October 30, 1986.
b%b h>4e Charles S. Hinson, Project Manager Standardization and Special Projects Directorate Division of PWR Licensing-B
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
See next page 3 PBSS $- PBSS 0/V' B PS$3 n:cw Chins w KHeitner Olynph ljBer L'tb 12/ 6 /86 12/$/86 12/fI/86 12/h/86 12/jf/86