ML20207L957
| ML20207L957 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point, Fermi, Hope Creek, Susquehanna, Columbia, LaSalle, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1986 |
| From: | Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205B089 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-855 NUDOCS 8701130048 | |
| Download: ML20207L957 (57) | |
Text
___- -__
- 'o , UNITED STATES l' "% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/ November 18, 1986 k ..... f Docket Nos: 50-373/374, 50-387/388, 50-397/410, and 50-341/354 LICENSEES: Commonwealth Edison Company Pennsylvania Power and light Company Washington Public Power Supply System l Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Detroit Edison Company Public Service Electric & Gas Company FACILITIES: La Salle County Station, Units 1 and ?
Susnuehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 WPPSS Nuclear Project No. ?
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Fermi-2 Nope Creek Generating Station SilRJECT: BWR PROJECT DIRECTORATE NO. 3 COUNTERPART MEETINr, SEPTEMBER 9, 1986 On September 9,1986, the NRC staff met with utility representatives with projects assigned to RWR Project Directorate No. 3 (BWD-31 to discuss relevant licensing issues. The purpose of this meeting was to improve the lines of com-munication between the NRC and the licensees.
Presentations on licensing issues were presented by both NRC staff and utility representatives. The topics of major interest included: the Sholly process, intrepretation of 10 CFR Part 50.59, the Technical Specificrtion Improvement Program, and discretionary enforcement. Interest was also expressed regarding Mr. Sorensen's presentation on utility performance indicators.
The NRC staff was pleased with the willingness of the utilties to attend and participate in this type of a meeting and encouraged the utilities to partitate more aggressively in the development of agenda for future meetings. The NRC staff expressed the hope that this meeting was beneficial to all participants and that these types of meetings may continue.
Enclosure 1 contains the agenda; Enclosure 2 contains the meetina handouts; and Enclosure 3 contains the list of Attendees.
8701130048 870109 k d -BSS PDR
l
-?_
At the close of the meeting, the utility representatives were asked to provide consnents either formally or through their project managers.
. -e;_-
Elinor G. Adensam, Director BWR Project Directorate No. 3 Division of BWR Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page
Mr. B. Ralph Sylvia Detroit Edison Company Fermi-2 Facility cc:
Mr. Harry H. Voigt. Esq. Ronald C. Callen LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Adv. Planning Review Section 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W. Michigan Public Service Commission
' Washington, D. C. 20036 6545 Mercantile Way P. O. Box 30221 John Flynn, Esq. Lansing, Michigan 48909 Senior Attorney The Detroit Edison Company Regional Administrator, Region III 2000 Second Avenue U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Detroit, Michigan 48226 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Mr. Dennis R. Hahn, Chief Nuclear Facilities and Environmental Monitoring Section Office Division of Radiological Health P. O. Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. Robert Woolley Acting Supervisor-Licensing The Detroit Edison Company Femi Unit 2 6400 No. Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 i
Mr. Walt Rogers.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pesident Inspector's Office 6450 W. Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Monroe County Office of Civil Preparedness 963 South Raisinville Monroe, Michigan 48161 36
Mr. Dennis L. Farrar la Salle County Nuclear Power Station Commonwealth Edison Company Units 1 & 2 cc:
Philip P. Steptoe, Esquire John W. McCaffrey Suite 4200 Chief, Public Utilities Division One First National Plaza 160 North La Salle Street, Room 900 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Assistant Attorney General 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Pesident Inspector /LaSalle, NPS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dural Route No. 1 P.O. Box 224 Marseilles, Illinois 61341 Chairman la Salle County Board of Supervisors La Salle County Courthouse Ottawa, Illinois 61350 Attorney General 500 South 2nd Street Springfield, Illinois 62701 Chairman Illinois Commerce Commission Leland Building 577 East Capitol Avenue Springfield, Illinois 62706 Mr. Gary N. Wright, Manager Nuclear Facility Safety Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor Springfield, Illinois 62704 Regional Administrator, Region III U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Rossevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
Mr. C. V. Mangan Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Unit 2 CC*
Fr. Troy B. Conner, Jr. , Esq. Regional Administrator, Region I Conner & Wetterhahn U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 1050 631 Park Avenue 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Washington, D.C. 20006 Mr. Paul D. Eddy Richard Goldsmith New York State Public Serice Syracuse University Conunission College of Law Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station -
E. I. White Hall Campus Unit II Syracuse, New York 12223 P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, New York 13093 Ezra I. Bialik Assistant Attorney General Mr. Richard M. Kessel Environmental Protection Bureau Chair and Executive Director New York State Department of Law State Consumer Protection Board 2 World Trade Center 99 Washington Avenue New York, New York 10047 Albany, New York 12210 Pesident Inspector Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station P. O. Box 99 Lycoming, New York 13093 Mr. John W. Keib, Esq.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, New York 13202 Mr. James Linville U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Norman Rademacher, Licensing Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, New York 13202 Don Hill Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Suite 550 4520 East West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20814 7
Mr. Harold W. Keiser Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Pennsylvania Power & Light Company Units 1 & 2 cc:
Jay Silberg, Esq. Mr. W. H. Hirst, Manager Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Joint Generation 2300 N Street N.W. Projects Department Washington, D.C. 70037 Atlantic Electric P.O. Box 1500 Bryan A. Snapp, Esq. 1199 Black Horse Pike Assistant Corporate Counsel Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 Dennsylvania Power & Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Regional Administrator, Region I Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue Mr. William E. Barberich King of Prussia, Pennsylvania ~~9n6 Manager-Nuclear Licensing Pennsylvania Power & Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Mr. R. Jacobs Pesident Inspector P.O. Box 52 Shickshinny, Pennsylvania 18655 Mr. R. J. Benich Services Project Manager General Electric Company 1000 First Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Mr. Thones M. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Resources Connonwealth of Pennsylvania P. O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
! Robert W. Alder, Esquire Office of Attorney General P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Mr. William Matson Allegheny Elec. Coorperative, Inc.
212 Locust Street P.O. Bxo 1266 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1266 18 l
Mr. G. C. Sorensen, Manaaer Washington Public Power Supply System WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2) cc:
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Regional Administrator, Region V Purcell A Reynolds U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W. 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Washington, D.C. 20036 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Mr. G. E. Doupe, Esquire Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99532 Mr. Curtis Eschels, Chairman
-Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council Mail Stop PY-11 Olympia, Washington 98504 P. L. Powell, licensing Manager Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968, MD 956R Pichland, Washington 99352 W
- r. W. G. Conn Aurns and Roe, Incorporated c/oSystem Washington Public Power Supply P. O. Box 968, MD 994E Dichland, Washington 99352 P. B. Glasscock, Director Licensing and Assurance Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968, MD 280 Richland, Washington 99352 Mr. C. M. Powers WNP-2 Plant Mananer Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box MD 927M Richland, Washinoton 99352 35
November 18, 1986 MEETING StM!ARY DISTRIBUTION < lf EM Docket Nofs): 50-373/374/387/388/397/410/341/354 NRC PDR Local PDR
'BWD #3 r/f J. Partlow E. Adensam Attorney, OGC E. Jordan B. Grimes ACRS (10)
Project Manager Listed Below E. Hylton NRC PARTICIPANTS E. Adensam R. Bernero E. Hylton D. Wagner J. Bradfute R. C. Barr M. Haughey A. Bournia M. Campagnone M. D. Lynch
( C.I H S l* W
A/E bcc: Applicant & Service List
ENCLOSt!RE 1 C0l!NTERPART MEETING FOR BWD-3 HELD ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1986 NAME AFFILIATION E. G. Adensam NRR/ DBL R. Bernero* NRR/ DBL E. Hylton NRR/ DBL D. Wagner NRR/ DBL B. Preston PSE&G Co.
R. Beckwith PSEAG Co.
L. A. Reiter PSE&G Co.
John 0. Bradfute NRR/ DBL G. C. Sorensen Washington Public Power Supply System Pat Powell Washington Public Power Supply System Larry Aeschliman Washington Public Power Supply System R. C. Barr NRC/WNP-2 Resident Mary Haughey NRR/ DBL A. F. 7allnick NMPC P. E. Francisco NMPC Tom Hammerick Commonwealth Edison Mike To-bak Commonwealth Edison Anthony Bournia NRR/ DBL C. M. Allen Commonwealth Edison Thomas Randazzo Detroit Edison Rob Woolley Detroit Edison Mari-Josette Campagnone NRR/ DBL C. T. Coddington Pennsylvania Power A Light Co.
R. R. Sgarro Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.
, W. E. Barberich Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.
l P. David Lynch NRR/ DBL Steve Frost Detroit Edison - Fermi-2 Paul Christofakis Detroit Edison - Fermi-2 Paul Eddy New York State Public Service Comm.
Gerald Klingler IE/DI/0RPR Steve Washinaton WNP-2 Dennis Vandeputte SWEC Greg Brown Stone & Webster Fred Stetson Nils Corp.
George S. Daves PSEAG - Hope Creek t
ENCLOSURE 2 PROPOSED AGENDA 8:00 a.m. INTRODUCTION
- Elinor G. Adensam, BWR, PD #3
- Robert M. Rernero, Director, DBL 8:30 a.m. NPC/ UTILITY LIVING SCHEDULES
- Tracking System in use by NRC (Rournia)
- Systems used by litilities (Coddington/PPAL, Wooley/ Detroit Edison)
- Renefits of a Utility /NRC Integrated Livino Schedule (Adensam) 9:30 a.m. UTILITY PERFORMANCE
- 5. r ea . .
- How do Utilities track their own performance (SeweH/WPPSS) 9:45 a.m. C0FFEE BREAK s 10:00 a.m. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
- Sholly Process /NSHC (Scinto)
- Exemptions and the new Rule (Cameron)
- En roency TS changes (Campaonone/Scinto)
- Interpretation of 10 CFR 50.59 (Scinto) 12:00 LUNCH 1:30 p.m. TECHNICAL SPFCIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS
- Introduction / Background (Butcher)
NRC's role (Butcher)
- Utility Participation (Sgarro/PPlL) 2:45 p.m.- C0FFEE BREAK 3: p.m. SEVERE ACCIDENT POLTCY/ DEGRADED CORE PROGRAMS Presentation / Discussion (Bernero) 3: kp.m. What is DISCRETIONAPY ENFORCEMENT Presentation (Vollmer) 4:00 p.m. OPEN DISCllSSION 4:30 p.m. Closing Remarks (Adensam - Bernero) 5:00 p.m. Close
R:00 A.M. INTRODlJCTION ELINOR G. ADENSAM ROBERT M. BERNER0
9 8:30 A.M..NRC/ UTILITY LIVING. SCHEDULES
'I ANTHONY BOURNIA (NRC)
CORNELIUS c,0DDINGTON (PPP.L)
ROBERT WOOLLEY (DETROIT EDISON)
ELINOR ADENSAM (NRC) f f
i i
TRACKING SYSTEM IN USE BY NRC
c , o-. g .g,; e aan a,eu6.,on s asumunsmuse v.s. .a .
l I TECHNICAL ASSIGNMENT CONTROL I OF86CE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULA160N g NEW AmsGaewgNT Ntw INFOR.8ATIOes 80CTI0la t. AGOUSST DATA
...... 2.., ,
g-., no. ,,,,, i 4- .. . ....
P -90+ -C *"~a-A. So u r n ' a. ...==.n-...
iotiezirs 3 e7 , b La. NIe. Univ L - Sts+.s -0 dang swak4. eel y w u-
, , ,, . . . .cc o.,,, .. ,
for U*. E& ' of*'4*/* 7*, s , s , I ,
1".T.'n'.?. i o ti 101 #4
...... ~ ..c . .ggg;s.
. ggg,ygt ==;a,.,g . . . . . . - + - -
J' A. Se ornie. AB$ $WO-3 -
l w.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
SECTION il SYST80 8 CO8f7 AOL DATA A cr.ma,use n..c.oa Ac,so.a.
Pn Omit ' * %1 2 3 l l N. A ,, le.06,a0v...a ip se F E E *ECOvED.BLE . ),vts esO .MQ.,T,'0-
, tFP) APP,eCA,50N F EE RECEIVED . VE5 X seO lO $l1$ lM iC. ..FitOP4a...A y t.Q N , se O.T T... e.04,M D.y v... 4,se 0 9 v..a emw.se p.y v..a t..a sp.a..sP ope... v v.m.,og
.g,v , =, a...v.e ,i i i i .=. . .. .a.. .i i i i i i i i .... _ ... _ ,
l A vi $T.TUS l ACCEPTED lNOT ACCEPTED l wiTMOR Awh 88CTsoof Ill. R8YlEW DATA ish . .26.- ....,_" ," "_,",_".c,...
A. S oor-nos. A ,eno ,,, , , , ,
J. Knou JnYnK \ l I \ \ , ,.
- r. c,//,,,, ricic i l i i I , ,
I I I I I I I I I l l l I I I I I l i
l i I I I I I I I I I I l i l i l 1 1 I I I I I I , 1 I I l l l l 1 I I I I I I I I I I l l I I I l l l l l 8IRC P.O.-22040 V
- e. *.
- - - .a. - - , -# ..--
- . . - . - - =-. - _ - _ -- - . .,
Rc,uting Slip TRANSMITTAL 0F DIVISION OF BWR LICENSING WORK REQUEST SPECIAL HANDLING - PROCESS WITHOUT DELAY ,
TACG-Plant Name-Tit 1e t.124s -is S.!/el- SOR seuilcis ans ris fu U-ll l .rfarivg Description of review requested;lsena **n f**I maisenOy ,
la Na r dals4 Apst 2.9,1 inceases'submoNa d sdde c*ncerning SOR suifek on ords> for the
- f* ff h !ccf* rm ansly su revetw L es=lt1 sW Request target date $sM .10,g$3g Basis for request date: The un[/ ske/*/ s 't JcSe duI*d b 8Y 8 # F , 8.? # 4, Regional Resource Determination: CIRCL NE A. Will the review benefit from unique regional knowledge? YES / _0 B. Will the review benefit from regional proximity to ~
the site? YES/[N0)
C. If the answer to A and/or B is "yes", explain why the review is not being sent to the Regions.
3
- SEQUENCE NAME DATE
- 1. Project Manager d Sozirrt/4 l- 2. Project Director f. A den,54,m
- O This action is requested to be added to the review branch's current
- comitments This action is requested to be completed in lieu of TACf j;
~~
for .
(PlantName)
- 3. Review Branch Chief b/. 8de sre_t '
l
! 4. Regional Div.Licensing Director / Asst. G. 4 At M A 5 I Director-BWR This action is accepted for completion with a target date of i
i
[ This action is accepted for completion with a tar et date of in lieu of completing TACf in this fisca year i
- 7. Return to Review Branch Chief for assignment of reviewer and retention of work package
~
(Reviewer's Name) (RAM 5 Initials)
- 8. Return routing slip to originator FROM MAIL STOP PHONE A . B o w m a. .
P- 9 o9 - c. 2 8 c 18
diam R-1200673-401 REOULAT0RY INF0RMATION TRACKINO e 5Y$7EM PAGE NO.* 54 0 aIVIStoM Or LICENSINO 88 L ICIN%ING ACTIONS REPORI RuN DATES 08/07/s6 IME A DOUARIE RS D em FACILITYs LASALLE t PLANT LOCATIONS 11 MI SE OF OTTAMA, ILL LICENSED PDWER: 3323 MWT am DOCKET Nun 0ER: 0$0-00373 PROJECT MANAGER: A. SOURNIA DESIGN POWER: 1978 MNE SRANCH CHIEFS E. ADENSAM ARCH /ENGINEERe SSL NSSS VENDORS GE gp IE INSPECTORS R. MEISMMAN LIC. ASSISIANis E. MYLTON an T MULTI Y P RAI SC gp i
TAC PLANT IMIT P NOTICE R REV TO 1
IguMBER ACTJON RESPONSE SE INPUT LIC ACT AD B&lE E EXPIRES 1 DRQM REVIEMER RAI DA R BATE TER DATE BAYE BafE C0fetENTS H I. ACTIVE AND Colet ETED ACTIONS IN FY unum ACTIVE ACTIONS unum i SD
' db ACTION ITEMS M42556 8-60 LASALLE 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL 08/20/80 0 N/A GUALIFICATION OF SAFETY RELATED ELECTRICAL EOUIPMENT (40-CLI-21) 1 DNO3 BOURNIA 11/30/85 09/15/86 81 LICENSEE IMPLEMENTATIDN DATE 8 STATUS CODE 09/08/86L un ACTION M49460ITENs LA SALLE F-26 1 - INSTRUMENTS 12/98/82 0 FCR DETECTION ON INADEGUATE CORE COOLING (II.F.23 gp N/A 3 BMD5 BOURNIA <
DNRS MUANO 86/18/87 et 96/14/85X LICENSEE IMPLEMENTATION DATE 8 STATUS CODE 80/09/87L gp ACTION ITEMS gp M51192 A-17 LASALLE 1 - INSTRUMENTATION TO FOLLDW THE COURSE OF AN ACCIDENT (R01.97) 04/04/85 0 N/A 3 PAEI ROSA 95/31s45 i
BNO3 BOURNIA 07/tS/86X 01/24/87 et gp 01/10/86 I
e LICENSEE IMPLEMENTATION DATE 4 STATUS CODE 80/08/87L O
ACTION ITENs M5ttF2 F-78 LASALLE I - I.D.t.1 84/04/83 0 - DETAILES CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM PL AN F-08
] 3 MFIS FRCELICH 07/tt/83X 10/10/86 02 PAEI ECK ENRODE 07/07/85P BMEI RAMIREZ gp
,, DM03 BOURNIA 07/04/46X LICENSEE IMPLEMENTATION DATE 8 STATUS CODE 08/09/80L dp ACTION ITEMS
., M52850 8-77 LASALLE 1 - ITEM steet/83 0 2.1 N/A
- ESUIPMENT CL ASSIFICATION AND VENDOR INTERFACE - RTS COMPONENTS 3 BWD3 acuRNIA st/25/81C 04/10/87 02 gp PAEI LASMER us3/31/87a LICENSEE IMPLEMENTnTION DATE 4 STATUS CODE 80/08/87L II s/
til tur
,=
j l
I il R-1208715 REGULAT0RY INF0RMATION TRACKING SY$ TEM PAGE 884 n ~~
n OMAR STAFF INPUT REPORT OFFICE: MRR DIVISION: DSL A/Dr HEEK ENDING 09/06/So EMPLOYEE - (ASB) - A SOURNIA BRANCH DND3 SECTION8 RUN DATE 08/29/84 O M TACS S RPT NO STATU5/ HOUR $
DOCET0 DATE OF TARGET ESTIMATE COMPL. NON ESTM PROJ e REeuf5T PA 0 DATE DATE DATE REG REG 5/3g TITLE /DEsc n
i i
M18893 1111 08/15/86 ACTIVE _ _ , . , , , _ , _ . . , , LA SALLE 2 - REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIMARY COOLANT HION a
07/09/86 REACTIVITY ,
! O M1890 litt 08/15/86 ACTIVE _ ._ , _ _ . L A SALLE 2 - CA8LE SEPARATION CONCERNS n M 1994 tilt 08/15/86 ACTIVE _. . , _ _ , . . LA SALLE 1 - REVIEN OF BULK-10-LOCAL POOL TEMPERATURE 6 87/18/86 DIFFERENCE M2095 1911 ACTIVE . , _ , . _ _ . . LA SALLE 1 - REVIEW 0F LICENSE REVISION TO PCP 08/07/86 m
M62094 1881 ACTIVE _ . . , , , _ . _ LA SALLE 2 - REVIEW OF LICENSE REVISION TO PCP 88/07/86 M2095 1111 ACTIVE _. _ , _ . . LA SALLE 1 - REVIEW OF LICENSE REVISIION TO OOCM ,,
88/07/86 M2096 1911 ACTIVE _ _ , , . . _ ., LA SALLE 2 - REVIEN OF LICENSE REVISION TO eBCM 98/07/84 y
M 21363 1865 ACTIVE .,__._ , _ . _ L A SALLE 1 - ASSISTANCE TO R-III FOR REVIEN OF TYPE *A* TEST 08/13/86 VALVE LINEUP (TIA $6-410) 05000373 1925 _ _ , , . _ , _ , . _ L ASALLE t PROJECT MANAGf A ADMINISTRATION
- 05000374 1925 , _ . _ , , , . _ LASALLE 2 PROJECT MANAGER ADMINISTRATION umasu NEN ACTIVITIES ummma "
i 1 ._ _._ NEN NORK ITEM ADD TO MEEKLY REPORTT YES.,_
MEN WORK ITEM ADD TO MEEKLY REPORTT YE5_
_ ._ _ ._ NEN NORK ITEM ADD TO MEEKLY REPORTT YE5_
_ _ . _ , , , , , , _ . _ NEN NORK ITEM ADD TO MEEKLY REPORTT YE5 _
"amman GENERAL ACTIVITY mammu 174 V
_ ._ _._ CORRESPONDENCE AND F.O.I.A.
l 181 _ . . , ._ SUPERVISION AND MANAGEMENT v
l' V
.. _. ABSENCE (EXCLUDING LHOP)
I T 185 . . , _ . _ TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS J s v
{
l i
I i
I l
. i M i I
R-1288775 '
$ i
' REGULAT02Y INF0RMATION TAACKING SYSTEM PAGE 887 ONRR STAFF INPUT REPORT OFFICgs esRR SIyISteNo get A/gs EMPLOYEE - (ASS) - A SOURNIA leEEK EteDIsas 99/M/86 O BRAleCM s Bees! SECTIoses TACS S RPT eso RWee DATE 04/29/84 STATUS / tesuRS DOCETs DATE OF TARGET ESTIseATE Coset, e O
- mM esome ESTM h hate BATE BATE REC RfC g TITLE /hFtr i j
l O
- I CERTIFY Tesai, TO TNE DEST OF NY Kes0NLESGE, TesE TIIeE AttOCATIOess REPORTED 000 TMIS FORM ARE ACCURATE.
! EBert0 TEE'S SIGee4TURE a DATES O
IsseEDIATE SUPERv!SOR'S SIGetATURE A SATES 9
i .
j ,, - __. . ,_
1 1 O i *
! w -
t O
~
h
- - e
=
l -
5 1 w -
_ m _ _ _
i l
l i
?
SLS00EHANNA COMMITMENT TRACKING AND SCHEDULING 1
c LICENSING COMPLIANCE LIST
, o NUCLEAR DEPARTMENT FIVE YEAR PLAN o YEARLY MAJOR CAPITAL WORK PROJECTS PLAN C4sW cTkmkrq\on Sc( J,11 rg
.. _ ~-
M LE + LCPT A EnT .. 3 F.01 NUCLEAR DEPARTMENT FIVE YEAR PLAN o PURPOSE - IDENTIFY MAJOR WORK PROJECTS
- FORECAST OUTAGE WCRK PROJECTS
- ESTABLISH PROJECT OBJECTIVES (MILESTONES)
- PROVIDE A BASELINE FOR LON6 TERM PLANNIN6
- - FORECAST REQUIREMENTS FOR FINANCIAL RESOURCES o PROJECT CATEGORY - REACTOR SAFETY
- PERSONNEL SAFETY
- REGULATORY
- PLANT BETTERMENT i - ALARA
- 0THER
~
o PROVIDES MANAGEMENT LEVEL SCHEDLILE 4
1 1
I I
mu as , ava a e.a LICENSIN6 COMPLIANCE LIST o OBJECT - PROVIDE A CONCISE METHOD TO ENSURE THAT OPEN REGULATORY ITEMS ARE CLOSED OUT o COMPUTER LISTING o LISTING CONSISTS OFi LER'S AND SPECIAL REPORTS NRC INSPECTION REPORT ITEMS LICENSE CONDITIONS MISC. LETTERS FROM NRC REQUIRED NRC REPORTS SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT OPEN ITEMS -
l TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUESTS o UPDATED AND ISSUED MONTHLY i
i
- - - - - - - - -l
....... . . . , . . . . ~ . . . , ,.
l l
l I
e YEARLY MAJOR CAPITAL WORK PROJECTS PLAN v PROVIDES LISTING OF ITEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR WORK DURING THE YEAR o PROVIDES DETAIL SCHEDULES OF ACTIVITIES
,1
rac:+ ten x- D& 4; ****
Es= rive rian Fun PEaroSm in: Nuan Faomer.
IA319. M As1&v,11z Friority, 1H6 PrsJact Carryovers.
- 1. Turbise-Generator Ector Eselacement 2 E41 74
- 2. ATUS 1/2 541 66
- 3. Loss of AC Instrument Indication 1/2 R&! 54 4 Radweste Solidification Evaluation C E 54
- 5. Drywell cooling Modificatione 1 I 50
- 6. spare Single Phase Transformer 2 E&I 43
- 7. Control Roca Design Review 1/2 E 46
- 3. Feedvater LLET Neds 1 R&I 44 I
- 9. Appendia "E" Mode 1 R6I 44
- 10. Turbine-Generator Maintenance Items 1 I 38
- 11. Radwaste Phase "C" C I 36
- 12. Electric Power Interruption Mode 1/2 E&I 34
- 13. Buisance Alerna 1/2 E61 36
- 14. SPING Enhancemente 1/2 1 34
- 15. Cross Around Piping Feisting 1 1 34
- 16. Spara Penetrations 1/2 561 30
- 17. ECCS & ECIC Esep Fill Modification 1 E 28 i
- 18. ECU Charging Water Check Velve leakage. 1 E 26
- 19. 88W Butterfly Valve Chanssous C I 22
- 20. Eydrogen Water Chemistry 1/2 R&I 20
- 21. Accesa Improvements 1/2 841 18
- 22. Simalator Inhancements C E61 18
- 23. Cowanesque heservoir Modification C I 5/A 5_mw Projects:
- 1. MSIY Yalve Modification (Study) 1/2 5 42
- 2. Feedwater Beater Cooldown Line 1/2 E 38
- 3. FA88 System Upgrade 1/2 E 38
- 4. SEY Position Indication Endundamey 1/2 E 36
- 5. Condenser Waterbos Vent Yelve Nede 1/2 E 36
, 6. Diesel Generator Reliability Enhancemente C E 36 (Study)
- 7. Drywell Coeling teolation Valve Power Supplies 2 E 36
- 8. Comptessed Air Systems Coeling Supply 1/2 E&I 33 ,
i
' 9. Fire Protection Modifications 1 E 34
- 10. Encore NMS &aplifier Belocation/Logie Mod 2 E 32 l
- 11. Circ Water Chemical Treatment systen 1 E 30
- 12. Condensate Desta URC Flow Este Ned 2 R&I 24
- 13. ISV Fiping Chanseout (Saal Water Caelers) 1/2 3 28
- 14. Feedwater Sample Probe Changeout 1 E 28 l 13. EIE Shutdown Cooling Yalve Operability 28
' 1 E
- 14. Turbine Eldg. LP Eaager Mode 1 3 23 ,
- 17. Turbine 314 3. SF Banger Neds 2 561 28
- 18. Dryer / Separator Feel Water Seal 1/2 341 22
- 19. Ausiliary Boiler Reliability Enhancements C E 18 i (Study) i
- 20. Escira hasp Upper Cavity Vent Yalve 1 I II
- 21. Fault Recorders 1 5 II 1
TOTAL VE0JECTS - 44 i
I
.ta L N I U T M ENTE.w 1 ?
i..
ir : s : : s : : :
i
' o l!
' l'l!
! ll l i ;!
i l- l!l! li lIlI
,lji,j i llll,ll
.i i i ih i l j.jj ':! ,j,'i l il' i i !
<ll lill I 1 I I I i i i,ll ,ljijjii i olilI!llj ii i i i i -
i i
!! !!!ll ! ! !! l l l
l i i lli i ! i lill il i ! i I! ! !! I lll 1 1 ! ll!lll ! I I d j ,I si, I.,,
id il 1~ !!! !. li !.
,, 5
-.- l FTV5-TsAS IIILESTGFB FUp , b, 0
uuca CAPITAL FtoJaCTs .
i
)
I M TITL5 naaster farety.
PowerFles Unit 1 Dryve11 Coeling-Ieel.Viv.Fww. Supplies Personnel Safety
- Escalatety
.l ATW1 Umst 1/2 Cos:rel Rose Design Eeview ht 1/2 Witrogen Makeup Valves Unit 1 . ,
EME Throttling Valves Unit 1/2 .
r 8FDS hhassemente Unit 1/2 Fire Protesties Nede. Unit 1/2 taas of AC Eastr. Indiesties Unit 1/2 Appendia "a" mode Unit 1/2 ,
EsV Fiping Changeout Noter 011 Coolere Unit 1/2
! FASS Iyeten Upgrade Unit 1/2 Covaseseue Saeervoir Mod. Unit C i'
Eneardens vaste Facility Unit C Sewage Treatmost Plant Vait C Plant settermeest Alternete IFCI Esas Coeltag Unit 1 Degraded Grid Yeltage Unit 1/2 Drywell Coeling Mode Unit 1/2 e Phase 11 Unit 1/2 Feedwater LLRT node Unit 1/2 Tushine Generever Meist Items h t 1/2 i
Turbine Generator Bator Esplacement Unit 1/2 Aaseos Improvemente Unit 1/2 ECCS & RCIC Esepf111 Ned Unit 1/2 Electric Power 1sterruption Nede Unit 1/2 BCU Charging Water Cheek Y19. Idakege Unit 1/2 tydrogea water Chemistry h a 1/2 87130 Enhamaemente Umst 1/2 Cire. Water Chenleal Treatneat system Unit 1/2 Compressed Air Systems Coeling Supply Dait 1/2 l
4 t
' -- - - - - - - - - - _ - - , - . , . . . _ - - . . . - - , - - . , - - , . . , . - - _ , - , . - - - ~ - - . - - . - -
- .-cc-,w-y yv - - ,
-- *n i
s R I E
- 11 e bh B-
$g r-1 e,l W f ,
t O tiU su sl n O
!; o O
1 W -
4 O
I 9.
3 l i "
g O
)
s 8 j i{
lii IS o i- d'
- ~
1 1 m a :
. 8 i i
y
! I ol b ') ..!
~
t
's s i b g 6 lW '
If {! !I I Il8
P.
~~
.. p se - _ **2 -
l l
II '
$s
.i .:
. c= 3 S
i 4 ii-l 23 'al
= $
i i s~
s- io h_
a a
=b 1 ip 6
i i s l 1 l l 81 !
b
- t I l l 9 9 i ; ,
- p.. ;.....,): 1 a iin 1 i! ;! :
il j o : a i =9 1 1 .i ij@5 i i 6
! l1 !
I j 6
1 '? M'l , i! :
h ij
- s l E i ! l 3
l'llil:
- i : 1 i
- ace <:
{ !
l t I 1
6 , ilu o<
j i il I o s i ! '
) I L g i !
l lf
-[ t i g" I o :
i p
!-l[ g i 24 I 1 t i
\_s...../
i Os i
l j !
t -
! ! ol 9 -
! ll 5 '
i j
l !(3 1 a 3 i
8 . g i 8
) ..
I .. . ..
ill .i l il .i -
i
!!!! li
!!*!: ! :: i N I iiiii i
- l l
1
COMMITMENT TRACKING AND SCHEDIlLING AT FERMI 2 REGilLATOPY ACTION AND' COMMITMENT TRACKING SYSTEM (RACTS)
FERMI-2 INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN R. L. WOOLLEY SEPTEMBER 9, 1986
OBJECTIVES PACTS HAS TVO PRIMARY OBJECTIVES ENSilRE REGllLATORY ACTION ITEMS AND COMMITMENTS ARE l l SATISFIED ONCE SATISFIED, ACTION ITEMS AND COMMITMENTS PEMAIN SATISFIED
PP0 CESS ACTION ITEMS AND COMMITMENTS IN INCOMING AND OUTG0ING CORRESPONDENCE IDENTIFIED ITEMS ENTERED IN COMPilTERIZFD DATARASE AND ASSIGNED PESPONSE VERTFIED BY DA PRIOR TO CLOSl!RE 1
i l
. . . _ - .. - .~ - - .
f i
CONTINillNG COMPLIANCE CROSS REFERENCE REPORT DISTPIBUTED ON A PONTHLY BASIS REPORT LISTS ALL IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS ALPHA NilMERICALLY
~
AND CROSS REFERENCES THEM TO THE SEQUENCE HilMBER OF Tile COMMITMENTS WHICH THEY IMPLEMENT e
h I
i b
s
, - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - -,r,,,,----------- , ~ - - - , - - --- v- --
i IPTFGRATED MASTER PLAN PROJECT ? BASED RECENT FERMI 2 TOOL USED FOR 08/04/86 RESTART DEVELOPING 38 MGMTH LOOK AHEAD DATED RACTS COMMITMENTS ARE SEMI-AUTOMATICALLY INCLllDED WEEKLY REVIEW
"LIVING" SCHEDULES..
OBJECTIVES ,
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACT PROCEDilRE GAINS i
I FliNOR G, ADENSAM SEPTEMBER 9, 1086 -
1
P
- OBJECTIVES FOCUS ON REAL SAFETY ISSUES j C0 ORDINATION OF EFFORTS LICENSEE :
I REGION f
NRP.
t
! PROPER ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES f
J 4
1 a
0 i
S I 1<
h.
i il d
I 6 I
?:
i l
l
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACT NOTICE GENERATION NOTICE PERIOD STAFF RESOURCES
PROCEDilRE DEVELOP LIST F. PRIORITIES LICENSEE
- REr, ION (RESIDENT)
MEET TO DIFCllSS P. AGREE ON PRIORITIES JROPOSE COMPROMISES WHERE PRIORITIES NOT AGREED UPON USE MEETINGS TO DISCUSS OTHER LICENSING ACTIVITIES SCHEDULE PERIODIC UPDATE MEETINGS TO ADJUST SCHEDULES /
PRIORITIES AS NECESSARY
GAINS STAFF / LICENSEE EFFORTS ARE FOCUSSED ON SAFETY FIRST
-SOME DEGREE OF ASSURANCE OF AVAILABLE STAFF RESOURCES PEDUCED POTENTIAL FnR " EMERGENCIES" LICEf!SEE KNOWS A " NICE-To-HAVE" MAY BE DELAYED LICENSEES HAVE A FnRUM TO JilSTIFY THEIR REntlESTS P.
PRIORITIFS STAFF CAN ANTICIPATE THEIP WORKLOAD r
b i
l l
I 9:30 A.M. UTILITY PERFORMANCE G. C. SORENSEN (WPPSS) 1
/
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REPOPT OPERATIONAL AREAS OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE TECHNICAL HP/ CHEMISTRY ADMINISTRATION TRAINING OUALITY ASSilRANCE SilPPORT SERVICES MATERIAL MANAGEMENT 4
/
G. C. SORENSEN SEPTEMBEP 9, 1986
,,oe na na. n o.. -
- 3. . . . . s a , u a... ,
.as t
CONTROL ROOM INSTRUMENT OPERABILITY L'
t This firstduring graphplint below dep(icts control room annunciators whilethe number er for aofduration exceeding 24 4ctivated ope ation at pot consecutive hours. The second graph depicts the number of control room i
instruments that are not performing their det ign function, regardless of the reason. This includes instruments on control room back panels.
i I CONTINUOUSLY iso ACTIVATED
- ~* ANN UN CIATOR' S
=
340 -
i 130 - ,
120 =
g ,,0-100 - g I 90 - 'j f
a0 - 7 ,
l l8 v0 - "BB
"' $ 7::
5 eO - I hdf g h b P .. 5
- : n ,$ a$ m$
e s DER U8 $i N E. i. d p: z- $:
i
~, 4 m 6 y, h 4 z g so - -
s a u : . a m m . : < 9; V b h $$ i h 20 -
g h
b 2 I h
p uf
<0- ;
3)3 f y % " -
t *: 5 7 34 vfd.4 y y ?}d 4 _. .5;_p w..,
l 0 ,
s, J P W A M J J A S O N O
);4. 9 is$, , , , ;.
J # w A W J J A 5 O N ,D b CURRCNT h lONTH '
s
- CONTROL ROOM INSTR
- S OUT OF SERVICE
,, wN=-a i 2*- .
l I 22 - { .
30 -
18 -
i: sl
( 1*-
7 H H;2 yu .
.E ' * -
J [ $
Ig 9-a> p t z .
3+cic33A i 4&s- 3 ; c i c 3 3 1 ; i vi cv** % OurC,.c., ,0c ev '***
e i
9 I
I N' ! l !
l I
,,on sta s3as
. (
<twusse. 2e. es 12:s7 co s ' Past e " '
SOLIO RADWA5 TE Solid radwtste inc1 des two' products:
is the accamulation!of radioactive products (1) solidified
( sludge,radioactive waste Nich removed by liquid and gaseous resins, filter cake) ,
materials (disposable gloves, processing systems; and (2) contaminated sol d smears, trash) !
generated as a result of main vn-ance activities. These graphs depict the monthly and cumulative cubic fee,t of solidified radioactive waste and dry active waste generated at WNP-2 and subsequently shippeq off site.
I for FY 87, WNP-2's goal is to limit the volu the plant to 25,000 cubic feet. ru of solid radwaste shipped from 1
i 8,OLID R ADWA GENEHATED
,, DHY ACTIVE MAD _WA,STE
, G1 NERATED l ; ..
l .c
.r .,
.i...l :.. i .
I ii ::
.< /
,s .
X ;
f - -- "*~
f-T
- .*as W f f f!"rf'!""T.T
- s 'Mn 1 T . '
. f d ; ! T . . . . T. M :,g %. '
- an
.. m . . ** a u .... m
. ... . a as .. . .
= ': a w... ..,
HAD10 ACTIVE WASg,SHIPP ED OFF SITE I g **-
t.
- ,. .- /
. f. 6. .:,M. . . -. .A. .
., * / " ao
- m. . .M. . .....
..nve . 'WA* ,.. n . ..,
l This Month:
Total radioactive waste (i.e.. solidified and dry active) generated during July was 959 c ubic feet.
i I i
I )
m' { l
i l
OVALITY PROGRAM TREND REPORT j NONCONFORMANCE REP 0 PTS (NCRs)
PLANT DEFICIENCY REPORTS (PDRs)
OUALITY SURVEILLANCE REPORTS AUDIT REPORTS NRC CITATIONS LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS (LERs)
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS VIOLATIONS 4
i
FROM 372 5320 (THU)et. 28.'06 12:58 #0.6 Pest 6 k'NP-2 TREND ANALYSIS REPORT FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 1986, I
I The results of this analysis are:
ITEM ,
EVENT FREQUENCY BY QUARTER NO. ITD1 2085 3Q85 4Q85 1Q86 1 Level switch set point dri't 4 5 4 4 2 Yalve leaks 24 7 4 8 (I)
I 3 Valve functional failure 11 6 3 7 (2)
! 4 Se'curity not notified of 4 2 3 3 employee 'tennination.
5 Calibration control problens 0 2 1 7 (3) 6 Misc. problems with records 24 14 13 12 (4) 7 It' ems incorrectly stored 0 1 1 4 8 Tech' Spec surveil not per- 4 7 3 4 forred fri time Notes:
III Five (5) of these were containment i solation valve tests (2) Three (3) of these were ISLC
. (3) Six (6) of these were one surveillar ce (4) Not considered excessive Each of the items listed above was analy::ed for safety significance by applying the following significance factors: l
- Significance Significant Test Criteria Factor (Multiplier:
- a. Frequ'ency in current quarter greater than the 1.20 average frequency for the pre rious three quarters ,
- b. Frequency in current duarter praater than twice 1.50 ,
the average frequency for the previous three
-; quarters i c. Event resulted in a reactor s : ram 1.50 l
- d. Event ir.vo1Ved a challenge to a safety system 1.50 l e. Event was re' portable to the NRC in more than 1.50 !
l 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> ! ;
- f. Event was reportable to the NRC within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> 1.65 j
,,g. Event was reportable to the NkC within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 1.80 <
-8 -
l
, ! I I I l
r on m m. ,
m u>... 2..... i2... o.. ; ..r ,
AllDIT DEFJC1.ENCIE.S i
1
. I Fig 19 REPOR1S AND, DEFICIENCIES F 21 DEFICIENrlES REMAINING til'EN
, .I _._ a *
- o' "5 58.5 8
- L. ,, .. A'3. toc'_w"t**__
u '
N 38 I'
'OtrtCIENCTS
, j p- 23 '
- S
. , s 12 MEPOt1TS
- v / -
! ;- 7 , ;- ; 7. - ,
0
'."'e.,.. - J'!.m "
m.: o .i'~
, ea ... ,. & . . : ,,. af . ..
Ple s P O 1.p Erls0 B E NCI ES P EM A'JIstT Pto SP QPEN To e t.s e3 E f* AT S* *
, ! j
.I ....
t
.{ . ..___ 7 .._ __ _ _ .
Fig 23 AV NO OF DAYS TO CLOSE - Fig 24 AV No of DAYS REMAININr. Ol'EN
,, ,, nucwenum ,, a w to or w. wav i% ,
tE 160 ISO '
gg "
170 < '
~
! I t v.
1
' 30 j iso 910 g yn \ "
800 l t I. < m M
t $) < -
.0 j 2-l 70 .0
, a.
y to M 40 -
30 N. -
to <
10 go -
2 3 4 I I 3 f4 1 2 4 2 4 m xe , ;'"' o u,, m "a za %. '5, "" a =
W~
I t ! l
10:00 A.M. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS J. SCINTO (NRC) .
C. CAMERON (NRC)
M. CAMPAGNONE (NRC)
S SPECIFIC EXEMPTION (10 CFR 50,12)
MUST BE Al)THORIZED BY LAW; N0 UNDilE PISK TO PUBLIC HEALTH 2 SAFETY; CONSISTENT WITH COMMON DEFENSE AND SECllRITY SPECIAL-CIRCllMSTANCES MUST BE PRESENT:
CONFLICTS WITH OTHER RULES IINDERLYING PURPOSE NOT SERVED HARDSHIP BENEFIT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY TEMPORARY RELIEF 8 GOOD FAITH EFFORT MATERIAL CIRCllMSTANCES NOT PREVI0llSLY CONSIDERED 4
O 650.12 SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS fa) The Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of this part, which are -
(1) Authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security.
(2) 'The Commission will not consider oranting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are present whenever -
(1) Application of the regulation in the particular circum-stances conflicts with other rules or requirements of the Commission; or (ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circum-stances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule; or (111) Comoliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated; or (iv) The exemption would result in benefit to the public health and safety that compensates for any decrease in safety that may result from the grant of the exemption; or (v) The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation; or (vi) There is present any other material circumstance not con-sidered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemptior.
If such condition is relied on exclusively for satisfyino paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the exemption may not be granted until the Executive Director for Operations has consulted with the Commission.
i OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR EMERGENCY LICENCE AUTHORIZATION APPLICABILITY
- PLANT SHUTDOWN
- DERATE
- EXTENDED OUTAGE
- TIME NOT AVAILABLE TO NOTICE ( 15 DAYS)
AUTHORIZATION
- DIVISION DIRECTOR
- AUTHORITY MAY NOT BE DELEGATED TO ANY ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS BELOW DIVISION DIRECTOR i
I i
MARI-J0SETTE CAMPAGNONE SEPTEMBER 9, 1986 4
m -% .. - ----. - _ - - y , ,-, , -,-- - ,, - . . , . - .--.y ,-w, - ~...- - , -,y-, .. ,.---- - - - .- -,
LICENSEE PROCEDilRE When the licensee detennines that the time required to restore components or systems to an operable condition is areater that the period specified in Technical Specification limiting Conditions of Operation or when a Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement otherwise cannot be satisfied, a formal submittal shall be made to the NRC. This submittal shall contain:
(1) A safety evaluation with a no signiiicant hazards consideration determination;
(?) Revised Technical Specification paces; (3) A discussion of proposed interim compensatory measures to be imposed; (d) A discussion of circumstances surrounding the situation, and a detennination of why the need for prompt action could not have been avoided; (5) The scheduled date for returning inoperable components or systems to an operable condition, or the scheduled date for accomplishina required surveillance; y (6) A statement that a best effort his been made to notify State personnel; and (7) Information for the NRC to prepare an environmental assessment or the basis for NRC to determine that the amendment involves a categorical exclusing under 10 LFR Part 51.
This submittal shall be made promptly to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, with copies to the Regional Administrator, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, and to the Resident Inspector.
,_ ___ __ -__ _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ _ _ . -_ _.
The. purpose of prompt reporting is _to allow the NRC to review the circumstances of the request for an expedited NRC. review and to render a timely decision on whether to authorize continued reactof operations or reactor startup.. The prompt submittal shall be made in all cases where NRC action in less than 15 days.
L .
PM PROCEDllRE The PM shall determine that a complete submittal has been received.
If a complete submittal has not been provided, the M, with Pro.iect Director concurrence, shall advise the licensee of the pendino denial or, given sufficient time, request a resubmittal or additional infonnation.
- The M shall review the conclusion that plant shutdown, derate, or extended plant outaae will result. If a plant shutdown, derate, or extended outage will not result, the normal procedures for TS changes shall be followed and the PM, with the Project Director concurrence,shall advise the licensee that such action is being taken.
- The PM shall prepare and sign a handwritten safety evaluation (SE) (The handwritten safety evaluation must include the NRC basis for a final no significant hazards consideration determination and a statement supportino the need for an cmeroency license authorization in Ifoht of the circumstances causing the licensee's request. This supporting documentation must state why the requested expedited action could not have been avoided, what appropriate compensatory measures will be taken, when the authorization expires, and that the State has been censulted and what, if any, comments were made by the state.1, environmental assessment (EA) if applicable, and final no significant hazards consideration. Technical Specification pages shall accompany the SE, and, if appropriate, handwritten changes to the paces as submitted by the licensee shall be made.
In performing the review and preparing the documentation the PM shall:
(1) obtain handwritten SER input from the ORAR and/or the cognizant DRL review branches, if appropriate, (2) consult with the resident inspector and/or appropriate regional personnel, and (3) request that all participat-inq parties attempt to obtain their respective management's concurrence for input provided.
The PfM make a "best effort" via telephone to advise the state of the pending NRC action and to obtain state comments on the proposed NRC determination. The SE shall discuss this consultation and any state comments.
The PM shall document the final no sianificant hazards finding (10 CRR 50.92) in the SE along with the environmental impact findings and conclusions.
Finally, the PM, shall complete and sign the emeroency license authorization ;
check off list. (See Attached)
After completion of the SE, the g shall obtain the concurrence of his Project Director and the cognizant Division Director. If the cognizant Division Director is not available concurrence may be obtained from one of the other NRR Division Directors. If no DDS are available, concurrence shall be referred to higher management. (Concurrences may be obtained verbally during non-duty hours) After obtaining the necessary concurrences, the P_M shall contact the Region Branch Chief and the resident inspector and advise of the outcome.
l
The DD shall then contact the facility's licensing management or plant manager and verbally communicate the emergency license authorization.
the PM shall ensure that the necessary information to characterize ac-curately the full extent and conditions of the licensee's request and the NRC authorization, is documented and understood by the licensee at the time of verbal authorization. This includes a handwritten SER/EA, a final NSHC, and the licensee's submittal including affected Technical Specifi-cation pages. (If concurrence is not obtained, the DD shall orally advise the licensee of the pending denial and, if time allows specify the criteria which must be satisfied in order to receive NRC authorizaton.) If approval is granted, the PM shall telecopy revised Technical Specification pages to the licensee and to the resident inspector.
Within two working days from DD oral authorization the PM shall insure that a follow-up license amendment, including a NSHC and post notice, is forwarded which provides the bases for NRC approval. The Ft1 shall ensure that documentation is forwarded to the LPDR.
4
,/ .y *. 4
(' /
Enclosure 3 8
=
,e ,
r EMERGENCY LICENSE AUTHORIZATION '
. CHECK LIST -
- 1. Complete submittal (Section III, Item I) .
- 2. .
Prepare and sign handwritten SER EA , final NSHC and i
Technical Specifications (Section III, Item s)
- a. ORAB or technical' branch input
- b. Resident or regional personnel input ~ .
a 3.
"Best effort" to obtain state connents (Section III, Item 6)-
4
[.
y 4
. Assistant Director concurrence (Section III, Item 7) s
- 5.
- Assistant (Section III, DirectorItem 8)- oral~ authorization to licensee 6.
, Telecopy Technic.al Specifications (Section III, Item 8)
- 7. Forward final two day license ame'ndment with post notice and FNSHC (Section III, Item 9) (Prepare DLOP 228, Attactinent 4) -
Project Nanager
, Branch Chief -
ORAB Branch Chief / Tech. Revieh Branch Chief
- ORAB AD . -
/ . Tech. Review Branch AD* - '
.p *
(, . .
, \
, To the exten.t practicable. -
t
1:30 P.M. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS E. EllTdHER (NRC)
P. SGARR0 (PPal)
i I
NRR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM i
PHASEI Problem Identification and
~
Recommendations, TSIP Report '
i l
l PHASE 11 l !
s Implementation, TSCB i 9
l l TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
- COORDINATION BRANCH (TSCB) f e FUNCTIONS
- Implementation of TSIP Recommendations
- General Oversight of All NRR Technical Specifications Activities
- Generic (i.e., Non-Vendor Specific) Interpretations e ORGANIZATION - PROJECT TEAMS W - Tom Dunning / Dave Langford GE - Kulin Desai i CE - Sam Bryan /Millard Wohl B&W - Sam Bryan /Millard Wohl
} _
NRC TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PLAN OUTLINE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
(PROGRAM OBJECTIVES)
POLICY STATEMENT ON TS SELECTION CRITERIA AND NEW STS, SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING STS, 2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF NEW STS (BASED ON POLICY STATEMENT).
3.0 SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING STS.
4,0 OTHER STS IMPROYEMENT ACTIVITIES, 5.0 C00RDINATION AND POLICY STATEMENT SCHEDULE.
d EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
NRC TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PLAN MARCH 28, 1986 Prepared by: ,
Technical Specifications Coordination Branch Division of Human Factors Technology, NRR s
l %
t TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PLAN PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
................................................ 1 2.0 DE V ELOPMENT O F N EW 5T5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1 Trial Use of AIF and TSIP Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.2 Develop Commission Policy Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
, 2.3 Improvements to TS Text and Bases Sections. . . . . . . . . .. . . 4 2.4 Industry Preparation / Submittal of New STS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.5 NRC Review / Approval of New 5T5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.6 Plant Specific Implementation of New STS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.0 SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING 5T5..................... 5 3.1 Short Term STS Improvements to be Developed by TSCB.... 5 3.2 Short Term STS Improvements to be Developed by the NRR Licensing Divisions.......................... 5 4.0 OTHER STS IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES............................ 6 4.1 Improvements to Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of STS.. . . . . . . .. . . 6 .
, 4.2 Rule Changes........................................... 6 4.3 Surveillance Requirements.............................. 7 4.4 PRA Methods for STS Improvements....................... 7 4.5 Controls for Requirements Transferred from the Control of the T5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.0 COORDINATION, AND POLICY STATEMENT SCHEDULE................. 7 5.1 Coordination........................................... 7 5.2 Policy Statement Schedule.............................. 7 APPENDIX A - Issues Raised in the Commission's Staff Requirements Memorandum dated February 21, 1986....A-1 APPENDIX B - Policy Statement Schedule........................... 8-1 J
i s
+- +y ---m-v.wr- -
l EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
TECHNICAL-SPECIFICATIONS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In the past several years the nuclear-industry and the NRC staff have been studying the question of whether improvement to the current system of establishing Technical Specification (TS) requirements for nuclear
- power plants is needed. The two most recent studies of this issue were performed by an NRC task group known as the Technical Specifications Improvement Projact (TSIP) and a Subcomittee of t Forum's'CommitteeonReactorLicensingandSafety.geAtomicIndustrial The overall conclusion of these studies was that many improvements in the scope and content of Technical Specifications are needed, and that a joint NRC and Industry program should be initiated to implement these improvements.
' Both of these groups made specific recomendations which are sumarized as-follows:
- 1) The NRC should adopt the criteria for defining the scope of TS .
proposed in the AIF and TSIP reports. Those criteria should then be 1 used by the NRC and each of the Industry Owners Groups to completely rewrite / streamline the existing Standard Technical Specifications (STS). This process would result in many requirements.being transferred from control by Technical Specifications to control b other mechanisms (e.g., the FSAR, Operating Procedures, QA Plan) y which would not require a license amendment or prior NRC approval when changes are needed. The new STS would also include greater emphasis on human factors principles to add clarity and under-standing to the overall text and Bases Section.
- 2) A parallel program of short term improvements in both the scope and substance of the existing TS should be initiated in addition to developing a new set of STS as identified in 1) above.
The purpose of this Executive Sumary of the Program Plan is to outline "
l the specific set of activities to be performed by the industry and the NRC aimed at the practical implementation of these recommendations.
,- This document is structured so as to link specific activities under the program with the two major objectives embodied in the TSIP and AIF recommendations summarized above. As such Section 2.0 below is devoted to the development of a new set of STS while Section 3.0 is devoted to implementing shorter tenn improvements to the existing STS. Section 4.0 describes other general activities necessary to support the overall program. And finally, Section 5.0 sumarizes the schedule of activities
- l. for the issuance of the Comission Policy Statement on Technical Specifications.
1" Recommendations for Improving Technical Specifications," NRC Technical
! Specification Improvement Project, September 30, 1985.
" Technical Specification Improvements," AIF Subcomittee on Technical Specifications Improvements, October 1,1985.
t
, _ . ~ . - - - . , . . . . -.....m
2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF NEW STS The-first priority of this Program Plan shall be the development of a Commission Policy Statement to establish a specific set of objective criteria for determining which reSulatory requirements and operating restrictions should be included in TS.
2.1 Trial Use of AIF and TSIP Criteria Before the staff can recommend that the Commission issue a Policy Statement based on the TSIP and AIF criteria, these criteria must be validated (i.e., shown to be technically adequate and. practical to implement). The validation process will be through a trial use of the criteria on actual operating reactor TS.
Activities Schedule Goals
- 1. AIF and NRC separately applied the criteria Completed - 02/18/86 to Wolf Creek and Limerick TS. Limiting Conditions for Operation and associated Surveillance Requirements, were evaluated against the criteria.
- 2. AIF and NRC met to discuss the results Meetings Completed of the trial application of the criteria. Wolf Creek-01/28/86 Areas of agreemert and disagreement were Limerick-02/26/86 discussed and differences resolved where Report Issued-03/21/86 possible. Remaining defects in the criteria or changes needed to improve clarity were summarized.
- 3. NRC RRAB will perform an evaluation of the Started-03/10/86 risk significance of the systems or Finish-04/30/86 components with LCOs that would be removed from the TS and currently require a power reduction or shutdown. If the criteria result in LC0's with major risk significance being removed from the TS, then changes to the criteria will be proposed.
- 4. The results of 2 and 3 above will be used Start-In Parallel for modifying or clarifying the criteria, with 2 and 3 above.
as needed. The final criteria developed Finish-04/30/86 through this process will be included in the Policy Statement discussed in Section 2.2 below.
+ - - - -
7 m y - - . -__
9_.9 ,m-,., 9-,.- ,,7 , .,.m ,
2.2 Develop Commission Policy Statement F
~The second step in developing the new STS is to issue a Policy Statement n which defines the scope, purpose, and content for Technical Specifications. The core of this Policy Statement will be the.TS selection criteria validated by the process ~ outlined in Section 2.1 above.
- ' Activities Schedule Goals
- 1. TSCB, with the support of ELD and other NRC Started-03/24/86 staff will draft a Policy Paper recommending Finish-04/30/86 that a Notice of Proposed Policy Statement First Draft Issued be issued for public comment stating the i Commission's intent to establish a specific set of objective criteria for determining which regulatory requirements and operating restrictions should be included in TS. The Policy Paper will include a discussion of all'the issues listed in Appendix A which were identified in the Commission's Staff Requirements memorandum dated 02/21/86. Withdrawal of the earlier proposed rule change for 10 CFR 50.36 would be included in this Notice.
1 2. The first draft Policy Paper will be Start-05/01/86 i circulated for review and comment Finish-07/03/86
- to each of the NRC Program Offices. Second Draft Issued.
Regional Offices and NRR Divisions. After .
comments from all groups have been considered '
and appropriate changes made, a second draft will be issued for ACRS review.
- 3. The second draft Policy Paper will be Start-07/07/86 presented to the ACRS. Any changes Finish-08/01/86
. necessary will be made and a final ACRS Review Complete draft paper prepared and forwarded and Policy Paper to CRGR. Forwarded to CRGR.
- 4. The final draft paper will be presented Start-08/04/86
, to CRGR for review and approval. Any Finish-08/29/86 4 required changes will be made and the CRGR Review Complete l Policy Paper will be forwarded to the and Policy Paper
- Commission. Forwarded to Commission.
- 5. The staff will, at the Commission's option. Start-09/02/86 l make a presentation to the Commission on Finish-10/17/86 the Notice of Proposed Policy Statement and Notice of Proposed l make changes directed by the Commission Policy Statement i
prior to publishing the Notice for public Issued.
comment.
w.--..-- -
- 6. Public comments received in response to the Start-11/13/86 Notice will be reviewed and addressed in a Coments received.
second Policy Paper for the Comission Finish-01/30/87 proposing a final Policy Statement on Policy Statement Technical Specifications Improvement. Issued.
Following Commission approval the Policy
~
Statement will be issued.
2.3 Improvements to TS Text and Bases Sections In addition to culling out the less important requirements in the existing STS by applying the selection criteria discussed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 above, a major objective of the TS Improvement Program is to, through the application of human factors principles, add clarity to the TS. These types of changes represent one of the primary safety benefits to be achieved frem the program. NRC and Industry activities will include the developmeno of a Standard Format and Content Guide for TS text and Bases. This work will be completed and available for use in preparing the new STS discussed below.
2.4 Industry Preparation / Submittal of New STS The primary instrument to be used for achieving the desired improvement in TS will be a new set of STS based on selection criteria to be defined in a Commission Policy Statement. It is expected that the Industry, through the individual owners groups, will take the lead in preparing the new STS and submitting them in a Topical Report. The details of this process and a schedule for submittals have not yet been worked out with the Industry, however, the objective is for Industry to develop and issue the new STS and any subsequent revisions. The NRC role would be limited to review and approval.
2.5 NRC Review / Approval of New STS A schedule goal of six months from the date of submittal has been established for completion of the staff's review. The bases for the staff's review will be the guidelines established in the Commission Policy Statement and the guidance developed under subsection 2.3 above.
! 2.6 Plant Specific Implementation of New STS Plant specific implementation of the new STS is not considered a part of the Program Plan. TSCB will, however, in conjunction with Industry, develop guidelines for the contents of the individual licensee amendment submittals necessary to convert to the new STS. A likely requirement for the submittal package will be some document or method to identify how each requirement removed from the TS would be controlled after the license is amended. The effective date of the amendment would be specified to allow time for any required changes in the licensees procedures and administrative controls.
3.0 SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING STS There is mutual agreement between NRC and Industry that many short term improvements in the current STS should be made in parallel with the longer term plan to develop new STS as discussed in Section 2.0 above.
These improvements are needed to resolve recurring problems with certain technical and administrative requirements in operating plant TS. These issues are of minor safety significance, but their resolution requires a considerable amount of NRC staff and Industry resources. The general approach for making these types of changes will be to revise specific requirements in the existing STS, issue a Generic Letter with the revised STS enclosed, and then process individual operating reactor license amendment requests based on the Generic Letter.
In order to expedite the review process so that short term improvements can be implemented as soon as possible, two parallel paths for developing and processing the STS changes have been established. The first path is through TSCB and the second is through the three NRR Licensing Divisions. The types of improvements that would follow each of these paths are discussed in Subsections 3.1 and 3.2 below.
Regardless of which path is followed, the actual change to the STS and the Generic Letter implementing it would be prepared by TSCB.
3.1 Short Tenn STS Improvements to be Developed by TSCB As a general rule, short tem STS improvements which are applicable to all plants without regard to vendor design, e.g., fire protection, general requirements applicable to limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements, and administrative control requirements, will be developed by TSCB. These types of changes can be initiated and developed by the staff without significant additional input from the Industry. TSCB will develop the changes, coordinate NRR and CRGR approval (where required), and prepare a Generic Letter for notifying licensees of approved STS changes.
3.2 Short Term STS Improvements to be Developed by the NRR Licensing Divisions The review and development of vendor specific short tenn STS improvements will be the responsibility of the applicable NRR Licensing Division. In addition certain other generic (i.e., applicable to more than one vendor design) changes will also be developed by the Licensing Divisions. The types of changes that will be handled by the Licensing Divisions are generally initiated by the Industry and must be reviewed by a technical specialist branch within the NRC.
- . Two types of submittals to the Licensing Divisions have been designated 1
of the staff for use by the Industry in initiating staff action on these types of short term improvements. The first type is a Topical Report to
' justify changes to-the Allowed Outage Times (A0Ts) and Surveillance Intervals (sis) associated with STS requirements. The second type of submittal which will initiate an NRR Licensing Division review is a
, plant specific license amendment which has been endorsed by the Industry 1
(e.g., an Owners Group) as a candidate for consideration under the-Technical Specifications Improvement Program.
! 4.0 OTHER STS IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES The main focus of both the NRC and Industry Technical Specification improvement activities discussed above has been on the LCOs in Section 3 of the STS. However, consideration will be given to the need for improvements to the other STS sections, particularly Sections 5.0 and 6.0. AIF recomended rule changes and the relocation of surveillance requirements to other controlled documents will also be considered.
Another area related to STS improvements is the TSIP and AIF recommenda-f tions for continued development and application of probabilistic risk
! assessment (PRA) methods to address TS requirements. And finally, i policy guidance for selecting appropriate controls on requirements which will be transferred from the control of the current STS, through the
! application of the selection criteria discussed in Subsection 2.1, needs to be established. This policy guidance must be established before a new set of STS can be approved by NRC.
4.1 Improvements to Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of STS The Policy Statement will only establish selection criteria for LCOs.
Improvements to the Design Features and Administrative Controls sections will be developed by TSCB and incorporated into the existing STS as short term improvements.
4.2 Rule Changes
, AIF recommended that NRC initiate rulemaking to codify the criteria for
! TS requirements in place of the current requirements of 10 CFR 50.36.
In addition, several changes in the regulations referencing Technical Specification were recomended to conform with the new STS requirements
- (e.g., 50.36 on RETS, Part 50 Appendices I, J, K. H, and R on duplicate or overlap TS requirements). Proposed rule changes will be developed by TSCB with input from the Licensing Divisions. A major rule change to codify the criteria will not be initiated until some experience using
- the criteria under a Policy Statement has been gained.
1 4
I
i 4.3 Surveillance Requirements l
AIF recomended that surveillance requirements for items listed in the new STS should be relocated to documents not controlled by the license !
amendment process. Further, it was recomended that the details associated with surveillance, frequency and methodology, may be more effectively controlled by a program with an appropriate administrative control process. TSCB will work with Industry to develop the justification for a change in the process by which surveillance i requirements are addressed in TS.
'4.4 PRA Methods for STS Improvements The NRC Office of Research is developing a Procedure for Evaluating Technical Specifications (PETS) which addresses PRA methods to evaluate changes to A0Ts and sis. Guidance on this subject is needed to facilitate Licensee's preparation of changes that are based on risk assessments. TSCB will interface with RES on the results of the PETS :
program which will be used to provide guidance to Industry and the staff on PRA methods for evaluating changes to Technical Specifications.
4.5 Controls for Requirements Transferred from the Control of the TS Various mechanisms exist which can be used to control those requirements which would be removed from the TS when the proposed selection criteria are applied. There is a need to establish guidance for detemining which controls are appropriate for particular requirements based on their safety significance. TSCB will develop and issue this guidance with input from Industry.
5.0 COORDINATION, AND POLICY STATEMENT SCHEDULE 5.1 Coordination TSC8 will be responsible for managing and coordinating all NRC activities within the scope of the Program Plan and will serve as the point of contact at the NRC for all Industry related activities with the exception of the specific short term STS improvements to be developed by the NRR Licensing Divisions (see Subsection 3.2). The Industry will work directly with the Licensing Divisions on these specific short term-e improvements with the TSCB role being only coordination to assure consistency with the overall objectives of the improvement program.
5.2 Policy Statement Schedule The schedule for the activities related to the issuance of a Commission Policy Statement on TS Improvements is provided in in Appendix B.
t APPENDIX A ISSUES RAISED IN THE COMMISSION'S STAFF REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM DATED FEBRUARY 21, 1986
- a. Whether implementation of the Policy should be backfitted, forwardfitted or both? -
- b. If the Program is to be voluntary, how can, or should the NRC encourage participation by individual licensees?
- c. Is the 10 CFR 50.109 Backfit Rule applicable?
- d. Should the Policy Statement be codified by a change to 10 CFR 50.36, and if so, on what time schedule (perhaps after some trial use with the Policy Statement)?
- e. Whether the Policy Statement should be applicable to custom TS or should licensees wishing to take advantage of the program be required to convert to STS?
- f. Are the control mechanisms available for those items that would be removed from the TS adequate (e.g.,10 CFR 50.59)? If not, what changes are necessary?
- g. What are the NRC resource impacts in terms of both the initial implementation of the New STS and any additional staff actions related to a greater reliance on 10 CFR 50.59 or plant procedures for control?
- h. What are the risk implications of the proposed criteria? Can the risk impact of the resultant changes in TS under the criteria be quantified i
and if so, what is the effect? To what extent does the application of the criteria increase the uncertainty in current estimates of risk?
, i. What would be the effect of implementing of the proposed criteria on the amount of testing at power that is currently required? How does this compare to the current testing practices of other countries? To what extent can any differences that will exist be attributed to differences in design (e.g., greater redundancy and diversity of safety systems) or preventive maintenance programs?
A-1 1
i APPENDIX B POLICY STATEMENT SCHEDULE POLICY STA1!ntNT FOR NIN SIS PE0 GRAM PLAN ACilVlilES !!CT!DN 2.0 REP 3RI IIPE : PERIOD BARCHART PA!hilNG SEDUCMCf 3Rost Critical Activities first SELEti!DN CRITERIA ALL PLAN 1.3. EtEC5unn VIR510N I fjn[ NOW LATE 110/ MAR /06 u u n n u.u u u n.n.n n e n s u e u u n u l t 96 us u n u s u i u s u s u s u u s u as u u r e n s u un n s i t87uu s uuu u u s u n n u s u n u n itK10D CoulNCING LATE !!0 !7 !5 !2 !7 !4 !! !6 !3 !! !5 !2 !2 !6 !4 !! !
MCNTN !nAR !AFR !PJV !JUN !JUL !AU6 ! SIP !DCT !NOV !D[C !JAN !F[I ! MAR !AFR !MAf !JUN !
Fis103 C0P*ENllh6 ilM[ UNIT '258 !270 !298 !310 !343 !363 !383 !408 !422 !448 !473 !493 !513 !535 !558 !578 !
cunnun uuunununsusunnusuus. uuaunusianusussunnianutusassessasuussuunsununsuusu .
13 Criteria Rist Ispact 12.1.31 !CCCC!CCCC! ! ! ! !' ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
14 Finalire Criteria 12.1.4) !CCCC!CCCC! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
20 Policy Paper Draf t il (2.2.1) ! CC!CCCC! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
21 Ir.ternal Coesent Periedl2.2.21 ! ! C'CCCC! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
22 Policy Paper Draf t 62 12.2.2) ! ! ! !CCCCC! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
23 A:L5 Briefing /Revies (2.2.3) ! ! ! ! !C ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ' !
- 24 Felicy Paper Final Braf tl2.2.3) ! ! ! ! ! CCC! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
- 25 CE64 Presentation 12.2.4) ! ! ! ! ! !CCCC! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
26 Coesission Briefing /Reviest2.2.51 ! ! ! ! ! ! !CCCC ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
27 Notice of Folicy Statenent 2.2.5) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! C!CC ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
21 Public Ccesent Period 12.2.6) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! CC!CCCC!C ! ! ! ! ! ! ! .
21 Finalize Policy Statesent (2.2.6) '! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! CCC!CCCC ! ! ! ! ! ! !
30 Final Cossission Approval (2.2.6) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! C!CCC ! ! ! ! ! !
31 Issue Pelicy Stattunt 12.2.6) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! C! ! ! ! ! !
- t ts t 3 8388 8 u S $ 3 8 38 3138 88 S S t a s a 8 8 8 8 8 8 55 3338 8 33 3333183 3 8 333 333 3 3 3 333 3 3 3 33 333 3 3 3 3 3 3 31333 3 3333133 33333333333 33333333 3 3 3 3 3 3333 333 3 Barchart Key:- CCC # Critical Activities us N,on Critical Activities hNN Activity with neg float ... Float B-1
I rALLEr,R IUT fe_LEhTh Cv: P.02 11 BWROG TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS COMMITTEE O FORMED: JANUARY 1986 O CHAIRMAN: R. E. BRADLEY, GPC -
0 22 PARTICIPATING 00MESTIC UTILITIES BEC0 MP&L CP&t, NMPC CEI NPPD CEC 0 NSP DEC0 NYPA
- GPC PECO -
GPUN PP&L G5U PSE&G IEL&7 TVA IP VYhPC LILCO WPP55 0 GENESIS OF ISSUE UTILITY INTEREST IN DEVELOPING NEW TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS JTILITY INTEREST IN OPTIMIZING EXISTING TECH SPEC 5 NEED FOR 8WROG TO PARTICIPATE IN INDUSTRY TECH SPEC ACTIVITIES NEED TO C0 ORDINATE BWROG TECM SPEC ACTIVITIES l
l ,
Rock G'@ggcd(ppq mbr?, Iqte
3 -
f,
- r, k
. BWROG TECH SPEC PROGRAM 9
~
[.
] 9 e
i h Tech Spec
Prog ra m l
i I -
Short Term Tech Spec j Improvement Improvement Rev1ed to Existing (Reliability Tech Spec Tech Specs Based) i j ,
i -
i f
I .
8 Plant Specific - l App roval
i 1
j 1
7_.-..___.._. . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . -
. . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . R
}
__ , _ ,,,,,, _ g h
t a.
' m m
l BWROG TSC ORGANIZATION f-a r-i 9
1 .
i c.
j Chairman 1
i
_l e
i i l' 1 r i
" 1r ;
j Short Term __l Improve- Writer's Tech Spec sys l m e'nis Guide imp rove- l' j
Develop- l 1
m ents ment
' l I
a* l Technical Human R*V38 W n Factors Group I, g'
. Expert
( _
w... . .
~ ~
-~. - . .
M .
' ~ ~ - - -- .... _ .. _ , _ _ _ _
W s 4L M .- __ _ + _ _x ._ ._ -
ru - m ~_ . , ~ , . . , p.a SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS-CATEGORIES '
CATEGORY 1: NRC ,*.PPROVED ON AN INDIVIDUAL PLANT DOCKET.
O DO NOT REQUIRE LEAD PLANT SPONSORSHIP 0
g gl{j g C0lmENTS FROM GENERIC REVIEW 0F 0 NRC ISSUES GENERIC LETTER CATEGORY II: SUBMITTED "O NRC ON AN INDIVIDUAL PLANT DOCKET, BU" NOT YE" APPROVED, O FOLLOW LEAD PLANT REVIEW PROCEDURE CATEGORY 111: NOT YET SUBMITTED FOR NRC REVIEW.
O FOLLOW LEAD PLANT REVIEW PROCEDURE I
l .
ftJCLFJR LEPT "<. LENT 4N .: F.E DRAFT
, ATTACEMIyf RWROG SHORT TDM TECENICAL 5F5CIFICAT!0N IMPROVIMINTS SABEEE 131 NN I. :ncrease Relief Valve Setpoint MP E . Amandment 9 to Tolerance to Coincide with Licenae No. WFF 13 Design Specification (t15 psi) (Sept. 15, 1983) l
- 2. anubbers - Reduction in Fermi 2 Functional Retest Requirements Full Power License frost 102 to 55 #NFF 43. July 15, 1985 l I. Integrated Laak Rate Test W PC Amendeant 51 to Duration Decrease frosi 24 License No. DPR 63 to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. (May 4, 1983)
- 2. Relaxation of Shutdown IIL&F, Amendment 134 to Requirements Associated License No. DPR 49 with N2/02Analysers (July 21. 1984) i I. ueletion of Zeetation (cII) NUR30 1162, Actuation Instrumentation March 1984 -
Response Times II. Deletion of Primary ,
Containment Isolation Valve Listing
!!. Screa Discharge Volume (SDV)/
Vent and Drain Valve 30 second Closure Time Elimination III. Diesel Generator Testing
! , Requirements Relaustion III. Accident Manitoring Instr a tetten Allowable Out of Service Times Relasetten l
!!I. Area Temperature Monitoring l Requirements Relaxation III. SUV Testing - Eliminate Requirement to Perfora
! SDI Rod Density Scram Surveillance Test .
.i .
__' _ _ _ __,_._ ,.__. , , _ _ . , . _ - _ - - , ,_ .,..m.-%,-... y
i to1EM RPT ALLEfGM O P.07 )
a :
l ,
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION !MPROVEMENT5 WORKING SMUP SCOPE . RELIABILITY BASED ANALYS!$ FOR IMPROVEMENT! IN RP$ AND (CC5
, INSTRUMENTATION TECH $PEC$
DELIVERABLES '
Submitt:1 -
Review Date J R .agt Status January 1945 NED 30844, 3WR Owners' Group Response NRC technical to vaC Generic Letter 43 28, Item a.5.3 review complete SER delayed due t.
- to staggered testing issue.
May 1985 Nt0C-3085tP SWR Owners' Group Tecnnical NRC Tecnnical Specification Improvement Analysis *or Review Complete 8kt Reactor Protection Systems for relay plants.
SER delayed due to staggered testing issue. Solid state plant evalution currently under technical review. .
i hovember 1985 Nt0C-30936P, Part 1 BWR Owners Group Currently under Technt:a1 Specificatien improvement review by NRC/
i Methodology (with Demonstration for Brookhaven. SER i SWR ECC5 Actuation Instrumentation espected in Nov.
1984.
4 June 1986 NEDc.30851P, Supplement 1. Technical NRC is currently Specification Imprevement Analysis for preparing contract BWR Control Rod Block Instrumentation for BNL review.
August 1986 Nt0C 30851P, Supplement 2. Technical
- Specification Improvement Analysis "or 8WR ! solation Instrumentation camer. to Reactor Protection .ystem and ICC5 September 1986 NEDC 30936P, Part ! IWR Owners' Group (Planned) Technical Specification Improvement Methodology (with Deecrstration for BWR(CCSActuationInstrumertation) l
\ -
I 7
l l
l
_ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _
,M.LEf,R IEFT a..DtT N , ;; .
P.03 POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES 0 SUPPORT NRC REVIEWS O
DEVELOP UTILITY MANUAL 0
HOLD TRAINING SESSION O
EVAI.UATE ADDITIONAL RELIABILITY-BASED SPEC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TECH SPEC COMMITTEE LONG-RANGE PROGRAM c
I e
(
o I
l h
l l
i l
1 i
4 ,
r __
___.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . R_
m L>
Proposed Schedule R a
Development Of A New Section 3/4.1
(
- 9 it b
Aaes beg tset Nov O Dec Jon Feb -
! ! I I I
?
I i I
1
! Cesrumettee Surv + IIMtern Droft j Senat 4 .Perf Steegen AcHese Seele Gedde Meg flopert to e
JumeIAostfeo
- = __m______
DeAnod W= C--.- f _'n Apose Cervemittee Subs. eat to peseC
_ e_ e m_. . m_. .
7/J1 GE e/1
& 4 . e_ ~4 . _ _ - - a
=-* 9/29 10/20 11/3 11/24 12/1S
. 21 I I I 1/28 1 I I f .__. 1 1 1 .
i Utsmey stoween l ,te so I I i e .__.__.e... 1 '
m 1
me.non unst-. j
- s r-
- l -
- Se=rt c- 1 e/s-e e/1 l 10/1s
- e. . . . __e l Sturt h ,
see. m
- h ,
S/ts
%tudha te/s l J w
- g 3 a '"2".DC * -
_1 n i N T ~~S :E- -- -
- _= .
l'll!l!11ll Illllll ll!!
l!lIilIl e
4 e: .. ._
- . _ = - -_ .
j .
l .
l R ,
4 R j li ;
I '
R"
. p 5
e-ESTABLISHED WORKING GROUPS -
1 l
i
- WORKING GROUP ON CRITERIA DEVER.DPMENT -
e WORKING GROUP ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
, e' WORKING GROUP ON REGULATORY CHANGES l
l
- WORKING GROUP ON PROBABILISTIC METHODOt.OGY es
l t .
i _
g i PLAN TO REFORM NRC REO.UIREMENTS 5
! RELATED TO THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS !
P g"
OLD SYSTEM '
?
NEW SYSTEM _
, , P e a 8 I
~~
mesassarymme I I .
'** .. I I g 'l l.
===m.
I
! ; ~
I I 88838W'88
-a'a=_== senses % ,
l =e l
\
- === -
% . ' g i
_ .,,,,,,,r
/l ,
e M '
\
f 8 e I
, / .
assusePAAAEEMEWIRA553ESSSF5*'m
- WaraWIFSW335mp ?
d 6 "
- _ __ _ _ 3 ,g gE AfG E F 8 I
'Assem pumpts -
-I 8 1 I w R. M '
N
15 '
3:96 P.M. SEVERE ACCIDENT POLICY / DEGRADED CORE PROGRAM R BERNER0 (NRC)
SAFETY OBJECTIVES e THE LIKELIHOOD 0F SEVERE ACCIDENT (CORE DAMAGE OR CORE MELT) SHOULD BE VERY LOW AND e IF A SEVERE ACCIDENT OCCURS THERE SHOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL ASSURANCE THAT THE CONTAINMENT WILL MITIGATE ITS CONSEQUENCES
CONTAINMENT ISSUES e EARLY REACTORS LOW POWER / BIG CONTAINMENTS COULD MEET CONTAINMENT OBJECTIVE o . EVOLUTION OF DESIGN MUCH HIGHER POWER FOCUS ON PREVENTION OBJECTIVE CONTAINMENT GOOD FOR FISSION PRODUCTS BUT QUESTIONS ABOUT HEAT AND GAS e REACTOR SAFETY STUDY (1975)
BIGGER REACTORS 1 PWR (SURRY) 1 BWR (PEACH BOTTOM)
BWR RESULTS INDICATED LOWER PROBABILITY BUT POOR CONTAINMENT
US BWRS e 2 SMALL UNITS WITH LARGE CONTAINMENTS e 24 BWR 2/3/4 WITH MARK I CONTAINMENT (ALL LICENSED) e 9 BWR 4/5 WITH MARK 11 CONTAINMENT (7 LICENSED) e 4 BWR 6 WITH MARK 111 CONTAINMENT (3 LICENSED)
7 -.
BWR CONTAINMENT IN SEVERE ACCIDENTS SINCE TMI e TMI ACTION PLAN I.C l - LETTERS OF SEPT-NOV, 1979 ON PROCEDURES
- BWR EPG, REV 1, REV 2, REV 3, REV 4 e IDCOR ANALYSIS IDCOR FOUNDED DECEMBER 1980 STILL DELIBERATING-ANALYSIS WITH NRC e NRC/ CONTRACTOR ANALYSIS SOURCE TERM STUDIES SARRP - WHAT WILL NUREG-1150 SAY?
BNL GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA l
s CHERN0BYL UNIT 4 HAD PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT FEATURES -
A STRIKING RESEMBLANCE?
I l
i
WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS e 5 ELEMENTS TO CONSIDER HYDROGEN SPRAYS PRESSURE CORE DEBRIS TRAINING a PROCEDURES e MANY CHANGES ARE ALREADY IN PLACE e
FINAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOW UNDER HIGH PRIORITY STUDY GENERIC ACTION WITH IDCOR AND BWROG GENERIC WORK BY NRC VERMONT YANKEE STUDY PILGRIM PROGRAM i
i 4
l l
1
. . - - -,------,.-- - -..,-- - . - - - . , - - . - - - , - - - - -,--r- --.-e. . . .--. , - , - , . . --- - . -. . - - - . , - . - , , - , . . - - . - , -, - . .
CHRONOLOGY e JUNE 16, 1986: MEETING WITH BWROG/IDCOR PROPOSED A GENERIC LETTER, PRESCRIPTIVE SOLUTION, BY BACKFIT q,
o JUNE 30, 1986: VERMONTYANKEECOMMITSi0G0V.KUNINTODOA SPECIAL 60-DAY CONTAINMENT STUDY e JULY 25, 1986: BOSTON EDISON COMPANY BOARD DECIDES TO FIX PILGRIM CONTAINMENT e AUGUST 19 1986: BWROG EXECUTIVES V0TE TO FUND AND CONTINUE DIALOGUEdNTHISWITHNRC,CONTACTNUMARCABOUTBWRVS,PWR ~
e SEPTEMBER 11, 1986: MEETING WITH BWROG TO COMPARE BACKFIT NOTES AND STRAWMAN GENERIC REQUIREMENTS e SEPTEMBER 11, 1986: MEETING WITH VERMONT YANKEE TO REVIEW CONTAINMENT STUDY e SEPTEMBER 23, 1986: NRC/IDCOR MEETING ON BWR/ MARK I ANALYSES s SEPTEMBER 23, 1986: ACRSSUBCOMMITTEEON~ CONTAINMENT PERFORMANCE TO DISCUSS HARPERS FERRY WORKSHOP RESULTS AND BWR CONTAINMENT GENERIC APPROACH -'
e SEPTEMBER 24, 1986: ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLASS 9 ACCIDENTS TO DISCUSS BWR/ MARK I ANALYSES AND SEVERE ACCIDENT PROGRAM e NOVEMBER 19, 1986: CRGR REVIEW 0F DRAFT GENERIC LETTER ON BWR CONTAINMENT REQUIREMENTS (T0 BE PUBLISHED FOR COMMENT) e DECEMBER 17, 1986: ISSUE DRAFT GENERIC LETTER ON BWR CONTAINMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT e april 1987:
ISSUE FINAL GENERIC LETTER ON BWR CONTAINMENT REQUIREMENTS
- .