ML20206F020
| ML20206F020 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/28/1999 |
| From: | Beckner W NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Jennifer Davis NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT & |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9905050312 | |
| Download: ML20206F020 (5) | |
Text
.
Mr. J:m:;s Dtvis April 28, 1999 j
Nuciser En:rgy Instituta 1776 Eye Street, N. W.
Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006-2496
Dear Mr. Davis:
This is to inform you that disposition has been made on eleven travelers containing proposed changes to the Standard Technical Specification (STS) NUREGs made by the NEl Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF). Those travelers that were Modified, after discussion with the respective Owner's Group Chairman, were TSTFs -021, R.1; -204; -
250; -262; -263, R.1; -265; and -285. After discussion with the respective Owner's Group Chairmen, the following travelers were Rejected: TSTFs -168, -277 -282, and -
321. Please see the enclosure for NRC comments with regard to the travelers that were Modified and Rejected.
For your information, the following travelers are awaiting evaluation by a technical branch: TSTFs -212, R.1 (EICB); -226 (SRXB), -262 (SRXB), -263, R.1 (SRXB), -264 (SRXB), -265 (SRXB), -287, R.2 (SPLB & SPSB); -298 (SPLB); -313 (MCEB); -315 (EICB);
and -318 (SRXB).
Please contact me at (301) 415-1161 or e-mail wdb@nrc. gov if you have any questions or need further information on these dispositions.
Sincerely, Original Signed By j
William D. Beckner, Chief Technical Specifications Branch Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
N. Clarkson, BWOG T
ber OG D. Bushbaum, WOG D. Hoffman, EXCEL
(
}
DJSTRIBUTION:
h,D I
Hacd copy:
E-mail:
1-File Center WDBeckner
- Q -k b g PUBLIC TSB Staff 1
TSB Reading File
$id Ab DOCUMENT NAME: 0 \\DLh0599 DIS WPC OFFICE NRR/ DRIP /TSB NRR/DRilITSB NRR/ DRIP /TSB NAME DLJohnsont/f' RLDe'nnia -
WDBecknesu d4 DATE 04/28/99
'd CUW /99 04/,A /99 OFFICIAt. RECORD COPY 9905050312 990428 PDR REVGP ERGNUMRC PDR
o mer t
UNITED STATES
$o j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WAsHINGTcN, D.c. 3066H001 I
April 28, 1999 Mr. James Davis Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 Eye Street, N. W.
Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006-2496
Dear Mr. Davis:
This is to inform you that disposition has been made on eleven travelers containing proposed changes to the Standard Technical Specification (STS) NUREGs made by the NEl Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF). Those travelers that were Modified, after discussion with the respective Owner's Group Chairman, were TSTFs -021, R.1;-204; -
250;-262;-263, R.1;-265; and -285. After discussion with the respective Owner's Group Chairmen, the following travelers were Rejected: TSTFs -168, -277, -282, and -
321. Please see the enclosure for NRC comments with regard to the travelers that were Modified and Rejected.
For your information, the following travelers are awaiting evaluation by a technical branch: TSTFs -212, R.1 (EICB); -226 (SRXB), -262 (SRXB), -263, R.1 (SRXB), -264 (SRXB), -265 (SRXB), -287, R.2 (SPLB & SPSB); -298 (SPLB); 313 (MCEB); -315 (EICB);
and -318 (SRXB).
Please contact me at (301) 415-1161 or e-mail wdb@nrc. gov if you have any questions or need further information on these dispositions.
l Sincerely, d 4 e D. 4 4 - --
William D. Beckner, Chief Technical Specifications Branch r
l Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
{
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
N. Clarkson, BWOG 1
B. Ford, BWROG l
T. Weber, CEOG D. Bushbaum, WOG D. Hoffman, EXCEL
DISPOSITION
SUMMARY
TSTF-021. R.1: Modif,y The recommendation to approve TSTF-021, R.1, is incorrect. The disposition should be to modify. Approval of TSTF-021 and rejection of TSTP-022 was followed by the submittal of TSTF-021, R.1. TSTF-022 requested that brackets be placed around the flow rate contained in the surveillance. This was rejected based on the staN position that those specifications that currently contain a flow rate should retain them. Subsequently, following rejection of TSTF-022,'TSTF-021, R.1 was revised to delete the flow rate contained in the surveillance even though it had been rejected in TSTF-022. Therefore, the disposition of this revision (TSTF-021, R.1) should have been to modify the TSTF to reject the deletion of the flow rate in the surveillance. This change is consistent with NRC disposition of TSTF-022. The licensees should retain their licensing basis. We understand the difficulty in meeting the flowrate when the RHR is aligned to the RWST. To address this problem, we propose adding notes to those specifications containing flow rates as indicated in the attached information.
TSTF-204: Modify During the Joint NRC/TSTF Owner's Group Meeting, it was agreed that the disposition for this proposed change would be changed from Reject to Modify. This traveler will be the subject of a May 13,1999 follow-up meeting.
TSTF-250: Modify The proposed industry change to the ISTS NUREGs would revise the Design Features section to delete the specific reference to the FSAR for determining uncertainties in calculating the subcriticality of stored fuel assemblies. After some further discussion, the TSTF agreed to propose an attemative change by May 13,1999.
TSTF-262: Modifv i
Modify to include a justification of the low pressure injection alignment.
TSTF-263. R.1: Modify Modify to incorporate points from April 8,1999 discussion.
TSTF-265: Modify i
Provide a revision based on April 8,1999 discussion.
TSTF-285: Modify Modify to include words in the Bases indicating why one hour is riveded.
a
TSTF-168: Reject TSTF-168 was mistakenly approved based on the change being consistent with WCAP-10271. However, the use of a bypass allowance for maintenance on RTB trains was proposed in WCAP-14333. Insufficient justification was provided for this change to STS and, consequently, Westinghouse withdrew the bypass allowance at the staff's request. Therefore, the proposed changes are no longer consistent and the disposition for TSTF-168 is changed to Reject.
TSTF-277: Reject The current format of the SR is in accordance with the improved STS format and style guide. The current SR note is not ambiguous.
TSTF-282: Reject The justification for the proposed change (going from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to 7 days for time allowed l
to perform measurement of RCS total flow rate by precision heat balance) is inadequate.
1 There is no technical justification in support of it's implication on a generic basis.
TSTF-321: Reiect There are related ASME Code inservice testing requirements to periodically stroke test BWR SRVs. The associated Code committee currently has an activity underway for a possible revision to these requirements. The NRC representative on the committee is interacting with the other industry representatives to determine possible alternative methods for verifying mechanical valve disk stroke capability. Because the development of the ASME Code is an industry consensus process, we believe it would be appropriate for any Code revision to occur prior to changing the STS. Revising the STS first could effectively preempt the Code change process. Therefore, we believe it would be prudent to defer ttle proposed change to the STS until after the related Code activitics are completed.
2
TECHNICAL BRANCH NAMES AND ACRONYMS Division of Enoineerina (DE)
{
i Materials and Chemical Engineering Branch (EMCB)
- Mechanical and Civil Engineering Branch (EMCB)
Electrical and instrumentation Controls Branch (EICB)
Division of Systems Safety and Analysis (DSSA)
Plant Systems Branch (SPLB)
Reactor Systems Branch (SRXB) j Probabilistic Safety Assessment Brancii(SPSB) t i
l l
f t
1 l
l
.