NUREG-1432, Informs That Disposition Made on 18 Travelers Containing Proposed Changes to STS Nuregs Made by NEI TS Task Force
| ML20199E634 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/13/1999 |
| From: | Beckner W NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Jennifer Davis NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT & |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1432 NUDOCS 9901210038 | |
| Download: ML20199E634 (4) | |
Text
-
~
fk 0[{&
UNITED STATES n
f,
)
NUCLEAR REIEULATORY COMMISSION
/' S C 3 C@V /
WASHINGTON, D.C. 3088&4001 o.,g
- January 13, 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 eighteen travelers containing proposed changes to the Standard Technical Specification (STS) NUREGs made by the NEl Technical Specification Task Force JSTF). Those travelers that were approved are TSTFs
-107, R.1; -111, R.5; -159, R.1; -160, R.1; -205, R.3; -234, R.1; -235, R.1; -241, R.4; -
245;-255, R.1;-303;-305; and -314. Those travelers that were Modified, after i
discussion with the respective Owner's Group Chairmen, are TSTFs -052, R.1;-273;-
290; and -294. Traveler TSTF-260, as discused with the BWOG Chairman and NRC i
technical staff, is rejected. Please see the enclosure for NRC comments with regard to the travelers that were modified and rejected. For your information, the following travelers were referred to a technical branch for additional evaluation: TSTF-246 (HICB);-261,-
262, -263, R.1, and -265 (SRXB); -271, -280, -285, and -288 (SRXB & EMCB); -309 (SRXB); -311 (HICB);-315 (HICB); -319 (SRXB & SPLB);-321 (EMCB & EMEB); and -323 (SCSB). Also enclosed is a list identifying the referred to technical branches with their acronyms.
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, (t/
. - b AJ -
William D. Beckner, Chief Technical Specifications Branch Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
\\-
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
N. Clarkson, BWOG D. Wuokko, BWOG
(/.h B. Ford, BWROG yyf()/ l T. Webber, CEOG D. Bushbaum, WOG ffy D. Hoffman, EXCEL g4 g
9901210038 990113 PDR REVGP ERGNUMRC PDR N
i DISPOSITIDN
SUMMARY
TSTF 052. R.1: Modify Based on discussions with the OG and NRC on December 15,1998 on this subject, the staff still requires all combinations to be addressed. However, combinations c and d can be addressed by a Reviewer's Note, telling the reviewer / user that a combination of Option A and Option B must be used. For the Option A and Option B format in the SR and Bases, a format similar to the one used in NUREG-1432, CEOG STS B3.6.2, " Containment Air Locks (Atmospheric and Dual) Bases - APPLICABLE SAFETY ANALYSES" is acceptable to the staff.
TSTF-273: Modifv Recommendation is revised to modify TSTF-273 to change the SFDP A/C TS to reflect the original "Rev 0" meaning, and to make the Bases consistent with the revised TS.
TSTF-290: Modify Recommend that the WOG add justification for deleting 3.2.1 A Required Action A.2 to reduce AFD limits.
TSTF-294: Modify The Bases change to SR 3.1.4.3 is poorly stated; the last sentence would read better as:
"... if the rod drop times are determined with less RCS flow, less than four reactor coolant pumps operating, a Note allows...". Also, the STS is written with the option to operate with a minimum of 3 of 4 reactor coolant pumps running. This TSTF would seem to permit a minimum of 1 reactor coolant pump running. This TSTF should be rewritten to be consistent with the current STS LCO; with the number of pumps bracketed if needed.
TSTF 260: Relect The staff has reevaluated this TSTF, as committed to in the September 1998 Owner's Group meeting. The staff's position remains the same. The Owner's Group argument is that there is no correct position for an automatic valve. It is either in it's non-accident position or it's safety position and, irregardless of the position, an actuation signal would put it in it's safety position, if it wasn't already in that position. The staff's position is that even though an automatic valve may be in it's safety alignment, if this alignment is different than its normal operation alignment (e.g., valve closed when it should be open) and it was not put in this alignment on purpose, such as for maintenance as a result of action statements or operations, then there is an inoperability which needs to be corrected which could affect the safety alignment / function. As an example, a spurious signal puts a valve in the safety alignment position. If this is not detected under accident conditions, this inoperability could put the valve in the non-accident position. The 31 day SR assures that these types of conditions will be detected.
-m se
-,f-nyuo
,,,,is s
m+emum-
TECHNICAL BRANCH NAMES AND ACRONYMS i
Division of Enaineedna (DE)
Materials and Chemical Engineering Branch (EMCB)
Mechanical Engineering Branch (EMEB)
Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch (ECGB)
Electrical Engineering Branch (EELB)
Division of Systems Safety and Analysis (DSSA)
Plant Systems Branch (SPLB)
Reactor Systems Branch (SRXB)
Containment Systems and Severe Accident Branch (SCSB)
Probabilistic Safety Assessment Branch (SPSB)
Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors (DRCH)
Instrumentation and Controls Branch (HICB)
Operator Licensing and Humar, Performance Branch (HOLB)
Quality Assurance and Vendor inspection, Maintenance Branch (HQMB) l l
i
January 13, 1999 Mr. Jam:s Davis Nuclear Ensrgy 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 eighteen travelers containing proposed changes to the Standard Technical Specification (STS) NUREGs made by the NEl Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF). Those travelers that were approved are TSTFs 1
-107, R.1; -111, R.5; -159, R.1; -160, R.1; -205, R.3; -234, R.1; -235, R.1; -241, R.4; -
245; -255, R.1; -303; -305; and -314. Those travelers that were Modified, after discussion with the respective Owner's Group Chairmen, are TSTFs -052, R.1; -273; -
290; and -294. Traveler TSTF-260, as discused with the BWOG Chairman and NRC technical staff, is rejected. Please see the enclosure for NRC comments with regard to the travelers that were modified and rejected. For your information, the following travelers were referred to a technical branch for additional evaluation: TSTF-246 (HICB); -261, -
262, -263, R.1, and -265 (SRXB); -271, -280, -285, and -288 (SRXB & EMCB); -309 (SRXB);-311 (HICB);-315 (HICB);-319 (SRXB & SPLB);-321 (EMCB & EMEB); and -323 (SCSB). Also enclosed is a list identifying the referred to technical branches with their acronyms.
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:
William D. Beckner, Chief Technical Specifications Branch Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
N. Clarkson, BWOG D. Wuokko, BWOG B. Ford, BWROG T. Webber, CEOG D. Bushbaum, WOG D. Hoffman, EXCEL DISTRIBUTION:
Hard copy:
E-mail:
File Center WDBeckner PUBLIC TSB Staff TSB Reading File l
DOCUMFNT NAME G4DLJ\\0113901S LTR OFFICE NRR/ADPR/TSB NRR/ADPR/TSB NRR/ADPR/TSB NAME DLJohnson $ 6 FMReinhart to D6 WDBeckner un6 0
DATE 01/13/99 01/ l$/99 s ^ fW' 01/ O/99 l
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l
i