ML030620188

Issuance of Amendments Regarding Missed Surveillance and Adoption of a Technical Specifications Bases Control Program

ML030620188
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	03/03/2003
From:	Ellen Brown NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD2
To:	Stall J Florida Power & Light Co
Brown E, NRR/DLPM, 415-2315
References
TAC MB6069, TAC MB6070
Download: ML030620188 (23)

Text

March 3, 2003 Mr. J. A. Stall Senior Vice President, Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer Florida Power and Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420

SUBJECT:

TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4 ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS REGARDING MISSED SURVEILLANCE AND ADOPTION OF A TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BASES CONTROL PROGRAM (TAC NOS. MB6069 AND MB6070)

Dear Mr. Stall:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 222 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-31 and Amendment No. 217 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-41 for the Turkey Point Plant, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, respectively. These amendments consist of changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) in response to your application dated August 16, 2002.

The amendments change the TSs to allow a delay period of up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or up to the limit of the specified Frequency, whichever is greater, to perform a missed TS surveillance prior to having to declare the equipment inoperable. The amendments also add TS requirements to Section 6.8.4 for a Bases Control Program consistent with the provisions of Section 5.5 of NUREG-1431, Revision 2, Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants.

A copy of the Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. The Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission's biweekly Federal Register notice.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Eva A. Brown, Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No. 222 to DPR-31

2. Amendment No. 217 to DPR-41

3. Safety Evaluation cc w/enclosures: See next page

March, 3 2003 Mr. J. A. Stall Senior Vice President, Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer Florida Power and Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420

SUBJECT:

TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4 ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS REGARDING MISSED SURVEILLANCE AND ADOPTION OF A TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BASES CONTROL PROGRAM (TAC NOS. MB6069 AND MB6070)

Dear Mr. Stall:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 222 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-31 and Amendment No. 217 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-41 for the Turkey Point Plant, Units Nos. 3 and 4, respectively. These amendments consist of changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) in response to your application dated August 16, 2002.

The amendments change the TSs to allow a delay period of up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or up to the limit of the specified Frequency, whichever is greater, to perform a missed TS surveillance prior to having to declare the equipment inoperable. The amendments also add TS requirements to Section 6.8.4 for a Bases Control Program consistent with the provisions of Section 5.5 of NUREG-1431, Revision 2, Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants.

A copy of the Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. The Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission's biweekly Federal Register notice.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Eva A. Brown, Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No. 222 to DPR-31

2. Amendment No. 217 to DPR-41

3. Safety Evaluation cc w/enclosures: See next page Distribution:

PUBLIC EBrown TTjader AHowe BClayton (Hard Copy)

OGC ACRS PDII-2 Reading File DJaffe RDennig GHill (4 copies)

JMunday, RII ADAMS ACCESSION NO. ML030620188 OFFICE PDII-2/PM PDII-2/LA RORP/SC LEAD PM OGC PDII-2/SC NAME EBrown BClayton RDennig DJaffe AHowe for KJabbour DATE 01/31/03 01/30/03 02/4/03 02/12/03 02/20/03 02/25/03 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-250 TURKEY POINT PLANT UNIT NO. 3 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 222 License No. DPR-31

1. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:

A. The application for amendment by Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee) dated August 16, 2002, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commissions rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B. The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C. There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations; D. The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.

2. Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifications as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and paragraph 3.B of Facility Operating License No. DPR-31 is hereby amended to read as follows:

(B) Technical Specifications and Environmental Protection Plan The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 222, are hereby incorporated in the license. The Environmental Protection Plan contained in Appendix B is hereby incorporated into the license.

The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications and the Environmental Protection Plan.

3. This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days within issuance.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/RA by Kahtan Jabbour for A. Howe/

Allen G. Howe, Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Attachment:

Changes to the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: March 3, 2003

FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-251 TURKEY POINT PLANT UNIT NO. 4 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 217 License No. DPR-41

1. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:

A. The application for amendment by Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee) dated August 16, 2002, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commissions rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B. The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C. There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations; D. The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.

2. Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifications as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and paragraph 3.B of Facility Operating License No. DPR-41 is hereby amended to read as follows:

(B) Technical Specifications and Environmental Protection Plan The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 217, are hereby incorporated in the license. The Environmental Protection Plan contained in Appendix B is hereby incorporated into the license.

The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications and the Environmental Protection Plan.

3. This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/RA by K. Jabbour for A. Howe/

Allen G. Howe, Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Attachment:

Changes to the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: March 3, 2003

ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT AMENDMENT NO. 222 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-31 AMENDMENT NO. 217 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-41 DOCKET NOS. 50-250 AND 50-251 Replace the following pages of the Appendix A Technical Specifications with the attached pages. The revised pages are identified by amendment number and contain marginal lines indicating the area of change.

Remove pages Insert pages 3/4 0-3 3/4 0-3 6-18 6-18 6-19 6-19 6-20 6-20

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 222 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-31 AND AMENDMENT NO. 217 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-41 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT UNIT NOS. 3 AND 4 DOCKET NOS. 50-250 AND 50-251

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated August 16, 2002, Florida Power and Light submitted a request to amend the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. The licensees proposal would modify the existing TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) Section 4.0.3 to allow a delay from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to up to the missed surveillance frequency in declaring a Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO) not met for a missed surveillance. The submittal also includes the addition of a TS Bases Control Program to Section 6.8.4.

The licensee's proposal is consistent with one of the industry's initiatives under the risk-informed TS program. The licensee's application references TS Task Force (TSTF)-358, Revision 6, which incorporates changes made to TSTF-358, Revision 5, made in response to a notice published in the Federal Register (FR) on June 14, 2001 (66 FR 32400), seeking public comment. The licensee stated in its application that it is proposing no variations or deviations from the TS changes in TSTF-358, Revision 6, or in the staff's model safety evaluation (SE) dated June 14, 2001, as modified by the comments and responses published in the FR on September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49714). The licensee has indicated that the Bases Control Program will be established as described in Section 5.5 of NUREG-1431, Revision 2, Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants.

2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION

As stated in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.59(c)(1)(i), a licensee is required to submit a license amendment pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90 if a change to the TSs is required. Furthermore, the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 necessitate that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approve the TS changes before the TS changes are implemented. The licensees submittal meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(c)(1)(i) and 10 CFR 50.90. The staffs evaluation of the proposed changes are discussed in the technical evaluation section.

Enclosure 3

The licensee is proposing only minor variations or deviations from the TS changes in TSTF-358, Revision 6, which was approved by the NRC on October 1, 2001, or in the staffs model safety evaluation dated June 14, 2001, as modified by the comments and responses published in the FR on September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49714). These minor variations include nonsubstantive changes, such as replacing SR 3.0.3" with SR 4.0.3" and Conditions with Actions, in order to substitute section numbers and terminology in the Turkey Point custom TSs for the equivalent section numbers and terminology of TSTF-358 and the Standard Technical Specification (STS).

This SE is based on the SE published in the FR on June 14, 2001 (66 FR 32400). The NRC staff has since made minor, editorial, changes to the SE.

The regulations contained in 10 CFR 50.36, Technical Specifications, require that TSs include SRs. SRs are requirements relating to test, calibration, or inspection to ensure that the necessary quality of systems and components is maintained, that facility operation will be within safety limits, and that the LCOs will be met. The TSs require surveillance tests to be performed periodically (e.g., weekly or monthly). The periodic test interval defined in the TSs is called the surveillance frequency or surveillance interval. The majority of surveillance tests included in the TSs are designed to ensure that standby safety systems will be operable when they are needed to mitigate an accident. By testing these components, failures that may have occurred since the previous test can be detected and corrected.

TS SR 4.0.1 states that SRs shall be met during the MODES or other specified conditions in the applicability for individual LCOs and that failure to perform a surveillance within the specified frequency shall be a failure to meet the LCO, except as provided in SR 4.0.3.

The current SR 4.0.3 requires that, if it is found that a surveillance test was not performed within its specified frequency, the associated LCO be declared not met (e.g., equipment be declared inoperable) unless the missed surveillance test is completed successfully within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or within the limit of the specified frequency, whichever is less, from the time it was discovered that the test was not performed. The requirements in SR 4.0.3 are based on NRC Generic Letter (GL) 87-09, Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the Standard Technical Specification (STS) of the Applicability of Limiting Conditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirements, dated June 4, 1987.

Generic Letter 87-09 was published to address three specific issues with the application of TSs.

One of those issues was missed surveillances. The GL states:

The second problem involves unnecessary shutdowns caused by Specification 4.0.3 when surveillance intervals are inadvertently exceeded. The solution is to clarify the applicability of the Action Requirements, to specify a specific acceptable time limit for completing a missed surveillance in certain circumstances, and to clarify when a missed surveillance constitutes a violation of the Operability Requirements of an LCO. It is overly conservative to assume that systems or components are inoperable when a surveillance has not been performed because the vast majority of surveillances do in fact demonstrate that systems or components are OPERABLE. When a surveillance is missed, it is primarily a question of operability that has not been verified by the performance of a Surveillance Requirement. Because the allowable outage time limits of some Action Requirements do not provide an appropriate time for performing a

missed surveillance before Shutdown Requirements apply, the TS[s] should include a time limit that allows a delay of required actions to permit the performance of the missed surveillance based on consideration of plant conditions, adequate planning, availability of personnel, the time required to perform the surveillance, and, of course, the safety significance of the delay in completing the surveillance. The staff has concluded that 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> is an acceptable time limit for completing a missed surveillance when the allowable outage times of the Action Requirements are less than this limit, or when time is needed to obtain a temporary waiver1 of the Surveillance Requirement. [emphasis added]

The proposed change would extend the delay time for declaring the LCO not met and entering the required actions by allowing more time to perform the missed surveillance test. This will be achieved by modifying SR 4.0.3 to allow a delay period from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> up to the surveillance frequency, whichever is greater, to perform a missed surveillance prior to having to declare the LCO not met. The change will add a sentence to SR 4.0.3 that states, A risk evaluation shall be performed for any surveillance delayed greater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and the risk impact shall be managed.

The objective of the proposed change is to minimize the impact on plant risk resulting from the performance of a missed surveillance test by allowing flexibility in considering the plant conditions and other plant activities without compromising plant safety. In addition, implementation of the proposed change would reduce the need for the licensee to apply for regulatory relief to delay the performance of missed surveillances.

The basis for establishing the changes to requirements for missed surveillances in GL 87-09 continues to apply to the current proposed change to SR 4.0.3. As evidenced by the discussion in GL 87-09, the intent of the change proposed in the GL was to reduce the impact on plant risk resulting from the performance of a missed surveillance test by allowing some flexibility in the performance of missed tests. The delay time of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> was selected using engineering judgment in the absence of suitable tools to determine a delay period on a case-by-case basis.

In addition, the staff recognized in GL 87-09 that even a 24-hour delay period would not be sufficient in some cases and licensees would need to seek regulatory relief in those cases.

The recent revision to the Maintenance Rule to establish the requirement in 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) to assess and manage the increase in risk that may result from maintenance activities provides a framework to allow a more risk-informed approach to addressing missed surveillances. This approach is consistent with the Commissions policy to increase the use of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) technology in all regulatory matters to the extent supported by the state-of-the-art in PRA methods and data, and continues to support the objectives outlined by the staff in GL 87-09.

The NRC staff believes that the proposed change to SR 4.0.3 is appropriate because: (1) the number of missed surveillance tests is a very small fraction of the total number of such tests performed at a nuclear plant each year; (2) the change applies to unintentionally missed surveillance tests and is not intended to be used as an operational convenience to extend 1

The terminology temporary waiver was subsequently revised to refer to the practice as enforcement discretion.

surveillance frequencies (as stated in the existing SR 4.0.3 Bases); and (3) missed surveillances will be placed in the licensees corrective action program.

The NRC staff has determined that the proposed change is applicable to all licensees. In GL 87-09, the staff concluded that the proposed modifications would result in improved TSs for all plants and no limitations were put on the applicability of the proposed changes. Because the basis for this proposed change is largely the same as for the change proposed in GL 87-09, the staff believes the same broad applicability is appropriate. In addition, every licensee is required to comply with the Maintenance Rule and, therefore, will have implemented programs to comply with 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) to assess and manage risk associated with maintenance and other operational activities.

3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The proposed change would modify SR 4.0.3 to allow a delay period from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> up to the surveillance frequency, whichever is greater, to perform a missed surveillance prior to having to declare the LCO not met. The proposed change would also add a sentence to SR 4.0.3 that states, A risk evaluation shall be performed for any surveillance delayed greater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and the risk impact shall be managed.

The proposed change will not allow equipment known to be inoperable to be considered operable until the missed surveillance is performed. If it is known that the missed surveillance could not be met, SR 4.0.1 would require that the LCO be declared not met and the appropriate condition(s) entered. In addition, the Bases for SR 4.0.3 state that the use of the delay period established by SR 4.0.3 is a flexibility which is not intended to be used as an operational convenience to extend surveillance intervals, but only for the performance of missed surveillances.

3.1 Modification to the Bases and Addition of a Bases Control Program The modification would also include changes to the Bases for SR 4.0.3 that provide details on how to implement the new requirements. The Bases changes provide guidance for surveillance frequencies that are not based on time intervals but are based on specified unit conditions, operating situations, or requirements of regulations. In addition, the Bases changes state that the licensee is expected to perform any missed surveillance test at the first reasonable opportunity, taking into account appropriate considerations, such as the impact on plant risk and accident analysis assumptions, consideration of unit conditions, planning, availability of personnel, and the time required to perform the surveillance. The Bases also state that the risk impact should be managed through the program in place to implement 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) and its implementation guidance, NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.182, Assessing and Managing Risk Before Maintenance Activities at Nuclear Power Plants, dated May 2000, and that the missed surveillance should be treated as an emergent condition as discussed in RG 1.182. In addition, the Bases state that the degree of depth and rigor of the evaluation should be commensurate with the importance of the component and that missed surveillances for important components should be analyzed quantitatively. The Bases also state that, if the results of the risk evaluation determine that the risk increase is significant, the evaluation should be used to determine the safest course of action. Finally, the Bases state that all missed surveillances will be placed in the licensees Corrective Action Program.

The licensee has included in its application the addition of a Bases control program to the administrative section of the TSs. Prior the issuance of the STS (NUREGS 1430-1434), the control of TS Bases was not clearly defined by either TSs or NRC regulations. The administrative requirements for a Bases control program were added to the STS to define a methodology for evaluating changes to and providing updates of the TS Bases. The addition of the TS Bases Control Program for plants that have not adopted the STSs will provide the same benefits in terms of defining a methodology for the maintenance of the TS Bases. The licensee has proposed administrative controls that are consistent with the STS requirements and, therefore, satisfy the condition that was included in the FR Notice for the use of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) for this TS change. The NRC staff finds the addition of the TS Bases Control Program acceptable.

3.2 Risk Impact of the Proposed Change Key elements provided by the licensee to justify the proposed TS change are listed below.

These elements were built into the process to ensure that every time a surveillance is missed, the risk will be properly assessed and managed. In addition, such elements facilitate regulatory oversight.

 A risk evaluation shall be performed for any surveillance test delayed longer than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and the risk impact shall be managed.

 Although the proposed change to SR 4.0.3 allows an increase of the delay time, the missed surveillance test should be performed at the first reasonable opportunity.

 The first reasonable opportunity will be determined by taking into consideration the risk impact from delaying the surveillance test (including risk from changing plant configurations or shutting the plant down to perform the surveillance, whenever applicable) as well as the impact on any analysis assumptions, in addition to unit conditions, planning, availability of personnel, and the time required to perform the surveillance.

 A missed surveillance will be treated as an emergent condition in the same fashion as other unplanned maintenance activities. The risk impact of the condition will be managed through the program in place to implement 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) and its implementation guidance, RG 1.182.

 A missed surveillance will be placed in the licensees corrective action program, thus providing the NRC staff with a means to verify that the number of missed surveillances continues to be very low.

 The NRCs operating reactor oversight process will provide the framework for inspectors and other NRC staff to review missed surveillances and assess the licensees actions and performance.

The NRC staff finds that a process containing these key elements is appropriate in this case for the following reasons:

 10 CFR 50.65 (a)(4) requires licensees to implement programs to assess and manage increases in risk that may result from planned maintenance activities. This program is suitable to assess and manage the risk impact of missed surveillances because missed surveillances can be treated as emergent conditions and their risk impact will be assessed and managed in an integrated fashion with concurrent maintenance activities.

 Inspection procedures are in place which will allow NRC staff to oversee the implementation of Maintenance Rule requirements, including the adequacy of risk assessments performed by licensees for maintenance configurations.

 The number of missed surveillance tests is a very small fraction of the total number of such tests performed at a nuclear plant each year. The proposed change is not intended to be used as an operational convenience to extend surveillance frequencies.

 This process is similar to other improvements that have been made to the TSs that allow the use of a controlled decision making process by licensees when the process has some high-level regulatory oversight. Two examples of this are the adoption of the Core Operating Limits Report and the Pressure/Temperature Limits Report. In each of these cases, the NRC staff approved the methodology behind the calculation of certain TS parameter limits and then allowed the specific limits to be removed from TSs and controlled by the licensee using the approved methodology. Similarly, for this proposed change, the NRC staff has already approved guidance that outlines a process for complying with 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) and, therefore, can allow the licensee to use that guidance to determine the most prudent course of action in the case of a missed surveillance.

The guidance outlining an acceptable process for licensees to assess and manage increases in risk that may result from planned maintenance activities is found in RG 1.182. Regulatory Guide 1.182 endorses a revised Section 11 to NUMARC 93-01, Industry Guideline for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2000, updated by the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Section 11 of NUMARC 93-01 provides guidance for assessing and managing risk impact resulting from performance of maintenance activities, including guidance for establishing action thresholds based on qualitative and quantitative considerations as well as risk management actions. The objective of risk management is to control the temporary and aggregate risk increases from maintenance activities such that the plant's average baseline risk is maintained within a minimal range. This is accomplished by using the results of the risk assessment to plan and schedule maintenance such that the risk increases are limited, and to take additional actions beyond routine work controls to address situations where the temporary risk increase is above a certain threshold.

In order to gain additional insights into the proposed change, the NRC staff referred to the regulatory guidance provided in RG 1.174, An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis, dated July 1998 and in RG 1.177, An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Technical Specifications, dated August 1998, although these RGs do not specifically address the type of change in this proposal. Regulatory Guide 1.177 provides the NRC staffs recommendations for utilizing risk information to evaluate changes to nuclear power

plant TSs by assessing the impact of such proposed changes on the risk associated with plant operation. The approach documented in RG 1.177 was taken into consideration by the NRC staff in evaluating the risk information provided in support of the proposed changes in SR 4.0.3 to increase the time allowed to perform a missed surveillance.

One portion of the guidance in RG 1.177 includes the assessment of the risk impact of the proposed change for comparison to acceptance guidelines consistent with the Commissions Safety Goal Policy Statement, as documented in RG 1.174. In addition, the approach outlined in the guidance aims at ensuring that the plant risk does not increase unacceptably at any time during the implementation of the proposed change (i.e., during the extended surveillance interval).

Another portion of the guidance addresses the need for identifying risk-significant configurations resulting from maintenance or other operational activities and taking appropriate compensatory measures to avoid such configurations. This type of evaluation is directly addressed by the requirement to perform a risk assessment for missed surveillances delayed longer than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

The NRC staff believes that insights from the guidance provided in RGs 1.174 and 1.177 can be used to show how the proposed change is expected to result in, at most, an increase in risk which is small and consistent with the Commissions Safety Goal Policy Statement. The NRC staff believes that in the majority of the cases of missed surveillances, implementation of the proposed change will result in a risk benefit due to the proposed requirement for the licensee to evaluate the risk impact for missed surveillances that would require a delay of longer than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

The NRC staff made a qualitative assessment of the risk impact of the proposed change for comparison with the intent of the acceptance guidelines documented in RG 1.174, consistent with the Commissions Safety Goal Policy Statement. Such risk impact is measured by the average (yearly) risk change. In addition, the NRC staff took into consideration guidance in RG 1.177 aimed at ensuring that the plant risk does not increase unacceptably at any time during the implementation of the proposed change (i.e., during an extended surveillance interval in this case). The NRC staffs qualitative assessment is summarized below.

3.2.1 Average Risk Impact The probability that a standby active component, such as a pump or a circuit breaker, will fail when demanded during an accident is based on the assumption that the component fails due to standby stresses (i.e., stresses which are present while the component is in standby, such as corrosion, dirt, lack of lubrication). This probability, also called the components average unavailability, is used in PRAs and is most frequently calculated by the following equation:

q=1/2* *T where:

q = the components average unavailability,

= the components failure rate (assumed constant) while in standby, and T = the interval at which the component is tested for operability.

The average unavailability of a structure, system, or component (SSC), calculated by using the above equation, reflects the potential vulnerability of the component to standby stresses.

Such vulnerability increases with time between operability checks (tests) assuming corrective action is taken to restore failed components identified by the test. Thus, the risk impact of a missed surveillance is reflected by the increased unavailability of the related SSCs due to the increase of the interval between surveillance tests. If the missed surveillance affects two or more components, some standby stresses may impact multiple components. In such a case, the missed surveillance would also increase the average common cause failure (CCF) unavailability of two or more components and this should be addressed in the risk assessment (CCF unavailabilities are calculated by adjusting the single component failure unavailability using standard PRA techniques, such as the beta factor or the Multiple Greek Letter method).

The thresholds of the aggregate risk impacts are based on the permanent change guidelines discussed in RG 1.174. The licensee will be expected to manage the risk from the proposed TS change in conjunction with the risk from other concurrent plant activities to ensure that any risk increase, in terms of Core Damage Frequency (CDF) and Large Early Release Frequency (LERF), will be small and consistent with the Commissions Safety Goal Policy Statement.

Risk insights from existing PRAs and the low frequency of missed surveillances indicate that the proposed TS change is highly unlikely to lead to a significant increase in the average (yearly) risk, in terms of CDF or LERF. Significant risk increases can occur only under the following conditions:

 The number of missed surveillances is allowed to increase significantly;

 High risk configurations are allowed (e.g., by allowing certain combinations of multiple missed surveillances and/or outages); and

 Poor risk management of plant operational activities is allowed.

Any of these conditions would be in violation of the intent of the proposed SR 4.0.3 and could trigger a review by NRC of the licensees actions and performance. The implementation guidance found in the proposed SR 4.0.3 Bases is intended to ensure that such conditions would not occur. Licensees are already required to manage risk associated with online maintenance activities. Furthermore, the addition of missed surveillances (rather rare plant conditions) to the maintenance activities is not expected to increase risk. On the contrary, insights from existing risk assessments indicate that there are plant conditions during which it is preferable and safer not to have to complete missed surveillance tests for some SSCs.

Therefore, the proposed TS change will allow the licensee to make informed decisions and take appropriate actions to control risk.

3.2.2 Temporary Risk Impact In addition to changes in the mean values of CDF and LERF, the incremental conditional core damage probability and the incremental conditional large early release probability are proposed by RG 1.177 as appropriate measures of the increase in probability of core damage and large early release, respectively, during the period of implementation of a proposed TS change (i.e.,

during the extended surveillance period in the case of a missed surveillance). Regulatory Guide 1.182 provides guidance for controlling temporary risk increases resulting from

maintenance activities. Such guidance, which is consistent with guidance provided in RG 1.177, establishes action thresholds based on qualitative and quantitative considerations as well as risk management actions. The NRC staff expects that the licensee will implement this guidance for assessing temporary risk increases from missed surveillances concurrently with maintenance and other operational activities.

Instantaneous and temporary risk increases from a missed surveillance are assessed by considering the time-dependent unavailability, most often calculated by the following equation.

q(t) = *t where:

q (t) = the components unavailability at time t

= the components failure rate (assumed constant) while in standby, and t = time from end of surveillance frequency of a missed surveillance test.

If the missed surveillance affects two or more components, some standby stresses may impact multiple components. In such a case, the missed surveillance would increase also the time-dependent CCF unavailability of two or more components and this should be addressed in the risk assessment.

Significant temporary risk increases following a missed surveillance can occur only under the following conditions:

 High risk configurations are allowed (e.g., by allowing certain combinations of multiple missed surveillances and/or outages), and

 Poor risk management of plant operation activities is allowed.

Any of these conditions would be in violation of the intent of the proposed SR 4.0.3 and could trigger an NRC review of the licensees actions and performance. The requirements associated with the proposed change are intended to ensure that such conditions would not occur. Thus, the proposed TS change is not expected to lead to significant temporary risk increases.

Following the discovery of an unintentionally missed surveillance, the licensee will have to assess temporary risk increases, qualitatively or quantitatively depending on the importance of the component affected by the missed surveillance, if the surveillance cannot be performed within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> from the time it has been discovered.

3.3 Risk-Informed Configuration Risk Management Regulatory Guide 1.177 addressed the need for identifying risk significant configurations resulting from maintenance or other operational activities and taking appropriate compensatory measures to avoid such configurations. The objective of such guidance for this review is to ensure that plant safety will be maintained and monitored during the period of an extended surveillance testing interval (associated with an unintentionally missed surveillance). The licensee proposes to use the program in place to implement the Maintenance Rule to identify high-risk configurations resulting from missed surveillance tests in conjunction with outages associated with maintenance activities. It is worth noting that the guidance provided in RG 1.177 with regard to the Configuration Risk Management Program was used as the basis

for developing the guidance contained in RG 1.182 for the 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) provisions of the Maintenance Rule. This provides additional assurance that the proposed process for evaluating the risk impact of missed surveillances is consistent with guidance provided in RG 1.177.

3.4 Quality of PRA Once a missed surveillance is discovered and the licensee determines that the surveillance cannot be performed within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, the licensee will have to use a risk assessment to determine the most prudent course of action. The risk assessment can be done qualitatively or quantitatively depending on the importance of the component affected by the missed surveillance (missed surveillances for risk important components should be analyzed quantitatively). Such a risk assessment will be consistent with the program to implement the Maintenance Rule guidance to assess and account for both aggregate and temporary risk increases associated with emergent plant conditions as well as before undertaking online maintenance or other operational activities.

All licensees must have the capability to assess and manage increases in risk from maintenance activities as required by the Maintenance Rule. Risk assessments performed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) may use qualitative, quantitative or blended methods. The degree of depth and rigor of the evaluation should be commensurate with the complexity of the proposed configuration to be assessed. Section 11 of NUMARC 93-01 provides guidance for using qualitative, quantitative or blended methods to assess risk. Current inspection programs allow the NRC staff to oversee licensee implementation of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) requirements, including the adequacy of pre-maintenance risk assessments performed by licensees.

For the reasons listed below, the NRC staff finds that the same quality of PRA or PRA insights used to perform risk assessments pursuant to 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) is also appropriate when assessing the impact of missed surveillances.

 The number of emergent conditions resulting from missed surveillances is very small (in both absolute terms and in comparison to the frequency of emergent conditions resulting from equipment failures). The licensee is expected to implement the proposed change to SR 4.0.3 in a manner that ensures that this statement remains valid.

 A missed surveillance is equivalent to a one-time surveillance frequency extension.

Therefore, the risk exposure is limited to the duration of the surveillance frequency extension. Risk increases are small compared to similar increases associated with equipment failures. The average (conditional) risk increase, given a missed surveillance, may be comparable to the risk increase from equipment failures. However, due to the rarity of missed surveillances, the average (yearly) risk increase from missed surveillances is expected to be small compared to the risk increase from equipment failures.

 PRA insights indicate that the risk impact from missed surveillances is significant only for a relatively small set of standby equipment. This equipment, such as auxiliary feedwater, high pressure injection pumps, and emergency diesel generators, is located outside containment and generally can be easily tested in a short time, if necessary.

 NRC inspection programs allow NRC staff to oversee the implementation of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) requirements, including the adequacy of pre-maintenance risk assessments performed by licensees.

3.5 Summary The NRC staff review finds that the process proposed by the licensee for addressing missed SRs meets Commission guidance for allowing TS changes. Key elements of the proposed change are listed below.

 A risk evaluation shall be performed for any surveillance delayed longer than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and the risk impact shall be managed.

 The missed surveillance test should be performed at the first reasonable opportunity.

 The first reasonable opportunity will be determined by taking into consideration the risk impact from delaying the surveillance test as well as the impact on any analysis assumptions, in addition to unit conditions, planning, availability of personnel, and the time required to perform the surveillance.

 A missed surveillance will be treated as an emergent condition in the same fashion as other unplanned maintenance activities. The risk impact of the condition will be managed through the program in place to implement 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) and its implementation guidance (NRC RG 1.182). Rescheduling of missed surveillances pursuant to RG 1.182 will ensure the necessary provisions for managing the risk impact of performing the surveillance in conjunction with other ongoing plant configuration changes.

 The NRCs operating reactor oversight process will provide the framework for inspectors and other NRC staff to review missed surveillances and assess the licensees actions and performance. Inspection procedures are in place which will allow NRC staff to oversee the implementation of Maintenance Rule requirements, including the adequacy of pre-maintenance risk assessments performed by licensees.

 A missed surveillance will be placed in the licensees corrective action program, thus providing the NRC staff with a means to verify that the number of missed surveillances continues to be very low.

 The number of missed surveillance tests is a very small fraction of the total number of such tests performed at a nuclear plant each year. The proposed change is not intended to be used as an operational convenience to extend surveillance frequencies.

 This process is similar to other improvements that have been made to the TSs that allow the use of a controlled decision making process by licensees when the process has some high-level regulatory oversight. Two examples of this are the adoption of the Core Operating Limits Report and the Pressure/Temperature Limits Report. In each of these cases, the NRC staff approved the methodology behind the calculation of certain TS parameter limits and then allowed the specific limits to be removed from TSs and

controlled by the licensee using the approved methodology. Similarly, for this proposed change, the NRC staff has already approved guidance that outlines a process for complying with 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) and, therefore, can allow the licensee to use that guidance to determine the most prudent course of action in the case of a missed surveillance.

For these reasons, the NRC staff finds that the proposed TS change, to be implemented in accordance with the above listed key elements, is acceptable.

4.0 STATE CONSULTATION

Based upon a letter dated March 8, 1991, from Mary E. Clark of the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, to Deborah A. Miller, Licensing Assistant, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the State of Florida does not desire notification of issuance of license amendments.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes SRs. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (67FR 78521). Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.

6.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor: CLIIP Safety Evaluation for Missed Surveillances (66 FR 32400)

Date: March 3, 2003

Mr. J. A. Stall TURKEY POINT PLANT Florida Power and Light Company cc:

M. S. Ross, Attorney Attorney General Florida Power & Light Company Department of Legal Affairs P.O. Box 14000 The Capitol Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. John P. McElwain, Site Vice President T. O. Jones, Plant General Manager Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Florida Power and Light Company Florida Power and Light Company 9760 SW. 344th Street 9760 SW. 344th Street Florida City, FL 33035 Florida City, FL 33035 County Manager Walter Parker Miami-Dade County Licensing Manager 111 NW 1 Street, 29th Floor Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Miami, Florida 33128 9760 SW 344th Street Florida City, FL 33035 Senior Resident Inspector Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Mr. William Jefferson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vice President, Nuclear Operations Support 9762 SW. 344th Street P.O. Box 14000 Florida City, Florida 33035 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Mr. William A. Passetti, Chief Mr. Rajiv S. Kundalkar Department of Health Vice President - Nuclear Engineering Bureau of Radiation Control Florida Power & Light Company 2020 Capital Circle, SE, Bin #C21 P.O. Box 14000 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1741 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Mr. Craig Fugate, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100