ML062790398

Units, 1 and 2, Issuance of License Amendments 276 and 258 Regarding Mode Change Limitations Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process

ML062790398
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	10/27/2006
From:	Stewart Bailey NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLI-2
To:	Levis W Public Service Enterprise Group
Bailey, S N
Shared Package
ML062790348	List: ML062790398
References
TAC MD1426, TAC MD1427
Download: ML062790398 (26)

Text

October 27, 2006 Mr. William Levis Senior Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer PSEG Nuclear LLC - N09 Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038

SUBJECT:

SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS RE: MODE CHANGE LIMITATIONS USING THE CONSOLIDATED LINE ITEM IMPROVEMENT PROCESS (TAC NOS. MD1426 AND MD1427)

Dear Mr. Levis:

The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment Nos. 276 and 258 to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. These amendments consist of changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) in response to the PSEG Nuclear LLC application dated April 25, 2006. The amendments revise the TS requirements to adopt the provisions of Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-359, Increased Flexibility in Mode Restraints, Revision 9.

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

Sincerely,

/RA/

Stewart N. Bailey, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No. 276 to License No. DPR-70

2. Amendment No. 258 to License No. DPR-75

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

October 27, 2006 Mr. William Levis Senior Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer PSEG Nuclear LLC - N09 Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038

SUBJECT:

SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS RE: MODE CHANGE LIMITATIONS USING THE CONSOLIDATED LINE ITEM IMPROVEMENT PROCESS (TAC NOS. MD1426 AND MD1427)

Dear Mr. Levis:

The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment Nos. 276 and 258 to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. These amendments consist of changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) in response to the PSEG Nuclear LLC application dated April 25, 2006. The amendments revise the TS requirements to adopt the provisions of Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-359, Increased Flexibility in Mode Restraints, Revision 9.

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

Sincerely,

/RA/

Stewart N. Bailey, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No. 276 to License No. DPR-70

2. Amendment No. 258 to License No. DPR-75

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

PUBLIC LPL1-2 R/F RidsNrrPMSBailey RidsNrrLACRaynor RidsNrrDorlLpl1-2 RidsOgcRp RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter RidsNrrDorl GHill (2) RidsNrrDirsItsb Package Accession Number: ML062790409 Amendment Accession Number: ML062790398 TS(s) Accession Number: ML063040648 OFFICE LPL1-2/PM LPL1-2/LA ITSB/BC* LPL1-2/BC NAME SBailey CRaynor TKobetz HChernoff DATE 10/24/06 10/24/06 6/21/06 10/27/06

• concur by memo Official Record Copy

Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 cc:

Mr. Dennis Winchester Township Clerk Vice President - Nuclear Assessment Lower Alloways Creek Township PSEG Nuclear Municipal Building, P.O. Box 157 P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. Paul Bauldauf, P.E., Asst. Director Mr. Thomas P. Joyce Radiation Protection Programs Site Vice President - Salem NJ Department of Environmental PSEG Nuclear Protection and Energy P.O. Box 236 CN 415 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415 Mr. George H. Gellrich Mr. Brian Beam Plant Support Manager Board of Public Utilities PSEG Nuclear 2 Gateway Center, Tenth Floor P.O. Box 236 Newark, NJ 07102 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Regional Administrator, Region I Mr. Carl J. Fricker U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Plant Manager - Salem 475 Allendale Road PSEG Nuclear - N21 King of Prussia, PA 19406 P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Senior Resident Inspector Salem Nuclear Generating Station Mr. Darin Benyak U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director - Regulatory Assurance Drawer 0509 PSEG Nuclear - N21 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. James Mallon Manager - Licensing 200 Exelon Way, KSA 3-E Kennett Square, PA 19348 Mr. Steven Mannon Manager - Regulatory Assurance P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire PSEG Nuclear - N21 P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038

PSEG NUCLEAR LLC EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-272 SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 276 License No. DPR-70

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

A. The application for amendment filed by PSEG Nuclear LLC, acting on behalf of itself and Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensees), dated April 25, 2006, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (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 Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; 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 Commission's 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 2.C.(2) of Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 is hereby amended to read as follows:

(2) Technical Specifications and Environmental Protection Plan The Technical Specifications contained in Appendices A and B, as revised through Amendment No. 276, are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.

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/

Harold K. Chernoff, Chief Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attachments: Changes to Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 and the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: October 27, 2006

ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 276 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-70 DOCKET NO. 50-272 Replace the following page of the Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 with the attached revised page as indicated. The revised page is identified by amendment number and contains marginal lines indicating the areas of change.

Remove Page Insert Page 4 4 Replace the following pages of the Appendix A, Technical Specifications, with the attached revised pages as indicated. The revised pages are identified by amendment number and contain marginal lines indicating the areas of change.

Remove Page Insert Page 3/4 0-1 3/4 0-1 3/4 0-2a 3/4 0-2a 3/4 3-3 3/4 3-3 3/4 3-4 3/4 3-4 3/4 3-5 3/4 3-5 3/4 3-15 3/4 3-15 3/4 3-19 3/4 3-19 3/4 3-20 3/4 3-20 3/4 3-20a 3/4 3-20a 3/4 3-21 3/4 3-21 3/4 3-35 3/4 3-35 3/4 3-39 3/4 3-39 3/4 3-46 3/4 3-46 3/4 3-53 3/4 3-53 3/4 3-58 3/4 3-58 3/4 3-64 3/4 3-64 3/4 3-71 3/4 3-71 3/4 4-20 3/4 4-20 3/4 4-30 3/4 4-30 3/4 4-32 3/4 4-32 3/4 5-6 3/4 5-6 3/4 7-5 3/4 7-5 3/4 7-26 3/4 7-26 3/4 7-35 3/4 7-35 3/4 7-36 3/4 7-36 3/4 8-2a 3/4 8-2a 3/4 9-12 3/4 9-12 3/4 11-7 3/4 11-7 3/4 11-15 3/4 11-15

PSEG NUCLEAR LLC EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-311 SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 2 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No.258 License No. DPR-75

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

A. The application for amendment filed by PSEG Nuclear LLC, acting on behalf of itself and Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensees), dated April 25, 2006, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (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 Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; 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 Commission's 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 2.C.(2) of Facility Operating License No. DPR-75 is hereby amended to read as follows:

(2) Technical Specifications and Environmental Protection Plan The Technical Specifications contained in Appendices A and B, as revised through Amendment No. 258, are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.

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/

Harold K. Chernoff, Chief Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attachments: Changes to Facility Operating License No. DPR-75 and the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: October 27, 2006

ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 258 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-75 DOCKET NO. 50-311 Replace the following page of the Facility Operating License No. DPR-75 with the attached revised page as indicated. The revised page is identified by amendment number and contains marginal lines indicating the areas of change.

Remove Page Insert Page 4 4 Replace the following pages of the Appendix A, Technical Specifications, with the attached revised pages as indicated. The revised pages are identified by amendment number and contain marginal lines indicating the areas of change.

Remove Page Insert Page 3/4 0-1 3/4 0-1 3/4 0-2a 3/4 0-2a 3/4 2-15 3/4 2-15 3/4 3-3 3/4 3-3 3/4 3-4 3/4 3-4 3/4 3-5 3/4 3-5 3/4 3-15 3/4 3-15 3/4 3-19 3/4 3-19 3/4 3-20 3/4 3-20 3/4 3-21 3/4 3-21 3/4 3-22 3/4 3-22 3/4 3-38 3/4 3-38 3/4 3-42 3/4 3-42 3/4 3-43 3/4 3-43 3/4 3-50 3/4 3-50 3/4 3-53 3/4 3-53 3/4 3-59 3/4 3-59 3/4 3-66 3/4 3-66 3/4 4-23 3/4 4-23 3/4 4-31 3/4 4-31 3/4 4-33 3/4 4-33 3/4 5-7 3/4 5-7 3/4 7-5 3/4 7-5 3/4 7-21 3/4 7-21 3/4 7-30 3/4 7-30 3/4 7-31 3/4 7-31 3/4 8-2a 3/4 8-2a 3/4 9-13 3/4 9-13 3/4 11-7 3/4 11-7 3/4 11-15 3/4 11-15

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 276 AND 258 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 PSEG NUCLEAR LLC EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By application dated April 25, 2006 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML061220746), PSEG Nuclear LLC (the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The amendments would modify TS requirements to adopt the provisions of Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-359, Increased Flexibility in Mode Restraints. The availability of TSTF-359 for adoption by licensees was announced in the Federal Register on April 4, 2003 (68 FR 16579).

On July 17, 2002, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Risk Informed TSTF (RITSTF) submitted proposed change TSTF-359, Revision 7, to the Standard TSs (STSs) (NUREGs 1430-1434) on behalf of the industry. TSTF-359, Revision 7, proposed to change the STS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4 and Surveillance Requirement (SR 3.0.4)1 requirements regarding mode change limitations by risk-informing limitations on entering the mode of applicability of an LCO. The Notice of Opportunity to Comment on the model safety evaluation (SE) using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP) with respect to this change was published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50475). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) staff prepared a model SE incorporating changes resulting from public comments. The NRC staff has since made minor editorial changes to the SE.

TSTF-359, Revision 8, as modified, provides the complete approved change as discussed in the Federal Register notice dated April 4, 2003. The RITSTF subsequently incorporated the modifications identified in the April 4, 2003, notice into TSTF-359, Revision 9.

1 PSEG Nuclear LLC has not converted the Salem TSs to the latest version of STSs in NUREG-1431. As a result, references made to STS SRs 3.0.3 and 3.0.4 in this Safety Evaluation correspond to Salem SRs 4.0.3 and 4.0.4, respectively.

This proposal is one of the industrys initiatives under the risk-informed TS program. These initiatives are intended to maintain or improve safety while reducing unnecessary burden and to make TS requirements consistent with the Commissions other risk-informed regulatory requirements, in particular Section 50.65 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants, or the Maintenance Rule.

The current Salem TS LCO 3.0.4(a) specifies that the plant cannot go to higher modes of operation2 (i.e., move toward power operation) when the conditions of the Limiting Condition for Operation are not met and the associated ACTION requires shutdown if they are not met within a specified time interval. Salem LCO 3.0.4(b) provides an exception, stating that entry into a mode or other specified condition may be made in accordance with the ACTION requirements when conformance to them permits continued operation of the facility for an unlimited period of time. In addition, Salem TS SR 4.0.4 restricts mode changes unless the SRs associated with the LCO have been performed within the stated surveillance interval or as otherwise specified.

The industry believes that this requirement is unnecessarily restrictive and can unduly delay plant startup while considerable resources are being used to resolve startup issues that are risk insignificant or low risk. A maintenance activity that takes longer than planned can delay a mode change and adversely impact a utilitys orderly plant startup and return to power operation. In Revision 3 of NUREG 1431, Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Plants, STS LCO 3.0.4 and SR 3.0.4 were revised to allow entry into a mode without meeting its LCO after performance of a risk assessment addressing inoperable systems and components, and establishment of appropriate risk management actions. The licensee wishes to adopt the provisions of STS LCO 3.0.4 and SR 3.0.4 in NUREG 1431, Revision 3. The objective of the proposed changes is to provide additional operational flexibility without compromising plant safety.

The proposed changes to LCO 3.0.4 and SR 4.0.4 would allow, for systems and components, mode changes into a TS condition that has a specific required action and completion time (CT).

The licensee will utilize the LCO 3.0.4 and SR 4.0.4 allowances only when it determines that there is a high likelihood that the LCO will be satisfied within the LCO CT after the mode change. In addition, the LCO 3.0.4 and SR 4.0.4 allowances can be applied to values and parameters in specifications when explicitly stated in the TSs (nonsystem/component TSs such as, reactor coolant system specific activity). These changes are in addition to the current mode change allowance when a required action has an indefinite CT. The LCO 3.0.4 and SR 4.0.4 mode change allowances are not permitted for the systems and components (termed higher risk) listed below in Section 3.1.2, Identification of Risk-Important TS Systems and Components, for the modes specified. Two examples are: (1) Westinghouse plants cannot transition from Mode 5 to Mode 4 without a high-head safety injection system train operable, and (2) Westinghouse plants cannot transition up into any mode with an inoperable required emergency diesel generator.

2 Mode numbers decrease in the transition up to a higher mode of operation, power operation is Mode 1.

2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION

In 10 CFR 50.36, Technical specifications, the Commission established its regulatory requirements related to the content of TSs. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36, TSs are required to include items in the following five specific categories related to station operation: (1) safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting control settings, (2) LCOs, (3) SRs, (4) design features, and (5) administrative controls. The regulation does not specify the particular requirements to be included in a plants TSs. As stated in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(i), the Limiting conditions for operation are the lowest functional capability or performance levels of equipment required for safe operation of the facility. When a limiting condition for operation of a nuclear reactor is not met, the licensee shall shut down the reactor or follow any remedial action permitted by the technical specifications . . . . By convention, the LCOs and related SRs are contained in Sections 3.1 through 3.10 of the STSs. STS Section 3.0, LCO and SR Applicability, provides details or ground rules for complying with the LCOs and related SRs.

STS LCO 3.0.4 and SR 3.0.4 address requirements for LCO compliance when transitioning between modes of operation.

TSs have taken advantage of risk technology as experience and capability have increased.

Since the mid-1980s, the NRC has been reviewing and granting improvements to the TSs that are based, at least in part, on probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) insights. In its final policy statement on TS improvements on July 22, 1993, the Commission stated that it expects that licensees will utilize any plant-specific PRA or risk survey in preparing their TS-related submittals. In evaluating these submittals, the NRC staff applies the guidance in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174, An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis, dated November 2002, and in RG 1.177, An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decision making: Technical Specifications, dated August 1998. The NRC staff has appropriately adapted this guidance to assess the acceptability of upward mode changes with equipment inoperable. This review had the following objectives:

C To ensure that plant risk does not increase unacceptably during the actual implementation of the proposed change (e.g., when the plant enters a higher mode while an LCO is not met). This risk increase is referred to as temporary.

C To compare and assess the risk impact of the proposed change to the acceptance guidelines of the Commissions Safety Goal Policy Statement, as documented in RG 1.174. The risk impact, which is measured by the average yearly risk increase associated with the change, aims at minimizing the cumulative risk associated with the proposed change so that the plants average baseline risk is maintained within a minimal range.

C To assess the licensees ability to identify risk-significant configurations resulting from maintenance or other operational activities and take appropriate compensatory measures to avoid such configurations.

The NRC staff reviewed the reliance on 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) for the non-higher-risk systems and components, and related guidance to assess and manage the risk of upward mode changes. The Commission has found that compliance with the industry guidance for implementation of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4), as endorsed by RG 1.182, Assessing and Managing

Risk before Maintenance Activities at Nuclear Power Plants, and mandated by STS LCO 3.0.4, SR 3.0.3, and SR 3.0.4, satisfies the configuration risk management objectives of RG 1.177 for TS surveillance interval and CT extensions. Reliance on 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) processes that are consistent with the provisions of the NRC-endorsed industry guidance were also found adequate for managing risk of missed surveillances as described in the Federal Register on September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49714).

The NRC staff review also had the objective of ensuring that existing inspection programs have the necessary controls in place to allow the NRC staff to oversee the implementation of the proposed change and reliance on 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) processes or programs. The inspection program also allows the staff to adequately assess the licensees performance associated with risk assessments. The review encompassed inspection procedures (IPs) (i.e., NRC IP 62709 dated December 28, 2000, Configuration Risk Assessment and Risk Management Process, and NRC IP 71111.13 dated January 17, 2002, Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control), the significance determination process (SDP) (i.e., Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609, Appendix K, dated May 19, 2005, Maintenance Risk Assessment and Risk Management Significance Determination Process), enforcement guidance (i.e., draft Enforcement Manual Section 8.1.11, Actions Involving the Maintenance Rule), and the associated reactor oversight process (ROP).

2.1 Proposed Change to Salem LCO 3.0.4 and SR 4.0.4 Currently, Salem LCO 3.0.4 does not allow entrance into a higher mode (or other specified condition) in the Applicability when an LCO is not met, except when the associated actions to be entered permit continued operation in that mode or condition indefinitely or a specific exception is granted. Similarly, when an LCOs surveillances have not been met within their specified frequency, entry into a higher mode (or other specified condition) is not allowed by SR 4.0.4.

Salem LCO 3.0.4 currently states:

Entry into an OPERATIONAL MODE or other specified condition:

(a) shall not be made when the conditions for the Limiting Condition for Operation are not met and the associated ACTION requires a shutdown if they are not met within a specified time interval.

(b) may be made in accordance with ACTION requirements when conformance to them permits continued operation of the facility for an unlimited period of time.

This provision shall not prevent passage through or to OPERATIONAL MODES as required to comply with ACTION requirements. Exceptions to these requirements are stated in the individual Specifications.

The proposed Salem LCO 3.0.4 will state:

When an LCO is not met, entry into a MODE or other specified condition in the Applicability shall only be made:

a. When the associated ACTIONS to be entered permit continued operation in the MODE or other specified condition in the Applicability for an unlimited period of time, or

b. After performance of a risk assessment addressing inoperable systems and components, consideration of the results, determination of the acceptability of entering the MODE or other specified condition in the Applicability, and establishment of risk management actions, if appropriate; exceptions to this Specification are stated in the individual Specifications, or

c. When an allowance is stated in the individual value, parameter, or other Specification.

This Specification shall not prevent changes in MODES or other specified conditions in the Applicability that are required to comply with ACTIONS or that are part of a shutdown of the unit.

Salem SR 4.0.4 currently states:

Entry into an OPERATIONAL MODE or other specified condition shall not be made unless the Surveillance Requirement(s) associated with the Limiting Condition for Operation have been performed within the specified surveillance interval or as otherwise specified. This provision shall not prevent passage through or to OPERATIONAL MODES as required to comply with ACTION requirements.

The proposed Salem SR 4.0.4 will conform to the proposed changes to LCO 3.0.4 and state:

Entry into a MODE or other specified condition in the Applicability of an LCO shall only be made when the LCO's Surveillances have been met within their specified Frequency, except as provided by SR 4.0.3. When an LCO is not met due to Surveillances not having been met, entry into a MODE or other specified condition in the Applicability shall only be made in accordance with LCO 3.0.4.

This provision shall not prevent entry into MODES or other specified conditions in the Applicability that are required to comply with ACTIONS or that are part of a shutdown of the unit.

The proposed LCO 3.0.4.a retains the current allowance for when the required actions allow indefinite operation. The proposed LCO 3.0.4.b allows entering modes or other specified conditions in the applicability except when higher-risk systems and components (listed in Section 3.1.2), for the mode being entered, are inoperable. The decision for entering a higher mode or condition in the applicability of the LCO will be made by plant management after the

required risk assessment has been performed and requisite risk management actions established through the program established to implement 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4). Entry into the modes or other specified conditions in the applicability of the TS shall be for no more than the duration of the applicable required actions CT, or until the LCO is met (as required by Salem LCO 3.0.2). Current notes in individual specifications that permitted mode changes are now encompassed by proposed LCO 3.0.4.b and can be removed. Notes that prohibit mode changes under proposed LCO 3.0.4.b are being added as necessary (i.e., for higher-risk systems and components).

The proposed LCO 3.0.4.b allowance can involve multiple components in a single LCO or in multiple LCOs; however, use of the LCO 3.0.4.b provisions are always contingent upon completion of a 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) based risk assessment.

LCO 3.0.4 allowances related to values and parameters of TSs are not typically addressed by LCO 3.0.4.b risk assessments, and are, therefore, addressed by proposed new LCO 3.0.4.c.

LCO 3.0.4.c refers to allowances already in the TSs and annotated in the individual Specifications. LCO 3.0.4.c also allows for entry into the modes or other specified conditions in the applicability of a TS for no more than the duration of the applicable required actions CT or until the LCO is met or the unit is not within the applicability of the TS.

3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

During the development of the current STSs, improvements were made to STS LCO 3.0.4, such as clarifying its applicability with respect to plant shutdowns, cold shutdown mode, and refueling mode. In addition, during the STSs development, almost all the LCOs with CTs greater than or equal to 30 days, and many LCOs with CTs greater than or equal to 7 days, were given individual LCO 3.0.4 exceptions. During some conversions to the STSs, individual plants provided acceptable justifications for other LCO 3.0.4 exceptions. All of these specific LCO 3.0.4 exceptions allow entry into a mode or other specified condition in the TS applicability while relying on the TS-required actions and associated completion times. The proposed change under evaluation would provide standardization and consistency to the use and application of LCO 3.0.4, both internal to and between each of the specifications and STS NUREGs. This proposed change will also ensure consistency through the utilization of appropriate levels of risk assessment of plant configurations for application of LCO 3.0.4.

However, nothing in this SE should be interpreted as encouraging upward mode transition with inoperable equipment. Good practice should dictate that such transitions should normally be initiated only when all required equipment is operable and that mode transition with inoperable equipment should be the exception rather than the rule.

The current Salem LCO 3.0.4(b) allowances are retained in proposed Salem LCO 3.0.4.a and do not represent a change in risk from the current situation. The proposed LCO 3.0.4.b allowances apply to systems and components, and require a risk assessment prior to use to ensure an acceptable level of safety is maintained. The proposed LCO 3.0.4.c allowances apply to parameters and values which have been previously approved by the NRC in plant-specific TSs.

In accordance with TSTF-339, the licensees provided a discussion and list of each NRC-approved LCO 3.0.4.c-specific value and parameter allowance in the TS Bases. The bases of LCO 3.0.4 is revised to explain the new allowances and their use. The NRC staff did a

qualitative assessment of the risk impact of the proposed change in STS LCO 3.0.4.b allowances by evaluating how the licensees implementation of the proposed risk-informed approach is expected to meet the guidance of the applicable RGs. The staff referred to the guidance provided in RG 1.174 and in RG 1.177. RG 1.177 provides the NRC staffs recommendations on using risk information to assess the impact of proposed changes to nuclear power plant TSs on the risk associated with plant operation. Although RG 1.177 does not specifically address the type of generic change in this proposal, the staff considered the approach documented in RG 1.177 in evaluating the risk information provided in support of the proposed changes in LCO 3.0.4.

The NRC staffs evaluation of how the implementation of the proposed risk-informed approach used to justify LCO 3.0.4.b allowances agrees with the objectives of the guidance outlined in RG 1.177 is discussed below in Section 3.1. Oversight of the risk-informed approach associated with the LCO 3.0.4.b allowances is discussed below in Section 3.2.

3.1 Evaluation of Risk Management Both the temporary and cumulative risk of the proposed changes are adequately limited. The temporary risk is limited by the exclusion of higher-risk systems and components (Section 3.1.2 below), and CT limits (Section 3.1.3 below). The cumulative risk is limited by the temporary risk limitations and by the expected low frequency of the proposed mode changes with inoperable equipment as discussed below in Section 3.1.4. Adequate NRC oversight of the licensees ability to use the LCO 3.0.4.b provisions under appropriate circumstances (i.e., to identify risk-significant configurations when entering a higher mode or condition in the applicability of an LCO as discussed below in Section 3.1.5) is provided by NRC inspection of the licensees implementation of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) as applied to the proposed changes.

3.1.1 Temporary Risk Increases RG 1.177 proposes the incremental conditional core damage probability (ICCDP) and the incremental conditional large early-release probability (ICLERP) 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. In addition, RG 1.177 stresses the need to preclude potentially high-risk configurations introduced by the proposed change. The ICCDP associated with any specified plant condition, such as the condition introduced by entering a higher mode with plant equipment inoperable, is expressed by the following equation:

ICCDP = R d = (R1 - Ro) d where:

R = the conditional risk increase, in terms of core damage frequency (CDF),

caused by the specified condition d = the duration of the specified plant condition R1 = the plant CDF with the specified condition permanently present Ro = the plant CDF without the specified condition The same expression can be used for ICLERP by substituting the measure of risk (i.e., large early release frequency (LERF) for CDF). The magnitude of the ICCDP and ICLERP values associated with plant conditions applicable to LCO 3.0.4.b allowances can be managed by

controlling the conditional risk increase, R (in terms of both CDF and LERF) and the duration, d, of such conditions. The following sections discuss how the key elements of the proposed risk-informed approach, used to justify LCO 3.0.4.b allowances, are expected to limit R and d and, thus, prevent any significant temporary risk increases.

3.1.2 Identification of Risk-Important TS Systems and Components A major element that limits the risk of the proposed mode change flexibility is the exclusion of certain systems and associated LCOs for the mode change allowance. The TSs allow operation in Mode 1 (power operation) with specified levels of inoperability for specified times.

This provides a benchmark of currently-acceptable risk against which to measure any incremental risk inherent in the proposed LCO 3.0.4.b. If a system inoperability accrues risk at a higher rate in one or more of the transition modes than it would in Mode 1, then an upward transition into that mode should not be allowed without demonstration of a high degree of experience and sophistication in risk management. However, the risk management process evaluated in Section 3.1.5 is adequate if higher-risk systems/components are excluded from the scope of LCO 3.0.4.b.

The importance of most TS systems in mitigating accidents increases as power increases.

However, some TS systems are relatively more important during lower power and shutdown operations, because:

C certain events are peculiar to modes of plant operation other than power operation, C certain events are more probable at modes of plant operation other than power operation, C some modes of plant operation have less mitigation system capability than power operation.

The risk information submitted by the industry in support of the proposed changes to STS LCO 3.0.4 and SR 4.0.4 includes qualitative risk assessments performed by each owners group to identify higher-risk systems and components at the various modes of operation, including transitions between modes, as the plant moves upward from the refueling mode of operation toward power operation. The owners groups generic qualitative risk assessments are included as attachments to TSTF-359, Revision 9. Each of the owners groups generic qualitative risk assessments discuss the technical approach used and the systems/components subsequently determined to be of higher risk significance; the systems/components not to be granted the LCO 3.0.4 allowances for the various modes are listed. The owners groups generic qualitative risk assessments are:

C BWR [boiling water reactor] owners group Risk-Informed Technical Specification Committee, Technical Justification to Support Risk-Informed Improvements to Technical Specification Mode Restraints for BWR Plants, General Electric Company GE-NE A13-00464 (Revision 2).

C B&W Owners Group Qualitative Risk Assessment for Increased Flexibility in MODE Restraints, Framatome Technologies BAW-2383, October 2001.

C Combustion Engineering Owners Group Task 1181, Qualitative Risk Assessment for Relaxation of Mode Entry Restraints, CE Nuclear Power LLC, CE NPSD-1207 (Revision 0).

C WOG [Westinghouse Owners Group] Qualitative Risk Assessment Supporting Increased Flexibility in MODE Restraints, January 2002.

Following interactions with the NRC staff, all owners groups used the same systematic approach in their qualitative risk assessments to identify the higher-risk systems in the STSs, consisting of the following steps:

C identification of plant conditions (i.e., plant parameters and availability of key mitigation systems) associated with changes in plant operating modes while returning to power, C identification of key activities that have the potential to impact risk and which are in progress during transitions between modes while the plant is returning to power, C identification of applicable accident initiating events for each mode or other specified condition in the applicability, and C identification of the higher-risk systems and components by combining the information in the first three steps (qualitative risk assessment).

The risk assessments properly used the results and insights from previous deterministic and probabilistic studies to systematically search for plant conditions in which certain key plant components are more important in mitigating accidents than during operation at power (Mode 1). This search was systematic, taking the following factors into account for the various stages of returning the plant to power:

C the status of accident mitigation and normally operating systems, C the status of key plant parameters such as reactor coolant system pressure, C the key activities that are in progress during transitions between modes which have the potential to impact risk (e.g., the transfer from auxiliary to main feedwater at some PWR

[pressurized-water reactor] plants when Mode 1 is entered),

C the applicable accident initiating events for each mode of plant operation, and C design and operational differences among plants or groups of plants.

The following systems and components were identified by the WOG as higher-risk systems and components, when the plant is entering a new mode.

WOG Plants

System Entering Mode Emergency Diesel Generator 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System (for plants depending on AFW for startup) 4, 3, 2 ,1 High Head Safety Injection System 4 Cold Overpressure Protection System 5, 4 Residual Heat Removal System 5 If a licensee identifies a higher-risk system for only some of the modes of applicability, the TSs for that system would be modified by a note that reads, for example, LCO 3.0.4(b) is not applicable when entering MODE 1 from MODE 2. Systems identified as higher risk for Modes 5 and 6 for PWRs, and Modes 4 and 5 for BWRs, are also excluded from transitioning up to the mode of higher risk, and as previously discussed, notes for those transitions are superfluous. In addition, mode transitions for Modes 5 and 6 for PWRs, and Modes 4 and 5 for BWRs, will be addressed by administrative controls.

At Salem, the licensee proposes to include notes restricting application of LCO 3.0.4.b to the following risk significant systems:

TS 3/4.4.9.3 (Unit 1) and LCO 3.4.10.3 (Unit 2), Over Pressure Protection System TS 3.4.9.3 and TS 3.4.10.3 are applicable when the temperature of one or more of the RCS cold legs is less than or equal to 312 oF, except when the reactor vessel head is removed. Action e will be added to state that LCO 3.0.4.b is not applicable when entering Mode 4.

TS 3/4.5.3, ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System] Shutdown TS 3.5.3 is only applicable in Mode 4. Action d will be added to state that LCO 3.0.4.b is not applicable to the ECCS high head subsystem.

TS 3/4.7.1.2, Auxiliary Feedwater System TS 3.7.1.2 is applicable in Modes 1, 2, 3. Action d will be added to TS 3.7.1.2 to state that LCO 3.0.4.b is not applicable.

TS 3/4.8.1, A.C. Sources TS 3.8.1 is applicable in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4. Action h will be added to TS 3.8.1 stating that LCO 3.0.4.b is not applicable to DGs (diesel generators).

In summary, the staffs review of the owners groups qualitative risk assessments finds that they are of adequate quality to support the application (i.e., they identify the higher-risk systems and components) associated with entering higher modes of plant operation with equipment inoperable while returning to power.

The licensee has adopted the TSTF-359 wording for Salem LCO 3.0.4 and SR 4.0.4. Existing notes stating that LCO 3.0.4 is not applicable have been deleted from various TS LCOs as

described in TSTF-359 and the supporting documentation. The format and numbering of the Salem TSs vary from the STSs, but the changes proposed are consistent with TSTF-359 and this SE. LCO 3.0.4.c has been referenced appropriately for the TS defining limits on parameters and values. The licensee has, consistent with the above list, added notes to the appropriate TSs to state that the proposed LCO 3.0.4.b, allowing mode changes with inoperable equipment, is not applicable to the identified higher-risk systems.

3.1.3 Limited Time in TS Required Actions Any temporary risk increase will be limited by, among other factors, duration constraints imposed by the TS CTs of the inoperable systems. For the systems and components which are not higher risk, any temporary risk increase associated with the proposed allowance will be smaller than what is considered acceptable when the same systems and components are inoperable at power. This is due to the fact that CTs associated with the majority of TS systems and components were developed for power operation and pose a smaller plant risk for action statement entries initiated or occurring at lower modes of operation as compared to power operation.

The LCO 3.0.4.b allowance will be used only when the licensee determines that there is a high likelihood that the LCO will be satisfied following the mode change. This will minimize the likelihood of additional temporary risk increases associated with the need to exit a mode due to failure to restore the unavailable equipment within the CT. In most cases, licensees will enter into a higher mode with the intent to move up to Mode 1 (power operation). As discussed below in Section 3.2, the revised ROP monitors unplanned power changes as a performance indicator. Thus, the ROP discourages licensees from entering a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of an LCO, and moving up in power, when there is a likelihood that the mode would have to be subsequently exited due to failure to restore the unavailable equipment within the CT. Another disincentive for licensees to enter a higher mode when an LCO is not met is related to reporting requirements. It clearly states in 10 CFR 50.72, Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors, that a report is required when the initiation of a nuclear plant shutdown is required by TSs. The NRCs oversight program will provide the framework for inspectors and other staff to follow the history at a specific plant of entering higher modes while an LCO is not met, and use such information in assessing the licensees actions and performance.

3.1.4 Cumulative Risk Increases The cumulative risk impact of the change to allow the plant to enter a higher mode of operation with one or more safety-related components unavailable (as proposed here), is measured by the average yearly risk increase associated with the change. In general, this cumulative risk increase is assessed in terms of both CDF and LERF (i.e., CDF and LERF, respectively).

The increase in CDF due to the proposed change is expressed by the following equation, which integrates the risk impact from all expected specified conditions (i.e., all expected plant conditions caused by mode changes with various TS systems and components unavailable).

CDF = j(CDFi) = j ICCDPi fi where CDFi = the CDF increase due to specified condition i

ICCDPi = the ICCDP associated with specified condition i fi = the average yearly frequency of occurrence of specified condition i A similar expression can be used for LERF by substituting the measure of risk (i.e., LERF for CDF). The magnitude of the CDF and LERF values associated with plant conditions applicable to LCO 3.0.4.b allowances can be managed by controlling the temporary risk increases, in terms of both CDF and LERF (i.e., ICCDP and ICLERP), and the frequency (f), of each of such conditions. In addition to the points made in the previous section regarding temporary risk increases, the following points put into perspective how the key elements of the proposed risk-informed approach, used to justify an LCO 3.0.4.b allowance, are expected to prevent significant cumulative risk increases by limiting the frequency of its use:

C The frequency of risk-significant conditions will be limited by not providing the LCO 3.0.4.b allowances to the higher risk systems and components.

C The frequency of risk-significant conditions will be limited by the requirement to assess the likelihood that the LCO will be satisfied following the mode change.

C The frequency of risk-significant conditions is limited by the fact that such conditions can occur only when the plant is returning to power following shutdown (i.e., during a small fraction of time per year). Data over the past 5 years indicate that the plants are averaging 2.1 startups per year.

The addition of the proposed LCO 3.0.4.b allowances to the plant maintenance activities is not expected to change the plants average (cumulative) risk significantly.

3.1.5 Risk Assessment and Risk Management of Mode Changes With all safety systems and components operable, a plant can transition up in mode to power operation. With one or more system(s) or component(s) inoperable, this change permits a plant to transition up in mode to power operation if the inoperable system(s) or component(s) are not in the pre-analyzed higher risk category, a 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4)-based risk assessment is performed prior to the mode transition, and the requisite risk management actions are taken.

The proposed TS Bases state, in part:

LCO 3.0.4.b allows entry into a MODE or other specified condition in the Applicability with the LCO not met after performance of a risk assessment addressing inoperable systems and components, consideration of the results, determination of the acceptability of entering the MODE or other specified condition of the Applicability, and establishment of risk management actions, if appropriate.

The risk assessment may use quantitative, qualitative, or blended approaches, and the risk assessment will be conducted using the plant program, procedures, and criteria in place to implement 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4), which requires that risk impacts of maintenance activities to be assessed and managed.

It should be noted that the risk assessments, for the purposes of LCO 3.0.4.b, must take into account all inoperable TS equipment regardless of whether the equipment is included in the licensees normal 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) risk assessment scope. The risk assessments will be conducted using the procedures and guidance endorsed by RG 1.182. The results of the risk assessments shall be considered in determining the acceptability of entering the modes or other specified conditions in the Applicability, and any corresponding risk management actions.

A risk assessment and establishment of risk management actions, as appropriate, are required for determination of acceptable risk for entering modes or other specified conditions in the Applicability when an LCO is not met. Elements of acceptable risk assessments and risk management actions are included in Section 11 of Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) document 93-01 Assessment of Risk Resulting from Performance of Maintenance Activities, as endorsed by RG 1.182, which addresses general guidance for conduct of the risk assessment, gives quantitative and qualitative guidelines for establishing risk management actions, and provides example risk management actions. These risk management actions include actions to plan and conduct other activities in a manner that controls overall risk, actions to increase risk awareness by shift and management personnel, actions to reduce the duration of the conditions, actions to minimize the magnitude of risk increases (establishment of backup success paths or compensatory measures), and determination that the proposed mode change is acceptable.

The guidance references state that a licensees risk assessment process should be sufficiently robust and comprehensive to assess risk associated with maintenance activities during power operation, low power, and shutdown conditions (all modes of operation), including changes in plant conditions. NUMARC 93-01 states that the risk assessment should include consideration of: (1) the degree of redundancy available for performance of the safety function(s) served by the out-of-service equipment, (2) the duration of the out-of-service condition, (3) component and system dependencies that are affected, (4) the risk impact of performing the maintenance during shutdown versus at power, and, (5) the impact of mode transition risk. For power operation, key plant safety functions are those that ensure the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, ensure the capability to shut down and maintain the reactor in safe shutdown condition, and ensure the capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents that could result in potentially significant offsite exposures.

While the inoperabilities permitted by the CTs of TS required actions take into consideration the safety significance and redundancy of the system or components within the scope of an LCO, the CTs generally do not address or consider concurrent system or component inoperabilities in multiple LCOs. Therefore, the performance of the 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) risk assessment, which looks at the entire plant configuration, is essential (and required) prior to changing operational mode. The 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) based risk assessment will be used to confirm (or reject) the appropriateness of transitioning up in mode given the actual status of plant safety equipment.

The risk impact on the plant condition of invoking an LCO 3.0.4.b allowance will be assessed and managed through the program established to implement 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4). This program is consistent with RG 1.174 and RG 1.177 in its approach. The implementation guidance for 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) addresses controlling temporary risk increases resulting from maintenance activities. This guidance, consistent with guidance in RG 1.177, establishes action thresholds based on qualitative and quantitative considerations and risk management actions. Significant temporary risk increases following an LCO 3.0.4.b allowance are unlikely to occur unless:

C high-risk configurations are allowed (e.g., certain combinations of multiple component outages), or C risk management of plant operation activities is inadequate.

The requirements associated with the proposed change are established to ensure that such conditions will not occur.

The thresholds of the cumulative (aggregate) risk impacts assessed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) and the associated implementation guidance are based on the permanent change guidelines in RG 1.174. Therefore, licensees will manage the risk by exercising LCO 3.0.4 in conjunction with the risk from other concurrent plant activities to ensure that any increase, in terms of CDF and LERF, will be small and consistent with the Commissions Safety Goal Policy Statement.

3.2 Oversight The ROP provides a means for assessing the licensees performance in the application of the proposed mode change flexibility. The adequacy of the licensees assessment and management of maintenance-related risk is addressed by existing inspection programs and guidance for 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4). Although the current versions of that guidance do not specifically address application of the licensees Section 50.65(a)(4) program to support risk-informed TSs, it is expected that, in most cases, risk assessment and management associated with risk-informed TSs would be required by Section 50.65(a)(4) because maintenance activities will be involved.

Adoption of the proposed change will make failure to assess and manage the risk of an upward mode change with inoperable equipment covered by TSs, prior to commencing such a mode change, a violation of TSs. Further, as explained above in general, under most foreseeable circumstances, such a change in configuration would also require a risk assessment under 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4). Inoperable systems or components will necessitate maintenance to restore them to operability and, hence, a 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) risk assessment would be performed prior to the performance of those maintenance actions (except for immediate plant stabilization and restoration actions if necessary). Further, before altering the plants configuration, including plant configuration changes associated with mode changes, the licensee must update the existing Section 50.65(a)(4) risk assessment to reflect those changes.

The July 19, 1999, Federal Register Notice (64 FR 38551) issuing a revision to the maintenance rule along with NRC IP 71111.13 and Section 11 of NUMARC 93-01, indicate that to determine the safety impact of a change in plant conditions during maintenance, a risk assessment must be performed before changing plant conditions. The bases for the proposed TS change mandate that the risk assessment and management of upward mode changes will be conducted under the licensees program and process for meeting 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4).

Oversight of licensee performance in assessing and managing the risk of plant maintenance activities is conducted principally by inspection in accordance with ROP Baseline IP 71111.13.

Supplemental IP 62709 is used to evaluate the licensees process, when necessary.

The ROP is described in overview in NUREG-1649, Revision 3, Reactor Oversight Process, and in detail in the NRC Inspection Manual. IP 71111.13 provides for verification of

performance of risk assessments when they are required by 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) and in accordance with licensee procedures. The procedure also provides for verification of the adequacy of those risk assessments and verification of effective implementation of licensee-prescribed risk management actions. The rule itself requires such assessment and management of risk prior to maintenance activities, including preventive maintenance, surveillance, and testing (and promptly for emergent work) during all modes of plant operation.

The guidance documents for both industry implementation of Section 50.65(a)(4) and NRC oversight of that implementation indicate that changes in plant configuration (which would include mode changes) in support of maintenance activities must be taken into account in the risk assessment and management process. Revisions to NRC inspection guidance and licensee implementation procedures will be needed to address oversight of risk assessment and management required by TSs in support of mode changes that are not already required under the circumstances by Section 50.65(a)(4). This consideration provides performance-based regulatory oversight of the use of the proposed flexibility, and a disincentive to use the flexibility without the requisite care in planning.

In addition, the NRC staff has developed detailed SDP guidance in IMC 0609, Appendix K, dated May 19, 2005, for use in assessing inspection findings related to 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4).

The ROP considers inspection findings and performance indicators in evaluating the licensees ability to operate safely. The SDP is used to determine the significance of inspection findings related to the licensees assessment and management of the risk associated with performing maintenance activities under all plant operating or shutdown conditions. Unplanned reactor scrams and unplanned power changes are two of the Reactor Safety Performance Indicators that the ROP utilizes to assess licensee performance and inform the public. The ROP will provide a disincentive to entering into power operation (Mode 1) when there is a significant likelihood that the mode would have to be subsequently exited due to failure to restore the unavailable equipment within the CT.

The licensee included in its application the revised TS Bases to be implemented with the TS changes, and the NRC staff found them to be acceptable. However, the NRC staff acknowledges that the TS Bases Control Program is the appropriate process for updating the affected TS Bases pages and has, therefore, not included the affected Bases pages with these amendments.

3.3 Summary The industry, through the NEI RITSTF, has submitted a proposed TS change to allow entry into a higher mode of operation or other specified condition in the TS applicability while relying on the TS conditions and associated required actions and CTs provided a risk assessment is performed to confirm the acceptability of that action. The proposal revises Salem LCO 3.0.4 and SR 4.0.4, and their application to the TSs. New paragraphs a, b, and c are proposed for LCO 3.0.4.

The proposed LCO 3.0.4.a retains the current allowance (from current LCO 3.0.4(b)) permitting the mode change when the TS required actions allow indefinite operation.

Proposed LCO 3.0.4. b allows entry into a higher mode of operation, or other specified condition in the TS applicability, while relying on the TS conditions and associated required actions and CTs, provided that a risk assessment is performed to confirm the acceptability of

that action for the existing plant configuration. The NRC staff review finds that the process proposed by industry for assessing and managing risk during the implementation of the proposed LCO 3.0.4.b allowances meets Commission guidance for TS changes. Key elements of this process are listed below.

C A risk assessment shall be performed before any LCO 3.0.4.b allowance is invoked.

C The risk impact on the plant condition of invoking an LCO 3.0.4.b allowance will be assessed and managed through the program established to implement 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) and the associated guidance in RG 1.182. Allowing entry into a higher mode or condition in the applicability of an LCO after a 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4)-

based risk assessment and appropriate risk management actions are taken for the existing plant configuration will ensure that plant safety is maintained.

C The LCO 3.0.4.b allowance will be used only when the licensee determines that there is a high likelihood that the LCO will be satisfied within the required actions CT.

C TS systems and components which may be of higher risk during mode changes have been identified generically by each owners group for each plant operational mode or condition. Licensees will identify such plant-specific systems and components in the individual plant TSs. The proposed LCO 3.0.4.b allowance does not apply to these systems and components for the mode or condition in the applicability of an LCO at which they are of higher risk.

C Plants adopting LCO 3.0.4.b will ensure that plant procedures in place to implement 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) address the situation where entering a mode or other specified condition in the applicability is contemplated with plant equipment inoperable. Such plant procedures typically follow the guidance in NUMARC 93-01, Section 11, as revised in February 2000 and endorsed by NRC RG 1.182.

The NRCs ROP provides the framework for inspectors and other staff to oversee the implementation of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) requirements at a specific plant and assess the licensees actions and performance.

Proposed LCO 3.0.4.c addresses those values and parameters in the TSs that have their own respective LCOs (e.g., reactor coolant system specific activity), since proposed LCO 3.0.4.b allowances do not apply. The TS values and parameters for which mode transition allowances apply will have a note that states LCO 3.0.4.c is applicable.

The objective of the proposed change is to provide additional operational flexibility without compromising plant safety.

4.0 STATE CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Jersey State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendments change requirements with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. 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 (71 FR 38185). Accordingly, the 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 Contributors: T. Tjader E. Thomas