ML081690051
| ML081690051 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/2008 |
| From: | Schwarz C Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| IR-08-002 | |
| Download: ML081690051 (10) | |
Text
Entergy Nuclear Operations, i nc.
Palisades Nuclear Plant 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043 Tel269 764 2000 June 16,2008 10 CFR 50.4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Palisades Nuclear Plant Docket 50-255 License No. DPR-20 lnspection Report 05000255/2008002
Reference:
Letter from C.L. Lipa (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to C.J. Schwarz (Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.), "Palisades Nuclear Plant NRC Integrated lnspection Report 05000255/2008002," May 15, 2008
Dear Sir or Madam:
In the referenced letter, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an inspection report documenting the results of inspection activities conducted at Palisades Nuclear Plant during the first quarter of 2008. The report includes a non-cited violation of Technical Specification (TS) 5.4.1 for the failure to have adequate procedure guidance for the general operating procedures for mode transition to power operations. The NRC stated that the general plant operating procedure for mode transition did not have adequate guidance to ensure the actions required by TS 3.0.4 were complete prior to mode transition.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO) does not deny this violation. However, EN0 would like to take the opportunity to present a different point of view regarding compliance with TS 3.0.4. EN0 believed the decision described in the non-cited violation was appropriate based on language in the TS and relevant industry documents. EN0 interpreted these documents to mean that compliance is achieved when required actions are completed within the completion times. ENO's rationale is provided in the enclosure to this letter. Because language in the TS and supporting documents can be misinterpreted, EN0 requests that the NRC consider this input and engage the industry in discussions on TS 3.0.4.
Document Control Desk Page 2 Summary of Commitments This letter contains no new commitments and no revisions to existing commitments.
Christopher J. Schwarz Site Vice President Palisades Nuclear Plant Enclosure C C Administrator, Region Ill, USNRC Director, Office of Enforcement, USNRC Resident Inspector, Palisades, USNRC Project Manager, Palisades, USNRC
ENCLOSURE INSPECTION REPORT 05000255/2008002 Restatement of Violation Inspection Report 0500025512008002, issued May 15, 2008, includes the following non-cited violation (NCV):
The inspectors identified a NCV of Technical Specification (TS) 5.4.1 for the failure to have adequate procedure guidance for the general operating procedures for mode transition to power operations. Specifically the general plant operating procedure for mode transition did not have adequate guidance to ensure the actions required by TS 3.0.4 were completed for failure of a radiation monitor required by TS prior to mode transition. Prior to the mode transition, the licensee completed the required action based on the inspectors' concerns and wrote a [condition report] CR.
The inspectors determined the failure to have adequate procedures for mode transition in accordance with TS is more than minor because, if left uncorrected, this and other mode transitions could have occurred with less than the required equipment operable or appropriate actions completed, which could become a more significant safety concern. The inspectors determined the finding is of very low safety significance (Green), because the actual mode transition occurred only after completion of the required actions based on the response to the inspectors' concerns. The finding includes a cross-cutting aspect in the area of human performance in that licensee did not adequately use conservative assumptions in decision-making to demonstrate the proposed action was safe.
Entergv Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO) Response EN0 does not deny this violation. ENO's actions were inconsistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) position documented in the NRC's Task Interface Agreement (TIA) evaluation of implementation for LC0 3.0.4.a at PNP (TlA2008-02),
dated May 9, 2008. EN0 believed the decision described in the non-cited violation was appropriate based on language in the Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP) TS and relevant site and industry documents. ENO's rationale is provided below. Because language in the TS and supporting documents can lead licensees to a different conclusion than the one documented in TlA2008-02, EN0 requests that the NRC consider this input and engage the industry in discussions on TS 3.0.4.
EN0 believes there were adequate controls in place. In the TIA evaluation, the NRC stated that actions required by TS 3.0.4 must be completed prior to mode transitions.
EN0 believes that the language in the TS and other related documents shows that Page 1 of 8
compliance is, instead, achieved when required actions are completed within the completion times. Details are provided below.
Circumstances of the PNP NCV:
On January 14, 2008, at 1303, just prior to critical approach, EN0 declared containment isolation monitor RIA-1 805 inoperable and entered TS 3.3.3, "Engineered Safety Features Instrumentation," Condition A, for function 6.a, containment high radiation (listed in Table 3.3.3-1). Required Action A.l requires placing the affected bistable in trip within seven days. EN0 intended to enter Mode 2 and Mode 1 with RIA-1 805 inoperable shortly thereafter. EN0 believed this was permitted by TS because six days remained to perform the required action, and it was expected that the action would be completed within the completion time. The NRC resident inspector indicated that it was necessary to complete the required action before changing modes in order to meet TS 3.0.4.a. EN0 performed the required action before changing modes as a result of inspector's concern.
T S 3.3.3, Condition A, allows operation with an inoperable channel for function 6.a for an unlimited period of time. Required Action A.l requires placing the affected bistable in trip within seven days. The actions do not provide a specified time interval in which the LC0 must be met or a shutdown of the facility would be required. Therefore, the provision in TS 3.0.4.a may be applied to this equipment. To conform to the required action, EN0 was required to place the bistable in trip by January 21, 2008, at 1303.
Therefore, in accordance with LC0 3.0.2, it was not necessary to place the bistable in trip before the mode change on January 14, 2008.
Procedure Controls Per procedure EN-OM-1 19, "On-Site Safety Review Committee," a review was conducted prior to restart from the forced outage. The review included equipment status. The committee was aware that RIA-1 805 was inoperable and agreed that it should not warrant a mode hold. Application of generic TS usage rules is addressed in training and by reading the TS and associated bases. It is not reasonable to write in generic TS usage rules to all of the procedures where compliance decisions must be made. These controls were in place when the NRC inspector questioned ENO's actions.
Mode Change Restrictions The NRC's concern is related to the application of TS 3.0.4.a. In the TIA, the NRC stated that actions required to allow operations for an unlimited time must be completed prior to mode transitions. However, EN0 believes that compliance is achieved when required actions are completed within the completion times. The following information supports ENO's position that the plan to take the required action after the mode change and within the completion time was consistent with TS 3.0.4.a.
Page 2 of 8
Applicable Requirements:
Limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.0.1 states that LCOs shall be met during the modes or other specified conditions in the applicability.
LC0 3.0.2 states that, when an LC0 is not met, the required actions shall be met.
The description of TS 1.3, "completion times," states that the completion time of each required action is applicable from the time the condition is entered. This usage and application rule is further confirmed by similar wording in the bases for LC0 3.0.2. Specifically, it states that completion of the required actions within the specified completion times constitutes compliance with a specification.
LC0 3.0.4.a states that, when an LC0 is not met, a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of the LC0 can be entered if the actions to be entered permit continued operation in the applicability for an unlimited period of time. The bases state "LC0 3.0.4.a allows entry into a MODE or other specified condition in the Applicability with the LC0 not met 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." The bases are consistent with the LC0 and reiterate the phrase "to be entered."
Therefore, compliance with the TS includes performing required actions within the stated completion times when the associated TS is applicable.
Position:
These TS indicate that action requirements are met when the stated actions are performed within the completion times, which are applicable when the condition is entered.
LCOs only apply if a unit is in the condition stated in the "Applicability." It is not necessary to enter conditions and perform associated required actions for LCOs that do not apply. LC0 3.0.2 states, in part, "if the LC0 is... no longer applicable...
completion of the Required Actions is not required..." LC0 3.0.4.a is consistent with LC0 3.0.2, which states "Actions to be entered," instead of "enter the Actions."
Once the applicability condition is entered, the LC0 applies. If the LC0 is not met, the required action shall be entered upon entry into the TS applicability.
TS 1.3 and the bases for LC0 3.0.2 state that the completion time of each required action is applicable from the time the condition is entered. Also, since the required actions do not apply until the applicability condition is entered, the completion time clock begins when the applicability condition is entered.
Page 3 of 8
Supporting information:
Generic Letter 87-09, "Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) on the Applicability of Limiting Conditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirements," provided guidance for improvements to standard TS.
Prior to GL 87-09, standard TS 3.0.4 stated:
Entry into an OPERATIONAL MODE or other specified condition shall not be made unless the conditions of the Limiting Condition for Operation are met without reliance on provisions contained in the ACTION requirements...
Exceptions to these requirements are stated in individual specifications.
Licensees typically had notes for certain LCOs that stated, "The provisions of Specification 3.0.4 are not applicable." For example, in GL 87-09, the NRC noted that approximately two-thirds of the actions that permit continued operation in Westinghouse standard TS were exempt from TS 3.0.4.
The bases stated that standard TS 3.0.4:
...p rovides that entry into an OPERATIONAL MODE or other specified applicability condition must be made with (a) the full complement of required systems, equipment or components OPERABLE and (b) all other parameters as specified in the Limiting Conditions for Operation being met without regard for allowable deviations and out of service provisions contained in the ACTION statements.
GL 87-09 described unnecessary restrictions on mode changes and inconsistent application of the restrictions in standard TS 3.0.4. The proposed solution resolved one problem of delayed startup under conditions in which conformance to the action requirements establish an acceptable level of safety for unlimited continued operation of the facility. In Enclosure 1 to GL 87-09, the NRC clarified the requirement in (the previous version of) TS 3.0.4. The NRC stated that TS 3.0.4 precludes a plant startup when actions are being taken to satisfy an LCO, which - if not completed within the time limits of the action requirements - would result in a plant shutdown to comply with the action requirements. This supports the position that the proposed changes in GL 87-09 would allow mode changes when actions were being taken to satisfy an LCO, as long as the actions were completed within the time limits of those actions (completion times).
The earlier bases acknowledge that there are provisions for allowable deviations and out of service provisions contained in action statements. The language of GL 87-09 suggests that this was the unnecessary restriction in TS 3.0.4, based on the proposed revision that would permit mode changes based on "actions to be entered." The NRC noted that entry into an operational mode or other specified condition of operation should be permitted in accordance with the action Page 4 of 8
requirements. The NRC stated that the practical solution to having multiple 3.0.4 exceptions in individual TS was to provide a global exception in TS 3.0.4. Those exceptions allowed mode changes while relying on allowable deviations and out of service provisions contained in the action statements. Modifying allowed outage times (now completion times) in these situations was not addressed, so the stated times continued to apply.
In GL 87-09, the NRC noted that the revision was not intended to result in more restrictive requirements for individual specifications. An interpretation that all required actions must be taken prior to the mode change would be an example of a more restrictive requirement. The presentation of previous "3.0.4 not applicable" statements in TS made it clear that there was no tie between those actions and mode changes. Performance of an action prior to entry into, or changing modes within the applicability, had never been required or implied. Also, as stated above, many TS actions required restoration of the LCO, yet a noted exception to TS 3.0.4 was also provided. The intent and purpose of these noted exceptions to TS 3.0.4 was to allow a plant startup with equipment inoperable or parameters outside limits (i.e., LC0 not met). Since TS LC0 3.0.4.a provides this allowance globally, the noted exceptions are no longer provided for actions that allow operation in the applicability for an unlimited period of time. The interpretation that actions must be complete prior to mode changes makes the GL 87-09 change for these requirements more restrictive for many of the requirements that had 'ITS 3.0.4 not applicable" notes, which was not the intent.
Licensees were encouraged to change their TS to be consistent with guidance in GL 87-09. The NRC approved license amendment 130 on March 23, 1990, which made changes to the PNP TS consistent with standard TS and GL 87-09. TS 3.0.4 was revised to allow entry into an operating condition in accordance with action requirements when conformance to them permits continued operation of the facility for an unlimited period of time. The bases that were included with the request state "Compliance with action requirements that permit continued operation of the facility for an unlimited period of time provides an acceptable level of safety for continued operation without regard to the status of the plant before or after a change in plant condition. Therefore, in this case, entry into a reactor operating condition or other specified condition may be made in accordance with the provisions of the action requirements." The NRC's safety evaluation states that, for an LC0 that has action requirements permitting continued operation for an unlimited period of time, entry into than operational condition or other specified condition of operation should be permitted in accordance with those action requirements. The NRC also noted that the restriction on change in operational condition should apply only where the action requirements establish a specified time interval in which the LC0 must be met. Consumers Power Company's submittal, dated April 3, 1989, noted that the proposed change would modify the unduly restrictive statement to allow the continued operation of the plant when conformance to the LC0 action requirements provides an acceptable level of safety for continued operation.
Page 5 of 8
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-359 addresses mode changes with inoperable equipment by adding LC0 3.0.4.b. The TSTF model safety evaluation, which was published in Federal Register Notice 67FR 50475 on August 2, 2002, and implementation document provide some discussion on LC0 3.0.4.a. Typical language includes "while relying on the associated actions."
The documents note that LC0 3.0.4.a does not require a risk assessment because the required actions that allow indefinite operation already satisfy the safety function. In the discussion of risk, the documents note that, if relying on actions is acceptable to remain in Mode 1 for the duration of the completion times with inoperable systems and components, it should be acceptable to transition to Mode 1. The bases for LC0 3.0.4 note that, upon entry into a mode with the LC0 not met, LC0 3.0.1 and LC0 3.0.2 require entry into the applicable conditions and required actions. NEI 03-1 0, "Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 3, Increased Flexibility in Mode Restraints, TSTF-359, Industry Implementation Guidance," notes that LC0 3.0.4.a retains the current LC0 3.0.4 allowance, which provides that there is no restriction on changing mode when, upon entry into the mode, the required actions allow indefinite operation.
In the NRC's safety evaluation for Amendment 21 9 to the PNP license, which made changes to LC0 3.0.4.b consistent with TSTF-359, the NRC provided a brief summary of LC0 3.0.4 as part of the technical evaluation. The NRC noted that previous LC0 3.0.4 exemptions 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 changes provided standardization and consistency to the use and application of LC0 3.0.4. The statement "and associated completion times" reiterates that mode changes are permissible when actions are taken in accordance with LC0 3.0.2.
Risk consideration:
Risk associated with operation with inoperable equipment is addressed by the maintenance rule.
Review of NRC position:
EN0 conducted a review of information to support the NRC's position that all required actions must be complete before making a mode change. None of the following documents states that all required actions must be complete before making a mode change. Additionally, none of the documents addressed a modification to LC0 3.0.2 to require more stringent completion times when applying LC0 3.0.4.
Palisades TS and Bases NUREG-1 432, "Standard TS Combustion Engineering Plants" NUREG-0212, "Standard TS for Combustion Engineering Pressurized Water Reactors" Page 6 of 8
NRC GL 87-09 NRC safety evaluation (SE) for Palisades amendment 130 (implements GL 87-09 change)
TSTF-359 Model SE for TSTF-359 NEI 03-10 SE for Palisades amendment 21 9 (implements TSTF-359)
TSTFs that apply to LC0 3.0.4 The review of documents supports the position that ENO's actions were consistent with the current licensing basis for PNP.
EN0 reviewed the NRC's TIA evaluation of implementation for LC0 3.0.4.a at PNP (TIA2008-02). EN0 disagrees with the NRC's position that LC0 3.0.4.a prohibits a mode change when required actions that allow operations for an unlimited time have not been completed. TS LC0 3.0.4.a does not require or imply in the stated rule or bases that required actions must be performed prior to entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability. Rather, it states that entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability shall only be made 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.
TS LC0 3.0.4.a does not govern the performance of TS actions. They are governed by LC0 3.0.2, and proper application of completion time is governed by TS Section 1.3, "Completion Times." Per TS Section 1.3 and LC0 3.0.2 bases, these completion times do not begin until the plant condition is entered, provided the unit is in a mode or specified condition stated in the applicability of the LCO.
Key information from the TS and TS Bases regarding applicability and timing of required actions was omitted in the letter documenting the TIA evaluation. The omitted information supports ENO's position that PNP was in compliance with the required action of TS 3.3.3 because the required action would have been completed within the 7-day completion time.
Summary PNP and industry documents consistently state mode changes are allowed with inoperable equipment when there is an unlimited time to restore it to operable.
Typical phrases used to address associated actions include:
"while relying on the associated actions" "in accordance with provisions in action requirements" "conformance to action requirements" "while relying on the TS required actions and associated completion times" "compliance with action requirements" LC0 3.0.2 establishes that completion of required actions within the specified completion times constitutes compliance with a specification. Therefore, as long as Page 7 of 8
the stated actions are performed within the stated completion time, mode changes would be allowed. LC0 3.0.4.a also uses the language "actions to be entered,"
which recognizes that some actions may be completed after the provision is invoked. For the January 2008 concern, EN0 believed the plan to complete the action after the mode change was in conformance with the LC0 action requirements.
Based on the information above, EN0 requests that the NRC consider this input and engage the industry in discussions on TS 3.0.4.
Page 8 of 8