ML091830609
| ML091830609 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/2009 |
| From: | Jack Giessner Division Reactor Projects III |
| To: | |
| Stacy Rosenberg | |
| References | |
| Download: ML091830609 (17) | |
Text
NRC FORM 757 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC MD 10.158 (3-2009)
NON-CONCURRENCE PROCESS TITLE OF DOCUMENT ADAMS ACCESSION NO.
TIA-Reevaluation of LCO 3.0.4a, "Mode Change Limitations," Palisades Plant (TIA2009-005) ML091340595 SECTION C - TO BE COMPLETED BY DOCUMENT SPONSOR NAME Stacey Rosenberg TITLE PHONE NO.
Chief 301-415-2357 ORGANIZATION NRR/DPR/PSPB ACTIONS TAKEN TO ADDRESS NON-CONCURRENCE (This section should be revised, as necessary, to reflect the final outcome of the non-concurrence process, including a complete discussion of how individual concerns were addressed.)
The TIA Program Manager and members of the Technical Specifications Branch have met in person and by phone with the non-concurring individual in order to come to a common understanding of the concerns expressed and potential means to address them. See attached documentation of the e-mail correspondence and summarization of concerns that formed the bases for discussion. The TIA has been revised to take the concerns into account to the extent possible.
CONTINUED IN SECTION D SIGNATURE - DOCUMENT SPONSOR DATE SIGNATURE - DOCUMENT SIGNER DATE
/RA/ Stacey Rosenberg 09/21/2009 /RA/ Thomas Blount 09/22/2009 NON-CONCURRING INDIVIDUAL (To be completed by document sponsor when process is complete, i.e., after document is signed):
CONCURS WANTS NCP FORM PUBLIC NON-CONCURS WANTS NCP FORM NON-PUBLIC WITHDRAWS NON-CONCURRENCE (i.e., discontinues process)
NRC FORM 757 (3-2009) Use ADAMS Template NRC-006 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Bowman, Eric From: Eric Bowman Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:26 AM To: John Giessner Cc: Mahesh Chawla; Charles Petrone; Stacey Rosenberg
Subject:
ACTION: Draft non-concurrence for TIA 2008-002 rev.
Attachments: Nonconcurrence for Revised TIA 2008-02 CSS commentsl.doc
- Jack, Carl Schulten and I have taken a look at your draft nonconcurrence and would like to see if you're available to discuss this further. Carl provided some comments as markups to your draft; I've traced the history of this LCO for Palisades in my e-mail to Carl below as well in order to supplement his comments. We appreciate your reasoning in the draft, but are a bit constrained by the current licensing basis as to what can be done in a TIA. I just want to be sure we are using the right process for addressing your concerns, particularly as they seem to be on a more generic level as opposed to the plant specifics we can address here. If we do go the nonconcurrence process way, the process is documented at http://www.internal.nrc.gov/OE/nonconcur/DraftNon-ConcurrencePolicy.pdf and would just require cutting and pasting from your draft to NRC Form 757 on InForms.
I'm available for a call through 2:00 our time this afternoon and anytime the rest of the week except 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. tomorrow.
Thanks!
Eric Eric E. Bowman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Policy and Rulemaking Special Projects Branch 301-415-2963 Eric.Bowman@nrc.gov From: Carl Schulten Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:54 AM To: Eric Bowman
Subject:
RE: Draft non-concurrence for TIA 2008-002 rev.
Eric, your analysis is rock solid. Perhaps we (you, I and Holly) could talk with Jack later today and you could give him advice on issuing the nonconcurrence after he reads your assessment. Jack may also benefit from my markup comments to show some misunderstandings he has about the content of the GL and that 50.36 doesn't address steady state or transition conditions, just operations. Let me know how you want to proceed.
From: Eric Bowman Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:04 AM To: Carl Schulten
Subject:
FW: Draft non-concurrence for TIA 2008-002 rev.
1
- Carl, Mac Chawla forwarded me Jack Giessner's draft non-concurrence for the TIA revision. I took a closer look at Palisades TS history anticipating we would need to address this. Could you look it over and provide me with any feedback.
My read on the regulatory position for Palisades TS is that their LCO 3.0.4 prior to Amendment 189, which implemented NUREG-1432, Revision 1, read as follows:
3.0.4 Entry into a reactor operating condition or other specified condition shall not be made when the conditions for the Limiting Conditions for Operation are not met and the associated action requires a shutdown if they are not met within a specified time interval. Entry into a reactor operating condition or other specified condition 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 reactor operating conditions as required to comply with action requirements. Exceptions to these requirements are stated in the individual specifications.
This is taken from Amendment 130, ADAMS Accession # ML020810199; I couldn't find any other changes to that part of the TS prior to Amendment 189. The basis for this was in a correction letter at ML020810440 and read:
Specification 3.0.4 establishes limitations on reactor operating condition changes when a Limiting Condition for Operation is not met. It precludes placing the facility in a higher operational condition when the requirements for a Limiting Condition for Operation are not met, and continued noncompliance to these conditions would result in a shutdown to comply with the action requirements if a change in plant conditions were permitted. The purpose of this specification is to ensure that facility operation is not initiated or that higher reactor operating conditions are not entered when corrective action is being taken to obtain compliance with a specification by restoring equipment to operable status or parameters to specified limits.
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 provisions of this specification should not, however, be interpreted as endorsing the failure to exercise good practice in restoring systems or components to operable status before plant startup. When a shutdown is required to comply with action requirements, the provisions of Specification 3.0.4 do not apply because they would delay placing the facility in a lower plant condition of operation.
This amendment was the one that implemented GL 87-09. The first sentence of the LCO strikes me as clearly allowing a mode change unless a shutdown would be required unless the LCO was met, consistent with the regulatory position of GL 87-09. There doesn't seem to be a requirement for entry of the actions prior to a mode change, but merely compliance with the action requirements; i.e. entry of the actions within their specified times. The safety evaluation, also at ML020810199, for this amendment amplifies this understanding by stating that:
2.0 EVALUATION Specification 3.0.4 GL 87-09 recognizes, in part, that Specification 3.0.4 unduly restricts facility operation when conformance to the action requirements provides an acceptable level of safety for continued operation in any operational condition. For an LCO that has action requirements permitting continued operation for an unlimited period of time, entry into an operational condition or other specified condition of operation should be permitted in accordance with those action requirements. The restriction on change in operational condition or other specified conditions should apply only where the action requirements establish a specified time interval in which the LCO must be met or a shutdown of the facility would be required or where entry into that operational condition would result in entry into an action statement with such time constraints.
However, nothing in the staff position stated in GL 87-09 should be interpreted as endorsing or encouraging plant startup with inoperable equipment. The GL 87-09 itself states that startup with inoperable equipment should be the exception rather than the rule.
This understanding does not rely on the portion of GL 87-09 that stated one of its desired aims was to avoid making TSs more restrictive than they had been prior to implementation of GL 87-09.
2
Amendment 189, ML993490085, changed LCO 3.0.4 to read:
LCO 3.0.4 When an LCO is not met, entry into a MODE or other specified condition in the Applicability shall not be made except 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. This Specification shall not prevent changes in MODES or other specified conditions in the Applicability that are required to comply with ACTIONS. Exceptions to this Specification are stated in the individual Specifications.
With a basis stating that:
LCO 3.0.4 establishes limitations on changes in MODES or other specified conditions in the Applicability when an LCO is not met. It precludes placing the plant in a MODE or other specified condition stated in that Applicability (e.g., Applicability desired to be entered) when the following exist:
- a. Plant conditions are such that the requirements of the LCO would not be met in the Applicability desired to be entered; and
- b. Continued noncompliance with the LCO requirements, if the Applicability were entered, would result in the plant being required to exit the Applicability desired to be entered to comply with the Required Actions.
Compliance with Required Actions that permit continued operation of the plant for an unlimited period of time in a MODE or other specified condition provides an acceptable level of safety for continued operation. This is without regard to the status of the plant before or after the MODE change. Therefore, in such cases, entry into a MODE or other specified condition in the Applicability may be made in accordance with the provisions of the Required Actions. The provisions of this Specification should not be interpreted as endorsing the failure to exercise the good practice of restoring systems or components to OPERABLE status before entering an associated MODE or other specified condition in the Applicability.
The provisions of LCO 3.0.4 shall not prevent changes in MODES or other specified conditions.
Exceptions to LCO 3.0.4 are stated in the individual Specifications. The exceptions allow entry into MODES or other specified conditions in the Applicability when the associated ACTIONS to be entered do not provide for continued operation for an unlimited period of time. Exceptions may apply to all the ACTIONS or to a specific Required Action of a Specification.
Surveillances do not have to be performed on the associated inoperable equipment (or on variables outside the specified limits), as permitted by SR 3.0.1. Therefore, changing MODES or other specified conditions while in an ACTIONS Condition, in compliance with LCO 3.0.4 or where an exception to LCO 3.0.4 is stated, is not a violation of SR 3.0.1 or SR 3.0.4 for those Surveillances that do not have to be performed due to the associated inoperable equipment. However, SRs must be met to ensure OPERABILITY prior to declaring the associated equipment OPERABLE (or variable within limits) and restoring compliance with the affected LCO.
I believe the first paragraph of the basis makes it clear that the change in the wording of the LCO did not change the requirements. The safety evaluation for Amendment 189, ML993510369, classifies the change in the wording as an administrative change with the statement in Table A that "[t]he phrase 'and the associated action requires a shutdown if they are not met within a specified time interval' is deleted from CTS (CO) 3.0.4. This phrase is not necessary because another part of LCO 3.0.4 clarifies that entry can be made into a reactor operating condition (Mode in ITS) if actions permit continued operation for an unlimited period of time."
The current version of this LCO, now 3.0.4a, in the Palisades TS is as described in the TIA, "When an LCO Is not met, entry Into a MODE or other specified condition in the Applicability shall only be made [w]hen 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."
This version was issued as Amendment 219, ML043220612. The safety evaluation for this amendment indicated that "the proposed LCO 3.0.4a retains the current allowance, permitting the mode change when the required actions allow indefinite operation."
None of the changes since the GL 87-09 implementation purported to make the LCO more restrictive or included a backfit analysis to support such a change, so if it should be more restrictive than it was, it would need to be accomplished through a backfit.
3
Eric From: Mahesh Chawla Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 2:15 PM To: Eric Bowman
Subject:
FW: Draft non-concurrence for TIA 2008-002 rev.
From: John Giessner Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 7:32 PM To: Robert Elliott; Carl Schulten; Mahesh Chawla Cc: John Ellegood; Cynthia Pederson; Gary Shear; Robert Lerch; Diana Betancourt
Subject:
Draft non-concurrence for TIA 2008-002 rev.
I will finalize when the TIA comes for concurrence. Please pass to the TIA branch.
Thanks Jack 4
Bowman, Eric From: Giessner, John Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:20 AM To: Bowman, Eric; Ellegood, John Cc: Schulten, Carl
Subject:
RE: TIA 2008-002 I did see this, but the key is not the LCO action time - the key is the mode ascension. Agree it is low probability, but so are other LCOs (which are S/D LCOs). The item in question is TS 3.0.4. If TS 3.0.4 was not applicable, the old TS would have said so. In the new TS my focus is on the action that gives you the assurance.
jack From: Bowman, Eric Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:50 PM To: Giessner, John; Ellegood, John Cc: Schulten, Carl
Subject:
TIA 2008-002 Importance: High John/Jack, I did a little further review of the Palisades TS in preparation for our phonecon on Tuesday and found the quote below in the bases for LCO 3.3.3 from Amendment 189, which I believe is the current revision to that LCO.
I've also attached the extracted pages from that amendment, which is available in ADAMS at ML993510369; the bases is at page 655 of the file. If we revise the TIA to cite these bases, would it satisfy your concerns with the document? I realize it still leaves the question open regarding enforcement of prudence and best practices, but can't really address that in the TIA.
If one ESF channel is inoperable, startup or power operation is allowed to continue, providing the inoperable channel actuation bistable is placed in trip within 7 days. The provision of four trip channels allows one channel to be inoperable in a non-trip condition up to the 7 day Completion Time allotted to place the channel in trip. Operating with one failed channel in a non-trip condition during operations, places the ESF Actuation Logic in a two-out-of-three coincidence logic.
If the failed channel cannot be restored to OPERABLE status in 7 days, the associated bistable is placed in a tripped condition. This places the function in a one-out-of-three configuration.
In this configuration, common cause failure of the dependent channel cannot prevent ESF actuation. The 7 day Completion Time is based upon operating experience, which has demonstrated that a random failure of a second channel occurring during the 7 day period is a low probability event.
Thanks!
Eric 1
TIA 2009-005 as currently J. Giessner Non-concurrence J. Ellegood Non-concurrence Proposed way ahead to address concerns written concerns concerns Quotes GL 87-09 GL 87-09 never explicitly says that The GL does not clearly Revise the TIA to address the lack of clarity statement that The the action did or did not have to be establish that Mode transition here. The fundamental difference between the restriction on a change in done before the mode change may occur prior to completion way this regulatory position was expressed in operational modes or occurs; it states conformance to the of required actions and the GL 87-09 and how it is now expressed is that in other conditions should Action Requirements establishes an letter provides no argument to the GL, and the Palisades amendment to apply only where the acceptable level of safety for establish an interpretation of implement it, the limitation on mode changes Action Requirements unlimited continued operation of the the GL 87-09 verbiage. The was expressed in a negative sense, i.e. the establish a specified time facility. GL does state "Conformance restriction applies only where, while in the interval in which the LCO with the action requirements current version the limitation is phrased in a must be met or a establishes an acceptable positive sense, i.e. shall only be made when.
shutdown of the facility level of safety for unlimited An Action Requirement that is within the limits of would be required. continues operation of the its associated Completion Time is not an Action facility." This statement Requirement with an established time interval in implies that GL intended to which the LCO must be met or shutdown of the require completion of the facility would be required, and therefore the action requirement, since, if regulatory position of GL 87-09 would allow for not completed, an acceptable conduct of a mode change under those level of safety would not be circumstances.
established.
TIA 2009-005 as currently J. Giessner Non-concurrence J. Ellegood Non-concurrence Proposed way ahead to address concerns written concerns concerns Uses the regulatory 1. The central reason the TIA was A generic letter supersedes an Revise TIA to include Palisades amendment position of GL 87-09 and reversed was review of GL 87-09 by approved license document. 130, which implemented GL 87-09, amendment the changes in the the staff at NRR. The staff asserted (That is, we have given greater 189 and its SER, and amendment 219 and its STS/ITS conversion as an that the TIA was not aligned with the weight to the regulatory SER to show the traceability of the GL 87-09 aid to interpretation of the GL and that key language from GL position of GL 87-09 than to regulatory position in the licensing documents current TS and bases. 87-09 was improperly translated the current licensing basis for for Palisades.
during development of ISTS Palisades.)
[Improved Standard Technical Specifications]. The key section is that the GL solution to unnecessary restrictions on mode changes by Specification 3.0.4 also resolved the problem of inconsistent application of exceptions to Specification 3.0.4 which delayed startup under conditions in which conformance to the Action Requirements establishes an acceptable level of safety for unlimited continued operation of the facility. Application of LCO 3.0.4a
[improved or old format] STS was not intended to result in more restrictive requirements for individual specifications. TS 3.0.4a provided the allowance in one section of TS versus specific sections of TS allowing exceptions to TS 3.0.4.
- 2. Licensing basis is TS, its bases and interpretation, not GL 87-09. GL 87-09 can only be used to assist in determining the TS interpretation.
TIA 2009-005 as currently J. Giessner Non-concurrence J. Ellegood Non-concurrence Proposed way ahead to address concerns written concerns concerns To conform to the 1. The question the TIA tries to 1. The letter states "key Revise TIA to directly quote the wording of LCO guidance in GL 87-09, the answer is this: does TS 3.0.4 a language in GL 97-09 was 3.0.4a, When the associated ACTIONS to be improved STS bases require the associated ACTION, that improperly translated." Implicit entered permit continued operation in the MODE language should be permits continued operation for in this argument is the ISTS or other specified condition in the Applicability interpreted to state that Palisades plant (in TS 3.3.3 Action language does require for an unlimited period of time; coupled with the compliance with A.1) for an unlimited period of time, completion of the required definition of ACTIONS in Section 1.1 as that LCO 3.0.4a relies on both to be done before the mode action prior to a mode change. part of a Specification that prescribes Required the Required Actions and transition occurs. The original TIAs Since GL cannot over ride a Actions to be taken under designated Conditions associated Completion conclusion was the associated license requirement, it follows within specified Completion Times.
Times as they would apply ACTION (often called remedial that the current license does to the discovery of action), does need to be completed require completion of the The definition provided in the use and inoperable equipment before mode transition. The revised required action prior to a mode application section makes it clear that the while operating in the TIA reverses the position and change. translation from a two-column to three-column applicable mode or other determines that the action does NOT 2. The letter also argues that format did not actually change the coupling of specified condition of an need to be done prior to the mode since 3.0.4 uses future tense, Required Actions and their Completion Times LCO. ascension. no action need be taken prior that is implied by the improper translation of the
- 2. [M]y strongest argument is this: if to mode transition. However, bases. It also would serve to focus on the no action is taken before the mode the action is entered only words of the LCO (ACTIONS) and their transition, then the plant has not when the LCO becomes meanings rather than the vernacular use of the been afforded any additional safety applicable. Therefore, future term remedial action.
DURING the mode transition. Since tense would be used TS 3.0.4 was designed for the regardless of the intent of TS This still relies on the understanding of the transition, the plant is in no different 3.0.4 since its use would be phrases to be entered and to be taken, which configuration until the action is invoked prior to the planned are in the future perfect tense, but the limitation taken. After the mode transition, mode change. In addition, the on the time due to the phrase within specified taking the action serves no purpose bases clearly states that Completion Times is consistent with that usage.
other than require the plant to "Compliance with the Required shutdown after a period of time if the Actions that permit continued action is not done (which would be operation of the plant for an required in a shutdown LCO unlimited period of time in a anyway). This course of action would MODE or other specified be NOT be aligned with the TS basis condition provides an item which says Compliance with acceptable level of safety for Required Actions that permit continued operation." It is continued operation of the plant for important to note that in ISTS an unlimited period of time in a the Required Action is what MODE or other specified condition must be done. The bases, provides an acceptable level of therefore, clearly establishes safety for continued operation [my that the acceptable level of emphasis]. safety is only achieved when the required action is complete.
TIA 2009-005 as currently J. Giessner Non-concurrence J. Ellegood Non-concurrence Proposed way ahead to address concerns written concerns concerns I realize there is some lack of clarity Best addressed outside of TIA if the current in TS in the use of the future tense licensing basis does not require the required for to be entered, but one thing is action to be complete prior to a mode change.
certain: some remedial action needs to be taken. Mode changes have additional risk that must be managed.
Clearly in some cases at some other Need to discuss. The statements in GL 87-09 plants, the application of TS 3.0.4 regarding the more or less restrictive effect after (post change to ISTS) would have its implementation were brought up during ended up being more restrictive. For earlier conversations and were included in example, I reviewed old TSs at earlier versions, but were removed from the TIA Salem and DC Cook and found TS as they are not necessary to the analysis of the 3.0.4 exemptions in the specific regulatory position. This concern may have instrumentation section of TS. The already been addressed through earlier exemptions from TS 3.0.4 essentially discussions.
said no action is required for the mode transition. But this is not true at Palisades. There were no TS 3.0.4 exemptions in safety instrumentation section of TS.
Therefore the use of TS 3.0.4 in this section would be less restrictive.
TIA 2009-005 as currently J. Giessner Non-concurrence J. Ellegood Non-concurrence Proposed way ahead to address concerns written concerns concerns
[T]he staff opinion and the As discussed in the non-concurrence, this is not information provided in the TS basis suitable to address in the TIA, but will need to and generic letters state that good be addressed elsewhere.
practice should dictate that the plant should be started up with all It is noted that enforcement space with the equipment operable and that good current ROP, differs remarkably from SALP judgment should be used. These program for enforcement which existed at the statements, although honestly time the GL 87-09 was issued. The SALP intended to provide a good process was very subjective and including framework, have no feasibility in guidance directing licensees to establish good enforcement space. Determining a practice and not startup with inoperable standard that was not complied with equipment would be much more significant then is not objective; therefore, no than it is now, because the best practice could performance deficiency would be be enforced by assigning a poor score to reactor found using the current oversight operations.
process. The licensee will follow the TSs, which they equate to sound judgment. So I take little consolation in thinking that Palisades should have adopted the good practice of either restoring systems or alternately established the basis for continued operation by placing the inoperable radiation monitoring channel in trip before mode transition [conclusion of the revised TIA]. The NRC would be hard pressed to enforce prudent operations.
Since mode transition could present As discussed in the non-concurrence, this is not a possible challenge, some action suitable to address in the TIA, but will need to should be taken to provide the plant be addressed elsewhere.
additional safety or at least evaluate the remedial action as not being needed. Without requiring the remedial action, it may be important to risk assess the specific condition prior to mode ascension. Simply, require plants to do TS 3.0.4 b (risk based) and delete TS 3.0.4a from the ISTS.
TIA 2009-005 as currently J. Giessner Non-concurrence J. Ellegood Non-concurrence Proposed way ahead to address concerns written concerns concerns Includes statement that TIA proposes a standard to Revise TIA to explain that, while this is not a the mode change determine if mode change can requirement of LCO 3.0.4a, the reasonable allowances of LCO 3.0.4a be made as being a expectation that required actions will be taken is premised on the reasonable expectation that within their completion times is necessary to reasonable expectation the required action can be comply with the LCO 3.0.2 limitation on that the required actions completed in its specified intentionally entering an ACTION for operational will be taken within their completion time convenience.
completion times.
TIA 2008-002 is The TIA should state that it is Revise the TIA to address the fact that this TIA superseded by this TIA. reversing a previously does not reverse a previously established staff established staff position. position, but instead restores the applicable regulatory position to its state prior to the errors in TIA 2008-002. The applicable regulatory position had been established in GL 87-09, as implemented for specific licensees. TIA 2008-002 fundamentally modified the applicable regulatory position to include a requirement for completion of required actions prior to mode changes when using LCO 3.0.4a of the ITS; this change was outside of the scope of actions that can be taken in a TIA as it did not allow for proper vetting of the change to the regulatory position through the CRGR and taking into account other stakeholders input. The purposes of this TIA are to correct the problem of having modified a regulatory position using the mechanism of a TIA by cancelling that TIA (2008-002) and to explain that the previously established regulatory position of GL 87-09 is still applicable.
For the above reasons, in Other concerns are implied by this that will need part, I do not concur on the to be detailed in order to address.
letter