ML091830616
| ML091830616 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/2009 |
| From: | John Ellegood Division Reactor Projects III |
| To: | |
| Stacy Rosenberg | |
| References | |
| Download: ML091830616 (14) | |
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 Implementation of LCO 3.0.4a 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 09/29/2009 /RA/ Thomas Blount 09/29/2009 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
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
Bowman, Eric From: Ellegood, John Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:17 AM To: Bowman, Eric
Subject:
RE: Non-concurrence on re-evaluation of a TIA As far as the letter content, no. During previous discussions (and earlier versions of the letter) some arguments were raised that I did not agree with.
Original Message-----
From: Bowman, Eric Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:14 AM To: Ellegood, John
Subject:
RE: Non-concurrence on re-evaluation of a TIA
- John, Jjust want to check and see if you've got other concerns we will need to address because you closed the non-concurrence by stating that it was only in part due to what you've laid out on the form. I'm working at home today, so won't be at my office number; I'll be back in the office tomorrow.
Thanks for your help with this.
Eric
Original Message-----
From: Ellegood, John Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:05 AM To: Rosenberg, Stacey Cc: Schulten, Carl; Bowman, Eric; Giessner, John; Taylor, Thomas; Betancourt, Diana
Subject:
Non-concurrence on re-evaluation of a TIA Attached is my non-concurrence on the reevaluation of the TIA on LCO 3.0.4a.
1
Bowman, Eric From: Bowman, Eric Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:47 PM To: Ellegood, John; Giessner, John Cc: Schulten, Carl
Subject:
RE: TIA 2008-002 It actually does serve the purpose of explaining the 7 day completion time. Also, because it's in the bases rather than the TS, it can't modify the meaning of things in the TS, but merely explain them This is particularly so for those that are in different sections as is the case here with the mode ascension allowance being in LCO 3.0.4 while this discussion is providing the bases for LCO 3.3.3's requirements for ESF channels/bistables.
From: Ellegood, John Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:41 PM To: Bowman, Eric; Giessner, John Cc: Schulten, Carl
Subject:
RE: TIA 2008-002 There would be no need for the 3.3.3 basis statement if 304a allows mode transition w/o completing the required actions.
From: Bowman, Eric Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:37 PM To: Ellegood, John; Giessner, John Cc: Schulten, Carl
Subject:
RE: TIA 2008-002 That interpretation would only apply if you accept the interpretation of LCO 3.0.4a that required actions must be complete. If you interpret LCO 3.0.4a as allowing mode transitions while in the allowed completion time for an action requirement there is no need to find an implied exception, which would leave us with a more logically established and harmonious framework for this. It might be worth pursuing the suggestion that action requirements should be entered prior to mode ascensions, but that's outside the scope of the TIA in my view.
From: Ellegood, John Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:32 PM To: Bowman, Eric; Giessner, John Cc: Schulten, Carl
Subject:
RE: TIA 2008-002 I'll point out that 3.3.3 that says startup is allowed to continue implies that you are already in Mode 2. Therefore you could go to Mode 1 w/o completing the required actions. Since is does not discuss a M-3 to M-2 transition, it implies that M2 to M1 is an exception- and if in M-3, the required action must be completed.
From: Bowman, Eric Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:24 PM To: Giessner, John; Ellegood, John Cc: Schulten, Carl
Subject:
RE: TIA 2008-002 The logic I would use in analyzing the licensing basis here is that the LCO 3.0.4a allows entry into a MODE when the ACTIONS to be entered permit continued operation in the MODE for an unlimited time, and ACTIONS are defined as that part of a TS that prescribes Required Actions to be taken under designated 1
Conditions within specified Completion Times. These provisions are both part of the TS and at face value would not seem to require completion of the Required Actions prior to entry into a MODE.
The bases for LCO 3.0.4a sheds some light on the proper interpretation of the LCO, but is not actually part of the TS. The bases is a bit ambiguous in that it cites the Required Actions as providing an acceptable level of safety, but does not address the other half of the question. The second half of the question would be whether the limitation on time allowed for operating subject to ACTIONS (or having Required Actions that have not been entered yet, but are within their specified Completion Times) also provides an acceptable level of safety.
This is addressed in the bases for LCO 3.3.3 Action A.1 in the statement that "[t]he 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." The LCO 3.3.3 bases also uses the phrase "startup is allowed to continue," which is a lot more keyed to the allowance for mode ascension. That phrase is used in a number of LCO bases for non-shutdown LCOs in the NUREG-1432 STS.
While I agree that taking the action prior to mode ascension is the better because it provides a greater degree of protection, my primary focus has to be on the regulatory effect of the licensing bases. I haven't been able to find the pre-Amendment 130 version of LCO 3.0.4 and its bases, but am not sure that the existence or lack of exceptions to that version of LCO 3.0.4 would matter. The wording of Amendment 130 and its associated safety evaluation lead me to believe that we took actions that would allow mode ascension relying on the 7 day completion time for placing an ESF bistable in trip per LCO 3.3.3 Action A.1 because having an inoperable ESF instrument channel or bistable does not trigger an action requirement that would require restoring the inoperable instrument channel or bistable (meeting the LCO) or shutting down. It merely requires that the ESF bistable be placed in trip before the 7 day completion time expires.
I think the bottom line is that if we were to interpret the LCO 3.0.4a bases as requiring completion of Action Requirements prior to mode ascension, we would have a conflict with the LCO 3.3.3 Action A.1 bases. The LCO 3.0.4a bases does not literally require that interpretation, but is silent on the aspect of completion times for provision of an acceptable level of safety, and can be interpreted in a manner that is in harmony with the LCO 3.3.3 Action A.1 bases.
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, 2
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 3