ML20206Q392
| ML20206Q392 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/21/1998 |
| From: | Burrows F NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206Q280 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9905190118 | |
| Download: ML20206Q392 (2) | |
Text
]NA l
r , ' pi...
.s uog !
y 4 UNITED STATES j g } NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING 7oN, D.C. 2066H001 j
g j 1 l
% %***/ May 21, 1998 I
l
< l MEMORANDUM TO: L Joseph Callan i Executive Director for Operatiens, EDO FROM: Frederick H. Burrows, Electrical Engine ,
Electrical Engineering Branch '. ,
wMggy Division of Engineering, NRR
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CONCERNS RELATED TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SETPOINTS AND ALLOWABLE VALUES FOR INSTRUMENTATION UNDER FORMAL DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION (DPO) PROCEDURES In a memorandum dated March 17,1997, I expressed a Differing Professional View (DPV) conceming the use of allowable values to determine operability for safety-related instrumentation channels in lieu of chennel trip setpoints in technical specifications (TS).
Specifically, i expressed my view that the staff's practice of approving the removal of trip setpoints from technical specifications was deviating from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36, " Technical Specifications " In an October 31,1997, memorandum, Samuel J. Collins, Director, NRR. provided me with the NRR Ad-Hoc Review Panel findings ,
and recommendations for my concerns. A follow-up action memorandum was sent to l Brian W. Sheron, Acting Associate Director for Technical Review, NRR, and Roy P. Zimmerman, Associate Director for Projects, NRR, on October 31,1998, requesting their response to the Panel's recommendations within 45 days, in a February 19,1998, !
memorandum, Samuel Collins stated that the staff's follow up actions were currently being i determined because of the complexity and controversial nature of the issue. Also he stated j that the issue was determined to have a low safety significance. l l
NRC Management Directive 10.159, " Differing Professional Views and Opinions," states :
that the Director of NRR is to determino the disposition of the DPV and inform the DPV l submitter of the decision and its rational. The companion Handbook 10.159 states that this !
should normally take place within 7 days after receipt of the DPV panel's recommendations.
This has not been fulfilled in the caso of this DPV.
i While waiting to determine what follow-up actions are to be taken, the staff continues to j process plant specific conversions to the improved Standard Technical Specifications which include the removal of setpoints. This runs counter the DPV panel's findings and forces the ;
staff to approve technical specifications which I believe are not technically correct and do l not conform to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36 and associated guidance such as that j contained in Branch Technical Position PSB-1, " Adequacy of Station Electrical Distribution System Voltages."
)
l 9905190118 990513 )
% osNoW
- p s,, -
- 2 Since the staff action / inaction discussed above concernt, me and represents an unsatisfactory disposition of my OPV, I therefore new request that th;s issue be further reviewed under formal DPO procedures.
4 CONTACT: Frederick H. Burrows, EE(.8/DE/NRR 415-2901
T ,
~
, C / t t= ){
V p ara of f j UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20$55-000 t Tm
+s...../ July 24,1998 - Non Blaha MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan 4 ExecutNe Director for Operations FROM: tor ,
Office of Nuclear Roactor Regulation l
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW AND DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION REGARDING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SETPOINTS AND ALLOWABLE VALUES FOR INSTRUMENTATION In a memorandum dated March 17,1997, a differing professional view (DPV) was expressed regarding technical specifications (TS) trip setpoints (TSP) and Allowable Values (AV) for instrumentation. A panel reviewed the concerns addressed in the DPV and prepared a report I which was provided to appropriate NRC staff in order to propose actions to address the panel's recommendations and the schedule for completing those actions in a memorandum dated <
October 31,1997. NRR staff responsible for instrumentation and technical specifications, along l with senior NRR managers, reviewed the panel's recommendations and conducted further discussions with representatives from the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and the individual who expressed the differing professional view. By memorandum dated June 22, 1998 (attached), staff documented completion of this review and expressed disagreement with ,
the panel's conclus!ons and concems over implementation of the panel's recommendations. In the interim, a related differing professional opinion (DPO) was submitted based on concerns over the extended period of time without resolution of this issue. In a memorandum dated June 4,1998, you returned this DPO to me for processing along with the still open DPV. You reqJested that I give this matter high priority and provide to you the action items and schedule that NRR deems necessary to close this issue.
I have carefully reviewed the concems, along with the recommendations of the DPV panet and the conclusions of the subsequent staff review. The DPV panelis of the opinion that the regulations require that the technical specifications (TS) include the TSP to meet the 10 CFR 50.36 requirement that the TS contain the limiting safety system settings (LSSS). The staff review documents the basis of disagreement with this view, concludes that the regulations are not clear in this area, and that precedence on how the regulations have been implemented support the view that the AV satisfies the requirement that the TS include the LSSS. In addition, staff has expressed concems over the operability issues if the AV were to be removed from the TS and replaced by the TSP. They have also indicated that it would require significant resources on the parts of both the staff and industry to implement the panel's recommendations. Both the DPV panel and staff agree that there is not a safety issue, in that, with either approach, instrument settings would be adequately controlled. Finally, OGC has advised that, while use of the TSP would clearly satisfy the 10 CFR 50.36 requirement, it may
- be possible to justify the use of other values such as the AV if the staff is able to conclude from a technical standpoint that the definition of LSSS is satisfied.
6 % u Y 6()l30 App
)
',o- . .
l
, l L. Callan 2 July 24,1998 Given that there is not a safety issue; that the current system used in the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) and improved STS, which rely on either the AV alone or a combination of AV and TSP, is adequate to controlinstrumentation settings; and that significant staff and l
Industry resources would be required to implement the. recommended changes, the only 4 remaining rationale for implementing the panel's recommendation would be based on the view
' that they are necessary to satisfy legal requirements. However, based on OGC review, it is not clear that the regulations or the corresponding regulatory history totally support the DPV panel view. I believe that the case presented by staff review (June 22,1998 memo) that AV satisfy the requirement that the TS include the LSSS is equally valid. Therefore, given no compelling safety or regulatory improvement, I do not believe that it is an appropriate use of either NRC or industry resources to implement the DPV panel's recommendations.
I consider the review of this DPV by NRR to be concluded and intend to take no further actions based on this DPV. Because the subsequent DPO did not raise any additional technical issues, only a question of timeliness, I also intend no further actions to address the DPO.
Attachment:
As stated I i
i 1
-l J
- @ M!y p % UNITED STATES
.' s j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30566 4 001 4
% July 24, 1998 '
MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick H. Burrows, Electrical Eng'neer Electrical Engineering Branch DMslon of Engineering, NRR FROM: E o Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
D1FFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW AND DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION REGARDING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SETPOINTS AND ALLOWABLE VALUES FOR INSTRUMENTATION in a memorandum dated March 17,1997, you expressed a differing professional view (DPV) regarding technical specifications (TS) trip setoolnts (TSP) and Allowable Values (AV) for instrumentation. A panel reviewed the concems addressed in the DPV and prepared a report which was provided to appropriate NRC staff in order to propose actions to address the panel's recommendations and the schedule for completing those actions in a memorandum dated October 31,1997. NRR staff responsible for instrumentation and technical specifications, along with senior NRR managers, reviawed the panel's recommendations and conducted further discussions with you and representatives from the Office of the General Counsel (OGC). By memorandum dated June 22,1998 (attached), staff documented completion of this review and expressed disagreement with the panel's conclusions and concems over implementation of the panel's ,4ammendations. On May 21,1998, you submitted a related differing professional opinion (DPO) to the Executive D' rector for Operations (EDO) based on concems over the extended period of time without resolution of this issue. This DPO was retumed to me for processing along with the sti,1 open DPV.,
I have carefully reviewed your concems along with the recommendations of the DPV panel and the conclusions of the subsequent staff review. The DPV panelis of the opinion that the regulations require that the technical specifications (TS) include the TSP to meet the 10 CFR 50.36 requirement that the TS contain the limiting safety system settings (LSSS). The staff review documents the basis of disagreement with this view, concludes that the regulations are not clear in this area, and that precedence on how the regulations have been implemented support the view that the AV sousfies the requirement that the TS include the LSSS. In addition, staff has expressed concems over the operability issues if the AV were to be re;noved from the TS and replaced by the TSP. They have also indicated that it would require significant resources on the parts of both the staff and industry to implement the panel's .
recommendations. Both the DPV panel and staff agree that there is not a safety issue, in that, with either approach, instrument settings would be adequately controlled. Finally, OGC has advised that, while use of the TSP would clearly satisfy the 10 CFR 50.36 requiremeni, it may be possible to justify the use of other values such as the AV if the staff is able to concitxie from a technica! 4tandpoint that the definition of LSSS is satisfied.
4ju h u s(,3p
F. Burrows 2 July 24,1998 l
Given that there is not a safety issue; that the current system used in the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) and improved STS, which rely on either the AV alone or a combination of
- AV and TSP, is adequate to control instrument settings; and that significant staff and industry resources that would be required to implement the recommended changes, the only remaining rationale for implementing the panel's recommendation would be based on the view that they are necessary to satisfy legal requirements. However, based on OGC review, it is not clear that the regulations or the corresponding regulatory history totally support the DPV panel's
- ew. I l believe that the case presented by staff review (rsference to June 22,1998 memo), that AVs i satisfy the requirement that the TS include the LSSS is equally valid. Therefore, given no compelling safety or regulatory improvement, I do not believe that it is an appropriate use of either NRC or industry resources to implement the DPV panel's recommendations.
I consider the review of this DPV by NRR to be concluded and intend to take no further actions ;
based on this DPV. Because the subsequent DPO did not raise any additional technicalissues, l only a question of timeliness, I also intend no further actions to address the DPO. I would like l to thank you for submitting your concems and allowing the DPV process to carry this to conclusion. I realize that sometimes it is a difficult personal decision to submit a DPV and I j commend you for it. I also realize that it took much longer than expected to reach a decision, this was a difficult issue which required much discussion among the staff, the DPV review panel, and OGC I hope you recognize that not all DPVs will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. It is fully expected that in a regulatory business such as ours, reasonable people will occasionally disagree. The purpose of the DPV process is to provide a fair and open forum l for this disagreement to be alred and an informed decision to be made. Please do not hesitate l to contact me or Brian Sheron, if you have any questions.
Attachment:
As stated 4
'I F. Burrows 2 July 24, 1998 Given that there is not a safety issue; that the current system used in the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) and improved STS, which rely on either the AV alone or a combination of AV and TSP, is adequate to control instrument settings; and that significant staff and industry resources that would be required to implement the recommended changes, the only remaining rationale for implementing the panel's recommendation would be based on the. view that they are necessary to satisfy legal requirements. However, based on OGC review, it is not clear that the regulations or the correspond!ng regulatory history totally support the DPV panel view. I believe that the case presented by staff review (reference to June 22,1998 memo), that AVs satisfy the requirement that the TS Include the LSSS is equally valid. Therefore, given no compelling safety or regulatory improvement, I do not believe that it is an appropriate use of either NRC or industry resources to implement the DPV panel's recommendations.
~
I consider the review of this DPV by NRR to be concluded and intend to take no further actions based on this DPV. Because the subsequent DPO did not raise any additional technicalissues, only a question of timeliness, I also intend no further actions to address the DPO. I would like to thank you for submitting your concems and allowing the DPV process to carry this to conclusion. I realize that sometimes it is a difficult personal decision to submit a DPV and I commend you for it. I also realize that it took much longer then expected to reach a decision, this was a difficult issue which required much discussion among the staff, the DPV review panel, and OGC. I hope you recognize that not all DPVs will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. It is fully expected that in a regulatory business such as ours, reasonable people will occasionally disagree. The purpose of the DPV process is to provide a fair and open forum for this disagreement to be alred and an informed decision to be made. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Brian Sheron, if you have any questions.
Attachment:
As stated QlSTRIBUTION:
TSB R/F RPZimmerman BABoger BWSheron RLSpessard JSWermlel GCl.alnes JACalvo WDBeckner FMReinhart NEDO Document Name: G:\DPV\DPV7.20 *see previous concurrences OFFICE TsBADPR a
C:TsB/ADPR C:HICs/DRCH/ADT D:DRCH/ADT AD:ADPR D:ADT OGC f D:h '
NAME FMReinhatt WDBeckner* JsWormiet* RLspessard* BABo0er* BWsheron* LJChandler* \ [Jcohins . '
DATE 6/11/98 W11/98 6/12198 6/15/98 W 22198 6/19198 7/13/98 7/'1M/96 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- te p 1 UNITED STATES
/ :!
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30866 4001 June 22, 1998 a
MEMORANDUM TO: Samuel J. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Brian W. Sheron, Acting Associate Direc For Technical Review, NRR
/
Bruce A. Boger, Acting Associate Director For Projects, NRR /
SUBJECT:
FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS TO NRR AD HOC REVIEW PANEL ON DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW ON TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION TRIP SETPOINTS AND ALLOWABLE VALUES FOR INSTRUMENTATION in a memorandum dated Marc'. a ?,1997, a differing professional view (DPV) was expressed regarding Technical Specifications (TS) trip setpoints (TSPs) and Allowable Values (AVs) for instrumentation. A panei reviewed the concerns addressed in the DPV and provided a report which you forwarded to us in a memorandum dated October 31, 1997. In that memorandum, you requested that we provide the actions proposed to address the panel's recommendations and the schedule for completing those actions.
We have completed a review of the panel's recommended follow-up actions regarding the DPV. In addition, we have met with the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), and they have indicated that the wording of applicable regulations and rulemaking history support j the view that the TSPs corresponds to the limiting safety system settings (LSSS) which are 1 required to be in the technical specifications (TS) as recommended by the DPV panel. l However, we have also met with members of the NRR technical staff responsible for )
instrumentation ond for TS. Based on this integrated interface, we believe an alternate interpretation exists. Furthermore, the issue is of negligible safety significance {
l and implementation of the recommendations would require extensive staff and industry i resources. Moreover, we believe that current TS satisfy theTequirements of 10 CFR 50.36 for the reasons discussed below.
We believe that the DPV panel and OGC, in developing their opinion applied more emphasis to the word setting" in 10 CFR 50.36 than to the description of the LSSS as //m/t/na safety system sett/ngs. We further believe that the regulatory record is not clear and does not specifically identify either TSPs or AVs as the LSSS. The DPV Panel acknowledges that 10 CFR 50.36 could reasonably be read as allowing the use of either the TSPs or the AVs as the LSSS. Therefore, rather than trying to interpret an unclear regulatory record, we have focused on the precedent set by the staff in implementing this regulation. This history indicates that the staff intended .AVs to be acceptable for the LSS3 in TS.
Moreover, the current staff position as implemented in the improved Standard TS (iSTS) is ATTACHMENT
$v?2S&W N/Y
S. Collins 2 June 22, 1998 to represent the LSSS as AVs in a single column format with the exception of the Westinghouse ISTS which includes both AVs and TSPs in a dual column format. OGC agrees that the regulatory record is not totally, clear. The lack of clarity is further evidenced by the extensive discussions held by the DPV panel as well as discussions subsequent to the panel decision. Given the lack of a safety issue and the legal ambiguity, we believe that the appropriate decision should be influenced by operational issues associated with the TS and the impact on both industry and staff resources of any change.
More discussion of the NRR staff view is presented in the attachment.
There are three important TS operational issues with which the staff is conco'med relative to the DPV panel's recommended follow-up actions: (1) licensees with only TSPs in their TS have experienced issues in implementing setpoint methodologies and in complying with channel functional test and channel calibration TS requirements, (2) licensees with the single column AV format determine instrument channel operability and satisfy applicable safety limits based on AVs not TSPs, and (3} the assignment of the LSSS exclusively to TSPs is inconsistent with setpoint methodologies that support the ISTS, the previous STS, current regulatory guidance, and previous industry standards. The current ISA Standard, S67.04-1994, "Setpoints for Nuclear Safety Related Instrumentation," which was referenced by the panel but has not been endorsed by the staff, allows the LSSS to be either AVs, TSPs, or both; this standard also allows the LSSS to be controlled by plant procedures.
An obvious approach to implement the panel's recommendations would be to list TSPs in a I single column format in the instrumentation function tables in the TS. We believe this is l not appropriate because it would neither ensure control of setpoints, margins, and i uncertainties sufficient to satisfy setpoint methodologies, nor would it provide for !
operability determination consistent with approved setpoint methodologies, national j consensus standards, and 10 CFR 50.36. As a minimum, AVs provide TS operability criteria; this approach is consistent with the ISTS. An option that would both meet this ;
operability requirement and address the DPV recommendations would be a two-column TS format containing both TSPs and AVs. This option would control operability criteria not .
Just by plant procedures but by the TS as required by 10 CFR 50.36. TS Surveillance I Requirements for channel functional tests and channel calibration would assure that the operability criteria were satisfied. To ensure that instrumentation settings were left within the TSP tolerance, the TS could explicitly require resetting an instrument within the TSP tolerance in the event the as found setting was outside the tolerance.
While the option of requiring a two-column format with both AVs and TSPs in TS might be viewed as optimal because it would address both TS operability and the DPV panel recommendations, it would represent a backfit for plants that have relocated TSPs from the ,
TS. This option would require significant staff and industry resources to implement; it l could not be justified based on safety; and it would not be required to meet the I requirements of 10 CFR 50.36 for the LSSS. Thus, the only compelling argument to pursue this option would be a compliance backfit based solely on an interpretation of 10 CFR 50.36 that TSPs are required by regulation to be included in the TS.
ATTACHMENT
? S. Collins , 3 June 22, 1998 As discussed above and further elaborated upon in the attachment, we do not believe that the regulations or the supporting regulatory history clearly support the OGC view or the differing professional view. We believe that an equally valid case can be made that AVs satisfy the requirement that the TS include LSSS. Therefore, we do not believe that it is an appropriate use of either NRC or industry resources to implement the DPV panel's recommendations.
I in summary, the staff believes the current approach to implementing the 10 CFR 50.36 requirement for LSSS by means of AVs is acceptable and can continue to be applied to the TS conversions to the ISTS. However, the staff does and will allow a two-column format with both TSPs and AVs as an option to licensees who prefer this approach.
Attachment:
As stated I
l s
i I
l 1
l ATTACHMENT i l
(
t' As stated in 10CFR 50.36, "Each applicant for a license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility shall include in his application proposed technical specifications in accordance with the requirements of this section." Additionally,10 CFR 50.36 requires that a," summary statement of the bases or reasons for such specification, other than those covering administrative controls, shall also be included in the application, but shall not become part of the technical specifications. The technical specification will be derived from the analysis and evaluation included in the safety analysis report and may include such additional technical specifications as the commission finds appropriate." .
Among the items to be included in the technical specifications (TS) according to 10CFR 50.36 are safety limits, limiting safety system settings (LSSS), limiting conditions for operation (LCO) and surveillance requirements.
Safety limits for nuclear reactors are limits upon important process variables that are found necessary to reasonably protect the integrity of certain of the physical barriers that guard against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity. Further, should a safety limit be exceeded the reactor must be shut down and the licensee must notify the commission, review the matter, and record the results of the review including the cause of the condition and the corrective action taken to preclude recurrence.
The LSSS are settings for automatic protective devices related to those variables having significant safety functions. Two points about the LSSS are made, (1) where an LSSS is specified for a variable on which a safety limit has been piaced, the setting must be so chosen that the automatic protective action will correct the' abnormal situation before a safety limit is exceeded, and (2) if during operation, it is determined that the automatic safety system does not function as required, the licensee shall take appropriate action.
An LCO is the lowest functional capability or performance level of equipment required for safe operation of the facility. When an LCO is not met, the licensee must shut down the reactor or follow any remedial action permitted by the technical specifications until the condition can be met.
Surveillance requirements are requirements relating to test, calibration, or inspection to assure that the necessary quality of systems and components is maintained, that the facility operation will be within safety limits, and that the limiting conditions of operability will be met.
"As can be seen from the above, the requirement for an " Allowable Value"(AV) is not specifically !
required by 10 CFR 50.36 and it would appear, therefore, not to be necessary to include an AV l
in the TS. In fact, the definition for an AV is not specifically stated in TS whether they are 1
' " custom", standard, or the more recent improved standard technical specifications (ISTS).
, However,10 CFR 50.36 also does not specifically define or require a " trip setpoint" (TSP) -
The purpose of this discussion is to show that although the term " Allowable Value"is not specifically defined in 10 CFR50.36 or in TS, by choosing AVs to specify LCOs for controlling
, channel operability and as LSSS for preserving applicable safety limits, the requirements of 10 )
j
} CFR 50.36 are met. The discussion will also show that although TSPs play an integral part of Attachment t
i J
2 operating within the LSSS, it is more reasonable when writing TS to select AVs to specify LCOs rather than'TSPs. What is important is that TS provide appropriate limits consistent with staff approva! of licensee's various setpoint programs.
4 A!though the inclusion of LSSS in the TS is a requ!rement of 10 CFR 50.36, the relationship of LSSS to safety limits, LCOs, AVs, TSPs, setpoint methodologies, standards, and regulatory guides continues to be the subject of debate within the nuclear power industry. The assignment of the LSSS to a single TS variable and associated setpoint methodology is difficult to resolve for a variety of reasons. Among these reasons is a lack of national consensus setpoint standards during the early years of the nuclear power industry and the various unique and not entirely compatible setpoint methodologies originally provided by NSSS suppliers and . ,
contractors. These variations, together with various staff requirements and interpretations resulted in various TS instrumentation requirements TS formats, LSSS interpretations, operability determinations, and at times excessive LER generation.
Recently, OGC was asked to provide an opinion as to whether the term," Limiting Safety System Settings" as used in 10CFR 50.36(c)(1)(ii) refers only to manually adjusted TSPs or whether LSSS can be interpreted as embracing AVs which are derived from the TSP and analytical limit instrument channel uncertainty evaluation. The OGC discussion of the LSSS, "Mecning of Limiting Safety System Settings in CFR 50.36 " dated March 16,1998, referenced the guidance document supporting the original 10 CFR 50.36 rule. Although the evaluation by OGC concluded that the LSSS are the TSPs, it is the staff's opinion that the TSPs were not the LSSS as orig!nally implemented. The staff's opinion is based on the implementation of the
" custom" TS, previous STS (circa 1980), ISTS (1992), and reviews of setpoint standards developmerit up to the current industry standard revision. The OGC evaluation stressed that LSSS were " settings"; however, the staff considers the word " limiting" to be just as significant.
As pointed out in the OGC evaluation, the original wording for the LSSS was " Maximum Safety System Setting." This was subsequently changed to " Limiting Safety System Settings" for the final rule. The reason.glven for the change was that safety limits, safety limit settings, and conditions of operation can be limited at either upper or lower bounds and therefore the word l
" limiting" was more appropriate. In other words, LSSS are the " limiting" safety system settings )
or the maximum / minimum settings that safety system settings may have and continue to satisfy the safety lim!ts. The guidance document supporting the initial issuance of 10 CFR 50.36 also states that, "The licensee is free to coerate with any safety system settina within the limitina Yalua."
Based on OGCs review of the 10CFR 50.36(c)(1)(li) and original 50.36 rule making, it was their opinlon that contrary to the ISTS single-column AV format that assigns the LSSS to AVs, the LSSS are represented by the TSPs since they are considered the instrument " settings". The staff considered the reasoning behind OGC's opinion and agrees that the inclusion of the TSPs in the technical specification could have some benefit. The staff does not believe, however, that a single setpoint column TS with only the TSPs can be implemented without significant confusion and impact on licensees because such an approach would not include necessary limits on parameters. To successfully implement the DPV panel /OGC format, the staff concludes that a two column approach with AVs and TSPs would be necessary. Furthermore, Attachment 1
t .. .
i 3
the staff believes that a single column TS utilizing AVs can be successfully implemented and still meet the requirements of 50.36 as discussed below.
The DPV panel stated, "The panel found these 6oncems primarily administrative in nature (i.e., 1 related to ceir+;iance with 50.36) and do not adversely affect the safe operation of reactors that
{
are subject to TS requirements that do not include TSPs." In addition ". . . the panel found that t the issues identified during these discussions and deliberations do not adversely affect the safe operation of reactors due to TS requirements associated with those issues." Given this general conclusion, the question arises: If the panel recommendation is to be implemented as stated, is a licensee required to add TSPs to the TS? Again, OGC reviewed this vestion and l determined that backfitting would be required if the agency adopted the position that the LSSS be defined as the TSPs and only the TSPs. Although the safety significance was determined to be minimal by the panel, the adoption of the panel's recommendation'in conjunction with OGCs opinion would require a compliance backfit for those licensees that previously assigned the LSSS to the AVs. This includes those licensees who have converted to the ISTS.
Operating experience showed a need for guidance on the selection of instrument setpoints (pressure, differential pressure, flow, level, temperature, power, radiation, time delay) used to initiate automatic protective actions and alarms. The lack of a national consensus standard on setpoint methodology led to the development of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.105 Rev.1. This RG I was an attempt by the staff to describe an acceptable method to ensure that instrument setpoints in systems important to safety were initially within and remained within specified limits.
The RG notes that the most frequent abnormal occurrence reports submitted between January 1972 and June 1973 involved drift of protective instrument setpoints outside TS limits. The single most prevalent reason for a parameter being outside TS limits was the fact that the TS allowed insufficient or no margin between the setpoint and the " technical specification limit" to account for instrument inaccuracies, vibration, or minor calibration variation.
RG 1.105, Rev.1 defines various terms including *lechn/calspec/fication limit" stating that it was the limit prescribed as a license condition on an important process variable for safe operation. However, there is no clear discussion as to the relationship of LSSS to techn/ cal speelfication //m/ts. There is no dlscussion about LSSS being defined as TSPs And there is no discussion of the concept of an AV. However, the RG does explain,"the setpoints should be established with sufficient margin between the technical specl# cation 1/m/t for the process variable and the nominal trip setpoint to allow for (a) the inaccuracy of the instrument (b) uncertainties in the calibration, and (c) instrument drift that could occur during the interval between calibrations." Based on a review of " custom" TS formats and the discussions and resulting positions taken in the RG, the techn/calspecification limit as referenced by the RG was to be the limit prescribed as a license condition. [ italics added to quotations for emphasis.)
Regulatory position 6 of RG 1.105, Rev.1 states that the assumptions -the minimum margin with respect to the LSSS, drift rate, and the relationship of drift rate to testing interval-used in selecting the setpoint values are to be documented. The actual assignment of LSSS to particular variables is not stated. However, the implication that the TSPs' relationships to the LSSS be defined and that sufficient margin be provided between the setpoints and the technical Attachment
t 4
specification limits implies that the TSPs were not required to be the LSSS. Althouah
" technical soecification limit"is not a 10 CFR50.36 term it can be seen from RG 1.105. Rev.1 and the " custom" TS that the LSSS were not soecihcally intended to be or assianed to the TSPs. Based on the above. the LSSS and the TSPs wgre not considered identical and the '
TSPs by themselves were not considered the LSSS.
The staff believes that the DPV panel and OGC applied more emphasis to the ' word " setting" than to the description of the LSSS as limiting safety system settings. 'The development of l
. 10 CFR50.36 and " custom" TS does not support the opinion that the TSPs chosen by the l licensee must be included in the TS. The tim /t/ng valuec are the values to be listed in the TS.
l However,in the initial STS, the staff provided a means to document the TSPs. The reason for l this was to more fully monitor licensees' drift assumptions over surveillance intervals to better l control TSP values. Subsequently, with the development of the ISTS single column AV format, the staff again documented the AVs as the " limiting" settings which if exceeded the licensee must take appropriate action. The TSPs would be set by the licensee consistent with the assumptions used to develop channel uncertainty allowances. Obviously the licensee should establish the TSPs conservatively with respect to the AVs such that safety and operability limits would not be exceeded except on rare occasions. In other words the TSPs must be set such that they are bounded by the limiting values (i.e., AVs) consistent with the setpoint calculations.
Orie relaxation associated with the ISTS format is that instrument performance criteria may not be as well controlled within the TS. In developing ISTS, instrument performance was recognized as a programmatic objective appropriately left to the licensee and not required to be in the TS. From a TS point of view, as long as the trip function criteria are met (the channel trips within the AVs/LSSS) the channelis operable. The performance parameters of the j channel with respect to the setpoint calculation and uncertainty assumptions are documented during surveillance (per IEEE 338 and RG 1.118) or inspection and are evaluated by the licensee.
The staffs position is that the TSPs are not the limiting values with respect to TS and that a s ngle column format specifying the AVs as the LSSS is acceptab!e to control parameter values such that operability is maintained and safety limits are not be exceeded. The staff believes this position is supported by the 10 CFR50.36 rulemaking documentation and a review of
" custom" TS developed per the guidance of 10 CFR50.36 shortly after it was issued. The staffs opinion is that a single-column format, with only the TSPs, based on curr'ent setpoint methodology would require revisions to TS, setpoint methodologies, Regulatory Guides, industry guidance and standards with a potential loss of operating margin and with no improvement in safety. The DPV panel concurred that the safety significance of not including the TSPs in the TS was minimal. It is the staffs opinion, therefore, that the ISTS single-column AV format is an acceptable and preferable implementation of the requirements of 10 CFR50.36.
l l
l Attachment J