ML23067A196

Univ of Texas - Austin, Reply to a Notice of Violation

ML23067A196
Person / Time
Site:	University of Texas at Austin
Issue date:	03/07/2023
From:	Charlton W University of Texas at Austin
To:	Mohamed Shams Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Document Control Desk
References
IR 2022201
Download: ML23067A196 (1)

Text

WALKER DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laboratory Pickle Research Campus R-9000

• Austin, Texas 78758

• 512-232-5380

• FAX 512-471-4589 nuclear.engr. utexas. edu

• wcharlton@austin. utexas. edu March 07, 2023 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Dr. Mohamed Shams, Director Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738

SUBJECT:

Reply to a Notice of Violation (Docket No. 50-602)

Dear Dr. Shams:

This letter is in response to the Notice of Violation (NOV) dated January 25, 2023 provided to the Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laboratory (NETL) at the University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin).

This NOV was for a Severity Level IV violation and was identified in US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Special Inspection Report No. 05000602/2022201.

The NETL Technical Specifications (Section 6.2.3, "Review Function") states, in part, that the Nuclear Reactor Committee shall review "[d]eterminations that proposed changes in equipment, systems, tests, experiments, or procedures do not involve an unreviewed safety question". The NOV states that the Nuclear Reactor Committee failed to review determinations for proposed facility changes to equipment, tests, and procedures. Specifically, it states that facility personnel implemented three changes that were not assessed by the Nuclear Reactor Committee, as required, for unreviewed safety questions. These changes included a fire alarm and sprinkler system upgrade completed on March 10, 2020; a security system change completed on May 28, 2020; and a roof and purge pump replacement completed on December 13, 2020. We understand discussions in an exit interview are not official findings, but none of the items in the NOV were discussed as potential violations in the exit interview. Thus, below we provide some description of these three changes and how it was determined by the NETL staff as well as the NETL Nuclear Reactor Committee that these did not require a 50.59 review.

Reason for the Severity Level IV Violation:

The US NRC Special Inspection Team at The University of Texas in November 2022 identified this violation based on three forms related to 10CFR50.59 review that did not have a signature from the Nuclear Reactor Committee [referred to as the Reactor Oversight Committee (ROC) at UT-Austin].

However, the forms were intended to document review of material in the Safety Analysis Report by the NETL Reactor Manager relevant to the activities, with the cited items specifically annotated on the form as not requiring a 50.59 review (specifically, the words "50.59 not required" was annotated on each form). The forms in question are attached to this letter. Nuclear Reactor Committee determination that the activities do not involve an unreviewed safety question was not Page 1 of 11

required, although each of these activities was presented to the Nuclear Reactor Committee during routine scheduled meetings and the committee members were fully aware of all of these activities.

NETL Technical Specifications have not been updated to reflect the changes in regulations (and current acceptable practice) in implementing 10CFR50.59, which consists of three categories: (1) activities that do not require review in the 50.59 process, (2) activities that require the 50.59 process but do not result in adverse effects, and (3) activities that require detailed evaluation for the impact of adverse effects. The form was used in these instances to document Safety Analysis Report information for activities not considered changes under the current regulatory regime for 10CFR50.59. There are no specific instructions for the form specifying ROC approval is required for activities not subject to the 50.59 process.

Below is an evaluation of each of the three forms of interest:

1. Roof and purge pump replacement completed on December 13, 2020. One form referred to a modification to a fan on the reactor building roof. The roof was replaced as a scheduled maintenance action at UT-Austin. Following roof replacement, a decrease in flow of an exhaust fan required by Technical Specifications was noted and corrected by modifying the fan linkage to the motor. NEI 21-06 (Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 implementation at Non-Power Production or Utilization Facilities) states "Maintenance activities are not subject to 10 CFR 50.59, but are subject to technical specifications." The form was used to document the review of the Safety Analysis information for operational characteristics and requirements associated with the fan. This activity restored the fan to the design basis and therefore is not subject to the 10CFR50.59 process. The form was annotated "50.59 not required." The planning and implementation of this maintenance was presented, reviewed, and discussed by the ROC on the following dates and is annotated in the committee meeting minutes:

09 Nov 2018 - Contractor requirement review for NETL roof replacement 19 Nov 2019 - Roof replacement funded as capital project 20 Apr 2020 - Roof installation scheduled 30 Nov 2020 - Roof installation complete, final acceptance pending

2. Security system change completed on May 28, 2020. One form referred to relocating the interface between facility security systems and the University Police Department dispatch stations as corrective action for an event. The definition of change in NEI 21-06 is "a modification or addition to, or removal from, the facility or procedures that affects: (1) a design function, (2) a method of performing or controlling the function, or (3) an evaluation that demonstrates that intended functions will be accomplished." The form was used to document the review of the Safety Analysis information for design basis information. The Safety Analysis description does not include the location of the server, and design functions were not modified by relocating the server. The form was annotated "50.59 not required" because the activity did not affect any design function, method of performing or controlling the design function, or evaluation that demonstrates the functions will be accomplished. The planning and implementation of this relocation of the server was presented, reviewed, and discussed by the ROC on the following dates and is annotated in the committee meeting minutes:

02 May 2018 - Reviewed security event 09 Nov 2018 - Planned response to security event reviewed 15 Apr 2019 - Progress on security event reviewed 19 Nov 2019 - Relocation of sever initiated Page 2 of 11

20 Apr 2020 - Progress of server relocation, completion pending 30 Nov 2020 - Server relocation complete 07 May 2021- Security event closed with a non-cited violation

3. Fire alarm and sprinkler system upgrade completed on March 10, 2020. One form reflected modification of the fire protection system. The Safety Analysis Report states that "the National Fire Protection Code, will determine requirements that relate to fire safety for significant facility operation hazards." However, the installed fire suppression and alarm did not meet the Life Safety Code, and a modification was required to meet the Code. NEI 21-06 states "Installation and post-modification testing of approved facility changes are indistinguishable, in terms of their impact on the facility, from maintenance activities that restore SSCs to their as-designed condition." Since the modification restored design function of the fire safety system, it was understood to be exempt from the 50.59 process. The form was used to document the review of the Safety Analysis Report that identified the design function, and the form annotated "50.59 not required." The planning and implementation of this was presented, reviewed, and discussed by the ROC on the following dates and is annotated in the committee meeting minutes:

19 Nov 2019 - Sprinkler upgrade, alarm system planning 20 Apr 2020 - Sprinkler upgrade complete, alarm system planning continues Corrective Steps that Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved:

An analysis following the correspondence of the NOV showed that NETL does not currently have unambiguous instructions for completing the form to document the 10CFR50.59 process.

Utilization of the form when 10CFR50.59 reviews are not applicable has created confusion. The form used by NETL, although stating "50.59 not required" still had a blank place for the ROC to sign.

This led to confusion that perhaps the ROC was not aware of the changes being implemented, or that their approval was required prior to implementation.

Corrective Steps Remaining to Be Taken:

A procedure revision is in progress (for ADMN-1) that will provide clear direction on the 10CFR50.59 based on NEI 2-06 and the chang~ management process with unambiguous forms for completion.

Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved:

We expect the procedure revision to be completed no later than June 30, 2023.

We believe all of the measures implemented above will bring the University of Texas at Austin NETL facility into full compliance.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

W. S. Charlton Director, Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laboratory John J. McKetta Energy Professor, Walker Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Texas at Austin Page 3 of 11

ATTACHMENTS: 50.59 Forms Referred to in NOV PAFonnatJ.doc Date: 4/8, Io Attachment Number- Rev.: ADMN-1 3.00 admnl - a2. doc Procedure TiUe: NETL Procedure Outline and Control to CER so 59 1;,*alua1ion Bric:O, dc-;cribc the: modification, revision. 1cs1. °' experiment

""'e:r L- fl () D f- (.,IJ !,a S'. t-~-f I"~ e...Lr\ W~*(J~ '""'c) JrU,..c.l l,i...f Io. u - .e,.,.,-t l> f: $ ' " c...,. r- ~ fvr~ e'u-(* ~fc. c... I'-

~ fv-f r<-r I6-c.,, e_ d, u,, t1- (J (

• C, ' --.,J) ~' -..e...vs ,o -! ~~

C.lt..f " ' ~ I t t-. &~ f'J..l>-

NO YF.S

( 1) Is the procedure or eQuioment described in the SAR? ii

(~) Does the prticedurt or equipment have the potential 10 affcc1 any procedure.

pammcter, or equipment described in the SAR?

j If the answer 10 both (1) and (2) is no. then no funher Action is required except a signature~ if the answer 10 e1lhcr {I) or (2) is yes then continue 10 (3) and (4):

(3) List the chapters and sections ofche SAR for which the procedwe or equipment described m the SAR.

and/or "h~ rhe procedure, parameter, or equipment nfT<<ccd bv the chan~c is described in the SAR.

§AIL -, - -z_ Tl~r ~ 1- 'j I ~ S~< 3-2 ,C f'frJ/p

-fec.L Sp-a-<- -3.3.1.b f5-"l"l 1evL ~f1!.c.. S-l.?.../5-l*J f~ lt.f NO YE.S (4) Docs lhc change require NRC rt!\'icw llnd nppm\':il prior 10 implementation according to the criteria bc]ow (if yes circle: the affected critcri:i) and refer 10 NRC I . Date Pcrfomu:d Oy:

~f LJJJI u,-T ,

/ 3[).e{ 2 01-})

ROC Rc\'tew* V J

4 CRITERIA S Modific:ations and revisions to UT TRIGA reac:tor foc1litics and equipment 1.hat are described in the S R cmcl uptlurt.~111 and 6 procedures that control or affect thMC facilities and equipment may be changed, altc.red or rc,*iscd without rrior NRC review 7 and arprnval if the chnn~c docs not*

8 (a) /JO Require a change 10 1hc fcchmcal Specificaltons or hccns~.

9 (b) ,-Jt> Result in more than minimal inaease in frequency of occWTeoce of SAil occickm annlyri..r:{2}.

lO (cJ NIJ Result in more than minimal increase in likelihood of occurrence or a malfunction of SSC/3} impon:.rnt to safety 11 lhnt "-ilS pn:vioui,ly evaluated in approved S4R and 11pdalcJ(I].

l :! or (cl) /JC' Result in more: than minimal incrcasc in consequences S.-4 R acc. ,J,mr u11uiys;s[l}:

13 (e) ,J~ Result in more lh::in minimal incre:ise in con~quences of malfunction of ;;m S.SC{JJ 1mportan1 to ~1fo1y prcviousl) 14 C\ illuatcd in approved S R and 11pdarcsf I}:

1 15 (/) tJ o Crca1e possibility for accident o(diOc:rrnt l)pc lhan rho~c in SAR occide111 antJl_rs11{lf:

16 (g) ,-, D Create pos-.ibility for malfunction of SSC/ 3) impon:m110 snfciy with differl'nt rcsuh than any pn:viour.ly c\'alua1eJ 17 in SAR t1nd r,pJ(J.u.s/ I J 18 (h) p tJ Result in de~ign bilsi~ limit foc fission product barrier ck.-scribed in the S,1R anti 11pJm<*.\f I J being oc ... ed~d or 19 altered: or 20 (i) ,JD Result in departure from method of evaluation described m SAR ,J,id updaim[ I J thal w~ used either to establish 21 cks1gn bases or in the -..ifery analyses.

fJ'O 1 0CFRS0. 59 Evaluation Stamp{Original-Red, Copy-Blue}

Date of Change NETL Dir. Appro\'al I

__ J ___ j C Q py Page 1 of 2 Page 4 ofll

PAF onnat3.doc Date: 4:Rll0 Attachment Number- Rev.: ADMN*I 3.00 a d mnl-a2.doc Procedure

Title:

NETL Procedure Outline and Control l

2 ADD!TION.41. GUID4NC£ 3

4 \'OT£ fl]: SAR und updatc.t rs rl,u approw!d Safco* .-4na(i*.m Repnrl and any clrangas accomplishC'd under JOCFR5059 5 wi1hou1 prior NRC rel"ia-w and apprm*a/ n-ul currl!ntly incorporalcd j,r the SAR.

6 NOT£ /2). SAR acc,Jent anal)*sis refers 10 (/) reuctl\'ity acc1dc111, (}) loss ufrcac*tm- coolan1, and (3) jiJSion prod11ct r<!lt*ast*

1 from clod nIp1url! as mwly::&!d i111'1e SAR and update:.,*.

8 r NOT£ JJ: SSC mcum 3lrUCl&1re.,.  !.)":tl4."m.'i. and compr>rr'111l.'f 9

IO Records of facility changes., procedure changes. and of te!'>ts and c:-.pcnmcnls made w11hout prior NRC rc\'iew and appro,al II accomplished under the aulhonnuion of IOCFR50 59:

12 a. Must mcludc a \\Tittcn cvalua1ioo which provid<.'S the bases for tJ,e dc1cnnim1tion lhat the change, test., or 13 e\periment does not require a licens.e am~ndmcnr.

14 b. Must be submined 10 lhc NRC at inlervnls not to ei,:ceed 24 months.

15 c. Mus1 be maintained unail the tcnnination of an opcr.iting license for focility changes, 16 d. Musa be maitttained for a period of 5 years for clwigcs in procedures and n-cords of tests and experiments..

17 18 Ther~ are spcc11ic rcquiremrnls in rcgulotion"i for changes 10 the Emergency Pinn. Radiological Protection Program. and 19 Physical Security Pliln.

20 21 DEflNll JONS 22 23 Ch~ngc

• A change is a modific.1tion or addition 10. nr removal from. the facility or procedures that nfTccts a design function, 24 method of pt:rfonning or controlling the function. Of' an evaluation chnt dcmonstrnte<t thnt intended functions will be 25 ;iccomplishecl 26 27 Departure from a method of evaluation dc.-scribed m the FSAR (n.'i upda1ed) used in C!:atablishing lhe design b~es or in thl!

28 safely aruil)ses:

29 a. Changing any of the clements of the method dcscnbcd in the FSAR (a.c; updated) unless the results of the anal~sis 30 are conservative or essentially the same; or 3I b. Changing from a method described in the FSA R to another method unless that method has been approved by 32 NRC for rhc intended application.

33 34 TcslS or c>.pcrimcnts not described in the final safcry anal)'Si\ report (11,; updated) means a.ny ncrivily where any sLrucrurc, 35 system, or compC'nent is usilized or controlled in a manner whtch 1s erthcr.

36 a. Outside the reference bounds oftl1e design bases as described in the final safety anolys,s rcpor1 (as updated) or 37 b. lnconsisti:nt wi1h the analyses or descriptions in the final safety analysis rcpon (as updated).

38 10CFRS0. 59 Eva luat i n Strunp(Origi~~ue)

Date of Change ._I_ _ ,! _ _ _._I_ _..I _ _ _ _ I \.IUr- T NETL Dir. Approval 1

_ I I Page 2 of 2 Page 5 ofll

PAFormat3.doc Date:

Attachment Number- RGv.: ADl\1):-1 3 00 admnl-a2.doc Procedure Tttle: 1\ETL Procedure Outline and Control I ,ocm ~o. 'l9 Evalu.iuoo 2

BricOv describe the mmJification. revision. tt~-.t. or c.xperimcnt

/(t.A/J~IJ-1c---~cl >t!.C.vr,+t, ~rs-le>-- ~~-- (s'~,:,> t,v-...t.,b -+o f_e.c..o .......~s=e-o-_s.R_, All t1/t:.r-.-.s 1--r;;-fU.I ~. Dvrrur v-*C~

M-f L'\. : "'-<-c-e YES (rt Is the:: procedure nr c~u,pment descn~d m the SAR') *v-(2) D<io the procedure or equipment have the p<>lcntial to afTt:cl an~ pmccdurc.

parameter, or equinrrn.:nl dc~.cribed in the S/\R'?

lfthc answer to both(\) and (2) is no, then no further ACl\on 1s rcquir~d e\Cl'pt a signature f the answer to either { l) or(:) is yes &h~n continue to {3) and (4);

(3) List the chapters and ~cc&ions of the SAR for \1th1ch the procedure or equipment desmbed tn tre SAR.

and/or where the pmccdure. parnmc1er. or equipment n&Tcctcd bv the chani:c is described in the 'i,\R S-:Att , . 3 , .;" D*~c.....-,s..,~ .Pkc'lu ., v*~,, ~ S~C:.-- r,.,_,

$ ys..;. J . - e,Jl (...,LJZ.c,( ~ t\... n r,~ ,/1 r <:--<.,. "'-t tJ f- \.-, S f A.r c..5; ,- " (" l,

• Arcc-, r,2.. ">C."1JS,,<.CA. * - '5~r't.7-J -~ t.~r~

1 "lOT 7uJc."-"6<*l ( (t,.--t.rA,, r~""

~ 7 ' D r ~ v J ~Jt.U' I " T-e..c.,'-" t:; ~ C. 5 . _ _

L_

{4) Doe~ the change require NRC review and approval prior 10 imph~mcnt.ation

~ccordin~ to rhc critcrin bolow (if *us circle! the :ifTei:ted cri1cn:1) ,md refer 10 ~J I\C Ir.Ile Performed Uy*

]

4 CIU'I !:RIA 5 Mod1fic.mions r.nd rcvi!lions 10 U t 1 RIGA rc.ic1or facilities and equipment thal arc described in thi: S.-1 R and 11rdarcs 111 and 6 proccdur1;s that control ur aITccl lh~ f:icihtks and equipm~nt may he changed, allcrcd or rC\'!Scd without pri<.1r NRC revic,,

7 :u1d appru\'.il if 1hc chnngc docs not 8 (a) /'JC' Require a chang.c to the T<<hnical Spccification5, or hccnsc~

9 (b) -~ Result 1n more thnn minimal tncn:.-a,;,c in frequency or occum:-ncc: or S.AH ar.dd~,,r mwly.,*,s[ lj; 10 (c) _,Jo Result in more th.in minimal increase in lilc:tih{'!O<l uf rn:cun*ence of a malfunction of SSC/ J/ impor1:in1 to safocy 11 that was previously ~valutiled m approvt!d SAR aml upJate.r;/ IJ.

12 (J) NO Result in rnore than minimal mcrca'ic in con!icqucnccs of SAR acml11,rt ww~r.,*i{/2):

13 M ,,.Jo Result in more than minimal mcrcas.c in conse4ucncc!i of malfunc11on of an SSC/ 3] imp,urtant :o safcn. prcviousl}

14 evaluated m ap()fovcd SAR and updater/ I].

15 (J) IJO n:atc pc,,,.ihilily for accident of different rypc thao lhoS,C in S-tR 11cc:1dc111 ana(r.sis/ ]j.

16 (g} JVD Create possibility for malfunction ofS5;C/3} impomm1 IO ,_afet) \\Ith different rc~uh than ,my prt\'ioui,I:, e\'aluatcd 17 in SAR and11pdutes[I}*

18 (h JV !J Res uh in design basis limit for fb~ion product barner dc\Crih.t:d m the SAR v11d updat.~f{ I} being C"<cccded or 19 .illcrcd; or 20 ( i) /"1V Re5.ull in cfopanure from method of evaluation dcscnbed in S.-tR umi updwc.\{ ! ,' that \\as 11~d either n e,;tahlic:;;.,

21 dt;sign bases or in the !-afcl) analyse<.

ND 10CfR 50.S 9 Ev alu ati on Stamp(Original-Red, Copy-Blue)

Date of Change _ _I _ _ I_ _ I NETL Dir. Appruval _ _ L_____ l COPY Page 1 of 2 Page 6 ot 11

PAFormat3.doc Date: 4/ 8/1 O Attachment Number - Rev.: ADivfN-1 3.00 admn1-a2.doc Procedure

Title:

NETL Procedure Outline and Control l

2 DDfTl(A'AI. Gt.JJDANC£ 3

4 NOT£ {I]. S.-tR und updu1es I., the approved Safety ~11a6*i;fs Report and a,ry clrangc.'i a!'complished rmdt!r IOCFR50 59 5 witl,out pnur NRC re,*1c:.*w and uppnn*al nu1 c11rre1t1/y i,u:orporatcd in the SAR.

6 NOTE /2]. SAR acc,dem a11CJl)"~i'i refer.,* to (I) reactn*ity accident, (l) Ian ufrl!uclnr c*oolmtt, and n, fiHion prod11c1 re/emc:

7 from clad ruplurc as unu~,-:i:d ;,, the S ..f Rand update'i 8 NOTE [3]: SSC mean.'i struc.*rurc:r. 1)~trm.,*. om/ cr>mpnnem.,

9 IO Records or facility chanscs, procedure changes, i'lnd of tests and e.xpcrimcnts made wi1hou1 pnor NRC re\*iew ::ind appro,al J) ~aomplishcd under the authori1.a1ion of I0CFRS0.59:

12 il. Must include :, \Written cvaluarion which pro\'i,fos the bases for the de1errninaoon that the change, test, °'

13 e~pcriment does not require a license am~ndment.

14 b. Must he ir; ubmirtcd to Lhe NRC at intl!r\'als nm to exceed 24 months.

15 c. Must be matntam~ until the tcnnination of an ~rating, license for facility changes, 16 d Mu.,;t be m~imamed for a period of 5 ~cars for changc.-s in procedures and records of tcst.s und experiments,.

17 18 The..e arc specific rcquircm~nc~ in rcguL,t iclns for change'i 10 the Emc:rgcncy Plan, Rudiological Protection Program , and 19 Phyc;,cal Security Plan.

20 21 DEFINITIONS 22

-~

?-,

Change: A ch.inge is a modilication or addit.ion to, m removal from. the fod lity or pmccdurc:- thol affects a design function.

24 method of performing or controlling the function, or ,m evilluation that dcmonscrnrcs thol intended functions will he 25 Jccomplishcd 26 27 Departure from a method of evaluation described in the FSAR (as upcuucd) used m establishing lhc desii;n bases (>r in the 28 salc:ty analyses:

29 a. Changing any oflhe elements oflhe method de~nbed in the F'SAR (as updated) unlec;s the result-; of the anal}sii; 30 n~ conscr\"ative or essential1y the same; or 31 b. Chan~ing from a method described in the FSAR to anOlhcr method unk-ss 1hat method has been a[lprmcd by 32 NRC for the intended application.

33 34 Tests or experiments not described in the foi.11 ~fcty anal}sis report {as upd:itccl) means :my ncth it} "here any i;tructurc, 35 S)s1em, or component is utilized or controlled in a mannt:r whtch 1s eitht:r.

36 a OuLi;ide the reference bounds of the design baSL-s as described in the final safety analysis rt:pon (ac; updac~d) or 37 b. Inconsistent w~th the analyses or descriptions in the final safety analysis report (as updated).

38 1 0CFR50. 59 Evaluati o._n_ __.__ _ ,. __ _, ___s_,ta mp(Origi~ ~lue)

Date of Change I I I I .1 vU S-- T NETL Dir. Approval I I I I I Page 2 of 2 Page 7 ofll

TtTLE DATE ----1 SCRCl:NiNG: The following guidance provides criteria to screen the proposed change from f11r1hrr :t~<:,*c;;,;;ing nred fnr NRC revic*w If tlw change doe-snot .i ffect (I) a design function of SSC, (2) a method of performing or controlling design funct ion. (3) e, alua1ion for demonslraling the design function will be accomplished. then it is not necessary to continue the evaluation.

SSC Affttted SSC Desi n function Failure Mode(s) 1 Accident scenario(s 1 SAFETY ANALYSIS & ACCIDENT RESPONS£1.1'1/TIGATION YES NO Decrease SSC design function reliability when fa ilure would initiate an accidcnl Dccr~asc SSC dcsi n function reliabilitv when failure would miti ate accident Reduce redundancy. reliability or defense in depth Add or delete an automatic or manual desi~ lion of an SSC HUMAN INTERFACE . YES NO Convert an nulomatic feature to mnnunl or vice_\'c Advcrsclv affect ability to perfonn required actions

_rsa

' --- --r-i

_ _:-----1

_\

Adversely affect time r:e~eonsc of re uircd actions --L ____,;___ _.,

INH.:Rt:4<.:t.: uurs101:.: 'fHE PROPOSED CIIA!\'b~E YES NO Dc1;;radc seismic or environmental guaJification

..l.~ llcct method or evaluation used to establish desi gn basis or safety analysis Introduce an unv1o*anted or previously unrt!vdwed system or ma1criul interaction 1-(Not described in SAR) indirect effects on electrical distribution (Not dcscri~d in SAR) indirect effects structural intc~rity l (Not described in SAR) indirect ct1ccls on environmental conditions **-

I j (Not described in SAR) indirect effects on other SAR de.si &n runctions .I COfv1MENTS: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

PERFORMED BY:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DAT[:_ _ _ _ _ __

If an) of the above answers arc YES. then proceed to the EVALUATION section.

Page 8 of 11

A LA 1'w1 PAFormat3.doc Date: 4/8/ l 0 Attachment Number-Rev.: ADMN-1 3.00 adm:11-a2.doc Procedure

Title:

NETL ProL:edure Outline and Control Io Cf R -;o "q fa;duallilfl 2

Bricnv describe 1hc modification, re,*ision. 1cs1, or experiment UP&,/l-A.D~ 'TD F ,ll...<£ i, LA1fL..--- A,..,J/j 5,P/2-,,J }UL:i"'(l...

sy.::Ts ""'"~ . .A.b.!J-o"O uJe'".,. ~I j e;fL I "'t, t> 1--:'" IO /'I.I- I.__ f\,_.J, /<.--._c

.t\ "'~ S-f/Lo 13 cz-:;;. * <...o ,-,rJ~c:.,1"~ 'TD u r-.n -e, r ~ .+ '1 MA:..S.

A\.~T Sys.T~ NO;f~.,-J lr (Vv~ov 4?-1) ..

NO YES

( 1) le; the procedure Of equipment described in the SAR? 7' (2) Does the procedure or equipment have the po1cnti:il 10 a1Tec1 an~1 procedure, parame1er. or CQuipmcnr described in the SAR? I\

lfthe answer to both(I) ond(2) isno, then no funher Action is r~quired e,cepta signature; if the ans,\er to either (I) or (2) is \'<:S 1hcn continue lo (3) and (4):

{3) List th~ chaplers :ind sections of the SAR for which 1ht procedure or equipment drscribed in lhc SAR.

and/or "'here the procedure. parameter. or equipment affected by the c.hanf,c is described in the SAR.

SA.<t GK 7 l.3 .-z.., 7.J.3 f'tr7-/t 1 1-ts-

~r-(!__ (! ~" r...le.s c..!L, pku," , r,, --Te v'-" >t-'1-'-~ .

NO YES (4) Docs the change require NRC review ;ind npproval prior 10 implementation accordtn1,t lo the crilerfa b~low (if }CS circle the affected criteria) anti refer to NRC k

~ I

,, Date Pcrformed By:

./7'!~

L/

fb /V',. (.--* "t.<, t, IO ROC Rc:\'ic:w:

1 4 CRITERIA 5 Modifications and revisions lo lff TRlGA reactor facilities and equipment lhnt arc dci;cribcd in the SAR and vpdtire.~ 111 and 6 procedure.,; thal control or nfTcct those facilities and equipment may he changed, al1crcd or revised withoul prior NRC rcvic\,

7 and appro\'al if the change docs not:

8 {a} .~~ Require a chan~c 10 lhc Technical Spcc:ifications or licem,e; 9 (b) ,10 Result in more 1hrui minimal increase, in frequency of occurrc:ncc: of S."IR accidm1 a,wl;*Jlt/1}:

lO (cJ I\Jt' Result in more than minimal increase in likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction of SSC{3} imponnnt to safely 11 that was previously cvalunted in approved SAR and updmeJ{I}:

12 (,I) ,.JC> Res uh in more lhen minimal increase in consequences of SAR occid,m1 u11aly:m{1}:

13 (cJ t-1° Result in more lhan minima.I increase in consequences ormalfunclion of an SSC/J) imponan; to safety prcv10usly 14 cvaluolcd in approved s~fR and 11pdorcs/ lj.

r5 (/} ,_Jo Create possibility for acciden1 of different type tJ1an those in SAR acc,dt!m atwl)'rn(l]:

16 (gJ No Create possibility for malfunction of SSC{ JJ important 10 safet) wnh diffc:rt!nl rt!1,uh than ,m) pri=viuu-.ly c\'aluated 17 in SAR ,mdupdutt!.J{/]:

18 (h) NO Result in design basis limit for fission product barrier dcscnbed m the SAR ,mu upJcm1sf IJ b~ing e~ceeded or 19 ahcred; or 20 (i) rl O Re~ult in departure from method of e"aluation described in SAR und updart!5{ I) Lhal ....-as used either to establish 21 deStJ;.n bases or in the snfct)' analyses.

/\Jo ( o c... F-~ S?>. ~4 ~ v ,- re. cA 10CFR50. !:>9 Evaluation Stamp(Ongmal-Red, Copy-Blue)

Date of Change NETL Dir. Approval I._I_ _,__ _,__ _.__II C Q PY Page 1 of 2 Page 9 ofll

PAF ormat3.doc Date: 4/8i10 Attachment Number- Rev.: ADMN*l 3.00 admnl-a ... do = Procedure

Title:

NETL Procedure Outline nnd Control 1 ADDIT/O\'Al GUID4NCE 3

4 ,".'OT£ fl} SAR and updalc.'i i.v 1/re apprm*ed Sa/cf)* Ana~rvts RE!por/ and am* changC!..f accumpli\-11c*tl under ff.X..FR505Q 5 '111/wut privr NRC rC'Vl&.">\'1 and "Pl" u\*al nut currcm~,* mc,wporated m the SAR.

6 NOTE f]J- SAR acc:id,tnt anulJsis rt?[er,; 10 (I) reacliMy ucc:iJ,mt, (]) luu uf rcm:rnr coolan1. und (3) fimrm product ri:lenrn 7 from clod rupture as analy::t!d in the SAR and updal£.'.t 8 \OT£ [j] SSC mcu11s structur,s, n:1;tems. ,md compmrwu 9

IO Records of fadl i1y changes, pmccdure changes. and or tests and c>.pcnmcnts made w,rhout prior NRC re .. ,c,\ and approval 11 accomplished under the autliorizatioo of JOCFR50.59:

12 a. Mu'it inc:ludc a wrintn eva)uarion \\hkh provides 1he has.es for the determination 1hat the chang1:, te!.t. or lJ cxperimem doc:; not require a license amendment 14 b. Must be suhmined 10 the NRC at in1en*als not to exceed 24 mnnth~.

IS c. Mu'it he mnintuim.-d until the 1cnnina1ion of an Of)<!r.itin!!, license for facility chnnge!..

16 d. Musi be maintained for a p,criod of 5 )ears for changes in procedures and rccortls of tests and experiments ..

17 18 Thc ..t arc specific requirements in rc:-gulation,; for chani;es lo the C.mcrgcney Plan. Radiological rro1c:cllon Program, and 19 Ph}'sical Security Pinn.

20 21 Dl:.FrNITIONS 22

.,_.,... Change: A change ,s a modification or addition to, or rcmO\'lll from. the facilil)' or procedures rhar affects a design function, 24 method of performing or controlling the function~ or an c\*alumion thar ckmonstrotcs that intended functions wall be 25 accompl ish<.'d.

26 27 Departure from a method of cv;iluation described m the FSAR (ru. upda&cd) used in cstnblishing the design bases or in the:

28 sar~iy analyses.

29 a Changing any of the clements or the mclhod described in the FSA R (as upda1cd) unlcs.s lhc results of the nn~tlrus.

30 nre consel'\ative or cssemially the same; Of' 31 b. Changing from a meihod described in the FSAR lo another method unless th;it method has been appro\"cd by 32 NRC for the intended appHetllion 33 34 T~ts or ~xpcnmcntc; nol dcscnbcd in the final safety nnal)*sis rcpol1 (as updated) me.ans any acth*ity where any s1ruc1urc, 35 S)'~tt:m. or component is utilized or controlh!d in a mttnncr which is either:

36 a. Outside the reference bounds of the dcsib'll bases as described in the tinal safety analysis rcpon (as updated) or 37 b. lnconsistc:nl with the analyses or dc:scrip11ons m the final ~afoty nnalys1s re-port (as updated) 38 1 OC FRSO. 59 Eval ua t io_n________________ i amp(Origi~ ~lHue) s__

Date of Change L I I I .1 vUr-" T NETL Dir. Approval I I I I I Page 2 of 2 Page 10 of 11

TITLE DATE SCREENING: The following guidance provides criteria to screen the proposed change from further assessing need for NRC review. If the change does not affect ( 1) a desi~n function of SSC. (2) a method of performing or controlling design function. (3) evaluation for dcmonstrnting the design function will be accomplished. then it is not necessnry to continue the evaluation.

. - - - - - - - . . . !,SSC SSC Affected Design function Failure Mod e(s) Accident scc_!l~ri(!~~L

--_ _...._-- ~---~ I 1

i I SAFETY ANAL YSJS & ACClhENT RESPONSIVMlflGATION V£s NO I Decrease SSC design function reliability when failure would initiate an accident y_J j Decrease SSC desi~n function rcliabilitv when failure would miti gate uccidcnt l Reduce redundancy, reliability or defense in depth v1'~

I Add or delete an automatic or manual desi~n function of an SSC 7- I HUMAlV INTERFACE YES

• N_{J _!

I Convcn an automatic feature to manual or vice ,crsa I "

A<lvcrseh nllccl *~ abihl~

• to ,.perform required actions _____,i,r -- I7 i Adverseh ilffect time res onsc of re uired actions 1 ~ _ ___V-___

INTERFACE OUTSIDE THE PROPOSED CHANGE YES I NO Dc~radc seismic or environmcnt.il __.g_u_al_il_ic_n_ti_o_n_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ __ ..,I_--

Affect method of evaluation used to establish design basis or safetv analysis I I Introduce an unwanted ~ _previously unrcvci wcd system or material interaction -

(Not described in SAR) indirect effects on electrical distribution i

, r V

(Not described in SAR) indirect effects structur<s l integ...'n_'t-"-y_________ .l=~~~~~l-~ -

(Not described in SAR) indirect cm~clS on cm irunmcntal conditions I i (Not descrih1!d in SAR) indirect effects on other SAR dcsi,.m functions

'------------- ----------~ ------~--~ -- * /

COMMENTS: t;~d-~ vfo Md0A. --1-D /""(lc/J-_.r-. C,u:u . b'==l

,._;rfe~ol 1 f1<... u,,.. v~r-f.t?_J, +o ku....-t ! +"' ,,.,('{

PERFORMED BY :_ _~ : [ &f1!7 DATE: ftJ,..-,. n -,_,., 7..,o If any of the above answers are YES. then proceed to the EVA LL ATION section.

I;.- PI 1. ,., d, r ~t-tS' ~ h., .\-db,-,._, of: t\.l....,.. ~+u ,- fu,.- *~_..,..e.-ds 7 _,,. l..--~

~ .s C. **"l_

• Page 11 of 11