ML21069A172: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:1 2
{{#Wiki_filter:Enclosure [x]
1 2
3 4
3 4
5 6 General Directions: This model safety evaluation (SE) provides the format and content for an 7 SE of license amendment requests to adopt TSTF-577, Revision 1 using the Consolidated Line 8 Item Improvement Process The [bolded bracketed] information shows text that should be 9 filled in for the specific amendment. The italicized wording provides guidance on what should 10 be included in each section.
5 General Directions: This model safety evaluation (SE) provides the format and content for an 6
11 DRAFT MODEL SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO TSTF-577, REVISION 1 AMENDMENT NO. [XXX] TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. [XXX-XX]
SE of license amendment requests to adopt TSTF-577, Revision 1 using the Consolidated Line 7
Item Improvement Process The [bolded bracketed] information shows text that should be 8
filled in for the specific amendment. The italicized wording provides guidance on what should 9
be included in each section.
10 11 DRAFT MODEL SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO TSTF-577, REVISION 1 AMENDMENT NO. [XXX] TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. [XXX-XX]
AND AMENDMENT NO. [XXX] TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. [XXX-XX]
AND AMENDMENT NO. [XXX] TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. [XXX-XX]
[NAME OF LICENSEE]
[NAME OF LICENSEE]
[NAME OF FACILITY]
[NAME OF FACILITY]
DOCKET NOS. 50-[XXX] AND 50-[XXX]
DOCKET NOS. 50-[XXX] AND 50-[XXX]
Application (i.e., initial and supplements)           Safety Evaluation Date
Application (i.e., initial and supplements)
      * [Date], [ADAMS Accession No.]                       [Date]
Safety Evaluation Date
[Date], [ADAMS Accession No.]
[Date]
Principal Contributors to Safety Evaluation
Principal Contributors to Safety Evaluation
                                                            *  [Caroline Tilton]
[Caroline Tilton]
12 13
12  


==1.0       PROPOSED CHANGE==
==1.0 PROPOSED CHANGE==
S 14 15 [Name of licensee] (the licensee) requested changes to the technical specifications (TSs) for 16 [name of facility] by license amendment request (application). In its application, the licensee 17 requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) process the 18 proposed amendment under the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP). The 19 proposed changes would revise the Steam Generator (SG) Program and the Steam 20 Generator Tube Inspection Report TSs based on Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 21 Traveler TSTF-577, Revision 1, Revised Frequencies for Steam Generator Tube Inspections 22 (TSTF-577) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 23 No. ML21060B434), and the associated NRC staff safety evaluation (SE) of TSTF-577 (ADAMS 24 Accession No. MLXXXXXXXXX).
S 13 14
25 26 The tubes within an SG function as an integral part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary 27 and, in addition, isolate fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary coolant and 28 the environment. SG tube integrity means that the tubes are capable of performing this safety 29 function in accordance with the plant design and licensing basis.
[Name of licensee] (the licensee) requested changes to the technical specifications (TSs) for 15
30 31 {NOTE. Choose the type of alloy tubing in the plants SGs from the bracketed information. Units 32 may have SGs with different alloy tubing materials (for example, one unit with SGs with Alloy Enclosure [x]
[name of facility] by license amendment request (application). In its application, the licensee 16 requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) process the 17 proposed amendment under the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP). The 18 proposed changes would revise the Steam Generator (SG) Program and the Steam 19 Generator Tube Inspection Report TSs based on Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 20 Traveler TSTF-577, Revision 1, Revised Frequencies for Steam Generator Tube Inspections 21 (TSTF-577) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 22 No. ML21060B434), and the associated NRC staff safety evaluation (SE) of TSTF-577 (ADAMS 23 Accession No. MLXXXXXXXXX).
 
24 25 The tubes within an SG function as an integral part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary 26 and, in addition, isolate fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary coolant and 27 the environment. SG tube integrity means that the tubes are capable of performing this safety 28 function in accordance with the plant design and licensing basis.
1 600MA and another with SGs with Alloy 600TT). Repeat the second sentence below for each 2 unit.}
29 30
3 4 [Name of facility] has [X] unit[s]. The Unit [1] SGs have [Alloy 600 mil-annealed (Alloy 5 600MA), Alloy 600 thermally treated (Alloy 600TT), or Alloy 690 thermally treated (Alloy 6 690TT)] tubes.
{NOTE. Choose the type of alloy tubing in the plants SGs from the bracketed information. Units 31 may have SGs with different alloy tubing materials (for example, one unit with SGs with Alloy 32 600MA and another with SGs with Alloy 600TT). Repeat the second sentence below for each 1
7 8 1.1     Proposed TS Changes to Adopt TSTF-577 9
unit.}
10 In accordance with NRC staff-approved TSTF-577, the licensee proposed changes that would 11 revise [name of facility] TS [5.5.9], Steam Generator (SG) Program, and TS [5.6.7], Steam 12 Generator Tube Inspection Report. Specifically, the licensee proposed the following changes 13 to adopt TSTF-577:
2 3
14 15 TS [5.5.9], Steam Generator (SG) Program:
[Name of facility] has [X] unit[s]. The Unit [1] SGs have [Alloy 600 mil-annealed (Alloy 4
16 17
600MA), Alloy 600 thermally treated (Alloy 600TT), or Alloy 690 thermally treated (Alloy 5
* TS 5.5.9.d.2 would be revised by deleting the requirement to base inspection frequency 18        on the more restrictive metric between either the effective full power months (EFPM) or 19        refueling outage and to use just the EFPM metric.
690TT)] tubes.
20
6 7
* TS 5.5.9.d.2 would be revised by deleting the allowance to extend the inspection period 21        by 3 months and by deleting the discussion of prorating inspections.
1.1 Proposed TS Changes to Adopt TSTF-577 8
22
9 In accordance with NRC staff-approved TSTF-577, the licensee proposed changes that would 10 revise [name of facility] TS [5.5.9], Steam Generator (SG) Program, and TS [5.6.7], Steam 11 Generator Tube Inspection Report. Specifically, the licensee proposed the following changes 12 to adopt TSTF-577:
* TS 5.5.9.d.3 would be revised by adding that each SG inspected at the next inspection 23        after crack indications are found, includes each affected and potentially affected SG.
13 14 TS [5.5.9], Steam Generator (SG) Program:
24        The next inspection after crack indications are found would be changed from shall not 25        exceed 24 effective full power months or one refueling outage (whichever results in more 26        frequent inspections) to shall be at the next refueling outage.
15 16 TS 5.5.9.d.2 would be revised by deleting the requirement to base inspection frequency 17 on the more restrictive metric between either the effective full power months (EFPM) or 18 refueling outage and to use just the EFPM metric.
27 28 {NOTE: The following bullet is only applicable for plants that have Alloy 600MA tubing.}
19 TS 5.5.9.d.2 would be revised by deleting the allowance to extend the inspection period 20 by 3 months and by deleting the discussion of prorating inspections.
29
21 TS 5.5.9.d.3 would be revised by adding that each SG inspected at the next inspection 22 after crack indications are found, includes each affected and potentially affected SG.
* TS 5.5.9.d.2 would be revised by changing the requirement to inspect 100 percent of the 30        tubes from every 60 EFPM to every 24 EFPM.
23 The next inspection after crack indications are found would be changed from shall not 24 exceed 24 effective full power months or one refueling outage (whichever results in more 25 frequent inspections) to shall be at the next refueling outage.
31 32 {NOTE: The following bullets are only applicable for plants that have Alloy 600TT tubing.}
26 27
33
{NOTE: The following bullet is only applicable for plants that have Alloy 600MA tubing.}
* TS 5.5.9.d would be revised by adding a phrase regarding portions of the tube that are 34        exempt from inspection by alternate repair criteria.
28 TS 5.5.9.d.2 would be revised by changing the requirement to inspect 100 percent of the 29 tubes from every 60 EFPM to every 24 EFPM.
35
30 31
* TS 5.5.9.d.2 would be revised by changing the requirement to inspect 100 percent of the 36        tubes at periods of 120, 90, and 60 EFPM to 54 EFPM. A 72 EFPM inspection period 37        would be permitted if SG tubing has never experienced cracking (not including regions 38        exempt from inspection by alternate repair criteria) and the SG inspection was 39        performed with enhanced probes. A description of the enhanced probe inspection would 40        be added.
{NOTE: The following bullets are only applicable for plants that have Alloy 600TT tubing.}
41
32 TS 5.5.9.d would be revised by adding a phrase regarding portions of the tube that are 33 exempt from inspection by alternate repair criteria.
* TS 5.5.9.d.3 would be revised by adding a phrase regarding portions of the tube that are 42        exempt from inspection by alternate repair criteria. An additional phrase would be added 43        that permits deferring SG inspections after cracking indications are found if the 44        100 percent inspection was performed with enhanced probes.
34 TS 5.5.9.d.2 would be revised by changing the requirement to inspect 100 percent of the 35 tubes at periods of 120, 90, and 60 EFPM to 54 EFPM. A 72 EFPM inspection period 36 would be permitted if SG tubing has never experienced cracking (not including regions 37 exempt from inspection by alternate repair criteria) and the SG inspection was 38 performed with enhanced probes. A description of the enhanced probe inspection would 39 be added.
45
40 TS 5.5.9.d.3 would be revised by adding a phrase regarding portions of the tube that are 41 exempt from inspection by alternate repair criteria. An additional phrase would be added 42 that permits deferring SG inspections after cracking indications are found if the 43 100 percent inspection was performed with enhanced probes.
 
44 45
1 {NOTE: The following bullet is only applicable for plants that have Alloy 690TT tubing.}
{NOTE: The following bullet is only applicable for plants that have Alloy 690TT tubing.}
1 TS 5.5.9.d.2 would be revised by deleting the requirement to inspect 100 percent of the 2
tubes during each period in paragraphs d.2.a, d.2.b, d.2.c, and d.2.d (144, 120, 96, and 3
72 EFPM, respectively) and by adding the requirement to inspect 100 percent of the 4
tubes every 96 EFPM.
5 6
TS [5.6.7],Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report:
7 8
Existing reporting requirement b. would be renumbered as c. and be revised by editorial 9
and punctuation changes.
10 New reporting requirement b. would be added to require the nondestructive examination 11 (NDE) techniques utilized for tubes with increased degradation susceptibility be 12 reported.
13 Existing reporting requirement c. would be renumbered as c.1. and be revised by 14 editorial and punctuation changes.
15 Existing reporting requirement d. would be renumbered as c.2. and be revised to note 16 that the location, orientation (if linear), measured size (if available), and voltage 17 response do not need to be reported for tube wear indications at support structures that 18 are less than 20 percent through-wall. However, the total number of tube wear 19 indications at support structures that are less than 20 percent through-wall would be 20 reported.
21 New reporting requirement d. would be added to require an analysis summary of the 22 tube integrity conditions predicted to exist at the next scheduled inspection relative to the 23 applicable performance criteria, including the analysis, methodology, inputs, and results.
24 Existing reporting requirement e. would be renumbered as c.4. and be revised by 25 editorial and punctuation changes.
26 Existing reporting requirements f. and h. would be combined, be renumbered as e., and 27 be revised by editorial and punctuation changes.
28 New reporting requirement f. would be added to require the results of any SG secondary 29 side inspections be reported.
30 Existing reporting requirement g. would be renumbered as c.3. and be revised to add the 31 requirements to report the margin to the tube integrity performance criteria and a 32 comparison with the margin predicted to exist at the inspection by the previous 33 forward-looking tube integrity assessment. In addition, the requirement to report the 34 results of tube pulls and in-situ testing would be deleted.
35 New reporting requirement g. would require any plant-specific reporting requirements, if 36 applicable.
37 Existing reporting requirement h. would be renumbered as c.5. and be revised by 38 editorial changes.
39 40 1.2 Additional Proposed TS Changes 1
2
2
* TS 5.5.9.d.2 would be revised by deleting the requirement to inspect 100 percent of the 3        tubes during each period in paragraphs d.2.a, d.2.b, d.2.c, and d.2.d (144, 120, 96, and 4        72 EFPM, respectively) and by adding the requirement to inspect 100 percent of the 5        tubes every 96 EFPM.
{NOTE: Use this section if variations are proposed. Add additional subsections if needed.
6 7 TS [5.6.7],Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report:
3 Editorial variations discussed below in Section 1.2.1 do not warrant removal from the CLIIP and 4
8 9
do not require any additional technical branches to be on the review.}
* Existing reporting requirement b. would be renumbered as c. and be revised by editorial 10        and punctuation changes.
5 6
11
1.2.1 Editorial Variations 7
* New reporting requirement b. would be added to require the nondestructive examination 12        (NDE) techniques utilized for tubes with increased degradation susceptibility be 13        reported.
8
14
{NOTE: Use this section if the plant has different numbering/nomenclature or modify 9
* Existing reporting requirement c. would be renumbered as c.1. and be revised by 15        editorial and punctuation changes.
accordingly for other editorial changes made.}
16
10 11 The licensee noted that [name of facility] TSs have different numbering [and nomenclature]
* Existing reporting requirement d. would be renumbered as c.2. and be revised to note 17        that the location, orientation (if linear), measured size (if available), and voltage 18        response do not need to be reported for tube wear indications at support structures that 19        are less than 20 percent through-wall. However, the total number of tube wear 20        indications at support structures that are less than 20 percent through-wall would be 21        reported.
12 than standard technical specifications (STSs).
22
13 14  
* New reporting requirement d. would be added to require an analysis summary of the 23        tube integrity conditions predicted to exist at the next scheduled inspection relative to the 24        applicable performance criteria, including the analysis, methodology, inputs, and results.
25
* Existing reporting requirement e. would be renumbered as c.4. and be revised by 26        editorial and punctuation changes.
27
* Existing reporting requirements f. and h. would be combined, be renumbered as e., and 28        be revised by editorial and punctuation changes.
29
* New reporting requirement f. would be added to require the results of any SG secondary 30        side inspections be reported.
31
* Existing reporting requirement g. would be renumbered as c.3. and be revised to add the 32        requirements to report the margin to the tube integrity performance criteria and a 33        comparison with the margin predicted to exist at the inspection by the previous 34        forward-looking tube integrity assessment. In addition, the requirement to report the 35        results of tube pulls and in-situ testing would be deleted.
36
* New reporting requirement g. would require any plant-specific reporting requirements, if 37        applicable.
38
* Existing reporting requirement h. would be renumbered as c.5. and be revised by 39        editorial changes.
40
 
1 1.2      Additional Proposed TS Changes 2
3 {NOTE: Use this section if variations are proposed. Add additional subsections if needed.
4 Editorial variations discussed below in Section 1.2.1 do not warrant removal from the CLIIP and 5 do not require any additional technical branches to be on the review.}
6 7 1.2.1   Editorial Variations 8
9 {NOTE: Use this section if the plant has different numbering/nomenclature or modify 10 accordingly for other editorial changes made.}
11 12 The licensee noted that [name of facility] TSs have different numbering [and nomenclature]
13 than standard technical specifications (STSs).
14 15
 
==2.0      REGULATORY EVALUATION==


16 17 The regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) paragraph 50.36(c)(5),
==2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION==
18 Administrative controls, state that [a]dministrative controls are the provisions relating to 19 organization and management, procedures, recordkeeping, review and audit, and reporting 20 necessary to assure operation of the facility in a safe manner. Each licensee shall submit any 21 reports to the Commission pursuant to approved technical specifications as specified in 22 [10 CFR] 50.4. Technical Specification Section 5.0, Administrative Controls, requires that an 23 SG Program be established and implemented to ensure that SG tube integrity is maintained.
15 16 The regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) paragraph 50.36(c)(5),
24 Programs established by the licensee, including the SG Program, are listed in the administrative 25 controls section of the TS to operate the facility in a safe manner.
17 Administrative controls, state that [a]dministrative controls are the provisions relating to 18 organization and management, procedures, recordkeeping, review and audit, and reporting 19 necessary to assure operation of the facility in a safe manner. Each licensee shall submit any 20 reports to the Commission pursuant to approved technical specifications as specified in 21
26 27 The NRC staffs guidance for the review of TSs is in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for 28 the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR [Light-Water Reactor]
[10 CFR] 50.4. Technical Specification Section 5.0, Administrative Controls, requires that an 22 SG Program be established and implemented to ensure that SG tube integrity is maintained.
29 Edition (SRP), Chapter 16.0, Technical Specifications, Revision 3, dated March 2010 30 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100351425). As described therein, as part of the regulatory 31 standardization effort, the NRC staff has prepared STSs for each of the LWR nuclear designs.
23 Programs established by the licensee, including the SG Program, are listed in the administrative 24 controls section of the TS to operate the facility in a safe manner.
32 Accordingly, the NRC staffs review includes consideration of whether the proposed changes 33 are consistent with [insert applicable NUREG from list in footnote],1 as modified by 34 NRC-approved travelers.
25 26 The NRC staffs guidance for the review of TSs is in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for 27 the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR [Light-Water Reactor]
35 36 TSTF-577 revised the STSs related to SG tube inspections and SG tube inspection reporting 37 requirements. The NRC approved TSTF-577, under the CLIIP on [Month Day, 2021 (ADAMS 38 Package Accession No. TBD)].
28 Edition (SRP), Chapter 16.0, Technical Specifications, Revision 3, dated March 2010 29 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100351425). As described therein, as part of the regulatory 30 standardization effort, the NRC staff has prepared STSs for each of the LWR nuclear designs.
39 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Technical Specifications, Babcock and Wilcox Plants, NUREG-1430, Volume 1, Specifications, and Volume 2, Bases, Revision 4, April 2012 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12100A177 and ML12100A178, respectively).
31 Accordingly, the NRC staffs review includes consideration of whether the proposed changes 32 are consistent with [insert applicable NUREG from list in footnote],1 as modified by 33 NRC-approved travelers.
34 35 TSTF-577 revised the STSs related to SG tube inspections and SG tube inspection reporting 36 requirements. The NRC approved TSTF-577, under the CLIIP on [Month Day, 2021 (ADAMS 37 Package Accession No. TBD)].
38 39 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Technical Specifications, Babcock and Wilcox Plants, NUREG-1430, Volume 1, Specifications, and Volume 2, Bases, Revision 4, April 2012 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12100A177 and ML12100A178, respectively).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants, NUREG-1431, Volume 1, Specifications, and Volume 2, Bases, Revision 4, April 2012 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12100A222 and ML12100A228, respectively).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants, NUREG-1431, Volume 1, Specifications, and Volume 2, Bases, Revision 4, April 2012 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12100A222 and ML12100A228, respectively).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Technical Specifications, Combustion Engineering Plants, NUREG-1432, Volume 1, Specifications, and Volume 2, Bases, Revision 4, April 2012 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12102A165 and ML12102A169, respectively).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Technical Specifications, Combustion Engineering Plants, NUREG-1432, Volume 1, Specifications, and Volume 2, Bases, Revision 4, April 2012 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12102A165 and ML12102A169, respectively).  
 
1
 
==3.0      TECHNICAL EVALUATION==
 
2 3 3.1      Proposed TS Changes to Adopt TSTF-577 4
5 The NRC staff compared the licensees proposed TS changes in Section 1.1 of this SE against 6 the changes approved in TSTF-577. In accordance with SRP Chapter 16.0, the NRC staff 7 determined that the STS changes approved in TSTF-577 are applicable to the [name of 8 facility] TSs because [name of facility] is a PWR design plant and the NRC staff approved the 9 TSTF-577 changes for PWR designs. The NRC staff finds that the licensees proposed 10 changes to the [name of facility] TSs in Section 1.1 of this SE are consistent with those found 11 acceptable in TSTF-577.
12 13 In the SE of TSTF-577, the NRC staff concluded that the TSTF-577 changes to STS 5.5.9, 14 Steam Generator (SG) Program, and STS 5.6.7, Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report, 15 were acceptable because, as discussed in Section 3.0 of that SE, they continued to ensure SG 16 tube integrity and, therefore, protected the public health and safety. In particular, the structural 17 integrity performance criterion and accident-induced leakage performance criterion (explained in 18 STS 5.5.9.b, items 1 and 2, respectively) will continue to be met with the proposed revised SG 19 inspection intervals (maximum allowable time between SG inspections) and inspection periods 20 (maximum allowable time between 100 percent of SG tubes inspections). Additionally, the 21 proposed changes to the reporting requirements will provide more detailed and consistent 22 information to the NRC. Therefore, the NRC staff found that the proposed changes to the SG 23 program and inspection reporting requirements were acceptable because they continued to 24 meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(5) by providing administrative controls necessary to 25 assure operation of the facility in a safe manner. For these same reasons, the NRC staff 26 concludes that the corresponding proposed changes to the [name of facility] TSs in Section 27 1.1 of this SE continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(5).
28 29 3.2      Additional Proposed TS Changes 30 31 {NOTE: Use this section if variations are proposed. Add additional subsections if needed.}
32 33 3.2.1    Editorial 34 35 {NOTE: Use this section if the plant has different numbering/nomenclature or modify 36 accordingly for other editorial changes made.}
37 38 The licensee noted that the [name of facility] TSs have different numbering [and 39 nomenclature] than the STS. The NRC staff finds that the different TS numbering [and 40 nomenclature] changes are acceptable because they do not substantively alter TS 41 requirements.
42 43 Finally, the NRC staff reviewed the proposed TS changes for technical clarity and consistency 44 with the existing requirements for customary terminology and formatting. The NRC staff finds 45 that the proposed changes are consistent with SRP Chapter 16.0 and, therefore, are 46 acceptable.
47 48


==4.0     CONCLUSION==
==3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION==
1 2
3.1 Proposed TS Changes to Adopt TSTF-577 3
4 The NRC staff compared the licensees proposed TS changes in Section 1.1 of this SE against 5
the changes approved in TSTF-577. In accordance with SRP Chapter 16.0, the NRC staff 6
determined that the STS changes approved in TSTF-577 are applicable to the [name of 7
facility] TSs because [name of facility] is a PWR design plant and the NRC staff approved the 8
TSTF-577 changes for PWR designs. The NRC staff finds that the licensees proposed 9
changes to the [name of facility] TSs in Section 1.1 of this SE are consistent with those found 10 acceptable in TSTF-577.
11 12 In the SE of TSTF-577, the NRC staff concluded that the TSTF-577 changes to STS 5.5.9, 13 Steam Generator (SG) Program, and STS 5.6.7, Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report, 14 were acceptable because, as discussed in Section 3.0 of that SE, they continued to ensure SG 15 tube integrity and, therefore, protected the public health and safety. In particular, the structural 16 integrity performance criterion and accident-induced leakage performance criterion (explained in 17 STS 5.5.9.b, items 1 and 2, respectively) will continue to be met with the proposed revised SG 18 inspection intervals (maximum allowable time between SG inspections) and inspection periods 19 (maximum allowable time between 100 percent of SG tubes inspections). Additionally, the 20 proposed changes to the reporting requirements will provide more detailed and consistent 21 information to the NRC. Therefore, the NRC staff found that the proposed changes to the SG 22 program and inspection reporting requirements were acceptable because they continued to 23 meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(5) by providing administrative controls necessary to 24 assure operation of the facility in a safe manner. For these same reasons, the NRC staff 25 concludes that the corresponding proposed changes to the [name of facility] TSs in Section 26 1.1 of this SE continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(5).
27 28 3.2 Additional Proposed TS Changes 29 30
{NOTE: Use this section if variations are proposed. Add additional subsections if needed.}
31 32 3.2.1 Editorial 33 34
{NOTE: Use this section if the plant has different numbering/nomenclature or modify 35 accordingly for other editorial changes made.}
36 37 The licensee noted that the [name of facility] TSs have different numbering [and 38 nomenclature] than the STS. The NRC staff finds that the different TS numbering [and 39 nomenclature] changes are acceptable because they do not substantively alter TS 40 requirements.
41 42 Finally, the NRC staff reviewed the proposed TS changes for technical clarity and consistency 43 with the existing requirements for customary terminology and formatting. The NRC staff finds 44 that the proposed changes are consistent with SRP Chapter 16.0 and, therefore, are 45 acceptable.
46 47


49 50 The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there 51 is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by
==4.0 CONCLUSION==
 
48 49 The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there 50 is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by 51 operation in the proposed manner, (2) there is reasonable assurance that such activities will be 1
1 operation in the proposed manner, (2) there is reasonable assurance that such activities will be 2 conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations, and (3) the issuance of the 3 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety 4 of the public.
conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations, and (3) the issuance of the 2
5
amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety 3
of the public.
4 5  


Enclosure [x]
NOTICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. [XXX] TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. [XXX-XX]
NOTICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. [XXX] TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. [XXX-XX]
AND AMENDMENT NO. [XXX] TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. [XXX-XX]
AND AMENDMENT NO. [XXX] TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. [XXX-XX]
Line 137: Line 147:
[NAME OF FACILITY]
[NAME OF FACILITY]
DOCKET NOS. 50-[XXX] AND 50-[XXX]
DOCKET NOS. 50-[XXX] AND 50-[XXX]
Application (i.e., initial and supplements)             Safety Evaluation Date
Application (i.e., initial and supplements)
  * [Date], [ADAMS Accession No.]                         [Date]
Safety Evaluation Date
 
[Date], [ADAMS Accession No.]
==1.0    INTRODUCTION==
[Date]  


==1.0 INTRODUCTION==
The PM should prepare this required section.
The PM should prepare this required section.
[Name of licensee] (the licensee) requested changes to the technical specifications (TSs) for
[Name of licensee] (the licensee) requested changes to the technical specifications (TSs) for
[name of facility] by license amendment request (application). In its application, the licensee requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) process the proposed amendment under the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP). The proposed changes would revise the Steam Generator (SG) Program and the Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report TSs based on Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
[name of facility] by license amendment request (application). In its application, the licensee requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) process the proposed amendment under the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP). The proposed changes would revise the Steam Generator (SG) Program and the Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report TSs based on Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-577, Revision 1, Revised Frequencies for Steam Generator Tube Inspections (TSTF-577) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML21060B434), and the associated NRC staff safety evaluation (SE) of TSTF-577 (ADAMS Accession No. MLXXXXXXXXX).
Traveler TSTF-577, Revision 1, Revised Frequencies for Steam Generator Tube Inspections (TSTF-577) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML21060B434), and the associated NRC staff safety evaluation (SE) of TSTF-577 (ADAMS Accession No. MLXXXXXXXXX).  
 
==2.0    STATE CONSULTATION==


==2.0 STATE CONSULTATION==
The PM should prepare this required section.
The PM should prepare this required section.
In accordance with the Commissions regulations, the [Name of State] State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment on [insert date]. The State official had [no]
In accordance with the Commissions regulations, the [Name of State] State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment on [insert date]. The State official had [no]
comments. [If comments were provided, they should be addressed here].
comments. [If comments were provided, they should be addressed here].  
 
==3.0    ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION==


==3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION==
The PM should prepare this required section.
The PM should prepare this required section.
The amendment relates, in part, to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. The amendment also relates, in part, to changing requirements with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding Enclosure [x]
The amendment relates, in part, to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. The amendment also relates, in part, to changing requirements with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding published in the Federal Register on [Month Day, Year (XX FR XXX)]. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.}}
 
that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding published in the Federal Register on [Month Day, Year (XX FR XXX)]. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.}}

Latest revision as of 10:35, 29 November 2024

Draft Model SE of TSTF 577, Revision 1, Revised Frequencies for Steam Generator Tube Inspections
ML21069A172
Person / Time
Site: Technical Specifications Task Force
Issue date: 03/24/2021
From: Victor Cusumano
NRC/NRR/DSS/STSB
To:
Technical Specifications Task Force
Honcharik, M., NRR/DSS, 301-415-1774
Shared Package
ML21069A190 List:
References
EPID L-2020-PMP-0005
Download: ML21069A172 (8)
v • d • e


Text

Enclosure [x]

1 2

3 4

5 General Directions: This model safety evaluation (SE) provides the format and content for an 6

SE of license amendment requests to adopt TSTF-577, Revision 1 using the Consolidated Line 7

Item Improvement Process The [bolded bracketed] information shows text that should be 8

filled in for the specific amendment. The italicized wording provides guidance on what should 9

be included in each section.

10 11 DRAFT MODEL SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO TSTF-577, REVISION 1 AMENDMENT NO. [XXX] TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. [XXX-XX]

AND AMENDMENT NO. [XXX] TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. [XXX-XX]

[NAME OF LICENSEE]

[NAME OF FACILITY]

DOCKET NOS. 50-[XXX] AND 50-[XXX]

Application (i.e., initial and supplements)

Safety Evaluation Date

[Date], [ADAMS Accession No.]

[Date]

Principal Contributors to Safety Evaluation

[Caroline Tilton]

12

1.0 PROPOSED CHANGE

S 13 14

[Name of licensee] (the licensee) requested changes to the technical specifications (TSs) for 15

[name of facility] by license amendment request (application). In its application, the licensee 16 requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) process the 17 proposed amendment under the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP). The 18 proposed changes would revise the Steam Generator (SG) Program and the Steam 19 Generator Tube Inspection Report TSs based on Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 20 Traveler TSTF-577, Revision 1, Revised Frequencies for Steam Generator Tube Inspections 21 (TSTF-577) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 22 No. ML21060B434), and the associated NRC staff safety evaluation (SE) of TSTF-577 (ADAMS 23 Accession No. MLXXXXXXXXX).

24 25 The tubes within an SG function as an integral part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary 26 and, in addition, isolate fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary coolant and 27 the environment. SG tube integrity means that the tubes are capable of performing this safety 28 function in accordance with the plant design and licensing basis.

29 30

{NOTE. Choose the type of alloy tubing in the plants SGs from the bracketed information. Units 31 may have SGs with different alloy tubing materials (for example, one unit with SGs with Alloy 32 600MA and another with SGs with Alloy 600TT). Repeat the second sentence below for each 1

unit.}

2 3

[Name of facility] has [X] unit[s]. The Unit [1] SGs have [Alloy 600 mil-annealed (Alloy 4

600MA), Alloy 600 thermally treated (Alloy 600TT), or Alloy 690 thermally treated (Alloy 5

690TT)] tubes.

6 7

1.1 Proposed TS Changes to Adopt TSTF-577 8

9 In accordance with NRC staff-approved TSTF-577, the licensee proposed changes that would 10 revise [name of facility] TS [5.5.9], Steam Generator (SG) Program, and TS [5.6.7], Steam 11 Generator Tube Inspection Report. Specifically, the licensee proposed the following changes 12 to adopt TSTF-577:

13 14 TS [5.5.9], Steam Generator (SG) Program:

15 16 TS 5.5.9.d.2 would be revised by deleting the requirement to base inspection frequency 17 on the more restrictive metric between either the effective full power months (EFPM) or 18 refueling outage and to use just the EFPM metric.

19 TS 5.5.9.d.2 would be revised by deleting the allowance to extend the inspection period 20 by 3 months and by deleting the discussion of prorating inspections.

21 TS 5.5.9.d.3 would be revised by adding that each SG inspected at the next inspection 22 after crack indications are found, includes each affected and potentially affected SG.

23 The next inspection after crack indications are found would be changed from shall not 24 exceed 24 effective full power months or one refueling outage (whichever results in more 25 frequent inspections) to shall be at the next refueling outage.

26 27

{NOTE: The following bullet is only applicable for plants that have Alloy 600MA tubing.}

28 TS 5.5.9.d.2 would be revised by changing the requirement to inspect 100 percent of the 29 tubes from every 60 EFPM to every 24 EFPM.

30 31

{NOTE: The following bullets are only applicable for plants that have Alloy 600TT tubing.}

32 TS 5.5.9.d would be revised by adding a phrase regarding portions of the tube that are 33 exempt from inspection by alternate repair criteria.

34 TS 5.5.9.d.2 would be revised by changing the requirement to inspect 100 percent of the 35 tubes at periods of 120, 90, and 60 EFPM to 54 EFPM. A 72 EFPM inspection period 36 would be permitted if SG tubing has never experienced cracking (not including regions 37 exempt from inspection by alternate repair criteria) and the SG inspection was 38 performed with enhanced probes. A description of the enhanced probe inspection would 39 be added.

40 TS 5.5.9.d.3 would be revised by adding a phrase regarding portions of the tube that are 41 exempt from inspection by alternate repair criteria. An additional phrase would be added 42 that permits deferring SG inspections after cracking indications are found if the 43 100 percent inspection was performed with enhanced probes.

44 45

{NOTE: The following bullet is only applicable for plants that have Alloy 690TT tubing.}

1 TS 5.5.9.d.2 would be revised by deleting the requirement to inspect 100 percent of the 2

tubes during each period in paragraphs d.2.a, d.2.b, d.2.c, and d.2.d (144, 120, 96, and 3

72 EFPM, respectively) and by adding the requirement to inspect 100 percent of the 4

tubes every 96 EFPM.

5 6

TS [5.6.7],Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report:

7 8

Existing reporting requirement b. would be renumbered as c. and be revised by editorial 9

and punctuation changes.

10 New reporting requirement b. would be added to require the nondestructive examination 11 (NDE) techniques utilized for tubes with increased degradation susceptibility be 12 reported.

13 Existing reporting requirement c. would be renumbered as c.1. and be revised by 14 editorial and punctuation changes.

15 Existing reporting requirement d. would be renumbered as c.2. and be revised to note 16 that the location, orientation (if linear), measured size (if available), and voltage 17 response do not need to be reported for tube wear indications at support structures that 18 are less than 20 percent through-wall. However, the total number of tube wear 19 indications at support structures that are less than 20 percent through-wall would be 20 reported.

21 New reporting requirement d. would be added to require an analysis summary of the 22 tube integrity conditions predicted to exist at the next scheduled inspection relative to the 23 applicable performance criteria, including the analysis, methodology, inputs, and results.

24 Existing reporting requirement e. would be renumbered as c.4. and be revised by 25 editorial and punctuation changes.

26 Existing reporting requirements f. and h. would be combined, be renumbered as e., and 27 be revised by editorial and punctuation changes.

28 New reporting requirement f. would be added to require the results of any SG secondary 29 side inspections be reported.

30 Existing reporting requirement g. would be renumbered as c.3. and be revised to add the 31 requirements to report the margin to the tube integrity performance criteria and a 32 comparison with the margin predicted to exist at the inspection by the previous 33 forward-looking tube integrity assessment. In addition, the requirement to report the 34 results of tube pulls and in-situ testing would be deleted.

35 New reporting requirement g. would require any plant-specific reporting requirements, if 36 applicable.

37 Existing reporting requirement h. would be renumbered as c.5. and be revised by 38 editorial changes.

39 40 1.2 Additional Proposed TS Changes 1

2

{NOTE: Use this section if variations are proposed. Add additional subsections if needed.

3 Editorial variations discussed below in Section 1.2.1 do not warrant removal from the CLIIP and 4

do not require any additional technical branches to be on the review.}

5 6

1.2.1 Editorial Variations 7

8

{NOTE: Use this section if the plant has different numbering/nomenclature or modify 9

accordingly for other editorial changes made.}

10 11 The licensee noted that [name of facility] TSs have different numbering [and nomenclature]

12 than standard technical specifications (STSs).

13 14

2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION

15 16 The regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) paragraph 50.36(c)(5),

17 Administrative controls, state that [a]dministrative controls are the provisions relating to 18 organization and management, procedures, recordkeeping, review and audit, and reporting 19 necessary to assure operation of the facility in a safe manner. Each licensee shall submit any 20 reports to the Commission pursuant to approved technical specifications as specified in 21

[10 CFR] 50.4. Technical Specification Section 5.0, Administrative Controls, requires that an 22 SG Program be established and implemented to ensure that SG tube integrity is maintained.

23 Programs established by the licensee, including the SG Program, are listed in the administrative 24 controls section of the TS to operate the facility in a safe manner.

25 26 The NRC staffs guidance for the review of TSs is in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for 27 the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR [Light-Water Reactor]

28 Edition (SRP), Chapter 16.0, Technical Specifications, Revision 3, dated March 2010 29 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100351425). As described therein, as part of the regulatory 30 standardization effort, the NRC staff has prepared STSs for each of the LWR nuclear designs.

31 Accordingly, the NRC staffs review includes consideration of whether the proposed changes 32 are consistent with [insert applicable NUREG from list in footnote],1 as modified by 33 NRC-approved travelers.

34 35 TSTF-577 revised the STSs related to SG tube inspections and SG tube inspection reporting 36 requirements. The NRC approved TSTF-577, under the CLIIP on [Month Day, 2021 (ADAMS 37 Package Accession No. TBD)].

38 39 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Technical Specifications, Babcock and Wilcox Plants, NUREG-1430, Volume 1, Specifications, and Volume 2, Bases, Revision 4, April 2012 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12100A177 and ML12100A178, respectively).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants, NUREG-1431, Volume 1, Specifications, and Volume 2, Bases, Revision 4, April 2012 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12100A222 and ML12100A228, respectively).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Technical Specifications, Combustion Engineering Plants, NUREG-1432, Volume 1, Specifications, and Volume 2, Bases, Revision 4, April 2012 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12102A165 and ML12102A169, respectively).

3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

1 2

3.1 Proposed TS Changes to Adopt TSTF-577 3

4 The NRC staff compared the licensees proposed TS changes in Section 1.1 of this SE against 5

the changes approved in TSTF-577. In accordance with SRP Chapter 16.0, the NRC staff 6

determined that the STS changes approved in TSTF-577 are applicable to the [name of 7

facility] TSs because [name of facility] is a PWR design plant and the NRC staff approved the 8

TSTF-577 changes for PWR designs. The NRC staff finds that the licensees proposed 9

changes to the [name of facility] TSs in Section 1.1 of this SE are consistent with those found 10 acceptable in TSTF-577.

11 12 In the SE of TSTF-577, the NRC staff concluded that the TSTF-577 changes to STS 5.5.9, 13 Steam Generator (SG) Program, and STS 5.6.7, Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report, 14 were acceptable because, as discussed in Section 3.0 of that SE, they continued to ensure SG 15 tube integrity and, therefore, protected the public health and safety. In particular, the structural 16 integrity performance criterion and accident-induced leakage performance criterion (explained in 17 STS 5.5.9.b, items 1 and 2, respectively) will continue to be met with the proposed revised SG 18 inspection intervals (maximum allowable time between SG inspections) and inspection periods 19 (maximum allowable time between 100 percent of SG tubes inspections). Additionally, the 20 proposed changes to the reporting requirements will provide more detailed and consistent 21 information to the NRC. Therefore, the NRC staff found that the proposed changes to the SG 22 program and inspection reporting requirements were acceptable because they continued to 23 meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(5) by providing administrative controls necessary to 24 assure operation of the facility in a safe manner. For these same reasons, the NRC staff 25 concludes that the corresponding proposed changes to the [name of facility] TSs in Section 26 1.1 of this SE continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(5).

27 28 3.2 Additional Proposed TS Changes 29 30

{NOTE: Use this section if variations are proposed. Add additional subsections if needed.}

31 32 3.2.1 Editorial 33 34

{NOTE: Use this section if the plant has different numbering/nomenclature or modify 35 accordingly for other editorial changes made.}

36 37 The licensee noted that the [name of facility] TSs have different numbering [and 38 nomenclature] than the STS. The NRC staff finds that the different TS numbering [and 39 nomenclature] changes are acceptable because they do not substantively alter TS 40 requirements.

41 42 Finally, the NRC staff reviewed the proposed TS changes for technical clarity and consistency 43 with the existing requirements for customary terminology and formatting. The NRC staff finds 44 that the proposed changes are consistent with SRP Chapter 16.0 and, therefore, are 45 acceptable.

46 47

4.0 CONCLUSION

48 49 The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there 50 is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by 51 operation in the proposed manner, (2) there is reasonable assurance that such activities will be 1

conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations, and (3) the issuance of the 2

amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety 3

of the public.

4 5

Enclosure [x]

NOTICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. [XXX] TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. [XXX-XX]

AND AMENDMENT NO. [XXX] TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. [XXX-XX]

[NAME OF LICENSEE]

[NAME OF FACILITY]

DOCKET NOS. 50-[XXX] AND 50-[XXX]

Application (i.e., initial and supplements)

Safety Evaluation Date

[Date], [ADAMS Accession No.]

[Date]

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The PM should prepare this required section.

[Name of licensee] (the licensee) requested changes to the technical specifications (TSs) for

[name of facility] by license amendment request (application). In its application, the licensee requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) process the proposed amendment under the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP). The proposed changes would revise the Steam Generator (SG) Program and the Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report TSs based on Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)

Traveler TSTF-577, Revision 1, Revised Frequencies for Steam Generator Tube Inspections (TSTF-577) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML21060B434), and the associated NRC staff safety evaluation (SE) of TSTF-577 (ADAMS Accession No. MLXXXXXXXXX).

2.0 STATE CONSULTATION

The PM should prepare this required section.

In accordance with the Commissions regulations, the [Name of State] State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment on [insert date]. The State official had [no]

comments. [If comments were provided, they should be addressed here].

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The PM should prepare this required section.

The amendment relates, in part, to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. The amendment also relates, in part, to changing requirements with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding published in the Federal Register on [Month Day, Year (XX FR XXX)]. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML21069A172&oldid=3820874"