Text

Non-Concurrence for Perry 5b LAR (NCP-2015-012) Sections a, B, & C
	ML16033A197
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	01/22/2016
From:	Ed Miller; Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	;
	Miller E, NRR/DORL/LPLII-1
References
	Download: ML16033A197 (16)
	v • d • e

As the NCP Approver, I have read and considered the submission from EEEB staff. Prior to discussion of the issues, I would like to acknowledge the work of the EEEB staff and thank them for participating in the non

-concurrence process. Although we don't always agree on particular issues, it is important for staff to raise issues they perceive for consideration by all involved parties.

The EEEB Non

-concurrence has four core objections to the proposed license amendment request (LAR)

1. The proposed amendment would modify the Perry Technical Specification (TSs) in a manner that doesn't meet the current licensing basis of Perry and NRC regulatory requirements. Specifically, General Design Criteria (GDC) 17, GDC 18, 10 CFR 50.36(c)(3), and 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion III. Further , that the proposed change is risk-based and not risk

-informed.

2. The Topical Report SE was not reviewed by the Office of the General Counsel (OGC). 3. There are no backstops provided for the Surveillance Requirement (SR) frequencies that have been relocated to the licensee controlled document. 4. The extension does not take into account the Industry standards and vendor recommendations.

The following is a response to each of the four core objections raised by the EEEB staff:

1. The TS Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) are the lowest functional capability or performance levels of equipment required for safe operation of the facility. The FSAR documents the conformance of the plant design to the regulations. The analyses in the FSAR form the bases from which the TS are derived. The specific values

, functions, or equipment required by the TS under normal conditions are selected to assure that the system or component will be able to carry out its design functions under accident and transient conditions, including maintaining Defense-in-Depth.

FENOC has not proposed any changes to any LCOs within the Perry TSs as part of this LAR. As such, the proposed LAR cannot impact the manner in which the plant meets the various GDC or Appendix B Criterion cited in the non

-concurrence. Instead, the NRC staff's review of the proposed change is governed by 10 CFR 50.36(c)(3).

Specifically, the NRC staff needs to verify that proposed SRs 1 continue to assure that the necessary quality of systems and components is maintained, that facility operation will be within safety limits, and that the LCOs will be met. The LAR also does not propose any changes to the actual surveillances (i.e., the activity to be performed), onl y the frequency at which the surveillance would be performed is allowed to be relocated to a licensee controlled program.

1 In this context, the SR includes both the activity to be performed and the specific frequency at which the activity need be performed.

As discussed in the NRC staff's SE, the programmatic control of SR frequencies proposed by FENOC would include qualitative considerations, the results of risk

-analyses, sensitivity studies, and bounding analyses, as necessary. As discussed in the NRC staff SE for the TR, a frequency determined in a manner that considers these factors will continue to meet 10 CFR 50.36(c)(3). Further, the factors listed previously, continue to incorporate deterministic factors, which would not be included in a risk

-based program. Additionally, changing the interval between performance s of a surveillance does not affect the overall design of the system or plant therefore the overall safety margins are unaffected.

Given the above consideration s, I find that the proposed LAR would not adversely impact the manner in which the TSs meet the applicable regulatory requirements.

2. Per Office Instruction LIC

-500, the only OGC involvement with the review of a Topical Report (TR) is with respect to the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Specifically, OGC provides a determination of whether the TR constitutes a rule, as defined under the CRA. There is no requirement for seeking OGC review on the NRC staff SE for the Topical Report. In accordance with the practice of STSB (Formerly ITSB), OGC was provided the model SE for TSTF-425, Revision 3, and on June 4, 2009, indicated that they had no legal objection to the document (ADAMS Accession No. ML091800157).

Additionally, I would note that neither the action of approving the TR or the TSTF has the effect of modifying any license. For a licensee to adopt either of these documents, said licensee would need to apply for a plant

-specific license amendment request. In accordance with LIC

-101, OGC review of the associated SE would be sought. A quick spot-check in ADAMS of previously issued TSTF

-425 LARs identified no instance where OGC review was not received.

3. The non-concurrence indicated that the frequencies lacked an overall backstop or maximum surveillance interval extension allowed. This is true, however, it is by design. Since there is such a great range of frequencies at which SRs may be required (e.g.,

some are weekly while others are once every outage), applying a single numerical maximum would likely be impractical and have unintended consequences. Instead, the progra m limits the magnitude of any one increase in a surveillance test interval (STI) to an increase to the next logical interval or relies on a phased approach. Typically, the STI increase is based on the previous three performances having been satisfactory

, 6 months, or previous two performances, when the STI is >

6 months. Additionally, should an SR produce unsatisfactory results as a result of the extended STI, the program would force the STI to revert to the previously acceptable frequency. This approach ensures that, while risk

-insights can be utilized in determining a frequency, there remain deterministic limits as well.

4. Below is listed the steps from the TR that demonstrate that the proposed change does account for industry standards and vendor manuals:

Excerpts from Step 6: In general, the next logical STI given in technical specifications is chosen for improvement. For example, an STI of one month would be changed to quarterly, quarterly to semi

-annual, semi

-annual to annual, etc. If a STI was chosen which goes beyond the next logical interval, a phased implementation would probably be more appropriate and would need to be considered in Step 15.

Excerpts from Step 7, Identify Qualitative Considerations to be addressed

Surveillance test and performance history of the components and system associated with the STI adjustment.

Impact on defense

-in-depth protection Vendor-specified maintenance frequency Test intervals specified in applicable industry codes and standards, e.g., ASME, IEEE, etc. o Document that a review of both the committed and current version of applicable industry codes and standards was performed.

o Any deviations from STIs specified in applicable industry codes and standards currently committed to in the plant licensing basis shall be reviewed and documented Document that assumptions in the plant licensing basis would not be invalidated when performing the surveillance at the bounding interval limit for the proposed STI change. For example, if the assumptions in the plant licensing basis would be invalidated at the bounding STI, the STI could be limited accordingly or a more conservative acceptance criteria could be established, as appropriate.

The degree to which the surveillance provides a conditioning exercise to maintain equipment operability, for example, lubrication of bearings or electrical contact wiping (cleaning) of built up oxidation, and limit the STI accordingly.

From Step 18, Monitoring and feedback (p. 28 in the TR)

First performance monitoring should help confirm that no failure mechanisms that are related to the revised surveillance frequencies become important enough to alter the failure rates assumed in the justification of program changes. Second, performance monitoring should, to the extent practicable, ensure that adequate component capability (i.e., margin) exists relative to design

-basis conditions so that component operating characteristics, over time, do not result in reaching a point of insufficient margin before the next scheduled test.

For acceptance guidelines, monitoring programs need be proposed that are capable of adequately tracking the performance of equipment that, when degraded, could alter the conclusions that were key to supporting the acceptance of revised surveillance frequencies.

Monitoring programs should be structured such that SSCs are monitored commensurate with their safety significance. This allows for a reduced level of monitoring of components categorized as having low safety significance.

The performance monitoring process should have the following attributes:

Enough tests are included to provide meaningful data.

The test is devised such that incipient degradation can reasonably be expected to be detected.

The licensee trends appropriate parameters as necessary, to provide reasonable assurance that the component will remain operable over the test interval In Conclusion the DIRS and DRA staff welcome the continuous feedback and improvement of this and other programs. I would call out the IP 71111.22, Appendix A for 5b, as well as the fact that we get feedback from the SRAs and can work with DIRS to improve the process. We also have IMC 0801, ROP Feedback Program, so that others can make recommendations.

Additionally, we welcome feedback on the TRs such as NEI 0 4-10, Rev. 1, and NEI 06

-09. If the staff identifies specific concerns or issues with the NRC

-approved TR (either the TR or the SE approving them) they should bring them up utilizing the appropriate process, so that the issues can be resolved.

Additionally, I would note that, we are not trying to push these reviews through on precedent, instead we have the forward fit policy (refer to ML101960180, footnote 2 for background) and LIC

-202, so if there is ever a specific technical concern with one of these applications (e.g., a SR should be excluded, but isn't under the TSTF), we can pursue it.

Given the questions raised by the non

-concurrence, I am directing that the associated SE be augmented to include the following language to further clarify the issue

The SSC failure rate (per unit time

) is assumed to be unaffected by the change in test frequency, such that the failure probability is assumed to increase linearly with time, and will be confirmed by the required monitoring and feedback implemented after the change in surveillance frequency is implemented. The NEI 04-10 process requires consideration of qualitative sources of information with regards to potential impacts of test frequency on SSC performance, including industry and plant

-specific operating experience, vendor recommendations, industry standards, and code

-specified test intervals. Thus, the process is not reliant upon risk analyses as the sole basis for the proposed changes.

The potential benefits of a reduced surveillance frequency, including reduced downtime and reduced potential for restoration errors, test

-caused transients, and test

-caused wear of equipment, are identified qualitatively, but not quantitatively assessed.

NEI 04 10, Revision 1, requires performance monitoring of SSCs whose surveillance frequencies have been revised as part of a feedback process to assure that the change in test frequency has not resulted in degradation of equipment performance and operational safety.

The monitoring and feedback includes consideration of Maintenance Rule monitoring of equipment performance. In the event of SSC performance degradation, the surveillance frequency will be reassessed in accordance with the methodology, in addition to any corrective actions which may be required by the Maintenance Rule.