ML17264A846

Discusses Differences & Documents Util Position Concerning Reportability of Missed Surveillances on 960224 of TS & IST at Ginna Station Per Amend 61

ML17264A846
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	05/14/1996
From:	Mecredy R ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
References
NUDOCS 9704020118
Download: ML17264A846 (5)

Text

CATEGORY, j.

lj, REGULAT INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION

~TEM (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR:9704020118 DOC.DATE: 96/05/14 NOTARIZED:

NO DOCKET FACIAL 50-244 Robert Emmet Ginna Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Rochester G

05000244 AUTH.NAME

'AUTHOR AFFILIATION MECREDY,R.C.'ochester Gas

& Electric Corp.

RECIP;NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Region 1 (Post 820201)

SUBJECT:

Discusses differences

& documents util position concerning reportability of missed sgrveillances on 960224 of TS a IST at Ginna Station per Amend 61.

'DISTRIBUTION CODE:

IEOID COPIES RECEIVED:LTR

~

ENCL 0 SIZE:

TITLE: General (50 Dkt)-Insp Rept/Notice of Violation Response NOTES:License Exp date in accordance with 10CFR2;2.109(9/19/72).

'A T

05000244 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PDl-l PD INTERNAL: AEOD/SPD/RAB DEDRO NRR/DISP/PIPB NRR/DRPM/PECB NUDOCS-ABSTRACT OGC/HDS3 COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

1 1

1 1

1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME VISSING, G.

.BQihjCCZg FILE CEN FB NRR/DRPM/PERB OE DIR RGN1 FILE 01 COPIES LTTR ENCL EXTERNAL: LITCO BRYCE,J H

1 NRC PDR 1

NOAC NUDOCS FULLTEXT D

NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTS:

PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE. TO HAVE YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION REMOVED FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS

'OR REDUCE THE'UMBER OF COPIES RECEIVEDBY YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK (DCD)

ON EXTENSION 415-2083 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: ITTR 18 ENCL

N-R-27-1997 89: 15 FRON R.G. KE.

DOCLNENT CONTROL TO 913814152182 P. 82

~

~

gQQNQKR GA$AIVDEIECNIC CORPORAL i S9 EASTMAN'/AVE, ROCHESlEIi'N Y. Qdl90(X((

AREA CCOE7Id SC&27%

ROBERT C. hLECQEOY VriPwu&ht Hadst Opetol'en'.S.

Nuc!car Regulatory Commission Region I 475 AUendale Road KingofPrussia, PA 19406

Subject:

May 14, 1996 KH ERR g~

'RR Reportability'ofMissed Technical Specification and Inscaicc Testing SurvciHanccs Rochester.Gas k Electric Corporation R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-244 Gentlemen,'n Pebruary 24, 1996, RGB'mplemented the Improve'd Standard Technical Specifications {ISTS) at Ginna Station per Amendment No. 61. As a rmltofthis conversion, an issue has been raised witii icspc<<t to t!ic icpoitability of iiiis~cd tccliu;vul spa;ifi<<ation aud inscivico ta ting (IST) survciGanccs pcr'0 CPR 50.73. This issue is duc to thc fact that previous NRC guidance inthis area (NUIT-1022) does not specificaHy apply to the ISTS in several areas.

The purpose ofthis letter is to discuss these differences and document RGkEs position concerninS reportabiiity ofthese missed survcillanccs.

In 1994, the NRC published asccond draft, revision 1 to NUREG-1022. Thc purpose ofN"REG-1022 was to consolidateNRC reporting guidelines with respect to.10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 into one document to help achicvo consistency vithia, thc'nuclear power industry.

MJREG-10~M w(is developed using standard tcchnical specifications (STS) which preceded the ISTS. There are several differences between these two versions oftechnical spcciGcations which crcatc discrepancies when attempting to use the guidance ofMJRECv-1022,.especially for the reportability nf missed techniiml

. specifications and IST survei0ances.

These differences are discussed in detail below.

In STS, the relevant specifications in question are 4.0.1 and 4.0.3.

These are resta>M below for discussion purposes:

4.0.1 SurvciHance Requirements shall be met during the OPEBATIONAI. MODES. or

'ther conditions specified for individual I.imitingConditions for Qperauon unle:s otherwisc stated in an individual Surveillance Requirement,

'7704020118 960514 PDR ADOCK 05000244 P

~

PDR t

~.Q~'Q

(

o u2

~

l%R-27-1997 89: 1S FP R.G. KE.

DOCUMENT CONTROL

$0

~ 9139141S2182 P. 83 1

4.0.3 Failure 'to perform a Surveillance Requirement within the allowed surveillsni<

interval; de6ncd by SpeciQcation 4.0.2, shall constitute noncompliance with the OPERABILITYrequiretnents for a Limitina Condition for Operation.

The time limits ofthe ACTIONrequirements are applicable at the tiine it is identified that a SurvciUance Requirement has not been performed.

The ACTIONrequirements may be delayed forup to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to permit the compli.tion ofthe surveBIance when the allowable outage time limits of the ACTIONrequirements are less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

SurvciHanco Requixcmcnts do iiothave tv bc performed or inopersblc equipment.

In summary, pcr Specifications 4.0.1 and 4.0,3, ifthe surveiBance frequency,for a component is

exceeded, the subject component mtist be declared inoperable and the limiting condition for'peration (LCO) entered; howcvcr, a delay period of up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> is provided before the associated ACTIONS must bc performed.

Kithrespect to reportability, the bases for Specification 4.0.3 state that "the failure to perform a surveillancc~thin the provisions of Specification 4.0.2 is a violation ofa Tcchnical SpccUicatioii

~

requirement and is, therefore, a reportable event under the requirements of10 CFR 50.73{a)(2)(i)(B) because itis a condition prohibited by the pla'nt's Technical Specifications." &HAG-1022further expands on this by stating that a missed technical specification or TATmirveillancc inust be reported when "enough time has elapsed that, as e result ofthe missed surveillance, a TS controlled system must bc dcchucd inopcrablc and thc LCO action suiiciiicuthas been exceeded."

That is, an LEE is required ifthe time period between the last test and thc test being performed is.greater than the speciGcd testing interval (multiplied by 1.25'per Specification'4.0.2) plus thc completion time for restoring the ~R'ected component to operable status.

Jn this instance, the aKectcd component may be inoperable fora longer period oftiincthan the STS would allow (i.e., the plant is in a condition

.piohibitcd by technical specifications).

lnISTS, there arc significant differences from Specifications 4.0. I and.4.0.3.

The new versions of these Specifications arc rc8tatcd below from the Ginna Station tc"hnical, spccilicutions:

II Sk 3.0.1 SR shall bc met during thc MODES or other specified conditions in the Applicabilityfor indivirhisl I.COs, unless otherwise stated in the SR. Failure

. to meet a SR, whcthcr such failure is expmenced during the performance of ilia Suivcillancc or between performances of thc Surveillance, shall'be Failure to meet thc LCO: Failure to perform a Surveillance within the specified Frequency shaH'bc failure to meet the LCO except as provided in SR.3.0.3.

Surveillance do not have to be performed on inopcrablc cquipmcnt, or variables outside specified limits.

NAR-27-1997 89: 39 FRQ'l R~6. KE.

DOCUNENT CONTROL TO 913814152182 P.82

~

~

'R 3.0.3 Ifitis discovered that a Surveillance was not performed within its specified Fiequcncy, then compliance with the requirement to declare the LCO not met may be delayed, &omthe time of'discovery, up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or up to the lirrril of the specified Frequency, whichever is less.

This delay is permitted to allow performance ofthe Surveillance, Ifthe'Surveillance is not performed withinthe delay period, the LCO must immediately bc declared not met, and the applicable Condition(s) must be entered.

Tlicrefore, pcr SR 3.0.1 and 3,0,3, ifa surveillance frequency is exceeded, a delay period ofup to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> is provided in order to paform the surveillance prior to declaring any component inoperablc and the LCO not met.

This is a significant rliffexence from STS in which the coinponent is first declared inoperablc and then a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> delay is provided prior to per&rming thc required actions.

Kn addition, with respect to repuitability ofa missed survcHlance, there is no longer any discussion in the bases for SR 3.0,3.

1 V

Based on these difFcreneee, it'is RQkB's position that a.missed surveillance test is not a rcportabio event (i.c., LER) per the ISTS. Atno time is the plant outside the ta:hnical specifications in this instance siircc no equlpmcm ls declared inoperable until thc allowed delay period from time of discovery has been exceeded (e.g, 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) or the surveillance is failed upon its pcrfnrmanr.e.

These actions are speci6caHy piovided by SR 3.0.3 vhich is part ofthe technical specifications'per 10 CPR 50.36. In addition, a missed survciHance ta typicallyin adrnioistiative issue that does not directly affect plant operation unless thc affected component is failed.

Therefore, ifupon peforinance ofthe missed surveillance a'requited component is discovered inoperable, an LBRwill be generated in accoahncc with the guidance provided inhKG~-1022 since tho componerrt mrry have been inoperable for a longer period oftime than aHovIcd by the ISTS.

It is noted that ifa missed surveillance test indicates a substantial breakdown in the surveillance testing progrun (e.gsurveillance test has never been performef}, itvmuld be reported per 10 CFR. 50.73(a)(%Xi)(B). This is.consistent withNUREG 10 2 guidanco for rcportability ofadruiriisu'aiivc control reIated errors.

Since the IST program mpircmcrits are in the administrative controls section in ISTS (versus Specification 4.0.5 per STS), this guidance would also apply to raisscd or deficient IST program requirements.

Therefore, eFcctr'vo February 24, 1996, ROBOMB willonly generate an LER per 10 CFR 50. /3 upon missed technical specification or IST surveillance if:

A component niust be declared iirnlr~sable and the time period between two rrucccssful surveHIMicc tests is greater'than 1.25 time the specified frequency plus the completion time for restoring the comporrerri io operable.status; or.

4 (2)

Vhc missed surveillance(s) indicate a substantial breakdown in the surveillance testing

program,

NAR-27-1997 89: 39 FROM R.G. &E. DOClNENT CONTROL TO 913814152182 P. 83

~

~

~ 4 Plebe contact George Wrobef, Manager ofNuclear Safety and Licensing at (7l6) 724-8070 ifyou require any further information. RGEcB would like to suggest that the NRC consider these issues in any future revisions ofMJRFG-1022 Ver ly yours, MDE845 Robert C Mecredy XC:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Guy Vissing (Mail Stnp 1467)

PWR Project Directorate I-j Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Chris Grimes (MailStop i1222)

Chief, Technical Specifications Branch Washington, D.C. Z0555 Ginna Senior Resident hspector TOTAL P.83