Federal Register: January 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 7)

DOCID: fr12ja09-117 FR Doc E9-345

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRC ID: [NRC-2008-0065]

NOTICE: NOTICES

DOCID: fr12ja09-117

ACTION: Availability of Model Applications:

DOCUMENT ACTION: Notice of Availability.

SUBJECT CATEGORY:

Notice of Availability of Model Application Concerning Technical Specification Improvement To Revise Containment Isolation Valve Completion Times (TSTF-498, Revision 1, for Babcock & Wilcox Plants)

DATES: The NRC staff issued a Federal Register (FR) notice (73 FR 6529- 6537; February 4, 2008), which provided an opportunity for comment on a model SE, model application, and model NSHC determination relating to the CT extension for TS actions related to inoperable CIVs at Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) plants. Similarly, the NRC staff herein provides a revised model SE, revised model LAR, and model NSHC determination incorporating changes based on the public comments received. The NRC staff can most efficiently consider applications based on the model LAR, which references the model SE, if the LAR is submitted within one year of this Federal Register notice.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a model safety evaluation (SE) relating to the modification of technical specification (TS) 3.6.3, Containment Isolation Valves associated with implementation of BAW 2461A, ``RiskInformed Justification for Containment Isolation Valve Allowed Outage Time Change.'' The NRC staff has also prepared a model license amendment request and a model nosignificanthazards consideration (NSHC) determination relating to this matter. The purpose of these models is to permit the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to modify TS Completion Times (CTs) for CIVs. Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the models apply can then request amendments after confirming
[[Page 1253]]
the applicability of the SE and NSHC determination to their reactors. Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the model applies may request amendments using the model application.

SUMMARY:

Technical Specification Improvement to Revise Containment Isolation Valve Completion Times, etc.,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Background

This notice involves the modification of TS Containment Isolation Valve Completion Times. This change was proposed for incorporation into the standard technical specifications by the Owners Groups participants in the Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF498.

Note: This notice was published in the NRC's Federal Register (Vol. 73 FR 65296537, dated 02/04/2008) as ``Notice of Opportunity to Comment'' stating that the subject TSTF is available for adoption using the NRC's Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP). The NRC has determined that this TSTF does not qualify for the CLIIP process.

Those licensees opting to apply for the subject change to TSs are responsible for reviewing the staff's evaluation, referencing the applicable technical justifications, and providing any necessary plant specific information. Each amendment application made in response to the notice of availability will be processed and noticed in accordance with applicable rules and NRC procedures. Note that containment isolation valve (CIV) configurations and extended completion times (CTs) not specifically evaluated by TR BAW2461, or nonbounding risk parameter values outside the scope of the TR, will require NRC staff's review and licensee development of the specific penetrations and related justifications for the proposed CTs.

TSTF498 can be viewed on the NRC's Web page at: http:// www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/techspecs.html. Applicability

The staff is requesting that the methodologies for assessing large early release frequency (LERF) and incremental conditional large early release probability (ICLERP) are to be documented in the plantspecific application as a regulatory commitment (i.e., included in the licensee's commitment tracking system in accordance with NEI 9904, Revision 0, ``Guidelines for Managing NRC Commitment Changes'') (Reference 5) in the licensees' plantspecific applications referencing TR BAW2461A. The staff is requesting this regulatory commitment because a licensee's implementation of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.177 Tier 3 guidelines generally implies the assessment of risk with respect to core damage frequency (CDF). However, the proposed containment isolation valve (CIV) completion time (CT) impacts containment isolation and consequently LERF and ICLERP, as well as CDF. Because the extended CIV CTs are also based on the LERF and ICLERP metrics, the management of risk in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) for these extended CIV CTs must also assess LERF and ICLERP.

Public Notices

The staff issued a Federal Register notice (73 FR 65296537, February 4, 2008) that requested public comment on the NRC's pending action to revise the TS completion times for selected CIVs at B&W plants as proposed in TSTF498, Revision 1. TSTF498, Revision 1, may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records are accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site (the Electronic Reading Room) at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/ adams.html.

In response to the notice soliciting comments from interested members of the public about the proposed changes to TS regarding CIV completion times, the staff received one set of comments (from the TSTF Owners Groups, representing licensees). The specific comments are provided and discussed below. Note that some of the public comments pertain to the NRC's CLIIP process. As stated previously, the NRC has determined that the subject TSTF does not qualify for the CLIIP process.

1. Comment: Model SE, Section 2.0, ``Regulatory Evaluation,'' second paragraph, of the proposed Safety Evaluation states, ``Therefore, the NRC staff must be able to conclude that there is reasonable assurance that the safety functions affected by the proposed TS CT changes will be performed in accordance with the design basis accidents (DBAs) identified in Chapter 15 of the licensee's final safety analysis report (FSAR).'' The TSTF disagrees with the technical accuracy of this statement. The Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) are based on providing ``reasonable assurance that the safety functions * * * will be performed in accordance with the design basis accidents (DBAs) identified in Chapter 15 of the licensee's final safety analysis report (FSAR).'' When an LCO is not met, the Required Actions are required to be followed within the specified Completion Times. By definition, when an LCO is not met, the safety functions cannot be performed as identified in Chapter 15 of the FSAR. We recommend that the sentence be deleted. This sentence is unnecessary as it only expands on a previous statement that there must be reasonable protection of public health and safety during the proposed Completion Times.

Response: The NRC agrees with the comment and the referenced sentence has been deleted. Additionally, wording has been added which describes the function of CTs.

2. Comment: Section 3.2 of the Model Application, ``Verification and Commitments,'' first paragraph, of the model application states, ``[LICENSEE] verifies the applicability of TSTF498, Revision 1, to [PLANT], and commits to adopting the requirements specified in BAW 2461A which includes the following Limitations and Conditions specified in Section 4.1, Staff Findings and Conditions and Limitations, of the NRC's Safety Evaluation for BAW2461
(ML072330227).'' The section then repeats the eleven conditions in the NRC's Safety Evaluation for BAW2461.

This approach is inconsistent with previous CLIIP model applications and other license amendments that are based on the technical justification provided in a Topical Report. Licensees do not typically repeat, verbatim, conditions on NRC approval of a Topical Report in a license amendment request. Furthermore, the proposed text adds no value as it states the conditions without addressing how the conditions are
[[Page 1254]]

satisfied by the license amendment request.

The TSTF recommends that the quoted sentence, above, be revised to delete the word ``following'' in the phrase ``the following Limitations and Conditions,'' and that the listing of the eleven conditions be removed from the model application.

We recommend that the discussion of the eleven conditions in the model Safety Evaluation be expanded to include a discussion of how each Limitation and Condition is addressed.

  • For those Limitations and Conditions that require verification of the applicability of information in the Topical Report and the Safety Evaluation (i.e., Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11), the revised sentence provides the necessary affirmative statement.
  • For those Limitations and Conditions addressed by the Technical Specification provisions in TSTF498 (i.e., Condition 4, bullets 1 and 3, Condition 6), the model Safety Evaluation should discuss how the Condition is satisfied by the proposed Technical Specification requirements.
  • For those Limitations and Conditions that state that the licensee must discuss a topic in their submittal (i.e., Conditions 5, 8), either an affirmative statement should be added to the model application confirming that the Limitation and Condition is met or guidance should be provided on what information must be included. Note that Limitation and

    Condition 5 is addressed below by a proposed commitment.

    Particular attention should be paid to ensuring that the model application, when used as the basis for a plantspecific license amendment request, can be processed by the NRC under the CLIIP.

    Response: The NRC agrees with the comment that the current wording which repeats the Limitations and Conditions from the staff's Safety Evaluation for Topical Report BAW2461A does not address how the conditions are satisfied. The model application has been revised to require a specific verification by the licensee that each of the 11 Limitations and Conditions have been met. This change ensures that each licensee adopting TSTF498 has met all the Limitations and Conditions without relying exclusively on crossreferencing another document. Additionally, Limitation and Condition 3, as specified in section 3.2, Verification and Commitments, of the Model Application has been revised such that the specific details describing what must be submitted in the application regarding external events, fire risk and seismic evaluations has been deleted. This was necessary to maintain consistency with the staff's resolution of comments on the draft safety evaluation for TR BAW2461 by the Pressurized Water Reactor Owners Group (PWROG) (ADAMS ML072330227). Furthermore, the word ``following'' has been deleted from the phrase ``the following Limitations and Conditions,'' since it is no longer required.

    3. Comment: Section 4, ``Environmental Evaluation,'' of the model application states that the NRC staff's environmental evaluation is applicable and is submitted as an attachment to the application. Submitting a copy of the NRC staff's environmental evaluation as an attachment to the license amendment request is inconsistent with previous CLIIP items and serves no purpose since the amendment request has already stated that the environmental evaluation is applicable.

    The TSTF recommends that Section 4 be revised to be consistent with earlier CLIIP model applications, similar to, ``[LICENSEE] has reviewed the environmental evaluation included in the safety evaluation (SE) published on [DATE]([ ] FR [ ]) as part of the CLIIP Notice of Availability. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the staff's findings presented in that evaluation are applicable to [PLANT, NO.] and the evaluation is hereby incorporated by reference for this application.

    Response: The NRC disagrees with the comment and the model application has been revised to clearly state that the Environmental Evaluation must be attached to the amendment request to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a). Additionally, section 3.1, No Significant Hazards Determination (NSHD), has been revised to state that the NSHD must be attached to the amendment request to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a).

    4. Comment: Attachment 4, ``List of Regulatory Commitments,'' contains an example table with no commitments listed. This is inconsistent with other CLIIP model applications, which list any needed commitments. By not specifying whether any commitments are needed or what those commitments might be, the NRC is making it unlikely that any application submitted following the model application can be processed by the NRC under the CLIIP. The TSTF identified the following commitments that are appropriate to include in the model application. This is consistent with previous CLIIP model applications for risk informed Completion Times and with the proposed Safety Evaluation.

  • [LICENSEE] commits to implement Bases consistent with the Bases provided in TSTF498 under the Technical Specification Bases Control Program with a Due Date concurrent with the implementation of a license amendment based on TSTF498.
  • [LICENSEE] commits to implementing a methodology for assessing the effect on large early release frequency (LERF) and incremental conditional large early release probability (ICLERP) when utilizing the extended CIV CTs in the program for managing risk in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) with a Due Date concurrent with the implementation of a license amendment based on TSTF498.
  • [LICENSEE] commits to the guidance of NUMARC 9301, Revision 2, section 11, which provides guidance and details on the assessment and management of risk during maintenance as an ongoing commitment.

    Response: The NRC agrees with the comment with the exception of the first commitment concerning bases implementation. The bases are required to be submitted per the 10 CFR 50.36(a) criteria. The 10 CFR 50.36(a) states that a summary statement of the bases or reasons for such specifications, other than those covering administrative controls, shall also be included in the application, but shall not become part of the technical specifications. After the NRC approves the Technical Specifications, the licensee can revise bases under its Bases Control Program or/and 10 CFR 50.59 process. The remaining suggested commitments have been added to the model application. Additionally, as stated before, this is not a CLIIP model application.

    Additional changes to the proposed Safety Evaluation:

  • Editorial changes have been made to correct spelling and grammar errors.
  • Wording has been removed from the Applicability statement related to the requirement for licensees to submit Technical Specification Bases along with the application. This statement was unnecessary since 10 CFR 50.36(a) requires the application for a Technical Specification change to include Technical Specification Bases.
  • Per the Commission's Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors (58 FR 39132 39134, July 22, 1993), the Commission expects improved Bases to accompany requests for improved Technical specifications. Safety Evaluation section 3.0, Technical Evaluation, has been revised to clarify
    [[Page 1255]]
    that the TS Bases are not part of the Technical Specifications but must be submitted as required by 10 CFR 50.36(a).
  • Wording has been added to the Summary that states the changes are consistent with the staff's Safety Evaluation for BAW2461 A and are therefore acceptable.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of January 2009.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    Robert B. Elliott,
    Chief, Technical Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection and Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE OF AN APPLICATION WAS PREPARED BY THE NRC STAFF. THE MODEL PROVIDES THE EXPECTED LEVEL OF DETAIL AND CONTENT FOR AN APPLICATION TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS REGARDING RISKINFORMED JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVE ALLOWED OUTAGE TIME CHANGE. LICENSEES REMAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THEIR ACTUAL APPLICATION FULFILLS THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGULATIONS.
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    Document Control Desk
    Washington, DC 20555

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

    Robert Elliott, Mail Stop: O-12H2, Technical Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection & Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 205550001, telephone 3014158585.