ML061520205: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:June 6, 2006 Mr. Biff Bradley | {{#Wiki_filter:June 6, 2006 Mr. Biff Bradley Mr. Michael P. Gallagher Nuclear Energy Institute Director, Licensing & Regulatory Affairs Suite 400 Exelon Nuclear 1776 I Street, NW 200 Exelon Way Washington, DC 20006-3708 Kennett Square, PA 19348 | ||
==Dear Mr. Bradley and Mr. Gallagher:== | ==Dear Mr. Bradley and Mr. Gallagher:== | ||
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is conducting its review of Risk Management Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Surveillance Frequency Control Program, which includes the Limerick license amendment request of June 11, 2004, and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) proposed process methodology document NEI 04-10. Enclosed are the final set of staff comments and requests for additional information (RAIs) (see Enclosure) resulting from its review of the initial submittals. | The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is conducting its review of Risk Management Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Surveillance Frequency Control Program, which includes the Limerick license amendment request of June 11, 2004, and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) proposed process methodology document NEI 04-10. Enclosed are the final set of staff comments and requests for additional information (RAIs) (see Enclosure) resulting from its review of the initial submittals. | ||
We are prepared to meet with you to further discuss these comments and RAIs. Please contact Bob Tjader at (301) 415-1187 or e-mail trt@nrc.gov if you have any questions or need further information on these proposed changes. | We are prepared to meet with you to further discuss these comments and RAIs. Please contact Bob Tjader at (301) 415-1187 or e-mail trt@nrc.gov if you have any questions or need further information on these proposed changes. | ||
Sincerely, | Sincerely, | ||
/RA/ | |||
Timothy J. Kobetz, Chief Technical Specifications Branch Division of Inspection & Regional Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation | Timothy J. Kobetz, Chief Technical Specifications Branch Division of Inspection & Regional Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation | ||
==Enclosure:== | ==Enclosure:== | ||
As stated cc: See attached page | As stated cc: See attached page | ||
ML061520205 OFFICE ITSB/DIRS | ML061520205 OFFICE ITSB/DIRS EEEB/DE ITSB/DIRS NAME TRTjader GAWilson TJKobetz DATE 6/2/06 6/6/06 6/6/06 | ||
Letter to Mr. Biff Bradley and M. Gallagher from T.J. Kobetz dated: | Letter to Mr. Biff Bradley and M. Gallagher from T.J. Kobetz dated: | ||
cc via e-mail: | cc via e-mail: | ||
Mr. Tony Pietrangelo | Mr. Tony Pietrangelo Nuclear Energy Institute arp@nei.org Mr. Biff Bradley Nuclear Energy Institute reb@nei.org Mr. Mike Schoppman Nuclear Energy Institute mas@nei.org Mr. Alan Hackerott, Chairman Omaha Public Power District hhackerott@oppd.com Mr. Ray Schneider Westinghouse Electric Company raymond.e.schneider@us.westinghouse.com Mr. Jim Kenny Pennsylvania Power & Light Company jimkenny@pploweb.com Mr. James Andrachek Westinghouse Electric Company Andracjd@westinghouse.com Mr. John Gaertner EPRI jgaertner@erpi.com Mr. Frank Rahn EPRI frahn@epri.com Mr. Gabe Salamon NMC gabor.salamon@nmcco.com Mr. Glenn Stewart Exelon glenn.stewart@exeloncorp.com Mr. Michael S. Kitlan, Jr. | ||
Nuclear Energy Institute | Duke Energy Corporation mskitlan@duke-energy.com Mr. Donald Hoffman EXCEL Services Corporation donaldh@excelservices.com Mr. Wayne Harrison STP awharrison@stpegs.com Mr. Jerry Andre Westinghouse Electric Company Adykes@absconsulting.com Mr. Eugene Kelly Exelon eugene.kelly@exeloncorp.com Mr. Andrew Dykes ABSC Adykes@absconsulting.com Mr. Courtney Smyth PSEG Nuclear LLC courtneysmyth@pseg.com Mr. Gary Chung SCE-SONGS gary.chung@songs.sce.com | ||
Letter to: Mr. Bradley and Mr. Gallager, by T.J. Kobetz Dated: | Letter to: Mr. Bradley and Mr. Gallager, by T.J. Kobetz Dated: | ||
| Line 66: | Line 64: | ||
METonacci (MET) | METonacci (MET) | ||
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELOCATE SURVEILLANCE TEST FREQUENCIES FROM THE BODY OF THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND PLACE THEM INTO A RISK BASED OWNER CONTROLLED PROGRAM RAI 1 | Enclosure REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELOCATE SURVEILLANCE TEST FREQUENCIES FROM THE BODY OF THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND PLACE THEM INTO A RISK BASED OWNER CONTROLLED PROGRAM | ||
===RAI 1=== | |||
Integrated Decision Making Panel (Expert Panel) Review of Surveillance Frequencies Based on Codes and Standards Provide deterministic criteria in the basis document that would be used to approve revisions to surveillance frequencies that are based upon approved Codes and Standards. | |||
A critical attribute for any calibration or surveillance test is the interval between calibrations or tests. Many of the present surveillances, surveillance test intervals, and acceptance criteria were established over a 40 year history of industry consensus standards and regulatory endorsement through the regulatory guide processes. The guidance in RG 1.174 states that sufficient safety margins are maintained when codes and standards (e.g., American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) or alternatives approved for use by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are met. | A critical attribute for any calibration or surveillance test is the interval between calibrations or tests. Many of the present surveillances, surveillance test intervals, and acceptance criteria were established over a 40 year history of industry consensus standards and regulatory endorsement through the regulatory guide processes. The guidance in RG 1.174 states that sufficient safety margins are maintained when codes and standards (e.g., American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) or alternatives approved for use by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are met. | ||
The current draft of the methodology document recognizes that Codes and Standards help maintain safety margins but does not contain criteria for revising surveillance frequencies. | The current draft of the methodology document recognizes that Codes and Standards help maintain safety margins but does not contain criteria for revising surveillance frequencies. | ||
The importance of recognizing requirements based on codes and standards is demonstrated by an example evaluation included with the Limerick pilot plant request (STI#4). The example indicated the Expert Panel determined there were no codes or standards associated with the Limerick emergency diesel generator (EDG) surveillance test frequencies. However the EDG surveillances are directly mentioned in IEEE Std.- 387, Standard Criteria for Diesel-Generator Units Applied as Standby Power Supplies for Nuclear Power Generating Stations. Refer to attached Table 1. | The importance of recognizing requirements based on codes and standards is demonstrated by an example evaluation included with the Limerick pilot plant request (STI#4). The example indicated the Expert Panel determined there were no codes or standards associated with the Limerick emergency diesel generator (EDG) surveillance test frequencies. However the EDG surveillances are directly mentioned in IEEE Std.- 387, Standard Criteria for Diesel-Generator Units Applied as Standby Power Supplies for Nuclear Power Generating Stations. Refer to attached Table 1. | ||
RAI 4 | ===RAI 2=== | ||
RAI 5 | Technical Specification Surveillance Frequencies vs Acceptance Criteria Provide deterministic criteria in the basis document to address whether more conservative acceptance criteria will be necessary for an extended surveillance frequency. Specifically, discuss when a surveillance frequency extension would require a change in the acceptance criteria, such as the as-found and as-left allowable values. | ||
===RAI 3=== | |||
Monitoring for Conditioning/Exercising Provide deterministic criteria in the basis document that evaluates the degree that a surveillance provides a conditioning exercise to maintain equipment operability, prior to changing the surveillance frequency. | |||
Many surveillances exercise safety-related components and supporting systems on a periodic basis. This periodic exercise of the components provide a measure of conditioning, such as lubrication of bearings and electro-pneumatic relays, or electrical contact wiping (cleaning) of built-up oxidation. | |||
===RAI 4=== | |||
Controls on the Time of Permitted Surveillance Frequency Extensions Provide deterministic criteria in the basis document of a minimum number of surveillance intervals that would be required to establish a database to further extend a previously extended surveillance frequency. | |||
===RAI 5=== | |||
Monitoring Criteria For Returning to the Original Surveillance Frequency Provide deterministic criteria in the basis document that describes how monitoring and feedback of a surveillance with an extended frequency would result in a return to the original frequency when the number of surveillance test failures are determined to be too many. | |||
TABLE 1 A Comparison of Selected Limerick Technical Specifications for the Emergency Diesel Generators to IEEE Standards and NRC Regulatory Guides Emergency Diesel Generator Surveillances Limerick Tech Spec | Attachment TABLE 1 A Comparison of Selected Limerick Technical Specifications for the Emergency Diesel Generators to IEEE Standards and NRC Regulatory Guides Emergency Diesel Generator Surveillances Limerick Tech Spec 4.8.1.1.x.x.x. | ||
IEEE-387-1995 Section 7.5.x Reg Guide 1.9 Endorses 387-1984 Monthly Interval Availability Tests Start 2.a.4 7.5.1 2.2.1 Load Run 2.a.5 7.5.2 2.2.2 Six Month Availability Tests Fast Start and Load 2.h 7.5.3 2.2.3 Shutdown/Refueling Outage Interval System Operation Tests LOOP 2.e.4 7.5.4 2.2.4 ECCS Actuation 2.e.5 7.5.5 2.2.5 Combined ECCS and LOOP 2.e.6 7.5.6 2.2.6 Largest Load Reject 2.e.2 7.5.7 2.2.7 Design Load Reject 2.e.3 7.5.8 2.2.8 Endurance and Load 2.e.8.a 7.5.9 2.2.9 Hot Restart 2.e.8.b 7.5.10 2.2.10 Synchronizing 2.e.10 7.5.11 2.2.11 Protective Trip Bypass 2.e.7 7.5.12 2.2.12 Test Mode Override 2.e.11 7.5.13 2.2.13 10 Year Interval Division Independence Independence 2.f 7.5.14 2.2.14}} | |||
Latest revision as of 08:39, 15 January 2025
| ML061520205 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/06/2006 |
| From: | Kobetz T NRC/NRR/ADRO/DIRS/ITSB |
| To: | Bradley B, Gallagher M Exelon Nuclear, Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Tjader T NRR/DIRS/ITSB 415-1187 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML061520205 (7) | |
Text
June 6, 2006 Mr. Biff Bradley Mr. Michael P. Gallagher Nuclear Energy Institute Director, Licensing & Regulatory Affairs Suite 400 Exelon Nuclear 1776 I Street, NW 200 Exelon Way Washington, DC 20006-3708 Kennett Square, PA 19348
Dear Mr. Bradley and Mr. Gallagher:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is conducting its review of Risk Management Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Surveillance Frequency Control Program, which includes the Limerick license amendment request of June 11, 2004, and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) proposed process methodology document NEI 04-10. Enclosed are the final set of staff comments and requests for additional information (RAIs) (see Enclosure) resulting from its review of the initial submittals.
We are prepared to meet with you to further discuss these comments and RAIs. Please contact Bob Tjader at (301) 415-1187 or e-mail trt@nrc.gov if you have any questions or need further information on these proposed changes.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Timothy J. Kobetz, Chief Technical Specifications Branch Division of Inspection & Regional Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See attached page
ML061520205 OFFICE ITSB/DIRS EEEB/DE ITSB/DIRS NAME TRTjader GAWilson TJKobetz DATE 6/2/06 6/6/06 6/6/06
Letter to Mr. Biff Bradley and M. Gallagher from T.J. Kobetz dated:
cc via e-mail:
Mr. Tony Pietrangelo Nuclear Energy Institute arp@nei.org Mr. Biff Bradley Nuclear Energy Institute reb@nei.org Mr. Mike Schoppman Nuclear Energy Institute mas@nei.org Mr. Alan Hackerott, Chairman Omaha Public Power District hhackerott@oppd.com Mr. Ray Schneider Westinghouse Electric Company raymond.e.schneider@us.westinghouse.com Mr. Jim Kenny Pennsylvania Power & Light Company jimkenny@pploweb.com Mr. James Andrachek Westinghouse Electric Company Andracjd@westinghouse.com Mr. John Gaertner EPRI jgaertner@erpi.com Mr. Frank Rahn EPRI frahn@epri.com Mr. Gabe Salamon NMC gabor.salamon@nmcco.com Mr. Glenn Stewart Exelon glenn.stewart@exeloncorp.com Mr. Michael S. Kitlan, Jr.
Duke Energy Corporation mskitlan@duke-energy.com Mr. Donald Hoffman EXCEL Services Corporation donaldh@excelservices.com Mr. Wayne Harrison STP awharrison@stpegs.com Mr. Jerry Andre Westinghouse Electric Company Adykes@absconsulting.com Mr. Eugene Kelly Exelon eugene.kelly@exeloncorp.com Mr. Andrew Dykes ABSC Adykes@absconsulting.com Mr. Courtney Smyth PSEG Nuclear LLC courtneysmyth@pseg.com Mr. Gary Chung SCE-SONGS gary.chung@songs.sce.com
Letter to: Mr. Bradley and Mr. Gallager, by T.J. Kobetz Dated:
DISTRIBUTION:
ADAMS PUBLIC TSS R/F TSS Staff RidsNrrDIRS RidsNrrAdro RidsNrrDss RidsNrrDssSbpb RidsNrrDssSbwb RidsNrrDra RidsNrrDrp RidsNrrDnrl RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDlr RidsNrrDe RidsOgcRp RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter NSaltos (NTS)
MLWohl (MLW1)
GSShukla (GSS)
FMReinhart (FMR)
DGHarrison (DGH)
CKDoutt (CKD)]
DFThatcher (DFT)
PFPrescott (PFP)
KCoyne (KXC)
MDrouin (MXD)
MCThadani (MCT)
GWMorris (GWM2)
YGHsii (YGH)
DHShum (DHS)
GWParry (GWP)
ABWang (ABW)
BMPham (BMP)
AJHowe (AJH1)
TWAlexion (TWA)
MAStutzkie (MAS7)
DHJaffe (DHJ)
LAMrowca (LXM4)
JSKim (JSK)
GAWilson (GAW1)
METonacci (MET)
Enclosure REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELOCATE SURVEILLANCE TEST FREQUENCIES FROM THE BODY OF THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND PLACE THEM INTO A RISK BASED OWNER CONTROLLED PROGRAM
RAI 1
Integrated Decision Making Panel (Expert Panel) Review of Surveillance Frequencies Based on Codes and Standards Provide deterministic criteria in the basis document that would be used to approve revisions to surveillance frequencies that are based upon approved Codes and Standards.
A critical attribute for any calibration or surveillance test is the interval between calibrations or tests. Many of the present surveillances, surveillance test intervals, and acceptance criteria were established over a 40 year history of industry consensus standards and regulatory endorsement through the regulatory guide processes. The guidance in RG 1.174 states that sufficient safety margins are maintained when codes and standards (e.g., American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) or alternatives approved for use by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are met.
The current draft of the methodology document recognizes that Codes and Standards help maintain safety margins but does not contain criteria for revising surveillance frequencies.
The importance of recognizing requirements based on codes and standards is demonstrated by an example evaluation included with the Limerick pilot plant request (STI#4). The example indicated the Expert Panel determined there were no codes or standards associated with the Limerick emergency diesel generator (EDG) surveillance test frequencies. However the EDG surveillances are directly mentioned in IEEE Std.- 387, Standard Criteria for Diesel-Generator Units Applied as Standby Power Supplies for Nuclear Power Generating Stations. Refer to attached Table 1.
RAI 2
Technical Specification Surveillance Frequencies vs Acceptance Criteria Provide deterministic criteria in the basis document to address whether more conservative acceptance criteria will be necessary for an extended surveillance frequency. Specifically, discuss when a surveillance frequency extension would require a change in the acceptance criteria, such as the as-found and as-left allowable values.
RAI 3
Monitoring for Conditioning/Exercising Provide deterministic criteria in the basis document that evaluates the degree that a surveillance provides a conditioning exercise to maintain equipment operability, prior to changing the surveillance frequency.
Many surveillances exercise safety-related components and supporting systems on a periodic basis. This periodic exercise of the components provide a measure of conditioning, such as lubrication of bearings and electro-pneumatic relays, or electrical contact wiping (cleaning) of built-up oxidation.
RAI 4
Controls on the Time of Permitted Surveillance Frequency Extensions Provide deterministic criteria in the basis document of a minimum number of surveillance intervals that would be required to establish a database to further extend a previously extended surveillance frequency.
RAI 5
Monitoring Criteria For Returning to the Original Surveillance Frequency Provide deterministic criteria in the basis document that describes how monitoring and feedback of a surveillance with an extended frequency would result in a return to the original frequency when the number of surveillance test failures are determined to be too many.
Attachment TABLE 1 A Comparison of Selected Limerick Technical Specifications for the Emergency Diesel Generators to IEEE Standards and NRC Regulatory Guides Emergency Diesel Generator Surveillances Limerick Tech Spec 4.8.1.1.x.x.x.
IEEE-387-1995 Section 7.5.x Reg Guide 1.9 Endorses 387-1984 Monthly Interval Availability Tests Start 2.a.4 7.5.1 2.2.1 Load Run 2.a.5 7.5.2 2.2.2 Six Month Availability Tests Fast Start and Load 2.h 7.5.3 2.2.3 Shutdown/Refueling Outage Interval System Operation Tests LOOP 2.e.4 7.5.4 2.2.4 ECCS Actuation 2.e.5 7.5.5 2.2.5 Combined ECCS and LOOP 2.e.6 7.5.6 2.2.6 Largest Load Reject 2.e.2 7.5.7 2.2.7 Design Load Reject 2.e.3 7.5.8 2.2.8 Endurance and Load 2.e.8.a 7.5.9 2.2.9 Hot Restart 2.e.8.b 7.5.10 2.2.10 Synchronizing 2.e.10 7.5.11 2.2.11 Protective Trip Bypass 2.e.7 7.5.12 2.2.12 Test Mode Override 2.e.11 7.5.13 2.2.13 10 Year Interval Division Independence Independence 2.f 7.5.14 2.2.14