[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37590-37593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-15860]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Notice of Opportunity To Comment on Model Safety Evaluation on 
Technical Specification Improvement Regarding Extension of Reactor 
Coolant Pump Motor Flywheel Examination for Westinghouse Plants Using 
the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a model safety evaluation (SE) 
relating to a change in the technical specification

[[Page 37591]]

(TS) required inspection interval for reactor coolant pump (RCP) 
flywheels at Westinghouse-designed reactors. This change was proposed 
for incorporation into the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) for 
Westinghouse Plants (NUREG-1431) by the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) 
participants in the Nuclear Energy Institute's Technical Specification 
Task Force (TSTF), and is designated as TSTF-421, Revision 0. The 
proposed change to the TS would extend the RCP motor flywheel 
examination frequency from the currently approved 10-year inspection 
interval, to an interval not to exceed 20 years. The allowed extension 
in the inspection interval would allow licensees to improve their 
coordination of the flywheel examination with planned RCP 
refurbishments. The NRC staff has also prepared a model no significant 
hazards consideration (NSHC) determination relating to this matter. The 
purpose of this model is to permit the NRC to efficiently process 
amendments that propose to incorporate this change into plant-specific 
TSs. Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the models apply 
could request amendments confirming the applicability of the SE and 
NSHC determination to their reactors. The NRC staff is requesting 
comments on the model SE and model NSHC determination prior to 
announcing their availability for referencing in license amendment 
applications.

DATES: The comment period expires July 24, 2003. Comments received 
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the 
Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received 
on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either electronically or via U.S. 
mail.
    Submit written comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, 
Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail 
Stop: T-6 D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
    Hand deliver comments to: 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
    Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC's Public 
Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike (Room O-1F21), Rockville, Maryland.
    Comments may be submitted by electronic mail to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Reckley, Mail Stop: O-7D1, 
Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, telephone 301-415-1323.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-06, ``Consolidated Line Item 
Improvement Process for Adopting Standard Technical Specification 
Changes for Power Reactors,'' was issued on March 20, 2000. The 
consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) is intended to 
improve the efficiency of NRC licensing processes. This is accomplished 
by processing proposed changes to the STS in a manner that supports 
subsequent license amendment applications. The CLIIP includes an 
opportunity for the public to comment on proposed changes to the STS 
following a preliminary assessment by the NRC staff and finding that 
the change will likely be offered for adoption by licensees. This 
notice is soliciting comment on a proposed change to the STS that 
extends the inspection interval for RCP flywheels from 10 years to 20 
years. The CLIIP directs the NRC staff to evaluate any comments 
received for a proposed change to the STS and to either reconsider the 
change or to proceed with announcing the availability of the change for 
proposed adoption by licensees. 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 would be 
processed and noticed in accordance with applicable rules and NRC 
procedures.
    This notice involves changes to extend the inspection interval for 
RCP flywheels for those plants with Westinghouse designs. This proposed 
change was proposed for incorporation into the STS by the WOG as TSTF-
421, Revision 0. Much of the technical support for TSTF-421, Revision 
0, was provided in topical report WCAP-15666, Revision 0, ``Extension 
of Reactor Coolant Pump Motor Flywheel Examination,'' submitted on 
August 24, 2001. The NRC staff's acceptance of the topical report is 
documented in an SE dated May 5, 2003, which is accessible 
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the 
NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML031250595). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who 
encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should 
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].

Applicability

    This proposed change to the inspection interval for RCP motor 
flywheels is applicable to plants with Westinghouse-designed nuclear 
steam supply systems. The CLIIP does not prevent licensees from 
requesting an alternative approach or proposing changes other than 
those proposed in TSTF-421. Variations from the approach recommended in 
this notice may, however, require additional review by the NRC staff 
and may increase the time and resources needed for the review.

Public Notices

    This notice requests comments from interested members of the public 
within 30 days of the date of publication in the Federal Register. 
Following the staff's evaluation of comments received as a result of 
this notice, the staff may reconsider the proposed change or may 
proceed with announcing the availability of the change in a subsequent 
notice (perhaps with some changes to the SE or proposed NSHC 
determination as a result of public comments). If the staff announces 
the availability of the change, licensees wishing to adopt the change 
will submit an application in accordance with applicable rules and 
other regulatory requirements. The staff will in turn issue for each 
application a notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to 
facility operating license(s), a proposed NSHC determination, and an 
opportunity for a hearing. A notice of issuance of an amendment to 
operating license(s) will also be issued to announce the revised 
requirements for each plant that applies for and receives the requested 
change.

Proposed Safety Evaluation: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Consolidated Line Item Improvement, 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change TSTF-421, Extension of 
Reactor Coolant Pump Motor Flywheel Examinations

1.0 Introduction

    By application dated [ ], [Licensee] (the licensee) requested 
changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for [facility]. The 
proposed changes would extend the reactor coolant pump (RCP)

[[Page 37592]]

motor flywheel examination frequency from the currently approved 10-
year inspection interval to an interval not to exceed 20 years. These 
changes are based on Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) change 
traveler TSTF-421 (Revision 0) that has been approved generically for 
the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications (STS), NUREG-1431. A 
notice announcing the availability of this proposed TS change using the 
consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) was published in the 
Federal Register on [ ] (xx FR yyyyy).

2.0 Regulatory Evaluation

    The function of the RCP in the reactor coolant system (RCS) of a 
pressurized water reactor plant is to maintain an adequate cooling flow 
rate by circulating a large volume of primary coolant water at high 
temperature and pressure through the RCS. Following an assumed loss of 
power to the RCP motor, the flywheel, in conjunction with the impeller 
and motor assembly, provides sufficient rotational inertia to assure 
adequate primary coolant flow during RCP coastdown, thus resulting in 
adequate core cooling. A concern regarding the overspeed of the RCP and 
its potential for failure led to the issuance of Regulatory Guide (RG) 
1.14, ``Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel Integrity,'' Revision 1, dated 
August 1975. RG 1.14 describes a method acceptable to the NRC staff of 
addressing concerns related to RCP vibration and the possible effects 
of missiles that might result from the failure of the RCP flywheel. The 
need to protect components important to safety from such missiles are 
included in General Design Criterion 4, ``Environmental and Dynamic 
Effects Design Basis,'' of Appendix A, ``General Design Criteria for 
Nuclear Power Plants,'' to 10 CFR Part 50, ``Licensing of Production 
and Utilization Facilities,'' which is applicable to plants that 
obtained their construction permits after May 21, 1971.
    Specific requirements to have an RCP Flywheel Inspection Program 
consistent with RG 1.14 or previously issued relaxations from the RG 
are included in the Administrative Controls Section of the TSs. The 
purpose of the testing and inspection programs defined in the TSs is to 
ensure that the probability of a flywheel failure is sufficiently small 
such that additional safety features are not needed to protect against 
a flywheel failure. The RG provides criteria in terms of critical 
speeds that could result in the failure of a RCP flywheel during normal 
or accident conditions. In addition to the guidance in RG 1.14, the NRC 
has more recently issued RG 1.174, ``An Approach for Using 
Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-
Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis,'' which provides guidance and 
criteria for evaluating proposed changes that use risk-informed 
justifications.
    A proposed justification for extending the RCP flywheel inspections 
from a 10-year inspection interval to an interval not to exceed 20 
years was provided by the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) in topical 
report WCAP-15666, ``Extension of Reactor Coolant Pump Motor Flywheel 
Examination,'' transmitted by letter dated August 24, 2001. The topical 
report addressed the proposed extension for all domestic WOG plants. 
The NRC accepted the topical report for referencing in license 
applications in a letter and safety evaluation dated May 5, 2003 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML031250595).

3.0 Technical Evaluation

    TS [5.5.7], Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel Inspection Program, 
reflects the licensee's previous adoption of a TS change that defined 
the allowable alternative to the inspections described in RG 1.14. The 
inspections are defined as in-place ultrasonic examination over the 
volume from the inner bore of the flywheel to the circle of one-half 
the outer radius or an alternative surface examination (magnetic 
particle testing [MT] and/or liquid penetrant testing [PT]) of exposed 
surfaces defined by the volume of the disassembled flywheel. The 
allowable interval for these inspections was extended in the previous 
amendment to ``approximately 10 year intervals coinciding with the 
Inservice Inspection schedule as required by ASME [American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,] Section XI.'' 
The change proposed in this amendment application would revise the 
allowable inspection interval to ``20 year intervals.''
    The justification for the proposed change was provided in WCAP-
15666, which the staff accepted for referencing in license applications 
by a letter and safety evaluation dated May 5, 2003. The topical report 
addresses the three critical speeds defined in RG 1.14: (a) the 
critical speed for ductile failure, (b) the critical speed for non-
ductile failure, and (c) the critical speed for excessive deformation 
of the flywheel. The staff found that the topical report adequately 
addressed these issues and demonstrated that acceptance criteria, for 
normal and accident conditions defined in RG 1.14, would continue to be 
met for all domestic WOG plants following an extension of the 
inspection interval. The topical report also provided a risk assessment 
for extending the RCP flywheel inspection interval. The staff's review, 
documented in the SE for the topical report, determined that the 
analysis methods and risk estimates are acceptable when compared to the 
guidance in RG 1.174.
    In conclusion, the staff finds that the regulatory positions in RG 
1.14 concerning the three critical speeds are satisfied, and that the 
evaluation indicating that critical crack sizes are not expected to be 
attained during a 20-year inspection interval is reasonable and 
acceptable. The potential for failure of the RCP flywheel is, and will 
continue to be, negligible during normal and accident conditions. The 
change is therefore acceptable.

4.0 State Consultation

    In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the [State] State 
official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The 
State official had [choose one: (1) no comments, or (2) the following 
comments--with subsequent disposition by the staff].

5.0 Environmental Consideration

    The amendment changes a requirement with respect to the 
installation or use of a facility component located within the 
restricted area as defined in 10 CFR part 20 and changes surveillance 
requirements. 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 (xx 
FR xxxxx). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria 
for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). 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.

6.0 Conclusion

    The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed 
above, that: (1) There is reasonable assurance that the health and 
safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the 
proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance 
with the Commission's

[[Page 37593]]

regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be 
inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety 
of the public.

Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination

    Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendment revises TS 
[5.5.7, ``Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel Inspection Program,''] to 
extend the allowable inspection interval to 20 years.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:

Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change to the RCP flywheel examination frequency does 
not change the response of the plant to any accidents. The RCP will 
remain highly reliable and the proposed change will not result in a 
significant increase in the risk of plant operation. Given the 
extremely low failure probabilities for the RCP motor flywheel during 
normal and accident conditions, the extremely low probability of a 
loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) with loss of offsite power (LOOP), and 
assuming a conditional core damage probability (CCDP) of 1.0 (complete 
failure of safety systems), the core damage frequency (CDF) and change 
in risk would still not exceed the NRC's acceptance guidelines contined 
in RG 1.174 (<1.0E-6 per year). Moreover, considering the uncertainties 
involved in this evaluation, the risk associated with the postulated 
failure of an RCP motor flywheel is significantly low. Even if all four 
RCP motor flywheels are considered in the bounding plant configuration 
case, the risk is still acceptably low.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors, nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 
configuration of the facility, or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained; alter or prevent the ability of structures, 
systems, components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to 
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed 
acceptance limits; or affect the source term, containment isolation, or 
radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed 
change does not increase the type or amount of radioactive effluent 
that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or 
cumulative occupational/public radiation exposure. The proposed change 
is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant 
consequences. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a 
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change in flywheel inspection frequency does not 
involve any change in the design or operation of the RCP. Nor does the 
change to examination frequency affect any existing accident scenarios, 
or create any new or different accident scenarios. Further, the change 
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or alter the methods 
governing normal plant operation. In addition, the change does not 
impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing 
requirements, and does not alter any assumptions made in the safety 
analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis 
assumptions and current plant operating practice. Therefore, the 
proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in a Margin of Safety

    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are 
not impacted by this change. The proposed change will not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside of the design basis. The 
calculated impact on risk is insignificant and meets the acceptance 
criteria contained in RG 1.174. There are no significant mechanisms for 
inservice degradation of the RCP flywheel. Therefore, the proposed 
change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous 
discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not 
involve a significant hazards consideration.

    Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of June, 2003.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Gramm,
Acting Director, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 03-15860 Filed 6-23-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P