[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 162 (Monday, August 23, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51864-51867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-19203]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Notice of Availability of Model Application Concerning Technical
Specifications Improvement Regarding Revision to the Control Rod Scram
Time Testing Frequency in STS 3.1.4, ``Control Rod Scram Times'' for
General Electric Boiling Water Reactors Using the Consolidated Line
Item Improvement Process
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a model safety evaluation
(SE), a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination, and a model license amendment application relating to a
change in the Technical Specifications (TS) to extend the interval for
the surveillance requirement (SR) in Standard Technical Specifications
(STS) 3.1.4, ``Control Rod Scram Times.'' The purpose of these models
is to permit the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to
incorporate this change into plant-specific TS. Licensees of nuclear
power reactors to which the models apply may request amendments
utilizing the model application.
DATES: The NRC staff issued a Federal Register Notice (69 FR 30339) on
May 27, 2004, which proposed a model SE and a model NSHC determination
related to changing plant TS to extend the control rod scram time
testing interval from ``120 days cumulative operation in MODE 1'' to
``200 days cumulative operation in MODE 1.'' The
[[Page 51865]]
NRC staff hereby announces that the enclosed model SE and NSHC
determination may be referenced in plant-specific applications. The NRC
staff has posted a model application on the NRC web site to assist
licensees in using the consolidated line item improvement process
(CLIIP) to incorporate this change. The NRC staff can most efficiently
consider applications based upon the model application if the
application is submitted within a year of this Federal Register Notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bhalchandra Vaidya, 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) 415-3308, or William Reckley at (301) 415-1323.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-06, ``Consolidated Line Item
Improvement Process for Adopting Standard Technical Specifications
Changes for Power Reactors,'' was issued on March 20, 2000. The 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. 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 TS 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.
This notice involves changes to plant TS to extend the control rod
scram time testing interval from ``120 days cumulative operation in
MODE 1'' to ``200 days cumulative operation in MODE 1.'' This proposed
change was proposed for incorporation into the STS by the industry's TS
Task Force as TSTF-460, ``Control Rod Scram Time Testing Frequency.''
Applicability
This proposed change to extend the surveillance interval for
control rod scram time testing is applicable to boiling water reactors
(BWRs).
The CLIIP does not prevent licensees from requesting an alternative
approach or proposing the changes without referencing the model SE and
the NSHC. 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
In a notice in the Federal Register dated May 27, 2004 (69 FR
30339), the NRC staff requested comment on the use of the CLIIP for
proposed changes to extend the control rod scram time testing interval
as proposed in TSTF-460.
TSTF-460, as well as the NRC staff's SE and model application, 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).
The NRC staff received no formal comments from the request
published in the Federal Register. Several editorial changes were
identified to the staff and are reflected in the model safety
evaluation included in this notice.
To efficiently process the incoming license amendment applications,
the NRC staff requests each licensee applying for the changes addressed
by TSTF-460 using the CLIIP to address the plant-specific information
identified in the model SE. Namely, each licensee submitting amendments
to extend the surveillance frequency should demonstrate the reliability
of the control rod insertion system based on historical control rod
scram time test data, and by the more restrictive acceptance criterion
for the number of slow rods allowed during at-power surveillance
testing.
Model Safety Evaluation
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, Consolidated Line Item Improvement
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-460,
``Control Rod Scram Time Testing Frequency''
1.0 Introduction
By application dated [Date], [Licensee] (the licensee) requested
changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for [facility]. The
proposed changes would revise TS testing frequency for the surveillance
requirement (SR) in TS 3.1.4, ``Control Rod Scram Times.''
These changes are based on TS Task Force (TSTF) change traveler
TSTF-460 (Revision 0) that has been approved generically for the
boiling water reactor (BWR) Standard TS, NUREG-1433 (BWR/4) and NUREG-
1434 (BWR/6) by revising the frequency of SR 3.1.4.2, control rod scram
time testing, from ``120 days cumulative operation in MODE 1'' to ``200
days cumulative operation in MODE 1.'' A notice announcing the
availability of this proposed TS change using the consolidated line
item improvement process was published in the Federal Register on
[DATE] (XX FR XXXXXX).
2.0 Regulatory Evaluation
The TS governing the control rod scram time surveillance is
intended to assure proper function of control rod insertion. Following
each refueling outage, all control rod scram times are verified. In
addition, periodically during power operation, a representative sample
of control rods is selected to be inserted to verify the insertion
speed. A representative sample is defined as a sample containing at
least 10 percent of the total number of control rods. The current TS
stipulates that no more than 20 percent of the control rods in this
representative sample can be ``slow'' during the post outage testing.
With more than 20 percent of the sample declared to be ``slow'' per the
criteria in Table 3.1.4-1, additional control rods are tested until
this 20 percent criterion (e.g., 20 percent of the entire sample size)
is satisfied, or until the total number of ``slow'' control rods
(throughout the core, from all surveillances) exceeds the Limiting
Condition for Operation limit. For planned testing, the control rods
selected for the sample should be different for each test. The
acceptance criterion for at-power surveillance testing has been
redefined from 20 percent to 7.5 percent. This tightened acceptance
criterion for at-power surveillance aligns with the TS 3.1.4
requirement for the total control rods allowed to have scram times
exceeding the specified limit.
The proposed change does not affect any current operability
requirements and the test frequency being revised is not specified in
regulations. As a result, no regulatory requirements or criteria are
affected.
[[Page 51866]]
3.0 Technical Evaluation
3.1 Statement of Proposed Changes
NUREG-1433, SR 3.1.4.2 states, ``Verify, for a representative
sample, each tested control rod scram time is within the limits of
Table 3.1.4-1 with reactor steam dome pressure >=[800] psig.'' NUREG-
1434, SR 3.1.4.2 states, ``Verify, for a representative sample, each
tested control rod scram time is within the limits of Table 3.1.4-1
with reactor steam dome pressure >=[950] psig.'' Both SRs have a
frequency of ``120 days cumulative operation in MODE 1.'' The proposed
change revises the frequency to ``200 days cumulative operation in MODE
1.'' The Bases are revised to reference the new frequency and to reduce
the percentage of the tested rods which can be ``slow'' from 20 percent
to 7.5 percent.
3.2 Evaluation of Proposed Change
The control rod insertion time test results at [Plant Name] have
shown the control rod scram rates to be highly reliable. During the
most recent [XXX] years of operation, out of [XXX] control rod
insertion tests, only [XXX] control rods have been slower than the
insertion time limit. The extensive historical database substantiates
the claim of high reliability of the [Plant Name] control rod drive
system. The current TS requires that 10 percent of the [XXX] control
rods, or [XXX] rods, be tested via sampling every 120 cumulative days
of operation in Mode 1.
The current TS states that the acceptance criteria have been met if
20 percent or fewer of the sample control rods that are tested are
found to be slow. The acceptance criterion has been re-defined for at-
power surveillance testing from 20 percent to 7.5 percent when the
surveillance period is extended to 200 cumulative days of operation in
Mode 1. This tightened acceptance criterion for at-power surveillance
aligns with the TS 3.1.4 requirement for the total control rods allowed
to have scram times exceeding the specified limit.
The licensee will incorporate the revised acceptance criterion
value of 7.5 percent into the TS Bases in accordance with their Bases
Control Program and as a condition of this license amendment.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Conditioning of the license amendment is accomplished by
including wording similar to the following in the implementation
language (typically included as item 3) in the Amendment of Facility
Operating License: This license amendment is effective as of its
date of issuance and shall be implemented within [XX] days from the
date of issuance. The licensee shall incorporate during the next
periodic update into the TS Bases Section the changes described in
its application dated [Date].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC staff considers the extended surveillance interval to be
justified by the demonstrated reliability of the control rod insertion
system, based on historical control rod scram time test data, and by
the more restrictive acceptance criterion for the number of slow rods
allowed during at-power surveillance testing. The NRC staff finds the
proposed TS change 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 amendments involve
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 amendments involve 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 the operation in the
proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance
with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the
amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to
the health and safety of the public.
Model Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination
Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendment changes
the Technical Specification (TS) testing frequency for the surveillance
requirement (SR) in TS 3.1.4, ``Control Rod Scram Times.'' The proposed
change revises the test frequency of SR 3.1.4.2, control rod scram time
testing, from ``120 days cumulative operation in MODE 1'' to ``200 days
cumulative operation in Mode 1.''
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:
1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control rod
scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation
to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The frequency of
surveillance testing is not an initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. The frequency of surveillance testing does not affect the
ability to mitigate any accident previously evaluated, as the tested
component is still required to be operable. Therefore, the proposed
change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control rod
scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation
to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The proposed change does
not result in any new or different modes of plant operation. Therefore,
the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control rod
scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation
to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The proposed change
continues to test the control rod scram time to ensure the assumptions
in the safety analysis are protected. Therefore, the proposed change
does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, the proposed change presents no significant
hazards consideration under the standards set
[[Page 51867]]
forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and accordingly, a finding of ``no
significant hazards consideration'' is justified.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of August 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Reckley,
Chief (Acting), Section 1, Project Directorate IV,Division of Licensing
Project Management,Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-19203 Filed 8-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P