ML19343A428
| ML19343A428 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1980 |
| From: | Seyfrit K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Cavanaugh W ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009170390 | |
| Download: ML19343A428 (1) | |
Text
-
v bec to DAC:ADM:
CENTRAL FILES e
UNITED STATES PDR:HQ
[oreco #'o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LPDR J"-
REGloN IV
- ""I'I C~
I, f.
l o
611 RY AN PLAZA oRIVE. SulTE 10ao NSIC "li c -
E ARI.lf4GToN, TEXAS 76o12 o,9h,f,/i w-August 22, 1980 Docket Nos.
50-313 50-368 Arkansas Power and Light Company Am:
Mr. William Cavanaugh III Vice President of Generation and Construction P. O. Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Gentlemen:
The enclosed IE Circular No. 80-18 provides information on the details of a safety evaluation that is necessary to adequataly support changes to radwaste systems. No written response is required.
Should you have any questions related to the enclosed information, please contact this office.
Sincerely, r
/
M
%b '!/,,
J' Karl V. Seyfrit / 0 Director,
h
~
Enclosures:
1.
II Circular No. 80-18 2.
List of recently issued II Circulars cc:
James P. O'Hanlon, Plant Manager Arkansas Nuclear One P. O. 3ox 608 Russellville, Arkansas 72801
)
'Suo0170 p
SSINS No.: 6830 Accession No.:
L 8006190038 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT l
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20555 l
IE Circular No. 80-18 l
August 22, 1980 Page 1 of 3 l
10 CFR 50.59 SAFETY EVALUATIONS FOR CHANGES TO RADIOACTIVE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS Description of Circumstances:
Recent inspection efforts at operating power reactors have revealed numerous instances in which licensees have failed to perform adequate safety evaluations to support changes made to the design and/or operation of facility radioactive waste treatment systems..These safety evaluations are required by the regula-l tions of 10 CFR 50.59 whenever changes are made in the facility as described in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR).
The inadequacies of the evaluations have caused radiological safety hazards to occur unidentified and therefore to remain unevaluated and uncorrected.
In two particular cases, the inadequately evaluated system changes resulted in system failures that caused an uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment.
In each of these situations, a proper 10 CFR 50.59 safety evalua-tion should have identified and corrected deficiencies in the system modifica-tion and/or operation and would have prevented the inadvertent release of radioactivity.
NRC followup examination of the situation indicates that the inconsistency,
and/or inadequacy of licensee safety evaluations may be widespread.
A wide range of opinions seems to exist among licensees a's to what constitutes an appropriate ~10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation, particularly for radwaste systems.
Therefore, the following, discussion and/or guidance is provided for licensee use in preparing future 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations to support changes in the design and/or operation of the radioactive waste treatment systems of j
licensed facilities.
Although the contents of this guidance are specifically directed to the radioactive waste systems, the general principles and philosophy of the I
10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation guidance are: also applicable to the facility design and operation as a whole; thus, the application of 10 CFR 50.59 should reflect a consistent approach.
Discussion:
The requirements of 10 CFR 50.'59~are composed of three essential parts.
First,-paragraph (a)(1)-is-permissive in that it allows the licensee to make changes to the facility and its operation as described in the Safety Analysis r.
u
_L
I t
l l
l IEC 80-18 August 22, 1980 Page 2 of 3 Report without prior approval, provided that a change in Technical Specifica-j tions is not involved or an "unreviewed safety question" does not exist.
Criteria for determining whether an "unreviewed safety question" exists are defined in paragraph (a)(2). Second, paragraph (b) requires that records of
}
changes made under the authority of paragraph (a)(1) be maintained.
These records are required to include a written safety evaluation that provides the bacis for determining whether an "unreviewed safety question" exists.
Paragraph (b)'also requires a report (at least annually) of such changes to l
the'NRC. Third, paragraph (c) requires that proposed changes in Technical Specifications be submitted to the NRC as an application for license amendment.
Likewise, proposed changes to the facility or procedures and the proposed conduct of tests. that involve an "unreviewed safety question" are required to be submitted to the NRC as an application for license amendment.
I j-Any proposed change to a system or procedures described in the SAR, either by text or drawings, should be reviewed by the licensee to determine whether it involves an "unreviewed safety question." Maintenance activities that do not result in a change to a system (permanent or temporary), or that replace components with replacement parts procured with the same (or equivalent) purchase specification, do not require a written safety evaluation to meet 10 CFR 50.59 requirements.
However,-a safety evaluation'is required to meet the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 and any change must be reported to the NRC as required by 10 CFR 50.59(b) if the following circumstances occur: (1) com-ponents described in the SAR are removed; (2) component functions are altered; (3) substitute components are utilized; or (4) changes remain following comple-tion of a maintenance activity.
Notice to Licensees:
For all cases requiring a written safety evaluation, the safety evaluation must set forth the bases.and criteria used to determine that the proposed change does or does not involve an "unreviewed safety question." A siople statement of conclusion in itself is not sufficient.
However, depending upon the significance of the change, the' safety evaluation may be brief. The s ope
' of the evaluation _must be commensurate with the potential safety significanc*
of the proposed change or test. The depth of the evaluation must be sufficient to determine whether or not an "unreviewed safety question" is involved.
These evaluations and analyses should be reviewed and approved by an appro-priate level of management before the proposed change is made.
'~An important part'of the "unreviewed safety question" determination is the evaluation and analysis of;the. proposed change by the licensee to assure that
- (1) potential safety. hazards are identified,,and (2) corrective actions are taken'to eliminate, mitigate,-~or control the hazards to an acceptable level.
All realistic _ failure' modes and/or malfunctions must be considered and protec-tion provided' commensurate with_the potential onsequences.
All applicable regulatory requirements, including Technical Specifications, must be coinplied
- with-so'that the proposed change shall not' represent an "unreviewed safety
, question.".Also, the margin of safety as defined in the bases of the Technical
' Specifications shall not.be reduced by the proposed change.
k bL e
IEC 80-18 August 22, 1980 Page 3 of 3 For radioactive waste systems, the appropriate portions of 10 CFR 20, 30, 50, 71, and 100, the facility Technical Specifications, and 40 CFR 190 (Environ-mental Dose Standard) are applicable.
Additional specific criteria that should be reviewed prior to the modification or radioactive waste systems are presented below:
(1) System modifications should be evaluated against the seismic, quality group and quality assurance criteria in Regulatory Gu:.de 1.143.
Design provisions for controlling releases of radioactive liquids, as presented in Regulatory Guide 1.143, should also be evaluated.
(2) Radiological controls should be evaluated against the criteria in Regulatory Guide 1.21 and Standard Review Plan Section 11.5, " Process and Effluent Radiological Monitoring and Sampling Systems."
n (3) Systems involving potentially explosive mixtures should be evaluated against the criteria in Standard Review Plan Section 11.3, " Gaseous Waste Management System," subsection II, item 6.
(4) System design and operation should be evaluated to assure that the radiological consequences of unexpected and uncontrolled releases of radioactivity that is stored or transferred in a waste system are a small fraction of the 10 CFR 100 guidelines; i.e., less than 0.5 rem whole body dose, 1.5 rem thyroid from gaseous releases, and less than the radionuclide concentrations of 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2 from liquid releases at the nearest water supplies.
(See Standard Review Plan Sections 15.7.1,15.7.2, and 15.7.3 for more details. )
The evaluation must include an analysis encompassing the above criteria to,the extent that the criteria are applicable to the proposed changes; i.e.,
if the modifications involve a change addressed by the ab'ove regulations and criteria, then the modifications must be evaluated in terms of these regulations and criteria.
In conclusion, for any change in a facility radioactive waste system as describad in the SAR, a safety evaluation is required in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
In this safety evaluation and the'"unreviewed safety question" determination, the evaluation criteria in Items 1-4 above should be used.
If the proposed modification (design, operation, or test) represents a departure from this evaluation criteria, one of the following actions should be taken:
(1)
The proposal should be modified to meet the in; ant of the criteria; (2) The. evaluation / determination must present sufficient analyses to demonstrate.the acceptability of the departure; or, (3). Commission approval must be received prior to implementing the modification (i.e., an unreviewed safety issue may be involved).
No written response to this circular is required.
If additional information regarding this subject is required, contact the Director of this office.
4 1
IE Circular No. 80-18 August 22, 1980 RECENTLY ISSUED IE CIRCULARS Circular Subject Date Issued To No.
Issued 80-10 Failure to Maintain 4/29/80 All holders of Reactor Environmental Qualifi-Operating Licenses (OLs) cation of Equipment and Construction Permits (CPsi 80-13 Grid Strap Damage in 5/18/80 All holders of Reactor Westinghouse Fuel Operating Licenses (OLs)
Assemblies and Construction Permits (cps) 80-14 Radioactive Contamination 6/24/80 All holders of Power and of Plant Demineralized Research Reactor Licensees Water System and Resultant (Operating and Construction Internal Contamination of Permits), and Fuel Cycle Personnel licensees 80-15 Loss of Reactor Coolant 6/20/80 All power reactor facilities Pump Cooling and Natural with an Operating License (OL)
Circulation Cooldown or Construction Permit (CP) 80-16 Operational Deficiencies 6/27/80 All power reactor facilities in Rosemount Model 510DU with an Operhting License (OL)
Trip Units and Model 1152 or a Construction Permit (CP)
Pressure Transmitters 80-17 Fuel Pin Damage Due to 7/23/80 All holders of PWR Operating Water Jet from Baffle Licenses (OLs) and PWR Plate Corner
- Construction Permits (cps) l