ML20055C935

Responds to Re Review of Rept Comparing Safety Requirements for Facilities Regulated by Us.Comments on Rept Encl for Consideration

ML20055C935
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/25/1990
From:	Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Conway J DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Shared Package
ML19327C521	List: ML20055C935 ML20055C937
References
NUDOCS 9007020062
Download: ML20055C935 (4)

Text

_ _ _ _ - -

f%g DND

['i

• f. l'\\

. UNITED STATES 2e

)J i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

WASHINoTON, D.C. 20066 s...+

June 25,1990 -

i CHAIRMAN

'i,

The Honorable John T. Conway, ChaimanJ Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 600 E Street, N. W., Suite 675 Washington, D. C.

20004

Dear Chairman Conway:

I am responding to your letter of June 8,1990, in which you forwarded, for.

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's'(riRC's) review, the Mitre Corporation's '.

report comparing;the safety requirements for facilities regulated by the U.S.

Department of Energy with the requirements'for civilian nuclear facilities; regulated by the NRC The Commission appreciates the-opportunity to comment on this report. Although we have not reviewed the report in full detail, we are l

pleased to note that it presents generally favorable findings about NRC's regulatory program. We are always seeking to improve NRC proDrams, and I an sure'your more critical findings will _ assist us in focusing our efforts.

l I do wish to comment on the Mitre Corporation's perception that NRC's require-i monts focused on safety-related equipment but did no.t establish appropriately i

graded standards for other equipment. We are aware that-NRC regulations, guides, and standards reflect a heavy. focus on. safety-related systems and '

components. However, we also, where appropriate, do set standards for non-safety-related equipment that has an important-bearing on facility safety,

-j and we are increasing our effort in this-area.

I understand that our staffs -have discussed this and other aspects of the i

report and that clarifications will be made before the report is: issued.

In 1

view of the'very limited time available to us to review the report in detail,

'it is possible that there are'other sections of the text that need clarifi-j cation.

I have enclosed some specific-NRC staff comments on the report for:your con-l sideration.

Although. I realize that your report was not intended to provide a comprehensive assessment'of NRC programs, I believe the comments will help put your findings in better-perspective.

If you have any questions on this-material, please contact me.

Sincerely, i

b v

Kenneth M. Carr

Enclosure:

NRC Staff Comments

@oo7o2 occo y

'pcA 1

,9

~nn g M

c-

=_-

1 NRC STAFF COWENTS l

In order for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CLaission (NRC) to discharge its L

- responsibility for protecting the health and safety of the public, the primary focus of NRC regulation has been directed to safety-related systems because of their importance to nuclear safety. NRC regulations, guides, and standards reflect this focus.

However, NRC regulation is not limited solely to safety-(related equipment. As anexample, Criterion 3oftheGeneralDesignCriteria 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix. A) " Fire Protection," states that ' Noncombustible and heat resistant materials shall be used whenever practical throughout the unit, particularly in locations such as the containment and control room (emphasis added)." Further, existing regulations specifically recognize a graded approach'for other equip-ment. Criterion 1 of the General Design Criteria, " Quality Standards and Records," for example, states that " Structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be designed, fabricated, erected, and tested to quality standards commensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be performed (emphasis added)."

In addition, NRC's licensing process involves review of all safety aspects of the facility, including "non-safety related" components that have an important bearing on facility safety. Recent rule-making activity to promulgate requirements for-standard designs (10 CFR Part 52) clearly calls for applications for design certifications of "essen-tially complete nuclear power plant designs." The NRC recognizes the importance of non-safety-related systems and is devoting increasing effort to regulating.them.

' The NRC consistently reviews industry experience in an effort to refine its regulatory requirements as necessary. This continuing review effort involves both sefety and non-safety. systems.- For example,10 CFR 50.49(b)(2) requires qualification of non-safety-related electrical equipment whose failure could prevent accomplishment of the safety function of safety-related equipment.

Another example was the generic letter to all operating reactor licensees regarding the' implementation of a program for inspecting all--piping which may.

be vulnerable to thinning as a result of erosion / corrosion mechanisms. These l

programs are not limited to safety-related piping and, in fact, do not apply to most safety-related piping, which is not generally subject to this phenomenon.

I The statement in the Executive Summary that NRC maintenance requirements are-inadequate appears to be based on the Conclusion in Section 7.5'of the report-that NRC maintenance requirements are " piecemeal" and in need of organization.

l While NRC requirements that affect maintenance are included -in a number of-places in the regulations and informal guidance, we believe our'overall regulatory program, which includes our review and inspections of maintenance related matters, provides reasonable assurance of operational safety. The subject of maintenance is under consideration'for rulemaking by the NRC; however, consistent with the recently revised Maintenance Policy Statement, we will hold rulemaking in abeyance until April 1991 so that the NRC can monitor-industry initiatives and progress in improving maintenance.

Enclosure e~a

~ ~

a, -- > -,

,e e

,w e

--*ww

---

re,-

r

~

't c l

Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of the report constitute a comparison of NRC require-i ments with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) orders for fuel cycle and i

materials facilities. However, these sections do not note many of the l

key aspects of hRC regulation of non-reactor facilities. Although these sections mention that the NRC regulations governing fuel facilities are quite general, i

they do not explain that the regulations are intended to govern a variety of fuel cycle facilities and are intended to serve as a broad foundation for assuring safety in specific types of facilities. Specific aspects of NRC regulatien of these facilities are addressed in each licensee's environmental report, in the safety demonstration portion of its license application, and in plant specific requirements established in individual license conditions. The report does not note the published branch technical positions that govern i

I

.such topics as management controls, quality assurance, radiological protection, i

decontamination, and fire protection.

It also does not note the NRC staff's publication of the General Design Criteria for uranium enrichment plants that l

use uranium hexafluoride.

l Finally, in a number of areas, we note that the MITRE study does not reflect current NRC requirements and actions, and is not complete with regard to NRC t

guidance. For example, in Section 2,10 CFR 50.44, which references IEEE 323, 1s not noted, nor are the ten regulatory guides providing additional guidance on the general topic of electric equipment qualification.

In'Section 5, the report uses definitions and describes requirements which are from the pre-1987 version of 10 CFR 55, and there is considerable guidance available beyond that identified in Table 5-5 of the report (see suagested additional documents listedbelow).

In Section 8 the' report does not reflect either the final provisions associated with the revised 10 CFR Part 20 or the EPA's final rule l

on National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR Part 61) issued on December 15, 1989.

Suggested Additions.to Table 5-5 Item-Date Title Regulatory Guides 1.114 5/89 Guidance to Operators at the Controls and to Senior Operators in the Control Room of a Nuclear Power Plant 1.149 4/87 Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator License Examinations-NUREG Documents NUREG-1262 Answers to Questions at Public Meetings Regarding Implementation of Title 10, CFR, Part 55 on Operators' Licenses NUREG-1021' Operator Licensing Examiner Standards

l. l l i

y,

-.4 6

31 Item-Date Title NUREGDocuments(continued)

NUREG-1258-Evaluation Procedure for Simulation

' Facilities Certified under 10.CFR 55 l

NUREG/BR-0122 Examiner's Handbook for Developing-

~ Operator Licensing Written Examinations-NUREG-1220

. Training Review Criteria and Procedures Policy Statements a

50 FR 43621-

,10/28/85.

' Policy Statement of Engineering Expertise on Shift 53 FR 11147-

~3/20/85 Comission Policy Statement on -

Training and Qualification of Nuclear -

Power P1 ant-Personnel 53 FR 46603 11/18/88 Amendment to Comission Policy Statement on Training and 1

Qualification.of Nuclear Power Plant-i Personnel q

54 FR 33639 8/15/89 Policy Statement on Education for Senior Reactor Operators and' Shift-Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants-l 1

=

{

i u

i

.