ML20136E613
| ML20136E613 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/10/1997 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9703130255 | |
| Download: ML20136E613 (79) | |
Text
. .. -. .. -- . _ - . _ _ . .. . -- .. . -.
- l
.r !
8 W ll 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
1 j
a
Title:
- BRIEFING ON 10 CFR 50.59 REGULATORY
)[ PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS - PUBLIC MEETING i 1
Location: Rockville, Maryland '
i i
s
. Date: Monday, March 10,1997 i
6 i' Pages: 1 - 59 i
4 2
n/
- Y ox d
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1250 I St., N.W., Suite 300 '
M I[
1onn- .
Washington,'D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 g
t D hhR PT9.7 PDR
, !!E!{$!h$! ele,5!!!,IIE%)l
e DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on March 10, 1997 I in the Commission's office at one j White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was .
open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes. As provided by 10 CTR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal racord of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize. l 1
i l
s.. !
- .._ _-. ._.- ._. . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _..-.. --._ _ . . . _ . __.._.__ . - - . . _ _ _ . ,. ._..m ,
. 1
. 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
, 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E -3 - --
4 BRIEFING ON 10 CFR 50.59 i
.5 REGULATORY PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS 6 - - -
7 PUBLIC MEETING i ,
l l 8 i~
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission J 10 One White Flint North 3
11 Rockville, Maryland 12 1 13 Monday, March 10, 1997 L
14 15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to
- - 16 notice, at 10:35 a.m., Shirley A. Jackson, Chairman, 17 presiding.
18 l i l 19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: l J - l i 20 SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission i
21 KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner i 22 GRETA J. DICUS, Commissioner 1
23 NILS J. DIAZ, Commissioner 2
- 24 EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., Commissioner 25
. 1
< l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
- 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 L >
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
. . _ . ...._.- . _.._ . _.. _._..~ _ - . - . . - - . . - . _ . . _
_ . _ . . - _ _ . . _ . _ . - _ . _ . . - . _ - _ . . . _ _ m _.. ..
1 i
l 2
1~ STAFF PRESENT AND PRESENTERS SEATED-AT THE COMMISSION TABLE: .
l.
' 2~ JOHN C. HOYLE, Secretary _of the' Commission 3 KAREN D. CYR, General Counsel l' 4 JOE CALLAN, EDO L 5 THOMAS MARTIN, Director, Division of Reactor
- -6 Program Management, NRR 7; EILEEN McKENNA, Senior Reactor Systems Engineer, 8 NRR 9 - FRANK-MIRAGLIA,. Deputy Director, NRR 10 L
11 l
12.
13 14
! 15 1
I i
- 16 17 18 19 20.
21
\
l l 22
- 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 g- w .=-ey r- w V q S- c --
m +w m -
-e.g -- wv--.=-y1 e
e 3
1 PROCEEDINGS 2 [10:35 a.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Good morning, ladies and
-4 gentlemen. The purpose of this meeting is for the 5 Commission to be briefed by the NRC Staff on proposed 6 regulatory guidance related to the implementation of 10 CFR
/ 50.59 changes, tests, and experiments.
8 The Commission approved making publicly available 9 the recent Staff paper addressing this subject, which I 10 understand is also available today at the' entrances to this 11 meeting. The Commission is considering the Staff's request 12 to seek public comment on the paper.
13 In the fall of 1995, I directed the Staff to 14 perform a systematic reconsideration and reevaluation of the 15 regulatory framework that authorizes licensees to make 16 changes to their facilities-without prior NRC approval.
- 17 Staff work to date is summarized in the paper, 18 highlights of which will be discussed today. The paper 19 proposes regulatory guidance that first reaffirms existing 20 regulatory guidance; second, clarifies Staff positions in 21 certain areas;-third, establishes new guidance where none 22 existed; and fourth, briefly discusses some policy issues 23 related to potential rulemaking for 10 CFR 50.59, 24 As I stated last month at the Mil 1 stone Lessons 25' Learned meeting, I believe an honest assessment from the NRC ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
I 4
1 would indicate that the implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 has , !
1 2 been long overdue for improvement.
3 That regulation, which was originally promulgated 4 in 1962, is an important regulation, the applicability and 5 use of which has expanded over the years. Recent lessons 6 learned from Millstone and other reviews, coupled with the 7 fact that the industry guidance document, NSAC 125, is being 8 used by the nuclear industry to implement 10 CFR 50.59, 9 while not having been formally endorsed by the NRC because 10 there were certain differences between that document and 10 11 CFR 50.59, indicate that the time is ripe to resolve the 12 issues, to clarify guidance, and to get Commission policy 13 input on any proposed rule change.
14 The Commission is very interested, therefore, in 15 the proposed regulatory guidance and policy questions being 16 presented in today's meeting. The Commission recognizes 1
17 that the industry has in the past taken significant steps, 18 as I have indicated, to formalize their own guidance for i
19 performing 50.59 evaluations.
20 The industry, for example, recognized early that 21 plant changes should be evaluated against more than the 22 final safety analysis report. However, it is clear that a l l
23 consistent, thorough approach has not always been taken by l 24 all licensees.
25 Additionally, 10 CFR 50.59, as I have indicated, l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Strent, N.W., Suite 300 ;
Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034 I j
i 5
1 has become more important over the years simply because of 2 the expanding scope of the rule. Licensees are evaluating 3
3 additional topics and significant plant changes under the-4 provisions of this rule.
]
- - 5 It is not too late to make the necessary 6 improvements and to insure that NRC's program for assessing 1
7 changes, tests,cand experiments conducted under the rule is 8 a more thorough and consistent. program. However, the time-I 9' to do it is now. i 10 I understand that copies of the Staff's 11 presentation are available at the entrances to the meeting, 1 l
12 and if none of my fellow commissioners have any additional 13 opening comments, Mr. Callan, you may proceed.
14 And I'd like to add a parenthetical comment, Mr.
15 Callan. I believe the Commission will be well-served by any 16 examples or insights that you may from the regional 17 perspective with respect to any difficulties that the 18 resident inspectors or region-based inspectors may face in 19 this area. So<we would appreciate any comments you might-20 have as we go along.
- 21. MR. CALLAN: I will have plenty of examples, 22 probably limited only by time.
23 Good morning, Chairman, and --
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's why we put it before 25 lunch.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
. . . ~ -..- - . -_ .. - -. . . _ -_.- - - , . ... . - . . -
6 1 MR. CALLAN: The NRC Staff is here today to brief .
- 2. the Commission on the results of its review of 3 implementation issues related to 10 CFR 50.59.
4 With me at the. table are, to my right,. Frank
.5 Miraglia, the Deputy Director of the Office of Nuclear 6 Reactor Regulation; to my immediate left, Tim Martin, the 7 ' Director of the Division of Reactor Program Management in 8 NRR; and to-his left, Eileen McKenna of his-Staff.
9 Chairman, you covered in your opening remarks 10- several of the points that I was going to make, so I will
.11 immediately turn the discussion over to Mr. Miraglia, who 12 will now provide his opening remarks and then Mr. Martin 13 will then discuss the details of'the Staff review.
14 MR. MIRAGLIA: Thank you, Joe, Good morning, 15 Madam Chairman, commissioners. j 16 Just to set the stage a bit, on February 19th, we 17 briefed the Commission on the Millstone Lessons Learned Part i I
18 2, and if everyone recalls, there were six questions that we '
19 addressed that came from that lessons learned, two of which i 20 directly related to 50.59, the subject of today's meeting 21 with the Commission.
d ja 22 As with the Millstone Lessons Learned, there are 23 some short-term actions and long-term actions that we 24 believe should be considered in order to move forward with 25 the improvements in the 50.59 process.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
. , ~ . . ,- , . . , . n , --
r.
l .
7 1 The paper articulates the current Staff position 2 and interpretations of 50.59. As you have indicated, Madam l 3 Chairman, for the most part, those Staff positions are
! 4 reaffirmations.or clarifications-of longstanding
(
5 interpretations, and in a few instances, they represent new-6 positions.
7 Therefore, we believe it is an important first ,
8 step in evaluating what changes.need to be made in terms of
- 9. rulemaking to get public comment on the proposed Staff 10 position, and that's why the short-term recommendation is.
11 for' receiving public comment on the Staff positions as s 12 presented in the paper.
13 A number of these questions have been addressed by 14 the Commission in the past and, in addition, are related to 15 some of the issues raised by NEI in their communications 16 with the Commission in October regarding principles of 17 conducting licensing basis reviews and for which the 18 Commission responded in early February. So the positions 19 then are consistent with communications with the industry 20 and NEI, which are also a matter of public record.
21 With those opening remarks, I would like to have 22 Tim walk us through the presentation and then we stand ready 23 to receive any questions.
24 MR. MARTIN: Thanks,. Frank. May I have the first 25 slide, please?
ANN RILEY & ASSCCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street,'N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
^
8 1 [ Slide.] .
2 MR. MARTIN: 10 CFR, section 50.59 establishes a 3 process for licensees to make changes to their facility or 4 procedures-described in the safety analysis report or to 5 perform tests and experiments not described in the safety 6 analysis report without prior NRC approval if those changes 7 4 do not' involve an unreviewed safety. question or changes to 8 their technical specifications.
9 Therefore, it establishes a regulatory threshold 10 beyond which prior NRC approval is required before 11 implementing a change or performing a test or experimant.
12 The purpose of this briefing is to present the 13 results to date of the Staff's 10 CFR 50.59 action plan and 14 recommendations for short-term improvements in regulatory 15 guidance.
16 Clearly the 10 CFR 50.59 process has been a 17 _ significant element for the framework for nuclear power 18 plant regulation since promulgated in 1962 and provideo 19 licensees the needed structure and flexibility to make 20 changes that do not erode the basis for NRC's licensing 21 ' decisions.
22 Based on the Staff's review, we conclude that when 23 ' properly implemented, the 10 CFR 50.59 process has been and 24 -continues to be successful in preserving the design basis 25 and safety margins at operating plants.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 1
9' 1 However, as a result of the Staff's analysis and 2 experience, we have identified areas where implementation of 3 the process would benefit from additional clarification or 4 guidance.. As a result, we conclude that existing regulatory 5 guidance should be clarified to further reduce differences 6 'in interpretation of rule language and expectations of the 7 process.
8 May I have the next slide, please.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Be$ ore you go, since we are 10 talking about clarification, in the paper you submitted to
- 11. the Commission, you discuss at least two other options when 12 it comes to dealing with' degraded or nonconforming J 13 conditions, and specifically, there's 10 CFR Appendix B, or 14- section 16, the. generic letter 9118, which explicitly deals 1
15 with that subject. )
1
- 16. Now, you don't have a viewgraph in here about 17 .that, but it appears that there is some blurriness in the 1
18 boundaries between these different approaches or l 19 methodologies. I 20 Can you expand for the Commission's benefit on 4
2 21 what the various processes are, and do you think that 22 licensees have a clear understanding from us as to when one 23 is to be used versus another?
24 And then the related obvious question then is, is 25 this part of what you're going to be addressing in talking ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i- i 10 1 about clarification? .
2 MR. MARTIN: Chairman, as one of the items on the 3 implementation is' sues, that is a specific and, to be quite 4- frank, a lengthy discussion of the handling of the discovery 5 of degraded or nonconforming conditions, the applicability 6 of 50.59 to that process, what guidance is out there in the 7 form of the generic letter 9118, and how we believe that 8 there may be some additional interpretations and guidance 9 that we_need to put out there.
10 If I can, I would like to hold off until that part 11 since we have covered those major issues.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You're going to explicitly 13 discuss these three?
14 MR. MARTIN: Yes, ma'am, I will.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. I will hold off.
16 MR. MARTIN: May I have the slide, concerns about 17 the 50.59 process?
18 [ Slide.] -)
19 MR. MARTIN: The Staff's principal concern is that 1
20 improper implementation of the 10 CFR 50.59 process could j 21 lead to a temporary reduction in the level'of safety of a 22 plant. Specific implementation problems can usually be 23 placed in one of three bias.
24 First, the rule applies to facility or procedures j 25 as described in the safety analysis report. To the extent ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. '
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 ,
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
11 !
1 the facility or procedures are not so described or are not 2 perceived to be described, then the plan change may not be 1 l
l 3 subject to the 10 CFR 50.59 process.
{
1 4 Second, questions of interpretation of the rule's j 5 language have led to ambiguity about when a change, test, or l l
6 experiment requires an evaluation and when an unreviewed l l
7 safety question is' involved.
8 Third, because the rule as written addresses 9 proposed changes, ambiguity exists as to its application to 10 discovered conditions which are different from those 11 described in a safety analysis report.
12 May I have the next slide, please.
13 [ Slide.]
14 MR. MARTIN: Our proposed approach to resolution 15 of these implementation concerns involves two parallel 16 paths: first, by improving implementation of the rule as 17 currently written by reaffirming existing regulatory 18 positions and practices for which there is general 19 agreement, clarifying existing regulatory positions where 20 interpretations may vary, establishing new regulatory 21 positions where none previously existed to assure uniform 22 implementation expectations and enhancing NRC inspection 23 guidance and oversight; second, by identifying additional 24 opportunities for improving implementation of the 10 CFR 25 50.59 process, such as through rulemaking.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
_ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _._ _- _ . - - . . _ _ m . - . . _ . _ . - _ - - m.-. _ _ _ _ . .
~
12 1 Because the latter issues are inseparably linked ,
2 to policy issues discussed in the Millstone Lessons Learned 3 Report, Part 2, we intend to carefully examine the options 4 for additional actions, evaluate the consequence, their 5 implementation, and come back to the Commission with an 6' integrated set of recommendations.
7 May I have the next slide, please?
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Before you go, the ones that 9 you're talking about that are under the heading of 10 " enhancing implementation of the rule as written," are all 11 of your recommended positions such that they can be l 12 implemented in the short term, and are any of them subject l l
13 to back-fit consideration, or are they -- because they are '
14- implementation of existing rules, they are not?
15 MR. MIRAGLIA: In terms of some of the issues, 16 Madam Chairman, where we feel that they're reaffirmations, 17 the answer would be no. In terms of some of the 18 clarifications, we need to put it through the process to 19 make sure that it's not a new interpretation, and that could 20 be done in the short term by generic letters or other kinds 21 of communications and issuances, and that's true of also l l
22 some of the new issues.
23 The longer term would be, .;iven this experience l .
24 and given those improvements, should we take the next step
! 25 and codify all of that through a rulemaking process once we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
13 1 take the short-term --
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Is there concurrence between 3 the Staff, technical Staff, and OGC with respect to that 4 position?
5 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think in the short term with the 6 guidance, the first step would be to get the public comment 7 and that would establish the basis for issuing that in a 8 generic kind of sense,-but perhaps Karen would like to add 9 to that.
10 MS. CYR: No. I think we're in agreement with the 11 Staff on the approach they've laid out.
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I think there is an issue, 13 though, as to the separability of these policy issues from 14 what you're proposing to do on the short term. It may very 15 well be that some of your short-term proposals in fact 16 represent policy issues that ought to be reviewed as policy 17 issues.
18 So we'll have to see what this all amounts to, but !
19 I'm'not so convinced that it's easy to separate short term, 1
20 what you might call short term, from policy issues.
l 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think that what they're j i
22 calling policy issues relate to policy issues related to 23 rulemaking because all of them are policy issues in the end.
24 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think that that'would be fair. ,
j 25 In the terms of a generic communication, we would have to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters !
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034 )
l
1 14 1 .come through process, would have to come to the Commission .
2 saying, this is the generic communication the Staff intends.
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I understand that, but I 4
think the question I'm raising is whether, by reaffirming 5 something as a policy issue that later on in fact ought to 6
be addressed through rulemaking and changed, it is.something 7
that we ought to be very mindful of that, that possibility.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you know enough at this 9 point -- relative to the potential rulemaking, have you done 10 encugh of a consideration to say whether there's anything 11 that you would be moving toward in that line that would 12 conflict with what you're calling the shorter-term l
13 considerations?
14 MR. MIRAGLIA: I have not thought about that 15 question. I'll give an answer. With all the considered 16 thought that I've given it, probably not. I think if one 17 goes back to the concerns about the 50.59 viewgraph, the 18 issue of scope is one that we're leaving until later.
19 That's clearly outside.
20 What the intent would be is that the 21 clarifications in the short term that we would be providing 22 would be to the scope of 50.59 as now described in the rule.
23 So I don't believe anything in the short-term guidance'is 24 going to expand the scope. That question would be clearly 25 later.
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 j
- c. '
15 1 In terms of the ambiguity, we would try to be 2 clarifying concerns relative to margin and consequences and 3 changes in probability, again, to apply it to 50.59 as 4 described. We are not intending.to change the scope of 5 50.59.within the context of the short-term lessons learned.
6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, .I have to say that I 7 think those are issues that are going to be policy issues, j 8 MR. MIRAGLIA: Those latter two?
.9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes.
10' MR. MIRAGLIA: Yes, and I think what we tried to 11 present to the Commission here is what Staff practice has 12 been and what the clarification has been and a 13 reaffirmation. Certainly the Commission can provide us 14 guidance in that area, either now or as for further 15 briefings on that.
16 The clear intent of the Staff, Commissioner 17 Rogers, is to put a reference out there that -- in terms of 18 public comments so there could be an understanding of how 19 it's being viewed and how we think is a fair implementation 20 of the process within the scope of the rule as defined right 21 now.
22 And I would agree, there are certain issues that 23 are kind of hard to parse one to the other. I think we've 24 tried to characterize long-term standard Staff practice, 25 Commission practice in the past, and what we're saying is a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
- , . . . . . - _ _ .u _. _
_. . . _ _ _ . .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ._ m . _ _ . _ . _ _. . . _
16 1 reaffirmation. Certainly if the Commission feels that we've 2 gone further than that, we need to hear that from the
'3 Commission.
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I don't want to delay the 5
whole procedure here, but I do think in the first place, the 6
SECY'is an excellent piece of work and I think it really 7 lays out the history and the issues, but when you read.it 8 very carefully, you see a lot of inconsistencies.
9 And so when you say, you know, we're go'ing to l
10 ; reaffirm something, that reaffirmation is going to be 11 dealing with some things that, in my view, have been dealt 12 with in a~rather inconsistent fashion and an unclear l
13 fashion. I 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Is that the clarification part 1
15 of it, dealing with the inconsistencies?
16 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think that's what we felt we were j 17 trying to articulate, those various pieces, and I think if 18 it would be-helpfui for the Commission to get more details 19 as to what falls u.vrhat bin, we can endeavor to do that.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think what's going to happen 21 is, obviously, the Commission is going to be reviewing this 22 paper, and depending upon its response to what you're
'23 calling a reaffirmation versus a clarification versus s.
'24 establishing some different regulatory position, therein is 25 the guidance.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
17 1 So we have the paper and so it's up to us to act 2 on it.
3 MR. MIRAGLIA: That's fair.
4 MR. MARTIN: Chairman, in further amplification in 5 response to your question, we have thought about whether 6 this .;uidance that we're proposing would be sustained even 7 with rulemaking.
8 Clearly, a number of the pieces of guidance we 9 have there would be superseded by any rule change and 10 abdicate the need for some of the clarifications that we put 4 11 forward.
12 But a number of the guidance, we believe, would be 13 sustained, would continue even after the rule would be 14 modif.ied, if that's the decision.
15 May I have the implementation issue slide?
16 (Slide.]
17 MR. MARTIN: Chairman, this is the meat of the 18 presentation and the slide is short, but the discussion is 19 long.
20 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: I was going to ask you for all
. 21 your backup viewgraphs for all these bullets, but since I 22 know you're going to talk very slowly and carefully.
23 ,
MR. MARTIN: The 10 CFR 50.59 task group developed 24 a compilation of guidence on a wide range o~f topics related 25 to 10 CFR 50.59 implementation which was presented as an ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
I 18 1 -attachment to our Commission paper. .
2 of the 22 implementation guidance issues L 3 identified, the five shown on this slide were the most
- 4 significant or potentially controversial.
5 The first issue has potential impact on subsequent 6 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations because the scope of the current 7 rule is tied to as described in the SAR,, or safety analysis 8 report.
9 The question raised is whether licensees can 10 remove information from the safety analysis report when not 11 specifically linked to a change to the facility or 12 procedures. Current regulations and regulatory guidance 13 define information that must and should respectively be a i
14 placed in the safety analysis report. '
15 We recognize that current safety analysis reports 16 contain information that may not be used in future safety
, 17 evaluations in licensing decisions. Further, the content 18 and level of detail of individual safety analysis reports 19 differs considerably based in large part on the vintage of 20 the original license.
21 However, there is no established policy or 22 guidance on the question raised by this issue. Until the 23 Staff develops guidance in this area, it is the Staff's view 24 that licensees may not remove material from"the safety 25 analysis reports unless the material is changed as a direct I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I' Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) R42-0034
i 19 l
', 1 result'of a change to the facility or its procedures. .!
2 The next three issues involve the determination of I
$ 3 whether_or not the proposed change, test, or experiment 4 -involves an unreviewed safety question. . As a reminder, 10
- j. 5 CFR 50.59 (a) (2) stntes, "A proposed change, test, or
- 6 experiment shall!be deemedito-involve an unreviewed safety
- 7 question, one, if the probability of occurrence or the 4
8 consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment
{ 9 important to safety previously evaluated in the safety 10 analysis report may be increased; or, two,-if a possibility 11 for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any 4
-12 evaluated previously in the safety analysis report may be 13 created; or, three, if the margin of safety as defined in i 14 the basis for any technical specification is m'.uce$1. "
15 It should be noted that a determination that the 16 proposal involves an unreviewed safety question does not 17 necessarily mean the proposal is unsafe or unacceptable. It 18 only means that the licensee can't make the change or 1
j- 19 conduct the test or experiment until the NRC decides it's l 20 safe and approves the amendment.
21 The issue of margin of safety involves two 22 questions: what is meant by "as defined" in the basis for 23 any technical specification, and how do you determine
[ 24 whether the margin of safety has been reduc ~ed.
25 Technical specifications are derived from the
- j. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
, - - , - a w, . -.-
- - - - - - . - - - . . . - ~ . - . - -. - ... . . . . . _ . .-
20 1 analysis and evaluation included in the safety analysis , ,
2 report. Technical specifications bases statements often do 3 not present margins of safety; therefore, the Staff 4 concludes the safety analysis report should be used as the 5 basis for any technical specification.
6 It should be noted that industry guidance 7 recommends that documents other than the tech spec bases be 8 reviewed when text spec bases are not explicit. However, we 9 .should also note that this guidance has not been uniformly 10 adopted by licensees.
11 The margin of safety is generally not explicitly 12_ defined in the safety analysis report or otherwise in 13 documents; however, the safety analysis report does present 14 limits within which the licensee proposes to operate the 15 facility and which the 101C accepted during review of the 16 licensing application.
17 Therefore, NRC's acceptance limits for approving 18 the operation of the facility are the values the licensee 19 proposed in the safety analysis report unless different 20 values are explicitly established as the basis for the 21 licensing' action in the license, technical specifications, 22- or the NRC safety evaluation report. ;
l 23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you a question. If 24 'we do broaden this issue of the basis for any tech spec to 25 include the safety evaluation report, do we run into any ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 22 84 Ib3
i 21 1 problems with respect to enforceability?
2 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think in the long term, this is 3 an issue that needs to be clarified and relates to some of 4- the discussion we had a few weeks ago regarding commitments 5 and what regulatory processes are required to change and to ,
6 keep track of commitments in terms of a future fit and also 7 a back fit. So there is that type of relationship.
8 I think what we're trying to say within'the f
9 context here -- I think the intent is a little narrower; 10 perhaps we can expand on that -- in order to define and 11 answer the margin question, what we're saying is that the 12 basis for determining margin should not just be the basis of 13- technical specifications as defined in the regulation, but 14 the basis is for significant licensing documents that would i
15 provide _an answer to the question, what margins were there 16 and what was approved. And I think it's a bit narrower in 17 that kind of sense. ;
l 18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Again, is there concurrence l
19 between yourselves and OGC in terms of.this broader 20 definition of the basis for any tech spec, or is there some 21 rulemaking space?
22' MS. CYR: No. I think the OGC supports the Staff.
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan.
24 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I thinkthis is on the 25 same point. In the letter to Mr. Colvin, we talk about the l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 ,
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
22 1 SER, the' safety evaluation report. And on the end of a long 2 paragraph, it says, "In order to be binding, these 3 . commitments must be reflected in supplements or amendments 4~ to the FSAR, tech specs, or license conditions."
5 If.the SER has a higher limit than the'FSAR and 6 the licensee wants to'use that higher limit for something, 7 is that the sentence that tells them that in order to get 8 the SER higher limit,.that they had-to somehow get it reflected in supplements or amendments to their FSAR?
~
9
)
10 or how does that process work where there's a 11 difference between the SER and the FSAR?
12 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think in terms of enforceability 13 of commitments, if it's not in the FSAR or other appropriate 14 licensing documents, such as condition of license or the 15 like, then the licensing basis would prevail, and I think 1 16 what -- if you look at the -- where we're talking about 1 17 margins in this particular case, much of that is-inferred j 18 when you read. We're not that clear as to what the margin 19 and what the acceptability of margins are.
20 For_ example, the clearest case is where one says 21 code and they're going to meet the code. Then it's -- but 22 the code is cited, but even the margin's not inferred. You 23 have to go back and find the trail. And I think we're 24 looking at this as -- in this case as the SER providing 25 guidance as to what is the' scope of the margin type of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 23
}, i question and we weren't looking at it in terms of 2 commitments to follow-up.
1 3 And these are ambiguities that need to be cleaned l 4 .and cleared.up. I think that in the previous briefing, we 5 talked about what we were trying to do in terms of l 6 commitment, commitment tracking, and to follow those kinds 7 of things.
, 8 So there is a nexus and a. relationship to the 9 short-term actions here and short-term actions that we 10 discussed several weeks ago, 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz. j 12 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: The same point. Im I hearing 13 -- maybe I'm not hearing right, but are you saying that the 14- new guidance will say that if the safety evaluation report, 15 the SER, has an acceptance limit that is higher than the 16 licensee has in his SAR, that we will accept the higher 17 limit as a -- you know, as a guide to changes? Is that what 18 we're saying?
19 MS. McKENNA: That's correct.
20 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: So we --
21 MR. MIRAGLIA: That would be an articulation that
. 22 we haven't articulated. That's one of the -- that's a new 23 interpretation that we have to put out there and get 24 reaction to.
25 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: But is that fair? If we have i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
- (202) 842-0034 a - . _ - - _ _ __- _
24 1 a guidance document that the licensee did use, used a lower ,
2 level, we have a document that says, this higher level is 3 acceptable, I think we should address whether we will accept 4 the higher acceptance limit. I think that's really what we 5 need to make clear.
6 MR. MARTIN: Commissioner, let me set it up for 7 you, the problem we're trying to address. A licensee may 8 propose an operating limit here. They know we have a 9 standard review plan that would say we would have accepted 10 anything up to here.
11 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Right.
12 MR. MARTIN: But in reviewing the entire 13 application, we may have decided that a lower limit is the 14 right one. If we explicitly state that because it is below 15 this lower limit, it is acceptable, then that was the basis 16 for our licensing action.
17 Licensees would like to sometimes go all the.way 18 up to the standard review plan level and, in essence, 19 violate the basis upon which we license that plant. And so 20 we're saying that if there is no explicit articulation of 21 what the Staff used as its basis for this, then it's what 22 the licensee proposed to operate at, the SAR value.
23 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I understand. And my question 24 goes right'at that issue, that I guess it's a new present 25 knowledge and a new analysis, is that being considered if ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i c
35 l 4
1 actually the standard review plan established a higher limit !
2 and we license a lower '*73t? Would it be possible to 4
3 consider that the higher limit is the one that should be 4
4 applied?
5 MR. MIRAGLIA: Only if the SER said_it was okay to 6 go.to the higher limit.
7 MR. MARTIN: Let's assume that we conclude that f 8 they are above our licensing limit. All they have to do is i l
9 come into us and propose the change and get a license l 1
- 10 amendment if it's a safe thing to do.
1 11 So this only determines whether they've exceeded i
- 12 the regulatory threshold and have to get our buy-in'before 5 13 they can implement it. As long as it's safe, we could 1
3 14 approve it. i l
15 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Yeah, you could. The issue is l l
j' 16 that that requires a significant amount of work on the part 17 of everybody, the licensee and us, and I was wondering 18 whether there's been additional clarification of this issue 19 or we are going to stick with our previous definition.
20 In other words, are we addressing the issue now 21 whether --
22 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think there's a short-term fix
.23 that we're talking about, is just to clearly understand 24 where we're at, and that it's going to take'a longer period 25 of time to evaluate these changes and the changes we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
m . _ _ _ . . .. _ .. _ . _ , _ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ - . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . - . _ . _ .
26 ;
t c 1 discussed in the past.. .
2 I think what we're trying to do is just" establish 3 the playing field and saying, here's our views and "4 positions. Clearly, if the SER clearly spoke to a limit and.
5 it's in there, then that's one case.
6- I think what you'll find is that, in most cases, 7 one can infer and it's not explicit, it's implicit. And in 8 those cases, what the guidance would be, if you can't point 1
9 to explicit material in the SER, as Mr. Martin just said, 10 come to us and we'll evaluate the amendment and go on the 11' basis.
12 It's clear that 50.59 is~a regulatory threshold.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So let me make sure I 14 understand something. Are you basically arguing the 15 following way, that you have'the standard review plan, the j 16 standard review plan is not plant specific?
1 17 MR. MARTIN: That's correct, l 18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And, therefore, when you 19 finally license the plant, you have to do plant-specific h
20 evaluations? l 1
1 21 MR. MARTIN: That's correct. l 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And that plant-specific 23 evaluation has things either documented in the safety -- the 24 Staff's safety evaluation' report, or it might not.
. 25 MR. MARTIN: That's correct.
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
, 27 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And you're saying that-if it 2 coes not, then.what's been proposed and what's in the SAR is 3 what governs?
4 MR. MARTIN: That's correct.
5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But if it has been explicitly 6 stated in the SER, then that is what you say or want to say [
7 governs?
8 MR. MARTIN: Could be stated in the license'or 9 tech specs or the SAR.
'10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I know, but explicitly stated 11 somewhere. But you also want to include-that explicit 12 statement to be what's in the SER?
- 13. MR. MARTIN: I don't know that I understand.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, suppose something is not
~
15 in the licensing, not in the licenses, not a license 16 condition, but in fact it is something that's referenced in 17 an SER. Are you saying that you -- that the Staff's 18 position is that what's in that SER is what should govern?
19 MR. MIRAGLIA: If the SER had one limit and the 20 SAR had another limit.
21 MR.. MARTIN: Unfortunately, this is the way 50.59 22 is written right now. If it:is not described in the SAR, 23 then the fact that we discussed it in the SER, it's still 24 outside the potential scope of 50.59 controls.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Correct. LSo what is your fix A
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
. - - . . - - ~ . -_-. . . -. -. .
- - . . . ....- ~ -
28 1 to that?
2 MR. MARTIN: The question that we ask in the 3 policy area ist should we change the scope to encompass 4 additional things beyond what is described in the SAR?
5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: If that scope was the current 6 licensing basis, would that address the issue?
7 MR. MARTIN: I believe it would; however, we have 8 not done the integration of the issues that came out of 9 Millstone and explored the consequences of that conclusion.
10 So I am not yet ready to make a recommendation.
11 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Following on Commissioner 12 Rogers, this seems to be one of the crucial issues as far as 1
13 implementation and is probably a policy issue that we should 14 decide.
15 MR. MIRAGLIA: In the short term, I think what 16 we're saying is that this is how we're looking at it, and if 17- you want to take credit for something in the SER that's not 18 in the SAR, you need to come for an amendment in the short 19 term.
20 In the longer term, we'd have to decide how would 21 we change that type of policy, and it's integrated and'it's 22 linked to commitments and other issues that we discussed, so 1
23 that's why we need.to take a step back and say, "How do all 24 .these pieces fit together?"
25 The scope of the FSAR.-- I mean, the scope of the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
1 29 1 rule is the FSAR.
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So that's the scope of the 3 existing rule. And what you're basically trying to say is )
4 that-to-reference anything else requires an explicit action?
5 To do it in the broad-based sense requires a rule change?
6 MR. MIRAGLIA: And I think the other - .I think 7 that's correct, and I think the other thing we're trying to 8 - illuminate is the question of margins and saying that, when- {
l 9 one looks at the margins question, you need to look at the '
10 entire thing to come in and make the kinds of judgments. If 11 they want to take credit for that, then the margins need to 12 be examined.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan. '
14 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I think two people are 15' trying to -- Karen, do you want to go first?
16 MS. CYR: I just wanted to clarify something. If 17 you're talking about the standard review plan, which is not 18 referenced anywhere else, yes, then that's something new 19 you're introducing. But if there is a number in the Staff's 20 SER, then that's really the bases for the tech spec.
21 I was trying to clarify something that Tim said 22 that I thought was -- that's what he said originally, and I 23 thought he said something differently, and I just --
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So the SER is part of the basis 25 for the tech spec?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 t
(202) 842-0034
+
30 1 MS. CYR: Right. l 2 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I'd like to follow up 3 because I think the key word or adjective or adverb that 4 we're using is explicit versus implicit, explicitly versus .
5 implicitly. When one looks at an SER, and I haven't, is it 6 clear when the Staff has explicitly set a different number 7 between the FSAR and the standard review plan number?
(
1 8 Is it always clear or is it ambiguous? Would one 9 have to induce implicitly that we meant to do that? How ,
10 often are these documents ambiguous? y 11 MR. MIRAGLIA: I would say then, in more cases, 12 it's not as explicit as it should be. I think that's one of I 13 the lessons learned in how we're looking at stating !
14 commitments and evaluating SERs.
15 But there are cases where the differences are 16 articulated. After a period of time, deviations from the i
17 standard review plan need to be documented. So there's a 18 range.
19 In terms of one of the things that we have, the 20 regulatory process has been an evolving one with time. In 21 some of the evolutions, there were conscious decisions made. i 22 The variability FSAR is one where we have some plans with 23 three or four volumes of SARs, and some are considerably 24 more, i
25 So I think there's a variability in the types of ,
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ;
Court Reporters ;
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 !
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
31
. 1 SERs and what plants review the SRPs. The SRPs were not
$ 2 available prior to 1975, and many of the plants even -- that ;
3 Teceived licenses shortly after '75 were not reviewed j 4 against the SRP because it was an evolving kind of review l 5 plan at that point in. time. So I think you would find that t
l' 6 variability in the SERs as well.
, 7 MS. McKENNA: I just wanted to follow up on your 8 comment about -- that's why -- the reason we're saying
- 9 explicit, because if you can't -- if you have to go~ deduce 10 it, you really should be falling back to what was in the SAR because, in essence, what you're-really trying to find is 11 !
l j 12 what was reviewed by the Staff, defining unreviewed, l 2
13 unreviewed safety question. l l
14 If you can determine from the SER explicitly what 15 the Staff considered their application against, we're saying 16 that's what you can look to. But if you cannot explicitly 17 figure out what that was, you need to fall back on what was 18 in the SAR because that's what was on the record as to how 19' they proposed to operate their plant, presuming, if we 20 issued the license, that that was the basis on which we 21 accepted it.
22 So that's where we came to the explicit statement 23 kind of language.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Why don't you'go on, Mr.
25 Martin.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
- ,-. - - . .~.-. . - - . - - . . . - . - . ._
i l 32 I 1 MR. MARTIN: Okay. Given the discussion, this is .
- 2. probably redundant, but it is still worth saying. The Staff j 3 concludes that a reduction in margin of safety has occurred l 4 and an unreviewed safety' question is involved when a change, l 5 test, or experiment would result in no longer meeting a 1
6 ' license-specific acceptance limit. l 7 The issue of probability of occurrence or the 8 consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment ,
l 9 important to safety both involve the question of what was '
l 10 meant by the phrase "may be increased."
11 Unfortunately, probabilities may not have been l 12' quantified during the original licensing action. Further, i
13 the methodology to quantify probabilities and uncertainties 14 has improved substantially. Without these tools, the l
15 determination of whether the probability of occurrence may 16 be increased would necessarily be qualitative.
17 The Staff interprets the phrase " consequence of an 18 accident or malfunction" to mean radiological consequence.
19 Further, given the rule language, the Staff position is that 20 any increase or even uncertainty about a possible increase J l
21 in the probability of occurrence or consequence of an 22 accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety i
23 previously evaluated in the safety analysis report would
-24 involve an unreviewed safety question.
l 25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I think that's a fundamental l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
I Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034 l
l t - . . .
33 1 policy question, that interpretation.
Because when the rule 2 was written, as you just said, we were not talking about 3 quantitative measures of probability. And now we have 4 quantitative tools.
5 But to apply those now to a rule which was written
, 6 with something totally different in mind seems to me is a 7 very fundamental change, not a simple change at all, not an 8 implementation change; a very fundamental change, as has j
9 been pointed out in this SECY.
10 So I think that's an issue of the type I'm talking 11 about that I don't think, one, you just take that step 12 comfortably, you say, well, probability, now we can measure 13 it so we're going to start measuring it. And if it's an 14 increase, however small, an increase is what the word said 15 and we cannot -- we have to interpret it in that light.
16 I think you just have to go back to 30 years ago, 17 try to figure out what was the intent. And the intent at 18 that time, as far as I can see, was a more qualitative 19 evaluation of probability than we are able to use today 20 through PRA, but once you start doing that, you're in a 21 totally different type of evaluation.
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, it's the Commission's 23 prerogative to decide if the interpretation of the rule as 24 applied in '62 when it was promulgated is still relevant 25 today, subject to the various kinds of considerations and so ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
- . _. .- -. - -. . - - _ . . - = . . . .~. .- . . - . - - . - -
34 1 cx2 and whether there's some other way of interpreting i
2 increase in probability or increase in consequence. And 3 that's precisely why the Staff was asked to bring the paper- '
4 to'the Commission, and so we're going to haveito work our 5 way through that in responding to this paper.
6 I mean, it's the Commission's prerogative to 7 decide in any of these' things what-is policy and what is a 8 change in that interpretation or implementation and what is.
9 not, and so, in that sense, I think this is a useful 10 discussion.
11 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think -- and again, this may get 12 to the area that Commissioner Rogers brought up in the 13 beginning; some of these are hard to parse.
14 I think what we're trying to say here is we're 15 going to interpret the rule very conservatively saying, if 16 there's any chance of an increase, come to us, and that 17 would mean qualitative or quantitative. That's where we 18 were looking at the rule.
19 It's not an inference that you have to use PRA 20 kinds of techniques. In fact, there is a -- what we tried 21 to do in the Commission paper is point to the Commission, 22 within the context of the PRA implementation plan, has asked 23 the Staff to develop what areas and how to do it and to 24 quantitate:it.
25 So I think we were trying to look at it to say, we l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 35 l 1 were trying to be -- take the word "any" or "any increase" l
2 very literally and have more issues come to the Staff as 1
3 opposed to not come to the Staff.
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yeah, I understand that, and 1
5 I think if we're just talking about the single issue of 6 whether the licensee has to come to the Staff or the 7 Commission, that's not really what concerns me.
8 What really concerns me is the fundamental 9 interpretation of any increase in probability, because now 1 10 that can have application elsewhere in our regulations, not 11 just here.
12 And so I think that that's the concern that I 13 have, not that now people have to come to us. Well, if they
]
14 do, so be it. That's not giving me any heartburn by itself, 15 but what is giving me a lot of trouble is simply choosing to 16 make that a new definition of increase in probability.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan.
18 COMMISSIONER McGAFFlGAN: I'd like -- we don't 19 have to see a marker at the table, but can you all tell me 20 anything about the history o~ this interpretation?
21 I recall from some previous briefing that the reg 22 review group ran into this when they were looking at -- in 23 the early '90s looking at items to proceed on and items not 24 to proceed on in the large list that they l'ooked at. This 25 word "any" came up in that context and we ended up only ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
, Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034 l
36 1 making regulatory changes that provided no change in safety, 2 and there was a larger group of potential regulatory 3 changes.
4 So I know it goes back at least to the early '90s 5 and I wonder whether -- since this rule has been put on the 6 book since '62, how has -- has the Staff interpretation 7 changed on this over that period, to the best of your i
8 knowledge?
l I
9 MR. MIRAGLIA. I think the issue has been looked '
10 at in a number of different contexts. I think what we are l 11 discussing here is within the 50.59 context, we describe and 12 define a USQ, which is perhaps a narrower kind of thing, but 13 the issue has come up.
14 In fact, the Commission, in dealing with the PRA 15 implementation plan has just spoken to how to look at 16 increases in terms of the probability and has given the 17 Staff some guidance, and that's a refinement that reflects 18 the evolution of the technology and the processes and the 19 procedures.
20 I think we're trying to describe it in terms of 21 the regulatory threshold. The issue came up in terms of the 22 review group. It's come up in the marginal safety 23 improvement program. I think one of the fundamental issues 24 as to why we haven't fully endorsed the NSAC 125 document 25 are these very, very issues, as to whether they are too l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
37 1 rigid of an interpretation and, given today's technology, 2 how should we define it?
3 And we've taken the position that any change, any 4 increase would --
5 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: For at least a decade or l l
6 --
7 MR. MIRAGLIA: I believe that's the case, although 8 I think Commissioner Rogers raises an issue that perhaps I j 9 was coming at it from one direction, but Commissioner Rogers 10 raises another one.
11 I think che intent is clearly within the language 12 of establishing new thresholds for review by the agency 13 before implementation, and I don't believe we were using it 14 as a tool to foster new and improved and advanced PRA l 15 methods without -- and in front of the existing Commission 16 guidance as to how we should do those and apply those. It 17 should be in that context is what our intent was.
18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, you see, the problem I 19 have here, and you put your finger on it because you said 20 "in the context of," and that's what the problem is, that 21 issues like this have been looked at in the context of a 22 particular application.
23 Basically, we have not had a consistent point of 24 view, and that I think when we go back to the point that 25 Commissioner McGaffigan was talking about, whether -- when ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
- .,.. ._-. . -- . . - . - - . - . . _ . . . - . - . _ - . -. . - . . ._~ - .
, 38 1 we were considering tech spec changes and things like that .
- 2 and we didn't want to allow any increase in -- or decrease-3 -- any. decrease'in safety, that-was sort of an intermediate ,
4 position. That was a clear one we could deal with right 5- away. Rwe postponed what.would happen if there was a slight ;
6- decrease and never dealt with it. '!
4
-7 But.I think that we're facing here the problem 8 that we have had interpretations in the context of a 9 particular question and they have not been entirely 10 consistent. I think this is the time to get~at these and 1
11- try to establish what we mean by something when we-say it. !
12 Does it mean the same thing in every different context? It 13 .should, in my view.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Go on.
15 MR. MARTIN: The last implementation issue 16 involves the applicability-of the 10 CFR 50.59 process to 4
17 the discovery of degraded or nonconforming conditions.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: This is my favorite topic.
i 19 Before you get to that, let me talk about --
let me ask you
- 20. a question in terms of difficulty in getting to the fourth 21 bullet. Some of what we've said relates to this.
22 But I note in the Staff's paper.~the Staff
- 23. concludes that for those calculated in the SAR should be 24 considered as the threshold for when an inc~rease in 25- consequences and thus an unreviewed safety question results.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
39
, 1 Is the content of the SAR definitive enough 2 currently for all analyzed accidents in those calculations l l
3 for that to be the threshold?
4 MS. McKENNA: I hate to say all in anything. I 5 think, in general, the FSAR would have the accidents 6 evaluated and the consequences that resulted from them. I 7 wouldn't say necessarily that all accidents. I 1
8 A question came up. Sometimes if an accident, as !
9 an example, was a fuel handling accident, that was not 10 considered originally in the FSAR and at a later time the 11 Staff asked questions of the licensee about it, whether they 1
12 would hr.ve put that information in the FSAR. (
13 It may be a bit of an open question, but to the l
14 extent that the accidents are in the SAR, I think you will l 15 find what the accident was, some information about l
16 assumptions and some information about what the consequences 17 of that accident are. ,
l 18 And what we're saying is that whatever that set of 19 information is, that's what you look to to see whether the 20 change that you're making is -- involves an increase in 21 consequences. l 22 MR. MARTIN: Madam Chairman, as a subsidiary 23 issue, the tools for calculation of radiological consequence 24 have also improved, and frequently we're fi~nding that some 25 of the requests for amendment are done with the new ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
. .. ._ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ . _ . - . ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . . . . . . .
40 l' techniques of calculation against a conclusion of a much ,
l 2 less sophisticated calculation in the past, and we have had.
- 3. to go back and redo the calculations using the old tools and 4 the new tools to check to make sure thatuit is in fact. safe
- .5
- and stays within the envelope. But here's another case 6 where technology has caught up with us. !
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So is it fair to say you're 1 8 trying to trigger, let's call it, a review at the 9 appropriate point in a consistent way of whatever the safety 10 question is that allows you to do this kind of analysis, 11 whether it ends up meaning you have been more conservative 12 in some instances or not? I'm trying to understand where 13 you want to go.
14 MR. MARTIN: Where I want to go, where we want to 15 go is to end up where, if we have made a license-decision 16 based upon a certain issue, certain facts, and what is being 17 proposed is less conservative than those facts, we just want 18 a bite at the apple. We want a chance to review and 19 approve.
20 And this establishes -- this process establishes a
! 21 threshold where the licensee recognizes that they need to
'22 come to us and propose their change and we get to determine 23 whether it's acceptable or not, so that we consistently 24 review and approve the licensing basis for'that plant.
25 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think what you said is a fair ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
, (202) 842-0034
41
., i summary, Madam Chairman, in the ontext of, there hasn't I 2 been consistency, and it's -- what we're finding in some '
3 cases, licensees may be taking those, and then we have to
.4 look at the 50.59 to' find those.
5 What we're attempting to do with this articulation 6 of the Staff position in terms of reaffirmations,
)
7 clarifications, and new positions is to say, here's how 8 we're going to be examining these things to get consistency l 9 across the board within the context of what the intent of 10 50.59 as written and as it applies to the FSAR was, to j 11 provide flexibility within the context of'50.59, and that's 12 all we were trying or attempting to do to articulate in 13 these areas.
14 It's obvious, based on some questions, that
! 15 perhaps we can be even clearer, but I think that was the intent of the position, was such that everyone understands 1
- 16 l
17 that's what we're going to be looking at and we'll be asking
, 18 questions as to 50.59, 50.59 evaluations with this clear 19 laying out of the playing field, so to speak.
20 MR. MARTIN: The last implementation issue 21 involves essentially two questions: When is a licensee 22 expected to conduct a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation, and what is 23 required if the evaluation identifies an unreviewed safety
, 24 question?
- 25 Degraded and nonconforming conditions involve the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 3
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 4
42 1 discovery of situations adverse to safety or quality o.-
2 safety -- of safety or safety supports, components or 3 systems to meet requirements of regulations, conform to 4 applicable codes or standard, or satisfy licensing and/or 5 design basis.
6 The licensee is expected to promptly insure public 7 health and safety. However, once that task is fulfilled, 8 the licensee must determine whether the plant can continue 9 to operate in conformance with its license, make the 1
1 10 necessary reports, and implement prompt, corrective action l l
11 per 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion 16, to resolve 12 the condition and prevent recurrence. The process we expect 13 the licensee to follow is described in generic letter 9118.
I 14 Up to this point, there is no role for the 10 CFR ;
15 50.59 process; however, the Staff has identified three 16 situations under which the 50.59 process must be invoked. )
17 First, when the licensee implements compensatory 18 measures different than those described in the final safety l 19 analysis report to establish conditions for continued 20 operation until a final resolution can be implemented.
21 Second, when the licensee intends to implement a 22 final resolution different than as described in the FSAR.
23 And third, when the final resolution is not 24 implemented at the first reasonable opportunity.
25 With regard to the second question raised by the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
43 1 issue, the Staff position is that a plant currently 2 operating-with a condition involving an unreviewed safety 3 question would not normally be required to shut down, 4 provided that the licensee has determined that all necessary 5 equipment is operable, that regulatory requirements are met,
- s. 6 and that.the licensee expeditiously submits its application 7 for a license amendment. We're saying one to two days.
8 However, as a matter of regulatory prudence, the 9 Staff would not allow a plant to start up with an unreviewed 10 safety question unless the condition is corrected or the 11 Staff has approved the change.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Now, if I understand, in a 13 certain sense, wouldn't your previous point allow for a 14 notice of enforcement discretion or enforcement discretion 15 with an unreviewed condition?
16 MR. MARTIN: It could. There is a possibility for 17 that, but even that -- if they are different than what is 18 described in the FSAR and you have measures in place that !
t 19 are different, then we expect them to have evaluated those 20 with the 50.59 process to determine if there is an
,- 21 unreviewed safety question involved, and if so, even though 22 we might grant them enforcement discretion for a particular 23 regulation or something of that nature, there's an 24 enforcement action that we have to consider ^later on and i
25 there's also the question of whether we need to issue them l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
44 l' an amendment. .
2~ Next slide, please.
3 [ Slide.]
4 MR. MARTIN: During the Staff's review of its 5 experience with implementation of the 10 CFR 50.59 process, 6 we identified two areas specific to the process where it was 7 felt that rulemaking could be effective in further resolving 8 some-of the-identified implementation concerns. Those two 9 . areas were the scope of the rule and the criteria that 10- defines an unreviewed safety question.
11 The policy question associated with the scope of 12 the rule centers on whether, in referring only to the safety 13 analysis report, does the rule sufficiently include all 14 information that should be subject to the regulatory control 11 5 of the 10 CFR 50.59 process?
16 Adding to this issue is the concern that the 17 requirements for periodic updating of the safety analysis 18 report are not -- were not always implemented in a manner to 19 insure the effects that all new analysis were included in 20 the updated final safety analysis report.
21 The policy issue concerning the content and use of 22 the final safety analysis report are discussed in further 23 detail in the Millstone Lessons Learned, Part 2 report.
24 The policy question associated with the unreviewed 25 safety question threshold is whether the definition should ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
4 Court Reporters-1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
45
)1, 1 be revised to, for instance, reduce ambiguity on when an 2 unreviewed safety question is involved, facilitate the use
~
i 3 of probabilistic safety analysis techniques, or eliminate 4- the need for NRC review of negligible changes in probability.,
i 5 or consequence as the industry.has proposed.
'6 As'previously indicated, the Staff will be l
ll 7 evaluating a number of policy issues identified during this
- 8 and bther lessons learned efforts in an integrated fashion f 9- to develop a sound set of regulatory proposals for <
10 presentation to the Commission.
! 11 May I have the next slide, please.
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Just before you leave policy 13 considerations, you didn't use the word, and it may be l 14 implicit in either the first or the second bullet, but I 15 really think that a good deal of clarification is called for-16 :in what we mean by " margin."
l 17 .The SECY offered a definition of margin in one
~
18 place that I found rather difficult to agree with because it 19 didn't seem to me that in fact it dealt with what -- the way
'20 the term is used in other contexts. So I think there's 21 another issue, and that is, what do we really mean by 22 margin?
23 And that's come up here of how do we define 24 margin? What do we cite for something to give us a clue as 25 to what is meant by margin? Well, if you have some numbers ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I' Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
s 46 1 -that say this is the margin, then that's the margin. .
2 But if you're trying to define margin, that's a 1
3 differenti-- when you don't have those, then that's'a 4 different matter and I think that's.something we've got to
' ~ ~
5 .come to grips with because I don't think it's clear.
'6 MR. MIRAGLIA: And I think it can reduce the 7 ambiguity. It-does include that issue in the broader' sense 8 because we discussed consequences, probabilities, and margin 9 -in that kind of context.
10 I think, again, what we were attempting to do 11 would be to say that that's an issue that needs to be 12_ examined' closely. And in terms of saying where should you
, 13 look for margin and that description of margin, we were 14 saying that the bases that should be looked at should be 15 broader-than just a bases of tech specs as defined in 50.36, 16 but you should look for insights in other places in terms of 17 establishing how could you point to explicit margin kind of.
18 statements. l j
19 So we were trying to narrowly focus to that kind ;
20 of thing, but your questions are understood and that wasn't 21 our intent. But perhaps we can make-it even clearer than 22 that.
23 MR. MARTIN: Can we have the last slide, please?
24 (Slide.]
25 MR. MARTIN: At this time, we recommend the l
l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ;
Court Reporters j 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 J Washington, D.C. 20005 I (202) 842-0034
47 1 Commission approve issuance of the proposed regulatory 2 guidance related to implementation of the rule to solicit
- 3 public comment.
4 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you a question. Why 5 not the entire paper?
6 MR. MARTIN: We certainly have no objection to 7 releasing the entire paper. We had not completed our 8 integration of the issues in the Millstone Lessonu Learned 9 report, Maine Yankee studies.
10 We need to think through the consequences of the 11 proposals there and we did not want to foreclose any options 12 for the Commission.
13 MR. MIRAGLIA: Clearly, I think three weeks ago I 14 indicated the 50.59 issues can move in parallel, but there 15 is a nexus to some of the other issues. Clearly, the scope 16 issue, the scope of 50.59 beyond the FSAR is linked to some 17 of the lessons learned from Part 2, and that has the nexus 18 -- the content of the FSAR issue is another one that that 19 raises through.
20 Clearly, as I indicated last time, we can move in 21 parallel, but we need to keep an eye on those relationships.
22 If subsequent decisions need to modify, then we'd have to 23 codify.
24 And what we were thinking of doin~g is taking a 25 step back and saying, what are the short-term activities ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
48 1 that we're proposing? What's the nexus of each of these .
2 activities to the other questions? And is there some way 3 that makes more sense in an integrated way to stagger these l
4 things or have them related, or, if we do move in parallel, !
l 5 to know what -- how they impact on each other. If the 6 Commission decides to put the policy questions out at this 7 time, we would not object. j l
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Would not public comment help i
9 to inform your' process?
10 MR. MIRAGLIA: Given that all of the issues are i 11 out, including the Millstone Lessons Learned, perhaps so.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: They're all out there?
13 MR. MIRAGLIA: They're all out there, yes.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What kind of time frame were 15 you -- it seems like this whole business, you've been 16 studying the issue now for over a year, and so the question 17 is, maybe this is a way to spur you along.
18 MR. MIRAGLIA: Clearly the time frame in terms of 19 the Staff position on 50.59, we asked for a 60-day comment 20 period. In the memorandums that forwarded this paper and 21 the previous paper to the Commission, we said 90 days 22 subsequent to the Commission moving on the paper, we would 23 come up with an integrated plan that we could indicate what 24 actions we have taken and what are underway, how they relate 25 to one another, and perhaps specific schedules for some of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l .
~49 r
1 the other actions. So that was the time frame we had been 4
2 thinking and discussing. y
'l 3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
~
I'm going to change the order
.4 so the. newer commissioners don't always get left at the end, l 5 so Commissioner McGaffigan.
! '6 i
COMMISSIONER'McGAFFIGAN: I've asked the questions- j i
i '7 as I've gone along. I guess just on the timing. i l
i 8 If we go~to rulemaking at some point to resolve l-9- these big issues, how quickly do you see that rulemaking 10 moving forward in completing? Just sort.of ballpark.
11 It's probably not in any six-month plan that you 12 give us at the moment because it's a gleam in someone's eye, 13 but --
14 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think what the intent,
'15 . Commissioner McGaffigan, would be, in the 90 days, we would 16 indicate where we are for the initiation.in that process and L 17 how it could proceed.- I think the nominal rulemaking 18' process is -- is a two-year from start to finish. I'm 19 getting some nods of the head.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: 'Doesn't have to be.
21 MR. MIRAGLIA: It doesn't have to be, and we have 22 looked at ways of expediting those kinds of issues.
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But you would -- as a follow 24 up, when would you come forward with the rule, if there were 25 such?
l l
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
50 1 MR. MIRAGLIA: Well, in terms of~some of these, I ,
2 think that based upon the public comment, and again, if we l
3 can clearly define what the -- what's within the scope in 4 _ terms of policy, 60' days comment period, and we'd need some 1
5 _ time to-advance those in terms of_ moving ahead just on the
- 6. 50.59 piece without'taking on the other~ issues of scope-and .
i 7 commitments and all those kinds-of things, we could probably 8 move out faster than that, perhaps, wnat. next fall we say?
9 Sixty days from today for comments?
10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Not to put words in your 11 mouth, but late '99, we should hope for this to be resolved.
- 12. Is that --.for rulemaking, if neces'ary,s to sort of get to 13 finality on --
1 14 MR. MIRAGLIA: Come with a' proposed rule and then l 15 the proposed rule would have to go out for comment and go l
16 through that process.
j 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You mean '99 for the rule to be 18 done?
- 19 COMMISSIONSR McGAFFIGAN: Right, yeah.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Not for the rule to be --
- 21. COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Late '99 for the process 22 to end. That would be sort of ballpark, given past history.
23 That sounds reasonable.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz.
25 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Th'is is a great opportunity.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
. _ - . . . =
51 1 Thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No; thank me. I was doing that 3 but I was trying to be nice.
4 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I just wrote a series of 5 things in here. Some of them are interesting. I think they 6 all go to the heart of the problem. Quoting Chairman 7 Jackson, she says, "the-time is now to change this or to 8 define it."
9 I think we heard from Commissioner Rogers and 10 everybody else on the inconsistency and some lack of 1
11 definition, and I put kind of a phrase in here, going back i 12 to my work, that really what we're trying to do -- if not, l 13 please tell me; we're trying to reduce the uncertainty in 14 the application of these rules, having in mind the safety i
15 goals, and to apply some risk criteria to it. I 16 Is that --
l 17 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think as a long-term, overall 18 objective, I think the answer to that is yes, but to try to 19 get something done in the short term, given the linkage of 20 all the other policy issues that makes, that may be too big 21 a goal to try to attempt.
22 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: And that was my next comment, 23 is that, you know, to change this rule -- it really should 24 be changed. It 's 30 years old and we know 'a lot more now 25 than we knew then. We really have to consider a lot of the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
52 1 basic questions that we could comment about all of the time.
2 There is no doubt -- and I spent some time going 3, to school this past weekend, and I went through the entire 4 thing.
,5 For example, tied into 50.59 is the definition of 6 what a. basic component is. That's in 50.2, define what a 7 safety component is, and a safety component is a-definition 8 that is broad. It takes any, you know, structure, system, 9 and component, and then you define specifically, what do you 10 want those things to abide by. But, really, it doesn't say 11 when.
12 Then we came and defined in '96 safety related.
13 Safety related, the last three paragraphs are the same as 14 basic component, but the first paragraph of safety related 15 comes and tells you, this.only applies to systems-that will 16 prevent or mitigate the consequences of events it postulated 17 in the assigned basis.
18 I was joking this morning that you take that 19 definition of safety related that says it's only those 20 systems.that are involved in a postulated event. We could 21 probably rule out the reactor coolant pumps because they are 22 not in the definition, but they are in the basic component 23 definition.
24 That brings us back to where all'these things 25 start, okay, which is something we started very nicely and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
1
I
+
53 1 abandoned through the years, and that was Appendix A and 2 Appendix B. Appendix A and Appendix B are the nexus to 3 50.59 and to the definitions of safety related.
4 Appendix A is the only component that I know in 5 what we have written that defines what is important to 6 safety. It's the only one, and they defined it in such 7 broad terms at the time that it was almost unusable, and 8 therefore we decided not to go by it.
9 But if you look at it, it clearly says those 10 structures, systems, or components, okay, that are important 11 to safety will be included. And which are those? Those are 12 those structures, systems, and components that are necessary 13 to provide assurance of adequate protection. It's very 14 broad. No place else is that really defined.
15 Then Appendix B picks it up. Appendix B starts 1 16 talking about safety related and then it goes on and talks l
17 about importance to safety, the fact. It's a very, very 4 l
18 classic thing. Appendix B is to be applied to structures, i
19 systems, and components consistently important to safety. I 20 Even in 1970, we were establishing that our 21 regulation, our Q list, was to be graded to the importance 22 to safety of the components. What was the problem? The 23 problem is that we never redid, although we promised that we 24 would do, Appendix A.
25 Appendix A should have included all those systems AITN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
i l
l 54 1 and components that'even were not part of-your safety
, )
2 system, will have an impact. They should have clear
- 3. definitions, and we promise in'the rule we are going to come l 4 in and improve Appendix A, we're going to make it better, 5 and we're going to make it what it should be: a guide. We 6 never did.
7 We do patchwork like we could do now. I think the 8 time is now. The time.is now to put all of these things i
9 together so they mean the same thing, so they actually l 10 address the same issue, and the issues are very clear, okay?
11 We need to have and maintain the level of safety while the 1 12 licensee is able to operate according to his license, and we
'13_ need to define that well so we provide him with the q 14 necessary vehicle so they can do their work.
l 15 And that can be done, but it only can be done if l
16 we integrate all these things. We cannot leave safety I 17 related. This afternoon, we're going to come safety related 18 in 50.65. Read the definition, okay? It only applies to 19 structures,. systems, and components that are' going to 20 prevent -- or actually, they practically say are going to I
21 mitigate, okay, and dealing with postulated events. l 22- In other words, leave the reactor coolant pump 23 out. I'm sure you didn't mean that. I'm sure you didn't 24 mean that. But if you are legalistic and you go through it, 25 that's where you come out, and it is the time to put all of I I
l 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1 Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
55 1
, 1 these things together and say, do we really need to change 2 .50.59 or do we need to' change Appendix A and Appendix B 1
3 together? And I believe that that is what we should do. We !
4 should go that way.
l 5 In the short term, I think that zero increases, j l
6 okay, are not what the rule meant. It also really clearly j l
7 meant not significant increases, okay? But there is a range l l
8 of safety here from zero to what is risk critical, and that !
9 is what the Staff should comment on.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Dicus.
11 COMMISSIONER DICUS: No, thank you. j i
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Rogers. l l
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I agree with Commissioner 1
14 Diaz. Let me just say that I'm not going to add any details l
15 here. I think what we've heard is very well worth listening 16 to, but I just wanted to say that I thought the SECY was an y 17 excellent job. It provides us with the basis for really 18 looking at some of these questions, and I complement the 19 Staff for producing such an excellent document.
20 I also raise the question that the Chairman has l I
21 raised, why not circulate the whole document? It seems to ;
i 22 me the policy issues are very critical. It would be very l i
23 helpful to get public comment on those as soon as possible 1 l
24 and I would certainly have no problem with circulating it in l 1
25 its entirety. j i
I I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I Court Reporters l 1250 I. Street, N.W., Suite 300 j Washington, D.C. 20005 i (202) 842-0034 l1
56 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So this has all been structured .
l 2 to give me the last word. '
3 On behalf of the Commission, let me thank the l I
4 Staff for presenting to the Commission the results of your 5 evaluation and recommendations for improvement in the 6 regulatory guidance in this area.
7 The Staff's paper to the Commission and today's 8 presentation have helped to illuminate the picture for the 9 Commission on the various areas that are in need of further 10 implementation, and I think net / net, the Commission is very 11 interested in correcting the identified deficiencies.
1 12 As I stated at last month's Lessons Learned 13 Commission briefing -- we've been having a lot of these -- !
l 14 r.he industry and the NRC have recognized the importance of l 15 10 CFR 50.59 but yet have struggled with providing adequate l 16 guidance, and so we need clear guidance on a firm regulatory 17 basis. i I
18 A 50.59 process that is not properly implemented !
1 19 could result in an unacceptable reduction in the level of l
20 safety at a plant. But conversely, it could be implemented j 21 in a way that would tie licensees' hands so much that they 22 could never make any changes to the plants without coming to 23 the NRC beforehand. And that's not our intent, but we have i
24 to be clear on what we mean by maintaining ~ safety, j i
25 appropriate safety levels. j i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. !
Court Reporters !
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l 22 84 b3 l
l
1 l
I 57 u
, el So I commend you for the detailed presentation of 2 the issues in the SECY paper. I tie this back to our 3 previous briefing. If the Commission requires 4 implementationg of 50.71(e) as we discussed in the previous 1 5 briefing so that FSARs are updated to correct past omissions 6 of changes to the design bases and effects of other analyses 7 that have been performed since the original licensing but
.8 have not been included in the updated FSAR, and include such l
9 information in the future, we will have a more complete i 10 sdescription of the licensing and design basis information in 11 the FSARs themselves, which is then controlled by 50.59. i 12 The Staff should, in addition, consider additional 13 information, what additional information is within the 14 licensing basis, such as some commitments to the NRC that 15 would not be included in these FSAR updates, how significant 16 that information is, and provide recommendations for how it 17 should be controlled.
18 The industry should be provided the opportunity to 19 comment and to verify that the industry and NRC are 20 accurately communicating with each other on implementation 21 guidance for the rules and, as such, the Commission will 22 soon decide on the publication of that paper, most likely 23 the full paper, for public comment.
24 And since it's proposed that the'-- part of the 25 paper you were proposing for a 60-day comment period, we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l .
58 l
1 would do the whole thing, but I believe it would benefit the 2 Commission then to hear back from the Staff, again, in 3 approximately 90 days.
4 And I would ask you to cull through the existing 1
5 paper and to lift ou2 all of the questions that would have I
6 to be addressed to promulgate appropriate changes to 50.59, i 7 but I'm going to make a comment to link to Commissioner l 8 Diaz's comments in a second, because I think the Commission 1
9 wants to be clear to know exactly what the questions are. ,
l 10 If there have to be policy decisions, we should l 11 just give them in an expeditious manner and then you can use 12 that as the basis for any rulemaking, coupled with the 13 comments that you would garner in the comment period.
14 Referencing something that Commissioner Diaz said, 15 there is a need more broadly for clarification. I can 16 remember a year to a year-and-a-half ago talking about what 17 the difference was between safety related, important to 18 safety, safety significant, and risk significant. We have 19 never cleaned that.up, and people apparently have stepped up 20 to the abyss, which is my favorite word, and stepped back.
21 And I think it's not going to all be done 22 immediately as part of improvements to 50.59 itself because 23 it is such an important rule, we need to get on with it.
24 But I do think that you need to come back with an integrated 25 plan in terms of how we can effect greater clarification ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
. . . . . -. . . . _ _ _ . _ . . ~ . . . _ . .. . . _ _ . . . _..._. ._. _ -. __ _ _ _ ._ _ -. . _ _ _ . .. _ _ ._._ ..._ _ .
59
( !
1 throughout our major rules with regard to these
,2 inconsistencies in definition.
3 I think we have an' opportunity to do that now. I
.4 think this Commission is interested in it, and I think we ,
5' would like you to do it in a timely manner.
P 6- So if there are no further comments, we're >
-7 adjourned.
8 [Whereupen, at 11:57 a.m., the briefing was 9 adjourned.]
10 11 12 13 14-15 16 17 18 j
19 l l
20 21-22 23 24 i
-25 l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,.LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 i
' Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 ;
i
f
, CERTIFICATE 1
4 i-t This is to certify that the attached description _of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-Commission entitled:
i i
TITLE-OF MEETING: BRIEFING ON 10 CFR 50.59 REGULATORY PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS - PUBLIC MEETING PLACE OF MEETING: Rockville, Maryland
- DATE OF MEETING
- Monday, March 10, 1997 was held as herein appears, is a true and accurate record of the meeting, and that this is the original transcript thereof
- taken stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to 4- typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company s er: OlR _
g#
,oez eo.ee11ch
- Re,, rte,.
s s
-y --~.,y
/pa asc,*>
e e so 7 o E
s a
, % "/
+++++
10 CFR 50.59 REGULATORY PROCESS lMPROVEMENTS i i
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation .
March 10,1997
~
- INTRODUCTION
- 10 CFR 50.59 permits licensees to make certain changes without NRC approval
- It establishes a regulatory threshold on the need for prior staff approval
- Purpose of this briefing i
'l APPROACH TO RESOLUTION
- Enhance implementation of rule as written Reaffirm, clarify, or establish regulatory positions Improve NRC oversight and inspection guidance -
- Identify opportunities for improvement -
Integration of policy issues i
i 1
I I
i IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES ;
i i
- Deletion of Information from SAR
- Margin of Safety Interpretation
- Increase in Probability j,
, e increase in Consequences 4
- Degraded or Nonconforming Conditions I
r 4 l i
i i
I POLICY CONSIDERATIONS t
- Scope of Rule (Safety Analysis Report) ,
i
- Unreviewed Safety Question Threshold f
t l
l I
5 .
i i
RECOMMENDATION 1
- Publish staff implementation guidance for public comment 6
a a ..% aw_. _--.a 2 _ m.i,_m.-- -A 4m a -e .pp,,. da ush.m,wd-A4 A a _g a.mm.A_a .d..J4meLeaAA Am&,_A4. AsAum _,.,awaga4,us_,g__m_.44 4A - -d&,,t___Auu 4 %e w,as A I
- i i
k 1
i i
?
1 i
}
}
i f
i i
i i
i W
i i
Q i
M
! D l M l 0
! 4 l
4 e
m i
i l
5 i~
a 1
i i
I l}
\
i t
I i
i 1
1 i
4 i
1 1
1
10 CFR 50.59 9 50.59 Changes, tests and experiments (a)(1)The holder of a license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility may (i) make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report, (ii) make changes in the procedures as described in the safety analysis report, and (iii) conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change, test or experiment involves a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question.
i 50.59(a) CONTINUED
! (2) A proposed change, test or experiment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question (i) if the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report may be increased; or (ii) if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report may be created; or (iii) if the margin of safety as defined i
in the basis for any technical specification is reduced.
I
i i 10 CFR 50.71(e)
- (e) Each person licensed to operate a nuclear power reactor pursuant to the provisions of 9 50.21 and 1 9 50.22 of this part shall update periodically, as i provided in paragraphs (e)(3) and (4) of this section, the final safety analysis report (FSAR) originally
- submitted as part of the application for the operating license, to assure that the information included in the FSAR contains the latest material developed. This submittal shall contain all the changes necessary to i reflect information and analyses submitted to the '
Commission by the licensee or prepared by the licensee pursuant to Commission requirement since the submission of the original FSAR, or, as appropriate, the last updated FSAR.
I i
10 CFR 50.71(e) CONTINUED
. i The updated FSAR shall be revised to include the
- effects of: all changes made in the facility or
. procedures as described in the FSAR; all safety evaluations performed by the licensee either in
- support of requested license amendments or in support of conclusions that changes did not involve an unreviewed safety question; and all analyses of new safety issues performed by or on behalf of the licensee at Commission request. The updated .
l information shall be appropriately located within the l FSAR.
l l
[50.71(eX1) through (6) follow] -
l l
i i
4 Design Bases means that information which l identifies the specific functions to be performed by a structure, system, or component of a facility, and the specific values or ranges of values chosen for controlling parameters as reference bounds for design. These values may be (1) restraints derived from generally accepted " state of the art" practices for achieving functional goals, or (2) requirements derived from analysis (based on calculation and/or
! experiments) of the effects of a postulated accident for which a system, structure, or component must meet its functional goals.
- Current licensing basis (CLB)is defined in Section 54.3 as "the set of NRC requirements applicable to a specific .
plant and a licensee's written commitments for ensuring compliance with and operation within applicable NRC requirements and the plant-specific design basis (including all modification and additions to such commitments over the life of the license) that are docketed and in effect. The CLB includes the NRC regulations contained in 10 CFR Parts 2,19,20,21,30, 40, 50, 51, 54, 55, 70, 72, 73, and 100 and appendices thereto; orders; license conditions; exemptions; and technical specifications. '
~
54.3 (Current Licensing Basis)
CONTINUED it also includes the plant-specific design basis information defined in 10 CFR 50.2 as documented in the most recent final safety analysis report (FSAR) as required by 10 CFR 50.71 and the licensee's commitments remaining in effect that were made in docketed licensing correspondence such as licensee i responses to NRC bulletins, generic letters, and l enforcement actions, as well as licensee commitments documented in NRC safety evaluations or licensee event reports."
l .
50.34 (a)
(a) Preliminarysafetyanalysis report. Each application for a construction permit shall include a preliminary safety analysis report. The minimum information to be included shall consist of the following:...
(4) A preliminary analysis and evaluation of the design and performance of structures, systems and components of the facility... including determination of (i) the margins of safety during normal operations and transient conditions anticipated... (ii) the adequacy of structures, systems and components provided for the prevention of accidents and the l
mitigation of consequences of accidents...
._.----.----.-.x----. -
.- - - _ = - - - . - - - - .. - - - . . - -
~
i -
i I
- 50.34(b) 1 (b) Final safety analysis report. Each application for a license to operate a facility shall include a final safety analysis report. The final safety analysis report shall
- include information that describes the facility, presents the design bases and limits on its operation, and presents a safety analysis of the structures, systems and components as a whole, and shall include the following
- ...
~l
~
! i i
l i
50.36 l (a) Each application for a license authorizing operation ;
of a production or utilization facility shall include in i his application proposed technical specifications in l
- accordance with the requirements of this section. A summary statement of the bases or reasons for such specifications shall also be included in the application, but shall not become part of the technical specifications.
(b) ...The technical specifications will be derived from .
the analyses and evaluation in the safety analysis report, and amendments thereto...
l
. I t