ML20138F968
| ML20138F968 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/01/1997 |
| From: | Stewart Magruder NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Matthews D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| PROJECT-689 GL-95-02, GL-95-2, NEI-96-07, NEI-96-7, SECY-97-035-C, SECY-97-35-C, NUDOCS 9705060114 | |
| Download: ML20138F968 (14) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
p WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665-0001 i
May 1, 1997 MEMORANDUM T0:
David B. Matthews, Chief Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management-Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Stewart L. Magruder, Project Manager Generic Issues and Environmental M*
Projects Branch Division of-Reactor Program Management Office of; Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF APRIL 28, 1997, MEETING WITH THE NUCLFAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) REGARDING 10 CFR-50.59 IMPLEMENTATION' On April 28, 1997, representatives of NEI met with representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) at the NRC's offices in Rockville, Maryland. Attachment 1 provides a list of meeting attendees.
The meeting was requested by the NRC staff to discuss SECY-97-035, " Proposed Regulatory Guidance Related to Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 (Changes, Tests and Experiments)." In SECY-97-035, the staff proposed regulatory guidance that reaffirms existing regulatory practice in many areas; clarifies the staff's expectations and positions in areas where industry practice or position differs from the staff's expectations; and establishes guidance in areas where previous guidance did not exist for implementation of 10 CFR 50.59.
The meeting objectives were to (1) achieve a comon understanding among licensees and the NRC staff on an approach to 10 CFR 50.59 implementation while Comission deliberations and public coment on SECY-97-035 are underway, (2) clearly identify where existing industry guidance differs from NRC requirements, (3) understand potential industry guidance changes, and (4) discuss NRC plans for interim guidance.
After introductions and opening remarks, the NRC staff stated that the Comission had just released the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) for SECY-97-035 and that the SRM directs the staff to issue the paper for a 60-day public coment period. The NRC staff emphasized that, in parallel with the efforts related to SECY-97-035, they believe that interim guidance would still be valuable to the industry and the staff. Copies of the SRM were made available to all of the meeting participants.
The SRM is provided as.
The NEI representatives stated that they had recently formed a Regulatory i
Process Working Group, comprised of utility managers, to review SECY-97-035 4
and the latest draft of NEI 96-07, " Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety h
g 0G0007 pg/
pg Wci 9705060114 970501 PDR REVGP ERGNUMRC PDR
D. Matthews May 1, 1997 Evaluations." The NEI representatives also stated that there was uncertainty in the industry about why additional guidance on 50.59 evaluations was required.
The NEI representatives stated that the industry believes that they have always been in compliance with 50.59 and that the industry guidance should still be acceptable.
The NRC representatives stated that although the 50.59 process may be working well at most plants, the NRC's concern is that the scope of issues considered j
at each plant may be too small. The NRC staff noted that the Commission has indicated, at several meetings, that the scope of licensee's final safety analysis reports (FSAR) may have to be expanded and that guidance on the 50.59 process should be integrated with forthcoming guidance from the Commission in an SRM on SECY-97-036, " Millstone Lessons Learned Report, Part 2:
Policy Issues."
The NEI representatives next started their formal presentation with a discussion of the industry perspective on 50.59 implementation.
The NEI presentation materials are provided as Attachment 3.
They stated that the i
Regulatory Process Working Group had recently conducted a preliminary review of SECY-97-035 and concluded that there are several proposed staff positions and guidan.ce in the paper that would have a major impact on licensees and the NRC. The NEI representatives listed the following areas of concern:
margin i
of safety; increase in probability / consequences; malfunction of a different type; degraded conditions; deletion of information; and compensating effects.
The NEI representatives summarized their concerns by stating that they believed that the NRC staff's positions were not focused on safety.
The NEI representatives stated that they intended to revise NEI 96-07 to include lessons learned from the industry licensing basis review initiative (NEI 96-05) and to clarify the treatment of nonconforming and degraded conditions. They noted, in particular, that the licensing basis review indicated that more emphasis should be placed on plant activities other than design modifications that require 50.59 evaluations. They also noted that i
they intended to discuss the above issues, and the possibility of making NEI 96-07 an industry initiative, with the Nuclear Strategic Issues Advisory Committee (NSIAC) at their next meeting on May 28, 1997.
The NEI representatives concluded their presentation by stating that they cannot accommodate the staff positions in SECY-97-035 because they believe that many of the positions are new interpretations of 50.59 and that the staff has gone beyond the accepted industry practice.
The NEI representatives j
stated that the industry prefers to move more quickly to rulemaking on 50.59 and not divert licensee's resources and attention.
The NRC staff next asked the NEI representatives to provide some specific examples of their concerns. The NEI representatives stated that one example was the staff decision articulated in Generic Letter 95-02, "Use of NUMARC/EPRI Report, " Guideline on Licensing Digital Upgrades," in Determining the Acceptability of Performing Analog-to-Digital Replacements under 10 CFR 50.59."
In Generic Letter 95-02, (and also in SECY-97-035) the staff stated j
D. Matthews
-3_
May 1, 1997 that different failure modes should be considered when determining whether a
" malfunction of.a different type" exists for a change.
The NEI representatives mentioned that the staff position that a plant would not be allowed to start up with an unreviewed safety question is causing a lot of concern throughout the industry.
They also stated that the industry does not understand why the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, with the possibility of enforcement action, are not adequate for addressing degraded or nonconforming conditions.
The NRC staff thanked the NEI representatives for the examples. They also stated that further examples of differences between the staff positions in SECY-97-035 and the industry positions in NEI 96-07, along with the consequences to the industry if the staff positions were implemented, are encouraged in the industry comments on SECY-97-035. The staff cautioned the industry representatives present that the NRC cannot accept interim guidance from licensees that does not meet the requirements of the rule.
The staff next reiterated that it has published guidance on SECY-97-035 in a memo from Sam Collins, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to the Regional Administrators dated April 6,1997. The memo states that, to the extent that clarified and new positions are expressed in the paper, the 4
paper does not represent final agency policy and the use of particular i
positions in enforcement matters may raise backfit concerns.
It also encourages regional staff to contact headquarters with any questions related to 50.59 implementation.
An industry representative also noted that, in addition to concerns about SECY-97-035, some members of the industry believe that some of the staff positions taken in the interim inspection guidance on 50.59 published in April 1996, represent new requirements.
The NRC staff stated that their goal is to propose short term and long term actions on 50.59 to the Commission by September 1997. The NRC staff also agreed with an NEI proposal to meet again on this subject in approximately 30 days.
Project No. 689 Attachments:
As stated cc:
See next page
D. Matthews May 1, 1997 that different failure modes should be considered when determining whether a
" malfunction of a different type" exists for a change.
The NEI representatives mentioned that the staff position that a plant would not be allowed to start up with an unreviewed safety question is causing a lot of concern throughout the industry.
They also stated that the industry does not understand why the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, with the possibility of enforcement action, are not adequate for addressing degraded or nonconforming conditions.
The NRC staff thanked the NEI representatives for the examples. They also stated that further examples of differences between the staff positions in SECY-97-035 and the industry positions in NEI 96-07, along with the consequences to the industry if the staff positions were implemented, are encouraged in the industry comments on SECY-97-035.
The staff cautioned the industry representatives present that the NRC cannot accept interim guidance from licensees that does not meet the requirements of the rule.
The staff next reiterated that it has published guidance on SECY-97-035 in a memo from Sam Collins, Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to the Regional Administrators dated April 6,1997.
The memo states that, to
.the extent that clarified and new positions are expressed in the paper, the paper does not represent final agency policy and the use of particular 1
positions in enforcement matters may raise backfit concerns.
It also encourages regional staff to contact headquarters with any questions related to 50.59 implementation.
An industry representative also noted that, in addition to concerns about SECY-97-035, some members of the industry believe that some of the staff positions taken in the interim inspection guidance on 50.59 published in April 1996, represent new requirements.
The NRC staff stated that their goal is to propose short term and long term actions on 50.59 to the Commission by September 1997.
The NRC staff also 4
agreed with an NEI proposal to meet again on this subject in approximately 30 days.
Project No. 689 Attachments: As stated cc: See next page Document Name: G:\\SLM1\\MSUM428.97 To receive a copy of this document, indipate in the box: 1"C" - Copy without attachment / enclosure "E"-Copywit$ attachment /enclsfsi d
't" - No copy l0FFICE PM:PEGB lt SC:PGEll/IN BC:PEGlK/6/)LI (
1 lNAME SMagruder:sw sLm FAkstufeqIc'iz DMattheds%'7( )
lDATE 04/3c/97 04/&/97 04/w/97']
2 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY V
[]--
Distribution: Mtg. w/NEI Re 50.59 Dated May 1.1997 Hard Cg y Project File PUBLIC PGEB R/F SMagruder 0GC ACRS EMail Scollins/FMiraglia TMartin BSheron MSlosson SWeiss RZimmerman GHolahan DMatthews BBoger JZwolinski FGillespie FAkstulewicz EMcKenna MMalloy SMagruder WDean, EDO LChandler, 0GC JMoore, 0GC CMarco, OGC PWen JLuehman CCraig JMauck PLoeser JLieberman, OE MSatorius, OE Ns
NRC/NEI MEETING ON 10 CFR 50.59 INTERIM GUIDANCE LIST OF ATTENDEES April 28, 1997 t@g ORGANI2ATION Ralph Beedle NEI
{
Tony Pietrangelo NEI Doug Walters NEI y
Biff Bradley NEI Steve Floyd NEI a
Adrian Heymer NEI Pedro Salas TVA Robert Newkirk Detroit Edison Roger Walker TU Electric Steve Nass Duquesne Light Charles Brinkman ABB-CE Mark Beaumont Westinghouse Patricia Campbell Winston & Strawn Nancy Chapman Bechtel Steven Katradis NUS Licensing Phyllis Lovett Shaw Pittman Potts & Trowbridge William Cross STS Frank Miraglia NRC/NRR Tim Martin NRC/NRR Marylee Slosson NRC/NRR Seymour Weiss NRC/NRR John Zwolinski NRC/NRR David Matthews NRC/NRR Eileen McKenna NRC/NRR Peter Wen NRC/NRR Claudia Craig NRC/NRR Jerry Mauck NRC/NRR Paul Loeser NRC/NRR Jim Luehman NRC/NRR i
Stu Magruder NRC/NRR Mark Satorius NRC/0E Janice Moore NRC/0GC Catherine Marco NRC/0GC i
i
i
.b f
UNITED STATES j
f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g WASHINGTON,0.C. 20555-0001 April 25, 1997 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO:
L. Joseph Callan Exect
'v Director for Operations
,dA_
p,-
doy,le7 ecretary S
FROM:
Joh
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-97-035 - PROPOSED REGULATORY GUIDANCE RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR 50.59 (CEANGES, TESTS AND EXPERIMENTS)
The Commission has approved issuance of the proposed regulatory guidance related to implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, including discussion of possible policy issues and options, for a 60-day comment period.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
5/9/97)
Foll'owing conclusion of the comment period, the staff should prepare a paper for the Commission considering the public comments and Millstone Lessons Learned along with guidance provided on SECY-97-036, and provide recommendations for further improvements to the regulatory process.
As part of this-paper, the staff should prepare a rulemaking plan for.10 CFR 50.59 that would consider both the recommendations discussed above and a risk-informed approach (in accordance with the SRM on SECY-96-218) for both:
- 1) the threshold for, and/or review process of, an Unreviewed Safety Question, and 2) specifically, whether "small" or " negligible" increases in the probability or consequences of an accident or malfunction, as well as reductions in the margin of safety, can be allowed for certain systems without prior NRC review.
While the risk-informed approach is not intended to expand the scope of accidents considered in the 50.59 process, the staff should explore risk-informed options and determine the corresponding legal implications for Commission consideration.
This rulemaking plan should include an expedited l
schedule.
Any proposed rulemaking efforts should include how the necessary resources will be budgeted.
1 (EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
9/8/97)
SECY NOTE:
SECY-97-035 WAS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC ON FEBRUARY 28, 1997.
THIS SRM AND THE COMMISSION VOTING RECORD CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
,,,,, c, 7 q,,.3 vv -- v v L
F 0 For the longer term, the staff should reevaluate the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 50.59, taking into consideration its ties to other regulatory requirements, such as Appendices A and B to 10 CFR Part 50, and develop an integrated approach that includes clear, consistent definitions and risk considerations.
This longer term effort should not delay the rulemaking plan requested above.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
4/24/98)
The following changes should be made on the first page of the Federal Reaister notice and similar changes incorporated to make it clear that the NRC is requesting comment on Section IV,
" Policy Issues," of SECY-97-035.
1.
In line 7, change the parenthetical to read ' (including tests or experiments).'
2.
In line 17, insert a new sentence between the sentences which reads 'The paper also briefly discusses some policy issues related to potential rulemaking for 10 CFR 50.59.'
3.
In line 19, after'the word ' guidance' insert 'or changes to the rule.'
cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan OGC CIO CFO OCA
. OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
i l
l t
i t
i NRC / Industry Meeting on 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation l
i i
Nuclear Energy Institute i
April 28,1997 I
l
^\\
Overview t
Industry Perspective on 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation l
i Industry Review of SECY 97-035 Preliminary Results of SECY 97-035 Review i
Proposed Course of Action l
Conclusions i
t industry Perspective on 10 CFR 50.59 Implementatior Industry guidance has always complied with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 NRC acceptance of licensee implementation of 10 CFR l
50.59 using industry guidance has been established by thousands -of examples since the late 1980s t
Licensee implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 has been
)
conservative and expansive beyond the requirements
- Process has been effective and has preserved safety margins Need for substantial additional guidance?
Industry Review of SEOY 97-035 Region IV Engineering Managers Forum 4
- Initial comments on the SECY Preliminary Legal ~ Analysis of Potential Backfitting issues i
l i
NEl 10 CFR 50.59 Task Force l
- Comparison with NEl 96-07 l
?
i NEl Regulatory Process Working Group i
- Policy issues and proposed course of action l
l L
I Preliminary Results of SECY 97-035 Review l
Major impact on licensees and NRC associated with several proposed staff positions / guidance
- Margin of safety, increase in probability / consequences, malfunction of a different type, degraded conditions, deletion of information, compensating effects l
Other proposed staff positions / guidance, while of lesser impact, would disrupt established licensee programs l
l Guidance is not focused on safety r
5 l
h Proposed Course of Action i
Industry revise NEl 96-07 to clarify treatment of nonconforming or degraded conditions
- Also address lessons learned from implementation of NEl 96-05 Industry will consider other changes based on SECY 97-
)
035 that add value to implementation i
i Consideration of industry ini.tiative on revised NEl 96-07 to assure full industry implementation
~
O i
i Conclusions NRC's 10 CFR 50.54(f)" letter and industry's licensing basis initiative per NEl 96-05 have refocused attention"on change processes I
Proposed course of action would provide needed stability and added assurance that 10 CFR 50.59 implementation i
remains effective in preserving safety margins Industry cannot accommodate the proposed guidance in SECY 97-035, in the short-term or long-term 7
l
I.
NEI Project No. 689 cc:
Mr. Ralph Beedle Mr. Thomas Tipton, Vice President Senior Vice President Operations and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW 1776 I Street, NW Washinton, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Alex Marion, Director Mr. Jim Davis, Director Programs Operations Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. David Modeen, Director Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director Engineering Plant Support Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Director Licensing Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW
. Washington, DC 20006-3708 i
Mr. Ronald Simard, Director Advanced Technology Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230