ML20141G969

Comment Opposing NUREG-1606 Re Proposed Regulatory Guidance Related to Implementation of 10CFR50.59.Licensee Supports Approach Proposed by Nuclear Energy Inst

ML20141G969
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/03/1997
From:	Feigenbaum T NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORP. (NAESCO)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
FRN-62FR24997, RTR-NUREG-1606 62FR24997-00023, 62FR24997-23, NYN-97074, NUDOCS 9707140196
Download: ML20141G969 (5)

Text

• 6507 d2 M 2VPP7 p~ Mey 7 /PV7 g""h North ## *"'^"""""""8""i*"'"""

p,0 go,300 p

Atlantic C //udy seahreet. xit o3874 (603) 474-952t j MO The Nenheast Utilities System July 3,1997 Docket No. 50-443 ,

NYN-97074 o 2 C

?! 7J United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission IE M i.

Attn.: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch I

$2' -

Division of Administrative Services

-i - 5 Office of Administration bm EE <

Washington, DC 20555-0001

, }

g

9 h Seabrook Station w*

Comments on Guidelines Proposed in NUREG 1606 On' May 7,1997 (62FR24997), the NRC issued for comment, NUREG 1606: Proposed Regulatory Guidance Related to implementation of 10CFR50.59 (Changes, Tests and Experiments). North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic), the operator of Seabrook Station, has reviewed the proposed guidance and proposed policy issues related to the i implementation of 10CFR50.59 and believes that the guidance should not be issued in its present I form. Rather, North Atlantic supports the approach proposed by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) to revise its long-standing guidance on the implementation of 10CFR50.59, NSAC 125, to ,

address the staff's concerns. j l

A number of aspects of the proposed NRC guidance represent significant changes in the way I 10CFR50.59 is currently being implemented. Of significant concern to North Atlantic are the staff positions presented on Definition of Change, Margin of Safety, Increase in l Probability / Consequences, Malfunction of a Different Type and Non-Conforming / Degraded Conditions. Our review of the positions presented by the NRC staff indicates that these new positions will have significant impact on North Atlantic resources as well as NRC resources l where no safety benefit can be identified. We believe that four aspects of the guidance in particular; could result in an estimated additional 200 Unreviewed Safety Questions (USQ) being identified at Seabrook Station per operating cycle: considering any increase in probability to be an Unreviewed Safety Questions (USQ); considering changes in consequences against calculated dose values contained in the SAR; considering any different failure mode rather than different efTect to be a malfunction of a different type; and measuring reductions in margin of safety i against the SAR values. This could result in 10,000 additional man-hours to prepare the required license amendment requests. These additional license amendments would also represent a y

significant burden to the NRC. These costs will be incurred with no accompanying 9707140196 970703 ~"

@hlIW "} ' )

{ l PDR NUREG 1606 C PDR lll l h hlllll lh ll e

i l

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission NYN-97074/Page 2 l

increase in safety. Detailed comments on NUREG 1606 are contained in the Enclosure to this letter.

North Atlantic participated in the development ofindustry comments being submitted separately by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and endorses those comments. The industry comments i being submitted by NEI address North Atlantic concerns with the proposed guidance.

North Atlantic's implementation of 10CFR50.59 is based on the guidance contained in NSAC-125 and we have found the NEI guidance to be effective in producing quality evaluations related to changes in plant design or procedures. Our experience is consistent with the NRC i staff's conclusion in NUREG 1606 that the evaluation process established in NSAC 125 is generally sound. Further, we agree with the approach proposed by NEI to issue a revision to NSAC 125 (to be called NEl 96-07) to provide improved guidance to licensees for performing 10CFR50.59 evaluations. This is consistent with the approach recommended by the ACRS in their April 8,1997 letter to Chairman Jackson, where they found that, "it would seem more effective to ' work with the industry to build on NSAC-125. The goal would be for the staff to endorse an appropriate version of NSAC-125 with exceptions, as needed." i If you have questions regarding this letter please contact Mr. Terry Harpster, Director of I Licensing Services, at (603) 773-7765. i Very truly yours, NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORP.  !

' / --

x

'ed C. Feigenbaum Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer cc: H. J. Miller, Region I Administrator A. W. De Agazio, Sr. Project Manager D. M. Silk, NRC Senior Resident Inspector United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555

aa 9 1

ENCLOSURE TO NYN-97074

DETAILED COMMENTS ON NUREG 1606 l l One trea where we believe additional comments on the proposed guidance may be helpful concem the position in NUREG 1606 on the Definition of Change, section III.A.4, and the relationship of that position to the position on Definition of"as described", section III.A.4. The discussion which follows illustrates our concern in this area.

Section llI.E.4. concludes that a broad interpretation of the phrase "as described" is appropriate when evaluating changes under section 50.59. The phrase is defined to include words, phrases, models, assumptions, pictures, graphs, and figures that represent the SSC of interest. The staff also concludes that information in the FSAR that presents the purpose, quality, kind, number, 1 condition, function, operation, use, design, or material of SSCs included in the FSAR is l considered part of the design basis and is within 10CFR50.2 and 50.59. In addition the discussion presents the position that if a change affects any SSC described in the FSAR such that the FSAR description is no longer accurate, then a 10CFR50.59 evaluation is required.

Section III.A.4 presents several items to consider when contemplating an activity is a change rather than maintenance. In part, the position states that the licensee should consider the removal of a SSC from service for maintenance that is part of the licensing basis but not addressed by TS Limiting Conditions for Operation or previously addressed in the FSAR or SER as a change. The position also states that changes which alter the design, function or method of performing the function of a SSC, as described in the FSAR, are within the scope of 10CFR50.59.Section III.A.4 also appears to go beyond the intent of 10CFR50.59 in that under (e), a change is considered have occurred, when an activity " puts the plant in a condition where it functions differently from its SAR description." Therefore an activity would require a 10CFR 50.59 evaluation regardless of whether the SAR description related to those aspects are related to a safety feature.

Combining the two positions on " change" and "as described" would require that any SSC that is described or discussed in the FSAR must be considered part of the licensing basis and removing i it from service, even for routine preventative maintenance, would require a 50.59 evaluation unless addressed by a TS LCO or previously considered in the FSAR or the SER.

The position presented in NUREG 1606 on these two issues is not supported by other NRC guidance in these areas. Specifically, Regulatory Guide 1.70, Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants LWR Edition, Revision 3, November 1978 i and NUREG 0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Evaluation Reports for Nuclear Power Plants LWR Edition, June 1987, define the content and establish review guidance for the SAR.

As an example, Regulatory Guide 1.70 provides information on the content of Chapter 10 of the FSAR, Steam and Power Conversion System, and states; " There will undoubtedly be many i aspects of the steam portion of the plant that have little or no relationship to protection of the l Page 1

v . -s public against exposure to radiation. The SAR is, therefore, not expected to deal with this part of the plant to the same depth or detail as those features playing a more significant safety role.

Enough information should be provided to allow understanding in broad terms of what the secondary plant (steam and power conversion system) is, but emphasis should be on those aspects of design and operation that do or might affect the reactor and its safety features or contribute toward the control of radioactivity." Additionally, NUREG 0800 states; "The Standard Review Plan identifies the specific areas of review and the associated acceptance criteria to guide the staff when reviewing the SAR."

The content of the FSAR Chapter 10 presents a discussion of the function and operation of various SSCs within the Steam and Power Conversion System as stipulated in Regulatory Guide 1.70 that are not identified as specific areas for review and have no identified acceptance criteria  ;

in NUREG 0800. Much of the information in this section of the FSAR is summary information presented in broad terms to allow understanding of the relationship of the SSC function to overall plant operation. Some specific review areas and acceptance criteria are identified in NUREG 0800 and those items are discussed in detail in the FSAR which does represent design basis information as defined in 10CFR50.2. The staff SER describes the basis for the conclusion that the licensee meets the acceptance criteria for those specific areas but does not address the general broad term type ofinformation.

The above example is not confined to FSAR Chapter 10. The FSAR presents general overview information, describes the facility, provides specific information of the facility design basis and limits on operation, and presents the safety analysis. North Atlantic believes that not all the information contained, discussed or described in the FSAR is design basis information as defined by 10CFR50.2. If the position taken in NUREG 1606 Section III.E.4 requiring all information in the SAR to be considered part of the design basis is maintained, a significant increase in the number of 10CFR50.59 evaluations will be required. Many of the evaluations will be performed to allow non-safety related components in the secondary plant to be removed from service for routine preventative maintenance. The evaluations would be required since, while removed from service, the component discussion in the FSAR would no longer be accurate even though the discussion may simply be part of the " broad term" information discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.70. In addition, the strict interpretation of NUREG 1606 conceming the Reduction in Margin of Safety and increase in Probability will result in many of the additional evaluations performed for maintenance activities identifying USQs. North Atlantic believes that requesting NRC approval through a license amendment to perform routine preventative maintenance on equipment in the secondary plant is not the intent of 10CFR50.59.

L I

Page 2