ML20148F476
| ML20148F476 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/02/1997 |
| From: | Slosson M NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Lochbaum D UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9706040270 | |
| Download: ML20148F476 (6) | |
Text
__
l June 2, 1997 i*
Dr. David A. Lochbaum F
. Union of Concerned Scientists 4-1616 P Street, NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC - 20036-1495 i
Dear Mr. Lochbaum:
l-I am responding to your letter to Thomas T. Martin of April 4,1997, on the
~i subject of prudent regulatory practice as it relates to the threshold for operation with an unreviewed safety question (USQ). The current NRC practice 1
{
in the area of reactor operation with a USQ is that, in general, unless a licensee nonconformance poses an undue risk to public health and safety, the NRC has determined that it is not prudent to require a plant to shut down and thus risk that a plant transient might occur and increase operational risks.
Once a plant is shut down, however, it may be more prudent to correct the nonconformance before allowing startup, because a delayed startup does not 3-usually leave a plant in a condition that could cause an undesirable transient.
i i
Concerning criteria for appropriate resolution times for safety issues that involve reductions in safety margins or an unreviewed safety question, some guidance is available in current staff documents such as Generic Letter 91-18, i.
"Information to Licensees Regarding Two NRC Inspection Manual Sections on l
Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions and on Operability," and t
Inspection Manual Chapter 9900 (IM 9900), " Operable / Operability: Ensuring the l'
Functional Capability of a System or Component." However, the staff acknowledges that the existing guidance can be improved. As part of its effort to examine the 10 CFR 50.59 process, the staff will be considering i
i improvements'in the existing guidance for determining when licensee actions i
j need to be completed when an unreviewed safety question exists. As you know, j
the NRC has provided the public with the opportunity to comment on NUREG-1606, j
" Proposed Regulatory Guidance Related to Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 (changes, Tests, or Experiments" as described in the Federal Register notice j
of May 7, 1997 (62 FR 24997). The comment period expires'on July 7, 1997. We 1
will consider your comments during our comment evaluaion process.
Sincerely, i
Original 81gned By:
j.
9706040270 970602 Marylee M. Slosson, Acting Director PDR ORG NRRA Division of Reactor Program Management PDR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
)
a DISTRIBUTION: See attached page
\\
DOCUMENT NAME:
G:
l
'l v.
.em.
\\slml\\gt970250.rev
/ ))
' {\\
,me m
w.: c -cm ui.n.ch nu.ne.u r - cm we.n. chm.nu.new.
w. w.
s e,.
- u. conc =.nc..
~
OFFICE PM:PGE8* l SC:PGEB* l TEditor l C:PGEB*
l AD:DRPMl.
NAME SMagruder:sw FAkstulewicz BCalure*
DMatthews MSlosson $
DATE 05/30/97 05/30/97 05/21/97 05/30/97g 0FFICE OGC*
NAME See Previous DATE 05/29/97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY kb g,
BC FEE CEMER 00PV
)( LMfugb ;g
pwh p
'i UNITED STAT 8W g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY OOMMISSION o
e WASHINGTON, D.C. acces-coot June 2, 1997 Dr. David A. Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists 1616 P Street, NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-1495 j
Dear Mr. Lochbaum:
I am responding to your letter to Thomas T. Martin of April 4,1997, on the i
subject of prudent regulatory practice as it relates to the threshold for operation with an unreviewed safety question (USQ). The current NRC practice in the area of reactor operation with a USQ is that, in general, unless a licensee nonconformance poses an undue risk to public health and safety, the NRC has determined that it is not prudent to require a plant to shut down and thus risk that a plant transient might occur and increase operational risks.
Once a plant is shut down, however, it may be more prudent to correct the nonconformance before allowing startup, because a delayed startup does not usually leave a plant in a condition that could cause an undesirable transient.
Concerning criteria for appropriate resolution times for safety issues that involve reductions in safety margins or an unreviewed safety question, some guidance is available in current staff documents such as Generic Letter 91-18, "Information to Licensees Regarding Two NRC Inspection Manual Sections on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions and on Operability," and Inspection Manual Chapter 9900 (IM 9900), " Operable / Operability: Ensuring the Functional Capability of a System or Component." However, the staff acknowledges that the existing guidance can be improved. As part of its effort to examine the 10 CFR 50.59 process, the staff will be considering improvements in the existing guidance for determining when licensee actions need to be completed when an unreviewed safety question exists. As you know, the NRC has provided the public with the opportunity to comment on NUREG-1606,
" Proposed Regulatory Guidance Related to Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 (changes, Tests, or Experiments" as described in the Federal Register notice of May 7, 1997 (62 FR 24997). The comment period expires on July 7, 1997. We will consider your comments during our comment evaluaion process.
Sincerely, Apu Marylee S. Slosson, Acting Director Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
,o 1
DISTRIBUTION: GT970250 Ltr to D. Lochbaum fm M. Slosson dated June 2,1997 Central
- File (w/ incoming) (GT 970250)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming) (GT 970250)
PGEB r/f (w/ incoming) (GT 970250)
NRR Mailroom (w/ incoming) (GT 970250)
LCallan EJordan HThompson PNorry JBlaha SBurns, OGC JGoldberg, DGC HMiller, RI S. Collins F. Miraglia R. Zimmerman T.' Martin M. Slosson-D. Matthews F. Akstulewicz 1
S. Magruder l
I
CONTROL NUMBER:
GT 970250 NRR RECEIVED APRIL 15, 1997 ACTION 415ITi cc PLEASE NOTE THE ATTACHED GREEN TICKET IS FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION.
PLEASE REVIEW THIS ITEM AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOUR DIVISION WILL TAKE ACTION.
IF ACTION LS GOING TO BE TAKEN WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE DUE DATE?
RETURN ONLY THIS CCMPLETED COVER SHEET TO THE NRR MAILROOM,
^
12-G-18, BY NO ACTION NECESSARY PER _
YES. ACTION
[
/
DUE DATE:
130I9 7 NRR ROUTING:
COLLINS MIRAGLIA ZIMMERMAN THADANI W
TRAVERS B0HRER l
4 s
T-ACTION I
EDO Principal Correspondence Control
.FROMs DUE:
/
/
EDO CONTROL: G970250 DOC DT: 04/04/97 FINAL REPLY:
David A. Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists TO:
Thomas Martin, NRR FOR SIGNATURE OF :
- GRN CRC NO: 97-0324 DECC:
ROUTING:
PRUDENT REGULATORY PRACTICE Callan Jordan Thompson Norry Blaha Burns DATE: 04/15/97 Miller, RI ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
NRR Collins SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
For Appropriate Action.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-97-0324 LOGGING DATE: Apr 11 97 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:
DAVID LOCHBAUM AFFILIATION:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA j
ADDRESSEE:
THOMAS MARTIN LETTER DATE:
Apr 4 97 FILE CODE:
SUBJECT:
PRUDENT REGULATORY PRACTICE ACTION:
Appropriate
{
DISTRII!!UTION:
CHAIRMAN, COMRS i
SPECIAL HANDLING: NONE i.
CONSTITUENT:
NOTES:
i DATE DUE:
4 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
'Y l
EDO -- G970250
M****M****
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS April 4,1997 Mr. Thomas T. Martin, Director Division of Reactor Program Management United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 SUBJECf:
PRUDENT REGULATORY PRACTICE
Dear Mr. Martin:
During the Regulatory Information Conference breakout session on 10 CFR 50.59, you outlined the current staff position on the unreviewed scfety question (USQ) threshold as applied to nonconforming and degraded conditions identified during reactor operation. IfI understand this staff position correctly, reactor operation can continue after a USQ condition is identified as long as the operability determination guidance in NRC Generic Letter 91 18 is followed and the Technical Specifications are obeyed. However,if the reactor shuts down for any reason, the position requires that the USQ condition be resolved prior to the plant restarting. You indicated that the NRC staff considered this position to reflect " prudent regulatory practice."
This NRC staff position is consistent with the staff position on reactor safety margin as explained by Mr. Samuel J. Collins in his letter dated February 27,1997. As detailed in my response to Mr.
Collins dated March 21,1997,I fundamentally object to any " prudent regulatory practice" that is controlled by mode switch position and not by safety risk. I believe that " prudent regulatory practices" such as the current NRC positions on reactor safety margin and on USQ threshold for de facto changes do not provide adequate protection for the public and are unfair to licensees. Since neither the public nor the licensees are properly served by these positions, I strongly recommend that the NRC staff revise both positions as soon as possible.
To illustrate my opposition to the staffs position on USQ threshold, please consider a licensee with a two unit site. Both units are operating at full power when a nonconforming or degraded condition is identified that applies to both plants. Since the condition does not trigger an Action Statement in the Technical Specifications and operability can be assured using the guidance in Generic Letter 9118, both t. nits continue to operate. However,if one of the units were to experience an inadvertent trip, the NRC's position dictates that the conditionfor that unit ard only that unit be resolved prior to that unit restarting. The other unit, which represents an identical risk to public health and safety, can and does continue to operate in full compliance with the staffs " prudent regulatory practice" position.
Consider, for the sake of argument, that the unit with the unresolved condition experiences an accident whose severity is increased because of that condition. I think that we can agree that it would not be
" prudent regulatory practice" to even attempt to defend the staffs USQ threshold position before the Congressional committee investigating this disaster.
Washington Office: 1816 P Ltseet NW Suite 310
- Washington, DC 20036-1495
- 202-332-0900
- FAX: 202-332-0905 Cambridge Headquarters: Two Brattle Square
- Cambridge, MA 02238-9105
- 617 547-5552
- FAX 617-864-9405 Califomia Office: 2397 Ghattuck Avenue Suite 203
- Berkeley, CA 947061567
- 510-843-1872
- FAX. 510-843-3785 namooweveao sana
(
0
\\
g
. The preceding example featured a multiple unit site. Consider, for a moment, a nonconforming or i
1' degraded condition identified at the single unit Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Kansas that also afrocts the other SNUPPS plant, the single unit Callaway plant in Missouri. As in the first example, since the condition does not trigger an Action Statement in the Technical Specifications and operability can be assured using the guidance in Generic Letter 91 18, both units continue to operate.
Again, if Callaway experienced an inadvertent trip, the NRC's position dictates that the condition for the unit and only thd unit be resolved prior to its restart. From a safety perspective, it does not appear prudent to expose the people in Kans.as to a safety risk that warrants resolution in Missouri.
From an economic perspective, it does not appear prudent to impose sanctions on the utility in Missouri and permit the utility in Kansas to operate with an economic advantage.
A nonconforming or degraded condition should be resobed in a time frame commensurate with its safety significance PERIOD._ As illustrated by the examples, reactor restart should not be the governing factor in the resolution schedule. In reality, the NRC staffs current positions on reactor safety margin and USQ threshold do not reflect " prudent regulatory practice;" they represent the staff " punting" on the issue of where to draw the line on safety. " Prudent regulatory practice," in my opinion, would involve providing criteria that can be used by licensees and the staff in objectively defining appropriate resolution times for safety issues. This criteria would include appropriate triggers for immediate plant shut down for conditions not explicitly controlled in the Technical Specifications.
The development of such criteria would also support efforts to determine when an aggregate of problems, which individually do not require such action, warrant the plant to be shut down. My concern is that the staffis hiding behind these " prudent regulatory practice" positions, which sene neither the public nor the licensees well, and is thereby avoiding the establishment of meaningful regulatory practices. For these reasons, these staff positions must be expeditiously revised.
I will be glad to answer any questions or provide any clarification for these issues.
Sincerely,
'L((} hi c i J
David A. Lochbaum Nuclear Safety Engineer cc:
Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson i
Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers Commissioner Greta J. Dieus Commissioner Nils J. Diaz Commissioner Edward McGaffisan, Jr.
Mr.' Samuel J. Collins Mr. Hubert J. Miller Mr. Philip A. Olson, GAO
,