ML20151H775

Comments on Draft Ltr from Hanauer to Cooper on Nuppsco Committee.Ltr Acceptable,However,Info Re Safety Classification/Terminology Issue Requires Further Discussion to Standardize Term Definitions

ML20151H775
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/18/1982
From:	Conran J NRC
To:	Coffman F NRC
Shared Package
ML20151H308	List: ML20151H306 ML20151H487 ML20151H768 ML20151H775
References
NUDOCS 8305050295
Download: ML20151H775 (5)

Text

[f

.

• lo.

UNIT ED sT ATEs

],s< ', 'g NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION

j

c. r "" , ,

W ASHING 1ON. D. C. 20555 f *%, ~*

3//fl1*

NOTE TO: Frank Coffman FROM: Jim Conran -

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS ON DRAFT LETTER (HANAUER TO COOPER-NUPPSCO)...AND

. RELATED MATTERS.

The Draft letter looks ok to me as is; but c bit more should be said about the pot that is boiling here. I have talked to Carl Johnson, RES (NRC's representa-tive on the NUPPSCO Committee referred to in the incoming) regarding the safety classification /terininology issue in'volved here. He sent to me the draft of NUPPSCO's proposed " alternative definitions" (see attached) plus a Minority Report reflecting the views of dissenting members of the NUPPSCO Committee (also attached).

. My comments to him regarding these matters were:

(a) The proposed definitions gy, be consistent (as claimed) with Denton's

" standard definitions" (approved by Denton on 11/20/81 - seeattached);

but it would surely involve a very substantial review effort to-demonstrate / prove that point. And even if that were done, in my opinion.

we would not have " gained" anything; we would only then have additional, new safety classification tems which we would then have to try to get everybody to learn and Ose consistently.

(b) We really don't need any ,new (alternatiye) safety classificatiori terms defined; we just need standardization (consistency), within both the staff and the industry, in the usage of the tems already included in the regulations and existing regulatory guidance document (e.g. Reg. .

Guides , SRPs, NUREGs , etc.). That was the purpose of Denton's 11/20/81 memo to all NRR

• people. The need to take the next obvious step .

(i.e. incorporating Denton's standard definitions into the "0EFINITIONS" sections of the regulations so that staff and industry must/can use them consistently) is readily apparent from .the NUPPSCO dissenter's usage of the term "Important to Safety" in the Minority Report.

i (c) Although I am not, and we (NRR) should not , be, receptive to the proposed new " alternative" safety classification language, the underlying or associated industry effort to understand the relative safety importance of reactor plant components, and to establish a basis for sorting those components into various categories, should be of great interest to us.

I think Hanauer is right in wanting to talk with industry about their approach, categorization bases, etc. This more interesting andepoten-tially useful aspect of the industry effort in. developing the new pFoposed standards ANS 51.1 and ANS 52.1, is apparently spelled out in considerable detail in those draft standards; so I have asked Carl to obtain and send to us copies of them prior to the (rescheduled) Hanauer.-e meeting with NUPPSCO members. That kind of info is clearly related toi i

p O 7 PDR ENCLOSURE 6

F. Coffman

• t i

and would probably be valuable input to a number of RES and NRR 3 "importance ranking" type efforts already underway (e.g. A-1291 (RRAB);

A-1295 (RRAB); Walt Haass' Graded Q.A. Development effort just getting underway with EGG as contractor; RES long-term importance ranking / graded Q.A. effort just getting underway with Sandia as contractor; etc.).

2 Our (RRAB and DST) proper course for the future regarding this general topic should be to propose that Denton's " standard definitions" be formally incorporated into '

the appropriate " DEFINITIONS" section of the regulations (e.g.10 CFR 50 Appendix A 4 and Appendix B, and 10 CFR 100 Appendix A). This would clarify to the public and the industry (as well as to the entire NRC staff) that we (NRC) know what our regulations and regulatory guidance mean , and that we intend to enforce consistent interpretation and application of them. At the same time, we must be sensitive to the industry's concern (as reflected in the Nt!PPSCO Minority Report) that by clarifying and insisting on consistent usage of the language of our regulations, we are " changing the meaning" of that language (e.g. important to safety) in order to sneakily ratchet or broaden the scope of the existing regulations. For that reason, the same language Denton used in his 11/20/81 letter to ALL NRR to emphasize that point should be included in the " Discussion" section of the Proposed Rule that would incorporate his " standard definitions" as I have suggested.

To really wrap this thing up right, we should also initiate the development of another Reg. Guide and another SRP section to, provide further detail / discussion /

( ., guidance to both the staff and the industry regarding , proper application of Denton's " standard definitions." I know that Thadani and Ernst have been somewhat reltictant to involve us heavily'in this kind of actiIvity in the past because of our severely limited resources;' but the passage of time has indicated clearly, I believe, that if we (who happen to know best the " background" of the development of Denton's " standard definitions") don't take the initie'tive in getting done what I am recommending, it simply isn't going to get done. And, as you know, a great deal of support has developed for getting it done (e.g. from ELD,.RES, ACRS, and ASLB, TMI-l Board) as a result of our having addressed these issues in a number of different contexts over the past 1 years. This is not just " word smithing";

what is involved is the precise meaning of the specific language that describes some of the nost fundamental concepts of our regulatory structure and philosophy.

We really ought to get it (consistently) right, sometime soon.

l cd: J.Conran Chron 9

O w-- - - - ~, t , , - , . r- - , , ,n , - .-- ,,e--+- ,,,--m - - - - - , - - - , , - .-- --,----,----.--------~--e .

- - - - - - =- -- -- - -

'o . .

ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SUP Ye*/s L -

. L TO: (Neme. office symbor, room number, init;als ' '

bul@ng, ency/?ost) Dete .

1. - % GK~

• 1, ik **t 8' ,' ..

, . n nalc,J . .-

~

t & 4 .- -

n .  :

Action Flie '

Note and Retum Apprwal For Clearance Per Conversation

, k As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply -

Circu!ste For Your Information See Me

[ Comment Irrvestigstle Signature

! Coordination Justify REMARKS s'

r n W hb % m ies/ 7 JL no , 5 5

,/

J i

\ w a. up.ns u ~~7 - A

..n 12e wc+u ub ye 9 W 1* L'

~

l .

1 x mW C4 A nm? Y S

f e' $

7]c.:. f.s,e.

o g

\

4. :>, 7 p

T""' 4N N

m m < s* g

" ". g ,,'e T.A/ ac

,, 7L N aduu em, .#4 M '" '"o J 4 < A -

.n me ri f .

• DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals.

clearances, and similar actions 1 FROM.: (Name, org. symbol, Agency / Post) Room No.--Bids.

. /s4 W Pho

, ,No. ,,,

• ~

5041 102 OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76) - - -

1. r.8.CPC:1977 4-241-330/3238 rrTAYcEYoi-lues O .

em

......-.......-._.-- . . . .-- 1 i

l

EXCERPT FROM REBUTTAL TESTIMONY ON CONTENTION 7B, DATED 7/1/82, BY. J. H. CONRAN TO THE SHOREHAM ASLB O

A. The Staff does not believe it is acceptable for the language differences indicated in the statements on p. 55 of Applicant's testimony to go unresolved because of certain unacceptable implications of the different usage of the safety classification language of the regulations.

These implications obtain not only with regard to Shoreham licensing but

] also with regard to the efficacy of the Staff's approach and methods of safety review in more general application. .There are at least three such i

implications: ,

, l '. Because the Staff conducts an audit review, reliance must be placed on commitments by Applicants that all portions of the regulations are complied with (see, e.g., FSAR 5 3.1.2.1). It is critical that these commitments mean what the Staff understands'them to mean if the Staff's determination of " reasonable assurance" (which finding must be made in accordanr.e with 10 C.F.R. 5 50.35(c) in order to license a facility) is to be. meaningful in the sense intended in the regulations.

. 2. It is clear under the Staff's understanding of "important to ,.

safety" _(but not under Applicant's) that there exists in the regulations a requirement under GDC 1 for a QA program for certain non-safety-related structures, systems and components (i.e., those important to safety). .-

t -

ENCLOSURE 7

7-

3. Under Applicant's construction of "important to safety," the ,

obligations imposed by 10 C.F.R. Part 21 might be more narrowly construed

, than would be the' c'ase under the Staff's broader definition of .that term.

~

These examples demonstrate why agreement on the safety classification definitions provided by the Denton definition is extremely significant.

O e

e p

a

..e be e

l = =

l .

-- ,