ML20199C139
| ML20199C139 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/12/1997 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Seale R Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-GENERAL, GL-91-18, NUDOCS 9711190234 | |
| Download: ML20199C139 (5) | |
Text
__
pM80 i
p
[
k UNITED STATES
)
, yy j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D C. 20665-0001
\\,*
/
November 12, 1997 Dr. Robert L. Seale, Chairman Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED CHANGES TO 10 CFR 50.59 AND PROPOSED REVISION 1 TO GENERIC LETTER 91-18
Dear Dr. Seale:
By letter dated October 9,1997, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safegurads (ACRS) forwardNI to Chairman Jackson its conclusions and recommendations conceming the staffs activities on 10 CFR 50.59 and other related requirements. The staff's plans with respect to these recommendations are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Revision 1 to Generic Letter 91-18 was issued on October 8,1997. As noted ir SECY-97-205, the staff is preparing a proposed rulemaking on 10 CFR 50.59 that is scheduled to be submitted to the Commission in December 1997. At the present time, the staff intends to provide a draft of the rulemaking to the Committee to support discussion at the December ACRS full-committee meeting.
The Commidee recommended that the staff continue to work with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) to reconcile industry guidance (NE! 96-07) with the staffs position rather than issuing separate guidance. In a letter dated October 31,1997, NEl submitted Revision 0 of NEl 96-07 and stated that the industry had voted to adopt its use as an initiative (that is, all licensees commit to its adoption). As noted during the meeting with the Committee on October 2,1997, the staff has concluded that it is not prepared to endorse certain aspects of this document as meeting the current rule requirements. In response to this submittal, the staff will provide its views to NEl en the acceptability of its guidance and note any instances where the industry positions would not be consistent with the current interpretation of the regulat!ons. Further actions on NEl's guidance will be coordinated with the staffs rulemaking activities.
q$d39
'I O M 'i my
. f D O,.
W#
)
G.l g*m T~'
p.J ggbw
=
q 3 ; g }f, >Qf 0?
f$$'EllIMIN 9711190234 971112 PDR ACRS GENERAL PDR
DISTRIBUTION: GreenTicket 970731 Dated November _12._1997 1
Central File (w/ original incoming) (GT 970731)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)(GT 970731)
EDO r/f (w/ incoming)(GT 970731)
NRR Mailroom (w/ incoming)(GT 970731)
PGEB r/f (' e/ incoming)(GT 970731)
LCallan HThompson AThadani PNorry JBlaha SBums JMitchell SCollins FMiraglia RZimmerman BSheron JRoe WTravers DMatthews TEssig FAkstulewic~
EMcKenna MThadani MBoyle (e mail)
e.
-f R. Seale
-2 As noted in SECY g7 205, the staff is continuing its efforts to move to a more risk-informed, performance-based regulatory framework. We will keep the Committee Informed as these plans develop.
Sincerely, 4L.9A os'oph' Callan Executive Director for Operations cc: The Commission SECY OGC
c.-w-,
-g p
-- +
--.r--,--v-
+ - -, --
--A 6
m w.s---
--:n
~
I R. S eale As noted in SECY 97-205, the staff is continuing its efforts to move to a more risk-informed,
- performance-based regulatory framework. We will keep the Committee infonned as these plans develop.
Sincerely, 4
OrigiaalSignedby L.J.cean L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations cc: The Commission SECY OGC OCA l
l
- See Previous Concurreg'ce
/)
Document Name: G:\\emm\\G970731
/
O
// d 0FFICE Tech Eo PM:PGEB os <
SC:Pli8 g F (AgiffiBTf,,
l NAME BCalure*
EMcKennaYGIS FAkpWdwicz TEs$ig l)
DATE 10/17/97 il/
7 1
11/ ( 797 N,,
/
NAME ) JRoe M TGdotWns LCal $
e.
t C~
ACTION e a
EDO Principal Correspondence Control i
i FROM:
DUE: 11/14/97 EDO CONTROL: G970731 DOC DT: 10/09/97 FINAL REPLY:
C. L. Seale ACRS TOs I
t Chairman Jachson FOR SIGNATURE OF :
- GRN CRC NO: 97-0995 i
l Callan, EDO DESC:
ROUTING:
! PROPOSED CHANGES TO 10 CFR 50.59 AND PROPOEED Callan
( REVISION 1 TO GENERIC LETTER 91-18 Thadani Thompson Norry i
Blaha Burns DATE: 10/15/97 g
Mitchell, OEDO ACRS.'ile ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
NRR Collins SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
fPrcpararesponsetoACRSforEDOsignature.
Add Conaissioners and SECY as cc's.
I l
USE SUBJECT LINE IN RESPONSE.
1L p
.IRR RECEIVED:
OCTOBER 16, 1997
'IRR ACTION:
DRPM: ROE i
IRR ROUTING:
COLLINS MIRAGLIA l
ZIMMERMAN SHERON' R0E TRAVERS B0HRER I
e
-~
l UNITED STATES
!i NUCLEAR P.EGULATORY COMMISSION n
l ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS y
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 4
g%... 'j October 9, 1997 The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Chairman Jackson:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED CHANGES TO 10 CFR 50.59 AND PROPOSED REVISION 1 TO GENERIC LETTER 91-18 During the 445th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, October 2-3, 1997, we met with representatives of the NRC staff and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) to discuss SECY-97-205, " Integration and Evaluation of Results From Recent Lessons-Learned Reviews," which includes proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.59 (Changes, Tests and Experiments) and Revision 1 to Generic Letter 91-18, "Information to Licensees Regarding NRC Inspection Manual Section on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions."
We also discussed the proposed industry guidance document NEI 96-07, " Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations."
We had the benefit of the documents referenced.
Conclusions and Recommendationn 1.
We recommend that the NRC issue Revision 1 to Generic Letter 91-18, since it explicitly clarifies the e7plicability of 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation process to address degraded and nonconforming conditions.
2.
Because the current legal interpretation of 10 CFR 50.59 is at variance with past staff and industry practices, rulemaking appears to be necessary.
3.
The staff should continue to work with NEI to reconcile NEI 96-07 with the staff's poaition rather than developing k~fl0?hhlD
i e,.
- e c.
J.L -t
,y_
separate guidance for implementing the 10 CFR 50.59 process.
We recommend that the NRC endorse.this industry approach with appropriate exceptions and clarifications.
=
- 4.
We _ encourage-the continued development of a plan for a 10 CFR -
50.59 process that- _is consistent with risk-informed,
- j
' performance-based ret /21stion.
Dimenazion In our April 8, 1997 report to the Commission, we recommended that' the proposed guidance related to implementation of 10. CFR 50.59, as
- describad in SECY-97-035, not be. issued for public comment.
Instead, we recommended that the NRC work.with the industry _to
- build on=the guidance contained in NSAC-125.
Our recommendation was based on consideration of over 30 years of industry experience, during which the staff identified problems in only a very small number of situations evaluated under 10-CFR 50.59.
Because the legal interpretation of 10 CFR 50.59 is at variance-with past staff and industry practices, rulemaking appears-to be
- =
necessary. However, rather than developing new regulatory guidance-to - support the current rule, the st.aff should issue a safety evaluation report or regulatory guide endorsing the guidance in' the Any provisions in NEI 96-07 that-the revised NEI 96-07 document.
staff finds unacceptable could be identified as exceptions to NRC's
- acceptance of-the industry guidance.
This would.be similar to past NRC-practices of endorsing industrial standards. subject to certain--
exceptions and clarifications.
1
- The debate -spawned by the proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.59 is indicative of the need to accelerate the move to risk-informed,.
- performance-based-regulation.
The current ~ - 10 CFR- -50.59 requirements already implement a form of this regulatory philosophy
' but at-.~a very detailed level and:in a manner that is-inconsistent-
-with current: risk-management technology.
Ideally, the performance-
. requirements would be-identified at a system or function. level, and the licer. sees.would have flexibility to manage the plants so long
[
as:these performance requirements are met (i.e., they stayLwithin i
- the defined envelope).. Defining _such performance-requirements in
-advanceL would eliminate the present disagreements over whether "small" or "zero" risk increases are. allowed.
1.
a-
--wes
>.m em.-rn.
r
,,,-+r,-wwny---.,w-am e
v
.-,,w r,-
,,-,--.ns+-r
,-w e
v.
--c--,--
- -- e
e
) '
The staff. outlined a plan designed to enhance NRC oversight of licensee activities and to improve the existing regulatory process during the transition period to a more risk-informed, performance-based regulatory framework.
In the interim, the industry needs to know-whether it has a method acceptable to the NRC for performing proper safety evaluations per 10 CFR 50.59.
We were infomed by representatives of NEI that the industry is currently reviewing NEI S6-07, Revision 0, and that it is expected licensees will uniformly accept this guidance for performing safety evaluations.
Sincerely, R. L. Scale Chairman
References:
1.
SECY-97-205, Memorandum dated September 10, 1997, from L.
Joseph Callan, Executive Director for Operations, NRC, for the Commissioners,
Subject:
Integration and Evaluation of Results from Recent Lessons-Learned Reviews.
2.
Draft NRC Generic Letter 91-18, Revision 1, "Information to Licensees Regarding NRC Inspection Manual Section on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions,"
September 1997.
3.
SECY-97-035, Memorandum dated February 12, 1997, from Hugh L.
Thompson, Jr., Acting Executive Director for Operations, NRC, for the Commissioners,
Subject:
Proposed Regulatory Guidance Related to Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 (Changes, Tests and Experiments).
4.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Draft NUREG-1606,
" Proposed Regulatory Guidance Related to Impltmentation of 10 CFR 50.59 (Changes, Tests and Experiments)," April 1997.
5.
Letter dated July 21, 1997, from Ralph E.
Beedle, Nuclear Energy Institute, to Frank J.
Miraglia, Jr., NRC, regarding NEI 96-07, Final Draft,
Subject:
Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations.
6.
Report dated April 8, 1997, from R. L. Seale, Chairman, ACRS, to Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, NRC,
Subject:
Proposed
~
. -.,. ~. - - -.-._-.-.-..
?
- .1 --
.'. -(.
4 Regulatory Guidance Related to Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 IChanges, Tests and Experiments).
J i
9 4
- p3c--
y yyng -,
e-
--+en o v i's
-- i 4e-,.
wt,%,----
w m
--w--
e
--.----