ML20199H906
| ML20199H906 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/03/1998 |
| From: | Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Ralph Beedle NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT & |
| References | |
| PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9802050149 | |
| Download: ML20199H906 (3) | |
Text
e t Y (* ivy p+ *,
UNITED STATE 8 s* j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ;
WASHINGTON, D.c. 30saH001
%*****/ February 3. 1998 Mr. Ralph E. Beedle Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Genwation Nuclear Energy institute (NEl) 1776 l Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708
Dear Mr. Beedle:
I am responding to yourletter of October 27,1997, to Chairman Jackson of the U. S Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), regarding the applicability of 10 CFR 50.65, the maintenance rule, to nuclear plant operations at power and during shutdown. In your letter, you stated that both the Commission and the NRC staff have recently questioned the applicability of the rule to shutdown operations. You provided additionalinsight regarding your position on the question b/referring to 10 CFR 50.65(a)(3), 'the Statements of Consideration for the Rule,* 'lijustry G Jdeline for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants"(NUMARC o 01)," Guidelines forIndustry Actions to Assess Shutdown Management"(NUMARC 9106),
et+1 inspections of licensee implementation of the rule conducted to date. At the time of your lettor, the Commission had matters related to your positions under review.
As stated in your letter, the Commission and the staff did develop the maintenance rule to apply to nuclear power plant operations at all times and in all conditions, including shutdown.
However, the rule only requires the monitoring of the effectiveness of maintenance. Additionally, 10 CFR 50.65(a)(3) recommends (rather than requires) that an assessment be made of the overall safety impact of removing plant equipment from service for the performance of monitoring and preventive maintenance activities. The question discussed by the Commission and the staff regarding the applicability of the rule to shutdown activities was not simply whether the rule applies. Rather, the question was whether the safety impact assessment recommended in 10 CFR 50.65 (a)(3), if made mandatory, would suffice as written to obviats the need for the proposed shutdown rule.
Subsequently, by Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)97-173 (enclosed) , the Commission approved the staff's recommendation to develop a proposed rulemaking to revise the main-tenance rule and, by SRM 97168 (also enclosed), directed that a proposed rule regulating shutdown activities will not be developed. The proposed maintenance rule revision, if adopted, I
y, f D% ?; <
p w'6W l.l!I.I llIll. I !l.l I.I v L' ' ~ g g f3 78a" na; M8 pa 20FRf:CETERCDPV f6\/$P,fk'Ol
,4 3
Mr. R. E. Beedle 2-will make mandatory the safety impact assessment currently recommended in section 50.65(a)(3). Additionally, the proposed revision, if adopted, will specifically note the applicability of the rule during normal shutdown operations and will extend the requirement to perform the safety impact assessment, currently recommended in section 50.65(a)(3), to all maintenance activities on in scope SSCs. '
The staff is currently preparing its proposed approach in response to the SRM. After we have completed this interaction with the Commission, we would be happy to meet with you to discuss this matter.
Sincerely, u ,
Office of Nu lear Reactor Regulation Project No. 689 t
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See attached i
Mr. R. E. Beedle 3-Nuclear Energy Institute Project No. 68g !
cc: Mr. Ralph Beedle Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director Senior Vice President Plant Support and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute '
Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 3 Mr. Alex Marion, Director Programs Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 3708
. Mr. David Modeen, Director Engineering Nuclear Enery/ ;nstitute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 i
Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Director Licensing.
Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW '
Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Nicholas J Liparuto, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division ,
Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 ;
Mr. Jim Davis,-Director Operations Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400- >
1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708
r 1
a December 17,1997 HEMORANDUM FOR: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations
- Karen D. Cyr General Counsel 4
FROM: John C. Hoyle, Secretary /s/
SUB)ECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS: SECY 97173 POTENTIAL REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.65(a)(3) OF THE MAINTENANCE RULE TO REQUIRE LICENSEES TO PERFORM SAFETY ASSESSMENTS The Commission approved the staff's recommendation to davelop a proposed rulemaking to revise the '
maintenance rule to require that safety assessments be taker
,to account prior to performln: maintenance activities, subject to the following comments:
- 1. Although all three attematives, including not changing the rule, should be considered as part of the regulatory analysis for proposed rulemaking, extended or protracted regulatory analysis of Alternative i is unnecessary,
- 2. In addition to the change from "should" to "shall" In section 50.65(a)(3) as proposed by the staff in Alternative 2, the proposed rule should also incorporate the following changes that are consistent with NRC Regulatory Guide 1,160, Revision 2, and NUMARC 93 01, Revision 2. The staff may suggest attemative wording for Commission consideration as part of the proposed rulemaking package, if the following rule language is problematic:
4 a.
Since the requiremenu of the maintenance rule, including the assessment of structures, systems, and components proposed to be removed from service, are applicable during all modes of plant operation, the following clarification should be added as a preamble to the maintenance rule:
The requirements of this section are apphcable during all conditions of plant operation, including normal shutdown operations.
b.
Revise the third sentence of (a)(3) to read as follows:
Adjustments shall be made where necesary to ensure that the objective of preventing failures of structures, systems, and components through maintenance is appropriately balanced against the objective of minimizing unava' lability of structures, systems, and components due to monitoring or preventive maintenance.
c.
The final sentence of section 50.65 (a)(3) should be redesignated as (a)(4) and revised as follows:
Enclosure {
&&U i*-l _
3 o
Prior to performing maintenance activities on SSCs within the scope o
, but not limited to, surveillance testing, post maintenance testing, corre performance / condition monitoring, and preventive maintenance), an assessme
. current plant configuration as well as expected changes to plant conRguration 2
from the proposed maintenance actMties shall be conducted to determine t on performance of safety functions. The resulu of this assessment shall be use ,
the plant is not placed in risk significant configurations.
t
- 3. Since the changes to the maintenance rule are part of a larger set of initiativ to, changes to 10 CFR 50.59 and the integrated review of the NRC assessment pro reactors, the staff should ensure consistency among these efforts.
, (EDO)
(SECY suspense:4/30/98) i
- 4. In the limited regulatory analysis discussion of Alternative 3, staff should briefly co i technically inferior methods for conducting safety asses '
i maintenance in configurat!ons LwoMng risk levels that may be imprudent, yet s
, compliance prior to performing with the requirements of the revised maintenaitce. maintenance rule to take into accou
- .(EDO)- _(SECY Suspense
4/30/98)
, To address this issue, the Commission would consider, as part of a future se staff proposal to incorporate by reference updates to NUMARC 93 01, Revision 2, Regulatory Guide 1.160, Revision 2, which emerge from the activities described in i i
,. 5. As part of the regulatory guidance for this proposed rulemaking, the staff sh on the discussion that was provided in the statements of consideration for the origina
- with regard to (1) variations in the rigor and sophistication of the assessments depe and safety significance of SSCs out of service and (2) NRC's general expectations with i levels that the assessment should take into account to ensure a plant is r.ot placed i configurations during maintenance ac Ivities. This discussion should acknowledge that several inputs to the determination of risk significance of plant configurations, includi
- deterministic analysis, considerations of defense in depth, and qualitative measures.
would be short of Alternative 3's comprehensive treatment of these issues in the ru 1
+
not constitute binding regulatory requirements, in developing this guidance, the staff should a
- consider whether the fauldelines for Industry Actions to Au*u Shutdown Management. N 91-06, as referenced in Section i 1.2 of NUMARC 93-01, Revision 2, could be endo Consistent with the Commission's decision on DSI-13, the staff should interact with stak developing regulatory guidance. Development of regulatory guidance should not delay
_ proposed rule, and the Commission expects the final rule to be issued by December 15,1998.
4 (EDO) (SECY Suspense:
12/15/98) 2 cc: - Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus i
Commissioner Diaz f
i
e 5 .*
Commlukrwr McGafflgan -
OGC l; ClO
POR-DCS i
4
)
4 t
+
d e
a 2
4 3,
a 4
M i
i 9
,.e. ,.e m-, y+e ~ , vr
December 11,1997 MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations FROM; John C. Hoyle /s/
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-97-168 - lSSUANCE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING PACKAGE FOR SHUTDOWN AND FUEL STORAGE POOL OPERATION In SECY-97-168, the staff sought authorization to issue a proposed rule related to shutdown and fuel storage pool operation. The Coi "nission has not provided the necessary authorization. Because this rule involves significant issues of policy, the staff is not authorized to issue the proposed rule without Commission authorization. Therefore, under Appendix 3 of the Intemal Commission Procedures the staff may_not proceed further with this rulemaking l package.
However, the staff may avaluate, for Commission consideration, whether any further codification of current '.ndustry practice related to ensuring that risk-significant safety functions are maintained during shutdown operations beyond that contemplated in the revised maintenance rule would provide sufficient benefit to warrant the costs imposed on licensees and the NRC by such codification. In conducting any further evaluation, the staff should review and assess current shutdown risk information from the international community. After the maintenance rule modification is completed, the staff should interact with stakeholders on this matter and present their conclusions, if any, at an appropriate time.
The staff should review current regulatory analysis methodology in light of the SRM on DSI-13 <
and submit, for Commission review, options that would address possible revisions to the methodology, particularly with regard to recognition of existing initiatives and voluntary actions in the cost-benefit analyses.
(EDO) (SECY Suspense: 12/4/98)
The Commission expects the staff to continue to monitor licensee performance, through
. inspections and other means, in the area of shutdown operations to ensure that the current level of safety is maintained.
cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz SECY NOTE: THIS SRM AND SECY-97-168 WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
Enclosure 2 81tylio M Y'
e Commissioner McGaffigan OGC CIO CFO OCA OlG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
_ . _ . _ . _ _ - -