ML20202D964
| ML20202D964 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/26/1997 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Ralph Beedle NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT & |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9712050202 | |
| Download: ML20202D964 (27) | |
Text
,
l 98M*g ge -
UNITED STATES j
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001 November 26, 1997 Mr. Ralph E. Beedle Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Generation Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708
SUBJECT:
It1 PACT OF NRC STAFF'S GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS ON INDUSTRY RESOURCES
Dear Mr. Beedle:
I am responding to your letter of July 9,1997, concerning the impact of the NRL staff's ger=ric communications on industry resources.
As war. discussed at our meeting of October 9,1997. NEI's underlying concerns are that, by the use of the compliance exception to the backfit rule, the NRC staff avoids the discipline inherent in )reparing a regulatory analysis which if prepared may result in eliminating tie need for the generic communication and that such actions undermine the intent of the backfit rule.
I agree that the industry and the public should understand the process and the basis for issuance of generic communications requiring industry response or actions.
The agency 3rocess for identification and resolution of generic issues is outlined in NRC ianagement Directive 8.5, " Operational Safety Data Review." As part of this process, all generic letters and bulletins are subjected to several levels of review before issuance.
These actions include (1) review by the NRR/AE0D/RES
-Events Assessment Panel: (2) review by the Committee To Review Generic Requirements: (3) review by the Office of the General Counsel: (4) review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, if requested: (5) publication in the Federal Reaister with a re uest for public comments: and (6) Commission review through a Commission in ormation paper.
(0 )
In addition to your underlying concerns, your letter listed several trends i
that you noted r arding generic communications.
These trends were also
}
discussed at our tober 9, 1997, meeting. The minutes to that meeting are attached.
l I
The first trend stated was that general quality assurance criteria (10 CFR 50.
Appendix B) is cited as the t. asis for requesting very specific licensee actions to demonstrate compliance with a licensee's current licensing basis rather than providing a sound technical basis.
The NRC believes that compliance is both the ap)lication of a general regulation to conditions that q t.r// :
were known and foreseen w1en the regulation was written as well as the 1
application of existing regulations to new situations.
The NRC staff identifies generic issues as a result of new insights gained from operational and industry experience.
For some situations. the NRC deems it necessary to obtain additional information from licensees in order to determine whether they are in compliance.
Under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(f). the NRC can require that licensees submit this information.- Generic letters and bulletins Y
9712050202 971126 (M"
\\
PDR REV9P ERONUMRC
?[ 4 gg ga amO upl151.E@$ @
d
i l
Mr. R. E. Beedle can also request actions that, if taken, should ensure compliance
- However, the request for action does not preclude licensees from proposing alternative responses to the generic letter or bulletin.
The second trend stated that generic communications are being used to accelerate imposing new requirements that otherwise are proceeding slowly through the rulemaking process required by the Administrative Procedure Act.
In response to the one example that was provided regarding this trend, the NRC staff concluded that inspection techniques conducted in accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) currently referenced in 10 CFR may not meet the intent of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
The staff also concluded that inspections performed in accordance with ASME Code.Section XI. Appendix VIII (not yet referenced in 10 CFR), are capable of meeting the intent of 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix B.
The intent of the generic letter is to verify that effective inspections are being performed.
New requirements are not being imposed.
The third trend stated that existing rules and positions are being judged inadequate following significant operating events, thereby suggesting a need to change regulatory requirements guidance, or positions. As stated before, in light of operating experience, the NRC sometimes deems it necessary to obtain additional information from licensees in order to determine whether they are in compliance.
For the examples given, the generic communications do not indicate that the existing rules and positions are inadequate.
In addition, for both of the examples. the staff is reevaluating the necessity of a generic comunication.
The final trend stated that it is not apparent that consideration has been given to the cumulative impact of the various requests on licensee resources.
The NRC is, and must remain, committed to protecting the health and safety of the public and. as such, must continue to pursue the resolution of individual generic issues that it deems safety significant. As such, a review of the cumulative impact is not performed.
The NRC is committed to openness in the regulatory process and to public rarticipation including that of industry in the resolution of these issues.
To implement this commitment to openness more effectively, the NRC has in the recent past initiated enhanced participation for several rulemaking actions to foster openness by involving industry in the rulemaking process at an earlier stage.
I have been informed by my staff that several of the generic communications you referred to had been modified as a result of comments provided by NEI during the public comment process (see attachment).
In this regard. I encourage the use of the public comment process for generic communications by the industry to raise concerns and comments.
Many of our generic communications have been improved as a result of insights gained from the public and industry.
4 4
Mr. R. E. Beedle I continue to encourage communication between the NRC and NEl whenever concerns of this type present themselves.
Sincerely.
k
'N", f
. J seph Calla
/j Ex-tive Dire torv for Operations Attachments:
1.
NRC staff responses to NEI's individual generic communication concerns 2.
Summary of October 9. 1997. Public Meeting With the Nuclear Energy Institute on Mutual items of Interest S
=
Mr. R. E. Beedle 3-I continue to encourage communication between the NRC and NEI whenever concerns of this type present themselves.
Sincerely.
Original Signed by Hugh L.ThompWr.
L. Joseph Callan i
Executive Director for Operations
. Attachments:
1.
NRC staff responses to NEI's individual generic communication concerns 2.
Summary of October 9. 1997. Public Meeting With the Nuclear Energy Institute on Mutual Items of Interest i
G:\\EJBl\\NEILTR
- See Previous concurrence OFC PECB Tech Ed.
(A)BC/EMCB BC/SRXB ADT NAME E8enner EJB for*
ESullivan*
TCollins*
BSheron*
DATE 10/16/97 09/17/97 09/19/97 09/25/97 10/06/97 0FC (A)BC/PECB (A)D/DRPM D/NRR NAME EGoodwin*
JRoe*
SCollins*
LJCaYan DATE 09/25/97 10/7/97-10/23/97 11/)c /97 CONCURRENCE FOR INDIVIDUAL ITEMS OFC ITEM 1 ITEM 2 ITEM 3 ITEM 4 ITEM 5 NAME ESullivan*
Alevin*
CCarpenter*
MChatterton*
EBenner*
DATE 09/19/97 08/24/97 09/18/97 09/24/97 09/02/97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
.,.,y, u.,.._..~,.,,.,.,<r
.y.,.m-,,,,,,,.
,.,-_m m
/
Mr. R. E. Beedle provided by NEl during the >ublic coment process, in this rega
.I encourage the use of the pualic comment process for generic unications by the industry to raise concerns and coments.
Many of our ric comunications have been improved as a result of insights ined from the public and industry.
I continue to encourage comunicat between the NRC and NEI whenever concerns of this type present themsel e)s.
Sincerely.
/
Leonard J. Callan ExecutfeDirector fo,r/ Operations
Attachment:
NRC staff responses to Nuclear Ene/rgy Institute's individual generic 1.
communication concerns
/
/
.i G:\\EJBl\\NEllTR
- See Pr'vious concurrence f
OFC PECB
/
Tech cd.
(A)BC/EMCB BC/SRXB d)T /
NAME EBenner[/h EJB for*
ECullivan*
TCollins*
BSO*
DATE 10/16/47' 09/17/97 09/19/97 09/25/97 10/06/97 mummeumsummmmmmmmmmm sammmmmmmmmmmmummammmmmmmmmesms (A)B'/PECB (A)D/DRPM D/NRR_)
E00 OCA
/
0FC C
NAME EGoodwin*
JRoe*
Sdollins LJCallan Y
_0 ATE
'09/25/97 10/7/97 10/ 2 /97 10/
/97
'f0/ N97 CgCURRENCESFORINDIVIOUALITEMS
- 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY OFC ITEM 1 ITEM 2 ITEM 3 ITEM 4 ITEM 5 NAME ESullivan*
Alevin*
CCarpenter*
MChatterton*
EBenner*
_DATE 09/19/97 08/24/97 09/18/97 09/24/97 09/02/97
MEMORANDUM 10:
Lesnard J. Callan Executive Director for Operations FRON:
Samuel J. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
SUBJECT:
IMPACT OF NRC STAFF'S GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS ON I USTRY RESOURCES (GREEN TICKET 970520)
NRR has reviewed the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) letter fro Ralph E. Beedle dated July 9, 1997, (Green Ticket 970520) and as prepared the attached draft response (Attachment 1) which states that th RC is, and must remain, comitted to protecting the health and safety of public and, as such, must continue to pursue aggressively the resolutio generic issues that it deems safety significant and that we have a som hat different perception of compliance.
The letter also states that the NRC is comitted t openness in the regulatory 1
process, that the particular concerns stated in M. Beedle's letter have been reviewed, that several of the generic comunica ons had b<en modified as a result of coments provided by NEl in the publj comment process, and that NRC continues to encourage meetings between NRC apd NEI to seek resolution of issues.
I have also enclosed, as Attachment /2, the staff's response to Mr. Beedle's specific concerns.
The underlying issue is the NRC staff's omon characterization of information requested in generic letters and bulle t'ns as necessary to ensure licensee compliance with existing regulations; onsequently, generic comunications are issued as compliance backfit exceptip s.
By doing this, the NRC staff is viewed as avoiding the discipline inherent in preparing a regulatory analysis, which,ifprepared,mightnotjustffytheaction.
The staff's response relies principally on the rigorous proce(s to which generic letters and bulletins (even those issued as compliance backfit exceptions) undergo before issuance, including (1) review by the NRR AEOD/RES Events Assessment Panel; (2) review by the Comittee To Review Gen ric Requirements; (3) review by the Office of the General Counsel; (4) revidw by the Advisory Cemittee on Reactor i
Safeguards, if requested; (fd publication in the Federal Reaister with a request for public coment ', and (6) Commission review through a Comission information paper.
Attachments:
- 1. Response to Ralph E.
eedle of NEI
- 2. NRC staff response o Nuclear Energy Institute's individual generic comunication conc ns CONTACT:
E. F Goo n, NRR/DRPM/PECB 415-1154/
G:\\EJBl\\NEILTR
/
- See Previous concurrence OFC-PECB
/
Tech Ed.
(A)BC/EHCB BC/SRXB ADT NAME EBenne'r EJB for*
ESu11ivan*
TCollins*
BSheron*
DATE glE 09/19/97 09/25/97 0FC (A)BC/PECB (A)D/0 RPM W EDO OCA NAME
'EGoodwin*
JRoeb bCollins DATE.
09/25/97 10/ Y 97 10/
/97 10/
/97 10/
/97
/
-CONCURRENCES FOR INDIVIDUAL ITEMS
- 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY OFC ITEM 1 ITEM 2 ITEM 3 ITEM 4 ITEM 5 NAME ESullivan*.
Alevin*
CCarpenter*
MChatterton*
EBenner*
i DATE 09/19/97 08/24/97 09/18/97 09/24/97 09/02/97 l
=
=
=
MEh0RANDUM TO:
Leonard J. Callan Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Samuel J. Collins. Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
IMPACT OF NRC STAFF'S GENERIC COMMUNIC IONS ON INDUSTRY RESOURCES (GREEN TICKET 970520)
NRR has reviewed the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) etter from Ralph E. Beedle dated July 9. 1997 (Green Ticket 0520) and has prepared the attached draft response (Attachment 1) that the C is committed to openness in the regulatory process, that the particular oncerns stated in Mr. Beedle's letter have been reviewed, that several of th generic comunications had been modified as a result of comments provided by/ El in tne public comment process, and that NRC continues to encourag6 meetings between NRC and NEI to seek resolution of issues.
I have also e closed, as Attachment 2. the staff's response to Mr. Beedle's most particular concerns, the primary concern being that because the NRC staff character 1z information being requested in generic letters and bulletins as nece ary to ensure licensee compliance with existing regulations, generic comu cations are issued as compliance backfit exceptions.
By doing this. the NR staff avoids the discipline inherent in precaring a regulatory analysis, ich, if prepared, may eliminate tha need for the action.
The staff's res nse turns principally on the rigorous process to which generic letter and bulletins (even those issued as compliance backfit exce)tions) are subjected before issuance, including (1) review by the NRR/AE0D/RES Ev nts Assessment Panel: (2) review by the Comittee To Review Generic equirements: (3) review by the Office of the General Counsel: (4) revie by the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards.
1f requested: (5) publica on in the Federal Reaister with a request for public comments: and (6) omission review through a Comission information paper.
Attachments:
- 1. Response to Ralph Beedle of NEl
- 2. NRC staff response to Nuclear Energy Institute's individual generic comunication coq erns CONTACT:
E. F. Goo.dwin. NRR/DRPM/PECB 415-1154/
G:\\EJBl\\NEILTR
/
- See Previous concurrence 4q,k7f 0FC PECB /
Tech Ed.
(A)BC/EMCB BC/SRXB ADT NAME EBenne'r EJB for*
ESullivan*
TCollins BSheron
.D.AT.E09/24/
-.97 09/17/97 09/19/97 09/
/97 -
09/
/97 OFC (A')BC/PECB (A)D/DRPM D/NRR ED0 OCA NAME-EGoodwin h JRoe SCollins DATE 092 $~/97 08/ /97 09/
/97 09/
/97 09/
/97 QNCURRENCES FOR INDI/IOUAL ITEMS OFC ITEM 1 ITEM 2 ITEM 3 ITEM 4 ITEM 5 NAME ESullivan*
Alevin*
CCarpenter*
MChatterton*
EBenner*
DATE 09/19/97 i08/24/97 09/18/97 09/24/97 09/02/97 0FFICIA RECORD COPY DISTRIBUTION _FOR. GREEN TICKET 970520,
[
m MEM3RANDUM T0: Leoncrd J. Callan
-Executive Director for Operetions FROM:
Samuel J. Collins. Director Office of Nuclaar Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
IMPACT OF NRC STAFF'S GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS ON INDUSTRY RESOURCES (GREEN TICKET 970520)
NRR has reviewed the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) letter from Ralph E. Beedle dated July 9, 1997 (Green Ticket 970520) and has prepared the attached draft response (Attachment 1) that the NRC is committed to openness in the regulatory process, that the particular concerns stated in Mr. Beedie's letter have been reviewed. that several of the generic communications,hlid been modified as a result of comments provided by NEI in the public conpefit process, and that NRC continues to encourage meetings between NRC'and NEI to seek resolution of issues.
I have also enclosed, as Attachment 2, the staff's response to Mr. Beedle's most particular concerns, the primaf'y concern being that because the NRC staff characterizes information beirJg' requested in generic letters and bulletins a necessary to ensure licensee compliance with existing regulations, generic communications are iss as compliance backfit exceptions.
By doing this, the NRC staff avoids th 1scipline inherent in i
preparing a regulatory analysis, which, if prepared may eliminate the need for the action. The stdff's re:ponse turns princJpally on the rigorous process to which generic ietters and bulletins Wven those issued as compliance backfit exce)tions) are subjected eTore issuance, includi-review by the NRR/AE0D/RES Events Assessmen anel: (2) review by the Committee To Review Generic Requirements:
) review by the Office of Ge:1eral Counsel: (4) review by the Advis Committee on Reactor Safeguards, if requested: (5) publication in the f 1 Rea13ter with a request for public comments: and (6) Coinmission r 1ew through a Commission information paper.
Attachments:
- 1. Response to Ralph E. Beedle o NEI 2 NRC staff respnoses to Nucle r Energy Institute's individual generic communication concerns CONTACT:
E. F. Goodwin, NR RPM /PECB 415-1154 G:\\EJBl\\NEILTD
- e Previous concurrence OFC PECB
/echEd.
(A)BC/EMCB BC/SRXB ADT NAME EBenner % EJB fo'*
ESullivan*
TCollins BShecon
.DAT.E.-09/24/9[ / i 09/.17./07 09/19/97 09/
/97 09/
/97 0FC (A)BCMECB (A)D/DRPM D/NRR EDO OCA NAME RDennig JRoe SCollins DATE 0'9/
/97 08/ /97 09/
/97 09/
/97 09/
/97 CONCURRENCESf?RINDI/IDUALliEMS 0FC ITEM 1 ITEM P o ITEM 3 ITEM 4 ITEM 5 m
NAME-ESullivan*
AledM CCarpenter*
MChattd/tDI-EBenner*
TE 09/19/97 dl/N7 09/18/97 l 09/ W /97 09/02/97 OFFICIA RECORD COPY DISTRIBUTION FOR GREEN TICKET 970520
-MEMORANDUM TO:
Leonard J. Callan E.
Executive Director for-Operations-FROM:
Samuel J. Collins, Director-Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
NRC GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS EFFECT ON INDUSTRY RESOURCE
-GREEN TICKET 970520 NRR has reviewed the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) letter from Mr. Ralph E. Beedle, dated July 9. 1997. included in Green Tick,e 970520. The attachment is a draft letter to Mr. Beedle from you stating is summary that the NRC is committed to openness in the regulatory process.fthat the particular concerns stated in the letter have been dissemi ated to the staff, and that we continue to encourage meetings between NRC a NEI to seek resolutien of issues. The sample letter also summariz the staff's rebuttal to his most p6rticular concerns. Mr. Beedle's prima concern is that in generic letters and bulletins, because the NRC staff haracterizes information being requested as necessary to assure licensee compliance with existing regulations, generic communications are issued qs'Com liance Backfit Exceptions.
By doing so, the NRC staff avoids the di cipline inherent in preparing a regulatory anal sis which if prepa, red may result in eliminating the need for the action.
T e staff's respopte turns principally on the rigorous process to which generic letters,and bulletins (even those issued as compliance backfit exce]tions) are subjected ]rior to issuance including:
(1) review by the NRR/AE00/RES Events Assespfnent )anel. (2) review by the Comittee to Review Generic RequiremerJts. (3) review by the Off;ce of the General Councel. (4) review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, if requested. (5) publication in tie Egderal Reaister with a request for l
Jublic comments, and (6) Commissi review through a Commission Information
) aper.
Attachment:
Sample Response Letter to /
RalphE.BeedleofNEIj'
/
CONTACT:
E. F. Goodwir NRR/DRPM/PELB 415-1154
/
/
G:\\EJBl\\NEILTR
/
goo 0FC PECB
/
Tech Ed.
(A)BC/EMCS BC/SRXB ADT NAME EBennsrfd f/0I ESulliN TCollins BSheron DATE 09/$&/97
/I'/97 09/19 /9f 09/
/97 09/
/97 minommesammenammmmmmmm sammmmmmmmuumu
=u r
= - -
=
0FC (A)BC/PECB-(A)D/DRPM D/NRR EDO OCA NAME-RDennig JRoe SCollins DATE 09/=
/97 08/ /97 09/
/97 09/
/97 09/
/97 CONCURRENCES FOR INDIVIDUAL ITEMS OFC ITEM 1 ITEM 2 ITEM 3 ITEM 4 ITEM 5 NAME ESullivan@ Alevi~
CCarpcoten,j_ MChatterton EBenner //6 DATE 09/W /97 08/ /97 09/lb /97 09/
/97 09/.2 /97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
=.
DISTRIBUTION TOR GREEN TICKET 970520 Dated:
November 26, 1997 Central File (w/ original incoming)
PUBLIC-ED0 EDO Reading File L. Callan H. Thompson T. Martin P. Norry-J. Blaha S.-Collins /F Miraglia R. Zimmerman PECB R/ File (w/ incoming)
- J. Roe-D. Matthews R. Dennig M. Thadani M. Boyle (email only - MLB4)
OGC-OPA OCA NRR Mailroom (EDO #970520 w/ incoming) (012/G/18)
B. Sweeney E. Benner (w/ incoming)
S. Burns W. Dean E. Goodwin B. Sheron
NRC STAFF RESPONSES TO NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE'S INDIVIDUAL GENERIC COMMUNICATION CONCERNS EXAMPLE 1:
PROPOSED GENERIC LETTER:
EFFECTIVENESS OF ULTRASONIC TESTING (UT) SYSTEMS IN INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAMS Concern 1: The proposed generic letter requests licensees to identify to what extent and on what schedule they will implement an Appendix VIII performance-based ultrasonic test qualification program or its equivalent even though the appendix has not been incorporated into the regulations. The proposed generic letter establishes a new NRC position concerning the method to qualify ultrasonic procedures for test personnel.
Response: Based on operating enerience (examples are documented in the generic letter), the NRC staff las concluded that ins)ection techniques conducted in accordance with the American Society of iechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) currently referenced in 10 CFR may not meet the intent of 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix B.
The staff hcs also concluded that inspections performed in accordance with ASME Code.Section XI.
Appendix VIII (not yet referenced in 10 CFR), are capable of meeting the intent of 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix B.
Therefore the intent of the generic letter is to verify that effective inspections are being performed. New requirements are not being imposed.
Concern 2:
The urgency for licensees to voluntarily commit to implementing a performance-based ultrasonic qualification program is inconsistent with the generic letter statement that a safety concern does not exist that would warrant immediate backfitting of Appendix VIII in advance of the rulemaking that has been initiated.
Response: The proposed generic letter states that the staff believes that Appendix VIII if implemented, would satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix B. and asks licensees to indicate if they plan to implement this appendix or explain way their current methods are acceptable in light of the operating experience that indicates otherwise.
The generic letter does not impose a schedule under which licensees must commit to implementing a performance-based ultrasonic qualification program.
Examole 2:
PROPOSED GENERIC LETTER:
LOSS OF REACTOR COOLANT INVENTORY AND ASSOCIATED POTENTIAL FOR LOSS OF EMERGENCY MITIGAlION FUNCTIONS WHILE IN A SHUTDOWN CONDITION Concer.1: The proposed generic letter represents a significant backfit. The action requested represents a significant revision to current practices for regulating outage conditions and should be subject to regulatory analysis.
l
. Response: The staff notes that NEI's comments were based on a draft vcrsion that was released for public comment.
The current version of the generic letter has been revised, partly in response to those comments, and the requested actions were modified to reduce the burden on licensees and to focus specifically on licensees who are vulnerable to a Wolf Creek-like scenario.
in addition, the staff is reevaluating the neressity of a generic letter on this issue.
The Wolf Creek event that prompted development of the generic letter was identified as one of the most risk-significant precursors that occurred during the 1994 calendar year. Had the problem not been diagnosed, it could have resulted in core uncovery and common-cause failure of the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) pumas.
Outage-related events are of substantial concern to the staff.
Events in iode 4. like Wolf Creek, are of particular concern because the primary system is still at elevated temperature and oressure, which can exacerbate problems tnat develop.
EXAMPLE 3: GENERIC LETTER 97-01:
DEGRADATION OF CONTROL ROD DRIVE MECHANISM N0ZZLE AND OTHER VESSEL CLOSURE HEAD PENETRATIONS Concern 1: NRC issued the generic letter (GL) despite staff conclusions that cracking in control rod drive mechanisms and other vessel head penetrations were "not of immediate safety significance" and were likely to " result in detectable leakage" that would provide ample opportunity for corrective action before a penetration would fail Response: As stated in GL 97-01. "the NRC staff has concluded that vessel head penetration cracking does not pose an immediate or near-term safety concern.
In the long-term, however, degradation of the CRDM [ control rod drive mechanism] and other VHPs [ vessel head penetration] 1s an important safety consideration that warrants further evalaation " [ emphasis added]
Further, as stated in the staff's response, of December 26, 1996, to NEl's public comments en the draft generic letter. " relying solely upon detection of leakage, when the Standard Technical Speci-
.tions (STS) and most facility's TSs state that no pressure boundary leakage 1s acceptable, is not consistent with maintaining defense-in-depth.
Further, as was reported in IN
[Information Notice] 86-108. Supalement 1. " rapid and severe corrosion caused by boric acid leakage can occur Jefore it is noticed." Therefore, the staff concluded that the issuance of a generic letter at this time was an appropriate action because of the long-term safety. significance of the issue.
Concern 2:
"We believe the proposed generic letter essentially requires licensees to define and commit to an augmented inspection program beyond the GL 88-05 visual inspections presently performed by licenseos. The...Reauested jnformation, by implication and inference, place inordinate pressure on a licensee to establish an augmented inspection plan. To not do so places the licensee in a position of justifying not responding in the preferred manner."
Response: -The staff responded to the public comments as follows: The
-proposed generic letter is-requesting information from the licensees. The generic letter does not require a commitment to an integrated, long-term inspection program, but rather asks what, if any, periodic inspections licensees are performing.
It also asks the licensee's bases for concluding acceptability of these plans to (not) perform inspections.
It should be noted that the staff interacted extensively with NEI and the industry on this issue since 1993. and the NRC suggested on numerous occasions that the industry develop an integrated program for nondestructive i
examinations of CRDM penetrations, The staff also stated that it did not believe every plant would need to perform inspections but that an integrated a)proach to inspection planning based on relative susceptibilities of plants s1ould be acceptable. The industry committed, through NEI. to develop such a program and indicated that necessary models had been developed and that licensees were implementing an integrated approach to insocction. However.
the industry would not share the specifics of the industry models and the 4
bases for inspection planning with the NRC. Without this information, the NRC was left in a-situation where it could not assess the acceptability of the industry program. Therefore, a generic letter was issued to obtain the needed information.
EXAMPLE 4:
PROPOSED SUDPLEMENT TO BULLETIN 96-01:
CONTROL R0D INSERTION PROSLEMS Concern 1: The bulletin supplement itself might challenge safe plant operation.
Response: The staff believes that this concern is based on the assumption that the bulletin requires tests that would, in effect, require additional plant shutdowns which inherently have some risk. The proposed bulletin supplement does not require tests but states that testing would be one possible way to verify the ability of the control rods to insert.
In light of recent incomplete control rod insertion events. the incomplete understanding of the root causes, and the rate at which such problems appear: the ability to insert the control rods fully must be demonstrated at appropriate intervals in order to meet the current licensing basis for each facility.
Based on the staff's knowledge of the potential for fuel deformation as a result of burnup, limits were identified below which this demonstration clearly would not be needed. The proposed bulletin supplement included these burnup limits to provide licansees with one method to resolve the problem.
In other words, should licenses choose to limit burnups to less than those stated. the problem would be resolved. An evaluation of the safety impact of the options available, such as testing, redesign of the core, or rigorous engineering analysis, is the responsibility of each licensee.
-Concern 2: The proposed requirements have not-been justified under 10 CFR 50.109, Respcase: Based on previous internal discussions, the staff is reevaluating the a)propriate regulatory basis for the bulletin.
Your concern regarding 10 CR 50.109 is part of this reevaluation.
i Concern 3: Generic communications should not be used to impose requirements on licensees.
Response: The proposed bulletin supplement requires that licensees submit a res)onse. The purpose of the supplement is~ to ask 11cer. sees to show that, in lig1t of recent events, the control rods will fully insert on demand and, therefore, that the current. licensing basis of each facility is met.
Concern 4:
The proposed requirements must be reviewed under the Small
' Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
Response: This review will be performed before the bulletin supplement is issued.
The review was not required before the proposed bulletin supplement was issued for comment, and therefore, it was not performed.
EXAMPLE 5:
CONTAINMENT INSPECTION RULE Cencerns: The provisions of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(v)(A) and (B) indicate that the rule and its implementation schedule discussed in 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(B) apply to " inservice inspection, repair and replacement."
There are no provisions in the rule that explicitly indicate a different implementation schedule for repair and replacement activities.
In addition, the burden associated with collection of informatior, for IWE and IWL was estimated to be 4,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> per resoonse for development of an initial inservice inspection (ISI) plan and 8,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> per response for update of the plan and periodic inspections.
On the basis of this amount of initial work, it-does not seem reasonable to make the repair and replacement-provisions effective immediately.
Response
The information notice did not impose any new requirements.
NEI's concern seems to be focused on the particular information contained in a letter from Gus Lainas (NRC) to Alex Harion (NEI)
" Implementation of Containment Inspection Rule." November 6. 1996 (Accession No. 9611130161),
which provided clarification of certain provisions of the containment inspection rule. This letter was issued in response to a letter from Alex Mar #on of NEI to Brian Sheron of the NRC, " Interpretation of Amended 10 CFR 50.55a." September. 19, 1996 (Accession No. 9704180074), which provided a general industry interpretation of-the rule. The information notice was-issued to ensure that all licensees received the information that was contained in the NRC response and, as such, contained no new requirements. An information notice is an appropriate regulatory mechanism to ensure that all licensees =are made aware of previously disseminated information which-may affect their license.
1 e
w--
r
rw,-.v-
-v
,, - ~
s
.,$a as: g y
1 UNITED STATES y
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
- *.. + /g WASHINGTON, D.C. 30666-4001 November 3,1997 MEMORANDUM TO:
Hugh -. Thompson, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs FROM:
William H. Dean. Chief
~
Regional Operations and Program Management Staff. OEDO
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF OCTOBER 9, 1997. PUBLIC MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE ON MUTUAL ITEMS OF INTEREST On October 9,1997, senior mangers of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) met with senior managers of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) at the NRC's offices at One White Flint North in Rockville. MD.
The purpose of the public meeting was to provide an opportunity for the senior managers of both organizations to discuss items of current interest to the nuclear industry.
of the meeting and Attachment 2 is a list of me'eting attendees.Atticoment 1 provides Attachments:
As stated cc w/ attachments:
See next page ATTACHMENT 2
cc:
Mr. Ralph Beedle
'Ms, Lynette Hendricks. Director Senior Vice President Plant Support and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Institute
-1776 I Street. NW Suite 400 1776 I Street. NW Suite 400.
Washington. DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006 3708 Mr. Alex Marion. Director Mr. Robert Bishop. General Counrel Programs Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street NW Suite 400 1776 I Street. NW Suite 400 Wash'ngton, DC 20006 3708 Washington, DC 20006 3708 Mr. Jim Davis. Director Operations Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street. NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 3708 Mr. Tony Pietrangelo. Director
' icensing I
Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street NW Suite 400 Washington. DC 20006-3708 Mr. Steve Floyd. Director Regulatory Reform and Strategy Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street. NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20006 3708-Mr. Dave Modeen. Director Engineering Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street. NW ' Suite 400
.ushington, DC'20006-3708 Ms.-Angelina Howard.. Senior Vice President Industry Communications Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708
SUMMARY
OF NRC/NEI SENIOR MANAGER HEETING OCTOBER 9. 1997 Intea/ated Review of NRC Assessment Process NEI noted that they had met the previous day with the Chairman to discuss this initiative that the NRC has undertaken and made the following commente this effort will set the regulatory environment for the next 10 years:
e input from major stakeholders, including the public, is vital in redesigning the processes used to perform licensee assessment:
She maintenance rule effort was a good model for how the industry and
- the NRC can work together to create a mutually agreeable set of guiding
-principles:
they have a lot to offer in how to make the process clear and scrutable:
the NRC's assumption that the enforcement program and the inspection program are not being assessed as part of this initiative may not allow us to-determine what is the right dat'a to collect.
NEI also noted some concerns with the NRC's efforts in developing refined performance indicators. These included:
some of the current indicators being considered can be triggered by a singular event, resulting in multiple counting:
the event driven nature of many of the performance indicators drives tha public_ perception:
the attention spent in validating past senior management meeting results with new performance indicators in a flawed epproach - the focus should be on what it is the NRC wants to measure:
The ED0 respanded that fixing variables. (i.e., the inspection and enforcement program) does not indicate the agarcy's complacency in looking at these programs but that this is a necessity in-order to focus on the performance assessment aspects of our processes. He noted that the staff is fully expecting to look at the inspection program after this initiative is complete-because there are_ bound to be insights related to the_ type of information we are cellecting. Mr. Collins observed that in FY 1999, the content of the inspection program is to be assesseo. He also noted that the staff may, entertain conducting a meeting with NEI and the public to solicit input on this. initiative.
1 i
Revision to Generic letter 91-18 The discussions on this topic centered around the recent issuance of this revision.
The NRC staff opined that this revision meets the needs of industry in dealing with the impact previous guidance was having on safety decisions.
NEI noted it was a step well-taken in fixing problems created by the issuance of the draft guidance contained in NUREG 1606 and that the interaction with the staff on this topic has been very positive.
10_ffR 50 59 - NRC and NEI Initiatives The NRC noted that SECY 97-205, which contains a number of actions and recommendations by the staff on how to address concerns with 10 CFR 50.59, had just been made public, and that tne Commission was still review 1ng the options that are contained in this SECY.
This Commission Paper not only provides options for refining, and even revising.10 CFR 50.59. but it also has other recommendations to address ',ssues emerging from the staff's Hillstone and Maine Yankee Lessons Learned efforts.
NEI took this opportunity to note that sometimes the NRC's regulatory development processes can shield the staff from receiving good ideas from the outside.
NEI indicated that they would like to stay engaged w1" the staff in trying to resolve issues.
NRC officials noted that there will be ample opportunities for public interaction in the development of any new rules or requirements, but that there are certain stages at which the NRC may appropriately engage in internal deliberations during the development of regulations or policy.
Whether interactions during policy development or the release of pre-decisional information is appropriate is a matter of Commission discretion.
NRC's Management Directive 3.4 was referred to as the source of the NRC's guidance on dealing with pre-decisional information.
NEI was also encouraged to call the NRC management when they have a certain frustration level on issues that they believe the NRC is not communicating well enough with industry.
NEI discussed their nwn initiative. NEI 96-07. which is guidance on how to deal with degraded and non-conforming conditions.
They have put this initiative out for a formal industry vote and are expecting it to pass.
It was noted that industry cannot afford another outlier in the 10 CFR 50.59 NEI noted that it believes NEI 96-07 is a conservative ir.terpretation arena.
of 10 CFR 50.59 and that it fills the void that NUREG 1606 was attempting to fill, but which NEI stated was not the correct guidance.
Discussians progressed to design bases issues and that the definition of
" margin of safety" was a key to the whole 10 CFR 50.59 process and how it relates to design bases.
NEI stated thet previous guidance, both NUMARC 90-12
S and NUREG 1397, seemed to adequately capture what is considered to be design bases. NEI provided the NRC with NEI 97-04, which is a reissuance of the NUMARC 9012 guidance. This is an area that was noted as being an important topic of_ discussion in the near future, as the questien "what is design bases information?" is the primary concern of industry in responding to the 10CFR50.54(f) letters the NRC issued last yev on design bases.
Commitment Manaaement The discussions on this topic focused on a recent meeting between NRC and lil, that was characterized as an excellent exchange of ideas and information.
NEI noted that there is no disagreement conceptually with what the NRC is doing in this area. However NEI stated that two issues are very important to industry that thev will continue to work closely with the staff on:
- 1) the framework and thresholds have to be clearly defined and 2) concerns that certain items will be codified as a license condition unnecessarily.
There is some uncertainty in industry due to a perceived lack of communication and a concern that elements that were deleted from technical specifications (TS) through the development of improved standard TS are finding their way into TS by adding new license conditions.
Further dialogue is needed and NRC and NEI committed to continue this dialogue.
ReaulRt1FLindustry throuch Enforcement and'Insoection Processes NEI prosided feedback that the recent erforcement levied on Niagara Mohawk related to a design bases issue has potentially redefined what corGtitutes a licensee's detign bases. They believe this can have a cascading effect on other licensees and NRC inspectors. NEI also provided examples of recent issues raised at St. Lucie and Ft. Calhoun that they believe are examples of areas were NRC inspection or enforcement activities have been used either to address a generic issue or reinterpret existing policies.
The E00 noted that inspection and enforcement issues sometimes cause the agency to grapple with generic issues, but that the inspection process was not the place to deal with licensing issues. However, he emphasized licensees need to take it upon themselves to bring these issues forward, and not let them fester until an inspector raises the issue. The NRC managers reiterated that they expect licensees to come forward with these concerns, otherwise, the senior management of the NRC-has no way to address them. Mr. Collins stated
- that if licensees are bringing these issues of perceived NRC misapplication of the inspectiori and enforcement process through NEI vice existing channels and processes, than the NRC's process for dealing with these concerns has been circumvented.
f
-n
~
.,4 l
.f Shutdown Rulemakina The NRC noted that the Commission was still reviewing this rulemaking package, so it was still considered pre-decisional information.
It was observed that there are a number of pros and cons that are being evaluated. NEI stated that it has addressed the possibility of alternative approaches to rulemaking.
They expressed the belief that existing regulatory guidance (e.g., Appendix B.
maintenance rule. Chapter 6 of Technical Specifications) already provided an adequate degree of regulatory oversight. They also noted that the industry has already dealt with the risk-significant piece of shutdown activities. PWR mid-loop operations, in its response to Generic Letter 88-17.
NEI also pointed to NUMRC 91-06, which addressed outage planning, and NUMARC 93-01, which was industry's maintenance rule guidance which referenced NUMARC 91-06 for shutdown conditions, as other pertinent industry initiatives.
NEI noted upon questioning t'y the NRC that the existing guidance in NUMARC 91-06 could bt. strengthened relative to shutdown maintenance, but that there continues to exist a number of alternatives to rulemaking that will achieve the same end purpose.
Risk Informd Initiatives and Acolied Resources NEl asked for this topic to be co the agendd because they wanted a better understanding of how the NRC pricritizes its work.
It also would provide NEI an opportunity to discuss some specific items they'd like the NRC to consider.
The NRC stated that input from NEI should be considered to help the i.sncy develop priorities in improving the regulatory process and addressing cafety issues.
The NRC noted that after programs are developed to deal with an emerging issue they sometimes fall into the background as other ' hot issues" become the focal point.
The NRC's new planning framework, which will move the agency to a zero-based budgeting situation will necessitate more rigorous planning and force the NRC to do a better job of prioritizing its work.
NEI pointed to a slowdown in the improved Standard Technical Specification program and the high level of review embodied in the recently issued draft Risk Informed Regulatory Guides as examples where NRC assets may be misplaced.
NEI noted that the Chairman has uked them to look at ways the NRC can capitalize on industry efforts and programs without having to develop regAations.
The EDO noted the importance of hav:ng enough of a regulatory framework to assure the public health and safety, but that risk insights should be used to ensure we have rules where they are needed and to remove those rules that are not required.
Year 2000 Mr. Thompson noted that he was satisfied with a meeting that took place the previous _ day with NEI on this topic. _ NEI has established a -task force and associated review effort, which is intended to lead to development of a guidance manual.
The NRC intends to let this process continue before it considers any intervention. however, it was noted that the NRC needs to comunicate to Congress its successes in this area. There will be future interaction between NEI and NRC on this issue.
DSI-13 "The Role of Industry" NEI noted a recent meeting with NRC on this topic went well, but that they were concerned that industry initiatives were going to be used in lieu of NRC regulatory actions. NEI emphasized that their efforts may be comp Mmentary, but that the NRC still has the responsibility to promulgate regulatory actions if needed. Mr. Thadani noted DSI-13 is closely tied to efforts underway l
related to Regulatory Excellence and that there is a Commission Paper on DSI-13 due by the end of the month and that the staff is vansidering holding a public workshop in December to solicit feedback.
Generic Communicat' ions l
NEI provided feedback on the NRC's increased use of compliance backfits in support of issuing revised guidance and the impression that the NRC has 8
ciionged its compliance definition. Mr. Miraglia noted that the use of a compliance backfit argument relieves the staff of having to do the cost-benefit analyses contamed in the backfit rule, but that a CRGR review and a solicitation of public/ industry comment is still required.
It was noted that this process may not be well understood by industry.
Some of the other key points made during this discussion included the following:
the NRC needs to be sensitive to the fact that statements made by the NRC many times have a profound impact on licensees, especially relative to the financial markets and public relations:
at times, it appears that communications are not issued from the appropriate level of NRC management commensurate with the message being conveyed:
sometimes the_ NRC_ does not adequately explain issues or concerns in appropriate terminology for public consumption:
at times the NRC overstates its concerns on issues that have minimal
_ safety import or does not provide the appropriate context:
5
= _.
n o;
- .f..
- )
- when cormenicating publicly about vi01ations, the NRC-should be"more
.l conscious.about-indicating those that werefself-identified by the:=-
~-licensee.=
~
L s
a
.-2....
O 4.
En
---.a A- - ---
u,-wJ-
+-
m a
s g
w 4,
,y
,g m%.
gy-y
i-
. ' e NRC/NEI SENIOR MANAGER MEETING LIST OF ATTENDEES OCTOBER 9, 1997 Nat1E ORGANIZATION Joe Callan NRC Hugh Thompson Jr, NRC Tim Martin.
NRC' Ashok Thadani NRC Sam Collins NRC Fran: Miraglia NRC Stephen Burns NRC
-Hal Knapp NRC Jim Lieberman NRC 3
Bill. Dean NRC Glenn Tracy NRC Marsha Gamberoni NRC Tony Hsia NRC Melinda Malloy NRC Kriss Kennedy NRC Susanne Woods NRC Ralph Beedle NEI James Davis NEI Alex Marion-NEI Tony Pietrangelo NEI Steve Floyd NEI David Modeen NEI Angelina Howard NEI Robert Evans NEI Bob Bishop NEI Lynette Hendricks NEI Ralph Sylvia Niagara Mohawk Theresa Sutter Bechtel Phyllis Lovett Shaw. Pittman Potts, and Trowbridge Steve Mixon NUS Information Services Jenny Weil McGraw Hill Sidney Crawford N/A_
2 1
4
f?f, i.y 9 ~1 g
El
,i r'e '/-
Thompson Revr>
h(f nunist initsy FNShiUi!
/
u.
. -. m.... m.
m,.
.1**
5.v ey [
b'g g A/4 July 9,1997
^ g' W
Mr. Leonard J. Callan
(
Executive Director for Operations AM U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission p
^
One White Flint North, MS 17.G21 p
Washington, DC 20555 0001
Dear Mr. C.illan:
During our meeting with you on June 30 we discussed the impact of NRC staff generic communications on industry resources. Specifically, in the past 10 months we have reviewed a number of proposed or final generic communications that request substantial actions by licensees. The industry is concerned that this increased regulatory burden will divert utility resources away from tasks more relevant to safe and efficient plant operation and maintenance. The purpose of this letter is to expand on our previous discussion and provide the enclosed list of pneric communications and our summary comments on their justification and applicability.
Our concern is based on, what appears to be a tendency by the NRC staff to i
promulgate proposed or 1 nal generic letters and bulletins without providing, a technical basis and regulatory analysis. Because the NRC staff characterizes the information being requeste 1 as necessary to assure licensee compliance with existing regulations, the generic communications are issued as Compliance Bach /it Exceptions. By doing so the NRC staff avoids the discipline inherent in preparing a regulatory analysis which if prepared may result in eliminating the need for the action. Even more sigr.ificant to the industry is that such actions undermine the intent of the Backfittirw Rule, 50.109.
j From our review of the NRC actions, several trends appea. to exist as highlighted below:
General quality assurance criteria (10 CFR 50 Appendix B) is cited as the basis
=
for requesting very specific licensee actions to demonstrate compliance with a licensee's current licensing basis rather than providing a sound technical basis (Examples 1,3, and 4).
EDO -- G970520 4 4
.-;#t p-:s,*
,g
+34 g;3g saa,,tagta;p 44" s
s -/f,
e Mr. Joe Callen July 9,1997 Page 2
+
Generic communications are being used to accelerate imposing new requirements that otherwise are proceeding slowly through the rulemaking process required by the Administrative Procedure Act (Example 1).
Existing rules and positions are being judged inadequate following significant operating events, thereby suggesting a need to change regulatory requirements, guidance or positions (Examples 2 and 4).
It is not apparent that consideration has been given to the cumulative impact of the various requests on licensee resources (All examples).
NEI's objective is to actively engage in and resolve generic regulatory and technical issues ofimportance to the industry and NRC, NEI welcomes the opportunity to facilitate industry involvement through frequent and open communication on these issues.
The basis for establishing general requirements is a concern for both the NRC and the industry. We look forward to discussing this issue with you at the next coordination meeting in August. If you require additionalinformation or have questions concerning the comments made in the letter, don't hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
- ?
tG Jmgt Ralph E. Beedle DJM/
Enclosure c: Mr. Samuel Collins, NRC Mr. Ashok Thadani, NRC Mr. Frank Miraglia, NRC Ms. Karen Cyr, NRC t'
n, Enclosure EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED OR FINAL-NRC GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS OF CONCERN TO THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY No.
Generic Basis Cited Summary of NEI Cornments Communication 1
Proposed GL; Assure comphance with j 50.Xs The proposed generic letter " requests Effectiveness of and Part 50, Appendix B, licensees to identify to what extent and on Ultrasonic Testing Criterion !!, Quahty Assurance what schedule they willimplen.ent an Systems in Inservice Program, and Criterion XVI.
AppendiA VI!! performance. based ultrasonic Inspection Trograms, Corrective Action. Any backfits test qualification program or its equivalent dated December 31, are jrstified under the even though the appendix has not been 1996. (61 FR 69120 compliance exception, incorporated into the regulations..
and 62 FR 3064) 150.109(a)(4)(i).
the proposed GL establishes a new NRC position concerning the method to quahiy ultrasonic procedures and test personnel.,
The urgency for licensees to voluntarily commit to implementing a performance.
based ultrasonic qualification program is inconsistent with the GL statement that a 3
safety concern does not exist that uvuld uorrant immediate backfiiting of Appendix Villin advance of the rulemaking that has been initiated." (NE! Letter to Chief, Rules V Review and Directives Branch, NRC, dated February 21,1997) 2 Propased GL: Loss of Assure compliance with 10 CFR
" the proposed GL represents a significant Reactor Coolant 50.46 and General Design backfit., " Action requested " represents a Inventory and Criteria 34 and 35. Any back5ts significant revision to current practices for Assceinted Potential are justified under the regulation relative to outage conditior.s and for las of Emergency compliance exception, should be subject to regulatory analysis. j Mitigation Functions
$50.109(a)(4)(i).
(NEl Letter to Chief, Rules Review and While in a Shutdown Directives Branch, NRC, datad March 17,
. Condition, dated 1997)
February 14,1997, (62 FR 7075) 3 GL 97 01, Degradation Assure compliance with Part 50, NRC issued the generic letter despite its of Control Rod Dnve Appendix B.Section XI, Test conclusions that cracking in control rod drive Mechanism Nozzle and Control. Any backSta are mechanisms and other vessel head Other Vessel Closure justified under the compCance penetrations were "not ofimmediate safety Head Penetrations, exception, $50.109(a)(4)(i).
significance" and were likely to " result in April 1,1997.
detectable leakage" that would provide ample opportunity for corrective action before a penetration would fail. (proposed generic g letter, GIFR40253, August 1,1996)
"h e believe the propo.ed generic letter easentially requires licensees to define and commit to an augmented inspection program beyond the GL 88 05 visua! inspections presently performed by licensees, i
\\
l 3
I o 3
GL 97 01 The... Reauested Infom ofiort, by implication ~
cont'd and inference, place inordinate pressure on a licensee to establish an angmented inspection plan. To nat do so places the licensee in a pos ion ofjustifying not h
responding in the preferred marner," (NEl
/
letter to Dr. Denwood Ross, NRC, dated January 23,1997) y 4
Proposed supplement Assure compliance with Part 50,
'The bulletin supplement itself might to Bulletin 96 01, Appendix B.Section XI, Test challenge safe plant operation..
Control Rod 1,uertion Control. Any backSta are The proposed requirements have not been Problems, dated May justi6ed under the cotepliance justined under 10 CFR 50.109.,
20,1997.
exception, 150.109(a)(4)(i).
Generic communications should not be used (62 FR 27629) to impose requireraents oa licensees.
The proposed requirements must be reviewed under the 3mel' But.sess Regulatory Eriforcement Fatruess Act? (NElletter to Mr. David L. Meyer, NRC, dated June 19, V
1997) 5 Information Notice 97-Issued to clarify the September
'...the provisions of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(v)(A) 29: Containment 9,1996, a rnendment to i 50.55a and (B) indicate that the rule and its inspection Rule, dated incacorating new licen ee ISI i nplementation schedule discussed in May 50,1997, requirements relative to
$ (g)(6)(ii)(B) apply to "it. service inspection, c.itainment inspections.
repair and rep;acement.: There are not provisions in the rule which explicitly The rule incorporated by indicate a different implementation schedule reference the 1992 Edition and for repair at.d replacement activities." (NEl Addenda of Subsections IWE and letter to D-Brian W. Gheron, NRC, dated IWL of Section XI of the ASME September 19, 1995) code, The rule requires licensees to complete the first containment
" Question 3. The burden associated w th i
inspection within five years (i.e.,
collection ofinformation for IWE and IWL no later than September 9,2001).
was estimated to be 4,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> per r.:sponse But, the information nottce was development of an initialISI plan and 8.000 issued to emphasize that any hours pe. responto for update of the plan and repair or replacement activity periodic inspections. Based on this amount after the effective date of ofinitial work,it does not appear reasonable September 9,1996 must be to make the repair and replacement carried out in accordance with pro"isions effective immediatelv (NEI fax to the respective requiretaents of Hans Ashar, NRC, dated April 14,1997) subsections IWE and IWL.
"The NRC [ expects] all repatr or replacement activities withm the scope of Subsections IWE and IWL of the code conducted after September 9,1996, must be conducted in accordance with these subsections [IWE and lWL]."
l
- - _ - _ _. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _