ML20205C263
| ML20205C263 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/26/1999 |
| From: | Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Powers D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9904010133 | |
| Download: ML20205C263 (10) | |
Text
k a car,,
p i
UNITED STATES p
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 4 001
%,*f March 26, 1999 Dr. Dana A. Powers, Ct. airman Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatoiy Commission Washington, D.C. 205E5-0001
SUBJECT:
LIST OF OUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED FOR POSSIBLE RESOLUTION OF KEY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.59 (" CHANGES, TESTS AND EXPERIMENTS")
Dear Dr. Powers:
In a letter dated February 18,1999, on the above subject, the Committee noted two approaches to the resolution of issues associated with 10 CFR 50.59 and questions for each approach that would aid in resolution of these key issues. We believe that the recommendations outlined in SECY-09-054 fall within the approaches you have described, as discussed below.
Approach 1 concerns reconciliation of the differences between the rule language and industry guidance as presented in Nucient Energy Institute (NEI) document 96-07, " Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations." Thr, staff believes that many of the rule language changes proposed are fully consistent with this approach, because certain aspects of the rule have been changed to conform to the guidance (where the NRC believes the guidance was appropriate).
In other instances, the guidance would need to be revised to reflect the revised rule.
1 Approach 2 includes two elements: resolution of margin of safety and definition of change. In the proposals being censidered for margin, exceeding limits is being viewed as the point at which prior NRC review is needed, as discussed in Approach 2. These proposals are also consistent with the guidance outlined in NEl 96-07 with respect to the use of acceptance limits, and thus, we think that in this aspect, both Approaches 1 and 2 are being used to some degree.
As discussed during the briefing on March 10,1999, we conclude that by controlling changes to the methods and the limits, adequate confidence exists.
Further, we agree that the definition of " change" is important and have included definitions in the rule to clarify when evaluations are needed. Other elements of change as discussed in v' letter, such as defining important systems or considering information beyond the final safe',
j 9904010133 990326 E
L if '/ NT2), fef CF SUBJ
/
L-4-1PT50.59 PDR i,
fff
l-l 4
o 6
D. Powers analysis report, are not viewed as being part of the near-term revision to 10 CFR 50.59; however, they would be addressed in a future revision associated with risk-informing 10 CFR Part 50.
Sincerely, 1
A r. 4 a
l
}[ William rave Executiv Director for Operations cc:: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield SECY l
l l
l
i D. Powers
- 1 analysis report, are not viewed as being part of the near-term revision to 10 CFR 50.59; however, they would be addressed in a future revision associated with risk-informing 10 CFR Part 50.
i Sincerely, OriginalSigned by (Olbh fo)
William D. Travers William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield SECY i
DISTRIBUTION: See attached page
'See previous concurrence DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\5059\\g990106
-OFFICE
- PGEB:DHIP TECH. EDITOR
- (A)BC:PGEB:DRPM
- D: DRIP NAME EMcKenna:sw BCalure FAkstulewicz DMatthews DATE 03/15/99 03/16/99 03/15/99 03/17/99 OFFICE
- ADIP
- D:NRR EI/O g NAME WKane SCollins tkave7 f/h9 DATE 03/22/99 03/23/99 OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY
p
~
l.
- l..
DISTRIBUTION: Green Ticket 990106 Dated
' March 26, 1999 i
Central File (w/ incoming)(GT 990106) l PUBLIC (w/ incoming)(GT 990106)
EDO r/f. (w/ incoming)(GT 990106)
NRR MAILROOM (w/ incoming)(GT 990106)
PGEB r/f (w/ incoming)(GT 990106)
' WDTravers FMiraglia, Jr.
MKnapp PNorry JBlaha -
GTracy JMitchell KCyr SBurns ACRS r/f SCollins RZimmerman BSheron DMatthews SNewberry CCarpenter FAkstulewicz EMcKenna MClark, (G990106)
RLaskin (EMail/RSL) 1
't.'.
3 D. Powers -
Further, we agree that the definition of " change" is important and have included definitions in the rule to clarify when evaluations are needed. Other elements of change as discussed in your letter, such as defining important systems or considering information beyond the final safety analysis report, are not viewed as being part of the near-term revision to 10 CFR 50.59.
Sincerely, William D. Travers j
Executive Director
)
for Operations 4
cc: Chairman Jackson
{
Commissioner Dicus J
Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield SECY
)
1 DISTRIBUTION: See attached page
- See previous concurrence DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\5059\\g990106 OFFICE
- PGEB: DRIP TECH. EDITOR
- (A)BC:PGEB:DRPM
- D: DRIP NAME EMcKenna:sw BCalure FAkstulewicz DMatthews DATE~
03/15/99 03/16/99 03/15/99 03/17/99 AD@f 4 D:NRR (ph EDO OFFICE k
e-3 SCollins WTravers NAME DATE 3 /}1/99 3 b3/99
/
/99 OFFICIA OFFICE COPY i
4 D. Powers.
Further, we agree that the definition of " change"is important and have included definition in the rule to clarify when evaluations are needed. Other elements of change as discussed in your letter, such as defining important systems or considering information beyond the final safety analysis report, are not viewed as being part of the near-term revision to 10 CFR 50.59.
Sincerely, 1
William D. Travers Executive Director
' for Operations cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield SECY DISTRIBUTION: See attached page
- See previous concurrence DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\5059\\g990106 OFFICE
- PGEB: DRIP TECH. EDITOR
- (A)BC:PGEB:DRPM
- D: DRIP NAME EMcKenna:sw BCalure FAkstulewicz DMatthews DATE 03/15/99 03/16/99 03/15/99 03/17/99 OFFICE ADIP D:NRR EDO NAME WKane SCollins WTravers DATE
/ /99
/ /99
/
/99 OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY
D. Powers.
Further, we agree that the definition of " change" is important, and have included that definitions in the rule to clarify when evaluations are needed. Other elements of change as discussed in your letter, such as defining important systems, or considering information beyond the FSA,
are not viewed as being part of the near-term revision to 10 CFR 50.59.
Sincerely, William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations cc: Chairman Jackson Cummissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield SECY DISTRIBUTION: See attached p e DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\505, g990106 PGEB: DRIP [TECH. EDITOR (A)BC:PGEB:DRPM D:DRIPp, OFFICE FAkstulewicz DMatthe$[
EMcKenn[sw NAME
///[/9[
/ / 99 IV[/99
$/11/99 DATE AD[
D:NRR EDO OFFICE
)dKane SCollins WTravers NAME DATEj
/ /99
/ /99
/
/99 OFFICpl. OFFICE COPY
.l' I
w ~
J
E J
D. Powers.
Further, we agree that the definition of " change" is important, and have included that definitions in the rule to clarify when evaluations are needed. Other elements of change as discussed in
. your letter, such as defining important systems, or considering information beyond the FSAR, j
are not viewed as being part of the near-term revision to 10 CFR 50.59.
Sincerely, J
William D. Travers Executive Director.
)
for Operations cc: Chairman Jackson.
Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield -
SECY DISTRIBUTION: See attached page DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\emm\\5059\\g990106 OFFICE PGEB:DRlP TECH. EDITOR (A)BC:PGEB:pRPM D: DRIP NAME EMcTentta:sw FAkstulewich DMatthews DATE J//5 /99
/ / 99
)/ \\(/99 O
/
/99 OFFICE ADIP D:NRR EDO NAME WKane SCollins WTravers DATE
/ /99
/ /99
/
/99 OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY l
l 1
~
1
[.--
ACTION de$ )
d EDO. Principal Correspondence. Control FROM:-
DUE: 03/23/S9 EDO CONTROL: G19990106 DOC DT: 02/18/99 FINAL REPLY:
Dana R. Powers,(ACRS
,TOs-l
' Chairman Jackson:
FOR SIGNATURE OF :
- GRN~ **
CRC NO:
Travers, EDO-
- DESC :
ROUTING:
LIST OF QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED FOR POSSIBLE Travers
. RESOLUTION OF KEY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE Knapp PROPOSED. REVISION TO 10_CFR 50.59-(CHANGES, TESTS Miraglia AND' EXPERIMENTS) _.
Norry Blaha
' Burns DATES:02/25/99 Thadani, RES Mitchell, OEDO ASSIGNED:TO:
CONTACT:
'SPECIAL-: INSTRUCTIONS' OR REMARKS:
>Prcpare-response to ACRS for EDO signature.
Add
~
- Commissioners and SECY'as cc's.
USE SUBJECT LINE IN RESPONSE.
172L Gat &O: GEJRVlldhuud
%EE &dadN%ebgm9 sk NE
]py DUE TO NRR DIREC CihS OFFEE
/
)Slao&
BY d
- ))
9 p
m C,19990106 OFFICE OF THE SECRETT.RY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-99-0I67 LOGGING DATE: Feb 24 99 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:
DANA POWERS AFFILIATION:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE ADDRESSEE:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON LETTER'DATE:
Feb 18 99 FILE CODE: OM-7 ACRS 1
SUBJECT:
LIST OF QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED FOR POSSIBLE RESOLUTION OF KEY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRO REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.59 (CHANGES, TESTS AND EXPERIMENTS)
ACTION:
Appropriate DISTRIBUTION:
CHAIRMAN, RF SPECIAL HANDLING: NONE CONSTITUENT:
NOTES:
DATE DUE:
SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
i
E
.,f**%
t I.-
UNITED STATES
- *8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
I ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS wAsmNGTON D.C.20555
\\
l February 18,1999 The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Chairman Jackson:
SUBJECT:
LIST OF QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED FOR POSSIBLE RESOLUTION OF KEY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRCPOSED REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.59 (CHANGES, TESTS AND EXPERIMENTS)
During the February 3,1999 meeting between the Commission and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, the Commission requested that the ACRS provide a list of questions which, if answered, would aid in the resolution of key issues associated with the proposed near-term revision to 10 CFR 50.59. In our discussion of this request during our 459" meeting on February 3-6,1999, we considered two approaches to the resolution of the issues associated with 10 CFR 50.59 and developed questions for each of these approaches.
In Approach 1, we propose a minimal set of questions that, if addressed, would preserve the desirable attributes of the 10 CFR 50.59 process that has been in place for over 30 years. In Approach 2, we propose another set of questions that, if addressed, would result in more profound changes to the 10 CFR 50.59 process. Both of these approaches are intended to address the proposed near-term revision to provide clarity and flexibility in the existing requirements, and not the long-term risk-informed revision to 10 CFR 50.59.
APPROACH 1: Reconciliation of the Differences Between 10 CFR 50.59 and NEl 96-07 There is general agreement that the 10 CFR 50.59 process has worked well for over 30 years.
Licensee implementation of the current process has been based on the guidance provided by NSAC-125, which the industry has attempted to improve through the development of NEl 96-07.
I The NRC staff has never formally endorsed the guidance included in these documents, but the i
staff has acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of the safety evaluations performed by licensees using this guidance have been acceptable. We believe that answering the following questions would provide a near-term revision to 10 CFR 50.59 that could optimize the benefits of past practice and provide regulatory stability.
2 1.
What are the specific elements of the guidance in NEl 96-07 that the staff finds unacceptable?
2.
Are these elements unacceptable becauce the stan believes they contradict the legal requirements of the current 10 CFR 50.5g, or because they are technically inadequate?
3.
What are the minimum changes that must be made to 10 CFR 50.59 and flEl 96-07 so that the proposed rule and the guidance are consistent?
Observation on Approach 1 Answering the above questions could provide a near-term so!ution for 10 CFR 30.59 that would maintain a process that has worked successfully and provide regulatory stabihty by requiring only limited changes to the process currently implemented by licensees and the staff. Such a process would, however, still require safety evaluations for many changes of little or no risk significance.
APPROACH 2: Consideration of Margin of Safety and Definition of Change Associated with the Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 50.59 It is possible that, even in the short term, more profound changes to the 10 CFR 50.59 process can be developed by considering the fundamental goal and intent of the 10 CFR 50.59 process.
To do this would require resolution of the following questions:
Margin of Safety 1.
Do the current Technical Specification acceptance limits provide sufficient assurance of safety? If not, to what extent should the current Technical Specifications be modified to achieve the needed margin of safety?
2.
Should the guiding principle be that cumulative changes do not result in exceeding the limits or is there a need for margin between a "best estimate" calculated value and the limits to provide confidence that the limits have not been exceeded? Should licensees be allowed to incrementally approach the limits?
3.
Can the NRC accept a calculated value from a licensee based on the licensee's NRC approved methodology without prior NRC review? If not, what is needed to provide assurance that the Technical Specification limit has not been exceeded as a result of cumulative changes?
4.
Can operational experience be used to quantify the " conservatism" in the licensee's methodology? If not, is the only alternative to perform an uncertainty analysis on the licensee's methodology?
6.
If it is c*tablished that the licensee's methodology is conservative, is that sufficient to ensure that the cumulative effects (even when these are calculated not to exceed the
]
acceptance limits) still provide acceptable confidence that the limits have not been exceeded?
Definition of Change The definition of " change' is central to the screening step that is implicit in the 10 CFR 50.5g process. The staff needs to define important structures, systems, and components (SSCs) as they relate to the facility, procedures, tests and experiments, malfunctions and accidents, in addressing the definition of change, we have developed the following questions:
1.
Does the updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) constitute an adequate and I
complete description of the facility for the purpuse of ensuring adequate protection of the health and safety of the public?
2.
Does any change to the facility or procedures described in the updated FSAR, irrespective of its safety significance, require e safety evaluation?
3.
Do proposed changes to SSCs not referenced in the updated FSAR, but affecting the safe performance of SSCs described in the updated FSAR, require safety evaluations?
4.
What consequences, other than those having an effect on safety system performance, I
should be considered in a safety evaluation?
5.
Can references to " probability" be deleted from the definitions of minimal changes?
Observation on Approach 2 it appears to us that many of the options for changes in the definition of " margin of safety
- currently being considered greatly increase the importance of tracking the cumulative effect of such changes. Although the vast majority of changes introduced under the 10 CFR 50.5g process would still involve negligible changes in risk, the new definitions certainly could result in changes that, while acceptable, would not be negligible. This might require more frequent updating of the FSAR and a far more rigorous tracking of the changes. It is not clear to us that this might not result in more regulatory burden than a 10 CFR 50.5g process that is more restrictive on changes.
We plan to continue our review of the proposed revision to 10 CFR 50.5g during future meetings.
Sir.cerely,
&s OG Dana A. Powers Chairman
4 c..
References:
1.
Proposed rule dated October 14,1998, from John C. Hoyle, Secretary, NRC, to the Federal Reaister. Suyect: 10 CFR Parts 50, 52, and 72, RIN 3150-AF94, Changes, Tests and Experiments.
2.
Electric Power Research Institute, Nuclear Safety Analysis Center, NSAC-125,
' Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations," June 1989.
3.
Nuclear Energy Institute, NEl 96-07, Revision 0, " Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations," September 1997.
i u