ML20217D743

Summary of 991006 Meeting with NEI in Rockville,Maryland Re Draft Rev to NEI 96-07 on Implementation of 10CFR50.59.List of Meeting Attendees,Comments & Discussion Items Encl

ML20217D743
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/08/1999
From:	Mckenna E NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Carpenter C NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9910180125
Download: ML20217D743 (9)

Text

[

1 e

, y_

.p*

\\

UNITED STATES i

g j

HUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565 4 001 October 8, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Cynthia A. Carpenter, Chief Generic issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:

Eileen M. McKenna, Senior Reactor Engineer g[

(

Generic Issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUMMARY

OF OCTOBER 6,1999, MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) ON DRAFT REVISION TO NEl 96-07 ON IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 C/R 50.59 On October 6,1999, a public meeting was held at the NRC offices in Rockville MD, between members of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff.

Attachment i lists attendeos at the meeting.

4 On September 17,1999, NEl submitted a draft of NEl 96-07, Revision 1, for NRC review and comment, in parallel with circulating the document to the industry for comment. The document would be used by the industry to implement the revised requirements of 10 CFR 50.59. The purpose of this meeting was for the staff to ask questions and provide comments on the proposed document.' The staff noted that it planned to provide a written reply, which might take a little longer than the October 18,1999, date requested in the NEl letter.

Some specific questions about the document raised at the meeting are shown in attachment 2.

The most significant topics discussed related to the applig%r <geqing. discussion, s

l criterion (viii), on methods of evaluation.

h'p M%r. m.

an o

~

J;p ;

The staff asked for clarification about the difference between the applicability section and the l

screening discussion (and the flowchart). One distinction between applicability decisions and screening decisions is the need for documentation of the latter. The staff specifically asked about the inclusion of maintenance in the applicability determination (because there is another regulation (10 CFR 50.65)). The staff noted that 50.65 is not a " change control process", but agreed that it is another regulation that controls (along with TS), maintenance activities. What is key is the determination as to whether the activity being conducted is actually " maintenance" as compared to a change to the facility. Some guidance is presented to help in the decision as to whether a particular action is " maintenance." One factor that was noted is whether the end-state after " maintenance" is put back as it was with respect to the FSAR condition, or not.

g 9910190125 991008 NN O

PDR REVQP ERONUMRC

\\ k PDR 1 t U +> v v k bMC,P, f 9.0% &of Nd M

w 4<

=. O jC. Carpenter NEl also stated that thy were interested in further discussion with the staff about the subjects of i maintenance, and temporary changes (such as lifting of leads), in order to reach agreement with j

NRC as to which processes should be followed. Further, they also wanted to discuss the relationship between planned actions that might " voluntarily degrade" some aspect of the facility as part of maintenance, and the existing guidar.ce for resolution of degraded / nonconforming f

conditions as discussed in Generic Letter 91-18, including the subject of compensatory actions.

. The revision of NEl 96-07 to be submitted later may have some revised discussion on these topics. These topics were deterred for later discussion.

_There was considerable discussion about the topic of generic vs. plant-specific approval by the NRC for methods. NRC representatives stated that if a licensee wished to use a different method (under criterion (viii)), the' approval by NRC would have to be generic, not for a specific -

licensee application. The staff noted that when a method is reviewed for a plant-specific ~

purpose, the staff does not review the suitability of that method for all possible reactor types or

applications, or all features of the inethodology. The task force members stated that they thought this was an area in which the licensees should be allowed to assume the responsibility for demor.strating that their use of a method for a particular application is done consistent with any limitations, terms or conditions that have been placed on it (by the vendor, or by NRC through its review). They further stat'ed that this issue had the potential to improve efficiency and effectiveness for both_ licensees and the staff. They noted that NRC would have the opportunity to monitor their actions'through inspection (and the summary reports). NEl proposed _ that this topic be pursued.in a separate meeting involving specialists in the 1

methodology areas from industry and NRC, with some specific real examples, to see if there could be some agreement on guidelines or provisions by which this could be done.

Finally, NEl noted that there were past NRC generic communications that have included

discussion about 10 CFR 50.59, and that they were assessing whether any of these documents present positions that are inconsistent with the revised requirements or planned guidance. A preliminary list that they developed is attached (Attachment 3).

Attachments:' As stated cc w/atts: See next page DISTRIBUTION:- See attached page Document Name: g:\\rgebiemm\\msum1006.wp$

SC:RGEB[,

OFFICE-PM:RGEB: DRIP NAME.

EMcKenna:sw '

FA(

DATE-10/]/99 -

10/h /d9 OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY 1

C. Carpenter NEl also stated th'at they were interested in further discussion with the staff about the subjects of maintenance, and temporary changes (such as lifting of leads), in order to reach agreement with g

. NRC as to which processes should be followed.- Further, they also wanted to discuss the relationship between planned actions that might " voluntarily degrade" some aspect of the facility o

as part of maintenance, and the existing guidance for resolution of degraded / nonconforming conditions as discussed in Generic Letter 91-18,' including the subject of compensatory actions.

The revision of NEi 96-07 to be submitted later may have some revised discussion on these

~

topics. These topics were deferred for later discussion.

1

. There was considerable' discussion about the topic of generic n plant-specific approval by the NRC for methods. NRC representatives stated that if a licensee wished to use a different method (under criterion (viii)), the approval by NRC would have to be generic, not for a specific

- licensee application. The staff noted that whsn a method is reviewed for a plant-specific

purpose, the staff does not review the suitability of that method for all possible reactor types or applications, or all features of the methodologyc The task force members stated that they thought this was an area in which the licensees 'should be allowed to assume the responsibility for demonstrating that their use of a method for a particular application is done consistent with any limitations, terms or conditions that have been placed on it (by the vendor, or by NRC through its review). They further stated that this issue had the potential to improve efficiency and effectiveness for both licensees and the staff. They noted that NRC would have the opportunity to monitor their actions through inspection (and the summary reports). NEl proposed that this topic be pursued in a separate' meeting involving specialists in the

. methodology areas from industry and NRC, with some specific real examples, to see if there

. could be some agreement on guidelines or provisions by which this could be done.

Finally, NEl noted that there were past NRC generic Lommunications that have included

- discussion about 10 CFR 50.59, and that they were assessing whether any of these documents present positions that are inconsistent with the revised requirements or planned guidance. A preliminary list that they developed is attached (Attachment 3).

Attachments: As stated

- cc w/atts: See next page I

i i

[

7. _

i b^

.I Nuclear Energy Institute Project No. 689 cc:

Mr. R' Iph Beedle Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director Senioi Vice President Plant Support

'and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 q

Mr. Alex Marion, Director '

Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Director

. Programa' Was'ilngton Operations Nuclear Energy Institute ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Suite 400 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 i

1776 l Street, NW Rockville, Maryland 20852 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. David Modeen, Director Engineering Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Director

. Licensing Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Nicholas J. Liparuto, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activ' ties L 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 i Street, NW

' Washington, DC 20006-3708

NRC/NEl MEETING ON DRAFT REVISION TO NEl 96-07 LIST OF ATTENDEES Os.ober 6,1999 NAME ORGANIZATION Eileen McKenna NRR/ DRIP /RGEB Frank Akstulewicz NRR/ DRIP /RGEB Cindi Carpenter NRR/ DRIP /RGEB Chris Jackson NRR/DSSA/SRXB Steven Dembek NRR/DLPM/PDIV John Knox NRR/DE/EElB Stu Magruder NRR/ DRIP /RGEB Mark Satorius NRC/OEDO Dick Hoefling NRC/OGC Tony Pietrangelo NE!

Russell Bell NEl Everett Whitaker TVA Scon Bauer APS Roger Walker TXCl Nancy Chapman SERCH/Bechtel Joe Hegner Virginia Pcwer John McGaw Southern California Edison Jack Haugh EPRI Bob Newkirk Detroit Edison Jim Kilpatrick Baltimore Gas & Electric Kim Green Scientech/NUSIS 1

1 j.

f i

l I

l'

e-c 8

E-

{

' COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS

' Footnote on p. 25 (related to screening)b The staff asked the intent of this footnote, and NEl totated that they planned to remove this footnote.

1 Top of p. 33 (frequency of accidents) - The staff asked about the rationale for the proposed language concerning frequencies below 10E-7, or " applicable regulatory threahold". The task force members noted that some licensees have as part of their licensing basis such values for ps.rticular events (tornado missiles, etc.). They therefore conclude that changes that increased the frequency more than 10%, but had an initiating frequency still below the established value,

' should still be " minimal". An NEl representative said they looked at the values in the

Significance Determination Process Matrix, which suggests that the 10-7value (for an initiating event) is very low'-

p.11(and p.36) - The staff agrees with the guidance on p. 36 that changes to commitments on redundancy or diversity would not meet the." minimal increase" criteria, but suggested that it -

l

~

may be helpful to link such characteristics to the definition of " change" presented earlier, p.13 " essentially the same" - the staff noted that to apply " essentially the same" to results needs some demonstratration, and suggested the guidance be more explicit.

p.13 " approved by the NRC for the mtended application"- As discussed in more detail in the meeting summary, the staff stated that the " approval" needs to be generic, not just for a specific i plant., NEl wishes to pursue this issue further with the staff.

p. 29 Methods "leferenced in the SAR" screening - the staff requested clarification on the guidance for handling cnanges to a method mentioned by name in the FSAR but without further description or reference to a topical or other information.

~

p. 37 second bullet under c. - The staff requested clarification on this point - NEl stated that they would modify the wording for clarity.

p. 53 second bullet about when a change in method is not a departure - The staff asked for clarification as to how this guidance would be used. This led to discussion about the example of containment backpressure as applied to NPSH calculations, and about input parameters (viewed as things that are measured) as compared to parts of the method (such as a calculated

- pressure, and how it is factored into subsequent analyses). NEl will examine the specific wording for possible clarification.

p.'45 Discussion about design basis limits - the first bullet discusses that such parameters ere crucial to barrier integrity, where if exceeded, that information alone would be sufficient for the l

barrier's integrity to be questioned.' The staff asked if this was too limiting hnguage. NEi agreed to consider the staff's comment for possible clarification.'_ The staff also offered certain other parameters as potentially being design basis limits, specifically, fuel burnup limit, linear heat rate, vessel heatup/cooldown limits, usage factors, and containment temperature. While the list in the document was noted to be only examples, NEl stated that they want the guidance to be as definitive as possible and would review to see if these parameters should be explicitly i

discussed as to whether they would or would not be design basis limits.

i' Appendix' A - With publication of the rule, the staff noted that NEl should confirm that the rule I

language includeu in the appendix matches the final published language.

h o

Generic Title Assessment-Action Communication p

l

1) -- IEC-80-18 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations for Discusses philosophy l

Changes to Radioactive Waste Treatment toward 10 CFR 50.59 Systems -

No action i

2) IN-83-64 Lead Shielding Attached to Safety-Related IN not perfect but still Systems Without 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluations valid. NEI 96-07 includes relevant example No action I

l.

3) IEB-80-10 Contamination of Nonradioactive System Superceded by GL-91-18, i

and Resulting Potential for Unmonitored,

_R1. Caution to consider l

Uncontrolled Release to Environment Part 20 commitments in the ODCM.

i No cetion

4) ' GIr86-10 Implementation of Fire Protection Need examples Requirements

5). GL-88-12 Removal of Fire Protection Requirements from TS t

6) - IN 89-81 Inadequate Control of Temporary IN still valid.

i Modifications to Safety-Related Systems No Action

7) IN 91-63, _

Natural Gas Hazards at Ft St. Vrain IN still valid. Consider highlighting need consider j

l-

" external" activities under l

10 CFR 50.59.

8) IN 95-46 Unplanned, Undetected Release of IN expressed valid Radioactivity from the Exhaust Ventilation concerns about poor 10 System of a Boiling Water Reactor CFR 50.59 performance.

NoA 4on 9)- IN 95 Potential For Data Collection Equipment to IN expressed valid Affect Protection System Performance concerns about poor 10 CFR 50.59 performance.

No Action

10) IN 96-17 Reactor Operation Inconsistent With the i

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

11) IN 97-28 Elimination ofInstrument Response Time IN concern still valid.

Testing Under The Requirements of 10 CFR NEI 96-07, Section 1.5, is 50.59 adequate

12) GL 93 Relocation of Technical Specification Tables-Issue is adequately OfInstrument Response Time Limits covered in NEI 96 07, R1

13) IN.97-60 Incorrect Unreviewed Safety Question Issue adequately covered Determinatior Related to Emergency Core in NEI 96-07, 4.3.2, Item v

g

'W-Cooling System Swapover From the Injection 6.

Mode to The Recirculation Mode

14) IN 97 NRC Information Notice 97-71:

Inappropriate Use of10 CFR 50.59 Regarding Reduced Seismic Criteria for Temporary Conditions

15) IN 97-78 NRC Information Notice 97-78: Crediting of Operator Actions in Place of Automatic Actions and Modifications of Operator Actions, Including Response Times

16) GL 91-18, NRC Generic Letter 91-18, Revision 1:

GL still valid.10 CFR R1 Information To Licensees Regarding NRC 50.59-related guidance Inspection Manual Section On Resolution Of incorporated in NEI 96-07 Degraded And Nonconforming Conditions

17) GL-95-02 Use Of NUMARC/EPRI Report TR-102348, Add example to Sect. 4.3.6

" Guideline On Licensing Digital Upgrades,"

In Determining The Acceptability Of Performing Analog-To-Digital Replacements Under 10 CFR 50.59

18) GL 83-11, NRC Generic Letter 83-11, Supplement 1:

Pending S1 Licensee Cualification for Performing 3afety Analyses 19)-NEI 96-07 &

Guidelines for Performing 10 CFR 50.59 Superceded NCAC-125 Safety Evaluations 1

i I

2

'[..

1 s:

W Distribution: Mtg. Summary w/ NEl Re Draft Revision to NEl 96-07 Dated octnhor 8.1999 Hard Coov

' Docket Filei PUBLIC I

RGEB R/F-OGC ACRS.

PWen JBirmingham EMcKenna MSatorius, OEDO EMail -

SCollins/RZimmerman BSheron DMatthews/SNewberry

- CCarpenter FAkstulewicz.

a CJackson JKnox i

SDembek RCorreia RHoefling, OGC WRuland, Region 1 JWhittemore, Region IV PEng, NMSS PBrochman, NMSS I

i t.___.

j