ML20237C108

Responds to Ltr to Lj Callan & Recent Ltr to Chairman Jackson ,presenting Views That NRC Changed Interpretation of What Constituted Design Bases Info That Can Be Used as Basis for Resolving Issue

ML20237C108
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/18/1998
From:	Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Ralph Beedle NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT &
Shared Package
ML20237C110	List: ML20237C108 ML20237C118
References
PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9808200205
Download: ML20237C108 (24)

Text

""

o (Mt UA pMin p 1 UNITED STATES g j f

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20556-0001

\*****/ August 18, 1998 Mr. Ralph E. Beedle Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Generation Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 l Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708

SUBJECT:

NEl DESIGN BASES PROGRAM GUIDELINES (NEl 97-04)

Dear Mr. Beedle:

This letter responds to your letter to L. Joseph Callan dated October 8,1997, and to your recent letter to Chairman Jackson dated July 9,1998. In both of these letters, NEl presents its views that the NRC has changed its interpretation of what constituted design bases information and offers that NEl 97-04,

• Design Basis Program Guidelines," can be used as a basis for resolving th!3 issue. NEl 97-04 provided examples of design bases information and guidance on deportability of conditions outside of the design bases of nuclear power plants.

A common understanding of what constitutes design bases information is essential to regulatory stability and is a key aspect of all licensee activities. For these reasons the staff has reviewed NEl 97-04, and is providing its preliminary comments in Enclosure 1. By forwarding these commints, I am initiating a dialogue with NEl on the definition of design bases information in order to resolve any outstanding issues so that the staff would be in a position to endorse the NEl guidance.

One of the important applications of the design bases guidelines is to assist in making decisions on whether or not an event or condition must be reported as a condition "outside the design basis of the plant" pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72(b)(1)(ii) and .50.73(a)(2)(ii). In this regard, the NRC staff has recently undertaken rulemaking to modify these reporting requirements along the lines described M 'he rulemaking plan, provided in SECY-98-036, "Rulemaking to Modify Event

- Reporting Requirements for Power Reactors," March 4,1998; and the Commission's approval, provided in a staff requirements memorandum dated May 14,1998. As indicated in these documents, the rulemaking is expected to clarify which design issues must be reported pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73.

In both of your letters, NEl expressed concern with the NRC interpretation of design basis information. In our view, the NRC has not revised its interpretation of what constitutes design bases information. The NRC's current position is consistent with the staff positions devsloped in 1990 and stated in SECY-91-364, " Design Document Reconstitution," dated November 12, i 1991. The staff's interpretation of design bases (then and now) is that they are defined in 10 CFR 50.2 and include only the design constraints that form the bases for the staff's safety judgements. The design bases of a facility are a subset of the licensing basis and are required to be contained in the final safety analysis report (FSAR). Further, in NUREG-1397, pih 9808200205 980818 gn PDR REVOP ERGNUMRC PDR v0b16b

~. --- ,

& A( ?Ro3ikj

o R. Beedle "An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Programs in the Nuclear Power Industry," February 1991, the staff presented its views on what constitutes the design bases information necessary to satisfy 10 CFR 50.2. Specifically, it stated that the definition of " design bases," for the purposes of NUREG-1397, is considered to be equivalent to " design input" as defined in Section 3.2 of American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

N45.2-11-1974, "American National Standard Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants." Enclosure 2 gives excerpts from this ANSI standard.

The staff is encouraged by NEl's efforts to provide additional guidance to clarify issues related to design bases information and would like to meet with NEl as soon as you have had an opportunity to review our preliminary comments. Please call us, at your earliest convenience, to schedule a meeting to continue dialogue on the outstanding issues related to the guidance contained in NEl 97-04 such that the issues can be resolved and the NRC can endorse NEl 97-04 for regulatory use. The staffs point of contact on this matteris Jack Roe, who may be reached at 301-415-1199.

Sincerely, L. J ep CsTan Exec tive Director for Operations Project No. 689

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: See next page l

l c___-__.

Nuclear Energy Institute Project No. 689 -

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 Mr. Alex Marion, Director Programs Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. David Modeen, Director Engineering Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Director {

Licensing

. Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1 1776 l Street, NW l Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, 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 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 I

i

(' )

NRC STAFPs COMMENTS ON NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) 97-04

1. The document contains a number of discussions of reporting requirements that are inconsistent with the NRC's interpretation of the existing rule language in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 found in NUREG-1022, Revision 1. However, since the NRC is planning to significantly revise Sections 50.72 and 60.73 within the next 1% years to clarify which design issues must be reported, specific comments on these discussions are not included here.

Licensees should keep in mind that the current reporting rules must be met as written.

2. The document does not provide guidance regarding the interface between nonsafety-related and safety-related systems and appears to focus only on safety systems. NEl should provide i guidance that clarifies how nonsafety-related systems, and their effect on safety-related l systems, are to be incorporated into DBDs. l

3. Although the document does address the updating of DBDs, the staff believes that additional i emphasis is needed. If these documents are to be used in a plant's modification process, it is l very important that these documents be current. I

4. In NRC's letter of November 9,1990, responding to NUMARC 90-12, the staff provided a detailed listing of what was considered " essential design documents" and how reconstitution of those documents should be prioritized and accomplished. NEl 97-04 does not address this issue.

5. One aspect of current DBDs not addressed in the guidance is whether they are controlled documents. The NEl guidance should discuss how DBDs should be controlled and at what frequency they should be updated.

6. The guidance document does not discuss the need to ensure that design information is incorporated into the updated final safety analysis report (FSAR) in a timely manner consistent with 10 CFR 50.71(e).

7. Cover Letter: NEl states that NUMARC 90-12, and NRC guidance, including the Commission's Policy Statement on " Availability and Adequacy of Design Bases information at Nuclear Power Plants," 57 FR 35455 (August 10,1992), Generic Letter 91-18, NUREG-1022 and NUREG-1397 "make a clear distinction between design values and design bases information (reference bounds for design). NEl asserts that "failing to distinguish between these terms could lead to inappropriate operability determinations." The staff does not agree with NEl's statement. Section 50.2 defines design bases as "that information which identifies the specific functions to be performed by a structure, system or component of a facility, and the specific values or ranges of values chosen for controlling parameters as reference

}  !

l l l l Enclosure 1

\

l l

l L-- -_--- - _ - - . - - -

bounds for design" (emphasis added). The definition is largely the same as the AEC guidance on design bases which is quoted on p. 3 of NEl 97-04. The concept of" design bases" was not addressed in the Policy Statement. In addition, none of the following documents make i a distinction between design bases and design values: Generic Letter 91-18 (November 7, 1991), Revision 1 to GL 91-18 (October 8,1997), or NUREG-1022 (including Supplements 1 and 2, and Revision 1.)

8. P. ii, second paragraph (as well as throughout the remainder of this document): It is not clear to the staff that the document contains consistent use of terminology, especially when it discusses design basis, engineering design basis and current licensing basis. The term

" engineering design bases," which was developed by the staff in the early 1990s and defined in NUREG-1397, unlike the term " design bases," has no formal regulatory standing. However, the definition of" engineering design bases"(as reprinted on p. 4 of NEl 97-04) refers to " current licensing bases," which itselfis a term defined only in Part 54. To avoid confusion, we '

recommend that NEl review the use of terminology within this document to assure that it provides clear distinctions among these terms. <

I

9. P.1, first paragraph: The guidance states that "some design bases information may be coincident with licensing basis information." This statement suggests that there is some design bases information that is not ' licensing basis" information; this is not a correct supposition. In 10 CFR 50.34(a)(3)(ii), it is stated that the preliminary safety analysis report (PSAR) is to contain, inter alia, "the design bases [as defined by Section 50.2] and the relation of the design bases to the principal design criteria." Hence all design basis information, as that term is defined in Section 50.2, is part of the " licensing basis" for a plant.

10. P. 3, second paragraph: The document indicates that design bases information applies to

" major structures, systems and components [SSCs] that are significant to safety" (emphasis added). Neither the definition of " design bases," Section 50.34(a), nor 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, " Introduction," contains the italicized restrictions. As such, the NEl document must be modified to remcve the reference to " major" SSCs and "significant to safety."

11. P. 3, third paragraph: NEl indicates on the basis of the circa 1965/66 Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) guidance that the term " design bases" is " linked to major structures, systems, and components." It is misleading to cite to AEC guidance in this context since the design bases, by definition, must ultimately refer to those SSCs that must be described in the FSAR and updated FSAR in order to comply with Sections 50.34,50.71(e) and any other relevant Commission license condition, order, or regulation. As a general matter, the SSCs that must be described in the FSAR and updated FSAR are those necessary to demonstrate compliance with the general design criteria (GDC) or their equivalent in the licensing basis of each plant that is not legally subject to the GDC. Accordingly, the. sentence should either be deleted or the discussion modified to more accurately state the nature of the SSCs whose design basis must be included in the FSAR and updated FSAR.

12. P.17: The second paragraph states that "In general, it is unnecessary to duplicate the contents of other self-contained documents." However, it does not specify that these documents should be referenced in the DBD. It should be clarified that if these documents are used, they should be referenced.

13. PP. 23-24: The " presumption" of operability needs clarification. NEl should revise the last paragraph on p. 23 and the first paragraph on p. 24 to indicate that operability can be based on solid engineering judgement, but not " presumed" in the absence of this judgement. As now stated in the document, licensees can separate the first sentence from the second and thus take the thought out of context. The concept is clearer in other parts of the document.

14. P. 24: The second paragraph provides an overview for addressing discrepancies identified during DBD development. The last sentence, which discusses the completion of the deportability evaluation, should be expanded to state that records of this evaluation should be maintained consistent with established requirements

15. P. 26: We suggest adding the following question to the screening method:

(4) Does the discrepancy appear to alter the design bases as stated in the PSAR/FSAR?

16. PP. 26-28,36: The existing discussion in NEl 97-04 does not clearly state that design basis discrepancies that are not restored to the initial design bases must be evaluated under Section 50.59 to determine if a license amendment must be requested. Similarly, the discussion does not cover the potential impact of the updating requirements in 10 CFR 50.71(e) and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.9. The licensee that determines that a license amendment is not required is nonetheless re'sponsible for ensuring that the updated FSAR is modified to reflect the most accurate information on the plant's design bases.

17. P. 27: The document makes general reference to NUREG-1022, " Licensee Event Report System," 1983. NEl is encouraged to update the document to make general reference to NUREG-1022,1998, Revision 1. .

I

18. P. 30: Figure 4 uses " component functional" as a basis for deportability. Does this term I

differ from " operable"? Many utilities have different definitions for

• functional" and " operable." l

19. PP. 31-33: NEl's discussion of the time period for undertaking, and the nature of, actions necessary to address and resolve design basis discrepancies does not address the applicability  ;

of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and in particular, Criterion XVI. The document should clearly j state that all discrepancies should be resolved within a timeframe that is commensurate with their safety significance.

20. P. 32: The NEl guidelines instruct licensees to combine numerous technically similar deficiencies into a single LER by revising a previous LER when new, similar deficiencies are discovered. This instruction is not consistent with the staff's guidelines in NUREG-1022, Revision 1, Section 2.3. The staff's guidelines impose additional conditions on this practice, such as it must be (1) discovered dtAg a single program or activity, and (2) discovered within a relatively short time, such as 30 or 60 days.

21. P. 33, second paragraph: NEl asserts that the reconstitution of missing design documents "need not be pursued when an established need does not exist." The key issue is what

o i

(  !

constitutes an " established need." NEl's discussion in the preceding paragraphs of this section (pp. 30-33) fails to identify the relevant documentation requirements in Sections 50.34 and 50.71(e), as well as the need to ensure completeness and accuracy of information pursuant to Section 50.9. The implication is that design basis information need not be reconstituted if the four questions at the top of page 33 are answered in the negative. NEl needs to clarify their postion on this point.

22. P. 34: The second paragraph should place more emphasis on vertical slice reviews and walkdown inspections.

23. PP. 38-47: Appendix B should contain an example of an instrumentation and control system.

24. P. 39: The first paragraph should include a caution that the examples provided should not be used as a basis for defining the scope of design bases.

25. P. 39: The document should emphasize that care needs to be taken to ensure that discrepancies in system-level design basis information do not result in one of the Section 50.46 parameters' being exceeded. For example, discovery that there isn't sufficient net positive suction head (NPSH) for the residual heat removal (RHR) pumps might result in an insbility to cool the core, even though pump NPSH is system-level design information. The concept that failures to meet system- or component-level design bases requirements might result in a failure to meet a plant-level design basis is not discussed.

26. PP 39-40: The examples are restricted in scope and may therefore givu . 3rly narrow impression of the design bases. For example, the RHR design bases address oniy the system's emergency core cooling system function. Removal of decay heat without a loss-of-coolant accident would not appear to be included.

27. PP. 41-42: Note that Q emerqency diesel generator (EDG)information may vary significantly. For examp4, the fuel sOpply requirements of 7 days at full power and the loading sequence of 65 seconds may vary; see Westinghouse and General Electric Standard Technical Specifications, which contain 10 seconds and 12 seconds, respectively, in their basis. The capacity of air stait receivers should be a minimum of five starts, versus two (see NUREG-0519). The EDG frequency, voltage, and power factor guidance numerical values may vary from the values provided and are not consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.9.

28. P. 43: The first bullet does not fully reflect GDC 2 and should be revised to state--

The containment system shall be designed and installed to. withstand and remain functional during and following events resulting from appropriate consideration of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of natural phenomena, as described in the natural phenomena design bases document.

l

29. P. 43: The second bullet does notfutty reflect GDC 4 and should be revised to state-The containment structure shall be protected from or designed to withstand and remain functional with the combined effects of the environmental conditions associated with normal operations and postulated accidents, including the effects of missiles, pipe whip, discharging fluids, and the safe shutdown earthquake.

30. P. 46: The next-to-last bullet fails to recognize boiling-water reactor (BWR) vessel pressure and is silent regarding the fatigue usage factor. It should be rewritten to state-The vessel shall be designed and fabricated to ASME Section lll requirements, with a design pressure of 2485 psig for pressurized-water reactors and 1250 psig for BWRs. The design temperature is typically 650 *F and the vessel should have a cumulative fatigue usage factor of less than 1.0.

31. P. 40: The last bullet contains chemical percentages that are incorrect. It should be rewritten to reflect the uncertainty in these valuer The chemical elements in the reactor vessel beltline region that impact the amount of embrittlement are copper and nickel. Because of the variety of weld procedures used to fabricate reactor vessels, the amounts of copper and nickel vary between vessels and have been reported as high as 0.35 percent copper and 1.20 percent nickel.

I

32. P. 53: The document should include a recommendation in Appendix F that "topicals" be included in the DBD.' Topicals are issues that cut across a number of system boundaries. A number of systems, both safety-related and nonsafety-related, need to function in sometimes unique ways to handle this issue. Examples include Appendix R safe shutdown, seismic safe shutdown, station blackout, steam generator tube rupture, and so on.

i 1

EXCERPTS FROM ANSI N45.2.11-1974 QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DESIGP OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

3. DESIGN INPUT REQUIREMENTS 3.1 General Applicable design inputs, such as design bases, regulatory requirements, codes and standards, shall be identified, documented cnd their selection reviewed and approved. Changes from specified design inputs including the reasons for the changes shall be identified, approved, documented and controllst.

The design input shall be specified on a timely basis and to the level of detail necessary to permit the design activity to be carried out in a correct manner and to provide a consistent basis for making design decisions, accomplishing design verification measures, and evaluating design changes.

3.2 Requirements The design input shall include but is not limited to the following, where applicable:

1. Basic functions of each structure, system and component.

2. Performance requirements such as capacity, rating, system output.

3. Codes, standards, and regulatory requirements including the applicable issue and/or addenda.

4. Design conditions such as pressure, temperature, fluid chemistry and voltage.

5. Loads such as seismic, wind, thermal and dynamic.

6. Environmental conditions anticipated during storage, construction and operation such as pressure, temperature, humidity, corrosiveness, site elevation, wind direction, nuclear radiation, electromagnetic radiation and duration of exposure.

7. Interface requirements including definition of the functional and physicalinterfaces involving structures, systems and components.

8. Material requirements including such items as compatibility, electricalinsulation properties, protective coating and corrosion resistance. .

9. Mechanical requirements such as vibration, stress, shock and reaction forces.

10. Structural requirements covering such items as equipment foundations and pipe supports.

Enclosure 2

11. Hydraulic requirements such as pump net positive suction heads (NPSH), allowable pressure drops, and allowable fluid velocities.

12. Chemistry requirements such as provisions for sampling and limitations on water chemistry.

13. Electrical requirements such as source of power, voltage, raceway requirements, electrical insulation and motor requirements.

14. Layout and arrangement requirements.

15. Operational requirements under various conditions, such as plant startup, normal plant operation, plant shutdown, plant emergency operation, special or infrequent operation, and system abnormal or emergency operation.

16. Instrumentation and control requirements including indicating instruments, controls and alarms required for operation, testing, and maintenance. Other requirements such as the type of instrument, installed spares, range of measurement, and location of indication should also be included.

17. Access and administrative control requirements for plant security.

18. Redundancy, diversity and separation requirements of structures, systems and components.

19. Failure effects requirements of structures, systems and components, including a definition of those events and accidents which they must be designed to withstand.

20. Test requirements including in-plant tests and the conditions under which they will be performed.

21. Accessibility, maintenance, repair and inservice inspection requirements for the plant f includSg the conditions under which these will be performed.

22. Personnel requirements and limitations including the qualification and number of personnel l available for plant operation, maintenance, testing and inspection and permissible personnel l radiation exposures for specified areas and conditions.

i

23. Transportability requirements such as size and shipping weight, limitations, l.C.C. j regulations.

~

24. Fire protection or resistance requirements.

25. Handling, storage and shipping requirements.

i

26. Other requirements to prevent undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

27. Materials, processes, parts and equipment suitable for application.

28. Safety requirements for preventing personnelinjury including such items as radiation hazards, restricting the use of dangerous materials, escape provisions from enclosures, and grounding of electrical systems.

l l

l l

R. Beedle "An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Programs in the Nuclear Power Industry," February 1991, the staff presented its views on what constitutes the design bases information necessary to satisfy 10 CFR 50.2. Specifically, it stated that the definition of " design bases," for the purposes of NUREG-1397, is considered to be equivalent )

to " design input" as defined in Section 3.2 of American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

N45.2-11-1974, "American National Standard Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants." Enclosure 2 gives excerpts from this ANSI standard.

The staff is encouraged by NEl's efforts to provide additional guidance to clarify issues related to design bases information and would like to meet with NEl as soon as you have had an opportunity to review our preliminary comments. Please call us, at your earliest convenience, to schedule a meeting to continue dialogue on the outstanding issues related to the guidance contained in NEl 97-04 such that the issues can be resolved and the NRC can endorse NEl 97-04 for regulatory use. The staff's point of contact on this matter is Jack Roe, who may be reached at 301-415-1199.

Sincerely, Orid=1Signedby L1. CAnn L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations Project No. 689  ;

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See attached page - GT 980431 Document Name: g:\fma\fianks.try

• see previous concurrences OFFICE PM.PGEB SC PGEB Tech Editor (A)C.PGEB NAME SMagrudersw* FAkstulewicz' BCalure* TEssig*

DATE 6/24/98 6/24 /98 6/19/98 6/24/98 OFFICE (A)O DRPM ADT D.AEOD OGC OGC4 D NRR E NAME JRoe4 BSheron* ERossi* JGray* SCollins LC DATE 7[c6 6/30/98 7/1/98 7/13/98 743/98 7N98 7R$98 OFFICE OCM NAME DATE 8/II/98 "This Correspondence formulates policy or expands, revises, or interprets policy, involves matters pending Commission decision, contains items relating to the performance of Commission duties and responsibilities, or involves items of high Commission interest."

i

DISTRIBUTION: Ltr to R. Beedle fm L. Joseph Callan Dated August 18.1998 Central File PUBLIC

' PGEB r/f OGC ACRS SCollins/FMiraglia RZimmerman BBoger BSheron FGillespie JRoe DMatthews TEssig .

FAkstulewicz GHolahan Glainas LSpessard EMcKenna TBergman ERossi, AEOD DAllison, AEOD GTracy, EDO JWiggins, RI BMalleit, Ril JGrobe, Ri;!

AHowell, RIV l

l 1

l 1

I i

1 R. Beedle "An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Programs in the Nuclear Power Industry," February 1991, the staff presented its views on what constitutes the design bases information necessary to satisfy 10 CFR 50.2. Specifically, it stated that the j definition of " design bases," for the purposes of NUREG-1397, is considered to be equivalent to

)

" design input" as defined in Section 3.2 of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N45.2-11-1974, "American National Standard Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants." Enclosure 2 gives excerpts from this ANSI standard.

i The staff is encouraged by NEl's efforts to provide additional guidance to clarify issues related to design bases information and would like to meet with NEl as soon as possible to discuss our preliminary comments and to continue dialogue on the outstanding issues related to the

)

l guidance contained in NEl 97-04 such that the issues can be resolved and the NRC can i

endorse NEl 97-04 for regulatory use. The staff's point of contact on this matter is Jack Roe, j who may be reached at 301-415-1199.

j t

Sincerely, I

Origina!cignedby LJoseph Cd!sn ,

L. Joseph Callan Executive Director {

l for Operations I "This correspondence formulates policy or expands, revises, or Project No. 689 interprets policy, involves matters pending Commission decision,

Enclosures:

As stated contains items relating to the performance of Commission duties and responsibilities, or involves items of high Commission interest."

cc w/encis: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See attached page -- GT 980431 Document Name: g:\fma\ franks.try

• see previous concurrences OFFICE PM PGEB SC PGEB Tech Editor (A)C.PGEB NAME SMagruder.sw* FAkstulewicz* BCalure* TEssig*

DATE 6/24/98 6/24198 6/19/98 6/24/98 g OGC I OFFICE (A)O DRPN ADT D;AEOD OGC NAME JRy BSheron* ERossi* JGray* k th b DATE 7/N98 (h 0/30/98 7/1 /98 7/13/98 7h98 7/f98 hs OFFICE OCM f//l/9 f NAME DATE 7/ /98 1

1 L 1 l

< _j

R. Beedle "An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Programs in the Nuclear Power Industry," February 1991, the staff presented its views on what constitutes the design bases information necessary to satisfy 10 CFR 50.2. Specifically, it stated that the definition of " design bases," for the purposes of NUREG-1397, is considered to be equivalent to

" design input" as defined in Section 3.2 of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N45.2-11-1974, "American National Standard Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants." Enclosure 2 gives excerpts from this ANSI standard.

The staff is encouraged by NEl's efforts to provide additional guidance to clarify issues related to design bases information and would like to meet with NEl as soon as possible to discuss our preliminary comments and to continue dialogue on the outstanding issues related to the guidance contained in NEl 97-04 such that the issues can be resolved and the NRC can endorse NEl 97-04 for regulatory use. The staff's point of contact on this matter is Jack Roe, who may be reached at 301-415-1199.

Sincerely, Samuel J. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation "This correspondence formulates policy or expands, revises, or Project No. 689 interprets policy, involves matters pending Commission decision,

Enclosures:

As stated contains items relating to the performance of Commission duties and responsibilities, or involves items of high Commission interest."

cc w/encls: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See attached page - GT 980431 Document Name: g:\fma\ franks.try

• see previous concurrences OFFICE PM PGEB SC PGEB Tech Editor i (A)C PGEB NAME SMagruder sw* FAkstulewicz* BCafure* TEssig*

DATE 6/24/98 6/24 /98 6/19/98 6/24/98 b OFFICE ADT (A)D DRPM D AEOD OGC \GC _/[ QR :EDO NAME JRoe

• BSheron* ERossi' JGray* \ LCallan DATE 7/sI98 6/30/98 7/1/98 7/13/98 /98 \ 7/7Rr8 7/ /98 OFFICE oCM D NRR(sig )

NAME SCollins DATE 7/ 19 6 7/ 19 8 I

l

4

. \

R. Beedle l "An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Programs in the Nuclear Power Industry," February 1991, the staff presented its views on what constitutes the design bases information necessary to satisfy 10 CFR 50.2. Specifically, it stated that the definition of " design bases," for the purposes of NUREG-1397, is considered to be equivalent to

" design input" as defined in Section 3.2 of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N45.2-11-1974, "American National Standard Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants." Enclosure 2 gives excerpts from this ANSI standard.

The staff is encouraged by NEl's efforts to provide additional guidance to clarify issues related to design bases information and would like to meet with NEl as soon as possible to discuss our preliminary comments and to continue dialogue on the outstanding issues related to the I guidance contained in NEl 97-04 such that the issues can be resolved and the NRC can endorse NEl 97-04 for regulatory use. The staff's point of contact on this matter is Jack Roe, who may be reached at 301-415-1199.

Sincerely, Samuel J. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 689

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encis: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See attached page - GT 980431 Document Name: g:\fma\ franks.try i

• see preeus concurrences .

OFFICE PM PGEB SC PGEB Tech Editor (A)C:PGEB NAME SMagruder sw' FAkstulewk:z* BCalure* TEssig*

DATE 6/24/98 y 6/24 /99 6/19/98 6/24/98 OFFICE (A)D DRPM g ADT D.AEOD OGC 4 C

/ DNRR EDO NAME JRoe BSheron* ERossi' J a SColkns LCa!Ian DATE 7/k8 _

6/30 /98 7/1/98 7/13/98 8 7/ /98 7/ /98 OFHCE D NRR(sig )

NAME SColhns DATE 7/ /98 i

i I

R. Beedle In your lettir, you sttted thit industry guidance and NRC guidance *mska a cis2r distinction between design values and design bases information (reference bounds for design)." ou asserted that "failing to distinguish between these terms could lead to inappropriate rability determinations." Although I agree that the positions of NRC and NEl on what ty . of information need to be included in design bases reconstitution programs are relatIvely similar, I do not agree that NRC and NEl guidance provide identical guidance with respect to the types of information considered to be " design bases" as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. In yd EG-1397, "An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Prograjns ' the Nuclear Power Industry," February 1991, the staff presented its views on what copstit es the design .

bases information necessary to satisfy 10 CFR 50.2. Specifically, it stated at the definition of

" design baess," for the purposes of NUREG-1397, is considered to be 4q alent to " design f

input" as defined in Section 3.2 of American National Standards Institute ANSI) N45.2 1974, "American National Standard Quality Assurance Requireme s f r Nuclear Power Plants." Enclosure 2 gives excerpts from this ANSI standard. In d ' ion, I do not agree that there is a " clear distinction" between " design values" and "desi b es information," inasmuch as Section 50.2 defines design bases as "information which i nt' es the specific function to be performed by a structure, system, or component of a facility an the specific values orranges of values chosen for controlling parameters as reference un s for design."

NRC's position is not reflected in the NEl guidance fou in ither NUMARC 90-12 or the revised document NEl 97-04. Rather, the NEl 97-04 e ent attempts to distinguish the scope of 10 CFR 50.2 design bases as those "criteri as ociated with bounding performance requirements necessary to satisfy the safety functi of he structure, system, or component."

NEl 97-04 goes on to state that this information i ir ly related to the safety analyses section of the FSAR. . It would appear that NEl's scope de ign bases information for.10 CFR 50.2 is smaller than NRC's scope. In addition, in the ff' response to NUMARC 90-12, dated November 9,1990, specific comments were el ed on design document reconstitution programs that have apparently not been incorpo ed into NEl 97-04.

The staff has met with industry task forces co vened by NEl to discuss the interpretation of design bases information and is willing to to tinue to meet, as necessary, to resolve this issue and endorse NEl 97-04. The staff's poi contact on this matter is Jack Roe, who may be reache'.i at 301-415-1199.

l Sincerely, Samuel J. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 689

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ encl: See next page DISIRIBUTJON: See attach page Document Name: g:\simi\9 resp.rv7 pe=ous concurren=.

OFFICE PM.PGEB b SC:PGEB Tech Editor (A)C PGEB NAME SMa0 ruder sw* FAkstulemcz* BCalure* TEssig*

DATE 6/24/98 6G4 /98 6/10/98 6/24/98 OFFICE (A)D:DRPM ADT D.AEOD OGC OGC  % , D.NRR' EDO NAME JRoe* BSheron* ERossl* JGrey* GMizuno* N kSCollins LCallan DATE 6/25/98 6/30/98 7/1/98 7/13/98 7/13/98 7/ /98 7/ /96 OFFICE D.NRR(sig )

NAME sCollins DATE 7/ /08

Ii. Dced!2 In y:ur I:tt:r, you stat:d that industry guidanca and NRC guidancs "mak3 a clair distinction between design values and design bases information (reference bounds for design)." You  ;

asserted that "failing to distinguish between these terms could lead to inappropriate operability l determinations." Although I agree that the positions of NRC and NEl on what types of information need to be included in design bases reconstitution programs are relatively similar, I do not agree that NRC and NEl guidance provide identical guidance with respect to the types of information considered to be " design bases" as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. In NUREG-1397, "An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Programs in the tjuelear Power industry," February 1991, the staff presented its views on what constitutes the' design 4 bases information necessary to satisfy 10 CFR 50.2. Specifically, it stated that the' definition of

" design bases," for the purposes of NUREG-1397, is considered to be equivalen)io " design input" as defined in Section 3.2 of American National Standards Institute (ANSp N45.2 l 1974, "American National Standard Quality Assurance Requirements for Nu ear Power Plants." Enclosure 2 gives excerpts from this ANSI standard. In addition, o not agree that there is a " clear distinction" between " design values" and " design bases i ormation," inasmuch as Section 50.2 defines design bases as "information which identifies t specific function to be performed by a structure, system, or component of a facility, and the ocific values orranges of values chosen for controlling parameters as reference bounds for esign."

NRC's position is not reflected in the NEl guidance found in eithe NUMARC 90-12 or the revised document NEl 97-04. Rather, the NEl 97-04 document ttempts to distinguish the scope of 10 CFR 50.2 design bases as those " criteria associa d with bounding performance requirements necessary to satisfy the safety function of the ructure, system, or component." l NEl 97-04 goes on to state that this information is directly rdlated to the safety analyses section j of the FSAR. It would appear that NEl's scope of design ases information for 10 CFR 50.2 is smaller than NRC's scope. In addition, in the staff's res onse to NUMARC 90-12, dated November 9,1990, specific comments were enclosed design document reconstitution programs that have apparently not been incorporated nto NEl 97-04.

The staff has met with industry task forces conven by NEl to discuss the interpretation of design bases information and is willing to continu to meet, as necessary, to resolve this issue and endorse NEl 97-04. The staff's point of con et on this matter is Jack Roe, who may be reached at 301-415-1199.  ;

Si cerely, amuel J. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 689

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See attached page Document Name: g:\simi\9704 resp. 7

• see previous concurrences OFFICE PM:PGEB / bC:PGEB Tech Editor (A)C:PGEB NAME SMagruder:sw* / FAkstulewicz* BCalure* TEssig*

l DATE 6/24/98 6/24 /98 6/19/98 6/24/98 OFFICE (A)D:DRPM ADT D:AEOD Og gD:NRR EDO NAME JRoe* BSheron* ERossi* hhh SCollins LCallan DATE 6/25/98 6/30 /98 7/1 /98 7/d/9[ I 7/ /98 7/ /98 OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY {M, WW #9"'"

R. Bxdle In your letter, you stated that industry guidance and NRC guidance "make a clear distinction between design values and design bases information (reference bounds for design)." You asserted that "failing to distinguish between these terms could lead to inappropriate operability determinations." Although I agree that the positions of NRC and NEl on what types of information need to be included in design bases reconstitution programs are relatively imilar, I do not agree that NRC and NEl guidance provide identical guidance with respect to e types of information considered to be " design bases" as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. In NURE -1397, "An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Programs in e Nuclear Power Industry," February 1991, the staff presented its views on what constitute the design bases information necessary to satisfy 10 CFR 50.2. Specifically, it stated tha he definition of

" design bases," for the purposes of NUREG-1397, is considered to be equiva nt to " design input" as defined in Section 3.2 of American National Standards institute (A I) N45.2-11-1974, "American National Standard Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear ower Plants."

Enclosure 2 gives excerpts from this ANSI standard.

NRC's position is not reflected in the NEl guidance found in either NUM RC 90-12 or the revised document NEl 97-04. Rather, the NEl 97-04 document attem s to distinguish the scope of 10 CFR 50.2 design bases as those " criteria associated with ounding performance requirements necessary to satisfy the safety function of the structur , system, or component."

NEl 97-04 goes on to state that this information is directly related t the safety analyses section of the FSAR. It would appear that NEl's scope of design bases inf rmation for 10 CFR 50.2 is j smaller than NRC's scope. In addition, in the staff's response to UMARC 90-12, dated November 9,1990, specific comments were enclosed on design ocument reconstitution programs that have apparently not been incorporated into NEl -04.

The staff has met with industry task forces convened by NEl discuss the interpretation of design bases information and is willing to continue to meet, necessary, to resolve this issue and endorse NEl 97-04. The staff's point of contact on this atter is Jack Roe, who may be reached at 301-415-1199.

Sincerely, Samuel J. ollins, Director Office of N clear Reactor Regulation Project No. 689 l

Enclosures:

As stated '

cc w/ encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See attached page Document Name: g:\simi\9704 resp.rv7

• see previous concurrences OFFICE PM:PGEB SC:PGEB [ Tech Editor (A)C:PGEB NAME SMagruder:sw* FAkstulewicz*[BCalure* TEssig*

DATE 6/24/98 6/24 /98 [ 6/19/98 6/24/98

/

OFFICE (A)D:DRPM ADT D:ANOD OGC D:NRR EDU NAME JRoe* BSheron* ERossi* SCollins LCallan DATE 6/25/98 6/30/98 7/1/98 7/ /98 7/ /98 7/ /98 l OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY r

l R. Beedl3 bases of a facility are a subset of the licensing basis and are contained in the final safety analysis report (FSAR).

In your letter, you stated that industry guidance and NRC guidance "make a clear distinction between design values and design bases information (reference bounds for design)." You asserted that "failing to distinguish between these terms could lead to inappropriate operability determinations." Although I agree that the positions of NRC and NEl on what types of information need to be included in design bases reconstitution programs are relatively similar, I do not agree that NRC guidance and NEl guidance are consistent on what types of information are required to satisfy the definition of design bases in 10 CFR 50.2. In NUREG-1397, "An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Programs in the Nuclear i

Power Industry," February 1991, the staff presented its views on what constitutes the design bases information necessary to satisfy 10 CFR 50.2. Specifically, it stated that the definition of  ;

" design bases," for the purposes of NUREG-1397, is considered to be equivalent to I

" design input" as defined in Section 3.2 of American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

N45.2-11-1974, "American National Standard Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants." Enclosure 2 gives excerpts from this ANSI standard.

NRC's position is not reflected in the NEl guidance found in either NUMARC 90-12 or the revised document NEl 97-04. Rather, the NEl 97-04 document attempts to distinguish the

, scope of 10 CFR 50.2 design bases as those " criteria associated with bounding performance requirements necessary to satisfy the safety function of the structure, system, or component."

NEl 97-04 goes on to state that this information is directly related to the safety analyses section of the FSAR. It would appear that NEl's scope of design bam information for 10 CFR 50.2 is smaller than NRC's scope. In addition, in the staff's response to NUMARC 90-12, dated i November 9,1990, specific comments were enclosed on design doc'ument reconstitution programs that have apparently not been incorporated into NEl 97-04.

The staff has met with industry task forces convened by NEl to discuss the interpretation of design bases information and is willing to continue to meet, as necessary, to resolve this issue and endorse NEl 97-04. The staff's point of contact on this matter is Jack Roe, who may be l reached at 301-415-1199.

Sincerely, Samuel J. Collins, Director l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

, Project No. 689 '

l

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See attached page l

Document Name: g:\sim1\9704 resp.rv6

• see previous concurrences OFFICE PM:PGEB SC:PGEB Tech Editor (A)C:PGEB NAME SMagruder:sw* FAkstulewicz* BCalure* TEssig*

DATE 6/24/98. 6/24 /98 6/19/98 6/24/98 OFFICE (A)D:DRPM ADT D:AEOD OGC D:NRR EDO NAME JRoe* BSheron* [o SCollins LCallan DATE 6/25/98 6/30/98 7///98 7/ /98 7/ /98 7/ /98 OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY

R. Beedle required to satisfy the definition of design bases in 10 CFR 50.2. In NUREG-1397, "An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Programs in the Nuclear Power Industry," February 1991, the staff presented its views on what constitutes the design bases information necessary to satisfy 10 CFR 50.2. Specifically, it stated that the definition of

" design bases," for the purposes of NUREG-1397, is considered to be aquivalent to

" design input" as defined in Section 3.2 of American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

N45.2-11-1974, "American National Standard Quality Assurance Requirements far Nuclear Power Plants." Enclosure 2 gives excerpts from this ANSI standard.

NRC's position is not reflected in the NEl guidance found in either NUMARC 90-12 or the revised document NEl 97-04. Rather, the NEl 97-04 document attempts to distinguish the scope of 10 CFR 50.2 design bases as those " criteria associated with bounding performance requirements necessary to satisfy the safety function of the structure, system, or component."

NEl 97-04 goes on to state that this information is directly related to the safety analyses section of the FSAR. It would appear that NEl's scope of design bases information for 10 CFR 50.2 is smaller than NRC's scope. In addition, in the staffs response to NUMARC 90-12, dated November 9,1990, specific comments were enclosed on design document reconstitution

- programs that have apparently not been incorporated into NEl 97-04.

The staff has met with industry task forces convened by NEl to discuss the interpretation of design bases information and is willing to continue to meet, as necessary, to resolve this issue

. and endorse NEl 97-04. The staffs point of contact on this matter is Jack Roe, who may be reached at 301-415-1199.

Sincerely, Samuel J. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 689

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See attached page

, . Document Name: g:\simi\0704 resp.rv5

• see previous concurrences OFFICE ' PM:PGEB SC:PGEB Tech Editor (A)C:PGEB NAME SMagruder:sw* FAkstulewicz BCalure* TEssig*

DATE 6/24/98 6/ ^ /98 6/19/98 6/24/98 OFFICE- (A)D:DRPM hr D:AEOD OGC D:NRR EDO NAME h 6.g5 Y ERossi SCollins LCallan h, p.kron, we b

R. Beedle required to satisfy the definition of design bases in 10 CFR 50.2. In NUREG-1397, "An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Programs in the Nuclear  !

I Power Industry," February 1991, the staff presented its views on what constitutes the design bases information necessary to satisfy 10 CFR 50.2. Specifically, it stated that the definition of.

" design bases," for the purposes of NUREG-1397, is considered to be equivalent to

" design input" as defined in Section 3.2 of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) '

' N45.2-11-1974, "American National Standard Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants." Enclosure 2 gives excerpts from this ANSI standard.

NRC's position is not reflected in the NEl guidance found in either NUMARC 90-12 or the

revised document NEl 97-04. Rather, the NEl 97-04 document attempts to distinguish the scope of 10 CFR 50.2 design bases as those " criteria associated with bounding performance requirements necessary to satisfy the safety function of the structure, system, or component."

NEl 97-04 goes on to state that this information is directly related to the safety analyses section of the FSAR. It would appear that NEl's scope of design bases information for 10 CFR 50.2 is smaller than NRC's scope. In addition, in the staff's response to NUMARC 90-12, dated l November 9,1990, specific comments were enclosed on design document reconstitution programs that have apparently not been incorporated into NEl 97-04.

The staff has met with industry task forces convened by NEl to discuss the interpretation of design bases information and is willing to continue to meet, as necessary, to resolve this issue.

~

The staff's point of contact on this matter is Jack Roe, who may be reached at 301-415-1199.

Sincerely, l

Samuel J. Collins, Director r '

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 689

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See attached page Document Name: g:\simi\9704 resp.rv5

• see previous concurrences OFFICE PM:PGEB SC:PGEBh; Tech Editor (A)C:PGEB l NAME SMagruder:sw* FAkstu,k BCalure* TEssig*

DATE 6/24/98 6[/9k 6/19/98 6/24/98 OFFICE (A)D:DRPM ADT D:AEOD OGC D:NRR EDO NAME JRoe BSheron ERossi SCollins LCallan DATE 6/ /98 6/ /68 6/ /98 6/ /98 6/ /98 6/ /98 '

i l

J _. . _.

R. Beedle NRC's position is not reflected in the NEl guidanca found in either NUMARC 90-12 or the revised document NEl 97-04. Rather, the NEl 97-04 document attempts to distinguish the scope of 10 CFR 50.2 design bases as those " criteria associated with bounding performance requirements necessary to satisfy the safety function of the structure, system, or component."

NEl 97-04 goes on to state that this information is directly related to the safety analyses section of the FSAR. It would appear that NEl's scope of design bases information for 10 CFR 50.2 is smaller than NRC's scope. In addition, in the staff's response to NUMARC 90-12, dated November 9,1990, specific comments were enclosed on design document reconstitution programs that have apparently not been incorporated into NEl 97-04.

Tho staff has met with industry task forces convened by NEl to discuss the Interpretation of deuign bases information and is willing to continue to meet, as necessary, to resolve this issue.  ;

The staff's point of contact on this matter is Jack Roe, who may be reached at 301-415-1199. '

Sincerely, l Samuel J. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 689

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See attached page Document Name: g:\simi\9704 resp.rv5

• see previous concurrence - ,

l OFFICE PM:PGEB . SC:PGEBk Tech Editor (A)C:PGEB NAME: SMagruder:sv6LM FAkstM/ BCalure* TEssig DATE 6/a1/98 6d/98 6/ 19 /98 6/ /98 i

OFFICE (A)D:DRPM ADT D:AEOD OGC D:NRR EDO NAME JRoe BSheron ERossi SCollins LCallan '

DATE 6/ /98 6/ /68 6/ /98 6/ /98 6/ /98 6/ /98 OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY l

L

L AE10N EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM DUE: 07/27/98

'~

EDO CONTROL: G980431 DOC DT: 07/09/98 l R21ph E. Beedle FINAL REPLY:

NuclcOr Energy Institute (NEI)

TO:

Chairman Jackson FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** GRN **

CRC NO: 98-0652 Collins, NRR DESC ROUTING:

CONCERNS REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF " DESIGN Callan BASES" AS DEFINED IN 10 CFR 50.2 Travers Thompson Norry Blaha Burns DATE: 07/13/98 Cyr, OGC ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT:

_ NRR gllins _ ,

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: '

NRR ACTION: DRPM: Roe NRR RECEIVED: July 14, 1998 NRR ROUTING: Collins /Miraglia Boger Sheron T ON Travers ,

Roe j DUE TO NRR DiR CTOR'S OFFICE Zimmerman NRR Mailroom j BY __

f _1_ - - . -

,