ML20237C118
| ML20237C118 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/14/1998 |
| From: | Jaegers C NRC |
| To: | Ted Carter NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237C110 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9808200212 | |
| Download: ML20237C118 (2) | |
Text
I From:
Cathy Jaegers To:
txc Date:
7/14/98 II:40am
Subject:
G980431 - Beedle, NEI Ltr.
T.J.:
Please add the following message to G980431 under SPECIAL
- M OR REMARXS. g j
r :...,.,
i
,{. w -i ygg m';ead 8%=admaR=m'ser
- WM flammalad== Olauteur W pdor tsauraanh -p;k/
'\\
j Margo may have already told you, if so disregard.
- Thanks, Cathy i
l l
l l
I i
l i
t
[
I l
l i
t 9008200212 900818 PDR REVOP ERONUPWtc PDR 2
_..-_-l-__-_
'^
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET
}'.
[
. PAPER NUMBER':
CRC-98-0652 LOGGING DATE: Jul 10 98
' ACTION OFFICE:
EDO.
L
' AUTHOR:
. AFFILIATION:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-l LADDRESSEE:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
'LE'TER DATE:
Jul-9 98 FILE CODE: IDS-14 PT 50 SUBIECT:
10 CFR 50,59 AND ISSUES RELATED,TO FSAR UPDATE.
. GUIDANCE IACTION:
Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION:
CHAIRMAN,'COMRS, SECY/ RAS l
SPECIAL HANDLING: SECY TO ACK
.[
CONSTITUENT:
l_
' NOTES:
DATE.DUE:
Jul 27 98 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
i I'
I i
I t
l EDO -- G980431 b
,e
/
QEl NUCLEAR ENERGY INSilIUTE Ralph E. SeeaHe seNeos wee arimem ANo CMILF NUCH A, Of f Kit NUClist Gf Nf 8 AfloN July 9,1998 The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Chairman Jackson:
We appreciated the opportunity to brief the Commission on June 4 on important M U$hects of the upcoming rulemaking to amend 10 CFR 50.59 and the issues related to FSAR update guidance. At that briefing, we also discussed an industry concern 10 JJL 96 2fDJlarding the interpretation of the term " design bases" as defined in 10 CFR 50.2.
The industry believes that the NRC has broadened the scope ofinformation it considers as design bases and that this change in interpretation will impose an undue burden on licensees and the agency.
Two recent actions indicate that the NRC has changed its interpretation of what constitutes design bases information. The first action was a letter from the agency to Niagara Mohawk, dated September 12,1997 (copy enclosed) that states, "...the design bases include any information that was used to determine the acceptability of the nuclear power plant design." The second action was the issuance in February 1998 of NUREG-1022, Revision 1, Event Reporting Guidelines - 10 CFR 50. 72 and 50.73. This document, which provides additional deportability guidance for conditions outside the design basis of the plant, includes the statement: " Examples of events or conditions the staff considers reportable include errors in the actual design...."
The staffs interpretation confuses actual or nominal design values with design bases information (which are reference bounds for design). This results in a situation where a nonconforming condition at the component level apparently now is considered reportable in one hour as a condition outside the design basis of the plant. When applied industrywide, this interpretation will have a significant impact on both licensees and the NRC in that it imposes unnecessary resource burdens, and no commensurate safety benefit will be achieved. Other activities, such as operability determinations and updated FSAR reviews, will also be affected by this new interpretation.
f l
IF76 i STREET, NW SUtf E 400 W ASHINGTON. DC 20006-3708 PHONE 202 739 8008 FAk 202 765 leGB h
k'!
faf 4*
t ( "l V \\ ' \\Q") ]t%
% VV
7 ~..,
'The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson July 9,1998 Page 2 Our October 8,1997 letter to the NRC (copy enclosed) noted that the existing regulations and guidance, including a Commission policy statement in 1992, provided a stable regulatory framework for design bases related activities. We believe that a clear distinction existed between design bases information and design values. The two NRC actions discussed above have blurred this distinction.
I The agency's March 26,1998 response to Niagara Mohawk (copy enclosed) further confused this issue by stating, "It would be inappropriate for the NRC staff, at this l
juncture, to provide any new or different guidance regarding the definition of design bases provided in 10 CFR 50.2 beyond that already provided by NUREG 1022, Revision 1 and the NRC's letter of September 12,1997," and that the staffis considering rulemaking to address this issue. This response raises the following i
questions: (1) Why was it appropriate in the first place to change the l
interpretation; (2) Why would rulemakinrj be necessary to address this problem l
when it was created by a change in the staffs interpretation; and most importantly l
(3) How could this change occur without backfit analysis, and without conforming l
changes to the Commission's 1992 policy statement?
Last October, we provided NEI 97-04, Design Bases Program Guidelines, as a basis for resolution of this issue. We continue to believe that this document can help resolve this problem. The Staff Requirements Memorandum on SECY 97-205 i
appears to defer consideration of this topic by the Commission until Februarv 1999.
i l
Because of the potential to consume resources without a commensurate safety benefit, we urge the Commission to expedite the resolution of this issue.
Sincerely, I
t Ralph E. Beedle Enclosures c:
The Honorable Nils J. Diaz, Commissioner, NRC The Honorable Edward McGaffigan, Jr., Commissioner, NRC L. Joseph Callan, NRC/EDO Samuel J. Collins, NRC/NRR Stewart L. Magruder, Jr., NRC/NRR J
4
- l. '
"..'p......
-[
\\
u s o sTArms j
j NUCLEAR RE2UL.ATORY COMMISSION i
f w u u m crow,n.c. -
\\ *...* /
September 12, 1997 EA 96-079 Mr. B. Ralph Sylvia. Executive V' ice President Generation Business Group & Chief Nuclear Officer Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nuclear Learning Center 450 Lake Road Oswe9o. New York 13126 Dear Mr. Sylvia.
.This is a response to a July 16, 1996. letter. from Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC), a transcribed public meeting held between NMPC and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at the NRC Headquarters offices on i
January 6. 1997, and a February 19. 1997. letter submitted by Winston & Strawn on behalf of NMPC. The subject of these letters and this meeting was the deportability of pressure relief panels on the Nine Mile Point. Unit 1 (WP 1) reactor and turbine buildings being outside of their design basis.t In October 1993. NMPC determined that oversized bolts (larger than specified in the plant's design) had been installed in the blowout panels for the reactor and turbine buildings. As a result. NMPC calculated that the* blowout panels' relief function for both buildings exceeded the 45 pounds per square foot (psf)3 as stated in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
Specifically, the NMP.1 FSAR provides in Section III.A.l. that the purpose of I
the Turbine Building blowout panels was to prevent failurti of the l
l superstructure due to steam line break. This pressure relief function is accomplished by a wall area of 1800 square feet being. attached..to the l
superstructure with bolts that will fail,due to an internal pressure of l
1 This issue was originally cited as a sihgli Severity Level IV violation of the requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 in a Notice of Violation (Notice) 1ssued June 18. 1996. In a letter dated July 16, 1996. NMPC denied l
the violation (Violati,on II.B in the June 18. 1996. Notice). In a December 3.
1996, letter, the NRC informed NMPC that an adeouate basis for the NRC to witncraw the violatten had not been provided. Accordingly, the violation was not withdrawn.
The blowout panels initiate the internal pressure relief function and prevent structural failure of the buildings. NMPC calculated the relief functions initiate at approximately 53 psf and 60 psf for the reacter and turbine buildings, respectively.
(N j
Niagara Mohawk
- Power Corporation approximately 45 pounds per square foot, thas relieving internal pressure.
Wall or butiding structure failure would occur at an internal pressure in excess of 80 pounds per square fact.
Additionally.Section VI.B.1. states that pressure relief for the Reactor Building is provided to prevent collapse of the superstructure due to a brcak of an emergency cooling system, or other primary coolant system line in the reactor building. This pressare relief function is accomplished by a wall area of approximately 1800 square feet being attached to the superstructure with bolts that are designed to fail with an internal building pressure of approximately 45 pounds per square foot of wall area. Relief of pressure through this area in case of an energy release will prevent excessive internal pressure on the superstructure walls, roof and their supports which would fail at an internal pressure in excess of 80 pounds,per square foot.
NMPC's contention is that the design bases for Internal building pressure is only to provide pressure relief at or below 80 psf. However, the NRC concluded that the design bases include both the 80 psf building pressure relief and the 45 psf blowout panel pressure. The 45 psf blowout panel 1
pressure provides the necessary margin to prevent the building's internal I
pressure from exceeding 80 psf. Absent the 45 psf blowout panel pressure or any other blowout panel pressure, the design bases of the buildings might not l
have been acceptable when previously reviewed by the NRC. Regardless of the acceptability of the blowout panel pressure. there should be no question that 4
the blowout panel pressure was a technical consideration when evaluating the design bases: therefore, the NRC considers the blowout panel pressure to be
'part of the design bases.
In general, the design bases include any i
information that was used to determine the acceptability of the, nuclear power plant cesign. 10 CFR 50.2 defines design bases as follws:
Design bases means that infonnation which identifies the spec 1fic functions to be nerfad by a structure! systen. or conponent of a facility, and the spectfic values or ranges of values chosen for i
controlling parameters as refererv
- bnunds for tiersors. These values i
ney be (1) restraints derived fra generally accepted " state of the art
- practices for achieving functional goals. or (2) requiranents derived fra analysis (based on calculation and/or experiments) of the effects of a postulate 0 accident for which a structure, systen. or apareit must meet its functiand1 goals. (anphasis added) 6
Niagara Mohawk
- Power Corporation The NRC has concluded that the oversizing of the blowout panels' belts affecte<1 all the blowout panels and, therefore. the ent1re fun: tion to be performed of protecting the buildings frcm superstructure damage in an overpressure condition. Further, the NRC determined tnat the olowcut panel pressure of 45 psf establishes the reference for the acceptability of the facility's design.
Therefore, based on our analysis, the NRC has concluded that tnis event was reportable. The description of this issue involving the blowout panels in the reactor and turbine buildir.gs meets tne reporting requ1rements of both 10 CFR 50.72(b)(1)(ti)(B) and 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(11)(B). and. therefore, violations occurred.
Accordingly. the NRC has concluded that citations are warranted and is denying NMPC's request that tne violation be withdrawn.
Therefore. you are required to respond to the violation cited in the June 18. 1996. Notice, within 30 days of the date of this letter, by providing the corrective steps taken to avoid I
furtner violations.
1 The NRC recognizes the issues raised by.NMPC concerning the undesirability of I
one hour reports for matters of relatively low safety significance. WMie overreporting information may. in certain circumstances, not be desirable it is nonetheless important for the NRC to receive necessary information in a timely manner. In order to support decisions on actions pertaining to public health and safety. For that reason, the NRC would rather receive more information, reported pursuant to the requirements of 10.CFR 50.72 than less.
However the staff acknowledges that solne information currently required to be reported within one hour may more appropriately be reported at a later ti.w.
In that regard, the staff is continuing td review this generic niatter.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice." a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed Tn' the.NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely.
l A
Ashok C. Thadani Acting Deputy Executive Direc or I
for Regulatory Effectiveness Docket No. 50-220 License No. DPR-63 i
ec: See next page 1
u.,
~
NEI 4+
NUCLfAR INftGV IN5111Ulf m.w s. n m.
)
J I
October 8,1997 Mr. L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Mr. Callan:
In 1990, the nuclear industry developed NUMARC 90-12, Design Bases Program Guidelines, to assist utilities with the organization and collation of design bases information and supporting design information. In 1992, the guidelines were acknowledged in the Commissior's Policy Statement, Availability and Adequacy of Design Bases Information at Nuclear Power Plants, as providing "... the rationale for the design bases consistent with the definition of design bases contained in
}
l The interpretation of what constitutes design bases information is a key aspect of licensee activities associated with operability and deportability determinations. The NTTMARC guidelines, the Commission's Policy Statement, the applicable
'tions (10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73) and regulatory guidance (Generic Letter 91-rc, lo, J LTREG-1022, and NUREG-1397) have provided a stable framework for these activities.
In recent correspondence from Mr. Ashok Thadani to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, a broader interpretation of design bases information is stated that is not consistent with the existing framework. The September 12,1997 letter concludes that "... the design bases include any information that was used to determine the acceptability of the nuclear power plant design." While this letter addressed a plant-specific deportability issue, our concern is with the implications for future operability and deportability determinations industrywide.
The industry and NRC guidance cited above make a clear distinction between L
design values and design bases information (reference bounds for design). Failing to distinguish between these terms could lead to inappropriate operability i
determinations causing plant shutdowns that unnecessarily challenge plant systems and personnel. Similarly, confusion of these terms would increase the reporting burden on licensees and the review burden on NRC. Because senior shift 1770 6 $1 tift. N W
$Util 400 W A SMeNGT ON DC 20000-3700 PHONI 202.739 8088 ea, 707 788 leve
- W
Mr. L. Jos:ph Callan October 8,1997 Page 2 personnel must be personally involved in the reporting process, their focus would be diverted from safe operation to filing one-hour reports under 10 CFR 50.72.
Equally significant is the effort that must be expended in preparing and reviewing the Licensee Event Reports.
s The interpretation of design bases information in accordance with 10 CFR 50.2 is clearly a generic matter. The industry has revised NUMARC 90-12 to further clarify this issue. Enclosed for your information is the new document, NEI 97-04, which provides additional examples of design bases information and directly addresses the deportability of conditions outside the design basis of the plant. We believe these revised guidelines provide a context to resolve this issue.
We would like to discuss this matter with you and your staffin the near future. We believe that timely resolution would avoid unnecessary and adverse impacts on both licensees and the NRC.
Sincerely, r.:,
}_y x
-m -
Ralph E7Beedle ARP/
Enclosure c:
Mr. A.Thadani,NRC/OEDO Mr. S. Collins, NRC/NRR 9-
( ~,.,,
a p.-
I e wry %
UNITED STATES 7
y-j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, o.C. 200$Hm01 hI o.e.
March 26, 1998 l
e l
EA 96-079 Mr. John H. Mueller Chief Nuclear OfGoer l
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Operations Buildng, Second Floor i
j.
Lycoming, NY 13093 i
SUBJECT:
REPORTING VIOLATION REGARDING REACTOR AND TURBINE BUILDING l
SLOWCUT PANELS, NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.1 (TAC NO. M99565)
Dear Mr. Mueller:
This is a response to an October 27,1997, letter from Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation j
(NMPC), a transcribed public meeting held between NMPC and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at the NRC Headquarters offices on January 28,1998, and your letter of February 19,1998. These letters and meeting transcript discuss your disagreement with the Severity Level IV reportmg violation cited with respect to the pressure relief (i.e., " blowout")
l panels on the Nine Miie Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NMP1) reactor and turbine buildings being cuiside of their design bases.'
This letter is also a followup to the NRC's letter of September 12,1997, which further explained
)
the reporting violation based on the facts that (1) the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) explicitly establishes that the design bases include both the 80 pounds per square foot (psf) building pressure and the 45 psf blowout panel pressure, and (2) the blowout panel pressure of 45 psf establishes the reference for the acceptability of the facility's design. Your primary l
disagreement with the NRC's letter of September 12,1997, is based on a belief that the pressure
. relief design contained in the " Design Bases" sections of the NMP1 FSAR (e.g., FSAR Sections Ill.A.1.2 and VI.C.1.2) is intended to convey design featuies rather than design bases information. You believe that design bases apply only at the plant level rather than the component level. You note that one-hour reports are required when the plant, including its principal safety barriers, is " seriously degraded."
After considering your arguments presented during the meeting and in related correspondence, I cm in agrect mt with the positions expressed in the NRC's letter of September 12,1997. The l
NMP1 FSAR, as written, does not distinguish among the design features that may or may not be l
included within the Design Bases sections of the FSAR. Rather, the FSAR clearly represents the i
pressure relief design to be design basis information. It is the understanding of the NRC that the 1
l 3 The velaton of 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 requirements was first cited in the NRC's June 18,1996 Notce of Violabon (Violaton 11.8). In a December 3,1996 loner, the NRC concluded that an inadequate base omsted to
)
l withdraw the violabon pursuant to NMPC's denial and request of July 16,1996.
b Om $ ["
M @ l J' y [' %
_- (
1 l
l J. Mueller.
minimum 80 psf capacity of the reactor and turbine buildings was accepted by the NRC staff during the licensing review without detailed reviews of building overpressure analyses because j
the 45 psf discharge pressure of the highly reliab!e (passive) blowout panels was specified as part of the design bases and afforded a sizeable margin to ensure that reaching or exceeding the 80 psf building capacity was not credible. The intent of the Commission's reporting regulations, in part, is to ensure that the NRC is informed in a timely manner of changes to information upon which it has relied for a decision related to public health and safety. While I can agree, as you have argued, that increasing 45 psf to 53 psf or 60 psf is of limited safety significance, and that the need for a one-hour report is questionable, existing regulations do not provide the flexibility not to report departures from the design bases on the basis of low safety significance.
Accordingly, I conclude that Violation ll.B in t'+e Notice of Violation issued June 18,1996, is warranted; NMPC's request that the violation cu withdrawn is denied.
You believe that the NMP1 reporting violation has significant ramifications for both NMPC and the nuclear industry. NMPC's views and concems regarding the NMP1 reporting violation have been helpful to the NRC staff in formulating plans to improve and clarify the Commission's regulations. I appreciate that NMPC's contributions are not limited to this direct support, but also include support of various industry initiatives such as current efforts with the Nuclear Energy Institute to establish design basis program guidelines, in the near future, we will publish an cdvanced notice of proposed rulemaking and conduct a public workshop to obtain public input regarding plans to modify the event reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73.
The changes are intended to (1) correct weaknesses while reducing the reporting burden cssociated with events of little or no safety significance, and (2) better align reporting requirements with the NRC's current needs by (a) obtaining information more closely related to risk and (b) reconsidering the required reporting times in relation to the need for prompt NRC cction. The issue of what must be reported as a condition outside the plant's design bases is one of the items to be considered through rulemaking. Design basis information often provides both lower-level and higher-level safety-significant design bases and, as is aptly illustrated by the NMP1 blowout panel example, there is not general agreement about which level should trigger a 4
report to the NRC.
As discussed, we are considering rulemaking to addresk. issues such as (1) one-hour reporting for design basis issues, (2) significance testing for reporiin'g design basis issues, and (3) scope of plant design bases. However, the violation is based on existing regulations which must be met. It would be inappropriate for the NRC staff, at this juncture, to provide any new or different l
guidance regarding the definition of " design bases" provided in 10 CFR 50.2 beyond that already provided by NUREG-1022 Revision 1,2 and the NRC's letter of September 12,1997. Although our different views regarding these issues cannot be resolved at this time, I am confident that the initiatives in progruss provide the proper forums for clarifying and resolving these industry-wide issues.
2The NRC has usued NUREG-1022. Revision 1.
- Event Repornng Guidelines,10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73* to clanfy and consobdate the guidance on implementing the event notihcabon and reporbng requwements, and announced its availabdsty (63 Fed. Reg. 6237, dated February 6.1998).
l I
v.
,....ao J. Mueller 3
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely, L Jc
'~ Callan w fw opemuons Docket No. 50-220 Ucenso No. DPR-63
.cc: see next pese 6
s
- 4 i
l l
l
,_