ML20245C936
| ML20245C936 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/06/1989 |
| From: | Conran J Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Bernero R, Goldberg J, Jordan E Committee To Review Generic Requirements, NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245C938 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904280033 | |
| Download: ML20245C936 (4) | |
Text
r.
Y' p naq
,h, g-UNITED STATES
- b.,,
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'.h o
RELEASEo k ME PDR WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
February 6, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Edward L. Jordan, Chairman Robert M. Bernero, NMSS Jack R. Goldberg, OGC Carl J. Paperiello, RIII Denwood F. Ross, RES.-
James H. Sniezek, NRR THRU:
C.J. Heltemes, Jr., Deputy Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data FROM:
James H. Conran Senior Program Manager (CRGR STAFF)
Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
SUBJECT:
ISSUE IDENTIFICATION FOR MEETING NO. 157 AGENDA ITEM Enclosed for your information.s an Issue Sheet for the proposed Generic Letter on In-service Testing, scheduled for review by the CRGR at Meeting No.157 in Room 4B-11 at 1:00 - 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 8, 1989.
If there are any questions, call me at 492-9855.
p JJ mes H. Conran Senior Program Manager (CRGR Staff)
Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
Enclosures:
As stated cc: C..Sakenas C.J. Heltemes L. Shao L.W. Marsh g'
,([] '
m
)ggh oms 8904280033 890206
/
l PDR REV7P NRCCRGR MEETING 10' PDC i
e "u
l ISSUE IDENTIFICATION FOR CRGR AGENDA ITEM CRGR MEETING NO. 157 - February 8, 1989 Generic Letter on In-Service Testing A.
GENERAL COMMENT
S / ISSUES 1.
A fundamental issue in this matter is whether the staff has correctly characterized this as a case which falls under 50.109 (a)(4)(i),
i.e.,
where the proposed modifications (to, licensees' IST programs) are necessary just.to bring a facility into compliance with a license or rules and orders of the Commission, or into conformance with licensees' commitments.
Taken in the full context of 50.109, the cited paragraph is meant to apply where licensees have simply failed to comply with the clear meaning of existing legal requirements or their written commitments to approved staff guidance interpreting existing legal requirements.
(No Backfit Analysis is required in such instances, because further justification is not needed for existing legal requirements and/or staff positions which, by definition, have already been evaluated / justified and imposed.) In this case, the licensees appear to have complied with the letter of the regulation,10 CFR 50.55a, which includes within itself a provision for requesting deviations, by submitting to the staff inform-ation which they believe adequately supports their request.
If anything it is the staff who have not complied with the intent of the regulation, by failing to timely evaluate and respond to a number of individual licensee's deviation requests.
In such circumstances, under a provision of NRCM 0514 (see last paragraph of the chapter), licensees may well be jusfified in assuming that their requests for deviatkns, which were made years ago and were not reponded to negatively by the staff, were tacitly accepted by the staff.
(See NUBARG comments attached.)
The Committee should pursue these questions with the staff, and clarify especially the proper application of the referenced section of 50.109; that exclusion is being cited increasingly by the staff in proposed actions coming to CRGR for review.
2.
Depending on the outcome of the consideration of Item 1. above, Enclost;re 2 of the review package (i.e., Staff Response to Section IV.B. of the CRGR Charter) may need considerable revision.
The information provided by the staff is not adequate to justify a proposed backfit that does not i
fall under one of the two exclusions in 50.109(a)(4); for example:
a.
The response to Question III. should be revised by deleting the third and last sentences.
b.
The response to Question V. does not seem to fit the question at all.
The required Regulatory Analyses should be provided here, or at least summarized / referenced if they exist separately.
The existing response should be moved to a more appropriate location (e.g., add it to the response to Question I.) or possibly deleted.
-g-J J
c.
The existing response to Question VII. should be deleted and j
appropriate responses to all subparts VII. should be provided, sufficient to enable the Committee to properly evaluate the proposed backfits/ schedules.
Most~ importantly, the staff should identify and 8
estimate the costs associated with any plant modifications that may be necessary for licensees to implement the proposed staff j
positions.
i d.
The last sentence in the respt,'ise to Question VIII. states that this j
generic letter is needed to ensure an acceptable level of health and i
safety.
This sounds very much like a reference to the other exclus-l ion type clause of the Backfit Rule, i.e., 50.109(a)(4)(ii).
Pre-11minary discussions with the s'taff on this point indicate that this was not the staff's intent here; and appropriately so.
It would be difficult to justify use of that (immediately effective / adequate safety) exclusion clause in this case where the staff's action is so untimely.
It appears that this sentence could simply be deleted, and in its place substituted the renuisite finding taken directly from 50.109(a)(3).
The Committee should consider whether the deviations requested by e.
the licensees (or proposed by the staff, as the case may be), in this matter do not constitute " relaxations" which should be addresssed in the staff's response to Question IX.
(See for example, the alternate test frequency for control rod drive system valves in Generic Relief Request Item 7., at page 6 of Enclosure 1 in the review package.) If so, the response should be rev' sed appropriately.
As a closely related comment, the staff should also prepare a separate Backfit Analysis to be placed in the PDR, if it is found that the 50.109(a)(4)(i) exclusion cited by the staff in this case does not legit-imately apply here (as suggested in Item 1. above.)
3.
Throughout this package the staff is careless in its usage of the terms
" requirements", " positions", and " interpretations".
These terms appear to be used interchangeably, and this can lead to further confusion in the present circumstances where the staff is seeking to definitively clarify NRC's intent to licensees.
The staff should review and revise the-package as necessary improve internal consistency of the package in this regard.
The term " requirement" should be reserved for legal requirements in rule, regulations, orders, etc.
The word s " position" and
" interpretation" should be used to identify non-mandatory staff guidance.
Care should be taken not to imply that the " interpretations" provided in connection with this Generic Letter are official, binding interpretations of regulations provided by the General Counsel.
Similarly, the staff should review the package for use of the phrase
" established positions", to clarify whether the staff means fully-approv-c ed generic positions or simply technical interpretations applied in one
)
or more plant-specific situations.
The current wording of the package seems to imply that if the staff has applied a certain technical interpretation previously in reviewing plant-specific deviation requests
)
by several individual licensees, then it constitutes an " established l
position".
E______-.---__________--______-__________________________----__
J
1 I
1 To' avoid confusion, especially in this case, the staff should reserve use of that term to mean fully-approved generic staff positions.
I B. SPECIFIC COMMENTS / QUESTIONS i
1.
In the first sentence of the second paragraph on page 2 of the proposed l
Generic Letter, the word "potentially" should be. inserted in the phrase
".. generic deficiencies that affect plant safety..."
The information j
presented by the staff in this package does not appear to justify the j
existing (unmodified) wording.
Also, in the following sentence, the word
" mutual" should be inserted in front, of the word " understanding", to more j
accurately reflect the circumstances that gave rise to the current IST situation.
2.
At the bottom of page 3 of the proposed Generic Letter, the phrase "as necessary" should be deleted, and the word " acceptably" should be inserted in front of the word " conform" in (1), (2), and (3) that follow.
Otherwise the staff guidance provided here seems to be given the 1
stature of a mandatory requirement, as in a rule.
3.
In the first sentence of the second paragraph on page 3 of the proposed a
Generic Letter, the staff states that the proposed new IST positions can l
be implemented at all plants.
At what cost? Does the staff mean imple-mented " reasonably"? The NUBARG comments attached seem to suggest otherwise.
The Committee may wish to pursue this line of question with the staff.
4.
The staff states in their conditional generic approval of licensees' IST programs that those programs (with the requested deviations) are accept-able, if they meet the new positions now proposed genericall by the staff.
Does the staff mean only if the programs conform to the new guidance?
If so, doesn't that bestow mandatory stature on staff
" guidance'? If that is not the staff's intent here, presumably licensees could propose some other alternative way of meeting the rule (Code) requirements.
But where,_then, does this whole process stop? How is a rule (such-as 50.55a) that contains its own deviation request clause within itself effectively administered by the staff?
5.
What does the last sentence of the last paragraph on page 7 mean (i.e.,
with regard to ".. unneeded departures for the Code..)?
6.
Doesn't the provision, in 50.55a(a)(3), that the Director, NRR authorize
" proposed alternatives to the requirements of paragraphs (c), (d), (e),
and (g) of this section.." mean that the proposed Generic Letter should i
be signed by T. Murley?
l l
C.
NUBARG COMMENTS NUBARG has submitted comments on an earlier version of the oroposed Generic Letter.
NUBARG's comments address some of the questions / issues i
raised by CRGR staff in the preceding, as well as other specific points not addrressed in the CRGR staff preliminary review of this package.
The NUBARG comments are attached in their entirety for consideration by CRGR in their review of this matter.
l i