|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARLR-N980595, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes,Tests & Experiments.Pse&G Supports Comments Submitted by NEI in Their Ltr1998-12-21021 December 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes,Tests & Experiments.Pse&G Supports Comments Submitted by NEI in Their Ltr LR-N980588, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps.Util Agrees with General Principle Behind Proposed Rulemaking,But However,Concerned That Proposed Rule Contain Language Open to Interpretation1998-12-14014 December 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps.Util Agrees with General Principle Behind Proposed Rulemaking,But However,Concerned That Proposed Rule Contain Language Open to Interpretation ML18106A8811998-09-15015 September 1998 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1633, Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide as Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Believes That Discussion Contained in SECY-98-061 Should Be Included in Draft NUREG ML18106A8731998-09-15015 September 1998 Comment on Draft NUREG-1633 Re Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide (Ki) as Protetive Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Believes That NUREG Should Provide Balanced Discussion on Benefits & Risks of Use of Ki LR-N980284, Comment on PR-50 Re IEEE Std 603-1991 for Salem & Hope Creek Generating Stations.Lack of Adverse Comments to Draft RG Should Not Have Been Construed as Endorsement to IEEE 603-19911998-06-12012 June 1998 Comment on PR-50 Re IEEE Std 603-1991 for Salem & Hope Creek Generating Stations.Lack of Adverse Comments to Draft RG Should Not Have Been Construed as Endorsement to IEEE 603-1991 LR-N980149, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Stds. Comments Address Use of Engineering Judgment,Limitations on Use of Later ASME III Code Editions for Weld Leg Dimensions & Seismic Analysis1998-03-30030 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Stds. Comments Address Use of Engineering Judgment,Limitations on Use of Later ASME III Code Editions for Weld Leg Dimensions & Seismic Analysis ML18102B4361997-07-0707 July 1997 Comment Opposing NUREG-1606, Proposed Regulatory Guidance Re Implementation of 10CFR50.59 (Changes,Tests or Experiments). Util Endorses Comments Submitted by Nuclear Energy Inst ML20132A8961996-12-0606 December 1996 Comment Supporting Pr 10CFR50, NRC Draft Ps on Restructuring & Economic Deregulation of Electric Utility Industry ML20084H9251995-06-0202 June 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Change in State Cooperative Agreements Program Concerning NRC Intention to Reduce Scope of Work.Believes That NRC Should Maintain Environ Monitoring Program & Find Other Ways to Reduce Duplicative Svcs ML20134K5021995-02-24024 February 1995 Transcript of 950224 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re C Vondra.Pp 1-136 ML20134K4511995-02-0808 February 1995 Transcript of 950208 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re Plant.Pp 1-93 ML20134K4791995-02-0808 February 1995 Transcript of 950208 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re V Polizzi.Pp 1-115 ML20134K4971995-02-0808 February 1995 Transcript of 950208 Enforcement Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re L Reiter.Pp 1-64 ML20080G8321995-02-0606 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & low-power Operations for Npp.Encourages NRC to Reevaluate Regulatory Analyses in Light of Higher Costs.Concludes That Addl Rules on Shutdown & Low Power Operations Not Necessary ML20077L8631995-01-0303 January 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re NPP License Renewal.Util of Belief That Proposed Rev Reflect Positive Effort Towards Establishing Regulatory Process Requirements for Continued Operation of Nuclear Facilities ML20132B2281994-08-0202 August 1994 Transcript of 940802 Enforcement Conference in Salem,Nj W/Salem Senior Nuclear Shift Supervisor Involved in 940407 Event ML20067C1591994-02-17017 February 1994 Comments on NUREG/CR-5884 Re Analyses of Decommissioning for Ref PWR Power Station ML20056G4121993-08-31031 August 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 2.206 Process ML18100A5591993-08-26026 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Whistleblower Protection ML20126F2721992-12-21021 December 1992 Comment Endorsing Positions & Comments of NUMARC & BWROG Re Draft GL, Augmented Inservice Insp Requirments for Mark I & Mark II Steel Containments,Refueling Cavities & Associated Drainage Sys ML20095B2411992-04-10010 April 1992 Comment on Draft NUREG-1449, Shutdown & Low-Power Operation at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in Us ML20091Q8661992-01-31031 January 1992 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1022,Rev 1, Event Reporting Sys,10CFR50.72 & 50.73,Clarification of NRC Sys & Guidelines for Reporting ML20072T2421991-04-11011 April 1991 Comment Re Proposed Change to 10CFR50.55A Re Inservice Testing of Containment Isolation Valves.Proposed Rule Should Be Revised to Allow Plants within Last 12 Months of Current Interval to Substitute Deferred Rv Shell Exams ML20246H8141989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components ML20235T1861989-02-24024 February 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants, Extension of NRC Authority to BOP Portion of Plant & Misapplication of Adequate Protection Std of Backfit Rule ML20195H0331988-11-21021 November 1988 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program Which Includes Random Drug Testing.Util Strongly Favors 180- Day Period for Implementation of Rule & 360-day Implementation Period for Random Drug Testing ML20153F9681988-08-17017 August 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensee Flexibility During Natl Crisis.Deferral of Issuance of Final Rule Until Proper Implementation Guidance Formulated Encouraged ML20247N7531988-07-28028 July 1988 Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-53 Requesting NRC Action to Review Undue Risk Posed by BWR Thermal Hydraulic Instability.Nrr Should Issue Order Requiring All GE BWRs to Be Placed in Cold Shutdown for Stated Reasons ML20154G1421988-04-20020 April 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 73 Re Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Access Authorization Program.Nrc Should Establish Program Mutually Agreed Upon Between Union & Util,Per Hope Creek & Salem Programs ML20154G4601988-04-18018 April 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Notification of Inspector Visits to Facility ML18093A6331988-02-0101 February 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Proposed Policy Statement on Integrated Schedules for Implementation of Plant Mods ML20151B3641987-02-24024 February 1987 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning ML20207H6521986-07-21021 July 1986 Transcript of Commission 860721 Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power OL for Facility in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-76. Supporting Documentation Encl ML20203D9661986-07-21021 July 1986 Corrected Page 5 to 860721 Transcript Re Facility ML20107A5261985-02-19019 February 1985 Joint Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Party to Proceeding & Dismissal of Admitted Contentions.Draft Order Approving Both Requests,Settlement Agreement & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20114A6911985-01-23023 January 1985 Response Opposing Intervenor,Public Advocate of State of Ny Notice of Deposition & Motion for Protective Order. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20113H7211985-01-22022 January 1985 Response Opposing Applicant Motion for Sanctions Re Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20113H7321985-01-21021 January 1985 Second Supplemental Response to Preliminary & First Sets of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20114B7361985-01-21021 January 1985 Applicant Response to Intervenor Third Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents Re Pipe Cracks.Related Correspondence ML20113H9441985-01-18018 January 1985 Notice of H Sonn 850130 Deposition in Trenton,Nj.Concurrent Depositions of Listed Applicant Employees Requested.Related Correspondence ML20113H9671985-01-18018 January 1985 Fourth Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20113H8091985-01-17017 January 1985 Response to Applicant 850114 Objections to Intervenor 850104 Third Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents & Motion for Protective Order.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20112J2841985-01-15015 January 1985 Second Set of Interrogatories Requesting Production of Documents Re Listed Definitions & Instructions to Public Advocate.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20112G3921985-01-14014 January 1985 Motion That ASLB Impose Sanction of Dismissal of Contentions Due to Intervenor Failure to Respond to ASLB 841121 Order to Show Cause Why OL Proceeding Should Not Be Dismissed. Related Correspondence ML20112G4171985-01-14014 January 1985 Applicant Objections to Intervenor 850107 Third Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents to Applicants & Motion for Protective Order.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20112D8631985-01-10010 January 1985 Response Opposing Intervenor 850107 Motion to Compel Responsive Answer to Interrogatory III.7 of Intervenor Second Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20112C0001985-01-0707 January 1985 Joint Motion for Issuance of Protective Order Re Personnel Info.Draft Protective Order,Unexecuted Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20112C9651985-01-0707 January 1985 Motion to Compel Responsive Answer to Interrogatory III.7 of Intervenor 841213 Second Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20101Q7911985-01-0404 January 1985 Intervenors Supplemental Response to Applicants Preliminary & First Set of Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20101Q6111985-01-0404 January 1985 Third Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence 1998-09-15
[Table view] Category:PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULES & PETITIONS FOR
MONTHYEARLR-N980595, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes,Tests & Experiments.Pse&G Supports Comments Submitted by NEI in Their Ltr1998-12-21021 December 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes,Tests & Experiments.Pse&G Supports Comments Submitted by NEI in Their Ltr LR-N980588, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps.Util Agrees with General Principle Behind Proposed Rulemaking,But However,Concerned That Proposed Rule Contain Language Open to Interpretation1998-12-14014 December 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps.Util Agrees with General Principle Behind Proposed Rulemaking,But However,Concerned That Proposed Rule Contain Language Open to Interpretation ML18106A8731998-09-15015 September 1998 Comment on Draft NUREG-1633 Re Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide (Ki) as Protetive Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Believes That NUREG Should Provide Balanced Discussion on Benefits & Risks of Use of Ki ML18106A8811998-09-15015 September 1998 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1633, Assessment of Use of Potassium Iodide as Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents. Believes That Discussion Contained in SECY-98-061 Should Be Included in Draft NUREG LR-N980284, Comment on PR-50 Re IEEE Std 603-1991 for Salem & Hope Creek Generating Stations.Lack of Adverse Comments to Draft RG Should Not Have Been Construed as Endorsement to IEEE 603-19911998-06-12012 June 1998 Comment on PR-50 Re IEEE Std 603-1991 for Salem & Hope Creek Generating Stations.Lack of Adverse Comments to Draft RG Should Not Have Been Construed as Endorsement to IEEE 603-1991 LR-N980149, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Stds. Comments Address Use of Engineering Judgment,Limitations on Use of Later ASME III Code Editions for Weld Leg Dimensions & Seismic Analysis1998-03-30030 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Industry Codes & Stds. Comments Address Use of Engineering Judgment,Limitations on Use of Later ASME III Code Editions for Weld Leg Dimensions & Seismic Analysis ML18102B4361997-07-0707 July 1997 Comment Opposing NUREG-1606, Proposed Regulatory Guidance Re Implementation of 10CFR50.59 (Changes,Tests or Experiments). Util Endorses Comments Submitted by Nuclear Energy Inst ML20132A8961996-12-0606 December 1996 Comment Supporting Pr 10CFR50, NRC Draft Ps on Restructuring & Economic Deregulation of Electric Utility Industry ML20084H9251995-06-0202 June 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Change in State Cooperative Agreements Program Concerning NRC Intention to Reduce Scope of Work.Believes That NRC Should Maintain Environ Monitoring Program & Find Other Ways to Reduce Duplicative Svcs ML20080G8321995-02-0606 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & low-power Operations for Npp.Encourages NRC to Reevaluate Regulatory Analyses in Light of Higher Costs.Concludes That Addl Rules on Shutdown & Low Power Operations Not Necessary ML20077L8631995-01-0303 January 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re NPP License Renewal.Util of Belief That Proposed Rev Reflect Positive Effort Towards Establishing Regulatory Process Requirements for Continued Operation of Nuclear Facilities ML20067C1591994-02-17017 February 1994 Comments on NUREG/CR-5884 Re Analyses of Decommissioning for Ref PWR Power Station ML20056G4121993-08-31031 August 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 2.206 Process ML18100A5591993-08-26026 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule Re Whistleblower Protection ML20126F2721992-12-21021 December 1992 Comment Endorsing Positions & Comments of NUMARC & BWROG Re Draft GL, Augmented Inservice Insp Requirments for Mark I & Mark II Steel Containments,Refueling Cavities & Associated Drainage Sys ML20095B2411992-04-10010 April 1992 Comment on Draft NUREG-1449, Shutdown & Low-Power Operation at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in Us ML20091Q8661992-01-31031 January 1992 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1022,Rev 1, Event Reporting Sys,10CFR50.72 & 50.73,Clarification of NRC Sys & Guidelines for Reporting ML20072T2421991-04-11011 April 1991 Comment Re Proposed Change to 10CFR50.55A Re Inservice Testing of Containment Isolation Valves.Proposed Rule Should Be Revised to Allow Plants within Last 12 Months of Current Interval to Substitute Deferred Rv Shell Exams ML20246H8141989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components ML20235T1861989-02-24024 February 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants, Extension of NRC Authority to BOP Portion of Plant & Misapplication of Adequate Protection Std of Backfit Rule ML20195H0331988-11-21021 November 1988 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program Which Includes Random Drug Testing.Util Strongly Favors 180- Day Period for Implementation of Rule & 360-day Implementation Period for Random Drug Testing ML20153F9681988-08-17017 August 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensee Flexibility During Natl Crisis.Deferral of Issuance of Final Rule Until Proper Implementation Guidance Formulated Encouraged ML20154G1421988-04-20020 April 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 73 Re Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Access Authorization Program.Nrc Should Establish Program Mutually Agreed Upon Between Union & Util,Per Hope Creek & Salem Programs ML20154G4601988-04-18018 April 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Notification of Inspector Visits to Facility ML18093A6331988-02-0101 February 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Proposed Policy Statement on Integrated Schedules for Implementation of Plant Mods ML20151B3641987-02-24024 February 1987 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning 1998-09-15
[Table view] |
Text
E. ~11£'/l/Jc, S'-//e~y
('. /7?/m:Y)
, /Yo-y ~ /777 Public Service Electric and Gas Company
Nuclear Business Unit JUL 0 7 1997 LR-N970390 Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Off ice of Administration :0 ::0 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
~ ~c:::~ ::D v.; tt{i cs;:o .- ("')
(/)0 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 .LSJ HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION :IJ* ~
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES. DPR-70 I DPR-75 AND NPF-57 Oco-~*J SC ""'""'
rn
'}~ -..o*
DOCKET NOS. 50-272, 50-311 AND 50-354 Z *** CJ COMMENTS ON NUREG-1606, "PROPOSED REGULATORY GUIDANCE REubf.ED~*o IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR 50. 59 (CHANGES, TESTS, OR EXPERIMENTS)"
Gentlemen:
Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (PSE&G) provides the attached comments in response to the Federal Register notice dated May 7, 1997. I Our comments are directed towards those sections of the NUREG which we believe to be new requirements. Their effect would be to greatly increase the number of proposed changes requiring NRC review and approval with little or no safety benefit.
In addition to the detailed comments attached to this letter, PSE&G also endorses the comments submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute and by the Licensing and Design Bases Clearinghouse.
PSE&G appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the draft document. Should there be any questions concerning this submittal, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
(,.-------- -9707150120 970707 David R. Powell
' PDR NUREG Manager-1606 C PDR L i cens ing and Regulation Attachment (1) -~---*~-- -*
I1\1111 \Ill\ \Ill\ \11\IJll\\ \Ill\ \1111\11 :
The power is in your hands .
... -f"\{'\.i:*1
~ '--*~ '*~ ! ' ., 1 95-2168 REV. 6/94 v~ .1v~ -
Document Control Desk
- JUL 0*7 1997 LR-N970390 C Mr. H. J. Miller, Administrator - Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. L. Olshan, Licensing Project Manager - Salem U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Stop 14E21 Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. D. Jaffe, Licensing Project Manager - Hope Creek U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Stop 14E21 Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. S. Morris USNRC Senior Resident Inspector (X24)
Mr. C. Marschall USNRC Senior Resident Inspector (X24)
Mr. K. Tosch, Manager IV Bureau of Nuclear Engineering 33 Arctic Parkway CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625
LR-N970390 ATTACHMENT PSE&G COMMENTS ON NUREG-1606 NUREG-1606 Section Comments III.A, Definition The proposed guidance states that component replacement activities of Change would be considered maintenance only if the replacement was an identical component. This contradicts the guidance in Inspection Manual Part 9800 which states that maintenance activities which replace components with replacement parts procured to the same (or equivalent) purchase specification do not require a written safety evaluation to meet 10 CFR 50.59 requirements. As an example of a change that would not require a 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation, Part 9800 cites the replacement of a thermocouple with one made by a different manufacturer but which encompasses equivalent response characteristics.
The current industry guidance states that replacing a component with an equivalent component is a maintenance activity and would not require review under 10 CFR 50.59. "Change" is defined as "an activity which affects the design, function, or method of performing the function of a system, structure or component described in the SAR." This is consistent with previous NRC guidance in Part 9800 and in NRC Inspection Procedure 37001.
The new staff position would increase the number of changes requiring evaluation under 10 CFR 50.59 with no safety benefit.
III.I, Malfunction The proposed guidance states that, if the proposed activity could of Equipment lead to a different initiator, or involves a failure mode of a Important to Safety different type than the types previously evaluated, then the failure
- of a Different results from a malfunction of a different type.
Type The phrase a different initiator" is so broad that it would result Page 1 of 4
LR-N970390 PSE&G COMMENTS ON NUREG-1606 NUREG-1606 Section Comments in unnecessary unreviewed safety questions. For example, consider a modification which installs an additional piece of equipment which becomes part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. Clearly the equipment should be designed in accordance with appropriate standards to withstand the required pressures and temperatures. If
- the failure of this new piece of equipment is to be considered "a different initiator," the proposed guidance would require a determination that there is an unreviewed safety question, even though the consequences of its failure (small or large break LOCA) are already bounded in the accident analyses.
In practice, the proposed guidance would require prior NRC approval for many design changes that add new components or replace existing components. In determining if the possibility of a malfunction of a different type may be created, the focus of the 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation should be on the effects of the proposed change.
III.N, Licensee The proposed guidance states that licensees ~may not remove material Practice of from safety analysis reports unless the material is changed as a Deleting Information from Safety Analysis Reports direct result of a change to the facility."
This conflicts with the January 1984 Part 9800 inspection guidance in which the NRC recognized that not all information contained in the SAR was used to establish the basis for the plant Operating License. The NRC stated that the intent of 10 CFR 50.59 is to limit the requirement for writing safety evaluations to facility changes, tests and experiments which could impact the safety of operations.
10 CFR 50.59 should not be interpreted to prevent licensees from removing information from the FSAR that does not effect plant safety.
Page 2 of 4
\ -
LR-N970390 PSE&G COMMENTS ON NUREG-1606 NUREG-1606 Section Comments III.O, Application The proposed guidance would require a 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation of 10CFR50.59 to to be performed whenever a degraded or nonconforming condition is the Resolution of not resolved "at the first available opportunity." A plant Degraded and currently operating with a degraded condition involving a USQ would Nonconforming not normally be required to shutdown as long as all necessary Conditions equipment is operable. However, for shutdown plants, the NRC staff would not allow startup until the condition was first corrected or staff approval was received.
The proposed staff position is inconsistent with the proposed guidance for discovery of an inadequate Technical Specification in Section III.L. In that case, upon discovering the inadequate Technical Specification, the licensee should take appropriate action to put the plant in a safe condition (such as by imposing more conservative administrative limits), and also take action (such as requesting a license amendment) so that the Technical Specifications represent the minimum requirements.
The existence of an unreviewed safety question does not mean that a safety issue exists, but only that NRC review is required before the
- change is implemented. Upon discovery of a degraded or nonconforming condition which involves an unreviewed safety question, licensees should make timely application for NRC review and approval. Provided all necessary equipment is operable, a degraded condition involving a potential USQ would not require a plant to remain shutdown.
III.S, Definition The proposed requirement to ref er to plant-specific SAR values as of Reduction in acceptance limits represents a new requirement for two reasons.
Margin of Safety First, as the NRC noted in the April 1996 Part 9900 inspection Page 3 of 4
LR-N970390 PSE&G COMMENTS ON NUREG-1606 NUREG-1606 Section Comments guidance, industry guidance is currently broader than the rule regarding where a licensee must look to find a margin of safety in that NSAC-125 recommends looking beyond the Technical Specification (TS) Bases. In stating that 10 CFR 50.59 requires evaluation of margins of safety not specifically described in the TS Bases, the
- proposed guidance imposes new requirements for the conduct of 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations.
Second, the proposed guidance would require a proposed change to be identified as an unreviewed safety question if it involved a potentially non-conservative change in a value in the SAR (as referenced in the Technical Specification Bases) . The acceptance limit is not typically the value reported in the SAR. Changes in SAR reported values (e.g., ECCS pump available net positive suction head) do not involve a reduction in the margin of safety unless they exceed the acceptance limit reviewed and approved by the NRC.
III.V, The proposed guidance states that the "effect of any change must be Consideration of evaluated against each of the USQ criteria separately - that is, an Compensating Effects increase in probability cannot be 'compensated' by additional mitigation capability." This conflicts with previous NRC guidance on the use of compensatory actions to offset increases in probability or consequences. The April 1996 Part 9900 inspection guidance states that it is acceptable to use compensating effects (such as changes in administrative controls) to offset uncertainties and increases in probability or consequences. A requirement to evaluate compensatory measures separately from the proposed change would, in many cases, prevent the use of administrative controls as a compensating effect.
Page 4 of 4