ML20151D741
| ML20151D741 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/05/1988 |
| From: | Rossi C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Stohr J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8804140425 | |
| Download: ML20151D741 (8) | |
Text
'. .
APR 5 la88 ftEMORANDUM FOR: John P. Stohr, Acting Director Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness, ilRR FROM: Charles E. Rossi, Director Division of Operational Events Assessment, NRR
SUBJECT:
CHERN0BYL FOLLOWUP RESEARCH PLAN: DETAILED PLANS Enclosed are the detailed plans for the Chernobyl Followup tasks to be managed by DOEA that were requested by Brian Sheron's December 3, 1987 memorandum to me on the alava subject. These tasks are:
o Task No. 1.2A Test, Change, and Experiment Review Guidelines o Task No.1.4A ESF Availability o Task No. 1.48 Technical Specifications Bases.
I understand that your division will prepare a memorandum for F. Gillespie's signature to transmit an integrated NRR response to Research.
Should you have any questions regarding these detailed task plans, please call Samuel Bryan (x23137).
Original SignW tt Charles E. Roni Charles E. Rossi, Director Division of Operational Events Assessnient, NRR
Enclosure:
As stated 1
cc: F. Gillespie i G. Sege, RES P. Norian, RES F. Hebdon l Distribution:
DT3FT/F TTMartin 00EA R/F JHSniezek W entral Files LShao PDR Qt,IJ j CERossi 8804140425 e80405 F EJButcher PDR ORG NRRD h je ,>
s DCFischer OTSB Members / 93Dl (Memo /Sheron/ Bryan) h
- SEE PREVIOUS PAGE F0P, CONCURRENCE " /[
- 00 ossi[
- TSS:00EA:NRR *TSB:00EA:NRR *C:TSB:00EA:HRR SEBryan:pnc DCFischer EJButcher -
l 03/17/88 03/17/88 03/23/88 Off
11EMORANDuft FOR: Brian W. Sheron, Director, Division of Reactor and Plant Systems, RES FROM: Charles E. Rossi, Director, Division of Operational Events Assessment, NRR
SUBJECT:
Chernobyl Follow-up Research Plan: Detailed Plans Enclosed are the detailed plans for the Chernobyl Follow-up tasks to be managed by DOEA that were requested by your December 3,1987 memorandum to me on the above subject. These tasks are:
o Task No.1.2A Test, Change, and Experiment Review Guidelines o Task No.1.4A ESF Availability o Task No.1.48 Technical Specifications Bases.
Should you have any questions regarding these detailed task plans, please call Samuel Bryan (x23137).
Charles E. Rossi, Director Division of Operational Events Assessment, NRR
Enclosure:
As stated cc: G. Sege, RES P. Norian, RES CONTACT: S. Bryan x23137 (Memo /Sheron/ Bryan)
Q TSB:00EA:hRR Q4 g TSB:00EA:llRR DEA:llRR D:00EA:NRR SEBryan:pmc DCFischer C$$$()ier EelSu t'of CERossi 03/1 /88 03/o/88 03/1J/88 03/ /88
__ b
TASK N0. 1.?A TEST, CHANGE AND EXPERIMENT REVIEW GUIDELINES
- 1. Issue Definition Planned tests and experiments not described in licensee's safety analysis reports (SAR) and changes to the facility and procedures described in licensee's SAR are required to be evaluated beforehand by licensees in
- accordance with NRC regulation 10 CFR 50.59 to assure their safety and that NRC is afforded the opportunity for their review where appropriate.
Thousands of these reviews are successfully conducted by licensees each year. However, in some instances, these reviews have not been adequate.
As a result, NRC was not always afforded the opportunity to review those tests, experiments and changes that involved an unreviewed safety question before the tests, experiments or changes were performed. Without appro-priate reviews by licensees and NRC, tests could be performed without adequate safety provisions or some safety features could be unacceptably altered, and the condition could remain undetected for lengthy periods.
- 2. TaskPurpose(Objective)
This task will improve guidance and criteria for performing reviews of tests, changes and experiments. This improved guidance will be developed by a joint NUMARC/NSAC Working Group. The NRC will endorse the guidance document supplemented with any additional measures needed. The guidance document will be made available to all licensees.
- 3. Scope The NUMARC/NSAC Working Group will develop draft criteria and guidelines and provide them to industry at large and the NRC for review and comment.
When acceptable to the Working Group and a consensus of industry agrees, NRC will review the guidance document. The guidance may be supplemented i if necessary to permit NRC endorsement. The industry and NRC will use the guidance in their reviews of tests, experiments and changes required by
. 10 CFR 50.59.
- 4. Work Description The work discussed in item 3 above has already begun. Two drafts of NUMARC/NSAC Working Group "10 CFR 50.59 Guidance Document" have been given to NRC for coment. Coments were provided on the first draft and the second draft is under review.
2 The need for review guidance had been identified before the Chernobyl accident. The leck of adequate planning review, preparation and imple-mentation of the Chernebyl test emphasizes this need. The work already planned by NUMARC/NSAC Working Groups and by the NRC Technical Specifications Branch in the Technical Specification Improvement Program will cover the work needed for resolving this issue. Additional work is not needed.
- 5. Milestone Dates NUMARC/NSAC first draft Guidance Document reviewed by NRC - September 23, 1987.
- NUMARC/NSAC second draft Guidance Document provided to industry at large and NRC for review - November 23, 1987.
NUMARC/HSAC final draft Guidance Document - Sumer 1988.
~
- NRC endorsement of NUMARC/NSAC Guidance Document - Early 1989.
- Chernobyl Task No. 1.2A Closecut Report - Mid 1989.
- 6. NRC Organizational Assignment NRR/D0EA/0TSB will complete this task. A 10 CFR 50.59 NRC Working Group was formed July 13, 1987 to coordinate with NUMARC/NSAC to develop guidance for 10 CFR 50.59 reviews including tests, experiments, and changes and to recomend to NRC management a product endorsable by NRC. S. Bryan, OTSB, is chairman of the Working Group consisting of seven members with two additional ad hoc members. Regional coordinators have been named to interact with the Working Group and to assist it in various Working Group requests including comment requests on NUMARC/NSAC draft documents.
Task Leader: S. Bryan
- 7. Contract Support No contract support is needed to complete this task.
- 8. Resource Estimate The 10 CFR 50.59 work was initiated prior to the Chernobyl implications study recomendations. No additional work will be necessary to accomplish this task. The only additional resources necessary will be those required to report progress against the Chernobyl Followup Research Plan and write a task closeout report.
This is estimated to require .07 staff-years in FY88 and .03 staff-years in FY89 from DOEA.
- 9. Relation to Other Projects See items 3. Scope and 4. Work Descri) tion above for relationship to
- ~
Technical Spe' cit 1 cations Improvement )rogram.
TASK NO. 1.4A ESF AVAILABILITY
- 1. Issue Definition ESF equipment needed to mitigate the design basis accidents (DBA) and transients currently have operability requirements in Technical Speci-fications (TS) to assure its availability for all modes of operation.
In some instances all of this equipment has not been evaluated in light .
of the need for its availability for plant shutdown modes.
- 2. Task Purpose (Objective)
This task will require evaluation of and specification of operability (availability) requirements for those ESF systems and support systems needed to mitigate DBAs and transients. This task will be accomplished by Owners Groups (0Gs) for Standard Technical Specifications (STS) and will be made available to individual licensees for plant unique TS as a part of a voluntary industry wide program to improve TS.
- 3. Scope This task will be accomplished in the Technical Specifications Improvement Program. It is a part of the overall program to insure that the OGs and individual licensees specify the appropriate modes for ESF equipment. In some of the older TS, mode requirements for operability may not be specified for other than the operating mode. In the rewrite of the TS Bases, the reasons for the LC0 will be included. Where the mode is currently absent or is inappropriately specified, the Bases will be clarified to identify required ESF equipment for each operational condition. However, ESF required availability will only be addressed with respect to design basis accidents and transients and initial conditions (i.e. modes) currently analyzed in the Final Safety Analysis Reports.
4 Work Description ,
Vendor OGs will be permitted to remove from STS those specifications in l l
current STS that do not meet Commission criteria for what should be included in TS. Requirements remaining in TS will be rewritten and improved. Each i rewritten and improved TS must have a Bases that not only explains why the !
TS is needed, but also the plant conditions for which it is needed. This need will be evaluated for all of the operating modes of the plants.
i Licensees will be encouraged to convert to the new STS and conduct similar upgrades for plant unique TS that meet the NRC criteria for TS. These l plant upgrades will be done on a voluntary basis. Those participating a
2 will have appropriate ESF operability requirements specified for plant conditions where equipment could be needed for accident mitigative pur-poses. Upgraded plant unique TS will also be evaluated. DEST will provide any technical support needed to evaluate the Bases statements and mode requirements.
If significant ESF availability disparities are disclosed in this upgrade, they will be recommencied for backfit on non-program participants' TS as the need arises.
Staff Rev'iew of New STS Complete - Late 1989.
Individual Utility Conversions to the New STS - Beginning Late 1989.
- Chernobyl Task No.1.4A Closecut Report - Mid 1990.
- 6. NRC Organizational Assignment NRR/00EA/0TSB will corrplete this task. DEST will provide any technical support needed.
Task Leader: D. Fischer, OTSB.
- 7. Contract Support No separate contract support will be required to include consideration of this new item in the development of the new STS.
- 8. Resource Estimates The Technical Specifications Improvement Program was initiated prior to
)
the Chernobyl event, therefore, no additional, unplanned, work will be necessary to accomplish this task. The only additional resources necessary j will be those required to report progress against the Chernobyl Followup j Research Plan and write a closecut report. l This is estimated to require .05 staff years in FY88 and FY89 from DOEA.
- 9. Relation to Other Projects See items 3. _Sc_p_e_
o and 4. Work Descri) tion above for relationship to Technical Specifications Improvement )rogram.
j
TASK N0. 1.4B TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BASES
- 1. Issue Definition Current Technical Specifications (TS) Bases do not always provide a clear and comprehensive discussion linking specific requirements to the safety analysis assumptions they are derived from. This can result in operators not being as aware as possible of the safety significance of certain types of TS violations, as may have been the case at Chernobyl. It can also result in changes being proposed to TS without adequate consideration of all the relevant safety issues.
- 2. Task Purpose (Objective) -
The objective of this task is to develop an upgraded set of bases for the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) to provide a clearer link between requirements and the safety analysis. The upgraded standard Bases will be made available to individual licensees for the purpose of adapting them to their plants as a part of a voluntary industry-wide program to improve TS.
- 3. Scope It is planned that a separate set of upgraded standard Bases will be developed for each LWR design. The upgraded Bases will be developed as part of an ongoing joint NRC/ Industry Technical Specifications Improvement Program (see SECY 86-310). This is a program whereby the industry utility owner's groups will completely rewrite the STS (including the Bases) making many improvements in both fonnat and content. This program was initiated prior to the Chernoby1 event, therefore no additional unplanned work will be necessary to accomplish this task.
Once the new STS are developed it is expected that most individual utilities will voluntarily elect to adopt them for their plants. Any decision to require an individual licensee to convert to the new STS will be made in accordance with the Backfit Rule (10 CFR 50.109).
4 Work Description As noted in item 3. above, no separate work beyond that already started under the Technical Specification Improvement Program is planned in response to the Chernobyl event. The Bases rewrite part of Improvement Program will be comprehensive. A clear one to one relationship between TS requirements and the safety analysis will be documented in a carefully formatted Bases for each TS. Separate Bases subsections will be written to address separate parts (i.e., LCOs, Action Statements, and Surveillance Requirement) of individual TS.
i 2
- 5. Milestone Dates i
. Owners' Groups Submit new STS for NRC Staff Review - Early 1989
. Staff Review of New STS Complete -
Late 1989
. Individual Utility Conversions to the New STS - Beginning Late 1989
. Chernobyl Task No. 1.4B Closeout Report -
Hid 1990
- 6. NRC Organizational Assignment NRR/00EA/0TSB will complete this task.
Task Leader: D. Fischer, OTSB.
- 7. Contract Support
~
No separate contract support will be required to include consideration of this new item in the development of the new STS.
- 8. Resources Estimates The Technical Specifications Improvement Program was initiated prior to the Chernobyl event, therefore, no additional, unplanned, work will be necessary to accomplish this task. The only additional resources necessary will be those required to report progress against the Chernobyl followup Research Plan and write a task closecut report.
This is estimated to require .05 staff-years in FY88 and FY89 from DOEA.
- 9. Relation to Other Projects See item 3. Scope above.
__-