ML20203K535

Discusses NRC Comments on NEI 96-07, Guidelines for 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations. in ,Nrc Noted That Certain Aspects of Guidance Were Inconsistent W/Requirements of 10CFR50.59.Licensee Use of Guidance May Result in EA

ML20203K535
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/24/1998
From:	Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Ralph Beedle NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT &
References
PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9803050123
Download: ML20203K535 (6)

Text

.- . - _ - - - - - _- - - - - -

1

, ,. C'80

, 9

, y+ t UNITED STATES l

y P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• , p; WASHINGTON. D.C. 30MH001

\.....'/ February 24, 1998 Mr. Ralph Beedle, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Generation Nucl6ar Energy institute 1776 i Street, NW Suite 400 Washington D.C. 20006-3708

SUBJECT:

NRC COMMENTS ON NEl 96 07, ' GUIDELINES FOR 10 CFR 50.59 SAFETY EVALUATIONS"

Dear Mr. Beadle:

On Jar.uary 0,1998, the NRC sent staff comments to you on NEl 96-07, ' Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations.' In that letter, the staff noted that it considered that certain aspects of the guidance were inconsistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 and that a licensee's use of the guidance in these areas may result in enforcement action.

Your letter of January 16,1998, noted that the guidance in these areas was the same as the guidance in NSAC-125,

• Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations", which many licensees use as the basis for their procedures for 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations. You also stated that licensees have not been subject to enforcement action for using NSAC guidance in these areas and that changes in NRC interpretations should be subject to a 10 CFR 50.109 backfit review.

In issuing the January 9,1998 letter, the staff wanted to identify areas of departure between NEl guidance and established NRC interpretation of the regalations. These areas had been previoutly discussed between the NEl and NRC staffs. The January 9,1998 letter provided documentation of the NRC position in preparation for the NEl, industry meeting subsequently held the week of January 12,1998. At your invitation, Mr. Frank Miraglia, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reac'or Regulation, spoke to the issues contained in the January 9,1998 letter and responded to questions.

la raising the question of potential enforcement action, the staff was prodding a caution that there may be instances in which the NRC would find, through its normal inspection activities, that a licensee made a particular change under 10 CFR 50.59, which NRC would conclude should not have been performed without prior NRC approval. The NRC Inspection Manual guidance (i.e., 'IId inspection Procedure 37001 and Part 9900 on 10 CFR 50.59 (April 1096)), clearly indicates that insoectors are to assure that licensees comply with the requirements of the rule. These established positions do not represent a change in NRC's treatment in these areas. Appropriate gr"*( [M i I r pidqqCa M

1. g 44 3 (I Dul 9003050123 990224 PDR REVQP ERONUMRC PDR fl h

' r . h, ,l {- l hNG g hb

k' Mr. Ralph Beedle - 2 february 24, 1998 enforcement action has been taken in the past, and will continue to be in the future, when a violation of the rule is identified. Any enforcement actio,1 would be based on the details of the particular change and whether the rule requirements were violated, not on the type of implementation guidance a livensee has in place.

Sincereh, a or Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,

cc: See next page Project No. 689 4

4 e

d W

d

, ,. ..w.. .,.,s , .. ,._,-y., ,---+-,,%.,e +. .,. .- - - . . . . ,.w.. - -

.,,,,--.w .,,.,..,....--.,..w., .., ,.,y.- , y

Mr. Ralph Beedle 2 February 24. 1998 i

enforcement action has been taken in the past, and will continue to be in the future, when a violation of the rule is identified. Any enforcement action would be based on the details of the particular change and whether the rule requirements were violated, not on the type of

implementation guidance a licensee has in place.

Sincerely, Orighalsignedby SamuelJ.005ns SamuelJ. Collins, Director

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See next page Project No. 689 8  ?

I QJETRIBUTION: .See attach page DOCUMENT NAME: G:\5059\yt980010

, see rwem concurrence - .

OFFICE PGEB:DRPM TECH. EDITOR SC:PGEB:DRPM (A)BC:PGEB DRPM NAME EMcKenna:sw RSanders' FAkstulewicz' TEssig' DATE 2/ /98 1/29/98 1/29/)l 4Q 1/29/98 OFFICE (A)D DRPM OGC D: ,

y NAME JRoe" LChandler* S' DATE 2//0/98 2/.3/98 2/2ft98 OFFICIAL OFF!CE COPY Se_

ckxp twxii ks pread N-

--.,---...:. , ., .,n,. , - , - , ~ - - .,.,n , , . , , e r - . - - -,,--.,w v-- ,- --, , . , , - . . - - ~ ,r---

a ~ . - - - ,-

e DISTRILtVTION: Yellow Ticket 080010 Ltr. to R. Beedle Dated february 23,_1998 Projoot Fi.'s (wAncoming)(YT 960010)

PUBLIC IN/ incoming)(YT 980010)

NRR Me itoom (w/ incoming)(YT980010)

PGEB r,I(w/ incoming)(YT 980010)

LCallan HThompson AThadani PNorry JBlaha GTracy SCollins/FMiraglia RZimmerman BSheron WTravers FGillespie JRoe DMatthews TEssig FAkstulewicz EMcKenna JLieberman, OE OGC ACRS TMartin, AEOD HMiller, RI LReyes, Ril BBeach, Rlli EMerschoff, RIV 6

i 9

Nuclear Energy Institute Project No. 689 cc: Mr. Alex Marion, Director k Programs Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20006 'U08 Mr. David Modeen, D2 rector Engineering Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20006 3708 Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Director Licensing Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Jim Davis, Director Operations l Nuclear Energy Instituto Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20006 3708 Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director $

Plant Support N.aclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20006-3706 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

_ ---- _______________-__-_________-____________-_______________-_____-__a

Ap -

%.Y7

,. /g pro

• b ,

FROM: ORIGINAL DUE DT: / / TICKET NO: 0980010 DOC DT: 01/16/98 NRR RCVD DATE: 01/21/98 TO:

Sam Collino FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** YEL **

DESC: ROUTING:

January 9, 1998 comments on NEI 96-07, Revision 0, COLLINS /MIRAGLIA Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations - ZIiWERMAN Misunderstanding of the intent of the industry SHERON initiative associated with NEI 96-07. TRAVERS ROE NRR MAILROOM ASSIGNF.D TO: CONTACT:

DRPM ROE SPECTAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

i 3

k-I d g,m 1 9 j .4 b

.y. I

e, *

~

,s . ,) h a -

NU(llAt (NilGV I N 5111 U l f Ralph 8. Seedle s... . . . . . . . . , ~ .

January 16,1998 . , . .L*.,'. 1" Mr. Samuel L. Collins, Director OfHee of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 0001

Dear Mr. Collins:

Your letter dated January 9,1998. Provided comments on NEI 96 07, Revision 0, Guidelinea for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations. While we welcome the stafYs review and comments on the document, there appears to be a misunderrtanding of the intent of the industry initiative associated with NEl 96 07. More importantly, however, we believe it was inal'propriate to state that potential enforcement action may be taken against licensees based on evolving staffinterpretations of rule language that has remained unchanged for almost thirty years.

The purpose of the industry initimive on NE! 96 07 is to ensure consistent and effective industrywide in2plementation of 10 CFR 50.59 programs. The intent of obtaining a commitment from alllicensees to the initiative is to preclude a repeat of the problems found by the NRC in some licensee programs over the last few years.

We remain confident that the initiative will achieve this goal. Based on our prior discussions with the Commissioners and senior NRC management, we had anticipated agency support of this initiative.

The areas in NEI 96-07 in which you noted that implementation of the guidance may result in enforcement action are consistent with the guidance in NSAC 125.

Since 1989, most licenseca have been implementing 10 CFR 50.59 using that guidance. Even though NSAC 125 was not endorsed by the NHC at that time, licensees have not been subjected to enforcement action for using the guidance in these areas. Therefore, your explicit mention of potential enforcement action is disturbing in that it represents a change in the NRC's treatment of these areas.

The NRC has a well established process,10 CFR 50.109, for changing its positions or interpretations on methods that are acceptable for compliance with the regulations. We note that the stafrviews provided in your comments on NEI 96-07 are similar to those published for comment in NUREG 1606 last year. At that time, it was stated in the Federal Register Notice that,"Any changes in udustry guidance or requirements will be subject to 10 CFR 50.109 backfit review before issuance."

n< . a.u , % mn e -. #.. i. > y, m. 4 m m ce. ... m m ....

. . . . . , , , , ._ .J

_~ _

l .

Mr. Samuel L. Collins J; January 16,1998 Page 2 Allowing initarpretations of compliance to shift or evolve when the actual

• orirements have not changed imposes an unnecessary burden on licensees and is a primary cause of regulatory instability. We regret that titis has occurred in this instance on a regulation that is so frequcntly exercised and do fundamental to the regulatory process. ,

y; The industry will cantinue to work with the NRC toward closure of the remaining 4 issues associated with 10 CFR 50.59, it is imperative that theae issues he resolved -

in 1998 on an expedittd basis.

4:cerelv, O -

Ralph E. Beedle

_m' 1

, utog g y* t UNITED STATES b

s* ,j2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30teH001

%, . . . . . l F?bruary 24, 1998 Mr. Ralph Beedle, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Generation Nuclear Energy institute 1776 i Street, NW Suite 400 Washington D.C. 20006 3708

SUBJECT:

NRC COMMENTS ON NEl 96-07," GUIDELINES FOR 10 CFR 50.59 SAFETY EVALUATIONS"

Dear Mr. Beedle:

On January 9,1998, the NRC sent staff comments to you on NEl 96-07, " Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations." In that letter, the staff noted that it considered that certain 1

aspects of the guidance were inconsistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 and that a licensee's use of the guidance in these areas may result in enforcement action.

Your letter of January 16,1998, r.oted that the guidance in these areas was the same as the b gudance in NSAC 125, "Guldelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluatio.as", which many licensees M

i&

use as the basis for their procedures for 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations. You also stated that licensees have not been subject to enforcement action for using NSAC guidance in these areas ,

end ihat changes in NRG interpretations should be subject to a 10 CFR 50.109 backfit review.

In issuing tha January 9,1998 letter, the staff wanted to identify creas of departune between NEl guidance and established NRC interpretation of the regulations. These areas had been pr eviously discussed between the NEl and NRC staffs. The January 9,1998 letter provided documentation of the NRC position in preparation for the NF.I, industry meeti,'g subsequently held the week of January 12,1998. At your invitation, Mr. Frank Miraglia, Dep Jty Director, Office g of Neelear Reactor Regulation, spoke to tho issues contained in the January 9,1998 letter and responded to questions.

In raising the question of potential enforcement action, the staff was providing a caution that there may be instances in which the NRC wo dd find, through its normal inspection activities, that a licens'ee made a particular change under 10 CFR 50.59, which NRC would conclude should not have been performed without prior NRC approval. The NRC Inspection Manual guidance (!.e.,

inspection Procedure 37001 and Part 9900 on 10 CFR 50.59 (April 1996)), clearly indicatet, that inspectors are to assure that licensees comply with the requirements of the rule. These estabkhed positions do not represent a change in NRC's treatment in tnese areas. Appropriate Puf Ow; clo dy 2/n h!w _W

4 i e' ,

t k

Mr. Ralph Beedle Februan N. M enforcement action has been taken in the past, and will continue tc be in the future, when a violation of the rule is identified. Any enforcement action would be based on the details of the particular change and whetner the rule requirements were violated, not on the type of implementation guidance a licensee,has in place.

Sincerely, Y

/e , ihns, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ec: See next page Project No. 689 I

i l

i l

I i

4 s

4

0 N . Mr. Ralph Beedie -2 February 24, 1998 s-r- -

enforcement action has been taken in the past, and will continue to be in the future, when a violation of the rule ic identified. Any enforcement action would be based on the details of the particular change and whether the rule requirements were violated, not on the type of implementution gu: dance a licensee has in place.

Sincerely, Originalsignedby

} '

SamuGl100 EMS Samuel J. Collins. Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See next page Pioject No. 689

\

DISTRIBUTION: See attach pqge DOCUMENT NAME: G:\5059\yt980010

• see prevkm .=mene.

OFFICE PGEB:DRPM TECH. EDITOR SC:PGEB:DRPM (A)BC:PGEB:DRPM NAMF. EMcKenna:sw RSanders* FAkstulewicz* TEssig*

DATE 2/ /98 1/29/98 1/29 [ 1/29/98 OFFICE (A)D:DRPM OGC D: y NAME JRoe* LChandler* Sh DATE 11/o /9 8 2/.b/93 2/2)t98 OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY W.

ckmptv4 b pcpostN-

_ _ _ --_._ . _ - _ _ _ _ . ~ __ _- . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _-- _. _.-- __--.-_

j DISTRIBUTION: Yellow Mtt 980010 Ltr. to R. Boedle Dated lebruarL2A_1R93_

Project File (whncoming)ti v80010)

PUGUC (vlfincoming)(YT 98010).

NRR Mailroom (w/ incoming)(YT980010)

PGEB r#(w/ incoming)(YT 980010)

LCallan i- H1hompson ,

- AThadani PNorry JBlaha GTracy .

SCollins/FMiraglia i- RZimmerman

_ BSheron WTravers i FGillespie JRoe-i- DMatthews TEssig FAketulewicz  :

EMcKenna JLieberman, OE OGC ACRS TMartin, AEOD

HMiller, RI

. LReyes, Ril- ,

BBeach, Rlli -

EMerschoff, RIV 4

9 i

n f- - ' - e a 1

'^

W Nuclear Energy Institute Project No. 689 cc: Mr. Alex Marion, Director Programs Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 '

1770 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 ,

1776 l Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Jim Davis, Director Operations >

Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20006-3708 Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director Plant Support Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW.

Washington, DC 2000G-3708 Mr. Nichohs J. Liparuto, Mancger Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities Nuclear and Advanced Technology Divisp Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 1 . _ - - - _ - - _ - - - . - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - . -

_._ _ _ _ . - . _ _ . _ . . _. ._ . - . ._. . - - ~ . _ _ . . ___ -. .

• (

. p. y r? U/g FROM: ORIGINAL DUE DT: / / TICKET NO: 0980010 DOC DT: 01/16/98 NRR RCVD DATE: 01/21/98

_ TO: ,

l- Sam Collins i

FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** YEL **

- DESC

- ROUTING:

4 January 9, 1998 comments on NEI 96-07, Revision 0, COLLINS /MIRAGLIA Guidelines for 10 CFT 50.59 Safety Evaluations - ZIMMERMAN Miounderstanding of the intent of the industry SHERON initiative associated with NEI 96-07. TRAVER3 i POE-4 NRR MAILROOM 1

l ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT:

DRPM ROE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

• 4 9

, tiy t

• ,* NU(llAt (NitGY I N $ 11101[

n.aph s. s m.

m. c . - , ..n . . n . . ..

January 16,1998 '3',2lll.','.

,'2."

Mr. Samuel L. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, LC 20555 0001

Dear Mr. Collins:

- Your letter dated January 9,1998, provided comments on NEI 96-07, Revision 0, l Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations. While we welcome the staff's

. review and comments on the document, there appears to be a misunderstanding of

the intent of the industry initiative associated with NEI 96 07. More importantly, however, we believe it was inappropriate to state that potential enforcement action may be taken against licensees based on evohing staffinterpretations of rule language that hae remained unchanged for almost thirty years.

The purpose of the industry initiative on NEI 96-07 is to ensure consistent and

effective industrywide implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 programs. The intent of obtaining a commitment from all licensees to the initiative is to preclude a repeat of

! the problems found by the NRC in some licensee programs over the last few year s.

We remain confident that the initiative will achieve this goal. Based on our prior discussions with the Commissioners and senior NRC management, we had anticipated agency support of this initiative.

The areas in NEI 96 07 in which you noted that implementation of the guidance may result in enforcement action are consistent with the guidance in NSAC 125.

Since 1989, most licensecs have been implementing 10 CFR 50.59 using that guidance. Even though NSAC 125 was not endorsed by the NRC at that time, licensees have not been subjected to enforcement action for using the guidance in these areas. Therefore, your explicit mention of potential enforcement action is disturbing in that it represents a change in the NRC's trea'. nent of these areas.

The NRC has a well-established process,10 CFR 50.100, for changing its positions orinterpretations on methods that are acceptable for compliance with the i regulations. We note that the staff views provided in your comments on NEI 96-07 l are sMlar to those published for comment in NUREG-1606 lart year. At that time, l it was stated in the Federal Register Notice that, "Any changes in industry guidance l

. or requirements will be subject to 10 CFR 50.109 backfit review before issuance." j 4

-1776 4 Sf at t f.~ NW . Sutil 400 - W A5MrNGTON DC 20006-3709 PHONE 202 130Gose ,An 20218$6998 6 NAf /

. Mr. Samu:1 L. Collins January 16,1998

. Page 2 Allowing interpretations of compliance to shift or evolve when the actual requirements have not changed imposes an unnecessary burden on licensees and is a primary cause of regulatory instability. We regret that this has occur-ed in this instance on a regulation thatis so frequently exercised and so fundamental to the regulatory process.

The industry will continue to work with the NRC toward closure of the remaining issues associated with 10 CFR 50.59. It is imperative that these issues be resolved in 1998 on an expedited basis.

Sincerely, A .

Ralph E. Beedle k

i l

[ _ _ _ __