NG-97-1213, Comment on NUREG-1606, Proposed Regulatory Guidance Re Implementation of 10CFR50.59 (Changes,Test or Experiments)
| ML20148U509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1997 |
| From: | Franz J IES UTILITIES INC., (FORMERLY IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT |
| To: | Meyer D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| References | |
| FRN-62FR24997, RTR-NUREG-1606 62FR24997-00013, 62FR24997-13, NG-97-1213, NUDOCS 9707100199 | |
| Download: ML20148U509 (7) | |
Text
.
.- IE3 Utilitres hc, f2/k.,2ff 200 First Street S E.
5YDi?cf /hy 7 ff C daYNYp ds, IA 52406-035 Telephone 319 398 8162
) fQ Fax 319 398 8192 UTILITIES >*a "raa' 'r-1997 JUL -8 AM 9: 04 Vice Fresident, Nuclear RULES & C a BF M CH NG-97-1213 US NRC July 3,1997 l ,
o Mr. David L. Meyer - . -- ,
l Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services
! Office of Administration U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, DC 20555-0001 l
l
Subject:
Duane Arnold Energy Center l Docket No: 50-331 l Op. License No: DPR-49 l Comments on NUIEG 1606: Proposed Regulatory Guiaance Related to Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 (Changes, Tests, or Experiments)
I
References:
- 1) Letter from S. Frantz (MLB) to Chief, Rules and Directives Branch (NRC)," Comments on NUREG 1606, Proposed Regulatory Guidance Related to Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 (Changes.
Tests, or Experiments)," July 1,1997
- 2) Letter from A. Pietrangelo (NEI) to D. Meyer (NRC), " Industry Comments on NUREG 1606, ' Proposed Regulatory Guidance Related to Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 (Changes, Tests, or Experiments),' (62 Fed. Reg. 24997 - May 7,1997)," July 7,1997 File: A-100, A-119 l
l
Dear Mr. Meyer:
j l In a Federal Register Notice on May 7,1997 (62 Fed. Reg. 24997), the NRC requested comments by July 7,1997 on NUREG 1606: Proposed Regulatory Guidance Related to Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 (Changes, Tests, or Experiments). In addition to Reference 1, submitted on our behalf by Morgan, Lewis /
& Bockius, and the Reference 2 comments submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute j{
(NEI), which we also endorse, IES Utilities submits the following public comments }
on NUREG 1606.
}
'~~~l--fl 6a$2 N ldc'tur]/
9707100199 970703 PDR NUREG 111.111.1111.1ll11.111.111111 1
An IES Industnes Company
Mr. David L. Meyer July 3,1997 NG-97-1213 Page 2 We would like to begin by pointing out the significant positive effect the changes to facilities performed under s50.59 have had on nuclear safety. This rule allows licenser s to make timely improvements to their facilities. Our concern is that with the lower t' u eshold for defining an Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ) if NUREG-1606 is imple mented, many of these safety enhancements will either be significantly delayed due to the protracted review process for a license amendment or not be made at all due to the additional expense of the preparation and approval of the license amendment. It is imperative that this significant benefit of the rule is not adversely
[ affected by any future rulemaking or modifications to the implementation guidance.
While not a direct comment on a specific area of NUREG-1606, we would like ta emphasize that the purpose of 10 CFR 50.59 is not tojudge whether a proposeu activity is " nuclear safe," but solely a legal test to determine whether the licensee may implement the proposed activity without prior NRC review and approval. All too often this perspective is lost in discussions between the licensee and the Staff on plant-specific issues. The emphasis in the term "unreviewed safety question" is often placed upon the word " safety," not on the word "unreviewed," where it belongs. We hope through this comment process that the original intent of the regulation is not lost.
- With the above perspective in mind, we would also like to comment on the appliccbility of 50.59 to Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP) discussed in Section !
Ill.C.4 of NUREG 1606. Because the EOPs are " symptom-based" and the accidents as !
described in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) are " event-based," it is extremely difficult to differentiate whether a specific EOP-directed operator action is within or outside the design basis. This will become even more difficult upon implementation of l the new Severe Accident Management Guidelines being developed by the indos; )
While the Staff recognizes the impracticality of trying to apply the {50.59 process x l EOPs, ("Inpractice, the operator actions in the EOPfor design basis accidents %for j severe accidents are interwoven and therefore it would be very difficidt to chan; . h.# ;
only with respect to the portions described in the SAR."), EOPs are not clearly exchaled from the scope of 50.59. This issue has been previously addressed by the Stafrand the BWR Owners' Group (BWROG) in the resolution of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) to Revision 4 to the BWROG Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPGs). The industry position is that except where a plant takes a technical deviation from the EPGs, j EOPs developed in accordance with the Staffs SER should be exempted from
" procedures as described in the SAR" for the purposes of f 50.59.
Another area of concern with NUREG-1606 is in Section III.D.4 regarding the !
definition of test or experiment under s50.59. The Staff position in Section III.D.4 i has created a great deal of confusion, specifically by the addition of the first example, is, "ifa test previously described in the SAR will be done in a different wayfrom that described in the SAR. " Without further clarification as to what constitutes "in a
, . Mr. David L. Meyer July 3,1997 NG-97-1213 Page 3 different way," the interpretation has been made that any change to a previously-approved test, including Technical Specification Surveillance Testing, constitutes a test or experiment under &50.59, requiring a full safety evaluation. This interpretation is a dramatic shift in the previously published guidance. As the attached summary documents, changes to surveillance testing has been historically viewed as a " change to a procedure described in the SAR " regardless of whether or not the details of the surveillance test are contained in the text of the SAR. This new interpretation of surveillances as a " test" will significantly increase the burden on licensees in making changes to plant procedures that, heretofore, could be revised without full safety evaluations under s50.59.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed guidance in NUREG 1606.
I Sincerely, ohn Franz Vice President, Nuclear Attachment : 10 CFR 50.59 - Test or Experiment i
cc: L. Root D. Wilson i G. Kelly (NRC-NRR) ;
A. B. Beach (Region III)
NRC Resident Office DOCU ;
l l
t
Attachment to NG-97-1213 July 3,1997
)
10 CFR 50.59 - Test or Exneriment The origin of the regulation (27 FR 5491,6/9/62), as it relates to this issue, is from the Operating License for the GE Vallecitos reactor (DPR-1), which was not a power reactor," per se, but an actual testing facility, designed and operated for the sole i purpose of gathering data to validate GE's proposed designs for various reactor I systems and components, particularly fuel designs, reactivity controls and nuclear instrumentation. With this as background to the regulation, the intent of N50.59 was to i allow GE to conduct such tests or experiments without having to re-apply for a !
license amendment every time a new test / experiment was performed, as long as they I stayed within the bounds of the original hazards summary report (in FSAR). The idea here is that just because a detail of a previously-approved test / experiment has !
been modified, does not automatically mean that such a change would constitute a new test / experiment,in one not previously described in the FSAR. The effect of the i change must also be considered and a determination made of whether the change causes the system, structure or component (SSC) to be operated in a new or different way from that previously evaluated. On this last point, both the industry, via NSAC-125/NEI 96-07, and the NRC, via the I&E Manual (Part 9800,"CFR Discussions -
Changes to Facilities, Procedures and Tests (or Experiments)," 1/1/84), have similar interpretations as to what constitutes " tests or experiments not described in the SAR." l There are two ideas that will be discussed. First, that " tests or experiments" under 50.59 are expected to be non-routine tests involving unusual modes of operation; and, second, that routine surveillances and plant operation of SSCs is covered under
" procedures as described in the SAR," whether described in detail or not.
The I&E Manual Part 9800 says for tests or experiments:
"This pertains to the performance of an operation not described in the SAR which could have an adverse ejfeet on safety-related. systems." (emphasis added)
It also goes on to give examples of tests / experiments that would and would not require s50.59 safety evaluations. In those examples the position is stated that tests / experiments do not require safety evaluations if" .. the test does not involve an abnormal mode of operation.","... even if such a test was not delineated in the S AR...".
In 1&E Manual Inspection Procedure 37001, ("10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation
! Program," 12/29/92), in describing how the inspector should conduct the inspection of the licensee's 50.59 program in the area of tests and experiments states:
Tests or exneriments not described in the. safety analysis renort. Focus on Section 50.59 safety evaluations for tests performed since the last NRC l
l l
l
, Attachment to NG-97-1213 July 3,1997 inspection of the licensee's test and experiments program (or equivalently, the licensee's Section 50.59 program), but also review approved safety evaluations of tests planned for the future. Since tests requiring a Section 50.59 safi>ty evaluation occur infrequently, most, if not all, of the Section 50.59 safety evaluations for tests prepared since the last NRC inspection of the test and experiments program can usually be reviewed during the inspection. (emphasis added)
This IP goes on to state:
Because precise meanings of the USQ criteria are not provided in Section 50.59, the thresholds for USQ involvement will be interpreted differently from licensee to licensee. The inspector must review the licensee's guidance for interpreting the USQ criteria and decide ifit satisfies the intent of Section 50.59, which is to limit CTEs { sic, Changes, Tests or Experiments} not requiring prior NRC approval to those that do not exceed the bounds ofthe licensing and design basis ofthefacility as described in the FSAR. (emphasis added)
I&E Manual Inspection Procedure 37001 contains a cross-reference to Inspection Procedure 37703 (" Tests and Expericants Program," 4/14/92) for further guidance on safety evaluations of tests and experiments.
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, the holder of an operating license may conduct tests and experiments not described in the FSAR, provided such tests and experiments do not involve a change to the TS or an unreviewed safety question. The licensee should have a system along with assigned responsibilities to assure that all proposed safety-related tests and experiments will be checked to determine whether they are beyond the operations described in the FSAR. (emphasis added)
The inference here is clear, a " test or experiment" under 50.59 is expected to be an infrequent /non-routine activity that is outside the previously analyzed operating envelope for SSCs described in the SAR. Hence a full safety evaluation should be prepared to determine whether there is an USQ.
These same I&E Procedures discuss normal maintenance and surveillance testing procedures in the context of" procedures as described in the SAR." In I&E Manual Inspectum Procedure 37001, the inspector is told to sample from both the 50.59s and applicability screenings for procedure changes.
Changes in nrocedures as described in the safety analysis renort. As a rule of thumb, the number of Section 50.59 safety evaluations for procedure changes that the inspector should review is about 5 percent of the number of procedure changes the licensee last reported to the NRC as required by 10 CFR
, J .
, Attachment to NG-97-1213 !
July 3,1997 50 59(b)(2). Focus on significant changes to procedures implemented since the i last NRC inspection of the licensee's Section 50.59 program, but also select approved procedure changes awaiting implementation. Choose a variety of safety evaluations foi changes inprocedure from categories such as operations, engineering, maintenance. emergency operations, physics startup tests, surveillance tests, administrative controls, and health physics. (emphasis added)
Further evidence of that maintenance and surveillance tests are covered in this 50.59 1 category is under " Changes in the facility or procedures" in IP 37001 in the discussion of temporary modifications, i Temporary modifications (e.g.,jumpero and lifted leads) of SSCs that are )
described in the FSAR that are routinely implemented byperiodic maintenance l or surveillanceprocedures do not need to be evaluated in accordance with l Section 50.59 each time the procedure is performed. The originalSection 50.59 safety evaluationpr the procedure should remain valid as long as the
, precautions andlimitations ofthe procedure are observed.
1 Under tests or experiments, IP 37001 makes it clear that if a previously evaluated test is changed a new safety evaluation must be performed. "If a test described in the SAR will be done in a different way, then a Section 50.59 safety evaluation is required." Although no further guidance is provided as to what constitutes "in a different way," it is clear that changes to a previously described surveillance procedure in the SAR do not i constitute a " test" if the plant remains bounded by the previously evaluated conditions. l The same IP under changes to procedures, uses the example that " changing a procedure ]
just listed in the updated FSAR would not require a Section 50.59 safety evaluation."
4 Thus, if the Staffintended that if" changing a procedure in the SAR" to be "done in a different way," constituted a new " test" per the above statement requiring a full safety evaluation, then they wouldn't exclude them just because they were merely listed in the SAR.
This is in recognition that such activities are not considered to be " tests or experiments,"
but fall within the scope of 50.59 for " changes to procedures as described in the SAR "
whether such activities are described in detail or not.
The industry's position is very similar - NSAC-125/NEI 96-07 states:
Written Safety Evaluations are required for test or experiments not described in the SAR. The intent of the 50.59 criterion is to require Safety Evaluations of tests and experiments that might affect safe operation of the plant but were
} not anticipated by the SAR. By regulatory definition, these are tests and experiments which could degrade the margins of safety during normal operations or anticipated transients or degrade the adequacy of SSCs to prevent accidents or mitigate accident conditions. Thus, previously evaluated
- , Attachment to NG-97-1213 l
- July 3,1997 e 1
l *ests do not require written Safety Evaluations under 50.59. For example, for .
preoperational tests, surveillance tests, functional tests and startup tests that !
I are performed monthly, quarterly or on a refueling outage basis, Safety l l Evaluations are not required every time a test is performed. However, one-of- l a-kind tests used to measure the effectiveness ofnew techniques or a new c
? system configuration that can affect systems important to safety will require
!' Safety Evaluations before being conducted. Post-modification testing should ;
h he considered if an abnormal mode ofoperation is required and may be
! included in the modification safety analysis. (emphasis added)
Thus, it is apparent that routine surveillance tests, whether described in detail in the FSAR or not, are not considered " tests or experiments" under this regulation, as long as they are bounded by the normal operating modes and conditions described in the FSAR. i i
i i
_ - . _ _ _ . i