 |
Search Options | |||
| Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us |  |
|||
Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > Commission Documents > Commission Meetings, Slides, Transcripts, Meeting SRMs, and Full Written Explanation for Closed Meetings > 1997
>
03/10/1997
1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- - -
BRIEFING ON 10 CFR 50.59
REGULATORY PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS
- - -
PUBLIC MEETING
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
One White Flint North
Rockville, Maryland
Monday, March 10, 1997
The Commission met in open session, pursuant to
notice, at 10:35 a.m., Shirley A. Jackson, Chairman,
presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission
KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner
GRETA J. DICUS, Commissioner
NILS J. DIAZ, Commissioner
EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., Commissioner
. 2
STAFF PRESENT AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
JOHN C. HOYLE, Secretary of the Commission
KAREN D. CYR, General Counsel
JOE CALLAN, EDO
THOMAS MARTIN, Director, Division of Reactor
Program Management, NRR
EILEEN McKENNA, Senior Reactor Systems Engineer,
NRR
FRANK MIRAGLIA, Deputy Director, NRR
. 3
P R O C E E D I N G S
[10:35 a.m.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. The purpose of this meeting is for the
Commission to be briefed by the NRC Staff on proposed
regulatory guidance related to the implementation of 10 CFR
50.59 changes, tests, and experiments.
The Commission approved making publicly available
the recent Staff paper addressing this subject, which I
understand is also available today at the entrances to this
meeting. The Commission is considering the Staff's request
to seek public comment on the paper.
In the fall of 1995, I directed the Staff to
perform a systematic reconsideration and reevaluation of the
regulatory framework that authorizes licensees to make
changes to their facilities without prior NRC approval.
Staff work to date is summarized in the paper,
highlights of which will be discussed today. The paper
proposes regulatory guidance that first reaffirms existing
regulatory guidance; second, clarifies Staff positions in
certain areas; third, establishes new guidance where none
existed; and fourth, briefly discusses some policy issues
related to potential rulemaking for 10 CFR 50.59.
As I stated last month at the Millstone Lessons
Learned meeting, I believe an honest assessment from the NRC
. 4
would indicate that the implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 has
been long overdue for improvement.
That regulation, which was originally promulgated
in 1962, is an important regulation, the applicability and
use of which has expanded over the years. Recent lessons
learned from Millstone and other reviews, coupled with the
fact that the industry guidance document, NSAC 125, is being
used by the nuclear industry to implement 10 CFR 50.59,
while not having been formally endorsed by the NRC because
there were certain differences between that document and 10
CFR 50.59, indicate that the time is ripe to resolve the
issues, to clarify guidance, and to get Commission policy
input on any proposed rule change.
The Commission is very interested, therefore, in
the proposed regulatory guidance and policy questions being
presented in today's meeting. The Commission recognizes
that the industry has in the past taken significant steps,
as I have indicated, to formalize their own guidance for
performing 50.59 evaluations.
The industry, for example, recognized early that
plant changes should be evaluated against more than the
final safety analysis report. However, it is clear that a
consistent, thorough approach has not always been taken by
all licensees.
Additionally, 10 CFR 50.59, as I have indicated,
. 5
has become more important over the years simply because of
the expanding scope of the rule. Licensees are evaluating
additional topics and significant plant changes under the
provisions of this rule.
It is not too late to make the necessary
improvements and to insure that NRC's program for assessing
changes, tests, and experiments conducted under the rule is
a more thorough and consistent program. However, the time
to do it is now.
I understand that copies of the Staff's
presentation are available at the entrances to the meeting,
and if none of my fellow commissioners have any additional
opening comments, Mr. Callan, you may proceed.
And I'd like to add a parenthetical comment, Mr.
Callan. I believe the Commission will be well-served by any
examples or insights that you may from the regional
perspective with respect to any difficulties that the
resident inspectors or region-based inspectors may face in
this area. So we would appreciate any comments you might
have as we go along.
MR. CALLAN: I will have plenty of examples,
probably limited only by time.
Good morning, Chairman, and --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's why we put it before
lunch.
. 6
MR. CALLAN: The NRC Staff is here today to brief
the Commission on the results of its review of
implementation issues related to 10 CFR 50.59.
With me at the table are, to my right, Frank
Miraglia, the Deputy Director of the Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation; to my immediate left, Tim Martin, the
Director of the Division of Reactor Program Management in
NRR; and to his left, Eileen McKenna of his Staff.
Chairman, you covered in your opening remarks
several of the points that I was going to make, so I will
immediately turn the discussion over to Mr. Miraglia, who
will now provide his opening remarks and then Mr. Martin
will then discuss the details of the Staff review.
MR. MIRAGLIA: Thank you, Joe. Good morning,
Madam Chairman, commissioners.
Just to set the stage a bit, on February 19th, we
briefed the Commission on the Millstone Lessons Learned Part
2, and if everyone recalls, there were six questions that we
addressed that came from that lessons learned, two of which
directly related to 50.59, the subject of today's meeting
with the Commission.
As with the Millstone Lessons Learned, there are
some short-term actions and long-term actions that we
believe should be considered in order to move forward with
the improvements in the 50.59 process.
. 7
The paper articulates the current Staff position
and interpretations of 50.59. As you have indicated, Madam
Chairman, for the most part, those Staff positions are
reaffirmations or clarifications of longstanding
interpretations, and in a few instances, they represent new
positions.
Therefore, we believe it is an important first
step in evaluating what changes need to be made in terms of
rulemaking to get public comment on the proposed Staff
position, and that's why the short-term recommendation is
for receiving public comment on the Staff positions as
presented in the paper.
A number of these questions have been addressed by
the Commission in the past and, in addition, are related to
some of the issues raised by NEI in their communications
with the Commission in October regarding principles of
conducting licensing basis reviews and for which the
Commission responded in early February. So the positions
then are consistent with communications with the industry
and NEI, which are also a matter of public record.
With those opening remarks, I would like to have
Tim walk us through the presentation and then we stand ready
to receive any questions.
MR. MARTIN: Thanks, Frank. May I have the first
slide, please?
. 8
[Slide.]
MR. MARTIN: 10 CFR, section 50.59 establishes a
process for licensees to make changes to their facility or
procedures described in the safety analysis report or to
perform tests and experiments not described in the safety
analysis report without prior NRC approval if those changes
do not involve an unreviewed safety question or changes to
their technical specifications.
Therefore, it establishes a regulatory threshold
beyond which prior NRC approval is required before
implementing a change or performing a test or experiment.
The purpose of this briefing is to present the
results to date of the Staff's 10 CFR 50.59 action plan and
recommendations for short-term improvements in regulatory
guidance.
Clearly the 10 CFR 50.59 process has been a
significant element for the framework for nuclear power
plant regulation since promulgated in 1962 and provides
licensees the needed structure and flexibility to make
changes that do not erode the basis for NRC's licensing
decisions.
Based on the Staff's review, we conclude that when
properly implemented, the 10 CFR 50.59 process has been and
continues to be successful in preserving the design basis
and safety margins at operating plants.
. 9
However, as a result of the Staff's analysis and
experience, we have identified areas where implementation of
the process would benefit from additional clarification or
guidance. As a result, we conclude that existing regulatory
guidance should be clarified to further reduce differences
in interpretation of rule language and expectations of the
process.
May I have the next slide, please.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Before you go, since we are
talking about clarification, in the paper you submitted to
the Commission, you discuss at least two other options when
it comes to dealing with degraded or nonconforming
conditions, and specifically, there's 10 CFR Appendix B, or
section 16, the generic letter 9118, which explicitly deals
with that subject.
Now, you don't have a viewgraph in here about
that, but it appears that there is some blurriness in the
boundaries between these different approaches or
methodologies.
Can you expand for the Commission's benefit on
what the various processes are, and do you think that
licensees have a clear understanding from us as to when one
is to be used versus another?
And then the related obvious question then is, is
this part of what you're going to be addressing in talking
. 10
about clarification?
MR. MARTIN: Chairman, as one of the items on the
implementation issues, that is a specific and, to be quite
frank, a lengthy discussion of the handling of the discovery
of degraded or nonconforming conditions, the applicability
of 50.59 to that process, what guidance is out there in the
form of the generic letter 9118, and how we believe that
there may be some additional interpretations and guidance
that we need to put out there.
If I can, I would like to hold off until that part
since we have covered those major issues.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You're going to explicitly
discuss these three?
MR. MARTIN: Yes, ma'am, I will.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. I will hold off.
MR. MARTIN: May I have the slide, concerns about
the 50.59 process?
[Slide.]
MR. MARTIN: The Staff's principal concern is that
improper implementation of the 10 CFR 50.59 process could
lead to a temporary reduction in the level of safety of a
plant. Specific implementation problems can usually be
placed in one of three bins.
First, the rule applies to facility or procedures
as described in the safety analysis report. To the extent
. 11
the facility or procedures are not so described or are not
perceived to be described, then the plan change may not be
subject to the 10 CFR 50.59 process.
Second, questions of interpretation of the rule's
language have led to ambiguity about when a change, test, or
experiment requires an evaluation and when an unreviewed
safety question is involved.
Third, because the rule as written addresses
proposed changes, ambiguity exists as to its application to
discovered conditions which are different from those
described in a safety analysis report.
May I have the next slide, please.
[Slide.]
MR. MARTIN: Our proposed approach to resolution
of these implementation concerns involves two parallel
paths: first, by improving implementation of the rule as
currently written by reaffirming existing regulatory
positions and practices for which there is general
agreement, clarifying existing regulatory positions where
interpretations may vary, establishing new regulatory
positions where none previously existed to assure uniform
implementation expectations and enhancing NRC inspection
guidance and oversight; second, by identifying additional
opportunities for improving implementation of the 10 CFR
50.59 process, such as through rulemaking.
. 12
Because the latter issues are inseparably linked
to policy issues discussed in the Millstone Lessons Learned
Report, Part 2, we intend to carefully examine the options
for additional actions, evaluate the consequence, their
implementation, and come back to the Commission with an
integrated set of recommendations.
May I have the next slide, please?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Before you go, the ones that
you're talking about that are under the heading of
"enhancing implementation of the rule as written," are all
of your recommended positions such that they can be
implemented in the short term, and are any of them subject
to back-fit consideration, or are they -- because they are
implementation of existing rules, they are not?
MR. MIRAGLIA: In terms of some of the issues,
Madam Chairman, where we feel that they're reaffirmations,
the answer would be no. In terms of some of the
clarifications, we need to put it through the process to
make sure that it's not a new interpretation, and that could
be done in the short term by generic letters or other kinds
of communications and issuances, and that's true of also
some of the new issues.
The longer term would be, given this experience
and given those improvements, should we take the next step
and codify all of that through a rulemaking process once we
. 13
take the short-term --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Is there concurrence between
the Staff, technical Staff, and OGC with respect to that
position?
MR. MIRAGLIA: I think in the short term with the
guidance, the first step would be to get the public comment
and that would establish the basis for issuing that in a
generic kind of sense, but perhaps Karen would like to add
to that.
MS. CYR: No. I think we're in agreement with the
Staff on the approach they've laid out.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I think there is an issue,
though, as to the separability of these policy issues from
what you're proposing to do on the short term. It may very
well be that some of your short-term proposals in fact
represent policy issues that ought to be reviewed as policy
issues.
So we'll have to see what this all amounts to, but
I'm not so convinced that it's easy to separate short term,
what you might call short term, from policy issues.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think that what they're
calling policy issues relate to policy issues related to
rulemaking because all of them are policy issues in the end.
MR. MIRAGLIA: I think that that would be fair.
In the terms of a generic communication, we would have to
. 14
come through process, would have to come to the Commission
saying, this is the generic communication the Staff intends.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I understand that, but I
think the question I'm raising is whether, by reaffirming
something as a policy issue that later on in fact ought to
be addressed through rulemaking and changed, it is something
that we ought to be very mindful of that, that possibility.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you know enough at this
point -- relative to the potential rulemaking, have you done
enough of a consideration to say whether there's anything
that you would be moving toward in that line that would
conflict with what you're calling the shorter-term
considerations?
MR. MIRAGLIA: I have not thought about that
question. I'll give an answer. With all the considered
thought that I've given it, probably not. I think if one
goes back to the concerns about the 50.59 viewgraph, the
issue of scope is one that we're leaving until later.
That's clearly outside.
What the intent would be is that the
clarifications in the short term that we would be providing
would be to the scope of 50.59 as now described in the rule.
So I don't believe anything in the short-term guidance is
going to expand the scope. That question would be clearly
later.
. 15
In terms of the ambiguity, we would try to be
clarifying concerns relative to margin and consequences and
changes in probability, again, to apply it to 50.59 as
described. We are not intending to change the scope of
50.59 within the context of the short-term lessons learned.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, I have to say that I
think those are issues that are going to be policy issues.
MR. MIRAGLIA: Those latter two?
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes.
MR. MIRAGLIA: Yes, and I think what we tried to
present to the Commission here is what Staff practice has
been and what the clarification has been and a
reaffirmation. Certainly the Commission can provide us
guidance in that area, either now or as for further
briefings on that.
The clear intent of the Staff, Commissioner
Rogers, is to put a reference out there that -- in terms of
public comments so there could be an understanding of how
it's being viewed and how we think is a fair implementation
of the process within the scope of the rule as defined right
now.
And I would agree, there are certain issues that
are kind of hard to parse one to the other. I think we've
tried to characterize long-term standard Staff practice,
Commission practice in the past, and what we're saying is a
. 16
reaffirmation. Certainly if the Commission feels that we've
gone further than that, we need to hear that from the
Commission.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I don't want to delay the
whole procedure here, but I do think in the first place, the
SECY is an excellent piece of work and I think it really
lays out the history and the issues, but when you read it
very carefully, you see a lot of inconsistencies.
And so when you say, you know, we're going to
reaffirm something, that reaffirmation is going to be
dealing with some things that, in my view, have been dealt
with in a rather inconsistent fashion and an unclear
fashion.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Is that the clarification part
of it, dealing with the inconsistencies?
MR. MIRAGLIA: I think that's what we felt we were
trying to articulate, those various pieces, and I think if
it would be helpful for the Commission to get more details
as to what falls in what bin, we can endeavor to do that.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think what's going to happen
is, obviously, the Commission is going to be reviewing this
paper, and depending upon its response to what you're
calling a reaffirmation versus a clarification versus
establishing some different regulatory position, therein is
the guidance.
. 17
So we have the paper and so it's up to us to act
on it.
MR. MIRAGLIA: That's fair.
MR. MARTIN: Chairman, in further amplification in
response to your question, we have thought about whether
this guidance that we're proposing would be sustained even
with rulemaking.
Clearly, a number of the pieces of guidance we
have there would be superseded by any rule change and
abdicate the need for some of the clarifications that we put
forward.
But a number of the guidance, we believe, would be
sustained, would continue even after the rule would be
modified, if that's the decision.
May I have the implementation issue slide?
[Slide.]
MR. MARTIN: Chairman, this is the meat of the
presentation and the slide is short, but the discussion is
long.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I was going to ask you for all
your backup viewgraphs for all these bullets, but since I
know you're going to talk very slowly and carefully.
MR. MARTIN: The 10 CFR 50.59 task group developed
a compilation of guidance on a wide range of topics related
to 10 CFR 50.59 implementation which was presented as an
. 18
attachment to our Commission paper.
Of the 22 implementation guidance issues
identified, the five shown on this slide were the most
significant or potentially controversial.
The first issue has potential impact on subsequent
10 CFR 50.59 evaluations because the scope of the current
rule is tied to as described in the SAR, or safety analysis
report.
The question raised is whether licensees can
remove information from the safety analysis report when not
specifically linked to a change to the facility or
procedures. Current regulations and regulatory guidance
define information that must and should respectively be
placed in the safety analysis report.
We recognize that current safety analysis reports
contain information that may not be used in future safety
evaluations in licensing decisions. Further, the content
and level of detail of individual safety analysis reports
differs considerably based in large part on the vintage of
the original license.
However, there is no established policy or
guidance on the question raised by this issue. Until the
Staff develops guidance in this area, it is the Staff's view
that licensees may not remove material from the safety
analysis reports unless the material is changed as a direct
. 19
result of a change to the facility or its procedures.
The next three issues involve the determination of
whether or not the proposed change, test, or experiment
involves an unreviewed safety question. As a reminder, 10
CFR 50.59(a)(2) states, "A proposed change, test, or
experiment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety
question, one, if the probability of occurrence or the
consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment
important to safety previously evaluated in the safety
analysis report may be increased; or, two, if a possibility
for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any
evaluated previously in the safety analysis report may be
created; or, three, if the margin of safety as defined in
the basis for any technical specification is reduced."
It should be noted that a determination that the
proposal involves an unreviewed safety question does not
necessarily mean the proposal is unsafe or unacceptable. It
only means that the licensee can't make the change or
conduct the test or experiment until the NRC decides it's
safe and approves the amendment.
The issue of margin of safety involves two
questions: what is meant by "as defined" in the basis for
any technical specification, and how do you determine
whether the margin of safety has been reduced.
Technical specifications are derived from the
. 20
analysis and evaluation included in the safety analysis
report. Technical specifications bases statements often do
not present margins of safety; therefore, the Staff
concludes the safety analysis report should be used as the
basis for any technical specification.
It should be noted that industry guidance
recommends that documents other than the tech spec bases be
reviewed when text spec bases are not explicit. However, we
should also note that this guidance has not been uniformly
adopted by licensees.
The margin of safety is generally not explicitly
defined in the safety analysis report or otherwise in
documents; however, the safety analysis report does present
limits within which the licensee proposes to operate the
facility and which the NRC accepted during review of the
licensing application.
Therefore, NRC's acceptance limits for approving
the operation of the facility are the values the licensee
proposed in the safety analysis report unless different
values are explicitly established as the basis for the
licensing action in the license, technical specifications,
or the NRC safety evaluation report.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you a question. If
we do broaden this issue of the basis for any tech spec to
include the safety evaluation report, do we run into any
. 21
problems with respect to enforceability?
MR. MIRAGLIA: I think in the long term, this is
an issue that needs to be clarified and relates to some of
the discussion we had a few weeks ago regarding commitments
and what regulatory processes are required to change and to
keep track of commitments in terms of a future fit and also
a back fit. So there is that type of relationship.
I think what we're trying to say within the
context here -- I think the intent is a little narrower;
perhaps we can expand on that -- in order to define and
answer the margin question, what we're saying is that the
basis for determining margin should not just be the basis of
technical specifications as defined in the regulation, but
the basis is for significant licensing documents that would
provide an answer to the question, what margins were there
and what was approved. And I think it's a bit narrower in
that kind of sense.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Again, is there concurrence
between yourselves and OGC in terms of this broader
definition of the basis for any tech spec, or is there some
rulemaking space?
MS. CYR: No. I think the OGC supports the Staff.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I think this is on the
same point. In the letter to Mr. Colvin, we talk about the
. 22
SER, the safety evaluation report. And on the end of a long
paragraph, it says, "In order to be binding, these
commitments must be reflected in supplements or amendments
to the FSAR, tech specs, or license conditions."
If the SER has a higher limit than the FSAR and
the licensee wants to use that higher limit for something,
is that the sentence that tells them that in order to get
the SER higher limit, that they had to somehow get it
reflected in supplements or amendments to their FSAR?
Or how does that process work where there's a
difference between the SER and the FSAR?
MR. MIRAGLIA: I think in terms of enforceability
of commitments, if it's not in the FSAR or other appropriate
licensing documents, such as condition of license or the
like, then the licensing basis would prevail, and I think
what -- if you look at the -- where we're talking about
margins in this particular case, much of that is inferred
when you read. We're not that clear as to what the margin
and what the acceptability of margins are.
For example, the clearest case is where one says
code and they're going to meet the code. Then it's -- but
the code is cited, but even the margin's not inferred. You
have to go back and find the trail. And I think we're
looking at this as -- in this case as the SER providing
guidance as to what is the scope of the margin type of
. 23
question and we weren't looking at it in terms of
commitments to follow-up.
And these are ambiguities that need to be cleaned
and cleared up. I think that in the previous briefing, we
talked about what we were trying to do in terms of
commitment, commitment tracking, and to follow those kinds
of things.
So there is a nexus and a relationship to the
short-term actions here and short-term actions that we
discussed several weeks ago.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: The same point. Am I hearing
-- maybe I'm not hearing right, but are you saying that the
new guidance will say that if the safety evaluation report,
the SER, has an acceptance limit that is higher than the
licensee has in his SAR, that we will accept the higher
limit as a -- you know, as a guide to changes? Is that what
we're saying?
MS. McKENNA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: So we --
MR. MIRAGLIA: That would be an articulation that
we haven't articulated. That's one of the -- that's a new
interpretation that we have to put out there and get
reaction to.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: But is that fair? If we have
. 24
a guidance document that the licensee did use, used a lower
level, we have a document that says, this higher level is
acceptable, I think we should address whether we will accept
the higher acceptance limit. I think that's really what we
need to make clear.
MR. MARTIN: Commissioner, let me set it up for
you, the problem we're trying to address. A licensee may
propose an operating limit here. They know we have a
standard review plan that would say we would have accepted
anything up to here.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Right.
MR. MARTIN: But in reviewing the entire
application, we may have decided that a lower limit is the
right one. If we explicitly state that because it is below
this lower limit, it is acceptable, then that was the basis
for our licensing action.
Licensees would like to sometimes go all the way
up to the standard review plan level and, in essence,
violate the basis upon which we license that plant. And so
we're saying that if there is no explicit articulation of
what the Staff used as its basis for this, then it's what
the licensee proposed to operate at, the SAR value.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I understand. And my question
goes right at that issue, that I guess it's a new present
knowledge and a new analysis, is that being considered if
. 25
actually the standard review plan established a higher limit
and we license a lower limit? Would it be possible to
consider that the higher limit is the one that should be
applied?
MR. MIRAGLIA: Only if the SER said it was okay to
go to the higher limit.
MR. MARTIN: Let's assume that we conclude that
they are above our licensing limit. All they have to do is
come into us and propose the change and get a license
amendment if it's a safe thing to do.
So this only determines whether they've exceeded
the regulatory threshold and have to get our buy-in before
they can implement it. As long as it's safe, we could
approve it.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Yeah, you could. The issue is
that that requires a significant amount of work on the part
of everybody, the licensee and us, and I was wondering
whether there's been additional clarification of this issue
or we are going to stick with our previous definition.
In other words, are we addressing the issue now
whether --
MR. MIRAGLIA: I think there's a short-term fix
that we're talking about, is just to clearly understand
where we're at, and that it's going to take a longer period
of time to evaluate these changes and the changes we
. 26
discussed in the past.
I think what we're trying to do is just establish
the playing field and saying, here's our views and
positions. Clearly, if the SER clearly spoke to a limit and
it's in there, then that's one case.
I think what you'll find is that, in most cases,
one can infer and it's not explicit, it's implicit. And in
those cases, what the guidance would be, if you can't point
to explicit material in the SER, as Mr. Martin just said,
come to us and we'll evaluate the amendment and go on the
basis.
It's clear that 50.59 is a regulatory threshold.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So let me make sure I
understand something. Are you basically arguing the
following way, that you have the standard review plan, the
standard review plan is not plant specific?
MR. MARTIN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And, therefore, when you
finally license the plant, you have to do plant-specific
evaluations?
MR. MARTIN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And that plant-specific
evaluation has things either documented in the safety -- the
Staff's safety evaluation report, or it might not.
MR. MARTIN: That's correct.
. 27
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And you're saying that if it
does not, then what's been proposed and what's in the SAR is
what governs?
MR. MARTIN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But if it has been explicitly
stated in the SER, then that is what you say or want to say
governs?
MR. MARTIN: Could be stated in the license or
tech specs or the SAR.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I know, but explicitly stated
somewhere. But you also want to include that explicit
statement to be what's in the SER?
MR. MARTIN: I don't know that I understand.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, suppose something is not
in the licensing, not in the licenses, not a license
condition, but in fact it is something that's referenced in
an SER. Are you saying that you -- that the Staff's
position is that what's in that SER is what should govern?
MR. MIRAGLIA: If the SER had one limit and the
SAR had another limit.
MR. MARTIN: Unfortunately, this is the way 50.59
is written right now. If it is not described in the SAR,
then the fact that we discussed it in the SER, it's still
outside the potential scope of 50.59 controls.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Correct. So what is your fix
. 28
to that?
MR. MARTIN: The question that we ask in the
policy area is: should we change the scope to encompass
additional things beyond what is described in the SAR?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: If that scope was the current
licensing basis, would that address the issue?
MR. MARTIN: I believe it would; however, we have
not done the integration of the issues that came out of
Millstone and explored the consequences of that conclusion.
So I am not yet ready to make a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Following on Commissioner
Rogers, this seems to be one of the crucial issues as far as
implementation and is probably a policy issue that we should
decide.
MR. MIRAGLIA: In the short term, I think what
we're saying is that this is how we're looking at it, and if
you want to take credit for something in the SER that's not
in the SAR, you need to come for an amendment in the short
term.
In the longer term, we'd have to decide how would
we change that type of policy, and it's integrated and it's
linked to commitments and other issues that we discussed, so
that's why we need to take a step back and say, "How do all
these pieces fit together?"
The scope of the FSAR -- I mean, the scope of the
. 29
rule is the FSAR.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So that's the scope of the
existing rule. And what you're basically trying to say is
that to reference anything else requires an explicit action?
To do it in the broad-based sense requires a rule change?
MR. MIRAGLIA: And I think the other -- I think
that's correct, and I think the other thing we're trying to
illuminate is the question of margins and saying that, when
one looks at the margins question, you need to look at the
entire thing to come in and make the kinds of judgments. If
they want to take credit for that, then the margins need to
be examined.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I think two people are
trying to -- Karen, do you want to go first?
MS. CYR: I just wanted to clarify something. If
you're talking about the standard review plan, which is not
referenced anywhere else, yes, then that's something new
you're introducing. But if there is a number in the Staff's
SER, then that's really the bases for the tech spec.
I was trying to clarify something that Tim said
that I thought was -- that's what he said originally, and I
thought he said something differently, and I just --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So the SER is part of the basis
for the tech spec?
. 30
MS. CYR: Right.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I'd like to follow up
because I think the key word or adjective or adverb that
we're using is explicit versus implicit, explicitly versus
implicitly. When one looks at an SER, and I haven't, is it
clear when the Staff has explicitly set a different number
between the FSAR and the standard review plan number?
Is it always clear or is it ambiguous? Would one
have to induce implicitly that we meant to do that? How
often are these documents ambiguous?
MR. MIRAGLIA: I would say then, in more cases,
it's not as explicit as it should be. I think that's one of
the lessons learned in how we're looking at stating
commitments and evaluating SERs.
But there are cases where the differences are
articulated. After a period of time, deviations from the
standard review plan need to be documented. So there's a
range.
In terms of one of the things that we have, the
regulatory process has been an evolving one with time. In
some of the evolutions, there were conscious decisions made.
The variability FSAR is one where we have some plans with
three or four volumes of SARs, and some are considerably
more.
So I think there's a variability in the types of
. 31
SERs and what plants review the SRPs. The SRPs were not
available prior to 1975, and many of the plants even -- that
received licenses shortly after '75 were not reviewed
against the SRP because it was an evolving kind of review
plan at that point in time. So I think you would find that
variability in the SERs as well.
MS. McKENNA: I just wanted to follow up on your
comment about -- that's why -- the reason we're saying
explicit, because if you can't -- if you have to go deduce
it, you really should be falling back to what was in the SAR
because, in essence, what you're really trying to find is
what was reviewed by the Staff, defining unreviewed,
unreviewed safety question.
If you can determine from the SER explicitly what
the Staff considered their application against, we're saying
that's what you can look to. But if you cannot explicitly
figure out what that was, you need to fall back on what was
in the SAR because that's what was on the record as to how
they proposed to operate their plant, presuming, if we
issued the license, that that was the basis on which we
accepted it.
So that's where we came to the explicit statement
kind of language.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Why don't you go on, Mr.
Martin.
. 32
MR. MARTIN: Okay. Given the discussion, this is
probably redundant, but it is still worth saying. The Staff
concludes that a reduction in margin of safety has occurred
and an unreviewed safety question is involved when a change,
test, or experiment would result in no longer meeting a
license-specific acceptance limit.
The issue of probability of occurrence or the
consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment
important to safety both involve the question of what was
meant by the phrase "may be increased."
Unfortunately, probabilities may not have been
quantified during the original licensing action. Further,
the methodology to quantify probabilities and uncertainties
has improved substantially. Without these tools, the
determination of whether the probability of occurrence may
be increased would necessarily be qualitative.
The Staff interprets the phrase "consequence of an
accident or malfunction" to mean radiological consequence.
Further, given the rule language, the Staff position is that
any increase or even uncertainty about a possible increase
in the probability of occurrence or consequence of an
accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety
previously evaluated in the safety analysis report would
involve an unreviewed safety question.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I think that's a fundamental
. 33
policy question, that interpretation. Because when the rule
was written, as you just said, we were not talking about
quantitative measures of probability. And now we have
quantitative tools.
But to apply those now to a rule which was written
with something totally different in mind seems to me is a
very fundamental change, not a simple change at all, not an
implementation change; a very fundamental change, as has
been pointed out in this SECY.
So I think that's an issue of the type I'm talking
about that I don't think, one, you just take that step
comfortably, you say, well, probability, now we can measure
it so we're going to start measuring it. And if it's an
increase, however small, an increase is what the word said
and we cannot -- we have to interpret it in that light.
I think you just have to go back to 30 years ago,
try to figure out what was the intent. And the intent at
that time, as far as I can see, was a more qualitative
evaluation of probability than we are able to use today
through PRA, but once you start doing that, you're in a
totally different type of evaluation.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, it's the Commission's
prerogative to decide if the interpretation of the rule as
applied in '62 when it was promulgated is still relevant
today, subject to the various kinds of considerations and so
. 34
on and whether there's some other way of interpreting
increase in probability or increase in consequence. And
that's precisely why the Staff was asked to bring the paper
to the Commission, and so we're going to have to work our
way through that in responding to this paper.
I mean, it's the Commission's prerogative to
decide in any of these things what is policy and what is a
change in that interpretation or implementation and what is
not, and so, in that sense, I think this is a useful
discussion.
MR. MIRAGLIA: I think -- and again, this may get
to the area that Commissioner Rogers brought up in the
beginning; some of these are hard to parse.
I think what we're trying to say here is we're
going to interpret the rule very conservatively saying, if
there's any chance of an increase, come to us, and that
would mean qualitative or quantitative. That's where we
were looking at the rule.
It's not an inference that you have to use PRA
kinds of techniques. In fact, there is a -- what we tried
to do in the Commission paper is point to the Commission,
within the context of the PRA implementation plan, has asked
the Staff to develop what areas and how to do it and to
quantitate it.
So I think we were trying to look at it to say, we
. 35
were trying to be -- take the word "any" or "any increase"
very literally and have more issues come to the Staff as
opposed to not come to the Staff.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yeah, I understand that, and
I think if we're just talking about the single issue of
whether the licensee has to come to the Staff or the
Commission, that's not really what concerns me.
What really concerns me is the fundamental
interpretation of any increase in probability, because now
that can have application elsewhere in our regulations, not
just here.
And so I think that that's the concern that I
have, not that now people have to come to us. Well, if they
do, so be it. That's not giving me any heartburn by itself,
but what is giving me a lot of trouble is simply choosing to
make that a new definition of increase in probability.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I'd like -- we don't
have to see a marker at the table, but can you all tell me
anything about the history of this interpretation?
I recall from some previous briefing that the reg
review group ran into this when they were looking at -- in
the early '90s looking at items to proceed on and items not
to proceed on in the large list that they looked at. This
word "any" came up in that context and we ended up only
. 36
making regulatory changes that provided no change in safety,
and there was a larger group of potential regulatory
changes.
So I know it goes back at least to the early '90s
and I wonder whether -- since this rule has been put on the
book since '62, how has -- has the Staff interpretation
changed on this over that period, to the best of your
knowledge?
MR. MIRAGLIA: I think the issue has been looked
at in a number of different contexts. I think what we are
discussing here is within the 50.59 context, we describe and
define a USQ, which is perhaps a narrower kind of thing, but
the issue has come up.
In fact, the Commission, in dealing with the PRA
implementation plan has just spoken to how to look at
increases in terms of the probability and has given the
Staff some guidance, and that's a refinement that reflects
the evolution of the technology and the processes and the
procedures.
I think we're trying to describe it in terms of
the regulatory threshold. The issue came up in terms of the
review group. It's come up in the marginal safety
improvement program. I think one of the fundamental issues
as to why we haven't fully endorsed the NSAC 125 document
are these very, very issues, as to whether they are too
. 37
rigid of an interpretation and, given today's technology,
how should we define it?
And we've taken the position that any change, any
increase would --
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: For at least a decade or
--
MR. MIRAGLIA: I believe that's the case, although
I think Commissioner Rogers raises an issue that perhaps I
was coming at it from one direction, but Commissioner Rogers
raises another one.
I think the intent is clearly within the language
of establishing new thresholds for review by the agency
before implementation, and I don't believe we were using it
as a tool to foster new and improved and advanced PRA
methods without -- and in front of the existing Commission
guidance as to how we should do those and apply those. It
should be in that context is what our intent was.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, you see, the problem I
have here, and you put your finger on it because you said
"in the context of," and that's what the problem is, that
issues like this have been looked at in the context of a
particular application.
Basically, we have not had a consistent point of
view, and that I think when we go back to the point that
Commissioner McGaffigan was talking about, whether -- when
. 38
we were considering tech spec changes and things like that
and we didn't want to allow any increase in -- or decrease
-- any decrease in safety, that was sort of an intermediate
position. That was a clear one we could deal with right
away. We postponed what would happen if there was a slight
decrease and never dealt with it.
But I think that we're facing here the problem
that we have had interpretations in the context of a
particular question and they have not been entirely
consistent. I think this is the time to get at these and
try to establish what we mean by something when we say it.
Does it mean the same thing in every different context? It
should, in my view.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Go on.
MR. MARTIN: The last implementation issue
involves the applicability of the 10 CFR 50.59 process to
the discovery of degraded or nonconforming conditions.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: This is my favorite topic.
Before you get to that, let me talk about -- let me ask you
a question in terms of difficulty in getting to the fourth
bullet. Some of what we've said relates to this.
But I note in the Staff's paper, the Staff
concludes that for those calculated in the SAR should be
considered as the threshold for when an increase in
consequences and thus an unreviewed safety question results.
. 39
Is the content of the SAR definitive enough
currently for all analyzed accidents in those calculations
for that to be the threshold?
MS. McKENNA: I hate to say all in anything. I
think, in general, the FSAR would have the accidents
evaluated and the consequences that resulted from them. I
wouldn't say necessarily that all accidents.
A question came up. Sometimes if an accident, as
an example, was a fuel handling accident, that was not
considered originally in the FSAR and at a later time the
Staff asked questions of the licensee about it, whether they
would have put that information in the FSAR.
It may be a bit of an open question, but to the
extent that the accidents are in the SAR, I think you will
find what the accident was, some information about
assumptions and some information about what the consequences
of that accident are.
And what we're saying is that whatever that set of
information is, that's what you look to to see whether the
change that you're making is -- involves an increase in
consequences.
MR. MARTIN: Madam Chairman, as a subsidiary
issue, the tools for calculation of radiological consequence
have also improved, and frequently we're finding that some
of the requests for amendment are done with the new
. 40
techniques of calculation against a conclusion of a much
less sophisticated calculation in the past, and we have had
to go back and redo the calculations using the old tools and
the new tools to check to make sure that it is in fact safe
and stays within the envelope. But here's another case
where technology has caught up with us.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So is it fair to say you're
trying to trigger, let's call it, a review at the
appropriate point in a consistent way of whatever the safety
question is that allows you to do this kind of analysis,
whether it ends up meaning you have been more conservative
in some instances or not? I'm trying to understand where
you want to go.
MR. MARTIN: Where I want to go, where we want to
go is to end up where, if we have made a license decision
based upon a certain issue, certain facts, and what is being
proposed is less conservative than those facts, we just want
a bite at the apple. We want a chance to review and
approve.
And this establishes -- this process establishes a
threshold where the licensee recognizes that they need to
come to us and propose their change and we get to determine
whether it's acceptable or not, so that we consistently
review and approve the licensing basis for that plant.
MR. MIRAGLIA: I think what you said is a fair
. 41
summary, Madam Chairman, in the context of, there hasn't
been consistency, and it's -- what we're finding in some
cases, licensees may be taking those, and then we have to
look at the 50.59 to find those.
What we're attempting to do with this articulation
of the Staff position in terms of reaffirmations,
clarifications, and new positions is to say, here's how
we're going to be examining these things to get consistency
across the board within the context of what the intent of
50.59 as written and as it applies to the FSAR was, to
provide flexibility within the context of 50.59, and that's
all we were trying or attempting to do to articulate in
these areas.
It's obvious, based on some questions, that
perhaps we can be even clearer, but I think that was the
intent of the position, was such that everyone understands
that's what we're going to be looking at and we'll be asking
questions as to 50.59, 50.59 evaluations with this clear
laying out of the playing field, so to speak.
MR. MARTIN: The last implementation issue
involves essentially two questions: When is a licensee
expected to conduct a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation, and what is
required if the evaluation identifies an unreviewed safety
question?
Degraded and nonconforming conditions involve the
. 42
discovery of situations adverse to safety or quality or
safety -- of safety or safety supports, components or
systems to meet requirements of regulations, conform to
applicable codes or standard, or satisfy licensing and/or
design basis.
The licensee is expected to promptly insure public
health and safety. However, once that task is fulfilled,
the licensee must determine whether the plant can continue
to operate in conformance with its license, make the
necessary reports, and implement prompt, corrective action
per 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion 16, to resolve
the condition and prevent recurrence. The process we expect
the licensee to follow is described in generic letter 9118.
Up to this point, there is no role for the 10 CFR
50.59 process; however, the Staff has identified three
situations under which the 50.59 process must be invoked.
First, when the licensee implements compensatory
measures different than those described in the final safety
analysis report to establish conditions for continued
operation until a final resolution can be implemented.
Second, when the licensee intends to implement a
final resolution different than as described in the FSAR.
And third, when the final resolution is not
implemented at the first reasonable opportunity.
With regard to the second question raised by the
. 43
issue, the Staff position is that a plant currently
operating with a condition involving an unreviewed safety
question would not normally be required to shut down,
provided that the licensee has determined that all necessary
equipment is operable, that regulatory requirements are met,
and that the licensee expeditiously submits its application
for a license amendment. We're saying one to two days.
However, as a matter of regulatory prudence, the
Staff would not allow a plant to start up with an unreviewed
safety question unless the condition is corrected or the
Staff has approved the change.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Now, if I understand, in a
certain sense, wouldn't your previous point allow for a
notice of enforcement discretion or enforcement discretion
with an unreviewed condition?
MR. MARTIN: It could. There is a possibility for
that, but even that -- if they are different than what is
described in the FSAR and you have measures in place that
are different, then we expect them to have evaluated those
with the 50.59 process to determine if there is an
unreviewed safety question involved, and if so, even though
we might grant them enforcement discretion for a particular
regulation or something of that nature, there's an
enforcement action that we have to consider later on and
there's also the question of whether we need to issue them
. 44
an amendment.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
MR. MARTIN: During the Staff's review of its
experience with implementation of the 10 CFR 50.59 process,
we identified two areas specific to the process where it was
felt that rulemaking could be effective in further resolving
some of the identified implementation concerns. Those two
areas were the scope of the rule and the criteria that
defines an unreviewed safety question.
The policy question associated with the scope of
the rule centers on whether, in referring only to the safety
analysis report, does the rule sufficiently include all
information that should be subject to the regulatory control
of the 10 CFR 50.59 process?
Adding to this issue is the concern that the
requirements for periodic updating of the safety analysis
report are not -- were not always implemented in a manner to
insure the effects that all new analysis were included in
the updated final safety analysis report.
The policy issue concerning the content and use of
the final safety analysis report are discussed in further
detail in the Millstone Lessons Learned, Part 2 report.
The policy question associated with the unreviewed
safety question threshold is whether the definition should
. 45
be revised to, for instance, reduce ambiguity on when an
unreviewed safety question is involved, facilitate the use
of probabilistic safety analysis techniques, or eliminate
the need for NRC review of negligible changes in probability
or consequence as the industry has proposed.
As previously indicated, the Staff will be
evaluating a number of policy issues identified during this
and other lessons learned efforts in an integrated fashion
to develop a sound set of regulatory proposals for
presentation to the Commission.
May I have the next slide, please.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Just before you leave policy
considerations, you didn't use the word, and it may be
implicit in either the first or the second bullet, but I
really think that a good deal of clarification is called for
in what we mean by "margin."
The SECY offered a definition of margin in one
place that I found rather difficult to agree with because it
didn't seem to me that in fact it dealt with what -- the way
the term is used in other contexts. So I think there's
another issue, and that is, what do we really mean by
margin?
And that's come up here of how do we define
margin? What do we cite for something to give us a clue as
to what is meant by margin? Well, if you have some numbers
. 46
that say this is the margin, then that's the margin.
But if you're trying to define margin, that's a
different -- when you don't have those, then that's a
different matter and I think that's something we've got to
come to grips with because I don't think it's clear.
MR. MIRAGLIA: And I think it can reduce the
ambiguity. It does include that issue in the broader sense
because we discussed consequences, probabilities, and margin
in that kind of context.
I think, again, what we were attempting to do
would be to say that that's an issue that needs to be
examined closely. And in terms of saying where should you
look for margin and that description of margin, we were
saying that the bases that should be looked at should be
broader than just a bases of tech specs as defined in 50.36,
but you should look for insights in other places in terms of
establishing how could you point to explicit margin kind of
statements.
So we were trying to narrowly focus to that kind
of thing, but your questions are understood and that wasn't
our intent. But perhaps we can make it even clearer than
that.
MR. MARTIN: Can we have the last slide, please?
[Slide.]
MR. MARTIN: At this time, we recommend the
. 47
Commission approve issuance of the proposed regulatory
guidance related to implementation of the rule to solicit
public comment.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you a question. Why
not the entire paper?
MR. MARTIN: We certainly have no objection to
releasing the entire paper. We had not completed our
integration of the issues in the Millstone Lessons Learned
report, Maine Yankee studies.
We need to think through the consequences of the
proposals there and we did not want to foreclose any options
for the Commission.
MR. MIRAGLIA: Clearly, I think three weeks ago I
indicated the 50.59 issues can move in parallel, but there
is a nexus to some of the other issues. Clearly, the scope
issue, the scope of 50.59 beyond the FSAR is linked to some
of the lessons learned from Part 2, and that has the nexus
-- the content of the FSAR issue is another one that that
raises through.
Clearly, as I indicated last time, we can move in
parallel, but we need to keep an eye on those relationships.
If subsequent decisions need to modify, then we'd have to
codify.
And what we were thinking of doing is taking a
step back and saying, what are the short-term activities
. 48
that we're proposing? What's the nexus of each of these
activities to the other questions? And is there some way
that makes more sense in an integrated way to stagger these
things or have them related, or, if we do move in parallel,
to know what -- how they impact on each other. If the
Commission decides to put the policy questions out at this
time, we would not object.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Would not public comment help
to inform your process?
MR. MIRAGLIA: Given that all of the issues are
out, including the Millstone Lessons Learned, perhaps so.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: They're all out there?
MR. MIRAGLIA: They're all out there, yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What kind of time frame were
you -- it seems like this whole business, you've been
studying the issue now for over a year, and so the question
is, maybe this is a way to spur you along.
MR. MIRAGLIA: Clearly the time frame in terms of
the Staff position on 50.59, we asked for a 60-day comment
period. In the memorandums that forwarded this paper and
the previous paper to the Commission, we said 90 days
subsequent to the Commission moving on the paper, we would
come up with an integrated plan that we could indicate what
actions we have taken and what are underway, how they relate
to one another, and perhaps specific schedules for some of
. 49
the other actions. So that was the time frame we had been
thinking and discussing.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I'm going to change the order
so the newer commissioners don't always get left at the end,
so Commissioner McGaffigan.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I've asked the questions
as I've gone along. I guess just on the timing.
If we go to rulemaking at some point to resolve
these big issues, how quickly do you see that rulemaking
moving forward in completing? Just sort of ballpark.
It's probably not in any six-month plan that you
give us at the moment because it's a gleam in someone's eye,
but --
MR. MIRAGLIA: I think what the intent,
Commissioner McGaffigan, would be, in the 90 days, we would
indicate where we are for the initiation in that process and
how it could proceed. I think the nominal rulemaking
process is -- is a two-year from start to finish. I'm
getting some nods of the head.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Doesn't have to be.
MR. MIRAGLIA: It doesn't have to be, and we have
looked at ways of expediting those kinds of issues.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But you would -- as a follow
up, when would you come forward with the rule, if there were
such?
. 50
MR. MIRAGLIA: Well, in terms of some of these, I
think that based upon the public comment, and again, if we
can clearly define what the -- what's within the scope in
terms of policy, 60 days comment period, and we'd need some
time to advance those in terms of moving ahead just on the
50.59 piece without taking on the other issues of scope and
commitments and all those kinds of things, we could probably
move out faster than that, perhaps, what, next fall we say?
Sixty days from today for comments?
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Not to put words in your
mouth, but late '99, we should hope for this to be resolved.
Is that -- for rulemaking, if necessary, to sort of get to
finality on --
MR. MIRAGLIA: Come with a proposed rule and then
the proposed rule would have to go out for comment and go
through that process.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You mean '99 for the rule to be
done?
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Right, yeah.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Not for the rule to be --
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Late '99 for the process
to end. That would be sort of ballpark, given past history.
That sounds reasonable.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: This is a great opportunity.
. 51
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No; thank me. I was doing that
but I was trying to be nice.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I just wrote a series of
things in here. Some of them are interesting. I think they
all go to the heart of the problem. Quoting Chairman
Jackson, she says, "the time is now to change this or to
define it."
I think we heard from Commissioner Rogers and
everybody else on the inconsistency and some lack of
definition, and I put kind of a phrase in here, going back
to my work, that really what we're trying to do -- if not,
please tell me; we're trying to reduce the uncertainty in
the application of these rules, having in mind the safety
goals, and to apply some risk criteria to it.
Is that --
MR. MIRAGLIA: I think as a long-term, overall
objective, I think the answer to that is yes, but to try to
get something done in the short term, given the linkage of
all the other policy issues that makes, that may be too big
a goal to try to attempt.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: And that was my next comment,
is that, you know, to change this rule -- it really should
be changed. It's 30 years old and we know a lot more now
than we knew then. We really have to consider a lot of the
. 52
basic questions that we could comment about all of the time.
There is no doubt -- and I spent some time going
to school this past weekend, and I went through the entire
thing.
For example, tied into 50.59 is the definition of
what a basic component is. That's in 50.2, define what a
safety component is, and a safety component is a definition
that is broad. It takes any, you know, structure, system,
and component, and then you define specifically, what do you
want those things to abide by. But, really, it doesn't say
when.
Then we came and defined in '96 safety related.
Safety related, the last three paragraphs are the same as
basic component, but the first paragraph of safety related
comes and tells you, this only applies to systems that will
prevent or mitigate the consequences of events it postulated
in the assigned basis.
I was joking this morning that you take that
definition of safety related that says it's only those
systems that are involved in a postulated event. We could
probably rule out the reactor coolant pumps because they are
not in the definition, but they are in the basic component
definition.
That brings us back to where all these things
start, okay, which is something we started very nicely and
. 53
abandoned through the years, and that was Appendix A and
Appendix B. Appendix A and Appendix B are the nexus to
50.59 and to the definitions of safety related.
Appendix A is the only component that I know in
what we have written that defines what is important to
safety. It's the only one, and they defined it in such
broad terms at the time that it was almost unusable, and
therefore we decided not to go by it.
But if you look at it, it clearly says those
structures, systems, or components, okay, that are important
to safety will be included. And which are those? Those are
those structures, systems, and components that are necessary
to provide assurance of adequate protection. It's very
broad. No place else is that really defined.
Then Appendix B picks it up. Appendix B starts
talking about safety related and then it goes on and talks
about importance to safety, the fact. It's a very, very
classic thing. Appendix B is to be applied to structures,
systems, and components consistently important to safety.
Even in 1970, we were establishing that our
regulation, our Q list, was to be graded to the importance
to safety of the components. What was the problem? The
problem is that we never redid, although we promised that we
would do, Appendix A.
Appendix A should have included all those systems
. 54
and components that even were not part of your safety
system, will have an impact. They should have clear
definitions, and we promise in the rule we are going to come
in and improve Appendix A, we're going to make it better,
and we're going to make it what it should be: a guide. We
never did.
We do patchwork like we could do now. I think the
time is now. The time is now to put all of these things
together so they mean the same thing, so they actually
address the same issue, and the issues are very clear, okay?
We need to have and maintain the level of safety while the
licensee is able to operate according to his license, and we
need to define that well so we provide him with the
necessary vehicle so they can do their work.
And that can be done, but it only can be done if
we integrate all these things. We cannot leave safety
related. This afternoon, we're going to come safety related
in 50.65. Read the definition, okay? It only applies to
structures, systems, and components that are going to
prevent -- or actually, they practically say are going to
mitigate, okay, and dealing with postulated events.
In other words, leave the reactor coolant pump
out. I'm sure you didn't mean that. I'm sure you didn't
mean that. But if you are legalistic and you go through it,
that's where you come out, and it is the time to put all of
. 55
these things together and say, do we really need to change
50.59 or do we need to change Appendix A and Appendix B
together? And I believe that that is what we should do. We
should go that way.
In the short term, I think that zero increases,
okay, are not what the rule meant. It also really clearly
meant not significant increases, okay? But there is a range
of safety here from zero to what is risk critical, and that
is what the Staff should comment on.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Dicus.
COMMISSIONER DICUS: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Rogers.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I agree with Commissioner
Diaz. Let me just say that I'm not going to add any details
here. I think what we've heard is very well worth listening
to, but I just wanted to say that I thought the SECY was an
excellent job. It provides us with the basis for really
looking at some of these questions, and I complement the
Staff for producing such an excellent document.
I also raise the question that the Chairman has
raised, why not circulate the whole document? It seems to
me the policy issues are very critical. It would be very
helpful to get public comment on those as soon as possible
and I would certainly have no problem with circulating it in
its entirety.
. 56
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So this has all been structured
to give me the last word.
On behalf of the Commission, let me thank the
Staff for presenting to the Commission the results of your
evaluation and recommendations for improvement in the
regulatory guidance in this area.
The Staff's paper to the Commission and today's
presentation have helped to illuminate the picture for the
Commission on the various areas that are in need of further
implementation, and I think net/net, the Commission is very
interested in correcting the identified deficiencies.
As I stated at last month's Lessons Learned
Commission briefing -- we've been having a lot of these --
the industry and the NRC have recognized the importance of
10 CFR 50.59 but yet have struggled with providing adequate
guidance, and so we need clear guidance on a firm regulatory
basis.
A 50.59 process that is not properly implemented
could result in an unacceptable reduction in the level of
safety at a plant. But conversely, it could be implemented
in a way that would tie licensees' hands so much that they
could never make any changes to the plants without coming to
the NRC beforehand. And that's not our intent, but we have
to be clear on what we mean by maintaining safety,
appropriate safety levels.
. 57
So I commend you for the detailed presentation of
the issues in the SECY paper. I tie this back to our
previous briefing. If the Commission requires
implementation of 50.71(e) as we discussed in the previous
briefing so that FSARs are updated to correct past omissions
of changes to the design bases and effects of other analyses
that have been performed since the original licensing but
have not been included in the updated FSAR, and include such
information in the future, we will have a more complete
description of the licensing and design basis information in
the FSARs themselves, which is then controlled by 50.59.
The Staff should, in addition, consider additional
information, what additional information is within the
licensing basis, such as some commitments to the NRC that
would not be included in these FSAR updates, how significant
that information is, and provide recommendations for how it
should be controlled.
The industry should be provided the opportunity to
comment and to verify that the industry and NRC are
accurately communicating with each other on implementation
guidance for the rules and, as such, the Commission will
soon decide on the publication of that paper, most likely
the full paper, for public comment.
And since it's proposed that the -- part of the
paper you were proposing for a 60-day comment period, we
. 58
would do the whole thing, but I believe it would benefit the
Commission then to hear back from the Staff, again, in
approximately 90 days.
And I would ask you to cull through the existing
paper and to lift out all of the questions that would have
to be addressed to promulgate appropriate changes to 50.59,
but I'm going to make a comment to link to Commissioner
Diaz's comments in a second, because I think the Commission
wants to be clear to know exactly what the questions are.
If there have to be policy decisions, we should
just give them in an expeditious manner and then you can use
that as the basis for any rulemaking, coupled with the
comments that you would garner in the comment period.
Referencing something that Commissioner Diaz said,
there is a need more broadly for clarification. I can
remember a year to a year-and-a-half ago talking about what
the difference was between safety related, important to
safety, safety significant, and risk significant. We have
never cleaned that up, and people apparently have stepped up
to the abyss, which is my favorite word, and stepped back.
And I think it's not going to all be done
immediately as part of improvements to 50.59 itself because
it is such an important rule, we need to get on with it.
But I do think that you need to come back with an integrated
plan in terms of how we can effect greater clarification
. 59
throughout our major rules with regard to these
inconsistencies in definition.
I think we have an opportunity to do that now. I
think this Commission is interested in it, and I think we
would like you to do it in a timely manner.
So if there are no further comments, we're
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the briefing was
adjourned.]
|
Privacy Policy |
Site Disclaimer |