ML17150A235

Responds to Expressing Concern Re Use of Terms Important to Safety & safety-related. Terms Are Not Synonymous. Important to Safety Encompasses Broad Scope of Equipment Covered by App a to 10CFR50

ML17150A235
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/19/1983
From:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Twana Ellis HUNTON & WILLIAMS
Shared Package
ML17150A237	List: ML17150A235 ML20083F221
References
NUDOCS 8312300202
Download: ML17150A235 (3)

Text

ICg(~r C

/ s ~

F 4g o

~~we~

I UNITEO STl TES t

MUCLEAR R EGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 DEC 19 1S83 C

T. S. Ellis, III, Esq.

Hunton 4 Williams 707 East Main Street P.O.

Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212

Dear Mr. Ellis:

The Executive Director for Operations has asked me to respond to your letter of August 26, 1983, in which you express

concern, on behalf of the Utility Safety Classification Group, over the NRC use of the terms "important to safety" and "safety-related."

Your concern appears to be principally derived from recen. licensing cases in which the meaning of these terms in regard to NRC quality assurance requirements has been at issue, and my memorandum to NRR personnel of November 20, 1981.

I agree that the use of these terms in a variety of contexts over the past several years has not been consistent.

In recognition of this problem I attempted in my 1981 memorandum to NRR personnel to set forth definitions of these terms for use in all future regulatory documents and sta'ff testimony before the adjudicatory boards.

As you are aware, the position taken in that memorandum was that "important to safety" and "safety-related" are not synonymous terms as used in Comission regulations applicable to nuclear power reactors.

The former encompasses the broad scope of equipment covered by Appendix A to 10.CFR Part 50, the General Design Criteria, while the latter refers to a narrower subset of this class of equipment defined in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 Section VI(a)(l)

and, more recently, in 10 CFR 50.49(b)(l).

Based on such a distinction between these terms, it generally has been staff p&ctice to apply the quality assurance requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 only to the narrower class of "safety-related" equipment, absent a specific regulation directing otherwise.

More importantly, however, this does not mean that there are no existing NRC requirements for quality standards or quality assurance programs for the broader class of nuclear power plant equipment which does not meet the definition of "safety-related."

General Design Criterion 1 requires quality standards and a quality assurance program for all structures, systems and components "important to safety."

These requirements, like those of Appendix 8 to 10 CFR Part 50, are "graded" in that GDC-1 mandates the 'application of quality standards and programs "commensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be performed,"

and expressly allows the use of "generally recognized codes and standards" where applicable ATTACHMENT c

T. S. Ellis

<<2>>

and sufficient.

Documentation and record keeping requil ements for such equipment are likewise graded.

Pursuant to our regulations, permittees or licensees are responsible for developing and implementing quality assurance programs for plant design and construction or for plant operation which meet the more general requirements of QQC-1 for plant equipment "important to safety,"

and the more prescriptive requirements of Appendix B for "safety-related" plant equipment.

This distinction between the terms "important to safety" and "safety-related" has been accepted in two recent adjudicatory decisions where the issue was squarely faced.

In the Matter of Metro olitan Edison

~Com an, et. al.

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit ALAB-729, NRC (May 26, 1983):,In the Matter of Lon Island Li htin Com an (SSioreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit, LBP NRC September 21, 1983).

Moreover, the'Commission itsel f recognized and enenorsed a distinction between the terms in promulgating the Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants (see Section VI(a)(l) and VI(a)(2) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100) and the Environmental gualification Rule (see Supplementary Information and 10 CFR 50.49( b)).

Also, in preparing this response, members of the, licensing staff and legal staff reviewed all of the material on this subject provided by your letter, and have also reviewed numerous other regulatory documents, including both st5ff and Commission issuances over the past several years in which the terms "safety-related" and "important to safety" are used.

While it is apparent that some confusion continues to exist with regard to the distinction between the terms, the staff is convinced that the position it has previously taken remains correct.

The final point which.. I considered in responding to your letter is the consistency of NRC staff practice over the years with our position on this

issue, and the technical basis for that practice.

While previous staff licensing reviews were not specifically directed towards determining whether in fact permittees or licensees have implemented quality assurance programs which adequately address all structures,

systems, and components important to safety, this was not because, of any concern over lack of regulatory requirements for this class of equipment.

Rather, our practice was based upon the staff view that normal industry practice is generally acceptable for most equipment not covered by Appendix B within this class.

Nevertheless, in specific situations in the past where we have found that quality assurance requirements beyond normal industry practice were needed for equipment "important to safety,"

we have not hestitated in imposing additional requirements commensurate with the importance to safety of the equipment involved.

We intend to continue that practice.

We note that fn a more recent letter on thfs sub)ect (comments dated Octob r 27, 1983 on the Advanced Notfce of proposed Ru]e akfng Backffttfng Requfrements) you have stated that... "fndustry as a whole as generally applfed desfgn and qualfty standards to non-safety.

related structures, systems and components fn a manner.-coaeensurate" wtth the functfons of such ftems fn the overall safety and operatfon of the plant."

The prfncfpal dffference, then, between the t/RC Staff posftfon dfscussed above and that expressed fn your letters appears to be your vfew that such actfons by the fndustry are purely voluntary, wfth no regulatory underpfnnfng;

whereas, we have been and remafn convfnced that such actfons are requfred by General Oesfgn=Crfterfon l.

I,want to make ft ver y cl ear that NPC r egul atory furfsdfctfon fnvolvfng a

safety matter fs not controlled by the use of the term such as "safety related" or "fmportant to safety.'

copy of your letters and thfs response are befng sent to all permfttees and 1 fcensees for fnformatfon.

Sfncerely, Harold R.'.Denton.

Ofrector Offfce of Nuclear Reactor Regulatfon