EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0362

----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/17/2010 03:31 PM

-----

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

 |"Crockett, Steven" <Steven.Crockett@nrc.gov> 

|

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

 |"Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, RobertJ 

Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael 

|

 |Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

|

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Cc: |

|------------>

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

 |"Grahame, Thomas" <Thomas.Grahame@HQ.DOE.GOV>, "Wolfgang, Robert" 

<Robert.Wolfgang@nrc.gov>, "Lombard, Mark" <Mark.Lombard@nrc.gov>, |

 |"Imboden, Andy" <Andy.Imboden@nrc.gov>, "Droggitis, Spiros" 

<Spiros.Droggitis@nrc.gov> 

|

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

 |02/05/2010 01:25 PM 

|

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

 |NRC standards on maintenance and testing 

|

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

Page 1
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0362

You've asked for some description of the NRC's maintenance and testing 

standards on emergency diesels that fall within its jurisdiction. Below, I 

briefly describe the program and provide links to the key documents.

There may be a further comment later today, or perhaps further documentation, 

but I hope that what's below contains the core of our response. At least it 

will move the discussion along.

Let me first make a general comment about our stance towards EPA's draft final 

rule. As we did in the case of EPA's Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasures rule, we're taking no position on whether the rule should 

apply to the diesels in the NRC's jurisdiction -- and EPA tells us that's not 

really an open question anyway. We're not fans of having two regulators 

overseeing the same machine for different purposes, but we recognize EPA's 

Clean Air Act jurisdiction here, and this is not a case like the cases 

involvling radionuclide emissions, where we and EPA were seeking to regulate 

the same thing for the same purpose (e.g., Yucca Mountain, decommissioning, 

radionuclide emissions to air). We're aiming mainly at providing information 

about our program, and at understanding, as best we can in the short time 

allotted, whether there's anything in the rule's approach to maintenance and 

testing that might raise a nuclear safety concern. These diesels are critical 

to ensuring safety in emergency conditions; so of course the maintence and 

testing of these diesels is critically important to us. And that's so whether 

we're talking existing diesels or new ones; the fact that the rule imposes no 

retrofits on existing emergency diesels doesn't eliminate the possibility that 

the rule might raise a nuclear safety concern.

However, to the extent that we understand this complicated rule -- necessarily 

complicated because of its great scope -- we don't think it raises a nuclear 

safety issue, at least not as a general matter, though details matter (and we 

note one below). Our principal standard on maintenance, 10 CFR 50.65, is a 

"performance-based" rule, and so leaves scope for variation in maintenance 

practices. Annually changing the very large quantity of oil in a huge diesel 

engine designed to provide emergency power to an operating nuclear power 

reactor is no light matter, but, in and of itself, it needn't pose an 

unacceptable risk.

Similarly, we have testing guidance (listed below), but EPA's rule appears to 

leave room for its application.

What can matter though are detailed prescriptions. The reliability of EDGs can 

be one of the main factors affecting the risk of core damage from a station 

blackout. Changes of any kind in a safety-related system or component – 

including imposition of prescriptive maintenance procedures or maintenance 

schedules – could impact the prevention or mitigation of the consequences of 

accidents at nuclear reactors, because changes to the established maintenance 

procedures for an emergency diesel could impact its reliability or 

availability. Excessive maintenance could negatively impact the availability 

of the system or component, and excessive testing could negatively impact its 

reliability. For these reasons, we're concerned about one aspect of EPA’s 

prescriptive schedule for performing management practice

requirements: EPA appears to allow delays in maintenance only when the diesel 

is operating in response to an ongoing emergency. See page 163, footnote 4. 

The NRC’s approach, on the other hand, is designed to minimize overall risk. 

10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) states, “before performing maintenance activities ... the 

licensee shall assess and manage the increase in risk that may result from the 

Page 2
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0362

proposed maintenance activities.” This applies to emergency diesels, with the 

result that the NRC rule might allow a delay in maintenance when the EPA rule 

would not.

Could the footnote be expanded somehow to incorporate a judgment about overall 

risk? Could it say, for example, the following? "If an emergency engine is 

operating during an emergency and it is not possible to shut down the engine 

in order to perform the management practice requirements on the schedule 

required in the final rule, or if shutting the engine down would otherwise 

pose an unacceptable risk under federal, state, or local law, the management 

practice can be delayed until the emergency is over. The management practice 

should be performed as soon as practicable after the emergency has ended, or 

the unacceptable risk has abated."

We're less concerned about the rule's testing requirements, even though we've 

taken great care in the area of testing (see below), in order to avoid the 

extremes of too much testing (and therefore unnecessary wear and tear), or too 

little (and therefore inadequate demonstration of reliability). We're less 

concerned about the rule's requirements here, because they appear to leave 

room for the appropriate application of other federal, state, or local 

standards (see pages 148-49), and that would include the NRC's important 

guidance on the subject.

I hope that, in the future, when EPA is engaged in rulemaking that might apply 

to the NRC's licensee, the two agencies will be able to consult earlier than 

they were able to this time. Earlier consultation proved useful in the cases 

of EPA rulemaking on water intake structures and underground diesel fuel 

tanks. We keep an eye out for EPA rulemakings, but we sometimes miss them. I 

hope that the little consultation we've had these past few days has been 

useful to both agencies, and I hope too that we'll continue the consultation 

if unexpected issues should arise in the course of implementing the rule.

NRC DOCUMENTS ON MAINTENANCE AND TESTING OF EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATORS AT 

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.

- 10 CFR 50.63, Loss of all alternating current power.

- 10 CFR 50.65, Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance 

at nuclear power plants.

- Regulatory Guide 1.160, “Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at 

Nuclear Power Plants”, esp. pages 4-5.

http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/doccontent.dll?library=PU_ADAMS^PBNTAD01&

ID=003970364

- Regulatory Guide 1.155, "Station Blackout."

http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/doccontent.dll?library=PU_ADAMS^PBNTAD01&

ID=003957121

- Regulatory Guide 1.9, "Application and Testing of Safety-Related Diesel 

Generators in Nuclear Power Plants."

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/powerreactors/active/01-009/01-009.pdf

- American Society of Mechanical Engineers document ASME OM-S/G 2007, 

"Standards and Guides for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants," 

is also in use at nuclear power plants. Part 16 of this document applies to 

Page 3
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0362

emergency diesel generators. This document has not been formally approved by 

the NRC, but NRC staff participated in its development.

Page 4