ML19320B195
| ML19320B195 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1980 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320B193 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007100026 | |
| Download: ML19320B195 (9) | |
Text
Q.
o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[10 CFR Part 50]
COMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Reactors AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
ACTION:
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmissicn (NRC) is considering th's adoption
~
of changes to its regulations pertaining to technical specifications for nuclear power reactors.
The changes would (1) establish a standard for deciding which items derived from the safety analysis report must be incorporated into technical siecifications, (2) modify the definitions of categories of technical specificaticns to focus more directly en reactor operation, (3) define a new categcry f recuirements that would be of lesser ir=ediate significance to safety than technical specifications, and (4) establish appropriate conditions that must be met by licensees to make changes to the recuirements in the new category without prier NRC approval.
The Cermission seeks written public comment on the changes to the regulation.
DATSS:
Coment period expires September 8,1980.
ADDRESSES:
Interested persens are invited to submit written cer=ents and suggestions
- the Secretary of the Cor=ission, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washingt:n, D. C.
20555, A:tention:
Decketing and Service Eranch.
80070999g4
2
~' Copies of comments received by the Commission may be examined in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. J. Wetmore, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission, Washington, D. C.
- 20555, phone 301-492-7306.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Each license for operation of a nuclear power reactor, issued by the NRC, contains technical specifications which set forth the specific characteristics of the facility and the concitions for its operation that are required to provide adequate protection to the health and safety of the public.
Technical specifications cannot be changed by licensees without prior NRC approval.
Historical Backcround:
Before 1968, 10 CFR Part 50, 150.36, " Technical Specifications", recuired technical specifications to include "those significant designfeatures,operatingprocedures,andoperatinglimitationswhich/?'ereJ' considered important in providing reasonable assurance that the facility ff' auld]'
be constructed and operated without undue hazard to public health and safety."
Technical specifications that were formulated in accordance with this regulation, as it was then written, generally contained more detailed design information than was considered to be necessary to assure safe reactor operation. These technical specifications proved to be difficult to organi:e, unculy restricted flexibility of reactor cperation,and necessitated the crocessing of many changes that were not significantly related to safety.
l l
l
~'.
In 1968 the Atomic Energy Ccmission (AEC), predecessor of the NRC, amended its regulations in 5150.36 and 50.59 (33 FR - 18610, December 17,1963).
550.36 was amended to include a more precise definition of those categories of technical specifications that must be included in an application for an operating license. The amended regulation narrowed the scope.,of the material contained in technical specifications by defining five specifi,c categories of technical specifications.
The five categories defined for nuclear reactors are:
(1) safety limits and limiting safety system settings, (2) limiting conditions for operation, (3) surveillance requirements, (4) design features, and (5) administrative controls.
The design information that was required to be retained included only those items which, if altered, would have a significant effect on safety.
Amendments to 550.59, among other things, clarified requirements for keeping records of design changes and defined more adequately the tem "unreviewed safety question.'" The latter change established criteria for allowing licensees to make certain kinds of design changes (i.e., those not involving an unreviewed safety question or a change to technical specifications) without prior NRC approval.
These amendments to 5550.36 and 50.59 (1) eliminated detailed design infomation from technical specifications, which, in turn, reduced the need for a large number of change requests, and (2) resulted in a system of technical specificatiens and regulations that more effectively
-directed the attention of both licensees' management and the NRC to matters l
imoortant to safety.
l
' As knowledge in the field of reactor safety increased, the level of complexity and detail in technical specifications also increased, and a divergence in content of technical specifications from one facility to another began to emerge.
In addition, an increasing diversity of opinion among applicants and the staff as to what shculd be included as technical specifications resulted in protracted negotiations during the licensing process, and misapplication and misinterpreta-tion of requirements by plant operating staffs after a license was issued.
In recognition of these difficulties, in 1972, the AEC instituted the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) program. The first set of STS was applicable i
to reactors designed by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
Other sets of STS were later developed for reactor types designed by other vendors.
For the latest revisiens of these documents see:
NUREG-0452 Rev. 2, July 1979; NUREG-0123, Rev. 2, August 1979; NUREG-0212, Rev.1, August 1970; and NUREG-0103, Rev. 3, July 1979 for Westinghouse, General Electric, Combustion Engineering and Babcock and Wilcox, respectively. The STS provide aoplicants with model specifications to be used in formulating plant-specific technical specifications.
They served to make technical specifications for facilities licensed since 1974 more consistent with one another, and they tended to reduce the number of disagreements between applicants and the NRC staff regarding items to be included as technical specifications.
Current Problem:
Recent disagreements among parties to a proceeding (In the Matter of Portland General Electric Ccmpany, et al (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-531, 9 NRC 253 (1979))
have highlighted the need to establish a specific standard in the regalatiens for deciding which items derived from the safety analysis report must be incorporated into the technical specificaticns.
l
.. In addition, the su'bstantial growth in both the number of items, and in the detail of the requirements contained in technical specifications that has taken place since the STS were instituted, indicates that more precise definitions of the existing categories of technical specifica icns contained in 550.35 may need to be considered. The Commission is concerned that the increased volume of technical specifications may be decreasing'.the effectiveness of these specifications to focus the attention of licensees on matters of more in:ediate importance to safe operation of the facility.
While each of the requirements in today's technical specifications plays a role in protecting public health and safety, some requirements have greater immediate importance than others in that they relate acre directly to facility These are the requirements that pertain to items which the facility operation.
i operator must be aware of and which he must control to operate the facility in a safe manner. To a large extent, the relative importance of these require-ments, as distinguished from those related to long term effects or concerns, has been diminished by the increase in the total volume of technical specification requirements.
Moreover, the increased volume and detail of technical specifications and the resultant increase in the number of proposed change requests that must be processed.has increased the paperwork burden for both licensees and the NRC This is because 550.36 requires that technical specifications be staff.
included in each operating license; and thus, any proposed change, regardless of its importance te safety, must be processed as a license amencment.
Fcr changes involving matters of lesser importance to safety,the process'ing of a license amencment with the associated increased
.. papemork has had no significar.: benefit with regard to protecting 'the public health and safety.
I Procosed Solution:
To resolve the difficulties associated with the current system of technical specifications for nuclear power reactors, the Comission is contemolating changes to !E50.36 and 50.59 of 10 CFR Part 50. The changes would:(1) establish a standard for deciding which ite s derived from the safety
~
analysis report must be incorporated into the technical specifications for a facility; (2) modify the definitiens of categories of technical specifications to focus more directly on the aspects of reactor operation that are important to the protection of the health and safety of the public; (3) define a new category of requirements that would be of lesser imediate importance to safety than technical specifications, thereby providing greater flexibility to both the NRC and licensees in processing proposed changes; and (4) establish appropriate conditions that must be met by licensees to make changes to the requirements in the new category without prior NRC approval.
Advice and recommendations on the proposed areas of revision to the regulation are invited from all interested persons.
Specifically coments are requested on the following questions:
l 1.
Would it be appropriate to establish a fixed standard for deciding l
which items derived from the safety analysis report must be incorporated inte the technical specificaciens?
e
- 2.
If so, what should the standard be based on?
3.
Would a standard incorporating the concep: of "immediate importance to safety" be appropriate?
4.
Would it be appropriate to modify 150.26 to require technical specifications to focus more directly en reactor operation?
5.
Are surveillance requirements, as currently defined in !50.36, appropriate subjects for technical specifications?
6.
Should the current scope of surveillance requirements be reduced?
7.
If so, would it be appropriate to change the scope to include only those requirements related to assuring that safety limits and limiting conditions for operation are being met, and not to include other requirements?
8.
Would it be appropriate to define a new categcry of requirements, separate from technical specifications, that would have a different level of importance to safety?
9.
What types of requirements currently included in technical specifications would be appropriately inc'luded in the new category?
10.
Should the new category of recuirements be chysically at: ached to the license, or included in a secarate document, for evsmole.
the FSAR?
l
e+ 11. How s' iul'd the enforceability of the requirements that are moved into the new category be maintained?
- 12. Would it be appropriate to alicw licensees to make certain changes to the. requirements in the new category without prior NRC approva1?
13.
If so, what conditions should be establishe.d to assure that such changes would not adversely effect safety?
- 14. What specific changes to the regulations should be included in response to the preceding questions?
- 15. What advantages and disadvantages could be expected from the system of requirements derived from the answers to the preceding questions, for:
a.
license applicants?
b.
operating licensees?
c.
the NRC?
d.
the public?
Changes in the process for i=preving er changing license conditions relating to environmental and antitrust matters are beycnd the scope of this ruiemaking.
l I
i The Commission has cencluded that the changes being considered would be insignificant frcm the standpoint of environmental incact and thus, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, E51.5(d)(3), will not recuire the precaration of an environmental impac: statement, negative ceclaratien, or e ironmental impact acoraisa1.
g.
[5 U.S.C. 552; Sec.161 b and 1, Pub. L.83-703, 68 Stat. 948; Sec.' 201, Pub. L.
t 93-438, 88 Stat.1242 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 5841 )].
l
~
t Dated at Washington, D. C., this h day of Ut.Lyie 1980.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
11 u d
/2. t C Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the (c:miission
(
P l
l y
,.-,.,___,,.,.7
.-..,.,,-,....,..n
_m
-_.. _ _..,__,_,_- --,