ML20035B183
| ML20035B183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/30/1992 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF POLICY PLANNING (OPP) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035B177 | List: |
| References | |
| OPP-92-02, OPP-92-2, NUDOCS 9303310330 | |
| Download: ML20035B183 (11) | |
Text
OFFICE OF POLICY PLANNING CURRENT LICENSING BASIS FOR OPERATING PLANTS OPP-92-02 i
November 30,1992 9
i i
a 1
/p.BREGy b
O,4 e'
g s
- p d
O k/
e
-m a
lY.
~g
-Q
$-r;
$e me l
930331033o 930325 0
- #g ggg 9303350$$2-PDR
L CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1.
THE ISSUES 2
ANALYSIS AND REGULATORY SIGNIFICANCE 2
Need and Applicability of CLB 2
CLB for Operating Reactors 3
CLB for License Renewal.
4 Proposed Definition of Current Licensing Basis.
5 Updating and Compiling the CLB 6
j Need for Expanding the 50.59 Process.
7 Safety Concerns in CLB Issues 7
RECOMMENDED FUTURE ACTIONS 8
5 I
.l f
t 9
e
?
I 4
[
I i
i y
1
Current Licensine Baeis for Operatine Reactors l
l sumIARY This paper is in response to COMIS-92-019 which requests the Office of Policy Planning (OPP) to systematically review and analyze the issues raised by SECY-92-314.
Particular focus is given to a description of current licensing basis (CLB) issues and an analysis of their significance for both operating reactors and license renewal.
Where recommendations are made for additional work, plans and schedules to address them are i
outlined.
As part of the development of this paper, we have taken the draft response to Commissioner Curtiss' memorandum into account.
It is OPP's view that while the safety of operating reactors has not been adversely affected, there is a need to define CLB in 10 CFR Part 50 to provide clear understanding of the bases upon which the plant is licensed in contrast to the bases upon which operational performance is measured.
Both are important to safe operation.
The former consists of documented design and operating information which is subject to NRC review, analysis, inspection, enforcement, and approval and should not be changed without NRC prior approval.
The latter consists of information dealing with the licensee's implementation of the regulations, t
the CLB, and his own performance initiatives and commitments, that is, how the licensee manages the operation.
This is also subject to NRC review, analysis, and inspection but in some areas is subject to change as the licensee sees fit.
The NRC responds to how well this aspect of regulation is implemented by the systematic assessment of licensee performance (SALP), senior management meeting considerations, and other initiatives.
3 A definition of CLB that could be used as a point of departure for a Part 50 definition is proposed in this paper.
We believe that this definition of CLB would fulfill the objectives l
stated above and benefit the staff, for example in its application of 10 CFR Parts 50.54 (f) and 50.109 and evaluation of l
licensee 10 CFR Part 50.59 reports.
Industry would also benefit, particularly in its application of Part 50.59, if ambiguity concerning issues needing NRC approval is reduced.
Regarding the current definition for CLB in 10 CFR Part 54.3, we do not believe it is appropriate for either operating reactors or license renewal because it goes beyond NRC requirements and includes information subject to change by the licensee.
This scope of the Part 54.3 definition appears to be one of the contributing factors to industry's reluctance to address license renewal.
We believe that the requirements for license renewal should logically flow from the CLB established for operating reactors.
i
Current Licensine Basis for Operatine Reattors 2
THE ISSUES OPP is requested by COMIS-92-019 to provide a precise description of the issues, if any, associated with the current state of affairs regarding the CLB for operating plants.
Based on our review and analysis of SECY-92-314 and other material relevant to the CLB issue for operating reactors and for license renewal, we consider the principal issues to be the following:
i Is a precise understanding of CLB needed and useful in the regulatory framework, and, if so, what is its applicability to operating plants and to license renewal?
l How should CLB be defined for operating reactors in Part 50 and how should this be reconciled with the current definition in Part 54.3 and use of the term in Part 50.54(f)?
Is there a need to update and/or compile CLB information in a clearly identified form, and if so, are current regulations sufficient or are additions needed?
i Should the Part 50.59 process, whereby licensees may e
make changes to the facility without prior NRC approval, be specifically tied to CLB and be changed to cover issues outside the FSAR?
Does a safety concern exist in light of the current state of CLB definition and application?
ANALYSIS AND REGULATORY SIGNIFICANCE Need and Applicability of CLB As discussed in SECY-92-314, effective use of a plant's CLB would benefit both the licensee and the NRC by:
helping to resolve operability issues and define safety bounds for maintenance and modification actions establishing a common NRC/ licensee framework for e
interaction on safety issues, such as in the use of Part 50.59 conserving licensee and NRC resources e
t Current Licensine Basis for Operatine Reactors 3
i i
We agree, since the licensee is faced daily with the need to f
determine whether he needs NRC approval on issues concerning maintenance, modification, and operation of the facility.
Licensees have a process for making these judgements, their procedure for implementation of Part 50.59, and it depends on an interpretation of a vast amount of docketed material.
A better understanding of CLB would aid in this process and the NRC's review of licensee actions.
In addition, license renewal would benefit by a clear understanding of issues within its scope.
Although, for reasons discussed later, the current definition in Part 54.3 does not accomplish this, we believe that CLB is the right starting point for defining license renewal issues.
The CLB is a needed and useful concept in the regulatory framework.
It should represent the delineation of how applicable regulations will be met, as evaluated and relied upon by the NRC and documented in safety evaluation reports or documents containing NRC imposed requirements, all of which are open to the public.
It represents the minimum safety envelope within which operations must take place.
By its very nature, in our view, the CLB should not be changed without prior NRC review and approval.
This concept is consistent with 10 CFR 50.54 (f) which states that the Commission can request information from licensees.
...to determine whether or not the license should be modified, suspended, or revoked.
Except for information sought to verify licensee compliance with the current licensina basis for that facility, the NRC must prepare the reason -or reasons for each information request prior to issuance to ensure that the burden to be imposed on respondents is justified in view of the potential safety significance of the issue....
(emphasis added).
This would imply that the CLB is so important to the safety basis that backfit considerations do not apply.
This is in concert with the definition of CLB as proposed later in this paper.
CLB for Operating Reactors We also agree with SECY-92-314 that CLB should be defined i
for operating reactors in Part 50 for the reasons stated above.
This will benefit the staff's application of Part 50.54 (f) and i
decisions on whether a backfit analysis is required.
We do not believe, however, that the definition of CLB, as currently u
contained in Part 54.3, is sufficiently precise to provide adequate guidance to the staff and licensees.
In our view, CLB I
i
Current Licensine Basis for Operatine Reactors
'4 should represent a contract related to design and operating bases
-that can only be changed. subject to staff analysis, approval, and documentation.
This is the concept used to construct-the CLB definition proposed later in this paper.
Adoption of this definition, while reducing the scope of information contained in CLB, should not detract from the NRC's ability to safely regulate nuclear plants.
There is a substantial body of information and commitments received from each licensee that is subject to'NRC review, inspection, and analysis.
Licensee responses to bulletins,. generic letters, inspection and SALP reports, and enforcement actions-as well as Parts 50.59 and 50.71 reports are examples.
These items would have the same significance as they currently do, namely,'to help the NRC's. assessment of'how well the plant is operated and how effectively the applicable regulations, the CLB, and-licensee commitments are being met.
CLB for License Renewal License renewal is to be predicated on regulatory assurance that the safety status of the plant at the time of' license renewal is acceptable and that age-related degradation.off structures, systems, and components (SSC) important to license renewal is accommodated in order to. preserve that safety status.
Part 54 defines and uses the term "CLB" as the basis 1under which renewed license activities need be conducted.
However, at the recent NRC-sponsored CLB workshop, papers presented by both NRC and industry clearly demonstrated a lack of agreement on the scope and content of CLB as defined'in Part 54.3.
Further, this definition includes commitments and other licensee-provided information that is subject to change on the license's initiative or for which no clear regulatory requirement exists.
Finally,.as indicated in SECY-92-314, it is not evident how readily-accessible this CLB would be, either by a licensee or the NRC.
.We recognize that the CLB-definition-as proposed later in this paper may not be of sufficient scope to be' used as tdua complete standard for consideration in license renewal.
There are likely structures, systems, and components (SSCs) which are important-to license renewal considerations, for example in the balance-of-plant, that may not be covered-by our proposed.
definition.- However, it has a Part 50 basis upon which additions needed for license renewal could be made.
Since, as indicated above, there is'a regulatory need for a precise understanding of CLB for existing Part 50 licenses, we recommend that either the term CLB be deleted.from Part 54 and replaced with more precise language for the intent of license renewal or use the CLB proposed for Part 50 augmented as appropriate for license renewal.
We would suggest the latter.
i
~..
Current Licensine Itasis for Operatine Reactors s
i 1
Proposed Definition of Current Licensing Basis We believe that the current CLB definition is inappropriate for use in either Parts 50 or 54 because it includes items which may be changed on the licensee's own initiative and are not part of the NRC review and approval process.
The diversity of interpretations and usage of CLB cited at the recent workshop, further demonstrates the need for a new definition of CLB.
In our view, the CLB should only specify how applicable regulations will be met, as agreed upon between the NRC and the licensee, relating to the design and operation of the facility.
It should be the basis on which licensee activities are authorized and may continue and the safety envelope within which licensed activities must take place.
The CLB should not include information, commitments, or licensee generated analyses which can be altered on the licensee's initiative without prior NRC
+
approval.
Therefore, recognizing that the fine line is difficult to draw, CLB should include all regulatory recuirements for the facility needing NRC approval to change and exclude those items and licensee commitments that can be changed without NRC approval.
This leads to the following definition:
i The current licensing basis is that. body of information describing the facility and the conduct of its operations which has been evaluated by the NRC and relied upon as the basis for meeting applicable regulations; has been accepted by a safety evaluation report (SER) or otherwise imposed on the licensee
- and/or is part of the facility license and accompanying technical specifications, including modification by order.
i According to this definition, the CLB would contain that information required to meet NRC regulations contained in Part 50, and 55 and those Parts of 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 70, 72, 73, and 100 referenced in Part 50 which are necessary to maintain a Part 50 license.
It would be constituted in part by the design j
basis for the facility and in part by its operating basis.
The design _banis is defined in Part 50.2; the operating basis is defined as those requirements necessary to adequately manage, t
staff, inspect, test, operate,' maintain (both the facility and staff capabilities), repair, refuel, mcdify, and safeguard the facility and provide emergency preparedness to meet applicable regulations and the facility license.
Further, the CLB would be evaluated and relied upon by the NRC as a basis for meeting I
i
Current Licemine Basis for Operatine Reactors 6
applicable regulations and accepted or modified by a,SER, a change to the_ facility license, or has been otherwise imposed by the NRC.
Finally, under this definition, the CLB cannot be i
changed without. prior NRC review and approval and'will be open to public examination (except.for safeguards or proprietary information).
r The safety. basis of the plant is supported by_a substantial body of information - not a part of the CLB - that is subject to inspection, review, and analysis by the staff (such as:
commitments which are subject to change under 50.59; in-plant.
programs and procedures for operations, maintenance, and support;
-l organization, management activi'.ies, and personnel _ qualifications j
other than those prescribed by regulations; licensee inspection i
and quality assurance reports; and responses to NRC initiatives and documents generated in accordance with reporting. requirements l
which do not require or receive NRC review and acceptance).
All-of these are considered when assessing how well the plant is
-operated and how effectively the applicable' regulations; the CLB,
'j and other licensee and regulatory initiatives are being i
implemented.
If CLB is so defined in Part 50, there will beLa need to j
reconcile it with other usage in Part 50 and the current definition _in Part 54.
It is our view that if a definition along the lines proposed above is adopted, it would be consistent with current usage in Part 50.54(f) and application of both Part 50.59 l
and the backfit rule.
However, it would not be consistent with Part 54.
Therefore, we recommend that a-rulemaking be conducted l
which defines CLB for operating reactors in-Part 50, deletes the 1
definition of CLB in Part 54.3, and also defines the scope of review for Part 54 which may extend beyond the Part 50 CLB.
i
-l Updating and Compiling the CLB l
For rulemaking on Part 54, a major issue that arose was.
.j whether the current licensing basis should be compiled.
Strong-positions were taken in comments on the proposed-rulefand the NRC decided not to require. compilation.
One consideration was the extensive body of material that would have to be_ compiled to satisfy the definition of CLB in 54.3.
We agree with SECY-92-314 regarding updating and compiling
]
the CLB defined in Part 54.3.
However, if a definition for CLB
]
in Part 50 is adopted, NRC should reconsider how to maintain the
-)
CLB and what, if~any, requirements for compilation are needed.
j NRC will need to determine if the updated final safety _ analysis report (UFSAR), along with the license and accompanying technical
]
1
.l
Current Licensine Basis for Oneratine Reactors 7
specifications, does or should incorporate all of these' changes.
NRC will also hase to determine how the older plants, those with' minimum safety analysis report (SARs) and SERs written prior to the Standard Review Plan and other definitive guidance on the SER contents, have maintained the CLB according to the new definition.
Finally, when an issue is dealt with by, for example, generic letter, the ultimate disposition and resolution within the CLB context will need to be articulated.
The importance of current licensing basis as we propose the meaning, would seem to require at the very least an identification and enhanced means of access to all licensees' current licensing basis.
There should be a common understanding and ready access to the current licensing basis by NRC and the licensee.
This is a regulatory, rather than safety, issue and can be done over a period of time.
When NRC makes a final decision on the definition of CLB, this question should be revisited.
Even though the use made by NRC of the FSAR updates was not an issue in SECY-92-314, it appears that a review would be worthwhile of how this document is currently used in safety regulation and how it might benefit CLB update.
NRC's evaluation of Part 50.71(e) submittals in this light would help determine how well the UFSAR requirement is accomplishing useful purposes._
For the reasons stated above, such a review should await an agency definition of CLB because changes to implement this definition may effect the use of the UFSAR.
Need for Expanding the 50.59 Process SECY-92-314 reported that, "as a result of the differing interpretations and the lack of a clearly defined process for making changes to commitments outside the scope of 10 CFR 59.59, some licensees have not docketed changes made to some licensing basis commitments."
We found that this primarily came about because of the addition of generic letters (GL), and licensee event reports (LER) to the regulatory process without a concomitant requirement to apply the 50.59 process to changes occurring as a result of GLs and LERs.
The requirements for a 50.59 review should be added to these and other similar tools used in regulation to have the assurance that licensee changes to the. facility will be properly evaluated for unreviewed safety considerations.
Safety Concerns in CLB Issues j
As discussed in SECY-92-314, there is no definition for the
Current Licensine Basis for Operatine Reactors a
CLB for operating reactors and no industry-wide agreement on such a definition.
In addition, there are substantial differences i
between licensees in their ability-to access the type of information consistent with the definition given in Part 54.3.
Even so, because of the control exercised over items contained in the license and technical specifications, as well as the regulatory focus on programs to ensure licensee attention to safety significant issues, it is unlikely that there is a cafety issue as a result of the current state of affairs regarding the CLB for operating plants.
While there is not likely a safety problem, significant improvement in various areas of information management and retrieval beyond the proposed definition of CLB may be warranted, as identified in SECY-92-314.
If it is found that licensees need to improve information retrieval for operations and analysis, alternatives need to be developed to assure that-this is done, with the goal of regulatory efficiency.
NRC should develop a process, with input from licensees, on acceptable means of maintaining this information capability.
Any action to require improved access and retrieval of documents not included in the agency's definition of CLB should be subject to the backfit analysis according to Part 50.109 because no finding has been made that any changes are needed for maintaining compliance and adequate protection.
RECOMMENDED FUTURE ACTIONS We have identified what OPP considers to be the most pressing actions to address the CLB issues and provided plans and schedules for them here.
Other actions are also suggested in the detailed discussions of issues.
1.
Establish a Part 50 definition of CLB for operatina reactors and make accommodatina Part 50 clarifications:
As previously indicated, OPP has concluded that many of the problems
[
discussed in SECY-92-314 and in this paper relate to the lack of a useful and useable definition of the CLB for operating reactors
~
as well as for license renewals.
In response to this conclusion, we recommend that a definition-of the CLB for operating reactors along the lines proposed herein be added to Part 50 through l
rulemaking.
We believe the CLB for operating reactors should be clarified promptly so that licensees can use the information to reconstitute their existing CLB process and to standardize future CLB-related record keeping.
We suggest the-following schedule for this rulemaking:
l v
s i
Current Licensine Basis for Operatine Reactors 9
t February 1993 Issue Federal Reaister notice explaining concept and announcing a public meeting l
in' March to discuss.
Specifically
~
solicit participation from the 200 participants of the June 1992~CLB Workshop.
March 1993 Public meeting on definition June 1993 Proposed rule to EDO/ Commission l
July 1993 Issue in Federal Recister September 1993 End 60-day public comment period December 1993 Final rule to EDO/ Commission February 1994 Issue final amendments 2.
Revise the CLB definition in Part 54.3 based on actions taken on Part 50 for operatina reactors:
As already discussed, OPP believes SECY-92-314 and other related documents have I
identified interpretation and implementation problems with the Part 54.3 definition of CLB for license renewal actions.
We believe that the CLB requirements for license renewal actions should logically flow from the CLB established for operating
[
reactors.
Thus, once the new concept of the CLB for operating reactors is clearly defined and established, the.CLB requirements for license renewal should be revised accordingly.
We suggest that a rule to reconsider and revise Part 54.3:be carried out in parallel to the rule for Part 50 so accommodating changes can be made as soon as the final CLB definition for Part-50 is agreed upon.
3.
Consider chances to Parts 50.59. 50.71(e), and 50.109:
If and when a revised definition for CLB is proposed in rulemaking, its implications on these rules should be assessed.
l It is our belief that the effectiveness of these rules can be enhanced without increasing and perhaps reducing their regulatory burden.
We support the actions identified in SECY-92-314 in this regard.
Our schedule would target development of proposed rules 6 months after completion of the above CLB rulemaking.
l I
r i
i
.