ML20035D870
| ML20035D870 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/26/1992 |
| From: | Ward D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2808, NUDOCS 9304140070 | |
| Download: ML20035D870 (21) | |
Text
ges-wt
~
noe v/ & z f ' ~ ' ~
r i
N 3 b $G 3 m Summary of Meeting of ACRS Planning and Date: 3/26/92 Procedures Subcommittee D. A. Ward, ACR$ Chairman March 4, 1992 Purnose:
This meeting was held to discuss:
(1) future Committee Activities Topics proposed for consideration by the full Committee.
(2)
Sec'ond Multilateral International Meetino of
- Advisorv, Committees - Status and related activities.
(3)
Oualifications of Candidates for ACRS Jembershio
'iscuss qualifications of 16 candidates.
(4)
NRC Procram to Eliminate Recuirements Marcinal to Safety Discuss appropriate Committee action regarding SECY-91-224 dated July 29, 1991 regarding NRC plans to eliminate unnecessary regulatory requirements and modify the nature of its rules (e.g., use nonprescriptive regulations).
(5)
Review and Revise ACRS Subcommittee Assionments - Take into account anticipated departure of members during 1992.
(6)
ReDlies from the EDO to ACRS Recommendations / Comments i
Discuss replies received from the EDO since last month's (February 6-8, 1992) ACRS meeting.
(7)
ACRS/ACNW Budcatine and Staffino -
Discuss predicted use of FTEs beyond the authorized level of 38 FTEs for 1992.
ParticiDants:
Members David A. Ward, Chairman J.
C.
Carroll, Member R. F.
Fraley, Executive Director
$n\\ 0 U
l
- m., m~ ~ ~ ~ ~m 9304140070 920326 8
" # U-
/
d 2
Staff R.
P.
Savio, Asst. Executive Director for Nuclear Reactors and Nuclear Waste M.
F.
Lee, Asst. Executive Director for Operations S.
Duraiswamy, Chief Reactors Branch G.
R. Quittschreiber, Technical Assistant, ED M. MacWilliams, Chief, Operations Support Branch Discussion (1)
Anticipated ACRS Activities Members discussed and offered comments on Reference A.
The members proposed that we schedule a briefing by the NRC staff during the April ACRS meeting for a status report regarding the activities of the NRC Working Group on use of PRA in the regulatory process.
A revised copy will be provided to the full Committee for consideration during the 383rd (March 5-7, 1992) ACRS meeting.
(2) 2nd Multilateral International Meetina of Safety Advisory Bodies It was noted that plans for the 2nd Qu.
tipartite International meeting (Germany, France, Japan, and USA) to be held in Europe do not appear to have progressed very far, if at all.
We expect more definitive information later this month.
It was agreed that the ACRS should anticipate being the host for the next meeting and commence some preliminary planning.
Mr. Ward proposed the following ad-hoc group to handle this meeting.
Wilkins (Chmn), Kerr, Lewis, Carroll The Wingspread facility at Racine, Wisconsin, should be considered a possible location.
Topics for this meeting were tentatively identified as:
Use of integrated digital (computerized) control and safety systems in nuclear facilities Management aspects in the safety of plant operations R.
F. Fraley was asked to determine if appropriate advisory bodies are available in Taiwan and Korea who might be invited, in view of Commissioner de Planque's interest in their views l
f)
i t
I i
I regarding consideration of the management aspects of plant operations.
F (3)
Oualifications of Candidates for ACRS Membership Ten nominations have been received in response to the NRC Press Release calling for nominations that was published on i
January 28, 1992.
In addition, seven resumes that were carried over as "A"
candidates from nominations during 1991 were considered (see Reference B,
- attached, for detailed list).
l The members decided to recommend that two of these candidates should be invited to the April meeting for interviews.
They l
are:
DELETION.
FOIA EX (b) (6)-
INFORMATION i
(4)
Eliminate Recuirements Marcinal to Safety SECY-91-224 dated Jul, 29, 1992 (Reference C, attached) notes NRC's plans to consider relaxation of several regulatory requirements (noted below) and to reexamine some of its current regulations to provide increased flexibility to licenses without reducing safety by use of less prescriptive requirements.
The Commission will also consider a
[
performance oriented, nonprescriptive approach for future requirememts.
The specific regulatory requirements that NRC is considering relaxing involve:
(1) containment leakage rates, (2) MSIV leakage control systems, and (3) combustible gas control in BWR containments.
This program has been underway since 1984 and the Committee has been informed of its existence on several occasions -(e.g.,
l SECY-89-254, Eliminating or Modifying Selected Regulatory Regulations Without Compromising Safety, dated August 23, 1989, was distributed to the Committee.
The NUREG/CR-4330 report entitled,
" Review of Light-Water Reactor Regulatory Requirements," Vol. 1 (April 1986) was also provided to the
- members, but no specific decision regarding Committee participation has been made.
At the present time, the NRC 3
,1
9 4
participation has been made.
At the present time, the NRC staff (M6ni Dey) plans to request ACRS input after public comments have been obtained and factored into a specific staff position (estimated July 1992) regarding these issues.
Note that a Federal Register Notice calling for public comments was published February 4, 1992, with the public comment period ending on May 4, 1992.
The members decided to recommend that the Committee take no action regarding this matter until after the public comments have been reconciled.
Members also agreed that the ACRS subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices (HWL) should continue to handle this matter.
(5)
ACRS Subcommittee Assianments The members discussed proposed changes to replace members who will be departing from the Committee during 1992; abolish / combine several subcommittees where needs have changed; reassign tasks to distribute the workload more appropriately; rename subcommittees where appropriate; and change members' assignments where appropriate (see Reference D).
The members provided comments and suggestions regarding proposed and additional changes that will be reflected in a proposed list of revised subcommittee assignments to be provided the members for review and comment.
(6)
Replies from the EDO Recardina ACRS Comments and Recommendations only one reply has been received since the February meeting.
This responds to the ACRS September 10, 1991 report on the NRC Regulatory Impact Survey (see Reference E).
The members concluded that Dr. Lewis should be alerted to discuss this matter during the 383rd Committee meeting.
(7)
ACRS/ACNW Use of FTEs The ACRS/ACNW office is running over its authorized strength by estimates that range from 1.25 to 8.7 FTEs extrapolated to the end of 1992.
The current authorized level is 38 FTEs for these activities this year.
The best estimate for the year varies from 39.25 to 39.75, depending on the monthly activities of the members and consultants.
This results primarily from the activities of ACRS members who are expected to run over the budgeted value by approximately 1.2 FTEs i
(17%).
5 In order to avoid any limitations on the authority of this office to replace staff members who leave, use of consultants, etc.,
it was agreed that the office should request 1
authorization of approximately 2 FTEs during the agency's mid-year review of resource allocation /use which is scheduled to occur during March / April 1992.
(8)
Miscellaneous Activities of Members Mr.
Ward noted that he has been invited to make a presentation on Human Factors at an IEEE meeting in Monterey, California, on June 10, 1992.
He will be presenting his own views regarding this matter - not those of the Committee.
The subcommittee members recommended that the ACRS support this assignment.
Mr. Carroll noted his planned trip to Japan during the period of April 2 to April 10, 1992, as part of an NRC staff team going over to meet with GE and Japanese representatives (regulatory and industrial) to discuss human factors issues related to the GEABWR control room design.
He suggested that he would welcome suggestions from his fellow members regarding specific issues they would like him to explore.
Subcommittee members recommended a brief discussion during the 383rd committee meeting.
ACRS Vice-Chairmen for Subcommittee Activities Dave Ward suggested that it might be useful and beneficial for certain subcommittees, with particularly heavy or difficult responsibilities, to have a designated Vice-Chairman. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman could work together to plan the scope of subcommittes activities, etc.
Subcommittee members agreed to give this some thought for consideration at a future meeting.
l 1
The exact figure will be based on a best estimate prediction at the proper time (approximately 2
FTEs are anticipated).
1 6
A
- Memo dated 3/3/92,
Subject:
Future ACRS Activities i
- 384th ACRS Meeting, April 2-4, 1992 B (ATTACHED) - Nominees for 1992 ACRS Vacancies dated March 5, 1992
[ REFERENCE B REMOVED - FOIA EI(b) (6)]
C (ATTACHED) - SECY-91-224, dated July 29, 1991,
Subject:
Elimination of Requirements Marginal to Safety D
- Proposed Changes to Subcommittee Assignments (paper i
by S. Duraiswamy) i E
- EDO Responses to ACRS Letters (Letter on Regulatory Impact Survey)
P i
i i
i f
t I
i
i REFERENCE B REMOVED -
F0IA EX(b)(6)
[PAGES 7-8)
.. C7
am--------
,-----w
~
TEsf/Apcti S MM i'
..,h pecw/%
nces + new I
mttw k,w s.....
sm = yy ;
W POLICY ISSUE w a,,,,,,
(NEGATIVE CONSENT)
I July 29,1991 SECY-91-224 f.9I:
The Comissioners frg3:
James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations Subiect:
ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENTS MARGINAL TO SAFETY Purnose:
To inform the Comission of the conclusions and planned actions that will close out a program conducted to identify, assess and eliminate regulatory requirements that have marginal importance to safety and yet impose a substantial regulatory burden on licensees.
Backoround:
In 1984, the Comission's Annual Planning and Program
[ + /9 2. - U.Lt. % w Guidance (PPG) document stated that " Existing regulatory requirements that have marginal importance to safety should M,'>> w
- p p
be eliminated."
In response, the staff initiated a program to make regulatory requirements more efficient by y
gM eliminating those with marginal impact on safety.
ldr hD ter '
At the start of the program, the staff solicited conuents 6
<WD h{ from industry on specific regulatory requirements and jg, associated regulatory positions that needed reevaluation.
In response to NRC's request, a survey was conducted by the
- yJ 3L Atomic Industrial Forum providing most of industry's input.
c The industry survey results, which were published for the i
NRC by Pacific Northwest Laboratory in NUREG/CR-4330,
" Review of Light Water Reactor Regulatory Requirements,"
Volume 1 (April 1986), included a list of 45 candidates for potential regulation modification. A progress report of this effort was provided to the Comission on September 26, 1986 (SECY-86-284).
NOTE:
CONTACT:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE Moni Dey, RES WHEN THE FINAL SRM IS MADE AVAILABLE 492-3730
?M F. R. N
- O /99 2
-s W A p.> + L w ~ M m 9, t 9 9 z-
\\
q he
_m
The Commissioners 2
A Program Advisory Group, composed of members from the major NRC offices was formed to review these candidates.
The group selected 7 areas from the 45 candidates for analysis based on the potential benefit for licensees and the number of plants that would be affected:
(I) Containment leak rate testing, (2) BWR main steam isolation valve (MSIV) leakage control systems, (3) fuel design safety reviews, (4) postaccident sampling systems, (5) turbine missiles, (6) combustible gas control systems, and (7) charcoal filters. The results of the analyses of the selected candidates were reported in NUREG/CR-4330, Volume 2 (June 1986) and Volume 3 (May 1987).
The effects of selected eliminations or modifications to the regulations were evaluated in terms of such factors as public risk and costs to industry and NRC.
The results indicated that potential modifications of the regulatory requirements in all the areas except charcoal filters would have little impact on risk.
Impregnated charcoal filters in building ventilation systems did appear to limit risks to the public and plant staff. The cost analyses indicated that substantial savings in operating costs may be realized in the areas of containment leakage rates, MSIV leakage control systems, combustible gas control in.finerted BWR containments, inspections for turbine missile protection, and postaccident i
sampling systems (for future plants only).
The staff last reported to the Consission on August 23, 1989 (SECY-89-254), on progress made in these activities to eliminate or modify selected regulations without compromising safety.
Discussion:
The survey that was previously conducted and reported in NUREG/CR-4330, Volume 1, provided industry's input to develop a list of potential candidates for modification or elimination.
In order to complement this earlier work and ensure a complete search, a survey was conducted to collect suggestions based on the accumulated knowledge of NRC staff members, many of whom have spent years developing and applying plant regulations. Battelle Columbus Laboratories (BCL) conducted the survey for the staff and employed a structured interview process utilizing each section of the Standard Review Plan (SRP). The SRP provided a systematic and comprehensive compilation of regulatory positions that served as the structure on which to organize the interview.
Interviewees were selected so as to ensure reasonably comprehensive and insightful coverage of all areas of reactor regulation.
They were to draw upon their expertise in their particular area, their experience in regulation, i
their knowledge of regulatory requirements, and any other information at their disposal. The survey identified 54
/N]
The Comissioners 3
=
candidates, a number of which were previously identified in the study conducted for the staff by PNL.
The staff, with the assistance *of Scientech, Inc., developed a method to evaluate the potential candidates identified in the survey of the NRC staff and to select those that have a marginal impact on safety and yet would reduce the regulatory burden on industry. An assessment of the short-and long-term NRC and licensce benefit and burden was conducted together with an evaluation of the safety importance of the potential regulatory candidates.
This assessment was based on a qualitative analysis and engineering judgment.
Eight candidate items were identified as having the highest potential for saving resources while not significantly affecting safety margins:
(1) replace 10 CFR 50.44 (hydrogen rule) with a performance-based rule accompanied by a regulatory guide, (2) clarify 10 CFR 50.59,
" Changes, Tests and Experiments," (3) replace fire protection requirements in Appendix R with a performance-3 based rule accompanied by a regulatory guide, (4) eliminate 1
the requirement for the MSIV Leakage Control System, (5) update Regulatory Guide 1.76, " Design Basis Tornado,"
with current technology, (5) clarify "Important to Safety" l
in the regulations, (7) Feplace containment testing requirements in Appendix J with a performance-based rule accompanied by a regulatory guide, and (8) transfer ECCS evaluation models in Appendi:: K to a regulatory guide.
Conclusions The staff has reviewed all of the above candidates and concludes:
A. That no 10 CFR Part 50 regulations were identified that are so burdensome on operating reactors and so marginal l
to safety that would warrant the expenditure of additional staff resources to rectify.
Some regulations have already been eliminated or relaxed (e.g., 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A,
" Requirements for Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pipe Ruptures"), and licensees have been exempted from some regulations (e.g., hydrogen recombiners in Mark I and Mark II inerted containments).
The staff has also been working with industry to clarify 10 CFR 50.59.
These efforts have resulted in the Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations (NSAC-125).
//
1 1,, -
The Comissioners 4
l
~
1.
B. That the following two candidates involving license conditions or commitments in many licenses may be eliminated or relaxed based on cost-benefit considerations.
- 1. Main steam isolation valve leak control system per Reg. Guide 1.96, " Design of Main Steam Isolation Valve Leakage Control Systems for Boiling Water Reactor Plants." The enclosure to this paper provides a description and evolution of the MSIV leakage control I
system requirements.
The staff has already initiated
{
l a review to eliminate the MSIV leak control systems in
{
BWRs.
The completion of this review is pending submittal of a topical report from the BWRs Owners group to confirm the fission product hold-up and trapping capability of the main condenser system.
If justified, the staff anticipates it will eliminate this requirement shortly after the submission of the topical report.
- 2. Allowable containment leakage rate utilized in j
containment testing per Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50 may be increased.
Bpsed on Comission direction, the staff has initiated 'a program to update the source term and to decouple siting from design. As part of this effort, amendments will be made to 10 CFR Parts l
50 and 100. The basis for the requirements for the allowable containment leakage rate is related to the 1
source term and the radiation dose guidelines l
contained in 10 CFR Part 100.
Therefore, as part of this action, the staff plans to explore the merits of i
establishing criteria on containment performance (including a leakage rate) as a replacement for the Part 100 dose calculation currently employed. This rulemaking is expected to be completed by the end of FY 1993. The enclosure provides details of the containment testing requirements and bases for the allowable containment leakage rate requirement.
C. That decreasing the prescriptiveness of some regulations may improve their effectiveness by providing flexibility to licensees without reducing safety.
The surveys and interviews of the industry and NRC staff conducted as part of this program yielded a general indication that some of NRC's regulations need not be as prescriptive as they presently are.
By decreasing the prescriptiveness of some regulations and providing more flexibility _ to the licensees for proposing cost-effective safety features, the
/b
The Comissioners 5
regulatory process may be made more effective.
Specifically, the following four regulations could be made lets prescriptive:,(1) 10 CFR 50.44, " Standards for Combustible Gas Control Systems in Light-Water-Cooled Power fleactors"; (2) Appendix K of 10 CFR 50, "ECCS Evaluation Model"; (3) Appendix J of 10 CFR 50,
" Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors"; and (4) Appendix R of 10 CFR 50, " Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to January 1,.1979."
The detailed and prescriptive technical requirements contained in these regulations could be removed and replaced with performance-based requirements and supporting regulatory guides. The regulatory guides could specifically allow alternative approaches, although the current detailed technical requirements now in the regulations could be reflected to indicate their continued acceptability.
There is considerable uncertainty whether licensees would take advantage of the flexibility offered by non-prescriptive reg,ulations, and develop for staff approval alternative approaches to meet the performance objectives contained in the revised regulations.
Licensees or industry groups are in a better position than the NRC to determine whether the reduction in burdens from such approaches would be sufficient that this effort would be cost beneficial overall.
Licensees or industry groups have the option to request exemptions from or petition to modify the current regulations.
In light of resource constraints and the number of high priority rulemaking actions currently underway, the staff believes that no further action should be taken to pursue this approach at this time.
- However, as directed by the Commission in the Staff Requirements Memorandum dated March 8, 1991 on revisions to the charter of the Comittee to Review Generic Requirements, the staff will evaluate the feasibility of defining performance-based requirements in proposing regulatory initiatives and new regulations if it determines that would be appropriate.
For example, a non-prescriptive approach was used in developing a recent amendment of Appendix K of 10 CFR Part 50, "ECCS Evaluation Models," to allow a best-estimate calculational approach. Details of the methodology were placed in a Regulatory Guide.
/3
The Commissioners 6
Public Coments The staff had indicated in its,last report (SECY-89-254) to the Comission on the subject that it intended to hold a public workshop to obtain industry and public input on the list of candidates.
In lieu of the public workshop, the staff plans to publish a public announcement in the Federal i
Register to present the results, conclusions, and planned actions to close out this program. Further, the public will be encouraged to submit a petition for rulemaking, with I
supporting justification, whenever there is a belief that NRC regulatory requirements impose a significant economic burden without a comensurate safety significance.
l The staff will review any public comments to determine if changes to its planned actions may be warranted.
The Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards will also be briefed at that time.
Coordination:
The Office of General Counsel has no legal objection to this paper.
Recommendation:
That the Comission:
f Note that, unless instructed otherwise, the staff will complete the planned actions as outlined in this paper and close out this program.
m,
/
s s M. Ta or ecutive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Background Information for Selected 10 CFR Part 50 Requirements.
SECY NCTE:- In the absence of instructions to the contrary, SECY will notify the staff on Monday, August 12, 1991, that the Cormission, by negative consent, assents to the action proposed in this paper DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners REGIONAL OFFICES OGC EDO OIG ACRS OCAA ACNW
/
ENCLOSURE Background Information for Selected 10 CFR Part 50 Requirerrents i
1 i
/8 i
J
1-o 1.
Main Steam Isolation Valve Leakaoe Control System Boiling water reactors (BWRs) draw steam directly from the reactor vessel to the turbine via main steam lines. The main steam' lines installed in these plants contain dual quick-closing main steam isolation valves (MSIVs).
These Vdlves function to isolate the reactor system in the event of a break in a steam line outside the primary containment, a design basis LOCA, or other events requiring containment isolation. Although the MSIVs are designed to provide a leak-tight barrier, it is recognized that some leakage through the valves will occur.
The current technical specification limit for MSIV leakage is typically 11.5 standard cubic feet per hour (SCFH). Operating experience has indicated that degradation has occasionally ucrurred in the leak-tigntness of MSIVs, and the specified lor: leakage has not always been maintained.
Because of recurring problems with excessive leakage of MSIVs, NRC Regulatory Guide 1.96, " Design of Main Steam Isolation Valve Leakage Control Systems for Beiling Water Rcr tor Nuclear Power Plants," recolfinended the installation of a supplemental leakage control system (LCS) to ensure that the isolation function of the MSIVs complies with the specified limits.
Figure 1 provides an illustration of a typical MSIV leakage control system.
The figure shows that both an inboard and an outboard MSIV-LCS are Jsed.
Each system is typically designed for a maximum floy of 100 SCFH.
The normal flow path is through the inboard system for leakag6s less than 100 SCFH.- Lea kage from the inboard MSIV in excess of 100 SCFH generally results in isolation of the inboard MSIV-1CS. Any resultant leakage past the outboard MSIV is collected by the outboard MSIV-LCS downstream of the outboard MSIV. The
'iSIV-LCS routes the leakage through the standby gas treatment system (SBGT) for holdup, treatment, and release through the stack.
The desirability of the M51V leakage control system requirement has recently undergone review by the NRC.
The LCS may not be effective for MSIV leakage rates greatly in excess of technical specification limits because of limitations in its des *7n.
In addition, alternative MSIV leakage treatment methods, which make use of the holdup volume in the main steam lines and condenscr, may be superior to the LCS in reducing offsite consequences.
Generic Issue C-8, " Main Steam Isolation Valve (eakage Control Systems," was established to address these concerns.
A study conducted for the NRC examined the risk and cost impacts associated with eliminating the requirements for MSIV leakage control systems in BWRs, and concluded that the requirements might be difficult to justify on the oasis of a quantitative cost-benefit guideline of $1,000 per person-rem averted.
1 NUELCR-4330, Vol. 2, " Review of Light Water Regulatory Requirements,"
April 1986.
2.
Appendix J:
" Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors 10 CFR 50 ApperJ1x J, " Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors," effective March 16, 1973, wes issued to provide uniform requirements for containment leakage testing.
Prior to the issuance of Appendix J, containment leakage testing requirements were specified on an inoividual basis in the technical specifications for each power reactor.
The allowable leakage rate for a reactor primary containment is determined on a plant-specific basis to meet 10 CFR 100 dose limits after a specified design basis accident utilizing source terms specified in TID-14844 (1962).
In practice, a value lower than that required to meet the 10 CFR 100 limits is written into the plant's technical specifications. Typical allowable leakage rates are 0.1% per day for a FWR and 1% per day for a BWR.
Appendix J requires three different types (defined in paragraphs II.F II.G, and II.H) of containment leakage tests:
1.
Type A measurement of the containment integrated leakage rate is required three times during each ten-year period during the operating life of the plant.
2.
Type B measurement of the leckage across each pressure-containing or leakage-limiting boundary for various primary reactor containment penetra-tions is required at intervals not to ex: ped two years, except that air locks are tested every six months.
3.
Type C measurement of the containment isolation valve leakage rates is required at intervals not to exceed two years.
The American National Standards Institute standard ANSI N45.4-1972, " Leakage Rate Testing of Containmcnt Structures for Nuclear Reactors," was incorporated by reference into Appendix J with modifications and exceptions. Appendix J provides test frequencies, pretest requirements, test methods, and acceptance criteria fcr each of the tests described above. Appendix J also describe.s the situations that call for special test requirements and the reporting requirements for the test results. An Information Notice issued in 1985 (IEN ES-71) provided additinnal guidance on the imple:nentation of Appendix '.
A rulemaking action to amend Appendix J has been under way for several years, and the staff plans to submit a final rule to the Commiss %
ll. The primary for.us of the amendment is to provide for and allos v
.ed technology in the implementation of tho tests.
In addition, the period:.: retest schedule would be redefined to permit tests during alternate refueling shutdowns at intervals not to exceed two years.
NOREG/CR-4330, " Review of Light Water Reactor Regulatory Requirements," '
w izes a cest-benefit study indicating that an increase in containment design lea -Je by several orders of magnitude would have relatively minor effect en overall plant risk and significantly reduce licensee resource burden.
The containment leakage tests are confirmatory and do not directly reduce risk, provided the i
17 m
l tests disclose no structural change to the containment or no open valves or other penetrations.
Such results seldom occur and do not depend on the detailed nature of the t6sts.
Rather, the tests serve to identify maintenance and repair actions needed to restore and maintain design basis leakage rates.
Thus, the l
periodic tests required by Appendix J enhance confidence that the containment
~
will continue to function as des?gned throughout t,he life of the plant.
i f
a f
i i
e s
t 5
/B I
[i ip r
l I
6 s
l l'
e so D
e L
g!
llj ll d
e f
f O
h C
O' m
e g
o.
i.
t b,i s
y e
r o
V -
e S
v "
C r
sn g
l in e
o d
r s
d n
t l
o iu c
n o
G H
C en
(
e i
t b
8 r
r a
u k
T a
e
_i L
ds V
c_
r I
aL o-S t
yn bv M
r e t i a
us dm OM n
n i 1
oe ml l'
l, w
cs en 1
So n
E C
u ll l
llgj RU v
G I
e s
in g
F
, c.
u Ve r.
r i
Rt i
Sc
,v
% ye io
,i
,s D
,M tn tn
)@il m
e r
]
e m
a n l
l lmi l
v t
a l
a
. ( f lI T
l a
t a
e Pn V
r o
C f
e es e
va I
1 v lG el ea R a vV y Vl hm y-al t.
e e e, V o n t t s ra.
f nptt y aponSS Ayt o
- l S r.
t tyVVW.
NN
+ *
=T V
8 1
SC t
4 4
.4166
. f'ederal Regist:r /-Vol 57. No. 23 / Turrday. Februnry 4,1992 / Proposed Rules l %.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY eliminated. In accordance with the PPG only). While streamllrung fuel design -
COMMISSION document, the staff initiated a program safety reviews would how margmal to make regulatory requirements more impact on safety there appeared to be 10 CFR Chapter i efficient by eliminating those with no sigmficant cost savings in modifymg marginalimpset on safety.
them based on subsequent discussions Elimination of Requirementa Marginal At the start of the 1964 program the with a number of utilities and industry to Safety NRC solicited comments from industry groups including fuel vendors.
aoEwev: Nuclear Regr'afy n specific regulatory requirements and q,g,y associated te story positions that Commissim eva n "p use 2 g
ACTioec Solicitation of public comments. NRC's request, a survey was condocted
,,,,g suentasm ne Nuclear Regulatory by the Atomic Industrial Forum Commission (NRC) seeks public providing most of industry's input. ne AnsigueseIPne NRCis not proposing comment on the results. conclusions, industry survey results, which were e a h fw & d ia d and planned actions ofits program to pubtfahed for the NRCin NUREC/CR-requtrements related to turbine missile 4330 Review of Light Water Reactor M posWde wN eliminate requirements marginal to safety. Two issues involving license Regulatory Requirements " Vol.1. April
'Y' gg conditions or commitments have been 190s. included a list of 45 randidates for nowyf on ben *Ets fM Operating identified for elimination. De NRC has potential regulation modiBestitaa mactas, and the eHminaum of these also concluded that decreasing the Program Advisory Croup. com;,osed of prescriptiveness of some ofits curwnt members from the major NRC offices requirements would not result in was formed to review these randidates.
significant savings for operating.
regulsdans may improve their sfiectiveness by providing Dexibility to ne group selected 7 areas from the 45 reactors. Turbine missile protectim
' hneees without reducing safety.ne candidates for analysis bued on h nyiews have already been completed. -
NRC is seeking comments on this Potential beneSt for licensees and the and the costs ofinstalling postsccident conclusion arJ the benefits of modifying number of plants that would be affected: sampling systems have already been some ofits present regulstions (1) Containment leak rate testing. (2) expended bylicensees of operating -
consistent with this conclusion.ne BWR main steam isolation valve (MSIV) reactors.
NRC wi!! consider a performance.
leakage control systems. (3) !uel design he surrey that was initially oriented, non-prescriptive, approach in safety review. (4) poetaccident sampling conducted provided industry's input to systems. (5) turbine missiles. (6).
denlop a list of potential candidates for future regulatory initiatives. The NRC combusuble gas controlsystems,'and (7) modification or allmination. In order to encourages the submittal of a petition for rulamaHnft whenever there is a brief charcoal Alters.De results of the
.= 61 this earlier work and',
that NRC regulatory requirements analyses of the = tar +ad condidates :
ensu're a complete search. a survey was impose a'significant araaa-te burden han been p'9 Woe the NRC in-enna e+=d to collect suggesdons based NUREC/CR-4330. " Review of Light;.
on the accanalated knowledge c(NRC without commana* ate safety ;"7WaterReactorRegulatorri.a.:m n i
Requirunants.Nols.2 and 3. dated Joe. stdf manbes.may dhhavn.
sw+= ae=-
'., f
spent years t','; and applying 4"r -
DAves: f'nmm?nt perio3 expires on May.
1986 and May 1987.He effects of, s..
plant regulations.-A struccured interview 4.1922.for comments on b moults.
selected a'iminations or. modifications to p sulk b @ h of & i -
_. =4=Siund planned acuons for the tions were evaluated in terms gg,rd Review Pim (SRP) was - E 8.*
M' hh program, init kvit' ten comments t
developd.
SRP provided a Accessess:Su o bdus and NR
'Y' '*** * **d ~ - -
to: Chief. Regulatory Publications indicated that potential anodii'lentions of compiladon of regulatory positions that Branch. Division of Freedom of b mgulatory reqdramats in aH h sened as the stmetum on which to -
Information and Publicadas Senice, areas except charcoal Blters would have U.S. Nucle ar Regulatory r'*== ion, little impact on rkk.lmpmanatal organize the interview. interviewees -
were selected so as to ensure Washington.DC 20555. Copies of the charmal Elters k buBdhg vedladon SECY paper, staffirmmants systems did appear to limit riska to the masmaMy mmPmbensfw and memorandum, and NUREC and public sad plant staff.%e cost analyses iss!shtful covenge d a!! areas of -
contractor reports may be examinec at:
indicated that substantial savings in reactor result fon. Hey were to diew the NRC Public Docenent Room.2120 L operating mots may be realised in the 7Pon their r partise in their particular Street. NW. (Lower Inve!) Washingia, areas of containmentleakage rates, sies their experience in ngulatim. their DC.
~
MSIV leakage mntrol systema, knowledge of regulatory requirements.
POR PWTHeR DurgsesATIDst 00erfACTt combustible gas control in inerted BWR and any other in8ormation at their '
Mal Dey. Office of Nuclear Regulatory containments, inspections for turbine disposal %e survey identiSed 54 candidates.a number of which were Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulator 7 misalla protecdon, and postaccident 8
Commission. Washington, DC 20555.
sampling systems (for future plants previously identiSed in the earlier ;
tam) 482-a7so-survey.
suretansearTAsty serosesAftoss:
. o,p6seetNusmc 6
,.n m ybe A method awas developed to W d throma ih.uA c m primase evaluata the potential candidates.
NRC Initiatives ice the 8%Ia=*taa of amas by omnias tan) sis-sans er br wnuse in the Esquirements Marginal to Safety UA coverummem ensame omen.ra ama spear.,
..ss,se,em et two seenleimma in undune.
weewme.nen. DC anna.ross, ce, e y eine i,,
Rd.~ 7'uPered in the ISC by amasser,A h-in 1M4. the NRC's Anaual P'anniny
, h d freu the Neemmet Toshasumiimdaremesa and "Neram Guidana (PPG) document serveen. uA o,.nm me et e-sus part Lain.Mayasus.'
sta.c that "Existius regulatory R*F*l 8*ed, synesseid, yA 2 net. A espy 6.
- -essuunese af saquerumisses unreimal na evennbne sur a-r-= - er pyiss sur a see en the sasn'y."I'ePesud $w shs NRC by a *=*=* lac.
mqWremene that hsw margbal NaC Pisshen---.==a Reseh 3130 L9erset Nw.
Task 1:'W C.
1 Dec.1suct Tank importance to safety should be go.,,g,,e4 WaaWeena. DC.
s: Appurause af r '
. March tort.
I
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4,1992 / Proposed Rules '
4167 1
identified in the surveys to select those-appendix A." Requirements for ments of establishing enteria on that have a margmalimpact on safety Protection Against Dynamic Effects of containment performance (including a and yet would reduce the regulatory Postulated Pipe Ruptures") that had leakage rate) as a replacement for the burden on industry. An assessment of margmal importance to safety. In other part 100 dos.e calculation currently the short-and long-term NRC and instances licensees have been exempted employed. This rulemaking is expected licensee benefit and burden was -
from some regulations (e.g., hydrogen to be completed by the end of Fiscal conducted together with *n evaluation recombiners in Mark I and Mark 11 -
Ye at 1993.
of the safety importance 'b paential inerted containments). As noted C. Decreasing the presenptiveness of vgulatory cand2 dates nis assessment previously the NRC staH has also been some regulations may improve their was based on a qualitative analysis and working with industry to clanfy some effectiveness by providir:g flexibility to engineenng judgment. Eight candidate regulations. e.g 10 CFR 50.59. " Changes. Licensees without reducing safety.
items were idenufied 8 as having the Tests and Experiments."nese efforts highest potential for saving resources have resulted in the Guidelines for to ne surveys and interviews of the while not sigmficantly affecting safety.
CFR 50.59 safety evaluations (NSAC-industry and NRC staff conducted as margins:(1) Replace 10 CFR 50.44 125). At the time the above noted studies p fthis Ided 8*neral tion i NRC's (hydrogen rule) with a performance.
were completed in March 1991. It was based rule accompamed by a regulatory difficult to identify a regulation that regulations need not be as prescriptive guide. (2) clanfy 10 CFR 50.59 " Changes, warranted complete elimhation because as they presently are. By decreasing the Tests and Experiments." (3) replace fir, it was so burdensome on operadog prescriptiveness of some regulations and protection requirements in appendix R reactors and so margmal to safety.
{ ding more ty to the with a performanea-based rul*
Conclusions safety featums, b h gulatwy process c$f a7th ne NRC has reviewed each of these may be made more effective.
dr t
Izakage Contro System.(5) update items and has reached b following Specifically, the following three c nelusions:
regulations could be madelesa Regul d
s urnadob"6 A. No additional 10 CFR part 50 prescriptive:(1)10 CrR 50.44.-
)
clanfy "Important to Safety"inYe*
regulations were identified that are so
" Standards for Combustible Gas Control regulations. (7) replace containment burdensome on operating reactors and Systems in Light-Water-Cooled Power so marginal to safety to warrant the Reactors": (2) appendix J of to CFR 80, testing requirements in appendix J with a perfonnandsed rule accompanied expenciture of additionalNRC
'Pnmary Reactor Containment I mak mee resources to eliminate at this time. Some Testing for Water Cooled Power.
ngulades han been idenuSed 6st RaactoC an43) appendix R d Cm us on m in a K,
to a regulatory guida.
could potentially be rect.fied (See 50, " Fire Protection Program.for Nuclear Conclusion C)J power Facilities Operating Pflor to t,a b NRC has made specific., s.
B.h following two candidates January 1.1979" cmclusions a the results related to the involving license conditions or h detaued and M.m ' I"T ptin N ;'~-
hydrogen rule, and fire protection and -
commitments in man [ based on cost -licanaes may be
( w - E ~could emord
i 1
Mh bg e
containment testing % ests (See eliminated or relexa section C under Conclusions).10 CFR benefit considerationa..i.i.. u..
mP aced wie par fne -N ^'. -
l part 50.46 was amended in1988 to allow
~ (1) Main steam isolation valve leak "W ""
and '"*'*"" ^"' -
a best-estimate and non-prescriptive.
control eyetem per Reg. Guide 1.96.
guides,h mgulatmy guides M.
(compared to ECCS evaluation models
" Design of Main Steam Isolatton Valve p
W ya w a ternatin contained in appendix K) calculational Leakage Control Systems for Bo!!ing approach for demonstrating that the Water Reactor Plants."m NRC staff "P"
"" *I performance criteria in i 50.46 would has already initiated a ' review to.
detailed technicalw.-ests now in not be axceeded.ne NRC has in'the eliminate the MSIV leak control systems the regulations could be resected to..
3, l
past already initisted actions for-in BWRs.%e courMetion of this review indicate their continued acceptability.
clarifying to CFR 50.50 and eliminating is pending submittsiof a topical report ners is nnanMarable unartainty,
the requirement for MSIV 14akage from the BWRs Owners Group to.
whether licenseas would take advantage Control Systems (see Conclusion B).
confirm the fission product hold.cp and of the flexibility offered by non.
Since the current effort is focused on trapping capability of the main -
prescriptive regulations, and develop for modiScations of10 CPR part 50. the ea h== rystem. If jntiSed. the NRC NRC approval alternative approaches to NRC does not plan any efforts now for anticipates it will eliminate this,
meet the performanna ob}ectives revising Regulatory Guide 138, " Design requirement shortly after the submission contained in the revised regulatici t Basis Tornado."ne NRC has for the of the to;.icalreport..
i**naees or inaustry groups are in a past several years expended resources -
. (2) b allowable containnant better position than the NRC to.
for clarifying "Important to Safety' in leakage rate uti1 Lad in containment.
determine whether the reduction in the regulations and a consklarable testing per appeadix J of10 CFR part 50... burdens from such approaches would be cmount of dialogue has comrod,
may be increased.ne NRC has sufScient that this effort would be cost between the NRC, and the industry and initiated a program to update the source beneficial warall.nerefore, prior to.
public.De NRC has concluded that.
term and to decouple siting from design.. initiating a resource 4ntensive program additional efforts at this time are not.
As part o. this effort ammndments wili to modify these reguladins the NRC is 1-necessary given the history of past be made to 10 CER parts 50 and 100.no soliciting comments and assurances that afforts. Independent of the studies noted basis for the requireenents for the -
the results of these efforts will be cbove for etwa= ting regulatory, allowable containment tank mye rate is utilised and hanahl N NRC will requirements that have snarginal..
releted to the sotace term and the also evaluate the feastbility of defining importance to safety. the b'RC had been radiation dose guidelines contained in performah requirements in taking action to eliminata or relax to CFR Part100, herefore. as part of - pmyadsg regulatory initiatives and new.
l regulations (e g 10 CFR part 5a..
this action, the NRC plans to erplore the regulations.
l al
o Federad Register / Vd. 57. No. 23 / Tuesd:y Febru ry 4,1W2 / proposed Rules 4'168 Comments Roquested
- 4. How should the safety goals be best describes the seismic and geologic rifing used in evaluating regulations? Should and earthqualce engineenng cnferra for
., he NRC solicits comments from the such evaluations be rettricted to future nuclear power plants. Because of the 4
public and regulstedIndustry on the regulations or should the evaluation also advances in the o ete-of-the4rt since the include present regulations? What publication of the regulation (effective th s mgr t aUy tb d
would be the advantage foreseca,if any.
December 13. w731. a need for the planned a public workshop on this of another evaluation cf existing NRC revision has been established.W program. However. due to reFource regulations given that the NRC is Advisory Committee on Reactor proposing to conciode these assessmerrt Safegoards. Sobcommittee on Extreme
'D eUwha ady desenbed abmf F.xkrnaWnomena met @RC sM d
c b"P.N NRC welcomes and will h NRC requests that proposals for on December 10.199t. to discuss the appreciate all comments on this subject.
We dimbsh w sh of pd mviM d appd A The h fo QMW ns *N posed 6 requirements be aw.,mpmid by an discussion of the Subcommittee analysis demonstrating that the benefits members with representatives of the ts\\
t restncted y2 gained by the licensees artwetgh the nuclear industry was impaired by the
""** *
- O**' T regulatory burden of implementing the fact that t}e reisted documents being
- 1. Are 6em any oder M CM part M change.
exemmed were not publicly available, msMa6ms est am magnal 6 safety hee questions are suggested to in order to make future meetmas more and yet impose an ecommic bwden on guide cammecrter's rerponses at this effective with respect to the exchange of licensees? How would licensees benefit tune. & NRC me. that its views and information. the fmm de diminstion d Onese regulatory requirements evolve and Subcommittee regnested that eD of the agulauccat some in the past have become marginal docussents that have been or wm be
- 2. Am them any other5cenre to safety.h industry and public are made available for Committee re icw be cmdities 'w M6' in many encouraged to submit petitions for -
made publicly available. According>y.e licenses, other 03an the two klentined in rule m WP wnhsupW draft copy d dw wud maWal hes Cmclusion B that mid be eMn=ted justiScation, at any tus when there is a been placed in the NRC Public -
or mtamf7 Am the sedes idmefied b belief that NRC regulatory requirementa Document Room at 2120 L Street NW.
citmiraste ce relax the two candidates in impose a signf 8kant
- burden (Lowerlevel). Washingtoo.DC. '
W purpose of the meeting le to '
Wi-=W B eppropriatet without a rnrnmemnrate s.afetyJ discuss with NUMARC and other-
- s. Weald deceesing the :
sigmScsace.
m -
Dood et Radv61s. Wry 5madhe 2sth day ir.dustry representatives the ympM t
pmscripUmess of mne reguasums reviskw of appendtx A to to CPR part hnprow Greir effecemens by P"""5 oflanumeytas2.
~
Mb
['out mducing For the Nuclear Regalatory'Ctansimb 200 No specific agewis is being ~ ' ~
safety? If so:t -
-^
wpg pmposed.
- ^
Drpurf InecesrfwAsamersioffbeof.
Deled et Rodvf5s. mryknd, this zeth dey
^
D th"d CF ' ' A-- L,
Nu da rAggal saryMansmi.
f janmery,1982. Far the Nuclear "L.M,
he e
b
&"""'""'a" c,w
[FR Doc.sA., toss Pbd 34.et a:45 am4 -
.Wkrw woeld diefeguisdene
.J Robert J. Ib===&
'['
,,,,,,gp, identiDed b (I} be made less
- DeparyDhector. Dirislarr ofc.,_-, ~ -
w 1
gm-sand W oyyy,,gp,e;,,ge,,yga,7g,,,,7,5 flow week! this bene 0t Ecensees and 10 CFR Part 103 p h m ru.d m W 4-the regulatory process?
- '*'8 C 8E '""
(111) Wodd licensee's take adventege Se6emic arnd h*gkrSRbg Crfteria for NdearPower Plants of tfwfictibiHtyetteredby d dmiop Acerrr:Nedear Regalatory DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION forhC
~
ltern ve Actiose Notice of meeting.
Federad Avtatkm Admtrdstr:5 art m
regulatims?
- sunsast.arnne Nodeer Regulatory 14 CFR Part y1 fiv)Should tbo NRC pareas this Commisalon staff wC) inset with the.
spproach at this thee, or limit It to future staff of the Nudeer Manegement and IAkspece Docs 6st Ha.s&Ah-ul regulatoryinittettreet "
Resources Coencil(NUMARC) and Pmposed c4 h NRCis i
" y efforts to other industry representatives to diocess evakets tes reguiethus for consistency the revision of Appewur A.W=ede Akpt, Akpm adar sentco Area, egainst the safety gonle outlined in the and Geologic FJting Criterie for ff.x lear NRC policy statement.* Safety Coals for Power Plants." to 10 CFR part 103.
tha Operation d Nedear Power PiaMs/* OATus:Feber.ary 4.1902,3 p.m.
51iR 2st44. Aegust 4.190tL%is Accrecy: Federal Aviation Anoassses:WA Nicholaan lame
evalmanon could be cor=4=rtai Joe mgulada;eoposedin the fuh and Wa. Wend.. -
Actiose Pmposed rule: erfemian of also e retmeettve evujesthe cxmid be Pon FURTHER te80SasAT3086 Cost!ACM "D#8
~ ""$
made for the present body of Dr. Andrew J. Marphy. Qdef. Structural regulations.nie 6s hkaly to be a and Seismic R ;q Branch.OfSco sonensAny:'IM notice announces an -
resouresisrnensive prn== particulady of Nuclear Regulatory Rammerch.Nedear extension of the cxnement penod for a for evalastbg existtag regejstions, and Regulatory re===d==iam Wm.Anmeton.
Notice of Proposed R-WWe(NPRM) i therefore the NRC seeks pubMc co-t DC 20t45.Teispbana: (301) 4ernse83.
which pmposes to estabEsh adAfrport cetthe merits of embesking on such a sueetrasawramt seronessAvioet Radar Service Ana (ARSA) et the. -
pmces s.
Appendix A to 10 CFR part 100 Kalamazoo/ Battle Creek International i