ML20128F640
| ML20128F640 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/05/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-60FR15878 AF23-1, AF23-1-011, AF23-1-11, SECY-93-028, SECY-93-28, NUDOCS 9302110491 | |
| Download: ML20128F640 (31) | |
Text
.......................
POLICY ISSUE February 5, 1993 (InformatlOn)
SECY-93-028 fE:
The Commissioners l
Trom:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Sub.iec t :
EllMINATION OF REQUIREMENTS MARGINAL TO SAFETY
Purpose:
To provide a progress report on the program and inform the Commission of staff efforts for developing the general framework and specific applications for performance-based regulations.
Backaround:
The staff proposed its plans for elimination of requirements marginal to safety in SECY-92-263 dated July 24, 1992.
The plans included initiating, and subsequently institutionalizing, by permanently integrating into the regulatory process, an ongoing effort to eliminate l
requirements marginal to safety and reduce regulatory l
burden.
The initial effort included moving toward less prescriptive and more performance oriented regulations in three areas.
As part of the rulemaking effort, the staff proposed plans to develop a framework for a performance-based regulatory approach and preliminary, specific applications to three regulations for discussion at a public workshop.
The Commission approved, with comments, the staff plan for elimination of requirements marginal to safety in a Staff Requirements Memorandum dated August 26, 1992.
The Commission specifically directed the staff to keep it informed on the formulation of the framework for developing performance-based regulations and on the staff's plans to apply proposed procedures (PRA technology, safety goals) more comprehensively to the body of regulations.
In an earlier Staff Requirements Memorandum dated June 15, 1990, the Commission had provided directives on the use of its Safety Goals for assessing the consistency of regulations 7 ~ ~ w_N and for identifying and possibly eliminating unnecessary I
c ggg regulations.
- y/
NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE I
L {
i IN 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE g
M ONTACT:
Moni Dey, RES h
O
- 8
s
/
The Commissioners 2
in a recent Staff Requirements Memorandum, dated December 24, 1992, the Commission approved a staff proposal for a Regulatory Review Task Group for integrating staff initiatives to improve the regulatory framework within which the NRC operates and to ensure that NRC regulations, staff implementation strategies, and related inspection processes demonstrably contrioute to public health and safety.
The Commission also indicated its view that the agency's ongoing risk-based and performance-based regulatory initiatives should continue without diminution as an integral part of the E00's effort.
Ditcussion:
A public workshop had been scheduled for January 26 and 27, 1993, and a Federal _ Reaister notice (57 FR 55156) was published on November 24, 1992 to announce NRC's plans for this program and the public workshop (Enclosure A). The public workshop was deferred (57 FR 58729) to expand the scope of the workshop to include other aspects of the staff plans to improve.the efficiency of the regulatory process.
The public workshop has now been rescheduled for April 27 and 28, 1993 and a Federal Register notice announcing the rescheduled public workshop is included in Enclosure B.
In the preparation of the November 24, 1992 Federal Reaister notice, the staff incorporated the following comments contained in the Staff Requirements Memorandum dated August 26, 1992.
1.
The agrainal to safety criterion for determining candidate requirements for elimination has been used in the public announcement in the [.ederal Reaister and will be consistently applied in implementing this program. -0thec different terminology used in SECY-92-263 htve been deleted.
2.
References to public interaction have been broadened to include industry input, and the neces,ity for public endorsement of HRC proposals prior to initiating action has been eliminated.
3.
The staff is evaluating resources to determine if all of the items on pages 12 and 13 of SECY-92-263 must be deferred until 1995.
As direc'.ed by the Commission, the staff will address item 5. " Requests for Information Under 10 CIR 50.54(f)." The staff will attempt to expr.dite consideration of some of the other deferred items.
l
The Commissioners 3
Framework for a Performance-Based Rea'ilatory Approach The staff is presently in the process of developing a framework for a performance-based regulatory approach and specific applications to the three regulations identified in SEcY-92-263:
(1) Containment structure leakage testing procedures (10 CFR 50, Appendix J); (2) Fire protection features (10 CFR 50, Appendix R); and (3) Features for post-accident combustible gas control (10 CFR 50.44).
The staff plans to use the preliminary criteria presented below and potential, specific applications to the three regulations (outlined in the FRN in Enclosure B) as a starting point for discussions at the public workshop.
However, prospective participants to the public workshop have been advised that the staff is open to new ideas and that they need not limit their comments to the published material. The workshop has been organized to generate new and innovative ideas which will be reviewed by the staff towards finalizing the general framework for developing performance-based regulations and specific approaches for the three proposed rulemakings. The staff plans to describe its analysis of the discussions at the workshop and conclusions in the proposed-rulemaking packages it plans to submit to the Commission by the end of March 1994.
Preliminary Criteria for Developing a Performance - Based Regulatory Approach:
A.
Revised rules will focus on establishing the regulatory /safet', objective in an objective manner.
The main aim of a performance-based regulatory approach is to allow licensees flexibility to use cost-effective methods for implementation of the objectives.
B.
The regulatory objective will be derived, to the extent feasible, from risk considerations and relationship to safety goals.
C.
Detailed technical methods for measuring or judging the acceptability of licensee's performance relative to the regulatory objectives will be provided in Regulatory Guides.
To the extent possible, approved industry standards and guidance will be endorsed in this regard.
D.
Collective industry efforts (NUMARC, EPRI, Owner's Groups) are encouraged to maintain standardized industry practices.
i The Commissioners 4
E.
The new rules will be optional for current licensees and thus licensees can decide to remain in compliance with current regulations.
f.
Scope of this ef fort will not be limited to regulations, but will address the body of regulatory practice e.g. SRP, inspection procedures ~, technical specifications, and other regulatory documents.
G.
Performance-based regulatory approach should provide incentives for innovation and improvements in safety.
H.
The following issues with regard to the three proposed rulemaking activities need to be addressed in the process:
(1)
Can the new rule and its implementation yield an equivalent level of, or only have a marginal impact on, safaty.
(2)
Can the regulatory / safety objective (qualitative or quantitative) be established in an objective manner to allow a common understanding between i
licensees and the NRC on how the performance or results will be measured or judged.
(3)
Can the regulation and implementation documents be developed in such a manner that they can be objectively and consistently inspected and enforced against.
Anolication of PRA Technoloav and Safety Goals As part of the above rulemaking effort and for the evaluation of other issues in this program, the staff plans to develop a methodology for applying PRA technology and safety goals more comprehensively to the body of regulations. This will include an attempt at quantitatively defining _marainal to safety, and the use of PRA to separate i
the marginal from the significant and essential requirements. The staff hopes that this methodology _will be an important vehicle for the study of coherence in regulation. This task is a continuation _of the staff's efforts to use Safety Goals in assessing the consistency of the regulations and for identifying and possibly eliminating unnecessary regulations in response to Item 8 in Staff Requirments Memorandum dated June 15.-1990 on Safety Goal Implementation.
The use of Sefety Goals for. assessing new
The Commissioners 5
requirements is being developed in the effort to update the Regulatory Analysis Guidelines.
Also, as requested by the Commission, the Regblatory Review Task Group will keep in mind the Commissioners' emphasis on the implementation of the Safety Goals and be guided by this interest in carrying out its work.. Following the work of the Regulatory Review Task Group, the staff will implement any related recommendations of the Group in the development of the methodology proposed here.
Given the complexity and significance of the proposed task, and the state of the art of the involved technology, the staff plans to carefully conduct this study.
It plans to submit a draft NUREG report, containing methodologies for applying PRA technology and safety goals comprehensively to the body of regulations, for public comment to the Commission by December 1994.
Some of the developed methodologies will be used for and included in the three proposed rules which will be submitted to the Commission by March 1994. Following analysis of public comments on the draf t NUREG report, the staff expects to submit a final NUREG report to the Commission by June 1995 along with the three final rules.
Institutionalization of a Continuina Effort The staff also plans to discuss the institutionalization (permanent and formal integration into the regulatory process) of this program at the upcoming public workshop on Elimination of Requirements Marginal to Safety.
The staff has published (see Enclosure A) the _ plan described in SECY-92-263 for an ongoing program of continuous review and improvement of NRC regulations.
As proposed to and endorsed by the Commission, the staff is now proceeding to permanently integrate this effort into NRC's regulatory process.
A system presently exists in which the public or regulated industries may petition for modifications and improvements to NRC regulations.
However, past experience has shown that these items have generally received low priority because of the existing guidelines for prioritizing rulemakings in the NRC. Therefore, the main objective of institutionalizing this program is to ensure that it receives adequate priority and resources, and that regulatory improvements will continue to evolve in the future.
Several suggestions have been made (see Enclosure 3 of SECY-92-263) on ways to accomplish this. One commenter suggested rulemaking to formally establish a systematic process for reviewing and addressing existing requirements, whose
The Commissioners 6
importance and safety contribution may not have been accurately predicted when adopted, or have diminished with time. The staff is presently examining the pros and cons of including a rulemaking in the effort to institutionalize this program.
Apart from rulemaking, other methods such as the issuance of a policy statement, exist to formally integrate this program into the NRC regulatory process.
These options and others that may be suggested shall be discussed at the public workshop.
)
4 The staff met with NUMARC on October 23 and December 18, 1992 to infon the industry of this overall program and the specifics of the plan of action.
Participants at the meeting agreed on the need for efforts from all parties to address issues in this program and for ensuring that j
regulatory improvements continue to evolve. NUMARC stated j
that the industry supports this effort and is committed to provide the necessary industry resources.
The staff plans to continue these discussions at the public workshop and periodic public meetings with the industry. The staff believes that a continuing dialogue between the NRC, regulated industry, and the public will help achieve an understanding between the parties for effective implementation of this improvement process.
The staff plans to review comments received at the public workshop and other meetings, and provide the Commission with recommendations for the permanent and effective integration of this effort into the regulatory process by August 1993.
The staff also plans to describe its analysis and conclusions of the discussions on performance-based regulations at the workshop in the proposed-rulemaking packages it plans to submit to the Commission by March 1994.
This workshop agenda has been coordinated with the Regulatory Review Group.
In addition to its own scheduled workshops, the Regulatory Review Group will be participating in this workshop.
gs /
mes ylor xecutive Director DISTRIBUTION:
for Operations Commissioners O[gg
Enclosures:
g A.
Federal Register notice announcing the gia program and public workshop for op3 Elimination of Requirements Marginal oc3 to Safety, opp l
B.
Federal Register notice rescheduling REGIONAL OFFICES and providing discussion material for ggg t
l the public workshop.
i Enclosure A Federal Register Notice Announcing NRC Program and Public Workshop t
. ', 'l.f,f H
f Y ')*
Y ""
-s 6'
'E
. n?!? Y.e\\,i.'m*XR,; ;.:. M.m$27.t[T$sda@Nuemb2r14.1992 e
M 'f,, Q s-n
..m..
~
a v
J Proposed Rules J
c7 d al RegletarN'No'l. 57.rNb.
536
. :120 L Street. NW, (tower Level).
framework for a performance. based fonvory 27. 39J Wa shington, DC.
regulatory approach, and applications t 730 a,ra.-Registration In addition, the U.S. Govemment three specific rulemakings wil; be Printing Office (GPOl sells the NRC published in the Federsi Register Morning Session Regulatory Agenda.To purchase it, a approximately one month prior to the 6.30 a.m -Requirements for customer may call (202) 512-2303 or Workshop.
Combustible Gas Cs,ntrol System (202) 512-2249 or wnte'to the Datt: Public Workshop is schr duled for (Panel / General Discussion)
Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
january 26 and 27,1993.
10.30 a.m.-Coffee Break Govemment Prir. ting Office. Post Office AooRess:Public Workshop will be held 1L45 a.m-Requests for Information Box 37082. Washington, DC 20013-7082.
Under 10 CFR 50.54(f)(Speakers)
FoM FURTNER INFORMaitoN CONT ACT:
'sconsi Ave e Be e da ryland.
I Michael T. Lesar, Chief. Rules Review Phone (301) 652-2000. (800) 63S-59'r4.
Section, Rules Review and Directives llotel reservations may be obtained at Af ternoon Session c4
- g Branch Division of Freedom of a special rate by calling the Holiday Inn 130 o
-Quali.y Assurance k ' g Information and Publications Services' Bethesda. A block of rooms has been Reqt _taents (Speakers)
Office of Admmistration, U.S. Nuclear reserved for this workshop until January Regulatory Commission. Washington.
4.1993. Mention Group No. 3922 when 2:15 p.m.-Requirements for Environmental Qualification of DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-7758, making the reservation.
Dectrical Equipment (Speakers) toll-free number (800) 368-%42.
Pre-registrations, requests to serve on Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 5th day a panel or speak on a topic should be 3 p.m.--Coffee Break of Nuvember.1992.
sent by mail or facsimile to Dr. Moni 3.35 p.m.-Requirements for Physical For the Nuclear Regulatory Corraission.
Dey, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Protection for Power Reactors.
~
MichaelT.Imaw Research,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory '
iSpeakers)
Acthy Chief. Ru.es Review andDirectnes Commission, Washington DC 20555.
4 p.m--Procedures for Continuing Focus BroncA. f.4sion of freedom of fnformation FAX (301) 443-7804. Copies of the NRC.
and Interactions for Ongoing Program and Publications Services. Q7 ice of reports to the President may be (NRC/ Speakers)
Adminismmon.
examined at:The NRC Public Document 5 p.m-Adjourn
[FR Doc.92-:s354 Filed w:3-92. 8 45 m]
Room 2120 L Street. NWdLower level),
TFe Workshop will' commence w f
the NRC providmg introductory. a,it'h *.
aus.o com m**
Washington. DC.
Fon FunTHER INFonsdAN CoMTACT:
Dr.MoniDcy Office of Nuclear remarks, statemm. on the ob}ectives, of 10 CFR Chapter 1 Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear the Worksk.yp, and a review of the Regulatory Commission. Washington DC Program inauding scope, schedules, and Y
' '$[d s
$p e i t s R
d NRC Program for F.lknination of 20555, Phone (301) 492-3730. FAX (301)
Requirements Martitnal to Safety; 443-7804.
g g
g Public Woekahop suPPt2a8EMTARY INFonsAATioec.
into the regulatory process.The
. )3 -
Workshop will condude with a; J he AcrNev: Nuclear R gvlatory Preliminary Aganda for Public.
contmuation of this discussion, given t Commission.
Workshop on NRC Program for needs identified in the discussions of AcTiow: Notice of Public Workshop.
Dimination of Requirements Margmal to Sg,gy specific topics for determming suuuaRY:As part of its continuing procedures for continulng focus and -
program to eliminate reqciteme 'ts that January 26, 23 interaction for the ongoing program.
are marginal to safety and yet i.npose 3 7.30 a.m.-Registration As indicated in the agenda there will '
be four topics for which there will be a regulatory burden, the NRC is Morning Session committed to reducing unnecessary panel and general discussion. Panels, effort and burden so as to in prove the
&30 am-Introductory Remarks /
with approximately six members for
~
focus and effectiu :ss of the body of Workshop Objectives (NRC) each of the four topics. will be formed regulations. A Public Workshop will be 9 a.m.-Program Overview (Scope, based on those that indicate an interest held to provide informatim na fis NPC Schedules, and Status) and Integration to serve on a specific panel and on program, solicit input E dii te.lic into Regulatory Process (NRC) obtaining a spectrum of comments and /
and the regulated indus.9 m ns views that the NRC determines will be
@A most beneficial towards its obje'ctiven
~
for prioritization and inters.a for modifying NRC rules for power reactors 10 a.m.-Coffe'e Break ',
Each panelist will be expected to ~
provide a presentation,of about to to reduce regulatory burden with 10:15 a.m.-Framework for a,
marginalimpact on safety, and discuss a Performance Based Regulatory minutes, on his or her views number of specific initiatives being Approach (Panel / General Discussion) experiences, and comments on that.
specific topic.This will be followed by a -
considered.Te NRC encourages the 1t45 p.m.-Lunch discussion among the panelists and public and the regulated industry to Aftemoun Session -
opportunity for members of the general attend t is meeting and provide input h
for this NRC initiative. Although 12:45 p.m.-Containment Leakage,
public attending the p' nel dis'cussion '
a discussions on eliminating rr,uirements Testing Requirements-Leakage Rate session to provide their views..The NRC will be timited to those app".able to and 10 CR 50 Appendix J (Panel /
intends.lo publish specific proposals on each of the four topics approximately. l_.
power reactors, materials licensees are General Discussion)
.also encouraged to attend and 2:45 p.;n.-Coffee Break'
~
one month prior to the Workshop,in, s participate in the discussions. In order ~
3 p.m.-Fire Protection Requirements.
their presentations, panelists will,be :, -
~
to facilitate discussions at the (Panel / General Discussion)'
expected to provide comments en thi Workshop, advanced material on a 5 pm-Adjourn._
NRC proposals and also the'tr general 9
L
. ~,
l 4
.u.
Federal ReR 6tir /-Vol. 57. No. 223 / Tuesday, November 24,1992/ Proposed Rules 55157 L
views and experienus related to the (a) Containment structure leakage Special Review of F.xisting Regulations topic.
4 testmg procedures (10 CR 50, appendix by us Committee to Review Generic.
Requirements.De NRC sobcited pubhc T
ne sessions on lanuary 27.1993.
Il-
[
includes five topics for which NRC (b) Fire protection features (10 CFR 50, comments (57 FR 6295L February 20,
sobcits speakare to provide a 5 to 10 appendix R)..
1992) and requested attendance at a ic) Features for gest-accident public meeting (57 PR W65, March 23, minute presentatron on their views and combustible gas control (10 CFR 50 44) 1992) to obtain and discuss issues for e
b Th' 5,'
B. Address issues raised about current the Special Review. Two reports were gR no inte p ish any staff practice with respect to the sent by the NRC to the President on i
cdditional material, other than what is issuance of Requests forinfonution April 27,1932 and August 31.1992.
U-contained in this nouce, on these topics under 10 CFR 50.54(f).
Several comments were received during prior to the Wgp. Ig time permita' C. Modify licenses in two areas that this review, and about one-third of the other attendees at the sessions will be the NRC proposed to relax or elimmate: more than 100 items received during the' provided any opportuoity to speak on (a) Main Stearn isolation valve leak Special Review are addrened in this 7q the bp' control system.
program. since they did not fall within (b) Allowable mahtamentleakage the scope or atteria for the Special
"_ PNgistidion rate utilized in coetainment testing-
- geyjew, In order to allow for app.ropriate D. Analyze the potential for burden a
A arrangements for participants, reductivn. with rnarginalimpact on Ongoing Effort To Euninate
./
safety,in the foBowing areas.
Requirement Marginal to Safety and preregistration for the meeting by lanuary 15,1993,is encouraged.
consistently au6gestedin the public Reduce F y otory Durdec Several comment'is have Panpective participants can preregister comments; mding thc following informstion to (a) Quality assurance enteria (10 CFp recommended that NRC develop a k
u 'act by mail or facsimile:l1).
part 50, appenA Bb, 'ah.lication of prcpam and dedicate staff resources to f/ hm. s) T6 tie,(3) Organiestbo. (4)
(b) Environme stal qu a continuing exemination of NRC.
j Addresa; and (5) Telephone number, electric equipmeat importan,t to safety regulatiom W rdoce or elimbate ~ -
- 4. Requests to serve as a member of any of (10 CFR5049)....., r., a...
burdensome requireenents. A complete *
~
'. ; the 4 panels.or speek on any of the $.
(c) Plant secyityrequirements (to summary of these comments is topics on the sessions on lanuary 7,.
CFR N 51
.u.
presenied in the Appendix to this ' J'
([(t 1993, can be made by sendmg the above (d) Pust accBent umnHag system document (Issue C1). Some codsersters 1 information, requested for (NUREG-0737 and Regulatory Guide ggggg g
lf' 1 97)- -.
u--
h, ;. sh.istraats,plusibe title of the p
Several commenters...fidthe outcome of this cvreent review procees panel or topic, by mail or wwld be to establish a system for a facsimile to the coatact by December 31 following two proposal for wha NRC periodic reeasessment of NRC
^
act ns alrea e.ay g'.,
1992.Raquuta to be on a panel or speak gg,,,,,,;.
4. will be processed on a first.come first' ' wi6 regard W particho and I"Iti".tive to eliminate requirements,'
- g. served bests.
(b) Permitlicensee adminhtered marpnal to safety recoEntru the w
NRC Program forElmenation of recualification emnMmi underNRC dynamic nature of the regulatory N & -
d ur' process, ard thsd the importance and 2
Requiremsats Marginal to Safety o* e rsight.
H Several areas su;;;esied in 'the public safety contribution of some existing
& Smumary commentOave not been chosen at this regulatory requirements may not haw
- O
% a culmination of several years of time for action or analyses in the first been accurately predicted when adopted o$ts the NRC published a notice in three-year period due to resource or may diminish with time.Commentes repew I
6 Fe leral Register on February 4.1992 constraints, but they appear to be lie {e t tt pe of un e U 7 FR 4166) rest.ntmg the results' Promising and are currently planned to ng t
- conclusions, and planned actions of its t>e revisited as potential candidates for sufficient importance to effective further analyses in the next three year regulation, by alming to appropriately -
i-s
,' initiative to ehmlnate requiremen s focus licensee eesources, that1t should
.. margmal to safety. Based on pu te perio,d.%ese are listed later,llowever, be permanently incorporated into th,e.
g g
comments, the NRC plans to institute a methodology t NRC regulatory process. ney strongly q --v=P.4 hat-aremarsmaHo safety-g g3 g.o preclude the need to
-.. continuing effort to eliminate -
items and wtIl attempt to encouragd NRC to contmue this staff.
addressieferalinoriristaes in the first-initiated program. A few commenters.
g, and yet impose a regulatory bar en,The three year period.
recommended that the NRC should not
~ continuing effort will address existinE pursue this program solely for the
', -regulations in order to ehminate or relax Public Commerns and NRC Actions purpose of reducing licensee's costa, but
.V burdens which may not be Twenty.four public comments were could pursue the program if it resulted in Y commensurate with their safety received in response to the February 4.
a better allocation of resources for
' '. sig.ificance. Based on public comments 1992 Federal Register notice (57 FR
- competing risks."
g received on NRC proposals and 4166). In addition to responses to NRC As a result of the review of these '
"A. additional suggestions, the NRC plans proposals, several candidate items have comments and the several suggested
.^ p,.
the following actions for the first three-been suggested.These comments are new areas for potentialimprovement.
year period:
summarized later undar categories for the NRC has initiated a continuing c
A. Infilate rulemaking in the three issues and proposed actions, examination of its regulations to reduce Z, areas NRC proposed to reduce in response to requests from the or ehminate burdensome requirements,
a.G regulatory burden with marginal impact President of the United States dunng the that are marginal to safety, and wishes '
p,4, on safety by making the regulations less comment period of the February 4.1992 to assure that priority attention la placed p prescriptive and more performance Federal Register notice,the NRC as those regulations that may be -
% orientedc conducted a separate and expeditious imposing a significant burden while,
M 0-
, f.} '.
n
=
u
+ a.a wn w.
2
- Federal Register 1 Nol. 57 ' Nog / Tu6sday, Nov:mbe'r 14 199: / Proposed Rules t '. 3_ :*
rst b r
4.55158 flowever, some commenters
- i~
having a small ufety significance.
replaced with pe'rformance-based recommended that the NBC staff Several suggestions were made requirements and supporting regulatory concerning this program,includmg a guides.ne regulatory guides could addresa some issues that would arisein.
specific amendment to NRC's backfitting specifically allow alternative developing performance-based v.'
rule,10 CFR 50.100. The NRC will approaches, although the current regulations, particularly those relating to
i review these suggestions and others detailed technical requirements now in enforcement and consistent "'.
made at the Public Workshop, explore the regulations could be reflected to interpretation of the regulatlons'in the alternatives, and institutionalize a indicate their continued acceptability.
inspection process. One corrtmenter '
i' Specifically, the NRC proposed to recomrnended limitingi performance.
continuing process by the end of 1993.
amend the following regulations in order based approach to the nekgeneration -
i The planned continuing effort will consist of three year penods during to decrease the regulatory burden on '
of standard design planta.
'o%'
which the following actions will be licensees without reducing safety:(a) to Comments received from industry'
^
CFR 50.44," Standards for Combustible groups and several utilities indicate ~
undertaken:
- 1. Initiate action to reduce or elirainate Cas Controt Systems in !.ight Water-agreement wrth the specific regulations' requirements that were suggested in Cooled Power Reactor :(b) Appendix]
proposed to be made less prescriptive -
public comments, prioritized by the staff of 10 CFR 50," Primary Reactor b
for decreasi"8 urden. In addition
- thU.
to have the highest potential for burden Containment leakage Testi4 for
~ 8uggested appendix B to 19 CFR part 50.
Water Cooled Power Reactors"; and (c)
,Quahty Anyance Criteria for Nucleer reduction with marginalim[act onsafe,and finall propose by the NRC. Appendix R of to CFR 50,' Tire Power Plants, and i 50.40.. '
-a' 11 nitiate stafl analyses of Protection Program for Nuclear Power Environmental Qualification of Electric..
mentorious public proposals made in Facilities Operating Prior to January 1.
Equipment important to Safety for the preceding period thetappear to have 1979." In the Federal Register notice (57 Nuclear Power Plants," as candidates ]S
}
potential for burden reduction and FR 4180), the NRC noted that licensees for improved effectiveness by making
- marginalimpact on safety (due to or industry poups are in's better them more performance orientedu w.
resource constraints all suggestions that position to determine whether the, Several comrnenters,1 industry groups,',,
appear to have merit may not be reduction in burdens from such. _.
enslyzed in a periodand could be approaches would be sufficient that this - utilities and a State government
- WA camed over into the next period). -.
effort would be cost-beneficial overall:
indicated that probabilisticnsk % e 11L Based on staff analyses, Publish.
Derefore, prior to initiating a resource-a ssessment (PRA) resultrand NRC's*4 proposed NRC actions for public inten'sive program to modify these stated safety goal cdteria bboold be J 10 r.cmmerit and solicit other suggestions regulationa, the NRC solicits comment used in modifications to existing"G'^ '
on effective ways to modify these regulations, and in the'devekpment of ~.-
from the public and industry.
1 nis set of actions will be repeated in regulations and assurances that the future regulations.Some commenters-c every three year period, as long as -
results of these efforta wQ1 be beneficial.. suggested that PRAs and safety goals *
~
potential candidates e xist. Public input in response to the.publig.... -
abould be used in the development of "'
will be solicited to adjust NRC prion. ties announcement, the industry (through non-prescriptive, performance-basedI ".
and for determinmg NRC actions in.
Nuclear Management and R.esources
. regulations.
ose* W ' e * -
. Based on the very pos'itive feedback Council.[NUMARC)) agreed with NRC s future periods,,g, m,,,
in these comngents, tne NRC has. 'm'. N-c 3,
conclusion th'at certala regulations could 1
Current Planned Staff Actions be improved in effectiyeness by -
initiated rulemaking 1o modtf and ake I
s As a result of a rev,iew of p'ublic decreasing their prescriptiveness.
- eu pMphe, for decnastngMen -
comments receive'd, the NRC has Further NUMAR noted that, beyord the mars nalimpact on safety, ee i
initiated the following actions for the 1st specific issue of prescriptiveness, further ern regulations proposed.(t)10CFR period of the ongoing effort, Public benefits to safety and reductions in 50.44 Standards for Combustible Gas comments received on each proposal are burden could be accomplished by.
Control Systems in Light. Water-Cooled.
highlighted followed by specific NRC -
shifting to a philosophy of performance-Pown Reactors';(2) Appendix } of to..
plans for the proposals. Complete based regulation, '
CFR 50," Primary Reactor Containment summaries of public comments on the The industry recogmzed that this leakage Testing for Water-Cooled proposed action's are presented in the opportunity to review burdensome Power Reactors"; and (3) Appendix R of appendix to this document.
regulations'provides an exceHent 10 CFR 50," Fire Protection Program for context in which to transition from a NRC ProposalTo Reduce Burden by tic and com llan' e based ^
Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior.
c
] {[Dare gPrescripttwness iSome
{
o one that isperforma~nce; - to Januaty 1;1979." He NRC's goal is to
. oriented and risk based. Decreasing the publish three proposed rules by January'.
Regula ons In the Federal Register notice prescriptiveness of regulations wilj 1994, and final rules by August 1995 published on February 4.1992 (57 FR '
allow licensees to determine how to corresponda:q to the end of the first '
, 4166), the NRC concluded that meet performance requirements, whidh period of the continuJng effort.He NRC.
decreasing the prescriptiveness of some will stimulate self-initiative and overall. will use, as appropriate. PRA technology regulations may improve their result in a positive impact on safety.
and safety goals in the modification of effectiveness by providing flexibility to Furthermore, basing regulations on risk these rules, and plans to addreas issues licensees. By decessing the '
- should help assure that unnecessary -
related to inspection and ectorcement..
prescriptiveness of some regulations and requirements will not be included and raised in the public comments. The other providing more flexibility to the the effectiveness of regulations two suggested regulations, appendix B,
bcensees for implementing cost-effeetive increased.Dese initiatives should io 10 CFR part 50," Quality Assurance safety features, the regulatory process allow a focus on results more important Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,'l an;l' -
may also be made more efficient. '
to safetyand more effective allocation i 50.49," Environmental Qualification of' l
The detailed and prescriptive -
of resources,1ndustry strongly s.
Electric Equipment important toSafety,
I technical requirements contained in encouraged NRC in this regard and to for Nuclear power Plants" will be.
these regulations could be removed and modify existmg regulation's accordingly, examined to determine if there wouhi
..m
'l 1
~...
Fed:r:1 Register / Vol. 57,'No/227 7 Tuesday, November '24.'1992 /' Propose'd' Rules" / *.55159 4 "
j-potential significant benefit in modifying transition takes place to a more on safety in (his s'rea is appropriate for' those regulations, performance-based approach to the exa'nination. In addition to the Tmdmgs regulatory process, to CFR part 50.
of reexamination of requirements that j
NRC Proposal To Eliminate or Rela" appendix B may warrant revision for address insider threat, presently under
(
Two Ucanae Con &uons consistency with performance. based way, the NRC plans to conduct further e
j {e
- 1. Eliminate main steam isolation regulations, and with new quality examination of security requirements, valve leak control system per Reg.
concepts. Many a the industry have includmg estimates of cost savings with Guide 1.96," Design of Main Steam noted the administrative burden marginal impact on safety by Febnaary; i
Isolation Valve Leakage Control rnultmg from the interpretation of 1995 Systems for Boilmg Water Reactor appendix B requirements, and instances
- 4. Reduce Post Accident Samphng Plants."
in which appendix B may have caused a System (PASS) Requirements Cornmenters observed that NRC and focus on activities of lesser safety Several commenters disagreed with industry efforts are already underway to, significance and thereby diluting the NRC's conclusion in the February 4, '
resolve this issue and that these efforts attention and resources on more 1992,(57 FR 4166) Federal Register should proceed towards resolution in an significant ones.
notice that reducing PASS requirements expeditious fashion. The completion of ne NRC has reviewed these would not result in significant savmgs these efforts is pendmg the staff review comments and concludes that a for operating reactors. The costs of
- N of a topical report on the subject which reexamination of to CFR part 50.
PASS maintenance, testing, tralning. and was submitted by the Boihng Water appendix B and its implementation is proctdure development for the many Reactor (BWR) Owners Croup in warranted. !t is expected that specific years the systems will remain installed '
a.
November 1991. If the report is found actions for modifications to appendix B should be taken into account.
acceptable, the NRC intends to issue and/or its implementation could be As a result of these comments, the guidance indicating its new position.
developed by February 1995.
NRC plans to reestimate the cost '
/
i' Licensees could then take appropriate
- 2. Moddy requirements in 10 CFR say ngs resulting from the reduction 6f a
cetion based on this guidance.
50.49, " Environmental Qualification of PASS requirements. Based on this p
- 2. Relax allowabfe containment Electric Equipment important to Safety." reestimate of burden reduction, the NRC leakage rate utlhzed in centainmpnt by decreasing prescriptiveness as a 1
pm a
W b
s; testmg per appendix l of to CFR part 50 means of improving its effectiveness, h*b fts orgo ry 99 p
,C ne majority of comments received Several commenters, including
- ffort'
- W *s endorsed the NRC proposal and - -
' industry groups and blihtles, suggested The NRC also plans to take 'dvantage.
'L; indicated that the NRC and industry that a less prescriptive approach in this of ong ing revisions to 10 CFR Pa~rts 50 a
E efforts already underway should regulation would allow licensees to
- proceed in an expeditious fashion De focus more on electrical equipment that and 100, based on comments for these, revisions, to examine the potential for -
d ",use of recalculated source terms to
- make important contributions to safety.
burden reductions in the following,,
U: determine allowable leakage rates, and
%e requirements of this regulation are
- , 'the resulting increase in allowable based on the deterministic design basis areas: (a) containment spray vs. filter..
" leakage rates, would mean a major accidents. Comments indicate that the tradeoff;(b) increased containment..;.
results of PRAs demonstrate that most valve closure times; and (c) decouplica,
N' savings in station operating and.
of the cdmponents to which these.
of operatirts basis earthquake arid usfe;
~
2 Y. maintenanca costs.
The NRC is expediting its efforts to requirements are applied have little or shutdown e Arthqu'ake.
y ' relax the allowable containment leakage no importance to plant safety and yet Other Proposed Actmas That Will Be:
=
rate ahead of the ongoing revisions to -
these requirements add significantly to Deferred to the Next Period of the
' regulations on reactor siting criteria in the cost of equipment and Ongoing Review i
10 CFR parts 50 and 100.
documentation.
He NRC has reviewed these The following proposals from4he'
- k Other Proposed Actions That Merit comments and concluded an public that appear to have some meritT
+ ; Further hamination at This Time examination is warranted (including will be deferred to the next period of the
,-k-
-The following proposals received m estimates of cost savings) for burden ong ing effort which is planned to f
_ e response to the February 4.19C. (57 FR reduction with marginalimpact on commence in August 1995. Dese
=
W 4166) Federal Register notice have been safety. Specific actions for improving the pmposals will be listed, along with other 4 - chosen for further analysis based on the effectiveness of this regulation should NRC proposed actions based on staff
_ &. number of commenters providmg the be developed by February 1995, analyses, as areas where further public 7 h/ proposal and the potential for burden
- 3. Evaluate the possibility of reducing comment is sought. In the pext.
G. reduction with marginalimpact on -
the security requirements of to CFR sobcitation of comments planned for safety (Due to resource constraints all 73.55 that are marginal to safety.
February 1995.
y j
., C. suggestions that appear to have merit Industry groups, utilities and a vendor Deferred Items:._
l commented that, given the industry
- 1. Modification of the' req'uirements in 1
- @y ; have not been chosen for analysis.The remaining items will be carned over into experience of the last decade and the 10 CFR 21,
- Reporting of Defects and recent imposition of more stringent Noncompliance," particularly 'with
.M.' the next period and are hated later).
- 1. Modify the requirements in to CFR personnel acreening programs, that respect to providing a more flexible ';
& $0, appendix B," Quality Assurance many security related requirements can definition of commercial grade items.' (..
i
'.;y't ' Fuel Reprocessing Plants " to be safety.ne potential of security -
10 CFR 72. subpart H. " Physical' '
j w Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and be reduced with a marginalimpact on
- 2. Modification of the re,quiremenfs in
.. k[.
S.
consistent Mth performance. based
. measures for hindering recovery actions Protection-l.icerding Requiremerits for
' ),1 Several commenters industry groups regulations.
during accidenta or emergencies should the Independent Storage of Sperit
- be considered and perhaps may also Nuclear Fuel and High-l.evel. M.. "
.pb and utilities, suggested a need for alead to some ' safety improvements.-
Radioactive Waste,"
'N"'
b
@.D change to quality assurance approaches -. %e NRC agree
- hat the potential for
- 3. Modify to CFR 55.37 to alloC' -
' e in the nuclear power industry. As a burden reductl( n with margmal impact reactivity manipulations or powe'r a-J q, l
-~r
pj.gayrptusp4 sept-*~
i
.e-.
" Federal Register / Wol. U. hoc 227,NTimmeda(y.rNddr.2W2hpoeN% M UX
,55160-
. changee to be performed on a certified beheves such eflotta are important Io its inch.ded pubhc invitations (57 IT, a29e.
mission and the industry 11 regulates.
February 24. W. nd. 577R eles.MartA 23.
1992) to submit wrtuen commer.ts b weR er
,j
. pl.antYcLfic altnulator; i
'. 4.Make the requirements gor gge
. Datedat Rockville, Maryland, thee 17th d*J attend a sieetmg hem on Marss 27. test. '
Some of N issues raised by the pubbc '
frequency of annualrequabfication of Nomnber tool examinat)ons and performance of For h Nec&eer Replatery Cosanssabon.
comments submitted tothe CRCR tiid not "
annual audits of security plan and Erk S. BecMerd, b
meet the tnieria for octan =mh6m the oper.ai '
teview.bwt were appropnete for - ' -
procedures more flexible.
p,yet,r. O$oc ci@ck.or Regedrwy -
consideration within the marylnebto-ealety
- 5. Provide for alternalise means of ge,,orej,,
program. All of thone imen ead the reinaed
- obtaining approval of plant changes Appendix--Sumsnary of Pubb.c public comments are included lesbe.re involymg an unresolved safety question discussion bet..w. New luues raised by the i
Comments (USQ) by revising i 5049(t.).
"*P "** "
(L Provide fcr automatic incorporaUon Contente February 4.1992 Federal Resister notice are i
added by those issues earlier 6dentded by of the ASME Code editions and G e eralleeve, the CRGR.The comments are separetely addenda into I $035a within 00 days of C1 Continuing Examinetton of NRC identified eccordmg to the besie for their
{
their publication.
R hone submission.
- 7. Endorse the use of a graded C2. Cnterie for Marginal to Sefety Comments thet addreseed 6sence being response strategy forimplert.enting C3. Non-Presaiptive Retwistions addreeeed by current NRC octaen wese not amerEenry planning action-C4. Use of PRA and Safety Coels included in the drecueelon of hutivWeel
- 6. Relax containment design basis Actice luuse issues below bat are summertsed in the pressure acceptance criteria, A1. Fire Protection fonowmg peregraphs, w
- 9. Diminate the requirement for dose Containment Isak Taung Rulmaking The Nedear Management med Resourcea At calculations of secondan side accidents A3. Combust!hle Ces Control System CouncilINUMARCl.8.tha Nudeat Uuhty i
when no fuel fallare is projected.
A4. Main Steam teolation Valve teekage Backfluing and Reform Group INUBARG).e Duke Pow er. Virginia Power. Cleveland
- 10. Reduce custing requirements for Control System protection of plant structures against As. Allowebte Containment trek *te Rates Dectric illumina ttng. T11 Ecctric, and turbine missiles and tomados.
Ae. Done Usmies for Hot Porticles Richard S. Barkley recommended enruinarkn
.11. Review recordh eeping and other A7. Opereter RaqualtScottos Examine tions of reqdrements for depticete reports. CPU Necleer recommended f., Snel those documentation requirements to A8. Twquest forinfortsetboo "eepons that m smery6nd to aoMy"Virtremie elim' ate those that are duplicative or Stud teoues '
Power recoaunended moodificathus el the ' '
m J
i unnecessary.
St.. Performance-Basad Quality Assurance. frequency re9mresnents for many of ehe c.
' ;j
- 7...
- 12. Reduce regulatory attention in S2. ' Environmental Qu!itcation of Dectnc reports required by the NRC. neee seeses.
l future staff review of inservice Equtprnent.~.'.
will be addmued in b wastic med
.l inspection and testing programs.
S3 p,y,5 cal pwiec, ion for%,er Resetoes pn.,,,
cior, p g
- 13. Diminate dtiplication of S4. PeeFAedded Seevitog Systm undertaken by the NRC.
, f R' chard S. Berkley supported changes in 4
~ requirernents in 10 CFR Chapter 1.
Defeswd M the frequency of f3AR spdatestehmination
- 14. Provide flexibility in the timing and Re of ennesi deeign chenge1: ports, and
~
and frequency of material status reports.
)
- f y,
,,"^o Q N ",,thred mid d
-15. Diminate unnecessary oath,
, Spent Feel Siorese Instanations y
l affirmation and certification..,
D3. Tracking and Documentmg Operator for LIRs shodd not be lowered as pmnded I
requirements.
Control Manipulations.
in Dratt Revwon 1 to NUREG-222.8.The In addition to the above, several D4. Armuel Requehfication Examinat. ions New York power Anthority (NYPA)....
end AnnoelSeewrity Aedits supported ehminehon of the annual dessa '
. proposals have been made that have DE Flexible Approach to Approvalo(USQ change report and changes in the frequency been reviewed and closed out by the D6. Automatic taco *poration of ASME Code of PSAR opdeles. CPU Nuclear (CPUN)
NRC due to lack of ment,leasibihty or Changee recommended that beeneees have the opdon potential, significant impact oc safety.
ma updaW m N MAR no amh
%e proposals, comments and staff R
24 m nihs from the previ us update These dispositions are presented in the Da. t.ontaaruneat Pressure limit Appendix to this document.
D9. Secondary Side Accident Analysis
') fj,,]ti g rom
,c opeos re,
w.
D10. Turbine and Tomado Weiles Comments recened from the instrtuse fcr
.g D11. Ermtuate11nnemesary Documentation Nuclear Medical Education.Necleer
)
i De NRC has adopted as a Requirements D12. Inseestce inspection and inservice l
l fundamental principle that all regulatory
- NW Anc ie un w,enes. con of % o.c+,.er Tesang Requimments burdens must be justified and bhat its D13. Duphoetion af Regasrements.
Po*** md=8'r7 that is enperetAe for coordessims C8 d 'Ua"8 0f *ll *bbins licensed W the regulatory process must be e77icient;ge D14. Matmal Status Reports "a*c a"*co'"n* sine w opn.w nuckm po.n pt.eis m i
r reasons for seeking io remove margmal DtA Oath. Affirmatmo and Certification all menes mainns peneric resulatory las.esL
)
to safety regulations are to ehminate or Closed lesene +
8 NUBARC cres.sts of 22 nee 6eet et!htses. each of modify regulations where burdens are not commensurate with their safety C1. Sholly Amendment Requirements Ng{3,],]QyQy,,,
[7 l
C2. Additional 1M1.Related Requirements Gas company pmed in the NUBARC comunests.
significance and thus to free up C3. Use of More Reshstic Break Smes
- Copies of NUREG senes repone may be resources and improve the focus and C4. Sefary and SecurWy Requinenents for p,ch..ed through N u s cowemewni Pnnemg efrectiveness of the body of regulations.
Defseled Faecews Pnorm m.c, b caHms m1 htm a bWs a the
- As a result, the NRC has for some time Decoinen ee.caseg -..
tts conmm at Pnauns them.Paman snis, o
been pursuing programs consistent wig
. ro a
wuhiwon. oc acomoet c pme an.W o tie P"h***d I'"* 'h' Nonallechnicalinterausbon this philosophy. It now plans to N W FR W Fdirmary Regiew m a Secem Depennwni of comnwnz.stss,put institutionalize a continuing effort of special review of potenalatly unnecemary
.egulatory burden reduction to ensure regulatory requir==** was rand < tad by h,
(#N^
^1, y such efforts are permanently integrated the NRC Committee for Review of Genenc NRC Pubhc Document Roos. 2120L Servet. tow.-
into its regulatory process.The NRC Requitecnents {CRCR) ne special review tiown Lenti, w uhimsion.Dc.
l i
O r
'..w7 7 q m --
~
., m..,. -
zr y.,
y l'..
I e
P / Vol. 5/, 'No/ 22*/'l iTsie,sda'y? November 24,1992' /sProposSd Rulef - Mc551Bil i ' '
Fedcraf Regist:
Cardiology Systems, and the American detnmental to safety, the NRC will consider carefulimpletnentation of the mai6tenance i
~
Association for Nuclear Car & ology relatmg this issue separately for review and rule to maintain efrectiveness et reasonable to requirements for medical apphcations will disposition.
cost nese is' sues were reviewed during the be addeessed under the regulatory impact
. Rachard S Barkley supported proposed special study by the CRCR, which contluded actions nlated to the fitnen for duty rule, that no action should be taken b'eyond that survey of matenals hcensees.
^
flonda Power. Virgmia Power and Duke averted onalte costs;indwidual plant recently taken or currently under Power comroented that the s ery broad exammations of external events: operabihty consideration by the NRC. ne comments interpretet on of to CFR $0.55a in Genene determinelions, and the maintenance rule for received in response to the Februa'Y 4 1992 1stter 9405 imposes an undue burden end power reactors. Virginia Power recommended Federal Register Notice [iRN) are heted in reduces safety. ficcause the cormeni stees simphfication of the fitness-for. duty rule.
Table 1.
that the current redatory guidance is
- Cleveland Electric 111uminatmg recommended TABLE 1.--COWENTS M RESPONSE TO FEDERAL REntsTER NOTict OF FEBRUARY 4,1992 (57 FR 4166)
Ogawamon resreserued 59ned t,
- 1. Instrue lor N.m50a' Medcal Educaten. 6nc
Oroe E Pearce Gre@en S Wheeer 2 Nucsear Caroosogy Systems. Inc..
~
Owws:61 Rose 3 Amaran Anaxwon for Nuc6w Ca'dio6on inc.
O L Dohit '
a Fionaa Power Corp.
Orntrus Teun.an.
.a.
5 See.
E. hen Diamond Consen s.eeney kear Gr* tat..
6 Sea John Doe ;i Weham Rasm..
7, %cseer Utegy Wanagenent and Resomeo Couned
' Roherd BaMey' s.sec Maron Jackmort
- 9. Cm 4. Emsori C
- 10. Mxseer Utsdy Beckfmmg and Reorm Gro@ (Wnston arW! SeawN '
'4 Nectioies Reynolds oe,uw swnger, w;ia m nonn
.e, -
W.J Binyro6a ' 6 8 t. Tww.sene veney Autnoney g
Q
.12. Omera Pwac Power Detrrt. +
.J w.G Gews..
4 - *
- 13. New Yora Power Autnonty ResphBeees.. %'
e' ;
W 10 Oruo Otirers tar Responent4e Energy '
6 S nan teatt.
4.
James AnbimL.
t
- 15. OPU Ncseer
+
s 16.TU Osc1rc
- Weem Caha,.k.
/b
- 17. BWA Owner's Grouo Rott.rt Bens fy.
I jm
- 18. Pertheast Utanea.
Jf.OpenA.
,. [
- 20. Yarmee Atome E*ectnc Cornpany. a.
DW Edwaros P
"l 19 Vrgrua Power Wanam Stewa4
- 21. mnois Departwent of Ncsear Sate %.
Thomas Ortcsger Hat Tucaer i
1-
- 22. Des Po=w.
m 23 Qevenend Doctne aumnaung.
Mermi 0. Lyete.
James Fiscaro.
37 N; Einergy Operatior=
s.-
b;. Generallaeues NRC Staff.Make regulatory review for the issues are Category III. A tiirie traine for
'O ne following four issues relate to general burden reducton a continuing effort, using regulatory review is needed to maintain the
- regulatory top 6cs, rather than specific partalarly we advanced. reactor safety momentum of the regulatory process. De reviews as a vehicle for this additional aspect CRCR should develop a plan to address all h
regulatory requirements.
ofr m w.
the issues in a specific period of time.
issue Cf:
Ibchard BaAley: Continue and expand NUBARG (D. Stenger. Counsel) ne NRC
-g Contmuing Examinanon of NRC program of reviewing and evaluahng current should anelop regulabons to require'
. Regulabons and future NRC reguistions for possible penodic
- sunset review" of regulations to
. Proposed Acton(s):
h au n based on their margmal effect on identify those that have out hved their Develop a program for ongoms review and Yar1ee Atomic and NUMARC: The NRC usefulness.These reviews should be c nducted every 2 years.
l de6cate NRC staff resources to a continuing should move toward non-prescriptive and e
- examination of NRC regulations to reduce or performance-based requirements; Summary of Comments in Response to y3 chm {nate unnecenary. burdensome.-
Surmary~of Comments Received at March Febmary W2 N nquanments..
27.1992 Pubuc Meetmg
' NUBARG: ne importance and safety
< b i, Summary of Comments in Response to DR1N M EPRI supports the contribution of some current regulatory
.,,. J regulatory review process. and our comnients requirements may not have been accurately
.s;, ~ February 2.4.1992 N -
. Yankee Atomic: Recently, the staff focus on that process.We have two pre &cted when adopted or may have n.
[.s*
proposed and the Comnussion accepted, comments where we see an interrelationship dimmished with bme.ne NRC should
_,;,. termination of the program dedicated to between some of the optimization issues amend its regulat ons to require a perio6c idenufied in the Advanced 1.ight Water review to identify and ehminate requirements 4, ehminsuon of requirements margmal to
, safety because the staff".. beheve{d) that Rasctor Program and this inluative. nese marginal to safety, for example by includmg h '/ to further action should be taken.. " '
comrnents are as fouows; the following requiremen* for perio6c f -
(SECY.et-224. dated August 2fL 1991.
1.The CRCR should focus attention on
" sunset" review as a new paragraph (f)in the
- Q released to the pDR September 25.1991). This more effective use of the tools used in the backfit rule.10 CR 50.109.
v regulatory process.
The Executive Director for Operations or h a same prograrn has apparently been,reintuated by the February 4,1992 Federal
- 2. nere are some regulations that can be his designee shall review existmg regulatory f r s Register Notice. It would indeed be tragic if modified or eliminated because they are requirements on a perio6e basis. not to y this program becomes another example of a' updated and no longer appbeable.
exceed every three years. toidenhfy any F,' paper study without results despite this -
New York Power Authority (P. Kokolakis)-
Lenefit to the overau protection of the pubbc
- rebiC nere are ordy five Category I items most of health and safety or the common defens'e'and t
l t
l
- Q. :
h.'
. g ::q v
.r.
qvant q
Federal Register 1 Vol 57/No.d7.ff TMy November 2L 1992 / Proposed Rule [
}
55182 Viritmia Power. Urges the NRC to proceed he New York Tv~t AeSonty.Chkrei security, or for which the direct and indirect with the review of regulatloaa and set Dectnc illummating, TU Dectric. Yankee costs of unplernentation are not justified in view of this bensfiL Pubbc. comment abell be dudhnes for cornpletmg the teview.
Atocus Doctnc, Connecticut Yankee Alonuc sobcited en part of this review.De Executive Recommends thatalallar renews take place Power, and Northeut buclear Energy ithe Director for Operations shall report to the on a renodac basis, s4. enry five years. ne letter two with Northeast Utilitses) endorsed m
Commission on the results of this revicw and NRC conalden cosa and s6afety benefits the NUBARG eaaneents.
t on any changes recommended in the befom usuing many egulations.in practice.
Monda Powenhe rgstator y burden Implementaten of a regolabon may result in imposed to routmely underestimated by the reguhtions.
ne New York Power Authortry.Develsed higher costs or lower beceks tbha originally sta B in its rmews.
Dectnc tila:nmatmg.nl Dectnc. Yankee,
estimated.Samehmes regulations overlap. g Ohio Catzuns for Responsible Er ergy.he
. Atomic Dectnc. Connecticut Yankee Alonac Other timea,combineLions of regalrements. only bans for ehmmsung or relaxing Power, and Northeut Nuclear Energy (the may result in confheting requirements or regulatory requirements is cornpetmg risk.
leiter two with Northeast Utihtees) endorsed unenticipated higher costs. We urge the NRC Cynth a Truman, et al;ne NRC should to review esisting regulations for consisteney, not reduce or ehmlnste any rules concerning the NUBARG con ments.
d:_PM continu ng safety benefits, and ; the este operstion of nucleet power plants, BWR Owners Group: Strongly supports a constant effort on the part of both the NRC e:ost on a systematic and penodic basis' but should close plants that cannot meet and the endustry to identify and ehminate Yankee Atomic Dectric:De lack of current safety requirements and cease plans marginal safety requirements,ne reduction resolve to change established practices
- for building new plants.
of those regulaitons enhances plety by appears to be the largest f actor mhibitmg John Doe; Commerdal nucle'er power is not allowmg resouress to be focussed on areas progreu toward re6ulatory improvement. It an area wh @stions can W relaxed w providmg greeter safety benef t.1te DWROC would mdeed be t.agic d h margmal to vigilance diminished, the NRC should ufety prog-am bemmes another esemple of reevaluate its requirements and its inspection
. actively parncipated in the work to resolve three of the erwnnel 45 6ssues identified in the e paper study without results.
and enforcement practices to make them more effective and require beensees to 1988 report. NUREC/CR4330. and notes that Disposition,
- they are not yrt resolved it should be noted De NRC has ~enineted a program for reestebhat6 the oefety besse for contarved
- that the extensive tirne and resources operation.
required to support such efforts together with ongoms tenew of NRC regulanons to reduce Duke Power: Any eequir-w thatla or eliminole burdersome eequirements that j
s significant uncertainty cancerning their
, are margmal to safety. Regulatory.
maripnal to safety and *=f==a an. -
- outcome can serve to d scourage the requirements Ior " adequate protection" do 6denthble burdenabould be removed.
i i
A inineLion of okt sim.lar efforts.
not fall within the scope of this prograrn.The
. Yankee Atanac E)ectne NRC samst vmse Florida Power;it 6s feasible for the NRC
- NRC will reduce or rieta esquaraments 4u thwhold (av _ _ W ecomesnietarden c
ehmmation c( nertato esistmg requArements, :ht result in a margmalincrease m safety to be any at all W the sourm of that burden ata!! to considertarrty reduchon nr many of which have a su!Gcwns technacal beyond the level for "edegnete pftnectm."
- has httle or no safety benefit.
"t
. end ate.aQ bis;wme.
Cleveland DectHc D1uminating/Be '
+ besie already wen estabbshed so that marginal to safety study abonid maander the eutensive further research and evshionan is
~
regulatory requirements that are esoposed by
.L not required.
Cleveland Dectric &minating: An ongoing Criteria for Marginal to Safety -
Generic btten.This category of cornmumcate or hevocast be effort on behalf of bothindust and the NRC Proposed W ah
"' thin h best to years developed tuto a l
to,,dentify and reduce marstna safety odify b cmerte for recognition and 8'gridunt be den for the tudestry on a requirements is benehcial to a technk. ally acceptance of marginal to ufety candidates.
number of toples. Generic letters have sound and well managed regulatory program. Summary of Comance44 6n Response to assumed a quasi-regulation status by which it is strongly recommended ht this init6ative be the contmustKm of a review process and February 24.1992 FRN the staff imp 6ements new criteria, and are
~
not just the conclusion of a program that was. El Dectric Change the focus on the used to direct bcenses actJvtties.
begun in 1964 and documented m NUREC/
February 4,1902 Faderal Regrster request for BWR Owners Group; Other mecheniasme CR-4m he " sunset concept proposed by comments to a more proactive effort and esist for evaluatmg the usefulness of esisting NUBARG is preferred. -
accept candAtes that, whGe they do not regulations, Past regulatory impact surveys Ohio Cit sens for Responsible Energr D show substantial economic gains, will allow imhated by the NRC havs had beneficial D C. Circuit Court of Appeels held (CSC v. '
N heensee to operate more efficiently.
ruults,Dese mechanisms can be e!!ective 1
q NRC) that review of reguletory requirements Yamkee Atomic NRC's rationale for with edequate participation and for " adequate protecnon5cannot consider decidmg on regulatory changes based on receptiveness to change by both h industry i
the econnmic cost of safety measures.
margmal salety significance is deficient in and the NRC staff' Consequently, eff orts to etrminate that it does not take into account all costs Disposite.
requirements that are marginal to saferY borne by the licensees. For example, no
]
should be abandoned.
achon as latended on poolewA*nt samphng De NRC will consider all requirements s
Connecncut Yankee and Northeast Nudea' system requirements "the costs of instalbng that are margmal to ufety for etaumaton or Energy: The NRC is encouraged to contmue
{the systems) have already been expended."
reduction, however, requirements impoemg t
inis staff. initiated program.
The obvious assurnption is that mamtenance, the most sigmfacant burdens onll receive p
CPU Nuclear We commend the staff in its testing, training, procedure development are prionty in the perio6c review.
T4 I
efforts to review the regulations. We believe all wibut cost for h mary years the 188v' C1 the effort produced worthwhile conclusions system will remam installed.ne retmnale and resulta-for removal of a requirement ecght to be that Non-Presenptive Regulations j
i 3
Cynthis Truman et ala The NRC should not any requirement that is margmal to ufety op sed AcW 9
i reduce or ehmmate any rules concernmg the and 6mposes atty identifiable burden should Cootmoe the modification of to CFR part j
e safe operation of nudear power planta, tml be deMed.
50 to achieve lese presmptrve regulations.
ta la Response to includma the developmerit of performaw:e-4, f-anould close plants t'het cannot meet current safety requirements and orase plans lo,
[
mns based regulanons wherv omropnete.
t 5,
buildmg new plants.
NUIIARC:The gractmg of multiple ggrmg John Doe: Commercial audear power is not exemption requests for the same or relatedin the February 4.1992 Federal Ragister an area where regulations can be related or i
sigtlance d minished The NRC should regulations is certamly indacative of notica. NRC mncluded that decreasmg the reevaluate its requirements and Lt inspection regurreswnts for which the saras safety prescnptiveneas of same regula6ons may benefit la echievab&e by acceptable and enfoecement pracbces to make km
)'
more effective and require hcanaces to
- alternative umana,and may todule that the improve their e&caveneas by providing reestabhah the safety basis for cantmued provisions aripose specafic requirements that flexibihty to lansees without redemg could be ehminated or made more flexible.
safety. and proposed such modificatione to j
1 operata i
i l1.
m d
i
.~
. #..n a,y
~
e.- Tederal Jtegister f Vol. 4&No. 2.Z7. / Toeoday, November ~ 24(1992 / Proposed Rules 55163 specific repleuons (See luues A1, A2, and regulations would be of great ad.entage to plant designs the incarnplete state of ekler
.. - ~
plant deep basis. and og potentwi number -
A3). -3 heenseen.
.GPU Ndear: When eesuladons are of alternative approachu that might be Summary of Comments in Response to prescrip6va, they confhct with the fact that offered by bcensees could is a the abihty el February 24.1992 FRN :.
4each plant has unique danign features. nese the NRC to review them adeqaately. IDNf,is Yartkee Atomic.*Ihe NRC should move.
festeres sometimes can provtds a bcensee concerned 1 hat without a well defined and toward non-pmcriptive end performance
- with en economk opproach Io achieve the doca mented safety basis, trargins of safety p en bbcov th the designed into plants will be red,x,ed.
e pmp asfto np ny regulations cnete
- oa Determining a ashafectory safety basis is a burdens'that are not commensurate with their hmenpute requirements wnh perfwmance-subjecove judgment that as more easdy safety sigmficance because of their
~
prescripuve,progro nmatic and compliance '
B R Owners Gr p As t
e pre *cnPtive regulat oma, rather than onented stature. Re February 4.1992 Federal reguistkms need not be as prescriptive as P
- "8 'h*"' # PP""""'4 Register notice (Conclusion C) notes that they are and that decreesing the for the pubhc to savttatte boensee NRC beheves certain regulations could be 3d v
improved in effectivenees by decreasing their ['[, g73],,, w N
ou redu ng Although a performancebased approech presenpuyenessNe spee with tbts safetWmby enaung e e dfm
- *** 8*** h "
- I conclusion. and beheve other replations proccu. We share the staffe uncertainty standard deogm plants, H 6s onashofactory fx beyond those specincaHy cited m the whetherlansees would take advantage of A
- ** "8 P *-
February 4.19trl' Faderal Register not ce increased GexJbihty, at lasst to the extent Northeast Utibties: Recogmains thet the should be reviewed in this rescrd. Beyond the that a better onderstanding of specific NRC program is likely to be a resource-spadfic luue of prescrtptiveness, further -
gy,,g g% g g g g intensive process for the NRC, NU would Lke benef to to safety and reducbons of borden uke se deem We are cena%
could be accomplished by ahtitmg to a.
t Pu be r further.
to emphasite that we would certaudy take
. pbdonophy of performance 4ased regulatiorg QIlh g
orse the - advantage of the mults of this effort and the We recomme stus envolves e eqinificant.
flexiollity offered by less preaciptrve
'BWR Owners Group commta.
cultural change on the part of the industry as y
pgyq
,,,g,,
regulations. in spite of the considerable NRC environment that le performan-based rent end resources required to evaluate and nge the marry candidate regulations, we op uru y regulanxes provides a : excellent contest in tether than preecriptive. Changea to existing jieve t at over the long-terin, which to transMron from a maatic and regulauons from presciptive to performance.
comphance based a one that la based shc91d be effected in a gradual and irDplementabon of this program wiD yield performance-based and results onented -
Dexible unanner.Often the stnct adherence to signincant overall benefits to both the NRC and Ha kcensees.
Of ten, NRC staff interpretations o[
pmenpwe regulations equaes eMensh e reguleuons, as promulgeled through Genene efforts in maintenance, surveillance.
Disposition:
1stters (mcludmg the wt of 10 CFR 50.54(f)).
dommentation.tepartmg and Leopacbon that
- De NRC has initiated rulemakmgs to Regulatory Guides. NUREGe, and other do not necessardy contnbute to safety or the modify the three proposed "P"lations to methods, result in burdens far in excess of intended purpose of the regulations. he make km W WW aM m what the regulation itself appears to require.
change to performance-based regulabons p,%,,g' Purther, significant new interpretations and would improve the effectiveness of requirements are often imposed th h the regulations by encouraging innovahve '
/moc Ct inspection
.in order to fuUy a -
approaches that may result la higher safety Use of PRA and Safety Coala e
the issue o regulatory burden,it le neassary. and lower costa.
to go beyond review of the regulations Yankee Atomic Dectrie:nere needs to be Proposed Actign(s):
I themselves and to include renews of the a consistent approach to the amount of detail Extend and linprove the use of PRA and the l
processes by which the NRC staff imposes in regulations versus that appearing in Comnxasion's safety goals in the routme comphance with the regulations. We are -
guidance. Although thelitigation problems conduct of NRC's regulatory actmhes.
cncouraged by NRC efforts to address this caused by the presence of detaued tsaue as a result of the regulatory impact requirements for seismological evaluations in h"b ry survey process.
10 CFR 100 are well known, the cunent plans l
Sumreary of Comments in Response to to rewrite the seismic requirements would New York Power Authonty: Greater use February 4,199:FRN retam the detallin an appendit and thus should be made of PRA. i.e, place the basis perpetuate this malady.
of regulation more on nsk considerations.
[*g',
P " '",p h e*8 Cleveland Dectric illuminating. Generally Detmit Edison We beheve CRGR should og supports the oncept of pnncipal goals and revisit requireraents causing substantial deternune how to meet perforamuw. based contmums to bcensees and review their bjectives being outhned in the to CFR requirements, which will stunulate self.
Chapter I regulations and details of ongmal decisions. % here appropriate mitaanve and overall result in a positive
- irnpact on safety. It will allow a focus on comPhance bems within regulatory guides for probabilistic nsk assessment insights abould resulu more important to safety and more flexibihty. Not all existing rules are amenable be utihzed to aid in identdymg requirements to this transformation. Some caution should which add little to safety.The NRC's Safety effective allocation of resources.
Performance based regulabons will provid, be given to circamatance like 10 CFR 50.73.
Goal acceptance cnteria should be used in where the details are within a NUREC which this review. Ur.necessary requirements objective, rather than subjective, regulatory requirements and help resolve the related is in significant debate.The rule must be.
should be eliminated and, where costs are problem ofindwidualinterpretations of presenptive enoegh to estabbsh the basic greater than onginally esumated. less costly regulations through the inspection process goals and objectrves, and posalble principal attematives should be couaidered.
end other regulatory mechanisms.We critena. Wherever the detailed guidance is
- Yank se Atomic: The " track record" with strongly encourage NRC to pursue a provded, there is a need for consistent regard to actual use of nok analysis for app cation by the NRC Regional Offices. ne discnmmation of requirements is not good.
h performance 4aaed approach Io regulations -
at this time %e Tennessee VaUey Authonty, preseiphveness abould not be reduced to the The Maintenance Rule is a failure as a pilot New York Power Authonty.TU Doctnc.
extent that Regionalinterpretahons are attempt to e nok4ased regulabon. BWRs Yankee Atomic Dectnc. Connecticut Yankee controlled with Mark I containments have been forced i
Atomic Power, and Northeast Nuclear Energy llhnois Dept.of Nuclear Safety Does not to retrofit hardened vents despite the Ithe latter two with Northeast Utibbes) and support performanm-based regulations even tramediate availabihty of the IPE enelysis the BWR Owners Group endorsed the though they will give beensees more prograras on these plants which could have NUMARC cosmments.
flexibihty to take advantage of attemative provided dermitive evaluabon of the Omaha Public Power Dutncu The approaches to meetag regulatory incremental benefit of such a change.
flexibihty offered by non-prescripuve requirements,because the venety of spectric Another opportunity lost.
1 l
.p y gig $rggy-
- i. y y
- .j" 7 >~e, N -
n
- - -~
~
w
%C'M@g&iMMo1MWoQype@,Weintier 24, O9: / Proposed'Rtdes
>- a y ;,
i Issue M
' estabbehing'or rveraluating any adequate '
-_SunimaWof C%mnGritIIGeTived'ai Maicfi'** * * ~ * "
- protecijpn standard. pursuant to the August Fire Protection (10 CTP 50 Appenda R1 '
r,1992 Pubhc Meetmg **'d th'e pro [obilo
'I
'C'NO" OI the D.C, Circuit Court of
' Robert Ncciardo. Retecte Appeals, thnon of Concerned Scientists Replace appenda R of 10 CFR 50,h.
ts j
"rnodify current protechse measures m terrcs sersus NRC, B24 F.2d 108 De safety goals Protection Program for Nuclear Puwer t
of PRA' Deterministic analyses should be*
. neglect the intresse in collecuve nsk as the f acihties Operstmg Pnor to Jenaury 1.199 used in establishing the betnsing basis for a. populat on of reactors grows. which would with a non-prescnpuve performance-based plant's designJRA techniques should not be have a nesauve eff ect on the poht. cal regulation.
used to determine the safety basis of acceptabihty of nuclear power.
equipment, but could be used to make CPU Nuclear As a concept. eafet) goals
Background
ehoices once an acceptable des 1 rn is could provide a useful toolin the esatuation Appendia R of to CTV 50 specifies fire 1
4 determined PRA can then be used to of allregulations However,the apphcation og determine the relative safety importance of the safety goals in this process is stdl uncleat spiems and components There is too much and would require further defirution before comprehenme fire protection program at sanabihty in PRA figures What do PRA ns) industry acceptance.
each nuclear power plant m tent.s of figures really mean? PRA figures base no resh tic meaning when they are calculated BWR Owners Group A singie technique. be it 1.Estabbshment of a fire protection oser a long period of time and then divided determmisuci perfocmance-based. or progra m.
by a time frame to yield nsk per a specrfic probabikstic, may cot be appropnate for all 2 Performance of a fire batards ana!> sis.
l t
3 Estabbshment of hre presention features time period or event, Plant safety features regulations Expenence abould contmue to be for those areas containmg or presenting a cannot be modified based on a PRA.
gained and appbed to esaluate which techmqueis)should be used Safety guls hazard to structuret systems or components Summary of Comments in Response to should be used as a toolin esaluating important to safety and l'ebruary 4.1992 FRN evolvmg requirements; however, the 4 Alte'rnatne or dedicated safe shutdre i
JWBARC: The NRC should pros rde for the substant al uncertatnty as to how the safety capabihty in areas where fire protection goals should and wsil be implemented features cannot ensure safe shutdown use of Probabihstic Risk Assessmentso -
ind admg the individual Mant Examinat ons un in capabthty.
8 Y 4ua Clev nd Jectnc In addition to these requirements. vanous ior internal and esternal events. to assess whether requirements are marsmalto safety.
liluminating endorsed the BWR Owners documents related to the implementet on of From a broader perspecuve.PRAs should not Groupcomments + ;
appendis R have been fisued Thesc 2.-
be the sole basis for regulatory decis;ons due Yankee AtomicElectne Giveis the.
implementation documents include Inc 4
d to the unattainty in their res41s; h6 wever,if assertion madeinany tmes th'at the p'ath to, Genenc istters (GL e1-12. GL abs 3. GL as-
' ' ergulatoryimprovement hes in the adoption 01; GL BS-ity CL 66-10) and three informahon j
the results indicate that a particular..
requwcenenthas a contribution to risk * -
of a perf ormance-based system.imiage must Notices (IEN 83-4);IEN 83-69 IEN 6+-09)
~,
significantly below the Safety Goal thresholds. the pRA informaton should be be estabbahed between the current body of For those plants opeestmg pnor to Januar)
~
/
cxmsidered sufLcient to lustify chminauon of regulations and the safety goals through the 1.19'9. these trnplementation Fuidance i
the requirement as mergmal to safer).
use of PR Affhe track eecord with regard to documents served as the basis for bcensing -
NUMARC: Strongly encourages NRC to actual use of nsk analysis is not good. The reviews for fire protection and subsequent failed pilot attempt at a risk-based safety esaluauon reports For those plants mos e forw ard with eff orts to es atuate its
- Maintenance Ride should be recmered by not operating poor to lanuary 1.19*9.
Standard Rme* Plan (SRPl 9 F1 (formerly current and future regulations for cbcsistenc) artother attempi at rule language with the safety goals.This would sahdae t
Clevela nd Dectne Illummating-intnnsic to BTP 9 5-1) apphes to plants whose eusting and tmprove future regulatory cost /. inis issue is the apphcation of probabihstic appbcations for epnstruction pennits were benefit analyses and be an important step to snalysis and indmdual site IPE
- docketed aber luiy 1.19'ti and appendts A to a more performance based reguiatory -
emanunations. Safety goals should remain as ' DTP 9.k1 apphes to plants whose philosophyDe Tennessee Vaticy Authentb "targeta" by which the NRC should aspire.
.appbcations for construct on permits were New York Power Authont>.TU Dectnc-Y ankee Atomic Dectnc, Connecticut innke but recognize that the tools for analyzing docketed pnor to July 1.1976 With few Atomic Power, and Northeast Nuclear Energy facihties are not mature Sqnificant eaceptions. SRP 9 b1 and appendis A to BTP I
(the latter two with Northeast Utdities) and uncertamties exist in the methodologies and 9 51 contain the same information f ound in
~
assumptions which prevent direct appendinR.
the BWR Owners Group endorsed the compansons of results, but do allow relatne currently operstmg nuclear power plants Appendia R has been implemented at all NUMARC comments companoons of nsk Apphcahon of real Tbs implementation may have taken the Omaha Pubhc power Distnct PRA provides a powerf ul tool for assessing numenc safety gosh would of necessity be regulatory ruuirements and their impact on limited initially to those areas or systems of form of backfits to operatang plants. a I
pubbc safety, and is a tool recesssT) for the most knowledge with the fewest determination that applicant plants meet the implementmg the proposed non-prescriptne vanables, and the highest confidence the requirements of IrrP 9 bt. or eneroptions to results are reshstic and repeatable.
the specific requirements based on alternative approaches which achieve the regulations.
New York Power Authonty: Recommends llhnois Dept. of Nuclear Safety that greater use be enade of probabihstic '
Modifications to estating. and development of requisite level of safety.-
safety assessments.i e., place the basis of future. regulations shotdd be es aluated Summary of Comments in Response to regulation rnore on nsk considerations than alta nst plant. specific probabilrstic risk February 24.1992 FRN the present deterministic basis assessroent condusione and against the NUMARC:In response to NPC proposal Flonda Power The appbeation of current NRC's stated safety goal enteria. Changes to f the above action in the February 4 and ;'t Source Term knowledge to operating plant regulations would then be based on obtecta e I
- M*I "'3 '' " "'" * *'"' "
i issues could also have significant benefit in standards ~
concurred with the NRC that certain increatmg public confidence in the nuclear Disposition- ~
regulationa could be improved m effectiveness by decreasing their option. reducing its costs and makmg the-The NRC plans to utihre us Safety Goals mdustry's collective decisions more and PRA tools, to the extent deemed presenptiveness Pnenty (sequence and
,]
schedulesi to address NRC proposal should
+
technically correct' Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy-in its appropnate. in the development ofbe determ ned based on input and *
?
perfoernance-based tegulations, and in the discussibns at the planned March r pubhc m1 70.
December itL 1991. letter on SECY et-:
" Interim Guidance of Staff implementation of reeiew and developrnent of regulations meeting
- f CPU Nuclear Replace append;s R with a the Commisston's Safety Goal Pohey." the Actma hsm. -
f ACRS stated that the safety goalis TM NRC pla'ns to execute the following performance-based rule and a regulato y '
S essentially a costbenefit standard Xs such? e@t proposed actions gu:de m 1994 the safety goals cannot be used in 5l. ;
v, l
Federal RegWer / Vol. 57. No. 227 / Tuesday, November 24, 1932 / Proposed Rules ~
55165 1
Flonda Power Coqr Appendtx R rev$ew T**rms of Contaltunent Stn,ctures for CPU Nuclear We conmr with &
might need to be totegre ted with the IPEEI.
%dur Reectors
- was incorporeled by replacernent of the deteiled and p escriptne reference into appendix l with modif, cations containtnent leakape testmg requerements
. (hre) ocbedule. --..
sommery of Comments in Rwponse 1o and enwpbona. Appeadta j providea test with perforrpancetased reqv6tementa with 4
IN9"eno**. Pmtest mquimments. test reguleiory guidance.
Februery 4.190* FRN zwthods, and acaptance anterna for each of Rschord S Berkley: Re<x=. mad
- - ' NUMARC:We encourage the NRC to owve the teste described above. Appendix j also reductsone 6n the preecnphvenees of shead with this actlvity.nc Tennenee 11escribes the situations that call for speaal reFutebons, as discussed in the FRN.on N VaDey Authonty, hew York Power Authority. test requiremente and the reportm8 basis M k cHed regulebone cleM TU Dectric. Yankee Anomic Dectric.
rogstrementa for the lest results.
Connecticut Yankee Anomk Power, and resources out of proportion lo their niety Northeast Nuclear Energy 1the letter two with Summary of Comroente 6n Response to significance. Is ed& tion, the mmmenter Northeast Utihtles) and the BWR Owners February 24,1982 RN noted the prescriptive nature of thew Group endorsed the NUMARC temments.
NUMARO in response to NRC's proposal regulations ected as a disincentive for Orneke Public Power District: fire of the above action in the February 4 and 24.
innovative engineenna on the part of protection regulations of)en require fire 1982. Federal Rapster notices, commenter hcensees.
protection program capubihtles to g eatly concurred with the NRC that certain Entergy Operations. Making this regulation exceed the postulated hasard with no regulations could be improved in less prescnpuve would be beoefcal by significant inemese in safety. Decessing the eusettveness by decnosing their allowmg f;etibihty and utihsat4on of the prescriptiver)ess of appendix R would Presenptivenees Priortty (sequence and idest technoiogy.
im rove ha effectiveness without reductng schedule) to address NRC reoposal should be o ety by providing flexibthty to licensees.
determined based on input and discussions et I848A1 CPU Noctear We concur with the -
the planned March 27 pubhc meeting. nis Combustible Cea Control System (to CR replacernent of the detailed and prescriptive proposalis preferable to continuing with the 60 e4) fire protection requirements with
.curnnt effort to change appendix j rmw and performance-basediwA aats with then again in 1993, which in all likeh' hood will -Prop
- sed action (s)'
' regulatory pundance, not hoppen if the current proposed revision is Replace to CFR 244
- Standards for
- Richard S. Berkley Reducing h promutgoted.
. Combustible Gas Control $ystems in upht
' - W. 4a of fire prerectron. -
Detro64 Edim A reWw of appendia l of Weter Cooled Power Reectors.Nith a non-
. @ ants will not have e riegettre impact to CR 50 to meke tMe regulaton less prescrsptive perfonneneetesed rule.
on safety, wRl result in more effic,ent presenptive should be expedited emce these gg
.. regulation and evold stifhng engmeenng -
activthee are primarily performed duftng hteog outages, when resource constraints are more 30 CR scA4 estabhebed spedfE standards
.for N wntnil of hydrogenJMng a nTankee'AtonWe Elech Appendix R 6s a.. ocuk
.hrshly preetsiptive regoletion which tenposes CPU Nocl5er Corpa Replace conte 6 ament rnethod and basis for calculatmg the amount -
' testat nquimosntsin appendix ) with a of hydrogen generated af ter a loss-of<nolent l
specific fire protection niceourn. Risk from fire is e sobyct that must be eddrneed by periemanodesed rule end a regulatory occident. ne requirements for hydrogen the PRA models used for evaluehon under. guide in 1903.
control are numerous and speciLc. A IPEEE. ne body of PRA resetts should show Detroit Maon: The oppendix ] requirement summary of these requirements is es folkms.
r which menores specified in oppendix R to detennine sofound leakage for isolation 1.Capabahtees must be provsded to monHor actually do contribute significantty to risk veins when Mntenance as abady planned and control canbust ble gas conce.nirstions reductmne end which em burdensome for the valve should be revised to permit only in the contamment followin6 a postulated
(
- requinenents not kv6ng significant
. determination of seleft leakaae after the loss 4)f<oolant accident.
i importance to d.
maintenance bu been performed. The **-
- 2. It must b4 shown that en uncomroGed l
. Energy Optaceis nie apprendiis a positrve. found data provides mirumaiinformation of hydrogen-oxygen temmbmahoe will not take j
step since racce (kmibihty will be afforded safety signif.cance. An awe leakage the ut bry. However. mopection efforts could determmatacsi following raaintenance is piece m the contamment or that the plant be hindered snicas clur guidance le provided sufficient to assure public health and safety.
could withstand the consequences of such a
)
recombanation. If these conditions can not be Ln inspection anonuals.
Sammary of Com ments in Response to demonstrated, the atmosphere maade the February 4.1992 FRN contamment must be made inert..
[
g i
NUMARC: We encourage the NRC to move
- 3. High pomt vents must be provided for l
Contairuneet Isak Testing Rulemaking ahead with this activity. ne Tennessee the reactor coolant system, the reactor vasel l
Proposed actron (s)-
Valley Authority. New York Power Authority.
- head, and other systems required to raaintain Replace Appendix ] to to CFR 50 *Pnmary T11 Dectric. Yankee Atomic Electric, adequate core mohng.
Reactor Cnotainment leak Testmg for Weter Conucucut Yanku Atomic Power, and
- 4. Specific requirements are provided Cooled Power Reactors" with a non-Northeast Nuclear Energy (the latter two with regardmg the amount of hydrogen that must l
prescriptive performance-based rule.
Northeast Utilities) and the UWR Owners be considered dunna poeiulated lou-of.
Group endorsed the NUMARC comments.
coolant accidents.
Backpound.
BWR Owners Group: While changes to Section 50 44 also requires equignent 10 CFR 50 appendix l requires different append!x j proposed by the NRC steIIlate necessary for safe shutdown and types of containment )eekage tests:
last year are generally viewed as containment integnty to be quahfied for the
- 1. Meesurement of the containment improvements to the current regulation e environmental conditions resultmg from integrated leakage rate is required three addit 3onal changes are needed to remove bydrogen deflagration of detonation. as times dunng each 10 year penod durmg the inconsistencies with other requirements and appropnete. In addition, the BWR Mark I and operatmg hie of the plani.
within the propoaed regulation itaejf. lled Mark 11 contamments are required to operate
- 2. Measurement of the leakage acrou each there been more receptivity by the NRC staff with an inserted atmosphere (by addition of l
preuere-containing or leakage 4mmng to changes suggested by NUMARC and en inert gas. such as nitrogen). which boundary for vanous pnmary reactor BWROG. the concerna with the proposed effectively precludes combusteonof any contamment penetrations is required at appenda j would have been resolved at this hydrogen generated.
l intervals not to exceed 2 years, except that pomt. Cleveland Dectnc illummetmg air locks are tested every 6 months.
endorned the BWR Ownc s Group comments. Sumrnary of Comments in Response to i
- 3. Measurernent of the containment Omaha Pubhc Power District; Fevors a February 24.1992 RN j
isolation valve leakage rates is required at non-prescriptive approach for containment NUM ARC: In response to NRC's propoul l
intervals not to exceed 2 years, performance. incJudma a leakage rate, as a of the above action in the February 4 and 24, ne American NationalStandardsInstitute replacement for to CW part 100 dose -
1992. Federal Retrister Notices. cx)mmenter Standard ANSI N45 4-1972?laskage Rate calculetion methods currently employed.
concurred with the NRC that the subtect I
i
4 4
d' Q.
W; %. m$.y,,;.;.'?*/ T W.l@iC'. ' n.
A,s W
- y
% g.y -
yv
- pdshteResi,fM/ wdf er;%f-2r@TueediyP Nov' mber:24: 1W2 V Proposhi. Rules r<.
e
-**wegulaNon could be improved in effectiveness ' Summary of Commenu in Response to e
. containment leakage rates are appropriate. f The Tennence Valley Authonty. New York February 4.19C FRN +
Nwdum nty.W Dectnc.Yankn Atomic
~*
a by decreasing its preacnptiveness..
. CPU Nuclear Corpa Replace 10 CR 50 44 BWR Owners Group-De BWR Owners Decinc. Connecticut Yankee Atorruc Power.
~ with a performance-based rule and a ~ -
' Group supports the ehmination of MSIV LCS - and Northeast Nuclear Energy (the latter Iwo I
regulatory guide in 190 requirements: Cleveland Dectne illuminetmg
"'th Northeast Uhhbes) and the HWR
- f rionda Power Corp.: Hydrogen control endorsed the BWR Ownere Group comments. - Owners Group endorsed the NUMARC changes might be of unn)e6 ate benefit to NUMARO The actions idenufsed in commenis FTC
~
Conclusion D to ehminate or relax BWR Owners Ccoup.The BWR Owners requirements snociated with BWR MSIY Group supports the NRC staff effort to Summary 'of Comments in Respor'ise to leakage control systems are appropnete.The~ dneresse the allowable containment leakage Feb**## 4'19W FRN Tennessee Valley Authonty,New York rate Cleveland Dectric tiluminatmg endorsed
-N'UMARC: We encourage the NRC to move Power Authonty,W Electric. Yankee Atomic forward with this actidt),ne Tennessee Dectnc. Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power.
the BWR Owners Group comments.
Valley Authonty, New York Power Authonty, and Northeast Nuclear Energy (the la'tter two Commonwealth Edison. Allowed I
.TU Dectnc. Yank ee Atomic Dectric. '
with Northeast Utilities) and the BWR containment leakaFe estes should be ba6ed Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power. and Owners Group endorsed the NUMARC upon pest. accident off-site dose rates It is Nonheast Nuclear Energy (the latter two wath comments.
necther necessary r or advisable to maintain Northeast Utthties) and the BWR Owners -
Richard S Barkley: Delete the requirement the towat leek rates practical. as this is of Group endorsed the NUMARC comments on the grounds that the NRC Staff had margmal safety benefit and da erts Oc aha Pubhc Power Distnet: Concurs Wh already found this to be appropriate. li would sigmficant resources from other safety l
the NRC conclusion that decreasms the haie the cJeer benefit of reducing plant activthes. Sufficient technical basis now eusts to use the recalculated source tenns of prescrgtiveness of some regulauens may complexity, o
improve their effectiveness by providms CPU Nuclear: Supports the ehminat on of NUREG-1150 to determme the allowable leakage rates ne resulung increase'in fledbihty to bcensees without reducmg -
MSIV IES requirements. -
Ohso citizens for Responsible Energy:
allowable leakage rates would mean a mabr '
~. -
Noted that the regulatory analysis for savinga in station operating and snatntenance '.
safe t y......,
GPU Nuclear: We concur with the...
seplacement of the cletailed and presenpetve Genenc issue C-4. "MSlV leakage and LES costs.
combustible gas controtrequarements wah.
Failure". stated that bcensees.are expected to Omaha Pubhe' Power Distnct. An'incresie contmue their efforts to maintain the IIS and m allow able leakage would be beoeficialas lt '
performance-b. sed requirementa and would decrease the duration of the' Type A '
nausfactory MSfV perfortnance. -..
11bnois Dept.of Nuclear Safety:1s reluctant tests and allow more Ilealbility in..
- regulatory guidance.
2 to endorse the ekaunation of MSfV leakage -
management of the Type B and C leakage test i.
.Jssuc h -
.u a.
.. Mam Stearnieetation Valve LeakageControl control systema until the supportmg reports results.nis would reduce the emerpnt and analyses are made available for pubhc outage repair work and result in cost savmps.
System.
+,
.t e
- w. IDNS beheven it is inappropriate to The current presenptive regulation of -
Proposed Action (s): Eliminate the dehberately reduce safety snarsms without containment leakage has a small eHect on "I
requirement for Bothng Water Reactor Mais clear and compelhns reasons, off-site dosages,
/
Steam Isolation Valve task mRe Control CPU Nuclear Relaxation of containraent
'^ -
- i System.
'-7 Issue A5:
^!
-. k. -
leak rate is warranted.
l
Background:
General Design Cnterion 54 M wa C' ontam' n"t leakage Rates Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy.
l
' Piping Systems Penetratmp Contamment.
Proposed Action (s): Increase allowable Noted that NUREG/CR-947. " Estimate of -
requires /tn part. that piping system's containrr.entleakage rateaJ Radionuchde Releases Charactensuca into 4 penetrating contamment be provided with Background. De containment design Containment Uqder Severe Accadent leak detection.lsolation. and containment leakage rate is spectfiad in theiechnical Condiuons," shows bondmg radionuchde capabihties having redundancprehabihty, specificahons or other design bases for en release magnitudes prester than those and performance capabihtles that reflect the individualplant. NUREC/CR-4330 reported currently in use. OCRE suggests that this importance to safety of toolating these pipmg that probabibstic etsk assessments have provides justification for reduced (more
+
systems. Operating tupenence in the early shown that contamment leakage at or shahtly stnngent) leakage hmits, not relaxauon of
[
19*0s showed degradahon of BWR MStVs.
above the design leakage rate is a relatively these requirements.
This led to supplementsi design features to mmor contetbutor to overall nuclear reactor llhnois Deot. of Nuclear Safety Does not control and contain the leakage of nsk.The dominant containment-related radioactive matenal from MSIVs as contnbunons to risk stem from accidents m,.
beheve that sufficient basis exists for meressing allowable containment leakage described in Retrulatory Guide 196 and which the containment ruptures or the rates Source term esumation and off site Standard Reuew P!an Section 6 7. Standard containment isolshon system fails or is dose calcaalanons are bounded by large Review Plan Sc-t4onlui Appendts D, bypassed.While the risk contributton due to uncert ainhes. which have direct impi cations desenbes acceptable iceans for calculatmg c ntainment leakage may be small the cost.
for the heahh and safety of the pubhc under the release of fission p oducta and their impact of containment leakage testing is severe accident conditions.
Entergy Operations Inr:reasing the hmits in '
i contnbution to off-site doses following 4-substantial
, y this regulation could save entical path time l
' large break LDCA-Summary cf Comments in Response to darmg outages and would not mske an A detailed review of the matter (NUREC/
I CR-43301 usmg NRC s alue irr pact guidehnes February 24c1992 FRN appreciable difference in the safety analyses concluded that,if treated as a new NUMARC NRC and industry efforts'are, due to recent soun:e term mformauon.
requirement for operating reactors, the MSIV already underway to resolve this issue and
/tsue A&
LES would not be justified as a backfit.The these efforts should proceed towards
~
Dose Limits for Hot Particles (to CR'20) review of the MSIV LCStequirements is a resolution in an'espeditious fashton.
current, ongome regulatory actmty:
BWR Owners GrouprThe BWR Owners Proposed ActiorJs). Modify 10 CFR20 dose.
Group endorsed re'laxanon of the '
. hmits with regard to hot particles
' Summary 'of Cdrhme' ts.in Response lo n
i February 24,1992 FRN ~
contatnment leaksye requirements. '.
Background. In the 1980s. nuclea r power Detroit Edison: Resolution of these issues reactor beensees expertenced skin.
NUMAliC: NRC and in'dustry efforts are should proceed expediti,ously<..,.
~-.
contamination incidents associated with -.
already underway to resolee this issue and - Summ'ary of Comments in Re,sponse,to.
personnel exposures to " hot particles? Dese i
r
.tnese ef! orts should proceed towards February 4.,1992fRN,
./ s,,
j 3
very small45-250 pm) particles of fuel or j f resolution in an expediuous fashson.
CPU Nuclear: Reduce the MS!V leakage NUMARC:he actions identified in. v.
activated cormion products have been * -- -
discovered in reactor facilfuescon workewor l
requiiements based on the resuhe of the BWR Concluston tyFRN 2/4/92) to ehminate or.. their clothing. and. In a few isolated cases.
i Owner's Group Topical Report in 1992.-
~ relax requirements associated wtth w -
l
\\
i
-- -- - - - - ~., _, _,, _ _ _ __
g
=P c.,
551h/I I'ed:rd Register / Vol $7. No.'227'/ Tuesday. November 24. 1992 / Proposed RohI
'\\
worker's sehicles or homes.ne particles are operator requehfication examinations should serify comphance with existing beensing Fenerally too large to pose e eigmficant risk be included as e candidate for constdershon ' basis requirements or where it is from inhalation, but are capable of prodvemg es a requirement of marginal safety demonstrated clearly that a pubbe health and intense beta.rediation doses over very small signihcance The Tennessee Valle) safety concern justifies the request. Requests areas of the skin. Hot particles apparently Authority, New York Power Authonty.TU for 6nformation should not be used to impose r become electncally charged as a result of Dectric. Yankee Atomic Electric; Connecticut new programs. such as testing at analysis ~
radioactive decay and. therefore, tend to be Yankee Atomic Power, and Northeast programs.or to require an analysis of plants fairly mobile.* hopping" from one surface to Nuclear Energy (the latter two with Northeeet using criteria not reflected in the hcensing another.The principal basard of esposure to Utihties) and the BWR Owners Group basis The New York Power Authority, these hot particles appears to be skin endorsed the NUMARC comments.
ulcerstion, and the pnmary uncertainty Virginia Power; he NRC's role in the Cleveland Electric !!!uminatmg.W Electric, essociated with evaluating their hasard is administretion of operator requehfication Yankee Atomic Electric. Connecticut Yankee determining the skin area or tissue volume to enaminations should be changed to one of Atomic Power. and Northeast Nuclear Energy which the dose is to be~ computed.
oversight of hcensee-administered (the latter two with Northeast Utihties)
The NRC esked the National Council on examinations. This is consistent with the endorsed the NUBARC commenta. - _
Rad ation Protection and Measurements current revision of NUREG-10:1.
Cleveland Dectnc 116ummating: Generic (NCRP) to review the hot particle issue and Detroit Edison NUREG-1021.on Operator letter 8&-01 addressed intergrenular Stns:
-develop recommendations, which are Requalification Exam Standards is used in en Corrosion Cracking near wendments in BWR contained in NCRP Report No.106. Limit for excessively prescriptive manner to define the pipng made of sustenitic stemless steel, for Exposure to " Hot Particles" On the Skin content of training programe th s imposms a inches or larger in diameter, and containing (1989).
eignificant burden not inherent in the
~
reactor coolant hotter than 200 T.This
~
ne Supplementary information on the regulations.
document contained 13 NRC staff positions revised to CFR part 20 pubbshed on May 21.
Duke Power:De NRC's role in operator as appendices and requested a response 1991 (56 FR 23360), indicated bt the NRC requahhcotion examinettone should be (pursunt to 10 CR 50M(f)) to five specific '
t wlli consider both NCRP Report No.10e and changed to one of oversight of heensee '
t ICRP Pubhcation 59. Biological Basis for Dose administered examinations.
/ 9uuh ns-
Umitation in the Skin in a future rulemaking Part by the NRC staff shhough the positions were dogumented and well founded. CE3 has 1
to set lunits for skir. irradiation.
1888' di Summary of Coirunents in Response 1o Request for Information (10 CFR 50.54(f))
taken a 10 CR 50.100 *Backfit" position. This
. j N"
' February 24.198217.N Proposed Action (s):To specify critma for.
"8 F
' 'I I
NUMARC: he ebeence of a dose hrnit for requests for information under i 50.54(f). for
, hotparticle exposures requires recordmg and example, by addeg the following new third V
I reporting these " technical" overeuposures, and fourth sentences: Where the infonnation noted by to CFR 50100-
' ' m' -
even though the eseociated health nok is less is sought to verify bcensee comphance with Studr lasua I
than that for a total effective dose equivalent the current licensing basis. the staff will s
dose hmit. in additionallack of a technically identify the specific regulation or other The following four issues will be snalysed oound dose hmit for hot particle exposure provision of the hcensms basis for which further by the NRC during t'ne first period,of will frustrate implementation of practices vertfication of comphance is sought. Where the ageing program.,
y that ensure that total effective dose the information request would result in the issue SI:
equivalents are ALARA.The requirement is a estabbshment of a new program.includmg logical candidate for consideration as a testmg or analysis, or u extensive study Performance.Bued Quahty Aesurance(110 requirement of marginal safety significance.
usmg new criteria. tn ordeeto develop the CFR 50 Appendix B)
~
Summary of Comments in Response to information nquired, the proyisions oi to Proposed Attion(s): Modify the.
February (1992 FRN CFR 50.100 will be followed.
requirements in to CFR 50 appendix B,
Background:
Accordmg to to CR 60.54(f):
-Quality Assurance Cntena for Nuc!eer Richard S. Barkley: Efforta to protect "ne hcensee shall at any time befom Power plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants'"
radiation workers from hot parts:le expiration of the beense, upon request of the to be consistent with performance. based contamination appear to be out of proportion Commission, submit, as specified in i 50.4.
}
to the associated health nok-written statements, signed under oath or a a und: Appendix B contains thetssic Issue A7:
affinnation to enable the Commission to determine whether or not the hcense should NRC requirements for Quehty Assurance. It be modMed, suspended, or revoked. Except
- 88 inillaUy pubhahed in 1971 and hae not Operator Requahfication Examm.ations Proposed Action (s): Revise NUREG-1021 to for information sought to venly bcensee been substantially changed since that time.
allow bcensees greeter Dexibihty and comphance with the current hcensing besis The basic requirements in Appendix B are responsibihty for implementation of operator for that facihty. the NRC must prepare the interpreted and implemented through requehfication examinations.
reason or reesons for each information Regulatory Guides. Generic Letters and the
Background:
to CFR 55 requires apphcanta request pnot to issuance 1o ensure that the Standard Review Flan.
for renewal of six year hcenses to pasa a burden to be imposed on respondents is in 1979 and 1900, senous deficiencies in comprehensive wntten exammation and justified in view of the potential safety quahty and quehty. assurance were operating test administered by the NRC significance of the issue to be addressed in - discovered at several nuclear power plants during the term cl the current six year the requested information. Each such under construction. During the mid.1980s.
bcense.
justification provided for en evaluation quahty assurance at nuclear power plants Summary of Comments in Response to performed by the NRC staff must be received special attention by the Congress.
i February 4.1992 RN approved by the Executive Director for the Commission, and the management and desig ee prior to NUMARC: The NRC's role in the sauance Ithe nquat.**
staff of the NRC. Standards and practicea 6dminlettstion of the operetor requahfication underwent a maior change and became mere examinations should be changed to the Summary of Commenta in Response to ngorous. NRC inspectors demanded oversight of an examinotion conducted by the February 4.1992 FRN,
adherence to the letter of the requiremer tsi /
licensee.This is supported by the experience NUBARC: Current etaff practice with variances that eather would have been, with the current revision of fJUREG-1021.
respect to the issuance of Request for resolved by engineering judgment resulted in L
. which clearly points to safety improvements Information under to CR 50.54(f) continues reworking instaHed material and equipment.
[;,
arising from reduction of heensed operator to place significant burdens on licensees
.The quahty aasurance requicernents '
stress and reduced burden artsing from withouttleer evidence of actual' safety imposed on NRC licensees extend also to' p;'-
increased efficiency of exam adrninistration.
benefits The NRC should ensure that only vendors that supply materials and equipment Modification of the administration of the those requests are issued that are intended to cubject to the requirements.
- t..,.
m..
a.m_m__
Federal Regist / Vol. 57. No. 227 / -Tuesday, November 24,1992/ Proposed Rulte ps owere riot only of the adnunatretive burden Sueunary of Coeveente Recetved at Mard Summary of Comments in Respor.se ta nouhing from the interpretahoo of Appendam 27.19s2 Public Meehng.
a NUMARC: Appendia B to brt 50 needs to
"{"y,"gy oj NUMARC (W. Rosin) ne enemmmental February 24.11m FRN ta but e e en H qbelthcetton d eneetncal eqe6pment is be updaied for cor.nstency wius sefoy Wgasticance at the upense og g.
anothee esetaple d a peperwork nightmare.
QueMcahon d esin mpment n mqvnd peristmarebued regulauons and with new yrs a kw r Ap r a B to Part 60 despite tremendous cost wtth imle reduction quahty concepts such as total quebry 8
management. The regula'uon needs to.4 should be given top pnonty for conversion to in r%k and very httle aslety benefit la adapted to support total quahty management a perfo ned regulehoa he current response to questions,Mr. Rasin etsted that by the industry and a wholesa.e st;ft i Appendis B requiremenne armi t w ey they he does riot recommend gleing up the performance-boed tespection toncepts by are interpreted and enforced by staff NRC tnspectors Appendix B is a lorteel have teu,1ted in a cumbersome emerdse in Pnriciple of defense in depth Howevet. the Wi% d WM deu k un cerididete fee memdersten n e equtremcet w
W low, and the focus on these ec.:adeau resuha CI **'8**I **I"Y #F"'
in wasted e!! orts and coeu More attenuoo -
NRC Start One NHC ete!! comment issue S2:
^
I EnvironmentalQuah6caban of Electric should be yvon to credible accident QPg scananos,la naponse to addibonal r unre ents hout mot D questsons. Mr. Ramaa stated that PRAa can be reducsos prow oe cf puMac beelth and Propaned Acuan(sk Modify the -
,, g raments in to CFR Sa48. "Lainnmental used to determine the edstyve solety reqw%cahon of Electnc Equipment bmportant signtficanoe el-v===ete erithout relyms Summary d Cmawsu Baccind aWerd Qua 2t test % Medag to Safety" to be less prescriptave.
strongly on (widely vanacle) numben.
NUMARC (Whom Roemt he cment Background Pureuant to 10 CTR M49, NUBARG (Bdl Hana, f%===*4 Supported appreech to quanty sesurance n a paperwork bcensus or appbcante must have a program Mr.Raeta's espertaan pounts Othee rulemahAng scarvees aneld else have sa for quehtying electric equipment importsat to nightmese. A tensi geekty menorement safety. Dectnc equipsient 6mportant to safety - impact in this area, such as leak before bnek (TQM1 e,proedi to quehty seserence has been esec derwhere, taciudmg overmana %e includes (1) Sefety releted electric equiptnent
,,g,,,,,,,,,,
TQM coasspt pleeve the reopensibdity for (2) non safety.related electric equipment Rdsart M W N fomd whose fedure under postuleted
. gg g
,,,,,g g,,4 quahry en the workere respane bie lor the wod. A TQM pngma focosee es end reenha enviromaneetal condataans could prevest,g
,,, g, gg and measures semana.'IQW as am emneip;e of satisfactor) occoinplishment of safety g'""gDC *""gY'" '
g funcemons, and (3) certe6a poes.eecident estabhahire the hoensms besie for a plant's p.cfo.,w4ased resdataona Appenda S teomsorna equipment.The e ectrw design. PRA technaques abould not be used ta equipent can coat as much as le t mes the equipmens guehr. cation propen meet determine the selety beau of equipement,but met of norwAppadia B equipment. Saudaes indade and be bened upon.
could be uneA to make chances cooe ma in6me that the performance and failute.
- Temperstere and Pressure.,.
reto of Appendia B equipment are no oceaptable denen La dotarmoed. PRA can ddterent then the performance and fadure
- Homsdtry.
them be used to duermine the edatm esiHy
- Chenecal EHocne.
importaasa of opsesem and comecaneta.
setes of nomAppenda B equ.pment in e Redistsoa.
Dere is les enmeh *anabdasy ha PRA feares.
oddmon. FRA results can show that sema Appen&m B equipment is not symficent to e Agens.
PRA figures have me reelastic mesanna when
- Submarymmaan they are cenedeled seer a lerts period of tame nok.
- Synertpsuc Enoces, end and thes devided by a tame ireame to yie&d nok W of Comaneau in Raspamos to.
- Marques to account fut haccetaanty, Februry L 1992 yg Quahtcetion meshodst
. per a specafse time panod er seers.
BWROG Adae regulataan that would
- Testee of an deancs) sere meer
"***'I*
~~"
- 8" "Y""'*"'
beneM from apphcot' ann of a performanc*-
- idenhcal or undar=== h= - e wish February 4. tes2 f1tN bemed approad emphasinns resuha rether sum 4m.
hM De respurements of LMe than procees would be Appe.nda B to to Cf"R
- Testtog of a samaler men with suppatag regulatbon am beesd en determanastre design Part m Cleveland Electne !!hrminatme eng om bases aandents while peebebdastoc reek y
e tdorord the BV' ROC comments.
- Emperham with descal or stamhr onelysee have sho=m that anst of the NUMARC; he nuclear industry's approd equipment asider smaller condsases with
. comments to wtuch these requirements are.
to actweing geehty needs to be MW supporurg analyesa, sed opphed have httle or no importana to plant -
rettuxcht to entve at a metaal underosandans. Antyom in Mastion with perual
. sefety. A less preecnptwe oppnech would of what gen'ity ameas an a regadesiry ammae type tant date that supports the analytacal sew menscoemary empsesMares and abuse and how it can be ocameved. The should ensumpness and ma= hm include the applicatmos of eamorpes sera **
Rocaremeping regeneestemte are spessfied.
bansees to loans an elecencel. 's Eptses-Total Qualsey Maragesmeet. which how bene Additaumally, e lerge peruon of the ruhe that ashe importaat comanbutson succeen! Gly apptassa a other mdustnae. Aa - discusses deadhnee for eseplaeace end specific safety.The Tc
- Valkey these new concepts are daspad the requresinats Ier laommmee luaufocahne foe Ausharity Now York Powee Authority.nl regulabons need to be adapted to support the continued operetnan pendas ceanpleeon ofElectnc. Ya=La= Atueuc E&setnc. Coarucocat transmon.ne Tennessee Valley Authonty, equipeaena apaahf.catasa is -- -. S enth Yankee Atomac Power,and Noetheast New York Power Authonty,TU Electric, h regaaremsats h a b complan Nuclear Energy (the letter two with Norbest Yar. hee Atomic Electnc. Cannecucut Yankee technical lemmas involwd. impienneonataca of mig w m m %3 %
Atemuower, and Northeast Nuclear Enemy - thest ermronmetual quahfication endomd the NUMARC commenta ~
Virginia Powen Espapment quahficaban uNmen 17 to ki nasr thaa ngulanons are examples of en accumuletaso the NUM ARC comments.
Summary of Commants in Response to of requirement 4 that has re.sulted in unwaldy New York powee Aethersty; Uryrs the NRC February 201992 f1tN reportarig and documentation high costs,.ead to review *e nah signancawn of its que)ery NUMARC: The requarements of the questionable safety Iraprovements.
CPU Nuclerr Probabihstic risk ensurancelquahty czeral proceseees Cannwat regulation are based on detensswst2c design esnesstments are challenging wheth a the AQlQC requiremenia scy not produce a discernebie statwocal empics on SSC ladure basis ecodents whde probabdatsc nokelectrical eqwpment sovered by 10 CFR mW ratse. and may stdi be nei maarmA.==t even analysea haea shown that most of thecontnbutes to piant safety.lf tha technique if a meesweble impact a pral-ad NEC.
correnenJa to which she,e reqaiusments are or others can provide us with our intanded inspectors need to move tomand opphed have little or no importansa to plant safety goala, than the hoenaces abou14 have
. safety.
NRC StaH. One ma==act proposed reilaios the Desuhahay to iniplemmat the results of thou performance based Mm= concepts LNUEEC/CR-C'51) to support hcar.sas ch.ngee. Many in the ind stry have long been to clartier and reduca i 50.40 requamments, efforts.
s,.
.,.,e n n
1 I
ge-ProposTd5 i$leh,. T 55)6Y
.i Federal Rigist:r / Vol. 57. No. 227 ) Tuis'dayi November 24, 1992 /
R Entipy Operations.%e rule is requirements need to be reevaluated because. Summary of Comments in Reeponse to' unneceberily prescriptive regardmg the hcensees now have more expenence in February 4.1992 WN requirement for tested components to be pre, estabhshmg physical secunty. Fitness-lo
NUM ARC: The NRC is urged to reconsider eged Genenc letters to-15 and now that duty requirements and access authonsabon its statement in the Federal Register that.
require special admmistrative etiention for rules have mmimited the insider threat.This ehmmation of the PASS requirements would #
non-conformance/ deficiencies associated rule should be modified to ehminate not result in significent sevings for operating with environmental quahhcation of electnc unnecessary requirements because of the reactors. Ahhough PASS tratellation costs equipment is too presenptive and is certainly reduced insider threat.
have already been expended. significant marginal to safety.
Summary of Comments in Response to resources are ellocated to opersteondestmg.
/ssue SI:
Febn,ary L m2 M mamtenance, and training related to~ PASS at Ph sicalProtection for Power Reactors Duke Power The requirement for operstmg reactors. nese resources can be I
containment access control in 10 CG allocated to more safety.significant a reas if Proposed Action (s): Evaluate the 73.55(d)18) 6e e materials. control requiremant. PASS requirements are ehminated.
possibihty of improvements to safety and as opposed to e secunty requirement, and Dimination is just.fied by the apparent NFC burden reduction by reducing the should be removed from the regulation.
conclusion, with which NUM.WC agrees, requirements of 10 CG 73.55.
Pubhc health and ufety w;11 not be effected that the PASS requirements are n arginal to Background. The requirements for physniel by deletion of this rule. SeGinty will contmue safety.The Tennessee Valley Authonty New protection of nuclear power reactors agenst so perfonn firearm. eapt sives, etc., nearches York Power Authonty,TU Dectnc. Yankee 9
radiological sabotage in 10 Cm 73.55 were at the entrance to IN protected area.
Atomic Electnc. Connecticut Yankee Atomic initially issued in 11Fr end have been Florida Power We shif t from a well-Power. and Northeast Nuclear Energy (the
. modified several times emce.10 CR 73 55 trained guard 'orce, with centingency and latter two with Northeast Utihties) and the establishes the requirement to protect against response pl%is suf ficient to act es a BWR Owners Group endoned the.NUM ARC the design basis threat, which is defmed in 10 deterrent..o a highly speciahred tactical Power: Disag[ees with NRC eteff
~
dire nents or ys cat ty
' [,h a d ng o p e
r of rg n c nclusion that ehminsuon of PASS m.,
orgemsations, physical barners eccess requirer is that impose signincant and "9"**'"**"
8" requirements. detection sids and unwarr.ed burJena.
- ""8'IP*h"8 # *" M **'*I
(, communication requirements.
Rche ' S. Baruer.The histo 7oes notof eccurity maintenance. replacement of parts that may Summary of Comments in Response to events a
% ower plants February 24.1EP92 RN demons t for the level of resourcea need to be tested and quehfied, equipment NUMARC: ne NRC staff is evaluating this currentIy securtty requirements. In cabbre tion. drill preparation. and reporting of
- addition n~.
s +nt penonnel screenmg d%mWW regulation in response to Sieff Requirement com me to e consi r e annua Memorandum, dated last fall.De is in place, further reducing the significance
- requirement to a logical candidate for of the security threat.Certein security expenditure of resources.!n addition, the.
consideration es e requi ement of marginal m esures have hampered operational event NRC espends resources og review and,
/'.
safety significance The industry'empenence mitigation..
inspection.
/
- of the last elecade and the recent imposition CPU Nuclear: More stringent screening Duke Power: Action to reduce the PASS,
, of more etnngent personnel screening programs for utihty worken have minimized requirements found to be marginal to safety
- programs (fitness for duty; occess the internal secunty threat and the separet(
should be taken to reduce operetmg and
' authonsation) suggest that the insider threat security provisions for vital areas can be maintenance costs.
has been mmunited Dree specific areas nduced; Yankee Atomic Dectric: The costs of PASS maintenance. testmg. training. and procedure o-should be considered as merginal to sefety:
- 3,y, S4 separate vital aree secunty
- watch-person development for the many years the systems control of containment access, and Post-Accident Samphng System will remain installed should be taken into compensatory secunty measures for certam Proposed action (s): Reduce post accident account. Plant operating and maintenance events.
samphng system requirements-costs have been mcressmg et a rete above Detroit Edison:%e regulatory burden of
Background:
The PASS requirements 6n mflation for many years. due to NRC many secunty related requirements,includmg i 5034(f)(1)(viii) were imposed m the mitiatives in many stees.
fitness for duty requirements can be reduced aftermath of the accident et Three Mile Richard S Barkley:The ' perception that without a significant reduction of safety.
Island. Cntene for PASS are found in reduction in PASS requirements would have Fbrida Power Dere is a growmg trend in NUREG-0737,The purpose of PASS is to small benef t is in error because it ignores the the security arena to give greater credence to allow samphng of the reactor coolant and the recurnns operations and mamtenance coris the'* design basis threat" then we beheve containment atmosphere under accident (mcludmg tramma and replacement costs).
- was ongmally intended.The evolution of the conditions to obtain information on the and the positive benefit of reduced plant RER reviews into what the NRC now terms condition of the core and the amount of complexity.
OSRE reviewe and other factors has and is radioactive material and combustible gases BWR Owner's Group: The BWROG i
leedmg to e prohfershon of new present in the containment atmosphere.
contmues to beheve that post accident requiremente. l Activities] for moving from An analysis (NUREG/CR-4330) of several samphng system requirements have detenent to expected interdiction is possible modifications of the PASS significant impact on utihty operation' unwarranted and imposes many real requirements found the impacts are marginal enamtenance. and training activities.
- burdens, to safety and the cost savmas to be smallfor Substantial benefits could be reehzed g,
Virsmia Power: Physical protection operstmg plants. larger for new plants-through further esatuation of these
. tegulations are exemples of an accumulation Summary of Comments in Response to requirercents.
g of requirements that has resulted in unwieldy February 24.1992 FRN I
reportmg and documentation, high costs, and Deferred leaues
,, questionable safety improvementa.
1rankee: In the program on requirements B4W: A complete review should be made that en marginal to safetydsom)
'. * ' of the security requirements pertaming to requirements for poet accident samplmg deferred to the second period of the ongomg _
nuclest power plants in the U.S.
systems were found to be marginal to safety: program.
h.
NRC Staft One cornment was received in However, no action was intended because js,y, pf; support of the proposed action' the major costs (of design and instellation) had alreadybeen borne.De requirements Defects and Noncompliance Reports (to CFR
%*r - r Summary of Ccmments Recened et March -
should yet be reduced to save the operstmg Part 21)
'ir,,,..
i 27.1992 Public Meeting and maintenance costa.-
Proposed actiond): Modification of the
%",f a it. NUMARC(R.Whitesel): Vital area secunty Richard S. Barkley-Comment supports the
" requirements are burdensome.The '
' proposed action. ~
requirements in 10 CFR 21. *R eportmg of Defects and Noncomphence " particularly i
4
- I
=
I 55170 Federal Register / Vol 57 No. 227 / Tuesday, November 24. 1992 / Proposed Rules with respect to providmg a more Cesible eupplyiq parts to onginal design Summary of Commesta Received at Mad defininon of commercial grade stesa requireinents no longer had it des 4reble to 27.1991 Pubbc Meetag Badround 10 CFR 2t requires enanntem apperadia B quahty programs and to responsMe oft.cers of orsenisations buildir4 ocupt Part 21 requirements. Ny are NUMARC (R. Whitesel) Utihneo are uperstms. or ownmg NRC hcensed facihtees w-ed mth their babibty for defecu of preparing and instalkna indeper. dent epent or suppipng bosse cumponr.ts to such which they are unaware in products provided fuel storage installauons (ISFW) SP"t fuel faciht ces to report defects m mmpotente by sub t er evadors. and with the impbed whwh may enuh 6n *e loss of Safety factan removal of the normal eme hmits on tmphed spectf ed for operating nuclear power plants.
to the entent that thers to a major reductson warranty of perfwmanc4 Evolvmg regulatory D I" " P " I"' M I ' d 'd' in the deree of protect;on prended to pubhc requirementa and utlhty aud4t programs with espmuhaun of a lack of ewry and hielth end ufety.... Sosic components ere. sirnply stated, those that have a role e regard to manufacturer's quahty assurance pathways. Therefore. separete and more safe shutdowu end the presentnoo or pregrams furthat eLacarbete this situation.
nabsbc Industrial mqnimments em neded As b Dumber of evallable pudor vendon for these structures. Tbs le e case of s
ap ab cc ni decreases, the ut&ty is forced to nek refulatson overkdl. NUMARC would ide to aftst dedacation A cweeT.aolgrode nem is alternative ocurcas of supply, usaaD) with work with the NRC staff on desenoping new sn stem that is (e) not subject to design signifcantly increased costs and dehvery
. security requarements riquuements unique to an NRC bcensed tunen, to pursue design changes that eDow Duke Power Ces (R. Gd!L DAe requats facility. (b) used in other opphcanona. and (c) use of an alternauwe replacemeoL to procure CRCR support for A declanincateon of a ordeced on the basis of a manufacturer's a commeraal g ade item and wenfy sta Sahdia NabonalI.aboratory report that publahed sper!ficauona.
euatabaty by a proorse known as shows a poteottal for off.stte exposures Summary of Commenu in Response to FRN "dedsca uan." or to requesa na emeenptroo resuhing from an acddent in an ISf31. Nee February 2412 ell %N from the NRC.
Sandle conduzions are incocaistant with the NUMARC he cunent definiuon of Ut hty huan elcommerdal Fade industry's understanding of the poteobal nak.
e
- cornmercial grade ties" restnces & abihty iteins has become common mough that Consumere Power Co. (P. DonneUd The cf to utaty to enume & Part 21 habety standardaatnan of the promw through an cost of matalhng b security erstem requtrud responsibihty for safety releted appbcaboos EPRI guidehne and NRC Genenc 14tters ha*
at Puhudes is $1.4 m&oo, cf. prunanly, replacement piece parta The occurred. Under the improved and eitpheit TRW (P. KrtshnallRW would hke b reqmr rmest to a logical candidate far dedicahon procese,it 6, appeopnete that Part CRCR to look at this issue tro a the cansadersuco u a requanment of marginal 21 responeMhty should be obtfted to the sahty sem party perfonning dedication and that the perspective of monitored reenewable storage Summary of C-- Received at March urinecenary and unworkably restnctm (MRS) fach 27.1992 Pubts; Meetmg defintnen of mmmerdal grede items in Sun-ry d Counments to Reeponse to.
21.3(e)(4)(a-1) be revised. NLMARC wilg February 4. tem IRN Q
soon prove spe ific proposed Part 21 NUMARC : Independent opent fuel etorage g
p.
currently wntien. The rule la a tremendous nvisiom to the staff for consideration. The factiftes are largely impemous to the dulgn-dismcentrve for vendors to work w th the Tenmasee Valley Authonty, New York basis threat of part 71 References to part 73 nudeer endustry Maar vendors who pr=h=
Powat Au' hyE Dectnc.Yanku Alomic should be removed fraco pan 72. and high-quabty items enil not sort mth th, Dectru:.Cannecacut Yanku Atoadc Power-nuclear mdustry because the nuclear partson and Northaast Nudaar Energy (the latter two ngulahs consistana with odeque of their bassemes to too small in pastdy the with Northeast Uuhues) and the BWR inchaatnal securtty should be provuied.The addauanal burden pieced on them by Part 21.
Owners Group endorsed the NUMARC Tennmane Valley Aubrity.New York The suect of part tt informaton should be commata Power Aethartty.TU Doctnc. Yankee Atoanic emewed. How memy defects has the Part 21 Richard S BerLier 'h=" empports the Dectric. Conneancut Yankee Atosuc Power pmcesa actuaUy ay-d oormpared with proposed actwn and Northeast Nuclear Energy (the tatsee two with Northeast Utettaal and the BWR fph luue M
. exper p
m Owners Group endorsed & NUMARC
- worth the effort required to mamtam b rule Mysical Protection of Independant Spent commeta.
when compand =ath other means of Fuel Storma* Insta11auons (to CFR 72. Subpart momtonne component performance wuhan en H) love m i
operstma plant?
Tm and cumentmg Opuswe Contml Proposed Action (s) Mockfication of the NUBARG (D. Steoser. Counae'): A review of Port 21 reports reveals that there two w as M GR 72. Subpart H.
M8mPalebone (Pwt 55) o cetegones. (1) reports on defects. and (2) pdy,,can p,,%mg g,q.,,
.t.
Proposed actiea(s) Modify M CFR E21 to repons on failure to comply reisted to e for the ladependeru Stormee *I S eut Nedser allow soectiwy mantpunecome er power P
eubstanual oafety hasard. Failure.to-comply Puel and Heb4aeol Radioactm Wasta.-
changes to be performed on a certified plant.
rM poiewk Sebpart it to 10 0R 72 opeedic otmalater. Durunate the requirement p
ris b1 d M requirn each heename to estabbeh and in 10 CFR E50 lar troeng and documentag 50 73 This duphcation could be ehmmsted maWam a 8
lP as b wey operstw W inapulanona me**ures for P ysic*1 pro 6ection of Backsmuni Appbcants for en opeestor's h
mth no eMect on ufety Commonwealth Edsson Co. (Mercia Independent Spent Peel Storege installations, license must submp evidence of eucceuful itekson)- The burden of evahtatmg potentsal A sectm of 'N8 plan most devnenstrate manipulation of, as a niinimum, five B
equipment defects should test with the compharree w th apphenble.%-.-.ts of etsnific. ant control actions affectma reactmty etndor, not the licensee. Deternuetre part 73 danes transportatana to and from the or power level per 10 CFR E31.The rule whether there was pnot nouficaboo of a pmposed ISFSL exphcidy provides for submission of defect is another burden on IJcensees A Pan Summary of Comewete in Re=p-te evidence of satisfactory performance of 21 database would be effMtive et February 24.19e2 FRN simulated control manipulateca as part of a datermuimg whether there was p ter ewficauoa. Does a sendor a report of a NUMAftC: Utihtes tnalathng ISFSIs am Commassaoa-epproved treamne program en a potential safety problem conautute 'pna' required to empley virtuaUy au of the simulauon facihty acceptab6e to the nouft,cahon. as required by Part 217 y
Mc i W m bd 4 h h W !=
m-h Sumina ry of Comments in Response to M hhcm k W @ W w February 4.1992 IRN constaient with providme basic loduetnal compieeed tantial startup testaaer Recoees of 6ecurny shMd be und The requirement is a b requahficat4on program anset adudg NUMARC; Due to the demnamed market for logical carwwto for m=ularetaos as a "docietrentation albparatus teeno" per w nucleas eqwp==ru vendors capable of requirement of marginal ufety Th=
CFR 55.50.
l
s
... m e. m t n y-y
(
24,'1992 V 'Propossd Rub
. 55m Federal Regislar / Nd. 5k No.s.274 Tuesdag-Nov:mter
-m a.
Section will evtomatically be inoartereted by
/nue Dk Summary of Comments in Response to flexible Approach to Approval of USQ (10 reimm herein e0 deys tollwing bbrary 4.1tm2 FRN Pubhcation by the ASME Ucensees may NUMARC:'the requirement 6n i SS 31 that CHL 6039lc)) -
4
- tralnees perform five significant control Proposed Action (s); Provide Ic shernative h
'h" manipulations on the plant itself 6s no lon8" eneans of obtaining opproval of plant changes Section Pubhc notice of such incorporation necenary in hght of ti;e fidelity of present-involvirts an unresolved 6afety question and NRC enceptions,if any, will be pubbshed day sirnuletors. Neariytil utahbes have (USQ) by revulas i Sase(c). for example b in W Federal Re Wise within 16 days of control room simulators that are utihty.
includmg the following new third and foun Code pubhcatson at the ASMF.
certJ.ed and recognised by NRC.The sentences; Ba%d M M mle) regnen regulation should be modified to allow
%hre e proposed tKaIgfi to the facthty licensed nuclear powet plants to meet the reactivity manipulations or power changes to invoh4ng an unreviewed safety question doe, be performed on a certihed plantepecific not require revision to current technical "p,4" dde d simulator.
epecification ce opereting hoense text, the feed in i BOA 5e unlow the thrector of the
'lle additional tracking and doeurnentmg hcensee shall submit a request for staff Offa of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has of operstor control menspelabons required by approval in wnting. to anordance with 50.4.
approved an older or a newer edat6cn or 6 65 50 is a costly admin stretae burden for topther with the bcensee e ufety evaluation addenda. Umstetsons and emeptions to the utittees. Smce all operator trommg pmgrams performed pursuanUo this section.
opphcabihty of specif c editions and addende are developed through a systems approach to Background; Accordmg to 30 CR 60,59(c) are also induded in i 6035a.
trairung. with extensive ese of certified, "The holderof a hcanoe authon4tpg plant-specific etmulators, and trainees operation of a production of utihaatson Summary of Comments in Response to perform all the required snanipulations, which facthty who daaltes (1) e dange in techrucal February 4.199:FRN are documented as part of the curnculum.
specif* cations or 12) to sake a change in the NUBARC: NRC practne concernmg the this requirement should t>e ehmmated. The
.facihty or the procedures described in the incorporation of new ASME Code editions Tennessee Valley Authority New York
.estety analysis report or to conduct tests or and addende taittently neults in e,
Power Authority.TU Dectnc. Yankee Atomic **Penmente not described in the safety substantial delay between ASME pubhcation Dectnc, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power, analysis svport, wMch invoin so unmiewed and formal incorporation into 10 CFR 6055a.
and Northeast Nudear Faergy (the latter two saMy question or a dangein technical New code promone con ellowier new er s
, specihcatione shall subsnal an appbcatson for - ettemative sneans for current harmeens to f
with Northeast Utihties) and the VWR -
amedment of Me license pursuanu aabsfy code obhgations with httle or no Owners Group endorsed the NUMARC I '*8D' 4 ^ W.
.s nduction in the marpe of esfa Juntil o=ch x
..J
' # comments.
Surnmary'of Cosaments in Response 1o Provisione are formally adopt by the NRC. -
(
hcensees must expend twneederable
\\
' /use DC 2
February 4,1982 FRN.,
Annaal Requebficelion Exammetions and -
NUBARG: UEensee espenence has shown nooumn onMng NRC penniesion M wee h new cc e pmema.
AnnualSecurtty Audit:
that some uiuwkd Safety questions Proposed action (s). Make the requirements (USQs) do not necessitate revisions to the
[,n the v
A
'for the frequency of annual requabficahon test of h opereting license (OL) of the I
^
' esaminations and performance of annual
. Technical Spectfh tions (TS). For exemple, e consideretQnew pronssons. NRC mna e
ny, new corui i lle to read s of security plan and procedures more g
Background.Ucensed operator email break) bet not ficall evaluatedat pubhcation. This would aHow the enceptions n
that time would be W to reqdre change to be included in the Federal Regissee notxe quahhcation and requehfication to the OL or the sebstanuve provielons of the ofin orpme@n.The New York Power enammations are conducted by NRC T$. Nonetheless,10 CFR 503e(c) requires that Audorny, Oewland De>ctric luuseinetang personnel. NUREG-101 contams detailed the beensee neck en amendment to the OL or 1U Dectrc Yankee Atomic Flecstw.,
i j
guidehnes,critena and requirements r-lanns TS The preparation of a hoenee emeadment Connectiu Yanku Atomic Power, and to the preparation for and conduct of the package, staff review of the submittel and e91 Nuclear Energy (the latter Iwo with a
emaroinations. Renew of the contmgency gg g g pg g Nad. east Utihhes) endorud h NUBARG plan and the secunty progenm is required at with an environmental assessment and commets.
least every 12 months, specahed m 10 CFR determination of no significant impact lave D7'-
73 40id) and 7334g) respechuly-sepresents a significant adminidrotive Emergency Plannmg Usmg a Graded Summary of Comments in Response to burden on hcensees and the NRC staff.
RnPonu I
February 24.1992 mN Provision of an alternative procedure fo, l
Duke Power: Port 73 appendia B requires review and approval by the staff would Pmposed Actontal Endorse the use of e
' lessen this administrative bunlen and leave graded response strategy for implementmg rettam requahfications to occur on a frequency not to exceed 12 months. Some the staff 1he option of determinrng that an eurgwy plannmg actions.
amendment is warranted.The New York Backg ound. Regulations include detailed degree of flexibihty in scheduhng should be el! owed so as to not unnecessanly impact the Power Authority.QevelandElectric emergency plannmg requirements for the j
gicensee resources. Also, the grequency og illuminating.TU Beetnc. Yankee Atomic communthen surroundma nudear power Dectnc. Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power, plante llo CFR 6C34 and 10 CR to appendia performmg annual audits of the secunty and Northeast Nuclear Energy (the latter two El. Cnteria for responses were colabhahed in with Northeast Util. ties) endorsed the 1980 by the NRC and FEMA.
(g) en at t t
ib1ty NUBARG conents.
pertnitted by SRP IL3 wherem scheduhng is Summary of Commenu in Response to l 'l estabbshad based on status and safety Issue m February 4.1992 FRN importance.Smce sumlar resourwe em Automatic Incorpetion of ASME Code New York Power Authority (NYPAk The.
graded response otrategy for mgag plan
. utihaed by bcensees to perform both securny Changes (10 CFR S0.55aj audits and other audits. having different action implementahon se highly effechve and Proposed ActnontS): Provide for automatic relatively easy to implement. Its adoption is cnteria/ requirements for echedukna is a inCMPoreum of new N Codudsfas recommended shhough this would not burden.
end addenda into i 5036a withm 60 days of specifically require elunmetion of or change Summary of Comments in Response to -
their pubhcation, for example, by revising to current regulations, as it would enhana February 4.1992 FRN,
- { 5035a to include,the followmg new,
4%y4mgp,
Duke Power. Provided similar comments to language. +
burden on hcenaces. [rwo reports contamms
. those in response to the February 24.1982 New Editions and Addenda to ASME Code information on the graded response strategy. '
R N.
provisions previously approved for use in this levacuelum of a hmited segment of the
?n T
= ~
-. -. ~
-. -..~
}.
4
.f.&
'n
. $w n.Y, n$ 35 Y $ e% &:V ll Sh* !*?.'.-y,
.*.b YM *
- m WS kn55h2Nd led $'d d $$2rs,i % sday.Na..vamber 544992 / Proposed Rd$s' ~
.: x. i
, ~~
.s a
4 these requirements can sk!! tmpose -m wcntens that have been wtabbshed solely to, - additional costs dunng the destn and ;q h
.., yopdahon within the Ernarpency Planning Dese exgpaures can be m Zone to a generalemergency with shelterms + meet dose hauta.. reduced bpeusms SRP SawtrJns 15.14 and construchon We rewmmend the Ni<C stafV "k
for the remamder) and resultmg t enefits 15 6.3 to read.1f no fuelleilures are renew these areas were attached to the comments (NUMARC/
projected as a consequence of these egtg.
Suminary of Crxnments in Response to 2
J MESP.00s and I ATA-C%48/24 -.'
fraction of to CFB 100 ltmits. and no atte-
%rgmia Power Disagrees with NRC siaf f the resultmg doses will be a very small.
b bru m ( W F M s
e 3
/ssue De Contamment Prosure Lim'it specific dose calculations are required-conclusion that ehmination of turbme minile protection requirements would not result in t
o
. Proposed actiontal Relas contamment f,,y, og sigmficant savings for operstmg reactors The j
MTurbme and Tornado Missiles.
cost of mamtsinmg the dnym and system gro dC 50 q tres he Proposed action (s). Reduce esisting features required by these regulations y
containment to accommodate the calculated : requiren.s. iv. protechon of plant conunues to impose a fmancial burden on prepure and temperature condinons..
structures against turbme missiles and bcensus resolung from any loss of coolant accident tornsdos.
1' Duke Poner The NRC staff should review with aufficient margin. The SRP requiru the Background Regulatory Culde 136 has, these requirements because modihcations are containment design to provide at least a 10%
been used since 1974 by industry and the -
ahll bemg performed to meet these 4
margm above the peak calculated pressure NRC staff to determine the design basis
- requirements following a losacf coolant accident. or a tomado (DUTl for each of the geographicat steem or feedm ater hne breal The peak -
regions defmed in the Guide?Due to the fact issue D a pressure is calculated by the hcensee using that very httle area specific date on the Diminate Ucnecusary Documentaben acceptable analytical models and confinned. t'amage areas and tornado intensity was Requirements by the NRC esing its own independently '
available generahmed conservatne est mates Proposed action (s) Renew recoroseepmg yl developed analytical models wemised m the develo,pment of the Dirts m and other doeurnenuhon requirements to Summ'ary of Comments inRes.ponse tg the Guide.
p r-il February 4.1992 FRN.
Pacific NorthEve.rt bboratorie's (PNL) _
ehmmate those that are dopbcative or New York Power Authonty: Relax conducted an NRC4ponsored study usms unnecessar).
. contamment design basis pressure data for the in nnn tornadoes during the Summary of C6mments in Respons2 to ' -
period 19H-1963 shd pubhshed the results in February 24.197:FRN - "
coceptance cntena in hght of recent
- t-~"
expenmenta and.snalynes. For example.".
NUREC/CR-44et." Tornado Climatology of NUMARC: Other regulations may be the Contiguous United States." dated Me) reduced m the *early"ume frame without the NUREC/CR-4551 presents cortemment.
f ailure probabihtees at vanous pressuree for N PNL found that the'10-7 annual need for extensive reviews.These regulations e
the Lon plant. showing that the failure probabihty wtad speed ranged from 153 mph probabihuco at pressure levels far m encess 2 to 132 mph and concluded that it would.
generally mvolve requirements for extensne paperwork. and/or reportarts requirements of the design pressure are estremely' low..
. appear to be reasonable to use Dfff wmd These burdensome regulations do not in an) 4 Demonstratmg that present prusure margins speeds of 200 mph west of theRocky,
way eUect plant equipment of operation. '
l
/. have remained adec,uste hasbecome s ; '
Mountains sad 300 mph east of the Jtock y have no impact on safet), s.nd in many cases burdensome eDort without commensurate Mountains.The staff agreed with PNils
. are dupbcatn e.
proposed sevisions to the methodology but B&W NuclearTechnologies5.iamples of d
safety bewfit.
~
a wnsidered that the uncertatnt es to the data excessive documentation melude those '
f,,,, pp base and analyses required the use of a related to recordkeepmg and persormel Secondary Sede Accident Analisis consers alive etnka probabihty*Using the.
. Proposed Action (s) Ehmmate the PNL upper 90% conhdence level for the 10"
. e Aposure. fitness for4uty and safety analysis 6
requirement for dose calculauona for probabihty of occurrence the NRC staff report updates accondary side accidents when no fuel failure developed DUT. parameters for each of four Summary of Comments in Re,sponse to Feographic regions of the contiguous United February 4.193:FRN is protected States These DDTs were tsaued as an intenm NUBARC: NRC forms should be reviewed Background %e Standard Review Plan Chapter 15 requires calculation of deses at position apphcable to the Advanced Light -
and modified to ehmmate duphcaine, non; the exclusaon area and low population zone ' - Water Reactor standard design m the form of usent al requests for mformauon. Some l
boundanes for accidents mSolving mam a " Safety Enaluation by the OfLee of Nuclear fonns nqunt mformation already on file ateam ime or siesm generator tube failures Reactor Regulauon of Recommended with the NRC or tnformauon which is For accidents not involving fuel failures. the Modification to the R A 1.7e Tomado Design unnecessary for demonersung reasonable dose calculation is required to be based on Baus for the ALWR.-
assurance of safety.The New York Power Regulatory Guide 1.115 describes Authont). Cleveland Electnc illuminatmg.
pnrr.ary coolant 6odme concentrations acceptable methmis for showing that the risk.
TU Electnc Yankee Atomic Electric.
resultmg frue an assumed todme spike immeastely pnor to.or associated with, the from turbme miaailes is acceptably small Conuchcut Yankee Atomic Pow er, and eithee through spatial orientation or physical Northeast huclear Energy (the latter No with accident.
protection.De Reg Guide was last revised Northeast Utihties) codorsed the NUB ARC Summary of Comments in Rnponse to m 1W7 and peovides guidance for plants that comments February 4.1992 FRN have tangenttally onented turbu es.Most Duke Pom er-Many recordkeepmg Northeast Uuhties The Siandard Revie" newer plants have, and future plants er, requirements. such as personnel e sposure plan (SRP) requires an evaluation of the expected to h' ave, radially onented turbmeg data, fitness-for-duty, and safety anal) sis i
rzdiologicalconsequences of a main steam
. In addition there have been substantial nport updates. nquire extenme paperwork 1
hne break and a steam generator tube -
improvements m turbine matenals. turbine and recorokeepNi These burdinsome
- rupture.The SRP approach uses severallow montionng and overspeed protection which regulations do not m any wn) affect plar.t probabihty assumptions that result m dose appear to have substantially reduced the nsk. operation or equipenent. have no impact on calculations that approach the SRP hmita of catastrophic failurec safety, and in many cases are duphcanve.
a Consequence calculations for credible Summary of Comments in Response to Virginia Power: A number of regulabons sccadents result in doses m the milbrem February 2419921RN have resuhed in an mordmate emphaus on tange.1000 times less than the SRP hmits.
l The need to perform such calculations CPU Nuclear.ne NRC staff is not documentation and paper generauon. This is results in a considerable ongoinF mdustry proposmg any actions for the revision of sometimes the result of the specific expenditure and unnecessary occupational requirements related to the protection of requirements in the regulation and other vaposure.ne latter results from excessively plant structures and components from turbine times due to the manner in wtach the restnctive pnmary to seconday leak este -
massites or tornados Since modifmations are requirements have beeninterpreted and hmits and overly restnetne tube repair still bems performed on operaung reactors.
enforced by the NRC staff. Esemples include e
- N"
--7--
etal R$ stir [Vol 57. No. 227 / Tuesday,.Nov:mber 24, 1992 / Propos:d Rules 5h73
,.L.?
C urence and equipment ego but it was dropped, although there was Summary of Comrnents in Response to'
.J
- cauon, geners) agreement by senior NRC Februery 4. N FRN 9.
management with the emcacy of the C1cte;and Dectric Illuminetmp For most
. '.,. issue D2.
pmposal. The fact that i 60.36 reqaired the ubbties in the Unned Suses the peak loeds
~... hervice taspection and Inservice Testmg
.Inciusion of m:h depters made theif occur m the sumrner or wmter. Consequend).
guirements complete relocation legally difhcuh. When refuehng outeFes are in the spnng or f all. In d,
pypoecd Actiorhe')IReduced reguletory
. I 60.H(e) w as prornalgated. waformang the middle of refuehng outaFes. it is oflem
,.sthTttion might be appropriate in the future changes were not made in i sus 6 to avoid required to stop fuel moverpent opereuons to I
J NRC staff review ofinurvice lestmg dupiscahve requirements, perform the statenelinventory, ahhou6h fuel ms Similar arguments might be rnede 60 H(e) requires one to have and fobow a movement is novelly critical path or clo+e to reduced etiention to inservice triepection QA Plan consistent with to CR 50. Appendia cr1tical path denng an outage. Inventones oms (10 CR 50.55a(g) and ASME Code).
B. includmg many espects addrepin8 hke on the order of 6-16 bours (ume out of Tcipound.The regulations require NRC administrative controle which is dupbcated fuel movement), and an additional 3 daya to
. ste!! review and appmval of heenut IST by I 50.36(c)(5) and Sect >on 6 of the Technical complete the paperwork. While the paper Pp.,
Specific 4 bons nere are many other persliel work is not cntical path, it pulla the reactor Summary u Rupmu k situations. Such dupbcation always results in engineerms staff away imm teng more a certain amount of confusion and burden cogntzant of fuel movement activities.
February 24 m IT.N and never impmve, safety.
Smce very hide fuel movement occurs E NRC Stai!Eoensees are required to base their ISI and IST programs on the latest Summary of Comments Received at March between the refueltng outages. It is eppbcable ASME Code ed bon.ne NRC -
v'1992 Wbbe Meehng recommended that the inventories and i...
. staff has kee ed guidance on the acceptabdity NUBARG (D.Saanger, Counsel) An reports be required within a fixed period
,g g gg,
gg,
of inservice teetmg programs and ecwptable exemple of a requirement that is en cnhef requests, Dus guidance hos done much admmistrouve burden is 10 CR 60.H, which b
tWW
.'to help improve hcenseee* programs. Smoe hets the condicone required for en operstmg imquecy, onset the date to som ume in the bcense.%e regulat>ona contain wintu or summt, bypeeeg the peak eprmg/
"5'9 ' GboutJ985,abe NRC etaf!has spent a conside :cNe maount of ruources reviewmg approximately to pages of bcense conditions. fell outage ussa.
.Leensees' prognuns. Most programs ha ve Some of these condations duphcate other luue DJi ebeen reviewed, a!! hough revisions and eegulations and could be a burden when gg,,3Q.
,a
,, c.mpdata are penodicaHy reawed.Some.
licensees need to evaluate impacts on boemeee are now in their 10-yeat progrum. operstmg boenee con 6tions, his regulation proposed Action (s) Elminate unnecessary
- ". G and have noetved the benefits of experience euldbe str*==tmad with the removal of the onth amtmation and certdecetion alD& F gained in past programa Additional v.,
. em.au which wiu previde detailed -. depi.cative cond uona.,
requirements.
g.fCe m bRupmu u Backpound:Section182.a of the Atomic o
. & p>he.to bcemees, are in preparabon.
'W r 992 FRN Energy Act provides,in part:
b..
s However, until the underlying ASME Code Apphcataons for, and statements made in
- sections are revtsed and improved. and!
NUBARG: Numerous hcense conditions connection with, boenses under sections 103
, detailed guidance is pebbsbed the present imposed through to TR 50.54 simply and 104 shall be made ander oath or b
- ecgulations and level of NRC staff effort reHerste a boemee% obligetion to uusly amtmatxm.
..should be maatained..
NRC regulations. Inchasive of these TM Commission may require any other
- /.....
uaniary'of Comments in Response to unmoesury *condaions is an appbcations or statements to be made under y"
. J. hry ( m FRN edministrouve dupucation of tk NRC's oath or amnuuon.
substanuve regulatory schema.His may 4
- ' ' ' D ke Power:%e ISI and IST prosts" create situations whe o a hcensee might Summary gf Comments in Response to
- hould be administered by the NRC on en urmemoarily be required-to submit a hcense February 4.1992 FRN s
audit basis, rather than by prior review, he amendment to reflect a change in its licensmg NUBARG.ne use of oath oc amtmation in preparation of ISI and LST programs has basis when sudt a change could most fihngs before the NRC is mandated by statute progressed to the pomt where pnar NRC.
emciently be handled through an MAR only in certain circumstances. While s
involvementis no longer necenary to assum change exemption, or modificahon of discret onary use of the oath or affirmation is an adequate program. Utihties with multiple another wntten commitment.10 CFR 50 54 also pennitted, current regulatory provisions
- - -., units,ln particular, can adapt prenously should be revised to ehminate boense
[
app N
o render such discretionary application
- c nditions" that aimp'y reiterate a heensee's unnecenery.ne underlying purpose of an g9 9
n bhgation to comply with a substantive oath or affirmation is to ensure the truth and NRC does with the IST reports.
Richard S. Barkley: he commenter noted The York Power Authonty Cleveland 'fo of of 0 hat frequent charws to this regulauon, so a
50 9 f
the Electnc !!!uminating. nl Dectnc. Yank ee requirement for completeness and accuracy At mic Dectr c.Conmeticut YankM Atomic of those submittals the NRC suthonty to take
- i e t.Rese e qutre un er e urrent reguladons require significant effort by the Pown, and hw Maar Enngy W mforcement actim for providmg inaccurate NRC Staff. Also, the scope of the asaociated laun two we NonhenWhhtnes) e ndorsed informabon will estabbshed.De use of the the NUDARC comments.
examinations may be out of proportion to the oath or affirmation requirement for hcensee
~'
- 7 safety benefit denved.
Issue Du reep noes to a show cause order (to 07 2.202), a Notice of Violation (10 CFR part 2.
'4 Issue D L1:
Materia 1 Status Reports appendix c.Section VI A) and NRC requests Dnheauon of Requirements Proposed Acbon(s): Revise 10 CFR for information (10 CFR 50.54(f)) dupbcate the Proposed Action (s). Ehmmate duphcation 7413{*)(1) to provide flexibility in the timing
" truth assurance' function oi 10 CFR 50A 3
of requirements in 10 CFR Chapter 1.
and frequency of material status reports or to Also daphcatmg the purpose of 10 CFR 50.9 rnake the timmg and frequency correspond to are cert & canons of(t) the contents of a l
3 Summary of Comments in Response to the duty cycle of nuclear power plants.
License application (50.30(a)(4)). Insurence C
February 24.1992 FRN Bachround: Each licensee who is funds expended and available Florida Power Corporation: Revise to Cm authonzed to possess special nuclear (50.54(w)(4)(n)) and the completeness and 80Mc) to allow relocation of duplicative rnaterialin specified quantities is required to accuracy of an F3AR update. Dimination of information on Design Features and submit a Material Balance Repor1 and a these and other oath, affirmation and
~
,.t
' Administrative Controls from the Technical PhysicalInventory Listing to the NRC twice certification requirements not mandated by w2 i Specifications to other more appropriate each year.ne reports are to be cornpiled as the Atornic Energy Act would have no impact Q,
documents. An exemption request to this of March 31 and Septembe 30 and submitted on safety and reduce an unnecessary c r+.., effect was referred to the TSIP several years within 30 days thereafter, administrative burden involving additional 3
n-
}
?y
_A
^
a
{
Vw-
.A.
proposed oction has safety signs en opportunityfor a decrease in segulatory t indications that the system is to urpent need a y
review proposed konae amendments and requeet pubbe heanngs. %e regulations
. burden without any adverse effect on the of simphcation. We need afsoto ask whether '
- 1 mod 10ed the requirements for reviewmg these amendments hm resulted in more
-1
, pubbcinterest or pubhdtealth'and safety.
$4gnincent Hazards Considerations (SHCl..
increasing their complexity and impacima the. m regulations could be amended to allow pebhc participation or higher 6afety:
the utihty to proceed with the proposed Disposition This inaue was closed by the
.{
amount of paperwork moeded to support the :. action, pnor to pubhc notificatico, provided NRC in the CRCR SpecialReview A Feder.1 -
5 Register Notice and opportunity t'o request a q
SHC. Several utilities and industry e,
orittalsations indicated that these changes.y the acoon has been shown not to involve a public hearing would heve to be provided in t
r
./ grutly increased the time required to.obtain,. significant hasard consideretion and has any event.The time delays and burdens of f
i even an
- emergency" bcense amendment.
been shown to be reversible.
56 For lanee amendments involving,,
in response to a queelion regardmg how processing beensing amendments would not d
signincant hazards, notice must be given in NUMARC would d?nne the term be reduced substantially by the proposed the Federal Register with at least 30 days for
- reversMe " Ms. Ctnsberg stated that actions. Some increase in time' delay could be
- i NUMARC did not have a definition for the expected for those cases where a hesnns is response.Wis hoense amendment process term but would be developing one-requestedif the findmg of no stanificant,,
applice to any and st! changes in a facihty hazards were notpade in advance. Also, the opereting hcense, which includes the plant Summary of Comments in Respowe to comments appear to assume that no increase technical spectGeations' Febnaary 4.1992 FRN in requests for heanns would occur if the Summary of Commcets in Response to NUBAR'G: Ucensees empend signiGcant proposed changes were made in the current -
February 24.1992 RN '
resources in performing Sholly evaluations to prachces; but such may well not be the case.
NUMARC.ne time for pubbshmg and '
accompany licanse amendment requests, even though many such requests obviously
/ssue C 7 procening a Federal Ree;ister notice, except for the esigent or emergency situations. Lakes present "no sigmLcant hazards AddihonalTMI.Related Requirements (10 et least six weeks with no effect on safety.
considerstion." The existing gaidance on the CFR 50Mf))
Apphcants are required to perform types of amendments not hkely to present Proposed Action (s) Modify the s
significant hasards has not climmeted in
- unnecenary assessments. A pnmary actual apphcation the need to perform man) requirements in 10 CFR 50Mf)"Addnional,
suggeshon is that only irreversible decisions. detailed evaluations The NRC should review Bil< elated requirements?
such as venting the contatnment at Dree its esperience wtth respect to Sholly least 50 maior requirements and most are Background. to CR $034(f)imposee at Mile island, need the kmd of advance notice determinabons to broaden the scope of the quite speciGc.ney include a plant / site and opportunity for heanns that is currently genene determinations that serve as specific pRA. various accident and rehabiht) required. For other decisions. a notice and e samples of "no significant hazards analyses. operability studies, improved opportunity for a heanttg could be previoed consideration." for example to include. e sfter the hcense amendment is issued.
purely administrative change in Technical simulation capabihty. improved operating chosen by the NRC is administratively Specifications. includmg an organizational procedures, control room design review, florida Power The rulemaking ophon burdensome.The opphcant must do en chenge; additional resinctions or controls safety parameter displays, hydrogen control j
unnecessary and somewhat convoluted being added to the Technical Specifications.
systems, valve quahGcation programs. QA a core reload with equivalent fuel assembhes; program requirements, dedicated I
assesamnit.De NRC staff must ascertam and a minor adjustment (e.34len that 5 containment penetrations and more.
whether or not they agree with it sufficiently. percent)in ownership shares of a facility.
the information contained in the construction 10 CFR 50MQ was latended.to ensure that to pubbsh it in the Federal Register. If no.
. The NRC should also encourage t e use o a permit and manufactunng bcapre h
f party requests a heanngJ e NRC staff.
mechanism wherebylicensees may use the apphcations pending in early 1so2 would be h
avoids makiria a decision altogether.lf a
. generic examples, with a demonstration of sufGcient to assure the NRC that these.
heanng is requested, the NRC staff routinely apphenbluty, to satisfy the Sholly apphcants had given appropriate attention to concludes that no hazards consideration is involved and proceeds.ne whnte process of.equirements.ne New YorkPower TM14 elated requirements, many of which Authority ClevelandDoctricilluminatmg.
enigent and emergency technical TU Dectric. Yankee Atomic Dectric, were in the procen of being introduced into specification changes is en outgrowth of Connecticut Yankee Atomic Powac, and :.
the regulations and imposed on OL ; -.
Nortbeast Nuclear Energy (the later two with apphcants and operating plants.4 developing work.eroends to this poorly ~.
s.
conceived rule -
_..-a.h 9
L.___.__.______._
J
l
,,,,,..s t
a
'. Todml Register / Volt 57: No.* 227 / Tussday. November 24. 1992 / Proposed Rules 1 + ^55175
- -, - ~
e ThgCommission's July 30.1985.*'Pobey other purposes, such as design of reactor the North Dakota Army National Guard
,' t Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents internals. containment and ECCS, and which currently must travel to distant
.e Regarding Future Designs and Existing environmental quehfication of electntal out of state f acihtles 10.- training.
Plants" pubbshed in the Federal Register on equipment.
cAttt Commenu must b Mced on,
August IL 1965 (50 f*R 32134) effirins its behef Summary of Comments in Response to or before january 8,1993.
' Q;.
that a new nuclear power plant design can be hbruary 4.1992 FRN y,.
shown to be ecceptable for severe accident New York Power Authority; Edend the ApoetssES: Send comments on the
'$"mpt n e the raYtequ rements to"*'"* ions reached in venous leek.before.
proposalin trip!icate to: Manager, Air -
bnek enalysn. Mm nahstic scenenos Traffic Division. AC1/500 Docket No.
and cntens of the current Commission should be used for establishing reFulatory 9 FAG 148, Federal Aviation.
regulations. includmg the Three Mile Island requirements bued on analysis: LCCS Administrabon, O'llare lake Off6ce..
requirements for new plants es reflected in "I
the 6<alled CP Rule (1p CFR 50.34[f)) The requiremente, blowdown )oede, containment Center,2300 East Devon Avenue, Des
- referenee lo the rule wa
- clanfied in NUREG-peah pressures. conulnmet sprey flow, pipe Pla nes,11,60016.
res a nt en mi et has the The olhcialdocket may be examined
,.; s 1070 by NRC staff responses to public in the Rules Docket Office of the Chief y,6 comments.10 part 52 requires.
opportunity to snake many other relevant g
strate compt a ce h any echnically changes to its regulations based upon the Counsel, room 916 COO Ind.epend,,ence,
technicalvalidity of the engineering work Avenue, SW., Washington, DC,,,.
relevant portions of to CFR So.34(f).
done to support the leek before-break weekdays. except rederalbolidays, r, 5 Summary of Comments in Response to methodologies and yet has chosen not to do between 8.30 a.m. and 6 pJn -
s -
i Febraary 24.1992 FRS NUMARC:Most of the actions required by,,khsposition: The NRC has considered and An informal docket mayalso be.
(
. I 50.34(f) have been implemented by all previously rejected the entension of the leak examlned dunny normal business hours J/ 6,...' current heensees and the Commieston's ~
before break design basis to the proposed at the ofDce of trae Regional AirWafDc Division. -
' ? ** ~
M?d Severe Accident Pobey Statement pubbshed areas..
'pon puery,qen gepaginga'ygge googy'ACT!
l#
. in August 1985 (50 FR 3:136) renders a
- Safety a'nd Security Requirements for -
Progrm & MMk Mce of Air -
g'
.. number of the actions onnecenery.
Ken McElroy' Military Opereuosis J t.^ '
th, Additionally, the February 4.1992 Federal
- fiVt Register notim recognizes thet modifications, Defueled Reectors Prior to Decommheioning c helm anagment.Wal :.,
. of Abe regulatory requirements in the areas of Pmpsed Action (s)*.Einblishinlety and A adon Administraucin,800, %, v-
,s W. j posi ecadent samphng systema and -combustible ses control systems would have, pnot to decommteigning.. ;,~
eecunty requirements for defueled teactors Inde ndence AvenuecSW., -W
+ ~
, ton, DC 20591),telgne,N202)
' 'Wa s
,g, bttleimpact on safetyc
- Background-Sefety and security -.
267-7686.
r b
,e-2.H.
Summary of Commeota in Responu to a
' requires ente et nucleet power plants or, SUPPLEssterTARY WsPOmesANed' 'y# -
l Q. February 4.19e2 FRN
/.,
largely bued on the potentiel for serious
- 1;,' *, % ~
f:'
Richard S. Berkley: ne commenter conuquerxes for the pubhc h~ealth and ufety I.
! recommended modification of the regulation resulnns from accidents or ubc,tepe.
Comments invited % %'+M 7
~
Q ! ! ' !. to ehminate requirements for systems that Following perman nt defuehng of the reactor. - InteresteAl arties are it$vil [1 to
. have been shown to beve marsmal safety the nature and magnitude of the Niential P
Ms benefit. Although installation costs have,
consequences is substantially changed.
{articipate in this proposed rulemaking y su ng such wntlen data, or arguments as they ma desire p, s,
w s p*y 4 niready beenincurred, the signif cant costs of Summary Of Comments in Response to
-2 opetetmncmaintenance and replacement of February 24.1992 f7.N p
e factuaM these systems k still significant.Dimination
' NRC Staff. Rtcomroended'the proposed supPortmg the views and suggestions of requirements for systems of marginal acum safety significance would have the clear Dhitim in the s'bsence ofindustry presented are particularly be,lpful in (,'
benefit of reducmg plant cornplexity' ner' interesHn this have, no action k propoud by developing reasoned regulatory BWR Owners Group:The BWR Ow the NRC.
decisions on the proposal. Comments
. Group suspeeted retroactive application of are specifically invited on the overall 4
I regulatory, aeronautical, economic, and sa p ng ys e ay res t r e review of future designs. Cleveland Electric energy related aspects of the proposal.
Illuminating endorsed the BWR Owners Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
' Group comments.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION submitted in triplicate to the address Disposition: Combustible gas control (1: sue listed above Commenters wishing the A3] and post accident semphng systems y
g y
(Issue S4) are addressed separately.ne FAA to acknowledge receipt of their 14 CFR Part 73 comments on this notice must submit
o ee a a a of the te in u
nte k n b tbcon i
DocO.92-AE-ul arnp os rd on the inu luue cs:
' Proposed Establishment of ' Restricted f 11 wing statement is made: '
t Area R-5401; Devita Lake, ND fG Pace 2-
' Use of More Reebstic Bre,ek Sizes e
Proposed Action (s): Extend the application AGENCY: Federal Aviation time stamped and returned to the of the leak.before-break analyses.
commenter. Send comments on. -
Background; ne instantaneous, double-h h
. ended guillotine pipe break k a deterministic ' ACT10ec Notice'of proposed rulAm'aking; environmental and land use as ects
(.
Mr.Neal Jacobsen, Office of the j,. design basis used for nuclearpower plants ~
SUMMAstY:This notice proposes to
' Adjutant General' State of North ^
b establish Restricted Area R-5401 Devils
- Dakota,P.O. Box 5511. Bismarck,ND : '
f ca on of G the r d
' ebminated the need to design for protection 1.ake, ND, from 'the surface to 5,000 feet., 58502-5511. Phone (701) 224-5189. All /
~..
against the dynamic effects of such accidente mean sea level (MSL).The re,stricted communications received op or hefog.
M.a',
where plent-specific enelysis demonstrated 4. area would be located at Camp Crafton the specified closing date for t,omments...
M,.. that such breaks were not credible.ne South. Eddy,Coun'ty ND. Thie area wi!! be considered before taking sctioni' accident continued to be the design basis for would support training requirements of on the proposed rule..The proposal--
m
1 1
4 i
i i.
i 1
Enclosure B Federal Register Notice Rescheduling and Providing Discussion Material for Public Workshop 4
l I
(
i i
l
1
$190 i
1
=
Proposed Rules S"*-
Vol. 58. No.16 Wednesday, larnaary 27, 1993 Ths neceon of the FEDERAL REGISTER Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 5 p.rn.-Adjoum contans notices e the pubac of the poposed ' Commission, Washington, DC 20555, no Workshop will commence with issuance of rulee and regulatkna. The Phone (301) 492-3730, FAX (301) 443-the NRC remarks,providing introductory purpose of these noticos is e gw Wested 7836.
statements on the objectives of pees an W e ppate M me the Workshop, ding scope, schedules.
SUPPLtWENTARY INFORWATON:
and a review of the
$* * * 'h* *d 9' " "' **
Preliminary Agenda for Public program inclu Workshop on NRC Program for and status of speciSc items. De NRC Eliminadon of Requirements Marginal NUCLEAR REGULATORY to Saft.ty.
will then leed an inlual discussion on ways to permanendy integrate this COMMISSION April 27.1993 program into the regulatory process. The Workshop will conclude with a 10 CFR Chapter 1 7:30 a.a-Registration continuation of this discussion, givea NRC Program for Elimination of Morning Session the needs identified in the discussions of specific topics, for determining Requirementa Marginal to Safetyi 8:30 a.m.--Introductory Remarks /
rocedures for continuing focus and Putse Workshop Workshop Objectives (NRC)
[nteraction for the ongoing program.
9 a.m.
m Overview (Scope.
As indicated in the agenda there will AGENev: Nuclear Ragulatory Schedu es, and Status) and be four topics for which there will be a Commission ACTION: Notification of rescheduled Integrad n Wo Regulatmy Pmcess panel and general discussion. Panels, dates and publication of advanced (NRC) with approximately six members for material for Public Workshop.
Q&A each of the four topics, will be formed to a.a.- Coffee Break based on those that indicate an interest
SUMMARY
- On November 24,1992 (57 FR 10:15 a.m.-Framework for a to serve on a specific panel and on 55t56), the NRC published a nouco to Performance. Based Regulatory obtaining a spectrum of comments and announce its continuing program to Approach (Panel / General views that the NRC determines will be eliminate requirements marginal to Discussion) most beneficial towards its ob)ectives.
safety and a public workshop for the 11:45 p.a.--Lunch Each panelist will be expected to pmgram. Subsequently, the NRC Afternoon Session Provide a presentation, of about to published a notice (57 FR 58727) deferring the workshop to expand the 12:45 p.a--Containment I.makage minutes, on his or her views, scope and include other aspects of the Testing Requirements--leakage experiences, and comments on that staff plants to improve the efficiency of Rate and to CFR 50 Appendix l specific topic. His will be followed by the regulatory process. The workshop (Panel / General Discussion) a discussion among the panelists and has been rescheduled and will now be 2:45 p.m.--Coffee Break op rtunity for members of the general held on April 27 and 28,1993.This.
3 p.m.-Fire Protection Requirements pu ic attending the panel discussion notice provides the agenda and advance (Panel / General Discussion) session to provide their views. In their material for the Pubhc Workshop.
5 p.a-Adjourn presentaticas, panelists will be expected to provide comments on the NRC DAtts: Public Workshop has been
- April 28,1993 proposals and also their general views rescheduled for April 27 and 28,1993.
Aoontssts: Public Workshop will be 7:30 a.a-Registrauon and experiences related to the topic.
"the sessions on April 28,1993, held at the Holiday Inn Bethesda. 8120 Morning Session includes live topics for which NRC Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda Maryland. 8:30 a.a-Requirements for solicits speakers to provide a 5 to to Phone (301) 652-2000. (800) 638-5954.
Hotel reservations may be obtained at Combustible Ges Control Systems minute passentation on their views and (Panel /Ceneral Discussion) ~
experiences on the specific topic. The a special' rate by calling the Holiday Inn 10:30 a.m.--Coffee Break FRC does not intend to publish any Bethesda. A block of rooms has been 11:45 a.m.-Requests for Information additional material, other than what is reserved for this workshop until April 5 Under 10 CFR 50.54(0 (Speakers) contained in this notice, on these topics 1993. Mention Group No. 3520 when 12:30 p.m.-Lunch prior to the Workshop. If time permits, making the reservation.
Pre-registrations, requests to serve on Aftemoon Session other attendees at the sessions will be provided any opportunity to speak on a panel or speak on a topic should be 1:30 p.a--Quality Assuranen the topic.
sent by mail or facsimile to Dr. Mon!
Requirements (Speakers)
Dey, Office of Nuclear Regulatory 2:15 p.a-Requirements for egistrauon Research U.S.NuclearRegulatorY Environmental Qualification of
'In order to allow for appropriate Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Electrical Equipment (Speakers) arrangments for participants, pre.-
l FAX (301) 443-7836. Copies of the NRC 3 p.m.--Coffee Break registration for the meeting by April 12, reports to the President may be 3:15 p.m.-Requirements for Physical 1993, is encouraged. Prospective examined at: The NRC Public Document.
Protection for Power Reactors participants can pre-register by sending Room. 2120 L Street. NW. [ Lower (Speakers) the following information to the contact Levell. Washington, DC.
4 p.m.-Procedures for Continuing-by mail or facsimile- (1) Name: (2) Title; FOR FURTER MOfWATION CoeffACT:Dr. -
Focus and Interactions sur Ongoing. (3) Organization:(4) Address; and (5)
Moni Dey, Office of Nuclear Regulatog Program (NRC/ Speakers)
Telephone number. Requests to serve as.
l
- _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ -
~ - - - ~ - - -
l Pedural Basister / Wet. sa, No. se t 1tuodneedsy, Innuary n.1993 / Proposed Rules G197 a summber of any of the 4 puents, or
- H. The inliswi ineues with raged to aval of the custahrment dartog speak on any of the 5 espks la the the thsee rulemneking actiestles ma4d==ts, bconeses abound sumskums ea April 2s, tess, ces be made need to dressed in the proceur le) test emerell contabunset by sedmg the abuse hdmemmesn, 0)Can the usw rule and its huokage on langer than seery to years, sospensted for pse.., ^- = pies the insplemame=rin=
an agahonent
= med test pesusass-lag or -
spacine panel on topc, by snell er level et, or oudy a meglan! hopect leakag>hamiting boundaries and fecahnile to the canenct by April 5,1993. on, esisty.
W laelsdon unless en en Requeses to be su a panel or speak will (2) Can the :,. 'y/selsty ab$seties interval based on the perforraance
- =Hvo or quantitative) be (q=bliamd is an obpecshe amenaer to of the equiprment; or (b) be pescassed can a tur' cosas basis.
esta an on hne anoni '
Performa am Based Eagu!alory allow a mmmon understanding between espebdisy of seetmisument APProad licensees and the NRC on how the status.
b followtag ers; h*-
j cnienda performance or results will be measund -Move details of the testa and saperung and specific, potential op r=mi-= to or in AppendLx ) to e Regulatory r;=M=
three rags!*tions that be used as e 3) the reguletron and.
as gnitt==na starting point br abscessams at the implementmoon docurwents be
--Eadores sammdsuds pubhc workshop.Hawver, par *4p==ts dev to anch a meneer that they on:(11 cm for cale= ing plant-spedfic alloweb&e leakage rates based need not het their ccunmame to the can be and consisteady pohhshed umatarial sad me======ged inspected and e agemet.
on new NRC pudorm==re standasd; to SpecI5c Potemala! Applicatiana of a '
=a====t and )G Ed=are an
""*****I***
approaches proposed at the pubbr.
Approach I't 004i" """.k"'ing of cena=inw worksh willbe reviewed sad Isoladon statua evalesehby the samff tourards E==hutng. J. Convoinnwnf len&ege endTestrry--Current detailed sorpd===nta la the genesel hamewosk lar develsymag Requirements, q
APPenicj will contianaeto be ects et c0*Phnm wk perfortnance-based rue =1stia= and w
g A.ComeshonestIsensge CDC16-msnpliance wkh Appeo
) - met
.imgs, Provide essendelly leek tight barner need to de anything u they do not Prelhainary Cdteds for Developlag agnimet uncontolled selease of wish to change their prettierk Perfor===r=-Based Regulations toi _ _My to envioomment for H. Fire Proteceen Ng..m.aner j
A. Revised rules willincas em Postulased acx idents peak ughtness 18 (Appendhr R to 70 CP150) a estabhshing b segulatorylaatsty
- Pedned with a elloweblo leakage rete obpetsin in se an ebyscnve mana== es in the plant technical speciSautfems).
Present Ragulatory ry=rseve y
possibia.b ramia aim M a B. Coweshonent Testing Test the SSC bepartant to amisty shallbe performance based regulatary approach overall====nt, pressure designed and tar =e=rt ts =W6=
ls to allow liansees flexibility to use containing orleakagehaWing consistant with other udsty cx>st shetivs methods for h'""dies, and containment holence requirements, the prnh=hshty and edbets implementation of the objectives.
valves at spedfic intervelp (identI5ed in of fires and amploslon*-GDC 3.
B.The regulatory objective willbe mie) to ceafirm and provide confidence dertved, to the extent feasible, tram risk the allowable leakage rate will not be Bacigpund considerations and relationship to safety ended for postulated eccidents.
. Appendix R expands on the above regulatory obesctive by: O) speczfying goals-Backgromad fi's damage limits to trains of systoms C. Detalled technical methods f.e.-
. Postulstad acmdents indicate that the maintaining safe shutdown conditions, the
- Presses irdormation ofrisk fran associated with achieving and sfe(pe ance relative to e a waW leakage rate b or (2) mquiring an alternative or regulatoty object:ves will be provided in ts can be increesad-dedicated shutdown capability if fire Regu. lata y Guides. To the extant
. Risk studies have shown that damage limits rannat be achieved.
EM*3 be e2s'tandards bl dind
=t=w - - ath="s"o ~
^P
- xx =
- d a ud.
rates is not as risk signiEcant as specific requimments for separetion "8 d' lle etive industry enoit.
previously assurned.
criteria to achieve fire dama8e limits, D.Co
- Contemment leakage testa ese
' water suppbs for Ere surrpression (WMARORI. Owner's Gro are conducted to confirm the evallebility of systems, volves, manual fde encouraget to maintain stand the r=&a==unt, and they indtsectly suppreaston, tests, eutomatic fire industry piectices, reduce risk bened on theog===gnons detection fin brigade,-.M, dos 5 <
E.The otw rules willbe opuonal for 11 &g, admkhtsbe co current licensees and thus hcensees can ons oa be and dediated dutdan '
decide to remain in compliance with
. Two separata laitiatives:
capaility, &s barder enW penetre&g current regulations.
A. Increasa allowable contain= ant seal ualification and fire door /s
, hRA technology is now av lable to F. Scope of this a!! ort will not be leakaga rats based on safety Boels and limited to regulations,but wiB addrama PRA technology (dafine new determine the risk signI!!cance of Ere the body of regulatory practice e.g.
performance standard). Rulemaking may sequences in venous areas of a plant.
Standard Review Plan,inspecuan not be necessary since leakege rete is and may provide a bests for the design procedures technicalspecifications, specified in Tach =leat Spedficarians.
of Sm protection features, and other regulatoryh===au B. Modify Appendix)toa G. Perfannsnce-based regaistory Performance-based regulation:
PotentielModification approach should provide incentives for
--l.imit revised rule to a new reguistory Modify AppendaR to e perlo-object've:la ceder to ensure the based regulabon: -
innovation and improvements in saisty.
r s
_ _b
6198 Federal Register / Vol. 58 No.16 / Wednesday, January 27, 1993 / Proposed Rules e Replace deterministic criteria in core conditions without reactor pressure e Eliminate amounts of hydmgen to vessel (RPV) failure for light water be controlled from the rules.
Appendix R that specify limits to fire reactors whose application for a
- Transfer staff positions on methods damace to trains of systems with criteria that allows the use of PRA technology construction permit or manufacturing to meet the performance standards to a cnd risk significance of fire sequences to license was granted before February 16 Regulatory Calde (e g, operating Mark I 1982; or (7) full core melt with RPV and D containments should be inerted.
ditermine fire protection features failure for light water reactors whose and operating DWR Mark H1 and PWR (establish quantitative criterion related application for a construction permit or Ice Condenser containments should to safety goals if feasible),
manufacturing licenae was pending as control hydrogen generated involving e Move various means for achieving b regulatory ob}ective of Appendix R, of, or submitted after. February 16, 75% of the fuelcladding).
e Establish regulatory position ht including fire damage limits to trains of 1982.
recombiners can be eliminated from systems and necessary separation M6*und targe dry and subatmospheric criteria, to a Regulato Guide.
- 10 CFR 50.44 presently requires the containmenta.
e Endorse approve industry following for operating reactors:
- Transfer staff osition,that future standard on tha use of PRA technology
-Recombiners for all types of reactors address h drogen generated -
in determinb3 re protection featum containments to control hydrogen involving 100% o cladding, from to fi y
in a Regulatory Guide.
. generated in a postulated 1DCA CFR 50.34(f)(lx) to a Regulatory Guide.
e Current detailed requirements in
, Licensees currently in compliance Appendix R will cont!nue to be -
. Involving about 5% of the cladding tcceptable for compliance with the (Later Mark I and U containments with to CFR 50.44 willcontinue to be modified rule (ficensees pm.cntly in were exempted from this in compliance with modified rule.
~~
requirement).
.. A need for industry e! Tort in this compliance with Appendix R will not
-Mark I and H containments were
' aree for operating reactors is not
^
need to do anghing if they do not wish required to be innted, considaring.
anticipated, unless industs has any to change their practice),
Postulated severs accidents, new and alternative pro for e %e followmg areas of fire
. -BWR Mark III and Ice Condenser meeting the regulatory jectives.
protection requirements in Appendix R Pressure suppression containments
. will be used as a starting point for As stated earlier, the above material -
have potential for reduction in burden must have a control system for -
with marginalimpact on safety (these creas were previously identified in hydrogen generated from reactions
- discussions at the public workshop.
involving 75% of the fuel cladd ag, Participanta need not limit their NUREC/CR-4330,8 Vol.1. " Review of based on a limiting case of degraded comments to this material and are I.ight Water Rasctor Regulatory core accidents without RPV failure. '
ancouraged to provide new and Requirements," April 19861:(1)
Disabling of automatic features;(2) ug from above requirement to hvh ide and approsh e
containments were
Subject:
NRC Program for Elimination ex Transient combustible load control hydrogen imm mctions
. of Raquirements Marginal to Safety.
assumptions:(3)1ms of offsite power, involving 75% of fuel cladding.
Dated at Rockyh,Marytand, this 21st day. -
(4) Three hour fire barriers:(5) because of its capability to withstand.
Allowance for operator actions and (6) --
Pressures resulting from combustion /.. of January 1943.
For the Nuclear Regulatory ('amelssion.
denotation oflarge amounts of ID. Standardfor Combustible Gas hydrogen generated during postulated Warrum Minners.
Control System in IJght Woter Cooled-severs accidents. -
- Dusciar, Drvision o/Sofery Ism DesaNtaan, Power Reoctors (20 CFR 30.4f)
-large dry containments have nat been opcv ofNuclearBegulatoryReseox1 exempted from requirement for :
fFR Doc. 93-1947 Filed 1-26-83; 8 45 sal Present Regulatory Ob}ective recombiners which are not efisctive emes coot foss-nes Each boiling or pressurized light-for controlling hydrogen genereted -
water nuclear power reactor fueled with from r;ak.algnifiant severe accident
'r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION troi sd tio ty ding allin de s
C.f hydrogen gaa, generated following -
requirement).
Federal Avietion Administration nsk-significant postulated accidents, e to CFR 50.34(f) addresses hydrogen ~ 14 CFR Part 39 that is necessary to ensure ht control for future plants and requires.
containment structural integrity is th I hydroge ID******' " -*3"'# I maintained and its leakage does not
'INed n of 100% of b- ' Altworthiness Directives; Boeing
~
4 8'.el cladd g.
I exceed the rate fled in Criterion 16 fu m
of *Ppendix A 3 part 50 10 CFR 50.44 and 5(I.34 are rules' teodel 70'l and 720 Series Altplanes following combustion or detonation of ' that evolved tl> rough the years and have' bydrogen during the postulated '
become prescriptive.Dey specify the ACD#CY:"ederal Aviation cecidents. Postulated acx:idents shall
' design capacity of hydrogen control
' Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking' ' '
mclude those that lead to:(1) Degraded' systems and thus may not encourage the AcTioec:
design of, or allow credit for, systems /
(NPRM).
i l
' cop.= or wazc.=ta repor* ***
features that could decrease the amount emum: This document proposes the 1
toIsta-*
of hydrogen generated.
supersedure of an existing airworthinesa
)
orn cal w
directive (AD), applimble to certain -
% UA covernment Pnanascecs, rn son Potential Modification-alw to pwthand from the Nsuomal Tm:hakal Modify 10 CFR 50.44 and 10 CFR v ~ Boeirig Model 707 and 720 series - -
l 370e z, w mbagion. DC aoou-roes. copies may f2
[z2 50.34(f)(ix) to e, performance-based airplanes, that currently requiree j
repetitive inspections to deted cracks in Rc R
copy is evia' us sur taspecwn a copyinen a see regulation:
e TLs above present regulatory-
- the inboard nacelle strut midspar -
NW tiew ta=31. Wash
- sum.ac.
objective could be the revised rule. -
Sttings, and replacc nent,if necessary.> -
in the Nac rebhc p= -e anesa. st ro i. street,
, - -