ML20151J034
Text
.
'o UNITED STATES
+
~,,
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 MAY 3 0 1984
....+
e MEMORANDUM FOR:
Gus C. Lainas, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors, DL n
THRU:
James R. Miller, Chief [
< /b /
Operating Reactors Branch (3, DL l
FROM:
Dominic C. Dilanni, Project Ma' nager Operating Reactors Branch #3, DL
SUBJECT:
PROCESSING LICENSE AMENDriENTS FOR POWER REACTORS AND TESTING FACILITIES UNDER 10 CFR 50.92 BASED ON THE "SH0LLY" LEGISLATION This memorandum transmits the enclosed report on a study concerned with the burden that has developed in processing license amendment requests under the "Sholly Legislation." Specifically, the concern of this study is the pre-noticing in the Federal Register of those amendment requests that the staff determines as having a no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). The study makes use of the experience gained during the first year in which the regula-tion (10 CFR 50.92) has been in place on an interim basis and considers the effects of the regulation as related to public response, cost benefits and the level of reactor plant safety.
Based on these considerations, the results of this study justify the following recommendations:
1.
The regulation, 10 CFR 50.92, should be modified so that amendment reguests for operating reactor and testing facilities having NSHC need not be prenoticed in the Federal Register.
2.
High level management should direct our legal department to imple-ment a proposed modification of the interim rule that would eliminate the prenoticing of amendment recuests having a NSHC.
3.
An activity schedule should be established se that the proposed rule change is completed during the public coment period with ample time to permit Commission deliberation be y issuing the final rule.
s Dominic C. Dilanni, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
H. Denton T. Dorian D. Eisenhut W. Olmstead E. Case J. Scinto R. Purple 2%p 7ccA2_,
c m
4 4
/
o,,
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
3 p
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%, +... /
PROCESSING LICENSE AMENDMENTS FOR POWER REACTORS AND TESTING FACILITIES UNDER 10 CFR 50.92 BASED ON THE "SH0l.LY" LEGISLATION
==
Introduction:==
The purpose of this document is to report on a study concerned with the burden that has developed in processing license amendment requests under 10 CFR 50.92 that originated from the " Shelly legislation". Specifically, a concern exists in the need to prenotice in the Federal Register, those amendment requests that the staff determines as having a no.significant hazards consideration (NSHC). The study makes use of the experience gained during the first year in which the regulation, (10 CFR 50.92), has been in place on an interin basis and considers the effects of the regulation as it relates to public responses, cost benefit and the level of reactor plW safety.
Public Response:
From May 6, 1983, the inception of the Rule, to the end of the study period
( April 13,1984), NRR has prenoticed approximately 1044 amendnent requests that the staff determined as having NSHC. From this total, the Commission received only six public responses, two of which were comments and the remaining four resulted in requests for public hearings.
Responses related to NT0Ls (Grand Gulf) or TMI-1 having high public visibility were not included in the total num-ber of public responses.
In addition, proposed amendment requests involving a significant hazards consideration were not included in the total number of re-sponses since they have always been subjected to prenoticing. Based on the num-ber of public responses during this initial period, the probability o{ receiving a public response from future amendment requests having NSHC is IX10 at a 90%
confidence level. The low number of public responses is likely due to the highly technical nature of some of these amendment requests. An understanding of the request requires knowledge of the technical specifications and the engineering aspects of the plant. Most public responses have dealt with well known controversial issues that were scrutinized in the past (i.e. spent fuel pool expansion, reactor vessel thermal shock, etc. ).
Rased on the number of responses during this initial period and the estinated cost of the Sholly process (discussed below), each public response has had a government cost burden of $209,000.
It is recognized that the staff has a responsibility to keep the public aware of pending actions by the NRC. All amendment requests are immediately made available to the public through the local PDRs and the PDR in Washington, D. C.
In addition, such requests are also transmitted to state officials as they are
submitted to the NRC. The staff acts expeditiously in responding to any public comments received orally or in writing end will continue to do so in the future.
However, the amount of staff effort devoted to the objective of keeping the public informed should not exceed reasonable limits.
Prenoticing amendment requests having a NSHC goes beyond this limit in that major emphasis placed on this administrative function tends to overshadow the technical merits of the request.
Based on the above, it can be reasonably concluded that there is no adequate justification for continuing prenoticing amendment requests having NSHC from the point of view of public responses. This is especially applicable for the majority of operating reactors (approximately 95%) with little or no public visibility.
Cost Benefit:
- A cost benefit analysis was performed utilizing data generated since the effective date of the regulation (10 CFR 50.92) in order to establish the im-pact when processing future amendment requests. Of the prenotices processed during the first 11 months, we reduced the backlog and therefore our output will be related closer to the number of incoming actions. This backlog reduction was achieved through staff overtime which is not the norm. A more reasonable future value assumed in this analysis is one-amendment-request-per-unit-per-month which amounts to 955 amendment requests per annum. This value is based on 81 operating units, corrected for number of amendment requests expected to involve a significant hazards consideration. As we know, the 81 units will be increasing as more plants cc.me on line which would tend to increase the numbers of amendments per annun in the future. Based on the experience of the first 11 months, it appears that an estimate of 35 staff hours is reouf red to process a typical prenotice, not including actual publi-cation in the Federal Register.
This 35 staff hours estimate is considered by many staff members as a reasonable value and includes the efforts of management, project managers, technical staff, licensing assistants, lawyers and secretarial support. However, an estimate of 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> per prenotice is used to compute government budgeting costs based on $62.00 per hour. The 18 hour2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> figure considers only project manager and technical staff time since all other support is factored into the $62.00 per hour figure. A review of the Federal Registers for the last five months revealed that an average of 31 pages appeared in these publications.
The last five months of the reportine was selected to compute the average so as to diminish the effects of reducing the backlog. Using the values discussed above, the total professional staff years (PSYE) that would be consumed and the total annual government budgetary cost for prenoticing amendment requests having no significant hazards considerations can be sunnarized as follows:
Jk
Government PSYE Cost Per Annum NRR/0 ELD 18.6
$1,067,000 Federal Register Not available
$151,900 Publication (monthly)
$408./page Federal Register
$35,900 Publication (in-dividual)
Total 18.6
$1,254,800 When one applies the government cost during the initial period to the number of public responses, then each public response had a government cost burden of $209,000 A review of the legislative history, the Congressional communications and the Office of Policy Evaluation showed no sinilar cost analysis was recorded.
However, the review of the records does indicate that a preliminary cost analysis was prepared for the Commissioners by the Executive Director for Operations (SECY 83-168, March 4,1983). According to this analysis, the total estimated impact on the NRC would amount to about four to five PSYE.
The estinate in SECY 83-16B is low by a factor of 4 when conpared with results of this review, which is based on actual experience to date.
Based on the above, the cost analysis derived from experience indicates that the initial estimated impact on the NRC prior to issuing the interim rule was grossly underestimated.
In addition there is no way that such government cost can be justified in the future based on the number of public responses received during the initial period.
Level of Reactor Plant Safety In the past, evaluations related to a NSHC were performed informally.
Under 10 CFR 50.92, these evaluations require forral documentation involving manage-ment and legal reviews before the final product is aublished in the Federal Register. These reviews, during the developing of the formal documents, are time consuming, in that several iterations are generally required in order to resolve staff comments.
Experience has shown that, durina the developing period of the formal documentation, there was no enhancement in the safety level nor the technical aspect of a particular amendment request.
In some cases notices were republished when changes to the initial submittals were made (note; note-
. gram from J. Scinto to G. Lainas, F. Miraglia, T. Novak, March P6,1984).
Such changes are not the result of the formal determination of a NSHC but evolve from the licensee, the staff, or a combination of both, when the amendment request is evaluated in detail.
Such changes usually make the
s.
. amendment request more restrictive increasing the level of safety, while changes requested by the licensee tend to aid plant operation having no effect on the significant hazards determination. This interchange between the NRC and the licensee during the evaluating period of an amendment request is necessary to achieve the highest possible level of plant safety without overly restricting plant operation. The existing "Sholly" regulation is impeding this interchange which tends to reduce the level of plant safety.
Needless to say, this administrative burden in no way contributes to the primary mission of the staff, which is to assure that reactors are operated safely.
It does, however, detract from this primary mission in that prenoticing these amendment requests lengthens the process time by at least 60 days that would result in an increase of the NRR backlog activities in the future.
In addition, this burden is magnified for anendment requests involving major modifications to the technical specifications (i.e. Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications (RETS, Appendix I), containment purge etc).
Based on the above it can be concluded that the interim rule (10 CFR 50.92) is an impediment to increasing the level of plant safety.
Conclusions and Recommendations The interim final rule as publithed on April 6, 1983 could be issued as the final rule by December 31, 1984. The final rule would address public com-ments on the interim final rule and make changes to it.
In this centext, I request that the. content of this study be reviewed by the proptr level manage-ment. Experience of the past year has demonstrated that the provision of pre-noticing license amendment requests having NSHC involves' considerations that should be part of the evaluation of the interim final rule before it becomes final. These considerations involve government cost and staff effort as they relate to public responses, contributions to the safety level of operating plants and the impediment in processing amendment requests. These conditions result in a marked reduction in staff efficiency in maintaining a desired level of operating plant safety.
Based on these considerations the results of this study justify the following recommendations:
1.
The regulation,10 CFR 50.92, should be modified so that anend-ment requests for operating reactor and testing facilities having NSHC need not be prenoticed in the Federal Register.
2.
High level management should direct our legal department to implement a proposed modification of the interim rule that would eliminate the prenoticing of amendment requests having a NSHC, 3.
An activity schedule should be established so that the proposed rule change is completed during the public comment period with ample time to permit Commission deliberation before issuing the final rule.
Prepared by Dominic C. Dilanni May 21, 1984
r_ ;
.o
_. _ _ mm m_..__,
/M/4 PDR UNITED STATES
+
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM5HSSION o
n a
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20553 e
s.m g,...../
unanu MEMORANDUM FOR:
Gus C. Lainas, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors, DL THRU:
James R. Miller, Chief /5 OperatingReactorsBranchp FROM:
Dominic C. DfIanni, Project Ma' nager Operating Reactors Branch #3, DL
SUBJECT:
PROCESSING LICENSE AMENDMENTS FOR POWER REACTORS AND TESTING FACILITIES UNDER 10 CFR 50.92 BASED ON THE "SHOLLY" LEGISLATION This memorandum transmits the enclosed report on a study concerned with the burden that has developed in processing license amendment requests under the "Shally Legislation." Specifically, the concern of this study is the pre-noticing in the Federal Register of those amendment requests that the staff determines as having a no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). The study makes use of the experience rained during the first year in which the regula-tion (10 CFR 50.92) has been !n place on an interim basis and considers the effects of the regulation as related to public response, cost benefits and the level of reactor plant safety.
Based on these considerations, the results of this study justify the-following recommendations:
1.
The regulation, 10 CFR 50.92, should be modified so that amendment reguests for operating reactor and testing facilities having NSHC need not be prenoticed in the Federal Register.
2.
High level management should direct our legal department to imple-ment a proposed modification of the interim rule that would eliminate the prenoticing of amendment requests having a NSHC.
3.
An activity schedule should be established so that the proposed rule change is completed during the public coment period with ample time to permit Cunnission deliberation be ~
is uing the j
final rule.
G
+
/
,- =
, Project Manager D inic C. Dilanni Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated
~
cc:
H. Denton T.~ Dorian D. Eisenhut W. Olmstead i
E. Case J. Scinto R. Purple r
Pr3
- It
7..
~u
- 7.. -,.
7 7
~
d UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
n j
wAsHWGTON, D. C. 20666
\\...../
PROCESSING LICENSE AMEN 0MENTS FOR POWER REACTORS AND i
TESTING FACILITIES UNDER 10 CFR 50.92 BASED ON THE "SH0LLY" LEGISLATION
==
Introduction:==
The purpose of this document is to report on a study concerned with the burden that has developed in processing license amendment requests under 10 CFR 50.92 i
that originated from the "Shally legislation". Specifically, a concern exists in the need to prenotice in the Federal Register, those amendment requests that the staff determines as having a no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). The study makes use of the experience gained during the first year in which the regulation, (10 CFR 50.92), has been in place on an interim basis and considers the effects of the regulation as it relates to public responses, cost benefit and the level of reactor plant safety.
Public Responser Froer May 6,1987, the inception of the Rule, to the end of the study period (April 13, 1984), NRR has prenoticed approximately 1044 amendment requests that the staff detensined as having NSHC.
Froer this total, the Commission received only six public responses, two of which were comments and the remaining four l
resulted In requests for public hearings. Responses related to NTOLs (Grand Gulf) or TMI-1 having high public visibility were not included in the total num-ber of public responses.
In addition, proposed amendment requests involving a significant hazards consideration were not included in the total number of re-sponses since they have always been subjected to prenoticing. Based on the num-ber of public responses during this initial period, the probability o{ at a 905 receiving a public response from future amendment requests having NSHC is IX10 confidence level. The low number of public responses is likely due to the highly technical nature of some of these amendment requests. An understanding of the request requires knowledge of the technical specifications and the engineering aspects of the plant. Most public responses have dealt with well known controversial issues that were scrutinized in the past (f.e. spent fuel pool expansion, reactor l
vessel thermal shock, etc.).
Based on the number of responses during this initial period and the estimated cost of the Sholly process (discussed below), each public response has had a government cost burden of 4209,000.
It is recognized that the staff has a responsibility to keep the public aware of pending actions by the NRC. All amendment requests are immediately made available to the public through the local PDRs and the PDR in Washington, D. C.
In addition, such requests are also transmitted to state officials as they are 4
i
l submitted to the NRC. The staff acts expeditiously in responding to any public comments received orally or in writing and will continue to do so in the future.
However, the amount of staff effort devoted to the objective of keeping the j
public infomed should not exceed reasonable limits. Prenoticing amendment requests having a NSHC goes beyond this limit in that major emphasis placed on this administrative function tends to overshadow the technical merits of the request.
Based on the above, it can be reasonably concluded that there is no adequate justification for continuing prenoticing amendment requests having NSHC from majority of operating reactors (approximately 95%)pecially applicable for the the point of view of public responses. This is es with little or no public visibility.
Cost Benefit:
A cost benefit analysis was performed utilizing data generated since the effective date of the regulation (10 CFR 50.92) in order to establish the im-pact when processing future amendment requests.
Of the prenotices processed during the first 11 months,we reduced the backlog and therefore our output will be related closer to the number of incoming actions. This backlog reduction was achieved through staff overtime which is not the nom. A more reasonable future value assumed in this analysis is one-amendment-request-per-unit-per-month which amounts to 955 amendment requests per annum. This value is based on 81 operating units, corrected for number of amendment requests expected to involve a significant hazards consideration. As we know, the 81 units will be increasing as more plants come on line which would tend to increase the numbers of amendment:: per annum in the future. Based on the 4
experience of the first 11 months, it appears that an estimate of 35 staff hours is required to process a typical prenotice, not including actual publi-I cation in the Federal Register. This 35 staff hours estimate is considered by many staff members as a reasonable value and includes the efforts of management, project managers, technical staff, licensing assistants, lawyers and secretarial support. However, an estimate of 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> per prenotice is used to compute government budgeting costs based on $62.00 per hour. The 18 hour2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> figure considers only project manager and technical staff time since all other l
support is factored into the $62.00 per hour figure. A review of the Federal Regh. rs for the last five months revealed that an average of 31 pages i
appeared in these publications. The last five months of the reporting was selected to compute the average so as to diminish the effects of reducing the backlog. Using the values discussed above, the total professional staff years 4
(PSYE) that would be consumed and the total annual government budgetary cost 4
i for prenoticing amendment requests having no significant hazards considerations can be summarized as follows:
r
. Government PSYE Cost Per Annum NRR/0 ELD 18.6
$1,067,000 Federal Register Not available
$151,900 Publication (monthly)
$408./page Federal Register
$35,900 Publication (in-dividual)
Total 18.6
$1,254,800 When one applies the government cost during the initial period to the number of public responses, then each public response had a government cost burden of $209,000.
A review of the legislative history, the Congressional communications and the Office of Policy Evaluation showed no similar cost analysis was recorded.
i However, the review of the records does indicate that a preliminary cost analysis was prepared for the Casuissioners by the Executive Director for Operations (SECY 83-168, March 4, 1983). According to this analysis, the total estimated impact on the NRC would amount to about four to five PSYE.
The estimate in SECY 83-16B is low by a factor of 4 when compared with results of this review, which is based on actual experience to date.
Based on the above, the cost analysis derived from experience indicates that the initial estimated impact on the NRC prior to issuing the interim rule was grossly underestimated.
In addition there is no way that such government cost can be justified in the future based on the number of public responses received during the initial period.
Level of Reactor Plant Safety In the past, evaluations related to a NSHC were perfonned infonnally. Under 10 CFR 50.92, these evaluations require formal documentation involving manage-ment and legal reviews before the final product is published in the Federal Register. These reviews, during the developing of the fonnal documents, are time consuming, in that several iterations are generally required in order to resolve staff comments. Experience has shown that, during the developing period of the formal documentation, there was no enhancement in the safety level nor the technical aspect of a particular amendment request.
In some cases notices were republished when changes to the initial submittals were made (note; note-gram from J. Scinto to G. Lainas, F. Miraglia, T. Novak, March 26,1984).
Such changes are not the result of the formal detennination of a NSHC but evolve from the licensee, the staff, or a combination of both, when the amendment request is evaluated in detail. Such changes usually make the v
-er n,-
~
,-,,,-,_,nr r
0 amendment request more restrictive increasing the level of safety, while changes requested by the licensee tend to aid plant operation having no effect on the significant hazards detennination. This interchange between the NRC and the licensee during the evaluating period of an amendment request is necessary to achieve the highest possible level of plant safety without overly restricting plant operation. The existing "Shally" regulation is impeding this interchange which tends to reduce the level of plant safety.
Needless to say, this administrative burden in no way contributes to the primary mission of the staff, which is to assure that reactors are operated safely.
It does, however, detract from this primary mission in t
that prenoticing these amendment requests lengthens the process time by at least 60 days that would result in an increase of the NRR backlog activities in the future.
In addition, this burden is magnified for amendment requests involving major modifications to the technical specifications (i.e. Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications (RETS, Appendix I), containment purge etc).
Based on the above it can be concluded that the interim rule (10 CFR 50.92) is an impediment to increasing the level of plant safety.
Conclusions and Recomunendations The interim final rule as published on.. April 6,1983 could be issued as the final rule by December 31, 1984. The final rule would address public com-ments on the interim final rule and make changes to it.
In this context, I request that the content of this study be reviewed by the proper level manage-ment.
Experience of the past year has demonstrated that the provision of pre-noticing license amendment requests having NSHC involves considerctions that should be part of the evaluation of the interim final rule before it becomes final. These considerations involve government cost and staff effort as they relate to public responses, contributions to the safety level of operating plants and the impediment in processing amendment requests. These conditions result in a marked reduction in staff efficiency in maintaining a desired level of operating plant safety.
Based on these considerations the results of this study justify the following reconnendations:
1.
The regulation, 10 CFR 50.92, should be modified so that amend-ment requests for operating reactor and testing facilities having NSHC need not be prenoticed in the Federal Register.
2.
High level management should direct our legal department to implement a proposed modification of the interim rule that would eliminate the prenoticing of amendment requests having a NSHC.
3.
An activity schedule should be established so that the proposed rule change is completed during the public comment period with ample time to permit Connission deliberation before issuing the final rule.
Prepared by Dominic C. DiIanni May 21, 1984
h k
g
, me e
UNITED STATES -
g 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 pe3 i g
wasHimaTow.o.c.zosas h k pf
%)w L
January 31, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Commissioner Gilinsky Martin G. Malsch FROM:
Deputy General Counsel NRC STAFF INTERPRETATION OF 10 CFR 50.59 AS 1
SUBJECT:
APPLIED TO BWR PIPING SYSTEMS This responds to your January 18, 1984 memorandum requesting OGC's legal opinion on whether the staff is correctly interpreting 10 CFR 50.59 in dealing with replacements to BWR You specifically questioned an appa' rent proposal piping systems.
by staff to tell licensees that if their replacement programs are characterized by certain broad features, the repla' cements'will not be. regarded as involving "unreviewed safety questions" and,
~
can be carried out without prior NRC appro' val in the therefore, form of a license amendment.
The staff's. proposed guidance of December 14, 1983 can be read in a way that would impermissibly substitute an."overall safety margin" criterion for one of the unreviewed safety question criteria in 10 CFR 50.59 -- namely, whether "... the margin of-safety, as defined in the basis for any technical specification Section 50.59 provides that there is an unreviewed is reduced."
saf ty_ question for any change which involves a decrease in an
'ndividual'3afety margin as defined in the basis of any technical The' fact that "overall" safety margins are s'pecification.
unchanged would not necessarily be relevant under the terms of this particular criterion.
Whether staff's proposed guidance of December 14 would have led to an incorrect unreviewed safety question determination in any specific case can be determined only'by reference to language in the basis for the technical specifications for each plant.
If any of a plant's technical f
specifications is explicitly based upon the margin of safety for then it would be contrary to section some individual component, 50.59.to allow any plant change which decreases that margin of s-and the fact that the safety without a license amendment, "overall" margin of safety for the " system" was unchanged would Contacts:
Martin G. Malsch, OGC, 41465 Michael B. Blume, OGC, 41493 h
6P
?
a-a y
2
\\
)
[] s &
f
[
gJ w notaffectthisednclusion.1fWehavenotexaminedanyparticular
/
sets of technical specifications, so we cannot advise whether the December 14 guidance would actually have lead to incorrect conclusions by licensees.
In its January 18, 1984 revision to the proposed guidance, the staff has added a caveat which is intended to cure the problem with the originally proposed guidance.
The January 18, 1984 revision states that the staff guidance is based only on a
" generic" review, and requires licensees to review the specific characteristics and technical specifications of each plant before reaching any unreviewed safety question conclusions under the The language could, in our view, be further regulations.
improved by changing the language in the last bracketed paragraph of page 3 to read as follows:
1 Tradeoffs are not strictly permissible in applying the other two unreviewed safety question criteria of section 50.59.
There is an unreviewed safety question either if the change may increase the probability or consequences of an accide.nt or malfunction of equipment important to safety evaluated in the or if the change creates the possibility of some new
- FSAR, accident or malfunction.
An increase in the accident or malfunction probability for one piece of " equipment important to However, as safety" cannot be offset by a decrease in another.
explained below, there is considerable leeway in the section.
First, it may be consistent with section 50.59 to define For
" accident" or " malfunction" broadly without regard to cause.
(LOCA) broadly example, if one defines a loss of coolant accident without regard to cause, then an increase in LOCA probability because of reduced margins in strength of welds or supports could be offset by a decrease in LOCA probability because of the use of Such broad pipe materials less susceptible to cracking.
definitions also make it less likely that the criteria relating to new accidents would be tripped.
Second, these other criteria in section 50.59 do not relate specifically to safety margins.
Under these criteria one may offset decreases in nominal safety margins by increased conservatism in the use of data or analytical techniques so long as the " bottom line" estimated accident probability or malfunction probability is not increased.
Finally, the reference or base case to be used is not
~
This base case can arguably be either specified in the section.
the case described or implicit in the FSAR, or the actualThis is operating condition of the plant preceding the cha6ge.
discussed further in the text.
i 4
I 9
u_
.e
~....
. c. -.
4 3
The NRC staff has developed this guidance without incor-porating the results of any detailed review of a specific
- plant or specific plant technical specifications.
A detailed case-specific review could lead to a positive i
unreviewed safety question conclusion even though the general guidance provided above would suggest a negative conclusion.
A positive conclusion would be reached if, for example, the combination of FSAR codes and updated codes lesds to a reduced safety margin for some p?. ant structure, system or component, and this reduced margin i
either increases the possibilities or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety t
which was evaluated'in the FSAR, or created the possi-
-bility of some new accident or malfunction, or pertains to a margin of safety in the basis for any technical Thus each licensee must perform the specification.
specific, detailed review required by 10 CFR 50.59(a) (2) and in all cases the results of the detailed, case-specific review are controlling over the general guid-l ance provided in this enclosure.
We assume that in most cases there would be no conflict between the general guidance and a case-specific detailed review under section 50.59.
If there is any reason to believe that conflicts will be the rule rather than the exception, then the thrust of the guidance might be misleading.
Section 50.59 requires that the licensee make a determination 1
whether there are unreviewed safety questions before making any The rule does not require prior staff approval for any change.
If a change unless unreviewed safety questions are involved.
change does involve an unreviewed safety question, then the licensee may not proceed with the change absent staff approval in the form of a license amendment.
In this circumstance NRC may not all'ow the change to be made without.a license amendment on s until after the theory that no actual safety hazard is pregentMoreover, NRC is the plant goes into operation with the change.
not prevented by section 50.59 from taking enforcement action to In close cases it may be prevent unilateral licensee actions.
prudent for staff to review the licensee determination and discuss the matter with the licensee before the change is made in the plant or in plant procedures so that the disruption in 2In the TMI-l steam generator repair matter, staff If identified no " change" requiring a section 50.59 review.
there was no " change," and the technical specification requiring the license amendment pertained only to actual plant operation, then licensee was free to proceed with the repair prior to processing the amendment request absent staff enforcement action to halt the repair.
a
__m.-
4
=
licensee plans is minimized should staff disagreg with the licensee's determination.
The above discussion focuses on one of the three unreviewed safety question criteria in 10 CFR 50.59.
One further matter of interpretation has a direct bearing on the staff's proposed
.Section 50.59 also provides that a change involves an guidance.
unreviewed safety' question "if the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report [FSAR) may be increased."
This language in section 50.59 (a) (2) (i) is somewhat unclear whether the~ increase is to be determined with reference to the FSAR or with rgference to the situation that obtains at the time However, the focus of the regulation as a whole of the change.
is on changes in the plant "as described in the safety analysis report."
Since the reference case for determining the existence of a " change" is clearly the FSAR, it would seem anomalous to use a different reference case for assuming the significance of the
- change, i.e., for determining whether an unreviewed safety question is presented by the change.
This question of interpretation goes to the heart of the policy issue whether the Commission should read 10 CFR 50.59 in a way to facilitate the BWR piping changes proposed by licensees simply because they will make plants safer.
The interpretation which makes the FSAR the reference base tends to focus one away from the question whether the plants should be made safer tha:n they are, and toward the question whether the plants should be made as safe as we thought they were when we reviewed and approved the' J rSAR.
If we assume that the FSAR is the proper reference base for determining if the probability of an accident or malfunction is increased, the next question is how one determines this reference the FSAR includes no relevant quantita-base if, as we suspect, tive discussion of accident or malfunction probability or likeli-If one were to adopt the view that the FSAR hood of pipe cracks.
contemplated "some" piping cracks but not the extent or number of cracks that have been found to date, then under section 50.59 we are lef t with -the highly judgmental question of whether the plant containing changed piping presents a greater or lesser probability of accident or malfunction than the now hypothetical plant with "some" pipe cracks.
3This is because it is not clear whether the clause modifies "previously evaluated in the safety analysis report"
" probability of occurrence" or " accident."
5
. Chairman PalIadino cc:
Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal OPE
.SECY EDO ELD g
I l
l O
O e
4 6
--- - - - _ - _ -