ML20128F640

Provides Commission W/Progress Rept on Program & Informs of Staff Efforts for Developing General Framework & Specific Applications for performance-based Regulations

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 c

7 ~ ggg

~ w_N and for identifying and possibly eliminating unnecessary regulations.

I

1. y/ NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE I L{

g

, i IN 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE M ONTACT: Moni Dey, RES O #8 h

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

' 3 The Commissioners 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 l 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 1 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

Enclosures:

O[gg 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 t and providing discussion material for ggg l the public workshop. ACRS ASLBP SECY

. i Enclosure A Federal Register Notice Announcing NRC Program and Public Workshop t

f Y ')* s- Y "" -s 6' .. 'E . ',e 'l.f,f H '

M

- 'f ,, Q v Y.e\,i.'m*XR,; n ..m.. ~

a

. n?!? . ..

c7 d al RegletarN'No'l. 57.rNb.;.: . M.m$27.t[T$sda@Nuemb2r14.1992

• J Proposed Rules J .<.

536

. :120 L Street. NW, (tower Level). framework for a performance. based fonvory 27. 39J .

regulatory approach, and applications t Wa shington, DC. .

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.

Govemment Prir. ting Office. Post Office 10.30 a.m.-Coffee Break 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. '

Michael T. Lesar, Chief. Rules Review I ""'

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' Office of Admmistration, U.S. Nuclear Bethesda. A block of rooms has been reserved for this workshop until January Reqt _taents (Speakers) ,

Regulatory Commission. Washington. 4.1993. Mention Group No. 3922 when 2:15 p.m.-Requirements for DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-7758, making the reservation. Environmental Qualification of toll-free number (800) 368-%42. Dectrical Equipment (Speakers)

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 aus.o com m** Washington. DC. , . , ,

the NRC providmg introductory . a,it'h * .

Fon FunTHER INFonsdAN CoMTACT:

'. Dr.MoniDcy Office of Nuclear remarks, statemm. on the ob}ectives, of Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear the Worksk.yp, and a review of the 10 CFR Chapter 1 Y , . . , , . . . . .

Regulatory Commission. Washington DC Program inauding scope, schedules, and

$p e i t s R -

1. 20555, Phone (301) 492-3730. FAX (301)

NRC Program for F.lknination of Requirements Martitnal to Safety; 443-7804.

' '$[d s d

g g g ,

Public Woekahop suPPt2a8EMTARY INFonsAATioec . into the regulatory process.The Preliminary Aganda for Public .

. )3 -

AcrNev: Nuclear R gvlatory Workshop contmuationwill condude of this withgiven discussion, a; J he t

Commission. Workshop on NRC Program for AcTiow: Notice of Public Workshop. Dimination of Requirements Margmal to needs identified in the discussions of 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 '

regulatory burden, the NRC is be four topics for which there will be a Morning Session '

panel and general discussion. Panels, committed to reducing unnecessary 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 for prioritization and inters.a for @A ~

most beneficial towards its obje'ctiven modifying NRC rules for power reactors 10 a.m.-Coffe'e Break ' , Each panelist will be expected to ~

to reduce regulatory burden with 10:15 a.m.-Framework for a , , provide a presentation,of about to 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 .

considered.Te NRC encourages the 1t45 p.m.-Lunch '

specific topic.This will be followed by a -

public and the regulated industry to discussion among the panelists and attend this meeting and provide input Aftemoun Session - '

opportunity for members of the general for this NRC initiative. Although 12:45 p.m.-Containment Leakage , public attending the p'anel dis'cussion '

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 power reactors, materials licensees are General Discussion) each of the four topics approximately. l_.

one month prior to the Workshop,in , s

~

.also encouraged to attend and 2:45 p.;n.-Coffee Break' .'

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

, . ~ , ... .-

.u. . .. .

l 4 Federal ReR L 6tir /-Vol. 57. No. 223 / Tuesday, November 24,1992/ Proposed Rules 55157 views and experienus related to the (a) Containment structure leakage Special Review of F.xisting Regulations testmg procedures (10 CR 50, appendix by us Committee to Review Generic .

topic. 4 Requirements.De NRC sobcited pubhc T ne sessions on lanuary 27.1993. Il- .

(b) Fire protection features (10 CFR 50, comments (57 FR 6295L February 20 ,

[ includes five topics for which NRC 1992) and requested attendance at a

% sobcits speakare to provide a 5 to 10 appendix R). . . .

ic) Features for gest-accident public meeting (57 PR W65, March 23, e minute presentatron on their views and combustible gas control (10 CFR 50 44)

Th' 1992) to obtain and discuss issues for 5,'

1. • & b 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 7

q the bp' control system. program. since they did not fall within (b) Allowable mahtamentleakage the scope or atteria for the Special PNgistidion a In order to allow for app.ropriate rate utilized in coetainment testing-D. Analyze the potential for burden geyjew, 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 Reduce F y otory Durdec lanuary 15,1993,is encouraged. consistently au6gestedin the public

$* Panpective participants can preregister comments;

' * . . , , , .. . Several comment'is have '

'# mding thc following informstion to (a) Quality assurance enteria (10 CFp recommended that NRC develop a ,

k u 'act by mail or facsimile:l1) .

f/ hm . s) T6 tie,(3) Organiestbo. (4) part (b)50, appenAstal Environme Bbqu, 'ah.lication of prcpam and dedicate staff resources to 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' -

(d) Pust accBent umnHag system

([(t 1993, can be made by sendmg the above document (Issue C1). Some codsersters 1 information, requested for (NUREG-0737 and Regulatory Guide ggggg g ,

1 97)- -.

lf' p u--

Several commenters...fidthe outcome of this cvreent review procees wwld be to establish a system for a h, ;.facsimile sh.istraats,plusibe panel or topic, by mail or to the coatact by December 31 following title of two the alrea proposal for wha NRC e .ay periodic reeasessment of NRC

^

g'., 1992.Raquuta to be on a panel or speak act ns gg ,,,,,,;.

4 . will be processed on a first.come first' ' wi6 regard W particho and I"Iti".tive to eliminate requirements,'

marpnal to safety recoEntru the w '

g. served bests. (b) Permitlicensee adminhtered d ur' NRC Program forElmenation of recualification emnMmi underNRC dynamic nature of the regulatory N & -

2 o* e rsight.

process, ard thsd the importance and Requiremsats Marginal to Safety , .

safety contribution of some existing H Several areas su;;;esied in 'the public ,

& Smumary commentOave not been chosen at this regulatory requirements may not haw

• been accurately predicted when adopted time for action or analyses in the first O* *

% a culmination of several o$ts the NRC published a notice in years of three-year period due to resource or may diminish with time.Commentes tt pe of un e repew I 6 Fe leral Register on February 4.1992 constraints, but they appear to be lie {e t ng t

• U 7 FR 4166) rest.ntmg the results' Promising and are currently planned to t>e revisited as potential candidates for sufficient importance to effective .

i- s conclusions, and planned actions of its further analyses in the next three year regulation, by alming to appropriately -

• ,' 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 NRC regulatory process. ney strongly methodology t

-. . continuing effort to eliminate - items and wtIl attempt to encouragd NRC to contmue this staff.

q --v=P.4 hat-aremarsmaHo safety- g g3 g.oin the addressieferalinoriristaes preclude first- initiated the needA few program. to 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 the following actions for the first three- new areas for potentialimprovement.

.^ p,..

year period:

been suggested.These comments are 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 Federal Register notice,the NRC as those regulations that may be -

p prescriptive and more performance conducted a separate and expeditious imposing a significant burden while ,

% orientedc M

0-

, f .} '.

n ,

= .

. - - _ _ _ _ u

- ..... + a.a wn w .

,. 2 r

- Federal Register 1 Nol. 57 ' Nog / Tu6sday, Nov:mbe'r 14 199: / Proposed Rules t ' . 3_rst:* b 4 .55158 replaced with pe'rformance-based flowever, some commenters

• i~

having a small ufety significance.

Several suggestions were made requirements and supporting regulatory recommended that the NBC staff .

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 i

alternatives, and institutionalize a indicate their continued acceptability. inspection process. One corrtmenter ' '

Specifically, the NRC proposed to recomrnended limitingi performance.

continuing process by the end of 1993.

The planned continuing effort will amend the following regulations in order based approach to the nekgeneration - i 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 for decreasi"8 burden. 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. Power Appendix R ofi 50.40..

Plants, and to CFR ' 50,'

-a' Tire '

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 .

potential for burden reduction and FR 4180), the NRC noted that licensees Nuclear for improvedPower Plants,"

effectiveness as candidates by making * }

]S 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 ,

effort would be cost-beneficial overall:

indicated that probabilisticnsk % e camed over into the next period). - . * *>

11L Based on staff analyses, Publish . Derefore, prior to initiating a resource- a ssessment (PRA) resultrand NRC's*4 inten'sive program to modify these stated safety goal cdteria bboold be J 10 * '.

proposed NRC actions for public used in modifications to existing"G'^ '

r.cmmerit and solicit other suggestions regulationa, the NRC solicits comment from the public and industry. . . on effective ways to modify these regulations, and in the'devekpment of ~ .-

nis set of actions will be repeated in regulations and assurances that the future regulations.Some commenters-1 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 ".

Nuclear Management and R.esources . regulations. - ose* W ' e * -

and for determinmg NRC actions in . '

future periods,,g, m , , , c 3, _

Council.[NUMARC)) agreed with NRC s . Based on the very pos'itive feedback conclusion th'at certala regulations could in these comngents, tne NRC has . 1 Current Planned Staff Actions s . .

As a result of a rev,iew of p'ublic be improved in effectiyeness by -

decreasing their prescriptiveness.

initiated rulemaking 1o modtf I and ake 'm'. N-

eu pMphe, for decnastngMen -

comments receive'd, the NRC has Further NUMAR noted that, beyord the marsi nalimpact on safety, ee 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 Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior .

NRC ProposalTo Reduce Burden by tic and com llan' ce based ^

gPrescripttwness iSome { o one that isperforma~nce; - to Januaty 1;1979." He NRC's goal is to

] {[Dare Regula ons . - .

. oriented and risk based. Decreasing the publish three proposed rules by January'.

1994, and final rules by August 1995 In the Federal Register notice prescriptiveness of regulations wilj corresponda:q to the end of the first '

published on February 4.1992 (57 FR ' allow licensees to determine how to meet performance requirements, whidh period of the continuJng effort.He NRC.

, 4166), the NRC concluded that decreasing the prescriptiveness of some will stimulate self-initiative and overall. will use, as appropriate. PRA technology result in a positive impact on safety. and safety goals in the modification of regulations may improve their these rules, and plans to addreas issues effectiveness by providing flexibility to Furthermore, basing regulations on risk should help assure that unnecessary - related to inspection and ectorcement ..

licensees. By decessing the '

• raised in the public comments. The other prescriptiveness of some regulations and requirements will not be included and two suggested regulations, appendix B ,

providing more flexibility to the the effectiveness of regulations bcensees for implementing cost-effeetive increased.Dese initiatives should io 10 CFR part 50," Quality Assurance allow a focus on results more important Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,'l an;l' - .

safety features, the regulatory process i 50.49," Environmental Qualification of' may also be made more efficient. ' to safetyand more effective allocation l The detailed and prescriptive - of resources,1ndustry strongly s . Electric Equipment important toSafety ,

encouraged NRC in this regard and to for Nuclear power Plants" will be .

I technical requirements contained in these regulations could be removed and modify existmg regulation's accordingly, examined to determine if there wouhi

_ _..m

1 -

'l'. .. ..

~. ..

j- Fed:r:1 Register / Vol. 57,'No/227 7 Tuesday, November '24.'1992 /' Propose'd' Rules" / *.55159 4 "

,; potential significant benefit in modifying transition takes place to a more on safety in (his s'rea is appropriate for' performance-based approach to the exa'nination. In addition to the Tmdmgs those regulations, j NRC Proposal To Eliminate or Rela" regulatory process, to CFR part 50. of reexamination of requirements that address insider threat, presently under

( appendix B may warrant revision for Two Ucanae Con &uons consistency with performance. based way, the NRC plans to conduct further e examination of security requirements, j {e . 1. Eliminate main steam isolation regulations, and with new quality

. valve leak control system per Reg. concepts. Many a the industry have includmg estimates of cost savings with i

Guide 1.96," Design of Main Steam Isolation Valve Leakage Control noted the administrative burden rnultmg from the interpretation of marginal impact on safety by Febnaary; 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

a. Reactor (BWR) Owners Croup in warranted. !t is expected that specific years the systems will remain installed '

, 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, fts orgo

,C ne majority of comments received Several commenters, including h*b ry 99 p '

endorsed the NRC proposal and - -

• ffort' * -

- W *s

.' ' industry groups and blihtles, suggested L; indicated that the NRC and industry The NRC also plans to take that a less prescriptive approach in this of ong ing revisions to 10 CFR Pa~rts 50 a'dvantage .

E efforts already underway should regulation would allow licensees to

1. 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 - -

make important contributions to safety.

dU:",use of recalculated sourcerates, termsand to burden reductions in the following ,, . '

determine allowable leakage %e requirements of this regulation are

• , 'the resulting increase in allowable based on the deterministic design basis areas: (a) containment spray vs. filter..

" tradeoff;(b) increased containment . .; .

":-leakage rates, would mean a major accidents. Comments indicate that the valve closure times; and (c) decouplica ,

- results of PRAs demonstrate that most N' savings in station operating and . ~

of the cdmponents to which these. of operatirts basis earthquake arid usfe; shutdown e Arthqu'ake.

2

=

Y. maintenanca costs.

The NRC is expediting its efforts to requirements are applied have little or Other Proposed Actmas That Will Be:

y ' relax the allowable containment leakage no importance to plant safety and yet

_ *- rate ahead of the ongoing revisions to - these requirements add significantly to Deferred to the Next Period of the i

' regulations on reactor siting criteria in the cost of equipment and Ongoing Review -

, .- 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 l

- commented that, given the industry 1. Modification of the' req'uirements in 1

- @y ; remaining have notitems beenwillchosen be carned forover analysis.The into experience of the last decade and the 10 CFR 21,

• Reporting of Defects and I

& recent imposition of more stringent Noncompliance," particularly 'with '

.M.' the1.next Modifyperiod and are inhated the requirements to CFRlater). 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 w Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and be reduced with a marginalimpact on 2. Modification of the re,quiremenfs in j

' .;y't ' Fuel Reprocessing Plants " to be safety.ne potential of security -

10 CFR 72. subpart H. " Physical' '  ; ' l S. consistent Mth performance. based . measures for hindering recovery actions Protection-l.icerding Requiremerits for

.. k[. regulations.  ;

' ) ,1 Several commenters industry groups during accidenta or emergencies should be considered and perhaps may also the Independent Storage of Sperit

• Nuclear Fuel and High-l.evel. M. . "

b.pb and utilities, suggested a need for alead to some ' safety improvements.- Radioactive Waste," 'N"'

@.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

i

.e-. ,- pj.gayrptusp4 sept-*~

,55160-

" Federal Register / Wol. U. hoc 227,NTimmeda(y.rNddr.2W2hpoeN% M UX _ l beheves such eflotta are important Io its inch.ded pubhc invitations (57 IT, a29e.

. changee to be performed on a certified February 24. W. nd. 577R eles.MartA 23.

% mission and the industry 11 regulates.

' ,j

. pl.antYcLfic altnulator; - -- - -

1992) to submit wrtuen commer.ts b weR er 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 '

of Nomnber tool frequency of annualrequabfication .

examinat)ons and performance of For h Nec&eer Replatery Cosanssabon. comments submitted tothe CRCR tiid not " ,

b meet the tnieria for octan =mh6m the oper.ai '

annual audits of security plan and Erk S. BecMerd, 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 of the ASME Code editions and G e eralleeve, added by those issues earlier 6dentded by addenda into I $035a within 00 days of C1 Continuing Examinetton of NRC the CRGR.The comments are separetely

{ identified eccordmg to the besie for their their publication. R hone

7. Endorse the use of a graded submission.

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 issues below bat are summertsed in the Actice luuse w pressure acceptance criteria, fonowmg peregraphs,

9. Diminate the requirement for dose A1. Fire Protection The Nedear Management med Resourcea At Containment Isak Taung Rulmaking CouncilINUMARCl.8.tha Nudeat Uuhty i calculations of secondan side accidents A3. Combust!hle Ces Control System 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 Dectric illumina ttng. T11 Ecctric, and ,'

protection of plant structures against As. Allowebte Containment trek *te Rates Richard S. Barkley recommended enruinarkn .

turbine missiles and tomados. Ae. Done Usmies for Hot Porticles

.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 -

i elim'mate those that are duplicative or StudJteoues ' . ' ' . .' .&. . <

7. . .

Power recoaunended moodificathus el the ' ' .

unnecessary. St. . Performance-Basad Quality Assurance . frequency re9mresnents for many of ehe c .

l

12. Reduce regulatory attention in S2. ' Environmental Qu!itcation of Dectnc reports required by the NRC. neee seeses . ' ;j future staff review of inservice Equtprnent .~ .' . will be addmued in b wastic med

, f inspection and testing programs. S3 p,y,5 cal pwiec, ion for%,er Resetoes S4. PeeFAedded Seevitog Systm pn.,,, cior, p g undertaken by the NRC. .'.

'% .l

' 13. Diminate dtiplication of .

' 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. ) '

-15. Diminate unnecessary oath, , Spent Feel Siorese Instanations *y f y , ,,"^o Q N ",,thred mid d l

affirmation and certification . ., D3. Tracking and Documentmg Operator for LIRs shodd not be lowered as pmnded requirements. Control Manipulations. in Dratt Revwon 1 to NUREG-222.8.The I

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 '

) De NRC has adopted as a Requirements .,

i l D12. Inseestce inspection and inservice  :

l fundamental principle that all regulatory Tesang Requimments

• NW Anc ie un w,enes. con of % o.c+,.er burdens must be justified and bhat its Po*** md=8'r7 that is enperetAe for coordessims

. D13. Duphoetion af Regasrements . C8 d 'Ua"8 0f *ll *bbins licensed W the i regulatory process must be e77icient;ge D14. Matmal Status Reports "a*c r a"*co'"n* sine w opn.w nuckm po.n pt.eis m 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 8 NUBARC cres.sts of 22 nee 6eet et!htses. each of Closed lesene +

modify regulations where burdens are "

not commensurate with their safety C1. Sholly Amendment Requirements C2. Additional 1M1.Related Requirements Ng{3,],]QyQy,,, [7 l 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 Pnaunsothem.Paman snis, wuhiwon. oc acomoet c pme an.W o tie been pursuing programs consistent wig . ro - a 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 .-

Requitecnents {CRCR) ne special review tiown Lenti, w uhimsion.Dc.

into its regulatory process.The NRC l i

O r

y

, , ., m . . , . - zr y ., .

~

'. .w7 7 q m -- '

e l'. . - I Fedcraf Regist: P / Vol. 5/, 'No/ 22*/'l iTsie,sda'y? November 24,1992' /sProposSd Rulef - Mc551Bil i ' '

~

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 survey of matenals hcensees. ' actions nlated to the fitnen for duty rule, that no action should be taken b'eyond that ^

averted onalte costs;indwidual plant flonda Power. Virgmia Power and Duke 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.

that the current redatory guidance is

• Cleveland Electric 111uminatmg recommended Table 1.

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 2 Nucsear Caroosogy Systems. Inc..

~

'- - Gre@en S Wheeer 3 Amaran Anaxwon for Nuc6w Ca'dio6on inc. - - Owws:61 Rose a Fionaa Power Corp. O L Dohit '

5 See.

. .a. Orntrus Teun.an .

E. hen Diamond Consen s.eeney kear Gr* tat . .

John Doe ;i ,

6 Sea ,

.*. 7, %cseer Utegy Wanagenent and Resomeo Couned '

Weham Rasm . . ,

s.sec .

Roherd BaMey'

9. Cm 4. Emsori Maron Jackmort Nectioies Reynolds C

10. Mxseer Utsdy Beckfmmg and Reorm Gro@ (Wnston arW! SeawN ' '4

.e, -

- - - " oe,uw swnger, w;ia m nonn 8 t. Tww.sene veney Autnoney  :. . W.J Binyro6a ' 6 - g

.J w.G Gews.. 4 -

• Q .12. Omera Pwac Power Detrrt. +

- 13. New Yora Power Autnonty ResphBeees.. %' e' W

10 Oruo Otirers tar Responent4e Energy ' 4. S nan teatt . . 6 s 15. OPU Ncseer + James AnbimL . t

. 16.TU Osc1rc Weem Caha, .k .

Rott.rt Bens fy.

/b 17. BWA Owner's Grouo Jf.OpenA . '

I jm 18. Pertheast Utanea. --

Wanam Stewa4

. 19 Vrgrua Power "l

20. Yarmee Atome E*ectnc Cornpany . a.

DW Edwaros P

,. [ **

.. 21. mnois Departwent of Ncsear Sate % . Thomas Ortcsger Hat Tucaer 1-  ;

- 22. Des Po=w. - i

- m 23 Qevenend Doctne aumnaung . Mermi 0. Lyete. * '

James Fiscaro.

37 N; Einergy Operatior=

s.- NRC Staff.Make regulatory review for the issues are Category III. A tiirie traine for b; . Generallaeues

'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 program of reviewing and evaluahng current should anelop regulabons to require' Contmuing Examinanon of NRC

. 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 usefulness.These reviews should be Develop a program for ongoms review and Yar1ee Atomic and NUMARC: The NRC c nducted every 2 years.

l de6cate NRC staff resources to a continuing should move toward non-prescriptive and

examination of NRC regulations to reduce or performance-based requirements; Summary of Comments in Response to e Febmary W2 N y3 chm {nate unnecenary. burdensome.- Surmary~of Comments Received at March '

nquanments.. 27.1992 Pubuc Meetmg ' NUBARG: ne importance and safety

<. ,b,. iJ, Summary of Comments in ResponseDR1N to M EPRI supports the contribution of some current regulatory *

.s;, ~ February 2.4.1992 N - - .. regulatory review process. and our comnients requirements may not have been accurately

n. . Yankee Atomic: Recently, the staff focus on that process.We have two pre &cted when adopted or may have

[.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

, safety because the staff". .margmal beheve{d)tothat 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

" sunset" review as a new paragraph (f)in the f- (SECY.et-224. dated August 2fL 1991. 1.The CRCR should focus attention on

• 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 2. nere are some by the February regulations that can 4,1992 be Federal his designee shall review existmg regulatory modified or eliminated because they are requirements on a perio6e basis. not to f r s Register Notice. It would indeed be tragic if 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.'

• qvant ..

. g ::q v . .r.

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 Dectnc illummating, TU Dectric. Yankee security, or for which the direct and indirect with the review of regulatloaa and set costs of unplernentation are not justified in .

Atocus Doctnc, Connecticut Yankee Alonuc m

view of this bensfiL Pubbc. comment abell be dudhnes for cornpletmg the teview. Power, and Northeut buclear Energy ithe sobcited en part of this review.De Executive Recommends thatalallar renews take place Director for Operations shall report to the on a renodac basis, s4. enry five years. ne letter two with Northeast Utilitses) endorsed '

t the NUBARG eaaneents. ...

' Commission on the results of this revicw and NRC conalden cosa and s6afety benefitsMonda Powenhe rgstator y burden befom usuing many egulations.in practice.

on any changes recommended in the 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.

estimated.Samehmes regulations overlap. g Ohio Catzuns for Responsible Er ergy.he Dectnc tila:nmatmg.nl Dectnc. Yankee ,

. Atomic Dectnc. Connecticut Yankee Alonac Other timea,combineLions of regalrements . only bans for ehmmsung or relaxing regulatory requirements is cornpetmg risk.

Power, and Northeut Nuclear Energy (the may result in confheting requirements or 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 e:ost on a systematic and penodic basis' but should close plants that cannot meet constant effort on the part of both the NRC Yankee Atomic Dectric:De lack of current safety requirements and cease plans and the endustry to identify and ehminate resolve to change established practices - for building new plants.

marginal safety requirements,ne reduction 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

. actively parncipated in the work to resolve ufety prog-am bemmes another esemple of reevaluate its requirements and its inspection three of the erwnnel 45 6ssues identified in the e paper study without results. and enforcement practices to make them 1988 report. NUREC/CR4330. and notes that Disposition, * .

more effective and require beensees to

• they are not yrt resolved it should be noted reestebhat6 the oefety besse for contarved

• De NRC has ~enineted a program for that the extensive tirne and resources operation.

required to support such efforts together with burdersome or eliminole ongoms tenew of NRC eequirements that regulanons to reduce Duke Power: Any eequir-w thatla j s significant uncertainty cancerning their maripnal to safety and *=f==a an . -

- outcome can serve to d scourage the

, are margmal to safety. Regulatory . i i

requirements Ior " adequate protection" do 6denthble burdenabould be removed.

A inineLion of okt sim.lar efforts. not fall within the scope of this prograrn.The . Yankee Atanac E)ectne NRC samst vmse c

Florida Power;it 6s feasible for the NRC 4u thwhold (av _ _ W ecomesnietarden

. - NRC will reduce or rieta esquaraments ata!! to considertarrty reduchon nr to be any at all W the sourm of that burden*

ehmmation c( nertato esistmg requArements, :ht result in a margmalincrease m safety - has httle or no safety benefit. "t many of which have a su!Gcwns technacal beyond the level for "edegnete pftnectm."

. end ate .aQ bis;wme. Cleveland DectHc D1uminating/Be '

+ besie already wen estabbshed so that ,

marginal to safety study abonid maander the

.L eutensive further research and evshionan is , regulatory requirements that are esoposed by not required.

~

! Criteria for Marginal to Safety - Generic btten.This category of

' Cleveland Dectric &minating: An ongoing '

effort on behalf of bothindust and the NRC Proposed W ah cornmumcate or hevocast be

"' 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 February 24.1992 FRN ~

the staff imp 6ements new criteria, and are be the contmustKm of a review process and ,

not just the conclusion of a program that was . El Dectric Change the focus on the used to direct bcenses actJvtties.

February 4,1902 Faderal Regrster request for BWR Owners Group; Other mecheniasme begun in 1964 and documented m NUREC/

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 1

D C. Circuit Court of Appeels held (CSC N heensee v. ' to operate more efficiently. ruults,Dese mechanisms can be e!!ective q NRC) that review of reguletory requirements Yamkee Atomic NRC's rationale for with edequate participation and

receptiveness to change by both h industry for " adequate protecnon5cannot consider decidmg on regulatory changes based on 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 s achon as latended on poolewA*nt samphng De NRC will consider all requirements should be abandoned. that are margmal to ufety for etaumaton or

] Connecncut Yankee and Northeast Nudea' system requirements "the costs of instalbng t

{the systems) have already been expended." reduction, however, requirements impoemg Energy: The NRC is encouraged to contmue 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 efforts to review the regulations. We believe all wibut cost for h mary years the 188v' C1 .

I i the effort produced worthwhile conclusions system will remam installed.ne retmnale j for removal of a requirement ecght to be that Non-Presenptive Regulations

• and resulta- 3 i Cynthis Truman et ala The NRC should not any requirement that is margmal to ufety op sed AcW 9 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.

anould close plants t'het cannot meet current mns ta la Response to includma the developmerit of performaw:e- 4, f-t safety requirements and orase plans lo, buildmg new plants.

[ based regulanons wherv omropnete.

5, NUIIARC:The gractmg of multiple ggrmg

< ., John Doe: Commercial audear power is not exemption requests for the same or related an area where regulations can be related or in the February 4.1992 Federal Ragister

regulations is certamly indacative of notica. NRC mncluded that decreasmg the i sigtlance d minished The NRC should 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 - alternative umana,and may todule that the improve their e&caveneas by providing j

)' more effective and require hcanaces to reestabhah the safety basis for cantmued provisions aripose specafic requirements that flexibihty to lansees without redemg safety. and proposed such modificatione to could be ehminated or made more flexible.

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 heenseen. plant deep basis. and og potentwi number -

A3). -3 ..-~ .

of alternative approachu that might be Summary of Comments in Response to .GPU Ndear: When eesuladons are 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.

ny regulations cnete - oa e pmp asfto np Determining a ashafectory safety basis is a burdens'that are not commensurate with their safety sigmficance because of their ~ hmenpute requirements wnh perfwmance-"subjecove judgment "'*

• that as more easdy 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 ""*" ** "8 'h*"' # PP""""'4 Register notice (Conclusion C) notes that P 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 ou redu ng *** N '

presenpuyenessNe spee with tbts Although a performancebased approech safetWmby enaung e e dfm ** "" * *** 8*** h "

• I conclusion. and beheve other replations proccu. We share the staffe uncertainty beyond those specincaHy cited m the standard deogm plants, H 6s onashofactory fx whetherlansees would take advantage of February 4.19trl' Faderal Register not ce increased GexJbihty, at lasst to the extent * ** "8 P *- A should be reviewed in this rescrd. Beyond the that a better onderstanding of specific Northeast Utibties: Recogmains thet the spadfic luue of prescrtptiveness, further - NRC program is likely to be a resource-benef to to safety and reducbons of borden gy,,g g% g g g g intensive process for the NRC, NU would Lke could be accomplished by ahtitmg to a . uke se deem We are cena% to emphasite that we would certaudy take t Pu be r further.

. pbdonophy of performance 4ased regulatiorg QIlh g orse the - advantage of the mults of this effort and the We recomme stus envolves e eqinificant . 'BWR Owners Group commta. flexiollity offered by less preaciptrve 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 op uru y nge the marry candidate regulations, we 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 . irDplementabon of this program wiD yield comphance based a one that la based shc91d be effected in a gradual and Dexible unanner.Often the stnct adherence to signincant overall benefits to both the NRC performance-based and results onented - 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 what the regulation itself appears to require. change to performance-based regulabons make km W WW aM m 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 to rewrite the seismic requirements would New York Power Authonty: Greater use l Sumreary of Comments in Response to retam the detallin an appendit and thus should be made of PRA. i.e, place the basis February 4,199:FRN of regulation more on nsk considerations.

perpetuate this malady.

[*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. ongmal decisions. % here appropriate mitaanve and overall result in a positive Chapter I regulations and details of comPhance bems within regulatory guides for probabilistic nsk assessment insights abould

- irnpact on safety. It will allow a focus on flexibihty. Not all existing rules are amenable be utihzed to aid in identdymg requirements resulu more important to safety and more which add little to safety.The NRC's Safety effective allocation of resources. to this transformation. Some caution should Goal acceptance cnteria should be used in Performance based regulabons will provid, be given to circamatance like 10 CFR 50.73.

where the details are within a NUREC which this review. Ur.necessary requirements objective, rather than subjective, regulatory should be eliminated and, where costs are requirements and help resolve the related is in significant debate.The rule must be .

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 performance 4aaed approach Io regulations - apphcation by the NRC Regional Offices. ne discnmmation of requirements is not good.

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

i 1

1

.j" 7 >~e , N - n .p y gig $rggy- ,

y

i. y

>- a y ;, .

w - - -~ ~

i

%C'M@g&iMMo1MWoQype@,Weintier 24, O9: / Proposed'Rtdes "

' estabbehing'or rveraluating any adequate ' Issue M ,

-_SunimaWof C%mnGritIIGeTived'ai Maicfi'** * * ~ * "

• protecijpn standard. Fire pursuant Protection (10 to CTP the 50 Appenda R1 '

August '

'C'NO" OI the D.C, Circuit Court of r,1992 Pubhc Meetmg **'d th'e pro

'I

[obilo -

Appeals, thnon of Concerned Scientists

' Robert Ncciardo. Retecte 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 1rn is could provide a useful toolin the esatuation Appendia R of to CTV 50 specifies fire 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 BWR Owners Group A singie technique. be it 1.Estabbshment of a fire protection resh tic meaning when they are calculated determmisuci perfocmance-based. or progra m.

oser a long period of time and then divided l probabikstic, may cot be appropnate for all 2 Performance of a fire batards ana!> sis. t by a time frame to yield nsk per a specrfic 3 Estabbshment of hre presention features  !

time period or event, Plant safety features regulations gained and Expenence appbed to esaluate abould contmue to be for those areas containmg or presenting which a

cannot be modified based on a PRA. ,

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 i l'ebruary 4.1992 FRN evolvmg requirements; however, the 4 Alte'rnatne or dedicated safe shutdre JWBARC: The NRC should pros rde for the substant al uncertatnty as to how the safety capabihty in areas where fire protection use of Probabihstic Risk Assessmentso - goals should and wsil be implemented features cannot ensure safe shutdown ind admg the individual Mant Examinat ons un in capabthty.

ior internal and esternal events. to assess 8 Y 4ua Clev nd Jectnc In addition to these requirements. vanous 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 + ; 2 .- appendis R have been fisued Thesc be the sole basis for regulatory decis;ons due implementation documents include Inc 4 Yankee AtomicElectne Giveis the. 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-the results indicate that a particular . . ' ' ergulatoryimprovement hes in the adoption 01; GL BS-ity CL 66-10) and three informahon j

~,

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 ~

be estabbahed between the current body of For those plants opeestmg pnor to Januar) thresholds. the pRA informaton should be 1.19'9. these trnplementation Fuidance

/ cxmsidered sufLcient to lustify chminauon of regulations and the safety goals documents use of PR Affhe track eecord with regard to through the served as the basis for bcensing -

i the requirement as mergmal to safer). reviews for fire protection and subsequent

• actual use of nsk analysis is not good. The NUMARC: Strongly encourages NRC to safety esaluauon reports For those plants failed pilot attempt at a risk-based 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.

• current and future regulations for cbcsistenc) artother attempi at rule language Standard Rme* Plan (SRPl 9 F1 (formerly 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 docketed aber luiy 1.19'ti and appendts A to a more performance based reguiatory - snalysis and indmdual site IPE * -

emanunations. Safety goals should remain as ' DTP 9.k1 apphes to plants whose philosophyDe Tennessee Vaticy Authentb .appbcations for construct on permits were "targeta" by which the NRC should aspire.

New York Power Authont>.TU Dectnc- docketed pnor to July 1.1976 With few

• Y ankee Atomic Dectnc, Connecticut innke but recognize that the tools for analyzing eaceptions. SRP 9 b1 and appendis A to BTP I

Atomic Power, and Northeast Nuclear Energy facihties are not mature Sqnificant 9 51 contain the same information f ound in ~

uncertamties exist in the methodologies and (the latter two with Northeast Utdities) and assumptions which prevent direct appendinR. #

the BWR Owners Group endorsed the Appendia R has been implemented at all compansons of results, but do allow relatne currently operstmg nuclear power plants NUMARC comments companoons of nsk Apphcahon of real Omaha Pubhc power Distnct PRA Tbs implementation may have taken the numenc safety gosh would of necessity be provides a powerf ul tool for assessing form of backfits to operatang plants. a regulatory ruuirements and their impact on limited initially to those areas or systems of determination that applicant plants meet the I

the most knowledge with the fewest pubbc safety, and is a tool recesssT) for vanables, and the highest confidence the requirements of IrrP 9 bt. or eneroptions to implementmg the proposed non-prescriptne the specific requirements based on

' results are reshstic and repeatable. alternative approaches which achieve the regulations.

New York Power Authonty: Recommends llhnois Dept. of Nuclear Safety Modifications to estating. and development of requisite level of safety.-

that greater use be enade of probabihstic ' Summary of Comments in Response to safety assessments.i e., place the basis of future. regulations shotdd be es aluated $'

alta nst plant. specific probabilrstic risk February 24.1992 FRN regulation rnore on nsk considerations than '

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 option. reducing its costs and makmg the- effectiveness by decreasing their The NRC plans to utihre us Safety Goals presenptiveness Pnenty (sequence and mdustry's collective decisions more and PRA tools, to the extent deemed +,]

technically correct' schedulesi to address NRC proposal should  ?

Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy-in its appropnate. in the development of be determ ned based on input and *

70. perfoernance-based tegulations, and in the discussibns at the planned March r pubhc December itL 1991. letter on SECY et-: -

m1

" Interim Guidance of Staff implementation of reeiew and developrnent ' of regulations meeting the Commisston's Safety Goal Pohey." the Actma

- f hsm . -

• ' CPU Nuclear Replace append;s R with a  %

ACRS stated that the safety goalis

.- performance-based rule and a regulato y ' f TM NRC pla'ns to execute the following 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

. (hre) ocbedule. -- . . reference into appendix l with modif, cations containtnent leakape testmg requerements 4

sommery of Comments in Rwponse 1o and enwpbona. Appeadta j providea test with perforrpancetased reqv6tementa with Februery 4.190* FRN .

IN9"eno**. Pmtest mquimments. test reguleiory guidance.

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

. nTankee'AtonWe Elech Appendix R 6s a . . ocuk

,- .for N wntnil of hydrogenJMng a

.hrshly preetsiptive regoletion which tenposes CPU Nocl5er Corpa Replace conte 6 ament rnethod and basis for calculatmg the amount -

l specific fire protection niceourn. Risk from ' testat nquimosntsin appendix ) with a of hydrogen generated af ter a loss-of<nolent 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 r

IPEEE. ne body of PRA resetts should show Detroit Maon: The oppendix ] requirement summary of these requirements is es folkms.

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 l piece m the contamment or that the plant the ut bry. However. mopection efforts could determmatacsi following raaintenance is

! 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 I Ln inspection anonuals. Sammary of Com ments in Response to demonstrated, the atmosphere maade the g February 4.1992 FRN i

contamment must be made inert. . [

NUMARC: We encourage the NRC to move 3. High pomt vents must be provided for l l Contairuneet Isak Testing Rulemaking ahead with this activity. ne Tennessee the reactor coolant system, the reactor vasel Proposed actron (s)- Valley Authority. New York Power Authority.

• head, and other systems required to raaintain l

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. l Group endorsed the NUMARC comments. coolant accidents.

Backpound. I

, BWR Owners Group: While changes to Section 50 44 also requires equignent 10 CFR 50 appendix l requires different l append!x j proposed by the NRC steIIlate necessary for safe shutdown and L 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 contamment penetrations is required at appenda j would have been resolved at this effectively precludes combusteonof any l hydrogen generated.

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

W yvA,s d' Q. . ,

W;r< . %. m$.y ,,;.;.'?*/  % gT .y W.l@iC'

- . ' n.

y ,

• e

1. pdshteResi,fM/ wdf er;%f-2r@TueediyP Nov' mber:24: 1W2 V Proposhi. Rules

. containment leakage rates are appropriate. f

-**wegulaNon could be improved in effectiveness ' Summary of Commenu in ~* Response - to- e The Tennence Valley Authonty. New York a

' February 4.19C FRN + Nwdum nty.W Dectnc.Yankn Atomic 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 Conclusion D to ehminate or relax

~

FTC 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 the BWR Owners Group comments.

forward with this actidt),ne Tennessee Dectnc. Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power. Commonwealth Edison. Allowed Valley Authonty, New York Power Authonty, and Northeast Nuclear Energy (the la'tter two containment leakaFe estes should be ba6ed I

.TU Dectnc. Yank ee Atomic Dectric. ' with Northeast Utilities) and the BWR upon pest. accident off-site dose rates It is Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power. and Owners Group endorsed the NUMARC necther necessary r or advisable to maintain Nonheast Nuclear Energy (the latter two wath comments. ,

Richard S Barkley: Delete the requirement the towat leek rates practical. as this is of Northeast Utthties) and the BWR Owners - margmal safety benefit and da erts

< Group endorsed the NUMARC comments on the grounds that the NRC Staff had Oc aha Pubhc Power Distnet: Concurs Wh already found this to be appropriate. li would sigmficant resources from other safety haie the cJeer benefit of reducing plant activthes. Sufficient technical basis now l the NRC conclusion that decreasms the '

eusts to use the recalculated source tenns of prescrgtiveness of some regulauens may complexity, o .

CPU Nuclear: Supports the ehminat on of NUREG-1150 to determme the allowable improve their effectiveness by providms 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 '

safe t y. . . . . . , ,

~. -

Noted that the regulatory analysis for savinga in station operating and snatntenance '.

GPU Nuclear: We concur with the . . . Genenc issue C-4. "MSlV leakage and LES costs. .. .

seplacement of the cletailed and presenpetve Failure". stated that bcensees.are expected to Omaha Pubhe' Power Distnct. An'incresie combustible gas controtrequarements wah . 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. - . . * '

2  ; regulatory guidance. , '

11bnois Dept.of Nuclear Safety:1s reluctant tests and allow more Ilealbility in . . *

i. .

to endorse the ekaunation of MSfV leakage - management of the Type B and C leakage test

.Jssuc h - .u a. ,

results.nis would reduce the emerpnt

. . Mam Stearnieetation Valve LeakageControl control systema until the supportmg reports

+, .t - and analyses are made available for pubhc outage repair work and result in cost savmps.

System . .. .- - . . - w. IDNS beheven it is inappropriate to The current presenptive regulation of -

e "

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 Issue A5:

i System. '-7 ^! -. k . - leak rate is warranted.

l

Background:

General Design Cnterion 54 M wa C' ontam' n"t leakage Rates Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy.

• "' Piping Systems Penetratmp Contamment.

l - 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 beheve that sufficient basis exists for

, radioactive matenal from MSIVs as contnbunons to risk stem from accidents m, . 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.

i contnbution to off-site doses following 4- substantial , y Entergy Operations Inr:reasing the hmits in '

' large break LDCA- this regulation could save entical path time l

Summary cf Comments in Response to I

A detailed review of the matter (NUREC/ darmg outages and would not mske an 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

' LES would not be justified as a backfit.The these efforts should proceed towards /tsue A&

~

review of the MSIV LCStequirements is a resolution in an'espeditious fashton. Dose Limits for Hot Particles (to CR'20) 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'n ts.in Response lo contatnment leaksye requirements. ' .

February 24,1992 FRN ~ Background. In the 1980s. nuclea r power i

Detroit Edison: Resolution of these issues - reactor beensees expertenced skin . ..

NUMAliC: NRC and in'dustry efforts are should proceed expediti,ously< . . ,.

i ~- . contamination incidents associated with - .

r .

already underway to resolee this issue and - Summ'ary of Comments in Re,sponse,to . personnel exposures to " hot particles? Dese j 3 .tnese ef! orts should proceed towards February 4.,1992fRN , very small45-250 pm) particles of fuel or - -

jf -

resolution in an expediuous fashson.

CPU Nuclear: Reduce the MS!V leakage

,. ./ s , ,

NUMARC:he actions identified in. v. activated cormion products have been * -- -

l discovered in reactor facilfuescon workewor

• requiiements based on the resuhe of the~BWR Concluston tyFRN relax requirements associated 2/4/92) wtthtowehminate - or . . their clothing. and. In a few isolated cases.

i Owner's Group Topical Report in 1992.-

l *

\ ,

i -- -- - - - - ~ . , _ , _ , , _ _ _ __

. g =P c., . .

I'ed:rd Register / Vol $7. No.'227'/ Tuesday. November 24. 1992 / Proposed RohI '\

551h/I 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- .8 MsPMH wH MW in 1 Umitation in the Skin in a future rulemaking Part by the NRC staff shhough the positions  :

to set lunits for skir. irradiation. 1888' di .

were dogumented and well founded. CE3 has 1 Request for Information (10 CFR 50.54(f)) taken a 10 CR 50.100 *Backfit" position. This . j Summary of Coirunents in Response 1o

' February 24.198217.N

• Proposed Action (s):To specify critma for . N" NUMARC: he ebeence of a dose hrnit for requests for information under i 50.54(f). for

' "8

• F ' 'I I

, hotparticle exposures requires recordmg and example, by addeg the following new third and fourth sentences: Where the infonnation noted by to CFR 50100- V I*

reporting these " technical" overeuposures, ' ' 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 radiation workers from hot parts:le Power plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants'"

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 NRC requirements for Quehty Assurance. It determine whether or not the hcense should Operator Requahfication Examm.ations be modMed, suspended, or revoked. Except *88 inillaUy pubhahed in 1971 and hae not 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 staff of the NRC. Standards and practicea NUMARC: The NRC's role in the sauance Ithe nquat.** -

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__

ps Federal Regist / Vol. 57. No. 227 / -Tuesday, November 24,1992/ Proposed Rulte Sueunary of Coeveente Recetved at Mard owere riot only of the adnunatretive burden a Summary of Comments in Respor.se ta nouhing from the interpretahoo of Appendam 27.19s2 Public Meehng.

February 24.11m FRN en H NUMARC: Appendia B to brt 50 needs to "{"y,"gy ta but oj e e NUMARC (W. Rosin) ne enemmmental 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 quahty concepts such asregulauons total quebry 8 and with new yrs a kw

' r a BrtoAp Part 60 despite tremendous cost wtth imle reduction 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 Pnriciple of defense in depth Howevet. the NRC tnspectors Appendix B is a lorteel have teu,1ted in a cumbersome emerdse in cerididete fee memdersten n e equtremcet w W Wi% d WM deu k un low, and the focus on these ec.:adeau resuha CI **'8**I **I"Y #F"' issue S2: in wasted e!! orts and coeu More attenuoo -

NRC Start One NHC ete!! comment should be yvon to credible accident

^ I EnvironmentalQuah6caban of Electric QPg r unre ents hout mot D scananos,la naponse to addibonal reducsos prow oe cf puMac beelth and questsons. Mr. Ramaa stated that PRAa can be Propaned Acuan(sk Modify the -

,, g raments in to CFR Sa48. "Lainnmental used to determine the edstyve solety Summary d Cmawsu Baccind aWerd reqw%cahon Qua of Electnc Equipment bmportant signtficanoe el-v===ete erithout relyms strongly on (widely vanacle) numben.

2t test % Medag to Safety" to be less prescriptave. NUBARG (Bdl Hana, f%===*4 Supported Background Pureuant to 10 CTR M49, NUMARC (Whom Roemt he cment Mr.Raeta's espertaan pounts Othee appreech to quanty sesurance n a paperwork bcensus or appbcante must have a rulemahAng for quehtying electric equipment importsat to program scarvees aneld else have sa 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 ,,g ,,,,,, ,, ,,

been esec derwhere, taciudmg overmana %e includes (1) Sefety releted electric equiptnent TQM coasspt pleeve the reopensibdity for (2) non safety.related electric equipment whose fedure under postuleted Rdsart M W gN,,4

. gg g ,,, ,,,,,g fomd ,

quahry en the workere respane bie lor the gg wod. A TQM pngma focosee es end reenha enviromaneetal condataans could prevest,g g,

g'""gDC *""gY'" ' g '"

and measures semana.'IQW as am emneip;e of satisfactor) occoinplishment of safety 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., . oceaptable denen La dotarmoed. PRA can reto of Appendia B equipment are no

• Homsdtry.

ddterent then the performance and fadure them be used to duermine the edatm esiHy setes of nomAppenda B equ.pment in

• Chenecal EHocne. ,

importaasa of opsesem and comecaneta.

e Redistsoa. Dere is les enmeh *anabdasy ha PRA feares.

oddmon. FRA results can show that sema e Agens. .

Appen&m B equipment is not symficent to PRA figures have me reelastic mesanna when

• Submarymmaan nok. they are cenedeled seer a lerts period of tame

• 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 . per a specafse time panod er seers.

Quahtcetion meshodst 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 engyom .

bases aandents while peebebdastoc reek Part m Cleveland Electne !!hrminatme 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-that ashe importaat comanbutson Total Qualsey Maragesmeet. which how bene Additaumally, e lerge peruon of the ruhe specific safety.The Tc - Valkey succeen! Gly apptassa a other mdustnae. Aa - discusses deadhnee for eseplaeace end Ausharity Now York Powee Authority.nl these new concepts are daspad the requresinats Ier laommmee luaufocahne foe regulabons need to be adapted to support the continued operetnan pendas ceanpleeon ofElectnc. Ya=La= Atueuc E&setnc. Coarucocat Yankee Atomac Power,and Noetheast transmon.ne Tennessee Valley Authonty, equipeaena apaahf.catasa is -- -. S enth h regaaremsats h a b complan Nuclear Energy (the letter two with Norbest New York Power Authonty,TU Electric, 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 the uNmen 17 to ki nasr thaa ngulanons are examples of en accumuletaso of requirement 4 that has re.sulted in unwaldy NUM ARC comments. Summary of Commants in Response to 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 questionable safety Iraprovements.

NUMARC: The requarements of the CPU Nuclerr Probabihstic risk ensurancelquahty czeral proceseees Cannwat regulation are based on detensswst2c design are challenging wheth a the esnesstments 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 the contnbutes 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 opphed have little or no importansa to plant inspectors need to move tomand safety goala, than the hoenaces abou14 have

. safety.

performance based Mm= concepts NRC StaH. One ma==act proposed reilaios the Desuhahay to iniplemmat the results of thou LNUEEC/CR-C'51) to support hcar.sas efforts.

ch.ngee. Many in the ind stry have long been to clartier and reduca i 50.40 requamments,

1 * *

. , . . . ,.,e n . .

n s ,.

I ge- . .; . .

.i Federal Rigist:r / Vol. 57. No. 227 ) Tuis'dayi November 24, 1992 / ProposTd5 R i$leh, . T 55)6Y

, 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 Duke Power The requirement for operstmg reactors. nese resources can be PhIsicalProtection for Power Reactors 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 9 sives, etc., nearches York Power Authonty,TU Dectnc. Yankee 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 the design basis threat, which is defmed in 10 deterrent. .o a highly speciahred tactical BWR Owners Group endoned the .

.NUM ARC

~

rg n Power: Disag[ees with NRC eteff m., dire nents or ys cat ty ' [,h a d ng o p e r of orgemsations, physical barners eccess c nclusion that ehminsuon of PASS ,

requirer is that impose signincant and "*'"'" "'

requirements. detection sids and unwarr .ed burJena. "9"**'"**" 8"

(, communication requirements.

• • ""8'IP*h"8 # *" M **'*I 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 regulation in response to Sieff Requirement - addition n~ . s +nt penonnel screenmg d%mWW ,

is in place, further reducing the significance com me to e consi r e annua Memorandum, dated last fall.De expenditure of resources.!n addition, the .

• requirement to a logical candidate for of the security threat.Certein security m esures have hampered operational event NRC espends resources og review and , ,

consideration es e requi ement of marginal -

inspection.

safety significance The industry'empenence mitigation.. .,

/'. CPU Nuclear: More stringent screening Duke Power: Action to reduce the PASS ,

/

• of the last elecade and the recent imposition

, , of more etnngent personnel screening programs for utihty worken have minimized requirements found to be marginal to safety the internal secunty threat and the separet( should be taken to reduce operetmg and

- programs (fitness for duty; occess

• ' 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 o- should be considered as merginal to sefety: ;3,y, S4 maintenance. testmg. training. and procedure 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, g,

. Virsmia Power: Physical protection to safety and the cost savmas to be smallfor Substantial benefits could be reehzed operstmg plants. larger for new plants- through further esatuation of these g . tegulations are exemples of an accumulation Summary of Comments in Response to

, requirercents.

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) .

' deferred to the second period of the ongomg _

' . * ' of the security requirements pertaming ,

to requirements for poet accident samplmg nuclest power plants in the U.S. systems were found to be marginal to safety: program.

However, no action was intended because h.* - NRC Staft One cornment was received in the major costs (of design and instellation) js,y, pf;

.- support of the proposed action' 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) i _

'ir , , ,. . 27.1992 Public Meeting -

and maintenance costa.- Proposed actiond): Modification of the Richard S. Barkley- Comment supports the requirements in 10 CFR 21. *R eportmg of

%" ,f "arequirements it. NUMARC(R.Whitesel):

are burdensome.The ' Vital 'area proposed secuntyaction. ~ 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 end hielth deree ufety. of protect;on . . . Sosic components prended to pubhc requirementa and utlhty aud4t programs with espmuhaun of a lack of ewry and 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 e industry's understanding of the poteobal nak.

• cornmercial grade ties" restnces & abihty iteins has become common mough that cf to utaty to enume & Part 21 habety standardaatnan of the promw through an Consumere Power Co. (P. DonneUd The EPRI guidehne and NRC Genenc 14tters ha* cost of matalhng b security erstem requtrud responsibihty for safety releted appbcaboos at Puhudes is $1.4 m&oo, cf. prunanly, replacement piece parta The occurred. Under the improved and eitpheit

• reqmr rmest to a logical candidate far dedicahon procese,it 6, appeopnete that Part TRW (P. KrtshnallRW would hke b cansadersuco u a requanment of marginal 21 responeMhty should be obtfted to the CRCR to look at this issue tro a 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 g

currently wntien. The rule la a tremendous

, p. Q soon prove spe ific proposed Part 21 nvisiom to the staff for consideration. The NUMARC : Independent opent fuel etorage 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 inchaatnal securtty should be provuied.The of their bassemes to too small in pastdy the with Northeast Uuhues) and the BWR 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 . exper p m luue 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 operstma plant? i Proposed Action (s) Mockfication of the Tm and cumentmg Opuswe Contml o NUBARG (D. Steoser. Counae'): A review w as M GR 72. Subpart H. M8mPalebone (Pwt 55) of Port 21 reports reveals that there two 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 PS eut Nedser allow soectiwy mantpunecome er power eubstanual oafety hasard. Failure.to-comply Puel and Heb4aeol Radioactm Wasta.- changes to be performed on a certified plant.

p rM poiewk Sebpart it to 10 0R 72 opeedic otmalater. Durunate the requirement 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 Pl as b wey operstw W inapulanona mth no eMect on ufety me**ures for P hysic*1 pro 6ection of Backsmuni Appbcants for en opeestor's 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 part 73 danes transportatana to and from the etsnific. ant control actions affectma reactmty etndor, not the licensee. Deternuetre 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 datermuimg whether there was p ter simulated control manipulateca as part of a 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-Sumina ry of Comments in Response to h M hhcm k W @ W w constaient with providme basic loduetnal compieeed tantial startup testaaer Recoees of February 4.1992 IRN 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

( ,

. .- . .. m e. m t n y-y .

s

a. .. -m Federal Regislar / Nd. 5k No.s.274 Tuesdag-Nov:mter 24,'1992 V 'Propossd Rub . 55m Summary of Comments in Response to /nue Dk *... , *- Section will evtomatically be inoartereted by bbrary 4.1tm2 FRN -

flexible Approach to Approval of USQ (10 reimm herein e0 deys tollwing

• * - Pubhcation by the ASME Ucensees may NUMARC:'the requirement 6n i SS 31 that CHL 6039lc)) - 4

• tralnees perform five significant control manipulations on the plant itself 6s no lon8" Proposed Action (s); Provide Ic shernative h 'h" 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 hcensee shall submit a request for staff feed in i BOA 5e unlow the thrector of the

'lle additional tracking and doeurnentmg 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 operation of a production of utihaatson Summary of Comments in Response to plant-specific etmulators, and trainees 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 s 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 f , specihcatione shall subsnal an appbcatson for - ettemative sneans for current harmeens to 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 x , ..J . nduction in the marpe of esfa Juntil o=ch

' # comments.

Surnmary'of Cosaments in Response 1o Provisione are formally adopt by the NRC. - (

' /use DC 2 February 4,1982 FRN ., hcensees must expend twneederable \

Annaal Requebficelion Exammetions and - NUBARG: UEensee espenence has shown nooumn onMng NRC penniesion M wee h AnnualSecurtty Audit: new cc e pmema.

that some uiuwkd Safety questions v A Proposed action (s). Make the requirements (USQs) do not necessitate revisions to the [,n the ,

'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 mna pronssons.

e NRC ny, s of security plan and procedures more new corui i lle to read g n

email break) bet not ficall evaluatedat pubhcation. This would aHow the enceptions Background.Ucensed operator ., , W to reqdre change to be included in the Federal Regissee notxe quahhcation and requehfication that time would be 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 i

personnel. NUREG-101 contams detailed the beensee neck en amendment to the OL or 1U Dectrc Yankee Atomic Flecstw.,

j guidehnes,critena and requirements r-lanns TS The preparation of a hoenee emeadment Connectiu Yanku Atomic Power, and a to the preparation for and conduct of the package, staff review of the submittel and e91 Nuclear Energy (the latter Iwo with emaroinations. Renew of the contmgency gg g g pg g Nad. east Utihhes) endorud h NUBARG plan and the secunty progenm is required at commets.

with an environmental assessment and 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.

I February 24.1992 mN Provision of an alternative procedure fo, RnPonu review and approval by the staff would Pmposed Actontal Endorse the use of e l

Duke Power: Port 73 appendia B requires graded response strategy for implementmg rettam requahfications to occur on a ' lessen this administrative bunlen and leave

' the staff 1he option of determinrng that an eurgwy plannmg actions.

frequency not to exceed 12 months. Some Backg ound. Regulations include detailed

! degree of flexibihty in scheduhng should be amendment is warranted.The New York emergency plannmg requirements for the

' el! owed so as to not unnecessanly impact the Power Authority.QevelandElectric j gicensee resources. Also, the grequency og illuminating.TU Beetnc. Yankee Atomic Dectnc. Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power, communthen surroundma nudear 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. Summary of Commenu in Response to pertnitted by SRP IL3 wherem scheduhng is February 4.1992 FRN l estabbshad based on status and safety Issue m .

'l importance.Smce sumlar resourwe em New York Power Authority (NYPAk The .

Automatic Incorpetion of ASME Code

. utihaed by bcensees to perform both securny Changes (10 CFR S0.55aj . . , graded response otrategy for mgag plan 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 burden. inCMPoreum of new N Codudsfas recommended shhough this would not 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

1. - . 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

= ~ . _ _ _ . . - . _ . - - _ . . - - . - . - . - . ~ -.. -. - . .~ .-- - . .

m * ,

.f.& .

'n

}. 4

. . $wWS

. n.Y, n$ 35.:Yx.$i e% &:V, ll~~ Sh* !*?.'.-y, .s .*.b YM * * . .

a led $'d d $$2rs,i % sday.Na..vamber 544992 / Proposed Rd$s' ~

kn55h2Nd these requirements can sk!! tmpose -m 4

. ., yopdahon within the Ernarpency Planning wcntens that have been wtabbshed solely to , - additional costs dunng the destn and ;q h Dese exgpaures can be m Zone to a generalemergency with shelterms + meet dose hauta.. reduced bpeusms construchon SRPWe rewmmend SawtrJns 15.14the Ni<C and stafV for the remamder) and resultmg t enefits 15 6.3 to read.1f no fuelleilures are ,

renew these areas ,

2 "k

were attached to the comments (NUMARC/ projected as a consequence of these egtg. Suminary of Crxnments in Response to -

the resultmg doses will be a very small . - b bru m ( W F M . s

• e J MESP.00s

/ssue De and.,I ATA-C%48/24 fraction of to -.'CFB 100 ltmits. and no atte- %rgmia Power Disagrees with NRC siaf f 3

specific dose calculations are required- conclusion that ehmination of turbme minile Contamment Prosure Lim'it . .-

o t

. Proposed actiontal Relas contamment f,,y, og protection requirements would not result in 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 resolung from any loss of coolant accident bcensus , ,

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 - .

margm above the peak calculated pressure ahll bemg performed to meet these NRC staff to determine the design basis

• requirements 4 following a losacf coolant accident. or a tomado (DUTl for each of the geographicat steem or feedm ater hne breal The peak - issue D a regions defmed in the Guide?Due to the fact 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 developed analytical models Proposed action (s) Renew recoroseepmg wemised m pthe develo,pment of the Dirts m and other doeurnenuhon requirements to yl ,

Summ'ary of Comments inRes.ponse tg r- '-

- the Guide. .

ehmmate those that are dopbcative or

- il February 4.1992 FRN. - . Pacific NorthEve.rt bboratorie's (PNL) _ ' '

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 ' -

• coceptance cntena in hght of recent

• period 19H-1963 shd pubhshed the results in February 24.197:FRN - " *

• t-~"

expenmenta and .snalynes. For example.". NUREC/CR-44et." Tornado Climatology of NUMARC: Other regulations may be NUREC/CR-4551 presents cortemment . the Contiguous United States." dated Me) reduced m the *early"ume frame without the  ;

e f ailure probabihtees at vanous pressuree for N PNL found that the'10-7 annual need for extensive reviews.These regulations ,

the Lon plant. showing that the failure probabihty wtad speed ranged from 153 mph generally mvolve requirements for extensne probabihuco at pressure levels far m encess 2 to 132 mph and concluded that it would . 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 Mountains sad 300 mph east of the Jtock y

/ . have remained adec,uste hasbecome s ; ' have no impact on safet), s.nd in many cases Mountains.The staff agreed with PNils burdensome eDort without commensurate . are dupbcatn e.

safety bewfit. ~

a proposed sevisions to the methodology but B&W NuclearTechnologies5.iamples of d 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 .

PNL upper 90% conhdence level for the 10" . e Aposure. fitness6 for4uty and safety analysis

. Proposed Action (s) Ehmmate the report updates requirement for dose calculauona for probabihty of occurrence the NRC staff 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 Background %e Standard Review Plan States These DDTs were tsaued as an intenm NUBARC: NRC forms should be reviewed 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 boundanes for accidents mSolving mam a " Safety Enaluation by the OfLee of Nuclear fonns nqunt mformation already on file l

' 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 resultmg frue an assumed todme spike acceptable methmis for showing that the risk. TU Electnc Yankee Atomic Electric.

from turbme miaailes is acceptably small Conuchcut Yankee Atomic Pow er, and immeastely pnor to.or associated with, the accident.

eithee through spatial orientation or physical Northeast huclear Energy (the latter No with 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 February 4.1992 FRN comments 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 reduceda 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.

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. documentation and paper generauon. This is The need to perform such calculations CPU Nuclear.ne NRC staff is not l sometimes the result of the specific results in a considerable ongoinF mdustry proposmg any actions for the revision of requirements related to the protection of requirements in the regulation and other expenditure and unnecessary occupational vaposure.ne latter results from excessively plant structures and components from turbine times due to the manner in wtach the massites or tornados Since modifmations are requirements have beeninterpreted and restnctive pnmary to seconday leak este - enforced by the NRC staff. Esemples include hmits and overly restnetne tube repair still bems performed on operaung reactors.

e

• N" '-* --7-- -

. etal R$ stir [Vol 57. No. 227 / Tuesday,.Nov:mber 24, 1992 / Propos:d Rules 5h73

,.L.?

,, .J 9 C urence and equipment cauon,

, ego but it was dropped, although there was geners) agreement by senior NRC Summary of Comrnents in Response to' Februery 4. N FRN 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, . I 60.H(e) w as prornalgated. waformang pypoecd Actiorhe')IReduced reguletory the middle of refuehng outaFes. it is oflem I '

,.sthTttion might be appropriate in the future changes were not made in i sus 6 to avoid required to stop fuel moverpent opereuons to

' J NRC staff review ofinurvice lestmg ms Similar arguments might be rnede dupiscahve requirements, 60 H(e) requires one to have and fobow a perform the statenelinventory, ahhou6h fuel 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 February 24 m IT.N .

a certain amount of confusion and burden cogntzant of fuel movement activities.

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 i... eppbcable ASME Code ed bon.ne NRC - v'1992 Wbbe Meehng recommended that the inventories and

. staff has kee ed guidance on the acceptabdity NUBARG (D.Saanger, Counsel) An reports be required within a fixed period of inservice teetmg programs and ecwptable exemple of a requirement that is en

,g g gg , gg , ,

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 conside :cNe maount NRC etaf!hasreviewmg of ruources spent a 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

,a

,, c .mpdata are penodicaHy reawed.Some.

eegulations and could be a burden when licensees need to evaluate impacts on gg,,3Q. ,

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 requirements.

v., . em.au which wiu previde detailed - . depi.cativeg.fCe cond uona.,

o m bRupmu u Backpound:Section182.a of the Atomic

%, . & p>he.to bcemees, are in preparabon. Energy Act provides,in part:

b .. s However, until the underlying ASME Code 'W r 992 FRN 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 b -

and 104 shall be made ander oath or 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.

4 - ' ' ' D ke Power:%e ISI and IST prosts" substanuve regulatory schema.His may create situations whe o a hcensee might Summary gf Comments in Response to

- should be administered by the NRC on en urmemoarily be required-to submit a hcense February 4.1992 FRN 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 s progressed to the pomt where pnar NRC .

, emciently be handled through an MAR only in certain circumstances. While 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

• - -. , units,ln particular, can adapt prenously another wntten commitment.10 CFR 50 54 also pennitted, current regulatory provisions app should be revised to ehminate boense render such discretionary application N o

[ g9 9 n

• c nditions" that aimp'y reiterate a heensee's unnecenery.ne underlying purpose of an NRC does with the IST reports. bhgation to comply with a substantive oath or affirmation is to ensure the truth and Richard S. Barkley: he commenter noted * "

hat frequent charws to this regulauon, so The York Power Authonty Cleveland a 'fo of of 0 50 9 f the Electnc !!!uminating. nl Dectnc. Yank ee requirement for completeness and accuracy

- *i e t.Rese e qutre un er e urrent At mic Dectr c.Conmeticut YankM Atomic of those submittals the NRC suthonty to take 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

~'

• examinations may be out of proportion to the the NUDARC comments. oath or affirmation requirement for hcensee 7

safety benefit denved. Issue Du reep noes to a show cause order (to 07

, '4 Issue D L1: Materia 1 Status Reports '

2.202), a Notice of Violation (10 CFR part 2.

' 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 l

rnake the timmg and frequency correspond to are cert & canons of(t) the contents of a 3C Summary of Comments in Response to the duty cycle of nuclear power plants.

February 24.1992 FRN License application (50.30(a)(4)). Insurence 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

<q q ,

Vw- .A. ,

{

24,1992 /. Proposed Rideish s J

$5NO? . NedeEd'RegMd'/. von Si..tM22b/Jenday: November i

i h

. hours and paperwork devoted to e TU Electric:Ememine the NRC amendment comments. Northeast Utihties) endorsed6the NU11 ARC

- process and intemalpohcies so that neither D 1 superfluous tesk. . <

-willimpede or delay review of a Ucense NUMARC: Resubmitted the comments 1.

. Amendment Request submitted in . summanzai alme end noted that The rule Y

' Cloud 1****. ,. .. . , ,

in its current form has not contributed to i

.ne following four inues have been closed . accordance with to CR.50NRC safety Staff: inOne any comment way.ne process is convoluted suggested #

• cut by the staTL noticmg all smendments withoot first makmg and imposes significant time end cost I e signincant hazards detenninetion. Another penetties. it is a disincentive to f Issue Cf: j. improvements. such as technical specificauon

' comraent proposed hmiting the i 50S1  ?

Modify Sholly Amendment Requirements Federal Register notices to those changes that have the potential to benefd i proposed acbori(st Reduce or ehminate the amendments wh6ch cannot demonstrate no safety.The Tenneuce Valley Authonty New .

York Power Authonty.Rl E.ecinc, Yankee administrutive burden suociated with the J bubhc nottoe of Il Win and 5092. reviews of signdicant hasard. An additional comment cense amendments for no significant -

Proposed changmg the terminology of i 50 59 Atomic Electric. Connecticut Yankee Atomic to feed more like l 50.92. with re.pect to Power, and Northees: Nuclear Energy (the -

'significant' increase in the, probabihty of an intter two with Northeeet Utihties) and the hazards, , . 1 Background. Section Sa91 provides the socident end a"signincant' reduction in the BWR Owners Group endorsed the NUMARC edministrative precedures for inumg a pubhc margin of safety. comments.

notace end state consultation of an Summary of Comments Rece.ved.at March Flonda Power:(Comments were similar to .l appbcation for an amendment to a those offered m response to February 24.1992 Il 5021(b) or 50,22 operstmg beense. Sechon r?.1992 Pubhc Meeting FRN) q 50.92 provWes critena for a determination NUMARC(E!!en Cineberg). Cardntly. Wrgmia Power:The Sholly amenJn ,

when a utdtty pmposes an action that have proven to be administrative 4y that the Ikenee amendment involves no -

signincant hazards , reqmees e boense amendment. the utihty burdensome to both the hcenvees an he e;wew requirements of parts 50 91 end cannot proceed with the proposed action NRC staff. A quick look at the amoun ..

Sa92 implement Public Law 97-414, wluch untilit is pubhshed in the federal Register space token by Sholly notices in t'.e FL :.a

• f

' and the penod foe public comment empires 4 emended the Atonue Energy Actin . the number of ' emergency" hoense -

accordance with a court decision to fortify without a request for hearing he utihty must amendments that have been necessary (

, wait regardlese of whether or not the i tha right of (he pubisc and the states to ifica. ace. Here through the last few years should be clear y review proposed konae amendments and ' > proposed oction has safety signs en indications that the system is to urpent need a requeet pubbe heanngs. %e regulations opportunityfor a decrease in segulatory t of simphcation. We need afsoto ask whether '

• mod 10ed the requirements for reviewmg . burden without any adverse effect on the -

1 these amendments hm resulted in more%

$4gnincent Hazards Considerations (SHCl. . , pubbcinterest or pubhdtealth'and safety. pebhc participation or higher 6afety:

- -1 increasing their complexity and impacima the . m regulations could be amended to allowDisposition This inaue was closed by the the utihty to proceed with the proposed

.{5 amount of paperwork moeded to support the  : . action, pnor to pubhc NRC inprovided notificatico, the CRCR SpecialReview A Feder.1 -

SHC. Several utilities and industry e , Register Notice and opportunity t'o request a q orittalsations indicated that these changes .y the acoon has been shown not to involve t r

publicahearing would heve to be provided in

./ grutly increased the time required to.obtain , . significant hasard consideretion and has been shown to be reversible.

any event.The time delays and burdens of '

f 56 i even an

• emergency" bcense amendment. processing beensing amendments would not d in response to a queelion regardmg how For lanee amendments involving , , -

be reduced substantially by the proposed

• signincant hazards, notice must be given in NUMARC would d?nne the term actions. Some increase in time' delay could be

• reversMe " Ms. Ctnsberg stated that the Federal Register with at least 30 days for expected for those cases where a hesnns is - i response.Wis hoense amendment process NUMARC did not have a definition for the ,

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 AddihonalTMI.Related Requirements (10 for the esigent or emergency situations. Lakes present "no sigmLcant hazards considerstion." The existing gaidance on the CFR 50Mf))

et least six weeks with no effect on safety.

types of amendments not hkely to present Proposed Action (s) Modify the s Apphcants are required to perform significant hasards has not climmeted in

- unnecenary assessments. A pnmary requirements in 10 CFR 50Mf)"Addnional ,

actual apphcation the need to perform man) -

suggeshon is that only irreversible decisions. detailed evaluations The NRC should review Bil< elated requirements?

such as venting the contatnment at Dree Background. to CR $034(f)imposee at its esperience wtth respect to Sholly least 50 maior requirements and most are Mile island, need the kmd of advance notice determinabons to broaden the scope of the and opportunity for heanns that is currently quite speciGc.ney include a plant / site genene determinations that serve as specific pRA. various accident and rehabiht) required. For other decisions. a notice and e samples of "no significant hazards opportunity for a heanttg could be previoed consideration." for example to include. e analyses. operability studies, improved sfter the hcense amendment is issued. simulation capabihty. improved operating purely administrative change in Technical florida Power The rulemaking ophon ,

Specifications. includmg an organizational j procedures, control room design review, chosen by the NRC is administratively safety parameter displays, hydrogen control chenge; additional resinctions or controls burdensome.The opphcant must do en systems, valve quahGcation programs. QA being added to the Technical Specifications.

unnecessary and somewhat convoluted a core reload with equivalent fuel assembhes; program requirements, dedicated I assesamnit.De NRC staff must ascertam containment penetrations and more.

and a minor adjustment (e.34len that 5 whether or not they agree with it sufficiently . percent)in ownership shares of a facility. 10 CFR 50MQ was latended.to ensure that to pubbsh it in the Federal Register. If no . ht e use of a the information contained in the construction

. The NRC should also encourage party requests a heanngJhe NRC staff . mechanism wherebylicensees may use the permit and manufactunng bcapre .

avoids makiria a decision altogether.lf a apphcations pending in early 1so2 would be

. generic examples, with a demonstration of heanng is requested, the NRC staff routinely apphenbluty, to satisfy the Sholly sufGcient to assure the NRC that these .

concludes that no hazards consideration is apphcants had given appropriate attention to involved and proceeds.ne whnte process Authority of .equirements.ne ClevelandDoctricilluminatmg.

New YorkPower TM14 elated requirements, many of which enigent and emergency technical were in the procen of being introduced into -

TU Dectric. Yankee Atomic Dectric,

- specification changes is en outgrowth of Connecticut Yankee Atomic Powac, and :. the regulations and imposed on OL ; - . -

s. -

developing work.eroends to this poorly ~. Nortbeast Nuclear Energy (the later two with apphcants and operating plants.4 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.

.. August IL 1965 (50 f*R 32134) effirins its behef Summary of Comments in Response to cAttt Commenu must b Mced on ,

or before january 8,1993.

' Q; . that a new nuclear power plant design can be hbruary 4.1992 FRN shown to be ecceptable for severe accident ApoetssES: Send comments on the y,. New York Power Authority; Edend the proposalin trip!icate to: Manager, Air -

% '$"mpt n e the raYtequ rements to"*'"* ions reached in venous leek.before.

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 requiremente, blowdown )oede, containment Center,2300 East Devon Avenue, Des "I the 6<alled CP Rule (1p CFR 50.34[f)) The

referenee lo the rule wa

clanfied in NUREG- peah pressures. conulnmet sprey flow, pipe Pla nes,11,60016. -

• • res a nt en mi et The olhcialdocket may be examined

, .; s 1070 by NRC staff responses to public , has the

• y,6 comments.10 part 52 requires . in the Rules Docket Office of the Chief g opportunity to snake many other relevant

• Counsel, room 916 COO Ind.epend,,ence ,

. strate compt a ce h any echnically changes to its regulations based upon the ,

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 . .

examlned dunny normal business hours

(

. I 50.34(f) have been implemented by all previously rejected the entension of the leak J/ 6, ...' current heensees and the Commieston's ~ before break design basis to the proposed at the ofDce of trae Regional AirWafDc M?d Severe Accident Pobey Statement pubbshed areas.. . Division. - -

' ? ** ~ . - -

l# . in August 1985 (50 FR 3:136) renders a . 'pon puery,qen gepaginga'ygge googy'ACT!

g' ,

.* . . number of the actions onnecenery. Ken McElroy' Military Opereuosis J t.^ '

' th,

• Additionally, the February 4.1992 Federal - Safety a'nd Security Requirements for -

Progrm & MMk Mce of Air - *

• fiVt Register notim recognizes thet modifications , Defueled Reectors Prior to Decommheioning

,s . of Abe regulatory requirements in the areas of Pmpsed Action (s)*.Einblishinlety and c helm anagment.Wal : . ,

A adon Administraucin,800 , %, v- ,

eecunty requirements for defueled teactors W.

,- j posi ecadent samphng systema and -combustible ses control systems Indewouldndence have AvenuecSW., -W + ~

, pnot to decommteigning. . ; ,~

,g, r bttleimpact on safetyc

• Background- Sefety and security - . ' 'Wa s , ton, DC 20591),telgne,N202) 267-7686. b * ' <

Summary of Commeota in Responu to a ' requires ente et nucleet power plants or,

. ,e-2.H . ' ' '

l Q . February 4.19e2 FRN /., largely bued on the potentiel for serious

• 1;,' *, % ~Richard S. Berkley: ne commenter conuquerxes for the pubhc h~ealth and ufety SUPPLEssterTARY #

WsPOmesANed'

• f:'

'y# -

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. - InteresteAlP arties are it$vil [1 to

.. . have been shown to beve marsmal safety the nature and magnitude of the Niential ,

consequences is substantially changed.

Ms benefit. Although installation costs have , {articipate y su in such ng this proposed wntlen data,rulemaking ws p*y 4 niready beenincurred, the signif cant costs of Summary Of Comments in Response to or arguments as they ma desire p, s , .

-2 opetetmncmaintenance and replacement of February 24.1992 f7.N p e factuaM

, these systems k still significant.Dimination ' NRC Staff. Rtcomroended'the proposed of requirements for systems of marginal - supPortmg the views and suggestions 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 decisions on the proposal. Comments the NRC.

. 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

, ' Group comments. airspace docket number and be Disposition: Combustible gas control (1: sue DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION submitted in triplicate to the address A3] and post accident semphng systems y g y listed above Commenters wishing the (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 inu i DocO.92-AE-ul arnp os rd on the t

luue cs: ' Proposed Establishment of ' Restricted f 11 wing statement is made: '

" Pace 2-Area R-5401; Devita Lake, ND fG **

e ,

' Use of More Reebstic Bre,ek Sizes Proposed Action (s): Extend the application AGENCY: Federal Aviation time stamped and returned to the of the leak.before-break analyses. Administration (FAA). DOT.. commenter. Send comments on . -

(.

• Background; ne instantaneous, double-

. ended guillotine pipe break k a deterministic ' ACT10ec Notice'of proposed rulAm'aking; h h Mr.Neal Jacobsen, environmental Office of the and land use as ects 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 1.ake, ND, from 'the surface to 5,000 feet. , 58502-5511. Phone (701) 224-5189. All /  ;

~.. ' ebminated the need to design for protection 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' m . accident continued to be the design basis for would support training requirements of on the proposed rule..The proposal--

1 1

4

, i i

l i.

i 1

Enclosure B Federal Register Notice Rescheduling and Providing Discussion Material for Public Workshop 4

l I

(

i i

l

1 i

$190

= 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-purpose of these noticos is e gw Wested the NRC 7836. remarks,providing statements onintroductory the objectives of pees an W e ppate M me SUPPLtWENTARY INFORWATON: and a review of the

$* * * 'h* *d 9' " "' ** Preliminary Agenda for Public the program Workshop, inclu ding scope, schedules.

Workshop on NRC Program for and status of speciSc items. De NRC Eliminadon of Requirements Marginal '

will then leed an inlual discussion on NUCLEAR REGULATORY to Saft.ty. ways to permanendy integrate this COMMISSION -

program into the regulatory process. The April 27.1993 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 Requirementa Marginal to Safetyi of specific topics, for determining 8:30 a.m.--Introductory Remarks / rocedures for continuing focus and Putse Workshop Workshop Objectives (NRC) [nteraction for the ongoing program.

AGENev: Nuclear Ragulatory 9 a.m. m Overview (Scope. As indicated in the agenda there will Commission . Schedu es, and Status) and be four topics for which there will be a 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 eliminate requirements marginal to views that the NRC determines will be Discussion) safety and a public workshop for the 11:45 p.a.--Lunch most beneficial towards its ob)ectives.

pmgram. Subsequently, the NRC Each panelist will be expected to published a notice (57 FR 58727) Afternoon Session Provide a presentation, of about to 12:45 p.a--Containment I.makage minutes, on his or her views, deferring the workshop to expand the Testing Requirements--leakage experiences, and comments on that scope and include other aspects of the 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 a discussion among the panelists and (Panel / General Discussion) 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.

7:30 a.a-Registrauon and experiences related to the topic.

Aoontssts: Public Workshop will be "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. Combustible Ges Control Systems minute passentation on their views and Hotel reservations may be obtained at (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) 1993. Mention Group No. 3520 when contained in this notice, on these topics making the reservation.

12:30 p.m.-Lunch prior to the Workshop. If time permits, Pre-registrations, requests to serve on Aftemoon Session other attendees at the sessions will be a panel or speak on a topic should be provided any opportunity to speak on 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 'In order to allow for appropriate Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Environmental Qualification of  ;

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 be pescassed can a tur' cosas basis. *=Hvo or quantitative) be of the equiprment; or (b)

(q=bliamd esta is an obpecshe amenaer to 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-need not het their ccunmame to the can be and consisteady . . spedfic alloweb&e leakage rates based pohhshed umatarial sad me ======ged inspected and e agemet. on new NRC pudorm==re standasd; to an SpecI5c Potemala! Applicatiana of a '

""*****I***

=a====t and )G Ed=are approaches proposed at the pubbr. Approach . I't 004i" """.k"'ing of cena=inw Isoladon statua worksh willbe reviewed sad --Current detailed sorpd===nta la evalesehby the samff tourards E==hutng . J. Convoinnwnf len&ege endTestrry the genesel hamewosk lar develsymag Requirements, . q .

APPenicj will contianaeto be

.* ects et c0*Phnm wk perfortnance-based rue =1stia= and w g

.imgs, , A.ComeshonestIsensge CDC16- msnpliance wkh Appeo ) - met

. 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=rse ve 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 goals-regulatory obesctive by: O) speczfying Backgromad fi's damage limits to trains of systoms C. Detalled technical methods f.e.-

• Presses irdormation ofrisk fran associated with achieving and the sfe(pe ance relative to e a waW leakage . Postulstad acmdents indicate that the maintaining safe shutdown conditions, regulatoty object:ves will be provided in rate b or (2) mquiring an alternative or 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.

bl dind **xx =

• EM*3 be e2s'tandards d a ud. =t=w - - ath="s"o ~ ^P rates is not as risk signiEcant as specific requimments for separetion "8D.Cod' lle etive industry enoit . previously assurned. criteria to achieve fire dama8e limits,

• 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 -

E.The otw rules willbe opuonal for detection 11 fin brigade,-.M,

&g, admkhtsbe co dos 5 <

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 F. Scope of this a!! ort will not be leakaga rats based on safety Boels and seal ualification

, hRA technology is and nowfire doorto/s av lable 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-innovation and improvements in saisty. object've:la r ceder to ensure the based regulabon: -

s

- -- _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _b

l I

6198 Federal Register / Vol. 58 No.16 / Wednesday, January 27, 1993 / Proposed Rules core conditions without reactor pressure e Eliminate amounts of hydmgen to e Replace deterministic criteria in be controlled from the rules.  ;

vessel (RPV) failure for light water Appendix R that specify limits to fire reactors whose application for a

• Transfer staff positions on methods damace to trains of systems with criteria to meet the performance standards to a that allows the use of PRA technology construction permit or manufacturing Regulatory Calde (e g , operating Mark I cnd risk significance of fire sequences to license was granted before February 16 and D containments should be inerted.

1982; or (7) full core melt with RPV ditermine fire protection features and operating DWR Mark H1 and PWR failure for light water reactors whose (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 75% of the fuelcladding).

of, or submitted after. February 16, b regulatory ob}ective of Appendix R, *- e Establish regulatory position ht -

including fire damage limits to trains of 1982. recombiners can be eliminated from systems and necessary separation criteria, to a Regulato Guide. .

M6*und .

targe dry and subatmospheric

• 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 reactors address h drogen generated -

-Recombiners for all types of in determinb3 fire protection featum containments to control hydrogen involving 100% o cladding, from to y

in a Regulatory Guide. CFR 50.34(f)(lx) to a Regulatory Guide.

e Current detailed requirements in . generated in a postulated 1DCA '

- . Involving about 5% of the cladding , Licensees currently in compliance '

Appendix R will cont!nue to be - with to CFR 50.44 willcontinue to be tcceptable for compliance with the (Later Mark I and U containments ~~ ,

were exempted from this in compliance with modified rule.

modified rule (ficensees pm.cntly in .. A need for industry e! Tort in this compliance with Appendix R will not requirement). ^

-Mark I and H containments were ' aree for operating reactors is not need to do anghing if they do not wish anticipated, unless industs has any -

required to be innted, considaring.

to change their practice), Postulated severs accidents, new and alternative pro for e %e followmg areas of fire meeting the regulatory jectives.

. -BWR Mark III and Ice Condenser protection requirements in Appendix R Pressure suppression containments As stated earlier, the above material -

have potential for reduction in burden must have a control system for - . will be used as a starting point for with marginalimpact on safety (these hydrogen generated from reactions - discussions at the public workshop.

creas were previously identified in involving 75% of the fuel cladd ag, NUREC/CR-4330,8 Vol.1. " Review of Participanta need not limit their 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) - e containments were .

hvh ide and approsh ex ug from above requirement to Disabling of automatic features;(2)

Subject:

NRC Program for Elimination '

Transient combustible load control hydrogen imm mctions . of Raquirements Marginal to Safety.

assumptions:(3)1ms of offsite power, involving 75% of fuel cladding.

(4) Three hour fire barriers:(5) Dated at Rockyh,Marytand, this 21st day . -

because of its capability to withstand . , ,

Allowance for operator actions and (6) -- Pressures resulting from combustion /. . ofFor January 1943.

Emergency lighting. the Nuclear Regulatory ('amelssion.

denotation oflarge amounts of ..,

ID. Standardfor Combustible Gas hydrogen generated during postulated Warrum Minners.

severs accidents. - - Dusciar, Drvision o/Sofery Ism DesaNtaan, Control System in IJght Woter Cooled- '

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 ,

ding allin de s troi sd tio ty 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 fled in Criterion 16 8'.el

'INed cladd g. n of 100% of b- '

Altworthiness Directives; Boeing .,.

exceed the rate fu m .

~

4 of *Ppendix A 3 part 50 10 CFR 50.44 and 5(I.34 are rules' teodel 70'l and 720 Series Altplanes ' I following combustion or detonation of ' that evolved tl> rough the years and have' ' '  !

bydrogen during the postulated ' become prescriptive.Dey specify the ' ' Administration, ACD#CY:"ederal Aviation DOT.

cecidents. Postulated acx:idents shall ' design capacity of hydrogen control mclude those that lead to:(1) Degraded' systems and thus may not encourage the AcTioec: Notice of proposed rulemaking' ' ' '

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 of hydrogen generated. supersedure of an existing airworthinesa l orn cal toIsta-* w --

- - )

% UA covernment Pnanascecs, rn son Potential Modification- - .. directive (AD), applimble to certain -

370e z, w mbagion. DC aoou-roes. copies may l alw to pwthand from the Nsuomal Tm:hakal Modify 10 CFR 50.44 and 10 CFR v ~ Boeirig Model 707 and 720 series - - '

j airplanes, that currently requiree 50.34(f)(ix) to e, performance-based  ;

f2 Rc R [z2 . repetitive inspections to deted cracks in copy is evia' us sur taspecwn a copyinen a see regulation:

e TLs above present regulatory- - the inboard nacelle strut midspar - l in the Nac rebhc p= -e anesa. st ro i. street, Sttings, and replacc nent,if necessary.> -

NW tiew ta=31. Wash

• sum.ac. objective could be the revised rule. -

.