Text

Discusses Needed Changes in Wording of 10CFR50.59(c)(3). Section (c)(3) Should Be Deleted,Leaving Criteria for Unreviewed Safety Question Definition & Provisions for Tech Specs Authorization
	ML20136E168
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	01/04/1974
From:	Hendrie J; US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Shapar H; US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20136E173	List: IA-85-640, Further Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Historical Background of 10CFR50.59.Forwards Documents Listed on App B. Documents Also Available in Pdr.App C Document Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5); ML20136E168; ML20137W998;
References
	FOIA-85-640 ZECH, NUDOCS 8105060433
	Download: ML20136E168 (3)
	v • d • e

,< e j l

/. %. UNITCC STATES )

[1 % ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

' [%/% yVl w as.m.orow. c.c. me ]

9 -

p .

% 'l1 Y SOTE TO Eward Shapar

- 10 CFR 50.$3(cH 3): A NIEDED CHANGE l The current hassle with Vernont Yankee over their violations of ,

cperating pro:edi:res haa pointed up a difficulty in the present language of 10 CYR 50.51. Ve would like te discuss it with you and y:a: staff to see if a change in the wording is appropriate.

Ten C?il 30.59 d aals with changes in a licensed facility er in the ;

pro:<d .res described for operat. ins; that f acility, tests, and expa =4:cs. The regula tion says (50.59(a)) that the holder of a ,

license .an rake .changas, or conduct tests o: experiments, "unless the proposed change, test or expericent ir.alve.s a change in the ,

te:hnical specifications incorpurated in the License or an

= reviewed saf ety nues tion as defined in paragraph (c) . . . ." It g e> n to say, "if the proposed change, te st or experiment does ir volve a change in the technical sparifi cations a: an unr4 viewed safety ;uestion then it cay not be carried out without .authoriza-tion by the Co=ais sion. . . ." This is all fine and good as it is.

In goitg to paragraph (c) we find that a prsposed chaege (in a licensed facility c in the operating procedures Icr than f acility),

a . test, or.a: experiment is deemed to invcive "an un:.eviewed safety ques tion" if one_ of three c riceria is cet. The first criterion is that tr.e prob;,biitty or the t.ons eqduces of an a. cidant or calfunction are incrissed as cc. pared to the assu=;tions :ade in the previously sahtitted saf ety analysis. Thi seccnd criterica is that a new or diff: rent type of accident ur catfucction than those evaluate.1 preri: : sly in t3e saf ety analysis repor t cay result. Ecth of these criteria are soLad and good as they stand. The third :riteria is I the pla:e we have trouble. It specifies that, "if the margin cf 5

safety as defined in the basis for any ce:hnical specificatico is r eh: e d then the proposed change, tes t, or experine.t is der:ed te

intelve an " titre tiewe d s.afe ty ques tion."

.Now, with ragn-d to whether 9r not an "ur.:.eviewed safety question" is rea'Ir inveced if the cargin of safety as defin,ed in the basis a f;r any tech.nical speciScation is reduced, the answer is that it

=ay be in scna cases and .nsy rery well r.ot be in other cases. Ir .

Ve rnor. t , for instance, tne applicant violated his technical

/ f , -***" - %

%ch5% d4b3 0

- he _

)

1 1

_ _ - __ _ v -

t - * - - 7

k NorE 10 .Maward Shap ar speciiication and did reduce the margin of safety as defined in the Sasis for the technical specification. However, it is also true tna t the Vernent Yani<,ae safety analysis report and the s taff safety evaluation had previot. sly taken full account of all of th'e possible cons.equences of such violations of the technical specification and of any associated malfunctica in the control equipment. Thus, the engineers would say that the Vermont circumstance was indeed a vietation of the technical specifications, and hence of ?.he regulations under sectica (a) of 30.59, but tnat the violation did m:0 :reate or involve an "unreviewed safety ques tion ."

There are other circumstances where the accident analyses for a plan: deal with the consequences of events and procedures that are viciati:ns of the plant technical specifications. Just as for

~{

" errant Yankee, we would f eel in such cases that in spite of the pracen: 50.59(c)(3) language these circumstances would not involve

unra rieved safety ques tions."

Of courac, thers are still othar circunstances where a violation of tne technicai specifications, and c resulting reduction in the margin c f saf ety as defined in the ba sis for those technical specifications, does indeed lead to an unreviewad safety question. 3c t wc would argue chat all sucn cases are adequately covered by the first two criteria of paragraph (c).

'l cur reccanerdati:n is that (c)(3) simply be deleted fro a0.59.

This would leave tc.t firs t two criteria for definition of an unrevie.wed safety question, and would also leave any change in a facility's technicai specifications requiring authorizatt an by the Commissi n under the provisions of (a).

As an alternate, in the event that the third critation of (c) is felt to be necessary in some circumstances, we would propose some qualifying lan;uage to be added to the present language. We would have (c)(3) read es'follous:

...f3) if the cargin of safety as defined in the basis fer any technital specification is reduced and there has been ne evaluati:n in the safety analysis recort of the consecuences o f she rr du:ed r:ar;in. ,

\

, , , \. .

.vs c~- .-s i..,

Jossph M. hendrie, he y Director for Technical Review Directorate of Licensing Attachnent 10 CIA 50.59 cc: See Next Page

PART 50 < LICEj ING OF PRODUCTION AND UT ATIONFACILITIES[

~.

OO "rne ;icertsee sMil *pamtain ree I at!!h;rc such ebrp;c. test. nr expert-totfecetut,cn af chacras. tes.is 5 % .59 .

em ng cw,, a .s tw the imhty and of snent wtthout erferrat to the Ahisory '

M #'i#"""E"' r changes in pioecdures rnade tdttod q Cotamitt:c on Reactor Safrkuards for ,

(a) The homer of a license .W.hcrb rdor CotwitW.on ap.,rnvai 5,unt:aat to a report and without pner puche he;tung. '

, L ta operstto:s ci a product 40s or utt!!zt.. '

th:2 section to the cx! cot t!nt sa:h uson f}uding that thcic 13 terenphic i tion fe.ctSty mar (D mste chnget in chan; es cinquu*c cDonirs in the fact:ity e.nuranet tbt! the henhts and safety ot ;

tbs facil!!f at dacnte! in the **. safety , ' as desenhe.i to the .ofm enalpts repod the pteWe Hil not t'e endanceru!. '

analya's

. repe-t. t ti m:Ae changes in the o comtr tte chances ta prosce nes as " sg w ien .gespect to icy,ests for

procec'ures a4 deteribed in the" safety descitusj tr. the gaDty nr;alvs . changes. tens or t'zatriments or for

, scalys'.s report and (3) conduct t,rsta T'.c h(enw sM11 aka t'ta.tntainls records ree::4 chances in tc:hn! col spect$ cations for a g or expert:ntnts no'. deserfbed in tr.esafety of tro .7n;l erf,%i1Aten's . entrtett out pic3uctiot) or artilization f tctitt' itet?.ich y is w analysis geport " .,un'tss the pr@cs&d s hlhat p;i!r C. nim % ton apprw.il pur- not of S type dhcrioed in i 50 21sti or Is chacre, 6st or t%T'eriment cTcNet a st.at.t to tNs ecctIN. Thtye ucos d!. shall i $0.27 of a testing !settity, the Comm;s-I ch6 age h t*1e f. ethnical s;ec M.t:o".5 , l'telde a written safr ty craintion shkh Wra may auibenze the propeced chance.

! .fix.t Pundes the u ocs far the t'etetmanati(42 . test or exper. ment Coa f]ndm tr.at

' Ancorper.sted in tM licerJe or n vy the chnn:r. test or cyctimcatt&4 ' there is tenshr.ab*4 assurstnce that the viewed s.Jety quest!cg,J e in

'paiasinS ici ofE swc:L If th;, ? ns (nrahe An untryttved saf2ty vtes- ; t,e health epd siftty of the pubi'.c util not proposed chac*a. tc-t or ex;ert"aect in ! * IN ""# b^U #* "

endingered Comptbdan ntvally or at n.ch shorter 0 isi Any rrtort or request for author-Tcives a ch.ar@ k' t.he tech:.10t.1 @. cad- t meeU cd tA the

iratton sut>cutted by a licensee, and any

, cations or gn tinrriftmed mfety Cas- ; bien.Ms tverr c. nasicpostnnaycontnin!ntt bt: n Intef E deterrntbation t,y the Comrotalon. c.r au.

i ticz:, M slutt n.:st be tarr*ed 01;t n -'na e c':*.caiutica of Wrh cht,nces, teds. cad . . trionzat.on, n>ued tF the Commnstern, i aut!torted by the Cem:nM!cn pu stant ' exp?n'1cnt t. lacludini:tt sannntasy of the pummnt to ins secuen. mh be made a to the proced*.tres set fc!th in this secunn. saftty embrition 6f each, g) art of the pubite record of the beenur:g fcn pragmM eMnt;t, test. er Opert- proceedina. An stathonration tisuru hv

- Revised 31 PE 12D4 "* p@h

d'"d t' '"" "" hD' -

th' C **i'5' " " l"* "d* 'D83'D'3"

Chef tges m the techt;1ct.1 sDectf. rations, '

/ JcMen d nfet"NstfQ(la if the ticaa-tdnty of occultence or pic cDnsegences

~ '

i of on accident or malftJnctlen of rquifw t ' rr.ent 1 rpoe tant to safety pacvJ w ly N ~N #

U Wa cyahtsted in the 53f ety enalpis report f inny tse here.pnt or 40 M n port:biluy for f.n accidcot Cr mulfianc'hn of .% dM- L Jetcet type than any MMunted prema.@ l 4 in the safcir nnMpas t ein i may be crc- ,

. f site d; or i3* If the marrin of asfctv ns e

I dcTired_inM;T, N3iy techtig 4 1. spiIkMIT.Li' !"o9114 9

'.Z . A Im I .

'd6 T.c h ccmte shall file a s cra;rst fcr C I 2. g i. .s *5 ca.hrwahon of O chan.;e in technicot wccafim:a or of any r,1; axe. test or *

"',.,- , ,y. .s , uwnr int s.hich t re.r.11:Ts authW a-

% tio:t by the Cernmission ptarsuant to E paragraph W of this section. Theit, k In quest maan include an appropriate aaltty w anrJy:d5 report . ES !3 such requMt

Dall be fued with the '

E.

Dtrector. GWhton of Reacior

.' Ltensing. U S. Atomic EDersy Cor trus-tion. Washir.gton, D.C,,20545. ,

The Utensee I

, shall fue three signed citsinMs and 19 (additional copies.

i.

tr) 'Vi th respcet to retnuests for chan::cs, tests or e3rperimen'.s or Jo' changes in technlen! spectA,nt ins for a facluty of a type described in f 50.21tbl

g or i 53.22, or a testing Jaelhtr

it 8 ff the Commi': slon determf uc.s th.'.t

' - the propo'.cd cliity;c. te=t, or experbnce

picTnts s!ce..Scunt hamds consMera-

! Uons not descrRed or tmpiteit b (W i

' safety rmaly43 sep>rt it may relcr th; trquest to the Adynwry Co:nmittee on Reactor S.Aguardr The Conuntwen win promptly rA.4 the hermre raf any referral to the ;.dvisory Committic on Itcoctor Safcgunt l.t. +

t:0 If the Conv*sks t (kecrmmrs j

that Abe propcacc1 chan.4c. tut. nr csrett-i' inent docs r.nt prese nt sh:nM nt r.a?- l an.'s C.OnWer.it ,m mt docrdrd e,r trn-phets in in : safctv .mna;ysts % e pm t U rtr.7 1

i L I

, , _ . . _ . - ,

ML20136E168

Text

Navigation menu

Search