ML20206E675
| ML20206E675 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/26/1985 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8606230494 | |
| Download: ML20206E675 (32) | |
Text
JUN 2 61985 i MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director ;
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
CONTROL 0F NRC RULEMAKING By memorandum of February 13, 1984, " Control of NRC Rulemaking by Offices Reporting to the EDO," Offices were directed that effective April 1, 1984, (1) all offices under E00 purview must obtain my approval to begin and/or continue a specific rulemaking, (2) resources were not to be expended on rule _
makings that have not been approved, and (3) RES would independently review rulemaking proposals forwarded for my approval and make recomendations to me concerning whether or not and how to proceed with the rulemakings.
In accordance with my directive, the following proposal concerning rulemaking has been forwarded for my approval. )
Proposed Technical Specification Rule for Nuclear Power Reactors (10 CFR 50).
(Sponsored by NRR - memorandum, Minogue to ED0 dated June 12,1985.)
I approve continuation of this rulemaking. The NRC Regulatory Agenda (NUREG_0936) should be modified to reflect the status of this rulemaking.
(Signe@ William J.Dircks
. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations cc: V. Stello J. Roe J. G. Davis .
J. Taylor g62g494e50626 R. B. Minogue so P. G. Norry PDR Distribution:
WJDircks (JHSniezek VStello WSchwink JPhilips JHenry EDO rf Central File DEDROGR cf
.e 1 0FC :ROGR/S :ROGR/D :DE ROG DO : : :
e__._:__ ...__:____________:_____.._____:________ ..
_____:MhwTnk....(.______:__q NAME : :J!h : j o :WD rcks : : :
_____:______...___:__1____.....:___. p_85 :6/pZ,/85 DATE :6/24/85 :6/ /85 :6/ZV : : :
g g I
l YY
~*
() O fc.-3] jtJA</
% "A #" '
m.y/ ae& yc~ y- Ackr~mV MT note [
f* * 'A ,> wl -to g i ROUTING AND TRANSIAITTAL SUP JUN 131985 i
, eiRee symbol, reem number, initiate Date
] TO AG9*C1/ Poet) jn Ca n m. a lg,ygypp 1. 06Do (& *. DEDRo6 R) 1 1 a /
) S /
4.
\#
I 5,
,XAction Note and Return h x, , c. .
FDe r., cie.,ense ew com,e, semen As Itequested For Cervection Propose Itaply Circulate For Your Infessnetten See Me C-- -
^
Investigste signature e-dinseen m' REMAltKS m a a n. A m "ef ae.s Q A l 2
N (Pa 3 M
- __- ^ . eencunences, disposses, 00 NOT use this form as e Ittc0ft0 ofcieerences, and almido;r actions FROIA:(Name, org. symbol, Agency / Poet) fleem No.%
, RftMRd y 4.6b Phone vvy-No.>c e p meet.ser pgang og (stes, y-yg)
~
e U.S&PO.:1E8e.421 329/412 $4 '6M
^^
4* 2 JUN 121985 MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT i REVIEW 0F ONGOING RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY NRR Based on our independent review of the rulemaking, the " Technical Specification Rule," sponsored by NRR, RES recomends that this effort continue.
The basis for our reconnendation is as follows:
o NRR has a Technical Specification Improvement Project (TSIP) tasked with providing a reconnendation to the Director, NRR, on whether and how to proceed on this rulemaking by October 1985.
o The proposed rulemaking would significantly reduce the nunber of Technical Specifications (which has increased significantly in recent years) includ-ed in a nuclear plant operating license by providing specific criteria for selecting only important safety items to be included in the Technical Specifications.
o Because any proposed change in Technical S>ecifications, regardless of its importance of safety, must be processec! as a license amendment, the proposed rulemaking would reduce the licensing burden for both the util-ities and the NRC.
o By selectively reducing the number of " Technical Specifications, the proposed rulemaking would create an opportunity for licensees to focus 4
attention on matters of more immediate importance to safe operation of the facility.
o The proposed rulemaking would resolve the problem that the large number of Technical Specifications make it difficult for the control room operator to implement.
The complete RES independent review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention:
DEDROGR) and to the Director, NRR. Since the TSIP may well recommend changes l
creics >
sumiaass >
sus > . . .. .. ..
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Willian J. Dircks 2 to the proposed rulenaking, it is premature for RES to suggest wording changes at this time.
Or181aal signed nomars= Mama Robert B. Hinogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Enclo*;ures:
- 1. RES/RRB Recorxtendation
- 2. RES Task Leader Review--First Part
- 3. RES Task Leader Review--Second Part
- 4. RES Task Leader Review--Third Part Distribution:
RES Central File CIRC /CHRON RRB Subject / Reading RRobinson Rdg.
PBaranowsky Rdg.
GBurdick Rdg.
MErnst Rdg.
FGillespie Rdg.
Dross RMinogue
- See previous concurrences. I
) ,
oF FICE > *RES/DRA0/.RRB
......... .. ...... *RES/.DRA0/.RES
.... . ...... ... *RES/.DRA0./.R.
. ..DRA.0.
- 18. :.C. .R . . R. A.O. :.D. D. . :.D.f. ES
- D. . . . . . . .
. . h. . .
= = > RRobins,grn,db ,,,PBarangwsy , , , ,qButdi,Q ,
,,,M,rn t,, ,,, spie pRss,,,,,,,, ,
,,gug,,,
5/31/85 ouE p ............ 6/4/85 6
. . . . ./.4/85 . 6
...*./. ./85 ** .=
8 ***
- .5 6/ / **********
/85 6/*k I/'85
............. ....... e =
- 4 unc Focu sia nosoi uncu ou OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Willian J. Dircks 2 to the proposed rulemaking, it is premature for RES to suggest wording changes at this time.
Robert Ti. Minoque, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatcry Research
Enclosures:
RES/RRB Reconnendation RES Task Leadcr Review--First Part RES Task Leader Review--Second Part RES Task Leader Review--Third Part Distribution:
RES Central File CIRC /CHRON RRB Subject / Reading RRobinson Rdg. ,
PBaranowsky Rdg.
GBurdick Rdg.
MErnst Rdg.
FGillespie Rdg.
Dross RMinogue l
i l
l
)./ L-OF FICE ) R,R,B,/,DRA,0,/,R,Ej I/kI/RES C 0/RE S DD/DRA0/RES D/DRA0/RES DD/RES D/RES
"""> .R,Rp,b,ip,spp,*,d,b, ,P,B,a,r,ap,ows,ky, GBu ,,,,,,,. , , , ,M E,r,n,s,t, , , , , , ,FG,1,1,1,e,sp,1,e, , ,, Dross,,,,,, , , RM,i n,og u,e, ,
-"> ..ug.8s.e<$
5
. ,,f.yfss. . . . 6f.qf,8,s. . . , . . .sf. , f.8,s. . . . , .sf. . f.8.s. . . , . . .sf. , f.8,s. . . . . . .sf , f 8.s. . . ,
NT;C FORM 318 (10 80) NRCM O24 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
O 9
RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE
RES/RRB Recommendation During August 1983, the EDO established an NRC interoffice and interdisciplin-ary Task Group to identify the scope and nature of problems with surveillance testing in current Technical Specifications and to develop alternative approaches that will provide better assurance that surveillance testing does not adversely impact safety. The Task Group concluded that some of the Techni-cal Specifications have the potential for adversely affecting safety and some do not appear to be cost effective. The Task Group findings (published as NUREG-1024) were condensed into five recommendations for improvement as follows:
o The testing frequencies in the Technical Specifications should be reviewed to assure that they are adequately supported on a technical basis and that risk to the public is minimized.
e o The required surveillance tests should be reviewed to assure that impor-tant safety equipment is not degraded as a result of testing and that such tests are conducted in a safe manner and in the appropriate plant opera-tional mode to assure that risk to the public is minimized.
o The action statements should be reviewed to assure that they are designed to direct the plants to a safe plant operational mode such that public risk is minimized and that unnecessary transient and forced shutdowns are precluded.
RES/RRB Recommendation During August 1983, the EDO established an NRC interoffice and interdisciplin-ary Task Group to identify the scope and nature of problems with surveillance
' testing in current Technical Specifications and to develop alternative approaches that will provide better assurance that surveillance testing does not adversely impact safety. The Task Group concluded that some of the Techni-cal Specifications have the potential for adversely affecting safety and some do not appear to be cost effective. The Task Group findings (published as NUREG-1024) were condensed into five recommendations for improvement as follows:
o The testing frequencies in the Technical Specifications should be reviewed to assure that they are adequately supported on a technical basis and that risk to the public is minimized, o The required surveillance tests should be reviewed to assure that impor-tant safety equipment is not degraded as a result of testing and that such tests are conducted in a safe manner and in the appropriate plant opera-tional mode to assure that risk to the public is minimized.
o The action statements should be. reviewed to assure that they are designed to direct the plants to a safe plant operational mode such that public risk is minimized and that unnecessary transient and forced shutdowns are precluded.
o The surveillance test requirements should be reviewed to assure that they do not consume plant personnel time unnecessarily or result in undue radiation exposure to plant personnel without a commensurate safety bene-fit in terms of minimizing public risk.
o The preparation and organization of the Standard Technical Specifications should be reviewed to assure that they are consistent with 10 CFR 50.36 and only contain requirements that have a sound safety basis.
It is our opinion that the NRR Technical Specification'rulemaking effort (with support from RES) is generally oriented toward implementing these recommenda-tions. In addition, from two recent meetings that the RES Procedure for Evalu-ating Technical Specification (PETS) program has had with NRR and industry, we believe that both the RES and NRR efforts have full support of the industry.
This is a strong indicator that the rulemaking effort is desirable and will be meeting a very real need.
The current Technical Specifications have grown to unwidely proportions and many are difficult for the CR0 to implement. These and other problems have been referred to and are implicit in the Task Group reconinendations. It is our desire that, as a minimum, the proposed rule be modified to the extent that would permit implementing the above recommendations in a facile manner.
- - - . - ~ -
RES Task Leader Review--First Part The objective of this first part is to note any defect or deficiency in the rulemaking package that could result in the EDO, the Commission, NRR, ADM, or the Office of the Federal Register returning the rulemaking package for cor-rections prior to publication. Consequently, I have nottJ below the necessary items that were enclosed, and the items (expected) that were missing from the NRR package.
Quality Control Evaluation The RES roview package received from NRR contained:
(a) A memo from Denton to Dircks recomending that rulemaking continue, (b) An updated NRC Regulatory Agenda, (c) A copy of the rulemaking (the " George" rule) as it appeared in the March 30, 1982 Federal Register, (d) A memo from Denton to Speis, creating the Technical Specification Improvement Project (TSIP).
The package received from N,RR did not include:
(a) An NRR staff recommendation to the ED0 concerning whether and how to con-tinue with the rulemaking, (b) Any details of the NRR office review [For example, the urgency (after a 3-year lapse) and an explanation of how the public, industry, and NRC might be affected as a result of the rulemaking (including benefits and costs) is not addressed--nor are the NRC resources and scheduling needed for the rulemaking. The proposed George rule implies that the issue will be addressed through rulemaking, and no alternative is suggested any-where].
(c) Any underlying documents relied upon by NRR in conducting its review.
[Since there is already a published proposed rule (which was enclosed),
there must have been some rationale for taking such action (e.g., a Comission paper, regulatory analysis, or CRGR package), but none was '
received to help provide a basis for the RES review.]
l n
-- p
RES Task Leader Review--Second Part A. The Issue To Be Addressed During the licensing history of NRC and the Atomic Energy Commission, (its predecessor), the volume of Technical Specifications included in a license has increased significantly. The scope of the licensing reviews has broadened as a result of the increased volume. Also, the increasing number of amendments to the licenses has created an additional licensing burden for the utilities and the NRC. However, participants in NRC licensing reviews have long disagreed on which items should be included in the Technical Specifications.
The absence of specific criteria for selecting items to be included in the Technical Specifications has resulted in numerous items being included that are of vastly different levels of importance to public health and safety, especially on a long-term basis, and that may not be required under Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
The regulatory basis for Technical Specifications is embodied in 10 CFR 50.34 (b)(6)(vi) that requires as part of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), required for each application for a license to operate a facility, proposed Technical Specifications and bases or reasons for such Technical Specifications be provided in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36.
B. The Necessity and Urgency For Addressing The Issue Today, the compilation of Technical Specifications has grown to over 500 pms and several thousand surveillance requirements. Many details were added because licensees wished to specifically Tdentify the limits of required actions. Others were added by NRC personnel who wanted assurance that the operability of certain features would not be compromised, or to clarify an item that created disagreement between inspectors and licensee personnel.
There is general agreement that some Technical Specifications are complex and difficult for the control room operators to implement. Technical Specification surveillances sometimes introduce abnormal system lineups that make operations more difficult. Excessive testing may also abnormally age some components.
The definition of " operability" does not differentiate between a system that is non-functional and one that fails to meet all required certifica-tions. Also, it is difficult to relate the Bases of Technical Specifica-tions to the Limiting Safety System Setting or Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO).
These and other problems with current Technical Specifications are dis-cussed in NUREG-1024, an EDO Task Group report on enhancing the safety impact of Technical Specifications.
2 C. Alternative to Rulemaking The Technical Specifications are a part of the facility license. As such, any changes must be processed as a license emendment and, therefore, noticed with opportunity for coment and hearing, and approved by the Commission. Thus, I see no alternative to correcting the above problems by means other than rulemaking.
D. How the Issues Will Be Addressed Through Rulemaking After issuance of an operating license, the Technical Specifications can be changed only with prior NRC approval granted by issuance of an amendment to the license. However, for changes to the facility and procedures described in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR), NRC regulations (10 CFR 50.59) permit the licensee to make changes without prior NRC approval provided that the changes do not involve a change in the Technical Specifications or an unreviewed safety question. All of the information contained in the existing Technical Specifications does not warrant this level of edministrative control.
The proposed (George) rule would amend current regulations pertaining to Technical Specifications by: (1) establishing a standard for deciding which items derived from the SAR must be incorporated into Technical Spec-ifications, (2) modifying the definitions of categories of specifications to focus more directly on reactor operations, (3) defining a new category of requirements that would be of lesser immediate significance to safety than Technical Specifications, and (4) establishing appropriate conditions that must be met by licensees to make changes to the requirements in the new category without prior NRC approval.
E. How The Public, Industry, and NRC Will Be Affected While each of the requirements in current Technical Specifications plays a role in protecting public health and safety, some requirements have greater immediate importance than others in that they relate more directly to facility operation. These are the requirements that pertain to items which the facility operater must be aware of and must control to operate the facility in a safe menner. To a large extent, the relative importance ,
of these requirements, as distinguished from those related to long-term effects or concerns, may have been diminished by the increase in the total volume of Technical Specification requirements.
Moreover, the increased volume and detail of Technical Specifications and ^
the resultant' increase in the number of proposed change requests that must be processed have increased the paperwork burden for both licensees and the NRC staff. This is because 10 CFR 50.36 requires the Technical Speci-fications be included in each operating license; and any proposed change, regardless of its importance to safety, must be processed as a license amendment. For changes involving matters of letter importance to safety, the processing of a license amendment with the associated increased
3 paperwork has had no significant benefit with regard to protecting the public health and safety.
The proposed changes would reduce the volume of Technical Specifications that are made part of an operating license, thereby reducing the number of change requests which licensees would have to submit to the NRC. The proposed changes, if adopted, can be expected to produce an improvement in the safety of nuclear power plants through more efficient use of NRC and licensee resources.
F. NRC Resources and Scheduling Needed For The Rulemaking Estimating the future effort involved with any rulemaking activity can be very specious. There is no indication of the effort that was required to produce the pending George rule (proposed in March 1982), nor whether any staff time has been spent on it since that time; but the current TSIP group is comprised of seven staff members and will probably not disband until the end of the year. They are also contracting out three quick studies to private in.dustry (for a total of perhaps $150K) and are re-questing RES to carry out a fourth task (at a cost of about $200K). If the proposed George rule remains unchanged after this second look, the rule could be published final by March 1986 at a cost of perhaps six staff-years and $400K from when it was issued for coment in March 1982.
If TSIP recommends modification to the George rule, it could require seven staff-years of effort and $600K to publish a final rule by December 1986.
Since both TSIP and RES are working closely with industry, both of the above estimates assume general industry endorsement.
RES Task Leader Review--Third Part i
A. The Need for the Rulemaking The George rule was proposed because of disagreements among parties to a (then) recent NRC licer. sing proceeding (involving the Trojan Nuclear Plant in 1979) highlighted the need to establish specific criteria in the regu-lations for deciding which items derived from the safety analysis report must be included in the Technical Specifications incorporated in the license for a facility. ;
In addition, the substantial growth in both the number of items and in the !
detail of the requirements contained in Technical Specifications that has j taken place since the Standard Technical Specifications (STSs) were '
instituted indicates that mor e precise definitions of the existing ;
categories of Technical Specifications contained in Part 50.36 are needed. <
The Comission is concerned that the increased volume of Technical Speci-fications lessens the . likelihood that licensees will focus attention on matters of more immediate importance to safe operation of the facility.
B. Consistency with Applicable Policies and Planning Guidance Paragraph 3 on page 9 of NUREG-0885 (Issue 4) states that " Existing regu-latory requirements should be reviewed to see if some could be eliminated without comprising safety." This is the precise purpose of the proposed Technical Specification rulemaking.
C. Importance of the Rulemaking Relative to Accomplishing NRC's Mandate As implied in 10 CFR 50.36, Technical Specifications are a crucial part of the regulatory fabric. The efforts to date have largely been to strike a balance between identifying a set of specifications that provide adequate protection to the health and safety of the public, and also will not be so detailed as to unnecessarily hamper facility operation.
I believe that the proposed rule, or a variant thereof, will improve the safety of nuclear power operations by reducing the volume of Technical Specifications, by the placing more emphasis on those specifications of high safety significance, and by providing more efficient use of NRC and licensee resources.
l l
1 I
5 6
9 e
0FFICE REVIEW PACKAGE RECEIVED FROM NRR
\ (
MAR 2 81985 -
MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING In accord with your February 5,1985, memorandum on this subject, NRR staff members have reviewed ongoing rulemakings being handled in NRR. As appropriate, Fegulatory Agenda entries have been updated and review packages assembled for forwarding to RES for independent review. These review packages are being sent to RES and to the Cost Analysis Group, ORM, with copies of this memorandum. The status of each of the four rulemakings currently underway in NRR is summarized below, including my recommendation on whether and how to continue with the rulemaking.
- 1. The Pressurized Thermal Shock rule was sent to the Commission on February 20,1985 (SECY-85-60) for approval of issuance as a final effective rule. "This action confirms my recommendation for continuation of the rulemaking effort as proposed in SECY-85-60, and no further independent review and E00 approval are needed.
- 2. The Station Blackout rule was sent to OE00 by NRR memorandum dated Februa ry 22, 1985, with my recommendation for continuation of the rulemaking in the manner proposed in the enclosures. A copy of this menorandum and its relevant enclosures will be furnished tc the RES independent review group and to Cost Analysis Group, ORN.
- 3. The Operators' Licenses rule was published for public comment on November 26, 1984, and the assessment of public comments is in process. I recommend continuation of this rulemaking effort to assess the public comments, after which a determination will be made as to how to proceed further. Part of the originally considered aspect of this rulemaking has been supplanted by the Commission Policy Statement on Training and Oualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, issued on March.20, 1985. Copies of the updated Regulatory Agenda entry and related items are being forwarded to RES and ORM.
t ore ca p .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . - - -
summa.: 6 ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - - -- - -- -
o.n > . . . - . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . - . . . . .- -
a: soaw ve no ec, **cw cuo OFFICIAL RECORD COPY use..c. . .. n, u
s C MAR 2 8 BBE
\ .
- 4. The Technical Specifications rule is currently on hold pending results of the review by the Technical Specifications Improvement Project.
Possible actions include revision of the proposed rule to reflect public comments and the TSIP recomendations. I expect to have a recommendation on whether and how to proceed on this rulemaking by October 1985. A revind Regulatory Agenda summary has been prepared to reflect this status.
Original signed by Darrell G.Eisenhut f]HaroldR.Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation bec: RES Mail & Records Section Distribution Att'n: RAMBR for Central File Independent Review .i RSCB Rdf R. Cleveland Cost Analysis Group, ORM Cleveland CHRON
. Z. Rosztoczy F. Schroeder T. Spets D. Eisenhut H. Denton K. Bowman (NRR 85-031)
H. Thompson R. Bernero J. Knight W. Russell D. Beckham A. Rubin R. Woods B. Boger
.En 4 , i
. .? :I A s
.. . .c . , gSC.B.;D,ST,..dm ,RM.h. DST..,,,, At G. . ,,k .D: . . . , , . , , , , , , DD.: , . . , , . .
D:N.RR k , . , ,
m,,, > RC..L . . . . . . . . VELAND ZROSZTOCZY F TPSP S DEL. 4UP ARDENTON
..............g d... iC q,. . .. 9. .T. . .W.85
._ ; / ,/85 85 u,, . 3.... /. A.7../.85 ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...g/86.....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . g.. w/85
/
..a: aoaw ne no so, waco ono OFFICIAL RECORD COPY une m '- =
B 9
I o
NRC REGULATORY AGENDA ENTRY
_ TN-. #~ 9W, ,,,, _
- ._ _ _ 9 -
EA. !5 X (
TITLE:
Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Reactors
)
CFR CITATION: ;
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend current regulations pertaining to technical specifications for nuclear power reactors.
Specifically, the proposed rule would (1) establish a standard for deciding which items derived from the safety analysis report must be incorporated into technical specifications, (2) modify the definitions of categories of technical specifications to focus more directly on reactor operations, (3) define a new category of requirements that would be of lesser immediate significance to safety than technical specifications, and (4) establish appropriate conditions that must be met by licensees to make changes to the requirements in the new category without prior NRC approval.
The changes are needed because of disagreement among parties to proceedings as to what items should be included in technical :
specifications, and concern that the substantial growth in the volume of technical specifications may be diverting the attention of licensees from matters most important to the safe operation of the plant.
The proposed rule would improve the safety of nuclear power plant i operation by reducing the volume of technical specifications, place more emphasis on those specifications of high safety significance, and provide i more efficient use of NRC and licensee resources. The NRC staff has estimated l
that each of the affected 21 licensees should utilize the proposed method for changing supplemental specifications approximately twice a year. The total additional yearly burden to resubmit a revoked change for all 21 j affected licensees would be approximately 101 staff hours. j 1
TIMETABLE: '
ANPRM 07/08/80 45 FR 45916 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 07/08/80 45 FR 45916 ANPRM Comment Period End 09/08/80 NPRM 03/30/82 47 FR 13369 NPRM Comment Period Begin 03/30/82 47 FR 13369 NPRM Comment Period End 06/01/82 Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMAI.L BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l l
l AGENCY CONTACT:
Don Beckham Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7803 52 l
l
$cJ'Sc 3,l2 5 Eb i~
l TITLE:
Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CER 50
'"#', / / n a ssa' j .fgl,s Ur'c ABSTRACT:
/p The proposed rule [would amend current regulations pertaining to technical specifications for nuclear power reactors.
Specifically, the proposed rule would (1) establish a standard for deciding which items derived from the safety analysis report must be incorporated into technical specifications, (2) modify the definitions of categories of technical specifications to focus more directly on reactor operations, (3) define a new category of requirements that would be of lesser immediate significance to safety than technical specifications, and (4) establish appropriate conditions that must be met by licensees to make changes to the requirements in the new category without prior NRC approval.
rd ve<e. propose <l y The* changes see=needed because of disagreement among parties to /'ce.es!0 proceedings as to what items should be included in technical specificationsb and concern that the substantia 7 growth in the volume of techdical specifications may be diverting W attention of licensees from matters most important to .th( saf e operation.,ef'
-thc p12-nt khe proposed rule would improve the safety of nuclear power ojardec' 5 N
'p ac**$ more emphasis on those spe ifications of high safety l
significance, and providg ore efficient use of NRC and licensee resources. *hc Pnc :t;ff h:2 ::tiheted th . ;;_! ;f the oI;u ted "jff] "I /
el lice: . !=10 milize ::.. ymy ,;f :th:f f;; ch;;;in; j, g*%
sf,
_% pp1 = * ' Epe-;ifi;;.ti:n: ;ppre:i=:tely t"i-:: 5 ,;;r "'h : t O t -1 s
[ .' I 'dd M al ;-r:ly burde:. .a . .awkmii o su,;h:2 ;h;ng? g# ^ " ^11 21-
'^^ " ' ' ' -
daa 1I.c:::.:: . -.12 i: :pprr E i2.,
k,*.
s r care eo ,-Ais esle. y/(*g.< :s . 4.td y.J: g ru.> t+s .F a rw:aw I,3,.,,& sM f Ted.
TIMETABLE: Q* 't *w r l'+y re ve. .w e 1-Proj'e c.f. A de e,*s t, , , J .Tf.e# J h ,ater) ./,
ANPRM 07/08/80 45 FR 45916
, c ,.1, J I,3 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 07/08/80 proce 45 edFR e,i45916 this evle.=kal,,,,f .,y oc. ;c e,)/,4,, /gg, ANPRM Comment Period End 09/08/80 NPRM 03/30/82 47 FR 13369
- NPRM Comment Period Begin 03/30/82 47 FR 13369 , ,
NPRM Comment Period End 06/01/82 Next Action Undetermined !
LEGAL AUTHORITY: '
42 USC 2201 .
EFFECTS ON SHALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT:
Don Beckham Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washing , DC 20555 301 492 03 1
)
~
TITLE:
Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Reactors CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:
The proposed rule would amend current regulations pertaining to technical specifications for nuclear power reactors.
Specifically, the proposed rule would (1) establish a standard for deciding which items derived from the safety analysis report must be incorporated into technical specifications, (2) modify the definitions of categories of technical specifications to focus more directly on reactor operations, (3) define a new category of requirements that would be of lesser immediate significance to safety than technical specifications, and (4) establish appropriate conditions that must be met by licensees to !
make changes to the requirements in the new category without i i
prior NRC approval. The changes are needed because of disagreement among parties to proceedings as to what items should be included in technical specifications, and concern that the substantial growth in the volume of technical specifications may be diverting the attention of licensees from matters most important to the cafe operation of the plant. The proposed rule would improve the safety of nuclear power plant operation by reducing the volume of technical specifications, place more emphasis on those specifications of high safety significance, and provide more efficient use of NRC and licensee resources. The NRC staff has estimated that each of the affected 21 licensees should utilize the proposed method for changing supplemental specifications approximately twice a year. The total additional yearly burden to resubmit a revoked change for all 21 affected licensees would be approximately 101 staff hours. ,
TIMETABLE: '
ANPRM 07/08/80 45 FR 45916 j
ANPRM Comment Period Begin 07/08/80 45 FR 45916 ANPRM Comment Period End 09/08/80 !
NPRM 03/30/82 47 FR 13369 NPRM Comment Period Begin 03/30/82 47 FR 13369
, NPRM Comment Period End 06/01/82 d Next Action Undetermined LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES: No l
l '
) AGENCY CONTACT:
Cecil O. Thomas Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 301 492-7130 g g g , o q 3 (.
Vol.b No Y
- f. ale. /9 O, 1 L_
BACKGROUND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY RAMRB, RES
e-DEC 3 i P44 .
MEMORANDUM FOR: Themis P. Speir, Director Division of Safety Technology FRO.h Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
FORMATION OF A TECHNICAL SP'CIFICATION E
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GROUP During the past year it has become increasingly clear that a concentrated .
effort, separated from day-to-day licensing activities, is necessary to examine Technical Specifications tc ensure that they are focused on those matters of high safety significance. This effort requires the individual attention of a dedicated group.under the direction of a senior manager with a broad background in reactor technology, reactor operator experience, and licensing. For these reasons, I am appointing Mr. Don Beckham as the Director of a Technical Specification Improvement Project within the Division of Safety Technology. In his capacity as Project Director, Mr. Beckham will be charged with developing and carrying out a plan of action with guidance previded by an inter-office Advisory Group and in cooperation with the other NRR divisions, offices, and industry efforts.
The project will reconsider the entire area of technical specifications, including philosophy, scope, content, depth, and the process by which they are ir.ccrporated into licensing, ir.plemented by a utility, and enforced by URC. The objective is to define the basis and philosophy of the technical specifications and to develop a methodology for incorporating that philosophy in existing technical specifications and standard technical specifications.
The project group should be staffed with senior technical personnel cxperienced in safety systems, probabilistic risk assessment, reactor cperaticns and technical specifications. The Division of Licensing will continue to manage the issuance and revision of plant-specific technical specifications.
- The project group is expected to meet the following milestones. *
- 1) Develop the correspondence necessary to form an inter-office advisory group by January 31, 1985. The Advisory Group will:
(a) bring on agency wide perspective to the technical specification impros er..ent effort; (b) establish a cooperative effort with other NRC offices (including Regional Offices), and with industry efforts; and (c) assure apprcpriate programmatic direction to related RES research programs.
Enclosure 1
r DEC 3 1 1994
- 2) Submit.the proposed plan of action to me with Advisory Group concurrence or comn.ent by March 15, 1985. This plan will include provisions for:
(a) a clear delineation of the operational and licensing problems associated with technical specifications, including the recommendations of the Task Group on Technical Specifications
-~
discussed in fiUREG-1024; (b) improvements which can be implemented in the short term, as well as long term improvements; (c) the necessity to amend regulations to simplify the process for -
changing technical specifications, including revision to 10 CFR 50.36; and (d) appropriate utilization of risk based methodology for performing and documenting analyses to improve the content of and bases for technical specifications.
- 3) Prepare a draft document with specific recomT.endaticns for broad changes in technical specifications centent by September 1, 1985.
I consider this project to be an impcrtant effort and by copy of this mimarandum, ask that each Division offer its full cooperation.
pirint. .V:ted by H.R.Detten Harold R. Denton, Director Office of 1uclear Reactor Regulation cc: k'. Dirck s R. itintgue R. DeYoung D. Eisenhut R. Vollmer R. Sernero F. Thompson E. Snyder i
I
)
l 1
)
. ' Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. e1 / Ttiesd:y, krch 30, 1982 / Proposed Rul:s 13369 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 ~
Technical Specifications for Nuclear .
Power Reactors Aessocy: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTsoet Proposed rule.
sussesAsm The Commission is proposing '
to change its regulations pertaining to technical specifications for nuclear power reactors.The proposed changes would reduce the volume of technical specifications that are made part of an operating license, thereby reducing the number.of change requests which licensees would have to submit to the NRC.The proposed changes,if adopted, are expected to produce au .
improvement in the safety of nuclear power plants through more efficient use of NRC and licensee resources.
DAtt Comment period expires lune 1, 1962. Comments receb'ed after this date will be considered if I'. is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before this date.
maaased nterested I persons are invited to submit written comments and suggestions to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nucleer Regulatory Commission. Washington. DC 20555, l Attention: Docketing and Serv,1ce i Branch.
13370 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 81/ Tuesday. March 30, 1982 / Proposed Rules-
' Pon pusmesa esponssATioes cowTAcT: change established criteria for allowing criteria in the regulations for deciding ,
Mr. D. Skovbolt, Office of Nuclear licensees to make certain kinds of which items derived from the safety Riactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear changes, tests, and experiments (i.e., analysis report must be included in the Regulatory Commission, Washington, those not involving an unreviewed technical specifications incorporated in safety question or a change to technical the license for a facility, DC 20555 (301/492-4448).
suppt.asstNTARY NeronssAftoet Each specifications) without prior NRC In addition, the substantial growth in 11 fo f ci power approval These amendments to il 50.36 both the number ofitems and in the re forissue y RC contains and 50.50 (1) eliminated detailed design detail of the requirements contained in t:chnical specifications which set forth information from technical technical specifications that has taken tha specific characteristics of the facility specifications, which in turn reduced the place since the STS were instituted and the conditions for its operation that need for a large number of change tre required to provide adequate requests, and (2) resulted in a system of . indicatest of the existing categories that more precise of technical definitio protection to the health and safety of the technical specifications and regulations specifications contained in i 50.36 are public. Technical specifications cannot that more effectively directed the needed.The Commission is concerned be c!rnged by licensees without prior attention of both hcensees management that the increased volume of technical NRC approval. and the NRC to matters important to specificati ns lessens the likelihood that safety. licensees will focus attention on matters Background As knowledge in the field of reactor of more immediate importance to safe Before 1968, 5 50.36,' Technical safety increased, the level of complexity operation the facility.
Specifications " of the Commission's and detail in technical specifications While each of the requirements in regul: tion to CFR Part 50, required also increased, and a divergence in today's technical specifications plays a technical specifications to include content of technical specifications from role in protecting public health and -
"th:se significant design features, one facility to another began to emerge, safety, some requirements have greater operating procedures, and operating In addition, an increasing diversity of immediate importance than others in limitr;tions which (were) considered opinion between applicants and the that they relate more directly to facility _
important in providing reasonable NRC staff, as to what should be operation.Rese are the requirements cssurance that the facility (would) be included as technical specifications, that pertain to items which the facility constructed and operated without undue resulted in protracted discussions during operator must be aware of and must hazard to public health and safety." the licensing process, and control to operate the facility in a safe Technical specifications that were misapplication and misinterpretation of manner. To a large extent, the relative f;rmulated in accordance with this requirements by plant operating staffs importance of these requirements, as regul: tion, as it was then written, after a license was issued. distinguished from those related to long-gen: rally contained more detailed In recognition of these difficulties, the term effects or concerns, may have been disign information than was considered AEC, in 1972, instituted the Standard eminlahed by the increase in the total to be necessary to assure safe reactor Technical Specifications (S'IS) program. volume of technical specification c.peration. These technical Sets of STS were developed for reactor requirements.
specifications proved to be difficult to types designed by each reactor Moreover, the increased volume and crganize, unduly restricted flexibility of manufacturer (for the latest revisions of detail of technical specifications and the re:ctor operation, and necessitated the these documents 8 see: NUREG-0452, resultant increase in the number of processing of many changes that were Rev.4. Fall 1981:NUREG-0123 Rev.3, proposed change requests that must be r.at significantly related to safety. Fall 1980:NUREG-0212, Rev. 2, Fall processed have increased the In December 1968 the Atomic Energy 1980: and NUREG-0103, Rev. 4. Fall 1980 paperwork burden for both licensees Commission (AEC), predecessor of the for Westinghouse. General Electric, f' and the NRC staff.%is is because NRC, amended its regulations in Combustion Engineering, and Babcock I 50.36 requires that technical il 50.36 and 50.59 (33 FR 18612). Section and Wilcox. respectively).De S'13 specifications be included in each 50.36 was amended to include a more provide applicants with model operating license; thus, any proposed precise definition of those categories of specifications to be used in formulating change, regardless of its importance to techcical specifications that must be plant. specific technical specifications. safety, must be processed as a license included in an application for an Rey have served to make technical smendment. For changes involving '
cperating license.ne amended specifications for facilities licensed matters oflesser importance to safety, regul; tion narrowed the scope of the since 1974 more consistent with one the processing of a license amendment m terial contained in technical -
another, and they have tended to reduce with the sesociated increased specifications by defining five specific the number of disagreements between paperwork has had no significant c'.tegories of technical specifications. applicants and the NRC staff regarding benefit with regard to protecting the Th] Sve categories defined for nuclear items to be included as technical public health and safety.
re:ctors are:(1) Safety limits and specifications.
lin11 ting safety system settings. (2) 7,4 Solutime limiting conditions for operation, (3) Current Problem -
surveillance requirements. (4) design - Disagreements among parties to a As a first step in attempting to resolve f:stures, and (5) administrative controls. recent NRC licensing proceeding (In the the difficulties associated with the
%e design information that was . Matter of Portland Geners! Electric current system of technical required to be retained included only Company, et al. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), specifications for nuclear power those items which,if altered, would AIAB-531,9 NRC 283 (1979)). have reactors, the Commission published an hava a significant effect on safety. highlighted the need to establish specific Advance Notice of Proposed Amendments to I 50.59, among other Rulemaking (ANPR) on July 8,1980 (45 things, clarified requirements for FR 45916), requesting comments on the keeping records of design changes and defined more adequately the term gji,,M$*,jh**E'N desirability of changing its regulations wa., a.,i.wy comimon, we.Maston. Dc on technical specifications to:(1)
"unreviewed safety question." He latter aossa. Establish a standard for deciding which a .
- r. .. . .
Federal Register / Vol. 47. Nr. 61 / Tuesday, March 30, 1982 / Proposed Rul s 133n
_ ltems derived from the safety analysis assumptions but are of six8general operation. Other functions, such as
' yport must be incorporatedinto the types: those associated with the mitigation of
. Achnical specifications for a facility;(2) 1. Values of process variables that the effects of natural or man.made
' modify the definitions of categories of must be kept within certain bounds: phenomena (fires Doods, earthquakes.
technical specifications to focus more 2. Operating state of equipment (e.g., etc.), serve to support these four I directly on the aspects of reactor value position) that must be maintained; functions, but are not subject to the level operation that are important to the 3. Operating status (or operability) of of operator control associated with the
. protection of the health and safety of the equipment that must be maintained; four function listed above.
- 4. Condition (or quality) of equipment In the Commission's view, any system public;(3) define a new category of and structures that must be maintained; of specification should (as the existing requirements that would be oflesser 5.Physicalcharacteristics of the plant system does) properly account for all of immediate importance to safety than and site that must remain fixed: and the types of requirements discussed technical specifications, thereby 6. Adannistrative controls (e.g, shift above, but should be organized in a providing greater Dexibility to both the staffing. review and audit) that must be manner that recognizes the differenf -
NRC and licensees in processing maintained. levels ofimportance associated with the proposed changes; and (4) establish The first three types or specifications various plant functions.
appropriate conditions that must be met can be thought of as defining the by licensees to make changes to the * . *bounds" of normal plant operation II. Overview of Proposed New System requirements in the new category within which the conclusions of the of SpeciBcations without prior NRC approval. safety analysis report are expected to %e proposed changes to 10 CFR part Comments received in response to the remain valid.nese first three types 50 would establish a new system of ANPR were strongly in favor of a rule relate directly to the operating mode of speciScations divided into two general change to incorporate these concepts. the plant and must be under the categories.ne categories, which are -
Copies of the comments received from immediate cognizance and control of the discussed in further detail in succeeding individuals, and a summary of all the operator to maintain safe plant sections, are:
comments received, are available for operation. 1. Technical SpeciBeations, and inspection and copying at the ne fourth type conces the condition 2. Supplemental Specifications.
Commission's PublicDocument Room, or qualilty of equiprnent or structures, Proposed specification in both and is expected to change slowly if at categories would be included in an
! 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC g all, over an extended period of time, application for a license (in Chapter 16 u8.Sen8r*IlY,8Pecifications of this of the FSAR), and would be reviewed l ne NRC staff has considered these '
comments and has developed proposed t day j on pn ut e E ca ofte ca
- saf specifications would be made directly a sf th ""g d p
[,' 8 '
, principles upon which they are based characteristics of the p$ ant and, site that do a for are discussed below, are not expected to change at all unless any a.npe to tecbro al cal specifications.
' the licensee decides to alter the plant Specification in the supplemental I. General Prindples are not category would be documented in the in reviewing the safety analysis report design of concern in soms way.%us,pthefant to the day-to-day FSAR and linked to the licensina ,
1 for a facility, the staf! reviews the oparation, but are oflong-tem document through a new license methods of analyses, the underlying importance to safety. condition in I 50.54. ne licensee would .
assumptions, and the results and ne sixth type, administrative be allowed to make changes to the conclusions of the analyses to determine . controls, can be divided into two supplemental specincations within if the plant has been designed so as not subtypes: one perhintnp to shift staffing certain bounds and under precibed to present undue risk to the health and and responsibilities, the other pertaining safety of the public.Some of the t omanagement overview and control of conditions, approval. Aswithout obtainingk [rior NRC furthr discusw analyses are quantitativs in nature. Pl ant changes and operations.De section III.B below, these changes would while others are more qualitative, but all former is more important to the be required to be reported along with a of the analyses rely on underlying immediate operation of the plantmhile safety evaluation for each.ne NRC assumptions.Whilemanyof these the latteris more important over the would review these changes and assumptions are explicit, such as those I""8 I"- supporting documentation in the same 88 segmgakd manner as design changes, tests, and pertaining to plant operating mode, , ",",ctlons y als ,p system lineups, or specific parameters, experiments are currently reviewed 1 e ce 6 ,
others are more implicit such as those y,*hd',",dgo of ", ,[ t nder to CFR 50.50. Any change made by a licensee that was not adequately I
associated with the degradation of 1. Prokethg th kkgdty of S$slon equipment over the life of the plant or justified could be quick! revoked upon product barders, written notification by e appropriate the mansgement control over plant 2. Controlling reactivl RC Regional AMnktrakt. A change operation end ma,intenanm.%e 3. Cooling the fuel: an
- to i 50.54 would be made to require that fundamentalpurpose of technical 4. Limiting the release of radioactive sup lemental specifications documented specifications is to define and preserve fission products following an accident. in ge PSAR mut be adbemd 6 by es those underlying assumptions that are nese functions must be under the licensee. Under this system, the licensee expected to, or could vary with time or constant cognizance and control of the I '
circumstances, throughout the life of the plant operator to assure safe plant, Q* { blMm of the safet y ca ons gg,e?c, technical e cificatio 'RC address a variety of underlying %% %% m. . approval will not be necessary, and the
[. .
8 13372 Federal Register /.W1. 47. Ns. 61 / Tuisd:y, M:rch 30,1982] Propos;d RulIs functions.%ese settings are to be requirements would be included in the
. reduced workload for the licensee and chosen so that the automatic protective definition of facility monitoring / g the staff will permit greater provisions which are discuued below! !
concentration on more significant devices action will correct an abnormal situation before a safety tLnit is under supplemental specifications.
, matters. exceeded, thus preserving an essential Check and test requirements would be This new system of specifications defined (see proposed 6 50.36(d)(1)(iv) would be put in effect for new operating safety function.
licenses issued 180 days after the if an automatic protective device does as those periodic checks and testa not function properly, the licensee must: needed to assure that operation will be effective date of the amended rule, within the safety limits and that the LSS '
%ere would be no backfit requirement take appropdate action, which maF for existing operating facilities, though include plant shutdown; notify NRC; and and OLCs are met.nese are the checks
' aview the matter to determine . and tests that are generally performed this could be done if a licensee were to appropriate actions to preclude by plant operators during. or just prior request it, " ' '
III.hiajor Features of Proposed Rule ]ggj)'*htionallimits andconditions ,$3,' ptab ds, A. Chonges to Definitions of Techalec1 (OLC). OLCs would be a newly defined and if systems and equipment are in the subcategory, similar to the exioung correct operating state or standby Specification Categori,, bI status. As with the current LCOs and 1.%e term technical specifications fgg"O ) 2 , with surnulance mquimments, & techrdcal would become a category of some important differences. Otra specifications would be structured to specifications and would consist of would be defined (see proposed attain a one-toene correspondence ]
operational specifications and principal l 50.36(d)(1)(lii)) as limits on important between these checks and tests and
. design feature specifications. process variables and on conditions each OLC, to assure that operators keep
- e. Operofim!Specificat>ons. relating to the operating state and abreast of plant status with respect to Operational specifications would be standby status of systems and defined (see proposed 5 50.36(d)(t)) as each OLC.
components.%ese limits and conditions those specification imposed upon are associated with the performance of (v) Dperationalstaffing and reporting fac11tly operation that are necessary to the functions of controlling reactivity, requirements (OSR). OSR would be a assure that the facility is operated cooling the fuel, and limiting the release newly defined subcategory which would within limits and under conditions that- of radhoctive fission products following contain a subset of the requirments i are ccasistent with the assumptions in an ac4 dent.%e OLC subcategory is currently containedin Administrative the safety analysis report regarding the narrower in scope than the existing 140 Controls as defined in i 50. 36(c)(5).
value of process variables and the definition, since ILOs include items OSR would be defined (see proposed operating state and standby status of addressing virtually any equipment in 550.36(d)(1)(v)) as those items relating to systems and components associated the nlant " required for sale operation of shift crew compoettion and .
with the four safety functions identified Macu ty mspesibuip well u mporungA in Section I above.'nis definition would When an OLCis not' met,theliceme are necessary to assure operation in a establish a framework for dedding must: Shut down the plant or take safe manner.nese items are which items dedad from the safety specified remedial action to place the considered to be of immediate short.
analysis rt are to be included in the facility in a safe condition until the Olf term importance to safety and thus are operationa specifications. Operational can be met; notify NRC; and review the included in operational technical specifications must be written for all ropriate actions normal modes of facility operation matter to recludetorecurrence.
determine app %e present 140 specifications pemung hcenn and would be p including shutdown and refueling.ney . debmition includes plant shutdown as a acipo/ Design Mum
- would be part of the operating license required action, but it also allows (for SpecifiedonsJdacipal daign featum and would ansist of five subcategories, matters oflesser importance)"any 8Pecifications would consist of those each of which isan==d separately remedial action permitted by the items that are currently categorized as 1 below. technical specifications until the " design features"in the present system (i) Safety lim /te.-Safety limits would condition can be met." For I40s in the of technical specifications, as defined in be defined (see propsoed current system that have a lower level the existing I so.36(c)(4).ney would be i 50.3e(d)(1)(1)); the same way they are of importance to safety (i.e., are not defined (see proposed i 513e(d)(2)) in currently defined in the present system essential to the functions listed above),
essentially the same way: that is, those of technicalspecifications(in " remedial action" has often been only a physical characteristics of the facihty i 50.36(c)(1)); i.e., they would be limits reporting requirement. With the which,if altered, woud have a on important process variables needed proposed system. only technical significant effect on safety and are not .
to protect the integrity of fission product specifications with immediate included in other catagories of technical barrien. lf a safety hmit is exceeded. Importance to safety would be included as OLCs; thus, specific action to change ePecificaties. Principal design feature the beensee mest: shut down the plant:
the facihty operating mode will be 8Pecifications identify the physical notify NRC: review the matter to characteristics of the plant and alte that determine appropriate actions to required when an OIE is not met.
(iv) Check andfest regulisment, may not be changed without prior NRC preclude recurrence: and restart the approval. %ese specifications are not ,
plant only after authorization is received (CTRJ. Check and test requirements considered of immediate importance to frora NRC. would be a newly defined subcategory
- safety and therefore are not included in
. (ii)lJm/fingsafetysystemsettinse similar to the existing surveillance (LSSS). LSSS would also be defined (see requirements defined in i 50.36(c)(3), but the Appendix A operational te specifications;however,because of the'r proposed i 50.3e(d)(1)[lI)) the same way would not include requirements relating to " * *
- calibration or inspection to great importance to assurance of the they are currently defined in assure the necessary quahty of systems validity of the accident analysis, they 5 50.3e(c)(1), that is, as settings for automatic protective devices associated and components is maintained * * *" will be made part of the facility with variables having signifiant safety %ess calibration orinspection operating license.
g Feder .1 Register / Vcl. 47. No. 61 / Tu2sday, M:rch 30, 1982 / Proposed Rults 13373 N SupplernentalSpecifications. provide long. term assurance that the B. Changes to Supplemento!
$lemental specifications would necessary quality of systems, Specifications sesist of those items needed to components, and structures important to
%e licensee would be permitted to
' preserve safety analysis assumptions safety is maintained.ne monitoring make changes to supplemental regarding important safety functions not provisions would assure that the FSAR assumptions regarding the condition of specifications (see proposed included in operational technical specifications, assure that the necessary equipment and structures would remain i 50.36(f)(1)) without prior NRC quality of systems, components, and valid over the life of the plant.ne approval, pmvided the changes do not structures is maintained, and assure monitoring provisions would contain involve a conflict with the technical effective management overview and those surveillance requirerr.mts that are specifications incorporated in the
. control of facihty changes and performed at relatively long intervals license or do not result in a decrease in
. operations. and are directed toward determining the their effectiveness as explicitly defined Supplemertal specifications would state of quality or condition of far each type of provision (see proposed not be made directly part of the equipment. Alarge portion of these i 50.36(f) (2). (3), and (4)).ne mle operating lice.;e, but would be inspections, etc., are generally contains tests to be applied for each indirectly linked to the licensing performed by technicians rether than by type of supplemental spedfication.
document and be enforceable by plant operators while the plant is in a Dese tests are considered by the regulations prescribed in i 50.54 (see shutdown or refueling mode. Commission to be appropriate to judge proposed I 50.54(x)). Enformability is When the performance ofinspections whether there is a decrease in the separately discusted in subsection C or tests requimd by a monitoring effectiveness of a revised specification.
below.ne licensee would be allowed provision reveals a defect, the licensee ne licensee may change a to make changes to supplemental would be required to declare the system, supplemental specification only after it specificatio:sa, within certain bounds component, or structure to be inoperable determines that these tests are met.
and under pmscribed conditions, ' and take the action appropriate for that he licensee would bw/1. ired to without prior NRC approval.%ese system. component, or structure as review pmpoud dangea to .
bounds and conditions are discussed in stipulated in the specification. %is is no supplemental specifications in the same subsection B below. Supplemental different from what would be required manner as is currently required for specifications would consist of three by the current system of technical proposed design changes by to CIR subcategories, each of which is specifications if the performance of a 50.59. And, as with I 50.50 design discussed separately below. surveillance requirement ravealed a changes, the revised i 5036 would ,
- a. Contro/pmvisions. Control defeet.
require (see proposed I 50.36(f)(5)) the provisions would be defined (see c. Administmlivepmvisions.
Administrative provisions would be licensee to maintain records of changes
,,oroposed i 50.36(e)(1)) as provisions made to the supplemental specifications
) ting to the control of variables and defined (see proposed i 50.36(e)(3)) as 1 operating state and standby status provisions relating to organization. which would be available for NRC se systems and components associated recordk'eeping, review and audit, and audit, including a written safety with important safety functions siot reporting necessary to assure effective evaluation which provides the basis for included in operational technical management overview and control of determining that the change does not specifications. Examples of these facility changes and operations.%e involve a decrease in effectiveness of functions are the mitigation of the administrative provisions would conta n the provision, and to report all these effects of natural or man-made these items in the current system changes to NRC.%1s would be done on phenomena (fires, floods, earthquakes, designated as administrative controls' a prompt basis. NRC review cf thenc etc.). This subcategory would include as defined in i 50.36(c)(5), that are not changes would be conducted in a those specifications that are designated included in the operational technial manner similar to that of reviews of to as LCOs in the current system but that specifications as operational staffing CFR 50.59 changes;i.e., NRC will, by are not essential to the four safety and reporting requirements.nese items audit, ascertain that the licensee has functions discussed earlier.ne control are important in the long term to exercised responsible and prudent provisions would include requirements effective management overview and judgment and that safety evaluations for periodic checks and tests to assure control, but are not considered to be of ' made by the licensee are consistent with the provisions are being met. ,
immediate importance to the safe practices used by NRC in approving When a control provision is not met, operation of the plant- issuance of a license.
the licensee must: take appropriate Administrative specifications are in addition to the staff review of action, which generally would be essential to the entire control scheme of reports to assess licensee performance, administrative in nature, such as changes to technical specifications, the m nitoring of plant operations by reporting to NRC, instituting fire patrols, because they govern how other the NRC resident inspector will include etc., and review the matter to preclude specifications can be changed. For consideration of changes to recurrence. Plant shutdown would not instance, administrative specifications, .
supplemental specificatious. Since the e be required because items in this rather than to CFR 50.59, specify that licensee is required to document its aubcategory are not considered to be of proposed changes to specifications have
' to be assessed carsfully.nerefore, basis for the change to the supplemental i immediate importance to safety.
' However, documentation oflicensee administrative specifications become specification prior to effecting it the review of these matters would be especially important if, as intended, the documentation is available for the required to be made available ons proposed rule shifts more control from resident inspector's review whenever regular basis for NRC audit. NRC to licensees, allowing them to desired.
. ., b.Monitoringpmvisions.Knitoring make changes before NRC review.ne Changes to supplemental yviolans would be defined (see NRC intends to carefully monitor specifications that involve a confhet bposed I 50.36(e)(2)) as provisions changes to administrative specifications with the technical specifications
- dlating to monitoring, inspection, to ensure that essential administrative incorporated in the license or a decrease 1 testing. and calibration needed to controls are rigorously maintained. In their effectiveness would require NRC h
....-__r-..&..
l Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 81 / Tuesday, M1rch 30,1982 / Proposed Ruhs 13374 9 80.88 , T .-. s IV. Peperwork P. eduction Act Stat ===nt approval prior to their implementation (See proposed i 50.36(f)(6)). As required 0y Pub.1.96-311. this (a) Each applicant for a license authorizing operation of a production c,.
f l C EnforceabilityofSpecificofions proposed rule will be submitted to the ,utilirstion facility shall include in its l Office of Management and Budget for application proposed tecludcal Under the existing system of technical clearance of the reporting and specifications in accordance with the specifications presc ibed by I 50.36, the recordkeeping requirements. requirements of this section.The enforceability of specifications is technical specifications most be derived assured by making them a part of the V. Regulatory flexibility Act Statement '
from the analyses and evaluation license.Under the proposed system In accordance with the Regulatory included in the safety analysis report.
prescribed by the proposed changes to Flexibility Act of1980,5 U.S.C.604(b), and amendments thereto, submitted ,
10 CFR Part 50, only technical the Commission hereby certifies that under i 50.34.%ese specifications are specifications, se more narrowly ~
this rule will not,if promulgated. have, a described in paragraphs (c) (d), and (e) defined, would be incorporated chrectly signUicant economic impact on a of this sectiom A sunursry statement of into the licensing document. s ubstantial number of small entities. the bases or nasons for the Supplemental specifications would not This proposed rule affects only the 8pecifications, other than those covering be part of the four comers of the license licensing and operation of nuclear administrative controls or provisions, or as such. However,in order to link the power plants.The companies that own operational staff;ng and reporting license to the orpplemental these plants do not fall within the scope requirements, must also be included in specifications, l 50.54. " Conditions of of w defih of ** mall es** set the application but will not become part IJcenses, would be modified (see forth b the Regulatory Flexibility Act or of the technical specifications.
proposed i 50.54(x)) to requirelicensees the Small Business Size Standards set (b) Each licente authorizing operation to abide by all specifications, including out in regulations issued by ti e Small of a production or utilization facility of a the supplemental specifications Business Administration at 13 CFR Part type described in ll 50.21 or 50.22 of documented in the PSAR.as amended 21. Since these companies are dominant in their service areas, this proposed rule this part willindude technical by changes made, and recorded and does not fall within the purview of the specifications. For a nuclear reactor reportedin accordance with the operating license issued before (180 propo=ed l 60.36(f)(5). In addition. a Act.
p o a s e ti en nuclear reactor opera b use issuer e t adoption of the following amendments ecti a
batification. His delegation of licensing to 10 CFR Part 50 is contemplated.
authority to the Regional Administrator
{rg(
include technical specifications in the will be exercised in accordance with PART 50-DOMESTIC UCENSING OF categories set forth in paragraphs (d (1) policies and guidance developed by the PRODUCTION AND UTil.IZATION Office of Nuclear Reactor Regula,tiom FACluTIES and (2) of this section.He Commission The Lcensee could provide additional may include additional technical information Lf it dssires to further Justify 1.%e authority citation for this part specifications as it finds appropriate.
a change but would be required to reads as follows: (c) Technical specifications for a RC a proval be Asthaetty: Seos.10s,104.1st, ta2,1s3, too, nuclear rea ctor operating license issued ob ting change. dihally, se Stat, eso,937, e48, 953, e54. 955, eso, as beSre (180 days after the effective date n
changes to supplemental specifications amended (42 USC 2133,2134,220L 2232. of this amendment) and for a fuel will be subject to possible enforcement 2233, 2239): secs. 2m. 202,208, e8 Stat.1243's reprocessing Pl ant wil' include items in action in accordance with NRC 1244,1246 (42 UAC se41. 5642, as46), unles O'I N **M" Enforcement Policy. Changes which are otherwise noted. Section 50.78 also issued * * * *
- ander sec 122, se Stat. 939 (42 USC 2132).
inadequately reviewed, supported or (d) Technical specifications for a i
Sections 50 80-M81 she torned under sec.
justified or incorrectly implemented may 184,06 Stat. e54, as amended (42 USC 2234). nuclear reactor operating license issned result in a violation.%ese violations Secuens so.tuto2 inued under sec.186* on or after (180 days after the effective will be evaluated in the same way es s oss 2236 date of this amendment) willinclude violations of 10 CFR 50.50 are evaluated p es Su s'ia, u Items in the following categories:
l amended (42 U AC 2273). II 80.10 (a),(b).
' in accordance with NRC Enforcement (1) Operationo/ specifications.
Policy. and (c),50.44, so.4a, so.4a 50.54. sad so.ao(s)
i"'d ""d *ec. telb. es Stat. ees, as Operational specifications are
.D. ApplicobilityofProposedRule amended (42 UAC mo1(b)): Il 50.10 (b) and specifications imposed upon facility (c) and 50.544re issued under sec. te1L es operation that are necessary to assure
'Ite proposed rule, if adopted, would Stat. ses, as amended (42 UAC 2201[i)): and that the facility is operated within limits apply to nuclear plants receiving an li sass (e), sasgb). sam satt, m72, and and under conditions that are consistent operating license on or after a date 180 i sued under s 1 o, es stat. oso. with the assumptions in the safety days after the effective date of the final $7sa ,, '
analysis report regarding the values of rule (see the proposed 9 50,36 (b), (d), process variables and the operating and (g)). Technical specifications issued 2. In 150.36, the title is revised, state and standby status of systems and before that date would not be required paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised, the introductory text of paragraph (c)is components that are assorieted with the to be changed;however,upon request performance of the functions of by a licensee to convert the existing revised, raragraph (d)is revised and redesign sted paragraph (g), and new controlling reactivity, cooling the fuel, technical spedfications to the new protecting the integrity of fission product scope, content and format, the NRC paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) are added to barriers, and limiting the release of would take action to grant the request. read as follows:
e
Faderal Register / Vd. 47, No. 81/ Tuesdsy. March 30. Iss2 / Proposesi Rules 13375
) E-sadioactwe Assion pmdaria following fiv) Gaok codJastangsueammate important to safety is maintained.When we accident.E': " =alspeciEcations Check and test requirements are the reenies af a moeitering provision p to be impoesd on all marinal modes asquirements salating to periedic checks activity ladscete that the necessary Macility op= rat = includans shutdowan and tests to assure that facility quality is lacleog.6e hoensee shall and refueling and are ao consist of items operation will be withis the sabty halts declare the system, onaeonent,or of theJullowingtypes: and that thelimiting safety systems structure to beinoperable and take (ljSofetylimits.Safetylimits are settings and operationalEmits and appropriate actina as per-stead by the -
limits upon important prooses variables conditions are met speci6cadens.
which ase found to be necessary is (w)Operotwalsasizigandsporting (3) Adrarisemerieparisians. '
reasonably protect the integrity of requirements. Operational staffing and Ad-dmetrative previsions are certain of the physica1 barriers which reporting requirements are requirements provisions anfating to esganization, guard against the uncontrolled release of relating to ilhift crew composition and qualincations of personnel, procedures.
radiv.o;Gy.If anysafetylimitis responsibility and reporting that are recordkeepmg.veview and audit, and exceeded. the reactor must be shut necessary to assure operation in a safe reporting mecessary to assure effective down.%elicensee shallnotify the manner. ==n=eament everviewand control of Commission,teview the matter, and (2) Principofdesignfectore heility danges and operelions, record the resets of the review, specifications. Principal design feature (f) Ganges sesuppfemenauf includmg the cause of the condition an8 specifications are spedfications rdatirg specifications. (t) A ticensee may make the basis for corrective action taen to to those lestures of the facility, sc& as changes to supplemental specifications preclude recurrena. Operation may not materials of construction and geometric without prior Cornmission approval, be resumed untilauthorized bythe arrangements,whi& If alteredor unless the change involves:(i) A conflict Commission. modified, wedd have a sign!ficent effeet with the technicalspeel6ceeons (ti) I.imitirg sofery system settings. onsafety and are notavered by incorporetedinne boense;or(ii) 3 1.imiting safety rystem settings 'are techntcal specifications reqmred by decrease in 9 e effectrvenees of the settings for automatic protective devices paragraph {dj{1)of this section. provisions of the suppleraental related to thosevariebleshaving (ei Supplementof speeffications. For specification. ,.
significant aefety functions.Whese a nuclear teactors licensed to operete in (2) Achange to a contrd provisionis limiting safety syssem seatingis accordance with technical speciScations deemed toinvdve a deceaseinthe spedSed fora variableen which a of the type descrfbed in paragrgph (d) of effeceveness of the proeisiore(i)ff the safety huit has been placed the setting this section.4e final safety analysis controls on variaWs or on performance must be dmosen so(bat automatic report must also include supplemental levels that define One required operating protective action willcomed the spedGcaties. *='=l===d=1 .
state oratandbystatus of systemand abnormal sitoatnam before a safety limit specifications are specifications seleting components are telaxed; orlii)if the
%exoseded.II.during opere6en,the to monstones. enmaroland , frequency of theperiodic deck or testis
)toeneticsafety systemdoes set administration necessary to assure that decreased more than is jus 5fied by the ametion as sospnsed, abe licensee shall the quality of egalpment.ne proper history of test results: ortill)If the takeaction as sepolatedin the operating stateand standbystatus of required action,in theevent the specifir=*wwt.wtadi mayladude important support systems, and eNedive provision is not met.1s selaxed.
shutting down the reactor: motify the management overviewand contrn!af (3) A chant"' to a monitoring provision Comminaise; se"lew the usadar.and facility changes and operations are is deemed toinvolve a decreasein the~
record the sesaks of the seview. maintained. Supplemental =parme=Ea= effectiveness of theprovialen:(ijIf the inte-law abe cause of the sendition and are to consist ofitems of the following inquency of the monitoring. h=a-ena=
basis far oarsec6se action talen to types: testing, nr calibrationis dicenased prochmie --- - - - -- . (1) Contm/Pmvisions. Control without a compensating daggein the (iii)C - -%nies andanaditions. provisions are provisions relating to the acceptance critadon er an increase in Operational haies and ==rimans am control of variables and the operating the sanaltivity oraccuracy of the method limits an haportant process variables etsee and stoodby status of systemas and used, unless the ammutatise history of
. and conditions relating to the operstag components associated with kuportant test resnits clearly supports a seduction state and standby status of syneems and safety functions not descnbedin in frequency:cr(e)1f the meaaltivity or composants abat are ===adan-d erith the paragraph (d)(1) of this section,auch as accuracy of the =ankad used to perform
- performana of the fundiansof the mitigation of Gie effects of natural or the monitarlag. InaparHaa testing, or controlling reactivity, cooling the fuel, man-made phenomena.Ench control calibraUon is decreanad without a prolacting the inlagrity of Gesion product provision must include periodic mhank a compensating change in the acceptance barriera, and limiting the r=tamaa of or tests to assure that the provision is criterion er lacrease in the fasquency of ,
radianctive finaios products following being met.When a contmlprovialonis the monitorigg. daal=r**an, testing. or an anridant When an operationallimit not met, thelicenseeshall take - . calibratiors or {iii)if the acceptance ,
or condition of a ==rta- seactor is not apprqpriateactionasy-* A bythe criterien for the maalaaring inspectaan.
2- met, the liamaaa shall shut down the specification. The kcensee sha!! review testmg.ercalibrationis relaxed witigout reactor orJollow specified semedial the matter and record the seaults of the e compensatmig imo ease ki the aetion,as stipulated by the review. including the muse of the frequency, mensitivity.or accairecy of the specincetions.to place the facility in a condition an.d basis for conective action method used.
safe raadMaa entil the aparalianal kmit takt.a topmclude somrsence. (4) A change to sn ad=mistrative or =ndman can be met.~ne licanne, (2) Maniwiry Parisions. Waiaaring provimon is sleemed to hevolve a shall notify the tha=laalon mvlew the provisions are provisiens selatag to decreasein the etisceiveness of the metter,and rar==d the resulas of the monit oring. inspeouen. testias. and e m.2= 6) E the level of management yeview daA% the canae of the callkratian aseded 6o provide dang-eers overdew orsmetrolis dece==aed or(ii) sondition and the basis lor correcise assurance that the ==a-sary qualsty of if the assurance af the spiahty of action taken to preclude recurrence systems. -- r 7andstructures operations or of personnel is decreased, e
o
- - - - . - - - , - - - - , . , - _ - _ - ~ , - , - , , - , . _ * . , , , , . , - , . , - - - .
13378 Federtl Register / Vol. 47. No. 61 / Tu:sd:y. Mrrch 30. 1982 / ProposId Rulzs
~
~
(ilI)If the usefulness of the entire safety analysis report astechnical 'I s .
I recordkeeping in assessing matters speciBcations.
important to safety is decreased; or (iv) (2) At the initiative of the Commission if the method or timeliness of or the licensee, any license may be management review of changes to amended to include technical specifications is changed. specifications of the scope and content (5)ne licensee shall maintain which would be required if a new records of changes in the supplemental license were being issued.
specifications made under this section. 3. In i 50.54, a new paragraph (x)is These records must include a written added to read as follows:
saf;ty evaluation which provides the basis for the determination that the - I so.54 m o* noensea.
- ch: does not involve a decrease in the ectiveness of the provisions.He (x)%e licensee shall maintain and i records must also include an indication Operate the facility in accordance with
. e f review and approval by the licensee's the specifications provided in i 50.36 of
. onsite safety review organization.These this part. Changes to the specifications records must be available for inspection may be made only with prior ct th) facility before implementation of Commission approval or as prescribed the citange.Within three days of . In I 50.36(f) of this part. A change made cpproval of a change to a supplemental . by the licensee under i 50.36(f) of this specification, the licensee shall furnish part must be revoked immediately upon to th2 appropriate NRC Regional written notification by the appropriate Administrator shown in Appendix D of NRC Regional Administrator that the Part 20 of this chapter (with a copy to justifkation provided for the change la the Director of Nuclear Reactor inadequate. When this notiacation is Regulation. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory received by the licensee,the change Commission. Washington. DC 20555) a - must not be implemented, or must be report containing a brief description gf revoked if already implemented, and ccch change. including a copy of the may:ht be reinstated without prior safety evaluation. Any report submitted Commission approval.
by n ucensee under this paragraph will Dated at Weahington. D.C this 24th day of be made part of the public record.The March. tes2. -
records of changes made to the For the Nuclear Regulatory r'amminalon.
supplemental specificatiofia must be g,,,,g g, g maintained for a period of at least 5 g,yp g.,g
( A licensee who wants a change to N '8** d * *" *"I suase coon neem s ,
thi supplemental specifications that inv lves (t) a conflict with the technical _ - _ . .
specifications incorporated in the license: or(11) a decrease in the cffectiveness of the provisions of the specification, shall submit a proposed change, along with the basis and i justification for the proposed change for l cpproval by the Commission prior to implImenting the proposed change.
(7) A proposed change to the !
supplemental specifications that i invalves (i) a conflict with the technical specifications incorporated in the license or (ii) a decrease in the cffictiveness of the provisions of the specification, or (iii) an unreviewed safity question, shall be treateo as a proposed change la the facility or procedures, as described in the safety cnitysis report, requiring an amendment t> th) license. A licensee who desires such a change shall pubmit an cpplication for amendment to its license pursuant to i 30.90.
(g)(1) Die section does not modify the technical specifications included in any licInse issued before (180 days after the cffective da's of this amendment). A license which does not contain technical specifications is deemed to include the
h N '. l O q# wm u
j/ ig , UNITED STATES g gg 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I# WASHINGTON, D. C. 205E5 j,
V */ ****
JUN 121985 MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
CONTROL 0F NRC RULEMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F ONG0ING RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY NRR Based'on our independent review of the rulemaking, the " Technical Specification Rule," sponsored by NRR, RES recommends that this effort continue.
The' basis for our recommendation is as follows:
o NRR has a Technical Specification Improvement Project (TSIP) tasked with providing a recommendation to the Director, NRR, on whether and how to proceed on this rulemaking by October 1985.
o The proposed rulemaking would significantly reduce the number of Technical Specifications (which has increased significantly in recent years) includ-ed in a nuclear plant operating license by providing specific criteria for selecting only important safety items to be included in the Technical Specifications.
o Because any proposed change in Technical Specifications, regardless of its importance of safety, must be processed as a license amendment, the proposed rulemaking would reduce the licensing burden for both the util-ities and the NRC.
o By selectively reducing the number of Technical Specifications, the proposed rulemaking would create an opportunity for licensees to focus attention on matters of more immediate importance to safe operation of the facility.
o The proposed rulemaking would resolve the problem that the large number of Technical Specifications make it difficult for the control room operator to implement.
The complete RES independent review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention:
DEDROGR) and to the Director, NRR. Since the TSIP may well recomend changes
. . , . . - - - , , - - - . . - - . . , _ , . _ _ ~ _,
William J. Dircks 2
. JUN 121985 to the proposed rulemaking, it is premature for RES to suggest wording changes-at this time.
bbh Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures:
- 1. RES/RRB Recommendation
- 2. RES Task Leader Review--First Part
- 3. RES Task Leader Review--Second Part
- 4. RES Task Leader Review--Third Part
(
s<
, . _ . _ . ., _ . _ _ , _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ . __. _ _ _ _ .