ML20203P689

Notice of Issuance of Amend 91 to License DPR-49, Incorporating License Condition to Require Licensee to Follow Plan for Integrated Scheduling of Plant Mods

ML20203P689
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry, Duane Arnold, 05000000
Issue date:	05/03/1983
From:	Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20203P681	List: ML20203P680 ML20203P689
References
NUDOCS 8605080031
Download: ML20203P689 (3)

Text

._ . _ .

7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

( , ,

DOCKET NO. 50-331 IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY, ET AL NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMEN 0 MENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE e

The U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Comission) has issued

Amendment No. 91to Facility Operating License No. DPR-49 issued to Iowa

~' '

E1ectric Light and Power Company, Central lowa Power Cooperative, and Corn

[ Belt Power Cooperative, which revises the License for operation of-the Duane Arnold Energy Center, located in Linn County Iowa. The amendment is effective as of its date of issuance.

The amendment incorporates a license condition requiring the licensee to follow its " Plan for the Integrated Scheduling of Plant Modifications for the Duane Arnold Energy Center."

The application for the amendment complies with the standards and .

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Cormiission has made appropriate

< l findings as required by the Act and the Cormiission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chitpter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Prior public notice of this amendment was not required since the amendment does

, not involve,a significant hazards consideration.

Thee Comission has determined that the issuance of this amendment will not result in any significant environmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(ti)(4) an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with I

issuance of this amendment. , -

4

(

' B605080031 860422 PDR ADOCK 05000259 P PDR

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

- 2- )

2. Accordingly, the license is amended by adding a new paragraph 2.C(6) to read as follows: .

2.C(6) 1. The " Plan for the Integrated Scheduling of Plant Modifications '

for the Duane Arnold Energy Center" (the Plan) submitted on November 12, 1982 (as revised) is approved.

a) The Plan shall be followed by the licensee from and after k the effective date of this amendment.

b)- The licensee is required to maintain current revisions of, and provide reports regarding, schedules associated with the Plan in accordance with the terms of the Plan and failure to do so shall constitute a violation of this license condition.

c) Changes to dates for completion of items identified in Schedule B do not require a license amendment. Dates specified in Schedule A shall be changed only in accor-dance with applicable NRC procedures. Failure to e, complete items listed in the schedules in accordance W with dates there specified shall not consititute a

- violation of this license condition but may constitute

a violation of any regulations, orders or license condition imposing such date.

2. This license amendment shall be effective until May 3, 1985, subject to renewal upon application by the licensee.

3. This license amendment is effective as of the date.cf issuance.

! FOR THE NU AR REdULATORY COMMISSION Domenic B. Vassall , Chief Operating Reactors Branch !2 -

Division of Licensing j Date of Issuance: May 3,1983 I

9 9

w-,----w , - , - -- - - - - - - - - - - _ -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Policy and Planning Guidance 1986 i

l l

The staff should continue its efforts to establish an integrated implementation schedule for new and existing requirements reflecting

! relative priorities for each power reactor licensee. Where practical, and where the degree of understanding and data pennit, the results of cost-benefit analysis should be used as one tool for evaluating new j

requirements. The schedules should reflect the importance of the requirement to safety or safeguards, as well as the licensee's ability to i

complete the necessary engineering, evaluation and design. Once compliance dates have been established, the NRC will vigorously enforce license requirements associated with such schedules. (GOAL 1.14) l l

l

3'

[# NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES j n i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20656

( N

• e

/ -

May 2, 1985 TO ALL OPERATING REACTOR LICENSEES Gentlemen:

Subject:

IMPLEMENTATION OF INTEGRATED SCHEDULES FOR PLANT MODIFICATIONS (GENERIC LETTER 85 07 )

The purpose of this Generic Letter is (1) to describe the staff's intentions with respect to implementing integrated schedules, and (2) to solicit wide-

< spread industry participation in help.ing to place the priority for modifications at individual plants so as to pemit a well founded integration of implemen-tation efforts. A survey fom is enclosed to collect your views, intentions, and concerns regarding an integrated schedule for your plant (s).

On May 3,1983, the Comission issued Amendment No. 91 to .the Duane Arnold C ,, Energy Center (DAEC) operating license. This amendment incorporated a license condition which approved Iowa Electric Light and Power Company's " Plan for the Integr&ted Scheduling of Plant Modification for the Duane Arnold Ene gy Center." Implementation of this program for DAEC represented the first step toward development of an industry-wide approach to achieve more effective management of NRC-required plant changes and optimum uses of NRC and licensee resources.

Generic Letter 83-20 was issued on May 9,1983 in the interest of infoming the industry of the DAEC amendment and inviting other utilities to participate in similar programs on a voluntary basis. So far, we have received only six applications from the industry, although experience with the DAEC plan has been very favorable. Our experience indicates that a cooperative effort between the NRC and each licensee in scheduling completion dates for NRC-required plant modifications will benefit both the NRC and the licensee in the utilization of their respective resources, g

The Nuclear Regulatory Comission's Statement of Policy and Planning Guidance for 1985 states in part:

"An integrated implementation schedule for new and existing require-ments reflecting relative priorities should be established for each power reactor licensee."

- g

(

The NRC is not able to support the effective management of safety-related modifications and optimize the allocation of resources without the full support and cooperation of the individual utility and plant management. To make the  ;

transition from our past practice of treating new actions on an ad hoc basis, l to a more structured pre-planned approach to management of plant changes we must approach the problem in a spirit of joint cooperation. We stand ready '

to work with each of you on a voluntary basis to develop plant-specific living schedules for your operating reactors. Our intention in some of the broad areas of consideration relative to the implementation or' integrated schedules are briefly stated in Enclosure 1. .

In this regard, we request your views on the Integrated Living Schedule (ILS) concept, and particularly, your intentions for your operating reactors. You may ,

have additional concerns that warrant discussion or alternative approaches that you would want us to consider. Please feel free to contact the assigned NRC Project Manager to request a meeting with our staff to discuss the concept in general or its application on your facility (s) in particular. We would appreciate receiving a response within 60 days that uses the format provided as Enclosure 2 to this letter.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely, L

Hugh . Thompson, .. r tor i Divi ion of Licens ng Of1 ce of Nuclear Reac Regulation

Enclosures:

As stated e*

II l

i

e- .

e p ENCLOSl!RE 1 Femal License Amendment From the regulatory standpoint, the intent of -the fomal ifcense condition is to confim an agreement showing good faith on the part of the licensee and

the NRC in assuring satisfactory schedules for implementing necessary plant modifications. These schedu.les are subject to change for good cause and with prior notification. It is not intended, nor would it be appropriate, for the NRC to become involved in the licensee's financial planning and funding processes for these plant improvements.

Program Implementation

} As a minimum, the schedule should include all NRC-initiated plant modifications, whether mandated, (as in a rule, regulation, or order) or comitted to by the licensee (originating in a ceneric letter or IE Bulletin, for example).

As part of the licensing review, the project manager will detemine that the schedule scope is adeouate. The extent to which a licensee wishes to include

' additional items not directly associated with plant modifications initiated by the NRC, such as region inspection follow-up items or engineering analysis

activities, is purely a matter of the licensee's discretion and overall goals for their progran.

Licensee-initiated plant changes would only appear on the schedule as necessary to pemit an overall understanding as to how they are being integrated with the NRC initiatives. For example, a licensee modification initiative that can be installed independent of engoing NRC work, required activities would not be expected nor need to appear on the integrated schedule at all. Further, if the licensee found it necessary to revise a schedule for one of their plant bettement modifications, and the schedule could be revised without impacting the completion l date for NRC required activities, prior notification with written follow-up would be unnecessary, even though the item did appear on the integrated schedule. It should be clear that the regulatory intent of the license amendment is to provide assurance that NRC required activities are scheduled and completed at the plant

! consistent with an optimum. utilization of resources under the constraints

, applicable to the specific licensee.

Regional review of the program implementation would be geared to confiming that the program plan is carried out as approved. The schedule including the il completion date may be changed as provided for in the plan. The plan describes the framework for evising the schedule.

g Utility-Sponsnred Projects

! From the regulatory standpoint, one of the fundamental underlying berefits of adopting a preplanned, structured management approach to implementing f plant chances is the added assurance that utility sponsored " plant better-l

( ment" projects will beve an opportunity to be scheduled and completed, along with NRC-initiated activities in the appropriate order of priority. The NDC l does not intend to reaulate the schedule for implementation of utility-sponsored

-2

)

projects, but rather to pemit an orderly process for such work to be scheduled and performed. It appears that both regulatory and utility interests will be served by the successful integration of these two components, and we plan to make every effort to ensure that the integrated scheduling process is structured l so that the inclusion of licensee plant betterment projects will be viewed as a strong incentive rather than an impediment to utility cooperation. l Prioritization Methodology Although the staff generally uses some form of risk-cost benefit ratio methodology for the prioritization of new issues, we understand that a utility's prioritization of existing requirements will Le 5ased on other factors (including safety) that may result in a different perception of relative importance at a specific plant. l' This is precisely why we have not tried to prescribe a prioritization methodology for plant-spe:ific application. It is here that we feel the utility should be left to its own devices; no one else knows the plant better than the people who operate it. Whatever methodology is best suited to an individual licensee is appropriate and will be considered.

Practical Application ,

As a result of our close work with Iowa Electric and Power Co.. in connection with its integrated schedule plan, we have found it unnecessary to issue Confimatory Orders for modifications addressed in Supplement I to NUREG-0737, including the SPDS, Control Room Design Review, Regulatory Guide 1.97, Emergency Operating Procedures, and Emergency Response Facilities.

(

l

'I l -

\

i - - - _ __,

ENCLOSURE 2 RESPONSE FORMAT - GENERIC LETTER 85-PLANT NAME:

} UTILITY:

3 I. INTENTIONS A. Intend to work with the staff to develop an ILS .

B. Have reservations that must be resolved before developing ILS C. Do not presently intend to negotiate an ILS with the staff D. Plan to implement an infomal ILS only II. STATUS A. If you answered I.A above:

1. Have you settled on a method for prioritizing the work at your plant (s)?

Circle One: Yes No .

If yes, select best description:

Engineering judgement Analytic Hiearchy process Risk based analysis Cost-benefit analysis Other (please describe) l If no, provide estimated date j for selecting a methodology:

Date V

or .

O If not presently available, provide estimated l

t date for scheduling the selection of a methodology:

2. What is your estimated date.for making a l

submittal to the NRC-or I If not presently available, planned date for l ,j scheduling a submittal to the NRC 8

A- _ _

• -~ - a-B. If you answered I.B above: I

1. Please explain your reservations on separate sheet (s) or provide your schedule for supplying an explanation See separate sheet (s) or 1

Separate submittal scht iuled for (Date) 1

2. If available to meet with the staff to discuss your concer:a. propose a time frame for such a meeting and provide a contact that can make arrangements Contact / Time Frame Phone Number 4

C. If you answered I.C

1. Would you be willing to meet with the staff to discuss the development of an ILS for your facility (s)?

Oircle One: Yes No If yes, propose a time frame for such a meeting and provide a contact that can make arrangements.

Contact Time Frame Phone Number If no, any constructive comments you have would be appreciated.

III. ADDITIONAL ITEMS Please make any suggestions you may have as to howa'btility sponsored availability / reliability project might be credited for plant safety p enhancement. Provide additional constructive comments as appropriate.

n

)

r , - - . - - - - - - . . - - ,--.---.--,,n.-_ .--. .. -- - - , . . - - - . - - . , _ , . _ - . , , . . . - . .

Attachment 8

.' Technical Specifications f

4 4

EXECUTIVE SUP9tARY NRC TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ,

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PLAN MARCH 28, 1986 Prepared by:

Technical Specifications Coordination Branch Division of Human Factors Technology, NRR l

5

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

e 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

TECHNICAL SFECIFICATIONS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PLAN PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

................................................ 1 2.0 DEVELOPMENT O F NEW STS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1 Trial Use of AIF and TSIP Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.2 Develop Commission Policy Statement.................... 3 2.3 Improvements to TS Text and Bases Sections............. 4 2.4 Industry Preparation / Submittal of New STS.............. 4

! 2.5 NRC Revi ew/ Approval of New $TS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 i

2.6 Plant Specific Implementation of New 5T5............... 4 3.0 SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING $T5..................... 5 i 3.1 Short Term STS Improvements to be Developed by TSCB.... 5 3.2 Short Term STS Improvements to be Developed by

the NRR Licensing Divisions.......................... 5

4.0 OTHER STS IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES............................ 6 4.1 Improvements to Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of STS............ 6 4.2 Rule Changes........................................... 6 4.3 Surveillance Requirements.............................. 7 4.4 PRA Methods for STS Improvements....................... 7 4.5 Controls for Requirements Transferred from the Control of the T5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.0 COORDINATION, AND POLICY STATEMENT SCHEDULE................. 7 5.1 Coordination........................................... 7 5.2 Policy Statement Schedule.............................. 7 APPENDIX A - Issues Raised in the Commission's Staff Requirements Memorandum dated February 21, 1986....A-1 APPENDIX B - Policy Statement Schedule............................B-1 i

i 1

m-_ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _.. -, ,~_.._,-._.__-._m___.m. . . . , _ _ , . - _ , .--,--s

e s EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 5 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PLAN

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In the past several years the nuclear industry and the NRC staff have been studying the question of whether improvement to the current system of establishing Technical Specification (TS) requirements for nuclear power plants is needed. The two most recent studies of this issue were performed by an NRC task group known as the Technical Specifications Improvement Project (TSIP) and a Subcomittee of t Forum's Comittee on Reactor Licensing and Safety.ge The overallAtomic Industrial conclusion of these studies was that many improvements in the scope and content of Technical Specifications are needed, and that a joint NRC and Industry program should be initiated to implement these improvements.

Both of these groups made specific recomendations which are sumarized as follows:

1) The NRC should adopt the criteria for defining the scope of TS proposed in the AIF and TSIP reports. Those criteria should then be used by the NRC and each of the Industry Owners Groups to completely rewrite / streamline the existing Standard Technical Specifications (STS). This process would result in many requirements being transferred from control by Technical Specifications to control b /

other mechanisms (e.g., the FSAR, Operating Procedures QA Plan) y which would not require a license amendment or prior NRC approval when changes are needed. The new STS would also include greater emphasis on human factors pri:.ciples to add clarity and under-standing to the overall text ar.d Bases Section.

2) A parallel program of short term improvements in both the scope and substance of the existing TS should be initiated in addition to developing a new set of STS as identified in 1) above.

The purpose of this Executive Sumary of the Program Plan is to outline the specific set of activities to be performed by the industry and the NRC aimed at the practical implementation of these recomendations.

This document is structured :o as to link specific activities under the program with the two major objectiv a embodied in the TSIP and AIF recommendations sumarized above. As such Section 2.0 below is devoted to the development of a new set of STS while Section 3.0 is devoted to implementing shorter term improvements to the existing STS. Section 4.0 describes other general activities necessary to support the overall program. And finally, Section 5.0 sumarizes the schedule of activities for the issuance of the Comission Policy Statement on Technical Specifications.

I"Recomendations for Improving Technical Specifications," NRC Technical Specification Improvement Project, September 30, 1985.

" Technical Specification Improvements," AIF Subcomittee on Technical Specifications Improvements, October 1, 1985.

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

e .

- 2.-

p 2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF NEW STS The first priority of this Program Plan shall be the development of a Commission Policy 5tatement to establish a specific set of objective criteria for determining which regulatory reqairements and operating restrictions should be included in TS.

l 2.1 Trial Use of AIF and TSIP Criteria Before the staff can recommend that the Commission issue a Policy Statement based on the TS1P and AIF criteria, these criteria must be validated (i.e., shown to be technically adequate and practical to I,

implement). The validation process will be through a trial use of the criteria on actual operating reactor TS.

i-Activities Schedule Goals l 1. AIF and NRC separately applied the criteria Completed - 02/18/86 to Wolf Creek and Limerick TS. Limiting

Conditions for Operation and associated 4

Surveillance Requirements, were evaluated against the criteria. r

+

2. AIF and NRC met to discuss the results Meetings Completed of the trial application of the criteria. Wolf Creek-01/28/86 Areas of agreement and cisagreement were Limerick-02/26/86 3

discussed and differences resolved where Report Issued-03/21/86 possible. Remaining defects in the

. criteria or changes needed to improve clarity were summarized.

3. NRC RRAB will perform an evaluation of the Started-03/10/86 risk significance of the systems or Finish-04/30/86 l components with LCOs that would be removed from the TS and currently require a power reduction or shutdown. If the criteria

result in LCO's with major risk significance l being removed from the TS, then changes to the criteria will be proposed.

4. The results of 2 and 3 above will be used Start-In Parallel i for modifying or clarifying the criteria, with 2 and 3 above.

as needed. The final criteria developed Finish-04/30/86

. through this process will be included in

the Policy Statement discussed in I Section 2.2 below.

l l

a

+

+,,,,-.m,%.<-we-.v ..---y,,_--..m-+, .,.-m,.....

-w- -..q ---.v,-.m.-..,,_.m.,-..wwnn----e- -

-r~mer - ..., ,,r. ,--- -- .c+..-

,I

< 2.2 Develop Comission Policy Statement

-The second step in developing the new STS is to issue a Policy Statement which defines the scope, purpose, and content for Technical Specifications. The core of this Policy Statement will be the TS selection criteria validated by the process outlined ir. Section 2.1 above.

Activities Schedule Goals

1. TSCB, with the support of ELD and other NRC Started-03/24/86 staff will draft a Policy Paper recommending Finish-04/30/86 that a Notice of Proposed Policy Statement First Draft Issued be issued for public coment stating the Comission's intent to establish a specific set of objective criteria for determining 4 which regulatory requirements and operating ,

. restrictions should be included in TS. The

, Policy Paper will include a discussion of all the issues listed in Appendix A which were

- identified in the Comission's Staff Requirements memorandum dated 02/21/86. Withdrawal of the earlier proposed rule change for 10 CFR 50.36 would be included in this Notice.

2. The first draft Policy Paper will be Start-05/01/86 circulated for review and coment Finish-07/03/86 i to each of the NRC Program Offices, Second Draft Issued.

Regional Offices and NRR Divisions. After r coments from all groups have been considered and appropriate changes made, a second draft l will be issued for ACRS review.

3. The second draft Policy Paper will be Start-07/07/86 presented to the ACRS. Any changes Finish-08/01/86 l ACRS Review Complete necessary will be made and a final and Policy Faper draft paper prepared and forwarded to CRGR. Forwarded to CRGR.

j

4. The final draft paper will be presented Start-08/04/86 to CRGR for review and approval. Any Finish-08/29/86 1 required changes will be made and the CRGR Review Complete Policy Paper will be forwarded to the and Policy Paper Comission. Forwarded to Comission.

5. The staff will, at the Commission's option, 5 tart-09/02/86 make a presentation to the Comission on Finish-10/17/86 l the Notice of Proposed Policy Statement and Notice of Proposed make changes directed by the Comission Policy Statement l

< prior to publishing the Notice for public Issued.

1 comment.

?

f (

6. Public coments received in response to the Start-11/13/86 Notice will be reviewed and addressed in a Comnents received.

second Policy Par er for the Comission Finish-01/30/87 proposing a final Policy Statement on Policy Statement Technical Specifications Improvement. Issued.

Following Commission approval the Policy Statement will be issued.

2.3 Improvements to TS Text and Bases Sections In addition to culling out the less important requirements in the existing STS by applying the selection criteria discussed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 above, a major objective of the TS Improvement Program is to, through the application of human factors principles, add clarity to the TS. These types of changes represent one of the primary safety benefits to be achieved from the program. NRC and Industry activities will include the development of a Standard Format and Content Guide for TS text and Bases. This work will be completed and available for use in preparing the new STS discussed below.

2.4 Industry Preparation / Submittal of New STS The primary instrument to be used for achieving the desired improvement in TS will be a new set of STS based on selection criteria to be defined in a Comission Policy Statement. It is expected that the Industry, through the individual owners groups, will take the lead in preparing the new STS and submitting them in a Topical Report. The details of this process and a schedule for submittals have not yet been worked out with the Industry, however, the objective is for Industry to develop and issue the new STS and any subsequent revisions. The NRC role would be limited to review and approval.

2.5 NRC Review / Approval of New STS A schedule goal of six months from the date of submittal has been established for ComDletion of the staff's review. The bases for the staff's review will be the guidelines established in the Comission '

Policy Statement and the guidance developed under subsection 2.3 above. ,

\

2.6 Plant Specific Implementation of New STS Plant specific implementation of the new STS is not considered a partlof the Program Plan. TSCB will, however, in conjunction with Industry, i develop guidelines for the contents of the individual licensee amendment submittals necessary to convert to the new STS. A likely requirement for the submittal package will be sone document or method to identify how each requirement removed from the TS would be controlled after the license is amended. The effective date of the amendment would be specified to allow time for any required changes in the license'es procedures and administrative controls.

e s 3.0 SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING STS There is mutual agreement between NRC and Industry that many short term improvements in the current STS should be made in parallel with the longer tenn plan to develop new STS as discussed in Section 2.0 above.

These improvements are needed to resolve recurring problems with certain technical and administrative requiremen'ts in operating plant TS. These issues are of minor safety significance, but their resolution requires a considerable amount of NRC staff and Industry resources. The general approach for making these types 1f changes will be to revise specific requirements in the existing STS, issue a Generic Letter with the revised STS enclosed, and then process individual operating reactor license amendment requests based on the Generic Letter.

In order to expedite the review process so that short tem improvements can be implemented as soon as possible, two parallel paths for developing and processing the STS changes have been established. The first path is through TSCB and the second is through the three NRR Licensing Divisions. The types of improvements that would follow each of these paths are discussed in Subsections 3.1 and 3.2 below.

Regardless of which path is followed, the actual change to the STS and the Generic Letter implementing it would be prepared by TSCB.

3.1 Short Tem STS Improvements to be Developed by TSCB As a general rule, short tenn STS improvements which are applicable to all plants without regard to vendor design, e.g., fire protection, general requirements applicable to limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requireuents, and administrative control requirements, will be developed by TSCB. These types of changes can be initiated and developed by the staff without significant additional input from the Industry. TSCB will develop the changes, coordinate NRR and CRGR approval (where required), and prepare a Generic Letter for notifying licensees of approved STS changes.

3.2 Short Term STS Improvements to be Developed by the NRR Licensing Divisions The review and development of vendor specific short tenn STS improvements will be the responsibility of the applicable NRR Licensing Division. In addition certain other generic (i.e., applicable to more than one vendor design) changes will also be developed by the Licensing Divisions. The types of changes that will be handled by the Licensing Divisions are generally initiated by the Industry and must be reviewed by a technical specialist branch within the NRC.

S

~

G ,

R e

Two types of submittals.to the Licensing Divisions have been designated -

by the staff for use by the Industry in initiating staff action on these types of short tenn improvements. The first type is a Topical Report to y -

E- justify changes to the Allowed Outage Times (A0Ts) and Surveillance Intervals (sis) associated with STS requirements. The second type of

g. submittal which will initiate an NRR Licensing Division review is a J-plant specific license amendment which has been endorsed by the Industry

~

(e.g., an Owners Group) as a candidate for consideration under the d

]

Technical Specifications Improvement Program.

=

4.0 OTHER STS IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES _

3 The main focus of both the NRC and Industry Technical Specification 9 improvement activities discussed above has been on the LCOs in Section 3 =

of the STS. However, consideration will be given to the need for  ;

improvements to the other STS sections, particularly Sections 5.0 and -

6.0. AIF recomended rule changes and the relocation of surveillance j E_- -

requirements to other controlled documents will also be considered. E w

I Another area related to STS improvements is the TSIP and AIF recomenda-tions for continued development and application of probabilistic risk i*

I assessment (PRA) methods to address TS requirements. And finally.

policy guidance for selecting appropriate controls on requirements which y will be transferred from the control of the current STS, through the -

application of the selection criteria discussed in Subsection 2.1, needs to be established. This policy guidance must be established before a new set of STS can be approved by NRC. _-

- 4.1 Improvements to Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of STS  ; __

The Policy Statement will only establish selection criteria for LCOs. .

Improvements to the Design Features and Administrative Controls sections J will be developed by TSCB and incorporated into the existing STS as 7 short term improvements. -

4.2 Rule Changes AIF recomended that NRC initiate rulemaking to codify the criteria for TS requirements in place of the current requirements of 10 CFR 50.36. 7 In addition, several changes in the regulations referencing Technical i Specification were recomended to confonn with the new STS requirements ~

e (e.g., 50.36 on RETS, Part 50 Appendices I, J K. H, and R on duplicate or overlap TS requirements). Proposed rule changes will be developed by a TSCB with input from the LicensinJ Divisions. A major rule change to codify the criteria will not be 'nitiated until some experience using e the criteria under a Policy Statament has been gained. E Y

=

5 5

1

4.3 Surveillance Requirements AIF recommended that surveillance requirements for items listed in the new STS should be relocated to documents not controlled by the license amendment process. Further, it was recommended that the details associated with surveillance, frequency and methodology, may be more ..

effectively controlled by a program with an appropriate administrative control process. TSCB will work with Industry to develop the justification for a change in the process by which surveillance requirements are addressed in TS.

4.4 PRA Methods for STS Improvements The NRC Office of Research is developing a Procedure for Evaluating Technical Specifications (PETS) which addresses PRA methods to evaluate changes to A0Ts and sis. Guidance on this subject is needed to facilitate Licensee's preparation of changes that are based on risk assessments. TSCB will interface with RES on the results of the PETS program which will be used to provide guidance to Industry and the staff on PRA methods for evaluating changes to Technical Specifications.

4.5 Controls for Requirements Transferred from the Control of the TS Various mechanisms exist which can be used to control those requirements which would be removed from the TS when the proposed selection criteria are applied. There is a need to establish guidance for determining which controls are appropriate for particular requirements based on '

their safety significance. TSCB will develop and issue this guidance with input from Industry.

5.0 C0 ORDINATION, AND POLICY STATEMENT SCHEDULE 5.1 Coordination ..

TSCB will be responsible for managing and coordinating all NRC activities within the scope of the Program Plan and will serve as the point of contact at the NRC for all Industry related activities with the exception of the specific short term STS improvements to be developed by the NRR Licensing Divisions (see Subsection 3.2). The Industry will work directly with the Licensing Divisions on these specific short term improvements with the TSCB role being only coordination to assure consistency with the overall objectives of the improvement program.

5.2 Policy Statement Schedule The schedule for the activities related to the issuance of a Commission Policy Statement on TS Improvements is provided in in Appendix B.

, o i

APPENDIX A l

ISSUES RAISED IN THE C0 MISSION'S STAFF REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM DATED FEBRUARY 21, 1986

a. Whether implementation of the Policy should be backfitted, forwardfitted or both? -

b. If the Program is to be voluntary, how can, or should the NRC encourage participation by individual licensees?

c. Is the 10 CFR 50.109 Backfit Rule applicable?

d. Should the Policy Statement be codified by a change to 10 CFR 50.36, and if so, on what time schedule (perhaps after some trial use with the Policy Statement)?

e. Whether the Policy Statement should be applicable to custom TS or should licensees wishing to take advantage of the program be required to convert to STS?

f. Are the control mechanisms available for those items that would be removed from the TS adequate (e.g., 10 CFR 50.59)? If not, what changes are necessary?

g. What are the NRC resource impacts in terms of both the initial implementation of the New STS and any additional staff actions related to a greater reliance on 10 CFR 50.59 or plant procedures for control?

h. What are the risk implications of the proposed criteria? Can the risk impact of the resultant changes in TS under the criteria be quantified and if so, what is the effect? To what extent does the application of the criteria increase the uncertainty in current estimates of risk?

1. What would be the effect of implementing of the proposed criteria on the amount of testing at power that is currently required? How does this compare to the current testing practices of other countries? To what extent can any differences that will exist be attributed to differences in design (e.g., greater redundancy and diversity of safety systems) or preventive maintenance programs?

A-1

APPEN)!X B

, POLICY STATEME U 5CHEDULE I

PDLICT5141[ntutFORNINlil P406n4R PL&u AC11vl11tl  !!C110s 2.6 REF3ntifPt: PEP 100844CNART ,

PRlhilus SEDUENCE Rost Critical Activities First liittil0NCRITitl4sALL PLAN!.l. !IECS @n VIR5104 I fint NOW M1E 310/MA/86 m...n...n.nu u nus u n e n n u ul t96.u.n u. a u s u.n u..uana us u u n n ua.a l t87= san ==**=. ue n . n u s u n . . . . .

7tt108 CD'IMENCING Hit  !!0 !? !S !2 !7 !4 !! !6 !3 !! !S 12 !2 !6 14 !!  !

9041N  !MR.!APR !MV !JUN !JUL !AUG !$tP ! K i !NOV !)it !JAN !Fil !MR !AFR !A&f !JUN !

Fit!D3 C0mlu:lh5 lint U411 !258 !271 !298 !318 f.43 !363 !383 !400 !428 feet !473 !493 !513 !534 ! 58 !578 !

can n. u.u.a.un n.u.un'n u n n e u u nnann unn u n un un un um e n n u n un.un un u=== nu.n u n. u n .

13 Criteria Rest lepact 12.1.3) !CCCC!CCCCt  !  !  !  !*  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !

• 14 Finalire Criteria 12.l.41 !CCCC!CCCC!  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !

20 Policy Paper kalt Il 12.2.11  ! CC!CCCC!  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !

21 Ir.ternal Cessent Periedl2.2.21  !  ! C'CCCC!  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !

22 Policy Paper k alt 12 12.2.2)  !  !  ! !CCCCC!  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !

23 Att$ kiefing/Revies (2.2.31  !  !  !  ! !C !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !

24 Policy Paper Final trait 12.2.3)  !  !  !  !  ! CCC!  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !

25 ctg 4 Presentation 12.2.4)  !  !  !  !  ! !CCCC!  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !

26 Ceesission kiefing/Revie 12.2.51  !  !  !  !  !  ! !CCCC !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !

27 Notice si Felity Statesentl2.2.51  !  !  !  !  !  !  ! C!CC !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !

20 Public Ceseent Period 12.2.61  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  ! CC!CCCC!C  !  !  !  !  !  !  ! -

21 Tieslire Policy Statesent 12.2.61 '!  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  ! CCC!CCCC !  !  !  !  !  !  !

30 Final Ceselssion Approval (2.2.41  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  ! C!CCC !  !  !  !  !  !

31 !ssue Pelity Statesent (2.2.61  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  !  ! C!  !  !  !  !  !

muunnenu..nnuun.un .uen...unun unu..uunnen.u..u un .n.nuu.nu.a.nnuunuusunun s larchert f.ey - CCC # Critical Activities a. :Non Critical Activities h4N Activity eith seg float ... Fleet h

)

B-1 I -

PLANT HATCH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS o GOALS o ELEMENTS o MILESTONES JDH/4-8-86

- . - u . m m ;+::r c sre r;e a s s e rs - .-...-...c

O O PLANT HATCH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS GOALS l

o SIMPLIFY PLANT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS o ENHANCE PLANT SAFETY o MINIMIZE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AMENDMENT REQUESTS o INCREASE PLANT AVAILABILITY o PERFORM REPAIR / REPLACEMENT ACTIVI!!ES IN AN ORDERLY FASHION o INCREASE OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY o ACCOMMODATE POTENTIAL FUTURE CHANGES 1

/

JDH/4-8-86

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________J

D Q PLANT HATCH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS ELEMEllTS o ADOPT NEW STS WHICH UTILIZE BWROG/NRC CRITERIA, HUMAN FACTORS IMPROVEMENTS, AND IMPROVED BASES o INCORPORATE APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF BWROG RPS/ECCS IMPROVEMENTS o INCORPORATE SAFER /GESTR ECCS ANALYSIS o INCORPORATE SELECTED EQUIPMENT-0UT-0F-SERVICE (E00S) AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS USING SAFER /GESTR 2

JDH/4-8-86

PLANT HATCH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION IMPR0VEME" NElf STS o BASELINE FOR PLANT HATCH IMPROVED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS o CRITERIA

+ AN INSTALLED SYSTEtt THAT IS USED TO DETECT, BY MONITORS IN THE CONTROL ROOM, A SIGNIFICANT ABNORT.AL DEGRADATION OF THE REACTOR COOLANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY; OR

+ A PROCESS VARIABLE THAT IS AN INITIAL CONDITION OF THE DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT; OR

+ A STRUCTURE, SYSTEM, OR COMPONENT THAT IS PART OF THE PRIMARY SUCCESS PATH OF A SAFETY SEQUENCE ANALYSIS AND FUNCTIONS OR ACTUATES TO MITIGATE A DESIGN DASIS ACCIDENT.

o STATUS AND SCHEDULES

+ BASIC AGREEMENT BETWEEN NRC AND INDUSTRY ON CRITERIA

+ BWR STS SUBMITTAL LATE 1986/EARLY 19d7

+ SELECTED IMPROVEMENTS (DELETION OF LISTS OF SNUBBERS, BREAKERS, ISOLATION VALVES, ETC.) ALREADY BEING SUBMITTED, 3

JDH/4-8-86

l i

PLANT HATCH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS BWROG RPS/ECCS IMPROVEMENTS o BASED ON RELIABILITY ANALYSIS o OBJECTIVES

+ MINIMIZE UNNECESSARY TESTING

+ MINIMIZE RESTRICTIVE OUT-OF-SERVICE TIMES o RESULTS

+ SURVEILLANCE INTERVALS INCREASED

+ REPAIR / REPLACEMENT INTERVALS INCREASED

+ PLANT OPERATION IMPROVED

+ OVERALL PLANT SAFETY IMPROVED o STATUS

+ TOPICAL REPORTS SUBMITTED TO HRC

+ RPS SAFETY EVALUATION IMMINENT

+ ECCS SAFETY EVALUATION APPROXIMATELY NOVEMBER 4

JDH/4-8-86

f. .

- PLANT HATCH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION IMPROVEt1ENTS SAFER /GESTR o NEW GE APPENDIX K MODEL

+ REALISTIC MODEL

+ SIGNIFICANT PCT MARGINS (600-1000 F)

+ NEEDED FOR HIGHER KW/FT (HEW FUEL DESIGN) o APPROVED FOR JET PUMP PLANT APPLICATION o HATCH APPLICATION

+ PERFOR!! ANALYSES AT 105% NUCLEAR BOILER RATED STEAM FLOW POTENTIAL FUTURE PROGRAMS

+ PERFORM SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS EXAf1INE IMPACT OF VARIOUS EQUIPMENT OUT OF SERVICE ON PCT EXAfilNE EFFECTS OF EQUIP!1ENT PERFORI1ANCE DEGRADATION ON PCT

+ SUBMIT LICENSING TOPICAL REPORT TO NRC 5

JDH/4-8-86

1 l

PLANT HATCH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION IltPROVE!1ENTS EQUIPMENT-0VT-OF-SERVICE (E00S)

AND DEGRADED EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS o NOT NEW CONCEPT o ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY PLANT SHUTDOWNS

+ EQUIPMENT SELECTION PROCESS FAILURE RATES 3

REPLACEMENT AVAILABILITY SAFER /GESTR SENSITIVITY STUDIES o REPLACEMENT / REPAIR IN ORDERLY MANNER o SYSTEH/ EQUIPMENT ELIMINATION NOT A CONSIDERATION o COST EFFECTIVENESS o LICENSING TOPICAL REPORT SUBitITTAL 6

JDH/4-8-86

Q

i. a CRRERIA APPROVED STS SUBMITTED EXPEDRED SER BWROG V '

V V l I' TSIP START HNP TS SAFUt/CESTR INTO T.S.

EOOS INTO T.S.

HNP IMPROVED V V TECH SPEC xiCxOFF MEETING SUOMIT HNP STS BASE CASE-INiilAL S RISSUED EOOS DEFINED V&V COMPLETE OPTIONS SE1ICTED ANALYSIS COMPLETE SER OPL FORMS COMP START SAFER /GESTR V V V MEW Y V ^ ^

GESTR lNRC MEETING lLTR TO NRC SELECT EOOS/ PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS SER TO BE CONSIDERED l START ANALYSIS V V V EOOS/ ^ ^

PERFORMANCE ^^

IMPROVEMENTS  !PRA STUDIES lLTR TO NRC ANALYSIS COMPLETE KICKOFF MEETING I- V ANTICIPATED Y ACTUAL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4,

e. -

I l

1 l

i EMERGENCY LICENSE AUTHORIZATION

)

• TO AVOID PLANT SHUTDOWN. DERATING OR EXTENDED OUTAGE -

!

• LESS THAT 15 DAYS AVAILABLE FOR NRC APPROVAL '

• FORMAL SUBMITTAL NEEDED FROM UCENSEE l .

9 l

l .

e

- .c ACTIONS TO BE DONE BY NRC STAFF

• VERIFY NEED FOR EMERGENCY LICENSE AUTHORIZATION

• PREPARE SAFETY EVALUATION (SE) .

• CONSULT STATE. AND MODIFY SE IF NECESSARY .

• ADVISE LICENSEE OF AUTNORIZATION OR DENIAL , -

• ISSUE FOLLOW-UP LICENSE AMMENDMENT AND POST NOTICE IN FEDERAL REGISTER .

j CONTEXT OF LICENSEE'S SUBMITTAL  ;

• STATEWENT OF ACTION REQUESTED

• DISCUSSION 0F THE CRCUMSTANCES l

i-

~

• SCEDULED DATE FOR ETUltlGNG COMPONENT CR SYSTEM TO QPGA110N, OR ACC0lruSHING A EQU5tED SURVE11ANE s' l

'!

• SISCUSSION SF $5ERIM COMPBNSATORY MEASUIES

!

• SAFETY EVAL 11AT10N WITH NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS DETERWINATION

~

l

• REMSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS PAGES

• BIFORMATION FOR NRC TO PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSWENT OR 6ETERWINE CATEGOR! CAL EXCLUSION

• STATEMENT REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF STATE

<-~+- , - -,,,,,.-,,-w-- ,,, .,--.e --v-,-- --- , - --- - --w., , , - - - - - - - -- ----- - -

j

. 'l l

OF COMPITA,NCE WITH AN LCO TEMPORARY WAIVER  !

• TO AVOID PLANT SHUTDOWN OR STARTUP del.AY ,

• TO ALLOW TIME FOR PROCESSING EMERGENCY AMENDMENT l

• WHEN A LICENSE AMENDMENTIS INAPPROPRIATE

• NORMALLY NOT TO EXCEED TWO WORKING DAYS l .

1 .

1 O

e

6

~ ,

. ... , J....

f .

DLOphatind' Procedure 229 EMERGENCY LICENSE AUTHORIZATION

. 1. APPLICA8ILITY i

. This, procedure may be utilized as the NRC approval process for license authorizations for certain situations where a valid need for an NRC emergency authorization arises; i.e., a plant shutdown, derate, or an extended outage would clearly occur in the absence of prompt NRC approval. Such situations occur when adequate time is not available to pre-notice a proposed action or I

' otherwise follow the 1.icense amendment procedures discussed in DLOP 228

• The apprcval authority for amargency authorizations granted by this procedure

, , is the appropriate Assistant Director, or Acting Assistant Director, Division of Licensing. This responsibility and authority cannot be delegated. to If the need arises, .,I organizational levels below that of Assistant Director.

' the approval decision should be elevated to higher level senagement. This procedure may not be utilized if the licensee or the project manager with concurrence from his or her branch chief determines that a significant hazards consideration exists. ,

! II. 8ACKGROUND Oce'asionally, a situation may arise when a licensee finds that the facility

- is, or will soon be, in a condition for which the Technical Specification Limiting Conditions of Operation (LC0) or Surveillance Requirements require a plant shutdown or derate, or preclude plant startup. These conditions

[

> i I")DLOperatingProcedure228."RevisedProceduresforProcessing:. License Amendments for Power Reactors and Testing Facilities (The "Sho11y" Legislation) - No Significant Hazards Consideration. Noticing and State Consultation".

l .

I .

---e-.--,. ,,._,-,-,-n- -,.,,n,-,,,-----,n.,-,.-.,-,-..,--

=- . . j, .

- t -

l .

t h* .

vs. 2m ,

generally come about due to inspections, preventative maintenance activities, or current safety reviews that uncover situations which impose on the facility .

Therefore, an LC0 which cannot be satisfied within the pemitted time limits.

In the reactor unast be placed, or remain, in a shutdown or derated condition.

such cases the licensee usually requests a license amendment that provides a basis for interim plant operation, shd typically, NRC review and approval is requested on an expedited basis.

In addition to expedited actions, requested by a licensee, a second le'ss typical These emergency situation may also arise which necessitates prompt action.

i license authorizations involve actions required by the' NRC which clearly improve safety and which, if not taken while a facility is shutdown, cannot

.[

4 In this circumstance, the NRC be taken until the next extended outage.

l-pursues license authorizations on an expedited basis and the imposition of l

i; appropriate Technical Specifications prior to plant startup.

t j

This procedure is not to be used to compensate for questionable management l priorities by the licensee that culminate in a last minute request to the NRC, nor is it intended to be used to undemine the State or public partici-pation in the amendment process. This procedure supplements the procedures

' Therefore,

-- defined in K0P 228 which are the preferred approval methods.

this procedure is to be used only when time constraints make it impossible to use K0P 228; i.e., when the time allowed for NRC action is less than 15_

l  :.

days.

j ,

3 1 .

~

u.

. y..- g

,.. 1

/

This procedure assumes that the licensee has, presented an adequate technical and administrative basis for the change, that the NRC staff is confident that

- an adequate safety / environmental review can be performed in the allotted time and that no other factors are present that could cause the staff to question the licensee's actives for requesting an authorization on an expedited basis.

6 This procedure allows the responsible Assistant Director, or his/her w management, to orally authorize plant operation. OELD concurrence t is not

~

necessary regarding oral authorization. However.OELDconcurrepceisrequired on the follow-up license amendment. } ,

/

/

/

i II

I. PROCEDURE

1. When the licensee determines that the time required to restore components or systems to an operable condition is greater than the period specified 1 et 1 in Technical Spe'cification Limiting Conditions of Operation or when a Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement otherwise cannot be l

i satisfied, a formal submittal shall be made to the NRC. This submittal shall contain:

(1) A safety evaluation with a no significant hazards consideration -

determination; .

(2) Revised Technical Specification pages; (3) A discussion of proposed interim compensatory measures to be imposed; P

w,-va v-,-----,-,----a , - - - , - - , , - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - , - - - - ~ , - - - - - - , , - - , - - - - - - -

i . .'

,. ,f .

r .

I If'*'a4 I (4) A discussion of cir,cumstances surrounding the situation, and a f'

determination of why the need for prompt action could not have

' been avoided;

~

. (5) The scheduled ldate for returning inoperable

• components or systems to an operable condition, or the scheduled date for accomplishing required surveillance; ,

(6) A statement that a best effort has been made to notify State personnel; and I

' * (7) Information for the NRC to prepare an environmental assessment or the basis for NRC to determine that the amendment involves a categorical exclusion under 10 CFR Part 51. .

.f e .

This submittal shall be made promptly to the Director, Office of Nuclear

~

i

' Reactor Regulation, with copies to the Director, Region ( ),Officeof Inspectica and Enforcement, and to the Resident Inspector. The purpose i of prompt reporting is to allow the NRC to review the circumstances of the request for an expedited NRC review and to render a timely decision on whether to authorize continued reactor operations or reactor startup.

The prompt submittal shall be made in all cases where NRC action is

• requested within 15 days.

~

, s

2. The licensee shall determine the time frame needed for submittal approval.

If more than 15' days are ava,ilable, the nomal procedures contained in DLOP 228 shall be followed, and the 3 shall advise the licensee that such t

• e

• g .

P

' q  ;

f. * * - 5 .-

If less than 15 days are available, the emergency action is being taken.

f

• authorization process as defined in the following steps shall be follow

, k

, and the 3 shall advise the licensee that such action is being ta en.

3. The 3 shall determine that a complete submittal has been rece If a completi submittal has not been provided, the PM, Item #1above).

<J with Branch Chief concurrence, shall advise the licensee of the pending denial or, given sufficient time, request a resubmittal or additional . .

information..

i .

(

! .,4 The 3 shall review the conclusion that plant shutdown, derate, or

.,?

extended plant outage will result. If a plant shutdown, derate, or ,

{ extended outage will not result, the normal progedures contained in DLOP 228 shall be'followed and the 3 , with the Branch Chief concurrence, i shall advise the licensee that such action is being taken. .

5. The 3 shall prepare and sign a handwritten safety l

environmental assessment (EA) if applicable, and final no significant I

hazards consideration. . Technical Specification pages shall accompany (a) The handwritten safety evaluation must include the NRC basis, fo no significant hazards consideration This supporting determina the circumstances causing thp 1scensee's request.

2 documentation must state why the requested expedited action c.ould n when the authorization expires, and that the St and what, if any, consents were made by the State.

D e

. . - -y ,

, , f ,

/

t 5... ,

r.

e the SE, and, if appropriate, handwritten changes to tihe pages as o'

' . submitted by the licensee shall be made. In performing the review

. and preparing the documentation the g shall: (1)obtainhandwritten t

• SER input from the ORAB and/or the cognizant DE/DS! review branches, if appropriate. (2) consult with the resident inspector and/or appropriate regional personne:1, and (3) request that all participating parties attempt to obtain their respective management's concurrence for input provided. .

l 6. The 3 shall make a "best effort" via te'lephone to advise the state of the pending NRC action and to obtain state cossents on the proposed ,

NRC determination. The SE shall discuss this consultation and any state cassents. The g shall document the final no significant hazards finding (10 CRR 50.92) in the SE along with the NEPA (environmental I

impact)findingsandconclusions. Finally, the 3 shall complete and sign the emergency license authorization check off list (Enclosure 1).

7. After completion of the SE, the PM shall obtain the concurrence of his Branch Chief and the cognizant Assistant Director, Division of Licensing. If the cognizant Division of Licensing Assistant Director is' not available, concurrence may be obtained from either of the two

- other DL Assistant Directors. If no ads are available, concurrence

- shall be referred to higher) management. (Concurrences may be obtained verballyduringnon-dutyhours.) After obtaining the necessary concurrences, the 3 shall contact the Region Branch Chief and the 8 resident inspector and advise of the outcome.

\ , e

>g g

• * .,% * *. ,7 .:

r. .

l l' 8.

The AD shall then contact the facility's licensing management or plant manager and verbally communicate the emergency license authorization. .

The 3 shall ensure that the necessary information to characterize r

accurately the full extent and conditions of the Jicensee's request and the NRC authorization. is documented and understood by the licensee at the time of verbal authoriz gion. This includes a handwritten SER/EA, a final NSHC, and the licensee's submittal including affacted Technical Specification pages. (If concurrence is not obtained, the

" AD shall orally advise the licensee of the pending denial and, if, time allows specify the criteria which must be satisfied in order to receive NRC authorization.) If approval is gra'nted, the g shall telecopy revised Technical Specification pages to the licensee and to c I

the resident inspector.

i

9. Within two working days from AD oral authorization the 3 shall ensure that a follow-up license amendment. including a NSHC and post notice. is forwarded which provides the bases for NRC approval. The 3 shall ensure that documentation is forwarded to the LPDR.

Gud 48 I

6.-.. ,, O

I, . .

v . .. m .

. f .

/ .,tp *. .

6

/ ...

/ Enclosure 3 i ,

e *

/ -

• EMERGENCY LICENSE AUTHORIZATION .

CHECK LIST. ,

1. Complete submittal (Section III'. Item I)

2. Prepare and sign handwritten SER EA final NSHC and Technical Specifications (Section III. Item E)

]

. a. ORAB 'or tech'nical branch input -

~

. b. Resident or regional personnel input -

t . *;

3. *8est effort" to obtain state cossments (Section III, Item 6)

. .. j 4 . Assistant Director concuhence (Section III, Item 7) .

5. " Assistant Director oral authorization to licensee

~

(Section .-

III. Item 8) .

~

6. Telecopy Technical

• Specifications (Section III. Item 8)

7. Forward final two day license ame'ndment with post notice and FNSHC (Section III. Item 9) (Prepare DLOP 228, Attachment 4)

• • Project Manager .

Branch Chief - - '

ORA 8 Branch Chief / Tech. Review' Branch Chief

• ORAB AD . -

/. Tech. Review Branch AD*

.>- q To the extent practicable.

2 i g r uwstsosvaras NUCLEAR REGULATGRY COMMISSION /

/

,- f 8

t.

g j maanisserose.o.c.sgees. .

\***** NOV 21 R -

/

PEMORANDUM FOR:

T. E. Murley, Regional A kinistrator, Region ! ,,

J. N. Grace, Regional Administrator, Region II c

J. G. Keppler, Regional Administrator, Region III

• R. D. Martin, Regional Administrator, Region IV '

'3 J. 8. Martin, Regional A kinistrator, Region V

. i Harold R. Denton, Director FROM:

Office of Ruclear , Reactor Regulation

.- James M. Taylor, Director r i

- Office of Inspection and Enforcement RELIEF FROM TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION LCO'S

~$U8 JECT: .

• This memorandum supersedes EGM 85-05 dated July 15,1985 on the above-captioned subject. Its purpose is to clarify that two paths exist to grant relief from technical specification limiting conditions for operation (T5 LC0's) that would unnecessarily require shutdown or delay startup absent some relief.

EGM 85-05 described one path for granting relief. It applied to those situations in which a license amen hent was required but could nct be processed before Under the limiting condition for operations action statement time limit expired.

those cfreumstances, the memorandum stated that a licersee could seek a temporary

• univer of compliance with the T5 LCO for a sufficient period of time to allow the staff to process an emergency license amendment. The responsible Assistant

' Director of the Division of Licensing in RRR, with the concurrence of the responsible Regional Division Director, may grant a temporary waiver of compliance with the requirement if the licensee has demonstrated in a written-submittal provided before the TS LC0 expires that the plant can safely continue to operate without compliance with the technical specification during the time -Th it will take to process the amenenent request.

~

by the Division of Licensing, NRR and should be for a fixed period of time, normally not to exceed the two working ndays it takes te process an emergency amendment. Although the licensee is < technical non-compliance during the ,

waiver period, enforcement action will not be taken for the period during which the waive,r is in effect.

The responsible Assistant Director in the Division of Licensing in NRR should proceed to expeditiously process the asundnent If request, it is determinedin accordance duringwiththe existing procedures for emergency amendnents.

processing of the amendment that it raises a significant hazards consideration, the amendment should not be granted without prior notice and an opportunity for a hearing. In addition, if during the processing of the amendment.such a  ;

finding is made, any temporary waiver is to be 1suadiately suspended and compliance with the action statement should be required.

e , s c 3 .-. ' a

,-wy~y W i /r

-. -__ 7 J.-_ - - -. - .

=

N. '.

NOV 2. ..

~

Regional Administrators -

In addition to the situation described above, enforcement discretion may be used to grant relief from TS LCO's in certain limited circumstances in which a license amendment would not be appropriate. Use of such relief is expected to occur infrequently and should be for good cause. Under these limited circumstances a follow-up emergency TS amendment is not normally needed. We are delegating the authority to grant such relief only to the Regional Administrator and the authority is not further delegable except to an Acting Regional Administrator.

Furthermore such relief should be given only if it is clear that operating in excess of the TS LCO action statement for the period of time that relief will ".

(,J be granted will not place the plant in an unsafe condition.

To enable the responsible program offices to monitor and evaluate the use of h this approach, whenever enforcement discretion is used as described above to grant relief from TS LCO's, the circuinstances should be documented and a copy of the documentation should be pronptly sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement. '11 If a TS LCO will be exceeded before a license amendment can be granted, or if M'

- _ enforcement discretion is not exercised by the Regional Administrator to grant relief, the licensee must take the action required by the action statement accompanying the LCO. Of course, a licensee may depart from its technical u specifications, pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(x), without prior NRC approval in an emergency when it must act innediately to protect the public health and safety. ,

@WM5.LW g

Harold R. Denton, Director

- Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Original Signed Bn jaloss.M.Jafod Ja,mes n ,4 .M., Taylor,_Director

......., ..a r_,...-_- .

M L

t

- - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _