[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 410-412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33287]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

[Docket No. PRM-50-112; NRC-2015-0213]


Determining Which Structures, Systems, Components and Functions 
are Important to Safety

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing and request for 
comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a 
petition for rulemaking (PRM) requesting that the NRC amend its 
``Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities'' 
regulations to define the term ``important to safety'' and provide a 
set of specific criteria for determining which structures, systems, 
components (SSCs), and functions are ``important to safety.'' The 
petition, dated July 20, 2015, was submitted by Kurt T. Schaefer (the 
petitioner) and was supplemented on August 31, 2015. The petition was 
docketed by the NRC on September 4, 2015, and was assigned Docket 
Number PRM-50-112. The NRC is examining the issues raised in this 
petition to determine whether it should be considered in rulemaking. 
The NRC is requesting public comments on this petition for rulemaking.

DATES: Submit comments by March 21, 2016. Comments received after this 
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is 
able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before 
this date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0213. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Email comments to: [email protected]. If you do 
not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact 
us at 301-415-1677.
     Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission at 301-415-1101.
     Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff.
     Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal 
workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions contact Robert 
Beall, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-3847, 
email: [email protected]. For questions related to the PRM process 
contact Anthony de Jes[uacute]s, Office of Administration, telephone: 
301-415-1106, email: [email protected]. Both are staff of the 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0213 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain 
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the 
following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0057.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0213 in your comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. The Petitioner

    On July 20, 2015, Mr. Kurt T. Schaefer filed a PRM with the 
Commission, PRM-50-112 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15278A208), which was 
subsequently supplemented on August 31, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML15278A211). The petitioner states that he is a nuclear engineer with 
over 40 years of nuclear experience, and 30 years of nuclear power 
plant licensing experience. The petitioner claims to have taught 
numerous classes related to

[[Page 411]]

Sec.  50.59 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 
``Changes, test, and experiments.'' The petitioner notes that he is a 
nuclear licensing contractor and consultant, and that he is 
``supporting utility and vendor implementation of the United Arab 
Emirates Federal Authority of Nuclear Regulation (FANR) version of 10 
CFR 50.59.''

III. The Petition

    The petitioner requests that the NRC amend 10 CFR 50.2, 
``Definitions,'' to include a definition of ``Important to safety'' 
that provides specific criteria for determining what SSCs and functions 
are ``important to safety.''

IV. Discussion of the Petition

    The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations in 10 
CFR 50.2 to include a definition with specific criteria for determining 
what SSCs and functions are ``important to safety.'' The petitioner 
states that ``[t]he nuclear industry is on its third generation of 
engineers and regulators with no clear definition of what is `important 
to safety' '' and that ``there is no excuse for not having a concise 
set of functional criteria defining such a used term.''
    The petitioner notes that the ``NRC staff's current position is 
that SSCs `important to safety' consists of two subcategories, `safety-
related' and `nonsafety-related'.'' The petitioner asserts that while 
safety-related SSCs are defined in 10 CFR 50.2, ``the regulations do 
not provide an equivalent set of criteria for determining which 
nonsafety-related SSCs are `important to safety.' '' The petitioner 
notes that there is very little agreement about what ``nonsafety-
related structures, systems and components (SSCs) should be categorized 
as `important to safety'.'' Furthermore, the petitioner states that 
``there is only a general description of what is `important to safety' 
in 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, and the regulations do not provide a specific 
set of criteria for determining which SSCs are `important to safety'.'' 
The petitioner states that NRC Generic Letter 84-01, ``NRC use of the 
terms, `Important to Safety' and `Safety Related','' and its 
attachments (January 5, 1984; ADAMS Accession No. ML031150515), sought 
to clarify the NRC staff's use of these terms, but did not ``provide a 
specific set of criteria for determining which nonsafety-related SSCs 
are to be categorized as `important to safety'.'' The petitioner 
asserts that this lack of clarity is problematic because ``important to 
safety'' is used ``in numerous regulations and NRC guidance 
documents.'' The petitioner notes that consequently, ``there are 
regulations, regulatory guidance and routinely generated regulatory 
evaluations, based on SSCs with no specific criteria that determines 
what are the applicable SSCs.''
    The petitioner requests that the NRC define ``important to safety'' 
as SSCs and functions that are:
    (a) Safety-related SSCs (including supporting auxiliaries) as 
defined in 10 CFR 50.2 and their associated safety-related functions;
    (b) Equipment and function(s) assumed or used to mitigate the 
anticipated operational occurrences and non-accident events evaluated 
in the Final Safety Analysis Report (as updated) or Design Control 
Document Tier 2 safety analyses;
    (c) Equipment and functions assumed or used to prevent or mitigate 
internal events that involve common cause failures and/or failures 
beyond the 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, single failure criterion, which 
have been postulated to demonstrate some specific mitigation capability 
in accordance with regulatory requirements, as described in the Final 
Safety Analysis Report (as updated) or Design Control Document Tier 2;
    (d) Equipment and functions whose failure or malfunction could 
impair the ability of other equipment to perform a safety-related 
function;
    (e) Equipment and functions requiring (for ensuring nuclear safety) 
elevated quality assurance or design requirements (i.e., special 
treatment), but not to full safety-related standards;
    (f) Nonsafety-related readiness functions of installed plant 
equipment and their associated plant condition(s) assumed, prior to the 
initiation of an accident, in any accident safety analysis described in 
the Final Safety Analysis Report (as updated) or Design Control 
Document Tier 2;
    (g) Nonsafety-related structures, systems, components and functions 
specifically included in the plant design to control the release of 
radioactive materials within 10 CFR part 20 limits, as described in the 
Final Safety Analysis Report (as updated) or Design Control Document 
Tier 2;
    (h) Specific (10 CFR 50.150) aircraft impact assessment design 
features and functional capabilities, as described in the Final Safety 
Analysis Report (as updated) or Design Control Document Tier 2;
    (i) Fukushima Dai-ichi accident mitigation related new or modified 
manual actions and equipment (including associated functional 
capabilities), as described in the current plant licensing basis; and
    (j) Severe accident mitigation related new or modified manual 
actions and equipment (including associated functional capabilities), 
as described in the current plant licensing basis.

V. Specific Requests for Comments

    The NRC is seeking advice and recommendations from the public on 
the PRM. We are particularly interested in comments and supporting 
rationale from the public on the following:
    1. On January 5, 1984, the NRC issued Generic Letter 84-01, ``NRC 
Use of the Terms, `Important to Safety' and Safety Related','' to 
address concerns on the NRC use of the terms ``important to safety'' 
and ``safety related'' and provided the NRC staff's position on safety 
classification. In SECY-85-119, ``Issuance of Proposed Rule on the 
Important-To-Safety Issue,'' dated April 5, 1985 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML15322A002), the NRC staff requested Commission approval to clarify 
the terms ``important to safety'' and ``safety related'' through 
rulemaking. The proposed rule would have defined these terms generally 
and clarified specifically the nature and extent of certain affected 
quality assurance requirements. The NRC staff also looked at 
determining what equipment should be classified as important to safety 
and what requirements are imposed on this class of equipment. In the 
Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) to SECY-85-119, SRM-SECY-85-119, 
``Issuance of Proposed Rule on the Important-To-Safety Issue,'' dated 
December 31, 1985 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15322A003), the Commission 
disapproved the NRC staff's proposed rulemaking actions. In the SRM, 
the Commission informed the NRC staff that the proposed rule did not 
adequately differentiate nor clarify the terms ``Important-to-Safety'' 
and ``Safety Related.'' The Commission reiterated in the SRM that it 
continues to believe that it is necessary to resolve the apparent 
confusion surrounding usage of the term ``Important-to-Safety.'' In 
SECY-86-164, ``Proposed Rule on the Important-To-Safety,'' dated May 
29, 1986 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15322A005), the NRC staff recommended 
changes to the proposed rule in SECY-85-119 that would address the 
Commission comments in the SRM to SECY-85-119. In a memo from the 
Secretary of the Commission dated June 24, 1991 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML15322A006), the request for rulemaking in SECY-86-164 was withdrawn. 
Please provide any new information and analysis that could provide the 
basis for changes to the NRC's regulations.
    2. The NRC requests specific examples where the lack of a formal 
NRC definition (i.e., codified in 10 CFR chapter I) of the terms, 
``safety related,''

[[Page 412]]

and ``important to safety'' directly resulted in adverse consequences 
to external stakeholders. The NRC's evaluation of the cost and benefits 
of adopting a formal definition would be enhanced if commenters 
provided a quantitative estimate of the costs and/or unachieved 
benefits due to the lack of formal definitions of these two terms.
    3. What regulations would have to be revised to reflect the new 
definition, and what would be the nature (objective) of the revision 
for each provision of the regulation which must be revised?
    4. What, if any, guidance would be needed to implement the new 
definition, and what should be the scope, level of detail, and content 
of the guidance?

VI. Conclusion

    The NRC has determined that the petition meets the threshold 
sufficiency requirements for docketing a petition for rulemaking under 
10 CFR 2.802, ``Petition for rulemaking,'' and the petition has been 
docketed as PRM-50-112. The NRC will examine the issues raised in PRM-
50-112 to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of December, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-33287 Filed 1-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P