{"title":"Backfit规则的遵从性例外","authors":"Samuel Miranda","doi":"10.1115/ICONE26-81905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Backfit Rule, 10 CFR §50.109, requires the NRC staff to produce cost-benefit evaluations to justify any changes it may make in its positions, or any new requirements it might impose on licensees, for the purpose of enhancing plant safety. The Backfit Rule also allows the NRC staff to forgo cost-benefit evaluations when it identifies errors or omissions in licensing submittals, or in its own reviews of licensing submittals. In such cases, there is no safety enhancement to be realized. Instead, the NRC staff seeks to obtain reasonable assurance that the level of safety, required by regulations, and licensees’ commitments, is maintained or, if necessary, restored. This provision in the Backfit Rule, called the “Compliance Exception”, has been proven to be very difficult to apply.\n In 1998 and in 2001 two licensees had argued, in License Amendment Requests (LARs) that their pressurizer safety valves (PSVs) were qualified for water relief duty. Consequently, their PSVs were safety grade components that could be assumed to be available, in licensing basis accident analyses, to open, relieve water, and then reseat. This capability was thought to be required in order to mitigate certain accidents that caused the pressurizer to become water-solid. The 1998 LAR was withdrawn when the licensee was informed that its PSV test results did not demonstrate a capability to relieve water. However, the 2001 LAR was approved, based upon the licensee’s claim that it had acceptable PSV test results. Later, in 2013, the NRC staff realized that the PSV tests, cited in the 2001 application, did not actually exist. So, after careful consideration, over a two-year period, the NRC staff issued a compliance-based backfit order to the licensee. The licensee appealed the order, and the NRC staff denied the appeal. Then the licensee filed a second appeal, this time directly with the NRC’s Executive Director of Operations (EDO). (Such appeals are allowed by the Backfit Rule.) The EDO granted this appeal. So, the compliance-based backfit order, which was intended to address the missing PSV test results, was ultimately overturned. The PSV test results are still missing; but the licensee now has the NRC’s approval to assume the operation of water-qualified PSVs in its licensing basis accident analyses.\n This paper follows the writing, issuance, and appeal of this compliance-based backfit order, and describes how difficult it is to apply the Compliance Exception of the Backfit Rule.","PeriodicalId":354697,"journal":{"name":"Volume 5: Advanced Reactors and Fusion Technologies; Codes, Standards, Licensing, and Regulatory Issues","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Backfit Rule’s Compliance Exception\",\"authors\":\"Samuel Miranda\",\"doi\":\"10.1115/ICONE26-81905\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Backfit Rule, 10 CFR §50.109, requires the NRC staff to produce cost-benefit evaluations to justify any changes it may make in its positions, or any new requirements it might impose on licensees, for the purpose of enhancing plant safety. The Backfit Rule also allows the NRC staff to forgo cost-benefit evaluations when it identifies errors or omissions in licensing submittals, or in its own reviews of licensing submittals. In such cases, there is no safety enhancement to be realized. Instead, the NRC staff seeks to obtain reasonable assurance that the level of safety, required by regulations, and licensees’ commitments, is maintained or, if necessary, restored. This provision in the Backfit Rule, called the “Compliance Exception”, has been proven to be very difficult to apply.\\n In 1998 and in 2001 two licensees had argued, in License Amendment Requests (LARs) that their pressurizer safety valves (PSVs) were qualified for water relief duty. Consequently, their PSVs were safety grade components that could be assumed to be available, in licensing basis accident analyses, to open, relieve water, and then reseat. This capability was thought to be required in order to mitigate certain accidents that caused the pressurizer to become water-solid. The 1998 LAR was withdrawn when the licensee was informed that its PSV test results did not demonstrate a capability to relieve water. However, the 2001 LAR was approved, based upon the licensee’s claim that it had acceptable PSV test results. Later, in 2013, the NRC staff realized that the PSV tests, cited in the 2001 application, did not actually exist. So, after careful consideration, over a two-year period, the NRC staff issued a compliance-based backfit order to the licensee. The licensee appealed the order, and the NRC staff denied the appeal. Then the licensee filed a second appeal, this time directly with the NRC’s Executive Director of Operations (EDO). (Such appeals are allowed by the Backfit Rule.) The EDO granted this appeal. So, the compliance-based backfit order, which was intended to address the missing PSV test results, was ultimately overturned. The PSV test results are still missing; but the licensee now has the NRC’s approval to assume the operation of water-qualified PSVs in its licensing basis accident analyses.\\n This paper follows the writing, issuance, and appeal of this compliance-based backfit order, and describes how difficult it is to apply the Compliance Exception of the Backfit Rule.\",\"PeriodicalId\":354697,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Volume 5: Advanced Reactors and Fusion Technologies; Codes, Standards, Licensing, and Regulatory Issues\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Volume 5: Advanced Reactors and Fusion Technologies; Codes, Standards, Licensing, and Regulatory Issues\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1115/ICONE26-81905\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 5: Advanced Reactors and Fusion Technologies; Codes, Standards, Licensing, and Regulatory Issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/ICONE26-81905","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Backfit规则,10 CFR§50.109,要求NRC工作人员进行成本效益评估,以证明其可能在其位置上做出的任何改变,或可能对许可方施加的任何新要求,以加强工厂安全。Backfit规则还允许NRC工作人员在发现许可提交中的错误或遗漏时,或者在自己对许可提交的审查中,放弃成本效益评估。在这种情况下,没有安全增强可以实现。相反,NRC工作人员寻求获得合理的保证,确保法规要求的安全水平和被许可人的承诺得到维持,或在必要时恢复。Backfit规则中的这一条款被称为“合规例外”,已被证明很难适用。1998年和2001年,两家持牌人在许可证修订请求(LARs)中辩称,他们的稳压器安全阀(psv)符合水减压的要求。因此,他们的psv是安全级别的组件,可以假设,在许可基础事故分析,打开,释放水,然后重新安置。这种能力被认为是必要的,以减轻某些事故,导致稳压器变成水固体。当持牌人被告知其PSV测试结果并没有显示出释水能力时,1998年的《规例》被撤回。然而,基于被许可人声称它具有可接受的PSV测试结果,2001年的LAR获得了批准。后来,在2013年,核管理委员会的工作人员意识到,2001年申请中引用的PSV测试实际上并不存在。因此,经过仔细考虑,在两年的时间里,NRC工作人员向被许可方发出了一份基于合规性的改装命令。被许可人对该命令提出上诉,核管理委员会的工作人员拒绝了上诉。然后,被许可方提出了第二次上诉,这次直接向NRC的执行董事(EDO)提出上诉。(根据Backfit规则,这种申诉是允许的。)环境保护署批准了这一上诉。因此,旨在解决遗漏的PSV测试结果的基于合规性的回配命令最终被推翻。PSV检测结果仍然缺失;但是被许可方现在已经得到了核管理委员会的批准,可以在许可基础事故分析中承担合格的psv的运营。本文跟踪了这一基于合规性的backfit命令的编写、发布和上诉过程,并描述了backfit规则的合规性例外适用的难度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Backfit Rule’s Compliance Exception
The Backfit Rule, 10 CFR §50.109, requires the NRC staff to produce cost-benefit evaluations to justify any changes it may make in its positions, or any new requirements it might impose on licensees, for the purpose of enhancing plant safety. The Backfit Rule also allows the NRC staff to forgo cost-benefit evaluations when it identifies errors or omissions in licensing submittals, or in its own reviews of licensing submittals. In such cases, there is no safety enhancement to be realized. Instead, the NRC staff seeks to obtain reasonable assurance that the level of safety, required by regulations, and licensees’ commitments, is maintained or, if necessary, restored. This provision in the Backfit Rule, called the “Compliance Exception”, has been proven to be very difficult to apply. In 1998 and in 2001 two licensees had argued, in License Amendment Requests (LARs) that their pressurizer safety valves (PSVs) were qualified for water relief duty. Consequently, their PSVs were safety grade components that could be assumed to be available, in licensing basis accident analyses, to open, relieve water, and then reseat. This capability was thought to be required in order to mitigate certain accidents that caused the pressurizer to become water-solid. The 1998 LAR was withdrawn when the licensee was informed that its PSV test results did not demonstrate a capability to relieve water. However, the 2001 LAR was approved, based upon the licensee’s claim that it had acceptable PSV test results. Later, in 2013, the NRC staff realized that the PSV tests, cited in the 2001 application, did not actually exist. So, after careful consideration, over a two-year period, the NRC staff issued a compliance-based backfit order to the licensee. The licensee appealed the order, and the NRC staff denied the appeal. Then the licensee filed a second appeal, this time directly with the NRC’s Executive Director of Operations (EDO). (Such appeals are allowed by the Backfit Rule.) The EDO granted this appeal. So, the compliance-based backfit order, which was intended to address the missing PSV test results, was ultimately overturned. The PSV test results are still missing; but the licensee now has the NRC’s approval to assume the operation of water-qualified PSVs in its licensing basis accident analyses. This paper follows the writing, issuance, and appeal of this compliance-based backfit order, and describes how difficult it is to apply the Compliance Exception of the Backfit Rule.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Modelling the Neutronics of a Molten Salt Fast Reactor Using DYN3D-MG for the Investigation of the Application of Frozen Wall Technology Conceptual Design and Neutronics/Thermal-Hydraulic Coupling Optimization Analyses of Two Typical Helium Cooled Solid Breeder Blanket Modules for CFETR Phase II The Backfit Rule’s Compliance Exception A Framework and Model for Assessing the Design Point Performance, Off-Design Point Performance, Control, Economics and Risks of Brayton Helium Gas Turbine Cycles for Generation IV Nuclear Power Plants AFCEN RCC-F: A New Standard for the Fire Protection Design of New Built Light Water Nuclear Power Plants
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1