IR 05000440/1981009
| ML19257F219 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1981 |
| From: | Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Davidson D CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257F220 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112210300 | |
| Download: ML19257F219 (1) | |
Text
-
st
.(
/
'o UNITED STATES
-
,
,u
.
. ! " s@ '~,,o
~
wAnnucTow, o. c.20sss
,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- .
E
.
1'
'
-
,
s k,,
[
December 10, 1981
-
,
.
,
.......
.
CHAIRf4AM
~ r
'
.
.
.-
,
MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks
'
.
Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Nunzio J. Palladino SUBJECT:
NUREG REQUIREMENTS
~
In the next few weeks I~ would like e short briefirg on the NUREG tocuments that require action.by applicant'., and S
licensees.
J would like the t,riefing to focus on the following:
The role of the NUREGs in our' regulatory process.
--
The approval process for NUREG requirements.
---
The significant requirements ccntained in NUREGs
--
that have been issued.
l'
In addition to the above points covering NUREGs in general,
,
please include a specific discussion on NUREG-0814, "Meth-odology for Evaluation of Er,ergency Response Facilities,"
including:
<
<
)/
,
,
The process for oevelopment and approval of the
--
requirements.
.
<
,
,
,
,.
The proposed ~ implementation of the requirements.
--
.
,
,,
'
The estimated cost of compliance by licensees.
s
--
,
,,
cc:
Commissioner Giiinsky
<
'
.
Commissioner'r 6radford
,
,
'
Commissioner Ahearne
'
Commissioner Roberts
,
SECY Rec'd 0ff. Eco t
'
Tim e... #[d..i. ' P.'
Date....
/> n /
OPE
,
,
OGC p.
.
..
t
'
'.
)
- {
,
b
_
n -6~H 3p.
.
~
_
(
'}
f n
~
,,
)(
'
-,,
~
.
..,
.
.
- ; 7 ;;::
-
',.
'
..,'a-
, j p.
. ;
-
.
,
,
.-
.'
+3
.1.
... ;, < <
- .
. )s ' '$,.
' y,: H.. t',,
. i,e.t n,.
.
.
.
, ' '
,
i..
.. e..'.. \\.
.
..
'
.;
-
,
-
.
,.
,
Jl.,.. :f..
.
4. t.
s
.
,.
,
e t-
.a
..
.
.
1'
.,
- ), d(, JJ,. prd(. qo
',; j c -
'
9.
,s - *
'
(*
,
.i ;;T,
.
3,
,-
.
-
.,3
.,
- ,;
- %
- .
--
,
m
,
,,
,
4,'
, i,,.
p.. r 1,.:, ', y t.
- ,
,
,
e
,
W
<
,
.
q..
.
',
.
~
l..,. 4, y.. p!.; i..c
,..
...
..
._
% 4
,
..
..5 s
.C
,
,
,c, i,.
' (. f.
.
p,,.
... M ; '? t ;
y..; p -
..
.
.
..
,..
-
s-
,
.
...
'.
. -
- .
,,
..
,
. s :.. J. u;,9,,a.,... ", ;.y
-
-,
'
e
,
~
t m.v
-
,
.....
- *
.
.
.
,
9.
,2
- ..f,,.
- ..
-
s
..w,
,,
,
,,g-
...
,.
$
.
.
Hgf g..3>
f. t
,
,
a
_.,.,
.. *
,
..~
< $.i.
,-
,' y f i.. : ',.
.
.
>
,i. J ~.
,),,,,, '
-
,,
.
~
,
-
.;.
.
.
,
<
s x.
<;2 q
'
- '
.
..
.
'
- <
,, '.-
m. t,.
,.D.:r '
'.y., t
.tv 9.,w. q,., ;;,
..
.
_,
'o
,
.,
i. ;., -
..
.,
...C.. M:j s. -
9 7. '.;d R,'vi,, t. p,.
,.
y t,
,
,
,,
.
,
,
.'t
'_
,
-
.
,,.
j;
'
., ;
- l'i-
,M
.
..,.
., i w. g,.,i,-
...-
,
,
.
.
....
2:
/.,
,
..
,,
i
.
. [. ",
f
,
,.
.
,
,; 4 ;.
.h m e.
.',
.. f... "
.
'
t.
\\-
'
c.
- - 1.,
.w,'. M.
,, e U. c.Q,3 S / ?.(...<W. 'p ! U k. < $ 7 ;,n.g 4.h,b;i d
.m.
,
.
,
.
.
. 4: {.
'
'
~
' '
'
6af.
'
t,i' %
'.
.,
-
,-..
3 / *.'.
. s f;,;,. '.,,.
.e s.
s:
.. -
.
.
g, r,.
..
-
,.p=
., < g -v
.e.
,. v m. a. 3.,;.r ti L.;
...t-
,
..
-,,..
p
,,
',F 4.... ;
- .,
.1
.
' 7 5.6..
,,
.,
g.
.
,,' ' c. r.W.%,.,5
.
'
'j. ;.
. ' p',
rse
-
--
. p' '
,,. g >,..;
,. 4.. t.
-
9.s_'
, f, 1.
- "o
- *
,,,.y, 7,s
, i.'... S cl
'
'
s
.
m";'
.
.
,
..,..., :. p.
C
.
- 4
,' s
.t p.
.
.-
,
.
3
-
.
-
-r
.
'
e l e.
w, y a4 t;
,
-
.
a
. -i
.
.
.
,
.
...,,,l.. :c4 4 L... a,
.,
g i
....
s.-
.i,,.v
.- M.'..*
.v..*
..;.e.
.
.#
4,5
,.
^;
,,? i !
-
-.
,
',-...." w u
-
.v i' -
.
.
t.,i,,..
.a. n
,, h,.,,
-
J ! <.,
L
..
.. - _...
,,. ;- Q K,.'
D l.pf, (. [h[.,...'j '.
.
,
s
_,
,
,
.a n.a.
.: s.
,
,.
.
.
- .
.
,..
...)_.
,e
..
.
M' ' " t..
F R O'A:'
,..
- r
.,. k U[e,.
ChairmanPalladino)
'i.
'i*
's ACTION CONTROL D?iTES CONTROL NO
+
.
.
rhb
.1:1283
,,,
,s.. ['
'O
'. OATE OF DOCUMENT
_
Q[-
'
-
'
COMPL DEADUNE '
'
'. 'i !j. j,
- i; if
'h
- .3 - q' [. '. p \\; s..' 'i,l ? ).L yp;
.u
^.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
'
s
,-
n'V.
., *
.
'
'
INTERIM REPLY
,f
.
"
12 /10/ Al le'i
'
,
.,
.' J i
' / $;
10:
-
..
>
'
_
g
,W.
' '
PREI'ARE l'OR SIGNATURE.
f,
>
,
d:
,
-
Dircks j CHAIRMANb
'
"l j
FINAL REPLY
-
.
o
.
f'
- y/ l; g.,;
. ) b,
.4
.- '
FILE LOCATION.
O. EXECU lye DIRT.CTUn
!'
.
,
.
,
'
.
,
.
,.,.;
.
,
,
. "
.
y
-
-
- g ogn,
..e e.i.
,l
,
t.
.
C..
>., a -
DESCRIPTION
.,.
.,J
- iO m
.
, '...,.. -. r 2;.::,y O LETTER,00 MEMO O nErenT,. O oTNEn seECI AL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS.
. q' w't.1 ' e ;,sg
. g,,,
>?
'
.
-
i
.
,
..
.
at c
<
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
y' g..1 gi;.,3p.N'.3,*. /..
Req briefin.. ag on NUREG requirements.
' '
l t.
.-
.
v.
R c:
+.:
-
-
.
.
.Ho
-- :
,
.
.
,
.
- Contact Chairmdn's secretary by 12/16(.
,
.-. -
-
e
,
for appointment at'his convenience *
~'
,
j
., c. -
.
'
,
,
.,.
,
.
,b
"O' e,3,,, f, 5
,
,
.
a
.
-
1, c
.,:after the first ofithe year,
,..
.h,. i ydi
,
-
.'.
'
'
t. ;.
,'
.
.. ' '
-
'
-
-
-
.,TARehm i*
.
,;l,.1.. l Q,.. H,
,
.
.
o
.;
-,
~
- ,..
.l.
- q, ' g,, r.1..
ui.,4g.a,7 g.l r,
i-
-,.4....
,, y'
1p,
.
,,
.i
- -
.
,.
,r
,
,,,..
.
,.3
'p
e e, w. : '.. ;,.1
.
CLASSIFIED DATA.
,...
..
,,
,
.
.
,... 'a
, i,.,,,
i a.- * t
.
.
.
.t
.,.,.a : *
f.9,
. f gi.
t*
- Up,. I. ;p?..,p M..,,;h.l',
. DOCUMENT / COPY NO.
a, CLASSIFICATION p'*.gp'
.
- '.
t'
..g 3.l,,.4. j p
,g., -
. '
.;
v:
t.
..
-.
.# -2 %
N NUMBER OF FAGES CATEGORY
[,
i.
-
!.
...
?
s C.
,
...Le*
' ? <U.6 kM !
.
'
'.
',
%
'
'-l
,J o b (.\\ ; e e,.,.
'[ ci.
'
.-
.
.- )..).'
POSTAL nEGISTRY NO.
' O Nsl O nD D rno
' f
. '.
s * *, '.J/. A; t
,","
, j,; * s e p(.,
',.s 1 p ~
,,
,
>
"'
,,
-
h
,,r',,..,,".
AS$lGNED TO:
'DATE INFORMATlON ROUTING LEG AL REVIEW
~
_O FINAL. 6 : I C COPY
- '
,
'E'$h,k );'h'(t.
.
..
..
Stello. EDO f/12/14/81 Dircks-ASSIGNED TO:
DATc j
OBJEGONS
.,- [ l '.. ', e n
h 'df.:.t.$if '
.
Appr.op.' Acti in Cornell
-
'
'
,
,
,,
'
'
.
Rehm'
-
O Eno AoMiN s,Connes en
'
--
-
Ex T-
~.W.Wfek.
'DeYoung *
C MMENTS, NOTIFY:
.
.
-,.
' y.
. v@;,i.s. : t
..
9 '. -
JCAE NOTIFICATION RECOMMENDED:
O YES
O NO
',. ; c
- .s.*..
,
.
exr.
.
....
.
.
.,
/.cp. '
.
.
.
.,
.
-t....,fl/;:,*k NRC FORM 232 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS
'
(11 75)
!..e.,.".9
.
....
.
...
.
-.. -.
s.
-
PR.NCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL
.'
.
\\
t'D'ORANDU" FOR:
Victor Stello, Jr., Deputy Executive Director
'.
Regional Operations and Generic Pequirenents FROM:\\
S. H. Hanauer, Director
'
Division of Safety Technology, f!PR SUBJECT:
'\\
THE USE OF NUREG REPORTS IN DEVELOPING AHn PP04ULGATING
\\
REGULATOPY REOUIREtiEf!TS
\\
This neno is in\\esponse to your recuest dated Dece-ber 17, 1981 for
-
inforration to he'used in a briefine for the Chaiman regarding hos HUREG reports are Osed in developine and promulgating reculatory requa rc-rents.
You specifichily rnquested infomation with respect to har MUREGs are initiated,\\ approved, and used by our office with emphasis on tbc final approval pro &;s prior to issuance, hort the NUREG is presented to licensees, and hov tue draft and final NUREG is used by the staff in contacts with licensees. \\\\
The f olloeiinfdiscussion ref'locts the procedures and practices in place in fGR prici o the establishnent of the CRGR. Ve recognize that sone t
rodifications will be needed to\\ provide for CRCR reviews at appropriatr N
points in the develonnent of naw requirenents.
\\
\\
In general, MUPEG doctrents are prepared by the !!PP staff to doctrent the resolution of a significant issub or area of investication. The s
documents usually include the backcround discussion, factual infomstion, nethods of analysis used, results and c'onclusions. The conclusions may be stated both in ten's of conclusions r'eoarding the results of the work and conclusions regardina new licensinc positions which should be net.
Staff fitREG docunents frequently refererco\\ otter work such as licansee and applicant subrittals, technical books and, papers and fiUDEG/CR reports which are reports of work done for imC under contract and ppblished by NPC.
As indicated above, there is e very considarable variation in b/
the results are stated or implied as licensina positions in NPn !!UREG d ocurents.
They may be stated sirply as results, 'as guidelines, es criteria to be used for a specific evaluation, es rbcorrendations, as specific reccrrented chances to the Stendard Review Plan or Reculatorv Guides or es recorrendations for rulendine.
N
\\
Sre exarales of "RC fu! PEGS used to docunent the resolutibn of vork alsian ents are as follows:
'N TMI Eulletins and Orders Task Force I[
A G-Q)- h NUREG 0611. " Generic Evaluation of Feedwater Transients and Yell
"reak Loss-of-Coolant Accidents in Westinchmse Designed Oncratira d
)
Plants"
\\
..
....
.......
...
.....
.
............
....
.
y g...V omer)
.
-
..
su m r>
...
.
.
.....
.
..
...
................
.................
..
.........
7.. 7...
.......
onep
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....
..
................
... -.......
.........
NRO FORM 316 (10 BD) NRCM 024o OFF1ClAL RECORD COPY cm w.
Victor Stello, Jr.
-2-Tt'I Lessons Learned Task Force NUREG-0660, "NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TitI-2 Accident" Unresolved Safety Issue NUREG-0808, ' Mark II Containment Prcyran Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria" Unresolved Safety Issue NUREG-0538, Revision 1, "Intt ric Staff Position on Environmental Qualification of Safety-pelated Electrical Equipnent" Generic Issue HUREG-0665, "A Probabilistic Safety Analysis of D.C. Power Supply Rejuirement" A6visory Conmittee Report NUREG-0646, " Report of the Advisory Ccm.ittee on Construction During Ad,iudication" Safety Evaluation Report for Operating License f:UREG-0712, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to Operation of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3" Draft Environnental Report for Operating License EUREG-0648, " Draft Environmental Statment Pelated to the Operation of Dyron Station, Units 1 and 2" The final approval process for NUREGs does not follovt a specifically prescribed procedure except in the case of Unresolved Safety Issues and Safety Evaluation Reports or Environnental Statements issued to support Construction Pemits, Operating Licenses, and Preiininary or Final Design Approva'.s. The procedure for approval for nost NUREGs is decided on a case-by-case basis by the originating group.
In nost cases, concurrence on the NUREG is obtained from the contributors and line organizations which may have direct or peripheral responsibility if they are not already included among the contributors.
Consultation with the ACRS, industry or owners' groups, or the public is decided on a case-by-case basis by the originating group.
If public (indue,try) participation is deened to be particularly important, a NUREG For Comment nay be issued.
The only uniform requirenent is that a signature of an Assistant Director or above is required to authorize printing of the MUREG.
For NUREG reports issued as Safety Evaluation Reports (SER) or Environtental Peports (ER) to support licensing actions a specific procedure has been i
i
-
OF FICE f s-uq
,
om)
,
e,c+u m, w so, ocu c2'
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
.
.
Victor Stello,.1r.
-3-in place and used for nany years. The licensing project manager, branch chief, and Assistant Director for Licensing are the principal individuals involved in ccrpiling, editing, and rawriting the SER.
Contributors to the SER are the many branches in the OMsion of Systems Intenration, Division of Engineering Division of Human Factors Safety, Division of Safety Technology, Division of Erercency Preparedness (IEE) and the Physical Security Licensing Branch (fMSS). A draft of the SER produced by the licensing project manager frcu all of the input is then provided to each of the contributors for review.
After corrections and additions are made in response to this request another draft is sent to all of the contributing Division Directors with a nemo of transmittal requesting final review and approval. An SER draft is also sent to OELD for their review and acceptance. The Director, Division of Licensing also approves the SER.
The Environrental Statement is handled in a similar way except that the number of contributors is significantly less.
An inportant difference is that the Environmental Statement is initially femally published as a Draft Environnental Statenent which is provided for public coment. The staff then compiles and addresses all ccaments received and issues a revised Final Environmental Statenent which reflects consideration of the ccrinents received.
For NURECs issued as a resolution of an Unresolved Safety Issue (USI),
a specifically prescribed procedure is in niace and has been used for nore than two years. The USI Task Manager originates the document with concurrence by his line ranagement including Sectinn Leader, Branch Chief, Assist 0nt Director, anu Director,. Division of Safety Technology.
The line branch (Es) in the Division of systens Integration, nivisica of Engineering, or Division of Human Factors Safety that have contributed or have responsibility for the technical area of resolution ere also on concurrence as well as the corresponding Dfuision Director (s). The Director Division of Licensing, OELD, Deputy Director of f!RR, and Director, MRR are also on concurrence end the NUREG is sent to the Connission with an infomation paper over the signature of the Executive Director for Operations. The Cmnission paper briefly describes the USI, its resolution and planned implementation. The MUREG approval package also includes a proposed letter to applicants and licensees initiating the impicmentation of the resolation in the NUREG, a notice regcrding availability for the
-
Federal Renister, a memo to the ACRS, and letters to appropriate Congressionel c crr!1ttees. The ACRS is periodically kept infomed regarding the progress of a UFI and is provided opportunity to concent on a draft of the fiUREG prior to issucnce of the MUREG.
omcq
,
,
suwwg omp
~nc,o-m i m ~nc"
'
-
"
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
.
.
.
Victor Stello, Jr.
-4-In ceneral, a USI resolution is initially issued is a NUREG For Comnent, follwing the above procedure. The cmaents received are then addressed by the staff and an appropriately revisea NUREG, Revision 1, is then issued following the same procedures.
In sone cases, where the resolution has involved continuous work and discussions with an owner's group, a NUREG For Comment has been deened not to be necessary and a final NUREG is issued directly.
Since NUREG docuncnts issued by MRR represent documented, detailed resolution via staff positions, recmmendations, guidelines, criteria, etc. to questions of importance to the staff (i.e., they fill an immediate need) the staff smetires feels the need to use the recanmendations of the NUREG reports (or on occasion draft reports) almost ionediately as a basis for detemining the acceptability of applicant / licensee submittals.
It is our intent that such use be nade only with nanagenent approval at least to the Division Director level, but on occasion that has not been the case.
In the case of SER and ER tiUREGs these documents are used directly to impose requirements on the applicants. !!any of these requirements not resolved in Supplements to the SER are nede a part of the Operating License or Construction Pemit as " conditions."
In the case of FUREGs for USIs, the proposed implementation letter for operating plants is a part of the approval package for the NUREG. The wording in the letter is based on the importance and significance to safety and cost / benefit of the proposed backfit. The wording usually reflects a consensus between the Division of Safety Technology, Licensing, and the Division with review responsibilities in the technical area addressed by the USI. The MUREG itself usually includes specific recommendations regarding changes to the Standard Review Plan or Regulatory Guides. Following approval of the MUDEG, the Licensing Guidance Franch, DST or appropriate Division in desearch is requested to inplement these changes in the SPP or the Reg. Guides.
Rulemaking can also be initiated frm specific reconnendations node in the NUREG.
DISTRIBTUION Central Files F. Schroeder GIB Reading K. Kniel H. Denton T. Cox E. Case D. Garner S. H. Hanauer, Director S. Hanauer T. Sullivan Division of Safet~y Technology Office of Puclear Peactor Reculation PAS J. Z ol nski R. Mattson S. Cavanaugh (NRR-81-626)
R. Vollmer C. Twigg H. Thompson J. Mullin B. Snyder J. Butts P. Check 02]
-
"'">. DS!:.G1B..
.DS :!
P..
.BSI.
"' " 4. KKniel ij b.
..FSch oe r1 SHHanaue r..
01/..../32.
.D1/. J /.82.
7. 01/.. / 82..
oc row 3,8. m c, oc" *
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
'
.(
.
\\
f'Ef'0 rat (DtM F0P:
Victor Stello, Jr., Deputy Executive Director N
Regional Operations and Generic Requirements FROM:
'n S. H. Hanauer, Director
'N Division of Safety Technology, NRR N
SUBJECT:
' THE USE OF Nt' REG REPORTS If1 DEVELOPIf!G At!D PROMULGATI!!G s
REGULATORY REOUIRE"ENTS
\\
This reno is in response to your request dated Decenber 17, In01 for
\\
infomation to be used in a briefine for the Chaiman renarding how flVREG reports are used 1N developing and pronulgatng regulatory require-rents.
You specifically eqquested infomation with respect to hw fiUREGs are initiated, approiyd, and used by our office with onphasis on the final approval process prior to issuance, how the f UREG is presented to licensees, and hw the draft and final t1UREG is used by the staff in
\\
contacts with licensees.
\\
In general, NUREG documents are prepared by the !!RR staff to docunent the resolution of a significant issu'g or area of investigation. The docunents usually include the backgrotyd discussion, factual infomation, nethods of analysis used, results and egnclusions. The conclusions ray be stated both in terus of conclusions renardina the results of the work and conclusions regarding new licensing ph itions W.ich should be net.
Staff !!UREG docurents frequently reference her work such as licensee and applicant subnittels, technical books en papers and ?!UREG/CP reports which are reports of work done for NRC under c' ntract and published by fmC.
As indicated above, there is a very consi rable variation in hm the results are stated or irplied as licensinc po%itions in NRR flDREG d ocument%
They ray be stated simply es results, h cuidelines, as criteria to be used for a specific evaluation, as reho,nendations, as specific reconnended changes to the Standard Peview Pl'Ap or Peguletory Guides or as recmnendations for rulenaking.
\\
Sone examples of ?!RC f:UREGs used to docunent the resoluti \\of work assignnents are as follows:
\\
'
' ']
s\\,
b Tf'I Bulletins and Orders Task Force X
t!!1 REG-0611. " Generic Evaluation of Feedwater Transients and Srall h
Preak Loss-of-Coolant Accidents in Hestinchouse Designed Operating Pl ants"
\\
ome
.
.
.
.........
...............
.............
...............
....................
.................
sunume>
......
..................
.................
..............
.................
......................
....................
os.1e >
......
.
............
...........
.............
.....................
........................
.....................
nne ronu sie oa-soi uscu c24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom e-sam
.
.
-
.
Victor Stello, Jr.
-2-TliI Lessons Learned Task Force NUREG-0660, "NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident" Unresolved Safety Issue NUREG-0808, 94 ark II Containnent Prcgram Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria" Unresolved Safety Issue NUREG-0588, Revision 1, "Interin Staff Position on Environmental Ouelification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment" Generic Issue NUREG-0666, "A Probabilistic Safety Analysis of D.C. Power Supply Requirement" Advisory Crroittee Report HUREG-0646, " Report of the Advisory Comnittee or, Ccnstruction During Adjudication" Safety Evaluation Report for Operating License NUPEG-0712, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to Operation of San Onofre Duclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3" Draft Environnental Report for Operating License NUREG-0848, " Draft Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Byron Station, Units 1 and 2" The final approval process for MUREGs does not follua a specifically prescrib?d procedure except in the case of Unresolved Safety Issues and Safety Evaluation Reports on Environnental Statements issued to support Construction Pernits, Operating Licenses, and Preliminary or Final Design Approvals. The procedure for approval for nost NUREGs is decided on a case-by-case basis by the originating group.
In nost cases, concurrence on the NUREG is obtained from the contributors and line organizations
,
~
which nay have direct or peripheral responsibility if they are not already include ~ emong the contributors.
Consultation with the ACRS, industry or or'ers' groups, or the public is decided on a case-by-case basis by the osipinating group.
If public (industry) participation is deemed to be particularly important, a NUREC For Connert nay be issued.
The only unifona rrquirement is that a signature of an Assistant Director or above is requised to authorize printing of the NUREG.
For NUREG reports issued as Safety Evaluation Reports (SER) or Envirom, ental Reports (7R) to support licensing actions a specific procedure has been OF F tCE f
$URNAMEf DATff unc ro m, m eo,,# :- 02'
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
.
>
.
Victor Stallo, Jr.
-4-In general, a USI resolution is initially issued as a HUREG For Co7 rent, following the above procedure. The connents received are then addressed by the staff and an aporopriately revised MUREG, Revision 1, is then issued following the same procedures.
In sone cases, where the resolution has involved continuous work and discussions with an owner's group, a NUREG For Co,nert has been deemed not to be necessary and a final NUREG is issued directly.
Since NUREG documents issued by MRP represent d cunented, detailed resolution via staff positions, recommendations, guidelines, criteria, etc. to questions of importance to the staff (i.e., they fill en imnediate need) they are frequently inplemented in the licensing process alrost inmediately (even soretimes in the fonn of drafts).
In general, they are used as a staff position in determining acceptance of applicant / licensee proposals.
In the case of SER and ER NUREGs these docunents are used directly to impose requirenents on the epplicants. Many of these requirencnts not resolved in Supplenents to the SER are nade a part of the Operating License or Construction Permit as " conditions."
In the case of NUREGs for USIs, the proposed inplecentation letter for operating plants is a part of the approval package for the NUREG. The wording in the letter is based on the inportance and significance to safety and cost / benefit of the proposed backfit. The wording usually reflects a consensus between the Division of Safety Technology, Licensing, and,he Division with review responsibilities in the technical aree addressed by the USI. The NUREG itself usually includes specific reconnendations regerding changes to the Standard Review Plan or Regulatory Guides. Following approval of the NUREG, the Licensing Guidance Branch, DST or appropriate Division in Research is requested to inplement these changes in the SRP or the Peg. Guides.
Rulenaking can also be initiated fran specific reco,nendations nade in the NUREG.
As a result of our reflection on the use of NUREG reports in developina and pronu1 gating regulatory requirenents, we reconnend:
(1) That staff NUREG reports continue to be used to develop technical resolution of issues with staff positions and reconnendations for changes to regulations and licensing guidance.
(2) That specific guidance be adopted for procedures to issue all NUREG reports including necessary concurrences, Federal Reaister Motices, and consultation with ALRS, industry and the public.
o, riu p soniuq
'N
.
.i.
sec ro,~ r n to 80 ~nca c2'
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
..
)
.
Victor Stello, Jr.
-5-(3) TMt implementation of the staff position or other licensing conclusion in the NUREG as requirenents both for operating plants and in the regulations or licensing guidance be handled as a separate action by appropriate distinct procedures.
S. H. Hanauer. Director Division of Safety Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION Central Files GIB Reading H. Denton E. Case S. Hanauer D.Eisenhut PPAS R. Mattson R. Vollmer H. Thompson B. Snyder F. Check F. Schroeder K. Kniel T. Cox D. Garner T. Sullivan R. Capra J. Zwolinski S. Cavanaugh (NRR-81-526)
C. Twigg J. Mullin J. Butts 024591 N
,D_ST:G1,B,,k DS,h
_ DST micr >
sua~wr>
KKn_1 e,1 :j b FSchroeder SHHanauer our) 01//f/82 01/6/82,, 01/ /82
""C'
""'"""'""C"
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY