ML17250A349
| ML17250A349 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1980 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | White L ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007010124 | |
| Download: ML17250A349 (6) | |
Text
Docket No. 50-244 Q $ 6 MIr. Leon D. White, Jr.
Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, Ne>v York 14649
Dear l'O'hite'E:
R.
E ~ GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DISTRIBUTION:
Docket NRC.PDr
'ocal PDR TERA NSIC NRR Reading ORB 85 Reading HDenton ECase OMuller ORoss RMattson MGroff. (NRR-3947)
DNottingham (NRR-3947)
TWambach Deisenhut GLainas DCrutchfield HSmith SNowicki OELD OI&E'3).
ACRS (16)
WRussell I am enclosing for your information a final rule published in the Federal Register on Nay 9, 1980 (45 FR 30614),
which becomes effective July 22, 1980.
This regulation. amends Section 50.71 of 10 CFR Part 50 by adding a
new paragraph (e), which requires periodic updating of Final Safety Analysis Repor ts.
Note that the licensees participating in the Systematic Evaluation Program are not required.to comply with the provisions of this rule until you are notified by a letter from us that the Systematic Evaluation Program has been completed for your facility(ies).
Sincerely, Original signed bY
Enclosure:
As stated
-Dennis M-Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Br anch iIi5 Division of Licensing
,00 0 V010I> t OFFICE/
SURNAME OATEN
+ V.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 289.369 NRC FORM 318 i9 76) NRCM 0240 DL:
R
/LA D
g /PM.
DL:
g5/C
- HSj, ac j
. OCr chfield
/Q/80 g /$ 80 g / f/80
0 X- ">";i',4./regs<
I<
C 1I il l
W p
~
Mr. Leon D. White, Jr. June 10, 1980 cc w/enclosure:
Harry H. Voigt, Esquire LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1757 N Street, N.
M.
Mashington, D. C.
20036 Mr. Michael Slade 12 Trai lwood Circle Rochester, New York 14618 Rochester Committee for Scientific Information Robert E. Lee, Ph.D.
P. 0. Box 5236 River Campus Station Rochester, New York 14627 Jeffrey Cohen New York State Energy Office Swan Street Building Core I, Second Floor Empire State Plaza
- AIbany, New York
'12223 Director, Technical Development Programs St'ate of New York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Rochester Pub lic Library 115 South Avenue Rochester, New York 14604 Supervisor of the Town of Ontari o 107 Ridge Road West
- Ontario, New York 14519 Director, Technical Assessment Division Office of Radiation Programs (AW-459)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Crystal MalI g2 Arlington, Yirginia 20460 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:
E IS COORD INATOR 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Herbert Grossman, Esq-,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cotlmission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cottmission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr.
Eraneth A-Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cottmission Washington, D. C.
20535 Mr. Thomas B. Cochran Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
1725 I Street, N.
W.
Suite 600 Washington, D.. C.
20606
30S14 Federal Register I. 45, No. 92 / Friday, May 9. 1980 /
es and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 Periodic Updating of Final Safety Analysis Reports AGENcY'S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
AOTIofcFinal tule.
sUMMARY:The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to require each person licensed to operate a nuclear power reactor to submit periodically to the Commission revised pages for its Final Safety Analysis Rcport (FSAR). These revised pages wiQ indicate changes whfch have been made to reflect information and analyses submitted to the CommissIon or prepared as a result of Commission requirement. The amendment Is being made to provide an updated reference document to be used in recumng safety analyses performed by the Hcensee. the Commission, and other interested parties.
EFFEcTIYE GATE: July 22, 1980.
Nota~The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted this rule to the CompttoUer Ceneral for such review as may be appropriate under the Federal Reports hci. as amended. 44 US.C 3512. The date on which the reporting reqafremeat of this rale becomes affective. unless advised lo ihe contrary. accordingly. reflects frrcfasfon ofthe 4&day period whfch that sia!. ie allows for such review (44 US.C. 3S12(c) I2)).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT:
Mr. Morton R. FIeishman, Office of Standards Development. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission. washington.
D.C. 20555. telephone 301-%3-5921.
tUPPLEMENTARYINFQRMATloktOn November L 1978, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published In the Fed etal Register (41 FR 49123) a notice ofproposed rule making invitingwritten suggestions or comments on the proposed rule by December 23, 1978. A notice of correction and extension of comment period was published in the Federal Register on December 27, 1976 (41 FR 56204) in which the comment period was extended to January 28. 1977.
The notices concerned proposed amendments to 10 CFR Patt 50, "Licensing of Production and Utilisatfon FacfHtfes," to require each applicant for.
or holder of. a power reactor operating Hcense which would be or was issued after January 1, 1963 to submit periodically to the Conunission revised pages for its Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), These revised pages would indicate changes made in the facilityor the procedures for its operation and any analyses affected by these changes. Thirtywne persons submit ted comments regarding the proposed amendments. The conunenters could be roughly divided into three groups with seventeen supporting the tule with comments, eleven opposed to the rule, and three neutral. Copies of the comments received may be examined in the Commission's PubHc Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW Washington, D.C.
The substantive areas of comment can be categorize generally as follows:
- 1. CiarfBcatfon of RaIe 2 hppffcabiffty ofRule
- a. Content ofFShR
- 4. Scope ofRide
- 5. Timing of Sabmiitals
- e. Refatfon af Rufrr to Other Rafes and
- 7. Le~gStatas ofUpdalod PShR
- a. Cost/Berre6t ofRale In response to the comments received, the Commission is modifying the rule to (a) extend its appHcabIHty to all power reactors Hcensed to operate, (b) exclude appHcants for operating licenses, (c) clarify the wording of the rule. (d) reduce its Impact on power reactor licensees by relaxing some of the time requirements, and (e) requite the initial revision to be a complete FSAIL When the proposed rule was published forpublic comment, its applicability was limited to those plants licensed after January 1, 1983 in order to exempt five (5) older faciHties. The Commission beHeved that it would not be feasible for these licensees to implement the rule because there is no integrated document comparable to an FSAR for their facilitfes. Since publication of the proposed rule. the Commission has initiated a program In.
which the NRC staff is making a systematic safety evaluation ofeleven (11) nuclear power facilities'licensed for operation before 1972. The purpose of this systematic evaluation program (SEP) is to determine and document the degree to which the eleven (11) facilities meet current licensing requirements for new plants. Of the five (5) plants licensed prior to January 1, 1963 that are stIH licensed to operate. three (3) are included in the SEP. The remaining two (2) plants,'whfch presently are shut down, willbe subject to the provisions of the rule as long as their licenses authothe operation.
The licensees participating in the SEP probably willbe requested to supply a considerable amount of information during the program. Requiring them. in addition, to update their FSARs codd prove to be excessively burdensome and could result in duplication ofreports.
The Information generated during the program and the manner in which it is collated willresult in a completed FSAR at the conclusion of the program. For these reasons licensees offacilities being subjected by the NRC to a systematic evaluation program willnot be required to comply with the provisions of this rule until they are notHied by letter by the NRCs Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation that. for their pa@qular faciHty, the program has been completed. Because of the considerations just mentfoned. that part of the proposed rule'which limited the applicability to faciHties license'd after January 1. 1963 has been deleted and the rule willapply to all power reactors Hcensed to operate.
The~ required to be updated by the rule is the original FSAR submitted as part of the application for the operating Hcense. Itwould not include the subsequent supplements and amendments to the FSAR or the license that may have beeii submitted either in response to NRC questions or on the applicant's or Hcensee's own Initiative foHowing the original'submf ttaL These various supplements and amendments must be appropriately incorporated into
~
the original FSAR to create a single, complete and integral document. The fnitialrevision to be filed should contain those pages from the originally submitted FSAR4hat are still applicable plus new replacement pages that appropriately incorporate the effects of supplements, amendments and other changes that have been made. This will result in a single. complete document
'IIre iwo factlltfea are Indian Poinl UnliNo. 1 and Horobofdi Bay Unit No.S.
O Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 92 / Friday, May 9. 1980 / Rules and Rugula;ions 30615 being filed. that can then serve as the baseline for future changes.
Commenters have asked about the
" proper format to be used when making the FSAR subtnittaL Since the format of the FSAR is not covered by regulation.
the rule does not specify a particular format. The NRC staff has p'rovided guidance for the preparation ofFSARs in Regulatory Guide 1.70. Rev(s(on 2, "Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants." However, many FSARs were developed prior to any specific guidance on format. The format to be used for the FSAR revisions is the option of the licensee. but the Commission expects that the format willprobably be the same as the format of the original FSAR.
No analyses other than those already prepared or submitted pursuant to NRC requirements (either originally with thc application. or as part of the operating license review process. or as required by 5 50.59 or other NRC requirement. or to support license amendments) are required to be performed by the licensee because of this rule. However, analyses existing in the FSAR which are known
'o be inaccurate or in error as a result of new analyses performed by the Hcensee ursuant to NRC requirements, would ave to be revised. Specialized studies provided in the FSAR, such as on volcanic hazards or quality assurance, should include the latest information that has been developed in response to NRC requirements. New analyses (Le analyses not previously included in FSAR) which were required during consideration of unreviewed safety questions,'echnical specification changes, or other licensing questions, may be incorporated as appendices or otherwise appropriately inserted w(thin the FSAR.
Program type material that is referenced by the FSAR. such as the Quality Assurance Program or the Emergency Plan, should be referenced accurately. Ifsuch material has been revised or amended. the latest revision ethould be referenced. A description of physical changes to the facilityshould be included in the update after the changes have been approved for use and are operable. The level ofdetail to be maintained in the updated FSAR should
~ hs de(toed in 3 StLSO(a)(Z). "h proposed change.
test. or experiment shall bc deemed to involve an unrevtewed safey question (i) Ilthe probabttity of occurrence or the consequence oi an accident or maf(unction of equipment important to safety previously eve)us!ed in the sa(ety analysis report mey bc increased: or(ti) ifa possibility foran acct dent or malfunction oi a different type than any evaluated previously tn thc safety analysis report may be creeterh or (ill)tlthc margin of safety as deaned in the basis lor any technical specification 4 reduced."
be at least the same as originally provided. Minordifferences between actual and projected population figures or other such changes in the site environment need nut be reported unless the conclusions of safety analyses relative to public health and safety are affected and the Hcensee has prepared new analyses as a result of NRC requiremen's.
Commenters have questioned the relation of the proposed FSAR updating requirements to other reporting requirements such as the Annual Operating Report and 5 50.59fb) reporting. It is not the Commission's intention to require submittal of'uplicative reports. The Commission Is eliminating the requirement for the Annual Operating Report. This w'ill reduce signiTicantly'he reporting burden oflicensees. There has been no requirement that $ 50.59(b) reporting be part of the licensee's Annual Operating Report. This information generaHy has.
been Included in the Annual Operating Report as a convenience, but it could have been submitted separately and the licensee still would have complied with 5 M.59(b) which merely requires reporting "annually or at such shorter intervals as may be specified in the license." Furthermore, the report required under 5 50.59(b) is only "a brief descript(on ofsuch changes, tests. and experiments, inciuding a summary of the safety, evaluation ofeach." The
$ 50.59(b) reporting may not be detailed sufficientiy to be cons(dere'd adequate to fulfiHthe FSAR updating requirement.
The degree of detail required for updating the FSAR willbe generally greater than a "briefdescription" and a "summary of the safety evaluation."
However. there is nothing that prccludes submit ting the 5 50.59(b) report along with the FSAR update submittal and thus satisfy $ 50.59(b) along with 5 50.71(e). Parts of the FSAR submittal may be referenced by the $ 5059 fb) report.
Several commenters have raised legal questions concerning the proposed rule including questions relative to the
-purpose of thc rule. the implication concerning re-reviews. the status of completed hearings, and prior Bcense approvals. The rule is only a reporting requirement to insure that an updated FSAR willbe available. Submittal of updated FSAR pages does not constitute a licensing ection but is only intended to provide information. It is not intended for the purpose of re-reviewing plants.
Matters which have been considered previously during hearings willnot be reconsidered as a result of the FSAR submit tais. Thus, for example. approvals oflicense amendments and technical specification changes are independent of the FSAR updating process and once approved would not be subject 'o further consideration simply because the FSAR is updated. This. of course, does not preclude the reevaluation of previous posfiions based on new information or new considerations. The material submitted may be reviewed by the NRC staff but willnot be formally approved. The new pages willbc accepted as representing the licensee's position at the time of submittal and will be utilized in any subsequent reviews or NRC staif activities concerning that facility.
After consideration of the comments that were received and other factors, the Commfssitrn has adopted the s
atnendment to Part 50 as sct forth below.
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. the Energy Reorganization Act of 1914, as amended, and section 553 oftitle 5 of the United States Code, the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 50 is published as a document subject to codificat(on.
PART 50DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES Section 50.71 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
f50.73 IMntcnancc of records, )tts)dny ot reports
~
e
~
~
e (e) Each person Hcensed to operate a nuclear power reactor pursuant to the provisions of 5 R)M or 5 50.22 shaH update periodically, as provided in paragraphs fe)f3) and fe)(4) of this section. the final safety analysis report (FSAR) onginally submitted as part of the applicat(on for the operating license.
to assure that the information included in the FSAR contains the latest material deveiopetL This submittal shall contain all'the changes necessary to reflect Information and analyses submitted to the Commission by the licensee or prepared by the licensee pursuant to Commission requirement since the submission of the original FSAR or. as appropriate. the last updated FSAILThe updated FSAR shall be revised to (nciude the effects of: aH changes made in the facilityor procedures as described in the FSAR all safety evaluations performed by the licensee either ln support ofrequested license amendments or in support of concIus(ons that changes did not involve an unreviewed safety question: and afi analyses ofnew safety issues performed by or on behalf of the licensee at
30616 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 92 / Friday. May 9, 1980 / Rules and Regulafions Commission request. The updated information shall be appropriately located within the FSAR.
(1) Revisions containing updated information shall be submitted on a replacement. page basis and shall be accompanied by a list which identifies the currenJ pages of the FSAR following page replacement. One signed original and 12 additional copies of the required information shall be filed with the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Washington. D.G 20555.
(2) The submittal shall include (i) a certification by a duly authorized officer of the licensee that either the information accurately presents changes made since the previous submittaL necessary to reflect information and analyses submitted to the Commission
'or prepared pursuant to Commission requirement, or that no such changes were made; and (ii) an identification of changes made under the provisions of 5 50.59 but not previously subinit ted to
'he Commission.
(3)(i) A revision of the original FSAR containing those original pages that are still applicable plus new replacement pages shall be Gled within 24 months of either July 22,1980. or the date of issuance of the operating license, whichever is later, and shall bring the FSAR up to date as of a maximum of6 months prior to the rlate of fling the revlsioir (ii) Not less than 15 days before 5 50.71(e) becomes effective. the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation shall notify by letter the licensees of those nuclear power plants initiallysubject to the NRCs systeinatic evaluation program that they need not comply with the provisions of this section while the program is being conducted at their planL The Director of the Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulation willnotifyby letter the licensee of each nuclear power plant being evaluated when the systematic evaluation program has been completed. Within 24 months after receipt of this notifiicatfon. the licensee shall file a complete FSAR which is up to date as of a maximum of 6 months prior to the date offilingthe revision (4) Subsequent revisions shall be filed no less frequently than annually and shall reflect ail changes up to a maximum of 6 months prior to the date of filing.
(5) Each replacement page shall include both a change indicator for the area changed.
e.g.. a bold line vertically drawn in the margin adjacent to the portion actually changed. and a page change identification (date of change or change number or both).
(Sec. 1st b.. Pub. Law 83-703, 88 Sist. 948, Sec. 201. Pub. Law 83-438. 88 Stab 1242 (42 US.C.
22ot (bl. 5841)).
Dated at Weshiigton. D.C.. this 1st dsy of Msy 1980.
For tbe Nuclear Regulatmy Commission.
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretory ofthe Commission.
PR Doc, K-i4sss Flied L4-ct css aa) aassuo CQOE 750441M