ML19275K328
| ML19275K328 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/12/1981 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-RII, TASK-SE SECY-81-648, NUDOCS 8112100034 | |
| Download: ML19275K328 (14) | |
Text
-
I I
R REC Pg
+
.jl~,+
q l
w q ~.... j l
November 12, 1981 RULEMAKING ISSUE SECY-81-648 (Information)
- = /. w I
r.
\\
-J[1'lD% L \\
I e
4
/;
D,'Oy*ong'"$' g For:
The Comissioners E
O /SB7x d
y From:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
\\ V,.,
g
Subject:
REVISED RULE CONCERNING DOCUMENTATION OF DIFFERENCES Of?, - h THE REVISED STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
Purpose:
To inform the Commission of a revised rule concerning documenting differences from the revised Standard Review Plan (SRP).
l i
Discussion:
In SECY-81-13 the staff proposed, among other things, a draft final rule that would require certain applicants for operating licenses and construction permits to document differences from the revised SRP. Applicants for the affected plants would be required to identify and describe differences in design features, analytical techniques, and procedural measures proposed for the plant from those corresponding features, techniques, and measures given in the SRP acceptance criteria. Where such differences exist, the applicant would be required to discuss how the alternatives pro-posed provide an acceptable method of complying with those rules or regulations of the Commission that underlie the corresponding SRP acceptance criteria.
As directed by the Commission in SECY COMP B-81-4A, the staff has developed a revised final rule along the same lines of that recommended in SECY-81-13, af ter examining the timing for use of the revised SRP and taking into account our best estimates of the revised SRP publication date, the various implementation steps, and the progress of current review efforts.
The primary objective of the revisions to the previous draf t rule is to make the new documentation requirements applicable to as many of the new operating licenses as is reasonably possible without placing the licensing process (including any necessary Board hear-ings and decisions) on the cr;tical path for achieving the fuel loading c_tes of the plants involved.
Satisfying this objective also serves to minimize both staff and applicant resources needed to implement the new rule since it results, in most cases, in implementation of the new requirements during the normal licensing p rocess.
CONTACT:
C. Grimes, DL X29798 8112100034 811112 CF Sug )
. In taking into account the Commission's directions concerning the revised rule, the staff made the following specific assumptions:
a.
The revised SRP is now complete and was made publicly available in September 1981.
b.
This final rule would becone effective by January 1,1982.
c.
It would take an operating license applicant no more than six months after January 1,1982 to develop and provide to the staff the new information on its plant required hy this rule, and it would take the staff no more than six months after receipt of the new information to review and issue a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on the new infor-mation. Thus, the total time for applicant development and staff review of the new information would be no more than one year after January 1,1982, or hy January 1,1983.
Accordingly, for uncontested cdses, the new requirements can be implemented on all units having currently estimated fuel loading dates of January 1,1983 or later without placing the licensing process on the critical path.
d.
For contested cases, it would take no more than a year after issuance of the staff SER on the additional infor-mation for a Board to conduct a hearing and issue a decision on the matter. Thus, for contested cases, the new reouirements can be implemented on all units having current'iy estimated fuel loading dates of January 1,1984 or later without placing the licensing process on the critical path.
Another issue that was reexamined by the staff in developing the revised rule was the wisdom of basing the applicability of the new requirements on future events, i.e., SER dates or fuel load-ing dates that are frequently subject to change. Moreover, these particular events usually slip to a later, rather than earlier, date which could then result in imposition of the new require-ments at a time when it would be difficult if not impossible to comply with them without causing licensing delays. Of course, such an eventuality could be rectified hy an exemption if and when such a problem developed.
The proposed rule bases the applicability of the new require-
-ments on events that have already occurred or on future events having dates that do not have the possibili'/ of p'. acing the licensing process on the criticai path. Tha docket dates for operating license applications have these characteristics.
Accordingly, the staff has determined the docket dates for all first units having a fuel loading date currently projected by
-~
. the applicant to be January 1,1984 or later, and thp, docket dates for all uncontested first and subsequent unitsu having a fuel loading date of January 1,1983 or later.
- However, application docket dates alone do not suffice to completely delimit either of these two groups of plants, since there is not a one to one correlation between the chronological order of docket dates and fuel load dates. This deficiency can be accountec for by naming the few plants excluded by the specific docket dates selected, lurning the foregoing discussion into regulatory language' results in the following requirements:
1.
" Applications for light water cooled nuclear power plant operating licenses docketed on or after November 1,1981, plus the applications for operating licenses for the Bellefonte, Braidwood, Limerick, and South Texas facil-ities, shall include an evaluation of each unit of each facility against the Standard Review Plan (SRP) in effect on [ effective date of rule], or the SRP revision in effect six months prior to the docket date of the application, whichever is later."
This covers the 37 units with estimated ready for fuel load dates of January 1,1984 or later (see Enclosure 1).
2.
" Applications for light water cooled nuclear power plant operating licenses for second and subsequent units for which an application for an operating license for the
~ irst and subsequent units was docketed after June 1, f
1977, but prior to November 1,1981, plus the applica-tion for the Watts Bar facility, shall include an eval-uation of the second and each subsequent unit of the facility against the SRP in effect on [ effective date of the rule]."
This covers the 14 " uncontested" units with estimated ready for fuel load dates of January 1,1983 or later (see Enclosure 2).
The final condition covers new applications for construction permits and manufacturing licenses and is unchanged in scope from the previous draft rule.
N ote that there are no first units expected to be uncontested for which fuel N
loading is scheduled between 1/1/83 and 1/1/84 and all second and subsequent identical units at the same site can be considered to be " uncontested," since the OL application for these units (which may have t,een contested), considered not only the operation of the first unit but also that of the second and subsequent units as well.
. 3.
" Applications for light water cooled nuclear power plant construction permits or manufacturing licenses docketed after [ effective date of the ru.a] shall include an eval-uation of each unit of each facility against the SRP in effect on [ effective date of rule] or the SRP revision in effect six months prior to the docket date of the application, whichever is later."
As of September 1,1981 there were a total of 76 nuclear power units authorized to be constructed for which operating licenses have not yet been' issued. Of these 78 units, 51 units would be covered by the revised rule. Of the 51 units covered,13 cre duplicates of other units at the same site, so that the revised rule effectively covers 51 plus 13, or 64 of the 78 total units without operating licenses whose construction is currently authorized. For a list of such units not covered by the revised rule, see Enclosure 3.
.=
= _. --r -
r-
--m----
I am concerned, however, that promulgation of this rule may cause affected license applicants to conclude that all aspects of the Standard Review Plan such as regulatory guides, branch technical positions, referenced industry standaros, and variour.
other references are to be considered as NRC requirements.
Further, since neither the safety benefits nor the staff and applicant resources have been established on this proposed rule, I suggest that the Commission take no action until it has been rey'ewed by the new Committee for the Review of Generic Requirements (rRGR).
Allowing time for the developnent of the resource and sa fety benefit estimates and review by the CRGR (including industry review), I estimate that a recommenda-tion on this rule can be made to the Commission by the end of the calendar year.
Willi
.~J. Dircks
<, Executive Director for Operations
-' ~ gddobe'n
~ ~ ~
1.
All Pending and Expected OL Applications Having Ready for Fuel Load Dates for First and Subsequent Units After 1/1/84 2.
All Pending and Expected OL Aop11 cations Having Ready for Fuel Load Dates for First Units Prior to 1/1/84 But Having Fuel Load Dates for Second and Subsequent Units After 1/1/83 3.
Pending or Expected OL Applications Having Units Not Covered by the Revised Rule 4.
Proposed Rule to Require Applicants to Document Deviations from the Standard Review Plan
-e e
p
/
. DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Comission Staff Offices ACRS Secretariat
All Fending and Expected OL Applications Having Ready for Fuel Load Dates for First and Subsequent Units After 1/1/84 Ready for Units FL Dates Docket Dates Bellefonte 1/2 (6/84, 2/85) 6/9/78 S. Texas 1/2 (7/84, 12/85) 7/17/78 Limerick 1/2 (10/84, 10/87) 7/27/81 Harris 1-4 (12,84, 6/87, 6/93, (11/81) 6/91)
Braidwood 1/2 (4/85,4/86) 11/30/78 WPPSS 1 (6/85)
(N/S)
Millstone 3 (12/85)
(N/S)
WPPSS 3/5 (12/85, 12/86)
(N/S)
Beaver Valley 2 (12/85)
(N/S)
Nine Mile 2 (3/86)
(N/S)
Marble Hill 1/2 (6/86, 6/87)
(10/82)
WPPSS 4 (6/86)
(N/S)
Hope Creek 1/2 (6/86, 6/89)
(N/S)
Yogtle 1/2 (9/86, 3/88)
(N/S)
Hartsville A-1, A-2, (12/88, 9/89, 6/96, (6/86)
B-1, B-2 6/96)
Yellow Creek 1/2 (1/90, N/S)
(N/S)
Phipps Bend 1/2 (6/91, N/S)
(N/S)
North Anna 3 (N/S)
(N/S)
Cherokee 1-3 (N/S, N/S, N/S)
(N/S) 1.
Dates in parenthesis are current applicant estimates.
2.
N/S in fuel load date column means not scheduled, but af ter 1/1/84.
3.
N/S in docketed date column means not scheduled, but af ter 11/1/81.
All Pending and Expected OL Applications Having Ready for Fuel L' ad Dates for First Units Prior to 1/1/84 But Having Fuel o
Load Dates for Second Units and Subsequent After 1/1/83 Ready for
. Units FL Dates Docket Dates Susquehanna 2 (4/83) 7/31 /78 Watts Bar 2 (6/83) 10/4/76 Palo Verde 2, 3 (11/83, 11/84) 6/20/80 Midland 1 (12/83) 11/17/77 Commanche Peak 2 (12/83) 5/12/78 Byron 2 (12/84) 11/30/78 Catawba 2 (2/85) 6/11 /81 Seabrook 2 (2/86)
(1 0/81 )
Perry 2 (11/86) 1 /28/81 Callaway 2 (1/90) 7/31 /80 Grand Gulf 2 (9/90) 6/30/78 Clinton 2 (N/S) 9/8/80 River Bend 2 (N/S) 8/25/81 1.
Dates in parenthesis are current applicant estimates.
2.
N/S in fuel load date column means not scheduled, but af ter 1/1/83.
Pending or Expected OL Applications Having Units not Covered by the Revised Rule Ready for Units FL Dates Docket Date Diablo Canyon 2 (10/81) 10/2/73 San Onofre 2/3 (10/81, 8/82) 3/23/77 Summer 1 (12/81) 2/24/77 LaSalle 1/2 (12/81, 6/82) 5/12/77 Grand Gulf 1 (12/81) 6/30/78 Susquehanna 1 (4/82) 7/31 /78 Commanche Peak 1 (6/82) 4/25/78 McGuire 2 (6/82) 7/7/74 Zimmer (7/82) 9/10/75 Watts Bar 1 (8/82) 10/4/76 Shoreham 1 (9/82) 1/26/76 Waterford 3 (10/82) 12/18/78 Callaway 1 (10/82) 7/31 /80 St. Lucie 2 (10/82) 2/1 7/81 Fermi 2 (11/82) 4/4/75 Palo Verde 1 (11/82) 6/20/80 WPPSS 2 (12/82) 6/22/78 Clinton 1 (1/83) 9/8/80 Byron 1 M/83) 11/30/78 Wolf Creek 1 (4/83) 7/ 31 /8 0 Perry 1 (5/83) 1 /28/81 Midland 2 (7/83) 11/17/77 Catawba 1 (8/83) 6/11 /81 River Bend 1 (10/83) 8/25/81 Seabrook 1 (11/83)
(1 0/81 )
Dates in parenthesis are current applicant estimates
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 50
/
RULE TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO EVAUATE DIFFERENCES FROM THE STANDARD REVIEW PLAN AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Final Rule.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a rule that will require certain applicants for operating licenses, construction permits, and manufacturing licenses to identify and justify differences from the acceptance criteria of the applicable revision of the Standard Review Plan (SRP) as part of the technical information to be submitted as part of an application.
The SRP was originally issued in 1975 as NUREG-75/087; it describes an acceptable basis and criteria for conclusions presented 19 a staff Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for an application.
The most recent revision to the SRP was issued in September 1981.
The purpose of this rule is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of NRC safety reviews.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
(60 days from date of publication)*
ADDRESS:
Copies of the rule and related tackground material are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC. Single copies may be obta ined cn request from the U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Document Cer. trol.
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensirg, Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555 (301) 492-7425.
- (insert d' ate 60 days from date of publication)
. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMTTION: On October 9,1980, the NRC published in the FEDERAL REGISTER [45 FR 67099] a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would require all commercial nuclear power plant licensees and applicants to document differences from the Standard Review Plan (SRP).
Interested persons were invited to submit written comments to the Secretary of the Commission by November 24, 1980. Numerous comments were received. After consideration of the comments and other factors involved, the Commission has amended the requirements as published for public comment and added explanatory statements to further define the applic-ability and implementation for the requirement.
The majority of the comments on the proposed rule (1) questioned the time permit-ted to corply with 'the requirements of the rule in consideration of the significant short-term impact on engineering resources, (2) questioned the applicability of the requirements to operating reactors, and (3) questioned why pending applications for construction 'ermits should be subject to significantly different documentation requirements the
,imilarly situated pending applications for operating licenses.
To allow further consideration of these comments, the Commission has decided to exclude operating reactors and certain older pending applications for operating license.s from the requirements of the rule, at this time. These pending operating license applicants have proceeded far enough in the licensing process that the application of the rule at this time could substantially delay licensing decisions. Further, excluding the operating reactors and these near-term operating license applicants will significantly reduce the impact on available short-tenn engineering resources.
In addition, the Comission has decided to exclude pend-ing applications for construction permits and manufacturing licenses docketed prior to the effective date of the rule, since the evaluation required of these applications could add significantly to the lenoth of the licensing process while the evaluation could be performed later at the operating license review stage without this disadvantage.
The Comission has decided that sufficient time and resources are available to perform the evaluation required by this rule, prior to licensing, fcr those operating license applications for uncontested units for which fuel loading is currently projected to occur in January 1983 or later, and for those operating license applications for contested units for which fuel load'ng is currently projected to occur in January 1984 or later, without placing the licensing process on the critical path. These dates were selected to allow at least approximately a year to perform the evaluation and conduct the staff safety review and another year for the hearing process for the contested units. This revised applicability requirement allows additional time to meet the require-ments beyond that specified in the proposed rule, in that it recognizes the amount of time usually needed for the nearing process and it distinguishes between applications for units that are contested and uncontested cases.
For the purpose of the rule, the affected operating license applications have been identified by the docket date of the application and by noting the specific additional facilities to which the requirements are applicable in those instances where the fuel loading schedule did not follow a pattern corresponding to that of the application docket date.
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT REVIEW: The proposed rule will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for clearance of the application requirements as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (P.L.96-511). The SFF-83, " Request for Clearance," Supporting Statement, and related documentation submitted to OMB will be available for public inspection and copying in the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D. C.
20555.
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Action of 1954, as amended, the Energy Re-organization Act of 1974, as amended, and Sections 552 and 553, Title 5 of the United States Code, the following rule is published subject to codification.
PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES
- 1. The authority citation for Part 50 reads as follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs.103,104,161,182,183,189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 956, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2239); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1243, 1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846), unless otherwise noted.
Section 50.78 also issued under sec.122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).
Sections 50.78 - 50.81 also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).
Sections 50.100 - 50.102 issued under sec 186, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236). For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273), t50.41(1) issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949 (42 U.S.C. 2201(1)); $550.70, 50.71 and 50.78 issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)), and the laws referred to in Appendices.
. 2. A new paragraph (f) is added to g50.34 to read as follows:
550.34 Contents of applications; technical information.
(f) Conformance with the Standard Review Plan (SRP).
(1)(a) Applications for light water cooled nuclear power plant operating licenses docketed on or after November 1,1981, plus applications for operating licenses for the Bellefonte, Braidwood, Limerick and South Texas facilities shall include an evaluation of each unit of each facility against the Standard Review Plan (SRP) in effect on [ effective date of this amendment] or the SRP revision in effect six months prior to the docket date of the application, whichever is later.
(1)(b) Applications for light water cooled nuclear power plant operating licenses for second and subsequent units for which an application for operating license for the first and subsequent units was docketed after June 1,1977 but before November 1,1981, plus the application for the Watts Bar facility shall include an evaluation of the second and each subsequent unit of the facility against the SRP in effect on [ effective date of this amendment].
(1)(c) Applications for light water cooled nuclear power plant construction permits or manufacturing licenses docketed af ter [ effective date of this amendment] shall include an evaluation of each unit of each facility against the SRP in effect on [ effective date of rule] or the SRP revision in effect six months prior to the docket date of the application, which-ever is later.
. (2' The evaluation required by this section shall include an identification and description of all differences in design features, analytical tech-niques, and procedural measures proposed for a unit and those correspond-ing features, techniques, and measures given in the SRP acceptance criteria. Where such a difference exists, the evaluation shall discuss how the alternative proposed provides an acceptable method of complying with those rules or regulations of the Commission, or portions thereof, that underlie the corresponding SRP acceptance criteria.
Dated at Washington, DC, this day of
, 1981.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission
.