ML19308C925
| ML19308C925 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley, Millstone, Hatch, Davis Besse, Mcguire, Nine Mile Point, Palo Verde, Perry, Fermi, Catawba, Harris, Wolf Creek, Hope Creek, Grand Gulf, Byron, Arkansas Nuclear, Braidwood, Limerick, North Anna, Diablo Canyon, Callaway, Vogtle, Waterford, Farley, Clinton, South Texas, Cook, Comanche Peak, McGuire, 05000514, 05000363, 05000515, Zimmer, 05000384, 05000471, 05000516, 05000517, 05000447, 05000495, 05000531, 05000545, 05000550, 05000561, Washington Public Power Supply System, Satsop, Bailly, Perkins, Cherokee, Skagit, Marble Hill, Hartsville, Phipps Bend, Yellow Creek, Green County, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1978 |
| From: | Boyd R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Harold Denton, Mattson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.027, RTR-REGGD-01.039, RTR-REGGD-01.052, RTR-REGGD-01.059, RTR-REGGD-01.063, RTR-REGGD-01.068, RTR-REGGD-01.068.02, RTR-REGGD-01.091, RTR-REGGD-01.097, RTR-REGGD-01.099, RTR-REGGD-01.100, RTR-REGGD-01.101, RTR-REGGD-01.102, RTR-REGGD-01.105, RTR-REGGD-01.108, RTR-REGGD-01.114, RTR-REGGD-01.115, RTR-REGGD-01.117, RTR-REGGD-01.118, RTR-REGGD-01.121, RTR-REGGD-01.124, RTR-REGGD-01.127, RTR-REGGD-01.130, RTR-REGGD-01.137, RTR-REGGD-08.008, TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8002110662 | |
| Download: ML19308C925 (16) | |
Text
g)*>
r e o,,,k UNITED ST ATES
,4-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISsl0N 5-.
.1
)
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
~
p%+Jf February 10, 1978 inMORANDUM FOR:
Harold R. Denton, Director, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, flRI, Roger J. Mattson, Director, Division of Systems Safety, NRR FROM:
Roger S. Boyd, Director, Division of Project Management, NRR
SUBJECT:
IMPLEMEtlTATION OF NEW REGULATORY REQUIREMEilTS RECOMMENDED BY RRRC AND APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR, NRR Since July 11, 1975, the Regulatory Requirements Review Committee (RRRC) has assigned each position it has recommended for approval to one of three implementation categories differentiated according to backfit requirements.
The RRRC recomended position and implementation category are submitted to the Director, NRR, for approval.
The three implementa-tion categories are:
Category 1 - Positions to be implemented on all construction permit P
(except for portions of the plant design previously approved under the standardization program), manu-facturing license, and standard preliminary design approval applications docketed as of a specific date, usually eight months subsequent to initial public disclosure of the approved position.
Category 2 - Positions to be implemented in their totality on the same types of applications listed in Category 1, above, as of a specific date, usually eight months subsequent to initial public disclosure of the approved position, L.i and to be implemented on all other plants and approved standard designs to an extent consistent with the need
"?
and practicality of backfitting considering the state
- f..
of operation, construction and design.
(-
Category 3 - Positions to be implemented on all plants and designs.
Each matter reviewed by the RRRC (and subsequently approved by the Director, NRR, on the basis of an RRRC recommendation) was developed and sponsored through the RRRC review procedures by a technical review branch.
Presumably, r-af ter approval by the Director, NRR, the positions were implemented, as approved, in all ongoing and subsequent application reviews.
We cannot 8002110.ff2 g..
)
,/
(
\\
Harold R. Denton Roger J. Mattson February 10, 1978 g
determine, however, that this is uniformly the case.
In particular, we are not sure whether such approved positions were implemented for cases for which Safety Evaluation Reports had been issued or inputs for such 7
reports had been or were being prepared.
n provides a list of all Category 2 and Category 3 matters approved for implementation as of January 1,1978.
The Category 2 and 3 matters are of particular interest; the Category 1 matters are not because the implementation date for such matters is usually at least eight months after initial public disclosure of the approved position, and thus they should have been implemented routinely in subsequently submitted applica-tions. We have assumed that all matters approved by the Director, NRR, prior to July 11, 1975, the date when RRRC categorizations began, were
.N appropriately taken into account during the staff safety reviews.
We are developing a procedure for routine staff action for matters approved by the Director, NRR, after January 1,1978.
This procedure will be dis-tributed for review within a month or two.
The main purpose of this memorandum, however, is to address the backlog reservoir of Category 2 and 3 matter: approved for implementation as of January 1, 1978.
The Director, NRR, dirtir.ted that these matters be imple-f mented, but we do not know whether or not they were implemented for appli-l cable cases, as directed, nor can we in DP'i identify documentation that records staff actions and resolutions for hese matters on such cases.
DPM has been assigned the responsibility to develop a progran to assure that Category 2 and 3 matters approved through January 1,1973, have been or will be implemented on most plants and designs within the DPM scope of responsibility, and that evidence of implementation and resolution is pro-vided in a staff document.
It is our undetstanding that C0R will address plants licensed fur operation, and we propose that they include in their review all units currently scheduled for operation in 1978, and the second units of multiple plants where the first unit o currently in operation or
&g scheduled for operatiot. in 1973. These units are listed in Enclosure 2.
p..
4[4 The plants and designs in the DPM scope of responsibility are listed in We propose to send the applicable licensees and PDA-holders for these plants and designs, a letter based on the model letter presented I
in Enclosure 4.
The letter will identify the Category 2 and 3 matters d
approved through January 1, 1978, and request the recipient to document how
[i,-
he has addressed or plans to address each matter for the applicable plant or design. The principal problem we must jointly resolve is the schedule
'V we set for receipt of the information from the recipients of the letters.
E.
We propose to issue all the letters by March 15, 1978.
We believe that m
responses could be submitted within sixty days or so.
However, we believe
[i that most recipients will want to meet with the staff to better understand our positions and the guidelines we propose to use in determining backfit requirements.
Further, when the information is submitted, a significant f
t t
og ;_%>
- ~
jp&g, n." :~m-
~
(
Harold R. Denton Roger J. Mattson February 10, 1978 m
effort may be required to technically resolve the matter. A measure of r
that effort may be able to be gauged from the ongoing assessments being i,.
j made.of the effort and time required to update existing Preliminary i
Design Approvals.
In any event, it is essential that we schedule the work to reflect staff i
capabilities. We propose to request replies from the letter recipients ir, the groupings and by the dates shown in Enclosure 3.
We will request that the information be submitted in an amendment or amendments to the application and expect that resolution will be documented in an SER supplement or other appropriate document.
',p We recognize that a considerable effort will be required to accomplish this task; however, further delay in implementing actions approved by the Director, NRR, for prompt implementation during the past two and one-half years is unacceptable.
We request your review of the proposed program and submittal of connents to F. Williams of DPM by February 22, 1978.
We expect to discuss the program and your comments at a general meeting to be scheduled shortly thereafter.
S
}f
./
/.*
,. sc c 2.
Roger S. Boyd, Director Division of Project Management
\\ V y,I %
l
Enclosures:
~
See next page cc:
See next page
""~
ff.
@3 4
,y.
j P
M C
am l
i_
.s
- ~j,.
vy~~
l l
to-.-
/,
-*.y
=L-e
._.m..
.,... s%
'a qJ
F Harold R. Denton 4-February 10, 1978 Roger J. Mattson
Enclosures:
f %,
1.
Category 2 & 3 Matters
'f '
2.
Reviews Proposed To Be Conducted by 00R 3.
DPM Program for Receipt of Information 4.
Model Letter cc w/ enclosures:
7';..
E. Case J. Knight
$~
V. Stello R. Bosnak K. Goller S. Pawlicki D. Eisenhut I. Sihweil D. Muller R. Tedesco M. Grossman V. Benaroya J. Scinto G. Lainas J. Miller T. Ippolito
~
R. DeYoung F. Rosa t
F. Schroeder D. Ross J. Reece Z. Rosztoczy
{
D. Vassallo P. Check J. Stolz T. Novak K. Kniel R. Vollmer O. Parr D. Bunch S. Varga J. Collins R. Denise W. Kreger T. Speis W. Haass D. Skovholt W. Gammill P. Collins J. Stepp F
R. Houston L. Hulman
'J,.
C. Heltemes L. Crocker Wi M
{.$'
.e
- i..,
y.
[E:o
- p. v.
a p*
i-
'w.
- e. *
.,,em
_[,
Y *s
'4
,9
~
- y e
.s w
M.
s.
ENCLOSURE 1 CATEGORY 2 & 3 MATTERS THROUGH JANUARY 1,1978 v:
- "s
,e r.
Pe h
4 b
E La f.5<,.
g..
J_*
?y.
o',
.r kei '
W'a*
a Y',
e,"
b
~
' ~
m
..s$.Yish' i
- ' * ~
uMW ' n o. r
.ss s_
e c. s
CATEGORY 2 N0.
ITEM SUBJECT l.
RG 1.27, Revision 2 Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear I
(1/76)
Power Plants "c.
2.
RG 1.52, Revision 1 Design, Testing, and Maintenance (7/76)
Criteria for Engineered Safety-Feature Atmospher Cleanup System Air Filtration ant adsorption Units of Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants m
3.
RG 1.59, Revision 2 Design Basis Floods for Nuclear (8/77)
Power Plants 4.
RG 1.63, Revision 1 Electric Penetration Assemblies in (5/77)
Containment Structures for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants
'5.
RG 1,68, Revision 1 Initial Test Programs for Water-(1/77)
Cooled Reactor Power Plants 5,.;,,
6.
RG 1.91, Revision 1 Evaluation of Explosions Postulated s==-
(Draft) to Occur on Transportation Routes b
Near Nuclear Power Plants 7.
RG 1.97, Revision 1 Instrumentation for Light-Water-(8/77)
Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant Conditions During and Following an Accident 8.
RG 1.100 (3/76)
Seismic Qualification of Electric F
Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants h:.
A" 9.
RG 1.102, Revision 1 Flood Protection for Nuclear Power yp' (10/76)
P1 ants c
, p.t 10.
RG 1.105, Revision 1 Instrument Setpoints fg (11/76) 5 l
11.
RG 1.108, Revision 1 Periodic Testing of Diesel Generators (8/77)
Used as Onsite Electric Power
.: c Systems at Nuclear Power Plants l
12.
RG 1.115, Revision 1 Protection Against Lcw-Trajectory (7/77)
_~
g 9
~
y tnclosure 1 CATEGORY 2 NO.
ITEM SUBJECT e.
13.
RG 1.117 (6/76)
Tornado Design Classification 5:'
t.
14.
RG 1.118 (6/76)
Periodic Testing of Electric Power and Protection Systems 15.
RG 1.124, Revision 1 Service Limits and Loading Com-(1/13/78) binations for Class 1 Linear Type Corponent Supports 16.
RG 1.130 (7/77)
Design Limits and Loading Com-hJ binations for Class 1 Plate-and Shell-Type Component Supports i
17.
RG 1.137 Fuel Oil Systems for Standby (1/18/78)
Diesel Generators 18.
RG 8.8, Revision 2 Information Relevant to Ensuring (3/77) that Occupational Radiation Ex-t posures at Nuclear Power Stations Will Be As Low As Is Reasonably
{"
Achievable i
19.
BTP APCSB 9.5.1 Guidelines for Fire Protection (8/76) for Nuclear Power Plants Under Review and Construction 20.
BTP MTEB 5-7 BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary (7/77)
Piping h:
~
W-Vn$'
' ~ -
L_.
W
- 4
- I ;[ N
% hI 7
CAT' GORY 3 t
NO.
ITEM SUBJECT a
' t.e 1.
RG 1.39, Revision 1 Housekeeping Requirements for (10/76)
Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants
^
2.
RG 1.68.2 (1/77)
Initial Startup Test Program to l
Demonstrate Remote Shutdown Cap-l ability for Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants
-l 3
RG 1.99, Revision 1 Effects of Residual Elements on (4/77)
Predicted Radiation Damage to 2, '
Reactor Vessel Materials C'
1 4.
RG 1.101, Revision 1 Emergency Planning for Nuclear (3/77)
Power Plants 5.
RG 1.114, Revision 1 Guidance on Being Operator at the (11/76)
Controls of a Nuclear Power Plant 6
RG 1.121 (8/76)
Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes P
I 7.
RG 1.127, Revision 1 Inspection of Water-Control (Dra f t)
Structures Associated with Nuclear Power Plants a
F
~.
4 c.-
s'.,
,e m..
L.
i I
1
-a
~
7.
'w vb,.
>.t.
c f. 3......
l
^
r.
s i
~..
,+
.TO BE RESOLVED BY D0R i
I i
SALEM 2 SEQUOYAH 1 & 2
_ _. wcrs,..._.,_
4THREEJMILE;ISLAN0::2AJ.
E.'
69 i
ZIMMER 1 ml NORTH ANNA 1 & 2
}
DIABLO CANYON 1 & 2 HATCH 2 t'
i
~
MCGUIRE 1 & 2 F
ARKANSAS 2 e --
WATTS BAR 1 & 2 4
FARLEY l
~
FARLEY 2 4
COOK 2 P
i j
to.Avliisis5'E".M
- g.
~. -
1 4
-bt i
e*e 7%-
4 F r..'
49= _
g.:
3 r-
- bem, w
l a
8 e
1 t
i I
%F Ss
(
/
,,=.
~
o
,* (page 1)
REPLIES DUE JUNE 15, 1978 l
m i ki.
APPLICATION TYPE CESSAR Combustion Engineering - PDA SWESSAP.-CESSAR Stone & Webster PDA referencing Combustion Engineering PDA GESSAR-238 NI General Electric Nuclear Island
'{,,
GESSAR-238 NSSS General Electric PDA
~
GESSAR-251 NSSS General Electric PDA Hartsville 1-4 GESSAR-238 NI Phipps Bend 1-2 GESSAR-238 NI v..
~
Grand Gulf 1-2 General Electric BWR-6 Design V
Clinton 1-2 General Electric BWR-6 Design L;
P t-River Bend 1-2 General Electric BWR-6 Design
[
Perry 1-2 General Electric BWR-6 Design Skagit 1-2 General Electric BWR-6 Design
['
Black Fox l-2 GESSAR-238 NSSS 7""~
Fermi 2 General Electric BWR-4 Design
- v v...
.I
-t.
n, W
vi, 4
e L__
E' W
t I
$,J.EnbidhiEw.:e,
o m. e%.uw. /-.-
.c
, (page 2) 4 REPLIES DUE AUGUST 15, 1978 APPLICATI0fl TYPE w;
\\
.ci*
RESAR-3S Westinghouse PDA South Texas 1-2 RESAR-41 Design Vogtle 1-2 RESAR-3 Design Millstone 3 RESAR-3 Design S'F.
Comanche Peak 1-2 RESAR-3 Design A
Catawba 1-2 RESAR-3 Design Byron 1-2 RESAR-3 Design Braidwood 1-2 RESAR-3 Design
~
Seabrook 1-2 RESAR-3 Design F'
W I
Jamesport 1-2 RESAR-3 Design Marble Hills 1-2 RESAR-3 Design
-r FriP l-8 RESAR-3 Design (Floating i
fluclear Plant)
Harris 1-4 Vestinghouse Design m
Beaver Valley 2 Westinghouse Design I.'
- c :-
8:
Y:'
.s n
'.(*
I L.
i
~
f7~
i 1
1y p'-
u
., (page 3) j
(
REPLIES DUE OCTOBER 15, 1978 4
APPLICATION TYPE 7
L i
Palo Verde 1-3 CESSAR Yellow Creek 1-2 CESSAR Cherokee 1-3 CESSAR Perkins 1-3 CESSAR k
WPPSS 3-5 CESSAR Forked River Combustion Engineering Design Waterford 3 Combustion Engineering Design St. Lucie 2 Combustion Engineering Design
['[.
l Pilgrim 2 Combustion Engineering Design P
t I
Calloway 1-2 3NUPPS t
I Wolf Creek SNUPPS Sterling SNUPPS Tyrone SNUPPS p..
W.-
I h,
3.'.
tf 6.,.
t
.;,r-s e as.
L T.-
- a r
I w-r s*
_# '..'W, og p'
.s
-o s
s
_ -, _.. ~..,.. - _ _ _ _ _ _. _ -...,,._. -
.. (page 4)
REPLIES DUE DECEMBER 15, 1978 h[.
APPLICATION TYPE BSAR-205 Babcock & Wilcox PDA SWESSAR-BSAR-205 Stone & Webster PDA Referencing B&W PDA SWESSAR-RESAR-3S Stone & Webster PDA Referencing Westinghouse PDA r ~-
P' Bailly General Electric BWR-4 Design Limerick 1-2 General Electric BWR-4 Design Nine Mile Point General Electric BWR-5 Design i
~~
Hope Creek 1-2 General Electric BWR-4 Design w-
~
WPPSS-1 Babcock & Wilcox Design Y
WPPSS-4 Babcock & Wilcox Design tr i
Pebble Springs 1-2 Baucock & Wilcox Design Greene County Babcock & Wilcox Design North Anna 3 -4 Babcock & Wilcox Design W
'f.;. -
^
D. 3.,
W,
q.
F. ? T *
- ~, -
5,'.':
i Ir
- h w
i h.
I f
- b, N;,
=-
,a 6
-.. _... _.,... _ _.... _. ~ _.... ~,..
. (page S) 1-ih I
st
^
~
TO BE RESOLVED IN ONG0ING REVIEWS, UPON REACTIVATION, OR PRIOR TO USE
?
ONG0ING REVIEW UP0ft REACTIVATION PRIOR TO USE
-l RESAR 414 Greenwood 2&3 RESAR 41 GIBBSSAR-RESAR 414 Montague 182 SWESSAR RESAR 41 B0PSSAR-BSAR 205 Atlantic 1 & 2 B0PPSAR RESAR 41 ESSAR-CESSAR Douglas Point BPAUNSAI! TI
")
Shoreham LaSalle 1&2 San Onofre 2&3 Suniner 1 UPPSS 2 t-Midland 1&2 6
Davis Besse 2&3 New England 1&2
,t Erie 1&2
(
Sundesert 1&2 i
f Haven 1&2 j-Susquehanna 1&2 Allens Creek p
Bellefonte 1&2 t
$0 8
.i 3.
,'<i a(
<(,
r 1
H y.
- a. g ;t.,
..y.. y;..,
- ~,
e,. 7 7
=
- p 6
7 N
UNITED St ATES
[#
.,k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON f, j i S.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- Mi9. < !
\\...l
,p SAMPLE-
>P.
Docket Nos. STN 50-556 50-557 Public Service Company of Oklahoma Attn: Mr. B. H. Morphis Assistant Vice President - Nuclear P. O. Box 201 W'
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
IMPLEMENTATION OF STAFF REQUIREMENTS A review of staff decisions on implementation of certain regulatory requirements, including those associated with Regulatory Guides and Branch Technical Positions, has indicated the need for further information l,
regarding the status of the Black Fox Station design with regard to the w
provisions of the issues listed in Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2.
These issues are associated with revisions of existing guides or relatively recently proposed and approved new guides or Branch Technical Positions.
A review of each of these items was conducted by the Regulatory Requirements Review Comittee (RRRC) and its recommendation for implementation was subsequently approved by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The following is the result of their actions:
J.
(1) Enclosure 1 lists those Regulatory Guides to which your plant
.e must conform either by adherence to the positions recommended in N*
the guides or to an acceptable alternative.
6, (2) Enclosure 2 lists those Guides and Branch Technical Positions for which a determination must be made of the need and practicality of requiring
@fV conformance, in full or in part, depending on the degree of
(*%
compliance presently existing and considering the state of design
.i.'.
and/or construction.
[ * *--
We will need the following information from you :
f..
(1)
For those guides listed in Enclosure 1, for which the plant design b~-
already meets the guide provisions, provide or reference appropriate 4
confinning documentation.
For those guides listed in Enclosure 1 for L
which the plant design does not meet.the guide provisions, indicate your plans for corrective action.
~
e t
x-S,*
g 4
g.
g
~
iciosure 4 (page 2) 3o Public Service Company of Oklahoma,
(3)
For those items listed in Enclosure 2 for which the plant design already meets the provisions of the guide or positior.s, provide or reference appropriate confirming documentation.
For the (cc remaining items in Enclosure 2, indicate the degree of compliance F~
of your plant design with the provisions of each and your assessment of why full compliance is not needed.
In any case where you determine that full compliance should be provided, indicate your plans for obtaining such compliance. We are reviewing all plants, including operating plants, and plant designs with regard to the issues listed in Enclosures 1 and 2.
In order
~
to efficiently allocate our limited staff manpawer to resolution of this matter, considering our other workloads, we have developed a plan for a sequential receipt of responses from F
licensees and applicants. Your response is requested by June 15, 1978. We recognize that in many instances you may already(meet some or all of the provisions of the guidesor an acceptable listed vided documentation to that effect. A reference to the docu-mentation will be satisfactory.
If you have any questions.regarding this matter, please contact your b'.
assigned licensing project manager.
Sincerely, 7
4 Roger S. Boyd, Director Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation p-W
Enclosures:
1.
2' dC CCs:
Listem on following page f_s f'I-'
Ik
[-rk.'
L
~
s,.
1 kh0sO al&15?Y&h x~n.%-:wii dG ^ ~. ~
\\
~.
s 1
_