ML20023A681
| ML20023A681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/06/1982 |
| From: | Scinto J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023A419 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-399 NUDOCS 8210190124 | |
| Download: ML20023A681 (2) | |
Text
r f
,. ~r Ga va
, :,a vd 4':s, cs i
,l
..;L,
I c
~ n.- v
\\
y w
- a..
(
Note to Richard Vollmer, Director, Division of Engineering, NRR Re:. Applicability of Appendix A to Part 100 Your memorandum of January 16, 1980, requested a legal opinion on whether operating plants are " legally required" to meet the siting requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A.
At the outtet of my response to your question, I wish to note that 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A, has a dual characteristic that must be properly taken into account by the Staff in its review of seismic design adequacy.
First, it is the mandatory regulatory standard for judgement with respect to those reactors to which was made applicable. These are discussed below.
Secondly, it is the most authoritative statement by the agency of the tech-nical elements that should be considered in detennining seismic adequacy.
Consequently, even for those cases to which it is not applicable as a mandatory standard, the infonnation and technical elements of Appendix A should be taken into account in reaching a judgement of seismic adequacy.
For those cases in which the Staff uses a different standard for judgement of seismic adequacy, the Staff should provide a convincing technical case that the standard used, and provide an adequately high degre2 of safety even though the standard may be different from that set forth in Appendix A.
In this sense Appendix A standards should be "taken into account" for all reactors.
With respect to the application of 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A, as a mandatory regulatory standard, there is no basis in the background of Appendix A to conclude that it was intended to apply retrospectively, that is to reactors whose operating licenses were issued before November 1971, when the proposed rule was published. After December 1973, when the final rule became effective, there is inadequate basis to distinguish the application of Appsndix A from the manner in which other portions of Part 100 are applied, that is both to CP reviews and OL reviews. Thus, for reactors whose operating licenses were issued after December 1973, Appendix A is the applicable standard.
U M-U g
}cy
<c d().
1 1
[L 8210190124.B21006 U
S
~~
( GALLOS2-399
~PDR
"r t
2-
/~,
(
?
BetweenLNovember 1971 and December 1973, although the Commission did not impose proposed Appendix A on licensees, it " guided" the Staff. Thus, I would expect that a review of the background of those reactors which were-issued operating licenses in this period will identify some or many in which Ap'pendix A is characterized as part of the fundamental design. To use a standard of assessment different than Appendix A would then appear to entail a significant modification of a fundamental element in the facility design.
This would require some careful attention to the appropriate procedure to implement such a change of such significance.
For these reactors (Vermont Yankee to Zion), it will be necessary to consider each on a case-by-case basis.
Joseph Scinto, Deputy Director Hearing Division, OELD N.