ML20125C407
| ML20125C407 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/16/1992 |
| From: | Ward D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20125C381 | List: |
| References | |
| ACRS-GENERAL, NUDOCS 9212110174 | |
| Download: ML20125C407 (2) | |
Text
.
/p r.co UNITED STATES 8'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMP:SSION n
- E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUA.RDS O
g WASHINGT ON, D. C. 20550
%,, * *.
- j$
October 16, 199,2 The Honorable Ivan Solin Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Se]in:
SUBJE:Pt SECY-92-287, " FORM AND CONTENT FOR A DESIGN CERTIFICATION RULE" During the 390th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, October 8-10, 1992, we reviewed SECY-92-287, " Form and con *cnt for a Design Certification Rule."
Our Subcommittee on laproved Light Water Reactors also discussed this matter on Bapt9mber 23, 1992.
During these meetings, we had the benefit of discussions with representatives of the NRC.
We also had tC e benefit of the documents referenced.
The staff is proposina the form and content for a
design certification rule, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 52-Subpart B, which implements tre intent of part 52.
The staff proposes that any rulemaking changes to Tier 2
information requested by the NRC staff or a third party are to be governed by the backfit standard of 10 CFR 50.109 (9) (a) (3).
We note that this is inconsistent with previous Commission guidance given in ute Staf f Requiremeni 1 Memorandum (SRM) regarding SECY 377 that "... the staf f shoulo -
held ta the backfitting standards of 10 CFR 52.63 for all matters resolved in the design certification rulemaking (in both tiers 1 and 2)."
We recommend that the staff adhere to the Commission guidance in this regard, and apply the " adequate protection" standard to such changes.
The proposed rule would require the consolidation of all the design-relatt.d information into a single stand-alone c'ocument called the Design Control Document (DCD).
The DCD 'muld contain the two-tiered design-re)ated information that wculd be extracted by the applicant from its application for design certification.
Tier 1 includes the design information that is relied upon as the fundamental basis for the staff < e: #ety review.
It would include the design descripti.
inspC ions,
- tests, an: '.y se s,
and acceptance criteria (I..acs);
site parameters; and interface requirements.
Tier 2 is the remainder of the design-related kk2 kg4 921202 E D O -- 008200 CENERAL PDR G2 N J l / c
The lionorable Ivan Selin 2
October 16, 1992 information that is used in support of the certified standard design.
Tbc staff would review the DCD and provide its evaluation in a final safety evaluation report (FSER) for the design.
The DCD would be referenced in the proposed standard design certification rule.
he r3 commend that you approve the staf f's proposed form and content for a Part b2 Standard Design Certification Rule, subject to the following comments.
The staff does not propose to include its FSER as an integral part of the DCD.
However, the FSER chould be given cicar standing for f uture interpretation of the rule, analogous to the manner in which a statement of consideration serves for other rulas.
It is our opinion that, irrespective of the degree of care and effort applied to minimize the potential for ambiguities or inconsistencies, such problems will arise within the large volume of DCD material and with its evaluation in the FSER.
Items not clarified in Tier 1 will have to be examined and settled on an ad hoc basis by consideration of intent at the Tier 2 level.
Such an examination should include both the F.3ER and applicant documents.
On the question of secondary references, we propose that all documents and references that were considered important to the staff in making its final safety determir.ation be identified in the FSER.
These should be the only references to be designated as
" resolved."
copirs of those references that are not readily available should be included in the application for certification.
Sincerely, David A.
Ward Chairman
References:
1.
SECY-92-287, dated August 18, 1992, from James M.
- Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC, for the Commissioners,
Subject:
Form and Content for a Design Certification Rule 2.
Memorandum dated February 15, 1991, from Samuel J.
- Chilk, Secretary of the Commission, for James M.
Taylor, Executive Director for Operations,
- NRC,
Subject:
SECY-90-377 Requirements for Design Certification Under 10 CFR Part 52 3.
Staff Requirements Memorandum M920908, dated September 30, 1992, from Samuel J.
Chilk, Secretary of the Commission, for James M.
- Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRF
Subject:
Form and Content for a Design Certification Rule r Follow-up to SECY-90-016 (SECY-32-287)
[
ACTION - Murley, NRR
[g\\\\
UNITED $TATES
,I Cys:
Taylor
/" )g " I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Snie;ek f
w AsHiw oT oN. D.C. 20$f,6 Thompson
- ,**V [/
t a
Blaha i
September 30, 1992 IN RESPONSE, PLEASE Beckjord REFER TO:
M920908 Jordan orr ect or THE Scroggin.
&lCRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor Execut.ive Director for Operations William C.
Parler General Counsel FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secro
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - BRIE 1NG ON ADVANCED AND EVOLUTIONARY REACTOR TOPI St FORM AND CONTENT FOR A DESIGN CERTIFICATION RULE AND FOLI4W-UP TO SECY-90-016 (SECY-92-287), 10:00 A.M.,
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8,
- 1992, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
The Commission 1 was briefed by the NRC staff on the form and content proposed for a design certification rule and on some of the technical issues on which the staff are continuing to work.
The staff should review the SRM en SECY-90-377, dated February i
15, 1991, to resolve apparent inconsistencies between the direction provided in that SRM and the change process described in SECY-92-287.
In that SRM, the Commission stated that the staff should be held to the backfitting standards of 10 CFR
(
52.63, which is the Part $2 backfitting regime, for all matters
\\
resolved in the design certification rulemaking (in both tiers 1 and 2).
In that same SRM, the Commission also directed that the change process fo" Tier 2 information only be allowed between COL issuance and authorization for operation.
After corpJeting this review, the staff should provide the Commissior with recommendations for the design certification change pr> cess with supporting justification for any recommended variatior.s from the earlier Commission guidance provided in the SRM on SECY-90-377.
.7""
' ' N
-(-P W - (NRR)
(SECY Suspense:
11/20/92) ) 9100065
/
1 Comm!ssioner de Plangue was on leave and did 70t attend this briefing.
bN g ge boM
)
l
,' The Commission raised the question con::trning proprietary
[86* C,/
information in the design certification process.
The staff reported that they are continuing to analyze the issue and will provide the commission recommendations in the near future.
(OGC)
(SECY Suspense:
10/30/92)
The staff should review the pros and cons of providing a separate appendix for generic requirements applicable to all design certification applicants as opposed to incorporating all the requirements for each applicant in a single appendix.
The resulting recommendation should be forwarded to the-Commission for approval.
\\
43D04.- (NRR)
(SECY Suspense:
11/20/92)
.9100065
/
The commission would like the ACRS and the staff to continue-their discussions on diversity in digital instrumentation and control systems and for staff to interact further with the vendors.
cc:
The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque OCAA OIG ACRS PDR - Advance DCS - P1-24
--