ML20138E103

Forwards Draft GL to Obtain Info on Voluntary Basis Re Licensee self-initiated Design Bases Reconstitution Programs.Intends to Forward GL to Commission for Info Prior to Issuing for Public Comment

ML20138E103
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/07/1992
From:	Imbro E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Fraley R Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Shared Package
ML20137A682	List: ML20137A678 ML20137A699 ML20137A733 ML20137A764 ML20137A778 ML20137A816 ML20137A834 ML20137A844 ML20137A855 ML20137A866 ML20137A893 ML20137A912 ML20137A928 ML20137A956 ML20137A974 ML20137A980 ML20138E103
References
FOIA-96-466 NUDOCS 9306110195
Download: ML20138E103 (11)

Text

-.

o m,_

av7 pp.g. $gi5.

,., - : :l

. : s '.

Raymond F. Fraley, Executive Director a:

j

>, 39:

HEHORANDUM FOR:

Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards.

~. n y ta -g.g -

hq,

a

.WJ b

, Eugene V. Imbro,' Chief W'dif$.

M FROM:

Special Inspection Branch 4

Division of Reactor Inspections'an F

Licensee Performance.-g;jg

.;Jp:xj.

j

=. _ -. wu ye I

SUBJECT:

DRAFT GENERIC LETTER ON THE AVAILABILITY'AND ADEQUACY OF DESIGN BASES INFORMATION,

g The draft generic letter (Enclosure 1) is being provided for your information.

l The purpose of the generic letter is to obtain information, on a voluntary basis, regarding licensee's self-initiated design bases reconstitution programs. No new staff requirements are imposed by the generic letter nor are additional licensee comitments sought. The enclosed generic letter is consistent with the policy statement (Enclosure 2) and prior CRGR review coments have been incorporated. We intend to forward this generic letter to the Comission for information prior to issuing it for public coment.

,.%+N!q4WK '

c.

Please contact me by COB on October 9,1992 if the Advisory Comittee on i

Reactor Safeguards desires a staff briefing on this generic letter.

OW8Nh.:

catonvu.s sImm sh b

P53 Eugene V. Imbro, Chief R:4.-

5,;,

Special Inspection Branch h A '

Division of Reactor Inspection and Licensee Performance M fe w ).

' 3;l%n(M

....3 s

f fp.tk

• I

Enclosures:

As Stated gM Qi tribution:

-33 db l

R51S R/F-M. cm

,t h

J[{hg j.1 HNPastis, NRRt '1 ,*y WIRussell, NRR 7 03[d 3 Hiaylor OEDO i g, ' CERossi, DRil .-pp/' u j, CHHarcus, DORS A. RZimerman, DRIL CQuittschreiber, ACRS 3 i'. p{:l, RAGram, DRil g v Central Files 1 a ..,g i k i', W;..s 4t h' gA w ,..j n. U;.P ' ' S l C:RSIB:0RIL .W h N~' lal oa 4: [ n $$$Sa-

a l

OR)(&

.= . ~,.n y 4 - g-y ENCLOSURE fM:es j, Generic Letter - h, h. 4

c. + -

10: ALL POWER REACTOR LICE!! SEES AND APPLICANTS FOR OPERATillG LICE!15E AinM%

SUBJECT:

AVA1 3 BILITY A110 ADEQUACY OF DESIGN BASIS INFORMATION Ah'j%y J The Commission recently issued a policy statement' describing its wi;y Mg c expectations and the Agency's future actions to verify the, adequacy and wn.w s. availability of design information. Inthepolicystatement;theConmission n, w concluded that maintaining current and accessible design documentation is important to ensure that (1) plant physical and functio'na1' characteristics are MMW maintained and are consistent with the design bases as required by U.S. T NuclearRegulatoryCommission(NRC) regulations;(2hsf&dW' systems, structures, ~ swpm..; j corponents can perform their intended functions; and (3) the plant is operated sk.h in a nanner consistent with the design bases. y;

s f W( '

. f In October 1993, the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) issued NUMA.C 90-12. " Design Basis Program Guidelines," containing guidance for organizing and collating the design bases for each nuclear power plant in a i l . anner consister,t with the definition of design bases information in Section m . e. e,1 v. 50.2 of Title 10 of the (qds gf federal Regulations l(10 CFR 50.2). HUMARC . dCSM&: i issued this docutent for voluntary use by fiUMARC member organizations as a 4MM-reference from which licensees would review their existing or planned efforts GU 6 N.y l to collate suppurting design information. On Novembe,r,9,11990, the NRC staff 2 s. sent cowents on .e guidelines to fiUMARC, p 4 y, a r.I [ h., 5~ ~ ,u '" Availability and Adequacy of Design Bases Intormation at Nuclear Power Plants," [esetal Beoister, Volume 57, Number 154, page 35455, August 10, 1992. &Wh)W ' Letter freq W.T. Russell, !!RC, to W.H. Rasin,y' ilUMARC,1 e November 9, 1990. S 1. a: rip t }'y* '}[ . 31 S /.

To ensure that the NRC is apprised of the industry's activities, the NRC hereby recuests power reactor licensees to describe the programs that are \\ twple ented or planned to ensure design information is correct, accessible, and -tittained. T'; n'.ist the staf f ir, prioritizing its inspection program, the NRC requests 4 tr at t' e at ressee voluntarily submit the following information which would be j

$rt

ui vi, useful if submitted within 120 days:

I 5-a-t a description of any programs already completed, planned, or betrq conducted to ensure the correctness and accessibility of the

• s";c bases information for your facil'ty and to ensure that it is

taino; o.< rent.

2- .. a" rpt i..ple enting a design reconstitution program at your f e. ! ! s t :,. sub-it your rationale for not implementing such a program and tub it a desce r or. c' the extent of the design information you have obta med fro...r

lear staam supply system (NSSS) vendor and ai c '. ect-engir.eer (A/E). Describe the extent of any inforeation not cLiained fro-the N555 vendor or A/E, but which is. accessible at the Ns55 vendor or A/E offices.

3. If your design reconstitution program is planned or being conducted tout has not been co pleted, submit your schedule for implementation and the estected corpletion date. Mlh,g;j.Nld4 . Lh :.

i \\ c,, fafh,$yy".m s ,"bg .f jM 4 This generic letter does not impose any new requirements or modify any ) existing regulatory requirements. ' t.ff 'lMN:. m %;, 13dlj MY " u.:p 1 [ lr$??Oy?NC The responses should be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear, Regulatory Commiss! x, 20555.t @W p/r ~ j ^ r&j k ATTil: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. {M!k ' - sc : This request is (.cnred by the Office of Hananement und Budget Clearance m..w flumber 3150-0011, which expires June 30, 1994. The estimated average number i ww.8.pu of burden hours is 200 person hours for each licensee response. Send comments W :. A. regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of . gn ; information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the c ,e Information and Records Management Branch, (MtiBB-7714) Division of Information Su; pert Services, Of fice of Information Resources Managemen(, U.S. Nuclear Ragulatory C a ission, Washington, DC 20555; and to tN Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503. i .r ,Q:P hj;q,, ) Packfit 0i quts_im f.1,g>l,g T l J yj pq..g f.p< ; wn Q r'f-)?;!lQ t This generic letter is a request to submit information~ voluntarily. This W *G :n, letter does not require modifications or adcitions to systems, structures, or eq : components of facility, the design of a facility, or the' procedures or organization to design, construct, or operate a facility.w,Therefore, a QtRW eas defined in 10 CFR response to this letter does not impose any backfits,dy$$?. ' tjds 50.109(a). The staff evaluated this letter in accordance with the charter of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR)qyaNL M s and will place a copy of

44F4Whk that evaluation in the public document room with the minutes of the CROR meeting at which this letter was considered.

%;;y p

p hk j

Mi h

$s

!W.; i v i

s I ( ~ ~ ;?R'[,':c ' ', - 1 If you have any questions about this matter, please contact,the itRC project 4 n.,$. :..- :x. :.s,y.$,h j manager or the technical contact listed below.

x l

Sincerely. -@b.../r2,., 1 l i .s fs%.',, i ~, s James G. Partlow Associate Director for Projects 4 Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation l TEClifi! CAL C0tlTACT: Eugene V. Imbro, Office of ttuclear Reactor Regulation, e U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, telephone i1 .g, l, (301) 504-2967. %@b. 3,4 X'de ":.;c. g f -7,** Ik, f ,) cQh.:,'.k2lp ~ p;q g"#;:,,; j' ~, m.. 1,1_,*' ,e ?$ 4 s n =l b e # m:.. "., v. Q..~..'c .ya r.i'.. /. i k e r '.;;.

• 'NMf l0v,4;v'

, 3 bil; $'i :n I: - Nk)[h s '$'*h;/

sk

• Q 4i7; , P -

) ..:u..,

• k s*

f .: s.n ..'c.;.

• v t.

't;y -. p.?. ('. ? M(,I :.'c .'.L ); fr }' 5.

1. , f,3) 15 '.

..,a, (?,,\\ $. h ye ** y l 3y .,. t a.,$s v (=. t.. 'N.# .( bi. h* 4 ..d

• ?

?. '.... :..-. :c l,C.L. b

• )..

- -?.;(Cf2< i ;[;:<.9[\\;U,[ i?/ k A

i - - - _ ~ n c _ _. _, _ _ n._,w. c ..e 1 5 - em ecm an 1 y & u< i sssss Rules and Regulations red-d u - s Vol 87. Na 154 M-Ay. Aagraet M us2 l I 4 it.s sen et t4 FICGs1 AEGr5Tm Propam Cddelinea."hD(ARC DM2. functions! characteristica are i! ccc ans n.pewy ooct.rness Nrwg %Me developtng these guideltnes,. matntained and are constatent with the jj Wa;aw ey am we vect, rnest NUMARC dbcussed them at severs! design bases as required by h7C 0' ***'^ ' w s e erus cm %3 " public meetirts held with the NRC. e regula tion. (:) systems, e tmcuts, and t*=e COM cd FeCevW 4pascrw. w*sch la i ef aII ha e Conchrded the NUMARC cut =ponents can perfor:n theit 1: tended i 73 ~*# *' g " '4 * ** " " " " delines pmvide a useful stan functfens and (3) the plant is eperated } 1hs Ccoe of F w at %,putaxna a wed amework for in)plementing des la a manner consistrut with the derip ,I t'y the S(gents.reunt cd h recons titutloc propama. De't bases. The Commission bebeves the b' Pnces of no w t=x*a e<a hied n tie spect Do smgle approach trodd gas regdefory fra;mework drtady exists to fest FEOER.AL F,F "./.STm nave cd secrg utabdes to best accomplish the address the need for accessible desip ) i

==. recons tirat>on ta sk. He NUMARC ba~6 eland cactml of derip informa can. b) l idance appeared to provide sufEcient Tbe evacability of current desip and '{I exibluty for indtvidual utittfes to ^ I beenring bases wiD also rged!!c the MUCLE.AR REGut.s TORY Couwtss4on straeture their prorums to rerpend most license renrwal process. f efliciently to thett un!que oceda and Tbe Commisrien believes, sa a result to CFR PL t M "##"= ' t* "***' ~ of NRC tarpections and bcrnaces' relf-ne stan sent coctments oc the anenments, tha t aD power resctor AvaltatMty and Ade7.cacy of Deskyi guidelines to NUMARC on November 9 licensees should assen b accerrfb0ft} Bases Intcmatton at Pev;$ ear Power 19% Commisrion paper SECY-We5 and adequacy of their design beses i ) i Plants; Pc4 cy Staterr errt trJormed the Commluloners in advance documentation, ne revnfts of this tell-about the staU response to NUMARC. assessment shodd form the basis for a a c t asc'n Nude ar F.egula tory The staff requested NUMARC licenm's decision whether a dertgn Comeu soon. consider maEng the design be ses effort reconstitution pmpam b necruary am 1 acTioac Pubey statement. a butARC tnitiattve. NUMARC the attributes to be indoded in the I 1 concladed &cy would not p:nne a svuuAAr. ne S,u:.a,cer ReFulatory fo mal hitf ative, but would forws.d the pregam.na Comminion recophes the need for a desip recenautonoo l Com=ussion is isnung th:4 policy guiddines to their members to use on a pmgram to be tailond to me et the J stateclent on avadabary and adequaey voluntary besis.netr rea son for not tmique needs of a partkular ottilty.ns i of uesign infor=auen at n:2 dear pcrw er pursuing an initistive wae that teost of structura and content of b design { plants. na pobey statement descnbes the Cr.annuanon a ex;wctatiaca and their tnembers were already conducting document reconsticatiac program will! I or evaluating the need to conduct desip Influenced bv var;ous factors such as futare aedor.s with repid to the Wes reconstitudon pmpama. W b wuuty's gh'Jond structurs. tl as aJabiry cf design mformation and The ConurJulon's evaluation of the k 3 availability or unavailability of design emphu.m de Comcasion's view that status of reconstitution propams deatl7 documentat2on, and & totended user facihGes shoud not be modded without indicater the ifcensees' rubstantial*. of the documentatioc. Tna (* '**io a de.r undersiar.6ng of the appbcable investment in these propsms shecid expects that after ccmpleting a rng6neenca denp t ana, yield posittve safety benefits for a reconstitution program, or as a basis f l cn acrm cart: Augusi to.122. majonty of sites.The NRC commends condeding 61 sor.h a pmgnm 14 rom svarwen mf omaArx>.e coerT AcT. those beensees ht are acting to ensure unnecenary, W beenm will ha ve l Fugene V. !sbro. oft.ce of Nade.ar techrJc4Uy adequate and accessible current destp docunents and adeqos l Reactor Ecgda bon. U.S. Nudaar design bases documentatien la technical beses to derncostrate that t! F erdebry Com:-J s sion. Washington. maintained. 3 plant physical and functkmal DC Omil, teie;hoce (yJ1) 5fA-M. Ilowever, the Commlulon is .a characteristics are consistent with th a untt w txt AA y uss onuArnoec NRC concerned some situstions ex.isI whers dealp WLa. the syrtema. stnactures, ine; ection fed.ngs have demonstrsted Ucennu han not critically eaamined g.and components can perforra their that soc.* licensees have not adequately their desip control and configurationf@-Intended functions and b plant la b rnnir.t.tned their design bases managemmt pmcesus to Medy 4 operated In a manner consistent wit! trJcemauon as reqmred by NRC nquisde menum to ensun the plant la Ythe design basis. regdanorts. Doth the problems ident$ed operating within the desip bun v p NUMARC has developed guldencu 6c.ea de NFC inapeetions and those ennlope.Thmfors, b Comm!sh the conduct of desip bases to design infortna tion and elaborstir.g on{: reconstjtutJon prog ams aruculating its cipMations with regard identied by licccacee have prompted rnost power teactor I:censeea to trutfate, outlines a framework to orgstute an our the pasi seseral years, des!gn its planned scuvitiee to cerMrm the 4 collats oudaar power plant design t bevs reconentution programa. To integnty of the n-cmdgund plant M J information. This inform a tksn prow ir.plemtat a reconsututaan program, respect to the plant dealgn bases. eaf the re tionaja for the design be ses bce r.sers ads to identify tr.ts nirg design Policy Statement = y i" consistent with the deftrubon of des docurner.t.tx.o and to se'ecuvely k /w,.ba ses contained to 10 CTR $0.2. reycnerate m.asmg documentauco as .M NUMARC so-12. "Desip Ba sta Prot require d. The Commlasion haa cerwhded that M Guidehnes," was inso*d to October In m Nudear l'tidu L!anaaemant mattitaining current and accessible .W for voluntary asa by NUMARC mar a.ruf Rc souru s Ccuncil. Inc (NutARC) design documentstion is important to W organtations as a referencs potnt i bepri developtr.g htt "Dcogu Basis ensure ht (1) the plant physical and M which licenaces wedd rerww their

35456 Tederal Register / Vol. 57. No.154 / Monday. August 10, 1992 / Rules and Regulations g custing or planned efforts to collate ensure their validity for the life of the DEPARTMENT OF THE TRE ASURV supponing design mformauen. The f acihty. including any renewal penod. Commission behes es NUMARC's In order to ensure the Commission 1 Offlee of Thrttt Sup$rvtston approach provides a useful framework appraised ofindustry's activities. the 12 CFR Part 5 4 and worthwhile miights to those utilities NRC will take the following actiohn. undertaking design basis programs. (1)The staff willissue a genericletter (Ibill) The Commission bebeves a licensee requestmg alllicensees to desenbe the should be able to show that it has programs that are in place to ensure RIN 1550 Am sof hcient documentation. including deogn information is correct. accessible' Re istration. Esamination and calcu!ations or pre operauonal. startup and mamtained cunent. Those licensees Reporta: Statements, Applic.ations, or saneillance test data to conclude the that are not implementing a desip Reports and Hoticas To Be Flied cu rent fecihty conferation is reconstitution progtsm will be requested consistent with its deep bases.The to provide their rationale for not doing ActNet.OfGce of nnft Supen1sion. Co r.rnmion further beheses the desiP so. lf a reconstitution program is under

Treasury, 3

t'ases must be understood and way, the schedule for implementation AcT1ose: Final rule. documented to support operability and completion will be reqiested. detc~nications and 10 CG 50 59 suwwAprr.The Ofnce of Thnft t es atuations that may need to be made (2) The staff will prioritize NRC Supemsion (OTS)is hereby amending cuickly in respondmg to plant events. inspections of licensee e management of its regulations pertaining to boldmg The c.ergn bases related tnformation desip and configuration using SSf1* company reportmg requirements. In shoult be retnes able withm a t)Te techniques based upon responses updating eustmg forms to reflect reasonable pened of time, how ever. it is to the genenc letter and other plant changes necessitated by the financial not necesnary for al! desip basis specific information known to the NRC. Institutions Reform. Recovery, and dxumentation to be orgarused in one Additional staff guidance will be Enforcement Act of1949 the OTS has rtace The eformation used solely to developed where needed, for the destp combmed several forms to stream 1me support the development of a bases aspects of these inspections. the reporting process and esse the rotheation pack age would not need to I3IThe NRC eYstematic assessment of regulat ry burden on savings andloan be a5te to be retneved as espeditiounty holdmg companies, In particular, the as mformation needed to support an licensee performance (SALP) process eeporting requirements set forth in c;erabiht) determmation, will be modined to explicitly address Forms ll-lb)3 Ildb}4. llybl5 and H. sesessment oflicensee programs to (b)10 Rejnstration Statements are now In the esent the desc beses control design bases information that containtd m one body of metruenons for it.!er nainn is found technically reIIect NRC mspection activity in this all Registrants, the Il-{b)10. In addition. inadewate or not accessib!e bcensees area and assure consistent evaluations. the H-(b)11 Annual Report and the H-s%M consider whether rer edist action is a rranted A methodolcry should be (4] De staff will continue to (b)12 Current Report have been rnerged dese.oped and ir plemented to ensure encourage self. identification of design into one set of instructions requiring an 'I annual fihng with quarterly updates licensee resources are fxuied on design bases issues through application of the informing the OTS of any changes. The mfo.ation regeneration in a timeframe provisions of the Comtnission e Ildf) Dmdend Notinca tion has been comr,ensurate with the safety enforcement pobey.ne staff will. resemded. since the requirements 5.antricance of the r.issics or erroncea however. pursue enforcement actions for contained in the Capital Distnbutions m f o rm a tion-engmeenng deficiencte whose root ,,8ulation are sufncient for the OTS's The Cor. mission also emphasize::t is cause hes in the inadequacy or monitonng and supervision purposes, s er) important that mod,fications to a unavailabihty of design bases-grrtetivt o Atti September 9.1M:. faciht) be made after a thorough review information and which are identined FOR Fl/RTNER INromu ATions CONTACT has been cendacted and so dunng NRC inspections. Michael P. Scott. Program Manager. understaning of the apphcable underipng design bases has been Paperwork Reduction Act Statement (202) 906-5746. Supemelon Pohey. Office of Thrift Supemsion.1700 C j gamed in order to ensare appropnate Thl, fins { polley statement does not Street.NW Washington DC 20552 desig9 me gms are presersed-contain a new or amended information, s uppt.gutxf A R Y INr omu A T)OW. Collection requirement subject to the s fat. ore Action * ~ Paperwork Reduction Act of1960(44 U.S C. 3501 et seq ). Existing The OTS le today lisuing a Baal ru!e ne Cominission will contmue to requirements were approved by the y,;.. amending its holding company reportm i ms;ett toutmely the adequacy of design Office of Management and Dudget ' ' requirements.This amendinent affects sontrol program effectiveness.no approval number 315H011. %L the registration. annual, and current Comenission conclades that ensunns the Y reportmg requirements, v He. Maryland this 4th day' /f ts/sitefion Statements c !!t el u re and or A[g s a a controlled in rf ant documents will also As previously structured. holding ensure that ihose parts of the curtent For the Nuclear Reptstory Corninission. companies were required to choose from hceesins bases of tnost safety four separate reg'stra tion sistemer.ts. s.g. f.cance are unders'ood and $4mwel! ChJth. These separate statements were n. contro!!ed Other aspecta of the current $4cretary e/the Commission. criginally deemed nece ssary to d liceneira bases such as emergency accommodate spectal types of hold.ng g 7g ,g pae;aredness and security plans. should companies (i e., companies that became a!so be appropr ste!y riammed to au sio coes na m savings and loan holdmg companies as &. kh E% 1

I s c 35453 i Rules and Regulations "d-i * " nm \\a $- No 34 Wnd9. August t0 tPC 'h s section of the FEDE A AL nEGlSTEA Program Cmdchnes." NUMARC W12 functional characteristics are contains regutaiory documents raeg Whtle des eloping these guidthnes. maintained and are consistent with the

o+eral aconcab.hry and tegat e"ec t. most NUMc\\RC discussed them at several design bases as required by NRC o' aNch are keyed to and cod +ed en pubhc meetmgs held with the NRC. The regulation. (2) systems. structures. and t*e CNe of Federal Aeguianons.hc n is staff has concluded the NUN 8 ARC components can perform their intended 4

b hed der 50 r ties pursuant 'o 44 tjehnes proude a useful standard functions. and (3) the plant is operated %e Coce el Fedwar Aegulations,s so 1 framework for imp'ementmg design in a manner consistent with the deso;n j by the supenniendent of Documents remnstitution programs The staff also bases The Commission beheses the j Pnces of no books are 1,sted in the agrees no sing!c approach would enable regulatory framework already costs ta j br st FEDEAAL AEGISTER issue el eas utiht;es to best accomphsh the address the need for accessible Jewn acen reconstitution task. The NUMARC bases and control of design nformation guidance appeared to proude sufficient The avadability of current design and f'eubihty for individual utihties to hcensing bases will also expedite the NUCLE AR REGULATORY vructure their programs to respond most license renewal process. COMMISSION cff;ciently to their unique needs and The Commission beheves. as a resu:1 4 to CFR Part 50 q 'umitances of NRC mspections and hcenseef self-6 e staff sent remments on the assessments. that all power re actor .. de'om m Nt'M ARC on Nos ember 9 hcensees should assess the acces+ Availability and Adequacy of Design Bases information at Nuclear Power 7 ON ?n paper SECY-s-365 and adequacy of their design bases '" " 1 mst ne" in dd$ dnte documentation. The results of th:s se? Plants: Policy Statement iu. N staff res;>onse to NUM ARC assessme-t should form the basis Mr a ACENcy: Nuclear Regulatory Pe s'afi rcqursted NUMARC hcensee s decision whether a design Commisuon 'nsaler mai:ng the design bases effort reconstitution program is necessars aN Action: Pohcv statement. 4 NL' MARC initiatis e. NUM ARC the attnbutes to be included in the ~ concluded they would not pursue a program. The Commission recogmzes suuMARv:The Nuclear Regulatory formal mitiative. but would forward the the need for a design reconstitution Commission is issuing this pobcy guidehnes to their members to use on a program to be tailored to meet the statement on availabihty and adequacy voluntary basis. Their reason for not unique needs of a particular utility.The of design information at nuclear power pursuing an initiative was that most of structure and content of the design plants. This pobey statement describes their members were already conductinR document reconstitution program wdl be the Commission's expectstions and or evaluating the need to condact design influenced by various factors, such as fuiure actions with regard to the bases reconstitution programs-the utility's organizational structure, the avadabihty of design information and The Commission's evaluation of the availability or unavailability of design emphasizes the Commission's view that status of reconstitutics programs clearly documentation, and the intended users facdities should nut be modified without indicates the licensees substantial G' @of be documentation.Th J a clear understanding of the apphcable mvestment m these programs should het aftee completing a 4 l engineering design bases yield positive safety benefits for a." 3, oreconstitution peogeam, or as a basis for EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10.1992 majority of sites. The NRC commendsm'" concluding that such a P

• s FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ~~ ' /.

those licensees inat are acting to ensure unnecessary, the licensee will have Eugene V. imbro, Office of Nuclear technically adequate and accessible current design documents and adequate Reactor Regulation. U.S. Nuclear de=ign bases documentation is technical beses to demonstrate that the Regulatory Commission. Washington. mamtamed. plant physig) and functional DC 20555. telephone (301) 5(M-2907 Ilos.ever, the Comm.ission is characteristics are consistent wah the c ncerned some situations exist where design basis, the systems, structuies. svPPLEMENTARY INFORM ATION: NRC licensees have not critically examined and components can perform their mspection findings have Jcmonstrated that some licensees have not adequatels b"EP* MMMd bOM N b# management processes to identify operated in a manner consistent with jj mamtamed their design bases information as required by NRC reqmsite measures to ensure the plant is the design basis. regulations. Bnth the problems identified perating within the deugn bases NUMARC has developed guidance for during the NRC inspections and those envelope. Therefore, the Commission is the conduct of design bases articulatmg its expectations with regard reconstitution programs.The guidance identified by licensees have prompted t design information and elaborating on outlines a framework to orgamze an n ost power reac'or licensees to initiate. its planned activities to confirm the collate nuclear power plant design bases over the past several years. design bases reconstitution programs. To integrity I the as configured plant with information.This information provides implement a reconstitution prngram. respectt the plant design bases the rationale for the design bases consistent with the definition of design licensees seek to identify missing design Policy Statement bases contamed in to CFR 50.2 documentation and to selectivelv regenerate messing documentation as NUM ARC 9p12. " Design Basis Progran d' ort required Thn Commission has concluded that Guidehnes.: was issued in October 1 in 1989. Nuclear Utihties Management maintaming current and accessible for voluntary use by NUMARC member and Resources Council. Inc.. (NUMARCI deugn documentation is important to organizations as a reference point from, began developing their " Design Dam ensure that (1) the plant physical and tvhich licensees would resiew he { [ l._ (

s. ii e i n w r ic - s t i, i:

r >

35456 Federal Register 5' M1 Mr da:.. August U. 1992 Ri.es and Resu'.at:Jns custmg er planned efforts to cri.: ate c"5.t e ' heir s aM'y f ar the hfe of the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY su;pornrg des g,informaen TF e fr ') m '.dra an) renewal per.oj Commission behes es NUM.\\RC's ln ur Jer 'a em.re t e Cr.m:ssion :s Office of Thrift Supervision approach prostJes a usefid fra.ework op ;ra seJ cf :nJustry s acmines the 12 U H M W and worthwhde msights to those u? nes WCw: 'aie te fc"owmg acuers undertaking design basis progra p t W suf' wd!:ssue a genent letter l92-1951 t' The Commission beheves hcensee cwit.rg a::; cersees to describe the should be able to show t atithas

mera -'s thit are

n p; ace :a ensure hiN 1550 AA38 sufficient documentation, including Jes en mformahon is correct. accessible' Registration, Examination and calculations or pre-operational startuo a-1 awaireJ current Those hcensees Reports; Statements, Applications, or surveillance test data to conclude the Nt are not imp:ementmg a design Reports and Notices To Be Filed current f acihty configuration is a.wrst een program wi:1 be requested consistent with its design bases. The t,;roude :5eir rat:onale for not doma AceNcy: Office of Thnf t Superwn Commission further believes the design sa rf a recer,htunon program is unde'r treasury.

bases must be understood and w.n the schedu!e for impicmentanon ACTION: Final ru:e documented to support operabihty ad ccmp;enon wi;! be requested. ~~~ determinations and to CFR 50.59 SUMM Amy: The Off;ce of Thnf t evaluations that may need to be made i The staff win pnonnze NRC Supersision (OTS)is hereby amendme { Iquickly in responding to plant events Mecn ns of bcensee's manageme of its regulations pertaming to holdme The des:an bases related miormane des in and conf.guratma usmg SSFl. company reporting requirements in ' P" technques based upon responses updanng existmg forms to reflect should he reinesable withm a reason.ible pened of tm;e. howes er '.s

• ) the genenc letter and other piant changes necessitated by the Fmant.1 not recessars for all des 1n bas:s

  cd mfr"anor known to the NRC.

lnsututions Reform. Recoscry. and documor.Lihon 'o be organacii m me \\.i anal s aff gJance will be Er.forcement Act of 1989 the OTS h.is aped where needed. for the desan combmed several forms to stream!Pe

lace The mformahon used sa

e.) :

3 me wp;w' the des etopment of a ie:s apects of these mspect:ons the reportmg process and case the-regulatory burden on sasings a-d %f catun package would not reed m ... N '>'"'=d" " ' ' " " ' #f hoidmg companies In parhcu:ar !Y be ah!c m be reinesed as espede v.. as mformahon needed to suppe.m

1. " IC"d *" Ib^

P' C" reportmg requirements set forth :n . N mafi d to espbcitly address Forms H-(b)3. H-lbl4. H-(b)5 and I t-w operabihiv determmahon acessment of bcensee programs to tb)to Registration Qatements are now j in the event the design bases control design bases information that contained in one body of mstructions for mformation is found technically reflect NRC inspecuan activity in this all Registrants, the H-(b)10. In addinen. inadequate or not accessible, hcensees should consider whether remedial acuon jaarea apd assure consistent evaluations. the H-(b)11 Annuut Report and the H-(b)12 Current Report have been merged is warranted. A methodologyfihouldlbe

• 14I he staff wdl continue t into one set of instructions requiring an developed and implemented to ensure encourage self. identification of design annual filing with quarterly updates hcensee resources are focused on design bases issues through application of the nforming the OTS of any changes.The miormation regeneration in a timeframe provismns of the Commission s ll-(f) Dividend Notification has been commensurate with the safety enforcement pohcy. The staff wdl.

rescinded, since the requirements sigraficance of the missing or erroneous however. pursue enforcement actions for contained in the Capital Distribubons mformation. engmeering deficiencies whose root regulation are sufficient for the OTS's cause hes in the inadequacy or monitoring and supervision purposes. The Commission also emphasizes it is '"d'" YC

• 8" EFFECTIVE DATE:

'

• 99 2 -

C I very important that modifications to = u mf rmation and wh:ch are identified facihty be made after a thorough review Fon runtraER INFORhiA HUN CONT Act has been conducted and an dunng NRC inspections. Michael P. Scott, Program Manager, understanding of the apphcable (202) 906-5748, Supervision Policy. underlying design bases has been Paperwork Reduct. ion Act Statament Office of Thrift Supervision.1700 C gained in order to ensure appropriate Th.9 final polic) statement does not Street. NW., Washington, DC 20552 design mar 1gms are preserved. contain a new or amended information SUPPLE MENT ARY INF Opu ATiON: collection requirement subject to the !' Background Future Actions paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U S C. 3501 et seq ). Existing The OTS is today issumg s fmal rule i requirements were approved by the amending its holding company reportma I The Commission wdl contmue t mspect routinely the adequacy of design Office of Management and Budget requirements.This amendment affects control program effectiveness. The approval number 3150-0011. the registration, annual, and current Commission concludes that ensuring the reporting requirements. j design bases and configuration of a Dated at Rockvdie. Marylend. this 4th day Registration Statements facility are well understood and of August 1992 controlled m plant documents will also As previously structured. holding ensure that those parts of the current For the Nuclear Reg.datory Commission companies were required to choose from licensing bases of most safety four separate registration statements significance are understood and samuel l Chilk. These separate statements were controlled Other aspects of the current screws v.9c Co" mon originally deemed necessary to hcensmg bases. such as emergencs accommodate special types of holdmt D'" 8"" preparedness and security nlans shou!d compenies (i e.. companies that bec.. no also be appropnately examined in ~ po e t 'SW '

• savmas and loan holding companies e i

s,; m a a oyv#. u G. 4;

• v(

.l

W a.y ~* ma l l' Rules and Regulations rd-iada- ~s Vol. 57. No.164 i Monday. August to, less t Thes secson of the FEDERAL REGtSTER Program Cuidelines," NUMARC 90-12. functional characteristics are contains reguietory documenes having While day 4 these guidelines, maintained and ardconsistent with t%h general em*ty and legs # enact. most NUMARC discussed them at several design basqs as required by NRC y d wech am keyed to and commed h public m held with the NRC.%e reguls tion. IZ1 systems, structures, ano i the Code of Federuf Reguladone, wNch is staff has the NUMARC components can perform their intended 8 deline8 provide a useful standard functions, and (3) the plant is operated St i The Cods cd Federal W is add ork for implementing design in a man== consistent with the design try em supemeendent of Doasmenes. reconstie=*i-programs. De staff also bases.%e Co== won believes the Prices of new books are Beted in me agrees no magie approach would enable reguistory framework sheady exists to j first FEDERA1. REGISTER leeue et each utgities to best =---- ; " ' the address the need for accessible design week. reconstitution task.%e NUMARC bases and contml of design information. guidance appeared to provide sufBcient ne availability of current design and flexibility for individual utilities to licensing bases wtB also expedite the NUC1. EAR REGIAATMf structure their programs to respond most license renewal pmcess. j COMIdlSS40N efficiently to their unique needs and W Comunission believes, se a result d NRC W and W d 8 I 10 CFR Part 50 The staff sent comments on the assessmenta, that au power reactor l AvailablBty and Adequacy of Design guidelines to NUMARC on November 9. licensees e the accessibility Basseinfonnetton et fascieer Power 1990. Commission paper SECY-ep-Je6 and adequacy etr bases informed the Commissioners in advance documentation. He results of this self- % p,g,y w about the staff response to NUMARC. assessment should form the basis for a Aossocv: Nuclear Regulatory The staff requested NUMARC Ucensevs decision whether e design Commission. consider making the design bases effort reconstitudon program is necessary and l Actiosa Pohey statement. a NUMARC initiative. NUMARC the attributes to be included in the concluded they would not pursue a program.W Comuniesion recognizes suessaany.%e Nuclear Regulatory formal initiative, but would forward the the need for a denen recons 6tation } Cov== Man is issuing thIs policy guidelines to their members to use on a program to be tailored to asset the statement on availabihty and adequacy voluntarybasis neirreason fornot unique needs of a pareanlar unuty.h l 3 l of design information at naclear power perseing an initletive was that most of structure and costsat of the design plants.This policy statament describes their members were aheady conducting Aae====* reconedtseios propens will be i i the C"a-6n's aupacentions and or evaluating the need to conduct design irihan=d by various factore, such as j future acetana with regard to the bases reconstitution p the utihty's orgamle=M structure, the availability of design talormation and De Commission's av tion of the availabihty orunavailabihty of design l emphasizes thera== lesion's view that status of reconstitution propams clearlF documentation, and the intended users l facilities should not be modified without indicates the licensees' substantial of the dae====tation. no Pa===laa'a" j e clear understanding of the applicable brvestment in these progroms abould expects that after completing a l engineering design bases. yield positive safety beneSte for a reconstitution program, or as a basis for i specTIVE DaTan Augeot 10,1992. mejority of sites.De NRC commands condeding that such a program is pon puervMen meronanavsess coerracy: those liceneses that are acting to eneum unnecessary, the llosasse wlB how Eugene V. imbro.OfHce of Nuclear technically adequate and accessible canent design documente end adece'ete R:: actor Regulation. U.S. Nuclear design bases documenta6cn is technical bases to demometrate that the Regulatory Commission. Washington, maintained, plant physical and f==c'8==*8 i DC 20555 telephone (301) 506-a967. Howner, the &===taala= le characteristics are canaissent with the concerned some situations exist where deoip beats, the systeens, structeros, -any upoemaaviose NRC inspection h< lings have demonstrated licensees have not critically examined .and componente ces performs their that some licensees haire not adequately their design control angi conHguration intended functions and the plant is being maintained their design bases manegament pmcessa m MentifY operated in a manner consistent with Informatied as requimd by NRC requisite ansesures to ensure the plant is the design basis., regulations. Both the problemas identi8ed operatina within NUMARC has r i esta me, 82 b the conduct of design bases l during the NRC inspections and those l identified by licensees have prosapted articulaneg He expectadone e agard mconstitanos programs.%e Mn= l most power reactor licensees to initista' to design informadon and eiebung on outilmes a framework to organtes and l over the et several design its plamned activities to confirm the couato nuclear power pient design bases integrity d the ae configured plant with information. Ris iniwesation peovides bases titution To j implement a mconstitution program, mopect to the plant design bases. the radonale for the destys bases consistent with the dan =ttien of design tie===aaa seek to identify missing design Poucy Stateessag , bases contained is1M en I docussentation and to selecdvely Position NUMARC et>-12 "Desty Basis program i regenerate missing da-====a-uon as {

required, b Commission hee concinded that Guidelines " was leased in Gh*dier 1980

) In seen, Nuclear Utilities " -- - - " maintaining current and accessible for voientary use by NUMARC membw and Resources Council, hac (NUMARC) design dar==antation le L c.at to argenktations se a missance point from a o j began developing their"Desige Baals ensure that (t) the pleet phryoical and whichliosasses wound setew esir i. }

4 1 35456 Fed:rd Regist:r / Vol. 57. No.154 / Monday. August 10, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 1 existing or planned efforts to collate ensure their validity for the life of the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY ~

i supporting design information. The facility. including any renewal period, Commission believes NUMARC's In order to ensure the Commission is Office of Thrift Supervision a

npproach provides a useful framework appraised of industry's activities, the and worthwhile insights to those utilities + undertaking design basis programa. NRC will take the following actions. 12 MR Part SH . (1)The staff willissue a genericletter 192-195] I The Commission believes a licensee frmestindalllicensees to describe the I should be ab_le to show that it has programs that are in place to easure RIN 1550-AA38 Eficient documentation. including design information is correct. accessible. calculations or pre. operational startup and maintained current. Those licensees Metrahn, Mnam W -a or surveillance test data to conclude the that are not implementing a desian s,

ons, R

current facility configuration is reconstitution program will be(requested ( consistent with its dpign bases.The 4 Commission furthegbelieves the design to provide their rationale for not doing AoENcy: Office of Thrift Supervision. l tbases mLst be understood and so. If a reconstitution program is under Treasury. 9l j documented to support operability way, the schedule for implementation Ac110w: Final rule. determinations and 10 CFR 50.59 and completion will be rettifested. i l sunansAny:The Office of Thrift j evaluations that may need to be made . (2) The staff will prioritize NRC l quickly in responding to plant events. inspections of licensee a management of Supervision (OTS) is hereby amending The design bases related information design and configuration using SSFl. its regulations pertaining to holding i should be retrievable within a type techniques based upon responses company reporting requirements. In updating existing forms to reflect I reasonable period of time, however, it is to the generic letter and other plant changes necessitated by the Financial 1 not necessary for all design basis specific information known to the NRC. Institutions Reform. Recovery, and documentation to be organized in one Additional staff guidance will be Enforcement Act of 1989, the OTS has place. The information used solely to developed. where needed, for the design combined several forms to streamline support the development of a bases aspects of these inspections. the reporting process and ease the modification package would not need to i be able to be retrieved as expeditiously (3) The NRC systematic assessment of regulatory burden on savings and loan as information needed to support an licensee performance (SALp) process holding companies. In particular, the j operability determination. will be modified to explicitly address reporting requirements set forth in , in the event the design bases assessment of licensee programs to Forms H-(b)3. H-{b)4. H-{b)5 and H-information is found technically control design bases information that (b)10 Registration Statements are now I contained in one body ofinstructions for i ] madequate or not accessible. licensees reilect NRC inspection activity in this all Registrants. the H-{b)10. In addition. ] should consider whether remedial action area and assure consistent evaluations-the H-(b)11 Annual Report and the H-3 is warranted. A methodology should be (4) he staff will continue t (b)12 Current Report have been merged developed and implemented to ensure encourage self. identification of design into one set of instructions requiring an i licensee resources are focused on design bases issues through application of the annual filing with quarterly updates mformation regeneration in a timeframe provisions of the Commission a informing the 013 of any changes.The commensurate with the safety enforcement policy.The staff will, 11-{f) Dividend Notification has been I significance of the missing or erroneous however, pursue enforcement actions for rescinded. since the requirements Information. engineering deficiencies whose root contained in the Capital DistributL.. regulation are sufficient for the OTS's The Commission also emphasizes it is cause lies in the inadequacy or 1 very important that modifications to a unavailability of design bases, monitoring and supervision purposes. I. facility be made after a thorough review inf mation and which are identified appucTivs oats: September 9,1992. 1 has been conducted and an

1. "~n;;., RC inspections.

understanding of the applicable Michael P. Scott Program Manager. q underlying design bases has been Paperwork Reduction Act Statement (202) 906-5748. Supervision Policy. Office of % rift Supervision.1700 C grined in order to ensure appropriate This final policy staterr.ent does not Street. NW., Washington. DC 20552. design margins are preserved. contain a new or amended information suppt.sasaNTARY W8FORs4ATION: Future Actions collection requirement subjcct to the 1 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 I* I*'" j The Commission will continue to U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing The OTS is today issuing a final rule l Inspect routinely the adequacy of design requirements were approved by the amending its holding company reporting j control program effectiveness. The Office of Management and Budget requirements. This amendment affects Commission concludes that ensuring the approval number 3150 0011. the registration, annual and current reporting requirements. cil y ar I un ood and of u st.1992. 88 controlled in plant documents will also As previously structured, holding I ensure that those parts of the current For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. j licensing bases of most safety companies were required to choose from four separate registration statements. { significence are understood and Samuel 1. Chilk. These separate statements we,re controlleo. Other aspects of the current Secretaryof the Commission. originally deemed necessary to i licensing bases, such as emergency preparedness and security plans, should [FR Doc. 92-18895 Filed 84-02, a 45 am] accommodate special types of holding companies (i.e., companies that became also be appropriately examined to amo coes mems savings and loan holding companies as 4 4

/0,b.$x C pa arco .e

s..

4 s, POLICY ISSUE sEcy_93 2,2 oc = e n. :g;; (NEGATIVE CONSENT) [0_3 : The Commissioners FROM: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

GENERIC LETTER ON THE AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF DESIGN BASES INFORMATION PURPOSE: To inicr-the Care:ssion c' '.".e staff's -tert

tase -: %riner act:c' Or the 'ssuance of tre saDject generi: letter SACKGCCUND:

The Commission issued a col:cy staterer.t' descr ::ing its expectations and the Agency's future actions to verify the availability ano adequacy of design information. The policy statement stated that the staff would issue a generic letter to tequestlpower reactor licensees (1) to describe the programs that are implemented or plannec to ensure design information is correct. accessible, and maintained; and (2) to submit the schedule for implementing or j completing reconstitution programs that they are conductin3 The policy statement also stated that the generic letter would Teouest\\ that licensees that are not implementing a design reconstitution program submit their rationale for not doing so. 1 Responding to recommendations made during the September 22, 1992, meeting of I the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR), the staff included in the j generic letter a statement that a response to the generic letter is voluntary. MOTE: TD BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE WHEN THE FINAL SRM IS tiADE AVAILABLE CONTACT: Eugene Imbro. NRR (301) 504-2967 ' Availability and Adecuacy of Design Bases information at Nuclear Power Diants. Federal Peo ster. Vclume 5' Na ce, 154 page 35455 August 10. 1992. t s mus

~. The Commissioners l OISCUSSION; A notice of opportunity for public comment on the proposed generic letter was published in the Federal Reoister on March 24 1993. Comments were received from NUMARC, Westinghouse Electric Corporation Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc., and 19 commercial nuclear power reactor licensees. i i The significant comments focused on: (1) the questionable need for the request since the information may already be available within the NRC from various inspections, reports and meetings, (2) the questionable usefulness in comparing licensee programs which are based on unique factors to assist the staff in prioritizing inspections, and (3) the concern that the generic letter seeks to obtain commitments from licensees with the implication of the use for subsequent inspections. enforcement actions, and SALP scores. All the 2 I respondents, except for Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc., concluded that the generic letter was unnecessary and unwarranted. Based upon review of the comments on the sub. lect generic letter and the available 'nfor ai Desige Occument Rectnst:tution (DDR 'nformatton, the staf' has conciucea that it -ould not significant ! benefit the staff in its f licensee oversignt functions to issue the proposed genert: letter for the following reasons: The issuance of tne policy statement and the proposed generic letter for public comment has conveyed to the industry the Commission's concern in tiil s matter. The staff believes that formally issuing the generic "d letter will not fJrther heighten licensees' awareness of the importance of 00R activities. In addition, the staff has seen evidence that A licensees have recognized the importance of this issue and reacted to 4 For example, the NRC has been notified regarding design pJg8,, our concerns. PW issues surfaced by licensee:, programs. V 77ja In preparing for design-related inspections such as safety system g5 functional insn e ' ens (SSFis), the staff will gather detailed p information f rom licensees to the extent such information gai 6a m tn 8 i5 scope of the inspection sample. This process will give the staff h g/0 insights as to the DDR programs as well as their effectiveness in ,, g{'/g ensuring the adequacy and accessibility of design bases information. / Further, as part of NRC's normal inspection program, the resident and M.gj regional inspectors will obtain informatiun on design control adequacy g f. as they review plant mod.fications. b)rp y nformation regarding licensee's design document reconstitution programs 'l as such will not be useful to the staff. Therefore, not issuing the dd generic letter will eliminate an unnecessary burden on the licensees to respond to the generic letter and on the staff to evaluate the responses.

l l t-k The Commissioners t j The staff will continue to ensure that design information is correct, j 1 accessible ana raintained by conducting such performance-based design inspections as SSfis, safety systems outage codifications inspections 'SS0 Mis), service water system operational performance inspections, and system j ~ based instrument and control inspections. Although these inspections address the products of DDR programs (e.g., calculations) and thereby provide insights 4 J. as to the ef fectiveness of licensee DDR prog ams, the staff will refrain from the inspection of DDR programs per se due to the voluntary nature of these programs. RECOMMENDAT10N: Unless the Commission advises to the contrary within 10 working days from the date of this ca 'er. the staff plans.to discontinue all activities related to the issuance of the subject generic 'etter, i i ( s M[ T,31 o r' i E4e:2.e* Directer 'cr Goerations / 1 5 E Z' IE:

- -.. 2:.ae-:s ::. r.s t r u r t : c n s tc the contrary, SECY

] n'. .::;f, t r.s staff on Friday, November 5,

1993, 1.

tna tr+ ::r. ;ss;;r, b. ne:ative consent, assents to

nc 1:.;;- pr:; sei

.r t r. ; s ;c,per. i

577:3 JT:::.:

i C r.;ss;:ners i 1 IN. s... t O7A OCA 3' OPP ED* SEC? f l 4 i i j 4 4 l

J.. u e 9,% Q,b.pg [8 - UNITED $TATES -~ ~ t NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION g W ASHINGTON. O C 20M6 \\.f November 10, 1993 08 8 < E 08 THE SECmE T AR Y j i 5 MEMORANDUM TO: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Opgrations FROM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta a

SUBJECT:

SECY-93-292 - GENERIC LE17E)tONTHE l AVAIIABILITY AND ADEQUAC1 OF DESIGN BASES INFORMATION 1 This is to advise you-that the Commission has not objected to the 3 staff plans to discontinue all activities related to the issuance of the subject generic letter. i The. staff should continue to take whatever measures are necessary i to ensure that licensees have accurate and accessible design docusents for.their plants. This can be.done through the various i inspection ef forts the staf f notes in the paper or alternative approaches that appear necessary through routine oversight. 1 contrary to the staff's reasoning, by not issuing the generic letter, licensees could get the impression that the Commission is not committed to ensuring lican==== have accue=+= and accessible ,L design documentatiWrough ' inspection and (fMlowuj 4 activities, the staff should clearly communica r.no expectation that licensees must maintain accurate and sible design documentation for their facilities. [ fy, ? cc: The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque t 000 i OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail) e } I SECY NOTE: THIS SRM AND SECY-93-292 WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM diliUOOLN

l .,m.- ._ No J L f f UNITED STATES [M

• i E

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 I waswinoTom. o.c. - 4 %...../ Gf January 28, 1994 3 -JL l f)& MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Director, NRR Eric S. Beckjord, Director, RES. 4 Thomas T. Martin, Regional Administrator, RI Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, RII John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, RIII

• f i

L. J. Callan, Regional Administrator, RIV g [ Xenneth E. Perkins, Acting Regional Administrator, RV fa b ^.' FROM: James H. Sniezek Deputy Executiva Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and,Researc L.-v,c/m 6,*~"' 9,<

SUBJECT:

USEOFREGULATORY<tkIDANCE'IRfCUMENiPASLEGAL # Q REQUIREMENTS M Q uk Ltu M TheRegulatoryReviewGroup(RRG),initsefforttoidentifywaystoreducTe i the regulatory burden :n power reactor licensees, noted instances where the j staff has elevated provisions of Commission policy statements, regulatory guides, and other r.on-requirements to the status of requirements, including i referencing such documents in the Technical Specifications. This has been the subject of much correspondence in the past, including several issued from the office of the E00. Given the current government-wide initiative to ameliorate any undue regulatory burden, it is worthwhile to revisit this issue again. A number of documents exist which provide guidance to the staff in determining what constitutes a requirement and how to avoid incorrectly imposing a requirement on a licensee. SECY-88-131, " Policy Statements versus Regulations," addresses the differen:es between these two regulatory tools and when they should be used. This document notes that sh a regulation has the force of law. Furthermore, policy statements do sgt"14 (to be issued as R Tablish a binding nors and cannot be relied upon as law. Manual Chapter U5 Management Directive 8.4), "NRC Program for Management of Plant-Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Plants," contains a thorough discussion of what constitutes applicable regulatory staff positions (paragraph 053) and how backfits (i.e., new regulatory requirements) can be identified in the licensing, inspection, and enforcement areas. This manual chapter clearly expresses that staff interpretations, such as those contained in the Standard Review Plan (SRP), Regulatory Guides, Generic Letters, and Bulletins, provide i ad a ,ing M examples of acceptable ways to meet requir ' i er. ,- ir s and of themselves. However " a 1 as committed t r these interpretations <ttf~ meet a regul or to satisfy regulatory concern,g.,,, p then it can be considered equivalent to a regulatory st f position. NUREG-0650, " Publishing Documents in the AUREG Series," state that MUREG reports are ng regulatory documents that impose requirements. i f H o D uisw)&

g 4 January 28, 1994 The CRGR Charter includes a detailed listing of the various mechanisms by which the NRC could erroneously comunicate generic requirements. It directs each office to develop internal procedures to ensure any communications which may establish, reflect, or interpret NRC staff positions or requirements to be imposed by the NRC be consistent with the provisions of the back it rule (10 CFR 50.109.) M p lhere are several broad arenas in which the staff y find itself in a ) position where it could inadvertently improperly ommunicate new or revised requirements to a licensee. These are inspecti s, enfor:ement act vities, and licensing reviews. It is important for th( staff to x aware oF how their actionsCaay be construeo as in_stitutino new reautrements) I have enclosed a list of some fundamental concepts which should be used in determining whether a staff action is establishing or revising a requirement or staff position. By the end of March 1994, each office is to review, and modify as applicable, its internal operating procedures and practices to confirm that they do not either explicitly or implicitly sanction the use of inappropriate documents or methods to establish regulatory requirements. This memorandum should also be given wide dissemination within your organizations, particularly among. staff members who interact with licensees and who may have the opportunity to either interpret or establish agency requirements or guidance. Please contact Bill Dean of my staff with any questions or comments on this issue. 1 'fitHA 1 \\ pames H. Sniezek / eputy Executive Director D V for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 4 Regional Operations, and Research

Enclosure:

As stated cc: E. Jordan R. Bernero J. Lieberman K. Cyr i

i i O FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN DETERMINING THE REGULATORY IMPACT OF A STAFF ACTION It is proper to take a po:ition: 1. that is a previously applicable regulatory staff position (refer to definition contained in NRC Manual Chapter 0514); 2. that was a regulatory staff position established within the appropriate 1 time frames related to plant licensing milestones (refer to 10 CFR ) p,;(J q. ;,,[ 50.109); p 3. that is the result of an action the licensee has really volunteered to take; i 4. related to actions proposed by the licensee resulting from normal ,j,/,.g y staff / licensee discussions concerning an issue; g. 5. that directs a licensee to comply with an NRC rule, regulation, license condition, technical specification, or written commitment to the NRC. It is improper to take a position without the proper backfit analysis if: l. the staff proposal causes_ the licensee to change its design, i construction, or operation; yd, 2. the staff action directs, tells, or coerc the licensee to apply the-staff's proposed action. j t

1. 'A l'. 868 PUBLIC LAW 104-121-MAR. 29,1996 PUBLIC LAW 104-121-MAR. 29,1996 110 STAT. 86

[i recdrd a written finding, with reasons th:refor, thst those require. "(i) a complete copy of tha cost-benefit annlyd3 of the ments would not advance the efTective participation of small entities in the rulemaking process. For purposes of this subsection, the rule,if any; "(ii) the cy's actions relevant to sections 603, 6M, factors to be considered in making such a finding are as follows: 605,607,and }

• (1) In developing a rule, the extent to which

"(iii) 68 .cgione relevant to sections 202, 203, l the covered agency consu with mdividuals representative 204, and 205 afunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; \\ j of alTected small entities with respect to the potential impacts 1 and of the rule and took such concerns mto consideration. "(iv) any other g,,,,t information or requirements under b "(2) Special circumstances requiring prompt issuance of an other Act and an relevan rdus. j the rule. ag repwt submitted under subparagraph "( )U reces "(3) Whether the uirements of subsection (b) would s each ouse I provide gg port to the chsarman (A)d ranking member of each ro-vide the individuals entified in subsection (bX2) wit a i wie jurisdiction an competitive advantage relative to other small entities.. under the rules of the oum d Refo of law under which the resentatives or the Senate (b) SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY CHAIRPERSONS.-Not later thanto report a bill to amen the previs not,. 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the head of each + rule is issued. covered agency that has conducted a final regulatory flexibility "f 2XA) The Comptm rd shall 'revide a re rt on each Rapista analysis shall designate a small business advocacy chairperson major rule to the mmm ttas

• urisdiction in each I use of the using existing personnel to the extent possible, to be responsible for implementing this section and to act as permanent chair of Congrees by the end of 15 calendar days after the submission i

the agency's review panels established pursuant to this section. or publicataan date de 802(bX2). De report i of the ahan include an assessment of the I ! note. age M with procedural steps required by paragraph SEC. 248. EFFECTIVE DATE. This subtitle shall become effective on the expiration of 90 j days afkr the date of enactment of this subtitle, except that such B) Federal aganesa= ah*H cooPwate M amendments shall not apply to interpretative rules for which a eral by providing information relevant to the ComptroI *I i notice of proposed rulemaking was published prior to the date report under subparagraph (A). \\-

73) A magor rule relating to a report submitted under para-ENectiw dates.

l of enactment. graph (1) shall take efect on the latest @ 60 d878 aAer the date I i Subtitle E-Congressional Review "(A) th later of the date occurring on whi% % recaws the mport submitted under SEC. 3st. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RUIEMAKING. ph ) Title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting imme- ) is published in the Federal Register, if FedevelRaguem diately after chapter 7 the following new chapter: kif the Congress posess a joint moolub d blinha+ al 1 " CHAPTER 8-CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY described in section 802 relating to me mb, an the President RULEMAKING signs a wto of such resolution the earher date-7 ) on which either house of Congrees wtes

ggg,

-h Cz to override the veto of the President; or ~ e reet. a ich the Congrees retnived the veto and 4Wgtbe Presi- "(li) occurring,30=====n days eRer he 3 802. Congreassonal disapproval procedure. ~803 Special rule on statutory, regulatory, and judicial deadlines l E JYdNa Al dont W i "HC1 Apphcabilit severability. TC) the date the rule would haw ce Nve if not for this sectaen (ainlan= a joint ree0I tion d ate o i ru e. under section m is ) "5 801. Congreselonal review e u otherwise ENectiw dese. } rays a fler beniamien to Congrees under paragraph ) "(aXIXA) Before a rule can take effect, the Federal agency f1). j promul ting such rule shall submit to each House of the Congress "(6) Notwi ' (3), the efective date d a ENechw datet i and to t emptro er ral a report contaming-e- -o ' tion of this chapter beyond, the m "(ii) a concise generai statement relating to the rule, includ-a which either House Congress votes to mject a jant ing whether it as a major rule; and resolution of disag under 802 "(iii) the "(bX1) A rule e Cagress "(B) On the dreposed effective date of the rule. enacts a joint resolution of disapprev, described under section i te of the submission of the report under subpara-802,of the rule. i grcph (A), the Federal agency promulgating the rule shall submit not continue) el, "(2) A rule that dose not take efec,t (or does,g roller General and make available to each House oder (1 may be gg,,, O i a such a =

} al A1; M0 PUBLIC LAW 104-121-MAR. 29,1996 PUBLIC LAW 104--121-MAR. 29,1996 110 SI'AT. t rvle may not be issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifi. "(A) such rula were bt g a. the Federal Register on Federal Regis i cally authorized by a law enacted after the date of thejoint resolu. the dite of entctment of yas cQP er; t publiccion. tion disapproving the ori 'nal rule, "(cXI) Notwithstanbng any other provision of this section "(B) a report on such m we Congmas i 1 under subsection (aXI) on suc da (except subject to paragraph (3)), a rule that would not take efTect ph (1) "(3) The effectiveness m i by reason of subsection (aX3) may take effect, if the President makes a determination under paragraph (2) and submits written shall be as otherwise Provi law

• nala== the rule is made orno force or efTect under sectaen

., age d no force notice of such determination to the Congress. i "(f) Any mie that '= ** e "(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a determination made by the , t resolution under section 802 shall President by Executive order that the rule should take efTect or effect by enactment of a n be treated as though such n J because such rule is- "(A) necessary because "(g) If the Congmes does,,g,,,g, j,g,g resolution of dis-orsafety orotheremergency;of an imminent threat to health approval under ion 802 res ag a ,,,g,,,,,,cy i "(C) necessary for national security; or grom aEy,,ac,tson or inaction may infer any in f "(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws; of the Cagnes with regard to such rule, related statute, or jomt resolution of disapproval. nation r a ent.

• g 802. Congreselonal disapproval E d a

"(3) An eaertise by the President of the authority under this I subsection shall be.e no efTect on the procedures under section "(a) For purposes of this sectim, the W, 802 or the effect uf a joint resolution of disapproval under this means only a joint resolutaan introduad in, per beginnin 801MIXA 4 section-on the date on which the report refered to in "(dX1) In aridition to the op rtunity for review otherwise is received by Congress and ending 60 ya (excluding vided under this chapter, in t e case of any rule for whic days either House of Congress is a4=rned h, mom than 3 days ro-during a session of Con ), the matter h t, resolving clause the period beginning u *he date occurring-report was submMted in accordance with subsection (aXIXA) during a 3 of which is as follows: t Congrees dias the rule submit- "(A)in thgcase of the Senate,60 session days, or ted by the relat,ng to , ami i being talF filled in). "(B) in th6 case of the llouse o' f Representatives,60 legisla. force or effect.' (The blank spaces, bed m su

s. hall be 2

"(bXI) A joint resolution descri ,{ tive days, before the date the Congress a referred to the committees in each House of Congress wi J the date on which the same o$ourns a session of Congress through j tion-r succeeding Congress first convenes its nept session, section 802 shall apply to such rule in the succeed- "(2) For purposes of this section, h ter,m,,' submission or publication date* means the later of the date on ing session of Conguss. "(2XA) In applying section 802 for purposes of such additional

• (A) the Congrees receives the mport e,,e, tion 801(aX1); or review, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated as

"(B) the rule is published a-the Federal Register, if so Federal Rerist pubbc.uoa- "(i) such rule were published in the Federal Register (as Rester. c I th'e Senate, if the conianittee to l an-a rule that shall take effect) on-joint resolution described,m subesetaan (a) hes ch "(I) in the case of the Senate, the 15th session day

• joint resolution (or an identical joint reesi t en) at the end of or 20 calendar days after the absm=== or pu ggg
• (II) in the case of the House of Representatives, the

' from l under subsection (bX2; such comunittee may be "- '- Iion sup. 15th legislative day, further consideration of such joint resol b

• pti after the succeeding session of Congrees first convenes; and ported in writang by 3a Members of ind such joint

"(ii) a report on such rule were submitted ta Congress resolution shall be placea on the under s#section (aX1) on such date. "(dXI) In the 9===**. wino amettee to wh.ttee is dis-ich a joint "(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to afTect resolution is referred has i, the requirement under subsection (aXI) that a report shall be charged (under subsection (c) (met ,g, j,g,g submitted to Congrees before a rule can take effect. l neolution described m =M" (*), it m-at any tiam thereafter "(3) A rule described under ragraph (1) shall take effect in order (ewn a ymemus metma has rwise provided by law (inc uding other subsections of this oeen d to a th consadoration y ats d order, agmimet the joint isas,. "(eXI) For purposes of this subsection, section 802 shall also resolution (and agannet -Aties t cppl the [ ate of the enactment of this chapter.to any major rule promulgated between March 1,1996, and waived. Die motaan is not a& to i j to postpone, or to a motsen to 8 the consideration of j "(2) In applying section 802 for purposes of Congressional other business. A motaan to w, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated as y whici,a the notaon re agreed to or 7,,,,,,, g ja og,,estaties is agreed -. - -. - ~ - - - --- -- -

i w MTAT. 872 PUBLIC LAW 104-121-MAR. 29,1996 PUBLIC LAW 104-121--MAR. 29,1996 110 STA a ' to, the j. int resolution shall remain the unfm. hed business of "6803. Special rule on statutory,. o is the Senate until disposed of. deadlines i "(2) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on all "(a) In the case d any dedline for, relating te, or tavolvi, any rule which does not take effect (or the effectiv==ame of whig debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 10 hours, which shall be divided equally is termmated) u g, jog t moolution under I between those favoring and those opposing the joint resolution. sectie 802, that 3 ne is extended until the date 1 year aner A motion further to limit debate is in order and not debatable. th date n of the joint resolution. in ens & An amendment to, or a motton to postpone, or a motion to procee,d otrued to affect a deadline { to the consideration of other busmess, or a motion to recommit of th.e ponement of a rule's effective date u thejoint resolution is not in order. 1 (b e term ' deadline' n' anna any da "(3) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion of anY obligation or exercising any authodty ].w=hed by or under ] the debate on a joint resolution described in subsection (a), and Federal statute or regulation, or by or under any court order u a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if requested implementing any Federal statu1 e or regulation. in accordance with the rules of the Senate, the vote on final passage "I 804. Deflaitions of thejoint resolution shall occur. = "(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the of this chapteo-application of the rules of the Senate to the procedure relating "Forh) term ' Federal agency' means any agacy as that i to a joint resolution described in subsection (a) shall be decided term is defined in section 551(1)- he Adminis-I without debate. "(2) The term *mspr rule

• means and Affaim 4 M

"(e) In the Senate the procedure specified in subsection (c) the Office of idanagement and BuW g has resulted in q<f trator of the Office of Informatie or (d) shall not apply to the consideration of a joint resolution h,g respecting a rule-or is like meu effect on the==="""y of $100,000,000 "(1) after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning with the applicable submission or publication date, or or more; u in mek w prias for consumers, rg %tria Fde.ral, State, or local government "(2) he report under section 801(aXIXA) was submitted md /# during th period referred to in section 801(dX1), after the ,7, age expiration the 60 session days beginning on the 15th session day after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes. t adverse effects en competaba, em e "(O If, before the passage by one House of a joint resolution t productivity * ". er on the ab y enterpr,ses to esapete with famign- } of that House described in subsection (a), that House receives based enterprises in domesuc and export markets. from the other House a j,omt resolution described m subsectmn The term does not include any rule pseau u th (a), then the following procedures shall apply: Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the = md "(1) The joint resolution of the other House shall not be by that Act. referred to a committee. "(3) ne term

• rule' has the====3"f 38'** d krm

"(2) With respect to a joint resolution described in sub-in section 551, e scept that such term does,ast[melM section (a) of the House receiving the joint resolution-rule that approves or ~ N

7. aciudmg a prices, services, or M.-- l"(A) ary rule of p b A88"8""8**' E'

"(A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if no joint resolution had been received from the other therefer, eerporate,, House; but cial structures, reorganisations, fg 6,,t "(B) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint thereof, or accountang practacos or i resolution of the other House. any of the foregoing; "(g) This section is enacted by Congrese~ "(B) any rule relating to agency managesseg,, pe,,,,, "(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate nel;or and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it "(C) any rule of agency __. .= precedure, or i j is deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, practice that does not -nw==u' ally affect the rights or but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed obligations of non-agency partaes. in that, House in the case of a joint resolution described in 5805Jedletal swetow subsection (a), and it supersedes other rules only to the extent "No determinah, G,M, ing, acten, or omisoson under.$his chapq I that it is inconsistent with such rules; and N ter shall be subject toj,udicial memw. M es My, M "(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either y House to chan of that House)ge the rules (so far as relating to the pmcedure al808, Appilenbutty;eseerability C#1fM# ' at any time, m the same manner, and to the .(a) This chapter hall apply notwiF " any other pe j same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House. "I*" *I[ s q g e @ w the_g - -= of an ,rovision of &s"i3"r k -y - or -m ta M S y _._.c--m = iV wa ve 4fM ""-PP

0 STAT. 874 PUBLIC LAW 104-121-MAR. 29,1996 PUBLIC LAW 104-121-MAR. 29,1996 110 STAT. i invalid, the applic. tion c.f euch revision to oth:r persons er cir-TITLE III-PUBLIC DEBT LIDHT cum:tances, and the remainder ofthis chapter, shall not be affected l Sec. sol. INCREASE m PUMJC M "A 807. Exemption for unonetary policy t e 31 United States Code, monetary poh, in this chapter shall apply to rules that concern Subsection (b) section 3

• Nothing ljar limitation contained in such j

is 2 reposed or implemented by the Board of Governors ,ubsectio an inserting "$5,500,M,W.W-o the F eral rve System or the Federal Open Market Commit-h 29,1996. "6 808. Effective date of certain rules "Notwithstanding section 801- "(1) any rule that establishes, modifies opens, closes, or conducts a regulatory program for a comme,rcial, recreational, j i or subsistence activity related to hunting, fishing, or camping, or "(2) any rule which an agency for good cause finds (and i incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons there-for in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon { . are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public i

interest, shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency promulgating the rule determines.".

SEC. 252. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendraent made by section 351 shall take effect on the , e son note. 5 date of enactmentof_this Act. j SEC 253. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT. The table of chapters for part I of title 5, United States Code, is amended by Insertin chapter 7 the following g immediately after the item relating to "S. Congressional Review of Asency Rulemaaking. 801". t 4 5 GISIATIVE HISIONY-H.R. 3138 (S. 942h CONGRES910NAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1998k Mar.15,19, S. 942 esmaidered and passed Sonete. Mar. 28. H.R. 3las emesidered and House and Senate-s WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESI DOCUMENTS. Vol. 32 (1996h a Mar. 29 Pressdsmetal statsusent. O

}.' QEi pov NUCLEAt ENilGY INSIIIUIE Joe F. Ceewin om ,,,n,,, s, w ~ " ' " ' " " August 2,1996 The Honorable Shirley A. Jackson Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 0001

Dear Chairman Jackson:

On July 23,1996, the Nuclear Strategic Issues Advisory Committee (NSIAC) held a special meeting to discuss industry actions for ensuring the licensing basis of nuclear plants is being maintained consistent with the regulations. The chief nuclear officers of the nuclear utilities approved an initiative to provide additional 4 i assurance and confidence that existing programs are adequate to ensure that: Licensees are operating their plants in conformance with their licensing i basis; Licensees are adequately maintaining their licensing basis; . There are no differences between operating practices and the licensing basis J that could result in a significant public health and safety concern; and Degraded or non-conforming conditions are captured on tracking systems 4 and resolved in a timely manner. l Under the initiative, each licensee will conduct an assessment of the programs in place to reaffirm that plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis. l The program assessment is accomplished by sampling (1) FSAR information, (2) programs in place for processing changes to procedures and the plant that may impact the FSAR, and (3) changes that may not be governed by licensee programs. Many licensees have already commenced or recently completed similar program 4 assessments. Differences identified through the sampling process will be evaluated to assess the overall effectiveness and adequacy of programs. Programmatic enhancements will i be made if needed. The overall significance of any differences will be characterized to determine if additional sampling is warranted. Differences that represent degraded or nonconforming conditions will be captured ~ on a tracking system and resolved in a timely manner. Each licensee will notify the 4 NRC of any differences that are subject to reporting requirements per the regulations. ) i M J '7B7% n -1WW s~

1 F:. The Hen:rtble Shirlsy A. Jtekson ' August 2,1996 Page 2 s i 1 The results of the individual plant assessments will be provided to NEI for compilation in an industry summary report. The summary report will be provided to the NRC for information. i i The industry has developed a draft guideline to assist utilities in performing the programmatic assessment. The guideline will be finalized subsequent to resolution of the issues discussed below. Enclosure 1 provides a copy of NEI 96-05 (Draft) Revision D, " Guidelines for Assessing Programs for Maintaining the Licensing i Basis," for your information. There are a number of related issues that require a mutual agreement between the industry and the NRC before the industry can proceed with the initiative in a l consistent manner. These include: l .- The legal standing of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and the gj /a NRC's Safety Evaluation Reports; i The scope of what constitutes the current licensing basis; and gy The adequacy of NSAC-125 for performing 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations. i The industry is committed to completing the initiative within six months of the resolution of these issues. Initial progress in resolving these issues was accomplished during the NRC public meeting also held on July 23,1996. We appreciate very much the participation of your senior staffin this meeting and the opportunity to discuss these issues. Expedited closure on these fundamentalissues is needed to minimize confusion within the NRC regions and the plants and focus our resources on addressing the programmatic issues. We look forward to a continuing dialogue with the Commission and NRC staff to achieve timely resolution of this matter. Sincerely, WL J F. Colvin nclosure c: Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers, NRC Commissioner Greta J. Dicus, NRC Mr. James M. Taylor, NRC

. 7 l

f NEI 96-05 (DRAFT) A Revision D i i 4 NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE i i i J i 1 i 4 GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING PROGRAMS FOR MAINTAINING THE LICENSING BASIS JULY 25,1996 Cbgg ramp

t j.? 8 t 4 i l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

l i Licensees have implemented various programs / processes over the period of their licenses for ensuring that the licensing basis is known is maintained current and ir, accurately described in the FSAR and associated referenced documents. The h*RC. l through a review described in SECY 94 066. determined that licensees were adequately maintaining the licensing basis of their facilities. As a result of events l~ that have occurred over the last several months, the NRC has increased attention on licensee compliance with the plant's licensing basis. Dipffcan oc.e;ur due to problems in those processes / programs intended to effect changesin the ucense basis, missing programmatic controls to translate changed operational activities

4. f,g into the licensing basis, or a lack of awareness oflicensing basis features., +%. p 1 i

s: ten- . wH (JYo(g? s Licensees employ various programmatic mechanisms for identifying, evaluating 1 i l and/or processing changes in plant activitie: : hat could affect the licensing basis or that are intended to make changes to the licensing basis. These include: i Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) updates per 10 CFR 50.71(e) Safety Evaluations per 10 CFR 50.59 i Changes to Quabty Assurance. Security and Emergency Plans per e 10 CFR 50.54 i i License amendments per 10 CFR 40.90 1 i ash 1E Code rebef requests per 10 CFR 50.55a l Procedure changes (not subject to 50.59) e Design changes (not subject to 50.59) i j

• Regulatory commitment changes f

Degraded or non conforming conditions a Configuration management changes (e.g., operator workarounds.' extended lj operation of equipment in manual mode rather than automatic operation modes. and Technical Specification positionslinterpretations) 4 3 i 1

e.' 2.a PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2.1 Purpose This document provides guidance for performing a self assessment of the adequacy of programmatic controls for mentaining the licensing basis in order to identify anssing or incorrectly applied programmatic elements that can lead to licensing basis differences. 2.2 Scope The assessment approach consists of a data gathering phase and an evaluation phase. The data gathering phaseemploys a three. tiered sampling technique. The Erst tier involves in process sampling for the programmatic elements intended to effect a change in the licensing basis. Since programmatic elements may be missing or incorrectly applied. the next two sampling tiers involve a search for differences by sampling for potential operational changes that could be made without procedure changes. and samplingbackwards by comparing selected FSAR statements with operational practices. The purpose of the data gathering phase is to identify a set of potential diffenences between the operational practices and the beensing basis. The evaluation phase determinesif potential differences are valid. Valid differences are categorized m order to draw conclusions about the adequacy of particular programmatic contiels for maintaining the licensing basis. The significance of the findings are used to develop recommendations for programmatic enhancements. It is recognized that many licensees have performed safety system functional mapections (SSFIs) and other reviews that have assessed the adequacy of their programs to maintain the licensing basis of their plants and to ensure tha accuracy ofinformation in the FSAR. These completed activities can be creditaa. as appropriate, in meeting portionsof the assessment descrsbed below. He assessment methodology described below represents only one way-of performing the assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of programs for maintaining the licensing basis. Although the methodology contains a reasonable amount of detail, it is not intended to be prescriptive. Other approaches that provide an equivalent scope ofieview can also meet the intent of this assessment. 2

s ~~ i 1 {'

3.0 ASSESSMENT

METHODOLOGY 3.1 Data-Gather ing Phase i j The data. gathering phase of the assessment employs three samplin6 techniques. Each sampling technique is discussed separately. 3.1.1 FSAR Sampling

• Extract the relevant FSAR sections for the system (s) being evaluated j

Highlight those FSAR statements that meet the following criteria: 0 Descriptive phrases regarding frequencies for tests, calibrations. etc. j ConSguration descriptions e Descriptions of system operation in different modes 1 (e.g.. normal. abnormal. accident / emergency) l

Operating limits

]

- Descriptive functional performance statements NOTE: The intent is to identify a range of FSAR statementa associated with operational practices that could be changed and, in the presence of i

programmatic weaknesses. are not adequately reDected in the FSAR. Compare the highlighted FSAR statements with current operational i practices using individuals cogni. tant of the operation of the system and associated engineering problems. Document the following: o Is the FSAR statement accurate with respect to operational practices l j (procedures, operating philosophy, standing orders, workarounds, etc.)? j If not, identify the diferences. l 0 Is the FSAR statement clearly understood or in need of clar 5 cation? 3.1.2 Programmatic Sampling Select three unrelated examples of each of the foHowing types of changes:* 1 i l 50.59 ( at least one procedure change evaluationi i ) 1 e

8 ) 50.54 (one each from QA. EP and Security > Outstandmg corrective action for a matarial condition greater than one year old Operating procedure change not eva!uated under 50.59 I i 0 FSAR change request 50.90/50.55a change and associated SER (where NRC approval 1 0 j has been received) i 1 Regulatory commitment addition or change i .O Design change not es aluated under 50.59s p.,,d. v6L/ rJ <r M y,, N) 1 0 l NOTE: The changes selected should have been completed in sumcient time d l to have been reDected (if required)in the most recent licensing basis up ate 1 4 of the FSAR. QA program. etc. i Review the change to determine if the change should have appeared in the l beensing basis and. tf so. if the licensing basis accurately reflects the cha l For changes that are not accurately reDected in the licensing basia. determine the programmatic step wr missing programmatic step) that l l would have ensured its accurate incorporation into the licensing basis. i Document the results of the programmatic sampling. 3.1.3 Sampling for potential changes that may occur separate from 1 l programmatic or procedure changes i Compile the foEowing: .I i 0 Workaround list Operations standing orders 0 Technical Speci5 cations positionslinterpretations (if any) O Sample of documents that may show p 4 2 system operattne instructions shift supervisor los entnes for d i 4 4

l 1 '. ..? List of equipment being operated in manual i Old* temporary alterations s 3 Old' non conformances j Old* tag outs 1 4 l "Old' refers to current items that should be reDected (if required)in the last FSAR update per 10 CFR 50.71(e) \\ Select a sample from each of the above categories based on the number of j ttems compiled. Review the item selected to determine if the item represents a change to the bcensing basis and, if so. tf the licensing basis accurately reD For changes that are not accurately reDected in the licensing basis. 4 i deterrnine the programmatic step (or missing programmatic step) that would j have ensured its accurate incorporation into the licensing basis. j Document the results of the samphng. i 1 i I 3.2 Evaluation Phase At this point in the assessment, the changes to operating practices that should have been redected in the bcensing basis have been identified. Those not accurately reDected in the licensing basis are differences that must be resolved and categorized. The evaluation phase cannot be precisely structured. However Cu lukowing broad steps should be undertaken. Categorize differences in accordance with the following criteria: o Program / process which should have ensured licensing basis accuracy O Significance Safety significant Regulatory significant (i.e.. noncomphance or missed commitmenti 1.ow nrntficance ie.g., the ontmalinformation was not required to be included m the FSAR. or the information could not have been 5

. \\ Y rebed upon by the NRC in reaching a safety conclusion) i 4 4 } [ NOTE: Section V of NL'\\!' ARC 9012. ~ Design Basis Program l Guidelines.' provides guidance for assesstag the safety significance of differences and for determining if operability and/or reporting issues ~ i exist.] i 50.59 was correctly / incorrectly applied i Licensing basis information has slways been inaccurate ti.e., there i i was no change in operating practice) Identify areas of programmatic weakness or missing programmatic controls. If uncertain, pursue addi'icaal : ssessment investigation for the i programmatic area in question. 4 f Characterize overall signtScance of the 6ndings. Based on this characterization, determine the need to broaden the assessment scope to obtain the necessary confidence that the programs are adequate and are being effectively implemented. i If applicable. generate necessary quality desciency documents and identify j-any reportable situations. f Prepare recommendations to address programmatic weaknesses, i Document the results and brief appropriate management. e \\ i f 4.0 NE1 REPORT f 4 a 4.1 Purpose cf P.. port SEI will compile the overall industry results to assess the composite adequacy l and effectiveness of programs designed to maintain the licensing basis of tha l plants. The overall industry results will be reported to the NRC by NEl. j j 4.2 Report Format The report format follows the steps contained in Section 3.0 of this report.~ j I Part 1. FSAR Samoline Identify the FSAR systems reviewed under Section 3.1.1. j i Indicate the number of FSAR differences identined. ti.

9.,

a Part 2 - Pronrammatic Samnline Indicate e.be total number ofitems reviewed. Indicate the number ofitems where the change was not accurately redec:ed in the beensing basis. Part 3 - Samnline for notential channes that may occur senarate from ororrammatic or orocedure channes Indicate the total number ofirems reviewed. Indicate the number ofitems where the etiange wu not accurately reDected in the licensing basis, if required. Part 4 - Evaluation Phase Indicate the number of differences that were characterized as being safety signdCant. Indicate the number of differences that were characterized as being regulatory sigmficant. Indicate the number of differences where 50.59 was incorrectly applied. Indicate the number of differences where the licensing basis information has always been inaccurate. i Provide a brief summary of the programmatic de5ciencies identi5ed, if any. Indicate whether the assessment scope is being broadened based on the identified differences. Describe any departures from the methodology of this guideline. 5.0 DEFINITIONS 5.1 Regulatory Commitment NE! -Guideline for h!ar, aging NRC Commitments." endorsed by NRC in SECY-95 300, defines a regulatory commitment as follows: Resulatory Commitment means an explicit statement to take a speci5c action agreed to or volunteered by a licensee that has been . submitted in writing on the docket to the Commission." 5.2 Licensing Basis 10 CFR Part 54 defines the current -licensing basis" as follows:

1 L -Current licensing basis o i.B:is the set of NRC requirements applicable J ~ to a specife plant and a licensee's written commitments for ensuring compliance with and operation within applicable N'RC requirements and ] the plant specific design basis (including all modi 5 cations and additions 1 to such commitments over the life of the licensel that are docketed and in effect. The CLB includes the NRC requirements contained in 10 CFR parts 2.19. 20, 21. 30, 40. 50. 51, 5 4. 55. 70. 72, 73. and 100 and appendices thereto: orders: license conditions; exemptions: and technical speci5 cations. It also includes the plant speci5c design basis information de5ned in 10 CFR 50.2 as documented in the most recent Enal safety analysis report (FSAR) as required by 10 CFR 50.71 and the licensee's commitments remaining in effect that were made in docketed

• licensing correspondence such as licensee responses to NRC bulletins.

generic letters, and enforcecaent actions, as well as licensee l commitments documented in NRC safety evaluations or licensee event reports. NOTE: Responses to NRC bulletins. generic letters and licensee event reports contain some commitments that are outside the scope of the CLB in that they are not necessary to ensure compliance with applicable NRC requirements (e.g.. rules. regulations. licenses and ordersi or to maintain . the plant speciEc design basis. I i i l __ _}}