ML20147D346
| ML20147D346 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1987 |
| From: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | Myers H HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082310196 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-726 NUDOCS 8801200143 | |
| Download: ML20147D346 (5) | |
Text
m Dr. Henry Myers, Science Advisor Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Dr. Myers:
This is in response to your note to,Mr. Harold Denton dated January 27, 1987 regarding Criterion 3 of the Sequoyah Restart Criteria.
The answers to your questions are enclosed; I apologize that the response has taken this long to prepare.
Sincerely, WWW James G. Keppler, Director Office of Special Projects
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION Docket File SRichardson NRC POR JZwolinski Local POR BOLiaw OSP Rdg GZech, RII Projects Rdg
.J3radburne
1
/t
, $,,# [1,
, k M[4.#[. 0
- SEE PREVIOUS PAGE FOR CONCURRENCE d (' '
l DTVA:AD/P*
DTVA:AD/TR*
A:00*
i JZwolinski:jg BOLiaw
' SRichar$on JS 8I
'g 04/17/87 04/17/87 04/22/87 5//.3/87 L 'pp l
d"
'm a-h%
- DTVA
- 0IR*
(S 0$j(IR Eh
'JEbneter ad JKabpler Titehm d,,' a :
n' -
04/22/87 j //.;/87 S/ 7/87 5/
/87
_fr l
M
~.
g -
a ENCLOSURE Response to Questions Contained in January 27, 1987 Note Question 1 Can the licensing basis be satisfied by compliance'with the letter of 10 CFR 50 or is the licensing basis dependent upon FSAR commitments and interpretations of the regulations such as regulatory guides, the standard review plan and national standards? If the licensing basis cannot be satisfied by compliance with the letter of 10 CFR 50, which of such regulations require further elaboration to establish the licensing basis (or to support the restart decision)?
Response
The licensing basis of a plant is the information contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
This information is intended to provide a detailed description of the plant design and to demonstrate how regulations are met including the ability of the plant to withstand design basis events such as a loss-of-coolant accident.
The FSAR is reviewed by the staff in accordance with the Standard Review Plan to determine if the plant design is in compliance with the requirements, as interpreted by various staff guides (Regulatory (ASME, Guides, Standard Review Plan and Technical Positions) and industry codes IEEE, etc.), which provide staff guidance with respect to application of the Commission's.*egulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50 (10 CFR 50).
This evaluation, along with the staff's sampling inspections, ensure that the plant is being properly constructed and forms the basis for issuance of an operating license. The NRC has acknowledged that the staff guides and certain industry standards do not represent the only methods for meeting the relevant portions of the regulations.
However, if an applicant for an operating license wishes to use alternative methods to satisfy Comission regulations, they must be reviewed and approved by the staff prior to licensing to ensure equivalent levels of protection have been provided.
With respect to the need for elaboration of the requirements in 10 CFR 50, almost all of the requirements require some elaboration.
The reason for this is the fact that the requirements specify, in most instances, only the performance standards that must be met.
They are general in nature and, with a few exceptions, do not specify the detailed design requirements of the plant.
In summary, before a plant is licensed for operation, it must be in compliance witn the regulations unless an exemption is specifically granted.
One means of ensuring compliance with the regulations is to design and construct the plant in accordance with the recommendations of the staff guices, and/or national standards that have been endorsed by the staff.
However, a plant design need not adhere to all staff guides or national standards in order to meet the regulations, provided staff approval is given to the utility's approach.
2 Question 2 How does the NRC obtain assurance that a plant would withstand adequately design basis accidents in circumstances where the NRC does not know the extent to which a licensee's comitments have been fulfilled beyond the general regulatory guides and other regulatory documents?pecific through requirements stated in.10 CFR 50 which are made s
Response
The staff assurance that a plant would withstand a design basis accident is based upon its evaluation of the information presented in the FSAR and upon inspections conducted to monitor compliance during construction and subsequent plant operation. As stated previously, this information describes methods by which the plant design complies with the regulations.
Question 3 Is the 10 CFR 50.59 review process intended to be used to make changes to FSAR comitments? Is the 10 CFR 50.59 review process intended to serve as a basis for meeting FSAR commitments?
Response
The 10 CFR 50.59 process is the regulatory mechanism which controls changes to the facility as described in the FSAR after an operating license is issued.
Under that regulation, changes to the facility or procedures described in the FSAR may be made without Comission approval unless an unreviewed safety question or a change to a technical specification is involved.
Changes made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 must be documented and approved by the licensee and are periodically reviewed by NRC inspectors.
Furthermore, a description of such changes to the facility or procedures must be incorporated into an updated FSAR in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71.
The 10 CFR 50.59 review process is not intended to serve as the basis for meeting FSAR comitments.
As discussed in the previous paragraph, changes may be made in the facility after the operating license is issued pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. However, a facility is expected to be built in conformance with the FSAR at the time it is licensed.
Failure to implement a comitment in the FSAR at the time of licensing could be a violation of a regulation or other requirement such as 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 3, a tecnnical specification, or other license condition.
Question 4 Does NRC accept TVA's definition of Criterion 3, as clarified by the December 3 (sic) memorandum, as the basis for an NRC decision on restart of Sequoyah? What is the NRC's position with respect to whether the other criteria specified in TVA's December 1,1986 memorandum are adequate and sufficient for determining whether particular issues need be resolved prior to restart?
a
~.
Response
The staff does not agree with the second paragraph of the clarification.
The criteria contained in the December 1, 1986 memorandum are similar to those contained in the Sequoyah Nuclear Performance Plan recently submitted by TVA and. currently under review (Volume 2, Rev. I was submitted on April 1, 1987).
The points raised in your note are being considere'd in our assessment of the Sequoyah restart criteria.
e l
$MS K 4g
/
'o, UNITED STATES
.,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 j
%...../
Dr. Henry Myers, Science Advisor Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washingtun, D. C.
20515
Dear Dr. Myers:
This is in response to your note to Mr. Harold Denton dated January 27, 1987 regarding Criterion 3 of the Sequoyah Restart Criteria.
The answers to your questions are enclosed.
I apologize that the response has taken this long to prepare.
Sincerely, J
-nLk -
A amesG.KeppTr, Director Office of Special Projects
Enclosure:
As stated
/
~., -
.