ML20206E783

EDO Control of Rulemaking Package Re Proposed Rulemaking Design & Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities After Issuance of Const Permit. Rulemaking Discontinued

ML20206E783
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/31/1985
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
References
NUDOCS 8606240007
Download: ML20206E783 (75)

Text

U1 DEC 311995 MEMORANDUM FOR:

James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM:

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING By memorandum of February 13, 1984, " Control of NRC Rulemaking by Offices Reporting to the EDO," Offices were directed that effective April 1,1984, (1) all offices under EDO purview must obtain my approval to begin and/or continue a specific rulemaking, (?) resources were not to be expended on rule-makings that have not been approved, and (3) RES would independently review rulemaking proposals forwarded for my approval and make recommendations to me concerning whether or not and how to proceed with the rulemakings.

In accordance with my directive, the following proposal concerning rulemaking has been forwarded for my approval.

Proposed rulemaking, entitled " Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities After Issuance of Construction Permit." (Sponsored by IE - memorandum, Minogue to EDO dated December 19,1985.)

I have considered your request to approve but postpone this rulemaking. However, I have decided to discontinae this activity based on the independent review done by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. The NRC Regulatory Agenda (NUREG-0936) should be modified to reflect the status of this rulemaking.

(SigneW William J.Direkt William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations i

cc:

V. Stello Distribution:

J. Roe WJDircks JHSniezek H. R. Denton VStello WSchwink i

J. G. Davis JPhilips JHenry l

R. B. Minogue EDO rf Central File l

P. G. Norry DEDROGR cf

(

l6]62 goo 7851231 1

PDR 4

i f..... : EDO 0FC :ROGR/5

ROG /D

D ROG 4

...A,

.....:... 9.......:..

NAME :B @iei

JS ek

V U

WDircks

..... :./."..'........ :..

........:...J.......:............:............:............:...........

1 DATE 12/30/85

12

/85

12/$ /85

12/ f//85 4

~..-,.---_. - _ _

ROUTWIG AND TRANSMRTAL SUP OF,0101385 m twem eme.symw.,eem numw, innois note toisens, Agency /PeeQ

n. oeoo (Mw : DEDR06R-)

$A O

/

n a T H'cowa*4

'd' OfN w m n e

n. RJV

. cy= wc-s) syy n

XAction Fee Note and Return l Apswovel For Clearance Per Conversation As Requested For Correction Propero Reply Circulate For Your information See Me Comment investigste Signature

___Ceardination Justify As CAu.

Y h 4 h-

% MOM h

m wN fo wth 0& f5 TW

?

Ab

)

M Ed.

f m.._

.04. M M E#0 N yg g ~

& y & A u..r;~ a,, % ~

J&M" w

wa W

^

00 NOT use this form as a RECORD of approwels, concurrences, deposele, clearances, and sim60er actione FROM: (Name, erg. symbol. Agency /Peet)

Room No.--Sids.

Phone No.73'S%

/

yy3-seet-ser gPfsopeAL FonM 41 Rev. 7-74) mem o. ut-an (22n FresnYckYt.:

^

1.aos i

j

]

6 V

p p.

y (9

sa e

a i.

64~ f"F

'5 Kf1'"Ywh

v b

DEC 191985 M(*k l 4 I

m y2,o

?

MEMORANDUM FOR:

William J. Dircks j~

Executive Director for Operations i'

h FROM:

Robert B. Ninogue Director i o*

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research w

'b

SUBJECT:

CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW P

0F RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY IE o,

X:.'

,gt Based on our independent review of the rulemaking, " Design and Other Changes in 4

i E Nuclear Power Plant Facilities After Issuance of Construction Permit," which is Fl sponsored by IE, and addresses requirements for configuration management of

!if design changes and the degree of design completion before NRC issues a

• .jk; construction permit, RES does not agree with the recommendation of the M-Director. IE, that the EDO approve and postpone, but not discontinue, activity d( '

on this rulemaking until such time as appropriate resources become available.

f.7 Instead RES reconmends that NRC not proceed with the rulemaking,

! gy Y

The basis for this recommendation is that RES believes the whole question of

h how to handle design and other changes during construction shauld be iN' consolidated and addressed in the NRC's initiatives for licensing future y

nuclear power plants including, for example, NRR's forthcoming revision of the 1

i b-Commission's standardization policy statement to cover specific requirements

!f and procedures for obtaining certification or approval of a reference plant y ',

design or design change following a rulemaking proceeding. For an application 4

j ' >.

referencing an approved or certified desi required (ormuchlesswouldberequired)gn,NRCstaffeffortwouldnotbefor a review at the l

y,

j ti -

for those detailed changes to accommodate unique site features or other special fc circumstances such as innovative equipment' designs to meet new codes and

!j$'J -

In the August 8, 1985. Cosaission Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents

J standards.

i4,

' j/

Regarding Future Designs and"for new plant designs including new custos plants.

Existing Plants, criteria and procedural

/

requirements were specified S

These requirements include the technical resolution of all applicable medium-and high-priority Generic Safety Issues and completion of a

! i i [

ProbabilisticRiskAssessment(PRA). For a CP application for a new custom i :'

plant, the Consission will require design information that is sufficiently

7.,

final and complete to permit com>1etion of an adequate plant-specific PRA.

y Compliance with these criteria siould result in minimal design changes after i ;

the NRC approves the custom plant design.

!n li.

ic 1 9,

!V

.,me>

j ti i

evansasse>

I r.

cate >

j,

. "........... ~......

.".........."."."n" mac romu sie no e0) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

N

\\

l William J. Dircks 2

DEC 19 E Additional factors are as follows:

o Our recommendation is consistent with SECY-85-65 Quality Assurance Program Implementation Plan (prepared by IE), which recommends that i

all quality assurance activities associated with future plants only, which includes IE's new proposed rulemaking, be dropped cr indefinitely suspended.

o Due to a lack of resources caused by 0MB-mandated cuts in the FY 1986 budget for QA program development, IE does not have the $500,000 for contractor assistance and 1.25 staff years per year for 1.5 years of j

rulemaking activity after 1 year of staff analysis to establish a position on design completion and change management considerations.

i o

When sufficient resources are available to complete the rulemaking within a 2-year period as specified in the ED0's June 12, 1985, memorandum, the staff can decide whether to begin a new rulemaking on l

.,g the design changes issue, if appropriate. At that time, the effects

'r of new infonnation, the results of industry initiatives, or work done y

to date may provide the staff a data base for a truly new rulemaking I

primarily applicable to future nuclear power plants.

I The question of how to handle design and other changes during construction 4

originated in a Commission request that staff define more clearly the l

limitations on a construction permit holder to make changes in a facility during construction without (a) notifying the NRC, (b) securing prior approval of NRC staff, and/or (c) obtaining a construction permit amendment.

I' In response to the Commission's request, NRR published on December 11,1980, an p-advance notice of proposed rulemaking inviting public comment on five l

alternatives for clarifying the bounds on a construction permit holder during the course of construction.

(When IE assumed responsibility for the rulemaking in September 1984 IE redirected the approach of the rulemaking to address I

requirements for configuration management of design cheages and the degree of i

design completion before NRC issues a construction pen it.)

RES recomends that NRC withdraw the advance notice of proposed rulemaking i

published on December 11, 1980. The basis for this recoseendation is two-fold.

First, the notice of withdrawal would inform the public that coments on the L

advance notice of proposed rulemaking have been considered in the NRC's t

decision not to proceed with this rulemaking. Second, it is our judgment that completed and proposed rulemakings since 1979, e.g., 10 CFR 50.34(fJ (CP/ML Rule),10 CFR 50.34(g) (Conformance with SRP), and 10 CFR 50.55(f) (QA j

Comitments), plus cancellations and indefinite postponements of nuclear power plants (all CP holders are now OL applicants), have rendered moot the need for i

further staff response to the Comission's request for identifying design and other changes that a construction pennit holder may make after the hRC issues a construction pennit.

1

' 5 ""' >

une mu m oo o ancu o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

l

~.

William J. Dircks 3

DT.C 191?S5 The c leteRESindependentreviewpackagehasbeensenttoOEDO(Attention:

DEDROGR and to the Director. IE.

Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

(

ti *

1. ?

't

E

-(

+e DISTRIBUTION:

Circ R-2914 MErnst Chron JNorberg RMinogue JHenry Dross JHenry r/f FGillespie RCS S/F -R.

0 A

(

(

W 8 "'c ' >....8

/{RAQ.

0... 0/D

RE S.

RES 0DahES.""

.D E S.. "

7 cu:= m >....J n *y.:ce ""J eberg ". "" M t"""

e """ DRo ss "'"" "" !Tf a

'd " -

""'I

/\\ /85" """12/" /85"

"" 12 / kf85 "

/# 86

...12//4/85". - "12 "-

...12/

/

u c ronu si. no. oi nac" *"*

OFFICIAL RECOWD COPY

RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE

9 W

0 f.E s INDEPENDEM l.!'. lek' BOARD VOTINC SFEEi TO:

F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM:

W. M. Morrison, Member, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities AGREE WITH RECOP9tENDATIONS REQUEST RIRB IN RES RULEMAKING REVIEW MEETING.

PACKAGE MODIFY RECOP9tENDATIONS IN NOT PARTICIPATING

• y; RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE As INDICATED BELOW COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:

1.

The proposed Minogue to Dircks memorandum on this subject recomends that the rulemaking be terminated. Based on my review of the package, it appears that more appropriate wording would be that "the rulemaking not be initiated." The August 21, 1984 memorandum from Arlotto to Gillespie on the rulemaking which RES was handling prior to it being transferred to IE indicated, in the third paragraph, that "The issue addressed by this rulemaking... is that of the

' threshold' of CP holder proposed facility change that initiates involvement by the NRC staff prior to implementation of the change."

The rulerdaking that IE is proposing addresses requirements for configuration ' management of design changes and the degree of design completion before the awarding of a CP.

These are two different subjects.

It appears to me that Taylor, in his memora m to Dircks (undated) which is an enclosure to Taylor's June 12 1984 randum to Minogue is incorrect when he indicates that "RES ha uthority to pursue rulemaking on the same subject..."

SIC, N'd b" bM i TiF5 (SEENEXTPAGE) l//////&

W. M. MORRISON MEMBER, RIRB AUGUST 15, 1985 DATE I

l

?

RIRB Ballot:

Design & Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities August 15, 1985 t

t l

2.

I would strengthen the Minogue to Dircks memorandum to indicate that RES's recommendation to not initiate this rulemaking is consistent with SECY-85-65, dated February 25, 1985, Quality Assurance Program Implementation Plan, (prepared by IE) which recommends that all activities associated with future plants only, which includes this subject rulemaking, be dropped or indefinitely suspended.

3.

One of the alternatives considered by IE in their paper entitled

" Office Review" which is included in the RIRB package is to accomplish the objective through a consensus standard approach.- IE indicates that the major disadvantage for this approach is that it "would take a long time." Since it would apply only to future plants, coupled with the fact that IE is recommending that it be dropped or indefinitely suspended, I suggest that this is no longer a valid reason for not pursuing that approach even if that approach would end up taking a long time. 'In many cases, our experience has been the opposite; i.e., a faster and better product can be obtained through the voluntary consensus standards process when compared with in-house developed NRC standards, particularly when NRC does not have the in-house capability.

It appears that IE does not have such in-house capability to develop the subject standard as evidenced by their need to hire a contractor.

Pursuing this approach would also be consistent with their recommendation in SECY-85-65 to make greater use of QA standards development activities.

If the voluntary standards approach is unsuccessful, the contractor approach could still be used when resources become available.

4

=

+ne.e=-%%.--m=-.m

-u-~-.

/

RE5 INDIPETC!?.' l.!\\IEW BOARD V011NL 5'I[1 10:

F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB F RO'::

K. R. Goller, Member, RIRB 9 \\d V'n,-E% p i N 4%

d Q% hu TITLE OF RULEf4AKING:Q?

QUGT RIRB AGREE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS MEETING.

IN RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE MODIFY RECOMMENDATIONS IN NOT PARTICIPATING-

/

RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE AS INDICATED BELOW COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:

Wm.

N Wh6M, fa ms O mmfs-sts e

_i g

e/xkr E

F DATE

t,UE 1 4 19B5 h.dM F.E S lt<DE PEtiDEt.1 1.i '.1I t 'l;.:

VOTING St:{ El 10:

F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM:

G. A. Arlotto, Member, RIRB TITLE OF RULEt4AKING9 d DAbf

%%w@\\dT h, g

AGREE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IN RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE MODIFY RECOMMENDATIONS IN NOT PARTICIPATIN"-

RES kULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE AS INDICATED BELOW COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:

/

A. Arlotto

MBER, IIRBrb.

lL DATE

~

=

~-

~

E>he ROUTING AND TRANSMff7AL SUP ftk (Neme, e#lce symbef. room number.

Initials Date 6misens, Asency/reso 3.

W. M. Morrison, Member, RIR&

g, K. R. Goller, Member, RIRB a.

G. A. Arlotto, llember, RIRB 4.

S.

y' Action Fue Note and Retum Apswovel For CIserence Per Conversation As T.

^22 For Correction Propero Reply

' P' - - ^

For Your leformation See Me L- _ _ ^_

"c.-

^'_ ^_

Signature P-1 ; ^^ - -.

Justify anwtus We are at step III.C.2, "RIRS deliberations," of.the RES independent review procedures fo'r the attached specific ongoing rulemaking sponsored by Please evaluate the. attached dra'ft independent review package and provide RAf1RB with your voting sheet indicating your. position on the rulemaking.

will assist in RES' makinghusi M 1985,ndependdnt recommendati Your response by c.o.b. Ro to the EDO in a timely manner.

l 00 NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvels, concurrences, allsposale.

(

cieerences. and similar actions FROte:(Name, org. symbol. A6ency/ Post)

Room No.--Sids.

j I

RAMRB staff enone No.

443-7885 sest-see OPTIONAL FOfted 41 (Rev. 7-76) 8 -1N e spoi sees o. ist-s2e ar m l

+e----

a-w--------em

• er e+--m-

-p- * -

\\

e

?

h.

OFFICE REVIEW PACKAGE RECEIVED FROM IE

6

~ ~ - ~

W h'. " " Y 4? W

• krW $9 Y.~*,y ~{gMy&&g.g mg [haughtkfag[

9.y

.Q h =l

• j b L f,,,.f g f 4,,4 q, e

J

.. Paoef.... _ _ _ _... _ __. _...

DATE of Docunstit? _

DATE Klu tVf D eso 01&E 6-12-85 6-13-85 RES-85-1129

?&

JAMES M. TAYLOR

[

c, (Ta mi.o an oaf

.or..

j g.

x To ca.o.

cc of,.

MINOGUE x

CC: RAMRB/RES.

AcT.o wanAav EX coacuaaa O

• ^'**a

,0..

oAeTio = = =A=v D co

.,7 i

h,

. cosi o,,.a

,4e coo..

7

_4

~

.o O&M-I&E R m h hdd REFEAnto TO DATE REatVto gy DATE y

REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF RULEMAKIN 3 GILLESPIE 6/13

.I

.. e i,, {

asectosunts l.MEMD FM TAYLOR TO DIRCKS 2.RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE INFOCY:MINOGUE nnte KELBER i '-

M ? o.C L'S MALAR 0/J.

HENR7 fl F -

e e

u. s. esuctsAn nasutAtony -:-

Pones unesas MAIL CONTROL FOfmA ti.fsa a

9e 9

D::..:N.

.. ;8 Q g. 3.... }

'fd 4.24 xgt.

q;.

w t >n I(h C:t'bb'd), a,,(*jN hj

% s..r.

sp it C UNITED STATES

• g

[

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o

f g,**v p

June 12,1984 MEMORANDUM TOR:

Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.

FROM:

James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement SUEJECT:

REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF RULEMAKING is ey request to the EDO to approve but postpone the rulemaking activity entitled " Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities after Issuance of Construction Permit," for which we have assumed responsibility from RES.

Our reason for requesting postponement of the rulemaking is lack of resources currently al. located to activities which solely affect future plants.

OMB-mandated cuts in the FY86 budget for QA program development would eliminate this activity for FY86.

In accordance with the procedures described in the EDO memorandum dated February 13, 1984, entitled " Control of NRC Rulemaking by Offices Reporting to the EDO," we are requesting your review of this potential rulemaking activity.

is the rulemaking review package including the office review which considers the six items required by the ED0's February 13, 1984 memorandum.

I request your concurrence with approving and postponing, but not discontinuing, activity on this rulemaking until such time as resources are allocated to activities which solely affect future plants.

/

ames

. Ta r, Director i

ffice of spection and Enforcement

Enclosures:

1.

Memo from Taylor to Dircks 2.

Rulemaking Review Package t

cc/w enclosures:

RAMRB/RES CAG/ORM i

851129 l

2.=--=-

- = - - - - - -

Memo from Taylor to Dircks O

=

oo+

b i

e me..a C 4-a e.w N e e-

= =.< t N.

s

_n_

aM. P e *

• re

• =*.**

• N-

• • v.***

• *=a-W O,

e T

• [*

p tts

+

UNITED STATES

[

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

'^j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\\....*/

MEMORANDUM FOR:

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:

James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcetent

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR APPROVAL AND POSTPONENENT OF RULEMAKING Enclosed is the Quarterly Update of Regulatory Agenda for the rulemaking entitled " Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities after Issuance of Construction Permit," for which we have assumed responsibility from RES.

In accordance with your memorandum dated February 13, 1984, entitled

'" Control of NRC Rulemaking by Offices Reporting to the EDO," we are requesting your approval of this potential rulemaking activity. Due to a lack of resources caused by OMB-mandated cuts in the FY86 budget for QA program development, we are also requesting your approval to postpone this rulemaking until resources become available to work on initiatives primarily applicable to future plants.

This activity was initiated by IE because:

1.

The QA report to Congress (NUREG-1055) cited incomplete plant design at issuance of CP, and volume of design changes after CP issuance, as major contributors to quality and quality assurance problems later in construction.

2.

RES had authority to pursue rulemaking on the same subject but had decided to discontinue the effort.

RES was in the process of requesting your permission for that discontinuation when IE accepted the responsibility in order to pursue our approach.

Accordingly, we have submitted to RES this effort's rulemaking review package, which includes the office review considering the six items required by your February 13, 1984 memorandum.

I recommend approving and postponing, but not discontinuing, activity on this rulemaking until appropriate resources become available.

Ori&.at 5 yt 5j Jan:es M. Tay!ct James M. Taylor, Director

~

Office of Inspection and Enforcement s

Enclosure:

Quarterly Update of Regulatory Agenda

'**M*

Y"M*

• ~

~

N-l l

Rulemaking Review Package i

e ee.

O

. m -. - -

n.~

TITLE:

Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities CFR CITATION.

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The proposed rule will prescribe improved approaches for assuring design completion and reducing and better controlling the level of change in facility design and construction. These approaches will be based on recommendations found in NUREG-1055, " Improving Quality and the Assurance of Quality in the Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants" (QA Report), which the NRC submitted to Congress in April 1984. The QA

-Report, prepared by the NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE),

cited deficiencies in the management of design changes as a key factor contributing to significant quality problems in reactor design and construction that have occurred in the past several years. The QA Report recommended that the NRC consider requiring more complete designs prior to-the beginning of construction and the adoption, as a discipline, of change management (known generically as configuration management) as approaches to overcoming the design management deficiencies.

Since this rulemaking deals with issues closely related to design completion and control of changes, responsibility for this rulemaking was transferred from the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research to IE in September 1984.

Staff is working toward a refinemeiit of the QA Report findings and the development of a regulatory analysis which will discuss the economic impact of the rulemaking on affected licensees.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 12/11/80 45 FR 81602 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 12/11/80 45 FR 81602 ANPRM Comment Period End 02/09/81 Final Action 11/00/87 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:

No AGENCY CONTACT:

Wayne Scott Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20555 301 492-4220 i

m

OFFICE REVIEW Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities After Issuance of Construction Permit Item 1.

The issue to be addressed, i.e., the problem to be corrected NRC regulatory changes, caused by events such as the TMI-2 accident and generic issues such as fire protection and environmental qualification, and construction delays have introduced a continuous stream of changes to the design and con-struction of nuclear power plants.

The nuclear power plant project environment and the associated complex technical issues require a strong control program to manage design changes in the construction phase.

Item 2.

The necessity and urgency for addressing the issue The QA Report to Congress (NUREG-1055) identified two topics for further analysis in order to address the problem of managing nuclear power plant design changes: more complete design at the CP stage, and the use of con-figuration management techniques to control design changes. The report cites several examples which support the premise that the more advanced a plant's design at the beginning of construction, or the fewer the design changes during construction, the more likely the plant will be completed without developing major quality-related problems.

NRC currently has initiatives underway to deal with the issues of standardized designs.

However, there are no provisions for dealing with the management of changes to designs.

This initiative will explore an adaptation to the nuclear industry of a technique, developed in the aerospace industry for control of design changes, called configuration management.

Item 3.

Alternatives to rulemaking Alternative A: Maintain the status quo.

The need for an effective technique to control changes for plants under construction will not vanish with standardized designs.

Adequate completion of design and control of changes during the construction process will have a direct impact on the quality of power plant construction.

Alternative B:

Initiate as an industry consensus standard issue.

Initiating configuration management as an industry consensus standard would use fewer NRC staff hours and support funds per year. This approach,

~~

even if successful, would take years, and the endorsement of the standard by the NRC would add to the elapsed time.

In general, this alternative could produce a product, but would take a'long time. There may not, at present, be an adequate constituency in the utility industry willing to devote resources to a standard for future plants.

In addition, standards are more amenable to developing a consensus on existing practice rather than exploring new initiatives.

• • • s

.,.. ' ~

• _,***'*%,,w.'

-, ? - mm 9e e MW

-"*S*-

--,v--

Alternative C:

Develop a regulatory guide.

Under current NRC practices, the development and promulgation of generic guidance in a regulatory guide has essentially the same impact on staff resources as a rulemaking activity.

However, a regulatory guide would have much less effect on the subject than would a rulemaking.

There is no existing specific regulation for which the regulatory guide wocid provide guidance.

Item 4.

Jiow the issue will be addressed through rulemaking The issue would be addressed by requiring a licensee to provide a description of its program for controlling and managing design changes, hardware changes, and modifications during construction and establishing a set of performance criteria which the program should meet. This would include a process for establishing an adequate degree of design completion prior to construction for various parts of the plant. The control program would be described in Chapter 17 submittals of CP applications. The use of master inspection plans and the readiness reviews now being explored on a pilot basis would be logical imple-mentation techniques.

Item 5.

How the public, industry, and NRC will be affected as a result of rulemaking, including the benefits and costs, occupational exposure, and resources A.

The Public The impact on the public from the use of such configuration management techniques would be better controlled changes to power plants with a resultant higher degree of assurance of quality of design and construction.

B.

The Industry The impact on the industry from the use of design completion reviews and configuration management techniques would be fewer and better controlled changes. The cost of establishing appropriate procedures and training the participants would be less significant than the cost of schedule delays or rework such as have been exper.ienced in the past.

It is the premise of this regulation that delays resulting from construction with incomplete design or uncontrolled changes to design have historically proven much more costly in dollars and assurance of quality than measures to control such potential problems.

i C.

The NRC l

The use of design completion and configuration management techniques by the industry would require the NRC to train its staff, particularly the l

inspection staff, in assessing the licensee's performance in the application of those techniques. The NRC would have to develop revised inspection procedures for its inspection staff.

Item 6.

NRG resources and scheduling needed for the rulemaking Staff analysis appropriate to establishing a position on design completion and configuration management considerations would require about one year.

Completion of the rulemaking process would require an additional 18 months.

The effort would consume about 1-1/4 staff years per year and would require

$500,000 in funds for contractor assistance both in augmenting the research effort and in refining the appropriate form of a rule. l

,.u.

i i

~

MAY 211985 IEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enfo: cement FROM:

Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: TIMELY COMPLETION 0F RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY IE In your memorandum of May 2, 1985, you requested that tha requirement for RES independent review of the IE-sponsored rulemaking, " Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities after Issuance of Construction Permit " be delayed until after the Corsi:ission completes its review of SECY-85-65 and provides direction on its implementation to the staff.

A rulemaking that complies with Comission direction should not be exempted from submittal for RES independent review in a manner that would delay sub-mission of the RES independent review to the EDO beyond the June 1, 1985, date set by the ED0's memorandum of February 5,1985, to Office Directors concerning revision of the schedule for EDO approval of rulemaking.

As the E00's memorandum of February 13, 1984, concerning control of NRC rulemaking notes, it is important that (1) candidates for rulemaking are early and promptly identified, screened and thereafter periodically reviewed to determine whether or not to proceed with rulemaking; (2) rulemakings are assigned priorities comensurate with their importance relative to accomplish-ing the NRC mission; and (3) rulemakings are timely, effectively, efficient, and of high quality.

The information required for the review is the same infomation contained in the Regulatory Analysis that is required to be part of the rulemaking package.

(See NUREG/BR-0058, " Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regu-latory Connission," May 1984.)

Accomplishing the initial review by June 1,1985, and periodic reviews on an annual basis assures that the rulemaking will be reviewed in light of current Infomation and circumstances which could be significantly different than those existing when the rulemaking was initiated or last reviewed. The involvement of the Office of Research (RES) assures that current research findings are con-sidered in the review of the rulemaking, um.>

NICPORM 318 00 80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

James M. Tayinr 2

BAY 211985 Based on these factors, RES requests that you prmptly maku. reconnendations to the EDO whether and he,w to proceed with this specific ongoing ru1 making and submit an IE Office review package to RES for independent review.

[

W obert B. Minooue, Director

/OfficeofNuclearRegulatoryResearch cc:

W. J. Dircks, EDO J. Roo, EDO V. Stello, DEDRnGR Distribution RES Central File R-2914 Circ /Chron/Subj RBMinogue DFRoss FPGillespie JCMalaro MTJamgochian

_g JJHenry,! ROGR/S WSchwknk WScott,QAB,IE RESPONDS TO RES 85-0841 D:

(S:DRA0 DD:RES D

omCe p rag

.RES RAMRB:RES RAM B,:RES Y......

Dross Pa r......

suRumcp JH(

/mf MJamgochi n spie o

',,,",,,, ', '((,,,, ' ',

I85 5/ /

5/ /85 85 NRC 7CIM 318 (10 80) NRCM O24 OFFICIAL REdORD COPY

BACKGROUND MATERIAL (1984 RES REVIEW 0F RULB1AKING)

~ "

dW

,~ese W

C"F y

l yM o-f y

L lh

'N MEMORANDUM FOR:

J. C. Malaro. Chief. RAMRB. DRA0, RES FROM:

J. J. Henry. RAMRB. DRAO, RES

SUBJECT:

POST-CP CHANGE RULE As part of his independent review of the Post-CP Change Rule. W. E. Caspbell, MSEB, DET, sent a copy of RES' office review package to the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.

This morning, 6. Ted Ankrum, Chief, QUAB, IE, called to say that IE.had dis-cussed the Post-CP Change Rule as an initiative in a report to Congress "Impro-ving Quality in the Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants "

NUREG-1055, May 1984. He went on to say that he believes the rulemaking should be part of a program for future construction pennit applicants.

In this regard, he suggested that IE might become the agency contact for the rulemaking and offered to initiate a request to'this effect.

(At this point. I suggested that he call J. Zudans, who had taken over a rulemaking from RES a few months back. for first-hand experience in initiating his request.)

I told Mr. Ankrum that I could see no objection to such a request and I would infono RES staff of the potential for transferring the rulemaking to IE.

J. J. Henry Regulatory Analysis and Materials Risk Branch Division of Risk Analysis and Operations Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Distribution:

RES central files circ /chron RAMRB r/f RBMinogue DFRoss FPGillespie MLErnst,

JCMalaro R - 2914.03 WECampbell, MSEB

.1.1Ha n ry e m=>

RS RB

?...... ".?.*..? 9

~ ~ ~ *

.~ } -

T/33/84

.m >

i

\\

..y

.. r..

n,-e e,ae ciere - ~ - - -

NUREG-1056 For Comment Improving Quality and the Assurance of Quality in the Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants A Report to Congress 1

M nuscript Completed: April 1964 Date Published: May 1984 W. Altman, T. Ankrum, W. Brach Division of Out.lity Assurance, Safeguards, and Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 1

/

A 96),

1

.m 1

This section discusses earlier attempts to define " principal A&E criteria",

current initiatives concerning prescriptiveness, the relationship of A&E criteria to major quality-related problems, and the industry's management of change. Also discussed are NRC's inspectability and enforceability of changes to design criteria and other licensee comitments, and the amount of prescriptiveness that is appropriate in regulations.

6.2.1 Earlier Attempts to Define " Principal A&E Criteria" For some time the NRC has been aware of the need for better controls on the licensee's type of design comitment and the extent of changes to design comitments and of NRC's changes to the design basis. The first attempt at improving the situation took place in 1969 as part of an effort to stabilize the licensing process. As part of the proposed rule on backfitting, 10 CFR 50.109, the staff included a more prescriptive definition of principal A&E criteria. However, when the final rule was issued, the more prescriptive definition was not included because the Commission decided that the definition needed further study. As a result of this determination, two studies were i

conducted to define principal A&E criteria. The results of the first report 1

were puolished in December 1975 and the results of the second in March 1977.

1 No formal staff action on these studies was taken because of difficulties with H~

implementing the recomended definition and because of other priorities.

While the earlier action did deal with more prescriptive A&E criteria, a December 1979 action addressed the issue of control of design changes. As i

part of the Commission's decision on the need for a hearing and/or a CP amendment on the Bailey Nuclear Station short pile issue (SECY-A-79-24 and 24A), the staff was requested to prepare a proposal on precisely what design and other changes a CP holder could make without (a) notifying the NRC, (b) p:

securing prior NRC staff approval, and/or (c) obtaining a CP amendment.

In J

response to the Comission's request, the staff developed Comission Paper bI SECY-80-90, which detailed the historical background (the 1969 proposed rule,

[.

the 1975 and the 1977 stuties) and proposed five alternatives for addressing 1

the problem:

f.

(1) Maintain the status quo.

(2) Borrowing from 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) (dealing with notifications of

[

significant deficiencies having safety significance) and 50.59 (dealing

?

I with changes to previously approved designs having safety significance),

adopt a rule that establishes general criteria for determining circumstances requiring a CP amendment.

(3) Adopt a rule defining " principal architectural and engineering criteria" (in effect reviving the 1969 rulemaking on this subject) using information learned to date, including the 1975 and 1977 staff studies.

(4) Adopt a rule stipulating that all details of the application, including l

the PSAR, be made conditions of the CP and may not be changed without prior NRC approval.

(5) Restructure the licensing process to require that complete plant design details be provided in the PSAR (i.e., essentially a final design), which, 6-3

i

~

~

1

/

j

~

t upon review and approval, would be made conditions of the CP and could no be changed without prior NRC approval.

The staff then presented the five alternatives to the Comission for publica-tion for public coment as an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

In approving the publication of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Comission added the following statement:

"The Comission tentatively prefers Alternative 3 now, with a shift to Alternative 5 in three years."

t 6.2.2 Current Initiatives j The specific rulemaking described above has been subsumed into a series of 5 new initiatives.

The initiatives include, in order of occurrence, establish-I ing the Comittee to Review Generic Requirements, submitting legislation on E

one-step licensing, issuing a proposed policy statement on severe accidents.

O which includes standardization of design, and issuing an Advance Notice of d

Proposed Rulemaking on the backfitting of new requirements to operating plants I

and plants under construction.

All requirements proposed by the staff for imposition on one or more classes of power reactors is reviewed by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements, which compares the improvement in operational safety to the cost of the change and recomends their approval or

[y disapproval to the Executive Director for Operations.

Both the legislation on one-step licensing submitted to Congress and the policy t

statement on standardization contained in the proposed severe accident policy statement would require that a much more complete design be submitted for i

approval at the CP application stage. However, both would stop short of

-6 requiring that the design be complete to the point that it incorporate changes I made to the initial design as a result of feedback from the procurem?nt process.h (To accomodate available equipment that may not satisfy initial design assump tions and to provide an acceptable level of safety, the design may have to be i

changed.)

The most prescriptive A&E criterion, of course, would be requiring a J

complete design including the characteristics of specific components to be j

submitted as part of the CP application. The design approval granted under the one-step licensing proposal would be for 10 years, and the design could not be 3

changed in that time frame by either the licensee or the NRC without going through the hearing process again. The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 4

on backfitting would require the NRC staff to justify any change in requirements they wish to impose on operating plants. The incremental improvement to operating safety would have to be weighed against the cost of the change in y

terms of dollars and exposure.

I 6.2.3 Relationship of A&E Criteria to Ma.for Quality-Related Problems

• i Previous NRC efforts in the area of more prescriptive A&E criteria have been directed towards stabilizing the licensing process rather than towards improving the basis for quality control, quality assurance, inspection and enforcement actions.

While more prescriptive A&E criteria may be the answer to the licensing issue, this study did not show them to be an answer to quality problems.

NRC's case studies and regional inspections have shown that the welding and masonry construction problems at Zimer, the soil compaction problems at Midland, and the voids in the concrete at Marble Hill were not related to either the prescriptiveness or the enforceability of the principal A&E criteria.

In these three cases, the problems were caused by inadequate 6-4 1

=

. TTJL --- -.

Y-. - -

"R

,!s ur %

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

i I

wAsmwoTow. o. c. 20sss

%*****/

AUG 211984 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Frank P. Gillespie Chairman, RIRB FROM:

Guy A. Arlotto Director l

Division of Engineering Technology. RES i

SUBJECT:

RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF RULEMAKING; (WITS 603119)

This memorandum is to provide you with the results of the first independent review of rulemaking for " Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities After Issuance of Construction Permit."

The Office Director sponsoring the rulemaking recommended on August 1,1984,

"...that the NRC not continue with this rulemaking...since...NRC has made several improvements in its regulations and licensing procedures.... The improvements combined with cancellation and indefinite postponements of nuclear power plants have eliminated the need to identify precisely what design and other changes the holder of a CP [ construction permit] may make during the course of construction."

The issue addressed by this rulemaking, i.e., the problem to be corrected, is that of the " threshold" of CP holder proposed facility change that initiates involvement by the NRC staff prior to implementation of the change.

I agree that the status of facility cancellations and postponements is a valid basis for termination - in fact based on cost / benefit I consider that status adequate and sufficient by itself.

I do not believe that the

" improvements in... regulations and licensing procedures" identified by l

the sponsoring office have either addressed the problem or corrected it.

l is a copy of the rulemaking with its accompanying documenta-tion that was received from the sponsoring office. The draft Federal Register Notice that was received from the sponsoring office as part of cites three regulations as recent improvements. None of the regulations address the issue of threshold of NRC involvement in licensee proposed changes to a facility that are accomplished during the period the construction permit is in existence. Based on the FRN preamble of each of l

these regulations two of them are applicable only to construction permit applicants and one is applicable to the construction permit and operating license phases of facilities. The latter one does not address the issue 1

of " threshold" of facility changes but addresses the threshold of changes to a previously accepted quality assurance program. Attached as Enclosures 2-5 are the Federal Register Notices for the three rulemakings.

l t

l i

Frank P. Gillespie 2

AUG 211984 It is my recommendation that the NRC not continue the rulemaking but that the reason for termination be limited to case load forecast.

It is anticipated that all of the facilities; i.e., construction pemit holders that have not applied for an operating license and holders of a license to manufacturer, to which this rule could be made applicable will shortly be terminated. This recommendation has been discussed with the Task Leader of the sponsoring office. Enclosure 1 to Enclosure 1 s been marked up to show where changes are required if th rec nd n is accepted.

I uy A, Arlotto, Director Divis ion of Engineering Technology Offic't of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosures:

1. Chaiman, RIRB memo of Aug 13 with its enclosure 1

2. 47FR 2286

3. 47FR 4497

4. 47FR 11651

5. 47FR 15569

6. 48FR 1026 cc:w/o encl J. Malaro, Chief, RAMBR l

l

--,., _ _.., - - - -... -... ~

o uq, 1

k UNITED STATES

[

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

5 g

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

(.....,/

AUG1 1984 i

MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:

Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

REVIEW BY EDO ON ONG0ING RULEMAKINGS SPONSORED BY RES Enclosed is the review package of the following specific ongoing rulemaking for which RES is the sponsoring office:

" Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities After Issuance of Construction Permit."

This submittal responds to the memorandum dated April 9, 1984 from J. M. Felton.

Director, Division of Rules and Records, ADM, requesting offices to update NRC Regulatory Agenda entries.

I recomend that the NRC not continue with this rulemaking.

The basis for this recomendation is as follows:

During the time since the issue was identified in 1979, the NRC has made i

several improvements in its regulations and licensing procedures for nuclear power plants in the post-CP stage, viz., compliance with TMI-related require-ments, confomance with the Standard Review Plan, and documentation of QA program changes.

The improvements combined with cancellations and indefinite postponements of nuclear power plants have eliminated the need to identify precisely what design and other changes the holder of a CP may make during the course of construction.

I reconmend that the NRC close out this rulemaking as follows:

(a) Uxiate the NRC Regulatory Agenda entry for this rulemaking as enclosed in tsis Task Leader package, i.e., by adding to the ABSTRACT portion a state-ment that existing and proposed improvements in the NRC's regulations and i

licensing procedures for nuclear power plants in the post-construction permit stage combined with cancellation and indefinite postponements of nuclear power plants have eliminated the need to continue this specific rulemaking proceeding.

1 i

,,,,,_y y_

_,_y_,,,,_.

,,__y w.

y--

,.r..

w.

-+- -

William J. Dircks 2

AUG1 564 Publish the updated entry in the NRC Regulatory Agenda, Sec. I(C) to indi-cate that the advance notice of proposed rulemaking will be withdrawn by the end of September 1984.

(b) Prepare a Task Control Form as enclosed in this Task Leader package to take Task No. RA 223-1 out of hold upon approval by the user office.

Completion of these actions will allow the RES Task Leader to circulate a draft Comission paper recommending that the Comission approve publication of a notice of withdrawal of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking published December 11, 1980.

My recomendations have been coordinated in draft form with the Director, Division of Safety Technology, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

/

/3 Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

RES Rulemaking Review Package for " Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities After Issuance of Construction Pennit"

TITLE:

Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities After Issuance of Construction Permit i

CFR CITATION:

10 CFR 50 ABSTRACT:

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published to seek comments i

on a proposal that would make the procedure for facility licensing more predictable by (1) defining more clearly the limitations on what changes a construction permit holder may make to a facility during construction and.(2) controlling the ways a construction permit holder implements NRC criteria.

The proposal is intended to improve the present licensing process and to develop specific descriptions of essential facility features to which a construction permit holder is bound.

Existing and proposed improvements in the NRC's regulations and licensing procedures for nuclear power plants in the post-construction permit stage combined with cancel-lations and indefinite postponements of nuclear power plants have eliminated the ne.ed to continue this specific rulemaking proceeding.

TIMETABLE:

ANPRM 12/11/80 45 FR 81602 ANPRM Comment Period Begin 12/11/80 45 FR 81602 ANPRM Comment Period End 02/04/81 Next Action Withdrawn 09/00/84 LEGAL AUTHORITY:

42 USC 2201 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES:

No 4

w-----

%_y,,_,,, _.-, _,,,,,_ _

~.

AGENCY CONTACT:

James J. Henry Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555 301 443-7614 P

l' m_,,-.

.. ~

c.

The rulemaking as it is currently proposed to be published in the Federal Register.

By memorandum dated July 8, 1982, the staff circulated a draft proposed rule for review and comment.

In response, NRR suggested wording to follow the lead of 10 CFR 50.59 as set out in the attached memor'andum:

n I

......--.m_

m-.

-,~-.

_---w.-.m...

/

'j UNITED STATES 8

A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t

wAsumcTom, p. c. mas OCT 2 5 5 82 MEMORANDUM FOR:4obert M. Bemem, Director Division of Risk Analysis Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:

Stephen H. Hanauer, Director Division of Safety Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED POST-CP CHANGE RULE In response to your July 8,1982, memorandum, we have reviewed the subject proposed rule.

I agree that the proposed rule governing post-cp changes by pemittees should be patterned after existing 10CFR 50.59.

I do not agree, however, that the permittee's decision whether to notify us of a change should hinge on his judgement whether the proposed change would have altered the outcome of the CP proceeding.

Rather than require the pemittee to second-guess a hearing board's decision, it seems preferable to follow the lead of 10 CFR 50.59 and sm the existence of an unreviewed safety question as the criterion.or notifying us of a proposed change. A suggested wording for the revision is enclosed.

~

g C

k' s

>t.-u4c. Q,ili.u sc w 4 (

'tephen H. Hanauer, Director Division of Safety Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

A. J. DiPalo D. Scaletti R. Cleveland J. Sniezek

EllCLOSURE I SUGGESTED POST-CP CHANGE RULE 10CFR 50.55 (f)

(1). The holder of a construction permit for a nuclear 2

power facility r.ay make changes in the facility.

as described in the safety analysis report as supplemented and conditioned by the permit, without prior Commission approval, if the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question and will not result in adverse environmental impact significantly greater than that evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement.

(2)

A proposed change shall be deemed to involve an unrevieweo safety question (i) if the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report may be increased; or (ii) if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type from any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report may be created.

(3)

Before making any change that involves an unreviewed safety question, the permittee shall (i) subnit to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation an application for amend-ment of the construction permit with a descrip-tion of the proposed change and supporting justification and (ii) obtain prior Commission approval.

If the permittee is uncertain whether a change involves an unreviewed safety question, the permittee should notify the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation prior to making the change.

i i

1

2-(4)

If the change could result in adverse environinental impact significantly greater than that evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement, the pennittee shall provide a written evaluation of the change to the ')irector of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and obtain prior Comission approval.

(5)

The holder of a permit shall maintain records of changes made pursuant to paragraph 50.55 (f)(1)above. These records shall include a written safety evaluation of each change, which provides the basis for the detennination that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question. These records will be retained for the duration of the construction pennit.

l

.-..y

. - - - - - - - --- - - - ~ ~ -

' ~ - ~ ~ ~

-~

For the reasons set forth below, however, the rulemaking is currently proposed to be published in the Federal Register as a notice of withdrawal on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, as attached:

l

~

~~-

~ ~ ' - ~

[7590-01)

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities After Issuance of Construction Permit; Withdrawal AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Advance notice of proposed r'ulemaking: Withdrawal.

SUMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is withdrawing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that stated the Commission's intention to consider amending its regulations to define more clearly the limitations on a construction permit holder to make changes in a facility during f

construction. An analysis shows that the NRC has made several recent improvements in its regulations and licensing procedures for nuclear l

power reactors in the postconstruction permit stage and a rulemaking proceeding is not needed at this time.

2 ADDRESSES: Mail comments to: The Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

[

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch.

Deliver comments to: Room 1121, 1717 H Street W., Washington, D.C..between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Examine l

copies of comments received at: The NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street W., Washington, D.C.

~

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James. J. Henry, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 (301-443.7614-)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On December 11, 1980, the Commission published in the FEDERAL REGISTER an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (45 FR 81602) that stated the Commission's intention to consider amendments of 10 CFR Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facil-ities," that would improve the present licensing process and develop specific descriptions of the essential features of a facility (including l

nn n

[7590-01) the quality assurance program and other procedures and staffing require-ments) to which the construction permit holder should be bound, at.what point in the licensing process, under what circumstances, and through what means.

For the rulemaking proceeding, the Commission suggested the following five alternatives:

4 1.

Maintain the status quo.

2.

Adopt a rule that establishes general criteria for determining circumstances requiring notification and construction permit amendment.

3.

Adopt a rule defining " principal architectural and engineering criteria" (in effect reviving a 1969 rulemaking proceeding on this subject) using information learned to date.

4.

Adopt a rule that all details of the application, including the preliminary safety analysis report, be made conditions of the construction permit and may not be changed without prior l

Commissiodapproval.

5.

Restructure the licensing proce'ss to require that sufficient plant design details and equipment performance specifications l

be provided in the preliminary safety analysis report so that the safety analysis can be essentially a final one.

l At that time the Commission tentatively preferred implementation of Alternative 3 with a shift to Alternative 5 on June 1, 1983, and called for comments, suggestions, or recommendations on a proposed rule that i

would clarify the bounds on a construction permit holder during the course of construction.

Of the 24 letters of comment received, the comments from the nuclear industry overwhelmingly supported Alternative 1, arguing that there is no need or safety benefit to be gained by the other alternatives.

[7590-01]

Some comments noted that Alternative 2, if carefully worded, would be the next most reasonable alternative, should the Commission decide that a rule change is necessary.

None of the comments supported Alternatives 3 or 4 in many cases terming them unworkable or unnecessary.

Thirteen letters of comment expressed some measure of support for Alternative 5 for the long ters (future combined CP/0L's) on an optional basis, but most stated that this should be done in the broader context of long-range restructuring of the licensing process.

Commission Evaluation The Commission has made several recent improvements in its regula-tions and licensing procedures for nuclear power reactors in the post-CP stage-Under 10 CFR 50.34(f), each application pending on February 16, 1982, must meet a set of requirements stemming from the Three Mile Island action f

plan in order to obtain a construction permit (47 FR 4497).

i Under 10 CFR 50.34(g), each application for OL'for the "as-built" i

facility must identify, evaluate differences from acceptance criteria in

[

the Standard Review Plan, and demonstrate how any proposed alternative l

complies with NRC regulations (47 FR 15569).

[

New 10 CFR 50.55(f) requires each CP holder making a change to a prevously accepted quality assurance program to submit to NRC documenta-l tion and the basis for concluding that the revited program continues to meet QA criteria and commitments (48 FR 1026).

By generic letter dated October 31, 1981, CP holders were informed that they must meet TMI-related requirements applicable to OL applicants in NUREG-0737. A proposal to codify the TMI-related provisions in

[7590-01]

NUREG-0737 was withdrawn on the basis that utilities and the NRC need flexibility to meet those provisions (48 FR 13987).

Caseload forecasts indicate that of the 4 reactors in the post-CP stage, all have been postponed indefinitely, thereby effectively eliminating oppor-tunities for proposing changes in facilities in the post-CP stage.

The Commission expects that, under the present enlightened regulatory structure, holders of construction permits in the OL review stage will continue to screen each proposed change in a facility to determine whether the proposed change involves safety, environmental impact, effluents, insurance requirements, ownership, latest date for completion, or any other factor that may be cause for seeking prior Commission approval.

On balance, the Commission concludes that it should maintain the status quo (with regard to design and other changes the holder of a construction permit may make during the course of ccnstruction) and withdraw the advance notice of proposed rulemaking published December 11, 1980 (45 FR 81602).

LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PART 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Fire prevention, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for this document is:

Sec. 161, Pub. L.83-703, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201).

Dated at this day of

, 1984.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.

Z ZZ iT ~

~ -~

d.

Draft recommendations to the EDO.

1.

Whether to continue with the rulemaking.

The Director, RES, recommends that the NRC not continue with this rulemaking.

The basis for this recommendation is as follows:

During the time since the issue was-identified in 1979, the NRC has made several improvements in its regulations and licensing proce-dures for nuclear power plants in the post-CP stage, viz., compliance with TMI-related requirements, conformance with the Standard Review j

Plan, and documentation of QA program changes.

The improvements combined with cancellations and indefinite postponements of nuclear power plants have eliminated the need to identify precisely what design and other changes the holder of a CP may make during the i

course of construction.

2.

How to proceed with the rulemaking.

The Director, RES, recommends that the NRC proceed with this rulemaking as foliows:

(a) Update the NRC Regulatory Agenda entry for this rulemaking as enclosed in this Task Leader package, i.e., by adding to the ABSTRACT portion a statement that existing and proposed improve-ments in the NRC's regulations and licensing procedures for nuclear power plants in the post-construction permit stage combined with cancellation and indefinite postponements of nuclear power plants have eliminated the need to continue this specific rulemaking proceeding.

Publish the updated entry in the NRC Regulatory Agenda, Sec. I(C) to indicate that the advance notice of proposed rulemaking will l

be withdrawn by the end of September 1984.

i

~

, _ JT i_i'ZTT7'~~ ~ ~, T.T.__EZ_.

[

(b) Prepare a Task Control Form as enclosed in this Task Leader package to take Task No. RA 223-1 out of hold upon approval by the user office.

Completion of these actions will allow the RES Task Leader to circulate a draft Commission paper recommending that the Commission approve publication of a notice of withdrawal of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking published December 11, 1980.

~.,

m

~.

e.

The results of the screening.

The staff's preliminary judgments set out below are not de novo, but rather are based largely on the Commission paper SECY-80-90, " RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM (AFFIRMATION SESSION 79-40) WITH RESPECT TO POST-CP DESIGN AND OTHER CHANGES."

(See sec. f, item 1, of this Task Leader package.)

i The advance notice of proposed rulemaking that initiated this rulemaking proceeding was published in the Federal Register on December 11, 1980.

(See sec. f, item 2, of this Task Leader package.)

NUREG-0660 lists this rulemaking proceeding as Task IV.E.3 which is being tracked by NUREG-0933 in ITEM IV.E.3:

PLAN FOR RESOLVING ISSUES AT THE i

CP STAGE as a Licensing Issue.

(See sec. f, item 3, of this Task Leader package.)

The remaining preliminary judgments are based on the Task Leader's monitoring of final and proposed amendments of 10 CFR Part 50, monitoring cancellations and indefinite postponements of nuclear power plants in the CP and post-CP stage, and conducting this rulemaking proceeding until it i

was suspended in April 1983.

1.

The issue to be addressed, i.e., the problem to be corrected.

,1 1

i i

The issue was first stated in a memorandum " STAFF REQUIREMENTS -

5 AFFIhIONSESSION79-40,"datedDecember 13, 1979.

The subject Staff Requirements Memorandum grew out of the Commission's December 12, 1979, decision in the Bailly short pilings matter (Northern Public Service Company, (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), 10 NRC 733 (1979)).

In that memorandum, the Commission stated that it "is concerned that at present, it is unclear precisely what design and other changes the holder of a construction permit may make during the course of construction without (a) notifying the NRC;

(b) securing prior approval of the Staff; and/or (c) obtaining a construction permit amendment."

The staff's preliminary judgment is that completed and proposed rulemakings, plus cancellations and indefinite postponements of nuclear power plants, have rendered moot the issue of identifying design and other changes the holder of a CP may make during construction.

2.

The necessity and urgency for addressing the issue.

i The Commission requested "... preparation of a Staff proposal by January 30, 1980, which can serve as a basis for Commission action to clarify these issues."

On February 14, 1980, the staff submitted a proposal to serve as a i

basis for Commission action.

At Affirmation Session 80-52 on December 3, 1980, the Commission approved publication of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 4

(45 FR 81602, December 11,1980) that the NRC was considering amending its regulations to define more clearly the limitations on a construction permit holder to make changes in a facility during construction.

By memorandum dated March 4, 1981, the EDO provided the Commission a summary of 24 letters of comment received on the ANPR and staff plans for further actions regarding the post-CP change rule, after substan-tial progress had been made in processing an overload of OL applications.

In a June 30, 1981, memorandum " STAFF MARCH 31, 1981 PROPOSAL TO i

DELAY POST-CP CHANGES RULE INDEFINITELY," the Secretary of the Commission advised the EDO that a majority of the Commission desired that the staff develop the post-CP rule.

l i

.-.;_.=

=_

The Comissioners f',

(,.

definition in i 50.2(w) was so broad and so all-inclusive as to lead to the conclusion that the proposed rulemaking would make it mandatory that the design of the facility, as well as the quality assurance program, should be essentially complete and not subject to change at the CP stage, unless an applicant were willing to continuously propose changes and amendments to its CP (thereby under-going constant and time-consuming formal Staff scrutiny).

As one commenter put it, " Restraint on backfitting nay mean less restraint on forefitting."

In promulgating the final rule (35 Federal Register 5317, riarch 31,1970) the Comission deleted the pro-posed definition in i 50.2(w), saying:

On further consideration, it appears that the

" essential elements of the proposed design" of the structures, systems and components of water-cooled nuclear pcwer units referred to in the proposed rule require further definition involving addi-tional study.

In sum, the proposed rule and its implementation would have involved not only a Staff effort to develop the criteria in more detail but would have recuired changes j

in the fomat of the PSAR to make clear the precise s

extent of approval sought by an applicant at the CP stage.

i 1975 AND 1977 STAFF STUDIES i

Since 1970, two Staff studies were made in order to specify clearly what a holder of a CP could and could not change, to provide a regulation that would be enforceable, and to institute a new mode of doing busi-ness that would not cause a proliferation of CP amend-I ments for minor changes. The results of the first study were reported in December 1975 (Enclosure 3) and the results of the second in March 1977 (Enclosure 4).

i In both studies the Staff essentially tried to provide definitive guidance as to changes that would require a CP amendment by attempting to define the " principal architectural and engineering criteria" and establishing guidelines to detemine when a proposed change does not fall within these criteria.

Essentially, the 1975 task force proposed a system in which the " design features" of a nuclear power plant i

• i

. _.. _,. _,.. _. _,.. ~, -. _. _ _. _ _ _

- ~ ~

9-The Comissioners

(..

~

would be specified as part 6f the CP. Rather than use the teminology " principal architectural and engineer-ing criteria " the task force proposed to use the con-cept of " design features " which is currently part of the Technical Specifications issued with the OL. The pro-posal was based on the fact that 10 CFR i 50.36 requires each applicant "for a license authorizing operation" to include proposed Technical Specifications in the FSAR.

Among the items required by I 50.36 to be included in i

Technical Specifications are " design features," which are defined as "those features of the facility such as materials of construction and geometric arrangements,

)

which if altered or modified, would have a significant effect on safety....'

In other words, the proposal was to make the " design features" section of the Technical

~

Specifications a binding part of the CP, in the same way that the entire Technical Specifications are made part of an OL.

I In specifying the " design features," principal reliance would be placed on use of the Standard Review Plan, the General Design Criteria, Regulatory Guides, Branch Technical Positions, and industry criteria, codes and

,I standards to the extent necessary. To effect this

• \\

change, the task force also proposed changes to 10 CFR il 50.36, 50.55(e), and 50.35(b)..

' '~

In its 1977 report, the Staff based its primary proposal

~

on the proposition that the term " principal architectural and engineering criteria" is a reference to the General Design Criteria of Appendix A' to 10 CFR Part 50, and has the same meaning as the term " principal design criteria" as used in i 50.34(a)(3)(1); this section, I

states,1,n part, that the General Design Criteria of l

Appendix A " establish minimum requirements for the l

principal design criteria." On this basis, the Staff I

proposed that the " principal architectural and engi-neering criteria" to be described in a CP application i

should be an elaboration or extension of the General Design Criteria.

It concluded that this can be done best by providing a list of principal design criteria (based primarily on the Standard Review Plan, which defines all those elements important to safety) and I

assessing these as a basis for issuance of a CP. To those involved in the study, it appeared that the l

acceptance criteria provided in each of the Standard e

-v---n-sr

.,r,,

--,--e-,------.ce-,-.

, - - +. -

e-.-%--- _ - -. - -.. -.-,,. - -

,,,---,+.,.----....,,,.-,-we,-,

~

l The Comissioners (

1 l

Review Plan sections constituted, in fact, the princi-i 4

pal design criteria for the area of design addressed by that Standard Review Plan section.

Accordingly, it was proposed that the acceptance cri-teria of the Standard Review Plan be utilized to develop a document consisting of a list of the " principal archi-tectural and engineering criteria." Using this approach, those involved in the study anticipated that when all sections of the Standard Review Plan had been included, the entire set of criteria would number in excess of 700. As envisioned, this entire set of criteria, to the extent practical, would be devoid of specific numbers and, in this aspect, would be similar to the General Design Criteria.

It was proposed that the list of

" principal architectural and engineering criteria" would be included in Chapter 1 of the Standard Review Plan, and that the Standard Tomat and Content Guide would be revised to require an applicant to provide in Section 1.2 of the Safety Analysis Report a list of the " principal architectural and engineering criteria" for its facility, based on the guidance provided in the Standard Review Plan.

t, r

In addition to a change in the " principal architectural V

k and engineering criteria." the study group proposed 15 I

other changes, which, in its opinion, would require a CP I

amendment. Of these, 12 items relate to changes in the major features or components of a facility. Proposed guidance was provided to assist in determining when a proposed change would require a CP amendment.

Although both reports were subject to some peer review, no fonnal Staff action was taken because of time pres-i sures, difficulties of definition similar to these of the rule proposed in 1969, and the feeling that the present system was workable.

FERC'S HYDROELECTRIC 1.ICENSING PROCESS Notable in light cf the two studies described is an argument made by some that a CP holder under the present system is bound by almost all of its representations in the PSAR, on the hearing reccrd, and with respect to the principal architectural and engineering criteria, sub-ject only to some de, minimus changes such as the color

.. - - C:9: 2 T f f ? C ""* " '

The Comissioners -

Q..

of a building. Under this argument, changes to the PSAR, for example, may be made only after an amendment to the permit--upon which interested persons have a right to be heard under Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act.

At first glance, this argument appears consistent with the licensing of hydroelectric facilities by the Federal Energy Regulatory Comission (FERC). Under a statute promulgated in 1920 (16 U.S.C. 802), the Federal Power Comission, now FERC, in a one stage review process (like NRC's OL review) requires each applicant for a hydroelectric facility license to submit:

Such maps, plans, specifications, and estimates of cost as may be required for a full understanding of the proposed project. Such maps, plans, and speci-fications when approved by the commission shall be made a part of the license; and thereafter no change shall be made in said maps, plans, or spect-fications until such changes shall have been approved and made a part of such license by the commission....

However, a review of FERC's regulations in 18 CFR Parts 0 to 141 (See also 33 CFR Part 221) shows that an applicant for a hydroelectric facility license has to provide only general information such as a map showing the " principal structures and other important features of the project" (18 CFR 4.41 Exhibit J(1)); or General desion drawines showing plans, elevation, and sections of all orincioal structures and appur-tenant works or other features of the project.

These drawings shall be in sufficient detail and shall be accompanied by sufficient infomation relating to controlling factors (such as character of foundations and explorations thereof, materials and types of construction, important elevations, l

gradation of filter and riprap material, design and ultimate strengths for concrete and steel, stress and/or stability analysis for important structures, water levels, spillway rating curves, etc.) to enable the Comission to have a full understanding of the project and to check safety, adequacy, and desirability in the development of the resources Exhibit L.)(; orEmphasis supplied.) (18 CFR 4.41 involved.

.f 4

o

~

.....l The Comissioners '

General descriptions of mechanical, electrical, and transmission equipment and their appurtanances in sufficient detail to enable the Comission to have a full understanding of the project, to determine the installed capacity in horsepower and kilowatts, and to determine the safety of the project works and their adequacy and suitability for the develop-ment and utilization of the resources involved, also proposed name plate ratings for generators and turbines, and when required by the Comission or l

the Secretary perfonnance data for generators and turbines and general specifications of mechanical, electrical, and transmission equipment.

(Emphasis supplied.) (18 CFR 4.41. Exhibit M.)

Clearly, under FERC's regulations a FERC applicant is bound only by its somewhat general representations, and only with respect to changes to these does it have to seek FERC approval. An informal, oral survey of FERC Staff practice pointed out that a FERC applicant has to l

provide more detail than the regulations seem to indi-i l

cate, but that, nonetheless, a FERC licensee may, with-out prior fonnal FERC approval, make changes to its facility during construction that are not major or do

(

not involve significant design changes and safety con-l siderations. In fact, as a practical matter, FERC's 4

on-the-spot inspectors are usually able to imediately

)

grant or deny a proposed change where approval is needed or requested.

It is clear from a review of the present procedures, the 1969 rulemaking, and the two studies cited that a rule should be considered that would improve the present licensing process, develop specific descriptions of the essential features of a facility (including the quality assurance program) to which the CP holder would be bound l

(whether under the rule, license conditions, or through a Licensing Board decision), and withstand legal attack.

The key problem, then, is to clarify and specify to what informatiori the CP holder should be bound, at what point in the licensing process, under what circumstances, and l

through what means. There is also a need to c.ontrol the way 4n which a CP holder igplements NRC criteria.

I The following five alter' natives range from keeping the present system to adopting a one-step licensing process l

requiring final design details in a PSAR at the CP j

4 stage. Thus, each successive altarnative presents a

" finer mesh" for " straining" details. -

4

(.

4 t

i i

'~ L' :: *'

- : T :~

u--

. = - - - - -.... -

.___~ - -.-

' ~ ~ -

i

.s.

f --

The Commissioners..

Aside from Alternative 1, a composite of the alterna-tives should also be considered. This approach, for,

example, might combine Alternatives 2 and 5 or 3 and 5 in the type of one-step licensing procedure suggested in the Rogovin Report; provide for issu-ance of an OL upon a finding by the Staff that the facility has been constructed in accordance with the SAR; recognize that new safety concerns may arise after CP issuance and provide for amendment of the CP for this purpose; and provide a future effective date for the changed licensing procedure as well as provisions for retrofitting present applications and cps.

b.

i i

)

1.

s l

r 1-I

~

t

,l,,

_ _,..,... ~., _..

81002 Proposed Rules

'sa-ai = * -

u no..se Thursday, December St.1980.

The aschon et the FEDERAL. REGISTER

Background

the type of staff response to be made.

J eoneens nosass e se pec et sw De Atomic Energy Act of1954, as CP holders have informed NRC of g

,, g,,,,,,,,

amended, and the regulations of the daign changa from b pSAR h o to gne memessed pusons an Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) various ways: transmittal of letters and apportney a persopses h se nds provide a framework forissuance of pSAR amendments, submittal of matung pnar to the adopson of the anal construction permits (cps) for nuclear informal drafts and oral ndess power plants, but do not deBae communications, and delay of precisely the commitment to which a notificition natil submittel of the FSAR.

permittee is legally bound when the ne NRC staffs responses to NUCLEAR REGULATORY NRCgrants it a CP. As a result, there notifications of such changes have most COMMISSION are conAicting opinions concerning the commonly been to defer detailed review e,

requirements associated with a CP, until the OL application is reviewed.

g te CPR Part ge particularly with regard to whether a However, where the staff has ~

g m'ng W Producson and permittee is bound by representations considered a proposed design change t

Uunssum Facmues Dnign ud Outw made in its application, including the significant and judged that the matter

/

M Preliminary Safety Analysis Report must be resolved before construction l

"*',**'"*"g*"'*

(pSAR), and on the bea'ing reconi.

proceeds too far,it has undertaken

]

r g,

Construceon PermN Because of this, for many years the NRC detailed reviews. In some cases, safety i

staff has been faced with the problem of evaluations or letters to CP holders have maasscv:UA NuclearRegulatory not having clear guidelines for regulating been written stating the staffs views r% = =taa h changes in facility design, or in the' about the proposed change.

acreest Advance notice of proposed Permittee's procedums and staffing.

ne' existing process has led to three 7_-~tw between the time a CP is issued and a major problems. First, bre is no clear 4

Final Safety An'alysis Report (FSAR) is basis upon which the Office of Nuclear sunsanamy.ne UA Nuclear Regulatory filed by the permittee as part ofits Reactor Regulation (NRR) can assess f

Connaission is considering amending its OperatingUcense (OL) application.

definitely whether che e la facili regulations to define more clearly the nerefore, the staffs actions and 1

design, permittee e, or et l

Ilmitations on a construction permit practices (as well as those of holders of after issuance of a CP requim a formal holder to make changes in a facility

. cps) in this matter have developed on a CP amendment; second, there is no clear i

during construction.nis advance notice case-by. case basis over the years.

basis on which the OfDee ofInspection of rulemaking is being ne problem arises because the and Enforcement (IE) can enforce i

pu lie toinvite comments. -

applicant is not required to supply suggestions, or recommendations on the laitially all of the technicalinformation requirements in a CP; and third, the oontent of the proposed amendment.

required to complete the application and present

, sinu it provides no l

There wiB also be opportunity later for support the issuance of a CP which Q'd bod b chuga CP p

approws au proposed design fes

,,,,y,,g,,,,,,,,,3,,,,,,,,,

i -

cdditional public ca== ant on the proposed rule,if any, that may be so long as the Commission is able.tures' htiguts bbr bn apphants)in CP to

' dmloped by the Commission.

make the requisite findings under hearings to litigate many details of the mates:Comunents must be received by Sectim 50.35(a) of to CFR Part 30.

application in order to bind applicants.

A' noted in a 1970 rule change with An attempt to resg,ve some o, g, F2 s, test. Comments receind s

cft 1,1981, wul be respect to Section 50.35 (35 FR 5317, problems was made by the Atomic n

consideredYtt is practical to do so, but *Backfittm' g of production and Energy Commission in a mie proped Utilization Facilities; Construction in 1980 (34 FR 8540, April le,19ee) that resurance of consideration cannot be. -

Permits and Opwating Ucenas," March wald han a ded, among othw Engs, (von except as to comments filed on or 31,1970), one reason for not having a new section defining the " principal fore February 1* seet~

'~~I'**""**"I*'

' defined precisely an applicant's CP architectural and engineering criteria "

stions, or recommend one should. commitments'wse an awareness that

. departure from which would have "the rapidly expanding technology in the requimd a CP amendment.,

'*'I

. Conunission, UA Nuclear Regulatory -

fleid of atomic energy means that new Most commenters on the proposed Can nissim. Washingte. E aosss

.. or improved features or designs that rule criticized the definition for being so me enhance the safety ofproductica broad and so all. inclusive as to lead to Attention: Docketing and Serviose

...,,,[utilisation facilities are continually the conclusion that the proposed rule Branck Copies of cannets aceived may be e===tand at the NRC Public

' being denloped."His echoed the would make it mandatory that the et 1717 H 8treet, N.W.

Supreme Court's decirlogin Arwer design of the facility, as web as the

• • I'8' g

JtecciorDevelopment Co. v. Mecir/ col quality aesurance program, should be i

Un/or6 att UA see (1981).nus, the essentially complete and not subject to PON puRNER BsPOAssaTION 00erraCT:

judgment was made that a permittee -

change et the CP stage, unless an Warwn Minners,OfBoe of Nuclear should only be bound by the principal applicant were willing to continuaDy Reactor Regulation,UA Nuclear

' architectural and engineering criteria."

propose changes.and amendments to its Regula tory 8%== lesion, Washington, -

ne present system provides no CP(thereby undergoing frequent and D.C.aosas, phone:act/ des-7 set.

guldence regarding notification of design time. consuming scrutiny by the NRC,-

supptaserramy seroansavnest changes made afterlesuance of a CP or staff).

~

c

~

.~

o.

Federal Register / Val. 45. N3. 340 / Rursday. December 11. teso / Proposed Rul:s,

33g03 h pressulgeting the Anal rule (as FR leeling that the present system was details and equipment performance 5317. Mard 31. ters). te Atomic Energy workable, specifications be provided in the pSAR Coeunneslon deleted the proposed so that the safety anal assentially a Baal one.ysis can beUpo Commlades hhab dehnition saying that it sequhod further study It is clear from a review of the present app'roval, the he t safety-related Sinom two shNehees wm procedures the 1ses rulemaklog. and the elements of the ign would be made made in seder to deady wbd a two studies cited, that a rule abould be senditions of the @ and sould not be hdder da CP andcoddmM considered that would improve Ibe changed without prior Commiseloner l

change to vide a regulation that present boenslag process and develop approval. Staff nylew at the OL stage would be ble and toinstitute a specific desalptions of the essential would then be primadly a matter of new mode of doing bat-that weiuld Seatms of a facility (includag the that the "as built" plant not came a prohfarenos of G guality assurance program and other conf to the CP stage safety

]

a dme a fo' procedures and stafnns requirements) to analysis which the CP holder would be bound g,

(whether under the rule, bcense De Commission tantatively prefers g,7, g g, g, g koplementation of Alternative 3 with a secon la Maid sm'In bo stu&es decisi n e

problem.

la baseIon & con the staff tried to provide deSaltin guidance as to changes that would

. clarify and spedfy to what information alternatives 2,3. or 4 could be i=pAa d b G holder should be bound.lat what knmediately. Alternatives 2 and 3 could hat

$n p

d fine an throughwhat ahe old of construct on ta to and engineering ceiterta"and means.nere is also e need to control establishing guidelines to determine the wa in which a D bolder ~

develo# a list and description of the when a roposed change would not fall im lements NRC criteria.

wieln m cdt Altern ves a be slmaking

. wn!

applied practicably only to new Cps.

ne first study proposed to make the address the objectives of a

"Drsign Features"section of the regulation, the alternative means of Commenu. suggestions, or Technical Spedfications a bindag part accomplishing the objective. and the recommendations'on a proposed rule i

of the CP in the same way that the advantages and disadvantages of and eat wodd cladfy he bounds on a l

entire Technical Gpeci$ cations are made alternative.He areas to be addmsed construction permit holder during the part of an OLIn spedfying the" Design would include:(1) alternative course of construction are invited from pratures." prindpal reliance would be descriptions of the essential features of all interested persons. Comments which 4.

]

placed on use of the Standard Review the design, procedures, and staffing of a discuss advantages or disadvantages.

plan, the GeneralDesign Critaria, facility to which a CP holder would be including cost or hqplementation 1

Regulatory Guides. Branch Technical bound. (2) specification of which schedules and the extent to which j

positions, and industry setteria, codes, changes would require no action, which such rule abould be aP]dlied to and standards to the extent necessary.

would require notification, and which

• • "'trucuan th In the second study.16e stag would require prior approval, and (3) the partiedady u I

pro sed that the term "principe]

form of requirement, whether through

.Deted at Washington. D.C. tido Sth day of 1

tectural and enginesdag critarla=

rule. Boense condition. Ucensing Board December, tema are reference the General Design Criteria of deciolon,or CP amendment.

For the Nuclear Regulatory t'a==I==len.

1 App.n,h A to 30 CIR Part so and have ne following Bye alternatius have samuelI.OE.

the same meaning as the term principal been suggestea:'

Secretary ofthe Commiselos.

design critada"as used in

1. Maintain the status

' yson s.annoru.ns-m aas W G 80.34(a)(3)'.).De study that 8 UF*

on 5 50.55(e of to GR saums come russ45.m the acceptas. x altaria ed in eacle Part 80(dea. with notifications of at the Stani:rd Review plan sections signmcant deBelencies ha safety a

constituted, kn feet, the prindpal design significance) and I 50.59 (das with criteria and should be used to develop ~a changes to previously appened designs document consisting of a het of the having safety significance), adopt a rule pdadpal ardikctural and engineadng that establishes general attede for criteria." he stuly also proposed determining circumstances requiring fifteen other danges that would regulis notification and G amendment.

a CP amendment. Of these, twelve items

3. Adopt a rule denning Trincipal,

related to changes in the major features

• '"'*I ""O ""8I"'I"8 'dd*

or components of a facility. proposed (in effect teviving the 1989 rulemaking guidance was vided to soslet in en this subject). using information detennining w a proposed change" Adot e that all detaus of the would require a D==-aA==at.

Altimugh both reports were subject to. application, including the pSAR.be made conditions of the & and may not some peer review, so foresal action was 1aken because of timepressures.

be chanaed wl,thout prior h==la=I-app,,,,1, difficulties of deSaltion similar to those

5. Restructure 'tbe Beanslag process to of the sule proposedlotsen and na

,equire that suffident plant desips

'nene==mme abusedt.d enhemsPeser enses ekseneuves are emre sucv-w*, a ime ** m.v.a.ue u

re.s, i. saev.-,*

r, a sons -

Am h'P' Feen h to 0%) Pubik Dummsel erkke a eveGeble for hepecean ento Raum c a a epiensDeammmetteam.

b 9

g e-r---

-v-+-ww----

r-

- - - = ' * "

r (4) Negotiations are underway with various governmental and private agencies for information on proposed criteria.

In addition, letters have been sent to several hundred individuals announcing the project and requesting their contributions.

(5) To assure that the criteria receive rigorous peer review, negotiations are undemay with the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Statistical Association.

The current accomplishments include completion of NUREG/CR-1614,37s NUREG/

CR-1539,878 NUREG/CR-1930,877 NUREG/CR-1916,37a and NUREG/CR-2040.s7e The cur-rent status is such that PNL, ORNL, BNL, ANL, IEEE, NRC (Office of Policy Evaluation), and the ACRS are completing various elements of the overall pro-gram. These activities will develop and exhibit approaches with which to better factor risk evaluation into NRC decision-making regarding reactor plant safety.

This issue does not appear to have a direct effect on pubite risk reduction or to have any industry cost directly associated with its resolution. Therefore, it is a licensing issue.

CONCLUSION The ites is a Licensing Issue.

1 ITEM IV.E.3: PLAN FOR RESOLVING ISSUES AT THE CP STAGE DESCRIPTION According to NUREG-0660,4s NRR and ELD transmitted a consent calendar ites to

)E i

the Consission on February 14, 1980, entitled " Response to Staff Requirements j

Memorandum (Affirmation Session 79-40) With Respect to Post-CP Design and Other 1

Changes," SECY-80-90. This paper discussed five options regarding the estab-1 lishment of construction requirements. The recommendation of this consent l

paper is to publish an advance notice of pubife rulemaking to obtain comments on these options. After receipt of public comment on the above, the staff will prepare a plan to implement methods to resolve as many issues as possible at i

'i the construction permit stage before major financial commitments in construc-tion occur.

An advanced notice of rulemaking was published in the Federal Register in i

Decemoer 1980 with a public comment period ending on February 9, 1981. On August 18, 1981, the Director of the Division of Risk Analysis sent a meno to distribution proposing an approach to the Rule and requested examples of the types of characteristic alterations representing post-CP changes. The draft of the Rule is currently being reviewed.

i In view of the intent of this ites, it is concluded that its resolution does l

not have a direct effect on public risk reduction and is, therefore, considered to be a licensing issue.

CONCLUSION

- so,.t.on o,t,,s <,cens,ng Iss.e,s.v.,1.ble.

t 3/31/83 4.IV.E-2 NUREG-0933

g.

Assessment of the level of compliance by NRC staff with procedures and guidance.

With regard to withdrawal of the ANPR, the staff has already prepared a draft Commission paper, draft Federal Register withdrawal notice, draft Congressional letter, and draft public announcement.

Because it would maintain the status quo, the withdrawal need not be supported by a paper-work reduction statement, regulatory flexibility statement, or regulatory analysis.

Based on these factors, the preliminary judgment of the staff is that the NRC staff has complied with procedures and guidelines approved and recom-q mended for NRC staff use at this preliminary stage of rulemaking.

i D

i I

I

h.

Supplemental documentation.

1.

Draft Task Control Fom 2.

Draft WIT 5 update 3.

Draft standard memorandum to EDO e

9

+m.m

--- =----- - - ~ = - - + - - --~- - -

h4l*'* **

v an av..

us. nuCLam eeouLATO.T ca 0,,

TASK CONTROL RA 223-/

OffeCe Of Nuclear Reguistory Rossere

( O.o.Ne.7,0 ciovima

'""'"*' To.m e s c. M a Lavo DEC68#0se vestT/ PLANNED ACCour. esO R - 39 t +

T1SE TITLE (180 Cherarerst imcause CP A ces, A. G. he., sia Ae, mas D6SIG A AND OTH6tt. CHAN&dS IN AbcL6AR f%wtg PA.AN f I'hctLt Tots AffdR I$$UANCd of CeHSTRucTion/ PdR M s T TJ.SK SCOPE fedo Cherererst pro PoSdO AMEMDMGMT of to CFR PART s'o THAT woutp M And rMd 1%ccounc6 fo R FACWe TY LLC 6N$fN G Mogg PR6 DlC TA BLi OY (!) D6ftNING MOR6 C.L6AMLY 7ted LIMs 7A 700HS OM WHAT (HAN663 A C f HOLD 6R NAY M A K 6 fo A l p c g g g ry e

p utzt d G CAMS r Av cts o d AMD O-) Ce nTROLL1 N G THg WAYS A COMS TR u c rt o Al M hn n 4' HOLD &R IMPLEM 6M'TS AIRC C R s TfRI A s TAnn ACTeon rCn-e onw l1%ITIAf t NEve T ASE

% SCHEDULt OUT 08 HOLD l l SCMEDULE AFTER PUSLic COMMENT Ptmsoo Att APPROVALS lDATE TAsa Lt404R DATE TECHNIC 4L EDITING SECTION LEADEM IN esbfenor asm e ernsvewest Y'"by M

• • b

,7.

O-.--.--

.T. C.M A k A RO N. L. iRH$ 'f USER OFFICE APPROVALS fAleer Tast eersease Oe5#

OP PICE/DIVIS40N APPROVAL DATE COGN11 ANT 18dDfv100AL (Chare apuntament NAR:

^1==

OTMtR (Spee47 COMMENTS TH6 600 SAs aernov60 PJGi.i Ca rt e N s u TH G F 8 D f tt A L R.6 Gis 7d A A NOTI cG of WI THDR ALNAL of A NPR Po b L ISil'O D S ' ' #) ' ' E #

( V f FR. #l6o2.).

Pvos.iCArson/ of Alo7 s c.6 e tc w:Tw onewai 6.s r/Marso je2. S6f r. /9 3 9, I

L O

CI21s10 6 H H f. L 6 a as # l G tl L a T.* O Y CHh 't ! 3 S I es n PaGf,8 2

8 Gtata CS eO p5/32/30 e es e a ITEe ayaCaI*G 3faTEe erufLEso steLTod NEStateCM sspfleds In e+ pea If tas ass. t rge'S CLisSED ( tv paf S af t Cli DIwG Guti/wwl TICet ts.CodeLEf tD IILHS o*ITIgv3

. sy PnInstry, assIG=EE, ! ten 815!GNEE: ats eseessessessesesseossessesseessesseessessessasseesseessnessasseessenesessessenessessessessesseesse ssessessee....s...sesseeeeeesses e

PalpvITY: gai tirrgtte ggs q

5 ',,

.d--

ITEse 8'03 dl43e5 Civsf a C Ti "'d arCY '80

• Enn.wEra Tasa nast3s ste395 08836 ef TYPE: PNI reiwd put s e5/i:e/ne enow pays op ptwa e

CuMR Dut J5/se/4e CuMR DaVSI

• 2 REY:

1 eufG put: 's5/de/me eiwis. teavhe e2 Gan/ntar e

DRIG 09t a5/se/ne outs parse e2

"* p T 't ettvns e

Cur'PL sIals T Ce t"SL I e

Ell s 483:

SNMI t

sCSC: saen fis aS$fst fpf 3'le Ctheil ffE ' af HCaRit'G5 ft'8

• SaSIS: LIN '8 f. P e JaaES H. SCMEutR TO Challtaa% PaLLanther, f

5/3 T/Me & 6/5/me sees H.W. 4882, THE "elist a

e/23/44 t'iSt.93*Eter WF3ra*CH ann prn:W9TRAT!ng aC T f'P 1981' e

seas t al L TR #f P. JartES H. SCHEllER fit CHaIRr8a's PallaDINn, 4/23/8e 4T a f tI3:

f

. !TEr. estic min 3: s

• Cor. TACT's p5RY 8ECf niin asesis e Enn.eEF: Tasm 840138 000042 UNIS SY CD##

TYPEI fuwn onE 7/ns/ne Cnnu paYa ese op.v p2 e

Cu== ni E eT/s:/se CuwR Cars:

een pEve 23 askfG IHats al/3a/m3 spw!G pays:

345e Gan/ntas e

uqIG OuEs et/3efes pas!G Oaves.I55e

.artif u r ce/32/4e eLCyns e

CU"PL afaP1 CH"PL e

[DO NO:

SNM:

..L RC : +1111Gt CHape.f 5 pep *e!TTED plialwG CepestkCTIen RY C :

a 814313: 3ELY MEpis TO EDO & 06C 12 13 79 PEF a.7924 "STkHCT!Ilh PE#a83 T N'1L DE R. ('i4R.40eRI.

ANO $ECT MEMO IQ EhD 12*S.99 R[, g$.sg$

e aasts:

StCY pe rise in Epsi E elCC 12 83 79 NtF a.?ste ant' SE(,9 WLNa 70 E00 12 6.s0 NE 88 465 kkN THE nEDo flM ANAoWD fal6LKMnIG, A soot:C6 of ws THD/tAwAs, onC ANPR.

e.e/en/Per THIS 1950t sunute RE #f StiLVED R' inS INITlaL #EVIEW f'r Deb 0thG ROLEMaltING SY T/1/e4

.3/as/nse et s stui.E4TEs* qv utsen nn 3 32.Be To perpast PENn in tilNN f RPLattaths ACTION.

.it/38/4e eent t t Toneswp RE"0VE FN.pt TRaCWTHG SYSTEw st/I /n4: Glethauct' PeteWIDED tidal.LY 1:t Rt3 97 DEDe0GR.

32/29/8'3 Pk pspIt G styIE. nv pEnone.e 82/05/43: atw e */28 /43, MInf ect F fn niittnS, It'ENTIFTER TASW an a CANnIDaTE FUN ELIMIPsaI!O8g FNOM bh60!NG Ru(E.

e

=aeEI.G

.'9/12/e3: GILLF5815, ackmanER, IS Pulp 8tITIF!nG TASW !. Ents'SutvlEle (#' um(tlING NMC fl01.EMANIstG j

.apo3/n): dLMu T//s/mle F80t3T Til git.t ESPIt, RECnet EmnEn TER:11paTitpe nECaust OF Ih8uPFICIEssi PufENT!al SAFETY SIS'lIFICapCE s/25/e3: TCF =rlaes PREPAREn its WEanvf Tasu Fusies 41.1 TeactittiG System 8 a

vie /a6/d3: DEt avin part Tse HIGNER PsIne!TY ITFass.

t O

JUN 7 gg4 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Themis P. Speis. Director Division of Safety Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:

Robert M. Bernero, Director Division of Risk Analysis and Operations Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research J

SUBJECT:

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS TO EDO CONCERNING WHETHER AND HOW TO CONTINUE WITH ONGOING RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY RES i

Enclosed for your consideration are draft recommendations supported by a draft office review concerning whether and how to continue with an ongoing rulemaking sponsored by RES for which your office is identified as the user office.

This memorandum constitutes my concurrence in the enclosed draft recommendations.

I plan to dispatch this memorandum with the enclosed draft recommendations to the Director, RES, two weeks from the above date.

Please acknowledge receipt by returning this memorandum with or without comments on the draft recommendations as indicated below.

't 3cNy/5/

Robert M. Bernero, Director l

Division of Risk Analysis and Operations Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

As stated 4

(Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities After Issuance of Construction Permit) i 8

~

,,,, - - - ~, - _ -, - - - - - -,.

-.,.---,---,----------.----------------------_nv-,------,ww--

%=

JUN 7 1984 Receipt acknowledged. No Consnent.

Receipt acknowledged. Comments as follows:

1 (No response received as of June 28,1984)

Themis P. Speis, Director Division of Safety Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

l l

RhbRB RAMRB:DRA0 g DRAO:RES 0:RES Helry Mala,ro rna,ro

,.n su.,.

S, a

,gy 3

1 1

By memorandum dated July 8,1982, the staff circulated a draft i

proposed rule buc could not reach a consensus on the text of post-CP rule.

On September 21, 1983, the Director, RES, identified the task as a candidate for elimination from ongoing rulemaking because of'insuf-ficient potential safety significance.

4 Oral guidance to RES from DEDROGR in January 1984 agreed tnat the rule should be withdrawn.

3.

Alternatives to rulemaking.

The ANPR of December 11, 1980, listed five alternatives:

"1.

Maintain in the status quo.

{

2.

Borrowing from 10 CFR $$ 50.55(e) (dealing with notifications of significant deficiencies having safety significance) and 50.59 (dealing 4

with changes to previously approved designs j

having safety significance), adopt a rule that establishes general criteria for determining circumstances requiring a CP amendment.

3.

Adopt a rule defining " principal architectural i

and engineering criteria" (in effect reviving the 1969 rulemaking on this subject) using information learned to date, including the 1975 and 1977 Staff studies.

[

4.

Adopt a rule that all details of the application, including the PSAR, be made condi-tions of the CP and may not be changed without prior Commission approval.

a 5.

Restructure the licensing process to require that complete plant design details be provided in the PSAR (i.e., essentially a final design),

which, upon review and approval, would be made conditions of the CP and could not be changed without prior Commission approval."

4 4

h

For reasons set forth below, the staff's preliminary judgment is that Alternative 1 (Maintain the status quo) should be the way to proceed with the issue.

'i 4.

How the issue will be addressed through rulemaking.

The Commission has made several recent improvements in its regulations and licensing procedures for nuclear power reactors in the post-CP stage:

u Under 10 CFR 50.34(f), each application pending on February 16, 1982, must meet a set of requirements stemming from the Three Mile Island action plan in order to obtain construction permit (47 FR 4497).

Under 10 CFR 50.34(g), each application for OL for the "as-built"

' ~

faci.11ty must identify, evaluate differences from acceptance criteria in the Standard Review Plan, and demonstrate how any proposed alter-native complies with NRC regulations (47 FR 15569).

New 10 CFR 50.55(f) requires each CP holder making a change to a 4

previously accepted quality assurance program to submit to NRC documentation and the basis for concluding that the revised program continues to meet QA criteria and commitments (48 FR 1026).

By generic letter dated October 31, 1981, CP holders were informed that they must meet TMI-related requirements applicable to 0L appli-cants in NUREG-0737.

A proposal to codify the TMI-related provi-sions in NUREG-0737 was withdrawn on the basis that utilities and the NRC need flexibility to meet those provisions (48 FR 13987).

't When the Commission adopted the interim final rule 10 CFR 50.92 to specify standards for determining whether amendnents involve no significant hazards consideration, the Commission stated:

l "Since the Commission rarely issues amendments to construction permits and has never issued a construction permit amendment I

i 1

~-

--n

, -.. - -.- - + - --.

involving a significant hazards consideration, it has decided not to apply these standards to amendments to construction permits and to handle these case-by-case." (48 FR 14864).

5.

How the public, industry, and NRC will be affected as a result of rulemaking, including benefits and costs, occupational exposure, and resources.

The preliminary. judgment of the staff is that the public and industry will not be affected as a result of rulemaking.

This judgment is based on the current caseload-no applications are under ccnstruction permit review and all four nuclear power plant units with operating license not yet applied for (post-CP stage) have been postponed indefinitely.

The preliminary judgment of the staff is that NRC would be affected as a result of rulemaking because the NRC would expend resources for 1

resolution of a Licensing Issue that does not have a direct effect on public risk reduction (see sec. f, item 2).

6.

NRC resources and scheduling for the rulemaking.

I The NRC resources expended from 1979 through 1983 to publish the j

December 11, 1980, advance notice of proposed rulemaking and to respond to 24 letters of comment are sunk costs.

i Because the NRC did publish an ANPR, the NRC has an obligation to the public to close out the rulemaking proceeding by a notice published in the Federal Register.

1 To proceed with this rulemaking under Alternative 1, Maintain status quo, at minimum expenditure of resources, the staff should take final action on the subject rulemaking no later than publication of the NRC Regulatory Agenda, NUREG-0936, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Quarterly Report July - September 1984).

j

~-

The schedule for the Director, RES, to make recommendations to the EDO for initial review of this ongoing rulemaking by May 21, 1984.

This date will slip because of a requirement that the user office (NRR) be allowed two weeks to consider the recommendations the Director, RES, will make to the EDO.

In addition, RES will have to conduct an independent review of this ongoing rulemaking.

Procedures for RES independent review include 20 working days from time of receipt of a rulemaking to the date when the Director, RES, makes independent recommendations to the EDO.

If NRC staff arrives at a consensus to proceed under Alterna-l tive 1, Maintain status quo, RES staff could complete the indepen-dent review in about 30 staff hours during the 20-working day review period.

The preliminary judgment of the staff is that the rulemaking should be closed out by publication of a notice in the Federal Register withdrawing the ANPR of December 11, 1980. On the assumption that the staff can reach a consensus on grounds for withdrawal of the ANPR, the staff estimates that (on a decade basis) development, review, approval, and publication of the withdrawal notice will require about 100 staff-hours.

At $60 per staff-hour (to cover support services and professional services), the estimated cost is

$6000.

The staff-hours would be expended during the calendar quarter following approval in June 1984 to close out the rulemaking proceeding.

--e-

===.~

--.-,.~.w--.mwe,__

-... - = =

~, -

--e

f.

Copies of underlying documents.

Item 1.

SECY-80-90 Item 2.

45 FR 81602 Item 3.

NUREG-0933, p. 4.IV.E-2 i

i

~ -.. -.

N

)

g UNITED sTATIs SECY-20-90 rebruary 14, 1980

. NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION q

' ' - " ~ ~

• l'

'\\

WAsHINGTCN, D. c. 20555 CONSENT cal.ENDAR ITEM For:

Ine c.wnissioners m

From:

Howard C'Shapar Executg Legal Director f um Harold R. Denton,Ofrector Office ofJ.uclear Reactor Re l ation Thr*J:

William J. Dircks hv. p, %

Acting Executive Director fom0peratiens

Subject:

RESP _0!!SE.IO..SIAFE REQUIREME^tT3' MEMORAfIDUM (AF.:IR?ATION SESSION. 79-40) WITH RESPECT TO POST-CP OESIGN A110 0 HER CH4tlGES Purcose:

To submit (as requested by the Staff Requirements Memo-randum of December 13,1979) a Staff proposal which can serve as a basis for Commissien action to clarify "what design and other changes the holder of a c:nstruction pemit may mak'e during the course of construction with-out (a) notifying the ftRC; (b) securing prior approval of the Staff; and/or (c) obtaining a construction permit amendment."

j, Cateoory:

This paper covers a major policy question.

Issue:

How may the Comission clarify the design and other changes a CP holder may make withcut notifying NRC,

' securing prior Staff approval, or obtaining a CP amendment?

Decision _

Crt:eria:

1.

The alternative chosen should not diminish crotec-tion of health and safety or result in undue Staff effort in its implementation.

2.

The altarnative chosen should not result in undue controversy, including litigation, over the basis of the choice and the' meaning of the terr.s.

3.

The alternative chosen should provide an efficient, stable, and, yet, flaxible licensing process.

Alternatives:

1.

Maintain the status quo.

2.

Borr: wing frem 10 CFR H 50.55(e) (dealing with notifications of significaitt deficiencies having safety

. < ~."

Contact:

T. Dorian, X. 28690 D. Vassallo, X. 27595

~. _ _

[

The Comissioners significance) and 50.59 (dealing with changes to pre-viously approved designs having safety significance),

.idopt a rule that establishes general criteria for deter-mining circumstances requiring a CP amendment.

3.

Adopt a rule defining " principal architectural and engineering criteria" (in effect reviving the 1969 rulemaking on this subject) using information learned to date, including the 1975 and 1977 Staff studies.

4.

Adopt a rule that all details of the application, including the PSAR, be made conditions of the CP and may not be changed without prior Comission approval.

5.

Restructure the licensing process to require that complete plant design details be provided in the PSAR (i.e., essentially a final design), which, upon review and approval, would be made conditions of the CP and could not be changed without prior Comission approval.

Discussion:

The subject Staff Requirements Memorandum grew out of the Comission's December 12, 1979, decision in the Bailly short pilings mattar (Northern Indiana Public Service Comoany, (Bailly Generating 5tacion, t4uclear-1),

i NRC (1979).

In that memorandum, the Comission stated that it "is concerned that at present, it is -

unclear precisely what design and other changes the course of construction without (a)y make during thenotifying the NRC holder of a construction pemit ma (b) securing prior approval of the Staff; and/ or (c) obtaining a construction pemit amendment."

The Comission requested " preparation of a Staff pro-posal by January 30, 1980, which can serve as a basis for Comission action to clarify these issues."

1 The following Staff proposal is divided into five se:-

tions. The first describes how the present system works; the second section explains the 1969 rulemaking; the j

third summarizes two Staff task force reports; the fourth discusses briefly the Federal Energy Regulatory Comis-sion's (FERC) licensing process with respect to hydro-electric facilities; and the fifth section presents the alternatives in light of the background in the previous four sections.

STATUS 000 The Atomic Energy Act and NRC's regulations provide a framework for issuance of constnJction permits (cps) but i

l l

as.emm e emmae

, _ 7

The Comissioners 3-N..

do not define precisely the commitnent to which an appli-cant is legally bound when NRC grants it a CP for a nuclear power plant. As a result, there have been and are conflicting opinions about the requirements asso-ciated with a CP, particularly with regard to whether a pemittee is bound by representations made in its appli-cation, including the PSAR, and on the hearing record.

Because of this, for many years the Staff has been faced with the problem of not having any actual and objective way to regulate facility design changes between the time a CP is issued and a Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) is filed with an operating license (OL) application.

Therefore, the Staff's actions and practices (as well as those of holders of cps) in this matter have developed ad-hoc over the years.

The problem arises because the Commission does not require an app 1tcant to supply initially all of the technical information required to complete the appif ca-tion and support the issuance of a CP which approves all p'roposed design features, so long as the Cc=nission is able to make the requisite findings under i 50.35(a).

N This problem is mirrored in i 50.35(b), which states:

1.

A construction pemit will constitute an authoriza-tion to the applicant to proceed with construction but will not constitute Comission approval of the safety of any design feature or specification unless the applicant specifically requests such approval and such approval is incorporated in the permit. The applicant, at his option, may request such approvals in the construction permit or, from time to time, by amendment of his construction permi t.

The Commission may, in its discretion.

incorporate in any construction pemit provisions requiring the applicant to furnish periodic reports of the progress and results of research and develop-ment girograms designed to resolve safety questions.

Historically, one reason for not having defined precisely an applicant's CP commitments, noted in a 1970 rule change with respect to i 50.35 (35 Federal Register 5317 "Backfitting of Production and Utilization Facilities; Construction Permits and Operating Licenses," '4 arch 31, 1970), was an awareness that "the rapidly expanding technology in the field of atomic energy means that new a

or improved features or designs that may enhance the safety of production and utilization facilities are continually being developed." This echoed the Supreme

/,..

s

~-

......~,-,.-.J.-

-m.,

The Commissioners '

Court's decision in Power Reactor Develooment Co. v.

Electrical Union, 362 U.S. 396 (1961), where the Court recognized that (362 U.S. at 408), "[N]uclear reactors are fast-developing and fast-changing. What is up to date now may not, probably will not, be as acceptable tomorrow. Problems which seem insuperable now may be solved tanorrow, perhaps in the very process of construc-tion itself."

This recognition underlined the Court's sustaining of the tentative nature of the safety finding required as a precondition of a CP, as opposed to the more definite finding required for an OL. Thus, the complexity of facilities, the time required for construction, and the continuously changing state of the art have supported the judgment that an applicant is bound only by the

" principal architectural and engineering criteria."

h CP holders have informed NRC in various ways of design changes from the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR): from transmittal of formal letters and PSAR amendments, to submittal of informal drafts and oral communications, to delay of notification until submittal of the FSAR. The Staff's responses to notifications of such changes have run the gamut from preparation of a i

written safety evaluation to ack,nowledgement of the

~

change and notification that the matter would be reviewed at the OL stage. The present system has no formal--or for that matter even informal--written guidance about the requirement for. notification or the type of Staff response to be made. Most commonly,' the Staff, after whatever initial review is deemed warranted, has taken the position that proposed design changes will be handled in the FSAR and reviewed in detail at the OL stage; this is consistent with the two-stage licensing process, allowing permit holders to make changes at their own risk, but inconsistent with a license to i

construct a facility of known characteristics. However, where the Staff has considered a proposed design change significant and judged that the matter must be resolved before construction proceeds too far, it has undertaken detailed reviews.

In some cases, it has followed its reviews with formal letters to CP holders stating the Staff's views about the proposed change.

b l

The Cor:nissioners g C'

The existing process has led to three major problems.

First, there is no clear basis upon which NRR can assess definitively whether post-CP facility changes require a femal CP amendment. Second, there is no clear basis on 4

which IE can enforce requirements in a CP. Third, the present process is unfair to litigants (other than applicants) in CP hearings, because it prompts them to litigate every detail in order to bind applicants and provides no ground rules about the changes CP holders may make (in fact allowing the Staff and pemittees to make numerous changes after a CP hearing outside the purview of litigants). These problems are reflected in part in the Kemeny Comission's recommendation that

"[1]icensing procedures should foster early and meaning-ful resolution of safety issues before major financial comitments in construction can occur," and that "[i]n order to ensure that safety receives primary emphasis in licensing, and to eliminate repetitive consideration of some issues in that process... [t]he agency should be authorized to conduct a combined construction permit and operating license hearing whenever plans can be made

~

sufficiently complete at the construction pennit stage."

(Report of the President's Ccmission on the Accident at 1

Three Mile Island, October 30, 1979, Recomendation 10c on " Agency Procedures" at p. 65.)

These problems, and others, are also reflected in the Rogovin Report's recommendation that the Comission overhaul the licensing process, institute one-stage licensing and increa.se standardization.

(Three Mile Island--A Report to the Comissioners and the Public, January 1980, Volume I at pp. 128-142 and Volume II, Part I at pp. 0041-0042.)

1969 rut.EMAXING It is evident that the view within the Staff has been that a CP binds the holder only to the principal architectural and engineering criteria for the design of the facility and to any additional conditions soecifically set forth in the CP; yet, the exact boundaries of the tenn "princi-pal architectural and engineering criteria" have never been fonnulated by the Comission; nor can these be detennined by reading the pSAR or the Staff's SER. The customary PSAR section setting forth the " principal

~

~

I l

\\

l The Comissioners !

1 criteria" is very general. The rest of the PSAR contains 1

a great deal of information from which it would be exceedingly difficult to try to extract the " principal j

cri teria." The SER does not identify the principal criteria. An attempt to resolve this problem was made by the Comission in a rule proposed in 1969 (34 Federal Register 6540, April 16,1969) that would have required, among other things, specification of what constitutes the " principal architectural and engineering critaria,"

departure from which would require a CP amendment. The proposed rule, "Backfitting of Production and Utilization Facilities; Construction Permits and Operating 1.icenses,"

was intended to "(1) define more precisely the signifi-cance of the issuance of a construction pemit for a facility, (2) simplify and expedite the Comission's facility licensing process by eliminating the provisional operating license, and (3) clarify the Commission's position with respect to requirements for additional safety features after the issuance of a construction pe mi t. "

In the proposed rule the Comission statef that:

(-

The proposed amendment would provide... that in issuing a construction pemit, the Commission would be approving the construction of the facility in accordance with the application, including the principal architectural and engineering criteria.

(Such approval would, of course, apply only to the extent that a particular matter had been treated in the application, and would not extend to items or details not covered in the application.) The proposed amendir.ent would permit the construction permit holder to depart from provisions of the application other than the principal architectural and engineering criteria in the construction of the facility, subject to the risk of subsequent dis-approval by the Comission (unless prior approval is requested and given).

The proposed rule included a proposed i 50.2(w) which would have defined principal architectural and engineer-ing criteria to mean:

(1) The princioal design criteria for the facility; (2) the essential elements of the proposed design of the following structures, systems, and components I,

. - - _ - - -. ~. - -.

v,'

A, The Comissioners -

\\.

of the facility: Reactor core, reactivity control systems, protection system, control room, reactor pressure vessel and internals, reactor coolant system and associated auxiliary systems, reactor coolant makeup system, decay heat removal system, cooling water system, fuel storage and handling system, racicactive waste system, emergency power systems, primary reactor containment, containment 1 solation system, secondary reactor containment, auxiliary buildings, emergency core cooling system, containment heat removal system, containment atmos-phere cleanup systems, and such other structures, systems and com Commission; (3)ponents as may be specified by the the design bases for protection against natural phenomena.such as earthquakes, tor-nadoes, hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, and seiches; and (4) the essential elements of the quality assurance program to be applied to the design, fabrication, construction, and testing of the structures, systems, and components of the facility. (Footnote omitted.)

~

In explaining to the Comission the Staff's proposed amendment (AEC-R 2/74, March 7,1969, and AEC-R 2/71, i

January 29,1969) the Staff noted that.

i The applicant would be bound by the principal i

architectural and engineering criteria (unless modifications were approved by the Commission), but

[

would be free, at his own risk (i.e., the risk of subsequent disaporoval b i

operating license stage)y the Conimission at the

, to depart from any pro-l visions of the application except the principal g

architectural and engineering critaria. This is a j

significant change because the present i 50.35 merely gives the construction permittee the legal right to construct but does not " approve" any design feature unless specifically requested by the applicant.

I Most commenters had grave problems with the proposed definition of principal architectural and engineering criteria.

(A typical comment is enclosed as Enclosure 1 and ACRS comments as Enclosure 2). The key problem, according to most commenters, was that the proposed 9

i

~ =~

sy:b%

1. " "'44 UNITED STATES k

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y.-

j j

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 W

\\*****/

DEC 191985 MEMORANDUM FOR:

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:

Robert B. Minogue, Director

' Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY IE h-Based on our independent review of the rulemaking, " Design and Other Changes in Nuclear Power Plant Facilities After Issuance of Construction Permit," which is sponsored by IE, and addresses requirements for configuration management of design changes and the degree of design completion before NRC issues a construction permit, RES does not agree with the recommendation of the Director, IE, that the EDO approve and postpone, but not discontinue, activity

-on this rulemaking until such time as appropriate resources become available.

Instead, RES recommends that NRC not proceed with the rulemaking.

The basis for this recommendation is that RES believes the whole question of how to handle design and other changes during construction should be consolidated and addressed in the NRC's initiatives for licensing future nuclear power plants including, for example, NRR's forthcoming revision of the Commission's standardization policy statement to cover specific requirements and procedures for obtaining certification or approval of a reference plant design or design change following a rulemaking proceeding. For an application referencing an approved or certified desi required (or much less would be required)gn, NRC staff effort would not be for a review at the CP stage, save for those detailed changes to accommodate unique site features or other special circumstances such as innovative equipment designs to meet new codes and standards.

In the August 8, 1985, Commission Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants, criteria and procedural requirements were specified for new plant designs including new custom plants.

These requirements include the technical resolution of all applicable medium-and high-priority Generic Safety Issues and completion of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA).

For a CP application for a new custom plant, the Commission will require design information that is sufficiently final and complete to permit com)letion of an adequate plant-specific PRA.

Compliance with these criteria s1ould result in minimal design changes after the.NRC approves the custom plant design.

e 4

William J. Dircks 2

DEC 191985 Additional factors are as follows:

e Our recommendation is consistent with SECY-85-65, Quality Assurance o

Program Implementation Plan (prepared by.IE), which recommends that all quality assurance activities associated with future plants only, which includes IE's new proposed rulemaking, be dropped or L

indefinitely suspended, o

Due to a lack of resources caused by OMB-mandated cuts in the FY 1986 budget for.QA program development, IE does not have the $500,000 for contractor assistance and 1.25 staff years per year for 1.5 years of rulemaking activity after 1 year of staff analysis to establish a 1

j position on design completion and change management considerations.

When sufficient resources are available to complete the rulemaking o

within a 2-year period as specified in the ED0's June 12, 1985, memorandum, the staff can decide whether to begin a new rulemaking on the design changes issue, if appropriate. At that time, the effects of new information, the results of industry initiatives, or work done to date may provide the. staff a data base for a truly new rulemaking primarily applicable to future nuclear power plants.

- The-question of how to handle design and other changes during construction originated in a Comission request that staff define more clearly the limitations on a construction permit holder to make changes in a facility 2

during construction without (a) notifying the NRC, (b) securing prior approval ofNRC_ staff,and/or(c)obtainingaconstructionpermitamendment.

In response to the Comission's request, NRR published on December 11, 1980, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking inviting public coment on five

- alternatives for clarifying the bounds on'a construction permit holder during the course of construction.

(When IE assumed responsibility for the rulemaking -

in September 1984, IE redirected the approach of the rulemaking to address requirements for configuration management of design changes and the degree of design completion before NRC issues a construction permit.)

l RES recommends that NRC withdraw the advance notice of proposed rulemaking published on December 11, 1980. The basis. for this recomendation is two-fold.

First, the notice of withdrawal would inform the public that coments on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking have been considered in the NRC's decision not to proceed-with this rulemaking. Second, it is our jud completed and proposed rulemakings since 1979, e.g., 10 CFR 50.34(f)gment that (CP/ML Rule), 10 CFR 50.34(g) (Conformance with SRP), and 10 CFR 50.55(f) (QA Commitments), plus cancellations and indefinite postponements of nuclear power plants (all CP holders are now OL applicants), have rendered moot the need for further staff response to the Commission's request for identifying design and other_ changes that a construction permit holder may make after the NRC issues a construction permit.

i l

e

,,,~~,n m.,,

>,,-,,,,,r,.,-,,_y w-m e m.,--,w-,,w,,.v,-,-

r,--,--w~r-,

m--

William J. Dircks 3

The complete RES independent review package has been sent to OED0 (Attention:

DEDR0GR) and to the Director, IE.

7 Robert B. Minogue, Di ctor Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l

l