ML20207A516
| ML20207A516 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/19/1999 |
| From: | Bergman T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Carpenter C NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| PROJECT-689, TASK-*****, TASK-RE NUDOCS 9905270002 | |
| Download: ML20207A516 (11) | |
Text
.
E urr
- t UNITED $ TATE 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y*****j WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056M001 May 19, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO:
Cynthia A. Coenter, Branch Chief Gener;c issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch Division of Reactor improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Thomas A. Bergman, Senior Project Manager 7 Generic issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch Division of Reactor improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON MAY 11,1999, WITH NEl TO DISCUSS PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE, DG-1083, " CONTENT OF THE UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.71(e)"
l On May 11,1999, the staff held a public meeting with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the public i
comments received on the subject draft regulatory guide and the industry guidance document 3
i NEl 98-03, " Guidelines for Updating Final Safety Analysis Reports," which DG-1083 proposes to g' I
endorse. Attachment 1 is a list of the attendees at the meeting. Attachment 2 summarizes the
\\
comments from all comment letters received to date (i.e., the date of this meeting summary).
The discussion at the meeting addressed six specific comments: (1) clarification of information i
incorporated by reference into the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), (2) additional
/
guidance conceming retention ofinformation associated with structures, systems, and Q{
components of (SSCs) safety significance, (3) additional guidance for treatment of drawings in 1
l the UFSAR, (4) modification to, or deletion of, an example describing design basis information,
)
(5) clarification of guidance conceming removal of commitments from the UFSAR, and (6) annotating NEl 98-03 to indicate where the proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.71(e) being j
implemented in the 10 CFR 50.59 rulemaking may occur, in addition, NEl requested that the staff modify the approach to enforcement discretion for UFSARs described in Enforcement Guidance Memorandum (EGM) 98-007, dated September 15,1998.
1 incorporation by reference: A number of comment letters had questions concerning the intent of the guidance on incorporation by reference contained in NEl 98-03, Section A4.3, and Regulatory Position C.5 in DG-1083. NEl proposed to incorporate Regulatory Position C.5 into NEl 98-03 with two modifications: (1) that the information must have been provided to the NRC in lieu of provided on the licensee's docket, and (2) adding Qhbg guidance that materialincorporated by reference is subject to the requirements of 9905270002 990519 PDR REVGP ERGNUMRC PDR
C. Carpenter
--2 May 19,1999
$50.71(e) and $CFR 50.59 (except where separate NRC requirements apply).
Therefore, if material incorporated by reference contains no information that is required to be part of the UFSAR, licensees should consider reclassifying the document as a reference.
The staff agreed that both these modifications appeared reasonable. As evident from the public comment letters, the subject of incorporation by reference is a source of confusion and may not have been consistently implemented in the past. NEl should consider the public comments provided on this aspect of NEl 98-03, and enhance the guidance on incorporation by reference if appropriate. At a minimum, NEl should ensure that Section A4.3 is clear that material incorporated by reference is required to be publicly available on file with the NRC, and is updated pursuant to $50.71(e), including the reporting requirements, and $50.59. In addition, where a licensee reclassifies material as a reference, the licensee must ensure that the UFSAR continues to contain all required information, including that portion of the material formerly incorporated by reference.
As discussed at the meeting, it may be beneficial to add an example to Section A4.3 based on the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM), which is addressed in a number of ways in industry. For the case of TRMs incorporated by reference, the example could explain that the TRM is publicly available (in this case, the docket file would be 3
appropriate), changes controlled pursuant to $50.59, and replacement pages for the l
TRM provided pursuant to the reporting requirement in $50.71(e). For the case of TRMs that are referenced in, but not incorporated into, the UFSAR, the example could explain l
which information in the TRM is also maintained in the UFSAR, as required by $50.34(b) and $50.71(e). In this case the TRM may not be publicly available, changes to the TRM j
would be controlled by the licensee (in many cases licensees choose, or have committed, to control changes in accordance with $50.59), and no reporting of changes i
to the TRM would be required pursuant to $50.71(e).
2.
Retention of Information Associated With SSCs of Safety Sianificance: NEl proposed to modify NEl 98-03 to incorporate language similar to that described in the Federal l
Register Notice for DG-1083. The staff stated that NEl's proposed language appeared acceptable.
)
3.
Additional Guidance on Treatment of Drawinos: NEl proposed to add guidance for drawings that would allow drawings to be removed from the UFSAR provided they met certain conditions consistent with the conditions for removal of information in general.
The staff stated that the specific language proposed in NEl's comment letter for DG-1083 appeared acceptable.
4.
Deletion of Examole Usina Desian Basis Information: The second example in Section A4.1 of NEl 98-03 describes design information that can be deleted from the UFSAR because it was " component details" and not design basis information. Because the acceptability of removal of this information is dependent upon the interpretation of the definition of design bases in $50.2, an issue that is being addressed through separate t
4.
C Carpenter <
May 19,1999 guidance, NEl should consider deleting this example from NEl 98-03 until the design basis issue is resolved.
x 5.
Removal of Commitments From the UFSAR: The guidance in Section A4.3 of NEl 98-03 concoming commitments may be potentially misleading as it could be interpreted to mean that allcommitments can be removed from the_UFSAR. The staff suggested that the guidance be modified to more clearly limit what commitments can be removed.
Specifically, consider adding "some of" in front of the word "these" in the first sentence of the discussion of commitments. In addition, NEl should consider modifying this section to reflect the work done in the commitment management area by ensuring the guidance and terminology is consistent with that in the proposed NEl 99-00 (Draft), " Guideline for Managing NRC Commitment Changes," which is a revision to the prior NEl " Guideline for Managing NRC. Commitments."
6.
Conform to Proposed Revisions in 650.71(e) and 450.59: The staff suggested that NEl consider annotating NEl 98-03 to reflect proposed rulemaking on $50.59, by noting where the changes may affect the guidance through footnotes or some other mechanism. This could avoid the need to revise NEl 98-03 again. However, since that rulemaking is not complete, the decision is NEl's.
Enforcement Discretion: NEl stated th'at altematives to the staff's approach to enforcement discretion described in EGM-98-007 should be considered. Basically, the approach in EGM 007 extends enforcement discretion until March 30, 2000, for information associated with SSCs
- of high safety significance, as defined by the licensees maintenance rule program, and until March 30,2001, for all other information in the UFSAR. NEl stated that this approach may be difficult to implement, and instead proposed that licensees be provided flexibility to prioritize their UFSAR review in a manner the licensee deems most effectivef The staff stated that, while open to attemative approaches, a more specific proposal would need to be provided. The staff stated that such a proposal would need to have an early milestone at which licensee progress could be measured, and that important information needed to be addressed early in the process.
NEl also requested that the enforcement guidance be modified to clearly state that no special
.UFSAR submittals are required (e.g., on March 30, 2000), and that licensees will have met the intent of the EGM if, by the dates required, UFSAR discrepancies have been identified and conective actions in progress, but necessary changes have not yet been fully implemented.
The staff stated that it agreed that no special submittals were required, and if the EGM were modified for other reasons such a clarification could be added, although unnecessary. The staff stated that it will not be sufficient for licensees to only have identified problems and initiated j
corrective actions in the UFSAR by the specified dates. The staff stated that the problems must be identified, and the correction actions complete, consistent with the enforcement policy (except that the correction does not need to be incorporated into the UFSAR, but must be included in the licensees next required update to the UFSAR). The staff's position in part is on j
)
C. Carpenter May 19, 1999 the basis that on March 30,2000 (the first milestone), enforcement discretion with respect to UFSAR content will have been in place for over three-and-a-half years, which appews to be sufficient time to identify and correct important UFSAR discrepancies.
Attachments: As stated Project No. 689 cc w/atts: See next page -
l k
C. Carpenter
- May 19, 1999 the basis that on March 30, 2000 (the first milestone), enforcement discretion with respect to UFSAR content will have been in place for over three-and-a-half years, which appears to be sufficient time to identify and correct important UFSAR discrepancies.
Attachments: As stated Project No. 689 cc w/atts: See next page I
DISTRIBUTION: See attached page Document Name:p:\\msnel OFFICE (A)SC:RGEB Th:sw NAME DATE 5//1/99 i
9 4
I l
List of Attendees Name Oraanization R. Bell -
NEl T. Bergman NRC/NRR N. Chapman SERCH/Bechtel J. Hegner Virginia Power R. Huston LSS D. Palmrose NUS-IS M. Satorious NRCIOEDO I
l 1
i j
Summary of Public Comments Received to Date on DG-1083 & NEl 9843
- Each comment letter received to date is' addressed below. In most cases, the comments supported DG-1083 and NEl 98-03; however, several commenters. did identify specific concerns with the guidance documents. Where the staff, on_ its initial review, has determined that a comment should, or should not, be addressed in the guidance documents, the staff has so indicated.1 Each of these comments needs to be addressed, either in NEl 98-03 or in the final regulatory guide.
The remainder of the co'mments, which will not be addressed below, were either editorial or suggested the need for potential clarification of NEl 98-03 (e.g., had difficulty interpreting part of the guidance). These comments largely pertain to NEl 98-03. - NEl should consider whether they wish to adopt the suggested comments. At this time, however,' the staff would not incorporate these comments as clarifications to NEl 98-03 in the final regulatory guide, nor take -
exception to NEl 98-03 regardless as to whether NEl incorporated the comments.
All of the comment letters should be available from the public document room.
1.
Tennessee Vallev Authority. April 22.1999. sianed by Raloh H. Shell for Mark J. Burzynski All comments for NEl consideration only.
2.
Yankee Atomic Electric Comoanv. Aoril 27.1999. sianed by Merrill J. Atkin_tB Suggests clarification with respect to implementation for decommissioning facilities; staff believes existing language is sufficiently clear. For NEl consideration.
3.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Comoany. April 28.1999. sianed by Gary J. Tavlor
' Opposed to inclusion of guidance concoming retention of information associated with SSCs that are risk-significant that was suggested by the staff in the Federa/ Register Notice for DG-1083. The staff does not agree with this comment.
4.
Arizona Public Service Comoanv. April 29.1999. sianed by James Levine Opposed to inclusion of guidance conceming retention of information associated with SSCs that are risk-significant that was suggested by the staff in the Federa/ Register Notice for DG-1083. The staff does not agree with this comment.
Opposed to Regulatory Position C.5 in DG-1083 conceming incorporation by reference on the basis that it goes beyond existing practice. ' Although this comment was made on DG-1083, it is the staff's understanding that NEl intends to incorporate similar guidance into NEl 98-03, and thus NEl should consider this comment. The staff does not agree with this comment.
1 1
ATTACHMENT 2
)
9 A2-2 5.
Enterav. Aoril 30.1999. sianed by (unknown) for Michael R. Kansler Propose changes to Regulatory Position C.5 (incorporation by reference). The modification to NEl 98-03 to address this regulatory position was discussed at the meeting and is generally the same as in this letter. NEl should consider the comments in this letter to determine if additional clarification to NEl 98-03 is warranted.
6.
Florida Power Corporation. April 30.1999. sianed by S.L. Bernhoft Endorsement of NEl comments, no additional comments.
- 7..
Niaaara Mohawk. April 30.1999. sianed by Carl D. Terry Last comment, page 1 of 6, conceming Section 4, page 3 of NEl 98-03, proposes to delete the sentence "The UFSAR also serves to provide the general public a description of the plant and its operation." The staff does not agree with this comment. The Supplementary Information for 10 CFR 50.71(e) explicitly stated that one of the purposes of the UFSAR was to provide a reference for "other interested parties," which would include the public.
This sentence should be retained.
Second comment, page 3 of 6, conceming Section 8, page 11, of NEl 98-03, notes that the lag period listed in NEl 98-03 (18-24 months) is in error. The comment proposes to modify the timeframe to "6 - 30 months." The staff agrees with this comment, except to note that the appropriate period should be "up to 30 months."
Third comment, page 3 of 6, concoming Section 8, page 11, of NEl 98-03, proposes to add "a' d a report" into the last sentence of the third paragraph on page 11 to reflect that the n
actual 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations are not submitted, but only a report. The staff agrees
]
with this comment.
j NEl should consider the remainder of the comments and determine whether the euggested clarifications warrant inclusion into NEl 98-03.
i 8.
PECO Enerav. April 30.1999. sianed by (unknown) for Garrett D. Edwards i
Comment 5 suggests clarifications to the language concerning risk-significant SSCs that NEl is considering for inclusion into NEl 98-03 as discussed in the meeting. NEl should consider whether the suggested clasifications warrant inclusion into NEl 98-03.
The remainder of the comments are specific to DG-1083 and need no action by NEl.
- 9.
Southern Nuclear Ooeratina Company. Aoril 30.1999. sianed by H.L. Sumner. Jr.
Endorsement of NEl comments, no additional comments.
- 10. Nuclear Enerav Institute. April 30.1999. sianed by Anthony R. Pietranaelo 4
0
r A2-3 These comments were the subject of the meeting.
.11.
TU Electric. April 30.1999. sioned by C.L. Terry As part of its modification to NEl 98-03 to clarify the discussion of material incorporated by reference into the UFSAR, NEl should consider whether the modification proposed here warrants inclusion into NEl 98-03.
- 12. Detroit Edison. Aoril 30.1999. sianed by Norman K. Peterson Opposed to inclusion of guidance concerning retention of information associated with SSCs that are risk-significant that was suggested by the staff in the Federal Register Notice for DG-1083. The staff does not agree with this comment.
4 l ' *L_
Nuclear Energy Institute Project No. 689 cc:
Mr. Ralph Beedle Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director Senior Vice President Plant Support and Chief Nuclear Officer
. Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Suite 400 17761 Street, NW 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Alex Marion, Director Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Director l
Programs Washington Operations l
Nuclear Energy Institute ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Suite 400 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 1776 I Street, NW Rockville, Maryland 20852 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. David Modeen, Director Engineering Nuclear Energy institute Suite 400 l
1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Director I
Licensing.
I Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 l
Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 i
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. Jim Davis, Director Operations Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708
DISTRIBUTION: Mtg. Summaty w/NEl Re Updated FSAR, and 50.59 Dated 5/19/99 Hard Copy Caseral FNe PUBLIC PGEB r/f OGC ACRS TBergman SMagruder E-Mail SCollins/FMiraglia RZimemrman
. BSheron JRoe DMatthews FAkstulewicz GMizuno MMarkley RWeisman WReckley EMcKenna EWang n
.