ML20214V741

Forwards Response to 870127 Note to H Denton Re Criterion 3 of Restart Criteria

ML20214V741
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	06/01/1987
From:	James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:	Myers H HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS
References
NUDOCS 8706120266
Download: ML20214V741 (5)

Text

e 6

J JUN 1 5 87 Dr. Henry Myers, Science Advisor Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Dr. Myers:

This is in response to your note to Mr. Harold Denton dated January 27, 1987 regarding Criterion 3 of the Sequoyah Restart Criteria. The answers to your questions are enclosed.

I apologize that the response has taken this long to prepare.

Sincerely, WWW James G. Keppler, Director Office of Special Projects

Enclosure:

As stated DISTRIBUTION

, Docket File SRichardson NRC PDR JZwolinski Local PDR BDLiaw OSP Rdg GZech, RII Projects Rdg J3radburne Seq Rdg TMehn JKeppler EDO Rdq File JAxelrad OCA SEbneter E

• SEE PREVIOUS PAGE FOR CONCURRENCE DTVA:AD/P*

JZwolinski:jg DTVA:AD/TR* A:DD* '

J h M[ $ pr

/

( pp" BDLiaw SRichar(son 9

g 04/17/87 04/17/87 04/22/87 5//5/87 gp4 ,g, N

lDTVA:DIR* SP M OMR . #

OCd]/1 61 rad JKahpler Tehr i

'(SEbneter j5/S/87 5/ e 04/22/87 5/ 7/87 /87 na62n= =6 P PDR

4 I e neau

/ h, UNITED STATES - )l o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E '

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\...../

Dr. Henry Myers, Science Ad,1sor Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Dr. Myers:

4 This is in response to your note to Mr. Harold Denton dated January 27, 1987 4 regarding Criterion 3 of the Sequoyah Restart Criteria. The answers to your questions are enclosed, n

. I apologize that the resoonse has taken this long to prepare.

Sincerely,

• ~\ r ~ _% g " gb e -

$amesG.Keppler, Director Office of Special Projects

Enclosure:

As stated l

I l

j l

i s I l 1 .

I f I

_._._7 r

9.% r l' 1 ENCLOSURE j

Response to' Questions Contained in January 27, 1987 Note L ,

t Question 1 ji Can the licensing basis be satisfied by compliance with the letter of 10 CFR 50 37 or is the licensing basis dependent upon FSAR commitments and interpretations of n - the regulations such as regulatory guides, the standard review plan and national j

standards? If the licensing basis cannot be satisfied by compliance with the

)' ,

letter of 10 CF.R 50, which of such regulations require further elaboration to i

establish the licensing basis (or to support the restart decision)?

Response ,

The Itcensing basis of a plant is the information contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). This information is intended to provide a detailed description of the plant design and to demonstrate how regulations are met i

including the ability of the plant to withstand design basis events such as  !

1 a loss-of-coolant accident. The FSAR is reviewed by the staff in accordance

' with the Standard Review Plan to determine if the plant design is in compliance t

withtherequirements,~asinterpretedbyvariousstaffguides(Regulatory Guides, Standard Review Plan and Technical Positions) and industry codes(ASME, 4

IEEE, etc.), which provide staff guidance with respect to application of the i

Commission's re.gulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50 l

(10 CFR 50). This evaluation, along with the staff's sampling inspections, l

ensure that the plant is being properly constructed and forms the basis for issuance of an operating license. The NRC has acknowledged that the staff j guides and certain industry standards do not represent the only methods lfor 1

meeting the relevant portions of the regulations. However, if an applicant for j an operating license wishes to use alternative methods to satisfy Commission l

regulations, they must be reviewed and approved by the staff prior to licensing

to ensure equivalent levels of protection-have been provided.

With respect to the need for elaboration of the requirements in 10 CFR 50, i

almost all of the requirements require some elaboration. The reason for this is the fact that the requirements specify, in most instances, only the l performance standards that must be met. They are general in nature and, with

a few exceptions, do not specify the detailed design requirements of the 1 plant.

! In summary, before a plant is licensed for operation, it must be in compliance

! with the regulations unless an exemption is specifically granted. One means of ensuring compliance with the regulations is to design and construct the

plant in accordance with the recommendations of the staff guides, and/or.

national staiidards that have been endorsed by the staff. However, a plant i des Jn need'not adhere to all staff guides or national standards in order to l

meet the regulations, provided staff approval is given to the utility's l

approach. ,

i i

. ln\

4 5

Question 2 How does the NRC obtain assurance that a plant would withstand adequately design basis accidents in circumstances where the NRC does not know the extent to which a licensee's comitments have been fulfilled beyond the general requirements stated'in 10 CFR 50 which are made specific through regulatory pides and other regulatory documents?

Response

The staff assurance that a plant would withstand a design basis accident is based upon its evaluation of the information presented in the FSAR and upon inspections conducted to monitor compliance during construction and subsequent plant operation. As stated previously, this information describes methods by which the plant design complies with the regulations.

Question 3 Is the 10_CFR 50.59. review process intended to be used to make changes to FSAR commitments? -Is the 10 CFR 50.59 review process intended to serve as a basis for meeting FSAR commitments?

Response

The 10 CFR 50.59 process is the regulatory mechanism which controls changes to the facility as described in the FSAR after an operating license is issued.

Under that regulation, changes to the facility or procedures described in the FSAR may be made without Conmission approval unless an unreviewed safety question cr a change to a technical specification is involved. Changes made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 n.ust be documented and approved by.the licensee and are periodically reviewed by NRC inspectors. Furthermore, a description of such changes to the facility or procedures must be incorporated into an updated FSAR in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71.

The 10 CFR 50.59 review process is not intended to serve as the basis for meeting FSAR commitments. As discussed in,the previous paragraph, changes may be made in the facility after the operating license is issued pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. However, a facility is f xpected to be built in conformance with

. the FSAR at the time it is licensed. Failure to implement a commitment in the FSAR at the time of licensing could be a violation of a regulation or other

! requirement such as 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, a technical specification, or other licenta . condition.

Question 4 Does'NRC accept TVA's definition of. Criterion 3, as clarified by the December 3 (sic) memorandum,'as the basis for an NRC decision on restart of Sequoyah?- What is the NRC's position with. respect to whether the other criteria specified in TVA's December 1,1986 memorandum are adequate and sufficient" for detemining L whether particular issues need be resolved prior to restart?

p 1 s' ..

,m , ,

4 l l

Response

The staff does not agree with the second paragraph of the clarification. The criteria contained in the December 1, 1986 memorandum are similar to those contained in the Sequoyah Nuclear Performance Plan recently submitted by TVA and currently under review (Volume 2, Rev. I was submitted on April 1, 1987).

The points raised in your note are being considered in our assessment of the Sequoyah restart criteria.

O