ML20236H649
| ML20236H649 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/12/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236H630 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-087-C, SECY-98-87-C, NUDOCS 9807070295 | |
| Download: ML20236H649 (9) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.__. _____-
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-087 - PROPOSED GENERIC LETTER 98-XX:
INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.71(e) w/ comments Approved X Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion
- COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
d' ~v~'
Shir1 >y Ann Jackson SIGNATURE Release Vote / X /
June 12, 1998 DATE Withhold Vote /
/
l Entered on "AS",Yes x
No 9907070295 990630 i
E5 RESP f
I Chairman Jackson's Comments on SECY 98-087 I approve of the release for public comment of the subject draft generic letter subject to the editorial changes described herein. The staff should be commended on this effort, and on their interactions with stakeholder to produce a regulatory position that provides appropriate levels of flexibility while maintaining conformance to the regulations. The staff should continue to work with NEI in an effort to endorse NEI guidance, once that guidance is brought into conformance with the NRC's regulatory positions on this issue; however, the promise of said NEl guidance should not be allowed to slow progress on the issuance of this Generic Letter, as it promises to provide a needed degree of regulatory stability in an important area (the issuance of the Generic Letter has already been delayed to consider j
stakeholder comments which, in my estimation, did not reveal an) inherent weaknesses in the
]
staff's approach to this issue).
I view the following changes to the draft generic letter as necessary to clarify the agency's position and to avoid misunderstandings that may shift the focus of subsequent discussions away from providing the necessary interim guidance:
The generic letter makes frequent references to the information " required" to be included in the updated FSAR by 10CFR50.34(b). As this portion of the code addresses itself to the FSAR which is included in the original license application, it would appear that it cannot be invoked as a requirement in stand-alone fashion (that is,10 CFR 50.34(b) cannot be cited as a current requirement in enforcement proceedings). It is my understanding that it is the staff's intention to invoke this portion of the code through the requirements of 10CFR50.71(c) in an interpretive manner (by stating that the original FSAR referred to in 10CFR50.71(c) is actually that information that was required at the application stage by 10CFR50.34(b)). This position was not made clear in the draft generic letter; accordingly, edits to the document, aimed at clarifying this position, are attached.
Under " Level of Detail" on page 11 of the Draft GL, it is stated that "...the level of
' detail in periodic updates for changes made pursuant to 650.59 should include a description of each change and, at a minimum, a discussion of the basis for the conclusion that the change does not constitute an unreviewed safety question." While the level of detail required by 50.71(e) may well be greater than the " summary of the safety evaluation" required to be provided to the agency under 50.59(b)(2), it is not at all clear from the regulations that licensees must include "a discussion of the basis for the conclusion that the change does constitute an unreviewed safety question" in their FSAR updates. Specifically,50.71(e) requires that FSARs be updated to include "...the effects
[ emphasis added] of...all safety evaluations performed by the licensee...in support of j
conclusions that changes did not involve an unreviewed safety question.. ". The subject passage should be corrected (the attached markup provides an alternative).
The staff states, on pages 12 and 13 of the Draft GL:
"The licensee removes information from the updated FSAR at its own risk. If, after l
l I
removing information from the updated FSAR, a licensee makes a change to the facility that would have resulted in a determination that the change was an unreviewed safety question but did not (no 50.59 evaluation having been performed since the facility was no longer 'as described' in the updated FSAR), the licensee would potentially be subject to enforcement."
The Draft GL does not specify what requirement would have been violated, but it implies that 50.59 would be invoked. It is unclear how this would be accomplished with the existing language in 50.59 (i.e. the rule concerns itself with changes to the plant as described - if the subject area is removed from the updated FSAR in a manner which violates no regulation, how then could a violation of 50.59 exist? If the removal of such infonnation would violate some other requirement, why does the GL discuss 50.59 implications?) The subject passage should be corrected (attached mark-up suggests i
removing this paragraph).
j The staff should caution licenseec that, in order to satisfy the requirements of 10CFR50.59, a contmuous awareness of all the changes to the FSAR since the most recent 50.71(c) update (i.e. changes made between formal updates) must be maintained.
Without such a knowledge, the licensee can not properly assess the impact of a change to the plant as described in the safety analysis report (i.e. incremental changes would not be 1
properly. assessed).
1 The staff should consider rulemaking to clarify the issue of 50.34(b) applicability (as discussed in the first bullet). Options could include either: 1) referencing 10CFR50.34(b) in 10CFR50.71(e) or, 2) including a description, in 50.71(e), of information required to be included in the updated FSAR. If rulemaking is pursued, the staff should include changes which obviate the need for exemptions to FSAR update frequency requirements for multi-unit sites. While I recognize that most exemptions (relieving multi-unit sites with common updated FSARs from the requirement to file updates for each unit) have already been granted, the regulation should be clarified.
I I
l l
l ~
u,Lsc dW#
t The requirements for the contents of thhFSAR are in $50.34(b), which states:
Each application for a license to operate a facility shall include a final safety 1
analysis report. The final safety analysis report shall include information that describes the facility, presents the design bases and the limits on its operation, and presents a safety analysis of the structures, systems, and components and
)
of the facility as a whole, and shallinclude the following:
(1) All current information, such as the results of environmental and meteorological monitoring programs, which has been developed since issuance of the construction permit, relating to site evaluation factors identified in part 100 of this chapter.
(2) A description and analysis of the structures, systems, and components of the facility, with emphasis upon performance requirements, the bases, with technica!
justification therefor, upon which such requirements have been established, and the evaluations required to show that safety functions will be accomplished. The description shall be sufficient to permit understanding of the system designs and i
their relationship to safety evaluations.
I (i) For nuclear reactors, such items as the reactor core, reactor coolant system, instrumentation and control systems, electrical systems, containment system, other engineered safety features, auxiliary and emergency systems, power conversion systems, radioactive waste l
handling systems, and fuel handling systems shall be discussed insofar as they are pertinent.
~~ (ii) For facilities other than nuclear reactors, such items as the chemical, physical, metallurgical, or nuclear process to be performed, instrumentation snd control systems, ventilation and filter systems, electrical systems, auxiliary and emergency systems, and radioactive waste handling systems shall be discussed insofar as they are pertinent.
(3) The kinds and quantities of radioactive materials expected to be produced in the operation and the means for controlling and limiting radioactive effluents and radiation exposures within the limits set forth in part 20 of this chapter.
(4) A final analysis and evaluation of the design and performance of structures, systems, and components with the Objective stated in paragraph (a)(4) of this i
section and taking into account any pertinent information developed since the submittal of the preliminary safety analysis report. Analysis and evaluation of ECCS cooling performance following postulated loss-of-coolant accidents shall l
be performed in accordance with the requirements of $50.46 for facilities for l'
which a license to operate may be issued after December 28,1974.
^
1 Guidance
- h, A number of issues addressed in this generic letter were identified during the public m with NEl held in the fall of 1997, the January 1998 public workshop, and a review of the draft
$ it
, NEl 98-03. Specific guidance is provided on scope, level of detail, format, removal of fv% b - information not associated with a change, drawings, historicalinformation, frequency of the periodic update submittals, temporary modifications, treatment of nonconforming conditions h a $. between the facility and the updated FSAR, treatment of FSAR information rela i
}
of or retirement-in-place of systems, structures, or components (SSCs), and exercise of yo'$
enforcement discretion regarding complete and accurate updated FSARs.
29w h3 $ fi Scope 2
- lo g Section 50.71(e) provides specific requirements for the scope ofissues to be addressed in the j
periodic updates. As described above, $50.71(e) requires that the updated FSAR contain the i latest material developed conceming: (1) all the changes necessary to reflect information and I
)j n2 analyses submitted to the Commission by the licensee or prepared by the licensee pursuant to
$ Commission requirement; (2) the effects of all changes made in the facility or the procedure 3
o described in the updated FSAR; (3) the effects of all safety evaluations performed by the a
h 9
licensee either in support of requested license amendments or in support of conclusions that T
'd
- changes did not involve unreviewed safety questions; and (4) the effects of all analyses of new
$ [3 )safety issues performed by or on behalf of the licensee at the Commission's request. In is summary, the periodic updates are to include changes to existing information and add the p'd2 accurate." appropriate information for new issues such that the updated FSAR re 2
['t ry Two rules define the content of the updated FSAR:
550.34(b), which provides the requirements for the original FSAR, and $50.71(e), which specifies the current information in the updated u
2 E 9 ' kction 50.34(b)is used as a screen to establi hFSAR that must be ch dI d f considered for incorporation into the updated FSAR pursuant to 550.71(e) s what portion of the information to be
!j@13appear in the updated FSAR (i.e., the updated FSAR should address the same issues that a current original FSAR would address). % rwm a m vice N * *"ooe
- Mw ih
.arce.u.nm matcp eux-4 di io <fe Sc.o tuo wo couwmar A e m>s R
Oir ea u% crc n W.).
To determine w, hat information needs to be incorporated into the updated FSAR
.f h.
xpup first establishes which changes and analyses meet the test of 10 CFR 50.71(e) to be
- coM **M 4
considered for !aclusion in the updated FSAR. The requirements of 650.34(b)fre then used to j
M determine whether and to what extent the changes and analyses include any of the fo types of information required to be in the FSAR (aad thus, in the updated FSAR): (1) a description of the facility (2) a presentation of the design bases, (3) the limits on the faci operation, and (4) a presentation of the safety analysis of the SSCs and of the facility as a
' " Complete" means that the updated FSAR includes allthe issues that should have been included in the updated FSAR as required by the update rule since the original FSAR was issued. " Accurate" means that all the differences ~ between the informatio of the updated FSAR and the facility, procedures and experiments have been corrected.
8
the request of the Commission can include issues discussed in p!Bni-specific letters, generic letters, and bulletins.'5 Levelof_ Detail The update rule does not identify a specific level of detail for the updated FSAR. The level of detail is discussed in the Supplementary information. The Supplementary information states that "The level of detail to be maintained in the updated FSAR should be at least the same as I
originally provided." Since the level of detailin the original FSARs varies among plants (primarily as a function of the date of the operating license), the updated FSARs may also address similar issues at different levels of detail.
p Section 50.34(b) provides the minimum level of detail required for the information in thehSAR (and thus/he updated FSAR). For the SSCs of the facility, for example, s50.34(b)(2) requires W
f >"I]B *[a] description and analysis of the [SSCs) of the facility, with emphasis upon erformance requirements, the bases, with technical justification therefor, upon Q1f-which such requirements have been established, and the evaluations required to show that safety functions will be accomplished. The description shall be sufficient to permit understanding of the system designs and their relationship to safety evaluations.
i Licensees must ensure that the updated FSAR contains at least the minimum level of detail required by $50.34(b), g; ed.NMFD th M WFr'60.Wh 5
One area where more specific guidance was provided in the Supplementary information is changes to the updated FSAR as result of changes made in accordance with 50.59.
1 Paragraph 50.59(b)(2) requires licensees to periodically submit a report that contains "a brief description of any changes, tests, and expedments, including a summary of the safety i
evaluation of each." The Supplementary information for the update rule states that *The
$50.59(b) reporting may not be detailed sufficiently to be considered adequate to fulfill the (updated] FSAR updating requirement. The degree of detail required for updating the (updated]
FSAR will be generally greater than a 'brief description' and a ' summary of the safety evaluation."lJheret eithe level of detailin th periodic u at 's forphang 's ma e pur uant to - l
}50.pif sho,ul'd inct a descfption o ach an dIand ta ini dm, a iscu lon o the basis fojdhe co sion tharthe ch ge d s no con tut n u evie d sa ty qu otion Le.,
/ / sipple negal e restate ent of e re rem ts of 50 9(a) )wo d be suffic' nt).
r
/
[' 'sfme licenyIes, this y resul ad informati6n to, he u ate SAR at is ore than the information ' the ori inal F R.J tailef The most recent staff position on the content of the FSAR (and therefore the updated FSAR) is in RG 1.70, Revision 3. Licensees are not required to comply with the guidara in the "In some cases generic letters and bulletins are issued under the aut!
-y d W (f) or
$2.204, or $182 of the Atomic Energy Act. For those cases the licens ; a rar( w are performed in response to Commission requirement.
I1
regulatory guide; however, the regulatory guide may be used as a reference for an appropriate amount of information to be provided on specific issues.
Format Section 50.71(e) does not specify a format for the updated FSAR. The Supplementary information states, "The format to be used for the [ updated] FSAR revisions is the option of the licensee, but the Commission expects that the format will probably be the same as the format of the original FSAR." Therefore, licensees have the option of changing the format provided the content of the updated FSAR continues to meet requirements.
Removal of information Not Associated With a Change The update rule provides requirements for changing information in the updated FSAR as a result of new analyses or changes to the facihty or procedures. Neither the update rule nor its Supplementary Information address the removal of information from the updated FSAR that is not associated with a new analysis, or a change to the facility or procedures?' While the removal ofinformation from the updated FSAR that is not associated with a change is not recommended, the stafi recognizes that some licensees have removed information from the updated FSAR. Although the regulations do not explicitly prohibit the removal of information not associated with a change, licensees do so at their own risk. If a licensee removes information from the updated FSAR that is not associated with a change, or relocates information to other licensee-controlled documents, the licensee is encouraged to adopt an approach that has the following attributes:
The licensee has a process that controls what and how information is removed or relocated.
The licensee is responsible for ensuring that the updated FSAR continues to contain the necessary information. In particular, the licensee must not remove any information required to demonstrate compliance with-60-34(b), or subsequentlyTequirediobdded-or-fnodifiedinaccordance.with 50.71(e).
As part of the periodic updates issued in accordance with 50.71(e), the licensee should submit, in addition to the changed pages and a list of effective pages currently required by 50.71(e), a description of the information removed, and the basis for the licensee's determination that such information may be removed from the updated FS AR.
he [ cense removes ' formation f om the updat FSAR at ~ s own ris If, after r moving
@gp inf rmatio from the ated FS
, a licensee akes a cha ge to the cility tha ould h e r sulted i a determi ation that t e change wa an unrevie ed safety uestion t did no no "If a new analysis or a change to the facility or procedu.es makes the content of the updated FSAR inaccurate, the inaccurate information should be removed. For example, if an SSC has been removed from the facility the updated FSAR should be modified to delete reference to that SSC or clearly indicate that the SSC has been removed.
12
N
/50.5 eval ation h ing be perfor ed sinc the facih 9 was no nger"as escribe in the g
u ted F 'AR), t e licen 'e woul potential be sub' ct to enf cement.
nder th current pW er orce ent poli y, such iolation would b consid ed for ca gorizati as a Se erity Level 11 violatio i
L
~.'
1 An example of information that may be removed that is not associated with a change is redundant information. Licensees may remove duplicate information from the updated FSAR provided appropriate references are made to the remaining location where the information is discussed in the updated FSAR. Another kind of information that may be considered for removal without an associated change is described below in
- Drawings."
Drawinas Updated FSARs typically contain either simplified schematics or reduced-size piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&lDs). Two issues have arisen concerning drawings: (1) substitution of full-size P&lDs for reduced-size P&lDs, and (2) substitution of simplified schematics for reduced-sa.e P&lDs.
The substitution of full-size P&lDs for reduced P&lDs is an example of a change in format, which as stated above is at the option of the licensee. The licensee could further reformat the updated FSAR by relocating the full-size P&lDs to an appendix or separate volume in the updated FSAR (with appropriate references).
The substitution of simplified schematics for P&lDs is more complicated because under certain circumstances this substitution would constitute a reduction in the level of detail. As noted above, the Supplementary information states that the level of detail should be at least that of the original FSAR. In many cases, however, licensees may have incorporated P&lDs into the FSAR or updated FSAR as a matter of convenience rather than to provide required information.
In general, substitution of simplified schematics would be acceptable under either of the following conditions: (1) the original FSAR contained simplified schematics that the licensee had later replaced with P&lDs as a matter of convenience, or (2) the original FSAR included P&lDs but simplified schematics will be substituted such that they will not result in removal of information required to be in the updated FSAR.
l In the first case, the substitution of simplified schematics would be acceptable because the I
update rule only requires that the level of detail of the updated FSAR be at least the same as that in the original FSAR. If simplified schematics were originally provided, retuming simplified i
schematics to the updated FSAR would be consistent with this requirement.
In the second case, the licensee would need to ensure that no material descriptive information was lost and that the P&lDs do not contain any unique design basis, operating limits, or safety analysis information required to be in an updated FSAR. If the licensee determines that a P&lD l
does contain such information, the licensee should incorporate the information in the simplified l
schematic or relocate the information to the text of the updated FSAR so that the updated FSAR continues to contain all necessary information. When substituting simplified schematics for P&lDs as described in this paragraph, licensees should follow the guidance for " Removal of information Not Associated With a Change."
l i
1 l
13 L
l Historical!nformation Some licensees have asked whether information no longer applicable to an operating plant, e.g., the initial training program and start-up test program, can be removed from the updated FSAR. This question was previously addressed in Generic Letter 80-110, which stated, "Information pertaining to programs described in the original FSAR with amendments, such as the initial training program and the preoperational test program, should be submitted as part of the initial updated FSAR for completeness."
ju j As described in
- Scope," the updated FSAR is expected to contain the information required by V
50.34(u), updated to reflect the current facility. Some programmatic information that would now be considered historica[Yexplicitly required to be in an FSAR (such as the initial test
__,._ program, whictfW6xplicitly requiredub gg50.34(b)(6)(iii>>. Therefore, it is not permissible to
-- remove " historical" imormation thatT(;6xplicitly required to be included in an FSAR. Licensees j
may, however, reformat the updated FSAR to relocate this type of information to separate volumes or appendices to the updated FSAR. The staff believes that the burden associated with the retention of required " historical"information to be minimal."
{
Erequency.cf.theferiodic Update _Submittals i
The update rule requires in $50.71(e)(4) that licensees submit periodic updates annually or 6 months after each refueling outage provided the interval between successive updates does not exceed 24 months.["] The revisions must reflect all changes up to a maximum of 6 months prior to the date of(filing]. For nuclear i
power reactor facilities that have submitted the certifications required by
@50.82(a)(1), subsequent revisions must be filed every 24 months.
Some licensees of multiple-unit sites with common updated FSARs have asked whether they need to update the updated FSAR after each unit's refueling outage or whether a combined periodic update can be submitted for all units with the common updated FSAR. The rule is clear that a periodic update must be submitted annually or within six months of each refueling outage. Therefore, unless the combined periodic update is submitted on an annual basis, or (due to refueling outage schedules) within six months of all the units' outages, additional updates are required by the rule.
"The industry argument for removing historical programs has been that maintaining this information in the updated FSAR is unnecessarily burdensome. if the information is, in fact, historical and thus not subject to change, there should be little or no borden associated with this information since neither Q50.59 nor $50.71(e) have an effect unless there is a change to the information.
"The original final update rule required the periodic updates to be submitted "no less frequently than annually." The frequency of the periodic updates was amended in 1992. See 57 FR 39353, August 31,1992,
- Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Ucensees."
14
_ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _