ML20249A883

Summary of 980527 Meeting W/Nei in Rockville,Md Re Staff Proposed GL & NEI Guidance Re Updated FSAR & 10CFR50.59. List of Attendees,Nei Briefing Slides & Staff Preliminary Comments on NEI Draft Guidance for Updating Fsar,Encl

ML20249A883
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/15/1998
From:	Bergman T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Essig T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9806190050
Download: ML20249A883 (22)

Text

_ _ -. _ _

,.g. y o

&i

. iP*"%%

Q.n.:

4 UNITED STATES 7.'

p j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ni

~*

N$

'%*****/g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20556 4001 g

June 15,1998

$[b p ::

.l

);uy MEMORANDUM TO:

Thomas H. Essig, Acting Chief

,y3 Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Q

Division of Reactor Program Management L45 E :.22;y Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Thomas A. Bergman, Senior Project Manageh mm -

h.Q

.OM:

Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branci

.Lcc(4 Division of Reactor Program Management Mg:j Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

/fj 4,

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON MAY 27,1998, WITH NEl TO 1h DISCUSS STAFF'S PROPOSED GENERIC LETTER AND NEl'S j'W GUIDANCE REGARDING THE UPDATED FSAR, AND 50.59 C.f y

e <

, Q'y.:

On May 27,1998, 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 address three principal subjects: (1) NEl's planned agenda for its June 4,1998, briefing of the Commission, Q%

(2) reconciliation of NEl's draft guidance document on updated final safety analysis reports c.Z.1

(" updated FSARs") dated November 14,1997 (NEl 98-03) with the staff's proposed generic

? 5:;

letter, " Interim Guidance for Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports in Accordance with 10 CFR o.: }

50.71(e)," and (3) enforcement discretion with respect to complete and accurate updated Qf F'3ARs. Attachment 1 lists the meeting participants. Attachment 2 is NEl's briefing slides.

{j

, Aaenda for June 4.1998. Commission Briefina c.6 e; :

NEl stated that its presentation to the Commission tentatively planned to address five topics: (1)

'jpC use of acceptance limits in 10 CFR 50.59, (2) meaning of' design bases", (3) enforcement lI discretion with respect to $50.59, (4) draft updated FSAR guidance, and (5) appropriate scope for 550.59.

I

i.ly Reconciliation of NEl 98-03 and the Prooosed Generic Letter NEl raised seven issues needing clarification or reconciliation between the draft NEl 98-03 and l

the proposed generic letter: (1) the link between 10 CFR 50.34(b) and $50.71(e), (2) the M

[

definitions of design bases and limits on operation, (3) historical information, (4) obsolete and h(

less meaningfu' information, (5) drawings, (6) extent to which $50.59 changes are addressed in i9 the updated FSAR, and (7) temporary modifications. NEl also requested that the staff provide f.R written comments on the draft NEl 98-03.

Mi.%

i' kk "5 %

y,. <

,? [

Q j

Oh -P 4'41 f

e W

'x opa N' l

%. o 1,

PDR RO?OP ERONUPWIC Bw, FTif @9% MPV if a

e.

s Thomas H. Essig

-2 June 15, 1998 1.

Nexus between 650.34(b) and 650.71(e)

NEl questioned the link between 550.34(b) and $50.71(e) as presented in the proposed generic letter. The staff explained the 950.34(b) defines the content of the FSAR, and by extension, the updated FSAR. Section 50.71(e) requires the information in the updated FSAR (as defined by $50.34(b)) to be kept current. Section 50.34(b) also serves to limit the amount of information included in the updated FSAR to that required by 550.34(b); which includes a description of the facility, its design bases and limits on operation, and safety analysis of the structures, systems and components, and facility as a whole.

2.

Desian Bases and Limits on Ooeraticn NEl requested that guidance be provided on design bases and limits of operation. The staff agreed that such guidance would be beneficial. However, the staff stated that guidance for design bases, which are defined in 10 CFR 50.2 and used throughout the regulations, should have a separate guidance document developed concurrently with

. guidance on updated FSARs. Limits on operation, which are not defined in 50.2, could be defined in the updated FSAR guidance.

3.

Historical Information Consistent with guidance in the proposed generic letter, NEl proposed to modify NEl 98-03 to only allow the relocation of historical information to appendices and not allow deletion from the updated FSAR. NEl agreed with the position in the proposed generic letter that the relocated information would still be subject to the requirements of

$50.71(e) and $50.59.

4.

Obsolete and Less Meaninoful information NEl proposed to modify NEl 98-03 to include a removal process consistent with proposed generic letter, The staff pointed out that the proposed generic letter contained

{

the attributes of an acceptable process, and believed that an industry guidance I

document would be beneficial if it offered a more detailed process that included specific decision criteria.

5.

Drawinas NEl proposed to modify NEl 98-03 to be consistent with the guidance in the proposed generic letter.

6.

Incorporating 50.59 Changes into the Uodated FSAR NEl requested that the guidance on incorporating changes pursuant to $50.59 be L

clarified.. NEl stated that the proposed generic letter could be interpreted as requiring a b

summery of every safety evaluation performed by the licensee in accordance with b

550.59 to be included in the updated FSAR. The staff agreed that the proposed generic p

p L

y l

L

p

~

~

.n Tho;nas H. Essig. June 15, 1998 letter could be interpreted in that manner, but was not what was intended by that

? guidance.L The staff also agreed that the guidance should be clarified to indicated that each incremental change did not need to be summarized, rather, the updated FSAR should reflect the current facility and provide the justification regarding why the current facility.was acceptable.

7.

Temporary Modifications NEl questioned the need to incorporate temporary modifications into the updated FSAR.

The staff stated that the guidance in the proposed generic letter did not suggest that all temporary modifications be included in the updated FSAR, but only those for which the licensee: (1) has no established schedule to remove the temporary modification, or (2)

E

. intends to keep the temporary modification until after the next periodic update, or (3)

- does not intend to restore the facility to its condition as described in the current version of the updated FSAR (i.e., a new design will replace the temporary modification). The

. staff stated that, for licensees with effective temporary modification programs, the guidance should result in inclusion in the updated FSAR only a small subset of the temporary modifications.

7 Staff Comments on Industrv's Draft Updated FSAR Guidance Document The staff stated that it had intended to provide comments on NEl 98-03 after it was formally submitted and endorsement was requested. The staff discussed its general comments on the

- guidance. The staff further agreed to make pubiic its comments from a preliminary review of

the draft industry guidance on updated FSARs. As a result of NEl's proposal to adopt some of the provisions in the proposed generic letter, many of the staff's comments on the draft

. guidance will be addressed if NEl makes the changes as described. Therefore, the staff is providing its preliminary comments on the draft guidance as Attachment 3 to this meeting summary.-

Enforcement Discretion With Respect to Updated FSARs

. NEl stated that implementation period in the proposed generic letter was insufficient for licensees to make their updated FSARs complete and accurate. At the meeting NEl proposed a two year implementation period. The staff stated that the schedule in the proposed generic letter was the staffs recommendation to the Commission and that if NEl had any concerns with

. this schedule NEl should communicate those concems, or provide an alternative schedule to the Commission.' Any NEl proposal should include intermediate milestones to ensure that licensees were making progress to resolve, discrepancies in their updated FSARs.

? Attachments: As' stated 1cc w/stt: See next page2 l

l F

m

}

,['

- k.

f?

f Juns 15,1998 Thomas H. Essig

-3

('C lett:r could be int:rpr~ted in thrt mfnner, but w s not wh:t w:s int:nded by th;t guidance. The staff also agreed that the guidance should be clarified to indicated that each incremental change did not need to be summarized, rather, the updated FSAR should reflect the current facility and provide the justification regarding why the current facility was acceptable.

7.

Temocrary Modifications NEl questioned the need to incorporate temporary modifications into the updated FSAR.

The staff stated that the guidance in the proposed generic letter did not suggest that all temporary modifications be included in the updated FSAR, but only those for which the licensee: (1) has no established schedule to remove the temporary modification, or (2) intends to keep the temporary modification until after the next periodic update, or (3) does not intend to restore the facility to its condition as described in the current version of the updated FSAR (i.e., a new design will replace the temporary modification). The staff stated that, for licensees with effective temporary modification programs, the guidance should resu!t in inclusion in the updated FSAR only a small subset of the temporary modifications.

Staff Comments on Industry's Draft Uodated FSAR Guidance Document The staff stated that it had intended to provide comments on NEl 98-03 after it was formally submitted and endorsement was requested. The staff discussed its general comments on the guidance. The staff further agreed to make public its comments from a preliminary review of the draft industry guidance on updated FSARs. As a result of NEl's proposal to adopt some of the provisions in the proposed generic letter, many of the staffs comments on the draft guidance will be addressed if NEl makes the changes as described. T herefore, the staff is i

providing its preliminary comments on the draft guidance as Attachment 3 to this meeting summary.

Enforcement Discretion With Resoect to Uodated FSARs NEl stated that implementation period in the proposed generic letter was insufficient for i

licensees to make their updated FSARs complete and accurate. At the meeting NEl proposed a two year implementation period. The staff stated that the schedule in the proposed generic letter was the staffs recommendation to the Commission and that if NEl had any concerns with this schedule NEl should communicate those concerns, or provide an alternative schedule to the Commission. Any NEl proposal should include intermediate milestones to ensure that licensees were making progress to resolve discrepancies in their updated FSARs.

Attachments: As stated cc w/att: See next page Project No. 689 DISTRIBUTION: See attached page DOCUMENT NAME:G:tFSARtNEl98527. SUM OFC DRPM:PGEB DRPM:Pd$b& C QRPM:PGEB NAME ayw FAkstulewicIh_

TEssig DATE

/,/[8

[ //f/98 L Af/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

f,,

ci s

DISTRIBUTION: Mtg. Summary w/NEl Re Updated FSAR, and 50.59 Dated June 15, 1998 Hard Cony CentralFNs PUBLIC PGEB r/f OGC ACRS TBergman SMagruder EMail SCollins/FMiraglia RZimemrman BSheron JRoe DMatthews FAkstulewicz GMizuno MMarkley RWeisman WReckley EMcKenna EWang I-M

. i 'l I L

w..

o 7, -

.O List of Attendees -

Name Organization A. Afzali Scientech F. Akstulewicz NRC D. Anderson NSP R. Bell '

NEl L

T. Bergman NRC B. Brady Virginia Power C. Brinkman ABB-CE N. Chapman Bechtel

' T. Essig NRC W. Hamson STP NOC J. Hegner Virginia Power B. Holian NRC S. Magruder NRC D. Matthews NRC M. Markley NRC E.McKenna NRC W. Reckley NRC T. Pietrangelo NEl J. Roe NRC-D. Rosinski Winston & Strawn G. Tracy NRC C. Tulley SNC J. Weil McGraw-Hill R. Wenzl NPPD G. Wrubel Rochester Gas & Electric l

1 J,

e FSAR Update Guidance Reconciliation NEI Meeting with NRC May 27,1998 I

Agenda

. Outline of June 4 Commission briefing

= Reconciliation of NEl 98-03 with the draft GL

= Enforcement discretion Conclusion / Next Steps

't' ATTACR M 2 1

1 Commission Briefing Outline

= Use of acceptance limits Design bases interpretation

= 10 CFR 50.59 enforcement discretion

= Draft FSAR update guidance

= Scope of 10 CFR 50.59 V'

Focus of UFSAR Updates

= Design bases a Safety analyses

= Limits on operation

= Contextual description related to above 2

l 4

-o Reconciliation issues

)

SECY-98-087

=

. Historical information

. Obsolete and less meaningful information

. Drawings d'

Historical information Will modify NEI 98-03 to focus on

=

relocation to appendix vice deletion Historical information is information

=

not subject to change or update 3

v Obsolete and Less Meaningful Information

= Includes the following types ofinformation:

. obsolete

. redundant

. excess detail

= NEI 98-03 to be modified to include removal process consistent with draft GL Drawings

= NEI 98-03 will be modified per draft Generic Letter

. When replacing P& ids and other detailed drawings with schematics, licensees will ensure appropriate information is retained.

e Enforcement Discretion Longer implementation period needed

=

and appropriate i

. no safety urgency

. information that would be added to UFSARs already exists on docket

. provide opportunity for Q&A and implementation adjustments

= Based on recent UFSAR upgrade efforts, two years recommended 9

Conclusion

= Reconciliation underway

= Near term steps

. Revision ofNEI 98-03

. NRC endorsement in a RG

. Enforcement Policy revision

= No rulemaking necessary io

p

- o 1

Staff Preliminary Comments on NEl's Draft Guidance for Updating FSARs (NEl 98-03)

The following represents the staff's preliminary comments on the guidance document, " Draft Industry Update Guidelines for Final Safety Analysis Reports," attached to a letter from Mr.

Anthony R. Pietrangelo of NEl to Mr. Jack W. Roe of the staff dated November 14,1997. NEl subsequently notified the staff that the guidance document was provided the identifier NEl 98-03 (a reference number used throughout these comments). After incorporating the staff's comments into a revision of this draft guidance, it is the staff's understanding that NEl will submit NEl 98-03 to the staff and request the staff's endorsement of it. At that time, NEl 98-03 will be distributed to appropriate staff for technical and legal review for the purpose nt endorsing it in a regulatory guide. The staff recommends that NEl 98-03 be consistent with the guidance in the proposed generic letter, since this guidance has been reviewed by the staff and represents the its position on the required content of the updated FSAR.

The staff has both general and specific comments. The comments are numbered sequentially to aid in tracking each comment to closure and to aid future communications by simply referring to the comment nurnber. The comments are presented in the order in which they occur and do not indicate a priority for resolution. Some of the comments below will be resolved if NEl revises NEl 98-03 as indicated during the May 27,1998, meeting. However, the comments are provided here for completeness.

General Comments 1.

Guidance needs additionaldetail in general, the guidance lacks sufficient detail to provide a complete understanding of the requirements for the content of an updated FSAR. NEl stated at the May 27,1998, meeting, that NEl preferred an approach of brief guidance and many examples. The staff understands NEl's position, but the current guidance document relies too heavily on examples. While examples provide a good method to demonstrate how a specific situation is affected by requirement, they offer little insight into how a different situation should be addressed. The purpose of the guidance should be to provide sufficient information such that the guidance addresses all potential situations, and to use examples to demonstrate how to implement the guidance in a variety of specific situations as a tutorial aid.

2.

Guidance does not address full scooe ofinformation reauired to be in an uodated FSAR The guidance does not fully address the scope of an updated FSAR. The staff's position, as described in the proposed generic letter, is that 50.34(b) defines the scope of an FSAR and, by extension, the scope of w updated FSAR.

ATTACHMENT 3

L. :

=

n e

v

=-

}_ ;

. A3-2 3.i Guidance should be oro for each subiect addressed it' the oracosed oeneric letter.

.m r

Each of the specific topics (e.g., scope; level of detailidrawiregs) in the proposed generic

" letter was raised by either a staff,~ industry, or public concern; ~ At a minimum, NEl 98-03 should address all of these subjects.

~ "

4.

Guidance fwnsait excessiveN hn 650.59 as the ournose of the undated PSAR

~

1.

- s NEl 98-03 currently over-emphasizes'the' scope of $50.59 as if it were the only purpose of:

the updated FSAR. While the staff agrees that this is currently 'an important purpose of the updated FSAR, the updated FSAR also serves as a valuable reference document for the public and the staff. ;Therefore, the guidance in NEl 98-03 that information should be included or removed from the updated FSAR on the basis of its importance to $50.59

~

should be deleted.

Inclusion of new information in uodated FSAR 75.

(

- NEl 98-03 at time.us appears to take the position that the " effects of" language in $50.71(e) limits changes to those that affect only existing language in the updated FSAR, and may be interpreted to exclude the addition of completely new issues to the updated FSAR.

' NEl 98-03 should be modified to clearly require the inclusion of new information into the (updated FSAR as described in the proposed generic letter.

6.

Tenninoloav should be consistent throughout guidance document NEl 98-03 should use terminology consistent with the update rule. NEl 98-03 uses the

. acronym "UFSAR" for updated final safety analysis report, although its use is not fully consistent throughout the document; i.e., sometimes it is not used where it should be.

The staff recommends that the term " updated FSAR" be used as this is the term used in the update rule and its Supplementary information. Whatever terminology is ultimately

. chosen, its use should be consistent throughout the guidance document.

NEl 98-03 also uses the term " plant" instead of the update rule's use of " facility."

7.

Do not use "should when referrina to requirements NEl 98-03 uses."should be" when referring to a requirement. NEl 98-03 must be modified to clearly differentiate between those portions of the guidance that are referring to requirements and those that refer to expectations.

8.

Dse of Examoles Specific comments have not been provided on the examples in Appendices B through F.

l In most cases, the cunent examples lack sufficient detail to evaluate whether the outcome p

presented in the example i.s appropriate. The examples should serve as a tutorial. The -

. purpose of each example should be to demonstrate how the guidance is applied to that

.f

" specific example, and indicate the specific statements in the guidance that determine the 4

- ~

f(.

.,i-s.,

F l

0 l'$

u A3-3 outcome of the example. NEl 98-03 should include examples that conform to this comment, and 9 and 10 below. The staff will review each specific example and the -

implementation for that example as part of its endorsement review. The combinati( n of more detailed guidance and demonstrative examples could result in a more effectiv i guidance document.

9.'

Examoles should have sufficient detail to understand the situation The examples need to have sufficient detail to understand the situation, as well as provide relevant information that may limit the applicability of the example to other situations.

Currently, the examples tend to state the situation and the outcome, and only provide

' limited insight into why the outcome occurred. Further, rather than make a statement such as "information was added to the updated FSAR," the examples should explicitly state what information was added and why. It may be worthwhile to consider including some before-and-after updated FSAR pages to augment the examples.

Example 2 of Appendix B demonstrates this concern. This example reads, 10 CFR 50.62 (the ATWS rule) required a new mitigation system be instfed that was' specific to the type of plant (Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering, etc.). The licensee added new information to the UFSAR based on the evaluation provided by the plant designer.

The information was added to the UFSAR section on design basis accidents in a level of detail similar to that of other accident analyses.

This example would benefit from the following additional information (referencing appropriate sections in NEl 98-03):

The changes needed to be considered for inclusion into the updated FSAR in accordance with @50.71(e) because the ATWS rule was a new Commission requirement.

The licensee determined that the modifications to the plant affected the following design bases, limits on operations and safety analyses: (example specific). This type of information is required to be included in an updated FSAR.

' The appropriate description of the system or modifications were made as follows:

(example specific).

Before and after pages where possible.

10. Examoles should orovide soorooriate basis for actions.

The basis for the outcome of each example should be linked to the guidance or requirement, and should be appropriate. Some examples of inappropriate bases for actions taken include:

U

h

,7, j.6-x 3

A3-4 '

Example 1 of Appendix D states, " Additionally, Applicable regulatory guidance did not indicate that such a detail should be included." [in the updated FSARJ.-

Sections 50.34(b) and 50.71(e) define the contents of the updated FSAR, and the fact that specific regulatory guidance on an issue did not state that the hsue was to be addressed in the updated FSAR is not a basis to exclude an issue

- from the updated FSAR.-

- Example 5 of Appendix D states, "The pumps are mentioned in the UFSAR,.

however, because the impeller material is beyond the level of detail discussed in the UFSAR, the UFSAR was not changed." Level of detail alone is an insufficient basis to exclude information from the updated FSAR. Had the new pump impeller material resulted in a change to an operating limit described in the updated FSAR, for example, the operating limit would need to be revised to reflect the change, and a description of the impeller considered for inclusion as well.

Example 3 of Appendix F states, "This licensee typically documents this type of generic issue in engineering documents, reports their completion and considers the results subject to NRC inspection." The licensee's methods for addressing generic issues does not substitute for the updated FSAR. If an issue is required to be addressed in an updated FSAR, it must be incorporated, regardless of whatever other documentatica the licensee may maintain.

Example 3 of Appendix'F further' states,"If the results of the analysis do not impact any analysis conclusions in the UFSAR, the analysis results are not 9,

added to the UFSAR." The fact that an analysis does not affect existing analyses is not a sufficient basis for excluding information from the updated FSAR. If, as.a result of the testing, the licensee made modifications to the valves or their operation such that new or. changed design bases, limits on J

operation, or description of the valves resulted, then the new or changed

-~

~

information; and supporting analyses, would need to be incorporated into the updated FSAR.

Specific Comments

11. Page 1. Backaround. 4th oaragraoh.

"UFSARs have generally not grown much beyond the size of the onginalFSAR. This is consistent with FSAR update rule which did not require that updates be of greater detail than the originalFSAR."'

This guidance could potentially mislead licensees that updated FSARs should not address new

issues, nor does it precisely characterize the language in the Supplementary information for the update rule, which states, "The level 'of detail to be maintained in the updated FSAR should be.

1. : at least the same as originally provided."~ The staffs position is that the phrase "at least the :

i l'

1 (same as" is equivalent to " greater than or equal to ' or "no less than." Hence, this statement i h

' does not constrain the updated FSAR to address new issues nor to address issues in greater s-i..

a 4

h a

L,..

......,.s.

m

p

=

g 4

~

)r

,f,

fV

[j, s

[1; g

i fy e

[

A3-5

/ detail than the' original FSdR,' but rather intends that licensees are not to diminish the level of.

[

detail from that originally provided.

4 LL

~

Second, NEl 98-03 appears'to confound level of detail and scope: The staff's position as-L L described in the proposed generic letter is that level of detail refers to the amount of discussion

'of a specific issue, and scope refers to the number of issues addressed. The proposed generic-

' letter inus' provides guidance that all updated FSARs should have the same scope, excepting L

for design differences, but could have different levels of detail as indicated in the Supplementary Information. - The allowance for different levels of detail was simply because the -

. update rule did not impose a standard level of detail (e'.g., to meet Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 3).

Therefore, as a result of new issues identified since the original FSAR was issued, the updated FSARs may,-in general, increase in size with time as a result of addressing the new issues and -

modifying existing information in the updated FSAR at a level of detail at least that of the original FSAR.'

12. Paae 2. Implementation.

"In conducting ongoing FSAR reviews, the first priority oflicensees should be on assuring the accuracy of design bases and other safety significant information. It is expected that NRC inspection and enforcement of UFSAR compliance will be similarly focused on safety significance information." -

Although the staff agrees with the principle to update design bases and other safety significant information on a priority basis, this approach would only appear to be applicable during the current enforcement discretion period. Thereafter, the updates must occur at the frequency required by 50.71(e), regardless of the information's safety significance. Therefore, NEl 98-03, which is to be a permanent guidance document, should either note the temporary nature of this guidance or delete it (recommended).

In addition,~ expectations concerning inspection and enforcement activities are more appropriate in inspection and enforcement guidance rather than in an industry guideline. The second sentence should be deleted.

13.! Table 1. Item 1: 1st Guidance Bullet.

lThrough the update process, UFSAR information should be maintained accurate and up to date, including changes,' additions or deletions to the descriptions, design bases and safety analyses relied upon by the NRC forinitiallicensing. Both general and specific descriptions should be consistent with the current plant configuration and operation."

3This is an incomplete _ description of the full information required to be included in an FSAR pursuant to $50.34(b). For example,.550.34(b) requires that the limits on operation be b

included, as well as a safety analysis of the structures, systems, components and of the facility

! as a whole.1 ection 50.34(b) also identifies other information that must be included such as S

, - jl,-

l - (-

2, J8 I

i

'u-'

4.

j f

I n

L s

,5 ey 1

y

)9l

9

~

+

A3-6'

-.manageria" operational information.' Guidance similar to that.in the proposed generic letter should be substituted for the existing guidance in NEl 98-03.

R '

~

Secondi $50.71(e) is not limited to that information " relied upon by the NRC for initial licensing."

Section 50.71(e) also incorporates new information (appropriate for inclusion in an updated

~ FSAR such as new descriptive l design bases or limits or operations; or new safety analyses).

into the updated FSAR as a resuit'of analyses submitted to the Commission or performed by or on behalf of the licensee as a result of Commission requirements or req'uests.

'14.

Paae 3: Table 1. Item S Guidance; n

' i^

"UFSARs should be U6 dated to reflect plant changes resulting from new or amended regulations, e.g., Appendix R, Station Blackout and ATWS, orplant-specific orders. In response to such new requirements, it may be appropriate to add certain new information

- to UFSARs consistent with the purpose of the UFSAR to provide a reference document for use in recurring safety analyses. The following types ofinformation may be of potential significance in evaluating future changes under f50.59 and should be considered

. forincorporation in ne UFSAR:

new design. eses as definedin f50.2 description of safety function (s) summary of relevant safety analjses including specific operational actions credited Note that certain new regulations of a programmatic nature, e.g., the Maintenance and n

' Fitness for Duty Rules do not result in information that is significant to &50.59 evaluations.

Accordingly, it is not necessary to address licensee actions responding to regulations of

this type in UFSARs."

' The guidance implies that only plant changes need to be updated. Section 50.71(e) contains

. no such restriction, and can include other changes such as due to analyses or organization.

The guidance is also overly focused on $50.59 as the purpose for the updated FSAR. While.

the staff recognizes that the updated FSAR currently defines the scope of 50.59, the updated FSAR does not exist solely for that purpose. The guidance implies that only information

. relevant to $50.59 must be updated.. Section 50.71(e) is broader, it requires all information that

. is changed (or new information added) as a result of analyses submitted by the licensee; or pursuant to Commission requirement or request be updated.

, : As noted previously, the updated FSAR is also to include operating lim.

The~ updated FSAR is not limited to " description of safety function (s)"; the safoty functions are a

! subset of the description of the facility (and aid in understanding the safety analyses and design bases); it is unclear what " relevant" means; if it means all analyses required by $50.34(b) and

$50.71(e) then relevant is appropriate but should be clarified by an explicit statement.

.t.

e a

f I

,t

- m s.

m:

? A3-7 iln general, the staff agrees that programmatic-type rules would not result in new information to 1 be. included in the updated FSAR, except if the new rule explicitly required such an inclusion.-

~

However, the staff disagrees with the basi provided; it is not because they do not include.

information relevant to $50.59, it is because they have not met one of the conditions in either '

. $50.71(e) or $50.34(b), or the originating requirement did not require any information to be incxxperated. The staff is aware of licensees that have incorporated programmatic-type rules into the updated FSAR to the extent that the licensee's commitment to a particular regulatory -

? guide m sy be stated (if the licensee so commits as at least one has done for the maintenance rule).

~

15. ^ Pace 4. Table 1. Item 3. 2nd Guidance Bullet "If the UFSAR is unaffected by a change, e.g., because the change involved a level of

. detail beyond the existing UFSAR level of detail for affected equipment orprocedures described, no change to the UFSAR is required."

--The meaning of this part of the guidance is unclear because of the combining of " level of detail" and " scope" within

• level of detail" in NEl 98-03. The concem here is that this guidance could

' be misinterpreted to exclude adding new or additional information that occurs as a result of a change.

' 16. ' Pace 4. Table 1. Item 4: Guidance.

If the UFSAR information is affected by safety evaluations performed in support oflicense amendments or f50.59 changes, e.g., due to use of new assumptions or analyses, the UFSAR should be updated to reflect the effects of the safety

evaluation.

i If the UFSAR is unaffected by a safety evaluation, e.g., for a change to a procedure not described in the UFSAR, no change to the UFSAR is required.

. This guidance should be clarified to in'dicate that some changes will result in additional information (i.e., "new" means both changed and " additional") and that changed or additional information other than assumptions and analyses may occur (the description, operating limits,

. or design cases). Since NEl 98-03.seems to' emphasize the " effects of" language in $50.71(e) as meaning only if it changes' existing information in the updated FSAR, NEl 98-03 should incorporate guidance that clearly demonstrates that the effect of a new analysis or requirement

- could be the inclusion of completely new infomJation that does not change any existing

Information in the updated FSAR.

l 17: Paan 5l Table 1. Item 5. 2nd Guidance Bullet ko the extent UFSARs are supplemented to reflect actions taken in response to a new i issue, the new information added to the UFSAR should be consistent with the purpose of i the UFSAR to provide a reference document for use in recurring safety analyses. The l

p

.e c

i*

i e

l b

fW y

e A3 >

followmg types ofinformation may be of potential significance in evaluating future changes under f50.59 and should be considered for incorporation in the UFSAR:

new design bases as definedin f50.2 description of safety function (s)

='

- summary of relevant safety analyses, including specific operational actions; credited" -

Similar to previous comments, this guidance over-emphasizes use in $50.59 to the exclusion of -

other uses, and is an incomplete description of the information required in an updated FSAR.

18. Pace 5. Table 1: Item 5. 3rd Bullet

'If a newissue does not require action by a particularlicensee orif the licensee analysis or action does not affect information described in the updated FSAR, then no change to the' updated FSAR is required" The intent of this guidance is unclear and appears' to contradict the guidance in the bullet that' immediately precedes it. Also, this guidance refers to " required" actions only and does not include changes or additions to the updated FSAR as a result of Commission " requests."

19. Paae 5. Table 1. Item 6.1st Bullet

'Wheneverpossible, UFSAR changes should be incorporated in the existing text, tables or figures to maximize clarity and ensure that all the needed corrections are made. If the

. subject of the evaluation or analysis has not been previously addressed in the UFSAR,

~

the new information may be appropriately located in a new section or an appendix of the

. UFSAR."

This appears to be an accep able approach." However, this thought (of adding new issues) a does not come out throughout the document, and may appear to be intemally inconsistent with

- the current language elsewhere in NEl 98-03.-

20. ' Pace 5. Table 1. Item 6. 2nd Bullet

'Information that is appropriate'to' include iri the UFS R and is part of a separate controlling document may be incorporated in the UFSAR by appropriate reference to that

" information. Later updates should reference the current revision of the controlling

- document."

The staff agrees that material may be incorporated by reference. Guidance should clearly state L

' that material incorporated by reference is subject to $50.71(e) and $50.59 (except for those

' portions controlled separately by $50.54). The guidance should distinguish between material l,

incorporated by. reference, and material referenced in the updated FSAR.

x lo

?

l A.

t i

4 t'_

._al,

o 1

A3-9

21. Pace 6. " Level of Detail for UFSAR Uodates' Guidance should be provided on level of dete, essociated with changes pursuant to 50.59 consistent with statements in the Supplemer;tary Information.

22. Page 6. Format of UFSAR Uodates

'NRC regulations do not address the format of the FSAR or the updates required by 10 CFR 50.71(e). However, consistent with the Statements of Consideration for the FSAR update rule, the format for UFSAR updates is expected to be consistent with that of the original FSAR. Licensees may adopt the fonnat of Regulatory Guide 1.70 at their own discretion."

This guidance is acceptable, however, the proposed generic letter provides Dreater flexibility. In addition, later guidance in NEl 98-03 contradicts the guidance here in that it allows changes in the format (by relocating historical information).

23. Paae 6. Temoorary Changes NEl 96-03 states that temporary changes are not to be incorporated into the updated FSAR unless they become permanent or cause otherpermanent plant changes to occur.

The approach in the proposed generic letter, which would include temporary modifications in the facility under certain circumstances, should be adopted.

24. Page 7. Parearaoh Preceding Subitem 1. Obsolete and Less MeaninafulInformation

• Removal of UFSAR material must be administratively controlled. Deleted material and the basis forits deletion from the UFSAR must be retained bylicensees."

As proposed by NEl during the May 27,1998, meeting with the staff, NEl 98-03 should adopt

' additional measures in the proposed generic letter, including that the documented basis for information be provided to the NRC as part of the periodic updates.

25. Paaes 7-8. Obsolete and Less MeaninafulInformation

' Deletion of obsolete or redundant infonnation is consistent with the purpose of the UFSAR to provide a reference document for use in recurring safety analyses (e.g., f50.59 safety evaluations) and the intent that UFSARs focus on information that has continuing safety orregulatory significance.

The following types of obsolete or redundant information may be deleted from UFSARs:

Information relevant to SSCs, programs or organizations that are no longerin use or no longer exist (e.g., Construction Quality Assurance Program).

t i

~

g l,

4 a

y 3:

3X iA3-10

- Information that is redundant to that found elsewhere in the UFSAR.

Note: When deletihg duplicate information from on or more locations, it may be appropriate to provide a reference to the UFSAR section where the information is retained. -

~ '~

L

(*

Information thbt is dublicative to that contained in a controlling program

~

document or technical report such as the Emergency Plan, Olfsite Dose Calculation Manual, Security Plan, Quality Assurance Plan, and Environmental Protection Plan.

- Note: It may be appropriate to replace the deleted material with a brief summary of key information and/or specific reference to the information in the controlling document.

~

Neither the rule nor its Supplementary Information state that it is the intent of the updated FSAR to focus on information that has " continuing safety or regulatory significance." Note that the guidance here in NEl 98-03 would support an argument to incorporate into the updated FSAR descriptions of programs such as the maintenance rule and fitness for duty rule since the original FSARs included descriptions of programs of " regulatory significance" at the time of application for current licensees (and these rules have " regulatory significance" today).

Section 50.34(b) requires certain specific programs (initial test program) to be incorporated. In addition, the specific example cited.in NEl 98-03, construction quality assurance program, would have been incorporated in the FSAR under 50.34(b)(5) or 50.34(b)(6)(ii). Therefore, in the, absence of rulemaking to explicitly allow removal of these programs, it is prohibited to do so. The other " obsolete" information is undefined, it may be that the proposed generic letter's language on " Treatment of FSAR Information Related to Removal of or Retirement-in-Place of SSCs" would suffice.

The guidance in the third bullet appears appropriate to the extent that the material incorporated by reference remains under the control of $50.71(e) and $50.59, or some other controlling regulation such as $50.54. The guidance should be clarified by explicitly so stating.

26. Pace 8. Historical Material NEI 98-03 currently allows licensees to remove historical material from the updated FSAR.

NEl 98-03 should adopt the guidance in the proposed generic letter for historical information, which allows historical information to be relocated to appendices within the updated FSAR.

- These appendices would still be subject to the requirements of $50.71(e) and $50.59.

37 m

+

2 9

~

?

.L i

.i.'

.g, f -:

+

Project No. 68g p

.. Nuclear Energy Institute '

e z - t h

cc:'

. Mr. Ralph Beedle c,

Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director.

O Senior Vice President Plant Support '

l Nuclear Energy Institute

~

and Chief Nuclear Officer 4

- Nuclear Energy Institute l.

. Suite 400l 1776 "l" Street, NW.

Suite 400.-

1776 "l" Street, NW L.

Washington, DC 20006-3708-

' Washington, DC 20006-3708 1

- Mr. Alex Marion, Director' '

i

' Programs :

~

Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 "I" Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. David Modeen, Director Engineering Nuclear Energy Institute.

. Suite 400 1776 "l" Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Director Licensing -

. Nuclear Energy Institute i Suite 400 1776 *1" Street, NW '

Washington, DC -20006-3708

- Mr. Nicholas'J.- Liparulo,' Manager

._ Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division 1

Westinghouse Electric Corporation P,0. Box 355:

, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ~ 15230 Mr. Jim Davis, Director

' Operations -

Nuclear Energy Institute

' Suite 400 -

11776 *l" Street, NW -:

LWashington, DC ' 20006-3708

-[ / :n

~

.].

__________.___._.____d