ML23151A598

PR-050,054 - 58FR28523 - FSAR Update Submittals

ML23151A598
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/14/1993
From:	Taylor J NRC/EDO
To:
References
PR-050, PR-054, 58FR28523
Download: ML23151A598 (1)

Text

DOCUMENT DATE:

TITLE:

CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD:

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 05/14/1993 PR-050, 054 - 58FR28523 - FSAR UPDATE SUBMITTALS PR-050, 054 58FR28523 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OP RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE:

PR-050, 054 RULE NAME:

FSAR UPDATE SUBMITTALS PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE:

58FR28523 PROPOSED RULB PUBLICATION DATE:

05/14/93 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 06/14/93 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N NUMBER OP COMMENTS:

5 EXTENSION DATE:

I I

FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 58FR45243 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 08/27/93 NOTES ON PROPOSED AND PINAL RULE SIGNED BY EDO.

PILE LOCATED ON Pl.

ATUS RULE TO FIND THE STAPP CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAXING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OP THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-050, 054 RULE TITLE:

.OPOSED RULE SECY PAPER:

PINAL RULE SECY PAPER:

FSAR UPDATE SUBMITTALS PROPOSED RULE SRM DATE:

FINAL RULE SRM DATE:

DATE PROPOSED RULE I

I SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

05/05/93 DATE PINAL RULE I

I SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

08/16/93 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACT1: CLAUDIA M. CRAIG CONTACT2:

MAIL STOP: 12-E-4 MAIL STOP:

PHONE: 504-1281 PHONE:

DOCKET NO. PR-050, 054 (58FR28523)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR In t he Matter of FSAR UPDATE SUBMITTALS DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 05/12/93 05/05/93 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE 06/15/93 06/10/93 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL (THOMAS E. TIPTON, V. P.) (

1) 06/15/93 06/11/93 COMMENT OF TU ELECTRIC (WILLIAM J. CAHILL, JR., V.P.) (

2) 06/16/93 06/11/93 COMMENT OF OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT (W. G. GATES, V.P.) (

3) 06/17 /93 06/14/93 COMMENT OF PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (G. A. HUNGER, JR.) (

4) 06/18/93 06/14/93 COMMENT OF VIRG INIA POWER (M. L. BOWLING) (

5) 08/24/93 08/16/93 FINAL RULE PUBLISHED AT 58 FR 45243 ON 8/27/93.

,.(:'fJ'f m ~)t;:~~---

lnginal sent Jn1co of file Feaerm ~~:.)~t~::

[7590-01]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-93 Al'S 24 A10 :3Z 10 CFR Parts 50 and 54 RIN 3150 - AE63 FSAR Update Submittals AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission {NRC) is amending its regulations on power reactor safety in order to consistently apply the requirement that nuclear power plant licensees submit final safety analysis report (FSAR) updates annually or six months after each refueling outage. These amendments eliminate confusion regarding two references to an existing reporting requirement.

The final rule does not require additional reporting requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

(30 days after publication)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Claudia M. Craig, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

20555, telephone {301) 504-1281.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Background

In February 1993, the Commission approved the establishment of a regulatory review group (RRG) to conduct a comprehensive and disciplined review of power reactor regulations and related NRC processes, programs, and practices for their implementation.

The RRG, found two areas in the regulations that may cause confusion regarding a recent amendment to another section of the regulations.

On August 31, 1992~ the Commission amended 10 CFR 50.71(e) to allow nuclear power reactor licensees to submit FSAR updates either annually or 6 months after each refueling outage, The RRG.

discovered that 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) and 10 CFR 54.37(b) still referenced the previous requirement for annual FSAR submittals. This conflict may confuse licensees in determining how often quality assurance program changes and FSAR updates for license renewal should be submitted.

Description The amendments delete the references to the annual submittal of updates in 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) and 10 CFR 54.37(b). The amended sections reference the regulation~ 10 CFR 50.71(e), not the specific requirements of the regulation.

Licensees with a QA program description that is convnon to multiple units or several sites may submit changes to the co11111on quality assurance (QA) program description that do not reduce commitments annually or 6 months after each refueling outage at only one of the sites if the jnterval between submittals 2

does not exceed 24 months and all applicable dockets are referenced. This would allow licensees with multiple plants to tie the submittal of changes to the corrmon QA program to the refueling outage schedule of only one plant and would eliminate the need for a separate submittal for each plant. The amendment will eliminate the confusion caused by the conflicting requirements in different sections of the regulations.

Su11111ary of Public CoIT111ents On May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28523), the NRC published a proposed rule that would delete the references to the annual submittal of updates in 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) and 10 CFR 54.37(b). The co11111ent period ended on June 14, 1993, and the NRC received five letters of public comment on the pr,oposed rules.

Four commenters fully supported the proposed changes; one convnenter submitted statements for §50.54(a)(3) to further clarify the requirements and recommended that NRC revise 10 CFR 54.37(c) to duplicate the reporting frequency of §50.59(b)(2); one con111enter also recommended that NRC consider extending the reporting frequency associated with 10 CFR 50.59(b)(2) to be consistent with the FSAR update submittal. The Commission agrees with the proposed statements for 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) and has incorporated the statements into the final rule. All other sections of the final rulemaking remain unchanged.

Copies of those letters and the NRC staff response to the public comments are available for public inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

3

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22{c){3){i) and {iii).

Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 {44 U.S.C. 3051 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval numbers 3150-0011 and 3150-0155.

Regulatory Analysis The Convnission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final regulation.

The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Convnission.

The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. {Lower Leve1), Washington, DC.

Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Claudia M. Craig, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington., DC 20555, {301) 504-1281.

4

Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

the Co1T111ission certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entitiesn as given in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or the Small Business Size Standards promulgated in the regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule. The rule affects recordkeeping and reporting requirements which have been deemed not subject to the backfit rule and the changes are voluntary relaxations of requirements which are not being imposed upon licensees. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this final rule because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(l).

5

List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, *Fire protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 54 Administrative practice and procedure, Age-related degradation, Backfitting, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 54.

PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

1.

The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY:

Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.

936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232,.2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended 1244, 1246 (42 u.s.c. 5841, 5842, 5846).

6

I I,,

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).

Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat.

955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).

Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).

Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).

Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).

Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).

Sections 50.80 - 50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).

Appendix Falso issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 u.s.c. 2237).

2.

In §50.54, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:

§50.54 Conditions of licenses.

(a)*

(3) After March 11, 1983, each licensee described in paragraph (a)(l) of this section may make a change to a previously accepted quality assurance program description included or referenced in the Safety Analysis Report, provided the change does not reduce the commitments in the program description previously accepted by the NRC.

Changes to the quality assurance program description that do not reduce the connnitments must be submitted to the NRC in accordance with the requirements of §50.7l(e). Changes to the quality 7

assurance program description that do reduce the commitments must be submitted to NRC and receive NRC approval prior to implementation, as follows:

PART 54 - REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL OF OPERATING LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

1.

The authority citation for Part 54 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY:

Secs. 102, 103, 104, 161, 181, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.

936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842).

2.

In §54.37, paragraph (b) is revised to read. as follows:

§54.37 Additional records and recordkeep1nq requirements.

(b) The FSAR update required by 10 CFR 50.71(e) must include any SSCs newly identified as important to license renewal as a result of generic information, research, or other new information after the renewed license is issued.

The update must also identify any SSCs deleted from the list of SSCs important to license renewal. This FSAR update must describe how the age-related degradation unique to license renewal of newly identified SSCs important to license renewal will be effectively managed during the period of 8

extended operation. The update must also be accompanied by a justification for deleting any SSCs previously identified as important to license renewal.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this /&'6/day_of 1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

or Operations 9

June 14, 1993 Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE

• 93 JUN 18 Al 1 :5 6 5000 Dominion Boulemrd Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 VIRGINIA POWER Serial No.93-330 NL&P/RBP FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SUBMITTAL$

In the May 14, 1993 Federal Register, the NRC requested comments on a proposed rule concerning final safety analysis report (FSAR) submittals. The proposed change would eliminate confusion regarding two references to an existing reporting requirement.

We endorse this change in regulations as it clarifies the August 31, 1992 NRC rule change regarding FSAR submittals.

If you have any questions, please contact us.

e Very truly yours,

/ft/_/]~

M. L. Bowling, Manager Nuclear Licensing and Programs JUl 3 0 1!!3 Acknowledged by card........................ T""'"

DOCKET NUMBER PHILADELPIDA ELECTRIC coJM OSED RULE PR S-0-r£_ l-/

NUCLEAR GROUP HEADQUARTERS

(~J>'P_~ i.~i~ 51 ':J) 955-65 CHESTERBROOK BLVD.

U'.:>NkC WAYNE, PA 19087-5691 (215) 640-6000

• 93 JUN 17 p 4 : 1 8 STATION SUPPORT DEPARTMENT Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Services Branch Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Philadelphia Electric Company Comments Concerning Proposed Rule 10 CFR 50 and 54, "FSAR Update Submittals" (58 FR 28523)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This letter is being submitted in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) request for comments concerning the Proposed Rule 10 CFR 50 and 54, "FSAR Update Submittals," published in the Federal Register (58 FR 28523, dated May 14, 1993).

Philadelphia Electric Company {PECo) appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule.

PECo ful ly supports the NRC' s efforts to amend its regulations to eliminate the conflicting reporting requirements associated with the annual submittal of revisions to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

{UFSAR).

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours, J.a.~.~.

G. A. H:n~er, ~ r.

Director Licensing Section JUL 3 0 1993 -

Ac1<.nowtedged by card.... -.. -.. -*

1111

r?ostm:::*i. D.::'.J _ 6.}_!_r~J_q,_J _ _ _

Ccri(;j 1*\\l~;~

Zv~ ~*--*- *---,*:::r-----

45-5124 June 11, 1993 LIC-93-0154 Omaha Public Power District 444 sout h 16th Street Mall Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2247 402/636-2000 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch

REFERENCE:

Docket No. 50-285

Dear Mr. Chilk:

• 93 JUN 16 P 3 :33

SUBJECT:

Comments Concerning Proposed Rulemaking - "FSAR Update Submittals" In the Federal Register (FR) dated May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28523), the NRC proposed amending 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) and 10 CFR 54.37(b) so that these sections reference 10 CFR 50.7l{e), not the specific requirements of 10 CFR

50. 71 ( e).

The intent is to eliminate the confusion caused by confl icting requirements for submitting final safety analysis report (FSAR) updates.

Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) has reviewed the proposed rule and has the following comments.

As proposed, 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) still refers to some of the specific requirements of 10 CFR 50.?l(e).

This is not consistent with the obJective of the proposed rule and may be a source of confusion.

For example, 10 CFR 50.7l(e)(4) requires revisions to the FSAR to be filed annually or 6 months after each refueling outage provided the interval between successive updates to the FSAR does not exceed 24 months.

However, the proposed wording of 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) does not contain the provision concerning the 24 month interval.

To eliminate the potential for conflicting requirements, the NRC should consider revising the sentence in 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3), which presently states:

Changes to the quality assurance pro~ram description that do not reduce the commitments must be subm1tted to the NRC annual ly or 6 months after each refueling outage which is in accordance with the requirements of§ 50.ll(e).

This statement should read:

Changes to the quality assurance program description that do not reduce the comm1tments must be submitted to the NRC in accordance with the requirements of§ 50.ll(e).

JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by card..................................

Employment with Equal Opportunity Male/Female

, ~.$ ~ I ;

• *,.. ;:r:;u* !;';*:,RY CCMMI S10~

C~* ':. '*: ~ *. ->:;: \\If,.,::. SECTION C. : J. '.

, I,.: !: ;;:-:~TARY j.: ':*::~~;!.:>;S;.)~J

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission LIC-93-0154 Page 2

2.

As an addition to the proposed rule, the NRC should consider revising the reporting frequency of 10 CFR 54.37(c).

This regulation directs licensees to submit a l i st of a 11 changes made to programs for management of age-related degradation unique to license renewal that do not ~ecrease the effectiveness of the programs to which the licensee convnitted.

The list of changes must be submitted at least annually, along with a brief description and a summary of the safety evaluation of each change.

These types of changes are similar to those reported in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59(b)(2), which requires a brief description of any changes, tests, and experiments, including a summary of the safety evaluation of each.

Therefore, OPPD recommends that 10 CFR 54.37(c) be revised to duplicate the reporting frequency of 10 CFR 50.59(b)(2), and to allow submi ttal of these changes annually or along with the tSAR updates as required by§ 50.7l (e).

If you should have any questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,

~-~-pcJ,t;__ _>

W. G. Gates Vice President WGG/mle c:

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae J. L. Milhoan, NRC Regional Administrator, Region IV S. D. Bloom, NRC Project Manager R. P. Mullikin, NRC Senior Resident Inspector Document Control Desk

William J. Cahill, Jr.

Group Viu Prrsidrnl bGCI 'T NUMBER PR A

rc..-J fiO OS ED RU LE..:..:.:-i:5._v~::::::~~

1UELECTRIC Cs-~F R 2-rS:;... ::J i,, l, t'1:.1 l Log # TXX-93247 File# 10010 Ref. # 10CFR50.71 ~

10CFR50. 59(15')

U'.:>NRC JUN 15 P 3 :58 June 11, 1993

• JI * !~

r -~

OrJCK*.

N, '

Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Docketing and Services Branch Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE CONCERNING FSAR UPDATE SUBMITTALS REF:

Federal Register, Volume 58, No. 92, dated May 14, 1993 10CFR Parts 50 and 54, RIN 3150-AE63, "FSAR Update Submittals" Gentlemen:

TU Electric supports the proposed rule described in the referenced Federal Register notice, to clarify the FSAR update reporting requirement by deleting references to annual updates in 10CFR50.54(a)(3) and 10CFR54.37(e).

In conjuction with the proposed rule TU Electric recommends that consideration be given to extending the reporting frequency associated with 10CFR50.59(b)(2), currently annually or sooner, to be consistent with the FSAR update submittal.

Most 10CFR50.59 evaluations, although not all, result from changes that impact the FSAR.

Thus there is a high degree of correlation between information contained in the FSAR update and the information in the 10CFR50.59 annual summaries.

In general, for 50.59 evaluations affecting the FSAR, the 50.59 evaluation process is an integral part of the FSAR update process (i.e., they usually share the* same databases, are processed by the same individuals, and are on the same schedule).

As a result there are significant time and resource efficiencies associated with the submittal of the 10CFR50.59 summaries on the same frequency as the FSAR update submittal. Also, the same arguments apply for extending the frequency of 10CFR50.59 summaries as were applied to extending the FSAR update frequency (e.g., the original intent for an annual submittal was to reflect changes for one cycle when the normal cycle was one year; also most plant changes, with the accompanying FSAR changes and 50.59 evaluations, occur during refueling outages).

JUL 3 O 1993 Acknowledged by card..................................

400 N. Olive Street L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201

TXX-93247 Page 2 of 2 Based on the above TU Electric recommends revising the proposed rule to extend the submittal frequency of 10CFRS0.59 summaries to be consistent with the frequency of FSAR update submittals, (i.e., either annually or within six months after each refueling outage).

BSD C -

Mr. J. L. Milhoan, Region IV Resident Inspectors, CPSES {2)

Mr. T. A. Bergman, NRR s;;;~ f). ~1)-,.

William J. Cahill, Jr.

By:~~~W&

R. D. Walker Manager of Regulatory Affairs

NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL 1776 Eye Street NW.

• Suite 300

• Washington, DC 20006-3706 (202) 872-1280

'93 JUN 15 P 3 :57 Thomas E. Tipton Vice President & Director Operations. Management and Support Services Division Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary June 10, 1993 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION:

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Docketing and Service Branch Proposed Rule Change, FSAR Update Submittals 58 Fed. Reg. 28523 (May 14, 1993)

The NRC has solicited comments regarding proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) and 10 CFR 54.37(b) to eliminate confusion regarding two references to an existing reporting requirement (58 Fed. Reg. 28523). On behalf of the nuclear power industry, the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) 1 fully supports the change to 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) and 10 CFR 54.37(b).

(!)

With the establishment by the NRC of the Regulatory Review Group to review the regulations pertaining to the operation of nuclear power facilities, we are pleased to see that the staff has identified these two regulations for amendment to eliminate confusion 1NUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry that is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the nuclear power industry. Every utility responsible for constructing or operating a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is a member ofNUMARC. In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect/engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors.

JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by card..................................

tl.S. h:1,'. i:. : : f E: U!.Ai'0:1Y COW,1ISS!Ot-.

[':-', r.. ~-*;: i - *'*""; ; S!:~'/iCf: Sr:CTiON

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk June 10, 1993 Page2 for licensees regarding FSAR update submittals. We commend the Commission for its prompt action in identifying the need to maintain constancy within the regulations and implementing these changes.

di~ r.J,t' Thomas E. Tipton TET/JHE:sp

Cop1 to Secy-- -..

Orig;+,al seftt to the...... "-,,.

Offir,e of tfte Federal Regis{Gt

-1()1" oublicati.0.n-

-lft1k/J1nlt.1~ 1km-DOCKET NUMBER PR.

S'-1 PROPOSED RULE G ~ -r *

(5t'F rt 1-HV J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 50 and 54 RIN 3150 - AE63 FSAR Update Submittals AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

DOCKETED USNRC E.

• i J(,hi I ll *,

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to amend its regulations on power reactor safety in order to consistently apply the requirement that nuclear power plant licensees submit final safety analysis report (FSAR) updates annually or six months after each refueling outage.

These amendments would eliminate confusion regarding two references to an existing reporting requirement.

The proposed rule would not require additional reporting requirements.

DATE:

6 /t1..1 /93 The comment period expires (insert date 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register), 1993.

Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES:

Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

20555.

ATTN:

Docketing and Services Branch.

Deliver comments to:

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.

Copies of the convnents and supporting documents may be examined at: the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Claudia M. Craig, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

20555, telephone (301) 504-1281.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In February 1993, the Commission approved the establishment of a regulatory review group (RRG) to conduct a comprehensive and disciplined review of power reactor regulations and related NRC processes, programs, and practices for their implementation. Within the framework of this review, the RRG identified two areas in the regulations that may cause confusion relative to a recent amendment of another section of the regulations.

On August 31, 1992, the Commission amended 10 CFR 50.7l(e) to allow nuclear power reactor licensees to submit FSAR updates either annually or six months after each refueling outage.

The RRG discovered that 10 tFR 50.54(a)(3) and 10 CFR 54.37(b) still referenced the previous requirement of annual FSAR submittals.

This conflict may confuse licensees regarding how often quality assurance program changes and FSAR updates for license renewal should be submitted.

2

As proposed, the amendments would delete the references to the annual submittal of FSAR updates in 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) and 10 CFR 54.37(b). The sections would then reference the regulation, 10 CFR 50.7l(e), not the specific requirements of the regulation. The proposed amendment would eliminate the confusion caused by the conflicting requirements contained in different sections of the regulations.

Environmental Impact:

Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this regulation is the type of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(i) and (iii).

Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3051 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval numbers 3150-0011 and 3150-0155.

3

Regulatory Analysis The Corrunission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation.

The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission.

The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, D.C.

Single copies of the draft analysis may be obtained from Claudia M.

Craig, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

20555, (301} 504-1281.

The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis.

Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

the Commission certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed regulation affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants.

The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" as given in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards promulgated in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

4

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule. The proposed rule affects recordkeeping and reporting requirements which have been deemed not subject to the backfit rule and the changes are voluntary relaxations of requirements which are not being imposed upon licensees. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a}(l}.

List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR ~art 54 Administrative practice and procedure, Age-related degradation, Backfitting, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

5

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC 1s proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 54.

PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

1. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY:

Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.

936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended {42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended 1244, 1246 (42 u.s.c. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).

Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat.

955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).

Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).

Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 {42 U.S.C. 4332).

Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 {42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 {42 U.S.C. 2239).

Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).

Sections 50.80 - 50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2234). Appendix Falso issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 u.s.c. 2237).

6

2.

In §50.54, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:

§50.54 Conditions of licenses.

(a) *

(3) After March 11, 1983, each licensee described in paragraph (a)(l} of this section may make a change to a previously accepted quality assurance program description included or referenced in the Safety Analysis Report, provided the change does not reduce the commitments in the program description previously accepted by the NRC.

Changes to the quality assurance program description that do not reduce the connnitments must be submitted to the NRC annually or 6 months after each refueling outage which is in accordance with the requirements of §50.?l(e). Changes to the quality assurance program description that do reduce the commitments must be submitted to NRC and receive NRC approval prior to implementation, as follows:

PART 54 - REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL OF OPERATING LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

1.

The authority citation for Part 54 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY:

Secs. 102, 103, 104, 161, 181, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.

936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954> 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842).

7

2.

In §54.37, paragraph {b) is revised to read as follows:

§54.37 Additional records and recordkeepinq reguirements.

{b) The FSAR update required by 10 CFR 50.7l(e) must include any SSCs newly identified as important to license renewal as a result of generic information, research, or other new information after the renewed license is issued.

The update must also identify any SSCs deleted from the list of SSCs important to license renewal. This FSAR update must describe how the age-related degradation unique to license renewal of newly identified SSCs important to license renewal will be effectively managed during the period of extended operation.

The update must also be accompanied by a justification for deleting any SSCs previously identified as important to license renewal.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this,5,t.,L'day of ~;;r--* 1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

or for Operations 8