ML23156A077

PRM-050 - 55FR18608 - Petition for Rulemaking: Notice of Receipt. (Yankee Atomic Electric Company)

ML23156A077
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/03/1990
From:	Chilk S NRC/SECY
To:
References
55FR18608, PRM-050
Download: ML23156A077 (1)

Text

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 05/03/1990 TITLE: PRM-050 55FR18608 - PETITION FOR RULEMAKING:

NOTICE OF RECEIPT. (YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY)

CASE

REFERENCE:

PRM-050-55 55FR18608 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE: PRM-050-55 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME: PETITION FOR RULEMAKING: NOTICE OF RECEIPT. (YANKE E ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY)

PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE: 55FR18608 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 05/03/90 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: 27 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 07/02/90 EXTENSION DATE: I I FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: I I NOTES ON PETITION CONCERNS REQUIREMENTS FOR REVISIONS TO THE FINAL SAFETY A STA~US NALYSIS REPORT. FILE LOCATED ON 16-G.

F 1191,B TO FIND THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PRM-050-55 RULE TITLE: PETITION FOR RULEMAKING: NOTICE OF RECEIPT. (YANKE E ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY)

ROPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 04/27/90 FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: I I STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: MICHAEL T. LESAR MAIL STOP: P-223 PHONE: 49-27758 CONTACT2: MAIL STOP: PHONE:

DOCKET NO. PRM-050-55 (55FR18608)

In the Matter of PETITION FOR RULEMAKING: NOTICE OF RECEIPT. (YANKE E ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT

- 02/16/90 02/09/90 DONALD EDWARDS LTR TO CHILK WITH ENCLOSED PETITION TO AMEND THE PRESENT PROVISIONS OF 10CFR SEC.50-71 (E)(4) 05/25/90 05/21/90 COMMENT OF MARVIN LEWIS ( 1) 06/02/90 06/02/90 COMMENT OF DETROIT EDISON COMPANY (WILLIAMS. ORSER, SR. VICE PRES.) ( 5) 06/06/90 07/02/90 COMMENT OF NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (E. J. MROCZKA, SR. VICE PRES.) ( 6) 06/11/90 06/06/90 COMMENT OF ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY (F. A. SPANGENBERG, Ill) ( 2) 06/18/90 06/13/90 COMMENT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE

- (TED C. FEIGENBAUM, SR. VICE PRES.) ( 3) 06/25/90 06/21/90 COMMENT OF FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION (P. M. BEARD, JR., SR. V.P.) ( 4) 07/02/90 06/29/90 COMMENT OF ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.

(WILLIAM CAVANAUGH, III) ( 7) 07/02/90 06/29/90 COMMENT OF INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO.

(M. P. ALEXICH, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 8) 07/02/90 06/28/90 COMMENT OF PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (G. A. HUNGER, JR.) ( 9) 07/02/90 07/02/90 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL (JOE F. COLVIN) ( 10) 07/05/90 06/29/90 COMMENT OF CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NY, INC.

(STEPHEN B. BRAM, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 11) 07/05/90 06/29/90 COMMENT OF FPL (W. H. BOHLKE, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 12)

DOCKET NO. PRM-050-55 (55FR18608)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 07/05/90 07/02/90 COMMENT OF ADVANCED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

(SHERRY J. STEIN) ( 13) 07/05/90 07/02/90 COMMENT OF NNECO AND CYAPCO (E. J. MROCZKA, SR. VICE PRESIDENT) ( 14) 07/05/90 06/28/90 COMMENT OF DUKE POWER COMPANY (HAL B. TUCKER) ( 15) 07/05/90 06/29/90 COMMENT OF GEORGIA POWER COMPANY (W. G. HAIRSTON, III) ( 16)

- 07/06/90 07/02/90 COMMENT OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON (T. J. KOVACH) ( 17) 07/06/90 07/02/90 COMMENT OF BOSTON EDISON (R. G. BIRD) ( 18) 07/06/90 07/03/90 COMMENT OF CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT (L. I. LOFLIN) ( 19) 07/06/90 07/03/90 COMMENT OF ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (WILLIAM F. CONWAY, EXECUTIVE V.P.) ( 20) 07/06/90 06/29/90 COMMENT OF ALABAMA POWER COMPANY (W. G. HAIRSTON, III, SR. VICE PRES.) ( 21) 07/09/90 06/29/90 COMMENT OF GULF STATES UTILITIES (W. H. ODELL) ( 22) 07/09/90 07/02/90 COMMENT OF DUQUESNE LIGHT (J. D. SIEBER, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 23) 07/09/90 07/05/90 COMMENT OF WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (G. C. SORENSEN) ( 24) 07/10/90 07/02/90 COMMENT OF IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT l POWER CO.

(DANIELL. MINECK) ( 25) 07/11/90 06/28/90 COMMENT OF GPU NUCLEAR (J. L. SULLIVAN, JR.) ( 26) 07/12/90 07/06/90 COMMENT OF TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY (DONALD C. SHELTON, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 27) 07/16/90 07/09/90 COMMENT OF YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (JOHN C. BRONS) ( 28) 07/16/90 07/06/90 COMMENT OF UNION ELECTRIC (DONALD F. SCHNELL) ( 29) 07/19/90 07/13/90 COMMENT OF VIRGINIA POWER (WILLIAM L. STEWART) ( 30)

DOCKET NUMBER

• WJl.lWf L. SrEwART PETITION RULE PAM !£()-..55 Innsbrook Technical Center Senior Vice President ,~~Fl< I f t;,Of) 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 DOC urn 804-273-355@ 1 )

-i USN C 312, July 13, 1990 'st) Jll 19 Al0:51 VIRGINIA POWER Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Serial No.90-436 Secretary NL&P/LB:jmj U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn : Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING REVISIONS TO FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORTS, 10C FRS0 55 FEDERAL REGISTER 18608 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Virginia Power is pleased to respond to the request of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for comments on a petition for ru lemaking concerning the frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) revisions under 10CFR50 (55 Federal Register 18608, May 3, 1990). We concur with the comments submitted to the NRG by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council , Inc. (NUMARC) on July 2, 1.9go *addressing the frequency of FSAR revisions .

We agree that the frequency of FSAR updates should be within nine months following a refueling outage as opposed to the six months requested by the petitioners. Due to the number and complexity of modifications that may be accomplish ed in a refueling outage , nine months is a more reasonable time period in which to prepare FSAR updates. Accordingly, Virginia Power endorses the following revised wording to 10 CFR 50.71 (e)(4) as suggested by NUMARC:

"Subsequent revisions shall be submitted no less frequently than nine months fo llowing the completion of a planned refueling outage and shall reflect all changes up to a maximum of six months prior to the date of filing . If two or more facilities share a common FSAR and the licensee elects to revise that FSAR following refue li ng outages, the licensee shall designate the refueling outage schedule of one of the facilities to establish the schedule for revisions of the common FSAR."

FEB o1 1991

. d~ d b* card ...................... .

qf SUL TO Y CO MISSIO 1'1 G & SERVICE SECTION

~ CE OF THE SECRETAR-Y F THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Date ?

b~ /qI O

,.,...*i,,..,d_..;...

Reproduced _ _ _ __

,ion Ith

Virginia Power supports the NUMARC position that the petitioner's requested change would be beneficial to both the NRC and the industry. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue and would be pleased to discuss our comments further with the appropriate N RC personnel.

Very truly yours, W. L. Stewart cc: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Suite 2900 Atlanta, GA 30323 Mr. W. E. Holland NRC Senior Resident Inspector Surry Power Station Mr. M. S. Lesser NRC Senior Resident Inspector North Anna Power Station

/90 1 1

', 1' , / ,di, ,1,Bll/f DOCKET NUMBER F'o,t l)lt,,*r R11 , 149

')'+ f, ,,, , f\;1 '

~ I i S: . :_ , ' ',

I'" 6,< !~'/, PETITION RULE PAM 50- 55' r 65 F~ I t?~o ~ -

~ OGKCEO USNRC "90 Jl 16 P6 :58 Donald F. Schnell July 6, 1990 'i'1*n c r l/1,*o Pres1,Jp: *

[Ju,:IPdl Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Att ention: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D. c. 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

ULNRC-2245 DOCKET NO. 50-483 CALLAWAY PLANT NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING, REVISIONS TO FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORTS, 10 CFR 50, FEDERAL REGISTER VOL. 55, PAGE 18608-MAY 3, 1990, REQUEST FOR COMMENTS These comments are submitted by the Union Electric Co. in response to the request of the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for comments on a petition for rulemaking concerning the frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) revisions under 10 CFR Part 50 (55 Fed. Reg. 18608 - May 3, 1990).

In its petition, Yankee Atomic Electric Company seeks a change to the current requirements of 10 CFR 50 . 71(e)(4) that each licensee submit an annual revision to its FSAR. The petitioner requests that the regulation be modified to allow revision submittals within six months following completion of a licensee's planned refueling outage. Union Electric recognizes the need for periodic updates of each facility's FSAR to provide the NRC and the public with current information regarding the design features, operating characteristics, and safety analyses of that facility.

We support a change to 10 CFR 50.7l(e)(4) because we believe that significant benefits will follow from the adoption of the petitioner's request.

We believe that FSAR revisions should be driven by circumstances rather than by an arbitrary time schedule. Adherence to a prescribed annual revision cycle could force a licensee to submit an FSAR update shortly before the installation of a major modification.

As a consequence, the subsequent modification would render the FSAR out-of-date almost immediately.

Allowing FSAR revisions to be linked to the completion of refueling outages gives more assurance that an FSAR will contain current information on any significant outage-related changes to the facility it describes.

U.S. ~ur - rG L. I

• DOC & SEJ v OFFICE . ._ HE _, I OF TH:: :OMMI->

Oocumen 1 Statisti Postmarl< Oate __ 7-_._,,______

Copies ~,ved \

Add'! Co:" '1eprot ~

Special o,s,, .tion_RYO\ \'\J \l_ __

- -_;p~-=- l-LS1\ R

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page Two Further, because oft.he number and complexity of modifications that may be accomplished in a refueling outage, we suggest that the FSAR revision be submitted within nine months following an outage as opposed to the six months requested by the petitioners. This is a more reasonable ti.me period in which to prepare FSAR updates.

Accordingly, the following revised wording to 10 CFR 50.7l(e)(4) is suggested:

Subsequent revisions shall be submitted no less frequently than nine months following the completion of a planned refueling outage and shall reflect all changes up to a maximum of six months prior to the date of filing. If two or more facilities share a common FSAR and the licensee elects to revise that FSAR following refueling outages, the licensee shall designate the refueling outage schedule of one of the facilities to establish the schedule for revisions of the common FSAR.

Union Electric supports the petitioner's position that the requested change (as revised) to 50.71 would be beneficial to both the NRC and the industry. The resulting longer interval between FSAR updates would benefit many licensees by reducing the administrative costs associated with preparation of those updates. NRC staff time for FSAR reviews would be similarly reduced and fewer licensee requests for schedule-related exemptions would be generated. We believe that these benefits can be achieved with no adverse effect on the health and safety of the public.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue and would be pleased to discuss our comments further with the appropriate NRC personnel.

Very truly yours, Donald F. Schnell JMC/sla

cc: Gerald Charnoff, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 Dr. J. 0. Cermak CFA, Inc.

4 Professional Drive (Suite 110)

Gaithersburg, MD 20879 R. C. Knop Chief, Reactor Project Branch 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Bruce Bartlett Callaway Resident Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RR#l Steedman, Missouri 65077 Anthony T. Gody, Jr. (2)

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 White Flint, North, Mail Stop 13E21 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Manager, Electric Department Missouri Public Service Commission P.O. Box 360 Jefferson City, MO 65102

bee: D. Shafer/Al60.761

/QA Record (CA-758)

Nuclear Date E210.0l DFS/Chrono D. F. Schnell J. E. Birk J. v. Laux M. A. Stiller G. L. Randolph R. J. Irwin H. Wuertenbaecher

w. R. Campbell A. C. Passwater R. P. Wendling D. E. Shafer D. J . Walker

0. Maynard (WCNOC)

N. P. Goel (Bechtel)

T. P. Sharkey NSRB (Sandra Auston)

123 Main Street DOCKET NUMBER White Plains, New York 10601 914 681.6240 PETITIONR~ PRU So-55

(_55"-FR i F6~) OOCK[ iEO USHRC

, . NewYorkPower John C. Brona 16 p 1 :3(jxecutive

. , Authori1y "I'll\

,u 11 oUL Vice Pr

esident Nuclear Generation July 9, 1~C!: OF SE C __TA _'1 IPN-90-Q?1c'KC11NG ,s 1,V l(f.

JPN-90-052 uRANt: µ Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-286 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 Comments on Petition for Rulemaking, Revisions to Final Safety Analysis Reports, 1o CFR Part 50

Reference:

1. Yankee Atomic Electric Company letter to NRC, dated February 9, 1990, request for Petition for Rulemaking, 10 CFR 50.71 (e)(4).

Dear Mr. Ch ilk:

The NRC has requested public comment on a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Yankee Atomic Electric Company (Reference 1). The petition seeks to change the requirement that all operating nuclear power plants update the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) " ... no less frequently than annually." as required by 10 CFR 50.71 {e)(4). The proposed change would revise this regulation to read "...shall be filed no later than six months after the completion of each planned refueling outage." The Authority endorses the proposed change and provides the following comments.

Under the current regulations there are situations in which an update could be required just prior to, or during, an outage. While the licensee could request an exemption to defer submittal of an updated FSAR from the NRC, it would simply consume resources that could be better allocated towards more important issues. The adoption of the proposed change would allow efficient allocation of resources with no compromise to public safety.

fi FEB O1 1991 Acknowledged by card ...........................

I**

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSJON Ooc&nent Statistics Date - - - -

FoatntmReoei\led_ __

Copies _--

Add'/ Copies Reproduced ----- - - -

Spec/al OiStribution _ _.......,--,.._ _ __

Historically, major modifications are not installed during routine operation or mid-cycle outages. Most major plant modifications that affect the FSAR are installed during refueling outages. If a modification were installed after the January cutoff, the FSAR could be out of date for as much as 18 months under the current regulation. Significant changes may not be incorporated in the FSAR for long periods. Linking FSAR updates to refueling outages would assure that major changes to the plant would be reflected within 6 months. In addition, updates can be most easily prepared following an outage when detailed information is readily available.

The update schedule proposed by Yankee Atomic would supply both the NRC and licensee personnel with an accurate FSAR at the earliest possible time.

Should you or your staff have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. J.B. Ellmers or Mr. P. Kokolakis of my staff.

Very truly yours, cc: See next page

cc: Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Office of the Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0. Box 136 Lycoming, NY 13093 Mr. David E. LaBarge Project Directorate 1-1 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14 82 Washington, D.C. 20555 Resident Inspector's Office Indian Point 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box337 Buchanan, New York 10511 Mr. J. D. Neighbors, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate 1-1 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14 82 Washington, D.C. 20555

DOCKETED DOCKET NUMBER AO c::-

' SHP.C

• 90 JlL 12* P2 :40 PRO PO

,jF~!C!: OF SECRETAFi '/

SEO RULE

-e .:_) -

( 5 5Ff2. /860 5 __)

• -g*)

TOLEDO EDISON QOClff11N G t!- S[i*'Vl r:F 8RAN C~ A Centerior Energy Company DONALD C. SHELTON Vice President - Nuclear (419] 249-2300 Docket Number 50-346 License Number NPF-3 Serial Number 1826 July 6, 1990 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary United States Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Comments on Proposed Rule Making Concerning Finril Sc1( e ty /\11,1ly .c; i .';

Report Revision (FR55FR18608)

Dear Mr. Ch ilk:

Toledo Edison is pleased to provide comments on the subject p1 *opo.c;ecl ni;.l'emaking as requested by the Nuclear Regu]rit<H Y Commissio11 (NTH: ) in 1lw May 3, 1990, Federal Register 55FR18608.

Toledo Edison has reviewed the proposed change s to 10CFR 'i (I. 71 ( E-) )(/1) r-011 cr:11ii11v, the frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report (F~,AR) 1evi s io11:c- ,rnd Iii(' N11,*lr-;11 Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) po s ition reg,udi11g tlH!,c;P p1 opo s~, ,i changes. Toledo Edison endorses the NUMARC position reg,u-ding thi~; ptop<> !; Pd change. Toledo Edison agrees that revisjng the upda t e fr e quen r:y tn fol l nw inv, refueling outages would in many cases pro vi de a mor e tjmeJ y , ,H ' <' 11n1ff:

reflection of the facility than the current r1nnuc1l r e vi sio11 n-, q11i n'llH'II I.

If you have any questions concerning this matt e r, pl e <1 s e co11til c l Mr. R. T,/. Schrauder, Manager - Nuclear Licensin g , at ( 419) 2L19 - 2. J(l(1.

Very truly yours, cc: P. M. Byron, DB-1 Senior Resident Ins pector rr~ 1 2 1991 A. B. Davis, Regional Administrator, NRC Region III T. V. Wambach, DB-1 NRC Senior Proje c t Mrinager Acknowledged by card ............mHttMttltMMW" THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY EDISON PLAZA 300 MADISON AVENUE TOLEDO. OHIO 43652

.., , ... I UHV CO MISSIO SERVICE SECTiO I ICE: OF THE SECRETARY F HF. COMMISSION Document Statistics

, t,nark Date 1/q /90

>1e Received ' / 1

---~ - ---

., Cop;es Reproduced _ _ __

c1al Distribution

DOCKET UMBER PETITIO RULE PRM S0-5_5 LOl: KE1E£:

1..'!i5 rf!. 1r00S') US NkC GPU Nuclear Corporation Nucl*r *90 JUL 11 One Upper Pond Road N i@jny, New Jersey 07054

~of-316-7000 TELEX 136-482 GP- !Cf: Of SE CR'f! i ~j('~ Direct Dial Number.

June 28, 1990 QOCKE1 iNG ~. 3t HV !Cf.

C300-90-734 £3RA NCH Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking (NRPR)

Revisions to Final Safety Analysis Reports, 10 CFR Part 50 We have reviewed the subject NRPR which appeared in Federal Register on May 3, 1990. The petition was filed with the Commission by the Yankee Atomic Electric Company requesting that the NRC change the requirement that nuclear power plant licensees file revisions to the final safety analysis report within six months following completion of each planned refueling outage for their facilities.

The reasons provided by the petitioner for this change are to permit more effective utilization of both licensee and NRC resources; and, to allow more meaningful scheduling for FSAR based on the fact that practically every operating facility schedules the implementation of major physical changes to coincide with planned refueling outages.

GPU Nuclear supports the petitioner's request and believes that each licensee should be given the flexibility of adopting the change proposed by the petitioner which will, in our opinion, result in significant benefit to both the licensee and NRC without compromising health and safety of the general public.

We fully endorse the letter sent to you on July 2, 1990 by Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) which transmitted the industry comments on the subject matter.

Very truly yours, JLS/YN/crb

~.I::

Director, Licensing & Regulatory Affairs FEB 12 1991 GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of General Public Utilities Corporation

JCLE:Ak E:.G OOCKHING OF ICE O~ T OF THE:- C

• ~Date "F£.

I

-3 "l I K/l)S, PDR;

- ~

P.1(55 _ _ _

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRU So -S-5

{65 Ft( 1~iur)

OOCK£iED USNRC Iowa Electric Light and Power Company July 2, 1990 -go Jl. \0 AB :34 NG-90-1446 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Office of the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Docketing Services Branch Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Duane Arnold Energy Center Docket No: 50-331 Op. License No: DPR-49 Comments on Petition for Rulemaking Regarding Final Safety Analysis Report Revisions

References:

(1) 55 Federal Register 18608 dated May 3, 1990 (2) Letter from J. F. Colvin (NUMARC) to S. J.

Chilk (NRC) dated July 2, 1990 File: A-116, A-119

Dear Mr. Chilk:

In Reference 1, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking filed by the Yankee Atomic Electric Company regarding the schedule for submittals of revision to the Final Safety Analysis Reports (FSARs). In its petition, Yankee Atomic requested that the NRC amend 10CFR50.7l(e)(4) to change the requirement that nuclear power plant licensees file revisions to their FSARs no less frequently than annually. The proposed alternative would require FSAR revisions to be filed within six months after the completion of a planned refueling outage. This letter responds to the NRC's request for comments on the petition for rulemaking.

The Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) submitted their comments on the petition for rulemaking (Reference 2) supporting the Yankee Atomic peti-tion. NUMARC concluded that the proposed alternative requirements would benefit the industry by reducing administrative costs associated with preparation of FSAR revisions, reducing the administrative burden on the NRC staff and enhan-cing the quality and accuracy of information contained in a licensee's FSAR. We fully endorse these comments.

We recognize the benefits of periodically revising our FSAR. However, requiring submittal of revisions within six months following completion of a planned refueling outage instead of annually would allow for more timely updating of the information contained in our FSAR. For example, major plant modifications FEB 1 2 199t Acknowledged by card ******---********-*************

General Office* P.O. Box 351

• Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52406

• 319/398-4411

t AH Ht LiLA CHY C ~

& ER CE: SECTION OF fHE: SE:CRETARY ttECOMMI ION cument tatisti ark Date 7/,;i-Jqo I I Recei d /- - - - ---

1Copies Reproduced _--3 pec1a Distnbubun RI DS1~ -~ -- -

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 2, 1990 NG-90-1446 Page Two are normally installed during planned refueling outages and accident analyses are changed as a result of new fuel reloads. These changes could result in our FSAR being outdated for more than one year under the present requirements, whereas under the proposed alternative schedule, our FSAR would be updated to reflect these changes within six months. This proposed change would result in an estimated savings of $500,000 over the remaining life of the plant. We also believe the proposed alternative would reduce our administrative burden as well as that of the NRC staff without compromising the health and safety of the public.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this petition for rulemaking and would be pleased to further discuss our comments with you.

Daniel L. Mineck Manager, Nuclear Division DLM/NKP:DMB*

cc: N. Peterson L. Liu L. Root R. McGaughy Commitment Control No. 900159

DOCKET NUMBER . ;

P_...,.... RULE PR So-s-s

~_> (o~F~ 18'tpoR)

UOC:Ktr -, En WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM USNRC "

P.O. Box 968

• 3000 George Washington Way

• Richland, Washington 99352 "S{) JI -9 P 7 ;39 July 5, 1990 OF~!CE OF SECRFTAi?Y OOCK [T JNG & SEt< VI C(

Docket No. 50-397 BRANCH G02-90-119 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Services ~ranch

Subject:

COMMENTS ON PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - FREQUENCY OF FSAR REVISIONS (55 FR 18608)

On May 3, 1990, the NRC published (55FR18608), a Petition for Rulemaking by Yankee Atomic Electric Company seeking a change to the current requirements of 10 CFR 50. 7l(e) (4) that each 1 icensee submit an annual revision to its Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).

The Washington Public Power Supply System has reviewed the petition and supports the concept being proposed by the petitioner. We have a 1so reviewed proposed comments of NUMARC on the petition and support the comments to be filed by NUMARC.

The Supply System operates in a region that generates most of its base load electricity from a large hydro system. Because of the ability of the hydro system to meet regiona 1 needs during the spring and early summer months (a period of relatively low loads and high river flows), the Supply System's nuclear power plant is typically not needed during this period.

Consequently, we operate on an annual fuel cycle and our annual FSAR update is typically submitted in the September-October time frame. This update brings the plant current to six months prior to submittal and does not include the most recent outage work.

The petition requests that FSAR updates be submitted six months after the refueling outage. NUMARC is requesting that this period be extended to nine months after the refueling outage. For plants on an 18 or 24 month refueling cycle, these recommendations are appropriate and we encourage the commission to revise the regulations accordingly. However, for an organization such as the Supply System with an annual refueling outage, the period six to nine months after a refueling outage is extremely busy for our Engineering staff as they prepare for the next outage. For FEB 12 1991 Acknowledged by caJd ______...............

U.S. NUCLt111i H i.Ju-. vR) C Ml SI(

DOCKETING ER 'ICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TH COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 7 ~ 9o Copies Received-___ --i- - ---

Add'I Copies Reproduced d__

Special Distributi n I< IDS 'DR

I -

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Page 2 July 5, 1990 COMMENTS ON PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - FREQUENCY OF FSAR REVISIONS (55FR186O8) this reason, we have selected the period 3 - 4 months after the refueling outage as the best time to submit our annual update. We recommend that the commission maintain flexibility in the FSAR update filing as recommended by NUMARC.

He appreciate this opportunity to participate in the development of NRC regulations. Should you have any questions about our comments, please contact me at (509) 372-5238.

- Very truly yours,

/e--/~~

/ §. C/:0-rensen, Manager Regulatory Programs (MD 280)

GCS/tlr cc: C. J. Bosted, NRC (901A)

N. S. Reynolds, BCP&R T. E. Tipton, NUMARC D. L. Williams, BPA (399)

DOCKET FTITI RULE PR b- 55 Duquesne Ligrt Company Beaver Valley Power Sta(t:6 M /8'~{)!)

P.O. Box4 Shippingport, PA 15077-0004 ooc; urn U C

)11 J1 -9 P7 :37 JOHN D. SIEBER Vice President - Nuclear Group (412) 393-5255 Secretary of the Commission

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555

Reference:

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Docket No. PRM-50-55, 55FR18608 Gentlemen:

These comments are submitted by Duquesne Light Company (DLC) in response to a request by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by the Yankee Atomic Electric Company. The notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on May 3, 1990 (55FR18608).

The petitioner requests that the NRC change the requirement that nuclear power plant licensees file revisions to the final safety analysis report (FSAR) no less frequently than annually.

The petitioner also requests that the regulations require that revisions be filed no later than six months after completion of each planned refueling outage for a licensee's facility. The petitioner believes this change would permit more effective use of licensee and NRC resources and allow more meaningful scheduling for FSAR updates.

DLC believes that the petitioner's suggested schedule for updating the FSAR would be only marginally advantageous. Certain costs are incurred regardless of the timetable used in submitting FSAR updates. Also, the NRC would expend an equal amount of resources reviewing the FSAR amendments for any revision frequency because the technical content will be unchanged.

The petition would give the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) authority to impose a specific submittal date on a licensee, but does not appear to impose any guidelines for exercising this authority. 10CFR50.54(f) gives the EDO authority to request a licensee to submit important information and also specifies guidelines to follow when considering such a request. Therefore, if adopted, the phrase, "unless directed otherwise by the EDO" should be deleted in favor of a reference to 10CFR50.54(f).

B .l. 199\

Ack.no by

ur Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking -

Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Docket No. PRM-50-55, 55FRI8608 Page 2 The petitioner believes that major modifications performed during refueling outages give rise to the most extensive and meaningful changes to the FSAR. DLC believes that program changes, organizational changes, and changes to analyses can be equally extensive and meaningful from a regulatory standpoint.

Increased timeliness of reporting significant plant modifications may be offset by a decrease in the timeliness of reporting other types of changes.

The petitioner states that many of the costs of producing a FSAR revision are independent of the size or content of the revision. The costs of distribution, controlled copy accountability, preparation of insertion instructions, and changes to Tables of Contents are examples of costs that are not affected by the size of a revision. However, the costs of preparation, reviewing, word processing and printing associated with specific changes are not independent of the size of a revision and these costs contribute more to the total cost of publishing a FSAR update. The latter costs would be incurred regardless of how often the FSAR is revised.

Since it is suggested that administrative burden on the NRC would be reduced, the NRC should consider whether costs associated with administrative processing of an amendment (i.e. receiving, distribution, etc.) are significant when compared to costs of reviewing the technical content of the amendment. Review costs would be unchanged because the technical content of the FSAR amendment will be the same regardless of how often the FSAR is revised.

If implemented, the rule should allow a licensee the choice of continuing with the current method of submittal. It has, in the past, been sufficient to satisfy regulatory needs and no new regulatory concerns in this area are in evidence.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. DLC looks forward to working with the NRC on future regulatory changes.

Very truly yours,

<t-J~l~--

£.

• o. Sieber Vice President Nuclear Group

DOCKET PET\Tl ( 5"5 F~ l t'~O!)

~ l" GU~F STATES UTl~ITIES CON.rPANY RIVER BEND STATION POST OFFICE BOX 220 ST fRANCISVILLE. LOUISIANA 70775 '90 JJL -9 Al O:32 AREA CODE 504 635-6094 346-8651 OFF!C!: OF StCRFTARY OOCK[ Tl NG !.. SEi*VIC(

BRANCH June 29 , 1990 RBG- 33141 File Code: G9.23.1 Secretary of the Ccmnission

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Carmission Washington, D. c. 20655 Gentlanen:

Gulf States Utilities (GSU) is pleased to ccmoont on the petition sul:mitted by Yankee Atanic Electric Crnq:>any regarding Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) revisions (55FR18608 dated 5/3/90).

'Ibis petition seeks a change to the current requiranents of annual updates to the FSAR to all0tt1 suhnittals within six months foll0tt1ing carpletion of planned refueling outages. GSU supports this change. Suhnitting updates to the FSAR follOttling planned outages ensures that outage related changes are included in updates in a tilooly fashion. Since nost of the significant plant IOOdifications / changes occur during planned outages, this allOttlS the FSAR revisions to be driven by circumstances, rather than by an arbitrary time schedule. However, GSU would suggest that the proposed rule all0tt1 sane flexibility to pennit licensees to sul:mit more frequent FSAR updates if so desired. In addition, GSU would reccmnend that the suJ:mittal time of the FSAR updates be extended to nine months foll0tt1ing an outage. This is a more reasonable time period for preparing an FSAR update.

GSU is confident that the proposed revision of current regulation 10CFRS0.71 will significantly benefit both the NR2 and the nnclear industry. Furthenrore, GSU endorses NUMARC ' s supporting position on this petition and a:i;::preciates the opportunity to provide ccmoonts to the NR2.

W. H. Odell Manager - <>versight River Bend Nuclear Group FEB 12 1991 eel' by card*********-**----:--.

US.NU Postmark Oat 7/2/9/)

Copies Rece1 /

Add'I Copie Ref- .3 Spec1a Distnb 1<.-10.s I PDR,

~tvL-

Alabama Power Company 40 Inverness Center Parkway DOCK NU B A Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham , Alabama 35201 PETITION RUL R £"o -S'S-Telephone 205 868-5581 ( s-s r=,e; 8~{)i)

W. G. Hairston, Ill Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations the southern electric system June 29, 1990 n !C:. OF SEC1ff. lARV

[JOCK [it NG & St rlVIC f BRAN Cl-i Docket Nos. 50-348 50-364

• Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Comments on Petition for Rulemaking "Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Revisions to Final Safety Analysis Reports" (55 Federal Register 18608 of May 3, 1990)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Alabama Power Company has reviewed the petition for rulemaking concerning the frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report ( FSAR revisions under 10 11 11

)

CFR 50. In accordance with the request for comments, Alabama Power Company hereby is in total agreement with the NUMARC comments which are to be provided to the NRC.

Should you have any questions, please advise.

Respectfully submitted, u) /11~*

W. G. Hairston, III WGH,III/JMG:kdc cc: Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. S. T. Hoffman Mr. G. F. Maxwell 543

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Copies Received_ _ _ _ _ __

Add'! Copies Reproduced --'- 3 _ _ __

Special Distribution i<.JDS,, Pl>R>

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM SD S

{ S-S-Fte !1~tif) uOC Kti ED USNHC Arizona Public Service Company P.O. BOX 53999

• PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85072-3999

~ JUL -6 P3 :54 WILLIAM F. CONWAY 161--03318-WFC/GAM EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT July 3, 199)

NUCLEAR OFF ICE Or Sf.CRETARV DOCKETING & SEflV ICf.

BRANC" Docket Nos. STN 50-528/529/530 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Services Branch

Subject:

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)

Units l, 2, and 3 Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Revisions to Final Safety Analysis Reports, 10 CFR Part 50, Request for Comments File: 90-056-026 These comments are submitted by Arizona Public Service Company (APS) in response to the request of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for comments on a petition for rulemaking concerning the frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) revisions under 10 CFR Part 50 (55 Fed. Reg. 18608 - May 3, 1990).

APS endorses the comments which are being submitted by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) in response to this petition for rulemaking.

Changing the current rule to one that will allow FSAR revision submittals to be made up to nine months following the completion of a planned refueling outage of a specified unit of a multi-unit site will res1.. .lt in reduced administrative 1

costs for the preparation of the update, yet will allow the timely incorporation into the updates of the plant changes that are typically implemented during a refueling outage. NRG staff time for FSAR update reviews would also be reduced.

APS appreciates the opportunity to comment on this issue. If there are any questions or comments regarding this submittal, please contact R. A. Bernier of my staff at (602) 340-4295.

Sincerely, WFC/GAM/jle

~

FEB 12 1991 I 11,, 1ooged bycaru ..... ... , . IIIH**"*

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM I DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTIO OFFICE OF THE SECRET RY OF THE COMM SION Docunen* Statistics P :, mark Date 7/..s/-'~o---~ --

Coo,es Received / _ _ _ _ _ __

A Copies A produced 3 _

Spt: Di on !?1.DS_,, 'Di<?,) __

- ~ - --

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk 161--03318--WFC/GAM Secretary July 3, 19<X)

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 cc: D. H. Coe J. B. Martin T. L. Chan

s. R. Peterson A. C. Gehr A. H. Gutterman T. E

• Tipton

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PR Sb-55

(§SF£. I 8'(,,08)

CP&L Carolina Power & Light Company GOUUH.~!iRL:

~ NLS-90-141 JUL 3 1990 °90 Jl -6 P3 :49 Off- !CE Of StCRETAt<Y OOCKE 1ING & 5Et1VIC I.

BRANC~

Mr. S . J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch COMMENT ON PETITION FOR RULEMAKING 10CFR PART 50 - REVISIONS TO FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SSFR18608 DATED MAY 3, 1990

Dear Mr. Ch ilk:

By Federal Register Notice published May 3, 1990 (SSFR18608), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requested comments on a petition for rulemaking concerning the frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) revisions required by 10CFR Part 50. Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) concurs, in concept, with this petition for rulemaking. In addition, CP&L has reviewed the draft comments on this subject provided by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC), and endorses the specific NUMARC comments.

If you have any questions concerning this subject, please contact Ms. Ottilia N. Hudson at (919) 546-4055.

ONH/ecc (762ECC) cc: Mr. S. D. Ebneter Public Document Room 411 Fayetteville Street

• P. 0 . Box 1551

• Raleigh , N. C. 27602

!edged by card ..........................-....**

U.S. UCtEAA REGULATORY COMMISSIO DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSIO~

Document Statistics stmark Date _,.tf '-=1----=-- - - - -

.es Received

,p es Reproduced _:;L_

S Jistnhution Rtl.>S PD/0

~

OCKET UMBER S-0 -5"5

{ 6"5.Ff<. /;bo3)

BOSTON EDISON DOCKETED Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station USNRC Rocky Hill Road Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360

'90 JJL -6 P3 :49 0F* ,~~ OF : E.Cr;Ef/\i""

Ralph G. Bird GiJCY\~ ii J\; ;, ' ,, .,, . r Senior Vice President - Nuclear Docket# PRM-50-55 BECo 90

• 080 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 2 1990 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketting and Service Branch YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO EXTEND THE TIME-FRAME FOR FILING FSAR REVISIONS (55FR 18608)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This letter provides Boston Edison Company's (BECo) comments regarding the Yankee Atomic Electric Company's petition for rulemaking that the NRC change the annual requirement of filing revisions to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The petition would require FSAR revisions to be filed no later than six months after completion of each planned refueling outage.

We support the Yankee Atomic Electric Company's petition and wish to offer the following comments for your consideration.

• The proposed change to the annual FSAR updating requirement would permit more effective use of our resources, and allow more meaningful scheduling for FSAR updates and completion of documentation related to plant modifications.

• Boston Edison Company concurs with all the bases and benefits cited by Yankee Atomic Electric Company in proposing the change to the scheduling requirement for updating FSAR.

In addition, BECo proposes that the NRC extend the FSAR scheduling change to envelope submittal of the 10CFR5O.59 annual reporting of facility changes.

Such a change in 10CFR5O.59 reporting will benefit licensees in organizing modifications and reporting the changes in a consistent manner with the updated FSAR, and allows more effective use of our resources.

Also, Boston Edison Company hereby endorses the supporting comments on the subject petition offered by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc.,

on behalf of its member utilities.

WGL/jmm/448O FEB 1 2 1991 owledged by card ..................................

U.S UG EAR E ULA O CO Ml DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COM SSIO Document Sta 1st1 Postmark Date 7/J J_qp_ _

Copies Received_/. _ _

Add'I Copies ReprodUCtlC .3_

Specia DistribUb /<Je>.51 PD!!..j

Commonwealth Edison DOCKET NUMBER 1400 Opus Place Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 PETITION RULE so-ss

• (55 r~ J?'~tJP)

DOC:KETED USNRC July 2, 1900 JUL -6 P 3 :45 OFF!C~~ OF SECRETARY DOC K[! ING & Sf il VlfT BRANCH Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

Subject:

Petition for Rulemaking Regarding FSAR Revisions (Federal Register Vol. 55 No. 86-May 3, 1990)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This provides Commonwealth Edison Company's (CECo) comments on Yankee Atomic Electric Company's petition for rulemaking to extend the filing interval between updates of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The proposed rule seeks to change 10 CFR 50.7l(e)(4) to allow FSAR revisions to be submitted within six months after the completion of each planned refuel outage. For facilities which are comprised of two units which share an FSAR, the licensee would designate one of the units as the "pacing" unit whose refueling schedule would determine when the FSAR update would be submitted.

CECo does not view this petition as desirable for an organization that owns and operates multi-unit sites. It is not clear that an accurate assessment has been made of the impact this proposed change would have on multi-unit facilities.

The petitioner believes that the coordination of a facilities' revision of the FSAR with a refueling schedule would provide a more logical and timely basis for incorporating changes. Refueling outages commonly do not begin and end as scheduled. Revision submittals could therefore extend beyond a 24 month period for a facility on an 18 month refuel cycle. In addition, any logical point of reference for other units linked to this "pacing" unit would be lost. A fixed yearly submittal date eliminates confusion and additional management attention for maintaining a floating schedule.

Preserving the yearly schedule allows the FSAR to be effectively utilized for safety reviews and engineering analysis. It is important to maintain the document in a current state. Increasing the period between revisions reduces the effectiveness of the FSAR; which would not be acceptable to CECo.

FEB 12 \991

P/10_r,~ --

1 - -***

._g

/?I0.5/ 7!pR

~ -

~ -F UL ?/c.55 ~- - - -

Mr. Samuel Chilk - 2 - July 2, 1990 Additionally, extending the time between submittals will increase the proposed number of changes to the FSAR. This would increase the administrative burden of both the utility coordinators and the NRC reviewers.

The current annual cycle provides for a manageable number of changes to be processed in a well defined period. The potential problems associated with a dual site FSAR update on an extended 18 month refuel cycle may exceed the benefits gained in manpower allocation for the extended update schedule.

CECo believes that while linking FSAR revisions to circumstances rather than an arbitrary time schedule has merit, this proposed change would not best serve the needs of multi-unit facilities.

Commonwealth Edison appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments on this proposed rule.

Sincerely, T.J. Kovach Nuclear Licensing Manager RL/scl: ID60/3-4

(a) (2) As indicated, the applicant submits sufficient information relating to the design, manufacture, prototype testing, quality control, labels, proposed uses, installation, servicing, leak testing, operating and safety instructions, and potential hazards of the device including replacement devices to provide reasonable assurance that:

(i) The device or replacement device can be safely operated by persons not having training in radiological protection:

(ii) Under ordinary conditions of handling, storage, and use of the device or replacement device, the byproduct material contained in the device or replacement device will not be released or inadvertently removed from the device or replacement device, and it is unlikely that any person will receive in any period of one calendar quarter a dose in excess of 10 percent of the limits specified in the table in §20.l0l(a) of this chapter: and

( a) ( 3) Each device including replacement devices bea:-.:-s a durable, legible, clearly visible label or labels approved by the Commission which contain in a clearly identified and separate statement:

§32.74 Manufacture and distribution of sources or devices containing byproduct material for medical use.

(a) An application for a specific license to manufacture and distribute sources and devices containing byproduct material including replacement sources, devices, parts and products to persons licensed pursuant to Part 35 of this chapter for use as a calibration or reference source or for the uses listed in

§§35.400 and 35.500 of this chapter will be approved if:

(a)(l)(ii) Details of design and construction of the source, device or replacement source or device; (a)(2)(iv) For devices including replacement devices containing byproduct material, the radiation profile of a prototype device;

( a) ( 2) (v) Details of quality control procedures to assure that production sources and devices including replacement sources and devices meet the standards of the design and prototype tests; (a)(2)(vi) Procedures and standards for calibration sources and devices including replacement sources and devices; (a)(2)(vii) Legend and methods for labeling sources and devices including replacement sources and devices as to their radioactive content:

(a)(2)(viii) Instructions for handling and storing the source or device including replacement sources and devices from the radiation safety standpoint; these instructions are to be included on a durable label attached to the source or device or replacement source or device or attached to a permanent storage container for the source or device or replacement source or device: Provided, That instructions which are too lengthy for such label may be summarized on the label and printed in detail on a brochure which is referenced on the label;

(a)(3) The label affixed to the source or device or replacement source or device; or to the permanent storage container for the source or device or replacement source or device, contains information on the radionuclide quantity and date of assay, and a statement that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved distribution of the (name of source or device or replacement source or device to persons licensed to use byproduct material identified in §§35.58, 35.400, or 35.500, as appropriate, and to persons who hold an equivalent license issued by an Agreement State. However, labels worded in accordance with requirements that were in place on March 30, 1987 may be used until March 30, 1989.

(b) ( 1) In the event the applicant desires that the source or device including replacement sources and devices be required to be tested for leakage of radioactive material at intervals longer than six months, he shall include in his application sufficient information to demonstrate that such longer interval is justified by performance characteristics of the source, device or replacement source or device or similar sources or devices and by design features that have a significant bearing on the probability or consequences of leakage of radioactive material from the source.

S32.110 Acceptance sampling procedures under certain specific licenses.

(a) A random sample shall be taken from each inspection lot of devices including replacement devices licensed under §§32.14, 32.53, or 32.61 of this part for which testing is required pursuant to §§32 .15, 32. 55, or 32. 62 in accordance with the appropriate Sampling Table in this section determined by the designated Lot Tolerance Percent Defective. If the number of defectives in the sample does not exceed the acceptance number in the appropriate Sampling Table in this section, the lot shall be accepted. If the number of defectives in the sample exceeds the acceptance number in the appropriate Sampling Table in this section, the entire inspection lot shall be rejected.

S32.210 Registration of product information.

(a) Any manufacturer or initial distributor of a sealed source or device including replacement sources and devices containing a sealed source whose product is intended for use under a specific license may submit a request to NRC for evaluation of radiation safety information about its product and for its registration.

( c) The request for review of a sealed source or a device including replacement sources and devices must include sufficient information about the design, manufacture, prototype testing, quality control program, labeling, proposed uses and leak testing and, for a device or replacement device, the request must also include sufficient information about installation, service and maintenance, operating and safety instructions, and its potential hazards, to provide reasonable assurance that the radiation safety properties of the source or device or replacement source or device are adequate to protect health and minimize danger to life and property.

( d) The NRC normally evaluates a sealed source or a device including replacement sources and devices using radiation safety criteria in accepted industry standards. If these standards and criteria do not readily apply to a particular case, the NRC formulates reasonable standards and criteria with the help of the manufacturer or distributor. The NRC shall use criteria and standards sufficient to ensure that the radiation safety properties of the device or sealed source including replacement sources and devices are adequate to protect health and minimize danger to life and property.

(e) After completion of the evaluation, the Commission issues a certificate of registration to the person making the request. The certificate or registration acknowledges the availability of the submitted information for inclusion in an application for a specific license proposing use of the product or replacement product.

(f) The person submitting the request for evaluation and registration of safety information about the product shall manufacture and distribute the product or replacement product in accordance with--

S32.1 Purpose and scope.

This part prescribes requirements for the issuance of specific licenses to persons who manufacture or initially transfer items containing byproduct material for sale or distribution, including those persons who manufacture replacement parts, devices, our sources designed for units originally manufactured or intially transferred by others.

Georgia Power Company 333 Piedmont Avenue DOCKET NUMBER Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Telephone 404 526-3195 ETITION RULE 5'0-5"5' Mailing Address:

(55"Fft. 1!603) 40 Inverness Center Parkway DOC: £i£0 Post Office Box 1295 USNRC Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Telephone 205 868-5581 "90 M-5 PS :11 the southern electnc system W. G. Hairston, Ill June 29, 1990 Of ~fC£ OF SECRETA y Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations DOC rTING S£HV1Cf 8RA kCH .

Docket Nos. 50-321 50-424 HL-1170 50-366 50-425 ELV-01840 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Comments on Petition for Rulemaking "Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Revisions to Final Safety Analysis Reports" (55 Federal Register 18608 of May 3, 1990)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Georgia Power Company has reviewed the petition for ru1emaking concerning the frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report ("FSAR") revisions under 10 CFR 50. In accordance with the request for comments, Georgia Power Company hereby is in total agreement with the NUMARC comments which are to be provided to the NRC .

Should you have any questions, please advise.

Respectfully submitted, w.-~

W. G. Hairston, Ill WGH, I II/ JMG: kdc 543 EB 12 1991 by

s E

E COMMISSI m tStabsb 4

I 'I Pl)R_,J

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Page 2 cc: Georgia Power Company Mr. J. T. Beckham, Jr., Vice President - Nuclear, Plant Hatch Mr. C. K. McCoy, Vice President, Nuclear, Plant Vogtle Mr. G. Bockhold, Jr., General Manager - Plant Vogtle Mr. H. C. Nix, General Manager - Plant Hatch NORMS U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC Mr. L. P. Crocker, Licensing Project Manager - Hatch Mr. T. A. Reed, Licensing Project Manager - Vogtle U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator Mr. J. E. Menning, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch Mr. B. R. Bonser, Senior Resident Inspector, Operations - Vogtle 543

II DOCKET UMBER PETITION RUl E PR S-() - 5S-I@

IIM H Tu,kn Dukf Power Company PO Box 331 98 , 55 FR I gtpog)

Charlotte, N C 28242 l' OCKET EO \, ,,, l~rir Pm,111,tu, n USNRC 1)/1.'i;'/ /,)1/

1 9 1/i 1

DUKE POWER

• 90 JJl -5 P4 :56

'June 28, 1990 orc-,c~ Of St. LHt. l A R '

DOCK[ !ING ** St t, v,r:r BR ANC~

The Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

NRC Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking by Yankee Atomic Company Duke Power Comments

Dear Sir:

In the Federal Register (55FR18608) dated May 3, 1990 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published for comment a petition for rulemaking dated February 9, 1990, which was filed with the Commission by Yankee Atomic Company. The petitioner requests that the NRC change the requirement that nuclear power plant licensee file revisions to the final safety analysis report no less frequently than annually. The petitioner also requests that the regulations require that rev1s1ons be filed no later than six months after completion of each planned refueling outage for a licensee's facility.

Duke Power Company has reviewed the petition and offers the following comments.

1) For utilities with multipl e FSARs (we have four) it is much easier to stagger the annual updates through a 12 month period. It balances the workload for the support staff through the year. Also, because the schedule is constant, resources from other Departments know when the review cycle occurs and this allows for a more effective review of the update material.

2) Major physical changes could be less timely if they were submitted less frequently. We normally submit major changes affecting both units after the first unit is modified and note that the second or third unit will be modified during the next refueling outage.

While this proposed change may be beneficial to some utilities, we feel the present rule should be retained as a viable alternative.

Very truly yours, 1-f t h~~ l"l'.) ,-

Hal. B. Tucker JAR: jar FEB 12 1991 Acknowledged by card ......................:........ ,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS r r.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document tatis ics Postmark Date _2/..;;..

";;_/-9.!..-o

=---- - -

Copies Received 1 Add' C pec1a1 =+-'......::;....= _ __

NORTHEAST UTILITIES DOCKET NUMBIER PETITIO RULE PR SD-S~-

FR 1fh°o8')

{SS . General Offices* Selden Street, Berlin, Connecticut

@4 -

THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY

[]TI] WESTE A"I \IIA.SSACHUSE T 1$ E.. ECTR1C COMP A.NY HOLYOKE WA.TEA POWER COV.PANY NORTHEAST UTrU TlfS SERI/ICE COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY P.O. BOX(filQ\'i.E TED HARTFOf:fQ.J~ECTICUT 06141-0270 (203) 665-5000 "90 JUL -5 p 4 :36 n 1C£ _OF,.\-t,;

J Ul y 2, 199 'flf -r** ,l. . :1\/\CY U.\k'-r'

..\)"KL \ 1Nu << ., L u l, "Rt\t'n-1 Docket Nos. 50-2131 *~

• 50-245 50-336 50-423 B13572 Re: 10CFR50.7l(e)

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking to Final Safety Analysis Reports, 10CFR Part 50 55 Federal Register 18608--May 3, 1990 Request for Comments Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) and Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) are providing the following in response to the request of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for comments on the petition for rulemaking regarding the periodicity of submissions of Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) revisions.

In reviewing the content of the petition for rulemaking, we believe that the recommendation of changing the frequency of FSAR updates to the NRC from annually to within six months following completion of a licensee's planned refueling outage may not necessarily be beneficial for the following reasons:

o As proposed, the rulemaking change would result in only major/significant changes necessitating an update to the NRC, based on the premise that such changes rarely occur outside the refueling outage period. However, 10CFR50.71(e) states in part " ... The updated FSAR shall be revised to include the effects of: all changes made in the facility or procedures as described in the FSAR; all safety evaluations performed by the licensee either in support of requested license amendments or in support of conclusions that changes did not involve unreviewed safety questions; and all analyses of new safety issues performed ... ". Our experience, in support of this requirement, indicates that the majority of information in the FSAR is affected by normal plant work such as modifications, revised safety analysis, and approved technical specifications, therefore it needs updating on an essentially continuous basis. This results in:

(1) the NRC being informed on a more timely basis of the plant's current status, (2) copy holders having a more useful and reliable document from which to obtain information, or to answer NRC questions, and (3) the "as FEB 1 z 1991 0S342~ REV. 4-88

U:.: , 1.,,.  :."-,:- EGULATORY COMM

,,r ** TING & SERVICE SECTION FFICE OF THE SECRETARV OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Po tmark Oat ---'+

7/-3=+

/9.1-'D

= -- - --

Cooies Received_.___ _ _ _ __

Ad opie. Reproducea _..-3....___ _ __

Sr; 1 10n K IDS, PDR.,

~ :,= . k--=-- - - -

Mr. Samual J. Chilk B13572/Page 2 July 2, 1990 occurring" effective changes, which are compiled for the annual update to NRC, provide a reliable reference source of documentation of changes to the pl ant.

0 In the petitioner's proposal, the reasoning is presented that the sched-uling of FSAR updates within six months of a refueling outage would preclude the NRC from possibly being informed of the major changes for most of the following twelve months if that outage were to end shortly after an "annual" update. NNECO and CYAPCO judge that the current annual update may be the better choice in that, at the most, the NRC's copy of the FSAR would be out-of-date for only 12 to 18 months. With the proposed rule change, extending the update to 18 to 24 months, coincident with the respective fuel cycle, would result in the NRC' s copy of the FSAR being out-of-date for as much as 30 months (24 month fuel cycle+

six month submission time) for "all" changes, including major changes that were not outage related.

The significance of this is reflected in the fact that we process annually an average of 39 FSAR change packages for each of our four plants. Many of these change packages cover multiple disciplines. It is estimated that about 20% are refueling outage related. Therefore, the proposed rule change could result in NRC's copy of the FSAR being out-of-date on most of the changes for as long as 30 months. The alter-native to avoid such periods of "out-of-date" information would be to prepare updates to NRC's copy of the FSAR as they occur. However, this would not only be counter-productive to the original purpose of extending the update cycle since it would increase submittals, but would also be more restrictive to licensees in meeting the six month current require-ment for "all" changes.

o Setting a longer than twelve month cycle between updates would introduce an additional administrative task on licensees to meet the 10CFR59.71(e)(2) requirement which states "(ii) an identification of changes made under the provisions of (Section) 50.59 but not previously submitted to the Commission." Under the current annual update cycle, utilities are able to refer to the 10CFR50.59 Annual Report which lists the plant changes implemented for the previous year. This eliminates the need to separately identify the aforementioned changes in the FSAR update letter. Additionally, placing the updates out of the annual cycle would require the utilities to establish a tracking system for the 50.59 changes to ensure they are identified in the "end of refueling outage" updates.

o Additionally, from an administrative point of view, the proposed rule change of submittal within six months of a refueling outage completion would, in some cases, introduce further constraints to the process. This would, in all cases, give licensees only six months to closeout outage related work, review analysis, review current FSAR information for revision, compose recommended draft text, table and figure (graph)

Mr. Samual J. Chilk 813572/Page 3 July 2, 1990 changes, submit the changes for technical review to assure accuracy, receive final approval of changes, produce final documentation and promulgate the final change packages (both for NRC updates, and for local copy holders) . Our experience has shown that this is a most difficult task to accomplish following even one plant's outage when preparing the annual updates, and is sometimes ameliorated by the current annual submittal requirement if an outage is completed in the early part of the year subsequent to an update.

In this regard, the proposal takes into consideration the complication associated with licensees that service two plants that share one FSAR in addressing how the cycle submittal dates are approached by each plant.

However, what is not explicitly taken into consideration are the utili-ties that service multiple plants each having their own FSAR. The difficulties of updating FSAR information and meeting time restrictions are compounded significantly, as well as the burden on originators of changes, analysis and technical reviewers, and processing resources when one or more plants complete a refueling outage, or other major change related work or outage within a short period of each other. The imposition of a six months from outage completion in all cases would make it very difficult for a utility to meet the deadline since the greater than six months period always inherent in the annual requirement would no longer be available .

In conclusion and in view of the foregoing, NNECO and CYAPCO do not agree that the 1onger i nterva 1 proposed between FSAR updates would necessarily benefit licensees by reducing administrative costs associated with preparation of those updates. In most cases, licensees may still want to submit annual FSAR updates in order to be consistent with the 10CFRSO. 59 Annua 1 Reports of changes as well as other nonoutage related changes. We, therefore, recommend that if this proposal goes forward, that it be optional. In other words, licensees would have the choice of maintaining the status quo, or adopting the new proposal. If only one submittal schedule will ultimately be codified, we recommend the status quo.

If the NRC adopts the optional approach of allowing either the status quo or the new proposal then to ensure compatibility with other sections of CFRS0.71 and 10CFRS0.59, the following revised wording to 10CFR50.71(e)(4) is suggested:

Subsequent revisions shall be submitted either annually, or no less frequent 1y than six months fo 11 owing the comp 1et ion of a p1anned refueling outage, and shall reflect all changes up to a maximum of six months prior to the date of filing. If two or more facilities share a common FSAR and the licensee elects to revise the FSAR following refueling outages, the licensee shall designate the refueling outage schedule of one of the facilities to establish the schedule for revisions of the common FSAR.

Mr. Samual J. Chilk B13572/Page 4 July 2, 1990 NNECO and CYAPCO are pleased to provide comments on this issue and appreciate the opportunity to do so. If the NRC would like to discuss our comments further, please contact us.

Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY E.J.~

Senior Vice President cc: T. T. Martin, Region I Administrator A. B. Wang, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant J. T. Shedlosky, Senior Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck Plant M. L. Boyle, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 1 G. S. Vissing, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2 D. H. Jaffe, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 W. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3

DOCKET NUMBER PETITl RULE PRM So - 55" (S: "P...I oF)

Advanced Medical Systems, Inc.

1020 London Road COCKETEO Cleveland, OH 4411 0 USHRC (216) 692-3270 "90 JUL -5 P 4 :34 July 2, 1990 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Service Branch RE: Petition for Rulemaking Pursuant to 10 CFR §2.802 Gentlemen:

Whereas it is understood that all NRC licensees are held responsible for safety and prudent use of nuclear materials, it appears that 10 CFR Part 32, "Specific Domestic Licenses to Manufacture or Transfer Certain Items Containing Byproduct Material 11 , is being interpreted as applying only to manufacturers and suppliers of original equipment and not to manufacturers and suppliers of replacement parts, devices, products, or sources designated for units originally manufactured or initially transferred by others.

Whereas every licensee who replaces a part in any teletherapy machine or any mechanism which uses licensed nuclear material is subject to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21, a clarification to 10 CFR Part 32 might cut down the number of incidents reported pursuant to Part 21.

Advanced Medical Systems, Inc., as an original equipment manufacturer, has a definite interest in the health and safety of the public utilizing and being treated by its equipment which has been serviced by third party organizations using inferior replacement parts. AMS first became aware of this problem through a series of U.S. Pharmacopeia reports including, for example, Access No. M49324 which concerned St. Mary 1s Medical Center in Saginaw, Michigan and Access No.

M49250 which concerned Anderson Memorial Hospital, Anderson, South Carolina.

The proposed modification to the text of 10 CFR Part 32 would strengthen its effectiveness by removing any question with respect to its applicability to ~

manufacturers and transferrers.

Two alternatives have been prepared. Either would adequately resolve the issue of whether 10 CFR Part 32 applies to manufacturers and suppliers of replacement parts, devices, products, or sources designated for units originally manufactured or initially transferred by others.

FEB 12 1991

.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM N DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics rz 9.D. ; . _ - - --

ostmark Date --,'--1-. -

opies Received I dd'I Copies Reproduce<i 3 pecial Distribun n _'f?JDS.J PDR

Chief, Docketing & Service Branch July 2, 1990 AMS has conferred with the NRC staff prior to the filing of this petition.

Sincerely,

~,;

e ilN Director of Regulatory Affairs SJS/mz Enclosures

I -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - -~

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO 10 CFR S32 S32.1 Purpose and scope.

( a) This part prescribes requirements for the issuance of specific licenses to persons who manufacture or initially transfer items containing by-product material for sale or distribution, including those persons who manufacture replacement parts, devices, products or sources designed for units originally manufactured or intially transferred by others to:

S32.14 Certain items containing bYProduct material; Requirements for license to apply or initially transfer.

An application for a specific license to apply byproduct material to, or to incorporate byproduct material into, the products including replacement parts or products specified in §30.15 of this chapter or to initially transfer for sale or distribution such products including replacement parts or products containing byproduct material for use pursuant to §30.15 of this chapter will be approved if:

S32.15 Same: Quality assurance, prohibition of transfer, and labeling.

(a) ( 1) Maintain quality assurance practices in the manufacture of the part or product, or the installation of the part into the product including replacement parts or products:

(c)(l) Any part or product including replacement parts or products which has been tested and found defective under the criteria and procedures specified in the license issued under §32 .14, unless the defective units have been repaired or reworked and have then met such criteria as may be required as a condition of the license issued under §32.14; or

( d) Label or mark each unit, except timepieces or hands or dials containing tritium or promethium-147, and its container so that the manufacturer or initial transferor of the product and the byproduct material in the product can be identified. Replacement parts, products and byproduct material must also be labeled or marked.

S32. 16 Certain items containing bYProduct material; Records and reports of transfer.

(a) Each person licensed under §32.14 or §32.17 including manufacturers of replacement parts or products shall maintain records of transfer of material and report to the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy of the appropriate NRC Regional Office listed in Appendix D of Part 20 of this chapter.

S32. 51 BYProduct material contained in devices for use under S31. 5; requirements for license to manufacture, or initially transfer.

(a) An application for a specific license to manufacture, or initially transfer devices including replacement parts, products or devices containing byproduct material to persons generally licensed under §31.5 of this chapter or equivalent regulations of an Agreement State will be approved if:

OOCKF UMBER PETITION u f So- 5'5 (55 FR li't:itJj)

P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420

/j;;\

V.::;:;J roc;KEiED u C

,

, Jl -5 P4 :32 ii ... !CE OF S£CR~T~

K1.. H G ** S H\i IC:f L- -~ .. !\ C\4 JUNE 2 9 1990 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Revisions to Final Safety Analysis Reports, 10 CFR Part 50 55 Fed. Reg. 18608 - May 3, 1990 Request for Comments

Dear Mr. Chilk:

These comments are submitted by Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) in response to the request of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for comments on a petition for rulemaking concerning the frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) revisions under 10 CFR Part 50 (55 Fed. Reg 18608 - May 3, 1990).

FPL is an investor-owned utility serving over three (3) million customers in the State of Florida. FPL is a licensed operator of two nuclear power plant units in Dade County, Florida and two units in st. Lucie county, Florida.

In its petiti on, Yankee Atomic Electric Company seeks a change to the current requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e) (4) that each licensee submit an annual revision to its FSAR. The petitioner requests that the regulation be modified to allow revision submittals within six months following completion of a licensee's planned refueling outage. FPL supports a change to 10 CFR 50.7l(e) (4) and believes that significant benefits can be gained from the adoption of the petitioner's request.

The Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. (NUMARC) has offered comments on the subject proposed rule. NUMARC recommends that the wording of the proposed rule change provide flexibility to permit a licensee to submit more frequent FSAR updates in lieu of post-outage revisions if desired. Further, NUMARC suggests that because of the number and complexity of modifications that may be accomplished in a refueling outage, it is recommended that the FSAR revision be submitted within nine months following an outage as FEB 12 1991 Ac ow ge an FPL Group company

JS. 'UCL EAR RFGULATORY COMMISSION ERVICE SECTION lE ECRETAAY OMMISSION

, Pnt Statistics I

8 7faf&_ I L .I 3

R,,ns,Yo~~~ I

- ~ -~

.. ___ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __J

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk L-90-241 Page two opposed to the six months requested by the petitioners.

Accordingly, the following revised wording to 10 CFR 50.71(e) (4) is suggested by NUMARC:

Subsequent revisions shall be submitted no less frequently than nine months following the completion of a planned refueling outage and shall reflect all changes up to a maximum of six months prior to the date of filing. If two or more facilities share a common FSAR and the licensee elects to revise that FSAR following

• refueling outages, the licensee shall designate the refueling outage schedule of one of the facilities to establish the schedule for revisions of the common FSAR.

FPL supports the NUMARC comments and revised wording to 10 CFR 50.71(e) (4).

• In conclusion, FPL supports the petitioner's position that the requested change (as revised by NUMARC) to 10 CFR 50.71 would be beneficial to both the NRC and the industry. The resulting longer interval between FSAR updates would benefit many licensees by reducing the administrative costs associated with preparation of the FSAR updates. Additionally, NRC staff time for FSAR reviews would be similarly reduced.

FPL appreciates the opportunity to comment on the petition for rulemaking. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss our comments with the NRC staff .

. H. Bohlke Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Licensing

Stephen B. Bram DOCKET NUMBER Vice President PETITION RULE PRM se -ss

(':i",SF~ /!~Of)

Consolidated Edison Company of New York. Inc.

Indian Point Station CO(;KET EO USNRC Broadway & Bleakley Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511 June 29, 1990 Telephone (914) 737-8116

• 90 JUL -5 P4 :29

'.lFF!Cf GF S[CRETAtxY 1

OOCK[HNG &. SE11v1cr Mr. Samuel J. Chilk BRANCH Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Regarding 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4)

Docket No. PRM-50-55 Request for Comments (55 Fed. Reg. 18608, May 3, 1990)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

On May 3, 1990 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") published in the Federal Register (55 Federal Register 18608) a request for comments on a petition for rulemaking concerning the frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report ("FSAR") revisions under 10 CFR Part 50.

The requested rule change would provide that such revisions be filed no later than six months after completion of each refueling outage for the subject facility. Pursuant to the notice, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. ("Con Edison"), as holder of Operating License 50-247 for Indian Point Unit No. 2, is pleased to provide the following comments.

Con Edison supports the petition for rulemaking, believes it to be sound in its underlying logic and of substantive potential benefit to the NRC and the industry. In addition to its benefit in terms of reduced cost and resource requirements, experience has shown that the outage at the end of an operating cycle is the most likely time for significant plant changes to be implemented. The completion of such an outage is, therefore, a more natural demarcation point for plant changes to be included in the FSAR revision process and would have the added benefit of reducing the average time between implementation of such changes and documentation of those changes in the FSAR.

To take full advantage of the benefits that would result from this change, however, Con Edison wishes to point out the need for concurrent changes to 10 CFR 50.59(b). That section currently requires a similar reporting of plant changes on an annual basis.

Without a concurrent change to an operating cycle frequency for reporting under this section, a disconnect would evolve which could detract from and diminish the advantages of the change being sought.

FEB 12 199\

car* . . ...... ***"**-*******-- ,

.S UCLEAR REGULATORY *OOMMISSIOM I ClCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics ostmark Date --. 7/3/c;o

, .:.,<---L-C'--------

opies Received__.__ _ _ _ _ __

d'I Copies Reproduced ~,S ,_____

pecial DistnbUtion IDS J>DR

~

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk June 29, 1990 In addition, 10 CFR 50.7l(e)(2) requires that FSAR submittals include identification of changes made under 10 CFR 50.59 but not previously submitted to the NRC. With non-coextensive submittal frequencies, the probability of having to provide additional reporting under 10 CFR 50.71(e)(2) would increase as would the administrative burden associated with tracking to assure compliance with that requirement.

Con Edison is also a member of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. ("NUMARC") and fully supports the comments being provided separately by NUMARC regarding this petition.

Notwithstanding the additional changes recommended in our above comments, we wish once again to state our support for the petition.

We hope that the above comments enhance the potential benefit to be derived from any proposed rule change. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and would be pleased to discuss our comments further.

Very truly yours, cc: Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 38 Buchanan, New York 10511

NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL 1776 Eye Street, N.W.

• Suite 300

• Washington, DC 20006-2496 (202) 872-1280 '90 Jll -2 p 6 :51 Joe F. Colvin Executive Vice President &

Chief Operating Officer Mr. Samuel J . Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Revisions to Final Safety Analysis Reports, 10 CFR Part 50 55 Fed. Reg. 18608 - May 3, 1990 Request for CollJllents

Dear Mr. Chil k:

These comments are submitted by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. ("NUMARC") in response to the request of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") for comments on a petition for rulemaking concerning the frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report ("FSAR") revisions under 10 C.F.R. Part 50 (55 Fed. Reg. 18608 - May 3, 1990).

NUMARC 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 of NUMARC. In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect -engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors.

In its pet i tion, Yankee Atomic Electric Company seeks a change to the current requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 50.7l(e)(4) that each licensee submit an annual revision to its FSAR. The petitioner requests that the regulation be modified to allow revision submittals within six months following completion of a licensee ' s planned refueling outage. NUMARC recognizes the need for periodic updates of each facility's FSAR to provide the NRC and the public with current information regarding the design features, operat,,f ng characteristics, and safety analyses of that facility. We support a change to 10 C.F.R. § 50.71(e)(4) because we believe that significant benefits will follow from the adoption of the petitioner ' s request .

FEB 12 199.l

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOf\

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETAR OF THE COMMISSION Document Statist1 stmark Dae ~ e , ; , ; , , ~

oies Rece __! _

d I Cop es Rep .,-._5J ec1 D' tri

• _!Vos PD " _

4-ad-Y- -

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 2, 1990 Page 2 In many cases, a rev1s1on to a FSAR is occasioned by a plant modification, such as the addition of a new system or the substantial reconfiguration of an existing one. Such modifications are generally completed during planned refueling outages. In fact, only in rare instances would major system changes be made outside of a scheduled outage period.

Therefore, the scope of and need for modification-related FSAR revisions between refueling outages is limited. There are occasions, however, when other facility changes unrelated to outage modifications may occur that necessitate a FSAR revision. An example of such a change would be the incorporation of an updated safety analysis.

NUMARC believes that FSAR revisions should be driven by circumstances rather than by an arbitrary time schedule. Adherence to a prescribed annual revision cycle could force a licensee to submit a FSAR update shortly before the installation of a major modification. As a consequence, the subsequent modification would render the FSAR out-of-date almost immediately. Allowing FSAR revisions to be linked to the completion of refueling outages gives more assurance that a FSAR will contain current information on any significant outage-related changes to the facility it describes.

NUMARC recognizes, however, that this approach may not be desirable for some licensees due to their organizational structure or management priorities.

Some licensees may consider it advantageous to revise a facility's FSAR prior to a post-refueling FSAR update or to continue the current annual revision cycle, and they should be allowed the flexibility to do so. Consequently, we recommend that the wording of any proposed rule change provide flexibility to permit a licensee to submit more frequent FSAR updates in lieu of post-outage revisions if desired. Further, because of the number and complexity of modifications that may be accomplished in a refueling outage, we suggest that the FSAR revision be submitted within nine months following an outage as opposed to the six months requested by the petitioners. This is a more reasonable time period in which to prepare their FSAR updates. Accordingly, the following revised wording to 10 C.F.R. § 50.7l(e)(4) is suggested:

Subsequent revisions shall be submitted no less frequently than nine months following the completion of a planned refueling outage and shall reflect all changes up to a maximum of six months prior to the date of filing. If two or more facilities share a common FSAR and the licensee elects to revise that FSAR following refueling outages, the licensee shall designate the refueling outage schedule of one of the facilities to establish the schedule for revisions of the common FSAR.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 2, 1990 Page 3 NUMARC supports the petitioner's position that the requested change (as revised) to §50.71 would be beneficial to both the NRC and the industry. The resulting longer interval between FSAR updates would benefit many licensees by reducing the administrative costs associated with preparation of those updates. NRC staff time for FSAR reviews would be similarly reduced and fewer licensee requests for schedule-related exemptions would be generated. We believe that these benefits can be achieved with no adverse effect on the health and safety of the public.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue and would be pleased to discuss our comments further with the appropriate NRC personnel.

Sincerely,

,-4~ 1--~'

~ e F. Colvin JFC/MWK:plg

.. DOCKET UMBER PETITIO RU PR l &>-55" (55"F~li&03) uOCXEiEO PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY USNRC NUCLEAR GROUP HEADQUARTERS 955-65 CHESTERBROOK BLVD.

'90 JUL -2 P6 :39 WAYNE, PA 19087-5691 (215} 640-6000 June 28, 1990 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Comments Concerning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 CFR 50 Petition for Rulemaking by Yankee Atomic Electric Company (55 FR 18608, dated May 3, 1990)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This letter is being submitted in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commi s sion's (NRC's) request for comme nts regarding the 10 CFR 50 petition for rulemaking filed by Yankee Atomic Electric Company on February 9, 1990, and published in the Federal Register (55 FR 18608, dated May 3, 1990).

The Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) appreciates the opportunity to comment on this petition for rulemaking. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to change the requirement that licensees file revisions to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) no less than annually. This petition suggests that revisions to the UFSAR to be filed no later than six (6) months after completion of a planned refueling outage at a licensee's facility, rather than annually as currently required by the regulations. We support Yankee Atomic Electric Company's petition for rulemaking, and request that the NRC promulgate a rule changing the regulations as described in the petition for rulemaking. We request, however, that the new rule include the FE B 12 1991 Acknowledoed V card ********** ...... .... *.........

.S ,JUCLEAA REGULATORY COMMI S '

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION norume PostmarkD !f/,;;i.<t/9t>

Copies Rece1 I Add'I Copies Repr r -...3 Special Distri o R1D:s Pb~,)

1

~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 28, 1990 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Page 2 option allowing licensees to submit revisions to the UFSAR on an annual basis as now required by 10 CFR 50.71(e) (4). PECo endorses the Nuclear Management and Resources Council's (NUMARC's) position and comments regarding this issue with additional comment described above.

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

7 erely yours, G. *P ~ )

Manager Licensing Section Nuclear Engineering and Services

Indiana Michigan DOCKET NUMBER Power Company P.O. Box 16631 PETITION RULE PRM 5o-S-5" , \

Columbus, OH 43216 { 5"",5'"F/? 1~608.J COtKETEO USHHC m INDIANA MICHIGAN

°S1l Jll -2 P6 :27 POWIR OFFICE ut $£C £ TARY DJCKl I IN t, ':i i VIC: f BRA NCi-; AEP:NRC:0508K Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 COMMENT ON FSAR UPDATE PROPOSED RULEMAKING Attention: Docket and Service Branch June 27, 1990

Dear Mr. Chilk:

These comments are being submitted in response to the U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) request for comments on a petition for rulemaking concerning the frequency of Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) revisions under 10 CFR Part 50 (55 FR 18608, May 3, 1990).

The Yankee Atomic Electric Company petition seeks a change to the current requirements of 10 CFR 50.7l(e)(4) that each licensee submit an annual revision to its FSAR. The petitioner requests that the regulation be modified to allow submitting revisions to the FSAR within six months following completion of a licensee's planned refueling outage. For multi-unit facilities that share a common FSAR, the licensee shall designate the refueling outage schedule of one of the units to establish the schedule for FSAR revision submittal. It is recognized that there is a need for periodic updates of each facility's FSAR to provide the NRG and the public with current information regarding the operating characteristics, design features, and safety analyses of that facility.

A revision to the FSAR usually reflects the effects of plant modifications, such as the addition of a new system or substantial reconfiguration of an existing system. Such modifications are generally completed during planned refueling outages. Only in rare instances would major system changes be made outside of a scheduled outage period. With 18- and 24-month fuel cycles becoming more widely used by licensees, the benefit of yearly FSAR updates is minimal. Adherence to an arbitrary annual revision cycle could force a licensee to submit an FSAR update shortly before the i nstallation of a major modification . As a consequence , the subsequent modification would render the FSAR out-of - date for most of the following year, until the next update EB 12 1991 A. knowledged by card ...* **- ...- -

• US NUCLEAR REGULATORY C .. f ,

OOCKETING & SERVICE SF ...

OFFICE OF THE SECAr-OF THE COMMIS Document Statist, ark Date ~ ~ 9o POOiY8d I A dI Rep,_rod_uced

__  :!j_

pecial 01 " tl0n £. l)S PIJ I(

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk AEP:NRC:0508K is submitted. Linking the FSAR revisions to the completion of refueling outages ensures that an FSAR will contain current information on any significant changes that have been made to the facility it describes.

We support the petitioner's position that the requested change to Section 50.71 would be beneficial to both the NRG and the industry. The longer interval between FSAR updates would benefit the licensee by reducing the administrative costs involved in the preparation of the updates. NRG staff time for FSAR review would also be reduced. Also, fewer licensee requests for schedule-related exemptions could be expected. Finally, the quality and accuracy of the information contained in each FSAR would be enhanced.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue and would be pleased to discuss our comments further with the appropriate NRG personnel.

This document has been prepared following Corporate procedures that incorporate a reasonable set of controls to ensure its accuracy and completeness prior to signature by the undersigned.

Sincerely, M. P. Alexich Vice President MPA/eh cc: D. H. Williams, Jr.

A. A. Blind - Bridgman G. Charnoff A. B. Davis - Region III NRG Resident Inspector - Bridgman

-___- Entergy Operations OCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM So-6-!J-

{'C5 Fie /8'(,0~)

DOCKETED SNHC Entergy Operations, Inc.

PO. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Tel 601-984-9696 (j)

William Cavanaugh, Ill

-W JUL -2 P6 :20 Chief t:xecurive v1 1cer Ofr !C:::: OF SEC~E1Aff "

QOC KE1 lNG & Sr.tiVIU June 29, 1990 fJH 1\ NC1i Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Notice of Petition for Rulemaking Revisions to Final Safety Analysis Reports, 10CFR Part 50 55 Federal Register 18608 AECM90-0201

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Entergy Operations, the licensee for Arkansas Nuclear One, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station and Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, has reviewed the subject petition, and are pleased to provide the following general comments. We have also participated in the development and review of the comments provided by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) and fully support their submittal.

Entergy Operations supports the petitioner's position. Specifically, such a change would provide the opportunity for better utilization of resources, flexibility in scheduling updates, a reduction in the total number of updates, and a more timely basis for incorporating changes. Collectively, these benefits will allow licensees to enhance the quality and timeliness of information in the updates, thus assuring no adverse affect on safety.

In summary, we believe the petitioner's position has merit, and the proposed change to 10CFR 50.71 should be pursued. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this matter.

WC/sep FEB 1 2 1991 NRCLTRS/JEXFLR-1 Acknowledged by card.............................-.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS 14 DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date -=F. [;.

Copies Receivea_/_ _ _ _ __

Add'I Copies Reproduced _1..3 Special Distrtbution 7? 1.>S PD 1

Notice of Petition for Rulemaking Revisions to Final Safety Analysis Reports, 10 CFR Part 50 55 Federal Register 18608 June 29, 1990 Page 2 cc: s. D. Ebneter, NRC Region II R. D. Martin, NRC Region IV D. L. Wigginton, NRC-NRR T. w. Alexion, NRC-NRR C. Poslusny, NRC-NRR L. L. Kintner, NRC-NRR NRC Resident Inspectors Office (Waterford-3)

NRC Resident Inspectors Office {GGNS)

NRC Resident Inspectors Office {ANO)

NRCLTRS/JEXFLR-2

Notice of Petition for Rulemaking Revisions to Final Safety Analysis Reports, 10 CFR Part 50 55 Federal Register 18608 June 29, 1990 Page 3 bee: D. C. Hintz R. P. Barkhurst N. S. Carns W. T. Cottle T. H. Cloninger J. G. Dewease G. W. Muench R. F. Burski J. G. Cesare J. J. Fisicaro M. J. Meisner R. B. McGehee N. S. Reynolds W. A. Cross E. L. Blake W. M. Stevenson H. L. Thomas C.R. Hutchinson E. C. Ewing J. F. Colvin (NUMARC)

Records Center (W-3)

Administrative Support (W-3)

Licensing Library (W-3)

Site Licensing Support File (W-3)

File (RPTS) (GGNS)

File (LCTS) (GGNS)

File (NL) (GGNS)

File (Central) (GGNS)

Document Control Center (DCC) (ANO)

File (Central) [ 3]

NRCLTRS/JEXFLR-3

COMMENT No,. 6' MISCODED NUMBER WILL NOT BE REUSED

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM Si;-5:5-I William S. Orser Seni or Vice Pres ident (CS-r-R IB'~tJt)

-/.,_

• ~-:;

/

f'lOCKETEO

)

Detroit Fermi 2 6400 North D1 x 1e Highv, ay US Ni~C Xj Edison Ne,,., po rt . M ichigan 48 166 (313) 586-~20 1 Nuclear Operations Mr. Samuel J. Ch ilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing arrl Service Branch

Reference:

Fermi 2 NlC Docket No. 50-341 NOC License No. NPF-43

Subject:

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Revisions to Final Safety Analysis Reports, 10 CFR 50 55 Federal Register 18608 Rec;iuest for Corrments

==Dear Mr

• Ch ilk :==

The following cornrrents are submitted by Detroit Edison Company in response to the request of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Canmission (NlC) for cornrrents on a petition for rulemaking submitted by Yankee Atomic Electric Company concerning the frequency of updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) revisions ur~er 10 CFR 50 (55 Federal Register 18608, May 3, 1990).

In its petition, Yankee Atanic Electric Company seeks a change to the current requirements of 10 CFR 50.?l(e) (4) that each licensee submit an annual revision to its FSAR. The petitioner requests that the regulation be modified to allow revision subrnittals within six nonths following cornpletion of a licensee's planned refueling outage.

Detroit Edison recognizes the need for periodic updates of each facility's FSAR to provide the NH: arrl the public with current information regarding the design features, operating characteristics, arrl safety analyses of the facility. We also recognize that the majority of the changes in a FSAR revision is the result of mcdifications to the plant which are generally cornpletd during a planned refuel outage.

In reviewing our past revisions arrl our current methodology for prcducing annual revisions, we find that the cost of the revision in both manpo.ver arrl dollars is directly related to the size am content of the specific revision. our organizational structure and management FE.8 1 2 1991 Acknowledged by cara ........._..__.._ ............

1.1 .. <EGUL; *()RY COMMIS DOCKETING & SER 'ICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 'Z 5 q Copies Rece1vea__L_ _ __

dd'I Copies Reproauced ..3 S ecial Distribution.Jl.lDS DI<.

- --- c:¥£..4,,~__,___

M~. Samuel J. Chilk July 2, 1990 NIC-90-0124 Page 2 priorities and policies are such that it is advantageous for Detroit Edison to remain on an annual schedule for the submittal of an updated FSAR revision.

Recognizing, however, that some utilities may find it advantageous to submit post-refueling outage revisions, the schedule should be sufficiently flexible to allow this option. In addition, because of the number and cornplexity of modifications that are cecomplished in a refueling outage, we believe that a post-refueling outage updated FSAR revision be submitted within nine nonths following an outage in lieu of the six months recorrarerrled by the petitioner

• Accordingly, we suggest the following revised wording to 10 CFR 50. 7l(e) (4):

Subsequent revisions shall be submitted no less frequently than nine nonths following the completion of a planned refueling outage and shall reflect all changes up to a maximum of six nonths prior to the date of filing. If two or more fceilities share a cornnon FSAR and the licensee elects to revise that FSAR following refueling outages, the licensee shall designate the refueling outage schErlule of one of the facilities to establish the schErlule for revisions of the comrron FSAR.

Detroit Edison supports the petitioner's position that the requested change, as revised, to 10 CFR 50. 71 would be beneficial to both the NK: and the industry. The resulting longer interval between FSAR updates would benefit many licensees by rerlucing the administrative costs associated with preparation of those updates. NK: staff time would be similarly rerluced since fewer licensee requests for scherlule-relaterl exemptions would be generaterl. We believe that these benefits can be achieved with no adverse effect on the health and safety of the public.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue, should you wish to discuss our corrarents further, please contact Ms. E. F. Madsen at (313) 586-4205.

Sincerely, cc: A. B. Davis R. W. DeFayette W. G. Rogers J. F. Stang

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PR S"a - ~5" (55FI< !o~D~)

d JC:h U lD USNRC "90 JUN 25 PJ :48 Florida Power CORPORATION June 21, 1990 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Comments on Docket No. PRM-50-55 Petition for Rulemaking

Dear Sir:

Florida Power Corporation (FPC) is submitting comments in response to the notice published in the May 3, 1990 Federal Register. The notice describes a petition filed by Yankee Atomic Electric Company to change 10 CFR 50. 71 regarding Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) revisions. FPC fully supports the petition. It is our opinion that the proposed change to 10 CFR 50.71(e) (4) to allow licensees to submit subsequent revisions of the FSAR no later than six months after completion of each planned refueling outage will benefit both the NRC and the industry.

The administrative burden on the NRC and the industry would be reduced and more accurate and up-to-date FSAR texts would be maintained for plants on an extended (18-24 month) refuel cycle.

We urge you to favorably consider this rule change.

Sincerely,

(!;: t::;:1.A Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations PMB/JWT xc: Yankee Atomic Electric Company - Mr. Don Edwards NUMARC - Mr. Thomas Tipton POST OFFICE BOX 219

• CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA 32629-0219 * (904) 795-6486 FEB 12 1991 A Florida Progress Company Acknowledged b

U.S. NUCLEAR RE UL.AIOAY C SS ,

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Docum t Statistics Postmarlc Date ~/Bi ci/90 Copies :Pl' /_ ~ - --

o\dd'I eo ,

• 3 _

Special Dism, R1Ds/ ?DR)

--~

D 1\ET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM ~ - 5 S =" )

(§sP.e / ?~ K'_; 0 New Hampshire LOCKETEO Ted C. Feigenbaum Yankee USNRC Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer

~ ~ \8 pJ:41 t00{-9Q 124 orncE OF SEC)!~ 1AR (

uOCKEliNG & ,r_t{VIC!. 1990

\ BRANe@ne 13

• Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Couunission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Servicing Branch

Subject:

Couunents on Notice of Receipt of a Petition for Rulemaking:

Revisions to Final Safety Analysis Reports, 10 CFR Part 50; SSFR18608 Gentlemen:

New Hampshire Yankee welcomes the opportunity to couunent on the subject petition. There is currently a requirement in 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) which states that the updated FSAR (UFSAR) must be revised annually. The Yankee Atomic Electric Company petition would change the rule to state that the UFSAR must be revised within 6 months following completion of each refueling outage. NHY endorses this petition.

We recognize the importance of maintaining a singl e cohesive, reasonably current, UFSAR that is available to the operations, engineering and licensing staffs. Most significant modifications, however, are made during refueling outages and we believe it is more important to capture these than to submit a revision on an arbitrary cycle. The arbitrary annual cycle may, in fact, lead to less timely incorporation of significant refueling outage modifications. An example may illustrate this point.

Assume Revision 1 to an UFSAR is made in September, 1990 and a refueling outage is then conducted from February through April of 1991. Revision 2 to the UFSAR would be required in September 1991 under the existing regulation.

However, since that regulation stipulates that the revised FSAR reflect all changes up to a maximum of six months prior to the date of filing, any modifications implemented in April of 1991 during the outage would not necessarily be captured in Revision 2. Thus, these significant plant changes may not appear in a revision until Revision 3 in September, 1992 or 17 months after implementation.

Another factor that supports this petition is the requirement in 10 CFR 50.59 that the licensee maintain records of changes in the facility or procedures. This assures the ready availability of current changes to the UFSAR on a continuing basis between revisions.

FEB 12 1991 Acknowledged by card ... ",,,,,uwscn:neewssm:a 0

New Hampshire Yankee Division of Public Service Company of New Hampshire P.O. Box 300

• Seabrook, NH 03874

• Telephone (603) 474-952 1

.... 1 REGULATORY COMMISStO DO KETING & SERVICE SECTKlN OFFICE OF THE SECRETARV OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date - --lf~-:.--- - -

Copies Reooived,~-- - - --

Add'I Copies Reproduced _ _ _ __

Special Distrib. im*on__ _ _ _ __

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 13, 1990 Attention: Docketing and Servicing Branch Page 2 New Hampshire Yankee believes that the proposed change to the rule, therefore, would be advantageous to both the NRC and the utility. Each would benefit from having an UFSAR that would capture significant plant modifications in a timely manner, and each would see a significant reduction in the administrative cost of producing and reviewing UFSAR revisions. NHY believes that the quality and accuracy of the UFSAR would be enhanced with no adverse impact on the health and safety of the public.

Very truly yours,

~t/~;r~

Ted C. Feigenbaum TCF:JBH/ssl cc: Mr. Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. Noel Dudley NRC Senior Resident Inspector P.O. Box 1149 Seabrook, NH 03874

DOCKET NUMBER U- 601682 PETITION RULE PRM $t>-55 L48-90( 06-06 )-LP ILLIIOIS POWER (ss r-e/8'6c;;<f)

CLINTON POWER STATION. P.O. BOX 678, CLINTON. ILLINOIS 61727-0678, TELEPHONE (217) 935-lA.120

• 90 JUN 11 A10 :20 June 6, 1990 OFF !C~ OF SE.(;HE1 AR Y DOCKETING & St i< Vl ff BRANCH Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Sir:

This letter provides comment on a proposed rule change that was announced in the May 3, 1990 Federal Register.

Illinois Power Company (IP) wishes to comment on the Petition for Rulemaking filed by Yankee Atomic Electricity Company. IP is strongly supportive of the change that would better coordinate the revisions of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) with refueling cycles. IP's Clinton Power Station is one of the nuclear power stations that will be issuing a new revision to the Safety Analysis Report at the same time the plant is entering a refueling outage this year. The Commission's approval of this Rulemaking change would provide for a more logical and timely basis for incorporating plant configuration and procedure changes in the future. Additionally, IP believes the Commission would benefit from the procedure change as well as the nuclear power companies in resource planning and budgeting.

Sincerely yours, 4.-4.-:?e Manager 11 Ct~~d SFB/alh f* ':.8 1 2 1991 Acknowledged by card ..................................

U.S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics P mark Date --'~/tef 90 _ _ __

1l-=i1,_...,.,_

es Rece1ved__.L_ ___,,,---- - -

A I Copies Reproduced ~ -- - -

S ec1al Distribution...;...

e.,,..

,os

_;;_.,__.:....:....L-- - -

1 DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM '5o-S5 (55 FIZ li'6oR) 1 0c. E~rn USN C "W HAY 25 Pl :43 uf !Cf. OF S CAE v OOCKfil NG SEHVICf

!3RANC l

.. 1991 Acknowledged by card .-.....ummUIIUIHtWltlliU

)

I wlVe - ---- ,.,...- - - - -

Ad sA 1 .,,nbu

DOCKET NUMBER StJ-.55 YANKEE ATOMIC ELEC 1?1Bce (_ss

.I)

Telephone (508) 779-6711 r~, ~ ooI ~E1J10-380-7619 F£.. 1 <<-"' 00J USHRC 580 Main Street, Bolton, Massachu39t1s 9£8'4\6139~ :52 February 9, 1990 SPS90-035 GLA 90-014 FYC 90-001 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The enclosed petition to amend the present provisions of 10CFR Section 50.71(e)(4) of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations is herewith submitted pursuant to 10CFR Section 2.802 on behalf of Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC).

YAEC owns and operates a nuclear power plant in Rowe, Massachusetts. Our Nuclear Services Division also provides engineering and licensing services to other nuclear power plants in the Northeast, including Vermont Yankee, Maine Yankee and Seabrook.

If there are any questions concerning the enclosed petition, please contact Dr. John D. Sutton at (508) 779-6711.

Very truly yours, d ttl~

Donald w. Edwards Director, Industry Affairs DWE/cmd Enclosure

." NUC.LEAR REG AT :)RY (~OMMISS"'

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics I 3 qo. . ; . _ - - - -

PCJstmark Date - .:2~-,_;..

Cu~es Recei\1ed._____ / _ _ _ __ _

M d'I Copies ReprOduCed --'3______

Special Distribution {<.JDS Pt:,R.

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING Introduction The following petition for rulemaking is submitted pursuant to 10CFR Section 2.802 on behalf of Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC). YAEC owns and operates a nuclear power plant in Rowe, Massachusetts. Our Nuclear Services Division also provides engineering and licensing services to other nuclear power plants in the Northeast, including Vermont Yankee, Maine Yankee, and Seabrook.

Petitioner requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission amend 10CFR50.71(e)(4) to change the present requirement that revisions to the Final Safety Analysis Reports (FSARs) of nuclear power plant licensees be filed no less frequently than annually. Specifically, the petitioner requests that 10CFR50.71(e)(4) be amended to read:

"Unless directed otherwise by the Executive Director for Operations, subsequent revisions shall be filed no later than six months after completion of each planned refueling outage for a licensee's facility. If two or more facilities share a common FSAR, the licensee shall designate the refueling outage schedule of one of the multiple facilities to establish the schedule for revisions of the common FSAR. The FSAR revisions shall reflect all changes up to a maximum of six months prior to the date of filing."

Discussion Petitioner recognizes the value of periodically updating a facility's FSAR.

The purpose of this proposed rule is to permit more effective utilization of both licensee and NRC resources and to allow more meaningful scheduling for FSAR updates consistent with current operational practices of nuclear power generation facilities. Practically every operating facility schedules the implementation of major physical changes to coincide with planned refueling outages. As a result, the changes effected in a refueling outage are typically those which give rise to the most extensive and meaningful changes to the facility's FSAR. At the present time, the average operating cycle for facilities is approximately eighteen months. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to effectively coordinate the production of the presently mandated annual FSAR update with the activities supporting a facility's planned outages.

To cite a specific example of the problems created by the present rule, one of the facilities serviced by the petitioner must write, review, and publish its annual FSAR update in precisely the same time frame as its planned 1990 refueling outage, i.e., the outage will end in June 1990 and the annual FSAR update must be submitted by July 1990. This update will describe the facility as it exists at the end of February 1990, and therefore will not describe a single design change implemented during the 1990 outage which will have just been completed. These changes will not be incorporated until the facility's 0923x

July 1991 FSAR submittal just two months before the start of the unit's next planned refueling outage.

Petitioner believes that the proposed coordination of the rev1s1ons of a facility's FSAR with its refueling schedule offers the multiple benefits of reducing the total number of submittals required during the licensed life of the facility, increasing the flexibility of the licensee in planning and scheduling his work, and providing a more logical and generally more timely basis for incorporating facility changes in the FSAR.

Petitioner recognizes that the proposed rule change must deal with situations where a facility might experience an unplanned outage of extended duration.

The proposed rule change allows the EDO to deal with this possibility by permitting him the option of specifying the FSAR revision requirements for licensees. Petitioner is confident that the EDO would exercise this discretionary power in a fair and thoughtful manner.

Petitioner also recognizes that the benefits of the proposed rule change cannot be fully realized in those instances where two or more facilities share a common FSAR. However, it is believed that the licensees of these multiple units will still derive significant benefits by being permitted to coordinate their FSAR revision schedule with the planned refueling outage schedule of at least one of their units.

According to Petitioner's calculations, there are approximately 70 FSARs which must be revised annually to satisfy the current provisions of 10CFR50.71(e)(4). These 70 FSARs include 28 FSARs which describe two unit facilities and 3 FSARs which describe three unit facilities. Based on the cumulative number of years remaining until the expiration of existing licenses, 2,243 submittals will be required to satisfy the existing rule. If it is assumed that the average operating cycle will be eighteen months, the petitioner's proposed rule change would reduce the total number of required submittals by approximately 650. The projected savings do not include those which would be anticipated for facilities which will have their licenses renewed after expiration of their original 40-year licenses. Many of the costs associated with the production of a FSAR revision are completely independent of the size or content of a specific revision. Therefore, it is believed that this simple calculation indicates the potential for significant cost savings with the implementation of the proposed rule change. Other benefits are less readily quantified, but, none the less, very real.

Petitioner believes that the increased flexibility which would be afforded licensees in planning and scheduling their work will be the major benefit of this proposal and that this can be accomplished with no decrease in the present quality or timeliness of FSAR updates. Petitioner also believes that there are obvious benefits and savings for the NRC in reducing the administrative burden imposed by the present rule. It is anticipated that this reduction in administrative burden would include significantly fewer instances in which the NRC would have to deal with licensee requests for exemptions due to schedular conflicts and problems.

Concerning details of implementing the proposed amendment, Petitioner suggests that within one week of power ascension and the phasing of a facility onto its 0923x

transmission grid, the licensee would notify the licensee's NRC Project Manager that the outage has been completed and indicate the projected filing date for the subsequent FSAR update. Petitioner believes that details of implementation such as this need not be incorporated in the rule and can be conveyed to licensees in one of the standard NRC guidance documents (e.g.,

Generic Letter, Regulatory Guides, etc.).

0923x

~-

\__, " -

DOCKET NUMBER ,. \

PETITION RULE PAM 5 o-S5 &sFR:_ IK~dJ".)

~ OCK[ i EQ USNRC

• 90 APR 30 Pl2 :48

[7590-01]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 50

[Docket No. PRM-50-55]

Yankee Atomic Electric Company; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking: Notice of receipt.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing for public comment a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking dated February 9, 1990, which was filed with the Commission by the Yankee Atomic Electric Company. The petition was docketed by the Commission on February 16, 1990, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-50-55. The petitioner requests that the NRC change the requirement that nuclear power plant licensees file revisions to the final safety analysis report no less frequently than annually. The petitioner also requests that the regulations require that revisions be filed no later than six months after completion of each planned refueling outage for a licensee~s facility.

• The petitibner belleves this thange would permit more effective use of licensee and NRC resources and allow more meaningful scheduling for final safety analysis report updates.

DATE: Submit comments by July 2, 1990-. 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: Submit written comments to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. \,

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing J0~qo and Service Branch. ~- \

1

For a copy of the petition, write the Regulatory Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

The petition and copies of comments received may be inspected and copied for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules Review Section, Regulatory Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: 301-492-7758 or Toll Free:

800-368-5642.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petitioner On February 9, 1990, the Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) filed a request for action under 10 CFR 2.802 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The petitioner owns and operates a nuclear power plant in Rowe, Massachusetts and provides engineering and licensing services to other nuclear power plants in the Northeast .

• Background The NRC requires each nuclear power plant licensee to maintain records and to submit reports in connection with its activities under 10 CFR 50.71.

Paragraph (e)(4) of §50.71 requires licensees to file revisions to the FSAR no less frequently than annually. This paragraph also stipulates that the revised FSAR reflects all changes up to a maximum of six months prior to the date of filing. The FSAR, as required under §50.34(b), describes the facility, presents the design bases and limits on its operation, and presents a safety analysis of the structures, systems, and components and of the facility as a whole.

The Suggested Amendment 2

The petitioner requests that the NRC amend 10 CFR 50.7l(e)(4) to change the requirement that nuclear power plant licensees file revisions to the final safety analysis report (FSAR) no less frequently than annually. To accomplish the desired amendment, the petitioner suggests that §50.7l(e)(4) be revised to read as follows:

"Unless directed otherwise by the Executive Director for Operations, subsequent revisions shall be filed no later than six months after completion of each planned refueling outage for a licensee's facility. If two or more facilities share a common FSAR, the licensee shall designate the refueling outage schedule of one of the multiple facilities to establish the schedule for revisions of the common FSAR. The FSAR revisions shall reflect all changes up to a maximum of six months prior to the date of filing."

Supporting Information The petitioner recognizes the value of periodically updating a facility's FSAR. The purpose of this suggested amendment is to permit more effective utilization of both licensee and NRC resources and to allow more meaningful scheduling for FSAR updates consistent with the current operational practices of nuclear power generation facilities. The petitioner believes that practically every operating facility schedules the implementation of major physical changes to coincide with planned refueling outages. As a result, the changes that are

• made during a refueling outage are typically those which give rise to the most extensive and meaningful changes to the facility's FSAR.

The petitioner believes that the coordination of the revisions of a facility's FSAR with its refueling schedule would offer the multiple benefits of reducing the total number of submittals required during the licensed life of the facility, increasing the flexibility of the licensee in planning and scheduling its work, and providing a more logical and generally more timely basis for incorporating facility changes in the FSAR.

The petitioner recognizes that the benefits of the suggested amendment cannot be realized fully in those instances where two or more facilities share a common FSAR. However, the petitioner believes that the licensees of these multiple units will still derive significant benefits by being permitted to coordinate their FSAR revision schedule with the planned refueling outage schedule of at least one of their units.

3

Potential Benefits According to the petitioner s calculations, there are approximately 70 1

FSARs which must be revised annually to satisfy the current provisions of 10 CFP. 50.71(e)(4). These 70 FSARs include 28 FSARs which describe two unit facilities and 3 FSARs which describe three unit facilities. Based on the cumulative number of years remaining until the expiration of existing licenses, 2,243 submittals will be required to satisfy the existing rule. If an average operating cycle of eighteen months is assumed, the petitioner s suggested amend-1 ment would reduce the total number of required submittals by approximately 650.

The projected savings do not include those which would be anticipated for

• facilities which will have their licenses renewed after expiration of their original 40-year licenses. Many of the costs associated with the production of a FSAR revision are completely independent of the size or content of a specific revision. Therefore, the petitioner believes that this simple calculation indicates the potential for significant cost savings with the implementation of the suggested amendment.

The petitioner also believes that the increased flexibility which would be afforded licensees in planning and scheduling their work will be the major benefit of the suggested amendment and that this can be accomplished with no decrease in the present quality or timeliness of FSAR updates. According to the petitioner, there are obvious benefits and savings for the NRC in reducing the administrative burden imposed by the present rule. The reduction in administrative burden would include significantly fewer instances in which the NRC would have to deal with licensee requests for exemptiqns due to schedule conflicts and other problems.

Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this J.-(f da of Q_ , f 1990.

the r Regulatory Commission.

Secretary of the Commission.

4