NRC Generic Letter 1982-20

NRC Generic Letter 1982-020: Implementing Standard Review Plan Rule

ML031080331
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley, Millstone, Hatch, Monticello, Calvert Cliffs, Dresden, Davis Besse, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Salem, Oconee, Mcguire, Nine Mile Point, Palisades, Palo Verde, Perry, Indian Point, Fermi, Kewaunee, Catawba, Harris, Wolf Creek, Saint Lucie, Point Beach, Oyster Creek, Watts Bar, Grand Gulf, Cooper, Sequoyah, Byron, Pilgrim, Arkansas Nuclear, Braidwood, Susquehanna, Summer, Prairie Island, Columbia, Seabrook, Brunswick, Surry, Limerick, North Anna, Turkey Point, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Crystal River, Haddam Neck, Ginna, Diablo Canyon, Callaway, Vogtle, Waterford, Duane Arnold, Farley, Robinson, Clinton, South Texas, San Onofre, Cook, Comanche Peak, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Quad Cities, Humboldt Bay, La Crosse, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Zion, Midland, Bellefonte, Fort Calhoun, FitzPatrick, McGuire, LaSalle, 05000514, 05000000, 05000496, 05000497, 05000515, Zimmer, Fort Saint Vrain, Washington Public Power Supply System, Shoreham, Satsop, Trojan, Bailly, Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant, Perkins, Cherokee, Clinch River, Skagit, Marble Hill, Hartsville, Phipps Bend, Yellow Creek, Crane
Issue date:	10/26/1982
From:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
GL-82-020, NUDOCS 8210260088
Download: ML031080331 (2)

OCT 2 6 1982 TO ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES/PERMIT HOLDERS, APPLICANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION

PERMITS

Subject: Guidance for Implementing Standard Review Plan Rule (Generic Letter No. 82-aO)

Gentlemen:

On March 10, 1982, the Commission approved a final rule 10 CFR 50.34(g), *Confor- mance with the Standard Review Plan (SRP)." This rule requires power reactor applications docketed after May 17, 1982, to include an evaluation of the facility against the acceptance criteria of the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800).

The staff has prepared for public comment the enclosed guidance (NUREG-0906) for licensees to assist in complying with the rule. The guidance document Is intended as an interim measure until the *Standard Content and Format Guide for Safety Analysis Reports, Regulatory Guide 1.70," is revised to reflect the requirements of the new rule, at which time the guidance in NUREG-0906 would be incorporated into Regulatory Guide 1.70.

The guidance document has the following major features:

(1) It identifies the locations in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR)

for providing the evaluation required by the SRP rule and pro- vides a suggested tabular format for identifying the specific areas of design, analysis, and procedure that are different from the Standard Review Plan. The table includes an identifi- cation and summary description of the differences, and a refer- ence to the specific sections of the SAR in which the differ- ences are discussed and evaluated.

(2) For applicants subject to the rule, It modifies the present guidance contained in Regulatory Guide 1.70 that they should provide a discussion in the SAR of their conformance with all applicable Regulatory Guides (SAR Chapter 1.8). The appro- priate Regulatory Guides are cited in the acceptance criteria for each individual section of the SRP. Thus, this section (Chapter 1.8) of the SAR would be redundant to the evaluation now required by the SRP rule and an unnecessary burden on applicants.

(3) It reaffirms that conformance with the SRP, per se, is not a regulatory requirement, but that the specific acceptance criteria of the SRP define methods acceptable to the staff for satisfying the relevant regulations. However, the guid- 32 ance documents notes that in some instances the SRP acceptance criteria are identical to the requirements of the regulations.

Guidance on how to handle this type of difference from the SRP

accrp-Ca W ille l. lalrtu w OFFICEIP z .= 6 8.................. ...... ........................ ....... ............................ ............................ ............................ .....................

21U08.....

SURNAAMEb ....... ................. ....... ................ ........................ ............... ......... ... ........................ ........................ ............... .................

........................

DATEt............. . ................................ ........................................ ........................ ............ ............... ......... ............... ........................

NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 O FFICIA L R EC O RD C OP Y USGPO: 1981-335-960

- 2 -

(4) It provides examples of evaluations of differences from the SRP

that the staff considers to be acceptable in technical scope and detail.

Comments on NUREG-0906 are due by December 20, 1982.

Sincerely, pFtriginal signed by Darrell G. Eisenhut Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosure:-4 As stated OFFICESI....... D B .. . LL1 .. ........................ . ..............

........................ .......

an:hmc Adl Asent "

SURNAME ................ . . ....... ; ........... .............. .................. ........................ ......................

DATE) 29..1.8.. 2... _9&L

2..... ,

.................. ........................ ........................

NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 RECORD COPY USGPO:1981-83"9