ML20138E103
| ML20138E103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/07/1992 |
| From: | Imbro E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Fraley R Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137A682 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-466 NUDOCS 9306110195 | |
| Download: ML20138E103 (11) | |
Text
-. . . .. - . - - -- . - . - - . .- - --
o .
m,_
, ., - : :l av7 pp.g. $gi5.
a: . : s '. j
> , 39: ,
HEHORANDUM FOR: Raymond F. Fraley, Executive Director Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards.
a ~. n y ta -g.g - hq , ,
FROM: .WJ b l 4
, Eugene V. Imbro,'Branch Special Inspection Chief W'dif$. M Division of Reactor Inspections'an F j Licensee Performance .-g;jg ye .;Jp:xj. l
=. _ -. wu '
I
SUBJECT:
DRAFT GENERIC LETTER ON THE AVAILABILITY'AND ADEQUACY OF DESIGN -
BASES INFORMATION , .,; g l
The draft generic letter (Enclosure 1) is being provided for your information.
- The purpose of the generic letter is to obtain information, on a voluntary basis, regarding licensee's self-initiated design bases reconstitution programs. No new staff requirements are imposed by the generic letter nor are additional licensee comitments sought. The enclosed generic letter is consistent with the policy statement (Enclosure 2) and prior CRGR review coments have been incorporated. We intend to forward this generic letter to the Comission for information prior to issuing it for public coment.
- c. ,.%+N!q4WK '
Please contact me by COB on October 9,1992 if the Advisory Comittee on i I
Reactor Safeguards desires a staff briefing on this generic letter.
OW8Nh.:
catonvu.s sImm sh b P53 &
Eugene V. Imbro, Chief R:4.- 5,; ,
Special Inspection Branch h A '
Division of Reactor Inspection and Licensee Performance M fe w ).
....3 s
Enclosures:
As Stated ' 3;l%n(M f fp .tk
- I
,. gM Qil tribution: -
-33 db R51S R/F-M. cm ,t HNPastis, NRR WIRussell, NRR '1
- J[{hg,*y .
h j.1 Hiaylor OEDO -
3t CERossi, DRil 7 03[di
. ;. g, ' -
CHHarcus, DORS j, RZimerman, DRIL .-pp/' u A. CQuittschreiber, ACRS 3 i' . RAGram, DRil g v Central Files 1 a * .
..,g p{:l,
% i
- 4t k i' ,
W;. .s h' gA w ;,,
@ , ..j n . U; .P ' ' . S l C:RSIB:0RIL .W h .#. . .
N~' n
. oa lal >
4: [ l OR)(& $$$Sa- :a l
. - . - - . . . - -- . _ . - ._ -- _- . . .. .=
. . . ~, .n y 4 - g- y ENCLOSURE -
j, , fM:es Generic Letter
- h, 4
- h. c. + -
10: ALL POWER REACTOR LICE!! SEES AND APPLICANTS FOR OPERATillG LICE!15E
.. AinM%
SUBJECT:
AVA1 3 BILITY A110 ADEQUACY OF DESIGN BASIS INFORMATION J Ah'j%y The Commission recently issued a policy statement' describing its wi;y Mg c expectations and the Agency's future actions to verify the, adequacy and wn.w s . availability of design information. Inthepolicystatement;theConmission n, w concluded that maintaining current and accessible design documentation is - ! important to ensure that (1) plant physical and functio'na1' characteristics are MMW maintained and are consistent with the design bases as required by U.S. T ~ NuclearRegulatoryCommission(NRC) regulations;(2hsf&dW' systems, structures, swpm..; j corponents can perform their intended functions; and (3) the plant is operated in a nanner consistent with the design bases. < sk.h y;
- s. ff W( '
In October 1993, the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) issued ! NUMA.C 90-12. " Design Basis Program Guidelines," containing guidance for organizing and collating the design bases for each nuclear power plant in a . i l . anner consister,t with the definition of design bases information in Section m
. e . e ,1 v.
50.2 of Title 10 of the (qds gf federal Regulations l(10 CFR 50.2). HUMARC i . dCSM&: issued this docutent for voluntary use by fiUMARC member organizations as a 4MM- ' reference from which licensees would review their existing or planned efforts GU 6 N.y . to collate suppurting design information. On Novembe,r,9,11990, the NRC staff l , : s. 2 p 4 sent cowents on .e guidelines to fiUMARC ,
- ; y, a
[. r.I h., ~
,u5~
'" Availability and Adequacy of Design Bases Intormation at Nuclear Power
' Plants," [esetal Beoister, Volume 57, Number 154, page 35455, August 10, 1992. e &Wh)W
' Letter freq W.T. Russell, !!RC, to W.H. Rasin,y'November ilUMARC,1 9, 1990.
; S
- 1. a:
t rip
}'y* '}[
/. . 31 S
To ensure that the NRC is apprised of the industry's activities, the NRC hereby recuests power reactor licensees to describe the programs that are
\
twple ented or planned to ensure design information is correct, accessible, and -tittained. T'; n'.ist the staf f ir, prioritizing its inspection program, the NRC requests l 4 tr at t' e at ressee voluntarily submit the following information which would be j
;$rt :ui vi, useful if submitted within 120 days:
I l
. 5-a- t a description of any programs already completed, planned, or betrq conducted to ensure the correctness and accessibility of the
- *s";c bases information for your facil'ty and to ensure that it is
- taino; o.< rent.
2-
. . a" rpt i..ple enting a design reconstitution program at your f e. ! ! s t :, . sub-it your rationale for not implementing such a program and tub it a desce r or. c' the extent of the design information you have l obta med fro...r : lear staam supply system (NSSS) vendor and ai c '. ect-engir.eer (A/E). Describe the extent of any inforeation not cLiained fro- the N555 vendor or A/E, but which is. accessible at the Ns55 vendor or A/E offices.
- 3. If your design reconstitution program is planned or being conducted tout has not been co pleted, submit your schedule for implementation and the estected corpletion date.
Mlh,g;j.Nld4
- . . Lh :.
i
\
, s c,, fafh,$yy".m
4
,"bg jM
.f This generic letter does not impose any new requirements or modify any )
t.ff 'lMN: . existing regulatory requirements. m %;, 13dlj
" u .:p MY 1
lr$??Oy?NC l [ The responses should be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear, Regulatory Commiss! x ,
^ r&j @W p/r ~
20555.t j ATTil: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. k {M!k ' !
- sc :
This request is (.cnred by the Office of Hananement und Budget Clearance m . .w . , flumber 3150-0011, which expires June 30, 1994. The estimated average number i ww.8.pu of burden hours is 200 person hours for each licensee response. Send comments W :. A. . regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
.: gn ;
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the c , ,e Information and Records Management Branch, (MtiBB-7714) Division of Information Su; pert Services, Of fice of Information Resources Managemen(, U.S. Nuclear Ragulatory C a ission, Washington, DC 20555; and to tN Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503. i
.r
,Q:P 1 hj;q,, ,
)
Packfit 0i lquts_im f.1,g>l,g T J yj pq..g f.p< ; wn . Q r'f-)?;!lQ t This generic letter is a request to submit information~ voluntarily. This W *G :n, letter does not require modifications or adcitions to systems, structures, or eq : components of facility, the design of a facility, or the' .. . . , procedures or organization to design, construct, or operate a facility.w,Therefore, a QtRW eas defined in 10 CFR response to this letter does not impose any backfits,dy$$? ' tjds . 50.109(a). The staff evaluated this letter in accordance with the charter of
, s the Committee to Review Generic Requirements and will(CRGR)qyaNL place a copy of M I
- 44F4Whk that evaluation in the public document room with the minutes of the CROR meeting at which this letter was considered. %;;y p
,.: :p hk $
j Mi ; h i i v ; $s !W.;
I s ( ~
~ ;?R'[ ,':c ' ', -
1 If you have any questions about this matter, please contact,the itRC project -- 4 j manager or the technical contact listed below. , n$. ,$. ;:x ,
- . .- :x. :.s,y.$,h ;
l Sincerely. -@b.. ./r2, . , !
.s 1 l i fs% i
~, s .', ,
James G. Partlow , Associate Director for Projects 4 Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation - l TEClifi! CAL C0tlTACT: Eugene V. Imbro, Office of ttuclear Reactor Regulation, e U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, telephone i1 (301) 504-2967. .g, l,
%@b. 3,4 X'de ":.;c. ,
g f -7,** Ik , f ,) cQh.:,'.k2lp
~ p;q g"#;:,,; j'
~,
m.. . 1,1_,*' ,,
,e ?$
4 s ., n !
. I
=l
- l b e#
m:. . ". ,
- v. '
.ya .~ Q.
k e r '.;;. r.i'. ..'c
/. i .
*l0v,4;v'
'NMf 3 bil;
$'i ! :n I: -
- sk
- Nk)[h s '$'*h;/
Q 4i7; , P - )
..:u..,
- k s*
. .'c.;. .: fs.n* v t.
? p .?. ('.
't;y -.
M(,I :.'c
.'.L
); fr
#, f,3)
}'
5 ..&15 '.
. .(?,,\,a, .
*- $. h ye ** y 3y l
. ,. t t . . a .(=. ,$s v
'N.#
.( ,. ..
*, bi . h*
4..d
% *?
. .$ ?.
'. .. . :. .- . :c l,C.L.
b
*)..
*' - -? .;(Cf2< i ;[;:<.9[\;U ,[
, i?/ k A
i
- - - _ ~ ., .
n c _ _ . _, _ _
. n._,w. ,
c 5 . -.e 1
- em ecm an 1 y & u<
i sssss ' Rules and Regulations red-d us - ' Vol 87. Na 154 M-Ay. Aagraet M us2 l . I 4 it.s sen et t4 FICGs1 AEGr5Tm Propam Cddelinea."hD(ARC DM2. functions! characteristica are ccc ans n.pewy ooct.rness Nrwg i!
%Me developtng these guideltnes, .
Wa;aw ey am we vect, rnest NUMARC dbcussed them at severs! matntained and are constatent with the jj 0' ***'^ $' ' w s e erus cm %3 " design bases as required by h7C ;! , t*=e COM cd FeCevW 4pascrw. w*sch la public meetirts held with the NRC. e regula tion. (:) systems, e tmcuts, and i ef aII ha e Conchrded the NUMARC cut =ponents can perfor:n theit 1: tended i 73 ~*# *' g " '4 * ** " " " " delines pmvide a useful stan , functfens and (3) the plant is eperated : } 1hs Ccoe of F w at %,putaxna a wed amework for in)plementing des t'y the S(gents.reunt cd h recons titutloc propama. De't la a manner consistrut with the derip ,I ' bases. The Commission bebeves the b' Pnces of no w t=x*a e<a hied n tie spect Do smgle approach trodd gas regdefory fra;mework drtady exists to fest FEOER.AL F,F "./.STm nave cd secrg utabdes to best accomplish the ) i ==. address the need for accessible desip .! recons tirat>on ta sk. He NUMARC ba~6 eland cactml of derip informa can. b) l . _ _ _ . . . _ _ idance appeared to provide sufEcient Tbe evacability of current desip and
'{I exibluty for indtvidual utittfes to ^ I beenring bases wiD also rged!!c the MUCLE.AR REGut.s TORY .
Couwtss4on straeture their prorums to rerpend most license renrwal process.
- efliciently to thett un!que oceda and Tbe Commisrien believes, sa a result f to CFR PL t M "##"= ' t* "***' ~
of NRC tarpections and bcrnaces' relf-ne stan sent coctments oc the anenments, tha t aD power resctor AvaltatMty and Ade7.cacy of Deskyi guidelines to NUMARC on November 9 Bases Intcmatton at Pev;$ ear Power 19% Commisrion paper SECY-We5 licensees should assen b accerrfb0ft} ) and adequacy of their design beses i i Plants; Pc4 cy Staterr errt trJormed the Commluloners in advance documentation, ne revnfts of this tell- ! about the staU response to NUMARC. a c t asc'n Nude ar F.egula tory The staff requested NUMARC assessment shodd form the basis for a Comeu soon. licenm's decision whether a dertgn ,, consider maEng the design be ses effort reconstitution pmpam b necruary am 1 acTioac Pubey statement. a butARC tnitiattve. NUMARC 1 the attributes to be indoded in the I concladed &cy would not p:nne a svuuAAr. ne S,u:.a,cer ReFulatory fo mal hitf ative, but would forws.d the pregam.na Comminion recophes !
; Com=ussion is isnung th:4 policy the need for a desip recenautonoo l guiddines to their members to use on a
, pmgram to be tailond to me et the J stateclent on avadabary and adequaey voluntary besis.netr rea son for not of uesign infor=auen at n:2 dear pcrw er tmique needs of a partkular ottilty.ns i pursuing an initistive wae that teost of plants. na pobey statement descnbes structura and content of b design {
the Cr.annuanon a ex;wctatiaca and their tnembers were already conducting document reconsticatiac program will! I futare aedor.s with repid to the or evaluating the need to conduct desip Influenced bv var;ous factors such as Wes reconstitudon pmpama. W b wuuty's gh'Jond structurs. tl as aJabiry cf design mformation and The ConurJulon's evaluation of the k availability or unavailability of design 3 emphu.m de Comcasion's view that status of reconstitution propams deatl7 documentat2on, and & totended user facihGes shoud not be modded without indicater the ifcensees' rubstantial * . of the documentatioc. Tna (* '**io a de.r undersiar.6ng of the appbcable investment in these propsms shecid rng6neenca denp t ana, expects that after ccmpleting a ! yield posittve safety benefits for a reconstitution program, or as a basis f cn acrm cart: Augusi to.122. majonty of sites.The NRC commends l condeding 61 sor.h a pmgnm 14 ' rom svarwen mf omaArx>.e coerT AcT. those beensees ht are acting to ensure unnecenary, W beenm will ha ve Fugene V. !sbro. oft.ce of Nade.ar techrJc4Uy adequate and accessible l Reactor Ecgda bon. U.S. Nudaar design bases documentatien la current destp docunents and adeqos
** l F erdebry Com:-J s sion. Washington. technical beses to derncostrate that t!
maintained. plant physical and functkmal - 3 DC Omil, teie;hoce (yJ1) 5fA-M. Ilowever, the Commlulon is .
.a characteristics are consistent with th a untt w txt AA y uss onuArnoec NRC concerned some situstions ex.isI whers dealp WLa. the syrtema. stnactures, ine; ection fed.ngs have demonstrsted Ucennu han not critically eaamined g.and components can perforra their that soc.* licensees have not adequately their desip control and configurationf@-Intended functions and b plant la b rnnir.t.tned their design bases managemmt pmcesus to Medy 4 operated In a manner consistent wit!
trJcemauon as reqmred by NRC nquisde menum to ensun the plant la Ythe design basis. regdanorts. Doth the problems ident$ed operating within the desip bun v p NUMARC has developed guldencu 6c.ea de NFC inapeetions and those ennlope.Thmfors, b Comm!sh the conduct of desip bases identied by licccacee have prompted aruculating its cipMations with regard rnost power teactor I:censeea to trutfate, to design infortna tion and elaborstir.g on{: reconstjtutJon prog ams our the pasi seseral years, des!gn its planned scuvitiee to cerMrm the 4 outlines a framework to orgstute an collats oudaar power plant design t bevs reconentution programa. To integnty of the n-cmdgund plant M J information. This inform a tksn prow ir .plemtat a reconsututaan program, respect to the plant dealgn bases. eaf the re tionaja for the design be ses bce r.sers ads to identify tr.ts nirg design Policy Statement = y i" consistent with the deftrubon of des docurner.t.tx.o and to se'ecuvely reycnerate m.asmg documentauco as
.M k
/w,.ba ses contained NUMARC to 10BaCTR so-12. "Desip $0.2.
sta Prot require d. The Commlasion haa cerwhded that M Guidehnes," was inso*d to October In m Nudear l'tidu L!anaaemant mattitaining current and accessible .W for voluntary asa by NUMARC mar a.ruf Rc souru s Ccuncil. Inc (NutARC) design documentstion is important to W organtations as a referencs potnt i bepri developtr.g htt "Dcogu Basis ensure ht (1) the plant physical and M which licenaces wedd rerww their
35456 Tederal Register / Vol. 57. No.154 / Monday. August 10, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
- g custing or planned efforts to collate ensure their validity for the life of the DEPARTMENT OF THE TRE ASURV -
supponing design mformauen. The f acihty. including any renewal penod. ' Commission behes es NUMARC's In order to ensure the Commission 1 Offlee of Thrttt Sup$rvtston approach provides a useful framework appraised ofindustry's activities. the 12 CFR Part 5 4 and worthwhile miights to those utilities NRC will take the following actiohn. undertaking design basis programs. (1)The staff willissue a genericletter (Ibill) The Commission bebeves a licensee requestmg alllicensees to desenbe the should be able to show that it has programs that are in place to ensure RIN 1550 Am sof hcient documentation. including deogn information is correct. accessible' calcu!ations or pre operauonal. startup Re istration. Esamination and and mamtained cunent. Those licensees Reporta: Statements, Applic.ations, or saneillance test data to conclude the that are not implementing a desip ' cu rent fecihty conferation is Reports and Hoticas To Be Flied reconstitution progtsm will be requested consistent with its deep bases.The to provide their rationale for not doing ActNet.OfGce of nnft Supen1sion. 3 Co r.rnmion further beheses the desiP so. lf a reconstitution program is under Treasury, t'ases must be understood and way, the schedule for implementation AcT1ose: Final rule. documented to support operability and completion will be reqiested. detc~nications and 10 CG 50 59 suwwAprr.The Ofnce of Thnft t es atuations that may need to be made (2) The staff will prioritize NRC Supemsion (OTS)is hereby amending cuickly in respondmg to plant events. inspections of licensee e management of its regulations pertaining to boldmg The c.ergn bases related tnformation desip and configuration using SSf1* company reportmg requirements. In shoult be retnes able withm a t)Te techniques based upon responses updating eustmg forms to reflect reasonable pened of time, how ever. it is to the genenc letter and other plant changes necessitated by the financial not necesnary for al! desip basis specific information known to the NRC. Institutions Reform. Recovery, and dxumentation to be orgarused in one Additional staff guidance will be Enforcement Act of1949 the OTS has rtace The eformation used solely to developed where needed, for the destp combmed several forms to stream 1me support the development of a bases aspects of these inspections. the reporting process and esse the rotheation pack age would not need to I3IThe NRC eYstematic assessment of regulat ry burden on savings andloan be a5te to be retneved as espeditiounty holdmg companies, In particular, the ' as mformation needed to support an licensee performance (SALP) process eeporting requirements set forth in c;erabiht) determmation, will be modined to explicitly address Forms ll-lb)3 Ildb}4. llybl5 and H . sesessment oflicensee programs to (b)10 Rejnstration Statements are now In the esent the desc beses control design bases information that containtd m one body of metruenons for it.!er nainn is found technically reIIect NRC mspection activity in this all Registrants, the Il-{b)10. In addition. inadewate or not accessib!e bcensees area and assure consistent evaluations. the H-(b)11 Annual Report and the H-s%M consider whether rer edist action (b)12 Current Report have been rnerged l is a rranted A methodolcry should be (4] De staff will continue to dese.oped and ir plemented to ensure encourage self. identification of design into one set of instructions requiring an 'I annual fihng with quarterly updates licensee resources are fxuied on design bases issues through application of the informing the OTS of any changes. The mfo .ation regeneration in a timeframe provisions of the Comtnission e comr,ensurate with the safety enforcement pobey.ne staff will. Ildf) Dmdend Notinca tion has been resemded. since the requirements 5.antricance of the r .issics or erroncea however. pursue enforcement actions for contained in the Capital Distnbutions m f o rm a tion- engmeenng deficiencte whose root ,,8ulation are sufncient for the OTS's The Cor. mission also emphasize::t is cause hes in the inadequacy or monitonng and supervision purposes, s er) important that mod,fications to a unavailabihty of design bases- grrtetivt o Atti September 9.1M:. faciht) be made after a thorough review information and which are identined FOR Fl/RTNER INromu ATions CONTACT has been cendacted and so dunng NRC inspections. Michael P. Scott. Program Manager. understaning of the apphcable (202) 906-5746. Supemelon Pohey. underipng design bases has been Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Office of Thrift Supemsion.1700 C j gamed in order to ensare appropnate Thl, fins { polley statement does not Street.NW Washington DC 20552 desig9 me gms are presersed- contain a new or amended information, s uppt.gutxf A R Y INr omu A T)OW. Collection requirement subject to the s
~
fat. ore Action * * * "" Paperwork Reduction Act of1960(44 U.S C. 3501 et seq ). Existing The OTS le today lisuing a Baal ru!e
- ne Cominission will contmue to requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Dudget 'y,;..' requirements.This amending its holding company affects reportm i ms;ett toutmely the adequacy of design amendinent sontrol program effectiveness.no approval number 315H011. %L the registration. annual, and current Comenission conclades that ensunns the Y reportmg requirements, c !!t el u
' a v He. Maryland this 4th day' /f ts/sitefion Statements a re and or A[g s controlled in rf ant documents will also As previously structured. holding ensure that ihose parts of the curtent For the Nuclear Reptstory Corninission. '
companies were required to choose from hceesins bases of tnost safety four separate reg'stra tion sistemer.ts. s.g . f.cance are unders'ood and $4mwel! ChJth. n.d These separate statements were contro!!ed Other aspecta of the current $4cretary e/the Commission. criginally deemed nece ssary to liceneira bases such as emergency g 7g ,g accommodate spectal types of hold.ng pae;aredness and security plans. should companies (i e., companies that became a!so be appropr ste!y riammed to au sio coes na m savings and loan holdmg companies as
&. E% kh 1
I sc
- 35453 i . _ _ _
Rules and Regulations "d-i * " nm
\a $- No 34 Wnd9. August t0 tPC
'h s section of the FEDE A AL nEGlSTEA Program Cmdchnes." NUMARC W12 functional characteristics are contains regutaiory documents raeg Whtle des eloping these guidthnes. maintained and are consistent with the l
;o+eral aconcab.hry and tegat e"ec t. most NUMc\RC discussed them at several design bases as required by NRC o' aNch are keyed to and cod +ed en pubhc meetmgs held with the NRC. The regulation. (2) systems. structures. and 4
t*e CNe of Federal Aeguianons .hc n is staff has concluded the NUN 8 ARC components can perform their intended l b hed der 50 r ties pursuant 'o 44 tjehnes proude a useful standard functions. and (3) the plant is operated
%e Coce el Fedwar Aegulations ,s so 1 framework for imp'ementmg design in a manner consistent with the deso;n j by the supenniendent of Documents remnstitution programs The staff also bases The Commission beheses the j
, Pnces of no books are 1,sted in the agrees no sing!c approach would enable regulatory framework already costs ta j br st FEDEAAL AEGISTER issue el eas utiht;es to best accomphsh the address the need for accessible Jewn acen reconstitution task. The NUMARC bases and control of design nformation guidance appeared to proude sufficient The avadability of current design and f'eubihty for individual utihties to hcensing bases will also expedite the NUCLE AR REGULATORY vructure their programs to respond most license renewal process. ! 4 COMMISSION cff;ciently to their unique needs and The Commission beheves. as a resu:1 ) to CFR Part 50 q 'umitances of NRC mspections and hcenseef self-6 e staff sent remments on the assessments. that all power re actor $ Availability and Adequacy of Design . . de'om m Nt'M ARC on Nos ember 9 hcensees should assess the acces+ Bases information at Nuclear Power 7 ON ?n paper SECY-s-365 and adequacy of their design bases Plants: Policy Statement '" " 1 mst ne" in dd$ dnte documentation. The results of th:s se? iu. N staff res;>onse to NUM ARC assessme-t should form the basis Mr a ACENcy: Nuclear Regulatory Pe s'afi rcqursted NUMARC hcensee s decision whether a design Commisuon 'nsaler mai:ng the design bases effort reconstitution program is necessars aN Action: Pohcv statement.
~
4 NL' MARC initiatis e. NUM ARC the attnbutes to be included in the concluded they would not pursue a program. The Commission recogmzes suuMARv:The Nuclear Regulatory formal mitiative. but would forward the the need for a design reconstitution Commission is issuing this pobcy guidehnes to their members to use on a program to be tailored to meet the statement on availabihty and adequacy voluntary basis. Their reason for not unique needs of a particular utility.The of design information at nuclear power pursuing an initiative was that most of structure and content of the design plants. This pobey statement describes their members were already conductinR document reconstitution program wdl be the Commission's expectstions and or evaluating the need to condact design influenced by various factors, such as fuiure actions with regard to the bases reconstitution programs- the utility's organizational structure, the avadabihty of design information and The Commission's evaluation of the availability or unavailability of design emphasizes the Commission's view that status of reconstitutics programs clearly documentation, and the intended users facdities should nut be modified without indicates the licensees substantial J a clear understanding of the apphcable mvestment m these programs should 4 l engineering design bases G' @of be documentation.Th het aftee completing a yield positive safety benefits for a ." 3 , oreconstitution peogeam, or as a basis for EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10.1992 majority of sites. The NRC commendsm'" concluding that such a P
- s FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ~~ ' /. those licensees inat are acting to ensure unnecessary, the licensee will have Eugene V. imbro, Office of Nuclear technically adequate and accessible current design documents and adequate Reactor Regulation. U.S. Nuclear de=ign bases documentation is technical beses to demonstrate that the Regulatory Commission. Washington. mamtamed. , ,
plant physig) and functional Ilos.ever, the Comm.ission is characteristics are consistent wah the DC 20555. telephone (301) 5(M-2907 svPPLEMENTARY INFORM ATION: NRC c ncerned some situations exist where design basis, the systems, structuies. licensees have not critically examined and components can perform their mspection findings have Jcmonstrated that some licensees have not adequatels b"EP* * #" MMMd bOM N b# # ' jj mamtamed their design bases management processes to identify operated in a manner consistent with information as required by NRC reqmsite measures to ensure the plant is the design basis. regulations. Bnth the problems identified perating within the deugn bases NUMARC has developed guidance for during the NRC inspections and those envelope. Therefore, the Commission is the conduct of design bases identified by licensees have prompted articulatmg its expectations with regard reconstitution programs.The guidance n ost power reac'or licensees to initiate. t design information and elaborating on outlines a framework to orgamze an over the past several years. design its planned activities to confirm the collate nuclear power plant design bases integrity I the as configured plant with information.This information provides bases reconstitution programs. To implement a reconstitution prngram. respectt the plant design bases the rationale for the design bases consistent with the definition of design licensees seek to identify missing design Policy Statement documentation and to selectivelv bases contamed in to CFR 50.2 d' ort NUM ARC 9p12. " Design Basis Progran regenerate messing documentation as required Thn Commission has concluded that Guidehnes.: was issued in October 1 in 1989. Nuclear Utihties Management maintaming current and accessible for voluntary use by NUMARC member and Resources Council. Inc.. (NUMARCI deugn documentation is important to organizations as a reference point from, began developing their " Design Dam ensure that (1) the plant physical and tvhich licensees would resiew he { [
- s. ii e i n w r ic - s t i, i: r >
l ._ (
35456 Federal Register . 5' M1 Mr da:.. August U. 1992 Ri.es and Resu'.at:Jns custmg er planned efforts to cri.: ate c"5.t e ' heir s aM'y f ar the hfe of the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY su;pornrg des g,informaen TF e fr ') m '.dra an) renewal per.oj Commission behes es NUM.\RC's ln ur Jer 'a em.re t e Cr.m:ssion :s Office of Thrift Supervision approach prostJes a usefid fra .ework op ;ra seJ cf :nJustry s acmines the and worthwhde msights to those u? nes WCw: 'aie te fc"owmg acuers 12 U H M W undertaking design basis progra p t W suf' wd!:ssue a genent letter l92-1951 t' The Commission beheves hcensee cwit.rg a::; cersees to describe the should be able to show t atithas ;mera -'s thit are :n p; ace :a ensure hiN 1550 AA38 sufficient documentation, including Jes en mformahon is correct. accessible' calculations or pre-operational startuo Registration, Examination and a-1 awaireJ current Those hcensees Reports; Statements, Applications, or surveillance test data to conclude the Nt are not imp:ementmg a design current f acihty configuration is Reports and Notices To Be Filed a.wrst een program wi:1 be requested consistent with its design bases. The t ,;roude :5eir rat:onale for not doma AceNcy: Office of Thnf t Superwn Commission further believes the design sa rf a recer,htunon program is unde'r treasury. bases must be understood and w.n the schedu!e for impicmentanon ACTION: Final ru:e documented to support operabihty ad ccmp;enon wi;! be requested. ~~~ determinations and to CFR 50.59 SUMM Amy: The Off;ce of Thnf t evaluations that may need to be made i The staff win pnonnze NRC Supersision (OTS)is hereby amendme { Iquickly in responding to plant events Mecn ns of bcensee's manageme of its regulations pertaming to holdme The des:an bases related miormane des in and conf.guratma usmg SSFl. company reporting requirements in should he reinesable withm a ' P" technques based upon responses updanng existmg forms to reflect reason.ible pened of tm;e. howes er '.s *) the genenc letter and other piant changes necessitated by the Fmant.1 not recessars for all des 1n bas:s *;cd mfr"anor known to the NRC. lnsututions Reform. Recoscry. and documor.Lihon 'o be organacii m me \ .i anal s aff gJance will be Er.forcement Act of 1989 the OTS h.is
; lace The mformahon used sa:e.) : 3 me aped where needed. for the desan combmed several forms to stream!Pe wp;w' the des etopment of a ie:s apects of these mspect:ons the reportmg process and case the-
%f catun package would not reed , regulatory burden on sasings a-d m
' N '>'"'=d" " ' ' " " ' #f hoidmg companies In parhcu:ar !Y be ah!c m be reinesed as espede v..
as mformahon needed to suppe .m #" IC"d *" Ib^ P' C" reportmg requirements set forth :n w . N mafi d to espbcitly address operabihiv determmahon . Forms H-(b)3. H-lbl4. H-(b)5 and I t-acessment of bcensee programs to tb)to Registration Qatements are now j in the event the design bases control design bases information that contained in one body of mstructions for mformation is found technically reflect NRC inspecuan activity in this inadequate or not accessible, hcensees all Registrants, the H-(b)10. In addinen. the H-(b)11 Annuut Report and the H-should consider whether remedial acuon jaarea apd assure consistent (b)12 Current evaluations. Report have been merged is warranted. A methodologyfihouldlbe
- 14I he staff wdl continue t into one set of instructions requiring an developed and implemented to ensure encourage self. identification of design annual filing with quarterly updates hcensee resources are focused on design bases issues through application of the nforming the OTS of any changes.The miormation regeneration in a timeframe provismns of the Commission s commensurate with the safety enforcement pohcy. The staff wdl. ll-(f) Dividend Notification has been rescinded, since the requirements sigraficance of the missing or erroneous however. pursue enforcement actions for contained in the Capital Distribubons mformation. engmeering deficiencies whose root regulation are sufficient for the OTS's cause hes in the inadequacy or monitoring and supervision purposes.
The Commission also emphasizes it is I very important that modifications to = '"d'" " YC
- 8" " EFFECTIVE DATE: u C '
- 99 2 -
facihty be made after a thorough review mf rmation and wh:ch are identified Fon runtraER INFORhiA HUN CONT Act has been conducted and an dunng NRC inspections. Michael P. Scott, Program Manager, understanding of the apphcable (202) 906-5748, Supervision Policy. underlying design bases has been Paperwork Reduct. ion Act Statament Office of Thrift Supervision.1700 C gained in order to ensure appropriate Th.9 final polic) statement does not Street. NW., Washington, DC 20552 design mar 1gms are preserved. contain a new or amended information SUPPLE MENT ARY INF Opu ATiON: collection requirement subject to the Future Actions !' Background paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 . ! U S C. 3501 et seq ). Existing The OTS is today issumg s fmal rule i The Commission wdl contmue t requirements were approved by the amending its holding company reportma I mspect routinely the adequacy of design Office of Management and Budget requirements.This amendment affects . control program effectiveness. The approval number 3150-0011. the registration, annual, and current Commission concludes that ensuring the reporting requirements. j design bases and configuration of a Dated at Rockvdie. Marylend. this 4th day facility are well understood and Registration Statements of August 1992 controlled m plant documents will also As previously structured. holding ensure that those parts of the current For the Nuclear Reg.datory Commission companies were required to choose from licensing bases of most safety four separate registration statements significance are understood and samuel l Chilk. These separate statements were controlled Other aspects of the current screws v .9c Co" mon originally deemed necessary to hcensmg bases. such as emergencs accommodate special types of holdmt D'" "' 8"" compenies (i e.. companies that bec.. no preparedness and security nlans shou!d
~
also be appropnately examined in po e t 'SW '
- savmas and loan holding companies e i
s ,; m a a oyv# . u G. 4; *v(
.l ,
~* W a.y ma l l' Rules and Regulations rd-iada- .-
~s Vol. 57. No.164 i Monday. August to, less t Thes secson of the FEDERAL REGtSTER Program Cuidelines," NUMARC 90-12. functional characteristics are
! contains reguietory documenes having While day 4 these guidelines, maintained and ardconsistent with t%h general em*ty and legs # enact. most NUMARC discussed them at several design basqs as required by NRC y d wech am keyed to and commed h public m held with the NRC.%e reguls tion. IZ1 systems, structures, ano i the Code of Federuf Reguladone, wNch is staff has the NUMARC components can perform their intended 8 ** '""*"' deline8 provide a useful standard functions, and (3) the plant is operated St ork for implementing design in a man == consistent with the design i The Cods cd Federal W is add reconstie=*i- programs. De staff also try em supemeendent of Doasmenes. bases.%e Co== won believes the Prices of new books are Beted in me agrees no magie approach would enable reguistory framework sheady exists to j first FEDERA1. REGISTER leeue et each utgities to best =---- ; " ' the address the need for accessible design
- week. reconstitution task.%e NUMARC bases and contml of design information.
guidance appeared to provide sufBcient ne availability of current design and flexibility for individual utilities to licensing bases wtB also expedite the NUC1. EAR REGIAATMf structure their programs to respond most license renewal pmcess. j COMIdlSS40N efficiently to their unique needs and W Comunission believes, se a result I 10 CFR Part 50 8 The staff sent comments on the d NRC W and W d assessmenta, that au power reactor l* guidelines to NUMARC on November 9. licensees e the accessibility AvailablBty and Adequacy of Design 1990. Commission paper SECY-ep-Je6 and adequacy etr bases Basseinfonnetton et fascieer Power
% p ,g,y w informed the Commissioners in advance documentation. He results of this self-about the staff response to NUMARC. assessment should form the basis for a
- Aossocv
- Nuclear Regulatory The staff requested NUMARC Ucensevs decision whether e design Commission. consider making the design bases effort reconstitudon program is necessary and
' Actiosa Pohey statement. a NUMARC initiative. NUMARC the attributes to be included in the concluded they would not pursue a program.W Comuniesion recognizes
- suessaany.%e Nuclear Regulatory formal initiative, but would forward the the need for a denen recons 6tation
} Cov== Man is issuing thIs policy guidelines to their members to use on a program to be tailored to asset the l 3 statement on availabihty and adequacy voluntarybasis neirreason fornot unique needs of a pareanlar unuty.h l of design information at naclear power perseing an initletive was that most of structure and costsat of the design i plants.This policy statament describes their members were aheady conducting Aae====* reconedtseios propens will be i the C"a-6n's aupacentions and or evaluating the need to conduct design irihan=d by various factore, such as j future acetana with regard to the bases reconstitution p the utihty's orgamle=M structure, the ! availability of design talormation and De Commission's av tion of the availabihty orunavailabihty of design l emphasizes thera == lesion's view that status of reconstitution propams clearlF documentation, and the intended users l facilities should not be modified without indicates the licensees' substantial of the dae====tation. no Pa===laa'a" j e clear understanding of the applicable brvestment in these progroms abould expects that after completing a engineering design bases. yield positive safety beneSte for a reconstitution program, or as a basis for l i' specTIVE DaTan Augeot 10,1992. mejority of sites.De NRC commands condeding that such a program is pon puervMen meronanavsess coerracy: those liceneses that are acting to eneum unnecessary, the llosasse wlB how Eugene V. imbro.OfHce of Nuclear technically adequate and accessible canent design documente end adece'ete R:: actor Regulation. U.S. Nuclear design bases documenta6cn is technical bases to demometrate that the i Regulatory Commission. Washington, maintained, plant physical and f==c'8==*8 ! DC 20555 telephone (301) 506-a967. Howner, the &===taala= le characteristics are canaissent with the
-any upoemaaviose NRC concerned some situations exist where deoip beats, the systeens, structeros, inspection h< lings have demonstrated licensees have not critically examined .and componente ces performs their that some licensees haire not adequately their design control angi conHguration intended functions and the plant is being maintained their design bases manegament pmcessa m MentifY operated in a manner consistent with Informatied as requimd by NRC requisite ansesures to ensure the plant is the design basis. , , _,
r regulations. Both the problemas identi8ed operatina within NUMARC has l during the NRC inspections and those i esta me, 82 b the conduct of design bases articulaneg He expectadone e agard mconstitanos programs.%e Mn= l identified by licensees have prosapted l most power reactor licensees to initista' to design informadon and eiebung on outilmes a framework to organtes and l over the et several design its plamned activities to confirm the couato nuclear power pient design bases ! bases titution To integrity d the ae configured plant with information. Ris iniwesation peovides j mopect to the plant design bases. the radonale for the destys bases implement a mconstitution program, consistent with the dan =ttien of design tie ===aaa seek to identify missing design Poucy Stateessag I docussentation and to selecdvely .
, bases contained is1M en i Position NUMARC et>-12 "Desty Basis program regenerate missing da-====a-uon as
{ required, b Commission hee concinded that Guidelines " was leased in Gh*dier 1980 In seen, Nuclear Utilities " -- - - " maintaining current and accessible for voientary use by NUMARC membw
)
a and Resources Council, hac (NUMARC) design dar==antation le L c.at to argenktations se a missance point from o j began developing their"Desige Baals ensure that (t) the pleet phryoical and whichliosasses wound setew esir i. }
41
% 35456 Fed:rd Regist:r / Vol. 57. No.154 / Monday. August 10, 1992 / Rules and Regulations ;
1
- i existing or planned efforts to collate ensure their validity for the life of the ~
supporting design information. The DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY facility. including any renewal period, Commission believes NUMARC's In order to ensure the Commission is Office of Thrift Supervision a npproach provides a useful framework appraised of industry's activities, the and worthwhile insights to those utilities 12 MR Part SH + NRC will take the following actions. undertaking design basis programa.
. (1)The staff willissue a genericletter 192-195] I The Commission believes a licensee frmestindalllicensees to describe the should be ab_le to show that it has I
' programs that are in place to easure RIN 1550-AA38 Eficient documentation. including design information is correct. accessible. ,
-a calculations or pre. operational startup and maintained current. Those licensees Metrahn, Mnam W <
or surveillance test data to conclude the that are not implementing a desian R s, ons, , current facility configuration is reconstitution program will be(requested ( ; 4 consistent with its dpign bases.The to provide their rationale for not doing AoENcy: Office of Thrift Supervision. Commission furthegbelieves the design so. If a reconstitution program is under l tbases mLst be understood and Treasury. 9l j way, the schedule for implementation Ac110w: Final rule. documented to support operability ! and completion will be rettifested. determinations and 10 CFR 50.59 sunansAny:The Office of Thrift il j evaluations that may need to be made . (2) The staff will prioritize NRC ; l quickly in responding to plant events. inspections of licensee a management of Supervision (OTS) is hereby amending # ,
- The design bases related information design and configuration using SSFl. its regulations pertaining to holding I i
should be retrievable within a company reporting requirements. In I type techniques based upon responses updating existing forms to reflect 1 reasonable period of time, however, it is to the generic letter and other plant changes necessitated by the Financial not necessary for all design basis specific information known to the NRC. documentation to be organized in one Institutions Reform. Recovery, and Additional staff guidance will be Enforcement Act of 1989, the OTS has
; place. The information used solely to developed. where needed, for the design combined several forms to streamline support the development of a bases aspects of these inspections. the reporting process and ease the modification package would not need to i be able to be retrieved as expeditiously (3) The NRC systematic assessment of regulatory burden on savings and loan licensee performance (SALp) process holding companies. In particular, the as information needed to support an reporting requirements set forth in j operability determination. will be modified to explicitly address assessment of licensee programs to Forms H-(b)3. H-{b)4. H-{b)5 and H- :
- , in the event the design bases (b)10 Registration Statements are now I control design bases information that information is found technically contained in one body ofinstructions for i reilect NRC inspection activity in this
] madequate or not accessible. licensees should consider whether remedial action area and assure consistent evaluations-all Registrants. the H-{b)10. In addition. the H-(b)11 Annual Report and the H-
]
3 is warranted. A methodology should be (4) he staff will continue t (b)12 Current Report have been merged
- developed and implemented to ensure encourage self. identification of design into one set of instructions requiring an i licensee resources are focused on design bases issues through application of the annual filing with quarterly updates mformation regeneration in a timeframe provisions of the Commission a informing the 013 of any changes.The
, commensurate with the safety enforcement policy.The staff will, 11-{f) Dividend Notification has been I significance of the missing or erroneous however, pursue enforcement actions for rescinded. since the requirements Information. engineering deficiencies whose root contained in the Capital DistributL.. .
regulation are sufficient for the OTS's ' The Commission also emphasizes it is cause lies in the inadequacy or monitoring and supervision purposes. I. 1 very important that modifications to a unavailability of design bases, 1 appucTivs oats: September 9,1992. facility be made after a thorough review inf mation and which are identified has been conducted and an #"~n;; ., RC inspections. ,,, understanding of the applicable Michael P. Scott Program Manager. q underlying design bases has been Paperwork Reduction Act Statement (202) 906-5748. Supervision Policy.
- grined in order to ensure appropriate Office of % rift Supervision.1700 C ,
This final policy staterr.ent does not Street. NW., Washington. DC 20552. design margins are preserved. contain a new or amended information suppt.sasaNTARY W8FORs4ATION: 1 Future Actions collection requirement subjcct to the , Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 I*
- I*'"
j The Commission will continue to U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing The OTS is today issuing a final rule l Inspect routinely the adequacy of design requirements were approved by the amending its holding company reporting j control program effectiveness. The Office of Management and Budget requirements. This amendment affects Commission concludes that ensuring the approval number 3150 0011. the registration, annual and current reporting requirements. cil y ar I un ood and 88 * ' controlled in plant documents will also of u st.1992. I ensure that those parts of the current As previously structured, holding For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. companies were required to choose from j licensing bases of most safety significence are understood and four separate registration statements. { Samuel 1. Chilk.
- controlleo. Other aspects of the current These separate statements we,re Secretaryof the Commission.
i originally deemed necessary to licensing bases, such as emergency preparedness and security plans, should [FR Doc. 92-18895 Filed 84-02, a 45 am] accommodate special types of holding companies (i.e., companies that became also be appropriately examined to amo coes mems savings and loan holding companies as 4 4
. /0,b.$x C
'* pa arco
.e
- s. .
s, - 4 oc = e n . :g;; POLICY ISSUE sEcy_93 2,2 (NEGATIVE CONSENT) [0_3 : The Commissioners FROM: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
GENERIC LETTER ON THE AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF DESIGN BASES INFORMATION PURPOSE: To inicr- the Care:ssion c' '.".e staff's -tert : tase -: %riner act:c' Or the 'ssuance of tre saDject generi: letter SACKGCCUND: The Commission issued a col:cy staterer.t' descr ::ing its expectations and the Agency's future actions to verify the availability ano adequacy of design information. The policy statement stated that the staff would issue a generic letter to tequestlpower reactor licensees (1) to describe the programs that are implemented or plannec to ensure design information is correct. , j accessible, and maintained; and (2) to submit the schedule for implementing or completing reconstitution programs that they are conductin3 The policy statement also stated that the generic letter would Teouest\ that licensees I that are not implementing a design reconstitution program submit their rationale for not doing so. 1 Responding to recommendations made during the September 22, 1992, meeting of I the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR), the staff included in the j generic letter a statement that a response to the generic letter is voluntary. l MOTE: TD BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE WHEN THE FINAL SRM IS tiADE ; AVAILABLE CONTACT: Eugene Imbro. NRR (301) 504-2967
' Availability and Adecuacy of Design Bases information at Nuclear Power Diants. Federal Peo ster. Vclume 5' Na ce, 154 page 35455 August 10. 1992.
t s mus - -- ,
~.
The Commissioners l OISCUSSION; ! A notice of opportunity for public comment on the proposed generic letter was ! published in the Federal Reoister on March 24 1993. Comments were received from NUMARC, Westinghouse Electric Corporation Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc., and 19 commercial nuclear power reactor licensees. ! I i i The significant comments focused on: (1) the questionable need for the request ' since the information may already be available within the NRC from various inspections, reports and meetings, (2) the questionable usefulness in comparing licensee programs which are based on unique factors to assist the staff in prioritizing inspections, and (3) the concern that the generic letter seeks to obtain commitments from licensees with the implication of the use for l 2 subsequent inspections. enforcement actions, and SALP scores. All the I respondents, except for Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc., concluded that the generic letter was unnecessary and unwarranted. Based upon review of the comments on the sub. lect generic letter and the available 'nfor ai Desige Occument Rectnst:tution (DDR 'nformatton, the staf' has conciucea that it -ould not significant ! f benefit the staff in its licensee oversignt functions to issue the proposed genert: letter for the following reasons:
- The issuance of tne policy statement and the proposed generic letter for public comment has conveyed to the industry the Commission's concern in tiil s matter . The staff believes that formally issuing the generic l
letter will not fJrther heighten licensees' awareness of the importance "d of 00R activities. In addition, the staff has seen evidence that ! A licensees have recognized the importance of this issue and reacted to 4 pJg8 ,, our concerns. For example, the NRC has been notified regarding design ' l l issues surfaced by licensee:, programs. V PW 77 ja In preparing for design-related inspections such as safety system g5 p functional insn e ' ens (SSFis), the staff will gather detailed 8 i5 information f rom licensees to the extent such information gai 6a m tn scope of the inspection sample. This process will give the staff h g/0 insights as to the DDR programs as well as their effectiveness in
,,/ g{'/g
' ensuring the adequacy and accessibility of design bases information.
Further, as part of NRC's normal inspection program, the resident and M.gj regional g inspectors will obtain informatiun on design control adequacy
- f. as they review plant mod.fications.
'l nformation regarding licensee's design document reconstitution programs b)rp y as such will not be useful to the staff. Therefore, not issuing the dd#
generic letter will eliminate an unnecessary burden on the licensees to respond to the generic letter and on the staff to evaluate the responses.
l
% l
. l t-k The Commissioners l t
j The staff will continue to ensure that design information is correct, j 1 accessible ana raintained by conducting such performance-based design 1 inspections as SSfis, safety systems outage codifications inspections l
- 'SS0 Mis), service water system operational performance inspections, and system j Although these inspections address
~
based instrument and control inspections. 4 the products of DDR programs (e.g., calculations) and thereby provide insights J. as to the ef fectiveness of licensee DDR prog ams, the staff will refrain from l the inspection of DDR programs per se due to the voluntary nature of these programs. RECOMMENDAT10N: Unless the Commission advises to the contrary within 10 working days from the ! date of this ca 'er. the staff plans.to discontinue all activities related to the issuance of the subject generic 'etter, i i ( , s ! M[ T,31 o r' i E4e:2 .e* Directer
- /
'cr Goerations 1
- - 5 E Z' IE: :- - . . 2:.ae-:s :: . r.s t r u r t : c n s tc the contrary, SECY
] n'. . .::;f, t r.s staff on Friday, November 5, 1993, ;
- b. ne:ative consent, assents to tna tr+ ::r. ;ss;;r,
- 1. :nc 1:.;;- pr:; sei .r t r. ; s ;c,per.
i l ," : 577:3 JT:::.: i
' C r.;ss;:ners i ... 1 IN.s...
t ... O7A OCA 3' OPP ED* SEC? f l 4 i i j 4 4 l 1
- J.. u e 9,%
- UNITED $TATES Q,b.pg
[8 ' -~ ~
.. . t NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ g W ASHINGTON. O C 20M6
\.f *...*
November 10, 1993 08 8 < E 08 THE SECmE T AR Y j i 5 MEMORANDUM TO: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Opgrations ! FROM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta a
SUBJECT:
l SECY-93-292AND AVAIIABILITY - GENERIC ADEQUAC1 LE17E)tONTHE OF DESIGN BASES INFORMATION 1 This is to advise you-that the Commission has not objected to the 3 staff plans to discontinue all activities related to the issuance i of the subject generic letter. ! The. staff should continue to take whatever measures are necessary i to ensure that licensees have accurate and accessible design
- . docusents for.their plants. This can be.done through the various i inspection ef forts the staf f notes in the paper or alternative
- approaches that appear necessary through routine oversight.
1 -- ! contrary to the staff's reasoning, by not issuing the generic
- letter, licensees could get the impression that the Commission is not committed to ensuring lican==== have accue=+= and accessible 4
L design documentatiWrough ' inspection and (fMlowuj activities, the staff should clearly communica r.no expectation
- that licensees must maintain accurate and sible design documentation for their facilities.
[ fy, ? cc: The Chairman Commissioner Rogers , Commissioner Remick ! Commissioner de Planque t 000 i OCA ! OIG e Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail) } I SECY NOTE: THIS SRM AND SECY-93-292 WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY .! AVAILABLE 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM diliUOOLN . -
l .,m.- . . .
. ._ No J L f f UNITED STATES ...
i E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 I waswinoTom. o.c. - [M
- 4
%...../ January 28, 1994 Gf 3 l
-JL l MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Director, NRR f)& l Eric S. Beckjord, Director, RES.
Thomas T. Martin, Regional Administrator, RI 4 . Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, RII - ' John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, RIII *f i L. J. Callan, Regional Administrator, RIV Xenneth E. Perkins, Acting Regional Administrator, RV g . [ fa . i FROM: James H. Sniezek Deputy Executiva Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, b ^.' ' l l Regional Operations and ,Researc L.-v,c/m 6 ,*~"' 9,<
SUBJECT:
USEOFREGULATORY<tkIDANCE'IRfCUMENiPASLEGAL REQUIREMENTS M Q Q uk Ltu M TheRegulatoryReviewGroup(RRG),initsefforttoidentifywaystoreducTe i the regulatory burden :n power reactor licensees, noted instances where the j staff has elevated provisions of Commission policy statements, regulatory ' guides, and other r.on-requirements to the status of requirements, including i referencing such documents in the Technical Specifications. This has been the subject of much correspondence in the past, including several issued from the office of the E00. Given the current government-wide initiative to ameliorate any undue regulatory burden, it is worthwhile to revisit this issue again. i A number of documents exist which provide guidance to the staff in determining what constitutes a requirement and how to avoid incorrectly imposing a i requirement on a licensee. SECY-88-131, " Policy Statements versus ! Regulations," addresses the differen:es between these two regulatory tools and when they should be used. This document notes that sh a regulation has the force of law. R Tablish a binding nors Furthermore, and cannot be relied policy Manual upon as law. statements doU5 Chapter sgt"14 (to be issued as Management Directive 8.4), "NRC Program for Management of Plant-Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Plants," contains a thorough discussion of what constitutes applicable regulatory staff positions (paragraph 053) and how backfits (i.e., new regulatory requirements) can be identified in the licensing, inspection, and enforcement areas. This manual chapter clearly expresses that staff interpretations, such as those contained in the Standard Review Plan (SRP), Regulatory Guides, Generic Letters, and Bulletins, provide examples of acceptable ways to meet requir ' i er. ,- ir s ,ing M and of themselves. However " a 1 as committed t r i ad a . these interpretations <ttf~ meet a regul or to satisfy regulatory concern,g., p ,, then it can be considered equivalent to a regulatory st f position. NUREG-0650, " Publishing Documents in the AUREG Series," state that MUREG reports I are ng regulatory documents that impose requirements. i f H o D uisw)&
g 4 January 28, 1994 The CRGR Charter includes a detailed listing of the various mechanisms by which the NRC could erroneously comunicate generic requirements. It directs
' each office to develop internal procedures to ensure any communications which may establish, reflect, or interpret NRC staff positions or requirements to be imposed by the NRC be consistent with the provisions of the back it rule (10 CFR 50.109.) p M lhere are several broad arenas in which the staff y find itself in a )
position where it could inadvertently improperly ommunicate new or revised requirements to a licensee. These are inspecti s, enfor:ement act vities, and licensing reviews. It is important for th( staff to x aware oF how their actionsCaay be construeo as in_stitutino new reautrements) I have enclosed a list of some fundamental concepts which should be used in determining whether
- a staff action is establishing or revising a requirement or staff position.
- By the end of March 1994, each office is to review, and modify as applicable,
. its internal operating procedures and practices to confirm that they do not either explicitly or implicitly sanction the use of inappropriate documents or methods to establish regulatory requirements. This memorandum should also be given wide dissemination within your organizations, particularly among. staff
, members who interact with licensees and who may have the opportunity to either interpret or establish agency requirements or guidance. Please contact Bill Dean of my staff with any questions or comments on this issue.
1
\ 'fitHA 1 pames H. Sniezek
/Deputy Executive Director 4
V for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations, and Research
Enclosure:
As stated cc: E. Jordan , R. Bernero J. Lieberman
- K. Cyr i
i i O FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN DETERMINING THE REGULATORY IMPACT OF A STAFF ACTION It is proper to take a po:ition:
- 1. that is a previously applicable regulatory staff position (refer to definition contained in NRC Manual Chapter 0514);
- 2. that was a regulatory staff position established within the appropriate ,
1 time frames related to plant licensing milestones (refer to 10 CFR ) 50.109); p ,;(J pq. ;,,[
- 3. that is the result of an action the licensee has really volunteered to take; i
- 4. related to actions proposed by the licensee resulting from normal staff / licensee discussions concerning an issue; g. ,j,/,.g y
' 5. that directs a licensee to comply with an NRC rule, regulation, license . condition, technical specification, or written commitment to the NRC. ; It is improper to take a position without the proper backfit analysis if:
- l. the staff proposal causes_ the licensee to change its design, i construction, or operation; yd ,
- 2. the staff action directs, tells, or coerc the licensee to apply the- .
staff's proposed action. I l l j 1 t l
'A l'. 868 PUBLIC LAW 104-121-MAR. 29,1996 110 STAT. 86 PUBLIC LAW 104-121-MAR. 29,1996
[i
; recdrd a written finding, with reasons th:refor, thst those require. "(i) a complete copy of tha cost-benefit annlyd3 of the ments would not advance the efTective participation of small entities rule,if any; in the rulemaking process. For purposes of this subsection, the "(ii) the cy's actions relevant to sections 603, 6M, factors to be considered in making such a finding are as follows: 605,607,and ;
} *(1) In developing a rule, the extent to which .cgione relevant to sections 202, 203, the covered agency consu "(iii) 68 afunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; \ j with mdividuals representative 204, and 205 of alTected small entities with respect to the potential impacts and of the rule and took such concerns mto consideration.
"(2) Special circumstances requiring prompt issuance of
"(iv) any other g,,,,t information or requirements under b j the rule. an other Act and an relevan rdus.
s
"(3) Whether the "( )U reces ag repwt submitted under subparagraph uirements of subsection (b) would ro- each ouse I provide gg port to the chsarman vide the individuals entified in subsection (bX2) wit a (A)d an ranking member of each i wie jurisdiction not,.
competitive advantage relative to other small entities.. under the rules of the resentatives or the Senate
+ (b) SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY CHAIRPERSONS.-Not later thanto report a bill to amen the oumprevis d Refo of law under which the 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the head of each rule is issued.
covered agency that has conducted a final regulatory flexibility "f 2XA) The Comptm rd shall 'revide a re rt on each Rapista analysis shall designate a small business advocacy chairperson major rule to the mmm ttas *urisdiction in each I use of the using existing personnel to the extent possible, to be responsible Congrees by the end of 15 calendar days after the submission i for implementing this section and to act as permanent chair of or publicataan date de 802(bX2). De report i the agency's review panels established pursuant to this section. of the ahan include an assessment of the SEC. 248. EFFECTIVE DATE. age M with procedural steps required by paragraph ! note. This subtitle shall become effective on the expiration of 90 j days afkr the date of enactment of this subtitle, except that such B) Federal aganesa= ah*H cooPwate M i amendments shall not apply to interpretative rules for which a eral by providing information relevant to the ComptroI *I ! notice of proposed rulemaking was published prior to the date report under subparagraph (A). of enactment. 73) A magor rule relating to a report submitted under para- ENectiw dates.
\- -
graph (1) shall
"(A) take of th later efect the on theoccurring date latest @ 60 d878 aAer the date i
Subtitle E-Congressional Review on whi% % recaws the mport submitted under SEC. 3st. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RUIEMAKING. ph ) Title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting imme- ) is published in the Federal Register, if FedevelRaguem diately after chapter 7 the following new chapter: blinha+ 1 kif the Congress posess a joint moolub d al
" CHAPTER 8-CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY described in section 802 relating to me mb, an the President
- signs a wto of such resolution the earher date-RULEMAKING ggg,
~ 7 ) on which either house of Congrees wtes
-h Cz e reet .
to override the veto of the President; or a ich 3 802. Congreassonal disapproval procedure. "(li) occurring,30 =====n days eRer he
~803 Special rule on statutory, regulatory, and judicial deadlines the Congrees retnived the veto and 4Wgtbe Presi-l E JYdNa Al dont W i "HC1 Apphcabilit severability. TC) the date the rule would haw ce
- Nve ate o i ru e.
if not for this sectaen (ainlan= a joint ree0I tion d under section m is )
"5 801. Congreselonal review e u otherwise ENectiw dese.
) rays a fler beniamien to Congrees under paragraph j
"(aXIXA) Before a rule can take effect, the Federal agency f1).
i promul and to t ting emptro such rule shall submit to each House of the Congress "(6) Notwi e- -o ' (3), the efective date d a ENechw datet er ral a report contaming- m ' tion of this chapter beyond, the ! a which either House Congress votes to mject a jant
"(ii) a concise generai statement relating to the rule, includ- 802 ing whether it as a major rule; and resolution
"(bX1) A of ruledisag under e Cagress
"(iii) the
"(B) On the dreposed effective date of the rule. enacts a joint resolution of disapprev , described under section i
te of the submission of the report under subpara- 802,of the rule. grcph (A), the Federal agency promulgating the rule shall submit roller General and make available to each House "(2) A rule that oder (1 dose may notbetake efec,t (or does,g , not continue) gg ,, , el , O i
= .
- a such a
} al A1; M0 PUBLIC LAW 104-121-MAR. 29,1996 PUBLIC LAW 104--121-MAR. 29,1996 110 SI'AT. t i rvle may not be issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifi. "(A) such rula were bt g a. the Federal Register on Federal Regis cally authorized by a law enacted after the date of thejoint resolu. publiccion.
the"(B)ditea report of entctment tyas cQP er; on such mof we tion disapproving the ori 'nal rule, Congmas i 1
"(cXI) Notwithstanbng any other provision of this section under subsection (aXI) on suc da (except subject to paragraph (3)), a rule that would not take efTect "(3) The effectiveness m ph (1) i by reason of subsection (aX3) may take effect, if the President shall be as otherwise Provi law
- nala== the rule is made makes a determination under paragraph (2) and submits written orno force or efTect under sectaen -
i
' notice of such determination to the Congress. "(f) Any mie that '= ** e ., age d no force
"(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a determination made by the or effect by enactment of a ,nt resolution under section 802 shall J President by Executive order that the rule should take efTect be treated as though such n
' because such rule is-
"(A) necessary because "(g) If the Congmes does ,,g ,,,g , j,g,g resolution of dis-i approval under ion 802 res ag a . ,,,g ,, ,,,,cy orsafety orotheremergency;of an imminent threat to health grom aEy,,ac,tson or inaction may infer any in f "(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws; of the Cagnes with regard to such rule, related statute, or jomt
"(C) necessary for national security; or resolution of disapproval.
nation r a ent. *g 802. Congreselonal disapproval E d a I "(3) An eaertise by the President of the authority under this "(a) For purposes of this sectim, the W,
- subsection shall be.e no efTect on the procedures under section per beginnin 802 or the effect uf a joint resolution of disapproval under this means only a joint resolutaan introduad in, 4
section- on the date on which the report refered to in 801MIXA is received by Congress and ending 60 ya (excluding
"(dX1) In aridition to the op rtunity for review otherwise ro-vided under this chapter, in t e case of any rule for whic a days either House of Congress ), theismatter a4=rned h th,, resolving mom thanclause 3 days 3
during a session of Con
- the period beginning u *he date occurring-report was submMted of whichinis accordance as follows
- with subsection (aXIXA) during t Congrees dias the rule submit-ted by the
"(A)in thgcase of the Senate,60 session days, or relat,ng i to , ami ,
force"(bXI) or effect.' (The blank spaces, being talF filled in). 2 tive days,in th6 case of the llouse o' f Representatives,60 legisla.
"(B) A joint resolution descri bed m su ,{ s. hall be referred to the committees in each House of Congress wi J before the date the Congress a j the date on which the same o$ourns a session of Congress through tion-
- r succeeding Congress first convenes its nept session, section 802 shall apply to such rule in the succeed- "(2) For purposes of this section, h ter,m, ,' submission or ing session of Conguss. publication date* means the later of the date on
*(A) the Congrees receives the mport e, ,e,
"(2XA) In applying section 802 for purposes of such additional tion 801(aX1); or review, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated as "(B) the rule is published a- the Federal Register, if so Federal Rerist pubbc.uoa-Rester.
l an- "(i) such rule were published in the Federal Register (as c I th'e Senate, if the conianittee to ' a rule that shall take effect) on- joint resolution described ,m subesetaan (a) hes ch or "(I) in the case of the Senate, the 15th session day
- joint resolution (or an identical joint reesi t en) at the end of 20 calendar days after the absm=== or pu ggg
*(II) in the case of the House of Representatives, the ' from l 15th legislative day, under
! furthersubsection consideration (bX2;of such suchcomunittee joint resol bmay be*"-pti '- Iion sup.
- after the succeeding session of Congrees first convenes; and ported in writang by 3a Members of ind such joint
"(ii) a report on such rule were submitted ta Congress resolution shall be placea on the under s#section (aX1) on such date. "(dXI) In the 9===**. wino ,
i, "(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to afTect resolution is referred has amettee to wh.ttee is dis-ich a joint the requirement under subsection (aXI) that a report shall be charged (under subsection (c) (met
,g , j,g,g submitted to Congrees before a rule can take effect.
l "(3) A rule described under neolution described m =M" (*), it m- at any tiam thereafter ragraph (1) shall take effect in order (ewn a ymemus metma has rwise provided by law (inc uding other subsections of this oeen d to a th consadoration isas,. y ats d order, agmimet the joint i cppl "(eXI) For purposes of this subsection, section 802 shall also resolution (and agannet -Aties t j the [ ate of the enactment of this chapter.to any major rule promulgated waived. Die motaan between March is not a& to1,1996, and j to postpone, or to a motsen to 8 the consideration of re "(2) In applying section 802 for purposes of Congressional other business. A motaan to , w, a rule described under paragraph (1) shall be treated as agreed to or y whici,a 7 the notaon g ja og ,,estaties is agreed _ _ _ _ . - . . _ - . - - . - ~ - - - --- -- -
i w MTAT. 872 PUBLIC LAW 104-121-MAR. 29,1996 PUBLIC LAW 104-121--MAR. 29,1996 110 STA a
' to, the j.oint resolution shall remain the unfm. ished business of "6803. Special rule on statutory, . -#
i the Senate until disposed of. deadlines
"(2) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on all "(a) In the case d any dedline for, relating te, or tavolvi, ; debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be any rule which does not take effect (or the effectiv==ame of whig
' limited to not more than 10 hours, which shall be divided equally is termmated) u ' g , jog t moolution under I between those favoring and those opposing the joint resolution. sectie 802, that 3 ne is extended until the date 1 year aner A motion further to limit debate is in order and not debatable. th date n of the joint resolution. in ens & otrued to affect a deadline An amendment to, or a motton to postpone, or a motion to procee,d { to the consideration of other busmess, or a motion to recommit ponement of a rule's effective date u 1 thejoint resolution is not in order. of th.e e term ' deadline' n' anna any da - (b
"(3) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion of anY obligation or exercising any authodty ].w=hed by or under
] the debate on a joint resolution described in subsection (a), and u Federal statute or regulation, or by or under any court order a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if requested implementing any Federal statu1 e or regulation. = in accordance of thejoint resolution with the rules shall of the Senate, the vote on final passage occur. "I 804. Deflaitions
"(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the of this chapteo-i application of the rules of the Senate to the procedure relating "Forh) term ' Federal agency' means any agacy as that .
to a joint resolution described in subsection (a) shall be decided term is defined in section 551(1)- without debate. he Adminis-I
"(e) In the Senate the procedure specified in subsection (c) trator "(2) ofThe the term Office*mspr rule
- means and of Informatie Affaim 4 M or (d) shallanot apply to the consideration of a joint resolution the Office of idanagement and BuW g has resulted in q<f respecting rule- or is like meu effect on the ==="""y of $100,000,000 h,g
"(1) after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning or more; u with the applicable submission or publication date, or during th he
"(2) report under section 801(aXIXA) was submitted -
md in mek w prias for consumers,
%tria Fde.ral, State, or local government rg/#
expiration period referred to in section 801(dX1), after the age ,
,7 ,
the 60 session days beginning on the 15th session e t adverse effects en competaba, em day after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes. . t productivity * ". er on the ab y
"(O If, before the passage by one House of a joint resolution *%"';$ -
enterpr,ses to esapete with famign- } of that House described in subsection (a), that House receives based enterprises in domesuc and export markets. from the other House a j,omt resolution described m subsectmn The term does not include any rule pseau u th (a), then the following procedures shall apply: Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the = _,, md ' "(1) The joint resolution of the other House shall not be by that Act. referred to a committee. "(3) ne term
- rule' has the ====3"f 38'** d krm
"(2) With respect to a joint resolution described in sub- in section 551, e scept that such term does,ast[melM section (a) of the House receiving the joint resolution- -
- 7. aciudmg a rule that approves or ~
prices, services, ortherefer, NM.-- l"(A) ary ,, rule E' of p
"(A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if nobut joint resolution had been received from the other b A88"8""8**'
eerporate House; fg 6, ,t cial structures, reorganisations, , thereof, or accountang practacos or ,, i "(B) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint resolution of the other House. any of the foregoing; '
"(g) This section is enacted by Congrese~ "(B) any rule relating to agency managesseg ,, pe,,,,,
"(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate nel;or j
i and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it "(C) any rule of agency __. ...= precedure, or practice that does not -nw==u' ally affect the rights or is deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, obligations of non-agency partaes. but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed
- in that, House in the case of a joint resolution described in 5805Jedletal swetow I
subsection (a), and it supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and "No determinah, G,M, ing, acten, or omisoson under.$his chapq N
"(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either ter shall be subject toj,udicial memw. M es My, y M House to chan of that House)ge the rules (so far as relating to the pmcedure at any time, m the same manner, and to the al808, Appilenbutty;eseerability C#1fM# '
j .(a) This chapter s hall apply notwiF " any other pe same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.
- "I*"q *I[ ,'
,rovision of &s"i3"r k -y - or -m ta g e @ w the_g - -= of an M S y _._.c--m =
iV ' * * * ' ' ' , __ _ wa ve 4fM ""-PP _ . _ __
0 STAT. 874 PUBLIC LAW 104-121-MAR. 29,1996 PUBLIC LAW 104-121-MAR. 29,1996 110 STAT. i l invalid, the applic . tion c.f euch revision to oth:r persons er cir- TITLE III-PUBLIC DEBT LIDHT cum:tances, and the remainder ofthis chapter, shall not be affected
- Sec. sol. INCREASE m PUMJC M "A 807. Exemption for unonetary policy section 3 t e 31 United States Code, j *Nothing ,
Subsection (b) ljar limitation contained in such monetary poh, in this chapter shall apply to rules that concern is 2 o the F eral reposed or implemented by the Board of Governors ,ubsectio an inserting "$5,500,M,W.W-rve System or the Federal Open Market Commit-h 29,1996.
"6 808. Effective date of certain rules
' "Notwithstanding section 801-j "(1) any rule that establishes, modifies opens, closes, or i conducts a regulatory program for a comme,rcial, recreational, or or subsistence activity related to hunting, fishing, or camping, i "(2) any rule which an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons there- , { for in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon i . interest, are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
- shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency promulgating the rule determines.".
SEC. 252. EFFECTIVE DATE. , e son note. 5 The amendraent made by section 351 shall take effect on the date of enactmentof_this Act. j SEC 253. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT. The tablebyofInsertin is amended chapters for part I of title 5, United States Code,
- chapter 7 the following g immediately after the item relating to "S. Congressional Review of Asency Rulemaaking . 801".
t 4 5 GISIATIVE HISIONY-H.R. 3138 (S. 942h CONGRES910NAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1998k Mar.15,19, S. 942 esmaidered and passed Sonete. s Mar. 28. H.R. 3las emesidered and House and Senate-a WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESI DOCUMENTS. Vol. 32 (1996h Mar. 29 Pressdsmetal statsusent.
. O
QEi po v
}.'
NUCLEAt ENilGY INSIIIUIE Joe F. Ceewin om ,,,n , ,, s, w
~ " ' " ' " " "
August 2,1996 The Honorable Shirley A. Jackson Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Washington, DC 20555 0001
Dear Chairman Jackson:
- On July 23,1996, the Nuclear Strategic Issues Advisory Committee (NSIAC) held a special meeting to discuss industry actions for ensuring the licensing basis of nuclear plants is being maintained consistent with the regulations. The chief 4
nuclear officers of the nuclear utilities approved an initiative to provide additional i assurance and confidence that existing programs are adequate to ensure that: i . Licensees are operating their plants in conformance with their licensing basis;
. Licensees are adequately maintaining their licensing basis; J . There are no differences between operating practices and the licensing basis that could result in a significant public health and safety concern; and 4 . Degraded or non-conforming conditions are captured on tracking systems
- and resolved in a timely manner.
l Under the initiative, each licensee will conduct an assessment of the programs in place to reaffirm that plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis. The program assessment is accomplished by sampling (1) FSAR information, (2) l programs in place for processing changes to procedures and the plant that may impact the FSAR, and (3) changes that may not be governed by licensee programs. 4 Many licensees have already commenced or recently completed similar program assessments. ! Differences identified through the sampling process will be evaluated to assess the i overall effectiveness and adequacy of programs. Programmatic enhancements will be made if needed. The overall significance of any differences will be characterized to determine if additional sampling is warranted. ~ Differences that represent degraded or nonconforming conditions will be captured 4 on a tracking system and resolved in a timely manner. Each licensee will notify the NRC of any differences that are subject to reporting requirements per the regulations.
)
i 1WWM J '7B7%s~ n -
1 F:. The Hen:rtble Shirlsy A. Jtekson
' August 2,1996
'* Page 2 s i 1 The results of the individual plant assessments will be provided to NEI for compilation in an industry summary report. The summary report will be provided to the NRC for information. i i The industry has developed a draft guideline to assist utilities in performing the programmatic assessment. The guideline will be finalized subsequent to resolution of the issues discussed below. Enclosure 1 provides a copy of NEI 96-05 (Draft) Revision D, " Guidelines for Assessing Programs for Maintaining the Licensing i Basis," for your information.
- There are a number of related issues that require a mutual agreement between the industry and the NRC before the industry can proceed with the initiative in a l consistent manner. These include
l
.- The legal standing of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and the gj, i NRC's Safety Evaluation Reports; - /a
. The scope of what constitutes the current licensing basis; and gy %,
i . The adequacy of NSAC-125 for performing 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations. The industry is committed to completing the initiative within six months of the resolution of these issues. Initial progress in resolving these issues was accomplished during the NRC public meeting also held on July 23,1996. We appreciate very much the participation of your senior staffin this meeting and the opportunity to discuss these issues. Expedited closure on these fundamentalissues is needed to minimize confusion within the NRC regions and the plants and focus our resources on addressing the programmatic issues. We look forward to a continuing dialogue with the Commission and NRC staff to achieve timely resolution of this matter. Sincerely, WL - J F. Colvin nclosure c: Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers, NRC Commissioner Greta J. Dicus, NRC Mr. James M. Taylor, NRC
;. 7
_ ".- . l f A NEI 96-05 (DRAFT) Revision D i i 4 i NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE i i J i l 1 i 4 GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING PROGRAMS FOR l MAINTAINING THE LICENSING BASIS l JULY 25,1996 Cbgg ramp
t . 8 j.? t 4 i i
- i l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I l l i Licensees have implemented various programs / processes over the period of their ! licenses for ensuring that the licensing basis is known is maintained current and ir, accurately described in the FSAR and associated referenced documents. The h*RC. l through a review described in SECY 94 066. determined that licensees were adequately maintaining the licensing basis of their facilities. As a result of events l~ that have occurred over the last several months, the NRC has increased attention
- on licensee compliance with the plant's licensing basis. Dipffcan oc.e;ur due to problems in those processes / programs intended to effect changesin the ucense basis, missing programmatic controls to translate changed operational activities 4. f,g
+%. p. wH1 i into the licensing basis, or a lack of awareness oflicensing basis features. ,s: ten-Licensees employ various programmatic mechanisms for identifying, evaluating (JYo(g? s 1
i and/or processing changes in plant activitie: : hat could affect the licensing basis or l
- that are intended to make changes to the licensing basis. These include
i
- Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) updates per 10 CFR 50.71(e) -
!
- Safety Evaluations per 10 CFR 50.59 i
e Changes to Quabty Assurance. Security and Emergency Plans per 10 CFR 50.54 i i 1
- License amendments per 10 CFR 40.90 i
! . ash 1E Code rebef requests per 10 CFR 50.55a l e Procedure changes (not subject to 50.59)
- Design changes (not subject to 50.59) i -
j
- Regulatory commitment changes a Degraded or non conforming conditions f
- Configuration management changes (e.g., operator workarounds.' extended lj operation of equipment in manual mode rather than automatic operation modes. and Technical Specification positionslinterpretations) 4 3 -
i 1
e.' 2.a PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2.1 Purpose This document provides guidance for performing a self assessment of the adequacy of programmatic controls for mentaining the licensing basis in order to identify anssing or incorrectly applied programmatic elements that can lead to licensing basis differences. 2.2 Scope The assessment approach consists of a data gathering phase and an evaluation phase. The data gathering phaseemploys a three. tiered sampling technique. The Erst tier involves in process sampling for the programmatic elements intended to effect a change in the licensing basis. Since programmatic elements may be missing - or incorrectly applied. the next two sampling tiers involve a search for differences . by sampling for potential operational changes that could be made without procedure changes. and samplingbackwards by comparing selected FSAR statements with operational practices. The purpose of the data gathering phase is to identify a set of potential diffenences between the operational practices and the beensing basis. The evaluation phase determinesif potential differences are valid. Valid differences are categorized m order to draw conclusions about the adequacy of particular programmatic contiels for maintaining the licensing basis. The significance of the findings are used to develop recommendations for programmatic enhancements. It is recognized that many licensees have performed safety system functional mapections (SSFIs) and other reviews that have assessed the adequacy of their programs to maintain the licensing basis of their plants and to ensure tha accuracy ofinformation in the FSAR. These completed activities can be creditaa. as appropriate, in meeting portionsof the assessment descrsbed below. He assessment methodology described below represents only one way-of , l performing the assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of programs for ! maintaining the licensing basis. Although the methodology contains a reasonable amount of detail, it is not intended to be prescriptive. Other approaches that provide an equivalent scope ofieview can also meet the intent of this assessment. 2
. .. s
~~
i 1 {' 3.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ! 3.1 Data-Gather ing Phase i j The data. gathering phase of the assessment employs three samplin6 techniques.
- Each sampling technique is discussed separately.
3.1.1 FSAR Sampling
- Extract the relevant FSAR sections for the system (s) being evaluated j
- Highlight those FSAR statements that meet the following criteria:
0 Descriptive phrases regarding frequencies for tests, calibrations. etc. j : ConSguration descriptions e 1 : Descriptions of system operation in different modes (e.g.. normal. abnormal. accident / emergency) l : Operating limits ] :- Descriptive functional performance statements . NOTE: The intent is to identify a range of FSAR statementa associated with ! operational practices that could be changed and, in the presence of i programmatic weaknesses. are not adequately reDected in the FSAR. Compare the highlighted FSAR statements with current operational i practices using individuals cogni. tant of the operation of the system and ! associated engineering problems. Document the following:
- o Is the FSAR statement accurate with respect to operational practices l
j (procedures, operating philosophy, standing orders, workarounds, etc.)? j If not, identify the diferences. l 0 Is the FSAR statement clearly understood or in need of clar 5 cation?
- 3.1.2 Programmatic Sampling
! . Select three unrelated examples of each of the foHowing types of changes:*
1 i . l : 50.59 ( at least one procedure change evaluationi i ) 1
8
' ) 50.54 (one each from QA. EP and Security >
; Outstandmg corrective action for a matarial condition greater than one
! year old I
- Operating procedure change not eva!uated under 50.59 i
0 FSAR change request 1 0 50.90/50.55a change and associated SER (where NRC approval j i has been received) 1 i
.O Regulatory commitment addition or change 1
0 Design change not es aluated under 50.59s p., ,d . v6L/ rJ <r M y,, N) l
- NOTE: The changes selected should have been completed in sumcient d time l l to have been reDected (if required)in the most recent licensing basis up ate 1
4 of the FSAR. QA program. etc. i
- Review the change to determine if the change should have appeared in the !
l ' beensing basis and. tf so. if the licensing basis accurately reflects the chal For changes that are not accurately reDected in the licensing basia. l determine the programmatic step wr missing programmatic step) that l i would have ensured its accurate incorporation into the licensing basis.
- Document the results of the programmatic sampling.
1 3.1.3 Sampling for potential changes that may occur separate from l programmatic or procedure changes i
- Compile the foEowing: -
.I i ! 0 Workaround list - 0 Operations standing orders O Technical Speci5 cations positionslinterpretations (if any) 4 Sample of documents that may show po 2 system operattne instructions shift supervisor los entnes for d i - 4 4
l . 1 '.
..?
List of equipment being operated in manual i
, : Old* temporary alterations s
, 3 Old' non conformances j Old* tag outs 1 4
* "Old' refers to current items that should be reDected (if required)in the last l
, FSAR update per 10 CFR 50.71(e) , \ ! -
- Select a sample from each of the above categories based on the number of j ttems compiled.
' . Review the item selected to determine if the item represents a change to the ! bcensing basis and, if so. tf the licensing basis accurately reDI 4 For changes that are not accurately reDected in the licensing basis. ! i deterrnine the programmatic step (or missing programmatic step) that would j have ensured its accurate incorporation into the licensing basis. j i . Document the results of the samphng. 1 i I 3.2 Evaluation Phase At this point in the assessment, the changes to operating practices that should have been redected in the bcensing basis have been identified. Those not accurately reDected in the licensing basis are differences that must be resolved and categorized. The evaluation phase cannot be precisely structured. However Cu lukowing broad steps should be undertaken.
. Categorize differences in accordance with the following criteria:
o Program / process which should have ensured licensing basis accuracy I O Significance
. Safety significant
- Regulatory significant (i.e.. noncomphance or missed commitmenti
- 1.ow nrntficance ie.g., the ontmalinformation was not required to be included m the FSAR. or the information could not have been 5
. \
Y ! i rebed upon by the NRC in reaching a safety conclusion) 4 4 } [ NOTE: Section V of NL'\!' ARC 9012. ~ Design Basis Program Guidelines.' provides guidance for assesstag the safety significance of l i
~
differences and for determining if operability and/or reporting issues
- exist.]
i
' 50.59 was correctly / incorrectly applied i
i ; Licensing basis information has slways been inaccurate ti.e., there i was no change in operating practice) !
- Identify areas of programmatic weakness or missing programmatic controls.
If uncertain, pursue addi'icaal : ssessment investigation for the i programmatic area in question. 4 f . Characterize overall signtScance of the 6ndings. Based on this
- characterization, determine the need to broaden the assessment scope to obtain the necessary confidence that the programs are adequate and are i being effectively implemented.
j- . If applicable. generate necessary quality desciency documents and identify
- any reportable situations.
f . Prepare recommendations to address programmatic weaknesses, i e Document the results and brief appropriate management.
- \
i f 4.0 NE1 REPORT f 4 a 4.1 Purpose cf P.. port SEI will compile the overall industry results to assess the composite adequacy l and effectiveness of programs designed to maintain the licensing basis of tha l l j plants. The overall industry results will be reported to the NRC by NEl. j 4.2 Report Format j The report format follows the steps contained in Section 3.0 of this report.~ I Part 1. FSAR Samoline j
. Identify the FSAR systems reviewed under Section 3.1.1. i
. Indicate the number of FSAR differences identined.
ti.
- 9. , ,,
a Part 2 - Pronrammatic Samnline Indicate e.be total number ofitems reviewed. Indicate the number ofitems where the change was not accurately redec:ed in the beensing basis. Part 3 - Samnline for notential channes that may occur senarate from l ororrammatic or orocedure channes ! Indicate the total number ofirems reviewed. Indicate the number ofitems where the etiange wu not accurately reDected in the licensing basis, if required. Part 4 - Evaluation Phase Indicate the number of differences that were characterized as being safety signdCant. Indicate the number of differences that were characterized as being regulatory sigmficant. Indicate the number of differences where 50.59 was incorrectly applied. Indicate the number of differences where the licensing basis information has I always been inaccurate. i Provide a brief summary of the programmatic de5ciencies identi5ed, if any. l Indicate whether the assessment scope is being broadened based on the identified differences. Describe any departures from the methodology of this guideline. l 5.0 DEFINITIONS 5.1 Regulatory Commitment NE! -Guideline for h!ar, aging NRC Commitments." endorsed by NRC in SECY-95 300, defines a regulatory commitment as follows: Resulatory Commitment means an explicit statement to take a speci5c action agreed to or volunteered by a licensee that has been
. submitted in writing on the docket to the Commission."
5.2 Licensing Basis 10 CFR Part 54 defines the current -licensing basis" as follows:
l 1 L ,
~
-Current licensing basis o i.B:is the set of NRC requirements applicable J
to a specife plant and a licensee's written commitments for ensuring : compliance with and operation within applicable N'RC requirements and ] the plant specific design basis (including all modi 5 cations and additions 1 to such commitments over the life of the licensel that are docketed and ! in effect. The CLB includes the NRC requirements contained in 10 CFR l parts 2.19. 20, 21. 30, 40. 50. 51, 5 4. 55. 70. 72, 73. and 100 and l appendices thereto: orders: license conditions; exemptions: and technical speci5 cations. It also includes the plant speci5c design basis , information de5ned in 10 CFR 50.2 as documented in the most recent ! Enal safety analysis report (FSAR) as required by 10 CFR 50.71 and the licensee's commitments remaining in effect that were made in docketed
- licensing correspondence such as licensee responses to NRC bulletins. ;
generic letters, and enforcecaent actions, as well as licensee l commitments documented in NRC safety evaluations or licensee event reports. NOTE: Responses to NRC bulletins. generic letters and licensee event reports contain some commitments that are outside the scope of the CLB in that they are not necessary to ensure compliance with applicable NRC requirements (e.g.. rules. regulations. licenses and ordersi or to maintain
. the plant speciEc design basis.
I i i l l __ _}}