NRC Generic Letter 1982-20

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

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

OCT 2 6 1982TO ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES/PERMIT HOLDERS, APPLICANTS FOR CONSTRUCTIONPERMITSSubject: Guidance for Implementing Standard Review Plan Rule(Generic Letter No. 82-aO)Gentlemen:On March 10, 1982, the Commission approved a final rule 10 CFR 50.34(g), *Confor-mance with the Standard Review Plan (SRP)." This rule requires power reactorapplications docketed after May 17, 1982, to include an evaluation of the facilityagainst the acceptance criteria of the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800).The staff has prepared for public comment the enclosed guidance (NUREG-0906) forlicensees to assist in complying with the rule. The guidance document Is intendedas an interim measure until the *Standard Content and Format Guide for SafetyAnalysis Reports, Regulatory Guide 1.70," is revised to reflect the requirementsof the new rule, at which time the guidance in NUREG-0906 would be incorporatedinto Regulatory Guide 1.70.The guidance document has the following major features:(1) It identifies the locations in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR)for providing the evaluation required by the SRP rule and pro-vides a suggested tabular format for identifying the specificareas of design, analysis, and procedure that are differentfrom the Standard Review Plan. The table includes an identifi-cation and summary description of the differences, and a refer-ence to the specific sections of the SAR in which the differ-ences are discussed and evaluated.(2) For applicants subject to the rule, It modifies the presentguidance contained in Regulatory Guide 1.70 that they shouldprovide a discussion in the SAR of their conformance with allapplicable Regulatory Guides (SAR Chapter 1.8). The appro-priate Regulatory Guides are cited in the acceptance criteriafor each individual section of the SRP. Thus, this section(Chapter 1.8) of the SAR would be redundant to the evaluationnow required by the SRP rule and an unnecessary burden onapplicants.(3) It reaffirms that conformance with the SRP, per se, is not aregulatory requirement, but that the specific acceptancecriteria of the SRP define methods acceptable to the stafffor satisfying the relevant regulations. However, the guid- 32ance documents notes that in some instances the SRP acceptancecriteria are identical to the requirements of the regulations.Guidance on how to handle this type of difference from the SRPaccrp-Ca W ille lrtu la l. wOFFICEIP 21U08..... z .= 6 8.................. ...... ........................ ....... ..................... ....... ..................... ....... ..................... ....... .....................SURNAAMEb ....... ................. ....... ................ ........................ ............... ......... ... ........................ ........................ ............... .................DATEt............. ......................... ................................ ........................................ ........................ ............ ............... ......... ............... ........................NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240O FFICIA L R EC O RD C OP YUSGPO: 1981-335-960

-2 -(4) It provides examples of evaluations of differences from the SRPthat the staff considers to be acceptable in technical scopeand detail.Comments on NUREG-0906 are due by December 20, 1982.

Sincerely,pFtriginal signed byDarrell G. EisenhutDarrell G. Eisenhut, DirectorDivision of LicensingOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

-4As statedOFFICES ...D B ..I.... .LL1an:hmc AdlSURNAME ................ ..DATE) 9..1.8.. 2 2. ..2..... _9&LNRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240.. ........................ ........................ ....... ...............Asent.......; ........... .............. .................. ........................ ......................".................., ........................ ........................RECORD COPY USGPO:1981-83"9