ML13066A197

Email from J. Mitman, NRR to M. Galloway, NRR on Who Is Required to Demonstrate That Adequate Protection Has Not Been Met?

ML13066A197
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	12/22/2009
From:	Jeffrey Mitman NRC/NRR/DRA
To:	Galloway M Division of License Renewal
References
FOIA/PA-2012-0325
Download: ML13066A197 (1)

Text

Mitman, Jeffrey From: Mitman, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:45 PM To: Galloway, Melanie .

Cc: Cunningham, Mark; Jmr'nes, Lois; Ferrante, Fernando

Subject:

Who is required to demonstrate that adequate protection has not been met?

In our recent discussion, Mark has ask: Who has responsibility for determining that a licensee does not have adequate protection; the licensee or the NRC? I've re-read 10CFR50.109 (the backfit rule) with this question in mind. After this review, it is clear that Mark is correct, it is the NRC's responsibility to determine that a plant does not have adequate protection. The pertinent discussion can be found in 50.109(a)(4) which states in part:

The provisions of paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) [These are the sections requiring a backfit analysis.] of this section are inapplicable and, therefore, backfit analysis is not required and the standards in paragraph (a)(3) of this section do not apply where the Commission or staff, as appropriate, finds and declares, with appropriate documented evaluation for its findings, either: ...

It then proceeds to discussion the 3 backfit exclusions, i.e., compliance, adequate protection, and regulatory action which redefines protection levels which are adequate. I mention this final point because if we decide that Duke is not in compliance with the existing requirements, the NRC needs to have a "documented analysis" substantiating that finding.

Jeff 1