ML19275B818
| ML19275B818 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1980 |
| From: | Cunningham G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Arlotto G NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19275B817 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002290049 | |
| Download: ML19275B818 (4) | |
Text
~# "' c ENCLOSURE 2
[
vg) t>NITED STATES y i..f i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%,%~
E V.' ASHING TON, D. C. 20555 q w ) #'y'ej M ^ 5 gg MEMORANDUM FOR:
Guy A. Arlotto, Director Division of Engineerina Standards Office of Standarcs Develeprent FROP:
Guy H. Cunningham, III Chief Regulations Counsel Office of the Executive Legal Director
SUBJECT:
ACTIONS NECESSARY TO I"PLEMENT THE Till ACTION PLAN NEAR-TERf1 OPERATING LICENSE REQUIREMENTS OELD has no legal objections to the recomrendations of the ad-hoc subgroup regarding actionsnecessary to implenent the TMI Action Plan near-term onerating license reauirerents. We wish to emchasize, however, certain considerations which should be borne in mind by those who must act on these reco=endations.
The informal method of implementation chosen in the vast majority of instances is a letter to licensees tollowed by revisions to various regulatory guides.
Because the current regulations are sufficiently broad and general, they provide room for the staff to adopt the interpretation that they may be satis-fied only by meeting the Action Plan's near-tern ocerating licensing reauire-ments.
Such informal interpretations, however, will not be binding on appli--
cants, licensees, intervenors, Boards, or the Commission, and may be litigated in individual cases.
For example, an applicant would be free to aroue to a licensing board that he has demonstrated " technical concetence" without provid-ing for a shift technical advisor, since no rule calls for a shift technical advisor. Without such a rule, there can be no guarantee that the staff would 5 evail against all such challenges.
Rulemaking, though it has other drawbacks, wc ild eliminate such litigation by imposing binding reouirements.
As stated aboce, we have no legal objection to the informal methods selected, provided that the risks of repetitive litigation in individual adjudications are under-stood and accepted.
Where the option of implementation by technical specification changes is selected, pendi ig a rule change (e.g., for SR0 and R0 in the control room), there is the a jditional factor that opportunities for hearing will be created, since technical specification changes are license amendments.
(0f course, these amendments would not have to be pre-noticed if a finding of no significant hazards consideration was made.) Since a rule change is contemplated as the final method of implementation, additional consideration should be given to eliminating the interim stage of amending technical specifications and proceeding directly to an expedited rulemaking.
Wt I j
l
.u-,.T. -
l 5'
GuyH.Cundnghan,III
~
Chief Regulations Counsel 8 0022 9 004a Office of the Executive I
Legal Director m,_,n
,,m n is av 7 p ov-o