ML19277G876
| ML19277G876 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1984 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Doughty J SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19277G880 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-10 NUDOCS 8404190041 | |
| Download: ML19277G876 (2) | |
Text
.
Central Files Only March 14,1984 MEMORANDUM FOR:
See Next Page FROM:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONVENTAL QUALIFICATION: CGMMISSION POLICY STATEMEC t'?O PROMSED RULE"AKING (B6 ARC Wa u I V10N S4-050)
This l'oard %gificction provioes the Cor:rais:: ton Poltr.v Str:ermit ud prepoced niemaking ou evirom.entrl nuclh'i'ations. A though it is not staff practice to r.otify.itomic Safety 4 L6veing Beards of Orxnission Po'n cs e,tatements and Proposed Pules by the Board notification rrocess, in tSis instance the Policy Stater.ent and Fronosed Rule relate to matters as to.Mct, the staff has previously orovMd Boar:! Notificatior.t (BN-84-004,83-007,82-032).
Therefore, in this case, for the convenience or the lh3 and the Farties, the staff is providing a copy uf these items by Board Netification.
+ h u._ :.nerip
' b EinocuW Darrell G. Eisenhut. Director Division of U censing
Enclosure:
- 1. Policy statment on Dxironmental Qua!ification dtd 3/1/PA
- 2. Ervironmental Qaalification.oposed P.ulemking Jtd 3/1/84 cc: See Next Page
.84ot.90041
/
v y' 9 rx
,u
'!3
- ^
'.......D..L1F..,LY....
s,
l omen soamo.BS.te.tt;mi..... JSIL ut.
... D..../. 84
./.l./84; 3
i 3/
o.aq
._,.................i..................
i
~
une toau sin omaa> wcu ano OFFICIAL RECORD COPY us e mi-.m uo
Addressees:
The atomic Safety and Licensing Boards fnr:
Byron 1 & 2 (Smith, Callihan, Cole)
Catawba 1 & 2 (9' ley, Foster, Purdom)
Comanche Peak 1 & 2 (Eiloch, Jordan, McCollum)
Limerick 1 & 2 (Sranner, Cele, Morris)
Perry 1 & 2 (Blech, Bright,, Kline)
Seabrook 1 & 2 (11oyt, Harbw, Luebke)
Shoreham (Brenner, Fergusca, Morris)
Wolfe Creek (Wolfe, At derson, Paxton)
Zimmer (Frye, Hooper, Livingston)
Clinton (Clark, Fergut,on, Paris)
Callaway (Gleason, Bright, Kline)
Palo Verde 2 & 3 (Lazo,Callihan, Cole)
Waterford 3 (Wolfe, Foreman, Jordan)
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards for-Diablo Canyon 1 & 2 (Poore, Johnson, Buck)
Waterford s (12 51, Joh.;on, Wilber)
Catswba (Rosendal Moore, Wil5cr)
Limerick (Rchl, C tchyl Perry (Kohl, Buck, Edles)
Se:6 cook ("osenthal, Edles, lii'ber' Callaway 1 (Rosanthal. EJlas, Gotchy)
Zic:aer (Ecsantnel, Wilber) iMI-l 'Edhs Back, Gotchy, chl) cc:
OPE OGC ECO SECY,2)
Docket Nos:
50-289, 483, 443/444, 454/455, 413/414, 461 382, 50-275/323, 440/441, 483, 486, 445/446 3.52/'.53, 329/330, 3?.2, 358, 528/529/530, 44/t.34 247/286, 432 All Parties fo-above proceedings
DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR.sAkJ NDTIFICATION
ASLB -By on Un?':s 1&2, Dncket Nos. 50-454/455 ALAB/ASLB -Callawe' " nit 1, Docket No. 50-483 ALAB/ASLB -Catawba Units 1&2, Docket Nos 50-413/414
ASLB -Clinton Unit 1, Docket No. 50-451
ASLB -Comanche Peak Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-445/446 ALAB----- -Diablo Canyon Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-275/323 ALAB/ASLb -Lime.-ick Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-352/353
- ---ASLP Palc "erde Units 2&3. Doctet hot. 50-529/530 ALAB/ASLB -Perry Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-440/441 ALAB/ASLB -Seabrouk Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-443/444
ASLB -Shoreham Unit 1, Docket No. 50-322 ALAB----- -TMI Unit 1, Dociet No. 50-289 ALAB/ASLS -Waterf..d Unit 3, Docket No. 50-382
ASLB -Wolf creek Unit 1, Docket No. 50-482 49/ASLP -limmer Unit 1, Do.:ket No. 50-358 Atcmir Eafety er.d Licensieg E. Blake, _;q.
Hon. Peter Crb laa Board Panel Mr. Rictiard E. Blaakenburg David E. Cole Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Hottard L. Blau, tsa.
Dr. Richard F. Cole Appeal board Peter B. Blo:b, Esq.
Mr. Jchn T. Collins Brentwood Board of 5electmen Mr. Dan 1. Solef Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Director,."A Emergency Mgmt Mr. Donaid Bollinger Mr. Nicholas J. Costello Division of Consumer Counsel Ms. Louise Bradford Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.
c/o Mr. Barry S. Zitser Ms. Nara Bredes Charles Cross, Esq.
Docketing & See, ice Section Lawrence Brenner, Esq.
Mr. Edward L. Cros.
Jr.
Document Manacement Branch Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
MHB Technical Associates Mr. Earl Brown Mr. James E. Cummins Palmetto Alliance Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Jordan D. Cunninr3 o Esq.
Region III, USNRC Mr. William.. Brown Andrew B. Dennistn c.q.
Town Manager's Office Dr. John H. Buck Thomas G. Dignan, c<., Esq.
Town Hall - Friend Street Carole H. Burstein, Esq.
Mr. John F. Doherty
'own of North Hampton hs. Martha W. Bush James B. Dougherty, Esq.
Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Ms. Jane Doughty Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt Mr. Timothy R. 3. Camp ~ ell Mr. Jay Dunkleberger o
Mr. Vernon Adler Mr. Calvin A. Canney Mr. Dwen B. Durgin Phillip Ah. ens, Esq.
John G. Cardinal, Esq.
Mr. Anthony F. Earley, Jr.
Dr. George C. Anderson Sen. Allen R. Carter Gary J. Edlos, Esq.
Mr. Ecbert L. Anthony Doug Cassel, Esq.
Eric A. Eisen, Esq.
Mrs. Elizhbeth Apfelberg Brian P. Ca:sidy. Esq.
Mr. Frederick Eissler Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
A. Scott Cauger, Esq.
Charles W. Elliott, Esq.
thurice Axelrad, Esq.
Mr. Kenneth h. Ch5_rcs Mrs. Juanita Ellis Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Peter S. Everett, Esq.
Edward M. Parrett, Esq.
Ms. Diane Chavez Donald T. Ezzone, Esq.
Mr. Erward G. Bauer, Jr.
Mr. Donald E. Chick Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Kenneth Berlin, Esq.
Ms. War.da Christy Dr. George A. Ferguson Lynne Bernabei, Esq.
Hugh K. Clark, Esq.
Mr. Zori G. Fe> in t's. Fried? Berryhill Mr. Mendall Clark Lawrence R. Fisse, Esq.
Mr. Samue. J. Birk John Clewett, Esq David S. Fleischaker, Esc.
DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION
ASLB -Byron Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-454/455 ALAB/ASLB -Callaway Unit 1 Docket No. 50-483 ALAB.'ASLB -Catawba Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-413/414
ASLB -Clinton Unit 1. Docket No. 50-461
ASLB -Comanche Peak Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-445/446 ALAB-------Diablo Canyon Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-275/323 ALAB/ASLB -Limerick Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-352/353
ASLB -Palo Verde Unit-2&3, Docket Nos. 50-529/530 ALAB/ASLB -Perry Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-440/441
^ LAB /ASLB -Seabrook Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-443/444
ASLB -Shoreb3m Unit 1, Docket No. 50-322 ALAB-------TMI 'Jnit 1, Docket No. 50-289 ALAB/ASLB -Waterford Unit 3, Docket No. 50-382
ASLB ~kolf Creek U'it 1, Docket No. 50-4E?
ALAB/ASLB _limmer Unit 1, Docket No. 50-358 Mrs. Raye Fleming W. Peter heile, Esq.
Mr. Herbert H. Livermore Luke Fantana, Esq.
Steven P. Her; hey, tsq.
Terry J. Lodge, Esq.
Dr. Harry Foreman Donald L. Herzberger, MD Ms. Karen E. Long Dr. Richard F. Foster Ms. Susan Hiatt M.. Harold Lottman Ms. Jean Foy Renea Hicks, Esq.
Angus R. Love, Esq.
Leco Friedman, Esq.
Mr. Timothy S. Hogan, Jr.
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebee Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.
Ms. Beverly Hollingvm 2 Mr. Fred Luetey Mr. John H. Frye III Dr. Frank F. Hooper Mr. Angie Machirqs R. K. Gad III, Esq.
Ms. Lee Heuri5an Mr. John Marrs Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Helen hoyt, Esq.
David K. Martin, Esq.
Mr. R. J. Ga ry Mr. Richard B. Hubbard Mr. Robert D. Marti, Ms. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Henry D. Hukill Mi;hael W. Maupir
- sq.
Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Sen. Gordor,J. Humphrey Michael McBride, Esq.
Mr. Thomas Gerusky Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson Mr. Brian McCaffrey Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Dr. W. Reed Johnson Dr. Kennett A. McCollom James P.
Gleason, Esq.
Dr. Walter H. Jordan J. Michael McGarry,III, Esq.
Mr. Marc V. Golds.nith William S. Jordan, III, Esq. Mr. Patrick J. McKeon Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy James L. Kelley, Esq.
Mr. Edward F. Meany Mr. Mark Gottlieb Mr. Chauncey Kepford Janine Migden, E;q.
Norman L. Green, Esq.
Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
Michael ! iller, Esq.
Mr. Rand L. Greenfield Dr. Jerry R. Kline Prof. William H. Miller Mr. Gary L. Groesch Christine N. Kohl, Esq.
Mr. Grege v Minor e
Robert Guild, Esq.
Stephen E. Latham, Esq.
Thomas S. Moore. Esq.
Mr. Lee M Gustafson James A. Laurenson, Esq.
William J. Moran, F:a.
William J. Guste, Jr., Esq.
F.obert M. Lazo, Esq.
Dr. Peter A. Morris Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.
Ms. Jane Lee Ms. Pat Morrison Dr. Jerry Harbour John Levin, Esq.
Ms.Chris Nolin Mr. Thomas H. Harrir Mr. Marvir, I Lewis Bruce Norton, Esq.
Mr. Robert J. Harrison Ian Douglas Lindsey, Esq.
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
Mr. Bruce: L. Harshe Mr. Gustave Linenberger, Jr.
DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION
ASL3 -Byron Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-454/455 ALAB/ASLB -Callaway Unit 1, Docket No. 50-483 ALAB/ASLB -Catawba Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-413/414
ASLB -Clir. ton Unit 1, Docket No. 50-461
.5LB -Comarche Peak Units 152, Docket Nos. 50-4^5/446 ALAB-------Diablo Canyon Units 162, Docket Nos. 50-275/323 ALAB/ASLB -Limerick Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-352/353
ASLB -Palo Verde Units 2&3, Docket Nos. 50-529/530 AL AB/ASLB -Perry Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-440/441 ALAB/ASLB -Seabrook Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-443/444
ASLB -Shoreham Unit 1, Docket No. 50-322 ALAB-------TMI Unit 1, Docket No. 50-289 ALAB/ASLB -Waterford Unit 3, Docket No. 50-382
ASLB -Wolf Creek Unit 1, Docket No. 50-482 ALAB/ASLB -Zimmer Unit 1, Decket No. 50-358 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. Frederick J. Shon Richard P. Wilso-Esq.
Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Ms. Jo Ann Shotwell Maxine Weelflig, 1
Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Ms. Barbara Shull John F. Wo'r,.r C. Edward Peterson, Esq.
Jay Silberg, Esq.
Sheldon J. Wcif' t
Ms. Roberta C. Pevear Mr. Gordon Silver John D. Woliver, Esq.
Ms. Gail P. Phelps John M. Simpson, Esq.
Mr. Gary N. Wright Mr. Samuel H. Porter Mr. Lanny Alan Sinkin Mr. Robert G. Wright William L. Porter, Esq.
Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Sheldon A. Zabel, Esq.
Sen. Robert L. Preston Mr. C. W. Smyth Ms. Phyllis Zitzer Dr. Paul W. Purcom Carol S. Sneider, Esq.
Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Major Howard Steffen Ms. Diana P. Randall Malcolm Stevenson, Esq.
ACRS Members Mr. John G. Reed Mr. Michael J. Strumwasser Dr. Robert C. Axtmann Ms. Marjorie Reilly Rdert J. Sugarn.an, Esq.
Mr. Myer Bender W. Taylor Reveley,III, Esq.
Uavid C. Thamar., Esq.
Dr. Max W. Carbon Joel R. Reynolds, Esq.
George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Dr. Mauray Tye Mr. Harold Etherington Dr. Peter F. Riehm Paul C. Valentine, Esq.
Dr. William Kerr Mr. Jesse L. Riley Ms. Anne Verge Dr. Harold W. Lewis Ken Robinson, Esq.
Dr. Bruce Von Zellen Dr. J. Carson Mark Mr. Frank R. Romano Mr. Robert F. Warnick Mr. William M. M<this Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.
Deborah Webb, Esq.
Dr. Dade W. Moeller M;. Mary Ellen Salava Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Dr. David Okrent Alan Samelson, Esq.
Mr. David Wersan Dr. Milton S. Plesset Mr. Alfred Sargent Mr. Joseph H. White, 11!
Mr. Jeremiah J. Ray Mr. James 0. Schuyler Mr. James Wiggins Dr.. Paul C. Shewmon Cherif Sedky, Est.
Howard A. Wilber, Esq.
Dr. Chester P. Siess Ralph Shapiro, Esa.
Mr. Donald R. Willard Mr. David A. Ward Mr. Lewis Shollenberger Mr. Harry M. Wil I i:
Mr. Steven C. Sholly Philip L. Willman, Esq.
Branch service _ lists of addresses receiving material on the following dockets for Board Notification 84-050 Page 4 WATERFORD DOCKET R. S. Leddick F. J. Drummond D. B. Lester Stephen M. Irving, Esc.
Resident Inspector D. C. Gibbs Regional Administrator, Region IV WOLF CREEK DOCKET Mr. Glenn L. Koester Mr. Nicholas A. Petrick Mr. Donald T. McPhee Resident Inspector Teri Sculley Regional Administrator, Region IV Mr. Joe Mulhollano Regional Administrator, Pegion III ZIMMER DOCKET Mr. Edwin J. Wagner Mr. Gregory C. Ficke Mr. Robart Burger Mr. John E. Dolan George E. Pattison, Esc.
Mr. Waldman Christianson Mr. John Youkilis Regional Administrator, Pegion III Mr. James P. Fensternaker
Branch service lists of addresses raceiving material on the following dockets for Board Notification 84-050 Page 3 SEABROOK DOCKET Bruce Beckley D. Pierre G. Cameron,.1r., Esq.
Regional Administrator, Region I E. Tupper Kinder, Esq.
Resident Inspector Mr. John DeVincentis Mr. A. M. Ebner Mr. Stephen D. Finyd Ms. Letty Hett Honorable Richard E. sullivan Seacoast Anti-Pollution League SHOREHAM DOCKET Mr. M. S. Pollock Resident Inspector Energy Research Group, Inc.
Mr. James Rivello Ezra I. Bialik Dr. M. Stanley Livingstone TMI DOCKET Board of Directors, P. A. N. E.
J. B. Lieberman, Esq.
Earl B. Hoffman Unio 1 of Concerned Scientists c/) Harmon & Weiss Mr. E. G. Wallace Ms. Virginia South =rd Mr. David D. Maxwell EPA, Rgn III. Reg. Rad. Representative Senior Resident Inspector General Counsel, Federal Emergency Mngt Agency Karin W. Carter, Eso.
Dauphin County Office Emergency Preparedness Harrisburg, Pa Mr. Robert Borsum Ms. Lennie Prough Governor's Office of State Planning and Development, Harrisburg, PA Regional Administrato, Region I Bruce Molholt Dr. David L. Hetrick Dr. James C. Lamb, III
Era ich service lists of addresses receiving material on the following dockets for Board Notification 84-050 Page 2 DIABLO CANYON DOCKET Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush Mr. Lee M. Gustafson Resident Inspector /Diablo Canyon NPS Dr. Jose Roesset Dr. William E. Cooper Mr. W. C. Gangloff Regional Administrator, Region V LIMERICK DOCKET Honorable Lawrer.ce Coughlin Roger B. Reynolds, Jr., Esqui re Frederic M. Wentz Eugene J. Bradley Mr. Vincent Boyer Mr. Karl Abraham Mr. Suresh Chaudhary Steven P. Hershey, Esq.
Jacoueline I. Ruttenberg, Esq.
Mr. J. T. RGbb, N2-1 Governor. Office of State Planning and Development, PA Department of Environmental Resources, PA Chairman, Board of Supervisors of Limerick Township U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PA PERRY DOCKET Mr. Murray P. Edelman Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
Resident Inspector Regional Administrator, Region III PALU VEPDE DOCKET Mr. E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.
Mr. Charles R. Kocher, Esa.
Ms. Margaret Walker Pesident Inspector Regional Administrator, Region V
Branch service listr. of addresses receiving material on ~the folhrwing dockets for Board Notification 84-050 CALLAWAY DOCKET Mr. D. F. Schnell Mr. Nicholas A. Petrick Mr. J. E. Birk Resident Inspector Mr. Donald W. Capone Regional Administrator, Region III CATAWBA DOCKET Mr. H. B. Tucker North Carolina MPA-1 Mr. F. J. Twogood Mr. J. C. Plunkett, Jr.
Mr. Pierce K. Skinner North Carolina Electric Membership Corp.
Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Mr. Peter K. VanDoorn Regional Administrator, Region II Spence Perry, Esq.
Mark S. Calvert, Esa.
CLINTON DOCKET Mr. Daniel 1. Herborn Mr. D. P. Hall Mr. George Wuller Mr. Julius Greier Resident Inspector Mr. R. C. Heider Mr. F. C. Downey COMANCHE PEAK DOCKET Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Mr. H. R. Rock Mr. A. T. Parker William Burchette, Esq.
BYRON DOCKET Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Mr. William Kortier Mr. Michael Miller, Esq.
Mr. Edward R. Crass Mr. Julian Hinds
POLICY STATEM JT ON ENVIRON!' NTAL QUALIFICATION E
Introduction
~~
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has vacated and remanded a Commission rule which removed from nuclear pcwcr pasnt operating licenses a June 30, 1982 deadline for the cc=pletion of the environLuntal qualification of certain safety-related electrical equipment.
Union of Concerned Scientists v.
Nuclear Reculatorv Cc=missicn, et al., 711 F.2d 370 (D.C.
Cir. 1983) (hereinafter "UCS v. NRC").
The Court remanded to the Cec =ission with direction to obtain public cccments on the current documentation justifying the continued cperation of nuclear power plants pending tha completion of the environmental qualification program.
This Statement of Policy is intended to explain the Co= mission's response to the D.C. Circuit's remand and to describe other related actions the NRC will take until the conclusion of the rulemaking proceeding which the Commission intends to initiate by an accompanying Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
1 47 Fed. Reg. 28363 (June 30, 1982).
The deadline had originally been set by Commission Order, CLI-80-21, 11 NRC 707 (1980).
1Dape MONM~
S7pp. PPfl
2 I.
Backcround To provide adequate protection of public health and safety, nuclear power reactors rely in part on engineered safety systems.
The Cc= mission has stated that "fundamenta). to NRC regulation of nuclear power reactors is the principle that safety systems must perform their intended function in spite of the environment which may result from postulated acci-dents.
Ccnfirmation that these systems will remain func-tienal, under postulated accident conditions, constitutes environmental qualification."
CLI-80-21, 11 NRC 707, 710 (1980).
This principle is incorporated in the Cc= mission's existing General Design Criteria One and Four.
10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A.
A June 30, 1982 deadline relating to environmental quali-fication of safety-related electrical equipment in operating nuclear power reactors, and the Commission's lifting of that deadline, came about as follows.
In 1977 the Union of Concerned Scientists ("UCS") filed a petition with the Cc= mission, asking among other things for a shutdown of those operating reactors containing electrical connectors that hed been discovered by Sandia Laboratories not to be environmentally qualified.
The Commission denied that shutdown request.
However, a few plants were shut down for
3 specific qualification deficiencies.
Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI-78-6, 7 NRC 400, 410-415 (1978).
In addition, the Commission directed the staff to retriew and evaluate the environmental qualification of all Class IE electrical equipment.
CLI-78-6, 7 NRC 400 at 415 (1978).
"he NRC staff initiated that review by requesting licensees to determine the adequacy of existing documentation on equipment qualificati.on.
Circular 78-08.
Many licensees failed to devote the level of attention the staff believed was necessary to this issue and requests for licensee action requiring written responses became necessary.
IE Bulletins 79-01 and s9-013 were issued to request the necessary information.
Staff's reviews of licensees' submittals in response to 79-01 and 79-013 led to the discovery of more equipment for which qualification had not been established.
Licensees either did not have the required documentation to demonstrate qualification or did not include the documentation requested in the bulletins.
The documentation that was submitted by the licensees and reviewed by the staff consisted of summary data extracted frem qualification test reports and analyses.
These licensee submittals prompted UCS to petition the Commission to reconsider its previous denial of UCS's request for reactor shutdowns.
4 The Co==ission once again denied UCS's petition, finding that " current Co=nission requirements... and those actions we order today provide reastnable assurance that the public health and safety is being adequately protected during the time necessary for corrective action."
Petition for Emereency and Remedial Action, CLI-80-21, 11 NRC 707, 709 (1980).
Among the actions ordered by the Commission were:
(1) the establishment of more specific environmental qualification criteria; and (2) the establishment of a June 30, 1982 deadline for co=pletion by the licensees of the environmental qualification program.
The deadline was incorporated into the individual licenses for operating plants by separate orders.
The experience cutlined above had shown a generic deadline was necessary to assure a sustained licensee effort to complete the qualification program.
The order establishing the deadline did not specify the enforcement action which would be taxen in the event of non-co=pliance.
11 NRC at 712.
In particular, the Commission made no finding that failure to meet the deadline would result in unsafe conditions requiring a plant shutdown.
Technical judgments regarding the sufficiency of licensee efforts and safety of continued operation were to be made by
5 the staff on a case-by-case basis as the licensees provided further documentation on environmental qualification.
Moreover, the public retained the opportunity pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 to [ challenge any] recuest..'c
[ failure to taNel enforcement action at any particular plant.
Cf. 11 URC at 715. (If an interested persen reviews the staff's written judgment on qualification and desires Co==ission review on that issue, that person may file a petition with the NRC staff pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.202 and 10 C.F.R. 2.206.)
In response to Memorandum and Order CLI-80-21, and I&E Eulletin 79-013, licensees continued to submit infornation on electrical equipment environmental qualification.
In early 1981, the staff issued an Equipment Evaluation Report (EER) to each licensee of 71 operating nuclear power plants.
The EER identified equipment for which the qualification information submitted in response to IE Eulletin 79-013 did not, in the staff's opinion, previde sufficient assurance of capability to perform required design functions in harsh environments.
Under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 50.54 (f),
the staff requested each licensee to review the deficiencies enumerated and the ramifications thereof to determine whether safe operation of the plant would be affected.
Each
6 licensee responded that continued operation would not be unsafe.
In mid-1981, the staff sent a safety evaluation report (SER) to each licensee.
The SER included the EER previously sent to the licensee, an evaluation of the environmental conditions specified by the licensee for environmental qualification purposes, an evaluatien of the completeness of the list of safety-related equipment included in the qualification progran, and the staff's conclusions with regard to compliance with Co==ission Memorandum and Order CLI-80-21.
The SER also directed each licensee either to provide, within 90 days, documentation of the missing qualificatien information needed to demonstrate that the equipment with identified deficiencies was qualified or to commit to a corrective action such as requalification, replacement or relocation.
If the latter option was chosen, the licensee was directed to provide a justification for continued cperation (JCO) until such corrective action could be completed.
All licensees provided responses to the mid-1381 SERs within the 90 days specified.
These responses included additicnal technical information; justifications for continued operation or statements that such justifications were not required because in the licensee's opinion the equipment was cualified.
7 In late 1981, the NRC staff and Franklin Research Center (FRC) began an in-depth reviews of all licensee responses tc the issues raised in the SERs.
This included looking at all of the backgronnd documentation provided by licensees in response to previous Co= mission Orders and SERs.
This review was conducted in parallel with the staff's su= mary reviews for completeness of submittals and was net cc=pleted antil the spring of 1983.
Evaluation of the information supporting licensee's JCOs was reviewed by the staff with the assistance of a consultant, FRC, in January 1982.
The review was conducted over a very short period of time and consisted of checking the licensee 's st ;mittals to determine whether the justification fer continued operation addressed all safety-related equipment which was listed in the plant SER as being of uncertain qualificatien.
Where items of equipment were reported as qualified based on the licensee's reevaluation, ne further justificatien was required at that time.
8 The FRC reviewed the JCOs using NRC-pr'ovided criteria.
The NRC project manager for each facility then reviewed the FRC's assessments of these JCOs.
As a result of these reviews, FRC placed all responses in one of three categories.
Category 1 plants (38) were those which at least asserted that either everything was qualified or provided justification for continued operation in light of the identified deficiencies.
Category 2 plants (15) submitted responses which on their faces were not adequate for some reason.
For example, they may not have addressed one or more pieces of equipment or deficiency identified in the SER.
Category 3 plants (18) were these for which the submittal was co=pletely inadequate.
Staff required all Category 2 and 3 plants to submit further information to respond to the SERs and to provide justifications for 2The criteria are [either):
1.
Redundant equipment is available to
' substitute for the unqualified equipment; or 2.
Another system is capable of providing the required function of the system with umqualified equiprent; cg 3.
Che unqualified equipment will have performed its safety function prior to failure; and 4.
The plant can be safely shutdown in the absence of the unqualified equipment.
9 continued operation.
The level of detail contained in those JCO's ranged frcm snemary assessments in some cases to extensive analyses in others.
The staff reviewed these additional justifications and found them adequate.
By the end of March 1982, then, all plants were in Category 1, pending an in-depth review of the supporting documentation.
All licensees had asserted bases for qualification or justification for continued Operation.
The staff relied crimarilv en the licensees' assurances contained in these submittals in determining not to take immediate further action affecting the operation of the plant.
The volume of the submittals by the licensees showed that the extent of the effort necessary either to establish the qualification of equipment or to replace unqualified equip-ment had been underestimated and that the June 30, 1982 deadline would not be met.
Indeed, a group of NRC licensees petitioned the Cc= mission to extend the June 30, 1982 deadline.
The Commission proposed to extend the deadline in the URC's proposed rule on environmental qualification published for comment on January 20, 1982.
In the rule the Ccmmission proposed to codify the environmentr.1 qualifica-tion requirements set out in the existing order, CLI-80-21.
In addition, the proposed rule (1) requested licensees to submit analyses justifying continued operation pending
10 cc=pletion of~the environmental qualification program, and (2) established new compliance deadlines for completion of environmental qualification.
47 Fed. Reg. 2876, 2877-78, January 20, 1982.
The Commission expected the rulemaking, licensees' analyses, and staff's evaluations to be coupleted well in advance of the June 30, 1982 deadline which was then still in effect.
In late May of 1982 it became clear to the Commission that despite efforts by the staff, the final rule would not be prc=ulgated before the June 30, 1982 deadline.
Accordingly, on June 30, 1982, the Co= mission issued, without notice and cpportunity for cc==ent, an i= mediately effective rule suspending the June 30, 1982 cc=pliance deadline incorper-ated in each operating license (OL) then in force.
The Cc= mission stated that licensees were expected to continue their efforts to meet the envircnmental qualification criteria standards established in CLI-80-21.
In making the rule immediately effective the Cc= mission relied on the " good cause" exception to the rulemaking requirements of section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
In the statement of considerations accompanying that rule, the Cc= mission explained that " licensees should not be placed in jeopardy of enforcement action pending
11 prcmulgation of a revised schedule for implementation of equipment qualification requirements."
47 Fed. Reg. 28363 (June 30, 1982).
The Commission also stated that the staff had receivta and evaluated each operating plant licensee's justification for continued operation.
The statement of considerations added that, from these analyses,3 the Co= mis-sion had determined that continued operation of these plants pending cc=pletion of the equipment qualification program would not present undue risk to the public health and safety.
Id.
Subsequently, the General Counsel interpreted this statement on safety of continued operation in a binding formal inter-pretation of the rule.4 He found that the Commission's statement was an " explanation that before suspending the ccmpliance deadline the Ccemission had reviewed the status of environmental qualification at each plant to determine that there were no widespread substantial qualification deficiencies which might indicate a need for industry-wide 3The analyses accepted by the staff included licensee's assertions that the equipment was qualified, in their opinion.
The revies of the documental supporting these assertions war in the process of being reviewed by FRC at the time the interim rule was promulgated.
12 enforcement action."
He noted that the rule did not pre-clude any interested person from filing a petition under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 by citing specific qualification deficiencies as a basis for challenging the continued operation of a particular plant.
As a result of the Commission's lifting of the June 30, 1982 deadline, the staff conducted another brief review in late 1982, of the evaluations of the licensees' JCOs for the 33 planus for which additional information had previously been supplied to support the JCO review perforned in early 1982.
These reviews were performed to determine whether the JCOs remained adequate, given the anticipated adoption of the new deadlinc for qualifying electrical equipment.
Staff reaf-firmed that the JCOs remained adequate.
By April 1983, the staff and FRC completed their in-depth reviews begun in late 1981 on the licensees' responses to issues raised in the mid-1981 staff SERs for 71 operating reactors.
These reviews consisted of an audit of equipment qualification data that the licensees had submitted throughout the course of these reviews.
Based on NRC's analyses, the staff issued a second round of safety evaluation reports for each of the 71 operating plants.
These SERs adopted the FRC's conclusiens.
13 The SERs identified some deficiencies in licensees' submittals.
As a result, staff issued transmittal and clarification letters which set forth deadlines for the licensees to provide the requested equipment environmental qualification information.
For items found unqualified, the staff requested JCOs within 10 days of receipt of the SER.
The additional information submitted by the affected licensees was reviewed by the staff and the issues resolved en the bases of the licensees' (1) replacement of equipment, (2) provisien of more information showing that equipment was qualified, er (3) provision of a JCO which satisfied the previously established criteria.
None of the items addressed in this round of review had been identified during the January 1982 assessment of the JCOs submitted by the licensees, because the initial reviews were based en scemary data, extracted from test reports and analyses, submitted in response to IE Eulletin 79-013, and en assertions made by the licensees that equipment was qualified.
The major difference between the staff' r previous findings and the current findings is that the technical bases for the staff's conclusions that certain qualification deficiencies exist have been specified in more fetai3 as a result of FRC's completion of its review of the
14 documentation submitted by licensees to suppert qualifica-tion of the equipment.
An initial examinatien of the licensees ' responses to the second round staff SERs indicates that in a number of instances licensees maintain the position taken in response to the mid-1981 staff SER, i.e., that much of the equipment challenged by the 1982-1983 second round SERs is in fact adequate to perform all required design functions and therefore justification for continued operation is not needed.
In scme instances there are new or additional test data, and some previously challenged equipment has been shown to be qualified.
Finally, staff has found that some aspects of the licensees' responses raise technical issues requiring further analysis for their resolution, such as'.
sinilarity, qualified life, and test sequences.
On January 6, 1982 the Commission promulgated a Final Rule en Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment
!=portant to Safety.
That rule established general qualification criteria and new deadlines for compliance by 1985 fes most plants.
15 II.
The D.C. Circuit Decision On June 30, 1983 the D.C. Circuit vacated the Commission's decision in promulgating the June 30, 1982 interim rule for failure to provide an opportunity to ec= ment on "the suffi-ciency of current dccumentation purporting to justify continued operatica pending ccmpletion of environmental qualification of safety-related equipment."5 The Court also stated that the final rule appears to be partially predi-cated on the Cc= mission's conclusion that the safety of continued operation had been demonstrated by this documenta-tion.6 The Court did not criticize the substance of the Cc-ission's deterni. nation, noting that "the NRC maintains constant vigilance over the safety of nuclear power plants and monitors ecmpliance with safety requirements at each nuclear reacter en a day-to-day basis."
5 Slip op. at 27-28.
6
_I_d.
at 376.
7_Id. at 383.
16 III. The Current Situation a.
Staff Actions The staff is currently irplementing a program to complete the review of licensees' electrical equipment environmental qualification programs.
This effort includes a cne day meeting with each licensee of the 71 plants reviewed previ-ously by the staff with the assistance of FRC.
Discussicn during each meeting includes the licensee's proposed /imple-mented method of resolution of the environmental qualifica-tion deficiencies identified in the 1982-1983 SER, cc=pliance with the requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R. 50.49 (EQ Rule), and justification for continued operation given those equipment items for which environmental qualification is not yet complete.
Each licensee is required to document the results of the meeting'in a subsequent submittal to the staff.
Based on this submittal the staff vill prepare and issue a final SER for each of the 71 plants that addresses the environmental qualification of electric equipment important to safety.
This effort is scheduled to be completed during 1984.
17 b.
Concerns Raised Bv Sandia National Laboratories Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia), an NRC contractor, has recently expressed some concerns to the Co= mission recarding environmental qualification of electrical equip-ment.
At a Cc==ission meeting on January 6, 1984 Sandia representatives identified what they perceived as shortcomings in qualification methodologies and design bases (acceptance criteria), and the presence of inadequate equipment in plants.
The staff prepared responses to the Sandia presentation and subsequently met with Sandia to assure that the concerns had been interpreted and are being adequately addressed.
Subsequent to this meeting, Sandia informed the staff that all concerns raised by Sandia regarding environmental qualificatien of electrical equipment, as defined by 10 C.F.R. 50.49, "have been addressed" in the staff responses.
ExEmples of staff's responses are discussed below.
Shortconings in qualification methodologies are the subject of continuing research, and Sandia research tests have not demonstrated that nuclear plant safety equipment, properly qualified to existing qualification standards and NRC regulatory requirements, would not perform itJ safety functions.
With regard to shortcomings in design bases
18 (acceptance criteria), the staff is aware of the concerns expressed by Sandia and is addressing them in its reviews of licensee's equipment environmental qualification programs.
For example, Sandia believes that there may be shortccmings in the insulation resistance and leakage current values used as acceptance criteria for terminal blocks.
Staff reviews these values when evaluating the environmental qualification of terminal blocks and requires that licensees either justify the values chosen for each particular use er provide justifications for centinued operation with current values er change the values by using different terminal blocks.
The staff is else aware of Sandia's concern that some unqualified equipment remains in nuclear plants.
These concerns are also being addressed by the staff in its review process, and are being reselved en a case-by-case basis.
For exa=ple, Sandia reported that pressure switches failed when expcsed to a high-pressure and stern-flash spray envircnment.
Staff noted that no claims have been made mat these switches are qualified for such an environment.
These switches are not to be used in applications where they would experience such conditions.
Staff takes into account such considerations when evaluating licensees' and applicants' qualificatien programs.
In addition, an I&E information nctice has been issued to licensees describing the results
19 of the Sandia test of these switches, and stating the staff's position that such switches are not to be used where they would experience such environmental conditions.
A number of IE Information Notices have identified specific concerns with qualification of some camponents.
All equip-ment which has not been shown to be qualified must either be demonstrated to be qualified, be replaced or relocated, or a justification for centinued operation provided.
Therefore, while Sandia identified potential generic issues with some equipment components, the staff has cencluded that none of the issues identified would warrant generic safety-related enforcement action at this time.
c.
Sandia Annual Report Sandia recently issued its Fiscal Year 1983 annual report on the Envirennental Qualification Inspection Program of organications involved in equipment qualification efforts.
The report provides examples of qualification problems to highlight issues raised during those inspections for which Sandia provided technical consultant support to the staff.
The Sandia cencerns discussed during the Commission Meeting of January 6, 1984 were derived in part f cm the inspection results described in this annual report.
The report
20 illustrates so=e industry practices that cculd be improved and identifies areas where additional NRC guidance may be useful.
The staff discussed the contents of this report with Sandia, and has concluded, th at the report does not suggest thar generic safety relared enforcement action is necessary as a result of Sandia's concerns.
Where inspections or reports received by the staff have indicated reasons to questien qualification of equipment, the staff has required licensees to take actions including the replacement of equipment or provision of justifications for continued operation.
d.
UCS Petition On February 7, 1984, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) petitioned the Cc= mission to take certain actions regarding scme recent developments in the environmental qualification of electrical equipment.
These developments were: (1) re-cent notices from the Ccmmission's Office s1 Inspection and Enforcement to utility licensees and Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards reporting deficiencies in the environmental qualification of a few components ccmmonly used in licensed facilities; (2) a report by the Sandia National Laboratory (Sandia) questioning the validity of certain environmental qualification tests; and (3) recent comments by Sandia to 4
4
21
~
the Consissicn. regarding dandia 's coordi_ '. tion with the NRC staff on research on environmental qualification.
In UCS's view, these develcpmerts f'.dicate that the NRC staff has failed to handle properly the Cc= mission's en*:ironmental qualification program.
Accordingly, UCS has requested the ccmmis;;on to review the staff's conduct of the environmental qualificauion program and to direct the staff to eddress the matters identified by the UCS.
Specifically, UCS has requested that the Ccmmission, among other things, direct staff to: (1) obtain and evaluate justifications for continued aparation for plants using the deficient componenta reported by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement; (2) review the generic implications of Sandia's concerns about tests of environmental qualification; and (3) direct the staff to require utilities to justify continued operatior p omptly after receiving notices of environmental deficiencies.
UCS has also requested Commission to direct holders of construction permits to cease construction involving deficient cc=ponents until these components are qualified and to direct Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards not to authorize issuance of operating licenses until deficient ecmponents have been qualified or replaced.
22 "The Cccmissier is currently considering UCS's Petition in light of this Policy Statement and accompanying Nocice of Proposed Rulemaking."
IV.
Current Ccmmission Policv As indicated above, over the past several years power reactor licensees have devoted extensive efforts to comply with the Cc= mission's environmental qualification requirements.
Progress on licensee compliance has been monitored by the NRC, and N;C's own review efforts have been extensive.
There have been two rounds of progressively more detailed safety evaluations for all operating reactors and additional reviews of the various rounds of JCOs.
The environmental qualification of electrical equipmen:
throughout a nuclear power plant to standards higher than those existing at the time the plant was licensed has proved ro be a complex and difficult task.
Thousands of individual pieces of equipment must be identified; qualification data for this equipment must be examined and compared to appli-cable standards; test programs must be carried out where data is lacking; and equipment must be replaced if neces-sary.
In many cases equipment can be replaced only when the plant is shut down.
During such downtima licensees have
23 many tasks to accomplish in addition to' equipment qualification efforts.
Delays may also result from the unavailability of qualified equipment and difficulties in testing existing equipment.
The performance of industry in the area of environmental qualification has improved with time.
The environmental qualification problem at individual plants is too varied to warrant generic safety-related enforcement action.
Instead it hat been and continues to be the Cc=missien's policy to monitor closely each licensee's progress en environmental qualification and to take enforcement action for safety reasons on a case-by-case basis.
To this end, the staff intends to follow the guide-lines described below in conducting its individual reviews.
(1)
Evidence of environmental qualification deficiencies which would prevent a plant frcm going to and maintaining a safe shut down condition in the event of a design basis accident will be the basis for enforcement action.
Enforcement action vill generally not be taken where a licensee has asserted that operation will not involve undue risk, unless the staff has determined that continued operaticn cannet be justified.
The Cc=nission recognizes that this policy will permit power plants to continue to
24 operate where lictasees' assertions of qualification are still undergoing staff review.
The Commission believes that this course of action is required unless the staff concludes that the justification for continued operation (JCO) reveals a deficiency requiring shutdown.
There are persuasive technical and policy reasons why licensees' assertions and analyses may be relied en pending independent NRC staff review.
The Cc= mission notes that licensees received their operating licenses after extensive staff reviews including, in many cases, adjudicatory hearings.
These proceedings include a determination that the licensee is technically capable of operating the plant safely.
The mere existence of a safety uncertainty that needs to be evaluated does not, in the Commission's view, provide a basis for shutdown or similar enforcement action.
It is the purpcse of the case specific NRC staff reviews to determine whether, in any given case, sufficient evidence exists that would support enforcement action.
In addition to confirmation cf significant safety deficiencies, a persistent refusal by a licensee to cooperate adequately with the Commission's environmental qualification program would be a basis for enforcement action.
But the Cc= mission's experience with the ongoing review of licensee progress on environmental qualification, as described above,
~
25
~
has not suggested any general refusal on the part of licensees to make reasonable efforts.
Thus the vene 30, 1982 deadline has served its intended purpose to assure reasonable licensee efforts and therefore need not be enforced.
The June 30, 1982 deadline was not a generic cut-off date for operation.
Rather, the June 30, 1982 deadline was established to force licensee completion of the environmental qualification program in a reasonable time.
Since the deadline itself has proved unrealistic, and since licensees are making reasonable efforts to achieve environmental qualification, the Commission has concluded that retention of the June 30, 1982 deadline is neither necessary ner desirable as a general matter.
The safety of operation of plants continues to be reviewed on an individual basis.
The Cc= mission's authority to take individual enforcement action for safety reasons, including shutdowns, is not dependent on the presence in individual licenses of a requirement for environmental qualification by a certain date.
(2)
In the interim, if any person believes that there is infonnation indicating that specific qualification defi-ciencies or other reascns related to environmental quali-fication require enforcement action at a particular plant, such information thould be presented to the Director, NRR
26 pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206.
Within 45 days of the close of tne ccament period in the rulemaking initiated today by cc=panion notice, the Director, N9R will report to the Ccemission on any generic issues raised by any co=ments on plant specific qualificatien issues.
The Cc=missien's final rule is still in effect.
That rule established new ccmpliance deadlines which have not yet passed.
It was the Commission's intention that the ccmpliance schedule in the final rule should supersede previous deadlines.
Secause *le Court's decision in UCS v.
NRC may have created uncertainty regarding the current status of the June 30, 1982 compliance deadline in each facility operating license, the Commission.will conduct a notice and comment : ulemaking proceeding to delete formally
'lat deadline from all licenses.
Dated at Washington, DC, this 1st day of March,1984.
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
Oi. E C_
~
SAMUEL J ?CHILK Secretary of the Commission
\\\\%
Y l' a,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment:
Removal of June 30, 1982 Deadline AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
SUMMARY
In response to a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Commission is seeking public comment on a proposed rule deleting from power plant operating licenses a June 30, 1982 deadline for environmental qualification of electric equipment imposed by previous Commission order.
DATE:
The cot.1 ment period expires May 1,1984.
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of censideration can only be given for comments received before this date.
ADDRESSES:
Mail comments to: Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Deliver comments to: Room 1121, 1717 H 5treet, N.W., Washington, D.C., between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Examine copies of comments received at: The MRC Public Document Rocm, 1717 H 5treet, N.W., Washington, D.C.
2
[7590-01]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William M. Shields, Office of the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornission, Washington, D.C. 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-8693.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFOPJ'.ATION:
Tnis rulemaking proceeding responds to a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Celumbia Circuit vacating and remanding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ("NRC" or " Commission") final rule of June 30, 1982.
UCS
- v. NRC, No. 82-2000 (decided June 30,1983).
That rule had suspended immediately the June 30, 1982 deadline by which operating nuclear power plants were to complete the environmental qualification of certain safety-related electrical equipment, i.e., were to show that the equip-ment would perfom its function after exposure to the environmental conditions associated with an accident. The D.C. Circuit held that the Corrission coccitted procedural error in promulgating the rule without notice and opportunity for comment.* The circumstances leading to the Ccur+ M decision and the detailed background information related to the rulemaking are described in a Coccission policy statement also published today.
The Court remanded the rule to the Commission to obtain comments on "the sufficiency of current documentation purporting to justify
- The Cc= mission had made the suspension of the June 30, 1982 deadline immeciately effective in order to avoid the technical non-compliance with license conditions which would otherwise occur when the desdline had passed.
See 47 Fed. M. 28363 (June 30, 1962).
3
[7590-01]
continued operation pending completion of environmental qualification of safety-related equipment." The Court also recognized that the Commis-sion has received and evaluated substantially more information since June 30, 1982 and, therefore, ordered that all parties be given an cpportunity to supplement the record with relevant data.
The Court's decision leaves unclear the status of the deadline which the Cornission had intended to eliminate by the June 30, 1982 rule, now vacated.
Although the Cornission's presently effective rule of January 7,1983 was meant to supersede the earlier deadline with a new cc=pliance schedule, the Court's decision might be read as restoring the June 30, 1982 deadline to effect. To remove all ambiguity from the situation, the Conrnission proposes again to delete by rule the June 30, 1982 deadline from operating licenses, this time with prior not9 _nd opportunity for coment. As part of this rulemaking, the Corniss.cn, in accordance with the D.C. Circuit's remand, will accept concents on the sufficiency of current documentation to justify the continued operation of nuclear power plants pending completion of the environmental qualification program.
Because the Comission's authority to take enforcement action against licensees for safety reasons, as distinct from penalizing delay, in no way depended on the presence of the deadline in individual licenses, a decision to remove the deadline does not of itself involve any potential impact on the safety of individual plants.
The June 30, 1952 deadline was imposed to assure that licensees would achieve environmental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment
4
[7590-01]
without unnecessary delay and to provide a gauge to determine whether individual licensees were devoting sufficient efforts to resolve the problem.
The deadline was not derived from a safety analysis and was never intended to be considered as a point in time prior to which continued reactor operation would be deemed safe and aP.er which such operation would become unduly hazardous.
The safety of individual plants remained at all times a matter for review by the NRC technical staff, under the Comission's supervision, and the continued operation cf each plant depended upon, and still depends upon, individual deter-minations rather than on whether or not a compliance deadline has passed.
The Comission requests coments on the following issue: Whether the deadline of June 30, 1982 shall be deleted from every operating license in which it appears, leaving the compliance schedule for completing the environmental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment set by 10 C.F.R. 50.49.
The Comission has brcught up to date the record supporting the proposal by placing in its Public Document Room plant-by-plant compilations of the relevant environmental cualification documentation in support of justification for continued coeration for operating nuclear power plants.
This mateiial is available for public inspection and copying at a fee.
Cor cents should focus on the issue central to this rulemaking, which is the proposed deletion of the deadline.
As a generic matter, the Comission does not believe that licensee failures to meet the deadline v!ere the result of insufficient effort or other causes within
5
[7590-01]
the licensees' control.
The Commission notes that a comment which primarily challenges the safety of continued operation at a particular plant or at a few particular plants is not therefore by itself relevant to this generic rulemaking, which is concerned with an industry-wide deadline set for purposes not directly related to safety.
Such comments should be presented to the Commission in a petition for individual enforcement action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206.
It is possible, however, that a number of comments, each raising issues about particular plants, would in the aggregate have a bearing on the Commission's proposal to eliminate the June 30, 1982 deadline.
For this reason, and in order to assure compliance with the D.C. Circuit's decision, the Commission as part of this rulemaking will accept and respond to comments which deal primarily with deficiencies at particular plants, but consideration will follow the lines of the Commission's usual procedures far answering requests for enforcement action against individual licensees.
See 10 C.F.R. 2.206.
In particular, comments which raise a substantial question whether one or more particular plants should be shut down or subject to other enforcement action for reasons related to environmental qualification will be referred to the Director, Cffice of fluclear Reactor Regulation.
To preclude a further drawing out of this proceeding, the Commission will request the Director to prepare preliminary responses to any such comments within forty-five days of the close of the comment period, setting out the Director's preliminary judgment whether enforcement action is or is not appropriate at the par ticular plants and whether ia his view the comments demonstrate
6
[7590-01]
inattention or lack of effort on the part of licensees.
In deciding whether to make final the proposed elimination of the June 30, 1982 deadline, the Commission will consider the generic implications of the Director's preliminary judgments.
All comments and relevant data submitted in timely response to this notice shall be placed in the Commission's Public Document Room where they will be available for examination.
Copying will be permitted for a fee.
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT CERTIFICATION In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission hereby certifies that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The rule affects only licensees of nuclear power plants.
These companies do not fall within the scope of "small entities" as set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the small business size standards set forth in the regulations of the Small Eusiness Administration, 10 CFR Part 121.
PAPER REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT This procosed rule contains no information collecticn requirements sub,iect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 350~1 et seg.
~
7
[7590-01]
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The promulgation of this proposed rule would not result in any activity significantly affecting the environment.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that under the National Environmental Policy Act, and the criteria of 10 CFR Part 51, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental impact appraisal to support a negative declaration for the proposed rule is required.
LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PART 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Fire protection, Intergovernmental regulations, Incorporation by reference, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting recuirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, notice is hereby given that adoption of the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 50 is contemplated.
PART 50-00MESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1.
The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:
Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 189, 68 Stat. c36, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2223, 2233, 2236, 2239, 22E2); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846), unless otherwise noted.
8
[7590-01]
(Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601), sec.10, 92 Stat.
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851)).
Section 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).
Sections 50.78 also issued under sec.122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C.
2152). Section 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat.
954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Sections 50.100-50.102 also issued under sec.186, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236).
For the purprses of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 059, as anended (42 U.S.C.
2273), 55 5).10(a), (b), and (c), 50.44, 50.46, 50.48, 50.54, and 50.58(a) are issued under sec. 161b, 58 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 220a(b)); is 50.10(b) and (c) and 50.54 are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and s? 50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.70, 50.71, 50.72, and 50.78 are issued under sec. 1610, 58 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2202(o)).
2.
10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.49, paragraph (g) is revised by the addition of the following sentence:
s
9
[7590-01]
The schedule in this paragraph supersedes the June 30, 1952 deadline for ervironmental qualification of electric equipment contained in certain nuclear power operating licenses.
Fo the Nuclear Regulatory Comission f
...h Y hG UR
/
SAMUEL J. PflLK Secretary of the Comission Dated this 1st. day of March,1984, at Washingten, D.C.