ML20029C491
| ML20029C491 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/12/1990 |
| From: | Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028G725 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9203250149 | |
| Download: ML20029C491 (2) | |
Text
-
N_0 T A T 1 0 N VOTE RESPONSE SHEET T0:
sat 1UEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE C0f41ISSION l
FROM:
C0f41ISSIONER ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
SECY-90-021 - REPORT ON LICENSE RENEWAL WORKSHOP AND PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE PROGRAM PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOR RULEMAKING
(
APPROVED x w/commenttDISAPPROVED ABSTAIN
)
NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION l
C0f41ENTS:
seeattached.h 1
I k
i
~
IGNA-URE RELEASE VOTE
/
/
Q
[@ f WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
ENTERED _QN
.C YES NO kl031 4--X/i
+
.=.
]
'an:n e TotF koBERTO' FOMMENTs nil SECY-40-21 L approve the utaff's program plan and schedule subject to the tallowing ccaments:
o Current Licensing Basis (CLB) - I believe that the licensing renewal proceeding should deal only with those issues necessary to make a determination that a facility can
.)
continue to be operated safely for the term of the renewed license.
As part of an application, we should not require more information than is needed to make this determination.
h'e shculd know the current licensing basis.for each fccility
[
and it should be carried forward to the renewal license by reference or license condition.
To require a description of the CLB in the application, not only raises questions as to the purpose of the requirement, but raises a concern about whether we can limit litigation of the adequacy of the current licensing basis.
Unless staff can provide further Justification as to the need for this information as part of the license renewal process, staff should delete this requirement.
o Backfit - I agree that the backfit rule need not apply to l
the promulgation of a license renewal rule.
I alst agree that the backfit rule should apply after the issuance of a renewal license.
Ho"'.ve r, I am not persuaded that the backfit rule should not apply during the review of individual license renewals.
One of the hallmarks of the backfit rule is that it puts in place a disciplined process for analyses of changes in regulatory requirements to determine the safety significance of any proposed changes prior to implementation.
After the license renewal rule is issued, application of the backfit rule would provide such a process during the individual license renewal reviews.
Theretcre, staff should incorporate language into the proposed license renewal rule to invoke the backfit rule during the license renewal process.
If staff continues to believe that the backfit rule should not apply during the renewal process, it should provide further justification.to support its pcsition, including a clear discussion of why the negatives outweigh the benefits of using the disciplined approacn of the backfit rule.
I i
t NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET 1990 JM118 0 8 26 T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:
C0ft4ISSIONER REMICK
SUBJECT:
SECY-90-021 - REPORT ON LICENSE RENEWAL WORKSHOP AND PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE PROGRAM PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOR RULEMAKING M
APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION C0ff4ENTS:
54 a y c;/v ) ce ^'"
i MIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
/X/
/r R/ 70 DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
ENTERED ON "AS" YES NO nom me -o-
COMMISSIONER REMICK'S COMMENTS ON SECY-90-21 I approve the staff's recommendations on the proposed revisions to the program plan and schedule for the licensing renewal rulemaking activities.
I place great importance on this program and strongly stress the need for adequate resource allocation, high caliber technical reviews, and timely resolution of the technical issues.
I request that the staff periodically monitor the resource requirements'for this program and within the Five Year Plan clearly identify this program, the resources required to develop and implement this program, and the coordination and review responsibilities-between-NRR and RES.
In regard to the role of the Backfit nule, the staff indicated in the SECY paper that they do not believe a backfit provision is-necessary for application to the license renewal process to control reconsideration of the adequacy of the current licensing basis.
While it may not have been the original consideration in developing the language of the backfit rule, the.backfit rule provides at 10 CFR 50.109 (a) (1) (ii) that it applies to backfits imposed by the staff "Six months before the date of docketing of the. operating license application for ' facilities having construction permits issued before October 21, 1985."
I read this to mean, since virtually all renewal applications.will involve plouts; chat received construction permits prior to 1985, that a request for a renewed license, which is undeniably a request for an operating license, would be included within the backfit procedures.
This is-not to say that the staff must or should perform backfit analyses for the changes necessary to bring the licensee into compliance with the license renewal rule.
Changes to bring about compliance are exempt from that requirement under the backfit rule.
- But, during the course of review of the license renewal application, if the staff should determine that changes need to-be made unrelated to compliance with the license renewal rule, a backfit analysis should be required.
I would appreciate OGC's views on whether this interpretation of the backfit rule is reasonable.
The ACRS should provide its advice on staff's efforts to develop the License Renewal Rule, the staff's conclusions on industry's technical reports, and the requirements for complying with this rule.
In regard to the Current Licensing Basis Document, I reserve judgement.
I will await staff's response to the January 30, 1990, meeting SRM on this subject.
The SRM requested the staff to provide a discussion on the need for requiring applicants to submit their current licensing basis document as part of their license renewal submittal, in contrast to handling this as an independent matter.