ML20029C622
| ML20029C622 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/13/1994 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-94-057A, SECY-94-57A, NUDOCS 9404200036 | |
| Download: ML20029C622 (3) | |
Text
l s
.....e..................
i RELEASED TO THE PDR
- """5 4/g/94 ct
!(%}r2 em ies
};
- \\
f*g; onee.ooesaeaseeeeeee.ase o,, o 4
k Q
+4***
POLICY ISSUE April 13, 1994
[jgfgpggtjgg)
SECY-94-057A FOR:
The Commissioners fR@d:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
REVISED APPROACH FOR FUEL CYCLE FACILITY REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES PURPOSE:
To inform the Commission that, in addition to the information contained in SECY-94-057, " Status of Action Plan for Regulating Fuel Cycle Facilities,"
dated March 9, 1994, a revised approach has been developed for modifying 10 CFR Part 70, its associated Standard Format and Content Guide and the Standard Review Plan for fuel cycle facilities.
SUMMARY
10 CFR Part 70 has been modified so many times since its initial issuance in the 1960s, that it is no longer utilitarian.
Rather than exacerbate this situation by adding yet another patch to these regulati6ns, staff has proposed to revise and reorder Part 70 as a whole. Although this approach will clarify the contents of the regulations for both licensees and regulators, it will require an extension of the schedule for rule development.
BACKGROUND:
SECY 94-057 detailed the status of implementing the action plan for regulating fuel cycle facilities. One of the major elements of the actiin plan is to establish a firm regulatory base by upgrading the existing Part 70 to address fuel cycle facility regulatory program weaknesses identified in NUREG-1324,
" Proposed Method for Regulating Major Materials Licensees," dated February 1992.
NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AT COMMISSION MEETING ON
Contact:
APRIL 25, 1994 W. Brown, NMSS 504-2654 DL40DDkb pFo?
Oz o06L on
I The Commissioners 2
Concurrent with the time that SECY 94-057 was being forwarded to the Coraission, the Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards was reviewing the latest version of a proposed modification package for Part 70.
When reviewing existing Part 70 requirements to determine how to appropriately integrate the new modifications, the overall inconsistency in existing requirements, the lack of coherency throughout the part, the dated content of certain sections, and the lack of viability in the approach being proposed (i.e., placing one more patch on an incoherent, clearly outdated regulation), became obvious and merited correction.
DISCVSSION:
Part 70 has evolved over the years by prescribing a set of narrow requirements to address each new need or problem as it arose.
It has been repeatedly amended and patched since the late 1960s. As a result, its present form contains redundant, sometimes inconsistent, requirements presented in an illogical and disjointed format, which is onerous and ineffective for regulatory purposes.
Existing Part 70 requirements are not comprehensive in coverage and lack consistency in content and level of detail throughout the part.
In particular, the current regulations are very prescriptive in some areas, generally are not graded according to resultant safety risk, and are very compartmentalized.
The approach initially taken by the staff, in response to the Commission's direction to strengthen the regulatory base, would have patched Part 70 one more time.
However, after due reflection, staff, instead, is recommending that Part 70 be completely rewritten.
Given favorable consideration, and unless otherwise directed by the Commission, formal rulemaking will proceed in the form of a proposed new Part 70. The effort, already underway, would develop a new Part 70 that takes a performance-oriented, systems approach to regulation, with requirements graded according to risk, rather than the narrowly prescriptive, compartmentalized approach that comprises the current requirements.
IMPACT ON SCHEDULE:
The complete rewrite of Part 70, together with the parallel development of the Standard Review Plan and the revision to the Standard Format and Content Guide, are interdependent and must be closely coordinated within the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, with other offices and the regions, and with several contractors.
This action will require an additional six months to that scheduled for the " patched" revision to Part 70 proposed by the staff in SECY 94-057. The new schedule would have the proposed rule to the Commission in January 1995.
l
o
.. p The conmissioners 3
000RDJf1AT10ti:
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has~ no legal objection.
/
,es F. T lor ecutive irector for Operations DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA OCA OPP REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ACNW SECY 1
_.