ML20029E168
| ML20029E168 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/29/1989 |
| From: | Jordan E NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| To: | Heltemes C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028G707 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9405170139 | |
| Download: ML20029E168 (6) | |
Text
_
ga a'cw,h, y,_
UNITED STATES y')w g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/63,
.l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 3, -
4
@jh23.A MEMORANDUM FOR:
C. J. Heltemes, Jr., Director, CRGR Staff FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
SUBJECT:
FOR CRGR REVIEW 0F NtENDMENTS TO 10 CFR 21 AND SECTION 50.55(e)
Proposed amendments to 10 CFR 21 and 550.55(E) were previously reviewed by the Ccmmittee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) in late 1987.
Subsequently, the proposed rule was issued for public comment.
The comments were received and resolutions of the comments have been incorporated into the final draft rule.
The draft final amendments enclosed here incorporate major office and regional Office concurrence has been received from all appropriate offices comments.
with the exception of the Office of the General Counsel (0GC).
Efforts to obtain concurrence from OGC will be on-going during the week of June 26 through July 3,1989.
Formal concurrence is expected before the CRGR I
meeting.
It is requested that CRGR review the amendments to these two regulations.
Other than the four areas discussed below, no substantial changes have been made to the proposed rule which was published for public comment.
The four substantive changes made to the rule are:
The implied 30-day time limit for evaluation discussed in the Supplement-ary Information as a reasonable evaluation time has been extended to 60 day s. At one time during the development of the proposed regulations, this time limit was included in the regulations. However, prior to publication for public comment, the Commission directed that the time limit be removed. The 30-day limit discussed as reasonable in the Supplementary Information has been increased to 60 days.
In addition, procedures would be required to contain target or nominal time limits for eva lua t ions.-
The proposed time requirement for retention of records of purchasers of basic components by vendors of these basic components has been reduced to 10 years rather than the lifetime requirement which appeared in the proposed rule published for comment.
Contact:
W. R. Jones, AEOD, x24442 1
I i
l 9405170139 890818 PDR REVGP NRCCRGR NEETING165 PDR
\\
]
o
. Addition of analysis, quality assurance, training, maintenance, and replacement parts to the definition of basic component in the proposed rule published for public comment was the subject of substantial industry comment. The staff proposes to retain these aspects of the definition of basic component in the final rule. This issue is discussed on pages 8 and 9 as issue 3 in Enclosure A to the Draft Commission Paper.
Discussion of fire protection and security systems in the Supplementary Information for the final draft rule is still being resolved with the Office of the General Counsel (0GC).
References to these systems within the review package enclosed have been annotated to indicate that the issue still is being resolved.
These final draft amendments are category 2 as specified in the CRGR charter.
Enclosed are the following items for committee review:
- Responses to CRGR Section IV B charter items.
- Draft Commission Paper documenting the proposed changes;
- Draft Federal Register Notice, Enclosure B to the Commission Paper (Supplementary Information and Regulations); and
- Regulatory Analysis, Enclosure C to the Commission Paper, ward L.
ordan, Director Office f Analysis and Evaluation of Ope ational Data i
l l
CRGR Charter IV. B. Items (i)
The proposed generic requirement or staff position as it is proposed to be sent out to licensees:
The proposed amendments to 10 CFR 21 and 550.55(e) and associated Supplementary Information to be published in the Federal Register are found in Enclosure B to the Commission Paper enclosed.
Additional information is supplied in the Commission Paper itself in which Enclosure A provides public comments and their resolution and the Regulatory Analysis, which is Enclosure C to the Commission Paper.
( ii)
Draft staff papers or other underlying staff documents supporting the requirements or staff positions.
The review package previded contains the following material:
Commission Paper describing the changes to be made.
Enclosure A to the Commission Paper address the public comments and their resolution; Enclosure B to the Commission Paper Provides the Draf t Federal Register Notice which includes the proposed amendments; and Enclosure C to the Commission Paper is the Regulatory Analysis.
(iii) Each proposed requirement or staff position shall contain the sponsoring office's position as to whether the proposal would increase requirements or staff positions, implement existing requirements or staff positions or would relax or reduce existing requirements or staff positions.
The amendments to 10 CFR 21 and 650.55(e) implement existing requirements for reporting of defects and non-compliances and implement Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5846).
Section 206 requires directors and responsible officers of firms constructing, owning, operating, or supplying the components of any facility or activity licensed under the Atomic Energy Act to report to the Commission the discovery of " defects" in " basic components" that could create a " substantial safety hazard." The purpose of Section 206 is to assure that the Commission has prompt information concerning safety. defects.
As discussed in the review package, the amendments would require licensees and non-licensees under the scope of the regulations to change procedures for i
reporting defects and non-compliances and for retaining records under 10 CFR 21 i
and 550.55(e).
In addition, training regarding the new regulations and uses of I
'l l
the associated new procedures would be required. No new requirements beyond those reporting and records retention requirements and associated training are being imposed by the amendments.
(iv) The proposed method of implementation along with the concurrence and any comments of OGC on the method proposed.
The method of implementation is amendment of 10 CFR 21 and 55055(e).
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed the draft materials during the office concurrence process.
Their comments are included in the review package enclosed. Resolution of issues and final 0GC concurrence is proceeding in parallel with staff CRGR review.
(v)
Regulatory analyses generally conforming to the directives and guidance of fWREG/BR-0058 and NUREG/CR-3568.
The Regulatory Analysis is provided as Enclosure C to the Commission Paper.
(vi)
Identification of the category of reactor plants to which the generic requirement or staff position is to apply.
The regulations apply to all types and ages of operating ruclear power plants licensed to operate under Part 50 or issued a construction permit under $50.23.
The review package provides details of the differences between applicability of t
the two regulations [10 CFR 21 versus 550.55(e)].
(vii) For each category of reactor plant, provide an evaluation which demonstrates how the action should be prioritized and scheduled in light of other on-going regulatory activities. The evaluation shall document for consideration information available concerning any of the following factors as may be appropriate and any 'other information available concerning any of the following factors as may be appropriate and any other information relevant and material to the proposed action:
(a)
Statement of'the specific objectives that the proposed action is designed to achieve:
The objectives of this proposed action are listed on pages 2 and 3 of the Commission Paper in the review package.
The final draf t amendments codify the -
regulations regarding reporting of safety defects.
(b)
General description of the activity that would be required by the licensee or applicant in order to complete the action:
No new reporting requirements are being imposed. As discussed in the Regulatory Analysis, licensees and applicants would be required to modify existing procedures for reporting of defects and non-compliances and records retention regarding safety defects. Training in the use of the new procedures would have to be performed.
i (c)
The potential change in risk the the public from the accidental off-site release of radioactive material j
As discussed in the Regulatory Analysis in the review package, the proposed 1
amendments strengthen already existing benefits which have resulted in improved nuclear plant safety.
However, the potential impact of the amendments to these regulations on the radiation exposure due to off-site releases is not significant.
i (d)
Potential impact on radiological exposure of facility employees and other on-site workers The potential impact of the amendments to these regulations on the radiation exposure of on-site personnel is not significant.
(e)
Installation and continuing costs associated with the action, including the cost of facility downtime or the cost of construction delay Assessment of costs and savings are provided in the Regulatory Analysis, Enclosure C to the Commission Paper.
It is estimated that annual savings due to the proposed amendments will be approximately $890,000. The Regulatory Analysis also discusses the one time cost of procedural changes and associated training.
(f)
The potential safety impact of changes in plant or operational complexity, including the relationship to proposed and existing regulatory requirements and staff positions The amendments will produce no change in plant or operational complexity. The I
proposed amendments will strengthen the current regulations which have resulted in increased plant safety through notification of safety significant defect and subsequent regulatory action to improve safety.
(g)
The estimated resource burden on the NRC associated with the proposed action and the availability of such resources The amendments are expected to reduce NRC resources but, as discussed in the Regulatory Analysis, the decrease is not expected to be significant.
(h)
The potential impact of differences in facility type, design, or age on the relevancy and practicality of the proposed action Differences in facility type, design, or age have no impact on the relevancy and practicality of the amendments -.
_ _. ~. _.
(i)
Whether the proposed action is interim or final...
'The action is final.
No interim measures are planned.
(viii)
For each evaluation conducted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109, the proposing office director's determination, together with the rationale for the determination based on considerations of paragraphs (i) through (vii) above.
Based on review of the amendments subsequent to previous CRGR review in November, 1987, the Office of the General Counsel in discussion with members of the CRGR and the Chairman of CRGR agreed that these amendments are not subject to the back fit rule as stated in 10 CFR 50.109 and are not considered to be a backfit. (See Memo for Jordan to Heltemes,
Subject:
10 CFR Part 21/Section 50.55(e) Rulemakin Issue Closure, dated February 12, 1988 for discussion -
Memo' attached here (ix) For each evaluation conducted for proposed relaxations or decreases in' current requirements...
Not applicable.
6 4
)
4
.