ML20030E163
| ML20030E163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/04/1981 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Dircks W, Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA), NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030E161 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8109180068 | |
| Download: ML20030E163 (9) | |
Text
'
' ' a m\\
IN RESPONSE REFER
/
o, UNITED STATES TO M810827C
'"t, NUCLEAR SEGULATORY COMMISSION
(
W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555
\\......o Qy"(
September 4,1981 2
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks, Executi Director for Operations Carlton C. Kammerer, Direc' s Congressional Affairs FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretar
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIR
> TION SESSION 81-32, 3:40 P.M.,
THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 1981, MMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, DC 0FFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
I.
SECY-81-200 - Policy on Proceeding with Pending Construction Permit end Manufacturing License Applications (Rulemaking Issue)
A majority of the Comission approved for publication in the Federal Register a rule which applies to power reactors with pending applications for a construction permit or manufacturing license as stated in of the staff paper.
The fir;al rule will include the 1
modifications stated in EDO memos of June 22 (less Item S) and July 14.
The Comission requested that the rule be modified (by footnotel to limit the time period and number of units permitted to be manufactured under the manufacturing license.
The footnote should follow the limitations described in the Comission's " Statement on Standardization of Nuclear Power Plants," dated August 22, 1978 (see pages 15-16).
Comissioner Gilinsky approves the rule as it applies to plants with standard PWR contairments but disapproves the hydrogen control provisions of the rule as they apply to Westinghouse ice-condenser and General Electric Mark III plants.
His separate views, to be included in the FRN, will be forthcoming.
Commissioner Bradford disapproved and requests that his separate views be included in the FRN (Attachment 1).
The separate views of Chainnan Palladino and Comissioners Ahearne and Roberts are attached (Attachment 2).
(NRR)(SECYSuspense:
9/15/81)
II.
SECY-81-20E - SECY-81-200, Policy on Proceeding with Pending CP and Manufacturing License Applications (Rulemaking Issue) 1 The Commission, by a vote of 4-0 (Commissioner Bradford aostaining),
l approved changes to the preamble of the proposed final rule on TMI-l related requirements for CP/ML applicants as stated in Item 1 of SECY-81-20E, attachment and on p. 2 of the OGC paper.
The Commission also approved a change to 10 CFR 2.764 as stated in Item 2 of the OGC paper attachment and the following language for 10 CFR 2.504:
1 9 2.504 Applicability of other sections.
The provisions of Subparts A and G relating to construction permits apply to manufacturing licenses subject to this subpart, I
8109100068 810904~
2 with respect to matters of radiological health and safety, environmental protection, and the common defense and security, except that 5 2.104(a) and (b) do not apply to manufacturing licenses, and measures to account for generation of hydrogen following a loss-of-coolant accident beyond those needed to satisfy 10 CFR 50.44, and 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, Criterion 50 may be required upon evaluation of results of containment loading and mitigation studies.
The Statement of Considerations should include a condition regarding the possible deletion of this provision subject to evaluation of the results of various studies (see Attachment 3).
Commissioner Gilinsky approved the rule except as it applies to Westinghouse ice-condenser and General Electric Mark III plants.
The separate views of commissioner Ahearne are attached (Attachment 3).
(NRR)(SECYSuspense: 9/15/81)
III. SECY-81-464 - Protection of Unclassifed Safeguards Implementation (Policy Issue)
This item was withdrawn from affirmation.
IV.
SECY-81-473 - Issuance of Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Implement the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as Amended, to Prevent Discrimination on the Basis of Age in Federally Assisted Commission Programs (Rulemaking Issue)
The Commission, by a vote of 5-0, approved publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking, which provides amendments to 10 CFR Part 4 to prevent discrimination based on aga in federally assisted Commission p rograms.
The Commission requested that:
1.
the proposed amendment, as modified by 8/14 SECY note, be published in the Federal Register for 60-day public comment; (ELD) (SECY Suspense:
9/15/81) 2.
the ED0 issue the final rule if no significant adverse comments or questions are received on the notice of proposed rulemaking and no substantial changes in text are indicated; (ED0) 3.
the appropriate Congressional committees and OMB be informed; and (0CA/ELO) (SECY Suspense:
9/15/ 81 )
4.
staff provide an explanation for the belated preparation of this proposed rulemaking and to what extent might those reasons impact on future actions.
(ELD) (SECY Suspense:
9/15/81)
e.
3 V.
SECY-81-503 - Proposed Amendmeat to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Implementation Date for Prompt Public Notification Systems (Rulemaking Issue)
The Commission, by a vote of 5-0, approved for publication in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking extending the present July 1,1981 implementation date for public notification systems to February 1, 1982.
(IE) (SECY Suspense:
9/1 5/ 81 )
Commissioner Gilinsky would have preferred a deadline resulting from a liberal interpretation of the grace period 4 months from the date upon which licensees are notified of their noncompliance with the July 1,1981 deadline.
Commissioner Bradford would have preferred a more conservative interpretation of the 4-month period resulting in a November 1,1981 deadline.
The Commission requested that:
1.
the notice of proposed rulemaking (Enclosure 1 of the staff paper), as modified, state that the Commission intends to make the final rule effective immediately upon publication; (IE) (SECY Suspense:
9/15/81) 2.
the appropriate Congressional committees and the ACRS be notified; (0CA/IE) (SECY Suspense:
9/15/81) 3.
the staff directly notify affected applicants, licensees, state governments, and persons of the proposed rule; including parties sponsoring related contentions in ongoing licensing proceedings; (IE) (SECY Suspense:
9/ 30/ 81 )
4.
a public announcement of the proposed rule be made; and (0PA/IE) (SECY Suspense:
9/15/81) 5.
a draft notice of violation, as modified in the attached draft letter (attachment 4) be sent to those licensees who missed the July 1,1981 installation date by more than 2 months and who did not inform the Commission of this situation prior to July 1, 1981.
(IE)
Additional comments by Commicsioner Ahearne are attached (Attachment 5).
Attacaments:
As Stated cc:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts Commission Staff Offices Public Document Room
/ W Q Q' M SEPA"dTE VfEWS OF COMMZSS10NER SPADFOP.D ON SECY-81-200 - POLICY ON PROCEEDING WITH PENDING CONSTRUCT!0N PEPJili
_7, s.
AND MquFACTURING LICENSE APPLICATIONS l
Three weeks ago, the Commission declined to consider a proposed I
rule (SECY-81-244) that would have imposed many of the lessons. learned from the Three Mile Island accident on NRC licensees in regulation form.
The arguments advanced against this approach were that such a regulation would reduce needed flexibility and would encompass too many different subjects within the scope of c.ne rule.
While both of those arguments were probably wrong in the context in which they were advanced, they-4.4 -
1/
apply precisely top rule being prcmulgated here.~
Ne legal or logical reason can be advanced that favors the imposit.ica of this rule on the 1.icensing process while weighing against the imposition of the similar rule on the operating reacters.
The only pessible governing pri-7iple is the convenience of the nuclear industry, which the Comission has accc=nodated completely in both situations.
The Commission has already instructed the staff to use specific if In. the context of the rej.ected rule for operating reactors, the Commission should have learned the real consequences of this ki.nd of " flexibility" frem.its experience with fire protaction.
A simi.larly informai approach was a.ite=pted with the licensees following the 1975 3rowns Ferry fire. As the very generous 1980 deadline approached, it was clear that many of the licensees had taken advantage of the absence of a firm rule to ignore actions that the NRC staff thcught imoortant. As a result, the Cem.issien was finally forced t: ?ut ics fire ;r: tecti:n requirements in regulation ferm, meanwhile extending the deadlines cut to a ludicrous seven er eight years for 'many plants.
With regard to the point that a single rule can enecmpass too many subjects, it is werth remarking that the danger is much less when the parties primarily affected by the rule are the licensees.
They have the financial, lecal, and technica.1 rescur:es to cumment extensively c1 a c:mplex rulemaking d$n exte.nt t!.at the Comission will be fully aware cf the consequences Of its rule before imposing i t.
Furthermere, the operating reacter rule provided for exemptiens to be granted as nacessary.
The rule premulgated here contains no similar provisien.
J Attachment i
~
provisions in this rule as the basis for its position in contested construction permic cases.
Khat it is now providing is that intervenors who wish to challenge the adequacy of some of the provisions propcsed here will not be able to do so.
In effect, the Boards are b'eing required to rule against them without hearing their evidence.
This authoritarian obsession with the avoiding of public challenge has been a source of continuing troubie for nuclear power over the last decade.
That it should now be-applied to limit the lessons to be learned from the accident that it helped to cause provides an unsettling proof that the NRC is returning to its former bad habits.
6 O
e
(
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO AND COMMISSIONERS AHEARNE AND ROBERTS VIEWS ON SECY-81-20D - POLICY ON PROCEEDING WITH PENDING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND MANUFACTURING LICENSE APPLICATIONS The Commission decision to establish a rule for pending construction permits and manufacturing licenses is based on the view that nuclear plants in the early stages of construc. ion
-- where capital investment is relatively small -- are raost amenable to a generic regulatory approach.
On the other hand, the Commission believes regulatory flexibility is needed for nuclear plants that are operating.
This flexibility recognizes that operating plants -- which represent a substantial capital investment -- often need case-by-case review to determine the best way to make changes deemed necessary for public health and safety.
Therefore, the Commission does not agree with Commissioner Bradford's views on this subject.
It is the Commission's view that this new rule, together with the existing regulations, are sufficient for issuance of a limited number of manufacturing licenses.
The Commission agrees with the Director of FRR's analysis and technical conclusion on including manufacturing licenses in this rule.
Containment loading and mitigation system studies being performed at Brookhaven National Laboratory will address this conclusion further.
Therefore, the Commissica stated that measures to account for generation of hydrogen for the manufacturing license may not be final, but are, dependent upon evaluation of results of these studies.
6 Atta~chment 2
SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER AHEARNE ON SECY-81-20E I share with Comissioner Mlinsky a concern that the NRC has no~t yet demonstrated that the conditions in the proposed rule are adequate regarding hydrogen control for the ML plants.
As Harold Denton stated in his April 10, 1981 memorandum to the Commission on this subject:
"The staff (nitiall Floating f4 clear Plant (FNP) y proposed that the containment for the be-strengthened to meet a design pressure of 60 psig, ir: addition to implementing effective hydrogen control, to significantly " educe the risks of severe accidents in this ice condenser plant...
Discussions with the applicant, Offshore Power Systems, have indicated that increasing the containment design strength to 60 psig weeld require Njor modifications to the conceptual design because of limitations of tying the cylindrical containment shell.to the rectangular structural members o.f the barge.
However, the containment could be modified by using a hemispherical head, increasing the wall thickness to a minimum of 1 inch, and making other modifications >:hich would increase the design pressure to 25 psig.
At this design level, the ultimate pressure capability w.s estimated to be C0 psig....
"As a result. of our evaluation, we believe that the use of effective and reliable hydrogen control, post-accident containment cooling, core catcher systems, and modified containment in a floating nuclear plant will reduce the likelihood of. containment failure suffi-ciently and that increasing the containment design pressure in FNP to 60 psig may yield little risk reduction.
We believe that the containment loadino and mitigetion system studjjes being cerformed at Brooknaven.
National Laboratory over tne.next year will confirm this conclusion."
(empnasis added)
I believe we should await the results of these studies before putting the ML hydrogen control ' criteria into the rule.
Therefore I believe we should adopt proposal 4 of OGC's paper (Secy-81-20E), until the Brookhaven results have been examined.
Thus, I would include:
"5 2.504 Applicabi'ity of other sections.
The provisions of Subparts A and G relating to construction permits apply to manufacturing licenses subject to this subpart, with respect to matters of radiological health and safety, environmental protection, and the common defense and security, except that 5 2.104(a) and (b) d -
not apply to manufacturing licenses and measures to account for generation of hydrogen following a loss-of-coolant accident beyond those needed to satisfy 10 CFR 50.44, and 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, Criterion 50 may be required."
C.
o 2
If the Trookhaven studies confirm Denton's position, I would publish a revision to the rule, eliminating this provision.
If the Brookhaven results (and the results from the TVA et al. program) in-dicate additional work or additional requirements are necessary, we could take appropriate action.
The Statement of Consideration should include such a condition.
~
>G eede
.- hm O
pe e.
> e eman e m
O w s V..
e m;>
e6
.e 0
e a
O k
DRAFT NOT!CE OF Vf0LATXOtt
==Dear
- ==
l On August 19, 1980, the NRC published a revised emergency plannin9 ule which became effective on November 3,1980.
The rule required accng other things that each power reactor licensee demonstrate by July 1,1981 that a prompt public notification system was in place.
By a letter dated July 1, 1981, each NRC regional director requested licensees to provide a status report by July 24, 1981, on the operability of the notification syscem.
Your (date) response indicated that you had not met the July 1,198L, requiracent and that prior to that date you knew, or si.ould have known, that pu would not meet it. -Furthermore, you knew tha: the system woulo not be substantially completed within a short time af ter the deadline.
Although a majority of licensees did not meet the July 1,1981 deadline, most of thent notified the Commission prior to July.anc that they would be unable 'to meet the deadline and some sought an exemption.
In view of the Commission's intantion to extend the compliance date, enforcement action will not be taken against those licensees who provided prior notification to the Cocnission.
Our records indicate that.you did not inforar the Commission prior to July 1,1981, of your inability to meet that date.
.'0.1...c::k.
c xi.d i... ' a, 6 ;.M-~
e-r " - M :..x : M ' am --~ i - d m :s
'f -
".C, Tne der 4 of candor expected between licensees ar.d NRC is DJch that we expect # you to cccmuni a:E in wr&' ting the status /Q w4. h:f
'1--= to the Connission J
J cf wc. W paed1q>
49 J.
In view of your failure to provide n,otification*to.he Ccomis ion, I am taking enforcement action in your case.
Accordingly, a notice of violation for failure to meet the July 1,1981 requirement is enclosed.
In' accordance with section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice ' Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placec in the NRC's Public Document Rocct.
M ::7.h7#. A,. Ax::m--
Office of Inspection and Enforcemen:
Enclosure:
Appencix, Notice of Violation p.
I.
4
, - -. -.. -. -. -. - _ _ -__,_-__ ____