ML20034B320
| ML20034B320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/15/1990 |
| From: | Remick NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-55FR29043 AD04-1-111, AD4-1-111, NUDOCS 9004270007 | |
| Download: ML20034B320 (2) | |
Text
V0Td'EASEYOb'PDk"f N0TATI0N i
RESPONSE SHEET
- A3/90 6"
...... P..'.. w.J, $ p,y ] p T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FRON:
C0144ISSIONER REMICK I
't
SUBJECT:
SECY-90-021 - REPORT ON LICENSE RENEWAL WORKSHOP AND PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE PROGRAM PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOR RULEMAKING l
,,, sd APPROVED Y DISAPPROVED AsSTAIN I
NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION l
C0W4ENTS-i 54 s, y ck l cM" I
I i
[
9004270007 900215 Q MIGNATURE
$8So2i" Poc RELEASE VOTE
/X/
/T M! 78 DATE i
WITNNOLD VOTE
/
/
i ENTERED ON "AS" YES NO D Fo1 tir
e COMMISSIONER REMICK'S CU-sWifs 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 Rule, 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 plants that 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.
1 Changes to bring about compliance I
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 'tenewal 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.
l 6
i i i iii
-