ML20045B308
| ML20045B308 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/07/1993 |
| From: | Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306170170 | |
| Download: ML20045B308 (3) | |
Text
........................
i l
RELEASED TO THE PDR l
N 0 T A-T I 0 N V 0 T Ej g,ffg/93 g
j
{
/
date in:ffs RESPONSE SHEET I
T0:
. SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE CO M ISSION i
FROM:
C0l44ISSIONER CURTISS
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-067 - FINAL POLICY STATEMENT ON
[
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPROVEMENTS i
t APPROVED X/in part 0ISAPPROVED X/in part ABSTAIN 1
NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST OISCUSSION f
C0f44ENTS:
See attached comments.
I i
i lh4 h.
l SIGNATURE
.t50010 i
RELEASE V0:TE
/
x/
May 7, 1993 DATE WrrHHOLD VOTE
/
/
i j
ENTERED ON "AS" YES X
No
,i u
g 9306170170 930507 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
Commissioner Curtiss comments on SECY-93-067:
I have the following comments on the subject SECY paper:
First, I believe we should proceed with publication of the Policy Statement in final form (i.e., without seeking public comment),
subject to revisions to address my second and fourth comments, below.
This would serve to announce to licensees and interested members of the public the approach that the agency intends to take to several important issues regarding licensee technical specifications (e.a.,
application of the backfitting regulation to the Technical Specification conversion process, the limited conversion option, and the 50.59 issue).
[
Second, since the criteria set forth in this Policy Statement are to be applied in a fashion that is intended to have what is r
tantamount to a legally binding effect (the Commission was advised at the March 30, 1993 briefing that staff will not issue i
a license amendment deleting a matter from a licensee's technical specifications unless such action is consistent with the criteria set forth in the Policy Statement), I believe these criteria l
should be set forth in a rule.'
Accordingly, rather than soliciting comments in the Policy Statement on whether codification of the criteria through rulemaking is necessary, the Policy Statement should be revised to indicate that the f
Commission will codify the criteria via a forthcoming notice and comment rulemaking.
In this regard, a rulemaking package to l
accomplish this should be prepared by staff and submitted to the f
Commission for our review and approval prior to publication for comment.
In my view, it would be desirable, although not essential, to publish this rulemaking package contemporaneous 1y with the Policy Statement.
Third, I fully agree with Commissioner Rogers that it is essential that the agency undertake an aggressive effort to explore possible mechanisms for achieving legal and administrative efficiencies in the processing of amendments to technical specifications.
Unfortunately, these procedural issues i
i i
1 I would also note that in a separate SECY paper, SECY
- 113
(" Additional Implementation Information for 10 CFR Part 54, i
Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licneses for Nuclear Power Plants"), the staff has recommended employing the criteria recommended in the Policy Statement on Technical Specifications for the purpose of determining which structures and components are of " fundamental safety importance" for license renewal.
The proposed use of these criteria in the license renewal context in a fashion that is intended to have a legally binding effect is yet another reason for codifying the criteria in a rulemaking.
i i
r
i 5
i
-2 are not quite ripe for addressing at this point in time.2 For this reason, I would not hold up the rulemaking effort codifying the four criteria recommended in the SECY-93-067 while we consider the options for' achieving administrative efficiencies in-our legal and. administrative process, but I would direct the staff to return to the Commission with recommendations for t
improvements in that process.
Codification of the criteria now
[
could provide some of the technical and legal foundation for such improvements.
i Fourth, I agree with Commissioner Remick's nuggestion that_some l
additional clarification in the Policy Statement on how the staff l
Intends to apply the fourth criterion (involving PSAs) is necessary.
This clarification is essential, in my view, if the criteria are to be codified in a rule.
i h
i 2 We are awaiting the results of'the Regulatory Review Group initiative, currently scheduled to be submitted to the Commission in July of this year.
In addition, we were advised in a letter of April 27, 1993 from NUMARC, that there are several aspects of' this issue that the industry is still' evaluating.
!