ML20045F694
| ML20045F694 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/05/1993 |
| From: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9307080256 | |
| Download: ML20045F694 (3) | |
Text
'!
W: LEASED TOTHE PDR 1
~
RESPONSE SHEET 9g3
^
T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY' ~0'F' YNE 'CorNISSION* *
- FROM:
THE CHAIRMAN
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-93-029 - DRAFf RULEMAKING ON LICENSE RENEWAL (0GC MEMORANDUM 0F 5/14/93)
(VOTE FOR ONE OPTION)
APPROVE DISAPPROVE 1.
RULEMAKING OPTION A.
ENCLOSURE 1 x
X s.
ENCLOSURE 2 2.
STATEMENT OF POLICY OPTION A.
MODIFY ENCLOSURE 1 x
B.
MODIFY ENCLOSURE 2 x
3.
REGULATORY GUIDE OPTION A..
MODIFY ENCLOSURE 1 X
s.
MODIFY ENCLOSURE 2 X
OTHER:
see attached comments SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
///
df 3
DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
r ENTERED ON "AS" YES NO
- 8F 88Me M 8e 6
?'
CORRESPONDENCE PDR
b Chairman Selin's comments on COMSECY-93-029:
I agree with Commissioner Curtiss' comments regarding the
[
importance of. license renewal and the considerable progress the staff has made in addressing the various issues associated with license renewal.
A great deal of positive momentum has.been achieved within the staff and between the staff and industry that needs to be maintained to find appropriate resolutien to the remaining issues in order to meet the Commission's objective of developing a predictable and stable license renewal process.
The objectives of 10 CFR Part 54 are clear; namely, to extend the current licensing basis into the renewal period while paying close attention to those aspects of aging which are unique to license renewal and which will, if not managed and corrected, adversely impact safety.
There are a number of ways to accomplish these objectives.
The debate centers on which are the better ways to address age-related degradation unique to license renewal.
One consideration in choosing is to find a way, consistent with protecting the public health and safety, which will not discourage licensees from applying for license renewal.
It is my view, after assessment of the debate so far,.that even after the best approach is identified, some form of rulemaking will be required to marry the preferred approach with the intent of the current rule.
Further, whichever approach is chosen, it must be determined through a public process open-to all.
The staff has developed an approach to license renewal in SECY-93-049 and SECY-93-113 which appears to me to balance both economics and safety.
The Commission cannot determine, however, whether the staff's approach is indeed the appropriate one without first hearing from all interested parties on the various approaches being~ evaluated.
One possibility would be to publish a proposed rule change such as Commissioner Curtiss has suggested.
If I were sure that such a proposed rule change were sufficiently close to the likely final product, I would support this approach.
Unfortunately, I do not have the confidence that enough of a consensus has yet been achieved among the interested parties.
Although Commissioner Curtiss makes strong arguments for publishing a proposed rule change, I believe the changes he noted in his vote on COMSECY-93-029 differ significantly from the staff's approach and should not be published as a rulemaking package at this time.
I believe instead that the appropriate next step is a timely, tightly structured workshop comparable to the first one held on this topic in November 1989.
All of the relevant documents should be published in advance and the workshop notice would lay out the tasks to be accomplished.
My intention is that at the conclusion of the workshop the comments would be promptly assessed and a definitive document, such as a notice of proposed rulemaking, be prepared and voted by the Commission.
m -. _
- .b i
Therefore, I recommend:
1.
Publication of SECY-93-049, SECY-93-113, COMSECY-93-029 and the proposed rule language contained in Commissioner Curtiss' vote-on COMSECY-93-029, to ensure all interested parties have a chance to comment.
2.
The staff proceed with a license renewal workshop no later than July 31, 1993, to discuss the staff's approach in SECY-93-049 and SECY-93-113, the Office of General Counsel's approach in COMSECY-93-029 and Commissioner Curtiss' approach.
3.
Following the workshop, the staff should inform the Commission of any changes in their implementation approach and begin drafting a Notice of Proposed j
Rulemaking.
4.
The staff should continue working with the owners Groups and any interested utilities to pursue resolution of license renewal issues.
- However, continued work with the industry should not set the schedule for changes to the staff's implementation approach.
The staff's first priority should be to clear up the inconsistencies between the rule and the-i staff's approach.
With regard to the remaining staff positions in SECY-93-049:
1.
I approve of the staff's recommendation to. treat ~
equipment qualification and fatigue as potential safety issues within the existing regulatory process for operating reactors rather than as an issue unique to license renewal.
2.
I approve of the staff's recommended approach for handling the NUMARC industry reports.
3.
I concur with the staff's conclusion that the form of the renewal license does not affect the scope of the technical issues reviewed or the safety evaluations required.
t t
I f
2
. f
.