ML20062D434

Transcript of 820715 Affirmation/Discussion Session Re SECY-82-99 & SECY-82-257 in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-13

ML20062D434
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/15/1982
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8208060067
Download: ML20062D434 (25)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:( ~ -~ ~'~ ~ ~ k h 0 i3 wg ~,; Transcript of Proceedings ' g-1[/ NUCLEAR REGULATORY C.OMMISSION i +.... I AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION SESSION PUBLIC MEETING Thursday, July 15, 1982 Pages 1 - 13 Prepared by: Lynn Nations Office of the Secretary 820R060067 8207 iS PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR

e 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2

{y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

3 4 AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION SESSION I PUBLIC MEETING e 7 Commissioners' Conference Room Room 1130 8 1717 "H" Street, N.W. 9 Thursday, July 15, 1982 10 The Commission met in public session, pursuant to 11 notice, at 3:35 o' clock p.m., NUNZIO J. PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission, presiding. 13 I rg COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: I ~ 14 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission JOHN F. AHEARNE, Member of the Commission I "I THOMAS ROBERTS, Member of the Commission JAMES ASSELSTINE, Member of the Commission 16 STAFF PRESENT AT COMMISSION TABLE: i l 5 17 S. CHILK L. BICKWIT ng F. REMICK } M. MALSCH g i AUDIENCE SPEAKERS: 20 J. SCINTO j 21 e 22 23 24

2h EF 25 l

DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Thursday, July 15,1982in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies. The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize. -9 I i

2 1 PR0CEEDINGS 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: The meeti'ng will please come to 3 order. This is an af firmation/ discussion session and I will 4 ask the Secretary to walk us through the items on the agenda. MR. CHILK: The first paper, Mr. Chairman, is 5 SECY-82-99, 10 CFR Part 50, a Proposed Rule to clarify appli-6 cability of license conditions and technical specifications in 7 an emergency. \\ 8 J The Commission in this paper is being asked to approve 9 a proposed rule that would provide that a licensee can take to reasonable actions that depart from license conditions or 11 tech specs when such action is immediately needed to protect the public health and safety. All Commissioners have approved publication of the 13 5fh proposed rule with the modifications attached to our memoran-14 dum of July 14th. Commissioner Asselstine has provided 15 additional comments for publication of the rule with which 16 Commissioner Ahearne agrees. I am informed that Commissioner I 17 Gilinsky will also add comments to the rule asking for a g l public comment on whether senior reactor operators should be 18 n [ required to make the decision on deviations from technical 19 g specs since the SR0 is trained in that basis. 3 20 I would ask you to affirm your votes? O 21 (Chorus of ayes.) ~ 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do I have a copy of your 23 comments? COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: You should. They are 24 J incorporated. MR. CHILK: They are incorporated into the

3 1 memorandum that is attached. 2 ((j CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: Maybe I a' gree with them, too. 3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Fine. 4 MR. CHILK: The second paper is SECY-82-257 which is a draft policy statement on the treatment of psychological 3 stress contentions in proceedings other than TMI-l Restart. 6 Here the Commission is being asked to approve a 7 Statement of Policy providing guidance to the licensing 8 boards on the treatment of these psychological stress 8 contentions in proceedings as I hav6 indicated other than 10 TMI-l Restart. 11 The proposed Policy Statement would instruct the licensing boards to exclude psychological stress contentions which do not meet the criteria adopted by the D. C. Circuit f$s in Pane versus NRC. ~ 14 All Commissioners have voted to approve the Policy 15 Statement with revisions that take into account the current 16 status of the litigation. Commissioner Ahearne's proposed ~ 17 modification to page 3 have also been concurred in by all 2 18 Commissioners. Would you please affirm your votes ? l (Chorus of ayes. ) 20 MR. CHILK: The third is 82-268 which is a draft of 21 an immediate effectiveness order for San Onofre 2 and 3. The 22 Commission is being asked to approve an Order allowing the 23 San Onofre Licensing Board's May 14th decision to become effective. 24 F All Commissioners have voted to approve the proposed 5

4 1 order with alternative 2 as modified by Commissioners Ahearne eg. 2 and Roberts. Commissioner Asselstine has also proposed a "m= 3 mo di fi ca ti on in the order to which others have agreed. Commissioner Gilinsky proposed some changes to which all 4 Commissioners have also agreed. 5 . Would you please affirm your votes ? 6 (Chorus of ayes. ) 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you have a question? 8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I have.a question about 9 Commissioner Gilinsky's additional suggested changes. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I am not sure that I agree. to COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, I had -- 11 MR. CHILK: I thought everyone had agreed. 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: His.second item on the vote sheet -- = 14 MR. BICKWIT: If this is discussed, I think this 15 should be a closed session item. 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Even if we discuss -- COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Do you understand what the g 3 second item is? 18 g MR. BICKWIT: Yes. j 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The comment. aj 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I took that as a comment. J 21 MR. BICKWIT: I took it as a comment, also, and if 22 you want to discuss whether it ought to be included in an rder or it is the sense of the Commission or whatever, I think 23 you ought to do it in closed session. @@g COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Even if we all agree that it 25 =~ was just a comment, non-binding comment?

5 1 MR. BICKWIT: Well, if that is what you all agree to, gg3 2 no.

== ~' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That was my view. j 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: I looked on it as a non-binding comment. 5 MR. BICKWIT: I have no problem with that. 6 MR. CHILK: The next paper is SECY-82-281 which is 7 a TMI-l Psychological Impacts, litigation strategy and response e to licensee's motion with respect to the stress issue. 9 The proposed order would deny the licensee's m tion which asks that the Commission decide whether it intends to to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement or 11 psychological health effects associated with the operation of 12 TMI. The paper also includes some litigation strategy. '3 e t. Chairman Palladino, Commissioners Ahearne, Roberts SF 14 and Asselstine have approved the proposed order and the 15 remaining content. Commissioner Gilinsky has now disapproved and 16 I understand has provided separate views which were just given to us a few minutes ago. ~ May I ask you to affirm your votes? 18 i (Chorus of ayes.) i 19 [. COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I suppose you will also aj 20 provide us with a copy of Commissioner Gilinsky's views? Jj 21 MR. CHILK: Yes. 2 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would like to ask one question. At least on my af firmation sheet, there was an 23 issue that you, Jim, had raised. 24 gh COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I have withdrawn that. 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: All right.

6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: My view is that it is 355 2 better not to do that at the present ti me, n== 3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Fine. MR. CHILK: The next item is SECY-82-282-which is 4 a Three Mile Island Restart Proceeding, Appeal Board Order 5 requesting authorization to hear issues sua sponte. 6 This was a late add-on to the affirmation schedule 7 and before we discuss it, the Commission would have to vote 8 to hold-that on less than one week's notice. 9 (Chorus of ayes. ) 10 MR. CHILK: The proposed order would deny the ASLAB request and direct the staff to examine each of the issues 3, raised by the Board and to provide the Commission with its 12 findings prior to the time the Commission makes its decision f@3 on restart. ~ 14 The Chairman and Commissioners Gilinsky, Ahearne, 15 Roberts and Asselstine have voted to approve the order. There 16 have been changes suggested by Commissioner Ahearne. s j 37 Commissioner Roberts and Commissioner Asselstine which have 2 ] been agreed to by a majority. 8 0 Would you please affirm your votes ? J 19 i (. Chorus o f ayes. ) MR. CHILK: The last item and one which will require 21 discussion deals with SECY-82-lli, Requirements for Emergency 22 Response Capability. The Commission is being asked in this 23 paper to approve a set of basic requirements for emergency response capability and to. approve the staff working with the 24 555 licensees to develop plant-specific implementation schedules. '~ 25 The records indicate that the Chairman and

1 Commissioners Ahearne, Roberts and Asselstine have basically 2 yy approved the paper subject to the modifi' cations that we 3 circulated on July 14th. Commissioner Gilinsky has disapproved, 4 A recent 0GC memorandum, however, requires consider-ation and necessitates some changes in what we circulated to 5 you on <.he 14th. 6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would add, also, at least 7 for mysel f, and say that I had agreed with what you had 8 circulated on the 14th -- I agreed with it subject to some 9 modi fi ca ti on. 'O CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Which we are about to discuss? COMMISSIONER AHEARE: Yes. ij MR. CHILK: It appears as we recap the issue that g items 1 through 6 on your attachment and number 10 remain 13 Ejh unchanged. Item 9 requires some rewrite, but basically the 14 Commission by a 3 to 2 vote with Commissioners Gilinsky, 15 Ahearne and Asselstine favoring review and the Chairman and 16 Commissioner Roberts opposing review have asked for at least '7 negative consent review of the proposed regulatory guide. COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I don't think you need the, 18 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right -- by negative i 20 consent review. 21 MR. CHILK: All right. The General Counsel is pre-22 pared to discuss his memorandum that was circulated this 23 morning and then some proposed new language that we would insert in items 7 and 8 to compensate for that memorandum 24 hki f 11 wing which we would hope to be in a position to ask for 25 your a ffirmation.

8 1 MR..BICKWIT: I think the memo is self-explanatory. I just don't know whether you have had a chance to read it. ms 2

=

In the event that perhaps some of you haven't, let me just 3 take you through it. 4 The basic concept is that it had been pointed out 5 that it was unclear in the original document how these 6 requirements of 82-111 would be applied in OL proceedings I and in CP proceedings. The staff when asked the question, 8 what particular status do you want to apply to these requirements answered that basically they wanted the same 9 status as is presently accorded to NUREG-0737 requirements in 10 OL proceedings and NUREG-0718 requirements in CP proceedings. What has been drafted here incorporates that concept. 12 As you may recall, 0737 and 0718 are NUREG's that have a gg special status in these proceedings. They are not typical NUREG's. They are codes of conduct that have been blessed by 15 the Commission. They are not binding on the Boards, however, when they are brought to the Boards! attention, the Boards 16 17 understand that the Commission regards these requirements if met as forming a basis for the grant of an OL in one case or 18 2 a CP in the other. j 19 The policy statement with respect to operating aj 20 licensees makes that point with respect to 0737. With respect ij 21 to 0718, the preamble of the CP rule makes a similar point. 8. ~ 22 What we therefore propose is that in addition to 23 the language that clarifies this matter in the 82-111 Report, de propose a revision to the policy statement that will make gh clear that these 82-111 requirements have the status of the =- 25 1UREG's and since we are informed that in the case of CP's, the

9 1 82-111 requi rements. con flict in a few respects with the 0718 55n 2 requirements, this policy statement woutd make it clear that n+- 3 the Commission regards these as superseding the conflicting 4 0718 requirements. CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: What do you mean by the word, 5 " these ?" 6 MR. BICKWIT: I mean the ones with which the 82-111 7 requirements con flict. Where the 82-111 requirements conflict 8 with the 0718 requirements, the 82-111 requirements will be 9 regarded as prevailing. la COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would agree with everything that Len has proposed with the exception of the impact on the 33 CP/ML rule for several reasons. First, in the discussions 12 that I have been in, it has been focussed upon 0737 and the OL 13 gp applicants and I would agree with those kinds of changes and 14 the changes that were indicated in items 7 and 8 as revised 15 by the Secretary. 16 Now when you move to the applicants for CP, there are { 37 very few as we all know, that are covered by the CP/ML rule because it explicitly is limited to those who already had ,g applications on fil e. So we are really talking about a very j 19 j small set. 2 20 1 Now in 82-111 or the enclosure, the di:cussion was 21 3 for applicants for a construction permit or manufacturing 1' ?2 licensee, the requirements described in this document must be 23 supplemented with the specific provisions in the rule specifying licensing requirements for pending CP and ML 24 =ff applications. 25 Up until a moment ago I had not understcod that there .O

10 I was an actual c o n fl.i c t. That language didn't lead me to .g3 2 believe that. I had read that language'and believed what y= 3 ft meant was just what it said, that you would have to go farther to see the actual rule. 4 If there is a conflict between some, then clearly I am not going to vote to remove that conflict until I 6 understand what it is because many of the provisions tha t we 7 were told in 82-111 had to be modified from the direction 8 that the staff had been going for a number of reasons which 9 were related to how di f ficult it is to make some of these 10 changes on either a plant that is already in existence or close to operating. For those very few plants that are in the construction 12 permit application process, I have di f ficul ty without knowing gg; the details of unders tanding why it is that I should reject ..gg: some of those requirements we put into the rule. So I can't 15 vote to take those out -- 16 MR. BICKWIT: It is requirements that are put into 0718 but not in the rule. g 37 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But you see, as you had 18 g pointed out, that 0718 is supposed -- the rule says 0.718 is i 19 being given extra precedential treatment and I would like to ej 20 understand what it is we would be striking. 21 MR. BICKWIT: I understand that. I am just clarifying ~ 22 that point. COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So in the absence of that 23 Jnderstanding, I would vote.to remove the reference to 0718 y,5 in your revision just strike those kinds of references. ~=* 25 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: What are you striking?

11 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The section that 0GC had 2 jy added which is the part speaking to the'50.34(f) Appendix E 3 issues in the 0718 I would just drop those out. 4 MR. BICKWIT: I just don't know where we are in that case. I am confused so I assume the Boards will be confused 5 if there are conflicting requirements. 6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Len, I grant you that would 7 be a problem but all I am saying is that for mysel f when you 8 said and it was the first time that I had heard that there are 9 conflicting requirements between the two and I am not going to 10 vote to take something out that we had already spent a lot of ij time talking about putting in. Maybe we never had addressed these particular elements, but in the absence of knowing them, I am not going 13 hb to vote to take them out. 14 MR. BICKWIT: No. I am just suggesting that it would 15 be a more rational posture as far as I am concerned to get that 16 explanation rather than to issue this document with a conflict 8 ~ 17 that will confuse the Boards. g jg COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Fine. I would agree with that. b MR. BICKWIT: Maybe you can get that right here and j 19 now. I don't really know. I can't give it to you, but I think Joe Scinto can. 21 MR. SCINTO: I am just surprised to hear that someone 22 in the staff thinks there is a conflict. 23 (Laughter.) MR. SCINTO: The documents sent to the Commission 24 [7 which was attached to 82-111 on its second page, following the 25 page that the Commissioner quoted from, explicitly says, "The

12 1 basic requirements in this document do not alter previously 2 fy) issued guidance which remains in ef fect. " 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: What are you reading from? 4 MR. SCINTO: The second page of 82-111. CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: And what does it say? 5 MR. SCINTO: It says, "The basic requirements in this 6 document do not al?7r previously issued guidance which remains 7 in effect." I know 82-111 went through the concurrence 8 process and was discussed at length with the staff. So I 9 am surprised that there is now someone from the staff who 10 thinks there is a con flict. ij COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would say for myself there either is or is not a conflict. g (Laughter.) 13 (hb COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: If there is not a conflict 14 then there would be no problem in striking a reference to 0718, 15 correct? 16 MR. BICKWIT: Absolutely. 17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And if there is a conflict, we have to find out ab65t it. So I am back to my position, 18 e as I said, either strike the reference to 0718 or let's go 3 19 further. i 20 MR. BICKWIT: I understnad. Bob Purple was our f. 21 source and Bob Purple, I was hoping would be here and is not. 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would suggest remove it from 23 a f fi rma tion. 24 MR. BICKWIT: With great distress. 5) CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We worked so hard on 111 for so ,g many weeks and to come so close --

l 13 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But nevertheless -- 2 ]g CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: All right. I agree. I don't 3, know whether we have a conflict or not. 4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Close. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Very close. I was hoping you g could cross out the sentence and then we could go on. 6 MR. BICKWIT: I don't think you can do that. 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: I hope nothing more comes up 8 on that. 9 (Laughter.) to CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Is there anything more that we should discuss at affirmation session? 11 MR. CHILK: There are no other affirmation items. 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All r i g h t. Thank you. We will

[j stand adjourned.

14 (Whereupon, at 3:55 o' clock p.m., the meeting was 15 adjourned to reconvene at the Call of the Chair.) 16 S 17 is g 3 ie a 20 a 21 1 22 23 24 =_ Z3 '~ 25

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION SESSION Date of Proceeding: Thursday. July 15. 1982 Docket Number: Place of Proceeding Room 1130. 1717 " H" St.. N.W. Washington, D. C. were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission. MARILYNN M. NATIONS Official Reporter (typed) v' P os i?. y_J ','? '4 s m Official Seporter (Signature) } e

? 1 d". NUCLEAR REGULATORY COWiISSION ~ 10 CFR pap,T 50 ~ . Applicability of License Conditions and Technical Specifications in an Emergency. -AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. The Nucihar Regulatory Commission is proposing a' change to its SUW%RY: ~ regulations'which would clarify that a11 Part 50 m 1icensees may take reasonable action that departs from a license condition or technical specification in an emergency when such action is immediately needed to protect the public health and safety. The rule is being proposed cause NRC r.egulations cut rently do not permit deviat'ons from license conditions or technical speciifications under any Emergency sit,uations can arise, though, during which a conditions. lice,nse condition or a technical specification could prevent n.ecessary The proposed rule wou18 allow such protective action by the li.censee. ~ action' to be taken in emerg'ency circumstances. Comments must be submitted in writirig on or,.before DATE: f Comments received after this date will be considered if it is pr ttical!to do so, but assurances.of consideration cannot ht, given except filed on or before this, date. e e 1 1

c 1

Ja...$. w' - < :+ % Interested persons are tnytted to submit written coments and ~ ADDRESSES: i i suggestions on the proposed rule change to the Secretary of t 20555, Attention: 'U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington,. D. C. Copies of the coments received by the D6cketing and Service Branch. Comission may be examined in the Comission's Public Documen 1717 H Street AW., Washington, D. Ce Charles M. Tramell, III, Office of FOR FURTHER INF0FJ4ATION CONTACT: Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comiss 301-492-7389). D. C. 20555. (.tel ephone: The proposed change would clarify the regulations SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: i in 10 CFR Part 50 by providing that a licensee may take reason ~ ification in' an' that departs from a license condition or a technical spec t the public emergency when such action is innediately needed to protec health and safety. At present, NRC regulations do not pennit deviations from Emergencies can arise, or technical specifications under any circumstances. i l though, during which comp 1iance with a license condition or a action b'y a lic'ensee to'p'rotect"the ; specification?couldi_ revent necessary ~ Licensees sare undeistandably reluctant to take actions co public health and safetp-] . e-Absoliit'e~ compliance with the license in emergencies can b licenses. barrier to effective protective action by a licensee. ENCLOSURE 1 ~ e

j ' Technical specifications contain a wide range of op2 rating li=itations and ~ requirements.cencerning actions to be taken if certain systems fail and if certain parameters are exceeded. The bulk of technical specifications are devoted to keeping the plant pa.rameteri within safe bounds arid' keeping.safkty t - ~_ equipment operable during noma 1. operation. However,' technical specifications also require the implementation of a wide range of operating procedures which go into great detail as to actions t.o be taken in the course of operation.. .to maintain facility safety. These procedures are based on the Yarious " ? conditions -- noma 1, transient and accident. conditions -- analyzed as part - of the licensing process. Neverthel ess, unanticipated circumstances can occur during the course of emergencies. These circumstances may call for responses different fro $1 any considered during the course of licensing,- e.g., the n'eed to isolat'e the accumulators to p'reyent nitrogen injection to the core while there was stlli substantial pressure in the primary system was unforeseen in the licen. sing process before TMI-2; thus, the tech'n'ica.l specifications prohibited this action. Special ci'rcumstances requiring a' deviation from license requirements are not necessari.lf limited to tran-sients or accidents not $n'alyzed in the licensing process.. Special circum-stances can arise during emergencies involving multiple equipment failures ( or coincident' accidents whei-e plant emergency procedures,could be in conflicto i In addition, an accident 'can take. or not applicable to the circumstances. a course different from that visualized when the emergency procedure was i'. i l written, thus requiring a protective response at variance with a ptocedure required to,be followed by the license. Also, perfomanc'e of routine,sutveil<

• 1an[e testing, which might fall due during an emergency, could either divert.

the attention of the cperating ' crew free the emergency or cause the ko I of use 'of equipment needed for proper protective action. L

,^ .e, Technical speci'ficatio'ns or license conditions can be amended tfie pro'p sed rule is not intended to apply in circ 0mstances,wher ~., The proposed rule,would ipply only '{-[. allows this process to be followed. .imk.- d j.' to those emergency situations where action by the licens ,.3 d safety -- action which may ~ ,immediately to protect the public health an be contrary to a technical specification or a license conditior.. l ~ deviations fiom license -{i, It is the ' intent of the ' proposed rule to al ow It is,not intended ~ requirements only in the special cir'cumstances described. license that licensees be allowed to deviate from procedures and other requirements where these ar'e applicable. For these reasons, the Commission believes th'at there sh provi'sion in the Commission's rules clearly i.ndicating tha techn.ical may take reasonable action that departs from a license cond i. T d d to protect specification in an emergency when such action is immediat the public health and safety. In view of the fact that the, rule permits a licensee to dep it would be applied requirements, the Commission expects that, if adopted, The NRC would rarely-and only under the special circumstances described. i kh' ether the - review carefully any licensee's use of the rule to determ ne ible adverse licensee had to.act immedf ately in an emergency to avert poss i itten state:nen consequences to the public health and safety and may requ re w N his rui from a licensee concerning its actions after use of the p judgment in l The Commission recognizes that a licensee would need to 1 it may not l applying the rule and. that, in' its after-the f act review, l agree in every instance with i

'However, enforcement acticn for a y o o. o 8 a licensee's actions. l sould not be taken unles's a licensee's action was unreas the relevant circumstances having to do with the emergency. ify the The proposed rule. also would' require a licensee, under 150 l ' .~ i i g it to NRC Operations Center by telephone of emergency circumstan from a license condition or a technica t ,take any protective action that depar s When time pemits, the notifica, tion would be made be specification. on as possible " protective action is taken; ctherwise, it would be made as so The impact of this reporting requirement 'on licensees ~- l,, n. 'thereaftsr. negligible. "iteport of'Special The proposed ruit. follows the recommendation in HUREG-Learned from Review Group, Office of Inspection and Enforcement on Lesso licy regarding Three Mile Island"* that NRC establish and announce a firm p ? stances, with certain i the applicability o'f the license under emergency c rcum ixceptions discussed below, The proposed rule does not require that departure f a). license condition or techn'ical specification have ~ il ble at of the most senior licensee and NRC personnel ava - a the time before' the departure. l concept While the Commission does not disagree with the ge i l 4t.the,:ime, that the most senior licensee personnel availab,e; thA-should be involved, the proposed rule sp sp:4ar"- nacsarWsms 'Mu e g -en'nnaL*:bc:nd, 9=4e-tMuhichmWc4 -im The persons responsible for safe ope I k.W & s.d d'- h+emih. for a fee at the NRC NUREG-g615' is available for inspection a f-L&d a. M cpaa 4 J.. O L ca cf A w, D ~c-f a w it a x-a O

• • ' n :,d4 k & ' x k.

Am fn W / M L M.- m

-c-of the facility are already identified in the fac.ility license and imple:ae,nting proceddres." Mding t.his require- 'F ' mnt. to the priposed rule itself is therefore believed.to

.y. 2

:.

m.. n

'g]^ ....p' be unnecessary. '"b). Tne. proposed rule does not tr.iuire.the concurrence of HRC Receiving the " concurrence" or "ap' proval" of personnel. ~ { NRC personnel would ancunt to a' license amendment usi .."~ The. procedures contrary to'those extsting for amndants. l.: = ..n rule specifically applies to emergency situations where imediate action is needed and tide is not av.aila Requiring the concurrence of NRC a license a'mendant. personnel available at the.tta tends to shift the burd of safety from the licensee.to NRC - contrary to the It could also shift'the burden [' proposed rule's intent. to NRC personnel on site who may be unqualified to concur ~ in a proposed Itcensee. action. ~ The Comission believes.that the proposed rule on the app j.' license conditions and technical specificatitns in. emerg u.... implemente'd by adding the necessary clarification t L.. " The of licenses" and to 150 72, " Notification of st,gnt'ficant events s. r. 50. proposed rule would apply to,all facilities licensed pu Cd e ( ~~ ~, Additional comments of Commissionef Ass ~ ~ )& t Commissioner Asselstine ;W concerned that the proposed rule ifying those provide sufficient guidance to Part 50 licensees for ident technical <d9mfions in which deviations from license conditions or

T. M specifications are allowable. Cv...... avmr usshme -4ralso. concerned that the proposed rule and the supplementary information may not provide a clearly defined standard to be used by the NRC staff in detemining whether to take enforcement action against Part 50 licensees who deviate from license conditions or technical specifications in these types of -cu--r situations. He-would.particularly appreciate comments on these issues. . - - - = PAPEEWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT:Pursuant to,the Paperwork' Reduction Act <;q of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511), the NRC will submit to the Office.of Management ~.' and Budget' for, its consideration of any potential or,p.e.w reporting, record-keeping, or information collection requirements contained 'in the proposed rul e, In accordance with the. Regulatory REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION: Fl exibility Act of'1930, 5 U.S.C.605(5)., the Co: mission hereby ce that.these proposed regulations wi11 not, if promulgated, have a,sig These proposed economic impact on a stbstantial number of small entities. ii reculations affect licensees that own and operate nuclear utiiizat licensed under sections 103 and 104 of the Atomic Energy Adt,of 19 The amendment. serves to clarify the applicabiltty of license amended. The clarification -conditione and technica,1 specifications in an emergency. i and would be incorporated as a condition of the respective opert:ing l ce Accordingly,'there is would require no action on the part of lic.ensees. new, significant economic impact on these licensees; nor do ~ no i fall within th'e definition-of small Businesses set forth' in sec d d Small 3'usiness.Act,15 U.S.C. 632, or. within.the Small 5usine set forth in 13 CFR Part 121. e .. p ,;A. l l

_8 ~ For the reasons set out in 'the preambie and pursuant to the Atomic E r;- Act'of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganf ration Act of 1974, i and section 553 $f, Title 5 of the United StaEes Code, notice is hereby ~ , dment to,10 CFR Part 50 is contemplated. ~..,. - f.. l i, n ,that adoption of,the fol ow ng ame ,-[.. PART 50 -- DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION ...c The authority citation for 10 CFP. Part 50 reads as follows: 1. Sect 1611., 68 Stat. 948 [42 U.S.C. 2201(1)]. Authority: A new paragraph (y) is added t'o $50.54 to read' as follows: 2. 550.55 Conditions of licenses. A licensee may take reasonable action that departs from a licen .(y) condition or a technical ' specification (contained in a license issu,ed under this part) in an emergency when.suc t needed to protect the public health and safety and no actio ide with license ~ conditions and technical specifications that can p adequate or equivalent protection is immediately apparent. A licensed reactor operator taking action permitted 'b (z) shall, as a n$inimum, obtain the concurrence of a licensed reactor operator prior to taking such action. A new paragraph (c) is added to 150.72 to read as follows:... 3. 350.72 Notification of significant events. +++++++,a++++++++- Each licensee licensed under 550.2i or 150.22 shall n (c) Operations Center by telephone of emergency circ l dition it to take any protective action that departs from a license 550.54(y). When time or a technical specification, as pemitted by i l A,

pemits, the notification shall be made before the protective acfion is taken; otherwise,' notification shall be made as soon', as possible thereafter. The' Co:rraission my require' written statements frcm a licensee concerning its actions after use of ~ this provision of the rule. .v - -.a day of' - 1932. Dated at Washi,ngton, D.C. this For the Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Samuel J. Chilk l Secretary of the Commission 1 e e g e .g s l l p g s L

- - _ _ -- oc o c o og o o o -o -am aan anannamnnnnnno c astamm}1Eln3111, o .r,.. 1 2/81 W S E' TPANSMITTAL TO:.. 7 Document Control Desk, ~ m) b 016 Phillips P ADVANCED COPY TO: /7 The Public Document Boom o .g Of/4@ y DATE: k cc: OPS File O- 'From: SECY OPS Branch b C&R (Natali.e') p Attached.are,Icopies of a Coc=ission meeting -anscript/s/ and related meeting document /5/. They b are being forwarded for ent.m.f on the Daily Accession Al D List and olacement in the Public Document Room. No P other dis'tribution is requested or required. Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual b documents wherever known.*. o Meeting

Title:

M co %.h # W P () V / O doen / . m NG DATE: 9J desed DOS COPIES: / Copies (1 of eada Checked) i IrD'. DESCRIPTIO1,1: Advanced May To PDR: 1. .

• Original be Duplicate

~ Docu:nent Dup

• copy
• i y

P 2 Q ,e ,f 5 2.~ I i P s P c 3. E 4. ~ 5. b -h s;:: P

• Verify if in DCS, and ch'ange to "PDR (PDR is advanced one of each docu:nent, t.ro L

of each SECY paper.) available." PE: s'*= d_ J NLbNbbbbNbbMk ^^

• }}