ML20126D998
| ML20126D998 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1984 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126D950 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-942, FOIA-85-A-5, REF-10CFR9.7 M840516A, NUDOCS 8506150266 | |
| Download: ML20126D998 (5) | |
Text
[
R.
.v pun.
UNikED STATES IN RESPONSE, PLEASE
'[ - -
%'g
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REFER TO:
M840516A E-WASHINGTON. O.C. 20555 a
8 j
May 18,-1984
' OFFICE OF THE ki
' SECRETARY LIMITED DISTRIBUTION MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
/
'FROM:
Samuel J.
Chilk, Secreta
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - CON'dpNtJATION OF REVIEW OF SHOREHAM ORDER, 11:00 A.M.,
WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1984, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. OFFICE (CLOSED--Ex. 10)
The Commission continued its review of a proposed Shoreham Order.
The Commission
- reached' general agreement on the
. proposed order as modified at the meeting.
The closed meeting was then adjourned and reconvened as a meeting open to the public for the purpose of voting formally on the Order.
cc:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commission Staff Offices
)
(j\\'1 L j 'I, N ip i dl
- Commissioner Roberts was not present during the latter portion of this meeting.
N d
A-5 p
I V F"i R M TYON RESPONSE SHEET T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-84-218 - SHOREHAM - SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION TO CLARIFY CLI-84-8
/
. APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN ~
NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
. ~. -
b s />f w
2.
SIGNAIURL 6 - (
.' - /
UAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE:
PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO.AND/OR COMMENT ON.0GC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS' PAPER.
7 NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80
l '-
OPENING REMARKS EXEMPTIONS POLICY WEDNESDAY JULY 25, 1984 10:00 AM GOOD, MORNING.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM THE NRC STAFF THAT THE COMMISSION PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON THE NEED AND STANDARD FOR EXEMPTIONS TO NRC REGULATIONS IN LIGHT OF THE COMMISSION'S SHOREHAM DECISION, CL1-84-8.
IN SECY-84-290, THE STAFF INFORMED THE COMMISSION OF IS SERIOUS PROBLEMS IT abt ENCOUNTERING IN OPERATING LICENSES CASES, AND FOR OPERATING REACTORS, DUE TO THE COMMISSION'S SHOREHAM DECISION.
IN LIEU OF MY SUMMARIZING THAT PAPER, 1 PROPOSE TO ASK THE STAFF SHORTLY TO DESCRIBE THE PROBLEMS CtenND IT BELIEVES HAVE BEEN N.
WE ALSO HAVE A PAPER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL WHICH ATTEMPTS TO LAY OUT THE LEGAL FLEXIBILITY WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS FOR ITS EXEMPTIONS POLICY.
I ALSO PROPOSE TO ASK OGC TO SUMMARIZE ITS VIEWS.
IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE ISSUES GENERALLY ARE: (1) ON WHAT ISSUES IS THERE A NEED FOR COMMISSION GUIDANCE; (2) IN WHAT D/7
. f: ~
4.,-
FORM SHOULD THE GUIDANCE BE GIVENJ AND (3) WHAT SHOULD THE GUIDANCE BE.
LET ME NOW ASK WHETHER OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE OPENING REMARKS.
[ TURN THE MEETING OVER TO EDO.]
l-l
\\
i f
l' i
-.y-.,,
w..----
y
_.a,..._,,,.,,
o
.g.g g:3 g g_g g :.g-y R5SPONSE' SHEET T0:
SAMUELJCHILK.,SECRETARYOFTHECOMMISSION FROM:
COMt1ISSIONER'ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-84-296 - Shoreham:
LILCO's Motion for Reconsideration of Commission's July 18 Memorandum and Order APPROVED ~
~~
~
DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING ~
REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
Yes No 1.
Approve Draft Order 2.
Approve additional paragraph
?
--_,f.
SIGNAIURt.
/
7-2 & F4' DAI t.
SECRETARIAT NOTE:
PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO. AND/OR COMMENT ON.0GC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80
~
lOKGOS
/ T sb*ESPONSE REFER IN R
~
/
/
UNITED STATES T$7 7,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U
.E W ASHIN GT ON,'O.C. 20555 July 27, 1984 OFFICE OF THE '
SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks, EDO Herzel H.
laine, General Counsel FROM:
Samuel J ilk, Secretary
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - DISCUSSION OF THE NEED AND STANDARDS FOR EXEMPTIONS (SECY-84-290/29 0A) 10:00 A.M.,
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1984, COMMISSIONERS" CONFERENCE ROOM, DC OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
The Commission met to discuss the need and standards for exemptions from the regulations in light of the Commission's Shoreham decision CLI-84-8.
The staff discussed the problems that they have in interpreting the Commission's Shoreham decision and in applying it on a
-generic basis to other situations.
(SECY-8 4-290/29 0A)
The Commission, by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Asselstine dissenting) directed that:
(1)
For the near term the staff read the Shoreham decision as applying to Shoreham only and thus continue with its past practice in authcrizing exemptions and imposing license conditions on licensees in accordance with existing regulations.
(2)
For the longer term, an intensive program of re-examination of the exemption process should be undertaken with the goal of providing the Commissioners with an analysis and proposed changes in approximately 30 days.
(ELD /OGC/NRR) (SECY SUSPENSE:
8/25/84)
(3)
A brief analysis of any problems that would be caused by adoption of Commissioner Asselstine's proposal (that the exemption process would not apply to schedular changes for operating licenses and that "as safe as" be read as "substantially as safe as") be provided to the Commission within seven (7) days.
(ELD /OGC/NRR) (SECY SUSPENSE:
8/1/84) cc:
Chairman Palladino commissioner Roberts
,g Commissioner Asselstine
\\,)
Commissioner Bernthal y
commissioner Zech i
hb UM
Mf6%71p
p nee r
' ' ". '--f-UNITED STATES P
NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION
,.{'
CASHINGTON,CA 20006 OFFICE OF THE conneessoNEn
\\
July 30, 1984 MEMORANDUli FOR:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FR0ft:
James K. Asselstine
SUBJECT:
GUIDANCE TO STAFF N THE APPLICABILITY OF THE C0PetISSIDH'S SHOREHM1 DECISION TO OTHER CASES For purposes of the staff's short-term review of g proposal. I am providing additional details on the guidance for considering exemptions under 10 CFR section 50.12 that I believe should have been given to the staff. My proposal includes the following:
1.
The guidance in'the Shoreham decision applies to all operating license applications, including fuel loading, low-power and full-power licenses.
}
2..
For operating reactors, the Shoreham guidance applies to requests for long-term or life-of-plant relief from provisions of the
'Comission's regulations, but does not apply to requests for temporary relief from schedular requirements.
These temporary schedular requests will be handled as enforcement matters rather than as exemptions.
1 3.
The Shoreham guidance applies to all provisions of the Com-mission's regulations, and not just to GDC 17 or the other General Design Criteria.
4.
A showing of exigent circumstances is required in order to grant any exemption under 10 'CFR section 50.12.
The test for exigent circumstances involves the balancing of equities, as described in footnote 3 of the Comission's Shoreham order.
5.
In all cases, the Comission regards the use of the exemption authority as extraordinary. This is consistent with the underlying principle that the Comission's regulations, which represent the Agen-cy's fundamental judgment on what is required for safety, should be net unless there are compelling circumstances warranting an exemption.
6.
The "as safe as" standard in the Shoreham decision applies to all exemption requests under 10 CFR section 50.12.
The "as safe as" standard should be read reasonably to mean "substantially as safe as".
In applying the "as safe as" test, the staff should first determine mA VA
//
. a l e i m-.z. i 3 PP,
o y
9 whether it is feasible to provide compensating measures to assure a level of safety that is equivalent to that provided by plant operation in full compliance with the regulations.
However, even if such com-pensating measures are not feasible, an exemption could still be gran-ted, assuming all other requirenents of the Shoreham decision are met,
. if the staff determines that operation of the plant with the exemption will not result in a substantial reduction in the level of safety that would be provided by plant operation in full compliance with the regu-lations.
In making this determination, I would permit the staff to take into account the length of time during which the plant would be allowed to operate under the exemption.
cc:
Chairman Palladino Conmissioner Roberts Commissioner Bernthal Consissicner Zech SECY
.0PE OGC l
l l
?
A F F f R Fi A'T T 0 N RESP 0ilSE SHEET T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-84-296A - SHOREHAM: LILCO'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION'S JULY 18 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1
APPROVED
//
DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
\\
/
- _ -. z _.
-%~4
~
SIGNAluRL
/
,.[-- J.' f /
UAIL SECRETARIAT NOTE:
PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO.AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.