ML20137D379

Staff Requirements Memo Re 851114 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote in Washington,Dc.Orders Granting & Denying Extension of 851130 Equipment Qualification Deadline for Nine Mile Point & Brunswick,Respectively,Approved

ML20137D379
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point, Brunswick, 05000000
Issue date:	11/21/1985
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	Dircks W, Plaine H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
REF-10CFR9.7 M851114B, NUDOCS 8511270055
Download: ML20137D379 (6)

Text

F IN RESPONSE, PLEASE

• [p ur o UNITED STATES REFER TO: M851114B 1  !"

o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M

$ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 h

k,*****J* November 21, 1985 C FFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations Herzel H.E. Plaine, Gene Counsel FROM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secret  !

)

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFI ATION/ DISCUSSION AND VOTE, 3:30 P.M., THI AY, NOVEMBER 14, 1985, COMMISSIONERS' CO FERENCE ROOM, D.C.

OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

I. SECY-85-319A - Order Regarding Environmental Qualification Extension of the November 30, 1985 Deadline for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 The Commission, by a 5-0 vote, approved an order granting an extension in the November 30, 1985 equipment qualification deadline to the next outage of sufficient duration to install the equipment but no later than March 30, 1986.

(Subsequently, on November 15, 1985 the Secretary signed the Order.)

II. SECY-85-321A - Order Regarding Environmental Qualification Extension of the November 30, 1985 Deadline for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 The Commission, by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Roberts disapproving) approved an order denying a request by Carolina Power and Light Company for an extension of the November 30, 1985 equipment qualification deadline for Brunswick Unit 2. -

Commissioner Zech noted that in his view the circum ~ stances in this case may be a factor in mitigating any civil penalties.

(Subsequently, on November 15, 1985 the Secretary signed the Order.)

?

0511270055 851121 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR

III. SECY-85-322 - Final Amendments to 10 CFR 50.12, " Specific Exemptions" The Commission (with Chairman Palladino and Commissioners Roberts, Bernthal, and Zech agreeing) approved for publication final revisions to the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12(a) for granting exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 with modifications as indicated on the attached pages 33, 51, 60, and 65. Commissioner Asselstine approved in part and disapproved in part. His disapproval is to the addition to page 33 and the failure to include his proposed changes to pages 56, 60, and 66.

You should revise the rule as indicated and return it for signature and publication in the Federal Register.

(EDO) (SECY Suspense: 12/9/85)

Attachments:

As stated cc: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech Commission Staff Offices PDR - Advance DCS - 016 Phillips

' 4/ 7 plant and that, in some cases, detailed plant requirements are inappropriate either because they would not, on a given plant, achieve the intended end result of the regulation, or because there are alternative and possible more effective means for achieving the underlying purpose of the regulation.

In considering these comments, it was apparent that the existence of alternative or compensatory measures is also an appropriate consideration in making the "no undue risk" determination of Section 50.12(a)(1) rather-than-a "spee4al-e4rewmstanee." Originally, the specific situations of section 50.12(a)(2) were examples of either the no undue risk standard or the public interest standard in proposed Section 50.12(a)(1), and therefore it was appropriate to include " alternative or compensatory measures" as a special condition under proposed Section 50.12(a)(2). With the change in focus in the final rule to "special circumstances", alternative or compensatory measures are no longer appreppfate necessary for consideration as a separate special circumstance, and the Commission has deleteH this provision from Section .

50. (ja)(2) of the final rule. However, alternative means of compliance may onsidered in evaluating the special circumstances factors in Section 50.12(a)(2)(ii) of the final rule. The detailed requirements of each safety regulation in 10 CFR Part 50 reflect a rulemaking judgiment that satisfac tion of those detailed requirements is the only way to' achieve the specific purpose of the regulation without imposing unnecessary hardship or creating unforeseen conflicts. However, in any particular case this could prove to be incorrect, and the exemption process would permit licensees or applicants to offer alternative ways of achieving the purpose of the regulation without other undesirable effects. The Commission does not believe that this limited application will eliminate consistency and reliability from the regulatory process. In regard to the UCS statement t that consideration of alternative mechanisms would violate the Commission's policy in 10 CFR 2.758, the change in focus in the final rule to "special circumstances" makes it consistent with the considerations the Commission expects parties to address in adjudications involving 10 CFR 2.758.

Proposed Section 50.12(a)(2)(iv) establishes a special circumstance when--

the exemption would result in an overall benefit to the public health and safety that compensates for any decrease in safety that may result form the grant of the exemption.

50.57(a) must have been made, including substantial completion of constructicn, before Section 50.57(b) would be applicable. The provisions of Section 50.57(b) must be read in conjunction with the provisions of Section 50.57(a). Finally, shortly after the promulgation of the current Section 50.57(a) and (b), the Commission promulgated the present version of Section 50.57(c) to allow for low power operation. 36 Fed. Reg. 886, May 14, 1971.

The interpretation urged by the commenters, would also not be consistent with the promulgation of Section 50.57(c).

In order to use an approach consistent with existing regulatory .

authority, and to ensure a documented and systematic consideration .

of exemption requests, the Commission will permit temporary noncompliances if appropriate under Sections 50.12(a) or 50.57(b).

Any schedular exemptions for near-term operating licenses must be accompanied by the formal findings required by 10 CFR 50.12(a). __

However, for these near-term operating licenses, the Commission will continue to provide schedular relief under 10 CFR 50.57(b) through temporary noncompliances for any uncompleted construction activities remaining, after the finding of provided that the Commission can find, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.57(a), has been made that construction is substantially complete.

5/ This is within the scope and intent of 10 CFR 50.57(b). Both the schedular exemptions and the schedular relief for near-term operating licenses will be documented by license conditions and addressed in the Safety Evaluation Report. No 4/ A schedular exemption is granted under Section 50.12(a) for those items of temporary noncompliance which would prevent the NRC from finding that construction is substantially complete under Section 50.57(a).

Schedular relief is granted under Section 50.57(b) for those miner items of temporary noncompliance remaining after the NRC has made a finding that construction is substantially complete under Section 50.57(a).

1 i

Section 50.12(a)(2)(iii) addresses those situations where ccepliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significar.tly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated. This is intended to provide equitable treatment to applicants or licensees who, because of

• some unusual circumstance, are affected in a manner different than that of other similarly situated licensees or applicants. For example, see In the Matter of Duke Power Comoany (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),

CLI-75-9, 2 NRC 180 (1975).

Section 50.12(a)(2)(iv) would address situations Ehere the exemption would i

bene

%d cn g m % y a2 pr;visica woul4 result in an{c'!:r;ii]y, t.xcf km. ALd ~p n &+heca , ... ba!::::, th;,emptica acu.dLc fit to health and safety /piw p .y

~ L fe :: en th::: cire' ~tance: _

ctuel cessit 'et increase in _pvarall uftty er qu

!ity-of pbd eper;ti;n:]

n< %,Am .

Section 50.12(a)(2)(v) establishes a condition where the exer.rption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation. This would cover the so-called " schedular" exemptions where the relief sought is limited to a specific amount of time or until a specific event occurs. The applicant's good faith efforts to comply with the required schedule would be one of the factors considered in detennining whether this special

cicumstance exists.

Section 50.12(a)(2)(vi) establishes a category of any other material circumstances not considered when the regulation was adopted. Although the 2

4

t 2. In i 50.12, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follcws:

$ 50.12 Specific exemptions.

(a) The Commission may, upon application by any interested persen or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of this part, which are --

(1) Authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security.

(2) The Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are present whenever--

(i) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances

@"1 A %]conflicfwith other rules or requirements of the Connission; or (ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstatices would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule; or (iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship cr other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated; or i

(iv) The. exemption would result in[J ;;;r;((f benefit to the public health and safety that compensates for any decrease in safety that may result from the grant of the exemption; or a

f

- . _ , . - ,,, _ . ~ . , _ _m._.-.. _--..~...

-