ML20141L023
| ML20141L023 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1997 |
| From: | Rogers K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141L002 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-97-036-C, SECY-97-36-C, NUDOCS 9706020250 | |
| Download: ML20141L023 (5) | |
Text
. __ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ .- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . -
NOTAT' ION VOTE
. RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle Secretary of the Commission FROM:
COMMISSIONER ROGERS
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-036 I REPORT, PART- MILLSTONE 2: POLICY ISSUES LESSONS LEARNED ;
I Approved
- t uKcmf4n_r*
Disapproved 4ivetex 9 4e
- Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
g ec nrrs cst m e rut s tuo I
F a10. 6 SIGNATUkE (j Release Vote / x/ [7,/ff7
- V DATE Withhold Vote / /
Entered on "AS" Yes X No
! 9706020250 970520
- 5 PDR COMMS NRCC l
! CORRESPONDENCE PDR
i.
i l
l
- Comments of Commissioner Rogers on 3 SECY-97-036 1
i This document lists eighteen staff proposals for short and long term actions and should be evaluated in the light of two a
i fundamental considerations: a) are they in any way ictonsistent i with past explicit commission policies? and b) wie are the '
! resource implications of them for the NRC and the licensees?
~
Both of these questions arise from the application of The NRC's Principles of Good Regulation. In part, the Principles were l
j adopted by a full Commission to provide tests for major new l initiatives and in my opinion certainly should be applied to l these proposals. If the proposed actions fail to meet these i tests, the Commission is always free to decide to go ahead with j them anyway, but at least it would be doing so aware of possible 4
negative implications of its actions.
I I find the collection of eighteen proposed actions to be a very mixed group of: 1) relatively straightforward actions that do not significantly depart from past Commission positions and probably do not require excessive resources to implement, 2) actions that might or might not require excessive resources depending on the details of how they are implemented, and 3) a mix of actions that either explicitly or implicitly depart from policies of past commissions and have the potential of very heavy resource commitments if they are to be carried out and fully implemented.
I approve the actions in the first category, which I regard as straightforward. These account for approximately half of the proposed actions. They are items 1, 2, 3, a, 10, 12, and 13.
There are three actions which I would want to know more about in how they are to be implemented and what the resource implications l would be for both NRC and licensees. They are items 4, 11 and j
- 16. I would return these to the staff and request further i information on implementation details and resources.
The remainder of the proposed action items 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, and 18 shoold b6 combined into a single document and issued for public comment under an Advance Notice of P,roposed Rulemaking (ANPR). The policy and resource implications of this third group of actions are so significant that I do not believe that they should be approved without first exposing them to public scrutiny and comment. The proposed actions in this group are connected to definitions of or interpretations of the required contents of the Current License Basis (CLB) and/or the UFSAR and relate closely to applications of 10 CFR 50.59. The ANPR should explore how risk significance should be incorporated into a coherent Commission position relating the eight proposed actions and 50.59.
l
2 There are a number of questions about the Commission's positions on CLB and updated FSAR's that need further Commission consideration. To illustrate this, I have attached copies of a very brief summary of some of the Commission's and staff's differing interpretations of how FSARs were to be regarded ,
(Thoughts on the FSP,R Updating Rule) and an SRM (M940124A) which stated very clearly the Commission's views in early 1994 on how the staff is to approach matters of relief from unnecessary i regulatory burdens. In my opinion, many of the items in the third group of actions are inconsistent with the spirit of SRM M940124A. ,
Attachments .
a/s i
i l
i 1
j i
i 1 l
4 l
l
i 1
Commissioner Rogers' Comments on 8ECY-97-36 l l
! Thoughts on the FSAR Updating Rule
! A source of much confusion and ambiguity in the staff's j enforcement of the F8AR updating rule became evident at the
) briefing of the Commission by the staff on the Millstone Lessons j j Learned SECY-97-036. The cause was a lack of precision in the
! language in the publicly distributed information on the rule (in l
} SECY-79-618 and its attachments and in Generic Letter 80-110).
i Statements in these documents pointed out that the final rule was l a clarification of the proposed rule and listed the items of such
! clarification. The discussions relating to the clarifications j did not indicate that there were any intentions to change the j scope or intent of the final rule from those of the earlier I l
- proposed rule. A great deal of attention and discussion had !
l already been directed at the proposed rule, and since the items
- of clarification in the final rule did not alter most of the 1 j aspects of the proposed rule, the licensees' implementation of !
l the final rule and the staff's enforcement of it followed the l proposed rule rather than a manner that might be suggested by a ,
j plain reading today of the language of the rule. j l
The final rule introduced the phrase "the effects of". The final l rule required, in part, that "the effects of" all analyses of new j safety issues be included in the UFSAR and "the effects of" was i understood to mean the effects on the words in the FSAR. Many l believed that the intent was not to change the intent or scope of .
}
the final rule from those of the proposed rule. The point of '
l view of the proposed rule was that if a change in the facility or l
procedures or a new analysis did not make the words in the FSAR l
incorrect, or were not originally discussed in the FSAR, then the
- change or analyses need not be described in the UFSAR. With the j above interpretation of the phrase "the effects of", the final
- rule did not differ significantly from the proposed rule and did i not add items that the proposed rule had excluded.
Inconsistencies and ambiguities in NRC's language in this instance have led to enforcement apparently not following the plain reading of the final version of 50.71(e) . The staff and the licensees appear to have adopted the point of view behind the proposed rule and then proceeded to enforce or follow the final rule in a manner consistent with the proposed rule. In retrospect, there now appears to be a compliance and enforcement problem.
In my opinion, the problem is not solely one of compliance-enforcement, but rather a lack of regulatory clarity compounded by a failure to meet the principle of reliability by staff reinterpreting meanings without subjecting such reinterpretations to open discussion with the Commission and within the regulated ,
community. The record shows that thers clearly was some j disagreement as to the interpretation of the final rule, with i
p
. - . _ _ .. -- -._-. _~ _.- ~. . . - - - - - - - . .-
~
l i .
t .
j 2 some in the NRC interpreting words in a much stricter manner than 1 others inside NRC and in the industry. I believe that the rule i was implemented for the most part in a manner that was not i inconsistent with one possible interpretation of the rule.
There certainly has been more than one liEC interpretation of that
! rule. The interpretation and implementation of the UFSAR in a j manner different from previous practice should not be carried out l
without first at least submitting such interpretation for public notice and comment.
i t
1 I
l l
m
[ *%
t, N UNITED STATES gl NUdEEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{ j r. $ WASHINGTON, DA 20065
% E 1 IN RESPONSE, PLEASE
'% * ..* #gI REFER TO: M940124A OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY pggggggy 74, ggg4 MEMORANDUM TO: James M. Taylor Executive Director for trations FROM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secre
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - BRIEFING ON FINAL REPORT OF REGULATORY REVIEW TAqK FORCE (SECY 003), 9:30 A.M., MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 1994, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
The Commission was briefed by the NRC staff on the implementation of the Regulatory Review Group recommendations. The Commission requested the staff to provide the status of the NUREG which describes reporting requirements for power plant licensees.
.(EDO) (SECY Suspense: 3/11/94)
The Commission supports the staff initiative to increase the agency's focus towards performance based requirements rather than prescriptive requirements. Further, the Comr.ission supports initiatives to reduce regulatory burden, through relief of licensee commitments, above minimum regulatory requirements, that are of only minor safety significance. These factors should be considered as the staff develops guidance for implementation of the Regulatory Review Group recommendations. The commission hopes that a similar review of the regulations or an application of the lessons learned from this review could be applied in the materials area.
cc: The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque OGC l OCA OIG office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
,