ML20141L046
| ML20141L046 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E 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 9706020263 | |
| Download: ML20141L046 (4) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ . .
NOTATION VOTE l RESPONSE SHEET 1
TO: John C. Hoyle !
l Secretary of the Commission FROM: COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-036 - MILLSTONE LESSONS LEARNED '
REPORT, PART 2: POLICY ISSUES l
Approved 6[ Disapproved *h Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
p Wbk.
SIGNAWREb
- Release Vote / K/
( DATE l Withhold vote / /
Entered on "AS" Yes ( No gy , 9706020263 970520 PDR COMMS NRCC
/' CORRESPONDENCE PDR
i .
i* Comissioner McGaffigan's Comments on SECY-97-036
. I agree with Chairman Jackson on the importance of the Updated FSAR. It plays 1 an important part in assuring that each licensed facility remains within its design and licensing bases reflected in the FSAR and, in conjunction with 10 CFR 50.59 provides a measure of, and a mechanism for. regulatory oversight i
for changes to the facility. I also agree with Commissioner Rogers that the 18 actions contained in SECY-97-036 are a very mixed group with wide i variations in resource requirements and regulatory impacts.
1 I support Actions 1. 2. 3. and 4. NRC has had substantial involvement with the industry in evaluating the history and the current status of comitments.
SECY-94-003 documented staff plans to implement a Regulatory Review Group recommendation to either endorse an industry guideline concerning licensee comitments or develop NRC guidance on the topic. SECY 94-066 documented the completion of staff audits on comitment control issues and concluded that 1 licensees had generally controlled and maintained docketed commitments. In 4
SECY-95-300, the staff discussed its interactions with NEI regarding
, development of the NEI guidance document on commitments and stated the staff's
! intention to endorse the document by letter to NEI: this endorsement letter
- was sent to Mr. Joe F. Colvin of NEI on January 24, 1996. While the effectiveness of licensee comitment control programs should be assessed
- 3eriodically, based on the staff's efforts to date. I feel that the NRC should i
lave licensees identify their commitments, should continue to encourage i licensees to use the NEI process that NRC hel)ed develop, and should track i licensee comitments internally to provide a Jasis for future staff assessments of licensee program effectiveness. Having said that. I recognize that the Action 2 guidance for managing comitments made to the NRC is not enforceable. I nevertheless believe that it is worthwhile to pursue.
! I su) port the staff's position which is not to implement Actions 5. 6. and 7 at t11s time, but to continue to maintain them as potential long-term efforts.
The staff stated that inspection of licensees' design control practices.
! compliance with licensing-basis documents, and implementation of the NEI guidance (or, presumably the licensees
- own programs if they choose not to use the NRC-endorsed NEI methods) would all be necessary before the staff would be ready to recomend that any or all of Actions 5. 6. and 7 should be pursued.
i Any future staff recomendation would need to address the applicable potential i
backfit implications. I believe that the staff's intended inspections are appropriate and, until the staff makes a recommendation based on its
, inspection efforts, that any decision on the merits of these long-term actions i would t,e premature. Similarly. I believe it is premature to initiate an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) before the staff has comaleted its inspections and evaluations and recommended that one or more of t1ese long
, term actions be considered further. At the same time. I do not believe that Actions 5. 6 and 7 warrant the comitment of staff and licensee resources that separate pilot projects might entail. Consequently, at this time. I do not i support either an ANPR or pilot projects related to these actions.
I support Action 8. This item is very similar to Action 1 and would have little or no impact on licensees. The proposed action would not generate any new correspondence but would better identify new design bases for staff review
- and inspection.
l .
l 2 I support Action 9 and note that the concerns over potential backfit implications cited by the staff appear to have been adequately addressed and dispositioned by the General Counsel at the Commission meeting on February 12.
1997. On this score. I agree with Comissioner Rogers that publicly distributed information on the intent of 10 CFR 50.71(e) may have introduced l confusion and ambiguity as to what the staff would accept as meeting the FSAR update requirements of the rule. Nevertheless, the rule is clear on its face as to what it requires, and I feel constrained to support the plain-language reading of this section. While a plain-langu.;;e implementation of the rule i may result in the needless inclusion of sone information in the FSAR. I would l ask the staff, in the longer term, to for.oulate an approach possibly as part I l of the rulemaking on 10 CFR 50.59. that would appropriately limit what is to 1 go into the FSAR and allow obsolete or less meaningful information and comitments to be readily removed from the FSAR.
l I su] port Action 10 and note that using the licensees' responses to the
- Octo)er 9.1996,10 CFR 50.54(f) letters to prioritize inspections is certainly appropriate.
l Action 11 must be considered in conjunction with SECY-96-154. in which the staff proposed a revision to the NRC Enforcement Policy which provided a two year period of enforcement discretion concerning violations of 10 CFR 50.59 i and 10 CFR 50.71(e). This Commission action was taken on October 18, 1996.
l l and allowed the staff not to cite the types of violations covered by Action l 11. provided that the licensee had initiated a arogram to identify and correct the deficiencies. I support Action 11. given t1e current Commission position granting enforcement discretion. I feel the existing discretion period of two I years is adequate but if. on the basis of experience, the staff were to find a l need for a longer discretion period. I would not oppose the longer period (two fuel cycles - as much as 48 months) suggested by Commissioner Dicus.
I support Action 12. The staff noted that this effort had already begun and that the insights gained were of value.
I support Action 13. The guidance to be published by the staff should be of I considerable value to reviewers. inspectors, and licensees. ;
1 I support the staff's proposal to evaluate the licensees
- responses to the Octo)er 9.1996,10 CFR 50.54(f) letters to determine if additional inspections are needed and if licensee initiatives have met the Commission's expectations or if additional regulations might be needed. In Actions 14 and
- 15. the staff proposes to evaluate whether there is a need to establish additional requirements, and I see no reason to oppose such an evaluation, especially since the staff has yet to complete the review of licensee responses to the 50.54(f) letters and has yet to complete the design team inspections already planned and underway. Similarly. I believe it is premature to initiate an ANPR or commit the resources that would be required
, for an additional pilot project until the staff has recommended that one or
- more of the long term actions be considered further, i
- ~ . :
1
!* 3 I su] port Action 16. Inspectors are expected to consult and utilize the FSAR !
l in tie course of inspection activities and, with the enforcement discretion l period already approved by the Commission. I see no additional regulatory or resource impact from this action.
I do not support Action 17 as a short term action, but see this as part of the long term Action 18 which I do sup> ort. The decision on what should be added to the scope of the Updated FSAR siould not be done piecemeal as the staff suggests in Action 17. Rather, guidance should be provided on what should be i included in, or removed from, the U) dated FSAR as part of the overall '
i enhancement that would be accomplis 1ed under Action 18. Otherwise, the piecemeal approach proposed in Action 17 would result in multiple potentially inconsistent approaches. Also, if there are to be any backfit considerations, i
these would best be dealt with in a single action as proposed in Action 18, rather than in each individual instance where the staff proposes (as in Action
- 17) to incorporate material into Updated FSARs. Together, Actions 17 and 18 might be suitable for an ANPR, or they might appropriately be included in any staff proposal to better define and limit the scope and content of the FSAR as I have suggested in the context of Action 9.
I
n g"
[A UGb UNITED STATES l
l
\ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 g
% *****/ May 20, 1997 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan Execu 've Dir ctor for Operations FROM: Joh . I o le k
Secretary
SUBJECT:
ST F REQUIREMENTS - SECY-97-036 - MILLSTONE LESSONS LEARNED REPORT, PART 2: POLICY ISSUES The Commission has aporoved continuing imolementation of the followino short-term actions 1. 2. 3. 4, 8, 9, 10. 11, 12. 13, and 16. Specific comments follow, providing clarification on 1 certain of these actions, and providing Commission direction on I several additional actions in the paper.
The staff should implement 10 CFR 50.71(e) to ensure that Final Safety Analysis Reports (FSARs) are updated to reflect changes to the design bases, and to reflect the effects of other analyses ;
I performed since original licensing which should have been included under 10 CFR 50.71(e) The enforcement of licensee l compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e) should be l taken in conjunction with the Commission's decision on SECY 154, in which the Commission approved granting enforcement l discretion for a period up to two years for licensees which had initiated a program to identify and correct FSAR deficiencies.
The staff should formulate an approach that would: 1) ensure that licensees have updated the FSARs to reflect the most safety / risk significant issues first (e.g., Station Black Out, Anticipated Transient Without Scram ....), and 2) allow obsolete or less meaningful information and commitments to be readily removed from the FSAR. The staff should promptly develop regulatory guidance for making the risk-informed decisions on information to be contained in the updated FSAR. The Commission l
SECY NOTE: SECY-97-036 WAS PREVIOUSLY RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC ON FEBRUARY 19, 1997. THIS SRM AND THE COMMISSION VOTING RECORD CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
l
' Y l O ff [ rg
o I.
e i 1
will consider extending the period for enforcement discretion if I experience so dictates.
l l (EDO) (SECY Suspense: 12/30/97-Approach & Regulatory Guidance) )
- (EDO) (SECY Suspense
- 10/18/98-l Enforcement Discretion) l l
The staff should provide the Commission a paper that discusses the experience gained with implementation of the short term actions, any license and design basis issues that remain, and any recommendations for further improvements to the regulatory process. Any futurt staff recommendation should address the applicable potential backfit implications. In addition, the ;
staff should consider the need for public comment. This paper i should be coordinated and integrated with staff consideration of Commission guidance regarding SECY 97-035 and other guidance relating to implementation of 10 CFR 50.59.
I (EDO) (SECY Suspense: 9/8/97) l l
l l
cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan OGC CIO CFO OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
i
_