ML20151C904
| ML20151C904 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/01/1986 |
| From: | Polk P NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Bernero R, Cunningham R, Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151C834 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-714 NUDOCS 8804130258 | |
| Download: ML20151C904 (4) | |
Text
f'it W-m 4. / 00 k-00T 1 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert M. Bernero. NRR Richard W. Starostecki, IE Richard E. Cunningham, NMSS Denwood F. Ross, RES Clemens J. Heltemes, Jr., AE00 Joseph Scinto, OGC THRU:
John E. Zerbe Director Regional Operations and Generic Requirements Staff FROM:
Philip J. Polk Technical Assistant Regional Operations and Generic Requirements Staff
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
AND ISSUE IDENTIFICATION FOR CRGR MEETING NO. 98:
DEFERRED PLUT POLICY By memorandum dated September 26, 1986, the Agenda for CRGR meeting No. 98 on October 16, 1986 was forwarded.
Enclosed for your information and use is the ROGR Staff sumary and issue identification associated with the Comission Paper regarding the subject policy, h
Philip J. Polk, Technical Assistant Regional Operations and Generic Requiremehts Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
J. Sniezek j
i DISTRIBUTION:
JHSniezek ROGR Staff JZerbe DEDROGR cf PPolk Central file (9f
' FC
- ROGR
- ROG8/.Q.....::............::............::............::.............:...........
AME :PPolk;jf
- s rbe
....:............:.r[ r-------:-----------
I ATE :9/ % /86
- 7 '///86
/ //
i
^FFICIAL RECORD COPY 1
88041302 % 080405 i
/
I WEISSB7-714 PDR
\\
l j
s Sumary and Issue Identification for CPGR Review CRGR Meeting No. 98 1.0 Identification and Objective The subject at hand is the proposed Deferred Plant Policy Statement. By memorandum dated August 27, 1986, NRR requested CRGR review of the subject policy and seven enclosures thereto.
CRGR's review prior to forwarding the subject policy to the Comission is being requested.
If Comissica approval is received, the staff recomends that the policy be published in the Federal Register for coment.
2.0 Background to the subject policy, "Comission Directives on Deferred / Cancelled Plants," provides a brief sumary of Comission actions regarding reactivation of deferred plants. Please note that until recently deferred plants were being discussed in the context of standardization. A history of standardization can be found in Section 1 of NUREG-1225. "Implementation of NRC Policy on Nuclear Power Plant Standardization."
Since late 1984 the Comission has afforded priority to various policies which:
1.
Acknowledge the maturity of the nuclear industry and the fact that the present generation of LWRs is safe enough; 2.
Reflect the knowledge and experience acquired over the mny hundreds of years of plant operation; and 3.
Establish a future regulatory framework while acknowledging the above two items.
In essence, there are three policies which will detennine the licensing frame-work for the future. These process documents are:
- 1) The Deferred Plant Policy for previous plants; 2) The Standardization Policy for evolutions of existing LWR designs; and 3) The Advanced Reactor Policy for new and signifi-cantly different future designs. The Deferred Plant Policy addresses the re.
activation of pre-1985 plants which had received a Construction Pennit and which were subsequently indefinitely delayed or terminated. The Advanced Reactor Policy was approved by the Comission in 1985. This Policy comitted the NPC to the review of plant designs significantly different from the present generation of LWRs; i.e., designs expected after the year 2000.
Finally, the Standardization Policy, presently under CRGR review, addresses the licensing requirements and regulatory framework for plants similar to existing LWR de-signs between now and the year 2000.
-2 The primary objective of the Deferred Plant Policy is to address the areas necessary for the licensing of deferred plants. This includes:
(1)regula-tions and guidance applicable to deferred and teminated plants. (2) docuen-tation, maintenance and preservation requirements (3) applicability of new regulatory reouirements, and (4) other general administrative considerations.
The subject policy categorizes deactivated plants into three classes:
(1) a deferred plant is one for which the licensee has ceased construction or reduced activity to a maintenance level but maintains the c(nstruction pennit in effect and has not announced the temination of the plant, (?) a tereinated plant is one for which the licensee has announced that construction has been tenninated pennanently but which still has a CP, and (3) a cancelled plant is one which no longer has a valid construction pemit.
In essence, the Deferred Plant Policy indicates what must be done during the deferral period and, given reactivation, what licensing requirements will be imposed. With respect to licensing requirements, reactivated plants will be subjected to the current regulations; i.e., requirements established from the time of construction pennit until October 1985 will be backfitted subject to severe accident policy and the decision of the Director, NRR.
Requirements established after October 1985 will be required in consonance with the Backfit Rule.
The scope of the Deferred Plant Policy is limited to deferred and tenninated plants since reactivation of cancelled plants is considered extremely unlikely.
Separate regulatory treatment of cancelled plants would be warranted if such a plant were reactivated.
3.
Issues and Coments In order to facilitate CRGR review, the folleving issues and coments are pro-vided. These items may already have been discussed at length.
In addition, CPGR may feel that resolution of some of the following items may not be neces-sary prior to Comission review, in this perspective, CRGR may not wish to address all of the following issues, and instead to defer resolution of out-standing itees until Comission feedback is received.
In the worst case, resolution can be reached during the interested party cocnent period.
1.
On page 3 of the subject Policy, it is indicated that, "Application of the backfit rule would apply to all deferred plants irrespective of the dura-tion of the deferral period."
In addition, the Policy states, "Deferred plants will have to perform this plant-specific vulnerability analysis; however, the backfit rule will be used to decide which identified plant vulnerabilities require plant modifications." This is interpreted to rean that:
2 1)
Independent of the position in the licensing process, all deferred plants will be subject to all licensing requirements and staff posi-tiens in effect prior to October 21, 1985, as determined by the Director, NPR.
i 2)
For licensing issues established after October 21, 1985, deferred plants withouj a docketed OL application will be subject to these requirements a d positions as detemined by the Director, NRR; and
3-3)
For licensing issues established after October 21, 1985, deferred plants with a docketed OL application will be subject to these re-quirements and pcsitions as detennined by the Backfit Rule.
The above position leaves uncertainty and possible inconsistency in the licensing requirements for reactivated plants.
In the perspective that stability and predictability will carry great weight in the licensee de-cision process, the NRC may not be encouraging reactivation.
Is there no way that the staff can now fix or finnly establish licensing requirements in effect prior to October 21, 19857 l
- 2. to the subject policy establishes new regulatory requirements.
In addition, the requirements of the Severe Accident Policy are imposed.
Should the policy paper itself cover these requirements? Should these requirements be imposed? Will rulemaking be necessary?
3.
On page 1 of Enclosure 3 the NRC is held responsible for the management of the environmental impact of not constructing a nuclear power plant.
Should this not be a state oFTocal matter to be discussed with the site owner?
4 The subject policy alludes to the Standardization Policy. Although the Standardization Policy may be relevant. it would appear that deferred plants will not be afforded a standardization option. Should these plants be afforded such an option? If nothing else, deferred and teminated plants reflect at lesst 21 pre-approved sites.
It seems that plants with a construction pemit and a pre-approved site might pursue the standard-ization option if they are early enough in the construction process.
Should the Deferred Plant Policy be held in abeyance until tie Standard-ization Policy is 6pproved?
I i
1 I