ML20153C824
| ML20153C824 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/12/1988 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| FRN-52FR6334, REF-10CFR9.7, RULE-PR-50 AC44-2-17, NUDOCS 8809010306 | |
| Download: ML20153C824 (4) | |
Text
h
[ge.. =%o, UNITED STATES yN ,, "j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g ,.
4 j W AS HIN GT ON, D.C. 20555 t
%, JI
- August 12, 1988 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations William C. Parler, General Counsel p', J 6 FROM: g Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION AND VOTE, 3:30 P.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 1988, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
I. SECY-88-164 - ALLOCATION BETWEEN COMMISSION AND ILLINOIS OF REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER WEST CHICAGO WASTE MATERIALS The Commission by a 4-0 vote, approved an order which resolved the uncertainty whether Illinois has jurisdiction over certain materials in Kress Creek and other locations at l or near the West Chicago Facility. The order held that the I NRC retains jurisdiction over the Kress Creek materials and that the Commission has relinquished jurisdiction over the other materials in dispute. In addition +5e Commission approved an order denying the NRC staff's July 13, 1987 petition for review of ALAB-867.
l l
(Subsequently, on August 5, 1988 the Secretary signed the l order.) '
1 II. SECY-88-184 - LICENSING BOARD DECISION ON SENIOR REACTOR l OPERATOR LICENSE FOR DAVID W. HELD l The Commission by a 4-0 vote approved an order which completed its consideration of January 11 and February 2, 1988 decisions of the Administrative Judge presiding over the request of Mr. David W. Held for a hearing on the denial of a senior reactor operator license. The order remands the case to the Administrative Judge for a proceeding on the specific issue of whether Mr. Hold should have been found to have passed or failed the simulator examination. Chairman Zech had additional views which were attached to th- wJer.
(Subsequently, on August 8, 1988 the Secretary signeu the order.)
b' 9009010306 080012 (Ob' PDR
/
10CFR PT9.7 PNU i ' O}; ll : 11 L/ g'c ',d
- .A
\
1 III. SECY-88-162 - REVISION OF THE ECCS RULE CONTAINED IN APPENDIX K AND SECTION 50.46 OF 10 CFR PART 50 The Commission by a 4-0 vote approved revisions of the ECCS Rule contained in Appendix X and Section 50.46 of 10 CFR Part 50, subject to the attached modifications.
The Federal Register notice r.hould be modified as noted and returned for signature and publication.
(EDO) (SECY Suspense.: 9/9/88) cc: Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Carr Commissioner Rogers GPA ACRS ACNW ASLBP ASLAP DCS - P1-124" PDR - Advance copy
e
-' C'rrors are discovered in evaluation models, requests are made to
~ l revise plant technical specifiestions, or some other questions !
regarding the analyses are raised. The NRC believes that shired s% '
'I responsibility for evaluation models would not be in the best !
interest of the public health and safety and therefore has not implemented the suggestion of th,is comenter. .
1 The NRC received two requests for an extension of the coment period to allow time for review of NUREG-1230, which describes the research supporting the proposed rule revision.
I The NRC believes the coment period was sufficient since,most of j the research is not new and has been extensively reviewed in the !
past. Both comenters were contacted and told that coments received after the cormient' period would be considered if time, permitted. Coments from both parties were received. late and were indeed considered b'y the NRC.
- 6. Reporting Raouirements. Some comenters viewed the proposed reportin.g procedures as new requirements needing consideration in the backfit analysis while others stated that they are a major j relaxation and clarification of existing reporting requirements.
The NRC position is that tbs reporting requirements are new in the sense that they will now appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.Ed ths.fm . li 1. !s r. ; m % r:d in ui. L.afit !
= 1y & . [p#ractice, these reporting requirements are indeed a 1
clarification and relaxation over the current interpretation of the existing requirements and therefore the net, effect of these requirements will be to reduce the frequency for reporting an'd
. reanalysis. i l
A nunber of comenters requested that only significant errors or i changes in the non-conservative direction or only those that 4
result in exceeding the 22000 F limit be required to 6e reported.
4 In addition, a number of comenters suggested that the NRC,
! require only annual reporting of significant errors or changes. , :
Page 8 ENCL'05URE E l l
REGULATORY ANALYSIS .
i The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis for this final i regulation which examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered and is available for inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Rcom, 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from L. M. Shotkin,' Office of Nuclear Regula-tory Research, Washington, DC. 20555, telephone (301) 492-3530,
, REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commissien cert!fies that t,his rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial. number of small entities.
This rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of 'small ent1, ties.' set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regu-lations issued by the Small Business Administration in 13 CFR Part 121.
, Since these companies are dominant in their service areas, this rule does not fall within the purvie'w of the Act. ,
BACKFIT ANALYSIS CI-cer+ fnr tha cr:ng reaun m..; ,O g backfit analysis is not required by 10 CFR 50.109 because the rule does not require applicants l
or licensees to make a change but only offers additional options.ad reviks 4.
4 Nonetheless, the factors in 10 CFR 50.109(c) have been analyzed for CladhcE*"
the' entire rule, i fd*#fim / H N
. ' D 'N $ M ,'
- 3. Statement of the specific objectives that the backfit is designed to achieve.
The objective of the rule is to modify 10 UR 5' 0.46 and Appendix X to permit the use t.f realistic ECCS evaluation models.
More realistic estimates of ECCS performance, bzsed en the improved knowledge gained from recent research on ECCS Page 24 ENCLOSURE E
.