ML20195E441
| ML20195E441 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/13/1998 |
| From: | Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Seale R Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9811180344 | |
| Download: ML20195E441 (4) | |
Text
.. . _ _ . . _ _ _. _ _ _ . _ -
0ht, f'"%,il UNITED STATES
{e j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001 j [
- November 13, 1998 Dr. Robert L. Seale, Chairman Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE'S PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO AMEND 10 CFR 50.54(a), CONDITIONS OF LICENSES
Dear Dr. Seale:
Thank you for your letter of October 20,1998, on the above subject. We appreciate the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) review of the staff's concepts that are intended to resolve the petition from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Your ietter notes that the ACRS is in general agreement with the approach outlined in the draft Commission paper on this subject that was shared with you, and indicated that the staff should proceed with its efforts to revise 10 CFR 50.54(a).
The staff willintegrate risk-informed approaches, as appropriate, as part of the voluntary altematise rule that the staff envisions. Subject to the approval of the Commission of the staff's proposals, and following further interactions with external interested parties, the staff will meet with you to discuss the voluntary alternative approach.
- ncerely, f
~
,oJLhl.-
William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus {! '
Commissioner Diaz l Commissioner McGaffigan Corr.missioner Merrifield
,h
'O 4e,gg7 Y 9811180344 981113 [ Y/ Y '
REVGP ERGNUMRC (9 4 r1 - ) b pI '
PDR -
PDR x 9 f %7 gwe M C9PY i
November 13, 1998 Dr. Robert L S:als, Chairman Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE'S PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO AMEND 10 CFR 50.54(a), CONDITIONS OF LICENSES
Dear Dr. Seale:
Thank you for jour letter of October 20,1998, on the above subject. We appreciate the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) review of the staffs concepts that are intended to resolve the petition from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Your letter notes that the ACRS is in general agreement with the approach outlined in the draft Commission paper on this subject that was shared with you, and indicated that the staff should proceed with its efforts to revise 10 CFR 50.54(a).
The staff will integrate risk-informed approaches, as appropriate, as part of the voluntary alternative rule that the staff envisions. Subject to the approval of the Commission of the staffs proposals, and following further interactions with external interested parties, the staff will meet with you to discuss the voluntary alternative approach.
Sincerely, WA5%nedby Will;rn D. Tmy,.m William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield DISTRIBUTION:
Central Files /PUBLIC HQMB R/F WHaass MBridgers, EDO (G19980631) TCarter, NRR (G19980631) AMendiola HThompson, EDO HTovmassian, NRR JRoe, NRR PEng, NMSS M El-Zeftawy, ACRS DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ FINAL \ACRS11.4 Ta receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy sures "N" No copy l OFFICE SC:HOMB BC:HOMB D:DRCH A - A:AdT/( tD:NRfL,6/
lNAME RAGramm: pct SCBlack gWu RLSpessardM BWShbrdn m W3Covi5ii 11/05 /9B* @ 11/ /98 * /11/^ /98 DATE 11/05/98' 11/5 /98 mm- .
.. m .
J h_
OFFICE E90 ( O. g lNAME WDTravbfs! _
lDATE 11/l 198 11/ /98 11/ /98 11/ /9E 11/ /98 i
'i OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
}lh 1/
Dr. Robert L. Sule, Chiirmin Advisory Committen on Reactor Safeguards U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE'S PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO AMEND 10 CFR 50.54(a), CONDITIONS OF LICENSES
Dear Mr. Seale:
i' Thank you for your letter of October 20,1998, on the above subject. We appreciat e Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) review of the staff's conce that are intended to resolve the petition from the Nucioar Energy Institute (NEI). Youp tier notes that the ACRS is in general agreement with the approach outlined in the draftpommission paper on this subject that was shared with you, and indicated that the staff shou troceed with its efforts to revise 10 CFR 50.54(a).
The staff will integrate risk-informed approaches, as appropri , as part of the voluntary attemative rule that the staff envisions. Subject to the appr al of the Commission of the staff's proposals, and following further interactions with extern nterested parties, the staff will meet with you to discuss the voluntary altemative approac Sincerely, William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGafpgan Commissioner Me ' teld DISTRIBUTION.
Central Files /PUBLIC HQMB R/F WHaass i MBridgers, EDO (G19980631) TCarter, NRR (G19980631) AMendiola j HThoinpsop,'EDO HTovmassian, NRR t
JRoe, NRft PEng, NMSS l M El-Zoftawy, ACRS l I
DOCUMEN NAME: G:\ FINAL \ACRS11.4 To receive a copy of this document, Indcate in the box: "C" = Copy withoM enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy j
OFFICE - SC:HQMB D BC:HOMB (L D:DRCH A:ADT D:NRR l NAME RAGramm:cet g.lo SCBlack MP3 RLSpessard BWSheron SJCollins DATE 11/2 /98 11/ 6/98 11/ /98 11/ /98 11/ /98 l h -
umaan .
1 OFFICE EDO j NAME WDTravers DATE 11/ /98 11/ /98 l11/ /98 11/ /98 11/ /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- y. p .,
"" ACTION
~
8 EDO Principal Correspondence Control
'FROMt. DUE: 11/18/98 EDO CONTROL: G19980631 DOC DT: 10/20/90 R. L. Seale, ACRS TO Chairman Jackson
~FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** GRN ** CRC NO:
Travers, EDO
'DESCs ROUTING:
THE' NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE'S (NEI) PETITION FOR Travers RULEMAKING TO AMEND PARAGRAPH (a) OF 10 CFR 50.54, Thompson CONDITIONS OF~ LICENSES Norry Blaha Burns Thadani, RES DATES ~10/21/98 Mitchell, OEDO
'ACRS File ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT:
NRR Collins
'SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
- Prepare response to ACRS for EDO signature. Add
' Commissioners and SECY as cc's.
7..USE~ SUBJECT LINE IN RESPONSE.
~ ~ ~ ~
petACrIDD: SW^' Eee %<=^ ACTION g' ge pEtriveo: a**k41%3 DUE TO HRR DIRECTOR'S OFFICE pt AouTi%.cohs/Gagk )
er e, n BY. //,f /3L9.
s - - - - > -
kOt.
2irnewumMi 1
^&$-$ W Ab(bD &
.# UNITED STATES
. .* 8 %,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
=
j ADV180RY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS l
' ,e WASHINGTON, D. C. 20886 October 20,1998 1 The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Chairman Jackson:
J
SUBJECT:
.THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE'S PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO l I
i AMEND PARAGRAPH (a) OF 10 CFR 50.54, CONDITIONS OF LICENSES During the 456th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, September 30-October 2,1998, we reviewed a draft Commission paper which documents the proposed NRC sta# position on the Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEl's) petition for rulemaking to amend 10 CFR 50.54 (a). We also heard presentations by and held discussions with representstives of the NRC sta# and the NEl concoming such a petition which was submitted in 1995 by NEl. The petition sought to broaden the scope of allowed unilateral changes that would not require prior NRC review and approval. They proposed to amend 10 CFR 50.54(a) to make changes exempt !f they do not involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59. We
> also had the benefit of the documents referenced.
, ,;. In its response, the staff agreed that 10 CFR 50.54(a) should be revised to allow a broader scope of unilateral changes to the quality assurance (QA) programs without prior NRC review but that use of 10 CFR 50.59 criteria to make such changes is not appropriate. Instead the staff proposes a direct final rulemaking to modify 10 CFR 50.54(a) to permit licensees to make changes to selected aspects of their QA programs prior to NRC review and approval.
Examples of additional changes that could be made by the licensees unilateratiy include 4
adoption of consensus standards newly endorsed by the NRC; use of generic organizational and position titles; and elimination of descriptive QA program commitments that duplicate those contained in consensus QA regulatory standards and QA regulatory guides, in addition, the staff plans to develop an attemate process for changes that the licensees could voluntarily implement for further relief. The NEl generally supports the stafs altamative
, proposal, but expresses concem about the staffs proposed " monitoring
- of the performance of the QA progr6ms. The use of a risk-informed approach to such performance monitoring
. appears to be acceptable to all concemed.
' We agree with the staff and NEl that the scope of changes in QA programs that can be made without prior NRC approval should be increased and granting such relief to the licensees should p U~umemo ' ~ " ' g? _
EDO -- G980631
0- e 6 3,..
- . c . -
1:
- j. , ;
\.' , 2 be given high priority. We also agree that providing this relief through the staffs proposed modification of 10 CFR 50.54(a) is preferable to NEl's original proposal.
We are in general agreement with the approach outlined in the draft Commission paper and
- believe that the staff should proceed with its efforts to revise 10 CFR 50.54(a).
Sincerely,
/( f.-x R. L. Seale I Chairman )
References'
- 1. Letter dated June 8,1995, from Mr. Phillip Bayne, Nuclear Energy Institute, to the l Honorable Ivan Selin, U.S. NRC Chairman, regarding NEl Petition for Rulemaking. l
- 2. Draft Memorandum (undated) from L. Joseph Callan, Executive Director for Operations,
' For the Commissioners,
Subject:
Partial Acceptance of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (Predecisional).
1 I
l j
l I
4
., -,,m -- ,.y- +- - --
e ,- -- ,-n .- .- p- ,w-- w- , 7