ML20195G670
| ML20195G670 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/16/1998 |
| From: | Howell A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Spessard R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195E260 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-64FR19868, RTR-NUREG-1021, RULE-PR-55 AF62-2, AF62-2-011, AF62-2-11, NUDOCS 9906160139 | |
| Download: ML20195G670 (2) | |
Text
E Q A FLs 7.-7
% UNtTE D ST ATE 5.
L f.c .1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
S
. f. REGION IV 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 400
- k. 4....#
. .f [ AR LINGT ON, TE X AS 760118064 i
l i July 16,1998 l . MEMORANDU' M TO: R. Lee Spessard, Director.. ,
Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Arthur T. Howell ill, Director '
. Division of Reactor Safety
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON PART 55 RULEMAKING AND REVISION 8 OF
- NUREG-1021 1
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond as requested in your July 2,1998, )
memorandum. We appreciate the additional opportunity to provide comments. Since we have I been working with your staff on resolving our prior comments, we are addressing only a new issue we have identified in the electronic markup your staff provided. As discussed below, our primary concern is with the proposed revision to 10 CFR 55.49 and the associated enforcement guidance. We believe that the proposed revision to 10 CFR 55.49 is written so as to be open to widely divergent interpretations and needs to be clarified prior to issuance, as described below The revised regulation defines " compromise" as "any activity, regardless of intent, affected, or, but for detection,' would have affected," the examination. As written, this could be interpreted to include any loss of control of examination material, at any stage of development. This is based on the assessment that, if a loss of control of examination material were not detected and subsequently discovered by an applicant, this would result in an applicant gaining information material to the examination The revised enforcement policy does not provide any additional -
clarification to resolve this concem. 1
. .. l Since the licensee is required to prepare the examination, this would create a regulatory I violation for every instance of any loss of control of material during licensee intemal examination development, without regard to whether the licensee identified and corrected it and regardless of whether there is any real probability of an applicant gaining information from the material not properly controlled.
Further, the proposed regulation and enforcement policy also do not address what amount of material out of control for how long constitutes the threshold of more than minor significance. It would set the same significance for loss of control of one of one hundred written questions as for loss of control of a complete test.
(. We believe that the regulation and enforcement policy should be clarified before issuance. We l recommend that the regulation and enforcement policy be revised to address the following concems:
9906160139 990608 l PDR PR i
.. -1 !
bl(00)
a ll
~a R. Lee Spessard +
Loss of control of examination material prior to formal submittal to the agency should not constitute a compromise or violation of 55.49 unless it can be shown (1) to be willful or (2) that an applicant could realistically have gained the information and the licensee did not identify and correct the loss of contre.1 of the test material. This gives the licensee every incentive to identify any loss of control of material during development and a strong incentive to ensure corrective actions for any loss of control are appropriate.
Examination compromise should be defined as a condition where it can be shown to be at least reasonably likely that an applicant gained prior information about the content of the proposed or administered examination.
The licensee will be required by the revised 55.49 to develop procedures governir.g the licensing process. Our normal compliance process for loss of control of material not
.usulting in compromise should be against the licensee implementation of the procedures. In such an arena, our normal enforcement process for procedure noncompliance or inadequacy should be sufficient.
Incorporating these clarifications will emphasize the importance of integrity in the license process, enhance enforcement consistency, and ensure we do not create a major new enforcement area unnecessarily.
I would be pleased to discuss this issue with you, if you wish.
cc: G. Sanborn J, Wiggins, RI J. Jaudon, Ril J. Grobe, Rlll i
l l
l I
l 1
l l