ML20195K077
| ML20195K077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/02/1999 |
| From: | Merrifield J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195J986 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-99-133-C, NUDOCS 9906210199 | |
| Download: ML20195K077 (2) | |
Text
-
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-133 - FINAL REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.65 TO REQUIRE LICENSEES TO PERFORM ASSESSMENTS BEFORE PERFORMING MAINTENANCE Approved [ Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
L,_.
a % L3 c - -.,w.
o
/
T SIGM)liTWj
~
^
(44, DATE //
Entered on "AS" Yes / No
- P"a8MB M8e**
CORRESPONDENCE PDR
F a
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD'S COMMENTo s 1 SECY-99-133 I commend the staff for their tireless efforts on this difficult rulemaking and' approve the notice I
of final rulemaking for publication in the Federal Reaister. This is a very important first step in 3
making the Mairdenance Rule more effective and risk-informed. But clearly, this is just a first l
' step. The staff has a great deal of work remaining on the development of regulatory guidance.
l This should include careful consideration of stakeholder comments and a very thorough review l
of the operationalimplications of such guidance. Given the importance of this guidance to both j
l our licensees and inspectors, I agree with the staff that the final rule should not become effective until the final regulatory guidance is in place for a reasonable period of time. I also believe it is prudent for the Commission to review and approve this final guidance prior to its issuance by the staff.
l
\\
I am pleased that the staff has modified paragraph (a)(4) to permit licensees to limit the scope of their assessments to structures, systems, and components (SSCs) that a risk-informed evaluation process has shown to be significant to public health and safety. However, I do not believe that the staff has incorporated this modification consistently in the Federal Register Notice (FRN). For example, on Page 18 of the FRN, Identification of the Proposed Action. the j
staff states, "The Commission is amending its regulations to require commercial nuclear power
)
plant licensees to perform assessments of changes to the plant's status that would result from I
maintenance activities before performing maintenance activities on SSCs within the scope of 10 j
CFR 50.65, the maintenance rule." There is no mention in that section regarding the fact that licensees may limit the scope of their assessments to SSCs that a risk-informed evaluation process has shown to be significant to public health and safety. With this omission, I believe
)
the staff's description of the proposed action is, at the very least, incomplete. I do not want to overstate the problem or imply that it recurs throughout the FRN. However, given the importance of this aspect of (a)(4), I request that the staff carefully review the Federal Register Notice prior to its issuance to ensure that it consistently accounts for the new (a)(4) language.
As discussed in SECY-98-300, the goal of the agency is to truly risk-inform Part 50, beginning with the scope of the Maintenance Rule. While I wish we were closer to accomplishing this goal, I now believe that continued progress toward this goal may not be possible without taking this first step represented by the final rule in SECY-99-133. I believe it is prudent to accept the limited success this final rule represents so that the staff can move forward on the critical next steps of developing regulatory guidance and ultimately risk-informing the scope of the Maintenar ce Rule. I believe that getting into a debate at this time over the content of the regulatory guidanco or the process of risk-informing the Maintenance Rule would be premature and could ultimately delay or derail the progress represented by this final rule. Therefore, I am limiting my comments and extent of my approval to the staff's recommendations in SECY 133.
I k
i l
l l
I l
M
\\
j UNITED STATES y
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN RESPONSE, PLEASE a
g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565-0001 REFER TO: M990618C b
j June 18, 1999 o
SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
Karen D. Cyr General Counsel William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations John F. Cordes, Acting Director Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication FROM:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION SESSION,11:30 A.M.,
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18,1999, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
L SECY-99-133 - Final Revision to 10 CFR 50.65 to Reauire Licensees to Perform \\
Assessrnents Before Performina Maintenance The Commission approved a final rule, subject to the changes in attachment 1, amending 10 CFR 50.65 to require that power reactor licensees, before performing maintenance, assess and manage the increase in risk that may result from the maintenance activities.
Fo!!owing incorporation of these changes, the Federal Reaister notice should be reviewed by the Rules Review and Directives Branch in the Office of Administration and forwarded to the Office of the Secretary for signature and publication.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
7/16/99) 1 The Commission agrees with the staff that, given the importance of the regulatory guidance to our licensees and inspectors, the final rule should not become effective until the final regulatory guide is in place for 120 days. While the final rule is an important first step, the staff has a great deal of work remaining on the development of acceptable regulatory guidance. This should include careful consideration of stakeholder comments and a very thorough review of the operationalimplications of such guidance. As directed in the Staff Requirements Memorandum from the briefing on the maintenance rule dated May 13,1999, the draft regulatory guide should be provided to the Commission for information.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
7/13/99)
rm u,;
L.
Prior to issuing the final regulatory guide, the staff should provide it to the Commission for review
' and approval.
(EDO).
(SECY Suspense:
11/15/99)
~
4 JL SECY-99-145 - Kansas Gas & Electric Co.. et. al. (Wolf Creek Generatina Station.
' Unit 1). Docket No. 50-482 (Antitrust lasues)
The Commission approved a Memorandum and Order, subject to the changes in attachment 2, J
rejecting a petition for review'of the antitrust issues in the license transfer application for the Wolf Creek nuclear power reactor. It also directs the NRC staff to initiate a rulemaking to remove any implication in current rules that the NRC would conduct antitrust reviews of license transfers.
Further, the Order solicits the parties' views on how best to handle the Wolf Creek license conditions, and gives non-parties an opportunity to comment.
The staff should initiate a rulemaking to remove any implication in current rules that the NRC would conduct antitrust reviews of license transfers and clarify Regulatory Guide 9.3 and
. NUREG-1574, (OGC/EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
8/27/99)
Ii
- The staff should publish this Order in the Federal Reaister and place it on the NRC's Web site.
(SECY)
(SECY Suspense:
6/25/99)
I (Subsequently, on June 18,1999, the Secretary signed the Memorandum and Order.)
l
Attachment:
- As stated cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield i
CIO -
OPA Office Directnrs, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
PDR - Advance
. DCS - P1-17 u
J e
F.
j..
i l
Changes to the Final Rule in SECY-99-133 1.
The staff should review the Federal Register Notice (FRN) to ensure that it consistently accounts for the new language in 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4).
2.
On page 11, line 11 from the top, capitalize ' Regulation'.
3.
O'n page 13, line 2 from the bottom, delete ' normal'.
[
1 l
Changes to the Memorandum and Order in SECY-99-145 1.
On page 3, line 4, move the footnote notation outside of the period.
I 2.
On page 3,1" full paragraph, line 11 indicates that emphasis has been added but it is not clear where.
3.
On page 3,1" full paragraph, line 12, delete the space after '105' and the period after the
'C',
i 4.
On page 5, 2" full paragraph, line 3, insert a space between ' March' and '31'.
5.
On page 6,2" full paragraph, line 6, replace the dash with an apostrophe.
6.
On page 6, revise the last line to read '... developed to a great extent at government (i.e., taxpayer) -taxpaycc-expense....'
7.
On page 7, revise line 5 to read '... benefits of nuclear resources and thereby create an j
anti-competitive situation rcap the bencfits of"chcap" nucl car-generated clcctricity.
8.
On page 10, 2" paragraph, capitalize the 's' in 'section'.
9.
On page 10, revise the last line to read '... the Commission could order a remedy-one.
l 10.
On page 12,1" full paragraph, revise lines 5 through 10 to read 'At the time Congress enacted Section 105, it envisioned tThis broad and comprehensive review makes sense at the construction.... Congress believed that at the construction phase -- before the plant is built and before its operation is authorized by the Commission - -when the Commission would be is peculiarly well-positioned to offer meaningful remedies, such as license conditions, if it found that granting the license would create-finds a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.'
11.
On page 12, revise the last 2 lines to read '.. review provisions "shall not apply to an application for a license to operate a utilization or production facility for which a construction permit was issued under section 103 ln opcrating license procccdings unless the Commission....'
12.
On page 12, revise footnote 6 to read 'But e6ee note 22, infra.'
13.
On page 13,1" full paragraph, lines 4 through 6, delete 'and this Commission no longer
... exacerbates an anti-competitive situation,'.
l 14.
On page 13, revise the last 2 lines to read '.. to protect public health and safety and the l
common defense and security intercst ficm the heterds of radiation.'
l-
' 15.
On page 15,1" full paragraph, line 11, close the quotation marks around ' possess'.'
P r
2 9-o :.
16.
On page 16,1" full paragraph, line 9, remove the underlining in the space after '(1994);'.
17.~
On page 17, line 3, capitalize the 'N' in ' national'.
f 18.
On page 18, line 2, place 'significant changes' in quotation marks. Also, in the 1" full paragraph, line 5, place 'significant changes
- in quotation marks.
1g.
On page ig, last paragraph, revise line 8 to read *... were expected to be inexpensive
'(seme one AEC Chairman erroneously....'
20.
' On page 21, footnote 11, line 5, insert closing quotation marks after ' scheme.'
21.
On page 23,1" full paragraph, line 1, place 'significant changes' in quotation marks.
22.
On page 26,- 1" full paragraph, line 4 after the indent, delete 'for'.
23.
On page 26, last paragraph, line 4, place 'significant changes' in quotation marks.
24.
On page 28,1" paragraph, revise line 10 to read '... antitrust information is to enable-so the staff to een determine....'
25.-
On page 29,1" paragraph, revise line'6 to read '... protecting the public health, and 3
safety r.r.d lr, tere;; and the....'
~ 26.
.On page 30, line 3, move footnote 17 to after the comma.
27.I On page 30, last paragraph, revise line 2 to read '... anticompetitive conduct by the NRC's nuclear....'
' 28.
On page 31, revise line 1 to read '... which, therefore, were wes of great concern to....'
2g.
On page 31, last paragraph, revise line 1 to read '... in the Clayton Act also have contributed to eliminating....'
30.
On page 32, line 1, move footnote 21 to after,the comma.
31.
. On page 33, revise lines 4 through 8 to read '... competitive situation, (1) it might be appropriate to retain where the existing conditions where they apply only to.. transferred j
license, (2) it might be appropriate to remove pert;lr, where the conditions where they I
apply to only... the transfer, and (3) it might be w;;.;'d app;;r appropriate to remove existing conditions.or modify references.to licensees in the conditions when existing....'
I 32.
On page'33, last paragraph, revise line 6 to read '... standing, that-to propose appropriate....'
I 33.
On page 33, in footnote 23, revise line 3 to read '... conditions were imposed at a licensing...,'
l' l
V:T o..; -
34.
On page 34, last paragraph, revise lines 1 and 2 to read '.~.. adjudication to decide new general policy or changes in meHecef general policy ger,;,;lly has focused....'
'i I
i i
I I
i f
f 1