ML20196C617
| ML20196C617 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/22/1999 |
| From: | Vietticook NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-99-133-C, NUDOCS 9906240069 | |
| Download: ML20196C617 (2) | |
Text
o
/'
e.
UNITED STATES y"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 Revised
\\, * * " *,/
June 22,1999 i......................
RELEASED TO THE PDR l
COMMISSION VOTING RECO5D 6/As#r ao
$5 ca "^ "
i DECISION ITEM:
!... [a e,,,,,,,,,,,, [s Mba TITLE:
FINAL REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.65 TO REQUIRE LICENSEES TO PERFORM ASSESSMENTS BEFORE PERFORMING MAINTENANCE The Commission (with Chairman Jackson and Commissioners Dicus, McGaffigan, and Merrifield agreeing) approved the subject paper as noted in an Affirmation Session and recorded in the l
Affirmation Session Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) of June 18,1999. Commissioner Diaz disapproved the rulemaking.
This Record contains a summary of voting on this matter together with the individual vote sheets, views and comments of the Commission. and the Affirmation Session SRM of June 18, l
1999.
0) nO izat-W i
l Annette Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission Attachments:
- 1. Voting Summary
- 2. Commissioner Vote Sheets
- 3. Final SRM cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Dia:
Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield OGC EDO PDR DCS
,\\ O s,u 9906240069 990622 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
VOTING
SUMMARY
- SECY-99-133 RECORDED VOTES NOT APRVD DISAPRVD ABSTAIN PARTICIP COMMENTS DATE CHRM. JACKSON X
X 5/19/99 COMR. DICUS X
X 6/3/99 COMR. DIAZ X
X 6/17/99 COMR. McGAFFIGAN X
X 6/11/99 1
COMR. MERRlFIELD X
X 6/2/99 COMMENT RESOLUTION in their vote sheets, the Commission (with Chairman Jackson and Commissioners Dicus, McGaf..gan, and Merrifield agreeing) approved the, staff's recommendation as r~ted in the Affirmation Session. Commissioner Diaz disapproved the rulemaking believing that the rulemaking is no longer necessary to ensure licensees are performing adequate safety assessments, and that for the purposes of risk-informing the rule it should be issued for public l-comments. Commissioner Diaz stated "I would like to state for the public record that I object to rushing the maintenance rule l
affirmation this morning. My vote was only distributed this morning to the Commissioners' office. It contained new and significant information which I think should have been deliberated on. I really believe that there is no reason to rush this affirmation under the present conditions. Two or three days you would have had the same result, but you would have had the ability to look at the vote. We have been in meetings all morning. We have not been able to deliberate on the votes. Finally, I would like to note, and this is kind of philosophy, quoting from somebody that we all know, whatsoever you l
do to the least of your brothers you do it to yourself."
Subsequently, the comments of the majority of the Commission were incorporated into the guidance to staff as reflected in the Affirmation Session SRM issued on June 18,1999.
l
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-133 - FINAL REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.65 TO REQUIRE LICENSEES TO PERFORM ASSESSMENTS BEFORE PERFORMING MAINTENANCE w/ comments Approved X Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
See attached comment.
hw hirley Ann ' Jackson SIGNATURE May 19, 1999 DATE Entered on "AS" Yes No 9'76HH+F3-Z/4
l Chairman Jackson's Comments on SECY-99-133 I commend the staff for completing this rulemaking effort, which represents the culmination of a multi-year effort to bring a required level of regulatory oversight to the conduct of maintenance during shutdown conditions and to on-line maintenance during power operation. I approve the proposed rule for the reasons cited in the staff's recommendations. As the increased use of on-line maintenance surfaces vulnerabilities that the design bases for reactor plants did not consider fully, namely multiple safety-related components out-of-service simultaneously, it is altogether appropriate that the NRC take this action.
As the staff engages our stakeholders in the development of regulatory guidance for this rule, there should be a clear understanding that structures, systems and components (SSCs) which directly support high risk-significant (or "high risk") SSCs are themselves to be considered within the scope of assessments. Additionally, I believe that the method ultimately developed for determining high risk SSCs which are "in scope" must provide confidence that the SSCs which are identified as high risk remain current. My concern in this area is that changes to plant design (such as the addition of new equipment or the abandonment-in-place of existing equipment),
operational practices (such as crediting increased amounts of manual operator action), or external I
conditions (such as environmental impacts which may affect cooling or ventilation systems supporting key equipment) can change the risk significance of various SSCs. For instance, at facilities such as Salem and Turkey Point, seasonal variations in the volume of aquatic grasses in the ultimate heat sinks make the screen wash systems associated with the pumps for the heat sinks very important to the overall core cooling capability of the facility on a variable basis. The staff should ensure that such possibilities are taken into account in developing guidance and implementing the rWe, Finally, the staff should ensure that the guidance developed for this rulemaking advances a holistic approach to assessing the risk of maintenance activities. I concur with the ACRS conclusion that the Configuration Risk Management Program (CRMP), described in some technical specifications, was designed primarily to support the risk-informed extension of technical specification allowed outage times for individual components (as opposed to a number ofcomponents or systems). As a result, combinations oflow-safety-significant SSCs that, taken j
together, might represent a high risk condition are not covered under the scope of the CRMP.
l The guidance developed for the implementation of this rulemaking should advance the ' position -
that an assessment should be performed, at least once, which would identify possible j
combinations oflow risk-significant SSCs that should be treated within the scope of a(4) of the proposed rule. In the altemative, other methods that would consider the impact oflow risk significant SSCs would be acceptable, such as robust risk monitoring methods which can be demonstrated to have addressed this concem.
1 i
l
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER DICUS
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-133 - FINAL REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.65 TO REQUIRE LICENSEES TO PERFORM ASSESSMENTS BEFORE PERFORMING MAINTENANCE Approved x
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
I approve the final rulemaking for 10 CFR 50 65 and suppor' including at the end of paragraph (a)(4) the ACRS language "for the proposed configuration." staff should correct the attached editorial changes to the FRN.
A
%cco Q ATURE/C Mw 3 nff DATG Entered on "AS" Yes x No M & f 2 f o f M r)
f; p"
11 the total time that the funchon may be demanded." Also according to that document, under the definition of " unavailability," is the followng statement: 'An SSC that is required to be available for automatic operation must be available and respond without human action." Additionally, in the instance where an SSC is taken out of service for testing but could be manually activated, the NRC has accepted that, as long as the dedicated operator's written procedure specifies a single action that would permit an automatic initiation of the out-of-service SSC in the event of an accident or transient during the test, the SSC could be considered available. (Meeting Summary - November 19,1991 NRC/NUMARC Public Meeting on the Development of
' Guidance Documents for the implementation of the Maintenance Rule (10 CFR 50.65), R.P.
Correia, Omco of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, memorandum to E.W. Brach, Office of Nuclear Reactor ulation, dated November 23,1991.) The NRC's expectation is that, by procedu the dedicated operator is stationed at the equipment and is ready and qualified to perform that single action in a moment. An acceptable single action could be the rapid repositioning of a switch or a lever; an unacceptable action would be racking in a breaker or, in some instances, opening a manual gate valve.
With respect to risk-informing the maintenance rule definition of availability, the reliance of initial availability performance measures on probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) data provided such a basis. However, in quality maintenance programs, availability is monitored to identify cnd trend the performance of equipment, thereby permitting certain conclusions to be drawn '
about the effechveness of the equipment's maintenance program. Paragraph (a)(3) of the rule requires that the prevention of SSC failures (relia' ility) through maintenance is appropriately b
balanced against the objective of minimizing unavailability. Omitting unavailability time from the miintenance effectiveness determination analysis is flawed logic. Omitting unavailability time because, in an accident scenario, the equipment may not be needed for the time it may take to
13 Response. The NRC does not expect licensees to develop numerical models for assessing all possible combinations of low-risk-significant SSCs. The regulatory analysis states
)
that the complexity of assessments to be performed can vary, depending upon the configuration of SSCs to be maintained on line or out of service. it was presumed that assessments involving SSCs having little bearing on safety could be performed in an uncomplicated, deterministic manner and that the cost of the overall program would be dominated by the need for assessment of combinations of SSCs, which, when taken out of service simultaneously, could have an adverse effect on the safe operation of the facility. Additionally, the licensee controls the degree of complexity of the proposed configuration and thereby controls the level of sophistication required for the assessment. Consequently, the licensee should not propose to cnter a plant configuration the complexity of which exceeds the licensee's ability to assess.
- 13. Acolication to decommissionino olants.
Comment. One commentor presented concems regarding the appReation of the rule f plants in a decommissioning status. The commentor requested that, as part of this rulemaking, the NRC remove the applicability of the rule to decommissioning status plants following some modest level of fission product decay.
Resoonse. This rulemaking is focused on requiring pre-maintenance assessments of plant risk. However, the NRC is considering the issue in a separate rulemaking activity.
111.
The Final Rule The final rule amends 10 CFR 50.65 as follows:
- 1. An introductory paragraph has been added to 10 CFR 50.65 ciarifying that the rule
, -m v.
applies under all conditions of operation, inciuding Sbbtdown. This introductory language f,~
3 / ::,
reads as follows: "The requirements of this section are applicab'e during all conditions of plan O
A F F I R M A T l O N VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER DIAZ REQUIRE LICENS ES T P RFO A
SS NTS BEFORE PERFORMING MAINTENANCE Approved Disapproved I
Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
i SIGNATUAN
/
Uuwt.\\7 \\W 3
DATE Entered on "AS" Yes I
No
$TO42ro (9 s 3PO
r
\\
N COMMISSIONER DIAZ' COMMENTS ON SECY-99-133 i have been a strong and consistent advocate of improving the maintenance rule to achieve a liigher level of safety at justifiable cost, focusing first on requiring assessment of plant configurations. My advocacy is now confronted by concems about the credibility, accountability and faimess of this rulemaking.
First, a bit of history. Two years ago, a staff report indicated that, although licensees had developed programs to assess plant maintenance activities, in some instances j
licensees were not conducting the assessments or their assessments were inadequate'. This raised a valid safety concem and compelled me to agree,to a revision of the rule to require a safety assessment of maintenance activities. Now, the staff tells me that all licensees are implementing their maintenance rule programs and perform adequate safety assessments. Therefore, what made perfect sense in 1997
{
does not in 1999.
In my judgment, the finsi maintenance rule now before the Commission represents a r
fundamental change from the proposal on which public comments were solicited and submitted. The originally proposed rule language was focused on requiring a safety assessment. Moreover, it could be argued that one key change to the rule is attributable to the input of a single commenter submitted some four months after the close of the comment period. To me, this raises a question of faimess. We owe the public a process + hat is both fair and has the appearance of faimess. The public is entitled +n formal notice of what the agency poposed to do in a way that affords a real opportunity for any interested member of the public to make meaningful comment and to have that comment addressed. I believe neither the public nor licensees have had such opportunity. Therefore, as matter of prudence, if not also of legal necessity, I believe that a further round of public comment is imperative. I can only support this rulemaking on that basis.
The Commission has testified repeatedly to the great importance of risk-informing our regulatory framework. The maintenance rule could serve as a comerstone for subsequent risk-infoiTned efforts if done properly. This is the first time that we are codifying " risk-informed' in 10 CFR Part 50. It deserves front-line coverage without a rush to judgment. The public and licensees deserve the opportunity to participate in this momentous regulatory change. Everyone of us can use the time to further reflect on this rule and profit from additional public insights. I urge my fellow Commissioners to avail themselves of the opportunity for further discussion.
- 1. In SECY-97-055, the staff identified " weaknesses"in licensees' safety assessments for removing equipment from service for maintenance, specifically because the assessment was not a requirement. In SECY-97-173, the staff proposed changes to 50.65 supported by the above findings. The NRC issued the SRM for SECY-97-173, approving the recommendation for a new requirement for performing safety assessments, i.e., the "should" to "shall". In SECY-98-165, the staff reported on additional maintenance rule inspections, which continued to find that all licensees had voluntarily developed assessment programs to satisfy (a)(3) of 50.65. However, some failures to perform safety assessments and " weaknesses"in other safety assessment programs were also identified. The Commission continued supporting the rule revision.
In SECY-99-133, no update was provided; however, at a meeting with sen.ior NRC staff members held on June 16,1999, the staff indicated that there were no significant problems with licensees' assessments. I understand that a draft report documenting the overall maintenance rule baseline inspection results is undergoing concurrence.
There are now reasons to question whether there are sufficient safety benefits to justify the cost of this rulemaking and its implementation.
- 2. There are several examples of substantive and material changes. One is requiring that licensees " assess and manage the increase in risk" rather than requiring that they perform a safety assessment. Another is reducing the scope of the assessment by use of a " risk-informed evaluation process." Both changes are more than significant and since they happened in the last month their effects are yet to be fully examined.
~
A F F I R M A T I O N VOTE i
RESPONSE SHEET TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-133 - FINAL REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.65 TO 1
REQUIRE LICENSEES TO PERFORM ASSESSMENTS BEFORE PERFORMING MAINTENANCE Approved K
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
1O h
S, \\ W1 b' e
he hk, L
SIGNATURs fU U U
/I, 19 'l9 DAT{
Entered on "AS" Yes X No
Commissioner McGaffican's Comments on SECY 99133 I applaud the staff's efforts to provide this final rulemaking package to the Commission on a timely basis, particularly the effort to coordinate with CRGR and ACRS in the final weeks before the paper's arrival for Commission deliberations.
I support the rule language as proposed by the staff, and I join Commissioner Merrifield in his remarks on this paper.
In particular. I j
support the last sentence in 50.65(a)(4) which limits the scope of the (a)(4)
{
assessments to systems, structures and components "that a risk-informed evaluation process has shown to be significant to public health and safety."
I do not support the ACRS recommendation to add the words "for the proposed configuration" to this sentence.
As the staff indicated in its June 2"d letter to ACRS. I believe the ACRS concerns can be addressed in the regulatory I
guide.
There are other scope sentences which one cou,ld use as a link to the regulatory guide.
For example. one option which I considered and asked questions about at the May St" Commission briefing, read as follows: "The i
scope of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to be included in the assessment may be limited to those SSCs that individually or in combination, can be shown by operating experience deterministic analysis, or probabilistic risk assessment to have a significant effect on the performance of key plant safety functions."
This struck me as no better (and probably no worse) than the staff's final recommendation.
It would still need to be e <plained in regulatory guidance.
Once the Commission has addressed the final rule language, the difficulty I foresee involves promptly developing acceptable regulatory guidance.
It is clear that the staff and stakeholders will have to invest significant energy in the coming months in reaching a consensus on both the draft and final z
regulatory guidance, a revision of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.160. which will in turn in the end. I hope, endorse a revision of NUMARC 93-01.
In my view. the central issue facing the staff and stakeholders involves clarifying which combinations of non-high risk-significant SSCs should be captured in the risk-informed evaluation process for determining the scope of (a)(4) assessments.
Having said that. I am not in favor of the Commission directing the staff at this time on how to resolve this issue.
I believe that the staff requirements memorandum on the May 5'" Commission briefing provides adequate Commission guidance.
The CRGR and ACRS involvement in developing the draft regulatory guidance, the public comment period on the draft guidance. and the Commission's role in approving the final guidance, all set in place a process for resolving the issue promptly.
I am also attaching my vote on COMNJD-99-003 because in it I explain why I have proceeded to vote on this paper without the further analyses and public meeting proposed by Commissioner Diaz.
/
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
1 WAsHIN2 TON, D.C. 20555 l
commisslONER June 7,1999 i
MEMORANDUM TO:
Nils J. Diaz
{
FROM:
Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
k.
SUBJECT:
COMNJD 99-003 - ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR RESOLUTION OF SECY-98-300 AND SECY-99-133 As we discussed this moming, I have cor.sidered your request for " additional considerations for resolution of SECY-98-300 and SECY-99-133." I respect the tremendous effort which you have put into our deliberations on these issues.
Unfortunately, however, I do not support further delay in completing the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) on SECY-98-300 nor do I believe that the information which you propose to obtain and the public meeting which you propose to hold in the subject memorandum are needeo to decide on the staff proposals in SECY-99-133.
I am honestly perplexed as to the relevance of either the proposed ACRS or OGC taskings to completion of SECY-98-300's SRM. The staff askea in that paper that the Commission approve an initiative to risk-inform the scope of 10 CFR 50.65, the maintenance rule. The Commission has been unanimous in approving that recommendation for some time and in supporting an accelerated schedule for submission of a rulemaking plan. I believe that it is time to give the staff that direction.
In your votes on SECY-98-300 you have raised an additional issue, namely the final rule language for 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4). Pursuant to the May 13,1999 SRM on the 4
Commission's May 5,1999 Maintenance Rule briefing, SECY-99-133 is now before us and should be the place to deal with cny 50.65(a)(4) issues. I note that this paper has been made publicly available while we vote on it. I believe that the May 5* Commission briefing has already provided both the Commission and the public with extraordinary insight into the staff's efforts to finalize the rule language and develop draft guidance.
Having reviewed SECY-99-133, I am prepared to vote on it by tomorrow and do not find any need for the material you are proposing to request before voting. The material you are proposing to request from ACRS is relevant only to the guidance document which the staff, working publicly with stakeholders, intends to develop (a revision of Regulatory Guide 1.160 which endorses a revision to NUMARC 93 01). I believe that you may be taking an extreme interretation of ACRS's previous comments. I do not believe that ACRS or the staff is arguing for an endless, unbounded search of all M d u iTM
COMNJD-99-003 2
possible combinations of low risk-significant SSCs that might in combination be risk-significant. Certainly ACRS should clarify the issue of which combinations of non-high risk-significant SSCs they are most concemed be captured in the risk-informed tvaluation process for determining the scope of (a)(4) assessments laid out in the proposed fir al rule text of SECY-99-133. The May 13* SRM already directs ACRS review of tho draft regulatory guide and already directs a public comment process on the draft gulie.
t With regard to the OGC backfit analysis proposed to be obtained, I regard the backfit analysis provided in the regulatory analysis (attachment 2) of SECY-99-133 more thar.
sufficient to make the case that there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of public health and safety as a result of the modification to the maintenance rule. If any further backfit issues arise in the guidance development process, the May '13* SRM already directs CRGR review of the draft regulatory guide.
As we discussed this moming, I am much more optimistic than you that this guidance development process will go smoothly. Both staff and stakeholders need to bear in mind that this rule will be implemented under the new integrated oversight process. As SECY-99-133 points out," violations of the maintenance rule will be evaluated by the significance. determination process"(SDP) of the new oversight process. This SDP process will ensure that only the failure to evaluate, or inadequate evaluation of, truly risk-significant maintenance configurations will result in an inspection finding that
~affects NRC scoring of a comerstone. As Harold Ray pointed out at the May 5*
Commissio.i briefing, this de facto should limit toe search for combinations of non-high risk-significant SSCs in the risk-informed evaluation process of 50.65(a)(4). Finally, I note that the May 13* SRM insures that the Commission will review the final regulatory
- guide to implement this rule change. A public Commission briefing could well be very
- useful at that time if your worst fears of an endless, unbounded process are realized, I will join you and other Commissioners in disapproving the final regulatory guide and thereby delaying implementation of the rule. I just have a very different expectation about the likelihood of that outcome.
In sum, I believe that both completing the SRM on SECY-98-300 and voting on SECY-99-133 can and should proceed without further delay and without the additional analyses and public meeting you have requested.
cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Merrifield i
EDO-OGC SECY
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
. Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary l
FROM:
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD l
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-133 - FINAL REVl510N TO 10 CFR 50.65 TO REQUIRE LICENSEES TO P'.iRFORM ASSESSMENTS BEFORE PERFORMING MAINTENANCE Approved [ Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
Sea __
a % L3 c -.c.
o
/dfarA SIGMfifW,/~
^
cdAv DATE
//
Entered on "AS" Yes / No O
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD'S COMMENTS ON SECY-99-133 I commend the staff for their tireless efforts on this difficult rulemaking and approve the notice of final rulemaking for publication in the Federal Reaister. This is a very important first step in making the Maintenance Rule more effective and risk-informed. But clearly, this is just a first step. The staff has a great deal of work remaining on the development of regulatory guidance.
This should include careful consideration of stakeholder comments and a very thorough review 1
of the operationalimplications of such guidance. Given the importance of this guidance to both 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.
I am pleased that the staff has modified paragraph (a)(4) to permit licensees to I it the scope of their assessments to structures, systems, and components (SSCs) that a risk-informed evaluation pcess 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 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 maintenance activities before performing maintenance activities on SSCs within the scope of 10 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 th,is 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 rtaff carefully rev"w 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 craical next steps of developing regulatory guidance and ultimately risk-informing the scope of the Maintenance Rule. I believe that getting into a debate at this time over the content of the regulatory guidance or the process of risk-informing the Maintenance Rule would be premature and could ultimately delay or derail the pro,,ress represented by this final rule. Therefore, I am limiting my comments and extent of my approval to the staff's recommendations in SECY 133.
f' UNITED STATES y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN RESPONSE, PLEASE g
E WASHINGTON,0.C. 20555-0001 REFER TO: M990618C k.....
June 18, 1999 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
,f V / 0:c '
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 Assessments 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.
Following 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)
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)
.&&G2lO! A b WJ O
n Prior to issuing the final regulatory guide, the staff should provide it to the Comrrission for review and approval.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
11/15/99)
IL SECY-99-145 - Kansas Gas & Electric Co.. et. al. (Wolf Creek Generatino Station.
Unit 1). Docket No. 50-482 (Antitrust Issues)
The Commission approved a Memorandum and Order, subject to the changes in attachment 2, 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)
The staff should publish this Order in the Federal Reoister and place it on the NRC's Web site.
(SECY)
(SECY Suspense:
6/25/99)
(Subsequently, on June 18,1999, the Secretary signed We Memorandum and Order.)
l l
l AtIachment-As stated I
I cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus l
Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield CIO CFO OCA OlG OPA O# ice Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
Changes to the Final Rule in SECY-99133 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.
On page 13, line 2 from the bottom, delete ' normal'.
)
Changes to the Memorandum and Order in SECY-99-145 1.
On page 3, line 4, move the footnote notation outside of the period.
2.
On page 3, i 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'.
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 S, revise the last line to read '. developed to a great extent at government (i.e., taxpayer) -taxpaycr-- expense.
7.
On page 7, revise line 5 to read '. benefits of nuclear resources and thereby create an anti-competitive situation reap the benc'its of"chcap" nucl car-generated c!cctricity.
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.
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-feds 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-in operating license procccdings unless the Commission... '
12.
On page 12, revise footnote 6 to read 'But eSee 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,'.
14.
On page 13, revise the last 2 lines to read *. to protect public health and safety and the common defense and security intercat from the hazards of radiation.'
15.
On page 15,1 full paragraph, line 11, close the quotation marks around ' possess'."
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'.
1
- 18. -
On page 18, line 2, place 'significant changes' ;a quotation marks. Also, in the 1" full
]
paragraph, line 5, place 'significant changes' in quotation marks.
]
19.
On page 19, last paragraph, revise line 8 to read *.. were expected to be inexpensive (some 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 enab!m l
the staff toeen determine.
- 25.
On page 29,1" paragraph, revise line 6 '.: read '.. protecting the public health, and safety and interest and the.
26.
On page 30, line 3, move footnote 17 to after the comma.
27.
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.. '
29.
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 license, (2) it might be appropriate to removepeftein vihere the conditions where they apply to only.. the transfer, and (3) it might be viculd appcar appropriate to remove existing conditions or modify references to licensees in the conditions when existing.
32.
On page 33, last paragraph, revise line 6 to read '.. standing, that-to propose appropriate.. '
33.
On page 33, in footnote 23, revise line 3 to read '. conditions were imposed at a licensing...'
l 34.
On page 34, lart paragraph, revise lines 1 and 2 to read '. adjudication to decide new general policy or changes in rnatter of general policy gcncrally has focused.
l
'1 1
1 i
i l
1 I
l l
i i
{
I I
l I
i f
i i
[
UNITED STATES y*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN RESPONSE, PLEASE WA SHINGTON. D.C. 20555 0001 REFER TO: M990618C t,
y Revised SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
Karen D. Cyr General Counsel William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations
/
I o
s h O g-John F. Cordes, Acting Director Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication FROM:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION SESSION,11:30 A.M..
FRIDAY, JUNE 18,1999, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND j
(OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
N)\\)h L
SECY-99-133 - Final Revision to 10 CFR 50 65 to Reauire Licensees to Perform Assessments 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.
Following 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)
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 lJle 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) i
F 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) 11.
SEC"-99-145 - Kansas Gas & Electric Co.. et. al. (Wolf Creek Generatina Station.
Unit 1). Docket No. 50-482 (Antitrust Issues)
The Commission approved a Memorandum and Order, subject to the changes in attachment 2, 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)
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)
(Subsequently, on June 18,1999, the Secretary o,f ed the Memorandum and Order.)
i
Attachment:
As stated cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield CIO I
CFO OCA OlG OPA Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
PDR - Advance j
DCS - P1-17 j
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.
On page 13, line 2 from the bottom, delete ' normal'.
l
'O Changes to the Memorandum and Order in SECY-99-145 l
1.
On page 3, line 4, move the footnote notation outside of the period.
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',
4 On page 5, 2"d full paragraph, line 3, insert a space between ' March' and '31'.
5.
On page 6,2"d 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)--taxpayer-expense.
7.
On page 7, revise line 5 to read '. benefits of nuclear resources and thereby create an anti-competitive situation reap ths benefits of "chcap" nuclear-generated clcctricity.
8.
On page 10,2"d paragraph, capitalize the 's' in 'section'.
9.
On page 10, revise the last line to read '. the Commission could order a remedy-ene.
10.
On page 12, i full paragraph, revise lines 5 through 10 to read 'At the 6me 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 v0ould create-fteds 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 1034n operating llcensc procccdings unless the Commission.
12.
On page 12, revise footnote 6 to' read 'But eSee 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,'
14.
On page 13, revise the last 2 lines to read '. to protect public health and safety and the common defense and securityinterest from the hazards of radiation.7 15.
On page 15,1 full paragraph, line 11, close the quotation marks around ' possess'.
16.
On page 16, i full paragraph, line 9, remove the underlining in the space after '(1994);'
17.
On page 17,'line 3, capitalize the 'N'in ' national'.
18.
On page 18, line 2, place 'significant changes' in quotation marks. Also, in the 15' full paragraph, line 5, place 'significant changes' in quotation marks.
19.
On page 19, last paragraph, revise line 8 to read *. were expected to be inexpensive (some one AEC Chairman erroneously.
j 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 26,1 paragraph, revise line 10 to read '. antitrust information is to enableso the staff to een determine.
25.
On page 29,15' paragraph, revise line 6 to read '. protecting the public health, and safety and interest and the.
26.
On page 30, line 3, move footnote 17 to after the comma.
27.
On page 30, last paragraph, revise line 2 to read '. anticompetitive onduct by the NRC's nuclear.
28.
On page 31, revise line 1 to read '. which, therefore, were-was of great concern to.
29.
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 whete the existing conditions where they apply only to.. transferred license, (2) it might be appropriate to remove-pertain where the conditions where they apply to only.. the transfer, and (3) it might be would appear appropriate to remove existing conditions or modify references to licensees in the conditions when existing.
32.
On page 33, last paragraph, revise line 6 to read ', standing, that-to propose appropriate.
33.
On page 33, in footnote 23, revise line 3 to read *. conditions were imposed at a licensing.
34.
On page 34, last paragraph, revise lines 1 and 2 to read '. adjudication to decide new l
general policy or changes in raatter of general policy genera'!y has focused.
I I
1 1
l l
i l
t I
r J