ML20196C736
| ML20196C736 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/11/1999 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196C645 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-99-130-C, NUDOCS 9906240107 | |
| Download: ML20196C736 (7) | |
Text
'
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-99-130 - FINAL RULE - REVISIONS TO REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR PARTS 50 AND 72 CONCERNING CHANGES, TESTS, AND EXPERIMENTS Approved V
Disapproved k
Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
l i
fW*-
SIGNATURE FUU V II, l'Il 7 DATp Entered on "AS" Yes [
No
??S'$?A?N?l0$**
CORRESPONDENCE PDR
[.
Ole? W6 I b]
Commissioner McGaffigan's Comments on SECY-99-130 l join with Chairman Jackson and Commissioner Merrifield in commending the staff for their hard work that has been effective in crafting a rule that will reduce unnecessary burden on licensees while maintaining public health and safety. Sound and coherent implementation guidance is critical to realize the benefits of the new rule and such guidance remains to be finalized. I share the reservations of Chairman Jackson and Commissioner Diaz in this respect, but i believe that the NRC staff and our stakeholders have a workable guidance document very near completion in a revision of NEl 96-07, which could be submitted very rapidly by NEl for endorsement. For this j
reason, I am reluctant to delay early implementation of this much-needed rule change.
The rule should have an effective date of January 1,2001, but with implementation permitted starting January 1,2000. The staff should be tasked to provide the i
implementation guidance, whether it be a regulatory guide articulating staff positions or J
one endorsing an update of NEl 96-07 (my preference), to the Commission for information in time for the final guidance to be issued by January 1,2000. Should the guidance not be finished or otherwise not meet Commission expectations, then the Commission could intervene to delay the initialimplementation date of the rule.
Licensees would be allowed to adopt the new rule on a voluntary basis any time after the new guidance was issued, but licensees would be required to adopt the rule before the end of calendar year 2000. I would urge that the process for developing the guidance be as transparent as possible, with successive drafts of the guidance available to all on the NRC's Web site. Besides encouraging good discussion and providing access for allinterested parties, a transparent process can speed implementation by enabling licensees to begin revising their procedures as matters in controversy are resolved. I note that in a similar case the transparency of NRC's j
endorsement of NEl's FSAR update guidance (NEl-98-03 (Revision 0)), has permitted at least two licensees (Virginia Power and Washington Public Power Supply System) already to implement the guidance, with good results, even though NRC has not completely finalized its endorsement.
As important as implementation guidance is, however, I don't want to lose sight of the fact that such a document (e.g., a regulatory guide) is not intended to be the definitive methodology but, rather, simply a presentation of one acceptable way to meet a requirement. For this reason, the staff need not resolve every possible nuance of the new rule (e.g., the exact limits of " minimal" in criteria (i) and (ii)), because doing so will result in licensees being delayed in benefitting from the increases in clarity and the decreases in unnecessary regulatory burden that the new rule provides. As one stakeholder voiced in a meeting with the Commission, the search for the " perfect" can become the enemy of the " good enough." Should NEl 96-07, with its "so small," be acceptable for implementation by licensees, then the f act that " minimal" provides additional flexibility not full utilized should not be a matter of immediate concern. If, at a later date, staff and stakeholders should want to resolve the difference between "so small" and " minimal" and permit licensees to utilize some or all of the margin between
SECY-99-130 the terms, then the resulting interchange between the staff and stakeholders could provide the basis to revise the regulatory guide.
In a June 10'" letter to Chairman Jackson, Ralph Beedle of NEl recommended two minor clarifications of proposed rule language and five deletions from the. Statements of Consideration (SOC) on pages 68,23,64,59, and 71. He also recommended a correction on page 77, which in turn requires a correction on page 136. The pages 77 and 136 corrections (attached) should be made. I lean toward making the five
. proposed deletions from the SOC without prejudice to their final resolution in the guidance document because all of these ' issues can be resolved in the guidance development process to follow the rule and retaining them in the SOC would prejudge that guidance development process. I also lean toward making the two rule-language clarifications. In the first case, I assume that "a design basis limit for a fission product barrier" would be described in the FSAR as updated. In the second case, NEl is offering specific examples of facility changes (e.g., security barriers and emergency response facilities) that are govemed by other, more specific requirements and criteria and for which a 50.59 evaluation would be superfluous. By the time the Commission is considering the staff requirements memorandum on this paper, the staff should advise the Commission whether, and if so why, it would oppose the five SOC deletions and two minor rule language changes.
I approve in part, and disapprove in part:
- 1) I approve the final rulemaking language, with the two minor clarifications proposed in NEl's June 10'" letter.
- 2) The final guidance should be publicly available on January 1,2000, with all licensees required to implement the new rule no later than January 1,2001.
Early implementation should be allowed after final guidance is issued.
- 3) I join with Chairman Jackson and Commissioner Merrifield in disapproving the j
" substantial review" enforcement criterion for determining if a failure to submit a license amendment should be classified as a Severity Level 111 violation (this will reqwe a deletion on page 100 of the draft Federal Register notice, and perhaps conforming changes elsewhere). Consistent with my vote on SECY-99-087, the staff has discretion to approach the Commission if the facts of any particular case warrant extraordinary treatment.
- 4) The' following clarifying addition'(underlined) should be made to the last serhence of the 2nd full paragraph under the heading,"O. Enforcement Policy,"
on page 109 in the draft Federal Register notice.
"The Commission has concluded that enforcement of potential violations of Q9 50.59 and 72.48 by licensees who have not implemented
I -
SECY-99-130 the rule early will be handled as described below, and also in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, NUREG-1600, Revision 1."
- 5) I tentatively approve the five SOC deletiens proposed by NEl's June 10"'
l letter.
l
_6) I suggest corrections on Pages 77 and 136 to conform the two versions of 50.71(e) that appear in the SOC.-
l l
l l
l I
f i
i I
l
A large number of commenters stated that this proposal was burdensome and unnecessary in view of the minimal standards. Further, commenters thought that i
would require them to perform additional evaluations of the cumQlative e gauge the result of increases to probability that were judged on a qualititative basis.
stated that when analyses were performed, such as for consequences or perform against limits, the existing update requirements would specify that the effe be included in the update. The Commission agrees that the burden associated w h
proposed rule change is not warranted in view of the specific criteria adopted update requirements. Therefore, the final rule does not contain such language.
Other wording changes for 50.71(e) were discussed under section K. Therefor following language is in the final rule for this section:
W y ( i%
(e) Each person licensed to operate a nuci r power reac rsonnt tof the provisions of 6 50.21 or 9 50.22 of t"is part all update periodically, as provided in paragraphs (e)(3) and (4) of this s etion, the final safety analysis fSAR) originally submitted as part of he application for the operating re p license, to assure that the information inclu ed in the FSAR (as updated) contains the latest information developed. The submittal must describe the
/*
effects' of;all hanges made in the facility or procedures as described in the FSAR; all safety analyses and evaluations performed by the licensee either in support of approved license amendments, or in support of conclusions that changes did r ot require a license amendment in accordance with Q 50.59(c)(2 of this part; and all analyses of new safety issues performed by or on behalf of 77
l 1
obtained from the Director, Office of Nuclear. Reactor Regulation and..e requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section have been met.
- 4. In 6 50.71, paragraph (e)is revised to read as follows:
50.71 Maintenance of records, making of reports.
J (e) Each person licensed to operate a nuclear power reactor pursuant to the provisions of 9 50.21 or G 50.22 of this part shall update periodically, as provided in paragraphs (e)(3) and (4) of this section, the final safety analysis report (FSAR) originally submitted as part of the application for the operating license, to assure that the information included in the report contains the latest information developed. This submittal shall contain all the changes I
necessary to reflect information and analyses submitted to the Commission by the licensee or
[
prepared by the licensee pursuant to Commission requirement since the submittal of the original
'k k
FSAR, or as appropriate the last update to the FSAR under this section. The submittal sha4
/
r.#. J. u,, 6r melude the effects' of: all changes made in the facility or procedures as described in the FSAR; all safety analyses and evaluations performed by the licensee either in support of approved license amendments, or in support of conclusions that changes did not require a license amendment in accordance with @ 50.59(c)(2) of this part; and all analyses of new safety issues performed by or on behalf of the licensee at Commission request. The updated information shall be appropriately located within the update to the FSAR.
(1)*
136