ML20196C801
| ML20196C801 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/04/1999 |
| From: | Merrifield NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196C645 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-99-130-C, NUDOCS 9906240121 | |
| Download: ML20196C801 (3) | |
Text
.'
A F F I R M A T I O N VOTE
~
RESPONSE SHEET TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-130 - FINAL RULE - REVISIONS TO REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR PARTS 50 AND 72 CONCERNING CHANGES, TESTS, AND EXPERIMENTS Approved /
Disapproved /
Abstain i
Not Participating COMMENTS:
fa a +&
co - ~ n.
l
/)L9f/6(
SifdfATURE
/ 'l t/v/99 DATE i
}
Entered on "AS" Yes / No 37a'2 g g 7; g22 CORRESPONDEM:E PDR 9erol,1W/ z (
e
F Commissioner Merrifield's Comments on SECY-99-130 I commend the staff for their hard work on this very difficult and important rulemaking effort. l especially want to recognize the staff for the excellent job they did facilitating stakeholder involvement and incorporating stakeholder insights into the revisions to 10 CFR 50.59 and related requirements in Parts 50 and 72. However, despite the difficulty of this rulemaking, there should be many lessons learned from the manner in which the final rule language was developed and debated so late in the process. I hope the staff utilizes these lessons to ensure that these last minute scrambles, especially on such important rulemaking efforts, are not repeated in the future. As Commissioner Diaz discussed at the Regulatory Information Conference, the staff and our stakeholders must do a better job in reaching closure on these important regulatory matters.
I approve in part, and disapprove in part, the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register as discussed below:
1.
I approve the final rulemaking language.
2.
I disapprove of the proposed enforcement criterion which would impose a Severity Level til violation for a licensee's failure to submit an amendment as required if a substantial review (based on the merits of the technical issues) is needed by the NRC before it could conclude that the licensee's actions were acceptable. I agree with the ACRS and the Chairman that the " substantial review" standard is unduly subjective, fails to address the safety significance of the violation in question, and fails to address the extent to which the violation impacted the ability of the NRC to oversee the activities of licensees.
Even with an oversight panel, I believe the subjectivity of the " substantial review" standard would lead to inconsistency in our enforcement and be difficult to defend against challenge.
3.
Consistent with my vote on SECY-99-133 (Maintenance Rule), approval of the final rule language is but a first step in the process. Clearly, the staff has a great deal of work remaining on the development of regulatory guidance. This should uctude careful consideration of stakeholder comments and a very thorough review of the operational implications of such guidance. Given the importance of this guidance to both our licensees and inspectors, I believe that the final rule should not become effective until the final regulatory guidance is in place. I also believe it is prudent for the Commission to review this final guidance prior to issuance by the staff.
As such, I disapprove of the 10 CFR 50.59 rulemaking becoming effective before regulatory guidance is developed and ultimately reviewed by the Commission. I agree with the Chairman that while the staff has done an excellent job in assembling concepts and examples of how specific criteria of the rule would be applied, the guidance provided in the paper is not complete or ready for implementation. Throughout the paper, the staff has highlighted areas where additionalimplementation guidance is absolutely necessary, such as for the phrase " minimal increase in frequency or likelihood", and for criterion (viii) to describe the specific elements of the evaluation methods or methodology tha would require review and to clearly define specific types of l
input parameters. Furthermore, the staff still has to develop revised inspection guidance so that our inspectors have the guidance necessary to consistently evaluate licensee implementation of the new rule. Therefore, to ensure consistency in licensee
implementation of the new rule as well as consistency in inspector evaluation of
. licensees, I believe that voluntary early implementation by licensees should not be permitted and that the new rule should not become effective until after issuance of the final regulatory guidance.
4.
Finally, I believe the staff snould reassess the time it needs for developing and implementing new guidance. The staff has indicated that it will work with the industry and other stakeholders to revise the existing NEl 96-07 to satisfy the requirements of the final rule such that it could be endorsed. Given the importance of the revisions to 10 CFR 50.59, I believe it is critical for the staff, industry, and other stakeholders to move forward in a more prompt manner. I go back to my earlier comments about reaching closure on important regulatory matters. I believe the proposed 18 month schedule is l
excessive and warrants a second look to determine if efficiencies can be achieved such that implementation can be accomplished in a significantly shorter time frame.
Accelerating the schedule associated with developing regulatory guidance should result in more timely implementation of the final rule.
i i
l.
f UNITED STATES i
y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN RESPONSE, PLEASE l
i E
wass Notos, o.c. 2osss-ooot REFER TO: M990622
\\
......o!
June 22, 1999 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
William D. Travers l
Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION SESSION,3:00 P.M.,
TUESDAY, JUNE 22,1999, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
L SECY-99-130 - Final Rule - Revisions to Reauirements of 10 CFR Parts 50 and 72 Concernina Chanaes. Tests. and Experiments The Commission' approved a final rule amending 10 CFR 50.59 and re!ated requirements in Parts 50 and 72 concerning the authority for licensees of production and utilization facilities, such as nuclear reactors and for independent spent 'cel storage facilities, and for cert!ficate holders for spent fuel storage casks, to make changes to their facilities and procedures, or to conduct tests and experiments without prior NRC approval. The Commission approved publication and implementation of this final rule subject to the comments and changes provided h) in the atta-hment and any related conforming changes.
/
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:
7/23/99)
Attachment:
As stated i
l Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act,42 U.S.C. Section 5841, provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present." Commissioners Dicus, Diaz, McGaffigan, and Merrifield were present in the meeting room. Chairman Jackson participated in the meeting via speakerphone.
pmmu
p. _g--
L....
f cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus l
Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifeld l
EDO OGC-ClO -
CFO OCAA OCA OlG OPA Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
r p
Attachment Changes to the Federal Reaister Notice 1.
To ensure that the NRC can properly oversee tne implementation of the new rule, any implementation should be deferred untd the Commission has approved the Regulatory Guide. The process for developing the guidance should be as transparent as possible, with successive drafts of the guidance available to all on the NRC's Web site.
The effective date of the final rule shall be 90 days following Commission approval of the Regulatory Guide. The final Regulatory Guide should be submitted to the Commission for approval.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
5G0/2000) 2.
Since the guidance specific to Part 72 facilities is expected to be available at a later date than that for Part 50 facilities, the effective date for these sections should be separately established at 18 months from the publication of the final rule in the Federal Reaister.
The staff shall provide the Part 72 guidance to the Commission for information.
3.
The Commission disapproved the proposed enforcement criterion which would impose a Severity Level Ill violation for a licensee's failure to submit an amendment as required if a substantial review (based on the merito vi tiie tachnical issues) is needed by the NRC before it could conclude that the licensee's actions were acceptable. Instead, the enforcement policy should consider the safety significance of the violation in question and the impact of the violation on tne ability of the NRC to regulate effectively. The FRN should be revised accordingly.
4.
On page 6, under Section 11, line 11, add an 's' to ' support'.
5.
On page 11,2"8 full paragraph, line 5, insert a semicolon after ' changes'.
6.
On page 33, paragraph 3, line 4, change the first comma to a period.'
7.
On page 42,1 full paragraph, revise line 5 to read '. acceptance values in the regulations regubtory requ;rcincnts.
8.
On page 59, lines 1 through 5, deleu the parentheticals to be consistent with the deletion of Example 4 on page 64.
9.
On page 64, delete example 4.
10.
On page 77, paragraph (e), line 6, insert the missing sentence to conform the language to that on page 136.
11.
On page 77, paragraph (e), revise lines 6 and 7 to read 'The submittal shall includenst descritz the effects.
12.
On page 77, paragraph (e), line 7, insert a coton after 'of'.
13.
On page 90, paragraph 2, revise line 8 to read *. this has been changeds to require.
14.
On page 111, paragraph (a), line 5, move the start of the parentheses to before 'as'.
15.
On page 112, paragraph (c)(2), line 9, delete the quotation mark after the period.
16.
On page 133, revise paragraph (vii) to read '.. for a fission product barrier as described in the FSAR (as updated) being exceeded.
17.
On page 133, revise paragraph (4) to read '. do not apply to changes to the facility or procedures when.
18.
On page 142, revise paragraph (C)(2)(ii) to read *. minimal increase in the likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction.
4, L