ML20209B052
| ML20209B052 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/28/1999 |
| From: | David Wright NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| SECY-99-133-C, NUDOCS 9907060247 | |
| Download: ML20209B052 (1) | |
Text
n j>'# " N~g UNITED STATES
/ . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f 5 I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665
! ...../
-l orrier or Tar June 28,1999 secneTAny q
! i i
1 NOTE TO:
/Document Control Desk, P1-17 OWFN l
] Public Document Room, L Street FROM:
Darlene Wright gg ff
SUBJECT:
REVISION TO RELEASE PACKAGE -
JUNE 23,1999 MEMO ON COMNJD-99-003 i
Attached is the June 23,1999 memo to Commissioner Diaz from Annette Vietti-Cook on COMNJD-99-003. The Revised Commission Voting Record on SECY-99-133 dated June 22,1999 has been attached to the memo per Commissioner Diaz' request. This copy replaces the one previously transmitted to you on June 23 for entry 1 on the Daily Accession List and placement in the Public Document Room. ,
, 4
Attachment:
As stated ;
i l
l l 9907060247 990628
- PDR SECY
e a '
>................aa aao.
' RELEASED TO THE PDR !
3
/ > UNITED STATES i4UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSlpN g f ,
l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20$55-0001 *
\,,,,,/ "
June 23, 1999 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO: Commissioner Diaz FROM: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary .
SUBJECT:
COMNJD-99-003 - ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR RESOLUTION OF SECY-98-300 AND SECY-99-133 This memorandum is to inform you that all Commissioners have disagreed with your proposal for further evaluation of proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) and their potential irnplication for adequate protection and/or backfit findings, an Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards evaluation, an Office of General Counsel review, and a public Commission meeting on the proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.65. The individual Chairman and Commissioner views are attached.
This completes action on COMNJD-99-003.
Attachment:
As stated 1
cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield '
y;
(,TIPTsa MhE. &&
y o m aA v.
..4 s 0 O*
.-} {hhh)f~
'_ e UNITED STATES L 'a , .
^ ~ > = ' ' -- -
[s'#p ur%>\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g j WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 v e
\*****/ June 3,1999 COMNJD-99-003 CoMM!ssioNER Disapproved. See attached coments. .
MEMORANDUM TO: I[ Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield hb Shirley Khn Jack' son 6/05/99 FROM: Nils J. Diaz %
SUBJECT:
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR RESOLUTION OF SECY-98-300 AND SECY-99-133 The Commission has been moving toward resolution of SECY-98-300 and is now considering SECY-99-133. I would be remiss if I did not ask my fellow Commissioners to consider several issues that arise as a result of recent comments and directional changes regarding modification of the maintenanca rule. In particular, I believe the Commission needs additional evaluatior of proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) and their pctentia! implication for adequate protection and/or backfit findings.
From its letters of April 14 and May 11,1999, the ACRS appears to be expressing concern with combinations of multiple Sw risk-significant safety systems, structures, and components (SSCs)
'and their impact on plant safety during maintenance, and, presumably, when they fail. In its letter of Aoril 14,1999, the ACRS stated that "[i]t is not apparent that components ranked as having low safety significance will continue to be of low safety significance under all the configurations that can occur when multiple components are simultaneously taken out of service." It further stated, in its letter of May 11, that *[a] different configuration or a different mode of operation rnay change the relative rankings of the SSCs." On plain reading, this would cppear to create an open-ended requirement.
The ACRS seems to be raising questions involving maintenance configurations and/or failure of SSCs, including the adequacy of PRAs to characterize accident sequences, that could be viewed as having implications for adequate protection. Some might construe the ACRS concems as making it necessary to re-evaluate established NRC policies to consider out-of-service and/or failures of alllow risk-significant SSCs, and all combinations of low and high risk-significant SSCs. For instance, what is the acceptable variability in risk level associated with different configurations or modes that will not trigger consideration of adequate protection?
I continue to believe that technical specifications, Appendices A and B of Part 50, the design basis, and risk-informed additions thereto, provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection. However,in light of the ACRS findings suggesting the need for evaluation of the risk-significance of all actual configurations before performing maintenance, I recommend that the ACRS promptly evaluate the potential implications of its conclusions for determinations of
-qQ Q$CWf
{. ,
Chairman Jackson's Comments on COMNJD-99-003 l l disapprove of the recommendations by Commissioner Diaz because these concems already l have been addressed by the staff in the final revision to SECY 99-133 dated May 17,1999. The recommendation for further ACRS review is not warranted because the specific ACRS concerns l have already been evaluated and resolved by the staff as noted in the ACRS letters. If there are any residual concerns on these matters, I am confident that the staff can readily address them in developing guidance before the effective date of the final rule.
. The recommendation for an OGC backfit review is likewise not warranted because: (1) the original backfit analysis has always bounded all considered versions of the assessment scope, and (2) the current backfit and regulatory analysis was recently revised prior to submittal of SECY 99-133.
While i share Commissioner Diaz's desire for an open and scrutable process, I would note that stakeholder input has been vigorously solicited throughout this rulemaking. The public Commission meeting on May 5,1999, merely is the most recent opportunity for stakeholder concerns to be raised and considered. I do not believe that another public meeting is needed because no new issues have arisen since the May 5 meeting and the existing issues have been fully vetted during the rulemaking.
Consequently, I do not believe that the analyses and meeting recommended by Commissioner Diaz are needed and see no reason to link disposition of COMNJD-99-003 with the Commission decision on the final maintenance rule proposed by the staff in SECY 99-133.
/ #o, UNITED STATES
/ o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- y a WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 C001
%*****/ June 7,1999 OFFICE OF THE COMut3SIONER MEMORANDUM TO: Commissioner Diaz FROM: Greta Joy Dicus d o L
SUBJECT:
COMNJD-99-003, A ITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR RESOLUTION OF SECY-98-300 AND SECY-99-133 I have considered the concerns you raised in your memorandum, and the proposed activities you feel are necessary to resolve those concerns. However, based upon my understanding of the issue at hand, I do not share the same concerns, and therefore, suggest that the additional staff evaluations and briefing which you propose, at least for my benefit, are not necessary. We are close to completion of consideration of the SRM for SECY-98-300. I support prompt completion of rebon on both SECY-98-300 and SECY-99-133.
The Commission has been moving toward risk-informing Part 50 for quite some time now, in a very delibe ste, careful and thoughtful ma ner. Numerot'- interactions have l taken place between staff, external stakeholders, ACRS, and the Commission. It was !
through those interactions that much consensus and convergence were achieved. The ,
progress that has been achieved to date with respect to direction of the Maintenance Rule, as reflected in SECY-99-133 has also been significantly influenced by your insights.
I personally have benefitted from discussions with you on this subject, and ironically, it is a result of those past discussions which causes me to disagree with your proposition that additional considerations must be explored before the agency can go forward relative to risk-informing the Maintenance Rule and eventually, Part 50.
cc: Chairman Jackson Comissioner McGaffigan Comissioner Merrifield ED0 OGC SECY 47OG290o W
- fp a uc g *o, UNITED STATES a % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 h
COMMISSIONER June 7,1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Nils J. Diaz FROM: Edward McGaffigan, Jr. k
SUBJECT:
n.
COMNJD-99-003 - ADDITIONAL CONSIDEAATIONS FOR RESOLUTION OF SECY-98-300 AND SECY-99-133 As we discussed this morning, I have considered 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 cornpleting 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 rnemorandum are needed to decide on the staff proposals in SECY-99 133.
J 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 asked in that paper that the Commission approve an initiative to risk-inform the scope of 10 CFR 50.65, the I 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 Commission's May 5,1999 Maintenance Rule briefing, SECY 99-133 is now before us and should be the place to deal with any 50.65(a)(4) issues. I note that this paper has been made publicly available while we vcie 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 interpretation of ACRS's previous comments. I do not believe that ACRS or the staff is arguing for an endless, unbounded search of all
, A00N$W
fy .,
p i
l .
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
- i. risk-significant SSCs they are most concemed be captured in the risk-informed L evaluation process for determining the scope of (a)(4) assessments laid out in the ;
proposed final rule text of SECY-99-133.' The May 13* SRM already directs ACRS review of the draft regulatory guide and already directs a public comment process on ' l l the draft guide.
. 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 than -
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 1 SECY 99-133 points out, " violations of the maintenance rule will be evaluated by the i significance determination process"_ (SDP)'of tha ne v 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* l Commissiva briefing, this de facto should limit the search for combirations 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 :
l
- 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 i 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 wit ,out further delay and without the additional ,
analyses and public meeting you have requerited.
cc: ' Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus t ,
j _ Commissioner Merrifield
- t. EDO-OGC-SECY i '
.- ~ g/ ,,
i f !b f,
[@e:y'o
~
UNITED STATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.c. 20555
{ i
%*****/ June 3,1999 COMNJD-99-003 Commissioner hl5 1ot , k o f1u MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus **
pommissioner McGaffigan 7 -$
/ Commissioner Merrifield .
g FROM: Nils J. Diaz o
fu/n
SUBJECT:
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR RESOLUTION OF SECY-98-300 AND SECY-99-133 The Comrnission has been moving toward resolution of SECY-98-300 and is now considering SECY-99-133. I would be remiss if I did not ask my fellow Commissioners to consider several issues that arise as a result of recent comments and directional changes regarding modification of the maintenance rule. In particular, I believe the Commission needs additional evaluation of proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) and tW potential implication for adequate protection and/or backfit findings. I From its letters of April 14 and May 11,1999, the ACRS appears to be expressing concern with con,&ations of multiple low risk-significant sa'ety systems, structures, and components (SSCs) g and their impact on plant safety during maintenance, and, presumably, wnen they fail. In its i letter of April 14,1999, the ACRS stated that "[ijt is not apparent that components ranked as having low safety significance will continue to be of low safety significance under all the configurations that can occur when multiple components are &,uttaneously taken out of service.' It further stated, in its letter of May 11, that '[a] different configuration or a different mode of operation may change the relative rankings of the SSCs." On plain reading, this wou!d appear to create an open-ended requirement.
The ACRS seems to be raising questions involving maintenance configurations and/or failure of SSCs, including the adequacy of PRAs to characterize accident sequences, that could be viewed as having implications for adequate protection. Some might construe the ACRS concems as making it necessary to re-evaluate established NRC policies to consider out-of-service and/or failures of alllow risk-significant SSCs, and all combinations of low and high risk-significant SSCs. For instance, what is the acceptablo variability in risk level associated with different configurations or modes that will not trigger consideration of adequate protection?
I continue to believe that technical specifications, Appendices A and B of Part 50, the design basis, and risk-informed additions thereto, provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection. However, in light of the ACRS findings suggesting the need for evaluation of the risk-significance of all actual configurations before performing maintenance, I recommend that the ACRS promptly evaluate the potential implications of its conclusions for determinations of 9-90 $ Y 0
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD'S COMMENTS ON COMNJD-99-003 As I stated in my vote on SECY-98-300, I commend Commissioner Diaz for his efforts to guide and expedite the staff's efforts to risk-inform Part 50. His insights regarding risk-informed regulation have been invaluable. In that light, I carefully reviewed COMNJD-99-003 associated with the Commission giving additional consideration to SECY-98-300 and SECY-99-133.
Based on my review, I continue to support the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) for SECY-98-300, which was issued on June 8,1999. Furthermore, I do not support the recommendations in COMNJD 99-003 regarding SECY-99-133. I have articulated my position on SECY-99-133 in my vote of June 2,1999 and believe that voting on SECY-99-133 should proceed without the additional analyses and public meeting requested in COMNJD-99-003.
As I stated in my vote on SECY 99-133, the final rule is a very important first step in making the Maintenance Rule m' ore effective and risk-informed. But clearly, this is only a first step. The staff has a great deal of work remaining on the development of regulatory guidance. I believe that the guidance development process provides the forum by which any residual concerns pertaining to the ACRS can be resolved. We should not lose sight of the fact that 1) the May.
13,1999 SRM on the Commission's May 5,1999 Maintenance Rule briefing directs that the draft regulatory guide be reviewed by the ACRS,2) the Commission will review and approve the final guidance prior to its issuance by the staff, and 3) the final rule will not become effective ,
until the final regulatory guidance is in place. I anticipate and encourage intense Commission scrutiny of the operationalimplications of such guidance. As expressed by Commissioner McGaffigan,if Commissioner Diaz's concerns of an unbounded process are realized, I will disapprove the final regulatory guide and delay implementation of the rule.
With regard to the OGC backfit analysis proposed in COMNJD 99-003, I L#ieve the backfit analysis providad in the regulatory analysis of SECY-99-133 is sui.aient. It is also important to note that Me 13" SRM directs CRGR review of the draft regulatory guide. Further, I anticipate that the Commission will closely scrutinize this aspect in its review of the final regulatory guidance.
I do not believe that another public meeting regarding the final rulemaking in SECY-99-133 is warranted. The staff has already solicited stakeholder input throughout the rulemaking process and a public Commission meeting was recently held on May 5,1999. Furthermore, the Commission has directed the staff to work with stakeholders in finalizing regulatory guidance through the use of public meetings and workshops, as appropriate. Having said that, given the importance of the final regulatory guidance, I believe that a public Commission briefing regarding this guidance should be conIJcted once it has been provided to the Commission for review and approval.
Finally, as discussed in SECY-98-300, and my vote on SECY-99-133, I believe 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 believe that continued progress toward this goal may not be possible without taking the first step represented by the final rule in SECY 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 Maintenance Rule.
i Y
g
. l
,/' UNITED STATES d* NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l 3 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 0001 ReWsed Y
June 22,1999
%, ...../ -
55ca"^ a' COMMISSION VOTING RECORD ,
i DECISION ITEM: SECY-99-133 ;
TITLE: FINAL REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.65 TO REQUIRE LICENSEES TO PERFORM l ASSESSMENTS BEFORE PERFORMING l 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 !
Affirmation Session Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) of June 18,1999. Commissioner i Diaz disapproved the rulemaking.
This Record contains a summary of voting on this matter together with the individual vote l sheets, views and comments of the Commissior,, and the Affirmation Session SRM of June 18, 1999.
~ 5d' Annette Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission Attachments:
- 1. Voting Summary
- 2. Commissioner Vote Sheets
- 3. Final SRM cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield OGC EDO PDR DCS 49-g gyOO69~
L. ,
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 COMR. MERRIFIELD X X 6/2/99 l
COMMENT RESOLUTION In their vote sheets, the Commission (with Chairman Jackson and Commissioners Dicus, McGaffigan, and Merrifield agreeing) approved the staff's recommendation as noted 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 j comments. Commissioner Diaz stated "I would like to state for the public record that I object to rushing the maintenance rule 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 l 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 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, l
NOTATION VOTE l
RESPONSE SHEET 1
TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary l FROM: CHAIRMAN JACKSON
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-133 - FINAL REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.65 TO REQUIRE LICENSEES TO PERFORM ASSESSMENTS BEFORE PERFORMING MAINTENANCE 1 w/ comments Approved X Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS: '
See attached comment.
hirley Ann ' Jackson SIGNATURE May 19, 1999 DATE Entered on "AS" Yes No q4068l0lW
I, ,
~
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 ofon-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 ofnew equipment or the abandonment-in-place of existing equipment),
operational practices (such as crediting increased amounts of manual operator action), or extemal 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 l staff should ensure that such possibilities are taken into account in developing guidance and implementing the rule.
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 nmnber ofcomponents or systems). As a result, combinations oflow-safety-significant SSCs that, taken together, might represent a high risk condition are not covered under the scope of the CRMP. ]
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 combinations oflow risk-significant SSCs that should be treated within the scope of a(4) of the j proposed rule. In the alternative, other methods that would consider the impact oflow risk I significant SSCs would be acceptable, such as robust risk monitoring methods which can be demonstrated to have addressed this concem.
1 i
i I
- 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 i
COMMENTS: l 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.
l
& Ao %cco
$$ATUlWG l 0% 3 ngy DATG Entered on "AS" Yes x No !
-79062/0/fo-
F ,- ,
l f- 11 the total time that the funchon may be demanded." Also according to that document, under the
. definition of " unavailability," is the following 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, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, memorandum to E.W. Brach, Office of Nuclear RCactor -
ulation, dated November 23,1991.) The NRC's expectation is that, by procedur , - _
ine 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 i
. and trend the performance of equipment, therecy permitting certain conclusions to be drawn ' I
- about the effectiveness of the equipment's maintenance program. Paragraph (s)(3) of the rule requires that the prevention of SSC failures (reliability) through maintenance is appropriately balanced agamst the objective of minimizing unavailability. Omitting unavailability time from the maintenance effectiveness determination analysis is flawed logic. Omitting unavailability time i
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 perfomied 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 i 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 enter a plant configuration the complexity of which exceeds the licensee's ability to assess.
l
- 13. Aeolication to decommissionino olants.
Comment. One commentor presented concems regarding the application of the rule k plants in a emmmissioning 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.
i Response. 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 1
The final rule amends 10 CFR 50.65 as follows:
- 1. An introductory paragraph has been added to 10 CFR 50.65 clarifying that the rule m O
~
applies under all conditions of operation, including v
sNitdown. This introductory language 'g Y J ,.,
reads as follows: "The requirements of this section are applicable during all conditions of plan
, .j t
4 . .
A F F I R M A T I O N VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER DIAZ
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-133 - FINAL REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.65 TO REQUIRE LICENSEES TO PERFORM ASSESSMENTS BEFORE PERFORMING MAINTENANCE
. l Approved Disapproved I Abstain Not Participating l
COMMENTS-1 See attached comments.
SIGNATUl4F /
Uuwt \7 @%9 DATE I
Entered on "AS" Yes No pgyg-7;/ O/AA
fi.: .,
i s >- 1
[ COMMISSIONER DIAR' COMMENTS .ON.SECY-99-133 I l
I have been a strong and consistent advocate of improving the maintenance rule to l achieve a higher level of safety at justifiable cost, focusing first on requiring assessment L 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
' 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.
l In my judgment, the final maintenance rule now before the Commission represents a 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 falmess. The public is ;
. entitled to formal notice of what the agency proposed to do in a way that affords a rea!
opportunity for any interested member of the public to make meaningful comment and to have that comment addrassed.~ l 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-informed 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
F. .
i l
l
- 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. l There are now reasons to question whether there are sufficient safety benefits to justify i 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 RESPONSE SHEET TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-133 - FINAL REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.65 TO REQUIRE LICENSEES TO PERFORM ASSESSMENTS BEFORE PERFORMING MAINTENANCE Approved K Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS: -
- d -S j lYi? Me kw ,
i I
SIGNATUR$ NUU i
- / f ,1919 DAT Entered on "AS" Yes X No i
I 9 qwe70/99'~~
c o ,
Commissioner McGaffican's Comments on SECY-99133 I applaud the staff's efforts to provide this final rulemakirig 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 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 guide.
There are other scope sentences which one could 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 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 effcct on the performance of key plant safety functions. This struck me as no better (and probably no wurse) than the staff's final recommendation. It would still need to be explained in regulatory guidance.
Once the Commission has addressed the final rule language. the difficulty I foresee involves promptly developing acceptable engulatory guidance. It is clear that the staff and stakeholders will have invest significant energy in the coming months in reaching a consensus on to th the draft and final 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 ACR$ 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.
8 8 o UNITED STATES
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g WASHIN
- TON, C.C. 20555
%.....}
c:MMISSIONER MEMORANDUM TO: Nils J. Diaz FROM: Edward McGaffigan, Jr. /
SUBJECT:
d'.<.
COMNJD-99-003 - ADDITIONAL CONSIDE ATIONS FOR RESOLUTION OF SECY-98-300 AND SECY-99-133 As we discussed this moming, I have considered 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 needec e 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 tu completion of SECY-98-300's SRM. The staff askea " that paper that the i 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 Commission's May 5,1999 Maintenance Rule briefing, SECY-99-133 is now before us I
and should be the place to deal with env 50.65(a)(4) issues. I note that this paper has been made publicly available while we wie 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 l you may be taking an extreme interpretation of ACRS's previous comments. I do not believe that ACRS or the staff is arguing for an endless, unbounded search of all 44062/OfS-V
F 1 -
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 Cvaluation prxess for determining the scope of (a)(4) assessments laid out in the
. proposed final rule text of SECY-99-133. The May 13* SRM already directs ACRS r:; view of the draft regulatory guide and already directs a public comment process on the draft guide.
3 With regard to the_ OGC backfit analysis proposed to be obtained, I regard the backfit' cnalysis provided in the regulatory analysis (attachment 2) of SECY-99-133 more than sufficient to make the case that there is a substantial increase in the overall protection cf public health and safety as a result of the modification to the maintenance rule, if
- cny further backfit issues arise in the guidance development process, the May 13* SRM l tiready 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 determin~ a tion process"(SDP) of the r,ew cversight 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 Effects NRC scoring of a comerstone. As Harold Ray pointed out at the May 5*
Commissio.. briefing, this de facto should limit tne 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,1 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 Wthout further delay and without the additional
. analyses and public meeting you have requested.
cc: . Chairman Jackson
. Commissioner Dicus -
Commissioner Merrifield
.EDO OGC:
SECY ,
i
- " (
.i
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-133 - FINAL REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.65 TO l REQUIRE LICENSEES TO PERFORM ASSESSMENTS I BEFORE PERFORMING MAINTENANCE Approved ! Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
L4 a+%L3 co .-.,w.
^
SIGM)lifW/-~
cAAg '
DATE //
Entered on "AS" Yes / No 29sCt/OW9-
r 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 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 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 staff states, "The Commission is amending its regulations to require commercial nuclear power plarcilicensees 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, aiven the importoace of this aspect of (a)(4), I request that tne 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 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 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.
l t
i
E, ,
~
f
[ \
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN RESPONSE, PLEASE
{ i WASHINGTON,0.C. 20555-0001 REFER TO: M990618C k..... June 18, 1999 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR: Karen D. Cyr General Counsel William D. Travers q Executive Director for Operations John F. Cordes, Acting Director Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication l FROM: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary ,f V i *, -
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) i SECY-99133'- 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 :hanges 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. l Following incorporation of these changes, the Federal Reoister 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. l (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 1 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) pg.2 [dM-f-
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)
JL SECY-99-145 - Kansas Gas & Electric Co.. et. al. (Wolf Creek Generatina Station.
Unit it 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 signed the Memorandum and Order.)
Attachment:
As stated cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus j Commissioner Diaz 1 Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield ClO CFO OCA OlG OPA Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
PDR - Advance ,
DCS - P1-17 l
?.. . .
Attachment 1 i
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'.
i l
l l
t
)
L.
1
- Attachment 2 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 3,1" 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)-taxpayct- expense . '
- 7. On page 7, revise line 5 to read ' . benefits of nuclear resources and thereby create an anti-competitive situation rcap the bcncfits cf "chcap" nucl car-generated c'cctricity.
- 8. On page 10,2"d paragraph, capitalize the 's' ir, 'section'.
- 9. On page 10, revise the last line to read ' . the Commission could order a remedy-ene.
- 10. On page 12,1" full paragraph, revise lines 5 th"ough 10 to read 'At the time Congress enacted Section 105, it envisioned tThis broad and comprehensive review makcs 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 r,ection 103 in operating license proceedings unless the Commission .. '
- 12. On page 12, revise footnote 6 to read 'But e8ee note 22, infra.'
- 13. On page 13,1"iull 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 securityinterest frcin 'hc hazards of radiation.'
l'
' 15. On page 15,1" full paragraph, line 11, close the quotation marks around ' possess'."
- k. . . . ,
- 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'.
- 18. On page 18, line 2, place 'significant changes' ;a quotation marks. kiso, 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 1G to read ' . antitrust information is to enable-so the staff to een determine . . ' i
- 25. On page 29,1" paragraph, revise line 6 5 read * .. protecting the public health, and
- safety and inarcat and the 4..
- 26. On page 30, line 3, move footnote 17 to after the comma. i l
- 27. On page 30, last paragraph, revise line 2 to rend * .. anticompeouve conduct by the NRC's nuclear . ' l
- 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 ", 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 remove pcriein where the conditions where they apply to only ... the transfer, and (3) it might be would appccr 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 ....'
>1 l L.
V>.,
. .~
l 1'
, 34. On page 34, last paragraph, revise lines 1 and 2 to read * . adjudication to decide new l
general policy or changes in maticr of general policy geners!!y has focused . '
1 a
- p. . .
p.
6 f UNITED STATES !
! , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN RESPONSE, PLEASE g i WA SHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 REFER TO: M990618C
. e, j
- '% ,/ Revised 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., l FRIDAY, 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 Performino Maintenance The Com."ssion 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 1 be provided to the Commission for information.
(EDO) (SECY Suspense: 7/13/99) l
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) ll. 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. l 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 i would conduct antitrust reviews of license transfers and clarify Regulatory Guide 9.3 and l NUREG-1574.
(OGC/EDO) (SECY Suspense: 8/27/99)
The staff should publish this Order in thefpderal Reaister and place it on the NRC's Web site.
(SECY) (SECY Suspense: 6/25/99)
(Subsequently, on Jt.ne 18,1999, the Secretary signed the Memorandum and Order.)
l
Attachment:
As stated cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield CIO CFO OCA OlG OPA Office Directors, Regions. ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
E. .
l l
Anachment 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 j 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
Attachment 2 Changes to the Memorandum and Order in SECY-99-145 1
- 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. l
- 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"8 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) --taxpaycr- expense .
- 7. On page 7, revise line 5 to read * . benefits of nuclear resources and thereby create an anti-competitive situation feepthe benefits of "chcap" nucicar-gsnerated c!cctricity.
- 8. On page 10 2"' paragraph, capitalize the T in section'.
- 9. On page 10, revise the last line to read ' . the Commission could order a remedy-one.
- 10. On page 12, i full paragraph, revise lines 5 through 10 to read 'At the +ime Congress enacted Section 105, it envisioned tThis broad and comprehensive review makes scasc 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-fmds 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 98ee 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 interest frorn the hazards of radiation.7
- 15. On page 15,1 full paragraph, line 11, close the quotation marks around ' possess'.
j
m
.3 -o, 1
- 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',
18; L 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.
- 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.
I
- 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 safety andhefest and the . ' j
- 26. On page 30, line 3, move footnote 17 to after the comma. j l
.I
- 27. On page 30, last paragraph, revise line 2 to read * . anticompetitive onduct by the NRC's nuclear .
i
- 28. . On page 31, revise line 1 to read ' . which, therefore, were-was of great concern to . l
- 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. ,
i
- 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 remove pe,-tain where the conditions'where they apply to only . . the transfer, and (3) it might be-weeldeppear 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 l appropriate . .' ;
33.. On page 33, in footnote 23, revise line 3 to read ' . conditions were imposed at a licensing . .'
i 1
r' i o .. .
- 34. On page 34, last paragraph, revise lines 1 and 2 to read ' . adjudication to decide new general policy oc changes in matter af genera 1 policy gcncially has focused . '
l I
l l
i i
I I
i I I