ML20210C258
| ML20210C258 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1986 |
| From: | Cunningham G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082421065 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-126, FOIA-86-127, FOIA-86-131, FOIA-86-166, FOIA-86-201, FOIA-86-209, FOIA-86-263, FOIA-86-80, FOIA-86-82, FOIA-86-82 860812, FOIA-860263 NUDOCS 8603180319 | |
| Download: ML20210C258 (4) | |
Text
~~
p 3 b
- a Mi UNITED STATES
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N g
wasumoTon.o.c.aoses g
MAR 3 1986
.y $;(
I
/
I f}
Acting Executive Director for Operations h
g(
g MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Stello.Jr.
f FROM:
Guy H. Cunningham III Executive Legal Director RULEMAKING TO TAILOR THE REGULATIONS
',0
,d
{
SUBJECT:
SPECIFIC POWER LEVELS
')'[g/fi i
In a February 15, 1985 Memorandum concerning the interpretation of
.J j
a f~
Commission regulations (attached), the EDO notified Chairman Palladino that (0
the staff was considering the need to amend the regulations-to allow the N Director of NRR to determine whether a regulation applied to fuel load, low,
' g [,%
I and only issue exemptions where necessary for the-power or full power, power level involved. In acknowledgement of this approach, the Commission 7
accompanying the recently promulgated exemptions rule:
(fv k
3 included the following statement in the supplementary information I
...[T]he Commission would note that it is' not unsympathetic to th'e
[i need of flexibility in applying its regulations at lower power levels.
fl The Commission Staff is currently evaluating.a rulemaking that would
)>j provide for such flexibility."
[50 Fed. Reg. 50764 (December 12, O [f {
f 3
1985)].
I've prepared the following summary to assist in evaluating the need to d
pursue a rulemaking to tailor the regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 to specific g
j power levels.
The potential need for flexibility in applying the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 to particular power levels arose in response to the Commission's Island Lighting Company, CLI-84-8,10 NRC 1154, Shoreham decision. JLon In Shoreham I, the Commission held that 10 May 16,1984 ("Shoreham I").
CFR 50.57(c) does not make GDC-17 inapplicable to licenses for low power took the operation. In response, the Staff, in SECY-84-290 (July 17,1984),
position that Shoreham required a finding of full compliance with the regulations assuming full power operation, or the granting of an exemption, 4
before any license, including a fuel-loading and low-power license, can be Unless a regulation specified that it was inapplicable to a particular issued.
power level, the Staff would assume that it applied to all power levels. The potential need for flexibility was further highlighted by the Commission's intent, as stated in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule amending the exemption criteria in 10 CFR 50.12(a),
50 Fed. Reg.
to terminate the traditional staff practice of 16506.16508, April 26, 1985, granting " temporary noncompliances" from the regulations for power reactors As 4
%/;317 UY XA
,1
hfAR 3 yq;
-s-
?
under operating license review, often employed to grant schedular relief from the regulations for low power or fuel loading without the 'need for an exemption. These developments led to the evaluation of. the
- need for amending the Commission's regulations to allow the Director of NRR to determine whether a particular regulation applied to the power level involved, and if not, to authorize the activity without needing to issue an 15, 1985.
exemption. See page 4, Dircks to Palladino Memo of February the Executive Legal Director requested that NRR On February 22, 1985, suggest alternatives that would be the most useful to NRR in developing a rulemaMng to tailor the regulations to the particular power level involved.
See Cunningham to Denton Memo of February 25,1985 (attached). The NRR response stated that any mechanism that would minimise the resources
- However, expended on the exemption-graating process would be beneficial.
NRR specifically recommended the approach of identifying specific substantive regulations which could be tailored to particular power levels (e.g.10 CFR 50.55a preservice inspec' tion of welds before start-up) rather
. See Denton to Cunningham than taking a generic approach to the problem.
Memo of April 24,1985 (attached).
A decision on whether the rulemaking was necessary. and on what form it should take, was suspended until the Commission finished its deliberations on the final amendments to 10 CFR 50.12(a). The. final exemptions rule was 12, 1985, and became effective on January 13. 1986.
published on DecemberThe decision on whether to now proceed with a rulemaking two regulations to' specific power levels will need to consider the following developments --
The ' Commission, in the Supplementary Information to the final exemptions rule, has retreated somewhat from the absolute bar on the 1.
for plant under operating license use of " temporary noncompliances"In the final rule, the Commisssion wou for uncompleted review.
schedular relief through a temporary noncompliance items without the need for an exemption, if the findings required by 10 l
CFR 50.57(a) have been made. Because 850.57(a) requires a finding of i
compliance with the regulations, this modification of'the absolute bar on noncompliances does not address the issue of whether temporary compliance is necessary for a particular power level.
the Commission In a decision issued some months after Shoreham I, upheld the Licensing Board determination that the purpose of GDC 17 2.
had no application to fuel loading and precritical and cold critical testing.
Lon Island Lighting Company, CLI-84-21, 20 NRC 1437.
November 984 ("Shoreham 11").
In reaching this conclusion, the Commission stated that--
-In CLI-84-8, we held that "10 CFR 50.57(c) should not be read to make General Design Criterion 17 inapplicable to low-power operation." By this we meant only that section 50.57('c) does not.
,.. MAR 3 1966 f
by itself, carve out an exception from all health and safety regulations that would otherwise be applicable to a low power license.
We did not mean to say, however, that every health and safety regulation, regardless of its purpose or terms,' must be deemed fully applicable to fuel loading and to every phase of low power operation, or that the pressures, temperatures and other stresses associated with full power must be postulated in evaluating applicability of, or compliance with, regulations for low Each regulation must be examined to determine its power.
~
application and effect for fuMoadng and for each phase of low power operaWn.
Emphasis added. Id. at 1439.
This reasoning essentially reflects the original Staff position, on the applicability of ~certain regulations to specific power levels, that was eventually placed in ' serious doubt by the Commission's Shoreham I decisionn
' The decision in Shoreham II still leaves considerable uncertainty as to its' effect on the Commis'sTon's decision in Shoreham I in regard to staff discretion ' to determine whether a particular..
regulation applies to a specific power level.
In terms of how to proceed on this issue, I have identified the following 1
three options for your consideration--
woul a generic procedure for of NRR,p establish 1.
Initiate a rulemaking that to determine whether a particular allowing the Director regulation was applicable to a specific power level. One possible generic approach would be to revise 10 CFR 50.57 to allow the Director of NRR to make a finding of predictive compliance with the full OL requirements (e.g. by a certain date) and also a finding that all regulations for operation at a lower power level are met.. If the Director could make these findings the Director could authorize operation at those power levels prior to making the actual findings necessary for full power without the need for granting an exemption.
This operation, rulemaking would almost certainly be controversial, adding to the time and resources necessary to develop and promulgate the final rule.
Although, a generic approach may not involve as much time and staff resources as a rulemaking that would amend individual regulations, the implementation of the generic approach in individual cases would involve of judgment, and consequently would require more varying degrees staff resources to implement than the individual regulation approach.
1'Ihis rulemaking would also address motions for low power licenses filed with the Boards under 10 C2R 50.57(c) in contested cases.
_ _ _ _. _ _. _ _, _.._ _ _ _ _ __ _.. _. _. ~. _.. _ _ _. _. _ _
MAR 3 1986,
_4 Initiate a rulemaking that would identify those regulations that could be Compared to the generic' approach, 2.
tailored to specific power levels.this rulemaking would require a longer to prepare, because of the necessity of identifying the However, the individual approach resources appropriate regulations for revision.
may be less controversial, may take less resources to implement, and would provide more certainty to the regulatory process.
Rely on the existing regulatory framework. A number of alternatives are available under this approach. We could take the position that there 3.
is no flexibility to tailor the regulations to specific power levels andto provide rely on the exemption process in 10 CFR 50.12(a)where nec decision in Shoreham II to determine in individual cases that a particular regulation does not apply to a specific power level. While this would be legally justified after the Commission's decision in Shoreham II, it,could potentially place the staff in.the same position it faced in I, i.e. a Commission decision that a particular regulation does Thoreham_ Tie power level in question.
Either of these alternatives may be preferable to rulemaking because of ths reduced licensing caseload.;
apply to t We will be available to discuss these issues witi you at your convenience.
In the meantime, I am starting development of a separa Diablo ECCS matter.
>T n
Guy H. Cunnin
. III 1
Executive Lega Director
.I
?
Attachments: As. stated l1 cc: HDenton, NRR
,I RMinogue, RES i
l l
l t
l l
l
_