ML20211D487
| ML20211D487 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/26/1999 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211D475 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-99-173-C, NUDOCS 9908270040 | |
| Download: ML20211D487 (3) | |
Text
.
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
- SECY-99-173 - DENIAL OF PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING SUBMITTED BY THE NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE Approved x
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
l l
a S!GNATURE I6 L' (
July 26, 1999 DATE Entered on "AS" Yes
h Commissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY-99-173 m I approve the staff's recommendation to publish in the Federal Register notices of denial of the petitions for rulemaking (PRM-50-65, PRM-50-66, and PRM-50-67),
subject to the comments below.
As I said in my vote on SECY-99-162, the staff and the nuclear power industry have done an outstanding job over the past three years to resolve Y2K issues and get U.S.
nuclear power plants Y2K ready. In SECY-99-173, the staff arguments for denying the
{
petitions 'are based primarily on processes the NRC and industry have established to address the Y2K issue. The staff completed its analysis and recommendation before the results of the licensee responses to Generic Letter (GL) 98-01 and its supplement were compiled. The absence of the actual results of the GL responses and its supplement does not, in my view, diminish the staff's arguments. I find the staff arguments denying the petitions to be compelling and persuasive. However, in the j
interest of providing complete and accurate information to the public, I believe that the staff should update the three FRN notices to reflect the results of the licensee responses to GL 98-01 and its supplement. On this same point, the transmittal letters to the ;.atitioner and Congress should also provide a copy of the recently released NRC Preliminary Report on Nuclear Power Plant Year 2000 Readiness, dated July 19,1999.
I agree with Commissioner Merrifield that similar letters should be sent to Senators Bennett and Dodd and Congressmen Hom and Tumer.
Other edits and corrections are attached.
1 l
1
-C+1.m' w McGaffim's edits on SECY-99-173
{
LAttachment 1 A:
- 21. ' On page 1, insert " reasonable assurance of" between " provide" and " adequate protection" at the end of the summary paragraph.
- 2. 'On page 7, the time interval between July 1 and December 31 is characterized as a l
"5-month time period" between GL 98-01 response date and the date when most I
Y2K-induced problems are likely to occur.' Obviously, it is six months. On page 16,
)
. he term."5-month period" refers to July 1 through December 1, which is t
characterized as the period for NRC review and evaluation of licensee responses.
As discussed in SECY-99-162, any licensee who is not Y2K ready by November 30 will be subject to additional NRC regulatory action which may include issuance of an order requiring specific actions. The text should be revised so that the time frames in question are appropriately characterized and accurately described. C:
'1' On page 12, the discussion about diesel generators in the second paragraph should be revised to read:
"For pilot plants, diesel generators continue to be inspected and evaluated using..."
24 On page 22, ths la' st sentence.of the first paragraph is confusing and should be revised to read:
("Thus, it is unclear h'ow the requested requirements in the NIRS petition would provide assurance that Y2K problems will not prevent electrical power systems from performing their necessary. safety function. The NRC concludes that a rule change is not necessary since licensees are already directly addressing spent fuel pool cooling as part of their Y2K programs."
- 3. On page 24, the first paragraph provides a discussion regarding the time interval
' (i.e., three years) that forced circulation cooling is needed to remove decay heat from spent fuel. I understand that, with the exception of Zion 2, it has been more than three years since any of these plants irradiated any fuel in the reactor vessel.
Given that the staff is currently revisiting this issue - specifically the time interval for which forced cooling is required as discussed in SECY-99-168, the text should be
- revised to read:
"After a period of decay in the spent fuel pool, the heat load from spent' fuel is
- significantly reduced as short-lived fission products decay. Consequently,... action is greater. With the exception of Zion, more than three years has elapsed since any fuel was irradiated in the reactor at'any of the nuclear power plants currently
. undergoing decommissioning."
., i a
_'