ML20211D491
| ML20211D491 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/22/1999 |
| From: | Merrifield J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211D475 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-99-173-C, NUDOCS 9908270043 | |
| Download: ML20211D491 (4) | |
Text
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-173 - DENIAL OF PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING SUBMITTED BY THE NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE Approved _
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
6a e aty LJ co - ~ -a.
SIG M 4 $ ') #
\\
7I,b DATE
//
Entered on "AS" Yes ! No 9908270043 990810 RESP DE E PDR
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD'S COMMENTS ON SECY-99-173 l approve the staff's recommendation subject to the following comments.
I noted that in the attachments the staff refers to milestones associated with June 1999 and July 1999 as future milestones. For example, on page 10 of Attachment 1-B, the staff indicates that it is currently auditing the contingency planning effort of six licensee facilities and that these audits will be completed during June 1999. In other cases, the staff refers to the July 1,1999 licensee Y2K reporting requirement, and the July 1999 regional reviews of plant-specific Y2K program implementation activities, as future activities. Given the time-line for review and approval of this paper, it is understandable that some of the scheduled milestones discussed in the attachments have passed. While the insights gained from the various activities conducted in June and July are important to the agency's oversight of related Y2K activities, I do not believe they are essential to support the staff's conclusions which form the basis for denying the petitions nor the staff's position that the actions taken by licensees to address Y2K issues and NRC's oversight of these activities provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety. Having said that, a strength of our Y2K efforts to date has been the outstanding job the staff has done in providing stakeholders with clear and timely information on the status of Y2K activities. Given that the Federal Register Notices (FRNs) will not likely be published before early/mid August, I believe the staff should revise them to the extent practicable to include information pertaining to the stated June and July milestones. Once updated, the FRNs should be provided to the Secretary of the Commission for issuance.
I agree with Commissioner Diaz that the letters to Congressman Barton and Senator Inhofe should be enhanced by providing information associated with insights gained from the July 1, 1999 status letters. I believe we should also enhance our discussion in the letters regarding the extent of Y2K oversight activities that have been and will be conducted by the NRC. Finally,
~
I recommend that the staff send similar letters to Senator Bennett (cc: Senator Dodd) and Congressman Horn (cc: Congressman Turner) given their interest in Y2K issues.
The staff should continue to ensure that its communication with stakeholders regarding the status of Y2K activities at nuclear facilities and the NRC's oversight of these activities is timely and thorough. Failure to communicate in such a manner will most likely result in unnecessary stakeholder uncertainty, concern, and skepticism.
Please note the additional editorial changes attached.
Y 7 J.2 97 L
l
4[
\\
a e
vec g
UNITED STATES
[
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 1
The Honorable Joe L. Barton, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has sent the enclosed Federa/ Register notices to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. With this action, the NRC denies three related petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). The petitioner, NIRS, requested that the Commission amend its regulations to require that nuclear facilities be shut down if they are not compliant with Y2K issues (PRM-50-65). The additional two related petitions would require nuclear power plant and major fuel cycle facilities to develop and implement adequate contingency plans and conduct
- emergency planning exercises to address potential system failures (PRM-50-66) and to provide reliable back-up sources of power for nuclear facilities (PRM-50-67).
N With respect to NIRS' petition for a rule requiring utdown of nuclear facilities that are not Y2K compliant, the Commission finds that licensees are taking action to identify and address Y2K problems. The NRC has required licensees to provide information to the NRC describing their activities for addressing Y2K issues, and to provide information by July 1,1999 that
[
describe the status of their work. Additionally, the NRC is auditing and inspecting the l
(
implementation of licensees' Y2K activities. The NRC has sufficient authority to take timely action (including, as appropriate, issuance of orders directing shutdown of facilities) if it finds that Y2K-induced problems threaten continued assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that NIRS' proposed rule is not necessary
{
to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety in the event of any Y2K-induced problems.
(
~
With respect to the NIRS' petition for a rule requiring a special emergency preparedness exercise at nuclear power plants to test the capability to cope with Y2K-induced failures, the NRC finds that emergency preparedness exercises routinely assume problems and equipment failures, in order to test the capability of the onsite and offsite organizations to cope with such problems. Furthermore, licensees have prepared Y2K contingency plans with respect to emergency preparedness implementation. The NRC will be reviewing the implementation of these contingency plans. Accordingly, Se NRC does not believe that NIRS' proposed rule is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of emergency preparedness capabilities at nuclear power plants Finally, with respect to the NIRS' petition for a rule requiring an attemative source of emergency power, the NRC has determined that sufficient redundant backup power sources are currently present at nuclear power plant facilities because of existing requirements with respect to loss of offsite power and station blackout. Redundart power sources are not j.
3
7
,7 UNITED STATES
[
D
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION kylfg8 s
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-4001
~ The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works
. United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has sent the enclosed FederalRegister notices to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. With this action, the NRC denies three related petitions for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). The petitioner, NIRS, requested that the Commission amend its regulations to require that nuclear facilities be shut down if they are not compliant with Y2K issues (PRM 65). The additional two related petitions would require nuclear power plant and major fuel cycle facilities to develop and implement adequate contingency plans and conduct emergency planning exercises to address potential system failures (PRM-50-66) and to provide reliable back-up sources of power for nuclear facilities (PRM-50-67).
With respect to NIRS' petition for a rule requirin hutdown of nuclear facilities that are not s
Y2K compliant, the Commission finds th'at licer!sMs are taking action to identify and address
/
Y2K problems. The NRC has required licensees to provide information to the NRC describing their activities for addressing Y2K issues, and to provide information by July 1,1999 that describe the status of their work. Additionally, the NRC is auditing and inspecting the implementation of licensees' Y2K activities. The NRC has sufficient authority to take timely action (including, as appropriate, issuance of orders directing shutdown of facilities) if it finds j
that Y2K-induced problems threaten continued assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that NIRS' proposed rule is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety in the event of any Y2K-induced problems.
With respect to the NIRS' petition for a rule requiring a special emergency preparedness exercise at nuclear power plants to test the capability to cope with Y2K-induced failures, the NRC finds that emergency preparedness exercises routinely assume problems and equipment failures, in order to test the capability of the onsite and offsite organizations to cope with such problems. Furthermore, licensees have prepared Y2K contingency plans with respect to emergency preparedness implementation. The NRC will be reviewing the implementation of 7
l these contingency plans. Accordingly, the NRC does not believe that NIRS' proposed rule is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of emergency preparedness capabilities at nuclear I
power plants Finally, with respect to the NIRS' petition for a rule requiring an alternative source of emergency power, the NRC has determined that sufficient redundant backup power sources are currently present at nuclear power plant facilities because of existing requirements with respect to loss of offsite power and station blackout. Redundent power sources are not necessary at other facilities which are the subject of NIRS' petition, either because such power
[-
t L
o UNITED STATES 8-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
t j
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 0001
[
August 10, 1999 8ECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO:
William D. Travers t
Executive Director for Operations
/
FROM:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary b8
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SEC 173 - DENIAL OF PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING SUBMITTED BY THE NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE The Commission has approved the staff's recommendation to publish in the Federal Reaister notices of denial of the petitions for rulemaking (PRM-50-65, PRM-50-66, and PRM-50-67) submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) subject to the comments and changes noted in the attachment.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
9/10/99)
Attachment:
Comments and changes to the Federa' Reaister notice and letters cc:
Chairman Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield OGC CIO CFO OCA OlG OPA Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE LETTER IS DISPATCHED.
Cyttr8770061'3(f.
r Attachment Comments and changes to the Federal Reaister notice and letters i
General comments 1.
The staff should continue to ensure that its communication with stakeholders regarding the status of Y2K activities at nuclear facilities and the NRC's oversight of these activities is timely and thorough.
2.
The staff should update the three FRN notices to reflect the results of the licensee 1
responses to GL 98-01 and its supplement and, to the extent practicable, should include information pertaining to the stated June and July milestones.
Changes to the Federal Reaister notice (Attachment 1 A) 3.
On page 1, paragraph 1, last line, insert " reasonable assurance of" between " provide" and " adequate protection".
4.
On page 7, the time interval between July 1 and December 31 is characterized as a "5-month time period" between GL 98-01 response date and the date when most Y2K-induced problems are likely to occur. Obviously, it is six months. On page 16, the term "5-month period" refers to July 1 through December 1, which is characterized as the period for NRC review and evaluation of licensee responses. As discussed in SECY 162, any licensee who is not Y2K ready by September 30 will be subject to additional NRC regulatory action which may include issuance of an order r:.auirir3 soecific actions.
The text should be revised so that the time frames in question are appropriately characterized and accurately described.
Federal Reaister notice (Attachment 1C) 5.
On page 1, revise lines 4 and 5 to read *. backup power sources to power-etemic safety systems of reactors and other nuclear facilities 4eei'ity safcty systems in the event of a..'
6.
On page 1, line 10, insert a comma after ' review.'
7.
On page 2, line 2 from the top, delete the 's' in 'provides.'
8.
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.. "
9.
On page 22. the last sentence of the first paragraph is confusing and should be revised to read:
"Thus, it is unclear how the requested requirements in the NIRS petition wo61d 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."
10.
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. The Commission understands that, with the exception of Zion 2 and Big Rock Point, it has been more than three years since any of these plants irradiated any fuelin 1
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 and Big Rock Point, more than three years has elapsed since any fuel was irradiated in the reactor at any of the nuclear power plants carrently undergoing decommissioning."
l Letters (Attachment 3) 11.
The staff should send similar letters to Senators Bennett and Dodd and Congressmen Horn and Turner.
12.
Thc transmittalletters to the petitioner and Oongress should provide a copy of the recently released NRC Preliminary Report on Nuclear Power Plant Year 2000 Readiness, dated July 19,1999.
13.
On page 1, paragraph 2, line 1, delete the slash after ' requiring.'
- 14.
On page 1, paragraph 2, line 5. insert the following between the existing sentences:
The NRC has received reports from all 103 operating nuclear power plant units. Seventy three units indicated that their computer systems supporting safe plant operation are "Y2K ready." The remaining 30 units reported that they have additional work to complete on a few computer systems or devices to be fully Y2K ready and provided schedules for completing the work. None of the remaining work affects the ability of a plant to shutdown safely, if needed.
15.
The staff should enhance the discussion in the letters regarding the extent of Y2K oversight activities that have been and will be conducted by the NRC.
.