ML20245C260
| ML20245C260 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1987 |
| From: | Jordan E Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154D718 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8708200077 | |
| Download: ML20245C260 (37) | |
Text
fEj T/
f!'
[ ~ UNITED STATES y&
' +4 e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
i, gj wAssisorow. o. c. rosss g%
August 7,1987 P
\l*ee*V SA MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr.
. Executive Director for Operations FROM: Edward L. Jordan Chairman Committeet.RevIewGenericRequirements
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF CRGR MEETING NUMBER 116 The Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) met on Wednesday, June 10, 1987 from 1-5 p.m. A list of attendees for this meeting is enclosed (Enciosure1). The following items were addressed at the meeting:
review proposed final rule amendments to 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 50 51, 70 and 72 concerning requirements for decommissioning nuclear facilities.
The CRGR recommended that the EDO approve this package and transmit it to the Commission for their consideration, following some revisions to incorporate CRGR comments. This matter is discucsed in Enclosure 2.
- 2. A. Thadani (NRR) and W. Hodges (NRR) presented for CRGR review a proposed generic letter pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) that would request PWR licensees to provide specific information concerning reactor operations with reactor coolant level below the reactor vessel head but above the mid point of the reactor vessel nozzles. The CRGR recommended approval to issue the proposed generic letter following coordination with CRGR staff to incorporate certain recommended modifications to the letter. This matter is discussed in Enclosure 3.
- 3. J. Partlow (NRR) and R. Erickson (NRR) presented for CRGR review a groposedgenericletterconcerningimplementationof10CFR73.57, Requirements for Criminal History Checks." This review item was placed on the CRGR review agenda at the time of the meeting, therefore, it was not announced in an agenda modification memorandum prior to the meeting.
The basis for the CRGR review is a memorandum included with Enclosure 4 to this meeting summary. The memorandum is from T. Murley to E. Jordan, subject: Committee to Review Generic Requirements Review of Generic Letter, dated June 10 1987. The generic letter would authorize use of a temporary clearance pr,ogram for plant workers until a final screening policy is established. The CRGR recommended approval for issuance of this letter, with minor changes. This matter is discussed in Enclosure 4.
In accordance with the E00's July 18, 1983 directive concerning "Feedback and Closure on CRGR Reviews," a written response is required from the cognizant
, office-to report agreey nt or disagreement with CRGR recommendations in these
? /GU , KW- t)h%
~~ .
N ^ J
2-
-inutes. The response, which is required within five working days after receipt of these meeting minutes, is to be forwarded to the CRGR Chairman and if there is disagreement with the CRGR recommendations, to the E00 for decisionmaking.
Questions concerning these meeting minutes should be referred to Jim Conran -
(492-9855).
p +
M,r L orda'n' Chairman Committ toRevIewGeneric Requi ments
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Commission (5)
SECY Office Directors Regional Administrators CRGR Members W. Parler G. Arlotto L. Shao J. Partlow
)
x Enclosure 1 LIST OF ATTENDEES CRGR MEETING NO. 116 June 10, 1987 -
CRGR MEMBERS E. Jordan R. Bernero T. Martin J. Scinto D, Ross J. Sniezek OTHERS J. Conran T. Cox C. Feldman K. Steyer F. Cardile R. Baer
'J. Johnson M. Kearney R. Wood D. Nash J. Clifford F. Witt P. Erickson S. Treby J. Mapes J. Partlow R. Erickson J. Dunleavy R. Fenner R. Brady R. Jones W. Hodges A. Gilbert W. Lyon C. Berlinger A. Spano A. Thadani
Enclosure 2 to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No. 116 o
ropesed F %al Rule Amend ents to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72 Concerning Requirements for Oecommissioning Nuclear Facilities I TOPIC ,
R. Baer (RES), K. Steyer (RES), and F. Cardile RES) presented for CRGR review the proposed final rule concerning decommission (ing requirements for all nuc i facilities except waste disposal facilities and uranium mill tailings which have been covered separately in Parts 60 and 61 and in an existing Appendix A
- of Part 40. A copy of the written material csed by the staff in their presenta-tion at this meeting is attached to this Enclosure.
BACKGROUND This rule was examined by the CRGR in two previous meetings; Meeting No. 62, April 25, 1984, and Meeting No. 68, August 8, 1984. CRGR recommendations were incorporated and the package was forwarded to the Commission as SECY 84-354.
The proposed rule was published as 50FR5600 on February 11, 1985.
At CRGR Meeting No. 81, September 25, 1985, G. Arlotto and K. Steyer (RES) briefed the CRGR concerning the existing and future guidance associated with the decommissioning rulemaking.
The proposed final rule package examined by the CRGR included: l t
- 1. Cover memo, E. Beckjord to V. Stello, April 15, 1987. '
- 2. Oraft Commission Paper presenting the rule.
subjecttosomerecommendedchanges.
i
- 4. Enclosure A (proposed final rule) including Supplementary Information ;
with ,tmbedded backfit analysis and determination, (p. 115), and the '
specific amendments to Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72, (p. 66).
i
- 5. Enclosure B, Regulatory Analysis. (
- 6. Enclosure C, draft congressional letter.
- 7. Enclosure 0, draft public announcement.
The proposed amendments contained general requirements in the followin !
acceptable decommissioning Jiternatives; planning for decommissioning;g assur-areas: l ance of the availability of funds for decommissioning; and environmental review J
requirements related to decommissioning. The most significant changes made in j the rule language in writing the proposed final rule amendments were reflected in the Part 50 amendment, where most of the requirements were moved into a new section, 50.74. The proposed rule allowed an electric utility licensee to submit either a certification of a minimum provision of $100M or a proposed ;
decommissioning funding plan (50.33(k)(1)). Facilities which were not electric utilities were required to provide a funding plan. The proposed final rule !
l
- C would recuire electric utilities to previve certification of a minimum pre-scribeo amount to be determined using a new 50.74(c).
DISCUSSION Points of discussion at tM s meeting regarding the proposed rulemaking were as follows:
' 1. The CRGR discussed the relationship that a pending EPA rulemaking to establish dose criteria for decommissioning could or should have on the NRC decommissioning rulemaking effort. Staff pointed out that EPA is currently scheduled to propose a rule in 1989, so specific EPA requirements cannot be expected earlier than several years from now.
Staff indicated that Regulatory Guide 1.86 for reactor plants and other new guidance would be revised or created as necessary to support implementation of the rule independent of an EPA schedule to establish dose criteria. Subsequently, as EPA requirements are established in regulation, NRC guidance can be changed as necessary to comport with whatever EPA regulation is controlling.
/ 2. It was noted that OGC concurrence in this rulemaking had been obtained by the staff as indicated by a memo from S. A. Treby to E. L. Jordan dated May 22, 1987,
Subject:
CRGR Meeting No. 115.
'.'3. A CRGR comment en Section 30.36(c)(1)(v)(A) (p. 125) was that reported levels of radiation should include alpha radiation as well as beta and gama, and that this change should be effected in other parts of the 10 CFR as appropriate.
y4 A general discussion ensued over Section 50.82(b)(1) concerning the choice of decommissioning alternative to be described in a proposed decommission-ing plan. Staff brought revised text for Section 50.82 to the CRGR meeting (see attachment, p. 7A). They were asked why the possibility of delaying decommissioning for up to 50 years was offered in this rule-making. They responded that this is designed to allow flexibility where specific benefits can be shown to accrue from such delay. CRGR questioned the logic of identifying as a benefit the provision of onsite storage capacity in the event of unavailability of waste disposal capacity. CRGR
' discussed the proposition that abandonment of a contaminated facility
? should be considered a significant risk if long delays in decommissioning
( are permitted.
- 15. CRGR discussed funding methods at length. One question was whether or not there was clear assurance that the internal reserve funding option (allowed for electric utilities owning more than one generating facility) would in fact yield available and sufficient funds in all cases when needed for decommissioning. The Committee consensus was that the validity of the internal reserve funding method is an unresolved matter. Another item of funding discussed was 50.74(e)(3)(v) (p. 153), which would allow Federal, State or local government licensees to simply provide a statement of intent indicating that funds for decommissioning would be obtained when 7 necessary. The CRGR consensus was that there is no assurance that State or local governments can or would produce the required funds when necessary, '
and that this paragraph of the rule should be deleted. -
3-
' 6.
A comment was noted c:acerning the Suplementary Information, Summary and Discussion of Comments on Proposed Rule, Section B.2, next to last sentence (p. 28).
, The statement that the licensee could not undertake ectivities under 50.59 vhich could caute an impact on safe decommissioning was considered incorrect and the CRGR recommended that it be deleted.
7.
An inconsistency was noted between the discussion on pages 54-56 and page 80 of the Supplementary Information. The earlier pages argue for the
' inherent financial strength and responsibility of electric utilities while the later page describes diminished financial assurance for stated reasons. CRGR recommended that this inconsistency should be removed.
/8. The CRGR noted that page 92 of the Supplementary Information declares that "The Commission's primary reason for eliminating a mandatory EIS for -
decommissioning is that the impacts have been considered generically in a GEIS." However, the final GEIS referred to has not been issued and the CRGR has not seen this document. The CRGR consensus was that the CRGR staff should review an available copy of the GEIS to verify that the impacts have been considered in the document. (The CRGR staff
' subsequently reviewed the GEIS and verified that the impacts were t considered. RES was r.otified of this by the CRGR Chairman's memo of July 31, 1987.) -
4 + 9. i Page 5 of the Commiss on paper transmitting the rule amendments discusses
)
resources required to implement the amendments. CRGR consensus was that (
I no resources should be s a power reactor licensees. pent Thetorule review decommissioning changes are considered funding plansand definitive for ;
j prescriptive enough that additional staff review outside of the normal !
+
inspection program shculd not be necessary. The Commission paper should be revised to indicate how the resource requirements for funding plan reviews are allocated among the participating offices, and for what i
purposes. {
l A 0. Section 50.54(g) (p. 153) was considered too prescriptive in the opening p'aragraphwhichrequirest ,t the licensee keep decommissioning records j
...in a file explicitly '. s this purpose until the license is terminated ;
by the Commission." C;GR recommended that the language requiring specific ;
files should be deleted.
. 11. Section 50.54(g)(1) sFo.ed a deletion of the word "significant" with regard to contaminaticq incidents for which records would be kept. This deletion would tend te require licensees to maintain records for occurrences resulting in even very insignificant residual contamination.
CRGR recom ended that the word "significant" should be retained.
J A 2. Section 50.82(b) would specify required elements of a proposed decommis-sioning plan. Items (5) and (6) were added in response to public comment.
CRGR indicated concern that to emphasize quality assurance provisions and physical security plans to the exclusion of other important matters would l be improper, and recorrended that RES add a requirement to describe proposed transition technical specifications applicable to the transition ;
of the reactor plant from an operating reactor to a facility having a i "possession only" lice 9se.
1
v'13. CDGR recoreended that the NRC staff develop and implement standard review plans and other appropriate regulatory guidance describing how the staff is to implement the final rule amendments. Such guidance should include acceptance standards which include both surface contamination limits and personnel radiation exposure limits.
- 14. As a further comment on the matter of regulatory guidance, CRGR noted that when the final rule amendments go forward to the Commission, the forwarding paper should include a discussion of (1) what standards and guidance are now available for implementation, (2) what standards and guidance are planned but not yet available, and (3) a schedule for providing the remaining planned material.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE EDO The CRGR consensus was that the final amendments should go forward after consideration and action on the CRGR comments noted herein, l
1
- - ~
dase warnp 4. //4 6- /0 -R J INFORMATION FOR CRGR MEETING NO. 115 ON THE FINAL RULE AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, AND 72:
REQUIREMENTS FOR DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR FACILITIES e
1
INFORMATION FOR CRGR MEETING N0. 115 o EACKGROUND !
i t
I o FUBLIC COMMENTS AND CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED RULE i i
0 t
i L
I T
t t
e t
2
.t BACKGROUND '
CRGR AND COMMIS$10N ACTIONS IN ISSUANCE OF PROPOSED RULE o CRGR MEETINGS NO. 62 AND 68 HELD ON 4/25/84 AND l 8/8/84, RESPECTIVELY. r
- o CRGR MADE 7 RECOMMENDATIONS AT THOSE MEETINGS WHICH WERE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED RULE BY RES.
i i
e l
i l
1 ,
l ,
i !
l l
[
1 i
I 4
l 3 l l
l 1
BACXGROUND -
CRGR AND COMMISSION ACTIONS IN ISSUANCE OF PROPOSED RULE
- ItDHTINUEU7-~ ~ -
o COMMISSION MEETING 10/10/84 o SECY MEMO (1/4/85) TO EDO, INDICATING COMMISSION HAD APPROVED PROPOSED RULE SUB;)ECT TO THE FOLLOWING MAJOR ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RULE:
- 1. A METHOD SHOULD BE INCLUDED TO ADJUST THE $100M CERTIFICATION AMOUNT TO ACCOUNT FOR INFLATION.
- 2. A FUNDING PLAN SH01lLD BE IN PLACE NO LATER THAN 5 YEARS PRIOR TO PLANNED END OF OPERATING LIFE OF THE FACILITY.
o MEMO FROM RES TO SECY (1/25/85) INDICATED THAT THESE CHANGES HAD BEEN INCORPORATED.
4 i
-9 >m- e *.
e PROPOSED DECOMMISSIGNING RULE ISSUED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT o FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE 50 FR 5600 l
o AMENDMENTS MADE TO 10 CFR 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 AND 72 o MAJOR ISSUES L'6VERED BY PROPOSED RULES DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES PLANNING FOR DECOMMISSIONING ASSURANCE OF FUNDS FOR DECOMMISSIONING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
(
5
)
PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULE
. o PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED 7/12/85 o 143 SEPARATE COMMENT LETTERS RECE!VED FROM INDIVIDUALS AND 56 PUBLit GROUPS FROM INDUSTRY (INCLUDING 62 ELECTRIC UTILITIES, MATERIAL FACILITY LICENSEES AND UNIVERSITIES)
FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 21 l
FROM FEDERAL GOVT. AGENCIES 4 6
. l MAJOR COMMENTS - DECOMMISS10NING ALTERNATIVES COMMENT - MORE DETAILS NEEDED IN RULE ON CRITERIA REUARDING CHOICE OF DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVE.
RESPONSE
o 50.82(b) 0F RULE ISSUED FOR COMMENT INDICATES THAT CH01CE OF ALTERNATIVE MUST SHOW IT PROTECTS HEALTH AND SAFETY - SEE NEXT SLIDE FOR A DELAYED ALTERNATIVE THAT SUFFICIENT BENEFIT RESULTS o IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, RULE ISSUED FOR COMMENT HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO PROVIDE 5URE AUDEU DETATE UN TACTURS CUniRTEUTTRG TO SUFFICIENT BENEFIT INCLUDING:
REDUCTION IN DOSE AND WASTE VOLUME PROVISIONS FOR ONSITE WASTE STORAGE DUE TO UNAVAIL-ABILITY OF DISPOSAL CAPACITY OTHER SITF SPECIFIC FACTORS AFFECTING DECOMMIS$10N-ING SAFETY
, o REYlSION TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.86 WILL PROVIDE ADDED GUIDANCE.
i u
7 l
REVISED TEXT FOR SECTION 50.B2
~
(b) THE PROPOSED DECOMMISSIONING PLAN MUST INCLUDE --
'i
. (1) THE CHOICE OF THE ALTERNATIVE FOR DECOMM!$$10NING WITH A DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES INVOLVED. FOR AN ELECTRIC UTILITY LICENSEE. USE OF AN ALTERNATIVE WHICH EITHER RESULTS IN PROMPT DECOMM15510NING OR WHICH DELAYS DECOMMISSIONING l FOR UP TO 50 YEARS IS ACCEPTABLE. AN ALTERNATIVE FOR DE-CCMMISS10NING WHICH $1GNIFICANTLY DELAYS COMPLETION OF DECOMMIS310NING BEYOND 50 YEARS WILL BE ACCEPTABLZ IF SUFFICIENT HEALTF AND SAFETY BENEFITS RESULT, BENEFITS ARE PROVISIONS FOR ONSITE STORAGE CAPACITY lN THE EVENT OF UNAVAILAe!LITY OF WASTE DISPOSAL CAPACITY AND OTHER SITE SPECIFIC FACTORS AFFECTING CAPABILITY TO CARRY OUT DECOMMISSIONING SAFELY.
7A
MAJOR COMMENTS -
DECOMMISS_10NING PLANS
. COMMENT - MORE CRITERIA NEEDED IN RULE FOR PREPARING AND EVAEUXTING DECOMMISSIONING PLANS AND FOR ACTUAL CONDUCT OF DECOMMISSIONING, IN PARTICULAR ON RADIATION PROTECTION, QA, AND SAFEGUARDS
RESPONSE
o MOST OF dOMMENTERS CONCERNS ARE ALREADY COVERED BY APPLICABLE EXISTING REGULATIONS, REG GUIDES, AND SRPS, E.G.,
PART 20 CONTAINS STANDARDS FOR RADIATION PROTECTION PART 61 CONTAINS LOW LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL REOUIREMENTS REGULATORY GUIDE 8.8 CONTAINS GUIDANCE ON OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE AND ALARA o IN ADDITION RULE ISSUED FOR COMMENT CONTAINED REQUIREMENTS (50.82(b)) THAT A DECOMMISSIONING PLAN DESCFIBE HOW DECOMMISSIONING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER WHICH PROTECTS HEALTH AND SAFETY o FOR CLARIFICATION, RULE ISSUED FOR COMMENT HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO RE0V!RE TRIT TRE DEEURRT55TURTR D EIR-~ -
DE5ERTHE, AS APPROPRIATE, QA AND SAFEGUARDS PROVISIONS DURING DECOMMISSIONING.
o REGULATORY GUIDANCE IN THESE AREAS IS BEING CONSIDERED o REVISIONS TO SRPs ARE BEING CONSIDERF.D 8
MAJOR COMMENTS -
USE OF CERTIFICATION -
COMMENT '
o ONE GROUP OF COMMENTERS RECOMMENDED DELEYION OF CERTI-FICATION o SOME COMMENTERS INDICATED THAT IF CERTIFICATION WERE RETAINED THAT CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE
_ RESPONSE o WE DISAGREE WITH COMMENTERS ON DELETING CERTIFICATION; CERTIFICATION HAS BEEN RETAINED:
CRGR STRONGLY ADVOCATED USE AND COMMISSION REAFFIRMED USE IT MINIMIZES ADMINISTRATIVE EFFORT OF LICENSEES AND l NRC WHILE STILL MAINTAINING REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF FUNDING
'IT !$ BASED ON A LARGE DATA BASE DEVELOPED BY PNL WHICH HAS BEEN UPDATED AND REPRESENTS A PEASONABLE ESTIMATE OF THE RANGE OF DECOMMISSIONING COSTS o TO IMPROVE THE RULE IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS, RULE _ ISSUED FOR COMMENT HAS BEEN MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS TO -
INDICATE CLEARLY THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS RULE ARE IN ADDITION TO AND NOT SUBSTITUTION FOR REQUIRE-MENTS OF AGENCIES WHO ESTABLISH RATES AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE USED, BY THEMSELVES, TO SET RATES INDICATE CLEARLY THAT A LICENSEE MAY CERTIFY AN AMOUNT {
LARGER THAN THE PRESCRIBED AMOUNT AND BA3E THE CERTI-FICATION ON A JITE-SPECIFIC COST ESTIMATf. RULE NO LONGER REQUIRES SUBMITTAL OF THE DETAILS OF THE l ESTIMATE EARLY IN REACTOR LIFE INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THE CERTIFICATION (Continued) 9 l
t
6*
8 G
ADJUST THE CERTIFICATION AMOUNT TO ALLOW FOR DIFFERENCES IN REACTOR SIZE AND TYPE AND CLARfFY THAT PRESCRIBE 0 AMOUNTS 00 NOT INCLUDE COST OF
- REMOVAL OR DISPOSAL OF NONRADIACTIVE STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS REVISE THE ESCALATION FACTOR TO BETTER ACCOUNT FOR FACTORS AFFECTING INCREASES IN DECOMMIS$10NING COSTS.
10 1
MAJOR COMMENTS -
EUND'ING AS A LICENSE CONDITION COMMENT -
OBJECTED TO RULE kEQUIREMENT THAT SUBMITTALS OF TURUING PROVISIONS BE A CONDITION OF LICENSE
RESPONSE
o AGREE WITH THis COMMENT o RULE ISSUED FOR COMMENT HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO REMOVE TURUTRU NEUDIKU!ERTI XI X EURUTTTUN UT CTCENSE AND INCLUDE THEM RATHER IN OTHER SPECIFIC RULE SECTIONS (E.G., 50.74 FOR REACTORS)
O e
8 11
b MAJOR COMMENTS -
FUNDING METHODS
~
COMMENT COMMENTERS WERE DIVIDED ON ALLOWING USE OF INTERNAL RESERVE AS AN ACCEPTABLE FUNDING METHOD 31539351 o USING A STANDARD OF PROVIDING REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DECOMMISSIONING. INTERNAL RESERVE HAS BEEN RETAINED IN THE FINAL RULE FOR MULT!-ASSET UTILITIES o STUDIES BY EXPERT CONSULTANT [tR. J. $1EGEL OF WHARTON SCHOOL, U. OF PENNA. DONE FOR NRC (NUREG/CR-3899 AND UPDATED IN SUPPL. 1) INDICATE THAT EVEN FOR UTILITIES Ihv0LVED IN EXTREME FINANCIAL L' RISES. INTERNAL RESERVE PROVIDES EXCELLENT ASSURANCE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS I
i .
l 4
12
Enclosure 3 to the Minutes of CRGR Meetina No. 116 Prctosed 50.54(f) Information Request on Mid-loop Operations TOPIC
, A. Thadani (NRR) and W. Hodges -
50.54(f) generic information req uest (NRR) letter,presented directed tofor CRGR PWR review owners and aappli-proposed cants, regarding loss of the decay heat removal function while the reactor 4
l coolant system (RCS) is in a partially drained condition. The staff is request-
- ingthisinformationinordertomorefullyevaluatethesafetysignificanceof the "loss of RHR during mid-loop operation' syndrome which has occurred and insomecases,recurredrepeatedly)37timesnowat15operatingnuclearpo(wer
! stations. The latest mid-loop event of this type happened recently at the 1
Diablo Canyon facility on April 10, 1987; boiling occurred in the core due to loss of decay heat removal function (for 8inthatinstance$ min partially drained and depressurized reactor coolant system and with containment
! integrity broken. As a result of this cumulative experience, the staff has come to regard the mid-loop syndrome as potentially a safety-significant unanalyzed event that requires attention on an accelerated schedule. The staff 1
j intends to address this problem on a priority basis, and currently plans to complete the accelerated review of this issue by the end of April 1988. Copies
) of the briefing slides used by the staff to guide their presentations and
] discussions with the Committee at this meeting are attached to this Enclosure.
a BACAGROUND l 1. The document package submitted for review b mitted by memorandum dated June 2, 1987, E.T.y Murley CRGR in this to E. matter Jordan; it in-was trans-a cluded the following documents as enclosures:
I a. Attachment 1 "Response to Requirements for Content of Package Submitted for CRGR Review"
- b. Attachment 2 Proposed 50.54(f) Generic Information Request Letter, and enclosures as follows:
Enclosure 1 "Information Pertinent to Loss of
- RHR System
- While in Mid-Loop Operation" l' Table 1 "Chronology of 37 Loss of OHR Events Attributed to Inadequate RCS Level"
- c. Attachment 3 NRC Information Notice 87-37, "Less of Decay Heat Removal Ouring Low Reactor Coolant Level Operation" DISCUS 5!0N Majorpointsofdiscussionatthismeetingregardingtheproposedinformation request were as follows:
- 1. Inviewoftheprojectedscheduleforevaluationbythestaffofinforma-tion to be submitted by licensees in response to the proposed 50.54(f) letter, the Committee inquired if consideration had been given to inte-grating the treatment of this immediate, specific RHR problem and concern
1-to t'.e treatment and pending generic issue. pe;osed resolutien of USI A-45 or any otherThe staff indi of RHR events in general, and their preliminary evaluation of the recent Clablo Ca.y:n t ant in particclar h beprudenttobeginnow(separately)adledthemtoconcludethatitwould the process of gathering the informa- -
tion needed for a more thorough evaluation of the safety implications of this inadequately analyzed RHR operating mode, rather than try to combine such evaluation with the more general treatment of RHR issues being done in connection with the USI A-45 effort. However, if staff review of I
licensees' responses to this information request letter indicate that some follow on action is required, _ implementation of those actions could be combined or integrated with implementation of actions being considered by the staff in connection with resolution of Generic Issue 99.
- 2. The Committee questioned whether the principal concern raised by the loss of RHR events cited by the staff was really one of RHR system desian adequacy and plants not meeting their desion basis (as suggested by the wording of the first aaragraph on page 1 of the proposed letter). The circumstances of the )iablo Canyon event described by the staff in the review maurial provided seemed to indicate instead that the lack of analyses and procedures cufficient to assure proper operation of plant systems under the specific set of plant conditions involved (i.e.,
partially drained reactor coolant system) was the concern to be pursued first. 'Ihe Committee reco = ended that the wording of the letter be revised to reflect this, and that the term "licensing basis" be used in place of the term "design basis" throughout the information request letter for improved clarity on this point. The staff agreed to do so.
- 3. The Ccmmittee questioned use of the term "mid-loop" operation in the proposed letter. They felt that it was potentially confusing, even though the term was defined in a footnote to page 1 of the proposed letter. They recortaded that a term such as "partially filled RCS" be used throughout the information request instead, to improve its clarity. The staff agreed to make the appropriate changes.
- 4. The Committee noted that use of the terms "safety assessment" (last line on p.1 of the proposed letter) and "analysis of... variations from expected behavior..." (in paragraph 5 on p. 2 of the proposed letter),
taken together with the very detailed description (on pp. 2 and 3 of the proposed letter) of the types of information sought by the staff for evaluating loss of RHR concerns, could be construed as imposition of a requirement for new design basis analyses by licensees for RHR systems in affected plants. The Committee did not feel that such a requirement was clearly warranted just on the basis of the operating experience cited by the staff, or any other information provided in the review package.
The staff responded that it was not their intent at this point to impose a requirement for extensive analyses or procedures, but only to ascertain if such action (and possibly other remedial actions) might be required at some later time. The responses received from licensees will indicate to the staff whether the information needed is already available at cperating f acilities or is completely lacking. In this context, the staff indicated that an acceptable answer by a licensee to the proposed information
. t
\
l muest Mght be "We don't heve the detailed systems analyses or (sid-loop)
RHR operating procedures that necessarily be dropped there. you Theseek."
staff will Theproceed matter, of to course, evaluatewould theirnot i
concern that the loss of RHF. cptrating experiences cited may point to a safety-significant, unanalyzed state or condition that should be recog- .
nized and treated as a design basis event for the affected plants and l that the situation may be serious enough to warrant imposing new r,equire- :
ments on those plants. By describing In detail that concern in thc j
proposed letter, and by clearly identifying to licensees the types of information needed to fully evaluate that concern, the staff intends to increase licensees' awareness of the potential safety problem involved and to obtain an procedures)that y existing are relevant information (e.g., analyses in effectively and/or addressing thisoperating concern, (
l Some licensees may even be stimulated to undertake voluntarily detailed l analyses of such plant conditions at their facilities (and developeent of formal procedures to deal with unexpected events that could occur i.nder those conditions) if they do not now exist. But the pecposed letter is !
! not intended to impose a requirement to do so at this time. Any require- ;
j 1
rent to do so would be proposed only after a thorough evaluation of the i identified concern, including evaluation of relevant information sLbmitted j
by licensees in response to the proposed letter. The staff agreed to revise the wording of those specific sections of the proposed letter referred to by the Committee above (and other sections as appropriate to I mab clear the staf f's intent that the proposed letter involves on'y a)n l
information request (not imposition of new requirements or positions) at i
this time. ,
! 5.
With 3 of theregard proposed to use letter) ofand thetheterm term"operators" "operations" in (inparagraphs parag(raphs5, 8 6 and 7 o and 9 on the same page, and throughout the proposed letter), the Committec (
j recommended that the wording of all sections containing these terms be '
revie=od and revised as nacessary to Letter convey that the scope cf the ;
! staff's concern is not focused on licensed operators and their activities
)
' only, but encompasses the activities of auxiliary operators and any other j
support personnel as well, and the proper coordination of the aethities I of all such plant personnel during the drained down RCS condition. The j
staff agreed to make appropriate changes to reflect this concern through-l out the proposed letter. !
}t i 6. The Committee recommended revisions to paragraph 5 on pages 2 and 3 of the l
proposed letter, to make clearer the full range of concerns being addressed i i there (e.g., calculation of approximate time from less of RHR to core '
3 damage; RCS level at which vertexing at the RHR pump suction occursi ;
lack of coordination of operations (including testing and maintenar.ce) l that can result in an upset of NSSS conditions; identification of instru-centation or other means (if any exist) to monitor primary system thermo- i
! hydraulics without RHR flow). l I
j 7. The Committee recommended revision to paragraph 9 on page to incluce a !
request for the schedule for completion of program modifications that have '
i already been or will be made by the licensees to address the identified l l staff concern regarding loss of RHR with a partially filled RCS. l i
{
i
_,.J
4
- tECC'"'IfCATION TO THE E00 i
As a result of their review of the proposed information request letter, including discussions with th6 staff at this meeting, the CRGR recommended to the EDO that the proposed letter be issued, subject to several recommended .
i revisions indicated in the preceding. It was agreed that the format and wording
- of the recommended revisions would be coordinated with the CRGR staff prior to
]
final issue of the letter.
.I i
l I
I l
)
l 1
i I
i l
i l
l l
l l
t
. I i
I i
l t
l l
i I
i
! 1 CSS O'? RESID' 'Ai l i
! EE 1T R3YOVAL D' ~ RING i
) l L
l l
YJ-1CCP OP33AT::CU l i
I i l l
1 l !
1 i
i i
1 ,
I l
1 4
L l
1
- i i
.l . l j
e I 1
l J
i i .
l i
i I
Analysis of ev<ut. n 1. Dia blo Canyon i
j on April J 0, 1987, revealed potential l
! for loss of RHR and core damage !
I d uring mi d -lo o p op e ra tion I i
i
! i 1
i I i
k I
i i
i Analysis ef ev< ii L a 1. Diablo Canyon i on April J O, 1987, revealed po tential I for loss of RHR and core damage !
I during mid-loop op e ra tion I l
l l
l l l l
l l
1
_ .. . . - - . . - . . . = ?
e t
A3EAS OF COXCERN
- 3ecueec time to core camage after Loss of R33 ncom;iete unc erstancing of
- nenomena in mic .007 Ac equacy o:' instrumentation Ac ecuacy o:' procec ures Jesign-imposec. Limitations
- Concurrent containment activities e
. . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . I = . . _ _ . . . . - _
GDC-36 Ele CI3) system safe"y function s:aa::
- ]e to transfer fission ? roc uct c.ecay
- acat anc oder resic.ua: :3 eat ' rom t::le reactor core at a rate sue:a t:aat specifiec acce?taie fuc. c.esign limits anc. t::le c esign conc.itions of 1:3e reactor coolant
?ressure ]ounc ary are not exceec ec,
l 9
, ..nstrumentation s:aa:.1 ')e provic.ed to monitor variales anc. systems over t:1eir anticipatec; ranges for norma:. opera. ion, for antici ? atec operationa: occurrences, l anc for accic ent conc.ilions as anroariate .
4 to assure ac ecuate sa:'ety, ine:ucing t:1ose variaies anc. systents t:aat can af'ect t:ie fission process, t:3e integrity of t:3e reactor core, t:ae reactor coo an'. pressure bounc ary, anc t:ae containment anc. its associatec systems. !
y emp e>@*
- Geh *=45 * *** Meuum M =empo m e see essee m ______, _
OPT:MS CONSIDERED l
- No Ac ion
\
, .:nformation Notice i
- Ju:.:.e-in l
l
- Ord.er l
- 5v,.04:...ae -
ner l
l
- - . mm
4 50.5C Letter 3ecuests Request -
Need -
Describe boundary and Describe starting point initial conditions for mid-loop operation Describe instrumentation Assure received used in mid __ loop adequate attention Identify make-up systems Define matrir of available pumps in service Describe containment identify capability closure condition to quickly reclose __
Supply current precedures Understand preplanning and info to operators .
Describe training Same as for procedures identify additional level of expertisc resources available Compare mid-loop needs Identify special i
to other mode 5 needs requirement.s ..
Describe changes to Identify significant stren@,,n safety e
improvements to staff
r F0:;;;01T -
ON AC"IONS
- rave: ;o 3egions to c.escriae concern Jraft temporary review arocecures 3eceipt of res?onses in 60 cays Screen against A30J/N33 criteria for immeciate prob: ems aeview remaining res?onses over next l :2 month perioc
- :ssue orcers, recommenc e aanges as anro ariate Some actions may be resoLvec as part of G" 99 1
Enclosure 4 to t- 'es f CRGR Meetina No. 116 i
Preresed ceneMc Regarding '.ettegr. t Z.,dnal Requireg )7 f P9ce..entation History Checks of 10 CFR 73.57
- TOPIC J. Partlow (NRR) and R. Erickson (NRR) presented for CRGR review a proposed generic letter which would supersede previous NRC guidance (Generic Letter 87-04), which temporarily waived all requirements of 10 CFR 73.57 for temporary workers, pending issuance of an NRC policy statement and industry
- guidelines on access authoritation.
9
, BACKGROUND i
Generic Letter 87 04 exempted temporary workers from all requirements of 10 i CFR 73.57 "Requirements for FBI Criminal History Checks" on an interim basis pending NkC adoption of a final screening policy for this category of worker.
A recent decision by the NRC to solicit puslic comment on its proposed policy i statement and industry guidelines on access authorization may postpone final
) action. The purpose of the new generic letter is to assure that there are clearance program requirements for temporary workers, and that when temporary clearance for unescorted access is granted for any worker, it is granted centin j 73.57, gent amongonother a suc .ittal of fingerprints requirements. to NRChistory Any criminal in accordance with 10 CFR report resulting from an i F81 check of the fingerprints would be considered immediately on receipt of
) the report to aid in determining if unescorted access should be continued or 1 terminated.
CRGRwasaskedtoreviewthispackageonanexpeditedbasis(3daynotice).
T. Murley to A
E. review package Jordan dated June 10,was1987provided
Subject:
atCommittee the meeting to Rev (memorandum,iew Gene
, ments Review of Generic Letter) containing the following enclosures:
1 1. Oraft Generic Letter l 2. Generic Letter 87-04 1 3. Excerpt from Public Law 99 399
?
4 Excerpt from 10 CFR 73.57
] 5. Briefing Chart, Fingerprint Situation i 6. Carolina Power and Light Exemption Request, April 15, 1987 i 7. Florida Power and Light Exemption Request, June 2, 1987 I 8. Response to Carolina Power and Light, June 2,1987 1 9. Office of Administration and Resources Management letter to licensees, June 4, 1987, from Director Division of Security
, 10. Proposed NRC Policy Statement and NUMARC Guidelines DISCUSSION
- Points of discussion at this meeting regarding the proposed generic letter were as follows:
- 1. the (GF noted that the new generic letter would provide for granting temporary unescorted access to new hire permanent workers as well as temporaries. Discussion focused on whether this was considered safe
J 8
a2-i i t enough under foreseeable circuastraces. NRC staff stated that this !
- broadening of the application of temporary requirements for fingerprinting i 4
and meeting other employee screening requirements (e.g., limited back-
}
j assuranceandfsalogic'alstep.g*ound investiemployees New permanent stien, ps"chclogics1 should not be evaluat subject to more stringent temporary access provisions than temporary ,
1 employees, l
! 2.
j A major issue and CRGR concern was raised regarding the possibility that atemporaryemployeecouldmovetoasubsequentjobbeforetheresultsof i
a fingerprint check are reported to a hiring utility that has granted '
i temporary access. If the first utility does not share the fingerprint check information with the next hiring utility, the temporary worker I could again be hired and granted temporary unescorted access even though !
information exists which might mitigate against granting the worker access. Similarly, the process could be repeated, with the temporar i i
worker always remaining ahead of an adverse criminal history check. yThis !
potential problem was considered realistic since the criminal history i checks are expected to take from one to three months for the foreseeable future. [
j 3. The CRGR consensus was that the generic letter would accomplish the I j stated objectives of NRR to put fingerprint checks in place as a tool to i 4
assist in determinations to grant unescorted access.
i i
- 4. CRGR noted that the last sentence of the second paragraph of the proposed i
generic letter should be modified to ind'cate that the criminal history !
check results are only one consideration among several in determining if !
unescorted access should be continued or terminated. !
! RECOPRINDATION TO THE EDO i
i l i
The CRGR consensus was to recommend approval of the generic letter, but to j indicate to the EDO that there is significant concern about the perceived I defic'ency in the staff plan, as described in item 2 above. ;
l l 4
- i 1 l i
i 1 i i
. .. r .. . ~
,. pgnm. CmVreeA$ T MWWT) .TbD+f 4 N'!?
Arr C%Q MrN'> Ato. II& - 65^42UC Lenkrl od EdTDQ.MrTMnn/ t FINGERPRINT SITUATION /
0 R' 78' r 7 C4/ht/N4L 44794/
Rt/W.
"Temporary Vorkers" are now completely exempt (not even fingerprinted).
Situation prolonged by Commission decision to solicit public comment on access authorization policy and industry guidelines.
"Temperary Worker" exemption is confusing (staff has been inundated by phone calls from ifcensees).
Formal letters requesting exemptions from 73.57 received from Carolina Power & Light Florida Power & Light In res;cnse to Carolina Power & Light NRC began special handline of fingerprint cards for "new hires" and inforced all licensees.
W needs to assure everyone is fingerprinted and _ licensees ne.*1 l "temporary clearanews. "
Proposed New Generic Letter will accomplish both, i
1
\
, , . . p c.
100 STAT. 816 t PUBLIC LAW M-M-AUG. 27,1986 '
SEC ea4 REYl1T OF PHY81 CAL 8t<VRITY STAND (a) Rrytrwa --he Secretary of EartS, the Secretary of D 1
/ the Sentary c.u:.t:.. A4tr.c of Stato. the DM2* c't..e A.~a Ccatrol an\
e ense, I no the Nuclear Regulatory Commlaston shal rently applicable with roepect to the the Umtet than 20 percent Stetts' in the (63tepe ef W.:ts. h3 or . aad the lactopeuranium s 235 whi en subject to United Sutas prior consent rizhts with rpec to protectJon against risks of seirure er etler ,terrvrist acts s
of(b)thisRocats Seretary of Sta the--Not Act, Serstarr later of than Enerry 6 the mentha actnent Secretary afterofthe De m
ma=ent Agency,te, the Directer 6?,the Arms Centrol and Dinar. [' .
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commlaslen shall i
es:h rubmit a =Titten nport 'o the Ccemjttae on Fonign the House of R4 rseentatives and the gn Comm ccaducted pursuant to this section, recernmendatjena.
l src. set tyrtpAT10NAL PA08t.f.M. REvitw or fxt nuarm framonjsw i
a!ve redem ecnference. of the pro {wlem of nucltar t 8(C 6 4 CRIMINAL H!!MRY RE40RD CHIC 11 (a)1x CrxrxAt.-The Atemte Energy Act of 195411 (42 US C i u er tiu et seq section: )is amended by adhrq after sectJon 148 the follemin .
S r
- C u c. 149 N -"a" - - m CannxA2. Marcar Raccan o -
. -
- a The Nuclear Ryulatory Commissien (in tLa esi or a. .. *
" * '
- a t's, 31 4
.u. to as the 'Cemmission uhtl! require as:b beensee rplicant for a t
heense to operate a utihzation facility under sectJon ICJ or t
i OV ? ttu fiarerret ei4 L-inhal she is tv _Htad u=awerted
- te a*==b de feethn y r- 14 T ree.u er !-
er is oermttef a ree te sa'erards Lerratin A U fi r t e ar n a 'f e bir et b e L' re wt e r a r e M2- t the e.e % r e-*>r_e m ni 1
res G. e g Lthe U-tss 929, tt urk the Ec -- Wu te n ut r it ted to t*
- A t tn. I
' es fer I
ider.tdicanca t- d a e r and - m ' hroccre.s et.r 6tv ~ ~1s ched t h ed ccadwtsse The y costs of a e*t menten:e
- - shall be paad by the licensee et applicant. Notw -
i i
preme any other pronsion of law, the Attorney Geners) --
accerdan results
- n. . . . -
of the searth to the Ce--,";
.c. in Cee r--+ ce "-watts - : .i..w ,~
use section, ,the <
, Ham s- . . .ne.g such' fin,gerprtata.. ........, ~ eelicant
=+o a i
8 "b De Commimet hv rule, may relieve termaae frem the obl tie e n re p e n m i ne e r t re a te et ta - > ce ra a m n '.
=ro I
.Ir JtarCll:fas 4J0eC tECc'e S to F retaien
"-de OFe '*
N "* t'n'* st *'eIf LNr,._, im u en'#1-' ' ' *.
g.g gg,.u rl t y a - d i
% net,4 Jrt tWI t? t r.e Alt h a
- f SFe t v eii7*Ad k t{
t i ahall proarnbe, subject to public nettet a:d ccm e j
k "W to leplernent procedurte f:t the takia.g of fingerTM" j
( i t'
i I
I l l _ _. - _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _
. un r.e. c ur e n / v i w . @ a u m s t i.e i noi,, .no a ,,vi.nen, i.d rua,- ,,,, _1_
.aun n m., r,,, men md.,,duio.'.sm d..s .,, e 4 , a . , n,!, ,dy ,, ,i
./, ,.
in .. -w. a n w. .nona
. o, o. m a& .rd ooiv Aa, a,m nnnn. u n n. ,so . i w ,t,,u ,,, ,
- ' , .a no,-#v
. i.w, ac ra, o,,, . . . .
, , m eum .. .'..
m a n .,ias., , . us-aonn.runn saa,> n o,, o. o e is is, ni
./ cueno
, . I n. 't
."e v !..: d .. y .e v
. d. e- .u n.. . . .c o. a,se,ccan. at also e,tfr.a s.d ru.a o ie
. ..,o n . u n.
.n.s,c ., w. .eciah.nrn .4a ,P. w,nvai 't,;;, sf de o.& p,i
.ndn ai, nn,.e.
.. . noo, , , son, .
k v ,: = t ? p', / u d j'
- 8 ' *' 11 e".' ceid th w 'e. n de,, ',V
- r n, y , c, nm, ,,, m .'. o . e ,'~ e. .',.P '.dx . l"l!
a o, ..
.c h,,.n- ,.,
..n u so,. m .,, . w ,ra e , - - ~ .
..mi,
- a. ., ~
,n
. ,a u unia a
. .ei
,, .,,, x. o.a .s. o .. e .m-,m ... ,
. . # , ,, ,,, m e, e re4 .er eu,,n - .. < , ,iv ,) ,, s ,,, ,n .,,.,,,,
,.. .. , .. . ,.u , , a, u m ,n>, a n,,,, m m .t > m, c, e en m -- o , ~ .a ed . . ..,c,
, t,, c . w , , , ,, g , d . w. . , r . . . m,u
.o ns u -n-con,--~. ,
mn-..o--.m %
. t .,,
. u,. ,i n e u ,o or a, ss n .p _r. ,,,,na.nm.n....
. m o o, . ~.. , . . .i .
,,u,- ,,,e,n ro..n . m,,,nno e, ,~, , ,, = >n , mw
,,, n + "..u unu a,n i' ,
c.. n a ,r, c ,, ,u,,,,., ,.,., ,.u , ,, n
,n,
- r. ,,e m, ,,
imini. .
t4 4, ,,, F"a ".""" :,,, ,,Q,ai
,m n_unw.onnio,, or pui immma gepen. ,g..yO!"? aa na,. .,
a a-e*y ,, , -inoan , , , , , , ,,
1 i n . me,, .. re, en ,.n ,.
, , ,,,d , , , , , , n , , , ,m , ,, , , : *a aard n.. ~,, aisnu ."ren... . . ,a n, ,, w, m * ~is
.. , u . e or m 3 , , . n . .. v..,,n u, . .*,uer,,,
, , ,,, m- n.n ,e,a.numda a s " ""* '" ' d **
. . . .,,, ,,o c . wo.n u n e i.
.u,,,..,n,,o. *F">r* a m"on"mi , a d mi,.nem m .. . ... a . w,. a $" "ra~ior c -
l ao -
, n u .. u.nu e :. 3 ,. ,. . ,i.,,._ ,c ,. .s ,. . .o ,-
m , . . . ,. o , r . , , . . . . , n , , , ruu a ud adal d-na"a unnt "r ca&r m ud :un so.... n , .n . .u .u s ,..., m. ., ,n, i.o w , o .,wc, g- . m a aam' eat at<= a
- n=
r.n. :n m ,no n. n,o, i m ,,-.m........,.,.. rr u n-u ala,ao audmen
. .a .um in no 6.r,n
... os.. n v . ..a .. .
,r.,.,s., ,on in t m.
- e. .
ny, i.
e, p, , ,. ,, .4o, , , , , , g. 4 ,,,,,
. inarn
.2m ,o, ,re, , . .. p.
i a , ,,,, , y uni,,.. . nna .o er r.4. . < m . . ,
nun..n un se m n, e....,n.o
.o n u , n c,n n nna a n ri,,,, ,..ni a , , n,, , , , f ,,, ,,4,,
, , ,, ,, ,, ,,m , y., .o, , , , , ,,
1 4.. e u.. - ..n.,nu .r
- aa enu.nre,e,r ~ene. il revvau .ad - w una. =
ns ..e.u u ,u ,n cn=. wn nun , a damun r u u==~arn n .e nnnan n w n a nnr. nJo,r.,a,sunamewnienne.. ne s,
,., ..w .u...o . , e . ., in aa e, to, . .. .
ni. w, . . ,d, , w, ,.m n,,, ed
.t i ndai onun m un o e.nu .n ..m.ne.n, a =r m , ,
m ie to . u.c,c n . ou ae u3 ,r,, ,, , ,, n , . , , , ,,#,, ,a, o i an ,
,n ,.m ni . n. ",.n .~ o m, e n r.a i . ,, m ., . n, a , inne.n to a s.,,rma,,.no
.m m, sa,r..,e,we,s..,r.ca n o > ,m,#,, oein, ein, n n or ; .< ,i,n .n , ,,, c , , g , r,, e, , , a ,,,.
igo"pcian. n. ..nu , s, , n , ,, , , , , y , y , , , , ,, , , ao,n 3,,a , ,n e.,, m o
,'.. !, '.",'.";";."e". aVl,' ed, ,ri,Wg me "' hc., M 'a, $+ m a ard' *,a d' * "n=
< ...u.nu n c =,n ,n e.,s .r m
eue=~c'oomoa*r.a=>w
,g, n. i,w . ud.e = na e. y.r #e,,,,u ,t.,...i.n.u:a
... sia -a ., um
- e. 4is
,,,,,,,.a .ne y,
,, m , , , ,
Ln otn ,, on-
,,o r,nn d a J,an,,bu ,, ,,e un, n. , =
- ,. w,,.ed, Ar,s.ono e c.ud vaairdi h r m) wu.r aa awae== ir
- I .r=*. inn.e e ene.se rum.s ir use faahu,s =xe bae beee sertf.,d by W bceun s7n a We natsas awo be 1 **. u a same pww esser , er e e h7 C. la w n.fo rte s,si pe,is,.n,1 e,st,g ewbrwnsd to the Attermy Gourd of e, 4 S** *f d* **'* ** D, P*' w i UNui Staus en & Can Masts
'"*'*"*"* ta u elhciel erplayn genre.re,nt cape c,r,lui, et local who be,e bed . Pl U , lit
- M M e an n e,. $.
I Is! Cee e!(1)146 buu,, =he is epheint noe=s of n! cnmal womsten mulud frsa $e Atie,ed;
- e vikenni to enre', e e.dn' po.st Later data a nd .And. ate , apley,, Ceend and tensid,,it to adq a N e stor ed,t Ps1 W that! sertpl, wie et a fe)sthty who pe,s es -Q e, *t* deuseaten for rentag votemi 0, m a or,'ou sf O se,tn cJurnus et peones emes.', art,, estees to th, ud.ndaler unes te s
(2)!.s cA e;pbust le, a bur.w to rev err.rt.nl poted see.nry s'n.snu. 54for.pda W8Pteben eNro, , e vd.u ps.c re s cer i s. Top Seent Se:nt e, Ce,2denst (4) A heeun sha!! sw $,
,v,vant to Psm se d tha depto shou . M For acesse to $4fer.ards talerustn alsmed as pas or a ewbman fn rpra sa d4 fe, Ms4 w ormsUene:Jy hteSatsc ,r,t< cruraal Leer),, torts shed as% re in6ndals .he hs , e, wt' b4,e e,ensiosa ,maumd in i n.n. W tvrMas of d,iermala sueu to $d Wenn4 ta.n, bnployneersh,s4,etjesere, in&nd*4! eWubth,y fe,ge,5cen as ed
- p) E.a A e 1.rabceu,to UNies (tetu Ce,an.z,n a membet er s tun te b e.de st pews, fa t.L,3 or l
eMrou a e u pes,t ris e,t a d.!) e,Gennd ccomitu of 3, a cu s s to 54 f,r.s eds We,u nen
! pci. sat to Pe at at dus depter me, . (s1 hv.%,.e s 0) A bu en, e e r i
s.tr.aPo ny.w cardapneto Co,c,t balh r d,s u 0,pCoures, eted n yof,nnu a Stat, u n.e, . act kn, a f u! desn m.cn I, dny I '
i i~4 ===,. .m. n. u me l Fun NT 41 ut t.u 4'
~
e v. - ~8 s. ~
.. #..oss,% p - t f -
uNa to sT ATEs 1 ' 6+T f Y l Nf
==='=~-
- ..<' M 6 1987 TO: All Power eactor Licensees (Generic Letter 87 04)
SutJECT: TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM PROVISIONS OF THE Fl! CA!MINAL HISTORY RULE FOR TEMP 0RARY WORKERS Gentlemen:
As provided for in Public Law 99-399, 'The Onriibus Dipicetatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986,' Section 606:
'The Ccmission, by rule, r.ay relieve persons free the obligations imposed by this section, upon specified tenns, conditions, and periods, if the Ccernission finds that such action is consistent with its obligations to promote the ccmon defense and security and to protect the health and safety of the public."
As provic'td for in 10 CFR ? .,57, ' Requirements For C*isinel History Checks,"Section(b)(2)(v):
'Upon further notice to licensees and without further rulemaking, the Ccmission may waive certain requirements of this section on a temporary basis for temporary workers.'
Accordingly, pending resciution by WRC r.anagement of an issue addressing requirements for urescorted access of temporary workers to nuclear power facilitits, the Ccmission temporarily waives the requirements of 10 CFR 73.57 for these individuals.
Sincerely.
i Harold R. enton, rector lr/ Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
<\
j Enclesure:
Lisc cf Recently Issued Generic .
Lecters
- 8703050062
l i
FBI CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECKS ,
TO ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Gentlemen:
Su' -:t:
IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR 73.57. REQUIREMINTS .
i FOR FBI CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECKS (GENERIC LETTER 87- ) 1 Generic Letter 87-04 exempted temporary workers from the requirements of 10 CFR 73.57, "Requirements for FBI Criminal History Chceks." on an interim basis pending resolution of final screening policy for this category of worker.
A recent decision by the NRC to solicit public coment on its policy statement and lution. industry guidelines on access authorization, may postpone this final reso-The purpose of this generic letter is to authorize use of a temporary clearance program until final screening policy is established.
A licensee may grant an individual temporary clearar.ce for unescorted facility access or access to Safeguards Information. This temporary clearance is enn-tingent upon submittal of fingerprints to NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 73.57 '
and ing. maintenance of all security plan comitments pertaining to employee screen-The criminal history resulting from the FBI check must be ;3nsidered innediately af ter receipt to determine if unescorted access should be continued or terminated.
This subject. generic letter supersedes any previous generic letter (e.g., 87 04) on this This policy is in effect until further notice by the NRC.
i Sincerely, l
_ . _ , _ , - = _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
+
f o, UNITED STATES r.
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 h pDb k*....,/ June 4, 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert M. Bernero, NMSS Thomas T. Martin, RI Denwood F. Ross, RES Joseph Scinto, OGC James H. Sniezek, NRR FROM: Edward L. Jordan, Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements
SUBJECT:
AGENDA MODIFICATION, CRGR MEETING N0. 116 As announced by memorandum dated June 1, 1987, CRGi ,ing No. 116 will be held on June 10, 1987, in Room P-422, Betnesda. The agenda is modified by this memorandum to include an additional item for review. The modified agenda is as follows:
1-3 p.m. G. Arlotto (RES) will present for CRGR review the proposed final rule amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72 concerning general requirements for decommissioning nuclear facilities (Category 2 Item). This proposal was forwarded to CRGR members with the announcement for Meeting No. 115.
3-4 p.m. L. Shao will present for CRGR review a proposed 50.54f letter which would request PWR licensees to provide specific informa-tion concerning reactor operations with reactor coolant level below the reactor vessel head level but above the mid point of the reactor vessel nozzles (Category 2 Item) (Enclosure).
If a CRGR member cannot attend the meeting, it is his responsibility to assure that an alternate, who is approved by the CRGR Chairman, attends the meeting.
Dersons making presentations to the CRGR are responsible for (1) assuring that the information required for CRGR review is provided to the Committee (CRGR Charter - IV.8), (2) coordinating and presenting views of other offices, (3) as appropriate, assuring that other offices are represented during the presenta-tion, and (4) assuring that agenda modifications are coordinated with the CRGR contact (T. Cox x24148) and others involved with the presentation. Division Directors or higher management should attend meetings addressing agenda items under their purview.
yMl/&* A og q ,
t
In accordance with the E00's March 29, 1984 memorandum to the Commission con-cerning "Forwarding of CRGR Documents to the Public Document Room (POR)," the enclosures, which contain predecisional information, will not be released to the POR until the NRC has considered (in a public forum) or decided the matter addressed by the information.
e/
s, d ordan, hai man Commit to Review Generic Requ' ements
Enclosure:
Memorandum, T. Murley to E. Jordan, dated 6/2/87,
Subject:
"NRR Plans for Response to Lessons Learned from Diablo Canyon Loss of RHR Event of April 10, 1987 and Related Events,"
with three attachments cc: SECY Commission (5)
V. Stello, Jr.
Office Directors Regional Administrators W. Parler L. Shao (w/o enc.)
i
!