ML20137A733
| ML20137A733 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/27/1996 |
| From: | Conran J NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137A682 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-466 NUDOCS 9703210063 | |
| Download: ML20137A733 (5) | |
Text
. . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ __ _
1 August 27, 1996 MEMORANDUM TO: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations FROM: James H. Conran. CRGR Staff Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
SUBJECT:
Differing Views on Proposed Generic 50.54(f) Letter on Adequacy and Availability of Design Bases Information Attached are my differing views regarding certain aspects (relating to-backfitting policies and procedures) of the subject oroposed generic letter to licensees. I respectfully request that these views be provided for consideration in deciding the final content for issuance of the proposed generic communication.
If _there are any questions regarding any aspect of these differing views. I will be happy to respond to them. I can be reached by telephone at 415-6839. or by email (User ID: JHC).
-Attachments: As stated cc: E. Jordan D. Ross 9703210063 970314 PDR FOIA
,, WI_LLIAM96-466 PDR .n
l 0.1..L 2
STATEMENT OF DIFFERING VIEWS BY JAMES CONRAN, CRGR STAFF
! REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PROPOSED GENERIC 50.54(F) LETTER.
ON ADE0VACY AND AVAILABILITY OF DESIGN BASES INFORMATION
) 1. "Reautred" vs "Reauested" Terminoloay j Although at first glance it may seem an unnecessary wordsmithing-type i quibble over language raised in the midst of urgent circumstances. the question raised in the review by CRGR of the subject generic 50.54(f)
. letter regarding use of the word " required" rather than "re l the lead-in to Action Items 1 and 2), is not a trivial one. quested" The (in question involved is at the heart of an issue that a previous Commission !
thought important enough to address specifically to the staff in an SRM. '
3 i.e. it is not appropriate to impose requirements on licensees. either explicitly or implicitly, in anything other than regulations, orders, or .
i license conditions. Generic communications to licensees (e.g.. I bulletins and generic letters) cannot be used to impose requirements:
and they should not be worded so as to leave doubt or ambiguity in the reader's mind on this point.
l The Commission's concern and instructions on this point were such that internal procedures were developed by NRR to reflect explicitly
- Commission policy in this regard; and attention has been given over the i last several years in the CRGR review process to ensuring that the
- wording of generic letters and bulletins is clear and consistent on this ,
point. Said simply, the guiding maxim has been this: in invoking 50.54(f) in generic communications to licensees. REQUEST ;
actions /information: REQUIRE licensee response. The standard formats l for generic letters and bulletins included in NRR's internal guidance were carefully constructed to implement the Commission poli' on this point; and, for the most part, proposed generic communicatit is coming to CRGR for review over the last few years have consistently followed that format. (An excerpt from the latest proposed generic letter sent to CRGR is attached to illustrate this point.)
The proposed 50.54(f) letter is an outlier in this regard; its pronM wording muddies the water on this important >oint. It reads as th' ough, in the context of a generic comunication. NRC is reauirina (not requesting) additional detailed information that goes considerably beyond what was previously accepted formally by NRC as sufficient for design bases aur)oses (i.e. the design bases information included in the applications / SAls submitted to NRC for review in support of initial licensing of the facilities involved). By way of comparison, the Commission's Policy Statement on design bases information. by its consistent use of the word "should"'(rather than "shall"), makes clearer that although serious concern exists over the question of adequacy and availability of design bases information. NRC has not yet " crossed that line" to imposing a requirement for additional design bases information'.
as appears to be the case in the proposed letter.
[ l i
8 6-i
- 2. Characterization of Prooosed Action as Strictly a Matter of Comoliance Beyond the straightforward format (wording) question addressed in the I preceding, there is another more fundamental issue left almost entirely 3
, unaddressed in the proposed letter and supporting background l information, which also deserves further consideration and more thorough, candid treatment in finalizing the proposed letter. From discussions with the staff of the serious concerns that underlie the proposed 50.54(f) request. it appears that at least part (perhaps even j the greater part) of the problem with deficient existing design bases '
information stems not just from licensees failing to maintain documented design bases accepted by NRC as sufficient but from the relatively recent recognition of what are now perceived as significant inadequacies / omissions in the documentation-(required by 10 CFR 50.34 !
and 10 CFR 50.2) of com)lete design bases in FSARs that were accepted l previously as adequate )y NRC for initial licensing of some of the l l plants. i This consideration does not in any way lessen the current legitimate concerns regarding the potential safety implications of identified design bases deficiencies; and it is appropriate that actions should be l taken to correct such deficiencies. It does however, raise common l sense type questions regarding whether this proposed action can/should l be characterized as strictly a matter of compliance. To the extent that a licensee has failed to maintain design bases identified and documented in its FSAR and accepted as sufficient by NRC that is clearly a compliance matter, and is properly addressed as such. But an action l taken (or contemplated) to compel licensee compliance with "new" NRC f understandings / interpretations regarding what constitutes compliance with an existing regulation that has been apparently satisfied by the licensee for years, smacks of backfitting no matter how compelling the l safety concern involved; and any proposal for such action (in particular, one with the potential impact of this proposed letter) ought to be accompanied by a reasoned, candid discussion of any such complexities involved These aspects of the existing conditions n#
t concern addressed in this pro)osed 50.54(f) letter need significantly improved treatment in the paccage to dispel any perception of lack of thoroughness and/or candor in NRC's treatment of this issue.
d, S.
- s. nn n-~
, u.,
/%wf i-
- >y;gc
,vm"r
> . ri -'y y
- f KyNs" t'
,.7. ,,
A
$' W. Ih w
y, N
, _n.u 2, n u %ss, p
T Go$4(ff6Lt.lL(mcfff,<h/xs, m f fvdl Cn n . .M)
& mf -rh rc 7 ev umf ec % y /3 s.1 (s, .Xch yo- 2 5 N// in c c ' 'fA0 65 U cbd & m, ag , ,.gfy'
- a k 7% <G .-c?% Ur dvzY& S ,,/l} riL&
- ,-u
<** . . , e . - .1 a&:L -/* On sw Je n '
'c52p bc'k 9 -
. * ' C Yr*.s a} w,, o u r . o, YeVs I *1 N,. s.ekI s d il m ,ncLid w &
..d< c/A c..G A / a 4 A/ '
- W h5 f) $ h i-i . !il la,s s 7 i
<? l
/ sb/
w v..sk c~
h2a b c44 ~
b ena! W% +, ,~L ey 4A -
M', 7M n alyQ' n ~, a m J m sla u. % , G y n x,
/
c/ywym JM -f,x /cs I wL - M kd'(e / #r #) T ha
?% pq - rat s , A z osn J c- -
f' su J'J,~t% tysc kJ afs - /ay MM .
g u pmx n x , ca' Jah <-~4
)
o , , :J-
g 4-0$ .M
/'
L+=
@mW9 / # \ K4 f e,. m a +
a,m ,r. &c n o> w J , Q: p ~1 , . w a w ,
s, A a M
( Q l, m </ n/ 7~% 4. . vi , l
/
/19 -
Iesp ; v1[v h h
?-W / c e o ,e Ivd N .ap a d a< c $ p el/
,. , c6 ne o uu L.4 et %
.Tn lerk v Ho \
yt ~ LcN Tf7 WO
~
p I l
%O p WA +W & N 4