ML20199L562
| ML20199L562 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/15/1998 |
| From: | Merrifield J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199L527 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-279-C, NUDOCS 9901280056 | |
| Download: ML20199L562 (2) | |
Text
. - - __ - _ _ . - -. -. _. - . . . - - - --
~
A F F I R M A T I O N VOTE r
RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD ,
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-279 - PARTIAL GRANTING OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING SUBMITTED BY THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (PRM-50-62)
Approved Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
l See attached comments, l
4 D
SIG%TdRE idbr DATE ;
1 1
Entered on "AS" Yes x No 9901200056 990122 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR ,,,
l L
d 9DI 78 dC[6 .
Commissioner Merrifield's Comments On SECY-98-279 i believe it is imperative that licensees maintain a strong Quality Assurance (QA) program at their nuclear power plants. Changes made to the QA program should be made only after careful review demonstrates that the program's effectiveness will not be negatively impacted. Having said that, 8 agree in principle with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) proposal to broaden the scope of permitted QA program changes that do not require prior NRC approval. The present criterion for permitting unilateral QA program changes by licensees is too stringent because it prevents licensees from freely making changes to their QA programs of minor safety significance. However, I do not agree with the premise that 10 CFR 50.59 cnteria can be effectively used to determine the need for prior NRC approval of proposed QA program changes.
The present QA program change process represents an unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees and diverts some of their attention from matters of safety significance. This process also represents an unnecessary burden on NRC resources. I support the Direct Final Rule because it will reduce some unnecessary burden on both licensees and the staff without adversely impacting public health and safety. However, I believe this should represent only the first step in the staffs efforts to make the QA program change process more flexible. I encourage the staff to promptly and deliberately proceed with its proposed second rulemaking action associated with developing criteria for determining other areas in which unilateral changes could be made by licensees without prior NRC approval. I also encourage the staff to solicit input from stakeholders in developing these cnteria so that the agency benefits from their insights.
In summary, I approve the staffs request to publish in the Federal Register a Direct Final Rule which would partially grant the petition for rulemaking submitted by NEl which requested amendments to 10 CFR 50.54. I also approve the staff's request to proceed with an additional rulemaking.
_ _. _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . , _ _.____. ___.__.___._m_.___ . _ _ _ .
!= ;
/ % UNITED STATES t
! !' 'l NUCLE AR PEGULATORY COMMISSION
'*' IN RESPONSE, PLEASE l {o .i ewm : m.m i f REFER TO: M990120A :
l %., .....f SE W " January 22,1999 l
MEMORANDUM FOR: William D. Travers a c/
4 !
l
, Executive Director for Operations / A i
^
l r FROM: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary ( %M (/ g -Q' '
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION SESSION,9:25 A.M.,
! WEDNESDAY. JANUARY 20,1999. COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) l 1. SECY-98-279 PARTIAL GRANTING OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING SUBMITTED BY THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE l
! The Commission' approved a direct final rule amending 10 CFR 50.54(a) to permit power l reactor licensees to make quality assurance (QA) program changes without obtaining NRC ]
l approval of these changes in advance. The rule allows licensees to make routine or l l administrative changes that should not have an adverse impact on the effectiveness of their QA l programs. This action is intended to reduce the financial and administrative burden on power reactor licensees without adversely impacting public health and safety.
The following additions (in bold) should be made to the 50.54(a)(3) language:
l l 1. "... Safety Analysis Report without prior NRC approval, provided the change does l not reduce the commitments.. "
- 2. "In addition to quality assurance program changes involving administrative improvements and clarifications, spelling corrections..."
l The Commission also approved publication of the companion proposed rule with the identical changes made to the 50.54(a)(3) language noted above.
Following incorporation of the above changes, the Federal Reaister notices should be reviewed j
' Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act,42 U.S.C. Section 5841, provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present." Commissioner Diaz was not present when this item was affirmed. Accordingly the formal vote of the Commission was 4-0 in favor of the decision. Commissioner Diaz.
- however, had previously indicated that he would approve this paper and had he been present he would have affirmed his prior vote..
S Su I&LXJYi YnS. . . _
I by the Rules Review and Directives Branch in the Office of Administration and forwarded to the Office of the Secretary for signature and publication. I (EDO) (SECY Suspense: 2/29/99)
With the addition of 50.54(a)(3)(ii), which allows licensees to use a QA alternative or exception approved by an NRC safety evaluation for another licensee, provided that the bases of the NRC approval are applicable to the licensee's facility, licensees may rely heavily on staff safety evaluations developed for other facilities when determining whether or not a change can be i made to their plant specific QA programs without prior NRC approval. Therefore, the staff
- should strive to ensure all pertinent information regarding a proposed request and the bases for )
l the staffs approval are clearly documented in its safety evaluations.
Following the issuance of the Direct Final Rule, the staff should deveiop an attemative to provide power reactor licensees greater flexibility to make changes in their Quality Assurance (QA) l programs. As part of this initiative the staff should pursue a performance-based approach which '
l provides increased flexibility for licensees to amend their QA programs without the need for prior staff review. In particular, the staff should look for opportunities to a!!ow QA program changes where confirmation of continued adequate performance can be objectively measured.
l l
Upon completion of the current effort to make the 50.59 process more risk-informed, consideration should be given to whether the revised 50.59 process could be used by licensees to change their GA programs.
cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus l Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield l
! OlG OPA Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
PDR- Advance DCS - P1-17 i
i