ML20035B355
| ML20035B355 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/05/1993 |
| From: | Gillespie F NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035B348 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304010236 | |
| Download: ML20035B355 (4) | |
Text
sg
[7590-01]
Regulatory Review Groun. Reauest for Comments on Draft Material The Nuclear Regulatory Commission established a Regulatory Review Group under the Executive Director for Operations to conduct a broad examination of the regulatory framework and processes to identify:
areas of redundant regulation, overly burdensome regulation, areas where guidance and i
implementation verification processes may be overly prescriptive, areat where the regulations or regulatory guidance may be ambiguous, and suggest simplification and clarification of existing requirements and processes..
The Review Group was officially established in late January and is scheduled to submit a report to the Commission in July 1993. An important element of the effort is solicitation of views from both the industry and the public regarding priority areas to be examined, issues of particular concern, and recommendations for improvement. The results of the ruquest for comments are to be incorporated into the review effort. This notice is to announce the availability of draft material developed by the review group relevant to approach: depth, scope of review, and potential recommendations resulting from the review to date.
The material being made available for comment includes the charter as approved by the Commission and three sections which cover items two through six of th.
charter.
SECTION ONE i
This section deals with the assessments of the regulations and implementing guidance. Included is a summary of the approach being taken, data sheets 9304010236 930305 PER RE3/GP relGRRRO PDR
i 1 g
[
t t
}
i i developed on each rule evaluated to date and recommendations which include supporting guidance and processes. The draft recommendations were chosen based both on the review and the fact that the specific problem identified was not obviously being addressed by an existing program. The detailed survey of existing programs is now under way for comparison to identified issues and is I
expected to be available in sixty days. The purpose of this effort is to focus on the exact rule, guide or practice which may be considered flawed so that a specific resolution can be achieved.
For example, generalities such as, " risk based regulation is the process which can provide both increased flexibility and safety" need to be placed in context. How would it be used?
i To replace what current requirement? How would it be promulgated? Comments l
are invited on all aspects of the review, but would be particularly useful on the level of detail of the review necessary to focus on specifics. Also I
recognizing that the Review Group is developing an agenda which will be turned over to the responsible offices for action, the level of detail needs to be sufficient for specific problem identification.
It should also be recognized f
that additional review work is being done on some of the rules, hence the review forms may be revised later.
l SECTION TWO l
l This section deals with the analysis of specific licenses as a reflection of the implementation of rules and regulatory guidance at power plants. The approach is discussed as is the basis for the selection of the plants to be ;
examined. The first plant, Seabrook, has been completed.
Recommendations are j
included'in the analysis based on this single ~ review.
Each of the selected j
i plants will be analyzed in the same manner with the integration of all of the -
'b i
I
, ~ < -
e
A u i recommendations being completed in the final report.
Comments are invited on all aspects of the review, but would particularly helpful if they address l
potential implementation priorities and strategies for the types of recommendations contained in the report. Most of the recommendations are considered safety neutral and therefore would be reductions in burden only.
How should this be integrated into the priorities the Review Group has been asked to provide as part of its final report?
l I
SECTION THREE A contributing factor to the establishment of the Review Group was industry's presentation to the Commission on the topic of risk _ based regulation.
How should Probabilistic Risk Analysis be applied in the regulatory setting?
Building on the results described in the first two sections, the review group will develop specific recommendations where it may be beneficial to incorporate the approach into the process. While recognizing that the technology is currently heavily used by both the staff and industry in support of both generic and plant specific action, the Group is focusing on what may potentially be direct incorporation into the regulatory processes.
Based on l
~
the initial issues found with the lack of flexibility in the area of Quality l
Assurance and the obvious possible application to Technical Specifications i
^
these two areas are being focused on. The application of Probabilistic Risk Analysis in graded Quality Assurance may have some potential'for providing increased flexibility, reduced burden and a better safety focus. The cost effective applicability to Technical Specifications. is not obvious.
The significant benefits to be derived from the new Improved Standard Technical l
l Specifications may be of such a magnitude that any further development must l
t l
9 L
A
')
_ 4_
build from that basis and not from the existing plant specific requirements.
l As the group tries to put definition on exactly what risk based regulation is and how it would be incorporated into the regulatory structure more directly very specific comments are desired.
A Commission meeting is currently scheduled for March 26, 1993, for the Review Group to discuss progress and findings to date.
In support of this meeting written comments are requested on the material by March 22, 1993.
Comments received after this date will still be considered, but may not be fully evaluated and therefore not discussed on March 26, 1993.
In addition, a public meeting will be held March 12, 1993, in Room 2F-17/21, at 2:00 p.m.,
at s
the NRC headquarters building located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.
The purpose of the meeting will be for the Review Group to answer questions, receive comments, and provide clarification on the material provided for comment. Copies of the referenced material are available for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 2102 L Street, N.W.
(Lower Level), Washington, D.C.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of March, 1993.
4 i
FOR THE NU LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
X y
Frank P. Gillespie Regulatory Review Group l
e
-