ML20045B191
| ML20045B191 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/01/1991 |
| From: | Curtiss NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Carr, Remick, Rogers NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042D089 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-57FR14514, REF-GTECI-B-56, REF-GTECI-EL, RULE-PR-50, TASK-B-56, TASK-OR AE06-1-053, AE6-1-53, NUDOCS 9306160394 | |
| Download: ML20045B191 (4) | |
Text
-
Moc, -l RE0ilEST(lFDi.yBY t//q/p
~
pu UNITED STATES o,
[gp _, q y g NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION Taylor W ASH IN GTON. D.C. 20555 SniOZek j
Thompson V' N *[
April 1, 1991 Blaha COMJC-91-001A (Beckjord,RES OFFICE OF THE comuisslONER Murley, NRR MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Carr Commissioner Rogers Heltemes Commissioner Remick Speis
?
Minners FROM:
Commissioner Curtiss b-
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTION OF GENERI SAFETY ISSUE B-56 --
DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY I have reviewed the staff's response to commissioner Rogers' request for an analysis of the approach that I proposed in COMJC-91-001 to the resolution of Generic Issue B-56 (see Memorandum from James M. Taylor to Samuel J. Chilk, March 29, 1991).
With this latest analysis, it is my understanding that we now have everything that the staff desires to submit for our consideration before we make a decision on the approach that we wish to take to the resolution of Generic Issue B-56.
Accordingly, I believe that the Commission is now in a position to make a decision on how we are going to resolve this matter.
In the interest of summarizing where I believe we stand on this issue, I have set forth my views on the major policy issues below.
In reviewing the staff's latest analysis, I think it is apparent that there are two fundamental policy questions that separate the approach recommended by the staff in SECY-90-340 from the
~
approach that I recommended for your consideration in COMJC 001.
The policy issues, as I see them, are as follows:
Progre.mmatic Reculation vs. Performance-Based Reculation
~
The approach proposed by the staff in SECY-90-340 focuses almost exclusively on how a licensee is to go about maintaining emergency diesel generator (EDG) reliability, emphasizing the prescriptive details of an acceptable reliability program, rather than the overall objective of high EDG reliability in accordance with what is presumed in the station blackout (SBO) rple and the SBO submittals.
In essence, each licensee would have to commit to a reliability program,' regardless of whether an acceptable EDG
' The staff emphasizes that licensees would have the flexibility to choose between the reliability program proposed by the staff in Reg. Guide 1.9 or an equally effective reliability program proposed by the licensee.
As I pointed out in ny vote on 9306160394 900422
Qn q
I
reliability level is currently being maintained by the licensee.
Such a commitment would be required, even though there is no indication that implementation of a reliability programalongthelinesspecifiedbytpestaffwouldsatisfy the overall objective of the SBO rule.
This commitment would then serve as the basis for taking enforcement action against those licensees who fail to comply with their reliability programs.
In a word, the approach recommended by the staff focuses on prescribing a program that licensees must meet, rather than on the objective of high EDG reliability as envisioned by the SBO rule.
Alternatively, the approach that I recommended in COMJC 001 seeks to focus on the result -- overall EDG reliability
-- with the approach structured in a manner that would emphasize the importance of this result.
Licensees would be allowed much greater flexibility to fashion their own individual reliability programs in a manner best suited to their own particular needs, with the understanding that regulatory action, including the possibility of enforcement action, would be taken for failure to meet our overall expectations, rather than for failure to comply with a particular reliability program.3 The staff properly points out that the approach proposed in COMJC-91-001 " represents a major change" from the way that l
SECY-90-340, the analysis required to demonstrate that a licensee's program meets all of the staff's expectations is often more time-consuming and expensive than simply committing to what the staff has proposed.
As a consequence the licensee's flexibility is, as a practical matter, more limited than might otherwise appear to be the case.
1 2 The staff has carefully avoided any indication that there is a quantifiable relationship between the reliability program that is being proposed and the overall reliability levels expected under the SBO rule.
3 This approach would not, as the staff analysis seems to l
suggest, ignore those cases where a licensee's EDG reliability may be declining, though not to the point of reaching the l
specified trigger values.
Indeed, the approach'that I proposed l
in COMJC-91-001 specifically requires licensees to report diesel failures, beginning when such failures reach 3 failures out of 20 starts.
Statistically, the 3/20 approach results in a higher probability of detecting diesel degradation than would be provided by the staff's proposed reporting requirement of 4 failures out of 25 starts.
Additionally, as I noted in COMJC 001, licensees would be required pursuant to Appendix B to undertake root cause analyses and corrective actions for
~
significant conditions adverse to quality.
In this latter respect, the two approaches are virtually identical.
l l
l e
v
3 we have regulated in the past.
I do not disagree with this assessment.
Indeed, the approach that I have recommended 1
would be perhaps the first and most significant effort undertaken by this agency to fashion a performance-based approach to an irportant safety issue.
The question that the Commission needs to address is not whether this approach i
would be a major change from past practice, but instead 3
whether this approach would be a more effective, more a
efficient use of NRC and licensee resources to achieve the desired result.
On this question, I am of the view that the more flexible performance-based approach to regulation is to 4
be preferred, absent a compelling demonstration that such an approach cannot effectively. achieve the desired objective' -
- something that the staff has simply not shown in this
)
i particular case.
1 Imposition of Reaulatory Recuirements via Generic Letters vs.
i Reculatina throuah Reaulations The second important policy issue that we.must address is
]
the matter of how we go about imposing whatever approach the j
Commission ultimately endorses on individual licensees.
Here the choice is simple -- the staff's approach relies entirely on the use of a generic letter to seek commitments from licensees to a specified reliability program, with enforcement action then to be taken against those licensees who fail to satisfy their commitment.
My views on the propriety of regulating in this manner are set forth in my vote on SECY-90-340 and, accordingly, I won't repeat them here.
Suffice it to say that in a situation such as we face with Generic Issue B-56, where we have an important safety i
issue that affects all -licensees in a generic fashion -- and with all sides of this debate agreeing that we need a clear i
legal underpinning for the agency's program in the event that we need to take regulatory action at some point in the future -- the case for addressing the issue through a regulation, rather than by imposing requirements through a generic letter, is compelling.
In short, I believe we should regulate through regulation.
Unfortunately, no aspect of the staff's proposal can properly be construed as being legally mandated by the language of the existing SBO 4
i
/
0
' In this regard, I would note that the commission has just i
recently articulated this view in the amendments to the Charter of the Committee for the Review of Generic Requirements (see-Staff Requirements Memorandum accompanying SECY-91-037, March 8, 1991).
4 J
1 4
rule.5 As I indicated at the outset, these are the two significant policy issues that, in my view, separate the approach proposed by the staff in SECY-90-340 from the. approach that I recommended in COMJC-91-001.
Having carefully considered the staff's comments on this matter, many of which have proven to be most helpful in sharpening the focus on these toportant issues, I am prepared to proceed in accordance with the approach that I set forth in 7
COMJC-91-001, and would so recommend.
t SECY, please track.
l cc:
~
4 5 If it could, we would not need to seek licensee commitments in the manner proposed by the staff, via a generic letter.
..