ML20056E387
| ML20056E387 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/07/1993 |
| From: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308230292 | |
| Download: ML20056E387 (2) | |
Text
-
N0TATI0N V0TE?
ESED TO THE PDR 3
hhi
- ~~[a((6/~93~~~ v RESPONSE SHEET
.r.......................
T0:
SAf4UEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE C0f44ISSION FROM:
THE CHAIRMAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-108 - REVISED GUIDELINES FOR PRIORITIZATION OF GENERIC SAFETY ISSUES APPROVED With comUISAPPROVED ABSTAIN i
X ents NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
see attached comments I
j//I/-
SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
/ //
July 7, 1993 DATE i
WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
ENTERED ON "AS" YES t NO r
9308230292 930707.
PDR COMMS NRCC l
CORRESPONDENCE PDR
]
I s
I The Chairman's comments on SECY-93-108 The revised thresholds provide a good match of the empirical boundaries for GSIs resolved with regulatory requirements.
However, an apparent discontinuity remains in the revised threshold chart.
For changes in CDF between 10E-6 and 10E-5, the prioritization goes from medium to drop as opposed to medium to 4
low, dependent upon the impact /value ratio.
This would eliminate many of the low priority issues and reduce the number of low priority issues considered in the annual reviews for revised priority rankings.
I suggest that consideration be given to revising the proposed thresholds to remove the discontinuity in the chart.
I am further concerned about the use of an impact /value ratio r
that can have little or no meaning in the presence of large uncertainties.
A large percentage of the 45 GSIs of SECY-93-108 i
that had risk reduction data developed for all plants was not categorized as medium because of this ratio.
I recommend that the staff explore methods and procedures to address this apparent inaccuracy.
I
]
.n-