ML20137J252
| ML20137J252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/07/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Rogers K, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137J192 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-062, COMSECY-96-62, DSI-13, FACA, SECY-96-062-C, SECY-96-62-C, NUDOCS 9704030255 | |
| Download: ML20137J252 (1) | |
Text
.
i j
[anaco.
- e....,.......
UNITED STATES HELEASED TO THE PD8 y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
i n
W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555
/
- * * * * * * * * * * * *
- e.i[a dato inj OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER february 7, 1997 1
1 MEMORANDUM T0:
Chairman Jackson i
Commissioner Rogers i
Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz FROM:
Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
I y
W.
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-96-062 - DSI 13 - ROLE OF INDUSTRY 4
Having reviewed this paper and the stakeholder comments on it, I am in general agreement with the Commission's Preliminary Views to pursue Option 1 and Option 4.
I agree with Commissioner Rogers that we s1ould drop Option 5.
4 given the lack of stakeholder enthusiasm for it.
I agree with the Chairman that materials stakeholders' interest in accreditation and certification programs can be accommodated with the case-by-case approach of Option 1.
j Based on the January 22, 1997 Commission briefing on codes and standards and stakeholder comments on this paper, I am very concerned that the i
implementation plan for pursuing Option 4 address the need to streamline and simplify the NRC's internal process for endorsing codes and standards within a year after they are issued by a professional society.
Consideration should be given to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers' recommendation to maximize concurrency in the professional society process and the NRC 4
regulatory process.
s-We may need internal performance indicators incorporated into the staff's i
implementation plan to ensure timely update of regulations and regulatory guides. The staff should also address the degree to which current backfit i
rule implementation unnecessarily impede; the adoption of updated codes and t'
standards.
l I am not sure whether I agree with the direction in the Preliminary Views that
" initial activities in pursuing Option 4 should focus on standards development in probabilistic risk assessment and the medical use area."
I would prefer to i
d see the staff's recommendations for areas of emphasis in the implementation plan called for in the next sentence.
From the staff's. January 22nd briefing i
it is clear that risk-informed code development will be a high priority.
It '
is not as clear how great the potential is in the medical use area and whether this would support the timely revision of Part 35.
Consequently, I would recommend that that sentence be dropped in the Commission's final views.
cc:
I 9704030255 970401 1
PDR NRCSA I i
13 PDR
+
c
-,