ML20140D896
| ML20140D896 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/13/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Rogers K, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140D854 | List: |
| References | |
| DSI-12, FACA, SECY-96-61, NUDOCS 9704240189 | |
| Download: ML20140D896 (2) | |
Text
1 4 Kf 00 o
UNITED STATES 1
NUCLE AR R EGULATORY COMMISSIO"i[ * * * * * * * ' * * * * * * * * * * * *
- i 3
W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555 D
k OA/W
[22d omes or ras February 13. 1997.....date '
initials 1
.........,......,y COMMISSIONER j
MEMORANDUM T0:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers
-Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz
,d' h %[h
)
FROM:
Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-96-061 - DSI 12 - RISK-INFORMED. PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATION Having reviewed this paper and stakeholder comments on it, I went back and read the September 29. 1995. PRA policy statement.
I did so because I was afraid I might disagree with it.
I support the use of PRA methods in the NRC's regulatory program (the " risk-informed" part of the title of this paper), but I have reservations about how far we should try to pursue
" performance-based" as opposed to deterministic / prescriptive regulations.
I was pleased to find that I could agree with the Jolicy statement in its entirety.
In particular, that statement says:
"T1e use of PRA technology should be increased in all regulatory matters to the extent supported by the state-of-the-art in PRA methods and data and in a manner that complements the NRC's deterministic aooroach and suooorts the NRC's traditional defense-in-deoth chilosoohy (emphasis added)." Nowhere in the policy statement does the term " performance-based" regulation appear. Nowhere is there any sense that we are attempting to make a transition from a deterministic / prescriptive approach to a performance-based approach. There is, instead, a fundamental commitment to using risk insights in our regulatory program and to ensuring that our rules, whether deterministic / prescriptive or performance-based, are risk-informed.
4 DSI-12 takes an enormous leap from the PRA policy statement in its linking of the two different concepts of " risk-informed" and " performance-based" regulation'and presuming that the goal of the Commission is a transition to risk-informed, performance-based regulation.
Twice in the paper on pages 7 and 10. the PRA policy statement is paraphrased without citing the underlined material above. The paper does describe on page 12 the possible benefits of a risk-informed deterministic approach to regulation as an enhancement and extension of the traditional deterministic approach, but DSI-12 never comes back to this thought in any of the options.
I believe that there is much to be said for the risk-informed deterministic / prescriptive approach essentially the approach that the agency pursued in revising Appendix J.
It could be a far easier ap3 roach to implement than a risk-informed. performance-based approach w1ile providing significant safety, regulatory relief and efficiency benefits.
- TP MC d 7 m 2 ;
PDRM
The Commission 4 Turning to the Commission's preliminary views I agree with the first
' paragraph which effectively states the case for a risk-informed regulatory J
process.
I agree with the second paragraph which basically states that
.through the PRA implementation plan's four pilot programs, the Commission is determining "the appropriateness of a risk-informed performance-based approach for the subject activities." There is an appropriate degree of agnosticism as to whether this approach will be successful in this paragraph.
I have concernc with much of the third paragraph endorsing elements of Option 3.
Fundamentally, my concerns derive from its sole focus on the risk-i informed. performance-based approach.
But my concerns also involve the resource implications of pursing this option.
I do not object to taking a fresh look at the Regulatory Review Group's (RRG) results. As I understand it, the RRG originally considered a broad set of potentially useful regulatory i'
changes, but implementation was later limited to only those changes with no l'
effect on safety. A risk-informed approach could well allow the NRC to pursue a larger set of RRG recommendations with significant regulatory relief and i
efficiency benefits.
But those changes may be more akin to. Appendix J (risk-E informed deterministic / prescriptive) than the Maintenance Rule (risk-informed, performance-based). The staff should have flexibility to take whichever approach would make the'most sense from the point of view of resources, ease of implementation (timeliness) and effectiveness.
To minimize use of '
resources in any fresh look at the RRG results. I would recommend that such a j
review 1mply be incorporated into the semiannual updates of the Commission's Rulemad ng Activity Plan.
I support the first sentence in the fourth 3aragraph.
I would add that OGC's i
analysis of litigative risks requested in tie Staff Requirements Memorandum on SECY-96-218 should be factored into future determinations and guidance on the t
extent to which we implement risk-informed performance-based regulation.
I do not sup) ort the rest of the paragraph, that the staff should also perform a thorougl review of nuclear materials regulations with an eye to a risk-informed, performance-based approach.
This is estimated to cost 15 FTE and up l
to $2 million per year in contractor resources (without including any Part 35 i
revisions).
I am not opposed to using risk insights in updating nuclear materials regulations as resources permit anc' the need to update regulations demands.
But I'see this as a normal consequence of the 1995 PRA policy statement with the incremental results incorporated into the semiannual updates of the Commission's Rulemaking Plan. The materials area, as DSI-12 points out. lags the reactor area in using PRA insights and it makes little sense for materials applications to receive most of the incremental resources flowing from final decisions on this issue paper.
cc:
l