ML20148E053
| ML20148E053 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/15/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148E047 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-97-088-C, SECY-97-88-C, NUDOCS 9706020254 | |
| Download: ML20148E053 (2) | |
Text
-
HOTAT I ON VOTE s
RESPONSE SHEET 1
TO:
John C.
Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON a
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-088 - NRC STAFF'S POSITION ON AUGMENTED EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BOILING WATER REACTOR PRESSURE VESSELS i
PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.55A(g) (6) (ii) (A)
Approved X w/ comment Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion I
COMMENTS:
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS l
I bv l
w i
F SIGNATURE-
)
i Release Vote
/X
/
May 15, 1997 DATE Withhold Vote
/
/
Entered on "AS" Yes No 1
I i
f 9706020254 970530 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR l
CHAIRMAN JACKSON'S COMMENTS ON SECY-97-088 in as much as the staff and the Director of NRR have determined that Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals Project (BWRVIP) proposed alternative does not provide an acceptable
!cvel of quality and safety, I accrove the staff position that modification to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A) with regard to augmented inspection of BWR reactor pressure vessels, at this time, is not appropriate.
However, the staff should complete the development of a safety evaluation report (SER) on the BWRVIP proposed attemative to the augmented reactor pressure vessel inspection requirements on an expedited basis. This SER will serve as the staffs documented and defensible bases for determining the acceptability of the BWRVIP proposed alternative. The SER should receive appropriate intemal review, including review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and provide a comprehensive evaluation of the probabilistic analysis contained in the BWRVIP proposed attemative. The staff should consider whether a tiered approach to gather additional baseline information or implement the rule is appropriate. Policy issues, if any, that are identified as a result of the staffs technical review should be forwarded to the Commission, with a discussion of options, for a decision.
Finally, the staff should continue to be receptive to evaluating risk-informed regulatory approaches that enhance safety decision-making, reduce unnecessary burden or improve staff efficiency. In this regard, I do not agree with the staffs conclusion that it's rejection of the BWRVIP's probabilistic arguments is consistent with the Commission's PRA Policy Statement.
Probabilistic arguments should be considered, properly evaluated, and used to appropriately complement our traditional engineering analyses, in this case, probabilistic arguments can, and should, be appropriately considered in determining the acceptability of a proposed technical alternative and/or in pursuing changes to the rule.
l