ML20148H352
| ML20148H352 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/13/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148H350 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-97-077-C, SECY-97-77-C, NUDOCS 9706100117 | |
| Download: ML20148H352 (2) | |
Text
..-
.-- ~
-. ~
I NOTATION VOTE l
l RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON r
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-077 - DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDES, STANDARD REVIEW PLANS AND NUREG DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF RISK INFORMED REGULATION FOR POWER REACTORS l
i
- Approved X w/ Comment Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ha r<Am l
a l
f SIGNATURE i
l Release Vote
/
X/
May 13, 1997 DATE l.
Withhold Vote
/
/
Entered on "AS" Yes X
No i
t i
9706100117 970605 PDR COMMS NRCC
. CORRESPONDENCE PDR y_
~
?)O k'O O 10
r CHAIRMAN'S VOTE ON SECY-97-077 I approve issuing the draft regulatory guides and standard review sections for a 90-day public comment period. The staff is to be commended for its work in producing the regulatory guidance documents and the standard review plan sections. I believe these documents represent a major step forward in the agency's movement to a more risk-informed, performance-based regulatory structure, i
l The staff should continue its efforts to complete, in a timely manner, the pilot l
applications of risk-informed regulation, and to comp;ete the draft regulatory guidance l
and standard review plan for inservice inspection.
The staff should also continue to evaluate the proposed decision criteria and the rationale for assuring conformance to the criteria. Additional guidance should also be developed on acceptable approaches for confirming the assumptions and analyses i
that are conducted to justify current licensee basis changes.
In particular, the staff should explore the following areas for the purpose of adding clarity and consistency to the process.
i 1.
The feasibility of assigning assurance levels for conformance to decision criteria.
l 2.
The implications of using point values for comparisons with decision criteria, without any explicit consideration of uncertainty.
l 3.
The implications of smallincreases in CDF and LERF codified in the guidance documents, as a function of the uncertainty associated with the PRA results.
4.
Codifying in the guidance documents the experience gained from the pilots to provide additional guidance on the " increased management attention" process when proposed changes approach the guidelines.
5.
Clarifying the distinction between risk-informed and risk-informed, performance-based cegulatory approaches.
I Finally, the staff should forward to the Commission for information its plans for l
conducting workshops, and for providing training to the NRC staff on the regulatory guidance and standard review plan documents. Particular attention also should be given to increasing staff expertise in PRA methods at the regional level.
~
s i
.-