ML20195K050
| ML20195K050 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/17/1999 |
| From: | Diaz N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195J986 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-99-133-C, NUDOCS 9906210193 | |
| Download: ML20195K050 (3) | |
Text
%
1 A F F I R M A T I O N VOTE
\\.
RESPONSE SHEET l
TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary i
FROM:
COMMISSIONER DIAZ
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-133 - FINAL REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.65 TO REQUIRE LICENSEES TO PERFORM ASSESSMENTS BEFORE PERFORMING MAINTENANCE Approved Disapproved Ih Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
T SIGNATURN
/
Jv.wt. \\7 \\M 3
DATE Entered on "AS" Yes I
No E8'*a8Mi7J8e**
CORRESPONDENCE PDR
r r
COMMISSIONER DIAZ' COMMENTS ON SECY-99-133 I have been a strong and consistent advocate of improving the maintenance rule to achieve a higher level of safety at justifiable cost, focusing first on requiring assessment of plant configurations. My advocacy is now confronted by concems about the credibility, accountability and falmess of this rulemaking.
First, a bit of history. Two years ago, a staff report indicated that, although licensees had developed programs to assess plant maintenance activities, in some instances licensees were not conducting the assessments or their assessments were inadequate'. This raised a valid safety concem and compelled me to agree to a revision of the rule to require a safety assessment of maintenance activities. Now, the staff tells me that all licensees are implementing their maintenance rule programs and perform adequate safety assessments. Therefore, what made perfect sense in 1997 does notin 1999.
In my judgment. the final maintenance rule now before the Commission ropresents a 2
fundamental change from the proposal on which public comments were solicited and submitted. The originally proposed rule language was focused on requiring a safety assessment. Moreover, it could be argued that one key change to the rule is attributable to the input of a single commenter submitted some four months after the close of the comment period. To me, this raises a question of faimess. We owe the public a process that is both fair and has the appearance of faimess. The public is entitled to formal notice of what the agency proposed to do in a way that affords a real opportunity for any interested member of the public to make meaningful comment and to have that comment addressed. I believe neither the public nor licensees have had such opportunity. Therefore, as matter of prudence, if not also of legal necessity, I believe that a further round of public comment is imperative. I can only support this rulemaking on that basis.
The Commission has testified repeatedly to the great importance of risk-informing our regulatory framework. The maintenance rule could serve as a cornerstone for subsequent risk-informed efforts if done properly. This is the first time that we are codifying " risk-informed"in 10 CFR Part 50. It deserves front-line coverage without a rush to judgment. The public and licensees deserve the opportunity to participate in this momentous regulatory change. Everyone of us can use the time to further reflect on this rule and profit from additional public insights. I urge my fellow Commissioners to avail themselves of the opportunity for further discussion. 4
f.
l
- 1. In SECY-97-055, the staff identified " weaknesses" in licensees' safety assessments for removing equipment from service for maintenance, specifically because the assessment was not a requirement. In SECY-97-173, the staff proposed changes to 50.65 supported by the above findings. The NRC issued the SRM for SECY-97-173, l
approving the recommendation for a new requirement for performing safety I
assessments, i.e., the "should" to "shall". In SECY-98-165, the staff reported on i
additional maintenance rule inspections, which continued to find that all licensees had l
voluntarily developed assessment programs to satisfy (a)(3) of 50.65. However, some failures to perform safety assessments and " weaknesses" in other safety assessment programs were also identified. The Commission continued supporting the rule revision.
l In SECY-99-133, no' update was provided; however, at a meeting with senior NRC staff l
members held on June 16,1999, the staff indicated that there were no significant l
problems with licensees' assessments. I understand that a draft report documenting the overall maintenance rule baseline inspection results is undergoing concurrence.
There are now reasons to question whether there are sufficient safety benefits to justify l
the cost of this rulemaking and its implementation.
2.There are several examples of substantive and material changes. One is requiring that licensees " assess and manage the increase in risk" rather than requiring that they perform a safety assessment. Another is reducing the scope of the assessment by use of a " risk-informed evaluation process." Both changes are more than significant and since they happened in the last month their effects are yet to be fully examined.
l