ML20195K054
| ML20195K054 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/11/1999 |
| From: | Mcgafigan E 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 9906210194 | |
| Download: ML20195K054 (2) | |
Text
A F F I R M A T I O N VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-133 - FINAL REVISION TO 10 CFR 50.65 TO REQUIRE LICENSEES TO PERFORM ASSESSMENTS BEFORE PERFORMING MAINTENANCE l
Approved K
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating i
COMMENTS:
O h
9, \\ T11 hn
- X Ja.
l SIGNATUR$
WUU I I, 11'l9 DAT$
v Entered on "AS" Yes X No _
EU'a8A7/s7J8e'*
1 CORRESPONDENCE PDR
1 l
Commissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY 99 133 I applaud the staff's efforts to provide this final rulemaking package to the Commission on a timely basis, particularly the effort to. coordinate with CRGR and ACRS in the final weeks before the paper's arrival for Commission deliberations.
I support the rule language as proposed by the staff, and I join Commissioner Merrifield in his remarks on this paper.
In particular. I support the last sentence in 50.65(a)(4) which limits the scope of the (a)(4) assessments to systems, structures and components "that a risk-informed evaluation process has shown to be significant to public health and safety."
I do not support the ACRS recommendation to add the words "for the proposed configuration" to this sentence. As the staff indicated in its June 2"d letter to ACRS. I believe the ACRS concerns can be addressed in the regulatory l
guide.
There are other scope sentences which one could use as a link to the regulatory guide.
For example, one option which I considered and asked I
questions about at the May St" Commission briefing. read as follows: "The l
scope of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to be included in the
{
assessment may be limited to those SSCs that individually or in combination.
can be shown by operating experience, deterministic analysis. or probabilistic risk assessment to have a significant effect on the performance of key plant safety functions." This struck me as no better (and probably no worse) than the staff's final recommendation.
It would still need to be explained in I
regulatory guidance _.
Once the Commission has addressed the final rule language. the difficulty I foresee involves promptly developing acceptable regulatory guidance.
It is clear that the staff and stakeholders will have to invest significant energy in the coming months in reaching a consensus on both the draft and final regulatory guidance, a revision of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.160, which will in turn in the end. I hope, endorse a revision of NUMARC 93-01.
In my view, the central issue facing the staff and stakeholders involves clarifying which combinations of non-high risk-significant SSCs should be captured in the risk-informed evaluation process for determining the scope of (a)(4) assessments.
Having said that. I am not in favor of the Commission directing the staff at this time on how to resolve this issue.
I believe that the staff requirements memorandum on the May 5th Commission briefing provides adequate Commission guidance. The CRGR and ACRS involvement in developing the draft regulatory guidance. the public comment period on the draft guidance, and the Commission's role in approving the final guidance, all set in place a process for resolving the issue promptly.
I am also attaching my vote on COMNJD-99-003 because in it I explain why I have proceeded to vote on this paper without the further analyses and public meeting proposed by Commissioner Diaz.
.