ML20196E410
| ML20196E410 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/29/1998 |
| From: | Diaz N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196E395 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-185-C, NUDOCS 9812030152 | |
| Download: ML20196E410 (2) | |
Text
F 1',
i NOTATION VOTE l
RESPONSE SHEET i
l
)
l TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary l
FROM:
COMMISSIONER DIAZ
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-185 - PROPOSED RULEMAKING - REVISED 4
i REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DOMESTIC LICENSING l
Approved Disapproved x
f.
Abstain l
}P Not Participating l
COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
l i
l i
J SIGNATURE \\h
/
9.19 %
DATE Entered on "AS" Yes \\'
No a >
1 9812030152 981201 PDR COMMS NRCC l
CORRESPONDENCE PDR
Commissioner Diaz's Comments on SECY-98-185 - PROPOSED RULEMAKING -
REVISED REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL l
As discussed below, several aspects of the proposed rulemaking presanted in SECY-98-185 require further refinement before it is ready to be promulgated for public comment.
Accordingly, I disapprove the issuance of the notice of proposed rulemaking for 10 CFR Part l
- 70. I agree with Commissioner McGaffigan that the staff should submit a revised proposed rule to the Commission for approval four months from the date of the final SRM, and that they l
should be empowered to publicly discuss all relevant documenis with stakeholders during this l
revision period. In addition to incorporating insights gained during the public comment period, the staff should consider the following issues in oeveloping its revised proposal.
I While it is clearly a step forward to require each Part 70 licensee to perform an Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA), it is not necessary to incorporate the ISA into the facility license. To support the intended use of the ISA as a tool to make safety and licensing decisions, it would l
be sufficient for a licensee to docket the results of the ISA, thereby making it publicly available.
l This approach would permit licensees to make timely updates to the ISA to take advantage of the current state of the art of risk assessment methodologies without having to seek license amendments. Additionally, a requirement to docket ISA results,would permit the establishment of a Part 70 change process that is in harmony with the revised change process that is under development for power ructor licensees. Ultimately, the flexibility fostered by this approach will enhance safety while reaucing burden on the NRC and 'icensees by allowing both to focus their attention on those issues of greatest safety impact to the benefit of the ratepaying public.
One particular aspect of ISAs that the staff should consider relates to the application of new technologies. In soliciting public comments, the staff should request input on how updated ISA methodologies should be employed in the licensing of new technologies for use within either new or existing facilities.
The incorporation of consequence criteria for purely chemical hazards is problematic, in that it l
may result in.NRC regulation overlapping with other federal, state and local entities that have l
jurisdiction over such hazards. We should maintain our primary focus on the NRC's nuclear and radiological safety mandate, and address other matters, as appropriate, within the context of Memoranda of Understanding with other govemment agencies.
Concerning the implementation of a backfit provision in Part 70, the proposed rule should provide for an appropriately formulated provision that would be immediately effective.
Finally,I am concemed about the presuiptiveness of some of the program requirements outlined in the draf t Strndard Review Plan provided with SECY-98-185. Although this guidance is nominally not compu tory, past experience with similar types of guidance leads me to believe that there would be a hirp likelihood of their becoming de f acto regulatory requirements. In addition, such prescriptivt ness in program requirements would tend to act as a forcing function on the allocation of NRC resources toward verifying compliance with programmatic requirements, rather than toward rnonitoring a licensee's day to day safety performance. In summary, I believe that the proposed prescriptive programmatic requirements are not justifiable within the context of a risk informed regulatory fabric, and, in this vein, the staff should carefully reconsider the necessity of such guidance.
M