ML20199G102
| ML20199G102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/31/1997 |
| From: | Dicus G NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| SECY-97-168-C, NUDOCS 9802040213 | |
| Download: ML20199G102 (3) | |
Text
i a
e mm s
1 rehlacemyearliercommentson
) W SECY-97-168.
Q b wo f.'%..... +#
....V}.........yg /U
,j G ta apy,
- icur, 10/
RELEASED TO THE PDR L
RULEMAKING ISSUE
, lum zhs i
(NEGATIVE CONSENT)
,,,,,,, }ngs July 30, 1997 SECY-97-168 FOR:
The Comissioners FROM:
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations s
SUBJECT:
ISSUANCE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING PACKAGE FOR SHUTDOWN AND FUEL STORAGE P0OL OPERATION PURPOSE:
This paper informs the Commission of the staff's intent to re-issue for public comment a proposed rulemaking package addressing shutdown and fuel storage pool operations at nuclear power plants.
BACKGROUND:
In SECY-94-176. the staff sought Commission approval to issue for public coment a 3roposed rule for shutdown and low-power operation at nuclear power plants. T1e Comission approved the request in the staff requirements memorandum dated September 12. 1994 and the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register in October 1994.
The numerous comments received were considered along with Commission guidance regarding the use of a risk-informed performance based approach for new regulations.
As a result.
the staff made significant changes to the proposed rule and regulatory analysis.
In addition, the staff's studies of spent fuel storage pool operations led to a decision to encompass spent fuel storage pool o)erations in the revised rule. Therefore, the staff intends to again issue t1e rulemakins package for public coment.
id
?
,.5 RLScpSSION-c 1
The staff's revised regulatory analysis considered important safety functions and the controls currently in place to ensure these functions.
For low-power o)eration. hot shutdown, and the transition period from hot td' cold shutdown, t1e revised analysis concludes that for these periods importanl safety functions are protected by existing requirements in standard tecliDical soecifications. Accordingly, the revised proposed rule no lanaer addro m g(( g"gjg"{
these modes.
CONTACT:
Timothy Collins, NRR 415-2897 SECY NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AT COMMISSION MEETING ON UhIN AUGUST 6, 1997 9802040213 971031
'.q.)FTSO PDR SECY r M"<1 97-168 C PDR W ' C' N ~\\ P'%$$bt&
.t REVISED COMMENTS OF COMMISSIONER DICUS ON SECY-97-168 My original view, that we should release the proposed shutdown rule for public comment.
- continues to be my position on SECY-97-168.; My purpose in approving that course of action was to use release of the proposed rule to further the debate on this issue. My approval of publication for comment, however, was never intended to indicate approval of I the proposed rule in all its particulars.- In fact, my current view is that, at a minimum, the fire protection portion of the proposed rule, if necessary, should be addressed in the fire protection rule and that spent fuel pool operations should be removed from the rule all together Consistent with my belief that this mie_is still in a state of evolution, I continue
. to support an SRM that would direct staff monitoring of the effectiveness of voluntary actions by the industry to address shutdown risks, as noted in ny revised vote of 10/14/97.
It is apparent to me that risks exist in shutdown operations, which may not be addressed in regulations, technical specifications, or other enforceable vehicles. Licensees have recognized these risks in instituting voluntary programs in many instances. At the same
' time, concems over these risks have been expressed by the ACRS, the NRC Staff, and foreign govemments. As I will note in more detail below, countries such as France w.d Spain are actively addressing these issues and the staff is following up on these issue with some of these foreign govemments.
With the above information in mind, it is my firm belief that the issue for consideration is
- not whether shutdown risks must be addressed, but rather what is the proper, effective and efficient way to address the acknowledged risks. I am not yet convinced that the.
maintenance rule alone can address these issues.
On Wednesday, October 21,1997, I had the pleasure of meeting with Dr. Agte+in Alonso,.
Comrnissioner of the Spanish Nuclear Safety Counsel. Dr. Alonso provided a copy of a presentation he had made earlier at the 25th WRSM conference entitled " Risk Informed Regulation in Spain." In his presentation. Dr. Alonso noted that Spanish utilities were close to completing two pilot PSA's addressing varying modes of operation that included shutdown risks. During our conversation, Dr. Alonso indicated that the PSA's were
' essentially complete and initial briefings indicated that there wer' serious concems s
during shutdown. He also indicated that the Spanish were mindful of the French knowledge in this area, given that France had been looking at this issue for some time.
Dr. Alonso stated that he would forward copies of the reports on the Spanish PSA analyses to NRC when they become available, but was not certain as to when the reports would be available.
The lack of a majority consensus on this issue rasults in our not being able to definitively
- dispose of this issue at this time. I, therefore, believe there continues to be a need for a robust discussion of altematives, which includes the pro's and con's of each attemative, and which includes the issue of the appropriate role for voluntary cctions. Consistent with the General Counsel's Memorandum on voluntary actions dated October 21,1997, specific discussion of issues conceming enforceability would, of necessity, be included in
4 2
the evaluation of attematives. Expected additionalinformation from the Spanish efforts, and the effods of other countries, may assist the Commission in reaching a consensJs on the appropriate action to take to address shutdown risk. For example, we were recently informed that the staffis conducting meetings with Korean and Spanish representatives who are knowledgeable conceming the status and progress in regulation of shutdown operations in those countries.
Given the above concerns and comments, I would propose that the SRM to the staff reflect that: 1) the Commission has not reached a consensus on whether to publish the proposed rule; 2) the staff should closely monitor the effectiveness of voluntary actions pending a final Commission determination on this issue; 3) the staff should evaluate the information from the Spanish study when it becomes avaliable, review any additional escent developments in foreign experience in this area, while engaging in a dialogue with stakeholders on the pros and cons of various attematives for addressing shutdown risk; and 4) make recommendations to the Commission on whether the staff continues to support publication of a shutdown rule in its current or a modified form, or some other course of action, in light of any new information, taking into account OGC's October 21, 1997, analysis.
r 6
.