ML20199G293
| ML20199G293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/02/1997 |
| From: | Diaz N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| SECY-97-168-C, NUDOCS 9802040253 | |
| Download: ML20199G293 (2) | |
Text
_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
u r..
(
Disapproved.
Please see attached comments.
f*h, A-g,;,},)
i m a -:
a2g
,j u
,t,, 2,,,
RULEMAKING ISSUEj REEASED M WE PDR I
2' J
E (NEGATIVE CONSENT) date
- ********8
- nitWe July 30, 1997 SECY-9 N d8 f.QB
The Comissioners EBCti:
L. Josep;1 Callan Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
ISSUANCE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING PACKAGE FOR SHUTDOWN AND FUEL STORAGE POOL OPERATION PURPOSE:
This paper informs the Commission of the staff's intent to re-issue for public coment a proposed rulemaking package addressing shutdown and fuel storage pool operations at nuclear power plants.
BACKGROUND:
In SECY-94-176 the staff sought Comission approval to issue for public comment a :roposed rule for shutdown and low-power operation at nuclear power plants. T1e Comission approved the recuest in the staff requirements memorandum dated September 12. 1994, anc. the proposed rule was published in the Federa7 Reg 1 ster in October 1994.
The numerous cements received were considered along with Comission 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.
Irt addition, the staff's studies of. spent fuel storage pool operations led to a decision to encompass spent fuel storage pool oxrations in the revised rule.
Therefore, the staff intends to again issue tie Thl4'(
rulemaking package for public comment.
DISCUSSION:
Y - L l The staff's revised regulatory analysis considered important safety functions g(T p
and the controls currently in place to ensure these functions.
For low-power operatim. hot shutdown, and the transition period from hot to cold shutdown, the reilsed analysis concludes that for these periods important safety functions are protected by existhng reqdirements in standard technical s 3ecifications. Accordingly, the revised proposed rule no longer addresses t7ese modes.
g CONTACT: Timothy Collins NRR 415-2897 SECY NOTE:
TO BE MADE POBLICLY g20gg3971002
~
(([f Ngf 97-168 C PDR 1
, g' Y
COM]WT**'ONED DIAZ' COasMItNTS ON trgg716s After careful review and consideration of SECY-97-Iti8, the ACRS imana madselan in their l
September 10,1997 leaer, the staff's response to the issues raised by Chaianan Jackson and l
1 COMNJDO405, the NE! letter dated August 25,1997, as well as many other related dace==*a i 6o not support issuance of the proposed rule on shutdown and fbel stora6e pool operadon for public aammaat I continue to believe that the smaamnmadatiana in COMNJD-97-005 and pseser.t indueny/NRC fbeus me n-# and sufficient to ensee edequase l
preenetion of the public health and safety dwing shutdown and reibeling operations.
De NRC discharges its mi=lan of proceedng public health and safety through the application of a censibily developed set of regul eiens, guidelines and procedures which consdtues our undariying segulatory infirastmeture While the General Design Criteria in 10 CFR Part 50, i
j Appendix A, provide overriding reqts.-.i. for the capability to perform safety fhnetions (via critssia for the design, fabricaticu, constmetion, testing, and performance of the SSCs important l
to safety), other parts of the regulations, as well as licensees' FSARs and technical speciScations, fulfill important roles and are all intenelated threads of NRC's regulatory fabric.
Plant salisty is not ortsured by reliance on technica's-*** ions alone to concel plant operation, nor in isolation fmm the other components of the regulatory fabric. In fact, the proposed shutdown rule discussion refocuses attention on the importance of the entire fabric NRC regulaticus, and of the indispensable voluntary activities by liccasees that anchor and l
implesment safety.
The NRC's regulatory echeme is hierarchical in nature. In principle, NRC s:F== override l
licenses and nachaical specifications, if a regulation requires that speci6c safety functions exist l
under certain plant conditions, even when a plant's technical specifications do not contain l
.gi 7 for equipement availability under those conditions, the licenses would not be relieved of the responsibility to ensure that those safety functions are available when needed.
(
As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, such is the case with the proposed shutdown rule.
De,g-t aheady anist for licensees to ensure the capability to cool the core during shusdown canditiaan and an additional rulemaking on this maner would be not only rah = dant but would be detriental to the integrity of the regulatory fabric hae==e of the confusion that would inevitably result. Tachalcal specifications are not nor will they be perfect; the effort to make thema better is important but technical pecifiestions are not the only safety requirements.
j The NRC should not create a rule for every issee not exactly covened by technical l
The confbsion that a ld result has the potential for causing resources to be
--I'='==
j shon issues which may provide little safety benefit.
l Since the regulatory requirements aheady exist for licensees to ensure their plants' safety during shutdown and refbeling operations, and licensees have established voluntary measu i
cffect these toquirements, the staff should provide, v,s inspections and other means, adequ assu:ance of the effectiveness of these activities.
L l
J J
i