ML20199G332
| ML20199G332 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/07/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| SECY-97-168-C, NUDOCS 9802040259 | |
| Download: ML20199G332 (2) | |
Text
fMMMMYMMS$$SSY
/
I disapprove the proposal to issue
/c a draft shutdown rulemaking package for public comment.
My views on p* *%g this pr osal are attached, i
I IM9VLL
/
Edward McGaffi pn{}Jy 10/J /97 pa.....................
RULEMAKING ISSUE.
REEMED MWE PDR (NEGATIVE CONSENT) f ih4n CcJ g
July 30, 1997 S
97 -
f.QB:
The Comissioners EBQB:
L. Joseph 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 Comission of the staff's intent to re-issue for public l
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 coment a 3roposed 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 federa? Register in October 1994. The numerous comments 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.
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 rulemaking package for public coment.
D3N D
DISCUSSION:
t-u-l The staff's revised regulatory analysis considered important safety functions EW.
and the controls currently in place to ensure these functions.
For MrA low-power o)eration, hot shutdown, and the transition period from hot to cold shutdown, t1e revised analysis concludes that for these periods important x+ + 1 FISC safety functions are protected by existing requirements in standard technical shgh specifications.
Accordingly, the revised proposed rule no longer addresses taese modes.
I!IliIlllll lil Illi CONTACT: Timothy Collins. NRR
' =-
415-2897 SECY NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AT COMMISSION MEETING ON
{
9802040259 971007 PDR SECY AUGUST 6, 1997 97-169 C PDR
3 f
4 Commissioner McGaffiaan's Coments on SECY-97-168 -- Proposed Shutdown Rule:
SECY-97-168 raises significant policy issues on the need and justification for new rules on shutdown and fuel storage pool operations.
From my review of the paper and the staff's September 19, 1997 response to a number of Comission questions on this matter. I find that I cannot support the staff's proposal to issue the shutdown rulemaking package for public comment.
The NRC staff and the ACRS agree that the nuclear industry currently has in place initiatives and practices that provide an adequate level of safety in this area.3 As pointed out by the staff, the voluntary initiatives by the industry have been effective in reducing core damage frequency from shutdown operations to 10E 5 r
- 10E-6. Thus. I see no safety-based need for a new rule, and I would rely on the voluntary initiatives at this time. This approach is wholly consistent with, and is encouraged by, the Commission policies reflected in the SRMs for OSI 12 - Risk-Informed. Performance-Based Regulation, and DSI 13 - The Role of Industry.
The staff should continue to monitor licensee performance in this area, by revising inspection procedures if necessary, to ensure that the current level of safety is maintained.
If the staff should determine, contrary to past industry practice and performance, that the industry's voluntary initiatives are not being maintained or have ceased to be effective, or if the staff should otherwise determine that there is widespread failure to implement the voluntary initiatives such that our confidence in the voluntary approach is substantially undermined, then the staff should inform the Commission and the real need for a shutdown rule can be reassessed.
3 In this connection. I do not find the staff's regulatory analysis supporting the proposed rule to be convincing.
In fact. I am concerned about the regulatory analysis methodology that has been approved for use in these cases.
To the extent that the approved regulatory analysis methodology forces the agency to ignore reality by, for example, precluding reliance on. or credit for, voluntary actions, the methodology disserves the staff and the Commission.
In such a situation the regulatory analysis can result in a false or very misleading estimate of the costs and benefits of the rules being considered.
I believe that the regulatory analysis methodology should be modified so that, consistent with the SRM on DSI 13 it recognizes the potential benefits of voluntary actions and provides a clearer picture of the real need for, and real costs and benefits of, the rules that are being considered.
2 I do not find the argument that a new rule is needed to provide enforceability to be compelling.
As noted by the ACRS. "the staff has found enforcement means when deficiencies in shutdown operations have been encountered."