ML20199H280
| ML20199H280 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/27/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| SECY-97-168-C, NUDOCS 9802050002 | |
| Download: ML20199H280 (2) | |
Text
,
p
.^* '
. c I
' REV1 SED
!% l Approve. %c a~t6c~rTc'3 comments replace my earlier comments on j
[ "'% SECY 97-168.
A AO&
~
s...../ w r. " w m . w . . w . w .91. .
RELEASED TO THE PDR RULEMAKING ISSUEio (NEGATIVE CONSENT) e ll1blTJ' hbN g -
g
/ July 30, 1997 ' '
SEN'9 f '168
[QB: The Comissioners l
E80ti: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
ISSUANCE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT OF PROPOSED RbLEMAKING PACTAGE FOR SHUT 0r,WN N40 FUEL STORAGE p00L 0"RA110N PURPOSE:
This paper informs the Comission 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 94176, the staff sought Comission approval to issue for public coment a 3roposed rule for shutdown and low-power operation at nuclear power plaats. Tie Comission approved the recuest in the staff requirements memorandum dated September 12, 1994, anc the proposed rule was published in the federal Register in October 1994. The numerous coments 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 r(gulatory analysis. i In addition. the staff's studies of spent fuel storege pool DSid I operations led to a decision to encompass spent fuel storage pool o>erations in the revised rule. Therefore, the staff intends to again issue tie # . y . I ff @s rulemaking package for public coment.
shM*~ $
DISCUSSION:
y.py-/['[
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 to cold shutdown, tie revised analysis concludes that for these periods important safety s
functions are protected by existing raquirements in standard technical
>ecifications. Accordingly, the revised prop <ed rule no longer addrestes
"d*'-
CONTACT: Timothy Collins, NRR lIl!Il!II:lll!Ill!ll 11 415289hn010 SECY NOTE: TO DE MADE FUBLICLY AVAILABLE AT COMMISSION MEETING ON g 2o g 2 971027 AUGUST 6, 1997 97-168 c PDR j
v, . 4 = w o . , n , t 5,< ;- -
i .
Comments on SCCY 97-168 I approve of the release for public comment of the proposed ru;emaking package; however, in the alternuive, I would t,upport either a simplified proposed rulemaking (e.g. a rule which endorses either an NRC or indestry standard on the subject) or technical specification approach for the control of shutdown conditions which codifies current industry practice related to ensunng risk significant safety functions are maintained during shutdown operations. The staff should interact with stakeholders and present this option to the Commission.
It has been suggested that 10 CFR 50.65(a)(3) assessment provisions would provide the desired levels of control over shutcown operations. I do not agree that this is the case. in fact, I find that the maintenance rule lacks key provisiont related to shutdown operation, including the development of performance monitoring parameters and the establishment of mitigative l features, Further,it is unclear whether the maintenance rule, as it exists today, would require l actions for assessing plant configurations in any mode of operation, including shutdown
{ conditions (as evidenced by the staffs activities involving modifying the maintenance rule under SECY 97-173).
I find that a legal analysis performed by the Office of General Councel (transmitted to me October 21,1997) on the subjects of industry voluntary actions for shutdown operations and thu applicability of 10 CFR 50, Appendices A and D, to shutdown operations adds credence to the proposed action. Both the NRC staff and the industry have acknowledged that voluntary actions have provided a substantialincrease in safety over regulatory requirements in the area of shutdown operations. I am concemed about whether all licensees will continue to adhere to voluntary actions for minimizing risk during shutdown ( ?crations for the remaining terms of their operating licenses. This concern leads me to conclude that the consideration of some form of IcDally binding requirement (e.g. a rule or Technical Specification) on the subject is in the best interest of public health and safety.
These comments replace the comments associated with my previous vote in their entirety.
J