ML20207G680
| ML20207G680 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/08/1999 |
| From: | Dicus G NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207G656 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-300-C, NUDOCS 9906140018 | |
| Download: ML20207G680 (3) | |
Text
NOT ATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: Annette Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission FROM: COMMISSIONER DICUS
SUBJECT:
SECY- -300, OPTIONS FOR RISK-INFORMED REVISIONS TO 10 CFR 50 " DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES" Approved X Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
c ow h SIGMQB)E Wasu A // / 99 9 ATE Entered on "AS" Yes 1 No
$N $0h CORRESPONDENCE PDR 910$fYdOff
Cmr. Dicus' Comments on SECY-98-300 The staff is to be commended for its efforts in developing a foundation for a comprehensive risk-informed Part 50. This effort represents an important step of our commitment towards risk-informing all of our regulations. The process of completely-risk-informing Part 50 will require careful and thoughtful consideration of pertinent issues,' and stakeholder input, as well as a recognition that completion of an effoit of ~
this magnitude and complexity will take time.
I approve the ongoing rulemaking actions identified in Option 1.
I approve implementation of Option 2 which provides a pha' sed approach to risk-informing 10 CFR 50, and the use of industry pilot studies and exemptions to Part 50 as needed for the pilot efforts.
I agree that the Maintenance Rule can be used as a pilot effort in the implementation of -
Option 2, but I do so with a great deal of caution. During the January 11,1999, .
Commission briefing, a number o f issues pertaining to Option 2 were raised. For example, questions were raised regarding implementation (including approach and methodology), quality of PRAs, impact on license renewal, resources needed for development and implementation of Option 2, and pros and cons of using the Maintenance Rule as a pilot vs. addressing all applicable regulations at one time in an integrated fashion. The staff should address the issues raised during the Commission ,
briefing as it prepares to implement the Maintenance Rule pilot effort.
I approve a study of Option 3, and agree with Commissioner Merrifield that the study should proceed in an aggressive fashion. Such a study should determine how best to proceed with risk-informing the remaining sections of Part 50.
. I approve the development of regulatory guides, including clarification guidance with respect to staff authority for applying risk-informed processes in regulatory activities beyond risk-informed licensing actions.
I agree that risk-informed implementation of Part 50 should be voluntary for licensees.1 also believe, at this' time, that once the risk-informed alternative has been chosen by
~ the licensee, it do so in its entirety; selective implementation within the risk-informed alternative should not be permitted. The Commission, as well as its stakeholders, recognized early in the process that the use of risk-informed approaches could result in a reduction in requirements for certain SSCs that were determined to be of low risk significance, but may also result in additional requirements for_SSCs that were determined to be of high risk significance. The intent of a risk-informed regulatory approach was not to provide an avenue to utilize risk-informed regulation only where it resulted in significant savings or reduction in burden, but to provide a mechanism to i
utilize and integrated, comprehensive, risk-informed approach to operation and regulation.
I support staffs recommendation to continue with the present rulemaking effort on 10 CFR 50.65, consistent with the short-term actions delineated in Commissioner's Diaz's vote. It is my belief that the effect of a reduction in the scope of the rule as articulated in Commissioner Diaz's Short-term Action 2(b) can be achieved in the short-term via changes to guidance documents or minor scope revision, followed in the longer term by a rulemaking that addresses final scope revisions to the Maintenance Rule.
Finally, while moving towards a risk-informed regulatory framework, the staff should keep in mind that the use of quantitative risk analyses may not be appropriate for all applications, and therefore, should not be force-fit into areas that are not amenable to such an approach.
)
)
4 I
l l
4 l
l NOTATION VOTE l
RESPONSE SHEET l TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary l l
FROM: COMMISSIONER DIAZ
)
I
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-300 - OPTIONS FOR RISK-INFORMED J REVISIONS TO 10 CFR PART 50 " DOMESTIC !
LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES" Approved x Disapproved Abstain f
Not Participating _
l COMMENTS: l l
See attached comments.
A SIGNATUREV ~
f February 8, 1999 DKiE Entered on "AS" Yes x No 49ce nocc9~4&
Commissioner Diaz' Comments on SECY-98-300 Background and Rationale A rational, informed, state-of-the-art de'inition of adequate protection of public health and safety for reactors requires the establishment of an operational safety envelope. Because ofits complex nature, the operational safety envelope cannot be defined by a line or a threshold. The operational safety envelope must be composed of necessary elements of the defense-in-depth philosophy as well as robust risk-informed components in order to provide sufficient safety margins and be consistent with both the NRC's Safety Goal Policy Statement and the PRA Policy Statement.
PRA methodology and - more importantly - its application, is fundamentally an integral process, more so than the deterministic models that make up most of the NRC's regulations. They both have errors and uncertainties; however, PRA has the advantage for risk decision-making since errors are less important when relative values are used. The long standing complaint that the benefits of 25 years of investing ratepayers' money in PRA has not paid off is due, I believe, to the failure to integrate risk methods into our regulatory fabric, and to the lack of a commitment on our part to apply the risk-informed results - a chicken and egg proposition. In other words, for risk-informed applications to " succeed" fully (i.e., enhance safety and/or reduce unnecessary burden), they need to be integral components of the dominant regulatory process.
Undoubtedly, over the past 25 years, there have been singular successes (e.g., ATWS, SBO, Generic issue Prioritization and recent risk-informed license amendments). However, I submit that these successful but limited efforts yielded few benefits because they were isolated; and l that they were few because they were driven by our need to respond to acute single issues.
Until recent years, the state of the "know-how" and the state of the regulations did not support the propagation of risk-informed methods throughout the regulatory fabric: they now do. I ;
believe we have an historic opportunity to employ a more holistic regulatory approach using i established methodologies and processes to provide the regulatory basis for risk-informed ;
decision-making that will yield substantial benefits both in terms of enhanced safety and reduction in unnecessary burden. This is a " win-win" situation not only for the industry and the NRC, but for the ratepayers and the nation as well.
Safety performance of the structures, systems and components (SSCs)is the focus of baseline regulatory requirements for design, operation, testing and maintenance. Robust risk-informed reactor analyses and rules are also focused on the assessment of " risk," and the inferred
" safety" of SSCs' performance. The staff concludes in SECY-98-300 that, to risk inform Part 50, it is fat necessary to establish the definitions of " safety," their relationship to " risk" and to make changes to the overall scope of SSCs " requiring special treatment." I agree; however, as outlined below, I propose to add specificity to these efforts.'
'The GAO in its February 4,1999, testimony before the Subcommittee on Clean Air, l Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, states that "[i]t is critical that NRC clearly articulate how the various initiatives will help achieve the goals set out in the 1995 policy statement."
4
-2
/
Specific Comments
. I offer the following concurrences, changes and specific reconimendations regarding the proposals in SECY-98-300:
- 1. Policy issues:
e I agree that risk-informed implementation of Part 50 should be voluntary and that selective implementation within the new risk-informed rules should not be -
allowed. However, this should not preclude the use of risk-informed attematives
~ in the existing regulations. The staff should provide recommendations on potential attematives in implementing risk-informed Part 50 without complicating NRC's oversight.
o I support utilization of industry pilot plant studies with selected exemptions to Part 50.
e I agree to modifying the scope of the Maintenance Rule, as outlined under Requested Actions below, as a first and necessary step to risk-inform all of Part 50.
e I agree that the staff should provide clarification of its authority for applying risk-informed approaches in regulatory activities beyond risk-informed licensing actions. This clarification should be submitted for Commission approval.
- 2. ; Requested Actions
- o. I approve continuation of the rulemaking actions identified in Option 1, with the exception of the treatment of 50.65 (see below).
e The Maintenance Rule (50.85) rulemaking should be made risk-informed, consistent with present "know-how", with the following components:
Short term actions a) Change the 50.65 (a)(4) paragraph in the proposed rule (SECY-98-165) to conform exactly with the SRM for SECY-97-173 by deleting the added, ambiguous phrase, "or configurations that would degrade performance of safety functions to an unacceptable levol." Define " risk-significant configurations" consistent with the use of the term in Section 2.3 in RG 1.177, "An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-informed Decisionmaking:
Technical Specifications," and more specifically, as it pertains to the Configuration Risk Management Program outlined in Section 2.3.7.1 in
. RG 1.177.
b)- Reduce the scope of the rule, using a risk-informed approach that focuses on safety, by eliminating those SSCs clearly at or below " low risk-significance." The staff should interact with stakeholders to identify those SSCs that can be easily eliminated.
g .
3 The significance of this activity should not be underestimated because risk-informing the scope of the Maintenance Rule is essential to risk-informing Part 50 and.should be completed prior to any other scoping of
- SSCs. Risk-informing the scope of the Maintenance Rule will send a clear and credible message that the Commission is committed, on a priority basis, to risk-informing those regulations that are amenable to risk assessment and are most pertinent to the creation of a risk-informed Part 50.
The staff should present a proposed rule for Commission approval on a) and b) above by May 28,1999.
Final scooe revisions c) The staff should submit to the Commission a Rulemaking Plan2 to finalize the revision of the Maintenance Rule scope. To provide proper risk-informed treatment of the SSCs, the Rulemaking Plan should address three categories of risk significance: those "high risk-significant" SSCs requiring highest levels of performance goals and monitoring and those
" medium risk-significant" SSCs requiring graded level of monitoring and preventive maintenance. These two categories of SSCs should be captured in the Maintenance Rule. The third category, the " low risk-significant" SSCs requiring no monitoring, should be kept outside the scope of the Maintenance Rule.
I believe that the truly "high risk-significant' and ' low risk-significant" SSCs can be easily identified. Those " medium risk-significant' SSCs comprise the difficult choices; these can only be risk-ranked within the context of a more rigorous examination of SSCs.
- The staff should submit this Rulemaking Plan to the Commission by December 10,1999.
e I approve a combined Option 2 and 3 for risk informing Part 50, with a phased-in l approach closely resembling the staff recommendations, with the specific changes outlined below.
i I
8 As stated in NUREG/BR-0053, Rev.4, " Regulations Handbook," a rulemaking plan ;
I defines the regulatory problem that is to be resolved through rulemaking. It includes, among other considerations, a legal analysis, resource and schedule requirements, and the level of public participation. ;
4 4
Short term actions a) Consistent with the staff recommendations outlined in Option 2, the staff should establish an " Action Plan"8, with appropriate milestones, to issue a new Appendix to Part 50 " Risk-informed Regulatory Criteria"-
capturing in one document those changes to the scope of systems, structures and components requiring special treatment in Part 50. The staff should address in this Plan those changes to Part 50, including portions of Appendices A and B, proposed by NEl on August 28,1998, (under the Risk-informed, Performance-based Pilot Project) and subsequently presented by the staff to the Commission in the September j 2,1998, Commission meeting. i l
This new Appendix would establish an attemative risk-informed regulatory i regime, and provide a clear choice to licensees: keep the treatment of l SSCs as in the original Part 50 or, voluntarily, use all the risk-informed )
SSC criteria in the new Appendix, plus the remaining requirements of Part
- 50. This Plan should embody the concepts of the seven comerstones of the new inspection, assessment and enforcement processes and thereby provide a solid regulatory foundation for those processes.
The staff should submit this Action Plan to the Commission by May 28,1999, with a rulemaking plan to follow by December 10,1999. )
Final Part 50 modifications b) As proposed under Option 3, the staff should provide recommendations to the Commission on how to modify all the pertinent components of Part 50 that can and should be risk-informed for consistency with the regulatory framework being established. The staff should ensure that their recommendations resolve any inconsistencies with other provisions of our -
regulations, especially Parts 52 and 54. The staff should include in its package the recommended approach to develop a revised set of design-basis events based on risk significance. . In this regard, the staff should also recommend how best to implement the voluntary risk-informed regulatory regime, thus satisfying the needs of the stakeholders.
The staff should submit the recommendation package to the Commission by January 28, 2000, a rulemaking plan by June 30,2000, with expected finalimplementation of a fully risk-informed Part 50 by June 28,2002.
l 8 As stated in NRR Office Letter 504, an action plan is appropriate for resolution of
" safety significant and complex issues " It should include but not limited to a description of the issue, proposed actions, schedule and milestones, priority, and resources.
i l
l l
p, .
5 Since the above is an ambitious program, I recommend that the work outlined in a) and b) be accomplished by a dedicated NRC task force focused on risk-informing Part 50 and meeting the proposed milestones.
I recommend that the Commission separately determine how to allocate the resources for this work because resource availability and its efficient use is a key question. A holistic approach
. may be more resource intensive at first, but it should achieve substantial savings in the long term, and it is a more effective use of resources when compared to a piecemeal, protracted program.'
The course set out above with its recommended schedule is a demanding yet practical roadmap to implement the comerstones of risk-informed reactor regulation within 25 years of the TMI accident and its lessons, it will establish an enhanced safety focus that is consistent with risk-informed regulation and will provide the requisite operational margins. It will also assure adequate protection of public health and safety without undue burden for the present and for a new generation of advanced nuclear power plants. ,
! 1
'The GAO in its February 4,1999, testimony before the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, states, conceming implementation of a risk-informed approach, that "NRC has developed an implementation plan,...that is a catalog of about 150 separate tasks and milestones for their completion."
r 1 NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER DIAZ
SUBJECT:
. SECY-98-300 - OPTIONS FOR RISK-INFORMED REVISIONS TO 10 CFR PART 50 " DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES" -
Approved X e. Disapproved Abstain Not Participating _
COMMENTS:
Please see attached supplemental vote, l
i SIGNATOM8 /
%\ A %
\
I DATE Entered on "AS" Yes I No l
i
~
- 2.^ Vw Jcs? tp;g?
.o ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM COMaa!SS!ONER DLal ON SECY-98 w)
I am supplementing my vote of February 8,1999, on the Maintenance Rule rulemaking activities. Since issuance of SECY-98-300 (December,1998), additional significant information' has been received from the staff, stakeholders, and from individual Commissioner's deliberations. This information has added focus and definition to the SRM for SECY-97-173 (December,1997), and SECY-98-300.
The scope of the assessment requirement proposed under paragraph 50.65(a)(4) needs to be restricted to risk-significant structures, systems or components (SSCs). An unbound scope would not be compatible with our on-going risk-informed oversight and other activities. It would dived licensee and NRC resources to areas with little risk-significance and could actually be deleterious to the protection of public health and safety.
Therefore, I approve continuation of the expeditious revision of 50.65 (a)(3)/(a)(4), if and only if:
e the requisite ("should" to "shall") assessment of plant configurations is restricted to risk-significant structures, systems or components; and
- the requisite assessment of plant configurations is conducted using the methods stated in the SRM for SECY-97-173 8 The assessment should be performed " commensurate with complexity of the maintenance configuration."'
l if the conditions provided above are not adopted, I cannot support the proposed configuration assessment requirement to be effected by changing "should" to "shall".
Regarding the scope of the rule, I approve changing the existing scope of 50.65 to conform to the risk-informed regulatory framework advocated by the Commission, in the near term, the staff should develop a rulemaking plan to risk-inform the scope of the Maintenancs Rule on an aggressive schedule. This rulemaking should be'a priority activity and should give due consideration of the Commission objectives and policies, including those recently reaffirmed in testimony to the U.S. Senate. The proposed rulemaking plan should be submitted to the Commission no later than September 15,1999.
All other statements in my vote of February 8,1999 remain unchanged.
' For example, I refer to the Commission briefing on January 11,19 , and to the presentations to the ACRS on April 8,1999.
"" [T]here can be severalinputs to the determination of risk significance of plant configurations, including PRA, deterministic analysis, considerations of defense in depth, and qualitative measures."
8 Staff presentation to the ACRS on April 8,1999.