ML20217D670
| ML20217D670 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/05/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217D663 | List: |
| References | |
| FACA, SECY-97-205-C, NUDOCS 9803300149 | |
| Download: ML20217D670 (4) | |
Text
-
NOT ATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary 1
FROM:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-205 -INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION OF RESULTS FROM RECENT LESSONS-LEARNED REVIEWS w/ comments Approved x
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
Shir ey Ann Jackson SIGNATURE 1/5/98 Release Vote / x /
DATE Withhold Vote /
/
Entered on "AS" Yes x_ No' 388 88AM
- 882*
CORRESPONDENCE PDR qvis30s/Q
Chairman Jackson's Comments on SECY-97-205 I commend the staff for their discussion of the various options in SECY-97-205, " Integration and Evaluation of Results from Recent 1.essons-Learned Reviews." Although I was disappointed that the paper did not present draft mark-ups of, for example, potential changes to 10 CFR 50.59, the paper effectively discussed nuances in interpretations that have troubled the staff and the industry. Since the staff is continuing their analysis of various wording changes _ to the rule, in preparing my vote on this important issue I have purposefully avoided proposing new language for 10 CFR 50.59. I have strayed from this position only to the extent mary to make my preferences known to the staff.
I approve the staff's proposal to develop the framework for risk-informed regulatory processes as described in Option 5. I direct the staff to submit this framework, together with proposed milestones, an Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking, and budget estimates and resource impacts for Commission Review by April 30,1998.
As a first step in this process, I direct the staff to submit a proposed rulemaking package for 10 CFR 50.59, along the lines of Option 1 of the subiect SECY, for Commission approval by February 27,1998. Included with this paper should be a proposal conceming enforcement policy revisions for 10 CFR 50.59.
The staff paper due April 30,1998 should include a series of milestones by which the Commission will chart its course in its move to more risk-informed regulatory processes. As part of this paper, the staff should evaluate the benefits of including a new regulation in 10 CFR Part 50, that discusses how the Commission uses risk information in its decision-making (thereby providing the necessary definition to risk-informed, performance-based regulation and serving as a template that provides a " defensible" backbone to challenges in the application of the proper use of risk information).
The following are specific comments for inclusion in the staff's Option I short-term rulemaking for 50.59:
1)
The staff, and the industry separately, have acknowledged that in evaluating
" changes, tests, and experiments" - they necessarily review more than what is con *=iad in the safety analysis report in order to assess the impact of changes on equipment reliability, input parameters and assumptions of the accident analyses and their effects on the frequency of initiating events and accident consequences. In assessing proposed changes, tests and experiments, licensees typically review the FSAR and related commitments found in the licensing documents and correspondence with the NRC to determine if there is an"unreviewed safety question" or whether
'there is a need to involve the NRC because the proposed action conflicts with an earlier commitment made to the NRC. Accordingly, the wording of 50.59 should be changed to clearly show the expanded scope that has been recognized through proper implementation of this rule in practice. The proper scope is based on the uses of 50.59 and the information base that the process needs to draw upon. The information
2 base should be clearly defined, referenced in the rule, and should include the updated FSAR, the SERs developed over the life of the facility to address various safety issues, and docketed commitments having safety and regulatory significance.
The most logical approach would be to replace the phrase " safety analysis report" with
" current licensing basis." If the staff proceeds with this preference, they should define the phrase " current licensing basis" in 10 CFR 50.2. I understand that this approach would necessitate modifying the Part 54 definition of " current licensing basis" for consistency, to underscore the Commission's interest in ensuring that safety and regulatory significant commitments made by the licensees are included in the scope of material to be reviewed when making changes to the facility and in the context of license renewal decisions. In summary, however, the staff should ensure that no matter what approach is selected for the short-term rulemaking, the proposed rulemaking package should include changes to the rule that clarify the " scope" issue as discussed above.
2)
The staff should provide criteria that prohibit a licensee from making changes to the facility (without prior NRC approval) in cases where the probability of adverse consequences (e.g., equipment malfunctions, accidents) h increased.
3)
The staff should make it clear that, in considering the effects of a change on accident consequences, prior NRC approval should be required if previously reviewed estimates of consequences og increased.
J 4)
The staff should continue with Commitment Management-related actions described in the subject SECY.
Other short-term actions should include:
1)
The staff should proceed with the previously approved short-term FSAR Update action under the provisions of Option 2 (Note: These actions are to be consistent with the current Commission guidance provided in the SRM for SECY-97-036, dated May 20, 1997, regarding staff action to implement 10 CFR 50.71(e) to ensure that FSARs are properly updated.) The staff should recognize that if the option " current licensing basis" is chosen to resolve the " scope" issue addressed above - the need for an all-inclusive FSAR as a mechanism to define the scope of regulatory control becomes secondary to a current licensing basis that is easily retrieved. Staff guidance on FSAR I
updating should incorporate this idea of the FSAR being a subset of the CLB and should start by defining the purpose of the updated FSAR.
2)
The staff should proceed with short-term Design Basis issue action under the provisions of Option 2.
3)
The staff should consider the feasibility of the Option 2 provision for revising the
3 means by which an unreviewed safety question is reviewed and approved. This consideration should first focus on the legal implications of a simplified process.
)
O i