ML20217D682
| ML20217D682 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/21/1998 |
| From: | Dicus G NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217D663 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-97-205-C, NUDOCS 9803300155 | |
| Download: ML20217D682 (4) | |
Text
-
N OT ATIO N VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle Secretary of the Commission FROM: COMMISSIONER DICUS
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-205 -INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION OF RESULTS FROM RECENT LESSONS-LEARNED REVIEWS Approved xlin oart Disapproved xlin oart Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMEN7S:
See attached.
AL Oo a r Q SidblXTURE Release Vote / X /
~ ~ ~
Mmm cl i 199P Q DATIE Withhold Vote / /
Entered on "AS" Yes Y No
- "R 88Mi 7488
- CORRESPONDENCE PDR
'1% USpgj$5
Cmr. Dicus Comments on SECY-97-205 l am strongly supportive of the NRC's movement towards increased usage of risk insights within NRC's regulatory activities. However, I am also of the opinion that one
< should proceed cautiously and incrementally with respect to changes in our current regulatory framework so as to ensure stability in the process, and so that policy issues, ramifications (both legal and technical), costs and benefits, and effectiveness in the changes can all be carefully considered prior to committing to take the next incremental step.
Thus with respect to the issue before us, I am of the opinion that the long-term aspects of Option 5 are inappropriate to commit to at this time. In my view, it is important that the current process be stabilized. Much has been achieved through the issuance of Supplement 1 to GL-91-18, and much more can be achieved at relatively low cost
= through the implementation of a combination of Options 1 and 2.
10 CFR 50.59 is a process, and the scope of information that must be considered when utilizing this process needs to be better defined. The approaches discussed in Options 1 and 2 can incorporate risk-informed elements that will achieve the improvements sought, without a significant resource commitment by the staff or industry. Therefore, I approve the 10 CFR 50.59 rulemaking which would allow minimal increases in risk.
While accepting the use of quantitative tools to assess such increases, use of these tools should not supplant the use of qualitative analyses in regulatory decision-making.
The staff should fully explore the role of the SAR and other docurr, ants with respect to their purpose (i.e., historical, informationaI, licensing basis), if staff ultimately determines the SAR to be the pertinent document for which changes to the facility must be evaluated under 10 CFR 50.59, staff should provide guidance on scope, content, and updating of the SAR.
In addition,' based upon whatever changes are made to 10 CFR 50.59, conforming ,
changes to the Enforcement Policy should also be made. In order to ehhance regulatory stability during the period prior to the rule change, staff should also consider the use of enfordement discretion, as appropriate, for those circumstances that are clearly not safety significant and do not pose regulatory concems which warrant elevated attention. Staff should provide the Commission with a discussion regarding the specifics of the nature and types of situations for which discretion will be considered.
I believe that it is premature, at this time, to commit to the activities in Option 5 related to the further transition to a risk-informed framework, in particular, the activities related l
to an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR).. The costs and benefits of that degree of transition is not well defined and the need to commit to that activity at this time has not been demonstrated.~ Currently, the staff has embarked on several pilot applications using risk-informed methods, is still attempting to understand more fully the
! technical and legal implications of incorporating risk into our regulatory structure, and has not yet finalized much of its risk-informed guidance. I believe it is more prudent to first gain lessons-learned from the pilot applications, fully explore the ramifications, liabilities and potential outcomes of a further transition to risk-informed regulatory framework, and observe the effectiveness of the Options 1 and 2 actions, before committing scarce NRC resources on an ANPR and other long-term actions associated with Option 5. Once these activities have been completed, both the staff and the Commission should be in a better position to determine whether other regulatory activities are warranted, and if so, to what degree.
In summary, I approve Options 1 and 2, which are essentially the three remaining short-term actions of Option 5, and disapprove the remaining (long-term) actions of Options 5.
- 1. I approve the staff's proposal to improve 10 CFR 50.59. I also approve the sllowance of " minimal" increases in the probability or consequences of accidents.
While accepting the use of quantitative tools to assess such increases, the use of these tools should not supplant the use of qualitative analyses in regulatory decision-making. I encourage the staff to endorse those portions of NEl 96-07 it considers to be appropriate.
- 2. If staff ultimately determines the SAR to be the pertinent document for which changes to the facility must be evaluated under 10 CFR 50.59, I approve the staff's proposal to provide guidance on scope, content, and updating of the SAR.
In addition, staff should be mindful that any changes to 10 CFR 50.59 or the SAR (or any document (s) staff determines to be within the scope of 10 CFR 50.59) should be compatible for permitted decommissioning activities that fall under Part 50,' as well as operating plant activities.
- 3. I approve the staff's proposal to revise as appropriate, the Enforcement Policy, consistent with the changes made to 10 CFR 50.59. In order to both enhance regulatory stability during the period prior to the rule change and to better focus limited staff resources on safety.significant issues, staff should also use enforcement discretion, as appropriate, for those circumstances that are clearly not safety significant and do not pose regulatory concerns which warrant elevated attention. Staff should provide the Commission with a discussion regarding the specifics of the nature and types of situations for which discretion will be considered.
L
3
- 4. 'I disapprove the long-term actions of Option 5 and of any resource commitment to an ANPR or other actions which would further the agency's transition to a risk-informed regulatory framework beyond what will be accomplished in items 1 through 3 above.
The staff should be cognizant of 10 CFR 50.59-type language that may be found in other parts of the regulations, notably 10 CFR Parts 72 and 76. Changes proposed for 10 CFR part 50.59 should be proposed for those other parts of the regulations simultaneously, as well as corresponding changes to the Enforcement Policy.
l j
O