ML20217Q823
| ML20217Q823 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/09/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| COMSAJ-97-008, COMSAJ-97-8, NUDOCS 9709030385 | |
| Download: ML20217Q823 (3) | |
Text
s i
bfbf..
.i I
j## *%
UNITED STATES 3
g*
?+.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
COMSAJ-97-008 WASHINGTON, D.C. 205$1HXX)1 0
k..... f' July 9,1997 RELEASED TO THE PDR CHAIRMAN Q ]f
[g l
'dato '
initials l
MEMORANDUM TO:
Cmnissioner Dicus Cmmissioner Diaz Comissioner McGaffigan FROM:
SUBJECT:
DISCUSSION ON SAFETY AND COM IANCE Attached is a revised discussion on safety and cmipliance.
I believe it captures the sentiments ex)ressed on this topic by various members of the Comission, incorporates tie comments received on an earlier version, and is consistent W relevant previous correspondence.
In addition, based on a preliminary n.Jw of this document. the Office of General Counsel has no legal objection.
Please review this final version.
I intend to ask SECY to circulate this discussion to the staff for information and use, and for incorporation into staff guidance as appropriate.
SECY please track.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
J. Callan, EDO J. Funches, CFO A. Galante. CIO K. Cyr, OGC SECY l
e m;;.y 9
/
kkkkhkkh k i
9709030385 970709 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
~
Safety and Comoliance As conmonly understood, safety means freedom from exposure to danger, or protection from harm.
In a practical sense, an activity is deemed to be safe if the perceived risks are judged to be acceptable.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, establishes " adequate protection" as the tandard of safety on which NRC regulation is based.
In the context of NRC regulation, safety means providing reasonable assurance that potentially adverse health effects of licensed activities are unlikely for any individual, and are an insignificant fraction of health risks for society as a whole, in a modern context, safety is informed through the Conmission's Safety Goals and their cuantitative health objectives and subsidiary objectives (i.e., regarding core camage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency (LERF)), Most recently, the concept of reactor safety has been expressed in terms of risk-informed regulation, which integrates the insights of probabilistic risk assessment with more traditional defense-in-depth philosophy and engineering safety margins, The definition of compliance is much simpler, Compliance simply means meeting applicable regulatory requirements, What is the nexus between compliance and safety?
1.
Safety is the fundamental regulatory objective, and compliance with NRC requirements plays a fundamental role in giving the NRC confidence that safety is being maintained.
NRC requirements, including technical specifications, other license conditions, orders, and regulations, have been designed to ensure adequate protection--which corresponds to "no undue risk to public health and safety"--through acceptable design, construction, operation, maintenance, modification, and quality assurance measures.
In the context of risk-informed regulation, compliance plays a crucial role in ensuring that assumptions used in underlying risk and engineering analyses remain valid.
2.
Adequate protection is oresumotively assured by compliance with NRC requirements, Circumstances may arise. however, where new information reveals, for example, that an unforeseen hazard exists or that there is a substantially greater potential for a known one to occur.
In such situations, the NRC has the statutory authority to require licensee action above and beyond existing regulations to maintain the level of protection nresumed by the regulations as necessary to avoid undue risk to public he'lth and safety.
The NRC is also empowered to impose additional safety requirements beyond those needed for adequate protection where it concludes that the actions are necessary to minimize danger to life or property.
The NRC also has discretion to permit continued operations--despite the existence of noncompliance--where the noncompliance is not significant undue risk to puf)ective and does not, in this circumstance, pose an from a risk persa lic health and safety.
When non-compliances occur, the NRC must evaluate the degree of risk posed by that non-compliance to determine if specific inmediate action is required.
Where needed to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, the NRC may demand imn diate licensee action, up to and including a shutdown.
In
2 addition, the NRC must evaluate the non-compliance both in terms of its direct safety and regulatory significance and by assessing whether it is part of a pattern of non-compliance (i.e,, the degree of pervasiveness) to determine the appropriate action to be taken, including refraining from taking any action, taking s)ecific enforcement action, issuing orders, or providing input to otler regulatory actions or assessments, such as increased oversight (e.g., the Watch List).
3.
Where requirements exist that the NRC concludes have no safety benefit, the NRC can and should take action to modify or remove such requirements from the regulations.
Requirements that are duplicative, unnecessary, or unnecessarily burdensome can actually have a negative safety impact.
They also can tend to create an inappropriate NRC and licensee focus on
" safety versus compliance" debates. As the Commission states in its Principles of Good Regulation, "There should be a clear nexus between regulations and agency goals and objectives, whether explicitly or implicitly stated."
4.
Since some requirements are more important to safety than others, the Comission should use a risk-informed approach wherever possible when adding, removing, or modifying NRC regulations, as well as when applying NRC resources to the oversight of licensed activities (this includes enforcement).
Based on the accumulation of o)erating experience and the increasing sophistication of risk analysis, t1e NRC should continue to refine its regulatory ap3 roach in a manner that enhances and reaffirms our fundamental' safety o)jective.
These principles describe the nexus between compliance and safety.
The misperception that compliance and safety are somehow incompatible arises when the principles just outlined are not understood or wrongly applied. When understood and applied correctly, the result should be a consistent, credible regulatory approach--as apolied to licensing, inscection, enforcement, performance assessment processes, and rulemaking.
J