ML20217Q862
| ML20217Q862 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/30/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9709030414 | |
| Download: ML20217Q862 (2) | |
Text
p b;
+ pa nou
/
UNITED STATES e.ooe.***...eee..e.6.,a' NUCLEAR REf!ULATORY COMMISSION RELEASED TO THE PDR 1
f y}
!j.
WASHINGTON D.C,20555 e
e K...../
9bll99 DLW date initials e....
J July 30, 1997 MEMORANDUM T0:
Chairman Jackson FROM:
Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
SUBJECT:
COMSAJ-97-008 - DISCUSSION ON SAFE AND' COMPLIANCE I agree with much of the thrust of both COMSAJ-97 008 and Commissioner Diaz's reply.
The Atomic Energy Act directed that " adequate protection" be assured and NRC regulations reflect that standard, generally with some safety margin and with " defense in depth."
In general, compliance with NRC regulations and license conditions is important in assuring safety but, as recognized by the NRC Enforcement Policy, violations of requirements vary greatly in significance.
For example. violation of a safety limit may require immediate shutdown and NRC permission to restart, while a Severity Level IV violation
-may require a licensee written response on planned corrective actions 30 days after issuance of the Notice of Violation and a " minor violation" may require no action of any kind because there is no safety significance to the
- violation.
NRC can impose new requirements (for example, through rulemaking or backfit) when new information reveals that existing requirements are not sufficient to assure " adequate protection." The NRC also has the discretion to permit continued operations when a non-compliance is determined not to degrade the level of safety below that of " adequate protection" and to require the correction of the non-compliance in a timeframe comensurate with the safety.
significance of the non-compliance.
COMSAJ-97-008 3rovides a good discussion on the relationship of compliance and safety, and tie-bullets in the
" Implementation" discussion in Commissioner Diaz's reply provide an excellent sumary.
If either discussion is going to be used in formal Commission papers intended to provide Comission policy guidance or interpretations, however. I believe additional discussion would be required.
-On a couple specific points. I am reluctant to create a new " safety" definition "in the context ~of NRC regulation."
I believe the language in the Atomic Energy Act itself (" adequate protection" and " reasonable assurance")
-and the Commission's published " safety goals" are sufficient in this respect.
O Similarly. I share Comissioner Diaz's concern regarding possible new standards in the area of property risk. On the other hand. I am not ready to embrace Comissioner Diaz's assertion that " current state-of-the-art A
methodologies can be used to separate non-safet significant compliance issues
()%/)
8" w n' %,;i 9709030414 970730 y
a mRames%
> yinn
%\\n\\ggjggy
r 2-t i
from safety-related com)11ance issues" or from risk critical issues."2 We need to try to reduce tie proliferation of-terms and focus on what changes are needed in our enforcement policy, inspection guidance, and regulatory infrastructure to clarify the-nexus between compliance and safety.-
I look forward in the coming months to grappling with these issues as the L
Connission-continues with the PRA Implementation Plan, the various pilot' j-efforts, and the initiatives related to 0S1-12.
i cci Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz M
OGC E00 i
i l
4 n
~
I In this connection, I don't believe that current state-of-the-art 2
methodologies accurately address human-performance issues.or quantify the safety significance of programatic performance problems.
s