ML20217Q866
| ML20217Q866 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/18/1997 |
| From: | Diaz N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Mcgaffigan E, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9709030417 | |
| Download: ML20217Q866 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _
c
.#g n:"%,"
........................i UNITED STATES RELEASED TO THE PDR
/*
~
NUCLE AR RECULATORY COMMISSION.
i g
f WA SHINGTON, D.C. 20665 l
( )
{
g,,,,,/
dato initials COMMISSIONER l
July 18,1997 MEMORANDUM TO:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner McGaffigan FROM:
Commissioner Diaz J
l
SUBJECT:
COMSAJ-97 008 -- DISCUSSION ON SAFETY AND COMPl. LANCE In response to COMSAJ 97-008 and our futther conversations on this topic, I am providing a brief summaty' of my views on how licensees and the NRC staff understand and implement the concepts of safety and compliance. I believe that the understanding and implementation of the terms safety and compliance have continuous impact on our oversight functicus. I am also providing pathways toward clarification of the concepts. I support your actions to clarify this important subject at the licensee-NRC interface and encourage yo'tr use of these thoughts to enhance the subject paper.
Perception Safety and compliance, as used and understood by both licensees and NRC staff at nuclear power plants OPPs), can overlap in purpose and application, but are differ it in their impact oli plant operability and in the manner by which they are handled in inspection and enforcement. All safety issues are compliance issues. On the e.ther hand, compliance isn es could be safety issues, but many are not. Practitioners at NPPs call i
compliance issues the ;c failures to meet regulatory requirements that are mostly administrative or procedural and are not safety issues pj:us.
A safety issue is deemed to exist whenever the probability or potential l
i
'One specific recommendation is to delete the last sentence of the first paragraph of #2
/
Y since it could be misunderstood as creating yet another mandate' one of minimizing the risk to propeny.
pj _f, (j,g 7g g
x
/ d5 W !82 TRP" llliRltJIHLil Hli Aufcn,tfng'/,
~
j CORRESPONDENCE PDR o
a t
2 consequences of a plant condition or event reduces the established level for adequate protection of the public health and safety.
A compliance issue is deemed to exist whenever there is a failure to meet regulatory requirements. Currently, it could or could not be a safety issue;it could or could not result in undue risk to public health and safety.
Implementation The NRC requires that licensees meet reguiatory requirements, regardless of whether they are deemed " safety" or " compliance."
For nuclear plant operability considerations, it is recognized that safety and compliance are implemented as follows, although they are frequently misunderstood:
The Commission's regulations and adjudicatory decisions on prompt remedial action, including shutdown if necessaiy, are not based on a substantial compliance standard.
The Commission's deelslons on prompt remedial action, including shutdown if uccessary, are made on the determination of whether facility operation poses an undue risk to the public health and safety.
Nonetheless, substantial non-compliance, including recurring non-conformances and lack ofimplementation of corrective actions, can lead to the determination that plant control processes are no longer adequate to ensure protection of the public health and safety.
A failure to perform nn important to-safety function is likely to increase radiological risk, or pose an undue risk to public health and safety.
In contrast, a failure to comply with a requirement that lies outside the important-to safety set of functions and processes is unlikely to result in increased radiological risk in and ofitself.
Clarification i
l Ideally, all cornpliance issues should have a clear nexus to safety. However, the process to achieve this stage is going to be long and arduous; inhed, it might never be achieved fully. Therefore, the NRC should begin to promptly rernove those regulatory requirements that have nothing to do with safety in the full sense of the word. We must 4
a
-n-
,.n,
~. - -,. - -
i i f Y
I 3
i 1
-work toward establishing a set of requirements where most of the compliance issues have i
a clear nexus to safety.
It is important that licensees and staff recognize the relationship between safety and I
compliance but are fully cognizant of the differences in their risk significance. Issues
'should be tested against the overarching mandate of ensuring adequate protection of the i
public health and safety using risk-informed technologies for evaluating radiological consequences. Current state-of the art methodologies can be used to ',eparate non safety j
significant compliance issues from safety related compliance issues. As I suggested at j
the Regulatory Information Conference, once you have sorted out the risk-critical issues,
4 from the important to safety and compliance issues, increased clarity and consistency can a
be brought to the regulatory process.
. I strongly believe that safety an 3 compliance cannot be placed fu'ly in the same bin today.
The existing oversight process is not able to make the informed choices needed to apply i
i NRC resources to the most safety significant activities or events if a separation is nN l
effected at the point of application, i.e., the licensee NRC interface.
L i
j As the next step, I recommend that we select one or two requirements and apply the concepts elucidated in our memoranda to illustrate their application.
1 p
i cc:
[
SECY EDO n
l t
L i
l
.,m..,
...,,__n.,.
,vr,,-+,w-4
.-ne..,.,,,.-._.,.
.,,m,.n,.,__,,..n.
n n n,-
,.e,-.-,~,--e,.,
n.,
.,,sen,-_,._n,i
..