ML20153G969

Notation Vote Response Sheet with Comments Re SECY-98-171, Pr on 10CFR50,52 & 72 Requirements Concerning Changes,Tests & Experiments & Staff Recommendations on Changes to Other Regulation & Enforcement Policy

ML20153G969
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/02/1998
From:	Diaz N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20153G885	List: ML20153G881 ML20153G937 ML20153G969 ML20153G971
References
FACA, SECY-98-171-C, NUDOCS 9809300277
Download: ML20153G969 (3)

Text

._ - -_ -. . - - - -

NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER DIAZ

SUBJECT:

SECY-98-171 - PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON 10 CFR PARTS 50,52 AND 72 REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING CHANGES, TESTS AND EXPERIMENTS AND STAFF l RECOMMENDATIONS ON CHANGES TO OTHER REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT POLICY in part in part Approved X

/O Disapproved X /'

/--7 ->h Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:

See attached comments.

LU W SIGNATURE >

L .b b l u 'l/ , \9 %

DATE i  ;

X Entered on "AS" Yes No sn ' 88g2 ; ggg23 CORRESPONDENCE PDR l

\.

COMMISSIONER DIAZ' COMMENTS ON SECY-98-171 I consider this miemaking effort to be our short term fix for the 50.59 rule, not the longer term risk-informed rule enhancement discussed in SECY-97-205.

I approve the publication of this miemaking package for a 90-day public comment period, contingent upon the additions described in the last paragraph of my comments. I propose that the package also include the Commissioners' votes for public consideration. The purpose of

. issuing the rulemaking package is to expedite rulemaking by opening the process for public comments during the Conunission's continuing deliberation on this matter. It should be made very clear to all stakeholders that publication of the package is an invitation to participate in improving the rulemaking. In fact, I do not agree with several of the proposed positions in this paper, as delineated in my specific comments below.

I agree with the staff's recommendation to remove the reference to "unreviewed safety question" from 50.59 and to make conforming changes in Parts 50, 52, and 72. I also agree with staff's proposal to allow a minimal increase in the probability of occurrence or consequence of an accident or malfunction previously evaluated, and to not allow the creation of an accident of a different type or malfunction of equipment important to safety with a different result than any previously evaluated.

I agree with the ACRS comments in their June 16,1998, letter regarding the definition of

" reduction in margin of safety." Notwithstanding the staff's suggestion of a possible Commission interpretation, the language " altered in a nonconservative manner" can still be interpreted as a de facto "zero increase" standard for the 50.59 criterion on margin of safety.

I believe the risk-informed 50.59 approach suggested in the ACRS letter deserves serious consideration as part of longer term improvements and should be considered in the staff's response, due in February 1999, to the SRM for SECY-97-205.

The current language in 50.59(a)(2)(iii) (" margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification") is, in fact, defined and bounded by the technical specifications.

Therefore, as long as the licensee proposed change, test, or experiment under 50.59 is not in violation of the technical specification requirements, the requisite margin of safety is maintained, and it is possible to eliminate " reduction of margin of safety" from the rule as a condition requiring prior staff approval. This change will eliminate the existing ambiguity in the use of 50.59 for changes with minimal safety significance. This alternative should also be published for public comment; it is consistent with the safety envelope provided by the technical specifications and is a straightforward improvement that will match with the eventual conversion to a risk-informed rule.

I support the staff's recommended changes in the reporting and record keeping requirements relating to 50.59. The enforcement policy and its corresponding implementation guidance should be changed in accordance with the revised 50.59 rule. I recommend that, during the rulemaking period, the enforcement policy be revised to grant discretion (i.e., suspend r

e 2

issuance of Level IV violations) under Section VII.B.6 for those 50.59 violations of little or no safety significance.

I do not agree with the recommended definitions of " facility", " procedures", " reduction in margin of safety", and " tests or experiments." These definitions appear to increase prescriptiveness at the input of the licensees' change process instead of the output, and therefore, are more broad-based than the definitions to date. I believe that these definitions will create more burden for the NRC and licensees, are not consistent with the original intent of the 50.59 rule, i.e., to evaluate whether the licensee proposed changes willi.csuh in inadequate protection of public health and safety, and therefore, are not necessary.

On the other hand, the " accident" in the proposed revisions to 50.59 should be defined. The

" accident of a different type than any previously evaluated" as described in the proposed 50.59(c)(2)(v) should be of the same safety significance as the " accident" in the proposed 50.59(c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(iii). The staff should determine if the anticipated operational transients and the postulated design basis accidents described in the FSAR form a sufficient basis for the 50.59 evaluation.

The staff should continue its interactions with NEI in resolving the differences between the NRC's position on 50.59 implementation guidance and that contained in NEI 96-07. The regulatory guide for 50.59 that endorses a revised NEI 96-07, with exceptions and clarifications, as appropriate, should be developed concurrently with the rulemaking process.

In summary, the staff should proceed with publishing the existing rulemaking package, and concurrently solicit public comment on the following alternatives: 1) eliminate " reduction of margin of safety" as a condition requiring prior staff approval,2) eliminate the broadened i l

definitions of " facility", " procedures", " reduction in margin of safety", and " tests or i

experiments," and 3) clearly define " accident" in the proposed revisions to 50.59. I urge the staff to complete the revised 50.59 rule and the associated regulatory guide by the end of March,1999.

i