ML20248B198
| ML20248B198 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/24/1998 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248B119 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-015-C, SECY-98-15-C, NUDOCS 9806010211 | |
| Download: ML20248B198 (2) | |
Text
. . . .
NOT ATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-015 - FINAL GENERAL REGULATORY GUIDE AND STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR RISK-INFORMED REGULATION OF POWER REACTORS Approved [ Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
b ['g ),.
SIGNATURE ,~ u v ReleaseVote / 2c/
M,/N DATW l
Withhold Vote / /
Entered on "AS" Yes X No E0doNkES)$b
Commissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY-98-015 I approve the publication of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174 and Standard Review Plan (SRP) Chapter 19 witi, certain modifications.
First. I agree with Commissioner Diaz's comments. I particularly see a need for periodic review and update of the RG and SRP in light of experience. I am concerned that in addition to the current licensing basis issue. there may be other issues listed in Table A-1 where the staff's proposed resolution of stakeholder comments may be inadequate and may negatively impact this initiative. Items 23 and 42, for example, involve stakeholder concerns over the burdens perceived to be associated with monitoring and documentation. If problems arise with these or other issues as the RG and SRP are utilized, the
- taff should report them to the Commission and. if necessary, seek policy guidance on how to resolve them.
Finally. I continue to be concerned about how the SRP and RG deal with acceptance guidelines for CDF and LERF. as expressed previously in my vote on SECY-97-287. The Region I - Region 11 bourdary should. perhaps, not be a horizontal line, but should allow a plant with a very low CDF to potentially 4 provided the total CDF remains well have changes in CDF which are above 10 below 10 I also believe that the version of the charts used to7 brief ACRS last year which defined a fourth ~ negligible ~ region (below 10 in a CDF and 10-8 in 6 LERF') within the "very small~ Region III might have better conveyed staff intentions than the final version of the charts included in the SRP and RG. I am not asking that these issues be reconsidered at this time. Instead.
I await the real experience with the RG and SRP to see if these or other concerns are validated.
l l
l
gf Mouq'o "
UNITED STATES
,y" -
n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D C 20555-0001 g
e ; ,j May 20, 1998 k . . . . . ,g#
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO: L. Jose h Callan Exec iv irector for Operations 9t[ ry FROM: Johnp. Hoyle, er
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-98-015 - FINAL GENERAL REGULATORY GUIDE AND STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR RISK-INFORMED REGULATION OF POWER REACTORS Tha Commission has approved publication of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1174 and Standard Review Plan (SRP) Chapter 19 in the Federal Reaister using the announcement provided as Attachment 1 to the SECY paper. The staff should ensure that the documents reflect Commission direction on policy issues contained in SECY-97-287. The staff should remove reference to the current licensing basis (CLB) from RG 1.174 and SRP Chapter 19. The staff should replace the term "CLB" in SECY-98-015 with the term " licensing basis."
In the SRP Chapter 19, page 19-3, paragraph 1, add " insights" at the end of the first sentence.
(SECY Suspense: 6/30/98)
(EDO)
The staff should perform annual reviews of RG 1.174 and SRP Chapter 19 and incorporate experience gained from risk-infcrmed pilot programs when revisions are necessary. The periodic review and update of the RG and SRP should be tracked in the PRA Implementation Plan. The staff should closely monitor industry initiatives to develop processes (e.g., peer review, cross comparison, or certification program) to assess the scope, level of detail, and quality of PRAs used in risk-informed regulatory applications to determine if NRC reviewers can benefit from additional specific guidance in how to assess the quality of PRAs submitted for review. Where appropriate, such measures should be incorporated in future revisiore to the RG and SRP. Where problems arise during application of the RG and SRP (such as items 23 and 42 in Table A-1 of Attachment 6 where stakeholder have concerns over the burdens perceived tu be associated with monitoring and documentation), the staff should report them to
- he Commission and, if necessary, seek policy guidance on how to resolve them.
(EDO) (SECY Suspense: 6/30/99) 1 SECY NOTE: THIS SRM, SECY-98-015, AND THE COMMISSION VOTING RECORD I CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
<wa w
. . +
f cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus 1- Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan OGC CIO CFO OCA OlG Omce Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail) i 1- PDR DCS l
h.