ML20199F518
| ML20199F518 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/10/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| SECY-97-168-C, NUDOCS 9802040031 | |
| Download: ML20199F518 (1) | |
Text
n m
~,
, __/,
n n
n n
n n
17
/7-T T~'
o, =
REV1 SED Approve.. The attached comments N
replace my earlier comments on
,/* * *%
(
j
/LE A S o l
- g...../
Shir16 Ann Jackson 10/10/97 RULEMAKING ISSUE RELEASED TO THE PDR 1
d@y LuJ (NEGATIVE CONSENT) date initials a
July 30, 1997 SECY 97 1$$* ********
EDB:
The Comissioners
.F_B.Q!j:
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
ISSUANCE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING PACKAGE FOR SHUTDOWN AND FUEL STORAGE POOL OPERATION PURPOSE:
This paper informs the Comission of the staff's intent to re-issue for public coment a proposed rulemaking package addressing shutdown and fuel storage pool operations at nuclear power plants.
BACKGROUND:
In SECY-94-17.6. the staff sought Comission a coment a 3roposed rule for shutdown and low pproval to issue for public power operation at nuclear power plants.
T1e Comission approved the recuest in the staff requirements memorandum dated September 12, 1994, anc the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register in October 1994. The numerous coments3 received were considered along with Comission guidance regarding the use of a 7
risk-informed, performance-based approach for new regulations. As a result, the staff made significant changes to the proposed rule and regulatory lb q '
~
analysis.
In addition, the staff's studies of spent fuel storage poo;l operationsyJed.to a decision to encompass spent fuel storage pool o)erations b'
in the revised rule. Therefore, the staff intends to again issue tie 4 ' lW]h,s f
rulemaking package for public comment.
L s
t-4 i[
DISCUSSION:
y The staff's revised regulatory analysis considered important safety functions and the controls currently in place to ensure these functions.
For lcw-power o)eration, hot shutdown, and the transition period from hot to cold shutdown, tie revised analysis concludes that for these periods important.
safety functions are protected by existing requirements'in standarrtechnical s)ecifications ' Accordingly, the revised proposed rule no longe addresses-
\\{}\\!n I l Ik CONTACT: Timothy Collins. NRR 415-2897 SECY NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY 9802040031 971010 AVAILABLE AT COMMISSION MEETING ON
[_,gjE Y AUGUST 6, 1997 o
1.-
q Comrnents on SECY-97-168 In my previous vote on this issue, I did not object to the issuance of the proposed rulemaking a
l package for shut @m and fuel storage pool operation for public comment. I continue to-approve of the release for public comment of tie proposed rulemaking package; however,in i
the altamative, I would support a simplified proposed rulemaking approach for the control of l
shutdown conditions which codifies current industry practice related to ensuring risk-significant safety functions are maintained during shutdown operations. The staff should interact with stakeholders and pasent this option ta the Commission, it has been ' suggested that 10 CFR 50.65(a)(3) assessment provisions would provide the desired levels of control over shutdown operations. I do not agree that this is the case, in fact, I find that the maintenance rule lacks key provisions related to shutdown operation, including the d=4Tient of performance monitoring parameters and the establishment of mitigative L
features Further, it is unclear whether the maintenance rule, as it exists today, would require actions for assessing plant configurations in any mode of operation, including shutdown conditions (as evidenced by the staff's activities involving modifying the maintenance rule under l
These comments replace the comments associated with my previous vote in their entirety, 4-a i-
?
f p
l 4
t
'I
-+.-i-=m u
.w ry m
w,e w.
y
,