ML20199F518: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:n       ,,    m       ~,   -    , __/,       n   ,,      n   n       n       n       n     17       /7-   T   T~'
{{#Wiki_filter:n m
~,
, __/,
n n
n n
n n
17
/7-T T~'
o, =
o, =
  '                                                                                        REV1 SED Approve.. The attached comments N                                                             replace my earlier comments on
REV1 SED Approve.. The attached comments N
                                            ,/* * *%             SECY 97-168.
replace my earlier comments on
(         j                   /LE A S o l
,/* * *%
                                          *g...../                       Shir16 Ann Jackson 10/10/97
SECY 97-168.
;                                                                              RELEASED TO THE PDR RULEMAKING ISSUE                          :                                          .
(
1 (NEGATIVE CONSENT)
j
:.      d@y               LuJ-- $        -
/LE A S o l
                                                                        ,      date               initials       a July 30, 1997                                             ***            **
*g...../
SECY 97 1$$* ********
Shir16 Ann Jackson 10/10/97 RULEMAKING ISSUE RELEASED TO THE PDR 1
EDB:                 The Comissioners
d@y LuJ (NEGATIVE CONSENT) date initials a
            .F_B.Q!j:             L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations
July 30, 1997 SECY 97 1$$* ********
EDB:
The Comissioners
.F_B.Q!j:
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
Line 34: Line 45:
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.
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:
BACKGROUND:
In SECY-94-17.6. the staff sought Comission a coment a 3roposed rule for shutdown and low         pproval power        to issue operation        for public 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 risk-informed, performance-based approach for new regulations. As a result,
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
7 the staff made significant changes to the proposed rule and regulatory analysis. In addition, the staff's studies of spent fuel storage poo;l                         lb q '    '
risk-informed, performance-based approach for new regulations. As a result, the staff made significant changes to the proposed rule and regulatory lb q '
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 L 4 'slW]h,s f
~
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.
rulemaking package for public comment.
L s
t-4 i[
DISCUSSION:
DISCUSSION:
y   t-4 i[
y The staff's revised regulatory analysis considered important safety functions and the controls currently in place to ensure these functions.
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.
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-Ik CONTACT: Timothy Collins. NRR
safety functions are protected by existing requirements'in standarrtechnical s)ecifications ' Accordingly, the revised proposed rule no longe addresses-
                                                                                          \{}\!n I l
\\{}\\!n I l Ik CONTACT: Timothy Collins. NRR 415-2897 SECY NOTE:
415-2897                   SECY NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY 9802040031 971010                         AVAILABLE AT COMMISSION MEETING ON
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY 9802040031 971010 AVAILABLE AT COMMISSION MEETING ON
[_,gjE Y                           -
[_,gjE Y AUGUST 6, 1997 o
AUGUST 6, 1997
_                                                          o


1.-
1.-
q Comrnents on SECY-97-168 a
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
In my previous vote on this issue, I did not object to the issuance of the proposed rulemaking l                       package for shut @m and fuel storage pool operation for public comment. I continue to-         _
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
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         -
the altamative, I would support a simplified proposed rulemaking approach for the control of l
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
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
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
,                      actions for assessing plant configurations in any mode of operation, including shutdown
SECY 97-173).
.                      conditions (as evidenced by the staff's activities involving modifying the maintenance rule under l                       SECY 97-173).
These comments replace the comments associated with my previous vote in their entirety, 4-a i-
These comments replace the comments associated with my previous vote in their entirety, 4-a i-
?
?
Line 63: Line 76:
t
t
'I
'I
                            -+.-i-=m u .w ry                                   w,e}}
-+.-i-=m u
.w ry m
w,e w.
y
,}}

Latest revision as of 07:45, 10 December 2024

Approves SECY-97-168 Re Issuance for Public Comment of Proposed Rulemaking Package for Shutdown & Fuel Storage Pool Operation. Comments Encl
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

,/* * *%

SECY 97-168.

(

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

SECY 97-173).

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

,