ML20199L550: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:..    . . . - _ . .      . _ - _ .  . . -        - - . _ -    - . _ -      . . - - .            . - . . . . .      - . . - .  . - . . _ . .-.
{{#Wiki_filter:..
DEC-10-1998 12:56                 NRC                                                         727 363 1339 P.22/04             ,,
DEC-10-1998 12:56 NRC 727 363 1339 P.22/04 A F F i R M_ A T I O N VOTE I
l A F F i R M_ A T I O N VOTE   _
RESPONSE SHEET TO:
I RESPONSE SHEET TO:                     Jchn C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:                   COMMISSIONER DIAZ                                   *
Jchn C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER DIAZ


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
SECY-98-279 PARTIAL GRANTING OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING SUBMITTED BY THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (PRM-60-82)
SECY-98-279 PARTIAL GRANTING OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING SUBMITTED BY THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (PRM-60-82)
Approved         X Disapproved                   _
X Approved Disapproved Abstain Not Participating l
Abstain         _
l COMMENTS:
Not Participating         _
l l                    COMMENTS:
l See attached comments.
l See attached comments.
hY SIGNATURQ                             )
hY SIGNATURQ
                                                                                                        ~
)
                                                                                          %      \0,W DATE Entered on "AS" Yes               -          No
~
                          ;;82"!82 M 38a" CORRESPONDENCE PDR q q oj > b DO
\\0,W DATE Entered on "AS" Yes No
;;82"!82 M 38a" CORRESPONDENCE PDR q q oj > b DO


DEC-10-1998 12*56                               NRC                                                                             727 353 1339 P.03./04 1
DEC-10-1998 12*56 NRC 727 353 1339 P.03./04 1
CQMMISSIONER DIA2' COMMENTS ON SECY-98._279 I approve the staff's i=--- =4= den to publish the proposed Direct Final Rule and a companion Proposed Rule in the Federal Register Notice. I note that the permitted QA program changes are programmatic in nature and do not encourage the staff and the industry to be more risk-informed l                       in decision making which is what would permit giving reliefin a variety of day-to-day in-plant l                       activities such a maintenance, surveillance, and testing, as wcIl as licensee's QA program 4es.
CQMMISSIONER DIA2' COMMENTS ON SECY-98._279 I approve the staff's i=--- =4= den to publish the proposed Direct Final Rule and a companion Proposed Rule in the Federal Register Notice. I note that the permitted QA program changes are programmatic in nature and do not encourage the staff and the industry to be more risk-informed l
I also approve the staffs proposal to work with stakeholders and yid with a second l                       rd==": to develop a voluntary alternative to 50.54(a). The staff should strive to establish a 1
in decision making which is what would permit giving reliefin a variety of day-to-day in-plant l
new risk-informed threshold for QA program 4;; without prior NRC approval. I believe that the decision threshold should be # 3.s the cMi = would result in little or no adverse unpact on the overs!1 plant safety. As I have stated beibre, the fimdamental gwi.a should be for the equipment to have "the T !ity       W to perform the intended safety functions.'' Upon e +;W of the current effort to unake ths 50.59 process more risk-informed, ennaderation should be given to whether the revised 50.59 process could be used by licensees to change their QA programs.
activities such a maintenance, surveillance, and testing, as wcIl as licensee's QA program 4es.
l                       I tecommend the following additions (in bold) to the proposed 50.54(aX3) language:
I also approve the staffs proposal to work with stakeholders and yid with a second l
l                                                                                                                                                                           -
rd==": to develop a voluntary alternative to 50.54(a). The staff should strive to establish a 1
: 1. " . Safety Analysis Report without prior NRC approval, provided the change does not reduce the comunitments..."                                                                                                                                 .
new risk-informed threshold for QA program 4;; without prior NRC approval. I believe that the decision threshold should be # 3.s the cMi = would result in little or no adverse unpact on the overs!1 plant safety. As I have stated beibre, the fimdamental gwi.a should be for the equipment to have "the T !ity to perform the intended safety functions.'' Upon W
l                       2. 'In addition to quality assurance program Mes involving adminiserettva impnsvements                                                           .
e +;W of the current effort to unake ths 50.59 process more risk-informed, ennaderation should be given to whether the revised 50.59 process could be used by licensees to change their QA programs.
and clar*=d==, spelling corrections..."
l I tecommend the following additions (in bold) to the proposed 50.54(aX3) language:
J I 'c-l J                                                                                                       l 1
l
: 1. ". Safety Analysis Report without prior NRC approval, provided the change does not reduce the comunitments..."
l
: 2. 'In addition to quality assurance program Mes involving adminiserettva impnsvements and clar*=d==, spelling corrections..." J I 'c-l J
1
?
?
* t                                                                                                                                                                                     1 i
t i
l l     -
l l
                                                                                                        -.                  .                .      - - - _ _  -}}
-}}

Latest revision as of 03:50, 8 December 2024

Notation Vote Approving with Comment SECY-98-279 Re Partial Granting of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by NEI (PRM-50-62)
ML20199L550
Person / Time
Issue date: 12/10/1998
From: Diaz N
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To: Hoyle J
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20199L527 List:
References
SECY-98-279-C, NUDOCS 9901280049
Download: ML20199L550 (2)


Text

..

DEC-10-1998 12:56 NRC 727 363 1339 P.22/04 A F F i R M_ A T I O N VOTE I

RESPONSE SHEET TO:

Jchn C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:

COMMISSIONER DIAZ

SUBJECT:

SECY-98-279 PARTIAL GRANTING OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING SUBMITTED BY THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (PRM-60-82)

X Approved Disapproved Abstain Not Participating l

l COMMENTS:

l See attached comments.

hY SIGNATURQ

)

~

\\0,W DATE Entered on "AS" Yes No

82"!82 M 38a" CORRESPONDENCE PDR q q oj > b DO

DEC-10-1998 12*56 NRC 727 353 1339 P.03./04 1

CQMMISSIONER DIA2' COMMENTS ON SECY-98._279 I approve the staff's i=--- =4= den to publish the proposed Direct Final Rule and a companion Proposed Rule in the Federal Register Notice. I note that the permitted QA program changes are programmatic in nature and do not encourage the staff and the industry to be more risk-informed l

in decision making which is what would permit giving reliefin a variety of day-to-day in-plant l

activities such a maintenance, surveillance, and testing, as wcIl as licensee's QA program 4es.

I also approve the staffs proposal to work with stakeholders and yid with a second l

rd==": to develop a voluntary alternative to 50.54(a). The staff should strive to establish a 1

new risk-informed threshold for QA program 4;; without prior NRC approval. I believe that the decision threshold should be # 3.s the cMi = would result in little or no adverse unpact on the overs!1 plant safety. As I have stated beibre, the fimdamental gwi.a should be for the equipment to have "the T !ity to perform the intended safety functions. Upon W

e +;W of the current effort to unake ths 50.59 process more risk-informed, ennaderation should be given to whether the revised 50.59 process could be used by licensees to change their QA programs.

l I tecommend the following additions (in bold) to the proposed 50.54(aX3) language:

l

1. ". Safety Analysis Report without prior NRC approval, provided the change does not reduce the comunitments..."

l

2. 'In addition to quality assurance program Mes involving adminiserettva impnsvements and clar*=d==, spelling corrections..." J I 'c-l J

1

?

t i

l l

-