ML20199L550

From kanterella
Revision as of 01:25, 19 November 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 ,,

l 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)

Approved X 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 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.

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 l 1

?

  • t 1 i

l l -

-. . . - - - _ _ -