ML20040E003
| ML20040E003 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/27/1982 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040D992 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202020478 | |
| Download: ML20040E003 (10) | |
Text
,
b g
UNITED STATES (f
^
g p,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j y
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20066 j
Jg 271982 MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations & Generic Requirements FROM:
Harold R. Denton, Director.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED RULE CONCERNING DOCUMENTATION OF DIFFERENCES FROM THE STANDARD REVIEW PLAN In SECY 81-648, a fina rule was proposed which would require certain pending applicants and all future applicants to document differences from the Standard Review. Plan (SRP) acceptance criteria. The Executive Director for Operations recommended that the Commission take no action on the proposed rule until the safety benefits and the staff and applicant resources required to implement the proposed rule had been reviewed by the Committee for the Review of Generic Requirements (CRGR). The enclosure provides the estimate of the resource requirements and our perception of the safety benefits for the committee's consideration.
Briefly stated, we estimate that each applicant may require up to a maximum of approximately 10 person-years to prepare the documentation required by the proposed rule and answer staff questions concerning
- the' documentation. We expect that this will decrease as the industry develops experience with this effort and it becomes part of the normal application preparation process.
In addition, we estimate that on the first plants reviewed the staff will require up to an
~'
additional 1 to 2 person-years to review this documentation for each application but.that in the'l'onger term this apriroach will result l
in a net decrease in staff ' review effort. 'We consider these estimates to be somewhat pessimistic and, therefore, they should be considered as maximum resource requirements.
The safety benefits evolve from the staff's audit-type review; by requiring the applicant to assess conformance with the SRP acceptance-criteria the staff can concentrate on the differences and, thus, there is a greater likelihood that design deficiencies will be identified.
8202020478 820129 PDR REVGP NRCCRGR PDR
4 JAN 2 71982 Victor Stello We also note that the plants affected by this proposed rule may need to be slightly revised because of the passage of time since the rule was first proposed.
AW Y
^
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Resource Estimates and Safety Benefits for the Proposed SRP Rule cc:
E. Case D. Eisenhut R. Vollmer R. Mattson' H. Thompson S. Hanauer T. Murley E. Jordan D. Mausshardt R. Bernero C. Heltemes J. Scinto
~R. Tedesco C. Grimes 9
0 4
S
i i
ENCLOSURE RESOURCE ESTIMATES AND SAFETY BENEFITS FOR THE PROPOSED SRP RULE In SECY-81-648, the staff proposed a final rule which would require certain p:nding applicants and all future applicants to document differences from the Standard Review Plan (SRP) acceptance criteria, in response to a request hy the Commission in SECY-COMP B 81-4A. The proposed final rule would rcquire that applicants describe and evaluate all differences in design features, analytical techniques, and procedural measures proposed for a unit with the corresponding features; techniques, and measures given in the SRP acceptance criteria. The proposed rule further identified an implemen-tation schedule for pending and future applications.
In forwarding the proposed final rule, the Executive Director for Operations recommended that the Commission take no action on the rule until the newly formed Committee for the Review of Generic Requirements (CRGR) had an opportunity to review the resource and safety benefit estimates associated with the rule.
Such estimates were previously described in SECY 81-13 in tthe context of the original version of the rule which applied to the Systematic Evaluation Program for operating reactors. We have discussed the present
, version of the proposed final rule with both the staff and industry repre-sentatives and have developed the following estimates.
Staff Resource Estimate The staff has been reviewin'g current applications in accordance with the l
procedures and acceptance criteria in the SRP (NUREG-0800). There is a wide range of views on the extent to which that review is complete, i.e., the staff's review is only intended to be an audit, but the degree to' which a reviewer assures conformance with the SRP acceptance criteria will vary from branch to branch and,' occasionaTly, between applications.
The amount of additional resources.that would be needed' would depend on the
~
extent to which the review remains as an audit; however, on the whnle, we estimate that up to an additional one to two person-years of effort would i
be required for the first several applications. In time, the impact of the proposed rule would result in a resource savings for the staff, as reviewers learn how to use the information provided by industry.
O e
~
[
Industry Resource Estimate The industry refresentatives uniformly estimated that a 'significant effort would be requira:: to provide the documentation required by the proposed final rule. This is principally caused by the anticipated difficulties associated with interpreting the SRP acceptance criteria. The industry balieves that it should be sufficient for an applicant to make a proposal and let the staff judge the relative acceptability. Further, the industry believes that the proposed rule elevates the SRP to the status of a regulation.
- The resource estimates provided by the industry representatives are based on pending applications and,.like the staff, appear pessimistic due to the interpretation difficulties and the change to their routine process.
Their estimates
- of the additional resources that would be required on each application are:
Commonwealth - seven person-years TVA - ten person-years AIF - ten to fifteen person-years Here again, the resource estimate may only affect the short-term or pending applications. As the industry becomes accustomed to providing such documentation, the additional resources may no longer be necessary.
Safety Benefits The safety benefits of the proposed rule depend on the extent to which the required documentation would uncover deviations that would not otherwise be uncovered by the staff in the normal review process. The staff's review of an application is termed an audit review, i.e., the staff reviews only part of the application to all of the SRP acceptance criteria. The proposed' rule would not alter the staff's review, but would supplement it by having.one party (the applicant) review all of the application to all of the SRP acceptance criteria, and s.ubsequently, report the results lif their review to the staff. Deviations would be' identified and justified. This would assure that a systematic assessment of the proposed plant design.has been made' to the SRP accepta'nce criteria i
l and, by virtue of the bases for tho~se criteria, to the Commission's regulations.
In addition, the staff would be able to focus on the differences and spend less time searching for.them. Such a concentrated review effort would be more likely to identify design deficiencies and:
thus, would enhance the overall safety of the plant.
i
- These estimates were provided verbally and are not intended to be precise because of the judgements involved.
.m-
AZF e/w/n.
Imgacts of Imglementing SECY-81-648 l
Man-hour estimate to fully,addre._s_SECY-81-648 l
s o
Task Man-Hours (Man-Years) Per Plant i
- Identification and description 20,000(10)to 30,000( 15) i
- Justification of deviations 52,000(26)to200,000(100)
- Defend and support positions 1 2,. 0,0,0 ( 6.) t o _ _3,8, 0 0 0 ( 1 9 )
TOTAL 84,000(42)to268,000(134)
Considerations in manpower estimate:
- Interpretation of Acceptance Criteria difficult;
- Multi-discipline review required to address certain Acc.eptance Criteria applicable to several areas of the plant;
- Requires re-evaluation of criteria used in plant design and licensing, which is subject to change throughout life of plant.
Aggiti_o,nal impacts to be, considered o
- Rule would compete for applicant's manpower resources at a time when allocation of industry manpower is crucial; additionally, could affect directly completion of the facility and associated leiensing activities (completion of SER; ACRS; ASLB' hearings, etc.);
,- Competing projects for NRC staff manpower resources could direct attention from safety as well as schedule for the NTOLs under review;
- Reversal of role, with the applicant having to review the
- f acility against tife SRPs rather than the NRC staff performing this.funtion would inject a. major change in r
f regulatory philosophy;'
- Status of earlier units, which are not being reviewed, could be brought into question;
- Activity can be expec'ted to adversely impact licensing schedule for many plants-proposed SECY-81-648 schedule is questionable;
- Hearings could be reopened on the basis of "new information" available to presently or newly admitted parties;
- Reference to the SRP in the regulations will result in unwarranted escalation of its authority--will institutionalize the SRPs;
- Unwarrasted emphasis on " differences" from SRP criteria could confuse staff priorities in review of applications.
y
-e m
e IMPACTS OF PROPOSED SRP RULE The proposed rule requiring certain applicants to document 4
differences from the revised SRP will result in numerous impacts.
- 1. Significant industry resource for each docket, 84,000 to 268,000 man-hours (Attachment A).
- a. Identification of differences:
(l) Subjective - Acceptance criteria arc often non-specific in nature, and therefore, will require interpretation.
Example: SRP, Rev.2-July 1981, Page2.2.1-2; " Sufficient statistical data with respect to hazardous materials afe provided to establish a basis for evaluating the (2) potential hazard to the plant (emphasis added)".
Complex - Many SRPs deal with design criteria applicable tomany areas of the plant; the issue may not yet be a requiremep{)SRP,page3.10-3,"Testsandanalysesare Example:.t
. required to confirm the operability of all mechanical and electrical equipment during end after an earEEqdake 5f migsff6ds 6p to and including the OBE and SSE...(emphasis added)".
(3) Ev51utionary - Criteria have changed throughout the life of each plant, an assessment for work completed at one point in time may not be valid for similar work done at a different point in time.
2.a.
The specific activity is one of documentation, and'is an approach that has little, if any safety merit, but could
- have large manpower resource impacts.
In a memo from the form'er Director of.the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Ben Rusche, to his division directors of January 3, 1977, he
.. decided to alter the review program based on "the conviction "
di
'that the singular issue is one of documentation and not This was also refle'ted in an early version of the safety".
e staff proposed systematic safety evaluation program, addressing Section 110, SECY-80-414: "The Documentation of the extent to which regulations of particular significance are met is required by law, but may not be particularly useful or necessary in evaluating the overall safety of the plant".
In the report of the President's Commission on the Accident at TMI, the following points were made:
(1) "Indee'd, once regulations become as voluminous and complex as those regulations now in place, they(canPage 9) serve as a negative factor in. nuclear safety."
(2) "This Commission believes that it is an absorbing
. concern with safety that will bring about safety--not just the meeting of narrowly prescribed and complex regulations." (Page 9)
(3) "The existence of a vast body of regulations by NRC tends to focus industry attention narrowly'on the meeting of regulations. rather than on a systematic
. concern for safety." (Page 20)
- 2. b.
The SECY-81-648 proposal which focuses on the highly detailed and constantly evolving staff interpretive guidance will consume hundreds of staff man-years and thousands of industry man-years and are, in fact, counterproductive to safety.
The manpower resources utilized would be key personnel at a time when the industry is strapped for manpower and whose time would otherwise be applied to activities of value to improving safety.
Example: (1) Kenneth A. Strahm, INPO, AIF Workshop, Chicago, Illinois, October 18-21, 1981, "The nuclear industry faces a major manpower problem, as I have just described.
Nearly 15 percent of our management, professional and technical positions are vacant; we lost over 5 percent of these people from the industry last year."
l (2) Nuclear News, November 1981, " Nuclear Employment: More l
. People Needed" l
e In responding to how serious the shortage is, " Red" Thomas, Director of Training and Education for INPO, said, "I would say it's probably the industry's number one problem today."
' e "Some statistics from the upcoming DOE report to Congress
- do confirm that the utilities are experiencing some real shortages.
For example, as of March 1, 1981, the following
"7
' ~
were the utility vacancy rates for engineers: chemical, 11.4.."
percent; cifil, 7.0 percent; electrical and electron'ics, 14.1 percent; mechanical, 13.8 percent; nuclear and reactor,
_2 24.3 percent; all'others, 24.~D percent;'for a'n average rate of 17.2 percent." (Page 52)
- 2. c, The NRC staff manpower resources required to review the information, make determinations, and. write the SER could also direct attention from safety as well as schedule for the NTOLs being reviewed.
An example based on a l
presentation to the Commission in October 1981 is given in Attachment B.
This activity, if performed during 1982, would coincide with NRC plans to submit 10 SERs, support 14 ASLB hearings which should have an initial decision, and support Commission plans to make decisions on 17 operator license applications during 1982 (Table 1 of Chairman Palladino's letter of November 27, 1981, to Representative Bevill, U.S. House of Representatives).
5
- 3. The activity could adversely impact the status of earlier units.. First units on a site, otherwise exempted by the rule, 4
could be brought into question through the activities on subsequent units.
Likewise, plants which have been replicated, although otherwise exempted, could be called into question.
The standardization between units could be in jeo'pardy.
Por duplicate or replicate plants, it may require a second review of many designs already reviewed by the NRC and for which SERs lhave been issued.
The second review may result in different findings because of the revised SRPs and different staff reviewers.
Changes could be required on the first unit.
- 4. This activity can be expected to adversely impact licensing schedules for many plants.
- a. Rule would compete for the same manpower presently working on SERs, support of ASLB hearings, etc., at a time when the industry is experiencing critical manpower shortages.
- b. The manpower resource needed will just not be available to hold schedules in the time frame required.
- c. Manpower will be diverted from oth'er required activities for licensing.
- d. Hearings could be reopened on the basis of "new information" available to presently admitted parties.
Could introduce
,new issues based on the use of "sua sponte" by the ASLB.
- e. Additional parties could petition for admittance on the basis of "new information" not previously available at the time of notice.
l
- f. The NRC schedules in SECY-81-648 do not provide for'
," question / response" interaction between NRC and applicants.
l
- 5. Reference to the SRP in the regulations will result in unwarranted escalation of its authority.
n :~
a."By implication, SRP acceptance criteria will become requirements.
- b. By refe'rence in SRP acceptance criteria, other NRC guidance documents (Regulatory Guides, NUREGs, etc.) will become requirements.
- c. By association, othe portions of the SRP which discus means to satisfy acceptance criteria will become re-requirements,
- d. NRC facility to revise the SRP to improve its review process may become restricted.
- 6. Unwarranted emphasis on " differences" from SRP criteria could
" confuse" Staff priorities in review of applications.
Identifying differences is interpretive.
What an amplicant considers not to be different may not be true for the NRC staff.
With limited resources, the staff review is likely to be " guided" by identification of differences.
The staff may be unhappy with'the results.
i.
- -4 In addition to these impacts, the basic nature of the rule must be objected to, the activity results in documentation, not improved s
safety.
The SRP is an internal guidance document for the NRC, and should remain as such.
Applicants shouldn't be identifying deviations or differences from guidance documents.
Applicants provide information to show compliance with regulations.
Differences of.the kind discussed cast an unwarranted negative light on acceptable alternatives'.
Judging compliance with regulations is an NRC staff function and responsibility.
Applicants obviously believe they comply.
4 i:
=
e 9
9
.-c
o
~
Attcch'snt A t
MAN-HOUR ESTi, MATE s
4 This estimate is intended to be typical of an applic.ation which is slready submitted to the NRC.
The following tasks are considered:
Task M.an,H,o,u,r,'s (Man-Ye,ars), Per Plant o Identification and descriptions of all differences in design fea-
~
tures, analytical techniques and procedural measures proposed for a unit and those corresponding fea-tures, techniques and measures given in the SRP acceptance criteria.
20,000(10)to30,000(15)
~
o For deviations identified, provide evaluations and justifications which provides an acce? table meth-od of complying with those rules or. regulations of the Commission.
This includes (1) providing miss-ing information and/or data, (2) performing additional analyses where necessary, and'(3) justi-fyi.ng the use of existing data and analyses.not literally in confor-mance with the SRP and design approaches which_ differ from_the a
'7
. SRP.-
Document and -submiF the -
52,000(26)to200,000(100) required information..
o Defend and' support the submittal in expected discussions with the NRC.
12,000(6)to38,000(19)
TOTAL 84,000(42)to268,000(134)
O e
=
\\. '...
Attochment B l
i i
+
Proposed Resources for SEP Support In Fiscal Year.1,982 4
During an October 1981 presentation to the Commission,'the fiscal year 1982 hudgeted staff years was 23.
This is in support of ten plants..
Since 1982 was the integration phase and drafting the SER for each plant, the review of the applicable topics against the present regulatory requireteents should be complete.
Therefore, the dccumentation of'the deviations are basically complete, This represents' app'roximately two staff years per plant to complete the integration and write the SER.
Using this as a guideline.for staff support for SECY-81-648, this would represent 60~ staff years for thirty plants.
Since it is scheduled to be completed in six months, this would require 120 NRC staff reviewers for 30 plants.
9 e
e W~~
e
.+:
=
4 o
G
,,,,