ML20044E026
| ML20044E026 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/12/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-93-128, NUDOCS 9305210198 | |
| Download: ML20044E026 (9) | |
Text
........................
RELEASED TO THE PDR y
/"" %,
4/f/93 E" iw ~j date' '
ini&f.....*
.........e........
- y
\\..w...}
POLICY ISSUE May 12, 1993 (lnforrgatjOn)
FOR:
The Commissioners FROM:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
STATUS OF ACTION PLAN FOR REGULATING FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES PURPOSE:
To inform the Co nission of the staff's revised plan of action to correct weaknesses identivied in the fuel cycle facility safety program, which addresses the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) of January 15, 1993, on SECY-92-337, " Response to Recommendations of the Materials Regulatory Review Task Force."
SUMMARY
The staff shares the Commission's concern regarding the rigorousness of the regulatory base of the fuel cycle facility safety program, the timeliness of the licensing renewal program, and the need to make many improvements in the program identified by such efforts as NUREG-1324, " Proposed Method for Regulating Major Materials Licensees," and the Regulatory Impact Survey for i
Fuel Cycle and Materials Licensees.
The primary programs discussed in this I
paper (regulatory development, licensing, inspection, training, and licensee self-assessment) represent areas that require high-priority attention to gain the greatest improvement in safety with the limited resources available. Many other areas need improvement, and the staff will address these as resources l
are made available.
BACKGROUND:
Many of the programs addressed in the SRM were subject to a reorganization within the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) which consolidated the fuel cycle safety and safeguards programs in a single
Contact:
Jerry Swift, NMSS NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 504-2609 IN 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE I
DATE OF THIS PAPER I
0401.!O
n.
The Commissioners 2
division. This reorganization, effective February 7, 1993, was implemented to permit closer management attention on such topics as fuel facility license renewals, enrichment activities, and fuel cycle safety issues.
As a result of the reorganization, the newly formed Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards (FCSS) is taking a fre!,h look at the fuel cycle regulatory, licensing and inspection programs, emphasizing activities that will offer the greatest and/or near-term safety benefit without placing undue burden on the licensees.
This paper reports on the staff's revised plan of action for the fuel cycle facilities, taking into consideration the Commission's suggestions in the SRM, the findings from the Regulatory Impact Survey, and FCSS's redirection of the program.
DISCUSSION:
REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM The staff shares the Commission's concerns about the weaknesses in the present regulatory base and the potential for inconsistencies and variations inherent in licensing without appropriate guidance.
The staff is pursuing a long-term, more structured approach, supported with updated rules and guidance.
Among the principal products of the effort to sharpen and upgrade the regulatory base will be a major revision of 10 CFR Part 70 and of its supporting regulatory guidance to correct weaknesses and to delete any unnecessary requirements. The staff proposes to revise Part 70 in a single rulemaking effort, and will work collegially with the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research to develop the technical foundation.
A change currently under consideration is a requirement for submitting an application containing (1) Conditions of Operation, which would become part of the license and inspectable commitments, and (2) a Safety Analysis Report. The rule will require performance of an Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA) for the initial application and, as appropriate, reanalyses to support subsequent modifications of the licensee's procedures and plant through a license amendment or a 50.59-type process.
Two high-priority efforts that will help identify needed revisions to current rules, and will also contribute in the near-term to upgrading the fuel cycle facility program, are the development of a Standard Review Plan (SRP) for reviewing fuel cycle license applications and the development of detailed guidance for licensees to use in performing ISAs.
ks i
The Commissioners 3
Placing greater urgency on the need for a more standardized approach to licensing, FCSS modified the plan of action to include the immediate preparation of an SRP that can be quickly put to use by the licensing staff to make the license renewal process more consistent. A task force, consisting of headquarters and regional personnel, was formed in March 1993 to develop a draft SRP.
It is scheduled to submit a rough draft for internal use in early May 1993.
Preparation of an SRP utilizes the collective knowledge and corporate memory of staff members who have expertise in diverse areas, to document necessary licensing commitments in specific topical areas. The SRP task force will identify draft acceptance criteria for its various topics (see ). As the task force develops the draft SRP, it was also asked to note where new or revised regulations and regulatory guidance are needed. The SRP will be further refined through use by the licensing staff and through contractor support in the areas of ISA and chemical safety.
See Enclosure 2 for the proposed schedule.
The other high-priority effort under way is the development of ISA guidance for use by licensees. The concept of an ISA appeared in NUREG-1324 and was discussed with licensees at the Uranium Fuel Cycle Workshop in September 1992.
The staff expects the ISA to become the new safety foundation for an effective licensing and inspection program. The licensee, by performing an ISA, will analyze its unique facility processes from an integrated perspective to identify potential safety vulnerabilities and then develop appropriate protective measures. Licensees will be able to modify their facilities through a 50.59-type process based on reanalysis of the individual ISA. The safety inspection program will be refined to focus on inspection of implemented protective measures that address vulnerabilities identified in the ISA.
The staff has initiated a process to prepare a guidance document that gives the purpose, basis, scope, and nature of the ISA expected from a licensee.
The refined SRP will describe what constitutes an acceptable ISA and will include criteria for determining which potential vulnerabilities require remedial actions. The schedule for the ISA guidance development is included in Enclosure 2.
A technical assistance contract has been awarded to provide support in developing a NUREG report containing detailed guidance on performing an ISA. As soon as a draft report outline is prepared, a workshop with licensees is planned.
In the meantime, representatives of major fuel cycle facilities formed the Facility Operations Committee, under the auspices of the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness (USCEA), and are independently defining what they consider to be the appropriate role and associated components of an ISA. The workshop will provide a forum for the exchange of information regarding the various perspectives of both industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. After the contractor has prepared a draft guidance report, a second workshop will be held with industry to familiarize them with the proposed concepts and methods, and to obtain comments.
In the accompanying development of regulatory guidance, a new Standard Format and Content Guide for Uranium Processing and Fuel Fabrication Facilities 1
j v
i The Commissioners 4
l (SF&CG) will be developed to reflect the information needs identified in the SRP and to incorporate some planned changes in the license application structure. The staff also plans to consolidate regulatory guides in the fuels and materials facilities series to reduce the number of guides requiring maintenance and updating, in particular, those relating to a single topic, for j
example, nuclear criticality safety.
In addition to the workshops planned to support ISA development, the staff is considering USCEA's offer to sponsor NRC/ licensee topical workshops, and to strengthen licensee participation in other regulatory guidance development i
efforts.
The annual Fuel Cycle Workshop will also be utilized for this purpose, to the extent possible.
Similarly, to obtain feedback from the States where NRC-regulated fuel cycle facilities are located and from other j
regulators, these topics will be proposed for inclusion at the annual meeting with the Agreement States, and at the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors.
LICENSING PROGRAM The staff has developed a strategy for renewing fuel cycle facility licenses to ensure that the process is efficient, predictable, replicable, and i
defensible. Central to the new strategic approach is the recent NMSS reorganization.
Fuel cycle facility regulation and licensing functions that were formerly carried out in a single Section are now conducted in three distinct Branches, each with a different functional responsibility (licensing,
)
operations, and regulatory development). This has a direct and positive i
impact on the efficiency of the renewal process because it permits a licensing staff to concentrate on licensing, without the distraction and displacement of schedules associated with other work activities.
1 A quantitative result of this reorganization is that, with existing staff, the proposed schedule for renewals has been accelerated, so that all major fuel cycle facility licenses are now expected to be renewed by the end of 1997 (rather than by 2003, which was the projected date before the reorganization).
J This projection is based upon an assumption that the licensing staff will not j
be diverted during this period to other activities, such as to incident response or guidance development. However, shortages of staff will make it difficult for FCSS to satisfy all its commitments on the desired schedules.
Staffing problems have, for example, made it necessary for several licensing staff members to be diverted to developing the draft SRP discussed earlier.
The short-term negative impact on license renewal schedules, however, is expected to be offset over the long term by the improvements in licensing efficiency, predictability, and replicability afforded by the SRP, which will give NRC staff reviewers guidance on review procedures as well as acceptance criteria.
In applying the draft SRP to the review of license renewal applications, the staff's objective will be to reconfirm that licensee operations are in sufficient conformance with NRC requirements to justify renewal for a period
M 1
The Commissioners 5
of ten years (shorter periods may be required for cases where the licensing bases are not sufficiently robust).
Thus, facility licenses will be renewed in accordance with current standards, and will be revisited and modified by amendment, if necessary, after the appropriate guidance (on integrated safety analyses, for example) has been prepared and needed rule modifications (including the proposed 50.59-type process) have been completed.
This strategic approach to renewing fuel cycle facility licenses has the following benefits: (1) by conducting and completing the licensing renewal reviews on a reasonable schedule, the NRC will reconfirm that the facility operations are, indeed, in conformance with safety and environmental requirements; (2) the licensee is afforded latitude and flexibility to make 50.59-type changes in the facility (when safety is not affected) without requiring prior NRC approval; (3) the staff has the opportunity, via an iterative process involving the licensees, to conduct the reviews using the draf t SRP, thereby learning where potential weaknesses in the guidance documents and regulations exist that can be later rectified (with full licensee knowledge and involvement); and (4) the time required and resources needed to renew licenses after the currently planned ten-year licenses expire should be considerably reduced because of the availability of the new guidance documents and the improved regulations, as well as the experience gained by 3
both the NRC staff and the licensees in applying the improvements in the process during the interim period.
INSPECTION PROGRAM A number of changes are also planned for the inspection program. As part of the reorganization of NHSS, an Inspection Section was formed in FCSS to enable increased focus on inspection activities, and to provide more efficient use of limited technical expertise in performing criticality and chemical safety inspections.
The regional and resident inspectors will continue to perform the normal, day-to-day maintenance, operations, and training inspections for criticality and chemical safety. However, headquarters will provide senior technical expertise to address difficult design, integration, and adequacy concerns. With contractor and regional support, emphasis will be placed on developing chemical safety inspection procedures and refining the procedures for inspection of nuclear criticality. After new inspection procedures are in place, enhanced inspections of chemical and criticality safety will be conducted by headquarters with regional support.
TEAM ASSESSMENTS PROGRAM At the suggestion of the Commission, we have reconsidered the Team Assessment Program and have decided it should be discontinued. Although significant benefit resulted from findings of the team assessments, particularly in identifying weaknesses in implemented nuclear criticality protection programs, it is felt that resources will be used more cost-effectively at this time
)
The Commissioners 6
i I
through use of enhanced inspections. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will be invited to participate in the enhanced inspections of chemical safety, in lieu of the participation in team assessments specified in the NRC-0SHA Memorandum of Understanding.
In the future, after an ISA has been incorporated in the license and implemented at a fuel cycle facility, it is proposed that a small, multi-disciplinary effectiveness review team independently (1) review and validate that the licensee has found all safety-related vulnerabilities and (2) review the overall effectiveness of implemented protective measures. The findings of these effectiveness reviews will also be used to judge the adequacy of the revised regulatory base.
TRAINING PROGRAM Improvements in the training program are also needed to broaden and refine licensing reviewers' and inspectors' understanding of fuel cycle processes.
Management has established a special working group to address training needs.
The working group includes representatives from NMSS, the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AE0D), and the Regions. At its first meeting, the group discussed the full range of training needs. The recently developed five-day Fuel Cycle Technology Course will continue to be given, and the first journeyman-level course on criticality safety for inspectors is scheduled for this summer.
Recognizing a need to improve understanding of the terminology, a short version of the Fuel Cycle Technology course was presented to the AEOD staff in headquarters in April.
The special working group is developing a standard training program for the licensing and inspection staffs.
LICENSEE SELF-ASSESSMENT PROGRAM The staff found, in a recent ineting with representatives of the Facility Operations Committee, that the have taken an aggressive role in developing performance indicators and exploring various self-assessment techniques, varying from individual licensee self-assessment using a common methodology, to industry-wide assessment by a single review group.
Due to proprietary considerations, the preliminary view is that a single review group concept does not appear to be acceptable to the industry.
In light of the progress made to date, the staff proposes to let industry take the lead in this initiative and propose a program to the NRC for consideration. The staff will coordinate closely with the industry representatives to monitor progress.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS:
The resources for NMSS, RES and AE00 to conduct the activities addressed in the staff's revised action plan are included in the proposed FY94-98 Five Year Pl an. However, most of NHSS' resources to implement the action plan have been diverted to fulfill regulatory responsibilities for the gaseous diffusion enrichment program assigned to NRC in accordance with Title XI of the Energy
1 The Commissioners 7
Policy Act of 1992. The Act transferred to the NRC from the Department of-Energy the responsibility for oversight of two gaseous diffusion enrichment pl ants. The resource benefits realized during the reorganization that consolidated fuel cycle safety and safeguards were significantly impacted when NRC had to prepare for the gaseous diffusion enrichment program in FY93 without any additional resources.
Staffing the enrichment program has resulted in the diversion of 13 employees, from the fuel cycle safety and safeguards program. These circumstances have significantly affected the ability of staff to pursue an aggressive regulatory improvements program to correct identified weaknesses and to provide technical support to the Regions in the nuclear criticality and chemical safety inspection programs. The action plan discussed above is based on the budget plan to fill 12 positions above the currently on-board staff strength by August 1, 1993.
COORDINATION:
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
/
\\
. fS J mes Thlor
/
xecutive'tirector for Operations i
Enclosures:
1.
Proposed Outline for SRP 2.
Action Plan DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPP REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ACRS SECY i
i PROPOSED OUTLINE FOR STANDARD REVIEW PLAN Introduction 1.0 - General Information 1.1 Facility and Process Description 1.2 Institutional Information 2.0 - Organization / Management Control and Oversight Program 2.1 Organizational Responsibilities and Authorities 2.2 Safety Committees 2.3 Audits and Self-Assessments 2.4 Reviews of Design Changes 2.5 Human Factors 2.6 Investigations of Abnormal Events 2.7 Training and Qualification 2.8 Maintenance Program 2.9 Procedure Development / Approval 2.10 Recordkeeping/ Reporting 3.0 - Quality Assurance Program 4.0 - Integrated Safety Analysis Program 5.0 - Radiation Protection Program 6.0 - Nuclear Criticality Safety Program 7.0 - Chemical Process Safety Program 8.0 - Fire Protection Program 9.0 - Emergency Preparedness Program 10.0 - Environmental Protection Program 11.0 - Decommissioning Program - Financial Assurance i
12.0 - Safeguards Program 12.1 Material Control and Accounting (CAT I) 12.2 Material Control and Accounting (CAT II) 12.3 Material Control and Accounting (CAT III) i 12.4 Physical Protection (CAT I) 12.5 Physical Protection (CAT II/III) 13.0 - Waste Management Program
e 1
ACTION PLAN j
SRP j
Complete rough draft 5/93 LSh i
Start contract 5/93 Complete outline of guidance document 8/93 Hold licensee workshop 9/93 Complete draft report 4/94 Hold licensee workshop 5/94 Complete final SRP chapter on ISA 6/94 Publish guidance NUREG 8/94 RUI,ES Develop user need letter 6/93 Obtain EDO approval to initiate 8/93 Publish proposed rule 8/94 Publish final rule 8/95 GUIDANCE Publish SRP and SF&CG 8/94 RENEWALS Complete timely renewal cycle 12/97