ML20045D622
| ML20045D622 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/20/1993 |
| From: | Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Omealia M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| FOIA-93-94 NUDOCS 9306290234 | |
| Download: ML20045D622 (1) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NHC50lA EQUES NUMBE H(
FOIA - T 3 - P,S)t 3h
,[W gh //p[
RtSeouse Tm
)
g RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF W NAL I l PARTfAL INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST r/ ATE 20 993 DOCK E T NUMBE R(S) (t/ apphcablef l
k
/
PART 1.-AGENCY R'ECORDS RELE ASED OR NOT LOCATED (See checAedbanes/
No agency records subject to the regaest have been located.
No additional ayency records subject to the request have been located.
Requested records are available through another pubhc distribution program. See Comments section.
Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Append x(es) are already available for pubhc inspection and copying at the
. NRC Pubhc Document Room 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC.
/
Agency records sutsject to the request that are identified in-At'r*M*w L8 Y are being made available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Pubhc Document Room 2120 L Street, N W., Washington, DC, in a folder under this FOI A number.
The nonproprietary version of the proposal (s) that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversation with a member of my staff is now being made available for public inspection and copying at the N RC Publ.c Docurnent Room,2120 L Street, N.W, Washington, DC, in a folder under this FOIA number.
Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendix (es) may be inspected and copied at the N RC Local Public Document Room identified m the Comments section.
Enclosed is informat on on how you may obtain access to and the charges for copying records F[ d at the NRC PuHic Document Room,2120 L Street,
);.W., Washington, DC.
X Agency records subject to the request are enclosed.
, Records subject to the request have beer, referred to another Federal agencyfies) for rev.ew and direct response to you.
Fees f You will be billed by the NHC for fees 'otakng S You will receive a refund from the NRC in the amount of $
In view of N RC's response to this request, no further action is being taken on appeal letter dated
, No.
PART 11. A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Certain information in the requested records is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to the exemptions described in and for the reasons stated in Part II, B, C, and D. Any released portions of the documents for n hich only part of the record is being withheld are being made available for public inspection and copying in the NRC Pubhc Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC in a folder under this FOIA number, fb
/Y' V
~
^Tlh% h r 0 d S u kt h v
'N-9.MtAn/ar % 19 ')D 2
( Op op').
/
.Qk &Q
]
AY&U
='
i
.fA,m w sf M Q a&n.
cadh.
Uw m u n w w d' i
1 SIGP RE, DIRE CTO Divibife'f-OF F RE EDOM OF INFORMATION AND PUBLICATIONS SE RVICES Orts m / h,(
f 9306290234 930420 PDR FOIA O'MEALIA93-94 PDR m r n n n y a < r..., o n.n o
_ - NI.- ---- s
W I
Jp f
/
~
'o, UNITED 5TATES
~~
~
+
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8,
4 o
.,i wAsmNGT ON. D. C. 20555
{
g CHAIRMAN December 23, 1992 u
i
~
Mr. Joe F. Colvin President and Chief Executive Offic.er Nuclear Management and Resource Council 1776 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006-3706
Dear Mr. Colvin:
Thank you for your letter of December 21, 1992 regarding the NUMARC review of NRC regulations and the regulatory process.
It is obvious that you have devoted considerable time and_ effort to this important topic.
The results of your review will' provide valuable input to the Commission's regulatory review' initiative".
I have directed the staff to arrange a meeting for NUMARC to brief the Commission on the results' of its review during the week of January 18 or no later than the-veek of January 25, 1993.
A cognizant staff member will be in touch with.you.to make arrangements for this meeting.
.e The Commission looks forward to working with NUMMtc as we continue to address these important regulatory review issues.
g.
N Sincerely, F:
,/t "
s
[
Ivan Selin r
?
i i
i i
0600%a
XmT t
NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL mb E,e Sneet NW e Sude 300 wosmngton.DC 20006370c (202)S72 1280
.k:= r.comn December 21,1992 g'fg c
The Honorable Ivan Selin Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commksion Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Cnairman Selin:
At the June 25,1992, NUMARC Board of Directors' meeting you discussed the status of the Commission's review of NRC regulations which have unnecessarily increased costs to licensees without a commensurate safety benefit. You requested specific examples of changes to NRC regulations and regulatory processes that the industry believes were appropriate based upon the industry's knowledge and experience in the operation and management of commercial nuclear power plants and the maturity of the nuclear technology. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with our initial response and, because of the importance of this matter, to request expedited Commi action in the areas identified.
The Executive Summary (enclosed) provides a brief description of the initial results of our review. Attachments 1 through 8 discuss specific issues where we believe immediate action can be taken without further study or analysis. Attachments 9 through 11 address longer term issues where efforts need to be commenced in the near future to effect positive change in the needed time frames. In addition, we ask the Commission consideration of the industry's comments on the Systematic Assessment of licensec Performance (SALP) program, which were submitted on October 20,1992 (copy included as Attachment 12), where we believe significant changes are also warranted.
We will be forwarding information on other issues for your consideration as our evaluations continue.
We look forward to working with the Commission and the NRC staff to address these matters, which are of critical importance to the industry. Because cost control is an urgent problem to the industry, we would like to meet with the Commiuion in early January to discuss these and related issues to facilitate their timely resolution.
Sincerely, j y '.il.de.ol Joe F. CoMn
,93o1otroty@ef*~o
~
con __..
on i
", z[
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Nuclear energy is a key component of our national electrical energy supply mix.
However, the availability of nuclear energy in the future is at risk due to continually escalating nuclear generation costs. In order for nuclear energy to remain a viable energy source in the future, the impact on generating costs of the regulatory environment in which it currently operates must be reexamined. To assure the continued safe and ruiable operation of nuclear energy plants in a cost-effective manner, the overall regulatory environment, including the practices of the NRC and its licensees, must be reevaluated to ensure that they serve their intended purposes effectively. That will enable licensee resources to be redirected to safety-significant or operationally-important issues, or for unnecessary costs to be reduced.
The NRC has acknowledged that it has the responsibility to require only those measures that reasonably contribute to an adequate level of nuclear safety and has initiated actions to review its regulations to eliminate unnecessary requirements which do not provide corresponding safety benefit. In an address to the NUMARC Board of Directors, NRC Chairman Selin described the status of the initiative that the NRC has undertaken and, in recognition of the nuclear energy industry's knowledge and experience in the operations and management of nuclear power plants, requested that the nuclear industry provide specific examples of regulations and regulatory processes which have unnecessarily increased costs to licensees without a commensurate safety.
benefit.
Le industry has conducted an initial review of existing regulations and regulatoy processes to identify such areas. The results of that initial review, and associated recommendations for Commission action, are the subject of this submittal and summarized below. The primary propose of this response is to identify areas and provide data where expedited actions can be taken on important near-term issues facing the NRC and the industry. In addition, this response identifies several longer term issues where timely action needs to be taken in the near future. In each area, recommendations were developed to facilitate expeditious Commission action to eliminate or modify those regulations or practices that do not serve their intended purpose.
1 f 0&93$
NEAR-TERM ISSUES ne following near term issues are regulations and regulatory processes that unnecessarily increase costs without corresponding safety benefit and where sufficient data exist to take immediate action to correct the situation without further study or analysis.
Fitness-For-Duty (FFD) - (Attachment 1)
The nuclear power industry has acquired three years of experience in the implementation of FFD regulations. De industry has concluded that the current regulations often exceed what is necessarf to provide reasonable assurance of freed from drugs or alcohol, or are in conflict with related requirements in other NRC regulations. Based upon this experience and the knowledge gained from implemen the requirements, the industry has developed a number of recommendations for the modification of those regulations. Those recommendations fallin two major categories:
(I) where implementation experience has identified areas where clarification is warranted or changes should be made to more effectively achieve the intended purpose; and (2) where modification is appropriate to eliminate conflicts with related requirements established in the access authorization regulations, or to bring the nuc power industry's FFD program into alignment with programs in other comparable industries.
The major FFD issues of concern are described in Attachment 1. The appendices to Attachment 1 provide copies of prior correspondence describing other issues of
)
importance. The 14 major issues addressed are the following:
l Reducing the rate of random testing to 50 percent of the total plant work J
force for all personnel who have unescorted access; Modifying the definition of " suitable inquiry" to include a time period for updating that is consistent with the access authorization rule; Modifying the rule's application to personnel who have infrequent or periodic unescorted access; Extending the refresher training interval from annual to biennial and eliminating the 60-day retraining requirement; Modifying the rule to be consistent with the access authorization rule for persons responsible for administering FFD testing programs; Authorizing an " alcohol-only" for-cause test in specific circumstances; Modifying the requirement for submission of FFD data from individual sites to the utility and from semi annual to annur.1 reporting; Elimiaating the second breath test for alcohol when the first test is negative; 2
m m.
-.m.
6 Modifying the preaccess testing requirements to allow equivalency for personnel who have been subject to random testing within the past 60 days; Extending the FFD program audits from annual to biennial; Modifying the rule to clarify FFD record retention requirements; Clarifying requirements for follow up testing after a first confirmed positive drug test; Deleting the requirement for licensees to audit HHS-certified laboratories; and Eliminating three unnecessary proposed changes to Part 26 resulting from NRC staff's perceived FFD program shortcomings.
Securirv - (Attachment 2)
Seven revisions to 10 CFR Part 73 have been recommended. Rese revisions will bring the regulation into line with the current security environment, which has changed significantly since the design basis threat concept was initially promulgated in 1977. De recommended changes will also reduce unnecessary administrative burdens associated I
with the implementation of these requirements.
First, the industry is recommending that the design basis threat be reassessed to correctly relate to the current radiological sabotage threat. Even though significant terrorism has been experienced in other countries, security requirements for overseas plants are far less prescriptive than NRC requirements. He Commission is strongly encouraged to availitself of the current assessment by federalintelligence gathering agencies of the terrorism potential at U.S. commercial nuclear power plants.
De industry is also recommending the removal of the following six administrative requirements that have proven to provide no measurable benefit to safety:
the requirement to maintain vital area door locks; pesting a guard at any containment entrance to monitor access of personnel and material; the requirement that all vehicles be escorted by a member of the security organization while in the protected area; the requirement that armed, on-duty security guards be searched before re-
=
entry into the protected area; the requirement for security events to be reported before confirmation; and Vs
=
the requirement for quarterly submittal of safeguards events logs.
J Elimination of these portions of the regulation could be done immediately to eliminate unnecessary, unrealistic, or overly burdensome requirements.
3 q
Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) Reliability - (Attachment 3)
Generic Issue B-56, EDG Reliability, was identified by the NRC in 1977, and an objective was established ofimproving EDG reliability to a level of 0.95. Industry performance data demonstrates that an average EDG reliability of 0.98 has been achieved since 1983. Further, the NRC now has docketed commitments from all utilities to maintain either a 0.95 or a 0.975 reliability level, based upon the coping assessment conducted as part of the implementation of the station blackout rule. In light of this demonstrated performance and the industry program for monitoring and maintaining EDG reliability that has been established and effectively implemented in order to ensure that industry performance continues to exceed a reliability rate of 0.95, the industry recommends that Generic Issue B 56 be closed and that no further rulemaking or other regulatory action be taken.
The industry has implemented an initiative to address NRC concerns regarding an individual EDG that exhibits poor performance. However, many licensee technical i
specifications still require that accelerated testing programs be conducted, l
notwithstanding conclusive evidence that accelerated testing is detrimental to EDG performance, reliability and availability. Continued accelerated testing is unnecessary and requires the significant expenditure of limited industry resources without any measurable added benefit to public health and safety. Expedited relief from current accelerated testing requirements is requested.
Radiation Protection - (Attachment 4) 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation," was issued in May 1991. To date, many other NRC regulations and regulatory guidance containing radiation protection standards and criteria primarily applicable to nuclear power plants
-J (e.g., Part 50) have not yet been revised to be consistent with the current revisions to Part 20. Ucensees will be required to maintain and operate with a dual system of radiation protection concepts and methods until such time as standards and guidance are made consistent with the revised Part 20, which will result in impacts unique to nuclear plant licensees without any appreciable benefit to public health and safety. Having two different sy tems for computing dose projections if an emergency were to occur could potentially lead to confusion of off-site officials and the public. Currently, an NRC generic letter is being developed to provide guidance to licensees on making applications for needed conforming changes to technical specifications. This approach vdll impact industry and NRC staff resources during the preparation, submittal, review and associated issuance of license amendments. The draft generic letter should be issued for public comment as soon as possible and NRC priorities established to assure timely implementation of the proposed actions. Further, the industry recommends that the NRC pursue expedited rulemaking to allow licensees to defer the changes to technical specifications until 10 CFR Part 50 and related regulatory guidance are updated.
4
B i
j 4
l Piecemeal or uncoordinated efforts in rulemaking, development of guidance, or 1
implementation of requirements pose unnecessary challenges to resources and priorities without commensurate benefit to health and safety. All pertinent regulations and related guidance must be revised in a planned and coordinated manner to achieve consistency i
throughout NRC radiation protection standards. Schedules should be developed to provide for correct, effective and efficient implementation.
Routine and Periodic Reports to NRC - (Attachment 5)
As a result of regulations or as part of technical specifications, licensees are currently required to submit a large number of routine and periodic reports to the NRC.
Many of these reports are duplicative or request information that is never used. Dey could be eliminated or reduced in scope without any impact on safety or the NRCs ability to analyze safety significant information.
The industry recommends that the NRC develop a set of criteria for data collection and review all reporting requirements in relation to those criteria. De subsequent elimination or restructuring of certain reports would result in a set of reporting requirements that are prcperly focused on information that is significant and thus necessary to be reported. Current ongoing activities, which are addressing specific reporting requirements but without the benefit of evaluation against consistent criteria, should be integrated into this larger effort in order to ensure that overall policy guidance is consistently applied in determining the need for pertinent information to be reported.
10 CFR Part 50. Atspendix 1 Containment trak Rate Testing - (Attachment 6)
The NRC is currently considering a revision to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, which contains both clarifications of current requirements and new requirements that will, in some cases, unnecessarily increase occupational exposure and contamination and increase utility implementation costs without a corresponding increase in safety. The industry recommends that leak rate testing requirements be established on a performance basis, similar to the approach being taken in the NRCs Maintenance Rule.
Dedication of Commercial Grade Items - (Attachment 7)
The current provisions of 10 CFR Part 21 relating to the dedication of commercial grade items for use in safety-related applications, and the associated reporting requirements for manufacturers, suppliers, and sub tier suppliers, are ineffective and cause unnecessary delays in obtaining equipment or replacement parts needed for use as basic components. These provisions, therefore, may inadvertently have 5
i
the potential to adversely affect safe operation of nuclear power plants as well as unnecessarily increasing costs.
The industry recommends that Part 21 be revised to make it more practicable and to assure that it does not inadvertently interfere with safe plant operations. Changes to Part 21 are proposed in three areas:
the replacement of the existing definition of commercial grade items with a more practicable definition; the inclusion of a Dexible generic process for dedication of commercial grade items for safety-related use; and the clarification that the entity performing the dedication of a commercial grade item is responsible for discovering, evaluating and reporting deficiencies pursuant to Part 21 requirements.
The industry intends to file a petition for rulemaking to request that Part 21 be appropriately modified, as described above, to accommodate the current procurement environment in a way that will not adversely impact plant safety.
Adoption of Imoroved Standard Technical Specifications -(Attachment 8) l The NRC and the nuclear industry efforts to develop improved standard technical specifications have now been completed and those technical specifications are now ready to be implemented. However, under current regulatory requirements, licensees electing to adopt the improved standard technical specifications must obtain a license amendment pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91. Because of the nature of the current licensing process, significant and unnecessary resources must be expended by licensees and the NRC on duplicative license amendment reviews to enable the standard technical specifications to be adopted. This impedes the achievement of the goals to improve plant technical specifications.
The industry recommends that a new section be added to the regulatory process for license amendments to facilitate the adoption of the standard technical specifications.
The industry intends to file a petition for rulemaking that will recommend an additional subsection be added to 6 50.91 to establish a new regulatory process for the adoption of
-i the improved standard technical specifications. 'Ile proposed additions would provide a f
l "5
stnactured, predictable and administratively efficient process that would promote the adoption of the improved standard technical specifications.
6
x
._~
. =. -,
a.
a ai.
r
- n LONGER TERM ISSUES The following are longer-term issues where efforts need to be commenced in the near future to effect positive change in a timely manner:
Independent Soent Fuel Storage Installations OSFSIs)-(Attachment 9) l Physical security requirements for ISFSIs, as specified by 10 CFR Part 72, impose i
an excessive burden on licensee resources with no commensurate safety benefit because they do not reflect probable effects of credible acts of radiological sabotage. Limited licensee resources are unnecessarily spent procuring, operating, maintaining, and testmg security equipment that provides marginal safety benefit.
Current activities are underway in the NRC to revise the safeguards requirements for ISFSis. In doing so, the industry recommends that the NRC ensure that it realistically evaluates credible security threats and establishes required security measures accordingly. The revised requirements should be applied on a consistent basis for all ISFSis, regardless of whether the facility is under the jurisdiction of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
The review schedule of the likely consequences of radiological sabotage to ISFSIs and i
the revisions to the physical security provisions of Part 72 to make it consistent with credible threats should be accelerated in order to reduce the significant resource burden that current regulations impose without realistic justification.
Reculations Marcinal to Safety - (Attachment 10)
The NRC is currently undertaking efforts to identify, assess, and eliminate regulatory requirements that have a marginal importance to safety and yet impose a significant regulatory burden on licensees. The review currently includes the following regulations:
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 3 - Containment Leak Rate Testing 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R - Fire Protection 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B - Quality Assurance 10 CFR 50.44 - Combustible Gas Control 10 CFR 73.55 - Security 10 CFR 50.49 - Emironmental Qualification Post Accident Sampling Systems (NUREG-0737 and Regulatory Guide 1.97) 10 CFR 50.54(f) - Requests for Information 7
De regulations should initially be prioritized in terms of cost impact and benefit.
The NRCs safety goal policy statement and Principles of Good Regulation should be utilized when evaluating the regulations, keeping in mind the possible application of risk-based and/or performance based approaches to the regulations. In addition, the review should consider not only the regulations themselves but also the associated regulatory documents and processes that effect the implementation of the regulations. An expeditious plan of action, including milestones and schedules, should be developed for the modification or elimination of these regulations to enable unwarranted burdens on industry or NRC resources to be eliminated promptly. The goal should be to complete all necessary changes by 1995.
Reculatory Thresho!d - (Attachment 11)
In recent years, the Commission, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and the NRC staff have become interested in various concepts, such as risk-based or performance-based regulations, that have been developed to improve the implementation of the Commission's safety goal policy (SGP). These activities have promise but have not yet met with success because of the broad and detailed consideration each requires.
Methods must be established to effectively implement the objectives of the SGP and apply, where appropriate, the concepts of risk-based and/or performance-based regulation. These methods should include extensive use of probabilistic safety assessment techniques as an alternative or supplement to the use of subjective judgement and deterministic, conservative analyses that formed the basis of many of the existing regulations.
Extensive interaction among the industry, the NRC and the public will be necessary to establish a new regulatory threshold. However, based on the operational experience gained since the current body of regulations was adopted,it is appropriate to take the time and expend the resources to examine the status quo and assess how reactor and public safety can be achieved in a more efficient and effective manner.
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Program -(Attachment 12)
On October 20,1992, the industry submitted its views on the SALP program in response to the Commission's request for public comments. A copy of those comments is attached, ne industry believes that it is in the public interest that an effective and efficient regulatory process, based on objective criteria, be established and administered fairly. He manner in which the SALP program is currently administered and used should be an important component of the NRCs review of whether the current NRC regulations and the associated regulatory environment that have developed appropriately serve the public interest.
8
4, Conclusion i
The industry intends to continue to provide its views to the Commission as it reviews regulations and regulatory activities in order to eliminate unnecessary burdens associated with NRC regulation while continuing to assure the current high levels of safety. Additional information will be compiled and presented as the industry's efforts mature.
In an equally important effort, the nuclear industry is reviewing ways to improve the manner in which utilities react to and implement NRC regulations and regulatory i
processes. As a result of working within the current regulatory environment, a culture has developed within nuclear utilities in which it has become acceptable for personnel to accede to an NRC staff demand or expectation, regardless of whether it is truly necessary or provides a significant benefit to the overall safety of the plant. When viewed on an overall cost basis, the total impact of these decisions is very significant.
The industry intends to analyze this situation to assist utilities in more effectively carrying out their responsibilities, both as NRC licensees to operate their reactors safely, and to their ratepayers to provide electrical energy at the lowest reasonable cost.
Furthermore, the industry intends to review the extent to which utility personnel, knowingly or unknowingly, contribute unnecessarily to costs. The use of external resources to conduct regulatory work and the effectiveness of specialissue groups on regulatory issues will also be evaluated. Because licensees bear the ultimate responsibility for day to-day plant operations, decisions regarding the most prudent commitment of resources can only be made by the licensee.
It is expected that this introspective evaluation will be performed both throughout the industry and individually within each utility. As results are compiled,information will be provided to the Commission for its consideration, where appropriate.
The actions being initiated through these activities are vital first steps to controlling the increasing costs of nuclear generation, without cornpromising public safety. Though the responsibilities of the NRC and its licensees are much different, they are complementary. Effective communication and interaction between the NRC and the industry is necessary to effect the positive changes the public interest requires.
y
,eg A