ML20056A130
| ML20056A130 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/16/1990 |
| From: | Jordan E NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| To: | Davis A, Ebneter S, Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9008030296 | |
| Download: ML20056A130 (11) | |
Text
r j
E*'
[ptR$00 o
UNITED STATES i\\h y '
,n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a$
W ASHINGT ON. D. C. 20b55 v
July 16, 1990 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas T. Martin, Regional Administrator, RI Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, Ril A. Bert Davis, Regional Administrator, Rlll Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator, RIV John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, RV Thomas E. Murley, Director, NRR Eric S. Beckjord, Director, RES William C. Parler, General Counsel FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
SUBJECT:
JOINT WORKSHOPS ON BACKFITTING AND EVENT REPORTING Enclosed for your review and comment are draft materials relating to public workshops that are being planned to address issues raised by licensees in the Regulatory Impact Survey in the areas of backfitting and event reporting.
Members of my staff have already made preliminary informal contacts with your staffs regarding these workshops. As indicated in the enclosed material, it is prososed that the subject topics be treated in a series of joint workshops to be 1 eld in the September October time frame later this year. We are coordinating closely with NVMARC on the scheduling and content of the workshops, to encourage vigorous participation by the utilities and to better assure that the workshops serve their intended purpose to deal effectively with the issues that have been raised. We also need the full support of the regional offices and cognizant headqudtters program offices in planning and conducting these workshops in order to maximize their effectiveness. We believe this should include participation by NRR, RES, and OGC representatives as indicated in the proposed agenda, as well as several cognizant and knowledgeable regional managers in each region, and (on a best-effort basis) attendance by resident inspectors.
Please review the enclosed material and provide your comments, on any aspect of workshop planning addressed herein, by COB, July 27, 1990.
In addition to your review comments, we would also request that the regions handle meeting room arrangements for the workshops in their respective areas (with Region IV responsible for the Denver workshop logistics). Our objective is that the workshop schedules be agreed upon and meeting room arrangements be completed so that we can issue the Federal Reaister notice announcing the workshops in early August.
To meet this schedule, please let us know the meeting location S
'$}?}Y 2\\
NRCfRI CEPrfER CD?Y
/
9008030296 900716 PDR ORG NEXD
.a t
2-for your region by C.O.B., July 27, 1990.
If you have questions regarding any of the above requests, please call me (x24848) or D. F. Ross (x27361),
4 Orig nal Signo:f by.
E. L Jordan Edward L. Jordan, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
J. Sniezek Distribution:
T. Novak G. Zech E. Weiss J. Crooks F. Miraglia E. Rossi C. Berlinger C. J. Heltomes M. Malsch S. Crockett J. Conran D. Allison D. Ross CRGR Members J. Callan, RIV J. Wiggins, R1 J. Grobe, Rlll A. Johnson, RV K. Landis, RII C Central: Files /PDR' CRGRC/F CRGR S/F U
- (
Jordan J
- sim gros;/90 7/
07//f/90 0
90
M.3 "*"
..:,,y J
e
[pceo Io UNITED $TATES w
'g y;
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5-
.2 W ASHINGT oN, o. C. 20566 s
i gs j
[To the CEO of each operating plant utility):
Subject:
WORKSHOPS ON BACKFITTING AND EVENT REPORTING
Dear Sir:
The NRC in cooperation with NUMARC is organizing a series of workshops on two separate topics:
event reporting, and backfitting.
We envision that there will be four regional workshops (Philadelphia, PA; Altanta, CA; Chicago, IL; and Denver, C0).
The time frame is mid-September through late-Octobe.' 1990; Table 1 provides more information as to planned dates and locetions for the workshops.
The purpose of these workshops is exchange views on NRC policy in the subject areas, and industry experiences with the policies.
Among other things, we will be interested in constructive suggestions toward improving NRC backfit policy and resolving problems in implementing that policy on both sides.
The two topics are distinct, and will be handled separately in the planned work" Sops; but NRC and NUMARC have agreed that it is more efficient to cover both topics in a single series of regional workshops, as now planned, than in completely separate workshops for each topic.
At present we plan to allow about one day for discussion of each topic in the four workshops shown in Table 1; and, on the NRC side, there will be active participation by senior management and staff from the cognizant program and legal offices (AE00, N R, OGC and RES) at NRC headquarters as well as the NRC regional offices.
The first topic is backfitting.
We have sent (or will soon send) you NUREG-1409, "Backfitting Guidelines".
That report is a good summary of NRC's current policy in backfitting, including a number of questions-and-answers covering various aspects of the day-to-day implementation of that policy.
Also, the recent report on the results of NRC's regulatory impact survey (Draft NUREG-1395) contains licensee commentary on NRC's backfitting practices (e.g., informal guidance as " requirements"; proliferation of requirements; cumulative effect of requirements).
Familiarity with both reports is a practical prerequisite for the planned backfit workshops.
With this in mind, in collaboration with NUMARC, we have prepared Table 2 as a preliminary agenda for the backfitting day of the workshop.
We expect vigorous participation by the regulated utilities, if the workshops are to produce anything of value to either of us.
The second topic is event reporting, in particular 10CFR50.72 and 73.
Event reporting was also discussed in (Draft) NUREG-1395.
Note, for example, page xviii where we forecast workshops with a view to revising existing guidance to clarify reporting requirements.
To this end we have, again in concert with NUMARC, prepared a more detailed agenda (Table 3).
As with backfitting, we will need constructive interactions with you in order to make this beneficial,
,N p F* :.-
1
ia l
g.
The workshops will be public meetings, arranged by the NRC (of course, we will coordinate times and places with NUMARC): and they will be announced routinely in the Federal Register.
After the last of the four workshops has been held, we plan to write a report on our conclusions and recommendations for follow-up action.
One of the things we have to decide is whether it is necessary to recommend rulemaking in order to clarify existing guidance.
Your views on this and other topics can be expressed at the workshop, or, you can write your views separately to us, and we will consider them as we develop policy recommendations.
Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to these workshops as a milestone in improving our regulation and your response to our policies.
Edward L. Jordan Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data Im n* p. ' 1
=
p?,4
\\,oius l
k TABLE 1 Reaional Workshops on Backfittino and Event Reportino location Date Philadelphia, PA (for Region I plants)
September 13-14 Atlanta, Georgia (for Region II plants)
September 27-28 Chicago, Illinois (for Region III plants)
October 11-12 Denver, Colorado (for Region IV & V plants)
October 24, 25, & 26 The workshop in Denver is planned to start, at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, October 24, and conclude at noon on Friday, October 26, to accommodate the longer (average) travel times required for workshop participants at this location.
All other workshops are planned to occupy the full two days indicated above, f:Q l9 7 UiG1T
Table 2 Agenda for Backfittina Workshop Item Time lead Assigned 1.
Summary of NUREG-1409, 20 mins.
NRC/AE00 (Jordan or Ross)
"Backfitting Guidelines" 2.
Legal Aspects of Backfitting a.
NRC Perspectives 15 mins.
NRC/0GC (Malsch,Crackett) b.
Industry Perspectives 15 mins.
NUBARG (Stenger, ???)
3.
Bulletins and Generic Letters 30 mins.
NRC/NRR (Rossi) 4.
Utility Perspectives / Processes I hour Util. Reps. (Volunteers?)
5.
IPE/IPEEE - Severe Accident 30 mins.
NRC/AE00 (Ross)
Closure Status 6.
NRC Regulatory /Backfit Analyses 30 mins.
NRC/RES (Heltemes) 7.
Rulemaking vs More Informal I hour General Discussion Issuance of Requirements 8.
Backfit Appeal Process I hour General Discussion Plant Specific / Generic
t.n-"m Supplement to Table 2 (Suggested Topics For Airing In Backfit Workshop Discussions) 1.
Discuss in some detail the NRC backfit review process and the CRGR role, and the industry's understanding of that role / process, including views on how well it works and constructive suggestions for improvement along the lines suggested by the more specific questions below.
2.
How does NRC categorize proposed backfits (i.e., cost-justified safety enhancement, compliance exception, adequate protection exception).
In particular, why do many bulletins and generic letters come under the compliance exception of 50.109? Also touch on rare use of adequate protection exception for cases that involve defining or redefining what i
is an adequate level of safety (e.g., PTS rule & implementing regulatory guide).
)
i 3.
How does a utility determine on its own whether or not a plant / procedure modification is needed for safety? Does a utility go through a process similar to NRC's backfit review process?
In that context, as examples, discuss the utilities' experience and views regarding the following:
Generic Letter 88-14, " Instrument Air Supply System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment" Reg. Guide 1.99, " Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials" Generic Letter 8913 " Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment" Generic Letter 88-20, " Individual Plant Examination of Severe Accident Vulnerabilities" Generic Letter 89-10, " Safety-Related Motor-Operated Valve Testing and Surveillance" Generic Letter 88-17 (and forerunner GL 87-12), " Loss of Decay Heat Removal" (Other pertinent examples of regulatory actions in the last 2 years of interest / concern to the industry, e.g., counterfeit and traudulently marketed products, in-service testing of valves, loss of shutdown margin, loss of fill oil in pressure transmitters, etc.)
4.
Do you agree / disagree that there was a safety need for the regulatory actions taken in the above examples?
In these and other instances, how would the industry propose that NRC act differently? Was safety improved (i.e., significantly, some, not at all) by these actions? Which, if any could/should have been postponed or withheld?
5.
How would industry propose that NRC react when there seems to be ample evidence (as in the above examples, or currently in evaluating operating b
F n
m
- l
+
i av 4
. g.
experience with solenoid-operated valves) that something needs to be done for improvement of safety?
6.
What has been the cumulative impact of NRC-approved backfits over the last two years? More specifically:
What is your tally of the costs of implementing those backfits (both a.
total and individually) vs the costs estimated by NRC?
Is there a flagrant example (s) where the backfit involved would not have passed the cost-benefit test (where applicable), if more accurate cost estimates had been used by NRC?
b.
Is there any objective evidence that the bulletins / generic letters involved produced safety improvements or reduced risk? Does the industry, or any individual utility, have a method for such cumulative accounting of risk or safety benefit as a result of NRC-approved backfitting (or even attempt such accounting, for that matter)?
Does any utility believe that NRC^ approved backfitting has adversely c.
impacted the safety of operations at their facility, or significant-ly and unnecesarily interfered with other important aspects of the conduct of operations in your plant? For example:
- What has been utility experience with the scheduling of work during outage? Have NRC-specified schedules for implementation of approved backfits been reasonable?
If not, were you able to obtain relief from specified schedules, and/or what are your suggestions for improving the process in that regard?
- Have any NRC-approved backfits delayed or otherwise adversely affected major intended improvements at your plant, identified and undertaken solely on your initiative? Were any such initiatives considered by you to be of higher overall priority than the NRC approved backfit? Were any clearly of greater safety importance in your view?
(See item 3. above in this context.)
7.
Have you had any diffculty in understanding the regulatory basis or decision rationale for the bulletins and generic letters transmitted to you by NRC? Cite examples of specific difficulties.
In this context, discuss the following:
a.
NRC's use of the 50.54(f) generic "information request" (vis-a-vis backfitting, in accordance with 50.109), and the cost to industry of such requests, e.g.,
the IPE Generic Letter.
b.
CRGR initiatives to improve bulletin / generic letter format and Loilerplate.
e, [u 3
rjsq q &"-
NO lf 3-c.
Recent NRC/RES initiatives to improve NRC regulatory analysis guidance and clarify the relationship between the terms "regula-tory analysis" and "backfit analysis" (as specified in 50.109 and in the CRGR Charter).
8.
What are the industry's views regarding the use of rulemaking vis-a-vis bulletins / generic letters as a vehicle for NRC backfitting actions?
Refer to the backfitting examples above and indicate which, if any, you think should have been handled by rulemaking.
What are the relative benefits, if any, of more rulemaking vs fewer bulletins / generic letters?
9.
Discuss the backfit appeal process (both plant specific under NRCM 0514, and recent examples of generic backfit appeals considered by CRGR).
l-i shru$k e
i U
B &--
Table 3 PROPOSED AGENDA FOR EVENT REPORTING WORKSHOPS IN FALL Of 1990 lira limg Lead Assioned 1.
Overview and Summary of 30 mins NRC/AE00 Reporting Requirements: How (Edward Jordan) did we get to where we are and where are we going 7 2.
How LERs and 50.72 Notifications 30 NRC/NRR are used by the NRC (C. E. Rossi) 3.
History and Experience with 30 NRC/AE00 Reporting Requirements (Eric Weiss) 4.
Current Rule 1 making Activities 15 NRC/AE00 for Reporting Requirements (JackCrooks)
Industry Views and Experiences 2 hrs 6.
Panel Discussion to answer 3 hrs Rossi, Weiss, questions on what 50.72 and Crooks, Jordan, 50.73 mean; what is reportable.
Industry Reps.
'fhSS7 ui L.) 9
l BRA..c N
j (Suggested Topics For Airing in Reporting Workshop) 1.
How are written reports (i.e.
LERs) and immediate notifications (50.72's) used by the NRC7 What is the NRC's events analysis process and what are its objectives?
How j
are generic events identified?
What offices are involved in providing followup of events and is there any independent oversight within the NRC to ensure that initial reviews do not miss an important lesson?
What briefings and conferetoo-calls are routinely conducted that are the result of 50.72 notifications and what is their purpose?
What NRC correspondence and initiatives result from the LERs.and 50.72 reports and the analysis of those reports?
l 2.
What is not being reported under 50.72 and 50.73 that the-NRC expected would be reported?
What are the most serious types of events that have not been reported during the past few years and did the regulations require them to be reported?
Based on 6 years of experience with the current
- rules, what reports does the NRC receive under 50.72 and 50.73 that are generally conceded to be unimportant?
What areas of 50.72 and 50,73 are most often misinterpreted?
How many serious events per year are reported and how maar are not reported?
What can be done to make reports more complete and accurate?
Can facsimile be used to transmit 50.72 reports?
3.
What rulemaking has the NRC initiated to change bO.72 and 50.737 What steps are involved in these rulemakings and how long will it take?
What alternatives are available in the l
rulemaking process for making changes more quickly?
Are there changes that can be made to the interpretation of the i
existing rules without actual changes to the rules such as exemptions under 50.12 or 50.73(g)?
4.
What was the motivation for modifying 50.72 and codifying 50.73 in 19847 What is the relationship between 50.73 and the NPRDS system?
What lessons for the Vogtle IIT are applicable to the reporting process?
What rulemakings to change the reporting requirements, other than those already
- underway, are likely?
What are the NRC's views on the BWR Owners Group initiative to clarify reporting requirements?
g
, _.,