ML20137J439
| ML20137J439 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/01/1997 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137J192 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-062, COMSECY-96-62, DSI-13, SECY-96-062-C, SECY-96-62-C, NUDOCS 9704040023 | |
| Download: ML20137J439 (9) | |
Text
a-April 1, 1997 SECY NOTE:
The following documents are being released to the public at this time:
1.
Text of DSI 13 (Role of Industry) j 2.
Staff Requirements Memorandum dated March 7, 1997.
3.
Views of Chairman Jackson dated January 22, 1997.
4.
Views of Commissioner Rogers dated January 23, 1997.
5.
Views of Commissioner Dicus dated January 22, 1997.
6.
Views of Commissioner Diaz dated January 24, 1997.
7.
Views of Commissioner McGaffigan dated February 7, 1997.
n John C. Hoyle Secretary of the Commission l
I i
4 I
P.Ohega Iti.misipp,upppt 1
/l 9704040023 970401 hj)
Summary Analysis of Comments Role ofIndatry 13.10 ROLE OF INDUSTRY (DSI 13)
. COMSECY-96-062 3.10.1.
Direction-Setting issue and the Options In performing its regulatory responsibilities what consideration should NRC
- e..
give to industry activities?
RELEASED TO THE PDR Option 1:
Continue the Current Program W'/e7 4%
- l Option 2:
Expand the Role of Industry date initials l
Increase Accreditation and Certification of'L' ice'n'sle* Act'i*vlti*es * * * * * * *
- Option 3:
Option 4:
Increase Interaction With Industry Groups Option 5:
Use a " Designated Industry Representative" 3.10.2 Commission's Preliminary Views The NRC should move as expeditiously as possible, within budget constraints, to evaluate on a case-by-case basis, initiatives proposing further NRC reliance on industry activities as an alternative for NRC regulatory activities.
Staff guidance should be developed to describe the process and the general decision criteria NRC would use for evaluating proposals. (Option 1)
In addition, the NRC should increase its focus and emphasis on interacting with both industry groups and professional societies and technical institutes to develop new codes, standards, and guides needed to support efficient, effective, and consistent performance of industry activities important to safety. These codes, standards and guides would then be endorsed by the NRC.
I (Option 4) The NRC's initial activities in pursuing option 4 should focus on standards development in probabilistic risk assessment and the medical use l
Should the final Commission decision include Option 4, it is envisioned area.
that the NRC staff would be requested to identify for the Commission where there are 1eeds for new codes, standards, and guides and provide recommendations for additional areas of emphasis.
Although not a preferred option at this time, the Commission believes that use of a " Designated Industry Representative" (Option 5) may have some potential use in regard to large broad scope materials licensees where NRC oversight through inspection is not frequent. This would, in essence, be a potential method of increasing oversight rather than relying on industry initiatives to reduce NRC oversight.
3.10.3 Summary of Comments Significant/Important Comments Directly Affecting the Preliminary Views A.
or the Direction-Setting Issue Most commenters from the nuclear power induetry (including Nucleat Energy Institute (NEI), Westinghouse, ABB-CE, Siemans, and South Carolina Electric &
Gas) favored the Commission's preliminary view that NRC should expeditiously evaluate. on a case-by-case basis, initiatives proposing further NRC reliance on industry activities (Option 1).
Commenters for the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in their written and oral comments stated that an expanded industry role is appropriate, but NEI preferred to achieve an increased role Page 3-95 Phase !! Stakeholder interaaion Report
Role ofIndustry Summary Analysis of Comments 4
for industry by continuing the current program (Option 1), rather than by choosing Option 2.
NEI cited increased industry participation in the operator licensing examination process and inspection activities as examples of areas to be emulated.
However, NEI viewed licensing actions as an inappropriate area for expanding industry's role. The written comments from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards (BNCS) Chairman and the Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy Project also supported the Commission's preliminary view favoring Option 1 as responsive to j
the current environment and challenge.
Public Citizen stated, however, that any further reliance upon the industry will bring into question NRC's i
credibility as an effective regulator.
In the stakeholder meetings and in the written comments, there was very broad i
i support for the Commission's preliminary view that NRC should increase its interaction with industry groups to develop new codes, standards, and guides (Option 4). Commenters, involving organizations and individuals, supported 4
Option 4 and stated that the Commission's preliminary views responded to the current environment and challenge.
Power reactor program external stakeholder organizations which supported Option 4 included NEI, Westinghouse, ABB-CE, Siemans, Entergy and South Carolina Electric & Gas. Materials program external stakeholder organizations which endorsed Option 4 included the l
Organization of Agreement States (OAS), the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD), the Council on Radionuclides and l
Radiopharmaceuticals (CORAR), the National Mining Association (NMA), the Wyoming Mining Association, Kennecott Uranium Company, Mallinckrodt Medical and the Agreement States of Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas and Utah. Other supporters of Option 4 were the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards (BNCS) Chairman; and two internal stakeholder respondents involved an Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) member and an NRC staff member (Moni Dey).
The ACRS member wrote that because of
" downsizing" of licensee and NRC staffs, the NRC should place a high priority on Option 4, as codes and standards have had an established record of making significant contributions to the regulatory process. The OAS, with Agreement States endorsement, stated that Option 4 was the best' approach for involving industry in the regulatory oversight process while maintaining public credibility. The ASME commenter noted that many improvements in plant safety performance had come about because of changes in nuclear codes and standards.
And tLe Westin9aouse respondent wrote that hRC activities in developir.g or revising codes, standards, guides and PRA and risk-informed, performance-based regulations were overdue.
j Notwithstanding the extensive support for Option 4, several commenters expressed the view that NRC's participation on codes and standards committees either has involved, or could involve, negative influences and outcomes.
For l
example, in their written comments Westinghouse stated that NRC participation in standards committees should be technical and should not promote a specific i
NRC regulatory objective associated with an existing or proposed regulation.
Westinghouse indicated that NRC staff on these committees have inappropriately pressured non-NRC committee members to "give in" to the NRC member's views, in order to avoid having NRC later withhold its endorsenent of the code or standard. Underscoring Westinghouse's concerns, NEI wrote that NRC should abide by the consensus of the code committee rather than " picking and choosing" from the code committee's consensus product. NEI also stated that standards developing bodies might refrain from developing new standards, or improving existing standards, out of concern that the standard would be l
Page 3-%
Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaction Repon i
i
)
Role ofIndustry s==, Analysis of cc:= nts adopted by NRC and made into a regulatory requirement.
Further, NEI wrote that industry should not be expected to contribute, through codes and.
standards activities, to the " growth in the margin of safety which will be required by the regulator." Several c.omenters (including Kennecott Uranium
- Company, NHA, State of Texas, Moni DLy) recommended earlier stakeholder involvernt regulatory issues such as codes, standards or guidance development 1
i process in order to avoid delays or disagreements at the end of the consensus However, one commenter at the Washington D.C. stakeholder meeting-process.
1 (Thomas Crites) stated that there was a potential for conflict of interest when industry participated closely in writing standards that are incorporated into rules.
The radiation safety officer (RS0) for Michigan State University (a broad-scope materials licensee) stated at the Chicago Stakeholder meeting that she viewed herself as a " miniature NRC" reporting to the NRC, although working for the licensee. The comenter said that a " designated industry representative" (Option 5) was therefore "already in existence" at facilities that had an RSO.
In their written comments, Entergy stated that NRC should consider using a designated industry representative in the power reactor industry as well as in the materials area. However, NEI wrote that a designated industry representative is inappropriate for reactor litersees but may be worthwhile j
for some classes of materials licensees.
4 B.
Coments on Other Options Most materials program external stakeholders that explicitly comented on either Option 1 or Option 2 supported NRC expanding its reliance on industry 4
activities as an alternative to NRC regulatory activities, but described their 2
i preference in terms of Option 2, rather than Option 1.
Coments from CORAR, Mallinckrodt Medical, State of Colorado, the Wyoming Mining Association, i
Michigan State University, Kennecott Uranium Company, favored Option 2 for expanding reliance on industry activities, while only NMA favored Option 1.
(This may be due to the fact that the explanations in the issue paper for Options 1 and 2 gave no examples specific to the materials regulation area.
Accordingly, materials program external stakeholders may have based their preference on the implication of the title of Option 2, " Expand the Role of Industry," versus the implication of the title of Option 1, " Continue the 1
Current Program.") The OAS stated that, except for self-assessments, "it would be difficult to have industry groups self-policing without significant t
changes in the present regulatory structure and culture." Only Entergy, among power reactor program stakeholders, indicated support for the more aggressive approach to increasing the role for industry described by Option 2.
A number of materials program stakeholders (including 0AS, with Agreement State respondent endorsement, CORAR) endorsed an expanded role of industry in terms of allowing the industry to conduct more self-assessments. CORAR and the Wyoming Mining Association noted that materials licensee expertise and experience was now sufficient to warrant increasing industry's role. However, one anonymous comenter wrote that experience shows that licensees begin to i
" cut corners" in areas where NRC has eased its oversight.
In this regard, the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (ECNP) wrote that the nuclear industry could not be entrusted with protecting public health and safety, and so the NRC should reduce, rather than increase, industry self-regulation.
A number of materials stakeholders (including CRCPD, CORAR, Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) Management Association, Mallinckrodt Medical, the States of Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey and Illinois) comented that NRC should encourage industry participation in accreditation and certification Page 3-97 Phase 11 Stakeholder interaction Repon
Role ofIndustry Summary Analysis of Comments programs (0ption 3). Written comments from the CRCPD and the State of New l
Jersey noted that accreditation and certification programs promote standardization and consistency in training and operations and would likely result in better radiation safety programs. CORAR wrote that accreditation by industry groups and certification of industry representatives as outlined in Option 3 would help licensees improve their technical expertise and should be adopted.
Mallinckrodt Medical supported Option 3 for the same reasons cited by CORAR.
The respondent for the State of New Jersey wrote that she did not i
understand why the Commission did not support Option 3 since other regulatory agencies are considering this approach.
She stated that experience with an American College of Radiology accreditation process had directly contributed to improvement in health care radiological diagnostic capabilities. According to the commenter, the voluntary program was so successful, that the State had promulgated regulations to make it mandatory. The commenter urged that voluntary participation in accreditation programs should be explored more fully and be considered in either lengthening the regulator's inspection cycle, or reducing the length of onsite inspections. Materials program external stakeholders that cited other programs and positions in which accreditation either had or might be effectively utilized to improve performance included CORAR, CRCPD, NDT Management Association, Michigan State University, Mallinckrodt Medical and the State of Illinois. However, the NDT Management Association expressed a concern with respect to NRC's level of support and enforcement if it should require licensee participation in a radiographer safety certification.
The Association stated that " simply requiring certification without enforcement could lead to companies skirting the requirement...thus creating an economic disadvantage to those who comply."
In the power reactor program area, NEI, with Westinghouse, Entergy and SCE&G endorsement, stated that it may be appropriate to establish accreditation programs for certain issues, but that increasing accreditation and certification of licensee activities should not be the principal focus of industry /NRC interaction "as would be implied by Option 3."
C.
Comments on Important Omissions l
NEI wrote that an adversarial relationship has a chilling effect on open communications, and therefore, they would like to see a more cooperative j
relationship between industry and NRC in the resolution of safety issues. NEI indicated that a more constructive NRC/ industry relationship should be cited as a mission-enabling strategic arena in the strategic plan and suggested that a different regulator-licensee relationship ought to be considered, such as that seen in some Westesn European countries.
In their written responses, Westinghouse, ABB-CE, Entergy and SCE&G endorsed NEI's comments.
Respondents for CORAR and NMA disagreed that there are no broad industrywide advocacy or technical assistance groups that represent the interests of materials licensees.
CORAR, NMA, NDT Management Association and the Fuel Cycle Facility Forum were given as examples of industry groups that support the common interests of their materials licensee membership.
NEI wrote that it may be incorrect to assume that industry will continue to perform self-assessments for regulatory credit if the overall resource burden and enforcement exposure for licensees are not decreased.
Entergy and SCE&G endorsed the NEI comments.
Page 3-98 Phase 11 Stakeholder interaaion Repon
Role ofindustry S==. y Analysis of Comments D.
Coments on Internal / External Factors NEI and ASME wrote that, contrary to the concern that licensee cost-cutting in response to economic deregulation could be detrimental to safety, a fairly positive correlation exists between licensee cost performance and licensee NEI also wrote. hat increased reliance on industry self-safety performance.
assessments would only occur if such assessments resulted in more efficient That'is, it may be incorrect to assume use of industry and NRC resources.
that the industry will continue to perform self-assessments for regulatory credit if the overall resource burden and enforcemant exposure are not decreased.
In their written responses, Westinghouse, ABB-CE, Entergy and SCELG endorsed these NEI comments.
Comments from Public Citizen and NNaN reiterated that if NRC were to increase its reliance on industry activities, the public would need to have full access to industry documents and information that provide the basis for NRC's regulatory decisions on the industry activities.
E.
Comments on Staff Requirements Memorandum Questions In its preliminary views, the Commission did not pose any additional questions for public comment.
3.10.4 List of Commenters WRITTEN COMMENIS 1.
October 21, 1996, Organization of Agreement States (Robert Quillin) 2.
November 3, 1996, Marvin Lewis, philadelphia, PA 3.
November 4,1996, State of New Hampshire, Department of Health and Human Services (Diane E. Tefft) 4.
November 7,.1996, State of Mississippi, Department of Health (Robert W.
Goff) 5.
November 12, 1996, Unknown 6.
November 12, 1996, State of Kansas, Department of Health and Environment (Ronald G. Fraass) 7.
November 13, 1996, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Board of Nuclear Codes and Standards (James A. Perry) 8.
November 14, 1996, State of Oregon, Department of Human Resources (Ray D. Paris) 9.
November 14, 1996, State of South Carolina, Department of Health and Environmental Control (M.K. Batavia) 10.
November 20, 1996, Moni Dey, USNRC 11.
November 21, 1996, State of Louisiana, Department of Environmental Quality (Ronald Wascom)
Page 3-99 Phase 11 Staleholder interaalon Report
Role ofIndustry Summary Analysis of Commerits 12.
November 21, 1996, State of Georgia, Department of Natural Resources (Thomas E. Hill) 13.
November 21, 1996, State of Utah, Department of Environmental Quality 1
(William Sinclair) 14.
November 22, 1996, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (Gary J Taylor) 15.
November 25, 1996, Westinghouse Electric Company (N.J. Liparulo) 16.
November 26, 1996, Kennecott Uranium Company (Oscar Paulson) i 17.
November 27, 1996, John T. Larkins, USNRC, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards j
18.
November 27, 1996, Nuclear Energy Institute (Thomas D. Ryan) 19.
November 27, 1996, State of Texas, Department of Health (Richard Ratliff) 1 20.
November 27, 1996, Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors j
(William P. Dornsife) i 21.
November 27, 1996, Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals (Roy W. Brown) 22.
December 1,1996, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (Judith H.
l Johnsrud) 23.
December 2, 1996, Wyoming Mining Association (Marion Loomis) 24.
December 2, 1996, State cf New Jersey (Jill Lipoti) i 25.
December 2,199ti, Entergy Operations (Michael J. Meisner) 26.
December 2,1996, Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc. (Ashok Dhar) 27.
December 2,1996, ABB-Combustion Engineering Nuclear Systems (Charles B.
Brinkman) 28.
December 2,1996, National Mining Association (Richard L. Lawson) i 29.
December 2, 1996, Non-Destructive Testing Management (R.D. Dicharry) 30.
December 3,1996, Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project (James Riccio) 31.
December 3, 1996, Siemens (L.J. Maas)
ORAL COMMENTS Washington, D.C. (October 24-25, 1996) pages 78 - 96 1.
Thomas Crites, Gaithersburg, MD Pege 3-200 Phase il Stakeholder hieraaion Repon
Role ofindustry Summary Analysis ofComments 2.
Richard Ratliff, Organization of Agreement States Roy Brown, Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals 3.
4.
Judy _ Johnsrud, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Jane Flemi. g, NNSN, D.N. A.C.
5.
n Colorado Springs, C0 (October 31-November 1, 1996) pages 99 - 115 1.
William Sinclair, Organization of Agreement States 2.
Steven Floyd, Nuclear Energy Institute 3.
Ashok Dhar, Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc.
4.
Kenneth Weaver, State of Colorado 5.
Roger Walker, Texas Utilities 6.
Les England, Entergy Operations Chicago, IL (November 7-8, 1996) pages 86 - 99 1.
Roger Huston, Nuclear Energy Institute 2.
Mark Doruff, Amersham Industries 3.
Paul Farron, Wisconsin Electric 4.
Kristin Erickson, Michigan State University 5.
Kathy Allen, State of Illinois, Department of Nuclear Safety i
t Page 3-101 i
Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaction Report i
_-.... - _ _ ~.. -.... _ _.. _.. -. - _... _ -.... _ _.. _. _ _. _...
.. -.. _ ~
8 Role ofindustry Summary Analysis of r.--- %s i
1
.p e
i t
i 3
4 J
l s
.I r
a t
t i
J' 4
}
J 4
1 i.
F M
i i
This page was intentionally left blank.
I i
j 4
4 1
2 4
i I
b I
t Pzge 3-202 Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaaion Repon
-