ML20140B774
| ML20140B774 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/02/1983 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Ahearne, Gilinsky, Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140B780 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-759 NUDOCS 8305120033 | |
| Download: ML20140B774 (1) | |
Text
-
9: , , , , lli LIL b FIgG
,. y?
kq UNITED STATES
.4UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSle TEmCM
- . j W ASHING TON, 0. C. 20555
%f...* - ; ,/
MAY 0 21983 r
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts Connissioner Asselstine FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING PROPOSAL FOR A FIVE-YEAR BACKFITTING PLAN-Subsequent to my memorandum to you dated March 11, 1983, Combustion Engineering (CE) submitted the enclosed approach regarding a five-year backfitting plan. As you can see, the CE proposal only outlines a concept for implementing new regulatory requirements on operating l plants; it does not, however, present a plan to accomplish that l concept in any detail.
l A similar approach (i.e., an Integrated Assessment approach) is being developed as part of a staff proposal for a follow-on program to the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) Phase II. The staff will present options for SEP Phase III which will address the CE concept as well as the lessons. learned from SEP Phase II and other regulatory issues.
We currently expect to submit our proposal to the Commissio.n by the l end of this summer.
l l
(5gr.sd Miarr. J. Dirch William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
i As stated
! cc w/ enclosure:
SECY OPE '
! CONTACT: I,h /
William Russell, SEPB:DL 0 -
9 /
49-29794 3
ld 0 9 C3 3 ,
C>
~'
,Y )
i- .
9-E Power Systems Td. 203/688-1911
,- Combustion Engineenng. Inc. Telex: 99297 1000 Prospect Hill Roac Windsor. Connecticut 06095 . ., ;-
~
POWER H SYSTEM.S -
March 17, 1983 LD-83-023 Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
The Five-Year Backfitting Plan
Dear Mr. Eisenhut:
In accordance w'ith your request, I am enclosing an outline of Combustion Engineering's concept for a scheduled backf:tting plan for reactor licensing titled, An Aproach to Regulatory Backfits Implementation: "The Five-Year Plan". We believe that adopting such an approach could provide a significant improsement in the predictability and stability of the backfitting pr.ocess while, at the same time, improving the safety, reliability, and availability of operating plants. Since the enclosure is merely an outline of.aur concept, we would be happy to meet with you at your convenience and discuss this matter further.
If I can be of any assistance, please feel free to ca.ll on me.
Very truly your s, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.
m2-A. E. Scherer
- Director Nuclear Licensing ,
yGo I AES:las Enclosure 8303220159 G30317 PDR TOPRP ENVC-E ^
C . PDR
i An Approach to Regulatory Backfits Implementation: -- ?L'.
"The 5-Year Plan" -
The impac't of regdlatory backfits on the nuclear indus'try has received widespread attention in recent ye.ars. A number of proposed backfit policies or rules have been put forward both within the NRC and by industry. Each proposal appears to be directed toward a more rational and controlled method of identifying backfit issues, and assessing their significance in a cost / benefit framework. In fact, some significant strides have already been made by the NRC in establishing an internal review mechanism directed by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR). It appears that the activities of the CRGR, strengthened by appropriate rule changes, can make the process of reviewing and evaluating potential backfits more effective. Another goal of a backfit policy, however, should be its predict. ability and stability: licensees must know, with some degree of ass,urance, what will be required of them, without continual changes. This can be achieved, in large measure, by
~
controlling the method of backfit imolementation. Presuming that the need for a particular backfit is rationally evaluated, additional stability in the regulatory process can be achieved by imposing these backfits in discrete packages at specified intervals. This is the basis of the proposed "5-year plan".
In summary, the 5-year plan can be describad as follows:
In this scheme the NRC would accumulate backfit requirements which passed a safety benefit-cost test and which did not pose an imninent risk to the health and safety of the public. At five-year intervals these requirements would be imposed upon licensed plants which would then be required to implement a fix in the course of the following five year hiatus. The plan provides the NRC and the utilities the benefit of longer term planning to synchronize the implementation of requirements and the ability to analyze the synergistic ef.fects of the entire backff t package.
Note that the 5-year. plan i.s essentially an implementati.on plan. It can be combined with almost any rational review and evaluation procedure to produce a
~
more stable and predicable overall backfit policy. From this basic statement of the proposed 5-year plan, several questions inmediately arise:
Questior.: "Is there any precedence for the NRC " sitting on" an identified issue rather than requiring immediate backfit?"
Answer: Yes. The Systematic Evaluation Program Phase II demonstrated the flRC Staff ability to " hold up" on the imposition of identified backfit items until the entire -
program (or, in this case, the previous five-year period) had been completed.
fiarch 17, 1983 s
i- .
s .
', -2_
~
. i Question: "Why five years?" -
' ~
Answert .
Five years appear to be a reasonable utility planning-horizon.
- Five years also provides th'e NRC with assurance that all identified and approved backfits woulu be fully implemented within one to ten years. This appears to be a reasonable objective. ,
Question: "Are the five-year periods the same for all plants, or are they staggered?"
Answer: Although the plan could be formulated in either manner, it would appear to be more attractive if the 5-year period was the same for all plants. Greater effort could be applied to integrating the set of backfit requirements and there would be less chance of changing or reinterpreting the .
requirement than if staggered reriods were used. ,
Question: "How can all requirements be uniformly applied to all plants? What about plant specific differences?"
Answer: Certainly plfrt specific differences must be considered.
In fact, 'the integrated set 5T requirements that would initiate a 5-year implementation period should be in the form of a requirement / plant matrix. Some plants should be exempt from individual requirements due to either design or specific cost / benefit considerations at that plant.
Question: "Would the 5-year plan apply only to hardware or would it also apply to software: engineering analysis and evaluation?"
Answer: Since engineering analysis competes for the same engineering resources as hardware and system design, it should be included if stability is to be preserved.
Certain1-y, however, judgement needs to be exercised in determining if an information request or analysis constitutes a backfit. As a rule of thumb, requests for existing information or analysis would not be a backfit, while requests for new analyses would be.
March 17, 1983 e
e e
s.
, Question: "What about backfits that appear to have major safety + U significance?" ,
Answer: .. As is currently the case.. issues that have imminent risk to
. the health andd safety of the public must be implemented immediately. By "imediately" one generally means immediate plant shutdown or, at the minimum, the next refueling outage. Under this plan, all other changes would be included in the next 5-year implemeritation period.
Question: " Won't this approach result in more issues resulting in immediate actions since the only other choice is to delay implementation for several years?"
Answer: There certainly would be pressur'e in that direction, but if immediate actions'are restricted by the Comission to only those that have an imminent risk to the health and safety of the public, then the number should be very small.
Question: "How would the 5-year plan be applied to plants under construction ?"
Answer: Plants under construction should .be treated exactly like plants with operating licenses, with one exception:
Deadlines for implementation of requirements do not reed to be met until plant construction is completed. At that time, however, all existing deadlines must be met. It other words, if the 5-year implementation deadline happened to fall within the construction period, then the deadline would be at the completion of construction. At the completion of construction each plant must fully comply with all backfit requirements whose implementation due dates had already passed. In addition, the plant must also adh,ere to the next scheduled due date even,1f that is less than 5 years away.
The 5-year plan outlined above could have significant benefits for both the NRC and the industry:
It would allow the integration of a number of backfit requirements accumulated over time into a coherent package.
Material, manpower, and financial resource requirements could be planned for 5-year periods with a high degree of assurance.
It would provide increase regulatory stability and predictability. ,
Certainly, the implementation of such a plan would require the co-operation and active participation of both the NRC and the industry. The benefits appear to warrant the effort. Since the NRC predicts that the majority of the Unresolved Safety Issues will be " resolved" by 1985, it night be a prudent opportunity to start the first 5-year cycles at that time. All outstanding backfits as of 1/1/85 (to be implemented by 1/1/90) could be identified and the next 5-year cycle begun.
March 17,1983
._______ ________ _________ _-_________ _