ML20153B694
| ML20153B694 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/18/1998 |
| From: | Stewart Magruder NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Essig T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9809230219 | |
| Download: ML20153B694 (15) | |
Text
_
0 7
to
~
[%
. UNITED STATES B
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j<
5 l
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506-0001 September 18, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO:
Thomas H. Essig, Acting Chief Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
. Stewart L. Magruder, Project Manager -htd.
b i
Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON AUGOST 27,1998, WITH NEl TO DISCUSS 10 CFR 50.54(a) RULEMAKING PETITION On August 27,1998, the staff held a public meeting with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland.1 The purpose of this meeting was to discuss NEl's petition for rulemaking on 10 CFR 50.54(a) (PRM-50-62). Attachment i lists the meeting participants.
The meeting opened with a short discussion of the history of the subject.- The NRC staff stated that the petition had raised questions about how to apply a 10.CFR 50.59-type process to changing licensee's quality assurance (QA) programs. The staff stated that they planned to i
present an alternate approach to revising 50.54(a) at the meeting and that they welcomed feedback from NEl on this approach, both during this meeting, and in subsequent meetings.
The NEl representatives stated that they understand that the language in the petition may no longer be appropriate and that they looked forward to hearing the staff's proposal.
The NRC staff next presented their current thoughts on the petition. Attachment 2 is the material presented by the staff during the meeting. The majority of the meeting was spent discussing this material, in answer to questions from NEl, the staff stated that (1) it is important to note that a reduction in commitment does not necessarily lead to a reduction in safety, and (2) the proposed direct final rulemaking would allow licensees to adopt a graded QA program without NRC review if it was similar to a orogram already approved by the NRC for another licensee.
l A representative from the NRC's Office of the General Counsel next made a short presentation 1
on the two major options for the rulemaking process: consultative rulemaking and negotiated
/
l rulemaking. He noted that the traditional process used by the NRC is consultative rulemaking j
- but that negotiated rulemaking was also possible.
)
The final presentation slide was a list of three questions for NEl to consider regarding the staff's proposal. The NEl representatives gave their preliminary thoughts on these questions at the meeting and committed to follow-up with final answers via phone calls over the next several i.
weeks. The NEl representative's preliminary thoughts were that (1) there would be a definite f
9909230219 990918
((/[f PDR REV9P ERONUMRC 4
tDR_ _, ~ l Y
a.. u WW pme, w
Q d'*
T. Essig. September 18, 1998 benefit for licensees from the proposed direct final rule, (2) they had no major concems with the voluntary process outlined by the staff, and (3) they would be willing to work with the staff on the voluntary option to 50.54(a).
Project No. 689 Attachments: As stated cc w/att: See next page j
p-
'e e*
l List of Attendees Name Oraanization Tony Pietrangelo NEl Russ Bell NEl Biff Bradley NEl Adrian Heyrner NEl Deann Raleigh SERCH/Bechtel'-
Bob Gramm NRC/NRR Harry Tovmassian NRC/NRR Stu Magruder NRC/NRR Walter Haass NRC/NRR Frank Costanzi
' NRC/NRR Lee Spessard NRC/NRR Brian Shero'n NRC/NRR Suzanne Black NP.C/NRR Stuart Treby NRC/OGC Chip Cameron NRC/OGC a
l 1
l-
)
l l
.I
.v 4
n.
T. Essig 2
September 18, 1998 benefit for licensees from the proposed direct final rule, (2) they had no major concerns with the voluntary process outlined by the staff, and (3) they would be willing to work with the staff on the voluntary option to 50.54(a).
Project No. 689 Attachments: As stated cc w/att: See next page i
DISTRIBUTION: See attached page Document Name:g:\\sim10827.qa
//
OFFICE PGEB C:HOMB L SC:PGy((
NAME SMagruder$@ SBlac@
FAkstMicz DATE 9/W98 9//(/98 9/ @ 98 OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY u
I-l
A 1
c-i i
i i-j NRC - NEl Meeting i
i on 50.54(a) Rulemaking Petition i
8/27/98 i
i i
i I
i
)
1 1
1 4
i 1
MEETING OBJECTIVES NRC Staff to Present Their Current Thinking i
Regarding the NEl Petition for Rulemaking i
Provide Opportunity for NEl to Provide Their Reaction to Staff Concepts i
j f
i 2
i
e CHRONOLOGY NEl Petition dated 6/8/95 Public Comment Period 9/14/95 - 11/28/95 18 Sets of Public Comments Received Meetings with NEl on 8/29/95 and 11/2/95 NEl Letter on 2/23/96 i
j 50.59 Concerns Discussed at 4/30/96 Meeting with NEl 4
NEl Letters on 5/30/96 and 10/10/96 1
Meeting with NEl on 2/27/97 On Industry Need for j
Flexibility I
l 3
l
,e i
CURRENT STAFF THOUGHTS
{
ON PETITION l
Licensee Flexibility to Make QAP Changes Without l
NRC Review Should be Expanded Considerably l
l l
50.59 Change Control is Not Viewed to be Appropriate as QAP Changes Cannot be Readily j
Correlated with USQ Criterion Accept Principle That 50.54(a) Needs Revision, Envision Alternative Approach to Accomplish that Goal Pursue a Direct Final Rulemaking to Provide
{
Immediate Relief for all Licensees Pursue an Option that Could be Voluntarily Utilized by Licensees that Would Offer Further Relief Coupled with QAP Effectiveness Monitoring i
Voluntary Option to be Developed with Industry input, Either Formal (Negotiated Rulemaking) or With Less Formal Meetings and Workshops 4
l
)
NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING 2
l l
Outline of Negotiated Rulemaking Protocol Staff Experiences with Negotiated Rulemaking i
\\
5
.g.
.-s e
1 DIRECT FINAL RULEMAKING i
i l
Provide immediate Relief to All Licensees
=
4 l
Expand Scope of QAP Changes that Could be l
Made Unilaterally without NRC Review:
- Use of QA provision approved by NRC evaluation l
for use by another licensee 4
- Use of consensus standard newly endorsed by NRC l
- Elimination of QAP text provisions that duplicate commitments embodied in Reg. Guides and Standards
- Implement organizational changes that do not l
affect the required independence of the QA function
- Use of generic organizational and position titles
- Use of generic organizational charts to depict functional relationships 6
J VOLUNTARY OPTION FOR 50.54(a)
In Conjunction with Direct Final Rule, Amend 50.54(a) to Allow an Optional Change Control that Licensees Could Voluntarily Elect Licensees Could Revise QAP Provisions Unilaterally Provided that:
- QAP conforms to regulations (Appendix B and 50.34(b))
- QAP continues to implement safety function of any controls relocated from TS
- Licensee monitors effectiveness of QAP implementation for processes and equipment Effectiveness Monitoring Would Build on Current Efforts Under Criterion ll of Appendix B and Maintenance Rule.
Corrective Actions Taken, Commensurate With Safety Significance, to Rectify Adverse Results.
Staff to Review Results of Monitoring Changes implemented by Licensee Would be Provided in Routine QAP Updates If Licensee Desires to Pursue Change Not Covered by Change Control Criteria, Either an Exemption or Staff Review Would be Required 7
l PERCEIVED BENEFITS i
l 4
Provides a Performance-Based Option to Control QAP Changes Builds on Existing Plant Processes n
j Takes Advantage of Licensee /ASQ Metrics Development i
Offers Expanded Opportunity for Licensees to i
Decide How Regulatory Requirements Will be i
Satisfied i
QAP Controls Could be Readily Revised to l
Integrate More Efficient / Effective Processes i
j Less intrusive involvement of Regulator Absent i
Performance issues l
l Eliminates Question of Correlating QAP Changes j
with Some Change Control Threshold (e.g.
Reduction in commitment or effectiveness, or l
USQ)
I L
8 l
!c i
l l
NEl REACTIONS TO STAFF 4
1 CONCEPTS l
i j
i l
Is Direct Final Rule Component of Value? If Not,
)
Why?
l 1
i 1
l l
Would 50.54(a) Voluntary Option Address the Concerns Originally Espoused in NEl Petition? If l
Not What Are its Shortcomings?
l Would NEl, and Licensees, be Willing to Work With j
Other Interested Parties and the Staff on Voluntary l
Option to 50.54(a)? If so, What is the Preferred Mode of Interaction?
1 9
/
l T l
e i
j' Nuclear Energy Institute Project No. 689 cc: Mr. Ralph Beedle Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director Senior Vice President Plant Support and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy institute l
Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW
'1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20C06-3708 Mr. Alex Marior.. Director Programs Nuclear Energy Institute j
Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. David Modeen, Director l
Eng w ting i
Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 l
J Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Director Licensing Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 I
1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 l
Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division l
Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. Jim Davis, Director Operations Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1
1776 l Street, NW i
Washington, DC 20006-3708 L
I I-
.. ~... -...
. - -. =. -
A P
Distribution: Mtg. Summary w/ NEl Re 10 CFR 50.54(a) Dated Seotember 18.1998 Hard Cooy Docket File PUBLIC
.PGEB R/F OGC
.ACRS SMagruder WHaass EMail SCollins/FMiraglia BSheron
- RZimmerman JRoe DMatthews TEssig FAkstulewicz
- SMagruder LSpessard SBlack RGramm.
FCostanzi HTovmassian WHaass GTracy, EDO l
i i,
l 3
[
i
..