ML20195D103
| ML20195D103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/12/1998 |
| From: | Essig T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Sullivan E NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9811170295 | |
| Download: ML20195D103 (8) | |
Text
,
t g
o urg k
UNITED STATES y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566-0001
- ,o November 12, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Edmund J. Sullivan, Jr., Acting Chief Material and Chemical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Rege:ation FROM:
Thomas H. Essig, Acting Chief Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch t\\
Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
DSI-13, "THE ROLE OF THE INDUSTRY"- KEY POINTS FROM BREAKOUT SESSION 11, "lNDUSTRY INITIATIVES AS SUBSTITUTES FOR REGULATORY ACTION' The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a summary of the subject Breakout Session for use by Mr. Robert Hermann of your staff in the Commission Paper which he is preparing.
Breakout Session ll, " Industry Initiatives as Substitutes for Regulatory Action," was held on Tuesday, September 1,1998, in Rosemont, Illinois. The session opened with introductory comments from Jack Roe, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); Carl Terry, Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Vessel Internals Program; Frank Carr, Performance Demonstration Initiative; and Bob Hermann, NRC. The introductory comments were followed by a discussion of nine questions posed by the NRC in hopes of gathering information from the industry. In the following material, the key points made by the introductory speakers, attendees, and panel members are summarized.
Introductory Comments O
l Jack Roe opened the session by stating the objective of the meeting, which was to obtain
/ h' responses from stakeholders on the following two questions: (1) Can industry initiatives be p
relied upon as adequate and effective substitutes or complements for the NRC's regulatory activities? and (2) Can industry initiatives be relied upon to complement NRC activities in various areas, such as in the materials and non-power reactor fields? The ground rules for discussion during the session were laid. The three remaining introductory speakers were to comment, the panel would discuss the nine questions, and the audience would then be invited to participate.
Carl Terry summarized the BWR Vessel Internals Program (VIP), which serves as a framework for dealing with generic issues for BWR owners. The program was initiated in response to an
' increase in the amount of inner granular stress corrosion cracking in reactor vessels. Ongoing inspection mechanisms were not in place, and a lack of credibility and trust was emerging between the NRC and BWR owners. Thus, the BWR VIP was formed. The Electric Power Research In,stitute (EPRI) acts as program manager for the project anJ is heavily involved th4g 9811170'295 981112
()
/f/
4 PDR ORG NRRA
//8 N [
.]
, <> m s 4 p e y.
E. Sullivan, Jr. executive level management from the industry. The generic inspection criteria, repair criteria, and template for proceeding with other components within the internals were created. The project prioritized what was important, established a framework for business, characterized the internals and other components, and established generic inspection and repair-type approaches. It also established agreement with the NRC on how to deal with commitments that came out of the program. The project has been extremely successful; the key to its successes has been ongoing communication with the NRC and the public.
Frank Carr summarized the Performance Demonstration initiative. This initiative represents all of the U.S. nuclear utilities. The initiative grew out of difficulties with the implementation of ASME Section XI, Appendix 8 / ultrasonic examinations). The group has designed and built flaw specimens; its technical working groups developed specific methodology and samples acceptable to the ASME code and NRC. Generic procedures were developed for such activities as bolting and sizing. Currently, the piping and bolting portion of the program is finished and most of the work on the undercladding crack and shell supplement is complete.
Three more yects are needed to address the remainder of the reactor vessel nozzle shell and inner radius.
Bob Hermann discussed NRC perspective on industry initiatives and how they tie to the regulatory process. Communication and consensus are considered the key, whether it takes plat,e between NRC and the licensees, or within the industry groups themselves. Interaction between the industry and NRC staff, cooperative efforts in terms of resource management, and being aggressive with the issue are also important for a successful initiative. For example, the VIP defined the issues from a system and risk perspective, and was able to make commitments to the NRC for inspection programs. Regulatory controls are in place in terms of looking at corrective actions and special processes under the Appendix B program; however, the Appendix B issues are not always clear.
j Comments Question #1: How do licensees intend to assure compliance with voluntary initiatit s?
a.
If we are talking about voluntary initiatives, then there is no compliance. The words
" voluntary" and " compliance" do not belong together, because NRC does not have to determine compliance if an action is voluntary.
b.
There are a lot of good guidelines that fit into Appendix B programs. Application of Appendix B programs provides mechanisms for onsite verification that the actions are being performed consistent with those procedures.
c.
As a result of the VIP process and formal interaction, NRC prepared a safety evaluation report (SER). Individual utilities can come in on their docket and make an adjustment.
l d.
There are many initiatives that are addressing safety issues to which licensees do l
commit, and then the compliance is the same as for any other commitment.
I
u
)
l 4
1 I
i E. Sullivan, Jr. e.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEl) is the perfe ct vehicle for controlling an initiative because one would have to follow the initiative as a licensee, or as a member of NEl.
NEl could recommend when NRC would like to see individual utilities commit to something that ha'. een done generically.
Qucstion #2: What happens to an initiative if a licensee starts to back out?
j a.
There is adequate guidance relating to how to manage commitments. It is not something the industry can control, out that is something between the licensees.
b.
It is typical to try to get ahead of an issue and see if the resolution of a new issue cannot be handled outside of fcrmal regulatory correspondence by the NRC. Licensees can i
volunteer to put information on the docket concerning what they were doing about an issue, if they were to back out of the commitments, Appendix B consequences would ensue.
c.
As to commitment management guidelines, commitments have different gradations.
The licensee bears the responsibility for fulfilling all commitments. If a licensee wants to back out of a commitment, it is the licensee's responsibility to notify the regulator.
Question #3: Must voluntary initiatives be documentad in the final safely analysis report (FSAR)?
a.
If the initiative changes the design, or changes a process that is already in the FSAR, the licensee has to document those changes in the FSAR.
b.
The degree to which an initiative affects the information in the FSAR will be the deciding factor concerning whether or not that initiative needs to be reflected in the FSAR.
c.
If there is a new requirement and the licensee is taking credit for some form of initiative, j
and the NRC thinks it is important enough that it issues an SER, then maybe that is the level of information that then should be reflected back in the FSAR. That is consistent with NEl 96-07. Under 50.59, licensees should certainly consider the information that is in the SER as part of the baseline information. Document how the licensee is meeting a j
formal regulatory requirement, that is supposed to be captuite in the FSAR in some fashion.
j d.
Consider the draft guidelines on FSAR maintenance.
Question #4: If a regulatory action becomes necessary to ensure adequate protection, would l
an industry initiative be an adequate substitute for such an action?
i a.
It is never appropriate for NRC to displace rulemaking action and rely on an industry initiative.
I i
l i
l i
o E. Sullivan, Jr. b.
An initiative is not a substitute for rulemaking. The industry groups should be working with the NRC. NRC could have the best of both worlds: (1) appropriate responses, which all the constituents had a voice in, the industry and NRC would save resources, and (2) NRC would still be autonomously determining the appropriate level of safety, The.f aa of using an industry initiative as a substitute for rulemaking is very alarming to c.
the " safe energy" community. NRC has an obligation to the public to allow the public to be able to gain access to certain levels of documentation. The public would not accept an industry initiative as a substitute for regulatory action.
d.
NRC is outside the design oasis when it does activities in severe-accident guidance.
How can a non-regulatory program be regulated? You are trying to force fit regulations on a type of situation that does not have any basis, e.
NRC has to be very careful when it endorses an initiative, that NRC does not move beyond what was adequate and jump to an increased marpn.
Question #5: To what extent are NRC licensee resources saved, through the use of industry j
initiatives instead of regulatory actions such as generic letters, regulations, etc.?
a.
If an industry initiative is really worked as a generic issue, the result is a net savings for resources of both parties.
b.
Generk issues eat up resources because of inadequate planning. Industry has 30 days to respond, which is not usually enough time and requires instant availability of resources. Work through NEl and let NEl set a time frame.
c.
Apply regulations practically, not just to the design basis. When NRC issues a generic letter, the licensee is trying to answer a regulatory requirement and has to put the
{
regulation to practical application. There might be a process for the licensee to talk to j
NRC before these things are issued so that the licensees truly know what NRC wants us to answer, and how the licensee should be answering things that fit in an application l
format.
d.
Docket submittal have increased; things that NRC has never asked to put on the docket, are now being docketed.
1 e.
The NRC staff should look at the templates before licensees start submitting 1
information.
f.
The generic letter did have a public comment rariod, so why do it again? Do not make the licensees go through the administrative routine when the NRC has already decided j
that this is an appropriate action that everyone should be ab!e to take.
Question #6: Discuss the process and general decision criteria to evaluate industry activities that would substitute for regulatory actions (see Figure 1).
l s
i l
l E. Sullivan, Jr. a.
The chart cmphasized the ongoing communication of the process that is set up as a binary pro :ess, but in reality the answer to most of those questions is not "yes" or "no,"
but "maybe."
b.
What can the licensee do as far as having more dialogue to gain an understanding?
Sometimes what gets submitted is not what actually gets approved. It would be helpful if the flow chart recognized that.
I The flow chart could be expanded on the front end. It suggests that the first step is an l
c.
j industry proposal, and it would be useful if the figure showed identification of an l
emerging issue and then a decision block. Reflect in the process who is going to come up with the industry proposal or if NRC will take independent action.
d.
Concerning the bottom box on the flow chart. The NRC follow up activities are where the process can unravel to some extent. The licensees and NRC agree on what the initiatives are and what the actions are to be in the implementation, but through the inspection process, we start redefining what we had all agreed on.
e.
As you engage in the review process, identify the things that are decided to be out of scope and do not need to be addressed. This provides guidance to the inspectors.
f.
Identify which of those steps are to be available to the public.
l g.
Define the criteria. Licensees would like to know the criteria upon which judgment is l
being made and some criteria for prioritization.
h.
Look at lessons learned for solving problems.
l Question #7: Are there similar processes that have been developed by other agencies or governments from which.he NRC could learn?
l a.
The Finnish licensee interfaces with its regulatory agency during the whole week of i
outage. The Finnish licensee plans, performs aggressive maintenance, and minimizes distractions. Its regulatory body is so simple, that the licensee was able to change a j
turbine in 2 weeks.
b.
Industry needs to have a partnership with NRC. Who can find the problem better than industry in its own audits, in its surveys, or in its training?
c.
An international committee of people primarily from EPRI can provide information on what is coming from that initiative for all of us to be more cognizant. It will give a better sense of what everyone is doing.
9
E. Sullivan, Jr. Question #8: What is the industry's view of the concept of risk-informed, performance-based initiatives?
a.
The biggest problem that facing us right now in trying to make the regulations and the regulatory process more risk informed is that the licensing basis for the plants is not risk informed. The basis is built upon deterministic analyces.
b.
Regulations now in place certainly do focus plant resources in the right areas from a safety perspective, but many of the requirements do not. NRC is somewhat limited as to how far it can go in making the process more risk informed, as we might have to change some of the regulatory requirements. One of the problems that pilot plants first ran up against, was the fact that they used their risk analysis to say that these particular quality requirements are Appendix B related, because they are safe-shutdown earthquakes (SSEs) of little significance, and are not that important to carry out. Let's make the NRC inspection process more risk informed and start focusing on the items that are of more risk significance. However, there are still a large set of requirements that are not risk informed, but that licensees still have comply with, c.
There are problems associated with comparing probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) to those of other plants.
d.
NRC tends to overdo reinspection requirements with substantial impacts in terms of radiation exposure and costs.
e The large-scale benefits of risk informed changes associated with how we do business are not coming; but small, evolutionary ones are.
f.
Engineering judgment is used in most industries except for the nuclear industry. Panels or teams involved in the process select on what and where to concentrate inspections.
g.
The PRA maagement pilot project with Region lll and the recent training and badging requirements were changed to a risk-based level and liked the new requirements very much.
h.
Requests for additional information (RAls) are an ineffective way of resolving issues.
l They take a iot of time and resources. We try to psychoanalyze what the reviewer has l
and what his history has been on various issues, so we can figure out what he is looking for.
l.
We should no have to us PRA performance for enforcement beyond a certain threshold.
There should be some provision for what which can be done within a policy.
Question #9: What is the future of the industry in this?
a.
Industry has to learn what its priorities are before it can fully answer. It can only adopt risk-informed approaches to a certain point, before the regulations will need to be changed. Industry has a task force that is looking at a plan of evaluating risk in a more
~
~
1
.f E. Sullivan, Jr. integrated fashion. The team has identified 51 regulations in Part 50 that would have to be revised to allow them to be more risk-informed. The team expects to send a formal submittal to the agency seeking a pilot approach for three pilot plants. The team would like to develop a regulatory guide before anyone could apply the pilot approach. If NRC would grant exemption from the current Part 50 for the three plants and replace it with a revised Part 50, the licensee could work toward a participatory rulemaking with NRC staff working directly with the pilot plants. When the staff is satisfied, then it would issue an SER, and the licensee could incorporate that, take the lessons learned, and start developing a regulatory guide for the rest of the industry. It was suggested that an advance notice of proposed rulemaking be published in order to notify the public.
b.
What will happen to non-power reactors in these same kinds of initiatives? Can Michigan State University volunteer to be a pilot facility?
c.
Can the licensee really expect some commitment to backing off on requirements or are new ones going to be added to the point where the risk-informed areas show that there are areas of greater concern?
d.
The industry lacks the mechanisms to move rapidly from plant specific to generic. The industry needs to figure out how to move from those applications that are best started as pilot programs, and then move from lessons learned to industry-wide implementation.
e.
Figure out early with open communication when there is a need for an industry initiative.
Decide whether it is appropriate to tackle an issue as a pilot program or to jump directly to making it a generic one, what the pros and cons are and make sure the industry has the NRC's approval to that approach.
Question from Jack Roe: I would like to know if there are any comments from the cane! about the approach taken today (the approach being round table discussion with panel members being from the industry, not just from NRC).
Answer to Jack Roe: It depends on the issue, if it is an informative type of meeting where we are trying to find out what approaches the NRC is considering, then the NRC panel is a better approach, because we get first-hand information on what NRC is thinking about. But when we are talking about more of an interactive dialogue, I think this worked out pretty well.
General Comments There was general concern over vocabulary definitions throughout the session. Participants found that every question could be answered differently, based on the status or perligree of the regulatory action. Tt:e definition of " voluntary initiative,"" commitment,"" regulatory action," and
" compliance" as they relate to performance-based regulations needs to be clarified.
Particular stress was placed on international relations. Industry is interested in learning what has been done in the areas of work management and dose accounting outside of the U.S.
Databases accessible world-wide, bench-marking information, and standardized record keeping were also discussed.
[r hh E. Sullivan, Jr. There was concession in the fact that it is impossible to standardize the whole industry.
However, it was not clear as to what standard or measurement industry should be attempting to comply with. Industry would like to see acceptable performance standards established, and feels that good performance of the equipment is what concerns most of the regulations.
Industry would like more focus placed on the results and less concern about how the results were obtained; thus, allowing the licensee more flexibility in that area. Participants did not want to see words like "enough"in regulatory guides. "Enough"is an undefined word and creates skepticism in the industry. Patticipants would like to see NRC maintain a high threshold in terms of regulatory affairs, expedite work on inservice inspection (ISI) relief using PRA methodobgy, and pay more attention to the effective dose equivalent (EDE) methodology.
DISTRIBUTION Hard Conv, psDCe'ntral Fi!6*G, PUBLIC PGEB r/f ACRS OGC PGEB r/f RAuluck EMail SCollins/FMiraglia BBoger RZimmerman BSheron JRoe DMatthews TEssig
' 'Jamgochian JHermann Document Name:a: brian OFF CE SC GGJ8 (A)C:PGEB,
TEssig [hb I
NAME gliAuiuck:sw DATE 11/ !P/98 11/0/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY