ML20195J569
| ML20195J569 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/23/1998 |
| From: | Rossi C NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| To: | Roe J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9811250016 | |
| Download: ML20195J569 (9) | |
Text
-
uro
[
-k-UNITED STATES j
1 g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-0001
\\ + + * *
- p*#
November 23, 1998 jy l
l i.
MEMORANDUM TO: Jack W. Roe, Acting Director Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Charles E. Rossi, Dir f
P*f i
. Safety Programs Division Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data l
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS FROM SEPTEMBER 1,1998, PUBLIC MEETING IN CHICAGO, DSl-13, "THE ROLE OF INDUSTRY," SESSION 3, l
"lMPROVEMENTS TO THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK" On September 1,1998, the agency held a public meeting in Chicago, DSI 13, "The Role of Industry." The meeting included utility representatives, industry groups, state representatives, and other members of the public. The Safety Programs Division (SPD), Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD), was responsible for Session 3, " improvements to the Regulatory Framework." The objective of Session 3 was to obtain external stakeholder input for two activities: (1) the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73,
" Reporting Requirements," and (2) the process to identify and develop candidate issues for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of rules, standards, regulatory guidance, and their application. A number of the session comments are being brought to your attention since they relate to the ongoing agency's tasks under the oversight of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
AEOD has grouped the session comments in' Attachment i based on our understanding of the description of the NRC topic areas listed in the August 25,1998, memorandum from L. Joseph Callan, Executive Director for Operations, to Chairman Jackson, " Response to issues Y Raised Within the Senate Authorization Context and July 17,1998 Stakeholder Meeting." For
/
completeness, Attachment 2 includes the comments related to the AEOD responsibilities for proposed rulemaking to modify 10CFR 50.72 and 50.73, and AEOD will address these comments in the resolution of public comments on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
CONTACT:
Jose G. Ibarra (JGI), RAB:SPD:AEOD (301)415-6345 9811250016 901123 PDR ORG NEXD PDR g [1 A} d / W [/ f/
c93 wa u l
1 J. Roe,
1 The rulemaking effort is listed in the tasking memorandum under Topic Area VI: Other Agency i
Programs and Areas of Focus. If in your view, any Attachment 1 comments are not covered in the NRR ongoing efforts, please inform us. We will consider those comments not covered in L
the NRR efforts in the AEOD regulatory effectiveness process to identify issues for improving L
the regulatory framework. The meeting comments in Attachments 1 and 2 are paraphrased from the transcript and the comments from cards completed by the attendees at the meeting.
(
The complete transcript of the meeting may be obtained from the external internet server (www.nrc. gov /NRC/ STRATEGY /dsl13trans.html).
' AEOD is also compiling the comments from Session 3 not covered by the areas in Attachments
-1 and 2.
- Attachments: As stated cc w/atts.:
J. Craig, RES T. Martin, RES A. Thadani, RES l
T. King, RES G. Holahan, NRR M. Johnson, NRR C. Grimes, NRR R. Wood, NRR J. Lieberman, OE
' J. Gray, OGC P. Bird, HR Distribution w/atts.:
. RAB R/F TTMartin FCongel KRaglin DHickman PBaranowsky DAllison L
L H;\\RAB\\lBARRA\\PUBLIC11.WPD L
- See previous concurrence
(-
To receive a copy of tiis document. Indicate in the box: *C's Copy without attachment / enclosure T e Copy with attachmenVsnclosure T = No copy OFFICE RAB-
.l-E RAB
-l E C:RAB lE D:SPD lf L,
NAME JIBarra:mmk GLanik JRosenthal CRosf 6d iJ DATE-10/30/98*
11/04/98*
11/07/98*
///MD5 ' ' '
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
.i
. - -_ - ~. -. _ - _ -. - - -. _ - -.. -.. -. - ~. -. -. -.
i 4
i J. Roe i j
~
L The rulemaking enort is listed in the tasking memorandum under Topic Area VI:
r Agency
- Programs and Areas of Focus. If in your view, any Attachment 1 comments are covered in i
the NRR ongoing e# orts, please inform us. We will consider those comments t covered in the AEOD regulatory effectiveness process to identify issues for improving t regulatory
-framework. The meeting comments in Attachments 1 and 2 are paraphra from the L
transcript and the comments from cards completed by the attendees at meeting. The complete transcript of the meeting may be obtained from the extemal temet server (www.nrc. gov /NRC/ STRATEGY /dsl13trans.html).
p l
Attachments: As stated l-I' Distnbution w/atts.*
Public File Center SPD R/F RAB R/F TTMartin FCongol l
KRaglin DHickman l
PBaranowsky P
H-B\\lBARRA\\PUBLIC11 WPD
+
To r.c.i
. copy or se document. inse.= in m box: c = copy wmout u..
- O copywm - r.
v===
C;RAB" lM D:SPD l
NAME-JIBarra:mmk GLanik JRosenthal CRossi DATE N/3o/98
,,/ /98
. c W /98
/ /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Session 3 Comments Grouped by Topic Area Listed in the August 25,1998, Memorandum From L. Joseph Callan, Executive Director for Operations, to Chairman Jackson, " Response to issues Raised Within the Senate Authorization Context and July 17,1998, Stakeholder Meeting"
- 1. Topic Area: Risk Informed and Performance-Based Regulation There is a loss of focus of what the regulations ought to be doing. It is to focus on safety.
We (licensees) are going to try and focus attention on the safety versus nonsafety significant issues, try and establish clearly defined objectives, thresholds, bands of operations that give us l
the latitude to operate without having the NRC concemed about every detail.
Utilities are very frustrated in the PRA area because of the responses to the pilots. The NRC's attention is not there to do the work and meet the schedule. For example, we submit technical specifications that allude to PRA, and the review is slowed down. The review goes faster without the PRA.
For plant operations, utilities will always want all three types of regulations - risk-informed regulation, performance-based regulation, and the classic deterministic regulation.
A performance-based rule example going wrong is the Maintenance Rule... the inspector comes out and watches a maintenance mechanic perform maintenance and judges his procedure compliance.
After an event, we do the PRA for ourselves, and we could provide that information to the NRC.
l l
l (attendee) would encourage the complete development of this risk-informed model. I do not want to be given the model on a piece-meal basis.
The PRA is one of the mechanisms that is going to give us the ability to separate the significant from the insignificant.
1 NRC is not in the business of regulating to perfection nor do we (utilities) want to be regulated to perfection.
l l
If it costs the utilities $2 billion to go from 4 E-6 to 3.9 E-6, then the safety improvement is not I
worth it.
I i
1 j-1 i.
l Anachment i 1
i
L
- 11. Topic Area, Reactorinspection and Enforcement The performance of the plants has steadily improved and yet the number of violations seems to go up and up.
We (licensees) have been working with the Office of Enforcement to provide industry input on the enforcement process, rM what we think it ought to look like and be structured around.
Maybe we will see some results of that effort soon.
A Level 4 Violation is a big deal to the utility. Do not get me wrong. But it is not worth the fight.
Appeal mechanisms exist, yet I know of only two appeals in the last four months.
I suspect that you (NRC) do not get more appeals because it is easier to just say, write the NOV resporyse and let us be done with it because if I contest it, then I ha; e 'Se NRC inspector that wroto the thing, who says you are challenging me.
Many times, support from NRR has been crucial to getting c;oper resolution of ari Enforcement Action. I would be concerned if in the current cutbacks, this NRR support is reduct d.
NRC needs to move away from these paperwork compliance procedure premss regt?remer,ts into whether or not the equipment and the people are producing what they need to pro iuce.
Most of the time our debates with inspectors hinge around is it reportable or not... V/e lose track of the safety significance of the issue.
The best of NRC intentions may be interpreted wrong... inspectors are now sayiag, now that I am not going to cite, and you are not going to respond on the docket, how are you going to track this regulatory commitment?
An example of a performance-based rule going wrong is the Maintenance Rule. The inspector comes out and watches a maintenance mechanic perform maintenance and judges his procedure cornpliance.
Ill. Topic Area: Reactor Licensee Performance Assessment (NRC) Focus on having performance indicators associated with those issues that really affect public health and safety, ensure that we have some bands in which there's operational latitude, and make the indutors euch that declining performhnce is clearly eMent.
IV Topic Area: Reactor Licensing and Oversight We (industry and NRC) need to define some very important terms such as licensing basis and design basis.
4 The NRC cannot continue to use licensing basis and design basis interchangeably. The terms j
are different.
2
\\
1 Licensees are going through FSARs and correcting errors. Many of those are in the sections labeled " design basis," but they are not really design basis.
A loosely structured process produced the FSAR as a descriptive document, then the pendulum swings and makes the page numbers a design basis because they are in a section ulled design basis. This is not right.
Until we (industry and NRC) are able to define exactly what the box is that the plant was licenseo a, to see a licensing basis for the facility, I think we are going to have a lot of problems in the inspections and in license renewal.
Why are licensees required to produce a " Design Basis Document" and maintain a "FSAR"?
The information in the FSAR is very diluted - much of it boiler plate - whereas the DBD is very concise. Commitments.and design basis and margins could be much more effectively and
. efficiently administered utilizing a DBD and eliminating FSAR maintenance. A lot of resources could be saved here (meeting comment card).
We (utilities) would not declare the Standard Technical Specifications a real success story. We are still struggling with standard tech specs.
l (NRC) De thoughtful as far as regulatory effectiveness... in a situation or condition that is not generic... don't ask the other utilities and the rest of the industry to explain why it is not applicable to their site.
When a license amendment is noticed, can the notice be generic vs plant-specific? That way another plant requesting a similar amendment coula avmo tne doik,e requirement.
i Application of the Backfit Rule comes in many forms. The classic generic letter says, tell us about your program for controlling such and such. And if you don't have a program, tell me when you're going to have one. That is Backfit.
There's another Backfit that says, I will tell you what - I have got an opportunity for you to avoid another generic letter. Please go collect some information on such and such.
Then there's also the Backfit when the NRC inspector says, I would sure like to see you put three more ci those things in place before I write my report.
The NRC can forestall any action by continuing to ask additional questions if the NRC management does not pay attention to the questions being asked.
~ l would love for the agency to make it a policy that you will never send your request for additional information without first talking to the licensees about the questions.
Utilities are interested in whether or not we are going to be able to transfer a license to a new owner in our lifetime. There are the issues of tech *.ical qualification, financial qualiGcations, pedigree of the owners, and foreign ownership.
i 3
e y
r -
. ~. _.. _.. _ _. -. - _ _.... _
4 4
4 The big problem for me (attendee) is 6* regulation because when that hits, I can not just pass j
my cost to the rate base.
- -~
a 1
0' s
0 i
a i
J 4
4
)
i s-i, 1
1 1
s-t 4
Session 3 Comm:nts en tha Advanc3 Nstica cf Propos d Rulemaking far 10 CFR 50.72 I
and 50.73, " Reporting Requirements" The Licensee Event Report reporting time should be extended from 30 days to 60 days.
The June 24,1998, Davis Besse event ran into problems with the one hour reporting requirements due to the fault of the NRC. The NRC tied up the only telephone line available.
Don't codify the human performance information into the rule. Don't put boxes for human fadors into the rule.
Did NRC consider that reporting to the resident inspector could sausfy some of the reporting?
It appears that licensees are frustrated with the lack of accountability for residents reporting back to headquarters.
We already are reporting to the NRC through our corrective action programs. Mott of these issues would be systematic non-compliance. Why do we have to report these issues separately?
The rulemaking schedule for 50.72/50.73 is too long. (A contrary statement) The rulemaking schedule for 50.72/50.73 is too aggressive.
I am dismayed that it is going to take a year and a half to get reiief and was wondering if the NRC considered anything to give some relief in the interim, discretionary enforcement?
Many times the NRC sends a team because of an event, and the reporting requirement then becomes the focus of the regulatory attention, and it has nothing to do with the significance of the event or what happened or why it happened.
The industry and the NRC still do not know all the information that needs to be captured for human performance. We still are leaming. Therefore, the information the NRC is requesting is only the tip of the iceberg.
Some of the new %ording is to clarify the rule,, but it may be read as expanding the rule. I am suggesting that the wording for the new reporting rule be more focused so that the words are not mistakenly interpreted to mean everything in the whole plant.
50.72 reports should relate to actual conditions that exist right now, real safety issues.
Utilities are already doing the technical specification required action. And the fact that I (attendee) report it or not, to me I'm having a real struggle to see what the retum to reporting is.
Extenoing the time to report will reduce the licensee burden. Extending the one hour reporting time is important, not only for 50.72 and 50.73, but also for by-product material users For 50.46(a)(3)(ii) [ Acceptance Criteria for ECCS), errors should not have to be reported if not t
significant.
1
The NRC should amend 100FR 50.55(e) which applies to construction permits along similar lines as the current efforts on 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73.
For the ANPR in the area cat.forcement, it would be beneficial to focus specifically on enforcement as it relates to the changes you are proposing so that there is a clear understanding of the changes.
I am concerned that the NRC just wants information (equipment availability for shutdown events) in the formal reports for analysis. The rule should not be amended to require this type of information when it is already available in the LER.
I'm not sure where NRC is driving the industry by collecting and analyzing things of so little consequence in terms of safety. It is not in the industry's best interest to spend a lot of money on something that does not have a s'gnificant effect on the operational safety of the plant.
)
- Before asking for information for the sake of information, the NRC should say what its needs are. What will that information be used for? If utilities know the reason, the correct information could be more readily obtained.
I would encourage you (NRC) to really loc k at what you need and translate that need into very specific requirements.
I guess it all goes back to need, what is your Ne:f for information. You may need information but then on the other hand, it costs the industi, c. !ot of money to try and provic'e that information. You've got to work that out.
What you are trying to do is ask peoph to provide data.. tell me exactly what you want to do
{
with it and how you will process it.
f-Licensees do analysis to determine how best to deal with improvements, people, procedures, and equipment. I do not see the same coming from the NRC as a result of the volumineus data from the reporting requiremen,s.
j There are hundreds of reporting e> qui.rements scattered through 10 CFR. Can the NRC make maintenance of the NUREG which summarizes reporting requirements a higher priority?
?
Alternatively, is there a mechan 6m hat NRC can use to maintain the NUREG or a supplement to it on-line each time a regulation changes a reporting requirement? (meeting comment card) 2
,,,.,,,.