ML20199G967
| ML20199G967 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/17/1997 |
| From: | Malloy M NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Essig T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9711250344 | |
| Download: ML20199G967 (16) | |
Text
-
l, panog g*
t UNITED STATES
.,..g
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D.C. 2004H001
,% *****/
November 17, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Thomas H. Essig, Acting Chief I
Generic issues and Environmental l
Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Melinda Malloy, Senior Reactor Engin Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF NOVEMBER 5,1997, MEETING WiTH THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) ON FIRE PROTECTION RULEMAKING On November 5,1997, representatives of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) met with representatives of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEl) and NEl's Fire Protectic,n Rulemaking issue Task Force at the NRC'c offices in Rockville, Maryland. The list of meeting attendees is provued in Attachment 1.
The purpose of the meeting was to allow NEl an opportunity to present industry positions on the need for rulemaking to revise fire protection requirements and to obtain comments from other meeting attendees. Fred Emerson of NEl was the primary presenter. Mr. Emerson covered the industry's goals for the meeting and provided some background information. He emphastzed that the area of fire protection was very important to the industry, and that NEl had recently conducted a member survey to obtain input on rule changes deemed necessary, potential adverse impacts of rulemaking, and possible alternatives to a revised rule. NEl recolved responses from all members with operating nuclear power plants. The presentation slides he used for this background discussion are provided in Attachment 2.
In the second part of his presentation, Mr. Emerson summarized the industry positions obtained through the NEl survey. The slides he used for this portion of his presentation are provided in. As Mr. Emersods slides show, (1) based on survey results, the industry is unanimously opposed to a new rule, (2) the industry plans, however, to participate extensively in the rulemaking effort if the Commission directs the staff to proceed, (3) NEl recently created a task force to manage timely industry involvement in rulemaking activities, and (4) NEl will provide the staff with a written summary of the survey results before the end of the year.
Mr. Emerson expressed a general concem that the process of improving fire protection requirements appears to be accelerating without careful considerstion of how to proceed based on completion of certain support elements (e.g, i re protection functional inspections,
'7, development of a performance-based consensus standard), or consideration of the implica i
of eliminating existing exemptions. (It was noted that the National Firu Protection Association lhl[ h[, i *, '
- 9711250344 971117 PDR REVQP ERONUNRC 97-p#/
- i' BC Hlf CEFB CDPV 3EMM91
4 T. Essig November 17, 1997 was not expected to complete a performance-based consensus standard before 2000. In addition, although the Mr. Emerson had no specific proposal to offer on how existing elief and exemptions should be handled by NRC under a new rule, he stated that the industry would generally 6ecommend continued compliance with existing fire protection req'airements as an sitemative to complying with a new rulo.) Tad Marsh indicated that he understood this concem, S
but that the industry needed to be sensitive to the Commission's concems in this area and its desirs for timely improvements. He stated that it might bc ;;ossible for the staff tc take a stepped approach to rulemaking, which would allow for addit,onal revisions in the future if the results of the support olements highlighted by Mr. Ernerson so indicated. Another principal industry concern is the establishment of new requirements above and beyond those in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix R. Mr. Marsh cssured M-Emerson that any new requirements would oe subjec* to backfit analysis in accordance w,110 CFR 50.109.
Mr. Emerson stated that although the use of risk / performance techniques in the fire protection area has promise, he emphasized that plant risk assessments are not in ptace to support a risk-informed rule well. Industry suppor's a ctepped approach to using risk and believes a framowork needs to be put in place for development of risk assessment arid modeling toob. 98 could be used to address existing or emerging issees. Gary Holahan acknowledged that assessment technology is not as mature as NRC and the industry might like, and that he believes the rules need not wait for the inchnology; the technology will mature if there are regulations and guidance iri placu so that they may be used, as part of this these thcusalons, Mr. Emerson offered a list of possible attematives to rulemaking for NRC consideration. These include better communication with NRC to avoid differing interpretations, more guidance on performing Generic Letter 86-10 (" Implementation of Fire Pictection Requiremorts") and 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations, comprehensive clarification of the existing regulatius, and more allowance for risk significance evaluation with the current rules.
Following thesc Neussions, Mr. Emerson requested that the NRC staff share whatever information it coulo on the NRC's goals, schedule, and action plan on the proposed rulemaking effort. Mr. Marsh replied that under Direc tion-Setting issue 22 ('Research") of the NRC Strategic Assessment and Rabaselining initiative, the Commicsion has directed that thc preparation and coordination of rulemaking be mov: d from the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research to the applicable program offices. Consequent!y the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regu!ation will assume responsibility for the proposed rulemakinn. Details on the transfer of responsibility are being finalized.
Mr. Marsh also stated that Commission interest in pursuing rulemaking has not as yet been altered by knowledge that the indastry is not in favor of rulem:iking. In the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) on SECY-97-xxx,"[ title)." the Commission directed the staff to develop an expedited schedule for rulemaking, and to obtain feedback from the public. Mr. Marsh said that the staff is developing a response to this SRM, but that the staff is not in a position to provide more details at this time. Ho.vever, he was abis to confirm that the schedule being developed by the staff is not consistent with the industry's preference to avoid rulemaking and that the staff l
.(.
November 17, 1997 T. Essig
-3 would likely present a range of options for the Commission's consideration. Mr. Marsh also stated that he believed that the information provided as a result of the recent NEl survey is the type of feedback the Commission wanted the staff to obtain. Mr. Holahan emphastzed that it was also necessary te gbtain input from the public in general on the proposed rulemaking.
At the close of the meet!ag, the staff and NEl agreed to meet regularly to discuss issues related to the proposed rulemakinc effort.
Attachments:
- 1. List of Attendees
- 2. NEl's Briefing Slides,' Industry Positions on Fire Protection Rulemaking*
- 3. NEl's Briefing Slides, " Summary of Industry Positions
- Project No. 689 cc wlatts: See next page U
'3 November 17, 1997 T. Essig woulo likely present a range of options for the Commission's consideration Mr. Marsh also stated that he believed that the information provided as a result of the recent NEl survey is the type of feedback the Commission wanted the staff to obtain. Mr. Holahan emphasized that it was also necessary to obtain input from the public in general on the proposed rulemaking.
- At the close of the meeting, the staff and NEl agreed to meet regularly to discuss issues related to the proposed rulemaking effort.
Attachments:
- 1. List of Attendees 2, NEl's Briefing Slides,' Industry Positions on H., orotection Rulemaking" 3.._ NEl's Briefing Slides, " Summary of Industry Positions" Project No. 689 4
cc w/atts:. See next page t
DIGTRIBUTION. See attached page Docement Nama: g:\\mxm\\MSUM1105.97
- See Previous Concurrences RGEb;Dfth (A)C:PGEE:DRPM OFFICE PGEB:DRPM BC:SPLB:DSSA SC:
NAME LMarsh bO FAksNt ewib TEssig khb DATE 11/ //797-11/l4/97 11/ l!7/97 11/d/b7 t
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
^
1 L_
_=
l-NRC-NEl MEETING ON FIRE PROTECTION RULEMAKING November 5,1997 List of Attendees NRma Organizttion William E. Burn 3 Southern Nuclear Operating Co.
Ed Connell NRC/NRR/DSSA/SPLB Moni Dey NRC/RES Fred Emerson NEl Paul Gunter NIRS Steve Hardy Carolina Power & Light Gary M. Holahan NRC/NRR/DSSA Melinda Malloy NRC/NRR/DRPM/ PGEB L. B. Marsh NRC/NRR/DSSA/SPLB David Modeen NEl Bijan Najafi SAIC/EPRI Danielle Oudinot NRC/NRR/DSSA/SPLB Chris Pragman PECO Energy Ron aispoli Entergy Mike Schoppman Florida Power & Light Co.
Denis Shumaker Public Service Electric & Gas Amarjit Singh NRC/ACRS Cliff Sinopoli Baltimore Gas & Electric Nathan Siu NRC/RES David Stellfox McGraw Hill Milan Straka NUS Information Services S5eldon L. Trubatch Winston & Strawn Steve Unglesbee NEl K. S. West NRC/NRR/DSSA/SPLB Althea Wyche SERCH Licensing /Bechte)
Abbreviations ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards DRPM Division of Reactor Program Management DSSA Division of Systems Safety and Analysis EPRI Electric Power Research Institute NEl Nuclear Energy institute NIRS Nuclear Information & Resource Service NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatien PGEB Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory hesearch SPLB Plant Systems Brar.ch
9 l
Industry Positions on Fire Protection Rulemaking Fred Emerson Nuclear Energy Institute NRC Headquarters November 5,1997 gt-i Topics
> Introduction
> Industry response to NRC rulemaking activities
> Industry positions
> Sun ey results
> NRC staff plans and schedule (discussion)
> Industry involvement (discussion)
I!
1
Goals for This Meeting
> P. resent industry positions and survey results
> Understand NRC goals, approaches, and schedule
> Lay groundwork for productive and timely industry participation I'
l introduction
> 10 CFR 50.48 and Appeadix R high on NRC list of regulations needing change
> Commissioners recently directed rapid evaluation of elements needed to support rulemaking
> Methods, data need.$, uncertainties as outlined in SECY 97-127
> OGC opinion on backfit implications
~
> Industry input on need for rule I
2
Industry Retsponse
> NEI Fire Protection Working Group
> Formed in 1994 to provide Zuidance on industry fire protection positions and activities
> Utility executives / managers and senior fire protection professionals
> NEI Fire Protection Rulemaking Issue Task Force
> Formed 9/97 to manage timely industry involvement in rulemaking activities
> Fire protection, PSA, licensing, engineering, legal representation Industry Response
> Survey sent to Chief Nuclear Officers October 1
> Intended to provide input on
> Rule considerations deemed necessary
> Potential adverse impacts
> Possible alternatives to a rule
> Responses received from all utilities with operating nuclear plants 1
3
Summary of Industry Positions
> A new rule is not desired, nor necessary to assure or improve safety
> Industry will participate extensively if rulemaking proceeds
> The rulemaking schedule must allow adequate time for completion of support elements
> The use of risk / performance techniques Y
has promise Industry Positions
> New rule is not desired, nor necessary to assure or improve safety
> Industry has effective fire protection / safe shutdown programs under current rule
> NRC and Industry process generally effective in addressing emerging issues
> Option of compliance with current rule must be preserved
> Rebaselining existing programs to a new rule will be burdensome, and the safety benefit is not clear 1
Industry Positions
> Industry will participate extensively if rulemaking proceeds
> Issue task force in place for timely action
> Many years experience complying with existing rule
> Projects underway which can support rulemaking
> 100% industry reponse to rulemaking survey Industry Positions
> The rulemaking schedule should allow for completion of support elements
> Functionalinspection pilots and IPEEEs should be c(mpleted to determine whether generic safety issues demand a new rule
> NFPA activities to develop a performance-based consensus standard should be allowed to support any new rule
> The implications of climinating existing h'
exemptions should be ca.efully considered
Industry Positions
> The use of risk / performance techniques has promise
> Need to emplace a framework for the development of risk and rn' *-ling tools
> Many utilities would like to ure these techniques more to address existing or emerging issues
> These tools can be used to support the existing exemption process as well as in a new rule E
Survey Results
> Utilities prefer no rulemaking
> In,lustry will participate in rulemaking if it proceeds 6
Survey Results
)
> Primary considerations with any new rule
> Option for continued compliance with existing regulations
> Process for considering risk significance anC cost in addressi:.g new issues
> Process for using a risk or performance basis to reduce existing requirements
> Use of backfit analysis for imposing new requirements
> Industry input to interpretations of rule
'1? '
Survey Results
> Principal adverse impacts b Eliminating currently approved exemptions without due consideration
> New requirements or interpretations
> Layering of new risk significance or performance requirements on existing requirements
> Rebaselining existing programs to new requirements without demonstrated safety improvement 7
Survey Results
> PossNe alternatives to rulemaking
> Better communication with NRC to avoid differing inte.pretationa
> More guidance on performing GL 86-10 and 10 CFR 50.59 cvaluations
> Comprehensive clarification of existing rule
> More al!9wance for rick significance evaluation with current rule
\\
'f' NRC Staff Plans
> NRC goals
> NRC schedule
> NRC action plan I'
8
i Industry involvement
> Short term: Regular meetings to discuss progress of staff evaluations and industry contributions
> Long term: Understanding of process, contributions, and schedule if rulemaking proceeds
~
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 Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Alex Marion, Director Programs Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 : Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. David Modeen, Director Engineering Nuclear Energy institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Directo.-
Licensing Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Nichclas J. Liparuto, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activitius Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westinghouse Electric Corporatien P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. Jim Davis, Director Operations Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 i
1
j;i: '
Distribution: Summary of Mtg w/ NEl on Fire Protection Rulemaking dtd November 17, 1997 Hard Cooy (w/atts.)
Central Files '
PUBLIC PGEB r/f SPLB r/f MMalloy SMagruder LMarsh
~ACRS E-Mad (wlo atts.)
SCollins/FMiraglia RZimmerman JRoe DMatthews TEssig FAkstulewicz MMalloy BSheron GHolahan/SNewbetry LMarsh SBahadur, RES WDean, EDO E-Majl(wlatts.)
KSWest PMadden Econnell MDey, RES NSiu, RES
.'. 0 L ll 3
_. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -. - _ _.. - _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ -