ML20199L357
| ML20199L357 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/29/1986 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199L286 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607090383 | |
| Download: ML20199L357 (144) | |
Text
,
.o NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/ 86 1
1 1
~
2 v
3 4
5 6
7 8
i 9
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
}
l 10 BACKFITTING WORKSHOP i
11 l
12 Amfac Hotel West Tower Ballroom i
13 DFW Airport Arlington, Texas l
14 Tuesday, 29 April 1986 15 16 Proceedings in the above-entitled matter were convened at 17 9:00 a.m.
18 19 i
20 21 I
22 23
'24 1
8607090383 860630 PDR MISC 25 8607090361 PDR ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSl!Ol' 4/29/06 2
1 APPEARANCES 2
3 Jim Sniezek - Chairman William G. Counsil 4
Darrell Eisenhut James R.
Tourtellote 5
Gene Kurtz Robert F.
Peters Jr.
6 Otto L. Maynard Tom Cox 7
Gil Keeley Gary A.
Simmerman 8
Robert Martin Gerry C.
Sorenson 9
Don Edwards Paul F.
Collins 10 Bill Homestead Bobby Fulkenberry 11 Nicholas S.
Reynolds Lyle R.
Berry 12 Thomas E.
Tipton Fred Stetson 13 Dennis L.
Cox Neil E.
DuBry 14 Barclay S.
Lew Robert A.
Wiesemann 15 William F.
Quinn Joe Martore 16 Blaine Murray Larry Yandell 17 Mark Medford Doyle Hunnicutt 18 Richard E.
Ireland C.
W.
Redmen 19 C.
E. Ader Steven Crockett 20 Lesley England R.
I. Marillo 21 Jack Williams Sanford Hartman 22 P.
M. Abraham Jack Ransberry 23 James E.
Lyons Ramon E.
Hall
'24 Johns P.
Jaudon J. C.
Kuykendall 25 W.
C. Seidle W.
Brown ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/85 3
1 APPEARANCES 2
(cont.)
3 4
T.
F.
Westerman K.
W.
Cook 5
Karl R.
Goller Annette Vietti-Cook 6
Vince Noonan Terry Grebel 7
Warren Raymond 8
9 10 11 12 13 w
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
' 24 25 ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885L
_j. _.- _
NRC BACKFITTING WORKS!!OP - 4/29/ 86 4
c o
l I.
1 INDEX 2
3 Subject Page 4
Introduction 5
5 Utility Perspective 12 6
The Backfit Rule - Content 18 7
NRC Staff Implementation of Rule 43 8
Industry Implementation of Rule 85 9
Panel Discussion of Questions 120 10 Adjourn 141 1
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 i
'24
~~
25 l
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC, (817) 640-885;
NRC BACRFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 5
2 1
2EDCEED1EGE 2
3 MR. MARTIN:
Good morning.
Welcome to 4
Arlington.
5 My name is Bob Martin.
I'm the Regional 6
Administrator f or the Region 4 of fice here in the 7
Arlington area.
And with us today are a number of people, 8
including Bobby Fulkenberry the Deputy Administrator from 9
Region 5.
Since this particular meeting on the subject of 10 backfit is intended to be a meeting for the facilities for 11 regions both 4 and 5.
So it's a combined meeting.
12 The purpose of this workshop is to promote a 13 general understanding of recent NRC regulations pertaining w
14 to backfitting and the procedures associated with 15 implementing these regulations, especially as related to 16 plant-specific backfitting.
17 We in the NRC have worked for the last 18 several years to put in place some important institutional 19 changes designed to better manage the way that we impose 20 new or changed requirements.
Today we will discuss both 21 the backfit rule and our procedures for implementing that 22 rule.
23 We NRC managers look forward to hearing from
' 24 the industry this afternoon concerning how industry might 25 deal with the backfitting issues.
We are also interested ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885 j _
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 6
1 in hearing your ideas on what actions we may take to 4r 2
assure that the policy, as implemented, will achieve the 3
objectives we have for it.
4 This is one of relatively few NRC 5
initiatives that requires as much or more of the NRC staff 6
as of the industry.
However, your understanding of that 7
policy and your interaction with the staff and the 8
implementation of the policy are key ingredients in making 9
it work.
I'm confident that a concerted effort on both of 10 our parts will bring that about.
11 We have several NRC managers with us today 12 representing headquarters and the regional offices.
As I
~(,
13 mentioned, Mr. Fulkenberry, the Deputy Administrator from 14 Region 5, is also here.
15 We have Bill Homestead.
I'm sorry, let me 16 start at the top.
We have Jim Sniezek, who is acting 17 Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations in 18 Generic Requirements.
19 We have Bill Homestead, who is Director and i
20 Chief Council, Office of the Executive Legal Director.
21 We have Steve Crockett towards the back of 22 the room.
Steve is with our Office of General Counsel.
23 We have Darrel Eisenhut, representing the 24 Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
25 We have Lee Spesered representing the Office ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-881
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 7
1 of Inspection and Enforcement.
2 We have Bob Burnett representing the Office 3
of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safegaurds.
4 And we have Carl Goller.
We believe we will 5
be joined by Carl Goller, who represents the Of fice of 6
Nuclear Regulatory Research.
f 7
And we have Tom Cox, who is the Senior 8
Program Manager, Office of the Executive Director for
,i 9
Operations.
).
1 ;
10 In addition, there are several key managers 11 from the Region 4 office who are also in attendance.
12 By the end of the day today, we should leave 13 this room with a common understanding of how the 14 backfitting rule is being implemented by the staff and i
15 your role in its implementation.
16 Regarding certain administrative
[
17 requirements, let me point out a few things.
On the 18 tables have been placed what I believe to be are copies of 19 slides and other printed information for your use.
20 In addition, a number of cards of this 21 general variety have been placed on the table at which j
22 individuals can direct questions to specific members 'of 23 the staff.
We would suggest that if you have a question
[
'24 you wish to have addressed at some point that you can fill 25 out that card, and the ladies will periodically collect ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885; A
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSI!OP - 4/29/86 8
1 them in order to get them up to the podium for i
2 distribution to the speakers.
I 3
With regard to phone messages, if your 4
offices attempt to contact you, the ladies will be taking 5
phone messages.
We have a direct tie to the Amfac Hotel 6
Exchange.
They will collect messages, and they will be 7
posted on the bulletin board outside.
However, any i
8 messages of an emergency nature will be brought to my 9
attention, and I'll try to'get it to you much more 10 quickly.
But general messages will be posted outside.
11 With regard to luncheon facilities, this 12 Tower of Amf ac probably has a nur.ber of restaurants.
I
(
13 urge that you consider eating here, not trying to get to 14 the nearest locale.
Which would require you leaving the 15 airport complex to do it.
So I suggest that you might 16 want to consider just lunch here.
17 With regard to certain other arrangements, 18 this meeting, to make sure we have an accurate record of 19 the comments and observations made by everyone, is being 20 transcribed by a Court Reporter.
I request, please, that i
21 each time anyone speaks from the floor or from the table 22 that they identify themselves as to who they are and their 23 affiliation so that the young lady will be able to get the
' 24 information accurately.
If she starts waiving her hands
=
l 25 furiously, slow down the rate at which you're speaking so j
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885.
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 9
1 that she can keep up with you.
2 Before I turn the meeting over to Jim w-i 3
Sniezek, let me briefly describe what the new backfit 4
process means to the way the region conducts its business.
5 My staff and I,
and I'm confident that the 6
staff of Region 5 similiarly, firmly support the 7
commission's backfit policy goals of a stable regulatory 8
framework and a disciplined process for evaluating and 9
imposing new requirements.
10 Although one focus of this policy is on the 11 kinds of licensing actions historically taken by the' 12 program offices and headquarters, we are aware that there 13 may be instances where regional inspectors or management
(
14 appear to be asking for a new requirement that you believe i
15 goes beyond what our regulations require.
16 Resident and region based inspectors, as the 17 first regulatory presence at operating plants, often make 18 judgments and interpretations of licensing or IE l
19 documents, such as tech. specs., bulletins, previous 20 enforcement co r r e s po n dence,.
regulatory guides, and the j
21 like.
They are sometimes involved at a level of detail 22 that is not explicitly described in existing regulatory 23 documents.
- 24 We intend to conduct our business with full j
25 recognition of our responsibility to assure you meet the 1
'l ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885 i
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 10 1
safety level established by your current licensing basis.
s-2 And, in addition, to assure that we identify additional 3
safety measures where appropriate, which we are willing to 4
demonstrate are needed and justified.
5 The reason for many of the inspector's 6
suggestions for improvement is that we anticipate a level 7
of performance that goes beyond mere compliance with our 8
regulations.
You should recognize that we are sensitive 9
to the fact that some of your managers may f eel pressured 10 into accepting the inspector's suggestions for fear that 11 disagreeing with an inspector might lead to interface 12 problems in the future.
13 Our inspectors and examiners have been 14 instructed, that when dealing with licensees, we must be 15 firm but fair and conduct ourselves in a professional 16 manner.
Our inspection actions must be based on technical 17 considerations and not on the authority of our position as 18 government eriployees.
19 We have procedures in place for our managers 20 to review inspection reports to ensure these policies are 21 followed.
Regulating within the backfit rule and the 22 policy didectives of the backfit manual chapter to be e
23 discussed stoday will help assure well reasoned and 1
l 24 justified staff positions.
25 Where instances of honest disagreement with 1
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885<
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSilOP - 4/29/86 11 1
inspectors occur, you should encourage your managers to 2
discuss such disagreements with the inspectors or with 3
their supervisors.
There will be no retribution on our 4
part for speaking candidly.
If there are concerns that 5
come to your attention about our inspection program, or 6
how it is being carried out, even if it does not involve 7
backfitting, I would appreciate a call, and would be happy 8
to meet with you and talk about your concerns.
If these 9
policies are to be effective, you also have a 10 responsibility to bring serious interface problems to my I
i l
11 attention.
You should not let problems persist without l,
l 12 talking them out.
~
13 At this point let me turn the meeting over 14 to Jim Sniezek.
15 JIM SNISZEK:
Thank you, Bob.
16 Before we get into the rest of the j
17 presentations, I want to run through the agenda very 18 quickly.
19 Basically, at 9:20 or thereabouts, we'll j
20 have a utility perspective on the backfit rule.
And there '
21 will be an in-depth presentation of the backfit rule 22 itself and why the various factors that are in the backfit 23 rule are in there.
'24 That will be followed by a short break.
And 25 then a presentation, or hour and half presentation, on ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885'
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSilOP - 4/29/86 12 1
manual chapter 0514, which is the staff's implementation w-2 of the backfit rule on a plant-cpecific basis.
3 That will be followed by a one hour lunch 4
break.
And then there will be an industry discussion on 5
the implementation of the backfit rule from the industry 6
perception, followed by a break, and then an hour and a 7
half of question / answer period, with adjournment around 8
4:15.
And if we're not done at 4:15 we'll keep going 9
until we're done, as long as we don't miss our flights.
10 I want to mention that af ter each 11 presentation there will be an opportunity f or a 12 question / answer session in addition to the 0 and A's
-(,
13 session panel discussion this afternoon.
If at any time 14 during a presentation you are lost because you don't 15 understand what the speaker is saying, feel free to 16 interrupt at that time, because it's important that you 17 understand what's being said as the presentations move 18 along.
19 With that, let me introduce the next 20 speaker, Bill Counsil, the Executive Vice President of 21 Texas Utilities, who will discuss the utility perspective 22 on the importance of the backfit rule.
23 Bill?
24 MR. COUNSIL:
Thank you, Jim.
25 Those of you in the industry in the NRC who ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885,
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 13 1
know me, I believe, never in your wildest dreams would you 2
think I would be welcoming you to the Dallas / Fort Worth 3
area, but I am.
Welcome.
I'll second what Bob had said.
4 Since I was one of the ones that worked on 5
this industry part of the backfit rule for many, many 6
years, it was another one of these initiatives that were 7
only going to take six months, and six years later, we 8
finally got something done.
Hopefully, in the future, we 9
won't be taking so long to have things happen.
10 Backfitting, though.
What is it?
How 11 should backfitting decisions be approached?
Should the 12 lead for making decisions be taken by the NRC or by 13 licensees?
What implications do backfitting decisions s.
14 have beyond NRC7 These are some of the questions we hope 15 to answer and address in today's backfitting workshop.
16 I'm pleased to be here this morning for a 17 number of reasons.
As many of you are no doubt aware, 18 industry has been working with NRC for a number of years 19 to develop a sound and censible backfitting rule.
20 Industry's efforts have been lead by AIF, EEI, and the 21 Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group.
And they 22 have been successful.
3 23 When industry first began to address or 24 press for a backfitting rule, we believe that the rule was 25 necessary for one overriding reason, to protect the public i
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885, A
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 14 I
health and safety.
Our concern in the early 1980's was 4-2 that so many new requirements had been imposed on power 3
reactors so quickly that it was just about impossible to 4
implement these changes and to control the total process I
5 during implementation.
6 More and more utility managers found 7
themselves in the position of reacting to NRC initiatives 8
instead of taking preventive measures to assure that 9
problems did not arise in the first place.
It, also, 10 appeared to many of us outside of the NRC that important 11 questions involving the impimentation of the new 12 requirements were not of ten addressed by the NRC in a 13 meaningful or a timely manner.
14 This gave rise to increased concern on both 1
15 the part of NRC and industry that the regulatory process 16 was not working as well as it could be.
The backfitting 17 rule is one action taken to address this concern.
18 Now, more than ever, I believe that a 19 backfitting rule is necessary to f ully assure the 20 protection of the public health and safety.
As will 21 become clear during today's discussions, the rule does not 22 prohibit backfits.
It simply provides that backfits are 23 imposed only when necessary and only after the backfit is 24 thoroughly considered by both NRC and industry.
+_
25 The factors listed in the rule that should ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885 l
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSilOP - 4/29/86 1!
i 1
be considered are factors that should be considered by an 2
decision maker concerned whether a true problem exi'sts.
3 And, if so, that the problem is solved in the most 4
effective way possible.
In this sense I view the rule as:
5 an important management tool.
i 6
I'm also pleased to be here today because 7
this is a joint workshop and with participants from both i
8 the NRC and industry.
Our joint participation reflects 9
one important underlying aspect of the backfitting rule; 4
I
)
10 that is, cooperation between industry and NRC.
11 I believe in the strongest possible terms I
]
12 that the rule is not a hurdle that should be thrown in g]
13 front of the NRC whenever it believes that a backfit ough 14 to be implemented.
Rather, it is a means for both 15 ine.ustry and the NRC to assure that both of our resources i
16 are used to address areas where those resources are truly 17 needed.
18 NRC and industry should be vigilant in 19 identifying potential backfits and assuring that the 20 backfits are necessary.
When they are, the backfits i
21 should be implemented.
22 The ability to recognize backfits is an j
l 23 essential part of the process.
It is also one for which,'
r 24 I believe, that licensees must ultimately take 25 responsibility.
Because we operate our plants, we know i
i ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8 8
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 16 t
1 them better than anyone else.
And within our own 2
organization, those who design, construct, operate, and l
3 maintain the plants at the working level have the most i
j 4
intimate knowledge.
5 Hopefully, you're sitting in the audience 6
today because you will play a key role in the backfitting 7
process.
You are the individuals on whom I, and other j
8 utility managers, will rely to identify backfits.
l 9
For this reason, it is important that you 10 understand the backfitting process.
To develop and
- 11 broaden this understanding, I urge that you consider the 12 backfitting rule, not just in terms of what the rule 13 requires, or how NRC plans to implement those 14 requirements, rather, I urge that you consider the rule in J
j 15 terms of its place in the total regulatory process.
16 Of course, it is important to understand the 17 specific elements of the backfitting rule and the 18 procedures in place to implement the rule.
The 19 backfitting rule is a good rule.
And the procedures NP.C 20 has developed f or its implementation are sound.
I hope l
21 that they are given an opportunity to work.
They are i
22 structured to assure a quick and correct resolution of
)
i 23 backfitting issues.
' 24 Familiarity with the rule and its
)
25 implementing procedures, however, is not enough.
It is i
}
j ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-881>
1
NRC CACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 17 1
equally important to understand that the backfitting rule 2
is intended to change the way we and the NRC do business.
3 As the industry matures and the NRC focuses 4
increasingly on operating plants it is important for 5
licensees to express their views to the NRC.
Neither we, 6
nor NRC, has a monopoly on wisdom.
But our consideration 7
together of what needs to be done will increase the 8
likelihood that the correct decision is ma de.
9 The backfitting rule will be a significant tool in this 10
- process, 11 The NRC has of ten told industry that if the 12 regulatory process is to work, there must be a free
{
13 exchange of views between NRC and those it regulates.
I 14 believe that this a challenge to industry to scrutinize 15 NRC proposed backfits from the safety perspective.
And 16 industry should accept this challenge.
17 After examining a proposed backfit if we 18 genuinely believe that it is not warranted or that another 19 approach will be more ef fective in addressing the area of 20 concern, we ought to tell the NRC.
21 On the other hand, we should also be 22 sensitive to the responsibility to anticipate needed plant 23 improvements.
If we believe that improvements are
' 24 necessary, we should not wait for the NRC to tell us to w
25 implement them.
We should act on our own initiative.
To ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/ 86 18 1
me, this is what backfitting is really about.
It's also 1
2 what sound management is about.
3 Af ter the workshop is completed and you 4
return to your home utilities, I hope that you don't 5
forget today's message.
Industry and the NRC have worked 6
long and hard to develop the backfitting rule.
The rule 7
will be effective only if it used properly.
The 8
responsibility for doing so rests just as much with the 9
industry as it does with the NRC.
10 Should we proceed as if the backfitting rule was never 11 issued, we do a disservice to ourselves, to the NRC, and 12 to the nation.
We also do a disservice if we attempt to 13 invoke the rule to block an NRC initiative simply because 14 it is an NRC initiative.
15 I'm looking forward to the workshop, and 16 trust that you will find the presentations interesting and 17 informative.
18 Thank you, and I'll give it back to Jim 19 Sniezek at this time.
20 MR.SNIEZEK:
Before we continue, does anyone j
21 have any questions for Bill based on what he said?
l j
22 Thank you, Bill.
23 As Bob Martin and Bill Counsil mentioned, we
' 24 have worked over the past several years to develop a l
25 backfit management process which ensures that necessary ARLIMOTON COURT REPORTINO, INC.
(817) 6'40-885.
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/ 86 19 I
safety improvements are, in fact, implemented.
And those 2
which are not necessary are not promulgated.
l 3
We believe it is extremely important that i
4 this industry understands how the staf f intends to 5
implement the backfit rule.
And, therefore, we have the l
l 6
four workshops.
j 7
I'm going to speak about the rule itself, 1
8 talk briefly about the background that lead to the rule, 9
the definitions contained in the rule, the applicability 10 of the controls, the exceptions to the rule, when we do 11 not have to do a backfit analysis, discuss the analysis 12 that's required by the rule, the staff responsibilities,
(]
13 how backfits are resolved, and requests for information.
14 As most of you are keenly aware, the TMI 15 accident and the resultant TMI action plan had far 1
16 reaching impact on both the industry and the NRC i
17 resources.
Based on the feedback from the industry and 18 the NRC staff, the commission received indications that 19 the scope, depth, and timing of the changes were causing a 20 problem.
21 A survey of licensees was conducted in 1981 22 timef rame where the NRC staff lead by a senior regional
-i 23 administrator and supported by headquarters, senior
' 24 managers, visited about a dozen utilities and got the 25 feedback from all levels of utility management and staf f, i
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-881 A
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/ 86 20 1
both at the corporate and plant level, regarding the s-2 impact th a t the NRC mandated changes were having on the 3
industry.
As a result of that study, the group doing the 4
survey of the licensees made a finding in new reg. 0839, 5
dated 1981.
6 I'll just quote the finding.
7 "Notwithstanding competence and good intentions of the
.L 8
staff that the pace and nature of regulatory actions have 4
9 caused a potential safety problem of unknown dimensions."
10 As a result of that staff finding, the commission became 11 involved and established the committee to review generic 12 requirements in 1981.
(}
13 As you know, over the past five years the 14 committee has had a positive impact on insuring that 15 generic requirements promulgated to the industry were, in 16 fact, properly reasoned out before the promulgation.
- And, 17 I believe, that the industry has found the CRGR process to 18 work fair 1y well.
19 The commission first acted on the generic 20 requirements because we were of the view that since they 21 were generic in nature, they impacted more utilities and i
22 would also have the biggest safety payoff.
And that's why 23 the CRGR was formed first.
' 24 About 1983 -- I should back up.
In 1981, as w
25 an additional step, the commission formed the Regulatory i
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885 l
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 21 1
Reform Task Force, who, as one of its missions, had the l.
%v 2
responsibility of examining the backfit issue to help the 3
commission determine what action should be taken regarding 4
i 5
In 1983, the commission instructed the staf f 6
to put plant-specific backfitting procedures in place i
7 because, at that time, we became aware that plant-specific 8
backfitting was as big a problem as generic backfitting.
9 So the first staff procedures were develop in 1983, and 10 coincident with that, an advanced notice of proposed rule 11 making regarding 50.109 was published for comment.
12 I want to start out the backfitting g]
13 discussion itself by saying that backfitting is not bad.
i 14 It is an expected part of the regulatory process.
What I
15 we' re saying, we weren't smart enough, up front, to 16 determine all the things that could have a substantial 17 impact on safety.
When we find something that we didn't i
18 expect and it's having a substantial impact on safety, we 19 have to take action to fix it.
And that's what 20 backfitting is all about.
21 But the backfitting must be conducted in 22 accordance with a disciplined management process.
And l
l 23 that's what the rule, that's what CRGR procedures, and
'24 that's what manual chapter 0514 is all about, to establish 25 a disciplined management process for imposing backfits.
l ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8851 i
NRC B ACKPITTING WOR KSilOP - 4/29/86 22 1
I'll name two items in backfitting.
Both 2
50.54 ( f), the request for information rule, and the 3
backfit rule 50.109, although most of our attention has 4
been on 50.109.
These riles were published in the Federal 5
Register on September 20th of last year and became 6
effective on October 21st of last year.
j 7
The backfit rule applies to generic actions,I 8
and they are handled through the CRGR process.
And a 9
generic action is one that applies to more than one plant.
10 And it also applies to plant-specific actions, an action 11 taylored to a single plant.
In the manual chapter 0514 12 guides that process.
g,"
13 It applies to power reactors, and applies to 14 backfits imposed subsequent to October 21st, 1985.
In 15 cther words, backfits imposed before October 21st, 1985 16 are grand-fathered.
17 The request for information rule, 50.54 (f).
18 The request information rule was modified and passed by 19 the commission with the primary emphasis on ensuring that 20 there is a solid rationale for the staff's request of 21 information.
Basically, the 50.54 (f) request for 22 information rule states that after the issuance of a 23 license, the commission may request licensee statements
'24 under oath to enable the commission to determine whether n
25 or not the license should be modified, suspended, or ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(017) 640-885.
NHC EACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 23 l
I revoked.
2 However, before the staff can make a request 3
for such information they have to provide a written d
4 justification to determine whether or not the request is n
5 justified in light of the burden to be imposed upon the 4
l 6
licensee, and the potential safety significance of the c
7 information.
There is a balancing.
l 8
Is our need for this safety information of 9
such magnitude that the burden to be imposed upon the 10 licensee is justfied?
That's the finding the staff has to 11 make.
I, 12 Prior to sending a 50.54(f) request to a g]
13 licensee, the request must be approved by the EDO or the 14 EDO's designee.
The designees are the office directors, 15 the program office directors, or the regional i
16 administrators, or their deputies with no further l
17 redelegation.
18 Now, one important aspect of the request forl 19 information rule.
If the information is being sought to 20 verify compliance with the licensing basis, then a 21 justification under 50.54(f) is not required.
The reason 22 for this is to allow the regulatory process to proceed in 23 an orderly manner.
If everytime the staff asked a
' 24 question as part of the regulatory process of having to go 25 through the 50.54(f) process, the system would grind to a ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 I
- ~.. - _
NRC BACNFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 24 I
hault and that would impact not only the NRC negatively, l
i 2
but, obviously, it would impact the utilities negatively.
3 Now, let's get into the rule that, I think, t
4 you're primarily interested in the backfitting rule, 1
5 50.109.
Let's, first of all, define what a backfit is.'
i 6
Basically, the backfit is composed of two j
7 essential elements.
The substance of the issue and the
)
8 timing of the proposal.
The substance and the timing.
I 9
A backfit is a change to the system i
10 structure component, or design of a facility, a change to l
l 11 the design approval or manufacturing license, or a change i
12 to the procedures or organization.
And when we use the 13 term " procedures" or " organization" we mean it in the j
(,
14 broadest possible sense, not in a narrow sense.
A change i
4 l
15 to the systems, a change to the design approval, or the i
16 change to the procedures or organizations which may result 1
j 17 from either new or amended rules, or imposition of a new i
18 or amended staf f position.
And by " staff position" is
{
t l
19 meant such things as the standard review plan, regulatory 1
{
20 guides, branch technical positions, things of that nature.
21 Now, what I've just discussed is the first i
j 22 half of the backfit definition, and that's the substance 1
23 of the definition itself.
i
' 24 The second half is the timing issue.
And l
f 25 you see it's proceeded by a big "and."
So you meet the ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885 i i,l -
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHDP - 4/29/86 25 1
substance part of the definition, and the new or amended 9F 2
rule staf f position occurs af ter the date of CP issuance, 3
that's for CP's that are issued after October 21st of last 4
year, and that's in there to cover facilities to be built 5
in the future.
That's for future plants.
6 The second timing date is the new or amended 7
rule or staff position occurs after six months before I
8 docketing of the OL for CP's issued before October 21st of i
9 last year.
And, basically, that's in there to cover all l,
l 10 of the current NTOL's.
11 The third timing date is the new or amended I,
j 12 rule or staff position occurs after issuance of the i
l 13 operating license.
And that applied to current OL
(,
]
14 holders.
Those are the baselines.
15 And then, the last timing date is the 16 issuance of the design approval as specified in the 17 appendices M, N,
and O.
Basically, what that also says in 18 that backfits imposed before October 21st of last year are f'
19 grandfathered, but not covered by the backfit rule.
20 Do you understand the definition of backfit?
21 It's very key before we proceed.
Does anyone have any 22 questions on it at this time?
23 Backfit analysis.
Along with the
' 24 definition, once we decide something needs a backfit,' this 25 gets into the heart of the program.
How do we decide t
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 A
i I
1 whether or not to impose a backfit?
2 A systematic and documented analysis is 3
required for backfits the NRC seeks to impose.
The reason j
4 for the analysis is to ensure that safety is, in fact, 5
being improved by our imposing of a backfit.
j i
I 6
We have to determine how the backfit is to IL I
7 be prioritized and scheduled in light of the other
!l 1
l 8
regulatory activities at the facility.
We have to take t
{
9 into account as available the specific objectives of the
- l 1
I:
I 10 backfit.
We have to understand what problem are we trying l
11 to correct.
That's the first thing.
Often times we find
! l
.)
j 12 that we are not sure what problem we are trying to i
i
(
13 correct.
That's one of the first things we want to look i
14 at is, what are we trying to solve.
i 15 By imposing the backfit, what activity would 16 be required of the licensee?
What do you have to go 17 through to design process?
Would it require them to shut l
4 18 down?
Would it require them to redo a lot of it's i
j 19 procedures?
Would it require them to retrain the staff, i
i 20 etc.
What would be expected of the licensee?
What would t
i 1
21 they have to do?
i l
22 How would the backfit change the accidental l
23 offsite radiological risk to the public?
Would it a
4
' 24 increase the risk or would it decrease the risk?
And how s
25 much?
What's the impact on occupational exposure?
And i
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885:-
\\
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 27 1
that's due to the installation and continued operation and 2
maintainance of whatever af fects that we imposed.
3 One thing that we have to be mindful of, is i
4 there a potential reduction in offsite exposure due to an 5
accident, but a certain increase in occupational exposure I
j 6
due to the accident -- rather due to the effects?
And i
7 what's the difference in the two?
j 8
Continuing on the factors that we take into P
9 account in the backfit analysis, what are the installation s
i j
10 and continuing licensee costs?
This includes plant j
11 downtime and replacement power.
What's the impact on 12 operational complexity in the relationship to regulatory 13 requirements to other regulatory requirements?
14 Are there scheduling conflicts that we would 15 cause by the imposition of the backfit at this time?
Does 1 16 the change we propose at this time duplicate other NRC f
17 changes or proposed changes that are in the works?
How 1
)
18 does a fix or the change impact NRC resources?
And how
}
19 does that tie to the schedule that we think the change i
1 20 should be implemented on?
I 21 Do we have suf ficient resources to do a 1
l 22 review from the licensing and if, in fact, it's required?
I 23 If we '.hink it should be followed by inspection, do we
' 24 have sufficient resources to do that inspection follow-up?
25 What's the impact of differences and ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-88 i
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/ 86 28 1
facility types?
And that, primarily, pertains to the i-2 generic requirements.
That's the factor that's not 3
considered in the plant-specific backfit analysis.
4 Is the action that we propose interim or i
5 final action?
If it's interim, why is it needed now?
Why 4
6 can't we wait?
j 7
What are other germane factors?
Factors i
i 8
that would tend to support the need for the backfit and f
9 factors that would tend to decrease the need for th e 10 backfit?
Factors such as, what's the utilities 11 performance record in the area that we are proposing the 12 backfit?
How much operational life is left in the i
13 facility?
What's been the radiation occupational exposure
(
i 14 history at that facility?
Things of that nature.
Things i
15 that we may determine are germane to our decision to 16 backfit or not.
17 How do we arrive at our backfit 18 determination?
The determination of whether or not to j
19 impose a backfit is based on the backfit analysis, the l
20 factors I just got done reviewing.
And the commission 21 shall require a backfit only if there is a substantial 22 increase in overall protection of the public health and 23 safety or common defense and security.
And the cost of
' 24 the backfit are justified in light of the safety n
25 improvement.
And that is a judgment call.
There is no
)
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/ 86 29 1
algorithm that you plug.
There's no formula.
It's a h*'
2 judgment call.
I 3
There are several exceptions to the backfit 4
rule.
The backfit analysis of 50.109(c) in the 5
justification contained in 50.109(a)(3) is not required by i
j 6
the staff if the modification is necessary for compliance t
7 with rules, orders, license conditions, or written 8
commitments of the licensee, or if the action is to ensure
{
9 no undue risk to the public.
i 10 However, anytime the staff invokes those l
l 11 exceptions, there has to be a documented evaluation of the l
12 exception.
And that evaluation is to include the bahis 1
}
13 for invoking the exception, and the reason why the 14 modification to the way the facility is doing business is i
15 required.
16 If a backfit is imposed because of the no 17 undue risk consideration, a short analysis is required by i
18 50.109(a)(2).
That analysis is to address the safety l
19 signifigance of the issue, and the appropriateness of the l
20 action.
And there can be no balancing of safety versus 21 cost in determining whether or not to require the fix to f
22 be made.
However, cost can be taken into consideration 4
23 when choosing between equally acceptable alternatives to
' 24 accomplish the fix.
But once the staff determines that 25 there's a no undue risk, a fix has to be made.
Cost is.no i
)
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885
)
I
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 30 i
i 1
object.
2 I mention here, also, that if because of the 3
no undue risk consideration a backfit has to be 4
immediately imposed, made immediately ef fective, normally 5
by an immediately effective order, the analysis required 6
by 50.10 9 (a) ( 2) may be performed af ter the fact.
And that 7
decision is made by a program of fice director.
8 Are there any questions on that?
9 How does a staff's implementation of the 10 backfit rule in manual chapter 0514, impact the licensing 11 process?
It's very clear by the rule that licensing 12 actions not to be withheld pending the analysis associated
[
13 with a proposed backfit.
That means, quite simply, that 14 the NRC does not intend to hold the utility hostage 15 because of a pending licensing action.
That means that we 16 are not just going to tell you, "Unless you do it this 17 way, I can't make a saf ety finding," if, in fact, we are 18 backfitting.
19 Now, the staff, on its own volition, 20 extended this concept of action, not to be withheld, to 21 apply to the construction of the facility, to apply to the 22 operation of the facility, and also extended it to the 23 appeals process.
Whereas, a rule required for the
' 24 analysis process, the staff instructions say that 25 regulatory action shall not be stayed because we are going ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(617) 640-8852
NRC BACRFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 31 1
through the appeals process.
2 So, until once the backfit issue is raised 3
and there is a licensing pending that should not be 4
withheld during the entire backfit process.
The staff 5
should take its normal action.
6 The last part of the rules that I want to 7
talk about is the responsibilities.
Because of the 8
importance of the backfitting rule in the eyes of the 9
commission, the Executive Director for Operations was 10 assigned specific responsibility to the implementation of 11 50.109.
And the Executive Director for Operations, or h'is 12 designee, must approve all analysis.
The designees, I
(
13 mentioned before, I'll mention again, are the office 14 directors, that's the director of IE, NRR, or NNSS, or the 15 deputies, or the regional administrators, or their deputy 16 administrator.
17 This concludes the elements of my 18 presentation regarding the contents of the backfit rule 19 itself.
20 I'd like to entertain any questions you may 21 have about the rule at this time.
22 That must mean that the lawyers did a 23 tremendous job when they wrote the rule and everyone
'24 understands it.
Yes?
25 NR. TOURTELLOTTE:
My name is Jim ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(017) 6.40-8852 J
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 32 l
Tourte11ote.
I'll give you the spelling later.
i 2
(Indicating to Court Reporter.)
3 I have two questions.
One is, you stated 4
that the new rule grandf athers all actions that occur 5
before October the 21st, 1985.
And I simply wanted to ask 6
the question that, if it is true, however, that any 7
backfit that had occurred before that time could be 8
contested under the old rule; is that correct?
9 MR. SNIEZEK:
Any backfit that occurred 10 before October 21st, 1985, could be contested under the 11 old ruler that's correct.
i 12 I would mention one other thing.
I don't 13 want to get into Tcm's presentation, but the manual s
14 chapter sets the date as May 1st, 1985.
So the staff is 15 more liberal than the rule.
16 MR. EISENHUT:
Let me also comment.
17 I think the general philosophy, if you will, 18 is going to be carried on back that if a utility has an 19 item where he thinks it's really a backfit, I think the 20 program offices wants to hear about that4 whether it's 21 done under the old appeal processees we've had, or 22 whatever vehicle, I think we ought to put it in the 23 system.
24 We don't have this date of October set up as 25 being --
well, anything before that you ignore.
I think ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 33 l
i 1
anything that you think is a valid issue we want to hear 2
about it.
That's more from a programatic standpoint as 3
opposed to being required by the rule rule.
4 So, while Jim's made the distinction a 5
couple of times that there was this cut off in the rule, I 6
think from my standpoint at least, I can certainly speak 7
for NRR.
We don't see any difference between --
If the 8
utility has an issue bring it in anyway.
9 MR. SNIEZEK:
Darrel, let me amplify.
I 10 think what you just said is, and correct me if I'm wrong, 11 that any backfit that's being contested is put under the 12 current process.
Is that what you're saying?
~
13 MR. EISENHUT:
In effect, I think that's 14 right.
We may get down to the stickiness of the degree of 15 the analysis or something on an issue that's been 16 lingering for a while, but, I think, the principles there 17 we want to evaluate on the same kind of framework as we do 18 now.
19 And I would encourage, myself, that if any 20 utility feels there is an item, a backfit issue, I think 21 you ought to come in and propose it.
I think the staff 22 would be hardpressed to argue, "Well, it occurred before 23 October, so we don't want to haar about it."
I don't 24 think that's the spirit of the way the staff has been 25 working on this issue.
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 n-
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 34 1
MR. TOURTELLOTTE:
The second point is, that 4
a 2
I know that many operating utilities are concerned about 3
the possibility of being leveraged into backfits during 4
refueling outages.
And my question to you is: how do you 5
think the rule will work to minimize or eliminate that i
6 possibility?
7 MR. SNIEZEK:
The answer to that is, I think l
8 the rule will work quite well.
)
9 One of the things that Tom Cox is going to 10 talk about it, and, I believe, Tom, you do use the
~
11 refueling example in your presentation; don't you?
12 MR. COX:
I'm trying to think.
~
13 MR. SNIEZEK:
Okay.
i 14 And you're talking when they come in for the 15 core reload?
And, basically, the answer to that is, 16 anything beyond the core reload itself, the technical 17 issues involved with the core reload to the new core, if 18 the staff goes in any area beyond that they may 19 backfitting, and then we would have to do an analysis.
20 It's not an open season to get whatever else 21 the staff wants to go get done during that time.
As we 22 said, it's designed the rule not to hold the licensee 23 hostage, because we have you in here for a licensing 24 action.
~
25 MR. TOURTELLOTTE:
Maybe more specifically, ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 35 l
1 how do you think 50.109(d) works in that case?
Is that 2
applicable where it says that no licensing action will be 3
withheld if extended that to construction and operations?
4 MR. EISENHUT:
I would certainly think it 5
does.
And let me use your refueling outage, Jim, as an 6
example.
Typically, refueling outage work quite often 7
gets into ECCS analyses, it used to get into INC signal i
8 failure criterion, it can get into a number of things.
9 Some of those may well turn out to be legitimate issues in 10 connection with th e evaluation of a refueling outage.
11 However, any determination of where you j
i 12 think things go beyond going to the backfit issues, you 13 should flag as backfit items.
And, specifically, we look 14 at item (d) in the broadest context.
It says, "The 15 utility won't beheld hostage."
That's how a simple 16 country boy like me reads it.
And it shouldn't make any 17 difference whether you're talking about an OL or whether 18 you're talking about start up after refueling outage or 19 start up after other outages.
20 Quite often, though, on the other hand, this 21 is a little bit of a gray area for plants that have had i
22 great difficulty and have been shut down.
A lot of the 23 solution to problems is negotiated.
But, again, if you 24 think anything falls under the backfit rule, you ought to 25 treat it as appropriate under the backfit rule.
The ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 i
- - ~ - - -.
,n,
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 36 i
i 1
staff, I think, looks at item (d) in the broadest context.
2 It wasn't meant just OL's for example.
3 MR. SNIEZEK:
And it's really the staff that 4
has the burden, the first burden to make sure that they 5
are not backfitting without doing the analysis.
6 MR. KURTZ:
I, essentially, have a question 7
in the same area.
8 I notice that in the staff procedure it 9
doesn't address the section that says a portion of the 10 rule which talks about withholding significant licensing 4
11 issues.
Is there any guidance given the staff on 12 acceptance criteria or guidance given the utility on what 1
13 meets the acceptance criteria of licensing action?
Is 4
i 14 this formalized in any fashion?
i
)
15 MR. SNIEZEK:
As far as I know, there is l
16 nothing that is formalized.
17 Darrel, do you know?
18 MR. EISENHUT:
No.
I don't think that there 19 is anything formal other than licensing action, 20 historically, has meant to be a broad set of things in the l
21 NRC.
We have used that terminology a long time including 22 all amendments on operating reactors.
Even actions that 23 are not amendments where it is a review issue that may not r
i 24 formally end up in the process.
25 So, I think, historically, for a long number l
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/ 86 37 1
of years that has been used in the broadest context.
2 That's a good comment, and it's something we'll have to 3
take a look at.
4 MR. KURTZ:
Well, I know it has worked on 5
the example for you Tom, on the Beaver Valley case we had 6
17 backfits and we went into ACRS and they were not 7
classified as open items, but they were called backfits 8
and not even placed in the open items list.
So the ACRS 9
licensing action was not withheld due to the filing of the 10 backfits.
So there was a specific example from real life, 11 It was just -- My question dealt with has it 12 been formalized and you have answered that.
13 Thank you.
14 MR. PETERS:
Could you expand a little on
'15 your perception of these licensees involvement in the 16 analysis process, and then whether or not you expect the 17 EDO or his designees to consider licensee input in his 18 decision on the analysis?
19 MR. SNIEZEK:
If you'd indulge with us, 20 that's one of the things that Tom Cox is going to be 4
21 covering in the discussion of backfit manual chapter.
22 MR. HARTMAN:
Two questions, Jim.
First, do 23 the appeals procedures exist for challenging a staff 24 finding that a backfit is needed for a licensee to come 25 into compliance or are. licensees expected to raise that ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 38 i
1 type of disagreement within the context of the enf orcement 2
action itself.
3 MR. SNIEZEK:
I would assume that you're 4
saying that the licensee received a notice of violation?
5 MR. HARTMAN:
Not necessarily.
It would be 6
before that.
It would be in the context of an inspection, 7
and there's a dispute which arises as to whether licensee 8
is in compliance, the licensee takes the position that j
9 they are, and that they are, in fact, being backfit?
10 MR. SNIEZEK:
That would not be under the 11 backfit manual chapter.
That would be under our I
12 enforcement procedures, the way it's being done right now.
13 MR. HARTMAN:
Second question.
14 If a reactor is down for refueling and it's 15 about to restart, does 50.109(d) protect against delay in 16 restart if a licensee cha11anges a proposed staff 17 initiative as a backfit?
18 MR. SNIEZEK:
Yes.
But --
j 19 MR. HARTMAN:
I was waiting --
20 MR. SNIEZEK:
-- you have to look at the 21 exact circumstances of th e issue.
The philcsophy is yes, 22 but you have to look at the specifics of the case.
I 23 would not give a flat "yes" answer here.
Likewise I would 4
24 not give you a flat "no" answer to that question.
l 25 MR. HARTMAN:
Thank you.
l ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 39 1
MR. REYNOLDS:
I don't think that's quite 2
the point you ' re trying to get at.
If you're down to 3
refueling and the staff finds something that it says is 4
necessary to bring you into ecmpliance, but you question 5
that as a utility, does 50.109(d) protect you so that you 6
can restart?
7 MR. SNIEZEK:
Acain, the way you phrase the 8
question, I'd say, "no",
but you'd have to look at the 9
exact circumstances of the case.
Because what you're 6
10 debating is whether or not you are in compliance, not 11 whether or not there's a backfit.
12 MR. EISENHUT:
If I could also comment on 13 that.
I think th e test really is, as Mr. Sniezek said, if i
14 the staff would decide that ycu need a certain item to 15 bring you into compliance.
That determination has to be 16 made at a certain level in the staff.
And those are going 17 to be monitored and seen how they go over time, but if 18 it's really an issue whether or not you're in compliance, 19 then you don't go through all the steps in the process you i l
20 normally would.
21 Now, on the other hand, you got to be 22 careful that, as, again, Jim Sniczek said, you've got to 23 look at th e circumstances of each one.
This is not a
'24 vehicle for the utility to come in the day before he is 25 ready to go and say, " Gee, that's a backfit; therefore, ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING-WORKS 110P - 4/29/ 86 40 1
let me go ahead and go. "
And I don't think the industry 2
is going to try use it that wey, just as I don't think the 3
staff is going to try to misuse it.
So, I think, it's i
4 just going to take some time to evolve, and we are just 5
going to have to see how those 90.
6 We're all going to learn by this process, 7
but, I think, as Jim mentioned, it's more the spirit of l
Il 8
how we are going to try to use it.
9 MR. SNIEZEK:
If the issue is really l
l 10 compliance or not, there's also the exemption prccess that i
11 can be used.
There are othor vehicles that can be used l
1 l
12 also.
~
13 MR. MAYNARD:
My question relates to the 14 request for additional information under 50. 5 4 ( f) and it's 15 tied to 50.109, in tb t,
a lot of times we do get requests 16 for additional information on such things as new reg. 0737 17 items or generic letter 8328 There's times when the 18 question may appear to us to go beyond what the original 19 document had covered or what was really being done.
If we 20 have a request or concern in that area, does that get 21 handled under 50.54 (f) or would that fall under 50.109 22 rule, if we thought the question went beyond?
23 MR. SNIEZEK:
If the staff had a generic
'24 document like a new reg. or a generic letter, they wculd t
25 come before through the CRGR process or generic handling.
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NFC DACEFITTING WCRKSHOP - 4/29/86 41 i
l 1
i If the s ta f f decided that there's information required of l
2 a specific licensee that went beyond those, and that would 3
normally be done through 50.54(f) process.
If, in fact, 4
an analysis was not done by the staff consistent with the 5
50.54(f) process and the staff was taking a position on a 6'
specife plant, which was outside th a t which was authorized 7
by the generic approval process, that would be a 8
plant-specific backfit.
Unless, unless your facility i
9 lalready had an applicable regulatory staff position that 10 was being addressed by that request.
11 MR. MAYNARD:
Thank you.
12 MP. SNIEZEK:
Is th a t right, Darrell?
i 13 MB. CISENHUT:
Yeah, I think, that is 14 correct.
15 I should point out the example, though, 16 actually, is not a very good example.
New reg 737 and 737 17 supplement 1 did go through the generic review process, le did go through explicity and get commission review and i
19
- approval.
So whatever is within that scope has already 1
20 been determined that it is not a plant-specific backfit.
I 21 The question you raise is really an arguement of whether 22 something is within that scope or not and broadening the 23 secpe.
24 MR. MAYNARD:
For additional questions that 25 are asked at a later date?
AR LINGTON COUPT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 b -.
====-
r
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 42 6
1 MR. EISENHUT:
Right.
And if you think that
(
2 scope drifts beyond what is in 737 or supplement 1, then 3
I'd agree that that becomes an issue that should be 4
discussed.
5 MR. SNIEZEK:
Bill 7 6
MR. HOMESTEAD:
Since you mention 737, I j
7 thought I should point out that there is an issue being l
8 worked right now on the question of whether all 737 itens 9
have, in fact, been implemented either th rough rule making 10 or through license conditions.
If that's the case, then a 11 request for information that was outside of those two l
12 vehicles would have to come under the analysis provisions.
13 If it's not the case, then the commission policy statement 14 which is outstanding requiring compliance with 0737 would 15 still be valid.
My office is currently hc1 ding up 16 waiting for an answer to that question, an extension of 17 the OMB paperwork reduction clearance requirements on 18 0737.
So I think there is an open issue there.
And that 19 may be what you're asking about.
20 MR. SNIEZEK:
Any others7 Okay, why don't 21 we break until 10:30 at this time.
Let 's ma ke it 10:25, 4
22 15 minute break, and then we'll pick up with Tom Cox.
23 (whereupon, there was a brief'
- 24 period off the record.)
~
25 MR. SNIEZEK:
Okay.
We are now going to ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885:
L.
NHC BACKFITTING WORKSliOP - 4/29/86 43 1
start into the heart of the staff's implementation of the 2
backfit process on a plant-specific basis.
Tom Cox, who 3
is a Senior Program Manager or. the EDO staff, probably 4
knows at the staf f level more about the backfitting rule 5
on this implementation, how it's designed to be 6
implemented, than any other person in the NRC.
We'll talk 7
to you about the details in manual chapter 0514, and what 8
it means to you, the utility, and what it means to NRC 9
staff.
10 Tom?
11 MR. COX:
Thank you, Jim.
12 Let's see, I've been working with this j
~
13 backfitting policy for quite some time.
I'm glad to have 14 this manpower around to answer these questions.
15 You can see here we're going to get into 16 what is the staff policy and procedure going to be for 17 actually implementing the rule that Jim described to you.
18 And I'm going to go through what we call manual chapter 19 0514 or just chapter 0514.
And we'll talk about the 20 elements of what is in there, because it is those elements 21 that actually prescribe for the staff what we promise to 22 do to promulgate new requirements for plan t-specific 23 backfitting.
And I have to emphasize that, again.
We're ne d 24 not~ talking about plan t-spe ci f ic ba ck fi t ting, not that 25 that is governed by the CRGR prccess.
1 ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885
NitC UACKFITTING Wuli F Silo P - 4/29/06 44 1
Chapter 0514.
It will become a part of what.
2 is called the NRC Manual which is the EDO level or 3
commission level policy book er series of books.
That is 4
the directives to the staff and how we will do business.
5 One of these chapters will be about plant specific 6
backfitting.
7 There are really staff docunents at two levels 8
that govern what we're doing.
0514 is the executive 9
director for operations levels directive of this policy.
10 Another level is the office level, and within the offices 11 there are headquarters office procedures.
These have been 12 written and will be revised for NFR, NMSS, IE, and regions 4
13 1 through 5.
14 Now, initial versions of this dccument that 15 we are talking about now, 0514, were available in 1985.
16 In fact, you've probably seen a version that said it was 17 applicable in May, 1985 In fact, the current document i
18 says that we will use these procedures as of May, 1985 19 But, in fact, there have been a couple of draft versions.
I 20 But the version you now have is the first one that's 21 approved by the commission, subsequent to having been 22 revised as a result of issuance of the backfit rule itsel 23 in October, 1985.
i 24 So, we've recently revised that, and issued
~
i 25 it to the staff in the industry.
And the industry, for t
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-88.
NRC BACKFITTING WORKS!!OP - 4/29/86 45 1
the first time in February of this year, we're now 2
revising the office procedures to work with the EDO level 3
directive, that is chapter 0514.
4 Just to cover, briefly, a little bit about 5
the NRC staff training program that has been going on for I
6 some time to try to inculcate these procedures in the 7
staffs mind.
And we want you to know that we've gone some-8 trouble to do this.
And, we think, we ' re ma king progress,
9 because after all we're changing a long period of 10 operating under a somewhat different philosophy.
11 During 1985 we had nine seminars on this 12 chapter in all the major offices and the five regions.
13 The office of research was so interested in it they asked 14 for presentation even though they weren ' t considered 15 directly involved in backfitting.
L'e ' v e talked about 700 16 staff members already, actually, more than that.
And i
17 we're going to do it again during 1966.
As you see frer 18 item two there we had seminars in the five regions, 19 specifically, oriented to doing the cross benefit analyses 20 associated with this.
21 But now, we are getting to the actual EDO 22 level directed to the staff, the chapter 0514.
It 23 actually contains several eier.ents.
I think it's about
' 24 ten, as you'll see in the next couple of slides.
And
~
25 these things collectively define the over all staf f ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-881 i
NRC BACKFITTING NORKSHOP - 4/29/86 46 1
working policy on what we're going to do with 2
plant-specific backfitting.
3 First, on these two slides, I'm going to 4
just sort of quickly review what the elements are, a'nd 5
you'll find them in the manual chapter that you all have.
6 Responsibilities and Authorities, section one.
They're 7
outlined there for the EDO, for the office directors and 8
regional administrator, and for the staff.
1 9
Another element are requirements concerning 10 how to process 50.54 ( f) information requests.
Jim 11 addressed that this morning.
I won't address it now, in 12 this talk, except these questions might arise, because 13 he's essentially covered everything there.
14 There is a section on identifying plant 15 specific backfits and how the staff will go about doing 16 that.' And in there it also makes allowance for 17 identification by others than the NRC staff.
There 18 requirements on preparing and handling the regulatory 19 analysis.
4 20 Requirements for an appeal process of how 21 the staff will deal with appeals.
Requirements on how 22 backfits will be implemented.
Then there are record 23 keeping and reporting requirements that I won't touch on 24 very much that deals with what we call a plant-specific 25 backfit system, a computerized system that has terminals ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885
l NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 47 i
1 in all major offices and all regions keeping a real time 2
constant data base on what backfits are in process and how l
3 they are disposed of.
Then there exceptions, definitions l
4 and we will go into the definitions very soon.
5 And then, there is an appendix at the end 6
which contains guidance for making backfit determinations.
7 We think this going to be fairly helpful to the staff and 8
to others in getting some feel for what the philosophy of 1
9 this process is.
Incidentally, in there, in that appendix 10 is covered on a couple of paragraphs a discussion on 11 reload applications, which there was a questions this 12 morning on that.
You might want to read that.
~
13 Now, let's just go back and look at some of 14 the individual elements in a little more detail.
15 Any questions so far?
4 16 Responsibilities and Authorities.
The EDO 17 is clearly responsible to the commission for the 18 successful conduct of this program.
You may notice that 19 kind of language in the chapter had several points.
The 20 EDO, however, has delegated some authority and some 21 responsibility to office directors and regional 22 administrators to review plant-specific backfit cases and 23 to make decisions regarding those cases.
24 Now the EDO, of ccurse, may review and 25 modify decisions made by office directors or regional ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) '640-885
NRC BACKPITTING NOFKSI:OP - 4/29/06 48 1
administrators, but it's not required by this manual 2
chapter.
The EDO is the final appeal authority in the 3
context of this process, as written in the manual chapter, 4
but it is an elective matter on the part of the EDO or as 5
appealed to by a licensee.
Obviously, if the appeals goes 6
that far the EDO will consider it.
But he's not out there 7
looking over docuement and every decision made by an 1
8 office director.
9 The director of the regional operations and 10 generic requirements staff, Jim Sniezek, responsible to l
11 ensure th a t prccess controls are maintained and 12 communica ted at the licensee.
I think this is a fairly 13 obvious responsibility.
Part of that is being discharged 14 today.
15 Office directors and regional administrators 16 will assure that the procedures are in placing their 17 offices to fully inform and educate their staff and to 18 govern the staff actions.
As I mention those procedures 19 were in place in an initial form last year.
And they are 20 being revised now to complement the issuance of the final 21 manual chapter.
And I probably shouldn't use the word 22
" final" because the manual chapter is, of course, a living 23 document that will be revised as necessary from time to 24 time.
But, perhaps, not as frequently as it has been in 25 the last year.
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885.
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/06 49 1
Another responsibility of office directors 2
and regional administrators is the approval of the 3
regulatory analyses.
And they also make the backfit 4
determinations from these regulatory analyses, which would 5
be prepared by their sta ff s bef ore transmitting the 6
proposed backfit and the anlysis to the licensee.
The 7
office directors and regional administrators will also 8
consider claims of backfit by other than NRC staff.
- And, 9
of course, the obvious that comes to mind there are 10 licensees themselves.
That is a change from an earlier 11 version of the chapter.
We've now included that 12 explicitly in the chapter.
~
13 Office directors, in general, made final I
14 decisions on appeals, and, of course, that has to be 15 understood unless a licensee carries the appeal to the i
j 16 EDO, but the day to day practice under the chapter 0514 ac i
17 the office director has the final decision making i
j 18 authority.
19 We clearly lay out for the staff that it is 20 their primary responsibility to identify backfits.
We j
21 want the staf f to recognize and to treat backfits as they i
22 are imposed or as they are proposed to be imposed.
But i
23 others may identify potential or clained backfits.
In a 24 perfect world the industry or licensee would never have to 25 claim one.
i ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-981 i
3..
NRC BACKFITTING MORKS!!OP - 4/29/ 86 50 1
I'm going to, essentially, insert right here 2
for a little reenforcement the definition of backfits, 3
again, before we get on to the next elements in the 4
chapter.
The definition of the plant-specific backfit is 5
section 052 in the chapter near the end.
But I think it's 6
worth going over it again, right here, to facilitate'an 7
understanding.
8 The working definition of the plant specific 9
And here, you don't see on this viewdraft the 10 precise language that you see in the rule itself, but, I 11 think, you would agree that it paraphrases quite well for 12 the working staf f.
The staff position, and here's the 13 substance, may be a proposed backfit if it would cause a 14 change from already applicable regulatory staff positions.
15 A change from those positions that are already a part of 16 the licensing basis of a particular plant.
17 Notice it says "maybe."
That's because we, 18 now, need to go to nun.ber two, and we'll find out that, in 19 fact, that position is a proposec backfit it the change is 20 first identified to the licensee in writing after certain 21 licensing milestones have been passed.
Now, these are j
22 essentially reverse order f rom the way Jim read them.
23 Let's take the operating reactors first, of 24 which there more.
For operating reactors your licensing 25 basis is essentially at the point of licensing issuance i;
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885;
NRC BACKPITTING MORKSilOP - 4/29/ 86 51 1
including any subsequent commitments or changes that may 2
have been made since the licente was first issued.
But a 3
change to that licensing basis is a proposed backfit.
A 4
proposed change to that.
5 If plants are still in operating 6
licensing -- operating license review, then the baseline 7
is six months before docketing that PSAR and that 8
application for the operating license.
For new 9
applications it's after CPI issuance.
That's looking to 10 the future.
And for standardized applications it is after 11 design approval by the NRC.
)
12 What does the term plant specific mean?
We 13 mean, basically, you need the one unit or cne docket 14 number.
Now, there is a slight variant on that, and I'll 15 have to use the Alconia plants, since that's the most 16 recent in my mind.
The changes that are unique to more 17 than one unit at the same site may also be considered a 18 plant specific backfit if it really it is a unique and it 19 applies in an identical way to all three plants at that 20 site.
21 Now, what's meant by applicable regulatory 22 staff positions?
That was in the second line up there, 23 very first item.
And it's important to understand what 24 that is, because applicable regulatory staff positions 25 are, essentially, what defines the current licensing basis i
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-88 l
NRC BACKFITTING WORKS!!OP - 4/29/86 52 1
for the plant.
And this is section 053 in the chapter, by 2
the way.
Applicable regulatory staff positions.
- First, 3
positions that are already a part of the licensing basis 4
for the licensee.
5 How do we find out what they are?
There are 6
three kinds of them, at least there are three kinds.
7 Legal requirements.
And, I believe, at times we separate 8
into what we call legal requirements and staff positions.
9 I'm using here the word positions to encompass all of th e 10 below.
Legal requirements is one kind.
Pegulations, f
11 orders, licenses, amendments to the license, conditions, 12 tech specs.
All those things that a force of law.
1 13 Secondly, there written commitments by th e 14 licensee that can occur over time in the FSAR is the first 15 and, perhaps, the most important.
LER's, docketed 16 corresponderence, responses to various staff initiatives.
i 17 A written rommitment will be considered a part of the 18 licensing basis by the staff.
19 Thirdly, NRC's staff positions, generic 20 positions, officially approved positions applicable to the 21 specific licensee, your plant.
The'se are the kinds of 22 things that should be, and usually are, reviewed by the 23 CRGR.
They come out as generic, fairly authoritative,
' 24 positions.
Documents like the standard review plan and 25 changes to it.
Regulatory guides referenced by the ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-885.
NRC BACKFITTING WOR KSilO P 4/29/86 53 1
standard review plan or in some other document.
Generic 2
letters, IE bulletins, bulletin responses that contain 3
licensee commitments.
4 Is there any question on the last two pages 5
that we've just gone over?
The definition of backfits and 6
applicable regulatory positions?
7 Jerry?
8 MR. SORENSEN:
On item number two on your 9
definition of plant-specific backfits, you said, "First 10 identify the licensee in writing after certain license 11 milestones."
I notice that the words "in writing" do not i
12 appear in the manual chapter.
f 13 MR. COX:
That's right.
? eve rtheless, w'e 14 are trying to move this into the cractice of backfit l
15 management that, you know, as the utility members know, 16 it's just not good to do something verbally.
You wouldn't i
17 commit a 3 million dollar project on a hand shake usually, i
)
i 18 We want to operate in a business like fashion and have 19 these proposals in writing.
It might not be a very great 20 document it may be a piece of corresspondence, but 21 something like that must be committed to paper.
22 Any other questions?
23 MR. TOURTELLOTTE:
I can see, of course, at 24 certain points in time when written committment by 25 licensee becomes something that they have to do.
But also ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 54 1
,my understanding is that a licensee can make a 2
cog.mittment, and then some time prior to the time that 3
they actually have to perform that co mmi ttme nt, they might 4
conceivably change their mind and substitute another 5
committment.
So the question is, at what time does a 6
written committment by a licensee really become a part of 7
the basis of license?
8 MR. COX:
I'd say when they make it.
If I
ftheywant to change it then it becomes a matter of further 9
1 i
I nteraction with the NRC to request a change, because it's 10 i
l 11 i not a legal requirement.
12 MR. TOURTELLOTTE:
But the point I guess, 13 is, then, that a written committment is a part of the 14 licensing basis unless it is changed, in which case, the 15 new written committment that might take its place and 16 becomes a part of that basis; is that right?
i 17 MR. COX:
That sounds fair enough, but I 18 would say that the change must be a two party action.
If 19 the committment is once made then the change to the i
20 committment must be discussed with and approved by the 21 NRC.
22 Any others?
23 Okay.
I would like to then get back into 24 reviewing what these elements are.
25 And, perhaps, as we get through some more of ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 55 I
this it will help develop an understanding of the 2
definition, also.
3 Now we are going into what is section 042 in 4
the chapter called "Identi fying Pla nt-Specific Back fits. "
5 This will run over this one and two more viewgraphs.
6 Several points.
First one we've already 7
made.
The NRC is primarilly responsible for this, 8
identifying proposed backfits.
And, by this, we mean 9
staff at all levels from reviewers on up.
10 Secondly, when the NRC does identify a 11 backfit the staf f will complete the regulatory analysis 12 and the required determination. " Determination" meaning
~
13 yes, there is a substantial additional protection or where 14 there isn't.
And the direct and indirect cost or 15 justified before communicating and the regulatory analysis 16 to the licensee.
It's our intent that the analysis would 17 be completed, the proper NRC officials shall make the 18 decision, and both the decision and the analysis 19 supporting that decision should be communicated to the 20 licensee with a ccpy to the EDO.
You will see that in the 21 staff.
It does not mean that EDO is going to make that up 22 and review it for adequacy each time, but a copy will be 23 forwarded to the EDO.
24 And NRC identified backfit will be issued by 25 an of fice director or regional administrator based on ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
_ _ = =
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 56 1
where the backfit or proposed backfit arises from an 2
inspection process or from a licensing process.
But also 3
note that a licensee may initiate a claim of backfit.
4 When this is done the licensee claim must written to the 5
office director or regional administrator of the staff 6
issuing the position with a copy to the EDO.
7 The fifth item here is, if the staff 8
determines that the position claimed to be a backfit is a 9
backfit we'll start the regulatory analysis right away.
10 If the staff determines that a position claimed to be a 11 backfit is not a backfit the appropriate staff office or 12 tthe office director or regional administrator will 13 Idocument the basis for the decision and transmit it to the 14 licensee.
15 The point is that a documented basis will be 16 forwarded with a transmitta).
Now this documented basis, 17 remember, is not, at this point, a regulatory analysis.
18 This is either an affirmation or a denial of the claim of 19 backfit.
20 Item 7.
In the case of the licensee claim 21 the office director or the regional administrator 22 receiving this claim is going to report to the EDO and 23 inform the licensee within three weeks of receiving the 24 claim.
And the report will be on the results of the
~
25 determination.
That is, we believe it is or is not a ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 n
~
NRC RACMPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 57 1
And we'll set out the plan for resolving the 2
issue, the plan for further actions, which may be another 3
meeting, it may be we need more information, whatever the 4
plan is.
5 The issue is not just necessarily closed at 6
that point.
It may depend on licensee action.
But within 7
three weeks it is our intention to let the licensee know 8
where the NRC stands on that claim.
8 9
Now what are some of the reasons why a 10 proposed position may be found not to be a backfit for 11 these reasons?
We would either decide ourselves before 12 issuing that it wasn't a backfit or we might respond to a
' ~
13 claim with a denial for these reasons.
One, if the 14 position is a previously applicable regulatory position.
15 And we've just talked about those.
In other words, it's 16 already in your licensing basis.
The NRC effects the 17 licensee to confore to that.
18 secondly, is the matte, of --
We have here 19 a serious deficiency that's been noted, and we feel that a 20 change is necessary to ensure that the plant meets the no 21 undue risk level.
This not matter of substantial 22 additional protection.
This will be matter of -- that 23 there is a serious defect in the protection that was 24 thought to be there.
25 In these two cases, in these cases A and B, ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 n
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 58 1
no regulatory analysis of the nine point type, that you 2
see in the rule, is required, but the office directors e
3 must provide a documented evaluation to support the 4
decision that it's either in the licensing basis or it's 5
necessary to prevent or to ensure no undue risk.
6 Now if all this takes place and the licensee 7
is informed that a claim of his is not a backfit the 8
licensee may appeal that determination.
9 I will come back to the appeal process, but 10 now we've come to the regulatory analysis itself and what 11 j is it.
12 Regulatory analysis is covered in section of l 043 13 of the chapter.
It's initiated on the staff i
14 identification of a backfit, which is either identified 15 initially by the staff or claimed by a licensee and, 16 subsequently, determined to be a backfit.
17 l
When the staff is working on an analysis, a
18 regulatory analysis, developing what it is, what kind of 19 substantial additional protection it would provide what 20 the cost are at any time if they find the analysis failing 21 to support moving ahead with the issue, or they find that i
22 it supports dropping the issue, the protection to be 23 gained is insubstantial.
They can drop the issue.
All 24 the parties will be notified and the licensee, the staff
~
25 people working on it, this will be a decision made by a ARLINGTON' COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
- ;a- ~--
m
NRC BACKFITTIt!G WORKSHOP - 4/29/ 86 59 1
manager, and appropriate disposition of this issue will be 2
recorded in the plant-specific backfit system.
3 This might be an appropriate time to mention 4
that it's in this initial workup of an analysis.
And this 5
doesn't have to be a ten-page or twenty-page analysis.
It 6
could happen qualitatively in a few pages.
But it's at 7
the time that we would expect the appropriate staff people 8
working on this to contact the counter parts at th e 9
specific plant for which the issue is proposed, and, 10 perhaps, to discuss what ought to be done, and it's at 11 this point that they might get their initial feel for what 12 the impact would be on the resources of the licensee.
l 13 We don't see that in the manual chapter that 14 the staff must get out there and have discussions of any 15 prercribed type or length with the licensee.
But it will 16 become evident as we discuss the appeal process problem 17 why it only makes good sense to do this at this time.
18 The regulatory analysis is to be completed 19 and a determination made that the backfit is warranted and 20 will be imposed prior to communicating the backfit and the 21 analysis to the licensee.
The office director or regional 22 administrator will make that determination based on the 23 analysis and any other information they can bring to bear 24 on it.
And they'll forward a copy of the documents to the
~
25 EDO at about the time the transmit or prior to ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
~
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 60 1
transmitting to the licensee.
2 Now to continue to impose this backfit the 3
office director must determine that there is a substantial 4
increase in protection to be gained from this proposal and 5
that the direct and indirect cost are justified.
6 Now to cover a little bit about the 7
regulatory analysis itself.
And on this viewgraph I'll do 8
this sort of in contrast to the rule.
9 Jim discussed the rule and you all have 10 copies of it.
You know that it's a nine point analysis in 11 50.109(c).
In the chapter 0514 you can also see that 12 there thirteen elements, if you count them all, as opposed 13 to the nine in 50.109(c).
14 Chapter 0514 drops number eight in the rule 15 analysis besactBgthat's generic.
However, we have added 16 five more.
And these are, as you see here, A through E.
17 Qualitative factors, operational trends, events, SALP or 18 similiar performance reports.
These are, obviously, not 19 quantitative measures, but they are information that will 20 be taken into account in trying to decide in trying to 21 make a final judgment at the senior manager level of what 22
'should be done, when should it be done, and is it worth 23 it.
24 We want the staff to do certain NRC 25 inneroffice coordination that won't affect the industry ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
~
HRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 61 l
1 very much.
We have established that we want a basis for 2
the schedule of implementation, and this might involve in 3
some cases working with the licensee on.what we have and 4
you know as integrated schedules.
We even have one 5
already in a couple of plants.
Dewayne Arnold is one, I'm 6
not sure about some others.
We want the staff to consider 7
what should be the schedule for implementation.
8 Then there's a schedule for staff actions 9
required to put this requirement in place, and to 10 initially verify it's implementation.
And we want to look 11 at the importance of the issue relative to other ongoing j
12 safety related work at the facility.
13 But all those things that I've just 14 described are just slightly, and I don't mean to demean 35 their importance, we have to consider them, but, now, we 16 get to the real heart of the analysis.
The primary 17 emphasis in this analysis is on the evaluation of these 18 four points.
The effect on public risk due to accidents.
19 And that is offsite public risk and where it's quantative 20 it will probably be measured in man rem and avert it by 21 putting this fix in place.
22 The effect on occupational exposure for 23 putting the requirement in place and maintining it over 24 the remaining life of the plant.
Installation and
~
25 continuing costs of putting the new requirement in place ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 s
NRC EACKFITTING HORKSHOP - 4/29/86 62 i
1 including downtime or construction delay.
And NRC costs 2
which, typically, are considerably less, but in some cases t
3 may be significant by comparison to item (c).
4 We'll run by you, and I don't think these 5
requirements discussion.
These are the staff documents in 6
two cases, of course, they are contract or prepared, staff 7
reviewed and approved.
Documents used for governing the 8
general approach to value impact analysis or cost benefit 9
analyses.
The first document was issued by the EDO, l
2 10 requires all ma j or proposals to under go value impact 11 analysis.
12 Seccnd document is a workbook, a hands on i
I~
13 workbook for reviewers, and you may find it useful to your 14 people as well.
This workbook describes how to assess all 15 of the major attributes involved, both on the cost and 16 benefit side, for value impact analyses of fairly specific 17 requirements.
As it gives several examples in the back of 18 real world changes to nuclear power plants.
19 The last item is a handbook for cost 20 estimating, which is essentially what it says.
It's based 4
21 on the energy economic data base produced, I believe, by 22 Stone and Webster.
23 I will get into another element of the 24 chapter.
This is in section 044.
I believe, it starts on
' ~
25 page 14.
The appeal process, and there are two types of ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC FACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 6
I appeal described there.
2 The first type is to reverse a denial of a 3
licensee claim.
The licensees put in a claim, and the 4
staff officer has essentially denied that claim.
Now the 5
licensee wants to appeal that denial.
That's the first 6
type.
I 7
The second kind is more readily seen. To e
modify an appeal to the staff, to modify or withdraw what 9
the staff recognized and proposed as a backfit.
10 Now taking the first one.
Looking at an 9
11 appeal to reverse a denial of claim.
That should be 12 addressed to the director of the program office having 13 responsibility for that proposed position with a copy to 14 the EDO.
You'll notice that that doesn't go to the 15 regional administrator first.
We said we want to send 16 that one directly to the director of the program office, 17 because in the event of further appeal that's going to 18 wind going through more offices later.
But a copy goes to 19 the EDO.
20 That appeal, that is an appeal to reverse a 21 denial of claim, should be based on the NRC evaluation on i
l 22 the licensee claim.
Now where is that?
That came back to 23 the licensee when the claim was denied.
There was a short 24 write-up of why it was denied.
The appeal should be based 25 on that evaluation, that is, what you feel is defective AR LINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 P
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 64 1
about that.
2 That evaluation notice is not a regulatory 3
analysis.
It's strictly a documented statement as to why 4
a claim of backfit was denied.
Any new or additional info 5
that you have bearing on that determination by the NRC 6
that it was not a backfit should be supplied with this 7
appeal.
That will be decided by the program office 8
director if it isn't resolved at a lower level.
9 You might ask there what program office 10 director do I send it to?
Well, if it's a licensed 11 related matter, not inspection, you would send it to NRR, 12 unless it was a sa f egaurds ma tter, in which case you would
~
13 send it to NMSS, if it was a safegaurds licensing issue.
14 If it was a quality assurance licensing issue or an 15 emergency preparedness issue, it would go to IE, Jim 16 Taylor.
Also if these were enforcement or inspection 17 issues those would go to I E, program office director.
18 Now we've just talked about an appeal of a 19 denial of a claim.
I'll get into an appeal to modify or 20 withdraw a staff proposed backfit.
That appeal should be 21 addressed to the office director or the regional 22 administrator who issued the proposed backfit.
23 Now when you were issued a proposed backfit, 24 one recognized by the staf f, it came with a regulatory 25 analysis.
So the appeal should focus on the rational for ARLINGTON COURT DEPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/ 86 65 e
2 1
the staff's regulatory analysis.
That will be decided by 2
the program office director if it isn't resolved at a 3
lower level.
4 Now you might ask, "How is it going to get 5
resolved at a lower level if I send this appeal to the 6
program office director?"
Well, within these office 7
procedures that are being developed you will find an 8
approximately two step appeal within that office where it i
i 9
a division director will consider this first and there i
J 10 will be a meeting.
And if there's a need for a second 11 meeting it will go to that office director or regional 12 administrator.
l ~
13 Okay.
That's the essential difference 1,4 between the two types of appeals.
Here are some facts 15 that apply to both types of appeals.
And, I think, we j
16 mention earlier, this will -- to repeat this.
17 There will be a report to the EDO within I
18 three weeks after the receipt of an appeal concerning the 19 plan for resolving it.
At that time the licensee will.
l 20 Also be promptly and periodically thereaf ter informed as i
21 to the conduct of the appeal.
22 A decision by the office director may be 23 appealed to the EDO if you haven't resolved it at some j
t 24 earlier lower level.
Claims of backfit and subsequent i
25 denials that are upheld in the process are not to go k
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
1 NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 66 1
farther in the context of 0514.
That means once you've 2
passed the EDO, if the EDO were to deny the appeal, 3
further appeals are not covered by this chapter.
4 Summaries of all appeal meetings are going 5
to be provided to the licensee and placed in public 6
document rules.
So it is our intent to make this as open 7
a process as we can.
8 Now we need to talk about implementing.
9 Once we have that proposed backfit the 10 licensee has the opportunity to either implement it or 11 appeal it.
If it's been appealed then it goes through all 12 the decision making process and there's been a subsequent 13 final decision backfit by the NRC the licensee may still 14 elect to implement it.
But if the licensee doesn't elect 15 to implement the backfit may be imposed by order of the 16 office director.
17 Even so, implementation will normally be 18 accomplished on a negotiated schedule.
And here, again, I 19 mention the integrated schedule process or it's available 20 where plants have been working on it that we will try to 21 use that.
22 Is everybody still with me?
23 We're still in implementation.
There are 24 conditions in which the staff position can be imposed 25 without a regulatory analysis, and that's if the position ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 67 j
1 is not a backfit.
That is, it is part of the current i
l 2
regulatory licensing basis, or if the backfits necessary 3
to ensure no undue risk.
j 4
Now if an office director wants to do this t
]
5 the EDO is simply notified and a documented evaluation 6
stating the objections and reasons for that imposition 7
must be prepared.
This evaluation will, normally, issue j
8 with the action taken, but if it's an immediately 9
effective action necessary in an undue risk situation that j
10 evaluation can come after a backfit.
l 11 The evaluation we're talking about here is 3
12 not a regulatory analysis..
And evaluation is described in 13 some detail as to the objectives and reasons it must be 14 given the safety significance that must be pointed out
]
15 that analysis or that evaluation is described in section i
j 16 042 at about page ten of the chapter.
)
l 17 Backfit actions in progress will not i
18 interrupt or delay the plant construction, operations, or l
19 licensing, unless, of course, it was an immediately l
{
20 ef f ective action then you would have to do it, but, in I
i 21 general, that's the intent.
}
22 Now we're getting into a little bit of a 23 review or summary mode here.
Taking a look at some of the i
j 24 concepts in determining whether a staff action really is a l~
25 proposed backfit or not.
And the one of the very first I
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACUFITTING WORKSHOP 4/20/86 68 i
1 things we must think about is, and the staff has to think 2
about this as well as yourselves, is the position 3
previously applicable regulatory position.
And we'll 4
define that as essentially three categories.
Legal 5
requirements, committments, generic authoritatively l
6 established requirements.
What is the timing of this position relative 7
l 8
to the regulatory milestones for your particular plant?
9 Are you an operating plant?
Are you an operating licensed 10 applicant, in which two cases you would have different 11 bases frora which to measure whether or not a backfit is, 12 in fact, proposed?
~
13 Thirdly, has the licensee volunteered to 14 take this action?
Perhaps in response to a request to 15 hear whether corrective actions would be.
Is the NRC 16 imposing a change or is this a change that the licensee 17 recognizes is necessary and ought to be done, and has he 18 essentially said we are going to do this?
Backfits are 19 those changes that are imposed by the NRC.
20 Fourth, is it important to know that the 21 actions proposed by a licensee result!.ng from normal staff 22 licensee discussions concerning an issue are not backfits?
4 23 Would the position cause the licensee to 24 change design, construction, or operation?
That's the
~
25 change element.
Is the staff action directing, telling, q
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NFC BACEFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 69 2
1 or coercing?
Or is it merely suggesting or asking?
In a 2
cross-the-table discussion it says you probably ought to 3
think about that.
In your heart do you know which is 4
which?
If it's imposd by NRC it's a backfit.
If it's 5
not it's not.
6 Is the licensee in noncompliance or 7
nonconforming with an established rule regulation 8
licensing condition, tech. spec., bulletin?
Is the 9
licensee meeting their written committments to the NRC?
10 Let's talk a little about specific 11 applications.
By specific I don't mean were asking you to 12 put another pump in the ACCS system.
I mean here we will 13 get as specific in areas like inspection, like licensing.
14 Inspection of any item, that is inspection, 15 the act of examining the plant is not of itself a backfit.
16 Inspectors can inspect anything.
But as long as they 17 don't tell somebody to do something there's not even a 18 potential backfit.
Making findings is not backfitting.
19 Identification of deficiencies and discussions with 20 licensees regarding those deficiencies aren't backfits.
21 Licensee agreement to take action and 22 response to the findings is not a backfit providing that 23 the licensee was not phased with an ultimatum that said 24 this (A) is all we will accept as a response to this need.
25 Convercely item four, if the staff does indicate that a i
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/20/ 86 70 1
certain action is the only way for the staff to be 2
satisfied that would be a proposed backfit.
3 Try to give you --
I think there's time to 4
do an example here.
A licensee committs to answer N18.7 5
in his SAR.
Let's suppose that the implementing 6
procedures for that standard do not contain all of the 7
N18.7 required elements.
And, in fact, the implementing 8
procedures by the licensee also do not contain or address 9
certain optional elements of that standard.
Discussion of 10 the merits of including the optional items is not a 11 backfit, and, in fact, the NRC's insistence on the 12 licensee addressing all the required elements of that
~
13 standard is not a backfit.
But if an NRC staff member 14 wanted the licensee to include some of the optional 15 elements and said you should include these optional 16 elements or this one or that one that would be a backfit.
17 Enforcement.
Enforcement of the NRC 15 requirements and licensee written committments is not a 19 backfit.
A notice of violation is not a backfit.
Merely 20 request what your proposed corrective action would be.
21 The licensee committment in response to this notice of 22 violation is not a backfit.
23 And on a theme, I know we've talked about 24 earlier today, discussions, meetings, discussions during
~
25 enforcement conferences, and other conferences.
And NRC ARIINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
___~
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/66 1
1 responses to request for advice by licensee staffers are 2
not backfits.
That's the normal NRC licensee interaction 3
across the conference table that must take place in order 4
for us to really look for what is best for safety.
But 5'
when it gets to the point that the NRC staff person says l
6 you must do this in order to satisfy us that may well be a 7
proposed backfit if it's not already in the current 8
licensing basis of that plant.
9 Now let's look at some of the implications 10 in the licensing arena.
And a very fundamental one there 11 is -- comes up in the use of the SRP, Standard Review 12 Plan.
We all know that Standard Review Plan is NRC 13 management approved scope and depth of a review.
And that 14 review in ascertaining that a licensee meets the 15 established positions gives the NRC reasonable assurance 16 that the regulations are going to be complied with, are 17 going to be met by individual applications.
18 Using that current SRP in an operating 19 license review is not a backfit.
If the SRP, the current 20 SRP that's being discussed, was effective six months prior 21 to the start of the operating license review.
That is 22 approximately six months prior to docketing the operating 23 license application.
Because at that point the licensee 24 having all of those current effective standard review 25 plans in possession knows what the staff expects as a i
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 W -
'm=
. - ~
n
tiR C BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 72 I
1 demonstrations that the regulation will be met.
- However, 2
using acceptance criteria that are more stringent than or 3
in addition to established SRP criteria is a backfit.
4 To continue a little bit with that.
staff 5
discussions regarding the merits of actions that are 6
beyond SRP criteria are not backfits, unless, again, the 7
staff in the licensec's perception leaves the licensee 8
with no other reasonable alternative.
But we wouldn't 9
expect someone to walk away from a table and say the 10 reviewer made me do that.
The position should be in 11 writing.
12 Asking a licensee questions to verify a
~
13 conformance with an SRP, an FSAR, regulations, tech.
14 specs., any of those things is not a backfit.
That's 0
15 routine licensing activity.
The application of current 16 standard review plan criteria to an operating plant 17 generally is considered a backfit.
Remember I said 18
" current SRP criteria" to an operating plant, one whose 19 licensing basis was established.
Sometime ago, has 20 generally considered a backfit unless that the SRP was 21 cpecifically approved for operating plant impementation.
22 In other words, the CRGR in its decision 23 making process said we're changing this standard review 24 plant today and it shall be applicable to plants now 25 licensed.
That is a backfit decision made generically by ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
-m n
=
fM C BACKPINTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 73 1
the CRGR.
They can do that.
2 But on a plant specific basis the B
3 application of a current SRP revision to your plant l
4 already licensed probably would be considered a backfit.
5 And, again, you have to look at the individual case to 6
deternine whether it's applicable or not.
7 l
okay, summarizing.
8 Backfitting is an expected staff activity.
9 Jim mentioned this.
We try to reenforce this every time 10 we talk about it.
Nobody expects that there won't be any 11 changes.
There will be changes.
Changes are necessary to 12 a responsible regulatory process.
And we beleive that we 13 all know it.
14 But we are going to do backfitting in a 15 managed controlled manner with checkpoints by the NRC 16 staff, managers, and by the industry.
Those processes 17 with the contained checkpoints are just what we've been 18 talking about as chapter 0514 as regards to plant-specific j
19 matterc.
2 20 We think the backfitting concept are 21 straight forward.
We know there are some wrinkles to be 22 played out, worked out, as the use of this manual chapter 23 becomes more broadly recognized and more broadly applied.
i 24 But the concepts are straight forward.
The philosophy is 25 there.
In the position a previously applicable staff i
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
'W mz -
L --
IMC BACKFITTING WORKSHOF - 4/29/86 74 1
position?
If so, it's not a backfit.
I 1
~
2 What is the status of the license in the t
3 regulatory process?
The timing of a new position or 4
change is important.
Is the licensee being coerced?
Or 5
is this something a licensee has already recognized on his
{
I 1
6 own, needs to be done, and it's been volunteered?
His 7
compliance or conformance with a standing, existing I
]
8 regulation or position involved?
Those are some questions i
l 9
we ask every time it comes up.
10 So to summarize, what have we in this 11 chapter.
We can find the process for the staff to use for l
]
12 plant specific backfitting, but it has explicit industry 1
]~
13 participation identified in it.
The steps generally are i
14 the identification and determination of what is a backfit.
t
{
15 Is a proposed position a backfit?
i j
16 The NRC will participate in this area, holds J
t 17 the primary responsibility for identifying it of the s
j 18 licensee, has an opportunity to identify a proposed i
19 backfit if it feels that the staff has not done so as the 20 regulatory analysis to justify imposition of the backfit.
1 l
21 This is not necessarily totally quantitative.
It will use 22 the elements that we have pointed out here today, l
23 sometimes twice, and any other factors that may be j
24 relevant or material that have been brought to bear on the
[
25 judgment decision by some senior NRC managers.
But we i
l ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8052
^
^
NRC B ACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 75 I
will do an analysis to support a proposed backfit.
2 There will be management approval and what i
3 we think are the proper levels.
Then they will be 4
transmitted to the licensee and the licensee has an 5
opportunity to see what the NRC's proposing and why.
i 6
It will then be up to the licensee to l
7 implement it or appeal it.
And we've discussed the appeal i
8 process.
There's a final disposition which is deciding to 9
implement it or the possibility of being ordered to 10 implement it.
11 That's the extent of my presentation this 12 morning.
Is there any questions on what we've covered?
13 MR. KEELEY:
What is the availability to the 14 industry of the records of the backfits system that you 15 mention?
16 MR. COX:
That's a good question.
We l
j 17 haven't really faced that question very clearly yet, but 18 off hand, I don't see why some records, some summary 3
4 19 version of records, would not be available to the public.
20 MR. SNIEZEK The correspondence back and 21 forth, the written correspondence of written summaries, i
22 will all be placed in the PDR.
The plant-specific backfit 23 system that we're talking about is a computerized system.
24 No paper ancociated with it, and that's internal.
I j
25 assume that if there's an FOIA type request that we would ARLINGTON COURT REPOPTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 m --
m
NHC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 76 1
have to go through FOIA process to make a determination 2
whether that would be released or not.
I 3
MR. KEELEY:
So we would have to make a 4
request for that?
And do you know how it's sorted?
Is it 5
by plant system component?
6 MR. SNIEZEK:
It's by plant, by docket.
7 MR. KEELEY:
Second question.
I think Jim 8
indicated this morning that replacement power costs were 9
included in regulatory analysis factors.
I notice your 10 slide didn't include that.
11 MR. COX:
Well, I think it --
If you'll 12 look at Well, your pages aren't numbered, but your 13 regulatory analysis content slide --
Maybe I can find out i
14 on here.
I know what number it is.
]
i 15 MR. SNIEZEK I don't believe I had the 16 replacement power costs on my slide either, but I 17 mentioned it and it is included.
It's not an oversight.
18 It is included as part of the analysis.
19 MR. COX:
It says, " Downtime for i
20 construction delay for installation and continuing costs."
21 And downtime would be replacement power.
22 MR. KEELEY:
Okay.
I 23 MR. ZIMMERMAN:
In the discussion so far I 24 haven't heard how you deal with difference in opinion or
~
25 an interpretation by a resident inspector, regional ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
- i r-m
NRC RACKFITTING WORKSIIOP - 4/29/86 77 1
inspector, or NRR staff reviewer.
In determining if an 2
issue is a potential backfit when the dif ference of 3
opinion involves a tech. spec. interpretation or 4
implementation of a federal regulation or something like 5
that, licensing condition, how do you deal with that?
1 6
MR. COX:
I assume you're talking about a i
7 diff erence of opinion between an NRC staff and a licensee 8
member.
9 MR. ZIMMERMAN:
A licensee.
10 MR. COX:
This is the kind that's got to be 11 worked out probably daily in discussions between people 12 with those jobs, if there was a disagreement it escalates 13 to the next supervisory or management level.
This is what 14 our managers are paid to do is resolve or to come very 15 specific agreements on what they disagree about.
16 At some point the NRC will decide we want to 17 propose a backfit, and they will write that down and 18 propose that backfit, or they will claim it and say it's 19 not a backfit.
f 4
20 MR. ZIMMERMAN:
Or they will request the 21 licensee to request him to evaluate it under the backfit 22 issue?
{
23 MR. COX:
Well, the licensee won't be i
24 requested to do a regulatory analysis.
~
25 MR. ZIMMERMAN:
No, but submit it for their ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
t5RCBACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 78 I
request or submit it for their analysis.
2 We recently were placed in a situation where t
3 the resident inspector asked us to submit something for 4
the NRR consideration under the backfit analysis.
5 MR. COX:
You should not have been requested 6
essentially to do a regulatory analysis on a proposed 7
change.
8 MR. ZIMMERMAN:
No, we were just asked to 9
ask the NRC to do that.
10 MR. EISENHUT:
Let me see if I can comment.
11 MR. COX:
Darrell, would you do something 12 with that one?
~
13 MR. EISENHUT:
If there is a --
We don't 14 want to go into any specific things here, but, I think, if 15 you are in such a situation we should, I think, contact 16 NRR and we should try to work it out.
I'm not aware of 17 the specifics on that one, but, generally speaking, you 18 shouldn't be getting asked to do regulatory analysis and 19 turn them around and submit them to the staf f so the staff 20 can use them in making the determination.
21 But, on the other hand, if you think this 22 kind of problem is coming along those are the kinds we 23 encourage you to bring to our attention and see if we can 24 fix it.
I I
~
25 MR. MARTIN:
I think we have, somehow, been ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 79 1
through this question.
It is not uncommon for, in the 2
enforcement process which are really described, for there 3
to be a difference in view on what is required necessary i
4 in order to assure or constitute compliance with a l
5 requirement.
Under those conditions that's not at all l
l 6
uncommon for the enforcers, the enf orcement side of the 7
house, to have a disagreement with the licensee as to what 8
constitutes compliance.
That can be handled by review up 9
through regional management and corporate management 10 discussing whether or not there is an issue at, you know, 11 at contention.
12 There are times in which the fundamental
~
13 intent of NRR in the license condition, or the fundamental 14 intent of the regulation, is challenged and as to whether 15 or not the condition that exist are, in fact, in 16 compliance with the fundamental intent.
I cannot think of 17 an instance where that questioning of a fundamental intent 18 has not been referred to NRR,or to INE, whatever may be 19 the appropriate program office, or NMSS if it's a i
20 safeguards type of matter, in conjunction with NRR, but 21 through the program offices for what was the fundamental 22 intent at the time that requirement was imposed and that 23 then the issue of resolution of what constitutes 24 compliance with that is resolved by that kind of a
~
25 process.
None of that I view, and don't think any of l
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKPITTIllG WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 80 1
these gentlemen view, as fundamentally a backfitt issue.
2 Now it is not uncommon.
It's not the usual 3
case, but it is not uncommon, to ask the licensee to 4
address that issue to the program office, because they are 5
probably in the best position to articulate the particular 6
set of conditions best so that the program of fice can 7
review it in that context.
But even at this point we're 8
really discussing the resolution of the dif ference of view 9
on an enforcement type issue.
We are really not into a 10 backfit.
We are trying to determine what constitutes the 11 fundamental position as what constitutes acceptability.
12 Now after that is all resolved and the l'
13 program of fice has spoken as to what constitutes f
14 fundamental compliance, if I as a regional administrator 15 say, "Okay, now we know whats fundamental and besides that 16 I want you to do ten other things,"
I have obviously 17 entered into a backfit situation.
I've gone beyond the 18 staff position.
But what you are describing was really 19 the normal interchange between the enforcer and the 20 licensee in terms of what constitutes compliance.
That is 21 not at all uncommon f or it to occur.
And it really is 4
22 separate.
It's on a path quite paralell and apart from 23 the backfit process as described here.
24 Does that help?
~
25 MR. SORENSEN:
Tom, you've stated that the ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC P ACKFITTI MG tiORKS HOP - 4/29/86 81 1
appeals procesc requires the office director or regional I
l 2
administrator to report to the EDO within three weeks 4
3 after the receipt of an appeal.
Have you considered the 4
staff's ability to actually meet that three week schedule?
5 The reason I raise this is because our 6
experience with similiar situations has not been all that 7
good.
For example, I think, there was a generic letter 8
8603, which stated that the staff attempts to complete 9
license amendment requests that have to be shullied within j
j 10 90 days.
Our experience with that is that those things 11 take four, five, six months or even longer.
12 MR. COX:
That is yet to be tested a number 13
,of times, but we think that the level of determination 14 required here is consistent with a three week response 15 time, and until we really see significant problems with i
16 that we won't pursue that.
17 MR. SORENSON:
Good.
It's a good goal, and 18 I certainly support it.
i 19 MR. COX:
Any other questions?
20 flow are we doing here?
It's about a quarter q
21 of.
Sanford?
l 22 MR. HARTMAN:
Have you had any experiences 23 so far in actually implementing this process?
24 MR. COX:
There have been, in the last year
~
25 or so, about 30 to 40 backfit matters entered in the I
i ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 (T- -
f.'RC P ACKFITTING WORKS HOP - 4/29/86 82 1
system by primarily NRR.
Most of these have been disposed j
i 2
of.
There is some experience, but, you see, this version 3
of the chapter is out just since February of this year so i
4 not every element has been tested, and the flow through 5
all of the elements hasn't really been tested well.
It 6
will take some more time to work that out.
7 MR. HARTMAN:
Most of those 30, then, were 8
under the preceding backfitting procedures?
9 MR. COX:
That's right.
i 10 MR. HARTMAN:
And has there been any filed 11 into the new ones yet?
l 12 MR. COX:
I think there have.
I can't 13 Ireally specify.
I can't really identify them to you.
14 There have been a few, I believe, since early this year.
l 15 Nick?
16 MR. REYNOLDS:
How do we become informed of
{
17 these more recent matters?
8 18 MR. COX:
Well, as Jim mentioned, they're 19 essentially at present on an internal accounting system 20 available to offices and regions.
Certainly, at some 21 point, as he mentioned, there will be correspondence 22 that's availabic on these things, and there will 23 undoubtedly, at some point, be reports to the commission.
j 24 And, in fact, I think, some are due this year.
t
~
25 MR. REYNOLDS:
Isn't the NRC's interest, as 4
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
MRC FACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 83 1
well as industry's interest, to make that information 2
available to the industry so that we can understand how 3
you're implementing the rule?
4 MR. COX:
I think I'll let Jim deal with 5
'that one.
6 MR. EISENHUT:
Let me give you some comments 7
more from an NRR perspective.
I think you're right.
I 8
think it's in everyone's best interest to have, somehow 9
ieveryone to get their hands around it.
On one hand the 10 industry could, in effect, have a clearing house of 11 backfits.
This is how things are revolving and flowing.
12 The NRC can certainly do it.
13 There have been times in the past where I
14 having a central collection of the information on various 15 subjects has been helpful to anyone.
It's a good 16 suggestion.
It's comething we've been thinking about, at 17 least from NRR perspective.
I personally, for one, think 18 that if we could figure out a way to keep track, certainly 19 from the licensing end, which are generally more generic, 20 if you have the same concern one place you can get it some 21 place else, it would certainly be in all of our best 22 interests to have such a repository, if you will.
This is t
23 a tracking system that shows the issues.
24 I don't think that we can pull that off, but
~
25 certainly along that line where they have generic 4
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC P ACKFITTING WORKSilOP - 4/29/86 84 l
1
! implications across the board.
I think it's something we 2
certainly have to give a lot of thought to as I think the 3
industry needs to, also.
Got to remember the industry has 4
the same information we do, it's just really a matter of 5
how we put it together and package it.
6 MR. SNIEZEK:
I would add also that you do 7
get all the generic backfit determination through the CRGR 8
process.
So you really are only talking about l
9
! plant-speci fic.
l 10 MR. EISENHUT:
Yeah, I guess, I should say, i
11 ieven though I use the word " generic implications," we are l
12 l talking plant-specific backfits.
If you make a 13 determination on any given plant, this how we are
! interpreting a standard review plan or how far you can go I
14
(
l 15 lon a certain area.
That's what I meant by generic, cause l
16
' Jim said, "Oh, generic issues," with quotes around it, 17 "certainly go through CRGR."
18 MR. REYNOLDS:
Obviously, we are less 19 concerned on being informed on the generic initiatives 20 because they precede rulemaking.
We'll be fully apprised 21 of what you have in mind.
It is plant-specific backfit 22 that, I think, are necessary to desiminate to the 23 industries.
And, of course, without threatening, I think l
l 24 we probably could get it all through FOIA request anyway.
~
25 So I urgo you to consider a process that would make it ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 85 1
available.
2 MR. SNIEZEK:
If there are no other 3
questions at this time it's about time we break for lunch.
4 I would mention that remember you've got the Q & A cards 5
on the table after lunch time if you have questions that 6
you prefer to write out and give them to the ladies out at 7
the reception table.
And we will resume again at 1:00 8
o' clock then for the industry representatives will discuss 9
various aspects of the backfit rule as in the impacts they 10 see on the industry.
11 (Whereupon, a lunch break was 12 taken f rom 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 13 p.m.)
14 MR. DON EDWARDS:
Continuing on with the 15 workshop.
This morning you heard NRC's procedures for 16 implementing 50.109.
This afternoon you're going to hear 17 recommendationc for licensees for implementing programs 18 within their organizations.
19 He are very pleased to have a joint workshop 20 and we think it's appropriate to select a hotel designed 21 to nuclear standards.
You notice there are two entirely 22 redundant facilities in this location.
However, some of 23 us were tripped up by the wrong unit, wrong train this 24 morning.
We ended up staying in the east wing, but we are
~
25 all here.
ED4
)
ARLINGTON COURT RCPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852, il
i NRC BACKPITTING WORFS!!OP - 4/29/86 86-1 You've been given a copy of the guideline 2
for evaluation of backfits.
That is intended as a 3
guideline to help you implement your program for 4
implementation of the rule.
That guideline is going to be 5
explained by Mr. Gene Kurtz who is Director of Nuclear 6
Engineering, Duquesne Power and Light.
And then I will 7
offer considerations for you, for your development, of a 8
backfit development program in your organization.
My name 9
is Don Edwards.
I'm with Yankee Atomic Electric Company.
10 Next, Mr. Nick Reynolds, a partner in Bishop 11 Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds of Washington D.C.
12 We'll discuss a developing inue prudency in its 13 relationship to the backfit rule, the backfit decisions 14 that you've rado now, and the ones you are going'to be I
15 making in the future.
16 And, finally, Mr. Bart Cowen, a partner in 17 Eckerds, Simmons, Sherman and Malid of Pittsburgh, will 18 tie together these topice from an industry perspective.
19 Bart had to 1 cave for a hearing in Washington yesterday.
20 And sitting in for Bart is Mr. Jim Tourte11otte, who is an 21 attorney and private consultant, currently working on 22 prudency for Deablo Canyon.
23 Again, we would urge questions at any time.
24 There will be a combined question / answer panel at th e
~
25 conclusion of our session.
And we would also like to ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 L
J
NRC P ACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 87 i
1 point out that in your package is a NESP report or a 2
summary of a NESP report that offers a good background of 3
information emphasing the need for a hard look at worker 4
dose when you' re making decisions about modifying plants.
5 That look should come ahead of starting the work.
6 Also I'd like to say that each of us in the 7
industry panel are available at any time outside the 8
workshops to answe.r questions, and you can get in touch 9
with us at our companies for that kind of information.
10 So, I'd like to turn it over now to Gene to 11 talk about the guideline.
12 MR. FURTZ:
Good afternoon.
~
13 Like Don said this is a guideline, and it 14 should be used much in the same context as a reg. guide to 15 develop your own plant-specific procedure for implementing 16 the backfit rule.
This basically will give you means of 17 identifying and classifying various changes that you may 18 perceive as a backfit.
19 Basically the contents of the guideline 20 include a general discussion of the final rule.
A 21 backfitting checklist which will allow you to provide you 22 some questions to evaluate the issue to determine if, in 23 fact, it is a backfit in your mind.
And also has some 24 flow diagrams which we fragneted the staff procedure of 25 0514.
There are also three appendices which I will get ARLINGTON COURT P.EPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 A - -- - -
NBC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 88 1
into later.
2 I'd like to point out that when I was the 3
licensing manager of Beaver Valley II we implemented 4
generic letter 8408, which was the first staff procedure, S
we implemented that 17 times, we filed backfits.
They 6
were many logistical problems and interface problems with 7
the NRC and between ourselves with other industry parts.
8 And I'd like to point out that the management of the NRC 9
addressed those concerns and they have been enveloped into 10 this new procedure and all the issues have been addressed 11 under the rule and the new procedure.
And this should be 12 a wor kabl e ma r riage between the role and the 0514 draf t.
13 Basically the guideline addresses a 14 discussion of the final rule.
Now rather than just 15 duplicate shat's in the rule itself, which is in a term of 16 legalies, what we've attempted to do is put it in an easy 17 read format so that you will have a clear understanding of 18 the issue.
19 Now, what I recommend you do is take the 20 time maybe on the plane going back 'or when you get back to 21 your company, take about an hour or so to read what the 22 rule says in the easy format to allow you to get a clearer 23 understanding of where it's coming from.
24 One of the key points that you should 25 highlight on and there was a question this morning and I'm ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 g
MRC EACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 89 1
only going to mention it because it does come under the 2
discussion of th e rule, there was a question about the 3
timeframe it takes the staff to respond, and it was a 4
three week timeframe, one has to start thinking a little 5
bit differently than in the normal licensing fashion that 6
we are accustom to dealing with normally.
The reason is 7
that with a portion of the rule that says no licensing 8
action can be withheld time is in the licensee's favor.
9 It doesn't matter if it takes three weeks, three years, 10 three months, three aeons.
11 I mention the Beaver Valley case where on 12 ACRS we have these 17 backfit items listed separately in 13 our SER.
And they were not listed as open items in the 14
!SER at all.
We had an additional listing of open items.
15 It's possible under the rule that those open items could 16 be -- those backfit items, if they were still open, could 17 be open for the life of the plant and never be closed.
18 Under the rule they cannot withhold any licensing actions 19 on those things that have been filed as backfits.
Okay?
20 One of the important parts of the guideline 21 that we've put together is the backfitting checklist.
22 Now, the if you go back to the earlier part where I 23 mention the fragnets.
The fragnets describe the appeal 24 process and how things flow.
Okay?
~
25 Most of us in the industry are tuned to ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
~-
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 90 1
following procedures.
And given the procedure, the 2
procedure by itself may seem complex and it's only because 3
we are a different organization, each organization writes 4
procedures differently and has different priorities where 5
they put things.
6 The procedure plus the fragnet should make 7
' it very easy for you to follow.
They key to backfitting 8
is not that flow chart of the appeal procedure.
That's 9
very simple to many of us in the industry to follow.
They 10 key is knowing when you have one.
That's they key.
11 Now with this backfitting checklist does is 12 give you some key questions to address to determine if you
~
13 have a backfit, because once you determine you have one 14 it's a very simple process to follow the flow.
The flow 15 is actually not the main problem.
The main problem is 16 knowing when you have one.
17 It's also interesting that the procedure is 18 written such that the staff --
It's intended that the 19 staff will identify a backfit for you.
And they will say 20 it's a backfit and they will send you something that says 21 we've identified a backfit.
And then you process it 22 through the various portion of the fragnet.
23 In reality it probably will not happen that 24 way.
Even though it's well intended by NRC management 25 that the staff identify a backfit.
It's unlikely that ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 o.
NRC BACKFITTING WOR KSi1O P 4/29/86 91 i
1 they will.
Now that's not to say that they are promoters 2
of backfits on plants.
What it is is that the staf f has a 12 3
job of maintaining saf ety of many plants.
4 They are probably not very keenly aware of 5
your licensing basis specifically for your plant, your 6
committment.
What I'm getting at, it could be an 7
oversight on their part which is not unusual because you 8
shcald know your licensing basis and you should know what 9
you've committed to on your plant.
10 Now that's where the checklist comes in 11 handy, because if the staff does ask you a question that 12 you believe is outside of your -- that meets the 13 definition of a backfit under the rule now you can use the 14 checklist to see if you do, in fact, have one and submit 15 to the staff for follow up.
1 16 The again the flow diagrams, I've kind of 17 talked about this before, describe the process that the 18 a ppeal process that is to be used by the procedure.
It's i
19 not as complex when you put the fragnet together with the 20 procedure your probably find it's not very complex at all.
21 I believe that Don Edwards has discovered a couple minor 22 problems with the flow chart and we intend to correct 23 those and send them out to everyone who was in attendance 24 here today.
~
25 They are relatively minor and the first time ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/ 86 92 1
you put them together you may or may not catch them.
I 2
think they will still be very helpful to you in 3
understanding how the process works.
4 The appendices, there is three parts to the 5
appendices.
There is a complete text for the final 6
backfit rule for you so this a total package.
The thing 7
that is important is the examples of backfit situations.
8 Now what we've done here, we've put together 9
two case studies.
One is dealing in relation to a CP 10 holder and the other is for an OL holder.
I would 11 recommend that you read those case studies and they are 12 written in a question / answer type format, so you can see 13 whether you can after reading the first part of the 14 guideline whether you can adequately make the 15 determination that you have a backfit or not.
16 There are many benefits to having a 17 backfitting system.
At Duquesne I can personally state 18 that it was the backfitting benefits were realized in 19 terms of construction dollars.
And I'm sure it's going to 20 help over all in the outcome of our prudency audit, which 21 the report should be due out in June.
It's in the hands 22 of our public utility commission right now.
We have not 23 reviewed it, but as soon as it's available I will 24 certainly let Don Edwards know how the outcome was if it
~
25 pertains to backfitting.
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 an
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 93 1
A couple of things I want point out that may 2
or may not have been said this morning, specifically, 3
because Duquesne went through the process.
Most of the 4
NRC management here today encouraged Beaver Valley II to 5
proceed with the backfitting process even when we were 6
under 8408.
The people here today were interested in 7
gaining a system that will work.
We will only know if the 8
system works if we use it.
9 Some people have asked me about retaliation.
10 Are you worried about retaliation?
We have not 11 experienced any retaliation at all.
In fact, our SER was 12 probably one of the cleanest in the industry with ten
~
13 singular open items.
There were no combining of open 14 items.
We had ten open items.
That was it.
15 The path to filing a backfit is not simple.
16 It takes sticking to it.
Whenever an individual who 17 happens to be from the NRC comes up with a position he's 18 coming up in good faith and saying he thinks or she thinks 19 to do something is not a backfit.
When one first stands 20 there and says, "Yes, it is a backfit," your in a personal 21 confrontation there, personal discussion, somewhat 22 described by Mr. Cox this morning.
What you need to do is 23 take that next step.
24 The next step is use something like the
~
25 checklist to put your thoughts together and document it.
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC DACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 94 1
And if you really believe in it, and if it's really 2
something that you will believe a change that could 3
possibly adversely affect your plan or not have any 4
benefit at all, that's when you want to file the backfit.
5 The key is to make this a business like decision and take 6
it out of the gamesmanship routine.
7 Are there any questions on that?
If not 8
I'll turn it over to Don.
9 MR. EDWARDS:
As promised or threatened just 10 a few moments ago I'm going to take you through why you 4
11 should have a backfit management program for yourselves i
12 and what that should consist of.
13 Before I do that I have two corrections my i
14 administrative announcement when we started, I failed to i
15 mention that if you have a question please use your 16 microphone and announce your name so that we can get that 17 captured in the transcript.
18 Second, there are some places where the 19 diagrams logic is not totally unambiguous.
Tom Cox was 20 good enough to go through that very carefully, and that 21 was not my finding.
Tom gave some pointers, and I think 22 we are going to modify those and mill those out to all 23 attendees to all the workshops around the. country.
24 The other thing I'd like to say about the 25 program I'm going to tell you about is that's it's going ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
m,
..--y,..g------__
-y
..ms y
- y. _. _,. _ _ -..
_y_,.-
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSFOP - 4/29/86 95 1
to be in the abstract.
It is not the specific procedures 2
you should use, because those are going to have to suit 3
your own organization.
But you should have a backfit 4
management program, because that's about the only way 5
you're going to be able to realize the benefits of the 6
rule.
7 Type of program that we have in mind can 8
provide management control over changes which is something 9
that we all desire and, was pointed out earlier, was a 10 problem earlier in the decade.
l 11 We are going to hear in a few minutes that a 12 backfit management program probably is not only going to 13 be advisable but absolutely necessary for you to deal with 14 prudency.
But I think first and foremost a structured 15 backfit management process is going to enable you to focus
- 16 on the real issues of safety.
17 You want to be sure that any plant change 18 is, in fact, an improvement in the safety.
And to do that 19 you want to determine what a potential backfit means in 20 terms of safety improvements, how it relates to other 21 changes you have in mind, and how it relates to the 22 licensing basis so you know how to treat that particular 23 issue.
24 And finally you want to assure yourself that 25 changes do not conflict, because the last thing you want ARLINGTON COURT REPORT 1HG, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 96 1
to find yourself doing is impacting the intent of changes 2
you had already installed or disturbing your licensing 3
basis.
4 We're going to discuss prudency in just a 5
coment.
But that certainly spector in the background 6
there, there is increasing so called second guessing by 7
the rate commission.
And you're going to need the means 8
to demonstrate the correctness of a backfit decision that 9
you either make or you agree to.
And that translates into 10 documentation.
Documentation that the facts available to t
11 you at the time warranted to the decision you made.
That 12 the action you took was, in fact, a required response, and
~
13 that the requirement that your meeting was, in fact, a 14 legitimate requirement under the backfit rule.
15 I'm expounding the obvious here, but 16 management control is the result of good information.
And 17 the information about changes in progress committed to or 18 planned, if it is accurate, can then allow informed 19 action, and those kinds of actions comparison of analysis 20 that you've received on various changes for consistency, 21 comparison for prioritization, and, perhaps, the 22 opportunity to integrate some work that you've got to do.
23 First thing I said is, "Why have a program?"
24 You needed to implement the rule.
Everybody gasp.
25 The old 50.109 didn't work.
It isn't ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 O
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 97 1
because it didn't make sense it just didn't work because 2
nobody used it, utilities or staff.
That could happen i
3 again.
Ycu could go back to square one with undisciplined l
4 approach to backfits, and, perhaps, some confusion over 5
what requirements are.
6 You heard this morning that NRC doesn't plan 7
to go there.
They've created a central system that has 8
standard procedures and that will work towards consistent 9
interpretations.
And for the past decade, and it has been 10 a decade, we've been complaining as an industry that there 11 apparently are many different NRC's.
And sometimes 12 analyses on which decisions have been based haven't been 13 adequate or complete.
14 A program that you can implement can monitor 15 the consistency of the analysis that you've presented.
16 And you, now, can begin to establish some consistency in 17 your own organization an approach toward changes.
And I'm 18 going to talk about that-in just a second.
And it gives 19 you a basis to evaluate NRC submittals.
20 So what is this thing I'm talking about.
21 Well, it has ccveral attributes and obviously the first 22 one is management committment.
But it's got to be a 23 systematic process that is comprehensive and, as I said 24 before, it's going to have to reflect the characteristics
~
25 of your organizations, because it's going to have to be ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 4
NRC B ACKFITTING WORKS HOP - 4/29/86 98 1
absolutely integral to the management decision process of 2
your utility.
3 Let's talk about those attributes just for a 4
second.
5 Management committment is necessary.
6 Support at all levels and acted participation at all 7
levels.
I will mention an initiative by Newmark shortly 8
that deals with backfitting to try to encourage that 9
participation.
But it also involves a full understanding 10 by all of the employees of what the standard procedure is 11 for dealing with a backfit, because if it fails at one 12 level it will fail.
And it won't necescarrily --
could
~
13 have the greatest management support in the world, but if 14 it's employees aren't implementing it won't work.
15 I think that the most effective program is 16 the one in which all modifications are treated under the 17 same systematic process so that you have a uniform 18 standard of acceptance of a change regardless of its 19 source.
That allows internal consistency between groups 20 that are dealing with changes, and it also gives you a 21 sound position for interacting with NRC in discussion of 22 potential backfits.
And there will be discussions and 23 they've been invited.
24 But you want to talk from a safety
~
25 standpoint, a complexity standpoint,_and an impact benefit ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
_o
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 99 1
standpoint, and I'm not just talking about dollar costs, 2
I'm talking about the potential radiation of workers that 3
have to install this thing and maintain iL and calibrate 4
it.
5 And, again, I'll bring your attention back 6
to the NESP study that highlights this fact.
A hundred 7
thousand person rim in five years is a lot of dose.
And 8
if that's the kind of number that we're dealing with in 9
terms of impact we want to be sure we've really thought 10 carefully that works necessary.
11 What we're talking about a systematic 12 process to identify backfits, that implies that you have a 13 knowledge of the possible sources, and I would offer the 14 CRGR chart as a place to look.
There's three pages of 15 possible sources of backfits that you could deal with.
16 And it reauires a knowledge of the licensing basis of your 17 plant prior to dealing with the imposition of a backfit, 18 because, as if we heard before, if you don't know what 19 your licensing basis is you you can't identify a change.
20 And the major problem here, the major 21 problem of getting the process going, isn't going to be 22 implementing the details once you have a bona fide 23 backfit.
It's going to be pinning down the fact that 24 you're in a backfit situation from both sides.
It's not 25 just our problem, it's your problem, too.
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
a NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/06 100 1
Once you have identified a backfit you want 2
to validate it.
You want to assure that the safety issue 3
is clear.
I see we're dealing with a slide built by a 4
committee, because the next point goes on the next slide, 5
but anyway, you want to assure that the backfit package is 6
complete and that you can view the staff analysis.
Not 13 7
because you want to pick a fight with the staff.
8 It should be because you want to be sure 9
that they analysis conf orms with a standards that you've 10 established for qualification of a change regardless of 11 iwhat it comes from.
And you want to be able to identify J
12 as clearly as possible the disagreements.
~
13 These want to be founded on factual issues.
14 And you want to offer the opportunity for your management 15 to make an appeal if that's deemed appropriate.
Now 16 sometimes they might think that they don't to, but that's 17 got to be an option.
18 Is anybody out there?
You guys are all 19 here?
Okay.
I'm almost done.
I realize this is dragging 20 on here.
21 Let me say a few words about the appeal 22 process, because I think this important that basicaly a 23 lot of the logic has dealt with the appeal.
The 24 perception from the 05.109 that it kicked in only when 25 there was violent dispute, and that licensees that used it ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 m
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/ 29/ 86 101 1
a lot were a bad guy.
2 Now as I understand it, the new 109 3
recognizes that we are dealing with a complex environment 4
and one in which th e facts can appear different to 5
different people, reasonable people.
And we want to get 6
at th os e differences and resolve them in a professional 7
way.
And we want to end up with a maximum benefit here.
8 Maximum benefit in plant safety and plant reliability.
9 So in the appeal process you want to present 10 cogent arguments on legitimate issues.
And you want to 11 resolve differences and find common ground.
And you want 12 a system that will monitor the appeal.
Monitor it as it 13 tracks it.
Track it as it goes through the system.
14 And we've got some interface to work out 15 together, but I think it can be done.
And ultimately you 16 want to incorporate these into your work control process 17 so that the justification of all tasks is done the same 18 way that the prioritization can take place, that th e 19 scheduling and tracking can take place, and you can 20 generate come reporting.
21 Your system is going to want to enable you 22 to make comparison between utilities and review 23 information from a number of sources so you really have a 24 handle on what is going on.
The way you use that data 25 will depend on the nature of your system.
You may make ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 II
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 102 1
use of it to greater or lesser extent, but you'll want to 2
evaluate NFC treatment of similiar actions that your going 3
to deal with.
And you want to look for opportunities for 4
generic issues as opposed to everything being resolved on 5
a plant-specific basis.
6 Along these lines, the Newmark has an 7
initiative that has required the establishment at each 8
utility of a backfit coordinator and these members are 9
listed IAF.
The intention is that they will communicate 10 with one other and support one another.
11 The last attribute is the fact that the 12 program is going to have to be individual to your 13 untilities.
You're going to have to integrate it into 14 your management process so that you can control resources I
15 in a reasonably way, that you can interface in a 16 professional way, and that you can establish the rationale 17 for decisions that you make.
18 So the process has to be one that gets 19 implemented by the organization, because it takes place on 20 several levels.
There's diverse needs.
21 That concludes my remarks on what you 22 probably want to think about.
23 Are there questions now?
24 JiR. ~REYNOLDS:
In my opinion, we have a
~
25 backfitting rule today because the regulator listened to ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 L
NRC P ACKPITTING WORKSI!OP - 4/29/ 86 103 1
the pleas of the industry over the last ten years, that we 2
were being racheted unnercifully, and that we were being 3
backfitted unnecessarily, and, perhaps, unsafely.
4 We, now, have the rule because.the regulator 5
paid attention to what we had to say, believed it after 6
evaluating it, and did something about it.
7 Now it would be a serious mistake and really 8
a tragedy for this industry to ignore the toll that has 9
been placed before it by the agency, and that's what this 10 session is really all about.
11 As if you might need additional incentive to 12 pay attention to the rule to understand it internally and 13 to apply it when necessary, the purpose of my talk today 14 is to discuss the economic's side of the backfitting rule; 15 that is, how the presence of the backfitting rule can 16 affect prudency be. ore either your state utility 17 commissions, the federal energy regulatory commission, if 18 you appear before it, or if your are unregulated 19 economically before your board of directors.
All of those 20 bodies are interested in seeing th a t operators of power 21 reactors operate their units in a most efficient manner.
22 So I want to shift the emphasis slightly 23 from health and safety issues, which is what we've really 24 been talking about so far, to the implications of the
~
25 backfitting rule for economic regulation of power ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 i
NR C BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 104 1
reactors.
The Atomic Energy Act and the Supreme Court 2
both tell us th a t state public service commissions or 3
other economic regulators have full authority to 4
investigate the prudency of costs associated with plant 5
modifications.
6 In the past these rate making authorities 7
have been reasonable in allowing recovery of costs 8
incurred by licensees in backfitting plants.
These costs 9
have included both the direct costs such as for design and 10 construction, as well as indirect costs such as those 11 incurred for replacement power.
i 12 In my view based on my review of current 13 rate making proceedings this is changing.
In my opinion 14 it will not be enough in the future for power reactor I
15 licensees to merely recite that you backfit your plant 16 because the NRC told you to do it.
You will have to 17 demonstrate that you went about satisfying NRC regulations 18 in the most cost effective way possible.
In short, you 19 wil have to demonstrate that you satisfied NRC regulations 20 in a prudent manner.
21 In my discussion, I will, first, briefly 22 comment on rate making treatment in cases that have 23 occurred over the last five or six years.
These cases 24 demonstrate to me an increasing willingness of the 25 economic regulator to second guess both the manner in ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
\\
NRC BACKPITTING MORKSHOP - 4/29/86 105 I
which the utility seeks to resolve the issue with the NRC 2
that could result in a facility modification, and in the 3
manner in which the modification is executed if it's found 4
to be necessary.
5 I will, then, identify some implications 6
that backfitting rule may have on the economic regulation 7
of power reactors.
And, finally, I will suggest a few 8
principles that licensees should follow to protect 9
themselves from the economic regulator and to be able to 10 justify the prudence of their actions.
11 There have been a number of past decisions 12 addressing rate making treatment of backfitting costs.
13 One such group of decisions involved the NRC requirements 14 that licensees reanalyze their plants for seismic stress 15 design.
To meet this requirement, some plants were forced 16 to shut down for such activities as piping verification 17 and anchorage inspections.
16 Two examples of more reasonable economic 19 regulation of those reevaluations and redesigns occurred 20 in 1981 in North Carolina where the utilities commission 21 there' allowed CP & L to recover 62 million dollars in 22 increased purchased power costs, resulting from the outage 23 at Brunswick for seismic reanalysis.
24 The North Carolina commission found no
~
25 imprudency in t he or iginal design of the plant, and found ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 0
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 106 1
no imprudency in the inability of CP i L at the time to 2
recognize and appreciate the need to harden or strengthen 3
the pipe supports at the plant.
At the time, the plant 4
satisfied the seismic criteria.
5 Similiarily, in 1980, the Maine Public 6
Utility Commission in the Maine Yankee case permitted full 7
recovery of 20 million dollars in replacement power costs.
8 Again, concluding that the seismic design decisions made 9
by the utility in the first place were reasonable and 10 prudent.
11 There has been a recent shift, in my view, 12 and we can illustrate the shift toward increasingly 13 stringent economic regulation in the well publicized case 14 of Philadelphia Electric before the Pennsylvania I
15 Commission involving the investigation of the Atwis event 16 at Salem of which Philadelphia Electric is part owner.
17 The PUC disallowed 26 million dollars incurring during i
18 that outage.
19 As recently as November of last year, the 20 New York Public Service Commission regarding Shoram again, 21 indicated stringent tone that economic regulators intend 22 to take toward most power reactors.
In that decision, the 23 commission excluded from Loco's rate base 1.4 billion 24 dollars of the total condtruction cost for Shoram which 1_
25 was 4.6 billion.
Part of this disallowance was 4
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC DACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 107 1
attributable to what the commission called Loco's Failure, 2
and I quote, "To pursue prompt resolution of regulatory 3
issues that significantly affected the plant's cost and 4
schedule."
5 The public service commission there is 6
talking about pursuing resolution of issues with the NRC, 7
1.4 billion dollars out of rate base.
The issues involved 8
at Shoram were various.
They were backfits that arose 9
during construction of the project.
In 1972, the staff 10 imposed new requirements for evaluating high energy line 11 breaks outside containment.
Because this had the 12 potential of requiring substantial redesign work and 13 costly backfitting, the New York Commission found that 14 Loco should have pressed for an early ruling from the NRC 15 on pipe break requirements for the plant.
The PSC found 16 that Loco did not do so, and they disallowed the cost.
17 The commission disallowed redesign and 18 rework costs that ultimately became necessary to satisfy 19 pipe breat requirements.
Other disallowances related to a 20 new ASME piping code requirements, new cable separation 21 criteria, and seismic design changes, 1.4 billion dollars 22 out of rate base.
23 In disallowing the cost, the New York 24 Commission took the position that the utilities should 25 have sought resolution with the backfitting issues with ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
l'BC CACKFITTING WORKS!!OP - 4/29/86 108 1
t h e !!R C in a prc.".ct manner.
According to the commission, 2
if the utility disagreed with the staff's technical 3
position, it should have raised exceptions and sought 4
resolution before making substantial hardware l modifications, 5
that, as it turned out, later needed to be l
6 changed.
7 And bear in mind, that this decision by the E
lNew York PUC was made with respect to what licensee l
9 i activities that occurred before we had this backfitting 10 rule.
There is even a stronger basis now for economic 11 l regulators to hammer on those utilities that do not l utilize 12 the procedures in the backfitting rule, g
13 The trend is clear, at least in the near economic regulators will increasingly scrutinize I
{ future, 14 i
15 lbackfitting coste.
And it may not suffice to offer as 1
16 justification for backfitting that the NRC made you do it.
17 Given this trend in economic regulation, the backfitting 18
, rule raises some important ra te making questions.
19 l
If a utlity accepts a staff imposed backfit 20 without assuring that the backfitting procedure is 21 followed an economic regulator may question whether the 22 utility did all it could to minimize the cost of the 23 backfit.
The economic regulator could find that 4
24 management acted imprudently in spending the money for the 25 backfit without scrutinizing the staff's technical basis ARLItJGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
MC BAC% FITTING MORESFOP - 4/29/P6 109 I
i 1
for :he baci: fit and pressing it's exceptions vigorously if 2
that's the appropriate thing to do.
3 In addition, if the backfit causes an outage h
to te extended, tcc utility may be criticized for 5
inefficient outage management.
However, it is not enough 6
simply to ensure that the backfitting process is followed.
7 The utility may also have to press the NRC 2
tc decide areas of disagreement promptly in order to avoid i
?
a situation in which the utility is f orced to incur costs 10 for the redification that later have to be reworked.
f 11 In the Shoram case, for example, the utility l
l ftock exception t c-some of the cable separation criteria in 12 l
13 l reg. guide 175.
Eventually, the NRC approved 90 percent t
14 of the installations, but the remaining 10 percent 15 lrecuired major reconstruction.
The Public Service 16 Ccamission disallowed costs associated with the 17
'reccnstructicn.
l 18 As a result of this increasingly stringent i
5 19 eccnomic regulation of power reactors, and the development 20 and implementation by the NRC of the backfitting 21 management process, I believe there are certain 22 fundamental principles that licensees should follow for 23 evaluating backfits or proposed backfits in terms of the 24 sensitivities of the economic regulators.
These 25 principles are first before incurring costs in connection ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
~
'i F C nACRFITTI?!G WCRKSHOP 4/29/06 110 1
lwi:n a backt:t.
2 i
The utility should satisfy itself that a 3
! sound technical bacis for the backfit exists.
This means i
4 l working tcgether with the staff to understand the 5
technical basis for what is required, how the desired l
6 safety improvement can be achieved at the least cost, and 7
challenging the necessity for the backfit, if appropriate.
8 Second, if the utility is satisfied as to 9
I the technical need for the backfit, it should schedule the 10
- necessary werk so ac to minimize facility downtime.
This l
11 iwill entail, at a mi n imu m, obtaining all necessary 12 regulatcry apprevals on a timely basis and taking g
l3 advantage of planned outages to complete this work.
14 l
Third, if the utility takes exception to all I i
15 or part cf the tackfit, it should present its exceptions 16 I tc the 1:R C in a timely and well documented fashion.
17 Thereafter, the utility should seek prompt resolution of 18 the issues.
In cpprcpriate cases, the staff decisions 19 should be appealed.
20 And fourth, the utility should document each 21 step of the decision making process.
For example, if the 1
)
22 utility concludes that a backfit is technically justified, 23 this justification should be developed in detail at the 24 time of the decision to proceed with the backfit.
25 Similiarly, if the utility elects to contest ARLI!1GTO!! CCURT REPCPTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 111 1
the backfit, it's technical justification for the contest 2
should be developed from the outset in order to minimize 3
delay in the regulatory process.
If the utility finds 4
that the NRC is not meeting its goal of promptly resolving 5
backfit appeals it should advise staff management of this 6
fact in writing.
7 Now, I do not mean to imply that the filing 8
of an appeal under the backfitting process is the litmus 9
test of prudency.
What I do mean to suggest, is that as a 1
10 result of the backfitting procedures utilities complaints 11 and rationalizations about changing and conflicting NRC 12 requirements may not carry as much weight in rate 13 proceedings as they did in the past.
14 I also believe that economic regulators will 15 increasingly expect power reactor licensees to consider 16 carefully the need for particular backfits and to develop 17 management techniques for assuring that necessary backfits l
18 are implemented quickly and efficiently.
For these 19 reasons I believe that the backfitting rule is one 20 important tool of prudent management.
21 Stripped of the verbiage, what does all this 22 mean?
It means that power reactor licensees must, not 23 should, not may, must develop an efficient and vigilant 24 process to recognize : backfit, determine whether the 25 backfit is necessary, and, if so, proceed with ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 w,g
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 112 1
implementation efficiently, and, if not, invoke the 2
procedures in the backfitting rule with the NRC staf f.
3 And why must licensees do this?
It is your 4
obligation under federal law to do so.
The backfitting 5
rule is not an obstacle to safety improvements.
It is a 6
road map for the NRC and industry to follow to assure that 7
plant modifications are r.acessary and justified.
8 Neither the NRC staff nor the industry may 9
ignore the rule because it is a binding federal 10 requirement, just as NRC staffers who refuses or neglect 11 to follow the road map layed out in the rule will be held 12 accountable by staff management, so licensees who refuse
~
13 or neglect to follow the road map will be held accountable 14 by those concerned with efficient plant operation, be they 15 your public utility commission or your board of directors, 16 or both.
17 Anyone have any questions?
18 Thank you.
19 MR. TOURTELLOTTE:
My name is Jim 20 Tourte11otte, and, ordinarily, lawyers don't have slides, 21 but whenever you talk to engineers I find that it's very 22 helpful.
So I have two slides today.
It's taken me a j
23 while to develop a program with as many as two slides, but 24 I have them for you today.
~
25 One of them illustrates the fact that, ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 j
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 113 1
indeed, the whole backfitting picture is a very stormy 2
situation.
Actually, there are many, many things that 3
backfitting touches upon, many of them in the safety area, 4
and, in addition to that, I've pencilled in very faintly 5
in red there the word " prudence" because that is an area 6
also outside of safety which it is very important.
7 You know in the introductions today Don told 8
who everybody was.
I'm not sure that all of you in the 9
audience know exactly what the backgrounds the people on 10 this panel are though, and I think it's very interesting 11 and very important because they represent a great deal of 12 background and experience in the whole backfitting effort.
13 Don Edwards is the chairman of the 14 subcommittee on backfitting in the AIF and has worked on 15 it several years.
I know when I was at the NRC, he was 16 very helpful to me in making suggetions and comments about 17 various approaches that I was taking in helping me to 18 understand better what the situation was with the 19 industry.
20 Similiarly, Nich Reynolds is the Chief 21 Attorney for NUBARG, which is, I hope I got this right, 22 Nuclear Utility Backfit and Reform Group.
Close enough 23 for Government work.
I don't work for the Government
,24 anymore.
And he also was right in there pitching for the 25 industry and urging the commission every step of the way ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 114 1
to take the right steps and played a very important role 2
in forming the comments on the various. stages of the 4
3 rules, which helped to shape the concensus of the 4
commission.
5 Gene Kurtz mentioned in passing that he was 6
at Beaver Valley and that they filed 17 backfits.
What he 7
did not tell you is that that was one of the only efforts 8
that was made by the industry to use the backfit rule.
It i
9 was used very successfully.
My best recollection is that 10 there were sucessful in either 15 or 16 of those 17 11 requests, and that it saved the company for which he works 12 200 million dollars.
~
13 Now, the question might come up, "Well, why 14 do I need to know about backfitting?"
And I can think of 15 no better reason to point out to you than 200 million 16 dollars is something that should draw the attention of any 17 CEO and any subsequent manager or any utility.
18 I listened with great interest today as to 19 how the backfit rule was presented and the comments of the 20 various speakers.
But I thought it was very interesting 21 that Bob Martin should talk about honest disagreement and 22 make the pledge of the NRC to you people in the industry 23 that there would be no retribution.
And, you know, this
{
24 is one of things that has concerned me-since the passage 25 of the rule, I think, more than anything, and that is
)
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
)
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 115 1
whether the industry is really going to use this rule once J
2 it has been placed into effect.
And we all know that 3
there probably is some fear of retribution.
4 But let me suggest to you for a moment to 5
think about this whole thing.
The backfit rule existed 6
for about 15 or sc years and was not put into effect.
And 7
we all know about the various interactions under the 8
backfitting rule, absent backfitting rule, during those 15 9
years and all of the unpleasantness surrounding 10 backfitting.
11 But let me suggest to you also that you 12 consider in the history that it was the commission and 13 people on the commission staff who raised the idea that 14 perhaps backfitting had gone too far.
It was the people 15 on the commission that suggested that a special committee 16 be formed to review generic requirements.
And it was 17 people on the commission staff who suggested that we have 18 a backfit rule and that we work for some resolution of 19 that rule.
20 It is now people on the commission staff who 21 are telling you that they sincerely believe in the rule 22 and they are going to see that it's enforced effectively 23 and fairly.
And somewhere along the line it's up to the 24 industry to believe what they're being told.
Because, as g
25 we've seen too by the various comments of the other people ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 116 1
on the panels today, it is very important now that the 2
industry do something with the rule.
3 The rule is not self executing.
No rule is 4
self-executing.
And the human factor now takes over.
As 5
Bill Counsil pointed out, it is a responsibility of the 6
industry to both understand and to use the rule.
7 Today, hopefully, some of us are coming to 9
8 better grips with the understanding of the rule.
I have 9
no doubt in my mind but what a development of the 10 understanding of th e rule is going to be concomitant with 11 the exercise of the rule in the future.
And if that rule i
12 is not exercised then probably it will not develop very 13 much.
14 The responsiblilities are numerous.
Jim 15 Sniezek pointed out that this is a disciplined management 16 process.
And he's talking about discipline perhaps from 17 the standpoint of the NRC.
But I suggest to you that 18 there is also a need for a discipline in the management 19 process of the utilities.
The utilities themselves have 20 to establish.both a strategy and a structure to implement 21 the strategy for backfitting.
22 There is a responsibility on the part of the 23 staff, as Tom Cox pointed out.
There is a responsibility 24 for the staff to identify a backfit in a perfect world.
I
~
25 understand that we don't have a perfect world, and Tom Cox ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
~e-ww
,me-v---
a v,,,
w-~-,--.ww w
,r
,e-m
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 117 1
knows we don't have a perfect world and so it's going to 2
be necessary for other responsibilities to be measured and 3
to be carried out.
4 There's a responsibility on the part of the 5
licensee to claim and support the claim of a backfit where 6
the staff fails to identify one.
There's a responsibility 7
for the staff to review any such claim.
There is a 8
responsibility for a licensee to pursue valid claims where 9
the claims are denied by the staff.
And there is a 10 responsibility on the part of the NRC staff to give a fair 11 hearing to those appeals.
12 Gene Kurtz, I think, made one comment which 13 also presented a theme throughout the entire presentations 14 today.
He said that recognition of a backfit is the key.
15 Recognition is the key.
Remember what Tom Cox said, 16
" Identification is one of the most important things about 17 backfitting."
Not only that but Don Edwards also pointed 18 out that iden.tification is the key.
19 And finally Nich pointed out that we must 20 recognize, evaluate, and invoke the rule.
We must 1
21 recognize backfits, evaluate th.se backfits, and invoke 22 the rule.
So that theme of recognition goes in there with 23 the themes of responsibility that we've heard about today.
24 Management control.
That's what backfitting 25 is all about.
It's management control on the part of the ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 118 1
NRC to see that their process is fairly administered and 2
the protection of the public health and safety is 3
maintained according to the high standards that they have 4
set.
5 Within the individual utility, the 6
management control concerns the same protection of the 7
public health and saf ety.
In addition, it concerns 8
reliability, availability, and economic value of electric 9
power and energy.
Seems to me th a t the prudence issue, as 10 it was presented by Nick Reynolds today, points out very 11 clearly that there is an economic need to establish a 16 12 backfit management system within each utility.
13 In addition to those factors which he 14 pointed out, I would also suggest that the issue of post 15 capital expenditures is going to become increasinly 16 important for utilities in their dealings with their 17 public utility commissions, and, in some cases, with the 18 boards of review.
19 Post capital expenditures are going to 20 continue to occur through the life of the plant and as 21 they do occur through the lif e of the plant there are a 22 diminishing number of years within which to pay for those 23 post capital expenditures.
The interest on those 24 expenditures is also potentially very, very grea't.
25 Seems to me that if this backfit rule is ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
~
x
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/ 86 119 f
1 going to work, what it's going to require is a lot of 2
mutual respect and understanding.
It's going to require I
3 the mutual recognition of respective needs of the NRC and 4
of the industry.
Industry has to remember that the NRC 5
has a very, very important mission and a need to fullfil j
I 6
that mission by protecting the public health and safety.
7 I think that most of the backfits that have 8
occurred in the past, whether they are right or whether 1
9 they were wrong, whether they were analyzed or unanalyzed, 10 most of the time, most of the people on the NRC staff 11 really believed that they were doing the right thing, and 12 that they were doing it in the interest of public health 13 and safety.
Now, whether they were or not is something 14 that would only be answered if you look at the facts and 15 circumstances of each situation.
Obviously, there were 16 cases when probably justification did not exist.
]
17 Nevertheless, I believe that, for the most 18 part, the people in the NRC have attempted to meet th e 19 need to protect the public health and safety.
By the same 20 token, the NRC has to recognize that the industry really 21 honestly themselves have a very strong vested interest in 22 the public health and saf ety and that they really do want j
23 to protect the public health and safety.
].
24 The NRC also needs to recognize that there
~
25 are other needs of the utility.
The need to provide ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSilOP - 4/29/86 120 1
reliable power at economic rates for the consumer.
And 2
while that is not a part of the Atomic Energy Act, it is 3
not mutualy exclusive for them to consider such matters as 4
reliability and availibility of power and the consequences 5
of any requirement upon the economics of operation.
6 They must understand that there are mutual 7
responsibilities then.
They must understand and have a 8
mutual respect for each other.
They must have a mutual 9
understanding of what is good for the country.
They must 10 have a mutual trust, and above all, they must impose a 11 mutual discipline to ensure the backfitting rule is 12 carried out effectively.
~
13 MR. SNIEZEK:
Are there any questions that 14 you want to address to the industry panel at this time 15 before we take our break?
16 Okay, before we take our break there are 17 three points that I'd like to make.
One, make sure you i
18 sign the attendance list at the reception table if you i
19 haven't signed it.
'20 Second, if you wish to receive copies of the 21 transcript of this meeting, please give your name to the 22 Court Reporter during the break, your name and address.
23 And third, during our panel of discussion we 24 are going to answer the questions that were received on 25 the cards, and also any questions from the floor.
So if ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKS!!OP - 4/29/86 121 1
you desire to write down any questions, please do so 2
during the break.
3 And let's resume again at 2:20.
j 4
(Whe re upon, there was a brief i
5 period off the record.)
i 6
MR. SNIEZEK:
Let me start out by -- we'll 7
handle the 0 & A's.
We'll start with the cards first, and 8
the first question that we've got is, "At what point in 4
l 9
the backfit process do backfit alternatives come into 10 play; that is, alternative utility ideas?"
,11 Let me turn that to Darrell since most of 12 it's in the licensing arena.
Darrell, why don't you
^
13 respond to that?
j 14 MR. EISENHUT:
First off I'm not quite sure 15 I understand the question, but if I looked at it, at what 16 point do the backfitting procedures come into play, if I 17 look at it just in the broadest context.
While the actual 18 50.109 has in it some different categories of when 19 different plants would fall from a practical standpoint.
20 I think every plant in the country almost falls in the l
j 21 same category.
I think we've got all of the FSAR's, we're 4
22 doing the reviews on every plant, and therefore, the 23 backfitting procedure first applies to all plants on all 1
24 things as we go forth.
That's the first element of it.
~
25 l
The second element of it is, at some point a
i ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
- - - - - - - - - - --- l
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 122 1
in the process, someone either on the staff or on the 2
utility, will identify the item as a backfit or as a 3
potential backfit.
And I forget which one of the industry 4
panel here made the point, but actually I think, I agree 5
with them that from a practical standpoint most of the 6
time the utility is going to be flagging the issue.
7 Historically, at least that's the way it went.
In an 8
ideal situation, I think, the staff would be determining 9
various items as a backfit, and I certainly hope we could 10 head in that direction more.
But from a practical 11 standpoint right now at least most of them are being 12 identified first by the industry.
13 From the point you identify the item being a
~
14 backfit that 's when the process turns on.
I think that, 15 Jim, that's the simplest answer I can give to it if I 16 understood the question.
17 MR. SNIEZEK:
Let me add just a little bit 18 to it, also.
A subset is when do alternative utilities 19 come into play. I assume th a t to mean that let's say the 20 staff thinks something has to be done and proposes a 21 backfit.
I would invision that as soon as the utility 22 would hear about the backfit from the staff, remember one 23 of the things a backfit is suppose to determine right up j
24 front, it's suppose to say what problem am I trying to
~
25 solve.
That's the first part of the analysis.
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852 i
NRC DACKFITTING WOR KS ilO P - 4/29/86 123 1
If the utility would have a better way of 2
solving that problem than what the staff approach was 3
going to be, at that time I'd say the utility should 4
identify that to the staff.
It may be that the staf f says 5
you're absolutely right.
And we've got to go with the way 6
the utility is recommending.
But as soon as possible in 7
the process, not of the end, but as soon as possible in 8
the process.
9 MR. EISENHUT:
Of course, Jim, as you look 10 at this from a practical standpoint you can get into a lot 11 more bigger problems.
I give you one as it is the kind of 12 problem we're working is we have a plant for example where 13 there was a situation that we all agreed would be backfit 1
14 and the utility made a committment, I believe, in 1984.
15 And as he started to work through his process of coming to 16 a solution and engineering it out and working out the 17 actual solution he came to realize that the solution he 18 agreed to wasn't too good of a solution.
In fact, he was 19 prepared to offer another alternative.
Well, the way that 20 he really had ended up doing that was withdrawing his 21 previous committment on the record, and coming up with 27 another proposal.
23 When you see youself in that kind of 24 situation make sure you do that as timely as you can.
If
~
25 you see your previous committment on the books isn't going i
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 124 1
to fly and you want go to another approach with another 2
alternative come talk to the staff.
I think in most cases 3
the staff will be receptive.
The only problem I can 4
foresee is if you wait actually to the lith hour.
So I 5
think we're open to alternatives on both ends of it.
6 MR. SNIEZEK:
Okay, and this one I'll direct
.7 to Tom Cox.
It's "Do you publish a monthly backfit status 8
report?"
9 MR. COX:
Well, actually, unless a status 10 report has been published by NRR now for almost a year or 11 six months or anyway.
And those are going to be publicly 12 available.
I think they are already but there's no reason 13 why they can't be.
14 MR. SNIEZEK:
Okay.
Next question is "If in 15 consideration of plant specific backfit NRC determines it 16 may have generic implications, will they defer the 17 plant-specific requirements until the generic issues are 18 resolved?"
19 And I'll answer that one.
20 And the answer is probably not, but it 21 depends upon the specific issue that is raised.
It could 22 be because of where the plant is in the regulatory process 23 that that issue would be solved on that plant first.
But 24 from the backfit determination process what you go through 25 generically versus plant specifically it's the same ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 125 1
determination that has to be made and the same factors 2
that are considered.
3 And, in fact, by considering it in a plant 4
specific nature your analysis is likely to be more precise 5
than if it was being considered in a generic basis.
So it 6
could go either way, and it could depend on the issue and
,7 depend upon the status of the plant.
8 Paul Collins where are you?
You asked that 9
one.
Did that answer your question?
10 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
11 HR. SNIEZEK:
I'll address this one to Tom 12 Cox.
"How soon must an appeal be made"?
13 MR. COX:
Well, as soon as possible, but we 14 don't have a statute of limitations on that.
If the 15 licensee has agreed to a position.
I think we covered 16 this this morning a little bit.
17 If there has been a committment and later 18 there is going to be either a change in that committment 19 or an appeal of an imposed position it can come along 20 some time later.
But, obviously, again, it shouldn't be 21 at the lith hour in front of some licensing milestone or 1
22 operational milestone.
23 Is that an answer to satisfy somebody?
24 MR. SNIEZEK:
Whoever asked the question 25 didn't put their name on.there so we can't find out.
But ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKSHOP 4/29/86 126 o
1 I'd like to add to that just a little bit.
2 Tom is right.
We intentionally did not put 3
a time limit in the manual chapter; however, if you find 4
that there's a history at a utility that's using it as a 5
means of forwarding the regulatory process I'm sure there 6
would be a management level between senior utility 7
management and senior NRC management to discuss the issue.
8 Kext one goes to you also, Tom.
9 "What is the schedule for NRC develpment of 10 the internal procedures needed by NRR, IE, NMSS, and the 11 regional administrators"?
.7 12 MR. COX:
Those procedures are being worked 13 on right now by the various offices.
One has at least one 14 has come to the EDO's office before I left even for review 15 there.
And the schedule is roughly before the end of May.
16 The procedures will at least be returned to the individual 17 offices and regional offices for their final workup.
18 MR. SMIE2EK:
About sometime in June they 19 should be completly finalized by then?
20 This one goes to you Darrell.
"Since 21 utilities are backcharged for NRC review time, how can 22 review time be controlled so that review can be terminated 23 at some point?
That is at some point more analysis at 24 more cost may be expended to prove a backfit is required."
~
25 MR. EISENHUT:
Well, let's see, I have to ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 127 i
l separate the answer, I think, into two pieces.
First, if 2
you look historically the fee structure said that we are 3
going back at some point and back checking cost.
Through 4
the previous years, I think, that process is working its 5
way along.
6 I would encourage you when you get th e, if 7
you will, the fee for in the future and after this period 8
of time when this goes into effect, make sure you 9
understand how much cost, if any, is in there to do 10 backfit analyses.
I don't know that we've decided whether i
11 or not that's coing to finally be in the fee system or i
12 not.
13 I think right now what we do is charge total 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> expended against a plant up to some maximum ceiling.
15 And we'll just have to go back and look on a particular L
16 case if that becomes a major issue.
It's the kind of 17 question we are just going to have to take a look at it 18 whether it is or not.
I don't think today we've separated 19 it out by any means, but when a utility gets the fee list 20 for a given year it should be able to be itemized, broken 21 down.
22 MR. SNIEZEK:
Would not seem fair that if we 1
23 want to impose a backfit that we charge you for our time 24 to develop a rational for imposing a backiit.
I'm not
~
25 sure how that goes into the fee structure.
4 ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKFITTING WORKS!!OP - 4/29/86 128 1
MR. REYNOLDS:
Can we quote you on that?
2 MR. SNIEZEK:
I don't think it sounds fair.
3 And I'm already quoted.
i i
,4 MR. EISENHUT:
I agree with Jim, it doesn't j
l 5
sound fair, but then you've got to look at the specifics.
6 I mean, it may well turn out that what we are doing is 7
doing an analysis to argue whether or not it's needed to r
8 show compliance with existing regulation.
So I think 9
that's why I said, I think, you have to look at it on a 10 specific issue.
i 11 As a general rule, it probably wouldn't be
)
i 12 necessarily to go out and include everything in, but at i
13 the same time, we are covered by some rather stringent 14 rules for recovery costs from the federal government.
So 15 it's something we'll have to take a look at.
I
.I i
16 HR. SNIEZEK:
Okay.
This one goes to Bill 17 Homestead.
I 18 "What standards or precedence exist for 19 determining that a modification is necessary to ensure no i
1 20 undue risk"?
i 21 MR.. HOMESTEAD:
Well, I think that's a very 22 complex question.
And I'm going to limit the discussion 23 of it to exclude the debate within the commission over 24 what the safety goal is and what the standards for 4
25 engineering judgment for rules should be and just restrict ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC DACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 129 1
it to 5109 and assume that the questioner is referring to 2
those situations in which the analysis in paragraph (c) is 1
l 3
not done because the commission determines that the 4
modification is needed immediately to protect the public 5
health and safety.
Cause that's really where the undue 6
risk piece comes in.
7 In those circumstances they look at the 8
licensing basis of the plant.
And make either an 9
engineering judgment or a specific judgment based on 10 review of the safety analysis report of what that 11 licensing basis for th a t plant is.
12 If the assumptions in the review in the 13 approval, and this could be through the licensing 14 decision, through the safety evaluation report, or through 15 the technical specifications for that facility, indicate 16 that the plant is not performing at the standard that 17 everybody thought that it was being licensed at that's a 18 circumstance in which an immediate action may be necessary 19 to modify the facility to bring it up to that minimum i
20 standard.
21 And I think.the question asked what 22 precedence exist for that.
I don't think that since the 23 backfit rule has come into place we've had that situation.
24 So my answer would be there aren't any at the moment.
~
25 If that sounded like gobeldigook, I
'm i
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC EACKPITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/ 86 130 1
sorry.
2 MR. SMIEZEK But it was honest; right?
r 3
MR. HOMESTEAD:
That's the best I can give 4
you until I have a real live situation to see how this a
5 process works.
6 MR. SNIEZEK:
Okay.
I'll take this next 7
one.
It's a multi-part question.
8 "Regarding measures of substantial increase
]
9 in protection, will these be quantitative, will they use 10 PRA's, will a standard be established, what will the cost i
i 11 direct and indirect, be based upon, will they be plant j
12 specific"?
i
~
13 Breaking that question apart.
Will the 4
14 measures of substantial increase in protection be l
15 quantitative?
If quantitative data is available 16 quantitative data will be used, but at this time we have 17 no measure in the NBC that says that if you reduce 18 coremelt by X that's a substantial increase.
We have 19 nothing like that at this time.
I 20 Will they use PRA?
PRA will be used where l
21 appropriate.
If we have good PRA results pertaining to a l
22 modification that's proposed we will used PRA to the 23 extent that it is applicable.
The judgments will be made 4
l 24 both on a quantitative and qualitative basis.
The best
.~
25 judgment we can make.
l ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC DACI PITTING UORKS!!OP - 4/29/86 131 1
Mill a standard be established?
There is no 2
specific algorithm at this time to measure whether th e r e 3
is a substantial increase in protection.
If and when the 4
ccmmission establishes a safety goal that may help the 5
. staff as one of the bases for determining whether or not 6
there is a substantial increase in public health and 7
safety.
By this time we do not have any specific criteria 8
to use.
It is a judgment call.
l 9
What will the cost direct and indirect be 10 based upon?
We have a cost analysis group in the NRC that 11 has worked with the industry and his typical cost for 12 various types of maintenance, downtime, replacement power
~
13 by parts of the country, things of that nature.
And we 14 will try to use the b'est cost data that we have.
Offsite 15 exposure and offsite property damage costs will be used on 16 the basis of a thousand dollar per man rem.
Where the 17 thcusand dollars per man rem is a surrogate for the offsite I
18 costs potential offsite exposure.
19 Uill the costs be plant-specific?
As much 20 as possible they will be, and as the NRC staff does itu l
l 21 backfit analysic when it comes to estimate the cost that i
22 would be incumbent upon the utility in making the change, 23 we would normally expect the NRC staff to consult with the 24 utility with cognizant utility to try to get the best data i
~
25 that they could.
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
!:n C D ACI: FITTING UORKSITOP - 4/29/86 132 1
That's my answer to that question.
2 Another one that was addressed to me.
3 "h'ould you please develop your comment 4
relating to a significance of the utilities performance in 5
the backfit d e t c r mi na tion.
Obviously serious events at a 6
facility could iniply a need f or change, but, in general, 7
how will this information be incorporated into the 8
determination"?
9 There's no question that utility performance 10 will play a role in the determination of whether a 11 specific backfit should be proposed on a facility.
If you 12 have numerour. SALP 3 ratings in your systematic of 13 licensing performance, if we find that your weak in l
14 staffing 1cvels or staffing qualifications, if you have 15 inadequate procedures in our view, if you have a large 16 maintena nce backlog, and you have a component failure 17 leading to an incident, and we judge it appropriate that 18 we have a remedial action program related to maintenance, 19 and you have problems in these areas from all the evidence 20 that we had that will definitely go into our backfit 21 determination process in that area.
22 How much weight it will carry?
Again, we 23 have no specific formula that we play.
That's one of the
~
24 other germane factors that we consider.
~
25 On the other hand, if you have good ARLINGT0!! COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC BACKPITTING MORKS!!OP - 4/29/86 133 1
performance in an area and we are looking at a potential i
2 backfit th a t may swing the pendulum in the other way where i
3 we decide on that facility we should not backfit.
18 4
Darrell?
l 5
f1R. EISENHUT:
Let me amplify on one aspect i
6 of that.
3 7
You may well find, in addition to what Jim i
8 said, and look at it from the other way, if a utility has 9
been having repeated let's say SALP 3 ratings and I
10 maintenance and operation and a number of other areas, you i
11 eay find that action is needed on the utility's part in 12 order to bring the plant back in line with where you want i
13 to be just to meet the overall standard of protecting the 14 public health and safety.
May not be a backfit matter at 15 all, it may well be some action is needed to bring the 16 plant performance level up.
l 17 So it may not even fall in the backfit 18 arena.
And certainly you're all familiar with a number of 19 these that have happened periodically in the past.
If a 20 plant's performance,gets to a certain low level action is j
21 necessary to bring that performance level back up.
And it 22 really doesn't necessarily get into the 50.109 arena.
23 MR. HOMESTEAD:
I think it's important to j
24 add here that you should look at that first criteria in
~
25 the criteria for the backfit analysis and make sure that 1
I ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
_= -
NHC DACKPITTING UORKSliCP - 4/29/86 134 I
1 ycu get the staff to indicate what the objectives are that 2
the action is designed to achieve.
Because that's where 3
your safety valve really is.
If that's the objective to 1
4 bring it back up tc the licensing basis there's no problem 5
in stating it.
6 And once you get it stated so that everybody 7
knows what's going on it's easier for it to be reviewed in a
the management change.
So I would focus in that area on 9
making cure that you get a good statement of objectives.
10 MR. SNIEZEK:
That's the questions that we I
11 had on the cards.
Now I'd like to entertain questions 12 from the floor.
I would remind you to use the microphones t
l
~
13 if you speak.
14 Locks like everything was pushed to a clear I
4 15 today.
i 16 11R. EDW AP DS :
Let me follow up to that.
i 17 We've talked about this, I know, but I'd like you to i
18 expand it a little bit.
19 There's a perception that too much bulking l
20 may affect SALP, lower SALP means problems, problems mean 21 you probably got to make some changes in kind of a duel 1
i 22 that can't get out of.
23 You mentioned the SALP 3 scores as an 24 indicator, but can you deal with that a little bit more,
'~
25 Jim?
And have you got a way to partition this kind of i
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
NRC DACRFITTING WOFKSilOP - 4/29/P6 135
]
1 natural potential cituation where it kind of links in the 2
wrong circumstance?
3 MR. SNIEZEK:
Since the SALPs are conducted l
4 by the regicns I'd like to ask the two regional 5
administrators tc address that.
Why don't we start with 6
you, Bobby Fulkenberry.
7 MR. FULKENBERRY:
I would hope that would 8
not be the case that SALP readings would not be changed as 9
a result cf what you ' re talking about.
Now, I'm not sure i
10 that I thoroughly understand your point, so maybe you j
i 11 could reemphasize it?
a 12
!!R. EDWARDS:
Yes, Bob.
I think in a word 4
i 13 there is still a concern cbout retribution, that too much 14 complaining or nitpicking about decisions reached by an 15 inspector in this case, might lead to the conclusion that 16 there needs to be more attention brought by management and 17 therefore the score ought to reflect that need.
1 i
la MR. FULKENBERRY:
Let me put it this way.
19 In region 5 canagement, higher management, takes a very j
20 active role in the SALP evaluation.
So I really do not i
j 21 believe that the concerns of the inspector level trying to 1
22 get back at the licensee through the SALP process would l
23 really some into play too much.
Certainly in region 5 the l
24 SALP program in SALP evaluations are conducted by a group 25 of must be 15 people or so including representatives out I
ARLINGTON COURT REFOR11HC, INC.
(817) 640-8852
MFC P ACKFITTING WORKSHOP - 4/29/86 136 l
1 of NRR, out of IE, and certainly up through the division i
2 director level in the region and many times myself and the 3
regional administrator take an active role.
4 So to answer your question, certainly our 5
intent is not to let it come into play.
And certainly, 6
we'll make every ef f ort to see that it does not.
Maybe 7
!ycu can add to that Bob.
8 MP. MARTIN:
I was just going to comment.
9 In the opening remarks that I ma de I tried I
10 to make it clear that we would do everything we could to
'll assure that the issue of retribution, the threat of it or 12 the concern about it became a non-issue.
As Bobby 13 indicated the SALF rating is never driven by a single l inspector.
If we only have one inspectors worth of l
14 15 information on a subject we don't even rate that category, 16 because it's insufficient information to give a balanced 17 judgment on our view as to the overall performance.
I 18 think the fundamental issue that has to be addressed by 19 the utilities ic whether or not they have reason to 20 believe that they can trust the intent of the agency to 21 carry out this program without instances of retribution.
22 Now, just as your organizations probably have people who 23 get very irritated with NRC staff members, I'll admit to 24 the fact that we have people in our organization form time
~
l 25 to time who feel that way as well.
We have to deal with ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
N.n c Bt.C!:PITTI NG tlOR KS EOP - 4/29/S6 137 1
those human characteristics and human tendencies.
2 All I can do is reiterate what I said in my 3
opening remarks and that is we are willing and fully 4
ccamitted to attempting to do that.
We've opened as many 5
communication char.nels as we can, when you are concerned 6
that that bz: occurred so that we can air them and can j
7 settle them.
I think the underlying concerns about this j
8 kind of issue is something that will only be worked out 9
with time as we work with it.
10 Again, as I said, I can only reiterate what 11 the committment is, and the committment is try to divorce 12 this prococs ac much as we can from that kind of a
~
13 problem, and, I think, time will only show how strongly we 14 are all ccmmitted to trying to do that.
15
!! R. FURTZ:
I'd like to point out on the --
16 I don't know if it was related or not, but on the Beaver 17 Valley SALP after filing this 17 backfits the overall SALP i8 rating went up f rom the previous period.
19
!! R. SNEIZEK:
I hope we weren't intimidated.
20 Darro11, you had something that you wanted 21 to add.
'. 9 22 f1R. EISENHUT:
I was just going to follow 23 the comments from the administrators.
24 I don't think it's a big issue and a big 25 problem, but I wouldn't be candid if I didn't tell you AR LI NGTON col!RT lt E P0ltT I NG, INC.
(817) 640-8852 i
I.RC CACFFITTING UORKSHCP - 4/29/86 138 1
that I have at least seen it once flagrantly I know.
And 2
it's got to be th e re in the back of some peoples minds.
3 I remember, in fact, one SALP report about a 4
year or so ago where import of the write-up under this 5
iss'ue of licensee responsiveness or his ability to follow 6
up on things, actually in the write-up of a SALP report it 7
commented on licensees dragging his feet, not getting on 8
with pursuing this matter, kept appealing it and appealing 9
it.
t.'h e n I found about it that it was written in the SALP 10
' report nowhere did it acknowledge that SALP report that 11 when he finally becught it to the highest level of appeal, 12 he won his spoeal.
In fact, I made the decision.
Yet, at 13 the same time the write-up in the SALP report was critical 14 of the utility for continuing to pursue the matter.
l 15 So Den, I know it happens sometimes.
That's 16 the only really flagrant one I knew of.
I think it gets 17 back, thcuch, to what the administrator pointed out.
We la certainly try not to let that happen.
19 People do get cloce to problems be they in 20 the industry, be they on the staff, and it's something, I 21 think, we as the managers have to watch out for.
2,2 1 don't think, though, it's a broad base 23 general problem, and, I think, if we all approach this 24 backfitting issue right I think we can try to get over 25 some of the "we" and "they" or some of the attitude that ARLIllGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
!1R C B ACMPITTING WORKS!!OP - 4/29/86 139 I
we both had in the past.
I think of it where it was so I
2 adversarial on the backfit issue.
Started out on Beaver j
3 Valley, it started out on a number of issues.
4 I think somehow it's not in the industries
)
5 best interest nor in our own to let that happen.
And it's a
6 going --
It goes back to the word you used up here 7
" discipline".
I think it's just going to have to be a i
8 well displined process for it to work and it's going to be 9
a tough time to work it out.
10 And I've been at this a long time.
And I 11 just don't think it's going tc change so fast.
It's just 12 going to take a long disciplined process on both of our 13 parts.
I think that's where we are.
I 14 MR. SMIEZEK:
I think there is no question
)
15 11RC senior managem.cnt will not tolerate retribution on the l
16 part of this staff, period.
i 17 11 D. EISENHUT:
Unless, of course, the senior 18 management does it.
( La ugh t e r. )
19 MR. SNEIZEK:
Any other questions.
20 MR. TOURTELLOTTE:
You want to strike that 21 from the record.
( La ugh t er. )
22 MR. EISENHUT:
Jim, I'll just reiterate it.
23 It's comething that I think NRR has been i
24 deeply involved in backfitting now for a number of years.
25 It's something, I think, there's a committment today in AR lit 4GTOtl COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
fGC P AC" PITTING NOR ES!!OP - 4/29/66 140 1
1 1
the !!RC that you've never -- that I've never seen in the 2
18 years that I've been there.
And I think it's a very 4
i 3
healthy direction we are all heading.
i
,4
!!P. !!AYtlAR D:
My question concerns --
I'd I
5 like to have a little discussion on the generic basis.
i l
6 Rule changes, new rules that come out, or modification of i
7 existing rules are covered under this process, yet the f
I l
l 8
impact of various plants are going to be considerably 1
l 9
different.
And I was wondering what the process is as far I
10 as what the ana lysis, what goes into it, was there a i
11 separate analysis done for on a plant-specific basis after 12 the generic has becn done for a new rule change?
~
13 t'. R. E!!IEZ E K :
On generic issues there is no 14 plant-specific analysis.
When the staff does a generic j
15 evaluation of a proposal it covers by type of facility, t
16 boiling water reactors, certain vintage of boiling water 17 reactors, Westinghcuse, two loop, three loop, B & W, etc.
l 18 And depending upon the issue you may have l
j 19 various cutc, it icn't always the same cut that you use.
1 j
20 Eut the CDGP reviews that and trys to determine whether or l
21 not the staff has taken into consideration an appropriate l
22 subsets of facilities in arriving at their determination.
i t
i 23 Obviously, there may be a rule passed that l
l 24 really should not apply to an individual utility.
And t
~
25 it's not picked up in the generic review process.
If q
I a
f j
ARLIllGTON COURT HEFOP. tit!G, INC.
(817) 640-8852
l
" E' n ar!TITTI NG UOR KS!!OP - 4/29/ 86 141 1
that's the case and the CRGR minutes and the staf f 2
analysis are always made public the utility could use the 3
analysis in their plant difference as a basis for an 4
exemption frcm the rule.
Dut there is not plant specific 5
on the staff side.
6 And once.there is a generic analysis done by 7
the staff there is not requirement on the staff to turn 8
around and do a plant specific analysis, because the 9
utility does have the exemption process.
10 MR. COX:
Jim, I'd like to point out that
'l l this tcpic wac addressed in the manual chapter under the 12 exceptions area.
There are a couple of lines there that 13 night be of interest to the opposer of that kind of 14 question.
h'he r e it says essentially, what Jim just said, 15 that there are no rcquirement on the part of the staff to 16 do a plant-specific analysis following a generic 17 determination by the EDO following a CRGR recommendation.
18 But it dces say here "Unless the EDO determines that 19
- significant plant issues were not considered during the 20 prior reviews -- " and it goes on from there.
There is a 21 little safety valve there, but there must be specific and 22 significant plant-specific isues that differ from the 23 analysis done to support the generic requirement.
24 HR. SNIEZEK:
And maybe Bill Homestead or, 25 correct me if I'm wrong, or Steve Crockett, but I believe ARLINGTON COURT REPOFTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
Fi1C P A C F P I TTI MC-WORKS 110F - 4/29/86 142 1
the statement of considerations in the rule it said l
2 basically the same thing, that if there is a generic 3
analysis there'c no need for the staff to do a 4
plant-specific analysis.
5 MR. !!O!!ESTE AD:
I would point, though, that 6
lots of people f rcquently miss golden opportunities to 7
bring their plants specific issues to the floor by E
ccmmenting on the rule.
Any rule that we promulga te"'will 9
have in the ctatenent of considerations associated with 10 the proposed rule a request for comments on various 11 i things. And, right now, frequently there's a request for 12 concent en the backfit analysis.
13 If you have a plant specific problem that 14 ycu fcel is not adequately covered by the regulatory 15 analysis acsociated with that proposed rule you ought to 16 include that in ycur comments because then Carl will get i
17 to respond to it.
f 18
!! P.. SHIEZEK Any other questions?
I l
19 okay, let's go into our concluding remark 20 section, and I'll turn it over to Don Edwards at ' this l
21 time.
22 MR. EDWARDS:
This is now a little game in 23 creation of remarks.
24 I think it's fairly evident with the large
~
l 25 number of people that we have devoted to providing this l
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(017) 640-8852
/
b NRC P ACKFITTI NC UCRKFl!OP - 4/2@/86 143 1
1 workshop, and the fact that it's going to be repeated 2
three more timer around the country, will emphasize the 3
importance of this issue.
I think we've heard today there 4
is a sincere dedication to make the backfit rule work.
5 And I think to a large degree the success of 6
the rule is going to depend upon the dedication of the 7
industry in following through on their side of making sure 8
the disciplined process works.
And for myself, I'd like 9
to thank all the speakers for an excellent job.
10 Jim?
11 MR. SNIEZEKr I just want to mention in 12 l concluding that I believe the workshop has been successful 13 in promoting a common understanding of the l'ackfit rule 14 and how the staff intends to implement the backfit rule.
15 I think that through our combined efforts 16 through implementing the backfit rule that we will 17 iactually enhance public health and safety, which is our i
18 common goal.
I belive the key is open communications at 19 every level of staff and management.
I think that has 20 been stressed here today.
21 If you have questions on the backfit process 22 and how it's suppose to work, you review your notes when 23 you go back, and have any guestions, please, give me a 24 call at 301-492-9704 or Tom Cox at 301-492-4357.
25 I'll leave you with one thought.
Backfit is ARLIt!GT0!! COURT REPORTIllG, INC.
(817) 640-8852 a
. = =
4
- :!' C PACKFITTING tiOR KS !!O P - 4/29/86 144 1
.not bad.
It is a r.
integral part, necessary part of the l
2 iregulatory proceen, but it must be performed in a 3
disciplined management controlled system.
4 Thank you for your participation today.
- 5 (Whereupon, proceedings were 6
concluded at 3:00 p.m.,
April 7
21, 1986.)
8 9
10 l
11 l
12 I
13 14 15 16
(
17 Yu tt a F lSl))&TC n 18 Katherio McMoran, Court Reporter 19 20 21 ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
2201 Brookhollow Plaza Dr.
Suite 230 23 Arlington, Texas 76006 (817) 640-8852 24
~
25 l
ARLINGTON COURT REPORTING, INC.
(817) 640-8852
...