ML20211L972
| ML20211L972 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/02/1999 |
| From: | Stewart Magruder, Mckenna E NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Carpenter C NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9909090016 | |
| Download: ML20211L972 (6) | |
Text
l -. $
- ag f **10 g
1-UNITED STATES l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 30666-0001
\\..../
l September 2,1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Cynthia A. Carpenter, Chief l
Generic Issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch Division of Regulatory improvement Programs /NRR FROM:
Stewart L. Magruder, Project Manager g%[
Genenc issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch Division of Regulatory improvement Programs /NRR Eileen McKenna, Senior Reactor Engineer Generic issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch i
Division of Regulatory improvement Programs /NRR
SUBJECT:
ANS UTILITY WORKING CONFERENCE TRIP REPORT DATES:
August 8-11,1999 Attendance: Approximately 200 participants, around 12 NRC, vendors (Westinghouse, l
Framatome, product vendors), consulting companies, and utilities (varying levels from VP to managers of departments - maintenance, supply chain, engineering, QA).
l Monday a.m. - Plenary Session: Chairman Dieus discussed "first things first", to maintain safety and achieve stability as we enter the new millennium. She described several activities, including license renewal reviews (a streamlined process), license transfers (issues of foreign
' ownership, decommissioning funds, informal hearings), the new oversight process, revisions to Part 63 (for HLW repository), with draft EIS expected in FY2000, and application around 2002-1 greater accountability for generally-licensed sources; and development of release criteria for
- slightly radioactive material".
i Joe Richardson of FPC discussed the experience of Crystal River (record run in 1995, shutdown t
in 1996 for performance issues, lengthy restart), opining that under restructuring, expensive l
- restart efforts will not occur, and instead the plant would be sold or decommissioned. He stated that operational success is a function of the quality of the people on-board. Further, deregulation will require people to adapt to a faster pace of change. He stressed the importance D
of honest and open communication, and responding to employee concerns. Finally, he stated that plant people need to understand the business environment, and how their actions fit in, and the need for different skills in finance and competition.
6V Jerry Yelverton, Entergy stated that " consolidation" was the future, with a " handful" of operating g\\
companies running nuclear generation. There will be more mergers, sales and other financial arrangements in order to get operating costs competitive.
d (f A'7 ("T N li b b 9909090016 990902
~I pcc &,
c c
C. Carpenter September 2, 1999 Mike Tuckman gave a brief overview oflicense renewal and what Duke was doing. He noted the lessons-learned, about standard formats (revision to NEl 95-10 planned), and the issue on
" existing programs".
Andy Kadak stated that industry should get behind the RIP 50 effort, as being vital to the future of the industry. He also noted the CSIS report, calling for greater definition of " safety", and the focus on " reasonable assurance". He also stated that South Africa was planning to construct a 110 MWe MHTG pebble bed reactor, beginning in 2001.
Monday p.m. - Business Track - Change Management During this session, two consultant presentations discussed elements of change management.
Brian Roach of Seabrook described what they had done on change management, finally, NEl discussed some of the " tools" available to assist licensees in changing their processes to bring a greater business focus.
The key themes about change management were:
Set clear goals. Establish priorities, as every good idea can't be done at once.
Senior management commitment on an ongoing basis is essential Communication on all levels and directions is essential Need to define the behavior expected Performance measures to assess results Accountability - who is responsible for implementing the actions, " process owners" as well as rewarding the desired behavior and achievement of performance.
Monday p.m. - Regulatory Relations track - Risk-Informed Regulation Gary Holahan presented an overview of NRC activities. His talk prompted several questions about the extent of Option 2 and the potential benefit to industry of risk-informed activities. His presentation was followed by several presentations by the industry on risk-informed technical specifications (RI-TS) and risk-informed inservice inspection (RI-ISI).
RI-TS identified seven policy issues that will be discussed with the staff over the next few years.
- 1. Action end states - define appropriate end state for situation
- 2. Missed surveillance requirements (SR)-low significance?
- 3. Increase flexibility in mode restraints - allow decreases in mode with low risk-significant configurations
- 4. Risk-inform AOTs l
l L
v C. Carpenter
-3..
September 2,1999 I
l
- 5. Optimize and movo SR
- 6. Modify LCO 3.0.3 actions and timing
- 7. Define actio,ns for inoperable, functional equip. - define required functions based on PRA i
l' RI-ISI highlights included:
- EPRI methodology will be' approved soon
- payback period is typically one or two outage cycles' l
- WOG is planning to submit proposal for redefined LBLOCA in October
' Gary H. - we may reach the point in a few years where the NRC regulates high consequence / low probability events and the industry controls low consequence /high probability
- events Gary H. - we need to identify the value of activity in addition to risk-importance i
- Tuesday a.m. - Regulatory Relations track - Regulatory Direction Sam Collins made a presentation on why and how NRC is changing, the four pillars, the 1
activities underway. He noted the organizational changes, declining NRC resources and risk-informed initiatives.' Other speakers were supportive of the changes, such as the new oversight process, and improvements on licensing action processing. It was noted that with the new process, integrity of the performance indicators must be ensured, and that corrective action programs should be strengthened. There was some concern expressed with efforts to develop "subtier" indicators for corrective action programs (by ASQC and others) that these would get l-into the regulatory arena. There was some discussion that since most plants and indicators will
)
l '
be in the " green band", licensees must be alert for complacency. Both industry speakers expressed reservations about the algorithm for the security and EP indicators, as to whether the resultant indicator was valid.
l Tuesday a.m. - Engineering track - Safety Evaluations and UFSAR Updates: Walking the i
Fine Line Between Perfection at any Cost and Undue Regulatory Risk u
l Tim Catchpole - FPC - Led a brief discussion of changes to 50.59 and examples of problems at
- Crystal River, As a member of NEl task force, he encouraged everyone to comment on NEl 96-j 07 when it is revised and sent out to the industry this Fall. Feeling among task force members is that revised rule is an improvement.
' Group discussion - Consensus that 10/96 50.54(f) letter was helpful in focusing utility resources on LB/DB issues. Screening changes is important and will be easier with clear definitions in revised 50.59.
0 C. Carpenter
-4 September 2,1999 John Laffrey - Niagra Mohawk - He is responsible for 50.59 evaluations at NMP 1 and 2. Unit 1 has four volume UFSAR and Unit 2 has about 28 volumes. He noted that it is much easier to do 50.59 evaluations on unit 2 because all the information is in one place. He is adding info to unit 1 UFSAR. Other utilities agreed that focusing on keeping UFSAR up to date and useful makes life easier. Many others are adding info to their UFSARs.
Doug Wood - Advent Engineering Services - Fermi-Demonstration of electronic UFSAR using INFOBASE software, Capable of keeping UFSAR current and available to all.
Tuesday p.m. - Regulatory Relations track - Licensee Control of Design Basis, Licensing Basis and Commitments Marty Bowling and Gil Olsen reported on experience at Millstone station in reverifying their licensing and design basis. They reported on the extensive effort expended to review plant configuration, calculations, FSAR documentation, and other information. More than $500K was
]
spent. Of the discrepancies found, only a few were of "high significance." Joe Sipek discussed the FSAR and CLB documentation review done by Clinton. For the FSAR, they reviewed 14000 statements in the FSAR, and classified discrepancies found by type and source. The vast majority of the discrepancies were from originallicensing. None of the discrepancies resulted in system inoperability. For the CLB, they reviewed site files and the PDR files to identify commitments, and developed electronic formats for the CLB documents and the FSAR.
NRC discussed initiatives ongoing that are related to licensing basis (and design basis), and also presented some real-life examples that illustrate the difficulty that arises with some FSAR statements or proposed changes. Finally, NEl presented an overview about the relationship of some of the processes, recent activities (FSAR guidance,50.59 rule, design basis guidance) and issues going forward (implementation, training, integration with revised oversight process).
Wednesday a.m. - Regulatory Relations track - Maintenance Rule The session was highly interactive among the presenters and audience. The first speaker from SCE discussed their maintenance rule program, the benefits, and the implications for the new (a)(4) requirement. He also noted that interface with the revised oversight process (and the differences among the indicators), and the risk-informed focus of the new requirement. Further, he noted that an informal survey found a wide variation in the. resources being applied to implementation of maintenance rule across different utilities.
Next, NRC discussed the recent rule change and the development of the regulatory guidance, including the upcoming workshop on 9/13. Finally, a representative of the " maintenance rule clearinghouse" gave a retrospective look to the findings of the baseline inspections, such as the nature of the violations and findings
]
C. Carpenter September 2, 1999 Wednesday a.m. - Engineering and Operations track - The Role of Root Cause Organizational Learning in Promoting Nuclear Plant Viability Focused on corrective action programs (CAP)- many different approaches were presented.
. Highlights:
- evaluate effectiveness of CAP
- follow through
- prioritize condition reports
- only do important things Ellis Mershoff-utilities need to look outward at what others are doing - over.2,000 reactor years of experience - most problems have already been solved by someone else Bruce Mallett - New oversight process will provide challenge to utilities in determining ownership of issues - no longer organized by function (i.e., engineering, operations) as most plants are now.
~.
f.
1 y
=
l C. Carpenter
-5 September 2, 1999 Wednesday a.m. - Engineering and Operations track - The Role of Root Cause Organizational Learning in Promoting Nuclear Plant Viability Focused on corrective action programs (CAP) - many different approaches were presented.
Highlights:
- evaluate effectiveness of CAP
- follow through
- prioritize condition reports
- only do important things Ellis Mershoff - utilities need to look outward at what others are doing - over 2,000 reactor years of experience - most problems have already been solved by someone else
' Bruce Mallett - New oversight process will provide challenge to utilities in determining ownership of issues - no longer organized by function (i.e., engineering, operations) as most plants are now.
Distribution tentral File PUBLIC RGEB R/F l
DMatthews/SNewberry FAkstulewicz i
SMagruder EMcKenna MReinhart G:\\RGEB\\SLM1\\ansreport.wpd n
(S)RGE[p OFFICE RGEB NAME SMargudM FAkstNicz j
DATE 9/9 /99 9/,/09 7
!