ML20212F930
| ML20212F930 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/03/1997 |
| From: | Bill Dean NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9711050170 | |
| Download: ML20212F930 (10) | |
Text
__ ___-_ _____ _ _- _ - -
November 3, 1997 MEMORANDUM T0:
Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs R
n i bp a ion d
/5 Program Management Staff. OED0
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF OCTOBER 9, 1997. PUBLIC MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR ENERGY. INSTITUTE ON MUTUAL ITEMS OF INTEREST On October 9, 1997, senior mangers of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) met with senior managers of the Nutlear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at the NRC's offices at One White Flint North in Rockville. MD. The purpose of the public meeting was to provide an opportunity for the senior managers of both organizations to discuss items of current interest to the nuclear industry. provides a summary of the meeting and Attachment 2 is a list of meeting attendees.
Attachments:
l As stated cc w/ attachments:
See next page DISTRIBUTION
" Central Files j
7 jy p'r PDR h E; P ' '~
y ", g ',g. [., w uf EDO R/F 9
DEDR R/F WMDean
[y[D HLThompson JCallan SCollins t
Attendees-Document Name: g:\\0CTNEI'.WMD
\\
ROS:C g _
_DEDR j g _
ED0 (u Q _
g WMDean HLThompson LJCallan 10MW
,10/ -/97 4 0/ - 97 llQll lll]llll[lll:
I/l5/y'+-
tdvu ?-
Wf17
...i 97-73) p[MU"$ IEE E c a
C,
)
ea
0f 9
.t?
p.
t,
- UNITED STATES y,
i
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
2-WASHINGTON, D.C. 90566-0001
'k November 3, 1997
- ....,o MEMORANDUM-T0:
'Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs FROM:
William M. Dean, Chief Regional Operations and Program Management Staff, OEDO
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF OCTOBER 9. 1997 PUBLIC MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE ON MUTUAL ITEMS OF INTEREST 1
'On October 9, 1997, senior mangers of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) met with senior managers of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at the NRC's offices at One White Flint North in Rockville, MD. The purpose of the public meeting was to provide an opportunity for the senior managers of both organizations to discuss items of current interest to the nuclear industry. Attachment 1 provides a sumary of the meeting and Attachment 2 is a list of me'eting attendees.
Attachments:
As stated cc w/ attachments:
See next page D
i e
'2 Mr. R'lph Beedle; Ms. Lynette Mendricks, Director cc:
a Senior Vice President Plant Support and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 1 Street. NW Suite 400 1776.1-Street,_NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 3708 Washington. DC 20006 3708 Mr. Alex Marion. Director Mr. Robert Bishop, General Counsel Programs Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street. NW Suite 400 1776 1 Street. NW Suite 400 Washington. DC 20006 3708 Washington DC 20006-3708
-Mr. Jim Davis. Director Operations Nuclear Energy Institute c
1776 i Street, NW Suite 400
. Washington, DC 200')6-3708 Mr. Tony Pietrangelo. Director Licensing Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 1 Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Steve Floyd, Director Regulatory Reform and Strategy Nuclear-Energy Institute 17761 Street. M Suite-400 Washington DC 20006-3708 Mr.. Dave Modeen, Director i
Engineering Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 i Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 3708 Ms. Angelina Howard. Senior Vice President
. Industry Communications Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 1 Street NW Suite 400 Washington,.DC 20006 3708-
.U.
_m_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _
._.m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _. _. _ _.
r
^
SUMMARY
- OF NRC/NEI SENIOR MANAGER MEETING OCTOBER 9. 1997 Intearated Review of NRC' Assessment' Process J
NET noted that they had met the previous day with the Chairman to discuss this initiative that the NRC has undertaken and made the following comments:
this-effort will set the regulatory environment for the next 10 years:
-input from' major.stakeholders including the public, is vital in
-redesigning the processes used to perform licensee assessment:
the maintenance rule effort was a good model for how the industry and the NRC can work together to create _ a mutually agreeable set of guiding
. principles:
- they have a lot to offer in how to make the process clear and scrutable:
the NRC's assumption that the enforcement program and the inspection a
program are not being assessed as part of this initiative may not allow us to determine what is the right data to collect.
NEI also noted some concerns with the NRC's efforts-in developing refined performance indicators. These included-
-some of the current indicators being considered can be triggered by a singular event resulting in multiple counting:
the event driven nature of many of the performance indicators drives the public perception:
~.
the attention spent in vahdating past senior management meeting results
' with new performance indicators in a flawed approach - the focus should be on what'it it the NRC wants to measure:
. The EDO responded-that fixing variables. (i.e.. the inspection and enforcement-program) does not indicate the agency's complacency in looking at these programs, but that this is a _ necessity in order to focus-on the performance He noted that the staff is fully assessment aspects of.our. processes.
expecting to look at the_ inspection program after this initiative.is complete because there are bound to be-insights related to the type of'information we iare collecting. Mr. Colhns. observed that in FY 1999, the content of the Li_nspection program is to-be assessed. He also noted that the staff may entertain. conducting a meeting with NEI and the public to solicit input on this: initiative.
4
,m
..~
g
. = -
Revision to Generic ' Letter 91-18 The discussions onLthis' topic centered around the recent issuance of this-revision. The NRC staff opined that _this: revision meets the needs of.' industry _
in dealing with the impact previous gui_ dance was having on safety _ decisions.
NEI noted it was a step well-taken in fixing problems created by thel issuance' of the draft guidance contained in NUREG 1606 and that the interaction with the staff on this topic has been very positive.
10 CFR 50.59 - NRC and NEI Initiatives The NRC-noted that SECY 97-205, which contains a number of actions and recommendations by the staff on how to address. concerns with 10 CFR 50.59, had
-just been made public, and that the Commission was still reviewing the_ options that are contained in this SECY. This Commission Paper not only provides options for refining, and even revising.10 CFR 50.59. but it also has other recommendations to address issues emerging from the staff's Millstone and Maine Yankee Lessons Learned efforts.
NEI took this opportunity to note th6t sometimes the NRC's regulatory development processes can shield the staff from receiving good ideas from the outside.
NEI indicated that they would like to stay engaged with the staff in trying to resolve issues. NRC officials noted that there will be ample ooportunities for public interaction in the development of any new rules or requirements but that there are certain stages at which the NRC may appropriately c'igage in-internal deliberations during-the development of
-regulations or. policy. Whether interactions during policy developtrent or the release of pre-decisional info tation is appropriate is a matter of Commission discretion.
NRC's Management Directive 3.4 was referred to as the source of the NRC's guidance on dealing with pre-decisional information.
NEI was also encouraged to call the NRC management when they have a certain frustration level onissues that they believe the NRC is not communicating well enough with industry.
.NEI discussed their own initiative. NEI 96-07, which is guidance on how to deal with degraded and non-conforming conditions. They have put this initiative out for a formal industry vote and are expecting-it to pass.
It was noted that industry cannot afford another outlier-in tha 10 CFR 50.59 arena. NEI noted that uit believes NEI 96-07 is a conservative interpretation -
of.10 CFR 50,59 and tnat it fills the void that NUREG 1606 was attempting to fill, but which NEI stated was not the correct guidance,
~ Discussions progressed to design bases issues and that the definition of "margir of safety" was a key to'the whole 10 CFR 50.59 process and how it relates to design bases.
NEI stated that previous guidance, both NUMARC 90-12 n
p 3
and NUREG 1397._-.seeme'd-to' adequately. capture _what is considered to be design bases. --NEl provided the NRC with NEI 97-04, which is a reissuance of, the
_NUMARC 90-12_ guidance. This is'an area that was noted as being an important
-topic _of discussion in the near future; as the question "what'is design bases
-information?" is the primary concern of industry in responding to the 10CFR50.64(f) letters the NRC issued last year on design baset Commitment Manaaement The discussions on th'is topic focused on a recent meeting between NRC and NEI.
that was characterized as an~ excellent exchange of ideas and information.
NEI i
noted that there is no disagreement conceptually with what the NRC is doing in this area. However. NEI stated that two issues are very important to industry that they will continue to work closely with the staff on:
- 1) the framework and thresholds have to be clearly defined and 2) concerns that certain items
=will be codified as a license condition unnecessarily.
There is some uncertainty in industry due to a perceived lack of communication and a concern that elements that were deleted from technical specifications (TS) through the development of improved standard TS are finding their way into TS by adding new license conditions.
Further dialogue-is needed and NRC and NEI committed to continue this-dialogue.
Reaulatina Industry throuah Enforcement and'Insoection Processes
(
NEI provided feedback that the recent enforcement levied on Niagara Mohawk related'to a design bases issue has potentially redefined what constitutes a licensee's design bases.
They believe this can have a cascading effect on other licensees and NRC inspectors.
NEI also provided examples of recent issues raised at St, Lucie and Ft. Calhoun that they believe are examples of areas were NRC inspection or enforcement activities have been used either to address a generic issue or reinterpret existing policies.
The ED0 noted that inspection and enforcement issues sometimes cause the agency to grapple with generic issues, but that the inspection process was not the place to deal-with licensing issues.
However, he emphasized licensees need to take it upon themselves to bring these issues forward, and not let them fester _until an inspector raises the issue. The NRC managers reiterated that they expect licensees to come forward with these concerns, otherwise, the senior management of the NRC has no way to address them. Mr. Collins stated that if _ licensees. are bringing these issues of perceived NRC misapplication of the inspection and enforcement process through NEI vice existing channels and processes.;than the NRC's process for-' dealing with these concerns has been circumvented.
~
l l
Shutdown Rulemakina The NRC noted that the Commission was still reviewing this rulemaking package.
so it was still considered pre-decisional information.
It was observed that there are a number of pros and cons that are being evaluated.
NEl stated that it has addressed the possibility of alternative approaches to rulemaking.
They expressed the belief that existing regulatory guidance (e.g.. Appendix B.
k maintenance rule. Chapter 6 of Technical Specifications) already provided an adequate degree of regulatory oversight. They also noted that the industry has already dealt with the risk-significant piece of shutdown activities. PWR mid-loop operations, in its response to Generic Letter 88-17.
NEl also pointed to NUMARC 91-06. which addressed outage planning, and NUMARC 93 01.
which was industry's maintenance rule guidance which referenced NUMARC 91-06
.for shutdown conditions, as other pertinent industry initiatives. NEl noted upon questioning by the NRC that the existing guidance in NUMARC 91-06 could be strengthened relative to shutdown maintenance, but that there continues to exist a number of alternatives to rulemaking that will achieve the same end purpose.
Risk-Informed Initiatives and Aoolied Resources NEI asked for this topic to be on the agenda' because thty wanted a better understanding of how the NRC prioritizes its work.
It also would provide NE1 an opportunity to discuss some specific items they'd like the NRC to consider.
The NRC stated that input from NEl should be considered to help the agency develop priorities in improving the regulatory process and addressing safety issues.
The NRC noted that after programs are developed to deal with an emerging issue they sometimes fall into the background as other " hot issues" become the focal point. The NRC's new planning framework. which will move the agency to a zero-based budgeting situation will necessitate more rigorous planning and force the NRC to do a better job of prioritizing its work.
NEI pointed to a slowdown in the improved Standard Technical Specification program and the high level of review embodied in the recently issued draft Risk Informed Regulatory Guides as examples where NRC assets may be misplaced.
NEI noted that the Chairman has asked them to-look at ways the NRC can capitalize on industry efforts and programs without having to develop regulations.
The E00 noted the importance of having enough of a regulatory framework to assure the public health and safety. but that risk insighu should be used to ensure we have rules where they are needed and to remove those rules that are not required.
1 i
Year 2000 Mr. Thompson noted that he was satisfied with a Weting that took place the previous day with NEl on this topic.
NEI has established a task force and associated review effort, which is intended to lead to development of a guidance manual -
The NRC intends to let this process continue before it considers any intervention, however, it was noted that the NRC needs to communicate to Congress its successes in this area.
There will be future interaction between NEl and NRC on this issue.
DSI-13 "The Role of Industry" NEI noted a recent meeting with NRC on this topic went well, but that they were concerned that industry initiatives were going to be used in lieu of NRC regulatory actions.
NEI emphasized that their efforts may be complementary, but that the NRC still has the responsibility to promulgate regulatory actions if needed.
Mr. Thadani noted DSI-13 is closely tied to efforts underway related to Regulatory Excellence and that there is a Commission Paper on DSI-13 due by the end of the month and that the staff is considering holding a public workshop in December to solicit feedback.
Generic Communications NEI provided feedback on the NRC's increased use of compliance backfits in support of issuing revised guidance and the impression that the NRC has changed its compliance definition.
Mr. Miraglia noted that the use of a compliance backfit argument relieves the staff of having to do tne cost-benefit analyses contained in the backfit rule, but that a CRGR review and a solicitation of public/ industry comment is still required.
It was noted that this process may not be well understood by industry. Some of the other key points made during this discussion included the following:
the NRC needs to be sensitive to the fact that statements made by the NRC many times have a profound impact on licensees, especially relative to the financial markets and public relations:
at times. it appears that communications are not issued from the appropriate level of NRC management commensurate with the message being conveyed:
sometimes the NRC does not adequately explain issues or concerns in appropriate terminology for public consumption:
at times the NRC overstates its concerns on issues that have minimal safety import or does not provide the appropriate context:
when.conrnunicating publicly about violations, the NRC should be more
-conscious.about indicating ~those that were self-identified by the licensee.
l
[
NRC/NEI SENIOR. MANAGER MEETING LIST OF ATTENDEES OCTOBER 9, 1997 IL41E ORGANIZATION Joe Callan NRC Hugh Thompson, Jr.
NRC Tim Martin NRC Ashok Thadani NRC Sam Collins NRC
. Frank Miraglia NRC Stephen Burns NRC Mal Knapp NRC Jim Lieberman
- RC Bill Dean NRC Glenn.Tracy NRC Marsha Gamberoni NRC Tony Hsia NRC Melinda Malloy NRC Kriss Kennedy NRC Susanne Woods NRC Ralph Beedle NEI James Davis NEI Alex Marion NEI Tony Pietrangelo NEI Steve Floyd NEI g
David Modeen NEI Angelina Howard NEI Robert Evans NEl Bob Bishop NEI Lynette-Hendricks NEl Ralph Sylvia Niagara Mohawk Theresa Sutter Bechtel Phyllis Lovett Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge Steve Mixon NUS Information Services
' Jenny Weil McGraw Hill Sidney Crawford N/A
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _