Text

NRC Regulatory Information Conference, Presented 960409-10 in Washington,Dc
	ML20217A764
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/09/1996
From:	Russell W; NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	;
References
	NUDOCS 9803250229
	Download: ML20217A764 (289)
	v • d • e

.

' -rwe =.,, 4 ,i W w eme m,<an e .

5 TR -

,-c' ->

.s . . , ; ' .,t

. , < ~ '- '

. . . . -j,s ;. 4

.a. < ;- . ;. . ,

,.. .y ,;;

- ,; e

'tM. J g . .. ~~ ~. ,;e.

s 6 4, j

t 3 i,. - - '

j, *

f

. m -. , ' . . _ ,

.'++l

,.f . d .

.n ", .

.W s. ,,y, .. . , . .,

g ;

~. ..

.:J .,,.,e c

w

+- - v (, f .

? .;

7

+

, . M P' [, ' , . . ;: ,M j .

c

'a

, o ='-

,, ; s, ; .g 3,_ ,j ifordistiGF . -

PROCEEDINGS LConfeN.W;.;q .. 7 ,=

..' . ,.^

x - -' N jM il.9 d % 1 9 W f ;..

a ;. :.;:. ,

y ; 4 L. :.e - -. _;. : .

w s- . .

2: . . , _ . .

. , . . . c . . ;.. - : :.- .. . - ~ . .

-. .. . .. . . +

..x. -

. .. . - .c ; .- . . .

V. L'.. ~ ~ . . ' . 1.1 . . ' .e... . .. ,'- . . . . -

~-

ir.--/- - ' ' ' " ' ' " ' ' ' ' -

Jr ' . J... .....;w... + .-

Jy

. ~ - . '- -=~;

w .. .. .. : ~. - ~-~ =. .

- ~

6 :=::=ax

.- ~ - -. .- - ; - - - -

- ~.= : - -

. _J: _:L:iD" Y - ^ b: CL' ' L - - - - :

. *- ' ' - ' ' -' - ~ *:^'

-34 L ; : ; ; . -

. :. ;;;;;; . ;:,[.'/ ' ' .: [' '__f 'y' :J::' = ';T! L; :. . ;3

. . .. j :;

' :J-

...,.m.s . ~ . - _ , . -- .: ., . : .: :: -

..r.c'.:: 3

'........*..' J..

r' 3 .

-: -~5'~

1 W. . . ' ~ .'. ~ ' ' ' " ' -

., ~

~ . - .

,:,,.w.',..,

K; 3 % / L:q F ~" 7 =[-f [ _ . _ _, _ . ; 3. ; ; ; - '. ;-J= ;J b _

.. ~ . _ . .. . , , , .._....... . . .. . . . . . . . . , . . .. .

a.:: .. . > ; ., - 1 ,,-;- . . x., T. .' ' . , . . .

.6.- .. .j. .....s. ,,,,,,,,

' , ". . , , , y gggg

. s 'L 'c.

^ . '. ^ . . . . . . . . . . . .

n ;-

.,. .. u x z: r;e . . . . -

/.s -

- c ,

..',..c. . ,,

^

. 2 i: :: . . ' . : ' A ^: ; .: : : .: - -

l'VT'1 ar - . .. .. .- - .. .: . . . - : : :z / ; . v w c. . a .. ~ w.

.m....... .

. . . . .., . p m, . . . .

._ .: .. :. - - m. 4 . ~ .- . - - - . . - ; - # . . . . _ . , ... ... : . >., ., . - . . .

T . .. _ .. . > .:.-.=. - : :: , = . -- . -

,- ~~ ..

< :- .. . : e.: .. .a ;c~ - . ., .. x . . . : ~:: : . x. ~-- :..

=.'-.

,ni. . J' ; ' . . . .. ,. __...;. -

~ ' -

'3 . . ..; . ............;.....s.t. s

.*L',

, ,, .. ,,..-; : "'...r' <m**- . _. .,

~ -- ,. ; .- :' -~- -

.- _ .; s,,

- .v: +. . , ; . ., ; ,, :,;. .

,.; ._ c y; ..

, . . .. . ; , a-

~ +

x:

hf T ! Tit J

$(AWi$4eJBIERs4$9EGL - i.s

' 46ips$4Mhjt, .-]-..

.-. ... .p m 4Iggia m ak t/38386 4 4 :.;{

. f. . .

, . . ,. ,, . x, g.. s

....; ,- . s. ... ,,. . m 9803250229 960409 ; .<$ ..h'-

' i PDR ORG NRRA '

D,..

3 . e .. o <[1 .. . .m..J >i ,-0.1 ..S.U PDR

-:1_ . -e -

,. Ray.. Regulatory If n ormat ion I-7 ~EE::::::EFi:F W*ssv g.. *":

Conference U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

HotelMap Second Floor PAN-A ICAN 5;gc;3a

= = = e = = EnvcEso,,a ias s,_

r

~'

r5E .i L - -- -

%m = 5,@$$

inm- E E 1 -_ ns J;,g , f ~ ~ 1 J

s

. n , . I r C'E RO

, JE. - -

Tm . 0~,s

,m . -, s o -

)

PRESIDENTIAL en ASSE NGL 4 , yggg l y,gggggy ,,,

BALLROOM N " " ' '

g -

= Room g

$ O M 3 3 I

,5 E N 3 ed E , a 5 '

m' ~

.; j 'E ,og

!! CONGRESSIONAL l SENATE g

ROOM ROOM e m FEDERAL l l

jj ROOM A

@@ ! UPPER

- - - @ CALIFORNIA y , , , ,

, <0gY .................

ROgM I. ry=A,L -

CAPITAL TERRACE g SOUTH g AMERICAN men sm- ams 3 m - - - = = = = y*

g FOYER 1 LowERtosev FOYER 2

@ 4g O g SOUTH l lh E W ab E E bj EE E E - #

M" i c "#!#W i4-sI , , I w*-rI l e l

SIXTEENTH STREET (There are 12 additional telephones on the first floor.)

@ Opening and Closing Sessions @ Conference Message Center Reception on Apnl 9 and 10 Plenary Sessions @ Continental Breakfast Breakout Sessions @ Srcakers Room Breaks

@ Lunch eg cation

@ Volunteers Room j

@ Breakout Sessions @ Public Document Room Exhibit The Capital Hilton 16th & K Streets, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 l Tel. (202) 393-1000 or 1-800-HILTONS FAX (202) 639-5784 e- -_

l FORWARD This document is a compilation of abstracts, copies of slides and summaries of papers to be presented at the NRC Regulatory Information Conference at The Capital Hilton Hotel, Washington, DC on April 9 and 10,1996.

These documents have been compiled to provide a basis for meaningful discussion and !

information exchange during the course of the meeting. ,

i

NRC REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE April 9-10,1996 The Capital Hilton Washington, DC

)

CONFERENCE PROGRAM gn REgy 9 %

I $

go

'+9***+4 l

Conference Chairman William T. Russell Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. NRC

TABLE OF CONTENTS l l

l TUESDAY, APRIL 9,1996 l A. MORNING PLENARY SESSION PAGE Regulatory Trends 1

1. Safety Trends 3

2. NRR Regulatory Data 9

3. Significant Completed Actions 25

4. Priority Actions 29 B. MORNING BREAKOUT SESSIONS

1. Probabilistic Safety Assessment implementation Plan 41

2. Dry Cask Storage 55

3. Improved Technical Specification Conversion 69

4. Operator Licensing Examination Changes 91 i

C. AFTERNOON PLENARY SESSION PAGE Regional Administrator Panel Issues

1. Inspection Program Performance-based Changes 96

2. Enforcement Policy: Experience to Date

3. Plant Performance Review Process l

4. Self Assessment 102 D. AFTERNOON BREAKOUT SESSIONS Regulatory Trends

1. Integrated Performance Assessment Program 109 Activities and Results

2. Electronic Information Exchange 115

3. Core Performance and Reactor Fuel issues 147

4. Status of Reactor Decommissioning and 161 Revised Decommissioning Rules Plant Status Decommissioning Rulemaking Site Release Criteria 1

ii

(

l l WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10,1996 E. MORNING. PLENARY SESSIONS PAGE l

! 1. NRC/ Licensee Interface and Communications, Region l l

2. NRC/ Licensee interface and Communications, Region 11 l

3. NRC/ Licensee Interface and Communications, Region ill f 4. NRC/ Licensee Interface and Communications, Region IV l

l F. MORNING BREAKOUT SESSIONS

1. Competition, Utility Restructuring, Mergers and NRC

! Licensing Activities 169

2. Steam Generator issues 181

3. Fire Protection issues 203

4. Maintenance Rule implementation 211 G. AFTERNOON PLENARY SESSION

1. Reactor Vessel and Internal issues 217

2. License Renewal Update 237

3. Shutdown Rule 251 ;

1

4. Spent Fuel Poolissues 255 H. CLOSING PLENARY SESSION iii

g j. 3/28/96

. R2@

. s. . = Re9ulatoYY I nformation STr """::::::::F** e?.7 VA?3[gf' PrJ::

Conference U S Nuclear Regulato{y Commission Program Agenda

'Ibesday, April 9,1996 Continental Breakfast and Registration: 7:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m.

Foyer 1/CapitalThrrace/ Upper Lobby Opening: 8:30 a.m. - 9:15 a.m. Presidential Ballroom t Welcome . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . William T. Russell i Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), NRC MORNING SPEAKER Chauman Shirley A. Jackson 8:45 a.m. 9:15 a.m.

PresidentialBallroom Morning Plenary Session: 9:15 a.m. - 10:15 a.m. Presidential Ballroom Regulatory Trends - Willliam T. Russell Director, NRR/NR L' Coffee Break: 10:15 a.m.10:30 a.m. (Foyer 2/ Upper Lobby)

Breakout Sessions: 10:30 a.m. - 12:00 noon

1. Probabilistic Safety Assessment implementation Plan - Ashok C. Thadani (Presidential Ballroom) Associate Director f'.,r Technical Review (AD7), NRR/NRC Edward J. Butcher Chief Probabilistic Safety Assessmer.: Branch (SPSB)

Division of Systems Safety and Analysis (DSSA), NRR/NRC Mr.rl. A.Cunningham Chief, Probabilistic T(isk Analysis Branch.

Division of Systems Technology, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), NRC Patrick W. Baranowsky Chief, Reliability and Risk Assessment Branch, Diiision of Safety Programs, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD), NRC C. Rick Grantom Administrator, Risk and Reliability Analysis South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (South Texas Project)

Houston Lighting & Power Company

2. Dry Cask Storage .._ __ . ; Jack W. Roe (Congressional / Senate) Director, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV (DRPW). NRR/NRC William D.'IYavers Director, Spent Fuel Project Office Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), NRC Gail H. Marcus I Director, Project Directorate 111-3, DRPW/NTR/NRC Timothy J. Kobetz Senior Resident inspector (Point Beach), Region Ill'NRC (A Question.and Answer Period Will Follow Each Session Each Day.)

IV J

'Ibesday, April 9,1996 (Continued)

2. Dry Cask Storage (Continued). .. ... .. ..~. . . . _. . ., . . . .. . Alaa P. Nelson Senior Project Manager, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

Jon K.Kapitz Project Manager, Prairie Island Dry Spent Fuel Storage Northem States Power Company

3. Improved Technical Specification Conversion . .... .. . .... . . . Roy P. Ziminerman (Federal A/B Room) Associate Director for Projects (ADPR), NRR/NRC Christopher I. Grimes Chief. Technical Specifications Branch (TSB). ADPR/NRR/NRC Martin L Bowling Manager, Nuclear Licensing & Operations Support, Virginia Power Company Donald R.Woodlan Docket Licensing Manager, nl Electric IAwis A. Ward Engineering & Licensing Manager for Vogtle Plant, Southem Nuclear Operating Company

4. Operator Licensing Examination Changes .

. - Bruce A.Boger (South American A/B Room) Director, Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors (DRCH), NRR/NRC Stuart A.Richards Chief Operator Licensing Branch (HOLB), DRCH/NRR/NRC Anthony J.Mendiola HOLB, DRCH/NRR/NRC James W. Davis NEl Hosted Reception: 12:00 noon - 12:45 p.m. (Foyer 2/ Upper lebby)

Lunch: 12:45 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. (Congressional / Senate)

POSTLUNCHEONSPEAKER James M. Taylor Executive Directorfor Operations 1:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.

CongressionallSenate Afternoon Plenary Session: 2:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. (Presidential Ballroom)

Regional Administrator PanelIssues:- .

. James L. Milhoan Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation RegionalOperations,and Research,NRC,(Moderator)

1. Inspection Program Performi.nce-Based Changes - ..- . - Hubert J. Miller Regional Administrator,RegionIII/NRC

2. Enforcement Policy: Experience to Date -.. . . .. Stewart D. Ebneter i

Regional Administrator, Region II/NRC

3. Plant Performance Review Process - - . . . . Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator, Region I/NRC

4. Self Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... ...... . . .. L Joseph Callan Regiona! Administrator, Region IV/NRC Coffee Break: 3:30 p.m. 3:45 p.m. (Foyer 2/ Upper Lobby) l (A Question and. Answer Period Will Follow Each Session Each Day.)

Thesday, AprH 9,1996 (Condaued)

Breakout Sendams: 3:45 p.as. - 5:15'p.m.

1. Integrated Performance Assessment Program . .Erask P.GBlespie Activities and Results Duector, Division oflaspection (Presidential Beltressa) and Support Programs (DISP), NRR/NRC R.Wluiam Berehartit Chief, laspection Progran Branch (PIPB), DISP /NRR/NRC Michael R. Johnson Oief. Performance Evaluation and Asse==nent Section, PIPB, DISP /NRR/NRC IArea R. Plisco Chief, Operanng Reactor and Construction laspection Programs Section, PIPB, DISP /NRR/NRC Harold B. Ray Executive Vice President - Power Systems, Southern California Edison Company Steves J. Brewer Manager, Nuclear Safety Licensmg Fuel Division Amencan Electne Power Service Corporation

2. ElectronicInformation Exchange .. . .u. ... . . . . . . Jack W. Ree (Ce --- '- '1ienate)

Director DRPW/NRR/NRC Ralph Caruso Group leader Analytical Support Group, DSSA/NRR/NRC WBliam J. OI-*=d Associate General Counsel for Licensing and Regulation Office of the General Counsel, NRC Jeha A. Ekarriaa, Jr.

Senior Analyst, Technology Assessment Branch, IRM/NRC

'He E. Rosey Project Manager, Regulatory Projects, NPR Industry Sector Liaison /NPR RegNet Lead, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company John S. Marshall Generic Licensing Manager, Texas Utilities Electric Company

3. Core Performance and Reactor Fuel Issues . . . . . Gary M. Holahan (Federal A/B Room) Director DSSA/NRR/NRC Laurence E. Phulips Chief. BWR Reactor Systems Section, Reactor Systems Branch, DSSA/NRR/NRC ImeIJberatori Vice Chairman, Westir4ghouse Owners' Group (Comed)

4. Status of Reactor Decommissioning and . . .. . . Brian K. Grimes Revised Decommissioning Rules Deputy Director. Division of (South American A/B Room) Reactor Program Management (DRPM), NRR/NRC Plant Status . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . ... .. .

Seymour H. Weiss Director, Non. Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorase, DRPM/NRR/NRC Decommissioning Rulemakmg ... .. .. .... .. . .Cheryl A.'hottier Chief, Eas -g and Decommissiomng Section Radiation Protection and Health Effecu Branch, Division of Regulatory Applicanons, RES/NRC Site Release Criteria Rulemakmg ~ . ..... Michmal F. Weber Qiief, low. Level Waste and Decommissioning Projects Eranch.

Division of Waste Management, NMSS/NRC i

fA Question.and. Answer Period Will Follow Each Session Each Day.)

Vi

Wednesday, April 10,1996 l

l Continental Breakfast and Registration: 7:00 a.m. 8:30 a.sh. (Foyer 2/ Upper Lobby) l Breakout Sessions: 8:30 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.

1. NRC/ Licensee Interface and Communications . ... . Thomas T. Martin (Presidential Ballroom) Regional Administration, Region 1/NRC

2. NRC/ Licensee Interface and Communications . . . ..-.. Stewart D. Ebneter i (Congressional / Senate) Regional Administrator, Region II/NRC

3. NRC/ Licensee Interface and Communications . .. Hubert J. Miller (Federal A/B Room) Regional Administrator, Region III/NRC

4. NRC/ Licensee Interface and Communications .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L. Joseph Callan (South American A/B Room) Regional Administrator, Region IV/NRC Coffee Break: 10:15 a.m. - 10 30 a.m. (Foyer 2/ Upper Lobby)

Breakout Sessions: 10:30 a.m. 12:00 p.m.

1. Competition, Utility Restructuring, Mergers,. . . . . . . . Dennis M. Crutchfield and NRC Licensing Activities

Director, DRPM/NRR/NRC (Presidential Ballroom) David W. Penn Deputy Executive Director. American Public Power Association Kevin Kelly Deputy Director, Electricity Office, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) j John Skolds J Senior Vice President, Generation, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Emmit J. George, Jr.

. Chairman, NARUC Staff Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues Waste Disposal i

2. Steam Generator Issues ... . ...., . .. Brian W. Sheron (Congressional / Senate Room) Director, Division of Engineering (DE), NRR/NRC Jack R.Strosnider Chief, Materials & Chemical Engineering Branch (EMCB), DE/NRR/NRC Michael E. Mayfield Chief, Electrical, Materials, and Mechanical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Technology, RES/NRC Charles S. Welty, Jr.

Mar.ager, Steam Generator Programs, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Michael S.Tuckman Senior Vice President - Nuclear Generation, Duke Power Company j John B.Hosmer Engineering Vice President, Commonwealth Edison Company

- .. .. Gary M. Holahan

3. Fire Protection Issues .

Director, DSSA/NRR/NRC (Federal AB Room)

K. Steven West Chief. Special Projects Section, Plant Systems Branch (SPLB), DSSA/NRR/NRC Patrick M. Madden I Special Projects Section, SPLB, DSS A/NRR/NRC William Rossfield Manager, Site Nuclear Services, Florida Power and Light Co.

Ram P. Bhat Fire Protection Engineer, Illinois Power Company Alexander Marion Director, Engineering, NEl Biff Bradley l

Senior Project Manager, NEI t

(A Question-and. Answer Period Will Follow Each Session Each DayJ l

vil

Walway, April 10,1996 (Continued)

4. Maintenance Rule Implementation ... .. ..... .. ... . . . . .

. Bruce A.Bener (South Amerkan A/B Room) Director DRCH/NRRh4RC R. IAe Spessard D:puty Director, DRCH/NRR/NRC Susanne C. Black Chief, Quality Assurance and Maintenance Branch (HQMB), DRCH/NRR/NRC Richard P.Correia Chief Reliability and Maintenance Section. HQMB, DRCH/NRR/NRC Bested Reception: 12 noon 12:45 p.m. (Foyer 2 Capital Terrace / Upper Imbby)

Lunch 12:45 p.m. j 1:30 p.m. (Congressional / Senate)

E705hb kb3fEONSPNAEER

' r=ic"Kanand C. Rogers

1: 30p.m - 2:00p.m.

, : e--

-- Senate ,

Break: 2:00 p.m. 2:30 p.m. (Free time to enable the hotel to reset the CongressionaP$ enate Room.)

Breakout Sessions: 2:30 p.m. 4:00 p.m.

1. Reactor Vessel and Internals Issues . . . Jack R. Strosnider (Presidential Ballroom) Chief. EMCB, DE/NRR/NRC Kurt Comens NEl Robin Dyle Southern Nuclear Operating Company

2. License RenewalUpdate . ., . ~ . . . . . . . ___- .. Scott F. Newberry (Con ._ '- 'hte)

- Director, License Renewal & Environmental Review Project Directorate (PDLR) DRPM/NRR/NRC Donald P. Cleary Regulation Development Branch, Division of Regulatory Applications,RES/NRC Doug Walters Project Manager, NEI

. Charles R. Pierce Project Engineer, Southem Nuclear Operating Company Michael S. Ackman Senior Vice President - Nuclear Generation, Duke Power Company Barth W. Doroshuk Principal Engineer . Life Cycle Management, Baltimore Gas & Electric Roger A. Newton Assistant to the Vice President - Nuclear Power, Wisconsin Electric Power Co.

Don K. Croneberger Director, Special Products. GPU Nuclear Corporation

3. Shutdown Rule .... . .

... . . . . . .. ... Gary M. Hotshan (Federal A/B Room) Director, DSSA/NRR/NRC Warren C. Lyon PWR Reactor Systems Section, Reactor Systems Branch, DSSA/NRR/NR Tony Pietrangelo Senior Project Manager, NEl (A Question-and. Answer Period Will Follow Each Session Each Day.) !

Viii

Wednesday, April 10,1996 (Continued)

4. Spent Fuel Pool Issues ..... . ... _ ... ... ..... Kenneth E. Perkins, Jr.

(South American A/B Room) Director, Walnut Creek Field Office (WCFO).

f Division of Reactor Projects, Region IV/NRC l George T. Hubbard, Jr.

Chief BOP Systems Section, SPLB, DSSA/NRR/NRC l Ledyard B. Marsh Chief Plants Systems Branch, DSSA/NRR/NRC Alexander Marion Director, Engineering, NEl Phillip D. Graham l

Senior Engineering Manager, Cooper Nuclear Station Coffee Break: 4:00 p.m. 4:15 p.m. (Foyer 2/ Capital Terrace / Upper Lobby) j Closing Plenary Session: 4:15 p.m. - 4:45 p.m. (Presidential Ballroom)

Summary / Closing __ William T. Russell, Director,NRR/NRC ,

l 1

I l

1 1

l l

l (A Question and-Ansu er Period Will Follos Each Session Each Day.)

AX

1 l

l l

April 9,1996

! 1 Morning Plenary Session 9:15 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.

l Regulatory Trends ;

1 l

1

Regulatory Trends William T. Russell Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I. Safety Trends ll. NRR Regulatory Data Ill. Significant Completed Actions IV. Priority Actions 2

l l

l I

1 l

I i

l l

I 1

l I

1 4

1. Safety Trends a

AUTOMATIC SCRAMS PER UNIT Average Number of Automatic Scrams While Critical 5.0 4.0 ,,

3.0 2.3 f

86 87 lilitism 88 89 90 v.a, 91 92 93 94 95 SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS Average Number of Events 2.0 1.5 ,,,

!;IHilih.

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Year l

4

SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES Aversge Number of Events 4.0 3,y

!;lllllllu 87 88 89 M 91 92 93 94 95 Year SIGN!FICANT EVENTS Average Number of Events 1.7 1.5 1.0 0.o 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Year Significant Evert: As Donned in NUREG-1272 5

FORCED OUTAGE RATE (%)

Percent 2 3, e.s 10lllllh i i i l 86 87 88 89 90 Year 91 92 93 94 95 EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGE RATE Outages per 1000 Commercial Critical Hours 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.6

" u 0.4 0

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Year 6

COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE Man-REM 600 500 i lllllillii 86 87 88 89 90 91 Year 92 93 94 95 1996 projected from data for first three quarters AVAILABILITY by YEAR Percent

!! Year 7

WATCH LIST PLANTS (CATEGORY 2 AND 3)

Number of Units 16 16 15 sm- - -

10 - -

r o-87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 i Year E January DJune 8

11. NRR Regulatory Data l

9

LICENSING ACTION INVENTORY BY PRIORITY FY 92-96 _

1,400 i

1.200 vg ' l' 1,000 -

800 ,

".1 - r.

600

.= ..

400

~

200 - -

0 92 93 94 95 96 FISCAL YEAR FY To DATE EPRIORITY 1 CPRIORITY 2 CPRIOmrTY 3 C PRIORITY 4 + TOTAL Source: WISP as of 2/21/96 PLANT SPECIFIC LICENSING ACTIONS, 1992 -1996 INVENTORY LEVELS COMPLETED BY NRC

? , .

. _ c -

.. y _! _ J __(,;

.31 , .p.!_.;.,9Q

i. _ ,.e _ ..._ _..o _ .i i.._ _ ,.._ _ .o _ ... _ ..i MEDtAN TIME TO COMPLETION MEDIAN AGE OF INVENTORY

. a -

1 w -

s 2 i r a

1 !4!EsJfh_r1

41JiKl.rn;no_gs .

i ..__ . __ . _ _ . i i. _ ,,o _... _ _-_ _.. _ .i Source: WISP, data date 2/21/96 10

MULTIPLANT ACTIONS MAJORMPAsOPEN uutnPlMUCENSING REQUIREMENTS q ms OPENTACS NPOSED ON UCENSEES,FY 88-95 j

IBusCO M ca m paq si W74 *

8emmALRMEWwmaart a m

~

PER2DfBtmLBSGptEQ ts e4 e

Delf0LAGf5EbugEE a as e IEAC1DRVEBEL5mLTJutpf!EGrf 17 y e GCAf9 Elm 4L(acesGFlGNGBGETOR 72 100 e

a RESSAE LD00G1stML DONGOFKMEMPE 108 Dm0er t. ins EXEMPTIONS i

~ ~

50.48 + App R - 32%

g ,

(Fire Protection) -

Testing)

_ - - - , y .,

\ /

50 App A - 4d< /

(GDC)

\ /

[

~

All Others - 25%

(inmara )

(P si Protecten) 11

NOTICE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION NOEDs issued by Quarter NOEDs issued by FY is g,jung M 7,

, 70 E meGION 70 e7 e4

TOTA &.

60 to-50 I 3e s .

30 2 20

'O

E 3 I~E 4 1 a a 4 1 a o E l es l es l 91 92 93 94 96 96 Recal Year Quarter RecalYess anaves STANDARD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CONVERSION PLANS Units Corwe1ed 100

',.,y u lcl, .+&n hc;M, n ;h,]$, 7 j;r +

, ~w+ - ,

gQ , ,, ... 3 v ,. ..p . ;o,....,.,;........

4 ..

........ . . _ .. m ... ..-... 30

... . . . . . 7 n .

k h $$5l?. .~ '[ f -

kyn

y. g :&m w hy ue.a,...

60 #L': y,fa-*'q w....r_,o. p a. k .4'*

u m y. 4 5He ; -+ .w.,v v.

res.We' t- -4.'*

]W $Y? 5 Y iiO1D aa,$j'A' n;

, p

- rE-s::.w kfif*]Nvi+%+

syUY h:p . y.-o s 's>;,g:

tie"ve$

aw.a r' ,mL 1:,k

&.- Y A'.w;4L, v,. . G

'b5h ^.YfiAt .- eD fy' ? a . J. C;71ML$4 DD.n~s.:. n $: . ..

M c y pg'* .cQ*vyay s%

, ** *,;s+,973 va;g t* 4~.*.kg ijgath!t. a m} y,T=,~,?* - ~u =2. f.l-X.' .

.? '

n.cs. s,., & ;-

mgs:4

. r:4 u t.a'wgi,. 4)%vg.faa. ' **YN weA tya sp gpm I.myymF45 4 rt .

c .-M,4ve;

A ; 3.:3w 6sct *-

- 41* yN m 3 tJ-

-n"'* da M.

d=-+.t..ah..

i, m.y4y..

r fi

vc -..

j g r- +.,~. m.. rr sl* r,# , , ,., .fC rev. .*e*-+-r+^ e.. T h *m

. .u .

e NhEh #

$h'hh;NNA [h 4h Y N ?

\

O

?5NuW$!?$$$%$$ VV:lNS V $O?$V 1995 1996 1997 1998

-veer .

componese +Pasmes 12

NRC EXAMINATIONS )

BY FISCAL YEAR Indal Exammations 1,000

.it 800 r ,

600

.ii ..

447

InMial 400 200 0

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Facal Year 1996 as an estimaton and includes 144 phot exams MEAN INSPECTION EFFORT PER UNIT Regional and Total Hours, FY89 - 96 Thousands of Mrs 6

4 ese 5 4 foi 4 406 48 4.323 4.34s 4.279 4

'E - 't'- . .=y. . . _ g*_ _. . *J _ _ ' r. .

. . _'.E.' _ .. _*.=

2 1

1990 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Pro,essed

Regions Only ON HQ gs February 1996 MEANINSP.CH3 13

l TOTAL INSPECTION EFFORT FOR SINGLE UNIT SITES FY 1995 (9/18/94 - 9/30/95) i

'1UTAL MEDIAN PLANT HOURS HOURS GRAND GULF 1 3341.7 HARRIS 1 3478.2 CALLAWAY 3588.1 KEWAUNEE 3970.6 THREE MILE ISLAND 1 4044.8 4044.8 SFABROOK 1 4151.0 GINNA 4153.6 MONTICELLO 4286.4 DAVIS-BESSE 4197.1 SUMMER 4305.8 MILLSTONE 3 4630.2 BIG ROCK POINT 4630.9 PILGRIM 1 4920.5 OYSTER CREEK 5065.4 5065.4 FITZPATRICK 5080.8 HADDAM NECK 5205.1 WATERFORD 3 5451.5 HOPE CREEK 1 5485.5 MAINE YANKEE 5498.4 ROBINSON 2 5601.0 DUANE ARNOLD 5601.2 CLINTON 5603.2 PERRY 1 5639.0 5639.0 FORT CALHOUN 1 5702.5 MILLSTONE 1 5741.1 INDIAN POINT 2 5765.8 CRYSTAL RIVER 3 5821.0 PALISADES 6690.0 WOLF CREEK 1 6702.9; VERMONT YANKEE 7237.5:

COOPER 7634.9 RIVER BEND 8272.6 8590.8 FERMI 2 8908.9 MILLSTONE 2 9819.2 WASH NUCLEAR 10409.6 INDIAN POINT 3 13073.5 WATTS BAR 1 32038.1 Sear w Wher Beet . End of FY 2MS _

l 14

TOTAL INSPECTION EFFORT FOR DUAL UNIT SITES FY 1995 (9/18/94 - 9/30/95)

I wrAL MEDIAN PLANT HOURS HOURS

NORTH ANNA 1,2 4161.4

DIABLO CANYON 1,2 4544.3

BYRON 1,2 4625.1

POINT BEACH 1,2 4981.4 5087.0

TURKEY POINT 3,4 5192.7

ST. LUCIE 1,2 5230.9

PRAIRIE ISLAND 1,2 5358.2 SURRY 1,2 5371.7 FARLEY 1,2 5462.1

LIMERICK 1,2 5491.7

SUSQUEHANNA 1,2 5708.7

COOK 1,2 5723.4 6072.0 SOUTH TEXAS 1,2 6420.7

PEACH BOTTOM 2,3 6478.5 VOGTLE 1,2 6522.5

BRAIDWOOD 1,2 6550.8 NINE MILE POINT 1,2 6764.6 i

BRUNSWICK 1,2 6769.0 ARKANSAS 1,2 6831.1 COMANCHE PEAK 1,2 7060.2 7082.3 HATCH 1,2 7104.4 I CATAWBA 1,2 7216.3 i LASALLE 1,2 7306.2 1 MCGUIRE 1,2 7465.5 l CALVERT CLIFFS 1,2 7780.5

, SEQUOYAH 1,2 7850.0 l

DRESDEN 2,3 7925.8 SAN ONOFRE 2,3 8372.8 8496.7 ZION 1,2 8620.5 QUAD CITIES 1,2 8707.8 B E A V E R V A L L E Y 1,2 9050.7 SALEM 1,2 10118.8 o Site with N + 1 exemption s =u: nuu sone.sa etrrim 15

TOTAL INSPECTION EFFORT FOR TRIPLE UhTT SITES FY 1995 (9/18/94 - 9/30/95) turAL MEDIAN PLANT E9URS HOURS PALO VERDE 1,2,3 8006.8 OCONEE 1,2,3 8053.4 8053.4 BROWNS FERRY 1,2,3 14205.1 searce: whine Beek M */M M Mean Licensing Effort per Unit, FY 90 - 95 Hours 3,500 3,000 2.im s.su

15~ 2.307 2,000 *"

1,500 1,000 500 0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Fiscal Year .

l l

16

TOTAL EFFORT FOR SINGLE UNIT SITES FY 1995 (9/18/94 - 9/30/95)

TorAL MEDIAN PLANT HOURS HOURS GRAND GULF 1 6054.7 HARRIS 1 6094.7 SUMMER 6586.3 CALLAWAY 6816.6 u MONTICELLO 7013.4 7013.4 !

SEABROOK 1 7251.0 KEWAUNEE 7355.7 DAVIS-BESSE 7624.1 THREE MILE ISLAND 1 7874.9 FORT CALHOUN 1 8220.2 BIG ROCK POINT 8490.0 CLINTON 8601.2 FITZPATRICK 8780.7 GINNA 8928.8 9001.8 ROBINSON 2 9014.1 INDIAN POINT 2 9100.2 MILLSTONE 1 9287.1 PERRY 1 9306.7 MILLSTONE 3 9388.9 DUANE ARNOLD 9594.3 HOPE CREEK 1 9609.8 MAINE YANKEE 9697.8 WATERFORD 3 9927.1 OYSTER CREEK 10003.3 10003.3 CRYSTAL RIVER 3 10042.6 PILGRIM 1 10094.4 HADDAM NECK 10364.3 WOKF CREEK 1 10474.5 VERMONT YANKEE 12131.5 FERMI 2 12249.1 COOPER 12881.9 MILLSTONE 2 13952.2 PALISADES 14063.5 14063.5 RIVER BEND 14678.7 WASH NUCLEAR 2 14969.3 INDIAN POINT 3 16288.3 s WATTS BAR 1 57189.8

\

sema: wmer seen.sa etmm 17

TOTAL EFFORT FOR DUAL UNIT SITES FY 1995 (9/18/94 - 9/30/95) 1 URAL MEDIAN FLANT HOURS HOURS

NORTH ANNA 1,2 7100.6

DIABLO CANYON 1,2 7907.2

B Y R O N 1,2 8659.8

POINT BEACH 1,2 8718.5 8899.0

TURKEY POINT 3,4 9079.5

ST. LUCIE 1,2 9504.9

PRAIRIE ISLAND 1,2 9661.3 FARLEY 1,2 9721.2

COOK 1,2 9736.5 SURRY 1,2 9857.1 COMANCHE PEAK 1,2 10219.9 LASALLE 1,2 11029.5 11066.0

BRAIDWOOD 1,2 11102.4

LIMERICK 1,2 11236.1

SUSQUEHANNA 1,2 11399.5 CATAWBA 1,2 11434.7 BRUNSWICK 1,2 11497.0 CALVERT CLIFFS 1,2 12148.8 ARKANSAS 1,2 12378.7 ZION 1,2 12770.5 NINE MILE POINT 1,2 12931.8 12931.8 PEACH BOTTOM 2,3 13016.5 SAN ONOFRE 2,3 13023.9 B E A V E R V A L L E Y 1,2 13267.9 SEQUOYAH 1,2 13334.5 DRESDEN 2,3 13563.3 MCGUIRE 1,2 13774.3 QUAD CITIES 1,2 14147.5 HATCH 1,2 14361.7 14361.7 SALEM 1,2 14794.0 VOGTLE 1,2 15798.5 SOUTH TEXAS 1,2 18734.8 PALO VERDE 1,2,3 14510.8 16742.2 OCONEE 1,2,3 16742.2 BROWNS FERRY 1,2,3 20995.2 e Site with N + 1 exemption searw 9Vhna, Beet . End of FY IMS 18

TREND IN NUMBER OF TEAM INSPECTIONS o BY FISCAL YEAR Number of Total Team inspectons 120 ser- . . , ' '---

g. . , , -

joo ..

[~[' Ld ...h/....1;...J,........,.....:.............. '

i d'y 1 . . , y, p .

eM pf ;f . .1- e

. ' . . ..+.

80 .s <

.yy _

.......M ....a.... ...

. l;43 ,

p : . _. . ,

Psepasse of :

60 !: , -: -

- .'-j ^ - -> .

=3.~.

go p1

.Ys ai,

. . ; ri, ~

. .L .'. ..s.. ..l4;

.t

' ~

t ,T ;s -1 4 ;c'. r gg ^

,, /1 '

t ,-

20 - U ~- 2N , -;* e-$

[ .'

((t:

a ; m y ;;

' m .

o -l 92 93 94 95 96

- Focal Year .

Major ActMbes dunng wtuch 20 or more stafkdays onste enort expended wahen a Salay pered marsevne INFORMATION NOTICES ISSUED Number issued .

14C

+

e ,

'S- r *

, ite .

~ #

+ <q; - : *111 - 111

r j. .. .

100 *+

+l -/*i

'?

f + *z --+

, gg .--

Ice grJe r _ ,

es . -+--

SN ',T 80

f' %-- - + * * - ' ?e - ---*--

. eg el;* WhG

, * , : <ag - ,

go J. 1 7 ... . ..

(

as M1R .,,

' r. ,

O :ee'~

Pre $ested:

l 79 80 81 82 83 84 46 46 87 88 89 90 91 92 SS M 96 96 yew -

i Assud: 14 kW M84 NOTE - Total issuances for the year ricaude new asuance, revneorm, and supplements.

nic=#.c.o 19

BULLETINS ISSUED

- Number lesued .

l-') 7,.-Q 7W y.! 3:n

.. s i . . p-

p*t64=*++..**=+=.ee w

+=.

y.y i ;.. ,

9..,..mem.,*++

g @ e + = g*,- P a m,s . * =pe _* , ta,..=*,9 ~

& e r -> e.

.g.. n$' C N m.,

,l l.; Y !,, a "G

';.g}T,1Q.9 A yg$.'

L!

pMT.q. ;O[%,&

v g;f ;R$ d ?,"w s.

, ;W $"*'" ,_ - f;; ri, , ' W;, , '

~ ' '

'"- + ,a u

re o -

-w.

s...n

. L> .+,A.,p, L i.~,ra. y...r..+.v,.

s

m. .r ,

. ~ . . .........,....,..v,.......~.4 ...

an W %e+.nw a,. s l % %, %. . . f ~. < , + ' ' * .w. - D. v. +? .+ , . ,

.s. m . n ~ n. ,n,,

p ;; g;m. . ' R ' -

. y. .. >

n. ;

^4 w? f y?g(7 yG::Q.w:> y,w;M":.M . . ;p y f ~J8 k m **

J u'J.e 6 lA % ^ '

30 **,,. .; .e**'******U

' d -a?.'";j E+,.- * - +c., *~- * * * * ' * - * * * * * * * + - - ^ - " - - * - -

? s i t:

f- }1GE &,-fY.e&.r.- H Ar Mp 's.8 Av

%W,jb

'e y k.,

~,e h

u

- t ' U; ' O A$

s- s t s

+,.e E

& %" feQ. . T..n O ; din -

. . - . 1 ';"

str 30 *<* *wy* * %&t r

P Ma * ".* "w > +'-*'*-*-**-*------***--.u- N i4 > ':", , . .+?

..U,m , : T' m 'f i .,y

.c 4w, -

m.. w. q, g,rpm, ,;;< f .*a 3

m n.:+

<~+y ge e

g . , . , .

ma!

,.s!go a x,y,,

. .< g7, t w;u%n:;M.,:,M

.e e n. er y.r .W .; . n - e ;N 30

n. * , .t e, ., 7 . 1.a, 7 , < h - - ny- n m . 2. e..

q p' -

fp_QT J.q p; y , ipt 7,g , M M { - g i EE 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 68 80 90 91 92 93 04 95 96 Eidii E M.IEiin h Aatual:

. Year - As of NOTE - Total issunnoes br the year include new issuance, revisions, and supplemerts, n+nts ois GENERIC LETTERS ISSUED

. Number lasued .

140 .

p,.- .. , m; . s ..

q ,_pe, g-n n,, 3: .

a

, ng-, a j3.a.' _ - y .. * ..

. ,(++>

f

,3 ,, . . , ,

sgo .' w.ow. g /.Er ,j 1w%. .

...-..m.,m,a.m*m.~--

, + . . .

>m

. .n.L _. . ..,~

.ng'cus y- *- .- *

>(q+ab c, s -y.! p+ .4,. M; g; 1 * * .

. J:

r Gr&. e.

t.

w s #

$ 2 '3 - ',_*

A9 +

e:gh a*++**

d.;s . .

100 r. e v v r+ ** --- *w

+ *4 - -* ~ .-- ~ - <- - --- - --

S

;W 97 p. ? -!.@!..d.

u. .R y s%cu c.

l61.~

- > -, A- : & i,,4, E . e >l ; a , 1r t k. & 41.a $ j ,[3_'y .lN - - U 7 ,' $.,+^.y, .,I.,.

4

... ~.h,.m go .

,ae ;

.y. s v' :m4 rAe.

xt-y; v....V 7. w[m .

.+.

m ,.,.;uy. r..e a 9 ; y , ,5.. u.. ,.w s

.m A"

w n 2:7 aMy 4;

. f.w.er

.3.x p :e . ' sc .g.>.t e , Mx"

< .a,y; :> - . e._ .~.a. .s~-v

. m;<. ,'*.1-- L to m*--**--- W- - " - - -

W** *M*

4'@c.

& m , ...p+ . ji, e ?+t.. ;,;iph. f,.1 m ,w, s *h h +i .n . *,^aUW"eW'*v+ , -.4

-s. m-

-- < - -i

, aw ,. . .xur y a nn" w ' + ~ - u.. pW ,a+;0?

40 **?+-~rN,Qie?s

fWM J . W Fr: np A*- ys t.k6 m%4:

r* * *q* .**'-?*M.u n, e&. o .>

ru ,

.n**w *a** at.*

*, **.- ~

b< ftC"i 4 g ?e# AMM ,7 A;t,Weque,;;as 5

2 (i,'b,mf;;3~4@s.%n~g n , p s-g,y( Q i.

20 ---

w n*~4gn ,g e 0

79 to 01 82 83 84 05 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 63 94 96 96 H E m E in F.m new a

. Year . ==*

anm' NOTE - Total issuances for the year incbde new issuance, revisions, and supplemern.

n cas on 20 i

f

EVENTS ANALYSIS AND FOLLOWUP, 1989-1996 EVENTS REVIEWED EVENTS REQUIRING POLLOW UP

- =

i[ :W

~~~

sioumcawr avewis ===mo usPECTION TEMS

~~ *""

=

gg M

, a . .

H ho , .

v Source: NRR 2/21/96 4

21

1 l

l l 1

l l l

l ALLEGATIONS TOTAL * {Roactors and Vendors}: 1991 1995 Number of Alegations 1*000 ,.g .. g' a y y -

t j ~ . . '4:md,j,:

- s yv

-M ,

,m. t w.m+-

,~c9y W?.

. !-* .:.u: :" ' > ' y,r. - -

w A+

,..e e w.~,a.,L ,

..,.p,.. w...es,,

4

.~ . . .. .. .. . .?......

4. . ..,,i.r.,- -.. ,- ' .>..n.e.......-..

. . . , . . . . .n ....

,..co#.

e .

m f%,a e e,.g ; s ;.:N, % -

- -u ess - ,

j e~. '.eu *

., e.n.~ ..r 4

-u r

.. s. .s...,d . .. 4e..,.,.,.,.,.1., . . . . . . .

m,u

,1,, a , p $3,4 . w.": . wm. l a,.f.n g g y-

- . - - A, w-y- > e . . f f y * = _- jT, ! 3 n

7 A . . e, -

4.i e-. fe.g.m j.y .t'. y W ,%p - 1"+,y -~ .- .

. ,m ,

.~

1. f.<.M. . .

6 2.t.. . ., . ., ,'< %. . . 4. . . r.9

.. , >:.n..-.<..As..v......L.....

.,.- a., . e- ,1,%'%%n w? ;gt , . r. .: a , lmA,N' g-. a. + - u.

.T ,. U ~ r :s d}. ]m..

sib1 2Ne ..w- -

-i g. < -r: > _ , e;; u- .1;; .

.w.w. .~ .#...- '3. .~ .. . .. .. . . .. . . ..... ... .

-4 2t % ' -ti < l ? '.;p

', '*o '; n h._ .

W+ 2 Q'J;4.~* py Q.Ml'b,2' f '

l 1 *i p4

,.wMb o .e r .o u.c a e Q

ai p$ rn 2;;; '7 * ' *.- "; ' " '.

g, 1,

0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Calender Year

mecenee e ciaeed + suesunnated

Emeludes Hal . Roosewed & Closed na man. ens Subetonessed . Includes H & 1 1 ALLEGATIONS H & I(n.aoion &v.ndom> 1991 199s Number of .'",

250 t,.,. ,

2

, f 3,.i .P. .,, -

. ; ,e ,

- n ,..

200 - m- ' ,m, :- -

ano, o - - .~ --

- --- +- .-

n.s ;-n _ : <> g n.: A ; .- - < B - -)t. " - - --- -- -

ys g.,v+.

v .: c, rv , .

,yJ.m-p,w > 3 .a .l 180,.

jd* ' ' YJI#.. .iQ .,-...J... ........... 4...

g 2y A~~~~~ ~~#~----~~-AG l - f:-fv&,- . < nw+ im , .

L. ,

W.a , n- % e- . .:m,-. L. :

. ., ,.v..

j .r. . . y . ~.% . .

. m-v.

e.t .nm' ,c g-.

- < p, ,.#s.,

n-

. . y;. . n ? cv . + i j ,y

, n e a. . . g; . :. - e -+

- ;e > y 3., ,u.

q 4. .

.y a m

.rt.'.. ,

, ,, a w+

.n- - -. - . .

j,: 2 .. t- -t *w / Y .* ,, t, .P. [*. e < .,V w m? c, ...,. a '.. .f~.wn s. 7. .. . .r,s .....s u , . =. x _0

~ y . v s.;.m.ne y.,

"x. . . t ' ....z.,.,_. .4fa. . y p- a y?' w.p p

s e , yl{ ff '. W

'g.;** r,e}

r {w.c l'* f e A'.-

e . ; c.

y ['

l

'e.*c.S..-.~.r.._

? -

w -

t'

e e

y Y-l fr fp %..c# 4 y q -- #

!U'3-

' R, .

t 44-( -

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Calender Year

H & j 6 Closed i Entorsement Acten seassas i

22

)

BUDGETED STAFF -- NRR & REGIONS l FY 1986-1997 I 1,000 ap, sp On-Board

Budget NRR 863 893 REG 656 667 900 T- 'T- T ' 'T og . eg - ..g 800 **-

'" T.

.,g' 700 $' s' .=>.

,,, V

NRR O "

600 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Note: FTE utiltred per FY-Budgeted FTE FY96-FY97 (Data Feb 66) l l

23

NRR STREAMLINING PLAN Total NRR Managers FTE 140-m 12s 120 -

106 100 95 92

p. m osmissi ..,'

80

. . 69 80 -

40 -

20 -

0 '

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Fiscal Year February 96 NRR STREAMLINING PLAN Total NRR Overhead

FTE 350%-

46',

300 -

41 250 -

200 - '

31 %

ps e amme)

.. ~~. ~

150 - .+

g 100 -

50 -

m se and ernur remes 0 . . . . . .4 - i . ? i . . , , i i1 - i +

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Fiscal Year

'Manesees, s oreennes, uneneine Assasares, Technieel Asenesanes, and Peeram Assesaraspute).

24

i 111. Significant Completed Actions 25

l Significant Comoleted Actions: NRR Ucensing i l

OPERATING REACTORS

Completed 2008 Ucensing Actions During Fiscal Year 1995

Completed 1 Request for CP-OL Recapture for Diablo Canyon 1 & 2 e issued Power Uprote Ucense Amendments for Peach Bottom 3, WNP 2, Fitzpatrick, Hatch 1 & 2, Nine Mile Point, Umerick, and Surry 1 & 2 o Standard Technical Specifications Conversions Completed for Perry, River Bend, San Onofre 2 & 3, Peach Bottom, Ginna, Vogtle 1 & 2, Zion 1 & 2 Significant Comoleted Actions: Regulatory Reform I

Completed 11 Regulatory Review Group implementation Plan (SECY 94-003) items e Oversight Responsibility for RRG ltems Transferred from RRG/CBLA Group to Existing Line Organizations e Approved 115 CBLAs for $235 Million Savings in CY 1995 (Based on l Ucensee Estimates) e Published Revision to 10 CFR 21 - Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance e lasued Letter dated 01/24/95 Advising NEl of the Acceptability of

Guidelines for Managing NRC Commitments

e issued Generic Letter (95-08 dated 10/31/95) on Changes to Security Plans that do not Require Prior NRC Approval e issued Generic Letter (95-02 dated 04/26/95) on Retrofit of Digital l&C under 10 CFR 50.59 I

)

26

Significant Comoleted Actions: Generic Safety issues e issued Bulletin (95-02 dated 10/17/95) on Unexpected Clogging of a Residual Heat Pump Steiner While Operating in Suppression Pool Cooling Mode i

lesued Bulletin (96-01 dated 03/08/96) on Control Rod insertion Prelems and High Burnup Fuel l 1

e issued Generic Letter (95-07 dated 08/17/95) on Pressure Loclung and Thermal Bmdeng of Safety-Related Power-Operated Gate Valves e lseued Generic Letter (95-03 dated 04/28/95) and information Notice (95-40 dated 09/20/95) on Circumferential Cracking of Steam Generator Tubes

lasued Letter to NEl (dated 02/05/96) on the Acceptability of EPRI Topical Report on MOV Performance Prediction Program j e issued Letter to BWROG (dated 02/27/96) on the Acceptability of Topical Report on MOV Risk Ranking i

l I

Significant Comoleted Actions: Inspection Program

)

o integrated Performance Assessment Process (IPAP) '

e Plant Performance Reviews (PPRs) e Revised Inspection Report Guidance e inspection Program Training initiatives o Resident inspector Development Program - 14 Positions o Senior Resident inspector Develt.pment Program - 8 Positions o Senior Reactor Analyst (SRA) Development Program - 10 Positions

+ areskout sessen Tok 27

l l

IV. Priority Actions l

t t

29 u----_

i i

i l

Priority Actions l Il Probabilistic Safety Assessment implementation Plan

l 2) Dry Cask Storage *

3) Operator Ucensing Examination Changes

i 4) Electronic information Exchange *

5) Core Performance and Reactor Fuels issues *

6) Revised Decommissioning Rule and implementation *

7) Competition, Utility Restructuring, Mergers, and NRC Ucensing Activities *

8) Steam Generator issues *

9) Fire Protection issues *

10) Maintenance Rule implementation *

11) Reactor Vessel and intemets issues *

12) Ucense Renewal Update *

13) Shutdown Rule *

14) Spent Fuel Pool issues *

15) Advanced Reactors l 16) FSAR /10 CFR 50.59

17) Generic issue Management

18) Program improvements / Regional implementation * *

Breskout Session Topic

" Regional Adtrunstrator Penel Topic Probabilistic Safety Assessment implementation Plan

e PRA Policy Statement - Issued August 1995 e PRA implementation Plan - in place e Framework Guidelines for Regulatory Applications - SECY-95-280 e Regulatory Guide and SRP Development Efforts Accelerated o Draft for Public Comment - February 1997 o Final- December 1997 o Regulatory Applications Underway (e.g. IST, Graded O/A, Tech Specs)

Broekout sees on Topic 30

1 Dry Cask Storage

e Utility Oversight of Vendors

10 CFR 50.59 and 72.48 Evaluations o Regulatory Requirements and Lessons Leamed e issued inspection Procedures (60851-60855) February 1996 e Draft SRP lesued for Comment - March 1996 e Workshop Scheduled - 05/17/96 e Operational issues o Handling Casks o Spent Fuel Loading and Unloading Procedures

Breakout Sessior. Topic Operator Licensing Examina' tion Changes

e initial Examination Pilot Process o Facilities Prepare Written and Operating Examinations o NRC Approves Both Examinations o Licensee Administers and Grades Written Exam (NRC Oversight) o NRC Conducts and Grades Operating Tests j e Early Results o Leaming Curve for Utilities to Prepare Examination is Steep o Effective in Meeting NRC Responsibilities for Ucensing Operators o More Efficiant Use of NRC Resources e Staff Briefing of Commission and Commission Decision Expected Summer 1996

Breakout Seemon Topic 31

Electronic information Exchange

e NRC Information Available from Fedworld (http://www.fedworld.govi) o inspection Manuel

o SECY Papers and Staff Requwements Memorandum o Federal Register Notices o Generic Communications IGLs, ALs, ins, BULs) o Commission Meeting Schedule

NRC Information Available Through NRC Homepage o improved Standard Technical Specifications o Plant information Books o Proposed Rulemalung and Petitions o Future Task Action Plans, Genonc Communicatens, and Compisance items e Additional Information Available On-line to the Staff o Event Reports o Watts Bar Safety Evaluations and inspection Reports o NUREG 0933 Generic Safety issues o Recent Safety Evaluations o Standard Review Plan and Referenced Codes, Standards, and Regulatory Guides e Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) Pilot o B&W Standard Technical Specifications to be Converted o ANO Unit 1 to be Converted e Conducted interactive Rulemaking Pilot - Rulenet o Pilot - Fire Protection Rule o Demonstrated Interactive Rule Development o Public Access Through World Wide Web Browser

^

o Allowed Public On-line Participation Though Rulenet o Public Access to Rulenet for FP Rule Comment 01/05/96 - 02/09/96 e industry initiatives o BG & E, SCE, and TVA (Watts Bar) o Capabelsty to Electronically Word Search Complete Public Docket e Electronic Information Exchange Pilot o Established Ground Rules For Electronic Communications Between industry and NRC o Demonstrated Use of Various Formats

Breakout Seseson Topic l

32 l .1

1 I

Y .$ 1 N

. +r u

~~

. . - .i , , , , : , . s. .> ,

Uniteel $4stes d i @/7 s ) Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;; *

(. .: Y " 'T .: , <. ..a..

e vaa ; = - -- * - = w = +- :

8 Mianlon an'd O

= 'Nih ""

N f -, N , g.4 ,,f..

ey y, ; G9 NRC'a Principn10fficas s .

b[gher Ranctors ,u +fhe.k4[.4 ~ p"

$8*

NuclairMaterial' / d:T378 O M1

. 'S Rahoactiw WasteDisposaf' lid b-E4 Rulantaking wwprasp ' ~

34 Naast and Inforsmatiert 'I ??

$%pm: red..

e..,. . .PW W ,,

N.Jarapsstwa(usadsfussepmeemiesngsj di,; ,.y.

CORE PERFORMANCE AND REACTOR FUEL ISSUES *

Core Performance Action Plan Status

- Inspection of Fuel Vendors

- Inspection of Licensee Reload Analyses

- Evaluation of Core Performance

- Assessment of Control Rod Performance

High Burnup Fuel Action Plan Status

- Information Notice 94-64, and Supplement 1

- Interaction with NEl and Assessment of industry Actions

- RES Evaluation of High Burnup Issues

- NRR Design Acceptanco Criteria Assessment

Future Actions

- Continue to Assess Industry Events and issues

- Review Design and Testing Programs for New New Designs i and High Burnup Applications

Breakout Session Topic 33

Revised Decommissioning Rule end implementation

l

{

. D.comm ss.oning o Proposed Rule issued July 1995 o Provides Public information Meeting Before Decommissioning Begins o Eliminates Need for Decommissioning Plan Approval o Allows Use of 10 CFR 50.59 During Decommissioning Process o Site Termmation Plan must be Approved by the NRC o Final Rule - Summer 1996 e Proposed Rule for Radiological Criteria for Ucense Terminatum o Significant Public Comments Received from Proposed Rule -

August 1994 o Final Rule - Fall 1996

Breakout Season Topic Competition, Utility Restructuring, Mergers, and NRC Licensing Activities

e Transition from Traditional Economic Regulation to Competition e NRC Near-term Activity Associated with Changes o NRC will continue 10 CFR 50.80 Reviews of Transfers of Control and Antitrust Considerations 15 Reviews in last 2 Years

- NRR Director Approva! Required

- Structures Other than *Eiectric Utility

Require Case-by-Case Consultation with Commission e Action Plan o Systematic Review of Regulations on Financial Qualifications and Anti-trust o Update Ownership / Anti-trust NUREGs o Obtain Prior Notification of Significant Asset Transfers o Develop SRP o Establish MOU's with SEC, FERC o Staff interaction With NARUC

areekaut sessen Topic 34

Steam Generator issues

e Steam Generator Tube Degradation Continues to be a Major issue for the industry o Safety Concem with Respect to Containment Bypass o Significant Economic impact

Altemate Repair Criteria o issued Generic Letter (95-05 dated 08/03/95) on Voltage Based Cntene for Outer Diameter Stress Corrosion Cracking o Must be Supported by Adequate Data Base o Cannot be Processed on Short Notice e Appropriate inspection Methods Must be Used to Identrfy and Manage Steam Generator Degradation

- o issued Generic Letter (95-03 dated 04/28/95) on Circumferential Cracking of Steam Generator Tubes o Enforcement Guidance to be issued Soon

Steam Generator Rulemalung o Performance / Risk Based o Provides a Framework for Degradation Specific Management

Breakout Session Tope I

)

Fire Protection

1 i

e Thermo-Lag Fire Bemers o Focus has Shifted from Generic issues to Plant-Specific Corrective Action Programs e Fire Barrier Penetration Seals I o NRC Staff Assessment Near Completion - No Significant issues e Fire Protection Functional inspection Program o Will Focus Resources, integrate Fire Protection inspection Activities, and Address a Variety of Fire Protection issues

NEl Petition for Rulemaking Under Review e Parallel Staff Effort o Considers Simplified Fire Protection Rule o New Regulatory Guide to Consoricate all Guidance o Not Part of Petition Review

Breakout Seesen Topic 35

Maintenance Rule *

valscetion and vendenon of Draft inspection Procedure Complete -

Pilot inspecnone Pwformed et Nine Sites e NRC Public Workshop on Pilot inspecnons and inspection Procedure Held June 1996 e inspection Procedure (IP 62706) leeued August 1995 e NUMARC 93-01 Revised to Reflect Clarificanons Noted Dunne Pilot inspections e Reguistory Guide 1.160 Revision in Progress - Mid-June 1996 e Baselinez ' :;::i'-- Begin July 1996 o Resident inspector Routine inspechons Begin July 1996 e Enforcement Acnons Coordinated through Headquarters

Br kout E mon Topic Reactor Vessel and Intemals issues *

Reactor Prosaure Vessels o leeued Generic Letter 92-01 Supplement 1 (deted 06/19/96) on Reactor Vessel Structural integnty o Licensees to Collect All Portment RPV Meterials Data for Structural integnty Analysis o inconentencies in Previously Reported Data to be Resolved o Date and en Assosoment of its impact on RPV Evoluenons due in approxwnstely 18 months e BWR Intemels o Completed Core Shroud inspeccons et the Most Susceptible Plants o Shroud Repeers Reviewed and Approved for 11 Units o Shroud Reinspection Guidelenes Under Review o Owners Groups and Staff Addressing Pnorfty Concoms Regarding Other intemel Components ar kout s i.n Topic 36

License Renewal Update

e Final Revised Rule Imued May 1995 e Draft Safety Evaluation Report leeued on Babcock & Wilcox Owners Group Reactor Coolant System Piping Topical Report - October 1995 o Draft Safety Evaluaten leeued on Baltimore Gas & Electric's Screerung Methodology - Fetwuery 1996 o Part 51 Rulemaking Package Sent to the Commissen - February 1996 e NRC Site Audits of NEl Gunfolene Demonstration Program Participants initiated March 1996 o Currently Reviewing Babcock & Wilcox Owners Group, Westmghouse Owners Group, and Boiling Water Reactors Owners Group Topical Reports e Draft Regulatory Guide and NEl Guideline for Public Comment in Progrom

areskout seasson Topic Shutdown Rule

e Pubhc Meetings to Discuss Staff Resolution of Public Comments held April, August, September, and November 1995 e Rule Revision Continues o Performance Based for Normal Operations (No Techmcal Specifications) o Operating 1.imits, Backup Cooling Capatulity, Contamment Capabitsty (Technical Specifications) e Complete Regulatory Guide, Regulatory Analysis, & Statement of Considerations in Progress e Progress Report to ACRS - May 1996 e issue New Proposed Rule for Comment - Fall 1996

Bremkout Seesson Topic 37 1

i

Spent Fuel Pool issues *

Genenc Spent Fuel Pool Action Plan in Progress e Generic Communications o issued information Notices Regarding Spent Fuel Pool Cooling

- IN 93-83 dated 10/09/93 IN 95-54 dated 12/01/95

- IN 93-83 Supplement 1 dated 08/24/95 o issued Bulletin (94-01 dated 04/14/94) and Information Notice (94 38 dated 05/27/94) Regarding Coolant inventory Loss and inspectum Findings at Dresden Unit 1 e On-Site Assessments Completed e Su vey of All Operating Reactors for Design, Operational, and Licensing Basis information Underway e Key Follow-up issues o Backup Spent Fuel Pool Cooling o Emergency Power to Support Spent Fuel Pool Cooling e Staff Review in Progress

Breakout Session Topic Advanced Reactors e Westinghouse AP600 o Supplemental Draft Safety Analysis Report on Codes and Testing -

April 1996 0 Review for Final Safety Analysis Report in Progress e General Electric SBWA o GE Letter (dated 03/04/96) to Close issues on SBWR

- GE Focus Redirected to 1000 MWe and Larger Plants

- Staff Status Documentation in Progress e Design Certification o CE System 80 + and GE ABWR - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking -

Publistv d April 1995 o Public Workshops held May and December 1995 9

38

Generic issues Management e Developed a Single, Integrated Process to identify, Evaluate, Pnoritize, Manage, and Resolve Short Term Generic Compliance issues j e identification and Priorization o Issues Reviewed by Multi-discipline Panel o Prioritization Urgent vs. Short Term lasues e Management and Tracking o Action Plans Developed for issues that Require more than 800 Staff Hours or One Year to Resolve o Performance Measures Reviewed Monthly by NRR Director e Resolution and Documentation o integrated Docunv ntation Strategy NRR Action Plans, Rulemaking and Guidance. GCCAs o NUREG-0935, "Prioritization of Generic Safety issues

Task Action Plans

1. Boiling Water Reactor internals Cracking

2. Reactor Pressure Vessel *

3. Motor-Operated Valves

4. Standard Review Plan Revision

5. Update to SRP Chapter 7 to incorporate l&C Guidance

6. New Source Term

7. Endangered Species

8. Effect of Hurricane Andrew on Turkey Point

9. Environmental SRP Revision

10. General Electric Extended Power Uprate

11. Dry Cask Storage *

12. Boiling Water Reactor Suction Strainer Clogging

13. Accident Management implementation

14. Fire Protection *

15. Probabilistic Risk Assessment implementation * - Graded QA

16. Environmental Qualification

17. Generic Spent Fuel Pool

Operating and Permanently Shutdown Plants

18. Core Performance

19. High Bumup Fuel

20. RRG Aras 55 Cycle Specific Parameter Limits in TS

21. Thermo-Lag

22. Wolf Creek Draindown Event

areskout sessen Topic 39 1

i

Program improvements / Regional implementation *

e inspection Program Changes o Plant Performance Reviews o Trend Objective Performance Data o inspection Plans o inspection Report Format and Content

Enforcement Policy o Policy Revision - Effective June 1995 o incentive for Licensee Self-Assessment and Corrective Actions o Recent Trends e Self Assessments o Policy Regarding the Routine inspection Plan o Need for Reactive Inspections o Assessment of Licensee Performance

" Regeonal Admenestrator Penel Sesssons l

FSAR /10 CFR 50.59 e inspection Guidance on FSAR 01/25/96 f o Review FSAR as Part of Allinspection Activities o Compliance with FSAR in inspection Reports o Review Changes in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 Before implementation o Non-compliance Reportable under 10 CFR 50.72 e 10 CFR 50.59 Action Plan o Near-term Action - Guidance to inspectors Expected April 1996 f o Questionable Changes Forwarded to Headquarters for Review

} o Long-term Action Issue Regulatory Guide on 10 CFR 50.59 I implementation and Acceptable Standards for Change Expected Fall

( 1997 l

l 40

l REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE APRIL 9,1996 pW "'%<g h/>

0 e*# #

PROBABILISTIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Ashok C. Thadani Edward J.. Butcher Mark A. Cunningham Patrick W. Baranowsky C. Rick Grantom, HL&P OVERVIEW

PRA Policy Statement and Regulatory Objectives

PRA implementation Plan

Regulatory Guides and Standard Review Plans

Pilot Program Status and Results

Other Ongoing and Future Activities 41

i OBJECTIVES FOR INCREASING USE OF PRA

Enhance Safety Decisions

! (e.g., Configuration Control, Accident Management) l

Efficient Use of NRC Resources (e.g., IPE Insights, Risk-Based l Inspections) l

Reduced Industry Burden

! (e.g., Graded QA, Risk-Based IST) l l

NRC PRA POLICY STATEMENT

1. The Use of PRA Technology Should be increased in all Regulatory Matters to the Extent Supported by the State-of-the-Art in PRA Methods and Data and in a Manner that Complements the NRC's Deterministic Approach and Supports the NRC's Traditional Defense-In-Depth Philosophy.

2. PRA and Associated Analyses Should be Used in Regulatory Matters, Where Practical Within the Bounds of the State-of the-Art, to Reduce Unrecessary Conservatism Associated with Current Regulatory Requirements, Regulatory Guides, Ucense Commitments, and Staff Practices. Where Appropriate, PRA Should be Used to support the Proposal for Additional Regulatory Requirements in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.109 (Backfit Rule). The Existing Rules and Regulations Shall be Complied with Unless These Rules and Regulations are Revised.

42

I NRC PRA POLICY STATEMENT I (Continued)

3. PRA Evaluations in Support of Regulatory Decisions Should be as Realistic as Practicable and Appropriate Supporting Data Should be Publicly Available for Review.

4. The Commission's Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plants and Subsidiary Numerical Objectivas are to be Used with Appropriate Consideration of Uncertainties in Making Regulatory Judgments on the Need for Proposing and Backfitting New Generic Requirements on Nuclear Power Plant Licensees.

RISK-INFORMED REGULATION

Insights Derived From Probabilistic Risk Assessments are Used in Combination With Deterministic System and Engineering Analyses to Focus Licensee and Regulatory Attention on Issues Commensurate With Their importance to Safety l

! i 43 L-_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _

PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATION Once important Areas for Safety Focus are identified Measurable Parameters to Monitor Plant and Licensee Performance are Selected

Objective Criteria are Established to Assess Performance Based on Risk insights, Deterministic Analysis or Performance History

Licensee Flexibility to Determine How to Meet Established Performance Criteria is Retained PRA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

lssued August 19,1994 (SECY94 219)

Comprehensive and Broad in Scope 1.0 Reactor Regulation (NRR) 2.0 Reactor Safety Research (RES) 3.0 Analysis and Evaluation of Operating Experience and Training (AEOD) 4.0 Nuclear Materials and Low-Level Waste Safety and Safeguards Regulation (NMSS) 5.0 High-Level Nuclear Waste Regulation (NMSS)

Living Plan (Updated March 1995 and March 1996) 44

HIGHLIGHTS OF SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACTIVITIES 1.1 Develop SRPs for Risk-Informed Regulation 1.2 Pilot Applications

- Motor-Operated Valves (MOV) (GL 89-10)

- Maintenance Rule

- In-Service Testing (IST)

- Graded Quality Assurance (QA)

- Technical Specifications (TS) 2.1 Regulatory Guidance Development 3.5 Compile Operating Experience Data (e.g., Data Rule)

PROGRAM SCHEDULES AND STATUS

Complete Pilot Applications and insights

- MOV (GL 89-10) (Completed 2/96)

- Maintenance Rule (Completed 9/95)

- IST (9/96)

- Graded QA (12/96)

- TS (9/96)

Regulatory Guidance (RGs & SRPs)

- Draft (12/30/96)

- Final (12/30/97) 45 '

EXISTING GUIDANCE

MRC Gu6dence

Imernational Guldence e industry Guldence .lAEA PSA Proceduree Guide

. PSA Appelcettene Guide . lAEA Peer Hewlew Guide 16eatlens Speelfle Gundes PROSASluSTIC RISK ANALYSES Protseblistic leeues:

Nureg-1160 PRAE ,pgg g,,,,

ggy

Plant-spectfle PRAs , %; og p,wg

. Pele verde . Quality

. Com Peeg . Risk 14etrice

. Review Procese egi . Decleion Criterte

. EPRt . Date Pilot Plant Regua((

g Detonnin6stic leaues:

78 APPilcations . Deconee in Depth

.CEOG '** *

~

D*e39n Saeee

. GDC GOA

Operating ExPerlence

. South Tesee

. Grand Gulf interpretion leeuse:

. Pole verde - incremental implementatlen

. Cumulative Changes W W W W W W W b" PRA PRA IST IST ISI 151 T.S. T.S. GOA GOA

- R.G. - SRP - R.G. - SRP - R.G. - SRP - R.G. - SRP - R.G. - SRP

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

EARLY INSIGHTS FROM PILOT APPLICATIONS

The Most Effective Approach to Risk. Informed, Performance-Based Regulation is Through the Integration of Probabilistic and Deterministic Considerations

The Use of Expert Panels Can be an Effective Method of Integrating Probabilistic and Deterministic Considerations e in Order to be Effective Expert Panels Must be Made Aware of Potential Limitations and Level of Precision in the Risk insights Developed With the PRA

- Scope and Level of Detail

- Plant Specific vs. Generic Data

- Truncation Effects

- Modeling Assumptions and Methods (e.g., Randomness in Maintenance Activities, Recovery Actions, Common Cause Modeling) 46 l

I EARLY INSIGHTS FROM PILOT APPLICATIONS l (Continued)

Risk Ranking Applicat,ons Should Consider a Combination l of Relative and Absolute Risks

Technical Specification AOT Extensions Must be Evaluated at Three Lovels l - Upper Bound AOT Based ACDP and Containment Performance (e.g., CCFP, LERF) in the TS

- Required Configuration Restrictions in the TS

- Commitments for Configuration Risk Assessments

! Before Performing Maintenance Activities (as Required by the Maintenance Rule) Documented

in the TS Bases and NRC Staff Safety Evaluation OTHER ONGOING AND FUTURE ACTIVITIES

Proposed Data Rule (10 CFR 50.76) Issued for Public Comment on February 12,1996 (Plan Task 3.5)

NRC Inspection Program Risk Enhancements (Plan Task 1.3)

Event Assessment (Plan Task 1.5) f

Risk-Based Analysis of Operating Reactor l Experience (Plan Task 3.3) 1

NRC Staff Training (Plan Task 3.6)

High Level Waste Performance Assessment (Plan Task 5.1) l 47

REPORTING RELIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY DATA FOR RISK SIGNIFICANT EQUIPMENT

Proposed Rule: 650.76 lasued for Public Comment on February 12,1996

- Provide a Consolidated Source of Equipment Performance Data for Industry Wide Sharing of Reliability and Availability Experience and to Support PRA Applications

. Annual Summary Report of Quarterly Data for Risk Significant Systems

- Demands, Failures, Hours of Operation, Unavailability, Failure Information, and Concurrent Train Outages a Regulatory Guide, Workshop

Public Comment Period Ends June 12,1996 l

l l

l 48 l

l

Fedir:I Register / V 1. St. No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 1996 / Notices NRC's decision to great or deny a Subsequent to b $nalisation of this license for a proposed repository will be BW, the staff may elect to develop based on a combinetton of lect hnd guidance on the use of expert judgmen l judgment, as set forth by DOE in any in other areas of nuclear industry potentiallicense applicaties.De tegulation.

I subjective judgments ofinevidual Deted at Rockvilkygg m#

experts and,in sorne casa, p of of Februasy tees.

- Perts, willbe use to For the Nuclear lleguletory Commission-Avellshility of Draft Branch Technical interpret data obtal during site Position on the Use of Emport 4 ga,,g,g characterization and to addmes the Elicitation in the High LevelWeste many technicalissues and lakesent

^"'""*'d 8ad Ni8M'"I poogram "* 8"*'d**" 'l #* 8" vncertainties associated with predicting b priormance of a geologic repository seMNj,"Y we ***

ateNCY: Nuclear Regulatory Cammission. system for thousands of yeass. NRC has (FR Doc. m net Fibd 3-37% a es am) acTtose: Notice of Avellability. tradition lly accepted, for review, ampert lu gment to evaluate and m D y, susesAat:De Nuclear Regulatory interpret the factualbases oflicense Commission is announcing the applications. Judgment has been used to eveliability of the "DreR Branch complement and supplement other Technical Position (BW) on the Use of sources of scientific and technical Expert Elicitation in the High level information, such as data collection, Weste (HLW) Program." ,

analyses, and exprimentation.

34Tas:The comment periou empires The NRC staff has develo May 14,1996. technical positions that: (1) ped specinc Provsde abonteses: Send comments to general guidelines on those Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory circumstances that may warrant the use Commission, Washingon, D.C.,20555 of a formal process for obtelaiog the 8001. ATTENTION: pocketing and judgments of more than one expert (i.e.,

j Services Brencn. Hand deliver expert elicitation); and (2) describe '

comm:nts to 11545 Rockville Pike, accept.ble procedures for conducting Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738, e* Pert elicitation when formally elicited betwee3 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., on judgments are used to support a Federal workdays, demonstration of compliance with A copy of the draft BW is available SIRC's geologic disposal regulation, for public inspection and/or copying at currently set forth In to CFR Part 60.

the NRC Public Document Room 2120 , Current NRC policy is to encourage L Street (Lower level), NW., the un of probabilistic risk enessment Washington, DC 20555-0001. Copies of (PRA) state of b. art technology and the dreR BW may also be obtained by methods as a complement to the contacting Karen S. Vanderwort, Mall deterministic approach in nuclear

Cop Te7F3 U.S. Nuclear Reguletory regulatcry activities (60 FR 42622).

Commission. Telephone:(301) 415- Although routinely used in 7252. deterministic analysn bt do not i pon punTHER wonMafioN CONTACT: involve PRA (or performance assessments,in the case of weste Michael P. IAe, Performance . l management systems). expert judgment Assessment and High. Level Weste 1 can, and frequently does, provide Integration Branch, Division of Weste ,

information essentiel to the conduct of ,

Management. Office of Nuclear Material !

Sof;ty end Sereguards Nuclear Probabilistic assessments. Consistent with the Commission's policy, the NRC Regulattry Commission,11545 staff has developed this BW to identify Rockville Pike.MD 20852-2734 acceptable procedures for the use and Telephone:(301) 415-4677, formal elicitation of such judgments in suPPt.EuswtAny MORMATION:The U.S. the area of HLW, Department of Energy (DOE)is Although there are severalexamples conducting a program ofsite of the use of expert elicitation la a cherectorisation to gather enough nucint mgulatory context,se formal leformation, about the Yucca Mountain Agency guidance on this subject exists.

(Nevada) site, to be able to evaluate the Thus,la developing this BTP,b west > lsolation capabilities of a Division of Weste Management staff has potenti:1 geologic repository. Should drawn upon the prior exprience of the site be found suitable, DOE will other NRC program offices with the use apply is the NRC for permission to *I'* Pert judgment and has alled on construct and then oprete a proposed various Agency twource documents to geologic repository for the disposal of help formulate its position statements, apent zuclear fuel and other high level Consequently, the reader will and that sodioactive waste et Yucca Mountain. this BW is largely consistent with these As with other licensing decisions, other resource documents la substance.

49

i SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT APPLICATIONS OF PSA FOR PERFORMANCE & RISK-BASED REGULATION C. Rick Grantom Houston Lighting & Power Co.

Regulatory Information Conference Washington D.C.

April 9,1996 OVERVIEW e Capabilities of PSA as applied to risk-informed performance based programs l

l e Addressing PSA issues e Mechanisms for modifying regulatory commitments and requirements I e Comprehensive Risk Management Program at the South Texas Project l

l 50

CAPABILITIES OF PSA TO IMPLEMENT RISK-BASED AND PERFORMANCE BASED PROGRAMS

Improve decision-making

Optimize resources

Define mechanisms to enhance efficiencies

Focus commitments & requirements to improve safety and reliability ADDRESSING PSA ISSUES

Elements of PSA Quality

PSA Scope and Level of Detail

PSA Configuration Control methods

Frequency and scope of PSA updates

PSA Application processes and controls

Software Control 51

ADDRESSING PSA ISSUES e Blending Deterministic & Probabilistic Information e Incorporated into PSA models as applicable e Expert Panet Reviews e Address specific concerns directly with specific provisions, constraints, or compensatory measures ADDRESSING PSA ISSUES e Defining Defense-In-Depth e PSA incorporates system \ design dependencies e Characterizes accident chronology from initiator to prevention to mitigation to consequences e Allows new barriers to be identified to enhance defense-in<lepth e Identifies important human performance actions 52

. ,. - . . . ..I

ADDRESSING PSA ISSUES e UNCERTAINTY

Use of Sensitivity studies, incorporation of industry \ plant specific data e Understanding limitations, assumptions, cumulative effects e Must be considered in decision-making

PSA can identify areas of uncertainties which can be managed, eliminated, or avoided MECHANISMS FOR MODIFYING REGULATORY COMMITMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS

Pilot Programs (Graded QA) e Specific Submittals e Risk-Based Evaluation of Technical Specirations (IMPLEMENTED)

Special Test Exception for EDGs (NOW) e PSA Evaluation of Improved Technical Specifications (NOW)

Risk-Based IST\ISI, Appendix J (FUTURE) 53

y SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE RISK MANAGEMENT A process by which the risk to station personnel, the public's health and safety and station economics of station requirements, commitments, processes, activities, human and equipment performance are identified, evaluated and dispositioned.

The Comprehensive Risk Management Program is the mechanism for ensuring risk-informed performance-based decision-making.

PSA APPLICATIONS FOR COMPREHENSIVE RISK MANAGEMENT

Maintenance Rule Implementation

On-Line Maintenance

Risk-Based Evaluations of Testing Programs

Risk-Based Evaluation of Technical Specifications

Graded Quality Assurance

Accident Management 4

}

Y o

l 1

1996 NRC REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE APRIL 9.1996 l

DRY CASK STORAGE BREAKOUT SESSION l

55

DRV CARK STORAGE BREAKOUT SESSION

1. Inspection Piscedures and the SRP - Bill Travers, Director, Spent Fuel Project Ofree, NMSS

2. Project Management - Alan Nelson, Senior Project Manager, NEI

3. Utility Oversight Responsibilities - Jon Kapitz, ISFSI Project Manager, Northern States Power (Prairie Island) 4.10 CFR 50.59 and 72.48 evaluations - Jack Roe, Director, Division of Banetar Projects III/IV, NRR

5. Preoperational Testing and 10CFR72.82(e) Requiressents -

Tim Kobetz, NRC Region III, Point Beach Sessior Resident Inspector

6. Operational Issues - Gail Marcus, Director, Project Directorate III-3, NRR

7. Question and Answer Session - Panel 56

I STATUS OF NRC GUIDANCE FOR DRY CASK STORAGE SYSTEMS

Inspection procedures

Standard Review Plan for dry cask storage systems

Future guidance

Spent fuel storage workshop INSPECTION PROCEDURFR

Issued in February 1996 l I

e Cover 5 distinct areas:

> Design control of ISFSI components

(

I

Fabrication by outside fabricators

On-site fabrication & construction j

> Pre-operational testing

> Operations

Peer-reviewed and in use 57

l l

STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR DRY CARK STORAGE SYSTEMS e NUREG 1536 developed over 4 years e Assistance from LLNL and SAIC e Draft published for comment February 1996 e Comment period ends June 14,1996 e Revised SRP issuance late 1996 FUTURE GUIDANCE e Manual c'hanter 2690 e SRP for ISFSI sites e SRP for transportation package certification e SRP for spent fuel transportation packages I

58

1 SPENT FUEL STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP

NRC headquarters May 17,1996

The licensing process

NRC experience

> Regulations, including the Part 50/

Part 72 interface

> Licensing and inspection observations

> Change processes (50.59 & 72.48)

NEI and industry experience i 59

I PROJECT MANAGEMENT i

e Project Management and Coordinarian e Imsons Imrned e NEI Follow-Up Activities PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION e Start process early - anticipate delays and intervention e Assure multi-disciplinary input and participation e Develop an integrated schedule e Establish and maintain open communication with regulators e Build a strong relationship between the plant and the j local community e Develop detailed procurement contracts

> Thoroughly review cask design basis t

> Assure completeness of vendor analyses l

60

UTII.ITY OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES e Dry Cask Design / Fabrication

Spent fuel storage casks are LOW tech, but HIGH quality items

Casks are designed to meet 10 CFR Part 72 (some new designs Pt 71 also)

> ASME Section III used to the maximum practical extent

> Because of the partial use of Section III, a thorough understanding of the design basis, as described in the SAR is required NEI FOLLOWUP ACTIVITIES e Continue communications with NRC staff to define and resolve generic regulatory issues e Coordinate industry responses to draft Dry Cask Storage Standard Review Plan e Utilize NEI Dry Cask Storage Issue Task Force to study and support resolution of gemric regulatory issues

e Support communicating dry cask storage information i and lessons learned I f 61 l

UTTI3TY OVERSIGHT RERPONRIBIIJTIES e Past Fabrication Difficulties

> Recent NRC (and utility) QA audits have consistently found problems in fabricator QA programs

Most common problem areas - document control, QA records, and control of purchased material, equipment and services

> Many fabricators are small shops, with little orno recent nuclear fabrication e Utility Oversight of Fabrication

> Need to clearly define access rights and responsibilities in contracts

Maintain strong presence at fabricator, even if vendor responsible for fabrication

> Review all material and process qualifications and manufacturing plans PRIOR to starting

Lack of fabrication experience at many vendors means utilities must be prepared to support issue resolution

Reconcile ALL changes against SAR and license l

l 62

l l

i UTIllTY OVERSIGHT RFRPONRIRIIJTIFR e Examples of Cask / Material Testing Required

Materials

! Chemical Charpy Impact Drop weight eneqgy Ultrasonic Tensile Liquid Pendrant Radiograph Magnetic Particle

> Weld Material j Chemical Charpy Impact Tensile Dmp weight energy I

> Weld Process Quali6 cation !

Tensile Charpy Impact Radiography Dmp weight energy l

e Testing Issues that Surfaced

> Hydrostatic Test Pressure

> Vessel minimum wall thickness after grinding

Trunnion load testing requirements

> Minimum Post Wtld Heat Treatment time for quali6 cation

Weld preheat requirements 63 l

u _

l UTIllTY OVERSIGHT RF.RPONRIRII.ITIES !

l e Conclusions l

> Utility has to independently assure proper fabrication quality

Major impacts of questionable quality

Minimum - extensive engineering evaluations

Maximum - unusable casks, possible loss of generating capacity

> Constant, detailed vendor oversight necessary at all levels l

10 CFR 50.59 AND 72.48 EVALUATIONS e Regulatory requirements l

6 50.59 lists tests for changes requiring NRC approval

Unreviewed safety question

Changes to technical specifications

> For Part 72, 6 72.48 is similar

Unreviewed safety question

Changes to license conditions

Significant increase in occupational exposure or significant unreviewed environmental impact 64

i l

l PREOPERATIONAL TESTING AND 10 CFR 72 R2(e) RFPORTING RFi)UTREMFNTS e Objectives of Preoperational Testing i

l e Scope of Preoperational Testing e 10 CFR 72.82(e) Reporting Requirements e Objectives of Pmoperational Testing

Demonstrate the functionality of all equipment

Test and refine procedures

Train personnel i

I l

i 65

PREOPERATIONAL TESTING AND 10 CFR 72.82(e) REPORTING REOUIREMENTS e Scope of Preoperational Testing i

> Ensure all required critical activities, as designated by the licensing basis documents, are performed f

Applies to both loading and unloading of a cask

Activities may be performed out of sequence provided sufficient overlap between successive steps to j

demonstrate procedure continuity.

l

> Inspection guidance is provided by NRC Inspection Procedure 60854, "Preoperational Testing of an ISFSI" e 10 CFR 72.82(e) Reporting Requirunents

Current NRC position and background

> Requests for exemption to the current requirements

Proposed changes and future rhaking l

66

OPERATIONAL ISSUES o Handling Casks 4

1

> Regulatory requirements l

NUREG4612 - control of heavy loads, defense in l depth l

Generic IAtter 85 removed some requested actions

Experience to date

Existing analyses in FSARs vary among plants

I 50.59 requires evaluation versus FSAR

If activity is not previously analyzed, an amendment is required (Oyster Creek, ANO) l

Heavy loads technical specifications may also require amendment e La= ding and Unloading Procedures

Regulatory requirements

i 72.150, procedures required for activities affecting quality

Specific requirements in license or certirmate 67

OPERATIONAL ISSUILS

Experience to date

Procedures for cask loading

Immediate uSe

= Thoroughly tested in dry runs

Procedures for cask unloading

= Retrievability requirements

= Perception of no irnmediate use

= Consideration of failed fuel

= Cask reflood issues

Staff nyiews

= Procedures at aristing facilities

= Procedures at new facilities I

68

- 1

1996 E= ':^.;,,i nformation i Conference improved Technical Specification Conversion l i

Associate Director for Projects 69

l i

l Technical Specification l i

l Improvement Program f

e Regulatory improvement objectives l e Conversion experience and lessons e License amendment process improvements i

e Licensee perspectives and comments i Criteria for LCO Content L

i 10 CFR 50.36 60 FR 36953 l

l

1 Reactor coolant pressure boundary instrumentation l

1

2 Process variables for design basis transients and accidents

3 Primary success path structures, system, and components

4 Safety significant from operating experience or probabiustic assessments e Aesctor Core Isoleten Cochng or isowton Consenser e haseduce Heat hemoval e stensoy Lagued control e meent,uestion Pump Try l

l Improved Standard Technical Specifications (STS) e Simplifies technical specifications (reduces LCOs = 40%)

e Achieves substantial consistency in requirements e Presents requirements in operator-friendly format

Enhances bases: links requirements to safety analyses e Clarifies long-standing technical specification issues e Operability e Surveillance practices e Allowed outage times (completion times) 70

STS Conversions e 16 units completed by April 1996 e 66 additional units underway or planned

Conversion reviews depend on STS change process

)

l

changes coordinated with NEl Technical Specifications Task Force l

i Conversion Lessons

Operators & inspectors satisfied with new TS

Less effort and fewer questions

Some relocated requirements lost

QA requirements addressed by AL 95-06

Conversions complicated by "beyond scope

changes !

l e Missed opportunities and mistakes

Recognize gaps in the design basis

Pilot TS program for PRA implementation Plan i

e implementation plans need to be carefully coordinated l Process improvements e WNP-2 conversion pilot for conversion process

Team review concept

Standardize evaluation results

Use electronic ' DOC' information

NEl Conversion Guidanco issued for comment

Enhance amendment content

Build on industry experience e NRR Office Letter 803 revised 2/27/96

Additional procedures being developed for STS changes and Conversion review process e Licensee guidance and communication for all amendments

Voluntary use of standard amendment cover sheet

- Identify precedents

- Index to STS and SRP

- Provide relative priority of submittals

Develop protocols for exchanging STS now and other documents later (Electronic information Exchange effort) 71

IMPROVED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CONVERSION Donald R. Woodlan TU Electric Joint Licensin.g Subconmittee Apri1 9.1996 Standard Tech Specs (STS)

= Issued by NRC in 1992 (Rev.1 issued April 1995)

-Impmvedformat andexpanded Bases

-Reduced operating requirements

- Updates /conections as part of an ongoing process via vanous owners groups

= Advantages

-Increased standardization

- Reduced potential for unit shutdowns

- Fewer Licensee Event Reports, License Amendment Requests, and requests for enforcement discretion

- Generally decreased costs forlicensees and NRC ram 72

i CPSES Conversion Project

= CPSES Task Force to evaluate conversion

-recommended conversion to STS (12)94)

- Conversion cost $1.3 to 2M

-Savings $1.8 to 3Mperyear o Conversion Project

-Initial schedsde included a submittel by 1296

- May 1995 - submittal reacheduled flor 496

- Markup of existing TS complete, technicalrenews underway andjustifications being droited

- October 1995, joined the Joint Licensing Subcommittee Joint Licensing Subcommittee

= Joint Licensing Subcommittee formed

- TU Electric (chairman), Paci6c Gas and Electnc, Union Electric, and Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.

~ All 2-train, 4-Ioop Westinghouse plants in NRC Region IV with only one nuclear station per utility

= AII had completed some line item improvements, some relocations and several utilities had started to convert their TS

=

73

p....

Initial Activity

= Meeting with NRR 11/1485 to present Joint Conversion Plan and understandings

= Each utility submitted a commitment letter to the NRC

= 12/1425 Working levelmeeting with the NRC Understandings With NRC

= Requests for Enforcement Discretion to be reviewed based on ment

= Otherpriority LARs to be reviewed in timely manner

= Existing Licensing basis will be maintained

= One docket will not adversely affect the others

= New shutdown surveillances need not be performed until outage following implementation.

m 74

i i

! Joint Conversion Project i

= Conversion Process

- Each utility has the lead in developing initial draft of assignedportions of the subenittal

.loint review rneetings

-Individual reviews by plant safety corntnittees

= Parallel submittals in' December 1996 with l similarities and differences identi5ed t

= Pursuin how to make electr6nic submittal, especia the markups and the improved TS l

I l

l l

l Overall Process

= Tech Specs divided into six packages

= The development of the packages is staggered i

= The lead plant for each package was decided upon ,

based on available resources, expertise, and \

leveling the workload

= Using electronic markups (strikeout and redline) as much as possible

==

75

Package Processing

= Lead plant prepares conversoon package and submits to otherplants

= IntemalReviews by each plant

= Joint Licensing Subcommittee meeting

= Comment resolution

= Review and approval by each utility (evaluating techniques to do someJoint safety committee reviewing)

Package Content

= TMs e Marku ofknprondSTS

= Markup of knprond STS Bases

= Descnpbon of changes to mt TS = Description of dnerences

= Table -

= NSHC determinabon for =M T&-

W* knprond TS senes 76

I l r

1 \

l Joint Licensing Subcommittee Goals

= Reduce conversion costs

= Increase similarity of '[S among participating units

= Improve the conversion product through working together

= Enhance inter-utility communications Conversion Goals

= Incorporate allreasonable changes into the conversion that will not delay NRC review

= Use the owner's group travelerprocess for generic changes

= Provide quality descriptions, NSHC evaluations andjusti5 cations to simplify the review.

Provide groundwork for futures: n ' t licensing actions y=

l 77

Conversion implementation

= NRR approval 427-6/97

= Plant specific implementation schedule based on unit outage schedules

= Share implementation costs where possible

- Training costs

-Procedure review / revision costs

= Additionaljoint licensing projects (e.g. LARs) l.

l Summary

= Four utilities working together

= Four separate but parallel submittals

= Comparison Tables to identify differences 1 = A prototype forhow these utilities can work togetherin the future u.m 78

Converting to the Improved Technical Specifications l

M. L. Bowling l Manager, Nuclear Licensing & Operations support NRC Regulatory information Conference April 9,1996 Virginia Power Perspective e Virginia Power initiated its conversion project in January 1996 I e The company plans to convert both Surry and North Anna by August 1998 e The " cost" for conversion is estimated at

~$3.5 M e Virginia Power expects the conversion to add economic value to its Nuclear business unit Vrgwwa Power i i

79

Overview e This presentation serves as a transition guide...

n From a management decision to convert

> ...To implementation of a conversion project e The various topics discussed in the following slides form the nucleus of an integrated project plan Management Considerations musumummuneser --- - - ----- - - ---- . .- - - - -

e The improved technical specifications' focus on safety e The performance of the nuclear units e The license renewal option e The changing regulatory environment e The costs and benefits of conversion l

l Vrpne Power 1

$U

\

e Objectives e Strategy e Responsibilities e Deliverables e Process e Project Controls e Coordination e Schedules Project Objectives e Enhance nuclear safety and operator utilization of l the Technical Specifications '

e Convert on schedule and within budget e Realize the benefits in a reasonable time frame o Experience no adverse impact on plant operations m%

l 81

Project Strategy

.-- ---__--_-=--- _- ---..

e Minimize deviations from NRC approved standard e Use a project team ,

e Use in-house resources Project Responsibilities e Assemble a project team with key personnel from operations, engineering, and licensing o Augment the team with personnel from training and procedures e involve key support organizations early Training n Procedures Engineering Vrpna Power 82

Project Deliverables e Criteria Application Report n Application of the four criteria in 10CFR50.36 e Markup of current TS e Markup of applicable NUREG standard TS e Improved TS and Bases e Discussion of proposed changes. The discussions can be combined into four categories:

More restrictive technical changes n Less restrictive technical changes Administrative changes

> Relocated requirements e Justifications for all deviations (either plant-specific or generic) from the NUREG standard TS e No Significant Hazards Consideration Analyses n Grouping possible, but provide individual analyses for less restrictive requirements e Programmatic controls for relocated requirements n Where and how controlled e Other TS changes incorporated into conversion e References l

e Open items list 1

Vaginia Power 83

\

Project Process e Perform draft mark-up of entire document early to identify potentialproblem areas e Prepare and process individual change packages e Augment review and approval of individual changes with an integrated review of the entire conversion package e Utilize existing change processes where possible o Coordinate the impact of converting with onsite and offsite safety committees, and other major activities (e.g., refueling outages, license renewal) e Determine the extent to which existing TS bases may require further review e Coordinate implementation schedules with refueling outages and operator training cycles Project Controls e Utilize automation wherever feasible in:

> The preparation of project deliverables

> Managing the review and approval workflow e Establish a relatio'.i database to i..spture and manage key inforr tatloa. For e.v:a given current TS LCO, be able to reete it w.

> its ITs LCO, the screene? results, its relocation status and location, a justification for arii deviation frorn the standard, the type of change, the applicable survedance procedure, training and procedure information e Establish a project action tracking system Vrgewa Power 84

Project Coordination o Otherlicense amendment requests e NRC line item improvements e Generic changes to improved standard TS e TSinterpretatio5s e UFSAR l e Design changes Non-Conversion TS Changes l

e Establish criteria for TS changes to be processed independent of the ITS conversion. Proceed if:

n Significant cost savings n Potential compliance issue n Potential operating or refueling constraint Significant techni,calissue o Establish a goal to minimize the number of proposed license amendments submitted to the NRC at the time the conversion submittal is docketed v,, %r 85

Project Schedules e Development Phase a From project initiation to NRC approval e implementation Phase n From pre-determined point in development phase to full reliance on improved TS Development Phase e Assemble project team o Draft project plan e Apply TS criteria to LCOs e Perform draft mark-up e Convert Chapters 1,2,4, and 5 e Convert Chapter 3 o Perform an integrated review e Submi.to the NRC w=%

o l

l l

l t

86

Implementation Phase e Conduct training and procedure impact reviews e Develop implementation plan e Develop new programs e Draft procedure changes e Draftlesson plans e Conduct operator training e Conduct other training Project Schedule lask h CW Dettkp Prosed Phn himsh I hensh2 Apply TS Osiens bissh 2 htsst 4 Martag CTSandIST5 heath 3 htsch 4 Mjun grxrnaes's&s& des hkmsh 4 hanah 4 Comet Ospears !A4,sul5 htruh 4 htsah 7 Asmuss paonsrusinvect htssh 5 htmah 9 Asums trainmginpce hinsh 5 htsch 9 Comet Ouper 3 htzah 6 hkssh 11 Devekip pucedures htun9 beath 20 Ccrains sammg harsh 9 Mush 20 Perform usegnsed rewsw hirsh 10 hessh 13 Sup9 art MIC&sppewa! hteth l0 hessh20 Prepus Mtc s&nstal hksuh 13 M 14 Mtcas9rwal - hensh 20 Vrgna Power l

(

87

Vogtle Electric .

4 Generating Plant improved Technical Specifications NRC Regulatory Information Conference Washington,DC April 9,1996 Presented by: Lewis A. Ward Southern Nuclear / Georgia Power Plant Status for ITS

= Hatch

- Fully implemented 1995 Farley

- Planned submittal 1997

= Vogtle

- Lead 4-loop Westinghouse plant

- Submittal to NRC 5/1/1995

- Awaiting issuance

- Planned implementation mid-1996 i

88

l Conversion Process

= Review Process

-Use dedicated group

= Generic Changes to ITS

- Avoid rewrite of ITS

= Maintaining Current Licensing Basis

-Must have good technical basis

-Be prepared to defend CLB

= Adopting ITS Less-Restrictive Regts

- Must provide detailed evaluations

-Justify using relaxed generic requirements

= Changes beyond Scope of Simple Conversion

-Our Temptation

-Timing

- NRC Temptation

= Conversion Software

= The NRC Review:

-Initial contractor review

-Technical Branch reviews

- Status

= implementation 89

Lessons Learned

= Dedicated corporate / site team - very valuable

= Participation in WOG Mini-Group

-important Defend Current Licensing Basis, but standardize when it makes sense

= Avoid wordsmithing

= Realize that the " rules" will change j 90

p ie ai i OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATION CHANGES 91

INITIAL OPERATOR LICENSING PROGRAM CHANGES

- Objectives -

o improve Efficiency o Shift More Responsibility to Facility Ucensees o Eliminate Reliance on NRC Contractors o Remain Consistent with Atomic Energy Act and Existing Rules o No Chan e to the Format, Content, and Level ;

of Diffic o Revise NUREG-1021 Based on Pilot Results o Full implementation in FY '97 INITIAL OPERATOR LICENSING PROGRAM CHANGES

- Summary -

o Facility Ucensees Will Prepare Examinations in Accordance With NUREG-1021 o The NRC Will-

Review and Approve' Examinations Before Administration

Administer Operating Tests

Review Facility Grading of Written Examinations

Make Ucensing Decisions and issue Ucenses PILOT EXAMINATION PROGRAM o 22 Examinations Conducted Between 10/1/95 and 4/5/96 o 62 ROs and 98 SROs Tested o Results 92

PILOT PROGRAM FEEDBACK o Generally Favorable o Leaming Curve Steeper Then Expected o Some Examinations Required Significant Rework to Bringt Them up to NRC Standards o More Effort Than industry or NRC Expected o Appears to be as Effective as the Traditional Method 4

PLANNING MILESTONES o Spring 1996 Resume Traditional Examination Method

Seek CRGR and Commission Approval of the Revised Process Publish NUREG-1021 Revision o Summer 1996

Continue Traditional Examinations

Conduct industry Workshop on New Process o Fully implement Program Six Months After NUREG issued 93 W'

4 l

FUTURE CHALLENGES o The Loss of NRC Contractor Resources Will Likely Complicate Examination Scheduling i l

o NRC Resource Limitations May Cause Examinations to be Delayed or Cancelled if Facility Drafts are Not Acceptable o The NRC Expects the Technical Quality of Examinations to be High and the Number of Post-Examination Changes to be Low o Diligent Examination Security o The Informal Appeal Process Must Remain Responsive to Denial Review Requests i

l 1

94

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR PANEL ISSUES

1. Inspection Program: Performance based changes (Region III)

2. Enforcement Policy: Experience to Date (Region II)

3. Plant Performance Review Process (Region I)

4. Self Assessment (Region IV) 95 l

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REACTOR INSPECTION PROGRAM PERFORMANCE-BASED CHANGES l

t Hubert J. Miller Regional Administrator l

l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 96

We try to practice what we preach and you certainly know NRC preaches a lot to licensees about the necessity of self-assessment. I want to talk this morning about what we have learned over the past couple of years from self-assessments we have performed of our inspection programs. This includes a fairly exhaustive review we conducted in Region III following come significant plant events that occurred several years ago.

These events revealed broad, underlying licensee performance problems which had not been fully developed and brought to light through our inspection program. The other Regions and NRR, working with the Regions, have been doing similar assessments. I will talk about both what we have been doing to improve our efforts in Region III and what we have learned more broadly as an agency about what it takes to effectively assess licensee safety performance.

The NRC inspection program -- our oversight of reactor operations

-- has several, related objectives. We are, of course, concerned with compliance. We need to determine whether requirements and commitments contained in regulations, licenses and related licensing documents are being met. However, the more proactive and challenging oojective is ensuring potential and actual safety issues are identified and effectively resolved before they reveal themselves as significant plant events, safety problems or rcgulatory issues. Clearly, safety is best served if performance problems caught and surfaced early, when there is still time to do something.about them.

So, the question for our self-assessment became: with limited resources, what's the most effective way to not just assess compliance, but to surface performance problems at an early atage?

The central conclusion of our assessments is that meeting these proactive objectives requires continuous. intecrated assessment of licensee performance. I know this sounds simple and obvious.

But following through on this theme of continuous, integrated ecsessment business.

has some significant ramifications for the way we do M nagement in all Regions is conducting periodic plant parformance reviews where objective performance data on all plants are assessed -- we call this the Plant Performance Review (PPR) process. In Region III, we have gone to a " site focus group" concept as one way of making integrated assessment of licensee performance a more continuous thing.

{

97

Before talking about these initiatives, I should point out that our findings-don't change a number of fundamental inspection program elements. For example, the basic idea of focussing inspection efforts where plant performance and risk perspectives dictate is fundamentally sound. The " core" inspection program concept -- which helps ensure a consistent, minimum level of Our inspection across all plants and regions -- is also sound.

findings reinforce the value of the SALP process which assures a periodic integration -- summing up, if you will -- of the many insights and perspectives on licensee performance that-are developed in our various inspection and licensing related activities.

It became clear from our assessment, however, that it is not enough to worry about integrating the " pieces" only every 18 months or so at SALP time. It is essential that this be done on an ongoing-basis. For some time, all regions, in concert with NRR, have reviewed performance of each licensee on a semi-annual basis. This process, which has normally been timed to support Senior Management Meeting deliberations, is the PPR process I just talked about. Our self-assessments have reinforced the need for the PPRs where senior managers and staff review performance of each plant and make decisions about direction of the inspection programs.

Taking the best practices of each region, NRR and the regions have developed a structure for the PPR process to assure appropriate consistency and focus on objective performance data.

This structure and'the roles of various managers and staff --

i.e., branch chiefs, resident inspectors, project managers, division directors, and so on -- have been spelled out in recent guidance issued by NRR to the regions which captures lessons learned from our assessments.

One feature that may be of particular interest to you is development of an integrated list of performance issues and data.

We collect in one document objective data on equipment and material condition, human performance (e.g., personnel errors),

significant inspection findings and events. In compiling the list, we specifically take note of where problems are being identified by the licensees themselves to give full credit for

-self-assessment efforts.

While these reviews are quite intensive - .it takes three days to review status of the 18 plants in Region III, for example -- they We are still limited. They are performed only every 6 months.

found-there was much we needed to do in the inspection program itself to better and more continuously integrate the pieces.

98

l l

Our self-assessment told us we were finding a lot of issues and individual non-compliances and weaknesses. But the fragmented nature of-the inspection program made it difficult to connect like findings being made in separate inspections. We had the classic problem of finding problems that, in isolation, did not seem like much but when combined revealed a broad pattern of problems or weakness that warranted licensee management i attention.

Resident inspectors provide, of course, a strong element of continuity in the inspection program but their activities constitute only about half of the overall inspection effort at a typical plant. We found that, without continuing effort, integrating activities of numerous region-based inspections and headquarters personnel is difficult at best. Integrating the broad areas of engineering and plant support -- encompassing such diverse activities and disciplines as ISI, IST, MOVs, electrical / mechanical design, technical support to maintenance, fire protection, equipment qualification, radiological protection, and so on -- has been a particular challenge.

Beyond inspection activities themselves, we found that communicating a coherent message to licensees on overall performance in an area like engineering or maintenance through the numerous, independent inspection reports was also difficult.

In response to these findings, about two years ago, Region III initiated a trial program involving creation of a dedicated " site focus group" for a few of our weaker performing plants in the Region. The concept is like a continuous, team inspection where the group membership is fixed, but not all members of the group are oncite inspecting at the same time. Resource expenditure is not greater than it would otherwise be with multiple, independent inspection. Much greater continuity in the engineering area is provided by assignment of lead engineers to one or just a few licensees. This has obvious benefits 'f one considers the alternative, which is to have inspectors visiting as many as a dozen or more plants in a year, often for only a week at a time.

The lead engineer concept affords the inspector the opportunity to fully understand plant desism, risk profiles and licensee processes. There is not the high "startup" cost that is incurred in the inspector coming new to the site for a short inspection. 3' Lead engineers have the ability to thoroughly follow up on issues which, as we all know, often take some time to unfold in the engineering area.

99 i

i

Positive results in the trial program have subsequently led us to create site focus groups for all the plants in Region III. In conducting group activities, synergisms in group activities yield greater insight and perspective on licensee performance.

Connections between maintenance work control and planning and radworker practices are more easily made, for example. When an equipment problem is identified, we are now in a better position to pursue why it occurred by factoring in an understanding of engineering involvement, an appreciation for the previous performance of the equipment, and so on. If a problem with procedure compliance or quality is observed, we can now determine more readily whether it is an isolated problem or cuts across various licensee organizations.

A typical focus group includes the resident inspectors, two to six region-based inspectors (fewer for better performing plants) and the NRR Licensing Project Manager. Some region-based inspectors serve on more than one focus group, but each group has individuals who have lead responsibility for various functional

! areas as I explained in the case of the lead engineer. The group l leader is usually the SRI but ongoing oversight is provided by l Regional branch chiefs and division directors.

The focus groups are assigned lead responsibility to conduct the overall integrated inspection program at their assigned facility.

1 They have regular group meetings or discussions, including a 1 meeting in preparation for the integrated " exit." They perform integrated inspection activities and produce integrated inspection reports. These typically address six-week inspection periods.

A risk-informed perspective is being factored into all of the above. We are actively conducting inspection-based training about plant specific PRA insights, in order that our inspection choices be " risk informed." Factoring risk perspectives, as they are provided through licensee IPEs, into our inspection activities has been a priority for some time. We find that assignment of inspectors to specific plants through-site-focus groups fosters this.

Having e.id all of this, we recognize there are potential pitfall / in going to the " site focus group" concept. " Group think" 2ay develop, in which the independence and diversity of individual members is subordinated to one dominant member or viewpoi;n. Also, it is very important that, in being proactive, we avoid b2ing inappropriately intrusive. We must avoid steering the licensee's ship or distorting licensee priorities.

l 100 l

We do a number of things to avoid the pitfalls. Our frequent senior management reviews (e.g., PPR review) and management site visits provide an independent check on focus-group assessments.

We have emphasized " ben;hmarking" by inspectors; that is, for example, visits by resident inspectors to other plants to broaden their perspective. A strong Division of Reactor Safety (DRS) has been retained and provides independent views and insights from outside the focus group. Focus-groups are made up of members from different Divisions and NRR which, with no stipulated hierarchy within the groups, leads to a strong dialectic in team discussions. We have intensified our staff training and development efforts. For example, lessons learned in our self-assessments and manageT.ent expectations have been central themes in our recent inspector seminars.

I should mention at this point the Independent Plant Assessment Process (IPAP) which is undergoing a trial period. This is an activity conducted by a team of experienced inspectors who are completely independent of the plant which is being assessed. I will not review the IPAP methodolog) ure as it is the subject of another full session in this conten t6. However, I will say that, where it is performed, it will +c~1de another strong check of our assessments.

We are continuing to evaluate the effectiveness of our approaches. We have some indications that we have been successful in raising performance issues to licensee management before they become highly significant. We have received some good feedback from licensees where we have gone to the site-focus group approach. But there is still a bit of uncertainty, frankly, about how well we will be able to implement the site-focus group concept at all plants in the Region given resource constraints. I am confident, however, that the steps being taken across the entire inspection program through the PPRs and structured approach to objective performance data evaluation will assure a more timely and consistent assessment of licensee performance.

As I said at the beginning, all of the Recians continue to assess their program efforts. I have focused a let on the specific approaches Region III is taking. The other Regions are likewise evaluating methods suitable to their situations. In all cases, however, the basic goal is the same: early identification of problems through continuous, integrated assessment of licensee performance.

Thank you for your attention.

101

I Remarks by L. Joseph Callan, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Comission, RIV before the NRC Regulatory Information Conference Washington, D.C.

April 9-10, 1996 Recognition of Licensee Self-Assessments By the NRC The purpose of my presentation is to discuss the various ways that licensee self-assessment programs are, and can be, recognized by the NRC. I will do this in three parts. First, I will describe current NRC policy regarding how self-assessments are incorporated into the routine NRC inspection program. This is an area that is fairly well structured by prescriptive guidance to the NRC staff. Second, I will discuss how self-assessments can influence NRC decisions regarding the need for, or the timing of, reactive inspections, such as the types of inspections that would follow up plant events or, in some cases, allegations. This is an area that is not as structurci. Finally, I will discuss how demonstrated self-assessment capability influences overall NRC assessment of licensee performance.

Behind the NRC's policy regarding integration of licensee self-assessment programs with the NRC inspection program is the NRC's belief that recognition of licensee good performance in the implementation of self-assessments is one method of achieving the dual goals of minimizing regulatory impact and more effectively utilizing NRC resources. This belief was spelled out in NRC Administrative Letter 94-03, dated March 17, 1994, issued to all nuclear power reactor licensees. This same administrative letter also enclosed a copy of NRC Inspection Procedure 40501 which implements the policy.

This inspection procedure initially was focused narrowly on self-assessments related to so-called " area-of-emphasis" team inspections such as the Service Water System Operational Performance Inspection (SWSOPI). But in 1995, the inspection procedure scope was broadened to include all scheduled team inspections. This inspection procedure lays out in detail under what conditions and to what extent a licensee self-assessment can be an alternative to an NRC team inspection.

The basic concept is to use a licensee self-assessment as a basis to warrant a reduced scope NRC inspection if certain screening criteria are met.

In order for the process to work, the NRC must provide ample advance notice of scheduled team inspections. Our current practice is to provide licensees with a six-month look-ahead schedule. The licensee, then, must submit its self-assessment proposal 90 days in advance. The NRC staff will review the 102

I proposal and consider attributes such as the scope and depth of the proposed I self-assessment, the qualifications of the team members, and the licensee's previously demonstrated self-assessment capability. Licensees recognized by NRC senior management for superior performance are considered automatic candidates.

l If the licensee's proposal is. accepted, the NRC will perform a reduced-scope inspection that consists of two parts: (I) in-process monitoring at about the 50 percent point of the self-assessment, and (2) a final inspection after the self-assessment report is issued. The NRC goal is for the reduced-scope inspections to be about 25 percent of the effort for a full-scope inspection. In practice, the NRC has expended closer to 40-50 percent of the resources needed for a full-scope inspection. The NRC recognizes that licensee resource savings in this process may be negligible; however, the NRC has concluded that self-assessments are beneficial because of enhanced licensee ownarship of findings and corrective action schedules.

The more traditional way that self-assessment activities are integrated l into the NRC inspection program is that they are inspected directly by NRC l inspectors. Inspection Procedure 40500, entitled, " Effectiveness of Licensee f Controls in Identifying, Resolving, and Preventing Problems," evaluates directly licensee self-assessments programs, corrective action programs, safety review comittee activities, etc. This inspection is part of the so-called " core inspection program" which means it is implemented at all sites. j But it would, of course, be misleading to imply that the NRC relies only on a specific inspection to provide insight on the effectiveness of a licensee's corrective action program. In effect, the NRC is in the business now of continuously assessing licensee self-assessment performance. The NRC regional l staff, in particular, uses its interactions with a licensee as an opportunity to update its perspective on how capable that licensee is in identifying and correcting its own problems.

l The second way that effective self-assessment programs can be recognized l

is in the NRC's decision-making process regarding the need for reactive l inspections. After a licensee event of either safety or regulatory i significance, the affected NRC region typically considers the need for a I special or reactive inspection. The spectrum of NRC responses goes from

! redirecting the resident inspector to look into the issue, to dispatching

! region-based inspectors, to a special team inspection, to an AIT, and, in the extreme case, to an NRC headquarter's-run IIT. For most events for which the NRC response would be less than an AIT, a licensee's proposed self-assessment (or investigation) response would normally be a factor to be considered by NRC management when determining the timing and the extent to its own response.

For many events, the NRC would consider a delayed and reduced effort response i if it were apparent that the licensee had in place a credible self-assessment l

followup. Even for some events involving an AIT response by the NRC, certain accommodations can be made that would recognize self-assessment actions underway by the licensee.

103 l

L

Similarly, NRC decision-making regarding the appropriate followup to a large percentage of allegations takes into account a licensee's demonstrated capability to perform self-assessments. If the NRC has confidence in the j licensee's ability in this area, then consideration would be given to referring certain allegations to the licensee for followup.

The third and final way good performance in self-assessments is recognized by the NRC is through reducing the NRC's overall inspection effort at facilities where the NRC has high confidence that the licensee will identify and correct any decline in performance without NRC involvement. This recognition of good self-assessment performance is largely done through the SALP process. Although the SALP process involves mainly a retrospective assessment of licensee performance, there is also a strong predictive dimension as well. Because significant inspection resource reductions are made based on positive SALP conclusions, the NRC necessarily has to have reasonable confidence of continued good performance for as much as 24 months into the future. That confidence comes in large part from demonstrated licensee excellence in performing self-assessments, that is, the NRC must have confidence that the licenseewill identify and correct declining performance trends promptly. In my view, excellence in performing self-assessments is arguably the single most important attribute in distinguishing good licensee performance from truly superior performance.

l 1

104

_ .. - J

,,,..="a...,,

e UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGut.ATORY Cf'%isisimN

%, * . . * /

m s. -

RECOGNITION OF LICENSEE SELF-ASSESSMENTS BY THE NRC L. JOSEPH CALLAN USNRC (817)S604225 105

I OVERVIEW

,e SELF-ASSESSMENTS ALLOW REDUCED SCOPE NRC TEAM INSPECTIONS e POST-EVENT SELF-ASSESSMENTS (INVESTIGATIONS)

ALLOW DELAYED AND/OR REDUCED SCOPE NRC REACTIVE FOLLOWUP INSPECTIONS e EFFECTIVE SELF-ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS ALLOW REDUCED OVERALL NRC INSPECTION EFFORT REDUCED SCOPE NRC TEAM INSPECTIONS e LICENSEE SELF-ASSESSMENTS ALLOW REDUCED SCOPE NRC TEAM INSPECTIONS (INSPECTION PROCEDURE 40501) e SELF-ASSESSMENT ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERS PRIOR

MAJOR INSPECTIONS, PLANT PERFORMANCE REVIEWS AND SALP RATINGS e NRC GOAL OF PROVIDING ADVANCE NOTICE OF TEAM INSPECTIONS TO ALLOW 90-DAY LEAD TIME FOR SELF-ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL 106

NRC EVALUATION OF LICENSEE SELF-ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL o' LICENSEE CAPABILITY TO MANAGE SELF-ASSESSMENT e TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT e SCOPE AND OEPTH OF SELF-ASSESSMENT RELATIVE TO NRC INSPECTION NRC IN-PROCESS MONITORING OF SELF-ASSESSMENT e PERFORMED WHEN SELF-ASSESSMENT ABOUT 50 PERCENT COMPLETE e CONSIDER INCREASED OR DECREASED EFFORT FOR NRC INSPECTION

NRC EVALUATES:

- SCOPE / DEPTH

- TEAM OBJECTIVITY / INDEPENDENCE

- PROCESSING OF OPERABILITY ISSUES

- CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS 107

NRC FINAL INSPECTION

PERFORMED WHEN LICENSEE HAS ISSUED FINAL SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT e REVIEW AREAS ADDRESSED BY SELF-ASSESSMENT AND THOSE NOT ADDRESSED e REVIEW CORRECTIVE dCTIONS NRC RESOURCES l

e GOAL FOR NRC OVERSIGHT: 25 PERCENT OF NORMAL TEAM INSPECTION e REDUCED TEAM SIZE AND INSPECTION DURATION I e INITIAL OVERSIGHT INSPECTIONS EXCEEDED GOAL l

NRC PERSPECTIVE ON LICENSEE SELF-ASSESSMENTS e HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEAMS PROVIDED ADEQUATE SCOPE AND DEPTH e BENEFICIAL DUE TO LICENSEE OWNERSHIP OF FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS l

EVENT ASSESSMENT e EFFECTIVE LICENSEE EVENT ASSESSMENT CAN ALLOW REDUCED AND/OR DELAYED NRC EVENT RESPONSE I

e COMMUNICATION IS CRUCIAL BECAUSE NRC DECISIONS ON EVENT RESPONSE CAN OCCUR QUICKLY l

l ,

i 108 ,

I

l INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM Activities and Results l April 9,1996, Breakout Session l 3:45 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.

Frank P. Gillespie Director, Division of Inspection and Support Programs (DISP), NRR/NRC RECENT INSPECTION PROGRAM ACTIVITIES e . Implementation of the integrated Performance Assessment Process (IPAP) e increased Focus on Plant Performance Reviews (PPR) and Providing Ucensees with Published NRC Inspection Plans / Schedules e implementation of inspector Development Programs (Resident, Senior Resident, Senior Reactor Analyst) e improvement of NRC Inspection Reports - Revised Guidance (NRC IMC 0610) and Training o Development of New Inspection Guidance in Response to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) issues l

i 109

l lNTEGRATED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PROCESS Oteven-Independently assess licensee performance through an integrated review and performance-based site inspection.

Assess the effectiveness of regulatory programs, primarily the operating reactor inspection program.

Status 8 IPAP assessments have been performed since initial approval of the IPAP program (Catawba, San Onofre, Ft. Calhoun, Sequoyah, D.C. Cook, Seabrook, Surry, and Nine Mile Point). 10 additional IPAP assessments are scheduled for FY 1996.

Results IPAP assessments have identified licensee and NRC performance issues.

IPAP assessments are resource intensive (1200-2000 man-hours /IPAP assessment).

INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PROCESS Discuamaan Topics e Should IPAP inspections be Performed on a 'For Cause" Basis Rather Then the Current Practice of Performing IPAPs at Each Site Every Four Years?

e Should IPAP inspections be Billed Under 10 CFR Part 171 (Annual Fee)

Versus the Current Practice of Billing Them Under 10 CFR Part 170 (Direct)?

e Should More Credit be Given for Licensee Self-Assessments Relative to IPAP?

e Should All IPAP inspections be Led by Headquarters?

110

l l

PLANT PERFORMANCE REVIEWS Olgactives-Improve the quality, consistency, and efficiency of NRC's periodic (6 months) assessment of licensee performance. J Provide six month NRC inspection plans / schedules to licensees to allow for better communication and coordination.

Status-I Standardized PPR guidance was issued in February 1996 to provide a consistent framework for performing these reviews. The regions have adopted the practice of maintaining e historical listing of plant issues for each site.

INSPECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS Otyectives i

l Develop pools of qualified and trained inspectors to assume Resident (RI) ;

and Senior Resident (SRI) inspector positions. !

, l l Integrate risk insights into the inspection program through the development 1 of highly qualified and trained Senior Reactor Analysts (SRA). i Status-The first set of candidates are participating in training and developmental assignments.

Results.

Most candidates have completed extensive formal training related to their development programs. Program completion is expected later this year.

)

i l

1 l

111

l l

l

/

IMPROVEMENT OF NRC INSPECTION REPORTS l

Ohpctiva:

Improve clanty and consistency in inspection report content, format, and style.

status-NRC IMC 0610, ' inspection Reports," has been revised and issued for implementation. Regional and headquarters training for all reactor inspectors l and supervisors will be completed by May 1996.

l l Results-

[

l Regions are beginning to use the new guidance inspectors and supervisors have provid1xl positive feedback. Full implementation of the revised guidance is scheduled for June 1,1996.

i l

l l

UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORTS INSPECTION GUIDANCE Otyactive:

Verify that licensees are in compliance with their Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports (UFSAR).

Status-l Special UFSAR inspection activities were initiated in January 1996. The l results will be analyzed to determne additional agency actions.

l Inspection procedures for review of licensee engineering activities, and l

specifically 10 CFR 50.59 safety reviews, are being revised to increase focus on the design and licensing basis of the plant.

Beaulu inspections are in progress. Initial inspections have identified several differences between facility operations and UFSAR descriptions.

I12

NRC LICEhlSEE EVALUATION PROCESSES

New Management Directives to Provide Agency-Level Guidance

- Evaluation Process

- Senior Mancgement Meeting (SMM)

Evaluation Processes Will be Closely Coordinated

- Inspection Reports

- Plant Performance Reviews

- SALP

- SMM

[ & 5$7 4.~sALPNe:.W._=.

q/ sss - \*.__ =-

/ __ .nePosse.O Anotyeis (PI, ASP) 3 s

avents, uoenee. AmeMees, \;w lNo _.=

e;r :.2: insights, EnwWng M \

l13

ELECTRONIC INFORMATION EXCHANGE REGULATORY D&ORMATION COh7ERENCE APRIL 9,1996 Jack W. Roe, Director Division of Reactor Projects !!LW l15

i I

E12CTRONIC DGORMATION EXCHANE l 0 WELCOME TO THEINFORMA110N AGE o NRC INTERNAL DGT!AT!YES TO DEVELOP ELEC11 TONIC CAPABEJTIES AND PAPERIESS WORKPLACE

AGENCYWIDE DOCm0DTTS ACCESS AND MANAGEMENT 5Y31EM (ADAMS)

NRC INTERNAL HOME PAGE

LOCAL AREA NETWORES . DWORMATION AVAHARG TO STAFF

SGML P!1DT POR STANDARD 111CHNICAL SPECIPICA110N

DrTERACITVE RULEMAKING e EECTRONIC INPORMATION EXCHANGE PILDT W11E UCENSEES o NULMA EIE TASK PORG REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR U111JTY E2CTRONIC EXCHANGE WTIE NRC o NRC INFORMATION AVAILABE AND Aryvetrar y E12CTRONICALLY

NRC HOME PAGE ACCESSIBM ON INTERNET

INPORMATION AVAILABE ON FEDWORLD o EEEPING THE PUBUC INPOltMED o INDUSTRY DG11ATIVES 116 l 1

l DEMONSTRATION OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET Ralph Caruso DSSA, Office of Nuclear R.eactor Regulation 117

i SAMPLE OF INTERNET ADDRESSES FOR NUCLEAR INDUSTRY 118

...ou .. .-

M ERE kg//mm ges USNRC IStC Bammal Hans Peps heyd/wwwame.p/mmagoted NPC Mumuss fmm em Cimsmus bar://www.sc.gsv/ms.asal NRC bhames me 0 semany Amassey,rimagni Onkes laqr://www.ess.p/5BCY/asi/msy.imm NRC ONias of es Ismuury Alems Pugs taprd/www.am. gov /5BCY/ams/subadukthan NRC Cummaussa Manag h tapa/www.am. gov /saCY/mm.hmm NRC um of remedy momed dummmmme e FDR hard/www.am. gov /SBCYimustm h MkC h Mesangs begr>/www.pikassa-000Uhu/ch.hant Cagses U.S. Hause of Repriummsemos bummet tas Ubery Code af Padural Regulames Thus is an espuseammal surver e enemmemus es pasund for mahmg es Ce# of Poemmi W seedshis e es pubhc.

k u also aansemMs ham te leC Home Page eder he Olhos of es Asemary, and a med moelekts.

kap J/www.mm. gov /$8CTing/ruls.han NRC m% Dusan hap://www.ast.p/ABODrph/pt.kand NRC Ptma Inforummse Smuks Brf1 EMMET AbmmEmE EDCATMN 333 hap://www.am pov/NRR/sm/mLhma NRC kaproved Sandsal Teshmal symminsumans: (s) NLRBO-4433; OE., BWR4; (b) NURBGidk OE, 3WR4; (c) NUREG 14M), RAW; (d) NURBGl432, Cr4 and (e) NUREG1431 Wsmaghams taqr://www.am.govhuomerkten! NItC U.S. Commmmel Numiner Rameurs hard/www. art. gov /numan.bsud NRC Bumf ovemse of Neder Mannels and eRhess of feds $

hapd/www. art. gov /ssdeems.hsel NRC anaf overview of Ratussess Wams Dupsed Ogb level sad isw naval emes) hapd/www. art.gsr/retumsp bsud NRC a% Puessa hapd/www. art. gov /ADhv; dell EXAnd5T.*F ' has NRC Opumeur 1M l'esammebas Smudeds Air Pseur Asmusers tagr.//www.fedwarbl. gov PedWorts Puemered lederummma plumert tmp://www.fmeserts.gsvinp.hmadurc PedWerM Nester Reedmary Cumsmmes em pedworld.

Commme assy as lasste sus mammes senem entseng Ommence Hush Phymus rammes, sums af Pubhc Pommuns, and seer sugas suulleMs fur usene er esselsed. Yee ama also pumsgus by pendus manages er upindug thus as oftmal asammme en relmussung, psussums er seer mmmers far utmak seC tus sequmed pubhc ammmmum a es Poe=med mamm em (hommu. gov).

I19

l 1

i I

BMENrr ABRAEAR lAC&]Mg[ Egg ApJ/9p.indearld. gov /pmWun/me. ban Pufourtd PRC themryW ese memet Apl/ fly.8mfests. gov.,_ Z Cast passerW Ust of Ahs in es NRC thery 9p 1/fy.defuerld.gsv/puMuslukumpdr.tst PadeurW lafurmansa shout des Piete Desumumt alsam ApJ/Ap.dadsorW. gov /puWare/mmbour PedourW Abad Cousmama en As fummamens frem PRC 1as==aad Punham sesr een power aseen -w

$J/f$.fudworld. gov /puWesuWematsui Poemered Ahma samend dunga omrenommen imr es Syumme W+ denen ICE)

Ap://ftp.fudmarW,gsv/puWee/summmamt PedwarW Hem e immes se omsmal ammmmmt Apd/Ap.fufmertt.gsv/puWaraldukaut FedserW Atmut es rulummkug for ammmeng musher poser maner d========ssesa sp//mp.easserW gov /pum/se/dsmses PasserW News & shes rehembug for =====Anf salur pouw rumme dessummmmmmmg osat sp apd/sp.smsmered.psv/ pat /ammseutuas PoseerW 4ess as %mou som ham shs symma Ap://Rp.fuseurugsv/ pie /muldrade PufmerW buhamm Band a provide ledermansa e pubbs ahmut PfRC's telemskus pesem assumsms siih dessummumsmag Ap//fip.Induerugsr/ pee /me/meh.est PuemerW Nues of pubhc mesmag e esvelopjoss Fedmal gamemass far samenshed a ammasum app =mma e assumphe erumani sud _ _ -smemman amys mmmurr AnnaEas laCAIIQtt 2m2 ap.//ap.smenerupset, :.; ; PudeerW Dummipmen of propened rehumans en smagery pammag uphmens ApJ/s,suswerugsv/puWmc/eg4m.au PseuerW Papsmoy mest gummses and unsours anos smoserW Sp1/fip.dudeerugovW.i' penserW Absm paupesad ruimmekag Asvimme of Pas 5shedules fip 1

/Ap.fedworld gov / pie / art /deses (pars 110 sad 171)

Ap://Ap.fmemand. gov /puWase/fhusos PudeerW Informamme as draft flanJ rehmmskus ammenag Part 19 ApJ/ftp.fmeserts.p/pietare/tuhmen Numans a Werters sad Engisyes piensame flgrJ/ftp.fussend. gov /puWes/gabaut - PeewerW AhasOsmansP -

fipJ/9p.fmemend.per/ pie /are/gedmised PopearW lton a esenised Gumancr- fuss ftpd/ftp.fudeerW. gov /puWart/galems Passend Hem as lanus spen 8e Osmaric P- Sims ApJMr.fmesertt gev/pude/ure/gensefu Padourto New Gemens r - ths added m es lum two weeks ftp://8p,Irelsesid. gov / pie /are/gsmses PasserW To subscres e Osmanc dumftsand an es terms ApJ/ fly.fuesent. gov /puWes/guham PaseurW Absus moederd dames ayudumman ser the ABWR(GE) sy>/ny.suomerugsv/puWarc/hpens Peteend Aheut hukh phynes fip://ny.sudeantasv/puWes/hydamma poemerW Hem e otmas empus of bade phymes examenes l

120

m m AmmmmmE IBCAMlbl 3Hg 5/ 4 hemmeLemenweempaan poemmu ommmes as ames amamme new m 6mme er to CPe stus 20 aus in imphemumma

F'a r - & - - pasumW Ahmet ympams mammehus apumms agummes kr mamshemmes um af hmmmes 24 masses summel 5140semmutLasWpuhkumW$r pasmens Chnust pums uhaus nas speentes aus Olaus of Pubhc Aames, uspec ap//ap.hsentLasWpWesukseds passens Ahmme IOC ashmmtems myrsam m pm.mme me possnes suma supunt at *ampamesamma e em Piths,' 38URs0tWL-9199, hemah 1995 W/ 4 0msmentspWyswuma$ emus resumes AGS/AO4W teamme mas Asmuss 5th passens lemus abent PDR's Oe hum Dumbus. FDR's abhusephmal l nummes spasm he asshamy er ammbug mas momeg t

almens pathmby meteen summons a hd man.

m-imp - e asemens e l tenues -

apgrep.hsames.eswpswamyasess passens amemmes inn er num saammmme h as FDR apssay.hsmans.eswpuwmagemeer passens Amary e- asumms Mamme een em ACas/ACNW apurap.ausmentsusepswummissmamma poseens Akemi ymmmes sur ammmmamms anness e gamesy Ammmee ,

514hsenstissWyawampuses Pusamme j arrummmer ammmans sacaten*' EEE apsimp.homenteswyswwwrenes poemens puse . is suas esa ansehmey omsm nas Nunao nuperm ses gemac w mesmas mammmhus l apusap.hsames.amWyawmefrumbus Pasunds Ahme Futum du adamahms Ammemum at le CPR pan 12

! husses asammevs woes romeng Tammu e a penumme Dumpeus Pushey ,

apd4heuensNat passens ashambug phs is ammment mehr puest namer saammmmmmmg um assummun apurap.homentamwpawanesweessa.m pasumu asnmmmmmmal Ammmmme Imr pupmms emmemumn a le CPR put so, Assumes a e mammme se ammsury Pignmemme ammmel ammans amr ammhur puser plums ap>4emementesWpsweemmeraevat pusumW Pasmal august Names Amr ammysey Phmme aus papassume amann um I aps/ep.smemmet. ' "- passens anseheny Assyns en ammummsy Plmmmes as Pugemsnm l ammmme ash l

ap>iap.hsmans.esWpWem<spwaymane.un passeW Puhts amammen a ammpmmy Phmus m '=r r-& - - passens amms summmme en semymmy Ptumme apurap.homent r, J _ ,- -" pusuuns amammemmat Papen aks tirap.swipelHasm ma homens um et as ahm in Mac amamammes Papam l

l 121

. , , . . . , .. . mm Ap://Ap.fmfundd.gsv/puWmo4mm'ndsphmt.aut passend Reinmakus plan far asumdug malmar poner smaner desammmmamag Amammalammense Ap://Ap.8mfound. gov /pmWee-sputtedusLan passend poemmi hugimer Musus mesmems ammeshGuy of th l pasma sur as pensman nedsomas itpd/Ap.dmemurid.gsWpuWootpWuso.4ph.hms Fmfundd Puthe emmasses en Pue Punemmes hugehmes Ap://fqs.8mduend. gov /puWoo timem4m.han pupmudd hadymuni es Amal suis amameng part 19 Ap://Ap.8menudd.gsv$uWeegWass ge. tam futuudd Ommes Cumummesmaus (Adammannes tamura, Gummic lamus, Smilmmes, tudmummus Nummun)

Ap1/Ap.- . , __ _. ___ _ 5.hsus 7meound Daniymund infunusans en supumus segnummuns sur less of seemsmus emmenal Ap://Ap.duemused.gsv/puWar>4 mph /sthph.hme popmund Puther======= m upmang sepummma Sur aus of satsastus ausensi Ap://$p._" . . _1_ _AssLhsm Padound Busesr== = en spunug sequsammans isr imm of sedmummes maammi ftpd/Ap.fuesodd. gov /puWare-imm/mo4mus.hms pedourtd Budyuumd as 4se esuel eens Ap://fsp.imesund.psv/puwarc-pom/usegas.hme poemedd Bestyumed on Amenemust of 10 CPR 50.47 ApJ/Ap fuesund.psv/pmWee pspWusHaph.hme refundd Puthe Camamma em Ammmemum of 10 CPR 50A7 Apu/Ap.imemand.govim _. A._, pham Fedoodd Seus Commmus e Asumdums of 10 (FR $0.47

.....u, .- -

M M12 Ap://Ap.dmeendd. gov /pswansymhus ugss.hme poemend andymund taluesman a NURBO and Anguleury Gustus syu/Ap.smounddpv/puWee :2 .: - - passerie ammysed asimmung anpasmaus Ap1/Ap.dufwared. gov /puWes4rpWoo oph. ham Pufundo Pubhc Osamamm en W Ragdsummens hapsw - -'-> WWW 'Numisur luhememen linum Pugs. Cummes usuy home pages, ausher saamma, sunrumman a U.s. andser pseer phmm. ed muster admad argumummums

^

tsyd/* ^ --- n _ J _ " l.mLimed WWW Wedd his of amatsur psaur plums hap://ames>=ia wasemsterorg/Us.hmmt WWW usag med hubs a U.s. smaler named assummenes, tududng esammal hhamsuna. Desummes et asegy, asumummmal Premmann Agmsy and PRC hap //www.aptgev/ WWW kmsummunal Psamassa Agmey almus Pugs imp >/www.dus. gov / WWW Depenmus of gmmigy lisme Page hap >/www.dmagsv,r_-r - __.hmid WWW ahumamulesammmes asshmen a nos laps /ww=.amme-ers/ WWW Wasemme a AsisE hammmed Mans Peps hapd/usense.nuc.hmtday.shMangm/ WWW Butag Wear a ===r um deshaus atur.amsdued.hmal hapJ/mmmmmm.amr barbelsy.shdempas/ WWW Idemnah ammug fur Smilug Waar Ammmes amer /ames.hmet i

122

i l

l I

l mmander anssaams 1.acannN ImA l i

kuprl! -" .adu/tuqps/ WWW Adamed Ugk War Sameer anwenwr.hanl begrJ/www.ama.psv/emmpus.humi WWW Mamanal lameses of Sanderes and Takamingy Hans Pues hepa/www.ma.govhmedarr, tab. heel WWW Marf tabussiery Progrens 1 i

kapr>/www.astaav/ WWW MirT rhyme lakamory WWW warmenen Hans rues hard/www.humberarl WWW IAEA Hsums Pues hay 1/www.hins.m.shtee.ac.jp/ linda / WWW lasmear of Eleanal and Emesume ampmars smaa/imena.imme hap://wwwann.aeg/ WWW Af!M Web Bus hap://www.iuma. gov / WWW Federal Emergmsy hemagemmas Assacy Hems Peps hap:/h assi ess/ WWW Ammnes Numsmal Sammends huumas hap://www.esammess.aanvadt WWW NDT Lak Amunen Somsry of T _-. _ . Tunas hapJ/kungesh. asp.amfLew ehpues.hsel WWW Hamamal 94sras Puhaus Sarnse i hand /www.astfr/ WWW OBCS Numimer Bangy Assney i

hup.//wwe.arel. gov /pagtum/graptmut hum! WWW Huany of the Gumples sunsent 1

1 1

1 hap://immes.hutuisyadwassamme/esv/ WWW timmhmme as de advimmel hymd musei sensur/ rems shar41.mme. hunt kup://maguemkam. net /-serunn/hedish len WWW 11ms met aus asumms het heks as manrum murma nas of tusmus sesymmms sucesar builmes matusagpseural Greamsm Hans Puget all U.S. ushes muk 6mmenal Hess Pages, nuesmal heamenas, Pedworld, ausmannes wuh mains huemmy. memory ammass, hismmy

& and som Punhc Uniary commames.

hay 1/www.esha. gov / WWW Ommpummel setsy and Namie fr. (OSHA)

I23

Nm 1AEAIEMI III1K higd/wwwJyri.emm/ WWW Emanas power humusult Imamm (WRD 11mme pqge hard/dumMrew.gmLamm/ WWW Omemal Amamme Name pups. TWs maner b hums enemispus a pas at am memammmmmi nummmen ymmynn en heen ,

hap://www.amlerg/ WWW pematar W images Ilmes pige tagrd/www.hadmasy.am/lumenagma WWW IJammagma Omrpmemaan h Camar taprJ/www. , " WWW Wyle Lahnmusmans lines pues hard w e ntf. nam WWW AsCo Ammmmme summa campany hard/www %.amethune WWW ITT Bumm Bummes Come ampd/ pop. mate -i-rmaum w WWW Nueur ammer opmeer % name puen.asuswacts l

I24

RULENET William Ohnstead Office of General Counsel 1

l l

i I

125

THE REG NET IDEA e Systeens that Fit e Distributed Data o Graphical User Interface (WMW)

Public Industry Government o Equal Access to Modeling & Analytical Tools Vision / Purpose e Rulemaking in Cyber Space o Public Participation o Consensus Building o Rule Net Hosne Page l

126

Mosaic Home Page e no w.u.p {

l 0 Petitions for Rah. king, j i

o Fire Protection (10 CFR 50.48) e Industry Petition e Stan Quations e Alternative Proposals

Current Rules e Discussion Area e Document Library I

l l

Staff Questions I

o Modeling can be Part of the Dialogue o Fire Protection o Thermo Lag o Suppression o Response Time 1

I

)

1 127

Rulemaking in Cyber Space

Public Participation

Consensus Building o lateractive Text Drafting o Pubhc Participation Electronic Town Hall

Enhanced Participation

Caucus Opportunities

Facilitated Discussions / Negotiations

Public Participation 128

RULENET MILESTONES

Federal Register Notice published announcing Electronic Rulemaking Fonun Process and PraMues (11/95)

Participmat comunents/ feedback en process design (11/95 - 12/95)

Electronic 8 ' '^1=. Forum conus on line (1/96)

Forum Cicoes (2/96)

Evaluation (In Progress)

Ideas for the Future

On-line virtual Q&As for the Agency during public meetings

Organization of Pending Agency Rulemakinigs

Interactive News Publications

Electronic Document Interchange l

Virtual Technical Conferences 129 L

T1 ELECTRONIC INFORMATION EXCHANGE PILOT John Skoczlas Office of Information Resources Management 1

130

What Is EIE?

The conduct of business transactions, supporting functions such as, administration, finance, technical, licensing, adjudicatory, and procurement, between the NRC and private industry using an integrated automated information environment to interchange business information.

Paper Transfer Trading Partner NRC -

t Mail e Activity j + - Receive Process l Document Electronic Transfer Trading Partner NRC Activity + Receive Process Electronic Document 131

1 Information Interchange Model Authoring Environment Composition Environment l Compose Print (Paper)

-- - -"" Make Doc.""

Author & Document Portable Pase Edit Text Inspisy l Docenent Develop M

Transpoit Environment h E Bundlefor Transport Transport Document n a Develop _ _

C.W.U.

_. Merge __

Synchronne _ HWa Y

. ljypermedia Document DoeW -

Composition Environment (Hypermedia) 1 What Have We Learned To Date?

We Know How; Now We Need to Know What 132 ;

l

i Message l

Moving to an EIE World is going to be traumatic!

We Have Learned A Lot

. Capabilities and Interest of Trading Partners Varied

. Very Complex Process

- Each Function Will Have to be Evaluated 1

l 133 L. . . .. _ . . . . . . . . . .. .

J EIE Implementation Process select :

Fametka Function A k" (Inspection) IM'D Function B Treasse h (Licensing) Apply S

Function C Criteria k 3

(Contracts) Tech Specs Structure Etc. I *[','"'"

g

., g Assend. Req. Volume Amendment Cost / Benefit Authoring Estabhsh Etc. Business Obj Environ. I""'

y LegalIssues Composition Trading Partner Etc. Environ. Agreements Begin Transport Application Environ. Deselopment Pil"8 System Deploy EIE '

EIE Protect Selection Criteria select r .ction

Structure and Volume ,

Function A -

Cost - Benefit Factors ,

li (Inspection)

Business Objectives Function B 3 - Reduce QA Costs (Licensins) - ImproveTimeliness Ss Fu" '

SE - Improve Data Integrity

{Co trsc s)

Esc.

Te - Improve Access Controls Am - Etc.

^" . Legalissues (Electronic Signature)

= Records Management Issues

Multiple Distribution Points gin EIE Abilities of Trading Partners ___

134

)

l l

k E-Mail

"'r k PDF p HTML k SGML Undefined Structe E-Mail Hender File No No Defined Feed t PDF ADP Yes Nadve WP Yes Low F-Mail &

Mediu No Header File Doc. Analysis 135

I l

b EIE Doesasent Noamination Form Due6s6ms Quessies Yes No numerseemos l Deemed as es sammes ud uds Wpummmess Ifk ce se Pend geysseurs tamme b advess? ADP (Umemummmd)

Ass esa smMmms home amboned IfYe GeaFami est spumfy ahm usub a to ammmmmed ADP(Imassured) j h me desumma?

Feed ADP tiu amme of esammmmiof es Ifk Um 54 den (tjeseressered) esmedes dummmes ein be name e If Yes: Uns Hamhr fand sent mammend symmus? Fde Feed ADP WWIsuuss a(en emmems of er If Me: ce so Edu (3, s.,,d; - same nsdem-esmeusemedme if V . ce a veemme imod oder ammmmmd syssums' Edit Shamid anyees be mEmmed se een er if No:Uns PDF ehemes eis desammes (semiadag If Ym: Use Nuew makes e arm wamme s=d hupes a wr amensuisof mmensa voimme is vahamInw? IfYe: Um E Mais sua nedem Mammuy ifk commme is vetens neuemmt if Ye- Ce m Omar Fassurs If Me: r-is vehmslaskt IfYm:Um Desamma Amatyms Oeher Faseers Ase een sent deems (e.g.,Ykms IfYer Us Desungs samme edesumamm,su.)emagem Aamiyas inseher sandy? IfMe: Uns Hamde Fue M Approach Seagth Dermano Cast E-Mail I month I month 8,000 Natrve WP 2 moods 2 mondis 16,000 PDF 2 assashs 2 mendis 16,000 E-Mail with ManuelIndsmag 4 membs 2 menshs 32,000 Header FDs 6 membs 3 monihs 48,000 Desmannet Analyses Banc Document 4 agath: 2 =asaha 32,000 Comples sousase 2 membs I mouth 16,000 Omptses I ansab I mesah 8,000 Chamucal Expressaan 1 mensh I month 8,000

- Empsesmans I meme I mandi s,000 bhdemmha 3 memes 2 maahs 24,000 Ityper Umking 2 seemes 2 memes 16,000 lampismanames Omide 2 membs I mamsb 16,000 (lass damm 10Tseems Psames)

Impimummans Oidde 4 memes 2 amanes 32,000 04sse tan 10 Tsneng Paeses)

Impiamension Convemaion 4 memes 2 mem6s 32,000 (Moddy EDI Tr- Es0 136

i

... .tt n ;. ._...t"- - -

,c;o. 3=e..n, n. 3...m: .. ..,. ; :. . > . v..

n. Nw o;: ..

NIRMA -

ELECTRONIC INFORMATION EXCHANGE TASK FORCE

p. - . .

g.r --- ;n p pc. ,,

a.: .

, s . . . . .

f.

' ~ d

..m,...,'w.e,a m$

7, , . . - . J E.

...I . T, . . % .. <. .

4. J .EN: r ~ % . ~' ! ! \- .pYgy sL..

t 't h Iri- %S :"r-N u c-.W b.$. . -4 ..

. . . ~ . . + . a a. . .-n. . < - 46u,,

4... , ; . ! ~ 6,; .

%. ' 'i ?"Yiijgs.h EGM"T;(.'T2h: b2gg; "

' '47GENERIqrtalm;R 92-;05j , CURRENT.'didW. ~

~

LICENSING BASIS

+ BGE AND SCE VOLUNTEER TO ACCESS THE CLB ELECTRONICALLY n .

. ;c

. .s .

, . , .v ,

_ . ; u4 . . .

. _.%..e,e

. E L. ECTRONIC..D. m . . .-.raMFilmH.A.,RD.

m . . C.OEY

. - ~ ~ ... !,w?~8,e . A. ..

454?4RRQ W?"'Wgi'lly?&g$$. p.. ,k

? i w , ,, m s n. 4:u.: .. w_,. g

.g-g g . . c.3 g p g A m :

.V.

i. .,

._, , ,. . ,, . , , _ j s ,-

,..c,.-

. t~

, . , . ..g .

ID. . -

' ; w .

s., p ,,, .

l.37

4 m ! -

A sp p.

b.f- 4% I Y W..Is W M k E E 1.sh'TSN).E d'g 9 h-ddf}d

- .. a W4. 2ENEFITS:. ie.

. . A, U .a 4. F.e. ..a. . . .. 4. !. . .

~~ + REDUCEDPAPER^ MANAGEMENT COSTS

+ AVOIDED HARDCOPY CONVERSION COSTS

+ IMPROVED DOCUMENT RETRIEVABILITY

WORK PROCESS AND WORKER PRODUCITVITY IMPROVEMENTS

-+ INFORMATION REUSE . ..;;

.. f CQSTSvy f4=f.mj ymy:V: ~; _ ;7 ,

"?'Td3?g.iWORMK110,N.INFRASTRUCIUREMffpW7 wA .

.u. .y c.orgT..av.Cuos

.:._..aseE,w ~ e m ,m .

, ***W4"" ~>

.. _ .. m .-.

~

.. d ' R _ .shk i I"*L' p j'M. p -

&N

. b l.'nch ,0j)D L id'Lbri..l (

$mv 4 . CO .v.= . . awexk Eh aa n.,m; ma.s . i$i&!

.:e A.~.:e + ..

, . ; + 2.O::.+

, e, a v nbtw o: u . ..>-..6%.- .m- ruw a . . -

- 2 41.OREN STANDARD'NON-PROPRIETARY t i ".iM.2,; ? .

EXCHANGE FORMAT

+ SUPPORT COMPLEX DOCUMENT STRUCTURE (TABLES, EQUATIONS, GRAPHICS)

. , . . z.

ry. s

.4.yy.. i.MINIMAITCHANGEFOTXI.S., my 4' TING' ~g yy.,p WORK'"W". I._

((y p: y si.M 1E *I. I ^ . , ' - c [k]*.p., e ps:py w wsa s.svM w.

. . . ,. y ri: @d4 *e

~

_ .a

_.g. . . ;. .

, ' y* . . ,. 4 ~ ., . . ~ . u . ;

' ' ,LL *?. ,

. ., ? M % uT' -

x 138

up . paa s

, . :- hist *!Y l" '

C'Yih ;. 5"$5$7sYY :.?IR?5$...$Tt.:'Sb.LbibiE U. a ^L%:ad$1ih

& u,:,: : n ss.4Lif 4 i, wUNDERSTAND THE. SUBJECT'ANDTHE

... ~

' ~ ~ " ' '

LIMITS.OF y '. ~

TECHNOLOGYi

+ STUDY OTHER GOVERNMENT EIE PROCESSES

+ SUBCOMMITTEE FORMATION - DOCUMENT, ISSUES, TECHNOLOGY

?- W #+NRR,EIE PILOTJPROJECTZ~5d@dFi#:M Ii b a' F T '

_g .

,r -

.. ,; f . .o sv t . ,.., T f f f);

! *n: :w 1*% n- R 4.M,e.q?;=lN.%

. W.w 'r . . n . .; w " w y';i s,

. ..q. p. p.1;;..

' d.- .~- .r. .fh .- . :

.1 ' . im.. . .;L . . -

.. ~.

&tz.;p

n e. .

- . c

+ USE AN EIE MECHANISM TO REDUCE COST OF REGULATION

+ PROVIDE FOR AN INDEPENDENT HARDWARE / SOFTWARE PLATFORM FOR EIE

+ TAKE ADVANTAGE OF NEW PRODUCTS FOR AUTHORING DOCUMENTS

+ TAKE ADVANTAGE OF NEW WAYS OF PUBLISHING DOCUMENTS - .. ,

w- + JREUSE..

.c.,.. INFOR,uMAT,

~ .

ION. .& ' .+. &;

e c 4 < ..w.n, 7Ju ,.J. . u. . -

..w w .

t I' ', , f. )

139

1 l

1 1

1

~,

gg

~

4 1.;

~

- , g. . r n.

+

a j%r ,'

r y t"2ili- -. , . .. , g i

j T

. [

.n.' M h.a t .w.r . , w, *.a_

te

. ..-.: u n, p ;L. c s:s t

r.n...c.- - - - -

.4, . . .. a.

/ , E. 5N5 .[

..~. f ','h' + ,i 4 <- ' 'd W

,e' . *g&g i, 2,'p , "' <

WM;#re91@lCgnyganew# dis,a L4P % Eitsisibiisa6iRUEENET4EiMC@lm:6!

23. - .. wa. -

_. m . v.m . .

+ Distributed Regulation 4 e. ,

a g -'" ,- .

.i /

- q"*; g m y c, e.; a mis-w # m 2.ujf.i g.4

w. . ,., .. myg g ,W '3p3;g -

. c.

y;<p'*,t.

e- . j.

hk I

l t

i I40

Current Industry Activities in Electronic Information Exchange NRC 1996 Regulatory Information Conference Washington, DC April 1996 John S. Marshall TU Electric Company 141

Current Industry Activities in Electronic Information Exchange

NIRMA Task Force identifies potential advantages of Electronic Information Exchange (EIE)

NRR EIE Pilot to exchange documents electronically

Improved Standard Technical Specifications in Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML)

Rule Net implications

NRC Agency-wide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS)

NEI Electronic Information Exchange Task Force

Electronic Licensing Infomation Systems in use

Intranet Advantages of Electronic Information Exchange (EIE)

Redd?ed printing and distribution costs.

Reduce costs for upkeep of documents.

Improve access to documents.

Reduce handling costs for documents.

Reduce total number of documents.

Change word processors with minimum cost.

Provide easier and quicker access to internal documents such as procedures.

Accompanying costs for EIE 142 I

[

l i-NRC Pilot for Document Exchange Started December 1994 Eleven utilities participated in the pilot.

Pilot project to demonstrate various methods to exchange documents electronically

=

Tested technology for document management and work flow system development

Completed August 1995

Pilot project results ,

l Improved Standard Technical Specifications in Standard Generalized Markup Language e origin of the pilot - Too many word processors Use an international standard language (SGML) that is independent of word processor software and platform.

= Thre'e utility companies participating. .

I

Arkansas Nuclear One Technical Specifications -i-i

)

. Ambitious schedule- !

One of results of this project will be some measures of cost to implement and quantify benefits.

I 143

Rule Net Implications

Industry and public allowed to participate in the initial formulation of a new rule for the first time. This is a critical period in which the issues are framed prior to drafting a rule.

l

Pilot demonstrated that anyone with a PC and modem could i participate in a video conference through use of a near real time J transcript.

Demonstration of a tool to drive a discussion to conscientious in a very short time.

l NRC ADAMS System

Industry is obliged to take full advantage of ADAMS to derive the maximum benefit.

Improved NRC staff resource use through work flow technology

Staff access to reference material improved

Reuse earlier Safety Evaluations and other documents

More consistency among dockets NEI Electronic Information Exchange Task Force l

NEI has set up a Task Force to track Electronic Information Exchange.

1

Issue the NIRMA Task Force Report on Electronic Information Exchange.

Additional pilot projects are needed to develop cost and' benefit -

measures.

Technology pursued should be Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) along with a propriet,ary standard from Adobe Corporation (PDF).

1 l

l 144 l

Electronic Licensing Information Systems _

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Southern California Edison Company Intranet - The use of Internet technology inside the company Some examples:

Baltimore Gas and Electric - Significant Parameter Display System (SPDS) parameters displayed every 2 minutes

Entergy - Helping to create a virtual site out of 5 locations.

Information available on demand such as call out lists, organization, procedures, and weather i

Duke - Provides on line organization table with services available, weather. Has made Tech $pecs available.

!

Southern California Edison - Looking into using this approach.

Federal Express

Compaq computer

Silicon Graphics l

145

REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE APRIL 9,1996 U

$ 4, 4 .

g s g 2 !

t., ^ h, ,f 4 4*c 4 CORE PERFORMANCE AND REACTOR FUEL ISSUES GARY M. HOLAHAN, DIRECTOR DIVISION OF SYSTEMS SAFETY AND ANALYSIS OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 147

l I

CORE PERFORMANCE AND REACTOR FUEL ISSUES

Core / Fuel Design Environment ,

- Economic Design Optimization

- Reduced Regulatory Oversight

Operating Experience Identified Problems I

- Fuel Design Analysisfresting

- Mixed Core Compatibility / Design

- Licensee / Fuel Vendor Interface

- Extended Fuel Cycle Design

- Control Rod Performance

- Reactivity Management Control

- High Burnup Fuel Design

Longer Term NRC Actions l

FUEL DESIGN ANALYSIS / TESTING ISSUES

Economics and Vendor Competition Are Driving Improved Fuel, Control Rod and Reload Core Designs

Evaluation of New Fuel and Control Rod Designs Before Use in a Reload Core

Lead Test Use Programs are not Producing Early Warning of Design Problems

Root Cause Analysis of Fuel Performance Problems l

l 148

MIXED CORE COMPATIBILITY / DESIGN ISSUES

Vendor Competition and Fuel Cycle Economics Lead to Mixed Fuel Designs in Transition Cores

Applicability of Safety Analysis Methods and Proprietary Test Data to "Other Vendor" Fuel in Mixed Cores

Thermal Hydraulic Compatibility of Mixed Fuel Designs

Safety Analyses and On-Line Monitoring of Mixed Core Designs

Modeling of Low Leakage Mixed Core Designs is Difficult LICENSEE / FUEL VENDOR INTERFACE ISSUES

Licensee / Vendor Interface Problems are Observed for Transition to New Fuel or Reload Core Designs

Mixed Vendor Cores Add Another level of Complexity to Licensee / Vendor Interface Oversights

Quality Assurance Programs Need to Address Mixed Fuel Designs

Transfer of Reload Design Responsibilities to Licensees

Core Monitoring Software Update with Fuel and Cycle Specific Data 149

EXTENDED FUEL CYCLE DESIGN ISSUES l

Extended Cycles Require Higher Enrichments and Burnable Poison Loadings and Transition Core Configurations e increased Soluble Poison Requirements for PWR Reload Cores Lead to More Positive Moderator Coefficients at BOC

Chemistry / Corrosion Changes Have Led to Fuel Failures and Control Rod Insertion Problems

Increased Core Residence Times

(

l l CONTROL ROD PERFORMANCE ISSUES Slow Scram Times and Stuck Rods

- Foreign Experience

- Three Mile Island

- South Texas

- Wolf Creek

- BWR Scram Solenoids

High Fluence Control Rod Performance (Cracking, Swelling, Poison Leachout, Corrosion, Hydriding, etc.)

ISO i

REACTIVITY MANAGEMENT CONTROL ISSUES

Startup and Power Maneuvering

Recent Reactivity Management Events

Mis-Oriented Fuel Bundles

Non-Licensed Reactor Engineer involvement HIGH BURNUP FUEL DESIGN ISSUES

Lead Test Use Programs

Testing of New Cladding Materials

Reactivity Initiated Accident Testing and Evaluation

Fuel Rod and Guide Tube Bowing

Corrosion /Long Term Storage

Changes in Fuel Behavior Properties

Low Temperature Fragmentation and Dispersal l

l 151

LONGER TERM NRC ACTION

Review Design and Test Programs for New Fuel Designs and High Burnup Applications Continue to Assess Industry Events and issues

- Analysis Audits

- Incorporate New Events into Living Action Plan

- Create a Data Base to identify Common Problems Coordinate with Inspections

{ -

Proactive Approach with Industry on Event Root l Cause Followup and Corrective Action Closecut Generic Communications issued, as Required, with Periodic Core Performance Evaluation Summary Reports i

1 l

l l

152

I i

r United States

(

Nuclear Regulatory Commission DECOMMISSIONING TODAY NRC REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE APRIL 9,1996 SEYMOUR H. WEISS PROJECT DIRECTOR I NON-POWER REACTORS AND DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT DIRECTORATE DIVISION OF REACTOR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION I

l 1

i 153

l WHAT IS DECOMMISSIONING 7 1

Decommissioning means to remove (as a facility) safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to a levelihat permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license.

- Does not include care and disposal of spent fuel'

- Does not include non-radiological demolition (Example: restoration to " green field" conditions)

Covered separately by 10 CFR 50.54 (bb) which requires submittal of spent fuel management and funding program.

DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES

e Under DECON (immediate dismantlement), portions of the facility containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits release for unrestricted use. (See Reg. Guide 1.86 for current guidance) e Under SAFSTOR, or " delayed DECON," radiation levels fall for up to 60 years; the facility is then dismantled.

e Under ENTOM8, radioactive contaminants are maintained and monitored until the radioactivity decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property. (Currently allowed only for a 60 year period).

' Described in Generic Environmental impact Statement on Decommissioning; NUREG-0586.

154

COMPLETED & CURRENT DECOMMISSIONING PROJECTS e 64 research and test reactor licenses terminated 1 e 11 research and test reactors now being dismantled or have license amended for Possession-Only l

e 17 power reactors in decommissioning process

- 2 power reactors completed ,

Pathfinder & Shoreham

- 1 power reactor now being dismantled Fort St. Vrain

- 9 power reactors with approved SAFSTOR decommissioning plans CVTR, Dresden. Fermi 1, GE VBWR, Humboldt Bay 3, La Crosse, Peach Bottom 1, Rancho Seco, & Indian Point 1:

- 4 power reactor decommissioning plans have been received, Big Rock Point, San Onofre 1, Trojan, Yankee Rowe & Sexton

- 9 power reactors with approved SAFSTOR decommissioning plans CVTR, Dresden 1, Fermi 1, GE VBWR, Humboldt Bay 3, La Crosse, Peach Bottom 1, Rancho Seco, & Indian Point 1;

- 5 power reactor decommissioning plans have been ;

received, Big Rock Point, San Onofre 1 Trojan, ],

Yankee Rowe & Saxton l

155

i TYPICAL CURRENT REGULATORY PROCESS FOR PREMATURE DECOMMISSIONING l

e Continued compliance with liconee and regulatione is i required after shutdown e Licensee submits license amendments / relief requests to NRC e Possession-only licones amendment e Reliefs / exemptions granted may include:

- Containment leek testing

- Licensed operators

- Offsite emergency preparedness reduction

- Property damage liability insurance reduction e Decommissioning plan approved by Order RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES e Radiological Release Criteria for Decommissioning Facihties e Decommissioning Rule e Revise Spent Fuel Pool Fire Sequence Affected Regulations and indemnity Levels for Permanently Shut Down Reactors e Physical Protection for Storage of Spent Fuel e Decommissioning Cost and Funding Evaluations i

I l.

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE l e Revise RG 1.86 - Will be a new guide e Standard Formet and Content for Decc.. .! ' i; Submittels e Staff guidance for review and insmtion planning 156

(

PLANT DECOMMISSIONING STATUS INDIAN POINT UNIT 1 e January 31,1996, the order approving SAFSTOR

='+ mi . '::': .:. plan was issued. Spent fuel wlE remain onsite until federal repository available. Ucense extended until 2006.

HUMSOLDT SAY POWER PLANT UNIT 3 e Shut down in July 1976; July 1988-NRC approved SAFSTOR C+:-: .2'::'::. r.5 Plan & extended license untM 2015.

e Activities continue in accordance with approved Plan.

Spent fuel will remain onsite in opent fuel pool until federal repository is available. Considering early component removal program.

DRESDEN UNIT 1 e Shut down in October 1978. SAFSTOR Decommissioning Plan & license extension approved in September 1993.

Activities continue in accordance with approved Plan.

Comed piene to go to dry cask storage.

RANCHO SECO e Shut down in June 1989. SAFSTOR Decommiseloning Plan approved in March 1995. 1

Conducting activities in accordance with approved plan, o SMUD intemel review considering DECON decommiseloning altemotive.

Part 72 (specific licenso) ISFSI pod is completed and hortaontal storage modulee are being delivered. Port 71 1;. r.:;1.^ "=.) license application undergoing NRC review for ref;=-@ (storage / transport) omek.

Licensee could be ready to offload fuel to ISFSI by October 1996.

I

/

157

YANKEE ROWE e Shut down in October 1991. SAFSTOR ;

Decommissioning Plan approved February 1995. Appeals i Court decision (July 1995) granted hearing opportunity.

o On March 1,1996, after a prehearing conference, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued an order stating its finding regarding the joint petition of Citizens Awareness Network and New England Coaktion on Nuclear Pollution to intervene on the Yankee -

decommissioning plan. Although the ASLB determined I the petitioners had standing, the ASLB did not find any of the five contentions to be adtmssible. Subsequent Commission order prevents staff re-approval of Plan until appeal process completed.

e Yankee Atomic applied for a (10 CFR 71) license to enable shipment of the reactor vessel. The vessel will not be shipped before summer 1996.

e Yankee intends to pursue dry cask storage of its spent fuel.

j THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 e Accident occurred in March 1979; Defueling completed April 1990 e License plans for Post-Defueling Monitored Storage (PDMS) and Possession-Only License approved by NRC in 1993.

e Conducting activities in accordance with approved PDMS technical specifications.

SAN ONOFRE, UNIT 1 e Shut down November 1992.

e Conducting activities in accordance with approved pomunently defueled technical specifications. Proposed decommissioning plan awaiting NRC review.

e Licensee considering ISFSI, but has not submitted Part 72 liocnee request.

i 158

TROJAN e Shut down November 1991 e November 1,1995, licensee completed the large component removal project.

e Commission issued order preventing further dismantiement until final decommissioning plan approved.

e No requests for hearing received after December 22, 1995. Federal Register notice on Environmental Asrement and Safety Evaluation for f+::.. . ' ':i; pir #.

Combined NRC/ State of Oregon public meeting held February 13,1996, to discuss the results of NRC and State doce.- -- '- :-4. g plan review.

No requests for hearing received by State of Oregon after its public notice. Hearing regarding State approval of d E; . '- '- ..; plan held on March 7,1996. State approval granted.

Licensee is considering removing the pressure vessel with reactor vesselintemals intact and shipping by barge to low-level weste repository at Hanford in sorty 1998.

e Licensee selected Sierra Nuclear as vendor for dry cask storage commencing in 1998.

SIG ROCK POINT e May 31,2000, is expiration date of current license.

e Proposed SAFSTOR Decommissioning Plan undergoing NRC review. Licensee requested NRC deferral of review until after revised decommissioning regulations issued.

159

United States

. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DECOMMISSIONING RULE NRC REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE APRIL 9,199a CHERYL A. TROTTIER SECTION CHIEF RADIATION PROTECTION AND HEALTH EFFECTS BRANCH DIVISION OF REGULATORY APPLICATIONS OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH 161

DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS - PROPOSED RULE Proposed rule issued July 20,1995 (60 FR 37374) would eliminato need for decommissioning plan approval Before decommissioning activities could begin, licensees would submit certifications of:

- Permanent cessation of operations and

- Permanent removal of fuel from reactor vessel Prohibits operation of reactor and modifies applicability of certain Part 50 requirements to decommissioning activities e Would impose 90 day waiting period before major decommissioning (defined in rule) could occur - includes public information meeting in vicinity of site e Would allow use of 550.59 to dismantle facility e Written notification required for any activities inconsistent with PSDAR or a significant schedule change from FSDAR e FSAR updating required e License termination process-

- Submittel of license termination plan and supplement to ER e Public information meeting held e License amendment process including opportunity for hearing under Subpart L (or G if fuel onsite)

Financial assurance-

- Continues to require preliminary cost estimate at 5 years prior to license expiration Allows staged use of decommissioning funds (based on d, aft policy statement) e Permits use of 3% of generic amount prior to cessation of operations,20% - 90 days after psdar submittal, and remainder after site-specific cost estimate received i

162

7%.

(W/)

I N *MEE ECHAEL WEBER, CIREF j IDW-tEVEL WASTE AND DECOMRGSBONING FRWECTS BRANCH AFER,9,I M l

l NRC REcuwORY INFORMADON mNFERENCE I63

OVERVEW e EIISHNG CRTIERIA AND GUIDANCE e CEANGES WNB TBE NEW CENERIA e OVERVEW OF FURIJC COMMENIS e ONGOING ACffVIRES EIISHNG CRrtERIA AND GUIDANCE e NBC REQUIREMEN15 DO NOT IDENHFY EIF1JCIT RADIOEAGICAL CRITERIA FOR IN 1ERMINAT10N e INIERIM CRITERIA IDENHFED IN SDMF ACDON PLAN (APRIL 1972) Wrnt EMPBABS ON ALARA

- 1981 Breneh Tashmmal Ptaines (Opes 1 & 2)

- Ragshamry Gedde 1.36 (tpM)

- FmRey med GmMemme Deusehe FC S3-23 0987)

- EPA's Drinidag Wueur Bandards (48 CFR 141; ifM)

- EPA's Thammermaham r h G75)

ADDrnONAL GUIDANCE AVAILAM2 ON

SITE CHARACTERIZA110N: BRANCH TECIDGCAL FOSrnON 01/94) e EIFOSURE MODEIJNG: NUREGICR-5512 AND FOtJCY AND GUIDANCE DERECHVE 848 e 1ERMINATION SURVEYS: NUREG/CR-5BS I64

l l

I

_... . _ R.R.

l e PROPOSALON AUCRET22,I9M .

e UNREfIRECIED LMR EBET OF M RdREnd/YR + ALWA e RENFMCIED LNK 1 ANT OIr U AGREnd/YR + ALARA PFFIM CONIBOLS); let hetEnd/YR WrIBOUT REEJANG ON 00NIBOEA .

e GROLNWWATER PROTECTION AT WA I2VEIA '

e 51EWRCIFIC ADVISORY BOARD Bertruun FOR RESIBICTED 1ERhdINA110N l

e GRANDFATHER PROVISOf5 POR 5135 PREVBOLE,Y BBCObdMISBONED NBC AFewesed W Man

- AFFreval Friar to EHasthe Duse

- Assism Pha Crearia CHANGES WITE NEW CRITERIA e FURIJC COMMENTS ON FROFOED RADIOIAG4 CAL CRTIERIA 51B1 UNDER REVIEW e DOB4ASED CRTIERIA MB001b FROVIDE COP 8'M8 Ant Y nIORE Fumanmar2TY

. m%

- marwyhg e PROFOsED CRrrERIA INCuuDED OrnON FOR RRmtlCEED nurnm o PROPOSED CRITERIA REQUIRED GREATER OFFORTUNITIES FOIt hEEANINGFUL PURtJC INVOLVEMENr 165

I OVERVIEW OF FUB1JC COMhDDES e set DEryEFAJ C0heENf0RS

-Gesuramment Assadas

-1Josamens I

- Ptsbue Gremys

- hadmary Grumps 1 i

-Maatse Ameriema Orgamimummes

-Inesthmis e GENERAL REAC110NS VARIED

- ApesumamuDisayemment em 7... . e.g., Resericted Use

- Dimepressment for Deertug Rammans em 7. .' . e.g.,15 maruse EXAMPLE - COMMENTS ON T1fE DOSE LDUT IN $N.1402(b) e AGREE WITH 15 e DESAGREE WTnt 15

- Tee Bigh - Rasars se Backgramed Preferred

- Tee Imer - 5100 marussly wth ALARA Preferred j e ISBUES ON B(Fni SIDES

- assah immyeses

- Cases vs. hupests

- Ahtky to Measure Sus Im Deses

- M whh anderemad

- useses em Dhyend Caymeday

- Censhesney Whh Osher namenes 166

.1

WHAT:IS CERTAIN ?

e DOSE-BASED RELEASE CR11ERIA RADIER DIAN ACTIVITY BASED e MODELING IS CRITICAL, MUST CONSIDER ALL PA11rWAYS e LICENSEE, NOT NRC, WILL DETERMINT,

- Site Dese Convenden Factors

- Survey Mans Grids and Numbers of hW To Be Taken Instruraentation To Be Used WB'AT IS NOT CIRTAIN f e FINAL DOSE CRITERIA e TitEADGINT OF GROUNDWATER e CONDrI10NS FOR RESIRECTED RIt2ASE l - E4,Riary atteria

- Dese cap r eentruts las

- Puhtic innehemsent

- Ahenmuske disposal epsisms 167

{.

t

l ONGOING ACI1VI11ES e RE80EAMON OF FURUC CORGEEPrF e ODORDDIA110NWmlEPA e 3EFINEREENT OF COFT/ BENEFIT ANALYBS e DEVEI.DFhEENT OF BIPl2hEENTA110N GUIDANCE I68

COMPETITION, UTILITY RESTRUCTURING, MERGERS, AND NRC LICENSING ACTIVITIES 6 O& .

p <> \

$4 W@ )

A

< D o o .

E og r ,, A -

\

Y '

'o n s '

+9

- - M i

DENNIS M. CRUTCHFIELD DIVISION OF REACTOR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 169

OUTLINE o issues e Near-term actions e Mid-term actions e Longer-term rulemaking and guidance actions e Coaciusions

)

1 ISSUES FACING INDUSTRY AND NRC e initiatives underway at both State and Federal level to deregulate wholesale and retail electric sales

- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) - non-discriminatory open access transmission; addresses stranded costs

- State Public Utility Commission (PUC) initiatives toward increased competition - retail wheeling

Move away from traditional rate-based regulation towards greater competition deregulation of functions; may ultimately lead to corporate deregulation or spin-offs e Variety of structures and approaches proposed

- Separating generating assets from transmission and distribution assets distribution remaining under rate regulation (GENCO, TRANSCO, DISCO concepts)

- Exit fees imposed on those leaving the grid

- Various transmission or

wire" charges to co.:

e;n 1ed costs

- Non-traditional,

hybrid *, ownership arranger"ats

- Large baseload plants to grids to ensure traw . eliability

- Accelerated depreciation of nuclear assets l

' e Deregulation of generating sector will likely occur in different stages over several years

- Transmission facilities will probably remain under regulatory umbrella 170

l 1

QUESTIONS FACING NRC e How willincreased competition and stranded costs affect the safe operation and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors?

o How willincreased competition affect the NRC's antitrust review program?

e What new types of owners and operators will result from deregulation and restructuring?

e Do existing policies and regulations apply to these new entities? Are changes needed?

NEAR-TERM STAFF ACTIONS e Continue 50.80 reviews of transfers of control and antitrust considerations e Level of signature authority is Office Director level e Staff willinform Commission of any changes that would result in a licensee ceasing to be an ' electric utility" e Action plan developed for follow-on activities

Develop guidance on processes e Continue to monitor, keep abreast of changing environment 17I I

)

MID-TERM STAFF ACTIONS e' Evaluate reportmg requirements under 50.80 and 50.81 e Develop options for periodic reporting on status of licensee decommissioning funds e Update NUREGS e Develop on-going staff esvol contact with FERC, National Assocation of Regulatory utility Commessioners (NARUC), and Securttes and Exchange Commission (SEC) e Commission has directed staff to Perform a comprehensive review of NRC's regulations to determme that rules will be adequate to address restructuring issues and to ensure a comprehensive rulemaking approach that avoids duplication Consider and develop ways to ensure the confidentiality of sensitive financial information it receives GUIDANCE NEEDED e Delmeete NRC postoon on ownership arrangements:

Hokhng comparwes Operating / generating /aervice companies Mergers independent power producers Exempt wholesale generators (EWGS) e Develop guidance to state that NRC will take any measures available to prevent reduction of assets necessary for safe operation and decommisesoning e NRC will reiterate assumption regarding liability of owners for operating en decommissioning expenses e Competitive reviews (antitrust) e Staff will recommend that guidance be issued as a policy statement (tentative) 172

LONG-TERM ACTIONS e Rulemaking or policy statement to clarify 10 CFR 50.80 applies to all changes that reduce assets or recourse to rate recovery e Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on enhanced decommissioning funding assurance that lose rate regulatory oversight

Tighten definition of electric utility and periodic reporting on status of decommissioning funds e Standard Review Plan outlining expectations regarding assurance of funds for safe operation and decommissioning e Standard Review Plan for antitrust / competitive reviews in light of changing ir.dustry structure CONCLUSIONS e NRC can not predict extent of changes occurring as a result of deregulation - but change appears inevitable j

e NRC needs to ensure safe operation and decommissioning NRC must be able to identify all owners and operators (and control of I

! e same) and the asset base and recourse to rate recovery of each I

) Short and long-term actions to strengthen financial qualifications and e

antitrust review process, funding assurance and guidance e Large scale overhaul of existing regulations not needed at this time e Actions will be available for Commission and public consideration 173

i l

FEDERAL ELECTRIC RESTRUCTURING ISSUES Kevin Kelly Deputy Director

! Office of Electric Power Regulation i Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

! presented at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 1996 i Regulatory Information Conference Washington, D.C., April 10, 1996 l

l l

174

(

l l

j COMPETITION IN ELECTRICITY IS GROWING a growing awareness that generation unlike transmission does not have to be a monopoly business.

a belief that market forces can produce lower electricity prices than the oversight of regulators, as in other industries gas, airlines, telephone i

a 1978 law PURPA that showed that non-utility generators can often compete successfully with utilities i a 1992 law EPAct that allowed independent power producers to enter the power market without onerous regulation changes in technology and fuel prices that make power from many new plants cheaper than power from existing plants FROM BUNDLED TO UNBUNDLED SERVICES Today, a typical utility provides " bundled" service:

generation 1

transmission !

distribution other services f to its retail and many of its wholesale customers.

It charges a single price for the " bundle."

4 As competition grows, there is economic pressure to "unbundle" services: to offer and price them separately.

1 l

{

I l5

l l

BIINDLED TRANSMISSION The traditional approach to wholesale transmission access and pricing under Federal law and regulation is changing. Formerly,

{. Access Transmission was provided voluntarily prior to j the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct).

l Since EPAct, FERC has ordered transmission j service upon application on a case-by-case basis.

Pricing Transmission is often bundled with generation.

The traditional approach for retail power sales under State law and regulation also has been bundled generation, transmission, and distribution services by the local utility. Many states are considering changes to this approach.

UNBUNDLED TRANSMISSION

' Because competition is growing in the electric power business, federal law and FERC. electric power regulation have changed to facilitate competition in wholesale power markets.

State laws and regulations may also change to facilitate competition in retail power markets, and Congress is starting to consider requiring states to unbundle and allow competition The key change is to require utilities to offer transmission service independent of power sales so that customers can reach competing power suppliers. That is, to offer unbundled transmission service.

. 176

FERC NOPR ,

National policy is to encourage competition in wholesale power markets, and transmission is the key to making competition work.

On March 29,1995 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -

proposed a new mie to promote wholesale power competition.

The rule would require public utilities to provide open access wholesale transmission services on a nondiscriminatory basis, and would provide for the recovery of stranded costs that result from transmission access. <

KEY FEATURES OF THE RULE Each public utility with transmission must have on file at FERC open access tariffs that offer transmission services comparable to those that the utility provides to its own power customers. i

{

i The tariffs must offer network and point-to-point transmission, and i ancillary services. FERC proposed specific tariffs for comment.

Two-stage implementation:

1.

60 days after the rule goes into effect, FERC will put comparable open access tariffs on file for any public utility without them.

2.

l 61 days after the rule goes into effect, the utility may 3 i

propose revised tariffs and its customers may ask for tariff changes.

I 177

i l

FUNCTIONAL UNBUNDLING Under the proposed rule, each public utility must functionally unbundle its wholesale transmission services. That is, it must

1. Quote separate prices for wholesale generation and transmission

2. Take wholesale transmission service under its own tariffs same price as competitors same terms and conditions of service

3. Get information about its transmission system for its own wholesale power transactions, such as available capacity, in the same way as its competitors do Many parties are considering going beyond functional unbundling and turning transmission over to an Independent System Operator.

SUPPLEMENTAL RIN RULE Each public utility must establish an electronic bulletin board called a Real-time Information Network, or RIN, with transmission information needed by wholesale market sellers and buyers.

The purpose of the RIN is for everyone in the wholesale power markets, including those persons selling or buying power for the transmission provider, to have the same transmission information at the same time.

FERC has proposed standards for RIN data content, format, and data communications.

FERC asks for comments on the new rule on these standards.

4 178-

I i

WHAT COMPETITION MEANS FOR NUCLEAR i

j Wholesale competition is already here and growing. Retail

competition may follow.

l l Utilities with high costs are at risk. All are cutting costs to be l competitive, from power supply costs to payroll expenses, j New power suppliers especially in the wholesale market must l compete on the basis of price.

l New long-term investment choices will be compared for time-to-investment-payback, not just a strict levelized cost comparison.

Nonprice factors will continue to be important, including capacity l availability, fuel price escalation risk, and environmental effects l (air quality and climate efects).

l f

COMPETIlidN DOES NOT MEAN STRANDED NUCLEAR INVESTMENTS j

FERC has a strong commitment to the recovery of pmdent

investments made by utilities that reasonably expected to continue providing bundled service. The rule proposes a policy for recovery of all legitimate, prudent, and verifiable stranded costs.

It also calls for utilities to mitigate stranded investment by taking all reasonable steps to hold costs down.

Congress also, in early discussions of industry restructuring, has placed great weight on recovery of legitimate stranded costs, l especially for both past nuclear investments and for future

! decommissioning costs.

i 179 L.

U.S. NRC Regulatory Informatian Confeneme April 10,1996 Breakout .hanian on Steam Generator Tube Integrity Brian W. Sheron, Dinctor Division of Engineering Omce of Naciaar Reactor Regulation 181

)

Current Regulatory Framework o Present technical specifications (TS) developed about 20 years ago when prevalent forms of degradation were thinaia and wastage o TSs do not reflect either current degradation modes or inspection techpology and are inappropriate for some forms of degradation o Although TS are generally conservative, industry has not yet developed technical bases to support TS changes to ecca=Ma**

most of the major forms of degradation j

l Current Regulatory Framework (cont'd) o Present regulatory framework leads to frequent plant-specific decision making

Plant specific amendments and reviews

> Generic communications o Issues arising from plant-specific decision mahng: Inspection, Repair, Enforcement 182

Inspection: Adv== cad Probes o Major goal of inspection is to ensure tube integrity for operating ,

interval between inspections (Regulatory Guide 1.121 margins) j

\

o Probes used during an inspection should be capable of reliably has forms of degradation to which tubes are potennally susceptible

> Bobbin coil and a probe capable of detectmg circumferential indications must be used to ensure a " tube inspection" i Inspection: Advanced Probes (cont'd) o Probes must have adequate detection threshold to ensure flaws will not exceed regulatory criteria at end of operatag interval

> Appropriate probe depends on plant-specific factors such as interfering signals and flaw growth rate o For example, Plus Point coil may be needed to inspect in the presence of strong interfering signals; whereas the RPC may be adequate to inspect where minor interfering signals are present, such as a standard expansion transition with interfering signals from the geometry alone l

l 183

_ _ Resubs o All inspection reaks, regardless of probe, should be considered )

when classifying inspecnon resuks as Category C-1, C-2, or C-3 '

o Degradation forms inspected with techniques that are not rigorously quahfied for sizing should be considered defective for doesnnining tube repair options and clammifying inspection results

> To date, no ;+ '-Tn have been rigorously quahfied for sizing crack-like indications to the staff's knowledge 1

> If utilities have any doubts on NRC requir== ants regarding leaving mch indications in service, discussions with the NRC prior to the outage may avoid extensive evaluation on entical t path time l

Tube Repair Crheria o All alternate tube repair criteria must be approved by the NRC and incorporated through an amandmagt into that plant's h1 8Pecificatmos

> Alternate tube repair criteria include any that do not explicitly taeasure the depth of degradation (e.g., vohrgr 5--^i criteria, signal-to-noise criteria, lengthM limits, etc.)

o Ahernate tube repair cnteria proposals must have a substantial datahame and technical evaluation to support it (e.g., Genenc Istier 95-05) o Proposals for ahernate tube repair criteria should be submined well in advance of the "need" date 184

l und.cyew - -+_- l o Mid-cycle inapeenaae are sometimes needed to ensure tube integrity o For degradation ==anhaal=== which are repaired upon detecton, j tube integrity for the next cycle of operation may be able to be j heated by: i

> Showing all tubes had adequate tube integrity during the previous cycle provided no major changes in operating e-h'iaan (e.g., j cycle length, T-hot, etc.) are planned I o Tbbe integrity can be demonstrated through the use of quali5ed sizing *~kaar- , tube pulls, and possibly in situ pressure testag coupled with additional analysis, testing, or inspecnons

Several utilities recently avoided mid-cycle inapactiaan through )

tube pulls (Sequoyah Unit 1, Diablo Canyon Unit 1) l l

l i

Enfor-mant o Enforcement guidance pertaming to SG tube inspections and repair 4 is being developed for the spring 1996 outages o Enforcement has recently been taken in this area o Examples for which NRC may consider enforcement action include:

> Tube rupture

> leaving indications in service that are 2 40% through-wall or that are sized using naa==Eed techniques

Missed indications, especially if due to inadequate procedures (e.g., inadequate probes, analyst guidelines or trainag)

> !a=%2='a primary-to-secondary leakage monitoring equipment or procedures 135

i l

Long-Tenn Approach for Addressing Tube Integdty o The NRC is developing a risk informed, performance-based rule to address numerous shortconungs with current regulatory framework 4 o Severe accident concern will need to be addressed as part of the rulemdmg process o Schedule for issuance of the draft steam generator rule for public comment is being developed o Rule will not permit alternate inspection and repair criteria unless there is an adequate data base and technical basis to support such a criteria l l l

186

EPRI Activities to Manage Stearn GeneratorIssues 1996 USNRC Regulatory Information ;

Conference j Breakout Session l

Steam Generator Issues April 10,1996 C. S. Welty, Jr EPRI Manager, Steam Generator Program

. c .,io.i l

187

Mansgement of SG lesues. ;

I Technical

- Causes of damage

- remudialsieasum

- Application ofimproved NDE

- Altetnate plugging criteria Licensing '

= Steam Generator Degradation Specific Management (SGDSM)

- support resolution of *SC Tube Integrity Rule

issues

, Infonnation Exchange

. SGMP participants 02 domestic,9 international " utilities")

- technical U mess /yr) and senior management (2 atss/yr)

- Rapid diesemination of emerging issues and problems eu.neumm a TechnicalActivities l Causes of Damage

- Since -1986 focus is on tube " cracking"

- ICSCC of MA alloy 600 ounceptible to SCC UD or OD) under SG operating conditions a role of stree> material condition mitigation 22 rwscc treenins T hot =ductiero, U. bend rwscc an.

site strees relien, OD ICA/ SCC (chestetry control . beric w, moi.,ma. ntr i.mcrevu, hi.dl Application ofImproved NDE/ISI

- Since mid 1980s goal has been to reduce # of forced outages "SC Examination C/La* ("living* document since 1908) address att aspects of ISI process

. compneable suidance das==1 entet INPO mow ammessing -

- leads to identification of potentially "nonguendal indications" amameumm :

l l

188

Technical ActMiles (cont'd)

Alternate Tube Plugging / Repair Criteria (ARC)

40% TW depth-based limit rentrally not appropriate for SCC

- s.orphology vades (not " classical" cracks)

European approach (since mid 1980s)

Conditions

- relate structural concern (s) to physical (or NDD parsmeter(s)

- relate to reliable NDE parameter (s)

- address growth (change in measured parameter to decrease in structural integsity)

- discriminate among delects

Correlations

- burst ANDleakage support w/ Field data e tube pulls,in site testing

.. TSP OD5CC EZ FW6CC, TTS cire cracking (just startingl BrtkOGir4/10/m a Licensing ActMtles SGDSM Initiative

Modeled aher European approach

- technicalinput and support SCMP structure

Document submitted thru NEI in August 1993

- AFC for TSP OD$CC and EZ PWSCC plus supporting material leakage snonitoring

Guidelines

0994)

SG Tube Integrity Rule

Technical support for NEI SC Issues Working Group

- Rule Making Task Force industry High level Document

- technicalinteractions w/NRC staff SGDSM whlee papers and supporting documwnts armamarense s 189 , ,

w -

i t

Importance of Steam Generator issues Mike Tuckman Senior Vice President, Duke Power Co.

NRC Reg. Information Conference April 10,1996

'd' 190

Topics to be Addressed Background Perspective EPRI / Industry Industry Goals Industry Performance Degradation Control Steam Generator Management NEl Working Group Background Perspective Critical to Safety O&M Costs

-Outage Time

-Inspection Cost

-Power Limitations Replacement Costs l

d'

(

1 191

EPRI / Industry Efforts EPRI Steam Generator Owners Groups

-SGOG I - 1978-1982 ($40 million)

-SGOG ll - 1983-1986 ($30 million)

EPRI Steam Generator Reliability Project

-SGRP - 1987-1992 ($40 million)

EPRI Steam Generator Strategic Management Project

-SGMP - 1993-1997 ($32 million)

Steam Generator Strategic Management Project Participants

-Domestic n Eligible (EPRI Members) 29/30 companies n Not Eligible - 4 companies Can participate in regulatory element 2/4

-International 9 organizations / 9 countries l

l 192

Steam Generator Strategic Management Project Utility Oversight

-Executive Group (10 Members)

-Senior Representatives (36 Members)

-Technical Advisory Group (36 Members)

EPRI / Industry Goals Reduce Capacity Factor Loss < 2.5%

Reduce Tube Leakage Forced Outages < 4/yr. !

Manage Replacement Outages < 100 days d'

193

1 I

Industry Performance Capacity Factor Loss t

8-

'Y .

.i. .

i

.. ., nn- ..

!!I11llll8111+

76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 Industry Performance Tube Leakeage Forced Outages 25-20-15-I

( ,,. Il . Im out.oesl 1 1 1 o M 1 - Ex . $kki ,

76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 194

Steam Generator Degradation Control Some Damage Eliminated

-Denting, pitting, wastage, slud0e-pile IGA

-U-bend primary cracking, AVB wear Some Damage Better Managed

-Steady rate tube plugging, causes unknown a Expansion zone primary cracking, tube sheet IGA Secondary Side Stress Corrosion Cracking

-Work in progress Steam Generator Management

Developed Recent industry Guidance

-EPRI Secondary Chemistry Guidelines

-PWR Examination Guidelines

-Primary-Secondary Side Leakage Monitoring

-ARC for TSP ODSCC

-Proposed Guidance for implementing Steam Generator Rule l

d' l

195

1 Steam Generator Management Severe Accident Analysis

-Risk involving SGTR aTwo documents submitted to NRC w Final document in writing NEl Working Group Formed - October 1994 Mission

-Integrate industry Efforts - SGDSM

-Support Risk / Performance Rule Members

-16 Utilities

-EPRI

-Vendors I

d' l'16

NEl Working Group Frequent NRC Management Meetings Rule nOperating Plant Problems Task Force on Rulemaking

-Frequent Technical Level Meetings n Developed proposed performance criteria /

measures Developed draft industry guidance document Supporting EPRI Documents Steam Generator Rule

Importance

-Consistent regulatory framework

-Reduce unnecessary conservatisms in present approach

-Need incentives through performance-based approach

-Modeled from Maintenance Rule

-Defined Performance Criteria and Measures d'

i .c

Utility Impact of Steam Generator Degradation

.I Impact On Comed

. II Current Situation

. III Comed Leadership IV Recommendations

... ... ill".f;.*E;li... . c........u. em.. c.....,

t98

i I

Impact on Comed

. Single Most Complex Safety, Technical & Economic Issue in the Company

. In the Last 2 Years

- 10 Full Tirte Comed Technical Personnel Commined

- Comed SG Repair Costs $71 Million

- Outage Delays due to SG Repairs 65 Days

- Engmeermg Support for 1 Volt & 3 Volt IPC and Cire Crack APC

including SG Tube Exam $8 Million

- SG Replacement Braidwood U-11998 / Byron U 11999 $ 400 Million

- Steam Generator Litigation in Progress l

l Current Situation o Comed

- 12 Operating Nuclear Units

.PWR

- Byron Unit 1 & 2

- Braidwood Unit 1 & 2

- Zion Unit 1 & 2

.BWR

- Dresden Unit 2 & 3

- Quad Cities Unit 1 & 2

- LaSalle Unit 1 & 2

- 70 % Capacity Factor in 1995 199

i Comed Leadership

. Required for Safety Assurance & Economic Survival

. Iead 3 Volt IPC Development for ODSCC Axial Cracks at TSP's

- Showed Axial Cracks leak and Burst Characteristics correlate to Eddy Current Bobbm Coil Voltage

- Required leak / Burst Testing & Extensive SG Secondary Side inspection

- Safe With Margin at 3.0 Volts

" An Elegant Solution"

. leading Circumferential Crack ARC

- To date " No Elegant Solution"

- O.D. Cucumierential Crack NDE does not Correlate with leak & Burst Capability

- Safety Issue is the Amount of14akage during MSLB

- Possible Outcomes a lewer Tech Spec. SO leakage Limit a PRA that Demonstrates Minimum Safety Significance

. End of Cycle InSitu Pressure Test to Preserve Cycle Length i

Recommendations

- Work with Industry Groups to Resolve Issues "One Time"

. Resolve Industry Inspection Issues "One Time"

. -Implement S/G Rule through the Maintenance Rule i

1 200 1

1

5 5s 9 9k

.c v va o or N 9 NC sda9 ' s c. 98 P' e9 Pi9r SL1 S C1 T Cn t Tot n

@Am Re @teume C e Cde c Pckc I

ala Pea I l l cp E

o t

o r p t l

t oCe l

oye R R V c.R VC R e e r d R R 0.i G 0.i G P 3CS 3MS P s d e % % % %

u g g

u 0

4 5

7 3

9 1

2 7

8 7

1 t

a "l P 4

1 0 9 0 9 5 t

S s r e 9 o

t v

e e

6 4

0 2

0 7

1 4

a l

S r

e n s g

u 8

1 7 7 1 9 3

4 8 7

e l P

5 2

3 1

8 1

3 2 1

6 G

n ,

m i o C CS S C C

a t a SK K t

S e d D

a g

e r

DC OAR P

SC T ,C . R A

CC C

SC C

A

,R r

a NN -

e CR E DR e E E d i v CC S S I

W OC I

W E

t c B PS B A WT PT V

A ST TT V

A T T m r o l l

uwar es 8 9 5 6 0 3

7 2

C Foe P Y 7 5 5 4 1 1 l

e 4- 5- 4- 5- 1 d 1 5

o D D D D 5 M

e o n w O T e o t i

t i

n o n w n e O T U U n w t t d d O T i

n i

n o o t i t

U U o o i n n n n w w U U o d d n o l a

l a n o y

r r y r r i o i B B B B Z Z g~*

r i

i REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE APRIL 10,1996 8

5 o l = -

't g t.

<, v ,

FIRE PROTECTION ISSUES

'^ "

, om io o"l."vi"EM"#FhE"IE ANaum "C'"iAT"^"*"d*N .

nR!','R"US*."EEoM E

"^*** "^l%"J" Jai #Us"" '" '"""

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FIRE PROTECTION ISSUES

Thermo-Lag Fire Barriers

Fire Barrier Penetration Seals

Fire Protection FunctionalInspection Program 203

I l

l l

l THERMO-LAG FIRE BARRIERS

Work Completed on Generic issues Except Time-Temperature

! Curve Feasibility Study and Confirmatory Mechanical l Properties Tests

Focus has Shifted From Generic Issues to Plant Specific Programs l

a Ucensees have Submitted Corrective Action Plans and Schedules l

l

Most Licensees are Pursuing Several options, e.g.,

- Revise Safe Shutdown Analysis

- Exemption Requests

- Upgrade Thermo-Lag Barriers

! - Replace Thermo-Lag Barriers

- Add suppression Systems

The Number of Plant Specific Issues is Decreasing

About 30 Units have Completed Corrective Actions FIRE BARRIER PENETRATION SEALS Comprehensive Generic Assessment Ongoing Inspections of Six Reactors, Two Installation Vendors, and Dow Corning Corporation Completed Assessed Operating Experience and Previous inspection Findings Assessed Existing NRC Requirements and Guidance Generic Safety Significant issues Not Found

Assessment Report will be issued

Estimated Completion Date June 21,1996 204

FIRE PROTECTION FUNCTIONAL INSPECTION PROGRAM

Fire Events are Risk-Significant

A Variety of Fire Protection Issues have Emerged

- Fire Protection Program Deficiencies and Weaknesses

- Fire Events

Replaces Thermo-Lag Inspection Program I and Integrates inspection Activities ]

FIRE PROTECTION FUNCTIONAL INSPECTION PROGRAM (Continued)

Program Development includes

- New Inspection Procedures

- Headquarters / Regional Coordination ,

- Pilot inspections )

- Assessment of Pilot Program

- Presentation to the Commission

- Industry Workshops

- Consideration of NRC Inspections and Self-Assessments I

l 205 i

i FIRE PROTECTION RULEMAKING NRR PERSPECTIVE

- Background

- NRC Identified the Fire Protection Regulation as a Potential Candidate for Modification Under the Regulatory improvement Program.

- NEl Petition Received February 1995

- Published in Federal Register June 1995 Comment Period Closed September 1995 RuleNet Pilot November 1995 - February 1996

= NEl Petition Does Not Meet Objectives and Framework Established by the Regulatory improvement Program.

FIRE PROTECTION RULEMAKING NRR PERSPECTIVE (Continued)

= Approaches Under Staff Consideration Make fJo Changes to the Current Regulations.

Revise 10 CFR 50.48 to incorporate Performance Based Fire Protection Cnteria, and Replace Appendix R and Staff Fire Protection Guidance with a Compretensive Regulatory Guide.

- Establishes Fire Protection Program Details and Expectations I

- Maintains the Established Levels of Fire Safety for Plant Areas Such as Those important to Reactor Safety and Safe Shutdown

- Establishes a Regulatory Framework for the NRC to Review and Approve Performance-oriented Risk informed Approaches as Technology and Methods improve.

Enhancements to Current Levels of Fire Protection May be Warranted to Address for Example, Shutdown Risk Fire Hazards bop Fire Hazards, Smoke Propagation.

206

1 i

l l Regulatory Information Conference Breakout Session on Fire Protection Nuclear Energy Institute Alex Marion April 10,1996

{

i 207

Thermo-Lag Resolution

NEl fire-rating tests completed

. Industry Application Guide revised

- Responses to NRC questions incorporated

- Revision under NRC review

- NEl/NRC meeting Generic and plant-specific approaches to restore compliance Fire Protection Rulemaking NEl petition under NRC review:

- Supplements prescriptive approach with risk-based concept

- Maintains Appendix R structure with defense-in-depth elements a Prevention a Detection a Suppression

- Provides flexibility through use of fire modeling techniques

- Retains Appendix R as option 208

Fire Protection Rulemaking Performance-based alternative via revision to 10CFR50.48:

- Provides for regulatory stabliity

- Replaces Appendix R with performance-based requirements

- Removes prescriptive and diverse licensing bases

- Relies on modeling techniques for defense-in-depth protection a Requires demonstration of modeling applicability and validity a Facilitates use of probabilistic safety I assessments a Allows plant-specific determination of fire protection measures commensurate with hazards

Current Status

- NRC Research Office revhw in progress

- Public comment period complete

- RuleNet project complete

- NRC

Options Paper" to be provided to Commission June 1996

- NEl/NRC meetings to be scheduled 209

I I

I MAINTENANCE RULE

/

IMPLEMENTATION i

i l

I f

211

THE MAINTENANCE RULE Historical Perspective j

The NRC staff has been working with industry /NEI since 1991 to prepare for rule implementation on July 10,1996

A Joint NRC/NEI steering group was established to develop guidance for implementing the rule

NUMARC 93 41 was endorsed by Reg Guide 1.160 in June 1993

A public workshop was held in March 1994 to discuss baseline inspection procedure (IP) 62706 THE MAINTENANCE RULE Historical Perspective (2) 1 The NRC Staff performed nine pilot i=Wons in 1994-1995 using IP 62706. Some lessons learned were:

Scoping was generally good although some additional guidance on equipment that could cause a reactor scram or safety system actuation is needed

Industry-wide operating experience was not sumciently taken into account when setting goals 1

Some standby systems were not being monitored at the train level as required l 8

Monitoring for structures was generally inadequate !

I l

l 212

THE MAINTENANCE RULE Historical Perspective (3)

A public workshop was held in June 1995 to discum lessons learned from the pilot ia=pactions e IP 62706 was revised to incorporate lessons learned from the pilot inspections and issued in August 1995 e The NRC staff participated in a March 1996 NEI workshop to discuss rmal revisions to the industry guideline NUMARC 93-01 and discuss proposed guidance on the monitoring of structures THE MAINTENANCE RULE Current Status e NUMARC 93-01 is being revised to incorporate lessons learned from the pilot in=pactions

.e Regulatory Guide 1.160 is being updated to endorse the latest revision of NUMARC 93-01 and will be issued as revision 2 in June 1996 e The industry guideline for monitoring structures is being reviewed by the NRC staff at this time

NRC is currently providing training to Resident, Region, and HQ inspectors, supervisors and managen.

We expect licensees to be training their staff also.

213

THE MAINTENANCE RULE Baseline Inspections To Ensure Consistent Inspection and Enforcement:

e The NRR staff that performed pilot in=petions and prepared inspection procedures will participate in baseline inspections e Only one la=petion will be performed the first month so that inspectors from all four regions can participa*e e NRR staff will review all baseline inspection reports e Joint NRR/OE panel will review all enforcement actions e Plan to complete baseline inspections in two years THE MAINTENANCE RULE Core and Other Inspections e Resident and region based inspectors will begin inspecting on July 10,1996 using the core inanetion procedure IP 62707 and other region initiative and reactive inspection procedures that address maintenance e Joint NRR/OE panel will review all enforcement actions resulting from these inspections i

214

THE MAINTENANCE RULE Final Remarks e Staff intends to focus on safety significant issues and be flexible in its approach to inspections e Staff will consider industry proposals for clarification

, of implementation guidance during the implementation l phase and, if needed, will hold another public workshop in 1997 215

l NRC REGULATORY I INFORMATION CONFERENCE REACTOR VESSEL ISSUES g%

\.....

APRIL 10,1996 Jack Stroenider, Chief Materials f. Chemical Engineedng Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

217

GENERIC LETTER 92-01

RESULTS SUMMARIZED IN NUREG 1511

- ALL LICENSEES SATISFY 10 CFR 50 APP H

- ALL PLANTS HAVE ADEQUATE USE THROUGH END OF LICENSE

- TWO Pl. ANTS COULD REACH PTS SCREENING CRITERIA PRIOR TO END OF LICENSE

- GL 92-01 RESPONSES (AND PLANT SPECIFIC REVIEWS) IDENTIFIED LARGE CHEMISTRY VARIASILITY

- CONCLUSIONS COULD CHANGE l BASED ON NEW DATAANFORMATION l

l l

GL 92 01 SUPPLEMENT 1

REQUESTED ACTIONS:

- COLLECT ALL DATA RELEVANT TO RPV EVALUATIONS l

- ASSESS IMPACT OF ANY CHANGE IN BEST ESTIMATE CHEMISTRY ON RPV INTEGRITY EVALUATIONS I

- SUBMIT NEW DATA AND REVISED RPV ASSESSMENTS l

l 218 !

GL 92-01 SUPPLEMENT 1

REVIEW OF INITIAL RESPONSES

- 46 RPVs REPORTED TO HAVE ALL RELEVANT DATA

- DATA SEARCHES IN PROGRESS FOR 65 RPVs

- OWNERS GROUPS PERFORMING DATA SEARCHES TECHNICAL ISSUES

- BEST ESTlMATE CHEMISTRY DETERMINATIONS

- APPUCATION SURVEILLANCE DATA

- DIFFERENCES IN INITIAL RTndt VALUES RPV ANNEALING ANNEAUNG RULE (10 CFR 50.66)

PUBUSHED DECEMBER 19,1995 ANNEAUNG REGULATORY GUIDE (RG 1.162)

PUBUSHED FEBRUARY 15,1996 PAUSADES ANNEAUNG REPORT UNDER REVIEW

ANNEAUNG DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

- MARBLE HILL - MAY 1996

- MIDLAND - OCTOBER 1996 219

i lillillilill l_ll _i i

l la l l l l l.l i ll- l!llI s i l -ll l i !! !! i i i l l i I l i l l i l i l l 220

NRC REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE BWR INTERNALS ISSUES

[ *g AP.9L 10,1996 Jack Stroenider, Chief Metodels & Chemical Enginsedng Bronch

^

OfSco of Nucieer Reactor P:7 ". 23 221

CORE SHROUD CRACKING - BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND

- DETECTED IN U.S. PLANTS IN 1993

- GL 94 03 ISSUED JULY 25,1994

- ALL RESPONSES EVALUATED AND SERs ISSUED semena of BWR Corm Ehroud .adh. and Paa=W

CATEGORY C (22 Plants)

- All Category C plants' core shrouds inspected per GL 94-03' (or initiated pre-emptive repairs)

- 13 plants with core shroud repairs tie-rods (11) clamps (2)

- 8 plants met ASME structural integrity criteria for at least one operating cycle

- 5 plants reinspected

escort see.m. Feny 1 which has been in en oriended shuidown 222

Status of BWR Core Shroud inanections and p===1 m CATEGORY B (6 Plants)

- All 6 Category 8 plants' core shrouds inspected per GL 94-03

- No repairs All 6 plants met ASME structural integrity criteria for et least one operating cycle CATEGORY A (8 Plants)

No Category A plant core shrouds inspected yet OTHER INTERNALS

CORE PLATE AND TOP GUIDE CRACKING

JET PUMP HOLD DOWN BEAMS

ACCESS HOLE COVER PLATES l

CORE SPRAY PlPING l

l l

223

BWR-VIP FORMED IN SPRING 1994 I

l DEVELOPMENT OF GENERIC SAFETY ASSESSMENTS, INSPECTION AND REPAIR GUIDELINES Status of BWRVIP Report Reviews awave w mac neer ama.w mesa-swa shmud c.ooedne sonnic sesmy sen issued oneses, as, isos Asen.n.e. now.1, An e s. iso 4 swa ca e shmud noeno ossie cm m. sen ie==d sepe-mor to, tsee Aueust1s.1994 j case sowoud inoposeen and Ewahmeen saa immund June is.100s Guid nna, n.v.1, A a si, ions sepan n.moid nsnedi c.e sneeud nos c- u.;. and Proced e sen is==ed June is, ises seended. November 22.1o04 lopen teams idoneined) swlMP43, nesseer Prenewe Vessel and Under restow lesserneio somminaalen Geddsenes swlMP44, Gedde for Fennet and Cuncont of Asimeweedgesasit estemt es se sent Case shroud nepair come sulumistais swimP45, swn sensel shes weed inspeeden under review neseemondmelone swsMP4s, safety Asessement of namoeur Under soview Intemods swlMP47. Geddoenes for nameposaise of Under soview swa Core shrouds FUTURE ACTIVITIES l

NUREG 1544

CONTINUED REVIEW OF INDUSTRY INSPECTIONS 4tESULTS l . __ _ O, __ __S

REVIEW OF FORTHCOMING BWR-VIP GUIDEUNE DOCUMENTS 224

Regulatory Information Conference Core Shroud and BWR Internals April 10,1996 Robin Dyle 225

BWR Vessel and Internals Project Overview

The BWR Vessel and intemals Project is an association of utilities which own and operate a boiling water reactor.

The BWRVIP is focuraed exclusively on reactor vessel and vesselintemals issues on operating plants. Members of the BWRVIP are committed to sharing of resources and project information on an equitable basis to achieve the objectives of the project.

Industry focus has shifted from contingency planning to implementation of more specific plans for inspection, remedy and repair BWRVIP BWR Vessel and Internals Project Obiectives

To lead the BWR Industry toward generic resolution of vessel and intemals integrity and operability issues.

To identify or develop generic, cost-effective strategies from which each operating plant will select the altemative most appropriate to their needs.

To serve as the focal point for the regulatory interface with the industry on BWR vessel and intemals integrity and operability issues.

To share information among members, and to obtain useful data from many sources.

BWRVIP 226 ,

i

1 1

I BWR Vessel and Internals Project l Oraanization BWRVIP Executive Oversight Committes lotogration inspection Assessment Mitigation Repair BWRVIP BWRVIP/NRC Interactions

NRC and industry interfaces defined to communicate BWRVIP activities

Interfaces at both management and technical levels

Periodic information meetings since mid-1994

- 4 Executive level meetings

- 6 Technicallevel meetings BWRVIP i

l 227

I

[BWR Vessel and Internals Project)

Introduction

Initial focus was on the core shroud - shroud work now co@e the ::::-g intamal Remainir components

^:j work have been prioritized and plan isin progress

BWRVIP now performing in a proactive issue management mode

All U. S. BWR/2-6 utWhos and six intomational BWR utilities are participating Five %=::: utilities One Sparush utility

Executive Committee approved 1996 activsbos and budget ($6.125M) at August 1995 BWRVIP meeting BWRVIP f BWRVIP Phased Acoroach )

Ebtag Maior ActMtv 94 1 95 I 96 I 97 I 98 1 + Start up

. Innel Program Scope I ll + Address Most Crthon! .

component i Ii

Finalee Program Scope l

III . compiece consson i I l Asseeement (CAG) Guide j for H@ Pnorny Components i l

av . compiece cAG for Romanng Cong ***

l I

Ramp Down to Manionance WWRVIP 228

9 Integration Committee

The goal is to enhance coordination of all BWRVIP and related actMties between the committees, EOC and industry (including NRC)

Measures of success include resolution of vessel and intomals integrity issues within schedule and budget

Coordinate technical actMties that bridge all technical commrttees

Made up of Technical Chairmen and other utility management BWRVIP b Integration Committee Activities

1. SCC Assessment Database

2. Complete Component Prioritization

3. Finalize 1997 BWRVIP Program Plan

4. Condition Assessment Guide I

)

BWRYlP 229

Assessment Committee

The goal is methodology for evaluation in support of decisions for operation, inspection, mitigation or repair

= Success will lead to realistic and defensible assessments of serviceability and service life Support repair / replace decisions and prompt evaluation of findings

- Support timely implementation of countermeasures

- BWRVIP

)

[ Assessment Committee Activities

)

1. Revise Core Shroud inspection and Evaluation Report

2. Guidance for Reinspection of Core Shrouds

3. Core Shroud Evaluations

4. Crack Growth Evaluation

5. Strategic Planning Team

6. RPV Weld Inspection Recommendations (Beltline Team)

7. Inspection and Evaluation (l&E) Guidelines

( 8. Generic Letter 92-01: Reactor Vessel Structural integrity BWRVIP 230

Inspection Committee s = The goal is to determine the condition of vessel welds, attachments, intemals and penetrations using effective, predictable techniques

Measures of success are the availability, reliabiitty and cost-effectiveness of methods for required inspections BWRVIP

[ Inspection Committee )

Activities

1. Quantify Shroud NDE Capabilities

2. Shroud NDE Development - Advanced Techniques

3. Shroud Mock-ups

4. Training of Inspection Personnel 5 NDE Ouantification for Other Intemal Components

6. Other intemals NDE Development - Advanced Techniques

7. Other Intemals Mock-ups

8. Support of Beltline Team

9. Generic Activities BWRVIP 231-

Repair Committee a The goal is to assure the availability of cost-effective repair ar.ematives for internals, vessel attachments, penetrations and other components affected by service-related degradation

Success means that applications have been anticipated, repair capability is available and repair design criteria have been defined so that service vendors can respond promptly to plant-specific needs BWRVIP b Repair Committee )

Activities

1. Develop Repair Priority Ranking

2. Component Repair Evaluations

3. Repair Technology Development

4. Repair Criteria Development

5. Repair Application Development

6. Develop Guidelines for Shroud Repair Submittals BWRVIP 232

i Mitigation Committee

The goalis to develop and demonstrate countermeasures for service-related degradation

Success means that significant reductions are achieved in the costs of repair and scope of inspections BWRVIP I

Mitigation Committee Activities

1. Revise BWR Water Chemistry Guidelines

2. Report on Regulatory Credit for Mitigation

3. Develop Advanced Mitigation Techniques I

BWRVIP 233

b BWRVIP/NRC Management Meeting Summarv

= Several reports submitted since July 1995:

1. RPV and intemals Examination Guidelines (BWRVIP 03), ,

November 1995

2. Guide for Format and Content of Core Shroud Repair Submittals (BWRVIP-04), October 1995

3. RPV Shell Weld inspection Recommendations (BWRVIP-05),

September 1995 l

4. Safety Assessment of BWR Reactor internals (BWRVIP-06),

October 1995

5. Guidelines for Roinspection of BWR Core Shroucs (BWRVIP-07),

i February 1996 l 6. Bounding Assessment of BWR/2-6 RPV Integrity issues (GL 92-01)

(BWRVIP-08), November 1995

7. Evaluation of Crack Growth in BWR Stainless Steelintemals (BWRVIP-14), March 1996 BWRVIP l

l

[ BWRVIP/NRC Management )

Meeting Summarv

=

Several more near term submittals planned for high priority components (potentially 10 documents)

- l&E Guidelines for core spray, shroud support, top guide, core plate and SLC

- RPV Examination Guidelines for core spray, shroud support

- Repair design criteria for core spray. Replacement criteria for core spray. CRD housing / stub tube roll expansion repair enteria

- Other generic supporting actmties underway 1 - SCC database

- Crack growth evaluations a Underwater wedting program I

- Noble Metal Chemical Addition l - Regulatory inspection credit for mitgation j

= Water chemistry guidelines BWRVIP l

l 234

b BWRVIP/NRC Management )

Meeting Summarv

= BWRVIP continues to operate in proactive issue management mode with near term focus on high priority internal components :

Need continued technical interface between NRC and industry to ensure timely approval and implementation BWRVIP 235 l

LICENSE RENEWAL UPDATE gps req

+u 47

"$ D o

~ ~

3 Q;Ve gp E 3,

..a<fQ O

%s SCOTT F. NEWBERRY DIVISION OF REACTOR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 237

N O

I l j

T a A w e }

T n p n e o o N R _ h i

t d

E s a r e M - e s _ k r ,

t s m-E n o ,

n , a-L e w o e c - m L P i L e M D I

L A

W E n _

N o E i R

t ama l trr Esg E /

e t Nnor o S ne en mP )

N; id l

dueim p e ;

E. D C iGo u n I Gge ev l

iom t a L l EReD cr

~ e g N po s r 0

t n i nP n e 1 om E i tcrp a m L ego pol U = s r e nPv e R I D

(

_ l

_ as ct t ir n

~

hp no e ce Pp m

,I TeR Ro Sl e

_ v ^-

e rl o as D d f ct I r rwR

- fa reL -

Rhp Ece n<vn a ea l STER S RP t

l llf l '

Progress in License Renewal COMPLETED ACTIVITIES o The final revised rule issued-5/95 o NEl Guideline, NEl 95-10, Revision O submitted-3/96 o NRC Site audits of NEl Guideline Demonstration Program Participants Initiated-3/96 o Draft Safety Evaluation issued on Baltimore Gas &

Electric's screening methodology-2/96 o Draft Safety Evaluation Report issued on Babcock

& Wilcox Owners Group reactor coolant system piping topical report-10/95 o Currently reviewing Babcock & Wilcox Owners Group, Westinghouse Owners Group, and Boiling Water Reactors Owners Group topical reports o Draft Standard Review Plan placed in the Public Document Room-12/95 o Part 51 Rulemaking Package sent to the Commission-2/96 4

239

Progress in License Renewal NEAR TERM ACTIVITIES l

Issue the Draft Regulatory Guide and NEl Guideline )

for public comment-8/96

Complete site audits of NEl demonstration project participants-8/96

Conduct a public workshop on the License Renewal Regulatory Guide, the NEl Guideline, and lessons learned from the NEl Demonstration Project-10/96 o Complete the Part 51 Rulemaking o Review plant specific topical reports from Baltimore Gas & Electric and Duke Power o Continue the review of Owners Group Topical Reports I

l I

l 240

Progross in Liconso Ronawal LONG TERM ACTIVITIES o Complete final Regulatory Guide and NEl Guideline-8/97 o Complete draft inspection guidance I

o initiate license renewal application reviews o Complete the Standard Review Plan 241

l FINAL ENLB W 311G W "ENIROSENAL REVIW FOR RENDEL OF NUCLEAR PelElt PLANT OPERATIllG LICEll5ES" 10 CFR PART 51 DONALD P. CLIAltY REGilLATIO11 DEVELOPIENT BRAllCN DIVISIOII 0F REEllLATORY APPLICATICIls 0FFICE OF llWCLEAlt REACTOR RESEARQt i

i l

l 243

OUTLINE e Osasertvs or Tut RuumenKras e Mnaon Fsavumas or tus Fanat RuLs e Apenoacn to tus Ruumenares e Resoturnou or Maaos Casessurs ou fus Pnoposso Ruta OBJECTIVE OF THE RIMMAKIRG e Imenovs Tuc Errscrancy or viet Envreesess:TAL Ravasw Pnecess e Mauruzza Cast-ev-CAss n====ev rn tur Ravasw or Envznossesztat Issess e Noas SunapLv Focus tus Revrew or tuoss issuss tunt anc To oc Ravsswan Cass-sy Cast l

1 l

l 244

l

)

HMOR FEATWtES OF THE FINAL RULE l

Sensensry or tus Cassaaston's Famermos au vus Scept aus Nasuttues er IssPacts Is Coornap an Apesanzr 0 to Suspant A Tasts 5-1 e Two Carsesares or Fassames ,

o Cavseeny 1 - Amoer tus Esmanze Fasmsms rea sus issus am Eacu Ptaarr Spacznc Revraw e CATseeay 2 - AmortsenaL Psaarr-Spacanc AmaLysts as Ranuzano AmaLysts xs Sescanso zu 6 51.53(c)D)(st)

N WOR FEATURES, CON'T

Temas Levets or 5:emancancs Danaso (kaan s , Nossaars ase Lanes)

92 Enyznesseurrat Issues zu Tus F mat Ruts e 68 Catuesey 1 Issues e 24 Carsesey 2 Issues 245

APPROACH e Gamsarc AmALTsrs Encowasszus ALL OptaATras Powsa RaacTons (Gencarc EnvrmomusmTAL leePact StatumswT) e Bases rom Tus Gamsasc Appenaces

EnvssosseswTAL IsePActs or OpsaATzon Aar wtLL Unosastoon Ass Documswns e Ltcasssa RamewAL ActrvzTres Aas Expectan to se nfrvurN ins RAsses or AcT2vrT2Es ALAsAoy EXPsaIEBICsD e CnAmses zu Tut Envamossesar Amouno PLAwTs Tre to es GaAsuat Am PassrcTAsLE RE50LifTION OF MAJOR CtDMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RULE

Pustre PAaTzczrATzon Amo Tuc Prazoorc Asssssserar or tus Rutt amo ner GEIS e Concana wrvu Gamsarc Appooacu Amo Paoposso RvLs e RasTarcTs Pustre PAaTxcrPATZust e PaocsouaAL RIstoITv NApePEas CoNsrDEaATION OF New INroEDIAT3oII l

I

)

246

Pustic PaniscarATroes. Con *T e Baseousa e unosasiastas wzTu CES Amo EPA (SECY-93-032,1/9/93) e Paspans A SupetausmTAL SITE Seactrze EIS nATusa Team Am EA e No ComrizoseAL ConcLessons Aoost ALTummarzyss e Ravtav Ruts Am GEIS em A Tam-YaAn CycLa MAJOR CONCERNS, CON'T e ImpagnsgusmT est STATS RaouLAToav Paocess e tasutizes enom e use or Ecomourc Dsczsrom Carisata - UTILzrv Costs Amo Cost Bausrrt BALameras e ConcLusrows amour ha m rom GamsaATras CaracrTV e Gamsazc Fr e ras on Atisamarrys Enamsy Souness i

3 247

l e Imrarmosuswr en start RaeoLArony Paocess, Cos'y e Asspouss l

e ELIMrMTsD PrrLITY Ec8NOMICs Am Cost-EsMrTT Am4LY5rs FWM Tus tresuss Ramsunt Dactsrom I e ELrwrnavso CousrosnATrow or Msa con GamsaATras CAPAcrTV e Cuarrran Am b- Tus Svaruusur or Pueposs Amo Raso rea Ltcamss RsmewAL e Amoetsn A New Dscrston STAmoAmo wrcu rs Focesso ou <

EnvrnoweswTAL Impacts e PLAmT-Sesctrze Asvrew or Ensasy ALuanATzvss MAJOR CONCERNS, CON'T e CaneoaY AND IMPACT MAGNrTuos DerrarTrent e Comesma vnar DspruzTroms waas Asereuous Amo IwysacounscTuo e Rescoass e Revrste DstrurTroms To EtrurmATs AnsraurTV l e BcTTsa ExrLAzum CArasoaY Amo M4enITuos Fruernes zu vus GEIS e Dsrruso Tus NAGNITUDs or RAproLostcAL IsEPACTs rN Tsans or Conertrancs wrTu Tus Casostssron's RasutArrons 248

)

MAJOR CONCEMIS, CON'T l

e TasaneswT or $sysms AccasesT lerneanom Desrom ALTsamanvas (SAleAs) j e Vaaseus ra-e==== asowT Tus Assenacy or nas Analysts )

. is.r. ass i e Amatysts or $syses AccroswT Iwacts ss Appearesats

ImreannTromaL Basts com Gensaac Fzmores on 5AfeAs por ComPLETse (IPEs amo IPEEEs)

IIAJOR CSECEMIS, CON'T

Tess unantum Fust Cvets ase Setze Wasts MamaeamsmT erc e Hnat Is Ties AprLzcaerLITY or Tasts 5-3 to Wasts Gemenarse paon Lzcamss Ramsunt e UncsaTarmTV In Ties Scussets con im-Lavat Wasts ano Hzess-tsyst Wasts Drsposat Fac1LITIss e Casestanvs RaeroLoszcAL Isepacts or Tus Unantine Fust CycLa e TnansponTanom - Tasts 5-4 l

249

e Tac UnAnzum Fort CycLa Amo Sotro W4ser NamAsessmT, Com'T

.

Rtsposest e ExeAusso Ass IsrTzanaTG Drscusszois or TAets 5-3 wITH WASTE M4massnurr

RsAsssssG AmALYsES or W4sTs STonAsa DzsposAL Amo TaasesponTAT3oM e Conctuoso Tut OrrsrTs RAstoLosICAL IWACTs oN IserVIouALS Faon Osuca TuAm Tut DzseosAL or SetNT Furt amo Hzen-Lavet W4sTt Is 5seALL Ano Carracey 1 e Comewoso Mzxso Wasts StonAss Amo D seosAL IneActs wru as See4LL Ase CAfroomy 1 e Concuoso Low-LavrL W4str SToeAsE Ase DIseosAL IWACTs win SE SeeAu ase CArteoaY 1 e Conctuoso Tut vus Iwacts or OusrTr StonAss or SecxT Fort wrLL st SeeALL Amo CATseony 1 e Tus UnAmrun Furl CYCLE Amo SoLro WASTE MAmAseqENT e Resecase, Com'T e Casoci.moso Tut ConacTrve Orrstrz RAozoLoszcAL Iwacts wra mor ut SurrscrawTLv (Amst To ELrxtinAT Lzeness RssesuaL ren Airy Puurt e Concusoso vnAT Orrsrft RAnfoLos! CAL IMcACTs rhoM TwE Disposal or SPsNT FutL Amo HreM-Layst W4sts wrLL soot se SerrsczanTLY LAass: To ELIMruTE L2ctust AsmsmL ron Aary PLAser e Conctmoso RELATIVE To TnAmsponTATzou or RaoroActrve Suzensur To Ase rnoM PLAstTs THAT A Gensazc Cosectustose Sesouto pot ss DnAus: Due to Lact or Impoem4Trom Sesczrze To Tut Yucca MousrlAIN RaposrToaY 250

REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE APRIL 10,1996 W *%g

.g g L S, o SHUTDOWN RULE GARY M. HOLAHAN, DIRECTOR DIVISION OF SYSTEMS SAFETY AND ANALYSIS OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION THE SHUTDOWN RULEMAKING PROGRAM

Draft Rule, Regulatory Guide, and Regulatory Analysis Substantially Modified from October 1994 Proposed Versions

New Draft Versions of the Rule and Regulatory Guide Have Been Placed in the Public Document Room

Will Discuss with Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) in May 1996 251

THE SHUTDOWN RULE

Risk-Informed, Performance-Oriented to:

- Assure Continuation of Safety Gains Achieved by Industry in Past Years

- Minimize Occurrence of Undesirable Events

- Assure Mitigation of Events That do Occur

Rule Structured in Three Operational Levels:

- Performance Criteria for Normal Operation

- Safety Requirements for Normal Operation

- Backup Cooling Capability and Containment PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Limits for Normal Shutdown Operation

Provide Margin of Safety

Licensee Specified to Address:

- Reactor Coolant Systems (RCS) Temperature

- RCS Pressure

- RCS Water Level

- Reactivity

NRC not Generally involved in How Performance Criteria are Achieved 252

SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR NORMAL OPERATION Licensee Shall Monitor and Control Operations to:

- Keep RCS Temperature < Saturation at all Locations Where Subcooling Should be Maintained

- Provide a Sufficient Water Level to Assure Reliable Operation of Planned Means of Core Cooling

- Prevent inadvertent Criticality

- Prevent Overpressurization of RCS Pressure Boundary

- Assure Control Over Release of Radioactive Material

Existing TSs and Licensing Bases Cover RCS Pressure, Reactivity, Fuel Handling, and Heavy Loads BACKUP CAPABILITY

Provide Defense-in-Depth to Assure Specified Acceptable Fuel Design Limits Not Exceeded

Necessary Resources Will Vary During Outage:

- Capability Must be Available

- Passive Capability May be Credited 4

253

CONTAINMENT

Containment is Under Evaluation. Present Thinking is as Follows:

Provide Defense-in-Depth to Assure Control Over Release of Radioactive Material

Ir!agral Containment While Maximum RCS Temperature a 212 'F, Otherwise be Able to Close Containment:

- Before Steam Released into Containment Where Potential Bolling is of Concern in Time to Control Release of Radioactive Material

Closed Containment Consists of a Single Barrier to Release of Radioactive Material

Pressure Capability of Closed Containment Under Evaluation SCHEDULE Date Date item Draft Rule Final Rule ACRS Meetings May 1996 Early 1997 Committee To Review Generic Summer 1996 Early 1997 Requirements Meeting Publish in the Federal Register September 1996 Early 1997 (for comment) (for implementation) 254

REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE APRIL 10,1996 ve* 88%<

A, s

D o k 4 4 ooc

SPENT FUEL POOL ISSUES KENNETH E. PERKINS, JR., WCFO DIRECTOR DIVISION OF REACTOR PROJECTS REGION IV (WCFO) 255

SAFETY FUNCTIONS & REQUIREMENTS FOR SFPs

Reactivity Control through Substantial Shutdown Margin (e.g., Effective Neutron Multiplication Factor <0.95)

Radiation Shielding Provided by Water inventory

Spent Fuel Pool Coolant Water inventory Control thiough:

- Structural Design of Pool (Seismic)

- Anti-Siphon Measures & Drainage Prevention

- Monitoring Instrumentation (Level and Radiation)

Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Capability Primary System to Control Temperature and Water Quality

- Back-up Systems for Cooling or inventory Addition (Some Plante Require Temporary Piping Connectione)

Most Plante Have et Least One Cooling Loop Designed to Operate Independent of Off-site AC Power (Based on FSAR Review)

SPENT FUEL POOL ISSUES BACKGROUND

+ lssues identified in 10 CFR Part 21 Report

- Fuel Pool Cooling System Design at Susquehanna Not Safety Grade (i.e., Not Designed to Retain Function Following Design-Basis Events)

- Concern for Fuel Pool Boiling

- Concern for Degradation to Safety Systems in Areas that Communicate with Spent Fuel Pool Area

- Concern for Reactor Safety System Degradation and Degraded Containment Performance -

256

SPENT FUEL POOL ISSUES BACKGROUND (Continued)

Loss of Spent Fuel Coolant Inventory

- Renewed Emphasis as a Result of Dresden 1 Special Inspection

- Potential for Rapid Partial Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Coolant inventory and Associated High Local Radiation Dose Rates

- Potential for Unrnonitored Release of Contaminated Water

Core Offloading Practices

- Identified During Review at Millstone 1

- Potential for operation of Spent Fuel Pool Outside Analyzed Bounds NRC ACTIONS AND PLANS

Generic Communications

- Issued Three Information Notices Regarding Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Concerns (IN 93-83, IN 93-83 Supplement 1, and IN 95-54)

- Issued Bulletin (94-01) and Information Notice (IN 94-38) Regarding Coolant Inventory Loss and inspection Findings at Dresden 1, Respectively 257

NRC ACTIONS AND PLANS (Continued)

Technical Evaluations

- Susquehanna Risk Assessment and Safety Evaluation for Pool Boiling with Subsequent Presentation to ACRS

- Found the Probability of LOCA with Core Damage Sufficient to impede Restoration of Fuel Pool Cooling was too Low to Justify Backfit

- Found Frequency of Spent Fuel Pool Boiling also too Low to Support Hardware Backfit, But More Restrictive Administrative Controls May be Justified

- Specialinspections of Fuel Storage Practices at all Permanently Shutdown Reactors with irradiated Fuel Inventories identified no Significant Findings at Facilities Other than Dresden 1

Generic Action Plan STATUS OF SPENT FUEL POOL GENERIC REVIEW

Design Features and Operating Practices Focused on During On-Site Assessments

- Design Features

- Penetrations Through SFP Walls Below Top of Stored Fuel, Absence of Anti-Siphon Devices

- Dual Unit Spent Fuel Pools Storing Fuelin Areas that Communicate with Safety Systems Supporting Those Units

- Absence of Annuciators to Alert Operators to Loss of Coolant / Cooling

- Lack of Backup Cooling Capability (e.g., Single Pump with No Backup, No Provision for Alternate Power) 258 i . . . . __

STATUS OF SPENT FUEL POOL GENERIC REVIEW (Continued)

Design Features and Operating Practices Focused on During On-Site Assessments (Continued)

- Operating Practices

- Practices inconsistent with Design Basis

- Maintenance of Cooling System Availability During Refueling

- Appropriate Abnormal Operating Procedure for Recovery of Cooling

On-Site Assessments Completed

- Four Operating Reactor Sites Visited (Two BWR and Two PWR Sites) in Addition to Two Other On-Site Reviews

- No Major Safety Concerns identified

- Potential Improvement in Outage Administrative Controls and Emergency Procedures identified

- FSAR Based Reviews Conducted to identify Plants Not Well-Represented by Thoso Visited

Survey of all Operating Reactors for Design, Operational, and Licensing Basis Information Regarding the Spent Fuel Pool Currently Underway 259

POTENTIAL OUTCOME OF SPENT FUEL POOL REVIEW

lssue Information Notice Describing Findings

Complete Spent Fuel Pool Design, Operating Practice, and Licensing Basis Survey at Each Site

Consider Generic Communications and Conduct Plant Specific Backfit Analysis Based On Information Collected Related to:

- Spent Fuel Cooling Reliability During Refueling

- Spent Fuel Handling Practices During Refueling

Update Staff Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Design Guidance SPENT FUFL STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION WORKmOP e NRC headquarters May 17,1996 e Ifm licensing process e NRC experience

Regulations, including the Part 50/Part 72 interface

> Licensing and inspection observations

Change process (50.59 & 72.48) e State perspectives e NEI and industry experience 260

Regulatory information Conference Breakout Session Spent Fuel Pool Cooling issues Nuclear Energy Institute Alex Marion April 10,1996 M'

261

Spent Fuel Pool Operational considerations

- Spent fuel pool cooling capacity

- Criticality control

- Refueling activities

- Storage capacity 262

Spent Fuel Pool

- ,_essons learned

- Licensing documentation consistency

- Detail and level of design reviews

- Appropriateness of operational practices

- No immediate safety-significant concerns 263

Spent Fuel Pool P'

Potential actions

- Reinforce need for further improvement

- Possible areas for assessment based on risk insights

- Highlight need for resolution to long-term ,

spent fuel storage 264

t Printed

on recycled paper Federal Recycling Program

-_ _-_-- -

ML20217A764

Text

=

Provide groundwork for futures: n ' t licensing actions y=

Navigation menu

Search