ML20246D301
| ML20246D301 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/23/1989 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-89-138, SECY-89-254, NUDOCS 8908250319 | |
| Download: ML20246D301 (7) | |
Text
a N
f%,
\\
r l
s
\\...../
I 1
Auoust 23, 1989 SECY-89-254 (Information)
Fort The Commissioners From; James M. Taylor, Acting Executive Director for Operations Subiect:
ELIMINATING OR MODIFYING SELECTED REGULATIONS WITHOUT COMPROMISING SAFETY
Purpose:
Inform the Commission of the progress mede since 1986 and the current program, including current schedule and resource estimates, for improving overall regulatory effectiveness by eliminating unnecessary regulations and modifying existing regulations. Changes proposed will not compromise safety standards established by current regulations.
Summary:
This paper describes the progress made in the Commission mandated program to improve regulatory effectiveness. The program is to review existing regulatory requirements, identify candidate regulations for improvement, analyze the candidates, and recommend changes in rules and regulatory practice. A systematic review of selected regulations has been completed, incorporating the latest information and thinking of the NRC staff. A list of candidate regulatory requirements for further consideration is being prepared. An analysis will be performed of the set of candidate regulations thus identified to arrive at a recommended list for potential action. A public workshop will be held in the summer of 1990 to obtain industry and public input on the list of candidates. Final recommendations for future action will be provided to the Commission during the fall of 1990.
Backaround:
In SECY-89-097, the staff described the NRC accomplishments since 1984 to eliminate or modify selected regulations without compromising safety. One item discussed was the RES
Contact:
M.
Fleishman, RES l
492-3794 l
1 KPr 6@ S 0 1 ff '
3
.w".
.The Commissioners 2
program to systematically identify LWR regulations that have either marginal ~importance to safety or whose modi 11 cation could significantly' improve regulatory effectiveness.
In a May.22, 1989 SRM, the' Commission requested further information about this program.
Specifically, the staff was requested to update SECY-86-284 describing in greater detail, progress made since 1986 and the current program, including current schedule and resource estimates.
At the start of the program, the staff solicited comments from industry on specific regulatory requirements and associated regulatory positions that needed reevaluation. In response to NRC's request, a survey was conducted by the Atomic Industrial Forum providing most of industry's input.
The industry survey results, which were published in NUREG/CR-4330, " Review of Light Water Reactor Regulatory Requirements," Volume 1 (April 1966), included e list of ~
forty-five car.didates for potential regulation modification.
The survey.within NRC was not completed. A progress report of this effort was provided to the Commission on September 26, 1986 (SECY-86-284).
A Program A'visory Group, composed of members from the major d
~
NRC offices was formed to. review these candidates.
The group selected seven regulatory areas from the' forty-five-candidates for analysis based on the potential benefit for
. licensees and the number of plants that would be impacted.
These regulatory areas are
~
1.
Containment 1eak rate testing, 2.
BWR main steamline isolation valve leakage control
- systems, fuel design safety reviews,
~
4.
post accident sampling systems, 5.
6.
combustible gas control systems, and 7.
charcoal filters.
The results of the analyses of the selected candidates were reported in NUREG/CR-4330, Volume 2 (June 1986) and Volume 3 (May 1987).
The Program Advisory Group reviewed the assessments of the seven candidates and concluded that certain requirements in the first two areas could be considered as having marginal importance to safety and that modification of these
The Commissioners 3
requirements could produce significant savings in resources without. adversely affecting public health and safety.
In the third area, while certain requirements could also be considered as being of marginal importance to safety, there appeared to be no significant cost savings.in modifying them.
The remaining four areas were not reviewed in detail.
Regarding the first program area, specific relaxations to Appendix J of 10 CFR 50, Containment Leakage Testing, were identified and are being considered as part of the Appendix J proposed rulemaking.
Following the reorganization in April 1987, the program was dormant for eight months due to inadequate staff resources but was reactivated in FY 1988. Currently, the program is operating at a minimum level consistent with the commission's FY 1988 und FY 1989 budget guidance. A pilot study was conducted in 1988 to test a method of completing the survey within NRC.
The pilot study indicated that a considerable amount of knowledge and ideas existed within the NRC staff which could potentially be a basis for elimination or modification of selected regulations without compromising safety.
Discussion:
Procram Description The regulation review program consists of two phases and has focused on 10 CFR Part 50 requirements because of resource limitations and because they apply to commercial reactors which are a significant part of NRC's responsibility.
The i
objective of Phase One is to identify regulations or regulatory practices that are potential candidates for modification or elimination. The objective of Phase Two is to analyze the list of candidates identified in Phase One and develop a set of recommendations for future regulatory action.
The survey th3t was previously conducted and reported in NUREG/CR - 4330, Volume 1, provided industry's input to develop a list of potential candidates for modification or elimination. In order to complement this earlier work and ensure a complete search, Phase One includes a survey using a structured interview process to collect suggestions based on the accumulated knowledge of NRC staff members many of whom have spent years developing and applying plant regulations.
Also, relevant information, discussed in the Related Activities Section of this paper, is being evaluated.for use in the regulation review program.
The survey collects the NRC staff's experience and knowledge of the effectiveness of the regulations and regulatory practices. Tha purpose of the survey is to cover regulatory issues, which are important for existing and future plants,
i L
c The Commissioners 4
in a systematic manner. The survey is based on a structured review of each Standard Review Plan with the corresponding regulatory branch that has responsibility for that review plan.
The Standard Review Plans were used as a guide to systematically address all parts of 10 CFR Part 50 and the relevant branches in NRR that have licensing responsibilities. As the Standard Review Plans are reviewed, rules and regulatory practices (regulatory guides, generic letters, or orders), which could be eliminated or should be modified, are identified. This survey, combined with the previous survey, provides a complete and systematic review of plant regulations and regulatory practices. The curvey methods were first tested in a pilot study, and the results used to adjust the screening and structured interview process.
The product of Phase One will be a list of regulations or regulatory practices that are potential candidates for modification or elimination. For each regulatory requirement, there will be a brief discussion _ describing the requirement and the nature of the possible changes. Examples of items that have been identified to date during Phase One, that should be considered further, include:
1.
Reactor site criteria (Part 100 and Part 100, Appendix A) - poteatial updates regarding radiological cource terms and geological science; 2.
Accident analysis sections of the Standard Review Plan (SRP 15...) - many required analyses have no risk significance, are costly to perform and review, have little or no impact on plant design, and are potential candidates for elimination; 3.
Codes and standards (section 50.55a) - numerous potential changes regarding in-service inspection and testing that can reduce regulatory burden and enhance safety; 4.
Changes, tests and experiments (Section 50.59) -
the potential action is to clarify the wording and eliminate ambiguous, vague or confusing language often resulting in improper submission of safety evaluations; and 5.
Load combinations (Part 50, Appendix A, GDC 2 and j
GDC 4) - the potential action is to permit decoupling of design basis loads from seismic loads as they pertain to the design of mechanical i
equipment.
1 I
i
- ^:
)
y[4,:-
lt
.The commissioners 5'
[
. Phase'Two of thic program will consist-of an' analysis of candidate reguli ins for potential modification that are identified in'Pi
_ One.
The criteria to be considered in the analysis include: -safety goal considerations, value and-impact,' potential risk and consequences, defense in depth, and adequate safety. Due consideration will be given to the interrelationships among regulations. The effect-on safety of changing a given regulation cannot be determined by-analyzing the effects of that regulation alone. Other regulations may depend on that regulation to ensure adeguate safety. Thus, the set of candidate regulations will be analyzed.by comparing the current level of safety (as measured by the criteria) with the level of safety after all modifications have'been made to the set of regulations being analyzed.
The analysis will identify that subset of the. candidate regulatory requirements that should receive regulatory evaluation. 'The candidates identified in the subset will be-considered in relation to each other to ensure that the totality of changes will indeed result in minimal impact on safety.
The. analysis will include consideration of the.
contribution to safety made by each candidate requirement; the effects that the requirement has on licensing and inspection activities; the effects of the requirement on the-design, construction, operation and quality assurance of typical plants; and the approximate costs of implere o.' tion of the requirement both for the NRC and the regulated industry.
The analysis will be performed on the list of csndidate regulatory requirements from Phase One and the results will be documented. The preliminary recommendations for modification of the regulations, resulting from the analysis, will be discussed with industry and other interested parties in a public workshop. Then the final recommendations will be proposed to the Commission.
Belated Activities There are several activities related to this regulation review program that will be periodically monitored to ensure consistency in the recommendations. The NRC is currently engaged in about 40 rulemakings.
In SECY-89-097, the staff described various accomplishments and planned activities related to the elimination or modification of selected regulations without compromising safety. The regulation review program will take into account the effects of ongoing rulemakings as well as the activities described in SECY-89-097, and other activities directed by the Commission in its SRM of May 22, 1989, that have a bearing on the
. program. The following paragraphs describe activities, not l
t
y i
The commissioners 6
described'in SECY-89-097, or'in the May 22, 1989 SRM, that will also be monitored.
The ongoing prioritization of generic safety issues, including Chernobyl related issues, has identified a set of I
licensing issues and regulatory impact issues. These issues-are related to_ improving the effectiveness or efficiency of reviewing plant applications and are awaiting action.
Licensing issues and regulatory impact issues will be reviewed and, if appropriate, will be incorporated into the regulation review program.
The Office of Administration (ADM) is reviewing each reporting requirement to revalidate the agency's continued need for the information. This review is required by the Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1986.
Its purpose is to ensure that each requirement is needed, that NRC has adequate resources to use the data, and that the requirement does not unnecessarily duplicate requirements imposed by other agencies. Recommendations emerging from this ADM review, that properly fit, will be incorporated into the regulation review program.
I In response to the Commission SRM of July 31, 1989, the staff is developing a plan to assess the source term in light of current knowledge and will consider updating of the source term.
In addition, the staff is exploring various ways to handle severe accidents in the regulatory process, whether by rulemaking for severe accidents or by certification
{
rulemaking of standard designs.
It is expected that these activities will be well underway when the program on regulatory effectiveness will issue recommendations on future rule changes. During the program, the staff will monitor the ongoing work on severe accidents and source terms, and the recommendations will take into account proposed regulations j
on severe accidents or source terms along with existing regulations.
Current Status and Future Plans Phase One of the program is almost complete.
Phase Two will be initiated when the Phase One effort is completed. We are
.l in the final steps of contracting support for Phase Two.
It I
is expected that the preliminary evaluation of the candidate regulatory requirements will be completed by the spring of 1990 and that a public workshop will be held with industry and other interested parties in the summer of 1990. When the Phase Two contract is in place we will be able to provide a more specific schedule. Upon completion of all work, the product will be staff recommendations to the commission on a l
set of regulations or regulatory practices that could be modified or eliminated, to improve regulatory effectiveness, L
=
3- : e i:,
The Commissioners 7-without compromising safety. ~ Resource estimates and schedules for making the changes would also be included.
However, if any of the recommended modifications warrant higher priority, the selected change could be accelerated through a request for a'rulemaking initiation following.the EDO's procedures, followed by a specific recommended rule change to the Commission.
The. final recommendations following the workshop will be provided to the Commission in a future Commission paper during the fall'of 1990.
Resource Estimate The resources budgeted to perform Phase Two of the program inc? *.de :
1.
RES resources to manage and coordinate the program and to participate in the public workshop - 1/2 FTE vear; 2.
Contractor resources to carry out the various phases of the program including the cost of the public workshop - $250K;.and 3.
Staff office-(e.g. NRR, AEOD, RES) and OGC resources to review the recommendations and to participate in the public workshop - 1/4 FTE vear.
,/
s/
s M. Tay r-ting Exec tive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION:
Conunissioners i
~GPA REGIONAL OFFICES FDO