NRC-92-0037, Comment on Proposed Rule Re Special Review of NRC Regulations.Util Believes NRC Can Reduce or Eliminate Existing Requirements Based on Regulatory Burden & Lack of Safety Significance

Comment on Proposed Rule Re Special Review of NRC Regulations.Util Believes NRC Can Reduce or Eliminate Existing Requirements Based on Regulatory Burden & Lack of Safety Significance

ML20090F564
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	03/06/1992
From:	Orser W DETROIT EDISON CO.
To:	Meyer D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
CON-NRC-92-0037, CON-NRC-92-37, FRN-57FR6299, RTR-NUREG-CR-4330, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-MISC 57FR6299-00008, 57FR6299-8, NUDOCS 9203110097
Download: ML20090F564 (3)

Text

.

L

. 'N'bWh k d{

m:L*,% S'//=/ #.,,,'7 .

Detroit r. - d,/ay'/9y Edison EEE " p t=-

March 6, 1992 NRC-92-0037 Mr. David L. Meyer Chief. Pegulatory Publications Services of fice of Administration U. S. Nucitml Regulatory Commission Washingt on, D. C. 20555

References:

1) Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 NRC License No. NPF-43

2) Special Review of NRC Regulations. Request for Comments (57 FR 6299)

3) " Review of Light Water Peactor Regulatory Requirements". NUREC/CR-4330 (3 Volumes)

Subject:

Comments on NRC Initiatives to Review Regulatory Requirements In response to the Reference 2 Federal Register Notice. Detroit Edison is providing the following comments related to recent NRC initiatives concerning the economic burden and offectiveness of NRC regulations.

Detroit Edison believes it is feasible to reduce or eliminate existing requirements based upon their regulatory burden and lack of safety c.ignificance. Licensee resources are inherently limited. Any resources freed by the reduction of regulatory burden can thus be used on more safety significant activities. Therefore, we believe this ef fort can ultimately benefit public health and safety.

Tae NRC's intention to focus the special review by the Commit tee to Review Generic Requirements (CRCR) on 10CFR Part '50 regulations promulgated prior to CRGR's creation in 1981 is unnecessarily limiting. A substantial portion of the total regulatory burden has been imposed since 1981. Although these requirements did receive CRCR and Commission review, they were' approved believing that all these requirements are still necessary or that all econcaic and other burdens-imposed were correctly estimated.

l l We believe CRGR should revisit requirements causing substantial l continuing costs to licensees and review their original decisions.

Where appropriate probabilistic risk assessment' insights should be utilized to aid in identifying requirements which add little to 9203110097 920306 PDR PR 50 57FR6299 PDR

USNRC March 6,'1992 NRC-92-0037 Page 2-cafety. The NRC's Safety Goal r.cceptance criteria should be used in -

this review. . Unnoccupary requitements should be eliminated and, where costs are greater than originally estimattd, leau costly alt enuatives should be considered.

- Limiting review to regulations in 10CFR50 could also exclude areas where significant burdens ar e inposed by other f orms of regulatory

" guidance". For example, NUREG-1021 on Operator Requalification Exam Standards which is used in an excessively prescriptive manner to .

- define the- content of training programs. NUREG-1022 on hicense Event Reports is also used in a prescriptive manner, and the recently

. distribut ed draf t of the latest revision would place an added significant burden on licenveen, through expanadon of reporting requirements, without any actompanying saf ety benefit .

As stated in Reference 2, the NRC has performed an earlier study of regulatory requirements (Reference 3). Many of the candidate requirements for elimination or reductions apparently were not studied further due to low f requency of mention during interviews conducted during the study's scoping phase. These candidaten abould be more fully examined.

In ad11 tion, a- review of Appendix J -of 100FR50 to make t his regulation lesn' prescriptive was recommended by the Reference 3 study. This review should be expedited sinen these activitica are primarily performed during plant outages, when resource constrainta are more acute. An example of an Appendix J. related requirement which should

' be reviewed is the need to determine as-found Icakage for isolation valves when maintenance is already planned - for the valve. The as-found data providen minimal information of safety significance. An an-left leakage determination following maintenance in suf ficient t o-assure public henith and safety.

Activities to. implement - regulatory- requirements which take place during outagen should be reviewed with a high priority. These it ems would lead to ahorter outagen, higher plant capacity factors, and fewer potential' challenges t o nafety relat ed cquipment. -An-example of such an activity which:yielda lit tle safety benefit ~ in comparf aon to its resource requirements in Inst nmentation Response Time Testing requirements. This item will be addressed in a BWR Owners' _ Group Topical Report planned for submit tal wit hin- the next month. Review of thin Topical-Report should receive a high priority.

Since the Maintenance Rule (10CFR50.65) was enacted last year, industry and NHC have expended a ' major ef fort -on the development- of--

regulatory guidance to implement the rule. We.chould now have a:much clearer. idea of the resources necessary. to implement the rule than we did a year-or two ago. 11e actual safety benefita of - this rule 'should also. be clearer once the implementation guidance is formulat e:d.

Detroit Edison believes that this regulat cey hurden will be much

4 USNRC March 6. 1992 NRC-92-0037-Page 3 greater than originally intended by the Commission and out of proportion with any safety benefit.

The regulatory burden of security relat ed requirements appears to have been excluded. Detroit Edison believes there are many security

- rel a t ed a reas , including fitness for duty, where regulatcry burden can be red uced without a significant reduction in safety.

An ongoing program which will result in a - reduced regulatory burden for participating licensees is the Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) program. This program particularly reduces regulatory burden for requirements relocated from Technical Specifications (TS) to plant programs. Relocated requirements were determined by application of the Commission's Interim Policy Statement (IPS) on TS. Some requirements have been retained in TS based upon marginal application of the_ IPS. CRGR chould review the application of the IPS to current TS to assure that the cafety _ benefit of retained requirements merit the burden of including the requirement in the TS.

In addition, a_ substantial number of requirements have been identified

by the ITS program for eventual relocation out of TS. - Detroit Edison believes CRGR should determine if there is any safety benefit in delaying this relocation.until the ITS program completes the process of reviewing and revising the retained requirements. We believe an accelerated program to approve additional line item improvements would -!

be an ef fective way of speeding up the process of reducing the ecope (

and - tims the burden of the TS. -

-If you have any questions, please call Mr. Glen D. Ohlemacher at (313) 586-4275.

Since rely.

cc .T. G. Colburn A. B. Davis R. _ W. DeFayet t e S. Stasek

,,-, , - . . , , , - - - . . . - . , ,- A ,

,-. . . , , -- - - , . . , - - , - . . . - - - - , .