NRC-94-0070, Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-59 Re Changes to Security Program & Safeguards Contingency Plan Independent Reviews & Audit Frequency.Util Believes Further Rule Changes Should Be Made

Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-59 Re Changes to Security Program & Safeguards Contingency Plan Independent Reviews & Audit Frequency.Util Believes Further Rule Changes Should Be Made

ML20071N505
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	07/19/1994
From:	Gipson D DETROIT EDISON CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
CON-NRC-94-0070, CON-NRC-94-70, FRN-59FR23641, RULE-PRM-50-59 59FR23641-00008, 59FR23641-8, NUDOCS 9408080021
Download: ML20071N505 (7)

Text

-,

i o

i D,I]7 @MM u act.E MN Douglas R. Gipson

[Oggy OK',,y'TED P

(6 W-K 2W//J Detroit r-a P

Edison==a.n.,

w y a ms t

l.T' lC July 19, 1994 it,

NRC-94-0070 3

i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk j

Washington, D. C.

20555

References:

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

2) Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 87, PRM-50-59, dated May 6, 1994

Subject:

C=ments on Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking on Security Program and Safeguards Contingancy Plan Independent Review and Audit Frequency l

i Detroit Edison agrees with the ideas expressed in Virginia Power's petition for rulemaking, but believes additional changes are warranted. This letter provides comments on auditing of security l

programs and safeguards contingency plans and also includes a discussion of audits of other areas.

l The information provided by Virginia Power provides a strong rationale to decrease auditing in an area of strong performance such as security. Additionally, the drills performed by security personnel provide assessment information that can be utilized to improve performance in any weakening areas.

A performance-based audit program requiring that periodic audits be i

scheduled based on performance provides for the most effective use of i

auditing resources. Poor performing areas are audited more often, areas of superior performance less often. Also, audit schedules should be flexible so audits can be scheduled when activities are in progress. For these reasons, Detroit Edison believes the rule should require periodic review of the security program and safeguards l

contingency plan rather than a review every 12 or 24 months. The description of the performance-based auditing program should be included in each licensee's Quality Assurance Program.

Additionally, the same philosophy applies to other audit frequencies specified by rule. These include audits of Access Authorization, Fitness for Duty Program, Fitness for Duty laboratory and other contractors, Environmental Protect *.on, Radiation Protection, and 1

Emergency Preparedness. The rules governing these audits should also

)

h21 94o739 50-59

)g PDR 1

USNRC July 19, 1994 NRC-94-0070 Page 2 be revised to require periodic audits versus 12 or 24 month audits or to eliminate covering audits so all audits could be addressed in the Quality Assurance Program rather than have requirements scattered across many rules and guidelines. Since licensees cannot reduce commitments in the Quality Assurance Program without prior NRC review, the NRC would retain mandatory oversight over changes to the audit program that would reduce audit frequency.

This idea of providing flexibility to the audit program to better i

focus the efforts of audit and surveillance personnel on how to improve weak or declining performance areas was presented during the 1993 Public Workshop on NRC's Program for Elimination of Requirements Marginal to Safety.

Attached is an excerpt from that meeting's proceedings, published as NUREG/CP-0129 In summary, Detroit Edison agrees with Virginia Power's request that the audit requirements for security programs and safeguards contingency plans be revised, but believes further rule changes should be made so that no audit frequencies are specified by rules and auditing can be based on performance. This change would enable development of an improved audit program responsive to plant performance.

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ms. Lynne S. Goodman at (313) 586-4097.

Sincerely,

[h 47) lQ Attachment ec:

T. B. Colburn J. B. Martin M. P. Phillips K. R. Riemer NEI

Quality Assurance Reauirements questions. The purpose is to receive input from industry and any members of the public i " "" * "d ""' * -

9. Quality Assurance Appendix a to ioCFR part so estabiishes Requirements quality assurance requirements for the design, construction, and operation of structures, systems, and components that prevent or 9.1 Erm.e Rossi mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents that could cause undue risk to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission health and safety of the public. There are a number of perceived, problems with NRC The purpose of this session is to obtain input quahty assurance requirements and with our from the panelists and audience on proposed practices in implementmg them.

I will modifications to the NRC's requirements and mention several of the more important ones practices in the area of quality assurance. We for you to think about during this session.

are also interested in supponing justification and bases for any proposed modifications that

1. As implemented, quality assurance people may have.

programs may emphasize documentation over performance.

Particular issues for consideration include the nature and extent of the regulatory burden,

2. Responsibility for quality is often including the cost impact of the STC's quality perceived to lie in the quality assurance requirements and practices, and assurance organization rather than the arguments that any specific requirement or line organization.

practice is marginal to safety.

3. The list of items to which qualit,y We would like participants' input on the assurance requirements are applied is definition and use of performance-based quality assurance requirements, the risk far larger than was originally contemplated.

significance of quality assurance requirements, and actual Appendix B requirements versus Having stated these possible problems with the the NRC staff's interpretation of the NRC's approach to quality assurance-and requirements.

I'm sure there are many other problems that may come up during this session-we.will now The panel session has been organized in the ask our panelists to make their presentations.

l following sequence. Each panelist will make a 10-mmute presentation from the podium, i

1 using overhead slides if they wish. Members x 9.2 Lynne Goodman of the audience who had previously indicated Detroit Edison their mtention to speak will provide their l

remarks, taking no more than 10 minutes. We Improving Effectiveness of I

have only one member of the audience who Performance Based Audit Programs has asked to make formal remarks at this by Reducing the Regulatory Burden I

session.

i After the formal presentations have been I'm going to be talking about how to improve-not reduce, but improve-the made, the session will be open for other members of the audience to provide remarks, effectiveness of performance-based audit ask questions, and participate in discussions programs by eliminating some of the regulatory burden. I'm going to be talking with the panelists or other members of the audience. I ask that anyone speaking provide about the audit program. An audit is a look at his or her name and organization / affiliation how the organization is performing its I

activities, how those activities are being very clearly, so that our transcriber can take accomplished, and comparing them to that down.

established requirements and also to our I would like to emphasize that the purpose of management expectations.

this workshop is not for.the NRC to present positions, defend pos'itions, or answer NUREG/CP-olN 119 Septernber 1993

Osality Assurance Requirements

~

audit program more effective so that we're Audit actually looking at things at the time it makes sense to look at them.

A sormat ind.p.ndeni.mamination witn intent to ve rif y Conformance witn utatuned reauiremee MNSI N18.7)

There are a number of requirements for audit programs. I am going to go over just a couple of them. One of the key ones is Section 6 of

'"C"""'""'

our tech specs. We have an environmental protection plan, Appendix B, and a number of ther requirements for audit.

We have a performance. based audit program.

That means we watch people's performance at work as opposed to just looking at paper.

Requirements for Performance Audits (continued)

I'd like to tell you about an audit of our emergency planning organization that we performed in February. We spent 220 hours0.00255 days <br />0.0611 hours <br />3.637566e-4 weeks <br />8.371e-5 months <br /> iocrR73.s5 (g) (4). Security Program auditing our emergency preparedness. We NUREQ CR464o. Simulator determmed we did quite well. We did a lousy audit.

nog oue.1.iss. Station siackout We did our audit in Febmary of this year Mf,"ef*,' $,Ert;ironmental Protection.

n because the regulations require that we audit R*g Gsee d.1. Environmental Protection.

every 12 months. We could not wait until March, when we had a scheduled drill, because nog oue.1.as l

then we would have been out of compliance with the regulations. So we did an audit, we got results, we met every regulatory requirement there was. But as I said, we did a ANSI N18.7 lousy audit.

ANSVASME N45.2.12 QA program as contained in updated Final Safety

^^*95's R* port or oA Topical Report Requirements for Performance of Audits Lrvi Gommen. sins 3 Technical SpecMcatens Secton 6 EnWonmental Protocuon Plan The list goes on and on, including regulatory guides and NUREGs. There are a number of

,,g3, places that have audit requirements. Some Iocrn7a se (g)(1). Accus Autnorusuon have frequency requirements, some have just Socrnso s4 (t). Em.rgency Preparedness tocrR71.137. Enwonmental Protection. Radioactive Our other governing document is our QA program. For us, that's in our Updated Final 1ocrn2s. ntn=s sor outy Safety Analysis Report. For some plants, it's in a topical report.

1oCrR26 80. Fitness for outy Testing 1.ab 1oCrR2o.1101 Ramo 6ogical Protocuon The frequency of audits ranges from 6 months to 36 months, depending on the audit topic.

tocrnso.s4 to). safeguare. conting.ncy P'"

With very few exceptions, there is no flexibility Permitted for schedule extension. That leads iocran.4o td). Safeguare. conting.ncy Pan to resource waste, as I mentioned with our tw o=xa.n ' m a emergency planning audit; we got very little benefit from that audit other than meeting our technical specification regulatory requirement.

In March, we did a surveillance during the scheduled drill. That's the type of thing I want to talk about-how we can make our September 1993 120 NUREG/CP-0129

.f.

.....a "c..

-~

~

~

~

s: i.

y c.

F Ouality Assurance Reauirements The frequency requirement can take resources Frequency cf Audits per Requirements and from non. problem areas.

If you have a Guldance problem developing, it would make a lot more 6 months - 36 months sense to look at the problem area.

For example, if we have a weakness in our YxE*n*sion $"aio$.".*oUr.DwYnYt.n.guk maintenance organization that we'd like to Y

explore, we have to balance the need to look at e

a ntenan e oTgandaM wid any Perform suort wn.n cu regardi.ss of actn*0.. In required audit and deteTmine Where to put our progr.u resources-toward the required audit, so we can iao to munings.u uan can do a good audit, or toward an audit of the cen iuo t.o utre euou.. g, to evo.o r.fu.a.no or problem area. Currently, we usually have to to c ica r 'uang choose to do our required audit, and maybe can i o so udmng onor e corrective. coon corr.ou@e7n"to m".7.u'r.*7.$*n*.s""ot Put limited resources in the problem area. I think our problem areas should get more

.cn co n.c>on attent, ion-more audit,s 'and surveillance's.

can cu.im ru.a in monnonna na ns.er.u i. net woue.

That is what an effective performance-based oure.s nor noncotaem e4 t,.n, us u.no ua eru audit program would do.

ty om n..e..

My proposal is that the licensees control the at.dit program, with NRC providing overcight We have to perform audits-regardless of what instead of control.

The Great Lakes QA activities are in progress-based on when, the Managers als support this proposal, audits are due. So we can have a meaningless audit by looking at an activity when there is no work in progress.

p p,,g We can perform extra audits. For example, if uc.nc.n con.troi suon program witn unc oor5'ont inst

• d of NRC control we want to take a look at in. service inspection, it makes sense to do that during a refueling outage, when we are a,ctually doing in. service mspection. However, if the audit is due when we re not in a refueling outage, we might have to do an extra audit. That means we are This proposal would involve several cetions. It uvuble auditing.

would require technical specification changes, regulation changes, regulatory guidance On the other hand, we might want to avoid a changes, and QA program changes.

refueling outage. It doesn't make a lot of sense to do an emergency planning audit' during a refueling outage; it makes a lot more Actions sense to use our resources to look at the work we're doing during the refueling outage.

Tech Sp c Cn ng The frequency requirement also can lead t neguation enangu audits being performed before expected neguatory cuio.nc. en ng corrective action is complete. For example, we have an audit that's not required by regulation A pr grem en.ng..

scheduled for June of this year. Corrective action is going to be done in June. Therefore, ty m.

it makes more sense to audit in August to see how effective the corrective action is. That's We're looking at three options. We prefer the what we are going to do. If that were an audit first one, but we are willing to pursue any required by technical specifications or a option that would be easier to license, and regulatory audit, we would not have that anything the NRC would be interested in flexibility, and we would be auditing at a time when we know our program is not yet approving.

corrected, f

NUREG/CP-0129 121 September 1993 1

Quahtv Assurance Requirements What this would do is provide more control to Tech Spec Changes QA management on audit and other oversight activities-such as surveillances, special examinations, or inspections-in terms of Thre. conons (opuon i proferebie) applying the resources toward the activity where we feel we have the problems and where want to pursue opuen witn greatest chance of timery we could really get more bang for the buck. It succe**

would provide greater flexibility based on the plant performance and plant activities, and allow us to better improve our weak areas.

This is also consistent with draft Standard Option one is to remove the audits from Review Plan 17.3.

Section 6 of the Technical Specifications. We would have the audits listed in the QA program. The frequency of core audits, such Tech spec Changes (continued) as maintenance, engineering, operations, rad protection, design change, and so forth, would also be listed in the QA program.

Option 2. Tech Specs retain requirer"ent to audit OA organization activities under Offsite Review Committee cognizance (otherwise same as option 1)

Tech Spec Changes (eonlinued)

Assures Cttsite Review Committee retains oversight of CA acovities and this is not changeabie by QA program change Option 1. Remove Audits from Section 6 Lynn Goooman. saae e Audits list in OA Program TeIi7s The second option is very similar to the first, cLnge, co. 'u%Is.'nfnc*e.'la'"ea ion 7ro7e'c6o'n'oesign except we would leave one audit in the

^

rrectu Action technical specifications-the audit that audits treaied per socraso 54 <a,e sp.cir,ed in QA Program the QA organization. That would mean the changes in Aust coverag e

Offsite Review Committee would continue to Reduction in aumi coverage require sne row.w have control over that audit.

Audits required by rules conducted at specif.d frequency (uniess ruto changes or exemption granted) nt i to oA Management on audit and Tech Spec Changes (continued)

,Pmvides Permits greater fleutbility based on performance and plant activities

,f Allows licensees to better focus CA efforts on how to improve weak or poor performance areas Consistent witn draft Standard Review Plan 1r.3 Prov6 des some fler6bility to ediust frequency based on LFG a *'un.owse ptdormance and plant activities Changes in audit coverage would be handled EQide*@f,Pggfc*,7 St*"d*'d T*c" like any other change m our QA program: It would be reviewed to determine whether it treiG=

n m aio reduces the commitments in the audit program and whether it still meets Appendix B. NRC approval would still be needed for cny The third option is to remove only the audit changes that resulted in a reduction in frequencies from the technical specifications, commitments.

We would conduct audits but leave the audits in. This would give us a required by rules at the frequency required by little flexibility to change the frequency of our schedule, but it would not really give us as the rules, at least until we had a rule change or an exemption. There are a lot of frequency much flexibility as we would like. This is requirements in some of the rules.

122 NUREG/CP-0129 September 1993

~

~

Qushty Assurance Recuirements consistent with the new standard technical Actions that we would need to take as licensees include meeting with NRR to discuss the specifications.

technical specification change options, submitting the first technical specification Flegulation and Regulatory Guldance change and QA program change, and following up with the rest of us submitting Changes technical specification changes. We would then submit additional technical specification cugygggmenm er sea m mnian*

changes as the niles or regulatory guidance allowed us to change.

u Cormodadate into one requirement for Audit Progsm Revme Regulatory Guldes Control over Audn Program m QA Program Meet enth hconsee on Tech Spec Changes Lym Gocxtaan. eios it Renew and approve subrnmed Tech Spec and CA Program changes Currently, audit requirements are contained m.

Periorm renew of eli tulos and regu'atory gucanoe on multiple locations. We think they should be contained in one location in the regulation.

Propose rui. consoimating ruios into one. uay oc mi We should also look at the reguiatory guides revson to 10CFR Appendis 0 and determine whether we could revise and consolidate them, and put control of the audits Propose changes to Regulatery Gudes in the QA program.

Approve reesed ruie Approve rows d Regulatory Guides OA Program Changes Lre Goocrien. eine 14 CA Program remsed to include 6 sting of eudited ereas and frequencies os core audits We are asking the NRC to do the following:

QA Program change vnpiementing this rnator reenson

o e4ejve N,Re recew an pmbol wnh Tecn Spec I. Meet With us to discuss' this QA e

program change and the technical treG= cran a u specification change;

2. Review and approve our submittals; ne QA program would be revised to melude a listing of the audited activities and

3. Review the rules and regulstions that frequencies, and that first QA program change cover the audit program; and would be reviewed at the same time tLe technical specification change would be 4.

Determine the best rule change and renewed.

regulatory guidance changes to better consolidate the requirement:,, making them more usable and more flexible so Uc see Acuons licensees could have better, more effective QA audit programs.

koet with NRR to discuss Tech Spec change optere I'm talking about how to improve, not reduce, submn terst Tech Spec change end QA Program but how to improve the effectiveness of performance-based audit programs by

""*"S*

eliminating some of the regulatory burden.

otner i,consees sunmn Tech spec chenoes Submit further CA Prog em changes as approonste lohowing rule changes and Regu atory Guide cranges Lye Gacean. okte 13 323

[

September 1993

.i