ML20070D556

Comment Supporting Proposed Rule on Secy 90-347 Re Regulatory Impact Survey Rept

ML20070D556
Person / Time
Site:	Duane Arnold
Issue date:	01/28/1991
From:	Mineck D IES UTILITIES INC., (FORMERLY IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-55FR53220, RULE-PR-MISC 55FR53220-00024, 55FR53220-24, MISC-90-10, NG-91-0222, NG-91-222, NUDOCS 9103010021
Download: ML20070D556 (3)

Text

..

RPS E b N6L $ -

(SSRC S3 &70) 3

. i .L n ;\ i:

.Ac loue lilectric lj ht g and l'ower Company January 28, 1991 il FEB 15 P3.55 NG-91-0222 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk f h e, ",',,

Secretary of the Commission L Washington, D. C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Duane Arnold Energy Center Docket No: 50-331 Op. License DPR-49 IELP Cem w.ts on SECY 90-347 "Regulatnry Irnpact Survey Report"

Reference:

Letter, B. Lee Jr. (NUMARC), to S. Chilk (NRC), dated January 28, 1991 File: A-106a

Dear Mr. Chilk:

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the NRC's proposed action 3 in response to the Regulatory impact Survey, as described in SECY 90-347.

As a member t,.. NUMARC, we endorse its comments as transmitted in the referenced letter. In particular, we would like to reemphasize the comment regarding the need to improve "the overall management effectiveness of the NRC to achieve appropriate management discipline and accountability over NRC regulatory activities ar.d actions."

To help better manage IELP resources, we have been involved in an active dialogue this past year with the NRR and Regional Management assigned to DAEC regarding the establishment of mutually-agreed upon priorities and schedules for future projects. We are encouraged by these discussions and challenge the t'!;C to maintcin the momentum that hs: been establisbMi at we rmve frm philosophical discussions to actual implementation. We view these discussions as a natural evolution in the Integrated Living Schedule (ILS) process, which originated at the DAEC, As a utility with an ILS, we are concerned over the establishment of the Integrated Regulatory Requirements Implementation Schedule (IRRIS) program We view the IRRIS program as a duplicate of the ILS without the benefit of accounting for licensee initiatives. We are concerned that the scope of the IRRIS is too limited to be truly useful in negotiating priorities with the NRC, and we are concerned over the fate of our ILS should the NRC decide to fully implement the IRRIS.

9103010021 910128 khC$$FRS3220PDR i

General Office

• P 0 Box 331 e Cedar hapds, Iowa $2406 e 319'398,4411 h -

. n V ,

4 E- '

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk January 28, 1991 8

NG 91-0222 Page 2 In summary, IELP agrees with NRC's efforts to reduce the overali impact of NRC regulatory activities on the safe operation of nuclear power plants. Toward that end, we have reviewed SECY 90-347 and our comments are included in the attachment to this letter.

Sincerely, 0

vdl$N'A Daniel L. Mineck Manager, Nucioar Generation -

DLM/SC/p1 =

Attachment:

IELP Comments on NRC SECY 90-347

' Regulatory Itopact Survey Report" cc: S. Catron L. Liu L. Root R. McGaughy 7

{- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - -

Attachment to

. NG-91-0222 Page 1 IELP Comments on NRC SECY 90-347

" Regulatory Impact Survey Report" Iowa Electric l'ight and Power (IELP) appreciates NRd > efforts to assess reglatory impact on utility management and operations. While we agree with the conclusions stated on page 3 of SECY 90-347, wa feel that the proposed actions on page 4 do not completely address those concerns, h addition t the themes currently addressed in SECY 90-347 IELP concludes f rom HUREG-13% tha' the 'ollowing three problems must also he 2.ddressed:

1. Licensees acquivef' i.) NRC requests to avoid poor SALP ratine

2. NRC domination of 'i> ensen resources through changing requiremenM

3. Licensees acquiesce to avoid confrontations because of fear of reprisals.

IELP believes that the then, s presented on sage 3 of SECY 90-347 indicate a need for more rigorous and eff q1.ly:' oversight by NRC management of the performance of NRC emplowis. While q may seem reasonable to request licensees to challenge "vpriate Ut' activities, it is impractical for licensees to do so. It ir eivt that JRC manacement fulfill its responsibili'.e both to the pubi k e a .. utilities by esta611 thing requirements for safe duign and operation of nuclear facilities and enforce those requirements reasoWy and consistently. IELP believes that greater detail in the " Inspection e n Enforcement Manual" could improve the current rituation in which indivlutt -

inspectos s of ten make determinations of adequacy which may be in excess of 0.ase intended by the regu14( %s, i.e. help dif ferentiate between enhancements a d compliance.

Anwher point QLP vtulo 'Ith 9 comment on is the concept of the Integrat d IRRIS Since the Dua%

Arnold Energy center as an Integrated currentlyRegulatory Schedule Reqctrements (ILS IELP amp s

ml/ slightly dilferent from tri t I .S . IELP is concerned about tha differences between the ILS and IRRIS. By apparently excluding licensee-initiated programs and progrms to meet adequate protection standards, the utility of the IRRIS is limited in setting overal's goals and priorities. The ILS properly account) for all these programs and thereby provides a superior forum for discussion o'f utility responsiveness to NRC initiatives by realistically describing utilit)

) resource commitments. IELP agrees with the need for a system to manage the L cumulative effect of NYC "equirements, but fnir.that refinement of the existing

, ILS concept perV3 3 cooperative ef ft,rt with NUMARC- is more desirable than i

the expense a% ef fort m bWiding a new progrea.

In Enclosure 2 to SECY 00-34, the sect 0 describ hg the " Inspection PrograA and Implenantation Policy" sta'es that " more than four planned major team inspectionq vill be conducted du.ing any Licensee SALP cycle " IELP feels that four major team inspections vould % nn ut. bearable burden on our staf f resources. IELP feels that any mcoa han two major team inspections per SALP cycle would be unreasonable for sma N utilities.

preparation and management of NRC Enclosure staff. IELP 3 torecognizes SRY 90-347 theconcerns benefit of train tr innn,ing, however it cannot be substituted for effective management ove n Ight. IELP feels that the NRC's failuto to properly direct. control and na <itor its inspectors has forced license 9s to acquiesce to NC inspe. tor regt ists because the rins of announcing differences with inspectors 6re unacceptabl s This situation las resulted in significant expenditures for onrat'in of r.mlear power plantt without v:essarily inpr sving safety.

l

.-, -- ~ ,, -y ,- , ---