ML20058F504
| ML20058F504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1993 |
| From: | Remick F NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19311B205 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9312080155 | |
| Download: ML20058F504 (9) | |
Text
+
- 4. -
23' H-2.::::2 2: sa4 2sa4 ;c=: g ;;: wiss;as.v 3; g
g_
4 e
I i
1 i
i l
OPERABILITY DETERMINATIONS A COMMUNICATION TOOL i
1 I
i REGION IV WORKSHOP l
t i
i t
FORREST J. REMICK, COMMISSIONER U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
l
?
t 1
FEBRUARY 17, 1993 I
i t
I i
I i
i e
93g2080155931130 D
ADOCK 05000245 FI PDR
{
- 2-09-92 a 12 221 604 2E34 1 ::22 :: :~TIEEI3 E ;E'*IO:
- 5"i PC2 D
l 1
)
Introduction - Ooerability Determinations -
A communication Tool I'm pleased to have this ladies and gentlamen.
opportunity to discuss with you =y own views on the purpose and Good afternoon, usefulness of the guidance of Generic Letter 91-18 and suggest how I think you and the staff should work together to help each
)
implementation and the changes i
understand the difficulties ofI am looking forward to hearing about your that need to be made.
experiences so f ar and your questions and comments about the guidance in Generic Letter 91-18 during this workshop.
Let me start off by talking about what led to the need for the guidance and how I think it fits in with the staff's implementation of the NRC's overall regulatory program.
i II.
Baekeround - Trend in Philoscohv Since 1989 When I began collecting my thoughts for this speech it came to mind that I now have completed over 3 years of =y term as NRC
)
Commissionar.
It's been a very satisfying three years.
I an encouraged by a number of steps the Commission has taken explicitly toward improving the regulatory process, and although we're still far from perfect, I am pleased by some of the changes I've seen.
I admit that some of these actions have been partly the result of outside encouragement.
I am referring to several efforts currently underway to find ways to better " harmonize" policy-making.
For example, the ACRS constantly reminds us to seek As a former greater coherence and consistency in our actions.
member who helped give that advice, I strongly support it.
the During most of my term, and especially this past year, Executive Branch has strongly encouraged the agencies to reduce the burden of government regulation by better coordinacing policy-making.
On January 28th of last year, former President Bush asked that each agency set aside a 90-day period to evaluate existing regulations and programs and identify and accelerate action on initiatives to eliminate any unnecessary regulatory burden or otherwise promote economic growth.
And even In some ways I think the NRC was ahead of the curve.
with the new administration, I expect our own initiatives to eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens to continue.
The Commission has in place regulatory mechanisms which mean to avoid the imposition of new requirements that unnecessarily burden the regulated community and which, as appropriate to the matters under censideration, mean to encourage only those activities that are cost-effective.
The Commission is continuing I
i
d 3942 :::;2 20; sa 2sN O==I.s.= :w:ss:3e me.:,x y9.
1 its program of regulatory review air.ed at olisinating or removing unnecessary burdens placed on licensees and reducing the exposure of workers to radiation, while at the sane time assuring adequate This ongoing protection of the public health and safety. practice involves review of prop{
for Review of Generic Requirements by the Commission's Committee 10 CFR 50.109, to i
and the application of the backfit rule, l
(CRGR) regulatory actions involving power reactors.
i Last year the CRGR conducted a special review of existing NRC j
regulations.
In conducting this review, the CRGR used input i
Not surprisingly, solicited from the public and the NRC staff.
several of our regulations were eliminated without any reduction of the level of safety afforded to the public.
The Commission and staff are undertaking some other broad j
reaching ef forts to examine what regulations are required for The Commission has directed the NRC staff adequate protection.
to consider the feasibility of substituting unnecessarily prescriptive requirements and guidance with perf ormance-based requirements and guidance founded on risk insights for both power We need to revise appropriate reactors and materials licensees.
requirements and guidance to increase overall industry l
flexibility in plant operations without impacting reactor it will contribute to operational operational safety.
I expect safety.
I am referring 3 a Regulatory Review Group, established by the 3
NRC earlier this year, to include senior managers that will suggest simplification and clarification of existing requirements j
and processes that they will base, in part, on the views and experiences of the staff and Commission, industry representatives i
(NUMARC), licensees, ACRS, NARUC, and the public, regarding l
priority areas to be examined, issues of particular concern, and recommendations for improvement.
Part of this' program will focus on how an integral analysis, such as a PRA, can be used to l
provide more flexibility in the regulations and the implementation of the regulations.
This effort will initially focus on reactor issues already identified from the marginal-to-the CRGR special reviews, and ongoing safety program, reexamination of security requirements from the insider threat, and consider other issues such as those that have been raised by NUMARC, or from the staff's ongoing review of SALP.
The staff will brief the Commission on this program on March 26.
1 I
I would encourage each of you to continue to communicate your own views to the commission on priority areas to be examined, issues of particular concern, and recommendations for improvement.
The changes in the regulatory process that the ccamission is trying to encourage are driven by its increasing awareness that how both the regulater and the industry focus limited resources 2
4 g
i L'--
e : ;'
21 534 2504
- m :ss: m :: m o;
- g g
\\
centinuing to be a strong is very important.
For our part, industry's own initiatives is very regulator while recognizingThis is unere I think I see a shift in philosophy.
== give you a few examples of ways the Commission could more important.
areas are = cst important to safety.
Let effectively determine what 1
l the Cemmission instructed the
- 1990, On the fifteenth of June The staff on how it wanted the safety Goals 1=plemented.
Commission provided guidance concerning the use of the goals in making regulatory decisions more cenerent.
l l
The ccanission agreed that the Safety Goals are to be used to judge the ef f ectiveness of the NRC's regulations in producing as an ensemble, meet the qualitative goals as plants which, in the Safety Goal defined by the quantitative health objectives The Safety Goals serve as an input for Policy Statement.
assessing the adequacy of present, and need for futura, regulatory requirements.
the In regard to improving coherence in the regulatory process, commission directed the staff to routinely consider the Saf ety Goals in developing and reviewing regulations and regulatory Even though the Commission must continue to ensure practices.
licensees adhere to apprcpriate regulations and license that conditions, the commission will also strive to improve coherence in the regulatory process.
The Safety Goals provide the I think guidelines for iudging the need for ro7ulatory actions.
the Commissioni4 action on implementing the Safety Goals and the increased use of risk perspectives is perhaps its most significant step in adopting a new approach for determining how to focus limited resources.
Another example of where the Commission has chosen to shif t the balance between regulation based on deterministic analyses.and regulation based on risk-based analyses is its recent performance-based naintenance rule.
Although I was not in favor of going forward with this rule when it was proposed, I think it is based on sound principles.
The final rule provides a framework for s: valuating the effectiveness of licansees' maintenance programs by requiring licensees to monitor the perfcrmance or conditions of key structures, systems, and components against its own established goals, in a manner sufficiant to provide reasonable assurance that those structures, systems and components will be capable of performing their intended functions.
Where monitoring proves to be unnecessary, licensees would be permitted the option of relying upon an reliability-a appropriate preventive maintenance program g centered" maintenance),
once a program is established, a
licensee would be required to (1) evaluate its program on an annual basis, taking into account industry-wide operating experience, and (2) adjust its program where necessary to ensure that the objective of preventing failures is appropriately 3
22*=-E2 n : 15
- =
- :s;=:y ss: m :p:2 3g 1
balanced against the cojective of =inimizing unavailability of structures, systams and components.
license The Ccamission's final rule on nuclear power plantestablishes the procedures and renewal, issued on June 28, 1991, critaria ter renewal of operating licenses.
You may know that to implement the rule, the NRC staff is now reexamining how bestGuida and SRP guidance j
while it continues to prepara the Reg.
But one thing seems clear, and that is that in order of j
documents.
to meat the provisions of this rule regarding management licensees are expected to depend on their equipment aging, governed by the maintenance rule I l
maintananca programs, So probacilistic analysis will also provide the described.
for Commission decisions on License Renewal basis, in part, applications.
The license renewal rulamaking focuses attention on assuring that structures, and age-related degradation management for systems,to license renewal will maintain components that are important i
the current licensing basis (CLB) throughout the ranawal term.
The Commission believes that this special focus for license is renewal is warranted because current againq management primarily intended to assure that the CLB will be maintained during the initial 40-year operating period on which the initial operating license is based.
There have been a numbar of other proposals for new risk-based managament programs.
Most licensees have now developed and several probabilistic risk assessments for their facilities, have undertaken their own programs utilizing a risk management approach to make operating and maintenance decisions.
I balieve that a performance-based approach to regulation is a more effective way of regulating here in the United States.
It is not a panacea for all regulatory activities.
However, a performance-based approach to regulation where appropriate allows i
licensees some flexibility for determining what programs work best for them. It is less likely to lead to overburdaning licensees with regulation as they try to develop their own initiatives for enhancement of plant performance.
However, I do j
believe there needs to be continuing strong regulatory presence.
1 How best to accomplish this is my second point.
I In the fall of 1989, the staff initiated its regulatory impac" survey (RIS).
This RIS was performed to obtain the perceptions
{
of the industry and regulatory staff of the effect of the NRC's current activities on the safe operation of nuclear power plants,
{
and to assist the staff in determining if its regulatory programs require modificatien.
\\
J2-09-92 W 15 22: E+8 2s04 :;==::s ;: M Iss; m e Io:
- 3, pg 4
its The staff compiled and summarized a pertion of the results of
" Industry Perceptions survey in SECY-90-0B0 and draft NURIG 1395, Nuclear Regulatory Commission _on of the Impact of the U.S.
staff also reported its Nuclear Power Plant Activities."
The conclusions on other parts of the survey in SECY-90-205 and 90-250.
the The staff performed these surveys to gain a broader view of of NRC activities on the safe operation of nuclear power effect observations and perceptions of problems plants.
We sought out in NRC activities rather than comments on the benefits or the positive effects of the agency's regulatory activities.
Similar surveys of some material licensees have also been conducted.
The use of team inspections and the lack ofI am glad regulatory standards were the most sensitive issues.
to see that the NRC staff is trying to be open to constructive criticism across the board.
Some of you may be aware that as a result of the survey of reactor licenseas, three specific areas for regulatory improvements were identified.
These were (1) the quantity of HRC requirements, (2) the amount of NRC onsite activities, and (3) the interactions between the NRC staff and licensee personnel.
The major adjustments developed.as a result of the survey include one which will get the staff to establish and communicate higher management expectatione for inspectors and their supervisors and ensure they are carrier out, establish a cadre of trained inspection team leaders, and improve the training and qualification of professional inspection staff.
III.
Generic Letter 91-is. Tamrovina ticensee's_
safety Decisions for situations outside of the l
ticanas Authority i
The recent guidance issued by the NRC on resolution of degraded and nonconforming conditions and on operability is part of our effort to work toward more consistency and coherence in our regulatory program.
It is both a response to the findings in the RIS intended to clarify for our inspectors, but inform licensees, management expectations of how we will use this tool as part of our inspection process, and an effort to recognize that the responsibility rests on licensees for using their judgment to make certain safety decisions.
Operability determinations have always been the responsibility cf the licensees.
You have been making these determinations for a long time and generally you have been making them well. But the NRC was seeing some inconsistency among licensees in philosophy on operability determinations.
With only limited guidance, the regional inspectors were left to develop their own individual 5
.I i
1 i
8 9-92 :: 15 21 504 2EG4 7:rz r
.m t m _fe, e 2v.
and this interpretations and resolutions of operability issues, resulted in enforcement according to the " lore of the region."
The purpose of the guidance the staff has developed and forwarded is to articulate in one to licensees by Generac Letter 91-18, inspectors, what NRC nanagement's expectations are place, for the and to provide an identified basis for on operability issues, oversight of our field activities.
It conveys NRC managament's expectations about how long licensees have to make a determination on equipment operability, what the is for the determination, and what happens after a basis determination is made.
However, we can't be very prescriptive.
It would be impossible to spell out guidance for every example.
Instead, the staff has tried to approach the guidance at the policy level and note the licensees' engineering judgement in determining importance of operability.
I think the guidance is intended to convey that the is to way in which the staff expects you to use your judgament focus on functional capability.
The bottom line should be whether or not the system is capable of performing its intended As part of any operability determination, the staff function.
Is the equipment still operable, and wants you to ask yourself:
if not, what compensatory measures can be taken until operability is restored?
Of course the staff will expect you to call upon certain As the supporting information when making a determination.
guidance says, your judgement should take into consideration analyses, a test or partial test, experience with operating events, equipment functional requirements or a combination of these factors.
But it clearly remains your call, and you should use your judgmant by focusing on the safety issue, and not getting caught up in unnecessary detail and paperwork.
The staff recognizes that this guidance is not perfect.
Some plant Tech Specs are still confusing.
It is not always easy o determine how a failure in one system will affect another system.
Using the Tech Specs to determine the safety significance ofFor cartain equipment does not always provide a clear answer.
example, by comparing the relative length of Allowable outage Times (AoTs) for some equipment, you can not always conclude wnat the relative risks are of having that equipment out of service.
The need to adhere to multiple limiting conditions for operation (LCOs) at one time is also a problem.
Although the Tech Spec improvement program is trying to work out some of the inconsistencies, it is likely that licensees will continue to be faced with more complicated situations.
The guidance will need refinement.
But the staff believes that the basic principles, 6
02-C: 22 ;; :.'
221 SC4 2504 J::!'I 2 Wnd._te -en.e.
261 Pd 9
are right and won't and the philosophy bahind these principles,and how Tech Specs are How to deal with the issues, change.
may.
written to deal with certain situations, from NRC this is policy guidanceThe staff has recognized As I mentioned before, managemant to its inspection staff.
in backfits at i=plemantation of the guidance may resultIf there are conflicts between a lice that some facilities.
NRC staff representatives regarding interpretation of theI would enco the appropriate level of management at the NRC for resolution.
- guidance, and the The expariences you are able to bring to our attention, perspectives you chose to share with us will be important for helping the staff to determine how the guidance can be improved.
IV.
cenelusions The message I would like you to think about during this workshop is meant is that the information conveyed in Generic Lettar 91-18 to provide our inspectors with guidance on hcw NRC management I think it is expects operability determinations to be made.
important that you know what guidance has been provided to our It inspectors and give us your comments on that guidance.
recognizes that the calls continue to be the responsibility of You and must be based in part on your judgment.
the licensese, are best qualified to make these determinations.
Workshops like this one will be very important as the staff centinues to gain experience with implementation of the guidance and you experience living with it.
I encourage you to take full Let us know your experience, advantage of this workshop.
questions, and concerns now and as you gain further experience resulting from implementation of the guidance.
As the General in charge of troops who were completely surrounded by the enemy said
" Man, you have the greatest opportunity in the history of j
warfare - you can attack in any direction."
Please be assured that *.he purpose of the workshop is to attempt to refine the guidance in a manner which works best mutually for you and for us.
\\
l 7
Docket No. 50-245 814692 1 - Exhibit 6 Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 i
1 l
l i
\\
i
\\
December 1993
[ ~ '.