APPENDIX 6 The material in this appendix was supplied by the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. See pages 57 and 63 in text for references made. Mr. L. MANNING MUNTZING, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.O. ATOMIC INDUSTRIAL FORUM, INC., DEAR MR. MUNTZING: The Atomic Industrial Forum, with the intent of expanding its programs relating to nuclear regulatory matters, has reorganized its former Committee on Reactor Safety into a revitalized Committee on Reactor Licensing and Safety. This Committee includes broad Forum member participation. The working heart of this Committee is the Steering Group. This Steering Group is comprised of veterans of the licensing process with many years of experience. Each reactor vendor and a cross section of the nuclear utilities and architect engineering firms are represented by top level licensing management. In addition, the Forum has assigned a senior staff member to work with the Committee full time. I have the honor to chair this distinguished group. A roster of the Steering Group's membership is attached for your use. The purpose of this letter is to offer our direct assistance to you in your welcome efforts to streamline the licensing process. In its assemblage of top level licensing management, our group includes representatives involved with every commercial nuclear powered generating station. Further, this representation is at the working level-knowledgeable of the technology, of the regulatory practices, and of the limitations and inherent strengths of both. The Steering Group held its first meeting on June 14 to organize its effort and to develop its charter [a copy is attached for your information]. The first order of business was to identify those licensing problems that cause the most difficulty to nuclear applicants. This list, as with all other similar lists, was a long one. However, a conscientious review reduced it to the seven most pressing problems. These are: Interpretation of Single Failure Criterion High Energy Line Breaks Severe Natural Phenomena Design Basis Containment Design Pressure Calculations Classification of Structures, Systems and Components As you can see, this is not an esoteric list of procedural problems, but a summation of basic technical difficulties. At present, each Steering Group member is summarizing specific problem areas encountered with each of these concerns. Working groups have been formed to accumulate, summarize, and evaluate the specific problem, and to formulate a recommended approach to a solution. The Steering Group will meet again on July 26 in Chicago to review the progress of the working groups. Soon thereafter, I propose that the Steering Group meet with you and the members of your staff to discuss our work and how it may be of assistance to you. In the interim, at least for the seven problem areas listed, I would request that you weigh the advantages of affording the Steering Group the opportunity to consider any regulatory guides relating to these matters prior to their issuance so that this Committee's work can be taken into account. I believe that this Committee offers a unique sounding board. I can assure you of our sincere, frank, and urgent cooperation in the common goal of efficient and safe regulation. Very truly yours, /S/ JOHN E. WARD, Chairman, Committee on Reactor Licensing and Safety. STEERING GROUP FOR THE COMMITTEE ON REACTOR LICENSING & SAFETY Mr. John A. Hinds, Manager, Safety & Licensing, General Electric Company. Mr. Robert S. Hunter, Assistant Vice President, American Electric Power Service Corporation. Mr. Gilbert S. Keeley, Director of Project, Engineering Services, Mr. William J. Lindblad, Project Engineer, Pacific Gas & Electric Company. Mr. James F. Mallay, Manager of Licensing, The Babcock & Wilcox Company. Assistant Manager, Nuclear Safety, Mr. Harold Oslick, Chief Engineer, Nuclear Licensing, Mr. Warren H. Owen, Vice President, Design Engineering, Duke Power Company. Mr. Paul Schmitz, Chief Nuclear Engineer, Thermal Power Management, Bechtel Power Corporation. Mr. F. A. Szczepanski, Licensing Administrator, Tennessee Valley Authority. Mr. E. C. Ward, Director, Engineering Vice Presidential Staff, Staff Mr. Robert A. Szalay, Safety & Licensing Projects Manager, Atomic Industrial Forum, Incorporated. COMMITTEE ON REACTOR LICENSING & SAFETY STEERING GROUP CHARTER It will be the purpose of the Steering Group of the Committee on Reactor Licensing and Safety: I. To study and evaluate current technical licensing and regulatory issues, and the implementation of AEC licensing policy. II. To represent the views of Forum members on technical licensing issues to the regulatory agencies and other interested bodies. III. To provide the Forum Board of Directors, Executive Committee, Senior Management Policy Committee and Staff, with advice and recommendations on program responsibilities and opportunities relating to areas of reactor licensing and regulations. IV. To coordinate the activities of the Committee on Reactor Licensing and Safety and to provide a focal point for participation in Forum program activities to those members having an interest in technical licensing issues. V. To take any actions consistent with the foregoing which promote the public health and safety and a sound and efficient reactor licensing system. ATOMIC INDUSTRIAL FORUM, INC., New York, N.Y., July 26, 1973. Mr. L. MANNING MUNTZING, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, DEAR MR. MUNTZING: The Steering Group of the Committee on Reactor Licensing and Safety has reviewed with interest your recent speeches and discussions in which you have indicated that the AEC is taking steps to make its regulatory process more compatible with standardization. Of particular importance to us has been your statement that procedures have been instituted or are being developed to eliminate arbitrary, unpredictable changes in licensing requirements; this is to be accomplished by the development of standard review plans and accompanying management controls which will enable the AEC to monitor the scope and consistency of license reviews. We are encouraged by this initiative and fully endorse your intended goals. As noted in my July 9 letter to you, the Steering Group stands ready to offer our direct assistance to you in your welcome efforts to streamline the licensing process. In this regard, the following comments and recommendations are presented to you to help focus on the relevant problems areas to be resolved an to help expedite the implementation of your proposed program. Enormous efforts are now being expended by the AEC, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the many professional societies in the development of codes, standards and criteria (or guides) that address the major technical licensing issues that require resolution. The goals of these efforts are (a) enhancement of reactor safety, (b) reduction in licensing time, and (c) consistent application of licensing requirements. While the expedited standards effort is beginning to bear fruit, there is some cause for concern that the attainment of goals (b) and (c) may not be realized. The process for promulgation of industry guides and standards takes time because of the rigors of the consensus procedures. This has resulted in the necessity of applicants undergoing licensing review accepting solutions to licensing issues that are often based on ad hoc Technical Review Staff opinions. The "precedent" thus established becomes the minimum requirement for succeeding applications. This process of "ratcheting" has not apparently diminishes as a result of the standards development efforts of industry or the AEC, In further developing the mechanisms for implementing your new standard review plans, you may wish to consider our observations regarding the scope and details of the "ratcheting process". The ratcheting process starts from several different bases. One of the starting points is accepted industry standards. Another is industry standards under development in which AEC representatives are participating. A third starting point in AEC regulations and a fourth is the Regulatory Guide Series. The ratchet is applied in several different ways. In one way, the technical reviewer states that he doesn't think the industry standard is conservative enough. In another the requested "upgrading" is required on the basis that a standard or regulatory guide is to be issued soon. A third, and probably most common means of ratcheting, is through an unduly conservative interpretation of the standard or regulatory guide. We have also recently witnessed the practice of a form of "oneupmanship” in the issuance of Regulatory Guides. In this practice, a problem results from the situation where AEC personnel participate in the development of a code or standards and, before it is issued, a Regulatory Guide comes out covering essentially the same subject but in a more conservative fashion. Frequently, the difference between the standard and the Regulatory Guide reflect differences of opinion that have developed between the AEC Staff and industry participants on the Standards Committees. Examples are seen in Regulatory Guides 1.51, 1.50, 1.31, 1.17 and 1.48. As a result of this process, ANSI standards developed from extensive joint effort between industry and AEC representatives in some instances have not been incorporated into the regulatory process to the extent of their merit. Often the technical reviewers have interpreted the standards with considerable latitude. The great number of Division I Regulatory Guides that are being issued often bypass a vast amount of industry experience and expertise in the process. The industry's efforts to develop standards that address current licensing issues are of limited value if they are disregarded or superseded by broad brush AEC Technical Review Staff requirements and Regulatory Guides. The incentive for industry participation in standards development would be greatly enhanced if the precepts of these standards in their development stage were consistently applied by the Technical Review Staff in their application reviews . As noted in my July 9 letter, our Steering Group is currently addressing seven generic licensing issues, several of which encompass the problems listed in the above paragraphs. It may be helpful to discuss these in detail with you when these studies are completed. We are hopeful that the AEC commitment to take steps to implement ANSI standards within 90 days of their approval or to advise otherwise will soon show its effect on the review process. In the interim, in addition to the below recommendations, it may be advisable for the AEC to codify those standards that are currently acceptable and to indicate the scope of these standards in regard to technical review requirements. In view of the foregoing, and recognizing the need to keep a distinct separation between the functions of the regulator and the regulated, we recommend the following course of action which we understand is consistent with the recommendations made by the ANSI Standards Group: 1. Review the list of guides under development and determine which subjects are duplicative of current industry efforts. 2. Determine, with industry participation, which efforts should continue, and terminate the others. 3. For Regulatory Guides already issued, review the status of industry activIties and develop and implement a positive expressed policy of AEC action upon completion of the industry effort. 4. Clarify the status, responsibilities, and authority of the AEC representatives assigned to ANSI standards committees. Do such personnel participate in an individual capacity or as an official representative with authority to express official Commission policy? 5. For those guides on which development is continued, industry participation should be invited in the review and approval process before promulgation. We |