A07937, Submits Responses to AEOD Survey on NRC Backfitting Process. Table Listing Costs of Imposed Backfits in 1988 Encl

Submits Responses to AEOD Survey on NRC Backfitting Process. Table Listing Costs of Imposed Backfits in 1988 Encl

ML20244C425
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone, Haddam Neck, 05000000
Issue date:	06/08/1989
From:	Mroczka E CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO., NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To:	Jordan E NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD)
References
A07937, A7937, NUDOCS 8906140298
Download: ML20244C425 (8)

Text

t **

N UTILITIES o.ner.i Owc.. . s io.n stro t. s.riin Connecticut 3 "

P.O. BOX 270 HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 J [um[w .u[c[ou[.n[e co., ,-

k L (203) 665-5000 June 8, 1989 Docket Nos. 50-213 50-245 50-336 5_0-423 A07937 Re: 10CFR50.109 Mr. Edward L. Jordan Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operations Data U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Jordan:

Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1, 2, and 3 AE0D Survey on the NRC Backfittina Process In a letter dated April 7,1989,II) the NRC's Office for Analysis and Evalua-tion of Operational Data transmitted to all licensees its survey regarding the backfitting process. The basic purpose of the survey is to solicit views on how the backfitting rule is working in practice.

Among other things, the survey seeks input on (1) whether changes are needed in the procedures of Manual Chapter 0514, (2) whether NRC Staff practice has been consistent with Manual Chapter 0514 in the identification and implementa-tion of backfits, (3) whether any backfits have been imposed on a licensee for which the licensee did not file a claim of backfit, and (4) whether any

" impediments or weaknesses" are present in the backfitting process. j It was requesteu that responses to the suryey and any other comments appropri- I ate to the backfitting process be submitted to the Staff. Connecticut Yankee Atomic Powe" Company (CYAPCO) and Northeast Nucleat Energy Company (NNECO) are participants in the Nuchar Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG) and Nuclear Management and Resource Council (NUMARC) and wholly endorse the comments supplied by NUBARG and NUMAR: to the NRC Staff regarding this survey.

Attachment I to this letter contains additional comments that CYAPC0 and NNEC0 wish to provide on the NRC's backfitting process. The Staff also requested l (1) E. L. Jordan letter to E. J. Mroczka, dated April 7, 1989, "AE0D Survey on the NRC Backfitting Process." l 890614o298 890608 PDR ADOCK 05000213 I P PDC 1 g

)

l i  !

u_--____

Mr. Edward L. Jordan

'A07937/Page 2 June 8, 1989 utility. costs for five specific backfits imposed in 1988. Attachment 2 provides an estimate of costs incurred from these backfits. These estimates only address the assessment of actions to be taken, preparing the necessary plans, and preparing the response. They do not include the time. for actual implementation of the recommended actions.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY f$4 "4/

E.1T.Aro'c ika Seni6rVicePre/ sident cc: W. T. Russell, Region I Administrator I;. L. Boyle, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No.1 G. S. Vissing, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2 D.-H. Jaffe, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 A. B. Wang, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant W. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 J. T. Shedlosky, Senior Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document Control Desk

l.,,-

Docket Nos. 50-713 50-245 50-331 50-423 A07937 Attachment 1 Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Comments on NRC's Backfitting Process June 1989

l -

-1 Mr. Edward L. Jordan A07937/ Attachment 1/Page 1 June 8, 1989 Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Comments on NRC's Backfittina Process l As a general observation, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPC0) and l Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNEC0) believe that the backfitting rule has I

had a positive impact in bringing out more effective NRC management of the backfitting process. Nevertheless, we believe there is room for improvement.

We offer the following observations and suggestions:

1. Review to Current Licensina Criteria Paragraph 3 of Section B.1 of the Appendix to Manual Chapter 0514 (relat-ing to the use of Standard Review Plan (SRP) criteria in the review of

license amendment requests that propose new design features) could lead l to some confusion on whether revised licensing criteria may be applied in the Staff's review of a license amendment request or other changes for an ,

operating license holder or during NRC review of such a licensee's i programs. CYAPC0 and NNEC0 suggest that language be added to this section of Manual Chapter 0514 to make clear that as a general rul e, I license amendment requests and other proposed programs and modifications at an operating plant should be reviewed against the plant's licensing basis; they should not be required to meet SRP criteria that are not part of the licensing basis for that plant. There have been instances where the Staff has applied SRP criteria in a particular area where the plant in question was licensed before adoption of the current SRP.

As an example, NNEC0 has removed several reactor building closed cooling water (RBCCW) containment isolation valves from Millstone Unit No. 2's Appendix J testing program after completing appropriate safety considera-tion and finalizing the necessary 10CFR50.59 evaluation. NNECO's justi-fication for this was docketed in submittals dated September 9,1988 and

' November 10, 1988. The Staff had previously acknowledged the RBCCW  ;

system as a closed system by the approval of the original FSAR in the SER dated May 10, 1974. The NRC Staff has now taken the position that the RBCCW system is not a closed system because it does not meet all the current SRP criteria for that classification; i.e., Millstone Unit No. 2 has safety Class 3 piping inside containment versus the SRP Class 2 l piping specified in the current, but not applicable, revision of the SRP.

The NRC Staff has informed NNECO in letters dated February 10, 1988, and May 4, 1989, that Type C testing of the RBCCW containment isolation valves should continue or such systems should be fabricated to at least safety Class 2 requirements in order to not require postaccident leak-tightness.

This is an example where the Staff immediately gravitates to the latest revision of the SRP and other current review criteria, rather than adhering to the actual licensing basis for Millstone Unit No. 2. This is l

l l

_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

r 0 .

' Mr. Edward L. Jordan A07937/ Attachment 1/Page 2 June 8, 1989 particularly relevant for the older operating units. We are contemplat-ing filing a backfit claim on this issue if a resolution cannot be otherwise arrived at.

Specifically, and as proposed by the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG), we suggest that the following be added after the ,

second sentence of the third paragraph of Section B.1: '

Staff review of license amendment requests, programs, and other modifications for an operating plant should be conducted using the applicable criteria and requirements reflected in the pl ant's licensing basis. Review of such matters against new SRP revisions is generally not permitted.

2. fleanalysis of Issues Language should be added to Section C.4 of the appendix (dealing with Staff reanalysis of issues after plant licensing) to indicate that new Staff positions on what is necessary to comply with existing requirements are to be treated as backfits. While the Staff's new position may be based on the original underlying requirement, new Staff positions on what is necessary to comply (which may entail far greater actions than origi-nally envisioned) should be imposed only after an analysis of the need for the change and of why the prior position is no longer acceptable. It was for this reason that the Commission included within the definition of a "backfit" in Section 50.109(a)(1) new Staff positions interpreting the regulations.

An example of this situation was the NRC Staff's interpretation of 10CFR50.44 compliance for Millstone Unit No.1. This is a matter that we have solved to the satisfaction of the NRC Staff periodically since 1984.

We received one license amendment, one Safety Evaluation Report (SER) to the full-term operating license issued on October 31, 1986, and one supplement to that SER, each of which documented this matter as resolved.

On May 5,1989, we received a letter dated May 1, 1989, from the NRC seeking a conference call within an hour and a meeting in their offices within a week or so. On the surface, it appears we were requested to substantiate our compliance with a regulation and notified that we could ,

be potentially subject to an Order, on a matter we believe was closed on l three separate occasions by the NRC Staff. Occasionally, and in this instance in particular, some members of a technical staff attempt to 4 ignore a previous NRC conclusion because they were personally not party to it and may not agree with it. We believe that the agency position must be binding on all of the NRC Staff unless it is proven technically incorrect or the appropriate backfitting processes are followed.

What is equally challenging to deal with under these circumstances is the fact that challenges to the verbal Staff position appear to be accompa- J nied by negative Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)

L ', u

~ -

. Mr.. Edward L. Jordan A07937/ Attachment 1/Page 3 June 8, 1989 o.

repercussions. The way the process should work, the Staff should recog-nize the legitimacy of the existing licensing basis and prior NRC conclu-sions. In practice, the opposite can be true in that new Staff positions are proposed which ignore past history without explicit recognition of the backfitting process. If we believe and continue to demonstrate that I safety requirements remain fulfilled with the existing state of affairs, l' we should not be penalized in SALP or any other forum for fulfilling our responsibilities to shareholders and state regulatory agencies.

CYAPC0 and NNECO therefore suggest, as propcsed by NUBARG, that the following language be added at .the end of the first paragraph of Sec-tion C.4.

In addition, a new staff position on what is necessary to comply with an existing requirement (such as a new position that has arisen from greater understanding of evolving issues) should be classified as a backfit.

L 3.. SEP Topic Resolutions While not a pure backfitting issue per se, a recurring issue that becomes more prevalent with time is the tendency for the Staff to retreat from resolutions achieved as part of the SEP process for the older plants.

For many topics, the resolution involved some compensatory measures or other actions which by no means resulted in complete compliance with current criteria (even at the time of resolution, much less now), but were mutually judged to resolve the safety issue at hand. These resolu-l tions are documented, but with the passage of time and turnover in NRC personnel, the retrievability of these resolutions declines. It is easier for the Staff to attempt to evaluate us against current criteria rather than research what was previously determined to be adequate.

Accordingly, we find ourselves having to regularly defend the current design and resolution of SEP issues. While we do not object to construc-tive questioning and we accept our responsibilities to ensure and demon-strate the safety of our nuclear units, we would like to see more explicit awareness that plants are to be judged against criteria reflected in their licensing basis.

_..._.____.____._.m___.____________

o -

~

Docket Nos. 50-213 50-245 50-336 50-423 A07837 l

Attachment 2 l Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1, 2, and 3 Cost of Imposed Backfits in 1988 l

1 1

1 ,

1 June 1989 l

j

g. .

j i

l Mr. Edward L. Jordan l

'A07937/ Attachment 2/Page 1  !

June 8, 1989 1 Haddam Neck Plant-Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Cost of Imposed Backfits in 1983 ,

Estimgd 'j 4

Issue Title Cost l

1. NRC Bulletin 88-01 Defects in Westinghouse Circuit $ 5,000 '

Breakers  ;

2. NRC Bulletin 88-02 Rapidly Propagating Fatigue Cracks in $47,000 Steam Generator Tubes j i

3. NRC Bulletin 88-05 Nonconforming Materials Supplied by . $50,000 Piping Supplies, Inc., at Folsom, New Jersey, and West Jersey Manufacturing i Company at Williamstown, New Jersey 4 Generic Letter 88-01 NRC Position on IGSCC in BWR Austen- $12,000  !

itic Stainless Steel Piping j

5. Generic Letter 88-03 Resolution of Generic Safety $ 7,000 Issue 93, " Steam Binding of Auxiliary Feed Pumps" i

q (1) -These estimates only address the assessment of actions to be taken, preparing the necessary plans, and preparing the response. They do not include the time for actual implementation of the recommended actions.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -