ML050740002

Summary of Meeting with the Operability Determination Process Task Force

ML050740002
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/16/2005
From:	Schulten C NRC/NRR/DIPM/IROB
To:	Schoppman M Nuclear Energy Institute
Schulten C. S., NRR/IROB/TSS, 415-1192
References
TAC M2262
Download: ML050740002 (20)

Text

March 16, 2005 Mr. Mike Schoppman Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708

SUMMARY

OF MEETING ON FEBRUARY 17, 2005, WITH THE OPERABILITY DETERMINATION PROCESS TASK FORCE The purpose of this letter is to transmit the summary of a meeting with the Operability Determination Process Task Force. The meeting was held at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission offices in Rockville, Maryland, on February 17, 2005. At the meeting the staff and the operability determination process task force either reached agreement on Nuclear Energy Institute high priority items or assigned actions with an agreement on a path forward. The next meeting is scheduled for April 19, in Rockville, Maryland to discuss the proposed resolution of the open high priority action items.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Carl S. Schulten, Senior Reactor Engineer Technical Specifications Section Reactor Operations Branch Division of Inspection Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Meeting Summary

2. Attendance List

3. Agenda

4. Draft NEI Background Paper for the Operability Determination Process (draft RIS 2004-xx)

5. Comment Resolution by TOC (01-17-2005).wpd (ML050490277)

6. Resolution of Comments (draft RIS & GL 91-18) rev 01-17-05.wpd (ML050490270)

7. Identification of Resolution Pending High Priority Action Items cc w/encl: See attached page

ML050740002 OFFICE TSS:IROB-A:DIPM SC:TSS:IROB-A:DIPM NAME CSSchulten THBoyce DATE 03/15/2005 03/16/2005 DISTRIBUTION:

ADAMS PUBLIC IROB R/F TSS Staff RidsNrrDipm RidsNrrDssa RidsNrrDlpm RidsNrrDssaSplb RidsNrrDipmlehb RidsOgcRp RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter SBarber (GSB)

BBurgess (BLB)

BDesai (BBD)

WBJones (WBJ)

DJNelson (DJN)

LWert (LXW1)

SAlexander (SDA)

RBlough (ARB)

SBurton (SXB3)

DGraves (DNG)

EMcKenna (EMM)

JTrapp (JMT1)

HChernoff (HKC)

LTrocine (LXT)

RMosser (RXM1)

cc via e-mail:

Mr. Mike Schoppman Nuclear Energy Institute Ms. Laurie Lahti Nuclear Management Company Mr. Pete LeBlond LeBlond Associates Mr. Jeff Thomas Duke Energy Ms. Patricia Campbell Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Mr. Jim Kilpatrick Constellation Energy Mr. Getachew Tesfaye Constellation Energy Mr. Ron Gaston DTE Energy Mr. Fred Mashburn TVA Ms. Nancy Chapman SERCH/Bechtel Mr. Donald Hoffman Technical Specifications Task Force Ms. Deann Raleigh Scientech Mr. Brian Mann Technical Specifications Task Force

SUMMARY

OF THE FEBRUARY 17, 2005, THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE OPERABILITY DETERMINATION PROCESS TASK FORCE The NRC staff met with the NEI Operability Determination Process Task Force (ODPTF) on February 17, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The list of meeting attendees is found in . The purpose of the meeting was to discuss industry comments on Draft RIS 2004-XX. Draft RIS 2004-XX combines Inspection Manual Part 9900 on Operable/Operability with Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions, standardizes terminology and updates guidance. The Draft RIS was issued for public comment in August 2004. The public comment period closed in October 2004. The NEI ODPTF collected industry comments and provided the staff with a listing of 16 high priority topics.

At the February 17, 2005, public meeting the staff made draft responses to all public comments available. The agenda for the meeting was to discuss disposition of the NEI high priority topics.

The staff noted in its opening remarks (Enclosure 3) that it sought two objectives; understand positions on high priority items and reach consensus on high priority items. The staff remarks also set goals for further development of the draft RIS 2004-xx guidance. The stated goals are:

• guidance is for NRC inspectors

• we need a cooperative approach

• for best practices rely on the industry

• regulatory override if necessary

• goal is clarity of process for inspectors and operators

• the draft RIS should be a simple, plain language process document Additionally, the staff remarked it seeks technical discipline to solve the typical plant/process not exceptions to typical plant/process issues.

The NEI ODPTF opening remarks included a handout (Enclosure 4) that contained the ODPTF Position on the draft RIS 2004-xx and which also included a response disposition to the draft staff positions to all public comments (Enclosures 5 and 6). The NEI ODPTF positions, as enclosed, are:

• GL 91-18 provides guidance for two important processes that are central to the effective, day-to-day operation and regulation of commercial nuclear power plants; (1) the process for making operability determinations, and (2) the process for resolving degraded or nonconforming conditions.

• The GL 91-18 process interfaces with a significant number of regulations, programs, processes, documents, and procedures; therefore, any changes to the process should take these interfaces into consideration.

• The ODPTF letter dated October 1, 2004, summarized the main concerns that the Task Force has with the draft RIS published in August 2004. The letter highlights the broad scope of the revised process, the importance of terminology and precise definitions, and the need for integrating the process with other aspects of daily operations. The letter made recommendations for reorganizing the final RIS, and it identified several follow-up items to consider in working meetings with the NRC staff.

Enclosure 1

• The ODPTF believes that further dialogue between the industry and NRC is essential to achieving a final RIS that addresses both NRC and industry objectives in updating the operability determination process.

At the meeting the staff and ODPTF either reached agreement on NEI high priority Items or assigned actions with an agreement on a path forward. Enclosure 7 identifies the items which are to become the focus of the next meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for April 19th in Rockville. The agenda is to discuss proposed resolutions of the open high priority action items.

The staff and the ODPTF have also tentatively agreed to meet from May 11 and 12, 2005, to markup the draft RIS 2004-xx to incorporate revised guidance.

MEETING WITH NEI OPERABILITY DETERMINATION TASK FORCE ATTENDANCE LIST FEBRUARY 17, 2005 NAME AFFILIATION CARL S. SCHULTEN NRC\NRR\TSS\IROB\DIPM NANCY SALGADO NRC\NRR\TSS\IROB\DIPM LAURIE LAHTI NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY PETER LEBLOND LEBLOND & ASSOCIATES, LLC PATRICIA CAMPBELL MORGAN LEWIS C. JEFF THOMAS DUKE ENERGY - MCGUIRE JAMES KILPATRICK CONSTELLATION ENERGY - CALVERT CLIFFS RON GASTON DTE ENERGY - FERMI FRED MASHBURN TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)

- CORPORATE PETE HEARN NRC\NRR\TSS\IROB\DIPM PATRICK HILAND NRC\NRR\IROB\DIPM GARY ARMSTRONG JR. NRC\NRR\TSS\IROB\DIPM MIKE SCHOPPMAN NEI BRIAN MANN TSTF\EXCEL DONALD R. HOFFMAN TSTF\EXCEL R.A. MUSSER NRC\REGION II THOMAS BOYCE NRC\NRR\TSS\IROB\DIPM S. BURTON NRC\REGION III GETACHEW TESFAYE CONSTELLATION LEIGH TROCINE NRC\OE NANCY CHAPMAN SEARCH\BECHTEL JIM TRAPP NRC\REGION I HAROLD CHERNOFF NRC/DLPM Enclosure 2

MEETING WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE OPERABILITY DETERMINATION TASK FORCE FEBRUARY 17, 2005 PURPOSE - OBJECTIVES PRIMARY

! UNDERSTAND POSITIONS ON HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS

! REACH CONSENSUS ON HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS SECONDARY

! UNDERSTAND POSITIONS ON OTHER ISSUES

! DECIDE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL MEETINGS GOALS FOR GUIDANCE

! GUIDANCE FOR INSPECTORS

! COOPERATIVE APPROACH

! RELY ON INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES

! REGULATORY OVERRIDE IF NECESSARY

! GOAL IS CLARITY OF PROCESS FOR

- INSPECTORS

- OPERATORS

! SIMPLE ..... PLAIN LANGUAGE PROCESS DOCUMENT TECHNICAL DISCIPLINE

! SOLVE TYPICAL PLANT/PROCESS

... NOT EXCEPTIONS TO TYPICAL

... DEFAULT WILL BE CONFORMANCE TO STS

! DO THE RIGHT THING.... NOT

...THE REQUIREMENTS or ...COMPLIANCE THING Enclosure 3

DRAFT NEI Background Paper for the Operability Determination Process (draft RIS 2004-xx)

Draft Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Background Paper for the Operability Determination Process (draft RIS 2004-xx)

Background

The NRC staff issued operability determination guidance to licensees in Generic Letter (GL) 91-18 dated November 7, 1991. Supplemental guidance on the role of the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation process in the resolution of degraded and nonconforming conditions was added in revision 1 to GL 91-18 dated October 8, 1997.

NRC conducted workshops on potential changes to the GL 91-18 process in August 2003, and August 2004 to obtain public feedback on major issues and concepts. NRC published a draft Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) in the Federal Register on August 3, 2004, as the basis for the August 2004 workshop. At that point NEI formed an Operability Determination Process Task Force (ODPTF) to review the draft RIS and work with the NRC in public meetings to achieve consensus on a final RIS.

On October 1, 2004, the ODPTF sent comments to NRC on the draft RIS. On February 15, 2005, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provided a draft summary of the proposed resolutions to the ODPTF comments. The ODPTF will discuss the proposed resolutions with the NRC staff during a public meeting at NRC headquarters scheduled for February 17, 2005.

ODPTF Position GL 91-18 provides guidance for two important processes that are central to the effective, day-to-day operation and regulation of commercial nuclear power plants; (1) the process for making operability determinations, and (2) the process for resolving degraded or nonconforming conditions.

The GL 91-18 process interfaces with a significant number of regulations, programs, processes, documents, and procedures; therefore, any changes to the process should take these interfaces into consideration.

The ODPTF letter dated October 1, 2004, summarized the main concerns that the Task Force has with the draft RIS published in August 2003. The letter highlights the broad scope of the revised process, the importance of terminology and precise definitions, and the need for integrating the process with other aspects of daily operations. The letter made recommendations for reorganizing the final RIS, and it identified several follow-up items to consider in working meetings with the NRC staff.

Enclosure 4

DRAFT NEI Background Paper for the Operability Determination Process (draft RIS 2004-xx)

The ODPTF believes that further dialogue between the industry and NRC is essential to achieving a final RIS that addresses both NRC and industry objectives in updating the operability determination process.

Proposed Follow-up The NRC and industry need to agree on several important basic concepts including:

1. What are the NRC and industry goals for the use of the RIS?

2. What is the scope of change to the RIS that is necessary to support these goals?

3. What additional steps should be taken to develop the final RIS?

4. What should the schedule be for a final RIS and an industry workshop on the updated ODP?

The ODPTF proposes the following process and schedule:

1. February 17, 2005 - NRC/ODPTF public meeting

a. NRC/industry discuss the NRC staffs proposed resolution to the ODPTF comment letter to identify remaining open items

b. NRC/industry develop a new list of high priority open items

c. NRC/industry establish the process for going forward

2. Next Steps/Schedule (to be determined)

a. ODPTF detailed review of NRC staffs proposed resolutions

b. Series of public working meetings

c. NRC issue a 2nd draft RIS for public comment to document changes from the 1st draft (?)

d. NRC issue final RIS

e. NEI Workshop

DRAFT NEI Background Paper for the Operability Determination Process (draft RIS 2004-xx)

On October 1, 2004, NEI submitted comments on draft RIS 2004-xx. On February 15, 2005, NRC provided draft resolutions for each comment.

By e-mail to NRC on December 1, 2004, NEI summarized 16 high-priority topics contained in the NEI comment letter. The following list is a summary of the ODPTFs preliminary review of the draft NRC dispositions for the 16 high-priority topics.

The current ODPTF position (A = accept, D = disagree, and NS = not sure) on each comment related to a particular topic is listed under the heading for that topic. Additional comments are provided in some cases. Follow-up discussions should concentrate on the D and NS items.

1. Differentiation between operability and functionality General Comment 1 - NS General Comment 3 - NS 3.4.3 - A 3.5.3 - A 5.5.1 - A 6.2.2 - D

Ø FUNCTIONALITY has different quality standards and timing requirements than OPERABILITY.

Ø The ODPTF understanding of NRCs proposed resolutions is that other detailed requirements in the draft RIS do not apply to functionality.

Ø Good Practice; hallmark of an effective corrective action program.

2. Terminology (definitions, consistent use, and regulatory basis)

General Comment 5 - A 3.0.1 - A 3.0.2 (function) - A 3.3.2 (mission time) - A 3.4.2 (functionality) - A 3.5.2 (specified function) - A 3.5.5 - A 4.4.1 - A 5.2.8 - A 5.7.3 - A C.5.4 (manual actions) - A C.9.1 - A C.11.2 - A

Ø Based on NRCs proposed resolutions, the ODPTF needs to provide clarification of several comments.

DRAFT NEI Background Paper for the Operability Determination Process (draft RIS 2004-xx)

3. Role of the problem identification and resolution program (corrective action program) 1.0.2 - A 3.4.6 - A 6.2.1.3 - A 7.2.2 - D

Ø The ODPTF believes the draft guidance exceeds Criterion XVI, and further dialogue is needed.

4. Differentiating operability issues from corrective action issues 6.2.1.1 - A

Ø Incorporate this topic into further discussions of Topic 1 on functionality

5. Checks and balances to prevent the RIS from being treated as a requirement instead of as guidance 1.0.3 - NS 7.2.3 - NS

Ø A management issue.

Ø The ODPTF interprets the draft RIS as going well beyond performance-based inspection guidance.

Ø The draft RIS reads as if it is guidance to the licensee rather than guidance to the inspector.

6. The role of non-licensed personnel in making operability determinations 1.0.5 - D 5.0.3 - D 5.2.3 - NS

Ø A RIS is not the appropriate vehicle for establishing a new regulatory position.

Ø The ODPTF requests an opportunity to describe standard industry practice to help inform the RIS.

Ø A licensed operator declares operability/inoperability, but other staff members contribute to the operability determination.

Ø The licensee is responsible for operability decisions, and a RIS should not specify which individuals within a licensees organization must perform these tasks in every situation.

DRAFT NEI Background Paper for the Operability Determination Process (draft RIS 2004-xx)

7. Consistency of scoping statements made in different parts of the RIS 2.0.5 - A

Ø No further discussion.

8. How to decide whether an operability determination is necessary 4.1.3 - A

Ø No further discussion.

9. Timing considerations 4.3.4 - A 5.0.4 - D 5.1.1 - A 5.2.1 - A 5.3.1 - NS 5.3.4 - D 7.2.4 - A 7.2.6 - D

Ø The ODPTF does see the basis for specifying a single fixed time limit in the RIS. Other parts of the RIS permit decisions based on risk, safety, and complexity.

Ø The ODPTF views the NRC position with respect to first available opportunity as a new position that is not consistent with previous guidance (e.g., Criterion XVI, 10CFR50.59, and NRC-endorsed guidance on temporary changes). Resolution should proceed consistent with the corrective action program, commensurate with safety and risk considerations.

10. Neutrality of guidance with respect to plant-specific Tech Specs 5.7.1 - A A.1.1 - A

Ø No further discussion.

11. Documentation requirements 5.8.3 - NS

DRAFT NEI Background Paper for the Operability Determination Process (draft RIS 2004-xx)

Ø The range of documentation in practice varies from a simple check mark to considerable detail. Is a check mark sufficient?

12. The role of risk assessment 7.1.4 - NS C.6.2 - A C.6.3 - A C.6.5 - A

Ø The NRCs proposed resolutions for NEI, Constellation, and Duke comments appear inconsistent.

13. Interface with regulations 7.3.3 (maintenance) - A B.4.1 (maintenance) - D 7.4.3 (10CFR50.59) - A C.11.5 (10CFR50.55a) - A C.14.2 (AST) - A

Ø The ODPTF requests further dialogue on the regulatory basis for applying 10CFR50.65 to component aging.

Ø The ODPTF requests further dialogue on the use of AST for operability determinations other than those associated with control room habitability.

14. Interface with other guidance documents B.1.1 - A B.2.4 - A B.2.8 - A C.4.2 - A

Ø No further discussion.

15. Compensatory measures 7.3.4 - A 7.3.5 - A 7.3.11 - A

Ø No further discussion.

DRAFT NEI Background Paper for the Operability Determination Process (draft RIS 2004-xx)

16. Methods of evaluation 7.3.12 - A 7.3.13 - A C.4.3 - A C.4.4 - A C.4.7 - A C.4.8 - A

Ø Consistent with some of the NRC proposed dispositions, the ODPTF recommends further discussion of the treatment of methods of evaluation.

DRAFT NEI Background Paper for the Operability Determination Process (draft RIS 2004-xx)

Comment Resolution by TOC (01-17-2005).wpd (ML050490277)

Enclosure 5

DRAFT NEI Background Paper for the Operability Determination Process (draft RIS 2004-xx)

Resolution of Comments (draft RIS & GL 91-18) rev 01-17-05.wpd (ML050490270)

Enclosure 6

Identification of Resolution Pending High Priority Action Items Identification of Resolution Pending High Priority Action Items The ODPTF accepted NRCs proposed resolution of Topics 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, and 15.

• Differentiating operability issues from Corrective Action Program issues

• Consistency among different sections of the RIS

• Deciding when an operability determination is necessary

• Neutrality of the RIS with respect to plant-specific Tech Specs

• Interfaces with other guidance documents

• Treatment of compensatory measures The followup items for the remaining topics are:

Topic 1 - Differentiating Technical Specification Operability from non-TS Functionality Differentiation between Operability and Functionality was a major topic of discussion.

NRC agreed that the main topic of the RIS is Technical Specification Operability, and that guidance on non-Tech-Spec functionality can be merged into one section.

The ODPTF will provide (1) additional recommendations on the definition of operability, and (2) a redraft of the guidance on functionality to be located in RIS Section 3.4 (Functionality).

[Action Item - ODPTF]

Topic 2 - Key terms and definitions The ODPTF will provide more detailed comments on key terms and what it believes the definitions should be. [Action Item - ODPTF]

Topic 3 - The role of the Corrective Action Program NRC will revise RIS section 7.2 (Timing of Corrective Actions) such that extent of condition reviews for functionality are based on applicable regulations/guidance (e.g., Appendix B Criterion XVI, 10CFR50.65 maintenance rule, 10CFR50.55a ISI/IST programs, etc.). [Action Item - NRC]

Topic 5 - Checks and balances to emphasize that the RIS is inspector guidance, not requirements NRC will edit the RIS to emphasize its role as inspector guidance. NRC intends to conduct agency-wide training on the final RIS. [Action Item - NRC]

Topic 6 - The role of non-licensed personnel in making operability determinations Non-licensed staff play a help making operability determinations. This contribution is often significant. At the end of the operability determination process, a licensed operator makes a declaration of operability or inoperability. NRC agreed to revise the RIS based on this characterization. [Action Item - NRC]

Topic 9 - Timing considerations Timing was a major topic of discussion. The ODPTF believes that timing considerations are adequately addressed in Generic Letter 91-18, revision 1. The ODPTF will revise the RIS sections that have words on timing considerations to describe the operability decision process. The staff concern with timing considerations is that Completion Times are moving out, thus a value Enclosure 7

(e.g., 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) was added to the inspector guidance which is a reasonable expectation to complete a prompt operability determination. The staff expectation is criteria for establishing reasonable assurance for SSC operability when documenting the basis for operability determinations. [Action Item - ODPTF]

Topic 11 - Documentation requirements Documentation should provide a recoverable basis for each operability/functionality determination. The ODPTF will revise the RIS sections on documentation.

[Action Item - ODPTF]

Topic 12 - The role of risk assessment The ODP TF will incorporate the role of risk assessment in section 3.4 on functionality. [Action Item - ODPTF]

Topic 13 - Interfaces with regulations NRC will revise the RIS to clarify the interface with other regulations, e.g., the maintenance rule, the 10CFR50.59 change process, and 10CFR50.67 (alternative source term).

[Action Item - NRC]

Topic 16 - Treatment of methods of evaluation The ODP TF will decide if further comments are needed with respect to methods of evaluation. [Action Item - ODPTF]