ML16134A535
| ML16134A535 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1997 |
| From: | Carpenter C NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Roe J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16134A534 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-80-04, IEB-80-4, NUDOCS 9706120336 | |
| Download: ML16134A535 (4) | |
Text
May 6i 1997 NOTE TO: Jack W. Roe, Director, DRPW FROM:
Cindi Carpenter, TA, DRP
SUBJECT:
CHANGES TO THE PM HANDBOOK Attached is new guidance for the Project Manager Handbook. The attachment was prepared by Tom Alexion as followup actions to a mememorandum from W.
Russell to A. Thadani, R. Zimmerman and T. Martin on the "Followup actions to NRR DPV Review Panel on the Implementation of Bulletin 80-04 at Oconee." The action items were to develop staff guidance and training for the following process lessons learned: 1) Implementing modifications prior to submitting technical specification amendments is not an acceptable practice, and 2)
Appropriately documenting the basis for regulatory decisions and technical reviews. Tom prepared the attached guidance for the PM handbook in response to this, and PM training will be provided at the next PM Workshop.
In accordance with the process to make changes to the PM Handbook, the attached guidance is provided to you for your review, comments and approval.
Roy has agreed, on most changes for the PM Handbook, that you can sign for approval to incorporate the change into the Handbook. The change was forwarded to and approved by the PM/PD Advisory Panel. The change was also forwarded to T. Martin, F. Gillespie, and M. Slosson. No comments were received.
Attachments:
OW:
As stated cc:
F. Miraglia R. Zimmerman ATTACHMENT 9706120336 970610 PDR ADOCK 05000269 G
Implementing modifications prior to submitting technical specification amendments is not an acceptable practice. (ADP due: 6/97)
The following paragraphs should be inserted just before the last paragraph in Section 2-.4.1-"Interactions With the Licensee."-
Also. during communications with the licensee (i.e., when the PM becomes aware of a modification that is planned without prior NRC approval), the PM should inform the licensee that it is unacceptable for the licensee to implement modifications prior to submitting related applications for, and receiving NRC approval on. exemptions to the regulations or license/technical specification amendments. Regarding requests for exemptions to the regulations, the PM should remind the licensee that the licensee must comply with the regulations while NRC's review of the application is ongoing, and if the request for exemption is denied, the licensee must continue to comply with the regulations (note that Generic Letter 91-18 addresses the discovery,of degraded or nonconforming conditions). The same logic is also true for requests for changes to the license/technical specifications; they also require prior NRC approval. The PM should also remind the licensee of the following points if the licensee chooses to implement modifications without prior NRC approval:
(1) the licensee needs to do the appropriate 50.59 evaluation, (2) the licensee is proceeding at the licensee's own risk. and (3) no NRC approval is expressed or implied by any verbal statements made (or not made) by the PM.
Per 10 CFR 50.59, "The holder of a license... may make changes in the facility... without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change...
involves a change in the technical specifications... or an unreviewed safety question." There are 3 ways that a change to the facility may involve a change to a technical specification (TS): (1) adding a new TS, (2) deleting an existing TS, or (3) changing an existing TS. Presumably, a licensee should know that it cannot make a change to the facility that involves a deletion or a change to an existing.TS without prior.NRC approval, due to 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 50.90. Therefore, perhaps the only area for potential confusion is addition of a new TS.
During communications with the licensee, the PM may need to remind the licensee that just because the licensee's long-term plan is to add TSs voluntarily for a "safety-enhancement" modification, this doesn't necessarily mean the TS change can be applied for after the modification is implemented.
This is because the licensee also has to look at the unreviewed safety question and apply it to the entire change (i.e.. a non-single-failure proof modification, while improving the consequences of some accidents. may worsen others, or create a new type of accident). Also, the addition of TSs to cover a modification may be required (and not voluntary). per 50.36.
Appropriately documenting the basis for regulatory decisions and technical reviews. (ADP due: 6/97)
The following paragraphs should be inserted just after the paragraph in Section 2.4.1; "Interactions -With -the Licensee.f--that-starts--with- --"The -PM coordinates all NRR correspondence to the licensee..." This is also just before the paragraph that starts with, "In all communications. the PM should respect the position of the licensee.u The PM should provide all regulatory decisions that are made in response to licensee applications or licensee responses to Bulletins, Generic Letters.
50.54(f) letters or other regulatory issues, in writing. These written decisions, usually in the form of Safety Evaluations (SEs). must provide the proper technical. safety and legal basis that coherently supports the staff's conclusion, with reference to the appropriate guidance documents, as explained in Section 4.3. "Safety Evaluations." Should the licensee revise its previously submitted and NRC-approved response to a Bulletin, Generic Letter.
50.54(f) letter or other regulatory issue, the PM should ensure that the revised SE not only follows the guidance in Section 4.3. but that the revised SE also has the same amount of rigor, or detail. that was in the original SE.
In short, the NRC staff should not make regulatory decisions without providing a proper technical, safety and legal basis.
Notwithstanding the above, there are some cases where the staff intentionally does not perform a detailed review in response to certain Bulletins. Generic Letters, etc. For these issues. the staff must ensure that the requested actions are adequately addressed by the licensee. The PM subsequently sends the licensee an acknowledgement letter. with a caveat stating that the licensee's response may be subject to future inspection or auditing. In these cases, a large part of the staff's basis for the acknowledgement closeout letter is the future inspection of all plants (or a sample of plants). It-is therefore acceptable for the PM to issue an acknowledgement letter in response to licensees that revise their previously completed response to certain issues, if it is consistent with what the-staff did previously for those
-issues. -However, the PM should -ensure that no safety concerns exist and.-
obtain the concurrence of the Lead Technical Branch and the Project Director.
FROM:
ORIGINAL DUE DT: 06/30/97 TICKET NO: 0960215 DOC DT: 09/23/96 NRR RCVD DATE: 11/12/96 W. T. RUSSELL, NRR TO:
MULTIPLE ADDRESSEES FOR SIGNATURE OF :
YEL DESC:
ROUTING:
FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS TO NRR DPV REVIEW PANEL ON THE MIRA& A IMPLEMENTATION OF BULLETIN 80-04 AT OCONEE THIS THADANI DOCUMENT HAS 2 PARTS ONE PART IS DUE 6/30/97 ZIMMERMAN AND THE SECOND PART WILL HAVE A DUE DATE OF BOHRER 10/30/97 ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
DRPW ROE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
ACTION DuLE TO N-D03IU US:
-r 7.
- 3Y-