ML19091A017

Summary of Meeting with Nuclear Energy Institute and Industry on Task Interface Agreement Program Enhancement and Low Safety Significant Issue Resolution (CAC No./Epid A11008/L-2019-PMP-0002, A11008/L-2019-PMP-0004)

ML19091A017
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/16/2019
From:	Booma Venkataraman Special Projects and Process Branch
To:	Michael Orenak Special Projects and Process Branch
Venkataraman B, 415-2934
References
CAC A11008, EPID L-2019-PMP-0002, EPID L-2019-PMP-0004
Download: ML19091A017 (6)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 April 16, 2019 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael D. Orenak, Acting Chief Special Projects and Process Branch Division of Operator Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Booma Venkataraman, Project Manager Special Projects and Process Branch Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

,,r.,i

/

\\1i&/

0"'~/,

\ N\_B,//

SUMMARY

OF MARCH 19, 2019, MEETING WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE AND INDUSTRY, ON TASK INTERFACE AGREEMENT PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT AND LOW SAFETY SIGNIFICANT ISSUE RESOLUTION (CAC NO./EPID A 11 008/L-2019-PM P-0002, A 11 008/L-2019-PM P-0004)

On March 19, 2019, a Category 2 public meeting was held between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and representatives of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and industry at NRC Headquarters, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and get feedback on the Task Interface Agreement (TIA) enhancement opportunities and the topic of low safety significant issue resolution. The meeting notice and agenda, dated March 6, 2019, are available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML19078A004. A list of attendees is enclosed.

The documents related to the meeting consist of the presentations from NEI and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy), on TIA enhancement (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML19077A297 and ML19074A141, respectively), NRC presentations on the TIA program enhancement status and low safety significant issues (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML19074A143 and ML19074A142, respectively), and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Office Instruction COM-106, Rev. 6, "Control of Task Interface Agreements," (ADAMS Accession No. ML15219A174).

The meeting was divided into two segments as outlined on the meeting agenda. The first segment was the discussion of the TIA enhancement and the second segment was on the current thoughts regarding low safety significant issues. No regulatory decisions were made during this meeting.

TIA Enhancement - Staff Presentation The NRC staff presented an update on the progress of the ongoing TIA program enhancement project (ADAMS Accession No. ML19074A143). The NRC indicated that the enhancement effort has the following key drivers: (1) risk-informed decisionmaking, (2) modernized

M. Orenak decisionmaking, (3) NRR/Office of New Reactors (NRO) merger opportunities to integrate office best practices, (4) stakeholder engagement, and (5) the low safety significant issue resolution initiative. The staff also informed the industry that the goal is to provide a proposed updated COM-106, by June 2019.

The NRC staff provided a high-level overview of the project execution, including the work activities, and composition of the working group. The staff indicated that it is currently gathering feedback and insights from various sources including the industry, the NRC staff, and best practices to incorporate as appropriate, in the TIA program enhancement. The staff indicated in closing that the TIA enhancement is envisioned to result in a holistic program to focus resources on matters that are most important to safety, consistent with the principles of good regulation, with effective use of modern technology to serve the stakeholder needs.

The industry provided the perspective that it is a customer in the TIA process. In response to the questions posed by the industry, the NRC staff provided clarity as follows:

• The data the staff used in the analysis for the NRC TIA program enhancement includes operating experience from past TIAs, a recent agencywide survey to tap into past user inputs, outreach with the NRC regions and other NRC offices (NRO and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards) to collect best practices, and this public meeting to receive input from industry and licensees.

• On the topic of pilot applications to test the enhancement, the staff indicated that this might consist of testing scenarios similar to past TIA applications.

• The industry's request for a future engagement to share ideas, prior to staff's finalization of the proposed enhancements, will be considered. This engagement could feature a tabletop exercise using examples of TIAs or a workshop to test a pilot application.

• The staff confirmed that the TIA program enhancement is considering revised metrics for timeliness and quality.

Enhancements to the TIA Process - NEI Presentation NEI presented its thoughts on the TIA enhancement (ADAMS Accession No. ML19077A297) and made five suggestions for staff consideration: (1) increase process rigidity, (2) place greater emphasis on backfit, (3) include an appeal process, (4) eliminate predecisional consideration, and (5) establish exit criteria for low safety significant issues. The key points are discussed below.

The industry suggested an effective alignment of all the parties, including the licensees at the front-end during the development of questions for the TIA, such that the questions are framed clearly and incorporate licensee input. The industry also stressed the need for durable documentation of the issues throughout the TIA process with NRR ownership of the documents.

The NRC staff indicated that the TIA process is owned by NRR's Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, which also is the owner of the plant licensing basis and this is helping with the coordination issues. Further, the staff noted that it is emphasizing that the TIA process is a fact-finding process, rather than a process for interpreting a plant's licensing basis.

The industry requested to remove predecisional considerations in the TIA process to support improved openness and communications. The industry also commented that the TIA process

M. Orenak should clearly state how to deal with backfit considerations for an issue. Further, on its request of an appeal process in the TIA program, the industry indicated that this provision would help the licensees in a rare case where there is a disagreement with NRR staff on the TIA results to offer a recourse, for example, prior to the issue entering the enforcement process. NEI did not convey this as another means to contest a violation, but rather a means for resolving an issue prior to entering enforcement which would require contenting the violation.

TIA Program Enhancement - Entergy Presentation Entergy presented its recommendations on TIA enhancements (ADAMS Accession No. ML19074A141) and made two suggestions for staff consideration: enhance communication and enhance the TIA Coordinator position. The key points discussed were as follows:

Entergy stated that openness and clarity are very important in this process as licensee fixes could be very expensive if appropriate decisions are not made. The industry recommended joint communication and partnerships with the licensee to build confidence and accountability throughout the process. Entergy also commented that the TIA questions should be made publicly available and shared with the licensee. Entergy suggested that effective coordination from the NRR TIA project manager and frequent status updates on the TIAs would improve the effectiveness of the program. The NRC staff mentioned that efforts have been made to improve coordination in the recent past. The staff also asked the industry if making the TIA a fee-billable exercise would improve accountability. The industry took this as an action item.

Current Thoughts on Resolving Low Safety Significant Issues - NRC Presentation The NRC staff presented the key points (ADAMS Accession No. ML19074A142) on the ongoing agency initiative for resolving low safety significant issues. The staff indicated that complexity, uniqueness, and lack of clarity in a plant's licensing basis (LB) can sometimes raise questions on low safety significance issues. The staff noted that there needs to be a common understanding of the questions being asked to ensure they are answered correctly as well as a focus on using resources effectively and efficiently. While emphasizing the nexus of the issues with the LB, the staff highlighted several examples. When the issue is addressed in the plant's LB and it is clearly of low safety significance, there are several NRC and licensee tools and programs to address it. The staff noted that when an issue is not clearly in the LB, based on the complete LB record, then in staff's view there is flexibility in dispositioning the issue after assessing safety significance. Further, if the staff determines the issue is clearly of low safety significance, no further regulatory action may be needed other than documenting the decision publicly. The staff included thoughts on determining low safety significance and remarked that the efforts are geared to find a reliable method that efficiently provides a resolution. The staff indicated that the efforts would leverage existing guidance and highlighted the challenges associated with assessing safety significance.

The industry presented its view that misinterpretation of the LB happens frequently in the oversight process. Further, it commented that frequently there is resource expenditure when dealing with NRC inspector questions related to LB versus non-LB and licensees often acquiesce simply as an expediency. The NRC staff indicated a future engagement with the industry with tabletop exercises may be organized to discuss examples of issues, inspector assumptions in questions, issue ambiguity and to understand root causes and help better define the problem statement. On the assessment of safety significance, the industry suggested using a Green finding as a kickout for the underlying issue as one method yet stressed that any new method used should be a simple process. The industry also cautioned against using detailed

M. Orenak risk assessments in determining safety significance due to differing opinions in the past expressed in the context of other NRC initiatives.

Summary/Action Items The NRC staff received feedback and insights from the industry on the TIA enhancement and the low safety significant issue resolution initiatives. The staff indicated that the two efforts are working in close coordination and the low safety significance assessment criteria will be an input to the TIA enhancement effort. Further, the staff noted three follow-up actions:

• Staff will consider the industry request for opportunities for future interactions.

• Industry will provide feedback on the question of a fee-billable approach to the TIA process.

(On April 5, 2019, the industry responded to the NRC and indicated that in its view the TIA process should not be fee-billable based on the purpose of the TIA process is to have NRR answer questions or resolve issues raised by other NRC organizations.)

• Staff and industry will consider ideas for tabletops with developed test cases to discuss issue ambiguity and assumptions in the proposed processes.

Members of the public were not in attendance. Public Meeting Feedback forms were not received.

Please direct any inquiries to me at 301-415-2934 or Booma.Venkataraman@nrc.gov.

Enclosure:

List of Attendees

LIST OF ATTENDEES MARCH 19, 2019, MEETING WITH NEI AND INDUSTRY TIA PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT AND LOW SAFETY SIGNIFICANT ISSUE RESOLUTION NRC Participants Craig Erlanger Kathryn Brock Douglas Broaddus Eric Bowman Tim Reed Jeanne Johnston Booma Venkataraman Shaun Anderson Don Helton Sam Lee Matt McConnell Kaihwa Hsu Samson Lee Steve Jones Phil Mckenna Jeff Mitman Kayla Gamin Andy Imboden*

Brian Benney*

Joshua Kaizer*

Eric Ruesch*

Paul Cataldo*

Laura Dudes*

Mel Holmberg*

Industry Participants Andrew Mauer (NEI)

Tim Riti (NEI)

Marty Murphy (Xcel Energy)

Jim Barstow (Exelon)

Mandy Halter (Entergy)

Steve Catron (NextEra Energy)*

Ken Browne (NextEra Energy)*

• - Participated by telephone Enclosure

ML19091A017 *via e-mail OFFICE NRR/DORL/LSPB/PM NRR/DORL/LSPB/LA NRR/DORL/LSPB/BC NRR/DORL/LSPB/PM*

NAME BVenkataraman JBurkhardt DBroaddus TReed DATE 04/01/19 04/04/19 04/15/19 04/16/19 NRR/DORL/LS PB/BC( NRR/DORL/DD OFFICE A) NRR/DORL/LSPB/PM NAME MOrenak KBrock BVenkataraman DATE 04/15/19 04/16/19 04/16/19