ML20035G574
| ML20035G574 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/01/1988 |
| From: | Connelly S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | Carr, Roberts, Zech NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033D942 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-402 NUDOCS 9304280104 | |
| Download: ML20035G574 (26) | |
Text
-
'o UNITED STATES
[/
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION p.g W ASHINGTON D. C 20555
~"
t n
. 8
?A f
- ~
JUN1 1998 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Zech Cormissioner Roberts Cc raissioner Carr Comissioner Rogers FROM:
Sharon R. Connelly, Director Office of Inspector and Auditor REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMERAT10f4 0F THE BACKFIT PROCEDURES
SUBJECT:
Attached is our repo<t on the results of our review of the staff's imple:renta-tion of the backfit procedures. Our review was ccnducted at NRC Headquarters between February and October 1967 and concentrated on the agency's handling and management of plant-specific t>eckfit issues. Our review included dis-cussions with various fiRC staff members and managers, a general review of the staff's handling and management of 34 issues recorded in the Plant-Specific Backfit System (FSBS) to determine if information was being recorded consistently, anc a more detaileo review of 13 issues to determine if issues were being processed in accordance with Manual Chapter (MC) 0514 Conclusions and Recorrendations Based on our review of the agency's handling and management of plant specific backfit issues, we believe the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) neccs to increase and improve his managerrent oversight of the plant-specific backfit process to assure that backfits are being identified and handled in accordance with 10 CFP 5D.109 and MC 0514.
In addition, MC 0514 needs to be clarified regarding. hen backfits are to be reccrced in the PSBS, and office procedures need to be revised tc reflect that guidance; MC 0514 needs to be reviseo to include guidance on considering plant-specific issues for their generic implications; and the quality of and control over data in the PSBS needs to be improved.
In addition, MC 0514 should be issued in final fonn.
Our report makes eight reconnendations to alleviate the weaknesses we have identified in the plant-specific backfit process.
In comenting on a draf t of our report, the EDO agreed with all eight recomendations and identified corrective actions taken or planned to implement the recomendations.
9
, g bl e
cp@z 9304280104 930204 PDR FOIA LEN92-402 PDR
In addition, we evaluated internal controls over the plant-specific backfit We did not evaluate the technical merits of issues identified as process.
backfits nor did we attempt to detennine whether they were backfits.
FINDINGS Our review of the management of the plant-specific backfit process found that NRC management has taken actions to improve the backfit process since our 1985 report entitled, " Review of the Staff's Implementation of the Interim Procedures for Managing Plant-5pecific Backfitting of Power Reactors."
Although improvements have been made, we found that weaknesses still exist with the plant-specific backfit process in the following areas:
The ED0's oversight of the process needs to be increased and improved.
MC 0514 assigned to the ED0's office responsibility to assure that controls for the overall management of the process were developed and r.aintained. Following the April 1987 reorganization, the EDO did not allocate sufficient resources within his staff for monitoring the plant-specific backfit process.
Because the individual in the ED0's office who is assigned the oversight responsibility is also responsible for being the ED0's liaison with NRR, he does not have sufficient time to c4ersee the backfit process. We found the lack of oversight to be a major factor allowing other weaknesses discussed in our report to exht.
MC 0514 has not been issued in final form, is not being implemented as intended, and does not adequately address how plant-specific issues should be evaluated for potential generic implications.
In addition, we found that because MC 0514 does not specify when plant-specific backf %s are supposed to be identified and tracked, the various offices' procedures are not consistent in that regard. These weaknesses have resulted in (1) the failure to assign anyone responsibility for reviewing issues identified as plant-specific backfits for generic implications; (2) the communication to licensees of potential plant-specific backfit issues before the staff determines whether the issue is or is not a backfit; and (3) the inconsistent, and in some cases non-existent, recording of plant-specific issues in the PSB5, which is the agency's tracking system for plant-specific backfits.
In addition, because MC 0514 has not been issued in final form there is uncertainty within the staff as to which is the version being used and an inability to obtain copies of the Manual Chapter from NRC's Distribution Section.
The PSBS does not contain the data needed to adequately manage the backfit program. Specifically, data regarding backfits is not consistently being entered into the PSBS, resulting in an inability by management to determine an issue's status.
In addition, because anyone with access to the FSBS can add, delete or change data, controls over the accessibility to the PSBS need to be improved.
INTERNAL CONTROLS Our review of the staff's implementation of the plant-specific backfit process has shown there are weaknesses in the system. We believe these weaknesses are
the result of internal controls not being fully implemented as intended or, in some cases, not existing in the agency's policy and guidance. We believe our report addresses these weaknesses and makes recomendations to strengthen and improve the way in which the staff processes backfits.
CONCLUSION We believe the EDO needs to increase and improve his management oversight of the plant-specific backfit process to assure that backfits are being icentified and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109 and MC 0514. MC 0514 needs to be clarified regarding when backfits are to be recorded in the PSBS, and office procedures need to be revised to reflect that guidance; MC 0514 needs to be revised to include guidance on considering plant-specific issues for their generic implications; and the quality of and control over data in the PSBS needs to t e improved.
In addition, MC 0514 should be issued in final form.
RECOMMENDATIONS We recurr end that the EDO:
1) est?blish procedures to be used by the ED0's of fice to monitor implemen-tation of plant-specific backfit issues; 2) cssure suf ficient resources are assigned in the ED0's office to effec-tively monitor the implementation of MC 0514; 3) assure that tZ 0514 is finalized end included in the NRC Manual; 4) assure that the office / region procedures are revised as necessary to provide specific and consistent guidance for recording data on and tracking plant-specific backfits in accordance with MC 0514; 5) incluce in MC 0514 specific procedures for assessing plant-specific backfit issues for generic implications; E) assure that ine current status of active and closed issues is both timely and accurately recorded in the PSBS; 7) establish and implement criteria to assure that plant-specific backfits imposed on licensees are closed only after NRC accepts licensee comitments and verifies that the actions have been taken; and 8) establish controls to eliminate unnecessary access into the PSBS.
AGENCY COMMENTS On April 27, 1988, the EDO commented on a draft of this report (see Appendix 111). The EDO agre:ed with all eight recorrr.endations and identified corrective actions taken or planned to implement the recommendations. Specifically, the EDO noted that in November 1987, the Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, was assigned responsibility for developing
. y -..
4 l
oversight procedures and monitoring plant-specific backfits.
In addition, MC 0514 is being revised to address our concerns with consistent recordkeeping, generic implications of plant specific backfits, access into the PSBS and i
inclusion of the chapter in the NRC Manual.
Changes to office and regional procedures will also be made to assure timely and accurate recording of plant-specific backfit issues in the PSBS and to address criteria necessary to establish uniform reporting of plant-specific backfits.
During our follow-up, we will review and evaluate the actions taken by the EDO staff and the AEOD staff in response to our recommendations.
i e
i I
f h
i e
I i
d a
+
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission s =,
. _,em _ -,,m_
.. ~
Report to the Commission Review of the Implementation of the Plant-Specific Backfit Procedures I
I Office of Inspector and Auditor June 1988 NOTICE This is An internal Management Document Prepared For The Commission Not to Be Released Outside Of NRC
l j
TABLE OF CONTENTS f
PAGE l
INTRODUCTION 1
BACKGROUND 1-l SCOPE 2
l FINDINGS 3
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT 3
i Conclusion 5
i Recomendations 1 and 2 6
MANUAL CHAPTER 0514 6
Draft Format 6
Office Procedures 7
Identifying and Recording Backfits 8
Tracking Systems in Use 10 Generic Implications 10 j
Conclusion 11 i
Recommendations 3, 4 and 5 11-PLANT SPECIFIC BACKFIT SYSTEM 11 Inconsistencies in Active and Closed Issues 12 Active Issues 12 i
Closed Issues 12.
J Accessibility of tne PSBS 13 J
7 Conclusion 14 Recommendation 6, 7, ano 8 14 l
l OVERALL CONCLUSION 14 INTERNAL CONTROLS 15 AGENCY COMMENTS 15 APPENDIX 1 - Sumary of Active Plant-Specific Backfit Issues APPENDIX II - Sumary of Closed Plant-Specific Backfit Issues APPENDIX III - Agency Coments
-:l l
-l
REVIEW 0F THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFIT PROCEDURES INTRODUCTION In September 1985, the NRC revised its regulations to establish standards and an agency discipline for future management of backfitting for power reactors.
In February 1986 the Commission approved Manual Chapter (MC) 0514, entitled NRC Program For the Management of Plant-Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants.
In August 1986, the Executive Director for Operations (ED0) requested OIA to review the effectiveness of the staff's implementation of the Backfit Rule.
This report presents the results of that review.
BACKGROUND MC 0514 establishes the requirements and guidance for NRC staff implementation of Part 50, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.109). It defines plant-specific backfitting as the modification of or addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility; or the cesign approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the procedures or organization required to design, con-struct or operate a facility; any of which may result from a new or amended provision in the Commission rules or the imposition of a regu-latory staff" position interpreting the Commission rules that is either nen or different from a previously applicable staff position after certain specified dates.
The first formal appearance of backfitting for governing commercial nuclear power plants was on April 16, 1969, when the Atomic Energy Comission (AEC) published for comment a proposed new section to 10 CFR (section 50.109). The purpose of the proposed regulation was to define the circumstances under which the AEC could require backfitting of f acilities. On March 31, 1970, the AEC promulgated the regulation, essentially unchanged.
In 1983 the Commission reviewed the NRC requirements and staff practices for imposing plant-specific backfits and concluded that neither the regulation nor staff practices were adequate. On June 22, 1983 the Comission directed the staff to revise 10 CFR 50.109 and develop a plan for implementing procedures and requirements designed to effectively manage plant-specific backfits of operating power reactors.
In response, the staff initiated a revision to 10 CFR 50.109 and prepared draft MC 0514 for the management and control of plant-specific backfits. The draft Manual Chapter was submitted to the Comission in SECY 83-321, dated August 5,1983, and approved by the Comission on February 8,1984, as interim guidance untti revised 10 CFR 50.109 was finalized.
In September 1985, revised 10 CFR 50.109 was published and in February 1986, the Comission approved MC 0514.
MC 0514 defines the objectives, authorities, and responsibilities in regard to plant-specific backfitting; establishes basic requirements for actions to be taken in instances where the NRC staff imposes new plant-specific regulatory
a 2
e positions on nuclear power plant licensees and provides guidance on handling issues once licensees appeal a backfit determination.
On August 4, 1987, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the backfit rule was invalid because it permitted the NRC to take costs into account in establishing the " adequate protection" safety standard.
The NRC Office of the General Counsel (0GC) determined that the decision should have little practical effect on the Agency's conduct of backfitting, pecause the staff has been handling plant-specific backfits in accordance with i
tne court decision, even though the procedures were not in accordance with the i
4 i
ruling. The OGC recomended that MC 0514 and the rule be reviewed and revised by the staff to ensure consistency with the decision. The staff has revised the areas of the rule which they believe need revision and has sent the proposed changes out for public comment. Once the rule is revised, the EDO staff plans to revise MC 0514 to reflect the necessary changes and instruct each Headquarters and Regional Office to revise their procedures for managing plant-specific backfits.
We discussed the ef fect of the court decision with an OGC official, a Division l
Director in tre Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD),
and a Divisior, Director in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). No i
information came to our attention to contradict what was previously said or recommended by OGC.
SCOPE Our review was conoucted in accordance with generally accepted Government i
auditing standards at NRC Heactuarters between February and October 1987.
In i
1 April 1987, the audit field work was postponed for approximately one month to ailow staffing changes made as part of the NRC 1987 reorganization to take place. The reorganization changed the organizational structure and key j
officials responsible fcr the oversight of the plant-specific backfit program.
3 In Auaust 1987 the field work was extended to review the effect of the deci-sion of the Court of Appeals for the District'of Columbia Circuit.
)
Our audit concentrated on the agency's handling and management of i
plant-specific backfit issues. The review included discussions with staff l
members and managers from the ED0's staff, the Office of Nuclear Material j
Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), NRR, AE0D, and OGC.
It also entailed a general review of 34 backfit issues recorded in the Plant Specific Backfit System i
(PSBS) as of October 8,1987 to detennine if infonnation was being recorded a-consistently, and a ir. ore detailed review of 13 of the 32 issues which were l
recorded in the PSBS as of January 14, 1987 to determine if issues were being 4
processed in accordance with MC 0514.
i' In addition, we evaluated internal controls over the plant-specific backfit We did not evaluate the technical merits of issues identified as l
process.
I backfits nor did we attempt to determine whether they were backfits.
J I
i I
3 FINDINGS 01A's 1985 report entitled, " Review of the Staff's Implementation of the Interim Procedures for Managing Plant-Specific Backfitting of Power Reactors,"-
identified problems in NRC's management of the plant-specific backfitting process. Our current review of the management of the plant-specific backfit process found that NRC management has taken actions to improve the backfit process since our 1985 report. These improvements include:
holding seminars on the backfit process for NRC's technical staff; issuing office and regional procedures to direct the staff in processing backfit issues; holding industry workshops to inform licensees of the plant-specific backfit procedures; and distributing copies of MC 0514 to the NRC staff on February 27, 1986 and to industry chief executive officers on March 3,1986.
Our detailed review of 13 backfit issues entered into the PSBS in 1986, found that, once the issues were identified and initially recorded in the PSBS, the staff processed them in accordance with MC 0514.
For instance, regulatory analyses were completed, determinations recorded and then subsequently revieweo by the respective office management.
We also found the plant-specific backfit process provides an avenue for licensees to formally question the necessity of changes to their plants being required by NRC and that licensees have used the process provided.
Although improvements have been made, we found that weaknesses still exist with the plant-specific'backfit process. Based on our review, we found the following weaknesses.
Management oversight of the plant-specific backfit process neeos to be improved since NRC's 1987 reorganization.
MC 0514 has not been issued in final form, is not being implemented as intended, and does not adequately address consideration of plant-specific issues as potential generic issues.
In addition, we found that office procedures are not consistent with MC 0514 for the identification and tracking of backfits nor are they consistent dmong each other.
The PSBS does not contain the data needed to adequately manage the backfit program.
Each of these issues is discussed in the following sections of this report.
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT Our review of the management of the plant-specific backfit process found that the ED0's oversight of the process needs to be increased and improved.
4 According to MC 0514, the Director, Regional Operations and Generic Require-I ments Staff (ROGR), in the Office of the EDO, was delegated the responsibility to assure that controls for the overall management of the process were devel-oped ano maintained. Applicable Office Directors and Regional Administrators have the authority and responsibility to ensure their offices develop, imple-ment and maintain plant-specific backfit procedures.
In addition, they are i
responsible for assuring their respective staffs perform in accordance with MC 0514.
i Prior to tne April 1987 reorganization, the ROGR staff had been delegated oversight responsibility for monitoring the plant-specific backfit process.
This oversight responsibility required review of the PSBS, and review and approval of office / regional procedures. Specifically, a R0GR staff member along with the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations and Generic
'l Requirements (DEDROGR), to whom the ROGR staff reported, were actively t
involved in performing the duties required to monitor the plant-specific backfit process (e.g. providing seminars on the plant-specific backfit process to both NRC staff members and industry representatives).
l Steps were in process prior to the 1987 reorganization to improve the monitor-ing function of the plant-specific backfit process.
For instance, the F06R staff member responsible for monitoring the process had prepared a list of l
" audit steps" which he believed would be useful to effectively monitor the process. The " audit steps" included-having discussions with the NRC staff in regard to plant-specific backfits; having discussions with licensee representatives regarding plant-specific backfits; reviewing NRC documents such as resident inspection reports, region based inspection reports, outstanding items lists, and office and regional procedures for handling plant-specific backfits; and reviewing the information contained in the FSBS.
We reviewed the draft " audit steps" and believe that they would be useful to monitor the process. We believe the steps provide for an overall review of the backfit process.
However, the 1987 reorganization took effect before the steps were imple-mented.
In the reorganization, responsibility for monitoring generic backfits was transferred from the ROGR staff to the AEOD; while monitoring of plant-specific backfits remained with the ED0's office, although the DEDR0GR staff has been disbanded. Since the reorganization, monitoring of the plant-specific backfit process has received less attention.
For instance, only one staff member is now available to perform the oversight function and his available time is limited because he is also responsible for monitoring and being the ED0 liaison for all NRR activities.
In addition, at the time of the reorganization, he was not familiar with what actions were necessary to properly and efficiently monitor the plant-specific backfit process nor was he provided guidance on what needed to be done. He said at the time of the reorganization he was providad with the plant-specific backfit files of the P
5 individual previously responsible for the process, but for the next two months was unable to review the files to determine what needed to be done, nor did he believe his current assignments would provide enough time to properly oversee the plant-specific backfit process.
We also found that he was not aware of the " audit steps" prepared prior to the reorganization. We provided him a copy of the steps for his review. He said
+
he believed these would be useful in monitoring the process.
We believe the decrease in available resources to monitor the plant-specific backfit process has been a major factor in causing the weaknesses we have identified in the program and which are discussed in the remainder of this report. We believe the oversight is necessary to assure the agency's policy is effectively and efficiently implemented and that backfits are not improperly imposed.
In addition to the EDO staff oversight, each applicable Headquarters and Regional office has a designated staff member responsible for monitoring their respective office's plant-specific backfits. The 1987 reorganization also gave hRR total responsibility for power reactors except for the waste manage-ment programs, which currently do not have issues being affected by the backfit rule or MC 0514. We believe the reorganization will make oversight of the implementation cf the backfit rule and MC 0514 for reactors easier since responsibility for reactors is now centralized in NRR.
However, based on discussions with two NRR staff members who were reassigned from NMSS under the reorganization, we were told that personnel who have been reassigned to NRR from other offices have not been informed of NRR's procedures for handling plant-specific issues. We believe that action is necessary to ensure the staff is apprised of their respective office's procedures for handling backfits.
The EDO staff believes the management of the backfit process is adequate because 1) they have a system to track plant-specific backfit information which is used to monitor the program; and 2) all Senior Executive Service (SES) managers, who have backfit oversight responsibilities, have backfitting performance criteria established in their per-formance plans which is used to evaluate their management of the backfit process. As discussed later in this report, we found problems with the tracking system and SES contracts utilized in monitoring the management of the plant-specific backfit process and there-fore, we do not believe the program is being managed effectively.
Conclusion Since NRC's reorganization in April 1987, the ED0's office has not been monitoring the staff's implementation of the plant-specific backfit process as specified in MC 0514. We do not believe the plant-specific backfit process is sufficiently established in NRC to warrant this relaxed oversight by the ED0's office.
In addition, staff reassigned from NMSS to NRR in the reorganization have not been provided the information needed for them to implement the NRR procedures.
This could result in inconsistent implementation of the NRC plant-specific backfit procedures by NRR.
.~.__
6 Recomendations 1 and 2 We recommend that the EDO:
1) establish procedures to be used by the ED0's office to monitor implemen-tation of plant-specific backfit issues; and 2) assure sufficient resources are assigned in the ED0's office to effectively monitor the implementation of MC 0514.
MANUAL CHAPTER 0514 In reviewing MC 0514 and the office procedures developed to implement MC 0514, we found several weaknesses. These weaknesses are:
MC 0514 is in draft format and not included in the NRC Manual, even though it was approved by the Commission in February 1986; office / regional implementing procedures are not consistent with MC 0514 in regard to identifying and recording backfits, and in regard to the system used to record plant-specific backfits; and MC 0514 does not provide guidance for detemining whether plent-specific issues have generic implications.
Draft Format In reviewing MC 0514, we noted that it was not in the format of other NRC Manual Chapters. We met with the former EDO Senior _ Program Manager responsi-ble for monitoring plant-specific backfits to determine why MC 0514 was not in the usual chapter format. He explained that although MC 0514 was approved by the Commission in 1986, the EDO staff was not able to come to an agreement with the Office of Administration and Resources Management (ARM) staff regard-ing the format required for the chapter to be included in the Manual.
Apparently, the ARM Writer-Editor for Manacement Directives responsible for ensuring documents are in the correct format, found that MC 0514 was not in the proper format for inclusion in the NRC Manual. The editor made changes so it would conform to the required format and returned the document to the DEDROGR for review. The DEDROGR did not concur in the changes because he believed they altered the meaning of portions of the chapter. Since it was already approved by the Commission and distributed to the staff and licensees, he did not pursue having MC 0514 formally incorporated into the Manual.
In talking to the DEDR0GR who was responsible for management of the backfit system at that time, he informed us that there was no effect from not having MC 0514 fomally incorporated into the Manual since the chapter was already in use by the staff and industry. We do not agree with this position because the NRC Manual is the agency's official vehicle for promulgating permanent internal agency directives.
It provides for codification, issuance, control and maintenance of internal operating policies and procedures. Without the formalization of MC 0514 the agency's official policy and procedures regarding backfits remains in " limbo."
7 The Writer-Editor for Management Directives responsible for editing MC 0514 agrees with the account of events which took place in trying to get MC 0514 in the proper format.
In addition, the editor believes that problems exist in i
obtaining a copy of MC 0514 since it has not been formalized and entered into NRC's Manual.
Based on our review, we agree that problems exist.
For example, we found that one cannot obtain a copy of MC 0514 from NRC's Distribution Section.
In addition, from discussions with NRR Project Managers and a member of the ED0's staff, we found that members of the staff were not sure which version of MC 0514 was the final version since it had not been included in the NRC Manual or i
formally designated as the final version. We believe this is an example of l
the lack of internal controls.
Through recent discussions with the ED0 Technical Assistant overseeing the backfit process, we found that actions are being taken to incorporate MC 0514 i
into the Manual.
Office Procedures 3
MC 0514 requires the ROGR Staff to develop and maintain " process controls for overall agency management of the plant-specific backfit process." One of these controls is development of specific proceaures.
Each affected Head-quarters and Regional office has developed such procedures, and each set of procedures has been reviewed and approveo by the EDO staff to assure consis-tency with MC 0514 t
MC 0514 states:
j The proposing Feadquarters Office or Regional Office shall administra-tively manage each proposed plant-specific backfit using a record keeping system...(emphasis added).
1 MC 0514 identifies the types of data to be included, but does not provide guidance in regard to when the data is to be entered into the system. It just requires that the system provide for prompt retrieval of data for each pro-e I
posed plant-specific backfit issue.
l We reviewed the procedures of NRR, NMSS and each of the five regions in regard to the requirements involving record keeping and reporting of plant-specific backfit issues. Our review of the seven sets of procedures found that only NRR's procedures specifically indicate when information is to be entered in the PSBS.
In addition, most of the procedures are neither completely consistent with MC 0514 nor are they consistent with other offices'/ regions' procedures.
The areas of the procedures and MC 0514 we reviewed in detail were:
when backfits are identified and recorded into the tracking system; and ine system to be used to track plant-specific backfit information.
8 j
Identifying and Recording Backfits In reviewing the seven sets of procedures, we found that each office / region had independently prepared its own set of requirements in regard to when plant-specific data is to be entered into the system. However, three of the 9
procedures are basically the same.
We found that NRR's procedsres specifically indicate when an issue is con-sidered to be a plant s;,ecific backfit issue and when it should be recorded in
'the PSBS. They specify that a staff identified issue is officially a
{
plant-specific backfit once the responsible Division Director determines the proposed issue is a backfit. At that time a regulatory analysis is to be performed and the issue is to be initially entered into the PSBS. Also, when a licensee claims in writing that an issue is a backfit, the issue is to be treated as a backfit and entered into the system.
They also state that the data will be updated as additional information is gathered.
NMSS' procedures do not indicate when either staff identified issues or licensee claims of backfit are to be officially considered backfits nor do they specify when they are to be entered into the PSBS.
Region II's procedures indicate the appropriate Section Chief will determine when staff identified issues are backfits. Once the determination is mace the issue will be entered into the PSBS. No guidance is given in regard to j
entering licensee claims of backfit into the system.
j Region III's procedures indicate that information will be entered into the PSBS when the appropriate Division Director believes a staff identified issue is a potential backfit.
No guidance is provided for licensee claims of backfit.
Regions I, IV and V's procedures indicate that the information will be entered into the system after the Regional Administrator approves the proposed issue as a backfit.
In addition, they also require that the system be updated as changes in information occur. We believe this is conflicting guidance since the letter provides for the system to be updated as the issue is handled by the staff while the former only requires the issue.to be entered'af ter the i
process is completed.
As a result of the different procedures in place in the offices / regions, we found that the various staffs are identifying and recording backfits at i
different times in the process and in some cases are not recording them at all.
MC 0514 states:
It is the overall objective of this program to assure that plant-specific i
backfitting of nuclear power plants is justified and documented...This objective is attained by assuring that plant-specific backfits will be communicated to the licensee only after required regulatory analyses are completed and approved...
t
9 r
In addition, MC 0514 Section 042 states.
The NRC staff shall be responsible for identifying proposed
[
plant-specific beckfits....
It is expected that staff at all levels will evaluate any proposeo plant-specific position with respect to whether or not the position qualifies as a proposed backfit....
Our review showed that staff members are identifying technical issues that they believe may require licensees to make changes to their plants, however they are not meeting the intent of MC 0514 in handling the issues. For l
i instance, instead of determining if an issue is a backfit and then recording it in the PSBS if it is, sometimes the NRC staff discusses the issue with the i
licensee or sends the issue to the licensee for comment before formally determining if the issue is a backfit issue.
If the licensee claims backfit, the staff will then process the issue as a backfit.
However, if the licensee l
f agrees with the staff and voluntarily agrees to make changes, then the staff does not process or track the issue as a backfit even though it technically may be a backfit.
For instance, during our audit, 01A Review of NMSS' Regulatory Effectiveness P.eviews (RER) for Operating Power Plants, we found this practice to be comon.
In talking to the EDO staff during the RER audit and to NRR management during this audit, we found that this practice of conferring with licensees and getting their voluntary compliance-is common throughout NRC and believed to be i
acceptable among NRC managers, In addition, we found several issues which were identified and processed by the NMSS staff as plant-specific backfits but were not recorded in the PSBS.
I These issues were handled in accordance with MC 0514, in that the staff prepareo regulatory analyses, obtained feedback from other NRC offices, l
recorded the results of the analyses, and obtained concurrences from the apprcpriate managers. However, the issues were never recorded in the PSBS because the NMSS procedures require entering the data into the PSBS only after the issue was imposed on the licensee. Because the issues were never imposed f
on licensees they were never entered in the PSBS.
I These issues were never imposed on the licensees because, according to NMSS representatives, the licensees agreed to make changes in the areas of concern before the issues were imposed. Through further review we found that regu-latory analyses for several of these issues had been completed and had determined that the changes were safety significant.
j i
In one case, the regulatory analysis set forth the identification of the backfit, the supporting information and the implementation estimates. Based
{
on this information it was determined that there would be a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and that the direct and indirect costs of implementation were justified in view of the increased protection. The rcgulatory analysis and the letter drafted to transmit this I
regulatory analysis were concurred in by the Director, Division of Safeguards (SG), NMSS; the Office Directors of NRR and the Office of Inspection and Enforcement; and the respective Regional Administrator.
Prior to the. Direc-tor, NMSS signing the letter and imposing the backfit issue on the licensee, i
the.SG staff had a conference call with licensee representatives to inform t
10 them that the backfit would be imposed. At this point, the licensee assured NRC that the " problem would be fixed to the staff's satisfaction." Because the licensee agreeo to make the necessary changes, the backfit was not imposed and, therefore, according to NMSS management's policy, the identified backfit issue was not entered into the PSBS.
Although NMSS' practice for tracking backfits does not violate its own proce-dures, we believe it is not in conformance with MC 0514. NMSS' practice does not provide the current status of " proposed" backfit issues because the data is not entered into the PSBS when the proposed backfit is initially identified. As a result, the current and past EDO have relied on this incorrect and incomplete data in evaluating the management of the plant-specific backfit process and in reporting the results to the Commission.
l This is a breakdown in internal controls for obtaining, maintaining and fairly disclosing reliable data in regard to plant-specific backfits.
We understand the necessity for open communications between NRC and the licensees but believe action needs to be taken to ensure NRC practice is in conformance with its policy and consistent among the offices.
Accurate data is essential because the EDO relies on the data to evaluate not only the program but also the Office Directors' and Regional Administrators' fulfillment of their SES contracts in regard to plant-specific backfits. We believe the procedures used in the NRC offices need to be both consistent with l
MC 0514 and each other to assure that the data being entered into the system is that which management needs to monitor and evaluate the backfit process.
We believe hRR's procedures could serve as a model for other offices to revise their procedures.
Trackinc Systems in Use In regard to the system to be used to track plant-specific backfit issues, we found that two systems are discussed in some of the procedures. MC 0514 requires that the office tracking systems shall be compatible with an overall NRC data base which is to be accessible to appropriate NRC managers.
All offices' procedures make reference to the use of the PSBS, the system which was set up as the agency tracking system for plant-specific backfits.
However, three of the procedures also mention the "backfit data. base." It was not clear to us, however, whether the systems were the same or not. We discussed the two system names with a Region 1 staff member and were told that they are in fact the same system. We believe a revision to the affected procedures is necessary to ensure only the PSBS is referred to for recording proposed plant-specific backfits.
We believe the inconsistencies among the various offices' procedures indicate that the review initially performed by the ED0's staff to assure consistency between office procedures and MC 0514 was not adequate. We believe additional reviews are necessary to ensure the office procedures and MC 0514 provide the necessary guidance for processing plant-specific backfits.
Generic Implications The scope of MC 0514 is limited to plant-specific backfitting. The chapter defines that an issue is generic if it involves the imposition of the same or
l
)
11 i
similar positions on two or more plants.
It also refers to the Comittee to j
Review Generic Requirements Charter for guidance on handling generic issues, j
However, no guidance is provided to specify who is responsible for assuring plant-specific issues do not have generic implications. Through discussions with managers from various NRC offices, we found the EDO staff relies on the l
staff offices to assure plant-specific issues do not have generic implications, while the staff offices rely on the EDO staff to provide such assurances. As a result, no one is really assuring that plant-specific l
backfit issues do not have generic implications.
We found one incident where a backfit issue was to be entered into the PSBS without review of generic implications, although it concerned several plant sites. We discussed the issue with the NRR staff nember responsible for entering the data in the PSBS and were told that she was not sure whether the i
issue should be reviewed for generic implications. She informed us that she would check to see how the issue should be handled. We believe there is the i
potential for other issues to be treated as plant-specific when they should be considered as generic issues because controls have not been established to assure that appropriate reviews are made.
We believe this problem should be addressed by establishing responsibilities in MC 0514 for assuring that plant-specific issues are reviewed for generic implications.
-l Conclusion We believe MC 0514 needs to be issued in final form to assure that the staff knows they are using the most recent version of the Chapter and to assure that copies can be obtained f rom Distribution.
MC 0514 also needs to be reviewed to incorporate guidance for evaluating plant-specific backfits for generic implications.
The backfit procedures of the various offices need to be made consistent with 0514 and with each other regarding recording and tracking of plant-specific i
Recommendations 3, 4 and 5 We reconraend that the EDO:
3) assure that MC 0514 is finalized and included in the NRC Manual; l
4) assure that the office / region procedures are revised as necessary to provide specific and consistent guidance for recording data on and tracking plant-specific backfits in accordance with MC 0514; and 5) include in MC 0514 specific procedures for assessing plant-specific backfit issues for generic implications.
PLANT SPEClflC BACKFIT SYSTEM (PSBS)
The PSBS was developed to provide the EDO, and Headquarters and Regional l
offices with an automated system to track documents issued or received by hRC staff, relative to a plant-specific backfit issue. MC 0514 requires the Headquarters Office or Regional Office proposing a backfit to:
f i
12 l
administratively manage each proposed plant-specific backfit using a record keeping system that provides for prompt retrieval of current status, planned and accomplished schedules, and ultimate disposition.
We found that the PSBS can not always be used to quickly determine the status of a plant-specific backfit issue.
In addition to having unrecorded backfits (as discussed in the section on MC 0514), we found other weaknesses with the I
PSBS including:
1) inconsistencies in the status of both open and closed issues; and i'
2) inadequate controls over accessibility to the PSBS.
As of October 8, 1987 a total of 34 issues had been recorded on the PSBS since I
it was established in June 1985.
I Inconsistencies in Active and Closed Issues We reviewed the 34 issues recorded in the PSBS as of October 8, 1987 to deter-mine if data relating to backfit issues is recorded in a timely and consistent manner.
Due to the different information required for closed and active issues, we compared the data of the 13 active issues and separately compared the data regarding the 21 closed issues.
(See Appendices I and II). MC 0514 requires that the system "provides for prompt retrieval of current status, planned and accomplished schedules and ultimate disposition." (emphasis added)
We found for active issues that weaknesses exist in recording the current status and planned accomplishment schedules.
For the closed issues, we found weaknesses in the current status recorced and the dispositions recorded.
Active Issues The main weakness we found with recording active issues is. the lack of
(
initially recording and then updating the predicted closing date. We found that by not providing information which shows when a plant-specific issue is expected to be closed, the PSBS does not portray the status of the issue. As i
of October 8, 1987, five of the 13 active issues did not have estimated planned completion dates assigned.
In addition, seven of the eight issues which were assigned prediction dates had cates which had expired and had not i
been updated.
For instance, a backfit issue for the Palisades Nuclear Plant had an estimated closing date of October 13, 1986.
ihis results in inaccurate data being used by the agency when analyzing the backfit process and an inability to determine the current status of an issue recorded in the PSBS. The credibility of the system decreases when it con-tains outdated information. We believe action needs to be taken to ensure the t
data in the PSBS is current and accurate.
r Closed Issues In reviewing the 21 issues recorded in the PSBS as closed as of October 8, 1987, we found weaknesses in regard to recording the ultimate disposition of i
14 of the issues. We found that MC 0514 does not provide criteria to close a j
backfit issue. Therefore, we reviewed the 21 closing action descriptions W
t 13
~
given on the PSBS to determine if a reasonable process was used to close plant-specific backfit issues listed on the PSBS. We found that seven of the 21 issues were closed using what we believe to be reasonable explanations, such as:
NRC agreeing that no licensee action was needed; NRC performing a follow-up review of the licensee actions taken and documenting acceptance of the licensee actions; and j
licensee providing the documentation change required.
We could not determine whether the dispositions of the remaining 14 issues were adequate based on the explanations given for closing them. The 14 issues were closed based on the following information:
Seven were closeo by NRC after receiving licensees' verbal comit-ments to take action; for example, the closing action description for a proposed backfit issue at Watts Bar 2 reads, " licensee comit-l ted to comply with staff position during telecon of 11/6/85."
Two were closed on licensees' written comitments tu take action.
l For example, the closing action description for a proposed backfit issue at Palo Verde 2 reads, "In letter of 11/7/86, licensee comit-ted to perform test of remote shutdown capability."
One was' closed based on the licensee proposing an action to be taken.
For example, tne closing action for this issue reads,
" Licensee proposed installation of additional alam for minimum DWST level. Staff accepts proposal as adequate to meet staff concerns."
One was closed because the staff and licensee are attempting to determine an acceptable technical resolution.
i Three were closed with no closing action description given.
l We do not believe backfit issues should be closed based only on licensee i
comitments to take action, but rather on the NRC staff's acceptance of the licensee's comitment and NRC's verification of the licensee's actions.
Similarly, we do not believe it is appropriate to close items based on a i
licensee's proposal for taking action on a staff position or negotiations with licensees on technical resolutions of issues since these explanations do not constitute closure of the issue.
Accessibility of the PSBS Another area in which we have concerns is the accessibility of the PSBS.
j Currently, anyone given access to the PSBS can change, add or read information in the system. The same access is given to one who needs to update the information as one who only needs to review data.
Internal controls are needed to ensure that an individual who requires only reading access to the system can not either inadvertently or purposely change the information.
Although we found no evidence'that data has been tampered with, there exists an opportunity to do so without it being known. Therefore, the reliability of' data in the PSBS is diminished because controls are not in place to ensure its integrity.
14 he believe action needs to be taken to alleviate the opportunity for unwanted changes or deletions to be made. This can be accomplished by providing read only access to those who do not need access to manipulate the data, t
f Conclusion Based on our review of the PSBS, we believe the system is not being effectively or efficiently utilized. We found that potential plant-specific backfit issues are not being tracked or analyzed in a timely or consistent tanner. As a result, the current status of plant-specific backfit issues is i
not promptly retrievable or determinable. Action also needs to be taken to i
ensure that backfits are closed only after NRC has accepted licensee l
comitments and the actions have been verified by the NRC. In addition, controls have not been established to eliminate unnecessary access into the PSBS.
Recommendations 6, 7 and 8 We reco:m.end that the EDO:
6) assure that the current status of active and closed issues is both timely and accurately recorded in the PSBS; 7
7) establish and implement criteria to assure that plant-specific backfits imposed on licensees are closed only after NRC accepts licensee comitments and verifies that the actions have been taken; and 8) establish controls to eliminate unnecessary access into tne PSBS.
OVERALL CONCLUSION In our review of the management of plant-specific backfits, we found that steps have been taken to improve the backfit process. Information regarding plant-specific backfits has been provided to the staff and licensees. For instance, seminars have been given, and procedures and MC 0514 have been distributed. However, we also found that weaknesses still exist in regard to internal controls, management oversight, MC 0514, and the PSBS.
i i
We believe these weaknesses are interrelated, even though they have been discussed separately. We believe the weakness which links them together is the lack of consistent management oversight. For example, we found a lack of management review of the PSBS, MC 0514, the office and regional procedures, and possible generic implications of plant-specific issues.
]
As a result:
the PSBS contains incomplete and inaccurate data;
)
the EDO staff relies on the incorrect data included in the PSBS in
-i determining the Office Directors' and Regional Administrators' ful-l fillment of their SES contracts;
)
j
~
15 i
i l
I sufficient resources are not available to effectively and efficiently monitor the plant-specific backfit process; MC 0514 and tne office and regional procedures are not consistent; i
MC 0514 is not in the proper format; the staff has not always taken the initiative to determine if an issue is a backfit prior to comunicating the issue to the licensee; and generic issues may incorrectly be processed. through the i
plant-specific backfit process.
We believe actions need to be taken to alleviate the plant-specific backfit weaknesses we have identified. We believe improvements can be accomplished by l
implementing the recommendations which we have provided in this report.
INTERNAL CONTROLS Our review of the staff's implementation of the plant-specific backfit process has shown there are weaknesses in the system. We believe these weaknesses are the result of internal controls not being fully implemented as intended or, in some cases, not existing in the agency's policy and guidance. Our report l
addresses these weaknesses and makes recomendations to strengthen and improve the way in which the staff processes backfits.
AGENCY COMMENTS i
On April 27, 1988, the EDO commented en a draft of this report (see Appendix i
III). The E00 agreed with all eight recomendations and identified corrective actions taken or planned to implement the recomendations. Specifically, the ED0 noted that in November 1987, the Director, Office for Analysis and-Evaluation of Operational Data, was assigned responsibility for developing t
oversight procedures and monitoring plant-specific backfits.
In addition, MC i
0514 is being revised to address our concerns with consistent recordkeeping, generic implications of plant specific backfits, access into the P5BS and inclusion of the chapter in the NRC Manual.
1 Changes to office and regional procedures will also be made to assure timely and accurate recording of plant-specific backfit issues in the PSBS and to address criteria necessary to establish uniform reporting of plant-specific backfits.
Following receipt of the ED0's coments we met with the AE0D representative assigned oversight responsibility of the plant-specific backfit process to discuss how AE0D plans to monitor the plant-specific backfit process. She provided us with a copy of draft procedures to be used in monitoring the process which are supposed to be finalized by June 30, 1988. These procedures provide for an annual review of the plant-specific backfit process. Actions to be taken include review of licensing actions, inspection reports and enforcement actions and interviewing both licensees and NRC staff involved l
16 with the process.
In addition, AE0D will review office / regional procedures and provide necessary comments to ensure completeness.
We also spoke with a representative of the ED0 staff regarding action planned f
in regard to recommendation B, which relates to controls needed to eliminate i
unnecessary access into the PSBS. We were concerned that simply revising MC 0514 was not enough. The representative assured us that in addition to revising MC 0514, action would be taken to limit the number of individuals with the ability to change data in the PSBS.
During our follow-up, we will review and evaluate the actions taken by the EDO staff and the AE0D staff in response to our recommendations.
1 i
i i
[
i 9
r a
4 Y
r.
APPEtolX 1 Slit %RY OF FUWT-SPECIFIC BACKFIT ISSlFS KTIVE AS OF OCTWER 8,1987 Q.0SItG MTE OFFICE ISSUE ACTION FPEDICTION 1[LNTIFIED FACILITY RESPmSifLE SUBSTNCE FHEDICTED?
MTE ACTION 03/25/86 Cata u 1 TE 5 additional pirreters regrsted Yes 07/15/87 tRC r m valuating 03/25/86 Cataba 2 t0R Need for 5 additiomi parmeters Yes 07/15/87 fRC mevaluating 04/19/85 Farley 1 fER Change in testing intervals Yes 08/20/87 Licensee sutmitted change 04/19/05 Farley 2 fFR Change in testing intervals Yes 08/20/87 Licensee sutmitted change 03/25/86 McQuim 1 fRR 5 additional parmeters mquested Yes 07/15/87 MC reevaluating 03/25/86 McQuire 2 IFR 5 additional p3rmeters nyested Yes 07/15/87 fRC reevaluating 02/06/86 Harris 1 IFR Proposed tech stoc would mquire nudifications fb 02/06/06 n3rris 1 tm Pequest for gelified instnrentatihn Yes 06/01/08 Vertal cmmitnent by licensee 06/20/86 San Onofru 1 tRR Pcquirment for actml plant nunipulations Yes 12/15/86 No course of action detennined 10/22/86 Wolf Crwk 1 RIV Failure to pmperly report sect.dty events fb 03/17/87 Robinson 2 fRR Peg;irumnt to test miief and safety valves tb 06/29/06 Big Rock Rill Peplacment of dicsci fire prp tb Point 1 tbtes:
- 1) "Date Identified" repmsents the date liansee claimed backfit or date fRC staff identified potential backfit issue.
See the PSBS for
- 2) Infonmtion provided on this appendix was obtained by OIA frun the Plant-Specific Backfit Systan (PSBS) as of Octder 8,1987.
}
additional infonmtion.
I i
. O_051tG T2TE OFFICE ISSLE ACTION PREDICTim 1TNTIFIED FAClllTY_
RESit)NSIBLE SW5TAMI WU)[CTUR MTE ETIm 05/22/86 Palisades Rlli Action dirrcting plant to shut down Yes 10/13/05 r
4 5
l l-i i
-~
N4UCIX Il 9MMRY OF Ft#ff-SPECIFIC BNXFIT ISSUES Q OSED AS OF OCTOBER 8, 1987 CLOSIfG
[ ATE OFFICE ISSUE ACTION PREDICT 10ft I[INTIFIED FACILITY RESR751BLE StBSTNCE FHEDICIED?
D4TE
/CTION Yes 04/30/87 FU and 00C 05/20/84 Beaver NRR Design deviatim frun SRP Valley 2 05/31/85 Brwns NRR Paluest for additional infonmtim tb Verbal canitnent by licensee Ferry 1 05/31/85 Bn>ns fM Request for additiomi infornetion ft Verbal connitnent by licmsee ferry 2 05/31/85 Brans f0R Regrst for additional infornatim ib Verb 31 connitnent by licensee Ferry 3 06/11/05 Mairt Yankee NRR Limiting conditim for operation yrquested Yes 06/26/85 Licensee withdytw teckfit claim 09/2B/84 Maine Yankee NRR Installation of irdfrxiant indicators requested Nc Staff acceted proposed charge 05/31/85 Segioyah I fER Prquest for additional infonmtion fb Vertel cannitnent by licensee 05/31/85 Seg;oyah 2 NRR Peauest for additimal infonmtion fb Verbal connitment by licmsee No fRC and limnsee working on 03/19/05 Three Mile f3 Testing of prps ami valves technical resolution Island 1 fbtrs:"Date Identified" repnsmts the date licensee clained backfit or date iPC staff identified potential backfit issue.
1)
See the PSBS for adiitional
- 2) Infonmtion prwided in this appendix wis obtained frun the Plent-Specific Backfit Systan (PSBS) as of October 8,1987.
infonmtion.
Based on itifonnation pmvi&d in the PSBS; OIA detennined that IRC staff follod up m licensee action and doctrented acce
- 3) TV and 00C:
taken.
~
O_0SIfG
[ ATE OFFICE ISSUE KTIC/4 PPEICTION f
IrtNTIFIED FEILITY RE5r0GIR_E SUBSTNCE FREDICTED?
CATE ACTION 05/31/85 Katts Bar 1 f@
Pequest for additimal inforretim fb Vertel comittent by licensee C5/31/85 Watts Bar 2 NPR Froest for aoditioral infonmtim f4 Vertal cavitnytt by licensee 03/27/85 Beaver FM Safeguani level instnrmtation design Yes OB/31/86 Nsign acrepted by PPC I
Valley 2 07/17/65 Crystal fM55 Vital area &finitims included in FfR rrport th fb explaratim givm f
kiver 3 i
%/20/86 San Onofn 2 im Requinrent for actual plant ranipulatims Yes 12/15/86 No explanation givm j
a i
06/20/86 San Onofm 3 fM Pequirtrent for actual plant weniculatims Yes 12/15/86 tb enlaratim given 1
(D/15/06 Millsttre 3 fm Proce&nr chanoes rtSan$ing statim teckout Yes 05/31/87 fRC auuyhxi licensee actim 12/16/85 Oconee 1 NPR Upgradirg of sysurs to cumnt criteria Yes 10/15/86 FU and 00C 12/16/85 Oconce 2 fFR Upgrading of systes to wmnt criteria Yes 10/15/86 FU and 00C 12/16/85 Occare 3 fm thyading of systes to current criteria Yes 10/15/86 FU and [OC 07/16/86 Palo Verde 2 fE Testiry of nrute shutdwn carnbility tb Written comrritrent by liostsee 07/16/06 Palo Venkt 3 tm Testing of nrrott shuth capability to Writtm comitmnt by licensee
. _ _ _ _