ML20035G598
| ML20035G598 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/01/1992 |
| From: | Jordan E NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| To: | Blaha J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033D942 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-402 NUDOCS 9304280139 | |
| Download: ML20035G598 (6) | |
Text
m.,., _.,
k_ _
\\.
May 1, 1992
,g MEMORANDUM FOR:
James L. Blaha r
Assistant for Operations Office of the Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Edward L. Jordan Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
SUBJECT:
STATUS OF STAFF IMPLEMENTATION OF OIA RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING NRC BACKFIT PROCEDURES This is a final report in response to your memorandum of August 29, 1991 on the same subject.
The actions discussed previously in my memoranda of September 20,_1991 and December 31, 1991 have now been completed.
Your review indicated that Recommendations 1, 7, and 8 were not implemented and that further improvement was possible for Recommendation 6.
AE0D has taken actions to implement Recommendations 1, 7, and 8 as described in the enclosure. AE0D has also taken action to effect improvement regarding Recommendation 6 and the improvement is apparent, as described in the enclosure.
Edward L. Jordan, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
Enclosure:
~
As stated cc/w enclosure:
J. Taylor T. Murley Regional Administrators Distribution:
AE00 R/F DChamberlain, ED0 LJCallan, RIV AE0D 91-106 ELJordan PCota, NRR RHuey, RV EDO R/F (91-207)
DFRoss DHolody, R1 TTran, IRM JSniezek LWatson, RII DPAllison RDovovan, OlG RDeFayette, Rlli JConran
[
CRGR:AE0D DD:'AE00 DPAllison DFRoss El rdan 4/g)j92:jr 4/ /92
/ /92
)
c 9304280139 930204 h92,,Q F
I Enclosure l
Status Report on AE00 Actions RECOMMENDATION 1:
Establish procedures to be used by the ED0's office to monitor implementation of plant specific backfit issues.
j OEDODISCUSSION(8/29/91}
i On April 27, 1988, the EDO commented on a draft 01A report on plant specific j
backfitting procedures.
In addressing this recommendation the ED0 stated that Manual Chapter 0514 paragraph 032 assigns responsibility for developing oversight procedures for the agency to AEOD.
l Although AE00 is exercising oversight responsibility, there are no formal (or informal) AEOD procedures for this task.
i i
The need for a procedure was discussed with the AEOD contact who stated that it would be relatively straightforward to prepare such a procedure.
This recommetidation is therefore not yet implemented.
AEOD RESPDNSE (9/20/91)
AE00 will issue a procedure to document its activities in monitoring plant-specific backfitting.
It is expected that this will be done by October 30, 1991.
STATUS l
Complete.
The procedure was issued on October 9, 1991.
i f
b i
i w
i RECOMMENDATION 6:
j The EDO should assure that the current status of active and closed issues is both timely and accurately recorded in the PSBS.
OEDO DISCUSSION (8/29/91)
The AEOD contact stated that this was done on an audit basis.
Prablems identified are discussed with the appropriate office or region and are usually corrected in a reasonable time.
Review of the PSBS found that the data base was generally up to date.
- However, i
i there were some items for which predicted closing dates were not given and the current status was not clear: for example, issue RRFARL190001, which is a i
backfit concerning operating shift overtime at Farley Unit 1.
This recommendation was implemented and the PSBS accuracy has improved.
l However, there remains room for additional improvement.
1 AE00 RESPONSE (9/20/91)
The procedure discussed in response to Recommendation 1 will specify frequent reviews of the tracking system and we will place more emphasis on conducting the reviews as scheduled. When combined with appropriate feedback and followup, this should further improve the timeliness and accuracy of the l
tracking system entries.
It is expected that the improvement will be evident by December 30, 1991.
STATUS Complete.
Additional improvement is evident and review efforts are ongoing.
AE00 conducted a review and provided comnents to office / regional backfit coordinators in December 1991 and the comments have been addressed.
Another review is now beginning.
Review ef forts will continue as discussed above.
i f
h i
n t
RECOMMENDATION 7:
The ED0 should establish and implement criteria to assure that plant-specific backfits imposed on licensees are closed only after NRC accepts licensee commitments and verifies that actions have been taken.
OED0 DISCUSSION (8/29/91)
Manual Chapter 0514 does not address this concern nor did the Region III backfit procedure.
Some discussion has taken place between OIG and AE0D, and a draft proposal to satisfy this recommendation was prepared; however, no procedure is now in place to handle this.
The ED0's response to this item stated that close out procedures may be developed which are short of verification by NRC onsite inspections.
The draft proposal did not require that every item be inspected for final closure.
AE0D has previously made a recommendation, which has been discussed with and informally agreed to by the OIG staff, to accept a written commitment from the licensee that the action will be performed.
The action would then be listed as closed in the PSBS.
Subsequently, rather than continuing to track the item with the PSBS until the action has been completed, the item would be tracked by another appropriate NRC tracking system, such as SIMS, until complete.
In this way the PSBS is kept more concise and the item is carried along with all other open licensee commitments in one unified tracking system (e.g., SIMS).
This approach, or another which is acceptable to both the OIG and the staff, should be agreed to and implemented to satisfy the OIG recommendation.
AEOD RESPONSE (9/20/91)
We will request each office add a provision, similar to the following, to its plant-specific backfit procedure.
"With regard to closure:
For backfits being imposed on a licensee, the closure information should include a reference to a written licensee commitment to implement the badit (Or an order to implement the backfit).
It should also include one of the following:
(1) Reference to a specific item in another tracking system which will track licensee implementation and/or any NRC verification of implementation determined to be appropriate, or (2) Reference to a written licensee statement that the backfit has been implemented and/or any NRC verification of implementation determined to be appropriate."
The current status of the office procedures is as follows:
Region I Procedure recently revised.
Does not require a change meet this provision.
Region II Draft procedure revision recently submitted for AEOD review.
Will be requested to add this provision in the final procedure.
l Region III Draf t procedure revision recently submitted for AE0D review.
Will be requested to add this provision in the final procedure.
i Region IV Draft procedure revision recently reviewed by AE00.
Will include this procedure in the final procedure.
l Region V Draft procedure revision being prepared. Will include this provision.
NRR Draft procedure revision being prepared. Will include this provision.
It is expected that all of these revisions can be accomplished and issued in i
final form by December 30, 1991.
STATUS 1
Complete.
Procedure revisions were completed January 16, 1992.
l I
4
c i
RECOMMENDATION 8:
i The EDO should establish controls to eliminate unnecessary access into.the.
PSBS (Plant Specific Backfit System).
l OE00 DISCUSSION (8/29/91)
Manual Chapter 0514 states:
" Access to make changes to the system will be limited to those designated within each Office and Region."
j The IRM contact responsible for this system stated that there was no special control, such as a " read only" provision, and that anyone who could access the
.i NIH computer and the PSBS program could make changes.
The IRM contact stated that it would be relatively easy to put in such a control feature.
This recommendation is not yet implemented.
I AEOD RESPONSE (9/20/91) s IRM has been requested to establish password protection with regard to making I
changes.
It is expected that this will be implemented by November 30, 1991.
STATUS Complete.
Password protection was established in January 1992.
1 6
s l
4 l
l
-~m l;
i h*'.s** *8 co,,'o i
UNITED STATES -
i :-
~.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
l c
L y,
.,i wAsmwoTow. o. c. 20sss
/
l ER 2 4 mg l
7 J
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations j
FROM:
Sharon R. Connelly, Director i
Office of Inspector and Auditor
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFIT PROCEDURES l
l Attached for your use in preparing com.ents are five (5) copies of a draft DIA l
audit report containing the results of our review of the staff's-implementation of the plant-specific backfit' procedures. We would appreciate f
your comments within 30 days of the date of this memorandum. -If you have any substantive disagreements with the facts as presented, we are available to discuss them with you or your staff before you send us your formal response.
l Please note that.this is a draft report which is subject to revision and is t
being made available solely for the purpose of. obtaining your review and i
cornents. Please safeguard copies of the draft report to prevent its
'i premature publication or similar improper disclosure of its comments..
l l
[
//
Sharon R. Connelly, Director-lj Office of Inspector and'Audi r j
1
Attachment:
J' Draft DIA Audit Report (5)
-l i
l 0
CONTACT:
f Fred Herr, DIA 49-27051 s
4m mew-
__ms,<
p j
P..O S f, I
.s.
.1 i REVIEW 0F THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BACKFIT PROCEDURES i
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION In 1983 the Commission reviewed the NRC requirements and staff practices for imposing plant-specific backfits on NRC licensees and concluded that neither the regulation contained in 10 CFR 50.109 nor the staff's practices were adequate. As a result, 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 draf t 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 Commission on February 8,1984, as interim guidance until revised 10 CFR 50.109 was finalized.
In September 1985, revised 10 CFR 50.109 was published and in February 1986, the Commission approved MC 0514.
MC 0514 defines plant-specific backfitting as the modification of or addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility; or the design 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 Comission rules or the imposition of a regu-latory staff position interpreting the Comission rules that is either
]
1
2 I
i new or different from a previously applicable staff position after i
i certain specified dates.
}
l t.
In August 1986, the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) requested CIA to review the effectiveness of the staff's implementation of the backfit rule.
i The attaci.td report presents the results of our review.
i Scope t
Cur review was conducted in accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards at NRC Headquarters between February and October 1987.
l t
Our audit concentrated on the Agency's handling and n.anagement of plant-specific backfit issues. The review included discussions with staff members and managers from the EDO staff, and the Offices of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Analysis and Evaluation of i
Operational Data, and General Counsel.
It also entailed a general review of staff's handling and management of 34 backfit issues recorded in the Plant i
Specific Backfit System (PSBS) as of October 8, 1987 to determine if i
information was being recorded consistently, and a more detailed review of 13
)
of the 32 issues which were recorded in the PSBS as of January 14, 1987 to j
determine if issues were being processed in accordance with MC 0514.
1 In addition, we evaluated internal controls over the plant-specific backfit process. k'e did not evaluate the technical merits of issues identified as backfits nor did we attempt to determine whether they were backfits.
i
m-i hEl[T 3
c Ja #
FINDINGS l
Our review of the management of the plant-specific backfit process found that 1
NRC management has taken actions to improve the backfit process since our 1985 report entitled, " Review of the Staff's Implementation of the Interim i
Procedures for Managing Plant-Specific Backfitting of Power Reactors."
l Although improvements have been made, we found that weaknesses still exist with the plant-specific backfit process in the follcwing areas:
)
i i
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 i
maintained. Following the April 1987 reorganization, the ED0 did not allocate sufficient resources within his staff for monitoring the plant-specific backfit process.
Because the indivioual 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 1
oversee the backfit process. We found the lack of oversight to be a i
major factor allowing other weaknesses discussed in our report to exist.
l MC 0514 has not been issued in final form, is not being implemented as intended, and does not adeciuately address how plant-specific issues i
should be evaluated for potential generic implications.
In addition, we i
found that because MC 0514 does not specify when plant-specific backfits are supposed to be identified and tracked, the various office's 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 I
l
4 P N 7N
- a l
d a3 td 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 inconsister.t, and in some cases non-existent, recording of plant-specific issues in the PSBS, which is i
the agency's tracking system for plant-specific backfits.
In addition, l
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 NP.C's Distribution Section.
I The PSBS does not contain the data needed to adequately manage the i
backfit program. Specifically, data regarding backfits is not consistently being entered into the PSBS, resulting in an inability by management to determine an issce's status.
In addition, because anyone with access to the PSBS 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 baciiit process has shown there are weaknesses in the system. he 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 recommendations to strengthen and improve the way in which the staff processes backfits.
5
'05Y l
U_I l
+*
i 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 j
identified and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109 and MC 0514. MC 0514 i
needs to be clarified recarding when backfits are to be recorded in the PSBS, and office procedures need to be revised to reflect that guidance; MC 0514 I
needs to be revised to include guidance on censidering 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 form.
RECOMMENDATIONS I
We recomend that the EDO:
1) establish procedures to be used by the ED0's office to monitor implemen-tation of plant-specific backfit issues;
]
1 2) assure sufficient resources are assigned in the ED0's office to effec-tively monitor the implementation of MC 0514; 3) assure that MC 0514 is finalized and included in the NP.C 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; I
I
6~
l 5) include in MC 0514 specific procedures for assessing plant-specific backfit issues for genet.c implications; 6) assure that the current status of active and closed issues is both timely and accurately recorded in the PSB5; 7) establish and implement criteria to assure that plant-specific backfits imposed on licensees are closed only after NRC accepts licensee
}
commitments and verifies that the actions have been taken; and s
8) establish controls to eliminate unnecessary access into the PSBS.
AGENCY COMMENTS To be provided.
r h
t i
l
f?? ?.ili?
i t
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1
}
BACKGROUND 1
SCOPE 4
FINDINGS 5
MANAGEMEhT OVERSIGHT 6
Ccoclusion 10 Recommendations 1 and 2 10 KANUAL CHAPTER 0514 11 Draft Format 11 Office Procedures 13 Identifying and Recording Backfits 15 Tracking Systems in Use 20 Generic Implications 20 Conclusion 21 Recommendations 3, 4, and 5 22 PLANT SPECIFIC BACKFIT SYSTEM 22 Inconsistencies in Active and Closed Issues 23 Active Issues 24 Closed Issues 24 Accessibility of the PSBS 26 Conclusion 27 Recommendation 6, 7, and 8 27 OVERALL CONCLUSION 28 INTERNAL CONTROLS 29 i
APPENDIX 1 - Summary of Active Plant-Specific Backfit Issues
?
APPENDIX II - Summary of Closed Plant-Specific Backfit Issues i
Fo n r b.;-,) h 3' REVIEW 0F THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFIT PROCEDURES INTRODUCTION In September 1985, the NRC revised its regulations to establish standards and i
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.
Ii; August 1986, the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) recuested CIA to review the effectiveness of the sta'ff'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 design 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
p.9 a. ' '
0$0Y I
amended provision in the Comission rules or the imposition of a regu-latory staff position interpreting the Conmission rules that is either new or different from a previously applicable staff position after certain specified dates.
The first formal appearance of backfitting for governing comercial nuclear power plants wa on April 16, 1969, when the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) rebiished for comment a proposed new section to 10 CFR (section 50.109). The purpose of the proposed regulation was to define the circumstances under which the AEC could require backfitting of facilities. On March 31, 1970, the AEC promulgated the regulation, essentially unchanged.
In 1983 the Commission reviewed the NRC requirements and staff practices for imposing plant-specific backfits and concluded that neither the regulation nor staff practices were adequate. On' June 22, 1983 the Comission directed the staff to revise 10 CFR 50.109 and develop a plan for implementing procedures and requirements designed to effectively manage plant-specific backfits of operating power reactors.
In response, the staff initiated a revision to 10 CFR 50.109 and prepared draft MC 0514 for the management and control of plant-specific backfits. The draft Manual Chapter was submitted to the Commission in SECY 83-321, dated August 5,1983, and approved by the Comission on February 8,1984, as interim guidance until revised 10 CFR 50.109 was finalized.
In Ser* ember 1985, revised 10 CFR 50.109 was published and in February 1986, the Comission approved MC 0514.
MC 0514 defines the objectives, authorities, and responsibilities in regard to plant-specific backfitting; establishes basic requirements for actions to be taken in instances where the NRC staff imposes new plant-specific regulatory
.hl'i$[
3
- 1.. t g [
positions on nuclear power plant licensees and provides guidance on handling l
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 f
costs into account in establishing the " adequate protection" safety standard.
l The NRC Office of the General Counsel (0GC) determined that the decision i
should have little practical effect on the Agency's conduct of backfitting, f
because the staff has been handling plant-specific backfits in accordance with the court decision, even though the procedures were not in accordance with the ruling. The OGC recomended that MC 0514 and the rule be reviewed and revised i
by the staff to ensure consistency with the decision. The staff has reviseo i
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 re'flect the necessary changes and instruct each Headquarters and Regional Office to revise their procedures for managing plant-specific backfits.
l k'e discussed the effect of the court decision with an OGC official, a Division l
Director in the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AE0D),
i and a Division Director in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). No information came to our attention to contradict what was previously said or recomended by OGC.
h
'i I
4 SCOPE Our review was conducted in accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards at NRC Headauarters between February and October 1987.
In April 1987, the audit field work was postponed for approximately one month to allow staffing changes made as part of the NRC 1987 reorganization to take place. The reorganization changed the organizational structure and key officials responsible for the oversight of the plant-specific backfit program.
In August 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 plant-specific backfit issues. The review included discussions with staff members and managers from the ED0's staff, the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (hMSS), NRR, AEOD, and OGC.
It also entailed a general review of 34 backfit issues recorded in the Plant Specific Packfit System (PSBS) as of October 8,1987 to detemine if information was being recorded consistently and a more detailed review of 13 of the 32 issues which were recorded in the PSBS as of January 14, 1987 to determine if issues were being processed in accordance with MC 0514.
In addition, we evaluated internal controls over the plant-specific backfit process. We did not evaluate the technical merits of issues identified as backfits nor did we ettempt to determine whether they were backfits.
i i
j
5 m q,gzf;
.Ul.
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 reviewed by the respectiv. office management, k'e 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.
e.
f; '~i.i '"h 6
- j' 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.
t Management oversight of the plant-specific backfit process needs to be improved since NRC's 1987 reorganization.
i MC 0514 has not been issued in final fonn, 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 I
among each other.
The PSBS does not contain the data needed to adequately manage the backfit program.
We will discuss each of these issues in the following sections of this report.
I MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT i
r Our review of the management of the plant-specific backfit process found that f
i the ED0's oversight of the process needs to be increased and improved.
I According to MC 0514, the Director. Regional Operations and Generic Require-
{
ments (ROGR) Staff, in the Office of the EDO, was delegated the responsibility-to assure that controls for the overall management of the process were
.[
f P
C $. '
7 I 6 developed and maintained. Applicable Office Directors and Regional Administrators have the authority and responsibility to ensure their offices develop, implement and maintain plant-specific backfit procedures.
In addition, they are responsible for assuring their respective staffs perform in accordance with MC 0514 Prior to the April 1987 recrganization, 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 ROGR staff member along with the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations and Generic Requirements (DEDR0GR), to whom the R0GR staff reported, were actively 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 indus'try representatives).
Steps were in process prior to the 1987 reorganization to improve the monitor-ing function of the plant-specific backfit process.
For instance, the ROGR staff member responsible for monitoring the process had prepared a list of
" audit steps" which he believed would be useful to effectively monitor the process. The " audit steps" included:
)
i
)
having discussions with the NRC staff in regard to plant-specific backfits; having discussions with licensee representatives regarding plant-specific backfits; i
I i
?[
M th}eT\\
8 reviewing NRC cocuments 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 PSBS.
We reviewed the draft " audit steps" and believe that they would be useful to monitor the process. We believe the steps prcvide 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 DEDROGR staff has been disbanded. Since th'e reorganization monitoring 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 EDO liaison for all NRR activities.
In addition, at the time of i
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 provided with the plant-specific backfit files of the individual previously responsible for the process, but for the next two months was not able to review the files to determine what needed to be done, nor did he believe his current assignments would provide enough time to properly cversee the plant-specific backfit process.
9
1 3
..$iI i
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 t
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 4
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 NRR 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 of 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.
l
10 The EDO staff believes the management of the backfit process is adequate because 1) they have a system to track plant-specific backfit infomation which is used to monitor the program; and 2) all Senior Executive Service (SES) managers, who have backfit oversight responsibilities, have backfitting perfomance criteria established in their performance 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.
Recorrendations 1 and 2 We recommend that the EDO:
11 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.
FANUAL 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 detennining whether plant-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
'c
~~
w-12
., f a the Comission 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 Management 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 DEDR0GR 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 Comission and distributed to the staff and licensees, he did not pursue having MC 0514 fomally incorporated into the Manual.
In talking to the DEDROGR 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 raintenance of internal operating policies and procedures. Without the formalization of MC 0514 the agency's official policy and procedures regarding backfits remains in " limbo."
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 fomst.
In addition, the editor believes that problems exist in
13 P@
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 font. ally designated as the final version. We believe this is an example of the lack of internal controls.
Through recent discussions with the ED0 Technical Astistant now overseeing the backfit process, we found that actions are being taken to incorporate MC 0514 into the Manual.
Office Procedures 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 procedures. Each affected Head-quarters and Regional office has developed such procedures, and each set of procedures has been reviewed snd approved by the ED0 staff to assure consis-i tency with MC 0514.
MC 0514 states:
Wr*
bli e 14 1
The proposing Headquarters Office or Regional Office shall administra-i tively manage each proposed plant-specific backfit using a record keeping i
system...(emphasis added).
MC 0514 provides 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-posed plant-specific backfit issue.
i ke reviewed the procedures of NRR, NMSS and each of the five regions in regard to the requiren.ents 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 infomation 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 KC 0514 we reviewed in detail were:
when backfits are identified and recorded into the tracking system; and the system to be used to track plant-specific backfit information.
P9 5]
15
$l 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 procedures are basically the same.
We found that NRR's procedures specifically indicate when an issue is con-sidered to be a plant-specific 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 irito 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 made the issue will be entered into the PSBS. No guidance is given in regard to entering licensee claims of backfit into the system.
Region III's procedures indicate that information will be entered into the
)
PSBS when the appropriate Division Director believes a staff identified issue i
i
GYA 0
- 0... A(,
~
g 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 infomation occur. We believe this is conflicting guidance since the latter provides for the systen to be updated as the issue is handled by the staff while the former only requires the issue to be entered after the 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 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 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 af ter required regulatory analyses are completed and approved...
In addition, MC 0514 Section 042 states:
a 17
..m The NRC staff shall be responsible for identifying proposed plant-specific backfits....
It is expected that staff at all levels will evaluate any proposed 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 instance, instead of detennining if an issue is a backfit arid then recording it in the PSBS if it is, sometimes the NRC staff discusses the issue with the liter.see or sends the issue to the licensee for coment 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 agrees with the staff and voluntarily agrees to make changes, then the staff does not process or track the issus as a backfit even though it technically may be a backfit.
For instance, during our audit, 01A Review of NMSS' Regulatory Effectiveness Reviews (RER) for Operating Power Plants, we found this practice to be common.
In talking to t!.e ED0 >taff during the RER audit and to NRR management during this audit, we found that this practice of conferring with licensees and I
getting their voluntary compliance is comon throughout NRC and believed to be acceptable among NRC managers.
i 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.
These issues were handled in accordance with MC 0514, in that the staff l
j
h prepared regulatory analyses, obtained feedback from other NRC offices, recorded the results of the analyses, and obtained concurrences from the appropriate 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 on licensees they were never entered in the PSBS.
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 detemined that the changes were safety significant.
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 4
and indirect costs of implementation were justified in view of the increased protection. The regulatory analysis and the letter drafted to transmit this 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, the SG staff had a conference call with licensee representatives to inform 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
P7!
w N['} "m f
i 19 the licensee agreed 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 dces 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 c,n this incorrect and incomplete data in evaluating the management of the plant-specific backfit process ana in reporting the results to the Commission.
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 comunications 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 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 NRR's procedures could serve as a model for other offices to revise their procedures.
n,,
.l Tracking Systems in Use In regard to the system to be used to track plant-specific backfit issues, we MC 0514 found that two systems are discussed in some of the procedures.
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.
It was However, three of the procedures also mention the "backfit data base."
We not clear to us, however, whether the systems were the same or not.
discussed the two system names with a Region I staff member and were told that We believe a revision to the affected they are in fact the same system.
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 perfonr,ed by the ED0's staff to assure consistency We believe additional between office procedures and KC 0514 was not adequate.
reviews are necessary to ensure the office procedures and MC 0514 provide the necessary guidance for processing plant-specific backfits.
Generic Implications The chapter The scope of MC 0514 is limited to plant-specific backfitting.
defines that an issue is generic if it involves the imposition of the same or It also refers to the Comittee to similar positions on two or more plants.
Review Generic Requirements Charter for guidance on handling generic issues.
21 Q fl
..ih 1
liowever, 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 NPC offices, we found the EDO staff relies on the staff offices to assure plant-specific issues do not have generic implications, while the staff offices rely on the EDO staff to provide such As a result, no one is really assuring that plant-specific assurances.
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 NRP, staff member responsible for entering the data in the PSBS and were told that she was not sure whether the 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 potential for other issues to be tr'ented 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.
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 from Distribution. MC 0514 also reeds to be reviewed to incorporate guidance for evaluating plant-specific backfits for generic implications.
22 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 backfits.
Recommendations 3, 4 and 5 We recommend that the EDO:
l 3) assure that MC 0514 is finalized and included in the NRC Manual; i
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 SPECIFIC BACKFIT SYSTEM (pSBS)
The PSBS was developed to provide the EDO, and Headquarters and Regional offices with an automated system to track documents issued or received by NRC staff, relative to a plant-specific backfit issue. MC 0514 requires the Headquarters Office or Regional Office proposing a backfit to:
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.
ef.
23
.:.. EdN We found that the PSBS can not always be used to quickly detennine the status of a plant-specific backfit issue.
In addition to having unrecorded backfits l
(as discussed in the section on MC 0514), we found other weaknesses with the PSES including:
inconsistencies in the status of both open and closed issues; and 1) 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 it was established in June 1985.
Inconsistencies in Active und Closed Issues We reviewed the 34 issues recorded in the PSBS as of October 8,1987 to deter-rine if data relating to backfit issues is recorded in a timely and consistent Due to the different information required for closed and active manner.
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." (errphasis 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 recorded and the dispositions recorded.
24 y, Q
_..d i i Active Issues The main weakness we found with recording active issues is the lack of We found initially recording and then updating the predicted closing date.
that by not providing information which shows when a plant-specific issue is As expected to be closed, the PSBS does not portray the status of the issue.
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 dates which had expired and had not been updated. For instance, a backfit issue for the Palisaces Nuclear Plant had an estimated closing date of October 13, 1986.
This 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 data in the PSBS is current and accurate.
Closed Issues In reviewing the 21 issues recorded in the PSBS as closed as of October 8, 1
1987, we found weaknesses in regard to recording the ultimate disposition of 14 of the issues. We found that MC 0514 does not provide criteria to close a Therefore, we reviewed the 21 closing action descriptions backfit issue.
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:
i
25 C
r=
!l~,. ;)n NRC agreeing that no licensee action was needed; NRC performing a follow-up review of the licensee actions taken and I
documenting acceptance of the licensee actions; and 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 closed by NRC af ter 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-ted to comply with staff ' position during telecon of 11/6/85."
Two were closed on licensees' written comitments to take action.
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, the closing action for this issue reads,
" Licensee proposed installation of additional alarm for minimum DWST level.
Staff accepts proposal as adequate to meet staff concerns."
,g One was closed because the staff and licensee are attempting to determine an acceptable technical resolution.
Three were closed with no closing action description given.
{
We do not believe backfit issues should be closed based only on licensee 4
commitments to take action, but rather on the NRC staf f's acceptance of the licensee's commitment and NRC's verification of the licensee's actions.
l i
Similarly, we do not believe it is appropriate to close items based on a 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.
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 i
information as one who only needs to review cata.
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 infomation.
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.
i I
I 4
I i
l
I 27'
(.
e
}
We 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 l
only access to those who do not need access to manipulate the data.
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 l
backfit issues are not being tracked or analyzed in a timely or consistent manner. 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 ensure that backfits are closed only after hRC has accepted licensee j
commitments 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 f
We recornend that the EDO:
6) assure that the 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 commitments and verifies that the actions have been taken; i
and l
I
r.
e 1
n
- ,5 tu MCb5M c
,empesesma access into the PSBS.
MCLOS a=3'
.s_.
t.%%&.,
th A m s w dffc backfits, we found that
$w
.. s.w;.~,
9% m + jm, m j gy m;.ecz= crecess. Information regarding f"
<;e
- ., p^ ;]!y g 2.svg :: ce staff and licensees.
For
.w u ay!w
, e ~l, M, ~
.e :recebres and'MC 0514 have been sq.
, gu.
- w...
w:qs w.
.. g y m ~u: s_atnesses still exist in regard to 1
34
~>
ugwr wmpt. *: 0514, and the PSBS.
w - 4. awe.m mti-e7ated, even though they have been I
schtD ee M.takness which links them together is u-
- y.;m g v W a"
- :u rsight. For example, we found a lack of m+-' ME < 314, the office and regional procedures, a=w
- x...
l ific issues.
, y@wN whene:es of p ant-spec n
.s
+ 4 % mittens inc rplete and inaccurate data; t
I
.% yt sut' relies on the incorrect data included in the PSBS in i
.wga:x 13e Office Directors' and P.egional Administrators' ful-t n.; N s; af their SES contracts; i
1
-#cieat rescurces are not available to effectively and L-gr.pestly anonitor the plant-specific backfit process; i
fnUOIX 1 SlttMY OF PLMT-SPECIFIC BYJflT ISSES ETIVE AS OF OCTOBER 8,1987 Q 0 SITE MTE OFFIT ISSUE ACTION PREDIGION ITNTIFIED FEILITY RESNNSIBLE SUBSTANCE PREDICTE7 MTE ACTION 03/25/86 Cata u 1 im 5 additional parameters requested Yes 07/15/87 tRC reevaluating 03/25/86 Catawba 2 tER Need for 5 additional parmeters Yes 07/15/87 FFC retvalmting 04/19/85 Farley 1 FM Qunge in testing intervals Yes 08/20/87 Licensee sutmitted change 04/19/85 Farley 2 PER Change in testing intervals Yes 06/20/87 Licensee sutmitted change 03/25/86 ft(bire 1 fE 5 additional parmeters requested Yes 07/15/87 tRC reevaluating 03/25/86 M1)uire 2 im 5 additiomi parmeters rupested Yes 07/15/87 fRC reevaluating 02/06/86 Harris 1 fM Proposed tech spec w;1d require nodificatiuts No 02/06/86 Harris 1 IM Pequest for qualified instnnentatiin Yes 06/01/88 Verbal carmitnent by licensee 06/20/86 San Onofm 1 fM Requirurent for actual plant nanipulations Yes 12/15/86 No course of action detennined 10/22/86 Wolf Crtek 1 RIV Failure to properly report security events ib 03/17/87 Robinson 2 tm Requirurent to test relief and safety valves tb 06/29/06 Big Rock
-Rlli Peplacerent of diesel fire ptnp No Point 1 Notes:
- 1) %te Idc51tified" represents the date licensee clained teckfit or date tEC staff identified potential backfit issue.
[
- 2) Infonration prwided on this appendix was obtained by 01A frun the Plant-Specific Backfit Systan (PSBS) as of October 8,1987. See the P585 for 4
/ additional infonration.
i a
~
p
. 1 QDSif0 ACTION IVEDICTIUt
[ ATE OFFIE ISSUE FHEDICTID?
DATE
/CTION 10milFIED F/C1LITY_
RE90NSIM.E SLUSTNCE Yes 10/13/86 05/22/86 Palisades Rll!
Actim disting plant to shut dwn e
4 v
m
..m.m
.. -.m.m.
u
.m m
-...m. m--
.- -c -3 m-. a
---r e-
.e.
-w
M PEtolX II S&t%RY OF IUNT-SPECIFIC IVLKFIT ISSES CLOSED AS OF OCTOBER 8,1987 CLOSitG DATE OFFICE ISSUE ACTION PRWICTION ITNTIFIED FACILITY RESIENSIBLE SWSTNCE PREDICTED?
01TE
/CTION 05/20/84 Beaver NRR Design deviation fmn SRP Yes N/30/87 TV and 00C Valley 2 05/31/85 Brwns FM Pequest for additional infonmtion to Vedal cmmitnent by licensee Ferry 1 05/31/85 Brtus FM Request for additional infonmtion tb Verbal cemitnent by licensee Ferry 2 05/31/85 Bnws FM Request for additional infonmtim ib Vertal cmmitnent by licensee FerTy 3 06/11/85 Maine Yanhee FM Limiting condition for operation rty;ested Yes 06/26/85 Licmsee withdrw backfit claim 09/23/84 Fbine Yankee FM Installatim of n*ndant indicators requested No Staff accepted proposed ctunge 03/31/85 Segioyah 1 FM P(q;est for additional infonmtion tb Verbal cmmitnent by licensee 05/31/85 Sequoyah 2 tm Penst for additimal infonmtim tb Verbal cemitment by licensee 03/19/85 Thme Mile FM Testing of pumps and valves No tE and licensee working on technical msolution Island I
!btes:
- 1) "Date Identified" repmsents the date licensee claimd backfit or date tPC staff identified potential backfit issm.
See the PSBS for additieml
- 2) Infonmtion provided in this appendix was obtained fmn the Plant-Specific Backfit Systen (PSBS) as of October 8,1987.
infonmtion.
Based on infonmtion prwided in tre PSBS; OIA detennined that tE staff follored up on licmsee action and docmented acceptance of actio
- 3) *# FU and DOC:
taken.
4 a
w
,, -, - +
_2 CLOSItG DME OFFIE ISSif ACTION FHDICTICN llCNTIFIED FACILITY RESPONSIILE SUBSTNCE FHEDICTED?
CATE ACTION 05/31/85 Watts Bar 1 NRR Reg *st for additional infornation tb Vertel cmmitnent by licmsm 05/31/85 Watts Bar 2 tm Pequest for aoditimal infonmtim tb Vertal cmmitnmt by licensee 03/27/85 Beaver tm Safeguant level instninentation design Yes 06/31/85 Design accepted by PPC Valley 2 07/17/85 Crptal tN55 Vital area definitions included in RER mport No tb explanation givm Rivec 3 06/20/06 San Onofre 2 fM Requirunent for actual plant nanipjlations Yes 12/15/86 No explanation givm 06/20/86 San Onofre 3 tm Requiruimt for actual plant cenipulations Yes 12/15/85 tb explanation given 09/15/86 Millstme 3 FM Procednu changes reganting statim backout Yes 05/31/87 FRC acceopted licensee action 12/16/85 Ocmee 1 NRR Upgrading of systms to arrent criteria Yes 10/15/86 FU and 00C 12/16/85 Oconee 2 tm Upgrading of systes to cuntnt criteria Yes 10/15/86 FU and DOC 12/16/85 Oconte 3 tm Upgrading of sptes to currmt criteria Yes 10/15/86 FU and 00C 07/16/06 Palo Verde 2 FRR Testing of rmote shutdtwn capability tb Writtm cmmitamt by licmsee 07/16/86 Palo Venie 3 FRR Testing of rumtt shutdtwn capability to Witten cemitment by licensee 4
e
.~
e.
/'o 84eg%
m UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,w
'3 l
wA SNWC TON. D. C. 205&5 0,
a S.....*
April 27, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Sharon R. Connelly, Director Office of Inspector ano Auditor FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFIT PROCEDURES This responds to your Maren 24, 1988 merrorandum transmitting the subject audit report.
I note your conclusion that I need to increase and improve the management oversight of the plant-specific backfit process to assure that backfits are being identified and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109 and MC-0514. As a general cocrnent. I note that in independent recognition of some of the deficiencies noted in the report, I had the Director of the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD) assurre the duties in the MC-0514 (revised to respond to the then recent court decision). This action took place Just af ter the audit period, i.e., on November 13, 1957 with the audit period being February to Octoter 1967 and was therevere not evaluated Dy the audit. With respect to your specific recomencations, I suomit the folicwing:
Rycom endation 1.
Establish procedures to be used by the ED0's office to monitor implementation of plant-specific issues.
Response
We agree, the revised Manual Chapter paragraph 032 assigns AE00 the responsibility for developing oversight procedures for the agency.
Reco::rnendation 2.
Assure sufficient resources are assigned in the ED0's office to effectively enonitor the intplementation of MC-0514.
Response
We agree, however AEOD will provide the resources to implement this oversight.
AEOD already provides appropriate oversight for generic backfits and, in view of the severe limitatiens on resources, is looking at cost effective ways of rnonitoring the plant-specific backfit process.
Since evidence of a problem with plant-specific backfits is a substantial increase in licensee complaints.
AEOD is censidering rnethods such as an annual questionnaire to licensees in addition to review of all backfit appeals from licensees.
0
e.: -
l f
b
=
Recomendation l
~
i 3.
Assure that MC-0514 is finalized and included in the NRC Nanual.
l Fesconse We agree, the MC-0514 has been submitted to the Comissien with the proposed final rule on backfitting.
Recomendation j
'l 4.
Assure that the Office / Region procedbres are revised as necessary to provide specific and consistent guidance for recording data or cnd i
tracking plant-specific backfits in accordance with MC-0514.
f Resconse i
We agree, this will be addressed as part of the implementation of the Manual Chapter.
Recorrendation 5.
Include in MC-0514 specific procedures fu os a n ing plant-specif1:
backfit issues for generic implications.
Response
We agree, MC-0514, paragraph 43 Reculatory Analysis was modified to include consideration of the plant-specific backfit as a possible generic backfit.
Reccernendation
[
6.
Assure that the current status of active and closed issues is both timely and accurately recorded in the PSBS.
l
}
Response
3 We agree, this will be incorporated into Office and Regional procedures developed to manage the plant-specific process and will be monitored in the oversight of the program.
i Recomendaticn 7
Establish and implement criteria to assure that plant-specific backfits imposed on licensees are closed only after NRC accepts licensee l
consnitments and verf fles that the actions have been taken.
Response
We agree, criteria are necessary to establish unifonn reporting of the closecut of plant specific bactfits. This will be eddressed in Office / Region i
t
.~.
e.e a
?
i procedures ard coordinated by AEOD.
Due to the plant-specific nature of backfits, close cut verification could entail large expenditures of staff resources without coamensurate safety benefits.
Thus, close out procedures may be developec which are short of verification by NRC on-site inspections.
Recorrr.endation 8.
Establish controls to elimirate unnecessary access into the PSES.
Resoonse
'.ie agree, the Manual Chapter now includes a statement that access to r.ake charges will ce limitec to cesignated personnel.
_y" g
~
/
r VictorStello.fr.
I Executive Director for Oceratinas 00:
J. I;yicr T. Rer=
E. Jordan J. Murray l
i 3
L