ML20072C439
Text
s 123 Main Street Whits Plains, New York 10601 g
914 681.6240 M
h Q[
John C. Brons 4# Authority f=7&"fl,a"T*"'
July 10, 1989 I N 89-040 J N 89-047 Mr. Edward L Jordan Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-286 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD) Questionnaire Regarding Backfitting
References:
1.
AEOD Letter, dated April 7,1989, from Edward L Jordan to all Ucensees of Operation Reactors and Holders of Construction Permits.
2.
NUBARG Letter, dated April 7,1989, from Nicholas S. Reynolds to Edward L Jordan, entitled, "AEOD Ouestionnaire Regarding Backfitting."
Dear Sir:
The Authority is submitting this comment letter in response to the AEOD questionnaire on the NRC backfitting process that was transmitted in Reference 1. In addition, the Authority is in full agreement with the comments which have been sent in Reference 2 by the Nuclear Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG), of which the Authority is a member. The following comments emphasize the Authority's concerns with backfitting.
An increasing number of IE Bulletins, Generic Letters and information requests are being issued on the basis of staff opinion, without adequate analysis or the review required by the rule.
For example, the Generic Letter 89-06 requires a review of the safety parameter display system to determine that it complies with NUREG-0737 taking into account the information contained in NUREG-1342. This is a clear example of a backfit without either a cost / benefit backfit analysis or a 10 CFR 50.54(f) supporting analysis which finds that the burden to be imposed is justified in view of the potential safety significance of the issue.
Another example is the new proposed generic letter on safety-related motor-operated valve testing and surveillance. After the Authority's responses to these issues under IE Bulletin 85-03 and Supplement 1, the generic letter requires an expanded scope without an adequate cost 9408170243 940629 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
1 l
2-u benefit analysis. The proposed generic letter cities 10 CFR 50.54(f) as justification, and contains an estimate of 2000 man-hours, which, it is stated, does not include the time for actual completion 3
of the requested actions. This does not conform to the backfit rule requirement to provide the total cost versus the benefit for this issue, especially after the implementation of actions for IE i
Bulletin 85-03, and Supplement 1. Although the Commission or its staff may consider these important issues, adherence to the backfit rule is still required. Improvement is needed in the area of knowledge and training on the backfit rule, and what types of documents or opinions need to be reviewed under the backfit rule.
Objection to issues on the basis of backfit is often viewed by the NRC staff and their contractors as noncooperative or unresponsive. NRC reviewers, who had previously been working on Near Term Operating Ucense (NTOL) plants, are now reviewing older operating plants.
The reviewers are using current NTOL standards in their evaluations of older plants. For example, at the Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant a reviewer asked whether response time testing of newly replaced RTDs was going to be performed. The IP3 plant has never been required to do routine periodic response time testing of any RTDs in the past and had not planned on doing such routine.
I periodic response time testing for the new RTDs. Issues like this involve current NRC positions, which are not included in the design basis of many older plants and are backfits.
In addition, the need for 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> resolution for critical items, which affect plant start-up or may later shutdown a facility is imperative. Suppose that during an NRC inspection a licensee was strongly requested to do additional work, such as an additional inspection or small l
modification before start-up. The licensee may do this inspection, which could add additional downtime or the licensee could consider this additional work as a backfit. If the licensee attempts J
to wait for a backfit analysis, this could again result in additional downtime for the facility. If the licensee is confident that the NRC's backfit analysis would show minimal benefit to the public health and safety for a substantial cost, the plant could start-up, only to face a potential shutdown order later to do this inspection. Backfit analyses should not prevent start-up or cause undue financial burden. Therefore for issues raised by the NRC staff which can affect start-up a backfit analysis should be done and a decision reached within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. If an issue is important enough to affect start-up of the plant, then a staff member should have no trouble identifying the safety significance versus cost impact of the issue.
In response to your request on the cost of specific items, attached is a list of Backfit items
' sat were identified and their man-day estimate and approximate cost estimate.
i if you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. J. A. Gray Jr. or Mr. P.
j Kokolakis of my staff.
Very truly yours,
)t/
~
ohn C. Brons Executive Vice President
' Nuclear Generation cc: see next page (v
l.
l cc:
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. David E. LaBarge i
475 Allendale Road Project Directorate 1-1 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Division of Reactor Projects-l/II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident inspector's Office Mail Stop 14 B2 indian Point 3 Washington, D.C. 20555 Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 337 Mr. J. D. Neighbors Buchanan, New York 10511 Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate 1-1 i
Office of the Resident inspector Division of Reactor Projects-l/II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
P.O. Box 136 Mail Stop 14 B2 Lycoming, New York 13093 Washington, D.C. 20555 i
l
i I
I f
i l
ATTACHMENT Backfit issues l
IE Bulletin 8841
" Defects in Westinghouse Circuit Breakers" 1440 hours0.0167 days <br />0.4 hours <br />0.00238 weeks <br />5.4792e-4 months <br />
($112,000) lE Bulletin 88-02
" Rapidly Propagating Fatigue Cracks in Steam 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> Generator Tubes"
($2,000)
" Nonconforming Material Supplied by Piping 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> Suppliers, Inc."
($36,750)
" Nonconforming Molded-Case Circuit Breakers" 900 hours0.0104 days <br />0.25 hours <br />0.00149 weeks <br />3.4245e-4 months <br /> (Sn.m l
t a
~~
n
l l
M Y NIAGARA RuMOHAWK NINE MILE POINT--UNIT 2/P.O. BOX 63. LYCOMING NY 13093 TELEPHONE (315) 343 2110 May 16, 1989 NMPil 0398 i
Mr. Edward L. Jordan Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Hashington, DC 20555 i
Re: Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 l
Docket No. 50-220
. Docket No. 50-410 l
DPR-63 NPF-69
Dear Mr. Jordan:
Your letter of April 7,
1989 requested a response to a questionnaire l
regarding the conduct of the backfit process and cost data for selected generic issues listed in Attachment 2 to the letter.
Our response in regard to Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 is attached.
Niagara Mohawk is a member of the Nuclear Manage.sent and Resources Council (NUMARC) and the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG).
He understand that they will also be submitting a response separately on behalf of the members.
Very truly yours, NIAGARA M0 HAWK POWER CORPORATION L. Burkhardt, III Executive Vice President
. Nuclear Operations LB/SKA/cla (2083C)
Attachments xc: Regional Administrator, Region I
~
Hr. H. A. Cook, Sr. Resident Inspector ue. u u (1nesen, Scject "anacer Recoras Management q sto S e e z 2 5 ~
h,
\\
l RESPONSE TO OUESTIONNAIRE l
Question No. 1
{
Are NRC procedures (i.e.,
Manual Chapter 0514) sufficiently clear and j
effective on how backfits are identified and transmitted to licensees, and how claims of backfit and appeals are handled?
If not, would you please comment on the need for specific improvement?
Resoonse Based upon our limited use, NRC Manual Chapter 0514, pertaining to plant -
specific backfits, is sufficiently clear on how backfits are identified and transmitted to licensees and how claims of backfit and appeals are handled.
Question No. 2 Is NRC staff practice consistent with the 0514 process in identifying and implementing backfits?
If not, would you please comment on any specific observed inconsistencies?
Ets99aift Section 042 of the Manual Chapter 0514 states, in part, that the staff at all levels will evaluate any proposed plant-specific position with respect to whether or not the position qualifies as a proposed backfit.
He could j
not determine if these evaluations are being performed as we have not seen l
any mention of it in the transmittals to the licensees.
Providing the basis and results of the evaluations to the licensees would help minimize backfit claims, appeals and implementation delays as the l
licensees will be able to analyze the NRC evaluations prior to taking any action.
Ouestion No. 3 In the past year have you experienced, in your judgment, the imposition of i
one or more backfits, which would not fit one of the exceptions listed in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4) or did not have a regulatory analysis, for which you did not file a claim or appeal?
If so, please indicate why you did not file a claim or appeal.
j Resoonse l
The matter of implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.97 at Nine Mile Point g,
Unit I which is currently under active discussion and review with the NRC I
b staff appears to be within the scope of the backfit rule and does not fit
- //
within the exceptions listed in 10CFR50.109(a)(4) or have a regulatory l
analysis.
Because Niagara Mohawk is attempting to reach an accommodation with the Staff, a claim or appeal has not been filed regarding this issue.
In general, a licensee, particularly one with a plant requiring Staff approval prior to resumption of operation has to face the following i
consiaerations eacn time a aecision is to ce maae anerner to riie a backfit claim or appeal:
l
1.
Schedule constraint - resolution of issues through the backfit process may severely impact startup/ operation of the plant.
2.
Any claim of backfit or appeal may be perceived as resistance to change or failure to be proactive.
Question No. 4 Please describe any impediments or weaknesses in the backfit process in the communications and
, or suggestions for improvements.
understanding of that process, and any Resoonse He commend the work done by the NRC in developing the rule and the procedures.
He believe the following areas could be strengthened to make the backfit process more effective in achieving the intended objective of enhancing regulatory stability and adding controls to the process.
1.
to be defined more clearly.The methodology for preparation of analys In the absence of such a guidance analyses without adequate substantiation. process would be subject to the 2.
Since the interpretations of the regulations at regional vary substantially from one region to the other, safeguards should be level could introduced to achieve consistenc He recognize that there is a provision for an appeals process; y.but, in view of the reasons given in response to question 3 above, licensees may be reluctant or unable to use it.
3.
A procedure should be established defining clearly the criteria for resolution of disagreements (e.g.
challenges to cost / benefits estimates).
4.
generic issues through the industry groups.The NRC should c efficient and cost effective both for the NRC and the industry.Such a proce utilities fearing retribution may not file individual claims of
- Also, backfit.
of communications open between the NRC and the utilities. Wo s.
O
~'
COST DATA FOR NINE MILE UNITS 1 & 2 ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS ISSUE UNIT 1 UNIT 2 REMARKS NRC Bulletin 88-01 15 Man Hr.
15 Man Hr.
For performing the review and requested doc-umentation, as reported in let-ters NMPIL-0237 and NMP2L-1122, both dated March 28, 1988.
NRC Bulletin 88-02 N/A N/A Applicable to PHRs only NR'C Bulletin 88-05 Engineering Support
$40,000 Includes cost Equipment
$20,000 for both Units.
Installation
$10,000 Work was stopped Facility Dcwntime None on receipt of supplement 2 to the Bulletin, as reported in letter NMPIL 0299 dated 9/9/88.
Complete im-plementation cost would have been higher.
Generic Letter 88-01 40 Man Hr.
>400 Man Hr.
For Engineering and Submittals to the NRC.
Long term impact due to the increased frequency of inspections has not been evaluat-ed and is there-fore not included in the estimate.
Generic Letter 88-03 N/A N/A Applicable to PHRs only Note: Actual implementation costs were not documented as a separate item.
The estimated costs are based on recollections of individuals who coordinated /
79 <r99 a o me.+
(2083C) 4
4 NORTHEAST UTILITIES o.nor. Ome... s.io.n sir i. e.riin. Conn.ciicui 3
mes co**"
P.O. BOX 270 k
2 ~oa =* SE=5 c HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 (203) 665-5000 4
June 8, 1989 Docket Nos. 50-213 50-245 50-336 50-423 A07937 Re:
10CFR50.109 Mr. Edward L. Jordan Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operations Data U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Jordan:
Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1, 2, and 3 AEOD Survey on the NRC Backfittina Process In a letter dated April 7, 1989,(1) the NRC's Office for Analysis and Evalua-tion of Operational Data transmitted to all licensees its survey regarding the backfitting process.
The basic purpose of the survey is to solicit views on how the backfitting rule is working in practice.
Among other things, the survey seeks input on (1) whether changes are needed in the procedures of Manual Chapter 0514, (2) whether NRC Staff practice has been consistent with Manual Chapter 0514 in the identification and implementa-tion of backfits, (3) whether any backfits havp been imposed on a licensee for which the licensee did not file a claim of backfit, and (4) whether any
" impediments or weaknesses" are present in the backfitting process.
It was requested that responses to the survey and any other comments appropri-ate to the backfitting process be submitted to the Staff.
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) are participants in the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG) and
{
Nuclear Management and Resource Council (,NUMARC) and wholly endorse the comments supplied by NUBARG and NUMARC to the NRC Staff regarding this survey.
Attachment I to this letter contains additional comments that CYAPC0 and NNEC0 wish to provide on the NRC's backfitting process.
The Staff also requested (1)
E. L. Jordan letter to E. J. Mroczka, dated April 7, 1989, "AEOD Survey on the NRC Backfitting Process."
YU4lWYV Q O
Mr. Edward L. Jordan A07937/Page 2 June 8, 1989 utility costs for five specific backfits imposed in 1988.
provides an estimate of costs incurred from these backfits.
These estimates only address the assessment of actions to be taken, preparing the necessary plans, and preparing the response.
They do not include the time for actual implementation of the recommended actions.
Please contact us if you have any questions.
Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY sff4 /
E.1T.Aroc' ika Seni6r Vice Pre /
sident cc:
W. T. Russell, Region I Administrator M. L. Boyle, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 1 i
G. S. Vissing, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2 D. H. Jaffe, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 A. B. Wang, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant W. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 J. T. Shedlosky, Senior Resident Inspector Haddam Neck Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document Control Desk
\\
G w.
1 Docket Nos. 50-213 50-245 50-336~
50-423 A07937 Haddam Neck P1 ant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3-Coments on NRC's Backfitting Process l
i 1
\\
l June 1989 e
e,-
,w.
Mr. Edward L. Jordan A07937/ Attachment 1/Page 1 l
June 8, 1989 1
Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1, 2, and 3 Comments on NRC's Backfittina Process As a general observation, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) believe that the backfitting rule has had a positive impact in bringing out more effective NRC management of the backfitting process.
Nevertheless, we believe there is room for improvement.
We offer the following observations and suggestions:
1.
Review to Current Licensina Criteria i
Paragraph 3 of Section B.1 of the Appendix to Manual Chapter 0514 (relat-ing to the use of Standard Review Plan (SRP) criteria in the review of license amendment requests that propose new design features) could lead i
to some confusion on whether revised licensing criteria may be applied in the Staff's review of a license amendment request or other changes for an operating license holder or during NRC review of such a licensee's l
programs.
CYAPC0 and NNEC0 suggest that language be added to this section of Manual Chapter 0514 to make clear that as a general rule, license amendment requests and other proposed programs and modifications l
at an operating plant should be reviewed against the plant's licensing i
basis; they should not be required to meet SRP criteria that are not part of the licensing basis for that plant.
There have been instances where the Staff has applied SRP criteria in a particular area where the plant in question was licensed before adoption of the current SRP.
As an example, NNEC0 has removed several reactor building closed cooling water (RBCCW) containment isolation valves from Millstone Unit No. 2's Appendix J testing program after completing appropriate safety considera-tion and finalizing the necessary 10CFRIO.59 evaluation.
NNEC0's justi-fication for this was docketed in submittals dated September 9,1988 and November 10, 1988.
The Staff had previously acknowledged the RBCCW system as a closed system by the approval of the original FSAR in the SER dated May 10, 1974.
The NRC Staff has now taken the position that the l
RBCCW system is not a closed system because it does not meet all the current SRP criteria for that classification; i.e., Millstone Unit No. 2 has safety Class 3 piping inside containment versus the SRP Class 2 piping specified in the current, but not applicable, revision of the SRP.
l The NRC Staff has informed NNECO in letters dated February 10, 1988, and Hay 4, 1989, that Type C testing of the RBCCW containment isolation valves should continue or such systems should be fabricated to at least i
safety Class 2 requirements in order to not require postaccident leak-tightness.
This is an example where the Staff immediately gravitates to the latest revision of the SRP and other current review criteria, rather than adhering to the actual licensing basis for Millstone Unit No. 2.
This is
4 l
Mr. Edward L. Jordan A07937/ Attachment 1/Page 2 2
June 8, 1989 particularly relevant for the older operating units. We are contemplat-ing filing a backfit claim on this issue if a resolution cannot be otherwise arrived at.
i i
Specifically, and as proposed by the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG), we suggest that the following be added after the second sentence of the third paragraph of Section B.1:
Staff review of license amendment requests, programs, and other j
modifications for an operating plant should be conducted using the applicable criteria and requirements reflected in the plant's licensing basis.
Review of such matters against new SRP revisions is generally not permitted.
l 2.
Reanalysis of Issues Language should be added to Section C.4 of the appendix (dealing with Staff reanalysis of issues after plant licensing) to indicate that new Staff positions on what is necessary to comply with existing requirements are to be treated as backfits.
While the Staff's new position may be based on the original underlying requirement, new Staff positions on what is necessary to comply (which may entail far greater actions than origi-nally envisioned) should be imposed only after an analysis of the need for the change and of why the prior position is no longer acceptable.
It was for this reason that the Commission included within the definition of a "backfit" in Section 50.109(a)(1) new Staff positions interpreting the regulations.
4 An example of this situation was the NRC Staff's interpretation of 10CFR50.44 compliance for Millstone Unit No. 1.
This is a matter that we have solved to the satisfaction of the NRC Staff periodically since 1984.
We received one license amendment, one iafety Evaluation Report (SER) to the full-term operating license issued on October 31, 1986, and one supplement to that SER, each of which documented this matter as resolved.
On May 5, 1989, we received a letter dated May 1,1989, from the NRC seeking a conference call within an hour and a meeting in their offices within a week or so.
On the surface, it appears we were requested to substantiate our compliance with a regulation and notified that we could be potentially subject to an Order, on a matter we believe was closed on three separate occasions by the NRC Staff.
Occasionally, and in this 4
instance in particular, some members of a technical staff attempt to a
ignore a previous NRC conclusion because they were personally not party to it and may not agree with it.
We believe that the agency position must be binding on all of the NRC Staff unless it is proven technically incorrect or the appropriate backfitting processes are followed.
4 What is equally challenging to deal with under these circumstances is the fact that challenges to the verbal Staff position appear to be accompa-nied by negative Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Mr. Edward L. Jordan A07937/ Attachment 1/Page 3 June 8, 1989 1
repercussions.
The way the process should work, the Staff should recog-nize the legitimacy of the existing licensing basis and prior NRC conclu-sions.
In practice, the opposite can be true in that new Staff positions are proposed which ignore past history without explicit recognition of the backfitting process.
If we believe and continue to demonstrate that safety requirements remain fulfilled with the existing state of affairs, we should not be penalized in SALP or any other forum for fulfilling our responsibilities to shareholders and state regulatory agencies.
CYAPCO and NNECO therefore suggest, as proposed by NUBARG, that the following language be added at the end of the first paragraph of Sec-tion C.4.
In addition, a new staff position on what is necessary to comply
.4 with an existing requirement (such as a new position that has arisen from greater understandi'ng of evolving issues) should be classified as a backfit.
3.
SEP Tonic Resolutions l
While not a pure backfitting issue per se, a recurring issue that becomes more prevalent with time is the tendency for the Staff to retreat from resolutions achieved as part of the SEP process for the older plants.
For many topics, the resolution involved some compensatory measures or.
other actions which by no means resulted in complete compliance with current criteria (even at the time of resolution, much less now), but were mutually judged to resolve the safety issue at hand.
These resolu-~
i
-tions are documented, but with the passage of time and turnover in NRC personnel, the retrievability of these resolutions declines.
It is easier for the Staff to attempt to evaluate us against current criteriaq i
rather than research what was previously determined to be adequate..
Accordingly, we find ourselves having \\to regularly defend the current design and resolution of SEP issues. While we do not object to construc-tive questioning and we accept our responsibilities to ensure and demon-strate the safety of our nuclear units, we would like to see more explicit awareness that plants are to be judged against criteria reflected in their licensing basis.
g t
i.
i 4
l Docket Nos. 50-213 i
50-245 50-336 i
50-423 i
l A07837
)
i i
i i
i i
i I
l I
I i
r Hdddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. -1, 2, and 3 '
Cost of Imposed Backfits in 1988 i
i i
e I
i l
i f
t i
June 1989 f
k i
l-
+
--'+-e v'M4
{
Mr. Edward L. Jordan A07937/ Attachment 2/Page 1 June 8, 1989 Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Cost of Imoosed Backfits in 1988 Estimg}yd Issue Title Cost
- 1. NRC Bulletin 88-01 Defects in Westinghouse Circuit
$ 5,000 Breakers l
- 2. NRC Bulletin 88-02 Rapidly Propagating Fatigue Cracks in
$47,000 Steam Generator Tubes
- 3. NRC Bulletin 88-05 Nonconforming Materials Supplied by
$50,000 l
Piping Supplies, Inc., at Folsom, New Jersey, and West Jersey Manufacturing Company at Williamstown, New Jersey 4 Generic Letter 88-01 NRC Position on IGSCC in BWR Austen-
$12,000 itic Stainless Steel Piping
- 5. Generic Letter 88-03 Resolution of Generic Safety 5 7,000 Issue 93, " Steam Binding of Auxiliary Feed Pumps"
\\
(1) These estimates only address the assessment of actions to be taken, preparing the necessary plans, and preparing the response.
They do not include the time for actual implementation of the recommended actions.
I