ML20134D016
| ML20134D016 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1996 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Goodling B HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134D018 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9610110308 | |
| Download: ML20134D016 (16) | |
Text
_.
__.p.______
[
I
[t@ MG
{
[
k UNITED STATES i
j j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I*
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566-0001
\\,,
+/
October 8, 1996 The Honorable Bill Goodling l
Member, United States House of Representatives 2020 Yale Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011
Dear Congressman Goodling:
I I am responding to your letter dated August 30, 1996, in which you forwarded a letter dated August 19, 1996, from Mr. Patrick M. Sears. Mr. Sears noted that 1
during the years he had worked at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
{
(NRC), he had a period of service as the Project Manager for the Maine Yankee 4
Atomic Power Station (MYAPS). He enclosed a copy of a letter regarding MYAPS i
that he signed on May 8, 1989, which has figured prominently in recent investigations of the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, the licensee for MYAPS, and of the NRC staff. Mr. Sears also sent you a copy of the letter he i
wrote to me on August 19, 1996, in which he stated that the licensee should be i
fined in accordance with NRC regulations if it has not followed its own quality control procedures for computer codes.
He also suggested more NRC oversight of licensee use of computer analysis methods.
That letter is being considered as a petition pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of 5
Federal Reaulations (10 CFR). By letter dated September 24, 1996, the NRC staff notified Mr. Sears that, as provided by Section 2.206, it is reviewing the request and will take action within a reasonable time. The results of i
this review will be documented in a decision by the Director of the Office of
.i Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Following the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit 2, the NRC staff i
developed an action plan (NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan l
Requirements") to address the lessons learned from that accident.
Included in that action plan were two items to address the acceptability of computer analysis codes used to determine the adequacy of the emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) during a small-break loss-of-coolant accident (SBLOCA).
Each licensee was requested to provide, for NRC review and approval, either a revised SBLOCA analysis methodology or justification of the acceptability of its then-current methodology (Action Item II.K.3.30).
Each licensee that revised its methodology was also requested to provide, within one year after NRC staff approval of the methodology, a plant-specific analysis of its ECCS using the approved methodology (Action Item II.K.3.31).
The NRC staff initiated a special technical review of the safety analysis performed for MYAPS after the NRC received the allegation in December 1995 to which Mr. Sears alluded in his letter of August 19, 1996. As a result of its technical review'and a subsequent meeting with the licensee, the NRC staff concluded that the licensee did not satisfy the conditions specified in the NRC's approval of RELAP5YA and that MYAPS did not conform with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46. Accordingly, the NRC staff imposed limitations on the operation of MYAPS in an Order dated January 3, 1996.
~l C OI /
4 L
110l'?8 mic 32@BT E COPY 9610110308 961000 PDR ADOCK 05000309 P
PDR j
.o The Honorable Bill Goodling The NRC's Office of the Inspector General (IG) investigated the NRC staff's actions regarding review of RELAP5YA and closeout of TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31.
The IG issued its report on May 8, 1996, which was provided to you by Mr. Sears.
5 The Office of Investigations (01) has completed its investigation into the allegations of wrongdoing at Maine Yankee that are referenced in the IG's report. Neither the Report of Investigation nor related documentation are currently available for public review, as the matter has been referred to the United States Attorney's Office (USA 0), Portland, Maine.
In April 1996, the NRC staff initiated reviews to identify and address the lessons learned from this issue. This initiative includes a review of the staff's process for reviewing computer code methodologies.
Specifically, the NRC staff is comparing completed staff reviews of several loss-of-coolant accident codes for consistency in approach and quality of review. The staff is also evaluating the code modification process and staff followup of code implementation. The initiative also includes evaluating the staff's process for reviewing power uprate amendment requests.
The staff is reviewing the process followed for closing out Action Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 for all plants currently holding operating licenses.
The staff is also reviewing the closeout of Action Item II.K.3.5 regarding reactor coolant pump trip issues because of its relationship to the other items.
This review of the action item closeout process entails evaluating NRC technical staff involvement, NRC management oversight, and communications both internally and with the licensees.
I trust that this letter is responsive to the concerns raised by Mr. Sears in his letter to you.
Sincerely, l
a es M. T or ecutive irector for Operations
i The Honorable Bill Goodling -
i The NRC's Office of the Inspector General (IG) investigated the NRC staff's actions regarding review of RELAP5YA and closeout of TMI Action Plan Items i
II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31.
The IG issued its report on May 8, 1996, which was l
provided to you by Mr. Sears.
I The Office of Investigations (01) has completed its investigation into the allegations of wrongdoing at Maine Yankee that are referenced in the IG's 4
report. Neither the Report of Investigation nor related documentation are 4
currently available for public review, as the matter has been referred to the United States Attorney's Office (USA 0), Portland, Maine.
In April 1996, the NRC staff initiated reviews to identify and address the lessons learned from this issue. This initiative includes a review of the staff's process for reviewing computer code methodologies.
Specifically, the
~
NRC staff is comparing completed staff reviews of several loss-of-coolant accident codes for consistency in approach and quality of review. The staff i
is also evaluating the code modification process and staff followup of code l
implementation. The initiative also includes evaluating the staff's process for reviewing power uprate amendment requests.
4 j
The staff is reviewing the process followed for closing out Action Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 for all plants currently holding operating licenses.
The staff is also-reviewing the closeout' of Action Item II.K.3.5 regarding i
reactor coolant pump trip issues because of its relationship to the other j
items. This review of the action item closeout process entails evaluating NRC l
technical staff involvement, NRC management oversight, and communications both internally and with the licensees.
1 I trust that this letter is responsive to the concerns raised by Mr. Sears in j
his letter to yc" 3Ndd!gndby j
km03 M. Taylor
{
James M. Taylor Executive Director j
for Operations l
DOCUMENT NAME:
G:\\DORMAN\\GT96679.GRN
- See previous concurrence j
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:-
"C" - Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" - Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" - No copy 0FFICE PDl-3:PMI TECH ED l PD4-2:LAl DRPE:D l
DD:DSSA l NAME DDorman:dt*
RSanders*
EPeyton*
SVarga*
RJones*
{
DATE g
g 9g 9 16 96 09 18 96 0FFICE ADPR OGC uto.tc D:NRR E
NAME RZimmerman*
JGoldberg*
FMiraglia*
JTMlbr DRathbu'n i
DATE 09/19/96 09/26/96 09/27/96 f/0/ 7 /96 10/p /96 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY i
The Honorable Bill Goodling DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File (50-309)
RZimmerman NRR Mail Room (GT96679 (w/ original incoming)
PDI-3 Reading w/inc) (0-12-G-18)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
(w/ incoming)
N01 son ED0 #96679 SVarga CNorsworthy ED0 Readilig JZwolinski DDorman w/ incoming JTaylor PMilano EPeyton JMilhoan JGoldberg, 0GC HMiller, RI HThompson GLongo, OGC JFRogge, RI JBlaha OPA SECY # CRC-96-0947 WRussell/FMiraglia OCA a
4@ EQ k
UNITED STATES g-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055%C001 s
,o The Honorable Bill Goodling 2020 Yale Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011
Dear Congressman Goodling:
I am responding to your letter dated August 30, 1996, in which you forwarded a letter dated August 19, 1996, from Mr. Patrick M. Sears. Mr. Sears noted that during the years he had worked at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), he had a period of service as the Project Manager for the Maine Yankee ower Station (MYAPS). He enclosed a copy of a letter regarding MYAPS j
P,6d on May 8,1989, which has figured prominently in recent sAto at h g p4 investigations of the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, the licensee for MYAPS, and of the NRC staff. Mr. Sears also sent you a copy of the letter he wrote to me on August 19, 1996, in which he stated that the licensee should be fined in accordance with NRC regulations if it hafnot followed its own quality control procedures for computer codes. Hf also suggested more NRC oversight of licens e use of computer analysis methods. That letter is being ti ion pursuant to Sect-n 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of consideredasap$(1 70 Federal Reaulatfon CFR). W he NRC staff notified Mr. Sears that, %u ovided by Section 2.206, it is reviewing the request and will take action within a reasonable time. The results of this review will be documented in a decision fconr the Director of-e Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
g gQ;f c.
Following the 1979 accident at br'ee ed and (TMI) Unit <2', the NRC staff developed an action plan JNOREG-0737, " Clarification of THI Action Plan Requirements") to addressr the lessons learned from that/ accident.
Included in that action plan were t/o items to address the acceptability of computer analysis codes used t/ determine the adequacy of the' emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) durips a small-break loss-of-coolant accident (SBLOCA).
Each licensee was requested to provide, for NRC review and approval, either a revised SBLOCA analysis methodology or justification of the acceptability of its then-current methodology (Action Itje 4I.K.3.30).
Each licensee that revised its methodology was also reques.ed to provide, within one year after NRC staff approval of the methodology, a plant-specific analysis of ECCS using the approved methodology (Action Item II.K.3.31).
In response to Item II.K.3.30, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company submitted the RELAP5YA code in January 1983 as the methodology for MYAPS. As Mr. Sears noted, this II.K.3.30 methodology for MYAPS was approved in a Safety Evaluation (SE) dated January 30, 1989, that specified 12 conditions,M A
/s to ensure acceptable implementation of the code. TMI Action m4 m -d Dian' Item II.K.3.31 stated that plant-specific calculations using NRC-approved models for SBLOCA,analysjs, as described in Item II.K.3.30, to show compliance with 10 CFR 50.46 should be submitted for NRC approval.
These calculatiqns a
were to be submitted one year after the staff approved the revised analyf1 C models submitted to demonstrate compliance with Item II.K.3.30.
By letter dated May 8, 1989, Mr. Sears informed the licensee that the staff considered
h
\\& A bM M4. J Q W,he Honoratie Biil Goodling
.e T O
~ ~~7s
% pacy m' kbL '
II.K.3.31 InsetTor MYAPS ased on a telephone convers ion be ween himself and the MYAPS licensing su evisor on May 5, 1989. As reJdit, the licensee 4 {
did not submit tF re wastou plant-specific analysis Jf.K.3.31.
The NRC
/6 staff initiated
/pecial technical review of the safetyanalysis performed J
s f:r "YA received the - kt
- ~ allegation of December 1995 to which As a result of technical review and a subsequent pi Mr. Sears allud meeting with the licensee, the NRC staff concluded that the licensee did not satisfy the conditions specified in the NRC's approval of RELAP5YA and that MYAPS did not conform with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46. Accordingly, the NRC staff imposed limitations on the-operation _n MYAPS in an Order dated January 3, 1996.
m cA jdWhki&~TUOd y
a The NRC's Office o vestiga i Trhas powr1 eniga ^
etcEiii[ee's conduct related to the closecut of TMI Action Items II K.3.30 and II.K.3.31.
p If the results of that invest 4 aMowarran e NRC staff w411-take M u w s
9 appropriate enforcement action in accordance with the Commission's
, regulations.
The Direc f th r of e Offjce of fjucleaq React 9r Regulation;wiph j
wea,Olrecto efsiwregarding,sO)61sion.
Mr Sta(sVpetition.
NrfStars wil informeY d4 ctl of the Dire 6 tor t
Rcc
~y(tL%WUtcC % P&LRPGM ML ObTod DYidcd43hs JF.Mh
\\
The NRC's ce or the unspector &eneral (IG) investigated the M e ef7h ggy yG 'p NRC sta f g _.c develep ent of this--issue.
The IG issued its report on May 8, 1996, ich was prov o you by Mr. Sears.
The IG found deficiencies in the NRC staff's review osure of Action Item II.K.3.31 for MYAPJggnd identified several missed pportunities for the NRC staff to have ideniified and corrected the mishandling of the issue.
The IG also raised concerns about
'g the staff's practices regarding documentation of conversations between the NRC staff and licensees, and tracking of licensee commitments made during those
~
conversations.
In_ April 1996,Lfrom this issue.the NRC staff initiated reviews to identify and addre ssons learns This initiative includes a review of the staff's process for reviewing computer code methodologies.
Specifically, the NRC staff is comparing completed staff reviews of several loss-of-coolant r.1 accident codes for consistency in approach and quality of review.
The staff is also evaluating the code modification process and staff followup of code kl implementation.
The initiative also includes valuating the staff's process
>d for reviewing power uprate amendment requests.
Q urthermore, the handling of Action Item II.K.3.31 for MYAPS raised questions re g g g cy of the NRC staff's closecut of TMI Action Items.
Te respe, _ _
g, the staff is reviewing the process followed for closing out Action I6ms II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 for all plants currently holding operating licenses.
The staff is also reviewing the closeout of Action Item II.K.3.5 regarding reactor j7 ['
/
coolant pump trip issues because of its relationship to the other items.
This l
review of the action item closeout process entails evaluating NRC technical internally and with the licensee.4 Finally, the lessons learned process
/j staff involvement, NRC management oversight, and communications both entails evaluatipgxurrent p cy gnd practices regarding internal and
,/ % A,
(
13valvement, anchmanagem nt xternalrommunications, licensee T0mmitmelft-
/
/ ' tracking -
chnical stal ~oFemght. Workisprogressingontheseactiops/
y l
k a
wid
(
L
~
The Honorable Bill Goodling '
qayNy V
Y
.with-some-of-theiUur6Tdy hiving-been comphte. ~ y the end of 1996, the
_ staff _wilPrepo'rt to the Commission its findings nd actions taken and-
\\
v.,va n I r.ppreciate Mr. Sears' shar4ng*regarding NRC oversight of computer code us his perspective on these matter.
I consider tht: actions the staff'is~taking te be responsive to is concerns,!.
s Sincerely, James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations i1M r Ort _cqs, incbdtg C mms, d IMf } i w em on a?co) co9 ar c'cde wzskaHm J
DCk cgarab w k,
> * > <
- my aa y % %
9 pa-Contgd# (U+s in ctcced u. dA. <ds cc cto QA-.
N 0O& Os Ox 9 cvachtcc Szsc 4Ga G(ZG M cos ?
3 Cd2cjeenced % h k c d Vxt s Con (Trns, cu.c b 4
% s w k b m( o t c c s. } o e d [ r cbsete toAA. b aw cm a oco a M 6C rex; o w a P cc Je ccach, nca wt +
\\[y O&1uc\\9cc-35cv5
\\'\\ b cM d A d
1
...A,.
,a s
..-r.
, < +-..
,,f....,..c.
DJCUMENTE:COVERf PAGE?
DOCUMENT NAME:
G:\\D0RMAN\\GT96679.GRN
SUBJECT:
LETTER TO CONGRESSMAN GOODLING ORIGINATOR:
DDorman SECRETARY:
DTurner DATE:
September 13, 1996
... ROUTING LIST...
NAME DATE 1.
EPeyton 09/13/96 2.
TECH ED 09/12/96 3.
DDorman 09/13/96 4.
SVaroa 09/13/96 bE 09/ b 5.
GHolahan/RJones e
_09/:c/96 6.
RZimmerman
"/
7 7.
0GC 09/ /96 8.
WTRussell 09/ /96 9.
JTaylor 09/ /96 10.
Secretary / Dispatch
/ /96 Can Document be Deleted after Dispatch?
Yal
/ h?s - #ff7
The Honorable Bill Goodling '
I appreciate Mr. Sears' sharing his perspective on these matter.
I consider the actions the staff is taking regarding NRC oversight of computer code usage to be responsive to his concerns.
Sincerely, James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File (50-309)
RZimmerman NRR Mail Room (GT96679 (w/ original incoming)
PDI-3 Reading w/ine) (0-12-G-18)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
(w/ incoming)
N01 son EDO #96679 SVarga CNorsworthy EDO Reading JZwolinski DDorman w/ incoming JTaylor PMilano EPeyton JMilhoan JGoldberg, 0GC HMiller, RI HThompson Glongo, 0GC JFRogge, RI JBlaha OPA SECY # CRC-96-0947 WRussell/FMiraglia OCA DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\DORMAN\\GT96679.GRN To receive a copy of thee document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy fgry OFFICE PD4-21A l
TECH ED l PD1-3:PM l DRPE:D l
D;DSSA/Sp{ff.
NAME EPeyton*
R$.nders*
Doorman:dt*
SVarga*
GHolahan 7wf s#
~
DATE 08/13/96 09/12/96 09/13/96 08/16/96 0 97
/
p mi mi
=:=-
m NAME RZimmeiman JGoleerg WRussell JTaylor DATE 00fyts on/ /96 09/ /96 0FFICIA. RECORD COPY
' M usg
["
k UNITED STATES
- s j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\..... p $
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2006th0001 5
i i
The Honorable Bill Goodling i
2020 Yale Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 i
+
{
Dear Congressman Goodling:
?
I am responding to your letter dated August 30, 1996, in which you forwarded a letter dated August 19, 1996, from Mr. Patrick M.' Sears. Mr. Sears noted that during the years he had worked at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), he had a period of service as the Project Manager for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station (MYAPS). He enclosed a copy of a letter regarding MYAPS that he_ issued on May 8,1989, which has figured prominently in recent 1
investigations of the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, the licensee for MYAPS, and of the NRC staff. Mr. Sears also sent you a copy of the letter he wrote to me on August 19, 1996, in which he stated that'the licensee should be i
fined in accordance with NRC regulations if it had not followed its own quality control procedures for computer codes. He also suggested more NRC l
oversight of licensee use of computer analysis methods. That letter is being-considered as a petition pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of 4
Federal Reaulation (10 CFR). On September, 1966, the NRC staff notified Mr. Sears that, as provided by Section 2.206, it is reviewing the request and i
will take action within a reasonable time. The results of this review will be documented in a decision from the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor j
Regulation.
I 4
Following the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit 2, the NRC staff l
developed an action plan (NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan i
' Requirements") to address the lessons learned from that accident.
Included in that action plan were two items to address the acceptability of computer analysis codes used to determine the adequacy of the emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) during a small-break loss-of-coolant accident (SBLOCA).
Each licensee was requested to provide, for NRC review and approval, either a revised SBLOCA analysis methodology or justification of the acceptability of its then-current methodology (Action Item II.K.3.30).
Each licensee that revised its methodology was also requested to provide,- within one year after NRC staff approval of the methodology, a plant-specific analysis of the ECCS using the approved methodology (Action Item II.K.3.31).
In response to Item II.K.3.30, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company submitted the RELAP5YA code in January 1983 as the methodology for MYAPS. As Mr. Sears noted, this II.K.3.30 methodology for MYAPS was approved in a Safety Evaluation (SE) dated January 30, 1989, that specified 12 conditions which must be satisfied to ensure acceptable implementation of the code. TMI Action Plan Item II.K.3.31 stated that plant-specific calculations using NRC-approved models for SBLOCA analysis, as described in Item II.K.3.30, to show compliance with 10 CFR 50.46 should be submitted for NRC approval. These calculations i
were to be submitted one year after the staff approved the revisod analysis v
models submitted to demonstrate compliance with Item II.K.3.30.
By b letter fx dated May 8,1989, Mr. Sears informed the licensee that the staff considered
be.be%
S The Honorable Bill Goodling y
(,y,\\( d h vwYat'5 hig II.K.3.31 closed for MYAPS based on a telephone conversatio on May 5, 1989.
W" As a result, the licensee did not submit the requested plant-specific analysis for II.K.3.31.
The NRC staff initiated a special technical review of the safety analysis performed for MYAPS after it received the anonymous allegation of December 1995 to which Mr. Sears alluded. As a result of the technical
~
review and a subsequent meeting with the licensee, the NRC staff concluded that the licensee did not satisfy the conditions specified in the NRC's approval of RELAP5YA and that MYAPS did not conform with the requirements of
- p!
i 10 CFR 50.46. Accordingly, the NRC staff imposed limitations on t e operation of MYAPS in an Order dated January 3, 1996.
The NRC's Office of Investigations has been investigating the license s
conduct related to the closeout of TMI Action Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.
31.
3 If the results 'of that investigation warrant, the NRC staff will take l
appropriate enforcement action in accordance with the Commission's regulations.
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will t A then issue a Director's Decision regarding Mr. Sears' petition. Mr. Sears i
J will be informed directly of the Director's Decision.
The NRC's Office of the Inspector General (IG) investigated the role of the NRC staff in the development of this issue. The IG issued its report on May 8, 1996, which was provided to you by Mr. Sears. The IG found deficiencies in the NRC staff's review and closure of Action Item II.K.3.31 for MYAPS and identified several missed opportunities for the NRC staff to have identified and corrected the mishandling of the issue. The IG also raised concerns about the staff's practices regarding documentation of conversations between the NRC i
staff and licensees, and tracking of licensee commitments,madeJiuring those conversations.
A In April 1996, the NRC staff initiated reviews to identify)-a dress the lessons learned from this issue. This initiative include i
f the evaluatingthestaff'sprocessforreviewingpoweruprate/sarevewo staff's process for reviewing computer code methodologies
-It-also includes amendment requests.
Furthermore, the handling of Action Item II.K.3.31. for MYAPS raised questions regarding the adequacy of the NRC staff's closeout of TMI Action Items. To respond to the questions, the staff is reviewing the process followed for closing out Action Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 for all plants currently holding operating licenses. The staff is also reviewing the closeout of
/
s Action Item II.K.3.5 regarding reactor coolant pump trip issues because of its relationship to the other items. This review of the action item closeout process entails evaluating NRC technical staff involvement, NRC management
/Al, oversight, and communications both internally and with the licensees. C Finally, the lessons learned process entails evaluating current policy and 3^
practices regarding internal and external communications, licensee commitment tracking, technical staff involvement, and management oversight. Work is progressing on these actions with some of them already having been completed.
By the end of 1996,'the staff will report to the Commission its findings and actions taken and~ proposed.
e, M g -
Specifically, the staff is comparing completed staff reviews of several LOCA codes for consistency in approach and quality of review.
The staff is also evaluating the code modification process and staff followup of code implementation.
.The Honorable Bill Goodling s appropriate enforcement action in accordance with the Commission's regulations.. The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will then issue a Director's Decision regarding Mr. Sears' petition. Mr. Sears will be informed directly of the Director's Decision.
The NRC Office of the Inspector General (0!G) investigated the role of the NRC staff.'in the development of this issue. Mr. Sears sent you the OIG report of May 8, 1996. OIG found deficiencies in the NRC staff's review and closure of Action Item II.K.3.31 for MYAPS and noted several missed opportunities for the i
NRC staff to have identified and corrected the mishandling of the issue. The OIG report also raised concerns about the staff's practices regarding j
documentation of conversations between the NRC staff and licensees, and'the tracking of licensee commitments made during those conversations.
In April 1996, the NRC staff initiated reviews to identify and address the lessons learned from this experience. This initiative includes evaluating the i
staff's process for reviewing computer code methodologies.
It also includes evaluating the staff's process for reviewing power uprate amendment requests.
Furthermore, the handling of Action Item II.K.3.31 for MYAPS raised questions regarding the adequacy of the staff's closeout of TMI action items. To respond to the questions, the staff is reviewing the process followed for closing out Action Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 for all plants currently holding operating licenses. The staff is also reviewing the closeout of Action Item II.K.3.5 regarding automatic trip of reactor coolant pumps during loss-of-coolant accidents. This review of the action item closeout process entails evaluating NRC technical staff involvement, NRC management oversight, and communications both internally and with the licensees.
Finally, the lessons learned process entails evaluating current policy and practices regarding internal and external communications, licensee commitment tracking, technical staff involvement, and management oversight.
By the end of 1996, the staff will report to the Commission its findings and actions taken and proposed.
I appreciate Mr. Sears' sharing his perspective on these matters, and I hope that the actions the staff is taking will alleviate his concerns regarding NRC oversight of computer code usage.
Sincerely,-
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations' DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\DORMAN\\GT96679.GRN
- see previous con rence Ts seselve e sepy of tido desument,Indsete in the bes: *C' = Copy without ettechmenuencloswa
0FFICE PD4-2:LA l
- TECH ED l
PD1-3:PM E
~
NAME EPeyton m P /
RSanders DDorman:dt M)
SMrgaf /
RZimmerman mamme mammse umammu mamma mummu 0FFICE OGC NRR:D EDO OCA NAME WTRussell JTaylor DATE 09/ /96 09/ /96 09/ /96 09/ /96 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l
4 1
The Honorable Bill Goodling relationship to the other items. This review of the action item closeout process entails evaluating NRC technical staff involvement, NRC managem oversight, and communications both internally and with the licensees.
I appreciate Mr. Sears' sharing his perspective on these matters.
Sincerely, James M. Taylor Executive Direc r for Operatio s DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File (50-309)
RZimmerman NRR Mail Room (GT96679 (w/ original incoming)
PDI-3 Reading w/inc) (0-12-G-18)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
(w/incomin N01 son EDO #96679 SVarga CNorsworthy i
ED0 Reading JZwolinsk DDorman w/ incoming JTaylor PMilano EPeyton l
JMilhoan JGoldb g, 0GC HMiller, RI 1
HThompson GLong, OGC JFRogge, RI JBlaha OPA SECY # CRC-96-0947 WRussell/FMiraglia OC DOCUMENT NAME:
- \\DORMAN\\GT96679.GRN
- See previous concurrence To receive a py of this document, indicate in the box:
"C" - Copy without attachment /e losure "E" - Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" - No copy 1
0FFICE PD143:PMls TECH ED l PD4-2:LAl, DRPE:D l
DD:DSSA l
.s NAME DForman:dtD4S RSanders*
EPeytoN" '
SVarga*
RJones*
DATE 49/26/96 09/12/96 09/96/96, 09/16/96 09/18/96 OFFICE' ADPR OGC noste D:'NRfff EDO NAME' RZimmerman*
JGoldberg*
.fhlrfgfia JTaylor i
DATE 09/19/96 09/26/96 V09/f97 /96
/
/96 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
s j
The Honorable Bill Goodling with some of them already having been completed.
By the end of 1996, the staff will report to the Commission its findings and actions taken and proposed.
I appreciate Mr. Sears' sharing his perspective on these matter.
I consider the actions the staff is taking regarding NRC oversight of computer code usage to be responsive to his concerns.
Sincerely, James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File (50-309)
RZimmerman NRR Mail Room (GT96679 (w/ original incoming)
PDI-3 Reading w/inc) (0-12-G-18)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
(w/ incoming)
N01 son EDO #96679 SVarga CNorsworthy EDO Reading JZwolinski DDorman w/ incoming JTaylor PMilano EPeyton JMilhoan JGoldberg, OGC' HMiller, RI HThompson GLongo, 0GC JFRogge, RI JBlaha OPA SECY # CRC-96-0947 WRussell/FMiraglia OCA DOCUMENT NAME:
G:\\00RMAN\\GT96679.GRN
- See previous concurrence To receive a oopy of this document,indeosto in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure T = Copy with anachment/enolosure T = No copy OFFICE PO4-21A l TECH ED l PD1-3:PM l DRPE:D l
DD:DSSA l
NAME EPeyton*
RSandero*
00er-an:e*
Svarge*
RJones*
DATE 08/13/98 88/12/98 88/13/96 0e/14/06 08/10/06 OFFICE EDO NAME Ra--er-.n-
%.aoa wR -
n.yior DATE 08/19/96 Se/M,f;;Qd 4e/ tes "0FFICA. RECORD COPY
c) -
UNITE 3 STATES rq FA t
NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMISSION P
.i, Q)
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20M5 i
a o ~ t l
EDO Principal Correspondence Contro
^#
FROM:
DUE:
9/19/96 EDO CONTROL: GT96679 Rep. Bill Goodling DOC DT: 8/30/96 FINAL REPLY:
~
TO:
Dennis Rathbun, OCA FOR SIGNATURE OF:
- GRN CRC NO: 96-0947 Executive Director DESC:
ROUTING:
Taylor ENCLOSES LETTER FROM PATRICK M. SEARS RE THERM 0 HYDRAULIC Milhoan COMPUTER CODE, RELAP AP5YA & OIG REPORT MAINE YANKEE Thompson DATE:
Blaha 9/6/96 HMiller,RI ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
Lieberman,0E NRR Russell Cyr, OGC SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS.
Ref. GT96383 & GT96659 Reply to Camp Hill, PA Office.
NRR RECEIVED:
SEPTEMBER 6, 1996 NRR ACTION:
DRPE:VARGA I
i NRR ROUTING:
RUSSELL l
MIRAGLIA THADANI ZIMMERMAN MARTIN B0HRER gg}[Q l
DUE T0!NRR DIRECTOR'S OFFI BY b' I k 7
/
(
e -
AuprW.
i i
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET l
PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-96-0947 LOGGING DATE: Sep 4 96 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:
BILL GOODLING AFFILIATION:
U.S.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES l
ADDRESSEE:
RATHBUN.
3 LETTER DATE:
Aug 30 96 FILE CODE: IDR-5 MAINE YANKEE i
SUBJECT:
NRC'S INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT INVOLVING CONST AND MAINE-YANKEE
' ACTION:
Signature of EDO DISTRIBUTION:
CHAIRMAN l
SPECIAL HANDLING: OCA TO ACK 1
CONSTITUENT:
NOTES:
DATE DUE:
Sep )4' 96 l
SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
a 4
s.
l 4
s i
s EDO -- GT96679
.,,