ML20198M971

Summarizes 971007 Meeting W/Listed Attendees in Rockville,Md to Discuss Yr 2000 Software Issues for Npps.Meeting Agenda Encl

ML20198M971
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/20/1997
From:	Malloy M NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Essig T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9710300238
Download: ML20198M971 (35)

Text

t 4?'*%

y t

UNITED STATES sg

.]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

2 WASHINGTON, D.C. SonHoot

%*****/

October 20, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Thomas H. Essig, Acting Chief Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch j uff Division of Reactor Program Management

.j)//

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Q

FROM:

Melinda Malloy, Senior Reactor Engl Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUMMARY

OF OCTOBER 7,1997, MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEl) ON " YEAR 2000" SOFTWARE ISSUES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS On October 7,1997, representatives of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) met with representatives of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the Nuclear Utility Software Management Group (NUSMG) at the NRC's offices in Rockville, Maryland. The list of meeting attendees is provided in Attachment 1.

In a letter from James Davis (NEI) to Hugh Thompson (NRC) dated September 15.1997, Mr. Davis provided an update on actions NEl was taking to help utilities to make their plants

" Year 2000 ready." ln his letter, Mr. Davis recommended this meeting of industry representatives and interested NRC staff to share views and concems on industry plans and actions to address " Year 2000" (Y2K) computer software issues relating to nuclear power plants and plant systems necessary to support operations. The meeting agenda is provided in Attachment 2.

John Jolicoeur of the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data oescribed the efforts to update the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) for the Year 2000. His presentation included some background on the ERDS and the importance of date fields to the system. He then detailed the main features of the NRC's ERDS action plan and the current schedule. He is planning to complete testing of the NRC Operations Center ERDS in November 1998. He indicated that where licensees are planning to make software changes to their ERDS interfaces, he needs to know what upgrades licensee are performing on their j

ERDS software and the projected completion dates. This information is necessary so that he i

can adequately plan and schedule testing of the NRC-licensee interfaces. Mr. Jolicoeur's

/

talking points are included as Attachment 3.

Hugh Thompson, the NRC Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs, remarked that the NRC has a regulatory framework that if usud correctly, will be appropriate for addressing the safety issues associated with the Y2K problem at nuclear power piants. Because of the heightened interest in the Y2K issue, it is important for the NRC to be able to communicate bJLbb fl f.

[

o,,

NM10:1 9710000238 971020 g

g PDR REVGP ERONUMRC l

}&D PDR

~ m.' W.

Thomas H. Essig 2

October 20, 1997 the progress of the regulated community in addressing the Y2K issue for its facilities. He stated that NRC is seeking to have a mechanism for periodic communication between the NRC and licensees regarding licensee progress in addressing Y2K issues, and he asked for input on what the industry considered to be appropriate in terms of periodic feedback from individuallicensees to the NRC. He indicated that the NRC was considering whether a communication mechanism could provide sufficient oversight or whether a special NRC inspection activity would be needed. The NRC would expect euch utility to identify a point of contact with whom the NRC could interface on Y2K matters.

Mr. Davis explained that the overall goals of the industry are to keep nuclear power plants safe and on line into the Year 2000. He stated that because of time kmitations associated with the Y2K problem, rather than trying to prepare a consensus document, NEl drew upon talent within NUSMG to prepare a framework document for utility use in approaching their Y2K readiness efforts as a project. He said that NEl was not offering the document as an initiative and as such, there was no assurance that all utilities would follow it. For the purposes of discussion, he handed out copies of the draft document to all meeting attendees (these were collected at the end of the meeting per NEl's request since NEl did not want to make the draft document publicly available at this time). He also said that NEl/NUSMG was not looking for the NRC's approval of the document, but was discussing it with the NRC as a courtesy and that they would consider the NRC's comments.

Mr. Davis pointed out that the framework document makes a distinction in terminology between "Y2K readiness"(meaning devices or systems will be able to function properly on and after January 1, 2000) and "Y2K compliant" (meaning devices and systems have been modified to use a four-digit year input correctly). NEl expects to issue the completed document to the industry (through the NUSMG representatives and NEl administrative points of contact) by the end of the month. At that time, the NRC staff will also be provided a copy and the document could be made publicly available. Mr. Davis plans to discuss the Y2K issue during his meetings with utility executives. NEl/NUSMG is planning to offer a full day of training on the framework document for allinterested parties on November 14,1997, in San Francisco. The NRC staff was invited to attend this training session.

Morgan Libby of the NUSMG task force provided an overview of the draft framework document (Attachment 4). He emphasized that the document espouses managing Y2K issues as a project, addressing all appropriate software and interfaces. Quality assurance is embedded in all aspects of the program. He stressed thet there is a continuing commitment on the part of NEl and NUSMG to assist the utilities. NEl plans to establish an on line information exchange mechanism for its members, which will be a forum for the Y2K managers at each utility to share information and advice on their experiences in implementing their Y2K programs. NEl expects that the training to be offered in November and this on-line information exchange will ensure consistent implementation. Other NUSMG task force members then discussed the content of each section of the framework document in more detail. Overall, the task force members believe there is sufficient time far all utilities to make their plants Y2K ready.

U

=

O Thomas H. Essig October 20, 1997 Jared Wermiel, Chief of the instrumentation and Controls Branch and the NRC's Y2K program manager for power reactors, provided feecaack on behalf of the NRC staff to NEl and NUSMG on their presentation and the draft framework document. He commended NEl and NUSMG on their development of a good reference document in such a short period time and their plans to offer training to utilities. He expressed his view that alllicensees attend the training session NEl/NUSMG will be offering. He indicated that licensees should be addressing safety related systems first in their Y2K programs. He also indicated, health and safety should not impede nuclear power plants sta Mr. Wermlel remarked that the draft document did not provide as much detail as was conveyed by the task force members in their section by section presentations. He stated that the NRC would like to see revisions to address and/or stress the following points:

The iterative nature of the Y2K program efforts. Many steps of the process overlap and may need to be repeated.

C The need for initial testing, remediation, and post remediation testing to ensure that problems have been adequately addressed.

• The "living" nature of the project. A feedback loop should exist wherein utilities compa their progress to the established plan and make appropriate adjustments tu the plan and schedule.

Mr. Wermiel explained that the staff was not yet in a position to say more atnut its future plans for ensuring that licensees address Y2K issues beyond what was said in SEC

" Year 2000 Computer issue," September 24,1997. He stated that the NRC needs confidence that its licensees are coing the right things to become Y2K ready. In order to obtain that confidence, he indicated that the NRC may ne~' certain information from licensees (perhaps via issuance of a letter to licensees pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f), as discussed in SECY 97-213). Information of interest would likely include licensee plans and schedules.

The relative merits of tha NRC issuing a 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter were discussed, altho was clear that some industry representatives present were not supportive of this approach.

Some of the industry representatives suggested that an NRC bulletin on Y2K may be mo appropriate. M", Wermiet indicated that th6 NRC may reouest, at some point in time, a licensee certift,ation that their plant (s) are Y2K ready. H : said that the NRC has not ye decided whether it should require periodic reports from licensees and whether it needs to perform follow up inspections. However, the NRC does need to make sure that every licensee is on a path to meet its implementation schedules for addressing Y2K issues O

~

I Thomas H. Essig 4

October 20, 1997 Mr. Davis responded that NEl wants to keep open the lines of communication with the NRC on this topic, and it is important to NEl that it has a clear understanding of what concerns the NRC needs to address.

Attachments:

^

1. List of Attendees

2. Meeting Agenda for 10/7

3. NRC's Talking Points on Updating ERDS for Y2K

4. NEl's/NUSMG's Briefing Slides Project No. 689 cc w/atta: See next page Distribution:

Hard Cqpy Ce m etf9es PUBLIC PGEB r/f HICB r/f MMalloy SMagruder JWermiel i

E-Mail HThompson, DEDR MChiramal WDean, DEDR

- SCollins/FMiraglia DSpaulding Regional Administrators JRoe RZimmeanan

,ACRS DMatthews AHansen TEssig FGillespie FAkstulewicz CPapierello, NMSS MMalloy GPurdy, NMSS BSheron TTMartin, AEOD RSpessard/COThomas JJolicoeur, AEOD JWermiel Alevin, IRM JMauck JVoglewede, IRM Document Name: g:\\mxm\\MSUM1007.97

[g

• See Previous Concurrences OFFICE PGEB:DRPM C:HjCB:DfCH _kh:DRPM (A)C:PGER:DRPM r

NAME 1WIMatT69 ifw JWeh.

)h kstulewicz TEssig kd DATE-10/41d97 10/lb /97

'801%97 10/7e /97 OFFICIAL RfCORD COPY

Thomas H. Essig 4

October 20, 1997 Mr. Davis responded that NEl wants to keep open the lines of communication with the NRC on this topic, and it is important to NEl that it has a clear understanding of what concems the NRC needs to address.

i j

Attachments:

1. List of Atteadees

2. Meeting Agenda for 10/7

3. NRC's Talking Points on Updating ERDS for Y2K

4. NEl's/NUSMG's Briefing Slides Project No. 68g cc w/atts: See next page r

i 1

i i

[.

4

• 'l','.

, f T

~

~

,,,.w..t 4

s-nwmmnwers---

+~~~~s

• '*'"^""'"'""#*

NRC-NEl MEETING OH YEAR 2000 SOFTWARE ISSUES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS October 7,1997 List of Attendees home OraanizatlOn William F. Asen NUSMG Program Manager Terry M. Baxter*

• NEl/ Union Electric Co.

George W. Busch'

• GPU Nuclear, Inc.

Rick Cowles Self Sidney Crawford Self James W. Davis Nuclear Energy institute Patrick E. Fitch Self & SEMA, Inc.

H. M. Fontecilla Virginia Power, Arizona Public Service Wayne H. Glidden* '

Duquesne Light i

Allen Hansen NRC/NRR/PD3 3 Anne P. Houck'

• Duke Energy John Jolicoeur NRC/AEOD Debble LaPay Westinghouse Arnold E. (Moe) Levin' NRC/lRM Morgan D. Libby NUSMG Richard H. Lomax*

• Nebraska Public Power District Melinaa Malloy NRC/NRR/DRPM/PGEB Jerry L. Mauck NRC/NRRIORCH/HICB Steve Mixon NUS Information Services William Olsen

Quality Systems, Inc.

Gary Purdy NRC/NMSS/INMS Judith H. Schulte

Duke Energy Deirdre Spaulding NRC/NRR/DRCH/HICB R. Lee Spessard NRC/NRR/DRCH Hugh L. Thompson' NRC/DEDR

' Partial attendance John Voglewede NRC/lRM

• *NUSMG task force Jared S. Wermlel NRC/NRRIDRCH/HICB Abbreviations AEOD Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data DEDR Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs DRCH Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors DRPM Division of Resctor Program Management HICB instrumentation and Controls Branch IMN'd D! vision of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety IRM Office of Information Resources Management NEl Nuclear Energy Instituto NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Dgulation NUSMG Nuclear Utility Software Management Group PD project directorate PGEB Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch SEMA Systems Engineering and Management Associates

NRC NEl MEETING ON " YEAR 2000" SOFTWARE ISSUES Rockville, MD October 7,1997 Ananda

1. Introduction of Attendees All

2. Purpose of Meeting NRC Staff 1

3. Description of Updata to GDS AEOD

4. Dascription of NEl/NUSMG Year 2000 Task Force Efforts NEl/NUSMG

5. NRC Plans for Confidence in Licensee Year 2000 Efforts NRC Staff

6. Summary and Future Actions NRC Staff /NEl t

I i

<.cw.:, p

.x

.1 i

8 o

i i

ti UPDATING THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE DATA SYSTEM FOR THE YEAR 2000 i

i t

PRESENTED BY:

JOHN R. JOLICOEUR AEOD/lRD 1

OCTOBER 7,1997 l

l I

i

\\

t

[

I I

i 1

i i

I

O i

. i.

BACKGROUND i

i t

- 4

i e

ERDS is a near-real time data link from licenaee site computers to the NRC

]l Operations Center j!

!j Requirements in 10CFR50 Appendix E.

e Link is licensee initiated within one hour of declaration of an Emergency

]

Classification of Alert or higher 1

Send preselected data point information at update rates between 15 and 60 e

seconds t

i

~

i

[

i f

WHY IS THE DATE IMPORTANT TO ERDS?

i All intercomputer messages contain date/ time fields e

l Date / time information used to establish database size and indexing e

Data displays depend on correct processing of date / time information to access data Failure to properly handle date / time issues could cause various system e

problems ranging from inaccurate data storage / retrieval to total system failures associated with operating system processing errors.

ERDS currently uses a 2 digit year field.

ERDS ACTION PLAN Evaluate the impact of year 2000 on the operating environment e

Review Operating System Vendors' literature, notices, reported problems, t

and customer complaints Focus on products like TPCWARE, DEC network products, DEC server l

software, cluster software, etc.

i 1

Hardware products impacted?

q Software impact on ERDS / ADACS i

Identify testing requirements I

Perform code review of all ERDS / ADACS code e

Contact ADACS manufacturer for already identified problems Identify potential software modification requirements f

Identify testing requirements t

Migrate the ERDS man-machine interface to R* Time / WIN version 2.x including e

support for 4 digit dates on all displays Perform all required hardware and software updates. Include modification to e

l accept 4 digit years in the data stream I

Ensure that the need to change licensee ERDS interface is not driven by ERDS updates, but by licensee needs.

include edits to allow existing 2 digit year data streams Make necessary mods to parse and validate 4 digit year data streams i

I i

YEAR 2000 TESTING Testing of al! ERDS data and system functions around the following dates:

e End of year 1998 End of year 1999 February 28,2000 j

End of year 2000 Daylight Savings Time adjustments in spring and fall of 2000 l;

Testing oflicensee ERDS interfaces u

SCHEDULE

~

Complete all software / hardware mods - September 1998 e

Complete testing and resolve all testing issues - November 1998 e

Year 2000 compliant in the Operations Center - December 1998 e

i

' Schedule could be accelerated by up to six months with additional funding e

{

l CONTACTS

?

i NRC ERDS PROJECT MANAGER John R. Jolicoeur

{

AEOD/lRD

)

Phone: (301) 415-6383 hl l

E-mail: JRJ1@NRC. GOV l

1 ERDS CONTRACTOR (SCIENTECH, INC)

PROJECT MANAGER t

4 Ms. K. Lynne Saul l

Phone: (208) 524-9371 E-mail: LSAUL@if.scientech.com l

i i

LEAD SOFTWARE ENGINEER l

Ms. JoAnne Roberts Phone: (208) 524-9368 E-mail: JROBERTS@if.scientech.com

m E

Year 2000 and Nuclear Utilities l

fe and On-Line A contribution to theNhclear Utility Industry w :;..

by the Nuclear Istig J s Software isp Management Group an it ar Energy Institu "

,in nn, w-

~ ~-u

n m

n Setting the Stage

+ Fall 96 - Y2K made a:SUSMG Issue by

- Steering Committee May 97 - Y2K takes center stage %...dX l

+

SUSMG nweting but more is neede July 97 - Special 2 day Y2K meeting lhy

+

+ significant progress and capability by utiliti ?

+ opportunity for NUSMG to communicate it

+ NEI desire to facilitate

+ committed resources to this Task Force 10/7/97 Page 2

e n

Producing the Document

+ Aug. 25th - first Task Forcheeting

+ Sept.12th - first draft issued Oct. 7th - draft discussion with XR gg

+

End of Oct. - distribute to NUSMG R[g#$

+

and XEI Administrative Points of Conta fg a

Xov.14th - provide full day training for a {m{

+

interested parties

~

Provide continuing support as requested

+

10/7/97 Page 3

..;.n -

u_____

n n

n Which brings us to today

+ This discussion:

+ Present an overview of the draft o e >

'i document

+ Discuss the content and answer questio

+ Provide an opportunity for further j

understanding of concerns and issues After the discussion - reflect on the

+

discussions and determine any appropriate additions or changes 10/7/97 Page 4

n n

Features of the Document

+ Pooled resources means the%est of the best:

t

+ Awareness - Management and sta e

+ Commitment - to the Project and Sta%teh.. ers

+ Ownership

+ Participation

+ Manage as a Project

+ Address appropriate software and Interfaces

+ Quality Assure products and processes

+ Document activities and decisions 10/7/97 Page5 L______

m n

n

1. Introduction This is an Awareness statemht to senior

+

j management of utilities and theF l rect reports.

E e

It expresses the commitment of both

• pjj

+

NUSMG and NEI to assist nuclear utili with an important and complex problem l

10/7/97 Page 6

o

^

o..,

2. Purpose and Scope

+ Our Purpose is to recomme methods to address the Y2K problem.

The Scope is broad N,

+

n.

+ It fully encompasses safety and all licen hy Y*jy..

requirements and commitments M

+ It emphasizes the neec. for nuclear generatin " g units to be on-line through the date rollover j 10/7/97 Page 7 SF

~

^

^

n...

3. Definitions

+ We have used standard Y2kstgenninology

+

We have used common nuclear tsg%

inology Y2K Ready Validation ifs Y2K Compliant Objective Evidenc.;

Remediation Interfaces 10/7/97 Page 8

.i..

s

i n

n n

4. Management Plan

+ This is more than an IT pro)qt - it must be managed as the business woulc ajor component replacement or remedian;g, The Project must establish interfaces 'ET'

+

It must receive oversight from managent

+

10/7/97 Page 9

n n

n L y3-?

4. Management Plan Awareness Project Rh rts Sponsorship Interfaces hffj' Project Leadership Resources S a 7

Project Objectives Oversight

~

Project Management Team Quality Assuran 1

Management Plan Implementati

!0/7/97 Page 10 l

m n

n

..,1

5. Implementation Plan 3

n the Initial Assessment we.

I

+ Ensure Awareness N.

%i

+ Establish the inventory 4::

+ Categorize according 1:o "tyae"

+ Classify according to "importance"

+ Prioritize the detailed evaluations

+ Revise estimates and alans 10/7/97 Page11

l

~

e n..

o f

5. Implementation Plan i

+ In the Detailed Assessmenth:

^

+ Establish vendor responsibility %.

Np

+ Evaluate utility-responsible software 9$,1j i

g x

+ Evaluate interfaces i Pa e6

+ Plan the Remediat: ion effort

%Y 9t:

+ Xotify affected parties ig;.

k j,

L

m

..)

n o

a t.,.

s. imp

• enta' t10" yun S

gh g oatASS****

• l'$d* y.

):

petad. 6 ASS **,,,31 e

4 gemedia0 "

• ?

yandan "

gon6ca0 "

1011l91 meo

n n

a 5.2 Initial Assessment i

Inventory Cate8orization F :.m qg;S msg fD.

Classification Prioritization Adjust Plans 10/7/97 Page 14

n n

n 5.3 Detailed Assessment Vendor Evaluation - Testing N.

Utility-Owned Evaluation - Test n 11]

Interface Evaluation - Testing 9

Remediation Planning 10/7/97 Page 15

n o

n

6. Quality Assurance

+ Quality Assurance measurehe an integral j

part of the process

\\

QA provides a barrier that prevent

+

are from compromising safety or operaal

~

Existing QA processes are acceptable

+

10/7/97 Page 16

l k6 o

i2 4[gj7 7

1 eg d

a hy P

gd i

4 t

s'%

rop s

e n

s R

mio t

s s

e a

n i

t s

s s

u o

s n

y yl a

it n

o s

l n

a S

v

^

a o

i r

i t

o n

e E

e t

a 3

i A

s d

a u7 t

a nl a ul is l

a 0

u y

o g

n a

v5 t

p e

la e

o vE f

s L

2 v

a e

C 9

E 5

y7 E

S Rd y

t 0

n y

l 5

y o

y a

i r

0 t

e i

t t

c o

5 f

b i

s nl t

a i

1 l

a a

R a

2 b

e e

i l

S t

u F

r t

a g

g c

g CC o

ra r

n r

n pP e

a e

a e

R e

ph min R

0 NR OCE F

+

1 79

/7 7

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

0

/

^

1

1 n

c, 4

I

• dkJ l

8. Documentation q

Imparts expectations l

+

1 l

Provides Objective Evidence

+

%m Facilitates oversight and manageme*i{gg

+

Records the bases of management andi~

);

+

technical decisions made Q

k, Mw

• h

~ l;'

l

~

l0/7/97 Page 18 i

? '2,

m n

p

8. Documentation Establishes Requirements Captures Management Records

~

y%.

Nkg"$gg Captures Vendor Records i;

Inventory Information tig5?!!E d!!

Checklists 4

y Certificates of Completior' Retains Records 10/7/97 Page 19

e m

The continuing commitment of l

XEI and:SUSMG i

+ XEI will provide on-line in ation l

exchange mechanism for nucle ilities i

f

+ :SUSMG will provide training and *t consultation services to nuclear utiliti e

+ Both will ensure consistent information "

communicated to a;l nuclear utilities

(

Both will encourage utility implementation,~

+

of the Y2K Document 10/7/97 Page 20

.- t -

h_

.- NEl --

Project No. 689 cc:

Mr. Ralph Beedle-William F. Olsen, Vice President Senior Vice President -

. Operations

. and Chief Nuclear Officer-Quality Systems, Inc.

Nuclear Energy institute P.O. Box 410 Suite 400 Birdsboro, PA 19508 1776 i Street, NW

' Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Alex Marion, Director Mr. Jim Davis, Director -

Programs Operations Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. David Modoen, Director Engineering Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director Plent Support Nuclear Energy Iristituta

- Nuclear Energy institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Anthor.y Pietrangelo, Director

- Mr. Terry M. Baxter Licensing -

L Nuclear Energy Institute

. P.O. Box 620 Fulton, MO - 65251 Suite 400.

1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 J

Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Mr. Rick Cowles -

Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities 129 W.' Main Street.

Nuclear and Advanced Technology Div.

Penns Grove, NJ 08069 Westinghouse Electric Corporation -

P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - 15230 Mr. Patrick E. Fitch, Director,

Product Development SEMA, Inc.

2000 N. Beaurega-d Street Suite 600 Alexandria, VAL 22311

- +.

..u-,.,>-s,-

x....

e I.

o.

ao NEl.

Project No. 689 Ms. Anne P. Houck, Project Manager cc:

Year 2000 Program information Management Duke Energy 400 South Tryon Street /WC11A P.O. Box 1007 Charlotte, NC K.201-1007 Ms. Deborah L. LaPay, Manager Software Technology & Development Nuclear Services Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355.

l Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. Morgan D. Libby, Manager l

l Quality Software Program

{

Northeast Utilities Service Company P.O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06141-0270 wwaA

=. - =.*

m es,

,...w.-

,,.e.,

w._

_ _ _ _ _ _. d