ML20203A290
| ML20203A290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/31/1999 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202H350 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9902090330 | |
| Download: ML20203A290 (85) | |
Text
--.-A-A k-- 6+AA- o 'uwe n L g -Ma n-Ja- -- 4- k44 Anw4 S.r,A+- --.,d L A - A4-r4-r sAe-44 h-4-n* ~-u- d M LM a&&4 mL-+ M s6ASd6 +4nLs,ao 4
9 Enclosure 1 i
6 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT ON THE LICENSING ACTIVITIES AND REGULATORY DUTIES OF THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR AEGULATORY COMMISSION JANUARY 1999 9902090330 990129 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR I~
TABLE OF CONTENTS l- ,
I l
- I L
L 1. Implementing Risk-informed Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 l l
l
- 11. Nuclear Plant Assessment, inspection and Enforcement Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 i l
L . Ill. . Status of Issues in the Reactor Generic issue Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 !
i IV. Nuclear Power Plants on the Watch List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
]
V. Licensing Actions; . . . . . . .............................................3 i
VI. Status of Calvert Cliffs License Renewal Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 j l
l
- Vll. Status of Review of Private Fuel Storage, Limited Liabi'ity Corporation's
- (PFS) Application for a License to Operate an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFS!) on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of
- Goshute Indians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ 8 Vill. Summary of Reactor Enforcement by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 l
l j
l.
r.
L .
l l .
[ -I l
t l
I'
(-
l I
L .
w -s~ , . . ., . .--
n, -e ,,cs. , e- ,m ,, ,
- l. Implementing Risk-informed Regulations in the area of risk-informed and performance-based regulation, the staff has made progress on l tasks in all activity categories, particularly in the Evaluation of Industry Proposals and i
Rulemaking category. For example, the staff issued a paper on December 23,1998, to the Commission proposing high-level options for modifying regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 to make them risk-informed and to delineate associated policy issues for Commission consideration (SECY-98-300). Tne effort is expected to include the development of risk-informed definitions for safety-related and important-to-safety structures, systems, and components (SSC) and to l explore changes to the body of the Part 50 regulations which would incorporate risk-informed l attributes (e.g., a new set of design-basis accidents, provisions for risk-informed alternatives to the present requirements, and deleting unnecessary or ineffective regulations). On January 11, 1999, the staff briefed the Commission on the options for modifying regulations in 10 CFR Part i
- 50. After receiving Commission guidance, the staff will develop a rulemaking plan which l includes more complete resource and schedule estimates. The primary objective of this effort l is the development of a risk-informed regulatory framework that will enhance safety as well as l reduce unnecessary staff and licensee burden.
l i
Specific licensing actions related to NRC's risk-informed initiatives, completed by the staff since the December report include: the issuance of a safety evaluation approving a risk-informed j piping inspection methodology at Arkansas Nuclear One, an extension of the allowed outage I time for charging pumps at Cornanche Peak, and the notification to licensees of an opportunity to relax requirements for post-accident hydrogen monitoring,
- 11. Nuclear Plant Assessment, inspection and Enforcement Processes On January 8,1999, the NRC staff forwarded to the Commission recommendations for changes to the inspection, assessment, and enforcement processes to improve their objectivity,
, make them more understandable and predictable, and provide increased focus on aspects of licensee performance that have the greatest impact on safe plant operation. These recommendations, released for public comment on January 12,1999, represent the collective work from three task groups and incorporate valuable stakeholder input received during the development process. Among the benefits associated with the proposed process changes are:
- increased objectivity by relying on objective performance indicators, where possible, to provide much of the basis for determining safety performance, and using risk-informed thresholds to determine expected regulatory and licensee response.
- Increased scrutability by more clearly relating information from inspections and performance indicators to their impact on overall safety performance.
- Elimination of redundancies from the current processes by developing a single, integrated assessment process that sends a clear message regarding licensee performance.
- Better incorporation of risk insights in the new risk-informed baseline inspection program l and in the performance indicator thresholds.
1
~ _ _. ._ _
- Reduced burden on licensees and NRC staff by defining specific performance thresholds that must be crossed prior to implementing additional NRC oversight activities.
The staff believes that the recommended changes to the inspection and assessment processes will result in a regulatory oversight process that provides ample warning of declining licensee performance prior to an unacceptable risk being presented to the public. The revised inspection and assessment processes should also provide ample time for licensees to take focused corrective actions.
A transition plan and success criteria have been drafted to guide future development efforts.
The transition plan contains milestones for both the NRC and industry. Successful implementation will require continuing interaction with the industry and other stakeholders at various stages. Significant investment in staff and management resources also will be required to complete the necessary supporting documents and infrastructure, develop and train staff, and manage all aspects of the resulting change effort. A major feature of the transition plan will include piloting the process at two sites in each region for six months, beginning in June 1999.
The results of the pilot program will be measured against success criteria prior to proceeding with fullimplementation. Training will be provided to the staff throughout the process, culminating in a joint NRC/ stakeholder workshop prior to full implementation. Existing processes such as plant performance reviews and senior management meetings will be phased out as they are replaced by the new risk-informed oversight process.
Several key policy issues must be considered before arriving at a final process for implementation, including issues involving resident and regional inspector staffing. The overall oversight process will be evaluated after about one year of full implementation. This evaluation will verify that the oversight process objectives are being met.
Ill. Status of issues in the Reactor Generic issue Program Changes in the status or resolution dates for Generic Safety issues since the December 1998 report and the reasons for the changes are described below:
GSI Number: B-55 TITLE - Improve Reliability of Target Rock Safety Relief Valves SCHEDULED RESOLUTION DATE From 03/99 to 12/99 STATUS Three activities currently being performed by the industry are being reviewed to determine whether they adequately resolve the issue. The resolution date has been extended to 12/99 to accommodate the Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group final recommendation. The Owners Group recommendation involves industry outage data which will not be available until later in the calendar year.
GSI Number: 190 TITLE Fatigue Evaluation of Metal Components for 60-Year Plant Life SCHEDULED RESOLUTION DATE From 07/99 to 12/99 2
l l
! i i STATUS Work on the technical basis (i.e., risk associated with fatigue failures) for a L possible resolution is ongoing. Present focus is on making improvements to the computer code L for this type analysis. Use of the current version of the code to resolve the issue would result in unnecessary burden for the industry. The resolution date was extended to 12/99 to allow for the completion of a revision of the computer code used for this analysis.
l IV. Nuclear Power Plants on the Watch List Millstone 2 and 3: ;
- . A paper providing the NRC staff's recommendation was provided to the Commission on l l January 12,1999, and a Commission meeting was held on January 19, to consider the need for l continued independent oversight of the licensee's employee concerns program. The decision to l retain, modify, or lift the order associated with Millstone independent oversight is currently
! under Commission deliberation. While still requiring Commission authorization prior to restart, Millstone Unit 2 completed fuel reload on January 6,1999, i
There is no change in the status of Clinton or LaSalle Units 1 and 2 since the December 1998 report.
V. Licensing Actions Licensing actions may be defined as requests for license amendments, exemptions from regulations, relief from inspection or surveillance requirements, topical reports submitted on a plant-specific basis, notices of enforcement discretion, or other licensee requests requiring NRC review and approval before they can be implemented by the licensee.
1 The FY 1999 NRC Performance Plan incorporates three output measures related to licensing l actions. These are: size of the licensing action inventory, number of licensing action completions per year, and age of the licensing action inventory. The actual FY 1998 results, the FY 1999 goals and the FY 19991 quarter results are shown in the table below.
I PERFORMANCE PLAN Output Measure FY 1998 Actual FY 1999 Target Q1 FY 1999 Actual Licensing actions 1425 1670 545 completed per year Size of licensing 1113 1000 927 actions inventory Age of licensing 65.6% s 1 year; 80% s 1 year; 77.1%s 1 year; action inventory 86.0% s 2 years; and 95% s 2 years; and 91.4% s 2 years; and 95.4% s 3 years old 100% s 3 years old 96.8% s 3 years old l
3 t
)
, 1 i
e l l
As a result of the managerial oversight and activities described in the December 1998 report, i NRC has made substantial progress towards meeting the licensing action age goal. The following charts demonstrate NRC's progress in meeting the three licensing action output measure goals.
I 1
i i l
l l
4
Nuclear Reactor Safety - Reactor Licensing Performance Plan Target: Licensing Action inventory s 1000 1800 Actual FY Goal 1600 -
O 1400 -
C
$ 120u Y 4 N Y+
_c
, g 1000 - -- ----- - - - - - - - - -
a 800 -
G
,C 600 -
m C i e 400 -
.2 .
J 200 -
0 ! !
NOV l JAN 98 I MAR l MAY I JUL I SEP l NOV l JAN 99 l MAR I MAY L JUL i SEP OCT 97 DEC FEB JUN AUG OCT DEC FEB APR JUN fR AUG
t Nuclear Reactor Safety - Reactor Licensing Performance Plan Target: Complete 1670 Licensing Actions 2000 Actual YTD Goal FY Goat 1800 -
1600 -
't3 #
i
~
e 1400 -
e ,
+'
.+' --
C2. 1200 ---
E U
O 1000 - /g .
m +,8 :
g: 800 -
.9 /
+/
$ 600 -
400
/+f
+/
2= g+ ,
0 :
NOV I JAN 98 I MAR ! MAY l JUL i SEP I NOV l JAN 99 l MAR I MAY l JUL I SEP OCT 97 DEC FEB APR JUN AUG OCT DEC FEB APR JUN AUG -
I 6
,> I l.,!!!I. :!;:i ;! l , 1ii,
. ; iI .l ! fjr Il!' . r j ; ; ;; ii
- Fa ;g=
0 s
r C E
0 1
0 8
0 6
0 4
0 2
0 a / D
+ E c
e y +
v o.
a
\
- T
+ ~
+ IC ,
g 3 -+ P O
\'
bO n s i.
E s \
- i s % D o iU G
A Dq+
L O-. S G
0 r n L S
i J
0 O R 7
e 1 S R
. i U M
J A
E 7 $
n c s A m a
T a
Y
/
/
/+
x i E A s 3
~
r Y > -
L
- a 2 IP R n
+ $
r e y
s -
n A
,a n -
t o 2 +
~ iE u
a S
3 ym
,. a A
g "
s
. c s e s
F .
s "
a =
E 3 +// "
. e % o o o
C E - - D C
e R
O
- D 5 o t
s . T s ' s 4 8
- i e
_ 9 y1ECO CE2 I 3 ].'
r y a
- t f
e e y
- a 1 s
S C C E
E
</ / v D -
D r % Y o v
o o
s s
. 0 " T t 8 + iC O % iC T
O c : [ P E po
. a t e s.
m G d* G e g r /_
oiU A . *iU A R
T a D L
O ._
d N
D L
O E
r R .,
iU J S i U A
B J
a n A i.
y R A 3
" r e ^
E m m + u a
NA E e ^
Y Y n
l l
1 R R c P s iP A 3 s
- iP A
u a
e ._
w s +
a n
n i
c -
- N n ._
iE e
B F +
l B
E F
a s s
+
e s
._ u J E
- m r n e
. 0
.u "D C
E
' , o . ,
_ C E
f o i s 7 .
a . , " D r y1E;O CE2 E C;Ee e
- P s
l
[*
i.
i l
VI. Status of Calvert Cliffs License Renewal Application ;
l All activities associated with the review of the Calvert Cliffs license renewal application are on L
schedule per the time line provided in the December 1998 report. The staff is preparing the j draft environmental statement and safety evaluation report for issuance in March 1999 to meet the next scheduled milestones.
Vll. Status of Review of Private Fuel Storage, Limited Liability Corporation's (PFS) Application for a License to Operate an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians
' There is no additional information over that which was offered in the last monthly report in this area.
l l
I l
l l
l l
I 8
~ _ ._ _
a I
Vill. Summary of Reactor Enforcement by Region Reactor Enforcement Actions
- Region l Region 11 Region Ill Region IV TOTAL December 98 0 0 0 0 0 Severity FY 99 YTD 0 0 0 0 0 Level l FY 98 Total 0 0 0 0 0 December 98 0 0 0 0 0 Severity FY 99 YTD 1 0 1 0 2 Level ll FY 98 Total 3 1 1 1 6 December 98 0 0 1 1 2 Severity FY 99 YTD 4 0 1 1 6 Level lil FY 98 Total 46 11 15 19 91 December 98 6 11 16 16 49 Severity FY 99 YTD 35 24 34 41 134 Level IV FY 98 Total 383 271 392 261 1307 December 98 29 13 28 24 94 Non-Cited FY 99 YTD 86 38 58 59 241 Severity LevelIV FY 98 Total 372 240 307 214 1133
- Numbers of violations are based on enforcement action tracki J (EATS) system data that may be subject to minor changes following verification. The number of Severity Level 1,11, lll listed refer to the number of Severity Level I,11,111 violations or problems. The monthly totals generally lag by 30 days due to insrcction report and enforcement development.
L 9
Description of Significant Actions (Severity Level I, ll, lii) in December 1998:
Consumers Power Company (EA 98-433)
Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant A Notice of Violation with no civil penalty was issued on December 11,1998, to Consumers Power Company. This action was based on a Severity Level ill violation which involved a surveillance test that had rendered the High Pressure Safety injection (HPSI) system inoperable for approximately 90 minutes during the test. The test procedure prescribed a system configuration that would have resulted in a portion of HPSI flow being diverted from the cold leg injection paths to a single hot leg injection path in the event of a loss-of coolant accident (LOCA). For a LOCA involving this hot leg injection path, enough flow could be diverted out the break to prevent both trains of HPSI from performing their safety function.
Inadequate engineering, operations and Plant Review Committee oversight of a surveillance procedure revision resulted in incorporating the incorrect system configuration. Because the facility had been the subject of escalated enforcement action within the last two years, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for Identification and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. Credit was given for both identifying this deficiency and for initiating prompt and effective corrcctive action. As a result, no civil penalty was proposed in this case.
Arizona Public Service Company. (EA 98-382)
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on December 21,1998, to Arizona Public Service Company. This action was based on a Severity Levelill problem which involved the degraded performance capability of the High Pressure Safety Injection (HPSI) system for certain accident conditions due to incorrectly assembled check valves that would have resulted in a decrease in flow to the reactor vessel significantly below the flow assumed in the safety analysis. In these accident conditions, the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) flow was reduced to the extent that by using the analysis of record, clad temperatures would have exceeded the regulatory limit of 2200' F.
This condition existed for approximately 6 years in Unit 1,5 years in Unit 2, and 1% years in Unit 3. The Severity Level ill problem consisted of three violations which involved: (1) failures to adhere to technical specification limiting conditions for operation when ECCS subsystems were inoperable; (2) a failure to identify and correct significant conditions adverse to quality despite numerous indicators; and (3) inadequate procedures which caused the problems and prevented timely identification of the significant conditions advelse to quality. Because the facility has been the subject of enforcement within the last two years, the staff considered whether credit was warranted for identification and corrective action. Credit was not warranted for identification because the problem was identified as a result cf an event and the facility had numerous prior opportunities to identify it. Credit was warranted for corrective actions because the licensee's conective actions were considered prompt and cornprehensive.
b ] naos, p i UNITED STATES s* Pg Enclosure 2 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
\w/ January 11, 1999 MEMORANDUMTO: Chairman Jackson FROM: William D. Travers -
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
UPDATE TO STAFF RESPONSE TO TASKING MEMORANDUM AND STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS Attached for your information is the staff's fourth update to the plan of short- and long-term actions to respond to selected issues raised during the July 30,1998, hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety and the July 17,1998, Commission meeting with stakeholders.
Additions and changes to the December 7,1998, update are marked in redline and strike out.
Explanations for changes are provided in the associated remarks.
Since August 1998, significant progress has been made toward achieving the goals established in all eight of the topic areas developed in response to the Tasking Memorandum and stakeholder concerns. Specific noteworthy accomplishments in each of the topics areas are provided in the following paragraphs.
In the area of " Risk Informed and Performance Based Regulation," the staff has: submitted a paper to the Commission identifying options for modifying 10 CFR Part 50 to be risk-informed; completed safety evaluations for risk-informed pilot licensing actions that may be utilized for guidance for both the staff and industry; completed safety evaluations for plant specific risk-informed licensing reviews; and developed a draft Probabilistic Risk Assessment standard and interim guidance for use iri establishing risk-informed regulation.
In the area of " Reactor inspection and Enforcement," the staff has: developed recommendations for a more risk-informed, efficient and effective baseline inspection program and associated transition strategy; implemented enforcement guidance that reduces annecessary regulatory burden associated with non-risk significant violations; and submitted a paper to the Commission that provides recommendations for changes to the enforcement policy. These activities have been closely coordinated with the development of a revised process for Reactor Licensee Performance Assessment and have had significant involvement by Region-based personnel, industry representatives, other stakeholders and the public.
I in the area of " Reactor Licensee Performance Assessment," the staff has: submitted a paper to the Commission proposing changes to the performaNe assessment process in order to make it l t
more risk-informed, efficient and effective. Substantial agency resources have been devoted to this initiative. This effort involved several working groups who interacted with NEl, industry officials, the past fourstakeholders months. and the public through a workshop and numerous public meetings during
- 7 Chairman Jackson In the area of"ReactorLicensing,"the staff has: completed scheduled License Renewal milestones for Oconee and Calvert Cliffs; submitted for public comment a proposed rule change to provide clarity and flexibility to 10 CFR 50.59; submitted a paper and draft regulatory guide to the Commission proposing revisions to guidance on the information required be included in the Final Safety Analysis Report; issued improved standard Technical Specifications for eleven facilities; issued revised guidance to provide clear criteria for consistent decision making in determination of the threshold for issuance of CALs; submitted a paper to the Commission on the application of the backfit rule to decommissioning; revised guidance and provided training and management expectations for the handling of staff requests for additionalinformation; and conducted a review of the current 2.206 petition process to identify aspects of the process that adversely affect and factors that improve timely closure of petitions.
In the area of *NRC Organizational Structure and Resources," the agency's three major program offices have undertaken significant restructuring in order to realign to match current program requirements, eliminate duplication, integrate technical expertise in more effective groups, and streamline organizational structuas. The functions of the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data have been transferred and consolidated wherever possible with similar work being performed by the NRC staff. In addition, a number of other headquarters and regional offices will transition to new organizational structures by the end of the fiscal year, in the course of implementing these reorganizations and other streamlining initiatives, the Commission will have eliminated 39 SES positions since August of 1998, and reduced the number of managers and supervisors in the agency from a little more than 700 in FY 1994, to approximately 335 by the end of FY 1999, in the context of the staffing levels contained in the President's FY 1999 budget, this equates to an 8:1 ratio of staff-to-supervisors and managers.
In the area of " Uranium Recovery issues," the staff plans to submit papers to the Commission this month on ways to eliminate dual regulation at in situ leach facilities and for revising guidance for expanding disposal capability of uranium mill tailings impoundments.
In the area of " Changes to NRC's Hearing Process," the Commission completed expedited rulemaking and issued final rules to establish an informal streamlined hearing process for license transfers. In addition, the staff has completed a study of its adjudicatory processes and submitted a paper to the Commission which provides a number of options for further streamlining its hearings.
With regard to other agency programs and areas of focus the staff has: submitted a standard review plan to the Commission for license transfers involving Foreign ownership; issued the final design approval for the AP-600 design; submitted a paper to the Commission proposing ways to standardize decommissioning licensing actions and establish priorities and milestones for rulemaking and guidance development; submitted a paper to the Commission recommending a Direct Final Rule to modify 10 CFR Part 50.54(a) which proposes allowing
e 0 l
i Chairman Jackson licensees to make certain specific changes to their Quality Assurance programs without prior I l NRC approval; submitted a paper to the Commission proposing amendments to 10 CFR Parts 21,50 and 54 regarding the use of attemative source terms at operating reactors.
The next update of the staff response will be provided to the Commission during the'first week of February 1999.
Attachment:
As stated cc: Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield OGC CFO CIO SECY
L-_.--..-.-_._......._.._...._...._...__..._.._,._...__-._..-________.__...___.__..___.;
o-- e t
! i i t t
i L
l l
l I
i I
f STAFF RESPONSE TO TASKING MEMORANDUM AND STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS
" as of January 7,1999 I
(
l 4
t r' -
F i
3 a
I-t
, - . - .,- ,-- ,-- e,-,- -
w -
. e January 7,19'99 TABLE OF CONTENTS
!. TOPIC AREA: Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Specific issue: Evaluation of Industry Proposals and Rulemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. Specific lssue: Pilot Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 C. Specific issue: Plant-Specific Licensing Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 D. Specific Issue: Guidance Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
!!. Topic Area: Reactor inspection and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A. Specific issue: Risk Informed Baseline Inspection Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 B. Enforcement Program initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 C. Escalated Enforcement Program initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 111. Topic Area: Reactor Licensee Performance Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A. Specific issue: Performance Assessment Process improvements (IRAP, industry's Proposal, and Performance Indicators) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 IV. Topic Area: Reactor Licensing and Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A. Specific issue: Lice ns e Ren ewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 B. Specific issue: 50.59 R ut e m aking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 C. Specificissue: FSAR Update Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 D. Specific issue: Define Design Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 E. Specific issue: Improved Standard TS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 l
F. Specific!ssue: Generic Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 !
G. Specific issue: C ALs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 l H. Specific issue: Applicability of Backfit Rule to Decommissioning Activities . . . . 39
- 1. Specific issue: Requests for Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 J. Specific issue: 2.206 Petitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 l K. Specific issue: Application of the Backfit Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 V. Topic Area: NRC Organizational Structure and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 I A. Specific issue: Reorganization - Restructuring Line Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 B. Specific issue: Achieving 1:8 supervisor / manager-to-employee ratios . . . . . . . . . 50 C. Specific issue: Increased employee involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 VI. Topic Area: Other Agency Programs and Areas of Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 A. Specific issue: License Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 B. Specific issue: AP-600 Design Certification Rulemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 C1. Specific issue: TN-68 (Dual Purpose) Cask Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 C2. Specific issue: BNFUSNC TranStor (Dual Purpose) Cask Review . . . . . . . . . . 58 C3. Specific issue: Holtec HISTAR 100 (Dual-Purpose) Cask Review . . . . . . . . . . . 60 C4. Specific issue: Westinghouse WESFLEX (Dual Purpose) Cask Review . . . . . . 61 C5. Specific issue: NAC-STC/MPC (Dual Purpose) Cask Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 C6. Specific issue: NAC-UMS (Dual Purpose) Cask Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 C7. Specific issue: TN-West MP-187 (Dual-Purpose} Cask Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 D. Specific issue: Decommissioning Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
. . - _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ . . . . _ - . . _ . ~ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . .-_ _ . _ . . _ . _
- . .. e. ;
t t
January 7,1999 l
?
~ E. Specific issue: PGE-Trojan Reactor Vessel Shipment A i
- F. Specific lasue: Event Reporting Rulemaking ............... . . . . . . . . pplication . . . . . . . . . .
G. Specific issue:. Proposed Kl Rulemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . 73
. . . . . ., . 71 i
H. Specific issue: NEl Petitions - Petition for modifying 50.54(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. I. Specific issue: Revised Source Term Rulemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78. . . . . . . . . 7; ;
Vll. TOPIC AREA: Uranium Recovery issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 ;
A. Specific issues: Uranium recovery concerns raised in' Senate report . . . . . . . . . 80 J
Vill. TOPIC AREA: Changes to NRC's Hearing Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 1
. A: Usc of informal Adjudicatory Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 i
.]
i i
u, I
i l
I I
c i 1 January 7,1999
- l. TOPIC AREA: Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Reaulation SES Managers: Gary Holahan, Director, DSSA/NRR, and Thomas King, Director, DST /RES A. Specific issue: Evaluation of Industry Proposals and Rulemakina Objective: The objectives are enhancing safety decisions, efficiently utilizing NRC resources, reducing unnecessary conservatism, as well as soliciting industry insights.
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead '
- 1. Conduct Licensing workshop to discuss streamlining 7/22/98C G. Kelly, DSSA the review process for risk informed (RI) applications
- 2. Conduct Periodic PRA Steering Committee 8/20/980 T. King, RES/DSSA Meetings (Monthly)
- 3. Establish agreement with industry on formation of 8/98C T. King, RES industry PRA steering committee to interface with NRC Steering Committee and an industry licensing panel to interface with the NRC RI Licensing Panel.
- 4. Meet w/ South Texas Project on industry perspective 9/15/98C G. Kelly, DSSA to develop lessons learned
- 5. Follow-up to licensing workshop w/UCS/NEl to 11/98C M. Caruso, DSSA discuss review process for RI applications
- 6. Conduct discussions with ACRS on risk-informed, 8/26/980 R. Barrett, DSSA/
performance-based Regulation initiatives 9/24/98C M. Cunningham, 9/30/98C RES 10/29/98C 11/19/98C 12/3/980
- 7. Meet with ACRS Subcommittee and request ACRS 9/24/98C R. Barrett, DSSA letter on views and recommendations for staff options paper
- 8. DSI-13 Role of Industry stakeholder meeting 9/1/98 C J. Craig, RES
- 9. Reach agreement with NEl on scope, schedule, Sub. M. Drouin, RES approach and groundrules for NEl Whole Plant Study sumed in (tasks 1-6) 10 (see note) l
. i 2 January 7,1999 PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 10a. Conduct public meeting to discuss options for 10/27- G. Holahan, DSSA modifying Part 50 to be risk-informed. 28/98C T. King, RES 10b. Issue paper to Commission identifying options on R. Barrett, DSSA/
modifying Part 50 to be risk-informed (including the use 42/10/00 M. Cunningham, GES of the term" safety" and backfitting implications) 12/23/98C (9800152)(NRR)
I 11. lssue safety evaluation on WOG ISI topical report 01/99 S. Ali, DE j 12/15/98C NRR
- 12. Meeting on NEl pilot plant preliminary risk results Sub- M. Drouin, RES sumed in 10 (see s note)
- 13. Public workshop to discuss risk-informed options TBD M. Drouin, RES for 10 CFR 50.59 (see note)
- 14. Final report to NRR with recommendations on TBD M. Drouin, RES approach to making 10 CFR 50.59 risk-informed (see note)
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999-Milestone Date Lead 40.15. Workshop on insights from NEl Whole plant Sub- M. Drouin,RES study risk results and options for using them to sumed in enhance risk-informed regulation 10 (see note)
- 16. Develop Rulemaking Commission paper based TBD R. Barrett, DSSA/
o') Commission response to options paper (9800154) M. Cunningham, RES JRR) ,
=
BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead 45.17.' Issue safety evaluation on EPRI ISI topical fBB S. Ali, DE
- report 9/30/99 NRR 4& 18. Endorse ASME Rl-ISI code cases via D. Jackson,RES Regulatory Guide 1.147, contingent upon ASME 9/00 S. Ali, DE, NRR completing ccde case by 12/31/99. .
. . m. . - - ._. . _._ , . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ._
x s.
l l
)
3 January 7,1999 Comments
\
- 2. Committee meets approximately monthly. Last meeting 10/1/98. Charter includes:
-Coordination of inter-office PRA 1mplementation Plan activities l -
- Resolution of keyissues -
Identification of new activities
)
Interaction with public and industry
)
9,12,13. Pilots being treated as part of NEl option to be addressed in Milestone 10. Verbal agreement on this reached with NEl and pilot licensees at 9/15/98 public meeting.
- 10. Staff has developed new plan and schedule foridentifying and evaluating options. Plan provides for interaction with the public, the nuclear industry, the ACRS, and the CRGR in the i development and evaluation of cptions !
10b. Ochede:e hee a:!pped in erder te addiese snany Nnn etaff cenirnente end concerne regard;ng pctent;e: changee to i'ert 50 discussed :n the paper, inc:eding the staf!'e prepceed recomment.et;ene. Iepes ln fine' cencessence.
.10 and 4416.' Some items budgeted in DSSA, such as support for SMMs, use of PRA in i generic issue resolution, events assessment (except for high risk events) participation in planned l or reactive inspections, quarterly updating of PRA plan (9500047, RES) (move to annually), and IPE follow-up, may be deferred in' order to meet the above schedules in developing an options -
paper. Work suggested to be dropped to support these milestones is the modification of Part 52 regarding use of PRAs beyond Design Certification. RES work on proposed revisica to Safety Goa1 Policy will be deferred from 3/99 to 7/99. Status report on this effort will be deferred from 12/98 to 3/99. (9700262)(RES) 11 and 4517. Risk-informed licensing panel (RILP) meetings are required, t 13 and i4. These'tais6 were transferred from Topic Area IV.B - Reactor Licensinj and .
Overslaht, Milestones 11 and 13. These tasks and their corresponding completion schedules may be mod 3ied or deleted depending on the Commission's response to the staff's paper pentifying optioris for modifying Part 50 to be risk-informed (Milestone 10.b).
M5. Schedule depends upon Commission response to options paper at Milestone 10.
45 % Work has been delayed due to need for additienal information from EPRI (HAl issued in
- June 1937).' Staff continues to interact periodically with EPRI and will resume its efforts after staff receives responses to RAls from EPRI. EPRI submitted topical prior to issuance of ISI Reg
. Guide and Standard Review Plan and as a resuit did not address certain risk issues or how the changes in program would impact risk.
4618. The staff schedule to endorse ASME RI-!Si Code Cases via RG 1.147 was contingent J upon ASME completing Code Cases by 6/31/99. The staff had a meeting with NEl and industry f
r- , - . - , - - . . ,
. . . - . . . . . . - .. - . -- _ .~. - - .._ _-. -. . - . - _
l- e i l
1 i
4 January 7,1999 representatives on October 8,1998. In that meeting, the ASME representatives informed the staff that the ASME plans to complete revisions of the RI-ISI Code by 12/99. Based on this, the staff schedule to endorse ASME RI-ISI Code Cases via RG 1.147 has been revised to 9/00.
Additional Activities: The Center for Strategic and1ntemational Studies (CSIS) is conducting a study of the NRC regulatory process. Chairman Jackson and Commissioner McGaffigan are members of the Steering Committee. Ashok Thadaniis on the working group. This activity will involve several meetings over the next several months and the CSIS schedule calls for a final l report by 4/15/99.
l I
e 1
l
. i .
1 5 January 7,1999 1.TOPlc AREA: Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Reaulction SES Manager: Gary Holahan, Director, DSSA/NRR B. Specific issue: Pilot Applications Objective: The goal of the pilot programs is to complete first of a kind risk informed licensing reviews such that lessons learned may be utilized for future staff reviews. The pilot applications have provided a forum for developing guidance documents for both the staff and the industry.
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Risk-Informed Licensing Panel (RILP) Meetings - Ongoing G. Holahan, DSSA assists in focusing management attention, as necessary, to identify other pilots and ensure lessons leamed are developed from pilots
- 3. Issue safety evaluation for ANO-2 H2 monitoring 9/28/98 C M. Snodderly, DSSA 4.1ssue safety evaluation on Vermont Yankee ISI pilot S. Ali, DE 11/9/98C DSSA support
'sccacae) DSSA support 12//29/98 C
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 7. Issue safety evaluation on SONGS H2 Recombiner -TB9 M. Snodderly, DSSA 6/30/99 (See note)
BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
)
6 January 7,1999 Comments Aillicensing actions dates are contingent upon timely, technically acceptable industry responses to staffinquiries.
3The staff intends to follow up with the generic aspects of this issue (see I.C.12).
4,5 and 6. Flisk-informed Ucensing Panel (RILP) meetings required.
C. %e CCfi en the ANO?csubm!:a we3 5cheduled to be subm : ed fcr concurrence on 10/01/30 &nd 1330&nce by 12/01/30. Oui:ng the 3:sn ic. c~.y of !P.e . censee's 10/0/30.1Al respon3es, .; wee ne:ed thet the eppi ed methedc!cgy h&d no; beca consistent!y app!!ed. The
- censee cen;:nues te v.cik en prepsring a forme l submittsl c Eddre55 th:5 !530c.
- 7. NRR, with the support of RES, is attempting to quantify the value of hydrogen recombiners during a severe accident using the COGAP computer model. This approach was described in a November 19,1998, memorandum from the EDO to the ACRS. NRR plans to have a public meeting during February 1999 to discuss the staff's results with the licensee. A meeting was conducted with NEl and industry representatives on December 22,1998, to discuss the status of the proposal.
e e
l 7 January 7,1999 3.TOPJC AREA: Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Regulation SES Manager: Gary Holahan, Director, DSSA, NRR C. Specific issue: Plant-Specific Licensina Reviews Objective: The use of probabilistic risk assessment in risk-informed decision making for changes to plant-specific licensing basis is intended to enhance safety decisioris, efficiently utilize NRC resources and reduce unnecessary conservatism. The goalis to complete first of a kind risk-informed licensing reviews such that lessons learned may be utilized for future staff reviews.
- PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 2. Risk-informed Licensing Panel (RILP) Meetings - Ongoing G. Holahan, DSSA assists in focusing management attention, as necessary, on risk-informed licensing actions.
- 4. Issue safety evaluation on Oyster Creek proposal on 9/8/98 C O. Chopra, DE EDG online testing DSSA support
- 6. Issue Commission paper related to staff's evaluation 9/21/98 C G. Carpenter, DE of probabilistic assessment of *BWR Reactor Pressure DSSA support Vessel Shell Weld Inspection Recommendations" (9700209)(NRR)
- 7. Issue safety evaluation for ANO-2 H2 monitoring 9/28/98 C M. Snodderly, DSSA
- 8. Create special reporting mechanism in WISP for 10/2/98 C R. Hall, DRPE risk-informed licensing actions to facilitate monitoring and tracking
- 9. lssue safety evaluation on safety injection tank AOT E. Weiss, DSSA extension for 6 CEOG facilities 10/22/98C
- 10. Issue safety evaluation on Comanche Peak +2/98 E. Weiss, DSSA charging pump AOT extension 12/30/980
e t l
L 4 l I 8 January 7,1999 PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 1
- 12. Notifylicensees of the opportunity for confirmatory +2/90 R. Hall,ADPR/
order on H, monitoring. 12/31/98C DSSA THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 13. lssue safety evaluation on Sequoyah proposal on 06/99 O. Chopra, DE EDG AOT extension 12/18/98C DSSA support
- 14. Issue reliefs from augmented examination 06/99 G. Carpenter, DE requirements for various licensees on BWR reactor pressure vessel circumferential welds
- 15. lssue safety evaluation on Browns Ferry 2/3 06/99 O. Chopra, DE proposal on EDG AOT extension DSSA support Comments
- 10. In the recent scbiidtsis the !!cen3ce insde changes 10 !;5 "No C:gn!!! cant !!szerds,"
dcterrninetion therefore, the T'M mc3; re-ncuce the smendment. Th:5 w;: dcley the campicuca date by 00 dey3 ficm the notice dete.
- 12. The lasu'ence of a ceni;rinetari cider w :: be effered to !!;ensces en a vcluntary besis due to the veded hydrogen monitoring reqcirements p!sced on indMdes plents.
- 14. Contingent upon receipt of relief requests from licensees 14-15. Dates to be evaluated during prioritization of risk-informed licensing actions.
l l
. =. . _ . . . _- . - _ - .. .. - _-
e .
9 January 7,1999 I.TOPlc AREA Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Reaulation SES Managen Gary Holahan, Director, DSSA, NRR and Thomas King, Director, DST /RES D. Specific 1ssue: Guidance Documents Objective: To provide guidance for the staff and the industry which will enhance consistency and provide a infrastructure for use in risk-informed regulation.
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. NRC/ Utility Workshop on Risk-Informed (RI) 07/22/980 G. Kelly, DSSA Regulation
- 2. Communicate about process with Licensing 08/17/980 R. Barrett, DSSA counterparts from industry (NRC/ Utility Licensing ,
Workshop - memo issued summarizing items l discussed at workshop)
- 3. Issue ISI trial use RI RG/SRP to Commission 06/11/98C RES (SECY 98-139) S. Ali, DE 4a Complete review of second draft of Phase 1 PRA 8/31/980 M. Drouin, RES standard 4b. Paper to Commission on status of PRA standards 10/27/98C M. Drouin, RES development effort (9800041)(RES) l 4c. Phase 1 draft PRA standard submitted for ASME 11/98C M. Drouin, RES review and comment l 4d. Phase 1 draft PRA standard issued for public 1/99 M. Drouin, RES
- comment
- 5. Revise NRR intemal guidance to raise the priority of 10/1/98 C D. Dorman, ADPR l risk-informed licensing actions
- 6. Communicate revised priority to industry via 10/1/98C R. Hall, ADPR PM/ Licensing interaction
! 7. Communicate revised priority to industry via 10/29/980 R. Hall, ADPR
- Administrative Letter
- 8. Issue interim NRR Guidance on Implementation of 10/30/98C G. Kelly, DSSA
, Risk-Informed Regulation
- 9. Issue final GOA inspection procedure for use 12/98 R. Gramm, DRCH following implementation of South Texas GOA program (see note)
C O l
10 January 7,1999 PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999
- 10. Integrate risk attributes into revised licensee 01/99 DISP :
performance assessment process (9700238) (NRR) '
G. Parry, DSSA
l Milestone Date Lead
- 14. Develop risk attributes for revisir:g enforcement early OE policies. Input to ll.C.S. (9800155) (OE) CY99 G. Kelly. DSSA BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 i
Milestone Date Lead
- 16. Completion of Phase 2 PRA standard TBD M. Drouin, RES Comments i 9. Draft inspection procedure issued for comment by Regions 9/29/98; all regions have provided input on the draft IP. ACRS briefed 11/6/98. CRGR meeting scheduled for 12/8/98. The staff met with CRGR on 12/8/98 to discuss the proposad inspection procedure (IP). CRGR identified l several concerns with the IP. The staff will need to address the CRGR comments. A revised target date for issuance of the IP will be provided after a resolution path is identified and agreed upon by NRR management.
! workshop completed 9/30/98.
4a-d,11 13,15,16. Phase 1 is a standard for fuil power operation, internal events only. Phase 2 is for external events and shutdown. Dates are tentative due to uncertainty associated with the number and nature of comments that may be received, the ASME review and approval process and the success of the working group in writing the Phase 2 standard. This is an ASME initiative l and; therefore, the schedules are set by ASME.
C O l
l l
11 January 7,1999
- 11. Topic Area: Reactor inspection and Enforcement i
SES Manager: M. Johnson, Act:ng Chief, PEAS /PIPB/DlSP/NRR and J. Lieberman, Director, OE A. Specific issue: Risk Informed Baseline inspection Procram l
Program FAanager - Cornelius Holden, NRR and John Flack, RES Objective: To develop and implement a more risk informed, efficient, and effective baseline inspection program. By risk informed, it is meant that the inspection program's scope will be l
defined primarily by those areas that are significant from a risk perspective and that the I inspection methods used to assess these areas will take advantage of both generic and plant specific risk insights.
Coordination: Issues ll.A. " Risk Informed Baseline Inspection Program," II.B. " Enforcement i
Program initiatives,"II.C. " Escalated Enforcement Program," lit.A. " Performance Assessment
{
Process Improvements," and V1.G " Event Reporting Rulemaking," require close coordination and l
the integration of specific tasks by the NRC staff. Responsible project managers are l
coordinating these activities by assessing the impact of proposed program changes with the l other ongoing activities and ensuring that the overall objectives for each project are achieved.
Examples include, intra-project task force participation, workshop attendance, concurrent review of projects and periodic senior management briefings. In addition, industry-developed initiatives such as the NEl New Regulatory Oversight Process are being reviewed by all project groups and evaluated forimpact.
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Establish management oversight panel 9/24/98 C C. Holden, DISP (performance assessment and risk informed inspection program)
- 2. Issue detailed plan and team charter 9/30/98 C J. Jacobson, DISP
- 3. Brief Commission TA's 9/24/98 C J. Jacobson, DISP
- 4. Select improvement team members 9/30/98 C C. Holden, DISP J. Jacobson, DISP
- 5. Support NRR public workshop on soliciting input on 9/28/98C J. Flack, RES approaches to risk-informed inspection (RES to present options at workshop).
- 6. Solicit input'from stakeholders on scope of 9/28- J. Jacobson, DISP inspection at regulatory assessment public workshop, 10/1/98C coordinating with issue lil.A.
12 January 7,1999 PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999
- 7. no-define core lnspection presrein objectisc5 based 40/98 upon cycr5lght concept C. Ms!'ett, OlOP
- 7. Meet with ACRS to discuss workshop results 10/2/98 C J. Jacobson, DISP
- 8. Prepare draft recommendations on baseline 10/30/98C J. Flack, RES inspection based on review of BWR and PWR PRA.
- 9. Brief Commission on progress to date 11/2/98C B. Mallett, DISP
- 10. Discuss with ACRS subcommittee proposed scope 11/98C J. Flack, RES and approach B. Mallett, DISP
- 11. Develop draft inspection program objectives 11/98C J. Flack, RES B. Mallet, DISP
- 12. Develop Commission Paper proposing a risk- 12/98C informed baseline inspection program (0000150) 8. Mallet, DISP (9700238) (NRR)
- 13. Brief Commission TA's 12/98C C. Holden, DISP
- 14. Commu'nicate proposed changes to staff to obtain 12/98C C. Holden, DISP internal stakeholder feedback
- 15. Develop transition strategy 1/99C C. Holden, DISP
- 16. Brief Commission on recommended program 1/99 C. Holden, DISP changes (2000100) (9700238) (NRR)
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 17. Begin drafting program changes and conduct 2/99 C. Holden, DISP training of staff
- 18. Begin pilot implementation of new core baseline S/99 inspection program 6/99 C. Holden. DISP 1
'~
! o ..
l 13 January 7,1999 BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestons Date Lead
- 19. Complete transition to risk informed core baseline 40/99 inspection program 1/00 C. Holden, DISP l l
Comments:
Status: All milestones are on track, there are no schedule changes, and no expected delays. '
- 1. The establishment of a management oversight panel will ensure timely guidance on policy issues both prior to and during the development of the process. The oversight panel will also help to ensure organizational alignment and buy-in on the new process. The panelincludes i representatives from key stakeholder groups within the agency, primarily NRR and the Regions.
l 3 and 13. Commission TA's will be briefed at key milestones to help ensure organizational buy-in '
of the completed process. The full Commission will be briefed as part of a comprehensive 1
briefing on the overall assessment process. These full Commission briefings are indicated on the action plan for Performance Assessment Process improvements.
1
- 4. Improvement team members include representatives from key internal stakeholder groups, '
primarily regional and resident inspectors.
- 6. The scope of the inspection program was discussed at the assessment process public workshop. During this workshop, the staff received feedback from industry representatives as well as rnembers of the genera! public. Also, the workshop results will be published and used to communicate to the staff the issues currently being considered in developing the new inspection program.
- 7. Original milestone 7 was deleted and subsumed in milestone 11 in order to develop objectives simultaneously. The inspection program objectives will be re-defined after agreement is reached on a redefined assessment process framework.
11-12. A team approach will be used to develop new inspection program objectives and draft the accompanying SECY paper. Included within the team will be a representative from the Office of Research, who will help in ensuring the new inspection program is risk informed.
i
- 14. An important part of the change management strategy for implementing the new inspection and assessment programs will be communication with the staff both during and after development.
- 15. " Change management" concems should be addressed as part of developing the transition strategy.
- 17. Training of staff willinclude an overview of specific program changes as well as restatement of selected inspection fundamentals regarding interfaces with licensees.
18 & 19. Milestone dates changed based on consolidated transition plan.
l l
o .
]
l 14 January 7,1999 l Deferrals and Susoensions: SALP Program.
i The expectation is that by January 1999 progress on the enhanced assessment process will be sufficient to determine whether the SALP process will be conducted in the future.
RES and NRR work assessing the effectiveness of the station blackout and anticipated transient without scram rules and genede safety issue A-45 (decay heat removal) will be deferred from 12/98 to 4/99. (9700346)-(NRR) (NRR) l l
l i
1 l
l l
7 _
e .: ;
I l
15 January 7,1999
. . 1 L II. Reactor Inspection and Enforcement -
SES Manager: James Lieberman, birector, Dffice of Enforcement i B. Enforcement Prooram Initiatives l: > !
Issues / Lead Individual:
- 1) NRC-licensee documentation and disposition of non-risk significant violations '
Mark Satorius
- 2) Severity LevelIV violations Mark Satorius
' 3) Industry Enforcement Process Proposals Mark Satorius
< Due' to the manner that these three issues are linked, all are being considered under one Plan of Action.
Objective: Reduce unnecessary licensee burdens associated with responding to non risk ,
significant violations (Issues Nos.1 and 2) utilizing initial stakeholder inputs and proposals and 1
. soliciting stakeholder feedback following implementation of Enforcement Program changes -
(Issue No.3), without losing the NRC's ability to detect licensee problems in a timely manner. .,
. Coordination: Issues ll.A. " Risk informed Baseline Core Inspection Program," II.B. " Enforcement Program initiatives,". II.C. " Escalated Enforcement Program," lli.A. " Performance Assessment
{
Process improvements," and VI.G " Event Reporting Rulemaking," require close coordination and !
the integration of specific tasks by the NRC staff. Responsible project managers are j coordinating these activities by assessing the impact of proposed program changes with the i other ongoing activities and ensuring that the overall objectives for each project are achieved. ;
Examples include, intra-project task force participation, workshop attendance, concurrent review l
' of projects and periodic senior management briefings. . In addition, industry-developed initiatives j such as the NEl New Regulatory Oversight Process are being reviewed by all project groups and evaluated forimpact.
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Implement an Enforcement Guidance Memorandum EGM M. Satorius i (EGM) to. clarify guidance under the existing issued on !
Enforcement Policy that provides licensees incentives 7/27/980 l to self-identify and correct problems in order to avoid the issuance of notices of violations.
2f Monitor the success of EGM 98-006 on lessening Begin M. Satorius i the unnecessary burden to licensees by reducing the 9/1/98- '
volume of Severity Level IV violations, including and L
violations not cited and both those requiring and not . continue requiring a response.
l' l
, , . _ . . _ . . _ 4
l l 16 January 7,1999 l .--
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 1
1
- 3. Conduct a public meeting with stakeholders to solicit 9/3/98C M. Satorius !
input on the manner that the Enforcement Policy may be revised.
- 4. Utilize previously received written inputs from 9/18/98C M. Satonus extemal stakeholders that provides positions on the manner that the objectives should be accomplished.
- 5. Submit a Commission Paper incorporating the views l 11/3/98C M. Satorius of internal and extemal stakeholders that provides the Commission the staff's recommendation on the manner to achieve the objectives by proposing an Enforcement I Policychange. (9800174)(OE) 6.' Following Commission eppmes st&ff approval of +1+16/98 M. Satorius the staff's Enforcement Policy revision and, the TBD 1 Revised Policy is published in the Federal Register, (see note) i
' with the message to stakeholders that six months af ter implementation of the Revised Policy, public meeting / workshops will be held for stakeholder feedback.
- 7. Brief the, Commissioners Technical Assistants on 11/30/98C M. Satorius the results of EGM 98-006 reducing unnecessary licensee burden B. Conduct Regional Enforcement Coordinator 11/23/98C M. Satorius meeting / training on the Revised Enforcement Policy.
- 9. Conduct video conferencing with Regional Weck-of M. Satorius managers to outline the changes to the Enforcement +29/98 Policy and provide agency expectations. TBD (see note)
- 10. Conduct trainini in the Regional offices, with a RI 11/4/9 M. Satorius t
focus on agency exp;ectations for the Revised8C '
Enforcement Policy. EDO/DEDE/DEDR provides Ril 9/23/9 senior management's expectations at the scheduled 8C counterpart meetings attended by those individuals. Rill-12/10
/980 RIV-10/14
/98 &
11/18/98C 7 11. Implement revised Enforcement Policy. TBD M. Satorius (see note)
(esseme -
in't c/cc) i
- . .. .. . - _ _ - . _ - . . - ~ . - - _ -- - - . - - .
e . !
I l
17 January 7,1999 I
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999
- 12. Evaluate inspection data to determine the extent of 12/10/90 M. Satorius success that EGM 98-006 had in reducing unnecessary 12/22/98C ;
burden to licensees. Provide this information to the and l Chairman for the Senate Hearing. (9800155) (OE) update tmtil prior to the time of the hearing
- 13. Collect enforcement data following the Begtn M. Satorius ;
implementation of the Revised Enforcement Policy, for 4EM/96, j later use in determining the success of the changes in TBD accomplishing the objectives.
(see note) '
end
- T/JT.u; THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 14. Solicit f_eedback from regional management, the Spring M. Satorius inspection staff, and headquarters staff on the 1999 successes or failures of the Revised Enforcement Policy. .
i
- 15. Conduct public meetings / workshops with 6/16/99 M. Satorius stakeholders, one in the Washington area and one in ;
i an area around a Region, to solicit feedback on the !
successes and shortcomings of the Revised Enforcement Policy. '
j BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead i
- 16. Assemble the collective views of the staff and 9/1/99 M. Satorius stakeholders to determine whether the Revised Enforcement Policy has accomplished the objectives, orwhether further staff action is needed. Submit Commission paper. (9800159) (OE) ,
l 1
I
1 s ,
l 18 January 7,1999 i
Comments:
C.,0.,11.,10.These detee mey chenge, based cn the d&te of final Osmmieeien &pprev&l cf the l stel"a prepceed chenges is the Enforcement Io!!cy. The Commleelen te echedgled to vote en the resleed Enforcement relicy by COO 12/1/00, wlth the Or.M expected approxirnately e veck -
1 sater:
l
~ ~
ii. This section wElije completed one week af ter the issuance of the Enforcement Policy SRM.
~
9.his a'ction wiij lie'c~ompleted 2 weeks after the issuance of the Enforcement Policy SRM.
~
1'1. This action will be completed 30 days after the Enforcement Policy is published in the Federal Register.
- 13. This action will start 30 days after issuance of the Enforcement Policy SRM.
l l
o i 19 January 7,1999
- 11. Reactor Insoection and Enforcement SES Manager: James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement C. Escalated Enforcement Proaram initiatives "Reaulatory Slanificance"/ Risk Objective: Incorporate clearer risk-informed enforcement guidance in the treatment of escalated violations.
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Conduct a public meeting with stakeholders to solicit 9/3/98C M. Satorius input on the manner that risk should be incorporated into the Enforcement Policy.
- 2. Publish EGM to define interim enforcement process 11/25/98C M. Satorius enhancements to enforcement involving " regulatory significance" through increased oversight and greater focus on safety.
- 3. Conduct a public meeting with stakeholders to 12/17/98 M. Satorius discuss application of regulatory significance. C
- 4. Conduct'a second public meeting with stakeholders 1/29/99 M. Satorius to discuss application of regulatory significance.
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 45. Conduct a public meeting with stakeholders to 2/99 M. Satorius discuss application of risk-informed enforcement.
5 6. Submit a Commission Paper that addresses the 3/15/99 M. Satorius use of " regulatory significance." (9800069) (OE)
- 67. Develop risk-informed examples for inclusion in the 3/15/99 M. Satorius supplements of the Enforcement Policy.
- 78. Discuss examples with stakeholders and solicit 3/29/99 M. Satorius feedback 8 9. Submit a Commission Paper utilizing the input from 5/1/99 M. Satorius issue 1.D.14 and the examples developed above to revise the Enforcement Policy. (9800155) (OE) l
. . . _ _~. . . - - - _. _ . . .
o ,
i 1
l i
20 January 7,1999 Comments: I
- 3. This effort has been integrated into the performance assessment process improvements.
s-& 4. Added m :cstenes milestone to conduct a second public meetings meeting with stakeholders.for both regy: steri significance sad r!3k matters. regulatory significance in order to assure that all stakeholders are provided an opportunity to input into the process.
e _ _ f _ __ _..L -
- _f.Lm F.___*__?_.-
- c. -PL _ mme
. no ,v.
euv..uoe.vo vi u.m vvn cu .c nieelun M . ored
_ _ _ _.u . L.m_ owu . _ _f J _m e_ u e_ v_eee_v,. L. e_
.__-__.._c.- e w. . _ _v._ r vs _ _ 9 . _ .
3 v,m o 3 nun onvo, . ve.n3 . nve _w ssv _.... . . . en .v,.nnn .Pne.eeevo u _ _ _ _v.uuoinv. _ _ _ , _ _ u , _ ._ .u . ,_ . _ v .noe u, m_ n ,- e _ _ y eeg.
___.a__ .t_ _ _11 _ . . e ; _ _ _ _ r _ _ _ c- - _. _.n_,r___t_i__u y4 VW4 Wow u1V e&E46 g W.VE6 4%.e u l ol 6 6 %. s. u.E b Wm.u le e Al 6 Le 6 u il fi v6e V M
__.t_______._ ._
ee el u dQe 4Ve e lle 6 4 ko Lv en'ercement
__,_m. ~- _ _ _ invclving
_ , _ . < _ _.___1 ".regu'_etery significence",.thicugh
__a,__Jm__ , _ _ _
incressed cversight and greater fc;us on
. - ....v oo. e ,y. v m o m e w e u m o mv e ne n ve on u . e e w v evn o v n . u .u. e_ .e_ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ . , _v.
.neminensmovn ._ _u , .u.e_
determine
___J_ the most favoreb
._*_______._.L- e menner to sddre53 "reguie cry significence.".ln &ddl tion, the staff i so o We 4W u lVvi fv. pto &l ee WW 4 4 4 l L VV v.J. L _ ?_ _ .___f--_J L...L_ f____...__f. __.?__ .___f' n vmH 4y f e4 4 v6 4 4 4ew vg u te 5 8 G6 6 4e t t ve n, 4 4epevLiv4 4, 946J
_1 .._..,_.__._e__.r?_____
ooos ee.n on . _ __ _so on . ._ , .m_o_ne . .wmu
_ it.m_ iu _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _n___.
_t______ . .
uimvuover v .w3uimvif e.gninvenve ou3 ne
_ _ . _ _ . __; ______3___
.it. .he
..u s
_ _ _ _ _ . _3eney e uno. 3ee u. u.eymmuns onw moomeou.3 uveneeee.
t 6-&-07 & 9. Input will be provided by NRR and RES.
I I
i 1
i l i
l l
l l
l
? l i
l i l i
l l
l l
4 I
4 e
IL
+ e 21 January 7,1999 111.Toolc Area: Reactor Licensee Performance Assessment SES Manager: M. Johnson, Chief, PEAS /PIPB/ DISP /NRR
. A. Specific issue: Performance Assessment Process Imorovements ORAP. Industry's Proposal, and Performance indicators)
Program Manager: David Gamberoni Objective: The objective of this task is to develop and implement irnprovements to the NRC plant performance assessment process to make it more risk-inforrrfed, efficient, and effective while combining the best attributes of the IRAP effort, the regulatory oversight approach proposed by NEl, and the staff efforts designed to develop risk-informed performance indicators.
Coordination: Issues ll.A. " Risk Informed Baseline Inspection Program," II.B. " Enforcement Program Initiatives," II.C. " Escalated Enforcement Program," lli.A. " Performance Assessment Process improvements," and VI.G " Event Reporting Rulemaking," require close coordination and the integration of specific tasks by the NRC staff. Responsible project managers are coordinating these activities by assessing the impact of proposed program chang'es with the other ongoing activities and ensuring that the overall objectives for each project are achieved.
Examples include, intra-project task force participation, workshop attendance, concurrent review of projects and periodic senior management briefings. In addition, industry-developed initiatives such as the NEl New Regulatory Oversight Process are being reviewed by all project groups and evaluated forimpact.
==,2 PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone
-- Date Lead
- 1. Transition to an annual senior management meeting 6/30/980 J. Isom, DISP
- 2. Review and discuss with NEl their proposed 8/14/98C D. Gamberoni, DISP assessment process
- 3. Suspend SALP upon Commission approval 9/15/980 T. Boyce, DISP
- 4. Hold public workshop to obtain external stakeholder input T.Frye, DISP 10/1/980 D.Gamberoni, DISP
- 5. Research to provide risk !asights on oversight M. Cunningham, RES framework (comer stones) 10/1/980
- 6. End of public comment period for performance 10/6/98C T. Frye, DISP assessment process improvement which began on 8/7/98.
- 7. Brief ACRS to obtain their input M. Johnson, DISP 10/2/980
. e 22 January 7,1999 PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead 1
- 8. Brief Commission on results of public comments 11/2/98C M. Johnson, DISP
- 9. Award contract for risk-based performance indicator T. Wolf, AEOD development. 11/20/98C
- 10. Brief ACRS to obtain theirinput +2/98 M. Johnson, DISP 12/3/98C
- 11. Research to provide recommen'dations on Ongo:r.g1 M. Cunningham, RES formulation of a risk-informed assessment and E/98 inspection concept. 12/23/98C
- 12. Brief Commission TAs M. Johnson, DISP 11/23/980
- 13. Provide results of review of public comments and 1/99 M. Johnson, DISP recommendation for changes to the assessment p'ocess to the Commission. Submit Commission paper. (9700238)(NRR)
- 14. Brief Commission on recommendations (9700238) 1/99 M. Johnson, DISP (NRR)
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 15. Obtain Commission approval for implementation of 3/99 M. Johnson, DISP recommended changes
- 16. Obtain industry approval to make public the data 6/99 T. Wolf, AEOD used in Industry's proposed Indicators for monitoring plant performance. Begin phase out of current Performance Indicator Program.
17A& Complete development of implementation plan. 6/99 M. Johnson, DISP Start phase-in of the revised assessment process.
- 18. Begin trial application of risk-based performance 6/99 T. Wolf, AEOD l indicators.
e e .- j l
l 23 January 7,1999 j I
BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 l
)
Milestone Date Lead
- 19. Complete idal application, brief Commission, and 11/99 T. Wolf, AEOD publish candidate risk-based indicators for public l
comment. (9800160)(AEOD)
- 20. Publish last Performance Indicator Report using 1/00 T. Wolf, AEOD current Pls
- 21. Hold public workshop on candidate risk-based 2/00 T. Wolf, AEOD performance indicators. l
- 22. Complete phase-in of the revised assessment 6/00 M. Johnson, DISP process
- 23. Brief commission on proposed risk-based 10/00 T. Wolf, AEOD performance indicators developed cooperatively by NRC and industry (9800161)(AEOD) l 1
- 24. Implement Commission approved risk-based 1/01 T. Wolf, AEOD performance indicators developed cooperatively by NRC M. Johnson, DISP and industry
- 25. Complete evaluation of implementation and 6/01 M. Johnson, DISP effectiveness of the revised assessment process Comments:
- 9. Responsibility would shif t to RES upon reorganization.
- 10. Thie ;em hee bcca eupeiceded by the Ccminun:cetica rlen.
10 An ACR0 esbccmm::ce br:ef w:: be conducted !n November; hc vevcc, the entire ACCO w!!
not be br:efed unti: December.
Deferrals and Suspensions: SALP Program The expectation is that by January,1999 progress on the enhanced assessment process will be sufficient to determine whether the SALP process will be conducted in the future.
i l-
, e I
24 January 7,1999 IV. Topic Area: Reactor Licensina and overslaht SES Manager: Chris Grimes, Director, PDLR/DRPM/NRR A. Specific issue: License Renewal (includes Calvert Cliffs, Oconee and Generic Process improvements) l Objective: Demonstrate that license renewal applications submitted under 10 CFR Parts 54 & 51 can be reviewed effectively, efficiently and promptly.
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 i i
I Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Maintain Calvert Cliffs and Oconee schedules Ongoing C. Grimes, DRPM l
- 2. Conduct bi-merah'y management meetings with bimonthly C. Grimes, DRPM license renewal applicants
- 3. Issued Policy Statement " Conduct of Adjudicatory 7/28/98C OGC Proceedings" Issued 63 FR 41,872 (8/5/98)
- 4. Issued case specific order- Calvert Cliffs 8/19/98C OGC
- 5. Steering Committee bimonthly meeting with NEl 6/18/980 C. Grimes, DRPM Working Gfoup 8/20/98C 10/29/980 1 1/14/99
- 6. ACRS subcommittee meeting on renewal process 7/16/98C C. Grimes, DRPM !
- 7. Agree on generic issue inventory / priority with NEl 9/98C C. Grimes, DRPM
- 8. Increased emphasis on renewal with EC and LRSC Ongoing C. Grimes, DRPM l
- 9. Staff complete technical RAls - Calvert Cliffs 9/7/98C C. Grimes, DRPM
- 10. Staff completa environmental RAls - Calvert Cliffs 9/28/98C C. Grimes, DRPM i
- 11. ACRS subcommittee briefing on renewal activities 11/18/980 C. Grimes, DRPM
- 12. Staff complete technical RAls - Oconee 12/4/98C C. Grimes, DRPM
- 13. Staff complete environmental RAls - Oconee 4b3/99 C. Grimes, DRPM 12/29/98C l
l
s o j 25 January 7,1999 i
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead l 54f issue'f 5I.53iuEchange to cfesignate HLW . 2/99 D. Cleary, DRPM i
transportation as'a generic environmental impact for i 60-day public cornment.'
l
- 15. Issue Draft Environmental Statement for comment 3/6/99 c. Grimes, DRPM
- - Calvert Cliffs
- 16. Complete Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and 3/21/99 C. Grimes, DRPM i identify open items - Calvert Cliffs l
- 19. Issue Draft Environmental Statement - Oconee 6/2/99 C. Grimes, DRPM '
- 20. Complete SER and identify open items - Oconee 6/17/99 C. Grimes, DRPM
- 21. Complete 651.53 final rule change to designate 6/99 D. Cleary, DRPM HLW transportation as a generic environmental impact
[for Commission approval.
BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 23. U. con Commission approval, publish 651.53 rule 8/99 ,
D. Cleary, DRPM change designating HLW transportation as a generic environmental impact, to be effective in 30 days.
~
25.' Issue Supplemental SER and Final Environmental 11/16/99 C. Grimes, DRPM Statement - Calvert Cliffs
- 26. ACRS subcommittee meeting on Calvert Cliffs 1/00 C. Grimes, DRPM i Supplemental SER i 27. ACRS full committee meeting on Calvert Cliffs 2/00 C. Grimes, DRPM i
Supplemental SER
.. .o l
26 January 7,1999 i
BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 28] issue Supplemental SER and Final Environmental . 2/12/00 C. Grimes, DRPM Statement- Oconee 5 ACRS subcommittee meeting on Oconee 3/00 C. Grimes, DRPM Supplemental SER ,
3{ Complete staff review of initial applications within Ongoing C. Grimes, DRPM 30-36 months 32 Hearing (if request granted) Per l Comm.
Sched.
Comments:
- 1. Commission approves detailed license renewal schedules in terms of significant review milestones that will be included in the Operating Plan and monitored for Congressional reports.
6 & 7. Steering Committee meetings with industry and ACRS subcommittee meetings with staff will continue periodically to ensure effective resolution of technical and process issues. The Steering Committee will periodically report progress to the Executive Councilin accordance with the memo to Chairman Jackson dated 3/6/98.
- 14. Added milestones related to the changes to Part 51 that will designate high-level waste transportation as a generic environmental impact for the purpose of the license renewal review.
- 31. Next (third) application expected in early 2000.
e *
[
l 27 January 7,1999 IV. Toolc Area: Reactor Licensina and Oversicht l SES Manager: David Mattheus, Deputy Director, DRPM/NRR I B. Specific issue: 50.59 Rdlemakina I l
Objective: To provide clarity and flexibility in existing requirements 4
l l PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead 1
- 1. Issue SECY-92-171 providing proposed revisions to 7/10/98C E. McKenna, DRPM 10 CFR 50.59 for Commission review and approval
- 2. Issue COMSECY 98-013 forwarding staff resp' onse 5/27/98C E. McKenna, DRPM to issues raised in SRM on SECY-97-205 (3/24/98)
- 3. Conduct meeting with industry /public to solicit views
' 8/24/98C M. Drouin, RES on options for making 50.59 risk-informed
- 4. ACRS Subcommittee Meeting 9/24/980 M. Drouin, RES 5.- Issue proposed rule changes on 10 CFR 50.59 for 10/21/98C E. McKenna, DRPM public comrhent
- 6. Trial application of actual 50.59 test cases to assess 10/30/980 M. Drouin, RES options
- 9. Report to NRR on options with release to PDR for 12/10/90 M. Drouin, RES 1/99 vierkehop and with copy to Commission 12/28/980
- 10. End of public comment period 12/21/980 E. McKenna, DRPM
- 41. Pub c vierkehop is discuse 50.09 ephens 1/10/99 M. Drogh, CEO M11. Resolve issues identified durino comment period 1/99 E. McKenna, DRPM THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 12. Paper to Commission summarizing public 2/19/99 E. McKenna, DRPM comments and forwarding recommendations on final -
rule language for Commission decision f
28 January 7,1999 THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 10. f ne! report to NOR viith recommendstions 2/99 M.Oreg!n,000
- 16. ~ Commission feedback received 3/99 E. McKenna, DRPM
- 15. Issue paper containing final 10 CFR 50.59 rule to & 99 E. McKenna, DRPM the Commission (9700191) (NRR) and provide 4/30/99 recommendation on scope of 10 CFR 50.59 (9800044)(NRR)
- 16. Publish final rule chance 10 CFR 50.59 N99 6/99 E. McKenna, DRPM Comments:
3,4,6-9,11,13. 000 555635:ng options and recommending sppicsch to maks 00.09 ri5k-infw . m.,
m!!estones sad scheduies (7, O sad 10 revised to ref'ect p!sn3 for pub!;c iverkshop in 1/09. Milestones associated with risk-informed options for 50.59 have been integrated wi.th milestones for risk-informed options for Part 50 (Topic I Issue A).
- 5. SRM issued 9/25/98. Notice published on 10/21/98 for 60 days. NMSS/SFPO is working in conjunction with NRR to modify 10 CFR 72.48 which is comparable to 10 CFR 50.59. (Contact:
W. Kane) 7, S. Oteff met iv th ACR0 subcomm:::cc en 11/10/00. Orsft paper provided to subcommitics on 11/20/00 as preparation for A000 f Ull Committee en 12/0/00. Ocmm:55lcn 1vlll then receive the vere ca of the paper that reflects the, ste'I'5 discussione ivith the AOn0 andlhe;!5 bslng pub liciy reie&5ed ic supped the iverk5 hop p!&nned for 1/09.
12-16. Milestones and schedules reflect staff request to revise schedule and approach, signed by EDO on 12/21/98. If this request is not approved, new Milestones 12 and 13 would be removed, and dates _ for Milestones 14-16 (renumbered to 12-14) would revert to previous dates.
Deferrals:
The start of RES work on low power and shutdown risk will be deferred from 10/98 to 1/99.
(9800039) (RES)
. -_ - . - - .. - .. . . ~ . . .
29 January 7,1999 IV. Tople' Area:
' Reactor Licen's ina and'Oversloht SES Manager: David Matthews, Deputy Director, DRPt.1/NRR C. Specific issue: FSAR Update Guidance Objective: To provide consistent guidance on information to be contained in FSAR PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead :
- 1. Submit SECY-98-087 to Commission which 4/20/98C T. Bergman, DRPM contains proposed guidance on information to be contained in FSAR .
i
- 2. SRM/SECY-98-087 directs staff to work with industry 6/30/980 T. Bergman, DRPM l to resolve issues and endorse industry guidance
- 3. Issue staff comments on NEl 98-03 dated 7/8/98 9/1/98C T. Bergman, DRPM
- 4. Receive revised NEl 98-03 (Final Draft Rev. 0) 9/30/980 T. Bergman, DRPM
- 5. Issue staff comments on Final Draft Rev. 0 10/8/98C T. Bergman, DRPM
- 6. Receive.Rev. O of NEl 98-03 for endorsement 11/4/98C T. Bergman, DRPM
- 7. CRGR review of draft regulatory guide that 12/8/98C T. Bergman, DRPM !
endorses industry guidance
- 8. Submit paper with draft regulatory guide to 12/01/90 Commission (9700198)(NRR) 1/5/99C T. Bergman, DRPM )
l
- 9. Publish draft regulatory guide endorsing NEl 98-03 1/28/99 T. Bergman, DRPM for comment (60 days)
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 10. Resolve issues identified during public comment 5/30/99 T. Bergman, DRPM period
I t
f 30 January 7,1999 i
BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 I Milestone Date Lead
- 12. Submit paper and final regulatory guide to 8/1/99 T. Bergman, DRPM l Commission (9700198)(NRR) i l
Comments: i
.1. If closure can be reached with NEl, a regulatory guide will be the product;if not, a generic letter will be used.
C. Reflecte 2;;ual da;c Ocv. O wse received.
- 7. P.eflede schedgied dste for 0000 ineating. Staff met with CRGR as scheduled. CRGR has endorsed the staff's proposal.
- 8. Paper sent to the Commission 1/5/99.
l l
f i
,.y-...___.__-._..._._-._- . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ._ _ .. _-. .-
,- 4
- l 31 . January 7,1999 ,
j . IV.' Toolc Area: Reactor Licensino and Overslaht I ^
SES Manager: David Matthews, Deputy Director, DRPM/NRR i
D. Soecific issue: Define Desian Basis i
l Objectivei To provide a clear definition of what constitutes design bases information.
- l. PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 l'
L Milestone Date Lead
- 1. NEl submits 97-04 forinformation 10/8/97C S. Magrudcr, DRPM
- 2. SRM/SECY-97-205 directs staff to continue to 3/24/98C S. Magruder, DRPM L- develop guidance regarding design bases issues i
- 3. Issue pre'iminary staff comments on NEl 97-04 8/18/980 S. Magruder, DRPM
- 4. Meet with NEl to discuss staff comments on 9/18/980 S. Magruder, DRPM
! NEl 97-04 l 5.' NEl submits revised NEl 97-04 for review and S. Magruder, DRPM L endorsement . 1/99
- 6. Resolve firial staff cnmments S. Magruder, DRPM f TBD THROUGH JUNE 30,1999_ l l Milestone Date Lead
- 7. ACRS and CRGR review of SECY and draft S. Magruder, DRPM regulatory guide that endorses NEl 97-04 l TBD '
- 9. Publish draft regulatory guida for public comment S. Magruder, DRPM (60 days) ' TBD BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead L 10.' Resolve issues identified during public comment S. Magruder, DRPM
! period - TBD l-L
-,9 - - . b .~e y w a ,-ya- . mi- - -
. . 1 32 January 7,1999 BEYOND JUNE 30,1999
- 12. Submit paper and final regulatory guide that S. Magruder, DRPM endorses NEl 97-04 to Commission (9800044) (NRR) TBD Comments:
5,6
- NEl's best estimate for submitting a revision to NEl 97-04 is now 1/99. The reason for the delay in the submittalis that industry resources have been diverted to developing comments on the 10 CFR 50.59 rulemaking (Topic IV issue B). The public comment period for the 10 CFR 50.59 rulemaking ends 12/21/98, and the NEl comment package is not expected until then.
Recent discussions with NEl indicate that the revision to NEl 97-04 may not provide sufficient infermation to meet NRC's objective of providing a clear definition of what constitutes design bases information as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. The industry is not developing specific criteria that would provide additional guidance for licensees to use when determining whether certain information is design basis information under 10 CFR 50.2 and, therefore, should be included in the UFSAR. In addition, the industry has not decided whether to seek the staff's endorsement of NEl 97-04.1.n parallel with NEl's efforts, the staff is preparing guidance to better identify regulatory design basis information. When the revision to NEl 97-04 is received, the staff will decide whether to continue to review NEl 97-04 or to publish its own guidance document.
8 & 12. The staff is preparing an extension request for that portion of WITS 9800044 that discusses developing guidance regarding design bases issues. Other portions of WITS 9800044 that relate to the recommendations in SECY-97-205 and the scope of 10 CFR 50.59 are not affected.
l l
l 33 January 7,1999 IV. Toole Area: Reactor Licensina and Overslaht l
l SES Manager: Bruce Boger, Acting Associate Director for Projects, NRR E. Specific 1ssue: Improved Standard TS l
1.ead: TSB Lead PM for each facility conversion Ob]ective: Conversion of facility technical specifications to the appropriate improved standard technical specifications will promote more consistent interpretation and application of technical specification requirements, thereby reducing the need for interpretations and frequent changes to the technical specifications. The goal for each milestone listed below is to complete the conversions currently under review such that the above objectives are met for the affected facilities.
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Issue ISTS Amendments for McGuire 1&2 and 09/98C ADPR Catawba 1&2
- 2. Issue ISTS Amendments for Oconee 1/2/3*
4998 ADPR 12/16/980
- 3. Issue ISTS Amendments for Byron 1&2* and 4998 ADPR Braidwood 1&2* 12/22/980
- 4. Issue ISTS Amendments for Comanche Peak 1&2* ADPR 1/99 THROUGH JUNE 30,1999*
Milestone . Date Lead
- 5. lssue ISTS Amendments for Wolf Creek *, Callaway*, ADPR and Diablo Canyon 1&2* 2/99
. 6. IssueISTS Amendments for Farley 1&2* 5/99 ADPR
- 7. Issue 1STS Amendment for Ferm12* 5/99 ADPR
34 January 7,1999
\
l l
BEYOND JUNE 30,1999*
1 Milestone Date Lead )
- 8. Issue ISTS Amendment for Palisades
- 07/99 ADPR i
l Comments l
- Completion of the milestones as listed depends upon the quality of the licensee's submittals l and timeliness of response to staff RAls.
e
. 1 i'
I t
35 January 7,1999 IV. Toole Area: Reactor Licensino and Oversiaht SES Manager: John Stolz, Acting Director'Cilief, P$CB/DRPM/NRR F. Specific Issue: Generic Communications i
Objective: Ensure the appropriate use of generic communications, increasing the efficiency of issuance, and utilizing the rulemaking process when appropriate.
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999
- Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Issue memorandum on immediate changes to 8/7/98C J. Stolz, DRPM generic letter process (ET review of strategy; graded approach)
- 2. Meet with NEl for input on industry views on generic 8/27/98C J. Stolz, DRPM i communications (Topic IV lssue K Milestone 3b(2))
- 3. Complete self assessment and needed +2F38 R. Dennig, DRPM lmprovement to generic communications process. 11/30/98C issue report
- 4. Prepare input for 1/13/99 Commission briefing on 1/6/990 R. Dennig, DRPM Reactor Licensing 1
~
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead Process improvements based upon self-assessment TBD R. Dennig, DRPM results completed in +2/9811/98 (specific milestones to be determined)
- 45. Meeting with ACRS 2/99 R. Dennig, DRPM 4/99 BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead None i Comments:
- 1. Generic communications discussed with INPO in telephone conference 7/31/98. NRR ET is briefed on proposed generic communications early in development process.
1
L4 .
t i . 36 January 7,1999 l h'[Repsrt coniklitedori 11/30/98. SECY paper transmitting report to Commission is in concurrence
,s. .~ ~,.1 4.Jiew mRest.onej
- 5. ' Scope of ACRS meetina expanded to include additional material on process improvements.
D. ate change. coordinated with ACRS.
I
. )
l
! 37 January 7,1999 IV. Toole Area Reactor Licensina and Oversiaht 1
j SES Manager: Bruce Boger, Acting Associate Director for Projects, NRR I G. Specific issue: CALs Objective: Confirmatory Action Letters (CALs) are issued to emphasize and confirm a licensee's or vendor's agreement to take certain actions in response to specific issues. The NRC expects licensees / vendors to adhere to any obligations and commitments addressed in a CAL and will l- Issue appropriate orders to ensure that the obligations and commitments are met. The goal of the milestones listed below is to ensure that staff guidance on the use of CALs is appropriate and that the staff exercises appropriate discipline in the development and issuance of CALs.
l l l
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999
{
1 Milestone Date Lead
- 2. Reinforce expectations regarding use of current 9/24/98 C D. Pickett, ADPR CALs to ADPR/ Region management
- 3. Review / issue revised guidance documents for 44/96 D. Pickett, ADPR threshold for issuance of CALs (i.e., IMC 0350, 11/25/98 procedures, etc.) to ensure the existence of clear C criteria for consistent decision making.
- 4. Reinforce expectations regarding revised guidance 44/90 D. Pickett, ADPR on use of CALs to ADPR/ Region management 11/30/98 l C l
l Comments Otstus. A!! m!!estenes are cn tre;k, there are ac schedu's chsnges, sad there are ac expected
! deleys: .
t 3.~ I'iepceed rev;e: ens tc the cnforcement msagal chspier cicre lseced is regions /NMOO for cernment en 0;teber,0,1000. Ocmmente en the picpcaed chenges have bcen received and l- are curientlj being reeclved. A fine;i repceed red;;ne/str;kesyt veralen of the enfcicement l manua :e scheduled to be picvided to OC by Ocicber 00,1000.
l~na red:ne/ati;keegt versica cf picpcaed changes to the enicicement mensel viss Icime!!y prev ded to OE v ainernciandum ficm Camus: Ocl';n3 to James Llebermen deted November 2, 1000. lt:5 enticipated that the epp'icebls section of the enforcement menue! viill be upd&ted by l the end of November,1000.
l l
t l ,~
, 38 January 7,1999 l
li hhifo'ris"asschiai'd e with'thisst'a' k are corisplete. The applicable pages of the Enforcement Manual have bsen updated and distributed. A memorandum from the Director, NRei, to l .. ADPR/ Region management reinforcing expectations was issued on November 30,1998.
l' l
t-f
1 39 January 7,1999 IV. Toolc Area: Reactor Licensino and Oversiaht SES Manager David Matthews, DeputyDirector, DRPM/NRR H. Specific issue: Applicability of Backfit Rule to Decommissionina Activities Objective: Resolve issue regarding proper interpretation and application of the Backfit Rule to decommissioning activities.
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 2. Maine Yankee appeals backfit determination and 6/9/98C S. Weiss, DRPM presents backfit position to staff
- 8. . lssue Commission paper on backfit rule (Topic IV 11/4/98C S. Weiss, DRPM issue K Milestone 5.b) (SECY 98-253)
- 9. Brief NEl on Commission decision 12/01/30 S. Weiss, DRPM TBD _
, THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead None BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead None f-l
. . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . - . .. . . ~ . - .._ - - . ~ _ _ . - _ . . . . _ . . - _ . . _ . . . . - = - . =
i 1
40 January 7,1999 '
)
l Comments:
- 5. ACRS determined during its 11/98 meeting that it would not review SECY-98 253, i
" Applicability of Plant-Specific Backfit Requirements to Plants Undergoing Decommissioning." j I
E.~~dhinTnissiefiddhisio'n on SECY-98'253 is stid pending. The NEl briefing cannot be planned t l until he_ Commission informs the staff of its decision. 1 1
i l
l 1
i f
I 4
l l
l I
?
A
- l. e l 1 I i l 41 January 7,1999 '
IV. Topic Area: Reactor Licensina and Overslaht l SES Manager. Brian Sheron, Acting Associate Director for Technical Review, NRR l
I. Specific issue: Reauests for AdditionalInformation Objective: To refine / define RAI process and ensure that staff RAl's are adding value to the !
regulatory process. '
l PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 1
Milestone Date Lead ,
4
- 1. Discuss issue of ensuring appropriateness of RAl's 8/20/98C B. Sheron, ADT l with management and staff (including content, quality 1/5/99C l and continued oversight) Conduct training on revised 1/6/99C l Office Letter 803 (milestone 9) when issued. 1/14/99 Ongoing '
- 2. Communicate with licensees via telecon prior to Ongoing B. Boger, ADPR issuing RAl.
- 3. Meet with internal stakeholders to discuss possible 9/14/98C B. Sheron, ADT ,
closure of amendments with outstanding RAls and l
, improved tracking of amendments with outstanding i RAls.
- 4. Form panel of staff reviewers to brainstorm on 9/15/98C B. Sheron, ADT suggested improvements to the RAI process. Letter l Issued to NEl on suggested improvements on 9/29/98.
- 5. Stakeholder meeting with NEl on license 10/5/98C . B. Sheron, ADT/
amendment and RAI process to solicit feedback from ADPR
- licensees. Meeting summary with action items
! issued 10/21/98.
- 6. Discuss issues with each technical branch in NRR. 11/98C B. Sheron, ADT Ongoing
- 7. NRR licensing action steering group formed to work 10/980 W. Dean, ADPR/
with industry steering group on improvements to the 11/12/98C ADT/DRPM license amendment process - conducting periodic 12/10/980 meetings. Ongoing
- 8. Discuss issues with regional division directors at 12/1/980 B. Sheron, ADT DRS/DRP counterpart meetings. DRS
__ _ . . _ . _ _ . - ~ _ _ . ~ -- . __ ._ _ . . . _ .
42 January 7,1999 PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999
- 9. Issue guidance to staff on content l quality and 4690 S. Peterson, ADT threshold of RAl's and commencement of initial 12/21/980 RES, NMSS acceptance review. (Issued NRR Office Letter 803, Rev.2 " License Amendment Review Procedures")
- 11. Solicit feedback from licensee's on RAls and 12/10/98C ADPR/
develop metrics for RAls. Periodic B. Sheron. ADT Comments
- Status : All milestones on track, there are no schedule changes and no expected delays.
- 7. Efforts will be coordinated with risk-informed licensing panel (Topic l.A.lil).
4 i
l i
I l
43 January 7,1999 )
l W.'Toolc Area: Reactor Licensina and Oversicht s SES Manager: Bruce Boger, Acting Associate Director for Projects, NRR
{
J. Specific Issue: 2.206 Petitions r
Objective: The objectives of the 2.206 Petition review process include ensuring the public health L and safety through the prompt and thorough evaluation of any potential safety problem l . addressed by a petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206 and to ensure _ effective, timely communication with the petitioner (Management Directive 8.11). The objective of the actions listed below is to identify and irnplement measures to improve the timeliness of staff response to petitions.
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 l Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Establish a Petition Review Board to ensure 10/97C R. Subbaratnam, management involvement early in the process ADPR j
- 2. Establish public availability of monthly 2.206 Petition 04/98C R. Subbaratnam, 1
Status Reports at the NRC Web site ADPR 1 (http://www.nrc. gov /NRC/PUBLIC/2206/index.html)
I l
- 3. Assess timeliness of resolution of 2.206 petitions R. Subbaratnam, and brief EDO on the results and any proposed 10/28/98C ADPR process improvements
- 4. Obtain stakeholdeeedback on 2.206 process ifY90 R. Subbaratnam, 1/99 ADPR/OE/NMSS
- 5. Commission info . nation memorandum from EDO to 41998 R. Subbaratnam, L discuss planned process improvements. (9800201) 1/5/99C - ADPR
- 6. Implement proposed 2.206 process timeliness 4f998 R. Subbaratnam, improvements (if any) 1/99 ADPR/OE/NMSS i
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead-l 7. Show measured improvement in timeliness of 03/99 R. Subbaratnam, l' resolution of 2.206 petitions ADPR/OE/NMSS 8.' implement additional process improvements. TBD after R. Subbaratnam, stakehold ADPR/OE/NMSS ~
er feedback Comments i
l'
..e;
- 44 January 7,1999 iTCdriiacting stasshdiders during December was more difficult than expected.
5l'information m' em
~ orandum to Commission 1/5/99.
- 6. Process improvement implementation will take place after the information memorandum is finalized.
r: -
I
o e t
45 January 7,1999 l IV.Toolc t.rea: Reactor Licensina and Oversiaht SES Manager: John F. Stolz, Chief, PECB/DRPM/NRR K. Specific issue: Application of the Backfit Rule Objective: Ensure that the staff closely adheres to the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109 in evaluating all additional requirements, expansion in scope or unique interpretations against actual impact on public health and safety. Focus will be directed on risk-informed, performance-based regulation; also coordinating with backfit related concerns on Generic communications (IV.F) and Decommissioning (IV.H) and Evaluation of Industry Proposals and Rulemaking (l.A).
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Response to NEl letter 8/11/98. NEl 11/9/98C R. Dennig, DRPM recommendation for Near-Term Reg. Improvement -
Recommendation 4," Application of the Backfit Rule *
(a. Decommissioning; b. Averted On-site Costs)
- 3. Brief CSIS on backfitting processes 11/19/980 J. Stolz, DRPM S4. Prepare staff positions on backfit-related issues 12/980 R. Dennig, DRPM
- a. Averted on-site Costs'
- b. Handiing of compliance backfit considering risk 12/98C R. Dennig, DRPM; of OGC non-compliance (1) consider Exemptions per 10 CFR 50.12 (2) Early industry involvement in Generic Communications process (Topic IV. Issue F Milestone 3*).
- 45. Meeting with EDO on items 3 a, b 4998 R. Dennig, DRPM 1/99
- 56. Meeting with NEl on items 4998 R. Dennig, DAPM
- a. Items 3a & b 1/99
- b. Commission decision on backfit to 4908 S. Weiss, DRPM Decommissioning Activities (Topic IV. Issue H 1/99 Milestone 9')
-O '
l 46 January 7,1999
)
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999
- 67. Commission Papers 44190 R. Barrett, DSSA
'a. Options on Backfitting implications from 12/23/980 M. Cunningham, RES '
modifying Part 50 to be risk-informed (Topic I issue A Milestone 10)(9800152)(NRR) 1/99 R. Dennig, DRPM
- b. on items Sa, b (9800175) (NRR) (Draft) l l l THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 i
Milestone Date Lead l
i 78. Meeting with CRGR on Draft Commission Paper 2/99 R. Dennig, DRPM l
(tentative)
- 89. Meeting with ACRS on Draf t Commission Paper 9 99 R. Dennig, DRPM (tentative) 3/99 910. Issue Commission Paper on items 3a, b 3/99 R. Dennig, DRPM 4011. CRGR Yearly Meeting with Nuclear Utility Spring 99 CRGR Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG) on Backfit issues -
i BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 i Milestone Date Lead l M12. CRGR Annual Report -Includes Industry Summer CRGR i
Feedback on Effectiveness of Backfitting Process 99 M13. Backfit Trainina at Headquarters and Recions FY99 AEOD/NRR/HR i
Comments:
- 1. ".eepenee drafted een; to OCCY 10/0/00, v&h Ocininieeica ici conccrience.
2-0. Ad'i:ena!!cade dentified.
L Ob. Ceininieelen paper identified ao draft.
- 70. Nc.v iniissiones.
- 3. New milestone.
1
- 4. Staff positions drafted; working into draft SECY paper. Beginning process of obtaining
-awareness, buy-in from key staff and management.
I i
i l
l l
1 1
. . j 1
1 1
47 January 7,1999
. 5,b. Delays due.to scheduling conflicts.
_<_2.,_ _..___;___
m_. ..._,.,___2__._.vomm.....,...nn.._,,_______.____,________
_22____
. . . . . .. ...gyo m .. . .m...v.ms. ... . . . . ev...... .. ..u eviive....
3 . m. ._._3_p_ . _. _. .... ..
u... . w_e e.vv.. .v .m - n.n_,.e-m .
2,__..___; ._ _ _____ . _ _ ,
u m. emu e ou w ... . .e.yor e. . .. . . u 2._ _ . _ _ . _ ,,,_
m .. 3 .u.
________ ________2_i___
. ...e l y.uy o.. s. mvi..... ..w ouw.. .
Reference Milestone on other Topics / Specific issues noted.
l l
l l
l l
l j
i l
l i
l i
I I
I I
l 1
1 1
-9 I
l i
l l
l
]
1 l
48 January 7,1999 V. Tonic Area: NRC Oroanizational Structure and Resources SES MANAGER: Paul E. Bird, Director, HR A. Specific issue: Reoraanization - Restructurino Line Oraanizations Objective: To lmprove organizational effectiveness and align resources required to carr NRC planned activities through internal functional realignments and human resource re y out allocations.
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Offices initiate plans for proposed restructuring 8/19/98C J. McDermott; Office Directors & Regional Administrators
- 2. All Employees Meeting 9/3/98C P. Bird
- 3. Restructuring proposals submitted to Commission 9/30/98C P. Bird (9800163)(HR) 10/1/98C
- 4. Completion of Commission review of restructuring John C Hoyle, SECY proposal; COMSECY 98-31 11/25/98C SECY 98-228 12'0/90 12/10/98C I THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 5. Partnering process completed for reorganization 1/11/99 M. Fox; Office packages 1/31/99 Directors & Regional Administrators
- 6. Reorganization plans finalized WM/99 J. McDermott; Office 2/26/99 Directors & Regional Administrators
- 7. Reorganization implementation begins shT99 J. McDermott; Office 3/12/99 Directors & Regional '
Administrators
- 8. Reorganizations effective 3/31/99 J. McDermott; Office Directors & Regional Administrators l
l
[_
49 January 7,1999 Coinments
- 3. Memo to Chairman Jackson 9/30/98 and SECY 98-228 dated 10/1/98.
- 4. SRM for CO.MSECY 98-31 issued 11/25/98. Veis en O ef dieft SRM for SECY 98-228 issued 12/4/90. Oemments ere requested by 000107/90.12/10/98.
5 6, & 7. Dates extendei consistent with change in #4 above and delayed initiation of partnership procesc. Post-reorganization implementation activities, such as personnel actions, physical moves, position description and performande plan updates, will occur between April-August 1999.
O l
l 1
i
l . <
50 January 7,1999 V. Topic Area: NRC Organizational Structure and Resources SES MANAGER: Paul E. Bird, Director, HR B. Specific issue: Achievina 1:8 supervisor /manaaer-to-employee ratios Objective: To reduce supervisory and SES positions to achieve an agency-wide supervisor / manager to-employee ratio target of one supervisor / manager for every eight NRC employees.
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Continue existing supervisor / manager-to-employee Ongoing J. McDermott; Office ratio reduction efforts Directors & Regional Administrators
- 2. All Employees Meeting 9/3/98C P. Bird
- 3. Quarterly assessment of supervisor / manager-to- 10/30/98C J. McDermott employee ratio
- 4. Develop. targeted strategies to achieve supervisory J. McDermott ratio goals - 10/27/98C
- 5. Year end assessment of supervisor / manager-to- 1/99 J. McDermott employee ratio incorporating the results of attrition, including the effect of early outs or buy outs
- 3. & 4. Assessment and strategies forwarded to EDO 10/27.
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 6. Complete implementation of reorganizations 3/31/99 J. McDermott; Office developed to achieve streamlining goals Directors & Regional Administrators
- 7. Implement strategies to achieve supervisory ratio 3/31/99 J. McDermott; Office targets Directors & Regional Administrators
- 8. Quarterly assessment of supervisor / manager-to- 4/99 J. McDermott employee ratio
51 January 7,1999 i
'O THROUGH JUNE 30,1999
- 9. Implement strategies to acheve supervisory ratio 5/31/99 J. McDermott; Office targets Directors & Regional Administrators BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 t Milestones Date Lead i
- 10. Quarterly assessment of supervisor / manager-to- 7/99 J. McDermott employee ratio
- 11. Implement strategies to achieve supervisory ratio 7/15/99 J. McDermott; Office targets Directors & Regional Administrators Comments:
1 The milestones in the table above focus only on those aspects of the streamlining effort that address the supervisor / manager-to-employee ratio. Activity extends beyond the March 31, 1999, deadline established for the structural changes contained in issue A to accommodate implementation of personnel placements.
l l.
l 0
i i
, ~
l 52 January 7,1999 l
[ V. Toole Area: NRC Oraanizational Structure and Resources SES MANAGER: PaulE. Bird, Director, HR C. Specific issue: Increased employee involvement Objective: To enhance organizational effectiveness under the specific conditions imposed by the agency-wide streamlining effort -including functional realignments, reductions in supervisory / managerial personnel, and increased spans of management control--by delegating greater responsibility and accountability to individual employees and fostering greater interactive communications between employees and management.
l i
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999
{
l MILESTONE DATE Lead j
- 1. Continue previous general efforts to foster Ongoing J. McDermott; Office delegations of responsibility and accountability to Directors & Regional
- employees and more interactive communications Administrators ;
between employees and managers. Monitor office progress l j1
- 2. All employees meeting 9/3/98C P. Bird O. Piciide gu:dence to inanagere en the need to ceneider greeter Lee of dclcsations cl respons b:!!ty 10/0/90 and acccentab ::ty is erns:cyces.
l THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 3. Provide guidance to managers and supervisors on J. McDermott employee involvement concepts, including direction S/2/99 and assignment of work, delegation of authority, quality 3/12/99 i control, and responsibility and accountability for outputs l and outcomes, J. McDermott; Office
- 4. Begin interactive meetings, consistent with the S/2/99 Directors & Regional communications plan now under development, 3/12/99 Administrators;
- between office managers / supervisors and staff. supervisors &
l.
managers I'
53 January 7,1999 i'
l
' Comments:
The milestones for this issue establish a tirne period, consistent with the schedule for restructuring provided in issue A, for beginning the office / region process of increasing employee l
l Involvement and engaging staff in the transformation process to a new culture. ,
3 & 4. Daie ~r50is5d consistent with date change to item 7, issue A (restructuring).
l l
l l
4 l
l l
1
I l 54 January 7,1999 i
yl. Toolc Area: Other Aaency Proarams and Areas of Focus SLS: Robert Wood, PGEB/DRPM/NRR SES Manager: Lawrence Chandler, OGC A. Specificissue: License Transfers Objective: To ensure that license transfers are conducted in a timely and technically correct manner and that review and submittal guidance is appropriately disseminated.
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Issued proposed 10CFR Part 2 Subpart M hearing 8/14/98C J. Gray, OGC process - paper to Commission (SECY 98-197)
- 2. Publish proposed rule on license transfer (see 9/11/98C J. Fitzgerald, OGC SECY-98-197)
- 3. Submit final rules to Commission 11/3/98C J. Fitzgerald, OGC
- 4. Commission approves / affirms final rules 11/24/98C J. Fitzgerald, OGC
- 5. Publish final rules in Federal Reaister. 12/4/98C J. Fitzgerald, OGC
- 6. Final rules are effective 12/4/980 J. Fitzgerald, OGC
- 7. Draft SRP re: Foreign ownership to Commission, 10/23/980 S. Hom, OGC SECY 98-246
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 10. Complete technical review of TMI-1 transfer see R. Wood, DRPM Commera 3/4/99
o .
l 55 January 7,1999 l
THROUGH JUNE 3D,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 14. Provide Commission with a proposed final criteria 6/25/99 R. Wood, DRPM for triggering a review under 10 CFR 50.80 regarding the transfer of operating authority to non-owner operators (i.e., use of contract service operating ,
companies). (9800015) (NRR) !
l l
l 15. Issue lessons learned from AmerGen TMI 1 6/99 R. Wood, DRPM l- transfer 1
BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 16. Develop SRP on technical qualifications 12/99 DRCH t 17. Develop' integrated SRP on license transfer 12/99 R. Wood,DRPM i process reflecting lessons learned and process S. Hnm, OGC l improvements l Comments:
! 4,5. Commission approval of the final license transfer hearing rule and the rule's publication in the Federal Reaister have been delayed approximately 1 week. However, this is not expected to affect completion of other milestones.
- 5. Date changed to allow 30-day period between publishing the final rule in the Federal Reaister l and the final rule becoming effective.
- 7. Submitta!+ 0 months l 1
042. Added edd; tion &! mi!ssiones to schedule.
8,9. Dates will be established following issuance of SRM.
- 13. OGC sent a draft SRP (with NRR concurrence) to the Commission on 10/23/98, SECY 246. The description of this milestone has been modified to reflect that actual work product and its completion schedule has been accelerated.
- 17. Integration of alllicense transfer review criteria (via financial qualifications,' decommissioning i i
funding assurance, technical qualifications, foreign ownership, and antitrust).
l l
i 1
1 I
- - ..~_ - .. ._ - - . _ . . - - ... . .- - -
l 56 January 7,1999 l
l i
VI. Toolc Area: Other Aaency Proarams and Areas of Focus i SES Manager: Chris Grimes, Director, PDLR/DRPM/NRR l
i B. Specificissue: AP-600 Deslan Certification Rulemakina l Objective: Issue FDA and design certification rule PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 ,
^
Milestone Date Lead I
- 1. Issue FDA 9/3/98C T. Quay, DRPM THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead >
- 2. Issue proposed rule iPRMI (9200142) (NRR) 3/99 J.N. Wilson, DRPM BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone - Date Lead
- 3. Issue Final Rule IFRN1(9200142)(NRR) . 10/99 J.N. Wilson, DRPM
57 January 7,1999 VI. Topic Area: Other Aaency Proarams and Areas of Focus SES Manager: William F. Kane, Director, Spent Fuel Project Office
' C1. SDecific issue: TN-68 (Dual Purpose) Cask Review Objective: To issue a Part 72 (storage) SER and certificate of compliarice (through rulemaking) and a Part 71 (transportation) certificate of compliance for the TN-68 dual purpose cask system (Comment 1)
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Staff receives response to storage RAI 09/14/98C M. Ross-Lee, SFPO
- 2. Staff issues second storage RAl, if necessary 12/03/980 M. Ross-Lee, SFPO
- 3. Staff receives response to second storage RAl 01/99 M. Ross-Lee, SFPO THROUGH JUNE 30,1C9 Milestone Date Lead
- 4. Staff issues user need 03/99 E. Easton, SFPO memorandum /rulemaking
- 5. Staff issues draft SER and CoC for rulemaking 05/99 M. Ross-Lee, SFPO BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 6. Staff completes rulemaking; issues CoC for use 04/00 E. Easton, SFPO under Part 72 P. Holahan, IMNS Comment:
- 1. The storage review is being completed prior to the transportation review; the transportation review schedule will be determined at a subsequent time. The review schedule is based upon the assumption that the applicant will supplement its application and response to staff requests for additionalinformation on the schedule noted. At this time, no significant issues have been identified. The licensee for Peach Bottom 1 & 2 intends to utilize this cask system.
Milestone 2- re' quest f'o r additional information issued on December 3,1998
i . .
58 January 7,1999 VI. Topic Area: Other Aaency Proarams and Areas of Focus SES Manager: William F. Kane, Director, Spent Fue1 Project Office C2. Specific issue: BNFUSNC TranStor (Dua1 Purpose) Cask Review Objective: To issue a Part 72 (storage) SER and certificate of compliance (through rulemaking) and a Part 71 (transportation) certificate of compliance for the BNFUSNC dual purpose cask system (Comment 1)
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Applicant submits respon<.e to 12/29/97 RAI 11/27/98C T. Kobetz, SFPO THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
.2. Staff issues user need memorandum /rulemaking 03/99 E. Eastor,, SFPO
.3. Staff receives updated SAR from applicant 06/99 T. Kobetz, SFPO
.4. Staff issues draf t SER and CoC for rulemaking 07/29/99 T. Kobetz, SFPO BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone DMe Lead
.5 Staff completes rulemaking; issues CoC for us'e OE/00 E. Easton, SFPO under Part 72 P. Holahan. IMNS Comment:
Milestone 2: The storage review is being completed prior to the transportation review;-the transportat:en icvie.y schedu:c vi:' be deterinined at a subsequent tirne. At this time, no significant issues have been identified, but the applicant must update the safety analysis report byJune 1999. This review is associated with the Part 72 Trojan ISFSI (site-specific) license application, PFS, LLC intends to utilize this cask system as well.
Miestones LC; By letter dated 09/18/98, the applicant notified the NRC that its response to the staff's 12/29/97 request for additionalinformation would be delayed a month due to the need to support closure of issues associated with the VSC-24 cask system, to support the Trojan ISFSI application, to support existing cask users, and to ensure a complete and quality RAI response.
4 .
59 January 7,1999
{
Bated on SFPO's work schedule and in accordance with its staff interactions with applicant's approach, the TranStor storage cask technicai review was rescheduled for completion on July j 29,1999. A letter advising the applicant of the revised schedule was issued on October 2,1998.
In a subsequent telephone conversation held on October 12,1998, the applicant informed the staff that it would again need to delay its response to the staff's 12/29/97 request for additional information. The staff noted that it would reschedule its review upon receipt of the applicant's written notification of the de'ay.
Byletter dated October 15,1998, the applicant informed the staff that it would delay the TranStor storage submittal until November 20,1998, and the TranStor transportation submittal until I
December 23,1998. The 5t&ff eve!Ueted the imp &ct cf this delay ca the current rev:e,v scheduls ;
and;bBy letter dated October 30,1998, the staff informed the applicant that; e55vming based on receipt of their submittal by November 20, that the review schedule for the TranStor storage submittal would remain as scheduled, with completion of the storage SER and CoC by July 29, 1999.
1 Milestones 1 through 5 -In a November 24, =0 telephone conference call held on November I 24,1998, the applicant informed the staff that it would submit its response to the second request I for additional information on its storage application on November 30,1998 (vs. November 20). At this time, the staff does not anticipate an impact on its review schedule.
Milestone 1 - In a letter dated November 27,1998, the applicant submitted its response to the December 29,,1997, request for additional information on its storage application.
In a telephone conversation held on December 10,1998, and subsequently by letter dated the i same day, the applicant informed the staff that it would not meet the December 23,1998, due !
date for the response to the TranStor transportation RAI due to competing resource needs. The applicant stated, in writing, it will provide a revised submittal date by December 31,1998. At this time, it is unknown what impact this may have on the transportation review.
l 60 January 7,1999 VI. Toolc Area: Other Aaency Proarams and Areas of Focus SES Manager: William F. Kane, Director, Spent Fuel Project Office C3. Specific issue: Holtec HISTAR 100 (Dual-Purpose) Cask Review Objective: To issue a Part 72 (storage) SER and certificate of compliance (through rulemaking) and a Part 71 (transportation) certificate of compliance for the Holtec HISTAR 100 dual purpose cask system (Comment 1)
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Staff issues user need memorandum /rulemaking 07/24/98C E. Easton, SFPO
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 3. Staff issues transportation (Part 71) CoC 03/99 M. Delligatti, SFPO BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 4. Staff completes rulemaking; issues CoC for use 08/99 E. Easton, SFPO under Part 72 P. Holahan, IMNS Comment:
1.This reviewis being performed to support spent fuel storage requirements at Dresden 1 and Hatch 1 & 2, and PFS, LLC intends to utilize this cask system.
2.The draft storage SER and CoC were issued on 09/30/98. The package was sent to NMSS/INMS to commence the rulemaking process on 09/30/98. The EDO approved the Holtec HISTAR 100 proposed rule on December 15 ,1998
! . = j I
4 61 January 7,1999 l l
! VI. Toolc Area: Other Aaency Proarams and Areas of Focus l
- SES Manager: William F. Kane, Director, Spent Fuel Project Office ;
C4. Specific issue: Westinahouse WESFLEX (Dual Purpose) Cask Review l Objective: To issue a Part 72 (storage) SER and certificate of compliance (through rulemaking) and a Part 71 (transportation) certificate of compliance for the Westinghouse WESFLEX dual '
purpose cask system (Comment 1)
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Staff issues RAI for base storage system and W21 10/22/98C M. Bailey, SFPO canister
- 2. Staff issues RAI for W44 canister M. Bailey, SFPO 11/23/98C
- 3. Staff issues RAI for W74 canister 12/21/98C M. Bailey, SFPO THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 4. Staff receives responses to RAls 03/99 M. Bailey, SFPO BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 5. Staff issues final RAI, if necessary 07/99 M. Bailey, SFPO
- 6. Staff receives response to RAl,if necessary 10/99 M. Bailey, SFPO
- 7. Staff issues user need memorandum /rulemaking 12/99 E. Easton, SFPO
- 9. Staff complete rulemaking; issues CoC for use under 12/00 E. Esston, SFPO Part72 P. Holahan, IMNS Comment:
- 1. The storage reviewis being completed prior to the transportation review. The transportation application was resubmitted in May 1998, and the transportation review schedule will be l determined at a subsequent time. Big Rock Point and Palisades intend to utilize this cask system.
? catene 1 - RAI for b&se storsgc systern design and W21 canister (21 PWR fuel a55cmbUe5)
- ssued OG 1Cl22l3C.
62 January 7,1999
- . . _ _ _ _ _ m , , . . ,__ m,,, ..__...__ ,__.._2 __ ,,_..__<__m, .mme -
sweasweiptW4 5W K. g Amt WWE WW W %dE35494W3 TVEAG 4GGWWW WI 4 31W W hillWW4 6W3 B W GWe
(
t
( - Milestone 3 - RAI for W74 canister was issued on D'ecember 21,1998.
l l'
I r
i I
s e
1
'I i l
i i
1
'1
\
e :
i l l
l s
i
-- . .. . - - - . - . . - - . =.. .~ .. -.
I i .
l l
l 63 January 7,1999 Vi. Toolc Area: Other Aaency Proorams and Areas of Focus l
SES Manager: William F. Kane, Director, Spent Fuel Project Office l
C5. Specific issue: NAC-STC/MPC (Dual Purpose) Cask Review l Objective: To issue a Part 72 (storage) SER and certificate of compliance (through rulemaking) and a Part 71 (transportation) certificate of compliance for the NAC-STC/MPC dual purpose cask system (Comment 1)
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Staff receives response on transport RAI 08/07/98C T. McGinty, SFPO l
- 2. Staff receives response on storage RAI 10/08/98C T. McGinty, SFPO l 1
- 3. Staff issues user need memorandum /rulemaking 12/03/98C E. Easton, SFPO THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 4. Staff issues Part 71 (transportation) CoC 03/99 T. McGinty, SFPO
i BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead i
- 6. Staff complete rulemaking; issue CoC for use under 02/00 E. Easton, SFPO Part 72 P. Holahan, SFPO Comment:
- 1. The storage and transportation review are being conducted concurrently. At this time, no significant issues have been identified, but the applicant must respond by the time-frame noted in order for the staff to maintain this schedule. The licensee for Yankee /Rowe intends to utilize this cask system.
Milestone 3 - User need memorandum to support rulemaking was issued December 3,1998
64 January 7,1999
{
VI. Toolc Area: Other Aaency Proarams and Areas of Focus SES Manager: William F. Kane, Director, Spent Fuel Project Office C6. Specific Issue: NAC-UMS (Dual Purpose) Cask Review l Objective: To issue a Part 72 (storage) SER and certificate of compliance (through rulemaking) and a Part 71 (transportation) certificate of compliance for the NAC-UMS dual purpose cask {
i system (Comment 1) '
l PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 1
Milestone Date Lead l
l
- 1. Staff issues storage RAI T. McGinty, SFPO 10/30/98C
- 3. Staff issues second storage RAl, if necessary 06/99 T. McGinty, SFPO BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 4. Staff receives second storage RAl response 08/99 T. McGinty, SFPO
- 5. Staff issues user need memorandum /rulemaking 08/99 E. Easton, SFPO
- 7. Staff completes rulemaking; issues CoC for use 10/00 E. Easton, SFPO under Part 72 P. Holahan, IMNS l Comment:
- 1. The storage review is being completed prior to the transportation review; the transportation review schedule will be determined at a subsequent time. At this time, no significant issues have been identified, but applicant must respond by the time-frame noted in order for the staff to maintain this schedule. The licensees for Fitzpatrick, Maine Yankee, and Palo Verde 1,2 & 3 Intend to utilize this cask system.
f/,i'astar,e 1 - Casiegc CAi issued cc, Cc cber 00,1000.
l c, e i
65 January 7,1999 VI. Toolc Area: Other Acency Proarams and Areas of Focus
! SES Manager: William F. Kane, Director, Spent Fuel Project Office l
C7. Specific issue: TN-West MP-187 (Dual-Purpose) Cask Review Objective: To issue Part 71 (transportation) certificate of compliance for MP-187 transportation cask system PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead l 1. Staff starts final review and SER compilation phase 08/03/98C M. Raddatz, SFPO i
l 2. Staff issues Part 71 certificate of compliance 09/10/98C M. Raddatz, SFPO (Comment 1) i THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead None BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone -
Date Lead None Comment:
- 1. This transportation system is the transport component of the TN West NUHOMS storage
! design. As initially certified, its authorized contents will be limited to B&W fuel, although it may be amended at a later date to address other fuel types. This action supports the decommissioning of the Rancho Seco spent fuel pool.
Milestone 2 - This action is complete f
I l
t- ( .e l
66 January 7,1999 VI. Toolc Area: Other Aaency Proarams and Area of Focus SES Manager: Seymour Weiss, Director, PDND/DRPM/NRR D. Specific Issue: Decommission 1rm Decisions l
Objective: Provide timely decisions on current issues and provide framework for decommissioning activities, i
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 l- Milestone Date Lead i 1. Provide response to SRM for SECY-98-075 (DSI- 11/4/98C M. Masnik, DRPM
- 24) (W9700089) (NRR):
1a. Form task team to develop and provide input for 7/24/98C T. Markley, DRPM Commission paper 1b. Evaluate applicability of using templates for 8/21/98C P. Harris, DRPM decommissioning licensing actions
- 1c. Develop integrated set of milestones for 8/21/98C R. Dudley, DRPM l addressing decommissioning initiatives under l development or contemplated j 1d. Comp!ste draft Commission paper for concurrence 9/2/98C T. Markley, DRPM 1e. Submit paper to Ccmmission (9700089) (NRR) 11/4/980 T. Markley, DRPM
- 2. Meeting with NEl and industry to present 1/15/99 S. Weiss, DRPM Commission integrated milestones for decommissioning initiatives necessary for above rules and existing rules
- 3. Complete the following pending licensing actions: '
3a. Maine Yankee M. Webb, DRPM Exemptions from Financial Protection Requirements of 12'10/90
.10 CFR 50.54(w) and 10 CFR 140.11 1/7/99C 3b. Haddam Neck T. Fredericks, DRPM Exemptions from Financial Protection Requirements of 11/19/98C 10 CFR 50.54(w) and 10 CFR 140.11 Technical Specification change to seismic monitoring 12'01/90 TBD-l See note 3c. Big Rock Point P. Harris, DRPM Defueled Emergency Plan exemption 10/30/98C Defueled Emergency Plan approval 10/30/98C Defueled Technical Specifications revision 11/00/90 2/26/99 l
o
- 67 January 7,1999 l
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 1
Milestone Date Lead
~
- 4. Big' Rock point .
11/00/00 P. Harris, DRPM Defueled QA Plan 2/26/99
~
- 5. Maine ades 1/10/09 M. Webb, DRPM l Technical Specification change to spent fuel pool water 1/29/99
! level
~
" ~
- 46. Complete the following pending licensing actions: Ev 4e7a. Maine Yankee M. Webb, DRPM Exemption from 10 CFR 70.24 Criticality Accident 4/15/99 Monitoring Requirements 4b76. Zion T. Markley, DRPM Exemption from 10 CFR 70.24 Criticality Accident 4/16/99 Monitoring requirements BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 58. Complete the following pending licensing actions:
Sa8a. Maine Yankee M. Webb, DRPM Modification of License Conditions 7/30/99 Technical Specifications change to liquid and gaseous 8/15/99 retease limits 568b. Haddam Neck T. Fredericks, DRPM Technical Specification change to refueling and admin 9/30/99 requirements Comments:
1 3a,5 Completion dats for techn:ce! 5pecification chen;;e is spent fuci pocl viater :cycl revised to TEf!Gct add!!!GnLI !!m5 nGaded 10 COinpl5tc ain5Gdm651 E3 & iG50!! Of [1AI iG5pOn55 IiGin !!can5CC.
Planned completion date for the Maine Yankee TS change for SFP water level has been extended 2 weeksdue to a higher priority being assigned to the Maine Yankee backfit appeal action.
~
Th'e planned completion date for the Maine Yankee financial protection exemption was extended 3 weeks to allow additional time to obtain tinal management concurrence.
3b. Comp'stion of Staff RAI on technical specification change to seismic monitoring transmitted to licensee on 12/3/98.15 expected to be deleyed bsycnd 12'01/90. Licensee's response needs to subrnit additionsi 'nicirnatica, vehich is not expected until early 1999. The staff's completion date for this milestone will be revised once the date of the expected submittal from the licensee is known.
l > s 68 January 7,1999 e_ _t_s?___ _f at - _f_f.._f_d A.._t ?_ 9 ____If?__A?-__
l 3c4.' _-f_---_._ _f AL_ f_ p% A m
- o. e o_ ._wun.p.e_ , , iv_uw.
_ mm t - .s_,_._n_..__su-vi u e wo.ue.-w uvon.- wo vouvnG ,,- -___ anu_cc or, gmVu.f
- _vn.. u v i u .m u f. w.e. _ t,e_ v_1 w n ,t,on_ ,
i.
i you
_ . .t _ e u _ _ _ _..__,____..
um ==y ou uwivow . u - --- mene e e . v u n u w Gian n .- n,o na.n ,u _ , .. . . ._ . ., _, t _
G Gu u io, n .~w.u um it A_ . ? _ _ _ a -- - _ e 2_ __..t_._
. -..t__tii_,_ t.. ___..ta__,__
GWWn t l4LLI4 3g Q GWfflEll5E4 3% WWau ghd4 GUT 44 3y fW5 MV4 5G V4 54G f L E W 6VWG GWW6 4 46 LLG4G g W W h f 4 V W 6WUW 4 4W
_.___a_;_..t_to_, a_i_ w- neu _--+_e___i_i_...t,,t. __..t___1 _______ _r_f___ _c__ __
E Afs KEG W G WW 6 5 58 LLE4 ". "." _ J A 3W G& Ell G bV33W3EUVll WELW Vfl 44 WG L G V 6GUW V6 4bb 18 6VI G 43 8 8 V6 4 4 4GhlV6 4 Wil l the contents s'ths spected stmitte!!ekncwn. Supplementalinformation, including withdrawal i of a portion of the originairequest, was submitted by the licensee. Due date has been revised to
~
reflect time needed to complete the licensing action.
Note: ACRS and CRGR have declined review of the DSI 24 Commission paper, i
l l
l l
l l
l S
l r
I i
l l
l 1
l l
l 69 January 7,1999 l
l VI. Topic Area: Other Aaency Proaramsand Areas of Focus ;
- SES Manager: Susan F. Shankman,Dep. Director, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, SFPO E. Specific Issue: PGE-Trolan Reactor Vessel Shloment Application l i i Objective: To issue Part 71 (transportation) approval to ship the Trojan reactor vessel, with internals, for disposalin the State of Washington i
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 l Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Staff prepares SER for Part 71 approval 09/30/98C J. Cook, SFPO l
- 2. Staff prepares EA 09/30/98C J. Cook,SFPO
- 3. Staff waste classification, if necessary (separate 08/17/98C J. Hickey, DWM SECY memorandum) (980022) (NMSS)
- 4. Staff prepares negative consent SECY paper on 10/02/98C J. Cook,SFPO l transportation and FONSI (9800165) (NMSS)
- 5. Commission issues SRM, if appropriate, on Part 71 10/22/98C OCM exemption (Comment 1) l 6. Staff issu'es Part 71 decision S.Shankman,SFPO 10/29/98C THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead None BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead j 7. Inspection follow-up prior to and during shipment 08/99 B. Spitzberg, RIV (Comment 2)
Comments:
- 1. The following actions have occurred in parallel to staff action:
(1) The State of Washington prepared a technical evaluation for disposal in September 1998. The State of Washington approved the US Ecology, Inc. disposal plan on November 24,1998.
i e .
70 January 7,1999 (2) The Department of Transportation (DOT) must grant an exemption. The DOT published PGE's application for exemption for the Trojan shipment on Or.tober 21,1998 (63 FR 56287).
DOT approved the exemption on November 23,1998.
(3) The State of Oregon must approve a change to the utility's Decommissioning Plan to allow shipment of the vesselintact. The staff met with the State of Oregon's Office of Energy, Energy Facility Siting Council, which subsequently approved the change to the Trojan Decommissioning Plan on October 15,1998. By letters dated November 11 and November 17,1998, the State of Oregon approved the shipnient plan.
- 2. PCC's decia:en to grovt the reactor ve33ell5 schedgied to occur in November 1030. The sctual greuting .veuld comin'ence in Decernber 1000, sad vesse! shipment viou!d cccur m August 1939. 2t&II dct!On5 51ihe5e PGini5 viol!d be 10 in5pect 65 6ppiOpi!&ie.
f.i;:cstone 0 - This scticn ives cornpieted on October 29,1990. The associeted congression&l ceriespondence h&3 b;ca 3ent.
- 2. The Troian reactor vessel has been successfully filled with grout. It was accomplished in two pours (12/03/98 and 12/09/98), and both were witnessed by an NRC inspector. The Trojan reactor vessel shipment is scheduled for August 1999.
S
l . .=
l 71 January 7,1999 yI.I Topic Area: Other Aaency Proarams and Areas of Focus SES Manager: John Stolz, Chief, PECB/DRPM/NRR F. Specific issue: Event Reportina Rulemakina i
Objective: Revise event reporting requirements to reduce the reporting burden associated with i
events of little or no risk significance, obtain information better related to risk, and extend reporting time limits consistent witn the need for prompt NRC action.
Coordination: Issues ll.A. " Risk Informed Baseline Core inspection Program," 11.B. " Enforcement
' Program initiatives," II.C. " Escalated Enforcement Program,"lil.A. " Performance Assessment Process improvements," and VI.G
- Event Reporting Rulemaking," require close coordination and i
the integration of specific tasks by the NRC staff. Responsible project managers are coordinating these activities by assessing the impact of proposed program changes with the other ongoing activities and ensuring that the overall objectives for each project are achieved. Examples include, intra-project task force participation, workshop attendance, concurrent review of projects and periodic senior management briefings. In addition, industry-developed initiatives such as the NEl New Regulatory Oversight Process are being reviewed by all project groups and evaluated for impact.
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 3. Public workshop / stakeholder meeting (Chicago) 9/1/98C T. Essig, DRPM
- 4. Conduct a public meetina (" tabletop exercise") 11/13/98C D. Attison, AEOD THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 7. Proposed rule to the Commission including 4/9/99 D. Allison, AEOD proposed enforcement policy changes (9800096) R. Borchardt, OE (AEOD)
- 8. Publish proposed rule (10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73) 5/14/99 DRPM
- 9. Conduct a public workshoD D. Allison, AEOD 5/28/99
1 , ,
i l
- 72 January 7,1999 BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 t
Milestone Date Lead
- 13. Publish final rule 2/00 DRPM l Comments:
- 4. McVed ficin sectica "Thicugh Juas 00,1000" to sectica "Iriciis J&ausry 20,1000" to correct type;rephical erici. Ne linpsci ca schedule.
. . . - . . - . .. .- ,~ .~.- -.- ~.-.- - - - _ . . - . - . . - - - . _ .
- a.
- l 73 January 7,1999 VI.Toolc Area: Other Aaency Proarams and Areas of Focus SES Manger: David Matthews, Deputy Director, DRPM/NRR I G. Snecific Issue: Proposed Kl Rulemakina Objective: To implement Commission decision regarding the use of Kl as a protective measure for the general public after a severe reactor accident. In addition, to work with other Federal agencies to revise the Federal policy on the use of KI in the event of a severe nuclear power plant emergency and to develop aids to assist the states in applying the revised Federal policy. g h
PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 !
Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Commission direction received (SRM 6/26/98) 6/26/980 A. Mohseni
- 2. Draft and send to Commission Federal Reaister 7/98C A. Mohseni notice on Federal KI policy
- 4. Revise Ki Federal Policy FRN and provide to 11/5/98C A. Mohseni FRPCC for review
- 5. Proposed rulemaking package to EDO (9800173) 10/23/98C M. Jamgochian, NRR (NRR) (SECY-98-264) -
i
- 7. Develop description of available Federal Kl 1/99 A. Mohseni stockpiles and availability to states
- 8. Develop final Kl Federal policy FRN reflecting '1/99 A. Mohseni l
' FRPCC review and send to Commission (9700193) l (AEOD) l 4
- THROUGH JUNE 30,1999
- 9. Final review of Kl Federal policy FRN by FRPCC 4/99 A. Mohseni
- 10. Draft a public brochure on use of KI and provide 5/99 A. Mohseni for Federal agency and public comment i-
, 11. Establish procedures to access Federal stockpiles 5/99 A. Mohseni
, with FEMA -
- 12. Publish Kl Federal Policy FRN 6/99 A. Mohseni f
i
p
L p 6
74 January 7,1999 BEYOND JUNE 30,1999
- 14. Revise Kl technical paper (NUREG-1633) to 9/99 A. Mohseni address public comments and provide to Commission (9700193)(AEOD) i
- 15. Final brochure on use of Kl provided to 9/99 A. Mohseni !
Commission for review (9700193) (AEOD)
- 16. Publish final technical paper (NUREG-1633) 10/99 A. Mohseni
- 17. Finalize the public brochure on use of Kl and 10/99 A. Mohseni provide to FEMA for publication Comments:
- 1. Deleted comment and added SRM date to Milestone description.
- 2. SRM dated 9/30/98 provided Commission-approved draft FRN. Draft FRN sent to FEMA for distribution to FRPCC members (10/1/98).
O. M ;vef.::eetene.
The staff pre'sented the revised draft FRN to the FRPCC on November 5,1998 for review, comment, and approval. FRPCC member agencies will provide their comments to the FRPCC in January 1999. The FRPCC KI Subcommittee will review those comments and make its recommendation to the FRPCC.
B. SECY 98-264, Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR 50.47, sent to the Commission on November 10,1998. Commission action still pending.
B. The FRPCC will' receive comment's on the NRC proposed FRN from other Federal agencies during 1/99. The FRPCC Subcommittee on Kl will then evaluate the comments and make its -
recommendations to the FRPCC. The NRC funding for KI will also have to be resolved. The
. completion of this task may be delayed until 3/99.
W5ef5Es finalissuanc~elithd FRN, FEMA will require NRC funding to be in place.
- 14. Oaeed en 0/00/00 On /. news d: sect:en. Commen;e rece,ved. Ceminen; period ended 9/10/00.
Come eeinn.en6 eenL.ce te en.se. On!,; d:rected the a:aff te v.ithdrevi dief; NURCO and staien;.e:i r;.iee and i;;eeve.' St:ff rege:::d rem:;;! Of d :'t NUREC fr:m NRC WES cit 0.
SRM directed the staff to withdraw the draft NUREG-1633 and substantially revise and reissue it.
Staff issued FRN withdrawing the draft NUREG on 10/16/98 and removed it from the NRC WebSite. Staff formed a KI Core Group to review and address the comments received on the draft NUREG and add new sections on U.S. and foreign experiences in logistics of Kl distribution.
~ 'The eleff fermed a core gieup compneing ispiceentatvee from auch eigenie TOA,"C /.A, CPA, OOCPO, and e L;i sta;ee to i;;;;ve and addrees the L;V cemment5, e jien5
==
- and des;lep the ne;d rev.e:en ef NUnC04000.
e 1 l
l l
75 January 7,1999 Oteff'seged TON veithdrafiing disft NUCCC-1000 en 10/10/90. i'icpc5ed to men &gement end menegement eppicsed the membcis cf e cere sicup to convene 10 revieve the comments end edd neva sectione en U.C. end icie! 9 n experience 3 in icgistics of Xl distdbut;en.--The core group l
members include representatives from: AL, TN, AZ, CT, Waterford (CT), NEMA, CRCPD-6, FDA, EPA, FEMA and NRC. Conicience ce!! held 10/22/00 to 5chedule llist meeting. -The Kl Core Group met publicly 12/1/98-12/4/98 at the NRC. Issues were identified based on public comments and resolutions identified. The U.S. experience was discussed and examined. The members were tasked for follow up activities. The Kl Core Group will meet again in early 1999 for follow-up activities. First core gicap pub l:c mccting is scheduled for 12/1/00-12/4/30.
1
_ _ ... m _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ . .
e o 76 January 7,1999 VI. Toolc Area: Other Aaency Proorams and Areas of Focus
.7 SES Managac Brian Sheron, Acting Associate Director for Technical Review, NRR H. Specific issue: NEi Petitions - Petition for modifyina 50.54(a)
Objective: Complete the NEl Petition, accepting in part to modify 10 CFR Part 50.54(a), as it pertains to Quality Assurance Program Change Control and is intended to reduce burdens on industry.
4 PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead I
- 1. Public meeting with stakeholders to discuss R. Gramm, DRCH contents of proposed Direct Final Rule.~ 10/15/98C
- 2. Submit to the Commission a memorandum R. Gramm, DRCH !
J stating the staff's proposal to accept the NEl 10/19/08C .
Petition in part to modify 50.54(a) and propose a Direct Final Rule. (9800166) (NRR) '
- 3. Submit to the Commission a SECY Paper W98 R. Gramm, DRCH l accepting the NEl Petition in part, proposing a 11/30/980 l Direct Final Rule, and a longer term additional rule change.'(9800166) (NRR) 4.~ Decision by the Commission on the Direct Final 1/99 R. Gramm, DRCH Rule and the Petition's disposition.
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 5. Publication of a Federal Register Notice to 02/99 R. Gramm, DRCH accept in part the NEl petition for rulemaking and proposing a Direct Final Rule (9800166)
(NRR)
- 6. Direct Final Rule effective if no adverse R. Gramm, DRCH 04/99 comments received.
- 7. Coordinate a workshop with NEl to discuss TBD R. Gramm, DRCH i 1
implementation aspects of Direct Final Rule.
~
- 8. Hold ineetings and workshops with TBD R. Gramm, DRCH stakeholders to fully develop voluntary option rulemaking.
y- .m \e.~, 4 - ., ..~-m .-- , -- - - - .- r- , , . - n ,e, ,u,+ ,.,-m ,, -
a :r 77 January 7,1999 THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 9f. .lssue 951u5itary O' ption rule for public comment TBD R. Gramm, DRCH via Federa1 register Notice.
- 10. Evaluate public comments :>n Voluntary Option TBD R. Gramm, DRCH t
Rule and prepare Final Rule.
11'. Issui V61u'niary Option Rule in Federal Register TBD R. Gramm, DRCH l
1 Notice.
- 12. ' Hold a workshop to discuss implementation TBD R. Gramm, DRCH aspects of Voluntary Option Rule.
! Comments:
- 3. A!! Ofllcc leve: cencurrencee viere cornpisted-end the CCC'/ paper vise forciarded to COO ca 11/20/00. COO appicva' expected 12/2/00.
i l*
i 4
1
, -- - --- - ~~_ ... _ _ . - - . .__.- --.-. .- - . . . - . - ~ -
e o~
78 January 7,1999 VI. Toolc Area: Other Amey Procrams and Areas of Focus SES Manager: David Matthews, Deputy Director, DRPM/NRR p .
l l. Specific issue: Movised Source Term Rulemakina l . Objective: To revise Part 50 to allow holders of operating power reactor licences to voluntarily
[ ' amend the facility design basis to use revised source terms in design basis accident radiological j -analyses. This action would allow these facilities to pursue risk-informed licensing actions made
! possible through the use of the revised source term.
L PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 '
Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Commission approval of rulemaking plan (submitted 9/4/980 C. Miller, DRPM 6/30/98) 2.' Complete proposed rule package 10/2/98C C. Miller, DRPM
- 3. Office concurrence 10/30/98C C. Miller, DRPM
- 4. ACRS review 11/4/98C C. Miller, DRPM b 5. CRGR briefing 11/10/980 C. Miller, DRPM L 6. Proposed rule package to EDO (9700025) (NRR) 12/4/980 C. Miller, DRPM
- 7. Submit proposed rule package to Commission 12/15/98C C. Miller, DRPM
- 8. Publish in Federal Reaister 1/99 C. Miller, DRPM i
l- !
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead 9.' Complete draft guide; draft SRP section 5/99 C. Miller, DRPM !
E 10. End of public comment period 4/99 C. Miller, DRPM
- 11. Office concurrence on final rule; draft guide; draft 6/99 C. Miller, DRPM l SRP i l BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead 1-
! 12. ACRS review 7/99 C. Miller, DRPM
- 13. CRGR review C. Miller, DRPM 7/99
- - - - - - , . - - - -. , , %,_>c- -
w . - , - - , , ,w- - . , , _ 3 y ---m-
- _= -. - --. .-. - .- . - -
l4
- L 79 January 7,1999 f
BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 !
l Milestone .- Date Lead
- 15. Final rule; draft guide; draft SRP to Commission 7/30/99 C. Miller, DRPM j 16. End of public comment period 11/99 C. Miller, DRPM l 17. Office concurrence on final guide; final SRP 12/99 C. Miller, DRPM
- 21. Final guide; final SRP to Commission 1/24/00 C. Miller. DRPM Comments:
- 5. CRGR briefing r.ced to redew on the proposed rule was completed on 11/10/98. CRGR had no objection to publishing proposed rule in the Federal Reaister and may review it at final rule stage (Milestone 13).
12,13. Mee}ings with ACRS and CRGR would be expected to occur in conjunction with the scheduled re. views.
Staff conducted a public meeting with NE.I and Industry on 10/1/98. The staff expects to conduct additional meetings as the need arises. There is currently no planning for a workshop. Such a workshop may be appropriate once the staff has issued the final rule, the draft guide, and the draft SRP.
l t
r 1
80 January 7,1999 Vll. TOPIC AREA: Uranium Recoveryissues SES Manager; J@. J. lle:en:ch kmg'S'abiein, t Acting Branch Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch A. Specific issues: Uranium recovery concerns raised in Senate report Dual regulation of ground water at in situ leach (ISL) facilities Expanded use of mill tailings impoundments to dispose of other material Eliminate consideration of economics in the processing of alternate feedstock Objective: To look for ways to:
- 1. eliminate dual regulation of ISLs facilities;
- 2. reduce the regulatory burden on uranium mill wanting to expand the use of impoundments for disposal of other materials besides mill tailings; and
- 3. encourage uranium mills who want to engage in recycling of materials for their uranium content PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. Commission paper on ways to eliminate dual Charlotte Abrams/
regulation at ISL facilities (9800176) (NMSS) t&98 Jim Park, NMSS 01/99
- 2. Commission paper on revising guidance for Charlotte Abrams/
expanding disposal capability of uranium mill +2/98 Jim Park, NMSS tailings impoundments, and ask for Commission 01/99 policy on hearing oniers concerning need to consider economics in alternate feedstock evaluations (9000170) (9800180) (NMSS)
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 3. Implement anychangesin review of alternate 04/99 Charlotte Abrams, feedstock that result from hearing and Commission 02/99 NMSS review of previous hearing orders
- 4. Complete hearing on alternate feedstock P. Block, ASLBP amendment to see how State of Utah concerns 02/99 about staff not applying appropriate economics criteria is determined.
- 5. Complete Part 41 rulemaking plan, including 04/99 Mark Haysfield recommendations on regulatory changes to address Mike Fliegel, NMSS the three issues (9800177)(NMSS)
- 6. Revise ISL Standard Review Plan to implement 06/99 Bill Ford, NMSS a staff recommendations if approved by Commission l
_ . _ _o
e l
l l
l 81 January 7,1999 l l
l THROUGH JUNE 30,1999 l
- 7. Issue revised draft guidance on disposal capability 06/99 Charlotte Abrams, with Commission-approved revisions l NMSS '
BEYOND JUNE 30,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 8. Publish proposed Part 41 for public comment, 04/00 Mark Haysfield/ l including regulatory changes to address three Mike Fliegel, NMSS I issues (9800177) (NMSS)
- 9. Publish final Part 41 codifying agency policy on O2/01 Mark Haysfield/
resolution of three issues. (9800177) (NMSS) Mike Fliegel, NMSS Comments:
General comment re: objective stated above: Three issues raised in the Senate report are presented in the National Mining Association white paper that was presented to the Commissionin April 1998.
1.& 2. Staff will provide recommendations to the Commission on ways to address issues on eliminating dual regulation at ISL facilities and on disposal of material in tailings impoundments.-htisi disits of the Commis3 cn papers have bcca prepared. Staff met with OGC on October 13, and developed a strategy for completing the Commission paper on ISL dual regulation. On October 26,1998, OGC sent staff its legal analysis covering whether staff could remove themselves from the regulation of ground water at ISL facilities.
The OGC position will-be has been incorporated into the Commission paper.
Copies of both papers have been concurred in by the CFOgrovided to CCC sad the CIO for concurrence. NMOS sad 000 staff arc working to resc!ve concern 5 ficm the Cencisl Counsci on tha d!3possl cf mated &l and1ttlernste feed paper. The !OL fac!llty dusl regtriation papers has also have received no legal objection from OGC.
Because of the technical and legal complexity of the issues covered in the Commission papers, the staff need additional time to complete their work. ln addition, the papers are being edRed. A deisy of one wcck--from November 00 to Cecember 7,1900--!3 saticbated. -Delays have resulted from time required for consultation with OGC and for staff revisions. Because it has been recommended that the issues discussed in the Commission papers should be addressed through the Part 41 rulemaking task, staff also needed extra time in order to send the Commission papers forward along with the Part 41 rulemaking plan.. The Commission papers and Rulemaking Plan have been submitted for review.
If approved by Commission, staff will begin to implement those recommendations in their review practices, and recommend that they be codified in Part 41.
- e 82 January 7,1999 3.& 4. The most recent alternate feedstock amendment issued by the staff is being contested by the State of Utah and Envirocare. One of the contentions is that the staff failed to conduct the appropriate economics test in accepting the amendment application. A decision from this hearing could help provide guidance to the staff on how economics should be considered in future reviews. The Presiding Officer has set a schedule for the hearing with filings due from the intervener (State of Utah) by December 7,1998, the licensee (International Uranium) by January 18,1999, and the staff by January 18,1999. Based on the schedules in this order, a decision from the Presiding Officer is not expected until at least February 1999.
- 5. A draft of ths ru'emaklng plsns has been prepered s'eng vah a Part 41 rulemaking plan and accomp'anying Commission paper will be sent to the Commission along with the two Commission papers.
- 9. An administrative error on the publication date of a final Part 41 has been corrected (the original date given was the date the rulemaking was due to the EDO, not the publication date)
R
83 January 7,1999 I
Vill. TOPIC AREA: Chanaes to NRC's Hearina Process SES Manager: Joe Gray, OGC A: Use of Informal Adiudicatory Procedures PRIOR TO JANUARY 28,1999 Milestone Date Lead
- 1. First draft Commission paper on legislative and J. Fitzgerald, OGC rulemaking options to enhance Commission's ability to 10/30/98C use informal adjudicatory procedures submitted for General Counsel's review and comment.
- 2. Draft submitted to Licensing Board for comment 12/1/980 J. Fitzgerald, OGC
- 3. Comments received on draft 12/18/98C J. Fitzgerald, OGC 4.. Paper submitted to Commission 12/01/00 K. Cyr, OGC 1/8/99
- 6. Commission Guidance 1/21/99
]
THROUGH JUNE 30,1999
' Commission review.
I BEYOND JUNE 30,1999
1
- 4. Paper submittal delayed by 1 week.
I
- 5. Briefings will be scheduled when requested.
i