ML20212F872

Summary of 971002 Meeting W/Nuclear Energy Institute in Rockville,Md to Discuss Oversight by Nrr,Of Licensee Commitments That Relied Upon in SE Issued by NRR to Approve Licensing Action Proposed by Util.W/Attendance List

ML20212F872
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/03/1997
From:	Donohew J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Clifford J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9711050125
Download: ML20212F872 (22)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ __

~pmag p *, UNITED STATES j

s* I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 30e6Ho01

[2

• • • • • November 3, 1997 MEMORAND9M T0: James W. Clifford, Acting Project Director Project Directorate IV-1

'l Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ROM: Jack N. Donnhew, Project Manager lYl Project Directorate IV-1 Q Divinion of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUMMARY

OF OCTOBER 2, 1997, MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR ENERGY <

INSTITUTE (NEI) ON LICENSEE COMMITMENTS On October 2,1997, representative; of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) met with representatives of the NEI at the NRC's offices in Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was held at the request of NEI. The notice for the meeting was issued on September 23, 1997. I The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the oversight by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), NRC, of licenses commitments that are relied upon in safety evaluations isseed by the NRR staff to approve a licensing action proposed by a licensee. Licensing actions are actions which require prior staff approval before they are implemented by the licensee (e.g.,

-license amendments, exemptions, relief authorizations to 10 CFR 50.55a).

Enclosure 1 is the list of attendees and Enclosure 2 is the slides used by the staff for their presentatior,. NEI made no presentation.

IL M BD.L"fl:

The NRR staff is developing guidance to formalize how it truts licensee commitments that are relied upon by the staff in its Safety Evaluations that approve a licensing action. The guidance is on how to identify, track, verify, and i;.ake enforceable these commitments. These commitments are not all the commitments that a licensee may make to the staff, but they are the set of commitments that the staff relies upon to justify that the change proposed by the licensee is acceptable and within the regulations for the operation of the r.nclear power plant.

The guidance is to be issued to the NRR staff to formalize now NRR treats commitments; however, because it may affect how licensees manage their ,

commitments, HEI requesteJ that NRR have this meeting to discuss the guidance. M DP Licensing actions approved by NRR in the past six months have used this '

guidance if the action included a commitment.

~

(oc0d I,I]l! !!! l[i!h,I.I,l ,

J f743) fpA1o!Oh$$ E[t c k @Q gy 1

i I

l .

MEETING

SUMMARY

The agenda for the meeting is on page 2 of Enclosure 2. The discussion in the meeting was on the following two initiatives in comitment management: NRC ,

audits of licensee comitment management programs and NRR initiatives in

• commitment management.

The reasons for developing the two initiatives, what is expected to be done, and what the licensees will see are outlined on pages 5 through 14 of the slides in Enclosure 2. The audits will be conducted at a sample of approximately 10 operating reactor plants by early 1988, with the results evaluated and reported on by mid-1998.

The comitment guidance that is being developed for the NRR staff is summarized on pages 8 through 14 of Enclosure 2. The reason for the NRR initiatives in commitment management is covered on page 5 of Enclosure 2.

NE! requested that NRR not implement the guidence it is developing for commitments relied upon untti the public has had the chance to comment on the s i guidance and the stuff has issued guidance on 10 CFR 50.71(e) for updating the plant Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). (Meetings between the staff and NEl on 10 CFR 50.71(e) were held on October 9 and 30, 1997.) The staff stated that the guidance formalizes its past procedures for handling these commitmente and the staff needs to continue its implementation of this guidance.

As an example of how the initiative is being implemented, the staff discussed the use of a license condition to ensure the transfer of requirements from the plant Technical Specifications (TSs) to a licensee-controlled document (e.g.,

the plant Final Safety Analysis Report, FSAP). Th:se transfers (ccur in licensing actions involving amendments to the license in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90 (which requires prior staff approval for a change). An example of such a licensing action is the conversion of a plant's TSs to the Improved Standard TSs. The license condition could require that the requirements removed from the TS would be relocated to the FSAR. The license condition is kit to be necessary for enforceability of the transfer of information. After the relocation is completed, the relocated requirements could then be changed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 (which allows a change without staff approval if thee is no unreviewed safety question or no ancillary change to the TSs).

The saf ety evaluation is:;ued by the staff on Improved Standard Technical Specification conversions will state that the requirements relocated to the '

FSAR can be changed under 10 CFR 50.59.

At the conclusion of the meeting, NEI representatives requested tnat the staff issue the guidance (1) with criteria for determining which commitments relied upon by the staff should be made license conditions and (2) for public comment. The staff stated that it would consider NEI's requests.

Project No. 689

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: See next page

g3 '

> . ,% MEETING

SUMMARY

[% , .L . . . r i%0-, T,he agenda for the meeting is on page 2Lof Enclosure 2. The discussion in thef '

- ~.

w' ~ seeting was on the following two initiatives in commitment management:' NRC-  :

jy. "" audits of licensee comitment management programs and NRR initiat 4es in s; .-

H!,t / commitment

+

x .

management. _

,a +

r % The reasons;for developing the two initiatives, what is expected to.be done,- l

#- and what(the licensees will see are outlined on pages 5 through 14 of the. ,

- N slides 41nt Enclosure 2. The audits will be conducted at a sample of

,y i c',approximately 10 operating reactor plants by early 1988, with the results' .

3: < tevalusted and reported on by mid-1998. >

j J /.4 Thecommitment guidance that is being developed for the NRR staff is "

~

4 summarized on pages 8 through 14 of Enclosure 2. The reason for the NRR' Y initiah ves in commitment management is covered on page 5 of Enclosure 2.

./ NEI requested that NRR not implement the guidance it is developing for commitm nts relied upon until the public has had the chance to comment on the T guidance and the staff has issued guidance on 10 CFR 50.71(e) for updating the plant Final Safety Analysis Report CSAR). (Meetings between the staff and l NEI on 10 CFR 50.71(e) were held on Ov ober 9 and 30, 1997.) The staff stated that the guidance formalizes its past pi ,cedures for handling these commitments and the staff needs to continue its implementation of this guidance.-

As an exampleof how the initiative is being implemented, the staff discussed the use of a license condition to enforce the transfer.of requirements from the plant Technical Specifir.ations. (TSs) to a licensee-controlled document

-(e.g., the plant Final Safety Analysis Report, FSAR). These transfers occur in licensing actions involving amendments to the license in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90 (which requires prior staff approval for a change). An example of such a licensing action is the conversion of a plant's TSs to the !mproved Stanoard TSs. The license condition could require that the requirements removed from the TS would be relocated to the FSAR. The license condition is felt to be necessary for enforceability of the transfer of information. After the relocation is completed, the relocated requirements could then be changed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 (which allows a change without staff approval if there is no unreviewed safety quastion or no ancillary change to the TSs).

The safety evaluation issued by the staff on Improved Standard Technical Specification conversions will state that the requirements relocated tt. the FSAR can be changed under 10 CFR 50.59.

At the conclusion of the meeting, NEI representatives requested th" the staff issue the guidance (1) with criteria for determining which commita.ents relied upon by the staff should be made license conditions and (2) for public comment. The staff stated that it would consider NEI's requests. -

Project No. 689

Enclosures:

As stated DISTRIBUTION: See next page y

, cc w/encls: See next page Document Name: GG971002.MTS b

w

'0FC PM:P N LA:PD4-1 DRPW _ (A)PGEB/DRPM .

- -e e "NAME JDohwhsp CHawes C/MH CCarpentek TEssi h

Tl /s DATE, 10 / bl /97 IE/ M /97 to / 3( /97 c

5, s

fc/ 3,/ /97 , ,.

} r% COPY- YES/N0'

YES/N0 YES/N0_ YES/N0 ..

e 4N u qp; - 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

, s  %

- - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - ~-

NEI cc: Mr. Ralph Beedle Mr. Jim Davis, Director Senior Vice President Operations and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Alex Marion, Director Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director Programs Plant Support Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. David Medeen, Director Engineering Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Directs.t Licensing Nuclear Energy Institute Suite A00 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Ronald Simard, Director Adv need Technology Nuclear Energy Instituto Suite 400 1776 I St:eet, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Hr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230

Y L*t l

.f *

. D.I.STRIBUTION: Novenber 3,1997 Hard Copy .

' Central File 1:

PUBLIC-PD4-1 r/f PGEB r/f.

J. Donohew M. Malloy (0-10H5)

OGC (15B18)

ACRS S Magruder (0-10H5)

E-mail

.S. Collins /F Miraglia'(SJC1/FJM)

B. Sheron (BWS)

R. Zimmerman (RPZ)

E. Adensam (EGA1)

J. Moore (JEM)

J. Roe (JWR)

J. Clifford (JWC)

T. Essig (THE)

C. Hawes (CMH2)

F. Akstulewicz (FMA)

N. Gilles (NVG)

W. Reckley (WDR)

. J% C. Carpenter (CAC) ,

T. Bergman (TAB)

J" F./Akstulewicz (FMA) _--.

~

li n ', ~

E. McKenna (EMM) ,

$ _4 y I . . ,

i+ w '- i -

.(

+ +

, j s

(

p y .<

le 4

i

~'n ,

y M

,Y a )

. t i

. _ - - - - - - - - _ . . - - - - - - - - - . - . - - . - - . _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - _ - - - _ - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ---O

ATTENDEES AT MEETING OF OCTOBER 2. 1997 LICENSEE COMMITMENTS l@iE ArFILIATION R. Zimmerman NRC/NRR J. Moore NRC/0GC C. Carpenter NRC/NRR/DRPW T. Essig NRC/NRR/DRPM M. Malloy NRC/NRk/DRPM F. Akstulewicz NRC/NRR/DRPM J. Cliiford NRC/NRR/PDIV-I J. Donohew NRC/NRR/PDIV-I N. Gilles NRC/NRR/TSB W. Reckley NRC/NRR/PDIII-3 B. Bradley NEI S. Floyd NEI T. Pietranglo NEI D. Walters NEI L.. England Entergy L. Martin Houston Light & Power C. Sly Baltimore Gas & Electric H. Fontecilla Virginia Power J. Weil McGraw-Hill N. Chapraan SERCH/Bechtel S. Mixor NUS Licensing Service where: NEI - Nuclear Energy Institute NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn NRP. - Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DRPM = Divisio, of Reactor Program Management DRPW = Division of Reactor Projects III/IV PD = Project Directorate TSB = Technical Specification Branch ENCLOSURE I

l

.\

l I

l l

r r

Li i

COMMITMENT MANAGEMENT NRC Meeting with NEl October 2,1997 m

P l

t a a

m

. . . . . . . . . . . . = . _ . . . . _

I AGENDA Roy Zimmerman Opening Remarks Purpose of Meeting j Bill Reckley Audits of Licensee Commitment Management Program f

. Cindi Carpenter Overview of NRC Commitment Management Program.

Jack Donohew Specifics on NRC Initiatives on License Conditions and USFAR Updates l NRC and NEl Discussion 2

PURPOSE OF MEETING Discuss two NRC initiatives in Commitment Management ll O Audits of Licensee Commitment Management Programs

! o NRC initiatives in Commitment Management l

J NRC INITIATIVES IN COMMITMENT MANAGEMENT l

o Why are we developing our program?

o What are we doing?

i O What impact will the licensees see?

b 4

NRR AUDIT OF LICENSEE COMMITMENT MANAGEMENTPROGRAMS. q o SECY-95-300 documented NRC's acceptance of NEl. Guideline for.

i Managing NRC Commitments and stated.that the staff would monitor implementation and reassess need for further NRC guidance or L rulemaking

!c o Audits will be performed at approximately 10 operating reactors by NRR Project Managers by early 1998. Results will be evaluated and reported, along with recommendations by mid-1998.

o Audit will review:

(1) a sample of commitments made in response to licensing actions and NRC generic communications to verify licensee implementation (similar to 7 audits discussed in SECY-94-066),

and (2) licensea programs for the control of changes in commitments made to the NRC (i.e., implementation of NEl guidance or licensee alternative programs) 5

4 PROCESS CONCERNS ARISING FROM MAINE YANKEE Maine Yankee Lessor.3 Learned - concerns raised about NRC's process for c

reviewing and approving licensing actions and NRC'c reliance on information cubmitted by licensees

[

1 f Specifically, I

o Maine Yankee concerns included

• Staff did not track or verify commitments credited by NRC as a condition of approval of licensee's request

• NRR did not have a formal system to track licensee commitments, and

• NRR places too much reliance on licensees for information 6

-PROCESS CONCERNS ARISING FROM MAINE YANKEE-1 1 l

o 'Why Develop Commitment Management Progmm?

e: Staff needs to identify, track, and verify commitments made by a licensee that the staff relies upon in finding that licensing actions satisfy NRC requirements e Commitments made by licensees may not be enforceable unless in licensee- or NRC-controlled document where changes to

• commitments would be controlled by regulations (10 CFR 50.5.9,10 CFR 50.54 or 10 CFR 50.90) .

o Referrhg to commitments in a license application or a staff ~ l safety evaluation may not be sufficient l

e NRR has not been consistent in following up on or verifying implementation of commitments of licensing actions  :

i 4

i 7

• L IDENTIFICATION, TRACKING AND VERIFICATION OF COMMITMENTS o Minimal change to licensees' current practices i

t I

-o Staff will not impose conditions to be satisfied by licensees ll ^

e Staff will request licensee to commit to specific actions needed for the proposed licensing action to be acceptable o Prevents misunderstanding on part of lice'nsee as to what it has l

agreed to'in seeking staff's approval of proposed action O Staff will clearly indicate in SE and cover letter to licensee the commitments relied upon and their importance to conclusions of the SE

~

• -Expect that majority of commitments will be placed in.FSAR -

controlled under 10 CFR 50.59 l

1

s 1

NEW PROCESS FOR LICENSEE COMMITMENTS RELIED UPON l o Process to clearly identify, track, and verify commitments relied upon by the staff .

o This. process provides recommendations to formalize past staff practices -

and past guidance. Guidance emphasizes that safety evaluations, describing commitments, are not enforceable.

l l o Currently applies only-to commitments for licensing actions l

l o Commitments to relocate or transfer information (e.g., ISTS conversion

or USQ amendment) need to be enforceable i

l 0 ' Commitments will be sought instead of issuing evaluations with

. conditions o- Commitments not relied upon are not part of this process 9

y -

ENFORCEABILITY OF COMMITMENTS o incorporate commitments into licensee- or NRC-controlled documents:-

e NRC-Controlled Documents 1

License Condition I ~ Technical Specifications (TSs)~

Confirmatory Order Exemption 50.55a Relief Authorization e Licensee-controlled documents .

l- Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (10 CFR 50.59 and 50.71(e))

QA Manual, Physical Security Manual, and Emergency Preparedness (EP) Plans Manual (10 CFR 50.54)

Documents controlled by the TSs o Choice of document based on safety significance of commitments and need for prior staff approval for changes to commitments

~

e -As a minimum, commitments will be in FSAR, or a prog' ram plan IG i

w i

IDENTIFY COMMITMENTS r o Request licensees to identify commitments in their submittals L e identify what documents the commitments would be in l:

c' Staff will clearly identify commitments relied upon

!, e Commitments important to bases for staff's approval ,

o Decision on where to place commitment (NRC- or licensee- ~

controlled document) should take into consideration whether the importance of the commitment requires prior staff review and approval e identify commitments in SE and letter to licensee o Explain how the commitments may be changed o Administrative Letter-

' e To be issued explaining how commitments will be treated 11

I

^

LICENSE CONDITION EXAMPLE i

WITHIN SECTION 2.C OF THE LICENSE

2.C.J. Additional Conditions The Additional Conditions contained in Appendix D, as revised through Amendment No. [YY], are hereby incorporated into this license. [The licensee] shall operate the facility in accordance with the Additional Conditions.

I 12 i _. . .

LICENSE CONDITION EXAMPLE (continued)

APPENDIX D. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS. OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-IXXI

[The licensee] shall comply with the following conditions on the schedules noted below:

Amendment Additional Condition Implementation Number Date

[XX] [The licensee] is authorized to relocate certain The technical specification requirements to amendment licensee-controlled documents. shall be implementation of this amendment shall implemented include the relocation of these technical within [yy]'

specification requirements to the appropriats days fron*

documents, as described in the licensee's [date of application dated [date], and evaluated in the issuance].

staff's SE attached to this amendment.

13

1 I

TRACKING COMMITMENTS o Cover letter to licensee identifies commitments relied upon and location in license.

O Track implementation of commitments relied upon in NRR system.

VERIFYING COMMITMENTS o Verification by staff o Verification documented to licensee 14

' + t, . , -

k BACKGROUND e

o SECY-92-314, " Current Licensing Basis for Operating Plants," (9/92)

The licensee's CLB process can be acceptable to the NRC with proper attention to the vulnerabilities of the methods used. j

...the staff plans...on developing recommendations for a requirement (ruta or rule change) to establish a change process for those portions of the CLB that may remain outside the FSAR.

o- SECY-94-003, " Plan for Implementing Regulatory Review Group Recommendations," (1/94) l Two options: (1) develop and promulgate staff guidance on what constitutes a commitment and the types of controls for changing commitments or (2) endorse a guideline developed by the ,

industry o SECY-94-066, " Evaluation of issues Discussed in SECY-92-314,..." '

(3/15/94)  ;

l 4

The staff found that the audited licensees [7] had developed programs and processes for i

managing the commitments they make to the NRC and for controlling changes to those l commitments. i l

^

l i

l 15  ;

-o ..

BACKGROUND (Cont')

o SECY-95-300, " Nuclear Energy inctitute's Guidance Document, " Guideline

! .for Managing NRC Commitments," (12/95)

Documents staff finding that NEl document is an acceptable guide for licensees to follow for managing and changing their commitments to the NRC The staff will monitor the licensee's implementation of the NEl guideline for their alternative commitment control processes o SECY-96-135, " Response to Event Inquiry - Maine Yankes Atomic Power 4

Station (Case No.96-04S)," (6/96) .

o SECY-97-036, " Millstone Lessons Learned Report, Part 2

Policy issues,"

l. (2/97) ~

l o SECY-97-042, " Response to OiG E .nt inquiry 94-04S Regarding Maine Yankee (2/97) o SECY-97-205, " Integration and Evaluation of Results From Recent Lessons-Learned Reviews," (9/97 - not yet publically available) 16