ML20247E160
| ML20247E160 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/19/1989 |
| From: | Withers B WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORP. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| WM-89-0156, WM-89-156, NUDOCS 8905260147 | |
| Download: ML20247E160 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
W$1F CREEK t-NUCLEAR OPERAT!NG CORPORATION l
Bart D. Withers Premdent und Chief Executive Officer May 19, 1989 WM 89-0156 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D. C. 20555
Reference:
Letter dated April 7, 1989 from E. L. Jordan, NRC to j
All Licensees of Operating Reactors Subjects Docket No.~50-482:
Backfitting Questionnaire 1
i Genticment Attached is Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation's (WCNOC) response to the questionnaire provided by the NRC in the Reference.
In addition, a
table is included which gives approximate implementation costs incurred by WCNOC to complete the items identified in the Reference as 1988 backfit issues.
WCNOC believes the effective implementation of the backfit procedures is an essential element of the management of the regulatory process.
Therefore, WCNOC is pleased to see that the NRC management is interested in the Licensees' views on the effectiveness of the process.
Please contact me or Mr. O. L. Maynard of my staff if you have any questions relative to the attached response.
Very truly yours, Bart D. Withers President and Chief Executive Officer BDW/jad Attachment cc:
B. L. Bartlett (NRC), w/a E. J. Holler (NRC), w/a 0
R. D. Martin (NRC), w/a
\\
D. V. Pickett (NRC), w/a P.O. Box 411/ Burkngton, KS 66839 / Phone: (316) 364-8831 M Eaus@png EW WN F
2
Att chm:nt to WM 89-0156 P;g3 1 of 4 l
~
Ouestion 1 Are NRC procedures (i.e., Manual Chapter 0514) sufficiently clear and I
effective'on how backfits are identified and transmitted to licensees, and how claims of backfit and appeals are handled?
If not, would you please comment on the need for specific improvement?
Response to Question 1 WCNOC believes the current NRC procedure is sufficiently clear and effective on how backfits are processed once they have been identified. However WCNOC does not believe the procedure is sufficiently clear and effective on how backfits are identified.
The procedure does not require documentation that staff positions have been evaluated to determine whether the position qualifies as a potential backfit. Therefore, there does not appear to be a way for NRC management to assure themselves that section 042 of Manual Chapter 0514 is being implemented.
The documentation could be as simple as a checklist that the staff completes prior to issuance of a letter or initiation of a phone call in which the staff is going to be requesting or recommending action of a Licensee.
WCNOC believes the documentation should be maintained and periodically reviewed by NRC management to provide assurance that the procedure is being properly implemented.
One essential element of compliance with Manual Chapter 0514 which could be included in the checklist is to identify and document the applicable regulatory position upon which the action is based.
If there is no applicable regulatory position and the staff's request is truly a recommendation or request, then the NRC should so identify the request / recommendation.
The Staff should place additional emphasis on the internal identification of backfit issues so that these issues can be thoroughly evaluated initially by the Staff, thereby minimizing the number of licensee requested backfit evaluations.
Question 2 Is NRC staff practice consistent with the 0514 process in identifying and implementing backfits?
If not, would you please comment on any specific observed inconsistencies?
I Response to Question 2 WCNOC does not believe the NRC staff practice is always consistent with the intent of 0514 relative to identifying plant specific backfits.
Inspectors and other NRC staff seldom provide a " position" or " require" a specific new action.
- Instead, issuec are left open and additional information requested until the Licensee commits to additional action.
Failure to close issues is generally seen by the NRC staff as "non-responsiveness" on the part of the Licensee and can result in increased inspection and enforcement.
Some specific examples of this at Wolf Creek l
are provided below:
l l
1.
Vital Area Access - A question relative to vital area access has been open since 1985. WCNOC recently elected to propose changes in an attempt to get the item closed. The 1988 SALP report originally identified the lack of timely resolution of thic item as a weakness on the part of the Licensee.
This statement was subsequently challenged by WCNOC and revised by the NRC staff.
Attachm;nt to WM 89-0156 P;g3 2 of 4 2.
WCNOC recently made changes in its Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) relative to Emergency Action Levels in order to close an open item which dated back to 1984.
WCNOC's prior position had been extensively documented and submitted to the NRC during the preparation of the EPP.
At that time the NRC Staff reviewed and accepted that position.
Subsequent discussions between WCNOC and the NRC Staff essentially resulted in a revised staff position, j
which made WCNOC's EPP changes necessary.
I Ouestion 3 In the past year have you experienc6d, in your judgement, the imposition of one or more backfits, which would not fit one of the exceptions listed in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4) or did not have a regulatory analysis, for which you did not file a claim or appeal?
If so, please indicate why you did not file a claim or appeal.
Reuponse to Question 3 During the past year there were two NRC staff positions that WCNOC would consider as backfits. However, WCNOC did not file a backfit claim on either NRC staff position.
One involved a Region IV position which basically required WCNOC to consider any system or component that did not meet all of thc ASME code requirements as inoperable.
A more reasonable position has since been agreed upon.
WCNOC did not file a backfit claim because of pending escalated enforcement action relative to an Operability question.
The second involved a Region IV posit!on that required WCNOC to take security compensatory measures above those required in the approved Security Plan.
A backfit claim was not filed because WCNOC is attempting to improve the perception of responsiveness with the Region IV security personnel.
Question 4 Please describe any impediments or weaknesses in the backfit process, or in the communications and understanding of that process, and any suggestions for improvements.
Response to Ouestion 4 The two most significant weaknesses in the backfit process are the identification process and the cost benefit analysis.
As described in the response to Question 2 above, backfits can, in effect, be imposed withoat the NRC staff taking a documented position.
Backfit claims and disagreements over the validity of violations can result in a perception by the Staff that a Licensee is unresponsive.
WCNOC challenged one violation in the Security area during 1988 and identified that part of another violation would result in a Backfit claim if imposed.
In early 1989, a
security inspection report contended that WCNOC was not as responsive to NRC initiatives as in the past.
WCNOC believes these types of statements and perceptions play a large role in SALP ratings and in the level of confidence that NRC management has in a given Licensee.
'~
Attachm nt to lei 89-0156 Page.
3 of 4 A-good cost-benefit analysis is extremely difficult to' perform and' requires considerable. judgement and.'a' number of. assumptions.
These analyses are typically performed by individuals with incentive to show that a change is needed.
Accordingly an analysis.may result in 'a higher. benefit-to-cost-ratio that-might otherwise result in the' absence of a bias.towards change.
More objectivity.and perhaps some industry input. could improve thel cost
. benefit analyses.
..3..
+
t-
' Attachment to WM 89-0156
, Rage
- 4. of-4~
TABLE OF PLANT SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION COSTS Issue Anoroximate Cost 1.
NRC Bulletin 88-01 (Defects in Westinghouse
$ 31,300 circuit Breakers)
.2..
NRC Bulletin 88-02.(Cracks in Steam Generator Tubes) 3.
NRC Bulletin 88-05 (Nonconforming PSI and WJM
$336,000 Materials) 4.
Generic' Letter 88-01 (NRC position on 1GSCC in' BWR Austenitic' Stainless Steel Piping) 5.
Generic. Letter 88-03 (Resolution of Generic
$ 26,040 Safety Issue 93
" Steam Binding of Auxiliary Feed-water Pumps")
\\~
(
- Minimal review costs incurred, issue was determined to be not applicable to Wolf Creek Generating Station l
l c__-__.