ML20248B946
| ML20248B946 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/07/1998 |
| From: | Chiramal M NRC |
| To: | Wermiel J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248B952 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9806020023 | |
| Download: ML20248B946 (22) | |
Text
.
~
h&
3 April 7, 1998
'IC Elt/ED Di3 I!!,Y l 3 AH ll: 02 PUBLIC DOCUMENT fican NOTE TO:
Jared S. Wermiel, Chief instrumentation and Controls Branch FROM:
Matthew Chiramal Senior Level Advisor and Digital Technology
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT NRC GENERIC LETTER NO. 98-XXX: YEAR 2000 READINESS OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS The attached report (A'ttachment 1) contains a discussion of the resolution of comments received on the subject draft generic letter in response to the Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment in the FederalRegister, January 29,1998. Comments were received from 27 parties of which 17 are licensees of nuclear power plants. Comments were submitted by NEl, NUBARG and GAO. Ten parties suggested not issuing the generic letter, while three urged its issuance.
Copies of the 27 letta:s tnat contains the detailed comments are also attached (Attachment 2).
Attachments: As stated
)
.. i., 9 d 2 k
9906020023 990407 b,
G4 k
nu,4L ps-n[9gh
' - (#
, o ';
,c l
POR ORO letRA j'
M.
i PDR A L-l
[
_______.-w
1
\\
ATTACHMENT 1 k_
e i
RESOLUTION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED DRAFT GENERIC LETTER ON YEAR 2000 READINESS OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS This report discusses the resolution of comments received on the draft geneoc letter, GL No. 98-xxx: Year 2000 Readiness of Computer Systems at Nuclear Power Plants in response to the Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment in the Federa/ Register, January 29,1998. The comments and corresponding staff response are provided below in the j
order the comments were received.
- 1. John Roberts Comment:
Why not set up a process to check the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem by l
advancing computer clocks in the form of a surveillance test during the next l
refueling outage?
l Resolution:
No changes to the GL are needed since as part of a utility specific program addressing the 1
l Y2K problem, the NRC staff notes the assessment stage involves such testing activities to I
identify the effects of the Y2K problem on plant systems.
t
- 2. Snyder Gokey l
l Comment:
The blanket assertion made by the utilities... that Y2K "was not a problem" in safety related systems" is a' nost assuredly wrong. After the utilities do the work, if they find it to be true, they can make the statement.
l Resolution:
No changes to the GL are needed since the statement in the GL is: "To date, the NRC staff has not ;dentified or received notification from licensees or vendors of digital protection systems... that a Y2K problem exists with safety-related initiation and actuation systems."
Moreover, as part of the Y2K readiness program that utilities are undertaking, review of safety-related systems for Y2K concerns would be a. iigned c. top priority a he assessment stage.
- 3. Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Comments:
a.
The nuclear industry has already begun extensive preparations for addressing the l
Y2K problem; further oversight would be an unnecessary burden, not commensurate with the safety significance of ti. s issue.
b.
The NRC in issuing the GL is effectively reducing the time allowed for utilities to become Y2K ready by 6 months. The financial impact to some licensees, forced to plan an additional outage for remediation of components not accessible during power operation, is not justified by the safety significance of the issue. The procurement process for some replacement components. may prohibit some licensees from achieving Y2K readiness within the reduced time frame.
i
2 In light of the industry guidance provided by NEl, the limited replacement and c.
qualified personnel available, it is recommended that the proposed GL not be issued.
Resolution:.
The generic letter acknowledges that many utilities have already embarked upon a program to address the Y2K computer system problem, in preparing the GL, the staff issumed that all utilities are awarc of the problem based on issuance of IN 96-70 dated December 1996, and have programs in place to address the problem. The response required by the GL is confirmatory in nature to assure that alllicensees of operating nuclear power plants are effectively addressing the Y2K problem.
The NRC staff does not plan to change the July 1,1999 date for certification of Y2K readiness. However, sufficient flexibility has been provided in the final GL to accommodate completion of some remediation and implementation activities at normally scheduled outages after July 1,1999, it is the NRC staff's belief that unless the majority of the Y2r.
program remediation, validation and implementation activdies are completed by mid-1999, leaving only a few such activities scheduled for the Fall 1999 outage, the facility will not in all probability be Y2K ready by January 1,2000. The GL will be revised to indicate that actual Y2K readiness after July 1,1999 is acceptable, however, certification that the facility will be Y2K ready will be required by July 1,1999. The NRC staff recognizes that Y2K readiness may include compensatory measures and contingency plans in cases where actua! Y2K compliance for some computer systems cannot be achieved.
- 4. John Roberts Comment:
Comment regarding identifying and testing time clocks built into plant process computers. Comment is in a similar vein as Comment No.1.
Response
See response to Comment No. 1.
- 5. BWX Technologies, Inc Comment:
The GL identifies "Framatome/ Babcock & Wilcox" as a vendor - there is no "Framatome/ Babcock and Wilcox" organization.
Resolution:
The erroneous name is deleted from the GL.
- 6. TU Electric / Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Comments:
The nuclear industry has begun extensive preparations for the Y2K per the a.
guidelines of NEl/NUSMG 97-07. NRC had already issued IN 96-70 on the subject of the Y2K problem. These and the provisions of existing reporting requirements under 10 CFR Part 21,10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 make the proposed GL unnecessary. Similar reasons apply to the requirement for certification in the GL.
3 b.
The July 1,1999 date may not be a real date for Y2K readiness. Comar.che Peak Nuclear Station has two outages planned in 1999 - Unit 1 in Spring '99 and Unit 2 in Fall '99. As part of our Y2K program, we are currently performing assessments on all digital technology based equipment to ensure that if problems are not fi> ad, contingency plans are in place by December 15,1999, to address continued safe operation / availability of the affected systems, components and structures in accordance with rules and regulations governing our licenses.
In light of all this and since the nuclear utility group is eddressing the issue, it is c.
recommended that the proposed GL not be issued.
Resolution:
See Comment No. 3 and associated resolution.
- 7. Richard Cowles Comments:
The main comment was that the draft GL should be issued substantially in its present form and provided several reasons for the main comment. He emphasized Continued safe operation of all nuclear facilities dictates the need for 100% completion of Y2K readiness programs, and executive level accountability for this readiness through the oath and affirmation process."
Since time is of the essence, the NRC is urged to issue the GL as expeditiously as possible.
Resolution:
As suggested, the GL will be issued substantially in its present form.
- 8. OMB Memorandum dated January 20,1998.
Comment:
The OMB memorandum established a new target date of March 1999 for implementing fixes to all systems government-wide.
Resol @:
The NRC stati believes toat for nuclear power plant facilities which generally follow spring and fall refueling outages during which period the licensee implements many aspects of their Y2K program, the target date of July 1,1999, is appropriate rather than March 1999.
- 9. Consumers Energy - Palisades and Big Rock Point Nuclear Plants Comments:
Consumers Energy is willing to participate in a voluntary submission of project and a.
schedule information to the NRC via NEl or iridividually. Consumers Energy does not believe that a GL is warranted. Because of the potentialimpact on safe plant operation and the potential financial impact, significant resources have been and will continue to be dedicated to resolve the Y2K computer issue prior to the end of 1999 whether or not a formal requirement exists in the form of a generic letter.
as 4
b.
In the event a voluntary submittalis unacceptable to the NRC, we request that the date for attesting to Year 2000 readiness be changed from July 1,1999 to October 1,1999, to allow adequate time to accomplish the required actions.
Resolution:
In the Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment that was published in the Federe/ Register:
January 29,1998 (Volume 63, Number 19) with the proposed GL on Year 2000 Readiness of Computer Systems at Nuclear Power Plants, the NRC encouraged the industry to propose a viable alternative to the GL as a means of providing the necessary assurance to the NRC staff that alllicenses are effectively addressing the Y2K problem in computer systems at their facilities. To date, Consumers Energy has been the only volunteer willing to provide the necessary information for two facilities. This does not constitute an industry wide response. No industry group (like NEI) has volunteered. Therefore, the GL will be issued.
As regards changing the date for Y2K readiness certification from July 1,1999 to October 1,1999, the date will remain July 1,1999. However, as stated in the resolution to Comment No. 3 above, some flexibility has been provided in the GL to accommodate completion of certain activities in the Y2K readiness program after July 1,1999.
- 10. Roleigh Martin, M.A.
Comment:
Basically, Mr. Martin endorsed the comments submitted by Rick Cowles (Comment No. 7 above) and provided some supporting information for his endorsement.
Resolution:
See resolution of Comment No. 7 above.
- 11. Entergy Operations, Inc.
Comments:
Entergy believes the proposed GL is unnecessary because utilities are aware of the a.
Y2K problem and recognize the need to take steps to address the issue.
Additionally, licensees have a responsibility as well as an obligation to operate their plants per their licensing and design bases.
b.
Comments on Required Response (2):
1.
Entergy believes the July 1,1999 due date is unreasonable based on the volume of work to be performed. This requirement effectively reduces the time allowed licensees to become Y2K ready by 6 months. A more reasonable date would be November 1,1999.
5 l
2.
The draft GL definition of "Y2K Ready"is applicable to a single computer i
system or application. By applying "Y2K Ready" to the facility, it appears
. that NRC is expecting every computer system or application to be "Y2K l
Ready." This may not be the case since the licensee may take compensatory i
actions in lieu of ensuring a computer system or application is "Y2K Ready."
l Required Response (2) should explicitly acknowledge that taking compensatory actions is acceptable if the licensee determines such actions are necessary to ensure continued, safe plant operation, i
l l
Resolution:
See resolution of Comment No. 3 above.
- 12. Omaha Public Power District (OPPD)
Comments:
l OPPD would prefer to participate in a voluntary initiative coordinated by NEl and a.
NUSMG.
1 b.
Recognizing that the NRC may decide to issue a GL, OPPD provided a revised l
version of the proposed GL. The revised GL by OPPD had several editorial l
comments. The Required Response (2)in the GL was modified to delete the phrase "and in compliance with the terms and conditions of your license (s) and NRC regulations. The Required Response was reworded to read "No later than July 1,
' 1999, submit a written response confirming that your facility is Y2K ready, or if l
your program is incomplete as of that date, indicate your schedule for attaining the status of Y2K Ready."
l
Response
Neither NEl nor NUSMG has volunteered to coordinate utility responses, therefore, the GL will be issued.
1 u
1 The editorial commer.ts are ad '.:ssed in the final vers.an of the GL. As stated in response to Comment No. 3, the final GL allows certain flexibility to accommodate plant specific schedules for completion of some Y2K readiness program activities. The date for Required Response (2) will remain July 1,1999.
j
- 13. GPU Nuclear i
Comments:
a.
Throughout the proposed GL the phrase used repeatedly is that licensees must provide ". written certification that their f acilities are Y2K ready and, (underline added) in compliance with the terms and conditions of their licenses and NRC regulations." This phrase should be modified to say: "
written certification that their f acilities are Y2K ready with regard to compliance with the terms and conditior.s of their licenses and NRC regulations." The blanket statement that the facilities must be Y2K ready implies that every component at the facilities regardless of its safety implication need to be certif.ed. We do not believe that this is the intent of the subject proposed generic communication.
L___
4 6
b.
The requirement of a written response, in which licensees must certify their facilities, by no later than July 1,1999 is arbitrary. While it is clearly a licensee responsibility to assure that their facilities are Y2K ready, certain conditions such as plant outage schedule and/or resource limitation may not allow readiness certification by July 1,1999. Outages for some plants are scheduled to commence in the third or fourth quarter of 1999, it is expected that certain testing and/o1 modifications can only'be performed during a plant outage.
GPU Nuclear intends to follow the NEl/NUSMG guidance. However, it is our c.
understanding that the plans and checklists provided in the appendices are fur illustrative purpose and may be modified ad/or improved to meet cur specific needs and/or requirements. We suggest the following changen eo the last sentence of the fifth paragraph under " Discussion."
"NEl/NUSMG 97-07 also contain examples of various plans and checklists as appendices, which may be used or modified to meet licensee's g ecific needs and/or requirements."
Resolution:
The NRC staff agrees with comments a. and c. above, and the final GL has been revised to reflect this. As regards the comment b. above, see the response to Comment No. 3.
- 14. TVA Comment:
TVA believes that utilities cannot categorically state that they will not experience a Y2K problem. TVA agrees that every reasonable effort should be made to identify and correct Y2K problem. However, there may be some software, especially in embedded systems, which cannot be tested or certified for compliance. Therefore, the GL should recognize contingency planning as acceptable remediation for some Y2K problems.
Resolution:
The NRC ctaff agrees with the comment. The final GL willinclude a discussion on the l'
need for contingency planning.
l-
- 15. Southern California Edison l.
Comments:
l_
l a.
The Required Response paragraph 2 requires a response confirming that the facility is Y2K ready and in compliance with the Technical Specifications. Clarification is required stating that this applies only to the scope of NEl/NUSMG 97-07... We believe remediation should only be required for equipment that directly involves rea. tor safety or technical specification compliance equipment. All other identified equipment should be evaluated on an impact and cost effective remediation option basis.
d 7
b.
We believe it may not be possible to identify every digital component or line of code
~
that will be affected. Therefore, we believe the required readiness response at the completion of the project, or by the ~7/1/99 due date, needs to be clarified to mean that utilities have followed a methodology endorsed by the NRC and that utilities have exercised due diligence in accordance with their plan. Furthermore, clarification should be added that "Y2K Ready" mai aciude the development and/or implementation of appropriate contingency plans to address items ti.at are not expected to be remedied prior to January 1,2000, and/or to address the possibility of unidentified items and their effect on plant operation.
Response
The required responses of the GL are simply seeking confirmation of activities the licensees are already performing in addressing the Y2K problem at their facilities in accordance with a plant specific program. The scoping and related licensee activities are being conducted according to that program. The staff's understanding is that these plant specific programs are based on a framework such as the one outlined in NEl/NUSMG 97-07.
The NRC staff agrees with the comment that it may not be possible to identify every digital component or software that will be affected and that, therefore, continency plans should be considered. The revised GL discusses contingency plans as a viable temporary attemate, till the program is completed as planned. See response to Comment 3 above.
- 16. Florida Power & Light Company Comments:
a.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is providing comments on the proposed GL on behalf of the industry. FPL endorses the NEl comments (NEl comments are indicated here as Comment No.17.)
b.
FPL has some specific concerns should the NRC elect to issue the GL. Specifically, the scope of the letter is not clearly defined. Emphasis should be limited to systems and related computer equipment that would prevent the performance of a safety-related structure, system, or component, and not for the whole of plant facilities.
These specific safety systems and related computer equipment should be identified and evaluated by each individual facility. Additionally, it may be appropriate for vendors of digital systems to take a larger role in identifying and notifying the NRC staff of deficiencies, rion-conformance and failures, and other concerns related to the Y2K issue.
Response
For the response to NEl comments, see Comment No.17 below. As stated earlier, the GL is simply requesting confirmation of activities already ongoing at nuclear phnt facilities in accordance with plant specific Y2K readiness programs. The scope, priorities and emphasis on identification and evaluation of systems, structures and components are j
' determined as part of the initial assessment activities of that program.
L __
L 8
l l
The NRC staff agrees with the comment that vendors of digital systems provide feedback to NRC staff of Y2K problem related failures and deficiencies. The NRC staff would disseminate such generic and significant data to licensees via NRC generic j
communications. Vendors are obligated to report nonconformances in safety-related j
systems in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21.
.]
17.' Nuclear Energy institute (NEl)
Comments:
NEl believes that the proposed generic letter will do little to improve nuclear safety.
a.
Licensees have programs that place priority on safety systems as well as ensuring continuity of operations needed to produce electric power through the turn of the century. This comment is based on the following reasons:
The NRC staff as been involved, over the last year, in many industrial activities that prepare for the turn of the century. Continuing these interactions will be more meaningfulin understanding industry progress on Year 2000 readiness over the next year than the proposed reports. NEl believes that a continued dialog between the industry and the staff is the best alternative to the proposed generic letter.
The NRC staff concluded that safety systems would function as intended in SECY 97-213 of September 24,1997, Even with Year 2000 failures, the SECY stated that operators would be able to maintain safe plant shutdown conditions. Industry testing continues to support these conclusion... Current reporting criteria were also considered adequate for any problems identified.
The nuclear industry is well into a program that will reduce the risk of plant shutduwn due from computer system failures at the turn of the century.
This program, as described in NEl/NUSMG 97-07, evaluates potential risks to i
the entire plant, not just the nuclear systems.
An NEl survey of nuclear utility industry shows progress on licensee Year I
2000 programs. For operational plants, alllicensees have a Year 2000 program; all programs are, or will be, consistent with the guidance of i
NEl/NUSMG 97-07; and on average the initialinventory is 67% complete for software and 50% complete for embedded systems.
Over the last year, the industry has worked to share experience gained by individual plants. Workshops and training sessions have also been conducted i
over the last year, with broad industry attendance.
l
)
9 b.
NEl also expressed the following specific concerns:
Many licensees have objected to providing certification under 10 CFR 50.54(f) requirements for site program that extends well beyond the nuclear systems important to safety or meeting regulatory commitments.
Some licensees feel that achieving Year 2000 readiness by July 1,1999, creates an undue burden. Some facilities have already planned specific remediation to be completed in outages after that date. Other programs had established program readiness targets of September 1999. Accelerating these programs, with the added expense,is unwarranted.
Response
l The NRC staff has participated in many of the industry meetings and workshops related to the Y2K problem. The impression the NRC staff has is that although all nuclear plant l
licensees are aware of the problem and its implications and many may have initiated a readiness program, the level of effort and progress towards resolution varies substantially.
The purpose of the generic letter is to gain the necessary assurance that all licensees are effectively addressing the Y2K problem with regard to compliance with the terms and conditions of their licenses and NRC regulations.
l As regards the specific comments, the Required Response (2) has been modified to clarify l
that the certification of Y2K readiness apply only to those systems required to meet the terms and conditions of the facility license and NRC regulations. Further, allowance has been provided for those facilities whose Y2K program is incomplew as of July 1,1999.
See response to Comment 3 above.
(
- 18. Winston & Strawn (on behalf of the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG))
Comments:
a.
Clarification is needed to ensure that the proposed generic letter does not create a new reporting obligation for problems related to Y2K problem. While the Y2K j
problem can result in failures that may be reportable under 10 CFR part 21, or 10 i
CFR 50.72 or 10 CFR 50.73, the Y2K problem in and of itself is not a per se reportable event absent a failure or other event resulting from the Y2K problem.
NUBARG recommend that the GL state clearly that some Y2K problems could be j
reportable under existing reporting requirements.
)
b.
The licensee's obligations in the proposed Generic Letter are not clearly focused on the obligation for being Y2K ready versus Y2K compliant.
c.
.he Generic Letter invokes " compliance exception" to the back fitting rule without j
any substantive analysis of the backfitting implications of this proposed Generic Letter.
l.
l.
l 10
Response
The NRC staff agrees with the first point above. A Y2K problem in a safety-related a.
system by itself may not be a event, unless it results in a deficiency, non-conformance or failure that is required to be reported under the regulations cited.
The GL has been revised to clarify that only some of the deficiencies, non-conformance and failures resulting from the Y2K problem in safety-related systems are reportable under 10 CFR Part 21,10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73.
b.
The generic letter is only requesting confirmation and information on the status of ongoing licensee programs that address the Y2K problem at their facilities. The program objectives of which system or application is to be Y2K compliant, and which is to be retired, replaced or modified, is part of the ongoing program and the responsibility of the licensee. See response to Comment 3 above, The generic letter is requiring actions by licensees to confirm the facility is in c.
compliance with the terms and conditions of its license and NRC regulations t'ven the recognized Y2K problem in computer systems. This is, therefore, a compuance issue and not a backfit.
- 19. Southern Nuclear Operating Company Comment:
Southern Nuclear Operating Company is in total agreement with NEl comments.
Response
NEl comments and their resolution are provided in Comment No.17 above.
- 20. JoAnne Hodgkir.s Comment:
Power is essential, are you ready?
)
Response
This comment is assumed to endorse the proposed generic letter.
- 21. Carolina Power & Light Company Comments:
" Required Response" Section, paragraph 1 a.
The NRC states: "within 90 days.. submit a written response indicating whether or not you have pursued...a Y2K readiness program as outlined in NEl,NUSMG 97-07.
If you are not conforming...."
l f
i
I i
~
l 11 i
Comment: NEl/NUSMG 97-07 recommends methods for Y2K program setup and examples of forms and checklists used by some utilities. The word " conforming" l
implies that the methods, forms and checklists are used verbatim. CP&L suggests the wording be changed to "... submit a written response.. a Y2K readiness program similar to that outlined in NEl/NUSMG 97-07. // yourprogram significantly di//ers from the NEl/NUdMG guidance..."
b.
" Required Response" Section, paragraph 2 The NRC states: "Upon completing your Y2K readiness program, or, in any event, no later than July 1,1999, submit a written response confirming that your facility is Y2K ready and in compliance with the terms...in addition, the response should contain a status report of work remaining to e done to complete your Y2K program, including completion schedules."
Comment: Due to outage schedules and other priorities related to the Y2K issue, some work will not be completed prior to July 1,1999. Clarify this requirement to state, "No later than July 1,1999, submit a written response containing a status report, including completion schedules, of work remaining to be done to confirm your facility is/will be Y2K ready."
Response
a.
The NRC staff agrees with thi', comment. Required Response (1)is revised al suggested by CP&L. Additionally, the " Discussion" section of the generic letter has been changed to emphasize that NEl/NUSMG 97-07 is only a guidance document which provides an example of an appropriate Y2K program, and that plant specific Y2K programs are needed to effectively address the Y2K problem.
b.
Tae NRC staff agrees with this comment. Required Response (2) has been revised to consider actions by licensees who may not have completed the facility Y2K preman by July 1, 1999 due to work scheduled during plant outages in the third and tourth quarter of 1999. See response to Comment 3, above,
- 22. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)
Comments:
GAO comments are directed at clarifying and strengthening NRC's regulatory authority to address safety-related Year 2000 problems, particularly in these areas:
Specifying a more complete Year 2000 program for licensees l
Monitoring licensees' progress on Year 2000 readiness l
Clarifying the " Year 2000 ready" certification Addressing future Year 2000 maintenance requirements
l 1
12 Specifying a more complete Year 2000 program for licensees The proposed generic letter would require licenrees to indicate whether they are pursuing a Year 2000 readiness program at their facilitin. As a benchmark of program effectiveness, NRC is relying heavily on Year 2000 guidance developed jointly by NEl and NUSMG, NEl/NUSMG 97-07. We agree on the importance of requiring licensees to provide NRC with assurance that they are implementing & program that effectively addresses the Year 2000 issue. However, we believe thst NRC should be aware that the NEl/NUSMG document has several significant shoncomings. The NEl/NUSMG guidance does not include all the elements of a comprehensive Year 2000 program. In particular the guidance does not deal adequately with risk management, business continuity and contingency planning, or remediation of embedded systems.
Section C of the NEl/NUSMG guidance specifies that vendors should provide Year 2000 compliance warranties to licensees, even for work previously completed. NRC appears to endorse contract language included in the NEl/NUSMG document. We suggest that NRC reconsider any apparent endorsement of contract language for use by private parties.
As an alternative to relying on the NEl/NUSMG guidance, we suggest that NRC's generic letter specify the elements of an effective Year 2000 program, particularly as they bear on safety concerns under NRC's regulatory authority. One publication that can help NRC in this regard is our Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.14, September 1997). This guide is a distillation of government and private sector best practices for dealing with the Year 2000 problem, and provides a useful overview of the elements of an effective Year 2000 program.
NRC could require licensees to address the elements of an effective Year 2000 program when they submit the "brief description" of their own program, as called for in the proposed generic letter. This approach would provide NRC with a better basis for assessing the effectiveness of the licensees' Year 2000 program dealing with safety-related issues.
Monitoring the progress of licensees' Year 2000 programs The proposed generic letter requires the licensees to make only two reports on their Year 2000 programs. To effectively monitor licensees' Year 2000 progress on systems under its regulatory authority, NRC will need more substantive and frequent progress reports.
These reports should, at a minimum, require (1) a complete inventory of safety systems and other systems that will need to be certified as " Year 2000 ready" under the generic l
letter, (2) planned actions on these systems, including formulation and testing of l
contingency plans, and (3) periodic updates on the status of these actions. Waiting until l
July 1999 will not leave NRC much time to respond constructively to a licensee's unresolved Year 2000 problems.
13 Certifying " Year 2000 Readiness" for Safety Systems NRC's proposed generic letter requires each licensee to provide written response confirming that "your facility is Y2K ready and in compliance with the terms and conditions of your license (s) and NRC regulations." While the criteria for " Year 2000 compliance" are clear and amenable to objective testing, the same cannot be said for the term " Year 2000 ready." _The determination of being " Year 2000 ready" does not requite the licensees to state how and why they deterrnined that a non-compliant system would be suitable for continued use. For those critical safety systems under NRC's purview, we suggest that the generic letter include such a requirement it would also be useful if the generic letter included a discussion of how NRC's ongoing inspection activities will be used in the process of certifying Year 2000 readiness. For example, it is not clear whether the inspections will include checks to see if key Year 2000 issues are being addressed, whether key conversion activities are being carried out properly, or whether critical project milestones are being met.
Independently verifying and validating safety systems The generic letter does not discuss the role of independent verification and validation (IV&V) in supporting the licensees' " Year 2000 ready" certifications. We recognize that, under NRC regulations, modifications to certain systems at nuclear facilities must be varified or checked to ensure that the system' will continue to operate properly. However, the unusual challenges posed by the Year 2000 problem may warrant additional assurances.... Accordingly, we suggest that the generic letter require licensees to (1) describe their Year 2000 plans for IV&V of systems related to safety and (2) provide the results of IV&V with their written certification of Year 2000 readiness.
Addressing future maintenance requirements of " Year 2000 ready" systems NRC's proposed generic letter requires only that computer systems and applications be
" Year 2000 ready." However, there may be future maintenance requirements for " Year 2000 ready" systems under NRC's purview. NRC's oeneric letter does not include a way to identify, track, and follow
,a on the future mainteriance plans for any safety-related
" Year 2000 ready" systems that could eventually fail without further modification or replacement. Therefore, we suggest that the letter address the issue of future Year 2000 maintenance requirements.
Response
1 Specifying a more complete Year 2000 program for licensees l'
The NRC staff agrees with this comment. The GL has been revised to note that the NEl/NUSMG guidance document provides a framework and an example of a Y2K program, only and that the Y2K program for each nuclear facility must be tailored to meet the specific needs and requirements of the facility. The GL was further revised to note that augmented guidance beyond that in NEl/NUSMG 97-07 may be needed by licensees in the
14 area of risk management, business continuity and contingency planning, and remediation of embedded systems. The GL has been revised to point out tna' NEl/NUSMG 97-07 contains examples of various plans and checklists as appendices, which may be used or modified to meet a licensee's specific needs and/or requirements.
The GL was also revised to identify the general elements of a Y2K program and to refer to GAO/AIMD-10.1.14, September 1997, as another document that provides useful overview of the elements of an effective Year 2000 program.
Monitoring the progress of licensees' Year 2000 programs The NRC staff has identified an alternative means to periodic reports for monitoring licensee progress on the Y2K problem. Monitoring of the progress of implementation of nuclear facility Y2K programs will be done by the NRC staff via sample onsite reviews at nuclear facilities. The onsite reviews are planned to be done during the latter half of 1998 and into 1999. The generic letter will not be modified to include the need for frequent progress reports.
Certifying " Year 2000 Readiness" for Safety Systems The NRC staff agrees with this comment. The GL has been modified to clarify that
" readiness" and completion of a Y2K program means the attainment of the Y2K program objectives which would be defined as part of the program during the assessment and remediation planning stages. The evaluation performed at these stages as part of the program, would document the bases of the decisions made regarding the use of compliant and non compliant systems. The review of such documents would be part of the NRC staff's sample onsite review of a nuclear facility's Y2K program implementation. Also refer to the response to Comment 3, above.
Independently verifying and validating (IV&V) safety systems The NRC staff agrees with the need for IV&V in certain circumstances regarding the Y2K problem. The Nt1C staff'E. ample onsite follow up review of licensee's Y2K program activitics, provides, in a sense, an " independent" review of the overall Y2K program implementation. It should be noted that IV&V of specific safety system software is an activity required as part of compliance with existing NRC guidelines. This applies to safety-related software modifications needed to address Y2K problems. The NRC staff follow-up reviews will confirm that IV&V of safety system software has been conducted where necessary after completion of Y2K changes Addressing future maintenance requirements of " Year 2000 ready" systems The NRC staff agrees with this comment. The GL has been modified to address the need to consider future maintenance activities as part of completing the Y2K program.
\\
15
- 23. Northeast Nuclear Energy / Millstone Nuclear Power Station Comments:
a.
The " Purpose" section statement that requires ".. Written certification that the facilities are Y2K ready and in compliance with the terms and condition of their licenses and NRC regulations" should be removed or clarified to restrict the written certification of compliance to electronic digital computational systems or devices with time and date attributes that may impact the performance of safety-related structures, systems and components (SSCs).
b.
The first sentence of the third paragraph within the " Description of Circumstances" regarding applicability of 10 CFR 21,10 CFR 50.72, and 10 CFR 50.73 report ability criteria to the Y2K problem raises significant regulatory enforcement issues.
The NRC staff should provide the commercial nuclear power industry guidance as to the deportability of Y2K issues to provide both a predictable regulatory environment and consistency in utility reporting in this matter.
The statement in the last paragraph in the " Description of Circumstances" regarding c.
how NEl/NUSMG 97-07..." ensures that [ nuclear licensee's] facilities remain safe and continue to operate within the requirements of the license"is not accurate with respect to the purpose of the NEl/NUSMG document and should be removed...
d.
The first sentence within item 2 of the " Required Response" section again speaks to the written certification....See comment a. above.
The second sentence within item 2 of the " Required Response" section regarding e.
the inclusion of ".a status of work remaining to be done..." should be removed.
This statement is redundant to the first sentence of item 2.
f.
The proposed generic letter should reference and address the Executive Order issued on the Year 2000 Conversion problem by President Clinton on February 4,1998. It is suggested that information regarding how this order impacts the implementation of the NRC's oversight of the commercial nuclear power industry be included in the proposed generic letter.
Response
a.
The NRC staff agrees with this comment. The particular sentence in the " Purpose" section and in the " Required Response" Item 2 has been revised to limit the scope of certification to systems, sof tware and applications necessary to satisfy license conditions, technical specifications, and NRC regulations.
b.
The NRC staff does not agree with this comment. Matters surrounding the Y2K problem are not specifically mentioned in the existing reporting requirements nor are any number of other specific reasons that may result in conditions that would lead to deficiencies, non-conformance, f ailures, and events that are deemed reportable under the existing reporting requirements. Licensees are to determine deportability based on the nonconfori..;nce identified.
16 The statement is extracted directly from the " Purpose and Scope" section of c.
NEl/NUSMG 97-07, it will, therefore, not be deleted from the GL.
d.
See Response a. above, The NRC staff agrees, and the particular sentence is deleted in the final GL.
e.
f.
The NRC staff does not agree that the GL should reference the Executive Order on the Year 2000 Conversion. NRC oversight of nuclear facilities is indicated in other authorizing law. Nevertheless, it is noted that in referencing NEl/NUSMG 97-07 in the GL as an example of a possible approach for licensees when addressing the Y2K problem at their facilities, the staff is consistent with the policy of the executive order which encourages joint government / private sector cooperation on the Y2K problem. Further, in responding to the GL a licensee simply confirms the existence of an ongoing Year 2000 program and that the facility will be in compliance with its license and NRC regulations consistent with the NRC oversight responsibility.
- 24. PECO Nuclear Comments:
The implementation period specified in the proposed GL (i.e., July 1,1999) has a.
effectively reduced the time allowed for utilities to become Y2K ready by 6 months.
Therefore, PECO Energy recommends that if the proposed GL is issued, that the second paragraph (i.e., item 2) section be revised....(PECO comment included some suggested changes.)
b.
PECO Energy is requesting clarification with regard to the following statement in item 1 of the " Required Response" section:
".This response should address the program's scope, assessment process, and plans for corrective actions.... "
It is uncaar if this statement pertains to those licensees that are pursuing a Y2K readiness program as outlined in NEl/NUSMG 97-07 guidance or those licensees that are not...
Resolution:
The GL has been modified to reflect these comments. See also the res.ponse to Comment 3 above.
i w
17
- 25. Northern States Power Company (NSP)
Cynment: NSP concurs with the NEl co.nments (Comment No.17 above).
Resolution:
See the response to Comment No.17 above.
Comments:
The reference to Year 2000 " readiness" and " compliance" throughout the proposed a.
letter should be changed, as appropriate, to use the terminology that is evolving into the industry standard. APS provided the definitions for these terms.
b.
The sixth paragraph of" Descriptions of Circumstances" states that "NEl was preparing a framework document with guidance for utility use.. " This sentence should be modified to read: "NEl presented a framework document that provides guidance for utilities to use,.
The sixth paragraph also states "The document recommends methods for nuclear c.
utilities to attain Y2K readiness and thereby ensure that their facilities remain safe and continue to operate within the requirements of their license." While the NEl/NUSMG document provides guidance to utilities for addressing the Y2K problem, it does NOT ensure or imply that plants will remain " safe and continue to operate within the requirements of their license." Therefore, this statement should be modified..
d.
Paragraph one of " Discussion", specifically item four, could be interpreted to mean that all codes in use today that have a date function should be evaluated to determine if any past or current output from these codes have been affected by the Y2K problem... Although APS does not believe that this is the intent of this paragraph, further discussion should be prc 'ded to iefine what at 'ons may he required to address the concern of this paragraph..
The sixth paragraph of " Discussion" should be modified to read as follows: "The e.
staff believes that the guidance in NEl/NUSMG 97-07, when properly implemented, is an acceptable approach...." It should be noted that this guidance provides a framework only and must be modified to address the embedded systems, design features, policies and procedures, at a minimum, that are unique to each f acility.
f.
Required Response 1 implies that the guidance provided in NEl/NUSMG 97-07 has been endorsed by the NRC and that other Y2K programs vvould require further evaluation by NRC. As described above, the NEl/NUSMG guidance provides a framework only and must be modified it should be made clear in the GL that such an adaptation of NEl/NUSMG guidance would meet NRC expectations.
18 g.
Required Response 1 could be interpreted to mean that a description of a facility's complete Y2K program should be provided to the NRC, including those applications and equipment that may not affect the operation of the facility,... Therefore, Required Response 1 should be modified to provide clarification that the required response only applies to safety-related systems end systems that are essential for power operations of the facility.
h.
Required Response 2 is confusing in that it is not clear as to what information should be provided by July 1,1999..
The words "... in compliance with the terms and conditions of your license (s) and NRC regulations" do not add any benefit to this required response.
The definitions of Y2K Ready and Y2K Compliant should also be removed from the required response.
Response
a.
The definitions of the terms " readiness" and " compliance" in the draft GL are extracted from NEl/NUSMG 97-07 and will be retained in the final GL.
b.
The suggested changes have been made to the final GL.
c.
The statement is extracted from the " Purpose" section of NEl/NUSMG 97-07 and will, therefore, not be changed in the GL.
d.
Paragraph one of the " Discussion"in the GL has been revised to focus on the concerns associated with the Y2K problem and not their detailed implications.
Those are part of the plant specific program's assessment activities which are to be addressed by the licensee.
The sixth paragraph.. the " Discussion" in the GL has been modified per the e.
comment.
f.
Additional paragraphs are included under the " Discussion" in the GL to reflect the need for plant specific Y2K programs and recognize that NEl/NUSMG 97-07 provides an example of an acceptable Y2K program framework. Required Response 1 is also revised accordingly.
g.
Required Response 1 simply confirms the ex'stence of a facility specific Y2K program. If the program significantly differs from that which is outlined in NEl/NUSMG 97-07, a description of the program is required. As stated in the introductory paragraph of Required Response," the intent of the requested responses is to assure that licensees are effectively addressing the Y2K problem with regard to compliance with the terms and conditions of the facility license and
r l
s 19 NRC regulations, i.e., the focus of the requirement is on systerns, sof tware and applications required to meet the facility license and NRC regulations. It is noted that most facilities have only a single Y2K program that addresses all affected systems in the facility. Thus, when providing a description of the Y2K program, the licensee may need to describe the activities beyond the scope cf the concerns indicated in the GL.
h.
Required Response 2 has been modified to address this comment.
- 27. North Atlantic /Seabrook Station Comment:
North Atlantic believes that sufficient guidance for addressing the Y2K issue has been provided by NEl/NUSMG. We believe that as a result of the industry's efforts the proposed generic letter is unnecessary. The nuclear industry is already focused on this issue and further regulatory effort can be met through inspection versus placing additional burden on the licensee.
Response
See response to Comment No.17. Since the nuclear industry is already addressing the Y2K problem, the staff believes the burden imposed by the generic letter is minimal since a licensee's response simply confirms the existence of a Y2K program, and that the program will provide assurance that the facility is in compliance with its license and NRC regulations.
i
F I
{
ATTACHMENT 2 l
l l
l l
l l
l l
1 l
l l
i I
l l
l I
I 1
l l
l