ML20147H043: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 239: Line 239:
==Dear Mr. Powell:==
==Dear Mr. Powell:==


Pursuant to the Freedom ofInformation Act (5 USC Paragraph 552), I hereby request copies of any and all documents related to the issuance of the October 9,1996 letter from Mr. James Taylor, NRC Executive Director for Operations, to licensee Chief Executive Officers. 'Ibe letter requested information pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) regarding the adequacy and availability of Design Bases information in order to provide the NRC added confidence and assurance that nuclear power plants are operated and maintained within the Design Bases and that any deviations are reconciled in a timely manner.
Pursuant to the Freedom ofInformation Act (5 USC Paragraph 552), I hereby request copies of any and all documents related to the issuance of the {{letter dated|date=October 9, 1996|text=October 9,1996 letter}} from Mr. James Taylor, NRC Executive Director for Operations, to licensee Chief Executive Officers. 'Ibe letter requested information pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) regarding the adequacy and availability of Design Bases information in order to provide the NRC added confidence and assurance that nuclear power plants are operated and maintained within the Design Bases and that any deviations are reconciled in a timely manner.
I herein request allinfonnation referred to in the above paragraph, in whatever form, written or otherwise, in@he, but not limited to, interoffice memoranda, records of reviews performed by
I herein request allinfonnation referred to in the above paragraph, in whatever form, written or otherwise, in@he, but not limited to, interoffice memoranda, records of reviews performed by
             . the NRC Staff and the Comminaion, statements, notes, summaries, drafts, correspondence, interview reports, files, records, and any other data compilation, regardless of originatian For each and any requested item, or portion thereof, that you withhold pursuant to a Freedom of Infor==tian Act exemption, please provide an index itemizing and describing the itemps withheld and individually disclosing the specific basis for the withholding. Whatever expanses may be associated with this request will be acceptable, up to a maximum of $500.00 and for any fees or        ,
             . the NRC Staff and the Comminaion, statements, notes, summaries, drafts, correspondence, interview reports, files, records, and any other data compilation, regardless of originatian For each and any requested item, or portion thereof, that you withhold pursuant to a Freedom of Infor==tian Act exemption, please provide an index itemizing and describing the itemps withheld and individually disclosing the specific basis for the withholding. Whatever expanses may be associated with this request will be acceptable, up to a maximum of $500.00 and for any fees or        ,
Line 452: Line 452:
were identified where quality assurance requirements and corrective action requirements had not been properly implemented to appropriately maintain design basis information.
were identified where quality assurance requirements and corrective action requirements had not been properly implemented to appropriately maintain design basis information.
Details of the findings are outlined further in the attachment to the proposed letter.
Details of the findings are outlined further in the attachment to the proposed letter.
By letter dated August 2,1996, NEl informed the staff that an initiative had been approved by the Nuclear Strategic Issues Advisory Committee (consisting of chief nuclear officers) to provide additional assurance and confidence that existing programs are adequate to ensure: (1) plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis, (2) the licensing basis is adequately maintained, (3) dif ferences between the operating practices and licensing basis could not result in a significant public health and safety concern, and (4) degraded or non-conforming conditions are captured on tracking systems and resolved in a timely manner. The letter stated that each licensee would conduct an
By {{letter dated|date=August 2, 1996|text=letter dated August 2,1996}}, NEl informed the staff that an initiative had been approved by the Nuclear Strategic Issues Advisory Committee (consisting of chief nuclear officers) to provide additional assurance and confidence that existing programs are adequate to ensure: (1) plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis, (2) the licensing basis is adequately maintained, (3) dif ferences between the operating practices and licensing basis could not result in a significant public health and safety concern, and (4) degraded or non-conforming conditions are captured on tracking systems and resolved in a timely manner. The letter stated that each licensee would conduct an


e The Commissioners                                  assessment of the program in place to reaffirm that plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis. In a letter dated AuguM 14,1996, the NRC stated its concem that the proposed initiative may not be of sufficient scope and depth and that an in-depth vertical slice review of actual design basis documentation and comparison of "as-built" and "as operated" safety systems is more appropriate. The NRC confirmed its position that it is the responsibility of individual licensees to know the;r licensing basis, to have appropriate documentation that defines their design basis and to have procedures for performing the necessary assessment of plant or procedure changes required by NRC regulations.
e The Commissioners                                  assessment of the program in place to reaffirm that plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis. In a letter dated AuguM 14,1996, the NRC stated its concem that the proposed initiative may not be of sufficient scope and depth and that an in-depth vertical slice review of actual design basis documentation and comparison of "as-built" and "as operated" safety systems is more appropriate. The NRC confirmed its position that it is the responsibility of individual licensees to know the;r licensing basis, to have appropriate documentation that defines their design basis and to have procedures for performing the necessary assessment of plant or procedure changes required by NRC regulations.
Line 951: Line 951:
!          guidance document, NUMARC 90-12," Design Basis Program Guidelines." The document                      ;
!          guidance document, NUMARC 90-12," Design Basis Program Guidelines." The document                      ;
j          outlined a stantlard framework for developing a design basis program that collates design              !
j          outlined a stantlard framework for developing a design basis program that collates design              !
basis informatihn and supporting design information, but does not identify or recreate the          1 i          licensing basis of the plant. In a letter dated November 9,1990, the staff concluded that              l
basis informatihn and supporting design information, but does not identify or recreate the          1 i          licensing basis of the plant. In a {{letter dated|date=November 9, 1990|text=letter dated November 9,1990}}, the staff concluded that              l
!          the guideline 'would provide worthwhile insights to those utilities undertaking design bases          l
!          the guideline 'would provide worthwhile insights to those utilities undertaking design bases          l
{          prcyams and appeared to provide sufficient flexibility for licensees to structure their                ;
{          prcyams and appeared to provide sufficient flexibility for licensees to structure their                ;
Line 1,008: Line 1,008:
Numerous instances were identified where design basis information was not adequately translated into procedures, practices and drawings; the original design basis was inadequate and the original installation was incorrect; modifications were not installed in accordance with the design; and modifications were based on incorrect design assumptions. Additionally, cases were identified where quality assurance requirements and corrective action requirements had not been properly implemented to appropriately maintain design basis information. Details of the findings are outlined further in the attachment to the proposed letter.
Numerous instances were identified where design basis information was not adequately translated into procedures, practices and drawings; the original design basis was inadequate and the original installation was incorrect; modifications were not installed in accordance with the design; and modifications were based on incorrect design assumptions. Additionally, cases were identified where quality assurance requirements and corrective action requirements had not been properly implemented to appropriately maintain design basis information. Details of the findings are outlined further in the attachment to the proposed letter.


i The Commissioners                                                                                                                                    i By letter dated August 2,1996, NEl informed the staff that an initiative had been approved      l by the Nuclear Strategic issues Advisory Committee (consisting of chief nuclear officers) to provide additional assurance and confidence that existing programs are adequate to ensure:
i The Commissioners                                                                                                                                    i By {{letter dated|date=August 2, 1996|text=letter dated August 2,1996}}, NEl informed the staff that an initiative had been approved      l by the Nuclear Strategic issues Advisory Committee (consisting of chief nuclear officers) to provide additional assurance and confidence that existing programs are adequate to ensure:
(1) plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis, (2) the licensing basis is adequately maintained, (3) differences between the operating practices and licensing basis could not result in a significant public health and safety concern, and (4) degraded or nonconforming conditions are captured on tracking systems and resolved in a timely manner. The letter stated that each licensee would conduct an assessment of the program in place to reaffirm that plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis. In a letter dated August 14,1996, the NRC stated its concern that the proposed initiative may not be of sufficient scope and depth and that an in-depth vertical slice review of actual design basis documentation ~and comparison of "as-built" and "as operated" safety systems would be more appropriate. The NRC confirmed its position that it is the responsibility of individual licensees to know their licensing basis, to have appropriate documentatie hat defines their design basis and to have procedures for performing the neceaey aessment of plant or proceduie changes required by NRC regulations.
(1) plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis, (2) the licensing basis is adequately maintained, (3) differences between the operating practices and licensing basis could not result in a significant public health and safety concern, and (4) degraded or nonconforming conditions are captured on tracking systems and resolved in a timely manner. The letter stated that each licensee would conduct an assessment of the program in place to reaffirm that plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis. In a {{letter dated|date=August 14, 1996|text=letter dated August 14,1996}}, the NRC stated its concern that the proposed initiative may not be of sufficient scope and depth and that an in-depth vertical slice review of actual design basis documentation ~and comparison of "as-built" and "as operated" safety systems would be more appropriate. The NRC confirmed its position that it is the responsibility of individual licensees to know their licensing basis, to have appropriate documentatie hat defines their design basis and to have procedures for performing the neceaey aessment of plant or proceduie changes required by NRC regulations.
Design and configuration deficiencies currently being identified at some plants indicate failures (1) to comply with the terms and conditions of licenses and NRC regulations and (2) to assure that Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports properly reflect the facilities.
Design and configuration deficiencies currently being identified at some plants indicate failures (1) to comply with the terms and conditions of licenses and NRC regulations and (2) to assure that Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports properly reflect the facilities.
These findings raise questions whether licensee programs to maintain configuration control are sufficient to demonstrate that plant physical and functional characteristics are consistent with the design bases and whether operating plants are being maintained in accordance with their design basis. The staff believes that reliance on the industry's voluntary efforts on improving design bases information may not be sufficient to maintain configuration control at some numMr of plants. These problems are of concern because of their potential impact on public health and safety.
These findings raise questions whether licensee programs to maintain configuration control are sufficient to demonstrate that plant physical and functional characteristics are consistent with the design bases and whether operating plants are being maintained in accordance with their design basis. The staff believes that reliance on the industry's voluntary efforts on improving design bases information may not be sufficient to maintain configuration control at some numMr of plants. These problems are of concern because of their potential impact on public health and safety.
Line 1,208: Line 1,208:
The Commissioners                                BACKGROUND:
The Commissioners                                BACKGROUND:
In the mid- to late 1980's, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) safety system functionalinspections (SSFis) at power reactor licensees and safety system outage modification inspections (SSOMis) raised concerns about design bases information not being properly maintained and plant modifications being made without the licensee having an understanding of the plant design bases. The NRC's findings heightened the industry's awareness of the need to improve the adequacy and availability of design documentation and many licensees voluntarily initiated extensive efforts tc improve their design bases information.
In the mid- to late 1980's, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) safety system functionalinspections (SSFis) at power reactor licensees and safety system outage modification inspections (SSOMis) raised concerns about design bases information not being properly maintained and plant modifications being made without the licensee having an understanding of the plant design bases. The NRC's findings heightened the industry's awareness of the need to improve the adequacy and availability of design documentation and many licensees voluntarily initiated extensive efforts tc improve their design bases information.
To assist the industry in performing these activities, the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC), now the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), developed the guidance document, NUMARC 90-12, " Design Basis Program Guidelines." The document outlined a standard framework for developing a design basis program that collates design basis information and supporting design information, but does not identify or recreate the licensing basis of the plant, in a letter dated November 9,1990, the staff concluded that the guideline would provide worthwhile insights to those utilities undertaking design bases progr.ams and appeared to provide sufficient flexibility for licensees to structure their programs to respond most efficiently to any unique needs and circumstances of a particular license. In emphasizing the importance of validation of the facility against current design information, the staff stated that the goal of any program should be to establish confidence that the existing facility conforms to the current design bases documents and that any identified deviations are reconciled. The staff also emphasized that design documents that support technical specification values and design documents necessary to support operations or respond to events should be regenerated if missing. The staff requested that NUMARC consider making the design bases effort a NUMARC initiative. In SECY-91-364,
To assist the industry in performing these activities, the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC), now the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), developed the guidance document, NUMARC 90-12, " Design Basis Program Guidelines." The document outlined a standard framework for developing a design basis program that collates design basis information and supporting design information, but does not identify or recreate the licensing basis of the plant, in a {{letter dated|date=November 9, 1990|text=letter dated November 9,1990}}, the staff concluded that the guideline would provide worthwhile insights to those utilities undertaking design bases progr.ams and appeared to provide sufficient flexibility for licensees to structure their programs to respond most efficiently to any unique needs and circumstances of a particular license. In emphasizing the importance of validation of the facility against current design information, the staff stated that the goal of any program should be to establish confidence that the existing facility conforms to the current design bases documents and that any identified deviations are reconciled. The staff also emphasized that design documents that support technical specification values and design documents necessary to support operations or respond to events should be regenerated if missing. The staff requested that NUMARC consider making the design bases effort a NUMARC initiative. In SECY-91-364,
   " Design Basis Reconstitution" dated November 12,1991, the staff reported NUMARC's conclusion that an initiative was not necessary because most of their members were already conducting or evaluating the need to conduct such programs. Although NUMARC decided not to pursue a formaliNtMive, it forwarded the guidelines and NRC commr= ::;
   " Design Basis Reconstitution" dated November 12,1991, the staff reported NUMARC's conclusion that an initiative was not necessary because most of their members were already conducting or evaluating the need to conduct such programs. Although NUMARC decided not to pursue a formaliNtMive, it forwarded the guidelines and NRC commr= ::;
their members for use on a voluntary basis.
their members for use on a voluntary basis.
Line 1,271: Line 1,271:
(1) plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis, (2) the licensing basis is adequately maintained, (3) differences between the operating practices and licensing basis                g could not result in a significant public health and safety concern, and (4) degraded or nonconforming conditions are captured on tracking systems and resolved in a timely              I^'jj i
(1) plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis, (2) the licensing basis is adequately maintained, (3) differences between the operating practices and licensing basis                g could not result in a significant public health and safety concern, and (4) degraded or nonconforming conditions are captured on tracking systems and resolved in a timely              I^'jj i
manner. The letter stated that each licensee would conduct an assessment of th, in place to reaffirm that plants are operated in conformance gram  kl#
manner. The letter stated that each licensee would conduct an assessment of th, in place to reaffirm that plants are operated in conformance gram  kl#
with their licensing basis. In a letter dated August 14,1996, the NRC s ed its concern that the proposed initiative may not be of sufficient scope and dep          nd that an in-depth
with their licensing basis. In a {{letter dated|date=August 14, 1996|text=letter dated August 14,1996}}, the NRC s ed its concern that the proposed initiative may not be of sufficient scope and dep          nd that an in-depth
:    vertical slice review of actual design basis documentation and mparison of "as-built" and l    "as operated" safety systems yy_ouldA  o      more appropriate. The NRC confirmed its position              i j
:    vertical slice review of actual design basis documentation and mparison of "as-built" and l    "as operated" safety systems yy_ouldA  o      more appropriate. The NRC confirmed its position              i j
that it is the responsibility of individual licensees to know their licensing basis, to have                l appropriate documentation that defines their design basis and to have procedures for                        I performing the necessary assessment of plant or procedure changes required by NRC                            l regulations.                                                                                                :
that it is the responsibility of individual licensees to know their licensing basis, to have                l appropriate documentation that defines their design basis and to have procedures for                        I performing the necessary assessment of plant or procedure changes required by NRC                            l regulations.                                                                                                :
Line 1,484: Line 1,484:
j                              To assist the industry in performing these activities, the Nuclear Management and                                  i j                              Resources Council (NUMARC), now the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), developed the                                  j j
j                              To assist the industry in performing these activities, the Nuclear Management and                                  i j                              Resources Council (NUMARC), now the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), developed the                                  j j
guidance document, NUMARC 90-12, " Design Basis Program Guidelines." The document                                  l outlined a standard framework for developing a program that collates design basis                                  l
guidance document, NUMARC 90-12, " Design Basis Program Guidelines." The document                                  l outlined a standard framework for developing a program that collates design basis                                  l
                               ' information and supporting design information, but does not identify or recreate the licensing basis of the plant. In a letter dated November 9,1990, the staff concluded that j                              the guidelines would provide worthwhile insights to those utilities undertaking design bases                        j j                              programs and appeared to provide sufficient flexibility for licensees to structure their i                              programs to respond most efficiently to any unique needs and circumstances of a particular
                               ' information and supporting design information, but does not identify or recreate the licensing basis of the plant. In a {{letter dated|date=November 9, 1990|text=letter dated November 9,1990}}, the staff concluded that j                              the guidelines would provide worthwhile insights to those utilities undertaking design bases                        j j                              programs and appeared to provide sufficient flexibility for licensees to structure their i                              programs to respond most efficiently to any unique needs and circumstances of a particular
[                              license, in emphasizing the importance of validation of the facility against current design information, the staff stated that the goal of any program should be to establish confidence that the existing facility conforms to the cunent design I ases documents and that any identified deviations are reconciled. The staff also emphasized that design documents that support technical specification values and design documents necessary to support                                  {
[                              license, in emphasizing the importance of validation of the facility against current design information, the staff stated that the goal of any program should be to establish confidence that the existing facility conforms to the cunent design I ases documents and that any identified deviations are reconciled. The staff also emphasized that design documents that support technical specification values and design documents necessary to support                                  {
operations or respond to events should be regenerated if missing. The staff requested that NUMARC consider making the design bases effort a NUMARC initiative. In SECY-91-364,
operations or respond to events should be regenerated if missing. The staff requested that NUMARC consider making the design bases effort a NUMARC initiative. In SECY-91-364,
Line 1,550: Line 1,550:
i j            By letter dated August 2,' 1996, NEl informed the staff that an initiative had been approved
i j            By letter dated August 2,' 1996, NEl informed the staff that an initiative had been approved
:            by the Nuclear Strategic issues Advisory Committee (consisting of chief nuclear officers) to j          provide additional assurance and confidence that existing programs are adequate to ensure:        l (1) plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis, (2) the licensing basis is    !
:            by the Nuclear Strategic issues Advisory Committee (consisting of chief nuclear officers) to j          provide additional assurance and confidence that existing programs are adequate to ensure:        l (1) plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis, (2) the licensing basis is    !
adequately maintained, (3) differences between the operating practices and licensing basis could not result in a significant public health and safety concern, and (4) degraded or nonconforming conditions are captured on tracking systems and resolved in a timely manner. The letter stated that each licensee would conduct an assessment of the program in place to reaffirm that plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis. In a letter dated August 14,1996, the NRC stated its concern that the proposed initiative may not be of sufficient scope and depth and that an in-depth vertical slice review of actual design basis documentation and comparison of "as-built" and        i "as operated" safety systems would be more appropriate. The NRC confirmed its position            j that it is the responsibility of individual licensees to know their licensing basis, to have      i appropriate documentation that defines' their design bases and to have procedures for performing the necessary assessment of plant or procedure changes required by NRC regulations.
adequately maintained, (3) differences between the operating practices and licensing basis could not result in a significant public health and safety concern, and (4) degraded or nonconforming conditions are captured on tracking systems and resolved in a timely manner. The letter stated that each licensee would conduct an assessment of the program in place to reaffirm that plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis. In a {{letter dated|date=August 14, 1996|text=letter dated August 14,1996}}, the NRC stated its concern that the proposed initiative may not be of sufficient scope and depth and that an in-depth vertical slice review of actual design basis documentation and comparison of "as-built" and        i "as operated" safety systems would be more appropriate. The NRC confirmed its position            j that it is the responsibility of individual licensees to know their licensing basis, to have      i appropriate documentation that defines' their design bases and to have procedures for performing the necessary assessment of plant or procedure changes required by NRC regulations.
Design and configuration deficiencies currently being identified at some plants indicate failures (1) to comply with the terms and conditions of licenses and NRC regulations and (2) to assure that Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports properly reflect the facilities.          1 These findings raise questions whether licensee programs to maintain configuration control        {
Design and configuration deficiencies currently being identified at some plants indicate failures (1) to comply with the terms and conditions of licenses and NRC regulations and (2) to assure that Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports properly reflect the facilities.          1 These findings raise questions whether licensee programs to maintain configuration control        {
are sufficient to demonstrate that plant physical and functional characteristics are              i consistent with the design bases and whether operating plants are being maintained in accordance with their design basis. The staff believes that reliance on the industry's voluntary efforts on improving design bases information, consistent with NUMARC 90-12,
are sufficient to demonstrate that plant physical and functional characteristics are              i consistent with the design bases and whether operating plants are being maintained in accordance with their design basis. The staff believes that reliance on the industry's voluntary efforts on improving design bases information, consistent with NUMARC 90-12,

Revision as of 01:47, 12 December 2021

Second Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Records in App D Encl & Will Be Available in Pdr.App E Records Completely Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5)
ML20147H043
Person / Time
Issue date: 03/27/1997
From: Racquel Powell
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To: Williams O
JRA ASSOCIATES
Shared Package
ML20147H050 List:
References
FOIA-96-466 SECY-96-189-C, NUDOCS 9704020127
Download: ML20147H043 (7)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:~~ eg g\ y h FOIA O[T f84 , - S RESPONSE TYPE Q-RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF \ \gy INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST o^u InNat W1 PARTI A L [G 

                                                                                                                                             \
 %o aes                                                                                                               BR27 Mfi DOCKEi NUMBE R(S) #1amiscatWe/

w/a. / - 

 .EQUESTE W
                                                          #/ =
                                           .e                                                                      -
                              /

PART 1.- AGENCY RECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED (See checAedboxes) No agency records subject to the request have been located. No additional agency records subject to the request have been located. m V Requested records are available through another public distribution program. See Comments section, Ager*cy reco ds subject to the request that are identified in Appendix (es) are already available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W , Washington, DC. Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendix (es) are being made available for public inspection and copying l st the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC, in a folder under this FOI A number. The nonproprietary version of the proposal (s) that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversation with a member of my staff is now being made available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N!*!., Washington, DC, in a folder under this FOI A number. Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendix (es) may be inspected and mpied at the NRC Local Public Document Room identified in the Comments section. Enclosed is information on how you may obtam access to and the charges for copying records located at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington. DC. g Agency records subject to the request are enclosed. l Records subject to the request have been referred to another Federal agency (ies) for review and direct response to you. 1 Fees i You will be billed by the NRC for fees totaling $ I You will receive a refund from the NRC in the amount of $ In view of NRC's response to this request, no further action is being taken on appeal letter dated , No. PART 11. A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Certain information in the requested records is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to the exemptions described in and for the reasons stated in Part it, B, C, and D. Any released portions of the documents for which only part of the record is being withheld are being made available for public inspection and copying in the NRC Public Docurr ent Room,2120 L Street, N W Washington, DC in a folder under this FOl A number. COMMENTS b 0h / 

                                                                                                                        ~
   /

T , DIRECTO Mt* REEDOM 7f (NFORMATION AND PUBLICATIONS SERVICES i 7 

                                                                  ;W bw: Mw$y.nind A'

[h ' f- ky - 

                                                                                                                                                                      ,u
                                                         $"$AMi#$%@% AMA#""~#~m+fggfq"6;                                            v Wy
                                                                                                                                                  ""#y ' - *8

naa$,Jd6 o NWhjgjg['gg jllll{llREE 'M;Af4 '. 2 ? 

                                                                                                                                                               <    g ,

9704020127 970327  %[0/M US d;$ ., P.'a *- A" PDR FOIA me?@tP 2 4 

                                                      .-                   Y ?Y $*TWhY                                                   N           bY
  • mc Panu au < Pert n n-en 9 7 yyg 7 977 /

FOIA NUMBERis) DATE RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST FOIA - $[ p p ? ' 'S97 (CONTINUATION) l PART 11.8- APPLICABLE E_XEMPTIONS Records subject to the request that are described in the enclosed Appendix {es) are being withheld in their entirety or in part undar the Exemption No.(s) and for the reason (s) given below pursuant to 5 U.S.C. SS2(b) and 10 CF R 9.17(a) of N RC regulations.

1. The withheld mformaton is properly classified pursuant to Executive Order. (Enomption 1)
2. The withheld mformatson relates solely to the mtemal personnel rules and procedures of NRC. (Exemption 2) l l3. The withheld informaten is specifically esempted from public disclosure by statute mdicated. (Exemption 3)

Sections 141 145 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data (42 U.S.C. 21612165). Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards informaton (42 U.S.C. 2167). l l4. The withheld enformaten as a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is being withheld for the reasonts) indicated. (Exemption 4) The mformation is considered to be confidential busmens lpropnetaryt information. The mformatson es considered to be propnetary mformation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790!dil11 I l J The information was submitted eno received m confidence pursuant to 10 CFR 2 790 ldh 21 { l

5. The withheld mformation consists of mteragency or mtraagency records that are not available through discovery durms litigation (Exemption 5). Apphcable Privilege: l Deliberative Process: Disclosure of predecisionar informaton woukt tend to inhttnt the open and frank enchange of 6deas essential to the deliberative process Where records are withheld m their entirety, the f acts are inestric a n intertwined with the predecisionalinformation There also are no reasonably seJregable f actual portens because the release of the f acts would permit an maire oQuery into the Dredecisional process of the agency Attomey work product privilege (Documents prepared by an elimney in contemplation of litigation i Attorney.cbent privilege. (Confidential commurucations between an attorney and his/her chent.)
6. The withheid mformation is esempted from public disclosure because its disclosure would 'esult in a clearst unwarranted mvasion of personal privacy (Exemption 6)
7. The withheld mformation consists of records compded for law enforcement purposes and ts being withheld for the reasonish indecated (Exemption 7) i I

Disclosura could reasonably be expected to mterfere with an enforcement proceeding because it could revea! the scope, direction, and focus of enforcement efforts, and thus could possibly allow recipients to take acten to shield potential wrongdomg or a violat on of NRC requirements ) from investigators. (E nemption 7 ( AH Disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (Ememption 7(C)) The mformation consists of names of individuals and other informat on the disclosure of which could reasonably be emoected to reveal identities of confidential sources, (Ememption 7 (D)) j I l OTHtH l l PART ll. C-DENYING OFFICIALS Pursuant to 10 CF R 9.25(b) and/or 9.25tc) of the U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissen regulations, it has been determined that the mformation withheld is ekempt from pro. duct on or d.sclosure. and that its product.on or d4sciosure is contrary to the pubhc mterest. The persons responsible for the denial are those officiais identified below as denying officials and the Director, Divisen of F rentom of information and Publ. cations Services. Off ree of Administration, for any denials that may be appealed to the Executive Director for Operatens (EDOL DENYING OFFICIAL TITLE / OFFICE RECORDS DENIED APPELLATE OFFICIAL l

  • EDO SECRETARY lo 12, 6
                                                                                 /                .
8. / x.

l 1 il l l PART 18. D- APPEAL RIGHTS , The denti by each denymg official identified in Part II.C may be appealed to the Appellate Official identified there. Any such appeal anust be made m writmg withm 30 days of receipt i (f th's response. Appeals must be addressed, as appropnate, to the E mecutive Director for Operations. to the Secretary of the Commission, or to the Inspector General, U.S. Nuclear ( 7 egulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from en inetial FOl A Decision." I NRC FiM 464 (Part 2) (1911 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

Re: FOIA 96-466 APPENDIX D RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN THEIR ENTIRETY NQ DATE DESCRIPTIONHPAGE COUNT)

1. Undated Routing slip with handwritten notes (Action 9/26) (1 page)
2. Undated Routing slip with handwritten notes (Action 10/2) (1 page)
3. Undated Routing slip with handwritten notes (Action 9/5) (1 page)
4. Undated Printout of SECY-96-189 tracking sheet (1 page)
5. Undated Memorandum from Commissioner Edward McGaffigan to John Hoyle,

Subject:

Issuance of 10 CFR letters, with comment and attached concurrence page (2 pages)

6. Undated Draft (Version 1) of Commission Paper on Design Basas (7 pages)
7. Undated Draft (Version 1) of 50.54(f) Letter on Design Bases (7 pages)
8. Undated Draft (Version 1) of Attachment to 50.54(f) Letter on Design Bases i (3 pages) l
9. Undated Draft (Version 2) of proposed 50.54(f) Letter on Design Bases (7 pages)
10. Undated Draft (Version 2) of Attachment to 50.54(f) Letter on Design Bases l (3 pages) i
11. Undated Draft (Version 2) of Commission Paper on Design Bases (7 pages)
12. Undated Mark-up from Meeting No. 290 of Draft (Version 2) of 50.54(f)  !

Letter on Design Bases, including Attachment (10 pages)  ! I 13, Undated Marked-up copy of Draft (Version 2) of Commission Paper on Design Bases (7 pages)

14. Undated Draft (Version 3) of 50.54(f) Letter on Design Bases reflecting l incorporation of CRGR comments from Meeting No. 290 (6 j Pages) l

i Re: FOIA-96-466 APPENDIX D I (continued) RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN THEIR ENTIRETY MCL DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNT)

15. Undated Draft (Version 3) of Attachment to 50.54(f) Letter on Design Bases, " Background Inform- ation on Recently Identified l Problems", reflecting incorporation of CRGR comments from  ;

Meeting No. 290 (2 pages)  ;

16. Undated Draft (Version 3) of Commission Paper on Design Bases reflecting i incorporation of CRGR comments from Meeting No. 290 (7 ,

pages) '

17. Undated Wordperfect 5.1 " COMPARE" of Draft Versions 2 and 3 of i 50/54(f) Letter on Design Bases, and Attachment (17 pages) . I
18. 06/25/96 Memo to Office Directors from J. M. Taylor,

Subject:

Small j Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act with attachments, i annotated by J. Conran (17 pages)

19. 08/21/96 Note from B. Grimes to CRGR Mernbers,

Subject:

Documents for ' Exigent CRGR Meeting (1 page)

20. 08/22/96 E-mail message from F. Akstulewicz to J. Conran,

Subject:

Revised Documents (1 page)

21. 08/23/96 E-mail message from J. Conran to CRGR members, Subject-Draft Versions 3 of the 50.54f Letter and Commission Paper on Design Bases Information; Replies 1,2,3, and 4 same date (F.

Miraglia/J. Conran); and Reply 5 from J. Murphy on 8/26/96 (5 i pages)  !

22. 08/27/96 " Record Copy" of final Minutes of CRGR Meeting No. 290 l (contains corrected and uncorrected versions of page 5 to Enclosure 28) (29 pages)
23. 08/27/96 E-mail message from F. Miraglia to J. Conran,

Subject:

Minutes Mtg 290, wrong Attachment 2B in draft Minutes of CRGR Meeting No. 290 (1 page) 4

24. 08/29/96 E-mail from Terence Chan to William Dean,

Subject:

Refueling practices survey (1 page) l

4 

 =

Re: FOIA-96-466 ) l APPENDIX D (continued) RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN THEIR ENTIRETY ((Q, DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNT)

25. 08/30/96 Note from M. Malloy to " Jim" (J. Conran transmitting corrected l page 5 of Attachment 2B (2 pages)
26. 08/30/96 E-mail message from M. Malloy to J. Conran (including embedded i message from E. McKenna to M. Malloy), retransmitting documents (2 pages)
27. 09/05/96 E-mail message from M. Malloy to J. Conran,

Subject:

Minutes of I Meeting #290, inquiring about status of proposed corrections to  ; draft Minutes of Meeting No. 290 (1 page)  !

28. 09/09/96 E-mail message from M. Malloy to F. Miraglia,

Subject:

Minutes of CRGR Meeting #290, regarding continued disparity in the draft Minutes of Meeting No. 290 (1 page)

29. 09/23/96 E-mail message from D. Pulley to J. Conran, andReplies 1 and 2 i same date (3 pages) l
30. 09/24/96 Commissioner Nils Diaz's vote sheet on SECY-96-189 (4 pages) l
31. 09/26/96 Draft, Proposed issue Outline, Current Licensing Basis-Millstone Lessons Learned, annotated by J. Conran (2 pages)
32. 09/30/96 E-mail from Maria Lopez-Otin to Ken Hart, sUBJET, Draft SRM  ;

SECY-96-189 (2 pages) l

33. 10/01/96 E-mail reply from Joe Gray to Ken Hart and multiple addressees,

Subject:

Approval of proposed SRM on SECY-96-189 (1 page) 34, 10/02/96 E-mail from Joe Gray to Ken Hart and multiple addressees,

Subject:

Approval of proposed SRM on SECY-96-189 (1 page)

35. 10/02/96 E-mail from Maria Lopez-Otin to Ken Hart,

Subject:

SRM on SECY 96-189 (2 pages)

36. 10/02/96 E-mail reply from Maria L-Otin to Ken Hart,

Subject:

SRM on SECY-96-189 (1 page)

Re: FOIA-96-466 t . APPENDIX D (continued) RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN THEIR ENTIRETY ! MCL DATE DESCRIPTION /IPAGE COUNT) -t

37. 10/09/96 Final (merge) version of 50.54(f) Letter on.. Design Bases Information w/o Attachments 1,3, and 4)(10 pag 4) i 38. 10/09/96 E-mail message from M. Malloy to J. Conran,

Subject:

50.54(f) I' letter, transmitting a document (1 page)

39. 10/23/96 E-mail from J. Conran to S. Burns,

Subject:

Excerpt from Minutes

of CRGR Meeting No. 290-Reply-Reply (1 page)
40. 10/28/96 E-mail message from S. Crockett to J. Conran, regarding ".. phone
call..", and response from J.Conran (Reply 1) same date (2 l pages) i
41. 11/18/96 Memo to E. Jordan from F. Miraglia,

Subject:

Closure of CRGR Review of Proposed 10 CFR 50.54(f) Letter Regarding Adequacy and Availabilitf of Design Bases Information (CRGR Meeting No. 290) (2 pages)

' 42. 11/18/96 E-mail message from S. Crockett to J. Conran,
egarding preferred time (for presentation of briefing on Small

.' Business... Fairness Act at CRGR Meeting No. 296) (1 page) i 43 11/19/96 E-mail message (Reply 1) from J. Goldberg to J. Conran,

Subject:

l CRGR Meeting No. 296, responding to email message (1 page)

44. 11/27/96- NRC-Mail Tracking System (1 pagr.)

i i l

j .. Re: FOIA-96-466 i I APPENDIX E RECORDS BEING WITHHELD IN THEIR ENTIRETY r MGL DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNTi/ EXEMPTIONS l 1. 07/31/96 Memo to Chairman Jackson, et al., from K. Cyr,

Subject:

i l Regulatory Significance of the Final Safety Analysis Report,  ! annotated by J. Conran (9 pages) EX. 5 l I I i l I i

i n '. . i i J/R/A ASSOCIATES l Regulatory Information & Support Systems P.O. Box 4604 < CapitolHeights, MD 20791-4604 l i (301) 249-9672 October 25,1996 OGW-96-193 Mr. Russell A. Powell, Chief CasekFGA/PA 95' 6{* 

                                                                                                           ~4   L Freedom ofInformation/ Local Public Document                                Deb M           //~/3 ~9 A Room Branch                                                              2 0R-         lbc/

M/S T6D8 RekkrjCase* U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Dear Mr. Powell:

Pursuant to the Freedom ofInformation Act (5 USC Paragraph 552), I hereby request copies of any and all documents related to the issuance of the October 9,1996 letter from Mr. James Taylor, NRC Executive Director for Operations, to licensee Chief Executive Officers. 'Ibe letter requested information pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) regarding the adequacy and availability of Design Bases information in order to provide the NRC added confidence and assurance that nuclear power plants are operated and maintained within the Design Bases and that any deviations are reconciled in a timely manner. I herein request allinfonnation referred to in the above paragraph, in whatever form, written or otherwise, in@he, but not limited to, interoffice memoranda, records of reviews performed by 

           . the NRC Staff and the Comminaion, statements, notes, summaries, drafts, correspondence, interview reports, files, records, and any other data compilation, regardless of originatian For each and any requested item, or portion thereof, that you withhold pursuant to a Freedom of Infor==tian Act exemption, please provide an index itemizing and describing the itemps withheld and individually disclosing the specific basis for the withholding. Whatever expanses may be associated with this request will be acceptable, up to a maximum of $500.00 and for any fees or         ,

expenses incurred pursuant to this request, please forward the charges, along with the requested i records and information, to my attention at the address above. Please callifyou have questions. j 

                 .:spO3249eM                                                                                         j i

__ .- . . __. . _ . _ . . . . _ - _ . . . .. _ _ _ -._._ _ _ . . _ _ . . = . . _ _ . . . .

g .. .;

i 

    .v-     .,
                     .                                                                                                                            E l
          <       Mr. Powell                                                                                                                      l Page 2                                                                                                                          !

l ,/ J

r. .
'Ihank you Lar your services.  !

f h 8 3 Sin ely, l , f h in G. dliams j b i 3 I $ i d J e i i

  1. I 1

l E 1 ll-i i 1 i I

wnctonMis. , e us.Nucta an atoutaione LouMuou encM caso RGUTit{G SLIP ,, . QuoamaA A T sDas TD-(~X"es appseenstel NAME MalLSTOP TO hAMC MAIL STOP Chairman Scott de h Gerry 

 .[Annette                                       dr7 .) Evf           l y A                       ,

Karla 2 5~ v i Jim Leslie / ' i Regis Pat Bob [ [3 pMk e f /-  % Janipe , u ,, ,j[h[f Ja[kie (h / Brkn ffy p ) , . [ Chri k RIMARK$ . i 

                                                        /                      .

2.L4 

           \

4 g a  % 

                                         /
                                                              "M                        d4 f                                         -                -

k w-uma na do e &OA wAc. _; E i ^ W C-L~OQ r b d[h xd +&M 

                                           , v      ..

a % ar arenovata avune 'f 

                                               ]    wee  MAv.o=

Q '% CDMMgasi Afasci ECESSART AClease StohATURS of CDRAGCTeoM / NOTE AMoDistnov ,, M f 

                                                             ... . .. dj /gsg.y g                                  Q
              .,.C. a .                         ...

, .. _ e, , ,o -.- - g 3 o.n - N f 

                                                                                                                       \

1 

                                                                                                    \,

s 

         =mc e&~a i A us.Nuctte,n secuL Aioav comuiusom NacM c2:o ROUTING SLIP umGamata t soes TO-("K"es aweswasse)     NAME           MAIL STOP TO                    KAME                       MAIL 5 TOP Chairman                                             Scott 3 Mary 1ee
                                                 $                   cerry 8 Annette                             [ /f[                    velyn Karla                            "
                                                               \ Judy '                                                      l Jim                                                  Leslie                                f3/d Regis                                                Pat        \ n ,_ g '                                   1 Bob 7 ,

Janice b / 

                                                                                                            /

Jackie ME ' Brian b x, l Chris 'lA , 'hy,gn h.fd /gl) mauAnsos 

                                                                                                         <'           }
                        ; yp)e                      ')                  %             .

l MB SU-1 )L_'._. y Awh 4 i Ldcs. 6* . 

                                                                   / ob           9
                          & .-(*^5f*A-Yi
  • a w ps<a s M 4 og.jo,( lee dc ; h j lvol Ql S 'Y Y " ~

As AgQUESTED PtLt Pin CossygmsAflON 

          &#FROVALfleGesatufeE                     tesF04deafeces                        $48 Mt Q3edMENIACONCWRRl88CI telCESEART ACT10e#                    S*GNATWRE Of 8:OftalCTeose NOTE AND DE81mov AesselmtacumowL5000 #01t esof t Asr0 at funN 10 7 ROR4 dAmssw              '

Otf E PHONE , 

                                             "             ~

DATE m 

                                                                     \

(N

, _ . . . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _._._-.___.__m_mm._. ____.m_. _._m.-_.-.__. __.a.....-. . . . _ _ . . _ . . . _ . l  ; s = i esMC FOAM UA l ua.esuCLE Am R&GutAlony COMMaulON ( I 

                               =ncM c240 '                                 ROUTING SLIP l                               Oncansaatsse ,                                                                                                                                                         t i

TO.f% Nass,apresef L NAME Matt STOP YO esaast MAeLsTor 

                                                                                                                                                                                                      \

Chairman Scott  : L Marylee G,erry i t s / l Annette b ' Evelyn Karla , udy 

                                                                                                                                       /

f Jim j ( Leslie . 75 , ! Regis x Pat t /. . !~ Bob k ,, l Janice "Syr% ('n -  ; 1 C) ), Jackie l l e/ Brian p .q-- , v Chris ' eJM _s g 4 - . i 

                                                                                                           \f g4j I

l l I i 4 

                                                                                                      /? 7
                                                                         ,5 f C P Nf                ,

a4 mtoutGT4D rett Ptn Coe#WEmtatices m8pm0 Vat 4408eatums use0metatiOm ut est i CDannetmTsC08scuRRessCl atCassamy acieces tschATURE Of l CometCit0ss asof t asso DE5tn0v 

                                                                       ~
j. massmemmCasecusLED06 90R esof t **so at fumes 10 t Facts sannew 1 orf sct PHoset ,

i DATE J

i i

$ i 4 I i l 

                   ._._ __ ._.. _ . . _ _ . . . _ - _             _ _ _ _        . _ . . _ _    __m   __ _ _ _ _ _         . _ _ .

i Time: 11 01 am NRC - SECY Tracking - Edit Record #: 23 Paper No: SECY-96-189 Paper Type: NV Approved: Y  ! Remarks:  : Classification: '

Subject:

Title:

ISSUANCE OF 10 CFR 50. 54 (F) LETTERS ON THE AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF DESIGN BASIS  ! INFORMATION Facility: Document Date: 08/30/96 Assigned To: JRG / Received: 09/03/96 - File Location: SECY PAPERS Due: 09/16/96 Comments: N Completed: 10/02/96 Other: AKSTULEWICZ & MCKENNA,NRR Destroyed: / / . Print on Staff Report?: N -l APPROVED SAJ: APP W/C 091896 KCR: APP W/C 092496 GJD: APP W/C 092096 NJD: APP W/C 092496 EXM: APP W/C 091296 T: Top N:Next G:Goto F: Find D: Delete E: Edit A: Add B: Bottom P: Prev C: Copy L: Locate U:Undelete Q: Quit R: browse ' l I i i i 1 b 9 l 

    . .._..       . . _ . -        _ . - - . - _ _ _ _ .        _._.____.-____..__~__-....~____._m_.             .   ._..-_.m o                                          UNITED STATES g
    /                        g.                          NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g                        a                                  W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 s.,...../

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 

                                                                                                       \   ,,k '

MEMORANDUM T0: John C. Hoyle M i Secretary of the Commission , t 1 ,g FROM: Edward McGaffigan, Jr. ((k l g

SUBJECT:

ISSUANCE OF 10 CFR 50.54(f). LETTERS ON AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF DESIGN BASIS INFORMATION I approve the staff's proposed 50.54(f) letter with minor editorial comments noted on the attached marked-up pages. I suggest that the letter be modified to include a reference to the change in the Enforcement Policy with regard to the exercise of enforcement discretion for "old design issues" that is )roposed in SECY-96-154, provided that a majority of the Commission approves that Enforcement Policy change. cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz I E00 ( i l i '. r 

                                                                                                                    )            l I
                                 ,                                                   r.,--,

                                                                                                                                                            )

.. u j i l l MEMORANDUM TO: John C. Hoyle Secretary of the Commission FROM: Edward McGaffigan. Jr. 

                                                                                                                                                            }

SUBJECT:

ISSUANCE OF 10 CFR 50.54(f). LETTERS ON AVAILABILITY AND  ! ADEQUACY OF DESIGN BASIS INFORMATION J h I approve the staff's proposed 50.54(f) letter with minor editorial comments noted on the attached marked-up pages. I suggest that the letter be modified to include a reference to the change in the Enforcement Policy with regard to the exercise of enforcement discretion for "old design issues" that is proposed in SECY-96-154. provided that a majority of the Commis ion approves that Enforcement Policy change. cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz EDO DOCUMENT NAME: G:50 54(f).mem Ta rece6ve a copy of this ties;ument.Tamcate in the bos: "C" = Copy wrthout attachment / enclosure 'E' = Copy with 6tt?rhmane r:'< w. *e 'N' = No copy 3FFICE OCMDp l OCM/EM g h l l l NAME JG Tyl EMcGatfigan DATE 09/P/96 09/1% /96 09/ /96 09/ /96 09/ /96 mammmmmmmmmmmme man mammmmmmmmmmmme sum nummmmmmmmmmmenmmm nummmmmmmmmmanum NAME DATE 09/ /96 09/ /96 09/ /96 09/ /96 09/ /96 0FFICIA. RECORD COPY i l 

                                                                                         .prc %~ ( q &

C)re(b(Vers #onl) 

                                                                                                       )

i EQE: The Commissioners FROM: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

ISSUANCE OF 10 CFR 50.54(f) LETTERS ON THE AVAILABlUTY AND ADEQUACY OF DESIGN BASES INFORMATION PURPOSE: To request Commission approval of the staff's proposal to send 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters to utility chief executive officers (CEOs). These letters will require information to gain added confidence and assurance that plants are operated and maintained within the design basis of the plant and any deviations are reconciled in a timely manner.

SUMMARY

Recent inspection findings have indicated that design bases information has not been appropriately maintained and implemented at certain plants and that this may have a potential public health and safety impact. The staff is proposing to require information , { from licensees regarding the availability and adequacy of design bases information in i sufficient detail to identify how engineering design and configuration control processes are j examined, how design bases requirements are translated into operating procedures, maintenance, and testing, now system performance is verified to be within the design bases, and how problem identification and implementation of corrective actions are handled. CONTACTS: . Frank M. Akstulewicz, NRR  ! (301) 415-1136 Eileen M. McKenna, NRR i (301)415-2189 0

The Commissioners , the supporting design documents, as necessary, may not provide a sufficient level of information for future modifications or current plant cperation or to quickly respond to operating events; minor changes to the design should be tracked to support the conclusion that the changes in aggregate do not affect the validity of existing calculations and the ability of a system to perform its design functions. Some common weaknesses of licensee programs identified during the survey included: design reconstitution programs had not identified in advance the documents that are necessary to demonstrate that a structure, system, or component will function properly; the process for regeneration of missing design documentation was not always proceduralized so that it could be handled in a systematic manner; validaticn of the content of specific output documentation was not always thoroughly carried out. In late 1991, the Commission requested the staff to consider whether rulemaking, regulatory guidance, or 3 policy statement was needed to outline the NRC's expectatinm concerning accurata design bases documentation. In SECY-92-193, " Design Bases Reconstitution," dated May 26,1992, the staff concluded that additional regulations were not needed because existing regulatory requirements for design control were sufficient. However, the staff proposed issuance of a policy statement and issuance, for public comment, of a generic letter requesting licensees to describe their programs. Additionally, SECY-92-193 documented the staff's intention to continue performing design-related inspections. Also, the staff expected that planned revisions to the enforcement policy guidance by not issuing civil penalties for violations up to Severity Levelill,if the issues

  • were identified as a result of systematic voluntary initiatives, would encourage licensees to ,

identify past design, engineering, and installation issues. The Commission responded in a t Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) which approved the staff's approach. In August 1992, the Commission issued the policy statement, " Availability and Adequacy l of Design Bases Information at Nuclear Power Plants." (57 FR 35455) The policy statement stressed the importanc9 of maintaining current and accessible design documentation to ensure that (1) plant physical and functional characteristics are maintained and consistent with design bases, (2) systems, structures, and components can perform their intended functions, and (3) the plant is operated in a manner consistent with the design bases, in the policy statement, the Commission stard that all power reactor licensees should assess the accessibility and adequacy of their design bases documentation and licensees should __be able to show that there is sufficient docum :tation to conclude that the current f acility configuration is consistent with the design Mcas. The policy statement outlined further actions the staff would perform to keep apprised of industry's activities. Following review by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) and the Commission, a draf t generic letter was issued for public comment on March 24,1993. The proposed generic letter requested licensees, on a voluntary basis, to submit information and schedules for any design bases programs completed, planned, or being conducted or a rationale for not implementing such a program. All but one of the commenters concluded that the generic letter was unnecessary and unwarranted. i

e The Commissioners 4-NUMARC responded that it believed the NRC request for descriptions, schedules, and dates would have a negative impact on on-going design efforts and that NRC's focus on - schedules would undermine the licensees' ability to manage the activities. , in SECY-93-292, " Generic Letter on the Availability and Adequacy of Design Bases information," the staff recommended the generic letter not be issued. The staff stated that publication of the policy statement and the proposed generic letter conveyed to the industry the Commission's concern and that publication of the generic letter would not further licensees' awareness of the importance of the activitics. The staff proposed to continue performing design-related inspections and to gather information and insights as to how well the licensee design-related programs were being implemented. The Commission

issued an SRM which agreed with the staff's proposal.

Subsequently, however, the NRC later reduced its effort on resource intensive design-related team inspections and shifted the balance to focus more on operational safety in the i following years, based on the issuance of the NUMARC guideline, ongoing industry efforts j to improve and maintain design bases information, and the regulatory burden of team ' inspections reported in the 1991 Regulatory impact Survey. DISCUSSION: Beginning in late 1995, NRC identified information during a number of inspections at different sites which indicated design 4 bases were not a,1 ways being appropriately maintained or adhered to by some licensees. Contrary to earlier indications,t the staff now believes there are situations where licensees have not critically examined their design control and configuration measures. For example, inspection teams identified a number of engineering calculations and analyses N key safety systems that were incorrect and did not confirm that safety system functional requirements would be met (resulting in inoperable safety systems on some occasions). Numerous instances were identified where design basis information was not adequately translated into procedures, practices and drawings; where original design basis was inadequate and the original installation was incorrect; where modifications were not installed in accordance with the design; and where modifications were based on incorrect design assumptions. Additionally, cases 

          ~

were identified where quality assurance requirements and corrective action requirements had not been properly implemented to appropriately maintain design basis information. Details of the findings are outlined further in the attachment to the proposed letter. By letter dated August 2,1996, NEl informed the staff that an initiative had been approved by the Nuclear Strategic Issues Advisory Committee (consisting of chief nuclear officers) to provide additional assurance and confidence that existing programs are adequate to ensure: (1) plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis, (2) the licensing basis is adequately maintained, (3) dif ferences between the operating practices and licensing basis could not result in a significant public health and safety concern, and (4) degraded or non-conforming conditions are captured on tracking systems and resolved in a timely manner. The letter stated that each licensee would conduct an

e The Commissioners assessment of the program in place to reaffirm that plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis. In a letter dated AuguM 14,1996, the NRC stated its concem that the proposed initiative may not be of sufficient scope and depth and that an in-depth vertical slice review of actual design basis documentation and comparison of "as-built" and "as operated" safety systems is more appropriate. The NRC confirmed its position that it is the responsibility of individual licensees to know the;r licensing basis, to have appropriate documentation that defines their design basis and to have procedures for performing the necessary assessment of plant or procedure changes required by NRC regulations. The magnitude and scope of the design and configuration deficiencies currently being identified at some plants indicate failures to comply with the terms and conditions of licenses, NRC regulations, and Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports. These findings raise questions whether licensees possess or have access to appropriate design _ bases informatiottand adequate techtiical bases to demonstrate that plant physical and functional characteristics are consistent with the design bases; whether systems, structurekand components can perform theirintended functions; and whether operating plants are being maintained in accordance with their design basis. The staff believes that reliance on the industry's voluntary efforts on improving design bases information may not be sufficient to maintain configuration control at some number of plants. These problems are of concern because of thair potentialimpact on public health and safety. Therefore, the staff proposes to send 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters (Attachment 1) signed by the EDO to utility CEOs that require licensees to (1) submit a description of any. programs already completed, planned, or being conducted to ensure correctness and accessibility of the design bases information, or (2) submit a rationale for not implementing such a program and a description of the extent of design information already obtained from suppliers and vendors, and (3) submit a schedule for the completion date of any planned design reconstitution program. The program description must be_ sufficiently detailed to identify how engineerinq design and configuration control processes are examined, hg_w design bases requirements are ;ranslated into operating procedures, maintenance, and tjtsyng, hgw system performance is verified to be within the design bases, and 1 1g.w problem identification and implementation of corrective actions are handled. The staff will use the information i_n preparation for the revitalization of design-related inspections such as SSFis and SSOMis to s. ify compliance with the terms and conditions of licenses, NRC regulations, and Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports. Such inspections address the process and products of design bases information programs and, therefore, provide insights as to the effectiveness of licensee programs without reviewing the programs themselves. (gy4g d ( 1 -

w. , ,g # 4 M pyn is
                                       ;.5 ly M

t 

   .e The Commissioners                             6-COORDINATION:

In view of the need for timely information regarding this matter, comments or concurrence i from the Advisory Committee for Reactor Safety (ACRS) and CRGR were not sought. The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and the enclosed sample letter and has no legal objection. R ECOMMENDATIO_N: That the Commission approve issuance of the letters. James M. Taylor Executive Director l for Operations

Attachment:

Sample letter to CEO i N/ I _1- [A u evs ua v i I l l I i l l i l 

      .--.w4 - m     -   ie     4 -   4- .m--e _w... - & ai s    _m,a a    m' +4 I

e 

   -N I

e i p PROPOSED 50.54(f) LETTER TO LICENSEES t i h l l l i i 

                                                                                  }

I I l I l [ l I - j Attachment 1 l .-

gj{L YW 

    &'                   3 Atc 4          N

's f$ k UNITED STATES [ %' j c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsHm ,Tos. o c. 2osssmoi hb ( +.... / [datel (Name of Utility CEO) (Tittel [ Utility Namel [ Utility Address)

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR A_DDITIONAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.54(f) REGARDING ADEQUACY'AND AVAILABILITY OF DESIGN BASES INFORMATION

Dear Mr. (Namel:

Backaround: In the mid- to late 1980's, NRC safety system functional inspections (SSFis) and safety system outage modification inspections (SSOMis) raised concerns ahut design bases information not being properly maintained and plant modifications being made without the licensee having an understanding of the plant design bases. The NRC findings heightened the industry's awareness of the need to improve the adequacy and availability of design documents, and many licensees voluntarily initiated extensive efforts to improve the design bases information for their plants. , l To assist the industry in performing design basis improvement programs, the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC)' developed a guidance document, NUMARC 9012 " Design Basis Program Guidelines." These guidelines were intended to provide a standard framework for licensee programs to improve plant design bases information.2 The NRC staff reviewed the guidelines and provided comments to NUMARC in November 1990, in emphasizing the importance of validating the facility against current design information, the staff stated that the goal of any program should be to establish confidence that the existing facility is in accordance with the current design documents and that any deviations be reconciled. The staff concluded that the NUMARC guidelines 

                          'NUMARC was consolidated into the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on March 23, 1994.
                          'As discussed in NUMARC 90-12, these programs or efforts would emphasize collation of design basis information and the supporting design information, not the identification or recreation of the licensing basis for a plant or the regeneration of missing analyses and calculations.
                                                                                                                  )

4

i 

 ~

Mr. Inamel 3 would provide worthwhile insights to utilities undertaking design reconstitution programs and the guidelines appeared to provide sufficient flexibility for licensees to structure their programs to respond most efficiently to any unique needs and circumstances of a) particular licensee. The staff requested NUMARC to consider making design reconstitution a formal NUMARC initiative, and commented that design documents that support technical specification values and design documents necessary to support operations or respond to events should be regenerated if missing. NUMARC subsequently concluded that a formal initiative was not necessary because most of its members were already conducting or evaluating the need to conduct design reconstitution programs. However, NUMARC forwarded the guidelines with the NRC's comments to its members for use on a voluntary basis. To provide more information to the industry on this topic and to provide an independent view of the design controlissue, the staff conducted a survey of six utilities and one l nuclear steam supply system vendor to determine the status of design control problems and the strengths and weaknesses of the sample utility programs. The results were published in February 1991, in NUREG-1397, "An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Programs in the Nuclear Industry." The survey observations were: the need for a design documentation reconstitution program was directly proportional to the age of the plant; the general intent of the program should be to provide a centrallocation for design bases information, with emphasis on the design intent (the why of the design); the design bases documents should be a top level directory that define the current plant configuration; reestablishment of design bases without reconstitution of the supporting design documents, as necessary, may not provide a sufficient level of , information for future modifications or current plant operation or to quickly respond to operating events; minor changeA to the design should be tracked to support the conclusion , that the changes in aggregate da not affect the validity of existing calculations and the ability of a system to perform its design functions. Some common weaknesses of licensee programs identified during the survey included: design reconstitution programs had not identified in advance the documents that are necessary to demonstrate that a structure, system, or component will function properly; the process for regeneration of missing design documentation was not always procedaralized so that it could be handled in a systematic manner; validation of the content of specific output documentation was not always thoroughly carried out. In late 1991, the NRC staff evaluated whether rulemaking, guidance, or a policy statement was needed to address the issue of licensees retaining accurate design bases information. It concluded that the existing regulatory requirements for design control were adequate, however, it determined that the publication of a policy statement addressing design bases information and publication of a generic letter requesting licensees to describe their design reconstitution programs would be beneficial. Additionally, the staff stated its intention to _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . - ._ __ .-. ___.-._ ._._ ~, _ __._~~.,

4 . 

                                                                                  ~

. Mr, [name) -4)- 

                                                                                    ^

L l continue to evaluate design control adequacy during its performance-based inspection such

  • as SSFis and SSOMis. The staff also expected that revisions to the enforcement policy guidance to provide greater opportunities for enforcement discretion8would encourage voluntary identification of past design, engineering, and installation issues by licensees.  ;

With the Commission's approval, the staff proceeded with this approach, i in August 1992, the NRC issued the policy statement, " Availability and Adequacy of  ! Design Bases Information at Nuclear Power Plants" (57 FR 35455). The policy statement  ; stressed the importance of maintaining current and accessible design documentation to  ; ensure that (1) plant physical and functional characteristics are maintained and consistent with design bases, (2) systems, structures, and components can perform their intended functions, and (3) the plant is operated in a manner consistent with the design bases, in , the policy statement, the Commission recommended that all power reactor licensees ' assess the accessibility and adequacy of their design bases information and that they be able to show that there is sufficient documentation to conclude the current facility configuration is consistent with the design bases. The policy statement outlined the additional actions the NRC would take to keep apprised of industry's design reconstitution activities (discussed above). . 1 Following review by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) and the Commission, a draft generic letter was issued for public comment on March 24,1993. l The proposed generic letter requested licensees, on a voluntary basis, to submit I information and schedules for any design bases programs completed, planned, or being ) conducted or a rationale for not implementing such a program. All but one of the commenters concluded that the generic letter was unnecessary and unwarranted. NUMARC responded that it believed the NRC request for descriptions, schedules and dates would have a negative impact on on-going design efforts and that NRC's focus on schedules would undermine the licensees' ability to manage the activities, { in SECY-93-292, " Generic Letter on the Availability and Adequacy of Design Bases information," the staff recommended the generic letter not be issued. h mff stated that publication of the policy statement and the proposed generic letter conveyed to the industry the Commission's concern and that publication of the generic letter would not 

                - further licensees' awareness of the importance of the activities. The staff proposed to continue performing design-related inspections and to gather information and insights as to how weil the licenso. design-related programs were being implemented. The Commission                         l issued an SRM which agreed with the staff's proposal,                                                        j l

1 l 1 I 

                       'NRC would refrain from imposing civil penalties for violations up to Severity Level 111if the violations were identified as a result of systemmatic voluntary initiatives.

l 

    .    -. . -          .      .                 . -    , . - - . - - . , ,          .,.n._n,,_-n,,.n.,n I

r Mr. [namel 5-Subsequently, howeve_r, the NRC__later reduced its effort on, resource intensive design-related team inspections and shifted the balance to focus _m_ ore on operatinnal safety in the following years, based on the issuance of the NUMARC guideline, ongoing industry efforts / to improve a~nd maintain design bases information, and the regulatory burden of team inspections reported in the 1991 Regulatory impact Survey. Current Problem: Over the past several months, NRC findings during inspections and reviews have identified broad programmatic weaknesses that have resulted in design and configuration > deficiencies at a number of plants which could impact the operability of required equipment, raise unreviewed safety questicas, or indicate discrepancies between the plant's updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) and the as-built or as-modified plant or plant operating procedures. These inspections and reviews have also highlighted numerous instances where timely and complete implementation of corrective action for known degraded and nonconforming conditions and for past violations of NRC requirements has not been evident. Overall, the NRC has found failures of some licensees 4 to appropriately maintain or adhere to plant licensing and design bases information, and to comply with the terms and conditions of licenses, NRC regulations, and plant UFSARs. Attachment 1 provides examples of some of the deficiencies recently identified by the staff. As a consequence of this new information, the NRC believes that the industry's voluntary efforts to improve and maintain oesign bases information for their plants have not,been effective. The magnitude and scope of the problems that the NRC has identified raise concerns about the presence of similar design and operability problems and the effectiveness of quality assurance programs industry-wide. Of particular concern is whether licensees ar_e properly mAsining configuration control at their plants such that: plant physical andlunctional characteristics are consistent with tbellicensing aiidjdesign bases; systems, structure _s, and components can perform their intendeLiunctions; and, plants are being operated and maintained in a manner consistent with thellicensing pnd design bases. The extent of licensee failures to maintain control and to identify and correct the failures in a timely manner is of concern because of the potential impact on public health and safety should safety systems not respond to challenges from off-nurmal and accident conditions. Attachments 2 and 3 are a recent exchange of correspondence between J. Colvin, NEl, and S. Jackson, NRC, reQarding these subjects. j Action-The NRC has concluded that it requires information that can be used to verify compliance with the terms and conditions of your license (s), NRC regulations, and the plant UFSAR(s), and which may be used to decide whether to modify, suspend, or revoke the operating 

 . - . . - - . . . . . . _ . . .      ..   . ..     .   -.. ~ - - . -    ------ -                _.      ,-

1 1 . .; 

       ,..-                                                                                                                                                       I e   .

l

i Mr. [namel license (s) for your facility or facilities, or whether other enforcement action should be taken. Therefore, you are required, pursuant to Section 182(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f), to submit a response to this letter within 90 days from receipt of this letter, Your response # lust be written and signed under oath or affirmation.

, Please submit your response to the Director. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, with a a copy to the appropriate Regional Administrator and the NRC Document Control Desk. The following information is required for each licensed, unit:fu.(< <~~t,,,g . (1) a description of any design review or' reconstitution programs, including j identification of the systems and plant-level design attributes (e.g., seismic, high-energy line break, moderate-energy line break), which have already been 3 completed,Lare plannedj or are being conducted to ensure the correctness j l and accessibility of the design bases information for your plant and to ensure { that it is maintained current. If the program is planned or being conducted i but has not been completed, provide an implementation schedule for systems ' and plant level design j attnbute

a. ' %reviews e **.~ , and y JAe4pectepompletion
                                                                                                                    . ,4 w           &**"" date, f

f,m , (2) if no design review or reconstitution program has been implemented, a  ; l rationale,for c_ot implementing such a program and a description of the extent I of the design information you have obtained from the nuclear steam supply i system (NSSS) vendor and architect-engineer (A/E) or which is accessible at l the NSSS vendor or A/E offices. l 

                                                                                                                                   ,x-
The program description provided pursuant to paragraph (1) above[rnus,t include details relative to the extent to which the following have been or will_be included in design reconstitution programs or is otherwise assuredi 1 4,

i (a) examination of engineering design and configuration control processes,  ;

including 10 CFR 50.59,10 CFR 50.71(e), and Appendix B to 10 CFR j Part 50; l (b) selection and prioritization of systems for review; i (c) verification that design bases requirements are translated into operating
procedures, maintenance, and testing

(d) verification that system performance is within the design bases; i h i ' d e-- -,.-.-.e,..,e * + % w e==- -w w w e a-e ***.sp *8* ******* - -Nd****#

L.' ' Mr. [namel le) handling of problem identification and implementation of corrective actions, including actions to determine the extent of problems, action to prevent recurrence, and reporting to NRC: (f) determination of the overall effectiveness of the program in adequately maintaining the licensing and design bases; and I X '- - (g) verification that the plant is operating within the terms and conditions of the \ t_ license- ------ - I wish to emphasize that the NRC position has been, and continues to be, that it is the 4 responsibility of individual licensees to know their licensing basis, to have appropriate documentation that defines their design bases, and to have procedures for performing the necessary assessments of plant or procedure changes required by NRC regulations. l l This request is covered by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance number 3150-0011, which expires July 31,1997. The reporting burden for this collection  ; of information is estimated to average 400 hours per response, including the time for  ; reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data ] needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, . including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records l Management Branch (T-6F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. l 20555-0001, and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,  ! NEOB-10202 (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503. The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC, and in the local public document room (s) for your facility or facilities. 3 

      -......+,w    .    . + . . , - .                _......._-...-e                -
                                                                                                                        . nnntw.t *

     .~ . . . _._ ___.            1._  ~__ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ - - . . - _                                      - . .- . . _ _   . .. _ _ . . . _
   '      ~

Y1 L j' , t .- Mr. (namel , 4 If you have any questions about this matter, please contact the staff members listed below, or the appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager. j i

J imes M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Attachments:

0 1. Background on Design Bases Reconstitution j . Efforts and Recent Problems .

2. Letter from J. Colvin (NEI) to S. Jackson (NRC) i- dated 8/2/96
  • i- 3. Letter from S. Jackson (NRC) to J. Colvin (NEO

! dated 8/14/96 i i Contacts: - Frank M. Akstulewicz, NRR ' l (301) 415-1136'

internet
fma@nrc. gov i

! Eileen M. McKenna, NRR I (310) 415-2189 (- Internet: emm@nrc. gov .j l !- . Docket No(s). 50-xxx and 50 xxx r l ! cc: See next page tapplicable plant service listl l 1 DOCUMENT NAME: g:\mxm\50-54F.BG 

                                                                                                                                                                   ]

r d i i. 1 I-i t ) i 4 4 _ , . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - - - - ~ ~ . - J

o

  • s .

!M ' wa(vs Attachment 1) ] BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON RECENTLY'lDENTIFIED PROBLEMS 1 i . l ! Over the past several months, design and engineering information has been obtained which l I indicates that design bases at certain plants have not been appropriately maintained or I adhered to. Some specific examples include:

e Millstone Units 1,2, ancL3 -

,i  ; Since November 1995, licensee submissions and NRC inspections have indicated' l that design control deficiencies, and degraded and nonconforming conditions have ) been identified at Northeast Utilities' (NU's) Millstone Units 1,2, and 3. These

j. deficiencies include errors in licensing bases and design bases documentation, and

, translation of design bases to procedures and hardware, as well as inadequate plant 1 i modifications; modifications not installed in accordance with the approved design: l , modifications based on incorrect design assumptions; and identification of inoperable systems. The following are some examples. NRC inspections at Mellstone Unit 2 identified a potential design deficiency that

could block or reduce safety injection flow during the recirculation phase of an  !
  • accident, as well as inadequate containment sump screen mesh and a flawed  ;

post-accident containment hydrogen monitor design. On February 20,1996,NU > 

                         ' shut down Millstone' Unit 2 when both trains of the high pressure safety injection                                      !
(HPSI) system were declared inoperable due to the potential to clog the HPSI j

{ discharge throttle valves during the recirculation phase following a loss-of-coolant , (LOCA) accident. l An NRC special inspection team at Millstone Unit 3 found instances where NU did l ! not adequately translate design bases information into procedures, practices and  ; drawings. In one instance, a modification that installed the Unit 3 service water i- intake structure sump pump called for~ specific periodic testing, but such testing j 

                         -was never performed. In another case, prelubrication of the auxiliary feedwater pump was not performed every 40 days as required by the vendor.

on .. ,- 

                                                                                                                       *' ,W j ,ff L                          The NRC has also identified a nup6er of instances where the o,riginal design ba_s.es                                     i j                          was inadequate or the oriainal installation was incorrect. For example, the li ensee                                 _
                                                                                                                                                   )

failed to remove plastic shipping plugs from Rosemount transmetters prior to 3 installation, notwithstanding the vendor's instructions which required those plugs' j; replacement with stainless steel plugs.

  • Hadslam Neck g

On March 1129 and April 15 26,1996, a special inspection team from the NRC assessed the engineering and licensing activities at NU's Haddam Neck Station. The special inspection team focused on the licensee's processes used to identify, evaluate, and resolve technicalissues. The team identified programmatic _ .w.. . - _ . , ._ _ . . , , . - . . . . . _ - . . . . . . . - _ _. --3, , 

          - -- .                   . .        ~ . -- - - . -                         ..-      -            -.._ - -       -.      -     .. -        . . -           - . - . .
            ~~

4 weaknesses and potential violations of NRC's regulatory requirements (10 CFR 50.59, 50.71(e), and Criteria Ill and XVI of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part

and desi base 50)in design calculations and ,
                                                                                              /manalysege.p,w/f          nnc.gdocumentption.y e su                    Ik,,?
The team identified a mber of significant deficiencies in the engineering . l
calculations and ana ses which were relied upon to ensure the adequacy of the
  • l design of key safet systems at Haddam Neck. Deficiencies were identified in the

( ^ calculations and analyses supporting the station batteries, emergency diesel generators, containment air recirculation (CAR) system, service water (SW) system, and the systems and components needed to support the emergency core cooling system transfer from the injection phase to sump recirculation. The types of deficiencies noted by the team included technical errors, nonconservative methods and assumptions, as well as the failure to consider all applicable design bases information. The team concluded that weaknesses in engineering programmatic requirements and a lack of technical rigor, thoroughness, and attention to detailin the design process, either contributed to or directly caused the identified errors. In addition, design control measures such as independent reviews, supervisory reviews, and reviews by oversight committees did not identify these deficipnciesg,.  ? In addition, the team identified significant operability co ems-that require f'urthcr 

                                                                                                                                    %'v@ M7 w.e p / c ' ~

staff evaluation and which have led to the recent shutdowriof Haddam fOck. These concerns include: (1) the potential for water hemmer in the SW piping and in

the tubes of the containment fan coolers, (2) the potential for two phase flow in the SW system in the tubes of the containment fan coolers, (3) the licensee crediting
post LOCA accident pressure in containment for residual heat removal pump net  !

positive suction head (NPSH), and (4) the potential that the feedwater regulating valves may not close during a main steamline break event. e , Crystal River i ? The NRC conducted an integrated Plant Assessment Process (IPAP) inspection at [ 18-26, i Florida 1996. ThePower Corporation's inspection team identifiedCrystal concerns River relateplant from J ly_8-12 to weaknesses in and Julv Pnj deh((4' /dMiginal plant desigpdivea_knesses in recent engineerinMrk, and a lack of . l awareness anttTnderstind@phe plant's design bases aDdMRCregulatiorg 3 Examples of weaknesses in the original plant design and in understanding the 4 

                                                                                                                          ~ w, .y,r.g ro. ,                            .

plant's design bases include: (1) the failure to ensure the availability of a passive Q/,8 l '#' ' I and an active means of preventing boron precipitation following design basis A A/7 LOCAs, (2) the potential inability to cool down following a small break LOCA f j , assuming a single failure in the decay heat drop line due to minimum flow (ef* g' , limitations on low pressure injection pumps, (3) potentially unacce NPSH for the 1B building spray pump, (4) diesel' generator loads in excess of the

manufacturer's rating for a 5-second period, (5) use of the 500 Kv backfeed M!
;                                      offsite power source during outages without calculations to support the I                                       acceptability of its use (recent calculations have shown this is not an acceptable
;                                      source), (6) potential common-mode failures due to routing of cooling water pipes I

r 

     . ~ , . , . -  ~.~e      e          e m me s        um.,,,,    - .m.,s_m__.wn.-             . m e .o                              ----m_             _

ugy g ,

, a j ee e* i through switchgear and relay rooms (a condition that the licensee identified but did not understand the significance of), and (7) the licensee's position that they do not need to account for a single failure in the decay heat drop  ; line. e Maine Yankee 1 On January 10,1996, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order Suspending Authority for and Limiting Power Operation and Containment Pressure; and Demand for information to the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company. The order was based,in part, on the NRC's determination that Maine Yankee did not apply a computer code, proposed to demonstrate compliance with the emergency core cooling system . (ECCS) requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, in a manner conforming to the requirements i i of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, nor in conformance to the corsditions specified in the staff's Safety Evaluation (SE) dated January 30,1989. Specifically, the licensee did not demonstrate that the RELAP5YA code will reliably calculate the peak cladding temperature for all break sizes in the small-break LOCA spectrum for Maine Yankee, nor has the licensee submitted the justification for the code options

selected and other justifications and sensitivity studies to satisfy conditions in the SE. ,

i . in addition, the licensee assumed an initial containment pressure of 2.0 psig for calculating peak design-basis accident pressure even though the plant technical 7, specifications allow a maximum operating pressure in containment of 3.0 psig. Assuming an initial containment pressure of 3.0 psig results in a calculated peak l accident pressure in excess of the containment design pressure described in the 1 updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR). i . e Refueling Practices Survey l In response to recent problems encountered at Millstone Unit 1 regarding compliance with the UFSAR, during the spring of 1996, the NRC conducted a j survey of licensee refueling practices. During the course of this survey, the NRC determined that nine sites (15 units) needed to modify their licensing basis or plant practices to ensure that their re;oad practices were in compliance with their licensing basis. 

                                                                               ./

4 7 Deficiencies in the[=n=aament of design basesJ!Lssub were also noted in the 4 survey. Many plants were found to have aspects of their design and licensing bases that were only loose ly proceduralized or not proceduralized at all. Typical of gg 

                                                                                                                                                                     ~.

this kind of discrepancy was the identification of a lack of procedures for' controlling I the assumptionsiegarding hold-up time before beginning fuel transfer. The NRC found a number of instances in which other design bases assumptions were not , captured in procedures. In addition, licensees at 12 other sites (23 units) upgraded 4 procedures to directly implement the design bases assumption. In other cases, the 

 !                                      licensee performed engineering analyses, documented pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59, i_                                       as necessary, to ensure that the planned activities would not exceed design bases assumptions, y                      gj                     ,,4 g                   g j~g,4          .>7 07 9(. 8f                        9              W "% W #                       f e

a _ w_ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . . - . _ _ _ _ ._--. _ ~ ~ .-.- - .. - - # 

                                             . _.                 .                                       .-,,.                       .             ~.-           _

   ._ ~.         - .        .          ._  .-         ..                        .-            ,   -         -  -

0s0 f  % ()ru hkVersk 2. 

 ,    p'              -4                             UNITED STATES                                       -

3 . S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 o 5 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 4001 k..... i [date) 1 [Name of Utility CEO) [ Title] [ Utility Name) [ Utility Address)

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.54(f) REGARDING ADEQUACY AND AVAILABILITY OF DESIGN BASES INFORMATION l

Dear Mr..[Name):

Backaround:  ;

I in the mid- to late 1980's, NRC safety system functional inspections (SSFis) and safety l system outage modification inspections (SSOMis) identified concerns that design bases ' i information was not being properly maintained and plant modifications were being made without the licensee having an understanding of the plant design bases. The NRC findings heightened the industry's awareness of the need to improve the adequacy and availability j of design documents, and many licensees voluntarily initiated extensive efforts to improve the design bases information for their plants. To assist the induct y in performing design basis improvement programs, the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC)' developed a guidance document, NUMARC 90-12, " Design Basis Program Guidelines." These guidelines were intended to provide a standato iramework for licensee programs to improve plant design bases information.' The NRC staff reviewed the guidelines and provided comments to NUMARC ~ i in November 1990. In emphasizing the importance of validating the facility against current design information, the staff stated that the goal of any program should be to establish confidence that the existing facility is in accordance with the current design documents and that any deviations be reconciled. The staff concluded that the NUMARC guidelines would provide worthwhile insights to utilities undertaking design reconstitution programs 

           'NUMARC was consolidated into the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on March 23,1994.

8 As discussed in NUMARC 90-12, these programs or efforts would emphasize collation of design basis information and the supporting design information, not the identification or recreation of the licensing basis for a plant or the regeneration of missing analyses and g calculations. v 1'

Mr. [name) and the guidelines appeared to provide sufficient flexibility for licensees to structure their l programs to respond most efficiently to any unique needs and circumstances of a particular licensee. The staff requested NUMARC to consider making design reconstitution a formal NUMARC initiative, and commented that design documents that support technical specification values and design documents necessary to support operations or respond to events should be regenerated if missing. NUMARC subsequently concluded that a formal initiative was not necessary because most of its members were already conducting or evaluating the need to conduct design reconstitution programs. However, NUMARC forwarded the geidelines with the NRC's comments to its members for use on a voluntary l' basis. l To provide more information to the industry on this topic and to provide an independent I view of the design controlissue, the staff conducted a survey of six utilities and one l nuclear steam supply system vendor to determine the status of design control problems  ! and the strengths and weaknesses of the sample utility programs. The results were l published in February 1991,in NUREG-1397,"An Assessment of Design Control Practices  ! and Design Reconstitution Programs in the Nuclear Industry." The survey observations l were: the need for a design documentation reconstitution program was directly  ! proportional to the age of the plant; the generalintent of the program should be to provide  ! a central location for design bases information, with emphasis on the design intent (the ' why of the design); the design bases documents abould be a top level directory that define the current plant configuration; reestablishment of design bases without reconstitution of j the supporting design documents, as necessary, may not provide a sufficient level of ) information for future modifications or current plant operation or to quickly respond to  ; operating events; minor changes to the design should be tracked to support the conclusion  ! that the changes in aggregate do not affect the validity of existing calculations and the ability of a system to perform its design functions. Some common weaknesses of licensee programs identified during the survey included: design reconstitution programs had not identified in advance the documents that are necessary to demonstrate that a structure, system, or component will function properly; the process for regeneration of missing design documentation was not always proceduralized so that it could be handled m a systematic manner; validation of the content of specific output documentation was not always thoroughly carried out. In late 1991, the NRC staff evaluated whether rulemaking, guidance, or a policy statement was needed to address the issue of licensees retaining accurate design bases information. It concluded that the existing regulatory requirements for design control were adequate; however, it determined that the publication of a policy statement addressing design bases information and publication of a generic letter requesting licensees to describe their design reconstitution programs would be beneficial. Additionally, the staff stated its intention to

i  ! i Mr. [name) l  !

o l
continue to evaluate design control adequacy during its performance-based inspection such l

i- as SSFis and SSOMis. The staff also expected that revisions to the enforcement policy  ! l guidance to provide greater opportunities for enforcement discretion8 would encourage  ! j voluntary identification of past design, engineering, and installation issues by licensees.  ! l With the Commission's approval, the staff proceeded with this approach. )

t l In August 1992,'the NRC issued the policy statement, " Availability and Adequacy of
- Design Bases information at Nuclear Power Plants" (57 FR 35455). The policy statement  ;

j stressed the importance of maintaining current and accessible design documentation to j F ensure that (1) plant physical and functional characteristics are maintained and consistent j l with design bases, (2) systems, structures, and components can perform their intended i functions, and (3) the plant is operated in a manner consistent with the design bases. In  ; the policy statement, the Commission recommended that all power reactor licensees i assess the accessibility and adequacy of their design bases information and that they be j i able to show that there is sufficient documentation to conclude the current facility j ] configuration is consistent with the design bases. The policy statement outlined the l l additional actions the NRC would take to keep apprised of industry's design reccnstitution j l activities (discussed above). ~! 2 i i Following review by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) and the  ! Commission, a draft generic letter was issued for public comment on March 24,1990. j The proposed generic letter requested licensees, on a voluntary basis, to submit ' information and schedules for any design bases programs completed, planned, or being l conducted or a rationale for not implementing such a program. All but one of the I

commenters concluded that the generic letter was unnecessary and unwarranted.
NUMARC responded that it believed the NRC request for descriptions, schedules and dates

! would have a negative impact on egcing design efforts and that NRC's focus on schedules would undermine the licensees' ability to manage the activities, j In SECY-93-292," Generic Letter on the Availability and Adequacy of Desian Bases . Information," the staff recommended the generic letter not be issued. The stalt stated that publication of the policy statement and the proposed generic letter conveyed to the I industry the Commission's concern and that publication of the generic letter would not further licensees' awareness of the importance of the activities. The staff proposed to continue performing design-related inspections and to gather information and insights as to how well the licensee design-related programs were being implemented. The Commission issued an SRM which agreed with the staff's proposal. I J I l 8NRC would refrain from imposing civil penalties for violations up to Severity Level lil if the violations were identified and corrected as a result of systematic voluntary initiatives.

Mr. [namel In response to the findings relating to the regulatory burden of team inspections identified in the 1991 Regulatory impact Survey, during the past several years, the staff has reduced its effort on specific, resource-intensive, design-related team inspections, and followed the issue of accurate and accessible design documentation at plants principally as an element of inspection and followup of operations-related activities. The issuance of the NUMARC guideline and ongoing industry efforts to improve and maintain design bases information also contributed to this decision. Current Problem: Over the past several months, NRC findings during inspections and reviews have identified broad programmatic weaknesses that have resulted in design and configuration deficiencies at a number of plants which could impact the operability of required equipment, raise unreviewed safety questions, or indicate discrepancies between the plant's updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) and the as-built or as-modified plant or plant operating procedures. These inspections and reviews have also highlighted numerous instances where timely and complete implementation of corrective action for known degraded and nonconforming conditions and for past violations of NRC requirements has not been evident. Overall, the NRC has found failures of some licensees (1) to appropriately maintain or adhere to plant licensing and design bases information, (2) to comply with the terms and conditions of licenses and NRC regulations, and (3) to assure that UFSARs properly reflect the facilities. Attachment 1 provides examples of some of the deficiencies recently identified by the staff. As a consenuence of this new information, the NRC believes that the industry's voluntary efforts to improve and maintain design bases information for their plants have not in all cases been effective. The magnitude and scope of the problems that the NRC has identified raise concerns about the presence of similar design, configuration, and operability problems and the effectiveness of quality assurance programs industry-wide. Of particular concern is whether licensee programs to maintain configuration control are sufficient to demonstrate that plant physical and functional characteristics are consistent with the design bases and whether operating plants are being maintained in accordance with their design basis. The extent of licensee failures to maintain control and to identify and correct the failures in a timely manner is of concern because of the potentialimpact on public health and safety should safety systems not respond to challenges from off-normal and accident conditions. Attachments 2 and 3 are a recent exchange of correspondence between J. Colvin, NEl, and S. Jackson, NRC, regarding these subjects. l Action: The NRC has concluded that it requires information that can be used to verify compliance with the terms and conditions of your licensa's), NRC regulations, and the plant UFSAR(s), and which may be used to decide whether to modify, suspend, or revoke the operating 1 I

Mr. [name] license (s) for your facility or facilities, or whether other enforcement action should be takan. Therefore, you are required, pursuant to Section 182(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f), to submit a response to this letter within 120 days from receipt of this letter. Your response must be written and signed under oath or affirmation. Please submit your response to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, with a copy to the appropricte Regional Administrator and the NRC Document Control Desk. The following information is required for each licensed unit: (1) a description of any design review or reconstitution programs, including identification of the systems and plant-level design attributes (e.g., seismic, high-energy line break, moderate-energy line break), which have already been completed, are planned, or are being conducted to ensure the correctness and accessibility of the design bases information for your plant and to ensure that it is maintained current. If the program is planned or being conducted but has not been completed, provide an implementation schedule for systems and plant-level design attribute reviews and expected completion date. (2) if no design review or reconstitution program has been implemented, a rationale for not implementing such a program and a description of the extent of the design information you have obtained from the nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) vendor and architect-engineer (A/E) or which is accessible at the NSSS vendor or A/E offices. The responses provided pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) above should address the following areas of particular interest, as previously expressed in the Commission policy statement and other NRC documents: (a) examination of engineering design and configuration control procer.=,es, includ:.iu ' O t.fR 50.59,10 CFR 50.71(e), and Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50; (b) selection and prioritization of systems for review; (c) verification that design bases requirements are translated into operating, maintenance, and testing procedures; (d) verification that system performance is within the design bases; l i I l l 1 i _. _ _ _ . J

Mr. [name]  ! (e) handling of problem identification and implementation of corrective actions,

including actions to determine the extent of problems, action to prevent
recurrence, and reporting to NRC; (f) deterrnination of the overall effectiveness of the program in adequately maintaining the licensing and design bases, and l wish to emphasize that the NRC position has been, and continues to be, that it is the responsibility of individual licensees to know their licensing basis, to have appropriate documentation that defines their design bases, and to have procedures for performing the necessary assessments of plant or procedure changes required by NRC regulations.

This request is covered by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance number 3150-0011,which expires July 31,1997. The reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 400 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data i needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any otl er ary,act of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the information and Records Management Branch (T-6F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001,and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202 (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503. The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC, and in the local public document room (s) for your facility or facilities.

2 4 4 l Mr. [name) l 1 If you have any questions about this matter, please contact the staff members listed ) below, or the appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager. I l i ' I I [ Signature] i i Attachments:

r. 1. Background on Recently identified Problems
2. Letter from J. Colvin (NEl) to S. Jackson (NRC)
dated 8/2/96

, 3. Letter from S. Jackson (NRC) to J. Colvin (NEI) dated 8/14/96 l Contacts: Frank M. Akstulewicz, NRR (301)415-1136 Internet: fma@nrc. gov Eileen M. McKenna, NRR (310)415-2189 Internet: emm@nre. gov Docket No(s). 50-xxx and 50-xxx cc: See next page [ applicable plant service list) l l

i 

       ,                                                                                                     D ,.c [ [- (V M m ' d g    1 l

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON RECENTLY IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS t i 

                    - Over the past several months, design and engineering information has been obtained which indicates that design bases at certain plants have not been appropriately maintained or

[ adhered to. Some specific examples include: i i ~ Millstone Units 1. 2. and 3 l Since Ncvember 1995, licensee submissions and NRC inspections have indicated that ! design control deficiencies, and degraded and nonconforming conditions have been identified at Northeast Utilities' (NU's) Millstone Units 1,2, and 3. These deficiencies j

include errors in licensing bases and design bases documentation, and translation of design  !

j bases to procedures and hardware, as well as inadequate plant modifications; j , modifications not installed in accordance with the approved design; modifications based on  ! , incorrect design assumptions; and identification of inoperable systems. The followmg are  ! j some examples.  ! NRC inspections at Millstone Unit 2 identified a potential design deficiency that could block 'j or reduce safety injection flow during the recirculation phase of an accident, as well as i inadequate containment sump screen mesh and a flawed post-accident containment hydrogen monitor design. On February 20,1996, NU shut down Millstone Unit 2 when ' both trains of the high pressure safety injection (HPSI) system were declared inoperable  ; due to the potential to clog the HPSI discharge throttle valves during the recirculation phase following a loss-of-coolant (LOCA) accident.' J l An NRC special inspection team at Millstone Unit 3 found instances where NU did not adequately translate design bases information into procedures, practices and drawings. In one instance, a modification that installed the Unit 3 service water intake structure sump pump called for specific periodic testing, but such testing was never performed. In another case, prelubrication of the auxiliary feedwate pump was not performed every 40 days as required by the vendor. The NRC has also identified a number of instances where the original design bases was inedequate or the original installation was incorrect. For example, the licensee failed to remove plastic shipping plugs from Rosemount transmitters prior to installation, notwithstanding the vendor's instructions which required those plugs' replacement with stainless steel plugs. Haddam Neck On March 11-29 and April 15-26,1996, a special inspection team from the NRC assessed i the engineering and licensing activities at NU's Haddam Neck Station. The special j inspection team focused on the licensee's processes used to identify, evaluate, and resolve j technical issues. The team identified programmatic weaknesses and potential violations of 

                                                                                                                                              ^

NRC's regulatory requirements (10 CFR 50.59,50.71(e), and Criteria Ill and XVI of I Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50) in design calculations and analyses, and design bases documentation. Attachment 1 ) h n

l i l 

                                                                                                            \

i The team identified a number of deficiencies in the engineering calculations and analyses 1

which were relied upon to ensure the adequacy of the design of key safety systams at j Haddam Neck. Deficiencies were identified in the calculations and analyses supporting the j station batteries, emergency diesel generators, containment air recirculation (CAR) system,
service water (SW) system, and the systems and components needed to support the emergency core cooling system transfer from the injection phase to sump recirculation.  ;

. The types of deficiencies noted by the team included technical errors, nonconservative ' methods and assumptions, as well as the failure to consider all applicable design bases information. The team concluded that weaknesses in engineering programmatic i requirements and a lack of technical rigor, thoroughness, and attention to detailin the ! design process, either contributed to or directly caused the identified errors. In addition, l design control measures such as independent reviews, supervisory reviews, and reviews j by oversight committees did not identify these deficiencies. j in addition, the team identified operability concerns that require further staff evaluation and i which have led to the recent shutdown of Haddam Neck. These concerns include: (1) the !. potential for water hammer in the SW piping and in the tubes of the containment fan

coolers, (2) the potential for two-phase ficw in the SW system in the tubes of the i containment fan coolers, (3) the licensee crediting post-LOCA accident pressure in j containment for residual heat removal pump net positive suction head (NPSH), and (4) the l potential that the feedwater regulating valves may not close during a main steamline break i event.

! Maine Yankee i 1 On January 10,1996, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order Suspending Authority for and

Limiting Power Operation and Containment Pressure; and Demand for Information to the

, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company. The order was based, in part, on the NRC's

i. determination that Maine Yankee did not apply a computer code, proposed to demonstrate l compliance with the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) requirements of 10 CFR 50.46,in a manner conforming to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, nor in conformance to the conditions specified in the staff's Safety Evaluation (SE) dated January i

30,1989. Specifically, the licensee did not demonstrate that the RELAP5YA code will reliably calculate the peak cladding temperature for all break sizes in the small break LOCA spectrum for Maine y annee, no has the licensee submitted the justification tv. the code options selected and other justifications and sensitivity studies to satisfy conditions in the SE. In addition, the licensee assumed an initial containment pressure of 2.0 psig for calculating peak design-basis accident pressure even though the plant technical specifications allow a maximum operating pressure in containment of 3.0 psig. Assuming an initial containment pressure of 3.0 psig results in a calculated peak accident pressure in excess of the containment design pressure described in the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR).  ! l 9 Refuelino Practices Survev in response to recent problems e . countered at Millstone Unit 1 regarding compliance with the UFSAR, during the spring of 1996, the NRC conducted a survey of licensee refueling practices. During the course of this survey, the NRC determined that nine sites (15 units) needed to modify their licensing basis or plant practices to ensure that their reload practices were in compliance with their licensing basis. , Deficiencies in the roanagement of design bases assumptions were also noted in the survey. Many plants were found to have sspects of their design and licensing bases that were only loosely proceduralized or not proceduralized at all. Typical of this kind of discrepancy was the identification of a lack of procedures for controlling the assumptions regarding hold-up time before beginning fuel transfer. The NRC found a number of instances in which other design bases assumptions were not captured in procedures. In addition, licensees at 12 other sites (23 units) upgraded procedures to directly implement , the design bases assumption. In other cases, the licensee performed engineering analyses, 1 4 documented pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59, as necessary, to ensure that the planned activities would not exceed design bases assumptions. I i 1 I i 

      . . m     _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ .

{ ., th 4 6-2 6 rs , r: sq f' ' . w% ';-wu v 9:2e, * 

        ,                                                                                                            t Drd [ M' i

l

-i j

l , i 4 EQB: The Commissioners l ERQM: James M. Taylor l

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

ISSUANCE OF 10 CFR 50.54(f) LETTERS ON THE AVAILABILITY AND { ADEQUACY OF DESIGN BASES INFORMATION ~  ! I' ) 

;            PURPOSE:                                                                                                                        j 1

1 .' To request Commission approval of the staff's proposal to send 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters to i utility chief executive officers (CEOs), including only Seabrook Unit 1 of Northeast Utilities'

plants. These letters will require information to gain added confidence and assurance that a plants are operated and maintained within the design basis of the plant and any deviations are reconciled in a timely manner.

SUMMARY

1. ! ~Recent inspection finding have indicated that design bases information has not been [ appropriately maintained and implemented at'certain plants and that this may have a i potential public health and safety impact. The staff is proposing to require information ' from licensees regarding the availeb"ity and adequacy of design bases information to i identify how engineering design and configuration control processes are examined; design bases requirements are translated into operating, maintenance, and testing procedures; system performance is verified to be within the design bases; and problem identification and implementation of corrective actions are handled.- CONTACTS: Frank M. Akstulewicz, NRR' (301)415-1136 l Eileen M. McKenna, NRR 1 I 

            -(301)415 2189.                                                                                                       \
                                                                                                                                /

N

i l 

   ..                                                                                                            t l

The Commissioners '

I a

i i i BACKGROUND:  ! I [ In the mid- to late 1980's, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) safety system  : i functional inspections (SSFis) at power reactor licensees and safety system outage '! l modification inspections (SSOMis) raised concerns about design bases information not l being properly maintained and plant modifications being made without the licensee having  ! an understanding of the plant design bases. The NRC's findings heightened the industry's  ! awareness of the need to improve the adequacy and availability of design documentation . l 

        - and many licensees voluntarily initiated extensive efforts to improve their design bases               ;

i information. 4 }  ! }. To assist the industry in performing these activities, the Nuclear Management and  ;

Retources Council (NUMARC), now the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEl), developed the  !

! guidance document, NUMARC 90-12," Design Basis Program Guidelines." The document  ; j outlined a stantlard framework for developing a design basis program that collates design  ! basis informatihn and supporting design information, but does not identify or recreate the 1 i licensing basis of the plant. In a letter dated November 9,1990, the staff concluded that l ! the guideline 'would provide worthwhile insights to those utilities undertaking design bases l { prcyams and appeared to provide sufficient flexibility for licensees to structure their  ; !. programs to respond most efficiently to any unique needs and circumstances of a particular ' ! license, in emphasizing the importance of validation of the facility against current design j information, the staff stated that the goal of any program should be to establish confidence i that the existing facility conforms to the current design bases documents and that any  ! identified deviations are reconciled. The staff also emphasized that design documents that i support technical specification values and design documents necessary to support , operations or respond to events should be regenerated if missing. The staff requested that  ; !. NUMARC consider making the design bases affort a NUMARC initiative. In SECY-91-364, j i " Design Basis Reconstitution" dated November 12,1991, the staff reported NUMARC's  ; l-conclusion that an initiative was not necessary because most of their members were i already conducting or evaluating the need to conduct such programs. Although NUMARC 1 ) decided not to pursue a formal initiative, it forwarded the guidelines and NRC comments to  ! l their members for use on a voluntary basis. , i  ! To provide more information to the industry on this topic and to provide an independent -j l view of the design control issue, the staff conducted a survey of six utilities and one i !- nuclear steam supply system vendor to determine the status of design control problems and the strengths and weaknesses of the sample utility programs. The results were + published in February 1991,in NUREG-1397,"An Assessment of Design Control Practices l and Design Reconstitution Programs in the Nuclear Industry." The survey observations .

were
the need for a design documentation reconstitution program was directly proportional to the age of the plant; the general intent of the program should be to provide j 4

4 i I L ~ - _ 

                                                           ~.        - _        . _.       _-          _ . _

i i i J The Commissioners  !

  • r i i f

I { a central location for design bases information, with emphasis on the design intent (the l l why of the design); the design bases documents should be a top level directory which - ! define the current plant configuration; reestablishment of design bases without j reconstitution of the supporting design documents, as necessary, may not provide a ' i sufficient level of information for future modifications or current plant operation or to ' , quickly respond to operating events; and minor changes to the design should be tracked to l support the conclusion that the changes in the aggregate do not affect the validity of l 1 existing calculations and the ability of a system to perform its design functions. Some i common weaknesses of licensee programs identified during the survey included: design  ; j reconstitution programs had not identified in advance the documents that are necessary to  ; i demonstrate that a structure, system, or component will function properly; the process for i- regeneration of missing design documentation was not always proceduralized so that it

. could be handled in a systematic manner; validation of the content of specific output l documentation was not always thoroughly carried out.  ;

l \ ! In late 1991, the Commission requested the staff to consider whether rulemaking, 

!                            regulatory guidance, or a policy statement was needed to outline the NRC's expectations                           t
concerning accurate design bases documentation, in SECY-92-193," Design Bases l
Reconstitution" dated May 26,1992, the staff concluded that additional regulations were  ;

not.needed because existing regulatory requirements for design control were sufficient. j However, the staff proposed issuance of a policy statement and issuance, for public , ! comment, of a generic letter requesting licensees to describe their programs. Additionally,

l. SECY-92-193 documented the staff's intention to continue performing design-related i inspections. Also, the staff expected that planned revisions to the enforcement policy

{ guidance (to refrain from issuing civil penalties for violations up to Severity Level lli if the i issues were identified and corrected as a result of systematic voluntary initiatives) would encourage licensees to identify past design, engineering, and installation issues. The Commission responded in a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) on SECY-92-193 I which approved the staff's approach. ]. In August 1992, ti.e commission issued the policy statement, "Availabillty and Adequacy of Design Bases Information at Nuclear Power Plants" (57 FR 35455). The policy i statement stressed the importance of maintaining current and accessible design j documentation to ensure that (1) plant physical and functional characteristics are 3 maintained and consistent with design bases, (2) systems, structures, and components can perform their intended functions, and (3) the plant is operated in a manner consistent with the design bases. In the policy statement, the Commission stated that all power reactor licensees should assess the accessibility and adequacy of their design bases documentation and be able to show that there is sufficient documentation to conclude that the current facility configuration is consistent with the design bases. The policy statement outlined further actions the staff would perform to keep apprised of industry's activities.

I 1 The Commissioners l 1 Following review by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) and the l Commission, a draft generic letter was issued for public comment on March 24,1993. 1 The proposed generic letter requested licensees, on a voluntary basis, to submit i information and schedules for any design bases programs completed, plannedi or being 

          . conducted, or a rationale for not implementing such a program. All but one of the                      ]

4 commenters concluded that the generic letter was unnecessary and unwarranted. l NUMARC responded that it believed the NRC request for descriptions, schedules, and j dates would have a negative impact on ongoing design efforts and that NRC's focus on schedules would undermine the licensees' ability to manage the activities. In SECY-93-292," Generic Letter on the Availability and Adequacy of Design Bases Information" dated October 21,1993, the staff recommended the generic letter not be issued. The staff stated that publication of the policy statement and the proposed generic letter conveyed to the industry the Commission's concern and that publication of the - generic letter would not further licensees' awareness of the importance of the activitics. The staff proposed to continue performing design-related inspections and to gather information and insights as to how well the licensee design-related programs were being implemented. The Commission issued an SRM which agreed with the staff's proposal. in response to the findings relating to the regulatory burden of team inspections identified in the 1991 Regulatory impact Survey, during the past several years, the staff has reduced its effort on specific, resource-intensive, design-related team inspections, and followed the issue of accurate and accessible design documentation at plants principally as an element of inspection and followup of operations-related activities. The issuance of the NUMARC guideline and ongoing industry efforts to improve and maintain design bases information also contributed to this decision. DISCUSSION: l Beginning in late 1995, NRC identified information during a number of inspectic's at different sites which indicated tnat design bases were not in some cases being q appropriately maintained or adhered to by some licensees. Contrary to earlier indications and expectations, the staff now believes there are situations where licensees have not i critically examined their design control and configuration measures. For example, i inspection teams identified a number of engineering calculations and analyces for key safety systems that were incorrect and did not confirm that safety system functional requirements would be met (resulting in inoperable safety systems on some occasions). Numerous instances were identified where design basis information was not adequately translated into procedures, practices and drawings; the original design basis was inadequate and the original installation was incorrect; modifications were not installed in accordance with the design; and modifications were based on incorrect design assumptions. Additionally, cases were identified where quality assurance requirements and corrective action requirements had not been properly implemented to appropriately maintain design basis information. Details of the findings are outlined further in the attachment to the proposed letter.

i The Commissioners i By letter dated August 2,1996, NEl informed the staff that an initiative had been approved l by the Nuclear Strategic issues Advisory Committee (consisting of chief nuclear officers) to provide additional assurance and confidence that existing programs are adequate to ensure: (1) plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis, (2) the licensing basis is adequately maintained, (3) differences between the operating practices and licensing basis could not result in a significant public health and safety concern, and (4) degraded or nonconforming conditions are captured on tracking systems and resolved in a timely manner. The letter stated that each licensee would conduct an assessment of the program in place to reaffirm that plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis. In a letter dated August 14,1996, the NRC stated its concern that the proposed initiative may not be of sufficient scope and depth and that an in-depth vertical slice review of actual design basis documentation ~and comparison of "as-built" and "as operated" safety systems would be more appropriate. The NRC confirmed its position that it is the responsibility of individual licensees to know their licensing basis, to have appropriate documentatie hat defines their design basis and to have procedures for performing the neceaey aessment of plant or proceduie changes required by NRC regulations. Design and configuration deficiencies currently being identified at some plants indicate failures (1) to comply with the terms and conditions of licenses and NRC regulations and (2) to assure that Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports properly reflect the facilities. These findings raise questions whether licensee programs to maintain configuration control are sufficient to demonstrate that plant physical and functional characteristics are consistent with the design bases and whether operating plants are being maintained in accordance with their design basis. The staff believes that reliance on the industry's voluntary efforts on improving design bases information may not be sufficient to maintain configuration control at some numMr of plants. These problems are of concern because of their potential impact on public health and safety. Therefore, the staff proposes to send 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters (Attachment) to utility CEOs, including only Seabrook Unit 1 of Northeast Utilities' plants, which require licensees to (1) submit a description of any programs already completed, planned, or being conducted to ensure correctness and accessibility of the design bases information, or (2) submit a rationale for not implementing such a program and a description of the extent of design information already obtained from suppliers and vendors, and (3) submit a schedule for the completion date of any planned design reconstitution program. The program description j must identify how engineering design and configuration control processes are examined; i design bases requirements are translated into operating, maintenance, and testing procedures; system performance is verified to be within the design bases; and problem identification and implementation of corrective actions are handled. The staff will use the information to prioritize and to better focus design-related inspections such as SSFis and SSOMis to verify compliance with the terms and conditions of licenses, NRC regulations, i and Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports. Such inspections sample the process and products of design bases information programs and, therefore, provide insights as to the effectiveness of licensee programs without reviewing the programs themselves.  ! l 3

l The Commissioners  ; COORDINATION: In view of the need for timely information regarding this matter, comments or concurrence from the Advisory Committee for Reactor Safety (ACRS) were not sought. The CRGR was briefed on this action at an emergency meeting held on August 22,1996. The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and the enclosed sample letter and has no legal objection. l l RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve issuance of the letters under the signature of either the Chairman, the EDO, or the Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation. James M. Taylor i Executive Director j for Operations

Attachment:

Sample letter to CEO l 

                                                                                                                                          ~

i a. TL' Commissioners COORDINATION: in view of the need for timely information regarding this matter, comments or concurrence from the Advisory Committee for Reactor Safety (ACRS) and CRGR were not sought. The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and the enclosed sample letter and has no legal objection. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve issuance of the letters. l James M. Taylor Executive Director J for Operations i

Attachment:

Sample letter to CEO 

                                                                                                                                             )

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\COMPAPER, G:\5054F.LTR To reesive e copy of this document, inecate in the boa: "C* = Copy without attachment / enclosure 'E' = Copy with ettschment/ enclosure 

  'N' = No copy 0FFICE       D:NRR                 OGC                   EDO NAME         WRussell                                    JTaylor DATE         8/ /96                8/ /96                8/       /96 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

  *-                                                                                                           ~

p2 rfc h r"s 3" i UNITEJ STATES I j l o, 't NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 2055H001 

         #'+9 . . . . . ,o
[date]
            . [Name of Utility CEO]

[Titfel [ Utility Namel [ Utility Address] . 1

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR-AOSIMENAL INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.54(f) i REGARDING ADEQUACY AND AVAILABILITY OF DESIGN BASES l

INFORMATION 1

Dear Mr. [Namel:

Backoround: In the mid- to late 1980's, NRC safety system functional inspections (SSFis) and safety system outage modification inspections (SSOMis) identified concerns that design bases i information wAs not being properly maintained and plant modifications were being made ' without the licensee having an understanding of the plant design bases. The NRC findings heightened the industry's awareness of the need to improve the adequacy and availability of design documents, and many licensees voluntarily initiated extensive efforts to improve the design bases information for their plants. To assist the industry in performing design basis improvement programs, the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC)' developed a guidance document, NUMARC 90-12, " Design Basis Program Guidelines." These guidelines were intended to provide a standard framework for licensee programs to improve plant design bases information.2 The NRC staff reviewed the guidelines and provided comments to NUMARC in November 1990, in emphasizing the importance of validating the facility against current design information, the staff stated that the goal of any program should be to establish confidence that the existing facility is in accordance with the current design documents and that any deviations be reconciled. The staff concluded that the NUMARC guidelines would provide worthwhile insights to utilities undertaking design reconstitution programs 

             'NUMARC was consolidated into the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEl) on March 23,1994.
;            8As discussed in NUMARC 90-12, these programs or efforts would emphasize collation of design basis information and the supporting design information, not the identification or recreation of the licensing basis for a plant or the regeneration of missing analyses and fp j

calculations. [ / { b( i ,

Mr. [namel .. and the guidelines appeared to provide sufficient flexibility for licensees to structure their programs to respond most efficiently to any unique needs and circumstances of a particular licensee. The staff requested NUMARC to consider making design reconstitution a formal NUMA'RC initiative, and commented that design documents that support technicall specification values and design documents necessary to support operations or respond to events should be regenerated if missing. NUMARC subsequently concluded that a formal initiative was not necessary because most of its members were already conducting or evaluating the need to conduct design reconstitution programs. Howmfifr, NUMARC w<c/ I forwards).the guidelines with the NRC's comments to its members for use on a voluntary basis. To provide more information to the industry on this topic and to provide an independent view of the design control issue, the staff conducted a survey of six utilities and one nuclear steam supply system vendor to determine the status of design control problems and the strengths and weaknesses of the sample utility programs. The results were published in February 1991,in NUREG-1397,"An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Programs in the Nuclear Industry." The survey observations were: the need for a design documentation reconstitution program was directly proportional to the age of the plant; the general intent of the program should be to provide a central location for design bases information, with emphasis on the design intent (the why of the design); the design bases documents should be a top level directory that define the current plant configuration; reestablishment of design bases without reconstitution of the supporting design documents, as necessary, may not provide a sufficient level of information for future modifications or current plant operation or to quickly respond to operating events; minor changes to the design should be tracked to support the conclusion that the changes in aggregate do not affect the validity of existing calculations and the ability of a system to perform its design functions. Some comrnon weaknesses of licensee programs identified during the survey includeo: design reconstitution programs had not identified in advance the documents that are necessary to demonstrate that a structure, system, or component will function properly; the process for regeneration of missing design documentation was not always proceduralized so that it could be handled in a systematic manner; validation of the content of specific output documentation was not always thoroughly carried out. In late 1991, the NRC staff evaluated whether rulemaking, guidance, or a policy statement was needed to address the issue of licensees retaining accurate design bases information. It concluded that the existing regulatory requirements for design control were adequate; however,it determined that the publication of a policy statement addressing design bases information and publication of a generic letter requesting licensees to describe their design reconstitution programs would be beneficial. Additionally, the staff stated its intention to

~ l Mr. [name) - 

                                                                                                 'l continue to evaluate design control adequacy during its performance-based inspection such as SSFis and SSOMis. The staff also expected that revisions to the enforcement policy guidance to provide greater opportunities for enforcement discretions would encourage          !

voluntary identification of past design, engineering, and installation issues by hcensees. i With the Commission's approval, the staff proceeded with this approach. l In August 1992, the NRC issued the policy statement, " Availability and Adequacy of ' Design Bases information at Nuclear Power Plants" (57 FR 35455). The policy statement stressed the importance of maintaining current and accessible design documentation to ensure that (1) plant physical and functional characteristics are maintained and consistent with design bases, (2) systems, structures, and components can perform their intended functions, and (3) the plant is operated in a manner consistent with the design bases. In the policy statement, the Commission recommended that all power reactor licensees assess the accessibility and adequacy of their design bases information and that they be able to show that there is sufficient documentation to conclude the current facility configuration is consistent with the design bases. The policy statement outlined the additional actions the NRC would take to keep apprised of industry's design reconstitution l activities (discussed above). I Following review by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) and the I Commission, a draft generic letter was issued for public comment on March 24,1993. The proposed generic letter requested licensees, on a voluntary basis, to submit information and schedules for any design bases programs completed, planned, or being conducted or a rationale for not implementing such a program. All but one of the commenters concluded that the generic letter was unnecessary and unwarranted. NUMARC responded that it believed the NRC request for descriptions, schedules and dates would have a negative impact on ongoing design efforts and that NRC's focus on schedules would undermine the licensees' ability to manage the activities. In SECY-93-292," Generic Letter on the Availability and Adequacy of Design Bases Information," the sta" momended the generic letter not be issued. The staff stated that publication of the policy statement and the proposed generic letter conveyed to the industry the Commission's concern and that publication of the generic letter would not further licensees' awareness of the importance of the activities. The staff proposed to continue performing design-related inspections and to gather information and insights as to how well the licensee design-related programs were being implemented. The Commission issued an SRM which agreed with the staff's proposal. 

 'NRC would refrain from imposing civil penalties for violations up to Severity Level lli if the violations were identified and corrected as a result of systematic voluntary initiatives.

l 

                                                                                                               \

l Mr. (name) l l I l in,_tesponse to the findings relating to the reguiatory burden of team inspections identified inghL13RLBegulatory impact Survey,_during t_he past_seyeral years, the staff has reduced its effort on sp.e_cific, resource-intensive, design-related team inspections, and followed the issue of accurate and accessible design documentation at plants principally as an element of inspection and followup of operations-related activities. The issuance of the NUMARC .  ! guideline and ongoing industry efforts to improve and maintain design bases information I also contributed to this decision. 1 Current Problem: l Over the past several months, NPC findings during inspections and reviews have identified broad programmatic weaknesses tnai have resulted in design and configuration deficiencies at a number of plants which could impact the operability of required equipment, raise unreviewed safety questions, or indicate discrepancies between the plant's updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) and the as-built or as-modified plant or plant operating procedures. These inspections and reviews have also highlighted numerous instances i where timely and complete implementation of corrective action for known degraded and nonconforming conditions and for past violations of NRC requirements has not been evident. Overall, the NRC has found failures of some licensees (1) to appropriately maintain or adhere to plant licensing and design bases informatioE.3 (2) to comply with the terms and conditions of licenses and NRC regulations, and (3) to assure _that.11ESARs properly reflect _the facilities. Attachment 1 provides exardpfess of' some of the deficiencies recently identified by the staff. As a consequence of this new 4 formation, the NRC believes that the industry's voluntary efforts to improve and maintain f ps 

  ---Br sign bases information for their pla          ot    all   sgen e       tiv                   7kg The magnitude and scope of the problems that the NRC has identified raise concerns about the presence of similar design, configuration, and operability problems and the effectiveness of quality assurance programs industry-wide. Of particular concern is whether licensee programs to__ maintain configuration control are sufficie t to demonstrate that plant physical and functional characteristics are consistent with th       esign bape W whether operating plants are being maintained in accordance with their design basis. The extent of licensee failures to maintain control and to identify and correct the failures in a timely manner is of concern because of the potentialimpact on public health and safety should safety systems not respond to challenges from off-normal and accident conditions.

Attachments 2 and 3 are a recent exchange of correspondence between J. Colvin, NEl, and S. Jackso .RC, regarding these subjects. aG%+ $ 9Wd Action: The NRC has concluded that it requires information that can be used to verify compliance with the terms and conditions of your license (s), NRC regulations, and the plant UFSAR(s), and which may be used to decide whether to modify, suspend, or revoke the operating

Mr. (name] s0 

                                                                  ' Of license (s) for your facility or facilities, or whether other enforcement action should be taken. Therefore, you are(diiuIrej& pursuant to Sectio $ 182(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f), to submit a response to this letter within            .a 12,0 days from receipt of this letter. Your response must be written and signed under oatn or affirmation.

Please submit your response to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, with a copy to the appropriate Regional Administrator and the NRC Document Control Desk. The following informap edgr each lice d unig , (1) a description of any design review or reconstitution programs, including identification of the systems and plant-level design attributes (e.g., seismic, high-energy line break, moderate-energy line break), which have already been completed, are planned, or are being conducted to ensure thelorrectnest # YM, and accessibility of the design bases information for your plant and to ensurel that it is maintained current. If the program is. planned or being conducted but has not been completed, provide an implementation schedule for systerns % and plant-level design attribute revie s d expected completion date, pc.lb ' an (2) if no design review or reco 'titution program has been implemented, a. - 

                                                                                                       #g rationale for not impleme ing such a progMd a description of the extent ghe desian intorrnatior(you have o ained fro the nuclear stpam supply gg gj

( sy TNSSf!'vendo d archit -enginee A/E) or whicgaccessible at c SSpendor or /E offices. ( ' g The responses provided pursuant to paragraphs (1 Land (2) above Miu~gaddress the j following areas of particular interest, af previously exprQ"n' Cogi jolicy. 6-statement and other NRC documenw: N ~~ " 9 V (a) e Ok5 c' ngineering design and configuration control processes, y , ,,,h h-dM 10 CFR 50.59,10 CFR 50.71(e), and Appendix B to 10 CFR i Part 50; cs edd %~ $0 j p- selection and prioritization of sy* stems for rev.ie ,% 

                                                                                                                  )
                       =-

gg- .- (c) va _tMat design bases requirements are translated into operating, rnaintenance, an_d testi_ng_ procedures; (d) k4 bv ve.Laihr7nt systerntha& parf^~~a hSC " "'Wa the design bases; sscs ( (~.- ~ J f A u u,w,6/ A 

                                                                          ?
   .                                                            .          1 Mr. [name]                                             $V              6-d acnSh (e). d,ndling ntproblem identification and implementation of corrective actions, including actions to. determine the extent of problems, action to prevent recurrence, and reporting to NRC;                                                          .

aQs C _ ~ L L *n d wl .y * 

                        '(f)                  erH .nkatf theWYe'fativeness of the program ' Hedecestely       w               y/   '

ri . . , ,, ,,,  :.. . ba g ,. f  ! I wish to emphasize that the NRC position has been, and continues to be, that it is the /f-*kp ,g i) 4 responsibility of individual licensees to know their licensing basis, to have appropriate documentation that defines their design bases, and to have procedures for performing the necessary assessments of plant or procedure changes required by NRC regulations.

  • ]N This request is covered by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance number 3150-0011, which expires July 31,1997. The reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 400 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the information and Records Management Branch (T-6F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

20555-0001,and to the Desk Officer, Office of information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202 (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503. The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, uC, and in the local public document room (s) for your facility or f acilities. l 1 l l l

l 

      .                                                                                                                i Mr. [name]                                           .

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact the staff members listed below, or the appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager. [ Signature] ! Attachments:

1. Background on Recently identified Problems
2. Letter from J. Colvin (NEI) to S. Jackson (NRC) dated 8/2/96
3. Letter from S. Jackson (NRC) to J. Colvin (NEI) dated 8/14/96 Contacts: Frank M. Akstulewicz, NRR l (301)415-1136 Internet: fma@nrc. gov l Eileen M. McKenna, NRR i (310)415-2189 l Internet: emm@nrc. gov i

l Docket No(s). 50-xxx and 50-xxx l cc: See next page [ applicable plant service list] l i I l l f il 4w. m - , , --

I BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON RECENTLY IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS Over the past several months, design and engineering information has been obtained which indicates that design bases at certain plants have not been appropriately maintained or adhered to. Some specific examples include: Millstone Units 1, 2. and 3 Since November 1995, licensee submissions and NRC inspections have indicated that design control deficiencies, and degraded and nonconforming conditions have been identified at Northeast Utilities' (NU's) Millstone Units 1,2, and 3. These deficiencies include errors in licensing bases and design bases documentation, and translation of design bases to procedures and hardware, as well as inadequate plant modifications; modifications not installed in accordance with the approved design; modifications based on incorrect design assumptions; and identification of inoperable systems. The following are some examples. NRC inspections at Millstone Unit 2 identified a potential design deficiency that could block or reduce safety injection flow during the recirculation phase of an accident, as well as inadequate containment sump screen mesh and a flawed post-accident containment  ; hydrogen monitor design. On February 20,1996, NU shut down Millstone Unit 2 when  ! both trains of the high pressure safety injection (HPSI) system were declared inoperable  ; due to the potential to clog the HPSI discharge throttle valves during the recirculation j phase following a loss-of-coolant (LOCA) accident. ' An NRC special inspection team at Millstone Unit 3 found instances where NU did not adequately translate design bases information into procedures, practices and drawings. In { one instance, a modification that installed the Unit 3 service water intake structure sump pump called for specific periodic testing, but such testing was never performed. In another case, prelubrication of the auxiliary feedwater pump was not performed every 40 days as required by the vendor. The NRC has also identified a number of instances where the original design bases was 

    -inadequate or the original inst ="'tien was incorrect. For example, the licensee fa4cd R.,

remove plastic shipping plugs from Rosemount transmitters prior to installe don, notwithstanding the vendor's instructions which required those plugs' replacement with stainless steel plugs. Haddam Neck On March 11-29 and April 15-26,1996, a special inspection team from the NRC assessed the engineering and licensing activities at NU's Haddam Neck Station. The special inspection team focused on the licensee's processes used to identify, evaluate, and resolve technical issues. The team identified programmatic weaknesses and potential violations of NRC's regulatory requirements (10 CFR 50.59,50.71(e), and Criteria Ill and XVI of Appendix B to-10 CFR Part 50)in design calculations and analyses, and design bases documentation. Attachment 1

The team identified a number of deficiencies in the engineering calculations and analyses which were relied upon to ensure the adequacy of the design of key safety systems at Haddam Neck. Deficiencies were identified in the calculations and analyses supporting the station batteries, emergency diesel generators, containment air recirculation (CAR) system, service water (SW) system, and the systems and components needed to support the emergency core cooling system transfer from the injection phase to sump recirculation. The types of deficiencies noted by the team included technical errors, nonconservative methods and assumptions, as well as the failure to consider all applicable design bases information. The team concluded that weaknesses in engineering programmatic requirements and a lack of technical rigor, thoroughness, and attention to detailin the design process, either contributed to or directly caused the identified errors. In addition, design control measures such as independent reviews, supervisory reviews, and reviews by oversight committees did not identify these deficiencies. In addition, the team identified operability concerns that require further staff evaluation and which have led to the recent shutdown of Haddam Neck. These concerns include: (1) the potential for water hammer in the SW piping and in the tubes of the containment fan coolers, (2) the potentia' for two-phase flow in the SW system in the tubes of the l containment fan coolers, (3) the licensee crediting post-LOCA accident pressure in containment for residual heat removal pump net positive suction head (NPSH), and (4) the potential that the feedwater regulating valves may not close during a main steamline break event. Maine Yankee l On January 10,1996, the NRC issued a Confirmat a v Order Suspending Authority for and Limiting Power Operatinn and Containment Pressure, ad Demand for Information to the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company. The order was based, in part, on the NRC's determination that Maine Yankee did not apply a computer code, proposed to demonstrate l compliance with the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) requirements of 10 CFR . 50.46,in a manner conforming to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, nor in conformance to the conditions specified in the staff's Safety Evaluation (SE) dated January 30,1989. Specifically, the licensee did not demonstrate that the RELAP5YA code will reliably calculate the peak cladding temperature for all break sizes in the small-break LOCA spectrum for Maine Yankee, nor has the licensee submitted the justification for the code l options selected and other justifications and sensitivity studies to satisfy conditions in the SE. In addition, the licensee assumed an initial containment pressure of 2.0 psig for calculating peak design-basis accident pressure even though the plant technical specifications allow a maximum operating pressure in containment of 3.0 psig. Assumir}g an initial containment pressure of 3.0 psig results in a calculated peak accident pressure in excess of the containment design pressure described in the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR). l I 2-i 

      .-                                                                                                                         I I

Refuelino Practices Survev , 9;

In response to recent problems encountered at Millstone Unit 1 regarding compliance with the UFSAR, during the spring of 1996, the NRC conducted a survey of licensee refueling practices. During the course of this survey, the NRC determined that nine sites (15 units) e needed to modify their licensing basis or plant practices to ensure that their reload I practices were in compliance with their licensing basis, j Deficiencies in the management of design bases assumptions were also noted in the ,

] survey. Many plants were found to have aspects of their design and licensing bases that , were only loosely proceduralized or not proceduralized at all. Typical of this kind of discrepancy was the identification of a lack of procedures for controlling the assumptions regarding hold-up time before beginning fuel transfer. The NRC found a number of instances in which other design bases assumptions were not captured in procedures. In

addition, licensees at 12 other sites (23 uNts) upgraded procedures to directly implement
the design bases assumption. In other cases, the licensee performed engineering analyses,
documented pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59, as necessary, to ensure that the planned activities j would not exceed design bases assumptions.

i 4 i

u .n 6 n , 

     ,                                                               p7a ff (Ve rUtn 2)~ p, Lid VeM*-~                l (g/ts/ K W $' Uf
                                                                             &Cf kf              f ppt?/17CP 1
5. c.

EDE: The Commissioners < I [ ERQM: James M. Taylor s Executive Director for Operations l I

SUBJECT:

ISSUANCE OF 10 CFR 50.54(f) LETTERS ON THE AVAILABILITY AND. ADEQUACY OF DESIGN BASES INFORMATION i i I l 4 PURPOSE: 4 To request Commission approval of the staff's proposal to send 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters to , utility chief executive officers (CEOs), including only Seabrook Unit 1 of Northeast Utilities'  ! plants. These letters will require information to gain added confidence and assurance that j plants are operated and maintained within the design basis of the plant and any deviations l are reconciled in a timely manner.  ! ~ i

SUMMARY

Recent inspection findings have indicated that design bases information has not been appropriately maintained and implemented at certain plants and that this may have a potential public health and safety impact. The staff is proposing to require information from licensees regarding the availability a'nd adequacy of design bases information to identify how engineering design and configuration control processes are examined; design bases requirements are translated into operating, maintenance, and testing procedures; system performance is verified to be within the design bases; and problem identification

and implementation M er ~cctive actions are handled.

i 4 CONTACTS: Frank M. Akstulewicz, NRR 

;      (301)415-1136 Eileen M. McKenna, NRR (301)415-2189
                                                                                                  \)

The Commissioners BACKGROUND: In the mid- to late 1980's, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) safety system functionalinspections (SSFis) at power reactor licensees and safety system outage modification inspections (SSOMis) raised concerns about design bases information not being properly maintained and plant modifications being made without the licensee having an understanding of the plant design bases. The NRC's findings heightened the industry's awareness of the need to improve the adequacy and availability of design documentation and many licensees voluntarily initiated extensive efforts tc improve their design bases information. To assist the industry in performing these activities, the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC), now the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), developed the guidance document, NUMARC 90-12, " Design Basis Program Guidelines." The document outlined a standard framework for developing a design basis program that collates design basis information and supporting design information, but does not identify or recreate the licensing basis of the plant, in a letter dated November 9,1990, the staff concluded that the guideline would provide worthwhile insights to those utilities undertaking design bases progr.ams and appeared to provide sufficient flexibility for licensees to structure their programs to respond most efficiently to any unique needs and circumstances of a particular license. In emphasizing the importance of validation of the facility against current design information, the staff stated that the goal of any program should be to establish confidence that the existing facility conforms to the current design bases documents and that any identified deviations are reconciled. The staff also emphasized that design documents that support technical specification values and design documents necessary to support operations or respond to events should be regenerated if missing. The staff requested that NUMARC consider making the design bases effort a NUMARC initiative. In SECY-91-364, 

 " Design Basis Reconstitution" dated November 12,1991, the staff reported NUMARC's conclusion that an initiative was not necessary because most of their members were already conducting or evaluating the need to conduct such programs. Although NUMARC decided not to pursue a formaliNtMive, it forwarded the guidelines and NRC commr= ::;

their members for use on a voluntary basis. To provide more information to the industry on this topic and to provide an independent view of the design controlissue, the staff conducted a survey of six utilities and one nuclear steam supply system vendor to determine the status of design control problems and the strengths and weaknesses of the sample utility programs. The results were published in February 1991,in NUREG-1397,"An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Programs in the Nuclear Industry." The survey observations were: the need for a design documentation reconstitution program was directly proportional to the age of the plant; the generalintent of the program should be to provide I

_ . -. . . . - - . _ - - -. - - - - , ~ .. . 1 The Commissioners i l ) a central location for design bases information, with emphasis on the design intent (the why of the design); the design bases documents should be a top level directory whjch , define the current plant configuration; reestablishment of design bases without ' reconstitution of the supporting design documents, as necessary, may not provide a sufficient level of information for future modifications or current plant operation or to 

;     quickly respond to operating events; gnd minor changes to the design should be tracked to 4

support the conclusion that the changes in the aggregate do not affect the validity of existing calculations and the ability of a system to perform its design functions. Some 4 common weaknesses of licensee programs identified during the survey included: design reconstitution programs had not identified in advance the documents that are necessary to demonstrate that a structure, system, or component will function properly; the process for regeneration of missing design documentation was not always proceduralized so that it could be handled in a systematic manner; validation of the content of specific output

documentation was not always thoroughly carried out.

In late 1991, the Commission requested the staff to consider whether rulemaking, i regulatory guidance, or a policy statement was needed to outline the NRC's expectations concerning accurate design bases documentation, in SECY-92-193," Design Bases Reconstitution" dated May 26,1992, the staff concluded that additional regulations were not needed because existing regulatory requirements for design control were sufficient. I However, the staff proposed issuance of a policy statement and issuance, for public comment, of a generic letter requesting licensees to describe their programs. Additionally, SECY-92-193 documented the staff's intention to continue performing design-related inspections. Also, the staff expected that planned revisions to the enforcement policy guidance (to refrain fromissing civil penalties for violations up to Severity Level 111 if the

issues were identified and corrected as a result of systematic voluntary initiatives) would j encourage licensees to identify past design, engineering, and installation issues. The
Commission responded in a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) nn SECY-92-193 which approved the staff's approach.

In August 1992, the Commission issued the policy statement, " Availability and Adequacy

of Design Bases information at Nuclear Power Plants" (57 FR 35455). The policy i statement stressed the importance of maintaining current and accessible design
documentation to ensure that (1) plant physical and functional characteristics are maintained and consistent with design bases, (2) systems, structures, and components can perform their intended functions, and (3) the plant is operated in a manner consistent with I

the design bases. In the policy statement, the Commission stated that all power reactor licensees should assess the accessibility and adequacy of their design bases i documentation andq be able to show that there is sufficient documentation to conclude that the current facility configuration is consistent with the design bases. The policy statement outlined further actions the steff would perform to keep apprised of industry's activities.

l ! The Commissioners , 

                                                                                                        \

l Following review by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) and the l Commission, a draft generic letter was issued for public comment on March 24,1993, i The proposed generic letter requested licensees, on a voluntary basis, to submit information and schedules for any design bases programs completed, planned, or being conducted, or a rationale for not implementing such a program. All but one of the commenters concluded that the generic letter was unnecessary and unwarranted. l NUMARC responded that it believed the NRC request for descriptions, schedules, and 

,      dates would have a negative impact on ongoing design efforts and that NRC's focus on l       schedules would undermine the licensees' ability to manage the activities.

In SECY-93-292," Generic Letter on the Availability and Adequacy of Design Bases information" dated October 21,199_3, the staff recommended the generic letter not be

issued. The ataff stated that publication of the policy statement and the proposed generic  ;

letter conveyed to the industry the Commission's concern and that publication of the l generic letter would not further licensees' awareness of the importance of the activities. ] The staff proposed to continue performing design-related inspections and to gather l , information and insights as to how well the licensee design-related programs were being i implemented. The Commission issued an SRM which agreed with the staff's proposal. l j in response to the findinas relatina to the regulatory burden of team inspections identified , i in the 1991 Begulatory impact SurveF, during the past_several years, the staff has reduced l 

                     ~

its effort on specific, resource-intensive, design-related team inspections, and followed the j issue of accurate and accessible design documentation at plants principally as an element } of inspection and followup of operations-related activities. The i_ssuance of the NUMARC 3 guideline and ongoing industry efforts to improve and maintain design bases information , also contributed to this decision, j DISCUSSION: 4

Beginning in late 1995, NRC identified information during a number of inspections at i

different sites which indicated that design bases were not in_some casetpa.ca , appropriately maintained or adhered to by some licensees. Contrary to earlier indications and ex_pecLtations, the staff now believes there are situations where licensees have not critically examined their design control and configuration measures. For example, ! inspection teams identified a number of engineering calculations and analyses for key ! safety sy: stems that were incorrect and did not confirm that safety system functional

requirements would be met (resulting in inoperable safety systems on some occasions).

4 Numerous instances were identified where design basis information was not adequately translated into procedures, practices and drawings; tg original design basis was ]

inadequate and the original installation was incorrect;podifications were not installed in 1 accordance with the design; andjnodific ations were based on incorrect design assumptions. Additionally, casea, were iJentified where quality assurance requirements i and corrective action requireme nts had not been properly implemented to appropriately
  !    maintain design basis information. Details of the findings are outlined further in the attachment to the proposed letter, e

 ~

l l i i The Commissioners , l h I 

                             /

By letter dated August _2.,.1996, NEl informed the staff that an initiative had been approved , i by the Nuclear Strategic issues Advisory Committee (consisting of chief nuclear officers) to provide additional assurance and confidence that existing programs are adequate to ensure: (1) plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis, (2) the licensing basis is adequately maintained, (3) differences between the operating practices and licensing basis g could not result in a significant public health and safety concern, and (4) degraded or nonconforming conditions are captured on tracking systems and resolved in a timely I^'jj i manner. The letter stated that each licensee would conduct an assessment of th, in place to reaffirm that plants are operated in conformance gram kl# with their licensing basis. In a letter dated August 14,1996, the NRC s ed its concern that the proposed initiative may not be of sufficient scope and dep nd that an in-depth

vertical slice review of actual design basis documentation and mparison of "as-built" and l "as operated" safety systems yy_ouldA o more appropriate. The NRC confirmed its position i j

that it is the responsibility of individual licensees to know their licensing basis, to have l appropriate documentation that defines their design basis and to have procedures for I performing the necessary assessment of plant or procedure changes required by NRC l regulations.  : Design and configuration deficiencies currently being identified at some plants indicate failures (1) to comply with the terms and conditions of licenses and NRC regulations and l l (2) tyssure that Updated Final Safety Analysis Repo.rts. properly reflect the facilities. These findings raise questions whether licensee programs to maintain configuration control- ' are sufficient to demonstrate that consistent with the design nd bases $ plant plants physical and functional characteris whether operating are being maintained in accordance with their design basis. The staff believes that reliance on the industry's , voluntary efforts on improving design bases information may not be sufficient to maintain  ! configuration control at some number of plants. These problems are of concern because of their potential impact on public health and safety. r Therefore, the staff proposes to send 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters (Attachment) to utility CEOs, including only Seabrook Unit 1 of Northeast Utilities' plants, which require licensees to (1) submit a description of any programs already completed, planned, or being conducted to ensure correctness and accessibility of the design bases information, or (2) submit a rationale for not implementing such a program and a description of the extent of design information already obtained from suppliers and vendors, and (3) submit a schedule for the com letion date of any 71anned design reconstitution program. The program description mus identify how engineering design and configuration control processes are examined; gdesign bases requirements are translated in,to operating, maintenance, and testing procedures;gsystem performance is verified to be within the design bases; an4 problem identification and implementation of corrective actions are handled. The staff will use the information to prioritize and to better focus design-related inspections such as SSFis and SSOMis to verify compliance with the terms and conditions of licenses, NRC regulations, and Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports. Such inspections sa_mple the process and products of design bases information programs and, therefore, provide insights as to the effectiveness of licensee programs without reviewing the programs themselves.

The Commissioners COORDit?ATION: In view of the need for timely information regarding this matter, comments or concurrence from the Advisory Committee for Reactor Safety (ACRS) were not sought. The CRGR was briefed on this action at an emergency meeting held on August 22,1996. The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and the enclosed sample letter and has no legal objection. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve issuance of the letters under the signature of either the Chairman, the EDO, or the Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation. l I James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations i

Attachment:

Sample letter to CEO l i l

I e i a.. 4 The Commissioners  : l .Q_OORDINATION: l In view of the need for timely information regarding this matter, comments or concurrence - 3- ' from the Advisory Committee for Reactor Safety (ACRS) and CRGR were not sought. The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and the enclosed sample letter and has no legal objection. 4 RECOMMENDATION: i That the Commission approve issuance of the letters. j l i , James M. Taylor Executive Director , for Operations  ! i

Attachment:

Sample letter to CEO 

           , DOCUMENT NAME: G:\COMPAPER, G:\5054F.LTR To recehre a copy of this document, ind6cete in the boa: "C' = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" - Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy
         ,      OFFICE       0:NRR                 OGC                    EDO NAME         WRussell                                    JTaylor DATE         8/       /96          8/     /96             8/       /96                                                                                i Urr'lCIAL RECORD COPY                                                                              I

  ..     . . - . . ~ . . . . ~ , . ~ . . - . . . . . - . . - -                        - - .- .. ,..~. .. ~ . - -   ...       . _           ._-.....-.a      -. ~    -

cW 4 4 hYG h t yp'c n 3

j. ~ O ..

t UNITED STATES i 

             -[pj                                    if               NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.c. 20066-0001 l

s, r 

                           ...../

} [datel , [Name of Utility CEO) )

[ Title]

[ Utility Name] [ Utility Address] p. l

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.54(f) REGARDING ADEQUACY AND AVAILABILITY OF DESIGN BASES INFORMATION l

Dear Mr. [Namel:

I j- Backaround:

In the 'mid- to late 1980's, NRC safety system functional inspections (SSFis) and safety l
                         - system outage modification inspections (SSOMis) identified concerns that design bases                                                      j l                           information was not being properly maintained and plant modifications were being made without the licenses having an understanding of the plant design bases. The NRC findings heightened the industry's awareness of the need to improve the adequacy and availability
j. of design documents, and many licensees voluntarily initiated extensive efforts to improve i the design bases information for their plants.

i ! To assist the industry in performing design basis improvement programs, the Nuclear a Management and Resources Council (NUMADC)' developed a guidance document, L NUMARC 90-12, " Design Basis Program Guidelines." These guidelines were intended to provide a standard framework for licensee programs to improve plant design bases j information.' The NRC ctaff reviewed the guidelines and provided comments to NUMARC in November 1990. In emphasizing the importance of validating the facility against current ] ! design information, the staff stated that the goal of any program should be to establish ) ?- confidence that the existing facility is in accordance with the current design documents  ! i and that any deviations be reconciled. The staff concluded that the NUMARC guidelines ) ', would provide worthwhile insights to utilities undertaking design reconstitution programs ! and the guidelines appeared to provide sufficient flexibility for licensees to structure their j programs to respond most efficiently to any unique needs and circumstances of a . I I'

i. 'NUMARC was consolidated into the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on March 23,1994.

! 8As discussed in NUMARC 90-12, these programs or efforts would emphasize collation of

design basis information and the supporting design information, not the identification or recreation of the licensing basis for a plant or the regeneration of missing analyses and

[a , .j ( )

calculations. 1 1

l 

                                                                                                                                                    ,    /

1 

              . - ._ .                                            .     .-  _  .                        -        _             . ~ _ _ _ . , _ ,           - .        <

Mr. [namel , particular licensee. The staff requested NUMARC to consider making design reconstitution a formal NUMARC initiative, and commented that design documents that support technical specification values and design documents necessary to support operations or respond to events should be regenerated if missing. NUMARC subsequently concluded that a formal initiative was not necessary because most of its members were already conducting or evaluating the need to conduct design reconstitution programs, and agreed to forward the guidelines with the NRC's comments to its members for use on a voluntary basis. To provide more information to the industry on this topic and to provide an independent view of the design controlissue, the staff conducted a survey of six utilities and one nuclear steam supply system vendor to determine the status of design control problems and the strengths and weaknesses of the sample utility programs. The results were published in February 1991,in NUREG-1397,"An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Programs in the Nuclear Industry." The survey observations were: the need for a design documentation reconstitution program was directly proportional to the age of the plant; the generalintent of the program should be to provide a centrallocation for design bases information, with emphasis on the design intent (the why of the design); the design bases documents should be a top level directory that define the current plant configuration; reestablishment of design bases without reconstitution of the supporting design documents, as necessary, may not provide a sufficient level of information for future modifications or current plant operation or to quickly respond to operating events; minor changes to the design should be trocked to support the conclusion that the changes in aggregate do not affect the validits/ of existing calculations and the ability of a system to perform its design functions. Some common weaknesses of licensee programs identified during the survey include'.h design reconstitution programs had not identified in advance the documents that P:e necessary to demonstrate that a structure, system, or component will function properly; the process for regeneration of missing , design documentation was not always proceduralized so that it could be handled in a systematic manner; validation of the content of specific output documentation was not always thoroughly carried out. In late 1991, the Nim stati cvaluated whether rulemaking, guidance, or a policy statement was needed to address the issue of licensees retaining accurate design bases information, it concluded that the existing regulatory requirements for design control were adequate; however, it determined that the publication of a policy statement addressing design bases information and publication of a generic letter requesting licensees to describe their design reconstitution programs would be beneficial. Additionally, the staff stated its . intention to continue to evaluate design control adequacy during its performance-based inspection such as SSFis and SSOMis. The staff also expected that revisions to the enforcement policy guidance to provide greater opportunities for enforcement discretion' would encourage voluntary identification of past design, engineering, and installation issues by licensees. With the Commission's approval, the staff proceeded with this approach. 

      'NRC would refrain from imposing civil penalties for violations up to Severity Level lli if the violations were identified and corrected as a result of systematic voluntary initiatives.

Mr. [name] In August 1992, the NRC issued the policy statement, " Availability and Adequacy of Design Bases Information at Nuclear Power Plants" (57 FR 35455)(Attachment 1). The policy statement stressed the importance of maintaining current and accessible design documentation to ensure that (1) plant physical and functional characteristics are maintained and consistent with design bases, (2) systems, structures, and components can perform their intended functions, and (3) the plant is operated in a manner consistent with the design bases. In the policy statement, the Commission recommended that all power reactor licensees assess the accessibility and adequacy of their design bases information and that they be able to show that there is sufficient documentation to conclude the , current facility configuration is consistent with the design bases. The policy statement outlined the additional actions the NRC would take to keep apprised of industry's design reconstitution activities (discussed above). Following review by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) and the Commission, a draft generic letter was issued for public comment on March 24,1993. The proposed generic letter requested licensees, on a voluntary basis, to submit information and schedules for any design bases programs completed, planned, or being conducted or a rationale for not implementing such a program. All but one of the commenters concluded that the generic letter was unnecessary and unwarranted. NUMARC responded that it believed the NRC request for descriptions, schedules, and dates would have a negative impact on ongoing design efforts and that NRC's focus on schedules would undermine the Iicensees' ability to manage the activities. In SECY-93-292," Generic Letter on the Availability and Adequacy of Design Bases i information," the staff recommended the generic letter not be issued. The staff stated that publication of the policy statement and the proposed generic letter conveyed to the industry the Commission's concern and that publication of the generic letter would not further licensees' awareness of the importance of the activities. The staff proposed to continue performing design-related inspections and to gather information and irsights as to how well the licensee design-related programs were being implemented. The Commission l issued a staff requirements memorandum that agreed with the staff's proposal. j l in response to the findings relating to the regulatory burden of team inspections identified l in the 1991 Segulatory impact Survey, during the past several years, the staff has reduced l its effort on specific, resource-intensive, design-related team inspections, and followed the ' issue of accurate and accessible design documentation at plants principally as an element of inspection and followup of operations-related activities. The isseance of the NUMARC guidelines and ongoing industry efforts to improve and maintain design bases information also contributed to this decision.  ! Current Problem:  ! Over the past several months, NRC findings during inspections and reviews have identified broad programmatic weaknesses that have resulted in design and configuration deficiencies at a number of plants which could impact the operability of required equipment, raise j unreviewed safety questions, or indicate discrepancies between the plant's updated final  ! i

1 

 ~

l Mr. [name] safety analysis report (UFSAR) and the as-built or as-modified plant or plant operating i procedures. These inspections and reviews have also highlighted numerous instances where timely and complete implementation of corrective action for known degraded and , nonconforming conditions and for past violations of NRC requirements has not been ' evident. Overall, the NRC has found failures of some licensees (1) to appropriately maintain or adhere to plant licensing and design bases information, (2) to comply with the terms and conditions of licenses and NRC regulations, and (3) to assure that UFSARs properly reflect the facilities. Attachment 2 provides examples of some of the deficiencies recently identified by the staff. As a consequence of this new information, the NRC believes that the industry's voluntary efforts to improve and maintain design bases information for their plants, consistent with NUMARC 90-12, the staff's comments on the industry guidelines, and the Commission policy statement, have not been effective in all cases. The magnitude and scope of the problems that the NRC has identified raise concerns about the presence of similar design, configuration, and operability problems and the effectiveness of quality assurance programs industry-wide. Of particular concern is whether licensee programs to maintain configuration control are sufficient to demonstrate that plant physical and functional characteristics are consistent with the design bases and whether operating plants are being maintained in accordance with their design basis. The extent of licensee failures to maintain control and to identify and correct the failures in a timely manner is of concern because of the potentialimpact on public health and safety should safety systems not respond to challenges from off-normal and accident conditions. It is emphasized that the NRC position has been, and continues to be, that it is the responsibility of individual licensees to know their licensing basis, to have appropriate 

   ' documentation that defines their design bases, and to have procedures for performing the necessary assessments of plant or procedure changes required by NRC regulations.

Attachments 3 and 4 are a recent .2hange of correspondence between J. Colvin, NEl, and S. Jackson, NRC, regarding these subjects. Action: The NRC has concluded that it requires information that can be used to verify compliance with the terms and conditions of your license (s), NRC regulations, and the plant UFSAR(s), and which may be used to decide whether to modify, suspend, or revoke the operating license (s) for your facility or facilities, or whether other inspection activities or enforcement action should be taken. Therefore, you are required, pursuant to Section 182(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f), to submit a response to this letter within 120 days from receipt of this letter. Your response must be written and signed under oath or affirmation. 

 - ..   . - - - . ~. -..-.- - - -                                        .. - -.-      . - - ~.-..~ - - - .        _ .-

!' l i } Mr. (name) , 

                                                                                                                        ]

i l 4 i l~ Please submit your response to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, with a j i- copy to the appropriate Regional Adrainistrator and the NRC Document Control Desk. The l following information is required for each licensed unit: ' l (1) a description of any design review or reconstitution programs, including i identification of the systems, structures, and components, and plant-level ! design attributes (e.g., seismic, high-energy line break, moderate-energy line break), which have already been completed, are planned, or are being conducted to ensure the correctness and accessibility of the design bases information for your plant and to ensure that it is maintained current. If the program is planned or being conducted but has not been completed, provide an implementation schedule for systems, structures, and components, and plant-level design attribute reviews and expected completion date. (2) a rationale for not implementing such a program, if no design review or reconstitution program has been implemented or planned. The responses provided pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) above should address how current or planned plant processes or programs address the following areas of particular interest, as expressed in NUMARC 90-12, the staff's comments on the industry guidelines, - , and the Commission policy statement: 1 (a) description of engineering design and configuration control processes, including those that implement 10 CFR 50.59,10 CFR 50.71(e), and Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50; (b) selection and prioritization of systems, structures, and components for review (item (1) only); (c) rationale for concluding that design bases requirements are translated into operating, maintenance, and testing procedures; (d) rationale for concluding that system, structure, and component configuration and performance are consistent with the design bases; (e) processes for problem identification and implementation of corrective acticris, including actions to determine the extent of problems, action to prevent recurrence, and reporting to NRC; (f) the overall effectiveness of your current processes and programs in concluding that the configuration of your plant (s) is consistent with the design bases; and (g) actions already taken or to be taken (including documentation) to assure that the plant is being operated in a manner consistent with its design bases.

Mr. [name] This request is covered by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance number 3150-0011,which expires July 31,1997. The reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 400 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the information and Records Management Branch (T-6F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001,and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202 (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503. The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC, and in the local public document room (s) for your facility or facilities. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact the staff members listed below, or the appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager. [Signaturel Attachments:

1. Policy Statement on Availability and Adequacy of Design Bases Information at Nuclear Power Plants
2. Background on Recently identified Problems
3. Letter from J. Colvin (NEI) to S. Jackson (NRC) dated 8/2/96
4. Letter from S. Jackson (NRC) to J. Colvin (NEI) dated 8/14/96 Contacts: Frank M. Akstulewicz, NRR (301)415-1136 Internet: fma@nrc. gov Eileen M. McKenna, NRR (310)415-2189 Internet: emm@nrc. gov Docket No(s). 50-xxx and 50-xxx i

cc: See next page [ applicable plant service listl i I 1

o D rakWrs s'en 3) 

                                                                                                       % o.)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON RECENTLY IGENTIFIED PROBLEMS Over the past several months, design and engineering information has been obtained which indicates that design bases at certain plants have not been appropriately maintained or adhered to. Some specific examples include: Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 The recent NRC inspection team found examples where the FSAR and design bases information did not agf ee with the as-built plant, operational procedures, and maintenance practices which were resolved by correcting the documentation. The team found other more significant inconsistencies that required analyses, procedure changes, and design changes to resolve. For example, the Millstone Unit 3 operating procedures required isolation for the turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump during certain plant conditions, in conflict with technical specification requirements for operability. The team found that certain protective relays at Millstone Unit 3 were not set in accordance with the design bases information. This required re-analyses and resetting of certain relays. Based on the team's findir gs, the licensee initiated design changes to correct nonconforming conditions between the FSAR and the as-built plant, including changes to the design of the Millstone Unit 2 reactor protection system to meet the design bases with respect to physical separation of redundant channels and changes to the design of the Millstone Unit 2 (post-loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA)) hydrogen monitors to meet the design bases for single failure vulnerabilities. Haddam Neck The team found examples where the FSAR and design bases information did not agree with the as-built plant, operational procedures, and maintenance practices which were resolved by correcting the documentation. Theteam identified a number of deficiencies in engineering calculations and analyses that were relied upon to ensure the adequacy of the design of key safety systems. The team found examples of inconsistencies between the as-built plant, vendor supplied information, and the assumptions used in engineering calculations and analyses. Deficiencies were identified in the calculations and analyses i supporting the station batteries, emergency diesel generators, containment cooling system, and other key safety systems. In some cases, the inspection findings were resolved by { revising the calculations and unalyses. In other cases, procedure and design changes were required to resolve the issues. For example, the team identified that the design bases { calculations supporting the size of the station batteries were inconsistent with the design bases stated in the FSAR. Field measurements and design modifications were required to resolve this issue. Additional examples are documented in the special team inspection report for Haddam Neck, 50-213/96-201. Other issues were identified by the NRC and the licensee following the issuance of this inspection report that lead the licensee to enter a refueling outage earlier than originally scheduled. These issues include discrepancies l betwecn the es-built plant and the design bases for the service water system pressure, i containment sump screens, feedwater isolation valves, and containment penetrations. l l 

                                                                                                          . l Attachment 1 t
                                                                                                       /

[ > l 1 

    - - ~ . . - . .                -    .     - - - . . - . . - - - - . - - - . - . - - . -
  .                                                                                                                 t e

{^e l l  ! i l Maine Yankee  ! !- i j On January 10,1996, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order Suspending Authority for and l Limiting Power Operation and Containment Pressure; and Demand for information to the i Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company. The order was based, in part, on the NRC's determination that Maine Yankee did not apply a computer code, proposed to demonstrate compliance with the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) requirements of 10 CFR 1 50.46,in a manner conforming to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, nor in j conformance to the conditions specified in the staff's safety evaluation dated January 30, j

1989. Specifically, the licensee did not demonstrate that the RELAP5YA code will reliably l l calculate the peak cladding temperature for all break sizes in the small-break LOCA -  !

spectrum for Maine Yankee, nor has the licensee submitted the justification for the code l

options selected and other justifications and sensitivity studies'to satisfy conditions in the j staff's safety evaluation. .

In addition, the licensee assumed an initial containment pressure of 2.0 psig for calculating  ! peak design-basis accident pressure, even though the plant technical specifications allow a -{ maximum operating pressure in containment of 3.0 psig, Assuming an initial containment  ! pressure of 3.0 psig results in a calculated peak accident pressure in excess of the  : containment design pressure described in the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR), Refuelina Practices Survey l 

                                                                                                                    \

In response to recent problems encountered at Millstone Unit 1 regarding compliance with i the UFSAR, during the spring of 1996, the NRC conducted a survey of licensee refueling j practices. During the course of this survey, the NRC determined that nine sites (15 units) { needed to modify their licensing basis or plant practices to ensure that their reload j practices were in compliance with their licensing basis. Deficiencies in the management of design bases assumptions were also noted in the i survey.~ Many plants were found to have aspects of their design and licensing bases that ) were only loosely proceduralized or .M procederalized at all. Typical of this kind of i discrepancy was the identification of a lack of procedures for controlling the assumptions regarding hold-up time before beginning fuel transfer. The NRC found a number of instances in which other design bases assumptions were not captured in procedures. In addition, licensees at 12 other sites (23 units) upgraded procedures to directly implement , the design bases assumptions. In other cases, the licensee performed engineering analyses, documented pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59, as necessary, to ensure that the planned activities would not exceed design bases assumptions. f l

q V (} Silt ? 

                                                                                                          $sA fe s'?ql 70cp D tafkVees sen 3) l EQB:                  The Commissioners fBQM:                 James M. Taylor -

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

ISSUANCE OF 10 CFR 50.54(f) LETTERS ON THE AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF DESIGN BASES INFORMATION PURPOSE: To request Commission approval of the staff's proposal to send 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters to utility chief executive officers (CEOs), including only Seabrook Unit 1 of Northeast Utilities' 

      . plants. These letters will cquire information to gain added confidence and assurance that plants are operated and maintained within the design basis of the plant and any deviations                            j are reconciled in a timely manner.                                                                                    l

SUMMARY

i Recent inspection findings have indicated that design bases information has not been appropriately maintained and implemented at certain plants and that this may have a , potential public health and safety impact. The staff is proposing to require information  ! from licensees regarding the availability and adequacy of design bases information to identify how engineering design and configuration control processes are examined; design l bases requirements are translated into operating, maintenance, and testing procedures; i performance of systems, structures, and components is verified to be within the design bases; and problem identification and implementation of corrective actions are handled. l l CONTACTS: Frank M. Akstulewicz, NRR 

        -(301)415-1136
        ' Eileen M. McKenna, NRR (301) 415-218g                                                                                         ,h
                                                                                                                   /

l', i , i  ! i* j The Commissioners - 2-l r ! BACKGROUND: n i . In the mid- to late 1980's, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) safety system

functional inspections (SSFis) at power reactor licensees 'and safety system outage

! modification inspections (SSOMis) raised concerns about design bases information not

being properly maintained and plant modifications being made without the licensee having  !

L an understanding of the plant design bases. The NRC's findings heightened the industry's . I l awareness of the need to improve the adequacy and availability of design documentation  ! ! and many licensees voluntarily initiated extensive efforts to improve their design bases information. j To assist the industry in performing these activities, the Nuclear Management and i j Resources Council (NUMARC), now the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), developed the j j guidance document, NUMARC 90-12, " Design Basis Program Guidelines." The document l outlined a standard framework for developing a program that collates design basis l 

                             ' information and supporting design information, but does not identify or recreate the licensing basis of the plant. In a letter dated November 9,1990, the staff concluded that j                              the guidelines would provide worthwhile insights to those utilities undertaking design bases                        j j                               programs and appeared to provide sufficient flexibility for licensees to structure their i                               programs to respond most efficiently to any unique needs and circumstances of a particular

[ license, in emphasizing the importance of validation of the facility against current design information, the staff stated that the goal of any program should be to establish confidence that the existing facility conforms to the cunent design I ases documents and that any identified deviations are reconciled. The staff also emphasized that design documents that support technical specification values and design documents necessary to support { operations or respond to events should be regenerated if missing. The staff requested that NUMARC consider making the design bases effort a NUMARC initiative. In SECY-91-364, 

                                " Design Basis Reconstitution" dated November 12,1991,the staff reported NUMARC's conclusion that an initiative was not necessary because most of their members were                                I already conducting or evaluating the need to conduct such programs. Although NUMARC decided not to pursue 4. formalinitiative, it agreed to 'orward the guidelines to its members                     I for use on a volunton y omsis.

To provide more information to the industry on this topic and to provide an independent view of the design control issue, the staff conducted a survey of six utilities and one l nuclear steem supply system vendor to determine the status of design control problems and the strengths and weaknesses of the sample utility programs. The results were j published in February 1991,in NUREG-1397,"An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Programs in the Nuclear Industry." The survey observations ' were: the need for a design documentation reconstitution program was directly proportional to the age of the plant; the general intent of the program should be to provide 1 i-1 4 ww * - .. - -+ -- + .+-.r. ,-~ , -.-.e . - - ~> . . . , - , . - . -v- -~ -- ----- - +

l.- The Commissioners

  • 4 .

l l a central location for design bases information, with emphasis on the design intent (the i why of the design); the design bases documents should be a top level directory which

define the current plant configuration; reestablishment of design bases without
re, constitution of the supporting design documents, as necessary, may not provide a j sufficient level of information for future modifications or current plant operation or to -

i quickly respond to operating events; and minor changes to the design should be tracked to 1 l - support the conclusion that the changes in the aggregate do not affect the validity of I j existing calculations and the ability of a system to perform its design functions. Some-l common weaknesses of licensee programs identified during the survey included: design , reconstitution programs had not identified in advance the documents that are necessary to

demonstrate that a structure, system, or component will function properly; the process for
regeneration of missing design documentation was not always proceduralized so that it
j. could be handled in a systematic manner; and validation of the content of specific output l- documentation was not always thoroughly carried out.

I 1 In late 1991, the Commission requested the staff to consider whether rulemaking, j l regulatory guidance, or a policy statement was needed to outline the NRC's expectations j i concerning accurate design bases documentation. In SECY-92-193," Design Bases 'I i Reconstitution" dated May 26,1992, the staff concluded that additional regulations were l } not needed because existing regulatory requirements for design control were sufficient, j L However, the staff proposed issuance of a policy statement and issuance, for public i comment, of a generic letter requesting licensees to describe their programs. Additionally, 4- SECY-92-193 documented the staff's intention to continue performing design-related

inspections. Also, the staff expected that planned revisions to the enforcement policy j guidance (to refrain from issuing civil penalties for violations up to Severity Level lit if the

! issues were identif!od and corrected as a result of systematic voluntary initiatives) would  ;

l. encourage licensees to identify past design, engineering, and installation issues. The j Commission responded in a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) on SECY-92-193 )

i which approved the staff's approach. j j in August 1992, the Commissicn issued the policy statement, " Availability and Adequacy j

of Design Bases information at Nuclear Power Plants" (57 FR 35455). The policy -

[ statement stressed the importance of maintaining current and accessible design ! documentation to ensure that (1) plant physical and functional characteristics are !. maintained and consistent with design bases, (2) systems, structures, and components can ! . perform their intended functions, and (3) the plant is operated in a manner consistent with  ; i '.the design bases. In the policy statement, the Commission stated that all power reactor i

licensees should assess the accessibility and adequacy of their design bases i documentation and be able to show that there is sufficient documentation to conclude that
the current facility configuration is consistent with the design bases. The policy statement
outlined further actions the staff would perform to keep apprised of industry's activities. j j

i i 

!                                                                                                                                              I l

i 4 ) i 4

4 4 . The Commissioners  ! I { Following review by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) and the 4 Commission, a draft generic letter was issued for public comment on March 24,1993.

The proposed generic letter requested licensees, on a voluntary basis, to submit 3- information and schedules for any design bases programs completed, planned, or being j conducted, or a rationale for not implementing such a program. All but one of the l commenters concluded that the generic letter was unnecessary and unwarranted.
NUMARC responded that it believed the NRC request for descriptions, schedules, and dates would have a negative impact on ongoing design efforts and that NRC's focus on schedules would undermine the licensees' ability to manage the activities.

l In SECY-93-292," Generic Letter on the Availability and Adequacy of Design Bases information" dated October 21,1993, the staff recommended the generic letter not be issued. The staff stated that publication of the policy statement and the proposed generic letter conveyed to the industry the Commission's concern, and that publication of the generic letter would not further licensees' awareness of the importance of the activities. The stati proposed to continue performing design-related inspections and to gather ' J 

                                !r. form::ti on and insights as to how well the licensee design-related programs were being implemented. The Commission issued an SRM which agreed with the staff's proposal.

In response to the findings relating to the regulatory burden of team inspections identified in the 1991 Regulatory impact Survey, during the past several years, the staff has reduced its effort on specific, resource-intensive, design-related team inspections, and followed the issue of accurate and accessible design documentation at plants principally as an element of inspection and followup of operations-related activities. The issuance of the NUMARC guidelines and ongoing industry efforts to improve and maintain design bases information l 

                               -al so contribute dto this d6 cision.

DISCUSSION: Beginning in late 1995, NRC identified information during a number of inspections at , different sites which indicated that design bases were not in some cases being l appropriately maintained or adhered to by some licensees. Contrary to earlier indications  ; and expectations, the staff now believes there are situations where licensees have not critically examined their design control and configuration measures. For example, i inspection teams identified a number of engineering calculations and analyses for key ] safety systems that were incorrect and did not confirm that safety system functional requirements would be met (resulting in inoperable safety systems on some occasions). i Numerous instances were identified where design basis information was not adequately translated into procedures, practices and drawings; the original design basis was inadequate and the original installation was incorrect; modifications were not installed in accordance with the design; and modifications were based on incorrect design assumptions. Additionally, cases were identified where quality assurance requirements and corrective action requirements had not been properly implemented to appropriately maintain design basis information. Details of the findings are outlined further in the attachment to the proposed letter. 

 ~~  - - . ~ . . - . - - . - . - - - - - - -                           . -    - - - -     - - . - - _ . - - .

i 

 - .                                                                                                          i l

!- l l :The Commissioners > l l l L  ! i j By letter dated August 2,' 1996, NEl informed the staff that an initiative had been approved

by the Nuclear Strategic issues Advisory Committee (consisting of chief nuclear officers) to j provide additional assurance and confidence that existing programs are adequate to ensure: l (1) plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis, (2) the licensing basis is  !

adequately maintained, (3) differences between the operating practices and licensing basis could not result in a significant public health and safety concern, and (4) degraded or nonconforming conditions are captured on tracking systems and resolved in a timely manner. The letter stated that each licensee would conduct an assessment of the program in place to reaffirm that plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis. In a letter dated August 14,1996, the NRC stated its concern that the proposed initiative may not be of sufficient scope and depth and that an in-depth vertical slice review of actual design basis documentation and comparison of "as-built" and i "as operated" safety systems would be more appropriate. The NRC confirmed its position j that it is the responsibility of individual licensees to know their licensing basis, to have i appropriate documentation that defines' their design bases and to have procedures for performing the necessary assessment of plant or procedure changes required by NRC regulations. Design and configuration deficiencies currently being identified at some plants indicate failures (1) to comply with the terms and conditions of licenses and NRC regulations and (2) to assure that Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports properly reflect the facilities. 1 These findings raise questions whether licensee programs to maintain configuration control { are sufficient to demonstrate that plant physical and functional characteristics are i consistent with the design bases and whether operating plants are being maintained in accordance with their design basis. The staff believes that reliance on the industry's voluntary efforts on improving design bases information, consistent with NUMARC 90-12, 

          - the staff's comments on the industry guidelines, and the Commission policy statement,             j may have not been sufficient to maintain configuration control at some' number of plants.          l These problems are of concern because of their potentialimpact on public health and               i safety,                                                                                           l i

Therefore, the staff proposes to send 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters (Attachment) to utility CEOs, including only Seabrook Unit 1 of Northeast Utilities' plants, which require licensees to j (1) subenit a description of any programs already completed, planned, or being conducted to ensure correctness and accessibility of the design bases information, or (2) submit a rationale for not implementing such a program and a description of the extent of design , information already obtained from suppliers and vendors, and (3) submit a schedule for the l completion date of any planned design reconstitution program. The program description  ; must identify how engineering design and configuration control processes are examined;  ! design bases requirements are translated into operating, maintenance, and testing  ! procedures; performance of structures, systems, and components is verified to be within i the design bases; and problem identification and implementation of corrective actions are i handled. The staff will use the information to prioritize and to better focus design-related ' inspections such as SSFis and SSOMis to verify compliance with the terms and conditions j of licenses, NRC regulations, and Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports. Such inspections  ; sample the process and products of design bases information programs and, therefore, j 

                                                                              ~
                                                                                               .I l

1 The Commissioners provide insiphts as to the effectiveness of licensee programs without reviewing the programs themselves. COORDINATION: in view of the need for timely information regarding this matter, comments or concurrence from the Advisory Committee for Reactor Safety (ACRS) were not sought. The CRGR was briefed on this action at an emergency meeting held on August 22,1996, and its comments have been incorporated.- The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and the enclosed sample letter and has no legal objection. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve issuance of the letters under the signature of either the Chairman, the EDO, or the Director, Nuclear Reactor Regu!ation. James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

Attachment:

Proposed 50.54(f) Letter to Licensees l i i I i m _ , , . _ . - . . - -- - 

-                                                                                                               i l

The Commissioners 1 1 4 provide insights as to the effectiveness of licensee programs without reviewing the programs themselves. COORDINATION: In view of the need for timely information regarding this matter, comments or concurrence from the Advisory Committee for Reactor Saf4.ty (ACRS) were not sought. The CRGR was briefed on this action at an emergency meetiog held on August 22,1996, and its comments have been incorporated. The Office of the General Counsel has revie.ved this i paper and the enclosed sample letter and has no legal objection. l RECOMMENDATION:  ; That the Commission approve issuance of the letters under the signature of either the Chairman, the EDO, or th.i Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation. l i i James M. Taylor  ; Executive Director j for Operations

Attachment:

Proposed 50.54(f) Letter to Licensees i i DOCUMENT NAME: G:\COMPAPER, G:\5054F.LTR T. ,ww . ,y .e em e ni mmo m e. wm c - copy without it.cnm.nt/.acio.u,. E - copy with it. chm.nti.ncio.ur. N - No copy 0FFICE 0:NRR OGC EDO NAME WRussell JTaylor DATE 8/ /96 8/ /96 8/ /96 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

, wtIi(feitPArE f* * *%,t - UNITED STATES af sim/n f F[a a/f, ve,wes , O s* E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION # 9.5V 44 E WASHINGTON D.C. 200eHo01  % Desh M  ! 4, (pw/Weob 3 vs 

       *****                                                                         p.// ym u)      )

[datel  ! [Name of Utility CEO) [ Title) (Utility Namel [ Utility Address)

SUBJECT:

7Dlq0UERI;FOR;MTION.NJoi!OlM60] "50L'EST N h ^90 nounsuANT TO 10 CF" 60,54(f) REGARDING ADEQUACY AND AVAILABILIT Y OF DESIGN BASES INFORMATIO N t

Dear Mr. [Namel:

Background:

In the mid- to late 1980's, NRC safety system functional inspections (SSFisi and safety system outage modification inspections (SSOMis) identified concerns that design bases information was not being properly maintained and plant modifications were being made without the licensee having an understanding of the plant design bases. The NRC findings heightened the industry's awareness of the need to improve the adequacy and availability of design documents, and many licensees voluntarily initiated extensive efforts to improve the design bases information for their plants. To assist the industry in performing design basis improvement programs, the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC)' developed a guidance document, NUMARC 90-12, " Design Basis Program Guidelines." These guidelines were intended to provide a standard framework for licensee programs to improve plant design bases 

         'NUMARC was consolidated into the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on March 23,1994.        7

m oto v 

  ~

p  % UNITED STATES s* E NUCLEAR REGULA 

     ,             i(n.2 The NRC staff reviepgggy, TORY COMMISSIONigng,provideo comments to N 5,               er 1990. In emphasizing the importance of validating the facility against current 4ppo formation, the staff stated that the goal of any program should be to establish confidence that the existing facility is in accordance with the current design documents and that any deviations be reconci!ed.iThe staff boncluded that the'NUMARC'guidelinss wesidWoVide worthwhile insights tol0tilities undertaking' design reconstitution girograms
                                          ~

and the guideline's' appeared to provide ' sufficient flexibility l foi licensees.to structure their programs to' respond most efficiently .to anp hnique.(needsjnd cir6umstances of a i 1 i j ) e l, 1 8As discussed in NUMARC 90-12, these programs or effcrts would emphasize collation of design basis information and the supporting design information, not the identification or recreation of the licensing basis for a plant or the regeneration of missing analyses and calculations. i 

                                                      ,o      a.A_m-_         _,e,.Jsmap-   a       .,as._   ._A   -   p      ,1.,;   d. A               uAw,J-        4,M    .4 J           _    g.,ms    a4w 4,-,i.- - -- A - Ae g 4

b e 4 e -'O' O 

               . . . . .             ..- 4                                                    ,

i t, l 3 

       , =
                                          ,. sn  .,',     ,-w~,

p' =a, rti,cu.3 lar,y,*>' h,F,cen. s'se' e. r,',, aA 

                , .       ,s 6
                         &&2 f
                                     . - - '
  • J-'--
                                                                                                                                                                    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       r.....
 ,     v .A -&  Sh.       .. ...         .M.. . m.M.

y h.& w M j MM v - a3 h. h. . w w& -g A.- w . h. .g h.A MM 

                                                                                                                 .. g AB
                                                                                                                       -v-g.MM             p .M M A M. M
                                                                                                                                           .www.       . h.

jh AM O.w.A w.. g.wg p.,3 A M y wiM M..M w 1 l i t 1 1 4 /

i Ns 4

1 1 T i 1 h i i 4 I 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 k. I 4 4 1 b el i I

. J i 1*  ; j Sh. in:=:? 2 1 f(  !

nd :h: ;u$Mn:: :;;::::d :: p :v!d: OufS:!:n:f!:255:y f0: !!::n:::: :: ::::::::: th:::

p=;==: :: n:;:nd ::: Off!:!:nt!y :: :ny an!;ur n::d: :nd :!:: =:::n::: Of : ; :t!:u!:: a leoenseer The staff requested NUMARC to consider making design reconstitution a formal l NUMARC initiative, and commented that design documents that support technical l specification values and design documents necessary to support operations or respond to i events should be regenerated if missing.INUMARC subesquiiiglidiuiolGWedilsfsifsrinal 

                                           ~

! iningelWiii6 shot neccesary because moeihi IOmembers were already epidupWng%r  ; i evalumusssMesedkoonduct doelen reconiatunosieregnuns!sidispeedifiswiiriths l l- SuldegegesM8Miglghommentikitimembnrdo[MMNelegtegshmie r ! "'????.C cut::;u:r:!y ::::: d:d th: : 10 =:! Sh!::!v: ::: n:: n:::::r y b:::ur: m::: }  :! l:: =::t:= ::::: :!:::2y :: 22::"^ ~~ :^:2 :'n; th: ::2 :::: 22:: 2::! :

i. n:: ::S; !:n p::;==:.W, MC f::r;::d:d th: ;r!d:Mn:: ;;hh th: S!P.C':

j  ::-- . :: 00 !! :Zi; f : 2: : 0 ';  !::7 b:i. l To provide more information to the industry on this topic and to provide an independent view of the design controlissue, the staff conducted a survey of six utilities and one , nuclear steam supply system vendor to determine the status of design control problems and the strengths and weaaesses of the sample utility programs. The results were published in February 1991,in NUREG-1397,"An Assessment of Design Control Practices and Design Reconstitution Programs in the Nuclear Industry." The survey observations l were: the need for a design documentation reconstitution program was directly i proportional to the age of the plant; the general intent of the program should be to provide ! a central location for design bases information, with emphasis on the design intent (the 1 why of the design); the design bases documents should be a top level directory that define l the current plant configuration; reestablishment of design bases without reconstitution of l the supporting design documents, as necnsary, may not provide a sufficient level of

i. Information for future modifications or current plant operation or to quickly respond to

! , operating events; minor changes to the rJesign should be tracked to support the conclusion j that the changes in aggregate do not aff ect the validity of existing calculations and the

ability of a system to perform its design functions. Some common weaknesses of licensee
programs identified during the survey included
design reconstitution progam:. had not  :

!, identified in advance the documents that are necessary to demonstrate that a structure, ) ! system, or component will function properly; the process for regeneration of missing i l design documentation was not always proceduralized so that it could be handled in a ! systematic manner; validation of the content of specific output documentation was not always thoroughly carried out, l l-i , in late 1991, the NRC staff evaluated whether rulemaking, guidance, or a policy statement l was needed to address the issue of licensees retaining accurate design bases information. ! It concluded that the existing regulatory requirements for design control were adequate; i j however, it determined that the publication of a policy statement addressing design bases . 

;                information and publication of a generic letter requesting licensees to describe their design                         i i                 reconstitution programs would be beneficial. Additionally,F W P P ' s ' ' ~ ~lli

[k [bNilj i i - l l l' 

         --y     -r-- te -.-- -- . , , - -    -,           m                .r.               -- -   , - - - .   -,.----..-,--.w . -

i l 5.ln:=: 3 9

52: :: :: . ::: d::!;;n ::::::! 2d: ;22:y d::!:;; h: ; d:: .;;;;5:::d ! :;:: !:n :::P l

eem The staff also expected that revisions to the enforcement policy  ;

guidance to provide greater opportunities for enforcement discretion8 would encourage l voluntary identification of past design, engineering, and installation issues by licensees. ,

With the Commission's approval, the staff proceeded with this approach.  ; i in August 1992, the NRC issued the policy statement,1%seRebRitf' Adequecy of N.N - M.N NN$NNM. 

               "^v:M:i:P:V :nd .^ ': ;r :y of C::!;n :::: !-f:r ::::n :: L':: ::: " r;;: .::::" '57 F

I l . i 36466h The policy statement stressed the importance of maintaining current and [ , accessible design documentation to ensure that (1) plant physical and functional 

                                                                            ~

l I l~ characteristics are maintained and consistent with design bases, (2) systems, structures, and components can perform their intended functions, and (3) the plant is operated in a  ; manner consistent with the design bases. In the policy statement, the Commission  ! recommended that all power reactor licensees assess the accessibility and adequacy of their design bases information and that they be able to show that there is sufficient ~ l documentation to conclude the current facility configuration is consistent with the design l bases. The policy statement outlined the additional actions the NRC would take to keep i apprised of industry's design reconstitution activities (discussed above). l Following review by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) and the l Commission, a draft generic letter was issued for public comment on March 24,1993. The proposed generic letter requested licensees, on a voluntary basis, to submit information and schedules for any design bases programs completed, planned, or being conducted or a rationale for not implementing such a program. All but one of the commenters concluded that the generic letter was unnecessary and unwarranted. NUMARC responded that it believed the NRC request for descriptions, 1 

               'd::::             :M 5: : : :;::!r: ' ;::: :n : ;:h; f::';n :":n: d trat dC': f::ve'en                                                               'l
h:Iz':: =cd unf:r'n: 05: !!::n::::' zi!Pty : =:::;: 05 :::!v!!! :. ,

In SECY-93-292," Generic Letter on the Availability and Adequacy of Design Bases information," the staff recommended the generic letter not be issued. The staff stated that publication of the policy statement and the proposed generic letter conveyed to the industry the Commission's concern and that publicatis n of the generic letter would not further licensees' awareness of the importance of the activities. The staff proposed to.  ! continue performing design-related inspections and to gather information and insights as to  ! how well the licensee design-related programs were being implemented.F ~ 7 ~1' l W l ',I.. L . -l .Ah l The C:m'::':n ':: :d @,cS!:5 ;n:d =!:5 :h: :::"': p :;::r'. 

               ~ *NRC would refrain from imposing civil pensities for violations up to Severity Level til if the violations were identified and corrected as a result of systematic voluntary initiatives.

i

1 t i L': In:m:} A 1 i i [ In response to the findings relating to the regulatory burden of team inspections identified i in the 1991 Regulatory impact Survey, during the past several years, the staff has reduced , i its effort on specific, resource-intensive, design-related team inspections, and followed the i i issue of accurate and accessible design documentation at plants principally as an element  ! of inspection and followup of operations-related activities.5TElsauence'of;th6;NUMARC I I Suidelinesindl ongoing ..IndustristfortiMMMWML Jnformatich l 3 alsolcontrhuted to this decision? 'h: !::::n : Of tS: NUh'^ Y u E5y 5'fs5Eis! .[:6: :dm:!rt:!n d::!;n 5:::: ?-f: :tE:!d:!!..pnd On;;!n; . 

                                                        ^

j  ::: ::rt-!but:d to tS!: 2::!:!:7. , Current Problem: 

                                       ~

L Over the past several months, NRC findings during inspections and reviews have identified  ; broad programmatic weaknesses that have resulted in design and configuration deficiencies 1 at a number of plants which could impact the operability of required equipment, raise unreviewed safety questions, or indicate discrepancies between the plant's updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) and the as-built or as-modified plant or plant operating

procedures. These inspections and reviews have also highlighted numerous instances i
where timely and complete implementation of corrective action for known degraded and a nonconforming conditions and for past violations of NRC requirements has not been evident. Overall, the NRC has found failures of some licensees (1) to appropriately
, maintain or adhere to plant licensing and design bases information, i (2) to comply with the terms and conditions of licenses and NRC regulations, and (3) to 1

I assure that UFSARs properly reflect the facilities. I!!stiiliSKaliGM!!L8ench!!~s#iiiW3d! int!8hdMi[7AttiihnggQstilt; - [MM - - " -- - - - - - ' - - !- Of : .: Of th: d:f!:!:n:!:: :::: .;!; id: tif!:d by th: et:f' As a consequence of this new information, .@$eWiirigg"gjgg( l .

-- - m l
!nf5!?d::!;n 55::: 'f:: . ti:n fer 05:!: ;!:nt: h::: n:t 5 :!! ::::: 5::n :ff::tiv:.

! The magnitude and scope of the problems that the NRC has identified raise concerns about the presence of similar design, configuration, and operability problems and the . j effectiveness of quality assurance programs industry-wide. Of particular concern is l

j. whether licensee programs to maintain configuration control are sufficient to demonstrate '

l' that plant physical and functional characteristics .sre consistent with the design bases and 3 whether operating plants are being maintained in accordance with their design basis. The i extent of licensee failures to maintain control and to idsntify and correct the failures in a l timely manner is of concern because of the potential impact on public health and safety 

                      'should safety systems not r == .d to @ " -s frora off-normalmod accident conditions.@

[ - M ) Fi $1b~e( K @ ^ M : : h .: n-  :: : ::::nt i ____.._..m -_.._m._..___......a. and continues to be, that it is the responsibility of individual licensees to know their 

;                       licensing basis, to have appropriate documentation that defines their design bases, and to a

n . Y l , - - _ _ __ . _ __ , . _ _ . _ _ _ . . - - - - -

l

  • I l
     . ln =c!                                     E I

1 i [ have procedures for performing the necess . sments of plant or procedure changes , required by NRC regulations.((Attachrse'~ '3'esikarfaiederit'lexshingsjof i corr 6epondencelbstWeenjJs 

       .E P .ECEO!'!G TEX' '.^!^.S O'!EO                                                           !

1 Colvin, NEl, and S. Jackson, NRC, regarding these subjects. i Action: 4 The NRC has concluded that it requires information that can be used to verify compliance with the terms and conditions of your license (s), NRC regulations, and the plant UFSAR(s), i and which may be used to decide whether to modify, suspend,[ciiFWokiW"sssfatind  ; 

   .licinseMKp%fsbiliWXf@itleWR@ oh@nyhor enforcornen)t                                              l
action'shoultik.taken or
:v he 50 Op07:fn;;

l l l i i l I 1

1 1

u. . .-.t........

____1, a. I i : . _ _ _ , _ i, , _ . ., _ . . . , . : : : . .,. _ . , . : : . : ._ , - . . z. . u........... 

     .. ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . .                        ._ . u.......
                                                                                                             . ._ ... _.. ...u,u. .._._
                                                                                                                                      . . C.__.
u. u _ ,. ._ . _ __ _ ., _

tekem Therefore, you are requiredJpursuant toi x - 

    @ ion 119@a[of$ torn (MdNN.of[1p% pu : :r' :: S:: tier 1S2(c) Of th                                                                                      ,
    .^':--!: En:rgy ^.:: Of 195', as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f){t6~suthit}}ss56nselt6
                                                            ^
    .thisletter,w. ithlen,.120. 'd. ev.s .from r. eceipt"of thi.if.letts.r? :: ceW: : :::;:n:: :: :5!: !:::::
     -                                    ~ .-                   ~-

wdhm-120 d:y: '.::- ::: !; Of :S!:!:::::. Your response must be written and signed under oath or affirmation. 4 1 j i I l 1 1 i l 4

i p 1 i n w a--1 

               .....t.W...W...                                                                                                                                                               .

s Please submit your response to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, with a copy to the appropriate Regional Administrator and the NRC Document Control Desk. The following information is required for each licensed unit: (1) a description of any design review or reconstitution programs,!includmg i.dentification"of--.t.he...;I.s.:.yst. ~: .. . i 

                                                                                                                                                                  -  e..,m, ..s..:/..str.:.uc,          t                - n w.U...r..e. s74. W~ _c.o.< m.v pon.e.,,n...ts.f.i.a..w,d..

cn< n .l l: ~ ~'pn.a..n,

J a _. :,: m m.: m, .La m...-_m m_J _in_. in..mi d.e.. sign attrib. _utes_ e,+ :_.mi. .
                                                                                                                                                           ..WW,     .J:_m . WW-.                          -WW..W.

WT .-W . ,W.W-.. W-W r.W-. .W.W. d;;;; T tt-Sut:: ' g seismic, . ., high-energy line break, moderate-energy line break), which have already been completed, are planned, or are being conducted to ensure the correctness and accessibility of the design bases information for your plant and to ensure that it is maintained current. If the program is planned or being conducted but has not been completed,fproVide' 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ... = .

systems ~_ ._ an ; an implementation,s h ce dule~.fo~r.,, . .-,tstructuresg.._d_com.--..ponentagand. plant-levelidssig6 sttribut(reviederWjupectedknpietio@s4 ~ l (--- 

                                   . 2.)s/;

t a rat. _ iona le fo_r:.._ . not 

                                                                                                               ,   g.
                                                                                                                               . . .- .amp
                                                                                                                        ' ' ' . , ,_ /           lem.,,p,       ' e.,ntm.gsuch. a pr.ogr.am.,,
                                                                                                                                                          -- f - '- , ,,, ,                                 '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        /   ,,,,f      ,

_ _if.. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ,j.,,a,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ;f;., no des..sen re.v.'g' w.or                  5'd--       d-.      *.' '

4 4.' .. , .. . - - Ths)ntvalannse carre piant processes:esponses'prWidedisursuant 6r programs:sddressthifonowing areas Wparticular )@sikeraphsMira (  ; insim.a.kh k Q-_ 'Y "' p iEnse siiW 

                                             '%..-'.'.)         ':n .f e sd'i
                                                                       ;'               ' } hn NUMARC90d2M

{ ,>p,--' t. A. * ' 

                                                                                                                                                                'f;'
                                                                                                                                                                   -            i'b*'W***hsta'*           fr%iwnmentsu W
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .W',%-                 $                     '

tiiis industry guidelinssi 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         %A*5'E*"""' '"S
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   *'                                                "N 1                                                                                            '.A                                      .

Isl?DescriptiorM9asinowingdesierWoonn e urspponeretseniss4 in.9cie. A ha d .#.n.'. sI..f m.w'e.'4,.'e'/. .'. . .h.l.m. p'.', s' w df,'.pnte.. m...e.p +n,s*,_. c.#.c, ..Fn..#/,m' ya..*.y tv(vv p i fi . 

                                                           -A                 A        a& a               mg a&Ama - - &                                  -m            m      ._a               g g gm                -a          ma           g hh g              ggh a yaam                      .&Aa-           ah                a h,J - m m a a WWW=ww ipww                                 TWT              w        WWWTUTW WTTW                                                FWWMF D vwiW5                                -yy-                   ,g     W33             wwwWW              WWWWWWTW                        WTFW               www       Tw5WW mm-_imafm_ J aem WWy4w                     rw W TW yT                  wwgWg f 8')1                18 ma n J -                             f.               ....!-**.m,                           , m e . . . e la. .a ? - - . - - - - - Lam L---

t , G ww,y - - W- WWygwwg 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       -a m J                   m jMg                               NTW         w-w,                   .         yyyswyV                      WE       y ywwawy g g y gu ygy                                      y w           ,yyy              3yyy             wwwy                       5                                            W m m6Im a mlm Emn --a                                                         I--_l- - - -aI-am ma i L                                               m _.-_--                                   -J               m J             --fme!-n mad o ka as 6 m m= 4 WWWTWW--rw                                WDF T                Fw3              Yy      ywywTWY"D 5Fg        wwww-'                 W         TW gi 4.FT4T                     Mr TFW           W      wwwwwT                     WWWWT             W'             W        W F4" %# I   %

m# a b. J-?-- f im. m e! . . . , k m . .. mLa In J 4.m- ska ..fam. me . m.dj WW W TW www= v yW3 WWWWWW WW WWWWW WWWWTTmw wp WWTF 99WW W DW WWW1 v 4.m w ww Mp = W'-f f ' l mi..a-- ikRO C Ol i .- J a. -J m, L!amma -_m!---. f A fcl m, .-LfL im am--IL8- =* W WWWTF gWVwwwg V WTTWWW WTTW WTWVv' 3yyg yyy yy,,,y gy gggg yy yy www w Wy w w iy---w=w WD 

                                                            *La LEOOOa.-                                                     Ja.

rA.,fE - W midIm m. m, 

                                                             .            W        .WWW                     v W1.ww.                        Wu                                .,.w.
                         - --      mh^',*^ma                        mm a a a                   A             -k.A e e a a ak .g& 8 Om maka m a m M m mk                                           a                  m .ek                           ab-k.m                    .       -AA                 - ---- b                             Ek W WFW       W wwpw              -wwy                       uww,www                            g.r gar =w-w==g aw 7 iuriW g ,                                       g.,       wyw         ] y g        WyyW               gmg          yWwyy                     yy,w,-                      -w         ,vwww                %WWW I      Elm.- f__                m.m m m al _ ama Im. al m. Imam                                                                       ma          am         m. m . .I m . m a l.                     mumm---                              J Im eka #9m -.-                                        I - m ! m .= .amll mas yw-wirVT TWg         WW    w-w                 WW              w=        W=wwwww                               3W4 ww 5l              WW              Twvrwwwag
  • wWrW w rw{w w,,ww WuVW w w w W- vweE

{w==w { ma ma - - _ a ._J m aL -- LI B #% J....--_a m. WDWWWWTTWT 5 WWFW WW9WWT T UW --wwwW T W4WWW5 

                                                              -_,_m.,--                                                  m, m__.__.__                                          J_,m_                       m_J               -__ m _ . .. m a , m _                                 .-_a.m.                     _.---__m_
                                       ,m
                                       ,W   l,                 _ W..                     ..W..W..                                                                                                                                                                                                               ,. wwwwwww, WT W......ww. ... www..                                                 W..W              wW.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ..w.W..W.                            ww.              ..W.
                                                              ' quem;; ic ce se s9 to CFa so 71te)gspsfmigmtgg3tysis M

y pp y- 

                                                                                                   . :.                             p :w
                                                                                                                                                                        .e         v.y f

__ ,- /,,'o,y,, 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        , ,. Jf.o  's    . /^

the,9 B 8 4 D '

e 9 R.A..,. f_ 

         ..... ...,.1, O

(c)l:.Wistionale"f.ori.. n,..,... ~ conc.idding~t. ha.t desidd. . bases fequirements a.re. .~trinst.ated i.nt,6. 

                                                                                                                                                                             . .                             ~.

oper__atin_, g, .__a. 

                                                             . , ,    ,x,__    _ _ M:_

o ._ .. .-gn -..e co.

o. ._. .en.,.
              ,,.u,           _ _ e _ . : _ _ _ _ av....
. . : _ _. _ . .s.. ...,.. .. _

ii 

                  ,           ... .. :. s. :.. .. :._._. . .u.. ..a.. _. :._. u. _. _. _.....         _ . _ ._. .,. .: .. _   __ _ _. . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . a : _ . _ _ _ _ . . . : _ _

maintenance, and testing procedures; cture (d!M2f_etio6a_lef#_ .. concluding tM_ayste. m,1s. t. ru.~de._ig_E,M_._6 and . . .. ...ance are consist..ent.wi.t. h the.. .s. n. b.ases.#s 

                                                                                                                                      -,1
                                                                                                                                                                .......,..,..m...    ,.,,,,.,:n..~,...,v,...       y...:.,....,
                     ) . .,, , , ... e. -. -.>,.- <. ,. . .. . . . . ....f. o. .m-
             ;f,e..y.n.                                                             i..ni.  , .. nti,-~
                                                                                    .. c. .,.d,, b.e.l.. e;. ,fic.         , . . . d. ., s.
                                                                                                              . .. . .. ,atio,.n.:.

a.n.c .^.- n, ta,t.,,i,o... ..n...-s . ' o..f.; 4 twe.- -ection: s...;. 

                                                                                                                                                                                           -cor.re.c..
                    -W' 4.,MIpro.,cesse..mII_

r; y 

                                                          .s .. .r p<r,o.. .
n. . .w. -
t. .
                                                                                                                                                                                             --r M _ _ I am . - k s:, a -
                                                              ......e.as. .......n.ma.s..                                                         l
                                                   .m                                 _ _

g., ... . k. 7a._... _.$..mm.._m.-s......m.s y.. .. 6a.a  : .. , 

                                                                                                                                                        . . > .kIm.. .. k.       .....g.
m. . ...m. _ m. ,a I

i 1 l l i i i l I

i } W.ln:r.: 9 f l (:) 5:nd!!n; cf pt:b!:r id:rt:fi:::!:n :nd 'T.;!:r.:rI::!:n of :::::::!r: :::!:n:, j including actions to determine the extent of problems, action to prevent l recurrence, and reporting to NRC; 1 ! lf)352tliif6veret eNeottwenese$of96UrTdGrrent"processee~hrijdiprograme"is l N N bases; design I 5 d h 'f)NMMh04kMAchneistentMM d:':: 'n:'!:n Of :h: : :::!! Off::': :n::: ef :h: l ,' pt:;::r : :d: ;r t:!y T.:!rt:fr:n;:S: !!::n: n; :nd

. dee'9n-beooet and - ,

d I 1' lgI3[fectione^elriIedy takersWMWtakenlinoisding tiestepentatidnfto! assure lthat ~ I WplantXbeingWasesM_imennerconsistentjii%Mdeolonbeseef 

                                 .......___m__,__.m....m_
                                  .m                                   __m..__m_<__
                                                                                                                               ~       )
                                        ......r..___..  .........7_.....        . . . . _ _ _ . . ,

This request is covered by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance i number.3150-OO11,which expires July 31,1997. The reporting burden for this collection j of information is estimated to average 400 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data

. needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of informaticn. Send comments l l regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, I including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6F33), U.S. N / lear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.  ;

} 20555-0001,and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, j

NEOB-10202 (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503.  ;

l The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a  ! j collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. i ! In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter I L and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), the Gelman  ! ! Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC, and in the local public document room (s) j for your f acility or facilities. ( i l l 1 I 

                                                                                                                                     ~

i 1 

                                                                                                        \

c **' b.:=:] 10- l l i 1 i If you have any questions about this matter, please contact the staff members listed be'ow, or the appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.  ! [Signatu,e] l 1 Attachments- l 1.TPolicy Statement lch'Avaitatiilitp?aikl%degsasy'6f! l 

   * ~1, Design Bases InfounstioiiWN6clea@ows@lafts                                                     I THE FOLLO?!'NG TEXT ?!^.S *.'OVED 2.

THE P .ECEO!NG TEXT Y!^.S '.'OVED Background on Recently loentified Problems THE FOLLOW!NG TEXT-Y!/.3 OVED 3. THE P .ECEO!NG TEXT ?!^S OVED Letter from J. Colvin (NEl) to S. Jackson (NRC) dated 8/2/96 f.S Letter from S. Jackson (NRC) to J. Colvin (NEI) I dated 8/14/96 i Contacts: Frank M. Akstulewicz, NRR (301)415-1136 Internet: fma@nrc. gov Eileen M. McKenna, NRR (310)415-2189 Internet: emm@nrc. gov Docket No(s). 50-xxx and 50-xxx cc: See next page [ applicable plant service list)

I f. I

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON RECENTLY IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS .

l i 1 1 I , Over the past several months, design and engineering information has been obtained which l . indicates that design bases at certain plants have not been appropriately maintained or adhered to. Some specific examples include: , i Millstone Units 1. 2, and 3 i [ 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     )

s i i Thefrecent NRC,inspectl6n'tearQsund.;ssa'mples%heraithsf6ARiehd[ des'ighibesosi ' I , informationidid~ .:not; agree;;with3fse'as-buitt' plant 7 operational _ _ _ . . 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ' procedures /snd'maintensoce                      _ . .                       ~

4 pr.ac. _!which%efe _ resolved th._ . more significantinconsistencie,sby,cor, sLthat regsiradanalysesfproc' dure rec.~ti~ngn - e l change,s/and e_ed~o.c_umentat, team;found_oth_er de; sign ion,&. Th . changes'io resolvedForiexamplefths Milindne UnitI 3!6psistiniprocedurssjequirsd "  ! I 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ~
                                                          %elt_urbine[drived.--la.ux ry aier.). .urup
isolation conflict,w %ith technical specificatioilia_'reqlfM.
             .                                           m.-
                                                                                      =

n uirements z forfopeduringicn.i_isplan_t . rabilitM_ _TheitsamLfound that conditio_ , cer.~tairiprotective~ rela eist: Millstone; Unit 23.wo. re not_'seiln"socordanosMithTthsi,desigri 

             ~                                                                                    . -
                                                                                                                                                                                -                - .                                               .                    =.                         - -                                    =~

, bases information&his.re.. . - -quired 're-enalysesTandlres.e: ting'of certainlelaysRBased  ; seam =*e firsdingidhollicensselinitistedilesiin chsnges s esseinancossfoir.nirbon.o 

                                         - -                                       .-                                            - -- ..                                                                    -                                 -                =                                 .              -

detions 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .. . .. .                        \
b. et.wseeen.:. t.he FSA. R.. ..a.a,nd. the"a. s-built. .,.pla.nt..lin.s. idding.c. h..a.,ngesit.o.. v..hyt e: design,,.~.o,f.. t... helm..n<illj
                      .            s.   . , , , . ,                                    -                     -
                                                                                                                                       .v             . . . . . . . - - .-               e.u          ,,

4 . . - . ,- -. , Unit'2 reactorLpro,tectionlsistem to. mee.t.thel design'ba,.sesW(i separation of redundant ~ channels and chang +es^tolthe^d~sigrioth ~ rispect t 

                                                                                                                                . .. -. . .                                                 -                                    -                                 =                                -

e f,theLMi ne U . ..- (post-loss o. f _c.oolant acc..i_ dent] LOC _A)) H.yd.rogen 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             . =

m~ .it. ors to me.et the on - 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ~ ~             de_s.                       ases for.                                             ,

lma-eam ~. b .e.s E b m ok a 

                                                                                                                                   " " ' " 'k !,s a m .p ""'

k ,s, $bb( ,% A 

                                                                                                                                                                                                       ' ~ " ' ~ " " * ~ " '~ ~'"' " "' ~  '"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .h     mJ kkbb~                                                            .
s. ...<.u......<.............m.,. . '"""8 I
m. -7m mm. e. I m ,m m..... L.a..ma m I.s.J im w-w . -1v-m e. n J e.k - --,g.

m e.'" ". 'm www 

                                                                                                                                                                    ' ,s
                                                                                                                                                                       ' ~,sJ e.,. a mmI,f. Jw...

a lImm --!m-. ,m..J 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         !,m m

J, a ,. , m J m J -...J a-wg,--w- 

                            .m m .m i m.m                                                    L.                                                         IJ
               .w....                     . . .           I , m m, J I
                                                           ..           ww ..               4.1v            . . L m w.,.---. Lm,
                                                                                                        .. .-                                             -w.       me.IK.I    -- A-.

me k,la e. k a a m e. i 1411I4.Imm-- 8 

                                                                                                                                                                                                         -                  -. -                                               ikij
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               . . 18.1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . . -, E       . AIllme  ......w m a n f tmIe.m-     -,

1, mO , .m .a. JwO. MmEImIm na T. L. s a a a. . - - --.w.w.w,-- Im m I.s,mI iM m 

                                                                                                                                    -     -.---..manm.--                              Im
                                                                                                                                                                                      . j I,a.m-.s.a      - ,I  . mm,e.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     - ,g --..

l.m a a m m 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               -.m-
m. J J m I mm m
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              --- g i _La a m as a-         __

m .= I J a m I,m J..,mm Jam...= 

            -_.- -                         ,m a m 6.I m ,.. .... -=..J e..na                   - - .      mtm4.Im. .. -, --.. ,. . k. mm .. .
e. .ay,wwww ,--

m 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     -,.m,-J            Lam.J.,m.m,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        . -....                 .w
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ...lf
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ..w.,            --

se I Jam I .m

  • J . -v_
                  .--             . . m e. m7.-v          ma l m .m m.m           a.--- JIsIma-aim    --..w...              m,.
                                                                                                                                      = = =JIl!

ww =,.. m.m6..m.a..m w. e. s.w I.a.m .m e e..II m .= ,6 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ..w= J. I. .s. w w w w. -- .a..m om.                                    ,.,.Iaka   .                     m.s s e, k, .- -y y,, m a.n           w    m   A.

v i. 8e eign; .ed!*!eetione beeed on %ce ree t deei gn ecu e mptione; end ide-t:8!entien e 8 Im m - -.mte -..ma- - - vum sm u m... m.m mm-- m a mm _ i m . 

                   'r-"""'"*F**""'                                                                 '" ' " " " ' '                    'W        "'" " * ' " ' "
                                                                                                                                                                                   """F'""'

k,l,D,f'* f . r- - m a L - me E AIll a m - I l I6 O IJ m maIKI J s mm4--aIml J-I-- J a i! ! - - - . . e La me m m ilJ Llm mi, 

             , - - - --*'"" "* - ' ' ' ' ' * " ' ' " " '                                                                                           ' " " ' * """ "                         F"*"'                 "'*' ---                     y-' "*-'-"Y                                              "* " "'" " ~ "
                         .*J.ima                                                                                  $1- a . J an wi          . ___-.                    m..a...y   l m a a . .,...w,I ! a e a f m.=                       . . --.      .'a ."I .,e.a,g,.           im w mI.,m il m e.I.m mw-
                                                                                                                                                                           .ww . - - -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .m L y.amma.__.w,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .= K
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              -1,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ....J-e.,-

m m mI -.. - - .."....ww am .. 19 mm Im m ilm... J .amma m.mm!J 

                    ._v. J _ , . i m e. . .mmmem!

m mma. ... ..y-www --. m,.. 

                                                                                                                                -w.       w w w -           m. .m...w.m     L. .m  ... .=      J-.-----                         7...                    ......-me.              . --,   a m .me. m !.mm.             . w.m e

L..J._-.. w y -i ,.. - w. 

                                                                     !a . J-
                                                                       .w,        -        .,g tem t'%
                                                                                                                    --         E.--...,y "mb.....

8I t% 

                                                                                                                                                                        .,      al Q --M D , k,il-R--m t.. .e.

J ,.... L A!Ilme .. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        - - - ,                       .     ....w.ww                  a.i m ie. mO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .                  a.i A

L.w .ie 

                                   . - .I. .-

LaaL .m 8 J 

              -..               e..                      w           6. L. a.m    L Igom L.7.....-
                                                                                  ,                   , a n - - - . .. m - --        m wI, m a. a,. I ..=.,I m m 4. I - --f,l,, l. D.O l. i, m-y.                          a .m a. .- .      .           .,w,m-mi
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ..w.

m,m J I. ..m m m bal = 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ..7.--.

J,mm =ma 6 La m . .m . .f m e I m.= 

              --. e. .m         -         s.ha.m  . 7.      ,.-. a f a l e.w - -g
                                                                                                      ,a l m ,.

a.b. a n-t, 2 50 ----1JI-9 L,m.mm. ,g e.k...wme.e.l..m -- m . m l,wwa,. - - J. ..I 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ""'W t.

mLaa*m 7.... s. mil.w.....* .> I,.m. .a l. a m. a.wa d. awwwm al._a m e.fl At'* 

                                                                                     .                                           ,-                 --r A.%, _ . . - IJa,           .a m e. .

Am ki n t* - . I .m l I .m . .m m a

  • I m ema ma h a ill-e m.m. I t. mis O Km . J I .= m e m .m - - - ..L-.m LIIi JIJ ..

r----' r---~' *" *' =* - * " " ' " "'" -- " ' " * 

              - - . - . yA .m a...y                k. . e.        .   . . . a a. m                .
                                                                                                       ..g.
                                                                                                               .h          m
n. ..k A.
                                                                                                                                                            '-*".""a.*Emwy.......,
                                                                                                                                                       ....m..-.-,.m     .e. a J
                                                                                                                                                                                                              '--'"'am"*='mamka.Akn----

km-- 7 .. ma 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  . .m a . .! .m mm Ah
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  W""
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       .h
               ....-I...-am---. . . . - . , - -m                       . .- .J!. Alm.ma.!. . . ...                    . e.k, ms. !.m. m           . .a.       ll- J e.L. ia--.O-imIe
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   .....f.-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   - - , . . .                        ... m e.-,. m l m e. .a l.,,. *........w m e. . . . a . . . . m- m-...y          . m. .a
                     , . - -                    tf J gm. .- - ! AL                                           --.IJ!-                      4- ma k                         kmi .e - .m L e m ma!- -                                   ti,m.                - - . . . .            -2..J                                       f        --alm.

r-r-----'"' r-*" F"---- *--- 'Wf ""* ---- '""* W '" " ' " ' ' ' F"' ' " * ' ' ""*' m.--* .ml . L.f m8 m. . III m m . .m..= me - m .d *J mi .a m 

               . . . ,               7..._ __.- ma!- .              . - . .                w          e. k..m -.         - - . - . y                 I. .- .. J. .. .* ... m e. m e ,,....y                       t.m   a m...mw. 7..,m.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 .                                   v,.        m._-       .6...      ., y Af.% --y-             J ma.-            ww Ja.
                   .- v- ....I .Jm.       Lai-y, a.L.           .

a .m T, &am - k l M #'t Lam 

                                  ....-..--                          .1.-
                                                                        . . .. . fJ -.a.aldt J.._ - ....._..

m .

  • 1m m .
                                                                                                                                  ...                          w.m I I m.m    .      e. .m .m .m.am L.a.m           .m. . .. .m e.k a- wm ,I g..

wi w Imm .al.J _. .I-,=,__k-.*.= .mm".-. . tm aL. . f E" aL. J Il J em J m m..ma. m, w, ..r. -1 g-f- at, Im. ma. - mil...w.ma L a, ...mm 1,.m m m.. m m e . 

                                                                                                                                                             . - - - . . . . , vi mm--l,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ---.7..                                    .- R I - . . .- m m
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      - - . ..                                . . .              w
                    --m.mm                     .=ImmaIm                      L t.m I- - .ml aomm 8, m m.m                                            Om                    mm...me4.m.m=-*Isemem                                               .6,I m , em ImamenilmaIm 7.-..-                    - . r r'-'W r- w-- ' " ' '                                                       - - " ' ' ' " ~ ' ' ' ' ' = ' = ' '                            ***'"P'                                  '"        "*---""*'f

     . . .             _                                 . _ ._. _ _. _                                                                   . __ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . .                                                                                                                                                                                      m.__.

J i . } . ..-... . . ._ :. u. .e. _ 

                                                             . .J
                                                                -. : .. .-. . u. m.._Jm.,_        . . . . - . .                      :._....me.:-
                                                                                                                                            . . . . ... . .. .         ... . . . u.: .-.u, ... .. :. ..A. .. u.                                          ...m g.... _ . -i.., ....mm._...__.     ..y..                      .      . . . : ...u.

e e. . t. .m m..m a. .m..mg.. 

              . .. . I                                                  .       t - f. . . m e. .

i s Haddam Neck y ..uw, - ev . - . e e., f.. Tho'. team found.,v... 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ,,.,-g,..,v                            i

! e es , wh,. . - v. .s .yere the FSAR. .s,s.and#e=. si , ses nfoim,j - mation,4 vdid n, .w o,,,.- .,t .- wi.thWoo-b. uilt_"plah_t/.o. perati6.%oced._sresf . gn hion;sgree ba-were .>v....s1. ! ~ resolv. .e..d ~..~' s'c. orrecting . th.~e.~do.cumenta,w.on6~.Th and mai ti-e: tea.m...~'id 1  ! W.Wo_o.lculatio,ns Land!an, alyse..s.. that;werejslied. l:.adequacy entified Le num.~b.e 

                                                                                              . -                                                      - y            -:.                  ~ --                              :                         -

n- ! upo.n~ to ens,ure,..e:th,.e.v. 6...f.ithe. 

                       .. = . . . . . . , . .                                ...        >~v.                                                        .
                                                                                                                                                                ..v...;         ~                    . . m:.s v                             .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             .- . . . . . . ..         s.           ~. . . . . . .                     . .n                   -                    ,

s 

                                         .. . . . . . . . , , . . . .                 .-       -                                     .w=: ,,

N

a . . . . . ~..s h
                                                                                                                                                                                                  . ~ . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           -- - . ,-[...~-s..                    ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ~

}' i

.  :;x. . - en. or@m.m..
                                                              *,a..'v              .              ..
                                                                                                          ..~'
                                                                                                                                    .~inferrnation,[8. ~nd t.h.e ,533Wn%on.,s .us. ed.k. .,-, - . .M~~. ....:<... . !
                                                                                                                                                                          ~ ,. ~ m v w 11 -O n -- J A -.:t 1C- - - S' e i nnewv
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        -   e~+.-                                                                                 i l

g *fh &A "' . L~-~'"' ~~~~ ' "" ' " ' ' " ' 'V" ' " ~ ' 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    . . - -                      !.I        - - - . 6: _                                          i
              .. .                       .                 n.a.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              """'"*F"""'                                                   '"V " "                                        1 j                                   ...s a
                                      . ....                 e..k.

kRn 

                                                                            . . . . r* . . . . . A e. k.

w ......- - 

                                                                                                                                                    .m.i. .... .
                                                                                                                                                    ..             -..:.,m                          ...A      .f.;.m.m. . .: . m.. .. ". *-          .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .m e..! . .! : m --..

m me . k.li tr.. U, . J J . , L.t . . i.n f.* e. .- e. ... i m - TL.m. . .y......f.f.I..--mme.Im.. . y.. . e. m . . E. m. m . . - - J .m .me. h. .m1. : m......g 

                                                                                                                                              .-i                    .....                                          . ..                      .m - - - r ,. - .. .- ..                . . ... .--. - . ., m J e. m. .!.A. - a. :4, y. .,

m 

                       ..I,..e.
                                                       -..J...I._
                                                               - . . . . . . .e.. m. o.                           . k..f. .. I.. f -.- .- . i.m                       Tk.m . . e. .m                 . .      IJ.m e.ts:m n .                     " ' "J
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      -.m---.6!...-tm--..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  = y ' " W' =' ' ' " ' ' " ' ' * * " ' ' * " " " " "w
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         .J j                                                       ,Imi-+Im..... . m #.                                                                                             . . .. I,
.7 me..m. -af .. i. . . . . . . . .k.l. D. f.* ...
  • u... ... .t ..e.m, ..,. - . .. .. . . .- - +. , f, i. n. t.' ED. C. A. . E. n . . , E. A. . '.'F 1. f, .,a t , . .n J.  ;

111 A 

                                              .. . -.- .J ,V,i.f f. .

i P- ,. e. m. . .... 4 q y y.mm. ..JIo .n -D e..m- -- 1. A f* ED. D ..,e.. ,C A.l!.=. -Jm. .. . %. . .m f.m..t. .. .. . . . . . 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .            .J          .      l....

g... ., 1 { 

                   . .J  . J   . m.  ..      :- .. L..-
                                            ,.                      - . J m. m. . . . - e.           . . . . . .                e. .:.- . F"

i t 1 T U.E- Ef.41.i.~f"M.A.f 

                               . .                                    f ..k.t/'* T. E.V.T   .             %.A.1 A..C &. .A./.'M.IEN Deficiencies were identified in the calculations                                                                                                                       . - -..

and analyses supporting the station .- l batteries, emergency diesel generatorsicontainment. cooling systemgan _._ __ .._d. ;ot er; k_s.afety h., ,. k_elculatior .s.. 

                                        , . . - , _ . - . . - , - . . . . - . - , , - . - . .                                                                                                ~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          -= ' .                                                    .
s.ystemse. isome; cases,. t . -.

J. nspec.ts.. 

                                                                                                                                . . .. . -,.on                      -, nd       =                    .; were                 resolvsd,._by?~re.                           -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ,L.th~nica .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ; .c                        .-
                                                                          }                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ,

issuesdMpxampleWtamm identified 1tEths design bases calauseelantsupportia s in gg. . . .,.~ . . , . , , . . 

                                                                                             ..,,3.s...             wg
                                                                                                                          %        g g-. c g               .s , z          , , . , ,       y
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         <   .,,y g..,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ..,y.on.... g. ....ww..      g.gf,37   ..

Addithmetawarapi,es[a_iWdocumentedWapacialteaminsis04 ton.. 'NiiiEhji@desii . 

           ~ _ _ . _ . .,                                _ _ _                                                                                            _._-.&-__._'        .

M [ . siias_iL T~4_ir$netfachsd_uk_ik_ThseelesseeT_M_deciais.N-ue Elit k. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . . . .. . -~-.
             - - n _-.9                                         ,,,,,

__ ~ _ . - . - - - __x . 1 

                 .--me......:. . :. m . .i.._4.:- - f. e..A D S, -i .. . . . . ,

m_. 

                                                                            .. . . . . . . ...                                                            .y...                                  .m
                                                                                                                                                                                                        . ,: m m
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ... 4. .. .i-f e u. .n,                           .y..m e. .- . . , . a 6. L.. . .y.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .                                       ..        4... . . ..
             ..J                 m---==--e-                                           -      .J=J em                        -,.--ame                     eka           --.---m.i                                     a m.m                a m            II- .             .i.ma--                           e - - - S m.              $. m            eka
                                 .....r"**-----                                                                           'Fr--*                   '"          ""'W""F                                   " " ' " " " " ' '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                'W *F"'"                                    " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' ' "

L - - - e. m......-.'.".."m,.l..me.:m. .mm ... ... . t . m e . J L. , 6 L f 

                . .,f . ...  - . a ! . . g .--                                             ... y                                                                  Tk. .m    .       6..,- y7           .- m  . .d.  . . J . .KInf....nf
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .                     ..      .-      ......-y                                .... . . . . .

e m .- 

                     ..l..J                 J e m L
                                                                           .! . .f ... ..,                              ..m-mmm............e.!........6.L..J.... .- ..J           .                                         .             _.. ........-a!...,       y......
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     .m
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  . . . 19
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              . . . . . . 4, L, ..a 5. .1.. .

m m-  ! J - . .ti .- lImakim J a m !-- k m . . I S m. -6I-- Tkm em - m m-ali .J J e L .4 ....l,. ... e.n. . . . . . . . . . =" rr'------ *- 

                                                                                                                                'w'           ---"" ' '" ' ' ' ' = ' ' ' ' ' '                                                                                                                                                        """ '*--""
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ]
= __!_ _ -.mm._____4- -
                                                                                                                                                               .-6.               _mJ                .      i _ m i,          as
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ".'_"_"L               tm."".*:"m=.==eu'm.=m'..'m'L-m__

m .J 

             -       i...y...--_'W             . . . '

FW'" " * ' " '7-'-"''" "" " " * - " "' **"'--' 's - ' i "' - w'"""3 "" J*a J-Tam ..m**-- m. JI _..m J 4L,. h.a.. .... .a f .- e. .m . . . . . .m:I 1 &.L...a _... ,.. 7......, mIa.k a n m m -6 IL. 6 mJ. e.m 

                                                                                                                                                                            .. .... ... . . . . . .                                                       . ..      w                 -...- a yl. ......-    .m                                                                   1 fJ - -aIKI J ......

t- J JI AI - J -  !- 

                                                                                                                                                             ...**e..ml...........L....._.,mm.
                                                                                                                                                                            .. .                                                                                     I.J---
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             "r---"*""#

J- a .-..!.i...  ! 

              ...--~.tm,                                         ...:...                              --a.m..t_...-                                L.,m..                 ..t              La             --                 e.4_.-                   Ju -me u--a:s.,4L--*                                                                                                        !
              -r----'F                                         """"#                           "" ' " ' ' " ' ' " "F                                  "'"'-'w'""'                                                     **-- "'" "' ***' ' 'F                                                                  * - - - -

i- .ua _ _ u _.:,: J --___ui:.. mm-mm.-_ . u . . . . . :. . . u m . _ e mu . . m i . . .. : . . -J 

                            . _ . . . . . . , .                 .u..m..m__.      . . . .                 . . . . .""                        "r---F                           " "'-- -"                            ' ' ' "
  • 7"
                   .                       Lm..m                  9 J
                ..L? L..... .. . . . . . - e. m. e.L. ..a . . . . . .
                                                                                                           .---               a         L. 4J m...-
                                                                                                                                    .a........                      . m. 8 U=JJ
                                                                                                                                                                                           ---..c L l =. m l, ' T L .=. =.'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           . .-                              ..                      .- .." ..'"'.-.***'!..G..J.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            " ' - ' - ~ ' 'I '1. g
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ' ' %, e.k. .a" ' . " "
                                                                                                                                                                                          . 2-

. 1 i 1 l pc .. ,. .. :. _. ., 4. . . . . . . u. .. .- ...... : _ . u. .,, e.u. 

                            . . . . . .                                        .       .      ., ,.,., ,:. _. .: ,_. .. ..a : . u.. , . . . u. .,. , .. u.
   .-_i___                                                                                                                                                                ...u
   . . . . . . . , i. .c. ,i. . u.. r ,. .. .. :. _. .i.. s. _... .. ... .          . ,u... .. .s i._ . ...        : . u. . .e.u. ..,. .,.
                                                                                                                                                       .   : . u.. . . . .. ..              ,, , . u. . ,,,.

eeMewwnent ,. ,_._. ,_, _, _ . ,. i.,_,. 

                                                            . ., ., o. .s,. ..u. . i: _ ,.
                                                                               . .                    . . _ .z.. ... : , , ,r.... . i n r. .*. .- ,u. .. ... ,_.,      . , .. ,_
   - . _.. _ : _ _ . , _ , . _ _ u. . . u., . . . .                                      . . . . .
                                                                      ...........r...r... . . , _. _. .: .. :. ... .. .. .. ,.. .. :.                         u. . a. s. u. . .,.
                                                                                                                                                                  . . .            D e.,, u.....

i , , , .. a. .i a. i . u. , 

        ._.:.i..c....u..,,._.,,.,.,.........i..:.,......_..,._.a...:,.:.___i:.,.,u.o.,

r...... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... . . . . , . evenh d 1 T. U.E.. DD.Et..'E.f.T. 

             . .                   i. k.it.'.* T. .E.V,T S.A., A..e R.A. A, S.IE.
                                                                            .          .- f%

Attachment 1 1 1 I l l j l 1 l i 2 1 1 5 

                                                                                                                                                                         \

4 i The :::m id:rt:fied : numb:: ef def! ! ncie: H th: engin::::ng c ! u!::! n: :nd an !y :: 

               ;5!:h v;:::::!!:d uper :: en ure th cdequccy of 50 de ign of key ::fc y cy:::m::t 9:dd:m N::k. Maine Yankee

) On January 10,1996, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order Suspending Authority for and Limiting Power Operation and Containment Pressure; and Demand for Information to the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company. The order was based, in part, on the NRC's determination that Maine Y:nkee did not apply a computer code, proposed to demonstrate compliance with the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) requirements of 10 CFR I l 50.46,in a manner conforming to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K,girj ^ ,i con. formancF.td.the.~c. o. n. d.. itio, n. s ~s.pshified.in'th. stets..f..f's ine. f,et.p esolus. . tis. h?d. a..tedl*Janu,_ary;30.l. 

             -         -                                              . .~          -                      -                                    .-

n:: n : nf::m:n:: :: th: : ndi:!:n: p !!!:d !- th: :::f": S:f::y Ev:!u::! n 'SE) d:::d J:nu:ry 30,1989. Specifically, the licensee did not demonstrate that the RELAP5YA code T will reliably calculate the peak cladding temperature for all break sizes in the small-break hs LOCA code,o p spectrum tions lse . .-lected~ en for . .. .. Maine 

                                                                   .dlothe,~r at   Yankee,Inorn
p. ifisatKmsLand-
                                                                                                   ;sens       .slth_sLiidinses
                                                                                                                . . . . . .  -~
                                                                                                                                . itivity studies sub,mitte.d%.~i.

tp,satisfg.t,i ! thelstaff'sisaldevalsatignl 4 ner h:: the !!::n::: ceSm :::d the je::M::t!:r f~ :S ced: Op:! n:::!::: d :nd et50: junt:fi ::!:n: :nd 0:n:! v tt / ::ud!:: t ::!:1; cond!!!:n: h t5: SE. i l in addition, the licensee assumed an initial containment pressure of 2.0)sig f6rialcUlstin.g 

                                                                  ..~~-.n.._.-

pas .. .. ~ pi. peairJde_s,ign. m .m . is ac,cident pr. e. .ssure, even th,oughlthe m- -- ca sh_titechru..... l sp~ecifications/ allo ~w .- - - - ..a. maximum; operating pressure;in c.ontain. ment of 3,0-p:!; fer e:!:u!:fn; p::k d::!gn b::!:

!d:rt pt:::ure :ver thou;5 the p!:r :::M!:0! Opecific t! n :!! 71: m::! mum i

l Op:: fng p::::ur; h cert:!rm:n ef 3.0 psig. Assuming an initial containment pressure of l J 3.0 psig results in a calculated peak accident pressure in excess of the containment design j i pressure described in the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR). = 

                                                                                                                                                                         \

n, j 4 d 4 a T i i f Y 4 e i a j .

Refueling Practices Survev In response to recent problems encountered at Millstone' Unit 1 regarding compliance with the UFSAR, during the spring of 1996, the NRC conducted a survey of licensee refueling practices. During the course of this survey, the NRC determined that nine sites (15 unit:) l needed to modify their licensing basis or plant practices to ensure that their reload l practices were in compliance with their licensing basis. I Deficiencies in the management of design bases assumptions were also noted in the survey. Many plants were found to have aspects of their design and licensing bases that were only loosely proceduralized or not proceduralized at all. Typical of this kind of discrepancy was the identification of a lack of procedures for controlling the assumptions I regarding hold-up time before beginning fuel transfer. The NRC found a number of instances in which other design bases assumptions were not captured in procedures. In addition,ilic6nssss im(12 othei5sitss]23l Units);^6pgraded#ccadurKt[Restl[@lenisnt gdesign bases / assumptions.' !!::n:::: :: 12 ::hcr !::: (23 ur: :) upgraded prc Odur:0

direct!y 9.p!:mer the d::!gn b:::: ::umpt!Oro in other cases, the licensee performed engineering analyses, documented pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59, as necessary, to ensure that the planned activities would not exceed design bases assumptions.i" L
     -                                                                                              I l

5- 

   -.- - .- -. -                         . -          -             - . - . -              - - - - - - . _ -                       _ _ - _ - ~ _ _ _

4 c L 

     '                                                               UNITED STATES

'- f 

                    *                 ]            NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasumorow o.c.memesm i

June 25, 1996 l i ' MEMORANDLM To: Office Directors 

                                                                                   -     i                                                              i FROM:              James M. Taylor Executive Dir                 for

[ i rations

SUBJECT:

SMALL BUSINE EGULATORY ENFORCEMENT FAIRNESS ACT I On March 29, 1996, the President signed the Small Business Regulatory ,1

Enforcement Fairness Act (Public Law 104-121). The Act requires Federal w i agencies (5 U.S.C Chanter to provide Congress 8). Ce Ac't's definitionwithof " rule" an oppnetunity h brn Q nough tn to Sview age r'

i fapture most of the NRC's aeneric action.s/Hewever, compliance wlth the Act i snouac not De an onerous burden. For example, most of the agency's generic actions can become effective as soon as they are sent to Congress for review. The aim of this memorandum is to establish as simple a process as possible for i assuring compliance with the Act. 1 For each final rule, an agency is required to submit to Congress a report ' containing a copy of the final rule, a concise general statement of the final j 1 i rule (including a statement indicating whether the action is a " major" rule) j and the effective date of the final rule. The report is to be submitted to sach House of Congress and the Comptroller General before the rule takes

~

effect. The report must be accompanied by any other relevant information required by another act or by an Executive Order. This would include any cost-benefit analyses, Regulatory Flexibility analyses, Paperwork Reduction Act statements, and any environmenta .ps g sg nts o p ta g ps. l The effective date for a na rules' may no earlier thC60 days after the date of Congre oceipt of the required material or i lication of the final rule in the Federal Register, whichever is later. legislation also establishes special Congressional procedures for the , disapproval of agency rules. The requirements concerning major rules are j applicable to all major final rules promulgated after March 1,1996. ! With limited exceptions, all final agency rules, policy statements, and agency i documents interpreting agency requirements are defined as " rules" for purposes 

 '                       of the Act. The Office of the General Counsel (0GC) has prepared a
                      . preliminary list of the type of NRC ' activities that meet the Act's definition of " rule * (Attachment 1). Please. mate that' the list is not exhaustive and that judgement may be necessary when determining whether an individual action i

This term is defined in Part ? of Attachment A to the Procedures for l 4 Complying With the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. (The procedures are appended to this memorandum.) g ( ) gt n c ?P0012 kV YY._

3 '.  ! ' is subject to the Act. Attachment 2, which was also prepared by OGC, lists l the type of NRC activities that are not rules for purposes of the Act. j 1 Under the Act, the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) is responsible for the determination of whether a rule is " major." The NRC will review with OMB j i the types of regulatory actions that may be considered major rules under this i-Act. For certain types of NRC actions, we anticipate obtaining generic i declarations from OMB that these actions are "non-major." For such rules, no further consultation with OMS would be required before submission of the rules - to the Congress and GAO. 1 Each office is required to take the following actions: l

1. Review the types of activities identified in Attachments 1 and 2 for i

which you are responsible to determine if there are other types of ' j actions that should be included on these lists. The criteria contained  ! in the Act for determining whether a rule is covered by the Act are set

forth in a footnote to Attachment 1. Provide any additional actions by i

July 9, 1996, to David L. Meyer, ADM, at Mail Stop T-6-D-59 (e-mail: ) l DLMI). For any type of action that you believe should be moved from Attachment I to Attachment 2 or vice versa, provide an explanation. !- 2. Assign an individual within your office to serve as the central point of i contact for all activities relating to the Act and the procedures for i ensuring compliance with the Act. Provide the name of this individual i by July 9,1996, to David L. Meyer. Once the office contacts are i i identified, Mr. Meyer will convene a meeting of these office contacts to , j discuss in detail the procedures for compliance. { ! 3. Prepare a summary description for each final action subject to the Act l for which your office is responsible that you will issue within the next i 90 days from the date of this memorandum. Provide this list by July 9, 1996, to David L. Meyer. Use the format presented as Attachment B to the Procedures for Complyt..g With the Small Business Regulatory i Enforcement Fairness Act for the summary description. 

                                                                                                             ~

You may direct questions concerning potential candidates for inclus%n in the

list of activities or requests for clarification concerning listed items to Steven F. Crockett, Office of the General Counsel, at 415-1620 (e-mail
SFC).

4 j The NRC has established the attached interim procedures to ensure compliance with the Act. Please review your internal office procedures that control the l 1 development of the types of actions covered by the Act that are under your purview and make any changes necessary to ensure that these actions comply i with the Act. The internal procedures must include provisions for retaining l the records necessary to verify the contact with OMB, the determination of ! whether the action is a major rule, and the transmittal of the letters to Congress and the GAD. { 4 4

_ . . . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ .. _ _ _ _... _ _ . _ _ __ _ . _ . _ .. _ _ _ . _ ~ l i i Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch.Your staff may direct q i Attachments: i 1. i Agency Statements that are rules for the purposes of the 58FA

2. Agency j 3.

statements that are not rules under the 58FA Procedures for complying with the 58FA cc: Regional Administrators { 0GC SECY OCA

l. -

3 DISTRIBUTION: (w/ attachments) ED0 R/F i A0 R/F j W11 son, OEDO DA111 son, AE00 l l JHolloway, OC I

JGray, DE
Ptohaus, OSP 1 SCorne11, NMSS l j AEiss, NMSS
MCase, NRR i EGoodwin, NRR JShapaker,NRR i JTelford, RES

! WD1mstead, OGC , TRothsch11d, 0G Scrocket. 0GC i Abates, SECY ! LGerke, DCA ! DNeyer, ADM ! i i l l i i i s, E A:\CONGREV.PR0 i 

                                     *See previous concurrence i         ADM            OED0                            0GC                   00         E l         DMeyer*        Wilson
  • Wolmstead* J JT lor l 6/20/96 6/20/96 6/20/96 6 P6 i

6g'/96 ' 4 1 

  ~

j Your staff may direct questions concerning these procedures to David L. Meyer, j Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, ADM (415-7165) or (e-mail: DLMI). ! Attachments: i 1. Agency Statements that are rules for the purposes of the SBFA , 2. Agency statements that are not rules under the SBFA l 3. Procedures for complying with the SBFA 1 cc: Chairinan Jackson- ! Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dieus Regional Administrators OGC SECY ! OCA l

DISTRIBUTION: (w/ attachments)

EDO R/F A0 R/F i Wilson, OEDO ! DAllison, AE00 4 JHolloway, OC i JGray, OE l PLohaus, OSP SCornell, NMSS 4 AEiss, NMSS i MCase, NRR i EGoodwin, NRR J$hapaker,NRR JTelford, RES W0lmstead. 0GC . TRothschild, 0GC 

            $ Crocket, OGC fBates, SECY LGerke, OCA DMeyer, ADM
                                                                      ^

A:\CONGREV.PR0 . ADM M DED0x i A0 OED0 EDO DMeyer Wilson ' m&tead J8 aha JTaylor 6/p/96 6/,14/96 6/14/96 6/ /96 6/ /96

i Attachment 1 AqencyStatements\thatareRuleA for Purposes of the Smal' ! Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBFA)* [ Final rules that impose legal obligations on regulated parties, i whether the rules are issued after notice and public procedure or not Final rules that impose legal obligations on regulated parties but which the President has declared necessary under sec. 801 of the Act Interpretive rules, like those in 10 CFR Part 8 NUREGs that interpret law i Regulatory guides i Small entity compliance guides required by sec. 312 of the Act NRC endorsements of industry guidance

Policy Stata= ants i

i Bu1Tetins and generic letters that provide new interpretations of law or )

  • po11cvJ a2 j.s k ,+ g., w n J 77 su mance documents like St[ndarb m a 4 Review dans..u u dueor gM,A-i Agreements under Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act <MM 43 a. + '"*"' ,
                                                                                                                                            > ~g5 '   ** T[                 I
Branch technical positions / Technical positions a% d Topical reports 7.fr & # ^Y '"" N Agn ch e to the following documents that "substantially affects" NRC f nual # ^

l NRC Inspection Manual %%W 4%% ~ 01 Investigators' Manual M 4 DIG Investigators' Manual The following Management Directives: i 3.1 Freedom of Information Act 3.2 Privacy Act j 3.4 I Release of Information to the Public ' i 3.5 Public Attendance at Certain Meetings Involving the NRC Staff 4 3.10 Processing Proprietary Information Claims i i 3.53 NRC Records Management Program 1 5.1 Intergovernmental Consultation i

a 5.2 j Memoranda of Understanding with States ~

5.6 t

  • Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation i 5.7 Technical Assistance to Agreement States 6.3 The Rulemaking Process
                        .        7.1     Tort Claims Against the United States 7.2     Claims for Personal Property Loss or Dasage 7.4     Reporting Suspected Wrongdoing and Processing OIG Referrals i

8.1 Abnormal Occurrence Reporting Procedure ,~ 8.2 NRC Incident Response Program 8.3 NRC Incident Investigatidn Program . t , 8.6 Systematic Assessment o6 8.7 NRC Diagnostic Evaluati$n,. Licensee Performance Program i " 8.8 Management of Allegations 8.g Accident Investigation i 8.10 NRC Medical Event Assessment Program 8.11 Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions l 8.12 Decommissioning Financial Assurance Instrument Security Program i 

         ,                                                         m                       _.                        _

11.1 NRC Acquisition of Supplies and Services 11.2 Receipt and Handling of Unsolicited Proposals 11.3 NRC Review of Contractor Invoices I 11.4 NRC Small and Disadvantaged Business Program 11.5 NRC Instructions for Implementing OMB Circular A-76 Performance of Commercial Activities , 11.6 Financial Assistance Program II.7 NRC Procedures for Placement and Monitoring of Work With the Department of Energy l l 13.6 Public Use of the NRC Two White Flint North Auditorium ' l l 

              *This list is not exhaustive. Whether a given document is a " rule"                                 ,

under the Act deiends on its_ substance, not its name. Therefore, the distinctions drrwn in Attachments and 2 are not hard and fast, and these lists must be used with judgement. Under the Art a " rule" is the whole or a part of a final agency statement of@l aco' 'cahuitv/and future effect 1 desinned to imp 1= ant. interpret. or crescr~ibe or policy; but the term j QvF udes rules of part- cu' ar applicabiliD (incl ding product approvals), rules of agency manag innu or personnel, and ru es of agency organization, procedure, or practic that do not substantiall affect the rights nr obligations of extern 1 parties (sec. 804(4)). 

                                                 + p,sif) bAr + As*b N'
                                      '            r 947
                                                     *o it

l. i I l. s i Attachment 2 i l I Agency Statements that are not Rules under the SBFA* Commission or ASLBP adjudicatory rulings.  ! Court briefs and pleadings l Orders, including those applicable to more than one party  ! Enforcement orders i Directors' Decisions under 10 CFR sec. 2.206 Licenses and license amendments 1 Design Certifications under 10 CFR Part 52 preliminary and Final Design Approvals Exemptions under 10 CFR sec. 50.12 and analogous sections Notices of Enforcement Discretion Rules or statements of agency management and personnel, like 10 CFR Part 1 Management Directives that do not "substantially affect" rights or obligations of non-agency parties i Internal Commission Precedures Any change to the following documents that does not "substantially affect" rights or obligations of non-agency parties: NRC Enforcement nanual NRC Inspection Manual 01 Investigators' Manual 1 OIG Investigators' Manual l CRGR Charter 1 Bulletinsor policy and generic letters that do not provide new interpretations of law Office Letters  ! Backfit analysis procedures 

                                                                                                                            ~

Purely administrative issuances, such as corrective notices or compilations of previously issued materials Interagency MOUs Agreements under Section 2741 of the Atomic Energy Act i Management Directives not listed in Attachment 1 i 

                                     *This list is not exhaustive. Whether a given document is a " rule" under the Act depends on its substance, not its name. Therefore, the distinctions drawn in Attachments 1 ' 2 are not hard and fast, and these lists must be used with judgement.                     er the Act, a " rule" is the whole or a part of a final agency statement of general applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy; but the term excludes rules of particular applicability (including product approvals),

rules of agency management or psrsonnel, and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of external parties (sec. 804(4)).

i . 4 j PROCEDURES FOR COMPLYING WITH THE l SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT FAIRNESS ACT ] Determine if a final action is subiect to the Act's reauirements { 1. The lead office must exercise judgement.in determining whether the final action is subject to the requirements of the Act. Please note that the preliminary lists of documents (Attachments I and 2 to the memorandum from the EDO to office directors dated June 25 1996) are not exhaustive and that inclusion on the lists as either cover,ed or not covered is merely presumptive, not definitive. Use Part 1 of the Record of Compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Attachment A) to aid in making this decision. { 2. If you determine that a final action is covered by the Act, follow the l 3 procedures'under "0MB Review" below. 3. If you determine that a final action is not covered by the Act, forward j a copy of the Record of Compliance and a brief description of the action to the Rules Review and Directives Branch (RRDB), Office of Administration, Mail Stop T-6-D59. 1 J j OMB Review

1. Prepare a brief description using the format presented in Attachment B i

for each final action covered by the Act. Forward the description to

the person in your office designated as the point of contact. The i description should include your office's recommendation as to whether i

the action is a " major rule" as defined by the Act. The Rulemaking Plan 3 and the draft regulatory analysis should provide sufficieni, information

j. to make this determination. <

2. On the first work day of each month, the office contact shall forward a j compilation of final actions for that office to RRDB Mail Stop T-6-D59. The submission must include a paper copy of the compilation and a disk j that presents the compilation as a Wordperfect file (Version 5.1 is preferred). 4

3. RRDB will provide the Associate General Counsel for Licensing and i

Regulation with a combined list of actions for the NRC at the same time j 

                  .the list is forwarded for 0MB (onsideration.
4. RRDB will coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget the determination of whether any action is considered a " major rule."

i 

      .                                                                                                                               \

A 

)   -

! 5. I 

!-                                     RRD8              will inform the office contact and the Associate General C for Licensing and regulation if OMB review of an action results in a l

change in the determination of an action as a " major rule " , 6. j I If a Federal Register notice is either required or routinely prepared 4 for an action covered by the Act, the Federal Register notice must 1 contain a statement as to whether the action is a major rule, and the s !' notice must confirm that the NRC has verified this determination witl OMB.  : The statement must be included whether the Federal Register notice i publishes the text of the final action in its entirety or simply  ! announces the availability of the final action. I rossional notification letter P IF(N W e~ 1 t 

                                                                                 - Q Ascs            ??

i 1. ! The staff shall prepare letters to the Speaker of the House, the

President of the Senate, and the General Counsel of the General

! Accounting action. Office that transmit the required information for each is a sample Attachment letter for C anisaction the standard that is a list of addressees. 

                                                                                              " major                 Attachment D rule." Attachment

! E 1 is a sample lettar for an action that is a non-major rule. j 2. ! The letters for a major rule must be pr3 oared for the Chairman's signature. Letters for all non-major rules must be prepared for the

signature of the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs (0CA). Each Commissioner, OGC, and RRDB/ADM must be included on the distribution list for each of these letters.

3. i These letters are in addition to the standard notification letters to i the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Committee on Commerce, United States House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate prepared in accordance with { Section 303 of the Atomic Energy Act. 1 4. 3 Copies of the proposed letters must be included in the concurrence package for the final action. appropriate level for the final Concurrence action. must be obtained at the j

  • If the final action is approved at the Commission or the EDO level, proposed letters must be included as an attachment to the
  • Commission paper or the memorandum requesting ED0 action.
If the final action is approved at the staff level, the letters i must signed. receive concurrence at the same level at which the action is j
  • j Thefinalconcurrenceblos)shouldbepreparedfortheDirector, OCA.

' 'A j Transmittina the letters and issuina the final action. i 1. Final actions that are published or noticed in the Federal Register. i 

}

l .- l Final package - When the final action is submitted for signature { 4 readypublication, and for signature the submittal package must include final letters letters, and three c,oa copy of the concurrence page for the  ! i

  • Commission Approval pies of each of the required enclosures, i

^ If the action is approved at the Commission level, RR08 will forward the Senate, House, and GA0 letters to DCA 4

for signature and transmittal to Congress and the SA0 at the same time the Federal Register notice is forwarded to the Office of the i
  • Secretary for signature and transmittal for publication.  ;

! ED0 Approval - If the action is approved at the EDO or staff  ! . level, RRDB will forward the Senate, House, and GA0 letters to OCA' i for signature and transmittal to Congress and the GA0 at the same i time theRegister Federal Federal Register notice is forwarded to the Office of the Concurrence page for publication. , i RRDB will forward a copy of the completed i concurrence page for the letters to the issuing office. The 4 l issuing office subject willthe file for retain the completed concurrence page in the action. 1 2. } Final actions that are not published or noticed in the Federal Register. j The issuing official signs and dates the final action. However,

the final actions areaction is not issued or distributed until the following completed

i i I i- The issuing office forwards the Senate, House, and GAO i i letters to DCA for signature and transmittal to Congress and the GA0. The package must include three copies of the j l signed action as well as three copies of each required attachment. i i .

  • OCA will forward a copy of the completed concurrence page for the letters to the issuing office. The issuing office i will retain the completed concurrence page in the subject file for the action.  !

When the issuing office receives the completed ;rfence page for the letters, the issuing office shall then issue  ; and distribute the final action.  ; l Differences bet = n a "maior" rule and a "non-maior" rule For " major" rules: i 1. A Federal Register notice of final action must be prepared. 2. The Chairman shall sign the 5 Ate, House,andGA0 letters. 3. The letters will be forwarded for the Chairman's signature when the Federal Register notice for the final action is forwarded to the Office of the Secretary for signature.  !

4. A final action may become effective no earlier than 60 days after the date of Congressional receipt of the required material or publication of the final action in the Federal Register, whichever is later. For "non-major" rules: 1. A Federal Register notice of the final action may not be required or routinely prepared. Follow normal agency practice concerning the preparation of a Federal Register notice.

2. The Director, OCA shall sign the Senate, House, and GAO letters.

3. The letters will be forwarded for the signature of the Director, OCA when either a Federal Register notice for the final action is forwarded for signature and publication or when issuing office signs and dates the final action.

4. The NRC chooses an appropriate effective date. This effective date must be after the required submittals to Congress and the GAO.

l O e 46

i ATTAC MENT A - RECORD OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SMALL BUSINES ENFORCEMENT FAIRNESS ACT J TITLE OF ACTION: '

RIN OR NRC ID NUMBER
Part I - Applicability determination.

Indicate whether, in your judgement, the Act applies to this final action. If you indicate that the Act does not apply, you must also indicate the reason

for this determination.

l The requirements of the Act are not applicable to this final action. Indicate the reason for this determination, sign and date this record, and retain a copy of this record in the subject file for this action. The action does not provide any new interpretation of law or policy i J The action applies to a specific licensee or individual. j The action approves a product. 1 The action is a rule of agency management or personnel. I The action is a rule of agency organization, procedure or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of external parties. The requirements of the Act apply to this final action becaan it is the whole or part of a hnal agency action that has general applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy. Continue with Parts 2-5. Signed: Dated: Part 2 - Major rule determination. Thefinalactionisnota"safdfrule"asdefinedin5U.S.C.804(2). The final action is a " major rule" as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804 (2) because the final action has resulted or is likely to result in--

i An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more A major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State or local government agencies, or geographic regions Significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets , Signed: Dated: Part 3 - 0MB confirmation of NRC determination. __(date)__ Summary of final action prepared __(date)__ Summary of final action was forwarded to RRDB __(date)__ OMB response received 4 A OMP confirmed NRC determination

OMB overturned NRC determination Signed:

Dated: i

Part 4 - Congressional notification.

i __(date)__ Letters to the House, Senate, and GAO have been prepared and included in the concurrence package for the final action 4- __(date)__ Appropriate concurrences have been obtained for the letters __(date)__ Final action submitted for publication or signed by issuing , official __(date)__ Letters submitted to DCA for signature j ,__(dat e)__, Letters transmitted to the House, Senate, and GAO 

         ,__  (date)__ Final action published or issued s
                                                  +

Signed: Dated: i a 

                 '                                                                                                               1 4     .

i .- 4 ATTACMENT B - FORMAT FOR DESCRIBING FINAL RULES l 0 l i AGENCY: I Nuclear Regulatory Commission

TITLE OF ACTION: Import and Export of Radioactive Naterial 1

j LEVEL 0F SIGNIFICANCE: Not a major rule UPCWIING ACTION: Final rule i RIN: 3150-AD66 l ESTIMATED DATE OF ISSUANCE: July 1996 . l STATUTORY OR 1

I JUDICIAL DEADLINE
None '

[ 1 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: 1 The final rule will strengthen the Commission's control over radioactive waste i ! coming into and leaving the United States by requiring specific NRC-licensing of radioactive waste imports and exports. The final rule will help to ensure , that transactions involving the import and export of radioactive waste are j subject to the approval of the U.S. Government and the consent of other j involved parties. The new regulations will conform U.S. policies with the i IAEA approved voluntary Code of Practice, which was adopted to guide Nation ! States in the development of policies and laws on the transboundary shipments i of radioactive wastes, i l [ Note: If the final action is not a final rule, substitute an agency j identification number, such as docket number or regulatory guide mi-*, for the RIN.) i t 1 h i i 1 ) I i 1 

                                                                     -                     ,n-   r .e -     e-.          ,

 .'l ATTACHMENT          C - ADDRESSEES FOR LETTERS TRANSMITTING F CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW The Honorable Newt Gingrich Speaker of the United States House of Representatives                                                   '

Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Al Gore President of the United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Mr. Robert P. Murphy General Counsel ' General Accounting Office Room 7175 441 G St., NW. Washington. DC 20548 I l 

                                          +

   .. I

.f ATTACMENT D - SAMPLE LETTER FOR A MAJOR RULE i i Mr. Robert P. Murphy General Counsel i General Accounting Office Room 7175 441 G St., NW.

Washington, DC 20548 -

1

Dear Mr. Murphy:

l Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness

Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is submitting a " major rule' to comply with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2214. OBRA-90 requires that the NRC i

recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority, less the ] appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund, for each fiscal year 1991 through i 1998 by assessing license and annual fees. For FY 1996, the NRC must collect approximately $462 million through these fees. Two types of fees are assessed. Applicants and licensees are charged for specific services, such as licensing reviews, that are provided by the NRC. -In addition, the NRC assesses an annual fee to its licensees, lar cannot be attributed to specific licensees. gely to recover generic costs that We have determined that this rule is a " major rule" as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804 i (2). We have confirmed this determination with the Office of Management and Budget. , Enclosed is a copy of the final FY 1996 rule, which is being transmitted to the Federal R6gister for publication. Appendix A of the rule includes a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. This final rule is scheduled to become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson

Enclosure:

Final FY 1996 Fee Rule * [ Note: If Regulatory Analysis, or similar analysis, is prepared for the final rule, it must also be enclosed with each *, of these three letters.) 

                                                          "Y*

l :? ' l i 

!
  • j ATTACWlENT E - SAMPLE LETTER FOR A NON-MAJOR RULE  !

i Mr. Robert P. Murphy General Counsel General Accounting Office Room 7175 441 G St., NW. Washington, DC 20548

Dear Mr. Murphy:

i Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 1 Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is i submitting a final rule that will strengthen the Commission's control over < radioactive waste coming into and leaving the United States by requiring specific NRC licensing of radioactive waste imports and exports. The final rule will help to ensure that transactions involving the import and export of radioactive waste are subject to the approval of the U.S. Government and the

consent of other involved parties. The new regulations will conform U.S.

policies with the IAEA approved voluntary Code of Practice, which was adopted to guide Nation States in the development of policies and laws on the  ! . transboundary shipments of radioactive wastes. j We have determined that this rule is not a " major rule" as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). We have confirmed this determination with the Office of Management and Budget. ! i Enclosed is a copy of the final rule, which is being transmitted to the l

Federal Register for publication. j
included in the final rule. Also. The Regulatory Flexibility Certification is enclosed is a copy of the regulatory l i

Analysis for this final rule that contains the NRC's cost-benefit determinations. This final rule is scheduled to become effective 30 days  ; i after publication in the Federal Register. l Sincerely, 1 l l Dennis K. Rathbun, Director  ! Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosures:

Final Rule Regulatory Analysis i y j d- I i 4 I i 4

August 21, 1996 Note: CRGR Members i (Edward Jordan. Frank Miraglia. Joseph Murphy. Charles W. Hehl. 1 Malcolm Knapp. Dennis Dambly)  ! From: Brian Grimes. NRR

SUBJECT:

DOCUMENTS FOR EXIGENT CRGR MEETING Attached are electronic versions of the draft Commission paper and sample i letter to licensees that are the subject of the CRGR meeting scheduled for . August 22, 1996. This is sensitive material and is not to be further l l distributed inside or outside the NRC. cc: J. Conran V. McCree , F. Miraglia ) ! L. Chandler 1 l  ! l l l l i l n k 

   '9-702 /7ajSg

From: Frank Akstulewicz, #44 To: TWD1.TWP4.JHC Date: 8/22/96 2:11pnr/ h ' g/rp p .

Subject:

Revised Documents  ! Attached are copies of the documents from this a.m. revised to include the CRGR comments. We would appreciate any additional comments / corrections you i may have by 2:30 today. Remember to delete the electronic files. Thx. 1 l I I I 

                                                                           )

+7e&)ei&}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20147H043&oldid=3363095"