ML092020194

E-mail from R. Telson to R. Conte of USNRC, Regarding Oc Issues - Consensus Building

ML092020194
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	12/16/2008
From:	Ross Telson NRC/NRR/DIRS/IRIB
To:	Conte R Engineering Region 1 Branch 1
References
FOIA/PA-2009-0070
Download: ML092020194 (5)

Text

T P John Richmond From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

/Ross Telson , N -.'-Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:07 AM Richard Conte Timothy Kobetz; John Richmond; Roger Pedersen; Timothy Kolb; AnnMane §tone; James Isom RE: OC ISSUES -CONSENSUS BUILDING Rich, I'd like to summarize key points of the Oyster Creek License Renewal Inspection Issues to ensure I (and others) understand the focus of our planned consensus building discussion.

I am also including some references and food-for-thought and discussion.

Is the above correct and reasonably on-target?(b)(5)r Reviewina IP 71003, I noted that it has, as its first stated objective (emphasis added): "To verify that license conditions added as part of the renewed license, license renewal commitments, selected aging management programs, and license renewal commitments revised after the renewed license was granted, are implemented in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 54, 'Requirements for the Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."'(b)(5)IMC 0612 guidance regarding documentation of MINOR issues (emphasis added): If the performance deficiency is minor, it is not a finding, will not be considered in the ROP assessment process, and in most cases will not be documented.

See Section 0612-11 for the exceptions for documenting minor issues.An issue of concern, regardless of whether it involves a violation of requirements, may be documented if related directly to an issue of agency-wide concern, if allowed by an appendix to this chapter, or by the specific inspection procedure or temporary instruction If it is necessary to document a minor issue then only minimal discussion is required.

The write-up should briefly describe the issue and state that the issue has been addressed by the licensee, if applicable.

.SýWnomakw ina~ ra=, tý 'vieuedma acwrdmicwwh ft rireedom of lnb AM.1 ~Al/~

That said, it should be noted that most issues deemed to be minor are not documented and thus not available for review. Should this issue be documented, it will be open to external review and criticism.

Presumably, NRC technical staff involved in license renewal do not establish commitments for which they would consider deviation to be a minor issue.It would be prudent to bring key internal stakeholders together (includeing the technical staff involved in establishment of the commitment) in our consensus building effort to ensure that our determination regarding (a) whether this is a minor issue and (b) whether it warrants documentation, are congruent with our inspection guidance, our license renewal process, our basis for having. created the commitment, and to ensure that our decisions are (c) fully defensible and (d) will not create unacceptable unintended consequences (e.g. see- broader perspective below).From a broader perspective, should this license renewal commitment deviation be documented as a minor issue, we might anticipate a broad range of high-level questions from stakeholders.

These questions could include: 1. Why establish commitments in license renewals if deviation from those commitments constitutes a minor issue that is neither enforceable nor documentable?

2. Why inspect to verify that license renewal commitments are implemented if, upon discovery that they are not implemented isn't going to be documented in the IR?3. Should license renewal applications contain or be contingent upon commitments?

4. How does all of this impact stakeholder confidence in the license renewal process?Ross Telson -301-415-2256 Reactor Systems Engineer Reactor Inspection Branch (NRR / ADRO / DIRS / IRIB)MS -0 12H2 /Off -0 12G5 From: Richard Conte Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:03 PM To: Timothy Kolb; AnnMarie Stone Cc: Ross Telson; Timothy Kobetz; John Richmond

Subject:

RE: OC ISSUES -CONSENSUS BUILDING I understand the general philosophy but should LIc. Ren. be treated differently as a pseudo -"agency wide concern".

Hard to say that, if the issues are minor, they are concerns.

My last check of App. G draft is that it doesn't really address it other than freedom to document observation that lead one to conclude the commitment was met.(b)(5)2 (b)(5)From: Timothy Kolb Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:04 PM To: AnnMarie Stone Cc: Richard Conte

Subject:

FW: OC ISSUES -CONSENSUS BUILDING AnnMarie, The forwarded info, to my understanding, is that Rich Conte is looking for guidance on documenting minor issues or violations in a license renewal inspection.

Does the new Appendix G provide any guidance for documenting minor violations which is allowed by 0612 per section 0612-11 ? Otherwise, the guidance is not to document the minor issues or violations.

Thanks, Tim Kolb From: James Isom Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:56 AM To: Timothy Kolb; Ross Telson Cc: Timothy Kobetz; Paul Bonnett; MaryAnn Ashley

Subject:

FW: OC ISSUES -CONSENSUS BUILDING Tim and Ross, this is an IMC 0612 issue.. Rich would like to document minor findings/violations in NRC inspection reports;these findings result from license renewal inspections (a licensing action)recommended to Rich that he call Tim K. tomorrow to get some guidance from Tim on the best course to proceed wrt to documenting these minor findings.also, need to see how the Appendix G which Mary Ann is working on currently addresses this type of issue IMHO, a letter documenting license renewal inspections might be a better option Jim (b)(5)3 (b)(5)Q 4 Received:

from OWMS01.nrc.gov (148.184.100.43) by R1MS01.nrc.gov (148.184.99.10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.291.1; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:07:09 -0500 Received:

from R3MS01.nrc.gov (148.184.99.140) by OWMS01.nrc.gov (148.184.100.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.291.1; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:07:08 -0500 Received:

from R3CLSTR01.nrc.gov

([148.184.99.135])

by R3MS01 .nrc.gov ([148.184.99.140])

with mapi; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:07:08 -0600 Content-Type:

application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding:

binary From: Ross Telson <Ross.Telson@nrc.gov>

To: Richard Conte <Richard.Conte@nrc.gov>

CC: Timothy Kobetz <Timothy.Kobetz@nrc.gov>, John Richmond<John. Richmond@nrc.gov>, Roger Pedersen <Roger. Pedersen@nrc.gov>, Timothy Kolb <Timothy.Kolb@nrc.gov>, AnnMarie Stone <AnnMarie.Stone@nrc.gov>, James Isom <James.Isom@nrc.gov>

Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:07:06 -0600

Subject:

RE: OC ISSUES -CONSENSUS BUILDING Thread-Topic:

OC ISSUES -CONSENSUS BUILDING Thread-Index:

AclbKPRsnydkh/X/RRShk+G8noRZUgDpCGkAAAI1 P+AAAcgosAADbqTg Message-ID:

<9A20E76DD15F8449AE68A5FDEC895190862E527B88@R3CLSTRO1.nrc.gov>

References:

<CEEA97CC21430049B821 E684512F6E5EB1 1AAB81 F3@HQCLSTR01 .nrc.gov><2856BC46F6A308418F033D973BBOEE72AA5D098158@R1 CLSTR01 .nrc.gov>In-Reply-To:

<2856BC46F6A308418F033D973BBOEE72AA5D098158@R1CLSTROI .nrc.gov>Accept-Language:

en-US Content-Language:

en-US X-MS-Has-Attach:

X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL:

-1 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:

<9A20E76DD15F8449AE68A5FDEC895190862E527B88@R3CLSTRO1 nrc.gov>MIME-Version:

1.0 Return-Path

Ross.Telson@nrc.gov