ML20137Y064

Informs of Revised NRC Program for Managing plant-specific Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants.Nrc Manual Chapter 0514, NRC Program for Mgt of Plant-Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants, Encl

ML20137Y064
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/03/1986
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Farley J ALABAMA POWER CO.
References
GL-84-08, GL-84-8, NUDOCS 8603120117
Download: ML20137Y064 (47)

Text

.' 4 UNITED STATES

[. }, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,3 >

,j WASWNG TON, D. C. 20555 u

e k,

O bJ Mr. Joseph M. Farley President Alabama Power Co.

P. O. Box 2641 Birmingham, AL 35291

Dear Mr. Farley:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the revised NRC staff program for managing plant-specific backfitting of nuclear power plants. This revised program is consistent with the recently issued NRC regulation on backfitting (10 CFR 50.109). The program applies to all facets of NRC operations in which plant-specific backfitting may occur, and applies to all NRC offices involved in plant-specific backfitting (i.e. , Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, inspection and Enforcement and the Regional Offices).

It shculd be recognized that backfitting of new or modified NRC rules and staff positions on existing plants is a necessary part of the regulatory process.

However, the backfitting of a facility should be imposed by NRC only if there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of public health and safety or the comon defense and security derived from the backfit and the direct and indirect costs of implementation for that facility are justified in view of the ircreased protection. Thus, the program for identification and implementation of backfitting must be well defined, clearly understood by the NRC and licensees and properly managed.

As you are aware, in the wake of the many requirements that were issued following the TMI accident, the Commission determined that positive steps had to be taken to bring the issuance of new or modified rules and staff positions under closer management control. Because of its broad impact on the industry, generic backfitting was addressed first. This resulted in the establishment of the Conmittee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR). In its 4 years of existence, the CRGR has made substantial progress in establishing a philosophy which has resulted in major improvements in the NRC's management of the imposi-tion of generic requirements. In 1983, it was determined that additienal NRC management attention should also be focused on the management of plant-specific backfitting. Consequently, in February 1984, the Conmission approved the first staf f proposed policy and procedures (NRC Manual Chapter 0514) for managing plant-specific backfitting for operating reactors.

NRC Manual Chapter 0514 has recently been revised to conform to the provisions of the September 1985 backfit rule. A copy of the current Manual Chapter is enclosed. This issuance supersedes the documents sent to you in Generic Letter 84-08. The Manual Chapter clearly defines actions which constitute a backfit, provides for a focused management of HRC cctivities pertinent to backfits, 1,7/

i h p @g 0603120117 060303 PDR HISC ffO, PDR

.jy1

,. o, $s4R3 1966

-2 requires a regulatory analysis prior to backfit im.osition, improves the NRC's capability to identify and manage backfits, and establishes appeal processes available to nuclear power plant licensees. ,

I call your attention to the requirements for identifying potential backfit issuee 'ind the appeals processes set forth in Sections 042 and 044, respec-tively, of the Manual Chapter. Licensees and applicants wishing to identify a potential backfit issue or to appeal the imposition of a backfit to NRC management should do so consistent with those sections of the Manual Chapter.

My staff is working with the ~ Atomic Industrial Forum to coordinate several NRC. sponsored regional workshops planned for April _May 1986. At these work-shops we plan to fully explain the new backfit rule and associated staff processes to the industry. I urge you to have appropriate senior level managers from.both your headauarters and plant management staffs participate

'in these workshops.

I recommend that you and your staff become familiar with the r$ vised plant-specific backfit program so that it can be implemented in an efficient and effective manner. If you or your staff have any questions or comments regarding this Manual Chapter, please feel free to contact Mr. James H. Sniezek, Acting Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations and Generic Requirements, at 301/492-9704.

Sincerely, Origina1 signed by Victor Stello Victor Stello, J..

Acting Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

NRC Manual Chapter 0514 dtd February 1986 Distribution V5tello JGDavis TRehm HRDenton JRoe RBHinogue JSniezek JMTaylor TCox Regional Administrators EDO rf DEDROGR cf Centra PDR Identical letters sent to those on attached list.

/9f ~

.7

DEDROGR  :

0FC :DEDROGR .

NAME : :JS ek . 10  :  :  :  :

2 g/86 /86  :  :  :  :

DATE :2/26/86 .

/

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

L .. .

Address List of CE0s for Backfit Manual Chapter Mr. Joseph M. Farley President, Alabana Power Co.

P. O. Box 2641

. Birmingham, AL 35291 Mr. Keith L. .Turley Chairman of the Board and Chief

-Executive Officer Arizona Public Service.Co.

P. O. Box 52034

. Phoenix, AZ 85072.

Mr. Jerry L. Maulden President, Arkansas Power &

Light Co.

P. O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 Mr. George V. McGowan President, Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.

P. O. Box 1475 Baltimore, MD 21203 Mr. Stephen J. Sweeney President and Chief Executive Officer Boston Edison 25 Braintree Hill Park Braintree, MA 02184 Mr. Sherwood H. Smith, Jr.

Chairman / President, Carolina Power and Light P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 Mr. Robert M. Ginn President, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.-

P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland, OH 44101 Mr. James J. O'Connor President, Commonwealth Edison P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Mr. James Ferland Chairman and Chief Operations Officer Connecticut Yankee Atomic. Power Co.

P. O. Box'270 Hartford, CT 06141

Mr. Arthur Hauspurg Chairman of the Board Consolidated Edison of New York 4 Irving Place New York, NY 10003 Mr. William T. McCormick, Jr.

President and Chief Executive Officer Consumers Power Co.

1945 W Parnall Rd.

Jackson, MI 49201 Mr. James M. Taylor General Manager, Dairyland Power Cooperative 2615 East Avenue S Lacrosse, WI 54601 Mr. Charles M. .Heidel President, Detroit Edison Co.

6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, MI 48166 Mr. William S'. Lee Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Duke Power.Co.

P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, NC 28247 Mr. John M. Arthur Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Duouesne Light Co.

435 6th Ave.

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Mr. Lee H. Scott President, Florida Power Corp.

P. O. Box 14042 St. Petersburg, FL 33733 Mr. John J. Hudiburg

-President and Chief Executive Officer, Florida Power and Light Co.

P. 0. Box 029100 Miami, FL 33102' Mr. Phillip Clark President, GDU Nuclear Corp.

-100 Interpace Parkway-Parsippany, NJ 07054

i

./

Mr. Robert W. Scherer Chairnen of the Board ~ and Chief Executive Officer Georgia Power Co.

P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Mr. Paul W. Murrill Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.

Gulf-States Utilities-P. 0. Box 2951 Beaumont, TX 77704 Mr. Donal'd D. Jordan Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.

Houston Lighting and

. Power Co.

P. O. Box 1700 Houston, TX 77001 Mr.'Wendell J. Kelley President, Illinois Power Co.

P.' O. Box 678 V-920 Clinton, IL 61727 Mr 'W. S. White, Jr.

President, Indiana and Michigan

' Electric Co.

1 Riverside Plaza-Columbus, OH 43216 Mr. Lee Liu President, Iowa Electric Light and Power Co.

P. O. Box 351 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406 Mr. Wilson K. Cadman President, Kansas Gas and Electric Co.

P. 0.. Box 208 ,

Wichita, KS 67201-Dr. W. J. Catacosinos Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Long Island Lighting Co.

175 East Old Country Rd.

Hicksville, NY 11801

u-

• Mr. James M. Cain President, Louisiana Power and Light Co. . ..

142 Delaronde St.

New Orleans, LA 70174 Mr. Charles' E. Monty President, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.

83 Edison Drive Augusta, ME 04336 Mr. William Cavanaugh, III President and Chief Operating

.0fficer Mississippi Power and

. Light Co.

P. O. Box 1640 Jackson, MS 39215-1640 Mr. Donald E. Schaufelberger

. General Manager, Nebraska Public Power District P. O. Box 499 Columbus, NE 68601 Mr. Leroy W. Sinclair President, New York Power Authority 123 Main St.

White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. William Donlon President, Niagara Mohawk Power

' Corp.

300 Erie Blvd. W Syracuse, NY 13202 Mr. William B. Ellis-Chairinan of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Northeast Utilities Service Co.

P. O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06141 Mr. Bruce A. Richard President, Northern States Power Co.

414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401

Mr. B. W.'Reznicek President, Omaha'Public Power. District 1623 Harney St.

Omaha, NE 68102.

Mr. Frederick W. Mielke, Jr.

Chariman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

P.'O. Box 7442

. San Francisco, CA 94120 Mr. ' Robert K.~ Campbell TPresident and Chief Executive Officer.

Pennsylvania Power and Light.Co.

2 North 9th St.

Allentown, PA 18101 Mr. John Austin President, Philadelphia Electric.Co.

2301 Market St.

' Philadelphia, PA 19101 Mr. Robert H. Short Chairman' of the Board & President Portland General Electric Co.

121 SW Salmon St.

' Portland, OR 97204

'Mr.' Richard F.- Walker President and Chief Executive Officer Public Service Co.

of Colcrado -

P. O. Box 840

-Denver, CO 80201 Mr. Robert J. . Harrison .

President and Chief Executive Officer Public Service Co. of New Hampshire

.1000 Elm St.

P..0. Box 330 Manchester, NH 03105 Mr. Harold W. Sonn President, Public Service Electric and Gas Co.

80 Park Plaza Newark, NJ 07101

Mr. Keith W. Amish President, Rochester Gas and-Electric Corp.

89 East Ave..

Rochester, NY 14649 Mr. Dewey Lowe General Manager, Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6?01 South St.

Sacramento, CA 95817 Mr. Virgil C. Summer Chairman of the Board

~

South Carolina Electric and Gas Co.

P. O. Box 764 Columbia, SC 29218 Mr. Howard P. Allen Chairman of Board and Chief Executive Officer Southern California Edison Co.

2244 Walnut Grove Ave.

P. O. Box 800 Rosemead, CA 91770 Mr. Charles H. Dean, Jr.

Chairman of the Board of Directors Tennessee Valley Authority E12A7 400 W Sunnit Hill Dr.

Knoxville, TN 37902 Mr. M. D. Spence President, Texas Utilities Generating Co.

Skyway Tower

'400 North Olive St.

LB 81 Dallas, TX 75201 Mr. John P. Williamson .

President, Toledo Edison Co.

300 Madison Ave.'

712 Toledo, OH 43652 Mr. William E. Cornelius President, Union Electric Co.

P. O. Box 149 MC-400 St. Louis, MO 63166

.~-

Mr. J. Gary Weigand President and Chief Executive Officer Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.

'RD 5, Box 169 Ferry Rd.

Brattleboro, VT 05301 Mr. William W. Berry Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Virginia Power Co.

P.' O. Box.26666 Richmond, VA 23261 Mr. D. W. Mazur Managing Director, Washington Public Power Supply Systems-P. O. Box 968 387 Richland, WA 99352 Mr. Russell W. Britt President, Wisconsin Electric Power Co..

231 W Michigan St.

Milwaukee, WI 53201 Mr. Paul D.' Ziemer President, Wisconsin Public Service Corp.

600 florth Adams Green Bay, WI 54305 Mr. James E. Tribble President, Yankee Atomic Electric Co.

1671 Worcester Rd.

Framingham, MA 01701

r g February,1986 MANUAL CHAPTER U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' NRC MANUAL Volume: 0000 General Administration Part: 0500 Health and Safety CHAPTER 0514 NRC PROGRAM FOR MANAGEMENT OF PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFITTING 0F NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 0514-01 PURPOSE This chapter establishes the requirements and guidance for NRC staff implementation of 10 CFR 50.109 and the provisions of 10 CFR 50 Appendix 0, 10 CFR 50.54(f), and 10 CFR 2.204 as relating to plant-specific backfitting.

Staff requirements and guidance for implementing the provisions of 10 CFR 50.109 pertaining to rules and other generic backfitting are beyond.the scope of this Manual Chapter. Pertinent requirements and guidance for generic backfittino are contained in the CRGR Charter. Test and research reactor licensees are not covered by the provisions of this Manual Chapter.

This chapter defines the objectives, authorities, and responsibilities and establishes basic requirements for actions to be taken in instances where the NRC staff imposes new plant-specific regalatory staff positions on a nuclear

r ,

• - - ?- February,1986 power plant licensee.I This practice is commonly referred to as "backfitting" and is defined in 10 CFR 50.109 as "the modification of or addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility; or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a facility; any of which may result from a new or amended provision in the Commission rules or the imposition of a regulatory staff position interpreting the Commission rules that is either new or different from a previously applicable staff position...." It should be clearly understood that backfits are expected to' occur and are a part of the regulatory process to assure the safety of nuclear power plants. However, it is important for sound and effective regulation that backfitting be conducted in a controlled process.

Plant-specific backfitting is different from generic backfitting in that the

' former involves the imposition on a licensee of positions unique to a particular plant, whereas generic backfitting involves the imposition of the same or similar positions on two or more plants.

The management of plant-specific backfitting, for which guidance is provided in this document, does not relieve licensees from compliance with the Commission's regulations. The managewent proce;s is intended to provide disciplined NRC review of new or changed positions prior to imposing them at plants without

. regard to the status of the plant owners efforts in meeting previously applicable requirements or positions which were considered by the staff to provide acceptable levels of safety. The plant-specific backfit management process will enhance regulatory stability by assuring that changes in regulatory staff positions are in fact required to provide a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safely.or common defense and security. Such plant- ~

specific backfitting is entirely proper given the conditions of substantial 1

1 See Section 05 of this Chapter for a definition of " licensee."

. v ~ v-

, < e w - m m em ,- -- w ,w e --.---.--en ,-----,n-------.e --,,--,,-nnnew-, -- . - -

,.-- - - --,?- .~~-w -- - ,

c

)

February,1986 safety benefit which offset the cost to implement the benefit. This process is intended to provide for effective and efficient use of st'aff and licensee resources when developing and implementing backfits which enhance nuclear power plant safety.

0514-02 OBJECTIVES It is the overall objective of this program to assure that plant-specific backfitting of nuclear power plants is justified and documented and to specify that the Executive Director for Operations is responsible for the proper implementation of the backfit process. The specific objectives of this program are to allow for substantial improvements in the levels of protection of public health and safety while avoiding any unwarranted burdens on the NRC, public or licensees in' implementing backfits. The program should assure to the extent possible that backfits to be issued will in fact contribute effectively and significantly. to the health and safety of the public or the common defense and security. This objective is attained by assuring that plant-specific backfits will be comunicated to the licensee only after required regulatory analyses are completed and approved as described in Section 0514-042 of this Chapter and that the backfit and supporting regulatory analyses are approved by the appropriate Office Director or Deputy Director, or Regional Administrator or Deputy Regional Administrator and forwarded to the Executive Director for Operations before the backfit and supporting analysis are comunicated to the licensee.

This Manual Chapter governs those plant-specific backfits comunicated to the licensees or identified by licensees after May 1,1985.

0514-03 RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES 031 The EDO is responsible to the Comission for plant-specific backfit actions. Office Directors and Regional Administrators have the authority

n l

'* 4- February,1986 l to review cases and make decisions for the agency on individual actions as described .in other sections of this Manual Chapter. The EDO may review and modify any plant specific backfit decision at his or her initiative or at the request of a licensee in accordance with Section 044. The EDO may-authorize deviations from this Chapter when the EDO finds that such action is in the public interest and the deviation otherwise complies with the applicable regulations.

032 The Director, Regional Operations and Generic Requirements (ROGR) Staff, shall assure that' process controls for overall agency management of the plant-specific backfit process are developed and maintained. These ~

process controls shall include specific procedures, training, progress monitoring systems, and provisions for obtaining and evaluating both staff and industry views on the conduct of the backfit process. The Director, ROGR Staff, is also responsible for assuring that each licensee is informed of the existence ano structure of the NRC program described in this Manual Chapter. The Director, ROGR Staff shall assure that substantive changes in the Manual Chapter and related procedures are communicated to the licensees.

033 ' The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) shall assure that an.overall . procedure for managing plant-specific backfitting that involves positions take7 by NRR is developed, implemented, and maintained, in accordance with this Manual Chapter. The overall procedure will be approved by the EDO. The Director, NRR, shall consult and coordinate with Regional Administrators and the Directors of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement and the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, to develop resolutions of proposed plant-specific backfits in program areas for which NRR has responsibility.

For backfits within NRR's program area of responsibility which are proposed by NRR staff, the Director or Deputy Director, NRR, without further delegation, shall approve the regulatory analysis prior to

r February,1986

. comunicating the backfit and analysis to the licensee. For backfits within the NRR program area of responsibility, but which are proposed by other NRC staff who have been delegated NRR program implementation and decision authority, regulatory analysis shall be approved by the staff Office Director / Administrator or Deputy Director / Administrator of the NRC staff person proposing the backfit, prior to comunicating the backfit and analysis to the licensee. For all backfits within the NRR program area of responsibility which are appealed by a licensee, the Director, NRR, shall make the decision on imposition of the backfit. The decision is subject to EDO review under Section 031. The Director, NRR, shall assure-NRR staff performance in accordance with this Manual Chapter.

034 The Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) shall assure that an overall procedure for managing plant-specific backfitting that involves positions taken by IE' is developed, implemented, and maintained, in accordance with this Manual Chapter. The overall procedure shall be approved by the EDO. The Director, IE, shall consult and coordinate with Regional Administrators and the Directors of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards as appropriate, to develop resolutions of proposed plant-specific backfits in program areas for which IE has responsibility.

For backfits within the IE program area of responsibility which are proposed by IE staff, the Director or Deputy Director, IE, without further

delegation, shall approve the regulatory analysis prior to comunicating the backfit and analysis to the licensee. For backfits within the IE program area of responsibility, but which are proposed by other NRC staff

!' who have been delegated IE program implementation and decision authority,

the regulatory analysis shall be approved by the staff Office Director /

l Administrator or Deputy Director / Administrator of the NRC staff person proposing the backfit, prior to communicating the backfit and analysis to f  ;

the licensee. For all backfits within the IE program area of responsibility i

1.

1 I

c l

February,1986 which are appealed by the licensee, the Director, IE, shall make the decision on imposition of the backfit. The decision is subject to EDO review endsr Section 031. The Director, IE, shall assure IE staff performance in accordance with this Manual Chapter.

035 The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS),

shall assure that an overall procedure for managing plant-specific backfitting that involves positions taken by NMSS is developed, imple-mented, and maintained, in accordance with this Manual Chapter. The overall procedure shall be approved by the EDO. The Director, NHSS, shall consult and coordinate with Regional Administrators and the Directors of the Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and Inspection and Enforcement, as appropriate, to develop resolutions of proposed plant-specific backfits in program areas for which NHSS has responsibility.

For'backfits within the NMSS program area of responsibility which are proposed by NMSS staff, the Director or Deputy Director NMSS, without further delegation, shall approve the regulatory analysis prior to comunicating the backfit and analysis to the licensee. For backfits within the NMSS program area of responsibility, but which are proposed by other NRC staff who have been delegated NMSS program implementation end decision authority, the regulatory analysis shall be approved by the staff Office Director / Administrator or Deputy Director / Administrator of the NRC staff person proposing the backfit, prior to communicating the backfit and analysis to the licensee. For all backfits within the NMSS program area of responsibility which are appealed by a licensee, the Director, NMSS, shall make the decision on imposition of the backfit. The decision is subject to EDO review under Section 031. The Director, NMSS, shall assure NMSS staff performance in accordance with this Manual Chapter.

036 The Regional Administrator of each region shall assure that an overall procedure for managing plant-specific backfitting that involves positions taken by the region in any program area for which the region has been delegated authority, is developed, implemented, and maintained, in l

r t

Februa ry,1986 accordance with this Manual Chapter. The overall procedure shall be approved by the EDO.

The Regional Administrator of each Region shall consult and coordinate with the Directors of the Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Inspection and Enforcement, and Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards as appropriate, to identify issues and develop resolutions of propos.ed plant-specific backfits where such backfitting would result from positions taken by the Region.

For backfits proposed by the Region, the Regional Administrator or Deputy Pegional Administrator, without further delegation, shall approve the regulatory analysis prior to communicating the backfit and analysis to the licensee. For backfits proposed by the Region and appealed by the licensee, the Administrator is responsible for the conduct of the appeal process within the region; however, if agreement cannot be reached at the regional level, the decision on imposition of the backfit shall be made by the Director of the program office having responsibility for the program area relevant to the backfit. The decision is subject to EDO review under Section 031. Each Regional Administrator shall assure Regional staff performance in accordance with this Manual Chapter.

037 The Director, Office of Resource Managemert shall, in coordination with the Director, Regional Operations and Gei.eric Requirements Staff, the Office Directors, and Regional Administrators, develop and maintain the overall f!RC data base management system identified and described in Section 046 of this Cnapter.

038 NRC staff positions may be identified as potential backfits either by NRC staff or by persons who are not members of the NRC staff. Such identifications will be considered by the Office Director / Administrator having responsibility to develop staff positions on the matter at issue.

This Office Director / Administrator will be responsible to make the

- 8'- February,1986 1

k determination as to whether the staff position is a backfit. If the staff position is determined to be a backfit,"a regulatory analysis shal.1 be completed prior to communicating the backfit and' analysis to the licensee and forwarding to the EDO. If the staff position is detennined not to be a backfit, a documented evaluation will be completed and the Office Director / Administrator having the responsibility to develop a staff position on the issue will deal with the matter in accordance with appropriate office procedures..

0514-04 BASIC REQUIREMENTS 041 Information Requests Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f)

A revision to 10 CFR 50.54(f) was issued with the September 20, 1085 revision to 10 CFR 50.109 in the Federal Register (50 g 38097). The revision generally requires that the NRC prepare reasons for issuing information requests prior to issuance. Concerning 'the review of appli-cations for licenses or amendments, or the conduct of inspection activi-ties, for plants under construction, no analysis will be necessary if the staff seeks information of a type routinely sought as a part of the standard procedures applicable to the review of applications. If the request is not part of routine licensing review, for example, it seeks to pther information pursuant to development of a new staff position, then a Staff analysis of the reasons for the request must be prepared and approved prior to issuance.

Concerning licensing review or inspection activities for operating plants, only information requests seeking to verify licensee compliance with the current licensing basis for the facility are exempt from the

necessity to prepare the reason or reasons for the request. Requests for information to determine compliance with existing facility require-ments including fact-finding reviews, inspections and investigations of '

accidents or incidents, usually are not made pursuant -to Section 50.54(f),

Februa ry,1986 nor are such requests normally considered within the scope of the backfit rule or this Manual Chapter.

The Directors of NRR, IE and NMSS and the Regional Administrators shall develop internal office procedures to ensure that there is a rational basis for all' information requests not clearly excepted from evaluation, whether or not it is clear that backfit action would result from staff evaluation of the information supplied by the licensee. The request must be evaluated to determine whether the burden imposed by the information request is justified in view of the potential safety significance of the issue to be addressed. The information request and the staff evaluation must be approved by the cognizant Office Director or Regional Administrator prior to transmittal of the request for information to a licensee.

NRC staff evaluations of the necessity for an information request shall include at least the following elements:

1. A problem statement that describes the need for the information in terms of potential safety benefit.

P. The licensee actions required and the cost to develop a response to the information request.

3. An anticipated schedule for NRC use of the information.

042 Identifying Plant-Specific Backfits The NRC staff shall be' responsible for identifying proposed plant-specific backfits as defined by Section 05 of this Manual Chapter. It is expected that staff at all levels will evaluate any proposed plant-specific posi-tion with respect to whether or not the position qualifies as a proposed backfit pursuant to Section 05 of this Manual Chapter. No staff position

, , , - - , , - - - , - - - , - - , , . - , - .-w.- ,,- a w -- - ---- ,-~ .-

1 February,1986 should be comunicated to a licensee unless the NRC official comunicating that position has ascertained whether or not the position is to be identified as a backfit. Appendix A to this Manual Chapter provides additional information to help in identifying backfits arising from selected staff activities. When a staff proposed position is identified as a backfit and imposition of the backfit is not necessary to ensure that the facility poses no undue risk to public health and safety, the appropriate staff office should proceed promptly with the preparation of a regulatory analysis (Section 043) for approval in accordance with this Chapter. The staff may, at any point in the development of the regulatory analysis, decide that further analysis is likely to show either that the proposed safety benefit is not'likely to be substantial additional overall protec-tion, or that the direct and indirect costs of implementation are not likely to be justified. In this case, the issue may be closed, with appropriate notice sent to all parties and recorded in the recordkeeping system described in Section 046.

When (1) a staff proposed position is determine:. not to be a backfit because the proposed modification is necessary to bring a facility into compliance with a license or the rules or orders of the Commissior.,

(Sections 052-1,053-1)~ or into conformance with written comnitments by the licensee (Sections 052-1, 053-2), or (2) the Director of NRR, NMSS or IE determines that imposition of a backfit is necessary to ensure that the facility poses no undue risk to public health and safety, no regulatory analysis is required. Instead, the appropriate Director is to provide a documented evaluation to support the action taken. The evaluation shall include a statement of the objectives of and reasons for the modification and the basis for invoking the exception. In the case of a backfit needed to assure that the facility poses no undue risk to public health and safety, the documented evaluation shall also include an analysis to document the safety significance and appropriateness of the action taken and consideration of how costs contribute to selecting the solution among various acceptable alternatives. Such an evaluation

February, 1986 is to be issued with the backfit except that, when an immediately' effec-tive regulatory action is necessary, and the safety need is so urgent that full documentation cannot be completed, the documentation may follow the backfit.

A proposed staff position which is not identified by the NRC staff as a backfit position may be claimed to be a backfit position by a licensee.

The staff will promptly consider a licensee claim of beckfit to determine if the claimed backfit qualifies as such in accordance with Section 05 of this Chapter. Licensees identifying such items should send a written claim of backfit (with appropriate supporting rationale) to the Office Director or Regional Administrator of the NRC staff person who issued the position with a copy to the EDO. If the NRC staff detennination is that the issue is a backfit, the appropriate staff office should proceed immediately with the preparation of the regulatory analysis for approval in accordance with this Chapter.

If the determination is that the proposed staff position is not a backfit, the appropriate staff office shall document the basis for the decision and transmit it together with any documented evaluation required by this section to the licensee. In any case, the appropriate Office Director /

Regional Administrator shall report to the EDO and inform the licensee, within 3 weeks after receipt of the written backfit claim, of the results of the determination and the plan for resolving the issue.

When a licensee is Infonned that a claimed backfit is, in tha ,iudgment of the NRC, not a backfit, the licensee may appeal this determination as described in Section 044 of this Chapter.

043 Regulatory Analysis Positions identified as plant-specific backfits requiring the analysis in this section shall be transmitted to licensees only after a

l February,1986 1

determination, that there is a substantial increase in the overall protec-tion of the public health and safety or the coninon defense and security to be derived from the backfit, and that the direct'and indirect costs of implementation for that. facility are justified in view of the increased protection. The proposed backfit and supporting regulatory analysis must i i

be approved by the appropriate Program Office Director or Deputy Director, f l or Regional Administrator or Deputy Regional Administrator and forwarded l f to the EDO before the backfit and its supporting regulatory analysis are transmitted to the licensee.

The regulatory analysis shall generally conform to the directives and guidance of NUREG/BR-0058 and NUREG/CR-3568, which are the NRC's governing l documents concerning the need for and preparation of regulatory analyses.

In preparing regulatory analyses under this section, the staff should note

[

that the complexity and comprehensiveness of an analysis should be limited to that necessary to provide an adequate basis for decisionmaking among the alternatives available. The emphasis should be on simplicity, flexi-bility, and common sense, both in terms of the type of infonnation supplied l and in the level of detail provided. The following information and any other information relevant and material to the backfit shall be included in the regulatory analysis, as available and appropriate to the analysis:

(

1. A statement of the specific objective that the proposed backfit is designed to achieve. This should also include a succinct description of the backfit proposed, and how it provides a substantial increase in overall protection.

2. A general description of the activity that would be required by the licensee in order to complete the backfit.

3. The potential safety impact of changes in plant or operational complexity, including the relationship to proposed and existing regulatory requirements.

February,1986

4. Whether the proposed backfit is interim or final and, if interim, the justification for imposing the proposed backfit on an interim basis.

5. A statement that describes the benefits to be achieved and the cost to be incurred. This statement should include consideration of at least the following listed factors. Infonnation should be used to the extent that it is reasonably available, and a qualitative assessment of benefits may be made in lieu of the cuantitative analysis where it would provide more meaningful insights, or is the only analysis practicable.

a. The potential change in risk tc the public from the accidental offsite release of radioactive material,

b. The potential impact on radiological exposure of facility employees.

Also consider the effects on other onsite workers, due both to installation of procedural or hardware changes and to the effects of the changes, for the remaining lifetime of the plant.

c. The installation and continuing costs associated with the backfit, including the cost of facility downtime or the cost of construction delay.

d. Tha estimated resource burden on the NRC associated with the proposed backfit and the availability of such resources.

6. A consideration of important qualitative factors bearing on the need for the backfit at the particular facility, such as, but not limited to, operational trends, significant plant events, management effectiveness, or results of performance reports such as the Systematic Assessment of 1.icensee Performance.

7. A statement affirming appropriate interoffice coordination related to the proposed backfit and the plan for implementation. ,

i

l

~'

t February,1986

8. The basis for requiring or permitting implementation on a particular schedule. including sufficient information to demonstrate that the schedules are realistic and provide adequate time for in-depth engineering, evaluation, design, procurement, installation, testing,-

development of operating procedures, and training of operators and other plant personnel, as appropriate. For those plants with approved integrated schedules, the integrated scheduling process can be used for implementing this step and the following two procedural steps.

9. A schedule for staff actions involved in implementation and verification of implementation of the backfit, as appropriate.

10. Importance of the proposed backfit considered in light of other safety-related activities underway at the affected facility.

044 A p al Process The appeal processes described in this section are of two types, '

applied to two distinctly different situations:

1. Appea' to an Office / Region to modify or withdraw a proposed backfit l which has been identified, and for which a regulatory analysis has been prepared and transmitted to the licensee; or

2. Appeal to an Office / Region to reverse a denial of a prior licensee claim that a staff position, not identified by the NRC as a backfit, requiring a regulatory analysis as described in Section 043 is such a proposed backfit.

After a backfit has been identified, or claimed and then verified to be a backfit, in accordance with this Chapter (see Section 042). and a licensee has been notified of staff intent to impose a backfit, a licensee may choose to appeal the proposed plant-specific backfit to NRC staff  ;

i

-,,,,,,_-----;,---,-r--

.' '- February, 1986 management to request that the proposed backfit be withdrawn or modified.-

Licensees will address an appeal of a proposed backfit to the Office Director or Regional Administrator whose staff proposed the backfit with a copy to the EDO. The appeal should provide arguments against the rationale for imposing a backfit as presented in the staff's regulatory analysis.

The Office Director or Regional Administrator shall report to the EDO within 3 weeks after receipt of the appeal concerning the plan for resolv-ing the issue. The licensee should also be promptly and periodically informed in writing regarding the staff plans.

The decision of the Office Director on an appeal of plant-specific backfit may be appealed to the ED0 unless resolution is achieved af a lower management level. The EDO shall promptly resolve the appeal and shall state his reasons therefor. Suninaries of all appeal meetings shall be prepared promptly, provided to the licensee, and placed in appropriate Public Document Rooms. During the appeal process, primary consideration shall be given to how and why the proposed backfit provides a substantial increase in overall protection and whether the associated costs of implementation are justified in view of the increased protection. This consideration should.be made in the context of the regulatory analysis as well as any other information that is relevant and material to the proposed backfit.

After a proposed staff position has been claimed by a licensee to be a backfit position requiring a regulatory analysis and then determined by the NRC not to be such a backfit, the licensee may appeal the NRC decision regarding the backfit determination. The appeal should be addressed to, and will be decided by, the Director of the program office having responsi bility for the program area relevant to the staff position, unless resolu-tion is achieved at a lower management level. A copy of the appeal should also be sent to the Executive Director for Operations. The appeal should take into account the staff's documented evaluation, the licensee's response, and any other information that is relevant and material to the backfit

February,1986 detennination. The E00 may review and may modify a decision either at his or her own initiative or at the request of the licensee. If the licensee appeals to the EDO, the EDO shall promptly resolve the appeal and shall state the reasons therefor. Backfit claims and resultant staff determinations that are reevaluated in response to an appeal, and that are again determined by the NRC not to be backfits, are not to be treated further in the context of this Manual Chapter. Such matters are to be dealt with within the normal licensing or inspection appeal process and are not subject to the requirements of this Manual Chapter.

~ 045. Implementation of Backfits Following approval of the regulatory analysis by the appropriate Office Director or Regional Administrator, review if any by the EDO, and issuance of the backfit to the licensee, the licensee will either implement the backfit or appeal it. After an appeal and subsequent final decision by the appropriate Office Director or F00, the licensee may elect to imple-ment a backfit resulting from the decision. If the licensee does not elect to implement the backfit, it may be imposed by Order of the appropriate Office Director.2 Implementation of plant-specific backfits will normally be accomplished on a schedule negotiated between the licensee and the NRC. Scheduling criteria should include the importance of the backfit relative to other safety related activities underway, or the plant construction or mainten-ance planned for the facility, in order to maintain high quality construc-tion and operations. For plants that have integrated schedules, the integrated scheduling process can be used for this purpose.

2 Once an Order is issued, whether or not it is immediately effective, this Chapter no' longer applies and appeals are governed by the procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart B.

Feb rua ry,1986 3

A staff-proposed backfit may be imposed by Order prior to completing any of the procedures set forth in this Manual Chapter provided the NRC official authorizing the Order determines that immediate imposition is necessary to insure that the facility poses no undue risk to the public health and safety or the common defense and security. In such cases, the EDO shall be notified promptly of the action and a documented evaluation as described in Section 042 performed, if possible, in time to be issued with the order.

If "immediate imposition" is not necessary, staff proposed backfits shall not be imposed, and plant construction, licensing action, or operation shall not be interrupted or delayed by NRC actions, during the staff's evaluation and backfit transmittal process, or a subsequent appeal process, until final action is completed under this Chapter.

046 Recordkeeping and Reporting The proposing Headquarters Office or Regional Office shall adminis-tratively manage each proposed plant-specific backfit using a record-keeping system that provides for prompt retrieval of current status, planned and accomplished schedules, and ultimate disposition. Office systems shall be compatible with an overall NRC data base accessible to appropriate NRC managers. The systems shall provide reference to all documents issued or received by NRC staff relative to a plant-specific backfit, including requests, positions, statements, and summary reports.

Specific data required will include, but are not limited to:

3 Refer to Footnote 2 l

l

r February,1986

1. Licensee and facility affected.

2. Whether a backfit is identified by staff or. by a licensee.

3. Identification and description of the document that either transmits a staff-identified backfit or a licensee request for consideration of.

a licensee-identified backfit.

4 Substance of the backfit issue.

5. In the case of a licensee-identified backfit, the dates (predicted and completed) that detenninations are made as to whether or not a staff position qualifies as a backfit, the substance of the deter-mination, and' the organization and official responsible to make the determination.

6. A brief description of what action is pending, and the officials responsible to complete the. action.

7. Action closing data, to include a description of licensee or staff action and date of agreement or order to implement; responsible officials and organization for each action.

047 Exceptions flothing in this Manual Chapter shall be interpreted as authorizing or requiring the staff to make plant-specific backfits or assessments for generic backfits that are, or have been, subject to review by the CRGR and approval by the EDO, or for generic backfits approved prior to Ncvember 1981, unless the EDO determines that significant plant-specific issues

Fe uhry,1986 were not considered during the prior reviews or the EDO authorizes a deviation under Section 031.

048 References

1. NUREG/BP-0058 Rev. 1, May 1984, " Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U. S. ' Nuclear Regulatory Comission"  ! _

2. NUREG/CR-3568, December 1983, "A Handbook for Value-Impact Assessment" ,

i

3. NUREG/CR-3971, October 1984, "A Handbook for Cost Estimating"

4. Revision of Backfit Rule, Code of Federal Regulations, 50 FR 38097 (Sept. 20, 1985) 0514-05 DEFINITIONS 051 Licensee Except where defined otherwise, the word licensee as used in this Manual Chapter shall mean that person that holds a license to operate a nuclear power plant, or a construction permit to build a nuclear power. plant, or a Preliminary Design Approval or Final Design Approval for a Standardized Plant Design.

052 Plant-Specific Backfit Backfitting is defined as the modification of or addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility; or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a facility; any of which may result from a ..ew or amended provision in the Comission rules or the

' ~

February,1986 -

impositica of a regulatory staff position interpreting the Commission rules that is either new or different from a previously applicable staff position after certain specified dates. Backfitting is " plant-specific" when it involves the imposition of a position that is unique to a particular plant.

It should be noted that to be a plant-specific backfit a staff position must meet conditions involving both (1) the substance of the elements of a proposed staff position and (2) the time of the identification of the staff position:

1. A staff position may be a proposed backfit if it wou?d cause c licensee to change the design, construction or operation of a facility from that consistent with already applicable regulatory staff positions. Applicable regulatory staff positions are described in Section 053.

?. A staff position as described in (1) above is a proposed backfit if it is first identified to the licensee after certain important design, construction or operation milestones, involving NRC approvals of varying kind, has been achieved. Those times after which a' new or revised staff position will be considered a backfit are as follows:

a. af ter the date of issuance of the construction pemit for the '

facility (for facilities having construction permits issued after May 1,1985); or b.. after 6 months before the date of docketing of the OL application for the facility (for facilities having construction pemits issued before May 1, 1985); or

February, 1986

c. after the date of issuance of the operating license for the facility (for facilities having an operating license on May 1, 1985).

d. After the date of issuance of the design approval under 10 CFR 50, Appendix H, N or 0.

NOTE: 10 CFR 50.109 was revised and issued on September 20, 1985 (50 FR 38097). MC-0514 was implemented on May 1, 1985. The current-revision of the Backfit Rule 50.109 states that paragraph 50.109(a) of the rule does not apply to backfits imposed prior to the effective date of the rule. However, the ED0 directives embodied in this Manual Chapter-0514 have been effective and remain effective as of May 1, 1985.

053 Applicable Regulatory Staff Positions Applicable regulatory staff positions are those already specifically imposed upon or committed to by a licensee at the time of the identifica-tion of a plant-specific backfit, and are of several different types and sources:

1. Legal requirements such as in explicit regulations', orders, plant licenses (amendments, conditions, technical specifications). Note that sone regulations have update features built in, as for example, 10 CFR 50.55a, Codes and Standards. Such update requirements are applicable as described in the regulation.

2. Written commitments such as contained in the~FSAR, LERs, and docketed correspondence, including responses to IE Bulletins, responses to Generic Letters, Confirmatory Action Letters, responses to inspection Reports, or responses to Notices of Violation.

m Februa ry,1986

3. NRC staff positions that are documented, approved, explicit interpre-tations of the more general regulations, and are contained in documents such as the SRP, Branch Technical Positions, Regulatory Guides, Generic Letters and IE Bulletins and to which a licensee or an applicant has previously' committed to or relied upon. Positions contained in these documents are not considered applicable staff positions to the extent

- that staff has, in a previous licensing or inspection action, tacitly or explicitly excepted the licensee from part or all of the position.5.

0514-06 APPENDIX A - Guidance for Making Backfit Determinations A. General In this section selected regulatory activities and documents are discussed in order to enable members of the NRC staff and the regulated industry to better understand the conditions under which a staff position may be viewed as a plant-specific backfit. It is important to understand that the necessity for making backfit determinations should not inhibit the normal informal dialogue between the technical reviewer or inspector and the licensee. The intent of this process is to manage backfit imposition, not to quell it. The discussion in this Appendix is intended to aid in i identifying backfits in accordance with the principles and the practices that should be implemented by all staff members. This Appendix is not intended to be an exhaustive, comprehensive workbook in which can be found a parallel example for each situation that may arise. As is evident from the definitions in Section 05 of this Manual Chapter, a plant-specific 4 Requirements may be imposed by rule or order. Staff interpretations such as examples of acceptable ways to meet requirements are not requirements in and of themselves.

5 Imposition of a staff position from which a licensee has previously been excepted is a backfit.

j February,1986

~backfit has the elements of a change from an already applicable staff position where an applicable staff position is defined as that established before certain defined milestones in the affected plant's licensing history. There will be sor.e judgment necessary to determine whether a staff position would cause a licensee to change the design, construction or operation of a facility. In making this determination, the fundamental

. question is whether the staff's action is directing, telling, or coercing, or is merely suggesting or asking the licensee to consider a staff proposed action.

Actions proposed by the licensee are-not backfits under this chapter even though such ictions may result from normal discussions between staff and licensee concerning an issue, and even though the change or additions may meet the definitions of Section 052 and 053.

B. Licensing

1. Standard Review Plan (SRP) - The SRP delineates the scope and depth of staff review of licensee submittals associated with various licensing activities. It is a definitive NRC staff interpretation of measures which, if taken, will satisfy the requirements of the more generally stated, legally binding body of regulations, primarily found~in title 10 CFR. Since October 1981, changes to the SRP are to have been reviewed and approved through a generic review process involving the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR), and the extent to which the changes apply to classes of plants is

-defined. Consequently, application of a current SRP in a specific operating license (OL) review generally is not a plant-specific backfit, provided the SRP was effective 6 months prior to the start of the OL review. Asking an applicant for ar Operating license questions to clarify staff understanding of proposed actions, in order to determine whether the actions will meet the intent of the SRP, is not considered a backfit.

l Februa ry,1986 On the other hand, using acceptance criteria more strinoent than those contained'in the SRP or taking positions more stringent than or in addition to those specified in the SRP, whether in writing or orally, is a plant-specific backfit. During meetings with the licensee, staff discussion or comments regarding issues and licensee actions volunteered which are in excess of the criteria in the SRP generally do not constitute plant-specific backfits; however, if the staff implies or suggests that a specific action in excess of already applicable staff positions is the only way for the staff to be satisfied, the action is considered a plant-specific backfit whether or not the licensee agrees to take such action. However, the staff should recognize that a verbally implied or suggested action should not be accepted by a licensee as an NRC position of any kind, backfit or not; only written and authoritatively approved position statements should be taken as NRC positions.

Application of an SRP to an operating plant after the license is granted generally is considered a backfit unless the SRP was approved specifically for operating plant implementation and is applicable to such operating plant. It is important to note, however, that in order to issue an amendment to a license, there must be a current finding of compliance with regulations applicable to the amendment.

As a specific example, review of a plant owner's application for a license amendment to authorize installation and operation of a new reactor core, commonly called a " reload application," may necessitate review of new fuel designs or new thermal-hydraulic correlations and associated operating limits. Such changes that are clearly advances in design or operation may involve new or unreviewed safety issues, and may warrant review to SRP criteria which were approved subsequent to initial license issuance to the licensee. This is not considered a backfit. However, such review to newer SRP revisions is not neces-sarily reouired to determine current compliance with regulations.

Licensee proposed revisions in design or operation that raise staff

• ' " ^ '

February,1986 questions only about potential reduced margins of safety as defined I in the basis for any technical specification should be reviewed by reanalysis of the same accident sequences and associated ~ assumptions as analyzed in the FSAR for the initial license issuance.

During reload reviews, staff proposed positions with regard to technical matters not related to the changes proposed by a' licensee shall be considered backfits.

2. Regulatory Guides - As part of the generic review process pursuant to the CRGR Charter, it is decided which plants or groups of plants should be affected by new or modified Regulatory Guide provisions.

Such implementation ~is therefore.not governed by the plant-specific backfit procedures. However, any staff proposed plant-specific implementation of a Regulatory Guide provision, whether orally or in writing, for a plant not encomnassed by the generic implementation determination is considered a plant-specific backfit. A staff action with respect to a specific licensee that expands on, adds to, or modifies a generically approved regulatory guide, such that the position taken is'more demanding than intended in the generic positions, is a plant-specific backfit.

3. Plant-Specific Orders - An order issued to cause a licensee to take actions which are not othenvise applicable regulatory staff positions is a plant-specific backfit. As described in Section 044 of this Manual Chapter, an order effecting prompt imposition of a.backfit may be issued prior to completing any of the procedures set forth in this Manual Chapter provided that the appropriate Office Director determines that prompt imposition is necessary.

' An order issued to confirm a licensee commitment to take specific action even if that action is in excess of previously applicable

February, 1986 staff positions,.is not~a plant-specific backfit provided the commit-ment was not obtained by the staff with the expressed or implied direction that such a commitment was necessary to gain acceptance in the staff review process. Discussion or comments by the NRC staff identifying-deficiencies observed, whether in meetings or written reports, do not constitute backfits. Definitive statements to the licensee directing a specific action to satisfy staff positions are backfits unless the action is an explicit already applicable regulatory staff position.

C. Inspection and Enforcement

1. Inspections - NRC inspection procedures are to govern the scope and depth of staff inspections associated with licensee activities such as design, construction and operation. As such, they define those items the staff is to consider in its determination of whether the licensee is conducting its activities in a safe manner. The conduct of inspection establishes no new staff positions for the licensee and is not a plant-specific backfit.

Staff statements to the licensee that the contents of an NRC inspec-tion procedure are positions that must be met by the licensee constitute a plant-specific backfit unless the item is an applicable regulatory staff position. Discussion or consnent by the NRC staff regarding deficiencies observed in the licensee conduct of activities, whether in meetings or in written inspection reports, do not constitute back-fits, unless the staff suggests that specific corrective actions different from previous applicable regulatory staff positions are the only way to satisfy the staff. In the nonnal course of inspecting to determine whether the licensee's activities are being conducted safely, inspectors may examine and make findings in specific technical areas wherein prior NRC positions and licensee commitments do not exist. Examination of such areas and making findings is not considered

I

'-' February,1986 a backfit. Likewise, discussion of findings with the licensee is ont considered a backfit. If during such discussions, the licensee agrees that it is appropriate to~take action in response to the inspector's findings, such action is not a backfit provided the inspector does not indicate that the specific actions are the only way tn satisfy the staff. On the other hand, if the inspector indicates that a specific action must be taken, such action is a backfit unless it constitutes an applicable regulatory staff position. Further, if the licensee decides to claim that the inspector's findings are a backfit, then the staff must decide whether they are a backfit under this Chapter.

For. example, if the licensee comits to ANSI-N18.7 in the SAR and the inspector finds the licensee's implementing procedures do not contain all the elements required by ANSI-N18.7, telling the licensee he must take action to include all the elements in the implementing procedures is not a backfit. If the inspector finds the licensee has included all the required elements of ANSI-N18.7, but has not included certain of the optional elements in the implementing procedures, inspector discussion with the licensee regarding the merits of including the optional elements is not a backfit. On the other hand, if the inspector tells the licensee that the implementing procedures must include any or all of the optional elements in order to satisfy the staff, inclusion of such elements is a backfit, whether or not agreed to by the licensee.

?. Notice of Violations (NOV) - a NOV requesting description of a licensee's proposed corrective action.is not a backfit. The licensee's comitments in the description of corrective action are not backfits. A request by the staff for the licensee to consider some specific action in response to an NOV is not a backfit. However, if the staff is not satisfied with the licensee's proposed corrective actions and requests that the licensee take additional actions, those

1 February, 1986 additional actions (whether requested orally or in writing) are a backfit unless they are an applicable regulatory staff position.

Discussions during enforcement conferences and responses to the licensees requests for advice regarding corrective actions are not backfits; however, definitive statements to the licensee directing a specific action to satisfy staff positions are backfits, unless the action is an explicit' applicable regulatory staff position.

3. Bulletins - IE Bulletins and resultant actions requested of licensees undergo the generic review process pursuant to the CRGR Charter.

Therefore, in general, it is not necessary to apply the. ,,lant-specific backfit process to the actions requested in a Bulletin.

However, if the staff expands the action requested by a Bulletin during its application to a specific licensee, such expansion is considered a plant-specific backfit.

4 Reanalysis of Issues - Throughout plant lifetime, many individuals on the NRC staff have an opportunity to review the requirements and comitments incumbent upon a licensee. Undoubtedly, there will be occasions when a reviewer concludes the licensee's program in a specific area does not satisfy a regulation, license condition or comitment. In the case where the staff previously accepted the licensee's program as adequate, any staff specified change in the ,

program would be classified as a backfit.

For example, in the case of an NT0L, once the SER is issued signifying staff acceptance of the programs described in the SAR, the licensee should be able to conclude that his comitments in the SAR satisfy the NRC requirements for a particular area. If the staff was to subsequently require that the licensee comit to additional action other than that specified in the SAR.for the particular area, such action would constitute a backfit.

. .'.- February,1986 A somewhat different situation exists when the licensee has made a submittal committing to a specific course of action to meet an applicable position, and the staff has not yet responded, and there-fore has not indicated that the commitment is or is not sufficient to meet the applicable position. Subsequent staff action, which must be taken within a reasonable time not delaying the applicants' implemen-tation plans, to cause the licensee to meet the applicable regulatory staff position is not a backfit. If the licensee has moved ahead in the intervening time to implement that which the licensee proposed to do in its submittal and the staff has failed to provide a timely response, then the staff position may be considered a backfit. Thus, if a licensee has implemented a technical resolution intended to meet an applicable regulatory staff position, and staff for an extended period simply allows the licensee resolution to stand with tacit acceptance indicated by nonaction on the part of NRC, then a subsequent action to change the licensee's design, construction, or operation is a backfit.

i C'

pa aseg e g UNITED STATES

[ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1

$ 8 WASHINGTON, D C. 20555

\....[ M3 IWt Mr. Joseph M. Farley President Alabama Power Co.

P. O. Box 2641 Binningham, AL 35291

Dear Mr. Farley:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the revised NRC staff program for managing plant-specific backfitting of nuclear power plants. This revised program is consistent with the recently issued NRC regulation on backfitting (10 CFR 50.109). The program applies to all facets of NRC operations in which plant-specific backfitting may occur, and applies to all NRC offices involved in plant-specific backfitting (i.e., Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Inspection and Enforcement and the Regional Offices).

It should be recognized that backfitting of new or modified NRC rules and staff positions on existing plants is a necessary part of the regulatory process.

However, the backfitting of a facility should be imposed by NRC only if there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of public health and safety or the comon defense and security derived from the backfit and the direct and indirect costs of implementation for that facility are justified in view of the increased protection. Thus, the program for identification and implementation of backfitting must be well defined, clearly understood by the NRC and licensees and properly managed.

As you are aware, in the wake of the many requirements that were issued following the TMI accident, the Commission detennined that positive steps had to be taken to bring the issuance of new or modified rules and staff positions under closer management control. Because of its broad impact on the industry, generic backfitting was addressed first. This resulted in the establishment of the Connittee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR). In its 4 years of existence, the CRGR has made substantial progress in establishing a philosophy which has resulted in major improvements in the NRC's management of the imposi-tion of generic requirements. In 1983, it was determined that additional NRC management attention should also be focused on the management of plant-specific backfitting. Consequently, in February 1984, the Comnission approved the first staff proposed policy and procedures (NRC Manual Chapter 0514) for managing plant-specific backfitting for operating reactors.

NPC Manual Chapter 0514 has recently been revised to conform to the provisions of the September 1985 backfit rule. A copy of the current Manual Chapter is enclosed. This issuance supersedes the documents sent to you in Generic Letter 84-08. The Manual Chapter clearly defines actions which constitute a backfit, provides for a focused management of NRC activities pertinent to backfits,

$5hk3 19dr

. -2 requires a regulatory analysis prior to backfit im.osition, improves the NRC's capability to identify and manage backfits, and establishes appeal processes available to nuclear power plant licensees.

I call your attention to the requirements for identifying potential backfit issues and the appeals processes set forth in Sections 042 and 044, respec-tively, of the Manual Chapter. Licensees and applicants wishing to identify a potential backfit issue or to appeal the imposition of a backfit to NRC management should do so consistent with those sections of the Manual Chapter.

My staff is working with the Atomic Industrial Forum to coordinate several NRC-sponsored regional workshops planned for April-May 1986. At these work-

' shops we plan to fully explain the new backfit rule and associated staff processes to the industry. I urge you to have appropriate senior level managers from both your headquarters and plant management staffs participate in these workshops.

I recommend that you and your staff become familiar with the revised plant-specific backfit program so that it can be implemented in an efficient and effective manner. If you or your staff have any questions or comments regarding this Manual Chapter, please feel free to contact Mr. James H. Sniezek, Acting Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations ard Generic Requirements, at 301/492 9704.

Sincerely, Original signed by yictor Stello .

Victor Stello, 4..

Acting Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

NRC Manual Chapter 0514 dtd February 1986 Distribution V5tello JGDavis TRehm HRDenton JRoe RBHinogue JSniezek JMTaylor TCox Regional Administrators EDO rf DEDROGR cf Central File pDR (

Identical letters sent to those on attached list.

/0! F  :-

OFC :DEDROGR :DEDROGR :EM 6"  :  :  :

.....:............:.. . . . . . . gf.t Q.....:............:............:............:...........

NAME JS

...... 5j 10 ek fV  :  :

DATE

2/26/86 :2 g/86 . /86  :  :

I 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

I l

Address List of CEOs for Backfit Manual Chapter Mr. Joseph M. Farley President, Alabama Power Co.

P. O. Box 2641 Birmingham, AL 35291 Mr. Keith L. Turley Chairwan of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Arizona Public Service Co.

P. O. Box 52034 Phoenix, AZ 85072 Mr. Jerry L. Maulden President, Arkansas Power &

Light Co.

P. O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 Mr. George V. McGowan President, Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.

P. O. Box 1475 Baltimore, MD 21203 Mr. Stephen J. Sweeney President and Chief Executive Officer Boston Edison 25 Braintree Hill Park Braintree, MA 02184 Mr. Sherwood H. Smith, Jr.

Chairman / President, Carolina Power and Light P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 Mr. Robert M. Ginn President, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland, OH 44101 Mr. Jares J. O'Connor President, Commonwealth Edison P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Mr. James Ferland Chairman and Chief Operations Officer Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co.

P. O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06141

.Mr. Arthur Hauspurg Chairman of the Board Consolidated Edison of New York 4 Irving Place New York, NY 10003 Mr. William T. McCormick, Jr.

President and Chief Executive Officer Consumers Power Co.

1945 W Parnall Rd.

Jackson, MI 49201 Mr. James M. Taylor General Manager, Dairyland Power Cooperative 2615 East Avenue S Lacrosse, WI 54601 Mr. Charles M. Heidel President, Detroit Edison Co.

6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, MI 48166 Mr. William S. Lee Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Duke Power Co.

P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, NC 28242 Mr. John M. Arthur Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Duquesne Light Co.

435 6th Ave.

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Mr. Lee H. Scott President, Florida Power Corp.

P. O. Box 14042 St. Petersburg, FL 33733 Mr. John J. Hudiburg President and Chief Executive Officer, Florida Power and Light Co.

P. O. Box 029100 Miami, FL 33102 Mr. Phillip Clark President, GPU Nuclear Corp.

100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, NJ 07054

Mr. Robert W. Scherer Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Georgia Power Co.

P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Mr. Paul W. Murrill Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Gulf States Utilities P. O. Box 2951 Beaumont, TX 77704 Mr. Donald D. Jordan Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Houston Lighting and Power Co.

P. O. Box 1700 Houston, TX 77001 Mr. 'Wendell J. Kelley President, Illinois Power Co.

P. O. Box 678 V-920 Clinton, IL 61727 Mr. W. S. White, Jr.

President, Indiana and Michigan Electric Co.

1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43216 Mr. Lee Liu President, Iowa Electric Light and Power Co.

P. O. Box 351 Cedar Rapids, IA 52403 Mr. Wilson K. Cadman President, Kansas Gas and Electric Co.

P. O. Box 208 Wichita, KS 67201 Dr. W. J. Catacosinos Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Long Island Lighting Co.

175 East Old Country Rd.

Hicksville, NY 11801

-4 Mr. James M. Cain President, Louisiana Power and Light Co. ,

142 Delaronde St.

New Orleans, LA 70174 Mr. Charles E. Monty President, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.

83 Edison Drive Augusta, ME 04336 Mr. William Cavanaugh, III President and Chief Operating Officer >

Mississippi Power and Light Co.

P. O. Box 1640 Jackson, MS 39215-1640 Mr. Donald E. Schaufelberger General Manager, Nebraska Public Power District P. O. Box 499 Columbus, NE 6C601 Mr. Leroy W. Sinclair President, New York Power

' Authority 123 Main St.

White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. William Donlon President, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

300 Erie Blvd. W Syracuse, NY 13202 Mr. William B. Ellis Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Northeast Utilities Service Co.

P. O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06141 Mr. Bruce A. Richard President, Northern States Power Co.

414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401

r'

>~,

- Mr. B. W. Reznicek President, Omaha Public Power District 1623 Harney St.

Omaha, NE 68102 Mr. Frederick W. Mielke, Jr.

Chariman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

P. O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 Mr. Robert K. Campbell President and Chief Executive Officer Pennsylvania Power and Light Co.

2 North 9th St.

Allentown, PA 18101 Mr. John Austin President, Philadelphia Electric Co.

2301 Market St.

Philadelphia, PA 19101

-Mr. Robert H. Short Chairwan of the Board & President Portland General Electric Co.

121 SW Salmon St.

Portland, OR 97204 Mr. Richard F. Walker President and Chief Executive Officer Public Service Co.

of Colorado P. O. Box 840 Denver, CO 80201 Mr. Robert J. Harrison President and Chief Executive Officer Public Service Co. of New Hampshire 1000 Elm St.

P. O. Box 330 Manchester, NH 03105 Mr. Harold W. Sonn President, Public Service Electric and Gas Co.

80 Park Plaza Newark, NJ 07101 yn .

m,,-- m.--,n.v- --an-,----g--,,,, .-n,-.- - - .- ,--..nenn.,,,

Mr. Keith W. Amish President, Rochester Gas and Electric Corp.

89 East Ave.

Rochester, NY 14649 Mr. Dewey Lowe General Manager, Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6201 South St.

Sacramento, CA 95817 Mr. Virgil C. Summer Chairman of the Board South Carolina Electric and Gas Co.

P. O. Box 764 Columbia, SC 29218 Mr. Howard P. Allen Chairman of Board and Chief Executive Officer-Southern California Edison Co.

2244 Walnut Grove Ave.

P. O. Box 800 Rosemead, CA 91770 Mr. Charles H. Dean, Jr.

Chairman of the Board of Directors Tennessee Valley Authority E12A7 400 W Summit Hill Dr.

Knoxville TN 37902 Mr. M. D. Spence President, Texas Utilities Generating Co.

Skyway Tower 400 North Olive St.

LB 81 Dallas, TX 75201 Mr. John P. Williamson President, Toledo Edison Co.

300 Madison Ave.

712 Toledo, OH 43652 Mr. William E. Cornelius President, Union Electric Co.

P. O. Box 149 MC-400 St. Louis, M0 63166

e Mr. J. Gary Weigand President and Chief Executive Officer Verwent Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.

RD 5, Box 169 Ferry Rd.

Brattleboro, VT 05301 Mr. William W. Beni Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Virginia Power Co.

P. O. Box 26666 Richmond, VA 23261 Mr. D. W. Mazur Managing' Director, Washington Public Power Supply Systems P. O. Box 968 387 Richland, WA 99352 Mr. Russell W. Britt President, Wisconsin Electric Power Co.

231 W Michigan St.

Milwaukee, WI 53201 Mr. Paul D. Ziemer President, Wisconsin Public Service Corp.

600 North Adams Green Bay, WI 54305 Mr. James E. Tribble President, Yankee Atomic Electric Co.

1671 Worcester Rd.

Framingham, MA 01701 7