ML20211F477

Monthly Status Rept on Licensing Activities & Regulatory Duties of Nrc

ML20211F477
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/31/1999
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20211F474	List: ML20211F469 ML20211F477 ML20211F482 ML20211F492
References
NUDOCS 9908300344
Download: ML20211F477 (13)

Text

..

s t

1 I

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT ON THE LICENSING ACTIVITIES AND REGULATORY DUTIES OF THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)I i

July 1999 i

I I

Enclosure 1 9908300344 990817 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR

_O\.th D

ht0%N .

TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae

1. Implementing Risk-informed Regulations . . . . . . . . .. .. ................ .1

11. Nuclear Plant Assessment, inspection and Enforcement Processes . . . . . . . . . . 1 Ill. Status of issues in the Reactor Generic issue Program ..........,......... 2 IV. Licensing Actions and Other Licensing Tasks . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . .... 2 V. Status of Calvert Cliffs License Renewal Application . . . . . . ... ...... ....... .9 VI. Status of Review of Private Fuel Storage, Limited Liability Corporation's (PFS)

Application for a License to Operate an Independent Spent Fuel Storage installation (ISFSI) on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Vll. Summary of Reactor Enforcement by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 10

i

1. ' implementing Risk-Informed Regulations The Commission approved, with modifications, the three options proposed by the staff for risk informing 10 CFR Part 50. The Commission directed the staff to 1) continue current rulemaking activities,2) make changes to the scope of systems, structures, and components covered by those sections of Part 50 requiring special treatment, and 3) study how best to proceed with risk-informing the remaining sections of Part 50. NRC has formed two teams to risk inform Part

50. One team, headed by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), is to develop l risk-informed definitions for " safety-re!ated" and "important to safety" which would change the l scope of equipment requiring special treatment without requiring changes to the individual I regulations. The second team, headed by the Office of Research, is to study changes which go I beyond scope issues and revise fundamental requirements and individual regulations.  !

l The staff is finalizing its pilot applications using risk-informed insights to support changes to j in-Service Inspection (ISI), in-Service Testing (IST), and Quality Assurance programs and to i plant specific Technical Specifications (TS). The last pilot application, requesting a change in an in-Service inspection (ISI) program for Arkansas Nuclear One, is scheduled to be completed in July. The staff intends to complete its review of a second risk-informed ISI methodology l proposed by the industry (the Electric Power Research Institute) by the end of the year (the first methodology approved was proposed by the Westinghouse Owners Group in 1998). Additional applications to change ISI programs have been received, and industry groups have indicated that more are in preparation. The staff is reviewing several more requests (Palo Verde, Browns Ferry, Oconee, Indian Point 3) to relax Techn!=! Specification requirements, for example to extend the time that some equipment may be out of service. The staff completed its review of the first non-pilot application to change in-Service Testing intervals (South Texas Project), and intends to complete review of the second application before the end of the year (San Onofre).

Several additional IST change requests are expected in the near future. The increasing number of change requests indicates that the industry is gaining confidence that risk-informed changes are useful and cost effective.

II. Nuclear Plant Assessment, inspection, and Enforcement Processes The staff has continued to meet on a biweekly basis with NEl and other stakeholders to refine the proposed changes to its assessment, inspection and enforcement processes. Activities include the following:

• The pilot program of the revised reactor oversight process described in Commission Papers SECY-99-007 and SECY-99-007A for nine (9) plants began on May 30,1999.

The NRR staff is monitoring implementation and reviewing results of the pilot program.

The date for fullimplementation of the revised oversight process has been extended to April 1,2000 by the Commission to allow additional time for staff to review results of the pilot program, develop lessons learned, and solicit feedback on the new process.

• A request for public comment on the pilot program of the revised oversight process will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.

l

• Development of the supplementalinspection procedures is continuing. These procedures will provide guidance for the assessment, inspection, and enforcement 1

l

E L-

• ~ .,

i processes when licensees cross the performance thresholds as described in the Action Matrix in SECY-99-007A.

l e Changes to the enforcement policy to make it consistent with the revised oversight process will be published in the Federal Register in the near future. The Office of ,

l Enforcement is presently incorporating comments received from the Commission on the I

( interim enforcement policy guidance contained in SECY- 99-146.

e NRR managers and members of the Inspection Program Branch are continuing to l interface with NRC staff to discuss the revised oversight process, answer questions, and L obtain feedback.

I e- NRC completed the planned public meetings in the vicinity of all pilot plant sites, as part l

of its efforts to communicate with external stakeholders regarding the revised reactor j

! oversight process. At these meetings, the NRC staff explained to members of the public the new risk informed oversight program and answered questions from the audience, l 111. Status of lasues in the Reactor Generic issue Program

Changes in the status or resolution dates for Generic Safety issues since the June 1999 report '

and the reasons for the changes are described beef:

! GSI Number: 158 l TITLE: Performance of Safety-Related Power-Operated l l

Valves Under Design Basis Conditions SCHEDULED RESOLUTION DATE: Had been under staff review, without a specific

scheduled resolution date being determined, l

STATUS: GSI-158 is closed and will no longer be tracked as

a generic issue. No additional regulatory i requirements were found to be necessary. The l staff concluded that existing regulations are l adequate to address the performance of l safety-related power-operated valves under design basis conditions.

i GSI Number: 156.6.1 i TITLE: Pipe Break Effects on Systems and Components SCHEDULED RESOLUTION DATE: TBD j STATUS: Prioritization of this issue is now complete and '

resulted in a HIGH-priority designation.

l IV. Licensing Actions and Other Licensing Tasks Licensing actions may be defined as requests for: license amendments, exemptions from ]

regulations, relief from inspection or surveillance requirements, plant specific topical reports,  ;

notices of enforcement discretion, or other issues requiring NRC review and approval before implementation by the licensee. The FY 1999 NRC Performance Plan incorporates three 2

output measures related to licensing actions. These are: size of the licensing action inventory, number of licensing action completions per year, and age of the licensing action inventory.

Other licensing tasks may be defined as: licensee responses to NRC requests for information through generic letters or bulletins, NRC responses to 2.206 petitions, NRC review of licensee topical reports, NRR responses to regional requests for assistance, and NRC review of licensees' 10 CFR 50.59 analyses and FSAR updates. The FY 1999 NRC Performance Plan incorporates an output measure related to other licensing tasks (number of other licensing tasks completed).

The actual FY 1998 results, the FY 1999 goals, and the FY 1999 results, through June 30, 1999, for the four NRC Performance Plan output measures are shown in the table below.

PERFORMANCE PLAN Output FY 1998 Actual FY 1999 Target FY 1999 Actual Measure (thru 6/30/99)

Licensing 1425 1670 1321 actions completed per year Size of 1113 1000 897 licensing actions inventory Age of 65.6% s 1 year; 80% s 1 year; 85.3%s 1 year; licensing action 86.0% s 2 years; and 95% s 2 years; and 98.2% s 2 years; and inventory 95.4% s 3 years old 100% s 3 years old 99.7% 5 3 years old I

Other licensing 1006 800 671 tasks completed per year in FY 1999, NRC increased resources for completing licensing actions, such that given the current size of the inventory and the estimated number of licensing action requests, the inventory size and number of completions goals should be met by the end of the fiscal year. However, the goal for the age of the inventory has historically not been met. NRC has undertaken severalinitiatives to reduce the age of licensing action inventory. For instance, a special effort was initiated in mid-1998 to conduct a management review of the older items in the inventory. For each item, status was assessed, success paths for resolution were identified, and completion schedules were established. Monthly progress reports have been published and follow up management meetings have emphasized the need to meet established schedules. The NRC has made substantial progress towards meeting the licensing action age goal.

i 3  :

l

The NRC continued to process reactor licensing actions at a rate consistent with previous months, and exceeding the FY 1999 year-to-date goal for NRC licensing action completion.

The inventory of licensing actions increased since the June report. However, the increase was not unexpected, as licensing action requests vary from month-to-month, based on factors such as refueling and outage schedules.

The following charts demonstrate NRC's progress in meeting the licensing action and other licensing task output measure goals.

i 4

l

,l <

~

P E

S G

' I U

A g y r ' U L

J i

n to '  !

N U

s n J n ev J* '

Y A

e n " :l M

R P

i ci R A

L n ' A o M B

r i t l '

iE t

o A c G a

o 9 F 9

N c Y F

A a ng J C

!I E

D ei s O V

R n N

T

- e ' l C

c O t

yL i P

E S 5 la et  : u G t ' I U

f a g e A c

L A

U S r a

J N

r T ' I U

J t

o n '

Y A

cl a M

aP + '  !

R P

A e e '

R A

R nc +'+ '  !

M B

E r a 8 F a mr '

9 N

e o M A JC l

cf Y '

iE D

r u e I '

V O

NP - t-i N7 9

T 0

0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 1 1 1 1 n

6O C$E COin - cC eCe3.J

P E

S G

U A

s L g n U ni to J

- N U

i s

nA g e n c

l a

o

/ Y A

M J

R P

G

- i c i Y R A

L s F A.

M n B r e E oi c 9 F 9

t c L A

J C ad e l E

D et e a o V O

R p l G

D T

N T

C

- Y O y m P t

o S E 6 eC G

- U f  : A at e L

S gr J N

U r a l J

a Y t

oT t u

c A

M c n A R a I P

A al eP e R A

M R c B E

r n 8 F 9

a a l

e m r I A

JC E c o V D

uf r O N79 N Pe --

T C

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O

- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

- 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 VeeIEOO E9.54

~

zbg, $ >ga _

0 _

0 0 0 0 0 _

N 1 8 6 4 2 O U -

J V

s m y n g na a

M--

I R

P

.gm

. a

+

im c M

A gse oA

+ a _

y --

M

+ _

. B da _

r '

+

o B D ' .

G a

E t

o D 9

9 N

F L O

.\

g n L O

A J

S R

t e S jE C

A a

i n v n

R A +

la u

t c

D E Y ,'

'+ _

E 3 + -

s I Y

A n a T

n 2 + jC O .+ _

s e i o ~

+

r s

+

c t

a c

G + _

i + U A

A L

• L u

J ',, -

r g o n 0 0

O S

n 0

6 0, J 5

N U

+

e 8 a 1 0 a

i 1 t s e@e,c52c3.'

c n tS n&c e a e c

7 e i R L f

- o y e .'

N U

J t g Y f

e A

+

A M

R

+

A M

R a P

+

P

A A t

S e + -

M M + .

M g se o B te r r G E F

,. o G;E 3

o F

a D

+

3 9

D

~

t T L M J

L O

+ _

c n O

R

+,

C E

D S +

CE a a A E

+

la u V R

A la u .

D e tc O t l

Y A N E + A c .

P -

Y R 1 T T

+ C 3 + iC e s +

P O

s O

r c '4 M ,.

P a n a + I G

U , iU G

e L A A l

m + U , A c r J

N o

e u f 0

0 1

0 0

n 0 6

U J

1 m, , ,

3 , =

sU J

N r e bS s OE a Sg>E % ga&

P

P E

S s G k U A

s g a b L

J i

nT g N U

s n Y J

ni s e n l

a o R G P c e I

A Y R i

L i c F A M

L B r r I E

t oeh 9 F 9

N A

ct JC aO l a

l E

D ed o V O

R t e G D

N T

- l e T Y

i C O

y p P E 8 S

t m f

e o G U

A aC -

L U

S t e

J N

U r g l

J t

or a l t

u c

a Y A

M cT A R P

a n I

A R

e a RP l

B E

r e 8 F a cn 9 N

l e a l A

JC E

c mr V D

u o O N 7 Nf r _ 7 - - -

- - - - - - 9 T

C e0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 2 1 1

1 0

1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1

g$e CEOO gcmU

n. (

V. Status of Calvert Cliffs License Renewal Application The status of the Calvert Cliffs license renewal application has not changed since the June update, and all activities associated with the review of the license renewal application are on schedule. The safety evaluation report representing the results of the NRC's review was issued on March 21,1999. The NRC and Baltimore Gas & Electric are currently working to resolve the open and confirmatory items and issue the completed report by November 16,1999.

The Calvert Cliffs draft supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal was issued for comment on February 24,1999, and the public comment period closed on May 20,1999. The staff is currently addressing the comments received and preparing the final supplemental environmental impact statement for issuance by November 1999.

The National Whistleblower Center has appealed the Commission's denial of its request for hearing to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. The appealis being briefed, and oral argument is set for October 6,1999.

VI. Status of Review of Private Fuel Storage, Limited Liability Corporation's Application for a License to Operate an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians During this reporting period, litigation in the edjudicatory proceeding on the Private Fuel Storage application continued. The Applicant filed motions for summary disposition of numerous safety contentions, which are currently pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. A Board decision on these motions, which is expected later this summer, could reduce the number of issues that require evidentiary hearinos in the proceeding.

Also during this reporting period, the NRC staff, with the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Land Management, met with representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency to discuss the Private Fuel Storage environmentalimpact statement. The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management are cooperating agencies with the NRC in the preparation of the environmentalimpact statement for the Private Fuel Storage project. At the meeting, an overview of the project, the scope of the environmentalimpact statement, and each agency's federal action were discussed. The representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency discussed its permitting responsibilities under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, and its environmentalimpact statement review process. Section 309 of the Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to review National Environmental Policy Act documents prepared by other federal agencies and to make those reviews public. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency regulates the disposition of storm water from large construction sites through its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit program. EPA also enforces the Clean Air Act Title V compliance regulations.

Additional meetings between the agencies are contemplated as preparation of the I environmental impact statement proceeds. All agree that this will facilitate each agency's understanding of, and input to, the environmental impact statement.

l 9

Vll. Summary of Reactor Enforcement by Region Reactor Enforcement Actions

• Region i Region ll Region lli Region IV TOTAL June 99 0 0 0 0 0 Sevei 7y FY 99 YTD 0 0 0 0 0 Leveli FY 98 Total 0 0 0 0 0 June 99 0 0 0 0 0 Severity FY 99 YTD 5 0 2 0 7 Level ll FY 98 Total 3 1 1 1 6 June 99 1 0 0 1 2 Severity FY 99 YTD 8 1 4 8 21 Level ill FY 98 Total 46 11 15 19 91 June 99 0 0 0 0 0 Severity FY 99 YTD Lceel IV 50 42 -54 60 206 FY 98 Total 383 271 392 261 1307 June 99 41 25 34 29 129 Non-Cited FY 99 YTD 241 175 258 240 914 Severity Level IV FY 98 Total 372 240 307 214 1133

• Numbers of violations are based on enforcement ac4on tracking (EATS) system data that may be subject to minor changes following verificaticr . The number of Severity Level I, ll, lll listed refers to the number of Severity Level I, ll, Ill violations or problems. The monthly totals generally lag by 30 days due to inspection report and enforcement development.

10

E Description of Significant Actions (Severity Level 1,11, lil) taken in June 1999 Entergy Operations, Inc., Waterford-3 l

Supplement Ill, (EA 99-104) l l A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level lll violation was issued on June 15,1999. This l

action was based on a violation of NRC requirements related to granting unescorted access to the Waterford-3 facility to an individual whose background investigation showed I that he had recently failed another employers pre-empoyrnent drug screening.

Specifically, infor nation regarding illegal use of a controiiod substance without adequate evidence of rehabilitation is required to be considered in making access authorization determinations. In this case, derogatory information of this nature was missed and was not considered until 30 days after temporary unescorted access was granted. Since the l Waterford-3 facility has received escalated enforcement action in the past two years, the NRC considered both identification and corrective actions in determining whether e dvil penalty shouH be assessed for this violation. Because Entergy identified this violation and took comprem mive corrective actions, credit for both factors is warranted, resulting in no civil penalty being assessed.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Plant Supplement Vil (EA 99-010)

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level lli violation was issued on June 29,1999. This action was based on a violation of an NRC requirement related to an unqualified Senior l Reactor Operator (SRO) who assumed the position of Assistant Station Shift Supervisor.

The SRO who assumed the watch was not considered qualified in that he had not completed remedial training after failing an evaluated requalification scenario the previous

day. An Office of Investigations investigation concluded that the SRO had deliberately l violated license conditions and caused Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation to be in violation of Technical Specification requirements. The violation existed for approximately

four hours while Unit 1 was at 100% power. Ohicials in the licensees organization were aware of the requirement, and had knowledge of the examination failure, yet failed to prevent the violation of the Technical Specification staffing requirements. Specifically, both

! the SRO and the General Supervisor of Operations were aware that a licensed operator l

could not stand watch following a requalification failure without being retrained. Also, the tcaining supervisor was aware of the requirement and aware that the SRO had failed the evaluation. However, without questioning whether the SRO would be standing watch, he granted permission for the SRO to miss training on June 16,1999, so that he could work in the plant. Because the facility had been the subject of escalated enforcement action within j the last 2 years, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for identification and Corrective Action. Credit is warranted for identification because the licensee identified, investigated, and promptly reported the violation. Credit was also warranted for corrective l

action because the corrective actions were considered prompt and comprehensive. As a result, no civil penalty was proposed in this case.

I1 I

l