ML20236X673
| ML20236X673 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1986 |
| From: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195F761 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-714 CAL, NUDOCS 8712100045 | |
| Download: ML20236X673 (133) | |
Text
_ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
, ~i[ > ddu . ,-..
- V
\
June 16, 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations FROM: James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator, Region III
SUBJECT:
PLANT SPECIFIC BACKFIT REGULATORY ANALYSIS - PALISADES In accordance with NRC Manual Chapter 0514, NRC Programs for Management of Plant Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants, I am forwarding a copy of the regulatory analysis performed for the actions taken May 21, 1986 with regard to a May 19, 1986 reactor trip at Palisades and the subsequent equipment problems. On May 21, 1986 the Region directed Consumers Power Company in a Confirmatory Action Letter to shut down until equipment failures and problems were understood and corrected. This action is covered by the backfit rule in that it was a new staff position not previously imposed by regulation, license or licensee commitment.
The actions taken May 21, 1986 were imposed immediately without a formal regulatory analysis because of the potential risk to public health and safety ,
and the reluctance of Consumers Power Company to take the action voluntarily.
Both NRR and IE were consulted and concurred in the action. The attached regulatory analysis provides the bases for this action and is being sent to the licensee.
I Any questions regarding this regulatory analysis may be directed to me or T. Tambling of my staff.
- 7. . .. . ) c m = 2. V: l
.s ' i .- r I James G. Keppler Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
H. R. Denton, NRR J. M. Taylor, IE T. H. Cox, EDO j f ).
8712100045 871204
$6SN14 PDR '
( ym Rlli v
[ Rill k
Ril y RIII
( l }
Tambling/.j r .
ills a is K ppler 6/p /86 6/gJ/86 6/ /86 6//3/86 l
I EVALUATION OF NRC STAFF IMPOSED BACKFIT !
NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE j
^
PALISADES NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY POSES NO UNDUE RISK TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY BACKGROUND On May 19, 1986, the Palisades nuclear reactor tripped from high pressure after a loss of turbine control power resulted in closure of the turbine governor valves. Although the plant responded normally, several components did not operate as expectec. The tur'ine bypass valve did not automatically open; one atmospheric dump valve did not open; a letdown intermediate pressure control valve failed (causing the CVCS relief valve to lift); a rod bottom light did not light; a charging pump designated for emergency use only could not be started despite numerous attempts; and, a pressurizer spray valve failed to reseat.
As a result of the May 19 event, on May 21, 1986, Region III directed the Palisades facility to shut down pending completion of an investigation into the cause of the May 19 reactor trip and subsequent equipment failure and permission of the Regional Administrator to restart following a briefing on corrective actions taken or planned by the licensee. Further details are provided in the attached confirmatory action letter dated May 21, 1986.
(Attachment 1) 4 Accordingly, pursuant to NRC Manual Chapter 0514, paragraph 042, this evaluation is necessary.
OBJECTIVES AND REASONS FOR THE BACKFIT The objective of the backfit was to ensure that the causes and implications of the May 19 reactor trip, ard the multiple equipment failures, including the burden these failures placed on the operators, were fully understood and ,
corrected prior to the facility resuming power operation. Prior events at the j facility, beginning in late 1984, due in part to inadequate maintenance, involved other problems with safety related equipment. This included five events related to leaking Safety Injection Tank (SIT) check valves, valve leakage problems on the HPCI injection line, SIT pressure control valves, a manual isolation valve and the three-way divert valve in the chemical and volume control system. On March 9, 1986 the licensee elected to shut down and repair the problems but had to shut down again 16 days after returning to power ,
operation after exceeding the Technical Specification limit for unidentified i primary coolant system leakage. Following the return to power operation on April 11, 1986, the licensee identified a packing failure on Condensate Pump A."
, The pump was repacked twice prior to replacing it with an onsite spare. These I events demonstrate a history of multiple equipment failures at the facility that are of concern to the NRC due to the potential for serious challenges to safety systems that they pose and due to the heavy reliance they place on continued above average operator response to maintain the plant in a safe 1 operating condition. These concerns are supported by the final report of the NRC Region III Task Force Review of the Operational History (1983-1985) for Palisades, dated May 1,1986, and the licensees SALP Category 3 ratings in the areas of maintenance, surveillance and quality program and administrative controls during the most recent SALP period ending October 31, 1985.
l V _ _ ___ ___________-_ _ _
l
! i SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE AND APPROPRIATENESS OF ACTION TAKEN Appendix A to 10 CFR 50 sets forth principal design criteria for nuclear power plants which establish the necessary design, construction, testing, and performance requirements for structures, systems, and components important to safety that provide reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. Included in these criteria are requirements to design systems which are capable of protecting the plant.during anticipated operational occurrences with a single failure of an active system component. This single failure criterion is predicated on the assumption that the systems themselves are maintained in such a fashion so as to ensure a high degree of reliability. Shortcomings in maintenance of such systems compromise their reliability, thereby increasing the probability of multiple failures, a condition contrary to plant design bases.
As noted above, the Palisades f acility has had a history of poor maintenance and numerous component failures. While it is recognized that not all of the recorded failures were with equipment important to safety, enough were to call into question the reliability of such equipment.
The question of reliability of equipment important to safety is by itself safety significant; however, in the case of the Palisades facility, this significance is elevated by virtue of the numerous failures of equipmer.t not explicitly irrportant to safety. There are two reasons for this. First, failures of such equipment can and have caused unwarranted safety systerr challenges, increasing the frequency and complexity of anticipated operational occurrences. The net effect of this is that the probability of an accident is increased. This represents a direct adverse impact to safety.
.+1 The second reason is that increasing the complexity of an event places an unwarranted burden on the plant operator by requiring that operator tc respond to multiple ec,uipment failures with the attendant distraction that represents.
The net effect is to potentially compromise the ability of the operator to respond in a fully appropriate and timely fashion to an event. This also represents a direct adverse impact on safety.
Because of the uncertain status of equipment at the Palisades facility and the number of unwarranted recent safety system challenges, the only viable option to ensure that no undue risk to public health and safety existed was to require the licensee to shut down the plant and evaluate its equipment status.
BASIS FOR INV0 KING THE EXCEPTION In light of the multiple equipment failures that occurred on May 19, the licensee's demonstrated lack of conservatism regarding plant operations with deficient equipment and the licensee's SALP Category 3 ratings described above, the Region III staff determined that no alternative short of shutdown was i feasible at the time beccuse of the immediate need to ensure that this event.
l and its implications were adequately understood and that adequate corrective l
action taken or planned.
I 2
k Accordingly, I concluded that imposition of this backfit was necessary to ensure that the Palisades facility poses no undue risk to public health and safety.
CL~o i% i92L
~
G -.. in .h Nru$.
Datep ppmes G. Keppler V U Wegional Administrator
Attachment:
As stated l
i j
3 1
C0hiIIMATORY Atil0h LETTER CAL-R11146-002 E f 1' flM Docket No. 50-255 Consumers Power Company i ATTN: Dr. F. W. Buckman Vice President huclear Operet4sas 212 West Michigan Avenut Jackson, MI 49201 Gentlemen:
This letter cunfirms the conversatiori or. May 23, 1986 between you and E. G. Grecnt.ar.
of this cifice. Thc conversation related to our concerns over multiple equipment i failures at the Palisades facility..as demonstrated by the May 19 reactor trip ;
event and associated equipment failures, the potential for serious challenges to scfety systerns that they pose, and tht burden f ailures of this type platt cr.
your operator st6ff in order to maintain the p16nt in a safe operating conditier.
With regard to the matters discussed, we understand that you will complete the follotting actions:
- 1. You will israediately take tht facility to the cold shutdown condition;
- 2. You will not restart the facility (i.e. place the facility in a condition higher than hot standby) until:
(a) a thorough investigation inito the causes and implications of thE May 15, 1980 reactor trip is completed; I
(b) a thorough investigation of plant safety systems and baler.ce of plant syster.s important to safety, with reoard te operability and required u.aintenance, is completed; (c) The Regional Administrator, or his designee, is briefed on the results of the investigations and the corrective actions teken or planned; and (d) you obtain the approval of the Regional Administrator, or his designee.
1
. \
I 1
I i
l 1
" #W *
---________.___________J
CONTIW10RY Atil0N LtTIER CAL-R)13.Bb DD't II E F. W. Buckman Should your understanding differ frorn that stated above, please infors. this effitt irrediately.
Sincerely, ;
I Jan.es G. Keppler kegional Administrator, cc w/ enclosure:
Mr. Kenneth W. Berry, Director Nuclear Licensing J. F. Firlit, General Manager DCS/RSB (RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, Elli Ronald Cellen, Michigan Public Service Corsission Nuclear Facilities and Environmental Monitoring Section i
4 h RIII. ak_& _ @llirg R111 RIII R Ribl d _f h R11 R11
_t
a or ,l i x e it gs rE n o p e S C S ei y .
R n oa .
i Bl H H.
Cm Rd .h i
.CR .
NA VP JN T e
h t
e e t hd h y t n t n t a re i f f om l on of e g
i o t ni nsa U os oen e iin i ra v r t vo tum i o poi pd t f irs iet 6 c rpu rci 8 e e c l cof
/ j c shc srk 8 b n ecn epc
/ O a dai d a 5 . t e db a n r e s en P o o p
v gt vac i ini i i p , s m si s yf oa s I nrr nci hi e t eeo eic ss S en h vf hl e eop k s ze eo rps ru im rcs or se ag p n p -
WP m ,o mft ha oes of n gf pn cl a caa no ma ue Asp tl i
E M. Arr t g tn ii fK k e c c e a n l m B a ua t n Rr r o g o f i f o p t o t or4 m n u P1 I e sy l n 5 t tt o o g0 n n ii yss i n s o o fl t et tirt s C ki irs aneii e cbs dl e titf s v - aal eitu napk y t i Bco rbi q eracl s c t e ir iif e mTh aas e ce l fl t opn uskR qnc e CBne j el u l l Ac b pu R po eoan paf g mnonyr o
u sR d n A C s R pB o S n r tno n s i I r i rP o et i uift oseft esyo i pi f otoiiiRoa ftefts t f k ri ft s m f nrial c yk cgnek p yf sr aI utl a u t c aki pcelf no t tnue d ia Bcf oacaaaf SCaegp o l B aecBxnt en Redep r i eBDS EASMI CNFIRA t tf h k R h n Uo T - - - - - - - - a N - - - - - c I e n r u
- *
- B
- L e
t m m a m m m a a m a a a ie 5 0 xm 0 0 5 1 3 N oi 0 2 3 :
rT : : : 0 0: 2 p 9 9 9 1 1 1 p
A
,i l1 : !l!
I t
c ,
e ,n l
e C h t g is t k a n R i
,Lsol
,md o l t sem rzr a
p N
z dto l n eei e s terAn ea kia e h r i na y tt anh h t ESC t e usweeRrl p )
6 k K ed eR& u u s .l g c 8 a eq uEk Pos He n (
/ e p nunacL nkCTn o l n i 5 .a r ,
/ S eDoYiB .C l u e 5 G D N J AJP d l u
d r e
r t e f w f s k td n c a
s in . a s f ae syn b u k l uf o b e e cscyu oii h hssaf r itt
.ciubi vnu l t l
tiDc te eel i )
nh sfnh rdo ew m .D ioet d
pi s
- e w b
(
uhs sit m ,r s ctt w n os n ,
oii .eoe rnr o s dwfCitm f oo i e kRv e if t i escNedl rep st s c n
e nea dst e v irbh em ien u e i l u t y ni oue q r t edeic vqm a p
e t c
e degwneo ica ezt nwe s s j uonsdi oer o n b granuse ing m a O pmorar t a r .
p y i ph u ars , t d o n redt pl mei r e h o tll cf mi rwd e l b s spuaoEa os v l i k
i s umor f f nf e a r r s dacey nao w c nx .y o f s o e tt i
,s H o n W S i e s ni s n
- e. iiol na ysa s
a r
g nei nne e t n idtdbie aor s i
aii ei s u i a i
t l v ld si s l s t p e t poiescr l sy i o b xrteoeu ien m c i
f E P u n pd p Fsa r o e ) s k sk p a l c de ( a a rz e B s ae m : . l s dw wi i et l e se ee dn t dn ue i
w l : ni s d ii ES u sot s n e f v s l m R e mii n o c i . . a cu t natr os i u ty DJ nc I fi rco ir t d nr s n
io d
ol gah tess o et - -
eort swne r ds o l c
ndreu esou u ni q t
n i u d
t n
i t
l e i n i oi pt a iu n Qas i sn e s wil l tGtig /so nei m e b a n n f set sac m u ) e u ons nmnd ot q sd p tteri s oren cn ei t nimot o o e yme nisr iira i u c ef eft otue tae t pg h e mkg e shfC rm o t j ecass l ann isow s ei s r e c f R to s cy b
u pB a o e suvnou iN sc r r o u q e a o ql d u e 0t t S m mit c r e n dC w 0s I y ta rtar sspsf snse l
nR s 2u n yti c i s s sase IN n yn d e p
rsfih Dumumupuw a o tuklt s d c pi cococ l srsrsyse ct - -
sm
. li e
unamw eififibib n ep t) b e
dIBI nD D D D r d ad n k a u u5 m( -
I - - - a P - - - - - o l4 i l e j c: xd on l
i r d n2
- B
- A i ra p
w t g na p4 n
o (5 a1 i
in so 0 t si s e e . es t r e ._
ss ue m -
t a m m m m. u ot s
p p p p hc dp -
_ m cs na i -
_ i e 0 5 5 ai ah h -
x m 0 4 1 S Ed HC T -
oi 0 3 : E
~ r T : :
2 4 T p 1 2 -
p O . .
3 N 1 2 A _
ll,l! -
/Sn.c : /jacxnrna c 4
PURPOSE OF SEMINAR DISCUSS THE PHILOSOPHY OF BACKFITTING REVIEW THE HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED MC-0514 DISCUSS THE BACKFITTING PROCESS DISCUSS EXAMPLES OF REGULATORY ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE'AND
.ME NOT.SACKFITS REVIEW RECENT INITIATIVES AND FUTURE ACTIONS l
i 4
BACKGROUND 50,109 ON BOOKS SINCE 1970 PLANT SIZE RAPIDLY ADVANCED FROM 100 MWE TO 1,000 MWE TMI EVENTS NUREG-0839 (1981), "A SURVEY BY SENIOR NRC MANAGEMENT TO OBTAIN VIEWPOINTS ON THE SAFETY IMPACTS OF REGULATORY ACTIVITIES,FROM REPRESENTATIVE UTILITIES OPERATIN'G AND CONSTRUCTING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS CRGR (1981)
REGULATORY REFORM TASK FORCE (1981) i ANPR PUBLISHED IN 8 (1983) 1
- I
-COMMISSION RECOGNIZED NEED TO ADDPESS PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFITS DIRECTED PROCEDURES TO BE DEVELOPED.
PUBLICATION OF DRAFT MC-0514 AND STAFF PROCEDURES IN @
(4/84)
l BACKGROUND (CONTINUED)
REVISED 50,109 PUBLISHED IN 8 FOR COMMENT (11/84)
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO MEMO To EDO (12/84)
REPORT ON BACKFITTING AND LICENSING PRACTICES (3/85)
CRGR v! SITS TO SITES a
t 1
l OBJECTIVES OF REVISED MC-0514 l
CLARIFY THAT'BACKFITTING IS A NECESSARY AND PROPER REGULATORYs ACTIVITY.
s..
ESTABLISH EDO-LEVEL FRAMEWORK FOR THE BACKFITTING PROCESS.
IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT OF BACKFITTING PROCESS.
EMPHAS12E THAT THE BACKFITTING PROCESS IN NO WAY RELIEVES THE LICENSEE OF !TS OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH NRC REQUIREMENTS.
ARTICULATE THE BACKTITTING PROCESS To NRC STAFF, INDUSTRY AND THE PUBLIC.
s ENHANCE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
IMPROVE REGULATORY STABILITY AND PREDICTABILITY.
PROMOTE NORMAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN REVIEWER / INSPECTOR AND LICENSEE.
l
-_--___-_ - ._. _ l
5-c6 MAJOR CHANGES TO PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFITTING PROCESS APPLICABLETOOPEP3TINGPLANTSANDPLANTSUNDERCONSTRUCTION.
N, SIMPLIFIED THE REGULATORY ANALYSIS AND REQUIRED CONDUCT OF l REGULATORY ANALYSIS PRIOR TO IMPGSING A BACKFIT.
(
3 REGULATORY ANALYSIS APPPOVAL BY OFFICE DIREcTOP/ REGIONAL
\ N, ADMINISTRATOR.
s .
4 PROVIDE FOR AGENCY-WIDE PECORDKEEPING SYSTEM - REAL TIME
%CCESS.
x APPEAL PBQCESS IN REGION AND HEADQUARTERS.
\
,,_'~ ~~. ,"~'-FH?A.LPfiUL ATORY%4PPROVAL AUTHORITY IN OFFICE WITH
~ ~~~.n b _
PROGRAMMATICRESPONSTPQLITY.
s.w
- w MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY THhQ, UGH SES CONTPACTS.
w, 1
\ \
N
\
s %
N
\
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - - . _. \ i
r.
6-I l
GENERAL TERMIN0LOQ1 L
BACKFIT - A STAFF POSITION THAT CAUSES A LICENSEE TO CHANGE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION OF A FACILITY FROM THAT CONSISTENT WITH ALREADY APPLICABLE STAFF POSITIONS, AFTER CERTAIN REGULATORY MILESTONES ARE COMPLETED (052).
APPLICABLE- REGUL ATORY STAFF POSITION - A POSITION ALREADY SPECIFICALLY IMPOSED UPON OP COMMITTED TO BY A LICENSEE AT THE TIME OF IDENTIFICATION OF A PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFIT (053).
GENERIC BACKFIT - APPLYING THE SAME NEW NRC STAFF POSITION ON MORE THAN ONE LICENSEE.
PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFIT - APPLYING A NEW NRC STAFF POSITION ON A SINGLE LICENSEE !
)
I LICENSEE - CP HOLDER,'-OL HOLDER, PDA/FDA FOR STANDARDIZED PLANT. '
N h
a
T 7-
')
l B ACKF IT -
A STAFF POSITION THAT WOULD CAUSE A LICENSEE TO CHANGE THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OR OPERATION FROM THAT CONSISTENT WITH ALREADY APPLICABLE REGULATORY STAFF POSITIONS, TAKEN AFTER CERTAIN DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION MILESTONES, INVOLVING VARIOUS NRC APPPOVALS, HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN
~
ACHIEVED.
I l
l
l
+
APPLICABLE REGULATORY STAFF POSITIONS THOSE ALREADY IMPOSED'UPON OR COMMITTED TO BY A LICENSEE
, i THREE BASIC TYPES
- 1. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS IN EXPLICIT REGULATIONS, OPDERS, PLANT LICENSES (AMENDMENTS, CONDITIONS, TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS). NOTE THAT SOME 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, RESPONSES TO INSPECTION REPORTS, OR RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS, AND CONFIRMATORY ACTION LETTERS.
l
_g.
l
)
l i
APPLICABLE REGULATORY STAFF POSITIONS (CONTINUED) 1
- 3. NRC STAFF POSITIONS THAT ARE DOCUMENTED, APPROVED, EXPLICIT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE MORE GENERAL REGULATIONS, AND ARE C0NTAINED IN DOCUMENTS SUCH AS THE SRP, BRANCH TECHNICA'.
POSITIONS, REGULATORY GUIDES, GENEPIC LETTEPS AND IE BULLETINS. SUCH POSITIONS AS THESE ARE NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE STAFF POSITIONSJTO THE EXTENT THAT STAFF HAS, IN A PREVIOUS LICENSING OR INSPECTION ACTION, TACITLY OP EXPLICITLY EXCEPTED THE LICENSEE FROM PART OP ALL OF THE POSITION,
. - - - . - - . _ - - - _ - _ - - - _ - ~ D
TIME OF ISSUANCE -
l THOSE~ TIMES AFTER WHICH A STAFF POSITION WILL BE CONSIDERED A BACKFIT.
- 1. AFTER THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR THE FACILITY (FOR FACILITIES HAVING CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ISSUED AFTEP MAY 1, 1985); OR
- 2. AFTER 6 MONTHS BEFORE THE DATE OF DOCKETING OF THE OL APPLICATION FOR THE FACILITY (FOR FACILITIES HAVING
, CONSTRUCTION PEPMITS ISSUED bEFORE MAY 1, 1985); OP
- 3. AFTER THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE OPERATING LICENSE FOR THE FACILITY (FOR FACILITIES HAVING AN' OPERATING LICENSE ON i, MAY 1, 1985).
f l
IDENTIFYING PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFITS (041)
STAFF INTERNAL PROCESS ,
REGULATORY ANALYSIS-MANAGEMENT APPPOVAL LICENSEE
-SEND TO 0FFICE DIRECTOR / REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR NRC STAFF INTERNAL PROCESS l
I BACKFIT DETERMINATION 1
REPORT TO EDO 3 WEEKS LICENSEE INFORMED
)
I i
q
- 12'-
.i REGULATORY ANALYSIS (042) l
.I SUBSTANTIAL. INCREASE IN PROTECTION OF FUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
COST OF IMPLEMENTATION IS JUSTIFIED.
OFFICE DIRECTOR / REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL.
NUREG/BR-0058, REV. 1, REGULATORY ANALYSIS GUIDELINES OF THE l
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NUREG/CR-3568, A HANDBOOK FOR VALUE-lMPACT ASSESSMENT NOT REQUIRED WHEN PROMPT IMPOSITION OF BACKFIT NECESSARY.
i s.>-
CONTENT OF REGULATORY ANALYSIS (042) 1 l
BACKFIT DESCRIPTION AND HOW SAFETY IS SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED.
WHY PROPOSAL CLASSIFIED AS PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFIT CcST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS PUBLIC RISK IMPACT RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROPOSED AND 5XISTING POSITIONS..
i
~~
IMPACT ON OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE DOLLAR COST OF INITIAL AND CONTINUING IMPLEMENTATION.
RESOURCE COST TO NRC AND AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES, QUALITATIVE FACTORS BEAPING ON NEED FOR BACKFIT (OPERATIONAL TRENDS, MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS, SALP, ETC.)
IS BACKFIT INTERIM OR FINAL - JUSTIFICATION FOR INTERIM l
1 I
- 14,-
CONTENT 0F REGULATORY ANALYSIS (042) (CONTINUED)
AFFIRMATION OF INTEROFFICE COORDINATION ,
SCHEDULE FOR LICENSEE IMPLEMENTATION AND BASIS SCHEDULE FOR STAFF ACTIONS PRIORITIZATION IN LIGHT OF OTHER SAFETY RELATED ACTIVITIES.
1 l
l l
l 1
- 15 1
. 1 I
i-APPEAL PROCESS (043)
ONLY. PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFITS APPEALABLE UNDER MC 0514 ;
i LICENSEE TO ADDRESS APPEALS TO 0FFICE DIRECTOR / REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR (COPY TO DIRECTOR, ROGR STAFF)
WITHIN 3 WEEKS OFF. ICE DIRECT 0P/ REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR REPORT To ED0 PLAN FOR RESOLUTION (PROMPTLY INFORM LICENSEE) i-FINAL DECISION ON APPEALS WILL BE MADE BY OFFICE DIRECTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR PROGRAM AREA UNLESS RESOLVED BY RA OR OTHER MANAGEMENT LEVEL
-- LICENSING RELATED - NRR EXCEPT FOR SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), QA (IE), EP (IE)
ENFORCEMENT RELATED - IE 1
INSPECTION PELATED - IE
APPEAL PROCESS (043) (CONTINUED)
TWO APPEAL LEVELS (DIVISION DIRECTOR AND OFFICE DIPECTOR/ .l REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR) i APPEAL PROCESS SHOULD FOCUS ON WHETHER OR NOT SAFETY IMPROVED SUBSTANTIALLY AT A REASONABLE COST AS DESCRIBED IN REGULATORY ANALYSIS.
me 1
---_-__--_--____a
1 4
l
. \
IMPLEMENTATION OF BACKFIT (044) i l
BACKFIT POSITIONS SHOULD BE TRANSMITTED TO LICENSEE IN WRITING AND IDENTIFIED AS A BACKFIT.
LICENSEE MAY EITHER APPEAL OR IMPLEMENT. l I
SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN
)
CONSULTATION WITH LICENSEE.
1 l
PROMPT IMPOSITION WITHOUT CONDUCT OF REGULATORY ANALYSIS MUST BE APPROVED BY PROGRAM 0FFICE DIRECTOR AND EDO NOTIFIED.
UNLESS PROMPT IMPOSITION NECESSARY, POSITIONS ARE NOT TO BE IMPOSED, PLANT OPERATIONS ARE NOT TO BE DISTURBED DURING REGULATORY ANALYSIS AND APPEAL PROCESSES.
l l
t RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING (045)
SYSTEM BEING DEVELOPED BY RM EACH OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVELY MANAGES THE SYSTEM PROVIDES FOR PROMPT RETRIEVAL / CURRENT STATUS SYSTEM CONTENT PLANT ID SUBSTANCE OF BACKFIT ISSUE STAFF / LICENSEE IDENTIFIED FOR EACH BACKFIT PROCESS ACTIVITY RESPONSIBLE NRC PERSON PLANNED SCHEDULE ACCOMPLISHED SCHEDULE REFERENCES j
FINAL DISPOSITION
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A STAFF ACTION IS A BACKFIT l
l IS THE POSITION.A PREVIOUSLY APPLICABLE REGULATORY STAFF POSITION?
TIMING OF THE POSITION RELATIVE TO REGULATORY MILESTONES.
HAS THE LICENSEE REALLY VOLUNTEERED TO TAKE ACTION?
ACTIONS PROPOSED BY LICENSEE RESULTING FAOM NORMAL STAFF / LICENSEE DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING AN ISSUE ARE NOT BACKFITS, WOULD THE STAFF POSITION CAUSE THE LICENSEE TO CHANGE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION?
IS THE STAFF ACTION DIRECTING, TELLING OR COERCING, OR MERELY SUGGESTING OR ASKING THE LICENSEE TO C0ilSIDEP THE STAFF PROPOSED ACTION?
IS THE LICENSEE IN NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AN NRC REQUIREMENT?
IS THE LICENSEE MEETING WRITTEN COMMITMENTS TO THE NRC?
l i
20 - I L !
SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS INSPECTION i
INSPECTION OF ANY ITEM / ACTIVITY IS NOT BY ITSELF A BACKFIT.
IDENTIFICATION OF DEFICIENCIES AND DISCUSSIONS WITH LICENSEES REGARDING THE DEFICIENCIES ARE NOT BACKFITS.
LICENSEE AGREEMENT TO TAKE ACTION IN PESPONSE TO INSPECTOR FINDINGS IS NOT A BACKFIT PROVIDED THE LICENSEE IS NOT FACED WITH AN ULTIMATUM.
IF THE STAFF INDICATES A CERTAIN ACTION IS THE ONLY WAY FOR THE STAFF TO BE SATISFIED, THAT ACTION IS A BACKFIT.
l i
(
_-a
1
' ~
- 21 SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS INSPECTION (CONTINUED) 4 EXAMPLES LICENSEE COMMITS TO ANSI-N18.7 IN SAR IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES DO NOT CONTAIN ALL N18.7 REQUIRED ELEMENTS TELLING LICENSEE HE MUST INCLUDE THEM IS NQT A BACKFIT.
IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES DO NOT CONTAIN CERTAIN N18.7 OPTIONAL ELEMENTS.
TELLING LICENSEE HE MUST INCLUDE THEM IS A BACKFIT.
DISCUSSION WITH THE LICENSEE REGARDING THE MERITS OF INCLUDING THE OPTIONAL ITEMS IS NOT A BACKFIT.
1 l
i 1
)
j 1
ts i
f ,
l ENFORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT OF NRC REQUIREMENTS IS NOT A BACKFIT, A NOV REQUESTING DESCRIPTION OF COPRECTIVE ACTION IS NOT A BACKFIT, LICENSEE COMMITMENTS IN RESPONSE TO NOV ARE NOT BACKFITS, DISCUSSIONS DURING ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCES AND' RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADVICE ARE NOT BACKFITS.
A STATEMENT TO A LICENSEE DIRECTING A SPECIFIC ACTION TO SATISFY THE STAFF IS A BACKFIT.
I l
us REANALYSIS OF ISSUES OCCASIONALLY THE NRC STAFF MAY CONCLUDE THAT A PPEVIOUSLY NRC APPROVED LICENSEE PROGRAM DOES NOT SATISFY A REGULATION, LICENSE CCNDITION OR COMMITMENT.
A SUBSEQUENT STAFF SPECIFIED CHANGF. IS A BACKFIT.
A LICENSEE VOLUNTARY CHANGE IS NOT A BACKFIT.
EXAMPLE LICENSEE IN THE SAR COMMITS TO A CARD 0X SYSTEM IN CABLE SPREADING ROOM.
STAFF PUBLISHES AN SER ACCEPTING SYSTEM AND LICENSEE INSTALLS THE SYSTEM.
STAFF SUBSEQUENTLY REEVALUATES ORIGINAL POSITION AND DECIDES WATER SUPPRESSION SYSTEM IS NEEDED.
IF THE STAFF NOW REQUIRES A WATER SUPPRESSION SYSTEM IT IS A BACKFIT.
l
LICENSING - USE OF SRP i
l SRP DELINEATES MANAGEMENT APPROVED SCOPE AND DEPTH OF PEVIEW' TO GIVE REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT LICENSEE WILL SATISFY NRC REQUIREMENTS. !
l APPLICATION OF A CURRENT SRP IN AN OL REVIEW IS NOT A BACKFIT IF THE SRP WAS EFFECTIVE 6 MONTHS PRIOR TO START OF THE OL REVIEW (6 MONTHS PRIOR TO DOCKETING OL APPLICATION),
USING ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA MORE STRINGENT THAN OR IN ADDITION TO SRP CRITERIA IS A BACKFIT, STAFF DISCUSSIONS WITH LICENSEES REGARDING THE MERITS OF ACTIONS WHICH ARE BEYOND SRP CRITERIA ARE NOT BACKFITS UNLESS i THE STAFF LEAVES THE LICENSEE NO OTHER REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE.
l 4
APPLICATION OF SRP CRITEPIA TO AN OPERATING PLANT GENERALLY IS CONSIDERED A BACKFIT UNLESS THE SRP WAS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED FOP OPERATING PLANT IMPLEMENTATION.
l
I 1
-l
-}
PLANT-SPECIFIC ORDERS i
i AN ORDER ISSUED TO CAUSE A LICENSEE TO.TAKE ACTIONS WHICH ARE NOT OTHERWISE APPLICABLE REGULATORY STAFF POSITIONS IS A l
,, AN ORDER ISSUED TO CONFIRM A LICENSEE COMMITMENT IS NOT A BACKFIT.
I
/
)
1
SUMMARY
l BACKFITTING IS AN EXPECTED STAFF ACTIVITY.
BACKFITTING IS TO BE CONDUCTED IN A CONTPOLLED-MANNER.
BACKFITTING CONCEPTS ARE STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IS POSITION A PREVIOUSLY APPLICABLE STAFF POSITION?
STATUS OF LICE,NSEE IN REGULATORY PPOCESS.
IS LICENSEE BEING COERCED?
IS COMPLIANCE /CONFORMANCE INVOLVED?
BACKFIT PROCESS IDENTIFY AND DETERMINE REGULATORY ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT APPROVAL
27 -
4 S_UMMARY (CONTINUED)
TRANSMITTAL TO LICENSEE IMPLEMENT OR APPEAL
~
FINAL DISPOSITION 0
4 EXAPPLE - BACKFIT !DENTIFICATf0N'- 1 1.- LICENSEE PECEIVED CERTAIN EQ APPPOVAL ON ELECTRICAL -
EQUIPMENT !N 198?, e
?, LICENSEE WAS OFFICIALLY NOTIFIED IN FEBRllAPY 3985 THAT STAFF WANTED ADDITIONAL TEST OF.THAT EQUIPMENT, 3, OUEST!0NS:
CliANGED STAFF PnSITION YF.S .
TIMING 9 AFTER LICEt! SING
- PREVIOUSLY APPLICABLE POSITION - N0, IS NEW
. LICENSEE PAS DIRECTED' - YES CONCLUSION:
NEW POSITION WAS TAKEN BY STAFF PRIOP TO MAY 1, 1985 - DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR MC0514 CONSIDERATION, I
EXAMPLE - RACVFIT IDENTIFICATION - ?
- 1. INSPECTION REPORT lN JUNE 19811 - EXPLICITLY APPROVED LICENSE PROCEDURE FOR DESIGN CHANGE CONTROL PROGRAM AND STATED THAT APPLICABLE STANDARDS WERE MET.
I
- 2. INSPECTION REPORT IN SEPTEMBER 1985 STATED NEW STAFF POSITION REGARDING ADE0VACY OF PROCEDURE - WANTED CEPTAIN
' ADDITIONAL MATERIAL TO BE INCLUDED IN PROCEDURE.
3, OUEST10NS:
CHANGED STAFF POSITION - YES TIMING - AFTER LICENSING
- PREVIOUSLY APPLICABLE POSITION - NO, IS NEW CHANGE IS TO BE IMPOSED - YES .
CONCLUSION:
IS A BACKFIT, l l
l
I l
l 1
EXAMPLE - BACKFIT !DENTIFICAT!0N - 3
- 1. PLANT IS IN OL REVIEW, OL DOCKETED DECEMBER 1981, 2, NRC SAYS POSITIONS ON ACCllMULATOR TANK LEVEL AND PRESSURE IN l R,0,1,97, REV, 2, DECEMBER 1980 SHOULD BE MET (i.EVEL OR j i
PRESSURE INSTRUMENTATION MUST PEET 50,49), LICENSEE CLAIMS l l
50,109 BACKFIT, I l
- 3. OUEST10NS: )
1 CHANGED STAFF POSIT 10tl - ND j i
TIMING - BEFORE OL DOCKETING !
PREVIOUSLY APPLICABLE POSITION - YES l l
CHAFGE IS TO BE IMPOSED - YES j l
l CON';LUSION:
IS NOT A PROPOSED BACKFIT l l
1 l
l l
- M R
- O F
- E
- R
_ S :
D E M N N
- O A I R L F G E S N
- D E M E T
I T
I V U U T
_ U I T R T I
F
-- G A T
O I T
K F
S C N
Y E L
N A B
R S A I
I T Y
- E R C S R T I R T P S I
L U E R
U T C
I T
D D E U N Y N L I B I E R D C N A E
I O
EP M LU R O S CO A
P T I
D UR E A E NG R
P - - -
4
=
N I
D E
I B
S R E C N E S E 4 1 -
I L L U D5
_ E R S0 D L AR I
A E U N ST S
E P G I F
CA E E OH H RC Hh T PL T /'
L TN O K F A S I S C OM S E
/
/
T S E H SF F C N U C C MA I
D [
E AT N C ,
T S G RS E A N
I N D I GS P B L T A' P O A T I DR C A C R I
F E E K WN E N C OE R E A LH H G B FT T
p
/ j
/
p/
E /
L U
R
/[l A L
A N
I F
E H
T F
O N S O
I I
S S N S Y D S O E K I
S Y L R C T T A A A C U I L N D S
N O
R T A B
C I B A N P N
O E S A. T A I T L M I
C 'f I
F T P A D I L
f S! K S E E E
L P U dpH E C P P P A X P M
A C B I,, E A I
- * * * 'e * *
/
[,
/,/
/
/ T N
A L
F O
T T E L
S I U L R K G C N I
,/ E T
/~ H T
/ C I
F S
/ K S T T C I S S I A Y E
F B L U S
K F T A Q E T C OIF N A R I A YK TC N F
K B G O C LA I
B N I A
I B
I T T B AC T A CF I I F M I I K R LC O PE C F PP A N AS B I
. 1
. 1 1 1 1 1
S S N E O R R I EU T, O T N S DD E E E UE NU R U LC O Q OCO S P D E TNRI S E P T N MC H DY S O OO T EED I
L I
CR H THN T
I T
K S E M
,P?
D T
I M.A LSN I
C U L ,E W E Q E AT T NO H TVOE S C D OIOI T C
F O Y RF E
D NTAAZ S,PPF U E C I T S A L RI N G I
F E
I E
R AS C AIFA N R UN I
N SDG I
T K E S TG N I
TO R O T C CISIO O S FM N I I F
A A U ET L K EI K B F : R DA A : CRS C eTS Z A O l ,I E leA p BWGAE B S p NN R :
T m AITGA A m EDN S a HSG a TR A I
S x ER S x O AH E
N E WDO T E NHC O O C - N -
A ~
T O .
N S S T D I
S I F E T I
K S T M C O T A I F
A A P H K R B O T C C R G PT N A I
F B A I C WF I
O I
E O I
D E AK T H E RC I
P S T G S- DA O F N W T HB P O I O N TC F 1
N I I . i S F L
F A
L S WI F C A T
O I
F K
P E I C R E S T C O OP A G T A N R Y-S SIET N B I
Y P FT RF E D NEK I
F I
E T E L N
D I A - - M I
- e .
1ll l ,
4 1
S 5 N 0 S O R E I C T E
~
I A T P
U A D T A U N E I
S H C
Q E L T
E P U I L G P R F A N T K U I T
A I F
C A N T K B A I F
C M K A F C B O F F A L S A B_
A E T L S N
I P
F M S E A C H X R T E N
l l\!l
~
\
?
T M F A I -
KGR _
E S
L C A AT N O
U EN C O.
E VE Y E G _
AME L N H T U E
F R I
I I
YG A E I F
HAN S
E H
T K C
U T A W A R N B M T E S Y M E C L E I
F N O L P
I E R T D T M _
N N
E U I _
D R O O _
I P C T -
llll
N E R N G E A N C S M A N I O H O E R C C G F G .
N S N Y A E I H G D T .
C N N D E T A U S F N H O L A A LY, C P A U
S PT T M Q N O E YF E
E C E U NA V F G N
R AS E R
O I T
T TO P S T AT T I S HT O C F K
E I TN T E F C F
I EE MG N F E
A B
NE I L
SM O AI MC C
F E O F l T S O
A S T R E L Y N U B TN S E
" CO R EI Y G R AT E I
D N RT R C I S ON A S
L N S CE S A E E EM D U D U TU O Q U G A E D R C M G R N TO SD HN N P O CO I
T C N-N I I
T E OO HC T I F
S
" S MI S WA K N EI C GO DCE WYR A B
NIS OD OO I
SS T HT T SAL AI SIF EM NK T RM A SU C E CA UG NO I C MB MR E
lll !i ;
- N S O S Y, I
T EA A RW DR M N DE R AD O O F
I T DN N NU C
I A ASE S
- E D R E G S
R E I HN L I D U M TA S O Q R AHD L
- R E R
O F G CE N A
U
- T N OGN O.
- N L O
I TN A I E O R S SDL G C T W SR P N N O EAR I 1
- O L L
C OEGO i C A I
T RRO P
F K
N N NT C E O I
C OD I A B
M T TIT E E A AA I s
G A
M M Mi R E T RM N O S OM A F F O
M N I
Y SINC e *
- ll 1 '
E L
B S L A R I
O K A F
R R F T O A N E O L W F C U T I
O "L
e R E E T A C E K A R S
.A T T N I
H M S N O D
T O S E I T
S L
U C T T O
" S A T
A U
N D I V H E E E E E T RU R O.
E S R I
P M I C P WD R E E G
N E R L E O T
MC E ON T
I T
P X T T R O
I I E N F M S P T K I
E O Y D N C B I S S E R A O T S AA T B T S U
E R S D S I
G N S A A N M O H E R T O L T C S C U E R R R N - -
4 lill 4 ,
U
?
M TAR I
F I C
KG S CO I D
AR T S BP N E
L A
AN T M T
U Q
SE I S E I
M S G T M M E N AE C -
I O O HG f
C E R V I
A T P I F
K WN N E C S
N C A M I
T E L A
A B
A H _
M E G M E R
U D
A E T P I V
N S M I A Y O D M S C N I
O ll
C R
S N S P T E E
M E U H T
N Y E
T M OI E O S E R W A CG M L Y S P S N N N T M L R
E AE O P I
I E I T E I T C M A D P S L
L F N E WC T A I
D M L U C R A L C E E S
O Y I D AB T L
E A C B E
W T F Y N U N G R L A OC I Q
T S ON U E E D N R E N L E T D D I I V E
R TS E O R T F G E V A N E L S AS N SE D S N A C I
E P M L I C T O E N NC N I
N O T
T E L S R OO A I I O R T OIT I
F G L T R P I T P K A AR E D T A S C S C T A D R A CC L O A N A P N AE I I FT MA R N D P B A T E U D R V L N U I
D A OR M R O
I T L AI L OM F E N I U C U T A ME N T P
AF S F T U N O P LS I S U LY S - - - - AS - - -
- e i l
S S
T I N S R E A A S M B E I S E L I E
S G C G E R L S S NT I I S N G GA E SF I I
A AE L E C NK E L
U K S P P C
I R EC U C I P C U CA D D A S O OI B S S
E A P E I
R S L I H S L N D
P TA C T I B O S S E Y S I S L T L NF T / F Y I
S N A C I F B AO E T S
K C
L S O U.
I I V F A OI T K S EN C S LO T A O A N P S O E
A AOEI I
F S C B A F C I
G M B P RT K T T T F O E N FS I
C A A A F D I E F F A H H H AN T T T O O OO P B T T T T O N T I
S N E E E E E S I T E F
O GG M F K Y I D D I
OCN C D CE N E NT OCAM F C S T E EO AL N A AE I E A LT O R AG R PL WI F G B C W WR I RA E T A I
T U U F O OO AS S N U SMI V EN A N S A I I T N NR D S SO E N K KP E
I L A AM AC R D M I D - - A I V - - - - - -
oc e
u i
n t
n L I L
o O P C
(
R T
I C
E N S S
S E MSE S O I
D S S OC E S C S E N C N R -
K L
C OT P U E G R A U
O R O S S OE O Q R S E
E R
F R D F P W E P C F I
N D L O G T N C OOA R F A N I
T I
T P T N O E P I
T N
I O N P N F A L E A
I T A O K M E P
MAIO P T T R I
T C
A E P O N U O A B T R AL E SE L T I O
S F V E ON P Y S OE R E O R S E D P R M O S C U - - - - N I
t
S R E
C A L
R I C
U M I R
O I S E S N N F
Y O E I L
N G P E A T R I
C V M N O S I S E F I S E I
M M S D
N T O E T E S
L R S L
A I
E I U E I
T A H T F U N N R
I N
U E I T U Q
E R NO I MC T G E RS P E T R N E A T NR E O M WMS FH P P
I T
T O T R Y OT O I
E F C B F OS N O K F OY E C N N OI B N A S
I I O E T B S WR AN MN R E U UO R EI O I
I LI AV P E A A T TT VCT ECDA MR N EA O
C - - - -
~
i
S S S N E E O N C I S
I L
O I S N P R C L O I P E E I C D N V A T S L T I A N R OEL M D E S O I
T S U M E C
F A LAOR L A
D E G U R L A
Z I R F U.
I NE N V A O C N AVE I O E
I N S R O G S R D. AE N T I R O G N
N MRR H AR ON F I T
Y OSD I
O E T S I . T I
T V WE B E E F N O E T D CA E K C
N I
_D L C U E
T T L A N P S E OAI E B T R R T F
E S R AT S R N E N ME E K E
G O T E C N C O L A VI I
P T D T
N I - - - M I - -
e W
2~ fn E
=
=
a -
.J
" CL
- u. lll) -
M d O us W -
O m i I
National AIF/NESP-033 Environmental Studies Projeet Z OccupationalRadiation Exposure implications of NRC-Initiated Multi-Plant Actions l
i I
I Atomic Industrial Forum,Inc. /l -
i
AIF/NESP-033 OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURE IMPLICATIONS OF NRC-INITIATED MULTI-PLANT ACTIONS Prepared for the National Environmental Studies Project of the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
by S C & A,INC.
McLean, Virginia Sanford C. Cohen David J. Goldin Abraham S. Goldin March 1986
i I
AIF/NESP TASK FORCE i
Donald W. Edwards Melinda S. Renner Yankee Atomic Electric Company Atomic industrial Forum,Inc.
Task Force Secretary Task Force Chairman Charles F. Bergeron John J. Kelly i New York Power Authority Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Robert Broen William R. Loeffler Benchmark Technologies Corporation Electric Power Research institute Brian Colby James McHugh American Nuclearinsurers Northeast Utilities Scott E. Medling Joe L Danek Florida Power & Light Company Southem Califomia Edison Company Bruce Dionne Bemard R. Quinn Yankee Atomic Electric Company Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation Fred Fey Frank Roddy Northem States Power Company Bechtel Power Corporation Robert Gill Scott Schofield Duke Power Company Southem Califomia Edison Compan)
Les Smith David Wagner institute of Nucle er Power Operations Virginia Power Ned R. Horton Thomas Walt General Electric Ct.mpany Portland General Electric Company Donald Howard Commonwealth Edison Company Warren Minners Richard Serbu U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Liaison to Task Force Liaison to Task Force i
---_--2__ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ m _
L l
i l
1 PREFACE The long awaited NRC revised rule on backfitting was published in September of 1985. The FEDEML REG / STER announcement, formally entitled " Revision of Backfitting Process for Power Reactors," advises that Section 109(c) of 10 CFR 50 now sets out nine factors to be used by the NRC staff in making a required systematic and documented analysis of the safety significance and appropriateness of the backfits they order. The fourth of these analysis factors is the " potential impact on radiological exposures of facility employees" (50 FEDEML REG / STER 38103, Septem-ber 20,1985). It is clear from the text of the rule that the Commission expects occupational doses to be carefully weighed by NRC staff before backfits can be ordered in the future.With this require-ment in mind, and because of industry concems that backfits appear to have had clearfy demonstrable impacts on worker doses, NESP undertook a study to determine more accurately the effect that regulatory activities have had on collective worker doses and to what extent regulatory decisionmaking has included this important negative consideration before imposing a requNment.
In the past, industry representatives and others have speculated that "around ten percorr ,f the annual collective dose in the United States could be attributed to mandated backfit actir,. This report offers an historical " snapshot" which suggests that a more accurate figure is around forty percent, or about 100,000 person-rem, during the five year period studied.
One may ask how such an historical perspective can benefit the nuclear industry in the near term regulatory climate. As this report goes to press, the NRC staff is preparing an NRC Manual chapter on how they expect to implement the newly promulgated backfit rule. When this Manual chapter is made available, it will certainly be appropriate for industry groups and individuallicensees to take a careful look at exactly how occupational radiation risks are going to be factored into future backfit orders. It is noteworthy that, during the data gathering phase of this NESP report, the investigators uncovered virtually no evidence that occupational doses were considered prior to the imposition of backfits. This void is mentioned briefly, and without prejudice, in the report text. However, to the reader, this deficiency, together with the magnitude of the dose involved, bear witness that antic-ipating risks to workers is essential to the effective evaluation of any backfit by s//porties.
From the beginning, the Task Force recognized that ambiguities surrounding the definition of "backfit" could cause problems in selecting the activities to be sampled in the study. Regulators and industry have had and are still having difficulty agreeing on a meaning of that term which meets all needs. So, instead of using the term "backfits" to describe activities to be scrutinized, the Task Force adopted the term " Multi Plant Actions" (MPA), which is employed by the NRC in NUREG-0748 (the " Orange Book"). This N~UREG was used as the basis for compilation of generic backfits, and the report takes its name from the MPAs. Since plant-specific and other non-generic requirements were not included, the doses estimated in this sisdy are probably lower than if such site-specific figures had been included.
An added feature of this report is a " catalog" which lists and describes every MPA from the period studied along with an identification of the document (s) that ordered the action. The Task Force be-lieves this is the first compilation of this type over arranged for easy access in one reference source. The NRC, despite having instituted these MPAs, has never published such a unified list.
Donald Edwards of Yankee Atomic Electric Company, who chaired the Task Force,is also chairman :
of AIF's Beckfit Subcommittee and has been a leader in industry interactions with NRC during the lengthy rulemaking process. He extends appreciation to the Task Force listed inside the front cover for their time, effort, technical expertise, and overall cooperation in bringing this report to comple-tion. Particular thanks are due to Les Smith of INPO for his attention to detsil during the review of
8 drafts. The investigators extend thanks to: James Bates of Flonda Power and Light Company.
David Mueller of Vermont Yankee Atomic Electnc Company; David Helton of Yankee Atomic Elec-tric Company; David Parsons of Duke Power Company; Steve Hamilton of Carolina Power and Light Company; Stephen Hutson of Baltimore Gas and Electnc Company; Donald Ortock of North-em States Power Company; Pnnce Patton of Alabama Power Company; and James Wilson of Por- l tland General Electric Company for their assistance in providing the plant-specific information so J crucial to this effort. Without their time in searching radiation work permits and other plant records,(he data which form the statistical bases for the report's conclusions could not have been obtained. The Task Force proper included liaisons from the Radiological Assessment and Safety Program Evaluation Branches of the NRC staff. They offered assistance in technical areas, were wilimg to share public information from the files of their branches, and facilitated the gathenng oi data from the public files of other branches. Joh) Hannon and Richard Hartfield of the NRC staff ,
also assisted the investiga*,rs in locating and analyzing information within the NRC's files. It j should be noted, however, that the NRC's assistance and liaison during the study is not to be con. {
strued as their necessarily endorsing the conclusions reached in the report.
l Melinda S. Renner Manager, Special NESP Projects National Environmental Studies Project 4
I i
l 1
l 1
I
l EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The purpose of this study is to estimate the collective occupa-tional radiation exposure at U.S. nuclear power plants which is attributable to new Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) require- i 1
ments and changes in existing requirements, and to identify the j specific regulatory requirements which contribute most signific-antly to titis exposure. In order to obtain a statistically meaningf ul estimate and to observe trends, the study is based on five years of data, collected at le representative nuclear power stations, containing a totel of 16 operating units. The time period 1979 thre igh 1983 was selected because it encompasses the years during which most of the plant modifications resulting f rom the Three Mile Island (TMI) Action Plan were made. Also, the data needed to conduct the study are not widely available for l years earlier than 1979.
To avoid arbitrariness or controversy in the definition of new and changed NRC requirements, a list published by the NRC itself l I
in NUREG-0748, " Operating Reactors Licensing Actions Summary" '
(the so-called Orange Book), was adopted. The items .on this list are designated by the NRC staff as " Multi-Plant Actions (MPAs)",
a terminology which has been adopted for this study. This list of MPAs, which is prepared by the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regul ation, was augmented with the I&E Bulletins issued during the study period by the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement. I Plant-specific requirements were ignored because of the dif ficul-ty in extrapolating exposures to the entire industry.
___.m.___ -------
I l-I l The list of MPAs was screened to identify those that could have resulted in occupational exposure during the study period. Items on the list t? %t were not NRC-initiated were ignored. Next, representative plants were selected by dividing the operating reactors into classes and designating one or two plants in each cl ass. On-site visits were made to the representative plants, ;
where the list of MPAs was compared against the job descriptions on radiation work permits in order to determine the exposure attributable to each requirement. The percentage of exposure 1 attributable to NRC-initiated MPAs was calculated f or the repre-sentative plants and applied to the dose of . record for all of the i
operating plants to obtain the total collective dose attributable i to NRC-initiated requirements, l The results indicate that over the five-year period 1979 through j 1983, 40 percent cf the total occupational radiation exposure at
)
light ' water reactors (LWRs) was attributable to NRC-initiated l MPAs. Based on the doses of record for LWRs, 'this percentage '
r e pt r. nts approximately 99,999 person-rem of collective exposure.
The exposures attributable to NRC-initiated MPAs at pressurized I
water re3ctors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs) over the five-year period were roughly comparable: 38 percent (more than 4 7,9 99 per son-rem) at PWRs and 42 percent (more than 51,099 per son-rem) at BWRs.
l
l l
f ANNUAL VARIATIONS IN LWR EXPOSURES SHOWING ESTIMATED EXPOSURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NRC. INITIATED MPAs I
900 -
877 850 - j s1s 800 - l 791 760 750 -
700 -
650 - a40
{ 600 -
W E
s 550 -
o en 4
l E 500 -
e.
t- 450 -
410 h i e 400 - i I
- j. g 350 - 340 3 310 300
$ 300 - 280 )
a.
x 250
- 250 -
i'7" 200 -
[39$!
" '^
.s.. -
140% .:
150 - :iid7M . - . . .
fjj% ! ii34%ji ,
100 - .
J 50 -
0-1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 5 YEAR AVERAGE NOTE: SHADED PORTIONS SHOW ESTIMATED EXPOSURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NRC.
INITIATED MULT1 PLANT ACTIONS; THE NUMBERS AT THE TOP OF EACH COLUMN ARE THE AVERAGE PER UNIT EXPOSURES FOR THE YEAR.
t TABLE OF CONTENTS i Section Page EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
. . . . . . .. ....... ... . . v
- 1. INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS .. . ...... ... . . I 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2.1 Exposure Attributable to NRC-Initiated MPAs . 3 1.2.2 MPAs that Contributed Most Significantly . . 4 1.2.3 Trends Over the Five-Year Period . . . . . 6
- 2. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1 Definition and Identification of New and Changed NRC Regulatory Requirements . . . . . . . . .. . . . 7 2.2 Selection of Representative Plants . . . . . . . . . 18 2.3 Collection of Exposure Data at the Representative Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 '
2.4 Analysis of the Data and Extrapolation to the Entire Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
- 3. RESULTS AND UNCERTAINTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.1 Estimated Exposures Attributable to NRC-Initiated MPAs f or PWRs, BWRs, and LWRs in the Aggregate . . . 28 3.2 Major Contributors to Exposure Attributable to NRC-Initiated MPAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.3 Trends in the Annual Percentage of Exposure Attributable to NRC-Initiated MPAs . . . . . . . . . 35 3.4 Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 APPENDIX A List and~ Description of NRC-Initiated Multi-Plant Actions Involving Occupational Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A-1 '
APPENDIX B Classification Scheme for the Selection of Representative Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 APPENDIX C Exposure Data Collected at the Representative Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 APPENDIX D Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 APPEKDIZ $ References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
LIFT OF FIGURES Floure lags A Major Contributors to NRC-Initiated Exposure at LWRs . .vii B Annual Variations in LWR Exposures Showing Estimated Exposures Attributable to NRC-Initiated MPAs . . ... . ix
.1 ' Annual Variations in PWR Exposures Showing Estimated Exposures Attributable to NRC-Initiated MPAs . . . .. . 23 2 Annual Variations in BWR Exposures Showing Estimated Exposures Attributable to NRC-Initiated MPAs . . . . . 24 3 Annual Variations in LWR Exposures Showing Estimated Exposures Attributable to NRC-Initiated MPAs . . ...25 4 Major Contributors to NRC-Initiated Exposure at PWRs . . 29 5 Major . Contributors to NRC-Initiated Exposure at BWRs . 39 LIST OF TABLES Table Iggs 1 Summary of the Representative Plant Exposure Data Consolidated into Two Plant Groups . . . . . . . . .. . 18 2 Estimated Exposures Attributable to NRC-Initiated Multi-Plant Actions at PWRs and BWRs . . . . . . . . . 21 3 Estimated Exposures Attributable to NRC-Initiated Multi-Pl ant Actions at' LWRs . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 22 4 15 Most Significant Contributors to NRC-Initiated Exposure at PWRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5 15 Most Significant Contributors to NRC-Initiated Exposure at BWRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 32 6 Most Significant Contributors to NRC-Initiated Exposure at LWRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 33 i
i i
1
_______--______ I
l i
s NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the National Environmental Studies Project
{'
(NESP) of the Atomic industrial Forum, Inc. Neither the Atemic industnal Forum,Inc., nor any of its employees, members, or consultants makes any warranty, expresed or implied, or assumes legalliability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or utefulness of any info}matio% apparates, pioduct or process discicsed, or l
represents that its use would not infnnge privately owned r$h15 , l The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations set forth in this rept rt are tho's of the authors and do not necessenly represent the views of the Atomir;lndustrial Fo Nm,Inc.,its employees, members, or consultants. j l
l Decause NESP is supported in part by Federal f unds, the following notice is required by Federal regulations:
The Atomic industrial Forum's NESP activit!os are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits disenmination based on race, color, or national origin. Written complaints of exclusion, denial of benefhs, or other discrimination on those bases under this program may be filed with (among others) the Ten-nessee Valley Authority (TVA), Office of EEO,400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, TN 37902, and must be filed not later than 90 days from the date of the elleged discrimination. Applicsble TVA regulations appear in part 302 of Title 18, Code of Federal Regulatior;s. Copies of the regulations, or further information, may be obtained from the above address on request. j I
1 I
I I
i l
l1 I
)
1 I
l
)
I l
I A. Scott Lolper, NESP Project Menager Snellnde Rennen. Manager. Special NESP Projects Jan Von Bleceum, NESP Secretary Eties. 5oveeney, Staff Artist j Joy Riccio, Typesetter Copyright c 1986 by
, Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
7101 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814-4891
$2s.co NtsP sponsors 197s.co Non-NisP Sponsor. All rights reserved. i I
1 L _ ___---_--____----_--_----_-_o
, I
\
l t
EVALUATING POTENTIAL BACKFITS GUIDELINES FOR USE BY LICENSEES l
Prepared by:
Atomic Industrial Forum Edison Electric Institute Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group APRIL 1986 l
l O
i
PREFACE The NRC revised rule on backfitting was published in the Federal Register in September of 1985.
The purpose of these guidelines is to assist individuals in the industry in understanding and obtain-ing full benebt of the new backht decision making process. The guidelines include a generaldiscus.
sion of the hnal rule, a backfitting checklist and flow diagrams of the process. In addition, the final backht rule, examples of backht situations and the staff's Manual Chapter OS14 are included as ap.
pendices.
The guidelines were developed by a Working Group of representatives from the AIF Subcommittee on Backlit Requirements, the Edison Eectrie Institute and the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Refwm Group. The Working Group included Greg Alexander of Commonwealth Edison, Bart Cowan of Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, Don Edu ards of Yankee Atomic, Sandy Hartman and Nick Rey.
nolds of Bahop. Liberman, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds, Eugene Kurtz of Duquesne Light Company.
I. cuts 1.ong of Southern Company Services Suzanne Phelps of the Edison Beetric Institute, Tom
.Tipton of the Atomic Industrial Forum, and Jim Tourtellette, private consultant.
e e
i f
t t
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction. ............ ., . ... .. ....... .......... .. ...... .. . . ...... .. ....... . .. .... .. . .. I Discussion of th e Fm al Rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ ....... .................. 1 Beckhttin g Ch ecklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .....................3 Flow Dia g ra ms of th e Pim:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ....................... .......8 1,
Appendices A - Th e Fin al R ule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................13 B - Exa m ples of Beckht Sit u a tions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................... .16 C - Staff Manual Chapter 0514.. . . .. . ... .. .. . .. . ........................................20 9
i 1
INTRODUCTION Cause i
b Commission approved a revised backfit rule The backfitting rule applies to facility modifica.
on August 1,1985,It was pubhshed in the Septem- tions resulting from a new or amended provision in ber 20,1985 Federal Register as a major revision to the Commission rules. It is also applicable to modih.
the saisting backfit rule,10CFR50.109. It is ap- cation of a design approval or manufacturing plicable to procedural and organizational changes .acense for a facility. Therefore, the bekfit rule re-as well as hardware changes. It requires a formal quires the staff to perform the necessary analysis l analysis to justify any backht and this must include prior to imposing a generic change (two or more a cost benefit evaluation. It also provides a standerd plants) through rulemaking. However, a plant-of " substantial increase in the overall protection of specific analysis is not required in rulemaking.
l the public health and safety
- which must be satis- When a generic backfit is applicable to a facihty of bed before a backlit may be imposed a given type or vintage, the boensee can request an i The NRC on March 3,1986 issued the revised exemption from the regulation due to plant specific Manual Chapter 0514, "NRC Program for Manage- design.
ment of Plant 4ecific Beckhtting of Nue!=r Power A proposed change may be as a result of the Plants", hereinafter referred to as the Staf,f Manual imposition of an appbcable staff interpretation of
. Chapter. This chapter was reviewed by the Com- the Commission rules that is either new or d& rent mission and estabbshes the requirements and guld- from a previously applicable staff position. For ance for NRC staff implementation of the revised example, a change in staff position after an accep. l backf2t rule. tance in an SER of a particular interpretation is a l Whale the industry recognizes that backfits may beklit. !
be required based on new information or events The Staff Manual Chapter on page 21 dehnes the that may potentially affect public health and safety, term " applicable staff position as those, "alrndy I the revised bekht rule requires a more rational specibeally imposed upon or committed to by a and systematic decision making process which will licensee at the time of the identification of a plant- ,
help assure that only those new or modihed regula- specific backfit" Several different types and !
tory requirements which effectively enhance safety sources of applicable staff positions are identihed I are required. ,
including legal requirements (4.e., regulations, orders, plant liconass (amendments, conditions.
technical specifications)), written commitments DISCUSSION OF THE FINAL RULE (i.e., FSAR, LERs, docketed correspondence) and b purpose of this section is to describe key ele- NRC staff positions that 'are " documented, ap-ments of the revised backfit rule. proved, explicit interpretations of the more general regulations...and to which a heensee or an applicant Applicability ,
has previously committed to or rehod upon."
b final backht rule applies to all facilities being constructed and all operating facilities. t M@
b backfit rule governs decisions which result b backfit rule requirm the staff to perform and in modifications of or addition to systems, struc- document an analysis which demonstrates the need tures, components or design of a facihty, or to the for the backfit. This analysis must be performed modiboation of or addition to the procedures or or. hefore requiring the change to the facihty. This ganisation required to design, construet or operate analysis is not required by the NRC for backfits fin.
a facility. Finally, it is also applicable to the modifi- posed prior to October 21, 1985. However, the cation of or additjon to the design approval or Staff Manual Chapter requires the preparation of manufacturing license for a facihty. This provision the analysis for backfits imposed after May 1,1985.
requires the staff to address the backfit rule when' As described in the Staff Manual Chapter, the sup.
proposing changes to an existing design approval porting analysis is communicated with the backht or manufacturing license. to the licensee.
1-1 I
- - - _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ~
l l
The staff must consider a minimum set of nine the standard, the staff must complete a documented factors hated in 50.109e in their usessment. In ad- evaluation. The evaluation must include a statement dition, the staff must eensider how the backht of the objective of and reasons for the modthention should be prioritired and scheduled in light of and the basis for invoking the exception before it other regulatory activities ongoing at the facihty. -can be invoked. As a safeguard against unwarrant-All analyses required by the rule must be approved ed use of this exception, the evaluation is required by the EDO or his daignee. As noted in the regule- after the fact to document the safety signiheance tions, no licensing actions are to be withheld and appropriateness of the action taken. This after during the pendency of the analysis. the fact evaluation is i tended to assure that all backfits, even those imposed on an immediately el.
The Standard lective basis, are subject to careful scrutiny.
The final rule requires that the staff satisfy a equnts for InformaHon spec 6e standard before a backfit is required. The analysis performed must demonstrate that there is a Except for information requested by the NRC to suh=ranti.] increase in the overall protection of the verify the licensee's compliance with the current public health and safety or the common defense licensing basis for the plant, the staff must provide and soeurity to be derived from the backfit. A key for EDO apprwal of the need for each information trord in the standard is "overall". Although a pro- request prior to snaking an information request posed backfit may increase the reliabihty of a under IOCTR50.54(f) or Appendix 0. This is to spec 6e component or system, it may represent a ensure that the burden to be imposed on the re-minor increase in the overall protection of the spondent is justihed in view of the potential safety l public.The standard requires evaluation of the pro- significance of the issue to be addromed in the posed change as it affects the total facihty. requested information. This justification must be ap-l The second part of the standard provides that the proved by the Executive Direeter for Operations backht may be imposed only if the direct and indi- (EDO) or his or her designee prior to issuance of rect costs of implementation for that facih'ty are the request, justihed in view of the increased protection. Direct costs tney include the hardware, design, engineer- Appealfrocess ing, procurement, plant downtime and installation The Staff Manual Chapter dwertba two types of of the backfit. Indirect costs may include additional appul p sat apply 6 % hd siM-maintenance, surveillance and occupational expo- tions (see pages 15 and 16 of this Staff Manual
' "
- Chapter). They are'(1) appeals of a position by the Both parts of the two part standard must be met staff that a specific backfit abould be imposed, or before requiring the backfit.The backfu must repre- g 4g,ggggggg sent a substantial increase in the overall public pro- cW Mg imM h not a Mt u dhd 6 taction and must represent a favorable cost benefit
~
Im 50.09 M tbb b Mt um dcas not apply. The beensee may appeal to the Ex-eeutive Director for Operations (EDO) in either Case, bP*"" For a staff position that a specific backfit should The standard and related analysis set forth in the be imposed, the hoensee can appeal the staff's posi-backfit rule are inapplicable when: tion to the Office Director or Regional Administrator
- A modification is necessary to bring the facili- whose staff proposed the backfit. A copy of the ty into compliance with a licenn or the rules appeal is to be sent to the EDO. The Office Director or orders of the Commission, or into confor- or Regional Administrator reports the plan for mance with written commitments by the resolving the issue to the EDO within three weeks beensee; or of receiving the appeal. If the appeal can not be re-
- An immediately effective regulatory action is solved at a lower management level, the issue may necessary to ensure that the facihty poses no be appealed directly to the EDO. The EDO will sindue risk to the public health and safety. promptly resolve the appeal and state the reasons In beu of a backfit analysis and compliance with for his final determination.
2 e
U the staff has taken the position that the change 2. What structure, system, component.
is not a bekfit, the licensee may appeal to the design, daign approval, procedure or Director of the program office from whleh the staff organization is affected?
position has originated. A copy of the appeal gof, . Backfits are not hmited to hard-abould be sent to the EDO. The EDO may review ,gg, and modify a decision either at his own initiative or g at the request of the licensee. Again, if the appeal changes in organization and can not be resolved at a lower management level or pg ,,
the EDO does not moddy the position on his own Backfits are changes imposed by NRCc initiative, the licensee may appeal directly to the They are not facility modifications un-EDO. Il after these appeals the NRC decides that the dertaken voluntarily by a heewee.
lesue is not a kekfit, these matters should be ad.
- 3. How is the request / directive transmit-dressed within the normal licensing or inspection tod?
appeal process.
- 4. What is the effective date of the request.
Implementation ed change?
The StaH Manual Chapter addresses implementa- 5. Has the bekfit actually been imposed tion of the bekfit. Having received the backht, the prior to October 21, 1985? Imposed beenose can either appeal or irnplement the is interpreted as formal licensee com-change. If the licensee appeals and a final determi. mitment or an NRC order.
nation is made rejecting the appeal, the licensee Backfits requested or directed by the may elect to implement the, change or receive an Staff prior to May 1,1985 are not sub.
order from the appropriate Office Director. Further ject to the Staff Manual chapter on Back-appeal from this point must conform to the appeal htting. Tb backhttfrig rule became ei-process described in 10CTR Part 2, Subpart B.
sective on October 21,1985. Backfits imposed before that date are not subject BNG CHMIST to the new rule. It is possible that the The following checklist mey be a useful tool for staff may decide for the sake of simphei-determining whet'her the NRC has satisfied the ty to follow the Manual chapter when kekhtting rule when it iraposes plant specific resolving all bektit ehallenges. Howev-facility modifications or modification to a design ap- or, it should also be noted that earlier preval or manufacturing license. Part I addresses beklits are at least subject to the "old" the applicability of the rule. It identifies questions rule,10CFR 50.109.
that bconsees should address to determine whether a particular action by the staff falls within the scope B. Change of Appheable Staff Positions:
of the rule. Part D addruses whether the staff per. 1, In requesting the modification, did the formed an adequate backfitting analysis, as re- staff change a position previously ap.
quired by the rule. Part H! addresses information re- pheable to the plant, the design approv-quests. It focuses on whether the information re- al or manufacturing license?
quest was properly developed and subjected to management controls prior to its issuance. 2. What was the previous staff position?
- 3. How was the previous position transmit.
L Applicability of Backfittirw Rule to Plant. **
Specific Backfit 4. What was the effective date of the previ. I A. Nature of Staff Request /Ihroetive: u8 8ta posWon? -
w es the current staff posmon
- 1. Has the NRC requested or directed that .
a licensee modify a facility structure, ' " P""' #* ""
eystem, component, design, dwign ap. Note: The basis for issuing the permit, proval, procedure or organization ? beense or approval (PSAR, FSAR 3-
etc.) of the plant and the re- 4. Is it really a requirement or only a guid- ,
sulting structures, systems, ance? Documents which provide guid-components, procedures and on.' ance are such staff documents as Reg ganiza' ions are the basehne from Guides, SRPs, BTPs, I&E Notices and which a backfit is musured. Bulletins.
C. Regulatory Basis: 5. Did the staH complete a documented evaluation that identifies the objective
- 1. What is the regulatory basis rehed upon of the backlit and its basis for conclud-by the staff in requesting the change?
ing that the backfit was necusory to
- 2. Is the regulatory basis generic or plant. entisfy existing requirements?
specibe? .Notet Backfita imposed to achieve l 3. If generic, has the document been comphance with existing ap-l reviewed and a recommendation for ap- pheable requirements are not proval been made by the CRGR?
subeset to the normal backfitting (Review CRGR minutes) prooses established in the rule.
For OUs the
- existing applicable
- 4. Did that recommendation, if it exists, contemplate applicabihty of the docu- '*9"i#"f" '#* th ** "hi*h were in effect at the time the 01, ment to a facilit'/, er deign approval of your type, class and vintage?
prior to October 21,1985. For Note: Generic backhts imposed after N'IOl's, these requirements are creation of the CBGR are to be the ones in existence six months reviewed by the CRGR. If the prior to docketirig the OL appli-staff represented to the CRGR cation date or those imposed during its review that the new re- prior to Oy,ober 21,1985. For guvement would be apphed to design apNoval holders, " exist.
facihties of your type, class and ing applicable requirements are vintage, and' the CRGR roccin- those whleh were in affect at the mends doing so, then in most time of issuance of the design ap-oases the backfit may be imposed prova! under Appendix M N or at your facihty without further O of this part.
backhtting analysis. Note, how-E. Immediately Effective Regulatory Action ever, that CRGR recommenda. '
Resulting in a Backfit:
tions regarding generic guide-
' lines such as SRP's do not sane. 1. Did the staff request the facility modifi-tion the imposition of a backfit ostion to ensure that the facility poses because the SRP is not a require. no undue risk to the public health and ment. safety?
D. Backfit Imposed to Achieve Comphance: 2. After the backfit was imposed,'did the staff complete a documented evaluation
- 1. Does the staff take the position that the that identifies the objective of the back-requested modiheation is necessary t bring the plant into comphance with ex- htud e M h M b d u%
gg g that no undue risk to the public health
- 2. Can the staff demonstrate that the re- and safetyis posed?
quirement at issue was in existence at Note: Backfits which reust be made im-the time that the new rule became effee- g ,
D' facihty to an acceptable level of
- 3. Did the stati identify specifically the re. safety are not subject to the quirement it claims is not antisfied? normal backlitting process estab.
(October 21,1985) lished in the rule. However, an
-4
, "after the fact" nalysis is re- 3. Has the staff considered accurately and quired adequately the applicable factors identi.
II. Beckfitting Analysis bed in se rule?
A. First Eement of the Backhtting Standard: 2. Will the backht achieve its stated objec-tives?
- 1. Has the staff demonstrated that the pro-posed backfit will result in a substanDal 3. Did the staff identify all major licensee addit 2enalincrease in the overallprotec- a ggered MAM con of the public health and safety or 4. Is the off site risk reduction rusenable?
the commortdelena and security?
- 5. Are all employw radiation eposure im-
- 2. Is the substantial additional increase pactsidentified conectly?
large,important or significant?
- 3. Does the increased protection flow from
- 6. Are aD direct and indirect costs of implementation identified correctly?
overaD plant operation or from the im-7 g, g, g, g p3g proved functioning of an individual ,
systern, structure, component or organi- a result of the backht been adequately satiou ? addressed? (eg. effect on other systems)
Note: The first element of the backfit- rw urm ur e asumate ting standard involves two find- *"
- ings: (1) a substanD'al add /Donal 9. If the backlit is interim,is there a valid increase and (2) the overall pro. justification forits imposition ? '
tection of public health and safety. This question should be 10. Is the priority of the backht assigned by the staff reasonable given other ongoing considered in connection with the Question C.
regulatory activities at the facility?
Note: These are the factors speciheauy B. Second Eement of the Beckhtting Standard: idetihed in ee ruk eat 6e staff is to consider if applicable
- 1. Are the direct and indirect costs c.f im- when performing a backhtting plementing the backht justibed in view analysis. Their consideration wiU of thisincreased protection? usuaDy be at the heart of the Note: The backfitting rule requires the ""*IY"I'-
preparation of a formal generic 3
, ' {" D. Other Relevant and Material Feetors:
beneht analysis for plant specifie 1. Are there other relevant and material I issues. The ultimate decision factors that the staff should consider regarding imposition of a backfit f prior toimposing the backlit?
should not be based solely on a {
cost. benefit analysis. Rather, it 2. What are b beim? ) ,
may root on best engineering 3. Why do these additional considerations I judgment given aD of the avalla. make a backfit unneassary?
ble information. This question should be considered in connee- Note: The staH le not limited to consid-tion with @ don C. In al ering dy b feetors specih-onlly sdentibed in the rule.To the cases, the NRC is required t l document its basis for imposing contrary, the rule states that the I de bedt. staff is to consider all factors that are relevant and material to the C. Accuracy and Adequacy of Backfitting proposed backfit. Because licen- .
Analysis: sees usuaUy have more complete
.e.
l
we a
)
information about their plant 3. Will achievement of the objectives of .
than that available to the staff, the backfit bring the plant into compli-special attention should be paid ance with this requirement?
' "'4"""" 4. Is the proposed backht going to accom-
- 4. Is the affected plant a standardized unit plish the objective identihed by the referencing a design approval? staff?
l 2 Note: For daign approvals and facili- Note: See Question I.D., above.
ties referencing such approvals, the direct and indirect costs o' S. Is there evdence that alternative daigns have been considered?
implementing a backlit on the l
Jead plant referencing the daign G. Backfit to Restore an Acceptable level of approval should be justihed in Safety:
l view of the increased protection 1. Did the staff correctly find that the facili- !
to the pubhc from the backfit. ty will pose an undue risk without Successful implementation of a imposition of the backlit?
viable standardization policy re-quires that the backlit be jusuhed 2. Will achievement of the backfit resolve for the lead plant before it is im. the undue nsk identified by the staff ?
posed on the design approval o' 3. Is there evidence that alternauve any other units referencing the dwigns have been considered?
design approval.
Note: See Question 1.E.above.
F Considerauon of Averted Costs:
- 1. Has the staff considered off c.'e and on-site averted costs as part of its backht- Infonnaden Regunts ting analysis? A. Nature ofInformation Request:
- 2. What everted costs were identified? 1. Is the information request associated
- 3. Are these costs correctly identified ? with a review of a license application or i
amendment?
Note: One controversial aspect of the
- 2. la the information requested pursuant cost benefit analysis is that it ]
does not explicitly call for con- to 10CTRSO.54(f) or Appendix O?
sideration by the staff of averted 3. If so, le it sought to verify compliance on site costs. The Commission with the existing licensing basis of the has directed the staff not to con- plant:
sider this cost element during the trial use of safety goals. This
,, p ,,p g y, .
is the Commission's interim posi- b. What specific aspect of the licensing tion until a final position on basis is being examined?
safety goals is taken. Therefore,
- c. Is de idormahon ably relat.
licensees should b on &k ed to this determinauon?
aspect of the staff's analysis.
Note: Information requests necessary for (1) license and lleense F. Backfits Imposed to Achieve Compliance: amendment application reviews .
and (2) veriheaUon of compli-
- 1. Did the staff correctly identify a require-ance with the existing licensing ment applicable to your plant?
M of a kW are not subkt j
- 2. Did the staff properly conclude that this to these backfit management j requirement was not satisfied? controls. 'I 6-N
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I
B. Use of 10CFR50.S4W or Appendix 0 for b. Are those reasons correct?
information leading to a Backfit:
- c. Is the information request justified
- 1. Is the information request generic. l.e., in view of the potential safety sig-sent to a number of plants? nificance of theissue?
- a. What is the effective date of the re- d. Has the EDO approved the informa-quest? tion requeet?
- b. Has the CRGR reviewed the infor.
motion request?
- c. Did the CRGR review contemplate Note: These questions refleet the proce- 3 issuance of the information request dures established in the backlit.
to plants or design approval holders ting rule for the management of of your type, class and vintage? information requests. It should i
- 2. Is the information request plant. be noted that the staff internal review process is meant to specific?
ensure that all information re.
- a. Did the staff identify the reasons for quests are well lounded, even the request ? when no beckht may result.
i e
e l
i 4
7
_m__.__m..__.__.__.______ ___ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _
IDGIC DIAGRAMS NOTE: The numbers 042,044,045 at the heading of each logie diagram corresponds to the section in the Staff Manua1 Chapter 0514 (See Appendix C) l I ,
l
. . . . s 042 IDENTIFYING PLANT. SPECIFIC BACKFITS LAN SMME DI AT SPECt8tC vg5 PREPAntAEOULA.
8MPO$1780N NO O$17604 OUALIF YIN -
TORY ANALYSIS IN _
965C18&AR Y "
AI 0AE"'3 4g
( ACCOADAlfCf W/
NACSTAFF.
lALL LEVELSI 0 04 40 ggg ygg esRCSTAFF af0TIF Y L8CEN$t t 060TlFY EOO QFSTAFF POSITIOes l&tt Del)
ENO LICENSEE TO gepggggwy APPR OP AI AT E L aCEasst DIRECTOR gepgggggy MAL L AR$8F acAff STAFF PO61760N LeCitf$t t ygg LKENSEEJL PREPARE ARGUMENT iI
& SUeMtf TO APPRO acOTIF Y PRIATE tenC OIAECTOR APPROPRIATE wo ANALYSIS OR AOeAIN. COPY TO ENO PARTIES SHOW5SACNFif DIAICTOA. ADOR TH AT ISSUE WSTAFitO 88CLOSEO VE$
088tC STAFF YES 1r COesCVAS OIRECTOR OR AOMINISTR ATOR teOTIF V LICE 88811 00 0 Of 0TIF Y LICE 8SE E l VES A AL TO j 0 0 TO 944 0800tFY 04 WITMORAW LICEldSEE N,
APPE AL DElf 8 A L ego 1 F 0s0 LtCEN$tt snePLgeef tpf aAcatFif * {
l 00 T0 s.4 i
.ENO l
... . 0, 0. .
{
1 i
___- _- - N
044 APPEAL PROCESS
- 1. Appest to M0cify Or Withorsw Pr0p0 sed Plant 4pecific Backfit START teOTIFY LICENSEE SUOMIT APPE AL TO OF 8effENT TO TEI PREPAR E
. . DIRECTOR OR SACKFIT AND I A"IAL '
ARCUMENT '
RE060NAL ADedlN.
Sumalf ANALYSit , 4 COPY TO EDO)
D8 RECTOR OF SEE NOTE 1 OFP8CE OR REGION NO END i
17 SMARIH CONDUCT TO NOTIFY LICENSEE OF MEETINGE TO I II
- APPEAL (PR0edPTLYi 0F PLAN h h
'"E"III A" '"' teEETINGS PLAN TO RESOLVE 70 RESOLVE ISSUE DOC. ROOMS ISSUE SEE NOTE 2 DIRECTOR OF OFF6CE OR REGION WRC SUtadtf j 000TIFY DECISION
- I l tsCENSEE TOEDO LICE NSE E OIR. PROG R AM d
OFFICE (OR LOWE R a CONCUR LE VEL IdCTJ q p END te00lF Y OR ttTTMORAW J
I WOTIFY END
] STAFF AND h SOLVE C l LICENSEE P DedPTLY FL0suCHART NOTES:
SEE NOTE 3 Epo
- 1. Tem oppset showed pree6de erywnents egeinst the sauences ter isnposing a boektet as presented 6n the stMs regulatory oneW ,,,334
- 2. Dartag the appast preessa,prenery seasiderstlen shaft be gim to hea and sphy the propoemd headtfet provides e edetensist ineresse in overall ,
presostion end whether the essasisted esses of bes>4enentation are bettfeed 6n oteur of the imernesed preteeten.
- 3. Psother appeels see to be doett erNh wNhin the aeronel lesensing er anopertion appeel prosess.
l l
l
044 APPEAL PROCESS
- 2. Appent to Reverse a Denial to Reclassify a Staff Position to a Plant Specific Beckfit START SueMIT APPEAL P
= APPEAL : PRO OFF.
C I Y AL ICOPY TO DIR.,
L6CENSEE ROG R)
DIRECTOR OR ADANNISTRATOR 0 SND SusMIT NOTIF Y APPEAL y STAFF AND :[ END VC EDO LICENSE E (
d i EDO NOTES 080TIF Y EYA pg .
L I I' DEClOE LICE NSE E p,g, g, PROGRAM wo CONCUR OF F6CE (OR LOWER t*0M t.LEVELI END C RECLASSIFY FLOWCMART 880TES:
3H 304
- 1. Fember appeels are to be sheH w$th yteh the aanmal temoseng se huperteen appeal peseems i
-)}-
045 IMPLEMENTATION OF BACKFITS START AP7EAL$ ygg L 6CE NSEE vgg NEGOTIATE tuAIVED OR ELECTSTO = IMPLEMENTATION - SMPLEMENT ENO ENHAUSTED IMPLEMENT d b SCHEDULE I' LICENSEE I
NRC LCENSEE No NO & LICENSEE 880TE 1 ISSUE
{[SO 70j 044 ORDER TO _
8MPLEMENT APPROPRIATE OFFICE DIRECTOR PLOwCMART NOTES.
- 1. Sabedulung artterne shouW ansfude tfie kupertarise of teme Mfit rototive to other sefety esisted eseMtses enderweg, er Wie penwet construstaen er
- 1. . _ _ pienned ser she tosihty, en eteer to meieneen turh eussity onestrurt.on and eeer-sesens. Per pennu shei hen 6merced eseneduies, she tsuesysted asheduksg pressus een to esed eer shes piepass
. 3M M4 12
. APPENDIX A Text of the Rule and Conforming Provisions
{2.204 Order for Modification of License (iii) the date ofissuance of the operating beense for the facility for facilities The Commission may modify a license by issuing having operating licenses; or an amendment on notice to the licensee that the beensee may demand a hearing with respect to all Qv) the date of issuance of the design or any part of the amendment within twenty (20) approval under Appendix M, N or days from the date of the notice or such longer Oof this part.
period as the notice may provide. The amendment (2) The Commission shall require a systemat.
will become effective on the expiration of the le and documented analysis pursuant to 20-day period during which the licensee may Paragraph (c) of this section for backhts demand a hearing. If the beensee requests a harin0 which it seeks to impose. Imposition of a during this 20 day period, the amendment will backht pursuant to Paragraph (a)(4)hi) become effective on the date specibed in an order made loUowing the buring. When the Commission of this section shall not reheve the Com-mission of performing an analysis after finds that the pubhe health, safety or interest so re-the fact to document the safety signih-quires, the order may be made immediately effee- cance and appropriateness of the action tive. If the amendment involva a backfit, the provi-taken.
aions ed 50.109 of this chapter shall be followed.
(3) The Commission shall require the back.
{50.109 Backfitting g of a y aly wha it h mina, based on the analysis described (a) (1) Backbiting is defined as the modiheation in Paragraph (c) of this section, that of or addition to systems, structures, there is a substantialinernae in the over-components or design of a faciht*/; or the all protection of the public bulth and design approval, or manufacturing safety or the common defense and securi-beense for a facility; or the procedures or ty to be derived from the backfit and that organization required to daign, con- the direct and indueet costs of implemen-struct or operate a facility; any of which tation for that facility are justified in view may result from a new or amended provi- of this incronaed protection, sion in the Commission rules or the impo-altion of a. regulatory staff position inter.
preting the Commission rules that is (4) The provisions of Paragraphs (a)(2) and either new or different from a previously (a)(3) of this section are inapplicable applicable staff position after: and, thwefort backh malysis k not re-quired and the standard does not apply (1) the date of issuance of the construe- where the sta!! finds and declarm, with tion permit for the facility for facili- appropriate documented evaluation for tin hanno construction permits its hnding, either:
issued after October 21,198S; or
- 6) that a modifiestion is necessary to Gi) six months before the date (3 bring a imellity into compliance docketing of the operating liw , with a license or the rules or orders application for the facility for faeal- of the Commission, or into confor-ties having construction permits mance with written commitments issued before October 21,1985; or by thelicensee;or 33
- t. _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . __
I l
l (ii) that an immediately ef%tive (7) The estimated resource burden on the regulatory action is necessary to NRC associated with the preposed backht ensure that the facihty poses no and the availability of such resources; undue risk to the public health and
" (8) The potential impact of differences in facihty type, design or age on the Such documented evaluation shall relevancy and practicality of the pro- l include a statement of the objectives posed backht; of and reasons for the modiheation (9) Whether the proposed backht is interim and the basis for invoking the ex-or imal and, M interim, the justification for imposing the proposed backfit on an
,b)
( hragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to interim basis.
backhts imposed prior to October 21,1985.
(c) In reaching the determination required by (d) No liosa.ing action will be withheld during bragraph (a) of this section, the Commission the pendency of backlit analyses required by g, g_,;,,g,,,, ,,j,, ;
trill consider how the backlit should be priori- l timed and scheduled in hght of other regula- (e) The Execuuve Director for Operations shall be !
tory activities ongoing at the facility and, in responsible for implementation of this section f
addiUort, will consider information available and all enalyses required by this section shall '
concerning any of the following factors' as be approved by the Executive Director for Op-may be appropriate and any other information orations or his daignee.
selevant and material to the proposed backfit:
(1) Statement of the specibe objectives that 650,54 Conditions of Licenen the proposed back!st is designed to achieve; (f) The licensee shall at any time before expira-tion of the license, upon request of the Com-(2) General description of the activity that mission subinit written statements, signed f would be required by the licensee or ap- under oath or affirmation, to enable the Com- I plicant in crder to complete the hai;xht; mission to determine whether or not the )
(3) htential change in the risk to the public licenae abould be modihed, suspended or l from the accidental off site release of revoked. Except for information sought to radioacUve material; verify licensee compliance with the cunent licensing basis for that facility, the NRC must (4) hienUalimpact on radiological exposure prepare ee reson m rusons for meh inbr. l
" CD **EI'Y'**! mation request prior to lasuance to ansure that l (S) Installation and continuing cuts asso- the burden to be imposed on respondents is ciated with the backlit, including the justihed in view of the potential safety signih-cost of facility downtime or the cost of cana of the issue to be addressed in the construction delay; requestM information. Each such justification (6) The potential safety impact of changes in pr vided for an amaluation performed by the plant or operational complexity, includ- 2 approM h b Muve ing the relationship to proposed and ex- **"'" u " N' M ""
prim t issuance e requat.
isting regulatory requuments;
~
har thane meddieetwn sheh m no enem that h seeibey >== no Appendia 0 - Standardization of Design, StafI madue ruk to the pubbe health and astety and wheeb are not deeined Review of Standard Oealgne
, to maune unmed iety #tectiw seovi.iory ecs.n. u.tyw. m ee. l
! e ned Tbne enely% Lo.ews. ebound set ameoin ewt de .. B. Information requests to the approval holder i taas amorpt asly nasolet as est contnbute to aclectsat the solutane emos, wenous acceptable ahernatswes to ensunns no endue nok to regarding an approved design ShhIl be eval-i puble b hh and eelety usted prior to issuance to ensure that the
(
l 14
burden to be imposed on respondents is justi- by the NRC staff shall be in occordance with Led in view of the potentialsafety significance 30CTR50.54W and shall be approved by the of the issue to be addressed in the requested Executive Director for Operations or his or her information. Each such evaluation performed designee prior to issuance of the request.
4 l
l l
e O
lt-
, APPENDIX B l Examples of Backfit Situations {'
i' General i
in this section, selected regulatory activities and Questions intended only to enable staff under-documents are reviewed with the intent of making stendmg of proposed actions,in order to determine the licensee aware of the positions taken by the whether the actions will meet the intent of the SRP, NRC that impact the decision of whether a specific is not a backht.
lesue should be considered a backht. This discus- Acceptance criteria which appear more stringent alon is intended to aid the licensee in identifying potential backfits and taking the necessary actions thn those contained in the SRP or are in addition to those specified in the SRP, whether in writing or provided in the fmallacklit rule. As in any situation verbal, are plant specibe backhts. Actions volun-of this nature, judgrr.*nt will play a role in the final leered by licensees, which are in excess of the crite-determination. However, theru are specific regula-
,3, in the SRP, generally do not constitute plant-tory documents and positions that should be con-specific backfits. However, if the staff implies or sidered in making that judgment.
suggests that a specific action in excess of alrudy As is evident from the dehnition, a plant-specilie applicable requirements is the only way for the staff backht has the elements of a change from an al- to be satished, the action is a plant-specific backfit ready established practice to conform to an applica-whether or not the bcensee agrees to take such ble requirement. An appbcable requirement is action.
defined as one from the body of requirements estab-Application of an SRP to an operating plant after l' abed before certain de!4ned milestones in the the bcense is granted is a backht unless the SRP plant's licensing bhtory (these are specifjed 4n the was approved specifically for operating plant imple-rule), if the staff's action is directing, telhng or mentation and is applicable to such operating coereing in any 9ay to obtain a change to the plant. However, in order to issue an amendme3t to design, construction or operation of a L,cility, this is a license, the staff must reach a current finding of a backht. A suggestion asking a licensee to consider comphance with regulations applicable to the a proposed action may not be a backfit, amendment. Review to new SRP revisions is not Actions proposed by a licensae are not backhts.
permitted to determine current compliance with Even if the change or addition sneets the definition regulations.
of backlit and arose from an information exchange between the licensee and the staff,it is not a backfit. As a spade azampA reWew of an app n The critical element is the imposition of change in for a license amendment to authoriaa use of a reload any way by the staH. resetor core will normally not involve a new imding of comphance. However, if a new fuel design or a
, g new thermal-hydraulic correlation and associated operating limit are involved, such changes are When the NRC was deciding whether applicants clearly advances in design and operation which for operating bconses should review the FSAR may wanant review against the criteria used to ap-against the 3RPs, a new 10CTR50.34 section, " Con- prove the initial license sasuance. This is not consid-formance with the Standard Review Plan (SRP)," !
ered a backfit. i was issued. Subparagraph Section 50.34(g)(3) Licenaces should assure that revisions in design !
states that "The SRP was issued to establish criteria or operation that raise questions only about poten-that the NRC staff intends to use in evaluating tial reduced margins of malety, as defined in the whether an applicant / licensee meets the Commis- basis for any Technical Speci6 cat!en, are reviewed sion's regulations. The SRP is not a substitute for by roanalysis of the same accident sequences and the regulations and copliance is not a requirement associated assumptions as analysed in the FSAR for (emphasis added)? the initial beense issuance.
16
l J
During reload reviews involving new designs or Q.2 What is the next step for the beensee-new analyses, staff proposed positions with regard to technical matters not directly part of the changes N h hk & WE' appeal 6 em 'i proposed are backhts.
dance with 50.109 and the latest information sup. I phed by the NRC formally to beensees as to the procedure for backfit processing.
g,3, g As a typical example, let's assume that the eur- Q.3 Would the request, if accommodated, be jus.
rent SRP (NUREG 0800) is definitely applicable to tifiable in a utihty commission prudency a heenee, specibeally by 10CFR50.34 (g) )which audit?
required the beensee to address its conformance to g g ,, g ,g g the Acceptance Criteria,of theSRP.
degrew h eHW up of b *kut ruk
In this particular instance, the " Review. section of the SRP requested an analysis to be performed in b M W deiW M h hr h pretation, no backlit had esisted. In ' addition, most a particular fashion; however, due to changes in technology and state of the-art, the boensee per. auditors are aware that only regulations and forms a different analysis which the beensee be- docketed commitments are requirements. Besides, beves will meet the Acceptance Criteria of the a d m Mrakd d r m with the applicable regulation.
SRP.
When the staff received the beensee's analysis, they had no procedures or comparable analytical Regulatory Guides tools to evaluate the licensese's submitted analysis. As part of the generie review process, the CRGR Therefore, the staff took the position that they designates which plant or groups of plants should would not evaluate the analysis because it was not be affected by new or modified regulatory guides.
consistent with the SRP, Reg Guide, NUREG or Such a process is not a' plant specibe backht al-10CFR They requested the licenses perform the though the provisions of the backfit rule must be analysis in the SRP. This is based on the laet that fulfilled. Any staff proposed plant specibe imple-the SRP in effect for this beensee was applicable to mentation of a regulatory guide provision for a this docket and therefore utilizing the backfit rule plant not encompassed by the generie appheability (50.109) no backfit is required (since it was in the hoding of CRGR is a plant specific backfit. A staff SRP initially) and the licensee must utihae the rou- action that expands on, adds to or modihes a time NRR appeal process or commit to perform the generically approved regulatory guide already ap-requested analysis, plicable is a plant specific backfit.
The questions are:
- 1. Is this a backht? Why? Example Case
- 2. What is the next step for the beensee? Int us assume that the beenase committed in the e ed apphesuon M to mwt the under-
- 3. Would this request, if accommodated, be jus-lying requiremtats of Reg. Guide 1.68.2 Initial tifiable in a utihty commission prudency Startup Test Program to Demonstrate Remote Shut-audn?
down Capabihty for Water-Cooled Nuclear Power !
Q1 1s this a W? Th plant has been operating for over 5 years Yes.10CFR50.34(g) specifically states that the and hat, just completed numeras TMI and Appen-SRP's guidance and compliance is not required. In dix R modifications and is considering some Davis-addition, the introduction of the SRP instructs its Besse and ATWS modiheations. The NRC Resident j users that compliance is not mandatory. The backlit - Inspector has noticed that the plant precedures exists not in the staff requesting an analysis but the have doubled in S years and that the Appendix R change in position that the SRP is now a require- procedures address shutdown of the plant from a ment (even though the beenese's analysis demons. remote location assuming a control room bre, trates comformance with the regulations called out The resident inspector has approached plant in the SRP and thereby fulfills the regulatory pur- management and stated that he plans to take en-pose). forcement action. His basis is that the original com-
i e
l
. mitment to Reg Guide 1.68.2 required meeting specific backht. An order effecting prompt imposi.
( GDC 19 and that the plant. .* demonstrate that the tion of a backht may be issued prior to completing I number of personnel available to conduct the shut- any of the procedures set forth in the rule provided down aperation is sufficient to perform the many ae- that the appropriate Ofhee Director determines that tions required by the procedure in a timely prompt imposition is necessary, a justihcation for manner* . He contends that the plant is now not prompt irnposition is approved. A full modification meeting its original commitment not assuring it is analysis must be completed subsequent to the at the original level of safety without a full demon- order.
stration. He states that this is not a backht because An order issued to confirm commitments to take this was an original beensee commitment which is specific actions, even if the action is in excess of merely necessary to return the facility to an ae- previously appliceble requirements,it not a plant-ceptable level of safety. specific backfit provided the commitment was not The questions are: obtained by the staff as the only alternative in order
- 1. Is this a backfit? Why? I gain staff approval. Discussion or comments by the NRC staH identifying deficiencies observed,
- 2. Must the utihty demonstrate this to the Resi- whether in meetings or in written reports, do not dent? constitute requirements and thus are not backhts.
Definitive stateinents directing specific actions to Q.1 Is this a backfit? antisfy staff positions are backhts unless the action Yes. First, the plant has not degraded its original is explicitly an already applicable requirement for commitment. Therefore, the original level of safety 0" PI""" 4 "*'" "'
is still present. Second, the initial thrust of Reg.
Guide 1.68.2 is to meet GDC 19, not Appendix R. IA8Pwdons The inspector is using this Reg. Guide as accep- NRC inspection procedures govern the scope tance criteria for Appendix R; this use is not ap- and depth of staff inspection of activities such as proved by the Commission and il required, would design, construction ud operation. As such, they :
constitute a change of staff position and/or licens- define those items the staff is to consider in its ing bases. Third, demonstrating that *sufheint determination of whether the licensee is conducting .
number of personnel are available"is not an under- his activities in a sale manner.The conduet of an in- j lying requirement of Reg. Guide 1.68.2. In fact it is spection establishes no new requirements and is l not even a requirement of GDC 19 which addresses met a plant specific backfit..
plant shutdown outside of the control room. It Staff requirements to the effect that the contents could be considered that GDC 19 infers to "suffi. of an NRC inspection procedure are positions that eient personnel anilable". However, the NRC must be met by the beensee constitute a plant.
seriew for sufficient personnel is conducted pur- specibe backht. Discussion or comment by the suant to 10CFR50 Appendia B, Organization, inspector regarding def eiene:es observed in the where the staff addresses adequate personnel staff- conduct of activities, who'her in meetings or in ing levels, written inspection reports, do not constitute re.
quirements. Staff requests that specibe actions be Q.2 What is the licensee's next step? taken as a result of inspections, where those actions The liconese must file a backfit appeal utilizing the "" "" " " " * "" I" '""
- information in Answer 1 as a b6. sis. The process " """"""*****"" "*
- must follow 50.109 and the latest approved backlit I"#" """" " " k"I ""**
- pdm mqu aments m iconsee c mmHmuts 4 process identified to licensees. This filing will ensure that the plant would not have to shut down " ' ** ' "" " ' #*I " '"I #*'"i* " "' "
for this specific issue until a decision is rendered. I" "** "E "*" ' I*
actions in response to the inspector." a comments, these are done at the licensee's initiative and there.
Plant-Specific Orders fore neh utim is et a beckht pmvided Ge An order issued to cause an action which is not inspector does not indicate that the specibe actions otherwise an applicable requirement is a plant- are the only way to resolve a particular issue. If the l
18
9 inspector indicates that a specific action must be tions requested in a bulletin, however, if the staff taken, such action is a backht unless the measure is expands the action requested by a bulletm during remedial for compliance with an existing require. Its application, such action is a plant specibe back-ment. fit.
For example,if the FSAR commits to ANSI N18.7 and the inspector finds that implementing proce-dures do not contain all of the elements required by I "" 7'I* *I **
ANSI N18.7, direction from the staff that all these Throughout plant hietime, many individuals on elements must be included in the implementing the NRC staff have an opportunity to review the re-procedures, is not a bwkht. lf an inspector finds all quirements and commitments encumbered upon a i the required elements of ANSI N18.7 are included, beensee. Undoubtedly there will be occasions '
but certain of the opbonal elements are not in the when a reviewer concludes that a program in a g implementing procedures and he indicates that the specific arH does not satisfy a regulation, a license 1 implementing procedures must include any or all condition or a commitment. In the case where the of the optional elements, this is a backfit whether or staff previously accepted the program as adequate.
not the beensee agrees to include these elements. any staff specified change in the program is a back-fit.
Noties of Violation In the case of an NTOL, once the SER is issued.
the staff has indicated acceptance of the programs A notice of violation requesting description of proposed corrective action is not a backlit. Commit. described in the SAR and has concluded that they ;
ments by the licensee in the description of correc- neMy b E Wrements. H ee staff subse- l tive action to be taken are not backfits. A request quently requires additional action other than that specified in the SER, such action is a backht. l by the staff to consider some specific action in re, i sponse to a notice of violation is not a backht. How- '
ever,if the staff is not satished with proposed cor. I'=ples That Are Net Backfits rective actions and requests alternative or addition
- The following are a few examples that can not be i al actions, those requested actions, whether classihed as backhts:
requested orally or in writing, are backhts. (Previ-Discussions during enforcement conferences in license explicitly committed in the FSAR to 1 response to requests for advice regarding conective g g de a b hm )
actions are not backhts. However, delmitive state-ments directing specibe actions to natisfy staff are de whmMaMt i backlits. - The staff in the SER for the Operating License interpreted a Standard, committed to by the Bulletins applicant, to require certain written proce-I&E Bulletins which contain action requests of dures. Requiring the boenase to have the licensees undergo the generie review process of pr u m h ota t.
CRGR. Bulletins are not requirements and the fact - In response to an I&E enforcement confer-of CRGR review and/or approval does not alter the ence, the licensee commits in writing to make status of a bulletin. Therefore, it is not necessary to certain modifications to correct the dehesen- ,
apply the plant specific backht process to the ac- cies. This is not a backfit. )
l
- S 6 66 P 8 9 688 899 O 1 91 1 H 9
,1 , ,
S 2 81422 K l E R iyyy r
paaa L O U W AMMM - -
R Y R k T a e T
I S i
n a
z eO iD F U v n S /E D
K l
y .C 9
N s HR C I E
n n
sN eS AHT P e mU a
B T
, a s J
ai go i E A s sr i
n H D a soi E x uel l T T N TePrGI ,o E
,f s ot n a ag S aga c E l l i R aitnlh P DKAC
t s
n e
m e
r i
f u f q a e D S t
R e c
N d n
i c
r r
o U a eF n
O y r
G ek s 38 R t s
u s wT a9 1 G d n
e e
i e
m-K n I
~v s e o n n
r s C l a
P o m e R ei to c toR f
A nF r i L e y c
u B o k f e r o s t r
i t c o t a n t t c a y i I
Ab d
e v
mluf I
r mgf MeFe u o e t a
T S CR S eea ee*
lIll\l 4
1 5
0 r
5 8
e t
9 p 1 a h
0 C 2
r l a 5 e Ru 8 9
b G Gn 1 O
)
f m e Ra ,
N
(
4 5
t p T CM 1 2
I r e5 e T 0 5 S 89 S b T
I l
e u
r1 e
t 1
, E I
t o
c _
F R i s 2 g r L O K n o R e e b P s r
e C i t
a l o t
P 'o n t f
A A m9 r 0e ar c O A i t
c d B o 1. d f0e
- sAs n re s I
n5Fe t i ocoo t fi it p c
r l ena c cam ou iD Aeei f
R de e c pR s sthi v t t iSri r
eif st et efk uklic qcbe n elaoa nwc _
eauf f GPPB RBPE _
eeee e*ee _
llL
h E t a i s
s a
L O B U r e i g
n R d U
n s
n e
c n e U N t s
n i o c n a
ht i
O e t
a u W e
I m ms c n
T e t
r o
I s i l
a A a t
S f
I n t o
r C p
m o
M e e
1 d
e f
oi o
r f
i y
r R
O4
)(
f s n
e i
r u
q eP c
n e e
V e
o t
c e a F5 i L c n h t
R g g e i u
N05 I
t s
e e ns s s ee t s
e sgD df en e i
i s S o
g q n enn u cee u oi n R
i i i cc q pS r e e mLi i e my o B
R LL s O y et r f of f R
r I t eO i
n o
F a e n oo oB ef a S DE i
t a
MD onnf m T n o i
t oo ii a st n to o
l a b y r o
S f
n i
oT s : f ec i cna i t
a nit en a l I n
E s e i po s d svi f ret cd v h e
uo orp i
U. mo o uei t BP W mpr MSR - su t
p O o u - -
A p e c
x E C P J e
E
/
R .
- e
- 1 I
f o e n s g n i e s c e i n
9 0
D r
L g M i t
o 1 o i n
r n
O i s
o 0
t n
e u
t o R P 5 n c
a i
t a F f f
o f z a
- p ui n n T S t
E ) m o
a a L d L 1
( C Mg r U d e
r O U )
a e o r o
S n e
R ( r u
l a s E m
- t c v e R A t u o r s G i f t r
r p
p d u
Y l e
u r
o NI k
c S
, A c e d R w e
a n o T B m
e g P r
M de N a
T I f t
s y
i s e e
d nf e o F o S D h t H mn K n o
o t y t o to C A o i C i ei t gi l e e g g I
H r
o i t
s A i t
n nc aa a a n n wpo B i f
e h F h h CaC C W e NI m t
D e
( i l
)
O e
r d o n n f e a i
o B N i
t ) d ,
s 5 e M o 8 9
u s s e P 1
,i s
i c
f 1 2 P d f C n _
t a e r ( e p
S b L p
/
oO t A e cf O o
(
l l
a D R u r e n g
v o
N f t
A kc i
t e
r p _
A d e (
e o A p _
d cD n n n g e a e )5 u r8 i
s _
mre s s f e1 o9 L OD e
At
/ f i
P B 1
,f o o f _
C s2 e e wA esr f
o hr t e nb c c n n e oo a a Nu t aMtc u u s s ec h C D6OI s I
s -
TO -
e II lL
l
) a c d c
( l e i g
u o D d e
l o
N h i
d l
a A S c a c
) ei t
e eR i g
2 d l b
f k s t e osr M n a a c nis l
oe
(
a d e a l i ef ik d r t d a B c f ao
- n e v f L O i e z RW S
I S
miA u
i t
r A evd o f s s o t l
a n
n ote c o e Y
i o
i t s L
r t i n tc r ed c n D P i a
u e u cc pO i
A d w ojq ci l N n o c b eAb mfo a c OR n uI A c H A c y iP l
are e e T i t n of i
t oiut n k ns gt I a i t i c
i v o F m mI n e i t a s te p K e r e e Sp c hi ox C t s t e k ACR PE A y a - - - -
S D T B
- e e e.
l
t s
)
c n s
( e e e p m
D e s /ey r T y
N n e
i t
xu i
y n A c eq i t
o p e l l i i
) L i
t 2 R c c
( g m y a
)
n or s e F A
a Co t
( )
d i
u .
c r nla s n r i
e n l a u s al i o
nu o i
Su I
t n og s eF c r t
c Sin C o i t
aR e Re n e
o Fa Yt r Ln d r
eoC e m e n
Ao i
n pt R f f r e a a OpN i
N (c n i D n m t o nhs nf r A
I i o n o o r e M
t a eG V
T l s at t
ci o t c
t ch r I
F l
at a a t e e t s pla p p h h K so me t C I nC I R mmWO I I A - - - - -
B
i s
) s f l 3 y i l
a d M
l a y r e a n l
n e i f
( v i A O O t
s t t n u N
i f
i f i J k k e e O a c c s r I
a a A T B B e n A n o
e r
c o N i r n i t
I d u i a
e q l a D t M s a R e i t N n e
R B n A m E l l a e T s a t s l i
h p E n S b
u D i o n Sno i m
T t
a i o i si t f
o I
n s c F i s ee s K mi r m r t e o t
s C e h r o A
t e
mTP o -
C B D C
n g o e n i
t c i c
a n n i
c i a a f l p n l a
o i
t
)
4 s
u mks i t
p B
M oi o J C R e n N
(
a d n r o u e c x o n o
(
a E i
t i n
- ) d f d n f p ta o cer y o e c i t
S (
9i u
r a U n
c xi i
f )
A c
N 0 1 q s s
e N o o E d o
2
( e f )t 0 .e i
)
g c os O 5R c e e t
a nM (
a n o I
f t r u i a s sC T o o N u s
l a
v k
oh t e d e i c e P i sN s'
n oE n E v n r i
r u
f i ndn e
n t a E y5 i d I o q g a t
o C l n) r.a
(
a c t t e r f o n R e i iy S rpet X A90
( i f
i n
o n
e f
s o s t y of r a E t i 1 d
o i
t mis s a i
s y f e pS f .
c u a e a pf k0 c5 MA c o
B R l
a n
S Ao af - - - - - -
B o D A
- e
- m_
u .
)
d
(
d l
e h
G h t
N I
i W t p
S B e e N o c
n E t o n
C C
I t
o s i o s L N i h
t c n n i s
T ui o s o s r t l a
N i t l y
a d
e t
s a r e O c d i
r e p A n n o p p A e C OA T g n -
t x - - -
C i s E A n e
f f
P i c t a
L S M
I * *
~
l
)
O D y E t
) ( u
(
e s n
~
p e
o D S i t
a 9
0 y
/
s E r 1 t u
r o
I e .
T I O p 0 5 i s
s p
e t
a r
L r f
o l y D t s
/
I o n a s i
n B
I f
r i o A n r o
i m
o t t S t c t a e e
l l
A c d e
r A N. e n n r e g e i
D a l
b i D m e
i s
e v
o e o n P e v
l p D r p e i c i g
S i t m r
o p e n
f f e E u I A g OR c
R e x
O D
i s
e E E D
a FC OF i I n
a I v NC P l yas OET s si O PN i
a ngo I HY x n e oi r n TSE SR e
TP ,Gel l
s a aiag o N E
NE AG R U l l
a uai st s n a c LA O O D Dr Pt l
h MPN E
xD oE C/
WN -
T I
6 8 o -
g8 68 6 POM oN TS I
H 9
1
,i n99 MF I
9I T U
F 9K 1 1 KIT F 0F 2 ,
l 42 1 2 F 1. K CWi6 A
r p8 A1 ,MM 9 yy a a A0C T 5 A B 8 SRB F
y a
C R C M N01
_ m G
s d N ) er 5
8 e
u y
a I
T O u 9 s w T D d 1 s r E se n i
e NEF I (
s ec r
u o i
e dn d n
OL K I n dP r
c i
a U UC i o e ce a d e s T
ARA l
t4 P e a1 oc s r TTB 4 r5 e0 rf Pf i
n i v
e d u
NFC1 I i pr e EKI 5 Oet eO e r R c r p cl a e y o MCIF0 EACC f o a h
i f
f Oo n Wl nt yr t P r
rC i s es e LBEM P P o
t c
- Oe HR
.g t n
e cu ed i f
c ES M H- e r v e - m Rn 4
I f
O u
T T I ii Dt c l e c 1d f C N v o 5 n o e e e 0 a RF A vi r
L D rf n o
N O PL iD t
ul e c
e v
ef t a pt i
s ce o aS i
ve R ev xe i
f b h Ct o f
EL O A R O . . .
F 1
2 3 4 5
)
s S / n S t o s i g
o M M N
d e C R e
A (
s t
a p
n o d R dr a )
i c 5 8
n a
G )
R g) E u S i
t r
a 9
1 s
e c
O 5 R eER f ( P g n
i f
R I
8 N
(
a( h s i r
f O
9 S t r P 1 n d n c r e u n g o n e a b D i G n i
ta ya e mes m s 6 8
i r
u l
e e n o
9 N D ut g e cR r M i 1
ef af o yr n g
I 4 f e i N
I 1
5 R S En to r l f
a t
R e
d l
e toi ad a 0
v H A r e c r e nu g a
l S
0 i
F e R t p
a t e a e 0 n B T h a RMonR r i t r 7
y i
s r
l i
l C a ra c a l e a W F n e e el e t n s F
l cl p c a is r o s a A s u uc snNu no m mis ey n r N NIf f g i x Sa l i T a i f f o n m n o o oo e l aA e S i m e c c e ce ceR r
p p
n oti S
e e t a
C i i v
i i i S f f f f ff ff i A t i
f e e R e n
OOOOF -
dn d e p
e AB R N
i N .
. 2 3 1
- n
)
o c S
i i 3 t f g 0- a i n
T 4 m c
e i l
N 1 5
r o S-p d n
E 0 I
l f
n t a s a I n H M
E i
t e
i n
o
)
f
(
l P
a d n
g 4 a
i r 5 L o e g E h R 0 5
n g )3 t i y n4 u d R i0 r
4 A n F f
i t a(
1 a C n ps 5 d s e e e n r r s 0 a s 0 d Py or o 1 I l s t a R - - -
ct e ea s% s) s n E
i t
it r r f f t 4 t 2 n4 t
n A i
Ds a n0 ey Ml A
i b
i s
n o
OimC f c
i ei nS t
R e :i mst es r
ie e0 m
et ri if (s mo et r a il r
D f d uu uk uu H p s E OAN qq ee qc ea qg ee C R e - - -
- ilIl;
~
t s
i f
S k c
T )
B a
N 4 4 f o
d n
)
0 E 0
( a 6 0
s n M s e
c i
t o
i g
n i t
fA a p E
L )d o r
t n e e
k ci x Ee u P e k Bn ad dr gpe l
a m 4n 1i e p
l e
p o
c np 5t p e i
kA 0n o A I m R ) ) a(
- - - 7 <
0 Msn Rc s t s s )6 t4 4
0 5
0 r o E( t n n n0 e(
(
s
(
s f ta oi T e e mg n n en P m e
m e ei n i o i o ci nm A i r
u i
r u) r t ir uo t
p e
i t
n de ar H
i q q5 qp c f it e e4 ee x e us 5 C R R (0 RR E
D GD 5
6 7 8 9 0 1
' l ll i<
e t c c i f w u f e t d Oi v o n N o oe tR C s l
yo i t
u i l
t t I f i ) t y s bs ut SS s e
c i
sA nR Br i
o E E I c u
o/
ps st h
I nu TT I
I S
r sD eO R(
i oA LR f o
d sr i
sl cepea B O I
n o
~
n Dp o at I H i s yr a yA ST i s t t is r
is f
i da l
NU m m
o n no hi u mi MFe on i OA t
o A ds P C Ac i
dn B e
SD t o
e d
eaD a n l al i wW l
EN t
e giko e l
b RA i s
n .
l ega e ReM iO RE v
eD omD p
a / d y .
s s s r n a e d egr a o a Ror Ht s Miur OP Oe s c e Oq r
Df Dia De E o EDC ER 1 2 3
h s s c
t e a n e E e e s n mr eAen i
e r c c isL ul i
l a
qor o P g .
et t nn S S E E Rno de i i et t
ncCta i
rf I
I euc Akc T T)
I nsi e cu en sa e
rB LRd e I
Gom d r u c di f B Hn Ou I
n Pm ei cc at o I
shaC oe r p S Tit nTd o P S nuno ie t
a r u r na h
t a tn OAc TlPa esd pse P O Ana e
r g SD(
EN l l aat nhn l
i un si sg i
Aan RA i oSa g) M eR l
l i a RGd WMr
,Oe s o r Af oRp o t(
cf e l Re
/c ef si it r a ve Dff DSD OO 4 5
w t
s n i e a f kt s k h ci f ad T ak Mes r Bc e y a dnpo h t fB a or O i
t n de sP S
E E S i l
sg y
n b
i t
y dm e
I i a
I I ai t f ol tC T T)I Am nt i k
c a l s
a yr o
LRd I t ys B e i
l r n Oeu i ,
p I oa . f o p bl ia B t r e ate s A si ne t
n I
Hn l uen gr s
m n o pt S Tit eo e i o so nun OAo Rf eL eB v
i c
o l
C-a r
s n
o eP R y yif P c o nt r os d e i i
s c
rt an SD(
i pii pay t s s n e id me o D ri EN Anl ai mn C l a
P y RA sa l
l ara l n
HaM l
i i h e F St edn W. f e f f r s
sDa A tt Ata sf k a a e t h Riiff RS M St
/kk / O s cc sC s C t Daa DR D Ru OBB ON O NB 6 7 8 9
~
a s .
sg C en in R so ui ds nn i
N e ai t ae e y ) m r b a Cs o ei c o e r
gL f l
a S dP e b
- T I
l uf ofa nn ai B v
o r
m f
i e
h a u F WtS Cr t e h s p p N t
iy K i t
y aC e c t n n a o A t e
Sa eW F C f r i
t t o i s r e u M s e g c s n k c m e a
i f a t t s
i o Sma OA B kcgu l
if f
i A -
i e e 6
r n e a
u Dr D
( t aS a t g s t B Re t
i n f s s te i
f n t e N
OIC d e el ki t ci r a i e A c -
I P A f U n ih nt U n I F sb BW L C e oa r w n ei TI C I
pc ol i dn e i e e t i r
e s
n O nst Oin r p se f v t o o NE Pp o pse A Re f
'A i
t a
t e
nU a
F P I aA o n -
- c u hl l ey r e r e s i
TA ES o q l
Bd Pc t s
n n pp i n es yea o i
L c e a
D T- ar st o a
e c iA t
a U rt oc c de i
N MlA i R L c
Mfe f n m nde g g gl pi i
z oA A
i n ni n p f
o oi:
i f dr i t L io t r ti s i t e i
t it t eA a c
e euge i
sF snn a a d p qna P Pg oe oeo Pdt r
e ec p po rk wn3 e
S- i nh i
s t f n f f t e OOD N 5 n UC a ha f
asl i
- - - - a -
t r l t
SC SFM i
P 1 2 3
d n o S g e at n
E N i e s ib cl e
LO s n
y r
o n r e ea BIT e c n c c t AI i L
a i L el Gpp i
CS l
u y O e g I
h e b A L
P P t
R s s s n n ae f t PFF o l e s e od e
s A A t r
a b
a t
n e mien i
t ve c t soc FT P i mi ori OS ae l
p p
e m P pL y e r m f pc NY d s n A i
ud Aif OR I
O a e e
r c f
o q f e C tayc e l i
R nSl ap TT I
l A
i L
d s l e
a t Ci cS i
NAL s a i n :s gi r t
Rf f he I
F nf o o Kno eWNOt E U L
i t s eit ) ) )
DG E ii ss oa ei s r
h o AB(
(
C
(
R PB TP 1 2 l
1!l 4 l y
r ,
o n t
a mo C
ii d l ati e u o l I s o
g t A
Cso F p R e s R eP I
o i
s r e e C P r s e l y
a o s nh et .
E y t e er n D cg P f i -
l pf oA O i Ln mey t i y u S d n
e o br o b t .s is 4
TS o i Cnt a ol d
e fI k f NT e f
t f t u i u cf aat aag s s
AF bs I l t ne sir m i
e B
f ofo S -
L P Kino t r b -
i f ed l mA C p kt n c ea l
i i aR _
gas e aDt B d f i i
t w l /
CD NB I
R y i se k eria c f
k c
t eO aotO .
Y l
i r
f iq uB B a i i
t a t neg nnD F m eRn d I
yt t eE I i d i e T P r I dt a f i
aio rt n i MWyp N f f
Caic R s ne .
t n ~
as .
e eeo E t t Si f Niu e nymsns d eb s C D
I nt Cc k elame C e sh I
Ra h noc R c ut i NB WACL i N LMw i
1 2 3 4 _
l j L.
a i s 3 i
s t i s i n ~
i t f s gh i
f k i s ni t C k cy c
a na bob i
i vw e .
cee eeesu I al F Bt e i
aisd I
ai a ce shs ed be etnta l
Rnt i C
E )d be o Det Acef Rioh e om r Peu t t t o mim / Ls m df u s Del t g e s cn n Sn di e d me mioa sDrT Othui, sv el Tit i t iaa t mRo C BAe ara l i
f r s Nnl Ct nt ne.h s ko e e cfnhRr Ao L (C i n S os i i
t o e eh st i t
aI t B d f o f n of i
t s i
s ue o mnw oa ,n PS si o s y Pccd ole i nOi ma r
l GIT Pl iDaP a tD a d a l t
an h er l ECe NF hA t
tAha sR t
w Cof h t I
K s y e o r e/or nD tF t o et o et rt s op n d
Y F C i nt a iOi m,s e n pie a e
I A ml r u r c ecn ei t t b ire o T B eg i L i N
t e eR ekmto tf s f l
l Rt af a n D Dca nd ohoi E f i t
f f Bae r r eS s sm D
I f f tak Sca ta aTiu Stdq amkr te Cie ae e F on e nlCWD f
I B I naR I 5 6 7
t t n ut i
f o .br a k ks dp o i
t t c i s o a ep C
I B P o
i R iu t e uS r n s .
a i n
F e y
r au qeo hd it o I
b o t nRt fi t o
t a s n kac sU n C
E )d t l
u g
e no i
st i
o ai Bmr Pet o e inia s yu Sund n R e
m r el e u aar l deet me es n Ev n l t
iD Tit u o
b a DnA l a s NnF i c E E y d o otn r e Cih Aoe LCb l
A p
p I
r t t oyl ae tT a
ha l
y a Sa r
um gu t
dp e
y P (S M l s
Ss s ec MeRo ep mA GT I n
o u
o Ne o-D c r oy NF s:
i i
v .N Ne f a t
i e R ,d nM I
K os P r
Ri s si v e on I
se Y
F CPn d s o a s
Nn f
oiC o
s r e aPk i
es en e
I A ea se i
n r t
a esT t a se nc T
N B oR p
o e i
t o oi c su n tf cih eMo i ei L c ,
s i ed i Lt E r Peh s
or r oT Dc t
nf i
DMInOA i
D I
fT f
ar Po
) ) h e kc a
t o Sf A
(
B
( WB 9
8
~
d e e .
i f
i ndm oie e t
n Df t tsi e soy d
I y i
sNS y
S l
rt t en l
eif I h e ab n k S it u eq Al ca l i
Y t s
,e h
ewB L ib f t sc ei A kuacS f i iti f
r c ae f
N B dn f app t S-Af o ae Sl y
l Atn ne Y in os b d eP
.l a
R t a et c cf i
te sn u
Oi ik f i
L c a si n . d I
T ne bBt ya iee r mh A dd e a r t et egn L I f
mb e TnE ei Uf ai pn t ao t bpo G SlC n r de yoi art i E oo n mDs sp o R df f e a m i st ir s t r s y oi pD i
atSe l a pd t
t iye nun ASa I n bD 1 2 i
no g a d ot n sna
_ ir i t i t
ao i i t
e
_ nr m rt ec iP ds mdo nn he t r r
ee aa t i tD S t ss eoinT r a Dpyios o I he th S amlaat t r
e t nt Y d inn n b eAio ia mh L yrPmi r
a l r t
A)
Nd dl i r e ewt t
e dlaD otO eDE ed te n D n a l
Aeu pnu m a eh od gis to s
t s o ut i
YnCeRt i t en t Mce t .
Rt en d ke na m Aod e Rr Onbaos ai t r amuc r
t
/
Dnt Pif i 6
T C uWfkio l l
O is u
A( msias cWD i
stBAo f i t
,esJ ae L yf i
Ry f er kccr a U a kc g/
l n at iDo n p an s t G AytiB ac O C e.
Bi s ea o l
E r an . a es st C i R o t hu er ed ne ont pac l at u e msa c mtsre g dmenwi ao c r L ibi d ou n e ioo RmCLFt TSI 3
4 i
e T 4 1 i v
N4 51 5F 0 s E
0 r c st r ei T r e
t r pe dnpo e
g n
Nt pa an r e i he TR o Oh CG s
l a ce g
n CC n i st s
.i i
no n a n o
O r
- i ye i
t m e d l s a r r i
t h y a
S I
t e
s a
nu a eo pf e
t n
t Oit l Ac e e oc i
S i L )
cB Or g P n m t a Y i s
s
(
9 s n ra o l e
p s eF ve L y 0 i
s i
di l i
t a n i
th Al a n
1 y 0a l l um ci i n I m i t
o l at et NA e 5 n nS d r
r o c Rak nA ir f A er Ah t i
srl e s rP
,o ~o C
o l e
u f
f a
uo sW ou oL s Y i n t R c
t cA e c
d e S t i f d R t s
n Fh ae F aS d
i f
f o
h c
r o
oet ea O e e n ni t
e v n ia r
e S
r f
e cl e n
T m e
i N8 .d :
t as , t n f o l u aR-tr y Al n E eoe i l
t t a n I
C i s
d h
e ote L e r
aNdd uv e R s
a c pf ma U e t
e r pA s QE N B S I S Gi h r
eo e h r r
)
A
)
B
)
C
)
D
)
E E T TDa ( (
( ( (
R 1 2
e T i m
N t n
E w o
T D _
N g n
O d i
u C- t s
n l
c n
S I :
d i
e i s
f c e S )d o A
c r u
t s
o Ye n o o s
o C Lui t t p g m Ana i l u
a e
u E x i n
u NtnE v D l a
n n
iy Aon o k i
R s i t
o t a nl oe .
C CD a _
Y(
R i
s s
i l
c p u dn n o c
b at i -
u c i
O s a P O n u c s T h p n o
n o
or it t
s o
A t s _
an C
m t t l _
a o L E c c l
y e e tC C R
U r a
f f
E f
f E I s r n o N G i m ) ) )
C
)
D E P r
(
A B
( ( (
R 3
R i"s e
u O sn yo l
a t s
F l ai s V o ns r o C C Ai m
f r o
R ym r
k o
f to o k
N l aC b d
o o o
uy b Y gr eo n
a d BSE Ra t H H
n a
,u l
A DS 4 g e ", A.
EY89R 3 8 ",
SL 1 r 9 4 8
UAya ae 1 r
e 9
1 Mcu l
b r S N ,N e TA1 ve S.. .
m e
c" b
t o
N RU Dn e t O
c E 8 .e
,e ,
8 6 m 1
M 5 0 t 0f h 5 s 3s 7
9 3-U -
R s o Rs Cs
- e R "g C Be
/n /A Cn
/i Gt a O Gi E e l
Gt E ca E D Rd R p Rm i Uu i
Ut s NG Um NI NE
t r d ef i
e e ek w sr sc o so ef na L t r eB t i
f i t
dy c in a f t k
c k di l Lo d a c Aib f ogn e B
a es i v B ni r l
o f bn oa s o d d o e e
ie S m s o
l us p t aB u o R
S i a p hR oe l af t
o E o l
C r s gO vn n C e e
P f ivmiE a
nD EI Ca l
f i
D O s n
f a l CHt ao Rno Ni t O R e c S t
f o cp ey nd i
m P i L a i o od ar dA l
L f
o w affC g a
i nO erC o r
A r
l a e .
sa o. R P i
n d
h Dmn ai o BwN E l a
e e i t
art e ey b y
P p D W e gis s oo b Nb d P
~
p a r dyn e ePrP r
A e o l no d Af o s r
e f
y vf d eoe h uai o da t i
c e
Rr so s nn i
s v d D e e o oo p t t l
a ai
,m e p R M co eme r bl y
o l
a er pit e T o ei rP v l
T T pae l i
e o pDt l
) ) p a ACD WL w A B At t oh -
T ( (
1 2 l l
r y e d r w e t o o
) t s i
a L f o d k p co l
u t a
e BP ar g
e d u R e v
i nddee '
f s l o
t su f s os a e n ps S
t R ooPhr o I f
t o
C
( f f W l o
e f i
n S aA t
a n D SR o O S wr i t
E a o a m rD R a Cd hO n o
r g
o OioWtO t s P r
R rdD u
c y P oe s E o b ys o F d
L f ir et d e d d y l u d A mao od p o i
c e
E h oe C s s d P tb .
l a s i
y bl e .
P l adi t
f el pa l e v
A l
eluk pn WLe i
po p
c AA
- h a AsB - -
3
t .
cD r
e tE
,l eO y a
h i e i
t f t kot h a M E cn f n ss l
l a Be r so oe i
c W to dd oe d e o r e e r hP e n eO s N s n i o sy sn i
l pl e
u .
O I
e c
i c e cd b
md oe T
i L eie DLf s ch o cc Ai k f
t l I a
nt.m p AS ed T ac i F ni bet NB t nmb e e l
ya r g
E l
d ee ul y a e Me E
s o
p .
q pa emM si t N mt r n oI ,
ol boi e L r a Pe p St ut f k l
l l u
P i
f p de cca wde Moe A I c r nl B aEyt ,
i nh oc t S no l
aa n a at un eMe p m t d ne .
se pe e etd ae i sm Ael sp mis e toU r e r el p e nm eI l
pg t t f cio e f
Ai m alt I me N b 1 2 3 i
i s a i s
s yot n d s ht nw l
oo y nyrda s ow a ni l
)
i t
l a
c Fo l d Aaeae A e e ysiRssif eu e
v a y D u r et o co di s i tM r
o nt eNny a c t il t u Nsal ai l
f o en p u g.
gs r n eiOem s f i Et a yu r n ei s oRiDvr t t n ne k Etio
- f l l C ou cayjt.ecN t
t eav I a t c
( iE oL i
h Bi t b s d n r Ou t
Ni Wa ag l i en l o
c m mo l a s O diF ionn i
f mta hn s I er et so iu o T ot h t
t ai t SuC a .
t t hS ai si sa t A pi f t mkanaR l t s ksi er g e r
T I c k ovN e a stE y i ~e o rO p
N bBia ya Ru d .b i vR e e P
n n E e l
eu u aevr n l
a t io e Bd n i MMo n n ndEak pa DU st nc o ur E i o sU d i
er eT O nt .
i t t L inotPn t
mii c s P s to N e ei oi n o a ryk f
Ano t r c Piembc g a s a t
iC Mf I
f t
aPs sr ou utA c s so ueh o
r eB Pce e f
k tn c
ala h
SiADMt f f I Nt BP 4 5 6
F
? s n e t F o n o a n NA l
i i
t o ?
s t s n me I o o T P e i o a r
r SS T l
i t f c Neu f
a M A T t y mss PAIF S y
r o k e
a oi fr n E RK oa t r
l t
a T g a C EClu u g
e t
o i ng n
N HA Re g t i d u n l
e t o
e r
e e Rn s r e e c L HA t
a c v n eo eC i
i u
l t a
l s
n s AWS I A p
p l e V o
e co n T y R y i i N G Nlo s u
n o
l l
a e
L ss yu EN Oiev I
i i
t s
R e
b c di s
MNT P I
r o e eD .
P s s o pee AI C a e n e s D M Aio t n h f
t i
L c o r n Pe c NR i
s o sis o e E P g h n/f Lt i UT e i n t s if ofk ct aa t c F E ht s
i T
m H
a ASB D I 1
2 3
4
y ,
7 C
l e g F) e r f e R Fd ea f R N naeu I a g
n MtS r
oe e
h e
TnC o l
h
,h u t R o SSi t gt n r C t
T ie s Pant E oe e s
cd ri es on R
N n
t n
e C RC n m e Co a t E( c r C ht i
oo m N HT i
L i gt w m OTF I e?
h n t o ie ne e C o
CEK l
l s c et i
en n? n sar Te ac e L HC u a e p gi
,c n L ie l
p p i t
t r
AW A C O n
ie t
mS o W T
B oo r ch et c hc g n
NG i
t ig r ne i ENAin I
s o oi Pt c Dn nk o s?
i N
oT n no t
e e
MNS I f u f r iAn t
cri o
i et i
M e
AI at t s Aoc t
ed s
n n i
e s
D MNSn e o f
f gA n e o cC n
e N EI ROh dnCt ,
aid t t e Ss s i
L e i
L c
ege op s
U T T o gse l
ui h go en h e h e
FEC t ur t
c t s
D A WD SSP I si L I I
5 6 '7 8
i s r t
e o i
f e f y
k s s
c n a a
t e
F i
B hk f
oc ti W .
O f a
t ic wB a e L se yt l i nfk S
l e s t nh ot Oc s n o o pd ea N i t
in s
sede hB t
s a y
O B s er Ri v I
t u
c a no is n i o sse ir o no TS N N i
Di c nP i t
A CIT ot i ct O i s dn ii tf AcA I
y ne ck I F T t aic Aca . n it LK C i v sf ee i
eBmu aa th E i t k r PPC P A c iDc n e a at Tt a C e t o om d
S AA
/ e a fe ih ni B N m e i ct t t s l
t sei s i
I t
f g en niU C
I i
y Did es n mga n t t aa cS n f r i
_ F a oag eih edt de nb
. I f ne r ni I C o n
i oR giF w A rd f
f t o
E o t
as ce eoe af tf P i t
c i
f e
s et c sca Sa t S eS i
e t n neF ep p ne h s
n di ec L
cs o in Lin t t e I
t h t
I I 1
2 3 4 l:i '
E T S C E O E E S R I
F N A CN I E NE C C V ER E I A O RA P .
L E ST T N F E I AFK D
NIF T GO O NC NN T OV I
GC AK I TS E CD NA SC S I
S TA I TB T TA NB EN UO N N R C E A NE M A QIT O P
E MF O RS E ET EC R A S
R CT E F U N I
VE RS EA E OV N OE ST QS NT I I FU NS CE RS I
(
C S T
NQ EE EE R CN T NE OR N E GR CH I
LT O RE I TO R
M NO AYF F
I NM A RT L C T OS N FT I US I OI M OF M. DE TT E T V O I
MS S S TA NS NM EO F N OI T N N O E OO C K F . O MC ET I
EN C PT A SEI F TN CE I I S UR K AO T RF I
RT N B TIT OT O SC CK ET CDC SC F I N EA CO S NA N-R AA I
EW ADB I
LN DAB 3
4 5 1 2 l
w
'e ew hi e t v i
vyf f e es Ri t iR i
t n
f L kO i
f a r P oS c ae o R hl pw ti l
Bht af )n n
a S e Dee t o o o
h t
F d s ntirt s aa t
n nn e O ae c i t c wSi l g
n eop p ei E pL i t v
it ri t f S ot ca e rA Sk c
Sht Ri oL e r a U d e LP rO oB ec Os g n Mas
- vo n a nhi ai r at ne t pur i
r a n ok G ps As i
PMco ei t r ier N
I t A n e RSD S eo Ci tr eC S el mbans tnivt et r c
nP N eno goi r co r ei r aR tS p
E anal t
sa uff P CE eo C aeu MRg e e sh s ct c n I
L hat Ao s eR iv tWno g gt i
i P gCi R
i nPM sR i
nd sd R 6 UA StoN US(
1 2 3
ILIfa i
e t n f l n o osb t a i
t sia t f n l
Pat sa -
ik o r
e ca as gW ne n
P MBe i t
aRe Pm etR l
R ho tN e r rSp e
pem -
S get h nr o Ohi t t F ia d o n
asa sn -
r a O) l ain gee r oleP t n e Ed et Rie r s aUg n Seu i
i sCn e r ei t t t f a ePc ikr Un i e
sri L nS e r
Ccap e -
t e PBOr cdh Ra o GnintoL os hye S df t e NC I
t ev iB a e nrd ee rdv e -
S( w sreL r io usr N naf f o
iha Cnp f
op E sct sis oCA C
I uh e e cwhi v i
nisy o ya l l
s L is t t a
tl c a
l ai Dns n cri f f
fi o s e r e
i l
pne ec atl t cnl t pep SAUA AGS 4 5 lflll 1
r e
n ?
n n a o M i i
t d s e o l
l P .
o s r d f f s t
y t n
r a ae t c
?
d i
v o So r e i C w r v t
o eP l o
c a l Y A n f
t h
by ar co v
n R f f
a i
d i g
a i
l t
a I
e A S t
t e
c t r
pl pu? dn c Agea S
M I
d t
e d u
n e
r l yRe rcm s er V c o a u no o i e C s o iCn f
p U E x e t
p e
ie veg C
o S n b
o c
n esn/
r PecBc ni ee a t o a s s C i n i i n L eei a g g g of l n n n io t
spn i
t i
t i
t isem s
i t i t i t
o uco ti f
k k f f k PaLC t c c c sSIss a a a I I B B B - - - -
1 2 3
l ll1 l!
\l1J
)
d e e e u n l
ae n i mirson vsl a e
r spcep i _
t ey pi p n n t l eaA ort lao o sDn s At i
C t
ed n l ois
( cnyer at o oa mtt np Y r Pytagmmi f
o eiesD R i f
i l t tngu nnlpa ase l A k e e aar cd RMTImiF aI n
M B - - - - -
M 4
U .
S _
.XAyqrrGL JUN 19 19M Docket No. 50-255 "
Consumers Power Company ATTN: Dr. F. W. Buckman Vice President Nuclear Operations 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201
- Gentlemen:
On May 21, 1986, Region III directed the Palisades facility to shut down pending completion of an investigation into the cause of the May 19 reactor trip and subsequent equipment failure. Subsequently, we issued a Confirmatory Action Letter describing actions that you would take prior to restart of the facility.
Pursuant to NRC Manual Chapter 0514, "NRC Program for Management of Plant Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants," we have prepared an evaluation setting forth the justification for our actions. A copy of this evaluation is enclosed for your information.
Please let us kncw if'you have questions regarding this evaluation.
Sincerely, James G. Keppler Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Palisades Evaluation Report '
i cc w/ enclosure:
Mr. Kenneth W. Berry, Director J l Nuclear Licensing J. F. Firlit, General Manager DCS/RSB (RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, RIII Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission Nuclear Facilities and Environmental Monitoring Section RII pl I y> RIlh'li RIL1 lh RIII j
RI 1 M v
N u\/les urgess Gulder.;>nd L rie n D6vis if r i
OE/09/8E (. m ,6 g 4 g typ#ps g/
r tAnc,i waueu J. g, 1 ;
c//7 .