IA UNITED STATESNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. I06m•o-G

~ ~ October 9, 1996

Mr. James J. O'ConnorChairman and Chief Executive OfficerCommowealth Edison CompanyP. 0. Box 767Chicago, IL 60690

SUBJECT: .REQUEST FOR INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.54(f) REGARDINGADEQUACY AND AVAILABILITY OF DESIGN BASES INFORMATION

Dear Mr. O'Connor:

The purpose of this letter is to require information that will provide theU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) added confidence and assurance thatyour plant(s) are operated and maintained within the design bases and anydeviations are reconciled in a timely manner.

In the mid- to late 1980s, NRC safety system functional inspections (SSFIs)and safety systems outage modifications inspections (SSOMIs) identifiedconcerns that design bases information was not being properly maintained andplant modifications were being made without the licensee having anunderstanding of the plant design bases. The NRC's findings heightened thenuclear industry's awareness of the need to improve the adequacy andavailability of design documentation, and many licensees voluntarily initiatedextensive efforts to improve the design bases information for their plants.

To assist the industry in performing design bases improvement programs, theNuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC)' developed a guidancedocument, NUMARC 90-12, *Design Basis Program Guidelines." These guidelineswere intended to provide a standard framework for licensee programs to improveplant design bases information. The NRC staff reviewed the guidelines andprovided comments to NUMARC in November 1990. In emphasizing the itportanceof validating the facility against current design information, the staff

1NUMARC was consolidated into the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) onMarch 23, 1994.

2As discussed in NUMARC 90-12, these programs or efforts would emphasizecollation of design basis information and the supporting design information,not the identification or re-creation of the licensing basis for a plant orthe regeneration of missing analyses and calculations.

9610110280 961009PDR ADOCK 05000237

Mr. James J. O'Connor -2 -

stated that the goal of any program should be to establish confidence that theexisting facility is in accordance with the current design documents and thatany deviations will be reconciled. The staff concluded that the NUMARCguidelines would provide worthwhile insights to utilities undertaking designreconstitution programs and that the guidelines appeared to provide sufficientflexibility for licensees to structure their programs to respond mostefficiently to any unique needs and circumstances of a particular lic3nsee.The staff requested NUMARC to consider making design reconstitution a formalNUMARC initiative and commented that design documents that support technicalspecification values and that are necessary to support operations or torespond to events should be regenerated if missing. NUMARC subsequentlyconcluded that a formal initiative was not necessary because most of itsmembers were already conducting or evaluating the need to conduct designreconstitution programs, and agreed to forward the guidelines, with the NRC'scomments, to its members for use on a voluntary basis.

To provide more information to the industry on this topic and to provide anindependent view of the design control issue, the staff conducted a survey ofsix utilities and one nuclear steam supply system vendor to determine thestatus of design control problems and the strengths and weaknesses of thesample utility programs. The results were published in February 1991 inNUREG-1397, *An Assessment of Design Control Practices and DesignReconstitution Programs in the Nuclear Industry." The survey observationswere as follows:

The need for a design documentation reconstitution program wasdirectly proportional to the age of the plant.

The general intent of the program should be to provide a centrallocation for design bases information, with emphasis on the designintent (the "why" of the design).

The design bases documents should be a top-level directory thatdefines the current plant configuration.

Reestablishment of design bases without reconstitution of thesupporting design documents, as necessary, may not provide asufficient level of information for future modifications or currentplant operation, or to quickly respond to operating events.

Minor changes to the design should be tracked to support theconclusion that the changes in the aggregate do not affect thevalidity of existing calculations and the ability of a system toperform its design functions.

Mr. James J. O'Connor -3 -

Some common weaknesses of licensee programs identified duringthe surveyincluded the following:

Design reconstitution programs had not identified in advance thedocuments that are necessary to demonstrate that a structure, asystem, or a component will function properly.

* The process for regenerating missing design documentation was notalways proceduralized so that it could be handled in a systematicmanner.

Validation of the content of specific output documentation was notalways thoroughly carried out.

In late 1991, the NRC staff evaluated whether rulemaking, guidance, or apolicy statement was needed to address the issue of licensees retainingaccurate design bases information. It concluded that the existing regulatoryrequirements for design control were adequate; however, it determined that thepublication of a policy statement addressing design bases information andpublication of a generic letter requesting licensees to describe their designreconstitution programs would be beneficial. Additionally, the staff statedits intention to continue to evaluate design control adequacy during itsperformance-based inspections such as SSFIs and SSOMIs. The staff alsoexpected that the enforcemfnt policy guidance to provide greater opportunitiesfor enforcement discretion would encourage voluntary identification of pastdesign, engineering, and installation issues by licensees. With theCommission's approval, the staff proceeded with this approach.

In August 1992, the NRC issued a Commission policy statement "Availability andAdequacy of Design Bases Information at Nuclear Power Plants" (57 FR 35455)(Attachment I). This policy statement stressed the importance of maintainingcurrent and accessible design documentation to ensure that (1) plant physicaland functional characteristics are maintained and consistent with designbases, (2) systems, structures, and components can perform their intendedfunctions, and (3) the plant is operated in a manner consistent with thedesign bases. In the policy statement, the Commission recommended that allpower reactor licensees assess the accessibility and adequacy of their designbases information and that they be able to show that there is sufficientdocumentation to conclude that the current facility configuration isconsistent with the design bases. The policy statement outlined theadditional actions the NRC would take to keep apprised of the Industry'sdesign reconstitution activities previously discussed.

Following review by the Committee To Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) andthe Commission, a draft generic letter was issued for public comment onMarch 24, 1993. The proposed generic letter requested licensees, on a

3NRC would refrain from imposing civil penalties for violations up to SeverityLevel II if the violations were identified and corrected as a result ofsystematic voluntary initiatives.

Mr. James J. O'Connor -4 -

voluntary basis, to submit information and schedules for any design basesprograms completed, planned, or being conducted, or a rationale for notimplementing such a program. All but one of the commenters concluded that thegeneric letter was unnecessary and unwarranted. NUMARC responded that itbelieved the NRC's request for descriptions, schedules, And dates would have anegative impact on ongoing design efforts and that NRC's focus on scheduleswould undermine the licensees' ability to manage the activities. InSECY-93-292, "Generic Letter on the Availability and Adequacy of Design BasesInformation," dated October 21, 1993, the staff recommended that the genericletter not be issued. The staff stated that publication of the policystatement and the proposed generic letter conveyed to the industry theCommission's concern and that publication of the generic letter would notfurther licensees' awareness of the importance of the activities. The staffproposed to continue performing design-related inspections and to gatherinformation and insights as to how well the licensees' design-related programswere being implemented. The Commission issued a staff requirements memorandumthat agreed with the staff's proposal.

In response to the findings relating to the regulatory burden of teaminspections identified in the 1991 Regulatory Impact Survey, during the pastseveral years the staff has reduced its effort on specific,resource-intensive, design-related team inspections, and followed the issue ofaccurate and accessible design documentation at plants principally as anelement of inspection and followup of operations-related activities. Theissuance of the NUMARC guidelines and ongoing industry efforts to improve andmaintain design bases information also contributed to this decision.

Current Problem

Over the past several months, NRC's findings during inspections and reviewshave identified broad programmatic weaknesses that have resulted in design andconfiguration deficiencies at some plants, which could impact the operabilityof required equipment, raise unreviewed safety questions, or indicatediscrepancies between the plant's updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR)and the as-built or as-modified plant or plant operating procedures. Theseinspections and reviews have also highlighted numerous instances in whichtimely and complete implementation of corrective action for known degraded andnonconforming conditions and for past violations of NRC requirements has notbeen evident. Overall, the NRC staff has found that some licensees hivefailed to (1) appropriately maintain or adhere to plant design bases,

4As described in 10 CFR 50.2, design bases is defined as, "Design bases meanthat information which identifies the specific functions to be performed by astructure, system, or component of a facility, and the specific values orranges of values chosen for controlling parameters as reference bounds fordesign..." The design bases of a facility, as so defined, is a subset of thelicensing basis and is contained in the FSAR. Information developed toimplement the design bases is contained in other documents, some of which aredocketed and some of which are retained by the licensee.

Mr. James J. O'Connor -5 -

(2) appropriately maintain or adhere to the plant licensing basis,$(3) comply with the terms and conditions of licenses and NRC regulations, and(4) assure that UFSARs properly reflect the facilities. Attachment 2provides examples of some of the deficiencies recently identified by thestaff. As a consequence of this new information, the NRC believes that theindustry's voluntary efforts to improve and maintain design bases informationfor their plants, consistent with NUMARC 90-12, the staff's comments on theindustry guidelines, and the Commission policy statement, have not beeneffective in all cases.

The magnitude and scope of the problems that the NRC staff has identifiedraise concerns about the presence of similar design, configuration, andoperability problems and the effectiveness of quality assurance programs atother plants. Of particular concern is whether licensee programs to maintainconfiguration control at plants licensed to operate are sufficient todemonstrate that plant physical and functional characteristics are consistentwith and are being maintained in accordance with their design bases. Theextent of the licensees' failures to maintain control and to identify andcorrect the failures in a timely manner is of concern because of the potentialimpact on public health and safety should safety systems not respond tochallenges from off-normal and accident conditions.

It is emphasized that the NRC's position has been, and continues to be, thatit is the responsibility of individual licensees to know their licensingbasis, to haveappropriate documentation that defines their design bases, andto have procedures for performing the necessary assessments of plant orprocedure changes required by NRC regulations. Attachments 3 and 4 are arecent exchange of correspondence between J. Colvin, NEI, andChairman S. Jackson, NRC, regarding these subjects.

5The licensing basis for a plant originally consists of that set ofinformation upon which the Commission, in issuing an initial operatinglicense, based its comprehensive determination that the design, construction,and proposed operation of the facility satisfied the Commission's requirementsand provided reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public health andsafety and common defense and security. The licensing basis evolves and ismodified throughout a plant's licensing term as a result of the Commission'scontinuing regulatory activities, as well as the activities of the licensee.

6The FSAR is required to be included in, and is one portion of, an applicationfor an operating license (OL) for a production or utilization facility.10 CFR 50.34(b)-describes the information which must be included in an FSAR.The FSAR is the principal document upon which the Commission bases a decisionto issue an OL and is, as such, part of the licensing basis of a facility. Itis also a basic document used by NRC inspectors to determine whether thefacility has been constructed and is operating within the license conditions.

Mr. James J. O'Connor - 6-

Action

The NRC has concluded that it requires information that can be used to verifycompliance with the terms and conditions of your license(s) and NRCregulations, and that the plant UFSAR(s) properly dpscribe the facilities, aswell as to determine if other inspection activities or enforcement actionashould be taken. Therefore, you are required, pursuant to Section 182(a) ofthe Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f), to submit aresponse to this letter within 120 days of its receipt. Your response must bewritten and signed under oath or affirmation.

Please submit the original copy of your response to the NRC Document ControlDesk, and send a copy to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulationand to the appropriate regional administrator. The following information isrequired for each licensed unit:

(a) Description of engineering design and configuration controlprocesses, including those that implement 10 CFR 50.59,10 CFR 50.71(e), and Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50;

(b) Rationale for concluding that design bases requirements aretranslated into operating, maintenance, and testing procedures;

(c) Rationale for concluding that system, structure, and componentconfiguration and performance are consistent with the designbases;

(d) Processes for identification of problems and implementation ofcorrective actions, including actions to determine the extent ofproblems, actioti to prevent recurrence, and reporting to NRC; and

?A number of design bases inspections are being planned, and your responsewill be used in the planning process.

aSection VII.B.3 of the NRC Enforcement Policy addresses how old design issues

involving past problems in engineering, design, or installation are to behandled from an enforcement standpoint. In a related matter, the Commissionrecently approved changes that would modify this policy to encourage licenseesto undertake voluntary initiatives to identify and correct FSAR noncompliancesby (1) the exercise of discretion to refrain from issuing civil penalties fora two-year period where a licensee undertakes a voluntary initiative in thisarea and (2) the exercise of discretion to escalate the amount of civilpenalties for violations associated with departures from the FSAR identifiedby the NRC subsequent to the two-year voluntary initiative period.

Mr. James J. O'Connor -7 -

(e) The overall effectiveness of your current processes and programsin concluding that the configuration of your plant(s) isconsistent with the design bases.

In responding to items (a) through (e), indicate whether you have undertakenany design review or reconstitution programs, and if not, a rationale for notimplementing such a program. If design review or reconstitution programs havebeen completed or are being conducted, provide a description of the reviewprograms, including identification of the systems, structures, and components(SSCs), and plant-level design attributes (e.g., seismic, high-energy linebreak, moderate-energy line break). The description should include how theprogram ensures the correctness and accessibility of the design basesinformation for your plant and that the design bases remain current. If theprogram is being conducted but has not been completed, provide animplementation schedule for SSCs and plant-level design attribute reviews, theexpected completion date, and method of SSC prioritization used for thereview.

This request is covered by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearancenumber 3150-0011, which expires July 31, 1997. The reporting burden for thiscollection of information is estimated to average 400 hours per response,including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing datasources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing andreviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burdenestimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, includingsuggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and RecordsManagement Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,D.C. 20555-0001, and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and RegulatoryAffairs, NEOB-10202 (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington,D.C. 20503. The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not requiredto respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currentlyvalid OMB control number.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy ofthis letter and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room(PDR), the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC, and in thelocal public document room(s) for your facility or facilities.

Mr. James J. O'Connor - 8-

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact the staff memberslisted below, or the appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)project manager.

Sincerely,

Executive Direc t oror Operations

Docket Nos. STN 50-454, STN 50-455, STN 50-456, STN 50-457;50-237, 50-249; 50-373, 50-374, 50-254, 50-265;50-295, 50-304

Attachments:1. Policy Statement on Availability and Adequacy of

Design Bases Information at Nuclear Power Plants2. Background Information on Recently Identified Problems3. Letter from J. Colvin (NEI) to Chairman S. Jackson (NRC)

dated 8/2/964. Letter from Chairman S. Jackson (NRC) to J. Colvin (NEI)

dated 8/14/96

Contacts: Kristine M. Thomas, NRR(301) 415-1362Internet: kmt@nrc.gov

Eileen M. McKenna, NRR(301) 415-2189Internet: enu•nrc.gov

cc w/atts: See next page

Commonwealth Edison Company

cc:

Ms. I. JohnsonActing Manager, Nuclear Regulatory ServicesCommonwealth Edison CompanyExecutive Towers West III1400 Opus Place, Suite 500Downers Grove, Illinois 60515

Michael I. Killer, EsquireSidley and AustinOne First National PlazaChicago, Illinois 60603

Regional Administrator, Region IIIU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission801 Warrenville RoadLisle, Illinois 60532-4351

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionByron Resident Inspectors Office4448 North German Church RoadByron, Illinois 61010-9750

Ms. Lorraine CreekRt. 1, Box 182Manteno, Illinois 60950

Chairman, Ogle County BoardPost Office Box 357Oregon, Illinois 61061

Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson1907 Stratford LaneRockford, Illinois 61107

Illinois Department ofNuclear Safety

Office of Nuclear Facility Safety1035 Outer Park DriveSpringfield, Illinois 62704

Document Control Desk-LicensingCommonwealth Edison Company1400 Opus Place, Suite 400Downers Grove, Illinois 60515

Mr. William P. Poirier, DirectorWestinghouse Electric CorporationEnergy Systems Business UnitPost Office Box 355, Bay 236 WestPittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230

Joseph GalloGallo & Ross1250 Eye St., N.W.Suite 302Washington,.oC 20005

Howard A. LearnerEnvironmental law and Policy

Center of the Midwest203 North LaSalle StreetSuite 1390Chicago, Illinois 60601

George L. EdgarMorgan, Lewis and Bochius1800 M Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20036

Attorney General500 South Second StreetSpringfield, Illinois 62701

EIS Review CoordinatorU.S. Environmental Protection Agency77 W. Jackson Blvd.Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590

Commonwealth Edison CompanyByron Station Manager4450 North German Church RoadByron, Illinois 61010

Kenneth Graesser, Site Vice PresidentByron Station

Commonwealth Edison Station4450 N. German Church RoadByron, Illinois 61010

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionBraidwood Resident Inspectors OfficeRural Route #1, Box 79Braceville, Illinois 60407

Mr. Ron StephensIllinois Emergency Services

and Disaster Agency110 East Adams StreetSpringfield, Illinois 62706

Chal rranWill County BoardWill County BoardJoliet, Illinois

of SupervisorsCourthouse60434

Commonwealth Edison CompanyBraidwood Station ManagerRt. 1, Box 84Braceville, Illinois 60407

Ms. Bridget Little RoremAppleseed Coordinator117 North Linden StreetEssex, Illinois 60935

Mr. H. G. StanleySite Vice PresidentBraidwood StationCommonwealth Edison CompanyRR 1, Box 84Bracemille, IL 60407

Site Vice PresidentDresden Nuclear Power Station6500 North Dresden RoadMorris, Illinois 60450-9765

Station ManagerDresden Nuclear Power Station6500 North Dresden RoadMorris, Illinois 60450-9765

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionResident Inspectors OfficeDresden Station6500 North Dresden RoadMorris, Illinois 60450-9766

Richard J. SingerManager - NuclearMidAmerican Energy Company907 Walnut StreetP.O. Box 657Des Moines, Iowa 50303

Brent E. Gale, Esq.Vice President - Law andMidAmerican Energy Company

Regulatory AffairsOne RiverCenter Place106 East Second StreetP.O. Box 4350Davenport, Iowa 52808

ChairmanRock Island County Board

of Supervisors1504 3rd AvenueRock Island County Office Bldg.Rock Island, Illinois 61201

ChairmanGrundy County BoardAdministration Building1320 Union StreetMorris, Illinois 60450

Mr. L. William PearceStation ManagerQuad Cities Nuclear Power Station22710 206th Avenue NorthCordova, Illinois 61242

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionQuad Cities Resident Inspectors Office22712 206th Avenue NorthCordova, Illinois 61242

Phillip P. Steptoe, EsquireSidley and AustinOne First National PlazaChicago, Illinois 60603

Assistant Attorney General100 West Randolph StreetSuite 12Chicago, Illinois 60601

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionResident Inspectors Office LaSalle Station2605 N. 21st RoadMarseilles, Illinois 61341-9756

ChairmanLaSalle County Board of SupervisorsLaSalle County CourthouseOttawa, Illinois 61350

ChairmanIllinois Commerce CommissionLeland Building527 East Capitol AvenueSpringfield, Illinois 62706

LaSalle Station ManagerLaSalle County StationRural Route 1P.O. Box 220Marseilles, Illinois 61341

Robert CushingChief, Public Utilities DivisionIllinois Attorney General's Office100 West Randolph StreetChicago, Illinois 60601

Dr. Cecil Lue-HingDirector of Research and DevelopmentMetropolitan Sanitary District

of Greater Chicago300 East Erie StreetChicago, Illinois 60611

Mayor of ZionZion, Illinois 60099

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionZion Resident Inspectors Office105 Shiloh Blvd.Zion, Illinois 60099

Station ManagerZion Nuclear Power Station101 Shiloh Blvd.Zion, Illinois 60099-2797

ChairmanIllinois Commerce CommitsionLeland Building527 East Capitol AvenueSpringfield, Illinois 62706

LaSalle Station ManagerLaSalle County StationRural Route 1P.O. Box 220Marseilles, Illinois 61341

Robert CushingChief, Public Utilities DivisionIllinois Attorney General's Office100 West Randolph StreetChicago, Illinois 60601

Dr. Cecil Lue-HingDirector of Research and DevelopmentMetropolitan Sanitary District

of Greater Chicago100 East Erie StreetChicago, Illinois 60611

Mayor of ZionZion, Illinois 60099

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionZion Resident Inspectors Office105 Shiloh Blvd.Zion, Illinois 60099

Station ManagerZion Nuclear Power Station101 Shiloh Blvd.Zion, Illinois 60099-2797

35453

Rules and Regulations Fediral RelisterVol. 57. No. 154

Monday. August 10. 1992

This Section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains regulatory documents havinggeneral applicability and legal etect, mostof which are keyed to and coditied inthe Code of Federal Regulations. which ispublished under 50 titles pursuant to 44U.S.C. 1510.The Code of Federal Regulations is soldby the Superintendent ot Documents.Prices of new books are listed in thefirst FEDERAL REGISTER issue of eachweek.

NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

Availability and Adequacy of DesignBases Information at Nuclear PowerPlants; Policy Statement

AOENCy: Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.ACTION: Policy statement.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission is issuing this policystatement on availability and adequacyof design information at nuclear powerplants. This policy statement describesthe Commission's expectations andfuture actions with regard to theavailability of design information andemphasizes the Commission's view thatfacilities should not be modified withouta clear understanding of the applicableengineering design bases.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 1992.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Eugene V. Imbro. Office of NuclearReactor Regulation. U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission. Washington.DC 20555. telephone 1301) 504-2967.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRCinspection findings have demt....tratedthat some licensees have not adequatelymaintained their design basesinformation as required by NRCregulations. Both the problems identifiedduring the NRC inspections and thoseidentified by licensees have promptedniost power reactor licensees to initiate,over the past several years. designbases reconstitution programs. Toimplement a reconstitution program.licensees qeek to Identify missing designdocumentation and to selectivelyregenerate missing documentation asrequired.

In 1989. Nuclear Utilities Managementand Resources Council. Inc., (NUMARC}began developing Iheir "Design Basis

S.3.0q"9 nI((O0Xt). A UGQ-2-I2 (0:2•Q1

Program Guidelines." NUMARC 90-12.While developing these guidelines.NUMARC discussed them at severalpublic meetings held with the NRC. Thestaff has concluded the NUMARCguidelines provide a useful standardramework for implementing design

reconstitution programs. The staff alsoagrees no single approach would enableutilities to best accomplish thereconstitution task. The NUMARCguidance appeared to provide sufficientflexibility for individual utilities to,;0ructure their programs to respond mostefficiently to their unique needs andcircumstances.

The staff sent comments on theguidelines to NUMARC on November 9.1990. Commission paper SECY-90-365informed the Commissioners in advanceabout the staff response to NUMARC.

The staff requested NUMARCconsider making the design bases efforta NUMARC initiative. NUMARCconcluded they would not pursue aformal initiative, but would forward theguidelines to their members to use on avoluntary basis. Their reason for notpursuing an initiative was that most oftheir membrs were already conductingor evaluating the need to conduct designbases reconstitution programs.

The Commission's evaluation of thestatus of reconstitution programs clearlyindicates the licensees' substantialinvestment in these programs shouldyield positive safety benefits for amajority of sites. The NRC commendsthose licensees that are acting to ensureiechnicoilly adequate dnd accessibledesign bases documentation ismaintained.

However. the Commission isconcerned some situations exist wherelicensees have no' critically examinedtheir design control and configurationmanagement processes to identifyrequisite measures to ensure the plant isoperating within the de.,.gn basesenvelope. Therefore. the Commission Isarticulating its expectations with regardto design information and elaborating onits planned activities to confirm theintegrity of the as.configured plant withrespect to ilte plant design bases.

Policy Statement

Position

The Commission has concluded thatmaintaining current and accessibledesign documenlation Is important toensure that (1) the plant physical and

functional characteristics artmaintained and are consistent with thedesign bases as required by NRCregulation. (2) systems. structures, andcomponents can perform their intendedfunctions. and (3) the plant is operatedin a manner consistent with the designbases. The Commission believes theregulatory framework already exists toaddress the need for accessible designbases and control of design information.The availability of current design andlicensing bases will also expedite thelicense renewal process.

The Commission believes, as a resultof NRC inspections and licensees' self-assessments, that all power reactorlicensees should assess the accessibilityand adequacy of their design basesdocumentation. The results of this self.assessment should form the basis for alicensee's decision whether a designreconstitution program is necessary andthe attributes to be included in theprogram. The Commission recognizesthe need for a design reconstitutionp-ogram to be tailored to meet theunique needs of a particular utility. Thestructure and content of the designdocument reconstitution program will beinfluenced by various factors, such asthe utility's organizational structure, theavailability or unavailability of designdocumentation, and the intended usersof the documentation. The Commissionexpects that after completing areconstitution program. or as a basis forconcluding that such a program isunnecessary. the licensee will havecurrent design documents and adequatetechnical bases to demonstrate that theplant physical and functionalcharacteristics are consistent with thedesign basis, the systems, structures,and components can perform theirintended functions and the plant is bein?operated in a manner consistent withthe design basis.

NUMARC has developed guidance forthe conduct of design basesreconstitution programs. The guidanceoutlines a framework to organize andcollate nuclear power plant design basesinformation. This Information providesthe rationale for the design basesconsistent with the definition of designbases contained in 10 CFR 50.2.NUMARC 90-12. "Design Basis ProgramGuidelines." was Issued in October 1990for voluntary use by NUMARC mcmbrorganizations as a reference point fromwhich licensees would review their

Attachment I

35456 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 154 / Monday. August 10. 1992 / Rules and Regulati.ons

existing or planned efforts to collatesupporting design information. TheCommission believes NUMARC'sapproach provides a useful frameworkand worthwhile insights to those utilitiesundertaking design basis programs.

The Commission believes a licenseeshould be able to show that it hassufficient documentation, includingcalculations or pre-operational. startupor surveillance test data to conclude thecurrent facility configuration isconsistent with its design bases. TheCommission further believes the designbases must be understood anddocumen'ed to support operabilitydeterminations and 10 CFR 50.59evaluations that may need to be madequickly in responding to plant events.The design bases related informationshould be retrievable within areasonable period of time. however, it isnot necessary for all design basisdocumentation to be organized in oneplace. The information used solely tosupport the development of amodification package would not need tobe able to be retrieved as expeditiouslyas information needed to support anoperability determination.

In the event the design basesinformation is found technicallyinadequate or not accessible, licenseesshould consider whether remedial actionis warranted. A methodology should bedeveloped and implemented to ensurelicensee resources are focused on designinformation regeneration in a limeframecommensurate with the safetysignificance of the missing or erroneousinformation.

The Commission also emphasizes it isvery important that modifications to afacility be made after a thorough reviewhas been conducted and anunderstanding of the applicableunderlying design bases has beengained in order to ensure appropriatedesign margins are preserved.

Future Actions

The Commission will continue toinspect routinely the adequacy of designcontrol program effectiveness. TheCommission concludes that ensuring thedesign bases and configuration of afacility are well understood andcontrolled in plant documents will alsoensure that those parts of the currentlicensing bases of most safetysignificance are understood andcontrolled. Other aspects of the currentlicensing bases. such as emergencypreparedness and security plans. shouldalso be appropriately examined to

ensure their validity for the life of thefacility, including any renewal period.

In order to ensure the Commission isappraised of industry's activities, theNRC will take the following actions.

(1) The staff will issue a generic letterrequesting all licensees to describe theprograms that are in place to ensuredesign information is correct, accessible.and maintained curretit. Those licenseesthat are not implementing a designreconstitution program will be requestedto provide their rationale for not doingso. If a reconstitution program is underway. the schedule for implementationand completion will be requested.

(2) The staff will prioritize NRCinspections of licensee's managemen, ofdesign and configuratioti using SSFI-type techniques based upon responses -

to the generic letter and other plantspecific information known to the NRC.Additional staff guidance will bedeveloped, where needed, for the designbases aspects of these inspections.

(3) The NRC systematic assessment oflicensee performance (SALP) processwill be modified to explicitly addressassessment of licensee programs tocontrol design bases information thatreflect NRC inspection activity in thisarea and assure consistent evaluations.

(4) The staff will continue toencourage self-identification of designbases issues through application of theprovisions of the ComrrUsion'senforcement policy. The itaff will.however, pursue enforcement actions forengineering deficiencies whose rootcause lies in the inadequacy orunavailability of design basesinformation and which are identifiedduring NRC inspections.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This final polic) statement does notcontain a new or amended informationcollection requirement subject to thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existingrequirements were approved by theOffice of Management and Budgetapproval number 3150-0011.

Dated at Rockvilie. Maryland, this 4th day

of August, 1992.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel 1. Chilk.Secretary of the Commission.

IFR Doc. 92-18895 Filed 8-7-92; 8:45 a-1lSILLI6o Coo0 750-Ct.M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

12 CFR Part 584

192-1151

hIN 1550-AA38

Registration, Examination andReports; Statements, Applications.Reports and Notices To Be Flied

AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision.rreasury.ACmON- Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of ThriftSupervision fOTS) is hereby amendingits regulations pertaining to holdingcompany reporting requirements. Inupdating existing forms 'o reflectchanges necessitated by the FinancialInstitutions Reform. Recovery. andEnforcement Act of 1989. the OTS hascombined several forms to streamlinethe reporting process and ease theregulatory burden on savings and loanholding companies. In particular. thereporting requirements set fnrth inForms H-(b)3. H-(b)4. H-(b)5 and If-(b)1O Registration Ztatements are nowcontained in one body of instructions forall Registrants. the H-(b)10. In addition.the H-(b)lI Annual Report and the H-(b)12 Current Report have been mergedinto one set of instructions requiring anannual filing with quarterly updatesinforming the OTS of any changes. Thell-(0) Dividend Notification has beenreqcinded. since the requirementscontained in the Capital Distributionsregulation are sufficient for the OTS'smonitoring and supervision purposes.EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9. 1992.FOR FURTI•'ER INFORMATION CONTACT.Michael P. Scott. Program Manager.(202) 906-5748. Supervision Policy.Office of Thrift Supervision. 1700 GStreet. NW.. Washington. DC 20552.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The OTS is today issuing a final ruleamending its holding company reportingrequirements. This amendment affectsthe registration, annual, and currentreporting requirements.

Registrotion Statements

As previously structured, holdingcompanies were required to choose fromfour separate registration statements.These separate statements wereoriginally deemed necessary toaccommodate special types of holdingcompanies (i.e.. companies that bec.mesavings and loan hold;ng companies as

S-310999 OWN200X07-AUG-92-12 00;3.1)

.itr~n rkIer fin vnit 4 nm' ný

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON RECENTLY IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS

Over the past several months, design and engineering information has beenobtained that indicates that design bases at certain plants have not beenappropriately maintained or adhered to. Specific examples follow:

Millstone Units 1. 2. and 3

An NRC inspection team recently found examples in which design basesinformation and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) did not agreewith the is-built plant, operational procedures, and maintenance practices.The team found inconsistencies that required analyses, procedure changes, anddesign changes to resolve. For example, the Millstone Unit 3 operatingprocedures required isolation for the turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pumpduring certain plant conditions, in conflict with technical specificationrequirements for operability. The team found that certain protective relaysat Millstone Unit 3 were not set in accordance with the design basesinformation. This required re-analyses and resetting of certain relays.Based on the team's findings, the licensee initiated design changes to correctnonconforming conditions between the UFSAR and the as-bullt plant, includingchanges to the design of the Millstone Unit 2 reactor protection system tomeet the design bases with respect to physical separation of redundantchannels and changes to the design of the Millstone Unit 2(post-loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA)) hydrogen monitors to meet the designbases for single failure vulnerabilities.

Haddam Peck

An NRC inspection team found examples in which the design bases informationand the UFSAR did not agree with the as-built plant, operational procedures,and maintenance practices. The team identified a number of deficiencies inengineering calculations and analyses that were relied upon to ensure theadequacy of the design of key safety systems. Deficiencies were identified inthe calculations and analyses supporting the station batteries, emergencydiesel generators, containment cooling system, and other key safety systems.In some cases, the inspection findings were resolved by revising thecalculations and analyses. In other cases, procedure and design changes wererequired to resolve the issues. For example, the team identified that thedesign bases calculations supporting the size of the station batteries wereinconsistent with the design bases stated in the FSAR. Field measurements anddesign mdifications were required to resolve this issue.

Other Issues were identified by the NRC and the licensee following theissuance of this special team inspection report that led the licensee to entera refueling outage earlier than originally scheduled. Discrepancies includedinadequate configuration management of the containment sump design andas-built conditions; a lack of detailed analysis and technical justificationfor the reliance on post-accident back pressure inside the containment toassure adequate net positive suction head for the residual heat removal pumps;Inadequate inspection and verification of the sump as-built and material

Attachment 2

conditions; and the lack of aggressive action in response to genericcommunications of industry events, which contributed to an inadequateoperability determination regarding the sump screen design and mesh size.These issues impacted the operability of the emergency core cooling systems(ECCSs) under certain postulated design basis events.

On January 10, 1996, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order Suspending Authorityfor and Limiting Power Operation and Containment Pressure and a Demand forInformation to the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company. The order was based,, inpart, on the NRC's determination that Maine Yankee did not apply a computercode that was proposed to demonstrate compliance with the ECCS requirements of10 CFR 50.46 in a manner that conforms to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,Appendix K, nor to the conditions specified in the staff's safety evaluation

.dated January 30, 1989. Specifically, the licensee did not demonstrate thatthe RELAP5YA code will reliably calculate the peak cladding temperature forall break sizes in the small-break LOCA spectrum for Maine Yankee, nor has thelicensee submitted the Justification for the code options selected and otherJustifications and sensitivity studies to satisfy conditions in the staff'ssafety evaluation.

In addition, the licensee assumed an initial containment pressure of 2.0 psigfor calculating peak design-basis accident pressure, even though the plant'stechnical specifications allow a maximum operating pressure in containment of3.0 psig. Assuming an initial containment pressure of 3.0 psig results in acalculated peak accident pressure in excess of the containment design pressuredescribed in the UFSAR.

Refuelina Practices Survey

In a survey of licensee refueling practices conducted during the spring of1996, the NRC identified deficiencies in the management of design basesassumptions. Many plants were found to have aspects of their design basesthat were only loosely proceduralized or not proceduralized at all. Typicalof this kind of discrepancy was the identification of a lack of procedures forcontrolling the assumptions regarding hold-up time before beginning fueltransfer. The NRC found a number of instances in which other design basesassumptions were not captured in procedures. In addition, it was necessaryfor licensees at 12 sites (23 units) to upgrade procedures to directlyimplement the design bases assumptions. In other cases, the licenseeperformed engineering analyses, documented pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59, asnecessary, to ensure that the planned activities would not exceed design basesassumptions.

-2-

f zrE:i

Joe F. Colvin

August 2. 1996

The Honorable Shirley A. JacksonChairmanU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington. DC 20555-0001

Dear Chairman Jackson:

On July 23. 1996. the Nuclear Strategic Issues Advisory Committee (NSIAC) held aspecial meeting to discuss industry actions for ensuring the licensing basis ofnuclear plants is being maintained consistent with the regulations. The chiefnuclear officers of the nuclear utilities approved an initiative to provide additionalassurance and confidence that existing programs are adequate to ensure that:

* Licensees are operating their plants in conformance with their licensingbasis:

• Licensees are adequately maintaining their licensing basis:* There are no differences between operating practices and the licensing basis

that could result in a significant public health and safety concern: and" Degraded or non-conforming conditions are captured on tracking systems

and resolved in a timely manner.

Under the initiative, each licensee bilI conduct an assessment of the programs inplace to reaffirm that plants are operated in conformance with their licensing basis.The program assessment is accomplished by sampling (1) FSAR information. (2)programs in place for processing changes to procedures and the plant that mayimpact the FSAR. and (3) changes that may not b, governed by licensee programs.Many licensees have already commenced or recently completed similar programassessments.

Differences identified through the sampling process will be evaluated to assess theoverall effectiveness and adequacy of programs. Programmatic enhancements willbe made if needed- The overall significance of any differences wil be characterizedto determine if additional sampling is warranted.

Differences that represent degraded or nonconforming conditions will be capturedon a tracking system and resolved in a timely manner. Each licensee will notify theNRC of any differences that are subject to reporti-t requirements per therepilations.

The Honorable Shirley A. JacksonAugust 2. 199GPage 2

The results of the individual plant assessments wil.l be provided to NEI forcompilation in an industry summary report. The summary report wii be providedto the NRC for information

The industry has developed a draft guideline to assist utiities in performing thepro.-Trammatic assessment. The guideline wvill be finalzed subsequent to resolutionof the issues discussed below Enclosure I provides a copy of NE! 96-05 (Draft)Revision D. "Guidelines for Assessing Programs for Maintaining the LicensingBasis. for your information.

There are a number of related issues that require a mutual agreement between theindustry and the NRC before the industr" can proceed with the initiative in aconsistent manner These include,

* The legal standing of the Updated Figial SafetY Analysis Report and theNRC s Safety Evaluation Reports:

* The scope of what constitutes the current hcensing basis and* The adequacy of NSAC.125 for performing 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations

The. industry is committed to completing the initiative wi'thin six months of theresolution of these issues. Initial progress in resolving these issues wasaccomphshed dunng the NRC public meeting also held on July 23. 1996. Weappreciate very much the participation of your senior staff in this meeting and theopportunitY to discuss these issues Expedited closure on these fundamental issuesis needed to minimize confusion within the NRC remon, and the plants and focusour resources on addiressing the programmatic issues

We look forward to a continuing dialogue with the Commission and NRC staff toachieve timely rsolution of this matter.

Sincerely.

J e F Col'vin

•ýnclosure

Conn.-iiisioner Kenneth C" Rogers. NRCCommi::ioner Greta J Dictis. NRCMir ,Jalinv, Ml TaYl,'r NRi"

NEI 96-05 (DRAFT)Revision D

NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE

GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING PROGRAMS FORMLAINTAINING THE LICENSING BASIS

JULY 25, 1996

S

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Licensees have implemented various programs.1processes over the period of theirlicenses for ensuring that the licensing basis is known. is maintained current and isaccurately described in the FSAR and associated referenced documents. The NRC.through a review described in SECY.94-066. determined that licensees wereadeýquately maintaining the licensing basis of thelr facilities. As a result of eventsthat have occurred over the last several months, the NNRC has increased attentionon licensee compliance with the plant's licensing basis. Differences can occur due toproblems in those processes/programs intended to effect changes in the licensebasis, missing programmatic controls to translate changed operational activitiesinto the licensing basis, or a lack of awareness of licensing basis features.

Licensees employ various programmatic mechanisms for identify-ing, evaluatingand/or processing changes in plant activities that could affect the licensing basis orthat are intended to make changes to the licensing basis. These include:

" Final Safety A.nalysis Report FS.A.R) updates per 10 CFR 50.7 1(e)

• Safety Evaluations per 10 CFR .50.59

* Changes to Quality Assurance. Security and Emergency Plans per10 CFR 50 54

* License amendments per 10 CFR 50.90

" ASME Code relief requests per 10 CFR 50.55a

" Procedure changes (not subject to 50.59)

* Design changes (not subject to 50.59)

• Regulatory commitment changes

* Degraded or non.conforming conditions

* Configuration management changes (e.g., operator workarounds, extendedoperation of equipment in manual mode rather than automatic operationmodes, and Technical Specification positions/interpretations)

I

3.0 ASSESSM ENT METHODOLOGY

3.1 Data-Gatheiing Phase

The data-gathering phase of thc assessment employs three sampling techniques.Each sampling technique is discussed separately.

3.1.1 FSAR Sampling*

* Extract the relevant FSAR sections for the system(s) being evaluated

* Highlight those FSAR statements that meet the following criteria:

0 Descriptive phrases regarding frequencies for tests. cal: ons. etc.

Configuration descriptions

Descriptions of system operation in different modes(e.g.. normal, abnormal. accident/emergency•

Operating limits

Descriptive functional performance statements

* NOTE: The intent is to identify a range of FSAR statements associated withoperational practices that could be changed and. in the presence ofprogrammatic weaknesses, are not adequately reflected in the FSA.R.

• Compare the highlighted FSAR statements with current operationalpractices using idividuals cognizant of the operation of the system andassociated engineering problems. Document the following:

0 Is the FSAR statement accurate with respect to operational practices(procedures, operating philosophy, standing orders, workarounds, etc.)?If not, identif,. the differences.

0 Is the FSA.R statement clearly understood or in need of clarification?

3.1.2 Programmatic Sampling

* Select three unrelated examples of each of the following types of changes:*

50.59 ( at least one procedure change evaluatmion

* List of equipment being operated in manual

O14* temporary alterations

, Old* non.conformances

Old* tag.outs

* "Old" refers to current items that should be reflected (if required) in the last

FSAR update per 10 CFR 50.7,1(e)

* Selec: a sample from each of the above categories based on the number of!'ems compiled.

* Review the item selected to determine if the item represents a change to thelicensing basis and. if so. if the licensing basis accurately reflects the change.For changes that are not accurately reflected in the licensing basis.determine the programmatic step (or missing programmatic step) that wouldhave ensured its accurate incorporation into the licensing basis.

* Document the resultS of the samplng.

3.2 Evaluation Phase

At this point in the assessment, the changes to operating practices that shouldhave been reflected in the licensing H-isis have been identified. Those notaccurately reflected in the licensing basis are differences that must be resolvedand categorized.

The evaluation phase cannot be precisely structured. However, the followingbroad steps should be undertaken.

0 Categorize differences in accordance with the following criteria:

o Programiproces. which should have ensured licensing basis accuracy

0 Significance

" Safety significant

, Regulatory significant (i.e.. noncomphance or missed commitment)

Low significance le.c.. the orimnai information was not required toht, inciudcd in tho FSAR. or the infbrmation could not have been

S

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Licensees have implemented various programs/processes over the period of thei.rlicenses for ensuring that the licensing basis is known. is maintained current and isaccurately described in the FSAR and associated referenced documents. The NRC.through a review described in SECY.94.066. determined that licensees wereadequately maintaining the licensing basis of their facilities. As a result of eventsthat have occurred over the last several months. the NRC has increased attentionon licensee compliance with the plant's licensing basis. Differences can occur due toproblems in those processes/programs intended to effect changes in the licensebasis, missing programmatic controls to translate ch .. iged operational activitiesinto the licensing basis, or a lack of awareness of licezising basis features.

Licensees employ various programmatic mechanisms for identifying, evaluatingand/or processing changes in plant activities that could affect the licensing basis orthat are intended to make changes to the licensing basis. These include:

" Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) updates per 10 CFR 50.7 1(e)

* Safety Evaluations per 10 CFR .50.59

* Changes to Quality Assurance. Security and Emergency Plans per10 CFR 50.54

• License amendments per 10 CFR 50.90

" ASNIE Code relief requests per 10 CFR 50.55a

" Procedure changes (not subject to 50.59)

* Design changes (not subject to 50.59)

• Regulator. commitment changes

" Degraded or non-conforming conditions

" Configuration management changes (e.g., operator workarounds, extendedoperation of equipment in manual mode rather than automatic operationmodes, and Technical Specification positions/interpretations)

I

2.0 pURPOSE AND SCOPE

2.1 Purpose

This document provides guidance for performing a self assessment of the adequacyof programmatic controls for maintaining the licensing basis in order to identif"missing or incorrectly applied programmatic elements that can lead to licensingbasis differences.

2.2 Scope

The assessment approach consists of a data-gathering phase and an evaluationphase. The data-gathering phase employs a three.tiered sampling technique. Thefirst tier involves in-process sampling for the programmatic elements intended toeffect a change in the licensing basis. Since programmatic elements may be missingor incorrectly applied. the next two sampling tiers involve a search for differencesby sampling for potential operational changes that could be made withoutprocedure changes. and sampling backwards by comparing selected FSARstatements with operational practices. The purpose of the data.gathering phase isto identifý. a set of potential differences between the operational practices and thelicensing basis.

The evaluation phase determines if potential differences are valid. Validdifferences are categorized in order to draw conclusions about the adequacyof particular programmatic controls for maintaining the licensing basis. Thesigni.fcance of the findings are used to develop recommendations for programmaticenhancements.

It is recognized that many Licensees have performed safety system functionalinspections (SSFIs) and other reviews that have assessed the adequacy of theirprograms to maintain the licensing basis of their plants and to ensure tha accuracy'of information in the FS.A-R. These completed activities can be credited, asappropriate, in meeting portions of the assessment described below.

The assessment methodology described below represents only one way ofperforming the assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of programs formaintaining the Licensing basis. Although the methodology contains a reasonableamount of detail. it is not intended to be prescriptive. Other approaches thatprovide an equivalent scope of review can also meet the intent of this assessment.

!

3.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

3.1 Data-Gathbi ing Phase

The data-gathering phase of the assessment employs three sampling techniques.Each sampling technique is discussed separatel:..

3.1.1 FSARSampling*

* Extract the relevant FSAR sections for the system(s) being evaluated

" Highlight those FSAR statements that meet the following criteria:

0 Descriptive phrases regarding frequencies for tests, calibrations. etc.

Configuration descriptions

Descriptions of system operation in different modes(e.g.. normal. abnormal, accident/emergency)

Operating limits

Descriptive functional performance statements

* NOTE: The intent is to identif a range of FSA.R statements associated withoperational practices that could be changed and, in the presence ofprogrammatic weaknesses, are not adequately reflected in the FSAR.

* Compare the highlighted FSA.R statements with current operationalpractices using iadividuals cognizant of the operation of the system andassociated engineering problems. Document the following:

0 Is the FSAR statement accurate with respect to operational practices(procedures. operating philosophy, standing orders, workarounds. etc.)?If not. identiffy the differences.

0 Is the FSAR statement clearly understood or in need of clarification?

3.1.2 Programmatic Sampling

* Select three unrelated examples of each of the following types of changes:*

50.59 ( at least one procedure change evaluationi

50.54 (one each from QA. EP and Sc.urity)

Ouistanding corrective action for a matrial condition greater than one

year old

Operating procedure change not evaluated under 50.59

FSAR change request

' 50.90/50.55a change and associated SER (where N'RC approval

has been received)

0 Regulatory,- commitment addition or change

Design change not evaluated under 50.59

NOTE: The changes selected should have been completed in sufficient tune

to have been reflected (if required) in the most recent licensing basis updateof the FS.A-R. QA program. etc.

Review the change to determine if the change should have appeared in thelicensing basis and. if so. if the licensing basis accurately reflects the change.For changes that are not accurately reflected in the "Licensing basis,determine the programmatic step (or missing programmatic step) thatwould have ensured its accurate incorporation into the Licensing basis.

* Document the results of the programmatic sampling.

3.1.3 Sampling for potential changes that may occur separate from

programmatic or procedure changes

Compile the following:

0 Workaround list

,0 Operations standing orders

Technical Specifications positions/interpretations (if any)

Sample of documents that may show potentially routine "NA'ing" ofprocedure steps (e.c., last completed startup procedure. recently completed:ysc•m operat:ng instruction.-, zhift supervisor loa entries for deviationsi

List of equipment being operated in manual

Old* temporary alterations

.' Old' non.-conformances

Old* tag-outs

*Old" refers to current items that should be reflected (if required) in the lastFSAR update per 10 CFR 50.71(e)

* Select a sample from each of the above categories based on the number of,tems compiled.

" Review the item selected to determine if the item represents a change to theLicensing basis and. if so. if the licensing basis accurately reflects the change.For changes that are not accurately reflected in the licensing basis.determine the prog-rammatic step (or missing programmatic step) that wouldhave ensured its accurate incorporation into the licensing basis.

* Document the results of the samphng.

3.2 Evaluation Phase

At this point in the as.zessment. the changes to operating practices that shouldhave been reflected in the licensing basis have been identified. Those notaccurately reflected in the licensing basis are differences that must be resolvedand categorized.

The evaluation phase cannot be precisely structured. However, the following

broad steps should be undertaken.

* Categorize differences in accordance with the following criteria:

0 Prop.qramiproces. which should have ensured Licensing basis accuracy

0 Significance

" Safety significant

* Reaulaton" significant (i.e.. noncompliance or missed commitment)

- Low .icLnificance (e.g., the originai information w not required toibv inciudced in th. FS-AR. ,r the information could not have been

rehed upon by the NRC in reaching a safety conclusion)

[NOTE: Section V of NL.%LARC 90D.12. "Design Basis ProgramGuidelines." provides guidance for assessing the safety significance of

differences and for determining ,f operability and/or reporting issues

exist.]

50.59 was correctly/incorrectly applied

Licensing basis information has always been inaccurate (i.e.. therewas no change in operating practice)

0 Identify. areas of programmatic weakness or missing programmatic controls.If uncertain, pursue additional assessment investigation for theprogrammatic area in question.

* Characterize overall significance of the findings. Based on thischaracterization, determine the need to broaden the assessment scope toobtain the necessar. confidence that the programs are adequate and arebeine effectively implemented.

* If applicable, generate necessary quality deficiency documents and identif.

any reportable situations.

$ Prepare recommendations to address programmatic weaknes.zes.

* Document the results and brief appropriate management.

4.0 N'EI REPORT

4.1 Purpose of Report

NEI will compile the overall industry results to assess the composite adequacyand effectiveness of programs designed to maintain the licensing basis of tb,,plants. The overall industry results will be reported to the NRC by NEI.

4.2 Report Format

The report format follows the steps contained in Section 3.0 of this report.

Part I - FSAR Sampling

* Identify. the FSAR .•.tems reviewed under Section .3 1.1S!indicate the number of FSAR difforence.€ identified.

6

Part 2 - Prograrmmatic Sampling

* Indicate "he total number of items reviewed.* Indicate the number of items where the change was not accurately refleczed

in the licensing basis.

Part 3 - SarmRling for potential changes that may occur senarate fromprostrammatic or procedure changes

" Indicate the total number of items reviewed.* Indicate the number of items where the change wi-, not accurately reflected

in the licensing basis, if required.

Part 4 - EvaLuation Phase

* Indicate the number of differences that were characterized as being safetysignificant.

" Indicate the number of di.fferences that were characterized as beingregulatory siinificant.

" Indicate the number of differences where 50.59 was incorrectly applied." Indicate the number of differences where the licensing basis information has

always been inaccurate." Provide a brief summar. of the programmatic deficiencies identified, if any.* Indicate whether the assessment scope is being broadened based on the

identified differences.* Describe any departures from the methodology of this guideline.

5.0 DEFINITIONS

5.1 Regulatory Commitment

NEI "Guideline for Managing NRC Commitments," endorsed by NRCin SECY.95-300. defines a regulatory commitment as follows:

"ReMulatorv Commitment means an explicit statement to take aspecific action agreed to or volunteered by a licensee that has beensubmitted in writing on the docket to the Commission."

5.2 Licensing Basis

10 CFR. Pirt .54 definc.:4 the current Iliconsing, b~isis' a.; follbw".5

"Current licensing basis tih', 1is the set of N-RC requirements applicableto a specific plant and a licensee's written commitments for ensuringcompliance with and operatio:: within applicable NRC requirements andthe plant.specific design basis (including all modifications and additionsto such commitments over the life of the licensei that are docketed andin effect. The CLB includes the NRC requirements contained in 10 CFRparts 2. 19. 20. 21. 30. 40. 50. 51. 54. 55. 70. 72. 73. and 100 andappendices thereto: orders: license conditions: exemptions: and technicalspecifications. It also includes the plant.specific design basisinformation defined in 10 CFR 50.2 as documented in the most recentfinal safety analysis report (FSAR) as required by 10 CFR 50.71 and the"censee's commitments re-laining in effect that were made in docketedlicensing correspondence such av. licensee responses to NRC bulletins.generic letters, and enforcement actions, as well as hcenseecommitments documented in NTRC safety evaluations or licensee eventreports "

NOTE: Responses to NRC bulletins, generic letters and licensee eventreports contain some commitments that are outside the scope of the CLBin that they are not necessary to ensur. compliance with applicable NRCrequirements (e.g.. rules, regulations, licenses and order.i or to maintainthe plant.specific design basis.

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONC ' WASHINGTON. 0 C 20S-0001

'.% August 14, 1996

CMAIRMAN

Mr. Joe F. ColvinPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNuclear Energy InstituteSuite 4001776 I Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20006-3708

Dear Mr. Colvin:

I am responding to your letter of August 2, 1996, concerning industry actionsfor assessing programs In place to reaffirm that nuclear power plants areoperated in conformance with their licensing basis. Your letter alsoidentified three issues that, in your view, require mutual agreement betweenthe industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) before the industrywould proceed with the initiative: (1) the legal standing of the UpdatedFinal Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and the NRC's Safety Evaluation Reports;(2) the scope of what constitutes the current licensing basis; and (3) theadequacy of NSAC-125. "Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations," forperforming 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations.

We believe that resolution of the issues you identified is not a prerequisiteto reviewing, on a retrospective basis, whet er existing programs aresufficient to ensure that licensees know their licensing bases, whetherlicensing bases have been properly maintained, and whether licensing bases areaccurately described in each facility's updated FSAR or other documents. Thesignificant issues recently identified by licensee reviews and NRC staffinspections relate to failures to address degraded and nonconformingconditions properly, failures to perform reviews required by 10 CFR 50.59before making changes to facilities, and failures to update facility FinalSafety Analysis Reports in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71(e). In our view,industry initiatives can proceed notwithstanding that ongoing NRC activitiesunder the 10 CFR 50.59 Action Plan will consider, in a broad sense, issuessuch as those you raise.

Existing regulations and guidance are sufficient to conduct a retrospectivereview for conformance to existing regulatory requirements. These include:(1) NRC regulations 10 CFR 50.2, 50.34, 50.54, 50.59, 50.71(e), 50.72, 50.73and Appendix B; (2) NRC's policy statement - Availability and Adequacy ofDesign Bases Information at Nuclear Power Plants, 57 FR 35455 August 10, 1992;(3) "Design Bases Program Guidelines," NUMARC 90-12 and NRC letter datedNovember 9, 1990: and (4) Generic Letter 91-18, "Information To LicenseesRegarding Two NRC Inspection Manual Sections On Resolution Of Degraded AndNonconforming Conditions And Operability."

Attachment 4

-2-

The staff is concerned, however, that the proposed initiative may not be ofsufficient scope and depth to identify tho types of design and operabilityproblems recently identified at several operating plants. Specifically, it isnot sufficient to perform a prccess/procedural based review. An in-depthvertical slice review of actual design basis documentation and comparison of"as built" and "as operated" safety systems is more appropriate.

For example, reviews similar to safety system functional inspections(Inspection Procedure 93801. "Safety System Functional Inspections"). may beused to evaluate a licensee's program effectiveness to maintain the licensingand design bases. These reviews should include: (1) an in-depth review ofselected systems' design and design basis since issuance of the facilityoperating license: (2) risk- and safety-based criteria for selection ofsystems for review; and, (3) a method to ensure that licensee problemidentification and corrective action on the selected systems arerepresentative and consistent with otter systems. The in-depth review shouldexa-ine: (1) engineering design and configuration control; (2) verification ofas-built and as-modified conditions; (3) translation of the design basesrequir'ements into operating procedures, maintenance, and testing; (4)verfication of system performance through review of test records andooservations of selected testing: (5) proposed and implemented correctiveactions for licensee-identified design deficiencies; and, (6) modifications-ade to the systerns since initial licensing.

In shcrt. the NRC position has been. and is. that it is the responsibility ofindividual licensees to know their licensing basis, to have appropriatedocumentation that defines their design basis, and to have procedures forperforming the necessary assessments of plant or procedure changes required byNRC regulations. Until such time that any-regulation changes are made as aresult of NRC action plan activities, we will continue inspection andoversight activities related to the design basis to ensure compliance withexistinq regulations.

Sincerely,

Shirley Ann Jackson

Distribution for 50.54(f) letter to utility CEOs dated.

Docket FilePUBLICJ. TaylorEDO Rdg FileF. Miraglia/A. ThadantR. ZimmermanDRPW/DRPE/DRPH DirectorsDRPW/DRPE/DRPM Deputy DirectorsJ. LiebermanJ. GoldbergW. DeanG. TracyB. McCabeJ. MitchellD. MatthewsE. McKennaK. ThomasF. AkstulewiczOGCACRSOPADRPW/DRPE PDsNRR PMsNRR LAsPD Rdg FileR.W. Cooper, RIE. Merschoff, RIIW.L. Axelson, RIIIJ. Dyer, RIVK. Perkins, RIV/WCFO

October 9, 1996