IR 05000349/1996014

Discusses Exercise of Enforcement Discretion Re Insp Rept 50-349/96-14 on 970225.As Result of Insp,Nov Was Issued for Failure to Meet Requirements of 10CFR70.24.Ofc of Enforcement Authorized to Withdraw NOV

ML20203D789
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse, 05000349
Issue date:	02/11/1998
From:	Beach A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Jeffery Wood CENTERIOR ENERGY
References
50-346-96-14, EA-97-072, EA-97-72, NUDOCS 9802260147
Download: ML20203D789 (4)

Text

ps arou, UNITED STATES

'

, , ,\ NUCt. EAR RE*.ULATORY COMMISSION

, , % REGION 111 E

Got WARRENVILLE ROAD USLE. ILUNOIS e0532-4351

February 11, 1998 EA No. 97 072 Mr. John Vice President Nuclear Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station Centerior Service Company 5501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 i

.

'

SUBJECT: EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT No. 50 346/96014(DRP))

Dear Mr. Wood:

l l

This refers to the inspection at Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station described in the subject instection repert issued on February 25,1997. As a result of that inspection, a Notice of Violation was issued for your failure to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24, " Criticality Accident Requirements." The violation was for failure to have in place either a criticality monitoring system for storage and handling of new (non Irradiated) fuel or an NRC approved exemption to the requirement.

10 CFR 70.24 requires that each licensee authorized to possess more than a small amount of special nuclear material (SNM) maintain in each area in which such material is handled, used, or stored, a criticality monitoring system which will energize clearly audible alarm signals if accidental criticality occurs. The purpose of 10 CFR 70.24 is to ensure that, if a criticality were to occur during the handling of SNM, personnel would be alerted to that fact and would take appropriate action.

Most nuclear power plant licensees were granted exemptions from 10 CFR 70.24 during the f construction of their plants as part of the Part 70 license issued to permit the receipt of the initial core. Generally, these exemptions were not explicitly renewed when the Part 50 operating - O license was issued, which contained the combined Part 50 and Part 70 authority, in August 1981, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), in the course of reviewing the operating licenses for its Browns Ferry facilities, noted that the exemption to 10 CFR 70.24 that had been granted during the construction phase had not been explicitly granted in the operating licenso.

Byletters dated August 11,1981, and August 31,1987, TVA requested an exemption from 10 CFR 70.24. On May 11,1988, NRC informed TVA that 'the previously issued exemptions are stillin effect even though the specific provisions of the Part 70 licenses were not incorporated into the Part 50 license." Notwithstanding the correspondence with TVA, the NRC has determined that, in cases where a licensee received the exemption as part of the Part 70 license issued during the construction phase, both the Part 70 and Part 50 licenses should be examined to determine the status of the exemption. The NRC view now is that unless a licensee's licensing basis specifies otherwise, an exemption expires with the expiration of the Part 70 I license. The NRC intends to amend 10 CFR 70.24 to provide for administrative controls in lieu of I criticality monitors.

9802260147 900211 A 00

- _

.

t Thus, as described in the inspection report, your facility was in violation of 10 CFR 70 24.

Numerous other facilities have similar circumstances. The NRC has reconsidered this violation

,

and concluded based on the information discussed above that, although a violation did exist, it is appropriate to exercise enforcement discretion for violations involving special circumstances in accordance with Section Vil B.6 of the * General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions"(Enforcement Policy), NUREG 1600. The bases for exercising this discretion are the lack of safety significance of the failure to meet 10 CFR 70.24; the failure of the NRC staff to recognize tne need for an exemption during the licensing process; the prior NRC l position on this matter documented in its letter of May 11,1988, to * VA concerning the lack of a l need for an exemption for the Browns Ferry plant; and finally, the NRC's intention to amend 10 CFR 70.24 through rulemaking to provide for administrative controls in lieu of criticality monitors.

Therefore, I have been authorized after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to exercise enforcement discretion and withdraw the Notice of Violation.

No response to this letter is required, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's * Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Sincerely,

/s/ A. Bill Beach A. Bill Beach Regional Administrator Docket No.: 50-346 License No.: NPF 3 cc: John P Stetz, Senior Vice President . Nuclear J. H. Lash, P! ant Manager J. L. Freels, Manager Regulatory Affairs State Liaison Officer, State of Ohio Robert E. Owen, Ohio Department of Health C. A. Glazer, State of Ohio, Public Utilities Commission DOCUMENT NA5iE: G:\DAVl\DAV96014.EA g, ..g..py .: e . 4 u ni. indic.i. in ih. t.. c . copy withovi .ti.ch nti.ncio.u.. : . c py with .ti. chm.nir.nci ..

OFFICE Rlll d Rlli Ril[1 NAME Kozak:co "

C Grant S Bed DATE 02/11/98 02A\ /9M ( 02/O/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

. . . . . . . . .. .

. . . _ . . . . . .

.

. . . .

. .

. .

Thus, as described in the inspection report, your facility was in violation of 10 CFR 70.24.

Numerous other facilities have similar circumstances. The NRC has reconsidered this violation and concluded based on the information discussed above that, although a violation did exist, it is appropriate to exercise enforcement discretion for violations involving special circumstances in accordance with Section Vil B.6 of the * General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions"(Enforcement Policy), NUREG 1600. The bases for exercising this discretion are the lack of safety significance of the failure to meet 10 CFR 70.24; the failure of the NRC staff to recognize the need for an exemption during the licensing process; the prior NRC position on this matter documented in its letter of May 11,1988, to TVA concerning the lack of a need for an exemption for the Browns Ferry plant; and finally, the NRC's intention to amend 10 CFR 70.24 through rulemaking to provide for administrative controls in lieu of criticality monitors.

Therefore, I have been authorized after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to exercise enforcement discretion and withdraw the Notice of Violation.

No response to this letter is required. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's * Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Sincerely, O

A Bill Beach Regional Administrator Docket No.: 50 346 License No.: NPF 3 cc: John P. Stetz, Senior Vice President Nuclear J. H. Lash, Plant Manager J. L. Freels, Manager Regulatory Affairs State Liaison Officer, State of Ohio Robert E. Owen, Ohio Department of Health C. A. Glazer, State of Ohio, Public Utilities Commission

'

. .-

~

. Distribul!QD:

Docket File w/ encl SRI Davis Besse w/enct PUBLIC IE 01 w/enci A B. Beach w/ encl Project Manager, NRR w/ encl Deputy RA w/encI Rlli Enf. Coordinator w/ encl Rlll PRR w/enci CAA1 w/enet (E mail) DRS (2) w/ encl TSS w/enci DOCDESK (E mail)

DRP w/enci