ML021140583
| ML021140583 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/2002 |
| From: | Marschall C NRC/RGN-IV/DRS/EMB |
| To: | Anderson C Entergy Operations |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2003-0358, IR-01-006 | |
| Download: ML021140583 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000313/2001006
Text
April 23, 2002
Craig G. Anderson, Vice President
Operations
Arkansas Nuclear One
Entergy Operations, Inc.
1448 S.R. 333
Russellville, Arkansas 72801-0967
SUBJECT:
CORRECTION TO RESPONSE TO BACKFIT CLAIM REGARDING NRC
INSPECTION REPORT 50-313/01-06; 50-368/01-06
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Our letter to you from Ellis Merschoff dated April 15, 2002, inadvertently omitted an excerpt
from NRC Management Directive 8.4, "NRC Program for Management of Plant-Specific
Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants." That excerpt is attached. Please add this to the letter of
April 15, 2002. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRCs "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its
enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document
Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRCs document
system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ADAMS.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). The original
letter of April 15, 2002, can be found in ADAMS as accession number ML021090419.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Marschall, Chief
Engineering and Maintenance Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Attachment:
Excerpt from NRC Management Directive 8.4, "NRC Program for Management
of Plant-Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants"
Dockets: 50-313; 50-368
Entergy Operations, Inc.
-2-
cc: w/Enclosure
Executive Vice President
& Chief Operating Officer
Entergy Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 31995
Jackson, Mississippi 39286-1995
Vice President
Operations Support
Entergy Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 31995
Jackson, Mississippi 39286-1995
Manager, Washington Nuclear Operations
ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear
Power
12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330
Rockville, Maryland 20852
County Judge of Pope County
Pope County Courthouse
100 West Main Street
Russellville, Arkansas 72801
Winston & Strawn
1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3502
Bernard Bevill
Radiation Control Team Leader
Division of Radiation Control and
Emergency Management
4815 West Markham Street, Mail Slot 30
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205-3867
Mike Schoppman
Framatome ANP, Inc.
Suite 705
1911 North Fort Myer Drive
Rosslyn, Virginia 22209
Entergy Operations, Inc.
-3-
Electronic distribution from ADAMS by RIV:
W. F. Kane, DEDO
S. J. Collins, D:NRR
Regional Administrator (EWM)
Deputy Regional Administrator (TPG)
DRS Director (ATH)
DRP Director (KEB)
DNMS, Director (DDC)
K. D. Smith, RC (KDS1)
G. F. Sanborn, D:ACES (GFS)
ACES, Enforcement Staff (GFS)
Branch Chief, DRS/EMB (CSM)
Branch Chief, DRP/D (LJS)
Senior Project Engineer, DRP/D (JAC)
Senior Resident Inspector (RLB3)
Chief, DRP/TSS (PHH)
RITS Coordinator (NBH)
G. M. Holahan, NRR
S. C. Black, NRR
L. W. Barnett, NRR
R. J. Barrett, NRR
J. N. Hannon, NRR
M. R. Johnson, NRR
R. A. Gramm, NRR
W.D. Reckley, NRR
OGC (GSM)
S. A. Morris, OEDO
J. L. Dixon-Herrity, OE
OEMAIL
DOCUMENT: R:\\_ano\\2001\\an0106 corrected backfit ltr.wpd
RIV:DRS/PSB
C:EMB
RLNease
CSMarschall
/RA/
/RA/
4/23/2002
4/23/2002
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax
EXCERPT FROM MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 8.4
Formerly Manual Chapter NRC-0514
"NRC Program for Management of Plant-Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants"
Approved: August 26, 1988
"044
Appeal Process. The appeal processes described in this section are of two types, applied
to two distinctly different situations:
a.
Appeal to an Office/Region to modify or withdraw a proposed backfit which has
been identified, and for which a regulatory analysis has been prepared and
transmitted to the licensee; or
b.
Appeal to an Office/Region to reverse a denial of a prior licensee claim either that
a staff position, not identified by the NRC as a backfit, is one, or that backfit which
staff believes falls within one of the exceptions from the requirement for a regulatory
analysis, does not.
In the first type of situation described, licensees should address an appeal of a proposed backfit
to the Office Director or Regional Administrator whose staff proposed the backfit with a copy to
the EDO [Executive Director for Operations]. The appeal should provide arguments against the
rationale for imposing a backfit as presented in the staffs regulatory analysis. The Office Director
or Regional Administrator shall report to the EDO within 3 weeks after receipt of the appeal
concerning the plan for resolving the issue. The licensee should also be promptly and periodically
informed in writing regarding the staff plans. The decision of the Office Director on an appeal of
plant specific backfit may be appealed to the EDO unless resolution is achieved at a lower
management level. The EDO shall promptly resolve the appeal and shall state his reasons
therefor. Summaries of all appeal meetings shall be prepared promptly, provided to the licensee,
and placed in appropriate Public Document Rooms. During the appeal process, primary
consideration shall be given to how and why the proposed backfit provides a substantial increase
in overall protection and whether the associated costs of implementation are justified in view of
the increased protection. This consideration should be made in the context of the regulatory
analysis as well as any other information that is relevant and material to the proposed backfit.
In the second type of appeal situation the appeal should be addressed to, and will be decided by,
the Director of the program office having responsibility for the program area relevant to the staff
position, unless resolution is achieved at a lower management level. A copy of the appeal should
also be sent to the Executive Director for Operations. The appeal should take into account the
staffs evaluation, the licensees response, and any other information that is relevant and material
to the backfit determination. The EDO may review and may modify a decision either at his or her
own initiative or at the request of the licensee. If the licensee appeals to the EDO, the EDO shall
promptly resolve the appeal and shall state the reasons therefor. Backfit claims and resultant staff
determinations that are reevaluated in response to an appeal, and that are again determined by
the NRC not to be backfits, or are excepted from the requirement for a regulatory analysis, are not
to be treated further in the context of this chapter. Such matters are to be dealt with within the
normal licensing or inspection appeal process and are not subject to the requirements of this
chapter."