ML033010247

Memo to Travers from Merschoff Regarding Results of Arkansas Nuclear One Backfit Claim

ML033010247
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	05/15/2002
From:	Merschoff E Region 4 Administrator
To:	Travers W NRC/EDO
References
FOIA/PA-2003-0358, IR-01-006
Download: ML033010247 (18)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV MOW 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 400 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011.8064 AO c0C-MAY 15 2002 Aoeic5 MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations / /

FROM: Ellis W. Merschoff Regional Administrator

SUBJECT:

RESULTS OF ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE BACKFIT CLAIM In accordance with Management Directive 8.4, 'NRC Program for Management of Plant-Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants," I am forwarding for your information a copy of our response to a backfit claim made by Entergy Operations, Inc. (Attachment 1) and a correction to the response (Attachment 2). The response includes the backfit panel's conclusions regarding the licensee's backfit claim involving a fire protection finding at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1. The panel was convened on October 26, 2001, and again on January 17, 2002, and included participants from Region IV, Office of Enforcement, Office of the General Counsel, and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. A list of attendees is included in Attachment 3. The purpose of the panel was to review the licensee's position and determine if the NRC had imposed a regulatory staff position interpreting a Commission rule that was either new or different from a previously applicable staff position. In summary, the panel determined that the Agency did not impose a new or different regulatory staff position, and there was no backfit.

Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at 817/860-8185, or Arthur T. Howell at 817/860-8180.

Attachments:

1. Response to Backfit Claim Regarding NRC Inspection Report 50-313/01-06; 50-368/01-06

2. Correction to Response to Backfit Claim Regarding NRC Inspection Report 50-313/01-06; 50-368/01-06

3. List of backfit panel attendees cc w/Attachments:

S. Morris, OEDO M. Johnson, NRR C. Carpenter, NRR J. Hannon, NRR R. Gramm, NRR W. Reckley, NRR l

ATTACHMENT 1 RESPONSE TO ENTERGY'S BACKFIT CLAIM REGARDING NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-313/01-06; 50-368/01-06 Dated April 15, 2002

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 611YANREGION IV Oil RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 400 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-8064 April 15,2002 Craig G. Anderson, Vice President Operations Arkansas Nuclear One Entergy Operations, Inc.

1448 S.R. 333 Russeliville, Arkansas 72801-0967

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO BACKFIT CLAIM REGARDING NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-313/01-06; 50-368/01-06

Dear Mr. Anderson:

As documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-313;-368/01-06, dated August 20, 2001, the NRC identified an unresolved item in the Unit 1 emergency diesel generator corridor and the Unit 1 north electrical switchgear room concerning use of manual actions in lieu of providing protection for cables associated with equipment necessary for achieving and maintaining hot shutdown as specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2. This issue was considered unresolved pending further NRC review and the determination of its risk. Subsequently, in an exit meeting held on August 30, 2001, the NRC informed Entergy Operations, Inc., that the existing configurations did not conform to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2. However, the issue remained unresolved pending the completion of the NRC's risk determination.

Your letter of September 28, 2001, claimed that our position that manual actions cannot be used to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section lIl.G.2, was a backfit. At issue is your use of manual actions for achieving and maintaining hot shutdown conditions in the event of a fire in the Unit 1 emergency diesel generator corridor (Fire Zone 98J) and north switchgear room (Fire Zone 99M). In this letter, you asserted that the NRC has accepted such manual actions in the past, and stated that our position with respect to disallowing the use of manual actions for complying with Section III.G.2 of Appendix R should be considered a backfit that is generic to all plants.

On October 26, 2001, and again on January 17, 2002, we convened a backfit panel in accordance with NRC Management Directive 8.4, NRC Program for Management of Plant-Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants," to review your backfit claim as stated in your letter of September 28, 2001. After careful consideration of your appeal, we have determined that (1) the NRC did not impose a regulatory staff position that is new or different from a previously applicable staff position relative to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2; (2) the NRC did not approve the use of manual actions for complying with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2, in the Unit 1 diesel generator corridor and north electrical switchgear room in lieu of meeting the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section IlI.G.2.a, IlI.G.2.b, or IlI.G.2.c; and (3) your methodology for using manual actions (in the event of a fire in the Unit 1 diesel generator corridor and north switchgear room), in lieu of

Entergy Operations, Inc. ensuring that one train of redundant cables and equipment of systems needed for achieving and maintaining hot shutdown conditions was free of fire damage, does not comply with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2. Your claim that our position (that manual actions cannot be used to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section llI.G.2) is a generic backfit will be addressed by the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in their response to a letter from the Nuclear Energy Institute dated January 11, 2002. Accordingly, Unresolved Item 50-313;368/0106-02 has been reclassified as an Apparent Violation pending NRC's assessment of the risk significance associated with this finding. When completed, the results of the risk determination will be forwarded to you by separate correspondence. The basis for our conclusion regarding your backfit claim is enclosed. .

If you disagree with this evaluation of your backfit claim, you may submit a written appeal to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in accordance with NRC Management Directive 8.4, 'NRC Program for Management of Plant-Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants." A copy of the applicable portion of this management directive is enclosed for your convenience.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's '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 NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at -

httn://www.nrc.aov/readina-rm/ADAMS.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely, IRA/

Ellis W. Merschoff Regional Administrator

Enclosures:

As stated Dockets: 50-313; 50-368 Licenses: DPR-51; NPF-6 cc: w/Enclosure Executive Vice President

& Chief Operating Officer Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, Mississippi 39286-1995

Entergy Operations, Inc. 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 David D. Snellings, Jr., Director Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management Arkansas Department of Health 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. Electronic distribution from ADAMS by RIV:

EDO 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 (WS)

Senior Project Engineer, DRP/D (JAC)

Senior Resident Inspector (RLB3)

Chief, DRPITSS (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. Alexion, NRR OGC (GSM)

S. A. Morris, OEDO J. L. Dixon-Herrity, OE OEMAIL DOCUMENT: R:\_ano\2001\anOlO6backfit-rln.wpd RIV:DRS/PSB . C:EMB D:DRS .DRPJD D:DRP . D:DNMS RLNeasellmb CSMarschall ATHowell III USmith KEBrockman DDChamberlain

/RAI /RAJ IRAl /RAI /RAl IRAl 2/1/2002 2/11/2002 2127/2002 3/12/2002 3/1212002 3/1512002 RC. D:ACES :-- I OGC -T . NRR/DLPM . TDRA:- FLA KDSmnth GFSanbom GSMizuno SARichards TPGwvnn EWMerschoff

/RAI /RAI /RAI /RA /RAI 315/2002 3/12/2002 3/20/2002 4/11/2002 _ _ 411512002 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax

ENCLOSURE In a letter dated September 28, 2001, Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), claimed that Region IV's position that manual actions cannot be used to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2. was a backfit, generic to all plants'. Backfitting is defined in 10 CFR 50.109 "as the modification of or addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility; or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a facility; any of which may result from a new or amended provision in the Commission rules or the imposition of a regulatory staff position interpreting the Commission rules that is either new or different from a previously applicable staff position. . . "

On October 26, 2001, the NRC convened a backfit panel to review Entergy's backfit claim as presented in their letter of September 28, 2001, and accompanying attachments. As a result of that meeting, the panel requested an evaluation of the following four key points presented in Entergy's backfit claim.

I. NRC's Past and Present Positions Regarding the Use of Manual Actions for Meeting the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G In their letter dated September 28, 2001, Entergy stated that the NRC had accepted on many occasions, including at Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), the use of manual actions for complying with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2. Entergy stated that NRC generic Appendix R guidance documents, the NRC's Triennial Fire Protection Inspection Procedure 71111.05, and recent NRC fire protection reports all supported this position.

Entergy claimed that certain statements in NRC fire protection inspection reports and inspection procedures provide an NRC position that permits the use of manual actions for achieving post-fire safe shutdown. With respect to NRC inspection reports, the statements quoted by Entergy were taken from the description of the scope of the inspection, not from the inspection findings section of the reports. The triennial fire protection inspection scope consists of a review of the licensee's methodology for reaching safe shutdown, including any manual actions that are credited in that methodology. These scope statements are not an endorsement for the use of manual actions for meeting Section Il.G.2 of Appendix R, rather they are statements describing what the inspectors reviewed. As described in NUREG 1409, NRC inspection procedures are not approved NRC positions2 .

Entergy's claim that this position is a backf it generic to all plants will be addressed by the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, in their response to a letter from the Nuclear Energy Institute dated January 11, 2002.

2 In response to a question regarding whether NRC Inspection Manual guidance is considered an approved position, Section 3.3 of NUREG 1409, "Backfitting Guidelines," states,

'No, inspection procedures are not approved staff positions, which is the reason they are not reviewed by CRGR." NUREG 1409 further states, Licensees cannot be required to Implement positions discussed in an inspection procedure or manual unless the same positions exist in the

In 1981, the NRC issued 10 CFR 50.48, 'Fire protection, and Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50, "Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to January 1, 1979.' ANO, Unit 1 was licensed in 1974, and Unit 2 was licensed in 1978; therefore, for both units, the licensee was required to meet the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Sections III.G, III.J, and 111.0.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section Ill.G, Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability,' provides the requirements for ensuring that at least one train of equipment needed for safe shutdown is free of fire damage. As discussed in the Statements of Consideration for 10 CFR 50.48 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, It is not possible to predict the conditions under which fires may occur and propagate; therefore, the Commission established three specific methods for protecting safe shutdown equipment so that at least one train remains free of fire damage. These three methods are specified in Section III.G.2 of Appendix R. The first method is separation of redundant safe shutdown trains and,associated circuits by 3-hour fire rated barriers. The second method is a combination of separation of redundant safe shutdown trains and associated circuits by 20 feet or more of space with no intervening combustibles or fire hazards, plus area-wide automatic fire suppression and detection. The third method is a combination of separation of redundant safe shutdown trains and associated circuits by a 1-hour fire-rated barrier plus automatic fire suppression and detection capability. If these conditions cannot be met, an exemption from Section Ill.G.2, or an alternative or dedicated safe shutdown capability specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section Il.G.3, is required. Specific requirements for alternative or dedicated shutdown are provided in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section ll.L. I The requirements for ensuring that at least one train of equipment needed for safe shutdown is free of fire damage is described and discussed in numerous generic NRC documents such as:

• Statements of Consideration for 10 CFR 50.48 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R

• Generic Letter 81-12, 'Fire Protection Rule (45 FR 76602, November 19, 1980)"

• Clarification of Generic Letter 81-12

• Information Notice 84-09, "Lessons Learned from NRC Inspections of Fire Protection Safe Shutdown Systems (10 CFR 50, Appendix R)"

• NUREG 0800, Standard Review Plan 9.5.1, 'Fire Protection Programs In addition, in ANO-specific licensing basis documents, such as safety evaluation reports and exemptions, the NRC staff described the same specific requirements for ensuring one train of safe shutdown equipment is free of fire damage. In these documents, the NRC restated the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, form of an approved regulatory staff position. Examples of approved staff positions are described in Manual Chapter 0514 and include the SRP [Standard Review Plan], branch technical positions, regulatory guides, generic letters, and bulletins."

Section Ill.G, and discussed the three methods for ensuring that one train of equipment and cables for systems necessary for achieving and maintaining hot shutdown conditions was free of fire damage, as required by Section III.G.2. The NRC further explained that if these methods could not be met, then an alternative fire protection configuration must be provided in accordance with Section Il.G.3 (alternative or dedicated shutdown), of Appendix R. Specific requirements for meeting Section 11I.G.3 (alternative or dedicated shutdown) are provided in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.L.

Conclusion:

The regulations, statements of consideration, and generic correspondence, as well as ANO-specific documentation, are in agreement concerning the use of manual actions for achieving and maintaining hot shutdown conditions as required in Section Il1.G of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50. As these documents show, the NRC has not In the past and does not currently consider manual actions to be acceptable for complying with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2, unless specifically reviewed and approved. The panel concludes that the position to disallow the use of manual actions for meeting 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section 11I.G.2 is not an imposition of a regulatory staff position interpreting the Commission rules that is either new or different from a previously applicable staff position. Therefore, this position is not a backfit specific to ANO. Entergy's claim that NRC inspection report statements constitute a basis for their backf it claim is addressed in Section IV of this enclosure.

I. ANO's Position Regarding 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G In a letter dated September 28, 2001, Entergy summarized their positions concerning the use of manual actions as:

Il. The use of manual actions to operate necessary components ... outside the identified fire areas is permitted by 10CFR50 Appendix R, Section III. G.1 and does not violate 10 CFR 50, Section 11I.G.2; w2. Compliance with 10CFR50 Appendix R, Section Il1.G.2 does not require protective features on circuits that are not required to function and, therefore, are not necessary systems required to achieve safe shutdown conditions and, regardless of fire damage cannot prevent the ability to achieve safe shutdown conditions.

Section Il.G.1 of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 provides the overall fire protection objective to protect equipment so that in the event of a fire in any fire area, (a) one train of systems necessary for reaching hot shutdown conditions (from either the control room or emergency control stations) is free of fire damage; and (b) systems necessary for reaching cold shutdown conditions (from either the control room or emergency control stations) can be repaired within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. Section IlI.G.1.a. can be met by ensuring one train of safe shutdown systems is free from fire damage as specified in Section III.G.2 of Appendix R, or by using an alternative safe shutdown capability specified in Section lll.G.3. While Section llI.G.1.a. contemplates the use of manual actions, these are provided in the context of alternative or dedicated shutdown under Section III.G.3.

Section III.G.2 of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 provides three acceptable methods for ensuring cables and equipment associated with one train of systems necessary for achieving and maintaining hot shutdown conditions is free of fire damage. None of the three methods in Section III.G.2 describes the use of manual actions to mitigate the effects of a fire on safe shutdown equipment and cables. Rather, these methods have the objective of Preventing fire damage through the use of specific protection features.

Section III.G.2 also requires these same fire protection features for circuits whose damage (by fire) could adversely affect the accomplishment of safe shutdown functions.

Contrary to Entergy's position (2) above, cables associated with systems necessary for safe shutdown are required to be free of fire damage, whether the cables themselves are considered "necessary" or not. In addition, certain circuits which may not be required to function, but whose maloperation could adversely affect safe shutdown, must also be free of fire damage.

If a licensee cannot meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2 for certain fire areas, then an alternative or dedicated shutdown capability is required as outlined in Section III.G.3. Under Section III.G.3, manual actions may be taken. The goals and requirements associated with alternative and dedicated shutdown capability under Section III.G.3 are specified in Section Ill.L of Appendix R, and include a requirement that alternative shutdown capability be implemented by procedures.

Another option would be to request an exemption from those portions of Section III.G.2 that cannot be met.

Conclusion:

For the ANO plant, Entergy must meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Section III.G.1. In addition, where a fire area contains reaundant trains of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions, Entergy must meet either Section III.G.2 or Section III.G.3 for the protection of cables and equipment associated with systems necessary for achieving and maintaining hot shutdown conditions, or obtain an exemption.Section III.G.2 provides three specific methods for preventing fire damage to equipment and cables associated with systems necessary for achieving and maintaining hot shutdown, and to circuits whose maloperation could adversely affect the licensee's ability to achieve hot shutdown.Section III.G.3 provides the option of using alternative or dedicated shutdown capability for those fire areas in which the licensee cannot meet the requirements of Section III.G.2. Therefore, the use of manual actions for meeting the requirements of Section III.G.2 is not permitted, unless these actions were specifically reviewed and approved by the NRC and documented in a safety evaluation report.

III. NRC Review and Approval of Manual Actions for Meeting the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G in 14 Fire Zones at ANO In their letter of September 28, 2001, Entergy stated that the use of manual actions to achieve safe shutdown conditions in the event of a fire has been a standard practice at ANO since the inception of Appendix R. In support of this position, Entergy cited an August 31, 1982, meeting between NRC and Arkansas Power and Light (documented by the NRC in a meeting summary dated September 3, 1982) and an Arkansas Power and Light response to an NRC request for additional information (RAI), dated October 5, 1982.

While we acknowledge that the NRC staff was aware that the ANO strategy for post-fire safe shutdown included some manual actions, the docketed NRC correspondence on the subject was written in the context of alternative shutdown, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.3. For example, the subject line of the September 3, 1982, meeting summary reads, 'Summary of Meeting with Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L) on August 31, 1982, Concerning the Alternate Safe Shutdown Capability in the Event of a Fire at Arkansas Nuclear One Units Nos. 1 & 2 (ANO-1 & 2)." Clearly, this meeting was held and manual actions discussed in the context of alternate shutdown, which is governed by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.3 and Section Ill.L (specific requirements for meeting Section III.G.3 shutdown are provided in Section III.L). The RAI (to which the licensee responded via a letter dated October 5, 1982) was transmitted to the licensee by letter dated September 3, 1982, which stated, mWe have reviewed your submittal dated July 1, 1982, with regard to your review of the alternate shutdown capability for Arkansas Nuclear One, Units Nos. 1 and 2 and we discussed our review with you at the meeting of August 31, 1982. As a result of that review and the meeting of August 31, 1982, we have identified the additional information (Enclosure 1) which we need to complete our review." In this letter, the NRC stated that the RAI was in support of the staff's review of the licensee's alternate shutdown capability.

The NRC subsequently issued a safety evaluation report (SER) dated May 13, 1983, which provided the staff's review of the licensee's methodology for meeting 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Sections III.G.3 and III.L. The SER was entitled, "Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Arkansas Nuclear One -

Units 1 and 2, Dockets Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Appendix R to 10 CFR 50, Items III.G.3 and ll.L," and referenced the meeting of August 31, 1982, and the licensee's response of October 5, 1982. In this SER, the NRC reviewed manual actions credited in the context of Sections III.G.3 and lll.L, stating, "All other areas of the plant not required to have alternate safe shutdown will comply with the requirements of Section III.G.2 of Appendix R, unless an exemption request has been approved by the staff." The licensee did not identify Fire Zones 98J and 99M as requiring manual action, and did not request an exemption from Section III.G.2.

Upon review of these statements, we believe that they should be interpreted as constituting NRC's review and approval of the use of manual actions for alternative shutdown, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Sections III.G.3 and III.L.

==

Conclusion:==

The NRC requested additional information from the licensee in the context of alternative shutdown (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.3) for 14 fire zones in which manual actions were credited. In their response to the request, the licensee did not identify Fire Zones 98J and 99M as requiring manual action, and did not request an exemption from Section III.G.2 for these two fire zones. As stated in a subsequent safety evaluation report concerning alternative shutdown, for all other areas, the NRC expected the licensee to either comply with Section III.G.2 or request an exemption.

Therefore, the use of manual actions for achieving and maintaining hot shutdown conditions for Fire Zones 98J and 99M, was not reviewed and approved by the NRC.

IV. NRC's Alleged Tacit Approval of the Licensee's Methodology for Complying with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section lll.G In their letter of September 28, 2001, Entergy stated that in 1982, they submitted to the NRC a description of their methodology for complying with Appendix R, which included a statement that under certain conditions credit for manual operation of equipment was taken. Entergy also stated that because this statement was not challenged in subsequent NRC correspondence (such as inspection reports) or safety evaluation reports, this silence constituted tacit approval of the use of manual actions, thus, making it part of the ANO licensing basis.

As discussed in NUREG 14093, simply not challenging a licensee's practice in inspection reports would not be considered tacit approval. Furthermore, contrary to Entergy's claim, the NRC was not silent regarding the use of manual actions. In an August 31, 1982, meeting between NRC and Arkansas Power and Light Company, as documented by the NRC in a letter dated September 3, 1982, the NRC requested additional information for fire zones that required some sort of manual action or non-routine operation. Fire Zones 98J and 99M were not identified by the licensee as requiring manual actions. By this licensee omission, the NRC staff would have concluded that no manual actions would be credited for mitigating fires in Fire Zones 98J and 99M.

In submitting the results of their Appendix R compliance review in a letter dated July 1, 1982, the licensee stated, that in certain cases, credit for manual operation of equipment was taken if controls (and power for valves) could be damaged by a fire.

"Suchcredit was taken only if.

a. the component to be operated is not located in the affected fire zone, although the cable may be damaged by fire;

b. sufficient time is available to perform the required manual actions; and

c. personnel are available, beyond the fire brigade and minimum operations shift crew limitations, to perform the manual actions."

Contrary to the above conditions, the licensee did not perform an analysis that demonstrated sufficient time was available and sufficient trained personnel were available to take all the actions required to mitigate all the failures, which could occur as a result of fires in Fire Zones 98J and 99M. As discussed in Section III of this enclosure, manual actions were reviewed and approved for use in alternative shutdown areas (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.3). Even if the NRC's approval of manual actions could be construed as acceptable for meeting the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2 (which, as discussed in Section I!, there 3 Section 3.3 of NUREG 1409, 'Backfitting Guidelines," states, "Cases where an inspector provides tacit approval are relatively rare. Simply not challenging a licensee's practice would not be considered tacit approval.'

was no such approval), it appears that the licensee did not comply with their own criteria for the use of manual actions.

==

Conclusion:==

Even if, as Entergy claims, the NRC approved (tacitly or otherwise) the use of manual actions for meeting Section III.G.2 of Appendix R (which it did not), this approval would have been dependent on the licensee doing so under the conditions described in their Appendix R compliance methodology. However, for Fire Zones 98J and 99M, the licensee did not meet their own conditions set forth for the use of manual actions.

. 00A *la&,

C.%,, 4 q..-

+4 UNITED STATES 44i0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 11 REGION IV 10 i 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 400 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-8064 ATTACHMENT 2 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 NRC's '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 NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at htto://www.nrc.oov/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 Licenses: DPR-51; NPF-6

Entergy Operations, Inc. 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 Russeliville, 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 Arkansas Department of Health 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. Electronic distribution from ADAMS by RIV:

EDO 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 (WS)

Senior Project Engineer, DRP/D (JAC)

Senior Resident Inspector (RLB3)

Chief, DRPITSS (PHH)

RITS Coordinator (NBH)

G. M. Holahan, NRR S. C. Black, NRR L. W. Bamett, 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\anOlO6 corrected backfit Itr.wpd RIV:DRS/PSB RLNease IEMB CSMarschall

/RA/ IRAJ 4/2312002 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: August26,1988

• 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 backf itwhich 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 staff's 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 staff's evaluation, the licensee's 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 licenseb 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 backf its, 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."

ATTACHMENT 3 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE BACKFIT PANEL ATTENDEES Region IV Backfit Panel Members Karia Smith, Regional Counsel, Chairman Gary Sanborn, Senior Enforcement Specialist Art Howell IIl, Director, DRS Kenneth Brockman, Director, DRP Elmo Collins, Deputy Director, DRP Dwight Chamberlain, Director, DNMS Other Attendees Thomas Alexion, NRR Suzanne Black, NRR Ed Crowe, RIV, DRP Robert Gramm, NRR John Hannon, NRR Paul Lain, NRR Geary Mizuno, OGC Charles Marschall, RIV, DRS Jim Moorman, RIV, DRP Rebecca Nease, RIV, DRS Phillip Qualls, NRR Stuart Richards, NRR Gary Sanborn, RIV, ACES Linda Smith, RIV, DRP Michael Vasquez, RIV, ACES Mike Webb, NRR Leon Whitney, NRR See-Meng Wong, NRR