ML17229A385

Documents Concerns W/Recent Plant Specific Licensing Action Taken by Region II Staff Against FPL Plant.Concern Re Use of Internal NRC Ltr,Prepared by Nrr,In EA Against Previously Identified Plant

ML17229A385
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	02/26/1997
From:	Baker D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML17229A383	List: ML17229A382 ML17229A385
References
NUDOCS 9706230213
Download: ML17229A385 (8)

Text

Dean C. Baker 29 Tarpon Avenue Key Largo, FL 33037 February 26, 1997 Ms. Shirley Jackson Chairman US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Md 20852-2738

Dear Chairman Jackson:

The purpose of my letter is to document my concern with a recent plant specific licensing action taken by your Region II staff against Florida Power 8 Light Company's St.

Lucie plant.

My concern relates to the use of an internal NRC letter, prepared by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), in an enforcement action against the previously identified plant.

This letter (attached) could be construed, if not unchallenged, as a de facto change to regulations and their enforcement without either Commission concurrence or public comment.

The issue of concern deals with the Staff's position on the introduction of new failure modes as they relate to permitted compensatory actions. TIA 95-013 contains a narrower interpretation

- of the use of administrative controls, specifically compensatory.

actions, when compared to a position set forth in NRC Part 9900 interim guidance on 10 CFR 5 50.59 issued in April 1996. Part 9900 asserts that, "...the staff has found compensating"effects such as changes in administrative controls acceptable in offsetting uncertainties and increases in the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR or reductions in margin of safety, provided the potential increase or reductions in margin are negligible."

The response to TIA 95-013 suggests that compensatory measures can no longer be credited to offsetting small potential increases in probability.

In the case cited, a compensatory measure of operator action was used in place of an automatic function.

Specifically, the TIA asserts that, "an unreviewed safety question exists because the proposed change introduces a

new procedure and associated malfunction of a different type (operator error)..."

The TIA further asserts

that,

"[I]n general, the introduction of compensatory measures suggests that there is an unreviewed safety question for which compensation is needed,

hence, a 50.90 submittal should be prepared by the licensee and evaluated by the staff to determine whether the compensation is adequate."

The new failure mode (malfunction of 5 different type) aspect of 50.59 is not identified as an issue in the interim guidance and represents a

potential new Staff position.

9706230213 970626 PDR ADQCK 0500033S H

PDR J

k

~

~

The new position also has implications for the NRC's operability guidance in GL 91-18 which recognizes that substitution of manual action for automatic actions may be acceptable under certain circumstances.

In an NRC letter to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company dated October 21, 1994 (John F. Stolz to Richard.

M Kacich) it is stated that, "[I]f an operability conclusion is made based upon implementing compensatory actions resulting in a

change to the facility or procedures as described in the

FSAR, an evaluation pursuant to 5 50.59 must be performed..."

However, as stated

above, the new position taken in the TIA with regard to compensatory measures would always prevent satisfying the 50.59 criteria.

The inconsistencies between the positions set forth in the TIA

response, the Part 9900 guidance, and the other activities that are going on in the

industry, illustrates the current state of confusion regarding the interpretation of 10 CFR 5 50.59.

Based on the currently evolving NRC position on 10 CFR 5 50.59, I question whether there can be consistent enforcement of the 50.59 regulation at this time for any operating nuclear plant.

It would be premature for the Staff to implement enforcement based on evolving interpretations of 50.59 until the

NRC, after appropriate management

review, has resolved the interpretational differences that now exist.

Repeated assertions by the Commission and the Staff that there are no new positions being taken in this area are, as demonstrated

~su ra wi,thout foundation.

Thank you in advance for your attention on this matter.

Sin erely, Dean C. Baker cc:

The Honorable Connie Mack The Honorable Bill Graham

, ~

~

~

I f:

~

~

Di stributi on

-Docket"Filets EPA Rdg;-

LWiens BClayton DOCKET NO(S).

50-335 and 50-389 Harch 28, 1997 SEE ATTACHED LIST 8UBJECT:

FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY - ST. LUCIE PLANT, UNITS 1

AND 2 The followin documents concernin our review ofthe sub ect facili are transmitted for our information.

DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT Notice of Receipt ofApplication Draft/Final Environmental Statement Notice of Availabilityof Draft/Final Environmental Statement Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement No.

Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant impact Notice of Issuance of Environmental Assessment Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License or Amendment to Facility Operating License DATED Biweekly Notice; Applicatiofrs and Amendments.to Operating Licenses Involvrn ITo Si nificant Hazards Conditions Exemption Construction Permit No. CPPR-Facility Operating License No.

Order Monthly Operating Report for Annual/Q)g Pgj(g(ReporL Other See Page(s)

Amendment No.

Amendment No.

Release Transmitted by Letter Transmitted by Letter

'r 2/24/97

Enclosures:

As stated Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects I/II CC:

DOCUMENT NAME:

Yo receive a co ofthis document Indicate In the box:

C ~ Co wiihout attachmenr/enclosure E > Co with'attachment/enclosure rr e No co OFFICE PD I I-3 NAME ASan der DATE 03/2 /97 OFFICIALRECORD COPY

I P

~

g

~

p

~

Chief Division of Habitat Conservation U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service U. S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.

C.

20240 Dr. William Cunningham FDA Research Chemist National Institute of Standards and Technology Reactor Building 235, Room B-108 Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899 I

U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency Radiation Management, 3-AIR 345 Courtland Street NE Atlanta, Georgia 30365

gf