ML20129H740

Ack Receipt of 960801 Memo Re Reactor Trip Breaker Problems at Plants.Recommended That AEOD or Appropriate Group within NRR Advise OE Whether Technical Staff Considers That Violations Occurred,Per 10CFR50.73 or 10CFR21

ML20129H740
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba, McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	08/29/1996
From:	Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE)
To:	Jordan E NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD)
Shared Package
ML20128Q247	List: ML20128Q243 ML20129H740
References
NUDOCS 9611060005
Download: ML20129H740 (1)

Text

,*m4 0- 4 UNITED STATES -

l g j t

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2006Mm01 g I 9..... August 29, 1996 j MEMORANDUM FOR: Edward Jordan, Director )

Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data l l FROM: James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement -h  !

SUBJECT:

REPOR1 ABILITY OF REACTOR TRIP BREAKER l PROBLEMS AT MCGUIRE AND CATAWBA I have received your memorandum dated August 1, 1996, concerning the subject reactor trip breakers at McGuire and Catawba. After reviewing your memorandum and consulting with the designated AE0D contact person, I would recommend that AE0D or the appropriate group within NRR advise OE as to whether the technical staff considers that a violation of the requirements of either 10 CFR 50.72, l 10 CFR 50.73, or 10 CFR Part 21 has occurred at either McGuire and Catawba. If  ;

the view is that a violation has occurred, OE will work with the appropriate region for dispositioning the issue in accordance with the Enforcement Policy.

A separate matter that was raised concerns the manner that the staff currently l

handles notifications made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72 that are later retracted. j l

50.72 does not appear to address licensee retractions of notifications. My I position is that once notified, the staff cannot 'unknow' information that it ,

has already been provided. Based on this presumption, if a licensee makes a 1 50.72 notification that is later retracted and the staff disagrees with the ,

licensee's conclusion that the matter was not reportable, NRC would be hard  ;

pressed to later cite a violation of the reporting requirements of 50.72. This view is based on the fact that licensee had complied with 50.72 by originally l making the report. This presents an interesting scenario that I recommend our Offices pursue further.  ;

Finally, if AE0D finds that in a given case a report should have been provided l

when it was not, please notify OE so that we can consider the appropriate enforcement action.

, Mark Satorius of my staff will contact your office within then the next few days l to,jnitiateameetingtopursuethissecondmatter. He can be reached at

! 415-3280.

1 cc: J. Taylor, ED0 J. Milhoan, ED0 i ussell, NRR H. Miller, RI S. Ebneter, RII B. Beach, RIII J. Callan, RIV 9611060005 961030 PDR ADOCK 05000369 P PDR

C l '-

l 1 i' NRC FORM 8 (4-79)

NRCM 0240 l

l l 4 l

l l

INCOMING AND SIGNATURE TAB l l Use this side of the sheet to precede the incoming material when  !

l assembling correspondence.

l (USE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGNATURE TAB) l l

I' l

l l~

'1, 4

4 J

NRC FORM 8

- (4-73 ';

NOCM O240 i

l 1'

I i.

i i r l

i I

I.

INCOMING AND SIGNATURE TAB ,

Use i this side of the sheet to precede the signature page when .

assembling correspondence.

(USE REVERSE SIDE FOR INCOMING TAB) l

.~

l .

i 4

i i l

n 3

• s 1

h' c _

_m., . . ,,