ML20137L307

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Advises That Changes in Rev 28 to St Lucie Plant Emergency Plan,Consistent W/Provisions of 10CFR50.54(q),10CFR50.47(b) & 10CFR50,App E
ML20137L307
Person / Time
Site: Saint Lucie  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 07/31/1995
From: Salyers G
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To: Barr K
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML17354B293 List:
References
FOIA-96-485 NUDOCS 9704070197
Download: ML20137L307 (2)


Text

. - .- - - . - _ . - -.- . . - . . _ . ~ .-- -- ,--. . . . .

=

WS UNITED STATES 3

/jsA EEog%,4

.

  • NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

' REGloN il {

5 E 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900 1

t j ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 o190

....,* July 31, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Kenneth P. Barr, Chief Emergency Preparedness Section FROM: Glen W. Salyers, Radiation Specialist Emergency Preparedness Section

SUBJECT:

REVIEW OF REVISION 28 TO St. LUCIE PLANT EMERGENCY PLAN I. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION 1

l The licensee submitted Revision 28 to the St. Lucie Plant Emergency l Plan. Revision 2'8 was effective May 11, 1995, and was received by the i

NRC on May 31, 1995. This was within 30 days of the revision as  ;

required 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix E.V.

Revision 28 deleted all of the Modes 5 and 6 EAls that were incorporated into Revision 27 to their Plan. The deletion was in response to our l letter to the licensee dated April 25, 1995, stating that our review of  !

Revision 27 had concluded that as written, the' addition of the Modes 5 i and 6 EALs decreased the effectiveness of their Plan. l II.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSION '

The reviewer determined all of the changes in Revision 28 were i consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(q), 10 CFR 50.47(b),

Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and Section II of NUREG-0654. The letter to the licensee will convey this finding.

1 Further information regarding this evaluation may be found in the reviewer's annotations of Revision 28 and in the licensee's justification package (maintained in section files).

cc: C. Banks

(

n

,p -

e 9704070197 970325 PDR FOIA BINDER 96-485 PDR ,

u

.I, ST. LUCIE SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM Team Charter A. Develop a chronological sequence of events describing identification of and licensee responses to suspected precursor and known tampering events, (Munday-lead) j B. Evaluate licensee's response to the recent suspected and known tampering events to determine if:

I

- plant components, which have had tampering, have been adequately evaluated and the known degradation has been corrected. (Munday) 1

- plant safety systems have been sufficiently evaluated for potential tampering to assure they can perform their intended functions.

(Munday-lead: Wiems)

- plant management adequately responded to the suspected precursor and known tampering events. (Barr) h - plant management has implemented adequate interim actio s to detect new 9-zud " - v, [v' (. f$

tampering. (Wiens-lead; Thompson-Sec. M

=

- . n, . , ~ . ~x< ,,

- plant investigations are sufficiently thorough in attempting to identify the person (s) responsible for the tampering. (Thompson)

- plant systems / components that experienced tampering have been maintained consistent with the plant licensing basis including location and

'. personnel access.to equipment. (Wiens)--- *

- assess whether personnel access to tampered components was in accordance with approved security plan and other regulatory requirements.

(Thompson)

C. Issue an unclassified, final report by September 11,1996. A supplemental report which includes safeguards information may also be issued at the same time.

D. Inspection team will report to the Director, Division of Reactor Safety, Region 11.

Inspection Team Members K. P. Barr Team Leader L. A. Wiens J. T. Munday D. H. Thompson 8/16/96

,