ML20196K685
| ML20196K685 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1999 |
| From: | Gwynn T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Edington R ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. |
| References | |
| 50-458-98-16, EA-98-425, EA-98-460, EA-99-136, NUDOCS 9907090306 | |
| Download: ML20196K685 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000458/1998016
Text
e
4
l
- !
uNrTED STATES
%,k
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
g
-
b
f
REGION IV
611 RYAN PLAZA drive, sulTE 400
.
,, g
ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-8064
l
June 30, 1999
EA 98-425 .
EA 98-460
EA 99-136
l
Randall K. Edington, Vice President - Operations
!
River Bend Station
Entergy Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 220
St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-458/98-16 AND DENIAL OF
i
Dear Mr. Edington:
Thank you for Mr. King's letter dated February 11,1999, in response to our letter and Notice of
l
Violation dated December 29,1998. The violation concerned the failure to identify as an
'
unreviewed safety question the revised lost 1-coolant accident offsite doses reported within
Licensing Change Notice LCN 15.06-006, dated July 24,1998. In LCN 15.06-006, the
projected offsite thyroid doses were raised to levels higher than previously reviewed and
l
approved in Amendment 98 by the NRC staff, but the doses were still within 10 CFR Part 100
and General Design Criteria regulatory limits. In your letter, you denied this violation.
In support of your denial, you stated that the offsite dose values, as reviewed and approved in
the Safety Evaluation Report for River Bend Station (NUREG-0989) during initial licensing, were
[/
compared to the dose limits identified in 10 CFR 100 and the General Design Criteria. These
'
are the same limits that are in effect today. Therefore, you reasoned that the revised offsite
doses of LCN 15.06-006, which were greater than those previously reviewed and approved by
the NRC staff, but, nevertheless, still within these limits, constituted a safety question that was,
l
in effect, previously reviewed.
t
Also in your letter, you expressed disagreement with a violation for which enforcement
discretion was exercised. This involved an issue in which fire-induced circuit faults could result
j
in the simultaneous opening of all of the primary system safety relief valves.
The following discussion documents the results of our review of your response.
10 CFR 50.59 Violation
'ihe violation addressed calculated loss-of-coolant accident offsite doses that, in response to
i
several revised assumptions and calculational methods, were increased to levels beyond those
that were previously reviewed. Therefore, as explained in the Notice of Violation, this was
l
I
determined to be an increase in the consequences of a loss-of-coolant accident and to
constituto an unreview ad safety question as defined by 10 CFR S0.59,
9907090306 990630
ADOCK 05000458
C
L
F
.s
,,
t
,
.
l
l'
\\
l
Entergy Operations, Inc.
-7-
bec to DCD (IE01)
bec distrib. by RIV:
Regional Administrator
Res,ident inspector
DRP Director
DRS Director
e
D. Lange (EDO's Office)
l
RITS System
Branch Chief (DRP/C)
RIV File
l
Project Engineer (DRP/C)
Branch Chief (DRP/TSS)
,
OE:EA Files (0-14E1)
l
G. Sanborn: EA File -
RIV Al 99-094 (CGoines)
RIV Al 99-094 (JCarson)
l
l
\\
)
l
1
l
l
l
DOCUMENT NAME: R:\\_RBS\\P.B816AK.mfr
To receive copy of document, Indicate in box: "C" = Copy wH5out enclosures *E' = Copy with enclosutes 'N" = No copy
RIV: SRI:EMB
RI:EMB
C:EMB
E D.vRS
NRR/DRPM/PGEB l NRR/DRPW/PDIV-4* l
MFRunyan/imb
RBywater
DAPowers ATHowell 111*
FMAkstulewicz*
RJFretz*
05/06/99*
05/06/99*
05/09/99*
06/15/99
06/08/99
03/16/99
DRA- R . ORA
E
<
GS9nborn
TPGwynel [ WLBrown*
V
06/03/99*
063Y99
06/09/99
Previously concu. red
OFFICIAL RECOHD COPY
.
r
4
.
,
y
Entergy Operations, Inc.
-2-
.
In your response, you stated that the original and subsequent licensing reviews have involved a
check that the offsite doses are within 10 CFR 100 and General Design Criteria limits. Your
letter implied that the review criteria do not include consideration of changes to the calculated
doses as long as the limits are not exceeded. This position endorsed the guidance published
by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in NEl 96-07, " Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety
- Evaluations."
'
e
As you are aware, the NRC and NEl have disagreed over the definition of " increase in
consequences" as stated in 10 CFR 50.59. The Staff's position is that increases in
consequences shou!d be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question whenever .
established dose analysis values, as previously reviewed by the NRC, are exceeded. In a
_
letter to NEl dated January 9,1998, Mr. Samuel Collins, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, reiterated that implementation of the guidance in NEl 96-07 "...may result in
enforcement action against licensees." It remains the Staff's position that the consequences of
an accident are increased if for any reason the, analyzed doses are increased (more than a
minimalincrease), irrespective and independent of the obvious unacceptability of any doses
that exceed a 10 CFR Part 100 or General Design Criteria regulatory limit. This position is
consistent with the proposed structure of the pending rule change invo'ving 10 CFR 50.59.
.
In your letter, you stated that the subject Notice of Violation represented a change in
staff position and that this change should be reviewed as a potential backfit pursuant to
10 CFR 50.109.' You stated that a previous position taken by the NRC on this matter was
established by letters of May 10,1989, from C. E. Rossi of the NRC to T. E. Tipton of
NUMARC, and September 15,' 1992, from the NRC to the licensee of the Waterford 3 Steam
Electric Station. Further, you stated that NRC reviews as documented in the original licensing
of River Bend Station (NUREG 0989) and the safety evaluation report supporting Technical
Specification Amendment 98 established that the NRC was using the 10 CFR Part 100 and
GDC 19 limits as the bac!s for accepting any increases in doses.
NRC reviewed your backfit concern in accordance with our plant-specific backfit procedures.
! We concluded that this matter does not constitute a backfit. This is because we do not
consider the cited references to establish or imply a prior NRC staff position that is different
from the position reflecteo by the subject Notice of Violation. In your letter you cited the
. following sentence from the 1989 Rossi/Tipton letter:
,
"However, if in licensing the pla'nt the staff explicitly found that the plant's response to a
particular event was acceptable because the dose was less that the SRP guidelines
s
-(without further qualification) then the staff implicitly accepted the SRP guideline as the
licensing basis for the plant and the particular event, and the licensee may make
- changes that increase the consequences for the particular event, up to this value
without prior.NRC approval."
0$M%
,
f
.
'
t
s
Entergy Operations, Inc.
-3-
To understand the context of this sentance, it is essential to examine the sentence that
immediately preceded l':
"The staff believes that it is not consistent with 10 CFR 50.59 to allow a licensee to
make any change that results in an increase in dose from any accident or equipment
- malfunction, without prior NRC approval, simply because the applicable Standard
Review Plan NUREG-0800 (SRP) dose guideline is not exceeded."
e
When both of the above sentences are considered together, it is evident that an increase in
dose is to be treated as an increase in consequence unless a specific condition is met. This is
true even for situations in which a 10 CFR Part 100 or General Design Criteria regulatory limit is
not exceeded. For examp!a. the SER (or other licensing document) may " explicitly" state that a
particular design feature or condition was approved because the dose consequences were less
than the SRP guidelines (which would generally be the 10 CFR Part 100 and General Design
Criteria limits). If such a statement were made in the SER, then the SRP guideline dose, and
not the actual calculated dose, would be the dose that was officially reviewed. However,
absent an explicly statement of this manner, the second sentence cited above would be
controlling, and i ny increase above the reviewed calculated doses would require prior NRC
f
approval. It is our position that the condition referenced in the first sentence cited above
(concerning refe:ences to the SRP guidelines) was not met in either the original SER (NUREG-
0989) or the reviews pursuant to Technical Specification Amendment 98, and that, therefore,
this sentence does not apply in the~present case.
Concerning the 1992 letter from the NRC to Waterford 3, you referred to the following excerpt,
which was used as a basis for stating that the change that had been submitted to NRC for
approval could have been made under 10 CFR 50.59:
"However, even if all of the pins experiencing DNB [ departure from nucleate boiling]
were to fail, a coolable geometry would be maintained and the consequences remain a
small part (less than 10 percent) of the 10 CFR Part 100 limits."
This statement implies that a change of greater than 10 percent of the 10 CFR Part 100 limits
would constitute substantial consequences. Thus, the change in dose reported in the subject
Notice of Violation for Low Population Thyroid (50.3 to 115.1 rem) would not be bounded Ly
this reference (10 percent of the 10 CFR 100 limits is 30 rem for this case).
As stated above, our re-examination of the NRC reviews conducted during original licensing
and in association with Technical Specification Amendment 98 review indicate that a basis for
.
acceptance of the radiological doses was not explicitly stated in either document. That is, these
documents did not establish a benchmark or standard for determining which dose (existing,
limiting, or other) should be used to evaluate a future change in consequences.
In April 1997,15 months prior to your issuance of LCN 15.06-006, the NRC published a clear
position on this matter in NUREG-1606, "Fropossd Regulatory Guidance Related to
implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 (Changes, Tests, or Expariments) Draft Report for Comment,"
Section Ill.R-4, which states,"[t]herefore, the staff concludes that the dose calculated in the
SAR should be considered as the threshold for when an increase in consequences (and thus a
USO) results." We have concluded that the NRC's position has always been and continues to
.
I
- v y
1
"
,
.
Entergy Operations, Inc.
-4-
be consistent with this statement. Should you disagree with this NRC staff 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," paragraph 044 (enclosed).
Your response did not provide any new information that would necessitate a change to our
previous enforcement action. Consequenity, we have decided to sustain this violation.
<
License Condition 2.c.10 Violation
With respect to the issue conceming the potential for fira-induced circuit faults in a multi-
conductor cable to cause the simultaneous opening of the primary system safety relief valves,
the NRC maintains that this issue was a violation of your fire protection program license
condition. - Your reply to the Notice of Violation did not provide any additional information that
would warrant reconsideration of the original enforcement decision. The NRC addressed your
May 19,1997, position paper regarding multiple spurious component actuations in Inspection
Report 50-458/97-201 and concluded that your position was not consistent with regulatory
requirements.
i
in summary, we have sustained the violation of 10 CFR 50.59. Our position regarding the
violation of License Condition 2.c.10, for which enforcement discretion was applied, remains
unchanged.
We request that you reply within 30 days of receipt of this letter and specifically respond to the
10 CFR 50.59 violation and those aspects identified .n the December 29,1998, notice of
violation that were not provided in your February 11,1999, letter. Those aspects only include
_ (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps
,
that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when ful compliance will be
achieved.
If you have questions concerning the information presented in this letter, please contact Dr.
Dale A. Powers, (817) 860-8195, or Mr. Michael F. Runyan, (817) 860-8142, of my staff.
Sincerely
/
)
,
-
)
\\
'
Thomas F . Gwynr/
l
i
Deputy Regional /(mi tr or
Docket No.:
50-458
License No.: NPF-47 -
Enclosure: as stated
j
c
y
, Entergy Operations, Inc.
-5-
l
cc:
Executive Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer
Entergy Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 31995
.'
Jackson, Mississippi 39286-1995
'
1
- Vice President
Operations Support
Ente'ay Operations, Inc.
- P.O. Box 31995
Jackson, Mississippi 39286-1995
General Manager
Plant Operations
River Bend Station
Entergy Operations, Inc.
!
P.O. Box 220
St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775
Director- Nuclear Safety
River Bend Station
Entergy Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 220
St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775
Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway
P.O. Box 651
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Winston & Strawn
1401 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3502
Manager- Ucensing
River Bend Station
Entergy Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 220
St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775
The Honorable Richard P. leyoub
I
Attomey General
Department of Justice
State of Louisiana
P.O. Box 94005
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005
2
<
- . -
.. .
.
f-
Entergy Operations, Inc.
-6-
H. Anne Plettinger -
- 3456 Villa Rose Drive
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806
President of West Feliciana
Police Jury
P.O. Box 1921
e
St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775
- Ronald Wascom, Administrator
.
Louisiana Radiation Protectbn Division
' P.O. Box 82135
- Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2135
,
4
)
.
l
)
-
~ ' ' ' '
+4,.
< g .,g
~
e
6=
ENCLOSURE
NRC MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 8.4
"NRC PROGRAM FOR MANAGEMENT OF PLANT-SPECIFIC
BACKFITTING OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS"
PARAGRAPH 044
'
<
r
e
l
.
h
f
.
b
NRC PROGRAM FOR MANAGEMENT OF PLANT-SPECIFIC
BACKFITTING OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
N RC-0514 -044
'
.
1.
A schedule for staff actions involved in implementation and verifica-
tion of implementation of the backfit, as appropriate.
J.
Importance of the proposed backfit considered in light of other
safety-related activities underway at the affected facility.
k.
A statement of the consideration ' of the proposed plant-specific
backfit as a potential generic backfit.
044 Appeal Process. The appeal processes described in this' section are
q
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
l
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 a 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. The appeal should provide
argurrents 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 pisns. 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 snail
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, pri-
.
mary consideration shall be given to how and why the proposed backfit' pro-
vides a substantial increase in overall protection end 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
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 reso!ution 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 infor-
mation 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
Approved:
August 26, 1988
,
-]
F
-
.
'
~ NRC ' PROGRAM FOR; MANAGEMENT OF, PLANT-SPECIFIC
N
. }J
' N RC-0514-045 '
BACKFITTING OF NUCLEAR POWER PLf)1T,S,
-
..
,
- shall' promptly resolveEth(e appeal and shall
- state the r;easons therefor. Back-
fit: claims andL resultant staff L determinations that are reevaluated in response
'
tot an appeal, and .that' are Lagain determined by. th'e 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 Lor inspection app.eal prccess and are not
subject to the requirements of this chapter.
'045
Implementation of 'Backfits,. Following approval of any required reg-
'
ulatory? analysis by the' approp7Iate Office Director er Regional Administrator,
review if any by the 'EDO, and issuance of the backfit to the licensee, the
licensee will either implement the backfit w appeal it. After an appeal and 5
subsequent final decision by the appropriate Ofilce Director or EDo
the 'll-
c
censee . may . elact - to implement 1 a backfit resulting from the decision. If the
licensee does not elect to implement the backfit, it may be imposed by Order
of the appropriate Office Director.8
Implementation of : plant-specific backfits .will' normally ~ be accomplished on a
,
schedule negotiated between the licensee and the NRC. Scheduling criteria
should , include the importance of the backfit relative to other safety related
'
activities underway, or the plant construction .or maintenance planned for the
facility, in order to maintain high quality construction and operations. For
plants that have integrated schedules, . the integrated scheduling process can
be used for this purpose.
s
A staff-proposed backfit may be imposed by Order prior to completing any of
the procedures set forth in this chapter provided the NRC official authorizing
the Order determines that Immediate imposition is necessary to provide ade-
quate protection to the public health and safety or the common defense and
security. 'In such cases, the EDO shall be notified promptly of the action and
a documented evaluation as described in Section 042 performed, if possible, in
time to be issued with the order. -
If "immediate imposition" is not necessary, staff proposed backfits shall not
'
be imposed, and plant construction, licensing action, or operation shall not
be interrupted or delayed by NRC~ actions, during the staff's evaluation and
backfit transmittal process, or a : subsequent appeal process, until final ac-
tion is completed under this chapter.
046 - Recordkeepino and Reportina. The proposing Headquarters Office or
/
Regional Office shall administratively manage each proposed plant-specific
backfit using one agency recordkeeping system that provides for prompt re-
trieval of current status, planned ~ and accomplished schedules, and ultimate
disposition. The system shall provide reference to all ciocuments issued or
received by NRC staff relative to' 'a plant-specific backfit, including re-
quests,. positions, statements, and summary reports. Access to make changes
to the system will be limited to those designated within each Office and
Region. Specific data required will include, but are not limited to:
'80nce - an Order is issued, whether or not it is immediately effective, this
chapter no longer applies and appeals are governed by the procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart B.
Approved: August 26, 1988