ML20196K685

Ack Receipt of & Denial of NOV in Response to Transmitting NOV & Insp Rept 50-458/98-16.Listed Info Documents Results of Review of Response to Violation Re fire-induced Circuit Faults

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

g  %,k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-

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

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

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

determined to be an increase in the consequences of a loss-of-coolant accident and to I

constituto an unreview ad safety question as defined by 10 CFR S0.59,

9907090306 990630

PDR ADOCK 05000458

C PDR

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 \

l

)

l 1

l 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 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

EO DRA- R . ORA E <

GS9nborn TPGwynel [ WLBrown*

V

06/03/99* 063Y99 06/09/99

Previously concu. red OFFICIAL RECOHD COPY

.

r

,

.

4y

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

s particular event was acceptable because the dose was less that the SRP guidelines

-(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 ifny increase above the reviewed calculated doses would require prior NRC

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 Fi . Gwynr/ l

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 I

"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

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 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 ,

l

-]

-

F .

' N

~ NRC ' PROGRAM FOR; MANAGEMENT OF, PLANT-SPECIFIC

' N RC-0514-045 ' BACKFITTING OF NUCLEAR POWER PLf)1T,S, . ,}J

-

..

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 c the 'll-

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.

A staff-proposed backfit may be imposed by Orders 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

l