ML20206K681
| ML20206K681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1999 |
| From: | Zinke G Maine Yankee |
| To: | Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| GAZ-99-03, GAZ-99-3, MN-99-02, MN-99-2, NUDOCS 9905130239 | |
| Download: ML20206K681 (7) | |
Text
_
MaineYankee 321 OLD FERRY PD
- WISCASSET ME 04578 4922 March 16,1999 MN-99 02 GAZ-99-03 i
l Mr. Samuel J. Collins j
Director of the Office of Nuclear Reac or Regulation
)
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
Washington, DC 20555
]
I
References:
(a) License No. DPR-36 (Docket No. 50-309)
(b) Letter from MYAPC to USNRC; Defueled Security Plan and 10 CFR 73.1 an'd j
10CFR73.55 - Exemption Request (MN-97-127) dated November 25,1997
)
(c) Letter from MYAPC to USNRC; Supporting Information for the Defueled Security i
Plan and Exemption Request. (MN-98-14) dated March 5,1998 (d) Letter from CSNRC to MYAPC; Exemption From Certain Requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 at Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station (TAC NO. MA0281), dated June 29,1998 (e) Letter from MYAPC to USNRC: Defueled Security Plan,(MN-98-52) dated July 1,1998
-(f) Letter from MYAPC to USNRC; Defueled Security Plan (MN-98-53) dated July 16,199S i
(g) Letter from MYAPC to USNRC; Backfit Claim - Defueled Security Plan OIN-98-66) dated October 26,1998 (h) Letter from USNRC to MYAPC; Permanently Shutdown Reactor Security Plan, dated February 3,1999
Subject:
Appeal of NRC Determination Concerning Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Claim of Backfit Regarding Permanently Shutdown Reactor Security Plan Gentlemen:
By letter dated July 16,1998 (Reference (f)), Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (MYAPC) stated that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) June 29,1998, response (Reference (d)) to the MYAPC exemption requests included "several statements which contain requirements beyond the scope of the current regulations." The two issues in question pertain to the NRC's L
imposition of new requirements for isolation zones and the vehicle barrier system in addition to I
those required in 10 CFR 73.55. By letter dated February 3.1999 (Reference (h)), the NRC
(
responded.
l' The NRC response (Reference (h)) is problematic in that the reasons given for denial of our backfit claims have nothing to do with the backfits actually claimed. The staff denied Maine Yankee's contentions based upon.their previous ruling on backfits associated with emergency planning l
. exemptions. Yet. Maine Yankee has aq1 objected to the staff s denial of security exemptions. We ]I have instead chosen to, comply with the regulations as discussed in Attachment 1.
pf' h h@
7 9905130239 990316 l
PDR ADOCK 05000309 l
F PDR g
l 4
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MN 99-02 Attn: MriSamuel J. Collins Page Two This is another example of the staffs continued closed mindset on dealing with backfit issues.
Although our backfit request has no direct connection with exemption requests, the staff still saw fit to force their denial into this inappropriate category. What is particularly disturbing is the staff s refusal to communicate even once with Maine Yankee over an approximately six month period on these issues - any communication would have revealed that the staff s basis for denial was flawed.
On February 18.1999. we discussed this issue with the staff via telecom. Subsequently, we have requested several times that the staff correct the record by issuing an amendment to their letter of February 3.
We have been told that no such correction will be forthcoming unless we were to request it in writing. Hence this letter.
Although the staff has not yet addressed our original backfit requests after a period in excess of six months, we are appealing the staff s incorrect backfit denial in order to move the process forward.
Attachment.1 provides additional details concerning our backfit claims and the NRC's response.
The staffs ill advised February 3 letter has had adverse public consequences as well. Several statements made by the staff (Reference (h)) have been interpreted by some members of the public to question Maine Yankee's compliance with current security regulations. Maine Yankee is in full compliance with the existing regulations and has implemented security features that exceed the regulatory requirements. We understand from our NRC Project Manager (ref: March 11,1999 telecom) and the security staff (ref: February 18.1999 telecom) that the NRC does not have concems with regard to Maine Yankee's compliance with security regulations. Maine Yankee implemented changes lo its security plan commensurate with the reduced risk to the health and safety of the public associated with a decommissioning plant environment as authorized by 10CFR50.54(p). This revised Security Plan was provided to the NRL staff on July 1.1998.
If the staff had concems regarding Maine Yankee's compliance with regulations, the NRC is obligated to communicate those concems to Maine Yankee. No such communications have occurred.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109 and USNRC Manual Chapter 0514. Maine Yankee is hereby appealing the conclusion that "a valid backfit claim has not been raised by Maine Yankee." Normally if MY APC were to appeal a staff decision we'would provide some discussion concerning the differing opinions. However. in this case it appears that the staff misunderstood what our backfit claim was about and the reasons for denial provided in Reference (h) are moot i e.. ve have not yet been provided with written reasons for the staffs denial of the actual backfit claim made by MYAPC in
- Reference (d). We did discuss this issue with the staff during the February 18 telecom.
Notwithstanding our discussion on February 18, we would like to renew our request for a meeting with the staff made on July 16.199S. in Reference (f). Additionally we request the NRC document the reasons for denial of the Maine Yankee backfit claims and schedule a timely appeal meeting.
b r1!
i..
L31TED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MN 99 02
_ Attn: Mr. Samuel J. Collins Page Three l
We are convinced that misunderstandings such as these can be avoided if the staffwould clarify their
]
- understanding ofissues with the licensee and discuss their fmdings prior to issuing final decisions. to this' letter contains feedback on several other areas ofconcern related to the backfit process and communication problems ' hich are not directly related to this backfit appeal, w
if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours, s
Q
~
George Alan Zinke. Dir ctor Nuclear Safety & Regulatory Affairs-L c:
Document Control Desk Mr. William D. Travers Mr. David B. Matthews-Mr. Hubert Miller-Mr. Michael T. Masnik Mr. Michael K. Webb -
Mr. Mark Roberts Mr. Uldis Vanags Mr. Patrick J. Dostie Mr. John Zwolinski Mr. Frank Miraglia-f i
I, l[w L;jl
ATTACHMENTI BACKFIT DETAILS This Attachment provides background and details penaining to the backfits claimed in Reference (0,
Maine Yankee is in compliance with all applicable sections of 10 CFR 73 specifically pertaining to Isolation Zone and Vehicle Barriers Systems. Furthermore, Maine Yankee has implemented security features which exceed regulatory requirements.
1.
Isolation Zones
. Backfit Claim:
=
Isolation zones are required to be maintained in outdoor areas adjacent to the physical barrier at the perimeter of the protected area pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55(c)(3). Protected areas are required to surround vital areas pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55(c)(1). In Reference (d), the NRC approved exemptions which eliminated the last remaining vital areas at Maine Yankee.
Since there are no longer any vital areas, a protected area is not required to exist to surround anything. -Since a protected area is not required, isolation zones are not required. The requirement for a protected area is dependent upon the existence ofvital equipment and vital areas. The requirement for an isolation zone is dependent upon the existence of a protected area.
Therefore. Maine Yankee is.in compliance with the plain language of 10 CFR 73.55(c)(3).
- NRC asserted, in Reference (d), as pan of the denial of Maine Yankee's exemption request from 10 CFR 73.55(c)(3) that: "An extemal isolation zone is required at defueled reactor sites in order to maintain a clear area outside the walls of the spent fuel building to be used
- for assessing unauthorized activities conceming radiological sabotage of the spent fuel."
However,10CFR73 does not require defueled reactor sites to maintain an external isolation zone.10CFR73 does require defueled reactor sites, and operating units as well, to maintain extemal isolation zones if vital areas and protected areas are present. Maine Yankee claims that this statement goes beyond the regulations and therefore constitutes a backfit. This claim was submitted on July 16,1998 via Reference (f)..
NRC Response to Maine Yankee Backfit Claim for Isolation Zone The NRC responded to Maine Yankee's isolation zone backfit claim on February 3,1999 via
' Reference 8.M:
"In response to your request, the NRC staff has reassessed whether the staff's denial of the Maine Yankee request for exemptions from 10 CFR 73.55(c)(3) and (7) constitutes a backfit as defined in the Backfit Rule,10CFR50.109. Upon reconsideration, the staff continues to believe that the denial of Maine Yankee's exemption request does not represent a backfit as defined in Section 50.109(a)(1)." "The staff does not believe that a claim of backfit is properly raised in the context of a licensee's request for an exemption from an otherwise applicable NRC rule."
l-u l
t Maine Yankee Discussion
+
Maine Yankee has not contested the exemption denial. N1aine Yankee did no1 claim that "the staff's denial of the Maine Yankee request for exemptions from 10 CFR 73.55(c)(3) and (7) constitutes a backfit as defined in the Backtit Rule,10CFR50.109" Reference (d)did not simply deny the subject exemption requests. The NRC plainly states in Reference (d) that "An external isolation zone is required at defueled reactor sites in order to maintain a clear area outside the walls of the spent fuel building to be used for assessing unauthorized activities concerning radiological sabotage of the spent fuel." The fundamental basis ofour backfit claim is that the NRC staff sought to impose requirements not founded in applicable regulation in addition to denial of the exemption requests.
Pursuant to NRC Manual Chapter 0514. "If the determination is that the ;wposed staff position is not a backfit, the appropriate staffoffice shall document the basis for the decision and transmit'it together with any documented evaluation required by this section to the licensee." It is our understanding fitm the February 18,1999 phone discussion with the NRC staff that the staff misunderstood the speci6cs of our backf t claim. The reasons for denial provided in Reference (h) are therefore moot. We request the NRC to send us the documented basis for denial ofour backfit claim prior to proceeding with the backfit appeal.
2.
Vehicle Barrier Backfit Claim:
The NRC staff asserted, in Reference (h). as part of the denial of Maine Yankee's exemption request from 10 CFR 73.55(c)(7) that: "Until the Commission has determined how much damage an explosive-laden vehicle could cause to the spent fuel, vehicle barriers must remain in place (to maintain the proper " standoff' distances to the spent fuel pool)." Maine Yankee asserts that this position is beyond the current regulations. The current regulations provide a change mechanism which applies to the Security Plan without prior NRC approval, i.e 10 CFR 50.54(p). To state that licensees may not use this change mechanism until the Commission conducts some research or reviews or analysis is a more restrictive position than that prescribed in the current regulations. This is especially apparent when the regulatory process which implemented the Vehicle Barrier System in the Security Plan in the Grst place was 10 CFR 50.54(p). Therefore, this position constitutes a backfit.
Furthermore, there is no regulation that states that vehicle barriers are designed "to maintain the proper " standoff" distances to the spent fuel pool", if the spent fuel pool is not a vital area. The vehicle barrier system was intended to protect vital areas. The spent fuel pool at Maine Yankee is not designated a vital area.
l NRC Response to Maine Yankee Backfit Claim for Vehicle Barrier The NRC responded to Maine Yankee's vehicle barrier backtit claim on February 3,1999 via Reference (h):
L l
l L
g t
h.
)
"In response to your request the NRC staff has reassessed whether the staff's denial of the Maine Yankee request for exemptions from 10 CFR 73.55(c)(3) and (7) constitutes a backfit as denned in the Backfit Rule.10CFR50.109. Upon reconsideration, the staff continues to believe that the denial of Maine Yankee's exemption request does not represent a backfit as
' defined in Section 50.109(a)(1)." "The staff does not believe that a claim of backfit is properly raised in the context of a licensee's request for an exemption from an otherwise applicable NRC rule "
Maine Yankee Discussion N!aine Yankee has not contested the exemption denial. Maine Yankee did aqt claim that "the staff's denial of the N!aine Yankee request for exemptions from 10 CFR 73.55(c)(3) and (7) constitutes a backfit as defined in the Backfit Rule.10CFR50.109." Reference (d) did not simply deny the subject exemption requests. The NRC plainly states in Reference (d) that "Until the Commission has detennined how much damage an explosive-laden vehicle could cause to the spent fuel, vehicle barriers must remain in place (to maintain the proper i
" standoff' distances to the spent fuel pool)." This requirement does not appear in any applicable regulation that N1aine Yankee is aware of. The fundamental basis of our backfit 4
claim is that the NRC staff sought to impose requirements not. founded in applicable regulation. It should also be noted that in their exemption denial (Reference (d)) the staff allowed that " Rearrangement of those barriers to eliminate devitalized areas will be acceptable".
Maine Yankee sought to clarify the NRC position via a phone call with the NRC staff on February IS,1999. During this discussion. Maine Yankee noted that the NRC response (Reference (h)) was unresponsive to our actual backfit claim. The staff noted that the requirement for Commission analysis was only applicable for processing an exemption request, and further, that changes to the vehicle barrier system could be made as allowable under 10CFR50.54(p)(2). It is now our understanding that the NRC was only imposing a requirement on the NRC staff and was in no way restricting a licensee's authority to make changes in accordance with 10CFR50.54(p). The staff acknowledged this position, however, the staff has thus far not clarified this understanding in writing.
- Pursuant.to NRC Manual Chapter 0514, "If the determination is that the proposed staff position is not a backfit, the appropriate staffoffice shall document the basis for the decision and transmit it together with any documented evaluation required by this section to the licensee." We request the NRC to send us documented clarification of the basis fordenial (as discussed in the previous paragraph) of our backfit claim.
In lieu of timely documentation of this basis, please process our backfit appeal.
l I'
l L
7 i
l I
ATTACHMENT 2 FEEDBACK ON BACKFIT PROCESS
~ Timeliness and Lack of Communication The timelhiess of NRC's review of our backfit claim is disappointing. Maine Yankee documented this timeliness concern in Reference (g) with respect to the prescribed expectation that a response be sent to the licensee within three weeks. To review our claim for approximately six months before j
responding is not only unresponsive but is also outside of the letter and the spirit of the NRC's procedures for evaluating backfit claims NRR Of6ce Letter No. 901, Proceduresfor Managing Plant-Specific Backfits and 10CFR50.54)) Information Requests. During the NRC review process we repeatedly requested to meet with the security staff and repeatedly requested status ofour backfit claim. We believe that both timeliness and accuracy would have been improved if the staff had q
agreed to talk to us.
l J
Insufficient Information Reference (h) contains the following statement "As stated in the June 29,1998 letter, the NRC staff l
determined that the above-mentioned exemptions requested by MYAPC were unacceptable because they failed to provide sufficient information to justify an exemption." The June 29,1998, letter contained no such statement. During the approximately six month NRC review process, the NRC staffissued no Requests for Additional Information. All verbal requests were responded to fully and I
promptly.
Inaccurate Statements in February 3 NRC Letter Reference (h) contains the following statement "This revision eliminated the isolation zones and VBS pursuant to 10CFR 50.54(p)..." This is not an accurate statement. MYAPC did not delete its VBS.
MYAPC did change the physical plant features which by analysis meet the NRC performance criteria for vehicle barriers; this does not amount to elimination.
Reference (h) states: "In response to your request, the NRC staff has reassessed whether the staff s j
denial of the Maine Yankee request for exemptions from 10CFR73.55(c)(3) & (7) constitutes a j
backfit as defined in the Backfit Rule,10CCR50.109. Upon reconsideration, the staff continues to
)
believe that the denial of Maine Yankee's exemption request does not represent a backfit as denned j
in Section 50.109(a)(1)." The staff continues with a discussion as to why the exemption process is J
not subject to 10CFR50.109. Although we disagree with the NRC logic, the whole discussion is moot. Maine Yankee did not claim that the staffs denial of the exemption requests constituted a backfit. Maine Yankee claimed that two new requirements imposed in addition to the denials constituted a backfit.
l 1
NRC Reluctance to Apply 10CFR50.109 Backfit Rule j
i The Backfit Rule ensures that for changes imposed by the NRC, that there is a substantial increase
)
in the overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security and that j
the direct and indirect costs ofimplementation for that facility arejustified in view of the increased i
protection. The NRC staff (at least in Maine Yankee's case) has been reluctant to provide any safety / cost benefit analysis for the new requirements they are imposing and rather spends their resources arguing the applicability of 10CFR50.109. Risk-infomled regulation, reviews, and decisions will never become reality (as directed by the Commissioners) if the staffcontinues to refuse j
to determine and/or discuss the potential safety benefits and costs associated with changes (i.e.
~
implement th'e Backfit Rule),
i J