ML20216J238

Responds to Re Enforcement Discretion for Nuclear Plants During Y2K Transition.Nrc Expects All Licensees to Operate Nuclear Facilities Safety IAW NRC Regulations & Requirements

ML20216J238
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/30/1999
From:	Wessman R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Morse M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
NUDOCS 9910040250
Download: ML20216J238 (3)

Text

&M%

g 4 UNITED STATES

" j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

%... September 30, 1999 Ms. Macy Morse  ;

115 Market Street, No. 2 Portsmouth, NH 03801 .

i

SUBJECT:

REPL" 10 AUGUST 16,1999, LETTER TO DAVID MEYER, OFFICE OF ADMIN.S vnnTION, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Dear Ms. Morse:

I am responding to yourletter dated August 16,1999, to David L. Meyar of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Office of Administration. Your lette r provided comments on the NRC's interim enforcement policy regarding enforcement discretion for nuclear plants during the Yoar 2000 transition. You specifically urged the NRC to take enforcement actions such that th6 Seabrook Station operation complies with its technical specifications (TS) and other regulatory requirements.

The NRC expects all licensees to operate their nuclear facilities safely in accordance with the NRC's regulations and requirements, including the facility's TS. When a licensee fails to comply with the license requirements, the NRC evaluates the noncompliance in accordance with its Enforcement Policy to determine appropriate enforcement action. In rare instances, licensees may be unable to comply with specific license conditions. Literal compliance with the TS in these unanticipated situations may involve undesirable plant transients and forced compliance with the TS may not be in the best interest of overall public health and safety. In these limited circumstances, the NRC's Enforcement Policy provides for granting a specific type of enforcement discretion called a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) to allow a facility to continue to operate in non-compliance with its TS for a short period of time, in the past, the NRC granted and,in the future, expects to grant an NOED infrequently. Granting of an NOED does I not, however, limit the NRC from taking subsequent enforcement action as appropdate for the circumstances. Please be assured that the NRC would grant an NOED only when it is clearly satisfied that its action is consistent with protecting the public health and safety.

With respect to Y2K-related issues, the NRC is actively working with the industry groups and licensees to assure that Y2K-related issues affecting US nuclear power plants are identified and corrected well before December 31,1999. The NRC and licensees have developed contingency plans to ensure that nuclear f acilities would continue to operate in a safe manner during the Y2K transition periods. Although the need should be unlikely, the NRC has developed the Interim b Enforcement Policy for addressing potential Y2K-related contingencies. Licensees are also implementing appropriate actions to preve nt Y2K-related events. As part of its Y2K contingency plan, the NRC's Interim Enforcement Policy pvides for granting an NOED to allow continued operation when, despite licensees' best efforts, nelear facilities face Y2K-related issues involving very little risk but resulting in potential noncompliance with the license and requiring p\ gA -

shutdown. Such NRC actions may be necessary to prevent potentiallocalized or widespread y power outages that may have short- and long-term consequences. Accordingly, continued safe operation of nuclear power plants during critical Y2K periods may be necessary for maintaining stable and reliable electrical power. When the NRC determines that plant safety will not be unacceptably affected by exercising the discretion, it may grant an NOED. The NRC would grant an NOED only when it is clearly satisfied that its action is consistent with the agency's mission to protect public health and safety. gG. / 9 9910040250 990930 nm. pyr' " 3 4 ' l' PDR ADOCK 05000443 @$gfy h M5

F '

PDR

Macy Morse September 30, 1999 You also specifically referred to the Seabrook Station. This licensee has reported that Seabrook was Y2K ready prior to July 1,1999. Seabrook Y2K activities have been in accordance with the NRC's approved industry guidelines, as verified during an NRC on-site review.

- The NRC routinely inspects and audits facilities to ensure that licensees operate their facilities s afely in compliance with NRC's requirements. Also, the NRC periodically conducts plant performance reviews (PPRs) for all operating nuclear power plants to develop an integrated l understanding of safety performance. Recently, the staff conducted such a PPR at Seabrook covering the period of April 1998 to January 15,1999, and found overall performance at Seabrook to be acceptable. The results of our review is documented in our letter to the licensee dated April 9,1999.

I trust that you will find the above information responsive to your letter. Should you have any questions or comments regarding these matters, please call me toll-free at 1-800-368-5642.

Sincerely, Original signed by:

Richard H. Wessman, Deputy Director Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION: ICentrab 85 W URRM R E L yu w6o _w Seabrook r/f AHansen DMeyer RWessman LRaghavan Public Document Name:

OFFICE PM:DLPM LA:DLPM c PM.PD-1/2 PD:PD-l DD:DE, C' NAME LRaghavan b [Tf JHarrison N V RlNman DATE  % /'35 /1999 f/}# /99 i /23/1999 #l /L8/1999 9/P /1999 Official Record Copy g'3 1 -

L

Macy Morse You also specifically referred to the Seabrook Station. This licensee has reported that Seabrook was Y2K ready prior to July 1,1999. Seabrook Y2K activities have been in accordance with the NRC's approved industry guidelines, as verified during an NRC on-site review.

The NRC routinely inspects and audits facilities to ensure that licensees operate their facilities I safely in compliance with NRC's requirements. Also, the NRC periodica.lly conducts plant performance reviews (PPRs) for all operating nuclear power plants to develop an integrated understanding of safety pedormance. Recently, the staff conducted such a PPR at Seabrook covering the period of April 1998 to January 15,1999, and found overall pedormance at Seabrook to be acceptable. The results of our review is documented in our letter to the licensee dated April 9,1999.

I trust that you will find the above information responsive to your letter. Should you have any questions or comments regarding these matters, please call me toll-free at 1-800-368-5642.

Sincerely,

'E'. R .

Richard H. Wessman, Deputy Director Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

i l

F J

1

)