ML20247E343

Discusses 890227 Submittal Re Agreement Between Commonwealth of PA & Util Concerning Plant.Concerns Raised That Some Agreements Inconsistent W/Nrc Regulations.Meeting to Resolve Inconsistencies Suggested

ML20247E343
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	03/29/1989
From:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Davis A, Corbin McNeil PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC, PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
Shared Package
ML20247E348	List: ML20247E343 ML20247E349
References
NUDOCS 8904030035
Download: ML20247E343 (3)

Text

C. m k3 Hg o UNITED STATES -

g 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

.j wAsHmcTow. o. c.2oses q

\*****/ MAR 2 91989 The Honorable Arthur A. Davis Secretary of Environmental

. Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Post Office Box 2063 - .

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 l 4

Mr. C. A. McNeill, Jr.

Executive Vice President-Nuclear Philadelphia Electric Company Correspondence Control Desk Post Office Box 7520 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101

Dear Messrs. Davis ar.d McNeill:

We have received your letter of February 27, 1989, addressed to William T.

Russell, Regional Administrator, with its three enclosures, dealing with an' agreement between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia l Electric Company (PECo) in regard to the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. l You indicated that the enclosures reflect the agreements arrived at between the 1 Commonwealth and PEco and that they were being submitted to the NRC for approval.

In your letter, you indicated that the agreement would represent a negotiated settlement for " resolving several Peach Bottom-related restart issues raised by the Consnonwealth as well as Peach Bottom-related litigation which has been initiated by the Commonwealth." Although negotiated settlements may be the most desirable approach in many cases, such settlements must be consistent with the regulatory process through which the NRC operates. Accordingly, there are aspects of the proposed agreement which should be modified before NRC can fully agree with it.

The general concerns that we have developed as a result of our review of your agreement documents stem from some provisions that are inconsistent with certain regulatory requirements. For instance, additions and changes to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) contemplated in the agreement must be made by PECo in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 and 50.71. However.

Exhibit A. Sections Q.15 and Q.16, imposes criteria that are not compatible with these regulations. Accordingly, these sections should be deleted. In addition, some of the items suggested as Technical Specification submittals may not meet

, the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36 and the NRC policy on Technical Specification Improvements for appropriate content and therefore may not be approved by the NRC.

l Two other concerns warrant special mention. First, the agreement calls for unusual NRC involvement in enforcement of the tems of the agreement. It should be changed to remove NRC involvement. We inspect individual PECo Technical Specifications, FSAR consnitments,10 CFR 50.59 changes and administrative procedures through our nomal inspection program, which places emphasis on those which are most safety significant, and take appropriate 8904030035 890329 7 A DR ADOCK 0500 h

. i

~

'd -

, l 1

The Honorable Arthur A. Davis Mr. C.-A. McNeill enforcement action for violations of NRC requirements in accordance with the Comission's enforcement policy. Secondly, to the extent that the Commonwealth as a result of its review of INPO documents forwards comments to NRC for. review, such documents should be simultaneously provided to the NRC and may become part.

of the public record.

We of course support the intent of the agreement consistent with our rules and responsibilities. We therefore suggest that we meet with you at the earliest opportunity to provide further clarification of our concerns.

l Sincerely.

Original signed by Thoman E. Marley Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

l l

1 h

k

[ DAVIS LTR2] ,

• See Previous Concurrence 1

• PDI-2/PM *PDI-2/D *0GC *ADRI/II *DRPI/II:(A)D l RMartin:mr BBoger Glainas 03/16/89 WButler 03/17/8) / / /89 03/17/89 03/17/89 RI* NRR:DD Ji4N( ED0kT WTRussell JSniezek T$urhey VStel lo 03/22/89 89 / /89 )/%T/89 3/p'89 l

- - _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ __ i

r

-i R

. . . I ...* J 2

1 1

g DISTRIBilTION

$$kN!Fif0-NRC PDR Local PDR EDO #0004301 EDO Reading TMurley JSniezek SVarga.-

PDI-2 Reading Glainas BBoger OGC VStello DNossburg, PMAS (ED0 #0004301) w/cy of incoming Beverly Clayton RMartin w/cy of incoming M0'Brien JTaylor HThompson JBlaha WRussell, RI JScinto, OGC~

FMiraglia DCrutchfield FGillespie l

u m.-._____ __m_ _ - _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ . _