NRC-92-0025, Comment Endorsing Comments Made by NUMARC on Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Policy & Procedure for Enforcement Actions

Comment Endorsing Comments Made by NUMARC on Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Policy & Procedure for Enforcement Actions

ML20096D532
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	05/05/1992
From:	Orser W DETROIT EDISON CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
CON-NRC-92-0025, CON-NRC-92-25, FRN-57FR5791, RULE-PR-2 57FR5791-00015, 57FR5791-15, NUDOCS 9205180093
Download: ML20096D532 (2)

Text

. - _ - _ - _ _ - _ - - _ _ _

l , -

1 O

~2 *" ""

aju' (97 F TL F79/)

. .,.,s.

r c-De,t.tolt uxem o .4 e rw

'u sc tC lSOn 'm%W"""" 30 Cr8 eart 2, y,ci,w o-92 MY 11 P3 :15 Appendix C May 5, 1992

/$

[_ + Af

., WRC-92-0025 The Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washsngton, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

References:

1) Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 G C License No. NPF-43

2) Policy and Procedure for Enforcement Actions; Policy Statement Revision (Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 32, cated Tuesday, February 18, 1992)

Subject:

Detroit Edison's Comments on the Policy Statement Revision Regarding Policy and Procedure for Enforcement Actil s _

Detroit Edison is encouraget to see the changes in the Policy Statement for Fnforcement A:.lons. Tu purpose of this actinn is to update and clarjf,v the Enforcement Policy so that it is easier to use and understand. The NRC is now doct.menting a number of provisions for enforcement discretion that have, in fact, been in practice for nome numbt.r of years. This will continue to encourage licensees to ideatify and carrect ilolaticns in a timely and effective inanner.

After reviewing the revisions of this Policy Statement, Detroit Edison agrees witn most of the revisions to the Policy Statement. Those portions with which Detroit Edison does not agr.ne are discussed in the NUMARC response which Detroit Edison endorses.

Detrcil Edison is particularly concerned about the significant changes that would tppear to allow the NRC staff t.o take escalated enforcement actic"S on the basis of subjective concerns or their desire to " send a mesu.p", rather than on the basis of safety significance or violatith ci specific regulatory requirements. The supplements to the Policy Statement contain examples of severity level violations that would have the effect of creating new requirement.s even thot.gh it is stated that this !": not the intent. Some revised c w is are no longer clearly tied to legally binding requirements. .. .) example of this is example C.2 in Supplement 1 - Heactor Operations discussed below.

92051000Y3 PDR PR 920505 I l

k 57FR5791 PDR 7)h/C

9 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory ConvDission May 5, 1992 WRC-92-0025 Page 2 Example C.2 in Supplement I baa been expanded to includo systems where a component parameter may be out. of specificat. ion and the system is no longer " intuitively operabic," e.ta though an analysis demonstrates the system was, in fact, capable of fulfilling its screty function, and pub 11? health and safety wert> in no way jeopardized. This example appears I/ be contrary to the intent of Generic Letter 91-18 which r mcognizu the potential r.oed for a thorough analysis to support, cperability determinations in son.i situations. This may also tend to

'Uscourage conservative calls of inoperability by the plant staff since ouch a call could now be considered a Severity Level III violat10.1 despite the results of an engineering analysis. Detroit.

Edi:on strongly reconsends the deletion of this example and a rnturn to the previous policy that focused on the actual safet,y significance of a degraded system.

Detroit, Edison appreciates the opportunity to comment on the revised policy statement anc: if you have any questions, please contact. Hr.

Joseph H. Pendergast., Compliance Engineer, at (313) 586-1682.

Sincerely, Il ue: T. G. Colburn A. B. Davis H. P. Phillips S. Stasek Region III

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - -