DD-96-23, Informs That on 961226,NRC Issued Partial Director'S Decision DD-96-23,in Response to Petition Submitted,Per 10CFR2.206,on 950821

Informs That on 961226,NRC Issued Partial Director'S Decision DD-96-23,in Response to Petition Submitted,Per 10CFR2.206,on 950821

ML20196K333
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	07/01/1999
From:	John Nakoski NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Hadley E AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
2.206, DD-96-23, NUDOCS 9907080287
Download: ML20196K333 (9)

Text

F ,,

t gpn C'%

! oe k UNITED STATES

{ ,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i 2 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001

\*****/ July 1, 1999 i

Ernest C.' Hadley, Esq.

1040 B Main Street I l P.O. Box 549 l West Wareham, MA 02576

Dear Mr. Hadley:

l On December 26,1996, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a Partial )

Director's Cacision (DD-96-23) in response to a Petition you submitted pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10cf the Code of Federal Reaulations (10 CFR 2.206), on August 21,1995. The Petition was submitted on behalf of Mr. George Galatis and We the People, Inc. (the Petitioners), and a supplement to that Petition was submitted on August 28,1995.

The Petitioners requested that the NRC (1) institute a proceeding under 10 CFR 2.202 to suspend the license for the Millstone Unit 1 facility operated by Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO or the licensee) for a period of 60 days after the unit is brought into

. compliance with the license and the design basis; (2) revoke the operating license until the facility is in full compliance with the terms and conditions of its license; (3) perform a detailed independent analysis of the offsite dose consequences of the total loss of spent fuel pool water; and (4) take enforcement action pursuant to 10 CFR 50.5 and 50.9. As grounds for these requests, the Petitionere listed thrce issues. First, the Petitioners asserted that the licensee  ;

has knowingly, willingly, and flagrantly operated Millstone Unit 1 in violation of License '

Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. Second, the Petitioners asserted that License Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 for Millstone Unit 1 are based on material false statements made by the licensee in documents submittod to the NRC. And third, the Petitioners asserted that the license amendment proposed in a letter dated July 28,1995, should be denied and the licensee

. should be required to operate in full conformance with License Amendment No. 40.

In the supplement to the Petition dated August 28,1995, the Petitioners made additional assertions in support of their first and third issues. Specifically, the Petitioners asserted that (1) l- Millstone Units 2 and 3, and Seabrook were operated in violation of their licenses by offloading

! fuel to the respective spent fuel pools contrary M applicable license requirements; (2) at t l Millstone Ura 3 there is a material false stater, ,t in a previous license amendment submittal and there is an unanalyzed condition in the licensing basis regarding system piping; and (3) at Seabrook there is a license violation regarding the spent fuel pool criticality analysis.

0 i

l The NRC acknowledged receipt of the Petition in a letter dated October 26,1995. In the ,

, acknowledgment letter, the NRC staff informed you that the Petitioners' third issue was not .p

j. within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206. Therefore, this issue would not be addressed in the

' Director's Decision. The supplementalletter of August 28,1995, contained in part, assertions T)'

relating to the third issue. As this issue is outside the scope of 10 CFR 2.206, the NRC staff -

also stated that these assertions would not be addressed in the Director's Decision. However, as committed to !n the Partial Director's Decision, the NRC staff stated that the assertions yg 9907080287 990701 PDR ADOCK 050M245 O + DR a

E 4 p

E. Hadley would be addressed separately. This letter forwards the NRC staff's findings regarding the -

issues identified in the Petitioners' August 28,1995, supplement to the Petition that were considered outside the scope of the Petition.

Petitioners' Assertions and Staff Findings:

l Assertion 1 and 2: At Millstone Unit 3 there is a material false statement in a submission used l to support a previous license amendment and there is an unanalyzed condition in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) regarding system piping not analyzed for the full-core offload normal end-of-cycle event.

, . Based on the NRC staff's review of the licensee's submittal (dated November 30,1990) to support Amendment No. 60 (issued March 11,1991) to the Millstone Unit 3 license, the staff l' found that the licensee had performed piping stress analyses for the Millstone Unit 3 spent fuel pool cooling system piping for temperatures of 140 *F. These analyses support that under normal refueling cunditions, which the licensee defined as one refueling load core (half the core i

which equates to 93 fuel assemblies) transferred from the reactor vessel to the spent fuel pool i starting 11 days after uhutdown, maximum spent fuel pool temperature would not exceed I 140 *F as suming a single failure. In the submittal the licensee riso defined an end-of-cycle full  !

i

- core offload as one full core (186 fuel assemblies) transferred from the reactor vessel to the spent fuel pool starting 11 days after shutdown. In the submittal and Final Safety Analysis Report (Chapter 9.1.3), the licensee notes that a maximum of six full core offloads are assumed i to occur over the life of the plant.  !

In the November 30,1990, submittal, the licensee made clear its position that "end of cycle full core offload" was considered an emergency event with respect to the design basis analysis.

Specifically, on Page 2 of Attachment 2, the licensee states that "a full core discharge is  ;

considered an emergency event with respect to the design basis analysis." If the full core )

offload had been classified as a " normal" event, then there would appear to be no question that piping stress analyses would be required for the higher temperature (per NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants).

However, in the November 30,1990, submittal, the licensee also stated that if it decided to continue the practice of offloading the entire core during refueling outages, then additional p;pe stress. analyses would be performed and the full core offload would be defined as a " normal" event with respect to dec;gn basis analysis. The licensee further stated that it would conduct these analyses prior to exceeding the current design basis assumption of six full core offloads over the life of the plant. Since six full core offloads over the life of the plant is a design-basis

" assumption, the licensee will have to change its design basis prior to the seventh full core offload in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 (assuming the licensee could meet the requirements) or by requesting a licerise amendment.

As noted in Director's Decision 96-23, dated December 26,1996, the staff did not object to the licensee's use of up to six full core offloads when Amendment No. 60 was issued. The licensee has.since formally requested NRC staff review and approval for conducting full core offloads as their normal end-of-cycle practice. The staff is currently reviewing the licensee's proposal.

. 1 l

E. Hadley Based on this information, the staff determined that the licensee did not make material false statements in the license amendment submittal regarding pipe stress analyses. The staff also determined that the pipe stress analyses performed by the licensee were appropriate and bounded its offlosd practices at Millstone Unit 3.

Assertion 3: There are Technical Specification (TS) violations related to the criticality analysis and gaps in Boraflex material at Seabrook.

j i

Seabrook TS 3.9.13, Figure 3.9-1, specifies the al!owable placement of spent fuel in the spent )

fuel storage racks as a function of both initial fuel enrichment and fuel burnup. The analyses supporting TS 3.9.13 demonstrate that the restrictions on placement of fuel assemblies ensure that there is sufficient margin to criticality assuming the pool is flooded with unborated water.

The restrictions and the action statement are consistent with the criticality analysis performed for the spent fuel pool as documented in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)

Section 9.1.2.3.

For new fuel, TS 3.9.14 specifies the number of unirradiated fuel assemblies that may be stored in the new fuel storage vault as a function of fuel enrichment. The Bases for TS 3.9.14 state that the restrictions on placement of fuel assemblies of certain enrichments within the new fuel storage vault ensure there is sufficient margin to criticality assuming the area is flooded with unborated water. The restrictions and the action statement are consistent with the criticality analysis performed for the new fuel storage vault as documented in the UFSAR Section 9.1.1.3.

In addition. TS 5.6.1.1 and 5.6.1.2 identify design features of the spent fuel and new fuel storage racks. These TS hava been effective since August 27,1991, when Amendment No. 6 authorized increasing the allowable maximum fuel enrichment of reload fuel assemblies to 5.0 weight percent Uranium-235 from the previously existing limit of 3.5 weight percent. The licensee included a criticality analysis (YAEC-17 m) in its March 18,1991, application for this amendment. Revision 1 to UFSAR, Section 9.1.2.3, describes this revised criticality analysis for the spent fuel racks. In YAEC-1778, the licensee evaluated the effect upon criticality of Boraflex shrinkage and included these effects in the determination of the alluwable loading configurations for spent fuel in the storage racks. The licensee also performed an assessrnent of spent fuel pool criticality assuming in-line and in-lane gaps in the Boraflex panels and j Boraflex thinning. This assessment demonstrated compliance with the TS requirement.s.

{

The licensee maintains a Boraflex surveillance program to monitor for degradation of the Boraflex panels. This program is controlled by procedure and incorporates the recommendation of the Electric Power Research Institute. Thus far, the results of this program find that shrinkage is less than the assumptions of the criticality analysis.

Based on this information, the staff determined: (1) that the licensee conforms to the TS requirements that ensure compliance with the criticality analysis for Seabrook, and (2) that ,

although Boraflex degradation is an industry concern requiring continued attention, there is no i regulatory compliance problem at Seabrook regarding Boraflex degradation including shrinkage l or cracks.

I i

\

i

( l E. Hadley 1 l'

I would also like to inform you that I have been assigned as the Petition Manager for this

Petition. I expect the Final Director's Decision to be issued shortly fbvi=a contact me at (301) 4151278 if you have any questions regarding this letter or the status of your Petition.

Sincerely, i

k' bQ hn A. Nakoski, Sr. Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate i Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See next page I

1 l

i

i

~ Millstons Nuclear Power Station '

Unit 3. .

1 cc: 1 Ms. L. M. Cuoco ' Mr. F. C. Rothen Senior Nuclear Counsel Vice President - Operations l Northeast Utilities Service Company Northeast Utilities Service Company P. O. Box 270 P. O. Box 128 Hartford, CT 06141-0270 Waterford, CT 06385 Edward L. Wilds, Jr., Ph.D. Ernest C. Hadley, Esquire Director, Division of Radiation 1040 3 Main Street i Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 549 I 79 Elm Street West Wareham, MA 02576 Hartford, CT 06106-5127 Mr. James S. Robinson, Manager  ;

Regional Administrator, Region l Nuclear investments and Administration i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New England Power Company 475 Allendale Road 25 Research Drive King of Prussia, PA 19406 Westborough, MA 01582 First Selectmen Mr. R. P. Necci Town of Waterford' Vice President - Nuclear Oversight and 15 Rope Ferry Road Regulatory Affairs Waterford, CT 06385 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company

~

P. O. Box 128 Mr. Wayne D. Lanning, Director Waterford, CT 06385 Millstone inspections Office of the Regional Administrator Deborah Katz, President 475 Allendale Road Citizens Awareness Network King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 P.O. Box 83 Shelburne Falls, MA 03170 Mr. M. H. Brothers Vice President - Operations Mr. Allan Johanaon, Assistant Director i Northeast Nuclear Energy Company OMice of Policy and Management P.O. Box 128 Policy Development and Planning Waterford, CT 06385 Division 450 Capitol Avenue - MS# 52ERN Mr. M. R. Scully, Executive Director P. O. Box 341441 Connecticut Municipal Electric Hartford, CT 06134-1441 i Energy Cooperative '

30 Stott Avenue Ms. Terry Concannon Norwich, CT 06360 Co-Chair Nuclear Energy Adviary Council Mr. J. T. Carlin Room 4100 Vice President - Human Services Legislative Office Building Northeast Utilities Service Company Capitol Avenue

- P. O. Box 12e Hartford, CT 06106 Waterford, CT 06385

~

1 l l Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 3 cc:

Citizens Regulatory Commission "Ar. Evan W. Woollacott ATTN: Ms. Susan Peny Luxton Co-Chair 180 Great Neck Road Nuclear Energy Advisory Council Waterford, CT 06385 128 Terry's Plain Road Simsbury, CT 06070 Mr. William D. Meinert Nuclear Engineer Mr. John W. Beck, President Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Linie Harbor Consultants, Inc. Electric Company Millstone -ITPOP Project Office P.O. Box 426 P.O. Box 0630 Ludlow, MA 01056 Niantic, CT 06357-0630 Mr. B. D. Kenyon Mr. L. J. Olivier President and Chief Executive Officer-Senior Vice President and Nuclear Group j Chief Nuclear Officer - Millstone Northeast Utilities Service Company 4 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P.O. Box 128 P.O. Box 128 Waterford, CT 06385 Wateriord, CT 06385 Mr. D. B. Amerine Mr. C. J. Schwarz Vice President - Engineering Services Director - Unit 3 Operations Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P. O. Box 128 P.O. Box 128 Waterford, CT 06385 l Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. D. A. Smith Senior Resident inspector Manager - Regulatory Affairs Millstone Nuclear Power Station Northeast Nuclear Energy Company c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 128 P. O. Box 513 Waterford, CT 06385  ;

Niantic, CT 06357 l Ms. Nancy Burton Nicholas J. Scobbo, Jr., Esquire 147 Cross Highway l Ferriter, Scobbo, Caruso, & Rodophele, P.C. Redding Ridge, CT 00870 1 75 State Street,7th Floor Boston, MA 0210 i

i

Seabrook Station, Unit No.1 cc:

Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq. Mr. Peter LaPorte, Director Senior Nuclear Counsel ATTN: James Muckerheide Northeast Utilities Service Company Massachusetts Emergency Management P.O. Box 270 Agency Hartford, CT 06141-0270 400 Worcester Road -

P.O. Box 1496 Mr. Peter Brann Framingham, MA 01701-0317 Assistant Attorney General State House, Station #6 Philip T. McLaughlin, Attorney General Augusta, ME 04333 Steven M. Houran, Deputy Attorney General Resident inspector 33 Capitol Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Concord, NH 03301 Seabrook Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 1149 Mr. Woodbury Fogg, Director Seabrook, NH 03874 New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management Jane Spector State Office Park South Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 107 Pleasant Street 825 North Capital Street, N.E. Concord, NH 03301 Room 6105 Washington. DC 2042F Mr. Roy E. Hickok Nuclear Training Manager Town of Exeter Seabrook Station 10 Front Street North Atlantic Energy Service Corp.

Exeter, NH 03823 P.O. Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874 Regional Administrator, Region i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. James M. Peschel 475 Allendale Road Manager of Regulatory Compliance King of Prussia, PA 19406 Seabrook Station North Atlantic Energy Service Corp.

Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 300 One Ashburton Place Seabrook, NH 03874 20th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Mr. W. A. DiProfio Station Director Board of Selectmen Seabrook Station Town of Amesbury North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation Town Hall P.O. Box 300 Amesbury, MA 01913 Seabrook, NH 03874 Mr. Dan McEthinaey Mr. Frank W. Getman, Jr.

Federal Emergency Management Agency 20 International Drive Region i Suite 301 J.W. McCormack P.O. & Portsmouth, Mrl 03801-6809 Courthouse Building, Room 401 Doston, MA 02109

)

L

l l

l. )

l 2--

Mr. 3. D. Kenyon President - Nuclear Group i

Northeast Utilities Service Group ,

P.O. Box 128

. Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. Ted C. Feigenbaum Executive Vice President and 4 Chief Nuclear Officer  !

Seabrook Station North Atlantic IEnergy Service Corporation {

l c/o James M. Peschel P.O. Box 300 '

i Seabrook, NH 03874 - l 1

Mr. David E. Carnere Director, Production Services Canal Electric Company 2421 Crenberry Highway Warehar.), MA 02571 Mr. David A. Lochbaum l Nuclear Safety Engineer Union of Concerned Scientists 1616 P Street, NV1, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-1495 4

1a i-A*'

I. ..

N

/

E. Hadley I would also like to inform you that I have been assigned as the Petition Manager for this Petition. I expect the Final Director's Decision to be issued shortly. Please contact me at (301) 415-1278 if you have any questions regarding this letter or the status of your Petition.

Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY: J. Andersen John A. Nakoski, Sr. Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate l Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION t Docket Filen JAndersen JNakoski EAdensam (EGA1)

PUBLIC TClark JClifford ACRS PDI-2 Reading OGC JLinville, RGN-l l

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\PDl-2\ millstone 3\hadley.wpd OFFICE PDI-2/PM ,

PDI-2/PIl PDI-2/LM PD[Gh,[

NAME JNakoski:r JAndeb TCla JClkfor ,., l DATE 1/ I /99 [d /N/99 I?/3/99 k /99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY u j