ML17334A718
| ML17334A718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1998 |
| From: | Stang J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9806040026 | |
| Download: ML17334A718 (14) | |
Text
i
~S REGII
~o Cy O
r~
0 Yg
+G
~O
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIVIISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 June 1,
1998 LICENSEE:
American Electric Power FACILITY:
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF JANUARY 12, 1998, MEETING WITH THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS ON SAFETY ISSUES AFFECTING THE D.C.
COOK FACILITY On January 12, 1998, NRC staff members met in Rockville, Maryland, with representatives of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The purpose of the meeting was for UCS to present issues of potential safety significance related to the D.C. Cook facility. A list of the meeting participants is attached.
The staff made brief opening remarks noting that this was a public meeting with the purpose of allowing the representative from UCS to present safety concerns related to D.C. Cook and not a public hearing as described in Manual Directive 8.11, which would have entailed a period for licensee responses to the issues.
The licensee representatives at the meeting were not expected to respond to the issues at this time. After these remarks, the floor was tumed over to David Lochbaum of UCS.
Mr. Lochbaum opened his presentation with a discussion of the 2.206 process.
He rioted that he had submitted his petition related to D.C. Cook 3 months ago, and to date had only received a brief letter acknowledging its receipt.
He believed that he had attended the only hearing that had ever been granted and that hearing was for the Millstone facilityonly after that petitioner had been featured on the cover of Newsweek.
He believed that the 2.206 process was broken and the recent revision to the process had not helped.
The process should be fixed or eliminated.
He stated that declining licensee performance had paralleled the poor 2.206 process.
He also stated that all phone calls related to his petition had been originated by him.
He summarized the NRC inspection process as the inspectors detecting problems, the owners fixing the problem, and the NRC reinspecting.
Then, ifthings are different, the NRC considers the situation OK. But is it really' Mr. Lochbaum stated that he had six safety issues to present.
Lacking the 10-day notice which would have preceded a hearing, he had not had time to prepare his issues in a written format.
The issues were:
(1)
Ice Condenser Containment The Office ofthe Inspector General (OIG) had information on problems involving ice baskets and ice bay doors at Watts Bar. The OIG contact was George Mulley. The problem was known but not reported by the vendor or the licensees.
Cook had submitted a recent amendment on the ice quantity in their ice condenser but made no report on the effect of the Watts Bar issues on their facility.
Q 9806040026 98060i pDR moocah osooosxs P
'DR
k (2)
Cook 50.59 Process Problems The NRC presented in the design inspection report that the licensee's 50.59 process had problems.
There is no evidence that the licensee looked at old 50.59s for problems..
At several facilities where he had worked, 50.59 process problems had been identified and a full review of all old 50.59s was done.
He asked whether a bad process caused bad products at D.C. Cook and whether an assessment of this issue had been performed.
Suspect Engineering Calculations The licensee's December 24, 1997, letter responding to the NRC Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) discussed the problems with calculations and the review performed.
One hundred and ninety-one calculations received a peer review. However, most of those calculations, 171, were reviewed to resolve the design inspection issues, and the 20 additional calculations covered seven safety systems.
Is the NRC satisfied with the extent of the assessment performed and why?
(4)
Engineering Calculation Allegation He had received an allegation regarding net positive suction head (NPSH) calculations for D.C. Cook. Specifically issues regarding inaccurate and missing calculations.
Do the safety-related pumps at Cook meet NRC standards'?
(5)
Credibility'fAEP 50.54f Response The licensee performed a major review effort which identified no major problems in the systems examined.
Subsequently the NRC design inspection identified issues which required the units to shut down and to remain down for several months. The licensee has applied less effort to examining the programmatic breakdowns which allowed the problems to occur than in their prior design review. Why is the lesser effort to address the CAL acceptable when the prior large review was ineffective?
NRC Inspection Process The NRC design inspection looked at only two systems and found multiple issues.
The licensee's subsequent review determined that problems were confined to these two systems.
Similar statements were made by the Maine Yankee and Vermont Yankee licensee after NRC inspections at those facilities. Is the NRC really that "lucky"'? An NRC finding indicates both a non-conforming condition and a possible programmatic breakdown.
The NRC should develop criteria for expanding the sample size of inspections when the findings warrant it.
He concluded by stating that the NRC design inspection indicated serious programmatic breakdowns at the Cook facility. He did not expect that his petition would be granted..He would be monitoring the licensee's operation and NRC inspections subsequent to restart, and if
an item is identified that should have been identified as part of the design inspection response, he would bring it to our attention.
When an NRC staff member informed Mr. Lochbaum that we would be addressing his fourth issue as part of our allegation process, he expressed concerns with our allegation process.
He stated that the 2.206 and the allegation processes were competing for which was worse.
However, he agreed to provide further details on the issue to the staff subsequent to the public meeting.
At this point the meeting was concluded.
J hn F. Stang, Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316
Attachment:
List of Meeting Participants ccw/att: See next page
I
E. E. Fitzpatrick Indiana Michigan Power Company Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 CC:
Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532%351 Attorney General Department ofAttorney General 525 West Ottawa Street Lansing, Ml 48913 Township Supervisor Lake Township Hall P.O. Box 818 Bridgman, Ml 49106 Al Blind, Site Vice President Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 1 Cook Place Bridgman, MI 49106 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office 7700 Red Arrow Highway Stevensville, Ml 49127 Gerald Charnoff, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20037 Mayor, City of Bridgman P.O. Box 366 Bridgman, Ml 49106 Special Assistant to the Governor Room 1 - State Capitol Lansing, MI 48909 Drinking Water and Radiological Protection Division Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 3423 N. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd P.O. Box 30630 CPH.Mailroom Lansing, MI 48909-8130 Steve J. Brewer Indiana Michigan Power Company Nuclear Generation Group 500 Circle Drive Buchanan, Ml 49107 David A. Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists 1616 P Street NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-1495
MEETINGATTENDEES NRC AND UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS DISCUSSION OF SAFETY ISSUES AFFECTING D.C. COOK JANUARY 12, 1998 Elinor Adensam Richard Savio John Hickman Richard Lobel Richard Hoefling Tom Hiltz Glenn Tracy Jack Kudrick U 'of n
d cie ists David A. Lochbaum erican E ctric Power Steve Brewer Brenda Kovarik Jeremy Euto
. Robert Henry (Fauske 8 Associates, Inc.)
Liane Kucher uce Attachment
t
s s June 1,
1998 an item is identified that should have been identified as part of the design inspection response, he would bring it to our attention.
When an NRC,staff member informed Mr. Lochbaum that we would be addressing his fourth issue as part of our allegation process, he expressed concerns with our allegation process.
He stated that the 2.206 and the allegation processes were competing for which was worse.
However, he agreed to provide further details on the issue to the staff subsequent to the public meeting.
Atthis point the meeting was concluded.
l Original signed by:
John F. Stang, Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316
Attachment:
List of Meeting Participants ccw/att: See next page lKElTltN: s s s DOCUMENT NAME: G:iDCCOOKic0011298.MTS OFFICE PD3-3:PM E
PD3-3:LA E
NAME DATE JStang 5/.
98 EBarnhill 5/g /98 OFFICIALRECORD COPY
II 4w V
June 1,
1998 an item is identified that should have been identified as part of the design inspection response, he would bring it to our attention.
When an NRC staff member informed Mr. Lochbaum that we would be addressing his fourth issue as part of our allegation process, he expressed concerns with our allegation process.
He stated that the 2.206 and the allegation processes were competing for which was worse.
However, he agreed to provide further details on the issue to the staff subsequent to the public meeting.
At this point the meeting was concluded.
Original signed by:
John F. Stang, Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316
Attachment:
List of Meeting Participants ccw/att: See next page DOCUMENT NAME: G:)DCCOOK>CO011298.MTS OFFICE PD3-3:PM E
PD3-3:LA E
NAME DATE JStang 5/
98 EBarnhill 5/g ~ /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION FOR
SUMMARY
OF JANUARY 12, 1998, MEETING WITH UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS thEddg.'ocket File PD III-3 Reading
SCollins (SJC1)
FMiraglia (FJM)
GTracy (GMT)
THiltz (TGH)
RZimmerman (RPZ)
EAdensam (EGA1)
RSavio (RPS1)
RBellamy RHoefling (RKH)
TMartin (SLM3)
RLobel (RML)
=
JKudrick (JAK1)
I