ML18038A310
| ML18038A310 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1990 |
| From: | Pooler R ATLANTIC STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC. |
| To: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18038A309 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9008030026 | |
| Download: ML18038A310 (6) | |
Text
A'TLAIMll'III QWl'ES LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC.
July 26'990 Chair Kenneth Carr Commissioner Kenneth Rogers Commissioner Forrest Remick Commissioner James Curtiss U.S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashington, D.C.
20555 In Regard to Nine Mile Point Unit 1
Dear Chair Carr and Commissioners:
I have your response to my letter of May 14, 1990.
Your
- letter, and the staff response enclosed raises as many questions as it answers.
My clients,'n unincorporated association of Central New Yorkers called Retire Nine Mile 1, understand that the Commission would not be considering restart without first fully evaluating the health and safety implications of that restart and the questions to which we have demanded answers must have been considered as part of your health and safety evalua-tion.
1.
The Staff Response to Question 3 which asked whether the NRC will require 'Niagara Mohawk to measure the thickness of the entire torus before permitting restart conta9.ns the following assertions
- However, because of uncertainties in t;he rate of future corrosion, the licensee has commit-ted to the NRC to perform wall thickness measurements at least every six months7 Niagara Mohawk, in their letter to the NRC of November 22, 1989 contends that, "sufficient wall thickness remains to provide at least one additional operating cycle at Nine Mile Point Unit 1
before corrective actions must be taken."
Can thickness meas-urements be made while the plant is in operai:ion or is the NRC going to require Niagara Mohawk to shut down Nine Mile Point Unit 1 every six months during the operating cycle7 2.
Also in the Staff Response to Question 3,
the staff 658 West Onondaga 9008030026 900726 PDR ADOCK 05000220 PDC Street, Syracuse, New York 132Q4-3356 QP iecy6od paper ii~>~
~at 31 5475-1170
V t
Nuclear Regulatory Chair and Commissioners July 24, 1990 Page 2
asserts that February, 1990 measurements "did not indicate a
significant change from the August, 1989 measurements."
Attached to the August, 1989 measuremeats is a six page handwritten report by MPR associates which is denominated Appen-dix B to the August, 1989 measurements.
On page 4 of this report there is a notation that a positive corrosion; rate measurement was "not used in determining the mean or standard deviation."
Since a positive corrosion rate is physically impossible, reliance on the company's measurements is misplaced.
The February, 1990 measurements, which Staff contends "do not indicate a signS.ficant change from the August, 1989 measure-ments",
are not available for e:camination in the Public Document Room.
3, During the May 14, 1990 Briefing on the status of Niaga-ra Mohawk's progress toward restart, Commissioner Curtiss asked Mr. Burkhardt at page 74 of the transcripts How extensive is the monitoring that you'e actually doing?
Mr. Burkhardt replied:
Xt's vexy extensive,
~scausc>
~oi
~no~v the F
+
I "
V high sample in order to be able to average out what you have.
(emphasis supplied)
We interpret this quote to mean that there is no accurate means of determining the thickness of the torus and no reliable method of predicting at what rate it is getting thinner.
We note above that some measurements were discarded.
The measurements which were not discarded may be no more accurate that the ones which were discarded.
Good technical practice would indicate that you cannot. take a series of measurements, each of which has a wide error band, average those measurements and then conclude that there is an accurate basis for predicting anything.
How does Kr. Burkhardt's assertion that 'you have to get a
very high sample" comport, with the fact reported in the Staff
Response
(to Question
- 3) that in August, 1989 measurements were made in all 20 bays, but in February, 1990, only 4 bays were measured?
~
~
Nuclear Regulatory Chair and Commissioners July 24, 1990 Page 3
Tn view of the alleged low cost of repairing the torusf (less than
$ 15 million Niagara Mohawk cold the New York Public Service Commission) and in view of the NRC's statutory charge to pose no undue risk to the public health and safety, we continue to believe that Nine Mile Point Unit 1 should not. be allowed to restart before the torus is repaired.
4.
With regard to the genexic letters and bulletins, we originally asked the Commisaionexs what speci.fically were the safety issues related to Nine l)ile Point Unit 1 which were not resolved prior to considering restart.
This, of course, is not an ordinary plant.
Aa the Conw:isaion well knows, this plant has been out of service for 31 months, continues to be on the Commis-sion'a "Watch List", and the most recent BALP reports show enduxing evidence of managerial
.incompetence.
While philosophically we can agree with the Commission's policy on generic letters and bulletins, the history of this company's management, together with the specific questions relat-ing to restart call, we believe, for a different standard here.
To treat the restart of Nine Nile Point Unit 1
aa if it were business as usual may be such an extreme derogation of duty as to amount to an abdication of the Commission's statutory responsi-bilities.
Therefore, we ask you againt Nhfch ~sefet.
fssues from generic letters and bulletins have not. been implemented, and what is the basis at Nine Mile Point Unit 1 for saying that the health and safety of residents living in proximity to that plant has been assured.
Sincerely,
+i!'/gal~ d, IRtM Rosemary S, Pooler Vice President foe Legal Affairs
V