ML18038A705
| ML18038A705 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/06/1989 |
| From: | Kane W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Burkhardt L NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8912210280 | |
| Download: ML18038A705 (38) | |
Text
ENCI OSURE 0 Docket Nos.
50-220 50-410 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ATTN:
Mr. Lawrence Burkhardt, III Executive Vice President Nuclear Operations 301 Plainfield Road
- Syracuse, New York 13212 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Public Comments on the Restart Action Plan/Restart of Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Received from the Public -
NRC Responses to Those Comments This letter addresses the August 23,
- 1989, public meeting held in Oswego, New York, to receive comments on the Restart Action Plan (RAP).
Based on review of the transcript of the comments from this meeting and of written comments received by mail, the NRC staff, through its Restart Assessment
- Panel, has concluded that no changes are needed to the RAP.
This conclusion was pre-viously noted in the NRC approval of the RAP in a
letter dated September 29, 1989.
By transmittal to the Local Public Document
- Room, the attachment to this 1 tt p
v'des responses to the specific comments.
A response has been provided to ro i o
is e
er each comment.
The responses are grouped according to those comments directly related to the RAP (29 comments) and those comments generally related to Nine Mile Point (20 comments).
Although the comments are provided for your information, comment 35 raised a
concern regarding the turning off of radiation monitors during discharges and unusual events.
This allegation was forwarded for your review in a
separate letter dated October 12, 1989.
We appreciate your cooperation.
Sincerely, William F. Kane, Director Division of Reactor Projects
Attachment:
As stated OFFICIAL RECORD COPY NINE MILE POINT COMMENTS - 0001.0.0 NB2R ll/01/89
. PDR ADQCK 05000220
~ ~/
I
Niagara Mohawk Powe or porati on cc w/
Attachment:
C. Mangan, Senior Vice President W.
C.
. Hansen,
- Manager, Corporate Quality Assurance
- Beckham, Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance Operations J. Perry, Vice President, Quality Assurance J. Willis, General Station Superintendent C. Terry, Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Licensing K. Oahlberg, Unit I Station Superintendent R. Randall, Unit, I Superintendent, Operations R. Smith, Unit 2 Superintendent, Operations R. Abbott, Unit 2 Station Superintendent G. Wilson, Senior Attorney T. Conner, Jr.,
Esquire J.
Keib, Esquire J.
- Warden, New York Consumer Protection Branch
- Director, Power Division, Department of Public Service, State of New York State of New York, Department of Law Public Document Room (POR)
Local Public Document Room (LPOR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector State of New York bcc w/
Attachment:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
J. Wiggins, DRP G. Meyer, ORP
- Temps, RI " Nine Mile R. Laura, RI - Nine Mile J.
(,
l
~
41 t C'>
h
<
g ~ ' V Pl w'1, Attachment - Public Comments on the 5 Restart Action Plan ll. Comment: . The RAP should clearly state what verifications will be done in the presence of NRC inspectors. ~Res onse: As a condition of the license for Mine Mile Point Unit ), Niagara Mohawk 15 subject to unannounced NRC inspections to determine its compliance with the terms of the license and to assess its ability to safely operate the facility.
- However, the NRC has not found it necessary in this case that certain licensed activities be conducted in the presence of NRC inspec-tors.
Although the NRC will not require NMPC to conduct any of the activities outlined in the RAP in the presence of NRC inspectors, we will review those actions deemed necessary to assure that the concerns addressed by the RAP are adequately resolved. 12. Comment: With reference to RAP Specific Issue No. 2, why didn't Niagara Mohawk establish responsibility and accountability for the main-tenance of operator licenses 20 years ago? ~Res onse: Establishing responsibility and accovntability for the mainten-ance of a program is a fundamental principle of management that should have been implemented since the inception of the program. The reasons for NMPC's failure to implement these management principles in the past in this area is probably 'attributable to deficiencies,i.n NMPC management in'he Operations a; ea, the extensive number of changes that have occurred in the operator training area since the TMI
- accident, and poor cooperation between the Operations and Training Departments.
The RAP and CALs 88-13 and 88-17 were generated precisely because of ques-tions like these by the NRC and to resolve these types of management deficiencies. 13. Comment: The spent fuel pool should be fixed prior to restart. ~Res onse: The spent fve'I pool has experienced minor leakage in recent months due to an apparent per foration in the stainless steel pool liner at a location yet to be identified. NMPC has pro-posed a plan of action to identify and resolve this problem sub-sequent to restart. Given the size of the leak which has been
- observed, as well as the design of the spent fuel
- pool, no threat to the public health and safety exists by delaying the repairs to the pool finer until after restart.
- Thus, the NRC disagrees with this comment and feels that the issue is properly addressed in the RAP (Specific Issue 15) as an issue which can be resolved after restart.
I I W4 'C I k n' l l Nlt Attachment - Public Comments on the 6 Restart Action Plan 14. Comment: ~ The radwaste spill should be cleaned up prior to restart. ~Res onse: NMPC has in-place a plan for the decontamination and cleanup of the radwaste storage room spill at Unit 1. The plan involves the use of a robotic arm to remotely decontaminate the room. Given that the spill is confined to a small, abandoned area of the plant and that there is no indication that the radioactive contamination in the room is leaking to the environment, no threat to the public or worker health and safety exists. NMPC is scheduled to complete the decontamination of the room by
- March, 1990.
Therefore, the NRC disagrees with this comment and does not consider the decontamination of the room a restart issue. The issue will be properly addressed in the NIP. 15. Comment: A determination should be made as to how much pressure the con-tainment at Nine Mile Point Unit 1 can withstand. ~Res onse: The Nine Mile Point 1 containment system consists of an upper section called the drywell and a lower portion called the sup-pression chamber. Per the Unit 1 Final Safety Analysis Report, the drywell is designed to withstand a peak 62 psig internal pressure. The suppression chamber is designed to withstand a peak 35 psig internal pressure. Prior to restart, the leak tightness and structural integrity of the containment will be tested during a containment integrated leak rate test. Any further analyses are not considered a restart issue. 16. Comment: Was NMP Unit 1 considered a safe plant by the NRC in December 1987 and why, all of the
- sudden, did the NRC ask Niagara Mohawk's management to come up the a
plan to resolve their problemsf ~Res onse: Yes. Nine Mile Point was considered to be a plant which met the conditions of its license in December 1987. Had the NRC believed at anytime prior to December 1987 that the operation posed a threat to public health and safety, the Unit would have been immediately ordered to shutdown. Following the shutdown of the Unit in December 1987 due to technical
- problems, several other problems were identified in the areas of operator requal-ification training, control of commercial grade parts, fire bar-rier penetrations, and the operator's understanding and use of emergency operating procedures.
As a result, on July 24,
- 1988, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Action Letter which documented Niagara Mohawk' commitment not to restart Unit 1 until correc-tive actions have been completed and the agreement of the NRC's Region I Regional Administrator was obtained.
The actions required include a root cause assessment of why management has not been effective in recognizing and remedying
- problems, pre-paration of a restart action plan, and submission of a written report relative to readiness for restart.
~ ~ ~ Attachment - Public Comments on the Restart Action Plan 17. Comment: Why did the NRC raise a safety concern regarding the scram dis-charge volume on June 24,
- 1983, but take until Oecember 1987 to take action to resolve the issue?
~Res onse: During a routine shutdown of Drowns Ferry Unit No. 3 on June 28,
- 1980, 76 of 185 control rods failed to fully insert in response to a
manual scram from approximately 30% power. All rods were subsequently inserted within 15 minutes and no reactor damage or hazard to the public occurred. Following an in-depth review of Boiling Water Reactor Control Systems, short and long-term corrective measures were identified. Short-term corrective measures were implemented by IE Bulletin 80-17 and an Order con-cerning these measures was issued to Nine Mile Point 1 on January 9,
- 1981, and modified March 31, 1981.
A Confirmatory
- Order, dated June 24,
- 1983, was issued to Niagara Mohawk con-cerning long-term corrective measures.
Oue to inspection pri-
- orities, the NRC staff did not inspect the scram discharge volume design for Nine Mile Point Unit 1 to determine compliance with the June 24, 1983 Order until November 1987.
As a result of the inspection, two areas of deviation from the Order and the Generic Safety Evaluation, dated Oecember 1, 1980, for the scram discharge volume were identified. These deviations had been identified by Niagara Mohawk in a January 30, 1981 letter, but NMPC failed to obtain prior NRC approval for the deviations as required by the 'Order. The NRC feels this issue is properly addressed in the RAP. By letter dated October 12,
- 1988, the NRC staff transmitted its safety evaluation with respect to this issue and concluded that operation with the system for another fuel ca cle poses no undue risk to the public.
The staff has evaluated Niagara Mohawk's proposed testing program for the scram discharge volume and determined it to be acceptable. 18. Comment: Niagara Mohawk is not competent to operate atomic power plants based upon NRC findings/fines over the last six years. ~Res onse: A purpose of the RAP and CAL 88-17 was to assure improvements in Niagara Mohawk's management of its nuclear facilities. While their per formance in the last several years has raised NRC con-
- cerns, the NRC staff believes that Niagara Mohawk is capable of improving its operation, and that a properly scoped management improvement plan that is effectively implemented is an appro-priate means by which this can be accomplished.
The NRC staff
- must, conclude that the necessary improvements have been made prior to restart of Unit 1.
I ~c i. 'fd C' 1 A Attachment - Public Comments on the 8 Restart Action Plan 1 9. Comment: Safety concerns regarding cracking in the core spray spargers. ~Res onse: In accordance with IE Bulletin 80-13, Niagara Mohawk visually examined the Unit 1 core spray spargers and associated piping during the 1981 refueling outage. As documented in their May 13, 1981 letter to the
- NRC, two cracks in one location were identified.
The cracks were evaluated and determined to be insignificant. No corrective actions were required. NMPC has continued to examine the sparger each refueling outage since 1981. The most recent examination, completed during the current
- outage, indicated that the crack length remains within the tolerance of the original crack length.
Therefore, no correc-tive actions were required. The licensee will continue to inspect the core spray spargers and associated internal piping during future refueling outages.
- Thus, this issue does not impact restart or the RAP.
20: Comment: Will failed plant equipment be replaced with like-in-kind parts or by components that are not part of the original design and may be untested? ~Res onse: All safety-related components which NMPC replaces due to failure or as part of a preventive maintenance program are purchased either as a safety-related component (fabricated and tested under an approved quality assurance program) or as a commercial grade product later subject to a quality assurance program designed to qualify the component for safety-related applica-tions. Given the age of the facility and the declining number of suppliers of safety-related components in this country, NMPC may not necessarily replace failed components w'th identical replacements specified by the original design. Instead, alter-native components may be used which are of different design, but have been demonstrated to be suitable for safety-related appli-cations and are capable of performing the function of the orig-inal part. This practice is commonplace in the nuclear industry and, if properly administered, is acceptable to the NRC.
- Thus, this issi!e is not a
problem and is inappropriate for conclusion in the RAP. - Zl. Comment: ~Res onse: NMP Unit 1 should not be restarted because it will add to the radwaste problem. What will happen to the radwaste generated'he low level radioactive waste that is generated by Nine Mile Point Unit 1 will be shipped to one of the three currently licensed burial sites in the United States. However, it is the ultimate responsibility of New York State to find and develop an alternative disposal site in the near future under the provis-ions of the Low Level Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. All f vg ( g Attachment - Public Comments on the 9 Restart Action Plan high level radioactive wastes will be stored onsite, either in the spent fuel pool or if later constructed, in a future onsite storage facility, until. the federal government develops a high-level waste repository as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. At present, there is no prohibition against the operation of any nuclear power plant in this country due to questions regarding the ultimate resolution of the problem of disposing of high level or low level radioactive wastes. Therefore, the NRC dis-agrees that this issue should be included in the RAP and should be a basis for not restarting Unit l. 22. Comment: The RAP does not require NMPC to conduct health studies to determine the long-term health effects of Nine Mile Point. These studies should be completed prior to restart of NMP Unit l. ~Res onse: As stipulated by the terms of its
- license, NMPC has been required to conduct environmental monitoring of the area around the plant site since prior to the licensing of Unit 1 to deter-mine if there has been any accumulation of radioactive material in the environment or excessive radioactive emissions from the plant.
There is no indication from the NMPC environmental mon-itoring program that any substantial potential danger to he public from normal plant emissions
- exists, particularly at levels that would suggest that a health study in the area is warranted.
Based upon the results of the environmental monitor-ing program to date, the NRC does not consider this activity appropriate for the Restart Action Plan. 23. Comment: The permanent solution to the radwaste disposal problem should be included as an item in the RAP. ~Res onse: 24. Comment: ~Res onse: The response to question 21 applies. Cracks in the concrete walls in various parts of the plant should be fixed prior to restart. NMPC does not have a good handle on the wall cracking. Will the plant survive a seismic event due to all the building cracks? NMPC has observed cracks in the masonary walls of several build-ings in the plant over.time. The location of these
- cracks, as well as NMPC's plan of action to monitor and analyze the signif-icance of these
- cracks, is documented under Specific Issue No.
1S of the RAP. The cause of the cracks in the walls appeared to be predominately due to either shrinkage during curing or tensile stress experienced due to temperature fluctuations I h I! Attachment - Public Comments on the 10 Restart Action Plan (concrete by nature has little structural strength in tension [its structural strength in tension is supplied by the rein-forcing rods in the concrete] and thus has a tendency to crack in tension and during curing). NMPC has completed an extensive analysis and repair project on all masonary walls at Unit 1 correct all of the cracks noted in the plant walls. These repairs ensured that the masonary walls meet their original seismic design criteria. Therefore, the NRC does not consider this issue a safety problem and resolution of the issue is properly addressed in the RAP. 2S. Comment: What is the status of the SPDS system at NHP Unit 1? ~Res onse: The Safety parameter Disp'lay System mas declared fully opera-tional at Nine Mile Point Unit 1 in June 1986 and is therefore not a restart issue. 26. Comment: New York State should police NMP Unit 1 activities. ~Res onse: By the Atomic Energy Act of
- 1954, as
- amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 as
- amended, the United State Congress gave the NRC statutory authority over the regulation of nuclear facilities.
As such it is the NRC's responsibility to:
- 1) license the construction and operation of nuclea, reactors and other nuclear facilities,
- 2) license the possession, uses processing, handling and disposal of nuclear
- material,
- 3) develop and implement rules and regulations that govern licensed nuclear activities, inspect licensed facilities and activities, inves igate nuclear incidents and allegations con-cerning any matter regu1ated by the NRC, 4) conduct public hear-ings on matters of nuclear and radiological
- safety, environ-mental
- concern, common defense and security and antitrust laws
- and,
- 5) develop effective working relationships with the states regarding regulation of nuclear material.
- Further, to ensure adequate communication and 'cooperation between the NRC and the
- states, the State Liaison Officer program was established in 1976.
If New York State so desires, the NRC will consider state proposals to enter into instruments of cooperation for state participation in NRC inspection activities if the state's pro-gram has provisions to ensure close cooperation with the NRC. In summary, New York State is welcome to enter into an agreement with the NRC to provide an oversight role, but the NRC has pre-emptive federal authority in the licensing of nuclear plants. 'i tq I ii' II Attachment - Public Comments on the 11 Restart Action Plan 27. Comment: The public has the perception that there isn't the slightest chance that the plant will stay closed. ~Res ense: The Nine Mile Point Unit 1 facility was licensed under the terms of 10 CFR 50, which derives its statutory basis from the Atomic Energy Act of
- 1954, as amended.
Since the facility remains licensed under Part 50, the emphasis of NMPC to date has been to correct the identified management deficiencies and to attempt to restore the plant to service. As a result, the NRC's actions to date have been oriented toward determining whether the facility can be safely returned to service and is based on NMPC having corrected the management and technical deficiencies identified. That is the purpose of our review of the Restart Action Plan. If NMPC can not correct the deficiencies
- noted, then the faci 1-ity will remain closed.
28. Comment: Monthly public meetings should be held before restart to discuss the concerns of area citizens. ~Res onse: The public meeting held on August 23,
- 1989, was an initiative on the part of the NRC to involve the public in the restart process at NMP Unit 1
and to gain their comments. Additional meetings of this type would result only if there are fundamental changes in the NMPC Restart Action Plan. The public is free to contact NRC directly to raise safety concerns. 29. Comment: Oon't restart Unit 1. ~Res onse: This comment was received from at least thirteen individuals during the public meeting. The response to question 27 applies. g4 t 4) Attachment - Public Comments on the 12 Restart Action Plan Public Comments on Issues Not Related to the RAP 30. Coaaent: Spent fuel pool storagelacceptabi 1 ity of dry cask storage. ~Res ense: The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to provide, as directed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, for the stor-age of spent fuel at the sites of power reactors, to the maximum extent practicable, without the need for additional site-specific approvals. Holders of power reactor operating licenses would be permitted to store spent fuel in casks approved by NRC under a general license. The proposed rule contains criteria for obtaining an NRC Certificate of Compliance for spent fuel storage casks. The notice of proposed rule
- making, published in the Federal Register on May 5,
- 1989, solicited public com-ments by June 19, 1989.
The NRC is currently evaluating the public comments. In any event, this issue does not impact the restart of the facility. 31. Comment: The public doesn't trust Niagara Mohawk. ~Res onse: This comment was made by four members of the public at the pub-lic meeting and represents an issue for NMPC.to address. This issue is not applicable to restart. 32. Comment: The public doesn't trust the NRC ~Res onse: This comment was made by three members of the public at the pub-lic meeting and is not related to the Restart Action Plan. 33. Comment: Why is Unit 2 allowed to operate with the same management as Unit 17 ~Res onse: While NMP Unit 2 has been categorized by NRC as a plant requir-ing close NRC scrutiny, the staff and management of Unit 2, which is separate for each unit below the site superintendent
- level, have performed better than the staff and management at Unit 1.
Most notably, the operators at Unit 2 have clearly dis-played a much more positive and responsive attitude than Unit 1 operators. In addition, management has displayed the ability to operate Unit 2 effectively in spite of the fact that it is significantly more complex than Unit 1 and has a staff with sig" nificantly less operational experience with the facility than Unit 1. Thus, while Nine Mile Point Unit 2 remains under close NRC scrutiny, NRC senior management has determined that NMPC can safely operate Unit 2 in spite of the noted deficiencies at Unit l. L A g fr P. c'~
- e,.
s Attachment Public Comments on the Restart Action Plan 13 34. Comment: Resoonse: n .Does the radwaste building spill represent a threat to the public? Why wasn't the NRC notified of the spill? Why didn' the NRC find this problem? The results of the NRC Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) conducted at Nine Mile Point indicate that the radwaste spill does not pose a threat to the public health and safety. The NRC inspectors failed to identify the spill previously because the problem occurred in the sub-basement of an abandoned portion of the radwaste building and was confined to one room. The room was properly designated and marked as a locked high radiation area. The NRC inspection program does not require all locked high radiation areas in the plant to be examined inter-nally by the NRC inspectors due to the unnecessary radiation exposure which would occur to the inspector.
- Thus, the fact that the NRC did not know of the existence of this radioactivity contaminated room was attributable largely to its location and the fact that Niagara Mohawk did not report the incident versus a failure to conduct a
required portion of the NRC inspection program. No RAP actions as a result of this incident are necessary. 35. Comment: It is alleged that radiation process monitors are turned off when radioactive discharges to the environment are made by l'iMr"'C. ~Res onse: This allegation has been entered into the RRC allegation tnao!t-ing system for follow-up and will be resolved prior to restart. 36. Comment: Who is responsible for ensuring that Nine Mile Point.and Fitz-Patrick have adequate emergency plans? ~Res onse: It is the responsibility of the NRC to ensure that the licensees of Nine Mile Point and FitzPat~ick have adequate emergency plans for the staff and employees onsite and the proper notification of authorities offsite. Verification of the adequacy of offsite emergency planning is the responsibility of the Federal Emerg-ency Management Agency (FEMA) acting as an agent for the NRC. This delegation of responsibility was established by Presiden-tial Directive. 37. Comment: The background radiation levels in an area near the plant are elevated above normal. ~Res onse: The NRC maintains a independent radiation monitoring program in the area around the plant. The results of this radiation mon-itoring program are published quarterly in NUREG 0837. Review of the results of that monitoring program do not indicate that there are elevated background radiation levels in any area around the plant. I gt f J Attachment - Public Comments on the 14 Restart Action Plan 38. Comment: Qoes the NRC fee schedule pose a potential conflict of interest? ~ges onse: The annual funding of the WRC is established and provided by Congress. The funds received through the fee schedule are deposited directly to the Federal Treasury. While the iNRC fee schedule does recover a significant portion of its operating
- costs, the schedule is not related to the NRC's budget and does not present a conflict with the agency's role as a regulator of the uti 1 ity.
39. Comment: Allowing radioactive waste to be categorized as being below a level of regulatory
- concern, and thus capable of being disposed of as normal
- trash, constitutes a
public health and safety concern. ~ges onse: The NRC was mandated by the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 to establish a regulatory limit for radioactive waste which does not pose a threat to the public health and safety and thus can be disposed of by normal methods'he NRC has yet to establish such a regulatory limit. When that radioactivity level is decided upon, it will be the subject of extensive review and rulemaking to determine that the limit does not pose a threat to the public health and safety. 40. Comments: What has been done regarding the concerns raised by Qouglas Ellison? Why did the NRC pay s'ar. Ellison S1.1,000 for information regarding Niagara Mohawk? ~Res onse: The allegations initially raised by Qouglas Ellison were re-viewed by a special NRC team in inspection 50-220/86-1?. As a result of new allegations, two additional inspections were recently conducted at Nine Mile Point to resolve the concerns raised. The results of those two inspections, one regarding the technical issues and one regarding allegations of potential employee harassment and intimidation, are documented in Inspec-tion Reports 50-220/89-16 and 89-21, respectively. While some of the concerns were partially substantiated by the inspection
- team, no issues which affect the public health and safety were identified.
The matter of Mr. Ellison being paid by the NRC to provide information regarding Niagara Mohawk is the subject of an on-going investigation and thus can not be discussed in detail at this t'.me. Completion oi this investigation does not impact the Restart Action Plan or restart of the facility. I'g C, Attachment - Public Comments on the 15 Restart Action Plan 41. Co Comment: .Allegation concerning an unknown NRC employee/individual imper-sonating an NRC employee. ~Res onse: The NRC can not take any further actions with regard to the individual described due to the lack of information provided. Although the individual stated that he was an NRC employee, it N is not clear that the individual was in fact employed by th RC.
- However, from the description of the actions of the indi-e vidual from the person making this statement, the individual's actions would have been totally unacceptable behavior for an NRC employee.
42. Comment: I'm opposed to the operation of any nuclear power plant in this country. R~es onse: Congress has decreed through the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that atomic energy is beneficial to this country relative to th 1'nherent risks that the energy source poses.
- Thus, existing e
atomic power plants are permitted to operate in this country, and new power stations may be constructed and licensed to oper-ate. It is the NRC's responsibility to ensure that the risks from this energy source are minimized. 43. Comment: (Received in Mriting) - The audience at the public meeting was not representative of the public and is biased against the plant.
Response
The purpose of the public meeting was to receive comments on the
- RAP, both positive and negative.
The meeting was not intended to provide a
forum to determine the level of p( blic support for or against the restart of Unit 1.
44.
Com Comment:
(Received in writing) -
Oo oil and coal-fired power plants that spew out the makings of acid in have to hold hearings before they start-up?
Response
The NRC is not responsible for the regulation of power plants other than those powered by nuclear energy.
Those facilities are subject to regulation by other governmental agencies (i.e.,
'Environmental Protection
- Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, etc.)
and may be subject to licensing
- actions, up to and including a public hearing, in the event that they do not comply with the agencies'egulations or if requested by another party in accordance with the procedural rules or'he agency.
~
4 I
- 1 t~a q t
~ I
~
e<
Attachment - Public Comments on the 16 Restart Action Plan 45.
Comment:
(Received in writing) -
I have heard that there is a "collar" around the reactor at Nine Nile Poin.
One that is so corroded that if the plant was turned on full power, it would blow up.
~Res onse: After discussions betveen several members of the NRC staff to determine what the individual could have meant by the "collar" around the plant, it was determined that the person must have been referring to the torus.
The written response provided to the individual stated that neither the torus nor the reactor can "blow up" regardless of the operating status of the plant.
The NRC assured the individual that NMPC is taking actions to resolve the torus corrosion problem and that the HRC will closely follow their actions to determine that the problem does not pose a
threat to public health and safety.
- Further, the individual was informed that Niagara Mohawk will be conducting a
pressurization test of the torus prior to restart of the facil-ity to ensure that it will withstand the maximum postulated pressure generated during a design basis reactor accident.
Based upon these
- facts, the NRC feels that the individual's concerns are unsubstantiated.
46.
Comment:
(Received in writing) - Mhat was the source(s) of the elevated cesium and strontium concentrations noted in local milk supplies during the late 1970's?
~Res onse:
The MRC conducted a
reviev of:he elevated Cs-137 and 1-131 levels noted in milk samples in the area near the plant in 1981.
The review was conducted in response to concerns regarding this issue which were raised by the Sierra Club.
The results ot this review indicated that the average levels o.'s-137 in milk near the site were 'not consistently higher than the rest of the State.
The NRC's assessment at that time was that the source Cs-137 and I-131 concentrations in milk in the area could not be precisely determined.
The source of the contamination could have been attributable to either reactor effluents or fallout from weapons
- tests, most particularly the Chinese atmospheric weapons tests in the late 1970's.
Regardless of the source, the observed radiation levels constituted only a
small fraction of the radiation dose received from natural background radiation.
That small dose would also have been below regulatory limits even if the assumption was made that all the observed radio-activity came from.effluents from Nine Mile Point and FitzPatrick.
f~
f
'p
Attachment '- Public Comments on the 17 Restart Action Plan 47.
Comment:
(Received in writing) -
Why is there a
higher incidence of 1970 learning disabilities in area children born durin th 1 t
Response
The NRC has no knowledge of any studies which show th t h
ln W
a s.
Q than cidence of learning disabilities in area children is h
h ig er an normal at any time in history.
Based on research studies into the effect of radiation on the incidence of mental retarda-tion in
- children, no measurable effect on the incidence of learning disabilities in area children should be observable unti 1 radiation doses to the public from the operation nuclear facilities were at least three orders of magnitude above NRC limits.
I 48.
Comment:
(Received in wr i ting) -
A detailed study of the Lake Ontario bottom sediments or area wetlands should be conducted by NMPC to determine if sediments and biota were affected by the radwaste room flooding event.
~Res onse:
As mentioned in the response to earlier
- comments, NI1PC is required to conduct an environmental sampling program as a
requirement of their license.
That sampling program involves
'ollecting samples of sediments,
- biota, and fish from Lake Ontario as well
'as the surrounding land area.
The results of the sampling program confirm that NMPC is operating the facility in accordance with the NRC's radioactive waste release limits as codified in 10 CFR 20.
49.
Comment:
(Unrelated to Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Restar
) - Don't site a
low level waste repository in the area.
~Res onse:
The siting of a
low level waste reposi'tory is currently the responsibility of the State of Hew York.
4 l.a'