ML18040A102
| ML18040A102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1993 |
| From: | Ridings B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 2.206, DD-93-10, NUDOCS 9312280056 | |
| Download: ML18040A102 (6) | |
Text
ACCELERATED D STRIBUTION DEMONS RATION SYSTEM PE t
REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:9312280056 DOC.DATE: 93/12/09 NOTARIZED:
NO DOCKET g
FACIL:50-220 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Niagara Powe 05000220 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION RIDINGS,B.L.
AffiliationNot Assigned RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION VARGA,S.A.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Director (Post 870411 <
SUBJECT:
Ack receipt of info re Director's Decision DD-93-10 under 10CFR2.206.Advises that containment expert will be contacted I
to review matter 6 response will be submitted as soon as possible.
D DISTRIBUTION CODE:
AOOID COPIES RECEIVED:LTR $ ENCL 0 SIZE:
TITLE: OR Submittal:
General Distribution NOTES:
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PDl-1 LA BRINKMAN,D.
INTERNAL: ACRS NRR/DORS/OTSB NRR/DRPW NRR/DSSA/SRXB OC/LFDCB
~REt" i~<E 01 EXTERNAL: NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD1-1 PD NRR/DE/EELB NRR/DRCH/HICB NRR/DSSA/SPLB NUDOCS-ABSTRACT OGC/HDS1 NSIC COPIES LTTR ENCL D
D R
D NOTE TO ALL"RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE! CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK, ROOM Pl-37 (EXT. 20079) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 22 ENCL D
D
II 0
F
December 09, 1993 Nuclear Regulatory Commission C/0 Steven A. Varga Director of Reactor Projects Washington, DC 20555-0001 Ben L. Ridings P.O.
Box 1101
- Kingston, TN 37763
Reference:
Docket 50-220 DD-93-10 Director's Decision Under 10CFR2.206
Dear Mr. Varga:
Thankyou for the information.
I will contact a containment expert to review this matter as soon as possible.
It will take some time to review the documentation submitted.
I will reply as soon as possible.
Please provide me the address of the General Inspector referred to in your letter.
Frankly, I don't like the tone of your comments.
A moral obligation brought these matters to your attention.
Instead of thanking me for correctly identifying over 200 gross errors in the NMP-1 license and documentation, your letter implies that my comments were altogether invalid.
Instead of stating the values submitted for license change were accurate,
- correct, and incorporated in Amendment
- 140, your letter implies that I submitted grossly incorrect papers for review.
That simply is false and misleading.
We may not aqree on all the issues but your office has never made a case inwhich it can claim my papers are wrong or contain errors.
Please provide me with the safety evaluation made to determine if the discrepancies incorporated were conservative.
The NRC has previously stated "your office was aware of these concerns in 1988".
The operating instructions, procedures, and license used to perform any plant activity in 1990 contained the gross errors I
have identified.
This was the criteria inwhich this plant was operated under your review and approval for four years.
I don't find that prudent or proper administrative control.
Your letter insinuates that I
simply submitted a conglomeration of unimportant already identified inuendoes and unsubstantiated absurd accusations.
The gross errors identified and incorporated in Amendment 140 effected every safety system at your plant site!
Your office certainly has no right to criticize my two week review when compared to the many failed opportunities by your office to correct this problem, spanning some 25 years.
I'm simply trying to ensure this plant is operating safely.
What is the harm in a
second independent
- review, especially after the many errors I discovered on my first review (an unfinished narrow scoped review).
Another issue as of this date unanswered, since your HPCI system satisfies a Technical Specification and safety related, what review of the manufacturing, construction, instrumentation, maintenance and operation of the feedwater system was made by your office.
Please provide a
copy of the safety evaluation upgrading the non-quality related feedwater system into a
safety related
- system, including review of parts and purchasing documentation.
goof I/P
4 hd ','1 hi >>I j
It I<<
I II I
1'la a.<<
~I
~ '
huit I u
3,h<<
".Il"hd.
u hh 0 u.s li.I,
~
'<<)'"
] '
f>> "<<.4>>,',
'f" 'bhh d
I ill 14 sllh'1 V' Iliu'," 'Il,iX )a. 4."I" i <<u I i
'I II 0
4 I aifh';
'l I
'"II li<<
Ji
>>hd u>>1 P ls ah a, g<<4 F~
4 iv>> I<<X
~ I'
'a,
"~
'I 4, I I
I Ihs Ih'>>'
yh)!dll I IC "I VIII t,.a P
PI'I ddhl 4
Ih>>I'I!
I.
d ~
- <<'i a 'J
" ';.I"41, Ill. '>>
")I a
I I I I
I I I<<
IV>>
h <<
I '.4I>>
J 1
~gf<<9 I>> 'II 1l<<,
ll
>> "I ild 44 M~ it gphII.
<< ~'h l,
sh 4<<I'l g g>>u,a ad'lh>>'h i,
I, I
I, hia pl'uu III
)
Jf>>
shh P.<<
Ih I 5th,al'I lu s 'I 'h ~
-.II Z
4 J
I, I
I' I!Ih I i'1,'<<I J f I" Ill
.Ia a
','I" i "l'..<< Ihh 4
I,
'I!
Iu, II
~
II li ll $
"I
" 'I ~
i Idh Pllllia u I
'l,
~, a I,
III,~ 'll, u
I,"
h a '4, I 1'>>',Id<<II I'
I I I ~ h l.
dl 4'I 4
3 4'l 1
s Ii 44 u
,I l
I 4
a, I ~
I,"lihh hi'I~
d Ii) 4 II >>
Ig I
'I
'I allI u
la u
I la s
1 I
'll 4
II 1>>~ a,l 4
~
~
Your completely wrong on the Appendix J issue.
This is an issue which directly ef fects the safety of the public.
- Again, a second independent review cannot possibly hurt anyone or anything.
Please provide the current PAID's and a copy of the current Appendix J procedures.
I will reply as soon as I receive the necessary documentation.
Respectfully submitted, Ben L. Ridings
~ i
.a.
t I
~
~ '"i'll', -kc.'P I~')
C}
' <<g Q
<< "8 ~s 4
glIW 1P ~ g."j
)
ally I
\\(
~ w4la
- ~w 1,
f ll
,IW I
"j <<p'!f'c~'I
)> <g I
, 'I P,L~,'y I
gy g,g A
'lf g.
V
%~/)wp
)q)~
q 4, p'
4
~,
$ ~;
X+4 I