ML18102B671
| ML18102B671 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 11/12/1997 |
| From: | Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Lochbaum D UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9711190187 | |
| Download: ML18102B671 (4) | |
Text
(.
i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 Mr. David A. Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists 1616 P Street NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-1495
Dear Mr. Lochbaum:
November 12, 1997
.S-tJ-3/ I In a letter you sent to John F. Stolz on September 3, 1997, you objected to how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) handled an amendment for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2, even though you agreed with the staff's assessment that the amendment would not ~dversely affect safety margins.
During a telephone conversation with you on September 18, 1997, two members of my staff, Mr. John Stolz and Mr. Leonard Olshan, discussed your concerns and the process the NRC followed in agreeing with the licensee's determination that exigent circumstances existed.
We then sent a letter to you on September 25, 1997, documenting the issues discussed during the phone call.
In response, you sent a letter on September 30, 1997, in which you expressed continued concern regarding the NRC's granting of an exigent amendment request by totally relying on the licensee's information without the NRC staff performing a rigorous, independent assessment.
One purpose of the telephone discussion with you on September 18, 1997, was to describe, in detail, the discussion between the staff and the Public Service Electric and Gas Company (the licensee) on August 15, 1997, regarding measures taken by the licensee to cope with the individual rod position indication (IRPI) system problem.
Based on information obtained from the licensee, the staff was satisfied that reasonable and appropriate measures had been taken by the licensee before achieving criticality at Salem Unit 2.
However, on August 18, 1997, the !RPI system indicated that two control rods deviated from their group demand counter by 13 steps, which is one step over the limit that had been allowed by the technical specifications (TSs).
As a result, the licensee shut down Salem Unit 2 on August 19, 1997.
During a conference call on August 19, 1997, the licensee discussed the possibility of the NRC granting a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) that would have permitted Salem Unit 2 to restart and continue operation with indicated versus demanded position greater than the 12 steps being allowed until a TS change could be submitted for review and approval by the NRC.
The staff denied the licensee's request because the circumstances did not meet Agency guidance.
Thus, later in the day, the licensee submitted a request for an exigent amendment on the IRPI system.
The staff told the licensee on August 20, 1997, that the content of the exigent amendment request did not adequately justify exigent circumstances per IO CFR S0.9I(a)(6). The licensee
_ subsequently provided another submittal with additional justification to support the exigent request, which stated that the IRPI system had been recalibrated in accordance with vendor recommendations and participation.
9711190187 971112 PDR ADOCK 05000311 H
L PDR l
- 11u1111111111111111111111111111 llll llll 11
"*~?'.
You stated in your September 30, 1997, letter that the staff would have granted the amendment over the phone if the need arose.
On August 22, 1997, the staff had completed and documented its review of the amendment request and concluded that it was acceptable.
As we stated in our letter of September 25, 1997, the depth of this review was the same as it would have been if the amendment had been processed in the normal manner.
Therefore, the staff was prepared to issue the *amendment, if the need arose, over the weekend of August 23, 1997, which would have preceded the expiration of the notice period.
However, the staff would not have granted the amendment over the telephone, but would have issued a signed amendment in the normal manner.
The short-term need did not arise, thu~, the amendment was issued after the expiration of the notice period on September 10, 1997.
I have reviewed the actions taken by my staff in processing the amendment in an exigent manner and conclud~ that their actions were appropriate and that the exigent circumstances did conform to the requirements of 10 CFR
- 50.91(a)(6)~ In addition, I have forwarded yo~r letters to the NRC Office of the Inspector General for its consideration, noting that you have asserted an impropriety by the staff.
If you have any furiher questions on this amendment or on the exigent process, please contact John Stolz at 301-415-1430.
DISTRIBUTION See attached list PDI-2/PM DATE 1° fl 'l../97 OFFICE ADPR*
'NAME RZimmerman DATE 10/10/97 10/22/97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME:
VERSION2.
~
Sincerely, Samuel J. Coll1ns, Director
~ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- Previously Concurred TECH EDITOR*
DRPE/DD*
DRPE/D*
JZwol inski BBoger 10/10/97 10/10/97
// /D&/97
You stated in your September 30, 1997, letter that the staff would have granted the amendment over the phone if the need arose.
On August 22, 1997, the staff had completed and documented its review of the amendment request and concluded that it was acceptable.
As we stated in our letter of September 25, 1997, the depth of this review was the same as it would have been if the amendment had been processed in the normal manner.
Therefore, the staff was prepared to issue the amendment, if the need arose, over the weekend of August 23, 1997, which would have preceded the expiration of the notice period.
However, the staff would not have granted the amendment over the telephone, but would have issued a signed amendment in the normal manner.
The
- short-term need did not arise, thus, the ame~dment was issued after the
~xpiration of the notice period on September 10, 1997.
I have reviewed the actions taken by my staff in processing the amendment in an exigent manner and conclude that their actions were appropriate and that the exigent circumstances did conform to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.9l(a)(6).
In addition, I have forwarded your letters to the NRC Office of the Inspector General for its consideration, noting that you have asserted an impropriety by the staff.
If you have any further questions on this amendment or on the exigent process, please contact John Stolz at 301-415-1430.
Sincerely,
~liQJ~
~~~~~!-~~ ~ollins, Director*
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Green Ticket response to D. Lochbaum from S. Collins, dated November 12, 1997.
DISTRIBUTION Docket File (50-311)
PUBLIC (w/incoming)
ED0#970702 LCal 1 an HThompson AThadani PNorry JBlaha SBurns SCollins/FMiraglia RZimmerman BSheron JRoe WTravers HMil l er, RGN-I PDI-2 Reading (w/incoming)
BBoger JZwolinski JStolz MThadani MBoyle (E-mail MLB4)
OGC OPA OCA SECY#CRC-97-0972 NRR Mail Room (ED0#970702 w/incoming)
NOlson RNorsworthy LOlshan.Cw/incoming)
MO' Brien Jlinville, RGN-1 EDO r/f