ML19242A729
| ML19242A729 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1979 |
| From: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Christy W AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908030581 | |
| Download: ML19242A729 (4) | |
Text
~
n arc f,
UNI FED STATES
+
[," ) v, (
h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM!SJiON C
WASHINGTON, D. C. T:555 o
S Docket tb. STN 50-482 JUN 141979
)
Ms. Wanda Christy 515 North 1st Street Purlington, Kansas 66839
Dear Ms. Christy:
Thank you for your letter (f May 18, 1979, in which you state that you attended the public meeting held in Burlington, Kansas on May 15, 1979 regarding the issue of the concrete strength of the Wolf Creek base mat.
In your letter, you also make various comments concerning several matters.
I would like te take this opportunity to respond to some of your cormients.
You indicate that at the meeting it appeared that the utility showed a lack of respect for tRC rienbers and that the utili'.y was telling us that it was right (in its conclu.icns regarding the acceptability of the base mat).
The meeting in Burlino'on, Kansas was held for the express purpose of providing for the exchange vf technical information between the applicant and the NRC staff. In such meetings, it is the prerogative of the applicant to present what it believes to be its interoretation cf the technical facts (in this case, the acceptability of the base mat),
a our review of the matter, we will evaluate the facts and data presented.ind arrive at our own independent conclusions, irrespective of how strongly an applicant may present its views.
You state that you and other persons living near the plant hear reperts of shoddy workmanship and.aaterials and that workers ve quit because of it.
We are not aware of the reports you discuss in your letter.
Fo r you r inf o r-mation, the PRC's Region IV Office of Insrection ane Enforcement in Arlington, Texas has included its telephone number ( Area Code 817 334-2841) in the Burlingtor., Kansas phone directory.
This number can be used by workers, or any memb:r of tne public, to make a collect call if they want to report any potentill or suspected def'iciencies in the construction of the Wol f Creek olant with f ull assurance that their identity will be protected from dic c'osur e.
Any information that would be received by Region IV from such calls would certainly be investigated.
With regard to the workmanship at the Wol f Creek f acility, we require, anc the applicant has implemented, an approved quality assurance program on con-struction ar*iv ities. A primary purpose of this program is to permit the applicant to detect, by inspection, any construction work that does not meet requirenents so that such Jeficiencies can be corrected. In addition to the applicant's inspection program, the NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement also performs periodic inspections, most of which are urannnunced, to assure that the applicant, among other things, is acceptably impleme" ting its quality e
,a
)
080 % "
jlo q9
Ms. Wanda Christy JUN 141973 assurance program requirements. Addition 6 ly, tne NRC will require the applicant to conduct an extensive preoperational ter t program for each system and component prior to plant operation.
With rc%rd to the Three Mile Island inci fent, the IRC staff is currently condu; ting a thorough investigation of th e incident.
This investigation includes the study of potential design deficiencies in the plant, plant operator response to the accident including operator errors and/or misinterpretation
'f plant instrumentation, and all other aspects of the accident which might lead to in'ormation that would improve the sa'ety of nuclear power plants.
Although tM major emphasis of the current staff effort is focused on nuclear power plants that are presently licensed to operate, the results of the staf f's investigations will also be applied to plants that are currently under con-struction and to plants for which construction permits have been applied for but not yet issued. The Wolf Creek plant will utilize a Westinghouse rear, tor while the Three Mile Island plant utilizes a Babcock and Wilcox reactor.
Therefore, some of the resu!ts of the staff's 'nvestigation may not be directly applicable to the Wolf Creek plant.
It is the id.ent of the NRC staff to assure that the Wolf Creek riant design and method of operation afford a minimum of risk to the public health and safety.
You refer to reports of workers " playing games" to see ho< fast they could mix and pcur concrete.
The NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement has performed an investigation of the matter of concrete strength for the Wolf Creek base mit.
In this investigation, various aspects of the matter were looked into, including an investigation of how the concrete was mixed. A report of this investigation was issued on February 16, 1979.
In the report,
a statement was made that the PRC inspector was told that a " race" existed between the Datch plant and placement crew to prevent or to cause a call for more <ancrete. The report also stated that the inspector could not attach any direct significance to this competitive spirit.
You state that some of you who have had concerns ard ouestioned the utility personnel have had your jobs threatened and received other types of harras sment.
We have no knowledge to indicate that this is occurring and, therefore, I am not able to comment on it.
As I indicated above, anyone who has questions or complaints concerning deficiencies in the ' alf Creek plant may contact the NRC by making a callect call.
You state that the record indicates that the PRC hc supported the nuclear industry.
I would like to clarify the role of the NRC.
The role of the NRC in its review of nuclear pomr plants is to consider those measurer neceesary for the protection of the public's health and sa'ety and the environment.
To carry out its responsibilities, the fRC staff conducts detailed reviews for each nuclear power plant prior to construction authorization and again prior to the start of operation. When the situation warrants, such as is the case regarding the Wolf Creek base cat issue, a detailed review is conducted of a specific issue if it develops during construction but prior to an application L
a' O J'*U
Ms. Wanda Christy JUN 141979 for an operating license.
In our review of the Wolf Creek base mat matter, the public's health and safety has bian and will continue to be the prime consideration.
Also, I would like tr n ta that in accordance with NRC egulations, a nuclear powr plant design is not approved until an operating license is issued.
You state that the Chairman of the Kansas Corporation Commission, has been quoted as saying that the utilities could stop work now on W-lf Creek and start all over building a coal plant and it would cost less than finishing Wel f Creek. Wa have no knowledge of such a statement.
With egard to the relative costs between a nuclear plant and a coal plant at Wcif Creek, this is a matter that was evaluated during the construction ;ermit stage of review for Wol f Creek. At that time, the staff determine ( that when the total costs, including the operating as well as the construction ccsts, of a plant at Wolf Creek are considered, the total costs of a nuclear plant euld be lower th:n for a coal plant.
This evaluation was included in the staff's Final Er.sironmental Statement and was presented to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board during the hearing process.
Following the hearing, the Board issued a decis;un in which it concluded that the total costs of a nuclear plant would be lower than for a coal plant.
Li: decision was later affirmed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
You commented on the matter of nuclear waste.
Only spent fuel, which would be discharged periodically from the Wolf Creek reactor, will be stored at the site.
This spent fuel will be stored in the spent fuel storage f acility until such time that it can ce transferred to a permanent storage facility to be constructed by the Federal Government.
Although I cannot predict at this time when the permanent storage facility will be available, it probably will not be available before 1990.
In order to accommodate the number of spent fuel elements that will accuaulate until the permanent storage facility is available, various utilities are increasing the capacity of their existing spent fuel storage facilities and/cr making arrangements to ship the spent fuel to facilities with available storage capacity.
Ho we ver,
any expansion of fuel pool storage capacity m' t be reviewed and approved by the NRC.
You state that you feel that the questions 2sked by the NRC staff were "crunbs" handed to the public to assure that the staff was doing its job.
I regret that you feel as you do. As I stated earlier, the meeting was held as a technical uiscussion be'. ween the applicant and the stc:
regarding the concrete strength of the Wolf Creek base mat. We were aware of the public's interest in this matter and made a sincera effort to give the public a view of our review process, of which a technical meeting is only a part. Meetings are Conducted primarily to present information and to provide opportunity f or questioning and clarification. They are not the forum for ruling on whethar th-information presented is acceptable or net. The responsibility still rests with the applicant to orove its case.
7/7 r,
,1 i ) (')
.)
Ms. Wanda Christy JUN 141979 You state '. hat there is no need to delay our decision on the concrete and that it is a delay for time so that the utility could complete more of the plant. We have not delayed our decision on this matter.
The reason a decision has not bee.. made to date is that we have not comple'.ed our review.
As soon as we reach a decision, we will inform the applicant and the public without delay. With regard to the construction activities currently in progress at Wolf Creek, none is in the areas which could be affected by our decision on this base mat matter. For the structure that could be affected by our decision; i.e.,
th. containment building, the applicant has imposed a voluntary hold on construction which has been in effect since December 1978.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize again that we will reach a decision, on the matter of the concrete strength of the base mat, as quickly as we can and that the primary consideration in reaching a decision will be to a. "re a minimum of risk to the public health and safety.
Sincerely, amenic B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors nivision of Project Management i'
9 b, O J
U