ML20034B088
| ML20034B088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Kostmayer P, Markey E HOUSE OF REP., HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033G667 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9004250309 | |
| Download: ML20034B088 (6) | |
Text
__ _ _. _ _ _ _. - _ _ - _.. _
e 2
'F S
<!p uo o
UNITED STATES 1*'
1-
-P" N
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
l
. wAsHmorow, o. c. 2 osse -
k****,*p[;-
March 30, 1990.
I b
. CHAIRMAN '-
l The Honorable Peter H. Kostmayer, Chairman Subconnittee on General OversightL i
and Investigations Committee on; Interior and Insular. Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington,-Di C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am responding to your' letters of March 13 and March 16, 1990, in which you expressed concern that certain Institute of Nuclear' Power Operations (INP0) reports appeared to show safety deficiencies at the Seabrook plant.1 ~You were also concerned that, as I stated at.the March 14 hearing I had ~ not reviewed these INPO documents prior-to the Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC) issuing the full power license for Seabrook<
l At the outset, it is important to understand how INPO evaluation reports relate to the NRC's. regulatory process..-The NRC and INP0 have agreed to l
exchange experience, information, and data relating to the safety of nuclear
[
~
l power plants. Although not' required, INPO-member utilities make certain INP0 evaluation reports available to the NRC.for the staff:.to-review or read on an audit basis as a routine.part of the inspection process. ~Should an-l INP0 evaluation reveal a significant violation or' safety deficiency, the licensee is required to report the matter to NRC in accordance with NRC.
reporting requirements (e.g., 10 CFR 50.55(e), 10 CFR 50~.72, and 10'CFR 50.73).
The NRC's review process to assess the application-for a full power license l.
for Seabrook involved approximately 30,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of NRC. inspection effort.
As part of the total inspection effort at the. site, the senior resident inspector reviewed some, but not all, of the INPO' evaluation reports.
In-certain instances, he discussed the results of the INPO evaluations with New Hampshire Yankee (NHY) management. None of the INP0 evaluations reviewed by the senior resident inspector disclosed unreported violations of NRC require-ments. Therefore, based on these early reviews,.there was reasonable assurance that INP0 findings.did not reveal unreported violations of NRC requirements..NHY was well aware of its reporting obligations, and INPO has obligated itself through its Memorandum'of Understanding with the NRC to inform the NRC of significant safety-related information.
Prior to the Commission's appearance before your Subcommittee on March 14, the NRC staff did not find it'necessary to review every INPO document because existing requirements provided adequate-assurance that the NRC would, be informed in a timely manner if INP0 had identified any significant ~
GC0 ggp 288 21 M88 FULLTE T ASCllSCAN CORRESPONDENCE PDC.
=
s.
violation or safety deficiency. However, in response to the concerns of your Subcomittee and the late filed allegation from Mr. Nader and Mr.
Pollard, the NRC elected to undertake a review of INP0 documents pertaining to Seabrook.
The NRC staff requested NHY to provide the NRC information concerning-the reports mentioned by Mr. Nader and Mr. Pollard 'at;the Subcomittee on General' Oversight and Investigations hearing on March 14,'1990. These reports, along-with NHY's evaluation of them, were provided to.the NRC staff on March 15, 1990. The reports have since been provided to your staff and Mr. Markey's staff as you requested.
In its submittal of March 15, 1990, NHY certified:to' NRC that it had reviewed INP0 reports.from the_INP0 Construction' Evaluations of 1983 and 1984, the Station and Corporate Assistance Visits of'1986' and 1987,.
and the Emergency Preparedness-Assistance Visits of 1986 and 1987. NHY stated that there were no open items from any of these reports that presented a safety' concern or that would prevent the safe operation of Seabrook Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
Regarding the NRC's review effort, staff members'in the NRC's Region'I office and in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation..and resident inspectors'at the'Seabrook site reviewed the INPO reports that were submitted on March 15,-
1990. This review was accomplished before the full' power. license was issued.
Based on its review, the staff determined that there were no open issues.
arising from.the INP0 reports that would affect the decision to issue a full power license. As noted above, selected INP0 reports involving Seabrook had.-
been reviewed previously.by inspectors in the-licensee's offices as a' routine part of the inspection process. The NRC staff.that participated in this entire review process determined that_no regulatory _ requirements were violated and that NHY actions were appropriate for-the issues raised in the INP0 documents. The staff also concluded that information in these 1
reports did not change the staff's finding =that'there is reasonable assurance that the Seabrook facility can be operated safely. As indicated i
in the enclosure, other INP0 documents were made-available in the licensee's offices and were reviewed by inspectors subsequent'to the issuance of the Seabrook full power license.
Commissioners Curtiss and Remick did not participate in the preparation _of this response.
I Sincerely, Kenneth M. Carr 1
Enclosure:
Summary of Staff Review Effort cc: Rep. Barbara Vucanovich l
l x
,. +
p eso UNITED STATES -
og
~
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
- {
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665
\\**..[
March 30, 1990 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Edward J. Markey United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Markey:
I am responding to your letters of March 13.and March 16, 1990, in which you expressed concern that certain Institute of Nuclear Power Operations _ (INP0) reports appeared to show safety deficiencies at the Seabrook plant.1.You were also concerned that, as I stated at the March I4 hearing, I had not-reviewed these INPO documents prior to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
(NRC) issuing the full power license for Seabrook.
j!
At the outset, it is important to understand how INP0 evaluation reports relate to the NRC's regulatory process. The NRC and.INPO have agreed.to i
exchange. experience, information, and data relating to the safety of nuclear power plants. Although not required. INP0-member utilities-make certain'
-i INPO evaluation reports available to the NRC for'the staff to review or read on an audit basis as'a routine part of the inspection process. -Should an-INP0 evaluation _ reveal a significant violation or safety deficiency,'the.
=i licensee is required to report the matter to NRC in accordance with NRC 3
reporting requirements (e.g.,10 CFR 50.55(e),10 CFR:50.72, and -10 CFR 50.73),
i The NRC's review process to assess the application for a full' power _ license -
- i for Seabrook involved approximately 30,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of NRC inspection effort.
j As part of the total inspection effort at the site, the senior. resident inspector reviewed some, but not all, of the INPO evaluation reports.
In
' I certain instances, he discussed the results of the INP0 evaluations with New 4
Hampshire Yankee (NHY) management.- None of the INP0 evaluations reviewed by -
l the senior resident inspector disclosed unreported violations of NRC require-1 ments. Therefore, based on these early reviews, there was reasonable 1
assurance that INPO findings did not reveal unreported violations 1 of.NRC l
requirements. NHY was well aware of its reporting obligations, and INP0 has obligated itself through its Memorandum of Understanding with the NRC to.
inform the NRC of significant safety-related information.
Prior to.the Comission's appearance before your Subcommittee on March 14, the NRC staff did not find it necessary to review every INP0 document because existing requirements provided adequate assurance that the NRC would be infomed in a timely manner if INP0 had identified any significant i
6 e
in
- 9' 2
violation or safety deficiency. However, in response to the concerns of your Subcommittee and the late filed allegation from Mr. Nader and Mr.
Pollard, the NRC elected to undertake a review of INPO documents pertaining to Seabrook.
The NRC staff requested NHY to provide the NRC information concerning the reports mentioned by Mr. Nader and Mr. Pollard at' the Subcomittee on General Oversight and Investigations hearing on March 14, 1990. These reports, along'~
with NHY's evaluation of them, were provided to the NRC staff on March 15, 1990. The reports have since been provided to your staff and Mr. Markey's staff as you requested.
In its submittal of March 15, 1990, NHY certified to NRC that it had reviewed INPO reports from the INP0 Construction Evaluations of 1983 and 1984, the Station and Corporate. Assistance Visits of 1986 and 1987,-
and the Emergency Preparedness Assistance Visits of 1986 and 1987. NHY: stated-that there were no open items from any of these reports that presented a safety concern or that would prevent the safe operation of Seabrook Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
Regarding the NRC's review effort, staff members in the NRC's. Region I office i
and in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 'and resident inspectors'at 1
the Seabrook site reviewed the INP0 reports that were submitted on March _15, 1990. This review was accomplished before the full power license was issued.
1 Based on its review, the staff determined that there were no open issues arising from the INP0 reports that would affect the decision to issue a full power license. As noted above, selected INP0 reports involving Seabrook had-i been reviewed previously by inspectors in the licensee's offices as a-routine part of the inspection process. The NRC staff that participated in this entire review process determined that no regulatory requirements were violated and that NHY actions were_ appropriate for the issues raised in the INP0 documents. The staff also concluded that information in these reports did not change the staff's finding that there is reasonable
{
assurance that the Seabrook facility can be operated safely. As indicated j
in the enclosure, other INP0 documents were made available-in the licensee's offices and were reviewed by inspectors subsequent to:the issuance of the Seabrook full power license.
Commissioners Curtiss and Remick did not participate in the preparation of-this response.
3 Sincerely, Kenneth M. Carr
Enclosure:
Sumary of Staff Review Effort 1
a.
~
ENCLOSURE s
SUMMARY
OF STAFF REVIEW EFFORT-A.
INP0 FORMAL EVALUATION REPORT REVIEWER (I)
REVIEWED 1.
Evaluation of Construction and Design Controls, 11/17-28/83 A. Cerne 12/83 2.
Evaluation of Construction, Design Controls, & Testing, A. Cerne:
,Before 12/3-14/84 2/85-3.
Assistance Visit for Operational Readiness, 11/2-13/87'
'A.Cerne(2) 3/.16/90 4.
Evaluation of Operations, 9/11-22/89 N. Dudle 3/15/90 (includedinA6below)
A.Cerne(2)-
'i 5.
Evaluation of Corporate Sdpport 10/2-6/89 N. Dudley 3/15/90 (included in A6 below)
A. Cerne 1
6.
.3/15/90 New Hampshire Yankee (NHY) letter and lT. Murley 3/15/90 l
the attached three INP0 rpts.(See Enclosure 1 to J. Partlow ~
NHYletter)
S. Varga B. Boger J. Johnson E. Reis B.
INP0 ACTIVITIES NOT RESULTING IN FORMAL EVALUATION REPORTS 1.
Radiological Protection Program Assistance Visit, A.:Cerne 3/16/90 l
Week of 4/4/83, INP0 rpt. dtd. 5/9/83 1
2.
Training Assistance Visit, 10/4-5/83, rpt. dtd. 12/2/83 A. Cerne 3/16/90~
3.
Emergency Preparedness (EP) Drill Review Visit,.
A. Cerre 3/16/90 12/11-13/85, 1tr. rpt. dtd. 1/7/86 4.
Accreditation Assistance Visit,1/7-8/86, memo dtd.1/20/87 A. Cerne 3/16/90 5.
Assistance Visit for Operational Readiness, 1/20-31/86 A.Cerne(3)
Unknown i
N. Dudley 3/15/90 6.
Corporate Assistance Visit, 2/10-14/86 A.Cerne(3)
Unknown N. Dudley_
3/15/90 7.
EP Special Assistance Visit, 2/11-13/86 W. Lazarus 3/15/90 t
8.
Training _& Accreditation Assistance Visit, 1/12-13/87, A. Cerne 3/16/90 1tr dtd. 1/20/87 (1) Reviewer's Name, Title and Organization listed on next page.
(2) Senior Resident Inspector recalls being briefed by NHY soon after this INP0 inspection.
(3) Senior Resident Inspector believes these documents reviewed during earlier routine inspection; review dates unknown.
l
u..
. >i i
B.
INP ACTIVITIES N0T RESULTING IN FORMAL EVALUATION REPORTS (Cont'd.)
9.
EP Special Assistance Visit, 11/30-12/3/87 W. Lazarus 3/15/90.
j 10.. Training Assistance Visit, 12/14-15/87, 1tr. dtd. 12/29/87 A. Cerne 3/16/90
- 11. EP Special Assistance Visit, 1/25-29/88
.W. Lazarus
.3/15/90 (includedin-A6above)'
F. Kantor-
-12. Accreditation Assistance Visit, Wk. of 1/23/89 A. Cerne' 3/16/90 5
Reviewer's>Name, Title and Organization
-}
Thomas Murley
- Director, Office of. Nuclear ~ Reactor Regulation James Partlow
- Associate Director. for Projects, NRR Steve Varga
- Director, Division of Reactor _. Projects I/II, NRR Bruce Boger
- Assistant Director.'for Region I Reactors, NRR Jon Johnson
- Branch Chief Projects Branch No. 3, Division of Projects,-Region-I Edwin Reis
- Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Reactor Licensing, Office of General Counsel Falk Kantor
- Section Chief, Emergency Preparedness Branch, NRR
' William Lazarus - Section Chief,. Emergency Preparedness Region.1_
(
Antone.Cerne
- Fonner Senior Resident Inspector, Seabrook Station,. Region I Noel Dudley
- Senior Resident Inspector, Seabrook Station, Region I i
i
~!
l-
- - -.-~
"-- -- -- ~ - - ~ -
~-
. )::
j; g4 ONE U 08t0 fEST CONOREll
~
MORN $ K. UDALL, ARtIONA. CHJJRMAN.
$$$ktfir* N$h'^'*""
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
'5'bv
- :===nr.
- = '"ATA AND INSULAR ~ AFFAIRS "Is#Ufn.1.,, omeroa.
2,;,'r".:. "=-
=Ya'.'" * **"'
^= c=~5n g g g g o;= g o,s,
Joa= egsyg U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES t,,,,,,y,,,.
- 'c"%; C="Ja'.='**
E'"I,7%A*".'.o=
WASHINGTON DC 20515 otNERAL COUNSEL lla E8EfalO.lu o -
"Ne",u^$ErcoVNsn-r-
MZ.,#' oO"'g gig gc,t,ogvy aowna nunc4=.s.1 =~issi IMO'E'#ct"." aft nom c cot =4 c
z i
Io"!E" lie!."MetELL. (DLOR.00 5?. =IGHTMonttC hhh.'*.#*on"'
'l March 16,-1990 The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr Chairman
.L U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
Washington, D.C.
20555
{
Dear Mr. Carr:
g It has come to.our attention that the Institute of Nuclear. Power.
1 Operations-has prepared numerous evaluations of operations-at i
L Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.:Many=of these reports appear to-show safety deficiencies at the plant.
l At the Interior Subcommittee on-~ General Oversight and Investigations hearing on March 14, 1990, you stated that while 1
you have access to these INPO documents, you had not reviewed-i them prior to issuing the full power license.
We have grave concerns with this decision.-At the March 14 hearing, consumer' advocate Ralph Nader and Robert Pollard, Nuclear Safety Engineer at the Union of? Concerned-Scientists',
testified that "the contents.of the INPOrevaluations compel-a conclusion that the NRC had -- and continues to have -- no valid-technical basis for permitting the Seabrook nuclear power plant to operate. At the.very_least, given'the Administration's position on nucioar power, the seabroox planc should not be 4
permitted to operate unless and until the PSNH completes its planned corrective actions and the NRC reviews those actions and' i
determines that the safety deficiencies have been corrected."
d 4
In light of your access.to these safety evaluations and their direct relevance to the licensing proceedings, we are requesting that you provide us with these INPO documents no later than Thursday, March-'22, 1990. Moreover, we request that'you determine the extent to which.your staff has reviewed INPO documents relevant to Seabrook, report to us the identity of the reviewer, i
.the identity of the document,_the place-and time each was reviewed,'and what. action, if any, was taken as a result of each review. Furthermore, to the extent that your staff did review the documents, please provide a detailed justification as to'why the-
~
GiovH IkOf o
3 --'
' =
Mr. Kenneth M. Carr J
_'Page 2 March 16, 1990 4
staff believed that such safety deficiencies did not necessitate immediate corrective action or preclude the issuance of a full power license for Seabrook.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter..
Sincerely,
}
fW Peter H. Kostmayerg 8 1 @ h Y n A-d Edward J.
Chairman Ma%iey.
'N
/
k Subcommittee on General Member
\\
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on General.
Oversight and Investigations--
t 2
Y h
1 r-M a
-.