ML20044F948
| ML20044F948 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1993 |
| From: | Kokajko L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sniezek J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044F925 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306010249 | |
| Download: ML20044F948 (3) | |
Text
.
j *neg
[
- r UNITED STATES l
~
j j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2D885-0001
%.... +,P April 27, 1993 i
f MEMORANDUM FOR: James H. Sniezek, Deputy Executive Director l
Office of the Executive-Director for Operations-FROM:
Lawrence E. Kokajko, Senior Project Manager Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
ISSUES SURROUNDING APPROVAL OF INTERIM PLUGGING CRITERIA FOR l
TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT AND CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING l
i.
I am responding to your memorandum dated April 23, 1993, in which you asked for relevant information regarding my briefing of Congressman Defazio last l
year. This briefing primarily revolved around Trojan steam generator issues 1
and an amendment to the Trojan Nuclear Plant Technical Specifications regarding interim plugging (or repair) criteria, although other Trojan-specific issues were discussed as well.
l The Trojan amendment rey a wked for a one cycle steam generator tube repair ~
criteria in order to leav a service indications due to a cracking phenomena seen at tube support plate intersections caused by outside diameter stress corrosion cracking /intergrannular attack. The licensee also proposed to j
significantly lower the operational leakage limits.. The proposed amendment i
was r.oticed in the Federal Reaister on December 31, 1991, which expired 30 days later. The amendment was issued on February 5,'I992, which was. also the date of the briefing of Representatives AuCoin and DeFazio.
I would like to point out that a significant amount of resources (technical and managerial) from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).were expended on this effort, from the identification of the issue during the summer of 1991, through the technical specification amendment process.
j I.
Were you aware of the 12/23/91 J. Hopenfeld DP0 at the time of the.
l briefing?
(YES)
I was made aware of the "DP0" in mid-January 1992, although I do not remember r
the exact date.
I informed my management chain about the DP0 (Project Director, Assistant Director and Division Director).
I~do. recall how I found out about the DPO:
I saw it taped on the flipper cabinet in E. Murphy's office.
I had many conversations with E. Murphy and others in the Materials 4
and Chemical Engineering Branch (EMCB) during the November 1991 through 1
f January 1992 time period regarding the Trojan steam generators.
I understood from E. Murphy that the DP0 issue, which was not'well supported in the DP0 memorandum, would be addressed by EMCB, and I felt assured that it would be.
Indeed, upon receint of the safety evaluation from EMCB,.I believed the issue i
was addressed. Since I knew that the DPV/DP0 process is a formal process,.I i
felt assured that any concerns would be appropriately handled.
I also' l
understood that the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation was responsible for making the final judgement on the adequacy of an amendment.
93060*.0249 930510-PDR ADDCK-05000344
?
P-PDR v
James H. Sniezek'
- 2.
Were you aware of any other staff in RES or NRR that had a different view from the agency approach at the time of the briefing?
(YES)
Before the briefing, I was aware that a particular individual in the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) had a concern with this issue in general.
J. Hopenfeld called me prior to (and after) the date of his DP0 memorandum, but I did not obtain from him any information which would lead me to believe he had a significant safety concern regarding Trojan. As a matter of fact, as I became more aware of the issues (interim plugging vs. alternate plugging), I believed his concern was more with the alternate plugging approach, which the licensee for farley Nuclear Plant requested.
I knew that EMCB had concerns with alternate plugging, too.
I was unaware that any other person in RES took exception to the proposed interim plugging criteria for Trojan.
As stated earlier, it was not until mid-January 1992 that I realized that J. Hopenfeld had a specific (written) concern with Trojan's proposed repair criteria.
Af ter issuance of the amendment, I followed the activities of my office (NRR) in regard to interim and alternate plugging criteria review (Trojan would need another cycle and wanted a more permanent repair criteria).
I was unaware of the RES activities until the NRC/EPRI meeting on March 10, 1992, which was held to discuss the steam generator reliability project, including alternate plugging criteria.
It was then I learned of J. Muscara's concerns, which I thought involved alternate plugging criteria, not interim plugging criteria.
Later (summer 1992), I learned that a request for additional information was sent to EPRI/Farley that outlined J. Muscara's concerns about alternate plugging criteria, and another request for additional information to Farley outlined E. Murphy's concerns.
I do not count (for purposes of your question) EMCB reviewers who had concerns as the steam generator tube issue developed at Trojan, and needed information to resolve questions raised during their review of the licensing action.
I know of no one in NRR who had a different view from the agency approach.
It was not until after the Trojan steam generator tube leak on November 9, 1992, that I became aware of the RES documentation concerning the repair j
criteria.
I only became aware of this due to the Union of Concerned Scientists interest in the issue.
It was at this time that I discovered RES had turned the "DP0" into a generic issue, the documentation for which is outlined in SECY 92-412.
3.
If the answer to question 1 or 2 is yes, why was this not identified to Congressman DeFazio at the time of the briefing?
(SEE BELOW)
On February 5,1992, M. Virgilio and I met with Representatives AuCoin and j
Defazio. The representatives were advised of the Trojan steam generator j
issue, including the problem and its resolution. We told them about the lengthy and extensive inspection program at Trojan, which supported the amendment, and the conservative nature of the action that only allowed one i
cycle of operation. They were advised that no one commented on the action nr petitioned for leave to intervene.
i o
l
l t
James H. Sniezek
- We did not mention that a DP0 had been oenerated.
It did not cross my mind to mention it since I thouaht any safety issue raised in the DP0 had been resolved by EMCB. and therefore no safety concern was present.
Second. 1 thouaht that if a true DP0 had been written and a safety sianificant issue had been identified.1 (or my manaaement) would have been notified of any safety concern and told to ston work.
This did not happen.
I can honestly say that the DP0 memorandum was not a concern tq me at the time of the briefina because I believed the technical and safety issues. at least as far as NRR wal concerned, were resolved.
Finally, I would like to mention soc.et"~.ng that many people have not. The interim plugging criteria for Trojan was actually beneficial for the plant on November 9, 1992. The tube leak was due to an inadequate repair (sleeving) on one tube, which was unrelated to any of the indications left in service due to the interim repair criteria. The leak was detected by an N-16 monitor that was installed to detect small leakage from steam generator tubes.
This monitor was an operational enhancement as a result of a commitment the licensee made in order to obtain the new iepair limits.
Other commitments were to require additional simulator training on tube rupture events, and to enhance operational and abnormal procedures. The event was mitigated by prompt detection (at 50 gallons per day) and correct operator action.
c7)
_{
Lawrence E. Kokajko, Senior Project Manager Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
l i
i d