ML20069L615
| ML20069L615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1994 |
| From: | Biden J SENATE |
| To: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20069L605 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9406200113 | |
| Download: ML20069L615 (5) | |
Text
... :_
asn w u wu EEt1 m Et, a
...:~-..=.a "MMY"#
g.,
, ni o
Enited $tates 5tnatt WASHINGTON. DC 20510-0802 May 18,1994
~
Mr. Ivan Selin Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Chairman Selin; I am deeply disappointed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's response to my correspondence of May 11, 1994 and its subsequent Given the decision to allow the Salem I nuclear facility to restart.
history of problems at Salem, the NRC has a public responsibility to r
warrant with as much certainty as possible that operational and management deficiencies of the past have been corrected,
~
In,your staff's response to my letter, in which,I asked for a thorough review of a number of. issues retaling to plant operations, your staff states that "the NRC has reviewed all the relevant restart issues, sad is satisfied that they have been adequately addressed."
However, the letter Can fails, in my view, to ' provide assurance on the critical restart issue:
the licensee prove'that it can and will operate thb' plant any differently in the future than it has in the past?
Instead of addressing each of the concerns clearly spelleo out in my letter to you, your staff enclosed the NRC analysis (status report) of PSE&G responses to issues raised by the NRC. While the documentation offers some insight into Salem's operations, it does not provide any statement of conclusions or analysis upon which a restart decision should Notably, the licensee's full submittal was received by your office on rest.
Given the the NRC's analysis was completed that same day.
May 13,1994; short time frame for review, I question the degree of confidence that you could have gained in PSE&G's ability, or even intention, to correct operational problems at the Salem i facility.
9406200113 9406o3 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
~_[
c6 w3a 2:6 la4 sde4 us, ;cecun 4
Page 2 Mr. Ivan Selin 5/18/94 l
I A major deficiency of your letter is that it does not assure me that the NRC..will take any responsibility in the event that Salem encounters j
future problems, nor does it make any commitments for strong agency in a letter to me dated May 12, intervention if such problems occur, 1992, responding to my objection to the fact that no fines were assessed following an incident with the turbine generators at Salem in 1991, you stated, "While the NRC is satisfied at this point that appropriate actions are underway to ensure that underlying causes are being addressed and to prevent events of similar nature, the NRC will monitor the licensee's enorts closely and will not besitate to take any further action It has appropriate to effect necessary changes in operations or attitude "
been two years, and little has changed, in the way of improved performance, at Salem.
After a thorough review of the documentation you enclosed with your letter, a number of the major concerns outlined in my earlier letter I am requesting.a specific response to each of the following
- persist, questions.
The first issue concerns the, pressurizer power operated relief valves (PORV), their. reliability and problems associated with the My installatibn last year 'of. new intern'ais in the valves'in Units 1 and 2.
staff has reviewed this issue with 'the NRC staff,'but fundamental questions remain.
Specifically, why did the manufacturer recommend a change in the What old material (17-4 pH) that had been used since the early 1980s.
testing had been performed on the new material (420-series) to prove it In the aftermath of the failure of the new material, was the reliability?
NRC database on equipment defects, required to be reported in accordanc with 10 CFR 12, reviewed for reports of similar problems in other PORVs Have other reactors currently using the new material in other. reactors?
Is this new material now in the PORV been notified of the Salem damage?
Will the NRC, or manufacturer, regarded as inferior to the old material?
direct other licensees to change the internals, and what material will be
~
m a. i, _,_., - 1,.. x, J_
a. J w..
4 Page 3 Mr. Ivan Selin 5/18/94 PSE&G indicated that valve internal recommended for installation?
misalignment may have contributed to the failure o.f the valve (page 7 of Was the valve installation technique a problem based the Status Report).
on manufacturer installation specifications or inadequate licensee quality control procedures?
And what is being done to correct installation
]
problems?
)
Regarding.the PORVs in Unit 2, when was the NRC notified that the Was this a result of operator wrong material had been installed?
notification or a result of my office contacting the NRC with this Was the installation procedure that occurred last year information?
documented, and did it reveal that the old material had been improperly re-Your staff indicated in a conference call with my staff that a installed?
representative from the manufacturer, Copes-Vulcan, was present at the Did the manufacturer's installation of the material in the Unit 2 PORVs.
representative certify in any documentation the content of the material The NRC that had.been installed, and. if so'.what material was described?
indicates. in its status-report.(page.22) that it has., concluded that Unit 2
~
is this PORVs "are acceptable for continu~ed operation of that unit."
conclusion based on assurances from the manufacturer, or on an independent evaluation? -
The second issue concems the prrselem of riiarsh grasses clogging the circulating water intake flow path, which was the catalyst for the series of failures that led to the April 7th shutdown.
The licensee provided the NRC with a number of short and long term solutions to this problem (page 9).
However, most of the modifications in fact, an implementation cited by PSE&G have yet to be implemented, schedule has not even been established for some of the proposed "each of the licensee's proposals While stating that, modifications.
appears to have merit, the effectiveness of these modifications remains the NRC concludes, in an apparent contradiction, to be demonstrated "
~
)
that the " plant design and the procedures that the licensee has (or will have). in place assure that the loss of circulating water to the main
- .w =...-.
sau O
Page 4 Mr. Ivan Selin 5/18/94 If the condenser. will not challenge the safety of the nuclear plant."
licensee and/or NRC are. not able to provide evidence that the new and proposed modifications will be effective, on what ' assurance is this
~
conclusion of " safety" based?
The third and most serious issue is management ineffectiveness in As resolving long standing problems affecting facility performance.
recently as March of this year, PSE&G was fined $50,000 for maintenance violations blamed on continued weaknesses of the plant's management.
Over the years, PSE&G has been fined more than $1 million for literally dozens of violations.
The NRC' (page.18) cites several factors that have contributed to the Those recurring operations design and maintenance problems at the plant.
causes in,clude " weakness in management and oversight of activities, inadequate root cause analysis, failure to follow procedures, personnel error, ineffective approaches to re, solution of problems and insufficient corrective actions.f PSE&G has made some attempts to correct such serious problems, including many changes that took place before the A PSE&G has Clearly, the efforts have not been adequate.
7th incident.
promised " additional.. changes to irhdrove management effectivene even the NRC acknowledges that a positive trend h'a's not yet been
~
Nevertheless, the NRC concludes demonstrated in Salem's performance.
that the "near-term and long-term actions initiated by the licensee appear to be sufficient to cause improvement if management maintai Given the history of Salem their commitment to the program.
management failures and PSE&G's repeated promises of improved performance. I am neither comforted nor encouraged by the NRC's unexplained yet enduring confidence in PSE&G efforts to improve management effectiveness.
Mr. Chairman, the public is entitled to definitive answers regarding all aspects of Salem's operations, including a direct response to the lo history of serious problems. Surely -- and, I would argue, at the very
05 12 5a :::::
5En sican wiv1 - :c:50c 72 no. 7:-2 eae o
f Page 5 Mr. Ivan Selin 5/18/94
-- Increased scrutiny by the NRC in reevaluating the decision to grant permission for a restart, is not only merited, but required under the Commission's public responsibility and trust.
4 Sincerely.
6E /
K Joseph R. Blden, Jr.
United States Senator 9
\\
\\
%e e4
+
,w
,aw--'
a.-