ML20070E823

Ack Receipt of Response to Re Restart of Facility.Requests Safety Issues from Generic Ltrs & Bulletins Not Implemented & Bases for Saying That Health & Safety of Residents Living in Proximity to Plant Assured

ML20070E823
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	07/26/1990
From:	Pooler R ATLANTIC STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC.
To:	Carr K, Remick F, Rogers K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20070E825	List: ML20070E823
References
NUDOCS 9103060298
Download: ML20070E823 (5)

Text

. . . .

djV ATIANTIC STATES i LEGAL FOUNDATIO% INC.

July 26, 1990 .

Chair Kenneth Carr Commissioner Kenacth Rogers Commissioner Forrest Remick Commissioner James Curtiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,.D.C. 20555 In Regard to Nine Mile Point Unit 1

Dear Chair Carr and Commissioners:

I have your response to my letter of May 14, 1990. Your letter, and the staff response enclosed raises as many questions as it answers. My clients, an unincorporated association of Central New Yorkers called Retire Nine Mile 1, understand that the Commission would not be considering restart without first fully evaluating the health and safety implications of that restart and the questions to which we have demanded answers must have been considered as part of your health and safety evalua-tion.

1. The Staff Response to Question 3 which asked whether the NRC will require Niagara Mohawk to measure the thickness of the entire torus before permitting restart contains the following assertion:

However, because of uncertainties in the rate of future corrosion, the licensee has commit-ted to the NRC to perform wall thickness measurements at least_every six months?

Niagara Mohawk, in their letter to the NRC of November 22, 1989 contends that, " sufficient wall thickness remains to provide at least one additional operating cycle at Nine Mile Point Unit 1 before corrective actions must be taken." Can thickness meas-urements be made while the plant is in operation or is the NRC going to require Niagara Mohawk to shut down Nine Mile Point Unit 1 every six months during the operating cycle?

2. Also in the Staff Response to Question 3, the staff 650 West Onondaga Street, Syracuse, New York 132(>4 3356 315-475 1170

@ l O bbb bi h 5(( x W O *~w one \ e-u ,

. e . 4 e Nuclear Regulatory Chair and Commissioners July 24, 1990 Page 2 asserts that February, 1990 neasurements 'did not indicate a significant change f rom the August, 1989 measurements.' Attached to the August, 1989 measurements is a 41x page handwritten report by MDR associates which is denominated Appen-dix B to the August, 1983 measurements. On page 4 of this report there is a notation that ( positive corrosion rate measurement was "not used in determining the mean or standard deviation.' Since a positive corrosion rati; .s physically impossible, reliance on the company's measurements is misplaced. The February, 1990 measurements, which Staff contends *do not indicate a significant change from the August, 1989 measure-ments', are not available for examination in the Public Document Room.

3. During the May 14, 1990 Briefing on the status of Niaga-ra Mohawk's progrew toward restart, Commissioner Curtiss asked Mr. Burkhardt at page 74 of the transcript:

How extensive is the monitoring that you're actually doing? Mr. Burkhardt replied: It's very extensive, because y_g.g k n o w gg accuraev p_1 the testina 11 Jess than gg corrosion rate, so you have to get a very high sar.ple in order to be able to average out wb.t you have. (emphasis supplied) We interpr , this quote to mean that there is no accurate means of deterr ning the thickness of the torus and no reliable method of predicting at what rate it is getting thinner. We note above that some measurements were discarded. The measurements which were not discarded may be no more accurate that the ones which were discarded. Good technical practice would indicate that you cannot take-a series of measurements, each of which has a wide error band, average those measurements and then conclude that there is an accurate basis for predicting anything. How does Mr. Burkhardt's assertion that *you have to get a very high sample" comport with the fact reported in the Staff Response (to Question 3) that in August, 1989 measurements were made in all 20 bays, but in February, 1990, only 4 bays were measured?

Nuclear Regulatory Chair and Comissioners . July 24, 1990 l Page 3 In view of the alleget' low cost of repairing the torus, (less than $15 uillion Niagara Mohawk told the New York Public Service Comission) and in view of the NRC's statutory charge to pose no undue risk to the public health and safety, we pontinue to believe that Nine Mile Point Unit 1 should not be allowed to l restart bef ore the torus is upaired. I

4. With regard to the generic letters and bulletins, we originally asked the Commissioners what specifically were the safety issues related to Hino Mile Point Unit I which were not resolved prior to considering restart. This, of course, is not an ordinary plant. As the Co=ission well knows, this plant has been out of service for 31 months, continues to be on the Comis-sion's ' Watch List', and the most recent SALP reports show enduring evidence of managerial incompetence.

While philosophically we can agree with the Commission's

 ,            policy on generic letters and bulletins, the history of this company's management, together with the specific questions relat-ing to restart call, we believe, for a different standard here.

To treat the restart of Nine Mile Point Unit 1 as if it were business as usual may be such an extreme derogation of duty as to amount to an abdication of the Commission's statutory responsi-bilities. Therefore, we ask you again: Which safety issues from generic letters and bulletins have not been implemented, and what is the basis at Nine Mile Point Unit 1 for saying that the health and safety f residents living in proximity to that plant has been assun .. Sincerely,

                                                    & J. PA Rosemary S. Pooler i                                                    Vice President for Legal Affairs I

d f

 . o  .

Rosemary S. Pooler April 2,1991 This question has also been treated as a separate request for additional infonnation, since the response to this question is not dependent on granting your Petition to institute the requested proceeding. A response to this questicn is included in Enclosure 4 For the reasons given in the enclosed Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206, your Petition has been denied. A copy of the Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Comission for the Connission's review in accordance with 10 l CFR2.206(c). As provided by this regulation, the Decision will constitute the l final action of the Consnission 25 days af ter the date of issuance of the Decision unless the Connission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the Decision within that time. A copy of the Notice of Decision that is being filed with the Of fice of the Federal Register for publication is also enclosed, l Sincerely, Origihn1 sigmod by 22 coma 3. Murley Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Director's Decision DD-91-2

2. Federal Register Notice

3. TE 3taff Response to I

Questions in the Atlantic l States Legal Foundation Letter of July 26, 1990, on the Containment Torus

4. NRC Bulletins and Generic Letters Not Fully Implemented at NMP-1 1

           *See previous concurrence W'                                    y         4,La A PDI-1:LA         PDI-1:PM4,/8 PDI-1:D                        Tech Ed*        OGC             REGION 1 4 3 CVogan[d         DB         kman:Ysc RACapra                 JMain           JCeybrg-        WHegl Sl2   i                    '/h/          3/2884             2/20/91         gum j . 41 AD I      f/          ,

DET: JRi'ha, son NRR:AD hr EGree m JPartidw' l feg

                              . 20 DECISION /P3           N LE Y[         3/3e                        L l

DOCUMENT HAME: ' EDO #5704 e

4 00 2

           %)istribution~

cKit Mle NRC & Local PORs EDO Reading E00 #5704 P01 1 Reading TMurley TMartin, Rg I FMiraglia JPartlow SVarga g EGreenman CVogan 0Brinkman EJordan ACRS (10) JTaylor Plant File JLinville GPA/PA ETana RACapra WHehl, Rg I RMWeisman, 0GC VYanez (2) KBrockman

                                        . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -}}