ML20071P739

Expresses Concerns Re NRC Insp of Plant as Ref in Insp Rept Concerning Limits Exceeded of RCS Transients as Specified in Design Basis & Requests NRC Comments

ML20071P739
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	06/24/1994
From:	Berwick A MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20071P734	List: ML20071P739
References
NUDOCS 9408100129
Download: ML20071P739 (2)

Text

,.

th C

O/?t/?lD/luCffl Y O GAAG EJA4Pb WY lb e.

)

7

-l CSC/bko Y/lDNwy

&2EMZ$

Yl Ore Jkbb/w/cn $bico, SCOTT HARP 4tDARGER ATTORN(Y CENERAL (617) 727-2200

. lune 24, 1994 I

.i n nv". f4. Tay1or Executive Director for Operations l

li. S. fluclear Regulatory Comminsion Washington D.C.

20055 Deat li t. Taylor:

j We a t e wr i t.ing to taise certain concerns that have arisen

)

in connect ion wi tti an filtC innpection of the Pilg rim fluclea t l

Power Station ( Pf1PU) conducteil in ear]y 1994.

An a result of I hat inspection, the 11HC i :, s u ed a report, dated February 24,

1994, i ndicat ing that the plant had already exceeded, during itn /1

y. air of ope r a t:i on, i t :, 40-year lifetime limits foi font of

i y typon of reactot cooIant nynt em ti anu ients speci f ied in i t r, denion basin. The excendancer identified wore not Ltivial

i neleed, one of the cattuoiior of t.iansients i tali ca ted t i annient n to-date donble tho don i an ban ir, numbot; anoiher catenoly r e f. l oc t.ed a n exceedance of six t.imes the desi gn bani s.

Pf1PS renponded t o the TIRC 1 bat the recordc that the NRC had ieviowed uete not iecords of act.ual transients or cycles, but, rathet, of " operating events," which could be used as a basis for calculating the true number of transients but were not themselves of any qignificance.

Thus, neithet PNPS nor the NitC war, immediately able to det ermine whether certain plant component., had expetienced moie f atigue t.han they had been l

flen i o ned to withstand. rio r, an we understand it, had either l

PHP5 of the NHC systematically addtessed t h i s rp i e s t i o ni in l'NPS '

21 y e a rt, of operation.

fly t h i r, point;, an you may knou, this otfice had become involved.

On May 11.

1991 Ihe Director of the Itegion l'n l

Division of IIoact o t Gatoly wiote to P11PS, pi on'imably an a r e <: a l t.

or our inquiry, i nitien t i no confidence in the eventual einicom" of eNPS' a n a.l y:c i :, of i', operatina e/ent history.

The IllRf a p p e tt i 7, tO haVs' It'?t'il Il fl aW 91 * *, HP Of f h il l d a t. e, that Ptil'S '

connulIant b ru l, at leant niofiminaiily, completv"1 itn calculnt.lon of t: b n tsne in n'ibe i of t:i anni en t.

e v e n t 1, it had in fact done ;;o, uith the to ailt ' hat t hree o f the tout t.y pe:. of EDO -- 010213 9408100129 940804 PDR ADDCK 05000293 0

PDR

trannients originally identified as being in excess of lifetime l i mi t.n, were still at ot above those limit.n.

Apparently the llRC's confidence that PflPG is safe to operat.e iu based on the conservatism of the original calculation of cumulative fatigue.

As we understand the situation, however, the flRC has not reviewed the preliminary analysin translating operating events into true transients; it has not reviewed any preliminary assessment of cumulative usage a r.,

it pertains to PHPS; rior han it reviewed or approved the methodology being used by PNPS' consultant to evaluate cumulative usage of reactor components.

PNPS and the NRC may well both be correct that PflPS is safe; it may also be, howevet, also that both are ilying blind, or, at least, without the vinual acuit,y thnt we wonid expect in the context of nuclear plant operationr azul r erpil a t ion.

The flRC itself recognizen that engineeting judgment cannot substitute for the application of scientific analynis, conducted pursuant to a ppi oved met.hodology.

Gee,.C lev e l a nd_E le c t r ic_ I l lumin a ting CUIUllany lPurIY_Ruclual._PuwuLillallt,_ Uni.L._11, LDP 25, 32 NRC 21, 26 (1990); Cle v u lp n d_.E 1 U U t.,Lii r_Lllu lRi Dali!!9_ C9tupany

( Pu t!.yJ!M cleDI_fRwu CL'la itt,,_Un i Idl, LB p 90-15, 31 NRC 501, 507 (J990)

We would appreciate hearing your views, both with respect to these concerns, and wit.h toupect to the question of whether PNPS is in iact operating out of compl1ance with its license requirements.

Specifically, we would appreciate it if you would addresn: (1) the MRC*r. rationale for petmitting the cont inued operation of Pfl P S, when the February 24, 1994 NRC inspection report staten that operat. ion "must be within cyclic operating limitations;" (2) the justification for allowing the continued operation of the plant prior to the l

production and review of PNPS' completed analysis of cumulative fatigue; and (3) the NRC's basis f or predicting the results of the uncompleted fatigue analynin.

Th a n t: you for yout att ont inn to this matt er very truly yours, 0 bdA14)W C--

W Ann G.

Berwick, Chief F.nvironmental Protection Division cc Ali.ted Luhmeier Maivin W.

Ilodyen Michael C.

Modes Dernard W.

Reznicek 1

Thomas Bou.lette James Muckerheide Wil1iam Rothert William S.

Stowe

T i

=

I f

ce rf/Wr <QkYr-rnry <bnrra!

/, n.rg,

' e 'e sc, -

a, %OS7ph'1 i

g,x,, e,Dd//wrfen a

c Q

?"

au n:m %g 4s m p

)

OhrJfen.e $ lfl W S-lS S

\\

[

$Q~3_ '

• l

~ -

N? '

Md}Y{,I6ef{!

~ ~.n. ;

i 1

I t

I James M.

Taylor Executive Director for Operations U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20055 4

1,,1,llinillnnliinliliinlil a

1

~.....

_ _ _ _ = - ~ ~ _ _ _... - _ _ _ _ _.. ~

., _. ~. _ -. _ _ _ _., _..... _. ~. -. _.... - <.,,

_