ML20116N590

Forwards Supplemental Info Pertaining to Petitioners Contention to Intervene in 960807 Prehearing Conference,Per ASLB Request

ML20116N590
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	08/14/1996
From:	Gunter P NUCLEAR INFORMATION & RESOURCE SERVICE
To:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
CON-#396-17867 OLA, NUDOCS 9608220190
Download: ML20116N590 (15)

Text

tw7 .

r;T.Ce- g/C

_ W..r M _.. ,- ,-

n DOCKETED k $$'k s -

USNRC L-3  ?~  ; e 95 AUG 16 P4 :16 Nuclear information and Respyrce49r# ice 142416th St. NW, Suite 404, Washington, DC 20036,202-328-0002, fax:202-462-2183, e-OO6MkiFIgE: apt oYdiblMnirs.org BRANCH August 14,1996 Office of the Secretary Docketing and Service Branch US NRC Washington, DC 20555 Secretary Hoyle:

During the August 7,1996 prehearing conference in the matter of Oyster Creek nuclear generating station license amendment application to modify Technical Specification 5.3.1.B, petitioner Nuclear Information and Resource Service presented the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board with supplemental information pertaining to the petitioners contention to intervene in the proceeding. The petitioner provided copy of these documents to all parties present at the proceeding.

The ASLB requested that the petitioners send additional copies to the Secretary's office to the attention of Docketing and Service Branch. Enclosed please find multiple copy as requested.

Sin .ly, y Paul Gunter Nuclear Information and Resource Service l

l l

9608220190 960814 PDR G

ADOCK 05000219 PDR

)

Q pnnsec on secroea paper dedicated to a sound non nuclear energy policy.

,n g '

OCbGN 4

. DOCKETED USNRC 0Cfd

APR 3 01986 g % @L '

'% AUG 16 P4 :16 0FFICE OF CECr:ETARY MEMORANDUM FOR: Samuel J. Chilk DOCXET . RVICF Secretary FROM:

Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

REPORT REQUESTED BY COMMISSIONERS ASSELSTINE AN In response to your memorandum of November 20, 1985, enclosed is a report as requested by Comissioners Asselstine and Bernthal on research projects which This report 4

for budgetary reasons were deferred or could not be accomplished.

also addresses the impact of the deferred and cancelled research projects.

I In prioritizing research activities, the staff has attempted to provide for a stable, properly balanced research program focused on supporting regulatory activities to ensure safety at operating facilities. There is clear recognition in this prioritization that industry must assume I do the not burden of 4

i funding research where industry is the However, primary the effect of thebenefactor.

erosion of anti l on the health and safety of the public.

research capabilities and the resultant inabilities to provide necessary information to answer safety questions cannot be underestimated for the future.

Original signed by e

Victor Stello -

Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director i for Operations l

I

Enclosure:

Impact of Budget Cuts on NRC's Ability to Assure Safety l

cc: Chairman Palladino

[

& Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner BerntSal Comissioner Zech OGC I OPE f ek Memo revised in OEDO 4/28/86 4 fB6 Encl. revised in RES 4/11/86

DEDO :EDO

RES :RES

RES :RES DFC :RES

.....:............:.. :MHayes

GMarcus :DFRoss :RBMinogue :JRoe ...._:_.....

VSd o NAME : Forehand

3/14/86 :3/14/86 :3/16/86 :3/18/86 :4/ /86 :4/p/86 DATE :3/13/86 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

r 1

. n l e = . I l

l Distribution: l subj-circ-chron, RES RBMinogue, RES DF Ross, RES GHMarcus, RES MHayes, RES WForehand, RES MRiggs, RES RES Div. Dirs.

RES TAs HDenton i

JDavis 1 JRoe TRehm

!- VStello l PNorry PRabideau RScroggins l EDO r/f (WITS-840238) l JSniezek )

l 1 l

l l

I l

i

. )

i e

f i

i,

(

IMPACTS OF BUDGET CUTS ON NRC'S ABILITY TO ASSURE SAFETY (OVERVIEW) l NRC has reduced its research program significantly in the last five years l

partly because of completion of some major projects like LOFT but also to 1 confom to the declining budget. The effect of some of the specific actions is i i

j.

outlined in the attached sheets. These are just a few of the larger programs that have been reduced, eliminated or delayed (probably indefinitely if the

Gram-Rudman required budget levels are realized). Many smaller programs have j been also eliminated or delayed. l

! As the NRC faces safety issues now before it, the effect of erosion of research capabilities and resultant inabilities to meet the need for new safety j infomation to be used to help resolve these and other regulatory problems can

- already begin to be seen. The reduction in safety research information resources (v ' ic and engineering expertise, verified com i i

l knowledgeable % rt personnel, and experimental facilities)puter is already codl j resulting in ruuests from the regulatory staff having to be denied or delayed j

for intolerable periods of time. For example, the regulatory staff has asked for a series of operational transient tests in a fac1Lity to simulate accidents l

l in reactors built by Babcock and Wilcox to follow on behind current tests of l 1

l small break loss of coolant accidents. They also asked for extensive tests of

feedwater and steam line breaks in Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering ,

reactors. In the former case the tests have been delayed at least two years l l

- until funding is found. In the latter the tests were reduced from 14 to 5.

i Currently NRC is in the final two years of a six year program of evaluating its j regulatory approach to severe accidents in nuclear power plants. The NRC staff 1 is'in the process of summing up the investigation in a series of reports which l involve reassessment of the radioactive source tem from severe accidents, the  !

i risk and consequences of such accidents, the implementation of what has been j learned into the regulatory process and the evaluation of rules and regulatory 1

instruments such as the siting and the emergency planning rules for the need for revision. In evaluating the various technical issues that must be resolved I to provide a basis for these actions, it is becoming apparent that some of the uncertainties may be so large, even with knowledge gained from the four years of intense focused research to date, that NRC may not be able to provide a satisfactory reduction of these uncertainties with existing resources. This is at least sartly due to program reductions in this area over the past years.

Some of tiese issues may be the chemical and physical forms of radioactive iodine and cesium and their mutual interaction, the degree of direct containment heating from the expulsion of molten reactor core materials, hydrogen generation and loads and containment performance in resisting these and other loads placed upon it from a severe accident. Current reduced research programs are addressing these and other severe accident issues, however some issues may not be resolved in the remaining two years of research because the programs have been cut. The program is now at the point where the most serious issues have been idantified, but the ability to solve them has been reduced.

The NRC research program addresses the ability to understand and predict the behavior of power plants as a result of transients and accidents. This information is used to help reduce the potential for accidents. The focus of this research is the understanding and modeling of themal hydraulics. All 1

3 l^ IMPACTS (CONT'D) integral experimental facilities in the United States will have been shu Although studies have been made of ways of providing  ;

i by the end of 1986.

continuing experimental capability, plans for such capability have beel frustrated by budget reductions.

l other countries in integral testingThis as allows a means oftoreducing access funding requ results from and sharing safety research infomation.

foreign experimental facilities; however, it does not prov'ide the ability t perfom experiments the NRC deems necessary, particularly on a U.S. industry people have taken the attitude that the plants are safel scale.

enough and industry has shut down or plans to shut down its integral tel This inability to conduct experiments to examine the safety l i facilities.

implications of important plant transfents, whichintypically Reductions l

the safety occur at the l

• of one or so per year, may present real problems.

3 research budget are expected to have intermediate and long tem impl h l

1 l

that will be detrimental to public health and safet

) their elimination.

i l I

l j I e

L l 2

.-r- "

i i

l l Reactor1 1986, 0>erations and Risk (Human Factors) (Reductions of $2.0 with no funds for FY 1987) j 51.5M in d

1. Safety Issue:

l The capabilities of reactor operators to respond correctly to severe ,

transients or other abnormal conditions can be assessed only in a ve

general, qualitative manner. error to reportable events in operating reactors ,

~

F l

percent of all events, thereby confirming the importance 1

2. Current Treatment by NRC:

i i

To better ensure an adequate response of plant personnel to operating

' transients and to maintain a high level of performance in the maintenance and repair of equipment, NRC currently requires the licensing of some of the plant operating personnel and has established requirements forIn addit 4

! reviewing licensees' management functions.

l nunted the Systematic Appraisal of Licensee Perfoma NRC has also required the installation of i

and corrective actions taken.

i an improved safety parameter display system to assist plant operators in l recognizing and analyzing plant transients or accidents.

There are, however, no objective methods for assessing the effectiveness

measuring the perfonnance of plant operating and m l The clear need to replace the subjective assessment methods now in use with more objective methods of performance has been detailed in the Human

! Factors Program Plan, NUREG-0985.

I

3. Role of Deferred Research_:

l I

Current implementation of the severe accident policy, the resolution of outstanding safety issues, and the analysis of operating events all It involve, to a substantial degree, the element of human reliability.

has become quite evident in the analysis of reactor transients and i

accidents that proper operator actions Accordingly, are most important a researchinprogram terminating the~ event or mitigating its consequences.

j i was developed which would have to provide a technical base for measurin '

' and evaluating the effectiveness of. operator actions in respi reactor accidents.

training and licensing, development of operating procedures, control room design and plant maintenance.

Completion of this research would have permitted a more systematic i

comprehensive regulatory approach to be taken with respect to es human reliability requirements and would have all 4 engineered safety features in resolving outstanding safety issues an i

other plant problems as they arise.

I

24 i

j ,y k

UNITED STAf ts j

muctean ceaui. Aron r comunesion

.f . oN,

! g = Aueao^u ao^o g KWG OF PMUSSIA, PfNNSYLVANIA 1940E 1415 DOCKETED July 10, 1996

! '96 AUG 16 P4 :16 Nr. Michael 8. Roche l _ Vice President and Director

, GPU Nuclear Corporation OFFICE OF CECRETARY

! O Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station DOCKET '

nWM ~J ^"RYlC" l

j P.O. Box 388 "M"i

% Forked River, New Jersey 08731 i

i

SUBJECT:

OYSTER CREEK PUUti PERFORMANCE REVIEW i

]

Dear Mr. Roche:

i on June 18, 1996, Region I performed the second P1 ant Performance Review (PPR) i for the Oyster Creek facility, covering the period of December 10, 1995

) through June 8, 1996. The staff conducts these reviews for all operating i

nuclear power plants to develop an integrated understanding of safety performance. The results are used by NRC management to facilitate planning l

and allocation of inspection resources. The PPR for Oyster Creek involved the i participation of all technical divisions in evaluating inspection results and i

safety performance information for the period noted above. PPRs provide NRC i

management with a current summary of licensee performance and serve as inputs i to the INIC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) and senior j management meeting ($391) reviews.

! We noted that aveldable personnel errors continued to occur during routine

! activities, although the rate of occurrence appears to have decreased slightly. These errors are most prevalent in the areas of operations and

maintenance. Two recent errors in the plant support area resulted in the

failure to maintain compensatory action for a degraded protected area barrier i and the failure to administratively post and lock a locked high radiation area i door. We are aware of your ongoing efforts to reduce the rate of personnel i

errors through self assessments. Due to the continued errors, it appears that l your actions to date have not yet been fully effective. Your continued j attention to this area is warranted.

i l

This letter advises you of our planned inspection effort resulting from the Oyster Creek plant performance review. It is provided to minimize the i resource impact on your staff and to allow for scheduling conflicts and

! personnel availability to be resolved in advance of inspector arrival onsite.

The enclosure details our inspection plan for the next six months. The rationale or basis for each inspection outside the core inspection program is

{ provided so that you are aware of the reason for emphasis in these program j areas.

I i

l 150004 'g C

)

9607150249 960710

! PDR ADOCK 03000g 9 *{

y 1

1 i

w _ - -.

_. .. .- - I t . . . . -

l h * .

I 1

i, 2

I Mr. Michael 8. Roche i l h d led to recently assesscompleted the overall i

l e

The surveillance program review inspection was l self assessment. ility. Another initiative

your As Low As Reasonably Achievable program and its tivities concerning 1 relatively high occupational exposure at your fac inspectica is scheduled to assess electrical maintenance acs f electrical cable separation and aging duei gtoandconcernff continuous during the last ou l

i genera;or cable failure identified by your staReside nature. ln If you have any i

We will inform you of any changes to the inspection p a .h at (610) 3

questions, please contact Mr. Peter W. Eselgrot A _

Sincerely, ~~

l l

l Richard W. Cooper, II, Ofrector f( Division of Reactor Projects i

l 50-219 Docket No.:

! OpR-16 License Nos. 72-1004

[ Planned NRC Inspections at Oyster Creek I

Enclosure:

June 24, 1996, to November 30, 1996 cc w/ enc 1:

G. Busch, Manager, Site Licensing, Oyster Creek

M. Laggart, Manager, Cocporate Licensing l State of New Jersey i

i l

I i

i i

i 4

1 i

i,.

i

, Mr. Michael 8. Roche 3 i

i j - Distributton w/ enc 1; j Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

T. Martin, RA l J. Wiggins, Director, DRS j / Branch Chiefs, DRS (6)

/ T. Kenny, DRS 1 C. Anderson, DRP 1

P. Eselgroth, DRP

T. Frye, DRP i

M. Kalamon DRP MRC Resident Inspector Nuclear safety Information Center (NSIC) i D. Screnci, PA0 (2)

PUBLIC i

Distribution w/enci (VIA E-MAIL):

W. Dean, OEDO J. Stolz, NRR/PD I-2 R. Eaton, NRR/PD I-2

A. Kugler, NRR/PD III-3

R. Borchardt, NRR, (PIP 8) i l ...

.m..e .. ..  ;..,.,........,......-....,....,....c......,.....

. .. . c . . . . . .-.

i 4

7 I.

I i .

I i

a a

)

i I,

0 i

j

ENCLOSURE I Phmned NRC Inspections at Oyster Creek June 24,1996, to NoveAnber 30,1996 (Encluding Resident Inspector Reviews) 1/ - Inspection Procedure TI - Temporary Instruction Core Inspection - Minimum NRC Inspection Program (mandatory all plants)

RI - Regional Initiative SI - Safety Issue Ill5PECTION TITLE TYPE START PROC G N E DATE 1RSSER OPERATIONS IP 40500 Effectiveness of Licensee Controls in C0 6/24-28/M Identifying.. Resolving, and Freventing Problems - Focus on Human Performance Issues NRINTDIANCE IP 62705 Electrical Maintenance - Outage Cable Rt 9/24-26/M Inspection Due to Emergency Olesel Generator Cable Failure and Age of Equipment IP 61700 Surveillance Procedures and Records R1 8/26-30/M IP 13753 Inservice inspection C0 9/23-26/M ENGINEERING IP 37550 EngineeringVisit(visit 3) CO 8/19-23/96

& 9/3-6/96 il Motor Operated Valve Testing - GL 89-10 SI t se 2515/199 M aad PU WT SUPPORT IP 64704 Fire Protection CO 9/16-20/96 s

IP 81700 Physical Security Program C0 6/24-28/96 IP 83750 Occupational Radiation Exposure to 1/29-8/2/96 9/9-13/96 .

IP 83728 Maintaining occupational Exposure As Low As RI 8/26-28/96 Reasonably Achievable - SALP Concern About 9/23-27/96 High Occupational Exposure noIL: yy cast storage inspections and dates to be determined when i licensee schedule of activities is revised, i

i l

B. .

e

~

DOCKETED opu hoes ,corpor u n USNRC ggIgf PostOffe Bot 388 Route 9 South

Forked River. Ne w Jersey 087310388

'96 AUG 16 P4 :16 609 97. 2000 Writer's L. act Dial Numbet:

OFFICE OF SFCPETARY 00CKEI!::G 2. EERVICE July 20 1995 B R 4.N U H C321-95-2199  !

I i

I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington DC 20555

Dear Sir:

l

Subject:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Genm'ing Station Docket No. 50-'219  !

Inspection Report 50-219/95-09 l Reply to a Notice of Violation I

NRC Inspection Repon 50 219/95-09 contained a violation of NRC requirements.

Attachment I to this letter contains the reply to the cited Violation as required by 10 CFR l 2.201.

If you should have any questions or require funher information, please contact Mr. Terry

. Sensue. Oyster Creek Licensing Engineer at 609 071-4680.

Sincerely urs.

l [

kL ~

J hn J. Bapn ice President and Director Oyster Creek JJB/TS!je ec: Administrutor. Region I Senior NRC Resident inspector /0

/

Oyster Creek NRC Project Engineer /

9507:50035 95o7 o PDR ADOCk 050002t9 k

O PDR n r u 9. .. .. . i, r . .. : .. . i. . . . i . .t - t .itv r* :rm Gere", Pati < tit 8 t es Ce'teraten

~'

• 1 . . .

C37l 95 2199 Page 1 of 2 ATTACINENT 1 y.iolation

,

l

, During an NRC inspection conducted April 4,1995 - May 21.1995, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the " General, Statement of Policy and Prucedure for NRC Enforcement Actions " 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C. (1995) the violation is listed below.

Technical SpeciGcations. 4cetion 6.2.2.2.e. requires that all core alterations shall be directly supervised by either a licensed senior mactor operator or senior reactor -

operator limited to fuel handling who has no other concurrent responsibilities during this operation.

Contrary to the above, on November 6,1994. (self-identified on May 8.1995) while conducting post maintenance testing following repairs to the refuel bridge, a core ,

j alteration was performed without direct supervision by either a licensed senior reactor operator or licensed senior reactor operated limited to fuel handling that had no ,

concurrent responsibilities when fuel assembly LYL-510 was lilled and subsequently l reinserted into the core.

l G11KRerIn GPU Nuclear concurs with the violation.

Reason for the Violatio_ru The cause of the violation was permnnel emirs in decision making which led to an unsupervised core alteration. This event is discussed in pn:viously docketed correspondence, l.ER 95 002 0 " Unsupervised Core Alteration Due to Personnel Ermrs in Decision Making" dated June 13. 1995.

Consstht_Stept[aken and the Rewits Achieved:

On November 6. lW4. uptm notification to a refueling licensed Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) that fuel bundle LYS-510 was lifted and rescated . mother refueling SRO veriGed it to be corwetly hwated, seated, and oriented in the reactor core.

,+ , , ,

i C32145 2149 ,

l Page 2 of 2 l i

1 l

.i l i

? Cornrctive Stess Taken to ArnikFrrrther Ybbt:s: ,

i on May 10.1995, plant management, upon determining that a core alteration may have been performed without SRO supervision, raquested an Independent Assessment Team he assembled to evaluate the incident and develop corrective actions. These corrective actions l . .ue summari7ed in previously docketed corre+uidae. LER 95 002-0 sith regard to the g work activity and pmt maintenance testing contml.

j In acklition, contml of extended maintenance work order activities will he accomplished by:

j' (1) requiring direct interface with the refueling SRO prior to staning maintenance in order to j conGrm that planned post maintenance testing is adequate: (2) pmviding adequate caution arul 4

direction with regard to testing requirements if refueling interlocks are affected; (3) adequately addressing the reactivity management pmgram requirements in all applicable job i orders; and (4) requiring documentation of individual work evolutions under exterxled job I onters to pmvide a specific record of work and/or testing performed.

l b ikrig Whe1LErollfortpliance was Achity.gd j Full compliance was achieved on No$ ember 6.1994 when a refueling SRO veriGed fuel bumile LYL 510 was correctly kicated, seated, and oriented in the reactor core. l 1

i l i i

i

~ ~

OYLEAD1.TXT DOCKETED USNRC

Subject:

Re: ASLB Pre-Hearing Aug. 7, 1996 Date: 96-08-06 13:30:40 EDT From: 102115.35010CompuServe.COM (William decamp, Jr 95 AUG 16 P4 :17 To: Gunternirs@aol.com (INTERNET:Gunternirs@aol.com)

Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch 0FFICE OF SECRELARY P.O. Box 243 DOCKE TING & SERVICE Island Heights, NJ 08732 BRANCH August 6, 1996 Mr. Paul Gunter  !

Nuclear Information and Resource Service 1424 16th Street NW, Suite 404 Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Gunter,

'1 On behalf of Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch, I am writing to reconfirm that our organiztion wishes that the Nuclear Information and Resource Servi ce take the lead in presenting our concerns at the hearing before the Atomic S afety Licensing Board on August 7, 1996, i

I am unable to attend on that day.

Sincerely, William decamp, Jr., Trustee Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch

---

Headers --------------------------------

From 102115.3501@CompuServe.COM Tue Aug 6 13:32:52 1996 Return-Path: 102115.3501@CompuServe.COM Received: from dub-img-7.compuserve.com (dub-img-7.compuserve.com

[149.174.206.137]) by emin10. mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESM TP id NAA24661-for <Gunternirs@aol.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 1996'13:32:52 -0400 Received: by dub-img-7.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id NAA15051; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 13:30:10 -0400 Date: 06 Aug 96 13:29:05 EDT From: " William decamp, Jr." <102115.3501@CompuServe.COM>

To: "INTERNET:Gunternirs@aol.com" <Gunternirs@aol.com>

Subject:

Re: Is this excatly what you need?

Message-ID: <960806172905_102115.3501_FHM44-3@CompuServe.COM>

Page 1

Subject:

licanming board intervantion Date: b6-0W'-06 19:34:00 EDT Froms cankatz9ghayanst.com-(dabby katz)

To: gunternirs9aol.com (gunternirs9aol.com) DOCKETED USNRC To Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 76 AUG 16 P4 :17 Re: Citizens Awareness Network Intervention l

.1 To Whom It May' Concern, OFFICE 0F SECRETARY j

~ 00CKEilMG & SERVICE This letter is to confirm CAN's position that Nuclear InforEaEi$$ and R32ource Service will and Licensing Board in'present ourwith connection mutual interests tointhe our intervention theAtomic GPNUSafety proceedings on August 7, 1996 in Washington, DC. CAN is unable to attend tha hearing due to other committments.

Sincerely, ,

Deborah Katz Prasident Citizens Awareness Network

)

I

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------

l From cankatz9shayanet.com Tue Aug 6 19:32:38 1996

} Raturn-Path: cankatz9shaysnet.com Rncalved: from equinox.shayanet.com (equinox.shaysnet.com [199.170.68.11]) by emin05. mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA14598 for j <gunternirs9aol.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 19:32:37 -0400 i Racaived:_from LOCALNAME (ip-frank 12.shaysnet.com [199.170.68.44]) by x j equinox.shaysnet.com (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id TAA04742 for

, <gunternirs@aol.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 19:30:15 -0400 4,

Msseage-ID: <3207BB3D.14430shaysnet.com>

I D2te: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 14:38:05 -0700 From: debby katz <cankatz9shaysnet.com>

Organization: can X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win 16; U)

MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "gunternirseaol.com" <gunternirseaol.com>

Subject:

licensing board intervention Content-Type: text / plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7 bit 4

8-6-1996 America Online:Gunternirs Page 1