ML20133N051

Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Draft Policy Statement on Resturcturing & Economic Deregulation of Electric Util Industry

ML20133N051
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	01/05/1997
From:	Elie M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-61FR49711, RULE-PR-50 61FR49711-00017, 61FR49711-17, NUDOCS 9701230141
Download: ML20133N051 (3)

Text

@

- cr M r.,ocr:

. & i:EB 50

((plFM91ll) il5/97 2A Adrian Court dt Manor, NY 4

k Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissto,

gec g\\

Washington, DC 20555

/Q

'i Attention: Docketing and Service Branch C

"N I3 b'

\\d O OC r. d l. * * -

Q'\\)

svlCE EM '" ' -

Dear Sir:

EC W y.jp n As a citizen living within the shadow of the nucidar powei plants at Indian Point I am most concerned about the effects of deregulation on an industry which is already dangerous to the common good. I find that the draft proposed by the Nuclear Regulatory commission to address this problem is seriously flawed. As this draft is now open to public comment, I ask that you carefully review and consider the following points so that the final copy of this important policy can offer adequate protection now and in the future.

Under deregulation it is safe to predict that utility mergers, corporate spinoffs, and other forms of restructuring will change the corporate entity which owns, operates, and carries the liability for nuclear reactors What will happen if current owners legally cease to be the " electric utility" originally licensed by NRC to operate the nuclear reactor? Who will oversee the deregulation plan and how will focus be maintained on the adequacy of the decommissioning fund for each plant. Will new owners be able to provide adequate funds for safe operation and decommissioning through direct access to the rate base?

The intention of ttc. NRC to " increase cooperation with State and Federal rate and financial regulators to " promote dialogue" and " minimize the possibility of rate deregulation or other actions that would have an adverse safety impact " through the adoption of a policy paper is scant protection indeed for the public. Nuclear safety cannot be left to cooperation and the adoption of a policy. What mechanisms will enforce standards?

ll/j i

l g12gi4197otos gp 5o 61FR49711 PDR

In ever measurable way electric utility deregulation poses an increase in nuclear hazards. In all the years I have followed the sorry performance of Indian Point 3 I have never seen any sort of " policy" either stand in the way of profits or offer adequate safeguards to the eight percent of the i

population which lives within a 50 mile radius of the plant. This trend can only be increased under the economic pressures of deregulation.

With mounting evidence of significant degradation to safety systems, nuclear utilities are in the least favorable position to reduce their

" bottom-line costs" for this inherently dangerous technology. As a result of competitive pressure, nuclear utility efforts to control costs are more likely to result in the steady erosion of worker and public safety margins.

Northeast Utilities offers the most current example of this process.

During the refueling operation of Connecticut's Millstone Unit 1 reactor, the company routinely ignored a mandated 250-hour cool down in order to expedite the procedure to 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> without fully analyzing the procedure's safety. Similarly, Northeast Utilities' Millstone Units 2, 3 and the Haddam Neck reactor in Connecticut were discovered to have operated out of regulatory compliance and outside of the bounds of the utility's documented safety analysis as a result of management decisions designed to cut costs.

If this is the current state of affairs, it is frightening to contemplate what the future will hold in an increasingly deregulated market.

The NRC draft policy statement does not adequately address nuclear hazards brought on by the economic pressures of utility deregulation and restructuring. Public safety MUST be put first over the economic interests of the nuclear utilities.

The following points reiterate and highlight the need for a more thorough NRC analysis of the adverse impact of utility deregulation on nuclear power generating stations.

1.) As a direct result of increased competition, aging nuclear power reactors are extending their operational cycles to longer and longer periods--from 12 months to 18 months to 24 months. Such extensions seek to reduce the utilities' operation and maintenance costs but undermine public safety by lengthening the periods between surveillance,

testing, inspection, and maintenance of safety-related systems. This cost-saving trend occurs at precisely the wrong time for the nuclear industry. Nuclear reactors already are experiencing signs of accelerating deterioration due to " premature" aging of susceptible materials that fabricate safety-related systems such as steam generators, reactor pressure vessels, and reactor core internal components. The highly knowledgeable experts at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service contend that operating cycles longer than 18 months should be curtailed.

Utilities must be required to significantly increase the degree of j

inspections of safety-related systems following an 18 month operating cycle with the reactor shutdown.

I 2.) Utility deregulation further impacts reactor safety by encouraging utilities to shorten their outage time for refueling and to conduct more "on-line maintenance" for a wider range of systems, structures and components. This procedure intentionally disables safety-related equipment which performs inspections, tests and maintenance when the reactor is at full power. At the same time the NRC has ignored staff 1

warnings "that some licensees are performing more maintenance on-line without assessing the risk consequences." This trend represents a dangerous erosion to the public safety margin by subordinating the

" defense-in-depth" philosophy in the licensee's design basis and technical specifications to mounting economic pressure.

3.) Nuclear power stands in dramatic contrast to its competitors because of the decommissioning and nuclear waste issue. It is already apparent that the " fund as you go" approach has not provided adequate decommissioning funds. This will surely be compounded under deregulation. The rapid inflation of decommissioning and nuclear waste costs will continue to out-pace the amount of the utilities' collected funds resulting in utility defaults on decommissioning and nuclear waste funding. Nuclear utilities must be required to set-aside adequate for this purpose in up front external accounts.

I look forward to your thoughtful and accurate response to my concerns in this serious matter.

Sincerely, Marilyn Elie (ip ffJh.db