ML20151Z640

Forwards Answers to Recipient Re Operation of Plant During 1982-83.NRC Satisfied W/Operation

ML20151Z640
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	02/17/1988
From:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Sharp P HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE
Shared Package
ML20151Z644	List: ML20151Z640 ML20151Z656 ML20151Z668 ML20151Z679 ML20151Z693
References
NUDOCS 8808300076
Download: ML20151Z640 (11)

Text

,-

• • . ,% i

. ' pmCecq - . ,

[ o UNITED STATES l

!' , g NUCLEAR REGULATOhY COMMISSION W ASHING TON, D. C. 20555 gQ

{ ;g

\ *****

/ February 17, 1988 so-s4e '

CHAIRMAN The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman i Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In your November 19, 1987 letter to me, you asked several questions regarding NRC actions relating to the operation of the Alabama Power Company's Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant in 1982-83. The Commission's responses to those specific questions are enclosed. The Commission believes that these responses establish that the NRC has acted appropriately and responsibly regarding the allegations described in your

'etter.

At present, the NRC is satisfied, based on our technical inspections and evaluations, that operation of the Farley plant presents no immediate public health and safety issues.

However, any final regulatory decisions on these questions must await completion of ongoing investigations by the NRC's Office of Investigations (01) and Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) that relate to these allegations. As the response to question 2 indicates, the 01 investigation has been delayed significantly owing to an unresolved dispute over the terms and conditions for interview of licensee personnel by NRC investigators. The Commission is following these matters closely, and we will advise you of any significant new developments.

Sincerely,

% W. ,

Lando W. Z ,J .

Enclosure:

J Responses to Questions Concerning Allegations at Farley cc: Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead i

8808300076 880217 COMMS NRCC PDR CORRESPONDENCE PNV hk"f )

\

\

.~. .~.

I OVESTION 1. (a) Has Farley been operated with damaged fuel?

ANSWER.

Yes. In 1982, Farley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 began experiencing higher than expected reactor coolant system radioactivity levels, which is an indication of fuel cladding failure. The plant continued to operate until a scheduled -

refueling outage in January 1983. During the refueling outage, the licensee found eleven assemblies with failed fuel ruds. In addition, during this refueling the licensee also found fuel pellets and fuel rod debris in and around the reactor vessel. The damaged fuel assemblie's, along with four other fuel assemblies which were found to be leaking, were removed from the reactor vessel and discharged to the spent fuel pool, i

a

]

1 I

I i

l 4 ,

QUESTION 1. (b) If so, was such operation a violation of license conditions or NRC regulations?

ANSWER.

So far as we have determined to date, the amount of damaged fuel which Farley operated with Uas not so great as to violate license conditions or technical specifications. It is not uncommon for nuclear power plants to experience some fuel cladding failure. Consequently, the NRC has established limits on the specific radioactivity permitted in the primary coolant systems to ensure that plants do not operate with significant levels of fail'e d fuel. These limits are set forth in the plant's Technical Specifications appended to the facility license. Licensee records maintained during the operating cycle prior to the Unit i refueling outage in January 1983 indicate the plant did not exceed the specific radioactivity limits for steady state operations. However, allegations l were received that the plant exceeded this limit, and that the results of 1

analyses showing they exceeded the limit were not recorded by plant personnel. l These allegations are the subject of an 01 investigation presently underway.

l

CUESTION 1. (c) What is the safety significance of operating a plant with damaged fuel? Does it affect plant operation? Does it result in contamination of plant equipment? Can it lead to increases in exposures to plant workers? Was there any contamination or increase of exposure to plant workers in the Farley case?

ANSWER.

The safety significance of operating a nuclear power plant with damaged fuel is that of potential increases in radiological effluents released from the plant and increases in radiation exposure to plant workers from contaminated plant equipment. 1/ Plant shutdown is therefore required if the Technical Specification limits are exceeded for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> or more. The Farley plant experienced increases in primary coolant radioactivity levels, resulting in increased radioactive effluents. However, the plant records indicate that radioactive effluents remained below the release limits specified in the plant's Technical Specifications. Farley workers experienced an increase in cumulative radiation exposure for 1983 of approximately 100 percent over the 1982 exposure.

Increased radiation levels in the plant, removal of the damaged fuel, and plant modifications to address the cause of the cladding damage contributed significantly to the increased exposure. Although Farley experienced significant increases in cumulative radiation exposure for 1983, the cumulative exposure was still less than the national average for pressurized water reactors. As noted above, the accuracy of the Farley plant records is the sub,iect of an allegation new under investigation by OI.

-1/

NRC Publication NUREG/CR 4485 "The Impact of Fuel Cladding Failure Events on Occupational Radiation Exposures at Nuclear Power Plant," documents the results of a study performed to determine the magnitude of the impact of fuel cladding failures during routine and outage activities at a pressurized water reactor. This study indicates that fuel cladding failures would result in an increase in radiation levels in many areas of the plant.

QUESTION 1. (d) Has the NRC or the utility taken any action to rectify the problem? Please explain.

ANSWER.

As noted above, the utility removed the damaged fuel during an outage which began in January 1983. In addition, plant modifications were made to correct the problem that caused the fuel cladding failures. The NRC inspection program included at that time, as it does now, not only a verification of regulatory compliance, but also an assessment of the plant's radiation protection staff capabilitics and management's involvement in programs to maintain radiation exposures as low as reasonably achievable. Based on inspections performed subsequent to the fuel cladding failures (which have not identified any '

significant lasting effects resulting from the operation of the plant with damaged fuel), the NRC staff is satisfied that there are no imediate public health and safety issues at Farley as a result of the fuel damage, i 1

QUESTION 1. (e) Has the NRC taken, or does the NRC intend to take, enforcement action as a result of this incident?

ANSWER.

To date, the NRC has not taken enforcement actions as a result of this incident, as inspections performed by NRC regional and resident inspectors have not identified any violations of regulatory requirements resulting from operation of the plant with damaged fuel. Enforcement action will be taken if investigations now in progress establish a factual basis for such action.

4

QUESTION 2. Is there an ongoing or completed investigation by your Office of Investigations (01) concerning activities at the Farley plant? Please describe the findings or status of any such investigation.

ANSWER.

Yes, there is an ongoing investigation by the Office of Investigations (01) concerning activities at the Farley clant. It was initiated after the Regional Administrator of NRC Region II requested 01's assistance, on August 23. 1985, to interview an individual who alleged potential falsification of health physics test and measuremeri data by officials at Farley. After the interview, the Regional Administra or requested that the investigative effort be expanded to determine whether the falsification of records occurred as alleged. The investigation has been delayed since mid-1986 because of an unresolved dispute between 01 and the law firm which is representing both the licensee and potential interviewees (past and present employees of the licensee). The nature of the dispute is documented in the attached correspondence between OI and the law firm in question. Efforts to resolve this impasse, though unsuccessful to i date, are continuing.

l 1

l

QUESTION 3. Is there an ongoing or completed investigation by your .

OfficeofInspectorandAuditor(OIA)concerningtheNRC staff's handling of issues at Farley? Please describe the findings or status of any such investigation.

ANSWER.

The Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) is conducting three investigations into concerns related to the NRC staff's handling of issues at Farley.

In the first investigation, an alleger claimed that the Region II Allegation and Investigations Coordinator mischaracterized his concern about contamination of a creek by discharges from Farley. The second investigation pertains to an allegation that an NRC employee was attempting to impede an 01 investigation of the Alabama Power Company and that the NRC had removed NRC Inspection Reports  :

from the local Public Document Room in Dothan, AL, to preclude public access to '

these records. The third OIA investigation involves several general alleged ,

improprieties pertaining to NRC's regulatien of Farley.

j OIA's three investigations pertaining to Farley are all ongoing; therefore, it ,

would be premature to discuss our findings at this time. We anticipate all the l investigations will be completed within 90 days.

i T

l l

l

QUESTION 4 (a) Did the NRC receive, or is the NRC aware of, allegations that Farley employees were harassed or fired when they tried to raise health and safety concerns? Please provide whatever infomation you have on this.

ANSWER _.

A member of the Region II Regional Administrator's staff provided OI:RII with information by memoranda dated March 10 and April 1,1986, that "several indi-viduals" were r.ubjected to harassment because they raised safety concerns.

Additionally, in April 1987, Region 11 received a telephone call from an individual alleging that he was being blacklisted by Alabama Power Company because of issues he raised in 1982 associated with the fuel failure problem at Farley. The Region II allegation coordinator advised the individual of the directemployeeremediesfordiscrimination(e.g., blacklisting)available through the Department of Labor (DOL), and the individual subsequently filed a formal complaint with DOL and forwarded a copy to the NRC. The DOL investigated the allegation, held a hearing, and found the complaint to be without merit.

Presently, the individual is appealing the DOL decision. Further, "the several individuals" referred to in the aforementioned Region II memoranda were identified and interviewed by 01. During the interviews, it was determined that three of the four former Farley employees are the plaintiffs in a wrongful dismissal suit against Alabama Power Company filed in the Jefferson County, Alabama (Bimingham) Circuit Court. l

)

l QUESTION 4 (b) What is the NRC's policy for dealing with allegations of P

harassment and intimidation of licensee employees for raising safety concerns?

ANSWER.

Harassnent and intimidation may constitute violations of the Commission's anti-discrimination regulations (e.g.,10 CFR 50.7) th.at mirror the employee protection provisions of section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act or of the independence criterion for quality assurance progr.ws undar 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. Because the Department of Labor (DOL) and NRC have complementary responsibilities in the area of employee protecticn, DC'. and NRC have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, 47 Fed. Reg. 54585 (Dec. 3, 1982) to facilitate cooperation and coordination. Guidance to NRC employees on handling allegations in this area has been issued in NRC Manual Chapter Appendix 0517 Part I.C.4 The NRC usually awaits the completien of DOL investigations and related proceedings under section 210 before initiating its own investigation or enforcement action for a complaint of discrimination. However, if an allegation is made to the NRC that involves significant public health and safety implications (e.g., the allegations of intimidation or discrimination are so widespread as to require imediate action or involve high levels of nanagement),

the NRC may take action imediately without waiting for DOL. The action to be taken would be detertnined on a case-by-case basis and would include consideration of imediate NRC investigation and enforcement action for specific acts of discriminatien, action to identify patterns of discrimination and levels of management involvement to bring to the attention of the licensee, and

l

( . .

l

(.

l i

QUESTION 4(o). Cont.inued) l enforcement conferences and management meetings to discuss possible licensee actions with reotrd to the potential chilling effect of discrimination.

Technical issues can'be examined through the NRC inspection process and would be acted on without regard to pending 00L proceedings.

l l

l l

l

. ... ,_ _-__ - _ - , _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . - . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ , _ . . _ , . . ~ . , - . - _ - - ...- _.. _ _ ,-.