ML20202D352

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 981123 Petition Review Board Meeting Re 2.206 Petition on Perry Unit 1,submitted on 981109 by Ucs.Meeting Attendees Listed
ML20202D352
Person / Time
Site: Perry FirstEnergy icon.png
Issue date: 12/09/1998
From: Subbaratnam R
NRC
To:
NRC
Shared Package
ML20202D357 List:
References
FOIA-99-79 2.206, NUDOCS 9902010375
Download: ML20202D352 (3)


Text

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

. Decerber 9,1998 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD

SUMMARY

i 2.206 Petition on Perry Unit 1 - G19980678

1. The NRR 2.206 Petition Review Board (PRB) met on 11/23/98 at 2:00 p.rn. at 0-12-B-4.

GREEN TICKET NO.: G19980678

2. FACILITIES / ORGANIZATIONS: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
3. DATE OF PETITION: November 9,1998
4. Present at the meeting were:

F. Hebdon, Board Chairman D. Pickett, Petition Manager l Ram Subbaratnam, NRR, Agency 2.206 Coordinator '

R. Hoefling, OGC R. Caruzo, SRXB

~

J. Donohue, SRXB  !

R. Emch, PERB

5. Facility: Perry Unit 1
6. Petitions discussed: Petition request from UCS to William Travers, EDO, NRC, dated November 9,1998.

~ ~ ~ '

' ~ ~ ~

7. Petitioner's requests:

T" he Petition requests enforcement action to require an immediate shutdown of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 (PNPP), and that the friity remain shut down until all failed fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor core. As an alternate action, the petitioner asserted that PNPP could be restarted after its design and I licensing bases were updated to permit operation with failed fuel assemblies. I Additionally, the UCS requested a public hearing to present new PNPP plant-specific information as well as to discuss the April 2,1998, UCS report on reactor operation with failed fuel assemblies.

--- -- - )

As the basis for the request, the petition states that operation with one or more j failed fuel assemblies is not permitted by Perry's design and licensing bases. More  !

specifically, UCS contends that Perry is also violating its worker radiation protection l program (ALARA) licensing basis.  !

l

8. The petition request was determined to meet the 10 CFR 2.206 criteria.
9. The basis for the above determination is as follows:

9902010375 990113 I PDR FOIA =

LOCH 8AU99-79 PDR

, . , . . - - ,a , , , .

The request is for enforcement action: the NRC impose a requirement by order to require PNPP Station to commence an immediate shutdown. 1 The Petitioner presents a basis for the request that is specific and is not a general .

statement of opposition to nuclear power, etc. l l

l There is no evidence that the request is being used to avoid or circumvent an available proceeding in which the petitioner is or could be a party. 1 l

10. The board determined that there is no need for 01 or OE involvement.
11. The following resolution plan and schedule were approved as low priority and will be handled within the guidelines of Management Directive 8.11:

Activity Due Date

a. Immediate Acknowled0ment Letter (See item 12 below) 12/11/98 l b. Informal Public Hearing' 2/1/99 (Coordinated with River Bend Nuclear Station)
c. SRXB and PERB Review Complete TBD

! d. Final Resolution due to NRR Director's Office: 4/11/99

12. The tu as to resolve this petition are as follows: l The PRB determined that the request for immediate action to revoke or suspend the license to operate the Perry Nuclear Plant be denied for the following reasons:

Although important concerns were raised in the petition, the board concluded that no urgent safety problems were uncovered which would warrant shutdown of the plant. The clad damage reported is insignificant and is allowable provided the Reactor Coolant I i Chemistry were within permissible Technical Specification (TS) limits as defined in TS l 3.4.8. These limits are set to minimize radiological consequences of a postulated design j basis accident and to meet appropriate acceptance criteria. The petitioner does not allege i that PNPP had operated outside the TS. The NRC has and will continue to closely monitor I events at PNPP to ensure that there is no undue risk to public health and safety.

l The board also reviewed the petitioner's request for an informal public hearing and decided that the request met the criterion as spelled out in Management Directive 8.11, and will be 4 coordinated with a similar petition associated with River Bend Station.

J 4

r

13. There is no need for the licensee to provide insights to NRR regarding the petitionet's  !

concerns. This will be followed up with the licensee after DD's immediate denial of the r petition

14. Prepared by: q% '% \l S9h

/

Petition Review Board Coordinator Date

15. Approved by: t. ., _

'lt/9/fg CtYairman, PRB y D a'te '

i e

I i

i s

i

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

UNITED STATES

-[

in NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION ~

WAsMINGToN, D.c. 3000M1001

          • December 16, 1998 Mr. David A. Lochbaum Union of Concemed f>cienbsts 1616 P Street, NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-1495

Dear Mr. Lochbaum:

I have received the Petition that you submitted on behalf of the Union of Concemed Scientists (UCS), dated November 9,1998, addressed to Dr. William Travers, Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Petition requests enforcement action to require an immediate shutdown of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit No.1 and that the facility remain shut down until all failed fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor core. You also stated that as an attemale action, PNPP could be restarted following the proposed shutdown after its design and licensing bases were updated to permit operation with failed fuel assemblies. Additionally, the Petition requested a public hearing to present new plant-specific information regarding the operation of PNPP. as well as to discuss a UCS report dated April 2,1998, entitled " Potential Nuclear Safety Hazard / Reactor Operation With Failed Fuel Cladding."

As the basis for your request, you cited the NRC's Weekly information Report for the week ending October 30,1998, that describes the apparent existence of two pin hole fuelleaks at the Perry facility. In your opinion, operation with one or more failed fuel assemblies is not permitted by the Perry design and licensing bases. In addition, you also stated that by operating with possible failed fuel cladding, PNPP is violating its licensing basis for the radiation worker protection (as low as reasonably achievable [ALARA]) program. You have referred to NRC _ , . _ _

information Notice No. 87-39, " Control of Hot Particle Contamination at Nuclear Plants," which describes how continued operation with degraded' fuel may elevate radiation exposure rates for plant e,mployees. You have noted that the licensee has the option of shutting down the facility to remove the failed fuel assemblies but has chosen to continue plant operation.

Your Petition further reasserted the UCS position that nuclear power plants operating with fuel cladding failures were potentially unsafe and were in violation of Federal regulations. In its April 1998 report, the UCS stated that it has not been demonstrated that the effects from design-bases transients and accidents (e.g., hydrodynamic loads, fuel enthalpy changes, etc.) prevent pre-existing fuel failures from propagating. Therefore, you coricluded that it was possible that "significantly more radioachve material will be released to the reactor coolant system during a transient or accident than that experienced during steady state operation. Thus, the existing

, design bases accident analyses for Perry do not bound its current operation with known fuel cladding failures."

When the staff received your Petition, it conducted a preliminary evaluation to determine if an urgent safety issue was involved that warranted the requested action. Although you raised Y

emuah .

, David A. Lochbaum -

important concems in your Petition, the staff has concluded that the Petition uncovered no urgent safety problems that warranted immediate action by the NRC. Technical Specifications (TS) limits on reactor coolant system (RCS) activity typically account for a small fraction of failed fuel, which can occur during normal operations. These limits are set to values of RC.S-specific activity, which ensure that the radiological consequences of postulated design- basis accKients are within the appropriate dose acceptance criteria. At PNPP, operation with a minimal amount of fuel cladding damage is allowed, provided the licensee continues to meet RCS chemistry requirements of TS Section 3.4.8. Furthermore, the Petition did not include any information indicating that PNPP has cperated outside its TS limits. Consequently, your request for enforcement action to require the immediate shutdown of PNPP is denied.

The licensee has taken actions to address the suspected condition of the fuel assemblies, including the insertion of control rods to ' isolate" the fuel assemblies in order to minimize reactor coolant activity levels. The NRC has been monitoring RCS activity at PNPP and will continue to ensure that there is no undue risk to public health and safety.

i in your Petition, you also requested that the NRC conduct an informal public hearing in order to

  • present new information on reactor operation with failed fuel assemblies" as a followup to the April 1998 UCS report, as well as to provide plant-specific information regarding the operation of PNPP. To ensure that potential issues relating to this material are appropriately addressed, the NRC is hereby offering you an opportunity to present the new information referred to in your Petition at an informal public hearing. The public hearing will also allow the licensee and the public to present other pertinent information, as well as provide a means to solicit questions from all participants. The NRC staff will subsequently use the information gained from the hearing to evaluate the issues raised in your Petition and to render a Director's Decision pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.

The Union of Concemed Scientists submitted a similar Petition conceming continued plant - - - - - -

, operation with fuel cladding failures at the River Bend Station on September 25,1998. As with the current Petition, your Petition for River Bend requested a hearing in the Washington, D.C.,

area to discuss new information on reactor operation with failed fue; assemblies. Your letter of November 6,1998, accepted NRC's offer for an informal public hearing ind described the new information that you wish to discuss. Through verbal communications with Robert Fretz, the NRC Project Manager for the River Bend Station, we understand that you are willing to address both the River Bend and the Perry facilities in a combined public hearing. We would also like to combine both facilities in a public hearing in the Washington, D.C., area. Since you are currently dealing with Mr. Fretz to establish a mutually agreeable date, time, and location for the informal public hearing, we request that you continue to use Mr. Fretz as your point of contact.

If you have additional new information beyond that provided in your letter of November 6,1998, we request that you provide, in advance of the hearing, the new information on reactor operation with failed fuel assemblies. For your information, the NRC Project Manager for the Perry facility is Douglas Pickett. Mr. Pickett can be reached at (301) 415-1364.

1

. D vid A. Lochbaum '

t Your Petition has been referred to me pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided by Section 2.206, action will be taken on your request within a i

reasonable time. I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Fhderal Register for pubi! cation. -

Sincerely, or Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

FederalRegisterNotice cc w/ encl: See next page e

Y

, _ . , ...,..-----.i.--= ------" * ^ - * * ~*~ ~""' ~

.. . w

, m .. . - . . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ .

  • i i

4 .

l L. Myers Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit's 1 and 2 j Centerior Service Company >

i cc: '

1 Mary E. O'Reilly James R. Wdliams i FirstEnergy- A290 Chief of Staff -

! 10 Center Road Ohio Emergency Management Agency

)- Perry, OH 44081 -

2855 West Dublin Granville Road

Columbus, OH 43235-7150 l l Resident inspector's Office ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mayor, Village of Perry l P.O. Box 331 4203 Harper Street Perry, OH 44081-0331 Perry, OH 44081 Regional Administrator, Region lli Radiological Health Program U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ohio Department of Health l 801 Warrenville Road P.O. Box 118 Lisle, IL 60532-4531 Columbus, OH 43266-0118 Sue Hiatt Ohio Environmental Protection OCRE Interim Representative Agency 8275 Munson DERR-Compliance Unit Mentor, OH 44060 ATTN: Mr. Zack A. Clayton P.O. Box 1049 Henry L. Hegrat Columbus, OH 43266-0149 Regulatory Affairs Manager Cleveland Electric liluminating Co. Chairman Perry Nuclear Power Plant Perry Township Board of Trustees P.O. Box 97, A210 3750 Center Road, Box 65 Perry, OH 44081 Peny, OH 44081 FirstEnergy Corporation State of Ohio Michael Beiting Public Utilities Commission )

Associate General Counsel East Broad Street 76 S. Main Columbus, OH 43266-0573 -

Akron,OH 44308 William R. Kanda, Jr., Plant Manager Mayor, Village of North Perry Cleveland Electric liluminating Co.

North Peny Village Hall Perry Nuclear Power Plant j 4778 Lockwood Road P.O. Box 97 SB306 i North Perry Village, OH 44081 Perry, OH 44081 )

Donna Owens, Director Ohio Department of Commerce Division ofIndustrial Compliance Bureau of Operations & Maintenance 6606 Tussing Road

' P. O. Box 4009 Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-9009

7590-01-P U. S. NUCI FAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L

QQC)(ET NO. 50-440 LICENSE NO. NPF-58 l

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY. ET AL RECElPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2 208 Notice is hereby given that by Petition dated November 9,1998, David A. Lochbaum (Petitioner), acting on behalf of tim Union of Concemed Scientists (UCS), has requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take action with regard to the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No.1 (PNPP), operated by The Cleveland Electric illuminating Company and i

Centerior Service Company. Petitioner requests that enforcement action bei taken to require an I immediate shutdown of the PNPP, and that the facility remain shut down until all failed fuel l

assemblies are removed from the reactor core. As an alternate action, UCS also stated that following the requested shutdown, PNPP could be restarted after its design and licensing bases were updated to permit operation with failed fuel assemblies. Additionally, the Petition requested a public hearing to present new plant-specific information regarding the operation of PNPP, as well as to discuss a UCS report dated April 2,1998, entitled " Potential Nuciaar Safety Hazard / Reactor Operation With Failed Fuel Cladding."

As the basis for the request, the Petitioner cited the NRC's Weekly information Report for the week ending October 30,1998, that describes the apparent existence of two pin hole

. fuel leaks at the Perry facility, in the opinion of the Petitioner, operation with one or more failed fuel assemblies is not permitted by the Perry design and licensing bases. In addition, the Petitioner stated that by operating with possible failed fuel cladding, PNPP is violating its licensing basis for the radiation worker protection (as low as reasonably achievable [ALARA])'

program. The Petitioner referred to NRC Information Notice No. 87-39, " Control of Hot Particle OC 3 O aN D ~

,. e

  • ~

2 Contamination at Nuclear Plants," which describes how continued operation with degraded fuel may elevate radiation exposure rates for plant employees.

The Petitioner further reasserted the UCS position that nuclear power plants operating with fuel cladding failures are potentially unsafe and are in violation of Federal regulations. In its April 1998 repcrt, the UCS stated that it has not been demonstrated that the effects from i

design-bases transients and accidents (i.e., hydrodynamic loads, fuel enthalpy changes, etc.)

prevent pre-existing fuel failures from propagating. Therefore, the Petitioner concluded that it I

was possible that "significantly more radioactive material will be released to the reactor coolant system during a transient or accident than that experienced during steady state operation." l I

The request is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.

The request has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reac'5r Regulation. As  ;

provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. By letter dated December 16,1998, the Director denied Petitioner's request for enforcement action to require The Cleveland Electric illuminating Company to immediately shut down PNPP. In addition, the Director also extended an offer to the Petitioner fo[an informal public hearing at a date to be determined. A copy of the petition is available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555-0001.

1 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a ue . ins, Dire or Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland, This 16thday of

-y *