ML20205Q685
| ML20205Q685 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1999 |
| From: | Adensam E NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Beverly Smith AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205Q689 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9904220021 | |
| Download: ML20205Q685 (3) | |
Text
pQRfop h#'
UNITED STATES j
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'e WASHINGTON, D.C. 205 % 0001
\\..,,,/
April 9, 1999 Mr. Bill Smith Executive Director Fish Unlimited, Inc.
P. O. Box 1073 Shelter Island, New York 11965
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for your Jar.Jary 18,1999, letter to Chairman Jackson expressing concern about the Millstone nuclear power plants which has been referred to me for response. We have been concerned about the performance of the Millstone plants for some time. In 1996, the NRC issued two orders requiring actions by Millstone's owners, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO), to address our concerns. One order required NNECO to contract for an independent verification that the Millstone units are in compliance with their licensing bases before restart. A separate order directed NNECO to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for handling safety concerns raised by its employees and for ensuring an environment free from retaliation and discrimination. The second order addressed concerns similar to those raised in your January 18,1999, letter.
In March of this year, NRC was satisfied that NNECO's employee concerns program was acceptable in creating a safety-conscious work environment. Thus, the NRC considers that the tef ms of the order have been satisfied; and no further action is necessary in accordance with the order. The other order, the order to provide independent verification that the Millstone units conform to their licensing bases, also must be completed to the satisfaction of the NRC and closed before restart.
In your letter, you requested that Unit 3 be permanently shutdown based on the results of a December 31,1998, inspector General report critical of the NRC's handling of several historic cases of harassment and intimidation. On April 4,1999, Mr. John Nakoski(the Unit 3 Project Manager) and I called you and discussed what actions the NRC has taken since the inspector General issued its report. Included in the teleconference was your lawyer (Ms. Nancy Burton).
During this teleconference you were informed that the NRC has taken enforcement action against the licensee, a former licensee vice president, and issued letters of reprimand to four licensee executives. Further, you were informed of an April 6,1999, NRC press release discussing NRC's actions, and were provided with information on how to access additional j
detailed information on the NRC's actions through our Webpage on the Internet (nrc. gov /OPA/ reports /ms.htm).
Also, during the teleconference, we discussed that the NRC has a formal process for requesting
'9 that a license be modified, suspended, or revoked. This process is governed by 10 CFR 2.206.
Since you had requested that Millstone Unit 3 be shutdown, we asked if you would like your January 18,1999, letter to be considered as a 10 CFR 2.206 petition to modify the Unit 3 license. Further, we informed you that since the NRC has taken extensive action to address the concerns raised by the inspector General's report and your letter, it was unlikely that the NRC
^
9904220021 990409 hh DR ADOCK 05 5
g
would accept your request as a 10 CFR 2.206 petition in this instance. However, we will address your request to shutdown Millstone Unit 3 as you determine appropriate. We understand that you wanted to discuss whether the NRC should treat your January 18,1999, letter as a 10 CFR 2.206 petition with your lawyer. As noted during the teleconference, we asked that your reply be made to Mr. Nakoski at (301) 415-1278, or via e-mail at jan1@nrc. gov.
Provided no response is received within 30 days of the date of this letter, we will consider that you do not wish to proceed with this issue as a 10 CFR 2.206 petition, and will consider this issue closed.
During the April 9,1999, teleconference, you asked us to delay restart of Millstone Unit 2 till June 15,1999. We informed you that the Commission is responsible for making the determination to allow restart and will consider information from a variety of sources (including the NRC staff, the licensee, local and state elected officials, members of the public, etc.) in making its determination. The Commission will be meeting on April 14,1999, at 11:00 a.m., to be briefed on the readiness of Millstone Unit 2 to restart. This is a public meeting that will take place in the Commissioners' Conference Room at 11555 Rockville Pike in Rockville, Maryland.
I appreciate your bringing your concerns to the attention of the NRC. The NRC will continue to monitor the performance of Millstone to ensure that public health and safety are adequately protected. The NRC is committed to the level of regulatory oversight needed to carry out this mandate.
Sincerely, Elinor G. Adensam, Director Project Directorate l Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4
Distribution:
Docket File 50-336 PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
PD1-2 R/F SCollins/RZimmerman WKane BSheron JZwolinski/SBlack EAdensam REaton HPastis NRR Mailroom (YT199900 )
MKing RBlough, Rl SECY (CRC-99-0236)
DOCUMENT NAME: C:\\MYFILES\\lCAVP\\PUBLIC\\ smith.wpd
- v.,... em.e mi. ouwn.aunac i. in m. w : r. cm.4nou anunm.nu.e.v. v.e m.an nun,n.nu. e.w.
v.%cw OFFICE LA/PD1-2 fd PM/PD1-2, _,l D/PD/l)2) m NAME TClark JXU JNakoski [\\lf\\
EAde7Idhm DATE 04/4 /99 04/ 9 /99 04/4 /99 OFFICIAL DOCUMENT COPY
. would accept your request as a 10 CFR 2.206 petition in this instance. However, we will address your request to shutdown Millstone Unit 3 as you determine appropriate. We understand that you wanted to discuss whether the NRC should treat your January 18,1999, letter as a 10 CFR 2.206 petition with your lawyer. As noted during the teleconference, we asked that your reply be made to Mr. Nakoski at (301) 415-1278, or via e-mail at jan1@nrc. gov.
Provided no response is received within 30 days of the date of this letter, we will consider that you do not wish to proceed with this issue as a 10 CFR 2.206 petition, and will consider this issue closed.
During the April 9,1999, teleconference, you asked us to delay restart of Millstone Unit 2 till June 15,1999. We informed you that the Commission is responsible for making the determination to allow restart and will consider information from a variety of sources (including the NRC staff, the licensee, local and state elected officials, members of the public, etc.) in making its determination. The Commission will be meeting on April 14,1999, at 11:00 a.m., to be briefed on the readiness of Millstone Unit 2 to restart. This is a public meeting that will take place in the Commissioners' Conference Room at 11555 Rockville Pike in Rockville, Maryland.
I appreciate your bringing your concerns to the attention of the NRC. The NRC will continue to monitor the performance of Millstone to ensure that public health and safety are adequately protected. The NRC is committed to the level of regulatory oversight needed to carry out this i
mandate.
Sincerely, Elinor G. Adensam, Director Project Directorate l Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
UNITED STATES k
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.g.
j WASHINGTON. D.C. 20655-4001 t
February 9, 1999 CHARMAN The Honorable Michael P. Forbes United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Ferbes:
I am responding to your letter of January 6,1999, in which you raised concerns about the operating history of Millstone Unit 3 since it restarted in July 1998 and the continued lack of an emergency management plan for Eastern Long Island. You requested that the U.S. Nuclear Reguistory Commission (NRC) ensure that Millstone Unit 2 remains closed, convene a public meeting on Long Island to discuss Northeast Utilities' plan to restart Millstone Unit 2, and permanently shut down Millstone Unit 3.
The overail plant performance at Millstone Unit 3 since its restart in July 1998 has been generally typical of a plant returning to service after a lengthy shutdown. The five events noted in your letter (one shutdown, three manual trips, and one automatic trip) resulted in expected plant transients, and no abnormalities were observed either during the transients or during plant recovery. The overall risk significance of these plant shutdowns was low and plant operators responded well to the challenges, exhibiting conservative decisionmaking and deliberate efforts to ensure safety and compliance with procedural requirements. Licensee management has initiated an assessment of the number and severity of challenges facing the plant operations staff since the return to power operations. Recognition on the part of senior licensee management of the need for increased attention to this area, as well as to the reduction of existing operator burdens, is reflected in its recent initiative to provide a renewed " operational focus" to all activities and decisions affecting the unit.
In NRC Inspection Repor150-423/98-05, dated January 7,1999, the NRC staff addressed the multiple plant trips and stated that the licensee's response to these trips confirmed proper operator response to the plant and equipment challenges. The NRC staff further stated that continusd licensee management attention must be directed toward reducing the backlog of equipment problems and other issues that have the potential to create future operational challenges to the Millstone Unit 3 operations staff. The NRC staff believes that the operational history at Millstone since July 1998 does not warraat plant shutdown; however, we plan to continue increased regulatory oveisight at Millstone Unit 3 until the plant establishes and maintains the appropriate level of safety performance.
As discussed in your letter, on January 4,1999, water containing low levels of tritium and trace amounts of other radionuclides (a total of approximately 0.0217 curies) leaked out of the Millstone Unit 3 waste test tank before the licensee could isolate the leak. Heavy rain at that time carried the slightly contaminated water to Niantic Bay. A berm, which was designed to retain any water leaking from the tank, failed to conta n the leak. The tritium release was diluted in Niantic Bay and doses were evaluated based on fish and seafood consumption, as
()3NUh h h
O 1
2 well as recreational use of the Bay. The dose is well below radiation dose design objectives for maintaining effluent releases as low as reasonably achievable in accordance with Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50. (The doses to a member of the public calculated to result from the release of this radioactivity would be 2.2 x 10* rem, as compared to the public dose limit from licensed activities,0.1 rem, found in 10 CFR 20.1301.) As is the situation with marine sites, we did not include the drinking water pathway in this estimate. The licensee has investigated why the berm did not contain the leak and has lined the berm with an impermeable membrane. After the appropriate analysis was performed on the remaining water in the waste test tank, the contents (more than 15,000 gallons) were released to Niantic Bay through the normal release path, which is a normal evolution at the plant and allowed under NRC regulations.
As discussed in my letter to you dated June 8,1998, proposals have been made to both increase and decrease the 10 mile emergency planning zone (EPZ) distance since this policy was established following the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. After consideration of these proposals and their supporting documentation and rationale, the Commission has consistently concluded that an EPZ of about 10 miles in radius provides an acceptable planning basis for emergency response. In your January 6 letter, you indicated that Northeast Utilities is assisting each of the five east end towns of Long Island and Suffolk County with creating a coordinated emergency plan and establishing an open line of communication to ensure that Eastern Long Island is considered when decisions are made regarding the Millstone plants.
I encourage the communities involved to continue the ongoing dialogue with Northeast Utilities, as well as appropriate state and county officials, to develop the plans they believe are needed.
With regard to Millstone Unit 2, the staff is utilizing NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0350,
" Staff Guidelines for Restart Authorization," as a guide for plant restart. As part of its execution of IMC 0350, the staff developed a Restart Assessment Plan to capture the NRC actions i
required before the NRC approves plant restart. The results of the NRC inspections and the status of Millstone Unit 2 plant readiness are discussed at periodic public meetings in the vicinity of the Millstone site. The last such meeting was held on January 11,1999, and was attended by several members of citizens groups from Long Island. During the meeting, the NRC staff answered questions from members of the public regarding many aspects of NRC regulatory oversight. As yoa are aware, ths NRC staff also held a pu',lic meeting on Long Island on May 26,1998, to discuss emergency planning, and will continue to conduct periodic public meetings in the vicinity of Millstone to discuss activities at Millstone Station. The staff will conduct a similar meeting on Long Island prior to a Unit 2 restart decision.
I assure you that a Commission decision authorizing the restart of Millstone Unit 2 will be made only when the Commission is satisfied that the conditions that led to the extended shutdown have been corrected to our satisfaction, regardless of the length of time that process may take.
The NRC staff is available to brief you or your staff on pertinent Millstone Station issues at your convenience.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson