ML20206B058

Responds to Re Constituents Inquiry as to Why Util Failed to Meet Any Schedules Over Past 2 Yrs to Put Plant on Line.Delays Caused by Util Inability to Complete Const & Test Activites & General Inexperience

ML20206B058
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	04/03/1987
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Durbin R HOUSE OF REP.
Shared Package
ML20206B060	List: ML20206B058 ML20206B091
References
NUDOCS 8704080308
Download: ML20206B058 (6)

Text

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

~. 7 , .- .

I a 44(,1 i ..AI na Ett -l

'o UNITED STATES l

~ '

[8 n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

-[ ,1 l

\*****f .

APR 0 s as7 1

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin Mmt er, mited States .

House of Representatives 1307 S. 7th Street '

Springfield, Illinois 62703

Dear Congressnan Durbin:

Your letter of March 6,1987,~ to mainnan Zech has been referred to me for response. In your letter, you conveyed a question fre one of your constit-

. uents who asked why the Clintan har Station has been unable to meet any of its schedules over the past two years. You also stated that Illinois Power Conpany (IP) representatives felt the plant was ready to operate but was being delayed from operating by a " perfectionist" NRC inspector.

For Clinton to receive a low or a full power license, the plant has to meet the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations so that the public

• health and safety is protected. Plant construction has to be essentially emplete and the safety systens and plant systers required for power opera-tion have to be Technical Specification operable.* Re IEC staff, including the resident inspector, has the responsibility to verify that .these systens are couplete and meet the design requirenents, and that the plant could operate safely, prior to declaring the plant ready for power operation. IP's inabi1ity to turn over these systems more expeditiously and provide the

. Region 111 staff with the necessary infonnation to verify operability in a.

timely manner are the major reasons for the delays in issuance of the low power and full power licenses.

Although early in 1984, IP projected January 3, 1986, as the date for receiving a low power license, it did not receive a low power license until Septenber 29, 1986. H e major reasons for this delay were:

• Construction and test activities on safety systems and systens required to support issuance of a low power license were not coupleted (systems had not been turned over fran the construction crews to the startup crews

! and from the startup crews to the plant operations staff);

4

• Technical Ehecification operable means that the systen is capable of perfonning its intended design function and all equipment necessary to support operation i of that systen is also ftmetional. his definition is not restricted only to systems but is applicable to subsystems, cmponents or any other devices specified in the Technical Specifications.

2 l

8704080308 870403" PDR ADOCK 05000461 H PDR,

. . . __. . ~.

~+ . , .. .

s t

'Ihe lionorable Richard J. Durbin .

o IP took a long time to declare plant systans to be Technical Specifica-tion operable once the systens were turned over to plant operations; o IP had a very large backlog of work items that had to be cmpleted before issuance of the low power license; o IP had to provide infonnation on coupleted activities (i.e. preopera--

tional test packages, open, unresolved, and enforcement itens) for the NRC's Region 111 inspectors to determine plant readiness for safe operation; e IP experienced difficulty in its transition froru a construction to en operational mode with regard to managanent control over plant operations and quality assurance; o IP had not. fully understood the magnitude of the maintenance function and had to expand the management staff for the maintenance department;

, and o Resolution of licensing issues to support issuance of a low power license had to await sulinittal by IP of outstanding.infonnation.

Purther, the January 3 1986 date for fuel loading was overly optimistic from the start, considering that IP had no other nuclear plants fran which to draw startup and operating experience. Even during the first month following issuance of the low power operating license, IP made many fuel loading errors and encountered problans that required reportingr to the NRC under 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73. As a result of these events, the utility decided to progress at a natch slower pace than originally intended. In addition, sane of the problems

, related to the transition fran construction to operation were still not totally resolved (although significant progress had been made), the backlog of work

- itens was still large, preoperational testa deferred beyond fuel load had to be conpleted and many systens reouired for full power operation had to be declared Technical Specification operable.

Coupletion of the above items and IP's decision to progress at a much slower pace have resulted in the delay of the issuance of the full power license.

'Ihis period for fuel loading and low power testing is about two to three months _ longer than expected; however, this is not surprising considering the licensee's inexperience.

It should be added, however, that Clinton's perfonnance since the first l month after receiving the low power license has inproved substantially and plant operation since initial criticality on February 27, 1987 has been better than average for IRR's. 'Ihe corrective actions taken by the utility, h

l

3-

'Ihe Honorable Richard J. Durbin which were based on IeC staff observations and reconnendations have con-tributed significaritly to this success. IP currently is still in the low power testing mode and will probably not be ready to operate above the low power operating limit (5% of rated power) until early April, if there are no further schedule slippages.

Sincerely, M) 7. A, Ree ictor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations DIS'IRIBUTIN See next page PD#4/IM PDf4/D IE/IB M D/IEL RBernero BSiegel:Ib hButler ton I

g/[L87 03 / d87, J / 2M87 ), /2y/87 /87 ') /df 87 1

db ad.

D/N$ D/ OCA ek 10e won VStel o j M iburne

/87 g / /87 J/k/87 0] I/87 l t

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin DIS'IRIMTIKN (Green Ticket No. 002633)

M (No. 50-461).

1%C PIR w/incming-LPIR w/inceing EDO #002633 ,

EDO Rdg. FiIe.

10enton/JSniezek-GLainas EBossi DCrutchfield FD#4 Rdg.

OOC-Bethesda OCA (3)

SECY (3) (04C-87-0258)

VStello PPAS (EDO #002633) w/ineming INossburg/ Toms w/incming NOlson BSiegeI w/inc ming hD'Brien w/ineming Taylor

%hrley

g.

i '('.

r4 ..

jo ~ UNITED STATES E ) ,,,, ( g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

- n .e-WASHINGTON, D. C. 205$5

.s .y ACTION EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCF CONTROL

-=- __ ___- ----________________

FROM:- DUE: 03/27/87 EDO CONTROL: 002633-DOC DT: 03/06/E'

. REP. RICHARD-J.'DURBIN FINAL REPLY:.

'TO:

CHAIRMAN ZECH C

.FOR SIGNATURE'OF: ** GREEN ** SFCY NO:-87-258 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

.DESC: ROUTING:

Q'S RE CLINTON NUCLEAR PLANT TAYLOR DATE: 03/13/87 ri.JRLEY

. ASSIGNED TO: NRR CONTACT: DENTON SPECIAL' INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

REPLY TO SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS OFFICE, NRR RECEIVED: MARCH 16;, 1987

.- ACTION:-. Q"DGEQg NRR ROUTING: DENTON/SNIEZEK PPAS MOSSBURG

~\\LU 3 ACTION DUE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S OFFICE BY 3 27 I I

.j.

8- ,[':,

s c;= . e, g t ,. . OFFICE OF THE. SECRETARY

-CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET

~

~ PAPER' NUMBER: CRC-87-0258I LOGGING DATE: ' Mar 12 87 '

. ACTION OFFICE: EDO AUTHOR:. R.J.-~Durbin AFFILIATION: U.S..' HOUSE OF' REPRESENTATIVES LETTER DATE: Mar :6:87- FILE CODE:~ ID&R-5 Clinton

- SUS,7ECT: questions regarding the. Illinois Power. Company Clinton Nuclear plant ACTION: Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION: OCA to Ack SPECIAL-HANDLING: None ,

NOTES:

DATE'DUE: Mar 27.87 -

s SIGNATURE: .- DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

J t

i "'

Rec'd Off. ED0 Date M/ 3 - 9 7 1

Timo -

h%f f

,A

( ..

l l

l EDO - - 002633

,- . . . .- - . _ _ , - - . - - _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ - . - . - - - = - - - , - . . . _ - - . _ . . - - - . . . - . .