ML20210L921
| ML20210L921 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1997 |
| From: | Dromerick A NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Lochbaum D UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9708210355 | |
| Download: ML20210L921 (4) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
l k# 88C h f..,%8 f
a t
UNITE 3) STATES g
0
'}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%*...+[g W AsHINGToN, D.C. 30666 0001 August 18, 1997 Mr. David A. Lochbaum Union of Concemed Scientists 1616 P Street, NW., Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036 1495
Dear Mr. Lochbaum:
I am responding to your letter to Mr. Singh Bajwa, dated June 12,1997, expressing concem that, in its letters of April 8 and 25,1997, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) did not request a license amendment to revise the reactor coolant chemistry limits in the Technical Specifications (TS) for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No.1 (NMP1). You are particularly concemed that, in its response to your letter of April 17,1997, in which you expressed your belief that such an arr.&r.d.nent was needed, NMPC replied on April 25,1997, that "... a change to the TSs is noi required." You believe the NRC should be " tremendously concemed" that NMPC "did not of its own volition identify the need for a license amendment and actively resisted the need once it was brought to their attention."
You ask whether NMPC properly fulfilled its legal obligations for conforming with federal safety regulations in this matter, and you request that the NRC promptly send an unequivocal message to NMPC that its future decision making must be more conservative.
The NRC staff has reviewed NMPC's April 25,1997, letter, as well as NMPC's regulatery performance in support of the core shroud cracking issue. For the last seven operating cycles, NMPC has controlled coolant conductivity levels consistent with the assumptions, used in ti,e analyses of crack growth rates for vertical core shroud welds. These levels are more conservative that the TS requirements. Therefore, the issue is not whether NMPC would control coolant conductivity at conservative levels, but whether NMPC was non-conservative in its position that administrative control, by way of plant directives and procedures rather than TS, was sufficient.
By way of background, the Commission's TS Improvement Program (see 60 Federal Reoister 36953, dated July 19,1995, and 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)) has promulgated criteria that must be met if a limiting condition for operation is appropriate for inclusion in TS. In practice, those criteria have supported t'se view that chemistry control TS are not required to obviate the possibility of an abnormal situation or event giv!ng rise to an immediate threat to public health and safety.' Therefore, the improved Standard Technical Specifications resulting from the TS Improvement Program (see e.g., NUREG-1433, Volumo 1, Ruvision 1, " Standard Technical Specifications-Genercl Electric Plants, BWR/4," dated April 1995) which the NRC encourages licensees to follow when making changes to plant specific TS, excludes activities pertaining to reactor coolant chemistry monitoring and control.
' See e g., letter from Dr. Thomas Murley NRR Offics Di.ector, to Mr. Robon F. Janecek. ChMrman BWR Owners Group, deted May 9.1988 (the so called " split repott). (n which r3 actor coolant chemNry is delineated arneng those TS Lknithg Conditions for Operakute that may be relocated from TS to another licensee document and controDed pursuant to 10 CFR So.59.
97082103S5 970010 gDR ADOCK 05000220 eon
.).
N D. Lochbaum 2-Notwithstanding these positions, based on Criterion 2 of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii), the NRC staff has concluded that the Unit i shroud cracking constitutes a special circumstance whereby chemistry control should be considered a process variable or operating restriction having a significant influence upon an initial condition of a transient that could present a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that NMP1 TS should include chemistry requirements consistent with the shroud crack growth analyses, During a telephone call on May 6,1997, the NRC staff informed NMPC of this position and of the staff's view that an application for TS amendment would need to be submitted within 60 days of the staff's approval of the core shroud for a limited period of operation, The NRC stuff found NMPC to be cooperative in the resolution of this matter during the call and in subsequent actions, which included the prompt filing of a letter on May 7,1997, stating their intent to file the appropriate amendment within 60 days. The application for amendment, dated July 2,1997, is currently being reviewed by the NRC staff.
Thank you for your interest in this matter. I trust you will find this letter responsive to your concems.
Sincerely,
~
Alexander W. Dromerick, Acting Director Project Directorate 11 Division of Reactor Projects - t/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
_ 1___
r D. Lochbaum 2-August 18, 1997 Notwithstanding these positions, based on Criterion 2 of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii), the NRC staff has concluded that the Unit i shroud cracking constitutes a special circumstance whereby chemistry control should be considered a process variable or operating restriction having a significant influence upon an initial condition of a transient that could present a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that NMP1 TS should include chemistry requiremonts consistent with the shroud crack growth analyses.
During a telephone call on May 6,1997, the NRC staff informed NMPC of this position and of the staff's view that an application for TS amendment would need to be submitted within 60 days of the staff's approval of the core shroud for a limited period of operation. The NRC staff found NMPC to be cooperative in the resolution of this matter during the call and in subsequent actions, which included the prompt filing of a letter on May 7,1997, stating their intent to file the appropriate amendment within 60 days. The application for amendment, dated July 2,1997, is currently being reviewed by the NRC staff.
Thank you for your interest in this matter. I trust you will find this letter responsive to your concerns.
Sincerely, OillGINAL SIGNED BY:
Alexander W. Dromerick, Acting Director Project Directorate 11 Division of Reactor Projects - l/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation f
6 l
G DISTRIBUTION.
See next page DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\NMPl\\l.0CHBAUM.5 To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:
"C" - Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" - No copy
l D}l5M;j/,d l
DDIDRPE -n l
0 DRPE -4
[_ _
NAME DNood/rtl gjff
$little fl fos #F W JZwoLinski BBoger O F CE NAME B$ heron WBeckner
}
DATE 08/l1/97 07/l b/97 07//l//97
}
Official Record Copy
f50220)
(w/ original incoming)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
EDO #970277 S. Collins F. Miraglia T. Martin M. Slosson W. Travers R. Zimmerman S. Little J. Zwolinski A. Dromerick PDl-1 R/f (w\\ incoming)
M. Boyle (email only MLB4)
NRR Mail Room (EDO #970104 w/ incoming) 012 G18 C. Norsworthy D. Hood L. Doerflein. R1 W. Beckner M. Weston B. Sheron G. Lainas J. Strosnider 4
fa i-4 i
,t
.s
.-i---.---.s UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS June 12,1997 Mr. S. Singh Bajwa, Acting Director Project Directorate 11 Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United Stttes Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 0001
SUBJECT:
OPERATION OF NINE MILE POINT UNIT 1 WITII CORE SIIROUD VERTICAL CRACKS
Dear Mr. Bajwn:
Thank you for your letter dated June 9,1997, responding to UCS's concerns regarding vertical crack in the core shroud at Niagara Mohawk's Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP 1). Your response, along with its enclosures, fully addressed the concerns we identified to the NRC staff by letters dated April 9 and 17,1997.
In our April 17* letter, we noted that the justification for continued operation of NMP 1 submitted by Niagara Mohawk by letter dated April 8,1997, relied on a technical analysis which assumed reactor coolant water chemistry performance significantly better than permitted by the plant's Technical Specifications. We expressed to the NRC staff our considered opinion that the regulations of 10 CFR Part 50 required that Niaga a Mohewk either submit a license amendment for reactor coolant water chemistry or re-evaluate core shroud cracking propagation at the higher Technical Specification chemistry values, in your response, you indicated that the NRC's approval for operating NMP.1 with its cracked core shroud was contingent upon Niagara Mohawk maintaining reactor coolant water chemistry within the guidelines of EPRI's TR-103515 and also submitting an application for a license amendment within 60 days. We look forward to reviewing that license amendment.
In its submittal dated April 8,1997 Niagara Mohawk made no mention of a license amendment for reactor coolant water chemistry. In a letter dated A pril 25,1997, responding to our concerns, Niagara Mohawk informed the NRC that it determined that a "...TS [ Technical Specification) change is unnecessary," Therefore, Niagara Mohawk did not of its own volition identify the need for a license amendment and actively resisted the need once it was blought to their attention.
' While Niagara Mohawk's failure to voluntarily apply for a license amendment can be somewhat excused based on the unprecedented nature of this issue (i.e., no one has ever attempted to operate a nuclear power plant with its core shroud so severely deteriorated), this licensee's inactions should be of tremendous concern to the NRC. Left to its own devices,it appears that Niagara Mohawk would have restarted and operated NMP 1 without seeking a license amendment for reactor coolant water Washhgton Omce: 1:18 P Street NW Suite 310 Washhgbn DC 2003s 14:5 202 332 c900 FAX: 202 332 0:05 Cambridge Omce: Two Bratus Square
- Cambridge MA 02238-9105 617-547 5552 FAX: 617-864 94o5 Catafomia Of6ce: 2397 Shattuck Avenue Sune 2o3 Berkeley CA 'J47o4 ifd7 51o-843-18r2 FAX: 51o-843-3785
\\b V vi C ~
\\
e a
June 12,1997 Page 2 of 2 chemistry. The legal obligation for conforming with federal safety regulations is clearly that of Niagara Mohawk, not, as in this case, with concerned local citizcas, activists, and public interest groups. Does the NRC feel that Niagara Mohawk properly fulfilled its legal responsibilities in this matter? If so, why?
The NRC onen touts the need for conservative decision making by its licenseen. The lack of conservative decision making by the control room operators during the April 1994 marsh grass incident at the Salem Generating Station clearly displeased the NRC staff and was cited as a factor in the subsequent imposition of a heny Civil Penalty. On the other hand, the lack of conservative decision making by Niagara Mohawk during the April 1997 core shroud assessment seemingly fails to upset the NRC.
The NRC has been accused of over reacting to events at Millstone and Maine Yankee. By acting indifferently to licensee failures, such as in this Niagara Mohawk case, until some watershed event forces a response, the NRC provides the perception of over reaction. The NRC must react promptly to poor licensee performance and not squirrel away bad points to be unleashed at some future " prudent" time. The NRC is unfair to its licensees when it tolerates their failures until the aggregate prompts full regulatory eage. The NRC does not instill, nor does it deserve, public confidence when it distribut.:
"get out of jail free" cards to recalcitrant licensees so readily. Therefore, we feel it is vitally important that the NRC send an unequivocal message to Niagara Mohawk that its future decision making must be more conservative.
4 Sincerely, M
v David A. Lochbaum Nuclear Safety Engineer cc:
Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers Mr. Hubert Bell United States Nucicar Regulatory Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Commissioner Greta J. Dieus Mr. Samuel J. Collins United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Commissioner Nils J. Diaz Mr. Hubert J. Miller United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 1415
- -J
=-
1
~
pe w, o b,.
l
- r. rm.w ea UNION OF 3 P M, { 7~--
4
' p 'f ig i, cy. Q'.1, '
.7
,,, g i s gis s iff CONCERNED
- un8\\
oa
/Sc1 t " -+# * ~'
l SCIENTISTS 1616 P Street ffN Sude 310 Wasn.rvaton.DC 20G36 Mr. Samuel J. Collins Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 1
rj-3
.t ama w eccsr-en 2osss-00oi IseIsIII eesleI.ilaIseIsIsIIsisIIsnIIeeesseII:sIsII 2-
~-..,-... -
-v~..,n
- - -. ~
l l