ML20215D637
| ML20215D637 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Oconee, Arkansas Nuclear, Crystal River, Rancho Seco, Bellefonte, 05000000, Crane |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1987 |
| From: | Pollard R, Weiss E UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | Asselstine J, Bernthal F, Carr K, Roberts T, Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215D641 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3752 2.206, NUDOCS 8706190090 | |
| Download: ML20215D637 (2) | |
Text
,
1 s
n " ' n. x 9,; p y
+
ww.
1
~
UNION OF
~ = > ~
\\
Y CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 1616 r streei, sw s.31o. wa.ni,1e. oc 2003s mi2,o2> 332.o9oo u
.) u s -s g nrr~ -. ' ' ' -
June 12, 1987
((
I Lando N.
Zech, Chairman 1
James K. Asselstine, Commissioner g
Frederick M..Bernthal, Commissioner
. Thomas M.
Roberts, Commissioner Kenneth M.
Carr, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,'D.C.
20555
Dear Commissioners:
Enclosed is the Union of Concerned ; Scientists Reply ' to Responses ~From-the NRC Staff and B&W Owners' Group.
To date, 269 individuals, groups, and elected officials have joined'the Union of Concerned Scientists' request for immediate shutdown of the B&W plants pending correction of the inherent design. problems which continue to.cause complex and potentially. dangerous j
accidents at B&W plants.
As the enclosed document demonstrates, the response thus far of both the NRC and the B&W Owners Group l
has been wholly unsatisfactory.
l It is probably to be expected that the owners.of the B&W plants take the same position as they have consistently over the-past decade:
that there are no inherent problems with the B&W design.
Thus, the B&W owners have limited the. scope of their recommendations to a priori exclude consideration.of fundamental changes.
However, it is neither understandable.nor acceptable that the NRC staff's response to date, as contained in a'three-page letter from Harold Denton dated March 13, 1987, does nothing more than indirectly repeat the bare. conclusions of the owner group.
The staff's response confirms our prediction that delegating the basic work of the safety reassessment to B&W doomed it to becoming simply the latest in a continuing series of fruitless and dilatory studies.
At a staff briefing February 25,
- 1986, the'. Commissioners expressed anger and shock when informed of the long history of problems at B&W plants and of your agency's failure to correct-them.
The agency committed itself to a full-blown, intensive program to correct these problems.
The staff informed Congress that its reassessment would be completed _by the end of'1986.
It is now mid-1987.
Not only.'has the reassessment not yet been completed, 'the major work has' been delegated to the B&W Owners Group and the scope narrowed until it ic quite, apparent B706190090 870612 PDR ADOCK 05000269 G
PDR j0 cambri4e orrice: 26 church street cambridge, woachu rits 02238.161n smsss2
4 i
- that, unless the Commission 1tself steps in, the fundamental design problems which prompted the review will not.be addressed j
at all.
There are some facts in this connection that must be brought to your attention.
(All are treated in greater detail in the enclosed UCS Reply)
As.its primary basis for asserting that the B&W plants are sufficiently safe to operate, the staff cites "almost 100" B&W recommendations, "many" of which it states have been implemented.
The staff concludes that "these changes have already improved plant safety by improving the ICS and the performance of the main feedwater system to reduce the number of challenges to safety systems due to feedwater transients."
In fact, as described at pages 27-46 of the UCS Reply, this is grossly misleading.
Of the small fraction of recommendations actually implemented at any B&W plant only a very small. number even have the potential to improve the ICS or reduce challenges to. safety systems ' due to feedwater transients.
By our calculation, no utility has implemented more than 5 of these, and GPU has implemented none.
See UCS
- Reply, p.
32.
Our calculations are based on analysis of the 95 recommendations contained in BAW-1919 submitted by the B&W Owners Group in October, 1986.
This is the set of recommendations referred to by the staff.
The NRC staff's response evidences no independent review of B&W's claims.
This is precisely the attitude that led the Commissioners to express shock over a year ago at the lack of i
progress in resolving the B&W problems.
UCS therefore again
~
urges the Commission to take personal jurisdiction 6f the j
petition and ensure that the latest commitment to the public and Congress is not frustrated.
Very truly yours, OtY d'
AO Ell n R.
Weiss Robert D.
Pollard General Counsel Nuclear Safety Engineer i
i