ML20215H943

Advises That Review of B&W Designed Nuclear Power Plants Will Not Satisfactorily Address Safety Issues Associated W/ B&W Design.Supports Efforts to Create Independent Safety Review Board

ML20215H943
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse, Rancho Seco, 05000000
Issue date:	06/05/1987
From:	Asselstine J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Bumpers D, Pryor D SENATE, SMALL BUSINESS
References
NUDOCS 8706240269
Download: ML20215H943 (3)

Text

_ ___-__ -

ff '/ <> 3 3 6 5

UNITED STATES

/ o g

o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

! WASHINCTON,0 C. 20555 Y

{ l June 5, 1987 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER The Honorable Dale Bumpers, Chairman l

Comittee on Small Business l United States Senate l Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Mr. Chairman .

11, 1987, the haclear Regulatory Comission responded

' In a letter dated Mayto your Asletter of April 4,1987 the Comission's regarding the Babcock and May 11 letter designed nuclear power plants. Because l indicated. I disagreed with the Comission's response to you.

Comission procedures do not allow separate views to be incorporated in Comission correspondence, I am sending this separate letter to express sqy views.

Your letter urges the Comission to give serious consideration to the issues described in the February 10, 1987 petition of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and to give high priority to the ongoingTh reassessment of the B&W plants.

B&W plants surface once again theInissues of the accordance withadequacy the of the licensing

. basis for, and design of, the B&W plants. t l

Comission's usual procedures, the UCS petition was referred to t staff for appropriate action.

review and respond to the UCS petition within the constraints of the Comission's regulations and the staff's normal I revie satisfactorily address the safety issues associated with the B&W design.

reach this conclusion for two reasons.

First, such a review requires the staff to conduct a critical reevaluation of many of its own positions and decisions over theifpast It will be difficult, not decade or more licensing and regulating the B&W plants. I impossible, for the staff to objectively evaluate their past judgments.

believe it is too much to ask the steff, who must say each day that the B&W i designed plants are acceptable as they are, whether there are significant uncertainties or weaknesses in the licensing basis, review procedures, f

operating experience, knowledge of thermal hydraulic

require special treatment.

Second, the staff's review must depend heavily on a flawed industryFollow self-evaluation of the B&W plants.

NRC required the industry to reexamine many aspects of the B&W design, including petition.

several systems the UCS expresses concern j

a f

^

B706240269 870605 PDR COMMS NRCC a CORRESPONDENCE PDR l

E ' ,

s 1..,-

a the industry reexaminations which the NRC required in 1979 did not lead to the necessary improvements to the B&W. plants. Following the June 9,,1985 Davis-Be.sse event, I proposed to my fellow Comissioners:that we require an independent review of the adequacy of the design of the B&W plants.-  !

Unfortunately, the Comission and the NRC's Executive Director for Then, in early 1986 following the Operations (EDO)'rejectedthatproposal.

Rancho Seco rapid cooldown event, the E00 announced-that the NRC' staff 1 would perfom a. reassessment of the adequacy of the B&W designed plants.

' Shortly after that, the EDO turned that review over to the industry. Now, the Comission has concluded that the best approach to resolving the known design weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the B&W plants is to have the industry itself reassess the adequacy 'of their plants. . I do not agree. '

Because the staff review of the adequacy of the B&W design, including the safety concerns identified by UCS, will heavily depend upon the industry assessment, I doubt that the staff's evaluation will' be sufficiently .

i complete or objective to resolve the existing questions concerning this design.

l I continue to believe that thorough and independent reviews'of the.

operating events of B&W plants and the adequacy of the.1-icensing basis for, i and design of the B&W plants are needed. Such a review would, of course, l examine the adequacy of-the experimental data base supporting the B&W design and the adequacy of the computer codes used to model complex '

transients and accidents at the B&W plants, which are among the issues l

E raised in the UCS petition.

. As your letter. points out, the B&W plants across the country have had a

' troubled operating history. While the B&W plants should receive special l

ll attention, significant operating events are occurring at other types of 1 nuclear plants for which all significant root causes are not being learned, either with respect to the plants themselves or with respect to the-adequacy of NRC's regulations.and review practices. For these reasons I support-your efforts to create an. independent safety review board as is proposed in S. 14.

Sincerely,

/ l

? $ .Jn James K. Asselstine

)

l l

t l

.J-l-

UNITED STATES o  ;

NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION y g W ASHINGTON, D C. 20555 g g

%,..... June 5, 1987 OFFICE oF TH:

• COMMIS$10NER The Honorable David Pryor Comittee on Small Business l United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 .

I

Dear Senator Pryor:

In a letter dated May 11, 1987, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission responded to your letter of April 4,1987 regarding the Babcock As the Comission's May 11and Wilcox (B&W) letter designed nuclear power plants. Because indicated, I disagreed with the Comission's response to you.

Comission procedures do not allow separate views to be incorporated in j Comission correspondence, I am sending this separate letter to express my views.

Your letter urges the Comission to give serious consideration to the issues described in the February 10, 1987 petition of the Union of ,

Concerned Scientists (UCS), and ThetoUCS give petition high priority to the ongoing and operating events at reassessment of the B&W plants.

B&W plants surface once again the issues of the adequacy of the licensin In accordance with the basis for, and design of, the B&W plants.

Comission's usual procedures, the UCS petition was referred staff for appropriate action.

review and respond to the UCS petition within the constraints of the Comission's regulations and the staff's normal review practices for the B&W plants, I must tell you that I am not convinced that this review I will satisfactorily address the safety issues associated with the B&W design.

reach this conclusion for two reasons.

First, such a review requires It will the staff to be difficult, conduct if not licensing and regulating the B&W plants. I l impossible, for the staff to objectively evaluate their past judgments. i believe it is too much to ask the staff, who must say each day that the B& l designed plants are acceptable as they are, whether there are significan uncertainties or weaknesses in the licensing basis, review procedures, operating experience, knowledge of thermal hydrau l require special treatment.

1 Second, the staff's review must depend heavily on a flawed ind self-evaluation of the B&W plants.

NRC required the industry to reexamine many aspects of the B&W design, including petition.

several systems the UCS expresses concer

Y

.*" . e.sa w. asiansas cuadmu .

[g[,a gas,gs,ts eCNa ?! mm i

• %',Wl*1?b*.'-';."*'

^  ::';t.': a:' ggttd $tatts $fMtt

-:c.ca.  :::::'a.,,T:e -af: r

: :,: # .:,,.. ,, ,,  :=:r.a:,L. CouunTit oN SMALL SUSINESS

.aa*=**""'***'

• wasm=oroa. oc 20510-s350 ao.e=Y.E'{IJ'E s*lEEmea April 4, 1987 Zech, Jr.

The Honorable:Lando W.

Chairman-Nuclear Regulatory Commission 17172H Street N.W.

' Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear' Chairman Zech:

We are writing to inform you of our serious (B interest.in the NRC's

& W) designed ongoing reassessment of Babcock and WilcoxOne of these reactors is locate nuclear Russellville, reactors. Arkansas, at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit One, owned .

We are aware of the  ;

by the Arkansas Power and Light Company. troubled operating; histor we are concerned .that, despite modifications made to plant 1' equipment and operator training following the 1979 accident at.the Three Mile-Island, We are also aware that' plants have not decreased as expected.the NRC has determined l t

thel utilities to continue to operate B & W plants. l The Commission currently has pending before it.a petition, filed by'the Union.of Concerned Scientists, "For Immediate A In the opinion of the UCS, based on Babcock & Wilcox Company".an extensive record of problematic events a Commission should suspend the operatingWhile licenses of not we do Arkansas possess  ;

Nuclear One and seven other reactors.the technica1' expertise neces  ;

the allegations set forth in that petition, we believe that the  ;

UCS has raised a number of issues which require seriousIn addition, we l belie

~

consideration by the Commission.  ;

completion of the current NRC and B & W Owners' Grouprea We request that the Commission keep us fully apprise reassessment of Babcock-and Wilcox reactors.

Sincerely, N

g '\

D .

A \

David Pryor l Dal Bumpers I

'. l W5' x ,

c 1

- - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _