ML20215M516

Responds to 860911 Concerns Raised by NRC Employee Re Possibility That Util Concealed Knowledge of Serious & Pervasive Errors & Misstatements in Facility Tech Specs. Investigations Revealed That Allegations Had No Basis

ML20215M516
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	10/24/1986
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Guste W LOUISIANA, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML19306C227	List: ML20215M516 ML20215M519
References
NUDOCS 8610300352
Download: ML20215M516 (2)

Text

L

• f

$g UNITED STATES p

3 **/ k.

o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHilvGTON. D. C. 20006 o,

00T24IM v...../

The Honorable William J. Guste, .ir.

Attorney General State of Louisiana New Orleans, LA 70117-7096

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

This is in response to your letter ref September 11, 1986, concernina the River Bend Station. In your letter, you addressed concerns raised by an NDC employee over the possibility that Gulf States Utilities concealed knowledae of serious and pervasive errors and misstatements in the River Bend Technical Specifications.

The Nuclear Peculatory Comission has been aware of the employee's allegations.

Our Degion IV Office looked into this allegation and found that it did not have any basis in fact.

f You also pointed out that our employee questioned'a policy decision to accel-erate the staff's review of the River Bend Technical Specifications. Several months prior to the issuance of the low power operatina license, Gulf States Utilities (GSUI requested an expedited review of their Technical Specifications to avoid delays in start-up of the Station. The staff initially agreed to eliminate one of the final stages of the staff's review of these Technical Specifications. However, because the staff identified a number of residual concerns with GSU's draft Technical Specifications, and GSU's inability to maintain its ambitious licensing and start-up schedule, the Technical Specifi-cations were sub.ietted to another round of reviews. Therafore, the River Bend Technical Specifications received essentially the same scrutiny as the Technical Specifications for any other plant in the licensing process. ,

You also asked whether the NPC' either plans to impose, or is contemplatino any requirements on River Bend or has knowledge of anything which miaht affect the capacity factor performance of the River P.end Station. When the Commission issued the full power operatino license f or the Diver Pend Station on Noverber "n, 1095, the license contained fifteen explicit conditions with five attachments, which impose specific conditions on the operation of River Pend Station. The license conditions are corrparable to those contained in other recently issued licenses. The staff believes that these conditions can be satisfied by the licensee without any undue restrictions on plant operations, aside from normal maintenance, testina, and refuelina. As for the possibility of future reauire-ments, the NRC is ont currently considerino any future requirements for the River Pend Station that would not eaually apoly to all other power plants of similar desian, s

8610300352 861024 W ADOCK 05000458 n..

'Tf'

.- _ . _. - ._ - - - -_ ___ t

The Honorable William J. Guste,.1r. 7-As for other factors which could affert the operation of Piver Pend Station, the staff has been closely monitorinq the operating per*nreance o' Piver P,end Station. The staff believes that the Piver Pend Stetton has had a relatively larqe number of operatino events during its start-up test program, which is typical for boiling water reactors during this period of their operation, CSH draws hiqh marks fror the staf f for its strono n.anaqenent which tarfles and resolves safety issues in an aqqressive and responsible manner. The wpr will continue to closely monitor River Pend's operatino performance. At the Present time, we have no reason to expect anythinq hut the sof e and reliable operation of the River Send Station. However, we do understand that Piver pend's enviror.-

mental permits may currently impose some limitations on power levels durino hot weather conditions.

Furthern. ore, in a letter dated .luly 29, IqP6 (copy enclosed), the staff was assured by the licensee that despite their current financial situation, GSU is fully committed to the safe operation of the Station ard is currently fulfillino th ir financial oblinations related to River Pend's operations.

If we can previd . any additional information, please contact Pobert D. Partin, the Regional Administrator for the NDC's Peqion IV nffice in Arlington, Texas.

Your request for other information under the Freedom of information Act sill be resonnded to under separate cover.

Sincerely.

0-; .. :5i: .iama ty -

. * . . . t e a r i,, -

Victor Stello, .ir.

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

ltr to W. R. Denton, dated 1uly 29, 19P6, ' om W. J. Cahill PISTRIPUTION

' 5ee next page Previousiv concurred *- ,

rStern*

for .-

PD*4/'A rns4/PM* PD*410+ 91'! ippt. n / nol.

• i- M0' P rien sStern "Lutler bv rhone PH i ton 99ernero

/ /P6 10/16/P6 10/1 /Tf. In/16/P6 / c f. 10 r16 /rf.

PD/NDR* D/ tree p/196 PVollmer CVo11r-er for tello 10/70/rf urento.i a / d/P6

'.0 /70/86 _

i{

aivt a sino stafiOm PCET C##48 COs 270

__e GT f asser4. 4 LO,.,st,.Ana 70776 ant a C006 60s 636 40e4 3ae st4

' July 29, 1986 l RBG- 24107 l

' File G9.5 l Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission wnshington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Denton:

River Bend Station - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-458 _ _ _

, As discussed with your Staff, Gulf States Utilities Company is caeking to include River Bend Unit 1 in the rates charged our customers. Various reviews are ongoing within both states of our

, carvice eres, Texas and Louisiana, in connection with the rate cases.

On July 10, 1986, we filed a prospectus supplement discussing cortain risk factors, problems facing the Company, and recent i

davelopments in compliance nith Securities and Exchange Commission 8

(SEC) disclosure requirements relating to a $100 million bond offering. For some time, we have filed similar disclosure with the I

SEC and for several years we have disclosed our need for rate relief.

l These filings correctly indicate that various financial pressures which exist could result in the Company being rendered unable, among other things, to continue making capital expenditures which are principally in connection with River Bend Unit 1.

In this regard, let me assure you that Gulf States Utilities is fully committed to the safe operation of River Bend in accordance with the Operating License, NRC and other Federal, State, and local regulations and INPO guidelines, and that we are presently fulfilling our financial obligations related to River Bend operations. Should our present circumstances materially change, we will, of course, promptly notify the NRC.

Sincerely, f

J m e60729 W. J. Cahill PDR ADOCP. 05000450 Senior Vice-President I PDR River Bend Project WJC/WJR/lp ,

cc: Mr. Robert D. Martin, Rogional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV f g f(g(

611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 760;1 If

1 The Sonorable William J. Guste, Jr. 1 As for other factors which could affect the operation of Fiver Hend Station, the stofI has been closely fronitoring the operating perfurnor.v. of River Lend

Station. The e.taff believes that the River Per d Staticr. bas had a relatively j lorge number of operating events during its start-up test progrem, which is typical for boiliou water reactors during this period of their operation. r,54 draws high marks from the steff for its strong management which tarkles ard resolves safety issues:in-on aggressive ard responsible manner. The NPC will continue to closely monitor Piver Bend's cperating performance. At the presort time, we have no reason to expect crything but the safe ard reliable operation of the River Berd Station. However, we do understor+d that River Pend's environ-

n. ental permits n.ay currently impose sone limitations on power levels duriro hot weather conditions.

Furthennore, in a letter dated July 19, 1986 (copy enclosed), the staff was dssured by the licensee that despite their Current financial situation, CSl' (5 fully committed to the safe operation of the Station and is cerrently fulfilling their financial obligations related to Piser Bend's operations.

If we can provide eny additir rial information, please contact Robert D. Martin.

the Reoforal Administrator for the NRC's Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas.

Your request for other information Loder the Freedom of Information Act will be responded to under separate cover.

Sincerely, Victor Ste11c, Jr.

Executive Direc+or of Operations fnclosure:

As stated DISTDIPUI'0" See next 'pdoe Previously concutted*:

, SS terr.* '

) for .i: ,

rD,1/L A PDr4/IH* PD*4/0* R!'l DD/DSL D/GDL , C.

P0'8rien SStern WButler RHouston FRernero

/ /8(. 10/16/86 10/16/P6 10/ lf,/06 / '06

./ _tof DD/tdir. D!NRJ f .. D/FD0 VSdllder HD.-6tdn . V5{ - ?o

/t./p /3o ,' / ., F. ' > * / /P6

. . - . - --- . ._ _ , - .4s u .o._,_. _...

w%

[o 'g UNITED STATES fa >

[

g,

,e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasamorow. o.c. nones g ., ) g, v* / 0I oy y h U1

/* ? p!

,['J) ,

jet W The Honorable William J. Guste, Jr.

Attorney General cl*gho, f

State of Louisiana h, c"pp .

7th Floor ,fgf6

( *t 2-3-4 Loyola Building

. New Orleans, LA 70112-2096 i

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

l Chairman Zech has asked me to respond to your letter of September 11, 1986, concerning the River Bend Station. In your letter, you addressed concerns raised by an NRC employee over the possibility that Gulf States Utilities concealed knowledge of serious and pervasive errors and misstatements in the River Bend Technical Specifications. l' The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been aware of the employee's allegations.

Our Region IV Office esisted4y--the i%+nt Offke of inestigetitms,q_

looked into this allegation and found it not to have any basis n fact.

You also pointed out that our employee questioned a policy decision to accel-erate the staff's review of the River Bend Technical Specifications. The review, as it was actually accomplished, was not accelerated. Several months prior to the issuance of the low power operating license, Gulf States Utilities (GSU) requested an expedited review of their Technical Specifications to avoid delays in start-up of the Station. The staff initially aoreed to eliminate one of the final stages of the staff's review of these Technical Specifications. However, because the staff identified a number of residual concerns with GSU's draft Technical Specifications, and GSU's inability to maintain its ambitious licensing and start-up schedule, the Technical Specifications were subjected to another round of reviews. Therefore, the River Bend Technical Specifications received essentially the same scrutiny as the Technical Specifications for any other plant in the licensing process.

You also asked whether the NRC either plans to impose, or is contemplating any r2quirements on River Bend or has knowledge of anything which might affect the capacity factor performance of the River Bend Station. When the Commission issued the full power operating license for the Piver Bend Station on November 20, 1985, the license contained fifteen explicit conditions with five attachments, which impose specific conditions on the operation of River Bend Station. The license conditions are comparable in those contained in other recently issued licenses. The staff believes that these conditions can be satisfied by the licensee without any undue restrictions on plant operations, aside from normal maintenance, testing, and refueling. As for the possibility of future require-ments, the NPC is not currently considerina any future reauirements for the River Bend Station that would nnt equally apply to all other power plants of similar design.

J

. . - . - - . - - . - - - - .. . . .- t .-w-- ..

[. .u. .. ,h UNITLD STATES k

i ' NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. ]( i A i wasmotov o c rom /

& y

,f%

'+

.. :. / '

'te W '

The Honorable William J. Guste, Jr.

Attorney General SW/

jM gj). F State of Louisiana 4" 7th Floor

?-3-4 toyola Buildina New Orleans, LA 70112-2096

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

Chairman Zech has asked me to respond to your letter of September 11, 1986, concerning the River Rend Station. In your letter, you addressed concerns raised by an NRC employee over the porsibility that Gul' States Utilities concealed knowledge of serious and pervasive errors and misstatements in the River Bend Technical Specifications.

The Nuclear Regulatory Comission has been aware of the employee's allegations.

Our Region IV Office, assisted by the independent Office of Investigations, looked into this allegation and found it not to have any basis, in fact.

You also pointed out that our employee questioned a policy decision to accel-erate the staff's review of the River Bend Technical S as it-*as-ecttteHy-secomplishedy-wes-et-2ccelarmted]. Severalpecifications.

months prior to6he review, the issuance of the low power operating license, Gulf States Utilities (GSU) requested an expedited review of their Technical Specifications to avoid delays in start-up of the Station. The staff initially acreed to eliminate one of the final stages of the staff's review of these Technical Specifications.' However, because the staff identified a number of residual concerns with GSU's draft Technical Specifications, and GSU's inability to maintain its ambitious licensing and start-up schedule, the Technical Specifications were subjected to another round of reviews. Therefore, the River Bend Technical Specifications received essentially the same scrutiny as the Technical Specifications for any other plant in the licensing process.

You also asked whether the NRC either plans to impose, or is contemplating any requirements on River Bend or has knowledge of anything which might affect the capacity factor performance of the River Bend Station. When the Comission issued the full power operating license for the River Bend Station on November 20, 1985, the license contained fifteen explicit conditions with five attachments, which impose specific conditions or the operation of River Bend Station. The license conditions are comparable in those contained in other recently issued licenses. The staff believes that these conditions can be satisfied by the licensee without any undue restrictions on plant operations, aside from nortnal maintenance, testing, and refueling. As for the possibility of future require-ments, the NRC is not currently considering any future requirements for the River Bend Station that would not equally apply to all other power plants of similar design.

..-m .. ..E S _. m m '1 E .b E.. ' - . . . 1 N. ._[, _w i . si., .. -

li!STRTRitTION (Green Ticket 002130)

Docket File (Docket No. 50-4581

• NRC POR w/incomino LPDR w/ incoming EDO #002139 EDO Rdg. File HDenton/RVollmer Glainas ERossi DCrutchfield PD84 Rdg.

6 SECY CBC (CRC-86-0574)

VStello PPAS (E00 #002139) w/ incoming DFossbura w/ incoming LFriesel 55 tern w/ incoming M0'Brien w/ incoming TMurley Roe Pehm Snierek Taylor PFartin

-  ; Kerr, SP ADM (Crimsley) 2

. l Oi r) t i

ct i

I O

\ r

p 'e

/ gGCEGy '

~g UNITED STATES 8 ' ' ,,. f -' , . NtsCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .$ po mj 'yAt:4 wAsHino7om. o. c. 20ess fi ^'

$R.gv, ' ] [) ,I

,j 3

L

. .s, - Q *- w .- G -

eees e , ,r), .

f' Va' ,

'IJ,,y'g./py' 0

,,N

/-

.,if a91ya(Ek$ i ./

t i

'f s' l e' EDO c'RINCIrAL CDRFESPONDEtvCE CON 1ROL FROM: DUE:[:0/10/86 EDO CON 1 POL: 002:39 DOC DT: 09/ :/84 ul 13.* c. GUSTE. J6.. A T T U4 tJ E i GENERAL FINAL REPLY:

El A1E. OF LOUISI AN A TO' CH Al'tr AN ZECH FOR SIGNATURE Oc: er G s.:E E ta em 9Ety No:

EXECU!IVE DIREC10P DESC: ROL'ING:

N: ..t'  ;

l '.* E: :. A ?t'I S:.J 0 7 ANYTMINC WICP MA) rE< T svEtte 1PE r. A r t. (' 1 1 Y C A C ' 0 ' P E s t y ',' P A t* C E O F C I V E R E:E Vs POE ,

PEHM

? ATE: 0 0 ' C 3 / E'6 SNIEZE6' ASE llA E D 10: Neo C ttN 1 A C 1 : DEN 10N T A Y '_0 t k r. A F T i t.'

t 6'LPO. SP SPECIA It'D 'R.;C TIOt:E OR PEM A9Ui' ADM(GRIMS.EY) .

' H E 0 0 C .' M E F' ' M t. C 9 WILL E' E C0ti&DINATED tIA c o l .i < A *.m . : Aus D L:C lie t t:1 E. W I T 6.' H E L D t.4 0 tt'_ ; iE C A ;.1 5 '. L f ' E.'J 1 E u C D ' 0 A S S U R E h.: u'C rs S I U t ed % . ra w. 5 :. - 6' O r6' TO 0THER I S $ t'E S l t. P : N t; i l t l. 'wM 00C.'-t NT t b : :. . h. ' ' .IP

. P8':4/!'..' U* "'i 01A.

.. , .m .

NRR RECEIVED: 9/23/86 NRR ROUTING: DENTON/VOLLMER ACTIO!i: DBL:BERNER0 PPAS

. MOSSBURG

. = =_ x . _ = _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ .x.__..,___ _. .. -_ w ._ .  :._ -. _. _ -.._

. ~ -

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER: CRC-86-1016 IDGGING DATE: Sep 23 86 ACTION OFFICE: EDO AUTHOR: W.J. Guste AFFILIATION: DOJ (DEPT OF JUSTICE)

LETTER DATE: Sep 1186 FILE CODE: IDER-5 River Bend

SUBJECT:

Express concerns about an NRC official expressing the belief that Gulf States Utilities had concealed knowledge of errors & misstatements in the River Band tech specs ACTION: Signature of EDO DIS,TRIBUTION: RF, OGC/B SPECIAL HANDLING: None NOTES: 1 I

DATE DUE: Oct 7 86 i

SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

e Revd Ott. EDO Date q . 2 % -h Time f Y^ 5 -

j ,

l l

e w -n . .. w ~ . .-. . _ m . _-- _ - ~ - ._w