ML20216C893
| ML20216C893 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1998 |
| From: | Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Lochbaum D UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216C898 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9805190432 | |
| Download: ML20216C893 (9) | |
Text
_
pQ Rig
}+,
UNITED STATES
[.
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-0001
\\...../
May 12,1998 Mr. David A. Lochbaum Nuclear Safety Engineer Union of Concerned Scientists 1816 P Street N.W., Suite 310 Washington, D.C. 20036-1495
Dear Mr. Lochbaum:
In your letter to Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson and the Commissioners of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated March 17,1998, you concluded that the Millstone licensee is doing an inadequate job on its corrective actions. You indicated that "the results of the ICAVP [ Independent Corrective Action Verification Program] to date unequivocally l
demonstrate that the licensee's corrective action program is seriously flawed...not in the overall l
number of discrepancy reports (DRs) generated by the ICAVP contractor, but in the number of I
inadequate DR resolutions proposed by the licensee." You also questioned the role of the Special Projects Office (SPO) in the DR process. Additionally, you perceive a bias in the NRC staff evaluation process.
l In an effort to maintain the independence of the ICAVP contractor, during implementation of the l
ICAVP, the NRC established a communication protocol to control and monitor the interactions between the ICAVP contractor and the licensee. Much of the interaction is carried out in formal correspondence, which is being made publicly available on the Intemet. Also, meetings and verbal communications between the ICAVP contractor and the licensee are controlled and formalized. This interaction includes opportunity for observation by the designated members of the Connecticut Nuclear Energy Advisory Council. The written interactions between the licensee and the contractor include (1) the contractor's identification and description of the issue contained in the DR and (2) the licensee's agreement that the issue is newly identified, or the licensee's bases for its conclusion that the issue is either not discrepant or was previously identified by the licensee. For those issues that the licensee agrees are newly identified by the i
contractor, this written dialogue also includes the licensee's planned corrective actions.
We disagree with your view that the licensee's corrective action program is flawed because, in some cases, the licensee's initial written response to the contractor's DR does not resolve the ICAVP contractor's issue. Through its observations of the ICAVP process, the NRC has noted only a few instances in which there was a need for altered or enhanced corrective actions from those proposed initially by the licensee. The ICAVP program, including the interactions l
between the licensee and the ICAVP contractor, is being carried out in a manner that facilitates the conduct of this relatively unique third-party verification review. These interactions are being l
carried out, as approved by the NRC staff, to ensure both the independence of the review and a comprehensive evaluation of the licensing and design bases. To ensure the independence of l
the contractor review, the communications protocol described above was established. This i
protocol places restrictions on communications between the licenseee and the ICAVP l
contractor. Given these restrictions, the NRC staff does not consider the multiple interactions,
!!PTR M88L i)! o G
\\
David A. Lochbaum which occur in some cases, to be Indicative of a flawed corrective action process. Multiple interactions are sometimes necessary, given the protocol restrictions, to establish that halb l
parties have a clear understanding of the issue and the proposed resolution. As such, the l
process, carried out within the unique ICAVP, is markedly different from the licensee's corrective action program. The corrective action program is being evaluated by several different NRC inspections. To directly evaluate the licensee's corrective action program, the NRC recently completed the onsite inspection portion of a corrective action inspection using Inspection Procedure 40500. The staffis preparing this inspection report. Additionally, the Operational Safety Team inspection Report will also provide insights into the overall assessment of the adequacy of the licensee's corrective action program. As part of the NRC's review of the ICAVP process, an ICAVP corrective action inspection will be conducted to -
assess the effectiveness of the licensee's corrective actions associated with the configuration management review, the ICAVP contractor review, and the NRC ICAVP oversight staff activities. As part of this inspection, the NRC will sample those DRs that required multiple interactions in order to gain any additional insights into the effectiveness of the licensee's corrective action program, i
You also questioned the role of the SPO in the DR process because you perceive little involvement by SPO in the process. A large portion of the SPO resources is dedicated to the ICAVP oversight effort. Four of five planned inspections have been conducted by SPO in carrying out its ICAVP oversight responsibilities. Included within these inspections have been the assessment of the effectiveness of the ICAVP contractor in implementing the ICAVP audit plan, comparison of the NRC staffs in-scope inspection findings to assess the effectiveness of the ICAVP contractor's Tier 1 review, and comparison of the NRC staffs Tier 2 and Tier 3 inspection findings to assess the effectiveness of the ICAVP contractor's Tier 2 and Tier 3 results. The fifth inspection, the ICAVP corrective action inspection, will be conducted as described above.
In addition, the SPO staff reviews each of the DRs issued by Sargent & Lundy (S&L). The review process consists of the following steps:
1.
SPO conducts a screening of the issue (s) described in the preliminary DR. During this screening, the SPO staff categorizes the DRs on the basis of the DR description to determine if the DRs exhibit discemable trends. As the DRs are closed by S&L, this information will be used to identify programmatic problem areas that may warrant further review bv NRC or S&L.
2.
SPO conducts a review of the closed DRs. The purpose of this review is to identify those DRs that may require further NRC review or those for which the DR does not provide sufficient information for the SPO staff to determine whether the disposition of the DR is appropriate. On the basis of this review, the SP,0 staff determines which ors should be followed up by inspection.
3.
SPO reviews the resolution of selected DRs. All confirmed Level 3 and higher level DRs, and a sample of confirmed, nondiscrepant, and previously identified Level 4 DRs, will be included within the scope of the NRC's inspection of DRs.
David A. Lochbaum You also perceive a bias in the NRC staff evaluation process. As we have previously indicated to you, compliance with NRC requirements is expected of licensees and is enforced.
Longstanding Commission precedent holds that, while compliance with all NRC requirements presumptively provides reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will be adequately protected, the converse is not correct when the agency has determined, after careful consideration of the particular set of circumstances, that a given noncompliance poses no undue risk to public health and safety. The agency must, of necessity, exercise its expert analysis and judgement in determining whether there is undue risk to public health and safety from plant operations.
At Millstone, the NRC staff is using NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (MC) 0350, " Staff Guidelines for Restart Approvai," which establishes the guidelines for approving the restart of a nuclear power plant after a shutdown resulting from a significant event, a complex hardware J
problem, or a serious management deficiency. The primary objective of the guidelines in MC 0350 is to ensure that NRC's restart review efforts are appropriate for the individual circumstances, are reviewed and approved by the appropriate NRC management levels, and provide objective measures of restart readiness. The staff originally issued this guidance in March 1990 in response to a May 1989 audit by the General Accounting Office.
Sincerely,
]
Original Signed by1 Samuel J. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-423 cc: See next page Distribution: See next page Tech. editor review completed 4/2/98 1
DOCUMENT NAME: A:tLCHBM317.LTR
- See previous concurrence Te receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box "C" copy w/o attach /enci"E" copy wlattach/enci"M OFFICE TA-SPO C
D-SPO C
D:NRR C
EDO C
OCM
/ D:NRR NAME RPerch*
WTravers*
SCollins*
JCallan Collin_sp DATE 3/31/98 3/31/98 4/3/98
'/ //bl98 6/// /98
$N98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
David A. Lochbaum !
l You also perceive a bias in the NRC staff evaluation process. As we have previously indicated t
to you, compliance with NRC requirements is expected of licensees and is enforced.
Longstanding Commission precedent holds that, while compliance with all NRC requirements presumptively provides reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will be l
adequately protected, the converse is not correct when the agency has determined, after l
careful consideration of the particular set of circumstances, that a given noncompliance poses no undue risk to public health and safety. The agency must, of necessity, exercise its expert analysis and judgement in determining whether there is undue risk to public health and safety from plant operations.
At Millstone, the NRC staff is using NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (MC) 0350, " Staff Guidelines for Restart Approval," which establishes the guidelines for approving the restart of a nuclear power plant after a shutdown resulting from a significant event, a complex hardware problem, or a serious management deficiency. The primary objective of the guidelines in MC 0350 is to ensure that NRC's restart review efforts are appropriate for the individual circumstances, are reviewed and approved by the appropriate NRC management levels, and provide objective measures of restart readiness. The staff originally issued this guidance in l
March 1990 in response to a May 1989 audit by the General Accounting Office.
l Sincerely, l
Ctor Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-423 cc: See next page 4
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 3 cc:
Lillian M. Cuoco, Esquire Mr. William D. Meinert Senior Nuclear Counsel Nuclear Engineer Northeast Utilities Service Company Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale P. O. Box 270 Electric Company Hartford, CT 06141-0270 P.O. Box 426 Ludlow, MA 01056 Mr. Kevin T. A. McCarthy, Director Monitoring and Radiation Division Joseph R. Egan, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Egan & Associates, P.C.
79 Elm Street 2300 N Street, NW Hartford, CT 06106-5127 Washington, DC 20037 Regional Administrator, Region i Mr. F. C. Rothen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vice President - Work Services 475 Allendale Road Northeast Utilities Service Company King of Prussia, PA 19406 P O. Box 128 Waterford, CT 06385 First Selectmen Town of Waterford Ernest C. Hadley, Esquire Hall of Records 1040 B Main Street 200 Boston Post Road P.O. Box 549 Waterford, CT 06385 West Wareham, MA 02576 Mr. Wayne D. Lanning Mr. John Buckingham Deputy Director of Inspections Department of Public Utility Control.
Special Projects Office Electric Unit 475 Allendale Road 10 Liberty Square King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 New Britain, CT 06051 Mr. M. H. Brothers Mr. James S. Robinson, Manager Vice President - Operations Nuclear Investments and Administration Northeast Nuclear Energy Company New England Power Company P.O. Box 128 25 Research Drive Waterford, CT 06385 Westborough, MA 01582 Mr. M. R. Scully, Executive Director Mr. D. M. Goebel Connecticut Municipal Electric Vice President - Nuclear Oversight l
Energy Cooperative Northeast Utilities Service Company 30 Stott Avenue P. O. Box 128 Norwich, CT 06360 Waterford, CT 06385 l
Mr. David Amenne Vice President - Nuclear Engineering i
and Support Northeast Utilities Service Company P. O. Box 128 Waterford, CT 06385
a Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 3 cc:
Deborah Katz, President Mr. B. D. Kenyon Citizens Awareness Network Chief Nuclear Officer-Millstone P.O. Box 83 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Shelbume Falls, MA 03170 P.O. Box 128 Waterford, CT 06385 Senior Resident inspector Millstone Nuclear Power Station Mr. Daniel L. Curry I
c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Project Director P.O. Box 513 Parsons Power Group, Inc.
Niantic, CT 06357 2675 Morgantown Road Reading, PA 19607 J
Mr. Allan Johanson, Assistant Director Office of Policy and Management Mr. Don Schopfar Policy Development and Planning Verification Team Manager Division Sargent & Lundy 450 Capitol Avenue - MS# 52ERN 55 E. Monroe Street
)
P. O. Box 341441 Chicago,IL 60603 i
Hartford, CT 06134-1441 Mr. J. A. Price Citizens Regulatory Commission Unit Director - Millstone Unit 2 ATTN: Ms. Susan Perry Luxton Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 180 Great Neck Road P.O. Box 128 Waterford, CT 06385 Waterford, CT 06385 The Honorable Terry Concannon Mr. J. P. McElwain Nuclear Energy Advisory Council Vice President (Acting)- Millstone 3 Room 4035 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Legislative Office Building P.O. Box 128 Capitol Avenue Waterford, CT 06385 Hartford, CT 06106 Mr. G. D. Hicks l
Mr. Evan W. Woollacott Unit Director - Millstone Unit 3 Co-Chair Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Nuclear Energy Advisory Council P.O. Box 128 128 Terry's Plain Road Waterford, CT 06385 Simsbury, CT 06070 Little Harbor Consultants, Inc.
Millstone -ITPOP Project Office P.O. Box 0630 Niantic, CT 06357-0630
Letter to David A. Lochbaum dated: May 12, 1998 Distribution:
Docket File (w/originalincoming) 1 E PUBLIC EDO - 980172 SPO R/F NRR Mailroom (w/ incoming)
Elmbro JCallan PMcKee AThadani SReynolds HThompson PEselgroth PNorry Collins /Miraglia JBlaha RZimmerman HMiller, RI BSheron JLieberman, OE JRoe KCyr, OGC ED0 r/f SBurns, OGC
.. Ij b
,y-
og
.g ACTION l
EDO Principal Correspondence Control 4bt[*)B FROMs DUE: JLl/-M EDO CONTROL: G980172 DOC DT: 03/17/98 FINAL REPLY:
. David A. Lochbaum l Union of Concerned Scientists TO:
Commission FOR SIGNATURE OF :
ROUTING:
MILLSTONE Callan Thadani Thompson Norry Blaha Burns DATE: 03/20/98 Miller, RI Lieberman, OE ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
, Collins SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
Add EDO and Chairman on for concurrence.
Che.irman's office to review response prior to dispatch.-
,e REF. G980012 and G980036.
NRR ACTION:
SP0: Travers ACTION NRR RECEIVED: March 23,1998
~ ~ ~
DUE TO NRR D:RFOTCirS O"mm:
NRR ROUTING: Collins /M1raglia h-5?rn D Y
_ ! E W T B Travers Roe f
NRR Mailroom Y
D
(. -
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-98-0250 LOGGING DATE: Mar 19 98 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO 1
AUTHOR:
DAVID LOCHBAUM AFFILIATION:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ADDRESSEE:
CHRM. JACKSON, COMRS.
LETTER DATE:
Mar 15 98 FILE-CODE: ID&R 5 MILLSTONE 1
SUBJECT:
MILLSTONE UNIT 3 ACTION:
Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION:
CHAIRMAN, COMRS.
SPECIAL HANDLING: SECY TO ACK CONSTITUENT:
NOTES:
OCM #12463 --- CHAIRMAN TO REVIEW PRIOR TO DISPATCH DATE DUE:
Apr 2 98 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
l EDO -- G980172
>