ML20237A021
| ML20237A021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1986 |
| From: | INSIDE N.R.C. (MCGRAW-HILL PUBLICATION) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#487-5037 2.206, PR-860609, NUDOCS 8712140200 | |
| Download: ML20237A021 (2) | |
Text
....
[
/, /M/
~
.F C~--..
een g 1
0
,a, LA'N USR W h *[b 8 h h h,
hA An exclusive report on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'87 NOV -5 P7 :13 Vol 8, No.12 - June 9, t986 DENTON URGES INDUSTRY TO SETTLE DOUBTS ABOUT MARRCONTA,.INM.ENT uut \\ m
<D NRC's top safety official has urged the U.S. nuclear industry to give top'prien,ty:to settling lin-gering uncertainties about the ability of General Electric's Mark I containment to withstand a severe core melt accident.
%l "I don't have the same warm feeling about GE containment that I do about the larger dry con-tainments," Harold Denton, director of NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) told utili-ty officials. "There has been a lot of work done on those containments, but Mark I containments, espe-cially be:ng smaller with lower design pressure-and in spite of the suppression poc.1-if pu look (at the) WASH (1400) reg safety study, you'll find something like a 90% probability of that containment failing."
l Denton also told industry leaders gathered last week at an Electrical Power Research Institute
/
conference at Brookhaven National Laboratory that some plants with Mark I containments may not be [
prepared to deal with a severe accident that might lead to containment failure. "There is a wide spec-trum of ability to cope with severe core accidents in GE plants, and I urge you to think seriously about your ability to cope with such an event ifit were to occur at your plant," he said. There are 25 BWR units with Mark I containments in operation in the U.S., according to a 1984 study done for NRC.
Questions concerning whether the Mark I containment would withstand a severe accident have taken on new importance following the Chernobyl disaster, Denton said. And in response to the politi-cal climate following the accident, industry and the NRC should focus on the integrity of Mark I con-tainment rather than continuing to debate the probability of severe accidents.
"We can argue about the probability of severe core damage for a long time," Denton said. "I think the political climate is such that people are willing to concede that maybe they (severe accidents)
(continued on page 3) 01 SENDS EVIDENCE ON FERMI CRITICALITY PROBE TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT Evidence from the NRC Office of Investigations' (OI) probe of Detroit Edison Co.'s handling of a premature criticality at Fermi last summer has been referred to the Department of Justice for review.
The move marks only the second time NRC has turned over to Justice an investigation of what ap-pears to be a series of alleged material false statements, the only other instance having occurred in 1984 when 01 asked Justice to examine whether Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. officials had made such statements about the utility's fulfillment of fire protection requirements at D.C. Cook (INRC,10 Dec.
'84,12). That case is still under review by a grand jury.
Although OI has authority to make such referrals independent of NRC str$and the commission, it is not clear who or what offices within the agency influenced the decision in the Fermi case to let Justice handle the investigation.
At issue is an inadvertent criticality that occurred July 2 last year but was not reported fully, ac-cording to NRC's Region III, until July 16, a day after the NRC comnussion enthusiastically and unanimously approved a full power operating license for Fermi (INRC,19 Aug. '85, 5). In that inci-dent, a Fermi operator pulled 11 control rods out of sequence. Region III, on learning of the prema-ture criticality, immediately issued a confirmatory action letter restricting Detroit Edison to 5% power at Fermi.
NRC does not announce Justice Department referrals, but in the Fermi case, the news was INSIDE THIS ISSUE..
Regulators toki to increase international effort
-p3 Eisenhut, Minogue to leave posts at NRC
-p7 House Interior to hold trore ChernobyLimpact hearings -p4 B&W owners group submits trip <eduetbn program
-p?
Chernobyl data revives debate on source term
-p5 Station blackout rule may hinge on backfit analysis
-p8 LaSaue trip failure under investigation
-p6 NRC meets with TVA to discuss violations
-p9 NRC warns BWR owners about RHR valves
-p6 PP&L to repair damaged ESW pumps
-p10 8712140200 860609 4
PDR ADOCK 05000293 1
P PDR r/
E i
s headed by Jack Calhoun, reported that the utility's' management was in complete disarray. Citing a lack of commercial nuclear plant operating experience among Fermi's managers, the committee said,
" subordinates often do not know who is in charge and, in some cases, have the impression that nobody is in charge." A lack.of " consistent definition of mission" inhibits constructive management action, the group reported, and top level managers, " reluctant to define goals and responsibilities," engage in "mi-
]
/,
cromanagement" that reduces the effectiveness oflower level managers and supervisors, according to the review committee. 'Ihe study says Detroit Edison management is reluctant "to face facts, identify problems, establish their sources or root causes, work toward timely and effective solutions, and take action to prevent recurrence." One NRC source conceded that, from the agency's point of view, utility i
management is a " judgment call" and in this case, NRC staff and the commissioners blew it.
NRC Region III Administrator James Keppler said at a June 3 meeting in Chicago that he had i
seen a lot ofimprovement at the plant but added that more must be done before NRC will look at a l
possible restart. He said a restart in late July is possible. A Region III spokesman said NRC would "probably reserve judgment" on a restart until after the next INPO review of the plant. Just prior to l
the restart, NRC will also send in another augmented inspection team. "There will be a lot of people i
looking at it," he said.
{
Detroit Edison lawyers, and Region III officials, responding to a Safe Energy Coalition of Michi-i gan (SECOM) petition to revoke the Fermi operating permit on grounds of generally incompetent man-l agement, have argued that the corrective actions taker. by Detroit Edison "if implemented properly" will be sufficient to correct the identified problems.
-Eric Lindeman, New York: Dave Airoza, Washington DENTON URGES (continuedfrompage1) will happen now and then at U.S. plants, despite the best efforts of everyone. But they want to know it I
won't turn into the Chernobyl-type event."
l l
For that reason, Denton said, NRC will give "a lot of attention" to industry efforts concerning j
the integrity of Mark I containment. He said Idcor (Industry Degraded Core Rulemaking Program) studies on ways to "be sure these containments don't fail early due to overpressurization...should really be top priority," To protect Mark I containments from the overpressurization "would require positive ways to vent anel filter before you get a high pressure buildup," Denton added.
Denton said in an inteniew following his address that the message he was trying to convey to in-
.l, dustry was: "If you want to find something to go look at that has a high payoff, that (Mark I contain-ments) is not so bad."
The notion that a Mark I containment migh: fail in the event of a severe accident was strongly disputed in an earlier address to the conference by an official from Philadelphia Electric Co., who said that that perception has resulted from computer models " driven by silly little assumptions."
"The perception of the Mark I problem is totally unwarranted," said Richard Diederich, who is in charge of probabilistic risk assessments. for Philadelphia Electric. Inaccurate assumptions used for the sake of convenience by both the NRC and Idcor in modeling accident sequences and the risk of containment failure led to the perception, Diederich said. "But it's not true."
j GE, in a statement released after questions were raised concerning its containments following the 1
Chernobyl accident, said: " Attacks on the safety of the containment system used with GE reactors rep-
{
resent a rehash and exploitation ofitems that were raised and then resolved eight years ago...GE reac-tors are safe." -Brian Jordan, Brookhaven National Library 1
REGULATORS TOLD TO INCREASE INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS IN WAKE OF CHERNOBYL 1
The transnational consequences of the Chernobyl accident make increased cooperation among na-l tional nuclear regulatory agencies " absolutely necessary to restore public credibility," according to Pierre Tanpy, Electricity de France's inspector general for nuclear safety. International efforts, he said, should focus on obtaining consensus on safety standards for licensing plants, joint development of safe-ty analyses, and increased international safety research.
Speaking last week to the European Nuclear Conference in Geneva, Tanguy said nuclear safety has been enhanced in the past by agreements among international regulators, especially after the Three Mile Island.2 accident when other national regulatory agencies sought safety lessons from NRC for their nuclear programs. Individual agreements, such as France's pact with NRC for exchanges of safety information, concluded after EDF decided to base its plants on Westinghouse technology, and France's agreements wm West Germany and Belgium, for joint safety studies of plants constructed near their frontiers, have also contributed to growing international consensus on LWR safety standards. While there was an " imbalance" early on in the amount of information flowing from NRC to other nations, he said, that balance is being redressed as other nations become more active in nuclear research and I
1 INSIDE N.R.C. - June 9,1986 3
- _ - _ - - _. _