ML20246N889
| ML20246N889 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1989 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Fowler W SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246N893 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 8903280064 | |
| Download: ML20246N889 (10) | |
Text
.
-e sang
/
o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
g
,p j
' WASHINGTON, D. C. 20656
\\ *** /
March 22, 1989.
The Honorable Wyche Fowler, Jr.
United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510-6000
Dear Senator Fowler:
I am responding to your letter of February 19, 1989, to Chairman Zech, that forwarded a letter dated February 6,1989 from your constituent William Lewis.
Mr. Lewis expressed concern about his family's safety because he lives near.-
the nuclear plant located near Baxley, Georgia.
The plant referred to is the Edwin.1. Hatch Nuclear Plant, operated by the Georgia Power Company on behalf of itself and several.other part owners. The plant consists of two boiling-water reactors (BWRs) located on the south bank' of the Altamaha River. approximately 11 miles north of Baxley.
Each rea;: tor is of the BWR-4 product line designed by the General Electric Company (GE),1and' each uses a Mark I containment structure. Unit 1 at the plant has been in-operation for nearly 15 years, and Unit 2 has been operating for nearly 11 years. During this period,'neither unit has experienced any significant' safety problems.
In his letter to you, Mr. Lewis alleged that the NRC had kept the '1975 " Reed Report"-
secret and had failed to address problems identified in the report'regarding GE reactors.
I am enclosing a ecpy of NUREG-1285, "NRC Staff Evaluation of'the-General Electric Company Nuclear Reactor Study (" Reed Report"),". issued in
-July 1987. NUREG-1285 provides both a chronology of NRC actions regarding the
" Reed %;;wt" and -en evaluation of the safety significance.of. issues raised in thiit report. Since GE had maintained that the " Reed Report"'was proprietary, under NRC's regulations the document was exempt from ~ mandatory public disclosure.
However, shortly after NRC issuance of.NUREG-1285, GE chose to issue an updated version of the " Reed Report", entitled, "12 Years Later...An Update on the Nuclear Reactor Study", dated July 1987. 'Meanwhile, the NRC.was aware of:the contents of the original " Reed Report", and NUREG-1285 provides an evaluation of the safety significance of the report's findings.
NUREG-1285 does not identify Mark I. containments as being unsafe, nor does 'it identify other safety.
issues regarding boiling-water reactors that would support a need to' curtail
)
operation of BWR plants.
j q
You should also be aware that this matter was examined by.the General Accounting Office (GAO) at.the request of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The results of the GAO investigation-
.j are presented in the enclosed letter from the Honorable John D. Dingell, Sub-i comittee Chairman, to the Honorable Dennis E. -Eckart, Committee Chairman, dated September 23, 1988. The findings of the GA0 investigation support the NRC staff evaluation. reported in NUREG-1285.
l 1
p i
8903280064 890322
{DR ADOCK 05000321 7
( [0 PDC F
b
P The Honorable Wyche Fowler, Jr. Mr. Lewis also wrote directly to Chairman Zech expressing his concerns. A copy of his letter and our response to him are enclosed. As stated in our response, we consider that boiling-water reactors with Mark I containments are safe and do not pose an undue risk. However, the staff has undertaken a program to study the benefits of possible improvements that would enhance the capability of the Mark I containments.
If the staff studies indicate that improvements are justified, the NRC will propose such improvements for_the Edwin I. Hatch plant and other similar BWR plants.
In summary, the NRC has not attempted to keep secret the findings in the
" Reed Report," nor has it ignored the' potential safety significance of. these findings.
I trust that this information will enable you to respond to your constituent's concerns.
gincerely, i k(or Sterk gt f
ta!ghned by I
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director.
for Operations
Enclosures:
- 1. NUREG-1285
- 2. J. D. Dingell ltr dtd 9/23/88
- 3. W. Lewis 1tr dtd 2/23/89
- 4. G. Lainas 1tr dtd.3/06/89 l
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE I
- PDII-3
- PDII-3
- PDII-3
- Tech Ed.
'(A)AD:DRP:R2 MRood LCrock r:sw DMatthews EAdensam 3/6/89
/ /
N3/6/89 3/6/89 3/7/89 h.{[G f
'EDQ l0 d
If9
- (A)DRP:NRR
\\
D MRR C
Glainas zek y
VSt 1
/\\
3/7/89
' /89 3/
9 3/JQ89 3/ /Ji9 -
~
e DISTRIBUTION H
Docket File w/ incoming ltr only
'l I
NRC PDR & Local PDR EDO #0004282 d
EDO Reading i
T. Hurley/J. Sniezek 12-G-18 S. Stello 12-G-18 F. Miraglia-12-G-18 D. Crutchfid/. k 12-G-18 F. Gillespie 12-G-18 G. Lainas 12-G-18 E. Adensam-12-G-18 l
S. Varga 12-G-18 D. Matthews 14-H-25 i
M. Rood 14-11-25 l
PDII-3 Reading (w/cy of incoming)-
G. Lainas i
E. Adensam D. Matthews DMossburg,PMAS(E00#-0004282) w/qy of incoming-Beverly Clayton _#0004282 L. Crocker w/cy of incoming-M. Rood.
PDII-3 Green Ticket. File (#00004282)
SECY-CRC-89-0143 GPA/0CA h
l
.s OW Mue@.ElfM COnsGM SS
,_gy--
L:,
a00u 3313
-.u.-.-
"":" "'.',M;CT.~
MI'"cOa"-
2MM tr a " =. = 't.
J='.
11.5. Stanst of Etprtstntati0ts Tc="'U:7.Ta
- trc=to=
'"" " 'r'"a.
J5chcommttte a Oettsight ad 3notsugatans
= u C ". #crom of the Comattre n Encrgg ad Commerce Washington, BC 2am September 23, 1988 The Honorable Dennis E. Eckart Member subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 1210 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.
C.
20S15
Dear Mr. Eckart:
In response to your request that the Subccamittee on oversight and Investigations review safety issues pertaining to the " Reed Report," we asked the General Accounting Office to determine whether the " Reed Report" identifie6 any unresolved safety issues related to the General Electric Company's boiling water reactor (BWR-6).
The results of the GAO review are set forth in the enclosed letter.
Based on thk there is no evidence that the " Reed Report" GAO's conclusion that heretofore unknown, safety issues, revealed new, and obtained by the Subcommittee staff, together with other data I believe that our concerns on this issue have been satisfied.
However, as the GAO points out, to such areas as stress corrosion cracking in stainless steelsafety concerns per pipe exist.
The Subcommittee requested the GAO, 1988, to review this and similar safety issues.
on August 11, informed as to the results of the Subcommittee's efforts in thisI will keep you regard.
Franko of your staff forPlease express my appreciation to Anne Forristall and Sara valuable assistance to the Subcommittee staff dur 9 its investigation.
& ncecely, l
/
i J
/
/
\\
i 3ohn D.
Dingell t
Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Enclosure JDD:JHdes
i k
' kp CbQ.n,b'
.r 4
United States
' General Accounting Omce Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division September 16, 1988 The Honorable John D. Dingell Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives i
.q
Dear Mr. Chairman:
l On March 8, 1988, you asked us to determine-whether the 1975 g
Reed Report, prepared by the General Electric Company, -
identified any unresolved safety issues related to the company's boiling water reactor design known as BWR-6.
This i
letter provides background :information on the Reed Report as well as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) 1976, 1978, and 1987 reviews of it.. In addition, as - agreed with Mr. Hodges of your staff, this letter concludes our work related to your request.
In summary, we have found no evidence that the Reed Report revealed new, and heretofore unknown, safety issues.
This does not mean, however, that all concerns about the BWR-6 I.
have been resolved.
NRC, General Electric, and the industry continue to study a number of issues related to that reactor design, as well as others, that General Electric developed.
These issues include leak tightness of main steam isolation val.ves and stress corrosion cracking in stainicas steel' pipe.
BACKGROUND In May 1975 General Electric completed the Reed Report, named for its author, Dr. C.
E. Reed, then Senior Vice President and Chief Scientist for the. company.
General Electric states that it initiated the study to ensure that its BWR-6 reactor design would meet performance expectations and the company had the appropriate management and I
organizational structure to meet the large influx--42--of orders it had received.
Because the Reed Report represented a candid review of a major General Electric product and provided management with a detailed assessment of actions the company needed to take, General Electric considered it to be proprietary information and did not make j
it available to the public or NRC.
j
NRC became aware of the Reed Report in August 1975, but it was not until February 1976 that NRC staff reviewed it.
NRC documentation shows that the staf f concluded th.nt the report did not identify any safety issues that were not already known to NRC at that time.
Further,. the documentation does not indicate that General Electric withheld any ~ significant saf ety concerns f rom NRC.
Under NRC's regulations (10 CFR Part 21), the company is required to report any significant concern to NRC.
In December 1977, Mr. Chairman, you asked NRC to provide you information concerning the Reed Report.
NRC responded to your request on February 9, 1978, and on March 6,
- 1978, asked General Electric to provide either a copy of the report or a list of the safety issues it addressed.
At that time, the company still treated the report as proprietary information and withheld it from you and NRC.
However, on March 22, 1978, General Electric provided a list of 25 issues that company officials believed had some safety significance, and on April 11, 1978, members of your staff and NRC reviewed the report.
In November 1978, NRC staff provided the Commission the results of their review and concluded that they had no substantive disagreement with the.
information that General Electric had provided.
SUBSEQUENT EVENTS Between May 1975, when General Electric completed the Reed Report and early 1978, no utility had submitted an operating license request to NRC for a BWR-6 plant, and the scheduled completion date for the first was several years in the future.
In additi6n, because of declining demand for electric power, utilities subsequently canceled a majority of the 42 plants that had been ordered in 1975, and the first plant--Grand Gulf. in Mississippi--did not begin to operate until 1985.
However, late in 1978 the Reed Report became an issue as the A'.omic Safety and Licensing Board considered the Black Fox, Oklahoma, case.
On January 5, 1979, NRC received a copy of the report and provided it in confidence to the licensing board and intervenor 's attorney.
However, General Electric continued to withhold the report from the public, pointing out that it was exempt from doing so under 10 CFR Part 2.790.
For the next 8 years, controversy existed between NRC and General Electric concerning the release of the report.
In October 1980 the commission decided to release the report; General Electric sued HRC to restrict its release.
In Decembe r 1984 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ordered the commission to remand its decision.
The 2
1
^
c-J l
commission again considered.the issue of releasing the report.in June 1986 but decided to withhold it'from'the public.
As a result of'this decision, in June 1987 the Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc., took NRC to court to.
release the report: under.the Freedom of Information Act.
Also in mid-1987 several newspaper articlessalleged'tha't j
~
. General Electric ~ had " covered 'up" a' secret reportc that-contained undisclosed safety problems.
Following these reports, in July 1987 two actions occurred;almost simultaneously.
NRC published NRC Staff Evaluation of'the General Electric Company Nuclear Reactor Study
(" Reed.
Report") (NUREG-1285), - and General Electric released an update-of the report, 12 Years Later.
. An Update on'the Nuclear Reactor Study.
D In NUREG-1285, NRC addressed the significance and status of actions taken~for-each of the 25 issues that General-Electric had identified.
NRC also discussed six other, issues that were raised by the Reed Report. = Four have been resolved in the intervening years but two--leak tightness of main steam isolation valves and stress. corrosion cracking in stainless steel pipe--warrant continued; attention by NRC, General Electric, and the industry.
We should. point:out, however, that these are not "new" issues that had been i
]
identified by the Reed Report and do not solely.applyL to General Electric's BWR-6 plant.
For example,. stress' corrosion cracking in stainless steel pipe.is'an industry-wide concern for all~ reactor designs.
]
G AO ' S POSITION j
We have reviewed NRC's 1976 and 1978 assessment of the Reed Report, NUREG-1285, and General Electric's 1987 update of the report.
Although the Reed Report and NUREG-1285 discuss safety issues, these issues : are known ' to, and monitored by, NRC, the industry, and General Electric..In addition, we found no evidence that the Reed ReportLrevealed new, and l
heretofore unknown, safety issues.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact' me on 275-1441 or Ms. Mary Ann Kruslicky of my staff on 353-5711.
Sincerely yours, b
- .b i
~
Keith O.
Pultz Senior Associate Director 3
l
v Ileiited Stale =.
Geomral Accamailing OHire L
'{AA
!~
C__
r Meinoranduin FOR CONGRESSIONAL CONTACT FILE Subcommittee on e.ersieht and Investigations House Committee on Energy and Commerce Date September 27, 1988 Tm OCR From:
- 6 Group Director, RCED -
n
Subject:
Outstanding safety issues in the Reed Report (Code 301822) and problems with stainless steel pipes in nuclear power plants (New Request)
On September 27, 1988, I contacted Mr. Jeff Bodges, Research Analyst, House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, to determine if he had received our September 16, 1988 letter to Chairman Dingell.
Mr. Hodges stated that he had received the letter and thought that we had done a " good" job.
He said that the Chairaan should sign a letter to Representative Eckart today indicating that the letter concludes this work.
Mr. Hodges said that he could see no reason for Representative Eckart disagreeing with the Chairman.
I also told Mr. Hodges that we would contact him within the next few weeks to discuss the Chairman's recent request concerning stainless steel pipes in nuclear plants.
Mr. Hodges indicated that would be acceptable to him.
cc:
Director, OP Director, OPI Mr. Boland, RCED Mr. Curtin, RCED Mr. Fultz, RCED Mr. Forcier, RCED Mr. Fitzgerald, RCED Ms. Moore, RCED-8-0162 & RCED-8-0317 Chron File RCED/NUC&EL:MAK:krb:9/27/88
1
~
WILUAM S. LEWIS I
I ATft",H3Y Af LAW 7803 WATERS AVENUE SulTE 75 S AVANNAM. OsoRatA aldos 1913)393 3984 i
i February 23, 1989 Chairman Lando Zech Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/
l Washington, DC 20555
Dear Chairperson-Zech,
As a resident of Southeast Georgia I am very concerned about the safety of my family because we live in an area near the
(
Georgia Power's Baxley Plant.
The G.E. Mark I reactors are known to be unsafe according to the 1987 " Reed Report" done l
by your own N.R.C.
l As the leader of the N.R.C.,'it is your~ imperative to make sure that thesc reactors either be shut down completely or fitted l
with containment domes that are not " virtually certain to fail."
(words from N.R.C.)
)
Please let me know what the N.R.C. is doing to insure the safety
)
of citizens of Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina in the event l
of an accident in these dangerous reactors.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
l
\\
Sincerely, I
WILLIAM S. LEWIS WSL/cda Q& j_L '?G OW'
':, y sa tto '
'o'f UMTED STATES.
1 j'
!~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
l 5
f nAsumaTow o.c. asses
\\*..../
MAR 4 61M0 i
i Mr. William S. Lewis
/
1805 Waters Avenue. Suite 7B Savannah, Georgia 31406 j
1
Dear Mr. Lewis:
I am responding to your letter of February 23, 1989, to Chaiman Zech.
In 1
your letter, you expressed concerns about your family's safety because you' live near_ the nuclear plant located near Baxley, Georgia. The plant referred-to is the E..I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, operated by the Georgia Power Company on-behalf of itself and several other part owners. The plant consists of two boiling-water reactors (BWRs) located on the south bank of the Altamcha River, approximately 11 miles north of Baxley. Each reactor is of the BWR-4 product line designed by 9e General Electric Company (GE), and each uses a Mark I containment structure. Unit I at the plant has'been in operation for nearly 15 years, and Unit 2 has been operating' for nearly 11 years. During this period, neither unit has experienced any significant safety problems.
You specifically mentioned the 1987 Reed Report as having been produced by the NRC and as having identified safety problems with the Mark I containment design.
I' assume that you are referring to NUREG-1285, "NRC Staff Evaluation of the-J General Electric Company Nuclear Reactor Study (" Reed Report)," issued in July j
1987. 'The actual " Reed Report" was an internal product-improvement study performed by GE personnel in 1975, and NUREG-1285 is a report of an evaluation
)
perfomed by NRC personnel of the various issues raised by the original GE study.
I am enclosing a copy of NUREG-1285 for your information. NUREG-1285 did not identify Mark I containments as being unsafe; rather, the report concluded that:
"(1) The Reed Report does not identify any matters.that would support a need to curtail the operation of any GE boiling water reactor plants now licensed.
(2) The Reed Report does not identify any new safety. issues of which the staff was unaware.
(3) While certain issues addressed by the Reed Report are still being studied by the NRC and the industry, there is' a basis for permitting continued plant operations while those issues are being-resolved."
Over the past several years, the NRC staff-has performed studies of potential' severe accidents of extremely low probability at light water reactors similar to the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant. All the studies have shown that boiling water reactors with' Mark I containments are safe and do not pose an undue, risk.
However, to further improve the capability of Mark I containments, the staff' has undertaken a program to study the benefits of Mark I containment improvements which would further enhance their ability to mitigate the consequences of severe accidents, should they occur. If the staff studies indicate that the additional improvements are justified, the NRC will propose such improvements for all plants similar to the Edwin I. Hatch plant.
M G T. I.l 5 M
, se t.
s.
,*5 Mr. William S. Lewis
-2 The NRC continually strives to ensure that all nuclear plants are operated safely. Each plant is subjected to multiple inspections each year to ensure that operations are conducted in accordance with approved procedures and in compliance with the terms of the license autnorizinq ooeration.
Resident inspectors are assigned to each nuclear site to maintain day-to-day cognizance of operations.
Safety systems and equipnent are tested routinely to ensure that they will perform their safety functions if called upon to do so. Both the plant operators and the NRC search for cost-effective measures that can be taken to further improve plant safety. We believe that our inspection program, the required plant systems testing, and the improvements to plant design that result from our continuing review, combine to ensure that future plant operations are conducted safety.
In summary, the NRC does nut consider boiling water reactors with Mark I l
containments to be unsafe. To the contrary, we consider that this class of nuclear plant is capable of safe operation without posing a significant risk to the public health and safety. Nonetheless, we continually strive to ensure that all nuclear plants are made even more safe.
I trust that this information is responsive to your concerns.
Sincerely, LA~ 4 Gus C. Lainas, Acting Director Division af Reactor Projects -I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
his
, j ;E jo UNITED STATES g
g NUCLEAR REEULATORY COMMISSION qgg 8
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 V 'N 1 d -".
h,'
e e
' y.,..... p[
h
{Q'b<,i o,
EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM:
DUE: 03/13/89 EDO CONTROL: 0004282 DOC DT 02/19/89
. i FINAL REPLY:
Sun. Wythe Fowler, Jr.
TO:
Chairman Zech l FOR SIGNATURE OF:
. ** GRN CRC NO:-89-0143 E
DESC:
ROUTING:
ENCLOSES LETTER FROM WILLIAM S.
LEWIS RE GE-Ernst, RII 4
NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR AT GEORGIA POWER FACILITY-IN BAXLEY, GEORGIA DATCs 02/24/09 t
ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
NRR Murley SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
NRR RECEIVED: FEB. 27 1989 ACTION:
cDRSM HOL4H,ANFr D#ER, LC" N NRR ROUTING:
MURLEY/SNIEZEK VARGA i
MIRAGLIA CRUTCHFIELD GILLESPIE MOSSBURG
,j l
._a
___i._-._.-_m.-m._-_-_.
y.
- d. :
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-89-0143 LOGGING DATE: Feb 23 89 ACTION OFFICE:
. AUTHOR:
W.
Fowler--Const Ref AFFILIATION:
UNITED STATES. SENATE LETTER DATE:
Feb 19 89 FILE CODE:
SUBJECT:
Concerned about the GE nuclear power reactor at the Georgia Power facility ACTION:
Direct Reply 1
DISTRIBUTION:
OCA to Ack SPECIAL HANDLING: None NOTES:
William Lewis DATE DUE:
Mar 10 89 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
(
AFFILIATION:
1 l
l l
L LLO---004282 f*Md off. EDO 1
U3WJ 21-F 1 IC
/t.',3 '
1 m
-