ML20148S762

Responds to to Sj Collins Re Questions on Info in Insp Repts 50-245/97-01,50-336/97-01 & 50-423/97-01,dtd 970411

ML20148S762
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	06/30/1997
From:	Mckee P NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Lochbaum D UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
References
50-245-97-01, 50-245-97-1, 50-336-97-01, 50-336-97-1, 50-423-97-01, 50-423-97-1, GL-31-18, NUDOCS 9707080301
Download: ML20148S762 (6)

See also: IR 05000245/1997001

Text

. - - -- - - . . . - -. - . ~ = - . _ - -- -

nro ro - 21/5

g $4

UNITED STATEL

, ;5 '

j

2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY OOMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20f36-0001

..

k,/ *****

June 30, 1997

David A. Lochbaum

Union of Concerned Scientists

, 1616 P Stre n NW., Suite 310

Washington, DC 20036-1495

Dear Mr. Lochbaum:

I am responding to your letter of May 9,1997, to Samuel J. Collins, Director,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, in which you requested that the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) determine whether the Millstone Unit 1

licensee (Northeast Nuclear Energy Company) complied with 10 CFR 50.59 when

debris was left in the' spent fuel pool; and whether the Millstone Unit 1

licensee is currently conducting activities in the spent fuel pool in

accordance with General Design Criterion (GDC) 61 " Fuel Storage Handling and

Radioactivity Control." You based your questions on information you read in

NRC Combined Inspection Report 50-245/97-01, 50-336/97-01, 50-423/97-01 dated

April 11, 1997.

After discovering the debris in the spent fuel pool, the licensee performed an

operability determination (as recommended by the NRC staff in Generic Letter  !

(GL) 91-18, "Information to Licensees Regarding Two NRC Inspection Manual l

Sections on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions and

l

Operability"). Although not a regulatory requirement, the NRC staff's

GL 91-18 guidance provides an acceptable method for licensees to disposition

design basis discrepancies. If an initial operability evaluation determines ,

that the subject system remains operable, facility operation may continue. l

The licensee must then decide whether to restore the system to the condition  !

described in the design basis documents or operate in a manner different than 1

as described in the design basis documents. If the licensee chooses the I

former, the restoration must take place in a time frame commensurate with

safety. If, instead, the licensee chooses the latter action, or not to

,

l

restore, then an evaluation must be performed, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59, to l

ensure an unreviewed safety question (USQ) is not involved.

In the case of Millstone Unit 1, the licensee's analyses determined that the

applicable spent fuel pool safety functions remained operable. Since the

licensee determined the debris in the spent fuel pool would not be immediately

removed, a USQ analysis pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 was performed. The licensee

concluded there were no USQs due to the debris in the spent fuel pool. The

licensee's conclusion was based, in part, on a report supporting a 1988 spent

fuel pool rerack license amendment request that showed that an 80 percent

blockage of convection flow area would result in a maximum local temperature

increase of 11' F and that a substantial margin against local boiling existed.

Based on viewing a videotape of the debris, the licensee concluded that none

of the debris found in the spent fuel pool would result in a blockage of flow

area that is close to 80 percent of the total flow area.

9707080301 970630

M

PDR ADOCK 05000245

PDR

g }h

0/0079 NPaC FELE EBTEP COPY

-

!

David A. Lochbaum -2- l

Regarding the issue of compliance with GDC 61, the GDC (i.e.,10 CFR Part 50,

• Appehdix A) set forth general requirements for design of nuclear power

reactors. Specifically, the GDC establish the principal design criteria for

establishing "the necessary design, fabrication, construction, testing, and

performance requirements for structures, systems, and components important to

safety." The specific design information used to meet the GDC then becomes

part of the plant's design basis as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. Thus, licensees

indirectly ensure compliance with the GDC by operating their plant in

conformance with their design bases assumptions. Additionally, licensees are

required to comply with Criterion XVI of Appendix B, to 10 CFR Part 50,

" Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing

Plants." This criterion states, in part, that "[m]easures shall be

established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures,

malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and

nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected." As previously noted,

the licensee did perform a GL 91-18 operability determination as recommended

by the staff and a USQ evaluation pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. The licensee

concluded that its systems remained operable and the de facto change (i.e.,

the debris in the spent fuel pool) did not involve a USQ; therefore, they were

within their design bases.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analyses and spent fuel pool

videotape and concluded that there were no immediate safety concerns due to

the debris in the spent fuel pool. However, the staff considers the

acceptability of the degraded conditions in the spent fuel pool to be

unresolved pending completion of further NRC and licensee review of the issue.

Once these reviews have been completed, the staff will consider enforcement

action as appropriate. The staff's final resolution of this issue will be

included in a subsequent inspection report.

I trust this reply responds to your concerns. If you have any further

questions on this matter please contact me at (301) 415-2240.

Sincerely,

Phillip F. McKee

Deputy Director for Licensing

Special Projects Office

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No. 50-245

DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File w/ original incoming WTravers ACRS

PUBLIC (w/ incoming) PMcKee SCollins

SP0 Plant /SP0-L Reading

OGC

MBoyle (e-mail only MLB4)

LBerry

SDembek

RZimmerman

FMiraglia

TMartin

MThadani g

f'

NRR Mail Room (YT#0970072) MSlosson JDurr, RI

DOCUMENT NAME: OFFICIAL RECORD COPY -

1 cd~i

G:\DEMBEK\970072.YT = No copy g

T3 teralve a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment /e/cipagne "N"

0FFICE SP0-L:PM , SPO-L:LA\\sl U SP0-I:DD l OE:DMLudj) OGChF'Cl

NAME SDembek xf X f LBerry W WLanning JLietierman U 6 ' AN i r n

DATE 06/7/97' 06/R/97 ~\ 06/ /97 06/fA/97 06/4/97

0FFICE SPO-L:DD SP0:D l h/2(IC s _ l l

NAME PMcKee WTravers ~

4 C1@ red tai

u

DATE 06/ /97 06/ /97 06/th/97 06/ /97 06/ /97

-- -. - . - . . _ . - . . . - - . - . - . . - - - - - - - . - - - . -

4-

David A. Lochbaum -2- June 30, 1997

i

Regarding the issue of ccmpliance with GDC 61, the GDC (i.e., 10 CFR Part 50,

! , Appendix A) set forth general requirements for design of nuclear power

reactors. Specifically, the GDC establish the principal design criteria for ,

!

establishing "the necessary design, fabrication, construction, testing, and

performance requirements for structures, systems, and components important to

! safety." The specific design information used to meet the GDC then becomes

part of the plant's design basis as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. Thus, licensees

! indirectly ensure compliance with the GDC by operating their plant in

j conformance with their design basis assumptions. Additionally, licensees are

!

required to comply with Criterion XVI of Appendix B, to 10 CFR Part 50,

" Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear. Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing

j Pl ants . " This criterion states, in part, that "[m]easures shall be

! established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, -

{ malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and

i

nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected." Further, licensees  ;

l are required to comply with 10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate Notification Requirements

for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors," and 10 CFR 50.73, " Licensee Event

l'

Report System," which require certain actions if the licensee discovers a

i condition that is outside the design basis of the plant. As previously noted,

! the licensee did perform a GL 91-18 operability determination as recommended

by the staff and a USQ evaluation pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. The licensee

i concluded that its systems remained operable and the de facto change (i.e.,

! the debris in the spent fuel pool) did not involve a USQ. .

,

The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's analyses and spent fuel pool videotape

! and concluded that there were no immediate safety concerns due to the debris

in the spent fuel pool. However, as noted in the inspection report, the staff

considers the acceptability of the degraded conditions in the spent fuel pool

i to be unresolved pending completion of further NRC and licensee review of the

issue. Once its review has been completed, the staff will consider

enforcement action as appropriate. The staff's final resolution of this issue

j

<

will be included in a subsequent inspection report.

e

j I trust this reply responds to your concerns. If you have any further

i questions on this matter please contact me at (301) 415-2240. ,

, Sincerely,

j Original signed by:

1

-

Phillip F. McKee

j Deputy Director-for Licensing

j Special Projects Office

Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation

!

>

Docket No. 50-245

l DISTRIBUTION: See next page

! ~ DOCUMENT NAME: G:\DEMBEK\970072.YT *see previous concurrence 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

Ta seceive a copy of thle sleeunient,insposte in the ben

*C* = Copy without ettechment/ enclosure *E' = Copy with ettechment/ enclosure *N* = No copy

{ OFFICE SPO-L:PM , al , , SPO-L:LAiM SPO-I:DD l OE:D l *0GC l

i- NAME SDembek/6/e_/4LBerry M/ WLanningva e 4 JLieberman* CMarco

0 CE-

j NAME MSlosson* PMhK W WTryv'ersp' zM .#F

DATE 06/16/97 d6N)/97 06'/g/93 (/$//r7' 06/ /97

.

. ,- . . . . - - - _ - - ._ . .. . . -

_._ _ _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ __

i

.

'

'

. David A. Lochbaum -2-

j

!

!

,

Regarding the issue of compliance with GDC 61, the GDC (i.e., 10 CFR Part 50,

.

- Appendix A) set forth general requirements for design of nuclear power

reactors. Specifically, the GDC establish the principal design criteria for

establishing "the necessary design, fabrication, construction, testing, and

performance requirements for structurer, systems, and components important to

safety." The specific design information used to meet the GDC then becomes

part of the plant's design basis as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. Thus, licensees

indirectly ensure compliance with the GDC by operating their plant in 1

,

-

conformance with their design basis assumptions. Additionally, licensees are

required _to comply with Criterion XVI of Appendix B, to 10 CFR Part 50,

! " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing

{ Plants." This criterion states, in part, that "[m]easures shall be

' established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures,

^

malfunctions, de'ficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and

nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected." Further, licensees

i are required to comply with 10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate Notification Requirements

j for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors," and 10 CFR 50.73, " Licensee. Event

Report System," which require certain actions if the licensee discovers a ,

l

t

' condition that is outside the design basis of the plant. As previously noted, )

the licensee did perform a GL 91-18 operability determination as recommended

by the staff and a USQ evaluation pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. The licensee

i

concluded that its systems remained operable and the de facto change (i.e.,

.

the debris in the spent fuel pool) did not involve a USQ.

1

The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's analyses and spent fuel pool videotape

) and concluded that there were no immediate safety concerns due to the debris l

4

in the spent fuel pool. However, as noted in the inspection report, the staff

considers the -acceptability of the degraded conditions in the spent fuel pool

t

to be unresolved pending completion of further NRC and licensee review of the

!. issue. Once its review has been completed, the staff will consider

! enforcement action as appropriate. The staff's final resolution of this issue

1

l

,

will be included in a subsequent inspection report.

,

1 I trust this reply responds to your concerns. If you have any further

!

'

questions on this matter please contact me at (301) 415-2240.

,

l Sincerely,

j -

.

t cs/

i "

, Phillip f. McKee  !

Deputy Director for. Licensing

'

Special Projects Office-

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  ;

1

.

.

-

M

f

J

d

v--- e -w ,- 3 m - - - ,

1

a.

l

. .

'

DISTRIBUTION: _ , .

i

1 Docket Jile w/originallincoming  !

PUBLIC (w/ incoming)

SP0 Plant /SP0-L Reading .

0GC  !

MBoyle (e-mail only MLB4)

{

NRR Mail Room (YT #0970072)

WTravers

PMcKee

LBerry

SDembek

RZimmerman

MSlosson

ACRS

SCollins

FMiraglia

TMartin

MThadani

JDurr, RI

.

i

l

I

I

i

.)

_ _ . . _ . . . . _ _ _ . . . . _ ._._ ._..._....-_,._-____.....~_.__.___.__.__.__.........-.m____,

.., ,.

.

,

. .

l

l

FROM: ORIGINAL DUE DT: 06/10/97 TICKET NO: 0970072

l

!

DOC DT: 05/09/97

NRR RCVD DATE: 05/13/97

-D. A. LOCHBAUM, UCS

~

'

TO:

S. J. COLLINS t

!

l FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** YEL **

!

,

.DESC: ROUTING:

.1'

APPARENT UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION INVOLVING COLLINS

SPENT FUEL POOL STORAGE AT MILLSTONE UNIT 1 MIRAGLIA

l MARTIN

l ZIMMERMAN

SLOSSON

BOHRER l

ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT:

l

l. SPO TRAVERS

l

l SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: ]

I  !

1

1

l

ACTION  !

DUE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S OFFICE ,

!

i-

!

BY /Vbe Ib "/'7 _

'

i.

l

,.

I

l'

I . . . , . . . - . - - - --,

t

.

-

. .

.

_

l

'

UNION OF

'

CONCERNED

SCIENTISTS

May 9,1997

Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Director

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555 0001

SUBJECT: APPARENT UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION INVOLVING SPENT FUEL

POOL STORAGE AT MILLSTONE UNIT 1

i

I

Dear Mr. Collins:

Section UI 02.1 in NRC Combined Inspection Report 50-245/97-01, 50-336-97-01, 50-423/97-01

dated April 11,1997, details a number discrepant conditions within tbc spent fuel pool at Millstone

Unit 1. According to this inspection report, foreign material exclusion problems allowed the

accumulation of a large amount of debris within the spent fuel pool. The debris was described as

" rope, cable, boron tubes, a broom head, filter hoses, nuts, and unidentifable objects." In addition, this

inspection report stated that "14 fuel bundles are elevated (from their seated position in the spent fuel

storage racks] due to unknown reasons, although it is suspected that debris is in the fuel rack

preventing proper seating."

Section 15.7.4," Radiological Consequences of Fuel Handling Accidents," of the NRC's Standard

Review Plan (NUREG-0800) and NRC Bulletin 96-02, " Movement of Heavy Loads Over Spent Fuel,

Over Fuel in the Reactor Core, or Over Safety-Related Equipment," describe limitations on the

movement of heavy loads over the spent fuel pool. The stated purpose of these limitations is to

prevent damage to irradiated fuel stored in the spent fuel pool to conform with the requirements of 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 61.

Section 50.59, " Changes, tests, and experiments," to 10 CFR requires all licensees to evaluate

proposed chaiges to their facilities for potential unreviewed safety questions. In essence, if a proposed

activity is not enveloped by the plant's licensing bases, it is an unreviewed safety question that

requires NRC review and approval before it can be performed.

The Millstone Unit 1 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report does not discuss the storage ofitems such

as " broom heads" in the spent fuel pool. If the licensee performed safety evaluations in accordance

with Section 50.59 of 10 CFR prior to placing these items in the spent fuel pool, then it is not

I apparent why an unreviewed safety question was not identified. An object, such as a broom head or

filter hose, dropped into the spent fuel pool and blocking flow into or out of one or more irradiated

fuel assemblics would appear to constitute a new failure mode. Depending on the size of the object

and the number of blocked assemblies, the consequences from this postulated scenario could exceed

that from the previously analyzed fuel handling event at Millstone Unit 1. For example,if a panel

Washngton Offce: 1616 P Street NW Suite 310 Washhgton DC 20036-1495 202-332 0900 FAX: 202-332 0905

Cambridge Ofree: Two Brattle Square Cambridge MA 02238-9105 617-547-5552 FAX: 617-864-9405

Califomia Omce: 2397 Shattuck Avenue Suite 2o3 Berkeley CA 947041567 510-843-1872 FAX: 510-843-3785

O') Y "Vi '[ Jh f hf

. - .

. -

. .

b i

. .

May 9,1997

Page 2 of 2

measuring 2'x4' fell into the pool and came to rest across the top of the racks, the flow from up to 18

irradiated fuel assemblies might be partially or full restricted. A similar scenario could be postulated

for a rag or a sheet of plastic that drops into the spent fuel pool and winds up blocking the inlet to

one or more irradiated fuel assemblies. Considering that Millstone Unit 1 is a boiling water reactor l

with its irradiated fuel assemblies possibly having fuel channels that prevent cross-flow, any inlet or l

outlet flow restriction has the potential for causing fuel damage from inadequate cooling. To our l

knowledge, no analysis or evaluation has been performed to demonstrate the irradiated fuel can be  ;

adequately cooled under restricted / blocked flow conditions.  ;

If the licensee did not perform safety evaluations in accordance with Section 50.59 of 10 CFR prior to

placing these items in the spent fuel pool, then it is not apparent why the licensee seemed to have ,

violated the law. l

l

UCS respectfully requests that the NRC determine:

1) Whether the Millstone Unit I licensee complied with Section 50.59 of 10 CFR when items

such as broom heads were stored in the spent fuel pool.

2) Whether the Millstone Unit I licensee is currently conducting activities in the spent fuel pool l

in accordance with GDC 61.

Please note that the concern about objects lighter than a fuel bundle (i.e., items not covered under the

heavy load guidance in NUREG-0612) applies at least to all boiling water reactor plants that store

irradiated fuel assemblies with channels and perhaps to all plants to a lesser degree. Thus,it seems

prudent that the results frcm the recommended inquiry into this matter at Millstone be considered

generically as appropriate.

Sincerely,

k0

David A. Loch aum

Nuclear Safety Engineer

cc: Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, Jr.

United Statn Nuclear Regulatory Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555

Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers Mr. George Mulley

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555

Commissioner Greta J. Dieus Mr. William D. Travers

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20$55

Commissioner Nils J. Diaz

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555

-. . -- - - - . -- --- ----

,p.,g g W m M. I g. ag 4a s.,Med'-E M'.'.hVn um mm=E. gif w44MbY Mhm4Mm-mp.g[? .? 3,[ 4 y_, .'dy".j

. ,.,tbMgw,'p1'4g .

_f .h4' M g gij - - - - -

W,,gg i 3, ,.gg,,.,,,,,,,,g . , , A_j .,

,p, ,

,

• m;ingy , - - - . wu-------,.-

_ gon w' N,.--,,,,- . ~ .

.

49

~

og fX f N  :

Q FOR THE P$E

!d

UNION OF r " " g l2 r,e . #3 ?qJ!#gi- t: '

CONCERNED emi ;

SCIENTISTS fMo> @' ~ o N* "* - NEJ

'

1616 P Street NW Suite 310

l Washington, DC 20036

-

Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Director

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

!

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission '

IJ Washington, DC 20555-0001

ii .

, e ,

l

.i

j m eman uvtucewsn

,

2esss-coot Inlillluni,Inl.ini.1,ll...llinil.....ill .lill ,

i ,

L- - -,.m. _ - _ . - _ , _ _ .. ,m ,_. _ ___ _ __. _ .- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

. . _ . . _ ._ , _ _ , . _ . _ _ _ _ , _ . _ . . . . _ _ ,. , , j

. . . _ , .