ML19325E276
| ML19325E276 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1989 |
| From: | Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19325E275 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-89-16, NUDOCS 8911060063 | |
| Download: ML19325E276 (4) | |
Text
!
~
CO LA 9*1'i.,23 l k *e j""%
UNITED STATES
-i NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION
~
f g
A REGION I A
M I
/
476 ALLENDALE ROAD f
L]
KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19404 October 6,1989 b..fA-MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Thomas T. Martin, Deputy Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
PLYMOUTH NUCLEAR MA*ITERS COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE The attached letter was received by this office on October 3,1989. As discussed with you on October 6,1989, I believe an agency versus regional response is appropriate l
to avoid the pitfalls of miscommunication. Your agreement to assume responsibility for the response is appreciated. Both Bill Russell and Bill Kane have been provided copies l
l of the letter. I have assigned Bill Kane as our contact on this matter.
p l
Thomas T. Martin l
Deputy Regional Administrator 1
Attachment:
l As Stated 1
cc: W. Russell 1
r l
l kR DC U
H
~
.o 4
1
- e. -.-
j a
)
[
{
d 1.'
i
- g
]
4 41 J]
Plymouth Nuclear Mattere Committee 1
Town rf Plymouth I
11 Lincoln Etreet i
Plymcuth, MA 02 ?E.O f
k Mr. W2til a T.
huccell.
t F.e g :.c n.2 1 Acmanistratoi Region 1 f
Nucleur hegulatory Commiccion 475 A ler. dale Rd King el Prussia, PA 19406 4
I RE:
P 11 g r i r*. Nuclear Power Station Direct To r u.; Vent Syrtem
.{
p Dear Mr.
F.u c s e ll, I
t'leace 11nd encloced, coptec of.: o r r e.c po n d e n c e relating tr
.r#
recently installed harlened wetwell vent at P i l g r i tn
-T a t :. o n.
22nce reveJal of the i s:c u e: under dancuccion OOncern N R ' -
review and approval o1.the cyctem and r.ince you are one 1
8 Of the hey individuals involved in the 'aodif 1ca t ion, we are b
this situation, it would reeking "our input to help clarifyd
'f tee greatly appr ecia ted 11 you cou.
respond directly tc re;cvant acpects of th:2 accue i ri writing to the above
.f addrece.
-)
f A l t h o uc;h Generic Letter 89 - I ts statec, "The etaff found the
[
tnetalled cyctem and'the wreciated PECo arra l yt ic acceptatic."
1 we have not teen ~able to conclude thic from any of the other f
existing documentation.
Specifically, all of the Eafety i{
L/aluaticn: deccribe only the ancta11ation, not t r.o ur e ci the
?
cent.
A l ce, the logic ured in S af ety Evaluatien 2 ~.19 dated 1.9/98, which conclude that a chancte to the Technical f r ec i t ic u t ler.c is not r ec;u a r ed, ir bery ; u e:.: t i o n a bl e.
Do you ccncut with BCCo*: a r g u e'-e n t there; i
in a d d 1 *.1 :< u, inadvertant or p r e 'r a t u r e venting la a verv
~j
- a f e t "E.c; ae t t i e n, y e *., in va r iour docu'ren t.a t ion, DECc j
ceriou:
t h.a the DTV? d : e.; act in/olve an unreviewed c a l e +. y i
" u r. + a t. '. ;
- ry + '
If /cu agree, could ycs m: plain why it does not?
{
]
ct att a r. d iccal public c ! 11 r i a ls, as well oc n u
- e r c u ;;
%.;': reati + the close and nece:cary l i r. h a g e between
! led tenting a r.d emergenc? ; r e;)a r e d ner n.
HovcVer, ac 4
< ~. u
>av
- v. ' 1 unow, the a d e:; u n c y
.1 emergency planning for
{
he*1; dotated.
The t c ;; 1 c ac even under
' + t i) a t.. r.
- t. y the N hi I n ;. t. c t o r Ue r.e r a l '
cifice.
Dc you
,d "e
- at the UTV2 c h :O u l d have been allowed to be made
- . ; t i c r. a i d
thcut adequate emergency preparenese by the t ', nr d *he i 10 e n c ee '.
c tt'ir.uly, t nl.
ir a 1ar reaching tc nnical and politically f
the j
e 1.; e u e within the NhC.
In r ev iew i nc}er r ed c e n t. i t. v c have pre.
that the s
dx ~entation, w e, uf cource, would N W.
arpzeach t thl: accue had Deen more straightforward:
11 I
i
.3 c e d. de a, get beh1nd it and incure that it war l
- , t war a dec:gned, inctalled, nnd p;nnned irr properly, and if it war a tad ide, ator it irce t e : c.; impir ented.
However, the f
rl f
f:
Il l
0 W
(
9
..u en ' rp i,
~
d Plymouth Nuclear Mattera Committee Town of Plymouth 11 Lincoln Street Plymouth, MA 02360 Mr. Daniel G.
Mcdonald
- Senior Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14D1, 1 White Flint North
' 11555 Rockville, MD O2852 RE:
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Direct Torus Vent System
Dear Mr. Mcdonald,
Please find enclosed, copies of correspondence relating to the recently installed hardened wetwell vent at Pilgrim Station.
Since several of the issues under discussion concern NRC's review and approval of the system and since you are one the key individuals involved in the modification,It would of we are seeking your input to help clarify this situation.
be greatly appreciated if you could respond directly to relevant aspects of this issue in writing to the above addresa.
h Generic Letter 89-16 states "The staff found the Althoukedsystemand the osucciated bECo analysis acceptable,"
instal we have not been able to conclude thic from any of the other existing documentation.
Specifically, all of the Safety Evaluat.ons describe only the installation, not the use of the the logic used in Safety Evaluation 2269 dated also,h concludes that a change to the Technical vent.
1/9/88, whic Specifications is not required, is very questionable.
Do-you concur with BECo's arguement there?
In addition, inadvertant or premature venting is a very serious safety question, yet, in various documentation, BECo maintaina that the DTVS does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
If you agree, could you explain why it does not?
Many state and local public officials, as well as numerous residents realize the close and necessary linkage between controlled venting and emergency preparedness.
However, as you may well know, the adequacy of emergency planning for Pilgrim is hotly debated.
The topic is even under investigation by the NRC Inspector General's office.
Do you believe that the bTVS should have been allowed to be made operational without adequate emergency prepareness by the community and the licenace?
Obviously, this is a far reaching technical and politically sensitive issue within the NRC.
In reviewing the
- documentation, we, of cource, would have pre 1 erred that the NRC approach to this issue had been more straightforward:
if installed,get behind it and insure that it good idea, it was a was and planned for properly, and if it was a
- designed, bad idea, stop it from being implemented.
However, the
g, gq/
a
, y s.
p 4
)q(.
- l' f'
n
( < ;, p < s L;
/
~
5-(
w x
. Plymouth Nuclear Matters Committee Town-of Plymouth-0 11 Lincoln Street p
Plymouth, MA 02360 h
- !}t. Richard H.
Wessman i-t,r.. Proj ect. Manager Gilice of. Nuclear. Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission s-7920 Norfolk Avenue L
Bethesda, MD-20814 I
s F
REs. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station r.
Direct. Torus Vent Systed p
I
Dear Mr. Wessman,
r l'
Plemme' find enclosed, copies of correspondence relating to.the L'
.recently instelled hardened vetvell vent at P11 gram Station.
Since several of.the issuem-under discussion concern NRC's.
".1 review and approval of.the system and since Sau are one' '
of the key individuals involved in the modification,It would we are
-seeking your-input to help clarify this situation.
t be greatJy appreciated if you' could respond directly to relevant aspects,of thim 1ssue-in writing.to the above
. address.
[
h Generic Letter 89-16 states. The h3aff found the L
Althou$ed myrtem and the associated bECo anwaysis acceptable,'
i instal E
we have.not been able to conclude this'from any=of the other existing documentation.- Specifically, all'of the Safety i
Evaluations describe only the installation, not'the use of the F
vent.
Also, the logic used in Safety Evaluation 2269-dated i
1/9/08, which concludes that a change to the Technical Specificat$ons is not required is very questionable.
Do you h
' concur with BECo's arguement taere?
<g
.In.uddi/1on, inadvertont or premature venting is a very seriour andety question, yet in various documentation, BECo maintains that the DTVS does,not involve an unreviewed safety g(
, question..
If you agree, could you explain why it does not?
Many stute and local public officials, as well as numeroun v
y
.N residents realize the close and necessary linkage between controlled venting and emergency preparedness.
However, as U
you1may well know, the adequacy of emergency p3nnning for k
' Pilgrim is hotly debated.
The topic is even uncler investigation by the NRC Inspector General's ofi' ice.
Do you believe that the DTVS should have been allowed to be made cperational without adequate emergency prepareness by the
{
community and the licensee?
vk..
'Obviously, thic is a far reaching technical and politten11y
.sensit2ve issun within the NRC.
In reviewino the
. documentation, we, of course, would have preferred that the NRC approach to this issue had been more stralphtforwards if it was a good idea, get behind it and insure tnat it was k_
o ai
^'
_