ML19332D395
| ML19332D395 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1989 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Griffin W PLYMOUTH, MA |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8912010136 | |
| Download: ML19332D395 (4) | |
Text
,
~
C.-
'"{[
UNITED STATES
'* 4 g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
j WASWNG ton. D. C. 20$$$
- ty.....l NOV 2 71989 j
1 Mr. William R. Griffin Executive Secretary Town of Plymouth, Office of the Selectmen i
11 Lincoln Street i
Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 R
Dear Mr. Griffin:
!_am responding to your letter of October 31, 1989, regarding the reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) system overpressure event on April 12, 1989 at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS).
You indicate that the Plymouth Nuclear Matters Committee (the Committee), during a meeting with the Plymouth Board of-Selectmen (the Board), expressed concern that the RCIC overpressure event was i
more significant than indicated in the Nuclear Pegulatory Comission (NRC)
I staff's augmented inspection team (AIT) report dated May 8, 1989.
You further indicated the Board reouests that the NRC convene an incident investication team (IIT) to investigate the overpressure event of April 12, 1989.
Pegarding the significance of the RCIC overpressure event at the PNPS, the Comittee's report was previously sent to the NRC by a member of the~ Comittee, Mr. David Dixon. The NRC staff responded to Mr. Dixon in a letter dated i
October 26, 1989, a copy of which is enclosed. The response addressed the concerns he expressed, including those identified in the Comittee's report to the Plymouth Selectmen regarding the RCIC overpressure event. As stated in our response to 'ir. Dixon, the AIT report is technically and factually correct.
Based on the factual information, it is our judgment that the significance of the RCIC overpressure event was correctly stated in the AIT report.
As to the Board's request for an 11T, we considered the need at the time of the event, during our initial review, and subsequent to the issuance of the i
AIT report as part of our normal process.
I was personally involved in the decision to dispatch an AIT to investigate the overpressure event. The decision was made by myself and senior NRC staff from Headquarters and Region 1.
Our decision was based on initial information and technical understanding of the event.
In addition, all AIT reports are independently reviewed by the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD) for potential safety issues which would warrant further investigation. AE00 reviewed the AIT report on the RCIC overpressure event at the PNPS and determined that no further actions, other than those identified in the report, are necessary. This process is in accordance with NRC policy and procedures. The findings of the AIT and sub-sequent NRC staff activities, such as enforcenent conferences, inspections and assessments, have satisfactorily addressed the safety impact of the event.
Accordingly, an IIT is not warranted.
d t
1
\\
8912010136 891127
~
JDR ADOCK 0500g3
i l1 Mr. Willam R. Griffin NOV 2 71989 The NRC staff and the Committee have reached different conclusions based on the same factual information. Thus, conflicting judgments exist as to the significance and the adequacy of the NRC staff's review of the overpressure event. Based on my personal involvement, I would like to assure the Board that considerable NRC effort and technical expertise was involved in assessing the event, its impact on overall plant operation and safety, and the resulting corrective actions.
The NRC will continue to consider all aspects of the safe operation of the Pilgrim facility, including long-term corrective actions as the result of the overpressure event, to assure that the public health and safety will continue to be protected.
Sincerely, Thomas E. Murley Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Letter to Mr. David Dixon l
r l
....m..
--.,,-.,w m,.
w
s..
j,,
j i
g.
1 s
'Mr. Willam R. Griffin
-2 NOV 2 71989 The NRC staff and the Committee have reached different conclusions based on the same factual infomation. Thus, conflicting judgments exist as to the significance i
and the adequacy of the NRC staff's review of the overpressure event.
Based on 4
my personal involvement. I would like to assure the Board that considerable NRC j
effort and technical expertise was involved in assessing the event, its impact on overall plant operation and safety, and the resulting corrective actions.
The NRC will continue to consider all aspects of the safe operation of the Pilgrim facility, including long-term corrective actions as the result ~ of the Y
overpressure event, to assure that the public health and safety will continue to be protected.
O S '.
Sincerely, i
Originni signed by 4
has E. Earley l
l Thomas E. Murley, Director
~
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
^
7
+
Enclosure:
Letter to Mr. David Dixon M
3 DISTRIBUTION dDOCRet FUe.(50-293 r Central File TMurley JSniezek JPartlow SVarga BBoger RWessman DMcDoanld w/cy of incoming MRushbrook DMossburg, PMAS (089247)
NRC PDR and Local PDR (w/ incoming)
.
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES DRSP/PDI-3
- Tech Spec
- DRSP/D:PDI-3
- ADR/DRSP
- DRP/DRSP
- DMcDoanld:rw RWessman BBoger SVarga 11/11/89 11/16/89 11/16/89 11 /17/89 11/17/89 ADP/NR&*
St DONRR NRR JPartlow J
ek 1Nur y l-11/ 17/89
- /89 ll 89 s
I
i i
Mr. Willam R. Griffin NOV 2 71989 l
The NRC staff and the Committee have reached different conclusions based on the same factual infomation. Thus, conflicting judgments exist as to the significance and the adequacy of the NRC staff's review of the overpressure event. Based on my personal involvement, I would like to assure the Board that considerable NRC effort and technical expertise was involved in assessing the event, its impact on overall plant operation and safety, and the resulting corrective actions.
The NRC will continue to consider all aspects of the safe operation of the Pilgrim facility, including long-term corrective actions as the result of the overpressure event, to assure that the public health and safety will continue to i
be protected.
Sincerely,
>1cinnt sigud by Thomas E. Earley Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Letter to Mr. David Dixon DISTRIBUTION Docket File 50-293 Central File TMurley JSniezek JPartlow SYarga BBoger RWessman DMcDoanld w/cy of incoming MRushbrook DMossburg, PMAS (089247)
NRC PDR and Local PDR (w/ incoming)
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES i
DRSP/PDI-3
- Tech Spec
- DRSP/D:PDI-3
- ADR/DRSP
- DRP/DRSP
- DMcDoanld:rw RWessman BBoger SYarga 11/11/89 11/16/89 11/16/89 11 /17/89 11/17/89 ADP/NR&*
DONRR M
NRR JPartlow JS ek 1Nur y 11/17/89 11~/j */89 ll 89
.,,-.---..,,,,-n,--
,a
^
3 1
~ Je p* *e c UNITED STA7ts I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m
WASHINGTON, o C. 20666 -
J 4 -
October 26, 1989
)
i Mr. David Dixon c/o Town of Plymouth
)
11 Lincoln Street Plymouth, Massachussetts C2360
Dear Mr. Dixon:
I am providing the NRC staff's response to your letter of September 20, 1989, which has been sent to several individuals both in Headquarters at.J our Region I Office.
You requested coments on the recently instalied hardencd wetwell coollng.ferredtoastheDirectTorusVent(DTV)l vent re and the reactor core isolation
~
(RCIC) system overpressure event on Apri 12, 1989, at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS).
Regarding the DTV, you indicated that you could not determine from the available documentation the basis on which the staff found the installed system and associated Boston Edison Company (BEco) analysis acceptable as indicated in Generic Letter 89-16, " Installation of a Hardened Wetwell Vent." You further-expressed concern about the design being implemented under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59, " Changes, Tests and Experiments " and when the venting capability would be used. We have extensively reviewed the DTV modification and the procedures for its use, should that unlikely need ever arise, and have concluded that the installation is acceptable.
During the public meetings held in Plymouth on February 18, 1988, the staff received comments regarding the Pilgrim containment and the Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) in which the DTV modification was included. The staff responded to the corsnents in a public meetir.g also held in Plymouth on May ll,1988. The staff provided background information on the licensing process, the " defense-in-depth" concept for safety at nuclear plants, and the monitoring process after initial licensing. The transcripts of these meetings are available in the Local Public Document Room (LPDR) at the Plymouth Library. Also available in L
the LPDR are a number of other documents that contain information regarding the DTV modification and the NRC's evaluations of that modification.
These documents include the staff's review of the PNPS Procedure Generation Package which implements the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Emergency Procedure Guidelines, Revision 4, which include primary containment venting and NRC inspection reports addressing the installation, documentation, training, and procedures for the use of the DTV.
The information provided in the transcripts and the other references listed in the enclosure to this letter should adequately respond to your concerns.
Regarding the RCIC event of April 12, 1989, you asserted that there were errors in the NRC staff's Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) report dated May 8,1989, and requested comments.
The staff and I disagree with your assertions.
The AIT was a multidiscipline team of t?chnical specialists, composed of Headquarters and regional staff members, which was dispatched to the Pilgrim site on April 13 1988. The resulting AIT report issued on May 8, 1989, Report Number 50-293/89-80, is technically and factually accurate.
1 h f*
%2 s M AACl_
f mvw w
_. _ ~
(_~
LM
.j Mr. David Dixon October 26, 1989 i
The points you raise, which are based on the same factual information, involve i
conflicting judgments by the NRC st.aff and yourself.
NPC staff oversfoht, which the Commission endorsed oppertunity to assess the performance of PNPS and we find the performance meets regulatory standards.
has kept and will continue to keep the Commission informed i
status of the PNPS.
The panel considers the safety significance of these issues and all sefety aspects of the operation of the Pilgrim facility in its deliberation including the monitoring of the status of emergency preparedress, to support the that the public health and safety can and will be protected.dete i
Sincerely,
~
', %*l ' a.w Richard P. Wessman, Director Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects I/II 0'fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As statec i
b a
t a
p
)
2 L
( *e, ENCLOSURE i
t REFERENCES i
Plymouth Public Library,11 Fcrth Street. Olymouth, M 02360.
I Direc t Torus -Ven* /DTV) 1.
Letter dater Aoril 20, 1987, proposed enchancements to the Park I containment Pilprim station.S. Varga (NRC) to P. B i
2.
Letter rated July 8,1987, R. Bird ( AEco) to S. Varga (NRC), regard information on the Pilgrim Safety Enhancement Program, 1
i 3.
Letter dated August 21, 1007, initial. assessrent of the Pilgrim Safe +y Enhancement Progra c
4 Letter dated August 21, 1987.
T.
regarding interim Of rector's DecisionMurley (NRC) to W. Golden (MA Senate),
00-87-04 L'rder 10 CFR 2.?r6.
5.
Let+er cated November 20, 1989 P. Pird (BEto) to Document Control Oesk (NPC), regdrding additicnal information on Pfigrim SEP operatfon oriented i
improvenents.
6.
Letter dated r bruary 22,19f8. R. Bird (BEco) to Document Control Ossk e
(NRC) regardine assessment of the Pil im Safety Enhancement Program
'retronse to a August 21, 1907 request 7
Letter va+ed February 29, 1988, D. Mcdonald (NPC) to D. Pird (BECo),
regarding tre OTV, 8.
Letter dated Parch 30, 1968, D. Mcdonald (NRC) to P. Bird (BEco), regard i
the DTV / correction to Letter of February 09,1988),
t 9.
Letter dated #ay 27, 1988 T. Purley (NPC) to J. Shannon (MA Attorney General), fr.terim Director's Decision 0D-88 07 Lncer 10 CFR 2.206.
10.
Let+er cated June 29, 1988, D. Mcdonald (NPC) to D. Bird (BEco), regarcing the Pilgrim Safety Enhancerent Program 'recuest for additional informatien'.
Letter dated August 13, 1908, R. Bird (PECol to Document Contre 1 Desk INRC), re Program, garding revised inferr.ation on the Pilorim Sefety Enhancerent 10.
Let+er dated September ' !??8, D. Bird (BECo) to Occument Control Desk
'9DC), regarding the M1griri Fafety Enhancerent Program response to a reevest
'or aceitional information c' June 29, '.088.
13.
Let+er dated October IP,1988, S. Varga -(NDC) to D. Bird (PECo), regardino sue:lenental assessment of the Pilgrim Safety Enhancement prooram.
r ENCLOSURE 14 Nuclear Power Reactors with Wark i Containments
" Installation of A Hercened betwe?1 Vent."
15.
NRC inspection Reports Related to the DTV:
Deport No. 50-293/88-07, dated May 6. 1988 50 293/88 10 dated May 31, 1988 hd $b 989 16.
Other Deferenced Documents-DTV NUDEG 0474 "A Technical l'pdate on Pressure Suppression Type Centainment.s in Use in U.S. Light Water Reactor Nuclear Power plants." July 1978.
NUREG-1085. "NPC Sta Evaluation of the General Electric Company Nuclear Peactor Study (Deed Deport) " July 1987 Policy Statemert on Severe Peactor Accidents Regarding Future Desiens and Fxisting Plan +3. 50 Federal Register 32138. August 8 1985.
WASW-1400 (NUPEG-75/014! "Deactor Safety Study:
An assessment of Accident Pisks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants," October 1975.
NUREG-!!SO, "Deactor Disk Re'erence Document. Draft 'er Coreent, February 1987."
Drocedures Generation Package IDGP1 l'.
Veetire Summary dated Augus' U.1987, "emorandum to File (PDC \\ o' the August 4, 1987 meeting.
18 S
ee* ire Summary dated December '1,19P', vemorandum to File (NRC) of the Becember 10, 1987 meeting.
10 Letter dated December 14, 19P',
D. Bird IDEte n to Docurent Contro' Fesk
'NPC), regarding the Emergency Oceratino Drecerures anc Precedure feneratfor inckage.
3
?
I
'^
4, i
3 ENCLOSURE 6
20.
Letter dated February 5,1988, R. Westman (NRC) to R. Bird the NRC evaluation of the Pilgrim Emergency Operating Procedures 01.
L'et'er dated April 6,1988, D.
Bird lBEco) to Document Control Desk (NRC), regarding the reviseo Procedures Generation Package and i Commitments.
i 20.
Letter cated June 6,1988. D. Mcdonald (N#C) to R. Bird (BEC the Pilgrim Procecures Generation Package-Sa'ety Evaluation.
i 23.
NRC Inspection Reports Related to the PSPs:
Deport No. 50-293/88-!!, dated May 17, 1988 50-293/88 19, da ted June ?.n. 1988 i
Arri' 12. 19P9, Pwerpressure_ Event frCIC) 4
- 4 NRC Inspection Deports Relater to the April 12, 1989 Event:
Report No. 50-293/89 80, da ted Ma y 9, 1989 (AIT report'
- 54 Letter ceted April 21,1989, R. Bird (9ECo) to Documen* Control Desk (t:PC), regarding resumption of the Pt' grim Nuclear Power Station Power Ascensinn Drogram.
- 4. Letter da ted September 22, 1989, R. Bird f 9Eco) to Document Control Desk O!PC', reply to Notice of Violation ard Proposed Impositien of Civil Penalties.
T7. Licensee Event Reperts (LEPs) Applicable to April 10, 1989 Event:
1 LEO 89-C1.4-00, dated May 15,19Pn LER 89-014-01, dated August 3, 1989.
I l
l l
l
. -.