ML19332E096
| ML19332E096 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1989 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Griffin W PLYMOUTH, MA |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8912060229 | |
| Download: ML19332E096 (2) | |
Text
_-_
C CENTRAL FILE f
[p ugTof UNITED STATES mf '
6
- d NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
.f WASHINoloN, D, C. 20555 -
[
.... + /s 7
40V 2 71989 SO4D l
I Mr. William R. Griffin i
Executive Secretary Town of Plymouth, Office of the Selectmen 11 Lincoln Street Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360
Dear Mr. Griffin:
. l I am responding to your letter of October 31, 1989, regarding the reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) system overoressure event on April 12, 1989 at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS). You indicate that the Plymouth Nuclear
~
Matters Comittee (the Comittee), during a meeting with the Plymouth Board of Selectmen (the Board), expressed concern that the PCIC overpressure event was more signi'icant than indicated in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) staff's augmented inspection team (AIT) report dated May 8, 1989.
You further indicated the Board recuests that the NRC convene an incident investigation team (IIT) to investigate the overpressure event of April 12, 1989, t
Degarding the' significance of the RCIC overpressure event at the PNPS, the i
Comittee's report was previously sent to the NRC by a member of the Comittee, i
Mr. David Dixon. The NRC staff responded to Mr. Dixon in a letter dated October 26, 1989, a copy of which is enclosed. The response addressed the concerns he expressed, including those identified in the Committee's repcrt to the Plymouth Selectmen regarding the RCIC overpressure event. As stated in our response to Mr. 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 IIT, we considered the need at the time of the event, during our initial review, and subsecuent to the issuance of the AIT report at 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. AE0D reviewed the AIT report on the RCIC overpressure event at the DNPS 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 sttff activities, such as enforcement conferences, inspections and assessments, have satisfactorily addressed the safety impact of the event.
Accordingly, an IIT is not warranted.
k
e.
1 Mr. Willam R. Griffin NOV 2 71983 i
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, ! would like to assure the Board that considerable NRC effort and technical expertise was involved in assessing the event, its impact en overall plant operation and s.afety, and the resulting corrective actions.
The NRC will continue to consider all aspects of the safe operation of the Pilgrim fecility, including long-term corrective actions as the result of the overpressure event, to assure that the public health and safety will continue te be protected.
i Sincerely, Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Letter to Mr. David Dixon R
P
- ~..., -
e
/p. et e %
UNITED sTAf ts
'f '
o, 7;
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
't a
WAsMINGToN,0 C. 20666
'\\
October 26, 1989 i
Mr. David Dixon c/o Town of Plymouth t
11 Lincoln Street Plymouth, Massachussetts 02360
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 and our Region 1 Office.
You requested comments on the recently installed hardened wetwell vent referred to as the Direct Torus Vent (DTV) and the reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) system overpressure event on April 12, 1989, at the Pilgrim Nucle PowerStation(PNPS).
i 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 comments in a public meetirg also held in Plymouth on Ma 11, 1988. The staff provided background information on the licensing process,ythe " 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 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 technical 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.
II h(did'E GzAP'
't g
Mr. David Dixon 2-October 26,1989 The points you raise, which are based on the same factual information, involve conflicting,fudgments by the NRC staff and yourself.
NPC staff oversight, which the Comission endorsed, oppcrtunity to assess the performance of PNPS and we find the performance meets regulatory standards.
has kept and will continue to keep the Commission informed o i
i status of the PNPS.
The panel considers the. safety significance of these issues and all safety aspects of the operation of the Pilgrim facility in its deliberatiens, including the monitoring of the status of emergency preparedness, to support the determination of reasonable assurance that the PNPS can be operated safely and that the public health and safety can and will be protected.
Sincerely, h
1
', %*)',hn Richard H Wessman, Director Project Directorate I-0 Division of Peactor Projects I/II 0'fice of Nuclear Peactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated 1
1
l
\\
ENCLOSURE i
REFERENCES Plymouth Public Library, !! Fcrth Street, Pl.', mouth, Wassachusetts'Fe following references a j
0236').
Direct Torus Ven* /DTV) i 1.
Letter dated April 20, 1987, i
proposed enchancements to the Park I containment - Pilgr 2.
Letter dated July 8, 1987 R. Bird (RECo) to S. Varga (NRC), regarding informatfon on the Pilgrim Safety Enhancement Program.
3.
Letter dated August 21, ifE7, S. Varga (NRC) to R. Bird (BEco),
initial assessrent of the Pilgrim Safety Enhancement Program.
4 Letter dated August 21, 1987, T. Murley (f4RC) to W. Golden (MA Senate),
]
regarding Interim Director's Decision 00-87-D4 Under 10 CFR 2.?r6 5.
Let+er ca ted November 20, 1989, P. Bird (BECo) to Document Control De (NPC), regarding additicnal information on Pilgrim SEP operation-orien improvenents.
6.
Letter dated r bruary 02, 1008 R. Bird (BEco) to Document Con *ml Desk e
(NRC), regardino assessment of the Pil im Safety Enhancement e cgram
'retronse to a August 21, 1907 request 7.
Letter da+ed February 29, 1988, O. Mc0cnald (NRC) to D. Pird (BECo),
regarding the DTV.
8.
Letter dated Parch 30, 1988 D. Mcdonald (NRC) to P. Bird (BECo), regarding the DTV fcorrection to Letter of February 29, 1988).
9.
Letter dated May 27, 1988 General), Interim Director's DecisionT. Murley INPC} to J. Shannon (MA Attorne 00-88-07 Lncer 10 CFR 2.206.
10.
Let*er cated Jure 29, 1988 D. Mcdonald 'NPC) to D. Bird (BECo), regaroing the Pilgrim Safety Enhancerent Program (recuest for additional informatien'.
Ietter dated August 18, 1986, R. Bird (PECo) to Occurent Contrcl Desk
'NRC), re
?rogram. garding revised information on the Pilgrim Sefety Enhancement l
10.
Let+er dated September ', 1938. D. Biro (BECo) to Occument Control Desk
'NPC), regarding the ;41 grim Safety Enhancerent Program response to a reouest
'or accitional information c' June 29, 1988.
i 13.
Letter e'ated Octcber l?, 1988, S. Varga (NDC) to D.
Bird (SECo), re assessment of the Dilgrim Safety Enhancement Procram gardino sucolenental l
l
ENCLOSURE i
'14 Letter dated September 1,1989, to All Holders of Operating L icenses for Nuclear Power Reactors With Mark ! Containments, Generic Letter 89-16:
". Installation of A Harcened Wetwell Vent."
i r
15.
NPC inspection Reports Related to the DTV:
Deport No. 50 293/88-07, detec May 6, 1988 50-293/88a.10, datea key 31, 1988 bb'b8hh hN! b$bh*!k 999 16.-
other Deferenced Documents-DTV NUDEG-0474, "A Technical l'pdate on Pressure Suppression Type Containments in Use in U.S. Light Water Reactor Nuc1 ear Power Plants " July 1978.
NUREG-1085, "NPC Sta** Evaluation or the General Electric Company Nuclear Deactor Study (Deed Deport)," July 1987 Policy Statement on Severe Peactor Accidents Pegarding future Desiens and Existing Plan's, 50 Federal Recister 32138, August 8, 1985.
i WASW-1400 (NUREG-75/014) "Deactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Pisks in U.S. Comercial Nuclear Power Plants," October 1975.
NUREG-!!50, "Deactor Risk Reference Document, Oraf t 'cr Coment,
February 1987."
Drocedures Generation Packace IDGP) l'.
Veetire Sumary dated Augus' !.t.1987, vemorandum to File (PDC' o' the l
August 4, 1987 meeting, 18, veetire Sumary dated December $1.19P' vemorancum to file (NRC) o' the necember 10, 1987 meeting.
!O.
Letter dated December 14,19P', D. Bird feECe) to Occurent Contro' Iesk
'NPC', regarcing the Emergency Operatino procecures and Procedure Feneration Dackage.
1 l
l
p7m ys a :
- o. -
y Vy.
~3*
ENCLOSURE.
20..
Letter dated February 5,1988, R. -Wessman (NRC) to R. Bird (BE the NRC evaluation: of L the Pilgrim Emergency Operating Proegdure
, regarding-21.
L'etter dated April 6,--1988, D._ Bird (BECo) to Document Control Oesk(NRC), rega corrri tmen t s..
20.
Letter dated June 6, 1988 D. McDondid (NRC) to R.-Bird (BEco), regarding the Pilgrim Procedures Generatio.i Package-Sa'ety Evaluation 23.
. NRC Inspection Reports Related to the PGPs:
Deport No.'50-293/88-11, dated May 17, 1988
"~
50-293/88-19, dated June Po, 1988 I
4pril 12, 19P9, overpressure Event /PCIC) 4 NRC Inspection Deports Relater to-the April 12, 1989 Event:
Report No. 50-?93/89-80, dated May 9, 1989 (AIT report'
5.
Letter cated April (f!PC), regarding resumption of the Pil21, 1989, R. Bird (9ECo) to Documen i
Ascensine Program.
grim Nuclear Power Station Power
- 06. Letter da ted September 22, 1989, R. Bird-(PECo) to Docunent Contro 3
-(tRC1, Dendities. reply to Notice of Violation ard Proposee Imposition of Civil
Licersee Event Reperts (LEPs) Applicable to April 10, 1989 Event:
L LEO 89-014-00, dated May 15, 19P0 LER 89-014-01, dated August 3, 1989.
L l
i --
S i
'e x
+-
r Mr. Willam R. Griffin
-2 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.
Originni sign ad by Ihomas E. Marley Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Letter to Mr. David Dixon DISTRIBUTION Docket File 50-293 Central File TMurley JSniezek l
JPartlow SVarga-BBoger l.
RWessman l
DMcDoanld w/cy of incoming i
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&*
DONRR
/DONRR JPartlow JS ek Mur y 11/17/89
{I71"/89 Il 89 I
j