ML20059F937
| ML20059F937 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1994 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Neal S HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9401180018 | |
| Download: ML20059F937 (4) | |
Text
e p* *to u 4
, ?+
UNITED STATES
[
'
- f.,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20MH001
%o.,,,, *;f January 7, 1994 The Honorable Stephen L. Neal i
United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-3305
Dear Congressman Neal:
I am replying to your letter of December 2,1993, referring concerns expressed by Mr. and Mrs. Adair regarding the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Brunswick), operated by Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). They additionally sought your assistance in obtaining a reply to a letter that they indicate was sent to the Chairman of the NRC on April 30, 1993. The following information addresses these concerns.
NRC has also been concerned about the performance of Brunswick. As indicated in Enclosure 1, we have noted positive signs of improvement and will continue to closely monitor plant performance.
With regard to employee complaints of unfair treatment for having' raised safety issues and the concerns over aspects of the CP&L quality assurance program, the NRC has recently reviewed some similar concerns while evaluating a petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206 by Mr. S. Kohn of the National Whistleblowers Center.
Mr. Kohn based his concerns on allegations from a previous CP&L employee.
In his Director's Decision of December 16, 1993, the NRC Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) stated that the NRC staff had reviewed each of the concerns, noting that several of the concerns addressed in the allegations had been the subject of previous evaluations by the NRC.
Furthermore, the NRC staff had conducted a detailed evaluation of the areas encompassed in the petition as part of the extensive inspection activities related to the decision to authorize the restart of Unit 2 at Brunswick.
In his Director's Decision, the Director of NRR also stated that, while several of the petitioner's concerns described problems that have occurred at Brunswick, CP&L was previously aware of the problems and had already taken appropriate corrective actions.
The NRC staff has assessed each of the specific issues and found that the corrective actions were appropriate and responsive to the NRC requirements. The NRC staff's review did not reveal any substantial health and safety issues that call into question the continued
~
safe operation of Unit 2, or the restart of Unit 1.
With regard to the i
alleged harassment and intimidation of employees who raise safety concerns, 1
the NRC has reviewed each of the complaints filed by CP&L and contract employees since 1986.
From its review of the details of the complaints, the NRC staff did not find that a pattern of harassment and discrimination existed at Brunswick nor any observed chilling effect from those instances where the i
licensee had taken specific personnel actions. A copy of the Director's Decision has also been enclosed for your information.
The NRC is unable to address Mr. and Mrs. Adair's questions regarding the utility rates for electric service supplied by CP&L. The process of setting 9401180018 940105 13ggy
- E M M @ M idy 7 (( l r
PDR ADOCK 05000325 i ;
u
January 7, 1994 The Honorable Steven L. Neal these rates is the responsibility of the North Carolina Public Utilities Commission.
Therefore, the NRC recommends that the Adairs forward their l
questions in this area to this State agency.
Finally, the NRC finds no record of having received a letter to the Chairman from Mr. and Mrs. Adair dated April 30, 1993, nor was a copy included with their letter to you as indicated in that letter. These facts were discussed I
in a telephone conversation between a representative of the NRC's Office of Congressional Affairs and a member of your staff on December 14, 1993. During that conversation, the NRC staff was told to respond only to the questions raised in the present letter from Mr. and Mrs. Adair.
I hope that this information responds to the quastions raised by your constitu'nts.
Sincerely, g,,g dyed by
,., Tapor JamesM.Tayfdr,'60
Enclosures:
1.
Performance of Brunswick 2.
SALP Report 3.
Director's Decision Document Name:
BR9577.GRN DISTRIBUTION (w/o enclosures):
Docket File 50-325 and 50-324 T. Murley S. Ebneter, Region 11 NRC & LPDR (w/ incoming)
F. Miraglia J. Lieberman PD2-1 Reading File L. Callan B. Hayes EDO 0009577 W. Russell J. Knubel SECY CRC-93-1086 D. Crutchfield E. Merschoff, Region 11 J. Taylor F. Gillespie D. Verrelli, Region 11 J. Sniezek S. Varga OGC H. Thompson G. Lainas OPA J. Blaha S. Bajwa OCA EDO Reading File P. Milano NRR Mailroom (ED) #9577)
P. Anderson
- See previous C. Norsworthy concurrence DFFICE LA:PD2-1 PM:PD2-1 TechEd PD:PD2-1 AD:DRPE*
D:DRPE*
KAME PAnderson PMilano RSanders*
SBajwa Glainas SVarga DATE 12/ /93 12/ /93 12/22/93 12/ /93 12/23/93 12/23/93 CU!CE RA:R-II*
ADP*
D:NRR EDQ [
M NAME SEbneter JCallan TMurley JTahor
//b DATE 12/29/93ey 12/30/93
/ /
/ /g /
i,,9 I
J The Honorable Steven L. Ne31 !
these rates is the responsibility of the North Carolina Public Utilities Commission.
Therefore, the NRC recommends that the Adairs forward their questions in this area to this State agency.
Finally, the NRC finds no record of having received a letter to the Chairman from Mr. and Mrs. Adair dated April 30, 1993, nor was a copy included with their letter to you as indicated in that letter. These facts were discussed in a telephone conversation between a representative of the NRC's Office of Congressional Affairs and a member of your staff on December 14, 1993. During that conversation, the NRC staff was told to respond only to the questions 1
raised in the present letter from Mr. and Mrs. Adair.
1 hope that this information responds to the questions raised by your constituents.
Sincerely,
/
.es r
xecutive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Performance of Brunswick 2.
SALP Report 2.
Director's Decision
i ENCLOSURE 1 Brunswick Performance After a year-long shutdown to correct structural steel, seismic response adequacy, and maintenance deficiencies that initially began with problems with the interior masonry walls in its diesel generator building, CP&L was given permission to restart Brunswick Unit 2, on April 29, 1993. The NRC closely monitored CP&L's execution of the Unit 2 restart ascension plan and, satisfied with the performance, authorized CP&L to resume normal unit operation on June 3, 1993. The restart of the unit proceeded without significant technical difficulty, and the unit continues to operate well.
Considering the remaining core life and the extent of the corrective actions needed before restart, CP&L elected to enter the Unit 1 Refueling Outage No. 8 on April 8, 1993. The licensee had projected a fall 1993 restart of this unit. However, after finding cracks in the core shroud that required a repair modification to be installed, CP&L rescheduled the restart for January 1994. Throughout this period, the NRC has observed that CP&L has continued to make progress in improving the overall material condition of the plant.
In order to correct the root causes that led to the previous decline in Brunswick performance, CP&L committed to the NRC to institute a number of initiatives beyond those of improving the material condition of Brunswick.
The CP&L Corporate Improvement Initiatives (CIIs) issued on November 30, 1992, were developed to address problems related to organization and management effectiveness, nuclear safety oversight, basic work control systems, and plant material condition. The scope of the CIIs was captured in the December 15, 1992, Brunswick Nuclear Plant Three-Year Plan (1993-1995) that has the objective of improving:
(a) performance to top-quartile by 1996 in the areas of safety, operations, and cost performance, (b) employee satisfaction, and (c) schedule and commitment achievement.
The NRC staff continues to monitor closely CP&L's progress toward successfully meeting the objectives listed in its Three-Year Plan.
The NRC is continuing its oversight of the Unit 1 outage activities. As the NRC did during the Unit 2 restart and power ascension, we will provide augmented inspection coverage during the Unit I restart. The NRC will also continue to monitor the completion of the CP&L improvement initiatives to verify that the stated goals and objectives are satisfactorily achieved.
The NRC has observed notable progress in Brunswick performance, overall plant condition, and equipment maintenance, particularly with the emergency diesel generators.
These changes were, in part, due to the increased management oversight by CP&L, the effective system readiness reviews by the CP&L system engineers and operators, and the new work control process at Brunswick. On December 6, 1993, the NRC issued its Systematic Assessment of L,icensee Performance (SALP) Report for the period from November 1, 1992,"to November 6, 1993. As indicated in this report, the NRC has observed positive signs of improvement during the period, especially in plant operations. The NRC assessed Brunswick with category 1 (superior) ratings in both operations and plant support and category 2 (good) ratings in maintenance / surveillance and engineering. A copy of the SALP Report has been enclosed to provide further details.