ML20116G639
| ML20116G639 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1992 |
| From: | Studds G HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20116F060 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9211120058 | |
| Download: ML20116G639 (3) | |
Text
....
l W A$HMN GERRY E. STUDDS,
10Tw Qstast. Masusnutetis
- (
6, 83# \\ ""
8',*","
[
]
4 Mit4 CHANT M ANINt AND FISHf Rits
/
G R
B ORD
% 4s wee esmoni, Ma 43 740 r,=se.
.o.4.* m
.mo..nu o....
m w,,
C0hStslvATION AND THE f.dVfRChMINT
~j Cottgregg of tIJc liittitch States OC". CO. L
.4 u,
.mRomo comttet stT sas-3sce
,ORDGN AFF AIR $
cap [ AND q$(AND$
{
ist M4e 5'eret Hv 4.*
- UA 02601 51 LECT COMUfTTtt ON AGtNG s pe _7 7,.cs e e t
Respectfully r?ferred to:
Dennis Y. Rathbun Director, Congressional Affairs Office of Government and Public Affairs liuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 I am contacting you on behalf of Mary Elizabeth Lampert whose correspondence is attached.
I would appreciate your response to Ms. Lampert's questions.
Please reply to my district office at 2 Columbia Road, Pembroke, MA
- 02359, att'n:
Mary Lou Butler.
lf ly, Re_s Ver'r ac
\\
l Gerly 3.
- uddsb Member qf :ongress 10th E ijtrict, MA Enclosure i
[
'"'C " " "**
DO 00 293 H
1
)
J wASa'w1o=
.GE.HRY E. STUDDS. -
.,_,....,_,0.
.. g
,>n-.,, ;t;;;;.,7,7 203-!!64 t i t
.j 7'
sowwnte.t GREAttM hf W Bf Df 0R0
- MiHCHANT MA%NE AND fiSHIRJEg
- r.
S' e. (
ham 6.aeono MA 03 740 4'
Ca&*eae:
gV SUS.998-626 %
$U9CCNeAfitt 04 HSHthyt AhD wetDtst 00h&E#vATPD88 AND TM4 twtHDhtetWT (011grtnn Of (IJE EllitCD Stated
'053,..,.7,@*
t~, oTA~ocouutoct
.m.
%)ottge of Repregelttatibts L
ronmu A,, A,,s cA,,Ao m,,o, t... s,....
&f LECT COMMITitt ON AGING b I?1 es i
September 15, 1992
+
Dear Ms. Lampert:
Thank you for your most recent letter about the Pilgrim Station.
I appreciate your insights and admire your diligence in monitoring the plant.
I have brought your questions, along with an expression of my interest in these concerns, to the attention of an official of the Nuclear Regulartory Commission.
As soon as I hear back from that-agency, I will be in touch with you.
Warm personal regards.
Sincerely, Gerry E. Studds Ms. Mary Elizabeth Lampert 148 Washington Street Duxbury, MA 02332 I
THIS STATKAERY P8HNTED UN FAPER M ADE OF PECYCttD I'BER$
i l
148 Washington Street Duxbury, Massachusetts August 31, 1992 Representative Gerry Studds 2 Columbia Road Pembroke, MA 02359
Dear Representative Studds,
I am writing in regard to the three current issues of safety (faulty Rosemont transmitters; faulty reactor vessel water level instrumentation; failure of Thermo-Lag fire barrier material to pass fire endurance tests) and as they i
relate to the Pilgrim ~ Nuclear Power Plant in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
Last Saturday, August 29, The NRC cat.a to Plymouth and held a-public hearing on these issues.
I attended the meeting and enclosed you will find a list of questions.
I would appreciate your office forwarding these questions on to the NRC; as,.I feel they are more apt.to-be given the prompt and serious attention they deserve, if they come from your office.
Additionally, I trust you will find them-useful as a basis for an update to your letter to Chairman Selin of July 31, 1992.
A Thank -you for your continuedisupport = on.,these. matters of such serious concern to the residents of Southeastern Massachusetts.'
Sincerely, Y Y lc;u1.y Ell?
GPL}&L/Ch
~
Mary Elizabeth Lampert Chairman, Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee N
,-e g
r
., ~ ~ ~ -., - - -,,
a w
c
,n-,.
..n.-.
9 148 Washington Street ku st 99 Thomas T.
Martin Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 1 475 Altendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 Re: QUESTIONS REMAINING AFTER NUCLEAR REGULATORY I
COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING HELD AT-PLYMOUTH, MASS.
AUGUST 29, 1992
Dear Mr. Martin:
Last Saturday, August 29. 1992, you and other representatives of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission met with concerned members of_the public regarding three current issues of ' safety:
1*.
Faulty Rosemont Transmitters 2.
Faulty Reactor Vessel Water Level Instrumentation 3.
Failure of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Material to Pass Fire Endurance Tests We greatly appreciated the information furnished at the
, meeting.
In reviewing both materials. handed out by the NRC at the meeting, and extensive notes on-various matters discussed, we remain somewhat unclear on a few matters.
To this end, we ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to-promptly answer each of the.following. questions.
To' insure that there is no misunderstanding of the question or answer, we_ask that each question be' answered in the format presented; if the NRC staff feels that further explanation is. required, this can be noted in_the format provided..
l
-*h7n.vu,
a I.
Rosemont Transmitters The Background Information provided by the NRC for the public meeting said that the first indication of the problem with-Rosement transmitters occurred on March E.10@, and that the problem was caused by loss of fluid.
The NRC alco said that seventy three Rosemont transmitters-(six of which have been found~to be faulty and were replaced).are used at Pilgrim, and that q safety inspection in May of 1990 concluded that "an effective program for identifying and tracking perfbraance of transmitters has been implemented" at Pilgrim.
We have the following questions:-
1.
Are all known failures and instances of faulty performance (at Pilgrim and elsewhere) caused only by fluid loss?
Yes No See Explan.-
2.
If not, has the cause of each failure been identified?
Yes No See Explan.
3.
Is there is more than one computer program for " tracking performance.",
Yes No See Explan.
4.
If the answer to Question 3 is anything but an unqualified"No", what program is used at Pilgrim?
Answer:
5.
Have any failures or instances of faulty performance of Rosemont transmitters been noted at Pilgrim Station since May of 1990?
Yes No See Explan.
6.
If the answer-to Question 5 is anything but an unqualified "No",
- a. how many occurrences?
(insert number)
- b. Involving how many transmitters?
(insert number) 2
J 4
II.
Water Level Instrumentation There have been a number of instances of faulty readings of the-instrumentation used to determine the water level in boiling water reactors.of the type used at Pilgrim.
For example, according to NRC Report 50-293, sensed high reactor water levels caused primary containment isolation system (PCIS) isolations on March 26, 1992, and again on March 27, e
1992.
The NRC report attributed these PCIS isolations to faulty instrument readings (e.g., " spiking") during rapid depressurization, and, after system modifications were made, permitted reactor restart on April 8, 1992.
We.have the following questions:
7.
Have there been any reactor vessel depressurizations at at Pilgrim Station since April 8, 1992?
Yes No See Explan.
8.
Have there been any PCIS isolations at Pilgrim Station since April 8, 1992?
Yes No See Explan.
9.
If the answer to either Question 7 or Question 8 is other than an unqualified "No",.heve any of the PCIS isolations 1.
occurred during rapid depressurizations?
Yes lNo
-See Explan.
- 11. been the result of water hvel instrumentation
- >u dings?
Yes No See Explan.
I rP The background material handed out by the NRC at the public meeting said that.an error in i
more than one reference leg was i
unlikely.
Ish it'true that there were i'
+
l c e :*-
in both the "A".and "B"
i bg
- t. Pilgrim on March 27?
Yes No See Explan.
3 I
.. _ _ _ -.,, -,, _ _ -... ~ - -,.
l
+
- 11. If the answer to question 11 is anything except an unqualified "No",
on how many instances has there been a level indication error in more than one reference leg a.
At Pilgrim?
(insert number) b.
At the other boiling water reactors under the supervision of the NRC7 (insert number)
.g
^ 1 12.
Has the " spiking" phenomena been observed at Pilgrim (or any other boiling water reactor) except (1) during reactor depressurization and (2) at pressures of about 450 psig?
Yes No See Explan.
13.
If the answer to Question 12 is anything except an unqual-
~
ified "No",
are the thermo-dynamic conditions in every instance at which " spiking" been observed such that the entire observed spike could be attributed to condensed or dissolved gases coming rapidly out of solution?
Yes No See Explan.
14.
I understand-that a preliminary analysis by General Electric concluded that the potential error in water level readings due to condensible gases coming out of solution is about 4".
Is my understanding correct?
Yes No See Explan.
15.
Dur3.ng the. March 1992 PCIS at Pilgrim, the " spiking" of water
-level indications was much more than 4".
Has the NRC attributed
" spiking" to anything other than dissolved gases coming out of solution?
Yes No See Explan.
4
16.
If the answer to question 15 is "Yes", to what causes other than dissolved gases does the NRC attribute the " spiking", and what has been done to eliminate each such cause?
Please attach a complete explanation. -
17.
Would NRC regulations require Pilgrim station to shut down if the reactor water level instrumen-tation was completely inoperative?
Yes No See Explan.
III.
Thermo-Lag The NRC Background Material provided at the August 29 meeting said that Thermo-Lag 330 is a fire barrier system used in many nuclear power plants, and that potential problems with Thermo-Lag date back 19 1987.
We have the following questions.
18.
Is there any Thermo-Lag fire barrier material (of any type, not simply Thermo-Lag 330) at Pilgrim?.
Yes No See Explan.
19.
Has all fire barrier material at Pilgrim been tested to see if it meets the NRC 3-hour minimum fire resistance rating required by the NRC?
Yes No See Explan.
20.
Has the NRC ever been notified that any fire barrier material of any type used at Pilgrim may not meet-the NRC 3-hour minimum fire resistance rating?
Yes No See Explan.
p l
5
-,,4,m
-m
,,y
7-l s
21.
Does all the fire barrier material used at Pilgrim meet the NRC 3-Hour minimum fire resistance rating?
Yes No See Explan.
22.
If the answer to Question 21 is anything except an unqualified "Yes",
is all fire barrier material used at Pilgrim that does not meet the NRC 3-hour minimum fire res-Istance rating used in con-junction with an automatic fire detection and suppression system?
Yes No See.Explan.
Thank you for your interest in these matters.
We appreciated having NRC technical staff in Plymouth to answe*
j questions; but, wished some of those technical people had also attended the prior hearings in Washington.
Once again, we express disappointment in your response te our requests (and similar requests from the Plymouth Selectman) for NRC resident inspectors at Pilgrim to be onsite at all times.
Your response seems to ignore that gnpraency planning is not in place and.that othqr lona Etanding s_afety issues remain unresolved such as:
- storage of hydrogen at Pilgrim too close to the reactor
- inadequacies of stack monitoring as pointed out by Alfred Scmidt in his 1992 EPA comment
- overcrowding of spent fuel rods
- unfiltered,-direct" torus ~ vent... etc The multiplicity of problems and failure of your agency to acknowledge and "fix" them in a timely manner erodes our confidence in your commitment to protecting our safety.
We look forward to a quick response to our questions and in the format provided.
Sincerely, A%,.M S
!Z c.z,
- xg?
Mary Elizabeth Lampert Chai man, Duxbury Puclear Advisory Committee 6
-