ML20195B405
| ML20195B405 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1988 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Mikulski B SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195B409 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 8811020007 | |
| Download: ML20195B405 (5) | |
Text
e October 25, 1988 The Honorable Barbara A0 Mikulski United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Senator Mikulski:
I am responding to your letter of September 19, 1988, in which you requested that we respond to concerns raised by Ms. Paulette Hamond regarding the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Ms. Hamond's letter expressed concerns related to (a) infant mortality and the incidence of cancer, (b) the Peach Bottem containment system. (c) neutron flux oscillatiens and (d) the adequacy of reform or assured proficiency.
The first three of Ms. Hammond's concerns are addressed in the enclosure to this letter.
The fourth concern is the only one that appears to be related to the issues that led to the shutdown of the Peach Bottom plant.
The licensee has submitted responses since the shutdown of the plant that identify the root causes for the shutdewn issues and also propose comprehensive corrective actions. The licensee is continuino with its demonstration that these issues have been resolved in a manner to support the safe startup and operation of the plant. Our review of the licensee's plan and overall program for the licensee's proposed restart of the Peach Bottom plant will not be completed until we have adequate assurance that the Philadelphia Electric Company is ready and capable of resuming safe operation, and that the public health and safety is protected.
Ms. Hammond's letter did not provide a technical basis for her concerns.
On the basis of my assessment of these issues, as discussed in this letter, I do not find that it is necessary to take the action suggested by Ms. Hammond, i.e., the permanent shutdown of the Peach Bottom plant, in order to ensure the protection of the n blic health and safety.
Sincerely..
og gir.nl t i m i 6,.
7.. x :. W V Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Responses to Concerns DISTRIBUTION Pocket File NRC PDR/LPDR V$tello EDO #0003973 EDO Reading SECY/0GC 8
Drossburg.PPAS(EDO #0003973) w/cy of incoming M
PDI.? Peading VStello WButler (m
NSIC TMurley/JSniezek BClayton
%s DCrut chfield SVarga/BBoger PPartin
$f BGrimes GPA/PA M0'Brien CA
- Previously Concurred WRussell, RI PDI./PM*
PDI-?/D*
AD:RI*
D:DRP!/I1*
A/ADP*
RMartin:tr WButigh BBoger SVarga 0Crutchfield M
10/12/88 10/124Y 10/1?/88 10/12/88 10/1?/88 coaA DD:hRR*
0:NRR*
E g'
QFo I JSniezek TMurley V1 lo 10/14/88 10/'6/88 \\qt 88 jy
{NCLOSUR_E, 1.
Infan_t Mortality and incidence of Cancer Due to the general nature of the coment a specific response which focuses on any specific aspect of the Peach Bottom plant's operation i
cannot be prepared.
However, the staff notes that in addition to its i
routine monitoring arcur.d all of the nuclear power plants in the Connonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Department of Health.
Division of Epidemiological Research is currently conducting a coeprehensive health study in the vicinity of Peach Bottom. Among the items being evaluated are the rates of new cancers, stillbirths and birth defects. The study is expected to be completed in the near future.
The staff is not aware of any well founded studies which indicate a significant increase (or decrease) in infant mortality or the incidence of cancer related to the operation or the recent shutdown of the Peach Bottom plant.
The effects of radiation on living systems have been studied for decades by individual scientists as vell as by select comittees that have been fcmed to objectively and independently assess the risks from radiation.
i These studies were considered in the development of the public health and safety limits that apply to the Peach Bottom plant, as well as to other nuclear power plants. The studies have not detected a statistically significant increase in cancer for doses and dose rates normally encountered in the vicinity of nuclear power plants. However, as a prudent measure, the NRC staff assumes that there is a linear relation between cancer and low doses of radiation. NGC limits are selected so that the statistical probability of risk is extremely low.
I 2.
Containment System
(
l The concern is that the containment system is deficient.
l The containment structure is designed to prevent the release o' substantial quantities of radioactivity in the event of any one of a number of postulated accidents which are referred to as design basis accidents. Our safety research on reacter accidents has provided us with a number of insights. Among these are that the Mark I containment design provides a significant safety margin for accidents even worse than the design basis accidents, and that such severe accidents have a low i
i probability of occurrence.
l The NRC believes that the SkP Park I plants, including the Peach Bottom Mark I containment, are safe and that they pose no undue public health l
risk. Nevertheless, the NRC is pursuing a vigorous program to reduce even further the already very low likelihood of occurrence of s severe accident l
and to improve the capability of plants to mitigate the consequences c' such accidents. This procram includes an integrated plan that coordinates various severe accident efforts, including containment perfomance l
improvement, to ensure fulfillment of the NRC's Severe Accident Policy Statement. This plan was discussed in a meeting of the Cemission en June 2, 1988, and a copy of the plan entitled "Integration Plan for i
i
a f
i 2
l l
l 4
Closure of Severe Accident Isr.ues." SECY-88-Id7. dated May 25, 1988 may be found in the Comission's public document room. The NRC continued its consideration of the Park I issue in a meeting on July 22, 1988. A copy of that plan entitled "Status of Mark 1 Containment Performance Evaluation."
SECY-88 206, dated July 15. 1988, also may be found in the Comission's public document rnom. This paper presented the status of the staff's evaluation of the Park I containment including a sumary of the i
j background; a discussion of the staff's balanced approach involving l
accident prevention, accident management, and accident mitigation; a 5
l sumary of industry efforts; a discussion of potential enhancements; and
)
future staff actions. A final report with recomendations by the NPC
[
e i
staff is expected in the near future.
t r
t 3.
Neutron Flux Oscillations i
This concern apparently relates to the recent event at the laSalle plant l
j involving the loss of recirculation pump operation and subsequent power l
1 oscillations.
I l
This event has received detailed technical review by the NRC Augmented Inspection Team, as described in the AIT Report 50-373/88008 and I
l 50-374/88008. dated May 16, 1988. A review by the NRC staff is continuing.
1 and has resulted in an NRC Information Notice dated June 15, 1988 and NRC Bulletin 88-07 dated June 15. 1988. The Information Notice was provided
[
1 l
to alert addressees to the potential. problems associated with the event while the Bulletin requested addressees to take specific actions and to confirm by letter that those actions had been completed and implemented.
Oscillations to the degree experienced at LaSalle have not previously l
I occurred in a domestic reactor and were unexpected at LaSalle.
l Nevertheless, they have been accounted for in most U.S. reactors' design l
basis licensing analyses, including those for the Peach 30ttom plant, l
The Peach Bottom Technical Specifications provide surveillance and action i
l statements for monitoring and suppressing, if necessary, core themal 3
The specifications reflect the conclusions of hydraulic instabilities.
the NRC Generic Letters 86-02 and 86-09, issued in 1986, which were based i
on stability) experience and recomendations of the reactor vendo l
Electric (GE in their service infortnation letter SIL-380. Revised.
The t
plant has procedures to implement the technical specification requirements l
and the operators have demonstrated knowledge of the procedures.
i Inspection Reports 277/86-09; 278/P6-12 and 277/86 16; ?78/86-17, issued l
in 1986, discuss recirculation pump trip events at Peach Bottom. Operator Furthermore, the response and procedures were adeauate in these events.
}
l NRC is requiring that these procedures and related instrumentation be reviewed and upgraded, if needed. The licensee's response to the previously mentioned NRC Bulletin was submitted on September 15, 1988 and is under review.
n-l 8
i
.gk UNITE 3 STATES 8_
NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 W
EDU Principal Correspondence Control-z \\V i-FROM:
DUE: 10/07/88 EDO CONTROL: 0003973 DOC DT 09/19/08 FINAL REPLY:
SEN. BARDARA A. MIMULSKI TO:
OCA FOR SIGNATURE OF:
- GRN CRC NO: 88-0849 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ROUTING:
DESC:
ENCL. LETTER FM PAULETTE G. HAMMOND RE PEACH RUSSELL, RI BOTTOM DATE: 09/23/08 ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
NRR MURLEY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
NRR RECEIVED: SEPTCiBER 26, 1988 ACTION:
DRPRtVANthy NRR ROUTING:
tURLEY/SNIEZEK MIRAGLIA CRUICHFIELD GILLESPIE POSSBURG ACTION DUE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S OFFPE BY !
'- bln.6e, 919p 7
i
0 e
e
?
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-88-0849 LOGG3EG DATE: Sep 22 88 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:
B.A. Mikulski--Const Ref AFFILIATION:
UNITED STATES SENATE LETTER DATE:
Sep 19 88 FILE CODE: ID&R-5 Peach Bottom
SUBJECT:
Concerns regarding the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant ACTION:
Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION:
OCA to Ack, Docket SPECIAL HANDLING: None NOTES:
P Hammond DATE DUE:
Oct 6 88 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
e AFFILIATION:
I Rec'd off, gag Date '7.;23.g,.
Dmo Pos
'm