ML20210P374

Responds to to Chairman Zech Re State of Ma Legislators Request for Investigation of Plant.Special Team Insp Failed to Identify Significant Problems.Addl Actions Inappropriate

ML20210P374
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	02/05/1987
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Mavroules N HOUSE OF REP.
References
NUDOCS 8702130373
Download: ML20210P374 (5)

Text

\\

s

.I a ree o

UNITED STATES g

8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

r,;

y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

• %...../

TEB 5 1987 m yy3 The Honorable Nicholas Mavroules U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

20515

Dear Congressman Mavroules:

I am pleased to respond to your letter of December 17, 1986 to Chairman Zech re-garding the request of Massachusetts legislators to have the NRC implement an in-vestigation of the Seabrook nuclear power plant. According to their letter to you, dated November 20, 1986, the concerns of these legislators are based on recently identified problems of faulty plant design and construction at Seabrook. A list of those problems, provided by the Employee's Legal Project of Amesbury, Massachu-setts, was included as an attachment to the legislators' letter. Their letter also references the public testimony of Messrs. Douglas Richardson and Raymond Lavoie as an additional source of these recently identified problems.

In July of last year, the NRC Region I Office learned of the establishment of the Employee's Legal Project which was formed to help current and former nuclear power plant employees report safety problems at their work place. The Region I Office has been in frequent communication with the project's director, Ms. Sharon Tracy, since early August 1986. NRC Region I received several pieces of correspondence from the Employee's Legal Project in September and October 1986, which identified a number of safety concerns pertaining to the Seabrook Station.

These safety concerns, as they became available, were given to the NRC resident inspectors for preliminary investigation. They were also provided to Public Ser-vice Company of New Hampshire for their action.

In the final analysis, some 61 potential safety concerns were formulated from the various documents received from the Employee's Legal Project. These 61 items included issues discussed in the public testimony of Messrs. Richardson and Lavoie as well as the list attached to the legislators' November 20 letter to you.

In order to thoroughly investigate these concerns collectively, a special team inspection was conducted by seven NRC Region I inspectors at Seabrook during the period November 3-14, 1986.

In addition to their inspection activities at the site, these inspectors also interviewed those former workers who had given their concerns to the Employee's Legal Project and who were willing to talk to the NRC. Those interviewed included Ms. Tracy as well as Messrs. Richardson and Lavoie.

The NRC report of the special team inspection, issued December 19, 1986, is en-c1csed. The report concludes that the concerns raised by the Employee's Legal Project do not raise any specific new safety issues which adversely impact on safety at Seabrook Station. At the conclusion of our inspection, we again told Ms. Tracy to contact NRC Region I imediately if she received additional concerns on nuclear safety at Seabrook. NRC Region I is prepared to act promptly on any information provided by the Employee's Legal Project or others.

8702130373 870205 g Q. (LoH M d cog.R4SpodencA.

Ipp

.T,

The legislators' letter suggests that the circumstances surrounding recent develop-ments at Seabrook justify that the NRC direct an independent investigation to take place, and makes reference to reactive actions taken at the Midland and Zimmer facilities. When the NRC determines that conditions at a construction facility require closer scrutiny than the normal inspection program provides, the first step is nornelly to implement a special team inspection to accurately define the scope of the problem. This was done at Midland and Zimmer as well as Seabrook. Based on the results of that inspection, the NRC then determines what additional inspec-tion or investigation is warranted. Significant problems were identified at Mid-land and Zimmer, and appropriate additional inspection and investigation effort was requested. However, the special team inspection at Seabrook, discussed above, failed to identify problems of _a significant nature, and therefore additional actions with respect to Seabrook are not deemed appropriate at this time.

Your letter indicates that you have additional concerns about emergency planning, and the ability of Seabrook to operate safely.

In the latter regard, the NRC staff has expended over 21,000 inspection hours at Seabrook in order to assist in making the determination that the plant can be operated safely. This inspection effort is substantially above the average for other new construction facilities in Region I.

The findings of this inspection effort reasonably affirm the ability of the plant to operate safely. Accordingly, the NRC has issued Public Service of New Hampshire a license to load fuel and conduct certain preoperational testing.

The issue of State and local emergency planning has not been resolved. As you are-aware, significant issues are now before the appropriate Atomic Safety and Licens-ing Board, and must be resolved before a full power license can be issued. These issues include the formulation and implementation of effective State and local emergency plans which must comply with NRC regulations. I can assure you that a full power ifcense will not be issued until these issues are satisfactorily re-solved.

If I or my staff can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to con-tact me.

-Sincerely, Original signcd by Victor 5tel1Q, -

Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

NRC Region I Inspection Report 50-443/86-52

.,' '-t b '.

Distribution:

Denton

'VStello.

J. Taylor-JRoe J. Murray-TRehm T. Murley '

JSniezek W.' Kane

.E. Wenzinger T. Elsasser EDO 002432 SECY'861347 PDR LPDR i

. Docket No. 50-443 Region I Docket Room

. 0CA l

r e

i RI:DRP RI:DRP RI:DRP RI:DRA RI:RA ED OCA

. Elsasser/meo Collins Kane Allan Murley S'!e;llo l

l 1/28/87

[l y

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY l-l l

c[ 4 a asoug'o, d

UNITE 3 STATES

~,

-I NUCLEAR REZULATORY COMMISSION n

L i

WASHING TON, D. C. 20666 EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL FROM:

DtlE 01/,15/97 EDO CONTROL:-002432 M

DOC DT 12/17/86 REP. NICHOLAS MAVROULES FINAL RFPLY:

yo TO:

CHAIRMAN ZECH FOR SIGNATURE OF:

GREEN

-SECY NO: 86,1347 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DESC:

ROUTING:

ENCLOSES LTR FROM MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL. COURT DFNTON REQUESTING AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF TAYLOR SEABROOK PLANT DESIGN AND CONSTRilCTION MURRAY

-DATE: 12/30/86 ASSIGNED TO: RI.

CONTACT: MURLEY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

a+

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:

iCRC-86-1347 LOGGING DATE: Dec 23 86 M MOO ACTION OFFICE:

AUTHOR:

N. Mavroules-Const Rev AFFILIATION:

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LETTER DATE:

Dec 17 86 FILE CODE: ID&R-5 Seabrook

SUBJECT:

Urges Coma to give serious consideration to an indepent investigation of the Seabrook plant. design and construction ACTION:

Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION:

Docket SPECIAL HANDLING: None NOTES:

Members of Mas General Court DATE DUE:

Jan 12-87 SIGNATURE:

DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

'[D Ecc'd Gif. EDO Date 13 ' 3 *'

Time

% I5 I EDO - 002432

J

'7

,J NICHOLAS MAVROULES

~F_ bt'act omcas-

+ **= oneract. "---

4

,0 was.awroe steset SALees. MA 0197) cossamitsee:

/

IS17)?45-5800 ;

Ame#EO SEftVICES g

Congress of tfie miten states' t::::

(617)599-7105 oudt of Etytt%entatikts

(

i cnAanesAst s-m. ~

10 WsLcomes $Yasst GemenAL Ovses.our asso

"";m,"^a" macington, at 20515 j,/

WASHueGTON Omes:

440 CAmmoss Houes Omca BWLeme TOLL Fass Witma Wassemevoss, DC 206 IS

,/,,

! WasacuussTTa

@ 2)225-4020

/

e, (4 W 272-4730 December 17,1986

)

f 8

ElV ~

Lando W.

Zech, Jr., Chairman f.

m e

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

^

Washington, D.C.

20555 r

Dear Chairman Zech:

~

I have been asked by a group of concerned Massachusetts legislators to support their effort in obtaining an independent investigation' of New Hampshire's Seabrook Nuclear Power Plan 6.

Their appeal is X nnded upon 4

allegations of faulty plant' design and construction, which it' proven as fact, would call into question the advisability of operatin' the plant y //

as a nuclear facility.

,/

w At the legislator's behest, and pur'suant to'. their enclosed codespondence, I would ask you to give serious. consideFation to their request that the a

Nuclear Regulatory Commission order an independent investigation of the facility's design arid construction. ]

4.

i I

I know all parties at interest are in sa'greement that Seabhok Station ;

n should not become operative until every assuranbe is givsh 'that/c4c /,-

plant will operate safely and that effective estate and local efamqmicy plans are in place.

r g.

)

g

/

Thank you for your anticipated co-operation'and courtesy.

i Sincerely, f

Q9

+

/.=

_L_

Nicholas Mavroules a

Member of Congress g

l o

) ~'-e NM/mg

'/

Enc.

/

{

j ',.-

/' gg

[e /

u'J a '/

t.

O f

[

.e,

-w g

.[

Ni c

s MM0/1/Mfaf/ 0 WJJarlNJe//J J

es f*..'

th)/

MM///ft' C//.

/f/g'.

~

Y ba '

vem.S$fl Yt/r

NJr, U/en $0/$$

I/'

• /b SENAron

///.#498 REPRESENTATIVE ii NICHOLAS J. CoSTELLo LAWRENCE R. ALEXANDER SENATE CHAIRMAN HOUSE CHAIRMAN r

y 4;..

.& :. p pi, s

J, November 20, 1986

(

)

?

[

I' Honorable Nicholas Mavroulos

/r U.S.

House of Representatives 3

'".440 Cannon House Office Building

.yashington, D.C.

20515

1. ',

Dear CongressmantMavroules:

.We,ers writing 6o ask for your support in obtaining an independent b inviatigation of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in Seabrook, New

r Hampshire'.

We are concerned that there may be violations in the Lr. '- " plant's design and construction which call into question whether

t. g the plant,_can ' operate safely at this time or at any time in the i

future.~~>

p

~

Severdlw two former employees of the Seabrook plant gave publibf eeks ago, s,

testimonyfabout problems in design and construction which f

would seriously jeopardize the plant's integrity.

Given the nature of these allegations and others which continue to be t

obtained, a tri-state coalition involving officials of Maine, New t

J Hampshire and Massachusetts has formed.

The purpose of this coalition tis to call on the I clear Regulatory Commission to order

~

c 4 'p' an independent investigation :f the facility's design and construction.

With the testimony of Mr. Douglas. Richardson and Mr. Raymond Lavoie, we have the evidence necessary to warrant an investigation.

In addition, we have enclosed a list of problems, compiled over recent years,'which has never been thoroughly explored but which. demands' further exploration.

We believe that as lawmakers and representatives of our constituencies, it is our responsibility to verify the plant's safety.

It is,with this endeavor

<e seek your assistance.

1 v'.

./

(

i.

u 4

h

$I

-C

y s

.s Correspondence from the Massachusetts General Court

,['.

November 20, 1986 Page 2 i/

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has implemented such investigations in the past.

Specifically, investigations of the Zimmer plant in Ohio and the Midland plant in Michigan have led to plant shutdowns.

In addition, the NRC is presently considering an investigation of the Comanche Peak plant in Texas.

Certainly, the circumstances surrounding the development of the Seabrook plant justify such an investigation.

We ask that you enjoin the NRC to

. commence action in the interest of public health and safety.

We anxiously await your response and the results of an NRC investigation.

Thank you for'your continuing interest and support.

Sincerely, MEMBERS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL COU T l

l GLeaes4W oR

%2lr nm C

oleA~

0

/

N

. (w

$!NWd

/Wfd L

y vp g,y FDu d_

fha 5

r

'6M l

o

~

husi L M L f// d fL A % w M mtu(A

.e/

Correspondence from Massachusetts General Court November 20, 1986 Page 3 L 1/ A %.4. S S S C$ k r Y _

h. Y,.

faut a.sbunaL

)4 s

1) A j

1,

.o

&fE;=a

. L laJ lY N 4 L,,2% 8L L,,6 &,M S u

=

g),g,y,,% g7)(,,,&,pw,

-,/

n x.c,,. t u.',,,.

( AN a~

u

,x

&uckLLJW/

ii;& '

~

kh L ude ZA& M 4 Lu.a-A?2Lc;24?1 6 6 tue h [ a L -~

D%XEhk n w

wtWd.sau

~ssad S Ih/

~

AL4

s*

e

.g:

MEMBERS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL COURT ENDORSING THE ENCLOSED SEABROOK LETTER:

Senator Nicholas J. Costello (D-Amesbury)

Senator Gerard D'Amico (D-Worcester)

Senator Edward L. Burke (D-Framingham)

Senator Frederick E. Berry (D-Peabody)

Senator Richard A. Kraus (D-Arlington)

Senator Salvatore R. Albano (D-Somerville)

Senator William B. Golden (D-Weymouth)

Senator Royal L. Bolling, Sr. (D-Boston)

Senator Jack H. Backman (D-Brookline)

Senator George Bachrach (D-Watertown)

Representative Lawrence R. Alexander (D-Marbl6 head)

Representative Barbara A. Hildt (D-Amesbury)

Representative Frances F. Alexander (D-Beverly)

Representative Geoffrey C. Beckwith (D-Reading)

Representative Thomas F. Brownell (D-Quincy)

Representative John A. Businger (D-Brookline) l Representative Paul E. Caron (D-Springfield)

Representative Robert A. Cerasoli (D-Quincy)

Representative A. Joseph DeNucci (D-Newton) l Representative Joseph K. Mackey (D-Somerville)

Representative Denis Lawrence (D-New Bedford)

Representative David P. Magnani (D-Framingham)

Representative John E. McDonough (D-Boston)

Representative Joseph B. McIntyre (D-New Bedford)

Representative Joan M. Menard (D-Somerset)

Representative William E. Moriarty (D-Ware)

Representative Eleanor Myerson (D-Brookline)

Representative William P. Nagle, Jr. (D-Northampton)

Representative Michael J. Rea, Jr. (D-Billerica)

Representative J. Michael Ruane (D-Salem)

Representative Salvatore F. DiMasi (D-Boston)

Representative Stephen W. Doran (D-Lexington)

Representative Robert A. Durand (D-Marlborough)

s c." ?"

. Representative Patricia G. Fiero (D-Gloucester)

Representative Thomas M. Gallagher (D-Boston)

Representative Saundra Graham (D-Cambridge)

Representative Barbara E. Gray (R-Framingham)

Representative Sherwood Guernsey (D-Williamstown)

Representative Jonathan L. Healy (R-Charlemont)

Representative Christopher J. Hodgkins (D-Lee)

Representative Marie E. Howe (D-Somerville)

. Representative Frank M. Hynes (D-Marshfield)

Representative Raymond'A. Jordon (D-Springfield)

Representative Marie-Louise Kehoe (D-Dedham)

Representative Thomas P. Kennedy (D-Brockton)

Representative Charles E. Silvia (D-Fall River)

Representative Chester A. Suhoski (D-2nd Worcester)

Representative Gregory W. Sullivan (D-Norwood)

~ Representative Susan C. Tucker (D-Andover)

Representative Theodore C. Speliotis (D-Danvers)

Representative Susan D. Schur (D-Newton)

Representative Daniel J. Ranieri (D-Bellingham)

(In the interest of time, some of the above endorsers opted to sign selected letters from among the Massachusetts Congressional delegation.

Therefore, your list of signatures may vary slightly from the total list above.)

O

Employce's 14al wow P.O. Box 633 i

Amesbitry. MA 0W3 n

(617)388 9620

\\

e

)

Our concern that an independent investigation of th be conducted to determine the safety of the plant ise Seabrook Nuclear Power Pla who have publicly aired their concerns about problems thsupported by former there.

non profit organization which provides advice and legalF oyee's Legal Project, a ew England's nuclear power plants.

counsel to workers at include:

Problems cited by these former employees

• The fire protection system piping is seriously cl pressure but not for volume.

• Containment cement ogged; the system was tested for

• Backup safety systems run parallel to each othtested and rejected as an im as poured anyway.

support.

They are not adequately separated.

er and use the same systems for

• Prohibited construction practices (cold pullin )

• Superficial patches were applied to cracks in the g were used.

• Empty beer cans and bottles were discard d i containment cement.

creating air pockets.

e

• Paint in the containment n wet containment cement, potentially

• Workers with no previous experience were t(crucial to the plant's safe operation techniques.

ng.

• Written instructions were used as a primary trained on the spo

• Electrical cables along the inside of thewere illiterate and many f uent in English.

igniting small fires.

containment walls give off sparks,

• 0n the job alcohol and drug abuse was reported t o be of epidemic proportions.

believe these allegations must be investigatedThis is just a ormer workers at the plant.

We j

be investigated.to a pattern of unsafe work, the entire desig And, because they seem to point j

n and construction of the plant must l

l l

I a-

-