ML20246M383
| ML20246M383 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1989 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Tauke T HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246M379 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909070146 | |
| Download: ML20246M383 (1) | |
Text
-- - - - - - - - - - _
/
' h" M'
!J. . . h KIC 1
' UNITED STATES '
8 6- NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION .
- WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'5 }
/ August 17, 1989 The Honorable'. Tom-Tauke United States House of Representatives
~ Washington, D.C.- 20515
Dear Congressman Tauke:
Enclosed with your July 20, 1989. letter to Chairman'Kenneth M. Carr of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was a letter from one of your constituents, Mr. John T. Shaff. Mr. Shaff is concerned that a containment modification to install hardened vents is' not being immediately implemented at Quad Cities Station, Units 1.and 2. The Commission has carefully evaluated this matter and has concluded that it need not immediately require all plants with Mark I containments to install hardened vents.
However, July-11,.1989, the Coinnission directed the NRC staff:
... to initiate plant-specific backfit analyses for each of the Mark I plants to evaluate the efficacy of renuiring IFinstalla-tion'of hardened vents at such plants. .This should be accomplished taking into: consideration the individual plant designs and their respective ' capabilities to withstand overpressurization events.
-Where the backfit analysis supports imposition of. such a. requirement, and after consideration of information from licensees, the staff should proceed accordingly with the imposition of. a requirement that such a plant install a reliable, hardened vent. The objective should be'to complete this process, including ir.stallation of hardened vents where justified, within three years. The staff's backfitting schedule should include consideration of the refueling outage schedule'for each plant in order to ensure that reasonable plant implementation dates are met.:
The direction )rovided by the Commission, which the NRC staff is following, is consistent wit 1 the NRC rule pertaining to backfit requirements. The purpose of the backfit rule is to assure that modifications imposed by the staff will result in a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety and that the costs of implementation for the licensee are justified in view of the increased protection. This approach protects both the health and safety of the'public and prevents unwarranted expenditures by the utilities and ultimately their rate-payers.
Sincerely,
, //-
hmesM.Ta r Acting Executive Director for Ope;ations eg90gkh,os17oogg4 H
- I '
[< 4 M ,' -oM T TAUKE a .
g >Il D88MCL 80$A '
- ENE GY AND CDMMERCE
'*- ' HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND
,,. FINANCE YMANSPORTATION AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EDUCATION AND LABOR '
HUMAN RESOURCES-RANKtNG CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES u
,ogt,ggy,r,*/gyc,1,,, .
SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGING RETIREMENT INCOME AND EMPLOYMfMT-Jul"J 20, 1989~ "A"K'"G "'"0"'T"*""
TASK FORCE FOR THE RURAL ELDERLY A Mr. Kenneth M. Carr Chairman-Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I recently received the enclosed letter from one of my constituents, Mr. John T. Sha'f f of Camanche, Iowa, regarding the Commonwealth Edison plant at Cordova, Illinois.. Any observations or comments you might care'to share with me as I-prepare a response would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your assistance.
Best wishes.
ince ly,
/>$--
Tom Tauke Member of Congress TT/es-Enclosure I
r Y -
.1 '
-r s { }.
COMMUNICATIONS $HOULD SE DIRs ' 3 TO THE OFFICE INDICATED.
C 698 CsNTaAL Awthug C 3271 Aauaa Dmv C iie sovin secono s-aen
'C 2244 Ravouan nouse Omes Bustomo W4emas_m y 20516 ((syoyagA]2001 m { fp om- {tyy]A 52132
y
~
John T. Shaff - --- _ . ~
RR 1, Box 193
.Camanche, I owf 52730 ~-
(319) . 522-2554 "
'.s1 .-_h'
, -July 11, 1989 ~~~ j
~ . . - ,
The Honorable Tom Tauke 2244 Rayburn Office Building ___
Washington, D.C. 20515 '"- --- -_..
~ ~ " "
Dear Congressman Tauket _J.'_
~~ ~
Enclosed is a copy of an article printed in the Clinton Herald ~
' July 6, 1989. You may . remember our conversations of early th i s ye ar on this subject. Since I live t.pprox imate l y ' three mi l e s f rom the Commonwe al th Edison plant at Cordova, Illinois, I am upset that action.is'not being taken NOW to remedy what is obviously a design.
flaw in the containment system of th'is facility.
According to-the ar t i cl e .the NRC st af f recommended that;the action be taken on all such' plants as soon as 'possi bl e or, pr ac t i cal .
With this-recommendation one would wonder if the,NRC members are more:
interested in utility companies or in the-common good of the public.
There have been numerous articles that would insinuate that the NRC-members have the. utilities in mind'more than anyone else.
I have read that President Bush's nominee to the NRC thought-that people had an unreasonable. fear of atomic energy, I would suggest'that it is more a healthy, reasonable fear based.on the record of a few companies and the-inaction.of the NRC in: matters such as'the one outlined in the enclosed' article.
I am writing this letter also to Senator Grassley and to Senator Harken in the hope that the three of you can either yourselves or with other senators and representatives join in a bipartisan effort'to force the NRC into action on this matter.
As a farmer I cannot easily move to another region if this area is wiped out by a nuclear disaster, the roots of my family on this farm'date back to 1837.
Very truly yours,
% ) v y/ r John T. Sh f
- - - __ _- _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ __-_- __ b
- r. ~
hI t .
k ' ~
g ,7 John T. Shc04 l .
+
, g .
~RR-1, Box 193
- i Camanche, Iowa 52730 4- 3319).522-2554 July 11, 1989 Mr.,Cordell! Reed-L . Senior Vice President
- Commonwe al th Edison' Company.
Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. Reed:
E WeHbriefly met at the visitors center of the Quad Cities 4
[ Nucl ear Pl an t ' January 4, 1989 at a SALP report meeting. After the meet ing you and ' ! vi si ted about the plant in general and par t i cul arl y
. about the containment system.of.the plant. I'l'ive 3.1 miles NNW of .
I :
the plant'.
Enclosed is an article dealing with containment systems of Mark I plantsLin the United States including the Guad Cities facility. I would'like to know if any modifications of the containment system is in the works in light of this announcement and if not, why not?
I am very aware of.the fine'line that you have to tread between
. turning L a prof it for stockholders and maintaining a safe facility for the people living in'the area.
I al so am conv i nced through Ron Higgins, the onsight NRC inspector, that the facility is managed quite well and is not a prime.
candidate for a disaster. However, each year of age that is added to the facility increases the chances for something to happen
. particularly if all maintenance and inspection people 1are not on their toes. For this reason I would hope that you can look at your containment and either feel assured it is very adequate for the needs or else make it that way according to the NRC guidelines.
Again please tend some information as to your stand.on the containment 'i ssu e .
Very truly yours,
- '1 ; --
p John T. Shaff Copies: Congressman Tom Tauke Senator Charles Grassley Senator Tom Harken Governor Terry Branstad
m . .
, o e*4*
~
As a further precaution,the com-=-
% gN $[\D(g sion oroered its staff to speed up sm-plementation of an enstmg NRC re.
EdafOD/I quirement that a Mark I plant .be.
capable of withstanding a totalloss of nuke pIOnf eieanc o wn n uto,aben ,
the reactor. t O enIXed Eeme B*y, a =lwrt er the Public Citizen envu onmental -
group, said the NRC was "buyteg WASHINGTON ( AP)-The Nuclear time" for the nuclear industry by pro-Regulatory Commeon rejected a mising furtherstudy.
staff recommendation that protective Plant owners generally opposed a containment shells on 24 commercial blanket requirement for im-nuclear power reactors be modtfied to lessen the risk of rupture in the event provementsto the MarkI contnimnent system, saying sthey wo'uld not ap -
of asevereaccident. preciably reducethensk of rupture.
The commission said there was no .Of the 24 reactors with Mark I con-need for a blanket requirement for the tainments, four are not operating. '!
changes, although it ordered a plant- $
They are Philadelphia Electne Co.'s by-plrat study of whether hard pipe Peach Bo: tom No. 3, and the Ten- I vents should be added to the contain- nessee Valley Authonty's Browns 3 ment buildings, known as Mark I and :
Ferry No.1,No.2 andNo.3.
made by GeneralElectricCo. I The remainmg plants in the study, The vents would relieve severe theirlocation andownersare: I pressure that would. build up ,if the ,
Brunswick, two ~ reactors at reactor con were damaged'"A contain- i ment failure could }ead to the release ; '
Southport, N.C., Carolina Power &
Ilght Co.: Cooper, Brownsville, Neb.,
of dangerous amounts of radioactivity into the atmosphere. i J,1.1- . ' ~ ' ! Nebraska Public Power District: .
Dresden, two reactors at-Morns, Ill.,
Anti-cucleargroups have urged the -
Commonwealth Edison Co.; Quad NRC to shut down plants with Mark 1 -
containment buildings, saying theys Cities. twoleactors at Cordova!IT Commonwealth Edison and Iowa Gas pose too great a risk to public
- health & Electne Co.; , ,.
and safety. .
Duane Arnold, Palo, Iowa, Iowa' Ther NRC staff earlier tbis year '
Electric Light & Power Co.: Fermi 2i recommended requiring the changes
- Laguna Beach, Mich., Detroit Edison atall24 plants-aboutaquatterof the Co.; Nine Mlle Point It Scriba, N.Y.,
nation's nuclear power stations. - New York Power Authonty; James A.
The commmion' rejected that ap-Fitzpatick,' . Scriba, tN.YJ. Niagara proach . Wednesday, but said it would Mohawk Power Corp.; Edwin1. Hatch, require the hard pipe vents-at any two reactors at Baxley7Ga., Georgia plant deemed by NRC analysts to need them.,It said,the case-by-case ap-Power Co.; . _~~
Hope Creek, Salem,N J.' Public Ser-proach should settle the question <-
for all vice Electric & Gas Co.; Millstone 1 24plantswithinthree years. Waterford, Conn., Northeast Utilities:
The 24 plants were selected because Monticello, ..Monticello,' Minn., Nor. -
their containment buildings are believ- thern States Power Co.; Oyster Creek, ed to be more vulnerable to nipture Toms River, N.J., G PU Nuclear Corp.; -
during a seven reactor ' accident than and Vermont Yankeei Vernon, Vt.,
othereontainmentsystems, .... .
VermontYankee NuclearPo'werCorp.
BTht.comtmssion also'said it would
$pprove irents at any plants that volun- t s
- 3. ,
tarily. chose to install them. Few are expected to do it vohmtsily.'1 . ~ . . -
- - -_~_ - - _
Oi.
. f! '
,e3 o 44 yyropIo
- .. UNITED STATES
- t!![ '
I, l
- l E~
g NUCLEA'R' REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
' t,i
- e --
' Q.
} August 17, 1989
-The Honorable-_ Charles E.' Grassley United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Grassley:
Enclosed with your July 24, 1989 letter to Chai man Kenneth M. Carr of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was a letter from one of your constituents,
' Mr. John T. Shaff. Mr. Shaff is concerned that a containment modification to-instal 1~ hardened vents is not being immediately implemented at Quad Cities-Station, Units-1 and 2. The Commission has carefully evaluated this matter and has concluded that it need not immediately~ require all plants with Mark I containments to install- hardened vents- .
However, July 11, 1989,- the Commission directed the NRC staff:
... to initiate plant-specific backfit analyses for each of the Mark I plants to evaluate the efficacy of requiring the installa-tion of hardened vents at such plants. This should be accomplished taking into consideration the individual plant designs and their respective capabilities to withstand overpressurization events.
Where the backfit analysis supports imposition of such a requirement, and after consideration of information from licensees, the staff should proceed accordingly with the imposition of a requirement that-such a plant install a reliable, hardened vent. The objective should be to complete this process, including installation of hardened vents where justified, within three years. The staff's backfitting schedule should include consideration of'the refueling outage schedule for each plant in order to ensure that reasonable plant implementation dates are met.
l The direction provided by the Commission, which the NRC staff is following, is consistent wit 1 the NRC rule pertaining to backfit requirements. The purpose of the backfit rule is to assure that modifications imposed by the staff will L
result in a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health l and safety and that the costs of implementation for the licensee are justified in view of the increased protection. This approach protects both the health and safety of the public and prevents unwarranted expenditures by the utilities and ultimately their rate-payers.
Sincerely,
/ OCSA FULLTEXT ASCil SCAN g J es M. Tay r f j Acting Executive Director
- for Operations h4y19g-G' ' ke E _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ .I
Sc
- "'*iT.heYon::rable Charles E. Grassley F. Unliibd States Senate August 17, 1989 3
. ,ashington, W D.C. 20510 !
Dear Senator Grassley:
Enclosed with your July 24, 1989 letter to Chairman Kenneth M. Carr of the-Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was a letter from one of yotr constituents, Mr. John T. Shaff. Mr. Shaff is concerned that a' containment modification to install hardened vents is not being immediately implemented at Quad Cities ' Station, Units 1 and 2. The Commission has carefully evaluated this matter and has concluded that it need not immediately require all plants with Mark I containments to install hardened vents. However, July 11, 1989, the Commission directed the NRC staff:
... to initiate plant-specific backfit analyses for each of the Mark I plants to evaluate the efficacy of requiring the installa-tion of hardened vents at such plants. This should be accomplished taking into consideration the individual plant designs and their respective capabilities to withstand overpressurization events.
Where the backfit analysis supports imposition of such a requirement, and after consideration of information from licensees, the staff should proceed accordingly with the imposition of a requirement that such a plant install a reliable, hardened vent. The objective should be to complete this process, including installation of hardened vents where justified, within three years. The staff's backfitting schedule should include consideration of the refueling outage schedule for each plant in order to ensure that reasonable plant implementation dates are met. The direction provided by the Commission, which the NRC staff is following, is consistent with the NRC rule pertaining to backfit requirements. The purpose of the backfit rule is to assure that modifications imposed by the staff will result in a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety and that the costs of implementation for the licensee are justified in view of the increased protection. This approach protects-both the health and safety of the public and prevents unwarranted expenditures by the utilities and ultimately their rate-payers. SincerelA@al SM D h m s M I3Y James M. Taylor Acting Executive Director for Operations Similar letters sent to: The Honorable Tom Harkin The Honorable Tom Tauke United States Senator United States House of 131 E. 4th Street Representatives 314B Federal Building Washington, D.C. 20515
-Davenport, IA 52801 (Document Name - GT 4646)
*PREVIOUSLY CONCURRED
*PDIII-2 *PDIII-2 *PDIII-2
- Tech Editor *(A)AD:DRSP35 TRoss: km LLuther L01shan RSanders MVirgilio
~8/7/89 8/3/89 /3/89 8/3/89 8/3/89 U
M N i _RSP *ADP:NRR 1 ON R / h{ [d()b
i, s' + 'i' .
. .j-t: . , ,
.', ?
l' ) n-
,'t .- ' ' ,
t
' '*?~
j( il n eD M{ fn esMenale WASHINGTON. D C. 20$10
' July 24, 1989 Nuclear _ Regulatory Commission-
-Congressional' Liaison- .
+
-1717.H Street N.W.
' Washington, D.C.s 20555
Dear.' Director:
Enclosed please find,~a letter from John T.-Shaff regarding'the centoiment system:-at t% cordova, Illinois. nuclear plant. I would appreciate any assistance you could. provide pertaining to this matter. Please mark.your return correspondence to the
' attention of Paul.M. Collison when-responding to my office. ,
Thank you for your attention to my request. Sincerely, Charles E. Grassley United States Senator CEG/pc Enclosure
- i.
Y
;T ,
p ' : g ; -- . 4'. , s - Q John T. Shaff'
\y RR 1, Box 193
',; \ Camanche, iowa 52730.
i Lg7g' (319) 522-2554
- j. ; .i.... a, J c,, . I v n 0
-July 11, 1989 The Honorabl e Charles Grassl ey 6, 135 Hart: Senate Office Building
?!- Washington, D.C. 2051U
-M
Dear' Senator Grassley:
7f Enclosed is a copy of an article. printed in the Clinton Herald
;D - -
July 6, 1989. .Since 1 live approximately three miles from'the M Commonwealth Edison plant at Cordeva, Illinois, I am upset.that
$f action is not being taken NOW to remedy what is obviously a design dj flaw in the containment system of this facility, s;G ly According to the article the NRC staff recommended that the -Q .
action be taken on all such plants as soon as possible or practical. Ej With this recommendation one would wonder if the NRC members are more
,y interested in utility companies or in the common good of the public.
There have been numerous articles that would insinuate that the NRC
*!) members have the utilities in mind more than anyone else.
5d. hj I have read that President Bush's nominee to the NRC thought p that people had an unreasonable fear of atomic energy, I would suggest that it i s more a healthy, reasonable fear based on the
, ;, record of a few companies and the inaction of the NRC in matters such
;_4 as the one outilned in the enclosed article.
3 I am writing this letter also to Congressman Tauke and to
;,j Senator Harken in the hope that the.three of you can either j yourselves or with other senators and representatives Join in a bipartisan effort to force the NRC into action on this matter.
, As a farmer I cannot easily move to another region if this area
,] is wiped out by a nuclear disaster, the roots of my f amily on this fj' farm date back to 1837.
i Very truly yours,
}
; 2
.)
$ John T. Shaff 4-d 5 1-q
.i ij
.j N
G
.d
*Q
'i 4
21 . _ - - . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ - . _ _ _ _ . - _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
i
. T. x _2' v._ .
2; ?. -
',.~ '
. John.T. Shaff RR 1, Box 193 Camanche, Iowa 52730 j;
~
(319) 522-2554 July 11, 1989 i Mr..Cordell Reed-Senior-Vice President
, Commonwealth. Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. Reed:
I c We briefly met at the visitors center of the: Quad Cities i Nuclear Plant January 4, 1989 at a SALP report meeting. After the meeting you and I visited about the plant in general and particularly about the containment system of the plant. I live 3.1 miles NNW of the plant. [ Enclosed i s an ar ti cl e deal ing wi th . con tainmen t systems of Mark
,' I plants in the United States. including the Quad Cities facility. I would l ike to know if any modifications'of the containment system is in the works in light of this announcement and if not, why not?
I am very aware of the fine line that you have to tread between turning a profit'for stockholders and maintaining a safe facility for the people living in the area. I al so am conv i nced through Ron Hi ggi ns, the onsight NRC inspector, that the. facility is managed quite well'and is not a prime candidate for a disaster. However, each year of age that is added to the facility increases the chances for something to happen-particularly if all maintenance and inspection people are not on their toes. For this reason I would hope that you can look at your containment and either feel assured it is very adequate for the needs or else make it that way according to the NRC guidelines. L Again please send some information as to your stand on the l' containment issue. l Very truly yours,
$2 Vl John T. Shaff Copies: Congressman Tom Tauke Senator Charles Grassley Senator Tom Harken l Governor Terry Branstad l - - - - - - - _ . - - - - ---_---a -- - - - - - - ---.----.--.-_u -- -----.:.--.u-.-------._---u---_a.w-,------us-------.--,_------__a-------a_----------- . - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - , _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ . _-
),
p .. .: . ii q . p k m. g. Ois a further precaution, the commis-Dg. . gb :$ ( sion. ordered its staff to speed tip im-
" "" **i'ti"8 '""C "-
0 O f'y . g" 3 P ***"'",that a . Mark..I-plant ,be . quirement; j M.c. . , . l capable of withstanding a totalloss of tit /ke,piOnfs 1
,,..-;- ~
. electrical power.without overheating thereactor.< t t .a of.N . -
g i
,. h B&y, a nhr exput for O na D e n i X e d> .' the Public Citizen' environmental group, said the NRC4as'" buying
' WASRINGTON ( AP)-ThhNuclear. time" for the nuclear' Industry by pro-Regulatory . Commission.. reject,ed a staff recommendation that protective mising furtherstudy., .,, . ;..
. Plant owners generally opposed a containment shells'on 24 commercial nuclear power reactors be modified to blanket requirement k orilfim-f pro {ements to the Mark I containment -
~
the,eyent, lessen the risk ofy ruptur,ejn;4.n p .' sistem,"saying LtheyMuld fdot/aF i of aseversaccident.j c pr.eciably reduce the risk of nipture..
. The commission.said there was no seed for a blanliet requirement f or the 7,,'Of.the'24 tainments, reactors four. are . notwith Mark I con- ~I Toperating.
changes, although it ordered a plint * : I They are Philadelphia Electric Co's by-plant study.of ,whether hard pipJ !; Peach Bottom No. 3,*and.the Ten- 1 vents should be added to,the contain!. ment buildings, knownis Mark I and i nessee Valley : Authority's Browns 3 Ferry No. I,No.2 and No. 3. 1 madebyGeneralElectric Co. 9.,. 1 eThe~ remaining plants in the study,
' The vents .wouldirrelieve , severe I theirlocationandawnersare:
. pressure .that would build up if the . .
^
' Brunswick, two ' reactors - at ,
reactof dBre ie'fe dhiIgsd. A contain-T-Southport,' N.C..' Carolina Power & J* ment failure could , lead to the release f ' 13ght Co.; Cooper,"Brownsville, Neb., of dadgero~us' amounts of hdioactivity / Nebraska Public. Power District; Intotbeatmosphere.W fVl3.Q M M. Dresden, two reactors at Morris, Ill., ' t.Adti-nuclear 4;roups have urged the f d NRC to shut down plants with; Mark I p Common, wealth Edison' Co.[ ,9ua,d Citiesc twoTreactors'at Cordova,Jit, containment -buildings, . saying < theyW Commonwealth Edison uno lowa Gas pose too' great Frisk to public health z.; & Electne Co.; : ., . . '" ! andsafety. ' I ~ " . . ..M [." 7hane Arnold, Palo,' Iowa.il'owa* J Thet NRC staff earlier. thisl year, 1j ' Electric Light & Power Co.i Fermi 2, recommended' requiring the' change 8 i IAguna Beach, Mich.; betroit Edison at all 24 plants - about a quarter of the Co.;.Nine. Mile, Point >1!.Scriba, N;Y., nation's nuclear power stations. DM W 'New York Power Authority; James A '. 4The' commission ' rejected that'ap'1 Fitzpatick, ~ Scriba, tN.Y.'. Niagara proach. Wednesday, but said it would 14ohawk Power Corp.; Edwin!. Hatch, require the hard pipe; vents at any. '} two reactors at,BaxleyjGa., Georgia plant deemed by NRC analysts to need' Power Co.; .
"~ ^' -
them.;It'said,the case-by. case apt.y proach should settle the question ior all (? C Hope Creek, Salem', N.J.', Public Ser; { vice Electric & Gas Co.; Millstone 1, 24 plants within'threc years. ' T- Waterford, Conn., Northeast Utilities; aThe 24 plants were selected because Monticello, .Monticello? Minn.? Nor- - their containment buildings are believ f thern States Power Co.; Oyster Creek, ed to be more vulnerable to rupture {
~
Toms River, N.J., GPU Nuclear Corp.; ; during a severe reactor accident,than,a and Vermont YankeeT Vernon,' Vt., othercontaintuent,sygems. . Vermont Yankee N ucicar Power Corp.u ' ' OTheicomnussion.,also'said it would ' ,
~
z approve vents at any plants that (olun t ci' , tarily chos'e to install them. Few are { expected to do it v6hssta'rilyM i s.. - .
- _-___-_________-_____________-_____}}}