ML20206C378

Responds to Re Facility.Reemphasizes That NRC Does Have Serious Concerns Re Problems at Facility & Has Taken Action to Assure Util Addresses Concerns

ML20206C378
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	11/20/1986
From:	Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Ott M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20206C347	List: DD-87-14, Informs That Time Provided within Which Commission May Act to Review Director'S Decision DD-87-14 Expired.Commission Declined Review.Decision Became Final Agency Action on 870915.Served on 870925 ML20206C345 ML20206C350 ML20206C354 ML20206C357 ML20206C362 ML20206C378 ML20206C382 ML20206C401
References
FOIA-88-198 NUDOCS 8811160255
Download: ML20206C378 (1)

Text

.  !

umrto srArts

/p. mg'\ NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMIS$10N

[

7.

t nacion sat PAnn AvsNut KING OF P AU$51 A, PENN$ny ANI A 19464 20 NOV 1m Ms. Mary C. Ott 196 Chestnut Street Post Office Box 1424 ,

(

Ouxbury, Massachusetts 02331 l

i

Dear Ms. Ott:

This letter is in response to your letter to w dated October 13, 1986, regarding the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. I understand your concerns regarding the Pilgrim plant and its management. However, your letter essentially reiterates the concerns expressed to President Reagan in your letter received by the White House on July 8,1986 which I addressed in a letter to you dated August 5, 1986. In my previous response, I confirmed '

that some of your concerns are valid issues about which the RC and others are aware and are taking acticn.

With respect to your concerns regarding the NRC's perforsance, I would like to point out that the NRC has done more than just identify and document the prob-less at Pilgrim. The NRC!s aggressive inspection program, the involvement of senior NRC officials, &nd frequent meetings with senior Boston Edison Company (BECo) management have focused BEco attention on the problems and their resolu-tion; although admittedly the solutions have not always beu timely or long 1asting. Let me assure you that, if, at any time, the deficiencies and weak-nesses had degraded to a point where the health and safety of the public was put in jeopardy, I would have taken prompt action to correct the situation.

I want to thank yru also for providing specific examples of your concerns re-ga:J1.ig the emergency planning booklets. I have provided my staff with this infr-ation and a follow-up inspection in this area is planned in the near future. I further wish to reiterate that the NRC is very interested in receiv-t ing and reviewing the meeting tapes you mentioned in your letter in order to l identify and address your other specific areas of concern.

l

' I want to re-emphasize that tiit NRC does have serious concerns regarding problems at Pilgrim and has taken action to assure that BECo addresses these concerns.

I can assure you that the NRC will continue to pay close attention to the progress and effectiveness of tre management and hardware improvaments that BEco is making. '

A comprehensive NRC team inspection will be performeo prior to any decisicn by l

l me authorizing restart of the plant to verify that the requisite improvements  ;

i have been made and to assure that BEco can operate P11 grim in a safe manner.

l l

Thank you for expressing your interest in this matter.

$1ncerely,

(

i t

Thomas E. Murley l Regionai Adeninistrator i

Ogii160255 00 M FOl^ PDR (i4NSON00'M 1

1. go asr

. / ,*e, UNIT (D STATES E* s ., q ~j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

j R EGION I e J $31 PARK AytNUF

\ ...* / xmo or emusstA. PsNN8YLVANIA 164o0 5 1986 AUG Ms. Mary C. Ott 196 Chestnut Street Post Office Box 1424 Ouxbury, Massachusetts 02331

Dear Ms. Ott,

Your letter to President Reagan, received by the White House on July 8,1986, expressing your concerns about the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth.

Massachusetts has been referred to me. Similarly, your letter to the Chairman of the NRC was also received by us and it addresses the same issues. As Administrator of the NRC Regton I Office, I 4a very familiar with issues at Ptigrim and have therefore been asked to respond to your concerns.

In your letter you mentioned several issues regarding Pilgrim and you ques-tioned the performance of the NRC. Before discussing the specific issues you raised, I would like to comment briefly on NRC's activities with regard to Pilgrim. First, I want to emphasfJe that the NRC does have serious concerns regarding problems at Pilgrim. The best single source of informat!on about our assessment of Pilgrim is our most recent Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) report (copy attached). I believe that if you review the report you will find that we have performed a critical and objective evaluation of Boston Edison's performance. The SALP is based on an extensive inspection effort by NRC. Because of historical problems at N1gris our inspection effort there has been approximately 50% greater than at other similar facilities. I believe this effort has successfully resulted in our identifying problems in plant programs and management before they result in conditions that would threaten the health and safety of the public.

Identifying problems is, of course, only the first steps in assuring safe plant operation. Corrections and improvements in perfarmance are the final goal.

These corrections and improvecents must be made by the utility. However, it is the NRC's responsibility to ensure that problems are corrected. In the case of P11 grim this is being accomplished through continuation of an aggressive in-spection program, increased involvement of senior NRC officials, and frequent meetings with senior BEco management. In addition, Boston Edison Company has been required since April 12, 1980 to obtain my approval prior to restarting the Pilgrim plant. This hold on operation was originally estabitsbed in re-sponse to specific, recurring techelcal problems; however, I will not authorize restart untti I am confident that plant restart and operation can be conducted in a safe manner and that significant program and management improvements have been made and are continuing. Also, I have informed BECo that in addition to needing my ap.oroval to restart the plant, certain hold points will be establish-ed beyond which restart of the plant cannot proceed without my approval. Boston Edison Company recently announced that the Ptigrim plant will ramain shutdown into heat year in order to implement safety related plant modifications. I believe this is a positive step that will not only result in hardware improve-ments but will also allow BEco to focus on correcting existing problems. During this period the NRC will continue to closely monitor BEco's progress in re-solving these problems and we will continue to teep the pubite informed of our observations.

.h ~f YW

. l Ms. Mary C. Ott 2 With regard to taa specific issues you discussed in your letter, we are aware of these issues and, in f act, many of them were identified by the NRC. Spect-fically, the NRC SALP report (enclosed) discusses the clogging of the standby liquid control system injection line with debris, problems with the Pilgria emergency plan, and problems in the fire protection systes. With regard to the standby liquid control system, it is possible that the debris got into the system as a result of "horse play" although it has not been proven. But, re-gardless of how the debris got into the system this is an unacceptable Htur-tion. NRC has told BEco that management attention must be. devoted te ing that this type of event does not recur and we are closely monitorint, t, .o activities in this area. Incidentally, the debris was discovered through a requireo surveillance test and the plant was shutdown in January 1985 (not April 1986) to remove the debris. .

With regard to the Pilgrim emergency plan, the NRC has identified several a eas requiring impruvement, as noted in the enclosed report. In your letter you indicated that the emergency planning booklets are "fraught with misinformation".

Feedback in this area from individuals like yourself is very important and I would greatly appreciate your providing me with the specifics of the misinfor-mation you have identified, so my Staff can followup on your concerns.

It is true that some automatic fire protection systems at Pilgrim have been inoperable for extended periods of time. This resulted in the need for compen-satory measures such as posted fire watches. Although this is acceptable by Federal Regulations, it is preferable to have the automatic firo protection systems operable. Since the issuance of the enclosed SALP report, BECo has restored many of the automatic fire protection systems to operable status and the number of compensatory fire watches at the plant has been reduced by ap-proximately 70%. Also, you appear to have some incorrect information in that the NRC has not issued 250 violations in this area. I believe the number 250 refers to the backlog of maintenance requests related to fire protection (see encloseo SALP). This backlog is the reason that many of the systems have been inoperable and fire watches required.

Other 15 sues you raised to your letter are the accident at Chernobyl and its implications with regard to the size of the emergency planning zone, purported abnormally high incidents of cancer in the area near Pilgrim, and the adequacy of the security force during a recent guard strike at the plant. With regard to these issues, the NRC is currently evaluating the Chernobyl accident and the differences in design between Chernobyl and commercial nuclear power plants in the United States. Based on this type of evaluation, changes in emergency plan-ning criteria will be recommended, if appropriate. Regarding the various reports of high cancer rates to which you referred, no scientific evidence has been presented that demonstrates a correlation with operation of the Pilgrim plant.

Furthermore, independent NRC radiation monitoring in the area surrounding the plant has not indicated any significant radiation releases. I anderstand that

Ms. Mary C. Ott 3 the State of Massachusetts public health of ficials are pursuing a more in-depth analysis of the situation. If you chose you may call Dr. Ba11us Walker Jr.,

Commissioner of Public Health, for more information.

Your concern about the security guard force appears to be unfounded in that the advertisement you saw was for new recruits to be put into the security guard training program. Security coverage during strike situations is provided by security supervisors and qualified nuclear guards often from other security contractor facilities.

• Finally, I would Itke to provide you with some data on the frequency of unusual event declaration which you discussed in the article you wrote to the Duxbury Clipper newspaper. During the two year period 1984 through 1985 the national average for unusual events declared was approximately two per plant. It is important to note that some plants have slightly different thresholds for de-claring unusual events than others. Although Pilgria exceeds the average slightly, this really isn't significant, particularly when review of the spect-fic events involved confirms that none of them posed a threat to the health and safety of the public.

In regard to the slaims in your article that Mr. Starostecki was not properly prepared or sufficiently informative, I understand that forums such as the oublic meetings held in plymouth and Ouxbury ::annot provide sufficient time or information to completely address each question that may arise. We have attended mr. tings wita over 1,000 people from the vicinity of the Ptigrin Station and we are aware and cognizant of your apprehension and fear of the situation. If you could, please send us a copy of your tapes of the meeting in question and identify your specific areas of concern. We will try, to the best of our ability, to address your concerns. For example, it is difficult in a very short answer to exp1 tin the differences among the four emergency classifications for events. It appears that you may not have understood the examples cited by Mr. Starosteckt at the Duxbury meeting. Consequently, to

. help you in this regard we are also forwarding a copy of NUREG-0654 FEMA-REP-1,

! Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants. This document t

includes a description of the various action levels in Appendix 1 oeginning on Page 1-3.

In conclusion, some of the concerns raised in your lettar are valid issues about which NRC and others are aware and are taking action. On July 16, 1986 Congressman Markey of Massachusetts held a congressinnal hearing that focused l primarily on Pilgrim. At the hearing Representative Markey said that "the NRC l

has successfully focused the attention of its staff, Boston Edison management

Ms. Mary C. Ott 4 and the general public on serious management problems at Pilgrim". I believe that our efforts to date have resulted in identifying and getting ahead of pro-blems at Pilgrim and I assure you that the NRC will continue to aggressively pursue its responsibilities concerning the Pilgrim plant and will not hesitate to take those actions required to ensere the public health and safety.

Sincerely, E.

Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator Attachments: As Stated i

f a

., -- ., - - - - - . - - - . - - _ . . , , - _ - - - . - - , - - - - - , - - , . , , , . - , --.----------4