ML20101N688

Forwards Me Marucci Expressing Concerns Re Facility for Review & Response

ML20101N688
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	06/12/1992
From:	Weicker L CONNECTICUT, STATE OF
To:	Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20101N649	List: ML20101N661 ML20101N688 ML20101N712 ML20101N719 ML20101N726 ML20101N771
References
NUDOCS 9207100106
Download: ML20101N688 (7)

Text

_ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - -

IJ)wnL P.Wuctut Jn Govt w on STATE 01 CONNEcrICUT EXECUTIVE CllAMBERS llARlTORD, CONNEenCUT 06106 June 12, 1992 The Honorable Ivan Selin Chairmen Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Chairman Selin I have been contacted by Mary Ellen Marrucci in which she expressed her concerns with regards to the Northeast Utilities Nuclear Millstone II Plant here in Connecticut. A copy of Mrs. Marrucci's letter is a t ta ched .

I would appreciate it if you would review her correspondence and respond to her accordingly. I would also welcome a copy of your findings sent to my Hartford Office.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Si er y, LOWELL . WEICKER, J Governor LPW/sd Attachment b 9207100106 920708 PDR ADOCK 05000336 P PDR

l

. a

/ /b Laen P. Wucxta JA GovtkNon STATE OF CONNECTICUT EXECUTIVE CHAMDERS 5

ILATFORD,CONNECDCUT ,

06106 June 12,-1992 Ms. Mary Ellen Marucci 104 Brownell-Street New. Haven, Connecticut 06511 Dear Ms. Maruccia This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter in which you raised -issues concerning the North-east Utilities Millstone II.

Since this matter is within.. the jurisdiction of Clifton A. Leonhardt, Chairman of the Depart-

~

ment of Public Utility Control,- I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to'him for his review and consideration. You should-receive a reply from- Mr. Leonhardt or a member of his staff in the very near future.

Thank you for sharing your, concern with me.

A-Sin,b,e\

s rely, v

\ ' . ['- ',

,~

LOWELL P.'-WEICKER, JR."

Governor-LW/sd-

l' /

4,A? % M P;-

. $/w & suu^wj, G, h k

$ ,Q"; ',L,~-

ZQVb. ,, <j M.a r .y E11en M.nrucci , - /

fi

, t l

)

j.

104 Brownell Street New Haven, CT. 06511

f. f "

• ? 7b'_b.

c'-

t l

i (203) 387-6937 y

r yk' 1 June, 1992 Hon. Lowell Weicker, Governor s i

State Capitol -

Hartford, CT. 06106 ,'d s

Dear Governor Weicker:

On May 28, 1992, I tried to reach you on a most urgent matter. Because you or Eunice Groark were not immediately available. I contacted the attorney General's Office and spoke to Kevin Melaine. He suggested I contact my Senators. After contacting Senator Lieberman's office, a message was left me that Senator Lieberman had " faxed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission." I requested that they send a copy of his fax to the A.G.'s office.

Attorney Melaine had asked to sec it and he told me that he had notified your office and the Commissioner of DEP to ask if you wished the AG office to become involved. Neither he nor !

I felt there was time to find expert witnesses to show probable cause for concern that immediate danger to the-public health and safety exists when the NRC grants the amendment to Northeast Utilities Millstone 11 License on May 29th.

This amendment will allow Northeast Utilities to use the spent fuel pool at that plant for a full core download after the spent fuel pool has been found defective in design. Also, the amendment will. allow that pool to be used for the first time for moving and storing more highly enriched fuel when they reload the core.

The NRC has traditionally ruled that any requests for design changes-to the spent fuel pools does not constitute a sign'ficant. hazards risk. Therefore our requests for hearing and intervenor status, whether granted or denied, would in no way affect the company from proceeding as if no significant hazard existed.

The deadline for asking for a hearing was May 28,1992 so I moved quickly and requested not only a hearing and intervenor status, but that an extension be allowed so that the use of the spent fuel pool would not be allowed until we had time to submit expert witness and our concerns. I asked for a 10 day extension. John Stolt: of NRC denied my request and I was informed that the NRC would deliver the amendment to the spent fuel pool on May 29th at noon. 5 l

Later that day I spoke again with Mr. Stol . He said t ha t a

, final ruling would be made to address some of the concerns ! and i

s

.~

s- l

,0 . . . . . . .~ .

- .a i

4 everal other people made and1that decision would be made Monday or Tuesday (June 1 or 2).

I feel, because of the enormity of the damage to life and property a spent fuel pool release accident can cause. that ny request for an extension of 10 days is not unreasonable, Tna errors found in the design and operation of the spent fuel pool in February 1992 terrified me. A criticality could-have occurred if other problems had occurred at the same time, .

a llowing a chain reaction to begin in the waste and could have resulted in release of t he . rad i oac'. . v i ty of that pool which is at least four times the radioactivity of an operating nuclear plant causing destruction much-greater than Chernobyl.

The fact that the proposed corrective actions were not being tested, and the mathematical corrections proposed by the company and the original designer (ABB-Combustion Engineering) were not being ind spendent ly- ana lyzed- does not seem ,

-spropriate.

That the pool capacity had already been increased in 1986 and in 1988 by packing the fuel closer together and by.an experimental program.of reconcentrating the spent fuel before ceracking, make,that pool an ongoing experiment. I was further-shocked by the company's request, granted by the.NRC on May 20, 1992, that all criticality monitors be removed from-that particular pool. In October of 1931, the NCC granted NU's request that all criticallity monitors be removed from all et their spent fuel pools, in actuality they were never there.

This specific request for removal of the criticality monitors was granted on May 20, 1990 atter the Millatena '

se!

waa : cec to have and error of 5% in its Keff calculations - if it were not for the fact that the' pool' had boron poison in its water, a factor the NRC does not allow in figuring its margin of safety, the Criticality chain-reaction-could have started.

Criticality monitors are, if I understand correctly, neutron flux measuring equipment and they:never were used.in that pool or any-other pool of NU ownership in Connecticut. I've been told that the only fuel pool where they exist is in the new fuel pool at Millstone 1. This means that the unit li pool is part of an experiment.

In addition to the risk-of criticality-in that pool,'there is also a risk of coolant water loss and a chemical reaction-occurring, releasing vast amounts of Cesium 137 andLStrontium 190. This risk occurs every time-the fuel is moved into or out or the reactor core. On June 14 NU will move all of the fuel out of the reactor so.they can begin replacement of the steam generators. On refueling they will move back-2/3 of the old fuel and 1/3 will be new fuel of a much higher enrichment than has ever been used in that plant.

When I spoke to John Stole. I told him that the risk. even

l very small, was unjustified because the damage would be

.xtremely large and there were other methods of fuel storace that would not entail these risks. He informed me that ne olant would be considered for dry cask storage until it ran out at space in its pool. I feel that for the safety of Connecticut and surrounding states that this matter needs to be immediately investigated and these riskbearing, downloading. loading and use of this pool be investigated before this plant is allow to continue business as usual.

I hope that you can take steps to ensure that Connecticut is represented in the appeal for an investigation into the safety and prudence of future use of pools for storage of high-level waste in Connecticut.

/

Immediately. I would hope you would take whatever action is '

necessary to prevent NU from proceeding with this risky action "

at M!!! stone 11. Also, if the risks of a spent fuel pool accident to the public is not quantified, I would appreciate your requesting the state Health Department to begin an immediate study.

Sincerely.

. $W '

M 'A .

MARY ELLEN MARUCCl CC.

Hon. R. Blumenthal Connecticut Consumer Counsel Public Citizen. Inc.

Hon. J. Lieberman

. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - _ . l

N

=

.; 'M

• 'o,, UNITED STATES - '.

p*Y[

[- :g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

-g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$$$

-k- ,e8 EDO Principal Correspondence Control - - d-30 v FROM: DUE: 07/10/92 EDO CONTROL: 0007856 r DOC-DT:.06/12/92

. FINAL-REPLY:

GOV. LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

.TO:

CHAIRMAN SELIN FOR SIGNATURE CF: ** GRN ** CRC NO: 92-0515

=R Aurley DESC: ROUTING: i ENCLOSES LETTER-FROM MARY ELLEN MARUCCI CONCERNING TAYLOR:

MILLSTONE 2-LICENSE' AMENDMENT SNIEZEK THOMPSON  ;

-DATE: 06/23/J2 BLAHA:

'TMARTIN, RI ASSIGNED 'O: //- CONTACT: /4 win f/ fA F- LA*4MEftb SPECIA- INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: 4

-RESPOND DIRECT TO MS. MARUCCI WITH CC-TO GOVERNOR -l WEICKER. -PREPARE-RESPONSE-ALONG THE LINES OF THE ATTACHED LETTER TO SEN. LIEEERMAN'FROM.OCA. l g ,y ge e: cy v w 2 9.i99 P ggggv . H N e % % g*

~MN If/W49

-/?b d i y -

47piu/<k-

.uu20 ' ACTION DUE T0 NRR DIRECTOR'S 0FFICE

,Ndl

%F n/N- '% } ql7/qg BY -

_m_._ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . - . . - _ _ . . -

'. l OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET-l

4. PAPER NUMBER: CRC-92-0515 LOGGI:1 DATE: Jun 22 92 ACTION OFFICE: - gh O AUTHOR: GOV LOWELL WEICKER AFFILIATION: CT, GOVERNOR I

ADDRESSEE: CHAIRMAN SELIN LETTER DATE: Jun 12 92 FILE CODE: ID&R-5 MILLSTONE

) SUBJECT 4 FORWARDS CONST CORRES RE THE NORTHEAST UTILITIES NUCLEAR MILLSTONE II PLANT l ACTION: Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION: ,

SPECIAL HANDLING: SP TO ACK CONSTITUENT:

NOTES:

DATE DUE

Jul 7 92 i

l SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED:

j AFFILIATION:

l 4

d 4-4 EDO --- 007856

'I A -C 4tG 3 - l) .c o

. __ __ _ ._ _ . _ _ . - . . _ _ ___