BECO-85-213, Provides Update on Status of Testing of Items Covered by Util 850923 Environ Qualification Extension Request
| ML20245C454 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1985 |
| From: | Harrington W BOSTON EDISON CO. |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20244D847 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-88-198 BECO-85-213, NUDOCS 8904270162 | |
| Download: ML20245C454 (25) | |
Text
n---_-._- - _ __
n 6
6 4 BOSTON EDISON COMPANT' sod eovtatow minrcy gestow. Mass ACHuscTTs Q2199 wlLLIAes p. HAmmieg3 TON November 26. 1985 BECo 85-213 Dr. N: J. Palladino, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission b Washington, D. C. 20555 License 09R-35 5 .
Docket 50-293 s,
Pilgrin Nuclear Pcwer Station Unit #1 k
Subject:
Environmental Qualification Extension Reatest g
Reftrences: 1) BEco Letter 85-170 dated September 23, 1985,
< W. D. Harrington to N. J. Palladino GJ
% 2) BECo Letter 85-196 dated October 30, 1985.
- W. D. Harrington to N. J. Palladino g
O E' 3) BECo Letter 85-207 dated November 15, 1985, de W. D. Harrington to D. B. Vassallo Ce
@]
Dear Chairman Palladino:
8w
"* This letter will provide an update on the status of testing of those items o >! covered by Boston Edison's environmental qualification entension request dated
". d Septeiter 23, 1985 (Reference 1). Based upon the information presented below
- " and in previous testing updates (References 2 and 3) and given the immediacy
- J of the November 30, 1985 deadline, Boston Edison requests prompt Commission g action granting its extension request.
As presented in our initial extension request (Reference 1), there were five items of equipment (consisting of 15 individual components) for which an
. - extension was requested. All of the items were expected to be qualified by testing which was scheduled before November 30, 1985. Assuming all testing was successful, a'l would require at least a short extension for completion of documentation of successful test results. Contingency plans and alternative extension dates were identified in the' event testing proved unsuccessful.
As of this date, it appears that four of the five items (Items 1, 2, 4 and 5) have been successfully tested ar.d the only remaining concern is completion of documentation files for which an extension of February 8, 1986 15 requested.
Information reflecting the dates of those tests and the requested extension dates is rentained in Attachment 1.
l As discussed in Reference 3, the final item, the General Electric and Electrotwitch Control Switches, was tested successfully in the closed contact configuration but was not tested in the open contact configuration due to test S
U h 2 890419 JOHNSONBB-t98 pop L_ ___ _
\
1 t
y l I BOS a ED SON COMPANv .)
Dr. N. J. Palladino, Chairman ;
November 26, 1985 I Page 2 1
lab error. The test lab rescheduled 22, 1985:
the test for the open contact however, on that date tne superheated f configuration for November //
steam test chamber experienced a failure and is currentiy awaiting repa-tr.
~
tee bed information currently available is that the superneateo steam test cM-wl4Lnot_Se_repairyPUntM Ine week15asco of December upon the9,1955 test of af theterswitches wnich' in time the proper test can be conducted.as other tests of similar equipment, there is h e closed contTtt mode'Ks well a high degree of confidence the test will prove successful. Boston Eoison i Ec9tinues to analyze contingency of an unsuccessful test result, which !
. '. : P,olve replaciw the control switches with qualified replacements.
In order to meet the immediate deadline and to resolve what appears the most probable cutcome of the scheduled re-test, Boston Edison would request that the same February 8,1986 extension for completion of qualification be granted Such extension would be for the control switches as for the other items.
based upon an initial period until approximately December 20, 1985 for completion of testing in the open contact modeBostonfollowed by theagree Edison would remaining to keep the period for completion of documentation. Staff closely informed of the schedule for test as well as any contingency plan should that be required.
In conclusion, Boston Edfson requests an extension until february 8, 1926 for each of the five items identified in its initial extension request (Reference 1). In each case the extension is necessitated In bythe thecase late receipt of testing of one item, the results and the need to complete documentation.
centrol switches, the need for the extension is compounded by a need for a scheduled extension tos cerform final testing which was delayed by a test lab error and the recent failure of the superheated test chamber, all of which It were completely unforeseen and beyond Boston Edison's reascnable control.
short, we believe the criteria for granting of an extenston as set forth in Generic Letter 85-15 have been met, and we request the Commission's prompt
) favorable consideration.
i J !
Should the Comrission or the Staff have any questions regarding this extension .
l request as~modiried, please contact me.
Very truly yours, cc: Commissioner J. K. Asselstine Commissioner F. M. Bernthal Commissioner T. M. Roberts Commissioner L. H. Zech Mr. H. J. Dircks Mr. H. R. Denton Dr. T. E. Nurley Fr. H. L. Thompson Mr. D. B. Vassallo
~t n a a a a a a t t o
s t
n t
n t
n t
n n n a e e e e e e e m m m m m m R u u u u u u c c c c c c o o o o o o D D D D D D d
6 e 8t 9a 1 u l
,a 8v d E e y t rg s an e ui u re q bB e e R
- F -
t 6 6 6 6 6 s n 8 8 8 - l 8 8
- e o 9 9 9 u 9 9 u i 1 1 1 l f 1 1 q s us n
e . . . f s ,
R e 8 8 8 se 8 8 t sc y y y y ec y n x r r cu r r i
o E r a a a cs a a s u u u un u u n r r r sU r r e b b b b b t e e e ff e e x F F F I I F F E
I y b
T N d l l E e l u
l u
l u u u M r f f H e s f f f v u s s s g s s C s s A
! C o t a
s e
s e
s e i n
e e T t c c c d c c S c c c n c c A t u u u e u u n S S P S S e S '
m p
i u
q -
E e 5 5 55 5 t 5 a 8 8 5 8 38 8 f /
o D /
5
/
2 /
8 /
0
//
36 6 s t 2 2 9 2 22 2
/ / / /
u s / /
0
/
2 0 t e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a T 1 1 1 1 t
S
- e t
. r c d u sa t c
n t et n I a h n a o l r
e co tC t
tr o
i t e p i p v m wd C s i e e S e s e r l s T s s n e l c e e l o e p
l b
b a
s yh ih ol e ac ac rC O a C D wt st t C ri ni n S aw ew o) ) 1 5
I S
YS FS Ca b
)
t s
e l u
.aq 3ne NiRg 2 3 4 5 min 1 er o t Oi s I
mn oe rt r
F :
'86 99:44 WRC KING OF PRUSSIR-2 P02 '~~l' h)U
///M/06 e
Doctet Wo. 50-293
,.J CFR 2.206)
The Honor 6ble William B. Golden Massachusetts State Senate Boston, MA 02133
Dear Mr. Golden:
This is in further response to your Petition of July 15, 1986 requesting that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission order the Boston Edison Company to show cause why the P11gein Nuclear Power Station should not remain closed or have its operating license suspended hy WRC until the licenses demonstrates that the issues raised by you have been resolved. Your Petition is based on allegations of: (2) numerr.,us deficiencies in licensee manegement, (2) (nadequacy of the extst?ng radiological emergency response plan, and (3) inherent deficiencies in the facility's containment structure. You also request that we require the licenses to s@ett a feasibility study on all possible structural modifications prior to MRC approval of specific modification proposals.
Ptigria is presently in a shuth status and we have been informed by the licanset that it will not be ready to commence start-up until April 1967.
Start-up will not be permitted until the NRC determines that there is reaso,able assurance that the public health and safety will be protected.
That determination will involve consideration of the licenset's readiness to operate the f ac!11ty including licensee management, emergency planning and containment issues related to those outlined in your petition.
W believe that it would be more meaningful to forinally respond t m r Petition af ter the licensee has had an opportunity to addrest in s , wtlined in your petition and the NRC has had an opportunity to review the itcensee's
. actions.
Concerning your request that WRC schedule a comprehensive p211c hearing to address the issues raised in the Petition, we would be happy to meet irith you and other petitioners to discuss these cetters as well as the overall status of WPC's regulatory activities at pilgrim Our philadelphia Regional Office will contact you to further discuss this star and' te arrange for an appro-priate time and setting.
Sincerely, James M. Taylor, Direct,o?
Office of Inspect 1on and Enforcement y af g&w
[f . p &~C 'M l
7 d!$6 e,4G4 6 -lb?
e vid c :
ppic 7 M 9159t p w
, DRAFT i
l August 28, 1987 l
Dear Congressman Studds:
As you may recall, the NRC wrote to you on May 21, 1987 regarding the emergency response plan for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station and the Show l Cause Petition submitted by Massachusetts State Senator William B. Golden, and {
others, on July 15, 1986. In that letter we agreed to provide you the results !
of the FEMA review and a copy of the NRC response to the Petition. )j FEMA completed its review of the overall state of emergency preparedness at Pilgrim and provided NRC a copy of its report on August 6,1987 (Cnclosure 1). The results of that review are sunrnarized, as follows:
Based on their self-initiated review, FEMA identified six issues regarding offsite emergency planning and has concluded that Massachusetts offsite emergency planning and preparedness are inadequate to protect the public health and safety in the eve-t of an accident at Pilgrim. The six issues identified by FEMA involve ti.e evacuation of schools, a reception center for evacuees, the beach, special needs and transportation dependent populations, and the overall lack of general progress in emergency planning.
In its report, FEMA presents an evaluation of each of the issues including the necessary actions required to correct the identified issues. FEMA also evaluated each of the emergency preparedness issues identified in Senator Golden's Petition and found that the Petitioners' contentions could not be sustained.
On August 21, 1987, Dr. Murley signed an Interim Director's Decision in response to the July 15, 1986 Petition regarding Pilgrim filed by Massachusetts State Senator William B. Golden and others (Enclosure 2). The Petitioners requested a show cause Order for Pilgrim shutdown due to: (1) numerous deficiencies in the licensee's management, (2) inadequacies in the existing radiological emergency response plan, and (3) inherent deficiencies in the facility's containment structure. The Director's Decision pmvided the following conclusions:
l 1. The NRC has required, and will continue to require, that the Pilgrim I
facility remain shut down until the management and emergency preparedness issues are dealt with to the satisfaction of the NRC.
- 2. A decision cannot be made at this time regarding the management issues. (This portion of the Petition will be addressed in a subsequent response.) .
l
- 3. Based on the FEM 4 evaluation of the emergency preparedness issues raised by the Petitioners, the Petitioners' request for action on this issue is denied. However, in view of FEMA's interim finding that j Massachusetts offsite radiological emergency planning and preparedness
, are inadequate to protect the public health and safety, the Comission I will consider, among other issues, corrective actions regarding emergency planning issues identified by FEr4A before permitting the restart of the Pilgrim Plant.
[h
l
)
t,
-7 4 The. infomation identified by the Petition does not' warrant the initiation of the requested proceedings in regard to the containment issues, and the Petitioners' request is denied.
As ' stated above, the management issues will require a subsequent response to the Petitioners. We will provide you a copy of that response when it is issued.
Sincerely, e
Enclosures:
As stated I
l
. 3 Document Name:
- i CONGRESSMAN STUDDS q
Requestor's ID:
MARLEY 0
Author's Name: h RWessman 8/28/87 ,
k.
Document Comments: ) k DRAFT
.(
I (
/pj/h i c
j ?-
phf,* I i
l 3
1 G
- f
[p*MG 'o g UNITED STATES
. e g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5s.g),"c.j cg 3 j Lb WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 g
% J )h
% %O n/g The Honorable Michael S. Dukakis Commonwealth of Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts 02133
Dear Governor Dukakis:
l I am pleased to respond to your letter of December 17, 1987, in which you forwarded the recent report of Secretary Barry concerning the status of emer-cency preparedness at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. You expressed concern recarding a number of emergency preparedness and plant-related issues at Pilgrim that remain to be resolved, and req'uested a clarification of the specific steps the NRC will take to ensure that the concerns identified in the 1986 and 1987 reports by Secretary Barry will be satisfactorily addressed before restart. You also restated the position of the Commonwealth of Massa-chusetts that an ad.iudicatory hearing be held before any decision is reached on the plant's future.
The inadequacies in emeraency planning and preparedness at Pilgrim have been well documented by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in its self-initiated review. That review was based on information provided by Comon-wealth and local of#icials, members of the public, and ether sources, including the 1996 Barry report. With the assistance of the licensee, the Commonwealth, ;
the local governments within the emergency planning zone (EPZ), and the two emergency reception center communities are in the process of implementing ;
numerous improvements in their emergency response programs. These improvements include the revision of the local emergency plans, revision of the Massachu-setts Civil Defense Agency Area II plan as well as the Commonwealth's State-wide plan, the development of revised procedures, the development and 4 implementation of training programs for offsite officials and emeroency person-nel, and the upgrading of Emergency Operation Centers in each of the towns i within the EPZ and reception center comunities. The NRC is closely monitoring the licensea's restart program, including the licensee's efforts to assist offsite authorities in improving their emergency response programs. We believe extensive progress has beea made to date, but we recognize that additional effort will be required before all corrective actions are completed.
In letters to Congressman Gerry E. Studds dated November 20 and November 24, 1987, I indicated some of the steps the NRC has taken and plans to take before considering restart. The NRC staff has held several meetings with Commonwealth and local officials regarding the Pilgrim situation. Future efforts will include a public meeting in the Plymouth area to receive public conenents on the I Boston Edison restart plan, a second public meeting in the Plymouth area to provide feedback to the public on the disposition of comments and concerns raised in the first meeting, and a public meeting between the NRC senior staff and State Senator William Golden and the other petitioners who submitted the July 1986 10 CFR 2.206 Petition. In addition, Senator Edward M. Kennedy has scheduled a hearing before the Senate 1. abor and Human Resources Corfunittee at
[ /07
l...
N. The Honorable Michael S. Dukakis which the NRC will previde testimony on the NRC consideration of a Pilgrim restart request. Other meetinos and forums open to the public will be held as circumstances warrant during the course of our review of the licensea's readi-ness to restart Pilorim. As I have previous 1v indicated, I believe thic series cf meetir.cs will be more meaningful than a formal evidentiary hearing in informino the public and Commonwealth and local officials of the NRC's decisions.
I assure, ' that the NRC will not permit the restart of the Pilgrim plant until ,1 the issues raised during the facility's prolonged shutdown are r 'e to our satisfaction.
. Nets 4 Sincerely, Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Enclosures:
- 1. Ltr. fm L. W. Zech to G. E. Studds dtd. 11/20/87
- 2. Ltr. fm L. W. Zech to G. E. Studds dtd. 11/94/87 8
. The Ponorable Michael S. Dukakis which the NRC will provide testinony on the NRC consideration of a Pilorin restart request. Other meetings and forums open to the public wil' be held as circumstances warrant during the course of our review of the licentee's readi-ness to restart Pilgrim. As I have previously indicated, I believe this series of meetinos will be more meanirgful than a formal evidentiary hearina in inforning the public and Commonwealth and local officials of the NRC's decisions.
I assure you that the NRC will not permit the restart of the Pilarim plant until all the issues raised during the facility's prolonged shutdown are resolved to our satisfaction.
S i ncere1.y, Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Enclosures:
1 Ltr. fm L. W. Zech to G. E. Studds dtd. 11/20/87
- 2. Ltr. fn L. W. Zech to G. E. Studds dtd. 11/24/P?
DISTRIBUTION:
V5tello, EDO C0 Thomas, NRR JMTaylor, EDO JLBlaha, NRR TRehm, EDO FJCongel, NRR '
JPMurray, OGC DBMatthews, NRR WTRussell, RI RJBarrett, NRR TEMurley, NRR LJCunningham, NRR JHSniezek, NRR CRVan Niel. NRR ADT/P-415 FKantor, NRR FJMiraglia, NRR DFMossburg, NRR - EDO 3372 FGillespie, NRR MCBridgers, ED0-337R SECY NO: 1410 MECoons, NRR 87-112 (EDO 3377)
RHWessman, NRR PDR RRBellamy, RI PEPB R/F ARBlough, RI Central Files RTHogan, NRR
)
EDO OCM VStello LWZech 19/ /87 12/ /87 by telecon PEPB/NRR TECH ED C/PEPB/NRR PDI-3/NRR D/DREP/NRR A/ADT D/NRR FKantor:sc AThomas DBMatthews RHWessnan F1Concel JHSniezek TEMurley 12/ /87 12/?3/87 12/ /87 12/23/87 17/ /87 1P/ /87 12/ /87
',t
. 2,55iGy
- o, UNITED STATES
'( l' y i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
' ...** % fpD s./t(; , ~
The Honerable John Kerry United States Senate Washington, DC ?0510
Dear Senator Kerry:
I am responding to your October 23, 1987 letter, in which you urced the Nuclear Regulatory Comission to convene a formal and comprehensive hearing on the restart of the Pilgrim Nuclear Powar Station. The Comission is fully aware nf public concern regarding restart of the Pilgrim facility and has gone to unusual lengths to assure broad public participation in the restart decision.
The NRC staff, State and local officials in Massachusetts have engaged in a, continuing dialogue on the Pilgrim situation. This dialogue has included at least three public meetings with the Plymouth Board of Selectmen, as well as meetings with the Plymouth Chamber of Comerce, the Duxbury Board of Selectmen, the Massachusetts Joint Comittee on Energy, the Massachusetts Legislative Comittee on the Investigation and Study of the Pilgrim Station, the Town of Plymouth Advisory Committee on Nuclear Matters, and others. Most recently, the NRC staff participated in a public forum on the Pilgrim situation at the Duxbury High School on October 29, 1987. This meeting was sponsored by the Duxbury Board of Selectmen.
Representatives from some of these groups also have participated in NRC Region I management meetings dealing with the Pilgrim facility, including the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) meetina held on May 7, 1987. On October 8, 1987, the NRC met with representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ir. our Region I office. This meetina, which was open for public observation, was held to discuss agenda items proposed by the Commonwealth, including emergency preparedness issues, the status of various NRC technical reviews, and inspection activities expected in the next few months.
As tf.e NRC proceeds with deliberations regarding restart of the Pilgrim reacter, additional public meetings will be held in lieu of the evidentiary hearino you have requested. These meetings will be formal, transcribed sessions where the public's testimony will be heard by NRC management. The following meetings are planned:
e
(
The Honorable John Kerry 2-
- 1. A public meeting will be held in the Plynouth area to receive public comments on the Boston Edison Restart Plan. The Restart Plan was recently received by the staff and a meeting will be scheduled after the NRC has placed it in local public libraries for public review. NRC staff will alsn accept written testimony from those unable to attend the meeting.
NRC will consider these comments, as appropriate, for enhancing NRC review and inspection activities.
- 2. A second public meetino will be held in the Plynnuth area to discuss the disposition of comments and concerns raised during the first meeting.
- 3. Before an NRC position on restart of the plant is developed in final forn, a public meeting will be held between NRC senior staff and State Senator William Golden and the other petitioners who submitted the July 1986 10 CFR 2.206 Petition. This meeting will address NRC's actions regarding the Pilgrim plant and answer questions o' the petitioners. -
Other public meetings, including those with Boston Edison, will be held as circumstances warrant. These meetings will be announced pursuant to NRC staff policy on open meetings (43 FR 28058). After the staff completes its reviews and before the NRC allows Pilarim to restart, the Comission will hold a public meeting to be briefed by the staff on the readiness of Pilgrim to resume enerations.
The Commission believes it has demonstrated its commitment to comprehensive public participation in the Pilgrin restart decision. "oreover, it is l our view that when the series of planned public meetings is completed, -
we will have heard and considered the views of mere concerned citizens than would have been likely in a formal hearing.
Sincerely.-
Lando W. Zech, Jr.
JFC :DRPR:PDI. :DRPR:PDlA : TECH ED :DRPR:DIR :ADPR :NRR:DIR :0GC-BE
.....:... ...:............:... g ....:............:............:............:..L. 4..yHty N 1AME :RHW 'ssman:1m:BABoger y'4
- : SAVarga :FJMiraglia :TEMurley : L. C 62 tor'
.....:............:............:.A...r %.. .
....:............:............:............:..... g h
{
SATE :11/13/87 :11/ /87 :11/ O/87 w :11/ /87 :11/ /87 :11/ /87 :11/ a/87 JFC :RE ION I :EDO :GPA/CA : : : :
iAF ?. In.. ..:............:............:............:............:............:...........
- VStello : :
l
.M ' A ...:...........
' 1 ATE :11/ 0/87 :11/ /87
- 11/ /87 :
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
3
(
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File (50-293)
NRC PDR w/cy.of incoming Local'PDR w/cy of incoming EDO#003277-EDO Reading T. Murley/J. Sniezek FMiraglia PDI-3 r/f w/cy of incoming SAVarga (2)
OGC-BETH GPA/CA SECY 1270 VStello DMossburg, PMAS (ED0#003277) w/cy of incoming MRushbrook
' RHWessman w/cy of incoming PDI-3 Green Ticket File
. RStarostecki CThomas JBlaha -
JTaylor TRehm JMurry WRussell RBlough, RI LChandler, DGC WPaton, DGC i
I l
l J
o i
, i 1
84;
, 1 1
-b ' DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File (50-293) <
~1 o'~ NRC-& Local _PDRs(w/ incoming) :
EDO #003523 1 EDO Reading TMurley/JSniezek
- FMiraglia PDI-3 Readin
- 5AVarga;(2) g (w/ incoming)
LBABoger
- 0GC E
GPA/CA.
SECY' VStello DMossburg,PMAS'(ED0-003523)~(w/ incoming)
DMcDonald (w/ incoming)-
.MRushbrook
. _RHWessman PStohr
'JTaylor
'TRehm-
- WCParler-JMurray WTRussell' JWiggins
- ~ - FGillespie ADT t
Y i
L u.,__.-______-_m___..____a. - _ - - -
f .:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman Committee on Labor and Human Resources
' United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am responding to your February 17, 1988 letter, in which you again urged the Nuclear Regulatory Comission to convene a formal and comprehensive hearing on the restart of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. You also raised five recoicerdations regarding Pilgrim for the Comission's consideration.
In regard to hearings, on November 20, 1987 the Commission responded to you and Congressman Studds regarding formal hearings on Pilgrim. We have carefully reviewed the approach we ere following in our consideration of a restart decision or: Pilgrim. We believe we are giving close attention to the public health and safety matters involving this facility and providing abundant opportunity for public participation in our regulatory process. In regard to the five recommendations you raised, our coments on them are provided in the enclosure to this letter.
As I wrote you in November, the Comission is very much aware of public concern regarding restart of the Pilgrim facility and has gone to unusual lengths to ensure that there is extensive public participation in the restart decision. A number of public meetings have been held in the vicinity of the Pilgrim facility.
These have involved the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and ?ocal officials, as well as members of the public. The most necent meeting, which was coordinated with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and allowed participation by many interested members of the public, was held in Plymouth on February 18, 1988 to receive public comments on the Pilgrim Restart Plan. Meetings of this nature allow even broader public participation than the formal evidentiary hearing you requested.
The Commission remains comitted to comprehensive public participation in the Pilgrim restart decision. We believe the activities described above, in our recent correspondence, and in the enclosure address the concerns you raised.
xpo
< $ The Herorable Edward M. Kennedy As noted in the enclosure, we would be pleased to have you appear before the Commission to present your views regarding Pilgrim.
Sincerely, Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Enclosure:
Responses to Recommendations l
l
\
s RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS i
Recommendation 1. Until we receive satisfactory answers to the ouestion whether there is a link between cancer and nuclear power, the Pilgrim plant should not be permitted to restart. l Response 1. The NRC staff has reviewed the epidemiological study entitled,
" Health Surveillance of the Plymouth Area," which was performed by the Massachusetts Department of Health and referenced in the enclosure to your ;
letter. The study reports detecting an increased incidence of leukemia cases j in five towns in the vicinity of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. Because many i factors other than the Pilgrim plant could cause this increase, the authors of ;
the study state that the cause of the increased incidence has not been determined.
The staff agrees with the authors' statement.
The effects of radiation on living systems have been studied for decades by J individual scientists as well as by select committees that have been formed to objectively and independently assess the risks from radiation. These studies were considered in the development of the public health and safety limits that apply to the Pilgrin plant, as well as to other nuclear power plants. Some of ,
these studies have found a statistically significant increase in certain types of cancers for doses and dose rates higher than those encountered in the vicinity of nuclear power plants. The studies have not detected a statistically significant increase in cancer for doses and dose rates 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. NRC limits are selected so that the statistical probability of risk is extremely low.
Thus, the staff has found that on the basis of the substantial data available in the area of health effects from exposure to radiation, it is not appropriate to delay restarting the Pilgrim plant pending completion of further study to determine if there is a link between certain types of cancer and commercial nuclear power generation.
Until there is an evacuation plan which is approved by the Recommendation 2.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and is acceptable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the plant should not be permitted to restart.
Response 2. The NRC will not permit the Pilgrim facility to resume operation i until corrective actions satisfactory to NRC have been taken to address the {
emergency planning deficiencies identified by FEMA. The NPC will give special ,
attention to the corrective actions involving the emergency plans for schools and day care centers, as well as for special needs and transport-dependent ,
populations in the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone. Before I allowing Pilgrim to restart, the NRC will require some demonstration that critical aspects of the emerqency plan can be adequately implemented.
I l
( o l
4 2 Under the NRC's regulatory framework, whether an outstanding emergency planning deficiency delays restart will depend on the gravity of the deficiency, the nature of any compensatory actions, and progress toward correction of the deficiency. Thus, it may be that restart can be authorized with some emergency planning issues not fully resolved. For Pilgrim, the restart decision will be made by the Commissioners.
Recommendation 3. Members of the Commission should make an on-site visit to the Pilgrim plant to assess for themselves the merits of the serious health and safety prcblems which have been raised.
Response 3. The Commissioners have been personally and directly involved in the consideration of the Pilgrim issues. Three of the Commissioners and I have made visits to Pilgrim during 1987. I expect that we will make additional visits there in 1988.
Recommendation 4. Prior to any consideration of whether the Pilgrim plant should be permitted to restart, Commission members should convene a public meeting to receive first-hand testimony from State and local officials and experts from the Plymouth area. 4 Response 4. As I described to you in my letter of November 20, 1987, the NRC is holding several meetings in the Plymouth area regarding Pilgrim. These meetings are open to the public ant are structured to allow the broadest possible public participation. The first of these meetings was held on February 18, 1988 and provided an opportunity fnr State and local officials, as well as members of the public, to provide their views to the staff. The Commonwealth was consulted and agreed to the scheduling and purpose of these meetings but did not participate, although approximately 50 members of the public provided comments regarding the Pilgrim Restart Plan and other matters of individual concern. We intend to conduct followup public meetings in the <
Plymouth area to discuss the disposition of coments and concerns raised during 4 i
the February 18, 1988 meeting.
The Commission is continuing to involve Commonwealth and local officials, and leaders of local citizens groups, in public meetings regarding Pilgrim. Most l recently, on February 9, 1988, a senior member of the NRC staff met with the l Massachusetts Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, State Senator William Golden, i and others to discuss the Commission's approach towards the restart readiness assessment of Pilgrim. An additional meeting with Senator Golden and others who submitted a July 1986 10 CFR 2.206 Petition is planned.
Other public meetings will be held as circumstances warrant. These will include meetings in which the Pilgrim licensee, the Boston Edison Company, will participate. l The Commission will also hold a public meeting in Washington, D.C., to be briefed by the staff on the readiness of Pilgrim to resume operations. The staff will provide a full accounting of its recommendations and supporting bases in relation to the restart of the Pilgrim station during this meeting.
.y ,
s 'In Summary, the staff has and is continuing to afford the opportunity for the level of public participation suggested in your comment.
Recommendation 5. Finally, I request that in my capacity as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and. Human Resources, with experience concerning, and responsibility for, the health and safety issues involved, I be given the opportunity to appear before the Commission to present information on this issue, prior to any Commission deliberation on the question whether the Pilgrim plant should be permitted to restart.
Response 5. The Conmission would be pleased to have the Senator appear before
.the Commission to present his views regarding Pilgrim. Our staff will be in contact with your staff regarding schedule arrangements.
1 l
i
q
. . .. a J
% i 8 , e .
( ,I
[
I ,1 CoCb1h ketd I !
+. -n a t At yt +%q,en
%kI c n.rt; m J-r o,
t <. '
,g #'
[(j ( #] g ..
- f k.
7' j_a
._...Y .
t N S z s'c
. . x l ' ', 3 vc d,'i h w d'~rg,
_ w w U h , % d 5 < r v L ; 3 l c m .(
. _.~ . hr l#r AA10Actc 1 c. n&.--6i -- - s,L Lb!, b c .
?!Ayins4%m.aam. 0 oncgd L,nce.
w e -
o,c (.m /\'sr--
aI s'g/}ihxg ed e ., ck!
1 O n uea4rdma, ,vg \sIwws,..ssk p.,e m
v <Aog s s o c 5 wC (..O **
A n:y<L&a MDi& cus .wg s
-%n / c44, g u w.o x.. ,
- 4' O
+ ~ , . .. .hac h,. . . ( U> , - i h a-
< t . .-r
~
w' p
~. ,
kh b b(w $ t CR MS yn kJM .+kpd Q' { n L m rsL A 5' E
.- aq' & a - c L -%3: 6 q
- c M.
Of $rn ~,
u - 4 f{
4 A,me_
^^~~
l 6 M k f a-& 4Gg 4 ,
D v$. %
\r & LW $5 - CL e- - -
-0
'e .
.I'
.\
) k fh C* ?
cv sm- . wul o uud u.s %...t.cp g'de srJn -
d\ hw 'e OL
,%' Qo cw, \ c,h !
A" ? hg.$kcfE K 'O. >
h~
m4 t y '
' ,ud d ~
- R7.-rehyMg64d-evs.t; A %
u u, a 4 pt&. uf6, an d @ qm <f ns M y 1 A - 1 14 m Aue.J, ..J
'Yo u NkN' b~$}'k' lZ,tsr0,4 ed s s rg pagad.w. y Log eld a, m 1 Lutr 79 3 e L A ' m ,u 4 .L t c la\ re 12s , ic h S i um.8 co b A lyf m(
a A. + v3 awA Lt gry
.t1g m4 /<+g_2:~ylqu< NNg Hm,% %
s ,s w ', \ c^' A' <.t fes) e bJ <-4 % yip ag <L r..dMgJJw/3) %r (Lt.0m._ trP q y r, n A e L L S 1I ua % ,s L % A 49 i
i j
a O*8 I
f 1> % h %\ r lC
- wan wul.c. A w un -
, c4 sw w'M* p.Tpq(w,[ m4 ~
A+ - ' A tt dS AM.T _34 ~
nAp-vm@,4_
d d w
- As pag.J,rd y 2L % d _ .
W tl, V.c , uw M~g4<hY6E.~f -% A4nfkL< .
L yw44t>rLfjH/w[sAue-hfW.;A WM J A q s m gab. p wg n akh ra, ,
k <<
LLtlT 79 3 SBI f Ioc ,m @/~
c loi rew 123 , io d wed cob A TM y3 I
o A . + v g ul u L.1 49 a J 1 m1 4 # + _g m Qld r ' t dr T L
% p Ll4T a(L k wh L.JLLd bJ 4 tb pd-pcJ~ptl %r 14 s ' r%. sh)
(,,LA._
aA, tm u t te JpAH AAf
'F Date ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP i TO: (Name, oWice symbol, room number, initials Date bonding, Agency / Post)
- 1. i S.
- 3. j 4.
5.
f Action File Note and Retum -
l Approval For Clearance Per Conversation As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply For Your Information See Me l Circulate Comment investigate Signature 1
Coordination Justify ftEMARKS 77 kg to GaYb Tc' t.cf hi) Sa( 'Y0d l"5 k w s f i is ( m T. s. c L g s ,
LC / 7[< [ d b ~ LOT b[ db h kM N '4 J
N3 d 3 Sdv d l N Y NY
- 6e.< 24 t< bu/2 - u/'g s G
~
f-edM P Gkl g61> to SV fLT ps Kw 00 NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposels, clearances, and similar actions FROM: (Name, org. symbol, Agency / Post) - Room No.--Bidg.
W & Cf$4 hf l-Pnone No.
5043-102 OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
- ac : 2982 o - ast-us um NRtYCM1Y1-11J06 f
- i
i
- f, ._.
am-RESTART STATUS bb M 11/23/87 LICENSEE RESTART b h M [D
. ACTION ASSESSMENT COMMISSION RESTART PLANT SHUTDOWN PLAN REPORT BRIEFING DECISION PILGRIM 04/12/86 10/26/87C 01/29/88E 02/12/88E 02/26/88E COMMENTS: RCS HYDRO IS EXPECTED IN LATE NOVEMBER AND ILRT IS EXPECTED IN EARLY DECEMBER. BECO IS STILL FORECASTING COMPLETION OF MOST OUTAGE ACTIVITIES BY DECEMBER. LOSS OF 0FFSITE POWER EVENT (11/12/87) AND STOP WORK ACTION (11/09/87) MAY DELAY COMPLETION OF ONSITE ACTIVITIES.
INITIAL REVIEW OF BECO RESTART PLAN IS IN PROGRESS AND IS EXPECTED TO TAKE UNTIL MID-DECEMBER. INTEGRATED TEAM ASSESSMENT OF UTILITY READINESS IS PLANNED FOR EARLY JANUARY 1988.
RESOLUTION OF 0FFSITE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ISSUES EXPECTED TO BE A MAJOR ISSUE. COMPLETION OF IMPROVED LOCAL PLANS IS NOT EXPECTED BEFORE 12/31/87. SUBMITTAL DATE OF COMMONWEALTH EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANS TO FEMA IS UNKNOWN. BECO HAS REQUESTED AN EXEMPTION FROM THE BIENNIAL EP EXERCISE (REQUIRED BY 12/31/87) UNTIL EARLY 1988.
.r/z- a 3
Cg gean _(.d o W
' (c4.nn su crc O' CJC h 425.
b- -y, E ?c RESTART STATUS G d6 8 Mio; 3/21/88 g4 LICENSEE COMMISSION ACTION .
BRIEFING- RESTART.
PLANT' SHUTDOWN PLAN NRR SER ING DECISION PILGRIM 04/12/86 10/26/87C 7/22/88* 08/01/88E* 08/15/88E*
COMMENTS: RCS HYDRO WAS. COMPLETED DECEMBER 10, 1987 AND THE ILRT WAS COMPLETED ON DECEMBER 24, 1987. BECO IS FORECASTING COMPLETION OF REFUELING .
OUTAGE NO. 7 ACTIVITIES BY THE END OF MARCH 1988.
INITIAL REVIEW OF BECO. RESTART PLAN IS IN PROGRESS AND IS EXPECTED TO TAKE UNTIL END OF MARCH 1988. LOCAL MEETINGS TO RECEIVE P.UBLIC COMMENTS ON RESTART PLAN WERE HELD ON THE AFTERNOON AND EVENING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1988. FUTURE PUBLIC MEETING WILL BE HELD TO GIVE FEEDBACK TO PUBLIC ON HOW WE HANDLED COMMENTS ON RESTART PLAN. THE ONSITE REVIEW OF THE PROCEDURE GENERATION PACKAGE (PGP), EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES.(EOPs) AND OPERATOR TRAINING IN THE USE OF THE E0Ps WAS CONDUCTED DURING THE WEEK 0F 3/14/88.
BECO MET WITH THE NRC IN REGION I ON FEBRUARY 24, 1988 TO DISCUSS THEIR SELF-ASSESSMENT OF RESTART READINESS, 0VERALL PLANT STATUS AND SCHEDULE FOR REQUESTING OUR INTEGRATED TEAM ASSESSMENT. COMPLETION OF BECO's SELF-ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED IN MAY, IS A. PREREQUISITE TO THE NRC ASSESSMENT.
THE PILGRIM RESTART ASSESSMENT PANEL DEVELOPED A .;.0 JECT SCHEDULE FOR RESTART. THE SCHEDULE IS TENTATIVE-AND IS BASED ON SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES BY BOTH THE LICENSEE AND STAFF.
THE LICENSEE IS AWARE OF THE SCHEDULE AND GENERALLY AGREES, BUT WOULD LIKE TO SHORTEN THE TOTAL TIME. 'THE STAFF INDICATED IT WOULD SUPPORT AN EFFORT TO IMPROVE THE SCHEDULE AS LONG AS ALL THE KEY ELEMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.
THE LICENSEE HAS IMPLEMENTED SEVERAL ORGANIZATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT-CHANGES. MANY OF WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE ON FEBRUARY 1, 1988. WE HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, AND AN AMENDMENT WILL BE REQUESTED S00N. THE REALIGNMENT WILL INCREASE LINE FUNCTIONS REPORTING TO SENIOR VP NUCLEAR AND MODIFY THE STATION ORGANIZATION.
RESOLUTION 0F 0FFSITE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EP ISSUES IS EXPECTED TO BE A MAJOR CONCERN. COMPLETION OF IMPROVED LOCAL PLANS IS NOT EXPECTED BEFORE 3/31/88. SUBMITTAL DATE OF COMMONWEALTH EMERGENCY PREr MEDNESS PLANS TO FEMA IS CURRENTLY UNKNOWN. BEC0 REQUESTED AN EXEMPTION.FROM THE BIENNIAL EP EXERCISE (REQUIRED BY 12/31/87) AND STAFF GRANTED EXEMPTION DECEMBER 9, 1987. THIS EXEMPTION COULD BE AFFECTED BY FURTHER RESTART DELAYS.
r/z- M