ML20054E849

Responds to 820503 Request for Addl Info Re Safety Concerns Expressed by Local Residents Concerning Facility

ML20054E849
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	05/25/1982
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Tsongas P SENATE
Shared Package
ML20054E850	List: ML20054E849 ML20054E852
References
NUDOCS 8206140340
Download: ML20054E849 (7)

Text

.

i

( b L J U .S l ,

t .

l N4Y 25 1982 m @

)I <

O i

The Honorable Paul E. Tsongas gv i United States Senator g J.F.K. Federal Building Room 2003F

9. -

% 17 i*sC ;--

Government Center 42 2

Boston, Massachusetts 02203 C., y,

' /

Dear Senator Tsongas:

4

- co N

Thank you for your letter of May 3,1982 addressed to . arlton Kamerer.

1 I am pleased to respond to your request for additional information regarding safety concerns at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station expressed by local residents.

Apparently these concerns grew out of the public hearing held by the local i Board of Selectmen on March 22, 1982 and were referred to you by the Pilgrim i

Alliance in a letter dated March 31, 1982.

! Let me assure you that the NRC shares your desire to assure the safety of all i

the residents of Massachusetts. We understand the concern of those who live in the local area around the Pilgrim Station. We tre in close contact with the Plymouth Board of Selectmen, and furnish them with periodic reports which 4 summarize the results of our inspection activities at Pilgrim. ~ As explained in my last letter to you, we issued to the Boston Edison Company (BEco) both a

, Confirmatory Action Letter and an NRC Order because of our serious concerns

! regarding safety related activities at Pilgrim. Through our inspection program i and periodic meetings with senior management of the Boston Edison Company, we-i are following very closely licensee operations at Pilgrim and implementation of the Management Improvement Plan required by the NRC Order.

At the request of the Board of Selectmen of Plymouth, the NRC Region I i- Administrator, Ronald C. Haynes, and members of his staff, attended the public l hearing on March 22, 1982 and actively participated in the discussions. A variety of concerns were expressed by the local residents at the hearing. The i nature and conduct of the meeting were established by the Selectmen. Based upon our participation, it provided a forum for a variety of questions and did i result in a meaningful exchange of information. However, it appears that the

! Pilgrim Alliance does not agree with some of the responses that were provided

( to its questions and has restated its concerns.

i We do not agree with the contention of the Pilgrim Alliance that the NRC is denying residents the right to minimal precautions to'which they are entitled.

! Although we believe that we have addressed these concerns, we do acknowledge l that we have not implemented some of the specific changes they suggested. The

NRC staff has taken measures, other than those called for by the Alliance, to i provide additional assurance that the Pilgrim facility is operated safely.

l The Pilgrin Alliance apparently does not agree completely with the HRC's

position on these issues. However, we believe that the steps we have taken j are effective and respnnsive to the particular situation at the Pilgrim facility.

l 8206140340 920525

. o PDR ADOCK 05000293 ., ,. . . . . . . . . ...

I H PDR

SURNut y . . . . . . . . . . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY us = = -m *o Qom m oo* Nacu cm

i 0 0 k

E. , .. .

t The Honorable Paul E. Tsongas Enclosure 1 provides our responses to each of the matters listed in the Pilgrim Alliance letter of March 31, 1982. I hope the attached information is helpful in understanding the NRC's position with respect to the Pilgrim Alliance concerns. If I or my staff can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, (Siped William J.Direkt William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

NRC Responses to Pilgrim Alliance Concerns Distribution:

W. Dircks R. DeYoung H. Denton G. Cunningham R. Haynes R. Starostecki Linda Underwood ED0 #11842 SECY 0467 i

V. Stello PDR LPDR

Docket No. 50-293 Region I Docket Room OCA I

h fBM 5520:E0059 R

o me a > - .I ...... ........ ... .. ..R..I. .... ........... . .

. .E D 0...(.,.h..O .C...

A . . . .

t sunuwe) .R..S..t..a

..R..H.ayn e s........ .W...J ro..s.t..e..c..k..i

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Di

. . . . rc

. . . . ks

. ... . . ..f. r.k.I,e. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52082 5 20 8 om,y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............2......

... . 5 ..>. ..l..

.. . . . . . .8. . .2 .

5 82 nne ronu sia no-soi sacu cm OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom an-m.=

ENCLOSURE NRC RESPONSE TO PILGRIM ALLIANCE CONCERNS The Pilgrim Alliance letter of March 31, 1982 addressed 6 concerns associated with the operations at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. These concerns arose following the March 22, 1982 public meeting held at Plymouth, Massachusetts.

The concerns are listed below with NRC responses.

1. The NRC has opposed the Attorney General's petition to intervene in this matter.

Response: The NRC staff has opposed the Attorney General's request for a hearing, because Boston Edison Company has consented to the restrictions imposed by the Director of Office of Inspection and Enforcement's Order Modifying License and the Attorney General does not contest the imposition of the order. Thus, in the Staff's view, a hearing on the order is unnecessary, because all are agreed that Boston Edison Company should comply with the order. The NRC Order requires steps be taken to improve s

plant safety. NRC resources have been augmented at the Pilgrim facility to conduct in-depth inspections which are designed to evaldate the licensee's compliance with the order and to assess the effectiveness of the corrective actions. Furthermore, meetings are being scheduled with senior utility managers to discuss and review their progress in improving performance.

Consequently, if a hearing were held in this instance, although not required by law, the NRC technical resources in the Regional Office would need to be redirected to the hearing process. The holding of a hearing would result in an expenditure of somewhat limited Commission resources.

Although the Staff has taken this position, the Comissioners will determine independently whether ti;e Attorney General's request for a hearing should be granted.

2. The NRC has refused to; (1) Provide onsite inspectors 24 hrs / day, 7 days /wk to oversee plant operations and (2) Assume Edison's responsibility for notifying the state of an accident, as outlined in NUREG 0654.

Response: (1) To provide effective 24-hour coverage, 7 days a week, would require as many as six inspectors per plant versus the current program of one or two inspectors at each reactor site. The Pilgrim site currently has assigned two resident NRC inspectors. The resident inspectors are normally on site during the day--8:00 am, to 4:30 p.m. This is when the most maintenance, testing, and other activities are carried out in the plant. In addition, the work hours of these two inspectors are staggered during intense maintenance and testing activites to assure NRC observation of these activities. Furthermore, inspections are periodically conducted during the off-shifts and weekend shifts. It is our objective to conduct about 20% of the inspection effort outside normal working hours. To supplement the resident inspector program, routine inspections are conducted by inspection specialists from our Region I Office. We believe this arrangement provides the most effective use of resources and l -

l

provides reasonable assurance that the plant is being operated consistent with NRC regulations. (2) The responsibility for the safe operation of a reactor facility must and does rest with the plant owner and operator, the licensee. The management, operating and support staffs of the licensee are the responsible and trained persons who are most aware of plant conditions on a daily basis. As outlined in NUREG 0654, the licensee is responsible for making the i proper notifications to appropriate governmental officials if conditions i at the plant so dictate. In the event of an accident, the NRC would  !

monitor the licensee's performance in this area to insure the health  ;

and safety of the public are properly protected. However, the NRC's responsiblity is to provide an oversight function, and is not authorized to assume direct responsibility for selected licensee operational commitments. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for NRC to assume the licensee's responsiblity in this regard.

3. The NRC has refused to provide onsite inspectors to oversee daily monitoring of radioactive emissions.

Response: There appears to be some misunderstanding rega ing this point. The onsite Resident Inspectors do provide this oversight. The licensee's Technical Specifications establish the limits and required radioactive monitoring during discharge of radioactive liquids and gases.

Effluents discharged are automatically monitored by permanently installed instruments with appropriate readings permanently recorded on charts.

The resident inspectors review the above charts as part of their routine inspection activities to verify that no radioactive discharge limits have been exceeded. Also, the inspectors do monitor licensee operations during selected effluent discharges.

4. The NRC has failed to require a full time civil defense director to be appointed for the town of Plymouth.

Response: NRC's regulatory authority over nuclear power plants does not include State and Local governments. This concern is not within the purview of the NRC to resolve. It would be more appropriately addressed to State or Local governments.

5. The NRC failed to address (at the public hearing) the distribution of potassium iodide throughout the community and to reception centers.

Response: To the best of the staff's recollection, the issue of potassium iodide distribution was not raised at the hearing on March 22, 1982. In any event, the NRC does not require the distribution of potassium iodide in localities around nuclear power plants. Concerns in this regard would be more appropriately addressed to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

6. The NRC failed to require that the emergency warning system be fully tested, modified, and approved before Pilgrim went back on line.

Response: In accordance with NRC requirements, the Pilgrim station was required to have the public notification system installed and tested by March 1, 1982 or face the consequences of a civil penalty. According to NRC regulations, deficiencies noted during the test should be corrected within 120 days of the date of testing. Since the NRC regulations specify a time limit for correction of deficiencies, it is not required that the licensee remain shutdown in order to complete necessary repairs. As noted previously, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Action Letter on February 18, 1982 which imposed additional requirements prior to plant restart.

At a future date, yet to be determined, the Federal Emergency Management Agency will conduct an evaluation and test of the public notification system around Pilgrim to determine whether the system meets Federal regulations. Based on some of the coments made at the meeting, it appears that some people may not have an understanding of the purpose for the sirens. The sirens are intended to alert people to listen to their radios or televisions for further instructions; they are not intended to be an automatic signal for evacuation. Hopefully, public awareness of this aspect will be improved with continued efforts of both the Boston Edison Company and the Federal Emergency Management Agencyp

\

l l

l

z

, s 4

l l

-. v., - w a. , a v .o . ~ .. ,, - -- -~ ~ -- -

FHOM ACTION CONTROL DATES CONTROL NO Sen. Paul E. Tsongas CoM < oE-o<l~e sfi3/u 11842 AC K Now t .E DG M E NT DATE OF DOCUMENT TO INT ERIM REPLY k83[M PREPARE FOR SIGNArURE OF.

FINAL REPLY f , / *-

. C CHAIRMAN f.Cmatr$7 FILE LOCATION j. g) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOO

,f, OTHER:

D[ M HIPTION []ItIiLR (.] M F * *< > i ; R I po n T [] O T H E H SPECi AL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS ECO ll519 fac1 corres from The Pilgrim Alliance Peply to testen Offico re3arding safety of F11grfet 1 C1. A SSIF IE D D A T A

!n u i n 's r .1 <ms No :LossiF li:a i tor

-,- . . . - c.~,.-

j P()$ : t .' i .,,s if v 'J. [, NSI i< > FRD AVI. * < Ii) DALE INF ORM AT :LN RGtJ TING LEGAL REVIEW !_ , FINAL [. ) COPY

_ thyn ~% 21. _

._S/I/C. OtYoung .

" " " " ' " > ^"

[/jAL BJ EC TIONS Dentos m E DC A L,M N & C O R RES B P St@llO EXr _

G(dRRjQL)h3t3 __

COMME NTS. NOTIF Y-s y g EXT. \

\ j JC AE NOTIF IC ATION RECOMMENDE D ' l YEs L.j NO l NRC5 in M 7t' v :- ;rn6 2 , n r .- ;nr30 opppariage I;v 10 7 R EMO VE' THIS <109 v .

PRINCIP AL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL 9

s

• J ,

. .> n . .~w . ~ . -

4 0467 to,,in, oa,a s/less l NRC SECRETARIAT l< <

I TO: Commissioner Date XM Exec. Dir./Oper. O cen. Counsei Cong. Liaison O soiicitor Public Affairs Secretary 0' 'a'a***a' * ^"d"a'e O Poisev Ev.iu.iion incoming: Sen Paul E. Tsongas, Const Ref _

From: Gail Reed_ .

Filgrim Alllance Kammerer b/ J/ d4 To: Dat subsect:

sa Ly Ene P71grImIplant

/

Prepare reply for signature of:

Chairman Commissior.er O E DO, GC, CL, SO L, PA, SECY. I A, PE signature block omitted O Return originai of incoming wiin response XXO For direct reply

• Suspense: May 19

, For appropriate action e Off. EDO g-For information

, , , ... n.. ,.4.

l Remarks: docket ,

l - . ~

1 -. -

1 i

Frr the Commission- ,

Da ,

• Send three (3) copies of reply to Secy Correspondence and Records Branch NRC 7oRM 62A ACTION,

..v-1 l

l