ML20058D665
| ML20058D665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1993 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058D646 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, DD-93-17, NUDOCS 9312030254 | |
| Download: ML20058D665 (4) | |
Text
.
?
DD-93-17 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATI0ff 1
DOCKET NO. 50-293 ISSUANCE OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor l
Regulation (NRC), has issued a Decision concerning a request filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206 by Jane Fleming. The petitioner requested that the Commission j
reconsider its July 30, 1991, approval of a task force recommendation that the NRC not reconsider its reasonable finding regarding emergency preparedness at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
The petitioner also requested that the Commission set the "120 day clock." Although she did not cite 10 C.F.R. 50.54(s)(2)(ii), the NRC is interpreting this request to mean, in accordance J
with this regulation, that the NRC should find that the state of emergency preparedness at Pilgrim does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can be taken in the event of a radiological emergency and, if the deficiencies are not corrected within 4 months of that finding, the Commission should determine whether the reactor shall be shut down until such deficiencies are remedied or whether other enforcement action is appropriate.
Ms. Fleming alleged, as bases for this request, that emergency planning for Pilgrim Station is in violation of 10 CFR Section 50.47 and is not in accordance with NUREG-0654, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Emergency Response Plan." She gave the following 10 reasons for her belief that the finding of reasonable assurance should be reversed:
(1) reception center to the north is not adequate, (2) transportation is not adequate, 9312030254 931119 PDR ADOCK 05000293 O
i t
. r (3) monitoring of school children is not adequate, (4) monitoring of handicapped is not adequate, (5) decontamination of handicapped is non-i existent, (6) planning for evacuation of Saquish-Gurnet and Clark's Island is 7
not adequate, (7) interfacing of plans is not adequate, (8) public information is not adequate, (9) direct torus vent interfacing with emergency planning issues is not resolved, and (10) congregate care facilities are not under agreement.
She further asserted, among other matters, that the task force did i
not properly achieve the goals set out in its charter, that the task force was disbanded before any final recommendation was made, that the task force ignored established NRC policy, that the Commission overlooked areas of concern, and that the Commission's approval could not properly have been based on the findings provided by the task force.
On November 7,1991, Ms. Fleming telephoned David Trimble of Commissioner Curtiss' staff to raise a new concern about the egress route from Saguish-Gurnet.
In addition, Ms. Fleming telefaxed to Mr. Trimble a copy of her comments on the State's preparations for the graded exercise at Pilgrim scheduled for December 12, 1991.
Ms. Fleming expressed to Mr. Trimble a belief that her comments on the planned graded exercise were relevant to the issues raised in her petition.
I l
have treated the information supplied by Ms. Fleming to Mr. Trimble as a 1
supplement to Ms. Fleming's petition and have considered this material in preparing my response to the petition, j
On November 15, 1991, Ms. Fleming forwsrded to William M. Hill, Jr., of the Commission's Office of the Secretary a copy of a memorandum from Grant C.
r 8 Peterson, Associate Director for State and Local Programs, FEMA, to Russell F.
Miller, Inspector General of FEMA concerning Ms. Fleming's allegation to FEMA regarding the Pilgrim Offsite Emergency Preparedness task force.
In a cover note to Mr. Hill, Ms. Fleming expressed her belief that the information she was providing supported the position she had taken in her petition.
I have treated the material provided by Mr. Fleming on November 15, 1991, as the second supplement to her petition and have considered this information in preparing my response to the petition.
In an unsigned DRAFT Letter, Dated May 1,1992, Ms. Fleming provided two additional items of information which she characterized as an update to her petition.
I addressed those two items in a letter to Ms. Fleming, which forwarded my Decision, dated November 19, 1993.
I have determined that the petition should be denied. The reasons for this Decision are explained in the " Director's Decision Under 10 CFR Section 2.206," (DD-93-17), which is available for public inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room, in the Gelman Building, Lower Level, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the Local Public Document Room for the Pilgrim facility located at the Plymouth Public Library,11 North Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360.
4 0
4.
a A copy of the Decision will be filed with the Office of the Secretary for the Conmission's review in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.206(c). As provided in this regulation, the Decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after issuance, unless the Comission, on its own motion, institutes review of the Decision within that time period.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of Nov. 1993.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION S
.u. _
Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
i 4
l I
l
-