ML20058E547
| ML20058E547 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Kostmeyer P HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058E551 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9011070212 | |
| Download: ML20058E547 (4) | |
Text
.
g M* "%
,e' +-,
l J'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
{
k W ASHINGTON, D, C,20555
's*...+
October 2, 1990 L
CHAIRMAN l.
4 The Honorable Peter H.
Kostmayer, Chairman H
Subcommittee on General Oversight and E
Investigations Committee on-Interior and Insular Affairs
?
United States House of Representatives i,
Washington, D. C. 20515 l-4
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am responding to your letter of Sep ember 14, 1990, inviting' the Commission ~to. testify in Plymouth, Massachusetts, an October 22, 1990, on issues surrounding " evacuation prepared-L ness planning" at the Pi1 grim. Nuclear Power Plant.
O The Commission is committe; to idsntifying-lessons learned from the Inspector General's report of July 26, 1990.
The-Commission is nowe reassossing 'the: urrent status of emergency preparedness.at Pilgrim, and when ir completes.its review, will take whatever actions are required te enture that any deficiencies are corrected.
To achien t',s:;e goals, on
-July ~26, 1990,- the Commission asked the Ex nutive Director for i.
Operations to recommend any actions that might be necessary i
L with respect to the staff's general approach to reviewing l'
emergency plann.ing. issues and, specifically, the Pilgrim site. 'The Executive Director for;0perations also committed to hold a-public meeting in the Pi:1 grim. area-and to'incor) orate L
theVinformation from that meeting into the respits of lis'next' l
L periodic status report on emergency ~ planning at Pilgrim.
This H
L meeting was held on September 6, 1990.
The Executive Director It
-for Operations then established a special task force to review-l; material: presented to the staff at the public meeting;-review the forthcoming FEMA report; conduct fielo verification of issues in dispute; issue a current emergency planning status R
' report;-and recommend, based upon review and assessment of any new information-uncovered whether the NRC should reconsider its reasonable assurance finding.
- l f
Since the questions that will arise at any hearing are likely-to be focused on information that is being reviewed.by the' task force.or' decisions'that.will be made after itsLwork is com-pleted
.a meaningful discussion of these issues by Commission personnel at this time necessarily would be seriously limited 9011070212 9o1002 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC
-i Rw OO j
2.
and interim in nature.
Given that the information base is still being developed, a hearing at this time would be G
particularly. unproductive because the agency's responses could not reflect the conclusions that it will reach after the ongoing evaluations are completed.
e Moreover, a field hearing would be highly disruptive to the Commission's operations.
For this reason, it has been the agency's long-standing and consistent p*actice for the Commissioners to participate only in hearings held in Washington.
Our judgment is that this practice should not be
- changed, r
Accordingly, the Commission respectfully declines your invitation to testify in Plymouth, Massachusetts, on October 22, 1990. -Should the Subcommittee believe it essential to schedule a hearing, the Commission would be pleased to appear at a hearing in_ Washington at a mutually agreeable date..
I should note that on the particular day you had chosen, I have a-long-1 standing commitment and would be unable to attend a hearing on that date.
In.any-event, the Commission is determined to pursue the initiatives-described above-and will keep you R
informed of the staff's findings and recommendations and of-the
~ Commission's decisions.
Sincerely, Kenneth M. Carr
Enclosure:
I As Stated cc:
Honorable Barbara Bucanovich l
L l
u L
L h
L 4
~ -.-
3
,J..
(
l CHARTER'FOR TASK FORCE ON P1LGRIM pl OFF5ITE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNE55
' Background L
As part of.the effort to determine the current status of offsite emergency
- preparedness (EP)'around Pilgrim, the staff held a public meeting in Plymouth, Massachusetts, on September 6, 1990.
-At the meeting, the predominant messages from the public were that the MRC staff did not do a credible job in evaluating the status of offsite planning; the State (and to a. lesser extent the local officitis) have not effectively addressed the EP issues; and, the Boston Edison. Company is no longer j
l cooperating in resolving issues..Because of the myriad of details presented to the staff at the public meeting, the EDO established a special task force with FEMA participation to:
(1) review the assertions and documents presented to the~ staff at the September 6 public meeting, (2) review the soon-to-be-issued FEMA status report, (3) conduct field verification of issues in dispute (4) tissue a current EP status report, and-(5) provide a recommendation as to whether the NRC should reconsider its 50.54(s) reasonable assurance finding Tasks
-1.
Identify Pilgrim Offsite EP issues in Dispute. Analyze the following
- documen;s
(1) transcript and documents obtained at the September 6. 1990, public meeting, (2): FEMA's August 31,-1990 exercise report on Pilgrim.
T (3)!thelicensee'sanalysisofthesedocuments,(4) FEMA'sforthcoming
. status report on EP planning for Pilgrim and, (5) other documents
' deemed pertinent.
'2.
Determine the Factual Status-of Issues in Dispute.
Establish the facts regarding each issue-on the basis of authoritative documentation. Where
. independently verify and document facts and. status through necessaryIts-(to-include inspection of facilities.-and' meetings with State field vis and local officials responsible for emergency planning), personal obser-
+
vation, direct measurement. photographs and other means, as appropriate.-
3.,
Describe' Current Status of Offsite EP for Pilgrim.
Assemble factual information into a current description of the status of the issues in contention regarding offsite EP for the Pilgrim' emergency planning zone.
4..
- identify and Assess the
- Significance of Existing EP Problems.- Review:the a
current. status of-offsite EP to identify shortcomings, weaknesses, inade-4 quacies or other problems in emergency planning _and preparedness for the Pilgrim emergency planning zone. Assess-their significance relative to
~the appropriate standards.in the EP regulations and in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1,
- Rev.1. " Criteria For. Preparation and Evaluation.of Radiological Emergency-Response Plans and Preparedness in support of Nuclear Power Plants," and cP rr NRC'and FEMA guidance documents. The review should also consider
( 'gensatory measures that: local and State entities may have established address weaknesses while working towards a permanent resolution-.
~
w
.~-
- (
.. 2 5.
Recommend Whether the NRC Should Reconsider its Reasonable Assurance Finding. Based upon review and assessment of any new information uncovered by the Task Force and the facts and status of offsite emergency planning and preparedness for the Pilgrim emergency planning zone, recommend'whether the NRC should recoissider its finding that the state-of emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
r t
L 1^
L u
g A
l I
D'_
p I
- [*
.,