ML20195G141
| ML20195G141 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1987 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Shao L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150E198 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-198 2.206, TAC-62080, NUDOCS 8705290224 | |
| Download: ML20195G141 (2) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _.
f%9 j,(,g ((( tg UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasmNotow. o.c. nosss L
g
%,.'.v.../
May 21, 1987 FFWORANDlN FOR:
Lawrence Shao, Director Division of Engineering and Systems Technology FROM:
Steven A. Varga, Director Division of Reactor Projects 1/11
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL 1,S$1 STANCE - PILGR!W 2.?06 PETITION On July 15, 1986, William B. Golden and others filed a 2.206 Petition regarding the Pilgrim facility. One of the contentions in the Petition concerned inadequacies in the facility's containment structure. An initial draft response to the containment allegations in the Petition was prepared by the Division of SP t.icensing and issued by P. Bernero on Or.tober 3, 1986.
Frincipal contributors were J. Kudrick and Jerry Hulman.
On April 30, 1987, Dr. Purley directed the staff to proceed with developing a reply to the Petition, even though some of the Petitioners' concerns cannot be fully assessed (management and emergency planning issues).
R. Wessman, the Pilgrim Project Finager, and W. Paton, OGC, have been developing a reply that provides current status in the management and emergency planning areas and provides tha Director's Decision in the containment area.
Initial OGC review indicates that, although technically correct, the draft containment input prepared in October 1986 will require substantial additional staff effort to provide the requisite detail and to withstand the exoected legal scrutiny. On May 18, 1987, W. Paton and R. Wessman met with 1. r drick u
and A. Thadani to discuss in general terrs some of the additional needs on the containment input. General coments are sumarized in the enclosure to this memorandum.
Corrnitment of staff resources on a high priority basis is requested. Rased on the discussion with A. Thadani and J. Kudrick, June 5,1987 was set as a target date for providing a draft of the Petition response to Dr. Murley.
j TAC No. 62080 has been assigned. Please contact R. Wessman (x24937) if you have questions.
m t
>n, teven. ik rg i
tor Division of Reacto P ojects I/i!
Enclosu re:
As stated cc:
W. Paton F. '4traglia J. Craig R. Starostecki A. Thadani W. Kane, RI J. Kudrick m-f u n m ~e o- % r --
f Enclosure Comments Regarding Draft Containment Response 1.
The document needt to be understandable by non-techr.ical readers, such as the Petitioners.
For this purpose, we should:
Provide a general description of the Mark I containment.
a.
b.
Explain in simple terms what the concerns are with the Mark I containment.
Explain what constitutes a severe accident.
c.
2.
Pescribe in more detail the status of the Mark I and severe accident g( neric actions.
5.
Pr: vide additional detail or. Filgrim voluntary enhancerents and bases for why the Fils.im containnent is acceptible if none cf these are implenented at this time 4.
Develop a clear correlation beteen the Hanauer irsues alluded to in the Petition and the individuni portions of the staff response.
(We must deal issue bv issue with Petitioners' Conce!s).
ioners raise concerns regardir.g the Chernobyl accid +r.t.
5.
response needs to provide additicnal detail explair.ir.g The e
wh>
,,1 has no relation to Pilgri...
C.
O nas.91 sed a number of specific questions regardir.g ind'. dual L atements in the draf t response.
There will te dir ised on an item by item basis between 0G0, the PM, as-igned reviewer.
and. e
. -