ML20204J531
| ML20204J531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1987 |
| From: | Wessman R NRC |
| To: | Boger B, Murley T, Varga S NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204J386 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-198 NUDOCS 8810250166 | |
| Download: ML20204J531 (15) | |
Text
a e
2..
- p s' %,,,
[
UNITE D STATES 5
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMM10SION k,
W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20S55
- e.e*
October 7, 1987 tDIE 10:
T. Pt2rley S. Varga D. Boger IPOM:
- k. Mumsn SUILTICI: CJURT PILIN 3 FOR PILGMM LICENSE SUPmVISIO(
Enclosed is a copy of the subject filing.
OT (Mike altano) will file Mtc 'Mation to Diannias" ard a Certifical Irdez of the record by early pavonber.
R. Mwm,q
- g,b -
,a
- sy r.a
. p; 4 t
- e4es <*, :t t +
,.s, p
s S. Collins V. Rooney N
D. Matthews J. Craig B. Clayton, EIO j
I 8810250166 880914 PDR FOIA JOHNSON 88-198 PDR r/1+
l f
- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Docket No.
7*hbd MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, INC.,
)
PILGRIM ALLIANCE, y
PLYMOUTH COUNTY NUCLEAR
)
j INFORMATION COMMITTEE, INC.,
3 WILLIAM B. GOLDEN, f
y BARBARA A. HILDT, and PETITION l
)
FPANK M. HYNES, FOR i
3 I
Petitioner
)
)
l V.
)
)
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR
)
i REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
l Respondent
}
1.
MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, INC., PILGRIM j
ALLIANCE, PLYMOUTH COUNTY NUCLEAR INFORMATION COMMITTEE, INC.,
WILLIAA B. GOLDEN, BAP.BARA A. HILDT, and FRANK M. HYNES (hereinafter, collectively, the "Petitioners"), hereby petition the Court for i
review of the final order of the UNITED STATES NUCLSAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOP entered on August 21, 1987 (attached hereto as Exhibit A), f which order denici Petitioners' request made pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
f 2.206(s) for the issuance of an order to show cause as to why the i
license granted by the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
to the Boston Edison Company for the operation of the Pilgrim I Nuclear Power Station should not be modified, suspended or revoked (NRC Docket 6 50-293).
f 2.
This petition for review is filed, and Petitioners are entitled to review, under the provisions of Section 2342(4), Title 28, United Stater Code.
3.
Venue is founded upon Section 2343, Title 28, United States Code, said Petitioners all residing or having their principal of fices within this judicial circuit.
f t i 4.
The above-described final order and decision of the t
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION dated August 21, i
1987 was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion in that it did not comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.206, l
did not consider all necessary and relevant factors, failed to make an inquiry appropriate to the facts asserted by the Petitioners in their above-described request, and is untenable on the basis of l
all information available to the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that this Court set aside the final order of the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION entered on August 21, 1987 (attached hereto as i
Exhibit A) as arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion, and grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, INC.,
PILGRIM ALLIANCE, PLYMOUTH COUNTY NUCLEAR INFORMATION COMMITTEE, INC.,
WILLIAM B. GOLDEN, BARBARA A. HILDT, and FRANK M. HYNES By their attorneys fas.LN Nk William S. Abbott, Esquir's Simonds, Winslow, Willis & Abbott 50 Congress Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (617) 523-5520 E h d io/i/ q
,i RECEIVED 00T 14 887 1
PRESS RELEASE iows or oux8VW 00 Alto of SELECTWEN The Selectmen of the town of Duxbury in conjunction with the Duxbury Emer-l gency Response Plan Committee and the Duxbury Citizens Committee on Nuclear Hatters will hold a public forum on the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant on Thursday, October 29, 1987, at 7:30 PH in the Duxbury Intermediate School Auditorium.
The intent is to provide an opportunity for citisens to voice their con-corns and to raise questions about the plans for the operation of the facility and to discuss plans for responding to an emergency situation.
The goal is to provide for everyone a better understanding of the issues surrounding the operation of the Pilgrim facility.
Those invited in addi-i tion to the general pu,blic includet l
Robert Boulay-Director, Civil Defense Agency Ha.
Peter Agnes-Assist. Secretary of Public Safety Ed Thomas-FEHA Lando Zech-NRC-Washington Rep. Gerry Studds-Washington Senator John Kerry-Washington j
Rep. Charles Mann-Boston Al Slaney-Hass Civil Defense Area II
]
Ron Varley-Emergency Preparedness-Pilgrim William Kane-NRC-King of Prussia Pa.
Ralph G Bird-Senior V.P. Edison Sen. Edward Kennedy-Washington I
sen. William Golden-Boston also Chief Executives & Civil Defense Directors from the following townst Duxbury, Marshfield, Plymouth, carver, Kingston, Bridgswater & Taunton.
(
The following is a list of potential topics and concerns that will be i
addressed at the forumt l
Top Level Management Waste Storage Backlog in Maintenance Radiation 4
l l
Plant Operating Incidents
{
Waste Generation Design Deficiencies Ultimate Decommissing j
Emergency Response Plan 1
Guestions typical of those noted below will be asked at the forum h
q Uould Pilgrim as currently designed, constructed and sited be buildable and operable under today's standards?
If no then why should we let Pilgriu go back on line?
l
-T/?R
r I
i I
At the start of the shutdown in April 1986 there were about 12,000 main-tenance requests in backlog.
Can you bring us up to date on the backlog of maintenance requests as of October 1.
1987?
What do you consider to be an acceptable level for rr.htart?
As of October 1, 1987 how many maintenance requests in the fire protection area are in backlog.
How many fire watches were assigned as of October 1, 19877 What is the status of the fire barrier upgrade project noted in the restart plan?
In the restart plan submitted to the NRC you noted that Offsite Emergency Planning Actions are not prerequisites for restart.
Does this mean that you intend to ask permission for restart before a satisfactory Emergency Response Plan is completed and approved?
i l
In the restart plan refarence is made to the fact that 4 shifts of operators will be available during startup and power ascension and that 6 shifts will be available in the longer term.
Since 4 shifts are not able 1
to cover the work week of 21 shifts without regular use of overtime, how soon will Edison have 6 shifts available?
1 Establishment of guidelines of 60 hour6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> week shifts means 50% overtime.
What longer range position do you have to reduce this?
I The restart plan states that Edison is completing modification to be in compliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix R.
Will these be completed prior to startup?-
Describe the status of the Safety Enhancement Program.
Is there a pos-sibility of the containment failing under the worst case scenario?
During refuling outage 97 there has been ultrasonic testing of welds for intergranular stress corrosion cracking.
What are the results of these examinations?
The restart plan references three hold points.
Rold point ti is the NRC Regional Administrators authorization to restart.
How soon do you intend to request that authorization?
Restart plan Pg VI states that "It is not intended as a go/no go acceptance criteria.
They may proceed if their performance falls reasonably within a goal."
How do those responsible intend to gauge if performance falls reasonably within a goal?
Why didn't Boston Edison notify the Director of Civil Defense in Duxbury 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> prior to refueling as promised?
What are the medical treataent capabilities of the medical facilities referenced in the Emergency Response Plan?
2
I Is it possible to have a condition where the yet to be installed Direct Torus Venting System would be called on to operate to avoid containment failure?
If so why would restart be planned prior to completion and ap-proval of this venting system ?
Discuss decommissioning costs and methods.
How will decommissioning be funded for Pilgrim 1 when it has outlived its usefulness?
What are the lessons we have learned from the Shippingport decommissioning?
Gee. & k
}OGko% EeA hfa ed e=1 g
- % % ~$a-1 l
i i
1 3
l
OCT 15 '07 15:47 NRC KING OF PRUSS.IA 2 P06 02584171 s
.... m.., m,.>.
- ommie,
..m I '
M,$ensea Og O dtnuS&SS M 'd) W U!W7%
41 cmc 7 Genars!.
J'e:mos S W. Shannon CornmenwetIth of Massa::husotts FOR.!MMEDI ATE RELEASE THURCDAY, OCTOBER.15,198 7 SHAHHCN PCTITICHS HRC FOR FORMAL litARING ON P!LGRIM RESTART Attorney CenerAl James M. Shannon today flied a petition With the Noelent Regulctory Conmission (NRC) requesting an order to show rauw why the Pilgrim Huclear Pvwwr Plant shoulo not remain closed unt il a full adjuoicatory hearing resolves the sericos sdfety prfblems poStd by the plant 8 3 poog management, faulty i
structural design ano inadequate emercency planning.
Shannon said t
the petition f orces the NRC to considor new issues underscoring the plant's serious deficiencies.
Shanncn'a petition, filed on behalf of his ottise and covernor Michsel S. Dukakis, also asks the NRC to issue an immediate order c4rting th: Bocton Edison Company (BEco.) f rom taking fu:ther actionc to teatart.
"The public deserves a complete hearing on the safety of this troubled nacicar iacility," thannon said.
"We deseryc the right to have Dolcon Er.iison meet the burden of prcef in a puhit e hurtno that it can operate this plant safely -- soniething which it has yet t o pr o"c.
If t h' n retition is granteo, and we hope that.it will ee.
We
-more-l Mary Kr,u.*sucr, 1 Ashburtere Piece Prwe s s 5, e cre ta ry Boston. MA 02100'1698 g
7
OCT 15 '87 15:48 HRC KING OF PRUSSIA-2 P07
- 2. n y
will provide expert testimony to the NRC on each of the safety lasues ratavu by our petition.
We would expect Boston Edison to While Boston Edison and the HRC continue to argue do the same.
otherwise, the cecision to restart the plant should not be made without meaningful pubite scrutiny."
Covernor Dukakis said the action was "necessary because there are too many outstanding public saf ety issues that have not been acequately addressed by the NRC and Boston Edison.
Pilgrim is just not ready to open.
"he remain concerned about the saf ety of the reactor, tne.
structural integrity of the containment vessel, aerious management
]
deficiencies,:and the lack of an adequate evacuation plan.
Therefore, a full public hearing must be undertaken to consider these serious saf ety issues before any decision is made concerning whether the power statinn resumes operation," the governor said.
'The healt h and Jaf ety of our citizano depend 'on it."
Yne Pilgrim power plant has been shut down since April 12, 1966 when the NRC' ordered it cloced after recurring operational Problems.
In July 1966,: Shannon 20ined as a private citizen in an earlier petition !? led teith the NRC by the Massachusetts Public Interest nesearch Group (Mt4sP1p,G).
That petition called on BEco, to show w'1y its Pilgrim operating licenan shouldn't be pulled becauru o! carlier evidence of management, structural ano e v a cu r.t i o.1 planning problema.
1907, the NBC rejected aspects of the 4petitten
'n August
-nora-I
f OCT 15 '87 15:49 HRC KING OF PRUS$1A-2 PO8
\\
oualing with plant safety and evacuation planning questions but han yet to rule on the issue of management deficiencies.
The NRC ruling tollowed a report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (rth).) carlier in August which f ound majos deficiencies in Piacrim'a es seustion planning.
Because that 6eport... not connicertd in the NHC ruling, MasaP!RG and 'several other plaintif f a a re appealing the NRC's decision in the First Circuit i
Tourt of Apreals.
Attorney General Shannon has filed a petition to intervent in' that case.
Shannon said that while the NEC has asid it will schedule i
public meetings in the P!ynouth area prior to approving the
' eetings are not part of a legal process in j
plant's restarte thost m
which SE00. can bo held accountable.
"What the NRC proposes is nothing more than e town meeting on Pilgrim," St annon saide
- That simply won't dc.
The history of thir plant t as bsen so abysnal that nothing short of a full adjudicatory hearing will auf fi'ec.
We must have the opportunity to present cur experts and cross-examine Deco's management to determine if the company's bravado public statements actually match the facts."
Shannon's reTlet.t is based on such evidence as:
Continuing notious managerial deficiencies, inc1Jding new exccasite overtime and security concerns.
tuostiers surrounding the stability of the containmont vessel itacl!.
The Pilgria reactor is a GE Mark 1, a design which is
-moro-
OCT 19 '87 15:90 NRC KING OF PRUSSIA-2 P09 e
4=
g acknowledged by the NRC to be especially prone to tailure in severai possible accident acentries; and Deheiencies in the vvacuation plann for theiarea, as cited by botn it.HA, the tederal agency with the recognized expertise in emergency planning, and by the state Of fice of Public saf ety.
Statir.0 that "Pilgrim has been.identitieo by the NBC as one of tan worst run and least saf e plants in the country," the petition i
argues that BCCo's past performance demonctrates that it lacks the managorial skille and/or cor.mitment necessary to operate a nuclear facility.
"While the NBC'c ef f orts to spur BEco. to a higher level of performanco have, on occasion, met with some initial success," the petition argues, "a review of BEco's performance record shews that l
all such successeo have been short lived and that BEco appears to I
l have an... inabi!.ity to manage Pilgrim in an effective and safe I
manner."
l Specifically, Channon's of fice charges that BEco has conatstently received low ratings in the NRC's Syrtematic l
Assesament of Licensee Perferrance (CALP) reports.
In fact, every 1
SAbP reporte with the exception of one for 1982-83, has reand a algnificant weaknesc at Pilgrim, and recent reports reflect a declining performance.
Additionally, every time Quality Assurance i
has been a3r.essed sopagately in a SALP review, DECO. has received the lowest pocaible rating.
"C1ven that Pilgrim is a CE Math ! design reactor and that the EP2 (Emerg0ncy Planning Zone) population of the plant is among the.
l
f s
OCT 15 *$7 15t51 HRC KING OF PRUSSIA-2 P10 htyhent in t.he entintry.* th+ petition eeneludes, "it is evident that t.he def Le tenetes in emergency planning tend preparedness are atqnificant tur Pilgrim.
Further, the deficiencies are so substantt.1.ano their potential ramifications are ao enormous, l
that it is impossible to conclude that any interim coinpensating i
actions have or can be taken and.that the NRC's regulations leave it any et utae other than issuing e ahyt, dawn orace."
[
30..
i l
1 l
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _,.., _ _,, _,, - ~. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _.
l
/l oc n '97 14: ?? BOSTCr4 EMSCr4 SA. V.P. NJ4Eid AS WW 6
i g
g g Vf 14M"bkielAk 0!?u9 d'.ac n o p, g a u s 5 %
e
,wm m*
a - x.aa - w a m, m v,,,.,,,, RECElVED EXECOTIVE
SUMMARY
OF THE PR00Rtf8 REPORT ON INERGENCY PREPARIDHg88 FOR AN R. G' BIRO ACCIDENT AT FILORIM NUCrJAR POWER STAT!0N ExteUTtys ggMMARY Cn December 16, 1986, I transmitted to the Governor a covprehensive toport on saftty at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
This is a progress report about the activities by state and local government, tbt Besten Edison company, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Con.tssion and the rede ral E-erttacy Management Agency since that time to address the concerns We i
found.
In April of 1946, operation of Pilgrim station was The U.S.
halted because of several mechanical problems.
Nuclear Regulatory commission has ordered that the Boston Edison Comp 6ny keep the plant shut untti a variety of corrections regarding the management and operation of Pilgrim station have been made.
As of this date, Pilgrim remains closed, although Boston Edison has asked the NRC for l
permission to restart the fasility.
In my December, 1986 report, I concluded tnat Radiological Emergency Response Plans for the p!! grim f acility were not adequate to protect the public health and safety.
I further identified serious problems regarding the i
j management of the power plant and the engineering safety of the reactor.
In my view, these three issues -- emergency j
planning, plant management, and reactor saf ety -- were so
{
serious and the weaknessee and deficiencies so severe that I j
recommended that the plant should not be a;1 owed to restart unless and untti these concerns had been antisfactorily
)
addressed.
a;l There has been a considerable amount of activity a:
1evels to address these concerne since my report wac issued.
1 In some cases substantial progress has been made.'
In particular, the Massachus'atte Civil Def ense Agency and 0!fice of teergency preparednese has devoted all available staff and resources to the effort of developing the best possible i
l emergency response plana.
j i
3 f
i i.
McDA/otP has institute 1 a plan,ning process at the state end local level and revisiens are well under way.
In additi'an, a new system has been installed "*r off-eite notification in the event cf an accident pilgrim statten.
We now have the advantage cf a new Muclear safety Emergency Preparedness program ene a professional staff which for the first time is dedicated to off-site emergency preparedness 4
and planning.
This new program snd staff are the result of i
the Govotnor's initiative in the Fiscal Year 1988 hudget.
The Governor has requested additional funds for the new program as a supplemen',ary appropriattor, f t, the current fiscal year, l
i Honetheless, I continun to make the finding that adequate plans for rcaponse to an accident at pilgrim station do not exist, and I reaf firm r.y earlier position that the Pilgrim facility should not be allowed to restart untti auch Plans have been fully developed and have been demonstrated to be workable and effective through a traded exercise of all plane and facilities.
)
]
This finding is pased on the fact that in every critical i
area in which I found a deficiency to exist in my Daensber, 1986 report substantial work remalna to be done before a determination of adequacy can be made, por example, analysis of a new Evacuation Time Estimate and Traffic Management Study my state and local authorities is still underway.
The Ett is one of the most critical pieces of information in the entire process and the foundation of effective emergency l
- Planning, our preliminary review of the Ett suggests that i
more resources are required to successfully implement the l
trt!fic r,anagement plan.
The shelter survey which was prepare 6 by soston Edison has been returned to the coRyany i
for further study because is was found to be woefully inadequate, i
plans and implementing procedures for special needs 1
populations remain incomplete, and it may be necessary to j
undertake an additional survey of people who would need j
anstatance in emergency response or to de further statistical analysis of this matter.
The deveAopment of implementing l
procedures and the identification of resources to care for achool age populationa 61so requires additional work.
In i
regard to the adequacy of reception centers, the question of 1
need for a facility to serve people in the nort'ern portion j
of the 27: remains open.
We cannot make decisions on the need for or identification of a third reception center until Boaten Edison has provided us with an analysis of the j
adequacy of the existing two reception facllities, i
l l
u.o
-o,
.. u o w.v., u. a.............
~
i 3
With regard to plant management, we have seen numerous changes in Boston Edison's personnel and organisation for management of Pilgrim Station.
The most notable change is the appointment of Mr. Ralph G. Bird as Senior Vice President, Nuclear, who directly r6 ports to the company'c chief executive officer.
Yet despite these changes, I eannot say at this time that the managsgent problems have Leon fully resolved.
For example, ws are concerned about recent incidents including violation of HRC regulations in the area of plant security, and allegations of excessive overtime wnrked by utility employees.
We are also concerned by Denhan Edison's action to refuel Pilgrim Station without having resonnded to my objections and the objections of several str..e legislators.
j The Systematic Assessment of' Licensee Performance (sALP) perfomed by the N.*C is the most comprehensive study and report on nuclear management at Pilgrim station.
The last 8 ALP report was issued on April 4, 1987 and it showed deterioration in seversi aspects of nuclear management since the last report.
Until a similarly comprehensive analysis of management under the New organization has been conducted and the above concerns resolved, I cannot say that our management concerns have been addressed.
With regard to reactor safety issues, we have carefully reviewed Boston Edison's "Safety Enhancement Program" (SEP).
The 8tP has been undertaken since the issuance of a "Draft Generic Letter" from Mr. Robert Bernero of the NRC concerning safety at Mark I containment structures such as the Pilgrim containment.
We have two major concerns in the area of reactor safety.
First, despite the fact that the NRC letter was prompted byafindingthattherewasahifhprobabilityofMarkI containment failure during certa n severe accident scenarios, the NRC has yet to adopt a,n official position regarding safety enhancement, Moreover, according to NRC Region I Administrator William Russell, with whom my staff and other state officials met at NRC's regional offices in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania en October 8, 1987, enhancement of the Mark I containment at Pilgrim is not en issue that the HRC believen must be finally resolved before restart.
Que second concern is the unsertainty that continues to exist about at laast one feature of the soston Edison StP, the direct torus vent.
No concensus has been reached on whether installation of the torus vent creates unreviewed
'o m-_
. _, _ - - -.. _ - ~ _ _ _ _. _. _ _.
~]
is e s7 14:40 Boston EDJ50N SR."V.I.' NJCLCM ~
- a oC 1
, safety issues or if the torus vent is authorized, how it.will be used in the event of a severe nuclest accident.
The findings of my December, 1986 report have been Pilgrim strengthened by two other analyses of safety at The special Joint Legislative commission to study station.
Pilgrim Station has issued its report which further studies In addition, and documents many of the same safety concerns.
the Federal cmergency Management Agency has issued a self-Initiated Review of plans for response to an accident at Based on several of the issues raised in my Pilgrim Station.
report FEMA has changed its interi,m finding and ncW agrec that adequate.
FEMAhastransmittedtheirnewfindingtotheNuckear However, the NRC has yet to indicate Regulatory Commission. development of adequate off-site plans will be whether or not a condition to the restart of Pilgrim.
We are not satisfied with the view recently expressed by the NRC Region I staff that emergency planning problems must be "addressed" before such Problems must be satisfactorily resolved
- restart, Off-site response plans are just as before restart.
as nuclear management and reactor safety in protecting the public from an accidental release of radiation.
important Therefore, for these reasons -- the absence of adequato emergency response plans, lack of demonstrable assurance ther and uncertainty abeu-management problems have been solved, the safety'of the Mark I containment structure -- ! continue to find that Boston Bdison has not met the heavy burden of Power ahowing readiness to restart the Pilgrim Nucient I also continue to believe that it remains to be seen if adequate emergency response plans can be developed and if Plant.
all other safety issues can be resolved to our satisfaction.
Finally, I recomagnd that in light of the number of outstanding issues and th>ir complexity, and Boston Edison's evident determination to press ahead with the effort to that there should be a full scale public hearing by the NRC before any decision is made regarding the restart of
- restart, Pilgrim Station.
CHARLES V. MARRY October 14, 1987 SECRET ARY OF PUBL7C SAFETY TOTAL P.e5 S 2 1 i.
,