ML20236C767
| ML20236C767 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 10/13/1987 |
| From: | Delano C, Johnston N, Vogler D DUXBURY, MA |
| To: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236C743 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8710270325 | |
| Download: ML20236C767 (6) | |
Text
_ _ _ - - _ - _ - - - - _ - - - - - - _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - _ - _. - - - - - -
\\
4 SOU)D Of buXbul'% YGSSGCkUSGlbS O2332 A"' %,
ff 4
3, l.h"re pf 13 October, 1987 l
Mr. Lando W. Zech, Jr. Chairman United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 11. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Zech:
The Citizens Committee on Nuclear Matters was recently appointed by the Selectmen of the town of Duxbury to collect information, assist in developing policy and generally keep abreast of 2 vents relating to the Pilgrim 1 Nuclear Power Plant as well as problems relating to the movement of nuclear waste within and through the l
town limits.
On September 20, 1987 U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Ma.) met with our group, as well as other interested parties, in Duxbury, to discuss the above referenced plant. The committee supports Rep. Studds in his call for broad public participation in NRC consideration of any proposal to resume operations at the Pilgrim plant and in his request to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to convene a formal public hearing in the Plymouth area on the re-start of the plant.
We also support Rep. Studds call for your agency to require environmental assessment prior to the restart of Pilgrim, with specific attention to containment enhancement. We believe that the direct torus venting which addresses one of the severe accident concerns, may produce a condition which was not considered in the Final Environ-mental Report issued in May 1972.
Please feel free to contact this committee if you have any questions con-cerning this matter.
Very truly yours, 9710270325 871013 gh['
Ju A'_
PDR ADOCK 05000293
(,eitn', Johnson O'k H
PDR Chm. Citizens Committee on Nuclear Matters r, /db d'[ 'r[U Ih7 f :i-(A!
lldy / /
OJ [
David J.,4ogl e rg Chm. k' C. Ma'rtin Delano Patricia A. Dowd Selectmen Selectmen Selectmen cc:
Nuclear List
RECEIVED 7D 00T 14 $87 PRESS RELEASE iowN OF OUxBURY 00ARD OF SELECTMEN '
Tho' Selectmen of the town of Duxbury in conjunction with the Duxbury Emer-gancy Response. Plan Committee and the Duxbury Citizens Committee on Nuclear Matters will hold a public forum on the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant on
' Thursday, October 29,r1987, at 7:30 PM in the Duxbury Intermediate School' Auditorium.
.The intent is to provide an. opportunity for citizens'to voice their con-carns.and to raise questions about the plans for the operation'of the facility and to discuss plans for responding to an emergency situation.
The goalEis to provide for everyone a better und?rstanding of the issues surrounding the operation of the Pilgrim facility.
Those invited in addi-tion to the general public include:
Robert Boulay-Director, Civil Defense Agency Ma.
Peter Agnes-Assist. Secretary of Public Safety Ed' Thomas-FEMA Lando~Zech-NRC-Washington Rep. Gerry Studds-Washington Senator John Kerry-Washington Rep. Charles Mann-Boston
.l Al'Slaney-Mass 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 Sen. William Golden-Boston cico Chief Executives & Civil. Defense Directors from the following towns:
Duxbury, Marshfield, Plymouth, Carver, Kingston, Bridgewater & Taunton.
The following is a list of potential topics and concerns that will be addressed at the forum:
Top Level Management
- Waste Storage Backlog in Maintenance Radiation Plant Operating Incidents Waste Generation Design Deficiencies Ultimate Decommissing Emergency Response Plan Questions typical of those noted below will be asked at the forum:
l Would Pilgrim as currently designed, constructed and sited be buildable and operable under today's standards?
If no then why should we let Pilgrim go back on line?
t 1
Li1____,_
{
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 restart?
As of October 1, 1987 how many maintenance requests in the fire protection l
area are in backlog.
How many fire watches were assigned as of October 1, 1987?
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?
In the restart plan reference 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 to cover the work week of 21 shifts without regular use of overtime, how soon will Edison have 6 shifts available?
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?
The restart plan states that Edison is completing modification to be in compliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix R.
startup?' ~
Will these be completed prior to
'j 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 #7 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.
Hold point #1 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 treatment capabilities of the medical facilities referenced in the Emergency Response Plan?
2
i 1
.j j
)
It 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 fcilure?
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 leosons we have learned from the shippingport decommissioning?
O^S (C A hM2A Gee. fA e
S
% +fe} 0<.4.
Y I
{
3 i_1___ _ ___ _
-r l
p
- AGENDA FOR JOINT MEETING OF SELECTMEN AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN COMMITTEE l
The questions below will be f o rwa rd ed to Massachusetts Civil
-Defense, so that they can have time to prepare answers.
If ques tions are b et ter answered by ano ther agency, what ag ency d o
{
3 they. suggest?
Can Civil Defense officials arrange for the 4
-presence of these additional persons at our joint meeting?
Rel'ted to each of these ques tions is the f o llow-up "Wi t h whom a
c a n._ v e verify this point?"
Our reason for asking the verification question is that our Committee has f,o u nd in making telephone calls to other agencies (National Guard,. Hanover Town l
Hall, FEHA, Bos ton Edison, e t c.) that promised planning-steps f
.have not always been followed through upon, even though-Duxbury j
had b ee n as sured that the steps a l re ad y had b e e n t ak en.
At the l
Joint meeting, our Committee will ask the verification question j
in each instance where it is omitted.
1.
Whose-responsibility is it to educate the general public j
about types L of radiation and rad ia t ion haza rd s in ord er to reduce panic should the plan need to be implemented?
W h r, pays f or the l
training?
Who organizes training f or bu s ines s e s, restaurants, efter school coaches, ete?
2.,
What is the status of the Banover Hall as D u x b u r y 's designated reception center?
What a l t e r n a t i v e 'l o c a tli o n s are und e r c ons id era tion?
It is our und e rs t and ing from' conversations with the ' Bano ve r Town Ha ll 'tha t Hanover d oes not wish its mall'to be a' reception center, partially because the dTains run off into the town water supply.
How many people are expected.at the reception center?
How many parking spaces are there?
s 3.
When will a traffic study be completed, and by when, to assure that evacuation routes are c apab l e of h and ling evacuees?
Uill traffic from towns outside of the 10 mile zone be re s tric ted ?
I
)
4.
Will traffic prevent (or make d if fic u l t) school busses from l
1eaving Duxbury enroute to the reception center?
Will the. s c hoo l I
bus s e s be ab le to re tu rn to Duxbury ?
What is the es tima t ed round trip time under the traffic conditions which are pred ic ted ?
5.
Will additional busses be made immediately available in order to t r an s p o r t 's c hoo l children directly to the reception
.c en ter in one t rip?
If s o, where will T. h e b u s s e s c o m e f rom and how long will it take them to a rrive a t the schools?
D u xb u ry 's bus contractor can transport only one-thire of our students on a single run.
I 6.
V i 1'1 specialized v ehic l e s such as ambulances and wheelchair vans be provided for citizens requiring them?
If so, where will they come from and how long will it take)
UYW N#
~
B
', +
~ children turned ov e r by. bus
.7.
l n b o. w h'o s e c u s t o d y a r e school drivers at the reception center?
pre-school children / infants in d ay care?
8.
If sheltering of school children and adults is to be accomplished in Duxbury, what provisions will be made to create the shelter (food, water, trash bags, masks with glycerine.
-]
med ic al, supplies, shelter management pe rs onne l, b edd ing, e tc.?
who pays?
9.
. Should :potas sium iodid e table t s b e mad e availab le, and s tored Duxbury.chelfers??
in Duxbury Civil' De f ens e headquarters?
}
forkc/fvtens' 10.
How will the decontamination facilities mergency
[v o rk e r s) b e p r o v id e d ?
Whe re vill the equipment c o m e. f,r om?
How i
long does the d ec ontamina tion p roc es s take?
( I r. f o r m~n t i o n' f r o m CD: Showers c oming "f rom ves t of Boston".
Where7; Information i
from CD: " Cotton gowns would be a v a il a b l e."
F r o's w h e r e 7 ;
Information f rom CD: " Towels would b e c on fisc a t ed f rom s tores."
'Do stores know this?
If accident occurred <during vinter, would
~
shoes, jackets, etc. be available?
From where?)J i
11.
Who covers the cost of impicmenting the various functions of the plan?
d
~
12.
Should a graded response plan be developed rather than the present plan?
'13.
What is the sequence for ahproving i T o w n 's proposed response p l a n't Who is the final ap p r o v ing authority?.
Is there
~
an appeal procedure if a Town is not satisfied?
Who d raws up a l
plan for Duxbury if Duxbury is not ab l e to?
14.
What is advised regarding pets in the event of an evacuation?
Leave food?
Bring pecs?
15.
What is advised regarding the special problems of. evacuating Duxbury Beach?
16.
What t raining has the N a t io n a l Cu a rd / Army Re s c r'v e had, or will have, to assist with the emergency response.
From whom can we learn more about this point.
l t
I
_ - - _ - - - _ _ _ - _. _