ML20245B535

Responds to Re Proposed Meeting to Discuss Issues Re Facility.Nrc Will Not Agree to Plant Restart Until Issues Developed During Prolonged Shutdown Addressed

ML20245B535
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	04/01/1987
From:	Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Golden W MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
References
CON-#487-5050, FRN-56FR23360 2.206, AA38-2, AA38-2-0051, AA38-2-51, NUDOCS 8706250539
Download: ML20245B535 (2)

Text

. _ _ _ _ _

D h-10h

,[ *o

~g UNITED STATES

~

! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n

l'h $ E REGION i DOCKETED

1. U5NF.C 9, 631 PARK AVENUE

/ ,o KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA A 194o6

(  % . .( ..

APR 011987 N

The Honorable William B. Golden 0FrlCE OF Sb1LTAriY Massachusetts State Senate DOCKEllNG & SEHvlCf.

Boston, Massachusetts 02133 BRANCH l

Dear Mr. Golden:

This letter is in reply to your letter dated February 25, 1987, regarding our proposed meeting to discuss issues relating to the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.

I recognize that considerable time has passed since you filed your Petition on July 15, 1986, which requested that the Boston Edison Company (BEco) be ordered to show cause why Pilgrim should not remain closed or have its operating license suspended until BEco demonstrates that the issues raised by you have been resolved. While I appreciate your concerns on this matter, I want to make  ;

it clear that this delay does not mean the NRC has prejudged your Petition or denied its contentions. Rather, the delay has resulted from the NRC staff's recognition that the plant has remained in a shutdown condition since April, 1986, and, during this period, considerable changes have occurred and continue to occur in the substantive areas outlined in your Petition. As was indicated in Mr. James Taylor's letter to you, dated December 19, 1986, the NRC will formally respond to the issues raised in the Petition. Further, NRC will not

(- agree to the restart of the plant until the issues which developed during its prolonged shutdown have been addressed to the satisfaction of the NRC.

In response to the specific questions in your letter, the following clarifica-tion is provided.

First, our proposed meeting is not intended to substitute for the completion of agency action on your Petition. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss NRC's -

actions regarding the Pilgrim plant, and answer questions you have, as we con-tinue to evaluate the licensee's program to correct previously identified problems. Several senior members of the Region I staff will attend the meet-ing, and they will be able to address the technical issues which arise during the meeting.

Second, we are willing to have the meeting open to all the co petitioners as well as any other interested party, including the licensee. However, for the sake of efficiency, we request that each group be represented by one or two preselected spokespersons and that time limits be pre-established for each group and/or topic. We have no objection to a transcript of the meeting, but we can discuss this matter further.

Third, we do not intend to substitute BECo's Restart Readiness Report for an NRC response to the issues raised in your petition.

(

& X^ - . - _

i f, Honorable William 8. Golden 2 APR 0 f 1987 1

'My staf' f will be in touch 'with your office to arrange a meeting in the near future.

Sincerely, v-Thomas E. Murle Regional Administrator cc:

The' Honorable Barbara A. Hildt '

The Honorable Frank M. Hynes '

Rachel Shimshak, Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group William Abbott, ~ Plymouth County Nuclear Information Committee Gail Reed, Pilgrim Alliance -

bcc:

B. Kane P. Polk J. Wiggins p McBride

( '- W. Klingler, IE J. Partlow, IE T. Martin 1

i t

(

,