ML20058B782
| ML20058B782 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1990 |
| From: | Thompson A PLYMOUTH, MA |
| To: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19324J413 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9010300424 | |
| Download: ML20058B782 (4) | |
Text
-
TOWN OF PLYMOUTH
- h
[ff-omCC OF SELECTMEN QW THE SELECTMEN
="namm
- d#
11 Ltneoln Street GEORGE W. CAMEHoN Qwnoudt Mawithuwus 02360 gynK M
mu.tAv n (. mms N chamnan tsu vnu:.u Hewn FAX (508) 747 3064 (508)747 1620 August 10, 1990 Xenneth Carr, Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Uhite Plint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 i
Dear Chairman Carrt On July 25, 1990, the Plymouth board of Selectmen received the Inspection Report of the URC's 1988 review of the status of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station off-site emergency preparedness.
Selectman Alba Thompson, Civil Defense Director Hadfield, end representatives of the Saguish-Gurnet
?
beach area had furnished Inspector George !!ulley, Jr. with l
oral and written testimony.
The Town of Plymouth had maintained a voluminous, continuous correspondence with the NRC during the years 1986 - 1989.
Chairman Thompson testified before the NRC Commission at the December 9, 1988, Commission meeting in Rockville, Maryland, i
1 as did Civil Defense Director Hadfield.
I All through the years from 1986 to 1989 we had maintained that the Commission was relying on an NRC staff that gave inaccurate facts on the status d our radiological emergency preparedness.
It was incomprehensible to this town that not a single NRC staff person met with an elected official or the Civil Defense Director to review or study our response plans j
until late October 1988 after the Commission meeting.
Those two persons (Hogan and Luzarus) even then, did not-open one of our plan books.
As a matter of fact, there is no doubt that Hogan and Lazarus visited us because the Selectmen had 3
sent the NRC a long letter of protese and refutation of the l
NRC " facts" as present ' by PRf'.taff to the NRC meeting of October 1988.
,, j Please see our letter dated October 31, 1988, in which we l
documented six pages of inaccuracies in the testimony of NRC
[
staffers g3ven during the October 14, 1988, Commission j
meeting.
We particularly challenged pp 76-103. Incidentally, t
C 1
4
l.eoneth Carr, Chairman August 10, 1990 Page 2
- k "
we never received any reply to that intrer although we asked i
,, i re for one.
Again at the Commission meeting of December 9, l g,; 7 1988, we challenged the truth. of the testirnony presented by '
q your staff at the October 14, 1988,. meeting to which we 'heul not been invited. (Our Civil Defense Director was present.but was not permitted to speak.)
The record is replete with our sharp protests that staffers were relying on' Boston Edison, owner of the Pilgrim Duclear power Station, for information, hardly a credible source _of information at a time when'the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station was anxious to re-start the i
plant.
The Plymouth Board of Selectmen notes that'the findings of-l the Inspector are consistent with our knowledge of the facts.
as are also the conclusions.
Finally,.the truth has been discotsted.
t 6
It is not our purpose at this time to review this sorry record of inaccurate and incomplete NRC staff reporting.
Your files are full of our previcus corrections and protests I
which seemed to havo little influence on NRC decisions.
It in our purpose to set down what we see as germane questions now that the inspection report has' located _so many areas flawed by poor staff work What disciplinary action'will be taken against a.
staff that gave erroneous testimony-at the.
Commission meetings of October and December 198B?.
t b.
What-action will be taken to determine who at the,
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station gave written " plans" and " reports" to NRC staff on'tho preparedness of' the Town of Plymouth which he or she knew;were documents prepared by Boston. Edison personnel but in no way reflected the true status of preparedness in or any approval by the Town of. Plymouth?
c.
What steps has tha NRC'taken to insure that local officials are now consulted about local preparedness throughout the entire-spectrum of planning and implementation?
P
'b
=
1 Kenneth Carr, Chairman August 10, 1990 Page 3 d.
What procedures have been instituted _to avoid over-reliance on input from nuclear plants making a "best case" for themselves in the area of off-site preparedness for which they have no jurisdiction?-
Responsibility lies with the state and. local communities.
e.
What procedures have-been instituted to guarantee that NRC personnel in the area of preparedness have actually held public hearings on that subject in the Cmergency Planning Zone communities?
i f.
What steps has the NRC taken to ascertain that-t equired, graded emergency drills are not waived at a time when their results are needed for important decisions such as re-start?
i Finally, we quote from our letter dated December 12, 1989, to Commissioner James Curtiss:
"You heard our contentions that the NRC has not had accurate, complete, or truthful staff input on the status of our radiological emergency planning.
The Inspector General's report should finally address the inadequacies of. procedures that compiled information that did not include a study of_the actual plans at the Plymouth Emergency Operations Center, the only location that had accurate, up-to-date material.
Neither did any NRC staffer consult with our Civil Defense Director or any elected official prior to October 1988.
Since ours is the responsibility for developing and implementing emergency planning, we have always been the best source of factual information..
"It is really indefensible that NRC staffers should not have-i done this basic research.
As a matter of-fact, it has been the NRC policy until this' year to get a periodict report on the status of SMI emergency planning from the pilgrim Nuclear Power Station which has no jurisdiction for off-site-planning!
Obviously a troubled plant requesting re-start.was hardly an objective source.
More importantly, it did not have the same knowledge of our plans that we-ourselves had.
This strange' channel of communication avoiding the responalble local authority is not_one that the NRC should tolerate.
,i f
- 1 4
e Kenneth Carr, Chairman August 10, 1990 Page 4 "The lack of NRC personal contact'and involvement with the local level brought a heavy baggage of. mistrust.into important issues."
The Inspection Report findings are exactly on targett-
"(1)
The Assessment by the-NRC staff on Pilgrim loff-site emergency preparedness was not. balanced or thorough; and (2) l certain information provided by the staff concerning the status of Pilgrim off-site emergency preparedness duringithe.
October and December 1980 Commission-meetings was inaccurate."
(
We had said exactly that in several' communications as well as I
testimony.
It is small comfort to 'say, "Ne told you so,"
when some of your Artportant decisions were based on-inaccuracies.
The public safety of=our townspeople was at risk.
We respectfully request _ ameliorative action by the Commissioners, disciplinary measures, and a replyLto our t
preceding questions.
N Sincerely, BOARD OP SELECTMEN lk.T. !
\\$ tw k uteL-Alba C. Thompsoni Chairman ACT/lt Enclosures cc Nuclear Matters Committeo EPZ Communities 3'
Civil Defense Director:
MA Secretary of Public Safety Representative Robert Kraus Representative Peter Forman Congressman Gerry'Studds l
Senator John F. Kerry Senator Edward M. Kennedy-Inspector General NRC.
t i
.__.