ML20195J026
| ML20195J026 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1988 |
| From: | Bates A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Shelburne B NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195F131 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8812010210 | |
| Download: ML20195J026 (1) | |
Text
.
ef (o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
- j WASHINGTON,0 C. 20555
- s.,...../
- 'stent $ny" November 18, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Betsy Shelburne, Chief Public Document Room THRU:
Sandy Sho C
f Corresponde ecords Branch FROM:
Andrew Bates, Chief Operations Branch
SUBJECT:
RELESSE OF DOCUMENT TO PDR Attached for placement in the PDR is a copy with all enclosures of:
EDO memo dated November 15, 1988 "Pilgrim Status Update" This document is being placed in the PDR at the request j
of the staff and concurrence of the commission offices.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
DCS - Pl-124 i\\
g,t Ohhi K L
.[
P
n
/go* Cesg'o UNITED STATES
! ". e r ~,h NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
' -l W A SHING T ON. D. C. 20555 November 15, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR*
Chaiman Zech Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Carr Comissioner Rogers Comissioner Curtiss FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
PILGRIM STATUS UPDATE At the October 14,198E Comission Meeting to discuss the Pilgrim f:uclear Power Station, the staff comitted to continue to assess progress, partico-larly in the area of emergency preparedness.
Subsequent to the reeting, the Comission has received statements from various officials that the staff wts not accurate regarding its factual representa-tions on the status of emergency preparedness and that the staff had not met with local officials to obtain their emergency preparedness concerns. Enclo-sures 1 and 2 respond to these staterrents. Enclosure 1 is the October 14, 1988, meeting transcript pages78-104 annotated with the clarifying remarks I provided to the Comissien on October 21, 1988 and footnotes to provide the basis for factual inferration, not already supported. Enclosure 2 idcrtifies meetings where the staff and state, local officials, and/or members of the public were present ano at which erergency preparedness issues were raised.
Meeting participants and the subjects discussed are also identified.
In order to continue to assess progress and further ensure that the factual basis on which the staff relied in making its recorrendation was accurate, the staff met with each of the EPZ comunity Civil Defense Directors ar.d again toured the local beaches this titre with the responsible local official. sumarizes the staff's findings and attaches each meeting sumary.
Each official has verified the accuracy of the staff's respective trecting d
s uma ry. The Comonwealth was notified regarding these meetings and had an observer present at several of the meetings. The Comerwealth did not desire a one-to-one technical meeting with the staff.
The staff is not aware of any rew information related to emergency preparedness which would change its recomendation regarding Comission 4
approval of a controlled and phased startup of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant 4
over the next 4-6 months. The staff has evaluated progress for each of the I
l 0]
$ O 0 l h)
Q f, f
L
7 deficient areas identified by FEMA in their self-initiateo review and concluces that substantial and significant progress has been made and is continuing.
As of November 7,1986, all restart open items are resolved and the plant is physically ready for restart with one exception related to recently identified loose an: hor bolts for containment penetration pipe supports. The licensee is continuing its evaluation of this problem and has indicated that they would not restart until it is satisfactorily resolved.
NRC Regica I staff will indepen-dently review this issue prior to Regional Administrator release from the first NRC holdpoint (rod withdrawal for criticality) in the power ascension program subject to Commission authorization to restart.
The staff's review of the Barry Report is being transmitted concurrently. Our review of the report has not identified anything that would chaage the recom-mendatien.
,,g i-iCN
- t'/2E,,
~
ictor Stello. 4r'.
Executt ve Diregt,or/ or Operations f
Enclosures:
As stated cc: SECY OGC I
I i
1
ElitLOSURE 1 Contents 1.
Transcript pages76-104 2.
Transcript References 3.
Letter, Lando W. Zech, Jr. to Peter W. Agnes, Jr., dated October 27, 1988, transmitting the October 14, 1988 Commission Meeting transcript and additional clarifications.
l 78 1
the off-site plans, and the NRC staf f has observed the 2
demonstration of some key elements of the plans.
We'll discuss j
3 those details in a aczent.
Boston Edison, as you heard, has 4
spent $10'million already on improvements to the plans and j
5 facilities in the local communities.
They intend to spend j
6 about $5 million more.
7 Nonetheless, we recognize that there is more work 8
that needs to be done before we can receive a TEMA finding of 9
adequacy.
In some cases, Massachusetts'wants to go beyond HRC 10 requirements.
We don't object to that, of course, but it does 11 delay the state in finalizing the plans.
The next steps are 12 that the state will have to submit final plans to TEMA.
TEMA 13 must review them and approve them and schedule an exercise.
14 The state and the licensee and TEMA and the NRC then 15 must conduct the exercise.
If there are any deficiencies, they 16 must be corrected.
Finally, we would get a formal report from 17 TEMA to the NRC of the finding of adequacy. We estimate that it 18 would take about six months after Massachusetts submits the 19 final plans before we could receive such a formal TEMA finding.
20 In the meantime, the staff believes that we have 21 suf ficient information to come to our ov.1 conclusions 22 concerning the significance of the outstanding issues, pending 23 completion of the formal TEMA process.
The last full exercise, 24 as I mentioned, was in 1985.
We have issued an exemption to 25 the regulation requiring a full participation exercise every
79 1
two years.
2 of course, we cannot schedule an exercise until the 3
Commonwealth of Massachusetts submits revised plans to FEMA.
4 Ron Bellany will now summarize the improvements that have been 5
made in the plans and the NRC observations of theep 6
improvements.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
You may 8
proceed.
9 MR. BELLAMY:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am the 10 regional branch chief with the responsibility for the review of 11 emergency preparedness issues.
Next month will complete six 12 years that I have been charged with that responsibility.
If 13 you'll turn to the next slide, the next slide will discuss the 14 status of emergency preparedness.
15 (Slide.)
16 MR. BELLAMY:
Although emergency preparedness was not 17 an issue of the Pilgrim plant shutdown in April, 1986, the NRC 18 staff has continuously monitored the status of emergency 19 preparedness. [The Federal Emergency Management Agency began 20 their selt-initiated review in september of 1986, due to a lack e4 1
of pr, ogress toward resolution of document, concerns.3 The TEMA 21 22 self-initiated review was issued in August 1987, and identified 23 six specific issues: (the lack of evacuation plans for certain 24 public and private schools and daycare centers; the lack of a t
25 reception center for people evacuating to the North; the lack
80 1
of identifiable shelters for the beach population; inadequate 2
planning for trie evacuation of the special needs population; 3
inadequate planning for the evacuation of the transportation 4
dependent population and an overall lack of progress and 5
planning and apparent diminution in energency preparedness.]
6
[This report was iamediately transmitted to the Boston 7
Edison Company by the staff]and a[ written plan for resolution 8
was received by the staff on september 17, 1987.]4[ Based on 9
these FEMA identified deficiencies, FEMA in its report, 10 withdrew its interim finding of adr,quacy for off-site emergency 11 preparedness and concluded that there was no longer adequate assurance that public health and safety could be protected.]5 12 13
[This previous finding of adequacy was based on plans and 14 procedures being in place, and demonstration of the 6
l 15 implemer.tation during full-scale exercises.3 16 L'n order to assess progress, the NRC steJf has 17 reviewed local plans and precedures, discussed the issues with 18 FEMA Region I staff, Commondealth offic'lais, local towr.
19 emergency planning officials. local residents, and Boston 20 Ediron representatives.] [We have attended numerous public 21 meetings in the area and have toured the area, with special 22 emphasis on the beaches and the local emergency operating 23 centers.3 24
[ Considerable progress toward resolution of the issues
(
25 pertaining to the schools and daycare centers, the special
81 1
needs population and the transportation dependent population is 2
evidenced by the drafts of plans and implementing procedores 3
that have been prepared.
Draft plans for all five communities 4
withi.a che ten-mile energency planning zone, as well as plans 5
for the two reception communities have been sent to the 6
Commonwealth and from the Commonwealth to FEMA for a technical 7
review.
8 Implementing procedures for three of the EP2 9
communities and the two reception communities have also been 10 forwarded to the Commonwealth and of these, the procedures for 11 one of the EPZ communities and the two reception communities 12 have been forwarded to FEMA for a technical review.
The 13 Massachusetts civil Defense Agency Area II Plan, which covers 14 the area around Pilgrim, has been sent to FEMA for technical 15 review and work is progrecsing on the Commonwea'lth statewide plans and proceduresJ' 16 17
[It is noted that the statewide plans and procedures J
C 18 vare demonstrated at full-scale exercise at Yankee Row in 3
19 April, 1988, and at Vermont Yankee in August, 1988.] The 20 progress in generating revised plans and procedures is due to 21 the e'fforts of local ' officials, including selec'; men, town 22 managers, civ!1 defense directors, police chiefs, fire chiefs, p% tic we,b 23 department of N officials, school administrators, 24 nursing home administrators, hospital administrators, day care 25 center administrators, harbor masters, ovners of private
+
A,e, ouA r% moiew by A I m l e4 h is, a ug 4k,3,, g as un fi as all % p ocedures 4s< %e r tes muk,%
q g roecAures 82 1
buildings identified for use as shelters and members of the 2
general public working in concert with licensee employees.
3 As such, these individuals are thoroughly familiar 4
with the contents of these documents and could implement these 5
plans and procedures if necessary. [There are five procedures Do x bon 6
for two EPZ communities for Plymouth and % ;h:t: m/ that, 7
although prepared, have not yei; been approved by the local 8
officials for forwarding to the Commonwealth for technical "Id'b M""*
9 review 5
10
[Although in draft, the revised plans and procedures 11 are in sufficiently final form that a training program, approved by the commonwealth, is being conducted.]Ihhe NRC 12 13 staff has audited this training program, including the 14 individual lesson plans and staff from both Region I and HRR 15 have observed the training of bus and ambulance drivers from 16 companies providing transportation for school and daycare 17 centers, the special needs population, and the transportation-18 dependent persons.
19 This training includes use of route maps and travel l
20 on the actual routes to be used in an energency.
The staff has 21 audited six different training sessions and witnessed 22 implementation of the training for approximately 50 23 transportation providers, which is 25 percent of that training l
that has already been conducted.l" These limited demonstrations 24 25 provide the staf f with the basis to cc,nclude that significant
83 1
progress has been made in improving the emergency plans and 2
procedures for schools and daycare centers and for the special 3
nonds and transportation-dependent populations in the emergency 4
planning zone.
5
[Regarding lack of a reception center for' people 6
evacuating to the north, the Commonwealth has tentatively 7
designated a state-run facility in Wellsley as a northern 8
reception center and has conducted a feasibility study that 9
indicates the facility is feasible for use as a reception 10 center) [ Boston Edison has performed an analysis which 11 concludes that the two reception centers that are presently in 12 existence at Taunton and Bridgewater, with appropriate 13 renovations and additional equipment, have the capability to 14 support an evacuation from the emergency planning zone, yet they are supporting the po.Jntial for a third center.]"
15 16 The Bridgewater State College facility is capable of 17 serving as a location for evacuees from the emergency planning ktJ 18 tone to assemble and lacks improvements and hardware for 19 monitoring of radioactive material to be able to monitor the 20 20 percent of those arriving at the reception center within 12 21 hours2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br />.
These modifications could be completed in a short 22 timeframe, and by a short timeframe I mean approximately one 23 month after approval by the consonwealth.
~
24 The reception center at the Taunton State Hospital is 25 an existing structure that needs modifications including
84 1
monitoring equipment that would take three to four months to 2
complete after approval by the Commonwealth. [The Taunton Civil 3
Defense Director has documented his belief that he would use portions of the facility in an emergency, even if the 4
renovations were not complete and he also stated th'at there are 5
6 no outstanding program issues that would interfere with implementation of workable plans and procedures.]
7
[Regarding a lack of identifiable beach shelters for 8
the beach population, Boston Edison com;31sted a shelter survey]"
9 10 and [ developed a shelter implementation program, including 11 shelter identification, letters of agreement with the providers and shelter procedures.] HEMA's position, which the NRC staf f 12 13 supports, is that a range of protective actions are required and that sheltering is only one protective action to be 14 15 considtred and is not, in and of itself, a requirement.
Therefore, TEMA has removed this issue as a concern.)"
16
[Honetheless, a shelter program for the beach population is 17 continuing.]2khe daficiency regarding an overall lack of is progress and support in emergency preparedness is being 19 resolved by the progres's b91ng made in correcting the other 20 specific TEMA-identified issues, including the development of 21 22 revised state plans.
I'd like to quickly summarize the informatien already 23 provided for the TEMA self-initiated deficiencies and the sub-24 25 issues.
The next slide.
i 99 1
[311de.)
2 MR. 'BELIAMY:
The next slide shows the status for 3
resolution of a school children concern and the third reception 4
center, and I have hard copies of this slide if you'd like to 5
see them.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes.
You'd tetter give us copies of 7
to explain it.
Do you have that passed out for the audience or 8
not' 9
MR. RUSSELL:
Mr. Chairman, this is an abbreviated 10 form of the materials that were available in the room when 11 people came in.
It was in the memorandum that the staff has 12 forwarded to you.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, explain it first.
14 MR. BELLAMY:
This first slide shows the status for 15 iesolution of the school children concern and the third 16 reception center.
It is evident that the 1equired information 17 has been included in the draft plans and procedures and that spproval by the commonwealth is still ksquired for other 18 i
19 issues.
by complete on thic slide, I mean that if the 20
- t /
21 informatit- /as supposed to be included in the plans and 22 procedures, it is now in those draft plans and procedures.
23 (slide.)
24 MR. BELLAMY:
The next slide shows the status of resolution for the beach sheltering issue and the concerns with 25
86 1
the mobility impaired.
The shelter program is engoing, even 2
though rheltering.is not specifically required.
The 3
information has, again, been provided in the u?nft plans and 4
procedures.
5 (Slide.}
6 MR. BELIAMY The next slide shows the status for the 7
concerns for the transportatic.1-dependent population and the 8
overall lack of progress.
Once again, information has been t
9 included in the draft plans and procedures with, again, cer*=in 10 issues needing approval by the commonwealth.
11 In conclusion, the NRC review of the status of 12 emergency preparedness of Pilgrim indicates that while all 13 tasks have not been completed, progress is being made toward 14 resolsing the issues f$entified by FEMA in their August 1987 15 repert.
In particular, significant progress has been made in 16 improving the emergency plans and procedures for schools and 17 daycare centers and for the special needs and transportation-18 dependent populatians in the emergency planning zone.
19 The development of these plans and procedures, in 20 conjunction with the training program directed toward the 21 transportation providers responsible for evacuating school 22 children and the special needs and transportation-dependent populations, indicstes that the oft-site responen plans include 23 24 measures to protect these groups.
25 The NRC staff will continue so assess the progress
.n
87 being made for fully resolving the FEMA-idantified issues in 1
off-site energency preparedness.
2 CHAIRMAN 2ECH:
Thank you very much.
3 Our findings then on emergency MR. MURLEY:
4 First,. based on preparedness at Pilgrim are the following.
5 several previous successful exercises at pilgrim over the ya 6
where FEMA has found the plans to be adeguate, '.he 7
infrastructure to handle emergency preparedness is still 8
Most of the local individuals who would 9
largely in place.
part in emergency actions, that is civil defense authori 10 police authorities, school authorities, have been working 11 closely with Boston Edison in developing the revised plans, 12 Dr. Bellany described.
13 it is logical to conclude that those Therefore, 14 individuals can and would implement the revised plans, ove 15 though the plans are still in draft and even though there 16 Of not been a full scale exercise with the revised plans.
i 17 l
six major deficiencies !.dentified by TEMA, the NRC sta i
P 18 reviewed improvements in the plans and observed some t
l 1
{I demonstrations of these improvements and we have conc 19 fI 20 adegu, ate progress has been made on the deficiencir,s 21 Based on successful exercises at Yankee Ro
)(
22 Vermont Yankee within the past year, the Commonweal g
M Massachusetts has demonstrated capability to manage an 24 Based on the findings abo' l
emergency at the state level.
25
88 1
then, we believe there is reasonr*1e assurance that even with 2
the lack of a recent exercise adequate protective actions can 3
and vill be taken in the event of an energency et the Pilgrim 4
Plant.
5 rurthermore, ve expect that the status or emergency 6
preparedness will continue to improve in the coming weeks as 7
Massachusetts and local of ficials continue to L'inalise the) 8 plans in preparation for a full scale exercise.
In summary 9
then, our overall conclusions with regard to Pilgrim are that 10 the staff believes the Pilgrin Plant is substantially safer 11 today than at the time of the shutdown in April of 1986.
12 There are more licensed opsrators and they are better 13 trained, a greater depth of management experience.
There are 14 improved emergency operating procedures in place.
There are 15 improved safety attitudes among the plant workers.
There are 16 irproved ccnditions of plant equipment and there have been 17 safety enhancement improvements made.
We further believe that 18 emergency preparedness is in better shape today than it was in 19 April 1986.
20 We believe that the Pilgrin Plant is ready to restart 21 and can and will be operated safely.
We also believe, however, 22 that there must be continued progress in finalising the 23 resolution of outstanding emergency preparedness issues.
In A,
24 light of the extended shutdown of -the-plant, we vill closely 25 observe the plant and the operating staf f performance as well
89 1
as the expected continuing progress in emergency planning to 2
assure ourselv'es that our findings remain valid.
3 MR. STELLot We are through, Mr. Chairman.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right, thank you very much.
5 Questions from my fellow commissioners?
Commissioner Roberts?
6 COMMIb3IONER ROBERTS:
Two quick ones.
The increased 7
NRC CCersight, if I've got the numbers the right, an average 8
plan would be 2,500 to 3,000 up to 11,000, where is that coming 9
from, out of Region I or from Washington?
10 MR. RUSSELL:
It has principally thus far come from b
11 Region I, although we have had substantial support from NRR and 12 also we have had commitments from NRR to provide additional 13 support from both NRR and/or the other regions to support the 14 augmented inspection activities during power ascension.
15 C0KMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Second question.
Is Pilgrim 16 the only Mark I BWR to affect the torus venting?
17 MR. RUSSELL:
No, sir.
There are other facilities 18 which ! eve that capability, but not hardened.
That has been in 19 existence since Revision 2 of the Energency Operating 20 Procedures for General Electric and the change in this instance 21 is piping systems which are designed to handle the elevated 22 pressure rather than using installed duct work associated with 23 standby gas treatment systems, which would likely fail under 24 the increased pressures.
Nine Mile Point 1, for example, has a 25 hardened vent that is similar.
Paach Bottom has a venting
90 1
capability.
Some vent paths are capable of handling the higher 2
pressures.
3 This is one that is designed specifically for that 4
pu rpose.
It does inc.'
.e a rupture disk in the design.
So 5
even though it is a ver, it would not be used unti'l you got to 6
elevated pressure so t.
- there is not a potential for an 7
inadvertent release th.ough that path.
8 COMMISSIORIR ROBERTS:
Thank you.
That's all 1 have.
9 MR. STELLot I might add, Commissioner Roberts, that 10 that's the best one we've seen.
11 CRAIRMAN ZECH:
Mr. Carr?
12 COMMISSIONER CARRt [Yes.
I would like to ask about 13 the Area 2 state plan.
You said it was submitted to TEMA for a 14 technical review.
My understanding is it was just going down 15 there for information and comment rather than for an) *>fficial 16 review.
Is that right?
17 MR. BELLAMY:
Sir, I think that's a torn that we've 18 used a great deal over the last couple of months in our l
19 discussions with both FEMA and the Comicobealth of 20 Massachusetts.
I 21 C0KMISSIONER CARRt It wasn't down there for l
22 approval, I guess, is what I'm told.
l 23 MR. BELTAMY:
The plans and procedures and the 24 Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency Area 2 plan have been 25 forwarded with docupantation from Hansachucetts civil Defense l
l l
l 91 1
Agency to FEMA for what they ters a technical review.
It does 2
not imply that the Commonwealth has approved those plans and 3
that caveat is in each transmittal letter.3 4
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Rogers.
5 C0:04ISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, I've heard a' number of 6
presentationa here today, people from Massachusetts and people 7
from the staff and we've been asked to consider them all very a
carefully and to weigh them in making a decision.
I'm trying 9
to sort out in my own mind whether I'm hearing the same things 10 from everybody.
11 I heard that there are no plans for dealing with an 12 emergency at Pilgrim in place and that none of the local 13 agencies are ready to deal with any of this.
I first wonder 14 whether Massachusetts seems to be in that happy circumstance 15 that it never has any natural disasters or it can anticipate no 16 natural disasters and if it does face the reality of those, how 17 does it do it if there are no plans in place.
18
[I wonder, Dr. Bellamy, if you could just say a few 19 words to try to put into some context your views and statements l
20 with respect to the cooperation of local officials and their 21 ability to deal with an energency plan with the statenants that i
22 we heard from other folks from Massachusetts earlier before the l
23 NRC and licensee presentations.
24 MR. BELIMY:
Yes, Mr. Commissioner, I'd be glad to.
25 I think the caveat that you heard earlier today a number of
~
92 1
times that there are no I.lans and procedures in place 2
specifically implies or specifically states that the 3
Commonwealth has not officially approved those plans and 4
procedures and sent them to FEMA with that approval and until 5
the Commonwealth gives those plants and procedures'that 6
official approval, they will continue to state that there are 7
no plans and procedures in place.)
4 I have been intimately involve # in this review for 9
six years.
As I've indicated, the last three years have been -
10
- a lot of time spent on Pilgrim.
I have personally met with 11 sore of t!t local planning officials in the Plymouth area.
I 2 5 bur *3 12 have toured the DJxbury beaches. (I have visited the local 3
13 emergency operating cente nd those facilities are there and they are ready to be used in an emergency.]23 14 15
[The people that are generating the procedures and the 16 people that have generated the plans are the specific 17 individuals, the local emergency planning officials, the select 18 men, the mayors, fire chiefs, the civil defense directore who 19 would be charged to use those plans and procedures in the event 20 of an emergency.
21 So, they are aware of the information in those procedures and would be prepared to use them if necessary.]
22 23 COMMISSIONER CARR Do they have copies of them?
I 24 MR. BELIAMY:
The individuals who have been preparing 25 procedures at the administration level -- yes, sir.
They do, t
93 1
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: [ Just with respect to another 2
statement that was made, I guess by senator Kennedy, Dr.
3 Murley, I wonder if you could comment o>i his statement that you 4
had made a commitment that energency preparation plans l
5 including a demonstration exercise of such plans would be held l
6 before restart.
l l
l 7
MR. NURLEY:
Yes.
That was -- what he was referring 8
to was in my testimony in Plymouth in J.anuary of this year.
I 9
What 7 *said was.that we would expect to see progress in 10 improving the plans and that we would expect to have -- to 11 observe a limited demonstration of those improvements.
12 What Dr. Mellamy described -- what his staff and r.y 13 staff have done over the last I believe month or two have been 14 in fact the demonstrations that we mentioned.
The school bus 15 drivers and that sort of activity.
16 COMMISSIONER kOGERS In other words, you feel you 17 have --
18 MR. MURLZY:
We did not say -- we never had an 19 intention that there would,be an exercise or a limited 20 exercise.
of course, that can only happen once the state 21 submits plans to FEMI and that gets scheduled.
We did have in 22 mind and we have completed our observation to our satisfaction 23 that the key elements necessary to implement this plan, that 24 is, bus drivers and routes and ambulance drivers have taken 25 place and we have observed that.
3
l 94 1
COMMISSIONER ROGERS Is that in fact what you were 2
talking about when you made that statement?
Absclutely, yes.)25 3
MR. MURLEY:
4
'701. RUS S E LL:
Mr. Commissioner, if I could expand on 5
that because I had a meeting in Region I with various 6
representatives from the Commonwealth including the Governor's 7
office, the legislature, the Attorney General and others and I 8
described quite clearly at that meeting that there are a range 9
of ways that the staff can evaluate deficiencies.
It can be 10 from a tabletop exercise.
It can be from a review of the 11 plans.
It can be from a limited demonstration with staff 12 members riding buses with bus drivers.
13 So, we made it quite clear in each case that the 14 standard we would use for judging is that which is necessary 15 for the staff to get the information it needs to reach its 16 conclusion.
In each case, the Commonwealth has taken the 17 position that they, the Cosmonwealth, would only be satisfied 18 with a full-scale exercise.
19 COMMISSIONER R0GERSt I think I heard something that 20 I'd like you to repeat just once again, Dr. Murley, if you 21 could.'
Did I hear you say correctly, emergency procedures are 24 in better shape now than they were in 19867 23 MR. MURLEY :
That is our conclusion.
Yes.
24 CRAIRMAN ZECH:
Dr. Bellany, it sounds to me like 25 from what you're telling us is that you've received a fair
93 i
l 1
amount of cooperation from the state and local officials; is 2
that correct? '
3
[MR. BELLAMY:
Mr. Chairman, the cooperation that I 4
have received is in the lines of making sure t:':Jt I'm aware of 5
the status of the information and the cooperation in making 6
sure that I know exactly who has done what, what plans and l
7 procedures have been written, where they stand in the reviev 8
and the fact that they are going to FEMA now for a technical 9
reviev vithout the --
10 CRAIRMAN 2 ecd But you've had a fair amount of 11 interface with the local officials.
12 MR. BELLAMY:
Yes, sir.
i 13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
And they seem to be conversing with 14 you and working with your is that correct?
15 MR. BELIAMY:
Pretty much so.
I have a number of the 16 public that call me quite regularly, that are here today and we converse probably on a daily basis.
Yes, sir.
17 18 CRAIRMAN ZECH:
Do you have any difficulty as far as i
19 the local of ficials are concerned with a *,1culating the federal 20 responsibilities as they might be in working with the state and 21 local, responsibilities?
j 22 MR. BELLAMY:
No, sir.
There's been no problem in I
23 that area.
We have held a number of public reetings up in that l
24 area and I have in any number of occasions been up in front of 25 a large number of aerbers of the public and elected officials I
96 i
1 to make sure that they understand the responsibilities of the 2
federal community, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 3
Commonwealth and the local officials.
Some of these meetings 26 i
4 have dragged on till 1 30 in the morning, sir.3 5
CHAIRMA'8 ZECH:
Could you talk to me a li'ttle bit l
6 about the training and perhaps when do you think that the 7
trtining might be completed and could you talk a little bit 8
about any other plans and procedures that should be exercised 9
at least to the extent that you might have satisfaction that in 10 a real emergency, the public health and safety would be v Aerg.;q riva by A local p b u.wg be<eh el
(.p.vtk as bus b wry. N o im cle-a t u3 proce4vas Pi 11 protected.
P v.A a~A bv h 12 MR. BELLAMY:
Yes, sir.
There are approximately 300 13 as a round number of required implementing procedures and as I j 14 indicated, there are five of those procedures td t have yet 4Hr beew 15 4>r sent to the Commonwealth with any type of approval f rom the
$<r I
16 local officials.
These procedures deal specifically with the 3
17 schoolchildren and some of the special needs populations in 18 Plymouth which is the town that the Pilgrim Station is in and i
19 in Duxbury which is also in the Energency Planning tone.
20 The -- to use the tera, training is complete, I think i
21 is mitleading.
You will never complete the training for 22 emergency preparedness.
Energency preparedness is a living 23 area and you always will be training new people and you always have nov people becoming involved in the process.
24 25 I would think that by the and of the year, there will
97 1
be the overwhelming majority of the 6,000 people trained that 2
have been specified in the Commonwealth-approved training 3
program.
4 CRAIRMAN ZECH:
How about some of these areas that 5
are difficult to evacuate in the area.
Could you discuss that 6
a little bit?
7 MR. BELLAMY Yes, sir.
I think the two. specific 8
concerns that come up -- one is for the schoolchildren and I'd 9
like to comment on that first.
The draft plans and 10 implementing procedures now indicate that at the alert stage of 11 a nuclear emergency, they will begin to assemble the necessary 12 transportation for evacuation of the schoolchildren and at the 13 site area emergency stage, they would implement that 14 evacuation.
That's a {
asary and needed and far-reaching 15 16 improvement over what's been seen in the past whereas you could 1
17 wait until that general energency stage to actually consider 18 that evacuation.
The schoolchi!cron will be moved out long 1
19 before that stage.
j
[The beach population area -- I have toured that beach 20 population -- it is required to get on and off that beach with 21 22 a four-wheel drive vehicle.
You could not take your car on it.
23 So, there is some limited accers.
There are a fair number of permits that are issued to those four-wheel drive vehicles.
24 25 The number is in the several thousands and they have
98 1
made sure that the plans and procedures indicate that those 2
beaches will be closed at an early stage so that you would not 3
put more people on those beaches if there is any type of event 4
at the Pilgrim Station.)
5 COMMISSIONER CARRt Do they overnight on ' hose t
6 beaches?
7 MR. BELLAMY:
No, sir.
They do not.
8 COMMISSIONER CARRt So they must clear out between 9
high tides.
10 MR. BELLAMY: [The high tide issue is for a very small 11 section of tha': beach and there are approximately 2,000 to 12 4,000 people at the most that would be there during a bright, 13 sunny, summer weekend.
14 COMMISSIONER CARRt No, but I mean if they can't stay 15 overnight, it's only twelve hours between lov tides.
They must 16 come off in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
kid 17 MA. BELLAMYt The 41m* tide issue is not for every is tide.
That is only for flood tide type conditions.
So, if you 19 got the perception from sose of our earlier speakers that every 20 twelve hours that beach is isolated, I think that's a 21 misconception.
22 COMMISSIONER CARRt Well, even if it is shorter than 23 that, that would be the longest if they have to clear out by 24 dark.
g 25 KR. BELLAMY:
Yes, sir, and those beaches are 77 only 1
1 e
l
99 1
approximately four hours a month.)
2 MR. MURLEY:
Mr. Chairman, there is one f.hing that I 3
would like to add that might help to clarify.
The deficiencies that were fo'nd by FEMA were planning type deficiencies, not 4
u 5
execution deficiencies.
Generally, as I said, thage have been 6
many exercises up there, both full and partial.
I mentioned 7
that I personally observed one.
8 The authorities know how to do their job.
Bus 9
drivers know how to drive buses.
Ambulance drivers know how to 10 drive ar.bulances.
The problems have been that not all the
?
11 places were accounted for in the plans that they had to go to 12 and so forth.
That is what we have been focusing on, to make 13 sure that those plans are in draft form have been updated.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
To --
15 A VOICE:
Mr. Chairman.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Dr. Be11any.
17 A VOICE:
Mr. Chajrnan.
I 18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Dr. Be11any.
19 A VOICE:
I wish to challenge that this presentation 20 has been made, and it's full of half-truths.
I'm not going to 21 stand here and listen.to this, Mr. Chairman.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You don't have to stand here.
23 Dr. Bellamy, you have told us that you believe they 24
'aave made considerable progress and there has been a fair 25 amount of interface, at least I would consider a lot of good l
[
100 1
working relationship between you and the people that are doing 2
the job in th4t arent is that correct?
3 MR. BELLAMY:
Yes, sirl it is.
4 CRAIRMAN ZECH:
On the other hand, how long would it 5
take you do you think or how much time would we need to make 6
the progress that perhaps would be necessary for a little more 7
confidence that all of the energency planning procedures could 8
be satisfied and in your interfaces, can you give us any 9
estimate of how long it would be before the state, for exarple, 10 would be satisfied that their procedures are in place to the 11 point where they could submit then to TEMA and we would have 12 what I would torn a closure on this?
Can you give any estimate 13 at all?
14 MR. STELLO:
Mr. Chairman, we talked about the issue 15 of the amount of time, the schedule it will take to complete 16 it.
In my opening comments I said we talked about whether we 17 could make that estimate.
We can't.
We don't have that 18 schedule.
Dr. Murley has indicated that once the plans have i
19 been submitted to TEMA, our estimate, with no extra effcrt, in l
20 order to get the plans reviewed, the exercise planned for and 21 conducted, would be about six months.
Nov long it will be 22
.before the Commonwealth will submit the plans, Dr. Murley has I
i 23 indicated in our conversations when I have asked the question 24 that he has haen unable to get that schedule.
We vill continue l
25 to try to get it.
The candid ansvers, we don't know.
108 1
COMMISSIONER CARRt Six months after submission of 2
the plans by the state before the exercise could be scheduled?
l l
3 MR. STELlot Without doing anything unusual.
I think 4
if we tried, we could do better.
5 COMMISSIONER CARRt Normal.
6 MR. RUSSELL:
I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that 7
issue has been requested several times in correspondence fror.
8 TEMA to the Commonwealth requesting the schedule and the Commonwealth has not responded to that.' We specifically 9
10 requested that of the commonwealth on the October 5th meeting 1
11 ard they would not givu us a schedule at that time as to when 12 they would be willing to commit to submitting plans.
13 CMAIRMAN 2ECHt Are you telling us, is it the staff's 14 conclusion that in your considered opinion that the Pilgrim 15 plant is ready to re-start in view of vnst we have heard 16 regarding emergency planning and all other issues?
17
!!R. STELLot Yes, sir.
18 CHAIRMAN SECH:
Any other comments from my fellov 19 commissioners?
20
[No response.)
21 CRAIRKAN ZECH:
Let me just say first that I would 22 like to thank the Boston Edison Company for their participation 23 here today snd for their addressing these issues over the past 24 months and years.
It looks like progress has been made, 25 significant efforts have gone into it, management efforts as l
i i
102 1
vell as equipment improvements.
I'd also like to commend the 2
staff for their very close and extensive work in this area on 3
the Pilgrim plant.
I know an awful lot of effort has gene into 4
it, in Region I as well as Headquarters.
5 I believe that the earlier presentations'we heard 6
today are important for us to consider, too.
Certainly it 7
would appear from what we have heard I believe that protection 8
of the public health and safety at the Pilgrim plant has been 9
substantially enhanced by the corrective actions that have been 10 taken since the plant was shut down.
11 I'd also like to commend the continuing efforts of 12 the state and local officials for their work especially in the 13 area of energency plans for the Pilgrim facility.
The states' 14 ability co parth:1pate in and execute emergency planning 15 responsibilities has been demonstrated repeatedly at various 16 nuc19ar facilities within and bordering the State of 17 Massachusetts.
18 I would encourage continued efforts of the state and 19 local governments in order to complete the work on the proposed 20 improvements to the Massachusetts' portion of the rrogre-21 emergency plans, 22 I would like to thank senator Kennedy, senator Merry
[
23 for his ef forts to tc here today also, Lieutenant covernor 24 Murphy for coming to appear before us today as well as 25 Representative Studds.
103 1
Frankly, from what I've heard today and given the 2
information we'have heard, I would propose to my fellow 3
Com issioners that we not make a re-start vote today but I 4
would ask my fellow Commissioners to carefully consider all' 5
that has been stid towards reaching a conclusion considering 6
re-start of the Pilgrim facility.
I hope we can come to a 7
timely conclusion.
8 on the other hand, I do believe we need time to 9
reflect on what we have heard today and perhaps a little more i
10 time to make more progress to enhance what we have done already 11 towards emergency planning.
12 The Commission does indeed have to have the 13 confidence that energency plans could be executed if necessary.
14 I'd ask zy fellow commissionarc if they would stase 15 with me that we not hold a vote today.
Any opposed to that?
I j
16 (Con issioners nodding in agreement.)
l 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I see none opposed.
The decision is l
18 that we not have a re-start vote today.' I would ask soston 19 Edison, the state and local officials with the involvement of 20 the NRC staff and TEMA as necessary, I would encourage you and j
21 commend you to continue working together on this emergency 22 planning issue at the Pilgrim site so that the commission can I
23 be confident that we will be making a proper decision.
kr reed l
time to reflect on this.
That is the decision of the 24 25 Comission today.
I would ask those who are invol/ed in this e
-lr--m,,
104 i
1 very important matter to continue their efforts and in the 2
seantine the co'amission will reflect on this issue and we will i
3 expect to be hearing from the staff as progress continues in 4
the future.
5 Anything else to come before us?
6 (No response.)
i l
7 CMAIRMAN EECH:
If not, we stand adjourned.
Thank l
8 you very such.
9 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned.)
l 10 11 1
12 J
13 l
14
)
15 i
16 t
t l
17 l
1t i
19 20 21 l
i 22 r
J l
24 25 i
)
i i
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
l TITLE OF MEETING: DISCUSSION /POSSISLE V0TE ON PILGRIM RESTART PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
DATE OF MEETING:
TRIDAY. OCTOBER 14 1988 i
were transcribed by me.
I further certify that caid
[
0 l
transcription is accurate and complete, to the best 1-of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
r
[
b
()I
\\
I i
Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
l 4
I e
t 4
i References in Support of Statements Made During the October 14, 1988 Commission Meeting (Copiesofreferencesareattached) t i
1.
Transcript (hereinafter Tr.) at 79, Line (hereinafter 11)19-21.
l Menorandum to Frank J. Congel, Director, Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness, NRC, from Richard W. Krimn, Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs, dated August 6, 1987
Subject:
Offsite Emergency Planning at Pilgrim, Attachment at 2-8.
[
0.
Tr. at 79,11 23-25 and Tr. at 80, 11 1-5.
Id at 1.
3.
Tr. at 80,11 6-7.
Letter to Ralph G. Bird. Senior Vice President -
Nuclear, Boston Edison, from Steven A. Varca. Director, Division of l
Peactor Projects, NRP, dated August 18,1987,
Subject:
FEMA Report i
en Offsite Emergency Planning for Pilgrim.
4 Tr. at 80,11 7-8.
Letter to NRC from Ralph G. Bird. Senior Vice President - Nuclear, Boston Edison, dated September 17, 1987
Subject:
Schedule for Providing Assistance in Addressing FEMA Issues.
4 L
J 5.
Tr. at 60,11 8-12.
Pichard W. Krimm, Supra at 1.
6.
Tr. at 80,11 13-15.
Id. at 1. Attachment at 2-0.
(
i 7.
Tr. at 80, 11 16-20. Mecorandum to James M. Taylor Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations NRC, from Willian T. Russell, Regional i
Administrator, Region I, dated October 19, 1988,
Subject:
Pilgrim Nuclear Pcwer Statien:
Energency Preparedness Public Comnents; and Memorandum to Villiam J. Lazarus, Chief. Emergency Preparedness Section, Region I, from l
}
Craig J. Conklin, Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Region I, f
i dated hovember 1, 198S,
Subject:
Pilgrir Nuclear Power Statier. Veetings Regarding Etergency Preparedness.
8.
Tr. at 80, 11 20 23.
Id.
9.
Tr. at 80,11 24-25 and 21,11 1 16. Numerous letters to Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency from EPZ towns forwarding planning documentt including:
Town of Duxbury, dated March 9,19C8,
Subject:
Emergency Plan review; Town of Carver, dated January 12, 1988
Subject:
Emerger.cy Plan revier; Town of Plymouth, dated January 8, 1988,
Subject:
Emergency Plan review; City of launton, dated January 4,1988,
Subject:
Energency Plan review; Town of Kir.gston, dated December 30, 1987,
Subject:
- review, l
1 l
2 Town of Marshfield, dated August 12, 1988
Subject:
Emergency Plan, Irpinenting Procedures, Shelter Ir.plementation Program Sumary, and Cress i
Reference Table review; City of Taunton, dated August 15, 1988
Subject:
Emergency Plan, Implementing Procedures and Cross Reference Table for review; Town of Bridgewater, dated September 21, 1988,
Subject:
Emergency Plan, Irplementing Procedures. Corrective Action Response, and Cross Reference Table for review; l
Town of Kingston, dated October 5, 1988,
Subject:
Emergency Plan, Implementing Procedures. Corrective Action Respor.se, and Cross Reference Table for review; and Town of Carver, dated October 4,1988,
Subject:
Emergency Plan, Implementing Procedures, Sheltering Implementation Progran and Cross Reference Table for review.
Letters to FEMA Region I fror; Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency (MCDA) forwarding planning documents including:
MCDA to FEMA Region 1. dated February 4,1986,
Subject:
Emergency Plan for the towns of Plymouth, Carver, Kingston and the city of Taunton for review; PCDA to FEMA Region I, dated September 6, 1988.
Subject:
Emergency Plan, Implementing Procedures Shelter Irplertr.tation Program anc Cross Peference Table for the Town of Marshfield and Energency Plan, Irpinertation Procedures and Cress Reference Table for the City of Taunton for review; MCDA to FEMA Regien I, dated September 23, 1988,
Subject:
Area !!
Energency Plan for review; and MCDA to FEMA Region I, dated September 30, 1988
Subject:
Emergency Plan, Irpleraenting Procedures and Cross Reference Table for review.
- 10. Tr. at 81,11 17-19. NRC Inspection Report 50-29/88-08, Yankee Ateric Power Company, dated June 7,1988; and NRC Inspection Report 50-271/88-13 Yement Yankee Nuclear Power Corporatien, dated October C,1988. Although FEMA reports er these two exercises hav-not yet been issued, the NRC, by its participation in the Regior.al Assi ence Comittet (PAC)nrecess,was aware at the tire of the October 14, h B Comission Meeting that deficiencies identified in the statewit plan had been corrected.
- 11. Tr. at 82, 11 5-9.
Letter to NRC from Ralph G. Bird. S9nior Vice President-Nuclear, Boston Edison, dated October 7, 1908 k bject:
Boston Edison Company Coments on Draft of "A Report on Progress Made in Erergency Planning for Pesponse to an Accident at Pilgrim Nuclear Pewer Station". Attachrent at 49 and 58.
3
- 12. Tr. ai, M 11 10-12. Letter fron Michael S. Dukakis, Governer Comer.<ealth of Massac.7tetts, to Lando Zech, Chairman, NRC, dated October 11, 1988
Subject:
h rwarcing of "A Report on Progress Made in Erergency Planning fer Response ',o an Accident at Ptigrim huclear Pcwer Station", Attachrent at 38 and 30.
- 13. Tr. at 82,11 12-14. Memorandum to William Russell, Pegional Administrator.
Pegion I, from William Lazarus, Chief Energency Prepartdness Section.
Region I, dated September 9, 1988
Subject:
Status of Offsite Emergency Preparedness at Pilgrim; and Memo to William Lazarus, Chief Emergency 1
Preparedness Section, Region I from Craig Conklin, Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialist, Region I, dated October 20, 1988,
Subject:
3 Hands On Training for Transportation Providers for the Pilgrim EPZ.
14 Tr. at 83,11 5-10. Dukakis, Su ra at Attachment 32; and Letter to Charles V. Barry, Secretary, Executive ce of Public Safety, Comonwealth of I
Massachusetts, fron John L. Lovering, Deputy Director, Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and Office of Emergency Preparedness, dated October 11, 1988, i
t
Subject:
Feasibility Study Involving the Suitability of the State Depart-i ment of Public Works Garage located in l!cIlesley, Ma, as a Potential i
Reception / Processing Center for Evac &es in the Eve.nt of an Accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth F.A. at Attacknent at ?-8.
- 15. Tr. at 83,11 10-15. Letter to Peter Agnes, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Public Safety Co monwealth of Massachusetts from Penald A. Yarley, Staff I
Assistant to Senior Vice President - Nuclear, dated December 23, 1987
Subject:
P.eception Center Feasibility Analysis, At Attachrent at 1-3,
- 16. Tr. at 84,11 2-7.
Letter to Peter Agres, Jr., Assistant Secretary of i
Public Safety, Comonwealth of Massachusetts from Robert C. Spearin, Director Department of Civil Defense, City of Taunton, dated October 5 1988,
Subject:
comments un the. draft "A Report on Progress Made in l
Energency Planning for Response to an Accident at Pilgrim Nuclear Power i
Station".
- 17. Tr. a t 84,11 8-9.
Letter to Peter Agnes, Jr., Assistant Secretary of f
Public Safety, Commonvealth of Massachusetts from Ralph G. Bird, Senter Vice President - Nuclear, dated October 26, 1987,
Subject:
Pilgrin EPZ
)
Public Beach Population Aralysis; Letter to Peter Agnes, Jr., l.ssistant Secretary of Public Safety, Comonwealth of Massachusetts from Ralph G.
Bird, Senior Vice President - Nuclear, dated June 30, 1987,
Subject:
J information to resolve concerns in FEMA Self-Initiated Review; Letter to Edward A. Thomas, Chairran Regional Assistance Comittee FEMA Region I from Ronald R. Fellamy, Chief Emergency Preparedness and Radio-logical Protection Branch, Region 1, dated June 12, 1987
Subject:
]
"Evacuation Time Estinate and Beach Population Sheltering", "Mobility Impaired", and "Special Facilities", and Pilgrir Station Evacuation Time Estimates and Traffic Management Plan Update, dated August 25, 1988.
- 18. Tr. at F4,11 10-12 Marshfield Shelter Implenentatier Program, subn.itted for revier August 12, 19E5.
Dukikis, Supra at Attachr4r.t at 61-64 The
(
Marshfield prograr is representative of prc. grams for each of the other EPZ corrunities that the staff was aware were in various stages of preparatior.
at the tire of the Octcber 14,19ES Comission Meeting.
l 4
i i
l I
l
i :
i
- 19. Tr. at 84, 11 12-16 Letter to to Charles V. Barry, Secretary, Executive i
Office of Public Safety Comonwealth of Massachusetts, fron Henry G.
f Vicker,, Regional Director FEMA, Region I, dated August 22, 1988,
Subject:
Pesponse to Comonwealth concerns on Emergency Preparedness l
1ssues.
l t
- 20. Tr. at 84, 11 17-18. Supra at Item 18,
- 21. Tr. at 90,11 12-25 and Tr. at 91, 11 1-3.
Among the numerous letters referenced in item 9. See letter from Robert J. Boulay, Director Civil Defense Agency and Office of Emergency Preparedness, Comenwealth of Massachusetts, to Edward A. Thomas, Chaiman Regional Assistance
[
Comittee, FEMA, Region I, dated September 23, 1988.
- 22. Tr. e t 91,11 10-25 and Tr. at 92, 11 1-7 Numerous letters previously cited in Item 9.
i
- 23. Tr. at 92, 11 12-14. This statement referred to a specific visit made to l
the Duxbury EOC on October 6, 1988 (see Enclosure 2. Attachment 4), and was not meant to imply all the EOCs had been toured prior to October 14, 1988.
Since that time, the staff h's toured each of the seven local EOCs t
for the Pilgrin Station (see Enclosure 3).
l
- 24. Tr. a t 92,11 15-22. Dukakis, Supra at Attachment at 11.
{
[
- 25. Tr. at 93,11 1-25 and Tr. at 94, 11 1-3.
Testimony Before the Senate I
Labor and Human Resources Comittea Regarding The Pilgrim Nuclear Power 2
Statier, by Dr. Thomas Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor j
Regulation, hPC, dated January 7,1988, at page 8 of prepared statement.
2C. Tr. at 95, 11 3-I5 and Tr. at 96, 11 1-4 Prior to the October 14, 1988 recting, the staff had interacted primarily with the Comenwealth j
en technical issues related to emergency plannir.g. The staff was aware of incal officials' concerns regarding emergency preparedriess through g
the staff anc others at which emergency attendance at the meeting held by(see enclosure 2).
i preparedness issues were raised After the October 14, 1988 reetirg, the staff met with all seven Civil Defense Directors, two Selectren and others (see enclosure 3),
i i
j j
27.
Tr. at 97,11 20-25 and Tr. at 98, 11 1 a.
See infor.r.ation provided in j
Items 7, 9 and 17.
l
- 28. Tr. at 90,11 10-25 and Tr. at 99,11 1.
See inferration provided in f
17 ar.d 11. Letter to Ronald Bellamy, NPC from Mary C. Ott and Denald M.
Muirhead Jr., M.D., Co-Chairner., Citizens Urging Responsible Energy, dated i
September 30, 1988
Subject:
Report on the Problems of Evacuation ant Steltering of Beach /Trar.sient Populations Due to the Proximity of Pilgrim i
l 1 Station, j
i l
/ps ** *e e g,,#e**
UNITED STATES E
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N i
naammatcm. o. c. soess I
.i,'
October 27, 1988 CMalmuAN Fr. Peter k'. Agnes, Jr.
Assistant Secretary Executive Office of Public Safety The Corronwealth of Massachusetts one Ashburton Place Bester, Passachusetts 02108 Cear P.r. Agnes:
In response to your reouest of Octcber 17. 1988, I am enclosing a cecy cf the transcript of the Octcber 14, 1988 Cormission meeting en the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
The NRC staff has identifico statements rade at the meating that they believe ray need clarification.
A copy of their suggested clarifi-cations is glso enclosed.
Sincerely, l
A cA% w.
Lando W. Z h, Jr Enclcsures:
(a)
Ccerission Peeting Trarscript (b)
Staff Proposed Clarificati:ns.
cc:
The Honorable Evelyn Murphy Originated: NRR:Wessman j
gerVto't46
-l-
A g..
g Federal Emergency Management Agency g
'3
/-
Wuhington, D.C. 20472 AUG 6 1987 MDCP.8tCl.N FCA:
Trank J. Conpe1, Direetor Division of Padiation Protection ard D=rgency Prepredness Office of Nuclear peactor Asgulation U. S.
uclea 1 story Camission W
im k
Assistant Associate Director office of Natural and Technological Maurds Progrars SL'BECT:
Offsite D etgency Plannirg at Pilgrim In my rurcra tir. to you en July 13, 1987, I stated the F4ral Dergency Kara; cent A;enej '7D%) wculd deliver to the Nxlear T.4 atory Camission 1
(Nr*) a firding on the adepacy of the of fsite energerey proparedness plans for the Pilgria Nxlear P>er Stati:n on or ato;t August 15, 1967. '!his is an u;date of o;r previcus interim firdin; whie us transsitted to the N1t.
on N>ercer 2,1983, alon; with a copy of the exercise re; ort evaluatirg the initial yaint State and 1ccal of fsite ra$1ological arergency prepredness exercise. These re;crts were provided to the NM pursuant to the NK/7D%
Me cranir: of Understardin; of !bvember 198C, and in res;cnse to the NE's revest for assistance corcernirn erstgency prepartiess issues at Pilgrim dated Septerunt 6,1983. In addition. in a rucc anirs to NE cn Harm 31, 1987, rDu irdi ated that the res;cnse to the.. ited 2.206 petition w uld
- e co soliinted with the results of rit%'s self-initiate! rwies of the i
ovk u state of o!! site erergency prepare 1ess and other relevant inforntion.
FD%'s re;nrt, entitled "Self-Initiated Pe/ies ard Interi:t Fin 31ng for the F11;ri.9 NJ: lear P>er Sution' dated hupst 4,1987, is atta:ned. Irela$ed as atta:..ents to the regcrt.re *FDM Cyrenta on the Ee;crt to the Cowrror on D wrgency Prepareiwss for an Accihnt at the Pilgri-Nxlear foder Station
- dated July 29, 1987 ilo:ste$ at Tab 1 Er. khe attated binder), and TD%'s
'A.alysis of r.ergency Preparedness Isnaes at Pilgrim Nxle tr D>gr Station Faised in a Petitico to the NE dated July if,1986*. FD%*s analysis :f the issaes raised in the 2.206 petition is cated July 29,1R, afd is 1ccated at Tab 2 of the attached bin $er.
ILisaf cn the Self-Iraitiated fevies an$ Ir.terim Tirdin; FDs ias concluded that Kassa:husetts offsite radiological erergency planntrg av aparedness are ira $apate to pyn.eet the public health a d safety in the event of an a::ident at the Pil.; rim Suelear P, er 5:atim. Because of the c.5arged cir-cu sta ces dis assed in the re;crt, the fin 31n; of a$egacy centaired in FD%'s previcus interim finding rc 1co;er applies and that irterim firdin; is tere y s;;erseded.
If yo; have any qpesticos, plesso consa:t N lt,'646-287).
Atta: Tents As S;stM I..,,
, mown
'O (VVMUdHO
/t
h I.
SUMMARY
on September 5, 1986, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) informed the Consonwealth of Massachusetts that it was undertaking a
review of its September 29 1982 Interim
'l Finding for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station because of concerns raised during meetings in the Spring of 1986 and information received subsequent to those meetinks from local officials, the Commonwealth, and other interested par:1e:,
FEMA identified six issues during the course of that review:
Lack of evaeustion plans for public and private schools and daycare centers.
Lack of a reception center for people evacuating to the north.
Lack of identifiable public shelters for the beach population.
Inadequate planning for the evacuation of the special needs population.
Inadequate planning for the evacuation of the transport dependent population.
Overall lack of progress in planning and apparent diminution in energency preparedness.
FEMA has analy:ed these issues pertaining to the radiological energency response plan and has reviewed the plan and exercise reports in conformance with applicable standards.
FEMA concludes that the plan and preparedness for the state 1
l l
l
and local governments within the plume exposure pathway for the Pilgria Nuclear Power Station are not adequatt to protect the health and safety of the public in the event of an accident at the Pilgria Nuclear Power Station. This Interim Finding supercedes the Interia Finding of September 29, 1982.
II.
BACECROUND on Juie 16, 1981.
the Director of the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and Office of Energency Preparedness (MCDA) submitted te the Tederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
on behalf of the Governor, the State Comprehensive Energency Respense Plan, together with its Annexes.
for Massachusetts and the local communities within the Plume Exposure Emergency Planning tone (EPZ) for the Pilgria Nuclear Power Station located in Plymouth.
Massachusetts. In his letter of transtattal which accompanied this plan he stated.
as required by Federal Regulation (Etg.
44 CFR 350.7).
that "this plan is, in the opinion of the Massachusetts Civil Defense
- Agency, adequate to protect the public health and safety of the Co=menwealth's citizens within the designated eeersency planning zones of the Pilgria Station and provides 2
-e for appropriate protective measures to be taken by the State and local governments in the event of a
radiological energency at the Pilgria Station".
FE!!A and the Regional Assistance Committee (RACI reviewed this plan and issued a report of its review in October, 1981.
As a consequence of this report the Commonwealth resised the plan.
FE>iA and the RAC reviewed this revision and issued a second report containing an analysis of areas where the plan i
was weak in September, 1982.
FEMA has received no response from the Commonwealth regarding further revision of its plan.
(
i I
In the interia. FE>tA sponsored a public seeting, held on Jurie r
3, 1980, to discuss the Commonwealth's Radiological Emergency i
Response
Plan for the Pilgria Nuclear Power Station.
The follewtng issues were raised by the public at the meeting:
The ability to evacuate communities within the l
10-mile EPZ.
The ability to evacuate Cape Cod beyond the 10-sile EP.
Reliability and effectiveness of the sirens.
Training and education of
- teachers, school bus drivers, and hospital personnel.
Information brochures for the
- public, including transients.
t 3
I 1
f Policy on the use of radioprotective drugs.
Protection of the elderly and others with special t
needs.
The Commonwealth responded to all these concerna, stating that the plan,"providels) adequately for safe and orderly evacuation of communities within the 10-mile IPZ"8 and pledging to work toward further improvement of the plan.
FEMA then issued an Interia Tinding for the Pilgria Nuclear Power Station on September 29, 1982.
It found that although there were problems with the plan. "the state plan and local plans together are adequate to protect the health and safety of the pub 11e."8 Exercises testing this plan were conducted on March 3 1982.
June 29, 1983, and September 5, 1985; a Remedial Exercise was conducted en October 29, 1985; and TEKA observed a Drill on August 15, 1984.
"Deficiencies".
- areas requiring corrective action",
and "areas reconsended for improvement" I
- Tollow-up to the June 3.
1982 Public Meeting. TEMA. p.
1 l
l 8 Ibid.,
p.
1 l
8 Interim Findings Joint State and Local Radiological Emergency Response Capabilities for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Plymouth. Massachusetts. FEMA. September 29. 1982,
- p. 5.
4
were identified.
As F E.'LA now u s e s the ters.
- deficiencies" are problems identified in plan implementation which preclude a
finding that a plan is adequate to protect the health and safety of the public.
"Areas requiring corrective action" are defined as inadequacies in State and local government performance observed during an exercise; although their correctiun is
- required, they are not considered, by themselves, to so adversely impact public health and
- safety, as to preclude a
finding that the plans and preparedneas are adequate to protect public health and safety.
"Areas reccamended for leprovement" are defined as probles areas observed during an exercise that are not considered to adversely impact public health and safety.
No deficiencies remain outstanding frca FEMA's evaluation of these exercises. Many "areas requiring corrective action" and "areas recommended for improvement",
- however, have not been addressed to date.
By
- March, 1985, status of off-site radiological energency response planning for the Pilgria Nuclear Power Station was:
(1) many planning problems remained unresolved from the Octcher, 1961 RAC Review; (2) the Consonwealth had not responded to the September, 1982 RAC Rev,iew; and (3) it had not provided FEMA with schedules of corrective actions for the problems identified in the 1982 and 1983 5
exercists, which tas required by FEMA guidance had been due within 30 days following the issuance of the exer'eise reports.
On March 6, 1985 FEHA.
therefore, informed the Consonwealth by letter that, because of unresolved emergency planning
- issues, it was suspending processing of the Massachusetts request for formal eser:ency plan approval ande pursuant to 44 CFR 350.
On June 20 1985 the Commonwealth sent FI!!A a schedule, both of actions it had taken and specific measures it was planning to take, to correct the problems identified in the 1983 exercise; plus general steps taken to correct problems identified in the 1980 exercise.
- However, the plan improvements the State promised have not yet been delivered to FEMA.
In its evaluation uf the September 5.
1985 pilgrim ixercise FEMA found that many of the previously identified problems had been corrected, but it identified new problems and four "deficiencies".
The Commonwealth corrected the "deficien-cies". as evidenced in an October 29, 1985 Remedial Exercise.
It has not
- yet, however, provided FEMA a
schedule of corrective actions for the 1985 etereise.
FEMA guidance requires the submittal of a schedule of corrective actions within 30 days of the issuance of the exercise report.
6
On October 30, 1985, FEMA again informed the Commonwealth by letter that the processing of the
" 350" request was not i
progressing because of the many, unresolved issues identified in the 1981 and 1982 RAC
- Review, and observed during the exercises.
FEMA also requested copies of the 1985 version of the local plans, which were provided in June. 1986.
The Commonwenith replied to FEMA's letter on June 6
'1986, l
at which time it outlined the initiatives it was taking in order to resolve the outstanding
- issues, and indicated the areas in which improvements had been sade in the state plan and procedures.
This reply did not,
- however, constitute a schedule of corrective actions'because it did not provide a L
date by which plan improvements were to be completed. In sum, the Self-Initiated Review was based on the 198: Massachusetts Radiological Emergency Response Plan and the 1985 versson of the local plans.
'P FEMA first became aware of potentially serious problems with the Commonwealth's plan during a series of meetings with the Commonwealth and local communities in the Spring of 1986.
Issues raised at these meetings, and information received subsequently, indicated that FEMA should review its Interia Finding concerning the emergency response plan for the i
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
Based on the information it l
1
received.
FEMA decided to conduct a review of the energency l
response plan and preparedness for the Pilgria Nuclear Power l
Station and so informed the Commonwealth in a letter to MCDA on September 5 1986.
On December 20. 1986, the Secretary of Public Safety. Charles
- Barry, forwarded to FEMA a copy of the "Report to the i
l Covernor on Emergency Preparedness for an Accident at the Filgrie Nuclear Power Station" (hereinafter called the Barry Reporti. This report stated that the Massachusetts plan and its preparedness are inadequate to protect the health and a
safety of the public in the event of an accident at the
[
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
TEMA was subsequently informed that the Governor
- and the Director of the 1
Massachusetts Civil Defense Agenev8 had endorsed the Barry Report.
In the ecurse of its self-initiated review. FEMA has l
treat *d this report as the authoritative and current positicn i
of the Commonwealth.
7 l
I f
4 4 Letter from Charles Barry. Secretary of Public Safety to Edward A.
Thomas. December 22 1986.
- Letter frem Robert J. Boulay. Director MCDA. to Edward A Thomas, April 10. 1987.
i 8
l 1
Hvo ly 'br urt45 P02 9
0;pso e m:44 g
to. 000 cc2
%'g UNITIO ITATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$lON s
DAD @ee 70er. D. C. Deses
\\....
August 18,. 1987 Docket No. 50 293 Mr. Ralph G. Bird Senior Vice President. Nuclear 800 Boylston Street loston, Massachusetts 02199 StNECT:
FEMA REPORT Oh 0FFSITE ENERGCNCY PLANNING FOR
Dear Mr. Bird:
Enclosed is the Federal Energency Managemnt A ency (FEMA) report t
'5 elf Initiated Review and Interte. Finding for the Pilgrir. Nuclear Power 9
$tation," which was transmitted te the Nucient Regulatory Coentss remrandar date.1 August 6,1987 Based on a review of the overall state of offsite erurtency preparedness for Ptigrim FEMA has concluded that Massachusetts offsite radiological eewrgenc,y plann at the Ptigrir Nuclear Power $tation.
previous interfr. finding of adequacy regarding offsite eaurgency p for Ptigrir.
FEMA has teentified six issues during the course of its revtew:
1.
Lack of evacuation plans for pubite and private schools and daycare canters.
2.
Lack of a reception center for people evacuating to the north.
3.
Lack of identifiable pubite shelters for the beach population.
4 Inadequate planning for the evacuation of the special needs population.
5.
Inadequate planning for the evacuation of the transportation dependent population.
6 Oserall lack of progress in planning and apcarent dir.tnution in erergency prepa rednes s,
~~
M f.
>c.ec, ces
. \\
planning identified in Willite P. Golden's Ju yThe FDS rep FDM fouM that while these areas of plan weakness were not suf
- 15. 1966 sustain the contentions retted in the Petition, res01ution of these weaknesse would enhance the $tste's ability to prvlest the public.
We view the emergency planning issues identified by FDM to be a Ntter serious concern.
in part, consideration of the FDM identified enrgency plann art awart that you are providing assistance and information to the Coerenw We of Massachusetts pertaining te several of these issues.
respoW to us with an action plan and schedule for assisting the $ tate andWe r local poverments in add esstag the FDM identified emergency plannin for Pi grim.
1 Please contact the Prcject Manager if you have questions, Sincarely.
.ve.
er tor Divisite of peactt+Jrojects - !/II Office of Muclear Reactor Regulation Enclesure:
As stated j
l l
l 1
I l
il l
c noenam imate:s On:as Soo Boytte Street late. MawNwith c2199 Ralph G. Sird sew vice hn.mt - %ces.
September 17,1987 BECo Ltr.#87-146 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Document Control Desk Mashington, D.C.
20555 Docket 50-293 Licente No. DPR-35
SUBJECT:
ILolton Edison Coepany Action Plan and Schedule for Providing Assistance in Addres>tng *EKA !ssues
Dear Str:
As recuested by Mr. Varga's letter of August 16, 1987, transmitting a copy of the FEMA report entitled 'Self Initiated Review and Interia Finding of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station', we are enclosing an action plan and schedule for assisting the Comonwealth of Hassachusetts and local governments in addressing the FEKA identified emergency planning issues for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
The Comonwealth has reviewed and concurs with our assesseents as presunted in the action plan and schedule.
The enclosed action plan and schedule identifies various 'subissues* derived from the fEKA report and sets forth the current status, the planned assistance to be provided by Boston Edison to the Comonwealth and local governments, the target schedules for resolution, and as necessary, an explanatory coment. As explained more fully in the introduction, the action plan and schedule is part of a com;tehensive prograr of assistance by Boston Edison to the Correnwealth and local governments in upgrading the offsite emergency response programs reitting to the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, k
$b
y
=
/
U. S. Nuclear Reguistory Commisstran '
/
Pagt 2 Please do not hesitate to contact either syself or Mr. Ron Varley at (617) 747-8544 if any additional information is required.
),
R 1ph G. Bird RGB/div Enclosure cc: Mr. Steven A. Varga, Director Division of Reactor Projects - 1/!!
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear kegulatory Coenission Nashington, D.C.
20555 Mr. R. H. Nessman, Project Manager Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Richard Krim, Assistant Associate Director FEM 500 C Street - Federal Plaza Washington, D.C.
20472 Mr. Eduard Thomas FEV - Region 1 J. h. McCorr.ack Post Office and Court House Boston, M 02109 Mr. Peter Agnes, Jr.
Co,cnvealth of M Assistant Secretary of Public Safety 1 Ashburton Place - Room 2133 Boston, M 02108 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co c.ission Region 1 - 631 Park Avenue i
King of Prussia, PA 19406 Senior NR0 Resident Inspector Filgrir Nuclear Power Station Rocky Hill Road PlyN uth, M 02360 Henry Vickers, Regional Director T EP.; - Fegien 1 J.W. P.cCor. mack Post office and Court House Boston, P.A 02109
,