ML20207N110

Expresses Opposition to Restart of Facility.Requests Refusal to Restart Until Emergency Response Plans Completed & Tested by full-scale Graded Offsite Exercise

ML20207N110
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	10/11/1988
From:	Dukakis M MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19318H636	List: ML20207N097 ML20207N110
References
NUDOCS 8810180507
Download: ML20207N110 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ -

C' o *- -

k b, THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASS ACHUSETTS  ;

I executive DEPARTMENT f

$7ATC HoVSC .. SoSfoN O3133 f i

I MICH... AEL.S. ....DUM AMt3 ,

1 i October 11, 1988  !

Lando Zech, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  !

' Washington, D.C. 20555 {

Dear Chairman Zech l l I am writing on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts L to express opposition to the restart of the Pilgrim Huclear l Power Plant at this time. {

, As the enclosed report by my Secretary of Public Safety f l documents, and as confirmed by the comments of those local j

! officials and residents who attended our public meeting on i l Thursday, October 6, 1968, (a transcript of which is also l enclosed), there ir no reasonable assurance that the public  !

l health and safety can be protected in the event of a l l radiological accident with offsite consequences at the Pilgrim (

facility. Local elected officials and public safety [

profecsionals f rom Plymouth, Duxbury, Carver, Kingston, and j Mart.hfield are unanimous in their opposition to the restart of the Pilgrim plant.until tested and approved emergency response  !

plans are in place.

l- Fatal flaws also exist in the process that the Nuclear  ;

i Regulatory Commission has followed to arrive at a decision in i l this matter. In December, 1986, after months of analysis, my l 1 staff released a report documenting the numerous health, 6 l safety, and emergency planning deficiencies associated with the  !

Pilgrim Huclear Power Plant. The Federal Emergency Management i i Agency (FEMA) reached essentially the same conclusion in their l l 'Self-Initiated Review,' published in August, 1987. In  ;

I September, 1987, the Attorney General and I filed a petition [

l with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under 10 CFR,  !

l l section 2.206, alleging major deficiencies in emergency I

preparedness, among other things, and calling for an  ;

! adjudicatory hearing to resolve these issues. We also j l published a status report on emergency planning in December, j 1987 Hy staff briefed your staff about the status of offsite l issues at a meeting held in August, 1988. At every opportunity l during NRC technical meetings in September and October, 1988, i l

i L

.K ~^m i g/[f060 ? l l_ ~

~ ,

l Lando Zech, Chairman October 11, 1988  ;

page Two L

we have sought to raise concerns about offsite emergency j preparedness. On October 5, 1988, Assistant Secretary Peter W. .

Agnes and local officials travelled to your headquarters to i brief Dr. Thomas Murley, Director of N.R.R., on the status of -

1 emergency preparedness, including the many outstandins  !

deficiencies. And, as noted above, we recently conduc'o a -

public meeting on this subject in Duxbury, Massachusetts.  !

1  :

Despite these numerous formal acticns undertaken by the

• Commonwealth to call attention to problems associated with I offsite emergency preparedness, we have yet to receive a single

] official response from the NRC. The NRC has not responded to I i any of the three reports on emergency response planning l prepared by my Secretary of public Safety. We issued our third  ;

and most recent report in draft form over one week ago in order l 1 to give your staff an opportunity to respond, but have received  ;

no comment. Further, we are still awaiting a response to that i portion of our 2.206 petition filad more than one year ago ,

related to the issue of emergency planning. In addit. ton, we i

have not received a response from your staff to the .:.inutes of  !

a the planning meeting that wa hosted in August, 1988. At the [

l meeting recently conducted b> Dr. Murley, the first in more

) than one year called for t."t purpose, the licensee's views on l 1 offsite issues were solicited even though it is not an issue  !

for which they are responsible under federal law. Incredibly, !

the Commonwealth had to obtain permission to speak at that  ;

4 i '

meeting, and local officials were denind that right, even l though Assistant Secretary peter W. Agnes requested that these  ;

j local officials be allowed to speak.

, We now find ourselves on the eve of a commission vote on {

j whether to restart the Pilgrim Hucioar Power Plant, without the L

benefit of any commentary by your staff on note than two years t t

, of review and analysis of offsite emergency response planninr, i issues by state and local officials. In addition, neither ,

Region one Administrator William Russell nor N.R.R. Director i Dr. Thomas Marley has responded to our repeated requests for a  !

i statement of the criteria the NRC will employ to evaluate I whether reasonable assurances exist that the public health and I safety can be protected. FEMA, which took a major step in  !

joining with us to declare the offsite emergency response plans {

) inadequate in 1987, appears to have been relegated to the role i of passively reviewing draft material submitted by the

)

j commonwealth.

i

! The contrast between the approach taken by the NDC in this case to address and resolve technical issues as opposed to l offsite emergency planning issues is extraordinary. Since the l

plant shutdown in April, 1986, the NRC has provided biweekly i  !

4 i r

- ---r-.---.- --

E .

' .!p r . ., .

Lando-Zech,1 Chairman' October.11, 1988 Page Three

~

r status reports relating to onsite concerns, maintained an additional onsite inspector, engaged in more than 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of onsite inspection of systems,. hardware and management, and careful y explained the criteria and technical-bases for its judgments. During the same p9tiod, there has not been a single comprehensive NRC inspection of emergency preparedness and no explanation of what will be required in this area or how the Commission intends to deal with this unresolved item.

M If you or your-staff know what criteria you ' intend to employ in evaluating offsite emergency preparedness, but have elected to withhold that from the Commonwealth, the federally mandated process for protecting health and safety vill have been subverted. Congress envisioned and your regulations provide that states are principally responsible for offsite emergency preparedness. Yet, our ability to perform this function has been frustrated by the NRC's failure to give any significant attention to this vital issue. If, on the other hand, neither you nor your staff have determined what should be required to protect public health and safety in the event the Pilgrim Plant resumes operation, you have a moral as well as a legal responsibility to decline to permit the plant to restart until the answers are available.

If tirae is taken to review the enclosed materials, it will be evident that our opposition to restart at this time is based upon nothing other than legitimate public safety inadequacies and uncertainties. I wil? briefly cite some of the major problems.

No emergency response organization can be expected to fulfill its mission without an effective and redundant 3 communications system, a consensus about the procedures to be employed, skilled personnel who understand their roles and responsibilities, confidence that the resources required are available, and assurances that the component parts will function as a harmonious whole. Not surprisingly, these are the essential requisites for the development of adequate radiological emergency response plans found in the controlling federal guidance document known as "NUREG 0654." On each score the emergency response organization for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant is not. prepared to fulfill its mission in the event of an accident with offsite consequences.

The communications system for the alert and notification of 3

political subdivisions and key state agencies is not operational and additional training and approval of procedures for the redundant system is still required. The vast majority

- , c Lando Zech, Chairman October 11, 1988

'Page Four of implementing procedures have yet to be approved by local selectmen or reviewed by the state, and in many cases such as the schools, local personnel are not even aware of the-procedures. Specific letters of agreement requested by the Commonweelth to insure the availability of transportation resources have yet to be signed by transportation providers and approved-by.the state. Only about 27% of the approximately 6,000 emergency workers requiring training have been reached and only about 19% of the planned cour.,es have been taught.

Perhaps most significantly, this vast and totally new response organization that has been under development by'the licensee and state and local government for the past soveral years has never been tested by a fu11 scale exercise. In fact, no fu11 scale exercise has taken place for over three years.

These are some of the reasons why every one of the Boards of Selectmen, police chiefs, fire chiefs,. school superintendents and civil defense directors from the towns of Duxbury, Plymouth, Ca rve r , !!arshfield, and Kingston join me in calling upon you and your fellow Commissioners to place public health and safety above any other con derations and to refuge to authorize Pilgrim Station to (start unless and until hmergency response plans have been co eted and tested'by a full s ale, graded offsite exercise.

Since olhv

/

/

f/ '

)/

/

, [ {i I / , , {,

y

/' Michael S.

Governor ,

Dkap'is

!!SD/cas / .

Enclosures cc: Dr. Thomas Murley, fl.R.R.

William Russell, llRC Region One Steven J. Sweeney, President, DECO.

Ralph G. Bird, Senior Vice President, DECO.

F.

L -

dbx KQ

?

h137im Se $macwwea//d of$ssachuse//s

{f $%ecuAbe ce of hkIc 0 e Y NMr/M hace h

Michael S. Dr. kakis bJ/M, v JJaClMJCNJ 00/0S Chules V. Bun samtem October 11, 1988 His Excellency Michael S. Dukakis Governor of the Commonwealth State House, Room 360 Boston, MA 02133

Dear Governor Dukakis:

At your direction, I have prepared the enclosed "Report On Progress Made In Emergency Planning In Response To An Accident At The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station." This report, like my previous two reports, is based upon a careful examination of the issues, a review of relevant documents, and consultation with local officials and planning committees, representatives of the licensee, and state and federal officials.

The report contains details about the status of the many generic issues we identified in our 1986 Report and specific comments about the efforts made and still underway in the communities around the Pilgrim Muclear Power Plant, as part of our program to develop the best possible radiological emergency response plans. Despite the clear signs of progress, I continue to make the finding that an adequate plan does not yet exist, and that there is no reasonable assurance that the public health and safety can be protected in the event of an accident with offsite consequences at Pilgrim Station. My findings were confirmed by the comments of local public safety officials and residents of the area who testified at a public meeting we hosted in Duxbury on Thursday, October 6, 1988. We also discussed our report with the licensee and reviewed and considered the specific comments they provided to us.

It is also significant to note that within the past several days we took a poll of Boards of Selectmen, Civil Defense Directors, Police Chiefs, Fite Chiefs and School Superintendents in the five EPZ communities around Pilgrim Station, to determine theit. views about the restart of the plant. The unanimous response from those local officials, who e' ,

2 I

_a,

.- .. . . ,f ..,

rw  ;,

Governor Michael S...Dukakis

,- October 11,-1988.  ;

o Page Two-are knowledgeable about their. communities and primarily responsible.for the pubtic safety of residents, is that restart

^

should not take' place at ' east until completed plans exist that have been' tested and proven'eff>ctive by1a graded, fu11 scale ,

i exercise.-

We will continue to work with the licensee and local and federal officials.to improve public health'and safety in response to the risks. associated with the Pilgrim.fluclear Power '

Plant. However, in view of our findings, the work that remains '

to be dene r 'and the uncertainties that continue to exist, I recommend that_we inform the tiuclear Regulatory Commiss20n of r our opposition to the restart of the Pilgrim Plant at this time. 1 Eince ely,

/ f/ _s Charles V.

Secretary of Public Safety CVB/cas enclosure 4

l l I

i I

h b

5 h

1 I

i i a

t

.-.--__-__-,-.._.-._.._-.-_--.--_-.-_--J