ML20235Y535

Discusses Disappointment W/Lack of Commission Interest in Views of State/Local Authorities Re Status of Offsite Emergency Planning for Plant.Lack of Adequate Reception Ctrs for Radiological Monitoring & Decontamination Emphasized

ML20235Y535
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	01/17/1989
From:	Dukakis M MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20235Y532	List: ML20235Y527 ML20235Y535
References
NUDOCS 8903140282
Download: ML20235Y535 (3)

Text

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT STATE HOUSE e soSToN 02133 MICHAEL 5. DUKAKis b eevenwost t

January 17, 1989 Mr. Lando Zech, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852

Dear. Chairman Eech:

We have learned of your request that the licensee-advise you of the. status of off-site emergency planning for Pilgrim Station at each hold point in the power ascension program. I am most disappointed that you do not show any interest in the observations of state and local authorities regarding these very important public safety matters. Who better than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and local officials are equipped to advise you of the status of emergency planning? Wasn't the purpose of inviting state and local officials to testify before .

the_ Commission on December- 22, 1988, to. acknowledge that state and local governments are principally responsible for off-site emergency planning? The decision to consult solely.with the licensee at this critical juncture is a further affront to state and local officials and confirms our longstanding suspicion that the Commission attaches only secondary importance to off-site emergency preparedness activities.

I also am writing to you to correct a serious misimpression I believe you and your colleagues may be operating under about the adequacy of the Reception Centers for the Pilgrim EPZ.

Since 1986, we have been pointing out shortcomings in this acpect of the off-site emergency preparedness program.

Regardless of any assurances that the licensee has provided the Commissioners, we do not have facilities available in the designated locations, Taunton, Bridgewater and Wellesley, Massachusetts, at which people can receive radiological monitoring and decontamination, and other reception services.

0 9 %'

p ; Lj 0A U C i) lho& Net M

• IDo---004202 4 Wha

_ _ - - _ _ - - - _ . _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - . - . _ _ - -)

- - - - ~~ --

Ch Arman Lando W. Zach' January 17, 1989 page Two u.

- You have been told by the licensee and others that adequate facilities exist to-serve the needs of more than 20% of the

. peak population of the Pilgrim EPz. This.is not true. This has been amply documented in each of our three reports of safety at Pilgrim Station, especially in our-October, 1988 report (at page 45, section K), was'disedssed and'again '

confirmed at a meeting of local EPZ officials on December 28, 1988, at which an NRC staff person was in attendance,.and was

_ confirmed during the past week by site visits by our staff and

a. meeting with the licensee.

The Commonwealth.has designated two reception communities 4

-- Bridgewater and Taunton -- and worked with those communities and the licensco'to develop reception center. plans. The Boston Edison Company assumed responsibility to provide all necessary equipment and to make facility improvements so that we.can demonstrate the actual reception capabilities which are detailed in the plans and procedures. The Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and Office of Emergency Preparedness made arrangements whereby the Boston Edison Company could work directly with the state capital planning agency to arrange the details of altering the Commonwealth's facilities. As of this date, necessary improvements have not been made at either Taunton State Hospital or Bridgewater State College and neither can fulfill its planned roles and responsibilities.

We feel that the delays primarily are due to the licensee's indecision on plans for facilities improvements, especially at Taunton State-Hospital. We have learned that Boston Edison and hospital administrators selected a building at the hospital for renovation, but that the licensee then changed concepts and decided to rehabilitate a different building. Now we learn that the licensee is considering construction of a new building to serve as the Taunton reception center. The fact remains that as of this writing, Boston Edison has never presented to the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and Office of Emergency Preparedness an actual proposal for capital improvements at Taunton State Hospital which can be evaluated for adequacy.

We are investigating the possibility of using another state facility as a third reception center, while the state Department of Public Works facility at wellesley is feasible for use as a reception center, the detailed planning has not yet been completed to determine if, after certain renovations and improvements have been made, it can serve this purpose.

j

.. ' C,hairman Lando W. Zech January 17, 1989 {

1 Page Thrco "ecause of this remaining work, it certainly will be many B

l months -- if not more than a year -- before this facility could l even be considered as an adequate reception center, even if it  !

was determined that the Wellesley site can be provided with the operational capabilities needed for a reception center.

In view of these plain and obvious deficiencies in emergency planning for our reception centers, it is extremely disturbing to find that as recently as December 29, 1988, in

- the final response to the 10 C.F.R. 2.206 petition that Attorney General Shannon and I filed, your Director of N.R.R.,

Dr. Thomas Murley, wrote that "[e]ven without augmentation, the chaff has concluded that these two facilities (Taunton State Hospital and Bridgewater State College) could now be used to provide effective support for evacuees." This is simply not true and your staff was provided with the facts by state and local officials on a number of different occasions.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its local jurisdictions are working to develop fully adequate reception conters to serve the needs of the peak population of the Pilgrim EPZ. However, until those facilities are available, it would be grossly irresponsible for the Nuclear Regulatory commission to permit Pilgrim station to operate at or above its 54 power level.

Therefore, I ask that the Commission not permit the Boston Edison Company to proceed with its power ascension program unless and until the commonwealth of Massachusetts can assure that adequate reception centers, which have. full operational capabilities have been developed and are available for response to an accident at Pilgrim Station.

Thank you for your attention ll o/b his very serious matter.

.e /

S'in e t ely', .

}.)

I/

'/

f f f ljl l:' lj i chgh , ak Governor ,/

MSD/cas h /

I'

/

TOTAL P.04

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