ML20236E103

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Statement by RW Krimm Before Senate Committee on Labor & Human Resources in Plymouth,MA,880107
ML20236E103
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 01/07/1988
From: Krimm R
Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:
Shared Package
ML20235A915 List:
References
FOIA-88-285, FOIA-88-286, FOIA-88-287 NUDOCS 8903230444
Download: ML20236E103 (19)
v • d • e


Text

<-

198.w '5517:vA rcts LS4H TED CR 3 -0,02 1

1 I

I j

i

)

STATEMENT BY RICliARD W. UtINH 1 ASSISTANT ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR l

-l 0FFICE OF NATURAL AND TECHW'AhCICAL.MA2ARDS PROGRAMS  !

l STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT DIRECT 0AATE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY AEFORE THE C0KMITTEE ON Las0R AND HUMAN RESOURCES U.S. SENATE i

IN PLYM0tTCH, MASSACHUSETTS JANUARY 7,1988 l

l

{

1 1

8903230444 890321 'n PDR FOIA CARREY88-285 PDR ij u_--_-----_-----__

yn,05 ?! 17 15 rcfA 143h FED C7F 3 P.C3 My name is Richard W. W. rima.

I as Assistant Assosiste Director of the Federal ?.aergency Management Agency (FEMA) responsible for the q devviopaeut and management of Fi!NA's programs ralated to technological ]

These programe includa radiological emergency and ascurs) hazards.

l pionning acound nuclear power plance, as well as plannir.g for hasardous -

Also, as matseiale incident s , earthquakes , dem saf ety and . hurricanes.

of fice director,1 chair the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinat'ng Co::aittee (FRPCC) which includes of ficials from the Departments of Energy, Cocunerce Realth and Human Services. Transportation, Agriculture, Interior, l l

Defense, tne Environ:sental Protection Agency and the Nucitar Raguistory In addicion, I cechair with the Nuetear Regulatory Commisalon f Cosai s sion. i i

These two (NBC) monthly meetings of the TEMA/NRC Steering Committee.

ccealttees, at the National Level, deal with policy matters related to i l

of feite planning and preparedness at commercial nuclear power plante scross the country.

I am pleased to appear before you to represent the Federal Emergency Management Agency and to discuss the Radiological Energoney Preparedness (RIP) program, am it relates to of fsite esorgency planning in the plume exposure emersancy planning sone for the Pilgria Nuclear Power Station.

1 j

Accompanying me is Mr. Jack Dolan, FEMA Region 1, Boston and Mr. George Watson from our office of Genaral Counsel.

Before discussing Pilgrim specifically, I would lika to outline the contut of progran procedures and philosophy in which the Pilgris situation has unfolded. The primary concern of FD(A's REF program is the health and safety I

1

.} -

l l

E- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

p i iy

  • 33 :/,':M r&A LASH FED CN 3 tac-

] ,

FEMA works to achieve this goal of the public around nuclear power plants.

through an evaluation of plans and preparedness under the FINA regulation 44 CFR D0. This FEMA process , governed by the regulation, priserily invobes a forssi submission by the Governor, or his/her designse _of the State and fj local plans for the eastgency planning mone (EPZ) around a specific nuclear power plant. 'the evaluation process includes- participation by a Regional Assistance Comittes (RAC), chaired by FEKA, which includes, of the Regional level, the eman agencies I mentioned as belonging to the FEPCC.

The AAC reviews the State and local plan, against published criteria (WLIKEG-0654/

FDtA-9EP-1, Rev.1), and agency representatives give advice on their particular areas of expertise. The published criteria eveloped jointly by 79(A and l

NRC with full public participation and contains all the established fadoral criteria for developing, reviewing and evalussing radiological esorgency plancing and preparedness for a canmarcial nuclear powet plant osergency.

The published criteria contain 16 major planning standards, which are f urther .

broken down into 196 evaluation critacia addressing such elements as esetgency communf estions, public warning, and public educa' tion and information.

The appropriate FDiA Regional Of fice coordinates _ the planning review and assures that an exercisa is conducted to adequately test the pisms. The Sagional Of fice or State also conducts a public meeting to inform interested l parties of the content of the plans and what would be expected 'of the public in the event of an emergency at the plant. FEMA, through the public seating forum ensures that the public input is considered and incorporated into the design of t he plans, where appropriate.

i 1

JM,i - '88 17: 36 E'% nM,H FED CTR 3 P.05

-3 In addition, FEMA also provjdus technical assistance to State and local As an governments to enhance the overall planning and preparedness effort.

ex. ample, FDtA has frequently provided technical assistance to the Casimonwealth Another example of in the development of plans pursuant to our regulations.

this is our training program, which includes courses in radiological energency at the FD(A National Roergency response planning and accident asseessent Training Centet in Emaitsburg, Maryland, and a course to. train Radiological Energency Response Teams at the Nevada Nuclear Test lite. These courses are primarily for Stata and local of ficials.

Ultiantely, the plans are reviewed and approved at FEMA Headquarters. Following approval. FDIA notifies the NRC and the Covernor and publishes a notice in the federal Eagister. This is done only if a determination is made, following appropriate plan exercises, that there is reasonable assurance that the public health and safety can be protected in the event of a radiological emergency at the plant. However, the process does not end with the initial approval.

The State and the af fected local governments must continue to keep plans updated and they must also participate in periodic exercises- with the utility as a condition of continued FDiA spyroval.

FDtA and NRC have also signed a Memorandtaa of Understanding (MOU), acet recently revised in April,1985. This MOU calls for FINA to supply WRC with advice on of fsite preparedness issues. Typiestly, under the MOU, FiXA provides

" interim

  • of fsite safety findings that are used in lisanating decisions made by the NRC. These "interin" findings are a snapshot in time of the preparedness

~

'.4.E '?? 17:Ir rC% Upr!H FTF CTF ? p,g I

posture at a given site. It is important to note that findings made under our regulation (44 CFF 350) or interia findings under the MOU are made on the same basis, that to , under the published criteria.

Pj,1.CRIH In a series of aestings with the Commonwealth and local communities in the Spring of 1986, TEMA identified problems with the Commonwealth's eastgency responsa plans.

i Based on issues raised at these meetings, and information received subsequently, l FDtA decided to conduct a review of the emergency response plans and preparedness for the Pilgrim Nucicar Power Station and so informed the Coe.monwealth in a letter to the Massachusetts civil Defense Agency (MCDA) on September 5,1986.

On December 22, 1986, the Secretary of Public Safety, Charles Barry, fowarded to FEMA a copy of the "3mport to the Governor on Esargency Preparedness for an Accident at the Pilgrim Nucleac Powr Station" (hereinaf ter called the i

Barry Report). This re port stated that the Hassachusette plan and its  !

preparedness are inadequate to protect the health and safety of the public in the event of an accident at the Pilgria Nuclear Power Station, FEMA was

] :

subsequently jnformed that the Governor and the Director of the Massachusetts {

l Civil Defense Agency had endorsed the Barry Report, In the course of ite self-init3stod review, TD(A treated this report as the authoritative and current position of the Commonwea.ith.

On August 6,1987, TDlA transmitted to the Ccomonwealth of Massachusetts and the NRC its report entitled "Self-Initiated Raview and Interia Finding for the Pilgrim Nucisar Power Station". The report was provided to the f

Commonwealth and HRC pursuant to the regulation and identified six (6) areas of major concernt i

s

1si.cf les 17: W50% ii4.% rtD cTc I p,07 R i

{

Lack of a re eption center for people ~ evacuating to the north. l

- Lack of evacuation plans for public and private schools and daycare centers.

- Lack of identifiable public shelters for the beach population.

l

- Inadequate. planning for the evacuation of the special needs population. - )

- Inadequate planning for evacuation of che transport dependent population. f i

Overall lack of progress in planning and apparent diminution in emergency ]

preparedness.

Based on the Self-Initiated P.eview and Interim Finding, FBKA concluded that y Massachusetts of fsite radiological emergency planning and preparedness we inadequate to protect the public hekith and safety in the svent of an accident at Pilgris.

Shortly thereafter, NRC informed the Boston Edison Company of FDtA's finding. )

hy . <ouraged cho utility to address the underlying issues 15 C99P9Fotion.

with the Commonwealth and stated that the status of all issues upon which the fioding was based would be taken into consideration la decisions about the restart of the plant. NRC's prompt notification to the linensee about the offsite probisse at the site is consistent with the FD(A/NRC policy of cooperative effort towards addressing issues of this serious nature.

Current Status When w transmitted the self-initiated review to Massachusetts we suggested that they work wit.h un to develop a wrk plan and schedule to correct the inadequacies in their plan. The Commonwealth has not yet developed such a work plan or schedule; however, since the issuance of the new interim' finding

No.0% 'n triffrD% t#4VFtD N#T

~ - ~

I P.06 s

1 l

and the publication of the FIMA Self-Initiated Review and Interim Finding j i

on Pilgrim, the commonwealth of Hausachusetta has taken actions to address )

outstanding tesues t l

l On December 17, 1987, in a letter from Covernor Dukakis to our Engional l

Director. Mr. Henry Vickers, the Commonwealth indicated that progresa la  !

'l being made in several areas. For example, they indicated that draft revisione 1

to the local plans exf et in part for each of the fiva EPZ communities. In some cases the draf e revisions were indicated as being up to 85% ecaplete. I 1

They f urt her s ea t ed that when of ficials of all of the communities and l

staff of the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency / Office of Energency i Preparedness indicate that the initial draf ts are coepleted, the drafte will be submitted to FDiA f or informal technical review.  !

The Messachusette Bureau of Radiation Protection, which is part of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Haalth, has submittad to FDtA a draf t of their ingestion pathway plan which the AAC is reviewing at this time and plans to complete by the end of , January at which time J the RAC's comments will be forwarded to the Commonwealth.

PMA looks forward to working with the Commonwealth and affected communities in order to achieve our common goal of protecting the public health and j safety. We stond ready to provide technical aa61 stance to the affected partise j in the resolution of offsite issues associated with this site.

We are prepared to respond to your questions. I 1

i a

,, '[t_,.

JUNE 9, 1988 COMMISSION MEETING This meeting is the-first of two envisioned regarding Pilgrim restart.

This meeting is to provide a. status of BEco and staff activities at Pilgrim.

The second meeting (expected in early August) would be to obtain a Commission decision on Pilgrim restart.

Issues expected to be addressed by BECo at this meeting (30 minutes):

BEco Restart Plan BEco Management Team  ;

' Pilgrim Safety Enhancement Program Physical Readiness of Pilgrim BECo Self-Assessment Results Emergency Preparedness Status Issues expected to be addressed by the staf f (30 minutes):

Confirmatory Action Letter 86-10 Restart Panel Concept Status of Review / Inspection Activities Future Staff Activities Other issues that have surrounded the Pilgrim restart:

Several public meetings held by the staff to consider public comments L

Emergency Planning  ;

Mark I containment performance (including Otrect Torus Vent System)

Request for Adjudicatory Hearings Intensifying state 'and local opposition to facility restart l

,/ M

~ ~~ ._.

[

e Received 5/24/88 from R. Wessman for Conference Call 1:30 5/25 with Dr. Murley Re: Pilgrim Pre-Brief.

Mary Jo INTRODUCTORY REMARXS 5/24 DR. MURLEY i

-This briefing is of Pilgrimbefore weacan status returnbriefing to you with - we our have recom a great d eal to accomplish \

mendations regarding restart

-Bill Russell and I will sunrnarize , restart criteria,backgroundc

-facility shutdown in April 19M due t  !

,Istnat at Pilgrim enmoley o hardware ornblenn to resolve the staff technical matters and managemand inuniva more n than corre I

ent deficiencies identified by I

-0ECo initiated a $afety Enhancem j ent Program during shutdown

-Not required for restart decision

-Direct Torus VentActions to improve Mark I containment resp -

savere accidents

-Calci.,l -Relationship e of Pilgrim to Mark I generic s improvement ci.,s e y c .y y. c g . c d..c. ,

suns e. n.

.ol>ed minse aliu tdunn

-FEMA Review of August 1987 - 6 major areas

-Efforts deficiencies by Commonwealth, BEco and local govern ments to resolve

-Exemption limited demonstration to schedularof plan for:requirementc se for full Exer i scnoots ano oay care centers i special naads and transportation dependant n pnpnlatio {

-Restart can be authorized with u y some resolved EP issues

-Public concern regarding the Pilgrim restart remai 4 ns intense 1

-Petitions for 2.206 Decisions,ondence

-Congressional interest litigationPublic mee j l

l

)

I

')

Remarks (Con't)

-NRC activities and comitment to dealing with Pilgrim has been extensive

-Resources committed

-Depth and scope of reviews

-Level of management attention, Comission attention l -Staff has much to accomplish before recommending a restart decision )

1 i

-Unique restart panel approach

-Opportunity for public input to the process l

-Continued management involvement I

-Fust assure ourselves that Pilgrirn can be operated safely before considering restart l

l

m l

1 l

l l

COMMISSION BRIEFING l

ON THE STATUS 0F 1

PILGRIM NUCLEAR STATION JUNE 9, 1988 4

i e

k _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ .

i i

i l

l I t t l

i l

PRESENTATION OUTLINE 1

)

BACKGROUND RESTART CRITERIA STAFF RESTART ACTIVITIES FUTURE STAFF ACTIVITIES i

1 i l

SLIDE 1 i

\

l L<

l l

m - - ,

i j

l' 1 I

, i l

BACKGROUND l l

SHUTDOWN APRIL 12, 1986 CONFIRMATORY ACTION LETTER 86-10 )

l MANAGEMENT MEETINGS ON RESTART ISSUES l l

  • TECHNICAL / EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS
  • !!AtlAGEMENT CONCERNS "SALP FINDINGS EMERGENCY PREPARE 0 NESS SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM l l

2.206 PETITIONS /PUBLIC CONCERNS I l

SLIDE 2 i

~

I l

RESTART CRITERIA STABLE AND EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND STAFF AT PILGRIM RESOLUTION OF MAJOR TECHNICAL ISSUES DEMONSTRATED IMPROVEMENT IN SALP PROBLEM AREAS MAINTENANCE PROGRAM AND WORK BACKLOG ISSUES ADDRESSED NRC 5ATISFIED THAT CERTAIN EMERGENCY PLAN IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE SLIOE 3

1 i

l STAFF RESTART ACTIVITIES i i

RESTART ASSESSMENT PANEL l

INSPECTION AND LICENSING ACTIVITIES PUBLIC MEETINGS / STATE INVOLVEMENT SENIOR MANAGEMENT REVIEWS 1

l 1

1 I

k l

l l

l SLIDE 4 i

i

BAC'KVP SLIOE l

l RESTART ASSESSMENT PANEL l COORDINATE ALL RESTART ACTIVITIES l

INSPECTIONS AND LICENSING

! RESTART PLAN REVIEW POWER ASCENSION PROGRAM REVIEW ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE

-MANAGEMENT

-STAFF

-0 ORGANIZATION PROVIDE BASIS FOR RESTART RECOMMENDATION l I

l 4

l l

1 SLIOE S j 1  !

1 l  !

l i

L___ _ _ _ . --

BACKVP SLIDE I

I 1

i 1

I l

i i

i INSPECTION AND LICENSING ACTIVITIES THREE RESIDENT INSPECTORS l

INSPECTIONS - SPECIALISTS AND TEAM l 1'

LICENSING ACTIVITIES - AMENDMENTS / EXEMPTIONS OTHER ACTIVITIES AND REVIEWS d

  • RESTART PLAN / POWER ASCENSION PROGRAM  !
  • BECO SELF-ASSESSMENT i
  • SEP ASSESSMENT 1
  • CURRENT SALP (2/1/87-5/15/88) {

i l

i i

l i

4 l

SLIOE 6

.il 1 BACKUPhlIDE PUBLIC MEETINGS NUMEROUS MEETINGS WITH STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS l I

SENATOR KENNEDY HEARING - JANUARY 7, 1988 TWO LOCAL MEETINGS ON RESTART PLAN MANAGEMENT MEETINGS WITH UTILITY l

l l

l 1

SLIOE 7 w______-_-___ _ _ _ _

1 i

l FUTURE STAFF ACTIVITIES PLANNED BECO SELF ASSESSMENT / POWER ASCENSION PROGRAM REVIEW INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT TEAM INSPECTION (IATI) 2.206 PETITIONS /PUBLIC MEETINGS I SALP ASSESSMENT RESTART ASSESSMENT REPORT ACRS/ COMMISSION MEETINGS POWER ASCENSION PROGRAM MONITORING DECREASE PERIOD FOR NEXT SALP 1

SLIDE 5 i

- - - _ . - - _ _ - - - - -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20236E103&oldid=3180102"