ML20244D682

Raises Concerns Re State of Emergency Preparedness at Facility.Citizens in Impacted Towns Want Plan Which Takes Into Account Evacuation

ML20244D682
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	02/18/1989
From:	Lampert M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20244D654	List: ML20244D652 ML20244D682
References
NUDOCS 8904240076
Download: ML20244D682 (2)

Text

.  ;

February 18,1989 Mr. Lando Zech Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington D.C.

Dear Chairman,

I am writting to you as a concerned citizen from Duxbury, Massachusetts regarding the state of emergency preparedness in the towns around Pilgrim, and your personal role and your agencyts role in restart.

The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant is going through the process of restart.

A fact my home radiation monitor has been recording. Local emergency procedures have not been completed, testing of such plans has not occured, and reception centers are not ready to perform their jobs. Yet, you and your agency have somehow decided that this area is ready to deal with a radiological emergency.

What about Taunton? I question how the NRC could have accepted testimony from Boston Edison and from your own staff about the readiness of the reception center. For example: the building at Taunton was not cleaned 4 until January 28 and 29, 1989; the portal monitors did not arrive until January 10,1989 and are not yet properly positioned and tied in; the portable decontamination unit did not arrive until January 26, 1989 and is not yet connected to M e plumbing. On what basis, then, did you allow Boston Edisons' testimony 2n October 1988 that the Taunton Reception Center was ready to perf orn; its ' job? State and local officials also appraised you off the situation at that time. How could a reasonable man now not challenge the very idea of 8,000 to 10,000 people going to Taunton to be monitored and perhaps " cleaned" in a single trailor which, incidentally, is not handicapped accessible? Yet, the plant went on line December 1988.

What about Bridgewater? Officials at Bridgewater State College are quoted in the press as saying they have serious reservations that the center could ever handle 7,500 evacuees. The Board of Trustees at Bridgewater are scheduled to discuss the matter on February 23, 1989.

Right now, there is essentially nothing in place to serve as a reception center. Yet, the plant went on line December 1988.

What about Wellesley? The Public Works Barn remains just that-a barn.

It will require millions of dollars worth of work before it can be used.

Yet, the plant was allowed to restart December 1988.

The people in the impacted towns want a plcn. We, in Duxbury, want a p10 n . We, in Duxbury, have been working very hard reviewing the proposals and making comment. We, in Duxbury, do not have a workable plan now. You know this.

The above mentioned deficiencies were called to your attention personally and to o}hers in the NRC by letter, phone and at meetings by Albe Thempson i Peter Agnes and Mary Dinan, to name but a few. With this knowledge, I 1 feel you in encouraging restart and allowing its continuance are grossly ,

negligent and acting well beyond the protection of your job. I am I holding you personally responsible for knowingly acting solely in the interest of the nuclear industry and not in the interest of the public.

yw;;2: W E I tL 12 mp-c pb Mary Elizabeth Lampert 8904240076 890427 148 Washington Street Duxbury Massachusetts 02332

{DR ADOCK 05000293 PDC

f 8 ab 00NMOL NUMBER: EDO 0004324 NRR RE 2IVED: MARCH 15, 1989 ACTION: 1 DJ E :CONGELE 1

PLEASE NOTE THE ATTNBPD GtEEN TICKET IS FOR l

APPflOPRIATE ACTIN. P2 ASE REVIEN THIS ITEM ALO DETERMIIE MW"MRR Gt BKFr YCJt DIVISION WILL TAKE ACTION. IF ACTION IS GOING 20 BE  !

TAK M , MEAT IS AN APPROPRIATE DUE M m RETURN ONLY THIS GIMPLEED COVER SHEET TO THE l l

IstR MAILROOM,12-G-18 Br 3/17/89 .

. L_J no AcrION -rwmRr .

YES, ACTIN DOE MTE: clY 7 {

.. // /

j l

ROUTING: IElRLEY/SimEPK MIRAGLIA i CRDTW FIELD  ;

c:Ty.PSIPIE Imw1RG VARGA

.. n _ . . - -

w ,

y

1. [  % UNITED STATES

.i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

]a

,, y e

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 I

'%, / APR 171959 Ms. Mary Elizabeth Lampert 148 Washington Street Duxbury, Massachusetts 02332

Dear Ms. Lampert:

I am responding to your letter to Chairman Lando W. Zech, Jr. of February 18, 1989, in which you expressed your concern regarding the status of emergency preparedness for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant.

As you are aware, after giving carefui consideration to the views expressed on the emergency preparedness issue at both the October 14 and December 9 Comission meetings, the Comission voted unanimously on December 21, 1988, to endorse the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's proposal to permit the supervised restart of the Pilgrim facility. The decision was based on a thorough assessment of the management and technical issues, which were the original bases for the plant shutdown, as well as the status and progress toward resolution of the emergency planning issues.

The Commission's action did not result in the imediate resumption of full-power operations at Pilgrim. Rather, the Commission endorsed a deliberate, phased start-up program over a 4- to 6-month period, with augmented NRC oversight.

Moreover, the Comission required the NRC staff to submit formal reports at each of six hold points. These reports were to include an assessment of progress made toward resolution of the Pilgrim emergency preparedness issues.

The Comission believed the supervised restart approach would provide the opportunity for the Commonwealth and local governments to make further progress on improvements in emergency planning while the NRC staff assessed the operating .

capability of the licensee. The start-up program has reached the 25 percent power level with NRC approval having been obtained at each hold point. The reports that the staff has prepared haye included the status of emergency preparedness. The NRC staff evaluation of emergency preparedness issues i indicates that progress has been made.

With respect to the issue of the reception centers, the NRC staff provided its I assessment of this issue at both the October 14 and December 9,1988, Comission i meetings. Although proposed improvements to the reception centers had not yet been completed, the staff concluded that, if needed, the facilities could be used to carry out emergency response functions, including registration, monitoring, and decontamination of evacuees. In making its determination, the steff visited the Taunton and Bridge,'ater facilities, and considered the scope  ;

of the functions to be performed at reception centers, the existence of plans  !

and procedures for the operation of the facilities, and the cui rent availability i or accessibility of equipment for use at the facilities in the event of an l

<W n > > _ .- ,

OI MYb) /'d

4 Ms. Mary Elizabeth Lampert emergency at Pilgrim. In addition to NRC staff observations, information provided by the Civil Defense Director for Taunton indicates that the Taunton State Hospital could function adequately as a reception center during an emergency. The hRC staff concluded that, although improvements should be completed, the facilities and related planning for operation of the facilities are sufficient to ensure that the reception centers could be used effectivek.

in the event of an emergency at Pilgrim. The Commonwealth's efforts to complete the reception center improvements, with the assistance of the Boston Edison Company, are expected to enhance the capability of these facilities to operate in an emergency.

To summarize, the Commission continues to endorse a deliberate, phased start-up program, over a 4- to 6-month period, with augmented NRC oversight. The NRC staff will continue to monitor both the operating performance of the licensee and the progress of the Commonwealth and local governments in improving offsite emergency preparedness. In this regard, the Commission strongly encourages cooperative end expeditious action by Boston Edison, the Com.onwealth, and local governments to further improve the state of emergency preparedness for the area surrounding the Pilgrim f acility.

Sincerely, Original signed by, Romas E. Earlo7, Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBU710h':

TEMurley, NR t WDTravers, NRR DFMossburg, ED0-4324 central Files JHSniezek. NUR RJBarrett, NRR MCBridgers, ED0-4324 PEPB R/F FJMiraglia, RR LJCunningham,liRR CRC No: 89-0208 JPartlow, NRR DMCrutchfield, NRR CRVan Niel NRR JAWarren NRR 89-28 FPGillespie, NRR FKantor, NRR ED0 R/F FJCongel, NRR RTHogan, NRR :PDR ^

s ,3 PEPB/NRR SC ,P / RR C/P P R D/DREP/N R N RTHogan:sc F r WD s FJCongel l b glia Ji> iezek 14Mgley 4/ll/89 4/j(/8 4/h/89 4//3'89 4/ </89 4//f89 4/i;89 1 th

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