ML20064A626
| ML20064A626 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1990 |
| From: | Studds G HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20064A620 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9009140250 | |
| Download: ML20064A626 (3) | |
Text
4
(..
a..
..GERRY E. STUDDS j
- 101a Lnstnic1, SAAstA3esusef74 '.
07.f Aff3 NIW BEDFOXD -
.==:=.
hE~
COngrens Of tIJe EnittD4tateg
$2
....._,t wouse or nepresentarines
' :.=. :.= -
- ' cy;r'a;~*
alastington, BC 20515 FOREtGN A88 Alms I
' eg,;o;,tys sevannes t.A 02601
%J"'*,"'J. o,,
t Seet.fES AhD iM.Dudi 1
8 (IN MONT l
July 27, 1990, l
3 Dear Chairman Carri j
I am writing with regard to the NRCSInspector General's report I
released on Wednesday concerning: stat 9mente made to the Commissioners by the NRC staff about che. status!of emergency
.c planning in the Emergency Planning' Zone.(EPZ) of'the Pilgrim, Nuclear' Power Plant.
As you know, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) concluded in August-1987 that offsite emergency planning was-
- inadequate to protect the public health and-safety in the event.
of an accident at Pilgrim.
Following this finding,istate and local officials from the EPZ towns began:to' develop a-new; plan, j
On October 14, 1988, the Commission convened to receive
' testimony on the question ofz whether to allow Pilgrim;to resume operations.
At that meeting, an array'of federal and state officials argued. strenuously that because the plans were far from complete and because an' exercise to test'the adequacy'of plans had not been carried out,'the plant.'should not be allowed t
l to reopen.
These arguments were made even more convincingly by the local of ficials involved in emergency planning tat the
. December 9 meeting, s
The Commissioners ignored our strong admonitions and insteao l
relied on the statements of the staff.
As the Inspector General reports, many of these statements were patently false and_
i inaccurately characterized'the status of emergency planning in L
the five EPZ communities.
s l'
I In my view, the staff's actions demonstrate a complete _ disdain for emergency planning requirements and, more fundamentally,-a total disregard for their responsibility'to protect public C
health and safety.
I believe that strong-disciplinary action is.
warranted.
I would like to know if you intend to take such L
action, and, furthermore, what steps you will'take to ensure l
that this does not happen again.
Inspector General Williams reached several conclusions that I.
find deeply distu?bing and which raise fundamental questions about the NRC's ability to make sound, unbiased judgments about n
9009140250 900905 PDR COMMS NRCC t
1 CORRESPONDENCE PDC i
J
c
^
y.
Page Two Mr. Kenneth Carr July 27, 1990 the operation of our nation's nuclear power plants.
If your staff made false assertions about.the readiness of the Pilgrim t
plant: to operate,- how can we be assured that they did not do likewise with regard to'the opening of the Seabrook plant, for example, or.any other facility?
I'am'also gravely concerned that your staff seems to have i
forgotten that it is their legal obligation.to, regulate.the nuclear power industry, not promote ilt.
According to the IG's
]
report,, avoiding any possible delay in Pilgrim's restart was paramount, and led to the decision.to transfer to the-staff >from FEMA the responsibility for assessing 6.he status-offemergency-
{
~
preparedness.
This troubling' attitude is also evidenced-byEthe fact that the NRC staff chose to rely almost solely on the plant's operator,.
Boston > Edison, for its information,.rather'than the' officials who'were'actually involved in the preparation of the emergency.
plans.
In conclusion, I believe that this incident calls into serious question the NRC's duthority to make 'linal decisions on emergency planning.
Congress should take a hardelook at-this issue and I intend to bring this matter to the~ attention of my colleagues with oversight responsibilities over the agency, j
I am enclosing a copy of an editorial that appeared in today's edition of The Patriot Ledger, a daily newspaper that covers Boston's South-Shore.
It expresses-s ntim ts with whichLI heartily concur.
S Gerr
. Studds Mr. Kenneth Carr, Chairman Nuclear Regulator'/ Coamission Washington, D.C. 20:55 Enclosure i
f 4
L
~..
J.
3 75he a~t~n..--t.1Eebge.
o, r-
~
tu o.ine,estret. isu
- omerop Ledyr.iss0'v y
censu m.ean s.teis c.>rn:entow.cseamenenneank. -
e j'
(."/
WJhem8.Kctiet PatnciJ DeG.seI*'
Il c, K. Prescott Low -
5 rete oeweuenere.
q V
> i
.;:,@haene l
nVol.154 No.171?
44 Pages' ~" Friday, July 27,1990 :
,, Page 181 I
f.:
c se.e wee ;,rN cownW P/nconPmweekmany.soocrewscoenytime.o
. -. y c..>.M 9
.,e.ow Ref w eenalAsves t::..
. 706-7180. ' M Diner 0esenments 7
' 7se 7ago
' 'N t ' 786 7200'
,104 free witann Messachgeetle < \\ t d * - 1<100 972.'.W0 - A.
. wne Oes very Editorl&ls*fW/, s,d(.O; r m e e.. ;n o-
<~.g
[1. c,. ',..
L.... s..i - iJci 3j
. j,. ',.c N,,' {.. d ; h *,. ;
. j % t t.,*-.
.A 1. x.,.. S h a p<e..l:up th,,,e,A _.1_NRCA.%
N,.
M :., }4 r
,The Nuclear Regulatory Com; mis.,i griin was'neitherkin==8'n e
t..
w
..s.
e or thor.
sion is ruponsible for ensuring nuclear"1 ough," wrote Inspectbr General David '.'
power plants operate safely.' The,J 'own lepork and "had mi i00., W health
- and safety. of 'the public-in'elu' ding those who live near Bosto'r n mal con. :
depend on'grun plant in Plymouth y'. obtained, f Edison's PU tact.withllocal;odlicials," he noted.
Instead, theytroyed'.on informa'. ion.
ita sound tjudgment :on 1
issues that are often highlysl technical ~. the best source'for' unbiased info 1
and complex.
', ' ~ ~~ tion'be6aussofitsf u It's absolutely essential to maintain the plant restarted.gestakeingetting
- hforeover, W u.
p6bliiitonfidence in'the thoroughness'""Ilams~found inaccurafe'etatements'in "'
and objectivity of the NRC. That the staff report. i t w.
LI.
il confidence'is undermined when the,, oThe staffe'rs' rebuttal didn'is <....
t help 1 commission is sl:ppy or appears to be matters any.."The.NRC.ngulatory a 3
puttihg the nuclear industry's interesta process miles heavily on the truth and before th9 public's.
- L ? accuracy'of information provided by,j jTwo aports'this wak niating to' licensus,"theymaponded. F Yi.
important NRC decisions are there.
t
- Thatadmission only compounds the fore deeply disturbing. !
.i i unease over the commission's abuity be(One.is the Mlag that staff mem..to make impartial judgments.'The rsgavethiQCfalsoinformationat NRC obviously needs jinformation !
t two1988 Eerings on emergencyplan.
i.
from utilities operatingnuclearplants, '
I ning for ths Pilgrim nuclear plant,3sart ' but it should not be swallowing whole '
of ths process fordeterminingwhether" What~it's told by"the ' industry it's 'I the plant should be allowed to restart.
supposed to be overseeing. It needs to
\\The other is the disclosum that the. check out thst infoisiaton 'indepen. '
NRC reland controls over the disposal. ' dently.
.t
- i.... --.s...: r; ;
i of low. level radioactive wastes despite _ " Incidents joueb as';.this can only J reposted concerns expressed by staff' undermine confidence in the integrity J sdvisers and the Environmental Pro. of the nuclear regulatory' system. Al.
tection Agency. A congrasional com.. though the NRC over the years has, -
mittee is looking into this decision.
i
$ beentoughwithBostosiEdison'sman. !
. In the Pilgrim case, the commis.. asement of Pilgrim,it just takes a few
. ston's; inspector general said agency :' incidents !!ike this inaccurate staff l staffers relied on information bom report to give support to critics'long..;
i l
ows" investigation, to measure the 'with the nuclearindustrycBo i.
ability.of local communities to protect
' The coinmission needs to remedy '
the public in case of an emergency at thatim rossion ;fa'st l.and be seen to,,
. the slant.
u.
be in the public's' interest. Ifit.
P"he NRC staft's assessinent of'off.. can't that job itself Cong siteJmergency propandnum at Pil. ' the preside
. ir
.'Q,4
- t,' pf,5:
g',.e
~
,.---..-.-.:..= - - - -
-