ML20205H301
| ML20205H301 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1988 |
| From: | Kerry J SENATE |
| To: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205H299 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8810310020 | |
| Download: ML20205H301 (2) | |
Text
,
e
'J0MN KGRPY y.
Mited $tates $titate WASHINGTON, DC 2051o September 29, 1988 Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Zech:
I am writing once again to raise serious concerns which I have regarding the possible restart of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power P*. ant in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
It is my understanding that Regional Administrator William Russell is currently revieding a recommendation to restart made by an inspection tee:a which toured the plant in August of this year, and his decision will be under review by the Commissioners on October 14, 1988.
Although these concerns have been raised on many occasions by local, state, and federal officials and the communities surrounding the plant, I believe that they bear repeating in light of the importance of the decision before the Commission.
The recent history of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant is one of failure and neglect.
Served with the largest penalty ever issued by the N.R.C.,
the plant was closed in April, 1986 because of repeated failures of its emergency equipment and for chronic management problems.
Even after Boston Edison embarked upon its upgrade and management improvement program, the plant cor.tinued to experience serious safety problems as late as November, 1987, with the loss of off-site power and worker contamination.
In addition, the recent SALP report indicated at best only modest improvement.
While some progress was found, the rating for Radiological Controls remained at the lowest level.
This lack of significant improvement in a critical area, despite Boston Edison's upgrade efforts, is a strong indication that this plant is not ready for restart.
There are two other major obstacles facing this plant which I feel must be addressed before restart is allowed.
First, the outstanding issue of a complete and tested emergency plan for the area has not been resolved.
While the Commonwealth and the SS10310020 891013 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC
_-s__,
. communities continue to work toward achieving this goal, they are not close to completion, despite claims to the contrary by the Commission.
In fact, public safety officials may still conclude that no emergency plan is possible which will provide for protection of the public health and safety.
It is unwise to restart this plant until those with the greatest expertise in this area have the opportunity to reach their conclusions.
Second, the Commission has still not fully addressed the significant problems posed by the Mark I containment vessel itself, despite a review of the liner melt-through issue presented by the Brookhaven National Laboratory to the Commission indicating serious safety questions.
Again, it is highly unwise to restart this plant before all containment safety questions have been addressed.
For the past two and a half years, the safer:y of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant has been the focus of Boston Edison, the N.R.C.,
state and local public safety agencies, community leaders and elected officials, and citizens of the area.
While some progress has been made in improving this plant, too many questions regarding public health and safety are still unanswered.
Therefore, I strongly urge that the Commission postpone its restart decision until they have been fully addressed.
Ein er ly, 8
- a. '.
ohn F. Kerry.
nited States Se ator JK/mc