ML20234E610

Requests Commission Level Response to 860715 Petition for Order to Show Cause Why Facility Should Not Remain Closed. Public Confidence Will Deteriorate If Commission Response Not Forthcoming

ML20234E610
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	05/18/1987
From:	Dukakis M MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20234E588	List: ML20234E587 ML20234E610 ML20234E624
References
NUDOCS 8707070625
Download: ML20234E610 (2)

Text

P 7 of-cc.79

(

E h

mm w THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

@ :G EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT STATc woust .

BOSTON o2133 MICH AcL S. DUK AKIS GovEmNom May 18, 1987 E

Re M Mr. Lando W. Zech, Chairman

" U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission m Washington, D.C. 21555 oD -

9

Dear Chairman Zech:

e.

" a On July 15, 1986, several elected officials and concerned citiz ens of g, Massachusetts petitioned the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue an order mc to Boston Edison to show cause as to why Pilgrim Station should not remain

$48closedonatemporaryorpermanentbasis.

, grespondedtothatpetition. To date, the Commission has not

.. spetitioners once Boston Edison has completed those actions neces jbestartoftheplant.

..D

• Io eO JThe nacceptable.lath of a meaningful response from the NRC after ten months u cs u o l O "EPublic confidence in nuclear pcwer plant operation will only deteriorate sy judgnent, if the Commission does not respect its own mechanisms for ogginvitingpublicinputandparticipation.

t--wgood faith, utilizing the NRC's own petition processI believe that citizens acting in

• E . promise to hear their concerns nearly one year after they were raised. deserve mor

-ua E IEarlier this year, Dr. Thomas Murley indicated to senior officials of my

" response administration that he would ask the Commissionerto to the petitioners. thereconsid earlier That promise was made several months ago during a

thevisit Dr. Murley made to Massachusetts to urge closer working relations with Commonwealth.

{

j Dr. Murley or the Commission on this matter.Since that time, we have heard noth In addition, on December 17, 1986, I appeared before the Joint/ Energy Committee of the Massachusetts Legislature to announce the results'of a planning at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power plant conducted b Public Safety Charles V. Barry.

I stated then and repeat again that the Pilgrim plant should not be allowed to restart until all the previously identified public health and safety concerns have been addressed. At that I of the NRC and requested review and comment. time, we forwarded a c 8707070625 B70625 PDR COMMS NRCC coo --- 002888 O>~ CORRESPONDENCE PDR i

2 Over five months have passed since the publication of Secretary Barry's Report, and we are still awaiting a substantive response. Ordinarily, this at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power plant. lack of attention would be startling i disappointing results of the recent Systematic Assessment of LicenseeHo Performance (SALP) report about Pilgrim, the lack of attention to these '

, matters is totally unacceptable.

Despite the preeminence.of the federal government in nuclear power licensing state governments cannot exercise the important responsibilities assigned to them under federal law if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission refuses to even respond to our legitimate concerns or act on a duly filed show cause petition.

1.ast year in your appearance before Representative Markey's congressional subcommittee, was given to restart. you gave assurances that the NRC would such a nature can take place, the Cornaissfon must provide a th thorough response to the show-cause pe,tition and Secretary Barry's report I await your prompt reply. '

)

p /j Sin /erely, ,#

f!

I

( t i, . /

I f b l '

[ 'MGovernorchael S. Dukaki i

MSD:aac

/

v i

,