ML20244D326

Expresses Continuing Concern Re Plant Restart.Statement of Counselwomen Jl Parrott & Ba Risacher on 890228 to NRC Encl

ML20244D326
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	03/22/1989
From:	Mikulski B SENATE
To:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20244D317	List: ML20244D315 ML20244D326
References
NUDOCS 8904210288
Download: ML20244D326 (10)

Text

I '

J- ,

4

• *' . .' e l'4 d '. ,

L : s "-

~

Enited Etattsfenatt WASHINGTON, DC 20510 y

March 22, 1989 b  !

l The Honorable Lando W. Zech Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street,.N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Chairman Zech:

We are writing to express our continued concern about the restart of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. On  :

March 14, 1989 you.were notified-by Forrest>Remick, Chairman of the Advisory-Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), that 4

" subject to completion of certain well-defined commitments to. modifications of equipment and revisions of procedures, the licensee can, with the organization now.in place, operate the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station without undue'<

risk to the health and safety of the public."

We are concerned that this conclusion by NRC staff and..

concurrence by ACRS indicates that NRC approval for restart is imminent. As we have in the past, we urge the Commission to permit the restart of Peach Bottom only when all safety problems are resolved and the NRC can assure the public that the plant will be operated safely.

We note with approval that NRC has held.several public meetings to hear the concerns of Maryland-residents.

Meetings on February 28, 1989 in. Bel Air, Md. and on March 8, 1989 in Bethesda, Md. were the most recent of these opportunities for NRC to hear and respond to these concerns.

We ask that NRC reserve its decision-on restart until all-the issues. raised at these meetings regarding the safety of

. restarting and operating Peach Bottom have been addressed and the NRC responses have been made public.

In particular, we call attention to the concerns of Harford County Councilwomen Joanne Parrott and Barbara Risacher. We have enclosed copies of their written state-ments at the February 28, 1989 hearing for your review. In addition,-we are. enclosing copies of statements from the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition and the Peach Bottom Alliance. We request that the NRC review the concerns that have been raised in these statements and give full con-sideration to the recommendations that have been made regarding the safety of restarting and operating Peach Bottom.

8904210288 890414 PDR ADOCK 05000277 P PDC

C

.s'

[. .

s .. o y .

The Honorable Lando W. Zech March 22, 1989 Page 2 ,

i We are especially interested in learning'the NRC response to the recommendation for offsite radiation monitoring. .

We urge you to give prompt attention to this request and to keep us fully informed and up to date on NRC's timetable for issuance of a restart decision for Peach Bottom.

s, Sincerely, f Paul , r-S. Sarbanes Barbara A. Mikulski United States Senator United States Senator BAM:cdt Enclosures 4

0 9

4

+,* , .

^

OFFICE OF THE SFCRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER: CRC-89-0281 LOGGING DATE: Mar 30 89 ACTION OFFICE: EDO AUTHOR: P. Sarbanes & B Mikulski l AFFILIATION: UNITED STATES SENATE LETTER DATE: Mar 22 89 FILE CODE: ID&R-5 Peach Bottom

SUBJECT:

NRC's issuance of a restart decision for Peach Bottom ACTION: Signature of Chairman DISTRIBUTION: OCA to Ack, RF, Cmrs, DSB SPECIAL HANDLING: None.

NOTES:

.DATE-DUE: Apr_13 89 SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

hW6 Dif. E0u Dete - 3 -G b - P cf Mms __. A53 oso }

3g.--004371

o COUNTY COUNCIL OF HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND M-JOHN W. HARDWICXE BAR5 ARA AHERN RISACHER J. ROBERT H00PER Prescerv Deuc A Dec0 l

JOANNE 5. PARROTT G. EDWARD FtELDER g3 Deret 8 orsue t

- JOHN W. SCHAFER FREDERICK J. HATEM Darc C Cee7 OCRIS PoVLSEN ,,

secreev e me canw Statement .

- by Councilwoman Joanne S. Parrott to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Hearing February 28, 1989 e.......... ............e...e. . ....eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees One year and eleven months ago the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ordered the closing of the Peach Bottom (Pa.) Nuclear Power Station.

Three months later the Harford County Council requested the NRC attend the Council's Board of Health meeting to L.ddress the shut down.

The search for answers began that night and has continued since then. Council members have pushed and prodded seeking information from not only the NRC, but Philadelphia Electric officials as well.

.At times it seemed that no one was listening when we questioned what was observed to be serious breaches of operational safety:

-Weakness of corporate m6nagement's oversite at the plant.

-Plant security problems which I believe PECO officials and the NRC felt did not exist.

- -A drus problem on site which seeme,d ,to,be . .% y u .

initially glossed over.

-A noted lack of reliability of health physicist's responsibilities.

in rad waste procedures and

-Weakness decontamination.

-Questions regarding the reliability of the Mark I

• Containment and maintenance procedures.

It has been a long 23 months with hearings, meetings and inspections documented by hundreds of NRC reports and correspondence.

.- ~____

So where are we now? We are at the final countdown; and at what may be the last public hearing before the NRC sanctions re-start. l The public must now rely on the NRC and its commissioners. It is the NRC's credibility that is on the line. We must rely on their expertise to make sure what happened in prior years at Peach Bottom does not happen again.

For years PECO apparently felt they were untouchable which was substantiated in the January 11, 1988 INPO letter to PECO. For years PECO was not heeding and correcting the observations of their own industry peers.

At the same time it is apparent that the NRC was weak in their own observations and it is apparent the NRC was lax in their responsibility to properly evaluate all aspects of operational safety and to mandate that certain corrections be made even prior to shut down.

So as the countdown proceeds closer to re-start, I must address 3 areas of concern for consideration by the NRC prior to sanctioning re-start:

Mark I Containment: There has been much concern expressed regarding the reliability of the Mark I Containment if failure occurs. It would seem logical that the Individual Plant Examination (IPE) suggested by the Chair of the Advisory Commission for Reactor Safeguards be completed at Peach Bottom prior to sanctioning re-start.

Recent INPO Evaluation of Peach Bottom: What is the big mystery surrounding the most recent INPO assessment of the . Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Plant? Why has not this information been made available to county elected officials in Maryland and Pennsylvania? I ask the NRC to request that the INPO assessment be released to county elected officials for their review and assessment prior to sanctioning re-start.

Offsite Radiation Monitors: As a condition of re-start I request that PECO be required to install off-site radiation monitors circling the Peach Bottom facility with a direct monitor line to the Harford County Emergency Communication Center and other nearby county communication centers. This supports the same request made by Commissioner James Huber of Lancaster County (PA).

It should be noted that radiation monitors were installed surrounding Three Mile Island (TMI) by General Public Utility.

The cost of installation of radiation monitors would be nominal to PECO and would provide a much needed sense of security to the citizens.

= ,

, 9 .

If there are unexplained releases and if an emergency occurs, radiation levelinformation would be immediately - and directly available to the surrounding counties.

It is ~ imperative that the NRC give the preceding three concerns serious consideration before sanctioning re-start.

I would like to think that the many concerns expressed by Harford County Council members throughout this period of shut down has made a differeilce.

The final re-start directive is in your hands. We must trust that your final observations and inspections are done with the. greatest thoroughness.

. The NRC must be vigilant in its responsibility to the citizens prior to re-start and after re-start.

JSP:lc l

1 I

l .

e -

COUNTY COUNCIL OF HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND L .

3 JOHN W. HARDWICKE SARBARA AMERN RISACHER J. R08ERT HOOPER Prescent DoctA Onsuet 0 st 1 JoANNE3.PARROTT G. EDWARD FIELDER Omoet 8 Omaet t JOHN W. SCHAFER FREDERICK J. HATEM DORIS PoULSEN Omue C DecP Secretary or me Councs .

Statement 4 l by l.

Councilwoman Barbara Ahern Risacher l - to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Hearing-February 28, 1989 eseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesesseessee In 1987 I initially requested that the Harford County Board of Health hold a hearing to review with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) l the issues that had caused the agency to shut down Peach Bottom Atomic l Power Station. Over the past two years I have reviewed NRC documents, related publications on nuclear energy, the INPO Report of January 11, 1988 and volumes of related material. I was in the beginning and remain j today not anti-nuclear but pro-safety.

The NRC has made it clear that in the review of Peach Bottom and the decision on re-start tney would be considering only those issues of management, security and " health physics" that caused the shut down.

The NRC, INPO, and lately PECO are to be commended for the vast improvements that have been accomplished in management, and security ]

and the proposed improvements for " health physics". j 1

It cannot be ignored however, that during the period of this shut I down much other information regar. ding nuclear power generation and safety have come to light. The questions remain regarding structural integrity of the core itself, power oscillations, and the design of the Mark I Containment Buildin g. The issue of emergency action in the event of a serious core incident remains u n solv e d--i . e . to vent or not to vent.

While we in Harford County are very pleased with the progress that has been made by all the interested parties at Peach Bottom, we urge that the NRC find an appropriate way to deal with these emergency safety issues. We would request that before a re-start is granted on the basis of the issues outlined in the original shut down the NRC adopt and publicize a process for review of these very serious issues. l l

Thank you. I 20 west CoURTLAND STREET / BEL AIR ~ RYLANo 21014 / (301) 838 6000 / 879 2000

k}.$; %,

' ~

~

(crJldN w March 1, 1989 To the NRC:

l Outstanding issues at Peach Bottom about which our organization has concerns: .

We urge and insist that Maryland have equal standing with Pennsylvania in any agreement with the Philadelphia Electric Company, to have full access to records of Peach Bottom's operation and performance, .if restart is granted, and all inspections performed in advance of restart.

In addition, we urge the NRC to require the following actions be implemented at Peach Bottom prior to NRC's approval'for restart:

1. Install all five recommendations of the NRC staff in regard to Peach Bottom's containment deficiencies;

2. Require enhanced emission monitoring, requiring the utility to finance monitoring equipment and train citizen observers, based on the recommendations of the Berger Report from the TMI Public Health Fund study.

3. Require daily publication of the previous day's radioactive releases in local daily papers, noting the highs and lows. The local newspapers should also carry frequent, regular, Safety Evaluation Reports. These should be published in newspapers serving the majority of homes in a 35 mile radius of Peach Bottom.

4. Implement a thorough educational program (to all citizens living within a 100 mile radius) advising health-protective measures to be carried out upon releases of radioactivity. This should be repeated every 6 months for the benefit of newcomers moving into the area. A summary of this information should be in the front of the local telephone directory of each community.

5. Require that radioactive emissions information and records of safety evaluations and inspections be filed at all area libraries within a 35 mile-radius of Peach Bottom. -

6. Urge that no re-start approval be granted until radioactive waste isolation technology and repositories be designated and are operational.

We are additionally apprehensive that any emergency evacuation plan could-be implemented, if there were a serious accident at the plant.

We are aware that plant aging has already caused mechanical problems at come of the older reactors, and that Peach Bottom is notedmune to these problems. Some of the generic safety problems that have surfaced in recent years lead us to believe that peach Bottom would not qualify for licensing if PECo were now just initiating this request.

Management and worker training improvements have been needed and are commendable. Mechanical safety problems and deficiencies are equally if not more important. We believe Peach Bottom is not safe enough to open.

m m av

I

.. ^

PEACH COTTOM ALLIANCE 3300 JOURDAN AVE.

3 QL T1

[_

DARLINGTON, MD 28034 The Peach 3ottom Alliance was represented recently at a public hearing held by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 3el Air, Maryland, j Our statesent, followed by a lette to each of the Oo::issioner.5, with l l

copies to each member of the Advisory ' Committee on Reactor Safeguards, I l

questioned the efficacy of regulatory powers being applied to the j management and safe operation of commercial reactors.

We are aware that the Chief Engineer of General Electric reported to his company in the 1970's that "these (Mark 1) plants are not' safe and should not be marketed." Nevertheless, the N.R.C. approved the purchase and installation of these plants, including two at Peach 3ottom.

We know that in 1986 the N.R.C.'s Chief Safety Engineer reported to the Commission that "there is a 5% to 45% probability of a core -melt accident in this country in the next twenty years." And that in all probability such an accident would not be ameliorated in the present containment conditions. The N.R.C. has not ruled on these provisions.

ne have read in our newspapers all fall and winter of the appalling failure of plans to dispose of radioactive wastes. " Spent" fuel (actually-highlyradioactive,andmor%angerousthanwhenfirstputtousein theplant)nowsitsinthehundredormoreopenpoolsoutsideour commercial plants while the plants continue to produce more and more of these deadly wastes. Who has the power'to end this proliferation?

We are aware that as recently as January of this year N.E.C. engineers have reported to the Cc==ission that a five-point program of safety measures could be enforced with low cost to plant owners. We have no l word of the Commissioners taking this seriously.

This has led us to be convinced, over the course of time, that the Commissioners, individually and collectively, have failed in their duty to regulate the industry.

As you may know, Pennsylvania" Third Court of Appeals has recently found that the N.R.C. could and must reduce the chances and the expected j consequences of serious accidents by following the requirements of the

%gs * ,*

.O;

• PEACH sOTTOM ALLIANCE 3300 JOURDAN AVE.

- DARI.INGTON. MD 31034 National Environmental Policy Act, even if they are not required to do so by the Atomic Energy Act. ,

We are interested in knowing how wide the application of this ruling will be, and its effect on plants other than Limerick, TMI, and Peach Bottom.

We believe that further legislation is ur6ently needed to re-define the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act in terra that prevent conditions j as dangerous to the public as those described above, n

Y, ean

. y di1 kG 4

e f

l l

l I

-- _ - _ - - - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____