ML20245F358

Responds to Requesting That NRC Reserve Judgement on Plant Restart Until Issues Raised by State of MD Residents Addressed.Commission Will Not Permit Restart of Plant Unless Public Health & Safety Assured

ML20245F358
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	04/14/1989
From:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Mikulski B SENATE
Shared Package
ML20245F362	List: ML20245F358 ML20245F464
References
RTR-NUREG-CR-2644, RTR-REGGD-01.197, RTR-REGGD-1.197 NUDOCS 8905020357
Download: ML20245F358 (2)

Text

. - - _

i .

e f(( 'o,,

o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%'. . . . . ) April 14, 1989 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Mikulski:

I am responding to your letter of March 22, 1989, in which you and Senator Mikulski requested that the Commission reserve judgment on the restart of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station until issues raised by Maryland residents have been addressed. The NRC staff has reviewed the concerns of Harford County Councilwomen Joanne Parrott and Barbara Risacher, the Maryland Safe Energy Coslition, and the Peach Bottom Alliance that you referred to us, and their detailed comments on the issues raised are set forth in Enclosure 1.

With one exception, the issues raised during the February 28 and March 2, 1989 public meetings in Bel Air and Bethesda, Maryland, were considered earlier in the staff's review of Peach Bottom.

The one exception is the request for a system of radiation monitors surrounding the plant. Although such a system was not considered specifically in the context of Peach Bottom, the NRC staff previously requested a technical contractor to conduct a generic evaluation of the potential benefits of a monitoring l system of this type and in April 1982 published the contractor's

( findings in NUREG/CR-2644, "An Assessment of Offsite, Real-Time Dose Measurement Systems for Emergency Situations." A copy of this report is enclosed (Enclosure 2).

NUREG/CR-2644 concluded that it was highly questionable whether a fixed-station emergency monitoring system could provide technical information sufficiently reliable to be of use in a decision-making process in an emergency situation. Wide-range effluent monitors, along with the enhanced in-plant monitors required since the Three Mile Island accident, provide much more definitive information for off-site emergency decision-making.  !

Consequently, the NRC staff decided not to include a requirement  ;

for such a fixed station system in the most recent revision to Regulatory Guide 1.97, " Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Piants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following An Accident."

The Commission has not yet reached a decision on the restart of i

Peach Bottom. However, we have scheduled a public meeting on April 17, 1989, at 2:00 p.m. at our headquarters building in e905020357 090414 cORRES DE E PNV

' /(f

I

., '. )

l 1

i l

Rockville, Maryland, to consider the possible restart of the l plant. I can assure you that the decision we reach will take into l account your concerns and those expressed by Maryland residents.  !

The Commission will not permit restart of the plant unless we have {

reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will be '

protected.

Sincerely, W. ' .

Lando W. Z ,J l

Enclosures:

1. Staff response to concerns of Harford County Councilwomen, Maryland Safe Energy Coalition, 1 and the Peach Bottom Alliance,  !

with attachments  ;

2. NUREG/CR-2644, "An Assessment i of Offsite, Real-Time Dose Measurement Systems for Emergency l Situations"

]

4 l

i

d UNITED STATES

[q,,

! n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h ;h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

% , ,, April 14,1989 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Sarbanes:

I am responding to your letter of March 22, 1989, in w!'>ch you and Senator Mikulski requested that the Commission reserve . judgment on the restart of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station until issues raised by Maryland residents have been addressed. The NRC staff has reviewed the concerns of Harford. County Councilwomen Joanne Parrott and Barbara Risacher, the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition, and the Peach Bottom Alliance that you referred to us, and their detailed comments on the issues raised are set forth in Enclosure 1.

With one exception, the issues raised during the February 28 and i

March 2, 1989 public meetings in Bel Air and Bethesda, Maryland, were considered earlier in the staff's review of Peach Bottom.

The one excoption is the request for a systeu of radiation monitors surrounding the plant. Although such a system was not considered specifically in the context of Peach Bottom, the NRC i staff previously requested a technical contractor to conduct a generic evaluation of the potential benefits of a monitoring system of this type and in April 1982 published the contractor's findings in NUREG/CR-2644, "An Assessment of Offsite, Real-Time  ;

Dose Measurement Systems for Emergency Situations." A copy of i this report is enclosed (Enclosure 2).

NbREG/CR-2644 concluded that it was highly questionable whether a j fixed-station emergency monitoring system could provide technical  !

information sufficiently reliable to be of use in a decision-making process in an emergency situation. Wide-range effluent i monitors, along with the enhanced in-plant monitors required since j the Three Mile Island accident, provide much more definitive l information for off-site emergency decision-making, i Consequently, the NRC staff decided not to include a requirement l for such a fixed-station system in the most recent revision to l Regulatory Guide 1.97, " Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled i Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions  :

During and Following An Accident."  !

The Commission has not yet reached a decision on the restart of I Peach Bottom. However, we have scheduled a public meeting on l April 17, 1989, at 2:00 p.m. at our headquarters building jn ,

'"$$YNYYh '

l

.. , l Rockville, Maryland, to consider the possible restart of the plant. I can assure you that the decision we reach will take into account-your concerns and those expressed by Maryland residents.

The Commission will not permit restart of the plant unless we have reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will be protected.

Sincerely, k), Is Lando W. Z h, J .

Enclosures:

1. Staff response to concerns of Harford County Councilwomen, Maryland Safe Energy Coalition, and the Peach Bottom Alliance, with attachments

2. NUREG/CR-2644, "An Assessment of Offsite, Real-Time Dose Measurement Systems for Emergency Situations" 1

l 4

8

-l

)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ - - - - . - - _ _ - _ _ . _ - . .

o ENCLOSURE 1  !

The staff reviewed the concerns of Harford County Councilwomen Joanne Parrott and Barbara Risacher, the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition, and the Peach Bottom Alliance. With the exception of ,

radiation monitors outside the p .t, these concerns have been  :

resolved by the NRC. Our assessment of these issues has been documented in our Safety Evaluation Report of October 19, 1988,  !

our Integrated Assessment Team Inspection Report of March 6, 1989, l and in numerous other inspection reports and correspondence.

With respect to the Mark I containment, the NRC staff concluded that operation of nuclear power plants using this containment i design does not pose an undue risk to the public health and safety. The Commission is considering whether there are additional measures that may be taken by licensees that would enhance the safety of plants with Mark I containments but has not yet completed these deliberations. On the basis of the assessment i of the adequacy of the Mark I containment and the lack of any 1 connection between the Mark I containment and the issues that l caused the shutdown of the Peach Bottom plant, the staff does not l propose to require further action on this issue before the l Commission's decision on the restart of the plant. l l

The licensee for Peach Bottom made available to the public and to NRC by letter dated March 1, 1989, the recent INPO letter of February 21, 1989. A copy is attached.

Concerning the participation of the State of Maryland in  !

restart-related activities, we note that a representative of the l State, Mr. Thomas Magette, has access to the plant and customarily attends many routine and special meetings at the plant and at NRC.

Mr. Hagette recently indicated in correspondence with the staff that he is in general agreement with the NRC staff's Integrated Assessment Team Inspection findings. Mr. Magette also expressed the belief that, subject to the completion of certain items, the licensee has demonstrated readiness to operate Peach Bottom in a manner that does not pose an undue risk to the citizens and the environment of Maryland. Mr. Magette's letter of March 7, 1989, is attached.

With respect to the reporting of information by the licensee, the Peach Bottom Technical Specifications and NRC's regulations impose the requirements for reporting information to the NRC. Copies of the information provided to us by the licensee can be found in the Local Public Document Room for Pei;h Bottom in the State Library of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and in the Public Document Room in Washington, D.C. The NRC issues press releases and makes public announcements on events of major significance but, of course, does not have the authority to require the .

licensee to report information through the media.

I 1

ENCLOSURE 1 .g.

The staff's recent response to a representative of the Peach Bottom Alliance (Ms. Jean Ewing, dated March 20, 1989 (attached))

on the radioactive waste disposal issue noted that this issue received the attention of-Congress in the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987. A schedL ~ 1 for actions by the Department of Energy .i and the NRC on radioactive waste disposal has been developed, and this issue does not require resolution before the restart of Peach Bottom. j i

l i

j mited $tates 5tnate WASHINGTON, DC 20510 l 1

March 22, 1989  !

l j

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

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Chairman Zech:

We are writing to express our continued concern about I 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

" 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 l to permit the restart of Peach Bottom only when all safety 1 problems are resolved and the NRC can assure the public that 1 the plant will be operated safely.

j We note stith 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 l the issues raised at these meetings regarding the safety of l 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 e t the February 28, 1989 hearing for your review. In addition, we are enclosing copies of statements from the l Maryle.nd Safe Energy Coalition and the Peach Bottom l

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.

i

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

Sincerely,

,/ i+--

Paul S. Sarbanes Barbara A. Mikulski United States Senator United States Senator BAM:cdt Enclosures I

I

)

I l l e

COUNTY COUNC!L OF HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND JOHN W HARDWICXE BAR8 ARA AMERN RISACHER J. RO B ERT Ho0PER u, j prescem Cact A Doct 0 irrs .- JO ANNE S. PARROTT G. EDWARD FIELD ER

• ' Oect 8 Cacs (

JOHN W. SCHAFEP FREDERICX J. HATEM Coca C Cocs!

CoRIS PoVLSEN s, secrav w me can:s Statement

- by  ;

CouncHwoman Joanne S. Parrott to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Hearing February 28, 1989 I

One year and eleven months ago the Nuclear Regulatory Commission j ordered the closing of the Peach Bottom (Pa.) Nuclear Power Station.

Three months later the Harford County Council requested the NRC l

attend the Council's Board of Health meeting to address 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 management's oversite at the plant.

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

l

-A . deug problem on site which seemed do .be _ . . , , . , , , .

initially glossed over.

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

-Weakness in rad waste procedures and decontaminatiori.

-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.

( -

l .. ,

{- '

l l

l 1 l So where are we now? We are at the final countdown; and at what j may be the last public hearing before the NRC sanctions re-start. I The puNic 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. l For years PECO app.arently felt they were untouchable which was l substantiated in the January 11, 1Mo INPO letter to PECO. For years PECO was not heeding and correcting the observations of their own industry  ;

peers. l 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 )1 certain corrections be made even prior to shut down. i So as the countdown proceeds closer to re-start, I must address 3 ireas of concern for consideration by the NRC prior to sanctioning re-start: I 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 i Bottom prior to sanctioning re-start. I Recent INPO Evaluation of Peach Bottom: What is tne big mystery surrounding the most recent INPO assessment of the . Peach Bottom Nuclea r 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 facilit) 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 Lancaste- County (P A). *

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

The cost of installation of radiation monitors would m

be nominal a _____

to PECO m

and would provide a m m m m

i i

If there are unexplained releases and if an emergency occurs, radiation levelinformation would be immediately and directly available ' to.. the~ i 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 il your final observations and inspections are done with the greatest thoroughness. j The NRC must be vigilant in its responsibility ' to the' citizens prior -)

to re-start and after re-start.

l u

JSP:1c i

i 1

6 l

l

. i I

I

l I

COUNTY COUNCIL OF HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLANO f/ 4 JOHN W HARDWICKE BARBARA AMERN RISACHER

< heseer't Oostres A J. ROBERT HOOPER l l Costret C

[F 7 ) -

JOANNES.PARROTY Ossuet 0 G. EDWARO Omstret E FIELDE j

JOHN W. SCHAFER FREDERICK J. HATEM DoRLS PcVLSEN Onsues C Ossuret 9 Secretary or me cases , 1 Statement {

by j Councilwoman Barbara Ahern Risacher j to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Hearing-February 28, 1989 1

In 1987 I initially requested that the Harford County Board of Health hold a hearing to review with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) the issues that had caused the agency to shut down Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Over the past two years I have reviewed NRC documents, l

related publications on nuclear energy, the INPO Report of January 11, 1988 and volumes of related material. I was in the beginning and remain 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 they would be considering only those issues of i I

management, security and " health physics" that caused the shut down.

The NRC. INPO, and lately PECO are to be commended for the vast j improvements that have been accomplished in management, and security and the proposed improvements for " health physics".

It cannot be ignored however, that during the period of this shut down much other information regar. ding nuclear power generation and safety I have come to light. The questions remain regarding structural integrity of the core it self , power oscillations, and the design of the Mark I Containment Building. The issue of emergency action in the event of a serious core inteident 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.

, Thank you.

- - - - -_ d%

CT c Cw rJdi h.2W?/

c ,

March 1, 1989 To the NRC:

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 performea 'n 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 shoult 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 foi the benefit of newcomers moving into the area. A summary of this information should be in the front of the local telephone directory or eaci 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 some of the older reactors, and that Peach Bottom is notvimune to these problems. Some of the generic safety problems that have surfaced in recen*

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

~ ~ ~

g/1 C PEACH BOTTOM ALLIANCE "

2300 JOURD AN AVE.

CARL.INGTON, M D 31034 The Peach 3ottem Alliance was represented recently at a public I 1

hearing held by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 3el Air, Marylani, s Our statenent, followed by a latte to each of the .:c missioner.s, with j s copies to each member of the Advisory' Committee on React,or dafeguards, l questioned the efficacy cf regulatory powers being applied to the management and safe operation of commercial reactors. ]

We are aware that the Chief Engineer of General Electric reported I to hiu scompany in the 1970's that "these '(Mark 1) plants are not safe and should not be marketed." Nevertheless, the N.R.C. approved the i purchase and 1 sta11ation of these plants, including two at Peach Bottom.

We know that .4n 1986 the N.R.C.'s Chief Safety sngineer reported to the Commission that, "there is a 5% to 45% probability of a core -nelt accident in this country 1 the next twenty years." And that in all ,

probability such an accident deuld not be ameliorated in the present contain=ent conditions. The N.R. has not ruled on these provisions, s

ke have read in our newspapers all fall and winter of the appalling failure of plans to dispose of radioactive wastes. " Spent" fuel (actually

$,ighly radioactive, and morylangerous than when first put to use in theplant)nowsitsinthehundredormoreopenpoolsoutsideour commercial plants alle 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.R.C. engineers have repcrted to the Commission that a five-peint pr gram of safety measures could be enforced with low cost to plant owners. We have no 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 consequences of serious accidents by following the requirements of'the

____m.__ _____ _ _ .

"a +e PEACH BOTTOM ALLIANCE l 3300 JOURDAN AVE.

DARLINGTON, MD i

21034 I

l National Environmental Policy Act, even g 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 Linerick, TMI,  ;

and Peach Bottom.

.We believe that further legislation is urgently needed to re-define the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act in terms that prevent conditions as dan 6erous to the public as those described above.

\

Os i PR&

1 1

Ns l

C 0

. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _