The quickly deteriorating conditions at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, MA will now show up on Newton’s November ballot. There will be a non-binding ballot question as to whether Governor Baker should instruct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to revoke Pilgrim’s operating license because the safety of the public cannot be assured.
“We can’t keep up with the rate of deteriorating conditions,” said Guntram Mueller, co-chair of Boston Downwinders, which worked to put this on the ballot. “When the Board of Aldermen and Mayor Warren agreed to having the question on the ballot, Pilgrim was rated by the NRC as one of the 5 least safe in the country. Since then, it’s been downgraded again, to be one of the 3 least safe.” The most recent downgrading was due to recurring emergency shutdowns whose root causes have not been determined.
That the design of Pilgrim was dangerous was recognized already in 1972, when an Atomic Energy Commission safety official recommended that the design be discontinued. Pilgrim is now 43 years old, and its age is becoming apparent in frequent equipment malfunctions. In addition, a Pentagon-commissioned analysis rates it as one of the 8 most vulnerable plants in the country, because its cooling water intake, from the ocean, is unprotected. And a loss of cooling in the spent fuel pool would result in a fire, causing an estimated 24,000 cancers and $582 billion in damages.
Asked whether shutting down Pilgrim could result in electricity shortages, Mr. Mueller said: “Pilgrim supplies only 2% of the generating capacity of the ISO New England pool (680 MW of 33,000 MW), while ISO New England projects a reserve generating capacity of 12% to 20% over the next 10 years.”
Each of the 15 communities on Cape Cod have already voted to shut Pilgrim. This concern is now reaching the Boston area. As Susan Mirsky of Boston Downwinders said: “How many warning signs do we need before we get the message?”
– – – – –
Text of the ballot question:
Whereas, already in 1972, an Atomic Energy Commission safety official recommended that the GE Mark 1 BWR design of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, MA, 38 miles from Newton, “be discontinued because it presents unacceptable safety risks”, and
Whereas the 43-year old Pilgrim is now old and decrepit, past its design life, and has been downgraded by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be one of the 5 least safe in the country, out of 100, because of its frequent emergency shutdowns, and because Pilgrim has failed to fix some of the critical problems the NRC told it to fix, and
Whereas a Pentagon-commissioned analysis has concluded that it is one of the 8 most vulnerable to catastrophic terror attack because of its unprotected ocean cooling water intake, and
Whereas a Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office report concluded that a loss of cooling, for any reason, of the triply overloaded spent fuel pool would ignite a fire that could spread a highly radioactive plume hundreds of miles downwind, and cause an estimated 24,000 eventual cancers and a devastating $582 billion in damages, while people forced to abandon their homes would receive from Pilgrim only a tiny sliver of the actual value of their homes, and nothing at all from their homeowners insurance, and
Whereas the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommended for Americans in Japan a 50-mile radius evacuation zone around the Fukushima nuclear disaster, a zone which, around Pilgrim, would include all of Cape Cod and the greater Boston area (including Newton), neither of which could be evacuated in time in a sudden major nuclear emergency, and
Whereas, if Pilgrim is closed, its 2% contribution to the ISO New England electrical generation capacity would be hardly missed, according to an ISO New England projection of 12% – 20% reserve capacity over the next 10 years,
Now therefore, shall Governor Charles Baker instruct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to revoke the operating license of the 43-year old Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, because the safety of the public cannot be assured?
