ML20086R406
| ML20086R406 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1983 |
| From: | Jeanne Johnston SENATE, ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083L775 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-580 NUDOCS 8402290285 | |
| Download: ML20086R406 (2) | |
Text
._
s....
~
2 %"??%. h.
':*.'"".'"J C;".";O
~
.". "m'l:T.t "..* -
it'ot:";'". ;t.*t,.
- '""";..". O"
- 0.
m
= '"t.";.",*2 0 0 0 TCnilch Mfafes Menale
=~'*"".'0"'
P:""'""O."O..
C.,*.~.','i "^
c~ cam o ~ fE."c.ou.cc.
- " ~ * " ' " "
0.*;.T.~r,.Je%'"=='.-
T::
- "*2""
May 27, 1983 Honorable Nunzio J.
Palladino Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission t.ashington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As the deadline imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approaches for adoption of an adequate emergency preparedness pla'n for the Indian Point nuclear reactors, I am greatly saddened h.
to see that the shutting down of an operating plant is a very 9
real possibility.
Certainly this is-the least acceptable outcome to Congress, the public and, I am sure, to yourself.
It is my u
7, hope that the NRC-will act forcefully to break through the logjam 3
created, in part, by its own-regulations, so that the matter can be finally resolved.
D M
It is of little consolation to reflect on the debate on the 1980 NTiC authorization when I offered an amendment designed'to 8
oli.ninate the possibility of the use of emergency. preparedness 72 requirements as a tool for shutting 'down nuclear power facilities
.M in this country.
At that time, the amendment was voted down because of a legitimate desire on the part of Congress to allow m
.9,.
State and local authorities the greatest possible participation ~
j g
in, and authority over, their own emergency planning.
In moat e jo cases, responsible policy has been the outcome.
Yet in other g%
instr.nces it is clear that the virtual vrto power over emergency
< *1 planning provided by the NRC and FEMA regulations to Mate and
{
8:
local authorities har been abused.
q 8"
Despite the clear intent of Congress expressed in the 1980, 3
1982 and 1983 NRC authorization Acts that in such instances E35 utility-formulatted plans can be evaluated, it seems that this course will not be pursued.
It is unfortunate that Congress was
.oU not able to provide more detailed guidance on these matters, but the feeling of many was that the NRC and FEMA have adequate mw authority to deal with most problems.
It now appears in the case of Indian Point that an enormous amount of valuable time has been allowed to elapse before the seriousness of the situation.was ackno wl edg ed.
Fina'lly, the NRC's decision to include previously operating-facilities under the emergency planning proce'$ures has_provided'a M'
8402290285 831130 d
- 2. 9 '?
/
MOLIB3-580 PDR
=
9 2-unique opportunity to those opposed to nuclear power under any circumstances to force their will on the rest of the nation.
I urge you to begin revision of the regulations immediately
- o eliminate the present abuses while ensuring the public health and safety.
I was heartened to learn of your remarks to the Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation on April 15 discussing the present breakdown in regulatory procedures when you said, "I do not find it a conceivable mode of operation to stop a plant that has done everything that the law requires."
It may well be that additional legislation is needed.
I invite, your own recommendations on this question.
In the meantime, I firmly believe that it is up to the NRC and FEMA to act forcefully under existing law to resolve the crisis at Indian Point.
With kindest personal regards, Sincerely, M
v m
.N emn tt John on Ranking-Minori Member
~
cc Honorable Victor Gilinsky Honorable John F. Ahearne
~
Honorable'Thenas M.
Roberts Honorable James K. Asselstine JBJ:be 1
Q<
',