ML20099J364
| ML20099J364 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1984 |
| From: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-A-EP-018, OL-A-EP-18, NUDOCS 8411290019 | |
| Download: ML20099J364 (3) | |
Text
So-fl3 HFeL g-jf Aps. Ey[E@t%Q N
9 N
fq b
- }
sP TL
.jt 4
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
~
3 Emergency Man (a'gement.sjb G
[N2 Dr. Harry A.
Nurkin, Chairman of the Planning Review Committee has clarified the action taken bys th4 9 s
gs committed on May 16, 1984.
His statement is as follows:
/
It has been reported in the media that our committee has finished its deliberations and that we have adopted and recommended a plan calling for a seven (7) mile extension of the EPZ at Catawba.
It should be clearly understood that our committee is far from com-pleting its study of the items contained in our charge.
- Further, the committee has not adopted any plan for EPZ, and we have not recommended a seven (7) mile extension of the EPZ.
For over a month our committee has deliberated as to whether it was appropriate to address the EPZ issue separate from our final recommendations.
Our minutes reflect much debate as to the efficacy of any recommendation that would imply to the public that radiation problems and/or the EPZ issue were the "only" or the "most important" issues in emergency planning.
Unfortunately, the fears of some of the members of our committee that the EPZ issue would be taken out of context, if addressed early, have been realized through mis-interpretation of our action.
There are significant issues relating to natural and other man-made disasters that we feel deserve attention equal to that given the EPZ issue.
In point of fact, the motion passed on May 16, 1984 speaks only to a request that the Board of County Commissioners contend the current EPZ before the licensing board. However, the issue of licensure of the Catawba facility is not part of the charge to our committee.
No details as to the committee's opinion regarding the adequacy of the EPZ, the effect on our Community of retention or extention of the EPZ, the cost involved, the responsibility for changes, or whether extension would create a safer' environment are offered because the committee has come to no definitive conclusion mz on these matters.
It is my hope that such specifics can be developed
@$@ by our committee in the near future.
In my judgment the work of no our committee on this issue and others is not complete as has been 00 inappropriately reported.
It is my hope that we may complete our m8 tasks without undue pressure from any special interest group and
[g that until our final report is tendered, no implication of conclu-o siveness be affixed to our discussions, deliberations, or actions.
@8
$4 Emergency preparedness must be addressed considering all seg-
-m ments of our county, not just one quadrant.
Public hearings have
$$a impressed upon me the need to be complete and comprehensive in our study rather than addressing the most current items.
Recent fatal disasters in our state and South Carolina emphasize the need to plan cerefully for all eventualities and for all citizens of our county.
We take our task seriously and we will do our best to complete our task in a reasonable period of time.
Those who voted for the motion of May 16, 1984, feel strongly about it.
Others on
j--. -
g 7--
' - - - - ' ' ' - - - - ' - ' ' - ' ~ - ' - ' ' - - ' ' - ~ ~ - ----
' i s
f y.
'a 1 a.
3..
_.g 04 -
i 8
1 9 i
'd,'
- 4:
.i s
t-.
__r s
t l
p,
y..~
i l
d 9_
r*k.-
1 r
A lf g
w 1
/
w T
F L
7.
4
[
5 *
.e
. S.
g6 j
h I#
'b'
=g Y
. ?.
le'..
) W t$
s '. ',.\\:
e*
'p l.
'l l
I-N}
g V
$.N)
$ ~%e A. 7'i,. its
.Q M
t %. n-p 1
-*.N
- j 6,;
Ye: o t
y 3,
4#
I' n
~ - - t-
'r l
l l
A L.
k.
O i
- the committee feel just as strongly that the issue of the EPZ should not be separately addressed.
Hopefully, through further
-study and discussion, our entire committee can reach some unanimity of thought.
I s
v S
r t
P i
t t
t P
i l
l
.9
{
L i
l f
F
(
l