ML20136H656

Opposes Util Proposal to Reduce Emergency Planning Zone. Reduction as Symbolic Gesture Irresponsible & Unsound Public Policy.Urges That Request Be Denied

ML20136H656
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	12/06/1985
From:	Dyson R HOUSE OF REP.
To:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20136H652	List: ML20136H647 ML20136H656
References
NUDOCS 8601100408
Download: ML20136H656 (6)

Text

e 7 _

< .)

C0ammTTRES, 04TmCT CPRCES ARMED SERwCES \OU ,,

NfMT'* $ **'**L"%" "'

~MTE~ b2 [ * *K':',*:

4 -mm

• ac"*";,7 ll" ^*

%m.# wA

";'Aa*J" C,

' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~

Wonyeu of /de $nited $ tales *'~ 2 = *'

{ 70hrt M PAPPAS

"~~"'"~

! CONGRESSMAN ROY DYSON i 224 CANNON HOUSE O'RCE BUILDING. WASHINGTON, D.C.20515 (202) 225-5311

! December 6, 1985 4

j Mr. Nunzio J. Palladino i

Chairman j Nuclear Regulatory Commission

1717 E Street, N.W.

. Washington, D.C. 20555 j

Dear Mr. Palladino:

i l I write regarding Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's proposal J to reduce the emergency planning zone (EPZ) surrounding its Calvert Cliffs nuclear generating facility in Calvert County, Maryland. After careful consideration of this issue and discussions with elected I officials and area residents, I must oppose this proposal. There 1.s no j justifiable reason to reduce the EPZ from ten miles to two miles.

The residents of the area immediately adjacent to, and

, surrounding, a nuclear power plant deserve the full attention of the i

utility operating the plant and the most comprehensive plan available to protect them from the effects of an accident. An EPZ extending ten miles from a plant represents the traditional level of protection required by the Commission, and is not unreasonable given the dangers associated with a nuclear plant. There is little scientific evidence to demonstrate precisely how much damage a nuclear accident could inflict on people and the environment near the site. In the absence i

of'such evidence, the reasons supporting the ' original establishment of the EPZ at ten miles remain, and that size represents the minimum protection the inhabitants of the area should have.

The ten-mile zone surrounding the Calvert Cliffs facility has been in place for several years. Baltimore Gas and Electric (BG & E) has advanced no valid reason to reduce it. The company and the local governments have developed ard implemented the necessary evacuation plans and communication plans to be used during an emergency.

Residents and concerned citi!; ens have also planned for an emergency based.on the existence of the ten-mile zone. These plans were developed through substantiah investment of time and money by all l parties involved, and'BG & E admits that this reduction will not l substantially reduce its customers' bills.

~

8601100408 860103 PDR ADOCM 05000317 U PDR

.. b o . '. ;

Mr. Hunzio J. Palladino December 6,1985

--page 2--

BG & E believes the EPZ should be reduced to reflect more accurately the actual danger associated with an accident, and to symbolize to the residents of the area that Calvert Cliffs is safe.

BG & E points to both the safety record of the plant and to recent scientific evidence indicating that the danger of serious accidents may be lower than earlier believed.

Fortunately, the nuclear power industry has not experienced a disaster approaching the worst case scenario. But, to reduce the size of the EPZ purely as a symbolic gesture is both irresponsible and unsound public policy. Until the company can prove that a two-mile area encompasses the total area likely to be affected by any nuclear accident, I must insist on the current ten-mile EPZ.

Until BG & E can prove that the EPZ can be reduced without risk to those in the present ten-mile EPZ, I cannot support any reduction.

I strongly urge you to deny the request of BG & E to reduce the size of their EPZ. It is our responsibility to ensure that this minimum protection is not altered.

Thank you for your attention in this very important matter. If you require additional information or if I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

With kindest regards, I am

, g4m--__,..

ROY SON MEMB OF C NGRESS RD:ts  ; I l

i i

7

.- e' ..

t # 'o UNITED STATES 8 'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g a p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

% .c 0, +

p L 6

EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL FROM: DUE: 12/27/85 EDO CONTROL: 001253 DOC DT: 12/06/85 FINAL RFPLY:

REP. ROY DYSON TO: ,

CHAIRMAN PALLADINO FOR SIGNATURE OF: ** PRIORITY ** SFCY NO: 85-1057

~

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DESC: ROUTING:

CONCERNS RE BGLE COMPANY'S PROPn3AL TO REDUCE DIRCKS EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE AROUND CALVERT CLIFFS ROE REHM DATE: 12/12/85 ASSIGNED TO: JP CONTACT: TAYt-f hb STFLLO DENTON 41 'N-- -

p h MURLEY GCUNNINGHAM SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

D s NRP, RECEIVED: 12/18/85 ACTION: DPLB': MIRAGLIA -(DJaffe).

NRR ROUTING: DENTON/EISENHUT PPAS M0SSBURG

r ~~ H

' CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL KET "*P # #' "

SEtY NUPEER:

' 85-1057 12/11/85 LOGGING DATE 0FFICE OF THE SECRETARY ACTION OFFICE: ED0 AUTHOR: Rep Roy Dyson .

AFFILIATION: U.S. tiouse of Representatives LETTER DATE: 12/6/85 FILE CODE ADORESSEE: Palladino SU8 JECT: Opposes BG&E's pro to reduce the emer planning zone (EPZ) surrounding Calvert Cliffs nuc fac ACTION: Direct Reply... Suspense: Dec 20 DISTRIBUTION: RF, OCA to Ack SPECIAL HANDLING: None l

l SIGNATURE 6 ATE:

FOR THE COP 9tISSION Champ Rec'd Off. EDO '

~

Date. . . /& -

\

Time. . . . . .d l.t;.%

f.f.g. ..

l l

EDO --- 001253

r *

• a #

ARM $ CES \\OU y

$Ausa v. M V 21801 rg .

rta neut An sv Eus

- 38 WES? BEL A*n Avtmut AstnotrN, MAAVLAND 2100?

MERCHANT MARINE ANO FISHER!ES h"hNT

' \

Ea

,,,,,,,,,,,m,,

• ^t***'*'C "s sers tos. Roun l$ ?{Y ( { ll D ($ (b TONV M PAPP&S

~ ~ ~ " " ' ~ ' ~

CONGRESSMAN ROY DYSON 224 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20515 1202) 225 5311 December 6, 1985 Mr. Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Palladino:

I write regarding Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's proposal to reduce the emergency planning zone (EPZ) surrounding its Calvert Cliffs nuclear generating facility in Calvert County, Maryland. After careful consideration of this issue and discussions with elected officials and area residents, I must oppose this proposal. There is no justifiable reason to reduce the EPZ from ten miles to two miles.

The residents of the area immediately adjacent to, and surrounding, a nuclear power plant deserve the full attention of the utility operating the 11 ant and the most comprehensive plan available to protect them from the effects of an accident. An EPZ extending ten miles from a plant represents the traditional level of protection required by the Commission, and is not unreasonable given the dangers associated with a nuclear plant. There is little scientific evidence to demonstrate precisely how much damage a nuclear accident could inflict on people and the environment near the site. In the absence of such evidence, the reasons supporting the original establishment of the EPZ at ten miles remain, and that size represents the minimum protection the inhabitants of the area should have.

The ten-mile zone surrounding the Calvert Cliffs facility has been in place for several years. Baltimore Gas and Electric (DG & E) has advanced no valid reason to reduce it. The company and the local governments have developed and implemented the necessary evacuation plans and communication plans to be used during an emergency.

Residents and concerned citizens have also planned for an emergency based on the existence of the ten-mile zone. These plans were developed through substantial investment of time and money by all parties involved, and BG & E admits that this reduction will not substantially reduce its customers' bills.

., o.

Mr. Nunzio J. Palladino December 6,1985

--page 2--

BG & E believes the EPZ should be reduced to reflect more accurately the actual danger associated with an accident, and to symbolize to the residents of the area that Calvert Cliffs is safe.

BG & E points to both the safety record of the plant and to recent scientific evidence indicating that the danger of serious accidents may be lower than earlier believed.

Fortunately, the nuclear power industry has not experienced a disaster approaching the worst case scenario. But, to reduce the size of the EPZ purely as a symbolic gesture is both irresponsible and unsound public policy. Until the company can prove that a two-mile area encompasses the total area likely to be af fected by any nuclear accident, I must insist on the current ten-mile EPZ.

Until BG & E can prove that the EPZ can be reduced without risk to those in the present ten-mile EPZ, I cannot support any reduction.

I strongly urge you to deny the request of BG & E to reduce the size of their EPZ. It is our responsibility to ensure that this minimum protection is not altered.

Thank you for your attention in this very important matter. If you require additional information or if I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

With kindest regards, I am g4 ____ ..

ROY SON MEMB OF C NGRESS RD:ts j l

J