ML20149M094

Discusses Emergency Evacuation Plans for Plant.Nrc Urged to Reimpose Stay on Issuance of Low Power License for Plant Pending Study by Nas on Ability to Evacuate Residents within Epz.Undated Zech Ltr to Dole Encl

ML20149M094
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/22/1987
From:	Dole B SENATE
To:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20149M088	List: ML20149M086 ML20149M094
References
CON-#188-5258 OL-1, NUDOCS 8802250312
Download: ML20149M094 (6)

Text

.

.' r.

.hoem@f

. ,,asAs tinited States.scnart oFFCt 0F THE REPutuCAN LEADtR .

WAmmeGTON. DC 20516 7020 '

December- 22,.1987 The Honorable Lando W. Zech,'Jr.

Chairman

.~ . . ,

Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion ' ~ ' ~ ~

1717 N Street,~N.W.

Washington, D.C.:20555

Dear Nr. Chairman:

Recently, your Commission voted to li f t the stay it had earlier imposed on the issuance of a low power . license f or the Seabrook nuclear. reactor in New Hampshire. At issue was the failure of the state of Massachusetts to submit an emergency <

evacuation plan for its part of the emergency planning zone succounding the facility. . The Commission determined the stay would remain in place until the submission of a plan either by the state or thelutili ty. ,

As you know,.this. procedure was a departure from the normal practico in which evacuation planning is not.a consideration, per so, in low power licensing. 6 However, given the particular

concerns of'the ability to evacuate residents of beach communities, I believe the Commission acted properly for the protection of the health and saCety of these rasidents.

Unfortunately,. substantial controversy remains. Individuals residing near the facility have been subjected to unprecedented claims of both impending cal 1.ulty and total safety.' As'the debate rages on, these individuals have become suspicious of the claims by both sides,. leaving the cleariimpression thatsthey hav e been left to fend for themselves.when it came to the health and {

safety of nuclear power. I Complicating the situation is the zeality of an electrical utility writing its own rules for protecting citizens over which if it has questionable authority. Current-law provides for the solel.

approval of this matter by the NRC, which rightly or wrongly is {

viewed by the public as favoringithe industry. 8 8802250312 080219 PDR ADOCK 05000443 g PDR ,

E DO --- 003462

. . . _ - r --

-24 t

To alleviate those fears and suspicions, I urge the- }

Commission to reimpose the stay on the issuance of a low power license for Seabrook pending a study by the National Academy of Science on the ability to evacuate residents within the emergency

, plannin.g_ zone. I believe suchi a s tudy by this~ prestigious 'and respeited organization of scientists will provide the' answers to the many questions being raised by those in the surrounding -

d;g m,i communstles.-

CGC 1 intend to introduce legislation providing the necessary />8k authorization and funding for this. study, which I strongly {

believe should be conducted for any-utility-submitted-emergency evacuation plan for a commercial nuclear reactor. However, it is possible that such legislation,would not be required, and that the Commission could use its existing authority to contract for

the study.

This effort is not intended to force a delay-in the ultimhte decision on whether to issue either a low power license or operating Ilcense for seabrook. With its membership of the top scientists in the United States, I believe the, Academy could complete the study within a three month period.

The study could resolve the confusion and conflicting charges surrounding this. volatile. issue, and would be most helpful to ,

those desiring only the' truth -- the residents of Southern l4ew E' l,'

Hampshire and Northeastern Massachusetts.

Secondly, to ensure residents of other areas which might:be considered for new commercial reactors, and to relieve the NRC, state governments and the industry-from.ever reaching this untenable position again, I will propose an amendment to th e . t Atomic Energy Act to change,the current practice of issuing t t,1 construction licenses prior .to the consideration of evacuating ett4, y residents.

The basic problem of the safe evacuation of residents is not fully addressed until billions of dollars have been spent to construct a plant. This matter should be dealt with up-f ront, in a cooperative relationship between the federal and state governments.

i

it. ' ,,

1 My proposal would requ!reorthat, theistate prior to the statesrwithin theissuance of a emergency-construction permit, planning zone certify to the commisslon the site had. beenhad submitted a prelimi approved, the state (s) plan for the sitej and The the preliminary preliminary planplan hadinclude would been approved sufficientby the Commission . equipment and data for a determina tion : that; or adequa.te would be roads, provided, for the saf e :

) personnel currently exist, evacuation of those who r'eside,aor will be residing,.in the emergency planning zone.'

A final evacuation plan would !be required. prior to the

- issuance of an operating > permit , but> the Commission would be granted the authority to require actions ton the s part of the states and utilities to ensure comp 1iance.

believe this change would ensure we never again find ourselves in a situationswhere residentsifeel they have no I

assurance of safety, while being faced with increased power rates and-the possibility of the plant never bieng put into operation.

Your expeditious attention I to .4and look action forward to on this with working request you will to be certainly appreciated. '

secure any: additional authority or funding that might be .

r equi r ed .

gr.l.

Bob D ,

I e

G t

/om nes\

'~

UNITED STATES NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION

? w AsmotoN; o. c. sesos

, Q..... ).. S CHAIRMAN The Honorable Robert J. Dole United States Senate

} Washington, D.C. 20510-7020

Dear Senator Dole:

Your letter of December 22. 1987 idiscussed both a suggestion for Ittitittion to prevent future controversies over emergency ,

planning for nuclear power plants and the specifics of a particular contested case now being adjudicated at NRC. Under

}

the NRC's ex par _te rules, the Commission cannot respond to comments on a specific case, and your letter wil1 he placed in l the docket of the proceeding i n . -qu e s t ion . We are pleased,

( however, to address your general suggestion for legislation on the issue.of emergency planning..

l You suggest that the Atomic Ener earlierdecisionsonemergencypfyActbeamendedtoprovideforanning for nuclear power plants f Specifically, your letter -states:

My proposal:would require that, prior to the issuance i of a construction permit, the state or states within the emergency planning zone certify to the Commission I the site had been approved, the state (s) had submitted a preliminary evacuation plan for the site, and the preliminary plan had been approved by the. Commission.

The preliminary plan .would include sufficient data for a determination that adequate roads, equipment and personnel currently exist, or would b'e provided, for the safe evacuation of those who reside, or will be residing, in the emergency planning zone.

A final evacuation plan would be required prior to the issuance of an operating permit, but the Commission would be granted the authority to require actions on the part of the states and utilities to ensure compliance.

Your proposal has the advantage that it would attempt.to assure a definitive (albeit preliminary) judgment on the adequacy of evaccation planning prior to the commencement of construction of l nuclear sower plants. This is a commendable goal; and indeed, the NRC Tas since 1982 required that applicants for construction pertiits include a discussion of preliminary emergency plans in their applications.

4 t

__ m

2 It must be pointed out, however, that the approach you suggest would not necessarily assure against the possibility of a controversy about emergency planning at a completed nuclear power plant. For example, because of the relatively long time needed to construct a nuclear power plant, the finding at the construction permit stage.would necessarily involve projections -

of likely population growth. Should those projections turn out to be inaccurate, disputes could 'arise over the validity of the earlier finding. Second,:your approach assumes that state governments would necessarily consider themselves bound by the decisions 4cf previous administrations. While this assumption may be sound.iit is at least conceivable thatia state government might refuse to abide by a judgment, made by a pre 9fous.

administration, with which it disagreed. Although under your approach the NRC.would have the legal authority to require actions on the part of states in such circumstances, the 4ppjutentation of that authoritytwould pose many practical prdt'das and would'.likely'be the. subject of intense political and J i t i gat i on. d i s p u te s_._ ~~~_

_. x r'i hope that these comments may be helpful. The Executive N S

( Director for Optrations will respond separately to your comments ;

\ regarding a particular adjudication. '

_ _ _______.- -- - Sincerel_y, ,

Lando W. Zech, Jr.

i 1

l i

i

N O

. g e*

l . .

t Y '

pa,,14 y p g.n c L qr y i Ao w tw bl /, c10'es wuaffA

()Lbb & h mut- p pj9s ,p uj:4 .. - c g,y d6 /w c .a in_

r<tp & .6p a b c < w k c..

l p s ),% c .v x tt

,e fr(NV hlM

/)//9 gtp}[p fa, C, sbcajy k n .

l l

72