Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency PlanningML20151B089 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
Three Mile Island |
---|
Issue date: |
02/23/1987 |
---|
From: |
Hart G AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
---|
To: |
NRC |
---|
References |
---|
FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 52FR6980-00087, 52FR6980-87, NUDOCS 8807200237 |
Download: ML20151B089 (9) |
|
|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20210B8491999-07-21021 July 1999 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w),for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 to Reduce Amount of Insurance for Unit to $50 Million for Onsite Property Damage Coverage ML20206D4141999-04-20020 April 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App R,Section III.G.2 Re Enclosure of Cable & Equipment & Associated non-safety Related Circuits of One Redundant Train in Fire Barrier Having 1-hour Rating ML20206T7211999-02-11011 February 1999 Memorandum & Order (CLI-99-02).* Denies C George Request for Intervention & Dismisses Subpart M License Transfer Proceeding.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990211 ML20198A5111998-12-11011 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rulemaking Details Collaborative Efforts in That Rule Interjects Change ML20154G2941998-09-17017 September 1998 Transcript of 980917 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re License Transfer of TMI-1 from Gpu Nuclear,Inc to Amergen. Pp 1-41 ML20199J0121997-11-20020 November 1997 Comment on Pr 10CFR50 Re Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommisioning Nuclear Power Reactors.Three Mile Island Alert Invokes Comments of P Bradford,Former NRC Member ML20148R7581997-06-30030 June 1997 Comment on NRC Proposed Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1, Control Rod Insertion Problems. Licensee References Proposed Generic Communication, Control Rod Insertion, & Ltrs & 961022 from B&W Owners Group ML20078H0431995-02-0101 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Lowpower Operations for Nuclear Reactors ML20077E8231994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rev to NRC NPP License Renewal Rule ML20149E2021994-04-20020 April 1994 R Gary Statement Re 10 Mile Rule Under Director'S Decision DD-94-03,dtd 940331 for Tmi.Urges Commissioners to Engage in Reconsideration of Author Petition ML20065Q0671994-04-0707 April 1994 Principal Deficiencies in Director'S Decision 94-03 Re Pica Request Under 10CFR2.206 ML20058A5491993-11-17017 November 1993 Exemption from Requirements in 10CFR50.120 to Establish, Implement & Maintain Training Programs,Using Sys Approach to Training,For Catorgories of Personnel Listed in 10CFR50.120 ML20059J5171993-09-30030 September 1993 Transcript of 930923 Meeting of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-130.Related Documentation Encl ML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20065J3731992-12-18018 December 1992 Affidavit of Gj Giangi Responding to of R Gary Requesting Action by NRC Per 10CFR2.206 ML20198E5581992-12-0101 December 1992 Transcript of Briefing by TMI-2 Advisory Panel on 921201 in Rockville,Md ML20210D7291992-06-15015 June 1992 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR70.24 Re Criticality Accident Requirements for SNM Storage Areas at Facility Containing U Enriched to Less than 3% in U-235 Isotope ML20079E2181991-09-30030 September 1991 Submits Comments on NRC Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 23, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failure. Informs That Util Endorses Comments Submitted by NUMARC ML20066J3031991-01-28028 January 1991 Comment Supporting SECY-90-347, Regulatory Impact Survey Rept ML20059P0531990-10-15015 October 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal ML20059N5941990-10-0404 October 1990 Transcript of 900928 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Studies of Cancer in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities, Including TMI ML20055F4411990-06-28028 June 1990 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-55 Re Revs to FSAR ML20248J1891989-10-0606 October 1989 Order.* Grants Intervenors 891004 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence.Response Requested No Later That 891020.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 891006 ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E9181989-09-13013 September 1989 Order.* Requests NRC to Explain Purpose of 890911 Fr Notice on Proposed Amend to Applicant License,Revising Tech Specs Re Disposal of Accident Generated Water & Effects on ASLB Findings,By 890929.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890913 ML20247G0361989-07-26026 July 1989 Transcript of Oral Argument on 890726 in Bethesda,Md Re Disposal of accident-generated Water.Pp 1-65.Supporting Info Encl ML20247B7781989-07-18018 July 1989 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Encl Gpu 890607 & 0628 Ltrs to NRC & Commonwealth of Pa,Respectively.W/Svc List ML20245D3651989-06-20020 June 1989 Notice of Oral Argument.* Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from ASLB 890202 Initial Decision Authorizing OL Amend,Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890620 ML20245A5621989-06-14014 June 1989 Order.* Advises That Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from Board 890202 Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Authorizing OL Amend Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890614 ML20247F3151989-05-22022 May 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal by Joint Intervenors Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert.* Appeal Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Identify Errors in Fact & Law Subj to Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246Q2971989-05-15015 May 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20246J6081989-05-12012 May 1989 Licensee Brief in Reply to Joint Intervenors Appeal from Final Initial Decision.* ASLB 890203 Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Re Deleting Prohibition on Disposal of accident- Generated Water Should Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247D2761989-04-20020 April 1989 Transcript of 890420 Briefing in Rockville,Md on Status of TMI-2 Cleanup Activities.Pp 1-51.Related Info Encl ML20244C0361989-04-13013 April 1989 Order.* Commission Finds That ASLB Decision Resolving All Relevant Matters in Favor of Licensee & Granting Application for OL Amend,Should Become Effective Immediately.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890413 ML20245A8381989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 890413 Meeting in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-79.Supporting Info Encl ML20245A2961989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of 890413 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Affirmation/Discussion & Vote ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248D7211989-04-0404 April 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Intervenors Application for Stay Denied Due to Failure to Lack of Demonstrated Irreparable Injury & Any Showing of Certainty That Intervenors Will Prevail on Merits of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890404 ML20247A4671989-03-23023 March 1989 Correction Notice.* Advises That Date of 891203 Appearing in Text of Commission 890322 Order Incorrect.Date Should Be 871203.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890323 ML20246M2611989-03-22022 March 1989 Order.* Advises That Commission Currently Considering Question of Effectiveness,Pending Appellate Review of Final Initial Decision in Case Issued by ASLB in LBP-89-07. Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890322 ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2641989-03-0202 March 1989 Notice of Aslab Reconstitution.* TS Moore,Chairman,Cn Kohl & Ha Wilber,Members.Served on 890303.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2161989-02-25025 February 1989 Changes & Corrections to Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Three Mile Island Alert Documents Submitted on 890221.* Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-21
[Table view] Category:PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULES & PETITIONS FOR
MONTHYEARML20198A5111998-12-11011 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rulemaking Details Collaborative Efforts in That Rule Interjects Change ML20199J0121997-11-20020 November 1997 Comment on Pr 10CFR50 Re Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommisioning Nuclear Power Reactors.Three Mile Island Alert Invokes Comments of P Bradford,Former NRC Member ML20148R7581997-06-30030 June 1997 Comment on NRC Proposed Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1, Control Rod Insertion Problems. Licensee References Proposed Generic Communication, Control Rod Insertion, & Ltrs & 961022 from B&W Owners Group ML20078H0431995-02-0101 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Lowpower Operations for Nuclear Reactors ML20077E8231994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rev to NRC NPP License Renewal Rule ML20079E2181991-09-30030 September 1991 Submits Comments on NRC Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 23, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failure. Informs That Util Endorses Comments Submitted by NUMARC ML20066J3031991-01-28028 January 1991 Comment Supporting SECY-90-347, Regulatory Impact Survey Rept ML20059P0531990-10-15015 October 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal ML20055F4411990-06-28028 June 1990 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-55 Re Revs to FSAR ML20246Q2971989-05-15015 May 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20205L2791988-10-20020 October 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR150 Re Reasserting NRC Authority for Approving Onsite Low Level Waste Disposal in Agreement States ML20154S3381988-09-0202 September 1988 Comment on NUREG-1217 & NUREG-1218 Re Proposed Resolution of USI 1-47, Safety Implications of Control Sys ML20150F1951988-07-0202 July 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Expansion of Applicability of Leak Before Break Technology to Functional & Performance Requirements for ECCS & Environ Qualification ML20196D1221988-07-0101 July 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Leak Before Break (LBB) Technology.Requests Not to Extend LBB Technology & to Retract Present LBB Use Because LBB Failed to Predict Pipe Ruptures ML20196L3211988-06-23023 June 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Emergency Planning & Preparedness Requirements for Nuclear Power Plant Fuel Loading & Initial Low Power Operations ML20197G6111988-06-0606 June 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Emergency Planning & Preparedness Requirements for Nuclear Power Plant Fuel Loading & Initial Low Power Operations.Nrc Reasons for Elimination of Requirement for Offsite Sirens Correct ML20236A0441987-10-13013 October 1987 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to Backfitting Process for Power Reactors.Proposed Rule Devoid of Objective Guidance or Criteria for Distinguishing Between Cases Where cost-benefit Analysis Permissible & Where Not ML20235J8031987-04-12012 April 1987 Comments Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Inherent Flaws in TMI-1 Reactor.Petition Signed by Area Residents Encl ML20151B8881987-03-0707 March 1987 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning ML20151C9191987-03-0505 March 1987 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning ML20150F9311987-03-0202 March 1987 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to Ooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning ML20151B3031987-03-0202 March 1987 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning ML20151B4691987-03-0202 March 1987 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning ML20151B2681987-02-24024 February 1987 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning ML20151B0891987-02-23023 February 1987 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning 1998-12-11
[Table view] |
Text
, _ .
.# O"".KEl *A!8Di )g , C3
- +
r;wmED aun : n m /
.. @EB 2 31967) [$L F/2.('/rd)y7
. .r1 M!.FEiE[g M ,
COMMENTS BY FORMER SENATOR GARY HART BEFORE THE UUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '87 WR --4 Pi2 :07 REGARDING THE EMERGENCY PLANNING REQUIREMENT
- WASHINGTON D.C. FEBRUARY 23, 1987 Next month, Americans will note the eighth anniversary of Three Mile Island, our nation's worst nuclear mishap to date.
< A .cnth later, the world will observe the first anniversary .
of Chornobyl, to date the greatest catastrophe of civilian nuclear power.
Given the shadows these memories cast, and given this Commission's specific respcnsibility for the safety of nuclear power in the United States, one might think the Commission had called this meeting to talk about tougher safety regulations.
Instead, we are here to discuss the weakening of a safety regulation. The Commission staff says we can relax the require-ment by which nuclear power plants must have a state plan for protecting the public in the event of an accident -- a plan that provides the public reasonable assurance of effectiveness.
This was one of the key safety requirements spawned by Three Mile Island. That is why I sought to address this meeting.
Because the emergency planning requirement is not the sole creation of this Commission, or of the previous Commissioners who approved it in Augunt of 1980. It was strongly recommended by the several public commissions that investigated the accident
- at Three Mile Island. And, even more importantly, the Commission's regulation was preceded by extensive debate, negotiations and roll call votes in Congress.
pDt e&o720,o2pa70223
~ - - . , -
.. ,2nen -
w_- ,
,,-[4-,
.-+--.4_ _,m ..,.f.,____i ._,,,..s.,___. a, ,_,_,
, y,, _
Nr[ , / ,
- ,=- , ,
, ' N/ .
s'
\
)
't
-In the short time available, I cannot reprise _all of :.he Congressional debate. But I will note some of the highlights for-
+
i you and refer you to the attached brief, originally filed with the Commission.on January 21 of this year, following.the first public announcement of the intent to review emergency planning.
Beyond that, I urge the Commission to re-read the Mouse-Senate Conference heport that was approved by both houses in June 1980 (Report No. 96-1070) and the Senate floor debate of July 16, 1979 (Congressional Record, 7/16/79, pp. 18656-18676).
When the Three Mile Island accident occurred in March of 1979, I was chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Cubcommittee. in the United States Senate. In the first stages of the investigation, I went to the crippled plent along with the subcomaittee's senior Republican, Alan Simpson of Wyoming.
We were Doth shocked to learn that, even as technicians struggled to control events within the reactor. no plan existed for evacuating the people who lived all'around it.
In the weeks that ' 911 ow e f, , I wrote an amendment tc the bill by which Congress annua .y authorizes NRC operations. It said r.o plant could operata without a state plan for evacuation in the event of an accidt.it, a plan that state and local officials had participated in and tested.
The first versien of that amendment was adopted by the full .
Senate Enviroment and Public Works Cormittee on May 10, 1979.
" # e"-
4
~ ~ ~ - - . - - . . . . - - . . - , , . _ , , , , _ , , _
.* , c -
e
.. 3-
~
a On July 16, Simpson and I took a revised version of that amendment to the Senate floor. There we' heard all the argu. tents o
about pre-emptive federal authority in nuclear matters. We heard all about the possible recalcit.ance of gevernors and local officials and the troublesome nature of people who did not like -
nuclear power. But in the end, the Senate preserved this emergency planning requirement through a series of votes. Final adoption of the amendment came by a vote of 64 to just 19.
Later, the House and Senate combined their respective NRC
- bills and approved this combined version in June of 1980. This conference report applied the requirement to new licensees only.
And it allowed that in certsin situations, an r-ergency plan urawn up by the utility it.self could be considered by the Commission in lieu of a state plan.
But the conferees also agreed that no utility plan would be adequate if, in the view of state, county or other local authorieles, it left emergency planning issues unresolved. And it was understood that the Commission was not to license a plant where the lack of state-and-local parr,1cipation in emergency -
planning might hobble the plan's hopes of successful execution.
That was the meaning of ths ' reasonable assurance" standard.
The Commission's own rule had proceeded to adeption along a parallel tracn. In fact, the Commission had published its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking -- a call for comment that began the public portion of the process -- on July 17, 1979.
S
"' **m n= w + ~ ee w ome.e w e. ,e a ~ . , , . , _ _
@g
\
,_g
,a-, -
-. _.. _m . . . _ _, _ _, ,
7.--
. y -
ei... ,
(.! ~
. _4-That was the day after the Senate approved the Hart-Simpson
- , emergency planning amendmcet. And the Commission's rulemaking process was completed in 11 gust of 1980, just two months after the House-Senate Conference Report had been approved.
In promulgating the final rule, as Commission Chairman John Ahearne has said, the Commission decided that the dangers of inadequate emergency planning outweighed the risks of non-cooperative state and local authorities.
The final rule also established an emergency planning zone that reached 10 miles away from the plant. (At Three Mile Island, state officials eventually recommended evacuation of persons living within 20 miles of the plant. At Chernobyl, the Soviets forcibly evacuated everyone within 18 miles.)
Why is the existing rule endangered today? Is it because the Commission has new evidence concerning radiation and its dangers?
Do we have a way to render it har.nless to nearby residents, their children and their descendants? Have we discovered an antidote?
No. What the Commission has discovered is that a tough emergency planning requirement makes it tough to license plants that are located too close to too many people. The Commission has discovered that giving status and local governments a real role can delay or stall the licenLing process.
In recent months, several governors have decided that .
evacuating the vicinities of certain nuclear power plants within their states is i.npossibly difficult and inherently perilous.
- e. ;,
e
,o - _ _ ~
c _ ., _ , , . . . , _ . , ,_
,= v- ,
hi; .
4 . ,
-S-Their decision not to prepare or to test emergency plants has slowed or stopped the licensing of these plants. They have taken this position despite great. pressure from utilities, manufactur6rs, plant operators and investors. *
-Several of these governors are here today. I salute them and I hope they stick to their guns. In so doing, they will be.
carrying cut the true intent of the Congress, as well as that of >
the public commissions that investigated Three Mile Islar.d.
Unfortunately, the Commission seems to regard this as a breakdown in the process, an unintended consequence. There l seems to be an assumption that every nuclear plant that breaks ground must eventually be licansed, thac each investment must be recovered and that ubjections are made to be overcome.
In fact, the emergency planning requirements were written so as to make the threat of license denial very real indeed. -
P Remember that the Senate, in approving its first emergency planning requirement, applied it to all existing plants as well
- as new license applicants. .
This was the great stick with which Congress (and others) proposed to drive the emergency planning process. We had been through a generation of waiting for interested parties to do it on their own. And as a result we had scores of Three Mile Island situations incubating all across the _nuntry.
And yet we haar that the originators of the planning requirement never foresaw the situation that has since evolved.
.o ,
e
^ '
m 4 % b --
.a u a , . . - _,
,_...a. . ..a.__.. ._ . , _
g .,s.
l, .. .\-
, 1 1
The Commission staff suggests we can solve the gurrent.
y
- i impasse by. requiring a state government to make "a good faith effort" to devise a plan or cooperate in a utility's plan.
- ~
Failing in that, the staff says, the state should forfeit its 1
rights i'n the matter.
I This is sometimes portrayed as a clarification of the emergency planning requirement, or at least as a fresh way of getting around it. Actually, it it neither. The "good faith" argument waf aired at length when Congress debated and. passed its emergency planning requirement in July of 1979, more than a year prior to che Commission's rulemaking.
Senator Bennett Johnston of Louisiana used this very ,
phrase. His proposed solution to the recalcitrant Governor problem was to let the Commission devise plaas on its own. But when he submitted that approach or. the Senate floor, he lost on a roll call vote.
Similar amendments met similar fates. The Senate wanted state and local authorities to be pivotal in determining the fate 4
of.a p1* ant, and this idea survived the House-Senate conference 1
com.mittee that reconciled the bills. The conferees reported:
i Ultimately, 1very nuclear plant will have applicable *o .
it an approved State or local emergency preparedness plan which provides reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will not be endangered in the event of an emergency at such plant requiring protective action. (Conference Report 96-1070, p. 28]
I g, *.
4 6e h , ,u . .
s> . .__ . ._. , ,
n >- . .
m__..., .- ..
o.c
.9 . .
o S-
_7 l-Throughout the controversy, a' key question has been: Who
~' '
should draft and submit the emergency plan? Some say the state i
and local governments must de it. Others say a plan drafted by the utility, or even by the Ccamission itself, should suffice.
But authorship of the plan is not the point. The fundamental need is for a plan that is in place and that provides "reasonable assurance the public health and safety are not endangered." And to meet this standard, a plan must guarantee the participation of those most capable and qualified to execute i t.
- The utility lobbyists and the commission staff say any conscientious plan could provide such assurance, even if the state and local governments have explicitly refused to have anything to do with it. But Al Simpson asked the salient questions back in 1979 on the Senate floor: Who would have the proper authority to supervise ambulance and hospital response?
Who would order the police and firefighters into action? Would utility personnel direct evacuation traffic?
And surely the Commission does not expect an exclusive y
exercise of federal authority to galvanize all the state and local personnel, or to bring state and local resources and infrastructure into play. Such usurpation of local and state autnority would bite off a-~e of the Constitution than even _
this Administration might care to chew. ,
g I b s , - . , . , , , , ,,n p . ' . -.
, ~+ ;, = -- - .= .. -~ ~. . -
/
. _g.
!. ~
! But, again, what is really at stake here is notLthe relative
.i It is the prese.rvation of-j- power or jurisdiction of governments.
. public health and safety. And as a practical matter, evacuating-4 Long Island -- or the coastal areas of taine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts near Seabrook Statior. -- would be a daunting prospect under the best of circumstancas.
If state and local officials have not been part of the drafting.and testing of evacuation plans, we can only expect the worst. And the panicky rush to escape could produce results as l unwanted as the nuclear accident itself.
Through the first years of the nuclear era, government was plainly complacent about public safety. Serious accidents causing major radiation releases were considered all but impossible .
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have exploded that myth. Moreover, we can no longer assume such a radiation release I could only result fun an accident. Indeed, global terrorism has
, already demonstrated its ability to force the unthinkable upon 4
the unprepared.
As nuclear power's threat to public health and safety a
becomes more credible and multifaceted, many Americans, including I .
former members of this Commission, question the adequacy of the emergency planning we have done to date.
We should be addressing those questions, working to improve .
our emergency preparations and showing people that we care.
,, ., -,m---- me g w - *re-es== q .wpew m *
'* A g y ' 4 gg a ".A 2 '_ a , . .#.t ; -
9.' *1
4 -- - - - ,
3 c , ,-
~
j ,e-'g, s- .
J. .- 4
- . .. . _ .w . _ _,x. . . ~ ,. . . . _ - , _
, . _ . , - .. . . - _ . . . ; ._2 . # . _. ., ,;
v .r .
- .- .< , .. u s.. .
,'o
- c - , .
. 4 d
f .t . =
if
- e-
,y 4
1.
s t
~ $N .
r
, $ .IftheCommissionwishes'todemonsiplatethecommitmentto ;
-e . safety that it continually asserts, then$it shou 1Cpursue such
.) 3
- [. an agenda. It would certainly make more~ sense than looking for
~
ways to dismantle the protections we nave now. ,
_, The Commission's will to. license pl nts flows properly fror.
its st'atutory responsibilities. But.so ihould ar. even stronger will to protect..public-health and safety. Where these mandates are seen to conflict, health and safety must take precedence.
~
Any other balancing of the scales will raise doubts regarding this Commission's understanding of its mission. If the
, Commission relaxes a crucial regulation so as to license a given plant'or group of plants, it will surely destroy the public's fragile faith.
I
\
n.= e wa- ee e-+4.m a c a4 pw. u-
. .g+&di.+<s --
6erog., . y -
-ea-i. ... . . -
r ., _ . ,
_t ;
. .y . "
m ,
___