ML20151B257

Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning

ML20151B257
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/23/1987
From:	Halpin P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, NEW YORK, STATE OF
To:	NRC
References
FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 52FR6980-00096, 52FR6980-96, OL-3, NUDOCS 8807200302
Download: ML20151B257 (6)

Text

I*i ** JMd 'ENY) wcMET MUMBER

<*100. & UTIL FAC. 90PQ3E0 EULE I g p/7d Y.e THE ASSEMBLY (FEB 2 3198.7 cWACMAN

$ M/45l .

C 5 1 F tt 6 9 P ) tonaYs C Ec"no"my i T 1

g ..

STATE OF NEW YORKr.egit:- couuittees l

% po>

. . .a - ALBANY Eouc.non envuonmenui cons.r..uon PATRICK G. HALPIN Local Covernments g

l u m o ,ina

'87 ti.G -4 Pi2 :08 Tr nsoortaion Tounsm, Sports & Arts Development Election Law Energy

~I i -

I -

k STATEMENT OF ASSEMBLYMAN PATRICK G. HALPIN FEBRUARY 23, 1987 ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HEARING ON PROPOSED RULE CHANGE WASHINGTON, D.C.

I'm Assemblyman Patrick Halpin and I represent the lith

{ Assembly District in Suffolk County, New York. I'd like to thank Chairman Zech and the members of the Commission for this opportunity to testify on the proposed rule c'hange to eliminate state and local government approval of emergency plans for j nuclear power plants before an operating license can be issued.

I am here today as a representative of people whose lives I

and safety are very much affected by every rule change you propose because of their proximity to the Shoreham nuclear power i

plant. And I am here as a member of the New York State Assembly i

! to present a resolution the Assembly passed on February 17 I

i that vehemently condemns this proposal.

Unaminously, 150 Legislators from across New York - upstate and downstate, urban and suburban, Democrats and Republicans - are calling upon you to continue the right of 1 _

8807200302 070223 6900 PDR

$" 52 101 No Wunwoov" Avenue. Lindenhurst New Yora 117$7,($16) 957 2067 Room 557, Legis'at.ve Ol' ice 8v.id.ng. AIDany. New Yora 12248.(516)455-5187 OSD

, , , , , . . , , . ,.-%wm_ -. * = . . - -e+ -* ---se===-

.,9 _ ,

l 1.

, state and local governments to approve emergency plans before l cn operating license for a nuclear plant can be issued. ,

i I must say that I was shoc :ed when I learned that Mr.

i Parler and Mr. Stello were recommending this change to the i

NRC. It was at the urging of Victor Stello, NRC Executive

} Director for Operations, that New York State adopted Chapter 708, j section 3 of the Executive Law in 1980, which placed the responsiblity for emergency planning on the state. This statute provides for a statewide Radiological Preparedness Plan, as well

! as site specific plans for each nuclear reactor.

This law was not passed in a vacuum. In fact, legislative i

history shows that chapter 708 was passed in the wake of the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant in Pennsylvania. After Three Mile Island the Commission recognized that as a federal body it could not possibly assure that a viable emergency plan existed at each and every nuclear power plant in the country. At that point it became apparent that an emergency plan could only be developed by state and local officials.

I Consistent with the police powers of the states, state and local officials are directly resposible to provide for public safety. However, before the incident at Three Mile Island it was seen that the federal government had sole jurisdiction over the regulation of the nuclear power industry. In 1980 - unfortunately after an accident occured - the states assumed the rightful 2

l

. %e _ ___pe -u we = # .. ...w- -- ...% 4%..,+-.mm- - use. s=.m.=+*.w.w_..

A # g a , 7*. *...--

'l

. 1 responsiblity to assure that a viable emergency plan existed for nuclear power plants in their jurisdictions.

With these facts in mind, I pose this question: What has changed since 1980 to prompt the NRC to propose eliminating u

!, ' the requirement that state and local officials approve emergency plans?

Could it be that in 1980 it had not occured to the NRC, or to the nuclear power industry, that state and local officials might withhold their approval?

Perhaps it was assumed that cooperation of local and state governments was a given, regardless of whether a plant was safe; regardless of whether a real emergency plan, a workable plan, existed.

t This, however is not the case l'. Suffolk County. Both state and county officials know that there can be no emergency plan that either they or LILCO could devise to ensure that the people of Long Island would be protected in the event of an emergencey I

at the Shereham plant. Perhaps some of you may not be aware of the unique geography of Long Island, but it simply does not allow for the safe evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people in an emergency. White House Chief of Staff, Donald Regan, j when visiting Long Island, agreed with this assessment--and

< flipply suggested that we build a bridge to connecticut to c evacuate in an emergency.

}

3 d

go . pew m - 4 mer-e a o- m-es -

-*+ esp.g*-ee o q#m= - * = - -

o' i

i .

Could it be that since 1980 the NRC's concern for the safety of the people has diminished while its relationship with the nuclear power industry has grown closer? ,

l If this rule is adopted, the residents of New York State and the rest of the country can only conclude that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not consider safety a priority, but is primarily interested in guaranteeing that every nuclear plant that applies for a license receives one.

This proposal is also a blatant contradiction to the stated policy of federalism put forth by the present administration in Washington. President Reagan claims to be a strong advocate of states rights, and has said he believes local issues should be settled by state and local officials.

The approval of this proposal would be tantamount to changing horses in mid-stream. It will demonstrate how the Administration throws to the Str.ces burdens and responsibilities it does not want to carry, and then turns around to wrest power away from state and L local governments when it disagrees with their decisions. And it would also demonstrate that federal agencies and commissions will not hesitate to circumvent congressional approval through regulatory legislation. We in New York will not stand for this sort of convenient federalism or law making by regulatory fiat.

The New York State Assembly worked in good faith with the NRC in 1980 to protect the safety and well-being of New Yorkers. We see this rule change as an obstacle to our mandate to i

4

,. 94 g . .

M. , .

protect the lives and safety of the people we are elected tc-serve, as well as an encroachment on our sovereignty as a 'stato.

Witnesses who have testified today have urged you not to change the rules in the middle of the game. But this is not a 4

game. You are considering a proposal that has tremendous

'. implications for the Reagan Administration's support for States 4

Rights and the notion of federalism, but more importantly, you have put before yourselves a proposal that will affect the safety of millions of Americans.

The New York State Assembly condemns this rule change. On behalf of that body, I urge you not to. change the licensing process for nuclear power plants.

It is dangerous and reckless to move backwards - your reasons for involving state and local governments in emergency planning in 1980 were correct and clear. If the memory of the Three Mile Island Nuclear accident has paled, let the recent tragedy at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant remind you of the non-negotiable importance of safety measures.

In conclusion, and on behalf of all m),' colleagues in the New York State Assembly, I say to you three simple words about your proposed changed: Don't do it. .

Thank you. .

5 o

- m -ees a wwem e s -A, . -e s-w . ~ w~ '

--~M=~~ -o--~- rr~~ e- --w w - em--

. ,.m...._. - --- - - - -

, (8Jr$$f f NOLLi8eGS $0VTM CAP 0tthA CHAdMJJs

?jf[Q'fh (hQ t

{- .

cA=sta w e.nAwAn Jo== c oANsoevM uillove wswoeLe?. roso. Aswrucir Doss /1LO W fbfGLt JR WiC=$GAN soe PACawooo. oosGo=

MANCY (44004 EASSESAvM EANSA$

'TCJ $ $ j

, , J JJMis (104 hERRA$EA LARRY #at$$ti4. $0v7M oAnof A

.

• ALS$47 GOmt. JR. fENNE S5f 8 TED $fitf%$ ALA$aa ,

LL vo gf 4 Sim TE A AS P $f ( 4R . G %iA

,j g{

JOM4 8 EERAv. UAS$ACMullTTS PETE wn$CN Catefot4ta JOMg $ saE AUX Lov*S.ASA Jong McCArm AMCh4

• eaoca AoAul wAS-motoa COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE. SCIENCE.

a

$ ""2 I?Ia*'."N 'I[a'NCS' s'N'$,7,,'c '

AND TRANSPORTATION '

WASHINGTON. DC 20510-8125 '87 titG -4 Fi2:08 i

i t*

.,; February 24, 1987 I

b!EMO TO: Janet Gorn FROM: Lisa Boepple N

4 IN RE: Attached statgment by Senator biccain for inclusion in the hearings of February 24, 1987 on the proposed rule change regarding emerge'ncy evacuation planning.

- attached is the Senator's statement, thanks for your help.

s

'(

\ ,

i l

l l

l l'

l

- + " - - * '- '

f; --...-__ , _ . , - , , . - - ~ ~ ~-~~. --~

+, - c, 2

- - _ _ s' , __

( _ .. .

'A e

• ll ..,

' ,a STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN'BEFORE THE NUCLEAR'

. REGULATORY COMMISSION IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED RULE CHANGE 6N EMERGENCY PL At1N ING .

r February 24, 1987 4

q

~

Mr. Chairman I appreciate having this opportunity to present

. a statement to the Commission on behalf of the proposed rule change dealing with emergency evacuation planning.

It is essential that we begin by reviewing what the facts are

in the case. We have two nuclear power plants, each a a multibillion dollar investment each waiting for licenses for commercial operation. We have local and state officials unwilling to participate in emergency evacuation plans because they believe such an exercise is impossible. This impasse is why N this hearing has been scheduled.

Mr. Chairman each and every one of us, whether in favor of or opposed to this rule change agree on one major issue - that the safety and. health of those living around a nuclear plant be the number one consideration in determining whether to issue an operating license to any nuclear power facility.

Let us review the question of emergency planning and, in

, particular, the Commission's responsibility for having created what some believe to be a major problem in this area. The issue

. is the' ability of a state or local veto of the operation of a j nuclear facility. This situation has resulted from an NRC regulation that was written in 1980 requiring that the Commission make a determination that an adequate emergency plan

'(including evacuation elements) both can and will be implemented with the cocperation of state and local governments.

Mr. Chairman I am sympathetic to those who feel that it is appropriate for states and localities to be able to stop a plant on radiological health and safety grounds, even if the NRC believes the plant is safe. However, in this case I feel that some type of arrangement can be made to assure those residents living in the proximity of the nuclear power facility that every effort has been taken by the NRC to provide protection in the event of an actual emergency.

t o vKV AM_,w , _ . - . . , .. .- .- _ . . . . . . .

+.

<a,

. n. ,

~

. , . . , .- , ~c , , ~ , , - ,

. - . . . - ..a.=., . ~ . . . . . . . . . . , , - . --=.u= .- -- - - - -

4 4- . .

f Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to remember that ji no serious ef fort has ever been .made, during the decades that-the

.i Atomic Energy Act has been in effect,'to change the Act's concept of federal preemption in radiological health and safety matters.

On the contrary, Congress has consistently supported the. view j that federal preemption :egarding such mattors should continue.

The veto prospect has arisen as an unintended product e f an NRC rule in 1980. This was clearly not intended by the f Commission's emergency planning rule. If the parties in this case remain unable to agt.ee on an evacuation plan I then feel i t' )

becomes necessary *,o adopt this proposed rule change. A change l which merely seeks to redifine the traditional concept of federal (

preemption in nuclear safety regulations.

I appreciate the difficulties in trying to resolve this issue. However, I believe it is still possible for all parties

- involved to reach an agreement which satisfies the safety concerns of local and state interests while at the same time allowing for the issuance of an operating license.

I applaud the efforts of the Commission in working.towards this goal.

4 6

h' -*=e*-<= -

-we-aw.-.-. , , . , = -y,...,._ _ _ . , , , , . . , , , , ,, . , _, , , _

,+~6 /r' y d'

l*4 ,

(-,

,g t j'y ,

., , ,_ , ,,