ML20151B310

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

ML20151B310
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	02/24/1987
From:	Rich Smith AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, HOUSE OF REP.
To:	NRC
References
FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 52FR6980-00098, 52FR6980-98, OL, NUDOCS 8807200317
Download: ML20151B310 (4)

Text

'.

Y t$a IL AC. gg 4 WET Nb y 7g n

9l"n

$0PD3ED -

RULE STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. SMITH (NEW HAMPSHIRE - 1) ~ ' J. m NRC HEARING, FEBRUARY 24, 1987 GOOD AFTERN0ON. I WANT TO THANK THE COMMISS!0N FOR GIVING H THIS OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON A PROPOSED RULE CHANGE TO ADDRESS THE

UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DO NOT COOPERATE IN OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING.

I REPRESENT THE FIRST DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, IN WHICH THE SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IS LOCATED. AS YOU KNOW, SEABROOK IS' COMPLETE AND LOADED WITH FUEL. BUT THE PLANT'S OPERATION IS BEING DELAYED -- AT A COST OF $50 MILLION PE9 MONTH ACCORDING To THE UTII.ITY --

AND THE ENTIRE NUCI. EAR LICENSING PROCESS HAS LEEN BROUGHT TO A COMPLETE STANDSTILL -- BCCAUSE OF AN UNINTENDED, SHORTSIGHTED LOOPHOLE IN hRC REGULATIONS.

THE HRC IS IN THE UNENVIABLE POSITION OF HAVING TO ADDRESS THIS LOOPh0LE AND TO SERVE AS A REFEREE BETWEEN TWO EXTREMELY POLARIZED VIEWP0IllTS, TWO SIDES THAT OFTEN REFUSE TO LISTEN TO THE FACTS OR EACH OTHER ON THE ONE SIDE, THERE ARE PEOPLE OPPOSED TO NUCLEAR POWER WHO AP DEDICATED TO STOPPING SEABROOK REGAP.0LESS OF THE COST TO EITHER TdE UTILITY, TAXPAYIR, OR RATEPAYER, AND WHO REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE MODERN SAFETY FEATUT.ES THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT INTO SEABROOK. ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE IS THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AND THE UTILITY W'!L HAVE BECOME FRUSTRATED WITH A FLAWED PROCESS THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE OFFSiTE EMERGENCY PLANNING UNTIL BILLIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN INVESTED IN THE PLANT. IN THE UTILITY'S FRUSTRATION WITH THE PROCESS, A PUBLIC PERCEPTION HAS BEEN CREATED THAT SAFETY IS NOT THEIR FOREMOST CONCERN. I 00 NOT BELIEVE THIS IS THE CASE BUT THE INDUSTRY MUST 00 A BETTER JOB .F ADORESSING IT, 8807200317 070224 PDR

$[52b6980

--y -. + , ,a

, e IT IS WITH THIS IN HIND THAT I AM HERE TODAY. WHETHER THE PLANT DOES a OR DOES NOT G0 ON LINE IS THE NRC'S DECISION. I AM HERE BECAUSE I RCPRE3ENT THE APPR0XIMATELY S00,000 IF THE PEOPLE OF THE FIRST DISTRICT. WHILL OPINIONS ON SEABROOK MAY GREATLY VARY, THERE ARE TWO MAJOR CONCERNS: SATETY AND COST. THE PEOPLE OF NEW HAMPSt;!RE WANT TO BE ASSURED OF THE SAFETY OF THE PLANT AND DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR MOsE AND MORE DELAYS.

UNDER CURRENT LAW, STATE AND LOCAL APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY PLANS IS REQUIRED BEFORE A FULL POWER LICENSE CAN BE ISSUED. MORE0VER, EVACUATION PLANS ARE REQUIRED filTHIN A TEN-MILE RADIUS OF THE PLANT.

THE REASON AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGE, WHICH WOULD NO LONGER REQUIRE STATE AND LOCAL APPROVAL OF EVACUATION PLANS AS A CONDITION OF FULL POWER LICENSING, IS THAT CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE SIMPLY REFUSED TO COOPERATE IN THE PROCESS. THE NRC ARGUE 5 THAT IT WAS NEVER ANTICIPATED THAT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WOULO NOT C0CPERATS AND THAT THESE STATES ARE EXERCISING A DEFACTO VETO OVER LICENSING TUEY WERE NEVER INTENDED TO HAVE.

I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN, AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE, A STRONG SUPPORTER OF STATES RIGHTS AND LOCAL CONTROL, AND INDEED, THE PARTICIPATION OF AFFECTED POPULATIONS IS THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF CURRENT REGULATIONS.

UNFORTUNATELY, THAT SPIRIT, THAT INTENT, - AND THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING - IS BEING UNDERMINED BY THOSE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHO REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS. IN ORDER TO CLARIFY WHETHER STATES AND COMMUNITIES HAVE A VETO OVER LICENSING, I BELIEVE, AN AMENDMENT TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT IS CLEARLY NEEDED. HOWEVER, THE FACT

~

REMAINS THAT CURRENT LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THIS ACTION ON THE PART OF

0

s. '

STATES AND, THEREFORE, BELIEVE THE NRC TOOK THE PROPER C0URSE OF ACTION IN ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS THIS SITUATION.

' WITH MORE ASSURANCES THAT SAFETY WOULD NOT BE COMPROMISED OR '

i CIRCUMVENTED, I COULD SUPPORT THE PROPOSED RULE. ON THE POSITIVE SIDE, THE PROPOSED RULE DOES NOT RECOMMEND SHRINKING THE TEN MILE EVACVATION PLAN ZONE (EPZ), A ZONE I HAVE CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED. ALTHOUGH SEABROOK IS PROBABLY THE SAFEST PLANT EVER BUILT IN THIS COUNTRY, IT IS FOOLISH TO THINK THAT IN THE CASE OF AN ACCIDENT, PEOPLE OUTSIDE,0F A ONE-MILE RADIUS WOULD NOT WANT TO EVACUATE. TEN MILES IS, IN MY OPINION, THE MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE ZONE, AND I AM ENCOURAGED BY THE cACT THAT THE >ROPOSCD RULE CHANGE MAINTAINS THE TEN MILE RADIUS.

I AM ALSO ENCOURAGED THAT THE RULE DOES NOT EITHER DIMINISH, RESTRICT, OR ELIMINATE THE RIGHT OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EMERGENCY PLANNING PROCESS. RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITIES THAT WANT TO PARTICIPATE WILL STILL HAVE THAT RIGHT.

AT THE SAME TIME, I CONSIDER IT VITAL THAT ANY RULE CHANGE MAINTAIN THE PUBLIC'S CONFIDENCE THAT EMERGENCY PLANS WILL WORK AND PROVIDE ADEQUATELY FOR THEIR PROTECTION. ALSO, ANY RULE CHANGE MUST ENSURE THAT EVACUATION PLANS DEVELOPED UNDER NEW GUIDELINES BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE AS PLANS DEVEL UNDER EXISTING REGULATIONS. A LACK OF STATE COOPERATION SHOULD NOT BE USE EMERGENCY PLANNING AS AN EXCUSE TO RETURN TO LOWER STANDARDS OF SAFETY.

SHOULD MAINTAIN ITS PLACE AS A SAFETY CONSIDERATION OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE T ON-SITE SAFEGUARDS.

IRONICALLY, THERE ARE ONE HUNDRED NUCLEAR PLANTS IN THIS COUNTRY CURRENTLY OPERATING WITH APPROVED EMERGENCY PLANS, AND SEABROOK IS MORE MODERN AND PROBABLY SAFER THAN ANY OF THEM. THE SITUATION CLEARLY NEED t.__. ._. _ . _ _ . . _ ._ _ _

.... l BE ADDRESSED. IF YOU ACCEPT THE PREMISE THAT LOCALITIES SHOULD HAVE A DEFACTO VETO UVER LICENSING, THEN THE ISSUE.IS DEAD AND SEABROOK WILL NEVER  ;

i l I \

e G0 ON LINE. -

l l

IF YOU 00 NOT, A NEW RULE, A CHANGE IN THE PROCESS, IS  :

NECESSARY SO THE NRC CAN DECIDE WHETHER SEABROOK SHOULD BE GRANTED A l LICENSE. AS I HAVE INDICATED, I BELIEVE THE RULE CONTAINS A NUMBER OF i POSITIVE ASPECTS. IT RETAINS THE TEN-MILE EVACUATION ZONE AND DOES NOT RESTRICT THE RIGHTS OF COMMUNITIES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS.

AT THE SAME TIME, I BELIEVE THE RULE NEEDS TO BE STRENGTHENED IN A NUMBER OF AREAS. SPECIFICALLY, THE RULE CITES EIGHT MEASURES THE UTILITY MUST TAKE TO COMPENSATE FOR LACK OF LOCAL COOPERATION. I BELIEVE THESE MEASURES MUST BE MADE MORE SPECIFIC IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT SAFETY WILL NOT COMPROMISED.

THERE ARE MANY REASONS, AND MANY PLACES TO LAY THE BLAME, FOR SEABR00K'S DELAYS. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, HOWEVER, IS IT THE FAULT OF THE RATEPAYERS, MANY OF WHOM ARE HY CONSTITUENTS, AND UN6ER NO CIRCUMSTANCES 00 I INTEND TO G0 BACK TO MY DISTRICT TO TELL PEOPLE THAT THE FEDERAL AGENCY RESPONSIBLE IS PARALYZED BY INDECISION AND IS UNABLE TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION. THIS COMMISSION HAS A DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT, STRICT STANDARD OF SAFETY, WHICH CURRENTLY IS REQUIRED BY THE COMMUNITIES, APPLY IT IF THESE OBJECTIVES CAN BE TO UTILITIES, AND TRANSLATE IT INTO REGULATION.

MET BY THE NRC IN ITS RULE CHAME, THEN YOU WILL HWE HY SUPPORT. IF THEY CANNOT, THEN YOU WILL NOT.

__ _ _ _ _ . . . _ ___ _ ._.