ML20206B824

Package of Three Comments Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing Power Plants W/O State & Local Participation in Evacuation Plan

ML20206B824
Person / Time
Site:	Perry, Harris
Issue date:	02/20/1987
From:	Boyd D, Epting R, Hurley M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, EPTING & HACKNEY
To:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#287-2664, FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 OL, NUDOCS 8704100059
Download: ML20206B824 (6)

Text

f p ((Qhd M-R.

- EPTING AND HACKNEY 7 -. m E ATTORNEY 5 AND CoUN5ELLoR$ AT LAW 214 W. aOSEMARY STREET

r. o. o nAwta i32.

87 FE8 25 P4 :52 CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 TF1 E PHON E 929-0323

"[,""'jfy c

February 20, 1987

{ on coor m9 sur sirH ucm Lando W. Zech, Chairman United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street NW PART 00 Washington D.C. 20sss

Dear Chairman Zech:

52FR6980 I write to urge the Commission not to publish for consideration the draft proposed rule which would allow the Commission to exempt nuclear power plant operating license applicants from any of the current off-site emergency planning requirements, whether or not appropriate state and local government agencies have concurred in or refused to concur in the emergency response plans for such plants.

The Commission's consideration of such a rule change would reflect a wholesale disregard for the legitimate, indeed constitutional, duties and interests of state and local governments in the security and public safety of their citizens.

At a time when citizens are demanding a greater role in planning for emergencies at nuclear plants in this country, such a rule change would decrease the opportunity for citizen input and assurance, and, rather, would leave emergency planning solely to the NRC and self-interested utility companies.

The Commission ought to be seeking ways to increase citizen confidence that the regulatory framework provides a sufficient forum for discussion and resolution of questions and concerns raised by the people about how emergency plans are designed to work and whether they are in fact adequate to protect the community in the event of a radiological emergency at a nuclear plant.

I myself became interested in the issues surrounding licensing of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant not because I was opposed to nuclear power in general, but rather because I live eleven miles from the plant and wanted to find out how the emergency plan for Shearon Harris was proposed to operate to protect me and my property in the event of an accident.

Frankly, at the outset, I thought those who opposed nuclear power in general were kooks.

However, as I studied the Emergency Response Plan for i Shearon Harris and sought answers to questions that occurred to me about the plan, I found that the power company was not 8704100059 B70220 PDR PR 50 52FR69BO PDR

, Chairman Lando W. Zech

!* February 20, 1987 Page Two willing to respond to those questions, but instead, sought to characterize those who raised legitimate questions about the plan as troublemakers and outside agitators. Power company executives even openly characterized the highway from Chapel Hill to Pittsboro, which is the county seat of Chatham County, as the "Ho Chi Minh Trail."

And, as is apparent from similiar circumstances in other parts of this country, citizens throughout this country are being driven to mistrust and demand redress for the arbitrary, undemocratic, even autocratic treatment their petitions for assurances of adequate emergency response planning have prompted from the nuclear power industry, and, frankly, from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in recent instances.

This situation is just as obvious to the nuclear industry and Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials as it is to those of us who are mocked for our concern. Indeed, as I sat in an American Law Institute seminar in Washington last fall, I heard Mr. Rosenthal caution industry lawyers on this point. In discussing the popular industry demand for an expedited licensing process, and especially the industry's wish to diminish the opportunity for public input, including procedural due process, Mr. Rosenthal noted that he believed that the scrutiny provided by the opportunity for cross-examination and rebuttal by an interested public was an important part of the regulatory scheme and remained vital to public acceptance of nuclear power because, " Frankly gentlemen, the public does not trust you."

Yet, as I understand the draft proposed regulation, it would undoubtedly diminish the opportunity for public scrutiny and understanding, and even more so, for public trust in and acceptance, of emergency planning critical not just to the safety of the public, but to the public's willingness to accept and support nuclear power as an energy resource in this country.

In my opinion, the Commission could not choose a shorter route to Congressional scrutiny of its actions than to adopt a rule which says, in effect, that in determining whether or not to license additional nuclear power plants in this country, the NRC does not care about and will not consider emergency planning questions and objections raised by and before State and local elected bodies. In short, it is exactly the wrong response to offer the people of this country, seventy-five percent of whom, according to polls taken during the last year, would not want a nuclear plant built in the vicinity of their homes.

For these reasons, I urge the Commission not to proceed further with consideration of any rule changes which would )

i l

Chairman Lando W. Zech February 20, 1987 Page Three diminish the necessity for coordination and cooperation with

! local and State governments as a condition of licensing nuclear power plants for operation.

With kind regards, I remain Very)rulyyours, f

f #m '

5 - f s I f%'

R bert EpOingg 4

1 l

i I

- _ _ _ . . _ . . .,. . . , _ _ _ - , _ , _ _ - - - _ ~ . . . . ,--- -.

,, m

~

,0.M3E0 PULE

@FP 2 tibet)

.4

'87 FEB 25. Pl2 :12 PART 50 u L x 570, :.D 1 ae 52FR6980- DT*" 3 k C :'

PA 13972 February 19,198'/-

United States I'uc.. ear Eegu: at ry C t-is -ic n ashingt n LC, 20535 j

Dear C rnis=1 ners,

In c nsiJeraticn -f te ' arnfr: effects recer'.et l ar-und C V.n-byl and alsc three .ile Islani much as c car,

stil; births, def rref ani u natural births ,nd i ncro s- s in 1

4

her diseases, pruqnt cpinien s:. cult, p int :c eithar en-larging evacuzti n nos ard et: c'. s el n.' n; ' *n

':uclear Gener -ti .s faci:iti as. It is ry underst 9 ding th?t

't the US ctuld custer ind aster the niern,.tive 0:1- lege 4

with relative ease.

, I str ngly urge :cu te reject 2n: plana fcr ;rincticr

-f evacuation zenes e.nd aveid 1eri ncy in vc cuaticn pelicy.

i'hank you, a

i Ihu.enn Eur;ey 4

-, w -------w---- ~ * *

,,7 , - ., - . .,, --

wT' "' ^ * ' ' - ' - - " - ' - " ' - " ' " ' - ~ ~ ' ' ' ' '

0 UTIL F C.. , ,

~

Adh

.PR-DPE

. Ckh 27 W "^ 111

"^j UT BA V; AV NUE AMITYVILLE. NEW YORK 11701 872 pg gf $853

(/.5,fL L 8yd L =d 6 Jul 5 k,b.c. 2. o c c s 52FR6980

%YA --  :

Awk ta/L da cL, A

at1 eln A a e e ' /J f K f ~ p 9 yJ 2 /p L , p

~

L) 1,L.,/ '

b eM nJ4 p g'-y ;f 4 ,

~ ~ ~ ~ a ,-

% , mk qw e w r e a .s

'dd JJy .a.n.,/ d y 2 n LA ~ f-

~a ~ m , L bt me t, 4 ,'sr L -

W u~ ~/ L g ..y X wranx s t L @. m u t a t ,

it q y~A.

c% rwm

, 4 ,->< sJ J D y ~+. /L p.sa 1. y A A _q 9-a. g y

. -sm,a,4x, e t s4 c_co,at g Sf A. 9E9 4h ~A 44c L~, '

Aa m y_

-g

& d a 1 ' d~ J .

n.A .f r m,4 3,nx Luj~L : '

p/%We

1. legdX/4ce g h A g .

4 <A/

AU, L0 Odd

&UA2 Q m~me

3-x g '

7"W 9'~

$A/k// /

?____._-._. . _ . _ - - - _ _ . -