ML20209H522
| ML20209H522 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1987 |
| From: | Rich Smith HOUSE OF REP., SCIENCE, SPACE & TECHNOLOGY (FORMERLY |
| To: | Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209H432 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702060071 | |
| Download: ML20209H522 (2) | |
Text
.
i RO' SERT C. SMITH nomoroN omcE.
1ST DISTRICT, NEw HAMPSMcAE 500 CANNON SulLDING WASHINGTON. DC 20615 co==rrese
<202: 22s-s m IIOS 8
8 8O 340 A $ EET
"^' " Ur '
E
%se of %reseadatitres Jasigington, PC 20515
" "^**7%"'
smme coamma oo ieOs> nmo.
January 23, 1987
,oj,,fo",',",,,,,
(603) See ests NEW MAMPSMint TOLL FREE NUMSER Judge Helen Hoyt
'****8'"
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Camaission mshington, D.C. 20555
Dear Judge Hoyt:
Please find enclosed a copy of the Decenber 2,1986, letter I signed with fellow mammhers of the New Hampshire Congressional Delegation to chairman zach, regarding my opposition to a change in the regulatory policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Cannission (NRC) which would reduce the size of the ten mile meergency planning zone (EP3) required for full power licensing of the Seabrook nuclear power plant.
I would like the December 2, 1986, letter, together with this correspondence, to serve as my coment on the petition filed by New Hangshire Yankee on December 18, 1986, to reduction the EPZ for Seabrook Station to one mile.
It is an extreme disservice on the part of the state of Massachusetts to abdicate responsibility in its refusal to participate in the emergency planning process for Seabrook Station. The state of Massachusetts' refusal to participate in energency planning as a means of blocking full power licensing takes unfair advantage of a shortsighted regulatory loophole at the expense of the public, and is not in keeping with the intent of existing regulations. '1he cooperation of the state of Massachusetts in the licensing l
process must continue to be sought.
However, I do not consider it a constructive response, nor sourd public policy, to allow New Hampshire Yankee to relinquish regulatory l
responsibility for the safety of private citizens who live beyond one mile i
of the Seabrook plant. M ile I am encouraged by New Hanpshire Yankee's comnitment to work with any comunity in the ten mile radius on a voluntary t
l basis, the good faith of a utility is not adequate assurance or we wouldn't have an existing 1%deral regulation which specifies ten miles.
I hope the Board will agree that in nuclear preparedness matters which involve the assurance of public safety, a Federal regulatory check must be maintained.
In my view, the American public deserves to have confiderce that, however renote and unlikely a nuclear accident may be, provisions are in place for evacuation out to ten miles and further if necessary. With this in mind, I believe that the dati iM events which served as the basis for the 1979 NRC decision to establish ten miles as an acceptable EPZ for all nuclear power plants are reasonaole iM valid today.
f 5
G
4 JudgeJialen Hoyt Page 2 January 23, 1987 Several of my constituents have contacted me in regard to this matter, and I as requestiny on their behalf the Board's consideration of an extension of the January 27th deadline for public comment on New Hagshire Yankee's petition for a reduction in the EPE. In addition, could you please indicate what igact, if any, the December 18, 1986, New Hagshire Yankee petition will have on the April 27, 1987, hearing date for ASta review of New Hampshire off-site energency plans. Is the April hearing on New Hampshire off-site plans expected to take place in New Hampshire?
Moreover, I would like to respectfully bring to the attention of the Board the considerable financial and technical burdens which intervenors with maall resources face in the licensing process. For example, it has been brought to my attention that, as a result of an ASIB directive which requires that all filings be made on the deadline dates to assure receipt, intervenors are apparently locked into using express mail service. Would the Board consider a modification so as to reduce the financial burden imposed by this requirement of the filing process?
Again, I urge the ASLB and the NRC to maintain a regulatory requirenant for protection of the public out to ten miles. Rather than reduce the size of the EPE, I urge the ASta and the NRC to seek alternative steps which will resolve the present impasse with the state of Massachusetts.
In closing, I respectfully request permission of the Board to testify i. ac the public hearing (s) which will be held on the matter of the Decenber 18, 1986, New Hangshire Yankee petition.
Sincerely, Robert C. Snith RCS:mp Enclosure
. - - - -. - aL -. - - - -
4 Congreggof tije1Huitch6tateg Jpouse of Representatites EEasWagton,D.C. 20515 Decad=r 2, 1986
~
Comnissioner Lando Zech 142 clear Regulatory menission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Wa hington, D.C. 20555
Dear Connissioner Zech:
As Manbers of Congress representing the state of New Hampshire, we want to make clear our opposition to any change in the regulatory policy of the Nuclear Regulatory connission (NRC) which would reduce the size of the 10 mile emergency planning zone (EPZ) for ruclear power plant emergency preparedness.
To provide for better protection of the public, and to regain credibility in this crucial area of emergency preparedness, the NaC mast begin to exhibit leadership beyond the site boundary. Public trust in the nuclear power plant licensing process has been worn thin by the NRC's perceived indifference to public concerns, as well as the events atItree Mile Island and Ow:nobyl. As a result, the NRC can no longer expect the public to place its faith entirely in state-of-the-art safety standards in the plants alone. For example, off-site emergency plans should be required to address particular accident sequences or a " worse case accident."
Waile we recognize that Seabrook Station construction began prior to implementation of the NRC regulation which established the 10 mile EPZ, it is an extreme disservice to the applicants and the public that we are faced with a flawed Federal process, one which does not require evac 2ation plans to be subnitted and approved before a S4.5 billion investment is ready to go on line. Seabrook Station is now canplete and accruirg $50 million per month in interest payments alone while acceptable evacuation provisions are sought out. A situation such as this must never be allowed to occu,r again.
In closing, we view the 10 mile evacuation zone as the minimum acceptable zone.
We do not believe that a reduction in the EPZ is in the best interest of the safety and well-being of New Ilampshire residents, nor that of the people who live in the seacoast region of our state. We strongly urge you to use your leadership to establish meaningful emergency planning standards for the public in the nuclear power plant licensing process.
Sincerely, l
i Gordon J. Humpnrey Warren B. Ruc$an (t_3$-/ b tl.d A C.
4 V Judd Gregg Rocert C. Smita
- - -