ML20211Q445
Text
,
D GWHW cm="m y
cau m eo Ameo senwices swinomorrum pueue woes
~
111titti $tates $titatt WASHINGTON, DC 20610 December 22, 1986 Admiral Lando Zech Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street N.W.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In my final months in the Senate, I have been increasingly disturbed by the efforts of certain applicants for nuclear power plant licenses to circumvent current requirements for emergency evacuation planning.
- Thus, yesterday's announcement that the applicants in the Seabrook case would seek a reduction in the planning zone was not a surprise.
But I was stunned at the proposed reduction of the evacuation radius from ten miles to one mile.
A change of this magnitude would be tantamount to an outright waiver of the regulation.
I can scarcely believe the applicant expects its proposal to be taken seriously.
Today's emergency planning requirement has been part of the nuclear regulation landscape since 1980.
It was, of course, part of the legacy of Three Mile Island.
I had just become chairman of the Senate Environment Committee's Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation.
In the first hours after the accident at THI, we learned that Pennsylvania had no plan for evacuating the vicinity of the plant.
That same spring, I introduced an amendment to the annual budget authorization for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
That amendment said no nuclear power plant would be licensed until the state in which it was located had an NRC-approved plan for dealing with a nuclear emergency.
The amendment was adopted in ecmmittee and upheld in three full Senate votes.
I might add that much of the Senate floor debate at that time (July 17, 1979) anticipated the arguments that have since been raised in objection to emergency planning requirments.
But a bipartisan majority of the Senate clearly wanted to see the individual states devise and test plans for protecting the public health and safety in the event of a nuclear accident.
While I can appreciate the frustration felt by applicants who cannot compell their states' cooperation, our responsibility as public officials is to protect -- and protect fully -- the public health and safety.
8703030093 870226 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
/
t.
Moreover larger emergen,cy planning zonethe evidence clearly indicates we need a Chernob miles. yl, evacuations were car-ied out to a distance of 18 not a smaller one.
At Even so r
many thousands of residents were exposed to potentially dama,ging levels of radiation In the wake of Three Mile Island, we set th 10 miles.
Will we, seriously contemplate shrinking thein the wa deadly accident) e radius at emergency zone?
In a related case asked to approve emerge,ncy plans prepared by ththe commissi themselves.
zone, they do not include guarantees of particiWhile th e applicants state and local officials.
-radius has been submitted for the Shoreham plantI am informed that such a pla pation by that a utility-produced plan may be submittin New York, and applicants.
ed by the Seabrook debate over emergency planning and inWe discussed su e 1979-1980 authorization bills.
writing subsequent NRC The point here is not the authorship of the emergency plan.
It is, rather, plan can and will be carried out.
public assurance that a conferee on the 1979-1980 bill I believe that every public to have that assurance. wanted the Congress and the plan stands a chance of orderly executionMy persona local officials are involved from start t no evacuation unless state and will ride to the rescue in the eleventh houcontrast, an o finish.
By u
c officials prescription for chaos.
r is a of the fear nuclear power engendersHaving just returned fro n on, I am mindful Such uncertainty has no place in a soci tgovernment's and safety urge you to dispel any doubts by upholding the y such as ours..
letter of the emergency evacuation planni I
e spirit and the ng regulations.
Si erel kW GARY ART
)