ML20212K997
| ML20212K997 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1987 |
| From: | Biden J SENATE |
| To: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2424 ALAB-853, OL-1, NUDOCS 8703100044 | |
| Download: ML20212K997 (2) | |
Text
.
l/
2V2)/
JOSEPH R. BSEN, Ja.
N khc.@..YI.
i
- cum g
g g
"W WASMNGTON, DC 20610
,87 FEB -4 P3 :45 January 29, 1987 YgcYDh:
,NJ The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
BRAm -
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, NW SERVE) FEB 05 j987 Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter is written in regard to the Commission's review of ALAB-853 and the requirement that an emergency planning zone proposal must be submitted before any operating license is issued.
I commend the Commission for taking this issue under review, and for staying the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation from authorizing low-power operations, in response to a pending request, at the Seabrook facility until the Commission's review is complete.
The requirement for an evacuation plan before a full-power license is issued is not in dispute.
The question before the Commission revolves around the need for compliance with the regulations for low-power operations.
i I have reviewed the reasons put forth by the Atomic l
Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in denying the appeal of the Massachusetts Attorney General.
The decision of the ASLAB is based largely on a strict interpretation of the applicable regulations.
While this is to be expected, I am pleased the Commission has decided to review the decision l
because, as the Commission noted, the ASLAB decision will have a major impact on broad public concerns, and therefore l
needs to be addressed at the highest levels.
l The ASLAB decision mentions a review of emergency planning regulations undertaken by the Commission in 1981.
l At that time, the Commission believed that the regulation as
" originally drafted and finally promulgated...
was not fully evaluated."
The Commission decided to change its n
evaluation based on the " experience gained in emergency
.o $
preparedness reviews over the last year."
o oo I make note of this because it appears that similar So circumstances are upon the Commission today that should lead to a careful review and reconsideration of the policy implied ex
'o in the ASLAB decision.
The experience with accidents at
.00 Three Mile Island and Chernobyl show that evacuation plans OT are not a minor consideration, but are a vital aspect of the
~y safe operation of any nuclear power plant.
The Commission needs to decide if a policy to allow low-power testing N
"'o without an of f site emergency plan is appropriate, O
t
1
-A 5
Y The Seabroom case is unique because of the strong opposition to the plant, and the lack of.an acceptable emergency plan.
The combination of these two factors leads most observera to believe that the probability of the -plant coming on line is anything but assured.
A decision to proceed further, in the expectation that existing roadblocks will somehow disappear, is not in the public interest.
A low-power license is of little value to the utility without the assumption that a full-power license will follow.
While this may have been a safe assumption in earlier years, the ability of public concern over evacuation plan proposals to block full-power licenses has demonstrated a major problem in continuing this approach.
The Commission should adjust to this change by making clear the requiremert that regulations must be as fully complied with at low-power as is demanded at full-power.
This is an important requirement because the. granting of a low-power license allows a degree of radiation contamination to take place, making it more difficult to pursue alternative energy generation uses for that facility.-
Particularly with regard to Seabrook, the granting of a low-power license without any assurance that an evacuation plan will be approved seems to be a step that will lead to i
greater confrontation, reducing the chances of a reconciliation that would benefit the utility.
I urge the Commission to revise the decision of the ASLAB to prevent this error of procedure.
By revising the i
ASLAB decision, the Commission has the opportunity to set the NRC on a course of requiring more substantive answers to existing problems before allowing the licensing process to move beyond the point of no return.
i Mr. Chairman, the incompleteness of the application submitted by the utility signals a problem that will have to be dealt with sooner or later.
I commend the Commission's willingness to address the important public policy questions ra'ised by the ASLAB decision, and I urg.e that the decision be revised to make sure that future problems of this type are resolved as early as possible.
Thank you for your attention.
l Sine rely, i
i t
_r oseph R. Biden, Jr.
nited States Senator l
i
= ---..
-., ~, - - -. - -