Images de page
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

3

that you think would apply, if, in fact, there are some?

4

5

6

It seems to me one should do that before going into what I consider to be a very detailed question of differences between calculating whole body dose and things to organs,

or even the comparisons for a specific reactor.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

-

14

I would hope the Staff develops some kind of safety philosophy, if it hasn't, that it uses to guide itself in decisionmaking concerning these matters. And there was another reactor, if I recall correctly, that was proposing to propose a reduced emergency evacuation zone radius. So it is not shouldn't be altogether, you know, something new for the Staff to think about.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

I'm speaking for myself but let me strongly

suggest that you try to develop some, what I'll call general philosophy in this regard, and then some, what you might call generic quantitative guidelines, before trying to make an ad hoc decision on a specific case. I'll leave it at that.

MR. MOELLER: Dr. Okrent, at the subcommittee meeting I prepared a summary I prepared for my own use of I'm not saying it answers your

but within it they do give a basis for the

selection of the plume 10-mile distance, and the injection

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

28464.0

BRT

10-10-86 ACRS COMMITTEE

463

1

2

are taking time away from other tasks like finding out how good a Mark 2 containment is, et cetera? Okay. I can

3

rattle off several on which I think there's absent

4

5

6

7

8

9

information for resolution.

MR. LONG: Just to say one thing, here, there is work in the Commission to reconsider the emergency planning criteria techniques. A lot of this is involved with the

new source term work, this sort of thing. I think that has been an ongoing program for a few years.

10

The other plant that you mentioned, I believe,

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

[blocks in formation]

MR. LONG: Calvert Cliffs came in based only on, know, the desire to include the new source terms and to see what benefit that would give them in reducing their emergency planning burden.

Seabrook hasn't made any sort of a request like that and we don't feel we are in a position to, let's say, complete the generic look we are taking in our generic planning regulations, in an expedited way, to handle a potential request coming in from Seabrook. We are not working in that way. We are taking a look at the technical material that Seabrook gave us to see if we see any large flaws in it and that's a fairly limited study. It's not a very detailed study at this point. In other words we are

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

8464.0

SRT

10-10-86 ACRS COMMITTEE

452

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

in containment sprays, and yet LERS show that those do not always function properly.

They have used a WASH-1400 source term in their calculations. They have used a CRACIT code which is an improved version of the CRAC code. It can handle

continuous releases.

They also use the MAP computer code in their assessment and the subcommittee raised the point on that,

that thus far it is unavailable to the NRC. As we
understand it

-

for detailed analysis.

I noted that they still use the whole body and thyroid dose limits which are part, as I recall, of 10 CFR 100, rather than the newer ICRP weighted factors, which lead to an effective dose equivalent.

-

The two reports that we looked at have both been reviewed by outside an outside, independent group of experts in each case, and these experts concurred with the results of the findings. However, when we asked in terms of the containment, I questioned why there wasn't a containment expert on the independent review groups, and

they pointed out that the Staff, NRC Staff, through a contract with Brookhaven National Laboratory, is reviewing that aspect. So it will be reviewed.

24

25

[blocks in formation]

pointed out, their results show that the Seabrook Station's

[merged small][ocr errors]

Mr. MARKEY. I would like now to recognize the Congressman from this District, a gentleman who has requested this hearing, and upon whose judgment and guidance this Subcommittee has greatly relied in the formulation of this hearing, and who has been an important force in ensuring the focus of this hearing is upon the issues that the people of the communities that he represents want to see dealt with properly.

I recognize for an opening statement the Congressman from this District, Nick Mavroules.

Mr. MAVROULES. Thank you. Thank you, Eddie, very much.

Mr. MARKEY. I request once again, although I do not deny that the Congressman deserves a round of applause, that you please refrain from any further.

STATEMENT OF HON. NICHOLAS MAVROULES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. MAVROULES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me thank you for holding this hearing to address the numerous questions and problems associated with the operation of the Seabrook nuclear power plant.

This issue has caused a great deal of constituent concern here in the Sixth Congressional District. We meet today in Amesbury because it is one of six towns in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, all within the Sixth Congressional District, that lie within the 10mile emergency planning zone. These six towns include Newburyport, Newbury, West Newbury, Salisbury, Merrimac, and Amesbury.

We are all very concerned about the inherent risks which are connected with the operation of the plant. I have heard from hundreds of you, local and State officials, citizens groups and individuals, all clamoring for a chance to make your concerns known.

Let me read for the record, Mr. Chairman, excerpts from several constituent letters which have moved me to take action and call for this hearing. Their voices are very clear, consistent, and ring with sincerity and genuine concern.

First, from a constituent in West Newbury, he states:

Though I have never written to you before, I'm tired of feeling as if I have no control or say in decisions that will affect my life and possibly future generations. As a representative for the people, I hope you will listen to the concerns of people like me and take action on this matter.

From a letter written by Mr. Tom Moughan, the Amesbury coordinator for Citizens Within the Ten Mile Radius:

I'm angry, he states, angry that an industry such as Seabrook ... can have such a profound effect on our future and those with us today and the future of unborn generations. I am angry that we are offered little say in something that affects all of us.

From a constituent in Hamilton, beyond the ten-mile emergency planning zone:

I am writing you because of my deep concern regarding the possible opening of the nuclear power facility at Seabrook. . . . We feel that the Federal Government must be engaged in activity such as a public forum with the NRC where questions of evacuation plans may be addressed. We need hard facts and questions answered honestly.

And, finally, Mr. Chairman, from a constituent in Newburyport:

The public is frustrated and in peril. We have nowhere to turn except to our Congressman.

The people want to hear those in decision-making positions answer some hard questions about Seabrook and the risks associated with its proposed operation. As a result of my request, Mr. Chairman, and Ed Markey's courtesy, they will now have that opportunity.

The primary focus of the hearing, as I understand it, will be emergency planning. The subject is of extraordinary importance and is particularly current in the light of Governor Dukakis' recent decision regarding the submission of emergency plans. Emergency planning for Seabrook has become the great issue of the day in the Sixth Congressional District, Mr. Governor.

It is this issue that has reached a critical mass with my constituents, who in their collective wisdom, have observed that the failure to have in place such an evacuation plan prior to the final approval of a site, prior to the commitment of vast resources, and prior to turning the first spadeful of earth that commences construction, that this failure is responsible for the flawed foundation upon which the entire NRC licensing process rests.

There is, however, Mr. Chairman, another subject that I feel compelled to touch upon, a subject that has created controversy and thereby clouded the issue. And, by addressing this matter, I hope that the Chairman and the subcommittee will be able to find answers and correct what I see as a most unfortunate development. According to the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was established for the purpose of ensuring that the civilian uses of nuclear materials and facilities are conducted in a manner consistent with the public health and safety. There is concern here in the Sixth Congressional District that in the rush to complete the licensing process and start operations, the NRC has lost sight of this core aspect of its charge-the protection of the public health and safety.

At this late date in the evolution of the Seabrook matter, public confidence in the process must somehow be restored. The public must be reassured that they have the right to demand every reasonable guarantee of safety, no matter what the cost.

Let me state that I am as concerned about the need for new energy sources as any other man or woman in this room. Let me also state, I am fully aware that our thriving New England economy is at risk if we cannot produce the energy necessary to meet our expanding energy needs.

But public health and safety must and will come first. If we cannot protect our people in the case of an accident at Seabrook, or if the technology is found to be unsafe or not up to standard, then alternative uses of the station must be vigorously pursued.

And, finally, Mr. Chairman, we come together today to ask some hard questions. We come together to learn. We come together in an effort to grant access to the public. Hopefully together, we can restore confidence in the process and find mutually agreeable solutions that are consistent with the public health and safety.

Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman's time has expired. The subcommittee also has with it today two other Members of Congress, Con

« PrécédentContinuer »