Emergency Planning at Seabrook Nuclear Powerplant: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, Second Session November 18, 1986, Volume 4
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987 - 707 pages
Avis des internautes - Rédiger un commentaire
Aucun commentaire n'a été trouvé aux emplacements habituels.
Autres éditions - Tout afficher
accident action additional adequate Agency ANSWER applicant appropriate asked assessment basis believe Board Chairman changes Chernobyl citizens Commission Committee communities complete concerning conduct CONGRESS considered construction containment continue cost decision determine Director discuss documents effective emergency planning zone emergency response plans Energy estimates evacuation evacuation plan event exercise facility fact failure Federal FEMA given going governments Governor Hampshire hearing House involved issues letter LIBRARY licensing Management MARKEY Massachusetts matter meeting memorandum miles notes November NRC staff nuclear power plant Nuclear Regulatory Office offsite operating participation population possible prepared preparedness problems procedures protect PSNH Public Service questions radiological reactor reasonable reduce regarding Region regulations release Representative request result risk safety Seabrook Station specific Subcommittee submitted technical testing Thank town United update utility Yankee
Page 226 - ... b. the development, use, and control of atomic energy shall be directed so as to promote world peace, improve the general welfare, increase the standard of living, and strengthen free competition in private enterprise.
Page 226 - States that — a. the development, use, the control of atomic energy shall be directed so as to make the maximum contribution to the general welfare, subject at all times to the paramount objective of making the maximum contribution to the common defense and security ; and, b.
Page 152 - Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0396 (EPA 520/1-78-016), December 1978.
Page 190 - the state of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
Page 21 - Is that, given the present level of safety being achieved by the operating nuclear power plants In this country, we can expect to see a core meltdown accident within the next 20 years and it Is possible that such an accident could result in off-site releases of radiation which are as large as, or larger than, the releases estimated to have occurred at Chernobyl.
Page 281 - Agency (FEMA) findings and determinations as to whether State and local emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented...
Page 285 - No single specific accident sequence should be isolated as the one for which to plan because each accident could have different consequences, both in nature and degree. Further, the range of possible selection for a planning basis is very large, starting with a zero point of requiring no planning at all because significant offsite radiological accident consequences are unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst possible accident, regardless of its extremely low likelihood.
Page 704 - ... accidents" situation. This is not the case. Review of Table 1 on page 17 of the Report reveals the EPZ recommendations actually offer no answer to the detailed planning decisions that must be made. The plume exposure pathway EPZ Is given as "about 10 mile radius*" with the asterisked footnote as follows : "Judgment should be used in adopting this distance based upon considerations of local conditions such as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and local jurisdictional...
Page 195 - OF A RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY AT THE PLANT. HOWEVER, THE PROCESS DOES NOT END WITH THE INITIAL APPROVAL. THE STATE AND THE AFFECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MUST CONTINUE TO KEEP PLANS UPDATED- THEY MUST ALSO PARTICIPATE IN PERIODIC EXERCISES WITH THE UTILITY AS A CONDITION OF CONTINUED FEMA APPROVALFEMA AND NRC HAVE ALSO SIGNED A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU), MOST RECENTLY REVISED IN APRIL 1985.