Search results

(175,501 - 175,520 of 177,732)

Pages

CRS83585ENRpage53
Title
CRS83585ENRpage53
Page from
info:fedora/mu:88064
Text
,550 jobs in the eight-county area. K The impact projection for the region depends on the scenario. As indicated in table 41, the Peabody Coal scenario projects serious economic disruption in TABLE 41. Projected Additional Unemployment in Eightrcounty Area Additional Unemployment Scenario Labor Force Number Rate Arcs 0 143,890 3,400 2.4 Peabody l43,890 24,550 l7.l Actual 2/83 Employment l43,890 17,880
CRS83585ENRpage59
Title
CRS83585ENRpage59
Page from
info:fedora/mu:88064
Text
levels of 1981 are achieved again, in terms of both domestic demand and exports. _ ~ . ,TABLE 43. Projections of Metallurgical Coal Market ‘(millions of short tons)’ 4Actual i 4 Projection 1981 1982 1935 1990 1995 Domestic 9 it » Consumption 61.0 43.1 54.6 57.7 62.4 ; Exports 165.2 64.6 ,60.0 62.0 ‘-63.0 Tctal Production , 126.2 107.7 114.6 119.7 '127.4 Source: DRI, Incorporated. Besides
CRS84635SPRpage25
Title
CRS84635SPRpage25
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
even without State or local participation. The staff action represented a first-time challenge to a local government's ability to halt licensing by its refusal to cooperate in emergency planning. The NRC Commissioners further voted 3-2 in June 1983 to permit fuel-loading and low-power operation at Shoreham, even though the ASLB had not decided the full emergency planning issue. Meanwhile, FEMA
CRS84635SPRpage31
Title
CRS84635SPRpage31
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
radiation; predistribution may produce a false sense of security; the presence of K1 might distract people from taking other safety precautions; and the costs are excessive when weighed against either the estimated risk or the benefits from taking other precautionary ' measures . In late 1983, the NRC staff recommended against requiring the predistri- bution or stockpiling of KI as a preplanned
CRS84635SPRpage26
Title
CRS84635SPRpage26
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
CRS-20 ASLB hearings on issuing a full-power license, to include an evaluation of the LILCC RERP, began in December. These hearings are still underway. An attorney for Suffolk County remarked on the eve of the hearings that "success for us means that Shoreham never operates." In late March 1984, a FEMA report on emergency planning at Shoreham appeared to back away from its earlier
CRS84635SPRpage27
Title
CRS84635SPRpage27
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
on the 2-mile zone around nuclear facilities, and presupplying nearby residents with potassium-iodide to mitigate the effects of radioactive emissions in the event of a serious accident. Prompt Action Zones A major policy change was suggested on September 16, 1983, when NRC staff circulated draft revisions of emergency preparedness regulations.’ The proposed policy recommended that there beta "
CRS84635SPRpage15
Title
CRS84635SPRpage15
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
, 1983 the Court ruled in a California case that States have the authority to slow or stop development of nuclear plants within their borders, based on economic, but not on safety, considerations. On January 11, 1984, in Karen Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corporation, the Court found that persons injured by nuclear incidents could sue for damages in State courts. This established a separate tier of liability
CRS84635SPRpage14
Title
CRS84635SPRpage14
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
CRS-8 In a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that became effective in January, 1980 and was clarified in December of the same year, FEMA and the NRC set out each agency's responsibilities in preparing for commercial nuclear powerplant emergencies. The MOUs enumerated the following FEMA responsibilities: (1) To take the lead in offsite emergency planning and to review and assess State
CRS84635SPRpage24
Title
CRS84635SPRpage24
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
CRS-18 plan. Subsequently, LILCO entered into a contractual arrangement with Suffolk County to finance a County Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP). During this time, new officials were elected and the County government changed from a pro-nuclear to an anti-nuclear bias. In March 1982, the Suffolk County Legislature authorized the County to prepare another, County-funded emergency plan
CRS84635SPRpage34
Title
CRS84635SPRpage34
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
" in 1983 by stating: S I really am quite concerned that the Congress did not intend that the role assigned to State and local governments should be misused for some of the purposes that we have recently seen....I am most.concerned by what I see to be as more free efforts...to use this process as a hammer swinging over the heads of the utilities...for the apparent purpose of enacting concessions from
CRS84635SPRpage29
Title
CRS84635SPRpage29
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
CRS-23 The NRC's view is not shared by NRC critics who see the PAZ as an attempt to decrease planning and reduce costs to utilities at the expense of public safety. On November 3, 1983, the New York Times reported the existence of the NRC staff's proposed changes, noting that they might represent a relaxation of emergency planning standards. Two weeks later, three Members of Congress
CRS84635SPRpage17
Title
CRS84635SPRpage17
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
were formalized as the Planning Basis in NUREG-0396 and later incor- porated into NUREG-0654, "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants." Published jointly by FEMA and the NRC in November 1980, NUREG-0654 clarifies the planning standards by which nuclear facility licensees and State and local
CRS84635SPRpage09
Title
CRS84635SPRpage09
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
CRS-3 of a major release can cause panic and confusion. Consequently, the need for enhanced emergency response planning became apparent. [For more details on the possibilities of accidents, see Congressional Research Service Issue Brief lB8008l, Nuclear Power Plant Safety and Licensing.] The Concept of Planning Zones Prior to 1978, a primary factor in emergency response planning for nuclear
CRS84635SPRpage13
Title
CRS84635SPRpage13
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
by utilities and Federal, State and local governments. Establishing Jurisdiction for Response Planning In Reorganization Plan_Number 3 of 1978, President Carter upgraded the Federal Government's ability to deal effectively with all emergencies. ,He consolidated five existing Federal agencies and six additional disaster-related responsibilities into a single structure, The Federal Emergency Management
CRS84635SPRpage07
Title
CRS84635SPRpage07
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
, agreed that pregnant women and preschool children should be advised to consider leaving the area within 5 miles of the plant. _g/ . I #1] President‘s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island Report: the Need for Change. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. (Kemeny Com- mission Report) p. 17. _2/ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Special Inquiry Group. Three Mile Island: A Report
CRS84635SPRpage18
Title
CRS84635SPRpage18
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
evidence that it was necessary." [Power Engineering, August 1981, p. 48] In September 1983 FEMA regulations were amended so that each State which has a commercial nuclear power site within its boundaries, or is within the 10-mile EPZ, must participate in a joint exercise at least every two years. States within the 50-mile EPZ must exercise their plan once every five years. Theoretically, a utility
CRS84635SPRpage05
Title
CRS84635SPRpage05
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
ASLB ASTPO CFR DBA DOE EPA EPZ FDA FEMA FRERP FY KI LILCO LPZ MOU Mw NRC ’ NUREG PAG PASNY CPAZ RERP RSS TMI CRS-iv ACRONYMS USED _Atomic Energy Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Accident Source Term Program Office Code of Federal Regulations Design Basis Accident Department of Energy Environmental Protection Agency Emergency Planning Zone Food and Drug Administration Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan g Fiscal Year Postassium Iodide Long Island Lighting Company Low population zone Memorandum of understanding Megawatt of electricity Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report series for NRC publications Protective action guide Port Authority of the State of New York Protective action zone C H Radiological emergency response plan Reactor Safety Study Three Mile Island
CRS84635SPRpage06
Title
CRS84635SPRpage06
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
CRSfv CONTENTS ABSTR-ACTOOOOOIOOOIOIOOOOOOIOI0000000000COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO“OO0.0.9.990‘... i ARYOOOCOOOOIOOOOOCIIOOOOIOOOO0IOOOIIOOOOOOCOICOOOO000000000 USEDO0000000IOOIOCOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOIOO0COO0.000000000000000000000000 INTRODUCTIONCCOCOO00000OOOOOOOOOOO0O0000000COO0000000OOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOIOOO 1 THE EVOLUTION OF RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS..................... 2 The Concept
CRS84635SPRpage33
Title
CRS84635SPRpage33
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
CRS-27 I think it's very hard for the NRC or the industry to prove that . . . high release sequences can be drastically reduced in probability. (Groundswell, June 1983.) The NRC regulatory staff continues to maintain that a spectrum of all possi- ble accidents must be considered for emergency planning, rather than just higher probability accidents. Thus, core melt accidents must be taken
CRS84635SPRpage08
Title
CRS84635SPRpage08
Page from
info:fedora/mu:80577
Text
CRS-2 The Kemeny Commission gave as its reason for the chaos: Emergency planning had a low priority in the NRC and the AEC [Atomic Energy Commission] before it. There is evidence that the reasons for this included their confidence in designed reactor safeguards and their desire to avoid raising public concern about the safety of nuclear power. l_§/ A Because of the lessons of TMI, Congress

Pages