EMERGENCY NUCLEAR PLANNING: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

• Published in: The New York times
• Main Author: Proto, Neil T
• Format: Newspaper Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, N.Y New York Times Company 09.08.1981
• Edition: Late Edition (East Coast)
• Subjects: ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY; ATOMIC ENERGY; FACTORIES AND INDUSTRIAL PLANTS; RADIATION
• ISSN: 0362-4331

''Many key recommendations were made by individuals who were not in possession of accurate information.'' the report stated. While both Federal and Pennsylvania officials have improved their capability since the accident, their action in March 1979 jolted the public's confidence in goverment's ability to serve its primary purpose. It also jolted the future of nuclear power. The reverberations are being felt in every state and community that contains a nuclear power plant. More telling about the shift away from Federal responsibility is a recent decision by the N.R.C. asserting that it had no responsibility for the Three Mile Island accident. The agency acknowledged that when approving a nuclear plant license, it ''does not thereby certify to the industry that the industry's design and procedures are adequate to protect its equipment or operations.'' Also at stake is the utility's financial solvency. Few utilities in the nation could have withstood the financial costs of the accident at Three Mile Island. General Public Utilities is barely solvent today. Its bonds are not marketable, its common stockholders have not received a dividend since 1979, and in January 1980 stockholders filed a class-action suit contending that the utility misled them about the ''known deficiencies in safety precautions and safety training.'' Northeast's incentive for self-regulation is clear.