alternatehistory.com

Mar. 30, 1967
March 30, 1967

Vivian-Saylor Act passes House, heads to Senate

A bill mandating tougher requirements for atomic plants passed yesterday in the House. The bill had wide bipartisan support, passing by a margin of 380-45. The Act includes several measures designed to enhance safety of existing plants, including upgrading plant design and equipment requirements, routine inspections, and additional licensing requirements for plant personnel. [1] The bill also bans the construction of new plants within 50 miles of cities with populations over 100,000 people.

Atomic energy industry lobbyists have criticized the measure, saying that its strict regulations will kill atomic power in the United States. The bill’s sponsors, however, are confident the bill will pass in the Senate. Wes Vivian (D-MI), the bill’s primary sponsor, is an electrical and aeronautical engineer by training. [2] He also happens to represent the district in Southeastern Michigan most strongly affected by the Fermi meltdown. The bill’s co-sponsor, John Saylor (R-PA), has been a prominent critic of civilian nuclear energy, and a longtime supporter of the conservationist cause. [3]

The bill will now go to the Senate, where members will vote on a similar bill sponsored by Senators Edmund Muskie (D-ME) and Thurston Morton (R-KY). [4]

[1] Some of this came to pass in OTL after the Three Mile Island incident: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html#impact

[2] In OTL, Vivian lost the 1966 midterm election. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/b/bhlead/umich-bhl-86184?rgn=main;view=text

[3] Social Security and Welfare Proposals, pp. 1677.

[4] A staunch opponent of nuclear power in the late 1960s. From Field & Stream, March 1969, pp. 15: “If we are fostering a power system which could turn on its creators and spew destroying, although unseen substances into the atmosphere over hundreds of square miles,” declared Senator Thurston B. Morton, “we must carefully weigh such a calculated human risk against the economic and social gains involved.”
Top