ML052870123
| ML052870123 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/2005 |
| From: | Bedford H - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Diaz N NRC/Chairman |
| References | |
| G20050700, LTR-05-0500 | |
| Download: ML052870123 (3) | |
Text
<c, 1 EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM:
DUE: 11/10/05 EDO CONTROL: G20050700 DOC DT: 09/29/05 FINAL REPLY:
Henry F. Bedford Stratham, New Hampshire TO:
Chairman Diaz FOR SIGNATURE OF :
ROUTING:
Emergency Plans for Seabrook DATE: 10/13/05 Reyes Virgilio Kane Silber Dean Cyr/Burns Collins, RI ASSIGNED TO:
NSIR CONTACT:
Zimmerman SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
Teq~ [IRAQ,, 'sg- -0 t f7 O-R~s-(SE12ICN -6I
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET Date Printed: Oct 12, 2005 14:28 PAPER NUMBER:
ACTION OFFICE:
LTR-05-0500 EDO LOGGING DATE: 10/11/2005 AUTHOR:
AFFILIATION:
ADDRESSEE:
SUBJECT:
Henry Bedford NH Nils Diaz Emergency plans for Seabrook ACTION:
DISTRIBUTION:
LETTER DATE:
ACKNOWLEDGED SPECIAL HANDLING:
Appropriate Chairman, Comrs 09/29/2005 No NOTES:
FILE LOCATION:
ADAMS DATE DUE:
DATE SIGNED:
EDO -- G20050700
4.
HENRY F. BEDFORD 3 PENINSULA DRIVE STRATHAM, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03885 29 September 2005 Nils J. Diaz Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555
Dear Chairman Diaz:
When emergency plans for Seabrook Station were under review by the-licensing board, educators, police officers, and other public officials testified that they would seek their own safety and that of their families before performing duties assigned in emergency plans.
The board, on the basis of NRC rulings, ignored that testimony and ruled that public employees would follow the approved plan.
The response to emergencies caused by recent hurricanes suggests that this NRC dictum is contrary to fact.
At least fifteen percent of New Orleans police officers apparently failed to meet assigned responsibilities.
More than two hundred members of the National Guard reportedly declined to repair levees out of concern for personal safety.
There are anecdotal instances of actions by medical personnel and public officials that resulted in the collapse of aspects of emergency plans.
In the light of this experience, ought not the NRC to revisit its assumption that emergency plans will be followed whatever the hazard to those asked to carry them out?
When individuals have sworn in advance, as was the case at Seabrook, that they will not do what some planner says is their duty,,-has the--NRC-met its responsibility to protect-.
the health and safety of the public when that testimony is disregarded?
Emergency plans tend to rely on dubious assumptions, but when they depend upon those that are manifestly contrary to experience, is it not time to reexamine them and modify policies that depend on them?
Sincerely yours, A/ I