ML19242B771
| ML19242B771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1979 |
| From: | Grossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Pevear R NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19242B772 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908090384 | |
| Download: ML19242B771 (2) | |
Text
p0J pn arco
'o UNITED STATES
+
8' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,,r.,
- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
,\\,,,,, #
ym 2 61979 The Honorable Roberta C. Pevear New Hampshire House of Representatives Hampton Falls, NH 0384A
Dear Ms. Pevear:
Your letters of May 22, 1979 addressed to Comissioner Ahearne and June 6, 1979 addressed to Chairman Hendrie have been referred to me for reply since the Comission may be called upon to review decisions related to the subject of your letter in an adjudicatory capacity.
In it you express your concern regarding evacuation plans for the area around the Seabrook plant and note that many of your constituents would like to see the construction of the Seabrook plant discontinued.
You mention in your letter that you and your family live two miles from the plant site, and that there have been no evacuation plans submitted to any of the residents within five miles of the plant.
Your concern is that in the event of an accident and if the wind were blowing towards land, there would be no way that nearby residents could be evacuated much of the time.
In the Seabrook case, during its review of the construction permit applica-tion, the Comission's staff carried out an evaluation of the feasibility of evacuating both resident and transient persons within five miles of the plant.
This matter was considered at some length in the public hearing process in early 1975, prior to the issuance of the construction permit.
It was the staff's view that evacuation was quite feasible, and that if such plan; are put into place at the time of plant operation, they could be relied upon to reduce by potentially significant margins the amount of radiological exposure that otherwise could occur as a result of a serious accident.
In accordance with the Commission's fomal requirements, the applicant #or the Seabrook plant must submit final plans for coping with emergencies at the operating license stage of review. At the present time, this is expected to occur not earlier than about June 1980.
It is our understanding that such plans are currently being developed so that it is not surprising that residents of the area have not yet been advised as to what they are.
Our understanding of the reasons why Pennsylvania residents around the Three Mile Island facility were not evacuated is somewhat diffe-ent than that characterized in your letter.
The rationale uoan which evacuation would be warranted is nomally based upon an evaluation of the comparative
'\\]
yn 7908090 M y-0
The Honorable Roberta C. Pevear risks between taking such actions and the projected radiation doses to the public.
In order to simplify this decision making process in times of stress, the Environmental Protection Agency has issued Protective Action Guides which quantify the projected doses at which various protective measures would be warranted.
In the case of Three Mile Island, the projected dose to the environs, or even the likelihood of such, was sufficiently low that evacuation of the general public did not appear to by warranted.
On the other hand, it is clear that experience with the accident at Three Mile Island has raised numerous questions regarding our requirements in the area of emergency plans and these questions are currently undergoing intensive study by the staff to determine wherein improvements may be necessary.. At this time it is my expectation that any such changes found to be necessary would be promulgated and applied, to the extent they are relevant, to the Seabrook case.
With respect to the matter of the cessation of construction at the Seabrook site, please be advised that a Request for a Show Cause Order, dated May 2,1979, was transmitted to the Director of NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation by the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League. This request relating to the proposed suspension or revocation of the construction permit now in effect, is under current active review by the staff. The concerns expressed in that request appear to be very similar to those outlined in your letter. Action on that request is expected in the very near future.
I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns.
Sinc
.y, b
/
Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations
-/b
- jj