ML19249E867
| ML19249E867 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1979 |
| From: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Russman R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910020639 | |
| Download: ML19249E867 (2) | |
Text
.E(f nog'o, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 5
c\\v,/
SEP 7 1979 Docket Nos.:
50-443/444 Mr. Richard L. Russman, Esq.
14 Center Street Exeter, NH 03833
Dear Mr. Russman:
Your letter of July 2,1979 has been referred to me for reply.
You expres ed concern about emergency planning for areas near the Seabrook Statior, Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, authorized by an Initial Decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dated June 29, 1976, were issued on July.7,1976.
That Decision did not require an emergency plan for the area outside the Low Population Zone (LPZ).
In its Decision of July 26,1977 ( ALAB-422), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board reduced the LPZ distance from 1.5 to 1.25 miles and upheld the Hearing Board?s Decision that the applicant not be required to provide an energency plan beyond the LPZ.
In its Order of June 17, 1977, the Commission announced its intention to initiate a rulemaking on the issue of emergency planning outside the LPZ. On August 23, 1978, the Comission proposed a rule change to clarify its intent that considera-tion of emergency planning beyond the LPZ is a factor in the license review.
The Commission also stated that the Commission regards dealing with this matter at the operating license stage, as opposed to reopening construction permit reviews, to be a more reasonable approach, and that because the proposed rule involves a limited element in addition to the siting and engineered safety considerations to assure protection of the public health and safety, this procedure of review of existing permits and licenses is acceptable.
Since the Three Mile Island 2 accident on March 28, 1979, and a March 30, 1979 report by the General Accounting Office, the requirements of the Commission for emergency planning are being reevaluated to determine whether changes in those requirements are required.
If changes are required, the revised regula-tions would indicate whether the requirements are applicable in full or in part to Seabrook.
By petition dated May 2,1979, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (later suoported by the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution) requested that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Re:ulation issue an ir:er susoending or re ec<ing Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-135 and CPPR-136 pending a determination that evacuation of persons within 30 miles of the site is feasible and that the site is still acceptable after analysis of a Class 9 accident.
This 1069 09I moos o g 3 9 N
Mr. Richard L. Russnan, Esq. SEP 71979 petition is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regula-tions and, accordingly, appropriate action will be t' ken on the petition within a
a reasonable time. We will send you a copy of the Director's decision when it is issued.
I believe ti.e ongoing reevaluation of the Commission's requir ments for emergency planning and the actions to_ determine appropriate action on the petition of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League will reflect considerdtion of your concerns.
Sincerely, Y
D. B. Vassallo, Acting Director Division of Project Managenent Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation t
4 1069 (A92
o
~
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L.RUSSMAN 14 CptNTER STREET TEEN O N E' EX ET E R. N EW H AM P E HlR E July 2, 1979 C3e33 Amp CCCE SC3 772 3433 772 2102 Dr. Harold Denton Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.'
20555
Dear Dr. Denton:
My family and I live near the seacoast of New Hampshire, and are concerned with the safety aspects of the Seabrook Nuclear power Plant.
It is our position that the evacuation issue is of particular importance.
It is my understanding that the public Service Company is responsible for demonstration of feasibility of evacuation plans for a 1.25 mile radius from the plant site.
In view of the heavy population at Hampton Beach in the summer months, this is certainly inadequate.
A comprehensive plan must be initiated, and should concern itself with safety, public health and welfare, and such a plan rests in the hands of public Service Company and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Until this plan is completed, construction should be stopped.
I support the Seacoast Antipollution League's request to stop the construction until resolutior. of this matter to the satisfaction of the people of New Hampshire.
4 RLR/mt XEol 7907100[p y g
$ /!#
/
f DISTRIBUTION Docket Files 50-443/444 em ~
Local PDR NRR Reading LWR-4 File H. Denton E. Case D. Crutchfield D. Vassallo S. Varga L. Rubenstein C. Moon M. Service (w/cy incoming)
M. Groff (NRR-3022)
E. Hughes (w/cy incoming)
B. Moore (w/cy incoming)
Attorney, ELD S. Burns, ELD O
9 1069 094
.