ML19249E871
| ML19249E871 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1979 |
| From: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Yost C AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910020643 | |
| Download: ML19249E871 (2) | |
Text
p ncs f
UNITED STATES y i er ( g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{f ;
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 s ~,$'
SEP 7 1979 Docket Nos.:
50-443/444 0 @ O.
D W w Jl.
O
'9
' }
3 D
Mr. and Mrs. Chris Yost d
C ]
J(L 11 82 Woodland Road Hampton, NH 03842
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Yost:
Your letter of July 25, 1979 has been referred to me for reply.
You expressed concern a.out emergency planning for areas near the Seabrook Station.
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 emergency 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 cart to Seabrook.
By petition dated May 2,1979, the Seacoast Anti Dollution League (later supported by the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution) requested that the Director of kuclear Reactor Regulation issue an Order suspending or revo:ing Construction Pernit "es. CPPR-135 and CPPR-136 pencing 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 1070 134 191oon f 73 g
SEP 7 1979
=
Mr. and Mrs. ClWPiMidt =-
r e
petition is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Comission's regula-tions and, accordingly, appropriate action will be taken on the petition within a reasonable time. We will send you a copy of the Director's decision when it is issued.
I believe the ongoing reevaluation of the Conmission's requirements for emergency planning and the actions to determine appropriate action on the petition of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League will reflect consideration of your concerns.
Sincerely, M
D. B. Vassallo, Acting Director Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- y I
82 Woodland Road Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 July 25, 1979 Dr. Harold Denton Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation D g0 D
Nuclear Regulatory Commission U y Washington, D.C.
20555 h)
Dear Dr. Denton:
JL As a resident of the seacoast of New Hampshire, I am quite concerned with the safety aspects' of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.-
The evacuation issue in particular is one area that causes much concern.
As evidenced by all of the incidents at Three Mile Island, and by the March 30, 1979 report by the General Accounting Office on preparedness of utilities and communities to deal with nuclear facility accidents. there remains much doubt in the evacuation plans for nuclear power plants.
As I understand it, the Public Service Company is currently responsible for demonstration of feasibility of evacuation plans for a 1.25 mile radius from the plant site.
This is not adequate review because of the fact that this does not cover the neavily populated areas of the seacoast, such as Hampton Beach which is almost wall-to-wall people during the summer months.
There is no possible way--without a comprehensive and tested plan--that these people could be evacuated and cared for in a safe and orderly fashion.
The drawing up of an evacuation plan--a plan that sould and must concern itself with the publics health, safety, and welfare--must rest in the hands of the Public Service Company and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and until they are able to prove that the ability of such a plan exsists, construction should be stopped.
I support the actions of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League to request i
such a construction stoppage until this matter is resolved to the satisfaction of the people of the state of New Hampshire.
Your very truly, l l..$
,/ -
Chris and Janice Yost
,7 j3g j
k l
lN 1; o, 7908060'3/4
DISTRIBUTION locket Files 50-443/444 gmme
' Local PlR NRR Reading LWR-4 File H.
Denton E.
Case D.
Crutchfield D. Vassallo S. Varga L.
Rubenstein C. Moon M.
Service (w/cy i nco mi n g )
M.
Grof f (NRR-3146 )
E. Hughes (w/cy incoming)
B. Moore (w/cy incoming)
Attorney, ELD H. Berkow
- 0. Muller F. Schroeder D. Eisenhut S.
Burns, ELD 1070 137
_