ML19250C375
| ML19250C375 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1979 |
| From: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Cottrell G AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911230305 | |
| Download: ML19250C375 (2) | |
Text
a
+pN"%
g6Y" j
[%j
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TEWfa
+
UNITED s TATEs
- i ' '-'V i
/. E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 sgv j grP 71979 Docket Nos :
50-443/44?
Mrs. G. W. Ccttrell NhO N
r P. O. Box "X" D
WdN e u1;hd nIj\\,; dj g
Hiilsboro,f4H 03244
Dear Mrs. Cottrell:
Your letter of July 2,1979 has been referred to me for reply.
You expressed concern about emergency planning for areas near the Seabrook Station.
Construction Permit fios. CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, authorized by an Initial Dection of the Atomic Safety cnd Licensing Board dated June 29, 1976, were issocJ on July 7,1976.
That Decision did not require an emergency plan for '.ne area outside the Low Population Zone (LPZ).
In its Decision of July 26,1977 (ALAB-422), the Atonic Safety anc Licensing Appeal Board reduced the LPZ distance from 1.5 to 1.25 miles and inheld 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 Comission 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 rev;e.
The Comission also stated that the Comission regards deaiing 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 Marca 30, 1979 report by the General Accounting Office, the requirements of the Comnission for emergency planning are being reevaluated to determine whether changes in those requirements are recuired.
If changes are requirec, 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-Pollutico _eague (later surcarted by the New Fn" land Coalition on Nucl H r DC ' ' ;t ' * ) re';u?sted that the "irecter of Nucleer.eactor %gulatian issue m x.ei s.,s:cncing or revoking Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-135 and CPPR-136 ;encing a determination that evacuation of persens within 30 miles of the site it feesible and that the site is still acceptable after analysis of a Class 9 ica dent.
This 13R7 338 7911230 3 "
F
Mrs. G. W. C"ottrell ggp 7 ;g79 petition is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Com.ission'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 cecision when it is issued.
I.believe the ongoing reevaluation of the Commission's require,er.ts for erergency planning and the actions to determine appropriate action on the petition of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution Lesgue will reflect consideration of year concerns.
Sincerely, V M.#
W D. B. Vassallo, Acting Director Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regdation D**10 *DD'I k' w e A\\ o A,1 m,
~
8 1387 339 8