ML19339C520
| ML19339C520 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1980 |
| From: | Metcalf M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339C521 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0625, RTR-NUREG-625 NUDOCS 8011180539 | |
| Download: ML19339C520 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - - -
i a
One Glassford Lane Durham, N.H.
03824 (603) 868 2648 November 13, 1980 Hulicar U.S./ Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Harold R.
Denton, Diiector Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Denton,
In recent months residents of New Hampshira and Massachusetts, especially those living within or adjacent to the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) of the Seab' rook Construction Project, have been struggling with the problems of emergency planning including evacuation planning.
It is my opinion that much of the frustration that has been experienced, continues to be experienced and cannot be resolved is due to a generic weakness in the NRC Siting Policy of the past, not yet corrected even by the Siting Policy changes as outlined in NUREG-0625 This weakness is idsntified in my letter to Mr. Muller, Chairman, Siting Policy Task Force, a copy of which I enclose.
The frustration, I believe, is largely due to the concentration of
" transients" in the population and the unique problems this element presents (outlined in some detail in my letter to Mr. Muller).
Although I feel the weakness is generic, understandably my personal concern is related to the Seabrook Construction Project.
Since the NRC now acknowledges that Class 9 accidents can and wi.'.1 occur, it should recognize that Seabrook, New Hampshire is not a suitable site for a Nuclear fueled facility.
If there is the slighest possibility that any facility may be denied an Operation Permit, construction should be summarily halted to protect the interests of the ratepayers, the taxpayers and the stock-holders.
o\\
+ Q 8011180 M b
Escrgsncy Plcnning at Ssobrook November 13, 1980 p.2 The present status of the Seabrook Construction Project is a dramatic example of this dynamic circumstance:-
l The fractional responsibility of ownership in the project is in a constant state of flux due to financial problems of the several partners.
The several partners are almost constantly before respective state RegulatoryCommissions seeking ever higher rates to enable construction to continue.
These several state Regulator;rCommissions are consistantly more reluctant to grant the requested increases.
As electric utility rates are increased and consequently con-servation measures are adopted, demand patterns are changing and projected demand growth has been reduced significantly.
Updated demand studies indicate there is no need for a facility of the capacity for which Seabrook was designed.
The residents of the area have never been supportive to the project.
The mos t recent expression being in several non-binding referenda in Mass. on November 4, 1980.
The question of seismic suitability is still open to question.
The NRC does a disservice to Public Service Company of New Hampshire, its stockholders, and ratepayers as well as the residents and taxpayers in the two state area by allowing this circumstance to continue.
It is beyond my comprehension that the Company cannot recognize ide or stupidity I don't and admit its mistake.
Whether due to i know, but the Company seems unwilling or unable to do so.
Please give this matter your thoughtful attention.
Very truly yours, N
YA fE' Mary K Metcalf Concerned Citixen l
l
.