ML19351E389
| ML19351E389 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/18/1980 |
| From: | Arndt E NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | Conti E NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-45FR50350, RULE-PR-100, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-51, TASK-ES-003-2, TASK-ES-003-3, TASK-ES-3-2, TASK-OS 45FR50350-67, NUDOCS 8012100024 | |
| Download: ML19351E389 (1) | |
Text
.
C 003
,3 pq,g ff
%,A UNITED STATES J'"
l' NUCLEAR REGULATORY CGMMISSION
.-(
WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 4
%j v /
ix v il trai::iv 3 VOff /Co "jg 5
i w axo aca.
+'O S % 3co i
- V
'e ig MEMORANDUM FOR:
E. Conti, Chief, EPSB, SD A'
t FROM:
G. Arndt, SCSB, SD 4
s
SUBJECT:
" REMOTE" SITING CRITERIA 4
In the current debate in many qu.irtars over new remote siting criteria for nuclear power plants, one question troubles me - future growth and development in the " remote" area.
As is the case with " remote" ex-urban airports, there is tremendous economic incentive for businesses and residences to flourish in the vicinity of a source of power and a taxpayer which pays a major portion of the local taxes.
In a free society, it is not possible to mandate that such a site remain remote.
In that event, questions of future emergency planning, site boundaries, low population zones,.and plant safety and protective design features arise. Many of these have to be considered at the time the site is defined and the plant is designed.
The reason I raise this question is that, as far as I have noticed ;
the current literature, those proposing " remote siting" as an improvement in nuclear power plant safety have not addressed this question.
I trust that it is, or will be, a well considered aspect of any NRC regulations or standards which may be issued on this concept.
E. G hter Arndt Str tures and ecmponents Standards B nch Division of Engineering Standards Office of Standards Development CONTACT:
E. G. Arndt 443-5997
)
,)4 w)t V
8 012100 o gsf