ML20062L055

Expresses Concern Re Const of Facilities & Requests Info Re Nuclear Accident Insurance

ML20062L055
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/16/1980
From:	Petit R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20062L053	List: ML20062L055
References
NUDOCS 8101140214
Download: ML20062L055 (2)

Text

.

.er .

'O '

Rina M. *>ctit R.F.D.h, 132 Page Road Litchfield, NH 03051 November 16, 1980 ~ '

Joseph M. Henry, Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Connission 1717 H Street thshington, D.C. 20$$$

Dsar Mr. Henry, As you know, the Public Service Company of.New Hampshire is building a nuclear power plant in Scabrook, New Hanpshire, which happens to be about 50 miles fron my home. I have bzen reading about nuclear power and I am very concerned about several areas of it.

First, if nuclear pover is so " safe", how come I can't get my' house insured against a nuclear accident?, My insurance agent told me that there is a mandatory exclusion provision on nuclear accidents in every insurance policy issued in America because the effects of a nuclear accident would be so devastating that there wouldn't be enough resources to cover the damages. I have been told about the Price-Anderson Law .that is paid for by the federal government and the utilities, which provides coverage for up to'$560'i511 Tion" h TiguiiT!Hirt was determined years ago. If a nucicar accident did happen at Scabrook, how much is the real estate, businesses, and nedical expenses expected to be? What would the clean-up costs be? Who would pay for the expenses exceeding S$60 million?

Second, have there been any provisions for the deconmissioning costs of Seabrook? I read where one nuclear reactor's decommisioning actually cost as much as the original building costs. The New Hanpshire State Legislature passed a Law outlawing Construction-Work-In-Progress Charges, so I wouldn't doubt that a similar law outlawing Decommissioning '%rk-In-Prgress Charges would be passed, because no one would be directly benefiting from the costs.

Third, there is genuine concern about evacuation plans, which have been shown to be impossible to_implenent. I know that the NRC has not made evacuation plans a mandatory requirenent prior to being able to be licensed for operation; however, I believe that they should be placed at the top of your priority list to be a recuirement for all nuclear plants and that in the case of Seabrook, you should be seriously considering stopping the construc-tion of the plant because any energency evacuation pland have to take transients into account. l These transients are families with children, busloads of children on field trips, and many '

e teenages who hitchhiked to the beaches; obviously, these people will be difficult to evacuate under the best of circumstances. Where would the Defense are mostly volunteers (usually one person) and guidance come be they could fron? The people at work, in Civil on vacation, or sick at the time of an accident. The police force will have its' hands full by just directing traffic and keeping order. Also, the Civil Defense people have not been educated as to what they should be expecting in the way of casualties, such as: type and seve-ity of injuries, availability of medical personnel trained in radiation casualties, and tN tmount of injured and dead.

8 3 0114 0 al%

~

, ~s, Rina Petit , .. ;

Letter to NRC -

November 16,1900

'l Page Two e ,

Fourth, where can I find a map of the power lines that vill bc/ erected to transmit the electricity that has been generated? What size and voltage vill'they be? If the route of the lines has not been finalized, what are the propmed routes?

Fif th, the newspapers have told of nuncrous occaisions where the selectmen of the towns surrounding the Seabrook Plant and the selectmen of the Town of Seabrook have voiced dis-approval of the construction of a nuclear power plant. Also, 32 state representatives sent a letter insisting that the Seabrook Plant not be finshed, this letter was sent to the NRC in Novenber, 1979. There have been many demonstrations against the plant. With all this negative reaction from the local government, the state government, and everyday people, why is Seabrook still being built? Doesn't home rule count?

Sixth, where will the nuclear waste generated at Seabrook be permanently placed?

I would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible.

Sincerely, ,

N?dl/

Rina Petit i

P

. - . - - .. ._ - -- - - - .. .