ML20150F734

Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning.Nrc Should Mandate That States Provide Evacuation Plans

ML20150F734
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/27/1987
From:	Dal Molin A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 52FR6980-00122, 52FR6980-122, NUDOCS 8807190025
Download: ML20150F734 (1)

Text

wu o w 3 .

EdECHD RULE, y C'.

FEB23IET/

fM ARMANDO DAL MOUN Computer Consultant for Music Typography

/K id 6M84 9Fd l 6 7 Florence A ve. l

" p' ". " -5 P4 :22 0#"" #"#' " # 17 71  !

(316)922 7438 1 1

Feb.27,1987 l

A Y MR. Lando W. Zech Jr. ':CE Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

Ras Proposed rule change in the N.R.C. policy on nuclear reactor's emergency evacuation plans.

Mr. Chairman:

Please allow me, as a concerned citizen, to air my view on the above ment.oned rule change as outlined in the Fejeral Register. I I

It is my belief that your agency ought to MANDATE that the states and loca: I authorities provide a suitable evacuation plan of your specification wi;5in a defined time frame from the granting of an operating licence. The emergency evacuation plan is just another safety precaution, as are the ones you mandate on the plant operators why should it be handled differently?,

A similar case in point is the interstate highwey system where the federal agency determines their location and speed limit and delegates the enforcement j to the local authorities.

I do not know whether your commission has the authority to enact such a rule but it certainly would put an end to a po?'.tical morass whereby everyone will be a loser at the end.

As a lifelong resident and businessman of Long Island living within 30 miles of the Shoreham plart I am concerned about where the power for all the industrial, I commercial and residential building expansion taking place will come from and its ultiuate cost to us.

At the same time I am concerned about the safety of our environment and I do not like rules "assuming" anything! My guess is that if the rule is left as proposed there may very well be no evacuation plan until after one accident has happened!

DO THE RIGHT THING NOW MANDATE THE PLAN!

Sincerely submitted: )

1 m/

(

.,. a/ % f

/

I 1

gg72RR 50 S2FR698 '0"' ""da O S/o l

.. . i . 1