ML20151C699

Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning

ML20151C699
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/03/1987
From:	Manix E, Manix G AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC
References
FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 52FR6980-00225, 52FR6980-225, NUDOCS 8807220123
Download: ML20151C699 (1)

Text

a r%3 m ~ u _

.-uu PR',

I 00CKU fM48ER G3o 5o I

2g C

gTo IOCMEi-FEB 2 31987 g i USNM March 3, 1987

• 25 26 sirch Road 87 19R 12 Hampton, NH 03842 '

0FFICE nf ':

00CKETdG -

f

, BWC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 s

Dear Sirs:

My husband and I are deeply concerned regarding the, decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to let utilitie:i submit evacuation plans without the approval of the states involved. We do not think or feal that a utility would put public safety first and above a profit and loss sheet, therefore, it is imperative that a state approve an evacuation plan.

We are concerned because we live within the 10 mile emergency planning zone fc Seabrook Station. We are concerned because we have a governor that is more con-cerned with tca Station going online then about the safe evacuation of the people within this emergency planning zone. It is really sad when a New Hamp-shire citizen must depend on a governor of another state for his or her safety.

We do not feel that the New Hampshire Seacoast haa an adequate evacuation plan for its citizens nor do we support shrinking the 10 mile evacuation zone. You I

might feel this way if you lived in this very densley populated area in the j summer. If you have ever been a victim of gridlock and sat in traffic for over an hour and a half for a trip that would nortnally take ten minutes, you too might also have these very same concerns.

f We realize that the Seabrook Station is considered to be one of the safest

( nuclear plants ever built but nothing in this world can be considered or guaran-I l

teed 100% safe. We would be even more confident of the safety of this plant if 3

in the event of a nuclear disaster we could recover 100% of our property loss instead of just 25c on every dollar.

{ r We strongly urge you to rescind your recent decision and to take our concerns into consideration for any future decisions made by your conaission.

Sincerely yours, p $h rzt 0 ?O r tsy G. b 7%

t ETaine A. Mantx George C. Manix 8807220123 870303 52 6900 PDR O/d f

_h 1XL A TW _ks.

' k .1 b