ML20196F167
| ML20196F167 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1988 |
| From: | Higgins E AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR16435, RULE-PR-50 53FR16435-01318, 53FR16435-1318, NUDOCS 8807050082 | |
| Download: ML20196F167 (1) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _
DOCKET NUMBER g $ g
/ 3 /g /'
PROPOSED RULE u.
EDWARD HIGGINS 200 LANDING ROAD
[f 3 F 814 4 80
- HAMPTON, N.H.
03842
- 1 I :i.
- nNy JUNE 22, 1988 SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION 88 JN 23 P7 2 4
ATTN: DOCKETING & SERVICE BRANCH U.S. NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C.
20555 0FHti...
00CXEbn. N,,cr 0 '
RE: SUPPORT OF NCR PROPOSED CLARIFICATION OF EMERGENCY PLANNING REQUIREMENTS FOR LOW-POWER LICENSES DEAR SIR:
I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT FOR THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROPOSED RULE. THE CURRENT AMBIGUITIES HAVE ENCOURGED STALLING TACTICS AGAINST COMPLETED NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS FOR PERSONAL GAIN. THIS POLITICAL MANEUVERING DOES NOT INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY, NOR DOES IT BENEFIT RATEPAYERS OR TAXPAYERS.
I APPLAUD ANY ATTEMPT BY THE NRC TO CLEARIFY ITS REQUIREMENTS FOR TESTING AND LICENSING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. THE NRC IS WELL QUALIFIED TO EVALUATE THE ADEQUACY OF PLANT SAFETY MEASURES AND EVACUATION PLANS, AND IS IN A POSITION TO PLACE THE PUBLIC WELFARE ABOVE THE ASPIRATIONS OF LOCAL POLITICIANS.
THE STATE OF MASSACHUSSETTS REFUSES TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY EVACUATION PLANS DEVELOPED BY SEABROOK. THE RECENT CHEMICAL BLAZE THAT SENT A POISONOUS GAS CLOUD OVER SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSSETTS AND FORCED THE THE EVACUATION OF OVER 25,000 PEOPLE SHOULD INDICATE THE NEED FOR AN EVACUATION PLAN. MEM?"RS OF MY FAMILY THAT LIVE THERE, INCLUDING A 93 YEAR OLD AUNT, WEi XEN-UP AT 2AM BY A POLICE BULL-HORN AND TOLD THAT THEY HAD TO.
ATE THEIR HOMES. THEY WERE NOT TOLD WHY OR WI!ERE TO GO FOR SAF2.
THERE WAS NO ONE TO EVACUATE OUR 93 YEAR OLD AUNT WHO LIVED RIGHT NEAR THE FIRE. MEMBER OF MY FAMILY HAD TO GO OVER TO HER 90USE AND TRANSPORT HER TO SAFETY. WHY WAS AN EVACUATION PLAN PUT INTO EFFECT? THERE WAS NONE.
HOW CAN THIS STATE JUSTIFY ITS REFUSAL TC PARTICATE IN EVACUATION PLANS FOR A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, WHEN IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY EVACUATION PLANS FOR A NON-NUCLEAR DISASTER?
SINCERELY, s
/
EDWARDHf; GINS 8807050082 800622 gR S3 R16435 PDR b'