ML20197G611

Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Emergency Planning & Preparedness Requirements for Nuclear Power Plant Fuel Loading & Initial Low Power Operations.Nrc Reasons for Elimination of Requirement for Offsite Sirens Correct

ML20197G611
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island, Seabrook, 05000000
Issue date:	06/06/1988
From:	Stephenson J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC
References
FRN-53FR16435, RULE-PR-50 53FR16435-00381, 53FR16435-381, NUDOCS 8806150264
Download: ML20197G611 (3)

Text

~

D00KET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR Sb 38

( (53FRMyasp red dy211ar n'yR"M3 m

Dear NRC Commission,

T8 JW -6 R2 :4 I applaud your suggested new rule eliminating the need for off site sirens for low power testing of nuclear plants. Your reasons.fpr it are absolutely correct. ONg (yig, I urge you to get on with the licensing of SeabhokkgRwnd stop being so tolerant of the antinuclear gang and their constant repeating of long disproven false claims. I find it especially galling that they have, and and are using more POLITICAL pressure against seabrook than has ever been

( used for or against any other project. Then they accuse YOU of bowing to undue political pressure everytime you or anyone serving you makes a correct decision based on irrefutable fact and logic!

The FACTS which you should keep foremost in your minds regarding licensing of Seabrook:

In order to get a construction license the SITE and construction plans underwent the most thorough and grueling series of investigations, safety studies, enviromental studies and severe criticism of nuclear power, and PASSED, including passing repeated court challenges. Supposedly at that time all they had to do was build the plant as specified to get an operating license.

The rules for evacuation plans were the result of the 3 mi isl.

accident and the realization that no fornal plan was in place to handle the incident. hothing in those rules was to PREVENT operation of a well constructed nuclear plant, but solely to have a PLAN for the best possible evacuation of the area in case of an accident. Those who say

( _

evacuation is impossible are LYING solely to block operation of the plant, and they try to make their LIE seem plausible by ADDING time and protection constraints. It is obvious that ANY area CAN be totally evacuated: The population density and transportation facilities and way they are used merely control the TIME an evacuation takes. There is no way possible to define an evacation time limit, since that requires knowing the precise kind of accident, amount and type of radiation release, and acceptable radiation exposure allowed. Keep in mind that everyone takes RISKS in life, and presumably the objection to nuclear plants is an objection to a risk exposure that is not CHOSEN. Therefore you must also consider if the risk Seabrook pose.s is different from or greater than the risks THEY choose: the beach goers who are constantly presented as the "reason" evacuation might be too slow ARE there because they CHOSE to take a RISK of far greater exposure to natural cancer causing sun radiation, and when Seabrook operates they WILL be there because they believe the risk from Seabrook IS ACCEPTABLE! No one will l

force them to go there, and the crowded conditions AND EVACUATION problem

. EVERY NIGHT when the crowds all leave together will be acceptable to them. .

e"Similarly, if Seabrook was converted to coal, with it's continuous

$ @ radiation and pollution, beach goers --d residents WILL recieve greater j radiation and pollutant contamination. Since coal has been deemed c "acceptable" then the radiation and contamination a person living there C @ would get from it over the life of the plant (or their life) is 3 g acceptable, and THAT is FAR greater than anyone recieved from 3 Mi. Is1 m - accident WITHOUT evacuation!

@((

Seabrook Station was designed from the start to be safer than 3 Mi, m Isl., and then was greatly improved afterwards in response to improved

$x* safety design requirements,you put on them. A LARGE portion of the excess

@@@ construction costs were due to those improvements, improvements which should have eliminated the need for evacuation! It hardly seems just that YOU can make safety rules which they abide by, at great costs, only to find you have made another insurmountable "rule" to prevent licensing l

{

uce! In that regard YOU HAVE been bowing to excessive and wrony 5 i tir a pressure.,

The very small but noisy anti nuclear crowd has been joined by many others who object to Seabrook licensing merely because they don't want to pay the higher costs which THEY were largely responsible for. The NH anti CWIP law was the major cause of cost increases at Seabrook, and IS the cause for PSNH bankruptcy and the fact that when licensed electric rates NUST go up (exactly as the framers of anti CWIP said it should and would).

They are now acting just like the kid who won't go to the dentist when his tooth aches, for fear that it'll hurt, and thus makes the hurt worse the longer he delays. As the NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONNISSION you must ignore ALL the claims and conjectures of those who are apposed to Seabrook due to costs, and get on with the licensing AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. Approving low power testing NOW is a good step in that direction.

You have heard every bit of REAL information on Seabrook safety that you are ever going to hear. The last couple of years has been nothing but POLITICAL and legal infighting to CAUSE delays (successfully), and all time wasted from now till licensing will be more of the same. Every day of delay will cost us all dearly. YOU know there is no safer or cheaper nource of electric power than completed nuclear plants. (the high costs to be recovered from Seabrook are largely the costs of extended financing ccused by anti CWIP, and thus are the cost of anti nuclear power ottitudes, NOT the costs of nuclear power.)

Sincerely yours, John Wentworth Stephenson ps. I hope you evaluate comments you recieve regarding siren needs based on CONTENT and reasons, NOT solely on number of letters, and that you will be aware that those who OPPOSE low power testing without sirens in place are the SAME people who caused removal of sirens and are blocking installation of sirens, a clear example of blocking Seabrook on the basis of errors and failures of the anti crowd.

A

< i. s .

, 4,/ b -wr4s %

. ,e COCC!' W : 1 56t w;[ st;; O. .

08f101 Or THE siterTati

• C' 14 CC.wM5 ton Oh l l .

4

%. ,~. 6 ev.

r. t-

$ - A-Pf o /

r ad's Cer ~ s< r.< - .:

. 3 5 D er

[

%'p+v,w m A_, -

__ew- me. g e e

6

• use! In that regard YOU HAVE been boising to excessive and wrong political pressure.,

The very small but noisy anti nuclear crowd has been joined by many others who object to Seabrook licensing merely because they don't want to pay the higher costs which THEY were largely responsible for. The NH anti CWIP law was the major cause of cost increases at Seabrook, and IS the, cause for PSNH bankruptcy and the fact that when licensed electric rates MUST go up (exactly as the framers of anti CWIP said it should and would).

They are now acting just like the kid who won't go to the dentist when his tooth aches, for fear that it'll hurt, and thus makes the hurt worse the longer he delays. As the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION you must ignore ALL the claims and conjectures of those who are apposed to Seabrook due to costs, and get on with the licensing AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. Approving low power testing NOW is a good step in that direction.

You have heard every bit of REAL information on Seabrook safety that you are ever going to hear. Tne last couple of years has been nothing but POLITICAL and legal infighting to CAUSE delays (successfully), and all time wasted from nou till licensing will be more of the same. Every day of delay will cost us all dearly. YOU know there is no safer or cheaper source of electric power than completed nuclear plants. (the high costs to be recovered from Seabrook are largely the costs of extended financing caused by anti CWIP, and thus are the cost of anti nuclear power attitudes, NOT the costs of nuclear power.)

Sincerely yours, John Wentworth Stephenson f ps. I hope you evaluate comments you recieve regarding siren needs based on CONTENT and reasons, NOT solely on number of lelters, and that you will be aware that those who OPPOSE low power testing without sirens in place are the SAME people who caused removal of sirens and are blocking installation of sirens, a clear example of blocking Seabrook on the basis of errors and failures of the anti crowd.

A f a

<ps * .N , L i . . . - gr1,<

4 4

,- - . _ _ , - - - . _ - - -