ML20213A250
| ML20213A250 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1987 |
| From: | Humphrey G SENATE |
| To: | Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2367 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8702030178 | |
| Download: ML20213A250 (2) | |
Text
i GOflO4N J. HUMPHMY
- o?$l?yic.3d
- NWfW-el.
~~
. ',. - - ~
2347
~
BRitd $t9ES $010M cat crt-UVc January 27, 1987
'87 JAN 29 P4 :26, CFF:u OOCMDon i
- 7i 4
The Honorable Helen Hoyt, Chairman 3?A.
Administrative Judge Atonio Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuolear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, NW SERVED JAN 301987 Washington, DC 20555
Dear Judge Hoyt:
I as writing in response to the Applicants' petition in the Seabrook offsite emergency planning proceedings (Docket Nos. 50-443-OL; ASLBP 82-471-02-OL) regarding a reduction in the emergency planning zone for Seabrook Station nuclear power reactor.
In the APPLICANTS' HEHORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PETITION UNDER 10 CRF 2.758 AND 10 CFR 50.47(o) WITH RESPECT TO THE REGULATIONS REQUIRING PLANNING FOR A PLUME EXPCSURE P ATilW AY EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE IN EICESS OF A ONE-MILE RADIUS, the applicants, in justification of their waiver request, state the following:
In the case of Seabrook Station, there exist alternate means to provide reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will be protected other than by application of the requirement for a Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone (PEPZ) with a radius of 10 miles (10-mile PEPZ).
I believe that this reasoning constitutes a repudiation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) basic emergency planning principles.
In the words of the NRC's " Emergency Planning; Final Regulations" (45 FR 55403) Rationale for the Final Rules:
...It is clear, based on the various official reports described in the proposed rules (44 FR 5169) and the publio record o$mpiled in this rulemaking, that onsite and offsite emergency preparedness as wo11 as proper siting and engineered design features are needed to protect the noilth and safety of the publio.
As the Commission reacted to the aooident at Three Mile Island, it became clear that the protection provided by siting and engineered design features must be bolstered by the ability to tak2_protootivo sotions during the courso_of an accident.
(emphasis added) 0702030170 070327 7/
P R ADOCK 05000443
)$0 PDR
f.
6
,)
D Honorable Helen Hoyt January 27, 1987 Page Two I agree with the Commission's rationale and believe that the Commission should not deviate from its judgement that emergency planning is necessary independent of engineered safety systems.
For this reason, I oppose the applicants') petition to reduce the emergency planning zone surrounding Seabrook Station to one mile in radius.
I stand behind the Commission's judgement that public safety demands, not an
" alternate," but the added means of protection through emergency preparedness and evacuation plans for an emergency planning zone which is at least 10 miles in radius.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
With warmest regards, I am Sincerely yours, I
r Gordon Humph ey, USS
.