ML18004C005

Comments on Pending Licensing of Plant & Reducing Emergency Evacuation Zone to 1 Mile from Present 10 Miles.Evacuation Regulations Should Be Modified to Allow Util to Prepare Evacuation Plan for Independent Review & Approval

ML18004C005
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/27/1987
From:	Tyliszczak S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC
References
NUDOCS 8702040136
Download: ML18004C005 (4)

Text

IH REQ TORY INFORMATION DISTRIBU N SYSTEM (R IDB)

ACCESSION NBR 8702040136 DOC. DATE: 87/01/27 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET FAC IL: 50-400 Sheav on Harv is Nuclear Powev Plant> Unit li Cav olina 05000400 AUTH. NAI'IE AUTHOR AFFILIATION TYLISZCZAK B Affiliation Not Assigned RECIP. NANE RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Office of Nucleav Reactov Regulation~ Directov'post 85if25

SUBJECT:

Comments on pending licensing of plant 5 reducing emev gencg evacuation zone to one. mile from pv'esent ten miles.

Evacuation vegulations should be modified:allowing util to pv epare own evacation for independent review 8c appv oval.

DISTRIBUTION CODE: YE03D COP IEB RECEIVED: LTR ENCL SI ZE:

TITLE: Request fov NRR Action (e. g. 2. 206 Petiti ons) Zc Related Correspondenc NOTES:Application fov permit renewal filed. 05000400 RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COP IEB ID CODE/NANE LTTR ENCL ID CODE/MANE LTTR ENCL PNR-A PD2 LA PNR-A PD2 PD gUCKLEYi 8 01 INTERNAL: EDO/ACB ELD/HDSi ELD/ NRR DIR 04 EXTERNAL: LPDR 03 NRC PDR 02, NSIC 05 IQ TOTAL NUBBER OF COP IEB REQUIRED: LTTR M ENCL

r I

II I

I q,F I, I l 1

1 Andrews Road Westborough, Ma. 01581 27 January, 1987 Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: SEABROOK Nuclear Power Plant Ucensing Authority Gentlemen; I am writing to express my opinions and concerns regarding the pending licensing of the SEABROOK Nuclear Power Plant, and the related issue of reducing the emergency evacuation zone to one mile from the present ten miles.

Let me state, first, that I am in favor of the licensing of the SEABROOK plant, so long as it has complied with the best possible design and construction techniques, as determined by a knowledgable, independent agency (such as yours) I do not believe that we, as a nation, are

~

incapable of practicing the technology required to safely and effectively control nuclear power for our mutual long term benefits, as is implicit in the arguments of opponents of that technology. To be sure, there are (and always will be) problems related to the use of any technology (witness Acid Rain caused by the burning of coal); however, one must weigh the potential for harm with the potential for good. In the case of SEABROOK, the proposed alternative of reduced energy consumptionalso requires that we achieve those reductions without injuring our economic growth and quality of life. Although some individuals may be willing to forgo our modern conveniences and necessitities for a more primitive lifestyle, I feel that the majority of citizens do not appreciate the significance of lower availability of electric power. The other often cited alternative, Canadian Hydropower, is viable only so long as its availability and cost can be guaranteed for future as well as present generations of New Englanders. It is incumbent on your organization to consider, carefully, ail these alternatives before rendering your decision.

My real reason for writing, however, is my concern over the 1 mile/10 mile evacuation zone controversy. If one were to err here, I feel that he should err on the conservative side, and should, unless strong evidence exists to the contrary, retain the 10 mile zone. The real issue is not, however, the size of the evacuation zone, but the veto power which the 10 mile zone has afforded our own Governor Dukakis of Massachusetts. By his refusal to submit evacuation plans for Massachusetts towns within that zone, he has made evacuation planning into a political lever being used to arbitrarily force cancellation of the SEABROOK plant's opening. I cannot express strongly enough my opinion that good planning and common sense not be usurped by this overt political ploy. I ask that your committee carefully separate the technical issues from the political. Perhaps the evacuation planning regulations might be modified to allow the SEABROOK operating authorities to prepare their own evacuation plans (for independent review and approval) since the affected towns and states refuse to submit plans of their own. Such a regulation change will not be received well by those who hope to hold SEABROOK hostage to evacuation planning, but it would serve notice that the NRC fully intends to deal squarely with the issue based upon scientific and technological fact, and not political whim.

Thank you for affording me the opportunity to air my view on this matter.

Very truly yours gyp'<>40136 870127 pgg +DOCK 0500&~ YV H PDR

~: xr gg8d/ZPd S aniey yliszczak z/y xiyky>sized

~ ~L

<<Yi5i,W'" NQ%A>~~ ~ Q%'g