ML19318B887

Forwards Sc Dunfey,Rc Pevear,Ef Parr & P Keenan 791011 Ltr to President Carter Requesting Halt of Const Until Safe & Timely Evacuation Plan Is Achieved.Seacoast Area Cannot Be Evacuated in Event of Serious Accident

ML19318B887
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/19/1979
From:	Seal M PRESIDENT OF U.S. & EXECUTIVE OFFICES
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML18082A636	List: ML19318B887
References
NUDOCS 8006300251
Download: ML19318B887 (5)

Text

1

. .. )

'4 THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE O REFE-OCTCBER 19, 1979 ID: 057247

'IO: WCLEAR REXULATORY COMMISSICN REPLY: DIRECT REPLY, FURNISH INED COPI IF A DELAY OF mRE THAN 9 DAYS IS ENCCLWTERED PLEASE TEIEPHCNE , /

456-2717. BASIC COPRESPCNDENCE AE CCNTROL SHEET AND COPI OF

.f g jY

.%EONSE (OR WAPT) MUST BE RE:IURNED TO: M <' br AGENCY LIAISON (100M 94), WHI'IE HJUSE.

M' /e/J/k// l

. (3/<ff

~'

MEDIA: IEITER, DATED OCIOBER 11, 1979. I /

TO: PRESIDD.T CARTER FROM: 'IHE IINORABIE SIEPHEN C. DlNFEY NEW HAMPSHIRE HCUSE CF REPRESENTATIVES CONCORD, NH 03301 SUE 7ECT: OPPOSES THE SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT AND APPEAIS TO PRESIDENT, THE NUCIZAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND THEIR CCNGRESSIONAL DEIEGATICH TU RECOGNIZE 'IHAT THE SEACOAST AREA CNNOT BE ADEQUATELY EVACCATED IN THE EVENT CF A SERIOUS ACCIDENT.

BY DInfrTICh ? THE PRESILc'NT MARY MARIHA SEAL DIR G R AT CORRESKNDENCE . hCY LIAISCN I

800esoo 2 f/

I-fPlatt of Nem %amirshire k

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONCORD 037247 October 11, 1979 President Jimmy Carter The White House Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As members of the New Hampshire General Court who represent the towns most immediately affected by the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, we wish to register our bi-partisan concern over a possible evacuation caused by a nuclear accident. We appeal to you, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission and our Congressional Delegation to recognizrthat the sEaccast area cannot be adequately evacuated in the event of a serious accident.

Just over 1.5 miles from the reactor lies Hampton Beich: as a popular vacation area, its population can exceed 80,000 people. Road access is lim-ited and would be ineffective in an emergency situation. We also feel that NRC regulations concerning evacuation are not adequate and that specific plans for evacuation be made before the plant is built, not after construc-tion as is presently the rule. Since Hampton Beach was not considered as a "poplation center" during the plant's siting and construction permit pro-cess, we believe that the plant does not allow for people, in the words of the NRC, to "be evacuai.ed from a specific area, or instruct 1d to take shel-ter on a tirely basis."

Furthermore, we feel it is unreasonable to ask that the individual sur-rounding towns be solely responsible for the evacuation plan. The plant's existence is made possible through licensing by the federal and state gov-ernment. We feel that they, along with the Public Service Company of New Hampshire, should share more responsibility for the " dirty" work the proj-ect creates.

Our concerns have been further legitimized by a recent report on nu-clear emergencies by the House Government Operations Comittee. The report chartes the NRC with a " lack of strong, constructive leadership" in evacua-tion plans and that "the current guidelines it now uses are seriously defi-cient in a number of critical areas." The report goes on to say that there is "little likelihood that either evacuation or sheltering could take place around most nuclear plants with the speed and efficiency necessary."

President Jimy Carter Sepatember 11, 1979 Page 2.

We feel that the location of the Seabrook Power Plant fits that des ,. "

cription. We ask that construction of the plant be halted until a safe and timely evacuation plan can be achieved.

Very truly yours,

/d -

1. ; b i1:f. " l

,Ato ~ "

Rep.SIsphenC.Dunfey h- Rep. Ednapearl F. Parr D-Hampton, Hampton Falls' b R-Hampton, Hampton Falls

,. ,. 7 er C. Pe a p.

R-Hampton, Hampton Falls D-Seabrook, South Hampton SCD:KC cc: U.S. Senator John Durkin U.S. Senator Gordon Humphrey Congressmen Norman D' Amours Congressman James Cleveland Governor Hugh J. Gallen John G. Kemeny, Chairman President's Commission on Three Mile Island Eileen Foley, NH Director of Civil Defense Nuclear Regulatory Comissioners l

1 t-

.l l

l

5 37473 PROPOSED RULES DATES AND ADDRESSES: The of the Endansered Spectes Act of 1973 the in paragraph 0) of this section shall public hearings have been schedialed convenuon on Intemational Trade in En.

dansered Species of Wtid Pauna and Flora.

constitute the final determination of as follows:

the Lac y Act, the Blaca Bass Act, and the (2)HCFA'mination Deter tetthout hearing. Dates. Times and Places other statutes administered by the rien and In those cases in which a hearing is Monday. October 2.1974. 9 a.m. to 4 p.m Wildlife Sernee. Revtstons contemplated withm this proposal would impone controts not requested by the supplfer or other Auditorium. UJ5. Department of the inte- on the exportauon of wilditte similar to party within the period allowed. the rtor, teth and C Streets NW Washington, those already estattna for importation of determination of revocation by HCFA Wdth utabitsh a ucensing mten for kn.

shall be the final determination. Pr d . October 6.1978. 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.. uo d (3) Application of final determma* Den er Auditorium. Butiding 54. Denver g n f fh d 11 to Federal Center. Denver. Colo. form to the Endangered Spectee Act; amend ffon.

(D If the final determination is that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION the martins requirements contamed in the Lacey and Blaca Bass Acts; alter the desJg.

the right to receive payment will not CONTACT: nation of certain border ports through be revoked, that decision shall be bmd- Marshall 1. Stinnett. Special Agent whneh certain wilditie may enter the United ing for those alleged. actions and fail. in Charge. Dtvision of I4w Enforce- 8tates in order to conform with changes in ures to act by the supplier or other ment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, traffic patterns m these areas; and delete party that constituted the basis for it ms m th t ofenen P.O. Box 19183. Wast.Inston D.C. f ,,g,,,

the determination of revocation. 20036, telephone 202-343 9237. port of entry to bring the Inst into conform-til) !! the final determination is that the right to receive payment will be SUPP1.EMENTARY INFORMATION: aty with the deft sition of shetinah and itsh-revoked, the revocation shall remain On March 27,1978, the Fish and W11d. ery ujes products of theprovided by the United States Tariff sched-(TAUA).

in effect until HCFA finds that the life Service 19blished in the FEDEaAI. Presiding at each public hearing will reason for the revocation has been re- Ractsmt proposed regulations govern-moved and that there is reasonable as- ing the importation, exportation, and be an administrative law judge from surance triat at will not recur, transportation of wildlife (43 FR the Department's Office of Hearings 12830). These included several changes and Appeals. Oral statements will be e secs.1102.1814.1815.1835.1842,1870. and affecting the status of ports designat- restricted in length to ten (10) minutes te?! of the Soctal Security Act: 42 U.S C.

13o2.1395f.1395g.1395n.13952.1395tg. and ed for the importation and exports- unless the presiding officer decides 1395 hh.)

tion of wildlife. The proposed regula- otherwise. Those wishing to present tions would also implement a number oral statements must notify SpeClal e Catalog of Federal Domestle Program No.13.773. Medicare Hospital In.

Assistance of other provisions of the Endangered Agent in Charge Stinnett at the ad-surance: No. 13.774. Medicare-Supplemen. Species Act. including those pertaining dress and telephone number provided tary Med2 care Insurance., to the inspection of wildlife items, the above, specifying the hearing at which filing of importation and exportation they intend to appear. These should Dated: July 27.1978. declarations, and the licensing of be received by the Service no later R mat A. DERZoM. those engaged in business as wildlife than September 25,1978 in order that Admintatrator. Health Care importers and exporters. Section a list establishing the participant::'

financ:ng eldministratton. 9(fx1) of the Endangered Species Act order of appearance may be prepared.

provides that regulations changing In addition to oral presentations, writ-Approved: August 16.1978. designated ports are to be made "after ten statements may be filed at the Jostru A. CAurANo. Jr.- notice and opportunity for pub!!c hearings.These may also be submitted Secreta ry. hearing" has been provided. (16 U.S.C. directly to Special Agent in Charge 1538(f x1)). Section 4(fX2M AX11) of the Stinnett at the address provided above (FT! Doc. 78-23696 Fded 8 22-78. 8-45 am:

act provides that persons who believe any time prior to October 31,1978.

they "may be adversely affected" by a HARVET K. Nataox, proposed regulation may " request Acting Director, Wi&$5) * *

• a public hearing thereon." (16 M M and WWe Sem DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S.C.1533(fM2X Axil)). An opportuni-ty to request such public hearings was AucusT 18,1978.

,, ,, consequently extended to interested IFR Doc. 78-23636 F!ied 8-22-78; 8.45 aml 150 CFR Peres 10.13, end 14] parties in the proposed rulemaking published on March 27,1978. In re-PeOPO5to efVt5 TON TO REOULATIONS OCV. sponse, the Service has received many NMU saNeNo imPORTADON. txPORTADON, AND requests that hearings be conducted inANSPotf aDON OF WILDuff on a number of the provisions con- NUCLEAR REGULATORY tained in the proposed regulations. Ac- COMMISSION p, g cordingly, notice is hereby given that (10 cpg Port $41 AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, public hearings will be held for the Interior, purpose of receiving oral and written APPENoix E-amet0GMCY PtAN$ POR statements on all aspects of the pro- PROcuCnOM AND MtZADON FActJM5 ACTION: Notice of Public Hearings posed regulations.

SUMMARY

This notice announces Copies of the proposed regulations AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory that public hearings will be held on may be obtained by contacting Mar

• Commission.

the propo .ed regulations governing shall L. Stinnett, Special Agent in ACTION: Proposed rule.

6mportation, exportation. and trans. Charge.Box Division 19183.of Law Enforcement.

Washington, D.C.

SUMMARY

A major objective of the portation of wildlife that were pub- P.O. 20036, telephone 202-343-9237 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to lished in the FrDERAL Rzcastra or-March 27.1978 (43 FR 12830). Com. following is a summary of their con- which assure that emergency provide reasonable plans exist assurance ments recetted on the proposed regu- tents: that appropriate measures can and lations ha1,e indicated that pubife These proposed rules would amend certain will be taken in the event of an acci-hearings are necessary tr. allow inter- ragulations governtns the importation ex. dental release of radioactive material ested parties to adequately express portation. and transportation of wildlife. frorn a nuclear power plant. The Com.

their views. They would theretiy unplement provtstons PlottAL 30015758 VOt. 43. NO.164-WSONESDAY, AUGU$f 23,1973 )

l l

1

Mtorosan autas 37474 There are two elements of the NRC cows has long been included as part of mission is proposing to amend its regu- staff review required by the Commis- the review of emergency plans. Since lation on emergency plans for produc- rioni regulations as stated in 10 CFR one would antieteate that there would tion and utilization facilities to ad. Part 100.

• Reactor Site Criteria /* and generally be time to monitor the dress evnergency planning consider. 10 CFR Part 50. "!)eensing of Produc- actual situation for releases impacting attons that may extend to areas out- tion and Utilization Pacilities." The from these pathways and to take ap-side the low population tone (LPD first review element is to determine propriate action based on ealsung con-DATES: Comments should be submit- comp!!ance with the seting criteria of dltions. the Commission review has ted on or before October 10,1978. to CFR Part 100. Rector site criteria generally not emphastaed posculated ADDRIE8ES: Written comments or are established in part 100 which. in accident scenarios for evaluation but suggestions concerning the proposed conjunction with postulated accident rather has assured that there are ade-amendment should be submitted to calculauons performed by the appil- quate arrangements for prompt notice j

the Secretary of the Commission. U.S cant for the proposed fac!!!ty design, to appropriate officials and arrange-t Regulatory Commission. establish boundaries for an exclusion ments to perform the appropriate Nuclear monitoring. even though this may in-( Wuhington. D.C. 20555. Attention: area and a low populauon sone (LPZ).

, Dockeung and Service Branch. Copies In this connection, the Commission volve areas of consideration extending

j of comments received may be exam- has, from the earliest days of Ilcensing beyond the LPZ.

The principal considerstjons used in Ined at the Commission's Public Docu- reactors. required the use of conserva.

tne assumpuona and calculational assessing emergency plans during the l ment Room. 1717 H Street NW.. methods in assessing consequences of siting and licensing review of nuclear ngton. C.

a hypothetical release from the nucle- power plants including the need for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION at fanlity. The review conducted in such planning beyond the LPZ are CONTACT: cn nnance with 10 CFR Part 100 m summarized below.

Mr. Michael T. Jamrochian. Office quirements estabushes for an accepb 1. Physicci characteristica-The of Standards Development U S. Nu- " nun n e ns that W Mow-clear Regulatory Commission. Wash

• su elines e et and i ti ng physical charadeMcs in me 6 Inston. D C. 20555,301-443-5981* that the number and density of people cinny M W me are reMant to the within the LPZ are such that appro- evaluation of protective actions which SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. priate protective measures could be may be t ev t of an -

A major objective of the Comnussion taken on their behalf in the event of g is to assure that emergency plans exist The numbers and proximity to the site w hich provide reasonable assurance an accident.

Beyond the siting criteria and the boundary of resident and transient that approprtste measures can and Question of site suitability is the persons and the relative speed with will be taken in the event of an accs. second review element which is to de. which warnings can be communicated dental release of radioacute material termine compliance with the licensing to them. the availability and character from a nuclear power plant. requirements in 10 CFR Part 50 and of evacuation routes and means of The intent of the Conunission is to appendix E thereto for emergency transportation, the availability and lo-assure that the decisionmaking proc. plans. This review element focuses on cations of structures suitable for shel-ess for Licensmg nuclear power plants the question of organizational and tering people, and the presence of in-will include an analysis by the appil- operat:onal preparedness to cope with stitutions (such as hospitals, nursing cant and a review by the Commission emergencies. A principal aspect of this homes, and schools) which may re-of each nuclear .,ower plant license or review is to determine whether the ap- quire special emergency planning ar-pernut application to plan for taking plicant has made or will make appro- rangements. Measures to compensate suitable protective actions on a timely priate arrangements with appropriate for those cht.racteristics that may be basis under accident conditions within Federal. State and local officials to adverse to the effective implementa-and outside the proposed site. Suitable assure that. Lu the event of an actuaj tion of emargency actions should 1e protective actio ui would include mess. emergency, necessary evacuation or identified and proposed by an appil-ures which could midgate radiation other protective actions will be taken cant and reviewed by the NRC staff, exposure to the public from the facili, to protect offsite members of the Psrticular attention is to be given to ty or from radioactive material re- public. Although these arrangements the foregoing as they affect the effec-leased to the environs. Immediate include the protective measures con. tJveness of taking protective actions emergency protective measures could templated by 10 CFR Part 100. In con. within the LPZ established pursuant include evacuatlon of the public from nection with the LPZ. they need not to the Commission's siting criteria of the tivearea of the shelter pubtle until taking protec.

the danger had be limited to application within the 10 CFR Part 100. This should not.

LPZ. nor to measures intended to cope however, preclude the consideration of passed.

The principal aspects of the NRC primarily with thecovered (cloud passage) airbornebypathway sections utilizing emergency plans to provide additional protective benefit to per-st4ff review for emergency planning 100.3 and 100.11 of part 100. Such ar. sons beyond a LPZ as a matter of res.

includes the protections of persons rangements are expected to be guided sonable and prudent risk management, withm the enchiston area. the onsite by emergency action criteria, arrived to assure protection beyond that af.

emergency response organizadon, the at through a coordinated effort among forded by safety design features and protection of the public beyond the local. State. and Federal authorities, the siting of facilities in acwedance exclusion area and the connection be.

tween the facilities plan and that of sound Such andcriteria are believed prudent approachto to bethea with 10 CFR Part 100.

2. Protectice measure 1-Anessential the offsite emergency response organi. management of the < man residual risk element for reducing individual and zation Federalconsisting of local.

agencies. These Stateare reviews and involved in the operation of nuclear population exposures from accidental facilities.

part of the safety review of each 10p11 Indeed, their application to inges- releases of radioactive materd.al is ef.

cation. These matters may also be con.

e sidered h identifying any pot?ntial tion exposure dental spills into pathways drinking waterinvohing ures. acet- fective and timely The estab&lshment protective of soundly

! emergency planning advantages or dis. sources and accidental deposition of based emergency plans which include i advantages of particular sites as part

[ of the NEPA cost / benefit analysts crops of radioactive or areas used for material ontoinitial forage for milk agriculturni operation ofappropriate protectiv a nuclear power alternate sites.

MOORAL teetSTER, vot. 43.100.164--WeseSDAY, apeUST 23. Itra 1 i

3 l

l

PROPOSED RULES 37475 plant is a basic Commission require- the need artse. An important factor in permit reviews, to be a more reason-ment in its licensing process. emergency planning is the availability able approach. Because this proposed The NRC staff has found that there to the decision. making official (Feder- rule involves a limited element in addi-may be circumstances for which the al. State, and locaD of all information tion to the siting and engineering avadable strategies for taking protec- necessary to determine the magnitude safety considerations to assure protec-tive actions outande the facility site of the emergency and to decide wheth- tion of the public health and safety, boundaries are limited. As a example. er protretive actions should or should this procedure for review of entsting this occur when large numbers of per- not be taken in light of the total risk permits and licenses is acceptable.

sons may be engaged in outdoor recr*- (nuclear and nonnuclearl to the public Should the rule become final as pris ational activitics in the vicinity of a health and safety from the action. posed, the NRC staff will review the plant, and it is c! car that existing Each licensee must establish proce- emergency plans of operating facilities structures are insufficient to provide dures to assure that such officials are as a part of its present practice of needed temporary shelter. In such an provided with adequate information monitoring and updating the emergen-instance, the has considered it appro- throughout the course of any emer- cy plans of an operating facility as priate to emphasize evacuation. When gency. needed. The Commission will be re-taken in conjunction with appropriate A general examination of emergency questing current and operating licens-protective action criteria, such as EPA planning in the licensing of nuclear ces to examine their emergency plans protectiw action guides.' These consi-

" power plants is underway. In the inter. to determine whether they see in com-ti e ac ions yo he im, the Commission is firmly of the pliance with this proposed rule h a e

• IO I Of 0 rn oes d v re made events, such as dam failures or stances in the vicinity of the site is re. of not title 5 of the United States is hereby given t t pt on o t wie gas releases, are typically consid. Quired. However. In the Netc England ed in general emergency plans. Such Potccr Company, cf al. and Publie

.eneral emergency plans are devel. serrtee Company of New Hampshire pendix E is contemplated.

8'C 0" I

• oped and mamtained by agencies of decisions. ALAB-390 5 NRC 733 pyg , ,nd y d ng at the State and local governments. (1977), the Commission's regulations end thereof a new paragraph to read Emergency plans for protecting the were construed as not permitting 11- as follows**

public health and safety from acciden- eensing consideration of evacuation tal releases of radioactive material in- plans for the protection of persons Arrtanta E-Ewtactact Puns ron volve many of the same types of ac- outside the low population zone. In Puooverton amo Unuunon Facitmts tions and thus are designed to be com- light of the above. the Commission be- ,,,,,,c,,,,

patible sith these broader general lleves that its regulations in 10 CFR emergency plans. Emergency plans for Part 50. appendix E. should be amend- * * * *

• nuclear power plants are designed to ed to reflect the emergency planning For nuclear power reactors. provialons for permit protection to the pub!!c by re- considerations here discussed. "Ihe emersency protective measures to reduce exp sums from an accidental release of ra.

ducing individual and population ex* proposed change to the rule on the 11- di active matertal shall be considered, at a posures resulting from postulated nu* censing requirements for emergency

• clear accidents. The benefits frcm the plans clarifles the intent that consid- ,gNa", ;pN"1 In'10 FR I e emergency plan must be commensti- eration of emergency planning beyond extect to shich emergency plannins, which rate with the risks to the health and the LPZ is a factor in the licensing may include planning for evacuation mens.

safety of the public associated with review and is not a factor in the site ures. should extend to areas beyond the the implementation of the protective suitability review under 10 CFR Part LPZ shall be based on the denen features of action. the facdsty and the physical characteristacs 100* of the environs in the v6cinity of the site,

4. Procedures.-The general authort-ties and capabilities of Federal. State. Pending the receipt of comments takes into account the emergency protec.

and local officials for carrying out and the promulgation of a final rule, tave nction eriterta developed by appropriate emergency plans are recognized. A the proposed amendment will be used Fedetal authorttles, and by appropriate goal of the Commission's review is to as interim guidance in reviewing an State and local sovernmental authonties m determine whether the applicant has applicant's emergency plan for a con- cooperation s'ath the Commasion.

developed adequate arra'1gements struction permit. In cases where a con- (Sec.161. Pub. L.83-703. 68 Stat. 948 (42 U.S.C. 220! t Sec. 20t. Pub. L 93-438, 88 with Federal. State, and local officials st ruction permit has already been to assure that effective initiation of issued, the emergency plans will be re, Stat 1242 (42 UE.C. 584tu prntection actions within and beyond viewed at the operating license stage Dated at Washington. D.C. this 16th the LPZ will be implemented, should in accordance witn the interim guld- day of August 1978.

ance of the proposed amendment or For the Nuclear Regulatory Com-depending on timing, the amendment mission.

" manual of Protective Actaon Gundes and Protective actions for Nuclear Incidents **. as promulgated in final form. The schapter 2A U S Enttronmental Protection Commission regards dealing with this SAMUEL J. CHtLK.

Agency-EPA-520 /1 75-o01. September matter at the operating license stage, secretary of fAe Commission.

1975. - as opposed to reopening construction (FR Doc. 78-23870 Filed 8-22-78,10.42 ami psomeAt 3548175s. VOt. 43. NO.1H-%DMESOAf. AUGUST 23.19y8 s