ML20059P057
| ML20059P057 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1990 |
| From: | Olver J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-55FR29043, FRN-56FR64943, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-54 55FR29043-00059, 55FR29043-59, AD04-2-112, AD4-2, AD4-2-112, NUDOCS 9010250064 | |
| Download: ML20059P057 (2) | |
Text
-
3 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE N $ 6#f5p g
g (n FA 2 @f9) 9,g COMMONWEALTH OF MASSA gT4rg, MASSACHUSETTS SAM 4TE STATE HOUSL SOSTON 02133 50 OCT 15 P4 :02 hon. JOHN W. oLVER SrNAT CouurrTTre oN FRANKLIN /HAMPSMIRE of I ![: 3 N *Mt WAYS AND MEANS DISTRICT 00CKi IN i 'WI my, co,,,,,,,,.
181 MAIN STREET JI' TARATION (CM AIRM AN)
NORTHAM* TON. MA 01060 gw,Roy TEL 5848108 TRANSPORT ATCN ROOM 511. STATE HOUSE TEL 722 1532 October 11, 1990 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing in strong opposition to the proposed rule on Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal.
The proposed rule would clearly fail to adequately protect public safety -- which must be the primary mission of the Commission.
In particular, the district I represent lies very close to the Yankee Atomic nuclear plant at Rowe -- a plant which is preparing to apply for a license extension until 2021 under the proposed rule, even as NRC staff are questioning whether it should be operating past 1992.
It is inconceivable to me that the Commission could suggest that a plant need not even specify what its license requires or show whether those requirements are being met, in order to be relicensed for an additional twenty years.
The Commission's attitude seems to be that since everything has gone well in the past, everything will go well in the future -- an indefensible position when dealing with the aging of nuclear power plants.
Unfortunately, we know all too little about the aging at Yankee Rowe (which is, as you know, the oldest plant in the country) over the last thirty years -- let alone the next ten years.
It is a frightening paradox that we know so little about plant aging (especially at Yankee Atomic), while it is of such great importance
-- particularly to the thousands of people I represent -- that our actions be based on real knowledge, and not mere assumptions.
It simply makes no sense to grant a license extension halfway through an operating license -- before the worst effects of aging can even be known, much less assessed.
Since the new license will effectively supersede the original l
license, the responsible position for the Commission would be to h025064901011 g
2 55FR29043 pon DSID
~
wme,,
J-4 p
+a.e..-
sdA.,
e s7--.'4 ama.w-4h-,
a m
--saJ
.ead--
es.
h 1
- c.
i require ' a _ complete ' review :first "of. whetherl the licensing. basis -
- provides sufficientrassurance of safety, particularly in light of.
aging, and then whether the plant.'isiin full-compliance with its licensing _ basis.
of' course for the review to occur, a plant'would have to firsi specify the complete ' terms ' of '.its licensej another requirement:
which the Commission - for some unknown reason does not ' see as necessary.-.This proposal-that. power plants:need not produce-the current licensing. basis not only does-not make sense,'but=it will-3 obviate intelligent comment by interested' parties.
Finally,. any extension lshould be granted only' conditionally, if at all, pending knowledge -and experience gained;through the end of the period of the original license.--And it should4 be made clear-that a plant.must meet the1 current = licensing basis as'of_the-effective-date of the renewal.
I hope that the Commission will_ incorporate-such changes into-the proposed _ rule that. will-serve' to allay these concerns. of ouru citizens which-are so very justified.
t
,r ]ince,ly r
/
S oh, ( Olver_/
l f
f State: Senator l \\
- -. -,e,/
i l
T l
1 l
e 9
m.
t-,--
m
..,.,_._.,,w,__..,*,-e
.-e
+=-we'me s'*---**
--u-P-Y e
e-ew
- * -=
---r*