ML20155C554

Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Emergency Planning & Preparedness Requirements for Nuclear Power Plant Fuel Loading & Initial Low Power Operations.All Reasonable Steps to Speed Licensing Process Should Be Undertaken

ML20155C554
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim, Seabrook, 05000000
Issue date:	05/25/1988
From:	Maria Moore AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC
References
FRN-53FR16435, RULE-PR-50 53FR16435-00094, 53FR16435-94, NUDOCS 8806140247
Download: ML20155C554 (3)

Text

DOCKET f!Uf.13ER

~'.

PROPOSED RULE PR. edE2)

. ~ -

h MAR 2H ALL O. MOORE 273 LoCubT STREET J o ANVERS. M ASS. O192 3  :,

Ma/ 25, 1988 16 JE -2 P7 :26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 gpu ,

00CEivi. . h if t

Dear Sirs:

U2kN The Massachusetts politicians who are opposed to the Pilgrim and seabrook power plants are in no way competent to make risk evaluations for these facilities.

They readily admit this, but maintain that they rely on technical advisors for their policy. However, their objections to nuclear energy are really based on the perception that it will make them popular with the voters, and the so called technical advisors are carefully chosen to conform to those ideas.

There is no chance of getting an unbiased cost-risk-benefit analysis in the climate that exists here today because the politicians have much more access to the news media than does the technical community. I have written six letters to the Boston newspapers explaining that the start-up of Seabrook would cause the retirement of several old, less efficient' plants, and even detailing how many less tons of the various stack gases would be put into the atmosphere. None of these have ever been printed.

But nearly every day there is a pronounement by Sharon Pollard, the Massachusetts energy commissioner.

First she said that Seabrook should be converted to coal.

Then, apparently having been told that this was impossible, she advocated building a gas burning plant and even entered into discussions with possible suppliers of gas. A few months later she proclaimed that Canadian import power would solve our problems. Currently she maintains that no new power supplies are needed if conservation measures are adopted and the peaks are modified by life-style changes.

It is to be hoped that the NRC will not be influenced by these outpourings from the Massachusetts State House. All reasonable steps to speed the licensing process for Pilgrim and Seabrook should be undertaken.

The first of these is certainly the issuing of the low power license in advance of sirens and complete evacuation planning.

I have no financial or any other intrest in the companies that run these plants and am writing only because I think that nuclear power is the most environment-ally acceptable way of generating electricity.

t Very truly yours,

% DOMT N.G. Moore, BB061j02478B0525 P f E M s Reg 3327 PR

$ S3FR16435 Tel 617-774-0043

MARSH ALL G. MOORE 273 LOCUST STRECT DANVERS. M ASS. o192 3 Dec. 2 1987 To The Editor - Boston Globe

Dear Sir:

As the most influential paper in the region the Globe has a responsibility to present news and views impartially.

The political news seems to be presented in an evenhanded way, but the same cannot be said for the discussions on nuclear power and the energy supply in general. The Editors, because of their unreasonable bias against nulcear power, are allowing the writer Larry Tye and columnist David Nyhan to print misleading and false statements about the New England bulk power supply situation.

In the first place neither these writers or their quoted sources (Gov.Dukakis, James Shannon, Sharon Pollard, Paul Levy, and his sucessor) have the technical ability to evaluate the cost - risk - benefits of various power sources. In fact, until recently the sources given most credibility in your paper were those dreamers who said "he do not need more power supplies -

just conservation and more efficient use of what we have"; in our industry this is called 'the electric tooth brush syndrome'.

A person who got all his information 6n nuclear power from your paper would think that:

- Nuclear plants are bombs which sooner or later will go the Chernobyl route.

- The reactor vessels have serious flaws that the owners and operators are trying to conceal.

- Pilgrim operators spend the day with games and magazines instead of minding the reactor.

- Seabrook is full of faulty welds because the weldors were drunk and/or drugged.

- The safety of the Commonwealth was seriously compromised l because a gaurd left his gun in the washroom for a few minutes. l The list is endless. The most trivial negative development is trumpeted in large headlines (even though the text often contradicts the headline), while favorable ones are ig-nored or relegated to small type below the fold.

The same bias applies to letters accepted for.publi- {

cation. There have some recent ones against nuclear power that  !

contained serious errors of fact. However, this is the fif th l 1etter that I have sent you this year in support of nuclear i power and none have been printed. j Those of us who believe that (with the possible l exception of hydro projects) nuclear energy is the safest and i least polluting way of generating power should be allowed the l chance to comment on the subject.

Very truly yours,

%Pg(Aka/J. 6. ORY Marshall Moore, Consulting Enginee' Tel 774-0043

' , ' *** , MAR 2H ALL G. MOORE 273 LOCUET STr;EET l DANVERS. M ASS. o192 3 Nov. 28, 1987 To The Editor - Boston Globe

Dear Sir:

Govorner Dukakis and other Massachusetts politicians,  ;

posing as engineering experts, are in favor of dumping into the air 580 tons per day of carbon dioxide plus-an indeterminant quanity of Nox (mixed oxides of nitrogen). This would be the stack dis-charge of the 1150 M4 gas burning plant that they propose to re-place Seabrook. This atmospheric pollution would be the equival-ent (but without the traffic) of 15,000 additional cars on the streets.

The deleterious ef fect of CO2 in the air is described in an article on page 32 of the December ' Scientific American' from which the following quotation is taken:

'The concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmos-phere is increasing at a rate of 0.44 each year, primarily because of the combustion of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is a ' greenhouse gas'- it traps heat from the earth's surface that would otherwise be radiated into space. Its I

continuing increase is expected to cause a global warming, so understanding its role in climate has assemed much importance . . .'

I There are two principal reasons why Seabrook was built as a nuclear plant:

- To build a plant that is completly non-polluting.

- Uranium fuel is considerably cheaper than fossil fuel so that despite the higher initial cost, there was the prospect of furnishing cheaper base load power.

The cost advantage has been somewhat eroded by

delays caused by obstructionists and the prolonged licensing process. Also, at least a billion dollars has been spent on unnecessary safety equipment installed just to placate the obstructionists and environmentalists.

The nuclear plant is the safest and least polluting way to generate electricity and should be given a full power license at once. If Dukakis and Shannon are determined to protect the people from all risks (although it is more likely that they are just showboating) it would be more sensible to:

- Shut down the MBTA because of the third rail hazard and' '

the danger of tunnel fires.

- Forbid airplanes to fly over or lahd in Massachusetts.

- Enforce strict seperation of the races to avoid riots and fights;

- Limit automobiles to 15 miles per hour. >

l

_I - Forbid the sale or use of ladders. )

I Very truly yours -

~ '

6tt sw4 A C. M/co/e Marshall G. Moore, Consulting. Engineer Tel. 774-0043 PS. Will you also please print the enclosed letter that I have sent to Mr. Shannon.

He has kindly given permission for its release.

1

~~ ~ *

.nr .

,