ML20155D804
| ML20155D804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1988 |
| From: | Plett F AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR16435, RULE-PR-50 53FR16435-00242, 53FR16435-242, NUDOCS 8806150417 | |
| Download: ML20155D804 (2) | |
Text
v0aiEf nuha I,
PROPOSED RULE 'yN (53 f fi'/(s93 g
%2 s
.miq Frederick R. Plett RFD2,Vallace1%d
-6 A10:08 Goffstovn, NH 03045-2 June 1, 1988 GH tCL.
00cn %,,
, y BRt.N;;i Secretary of the Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch U.G. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Vashington, D. C. 20555
Subject:
Seabrook Licensing
Dear Secretary cf the Cc.sission:
I am vriting to urge the NRC to do several things concerning the Seabrook Nuclear Plant.
First, you are currently entertaining a proposed interpretive rule making which would spell out the requirements for a 5% license. The intetpretive rulemaking would not require sirens.
Please support this change, and rapidly. Massachusetts communities, at the urging of the Massachusetts Attorney General, have been doing everything possible to 3"
block licensing of this plant, including ordering of the removal of sirens. While it is my understanding that the joint ovners of Seabrook have an adequate substitute, hearings concerning the substitute could chev up more precious time for something that should not be required for a lov power license, and the Massachusetts governmental. authorities should not be rewarded for abandoning their responsibilities and acting like naysayers.
Second, a 5% license by itself isn't good enough, as the Shoreham situation should tell you.
Please cut through the red tape as rapidly as humanly possible to get this plant licensed. The two objections to this plant are safety and economics. The safety objection is a red herring.
Politicians are exploiting and fanning the flames of hysteria for their ovn, selfish purposes. This plant is the safest nuclear plent ever built.
Its double containment, defense in depth and quality construction, not to mention the superb training of personnel ensure that an accident leading to any kind of radiation release is extremely remote. Governor Dukakis should not be rewarded for using this plant for political purposes, cynically using "safety" as his shield. He read, and apparently is using, a study done for him by a Harvard Business School graduate student urging him to do just this for pr11tical purposes.
The economics question is also a red herring. Although the sunk cost of this plant, due to your ever-changing requirements and the bureaucratic nightmare this plant has already faced, has escalated, that sunk cost vill never be collected, since simple economics dictate a market cap for rates.
And the incremental cost is, although 8806150417 880601 PDR PR 50 53FR16435 PDR
^M
.g' s
a entirely in your hands, likely to be miniscule compared to any replacement capacity. New England needs capacity today.
Please recogreize the realities of the situation and move as rapidly as possible to license this plant.
You are currently presiding over the death of nuclear power as a future generating option. This is a terrible shame since nuclear power vill be a needed resource with far less enviroamental impact than any alternative method of electric generation, and using as a fuel uranium, with no other good, peaceful purpose, whereas fossil fuels have much more value in uses other than electricity generation.
Please take a good, hard look at what you have vrought concerning nuclear power in general and simplify the licensing process. This is done with a one-stop process, in which you have spelled out objectives to be attained (not every little detail in hov to obtain the objectives) and a review and monitoring by staf f to ensure that they believe that the objectives vill, in fact, be attained.
r(
Very truly yours,
)
/ __
c.
-gLt $ S W
Frederick R. Plett
_.