ML20196D970

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Emergency Planning & Preparedness Requirements for Nuclear Power Plant Fuel Loading & Initial Low Power Operations
ML20196D970
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 06/22/1988
From: Feerick M
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR16435, RULE-PR-50 53FR16435-00940, 53FR16435-940, NUDOCS 8807010501
Download: ML20196D970 (1)


Text

t

.~

DOCKET NUMBER DD kb-M PROPOSED RULE En_LS3 fR.fb V3h e

I ME.IF 3 Franklin Street l

Newburyport, Massachusetts

  • 88 AN 23 P1 :54 June 22, 1988 Secretary of The C daion h-

^

U.S. Nuclear Regulat hko$'

washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

I emphatically support the NRC's proposed rule to amend its regulations to establish more clearly what emergency planning and preparedness requirements are needed for fuel loading and initial low power operation at nuclear power plants.

Its time to consider the opinions of officials and experts in their field concerning the health and safety of the public, and not only the demands of self-serving public officials and those other nuclear power opponents who would stop at nothing to kill nuclear power in this country.

The majority of countries in the free world support nuclear power, while this country continues to be held back by the vocal minority who continue to protest something they know very little about and refuse to accept documented facts.

Having lived in the Northeast the majority of my life, I an definitely aware of the critical energy situation that exists here. Just last week, a survey released by Chambers Of Commerce across the State of Massachusetts, indicated that two-thirds of business leaders are dissatisfied with the Dukakis administra-tion's handling of energy problems.

Nuclear power plants are needed to provide the electricity necessary to support the economic growth of the region and this country. The NRC should make their decision on this proposed rule based on their knowledge of the low risks ass-ociated with low power operation and the facts that SEABROOK STATION was well built, is well staffed and the bottom line - IT IS SAFE.

I encourage the Commission to rule in favor of this proposed rule expeditiously and get Seabrook on line.

Sincerely yours, 3

s me Ma Kfn S.

eericlt 8807010001 000622 PDR PR 50 53FR16435 PI)H

$#lN

!