ML20196E352
| ML20196E352 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1988 |
| From: | Laroche A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR16435, RULE-PR-50 53FR16435-00949, 53FR16435-949, NUDOCS 8807010605 | |
| Download: ML20196E352 (1) | |
Text
--
W DOCKET liUMBER n
PROPOSE 9 RULE IL_E -
5fyf!J 53FR/& F35
'88 JN 23 P1 :55 June 22,1988 0FFIC'. L..:.: Is.n 00CKO N s W.vru B3ANCH Secretary of the Commission Attn:
Docketing and Service Branch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Sir,
This is my first letter even in support of licensing of the Seabrook Plant.
I've listened to several alternatives to nuclear power and all would have greater environmental impact than Seabrook. Living next door to a trash burner and to some extent a fossil plant to me are not very attract:ye alternatives. Although we would all benefit by having less trash around, the air we breath would be less than. pure and would contribute to our acid rain problem. The same is true for fossil plants only in addition we are also depleting one of our most valuable resources not to mention the impact of mining and drilling.
The Scabrook plant is perhaps the safest in the country, if we don't license this plant then we may as well shut the rest of them down.
I'm sure this is not feasible where there st' parts of the country that receive up to 75% of their pawer from nuclear.
56 brook's built, its time that we operate this plant, the power is needed.
Sincerely yours, h @ 1. LaRoche M-Andre 69 Mears Ave.
Quincy, MA 02169 i