ML20196E972
| ML20196E972 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook, 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1988 |
| From: | Anthony Palmer AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR16435, RULE-PR-50 53FR16435-01172, 53FR16435-1172, NUDOCS 8807010728 | |
| Download: ML20196E972 (1) | |
Text
DGChElliU;, min MOVOSED RULE $ SO W3 PR Jep 39 iM.f Mr. Anthony D. Palmer 322 Portsmouth Ave.
Greenland, N.H. 03840 18 JN 23 P6 :02 June 20,1988 Secretary of the Commision fo'cN&,$. -i./Eu Attn: Docketing and Service Branch me U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Secretary of the Commission; I am writing to urge the NRC to do several things concerning the Seabrook Nuclear Plant.
First, you are currently reviewing a proposed Interpretive rule which would spell out the requirements for a 5% license. The Interpretive rule making would Dat require strens. I urge you to support this change and and expedite matters. Massachusetts communities, at the urging of the Massachusetts Attorney General, have been doing everything possible to block licensing of this plant, including the removal of strens.
While it is my understanding that the owners of Seabrook have an adequate substitute, hearings concerning the substitute could chew up more precious time for something that should not be required for a low power license, and the Massachusetts government should not be rewarded for abandoning their responsibilities to the taxpayers and political showboating for the sake of an election year.
Second a 5% license by itself isn't good enough, as the Shoreham situation should tells us all. Please cut through the red tape as rapidly as possible to get Seabrook on the line and reduce further cost. The two objections to the plant, by the professional anti-technologist, are safety and economics. The safety objection has been time and again proven to be unsubstantiated. Politicians are exploiting and f anning the flames of nuclear hysteria for their own selfish purposes. This plant is the safest nuclear plant ever built. If your fine staff cannot find any problems outstanding af ter the years of debate and wolf-crying, perhaps there is no problem to be found. I am tired of hearing the same false statements dragged out and all the same evidence reviewed, it is time to move ahead. We in New England need this energy now and further delays are only costing os more for the political gain of a few.
Please take a good, hard look at what you are about to decide and please simplify the licensing process. This can be done with the one-stop process, in which you spell out objectives to be attained and a review / monitoring by staff to ensure that they believe that the objectives will, in f act, be attained.
Sincerelyyou ;
Ils Antho'ny D. P 1 er 701 720 800620 50 53FR16435 PDR I
_