ML20196K974
| ML20196K974 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1988 |
| From: | Rogers D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR16435, RULE-PR-50 53FR16435-01255, 53FR16435-1255, NUDOCS 8807070186 | |
| Download: ML20196K974 (1) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
l255 GDCK[1 NUMBER ?S Y e2000MD RULE Junk"....Q,1988
~
\\
(53 F R jd3T)
S0cretary of the Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch
'88 J)I 23 P6 :49 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 OFF ICf. U
- et'M' MCKEilNG A SU'VICI.
BRANCH To The Commissioners, The reason for this letter is to support your decision concerning the rule clarification as to the requirements of emergency planning nseds during "low-power" testing at a nuclear power plant.
I support your findings that a full-scale public notification system is not necessary during this testing phase.
As a resident of the New Hampshire seacoast area and an employee of New Hampshire Yankee, I feel that Seabrook Station is safely built cnd that the riske associated with low-power testing at the plant are insignificant.
I have been involved in the nuclear industry for eight years and have seen, first hand, the safety that is built into the nuclear power plants being licensed today.
I am proud to be casociated with an industry that can boast about its commitment to public safety and of its incomparable safety record.
For these reasons I support the rule change as proposed.
Also, I would like to point out that a fully operational public notification system is in place in the surrounding New Hampshire communities and there "was" one installed in the Massachusetts communities, (available for re-installation at the States request).
In closing, the rule clarification is, in my opinion, just a clarification and does not pose any safety risk to the public.
Sincerely,
/
-~
Daniel P.