ML20203Q160

Discusses Support for Plant,Emergency Evacuation Planning & Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel

ML20203Q160
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/29/1986
From:	Haines D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Dukakis M MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
References
NUDOCS 8605090068
Download: ML20203Q160 (3)

Text

'

SOKOL. HAINES & MUSGRAVE. P.A.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID SOKOL 15 COURT SQ DALLAS W. H All JES tit

• SUtTE 190 2 ALAN S MUSGAAVE DOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS O2100 2503 MtNDY G KINGS '. 2.

(Ot7) 723-6404

• PROCTOR IN AOMIRALTY April 29, 1986 Governor Michael Dukakis State House Boston, MA 02109 Re: New Hampshire Yankee, Nuclear Fower Plant, Seabrook, New Hampshire

Dear Governor Dukakis:

Although my office is in Boston, I reside in Amesbury, Massachusetts. I have only resided in Amesbury for a few years, but am intrigued by the recent developments concerning the opening of the nuclear power plant at Seabrook. My information, like many . people, is somewhat limited. I have followed the issue in the local papers, where I discern some degree of prejudice, and attended a few local meetings. In an effort to learn more I recently took a tour of the facility, and left with a better understanding of its operation.

While I am aware that a number cf people have protested nuclear power for some time, including this particular plant, I am disappointed to perceive that the so-called evacuation planning committee in Amesbury consists virtually of anti-nuclear people. The foundation of their reasoning, in persuading the Town Meeting Members, by only a slight majority, not to participate in evacuation planning, is that evacuation will not be possible in a " worst case", and " catastrophic" release of radioactive emissions, regardless of the extreme remoteness of such an occurrence.

From my perspective we live in a technological society. The day of the horse and buggy are gone. Woodrow Wilson's appeal to isolationism proved disastrous in the end. We rely heavily on the Muammar Gaddafis' of the world for our energy, a reality which no are favors. Nuclear energy has been a part of our society for decades now. I bell' eve that we have learned from Three-Mile Island. I believe the concerns of the public should be addressed in a professional competent manner, but I do not believe this power plant is inherently dangerous and should thus be deprived of its functional purpose - to provide 5% of 8605090068 860429 DR ADOCK 0500 3 @\\ . 4/.S/g/fD dl /(

e New England's electrical energy. It strikes me as absurd that we, as a society, have allowed the project to progress to this stage, after the usual political, legal, and administrative reviews at the outset, only to cry " halt" at the eleventh hour. I urge you not to let this becone solely a political issue, but rather deal with it in its true setting, which is nationwide and international in scope, and not just limited to the confines of a ten (10) mile radius of the facility in seabrook, New Hampshire. These people who happen to live within the ten mile radius of the facility and who are opposed to the opening of the plant, and who are fundamentally

" anti-nuclear" in perspective, and perhaps narrow-minded, should not be allowed to dictate policy for much of New England which needs the energy. Fear tactics have little place in this matter. While reality dictates that the issue is partly a political one, I appeal to your professionalism and ask that you recognize that a substantial number of people are not opposed to the plant, although they are obviously not as vocal as their counterparts.

On another note, while I favor the opening of this nuclear facility, given proper consideration of all the pertinent factors, I am truly baffled by the several proposals to store spent nuclear fuel in New England. We are a heavily populated area, and at a glance it seems to make far more sense to store it in a remote sparsely populated area. Not that I encourage sending our so-called nuclear waste material to a distant neighbor, but logic seems to dictate that position.

Respectfully, hy AA f Dallas W. Haines, III DH/pe cc. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2

..__._._.____._m_.__.___.,, . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _., _ . _ . . . ,

.\.

.. . , ., n u .. v n,,, . . , . -+ , , .

-m ~'d- -v v }^ ' ' * ' ' ua a - .<

.. &. +-f n 4 Q-M -a ~

v, n a> 4 ;n,iU-i _.

t-ss **m SOKOL. H AINES & MUSGRAVE. P.A. o tt. 4i N -

e

_.t 15 couMT so -7 t -

4

^ -

suite ttoa .. - _ _ - -e I,MA s ,, ;

soSTOM MASSACHUGETTS O290 8 5 nu i  %-L"

.- ~

• , +44. .(,,. . .

.~ -,

Oct. -

i Nuclear Rugulatory Commission '

's Licensing Dept. '

Washington, D.C. , i. .

20555 .!

if.

s '

i.

i # 'F '

W"M'*'*7--r****' ""*N%#*M******'MW'W' '

1. "** ' * ' * ' ' " " ' " "'"'-O*'* ' * ' *W* ""#***WN '9'"**~

1srw-ve,w yf t.m .=p+.nv3.g_e-w v,uw ,, e y-e . i.w ,a 4-, g .r d %"f""4 W WM -' <-c+

t 8