ML20235J755
| ML20235J755 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook, 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1987 |
| From: | Baumann C, Baumann E BAUMANN, E.L. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 52FR6980-04255, 52FR6980-4255, NUDOCS 8710020082 | |
| Download: ML20235J755 (1) | |
Text
=*g V
PRh)PdSED RULE (52 FR 6980 g g:
>a M ay 27,1987- -...
25 Long BovT'fsc Wading River,N.Y.11792 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regularty Commission
?? JUN -3 P61'
'# ashingt on, D.C. 20555 Attn. Docketing and Service Branch j
Re:Shoreham and Seabrook Nuchp; ?lanta,,
Supplementing our letter dated May 23,1987, there are sevehtLNimportant l
facts that were not mentioned, that we feel are important for us to convey to you.
The types of plants by preference when considering our ecology and safety we would list or classify as follows;
- 1. Hydro-power as best for all concerned.
- 2. Nuclear-power is ecologically preferable to either coal, oil or gas, all safety measures as recommended have'been built in and if properly monitored,there should be no complications or fears.
- 3. Coel-power is not ecologically acceptable. The many i
problems in mining such as cave-ins and fires has
]
resulted in the loss of many lives, permanent injury j
and debilitating health problems.
j
- 4. Oil-power also is not ecologically acceptable and also
{
there are many safety problems. ~ Again, the source of j
supply at the well has inherent dangers of fire etc.
Transmission lines over thousands of miles of land are dangero'ts, subject to rupture and are unsightly.
Storage tanks also have blown up.
- 5. Gas-power is probably more acceptable from an ecological point of view, but from a safety point of view is very hazardous. many explosions have occured with the loss of many lives and permanent injuries. Also the trans-miss4on lines are dangerous and unsigtly.
Considering all factors it is our opinion that Nuclear-Power would be the next most acceptable to Hydro-Power.
The lack of cooperation of local governments (for Shoreham alone) to participate in emergency planning has cost taxpayers and consumers upwards of SEVENTY MILLION DOLLARS for legal fees etc.
WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY.
State and Local Governments issued permits to build these plants and the cost is now approximately FIVE BILLION DOLLARS each. How can they repudiate their original intent?
We urge your serious consideration and without further delay issue
'. icenses to operate the present completed Nhelear' P'1 ants ~
at one hundred percent capacity.
Thank you.
3 Sincerely l Q Q ':),,u w 1
+
C; i.
Y 1
v Flicabeth 1. Baumann l
C. Arthur Ecumann
/ j ((ghet#. -
m 8710020002 870527 j
DS10:
m add:
P. Crane, H-1035 l
J. Lane, 266 PHIL j
L
- j