To the editor:
Certainly we should let the science decide the fate of Seabrook, but it is inappropriate to let the anti-nuclear groups provide that science (”Editorial: Let science set fate of Seabrook license,” Dec. 27).
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not on one side of the debate on Seabrook and the anti-nuclear groups on the other. Given their vast expertise, the NRC needs to be the final arbiter of what is safe and what does not meet their requirements.
All concrete ages and loses strength with time. The ultimate question is how much and does the loss compromise the safety of the plant. An expert on concrete cannot answer that question, and all Brown can do is tell us the state of the concrete and what might it be in the future.
On the other hand, there are real standards which the NRC uses to make their decisions, regardless of the hysteria that opposition groups try to foment.
The Eagle-Tribune is right to note that Seabrook has, despite the drama, been a tremendous asset to the region. As long as the NRC deems the plant safe to operate, and a 20-year license extension is warranted, then we should all be able to sleep comfortably knowing we are well protected.