Comment (4) of Geordie Vining on FR Doc # 2010-17652

I do not believe that the NRC should be making a decision now about relicensing the Seabrook plant for the years 2030-2050. The existing license will carry the plant through the next two decades, and nobody at the NRC or anywhere else has any clear idea about the technology, waste disposal, political and social events, and threat assessment 20 years from now. I understand that the existing regulations allow the plant to apply for an extension now, but that is no reason for one to be granted. A review now is heavily slanted towards locking in the plant when we know little about its structural condition in 20 years, the feasibility of disposing of the large quantity of radioactive waste in the temporary pools, the possibility of terrorist attacks on other nuclear facilities in the U.S., climate change, population growth and evacuation plans, etc. We who live in the area nearby live with the plant today and the potential risks, recognizing the energy created and economic impacts, and perhaps those elements will balance out the risks in the future, but I firmly believe that it is irresponsible to approve this now. The NRC could use its discretion to either reject the application until it is more ripe, or review it and decide to postpone the decision for 10-15 years so that we can have a reasonable discussion. So far, we have received little or no indication that the NRC has any desire to do anything but grant extensions along with some potential modifications, and avoid the larger questions involved. I am concerned that the NRC been fully "captured" by the industry it nominally regulates vs. acting in a more independent and even-handed manner. Do we extend a middle-aged person's driver's license so that they are legal to drive another 40 years when it is possible their health and eyesight will be impaired when they are in their 80's or 90's? No. Please do not dismiss these rational concerns, and demonstrate that you are acting fully in the public's interest.