ML19259C992
| ML19259C992 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1979 |
| From: | James Smith DOWNWIND ALLIANCE |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19259C991 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908280246 | |
| Download: ML19259C992 (1) | |
Text
, - - -
5_
=
e
..s
- =.~.
f5 i=
DOWNWIND ALLIANCE 2
P.O. Box 13420-South Lake Tahoe, CA 95702
.=
June 6, 1979 R-Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 5
E Washington, D.C. 20555
=m 2-3 5_,,
Dear Mr. Chilk:
On May.17,1979'I attended the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of
=M the Sacramento Municipal Utility District on behalf of the Downwind Alliance.
32 During the early hours of that meeting the SMUD Board voted 3-2 not to holda E
public hearing on the question of the reopening of the Rancho Seco nuclear power 2
plant.
One of the primary reasons the members chose not to hold that hearing E
was that it would further delay the scheduled reopening of the plant, then ex-M pected to happen around June 1.
5 Well toward the end of the meeting, hours after the vote mentioned above TE and after the testimony from persons requesting the public hearing, it was de-Mg vulged that'. new problems related to the Rancho Seco generator, would require substanti.al_ additional. corrective work.
I asked at that time if the new problem E
was likely to delay the planned reopening of the plant beyond the June 1 date.
pg SMUD's chief engineer was positive that it would not and so the question of there
=5 possibly being some additional. time during which a public hearing could be held Qg was assumed moot.
Now we know better, do we not?
M First, it was clearly unethical not to have announced _the_._ additional,__ pro _blem g
to the. public.and_.to the. SMUD Board prjor.'to_the vote. on whether or not to hold
=
52 the public hearing.
Even the possibility of additional (butdown time might have Second, if I was not lied to regaruing the matter of possible made the difference.
5 additional delay,.5 MUD!.s_ experts _"best._ guesses"._ (their_ tem). are. poor enough to.
E cause concern with the quality of.their__ guessing, especially considering the nature E
of the technology they are supposedly controlling.
Firally, at least from news 3
reports, there is still no_ cleat _decis_ ion _as'_toiwhat_.went_wr_ong_atJancho_Se_c.o_'._s 5
sister plant in'Hardsbur.g. The p_u_blLc_n_eeds to knqw_.lus.tJb.at_slens_nay.e_been p-Mken at Rancho Seco_and tney have a richt to make their tmst or lack o# i'_knog p-before_the_ plant reopens.
M Rancho Seco has been "down" just about as much as it has been operational.
T3 The peak season is stiil ahead of us. Will it serve the public better to shut it down in August and hold a public hearing then?
If not in the interest of public
=
safety, then in the interest of common sense: p_ lease, a hearing now.
M I would appreciate yo.ur comments on the actions of the.5 MUD Soard and on the M
apparent lack of. knowledge.or. ethics on the part of the SMUD staff regardi.ng the
.ma matter..of_the publi.c _ hearing _and the. length..of.. time.of the shutdown.
g Someone must have some straight answers.
=-
5 ina m for your hely 2107 215 5
@vMc N
Jiry$mith
[
2k
.T [
cc: SMUD Sen. Garamendt, 1908280 6
g JE lE Assmolyman McCarthy g
'H
_ _ _ _ _