ML19269E362
| ML19269E362 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley, Surry, Maine Yankee, FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1979 |
| From: | Katzenstein R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19269E361 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906270266 | |
| Download: ML19269E362 (2) | |
Text
.
s 23 Howland Lane Hingham, Massachusetts 02043 March 15, 1979 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
SbBJECT:
Shutdown of Five Nuclear Reactor Powered Generating Stations - Protest of Order Ge-lemen:
This letter is for the purpose of expressing my serious objections to your subject actions.
I am a licensed Professional Engineer (NY 21822) and was formerly involved the in design, construction, test and operation of Nuclear Plants at management level.
Based on newspaper stories, and the poorly prepared electronic media reports, it appears to me that the NRC is trying to be absolutely safe in a world where this is an impossibility.
Your unwillingness to accept the responsibility for evaluating and accepting a risk, no matter how small, without consideration.of the benefits, is more like the action of a low level bureaucrat than of the type of executive expected at the Commissioners level.
Your lack of coordination with the President's atte=pt to reduce /,pendence on foreign oil shows a serious lack of concern for our great cor.stry.
' ops, steam and It is my understanding that the design of the main coolant feed piping, instrumentation and all systems excepting on'_f the emergency core Your release and cooling were based on criteria still considered proper.
You did not state any value for the deficiency in the order did not so state.
emergency core cooling, though it should be possible to approximate it.
The words used were "less conservative".
This approach to an engineering decision is ridiculous, just how conservative is sufficiently conservative and why.
I also believe that no one has critic 1ced the strength of the piping only the s trength of the anchors.
This also makes me doubt the rationale for ordering the plants secured.
4 2131 259 7906L10Z66
~ ~
s The added " risk" to the general public assumes that an earthquake of sufficient severity to cause failue of core cooling would coincide with the random failure is so small as to be of the admittedly properly designed other systems, You must agree to that, as for example, in my 60 plus years of negligible.
Therefore, living in these areas I have never felt a noticeable earthquake.
your action must have an emotional, rather than a technical basis.
The risk to the general public of more fossil fuel being transported and burned in my opinion, far outweighs the nuclear risk, yet your opinion does not mention this.
The political risk imperting an extra 100,000 BBL of fuc1 oil per day probably did not enter into your decision, but it certainly should have.
s The added cost of power may cause elderly or low fixed income people to forgo some medicine, or food.
This may be of no concern to yc:2, but it should have been a part of your risk evaluation.
When will the commission s' top acting as a tool of Nader's impossible dream, get down to earth, and accept the fact that everything in life carries some risk?
I saw in the paper that some men for no apparent reason, stop breathing when asleep in bed, so even being in bed is risky.
I commend to you Baron de Rothchild's latest speech in which he said that a windmill is m3re dangerous than a nuclear plant, and suggest that you revoke your previous order.
As information for improving plants becomes available, i=plement it where it is economically and technically feasible, on a rational, not emotional basis.
The I am not against safety, just against stupidity, and safety at any cost.
one renewable resource in the world is people, and we will have to, sooner or later, decide how much of the non-renewable resources we will expend to save or lengthen one life.
Very truly yours, sS) v /$*
W l 65n RichardL.Kktzensfein,P.E.
/
v' 2131 26C
~ - - - - -,. - -
- g. _.._. _, _ _
,