ML19339C302
| ML19339C302 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1980 |
| From: | King T AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339C301 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011180092 | |
| Download: ML19339C302 (3) | |
Text
.
(~J h
\\-
T.
AL KING aseo PELEAM BOAD. NOftTE
.r. rurs=..URG. FLORfDA September 8, 1980 John F.
Ahearne, Chairman US NRC Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Ahearne,
My wife and I are owners of 15000 shares of General Public Utility stock and we have several questions we would like to ask.
By far the most important matter is this.
In February this year, Florida Power's Nuclear plant at Yankeetown had an accident very similar to the accident at TMI Unit #2.
The fact that this accident was not more serious was very probably due to the experience learned from the troub.a at TMI.
At any rate, both happenings were similar.
L. t in less than 6 months Florida Power's unit is back on 11ae and TMI figures that it will be about 4 more years before their unit will be able to be put on line.
There is a difference in the amount of spill.
Florida Power had, I believe, about 42000 gallons; TMI #2 about 700000 gallons.
Florida Power's cleanup was accomplished in short order, and yet here it is 18 months after the accident and from what I can find cut even the method of handling the water at TMI has ndt been established.
How can this be?
By far the " biggest" matter that is troubling us is in regard to unit #1 which you know was shut down for refueling at the time of -the accident.
This Unit like
- 2 is exactly like the Florida Power unit.
All of the required safeguards have been installed, the personnel have been upgraded as required and yet here 18 months after the accident to TMI unit #2 not only is Unit #1 not back en line, but as things stand now a public hearing mtst be held taking from 60 to 90 days and for some reason'that has not been explained to me this public hearing cannot begin until the first quarter of 1981.
This would mean that a nuclear plant which would cost over one billion dollars to build now and take 14 to 15
~~
~
~~~ ~
80111eocq
King, Page 2 years to complete will be shut down for about 26 months when all it needed was to be brought up to your new safety requir'ments.
Besides the f act that the loss of energy from TMI il has resulted in higher costs of energy because power has had to be purchased and of course this higher cost will have to be passed on to the customers.
To make matters even worse because your commission has refused to allow TMI #1 to start up, the New Jersey and Pennsylvania public utility commissions have removed the capital and operating costs from customers' rates. -The effect of this unit being removed from service and the capital and operating costs being removed from the rate structure will result in a loss of.51c per share.
The reports of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear energy and the General Accounting Office, the Kemeny and Rogovin reports all reached many of the same conclusions.
"The slight radioactivity did not pose a threat to the health of the people nearby."
The only conclusion we can draw from all of the preceding is that your commission is now holding up the operation of TMI Unit #1 because of the panicky condition of the nearby residents.
The members of your commission are well versed in all of the items that we have outlined.
Don't you think that the weight of expert evidence would justify putting Unit #1 on line?
Please keep in mind that each month you wait for expressions from people who are governed solely by uneducated fears is costing the shareholders of GPU millions of dollars.
Sincerely yo rs, T. A.
Krhg {}
TAK/nh
O
(
i
- ')
T.
A. KING 2800 PELMAna BOAD.MORrW
.r. errma..c a. rr.omin.
A Y.
September 8, 1980 President Jimmy Carter The White House Washington, D.C.
20500
Dear President Cartar:
The enclosed letter will_give you a pretty good idea of the things we are trying to get strdight-Ened dEt.
~ ' ~ ~~
~~
~
It is a shame to have the customers of GPU to have to pay more than necessary for the energy ~tK~ey use,
~
andby'the-sametokenwhatashametodeprivethe['
thousands of investors of their dividends and all this - for what?
We will certainly appreciate anything you can do to help correct this condition.
Very truly yours,
/
. A.
TAE/nh Encl.
i l
l
.~
T. /L KIN G 3sse PSLEAM SOAD,NORTN ST. PTTBasst'RG. FLORfDA September 8, 1980 John F. Ahearne, Chairman US NRC Washington, D.
C.
20555
Dear Mr. Ahearne,
My wife and I are owners of_13000 shares of General Public Utility _ stock and.we have,seyeral.gu.estions we would like to ask.
By far the most important matter is this.
In February this year, F_lorida Power's Nuclear plant at Yankeetown had an accident verylinilar toEe-accident at TMI Unit #2.
The fact that this accidedt was' not m6rs' Y6rloHs~was very probably due to the experience learned from the trouble at TMI.
At any rate, both happenings were similar.
Yet in less than 6 months Florida Power's unit is back on line and TMI figures that it will be about 4 more years before their unit will be able to be put on line.
There is a difference in the amount of spill.
Florida Power had, I believe, about 42000 gallons; TMI #2 about 700000 gallons.
Florida Power's cleanup was accomplished in short order, and yet here it is 18 months after the accident and from what I can find out even the method of handling the water at TMI has not been established.
How can this be?
By far the " biggest" matter that is troubling us is in regard to unit #1 which you know was shut down for refueling at the time of the accident.
This Unit like
- 2 is exactly like the Florida Power unit.
All of the required safeguards have been installed, the personnel i
have been upgraded as required and yet here 18 months after the accident to TMI unit #2 not only is Unit #1 not back on line, but as things stand now a public hearing must be held taking from 60 to 90 days and for some reason that has not been explained to me this public hearing cannot begin until the first quarter of 1981.
This would mean that a nuclear plant which would cost over one billion dollars to build now and take 14 to 15
King,-Page 2 years to complete will be shut down for about 26 months when all it needed was to be brought up to your new safety requirements.
Besides the fact that the loss of energy from TMI #1 has
[fresultedinhighercostsofenergybecausepowerhashad f!to be purchased and of course this higher cost will have to be passed on to the-customers.
To make matters even worse because your commission has refused to allow TMI-#1 to start up, the New Jersey and Pennsylvania public utility commissions have removed the capital and operating costs from customers' rates. 'The effect of this unit being removed.from service and the capital and operating costs being removed from the rate structure will result in a loss of.51C per share.
The reports of the U.S.
Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear energy and the General Accounting Office, the Kemeny and Rogovin reports all reached many of the same conclusions.
"The slight radioactivity did not pose a threat to the health of tha people nearby."
The only conclusion we can draw from all of the preceding is that your commission is now holding up the operation of TMI Unit #1 because of'the panicky condition of the nearby residents.
The members of your commission are well versed in all of the items that we have outlined.
Don't you think that the weight of expert evidence would justify putting Unit #1 on line?
Please keep in mind that each month you wait for expressions from people'who are governed solely by uneducated fears is 4
costing the shareholders of GPU millions of dollars.
Sincerely yours, T. A.
King TAK/nh i
l I
l l
t