ML19350B472
| ML19350B472 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1981 |
| From: | Breckenridge P PENNFIELD CORP. |
| To: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103200620 | |
| Download: ML19350B472 (2) | |
Text
PROD.& UTIL FAC.,.pgg._-
DOCKET NUMBER D
, g W11 %
l i.
pennfield corpcrotien 711 Rohrerstown Road.P.O. Box 4366 d
I Lancastee. PennsyNania 176C 8 717/299-3'-
MAR 9 Igg,
-1E 0
%g March 5,1981 g
2 N,pl.
h(l S
U4-to Mr. Ivan W. Smith, Chairinan Atomic Safety & Licensing Board n'
8/g Al 25 North Court Street g
Harrisburg, PA 17101 g
Dear Chairman Smith:
I am presenting testimony, herein, on behalf of Pennfield Corporation, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. We have four divisions operating in the Met-Ed service area, and are greatly concerned about the continuing shutdown of the undamaged reacto'r, Unit
- 1 at TMI. The increased electricity costs at one division alone, Pennfield Farms Poultry Processing plant in Fredericksburg, Pa., amounted to over $23,000 in 1980, with no increase in operations from 1979. Total increased costs for our other three locations was appro imately $18,000.
a The economic impact on industry, because of the high cost to purchase powet; has been severe.
It has contributed to Pennsylvania's already deteriorating business climate by discouraging both future expansion and increased employment. Addition-ally, it has also reduced the ability of industry to compete, and in fact, to stay in business.
Pennfield reaslizes that economics cannot be the only concern to ba addressed when considering the start-up of Unit #1. Without a doubt, safety must be primary. How-ever, we are confident that Met-Ed is committed to public safety and can clearly prove to the NRC and the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board, that all scfety require-ments and modifications, imposed on the other seven currently-ooeratim Babcock &
Wilcox reactors since the accident, have been implemented.
Further, GPU has stated that they are committed to going beyond all stringent safety standards defined by the Kemeny & Rogovin studies and new standards of the NRC by translating the lessons learned from TMI-2 into improved equipment specifi-cations, operating procedures and operator training.
It woul.d be ludicrous to-think that Met-Ed would start up an unsafe reactor and risk a second accident.
With these known facts, we urge you to recommend the government approvals necessary for the imediate start-up of Unit #1, even while hearings ara ongoing.
If 8103200 M h
$ & 8'/
~
Without a doubt, public emotions and fear run high; but we believe that is based on lack of knowledge and inadequate comunication -- tnere are definite misconceptions about the risks associated with nuclear energy and nuclear power plants. People in the TMI area, although not hurt physically, were very shaken by the accident, and did, indeed suffer mental stress -- stress which could be alleviated by learning the facts about nuciear power. We would urge Met-Ed, or GPU as the parent company, to increase the momentum of their public relations with a credible communications and education program about nuclear power. People fear what they do not know.
Education and understanding will be the key elements to the successful and immediate start-up of TMI Unit #1 and the future licensing of nuclear power plants in this country.
Very truly yours.
lr*l
.J G FCC.hCn e } C.-
Patricia A. Breckenridge Director, Public Affairs i
O