ML19350C932

Opposes Opening of Facility.No New OLs Should Be Granted Until Safe,Permanent Way Is Found to Dispose of Nuclear Waste

ML19350C932
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	03/15/1981
From:	AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8104100404
Download: ML19350C932 (1)

Text

kli@ aseET NUMBE:t M OD d UIlL PsC. g 6 % , {

N 6- w:nTo

' "0  ?, 154 Morgan Blvd. .

2 MAR 31 Igg ,

• IN 46383 9-Valparaiso, March 15, 1981 g,,gg Cocntin 3 % oiN y  !:ms N,} 5 g Mr. Joseph Hendrie Chairman m- e k/"c

/?/ Lh d Nuclear Regulatory Commission i NM 0 9193;"fp H 1717 E. Street N.W. n u.s. %

Washington, D.C. 20555 gC dI@^'*"'

Qg '

Dear Mr. Hendrie-Much to our dismay, we learned from a recent news article that your commission has approved NIPSCO's use of short pilings for their planned Bailly power plant.

The most important reason we oppose this nuclear power plant is the devastating effect a major accident would have on neople, due to the high population density so close to the site.

The Bailly site fails every category in the proposed site sel-ection standards that resulted from the Three Mile Island disas-ter.

In addition, what do we (not you in your office 1000 miles away} do when the steel mills and all industry in Forter and Lake counties have to clase for 20 years or more until the radiation levels are safe. The economy would cease to exist, not to mention the effect on the water table, crops, and Lake Michagan.

Back when NIPSCO first proposed this plant their project-ed power needs for the future were based on a 10% increase per year in demand through 1985 For several reasons amoung them conservation, that projection was more than 60% wr,ong. Experts are now predicting that demand growth through 1990 will be 3%

to 4% at the very most. That estimate could easily be met with athecoal-burning projected $ 2 plant billion " ecst built on of the sameNuclear Br.1117 site at far I. less that A coal burn-ing plant may not be as profitable to JIPSCO but it would be a lot safer, and put unemployed coal miners to work.

Aside from the personal fears we have for the safety of our children and our community, we would also suggest to you that until a safe, permanent way is found to dispose of (not store) all the nuclear waste created by currently operating plants, no new ones be granted operating permits. The Love Canal mess proves we don't know how to handle chemical wastes, because bury-ing them doesn't make the problem go away. Neither will burying nuclear waste. The possible disaster of a nuclear radiation type

" Love Canal" scares the hell out of us.

.. 1 0: ._.

_ 8104100 %