ML20003A625
| ML20003A625 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1981 |
| From: | Amy Hull AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102040443 | |
| Download: ML20003A625 (1) | |
Text
f*
O q
DOCl2TT:
9 0 M81 > h P. O. Box 413 x
DCCKET NUr.::ER Upton, New York 11973 800. & UTIL FAC.["4 d 8i Offim cf E:g3m[
7 D% G Sctf
- "*" N L D, 1981 21 h.
E~ac-Q,.
jf
\\k
'3
,g~,r..a y
U b
0 ;%
"Re.9 Mr. John F. Ahearne, Chairman
{ T.9 Docket 50-289SP U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis n
$p C TMI-Unit 1 c4 1717 H. Street, NW p
8 Middletown, PA Washington, DC 20555 ro
Dear Mr. Ahearne:
Q5/
4 From my reading of industry reports, I have become aware that the Coc=ission is in the midst of what seems to be a protracted consideration of the restart of Unit 1 of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station.
I write on the basis of my two decades of experience as a health physi-cist,with a particular interest in reactor related environmental radiation and an avocational interest in risk assessment,to urge a prompt favorable decision.
While I agree that the local population may need assurance of its safety, nevertheless, I find no significance overriding factors related to the proximity of TMI-l and TMI-2 that make the restart of TMI-1 any more hazardous than the operation of a number of comparable B&W reactors in other localities in the US.
Meanwhile, insof ar as the issue revolves around health and safety, the production of power by alternative fossil plants would appear to pro-duce a greater risk to their surrounding populations than would the pro-i duction of this power by TMI-1, so that in a sense the local residents are l
exporting this greater risk of the power they are using onto other more distant persons.
l Insofar as much of the original unwarranted hysteria of the popula-tion surrounding TMI at the time of the incident on 3/28/79 and shortly thereafter were produced by NRC's unfounded alarms (i.e.2 the mistaken reco=mendation for evacuation on the morning of 3/30, on the wrong assump-tion that a 1,200 mR/hr measurement was a field environmental one, when in f act it was obtained on board a helicopter just over the stack and the later on the same day of the explosive potential of the hydro-misjudg=ent gen bubble, which really spooked the public). It seems to me that NRC has a heavy obligation to deflate this hysteria that is largely of its crea-l I do not feel that a long drawn out procedurally clumsy set of tion.
hearings, considerations and reconsiderations is consistent with this obli-gation.
Yours truly, b
Andrew P. Hull Certified Health Physicist j
APH/sig 81020<oqq3 SiI