ML20003D177
| ML20003D177 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1981 |
| From: | Richter T AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103190483 | |
| Download: ML20003D177 (2) | |
Text
.
3/3/81 To:
Mr. Ivan S=ith, Ato=ic Safety and Licensing Board Chair =an Fro = :: Tanya Tho=as Richter, 102 E. L'cust St., Annv111e, PA 17003 o
Re : : Cc==ents sub=itted in lieu of an appearance at the public co==ent session in the TMI Unit I restart hearings.
It is ironic that in stating =y objections to the restart of Met Eds unit I, that I =ust appeal to the very same agency which was responsible for licensing Uhit TI; which was soundly castigated for its failures by the Ke=eny Co==1ssion; which is bdng sued by G?U' for having neg11Fently failed to per,.'or= its duty; and which has remained i= pervious to necessary end reca== ended changes.
In the past conths the NRC received low = arks fro = the Nuclear Safety Oversight Co==ittee, appointed by ex-President Carter, for its failure to monitor safety refor=s followinE TMI.
The inherent predjudices of the NRC are of ut=ost concern to How can the public possibly get a fair hearing?
The very me.
sa a agency whose function is to render an objective judg=ent for the restart of this plant on the basis of the health and safety of the public has been and re=ains to have an orientation toward nuclear advocacy.
An exa=ple of this advocacy position taken by the NRC is de=onstrated by the recent reco==endation made by the NRC staff to relicense, on a low power basis,to help alleviate alleEed projected power shortaEes in the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland (?JM)'
Erid.
Since when is it the function of the NRC to plan for the power needs of the ?JM grid 7 Since when is it their function to predict brcwnouts and blackouts ?' Never =ind that their arEu=ent is a specious one.
The f. action they assu=ed is not their Congressional =andate..
Ja=es Tourtelotte, of t e NRC staff stated that "The staff con-side:. s that the consequencet of an accident while ope"atinE ^A*
cent power are sufficiently.:=all."
This is cold cc= fort
- e public which had beea as sured that a Unit II type accident extre=ely re=ote.
g p
'8g9 '
CS 3
Considering Unit I"a prox 1=1ty to Unit IT, prudence u$t
/,
db a
dictate the delay of the decision cf restart till the cc tin hm l
hazard which exists on the island has been ell =inated, p JMic g 4}/
q inlightofthefactthattheclean-upisagiantexperiep*,
Inadequate e=ergency =anaEe=ent plans were a =s jor conc is
\\'
6 to the Ke=eny Co==ission.
For instance, one of their findinE was that potassiu iodide, a blocking agent to prevent the accu =ulation of radiciodine in the thyroid Eland, was not available.
On February 26, 1981, I spoke with Clyde Miller of the Lebanon County Emergency ManaEe=ent Agency.
I asked hi= that if we had a nuclear accident tomorrow which would rec.uire the use of potassiu=
iodide, would it be available.
He stated thct it had been ordered but he did not have it...TWO YEAP.S AFTER THE ACCIDENTP The Lebanon Comaty E=ergency ManaEe=ent Agency's "I=ergency Operationo Plan-Radiation Incidents-Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant" is
[
8108190483
- U
Richter-TMI Re start 2
~
inadequato to handle a seriouc accident.
The avecuation plan channels the population out onto roads which are incdequate to handle the volume of traffic.
The Eeneral public remains no more knowled eable now about evacuation than before the accident.
E Key institutions, particularly schools remain uninforced about specifics of the plan.
Were an accident to occur tomorrow, the evacuation situation would be only sli htly more effective than E
it was before March, 28, 1979.
If these public input meetings are not simply pro for:a, I would be very =uch surprised. Particularly in light of a comment made by Joseph Hendrie, and NRC Com=issioner who stated:: "ConFress has already decided that the country is to have a nuclear power program, even if it makes so=e people uneasy."
In other words, public opinion doesn't count even though we have subjected to two incredibly stress filled years because of a near disastrous accident and subsequent clean up of which' the full effects will not be known for thirty years.
As a Met-Ed ratepayer, I would rather continue paying higher electrk bills, alonE with adopting strict conservation =easures than be subjected to the mental anEuish of anticipatinE another accident, however remote.
I: object to the burden of proof beinE placed..on me to justify why Unit I~ should not be restarted.
Both the NRC and the utility should have to prove to ne beyond a doubt why it should be restarted'.
l i
- - - -, - ~,
- -, + - - -
.v.-
,