ML20126G930

Opposes Restart of Plant

ML20126G930
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	03/05/1981
From:	Newhouse D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC
References
NUDOCS 8104020415
Download: ML20126G930 (1)

Text

Earch 5, 1981 - statement to the Atomic safety and Licensing Board concerning the restart of TMI Unit i s First, I want to thank you for the opportunity given me and others to voice opinions on this vita. issue. And I'll be quick to ti.e point. As a family j

man with three young sons who lives only six miles from Lud in sight of TMI, I am firmly against the restart of any TLE reactor now or at any time in the 1

future.

Let me add that prior to the March 28, 1979 ac:ident, I had no great con-corns about being so close a neighbo?%hese nuclear reactors. I basically trusted the government and the industry in their s.asertions as to the safety of nuclear power. In fact, on 1: arch 28, while the accident was well under way, four generations of my family, from my sons to their great grandmother, walked together about our neighborhood enjoyidg that warm, sunny spring day. They even looked down at the huge cooling towers in the distance, totally unaware that radiation %as spewing from the plant and that the sun rays weren't the only ones falling from the sky that day.

Since then, BC studies have indicated that the Unit 2 reactor came within 30 to 60 minutes of melting down early that morning. That leaves less than one hour between what actually happened and a far worse catastrophe. That is too close for my comfort. This fact still scares the hell out of me, espe-cially when I realize that this critical point in the accident occurred many hours before me, my family or most of the world kt;ew anything about what was happening and about to unfold.

"'he confusing performance of Met-Ed, the RC and all the.various other m

4%

during the rest of that episode in March and April of 1979 has shaken -

and trust I ever had in this country's nuclear industry. This past p

h,04)O d(

e of Met-Ed cannot be ignored in considering the restart of Unit 1.

.e t ia that Met-Ed is a member of private industry whose primary p.g motivation is profit, not safety. With the stakes so high and

!g ;; ".s'."m"n,., 9q:,q,e,rn y%1dr 't safety co.me firs ti

.3 els e,4,% h.

The ?/ arch 28 accident and events since u*ahmuncaroM to me that Let-Ed is not willing to spend enough, at the expense s,

u

\\h

• ""M"proth/ to employ ecough talented expertise to safely run such a technically sephi ted riant. And I seriously doubt whether there is enou.th such super vailable for all tne nuclear plants we've spread around our beautiful

tb @ry.

l If Unit 1 is restarted, I can imagine the fear and paranoia that will spread through this area cvery time the plant burps, as all these plants invari-ably do quite frequently. l'any people, probably thcusands, will live with suit-l cases packed. They will jump in fear at T13ls slightest s tir..

I sincerely askt Is this what America has come to? Are we to hold an entire community hostage for the sake of a private utility which has already grossly failed in its duties and responsibilities? Are we going to us e our own citizens as guinea pigs to test the real consequences of the first full-fledged meltdown?

Met-Ed had our trust and lost it.

The company let us dcwn. Due to the possible agnitude of grave consequences should this company fail again, they cannot be given a secend chance.

Closing these two plants will hurt one company, but it must be done. Such action will restore the faith and trust of the peo",le here and around the ecuntry, and as a result, it will also strengthen 'the nuclear industry as a go3 wholo. The industry will have to regend positively to tais cleer and strong v g message that any utility that is so sareless will face enormous economic coneequenees.

Therefore, I stron.;17 hope and pray that this board will close Unit i forever. This is tne only action that will return maximum pee ce and t-e-quility to this community. After what we 'v e beeri througn here, we y@

--Dean G.

!ewhous e, 205 sunset Dri- /

h;_.

no less.

q, New Cumberland, Pa.

17070 kb%

9?twkn~u.

% e&,,Q-

"j

. +-

p, 9104 n e n 415 Y 'f

-