ML20126J299
| ML20126J299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1981 |
| From: | Robert Lewis AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104240285 | |
| Download: ML20126J299 (1) | |
Text
..
.... -.. _... ~ _ _.
i i
- r. m. u c a. ::.:. $. 9..::.9.
\\
L Dear $ s ?
I've heard that the t
NRC IGsfeertmf restarting TMi-I while TMI-2 is being cleaned up. I'm opposed to this idea.
[
if TMI-I has an accident, the entire site, including TMl-2, may have to be abandoned during q.
the clean-uo. And i f TMl-2 has another accident during the clean-up, use of the facilities i
the reactors share will be com-f plicated by having Unit i In op-
- oration, e
Since Met Ed can get its el-ectricity from other companies in the PJM system, why must we Im-pose extra hazards just so Met Ed utility investors can get more money f rom the rate-payers by put-ting TMl l.back in the rate base?
I I believe the investors should bear the full costs of a clean-up that proceeds as safely as possible. The Nuclear Safety Oversight Comittee thinks we should bill American taxpayers to ball out Met Ed.
Another plan di!'V' would have customers of nuclear 6
utilities pay extra to cover this l
, ~ Q,Va,
%s s
accident and future ones. But the Y"
rate-and taxpayers had no choice k
in some utilities' risky decision tF ' 2
.J to go nuclear. If TMl had run 6 1981 * {t--
'""t h l v th' ' a v t or' " "' d "a t i
AFR p'
O
- - %...d.,*
N'*
clean-up losses with them? That have shared their profits with us.
Why, then. should we share their
. l
#,h/
goes against our free enterprise Ideal.
']
Please oppose any plans to 3
j lg r2 make ratepayers and taxpayers com-j pensate for Met E D Ti invest-me n t.
- I. u.16 L e w $5 l
i l
i
)
t Me40eg5 g4 t
i i
,.m.
.m.,
,.4,,
.aes-
,,m,,.
.a.y-w-e s
m-
--