ML19337A077

Protests NRC Decision Not to Permit Psychological Stress Issue at Restart Hearings.Failure to Address Issue Would Raise Question Re Credibility of Including Issue in Unit 2 Cleanup Hearing

ML19337A077
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	09/03/1980
From:	Ertel A HOUSE OF REP.
To:	Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8009080346
Download: ML19337A077 (2)

Text

- - -. .. - - . -

r All.EN E.EMTE1.

eBoo,_ -

3l osevnecT erricas.

.7 .

.,y. P.e.e e.

. _, _e e c.e? m PAxTwo STuss?

1030 Lassowesme Mcwes Orrwu h HAmsmemune. Poseevsvassa 17111

• ~ ' J' i .'*

• Congregg of tije Enitch dictated ,

P.een. _

co= =r = oa voue= = =

AMO TRANSPORTATION Kpouse of Repregentatibed w--- imi (717) M14 e - - m =oa.ei=~ee EEasffngton, D.C. 2051? ~ ~ -

SepeWAT. PWeWVLW4fe4 17e01 AMOT=CNNCLOGY

<7snneeeue Septemeber 3, 1980  ? c p occxETEo Honorable John F. Ahearne -

C "

Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission p"

SEP - 4 Jg80 >

Office of the Secrehty 1717 H Street, N.W. Decketing & Seryjee 8 Washington, D.C. 20555 c3 Eran4 s

Dear Chairman Ahearne:

4 3 As the Nuclear Regulatory Commission mover to begin its hearings e whether or not to permit Three Mile Island Unit 1 to be re-

. 4.d rte d , I am disturbed to learn that the Commission may not permit information on psychological stress to be admitted at the hearings or considered in the Commission's deliberations on this important issue.

It is absolutely clear that the restarting of a nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island has the potential for profound psychological impacts on the people living in the vicinity of the plant. The Commission heard statements on the stress problems associated with the venting of the gases contained in Three Mile Island Unit 2 earlier this year. In fact, part of the justification for venting was based on the argument that it would have a salutary effect on the anxieties experienced by large segments of the population. As you know, I did not agree with your assessment on that matter, but I was pleased that the Commission ultimately did recognize that psychological stress was a factor which needed to be considered.

Similarly, I felt that the Commission had finally accepted its responsibility to consider this issue when your Draf t Procrammatic Environmental Impact Statement on the cleanup of Unit 2 (NUREG-06 83 )

included a section on psychological stress. ,

I believe that there is absolutely no difference behreen ';2e need. to consider stress during the cleanup of Unit 2 and the.need to con-sidez it during your deliberations on the restart of Unit 1. A failure to address this dimension of the issue would raise serious questions over the credibil!.ty of the Commission's inclusion of stress as a consideration during the cleanup of Unit 2. Based upon your earlier treatment of stress, its inclusion in the Unit 1 re-start hearings is not only logical, it is also imperative.

p. l.~ L .L 8009080 3 % O 5'8 THIS STATIONEMY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH Rgg

\. -

, ,e . ..

as page 2 4

, I am looking forward to your t'imely resolution of this important issue. ,

incer r o

/

len E. Ertel MEMBER OF CONGRESS AEE/bh -

j 1

t e

1 8

. . - - . - _ _ . . _ , ,. .-. _ . . _ ~ . . _ _ - _ , ~ . - . . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . , _ - _ _ - - . . , . -