ML18031A281
| ML18031A281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 08/30/1979 |
| From: | Prelesnik W AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910090776 | |
| Download: ML18031A281 (4) | |
Text
oocqg gUlNQ pqcp, g UTIL. y4g.
b qe August 30, 1979 424 Laurel Drive
- Hershey, PA 17033 Mz. Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Hendrie:
X note with much apprehension, that the NRC has recommended licensing of the environmental impacts are anticioaced from normal operational releases or radioactive matezials."
I find this statement to be both arrogant and misleading to the public.
- First, please define for me what significant" means.
Any low level radiation releases aze significant as has been admitted and proven, even by the old AEC and the NRC's own studies.
There is no safe level of radiation exposure.,
How can you say then that zeleases are of "no significance?"
- Secondly, you "anticipate" no environmental impacts.
May X remind you that hree Mile island was not "anticipated" or planned
=or either.
Where man 's in-volved, there aiil never be a sais nuclear power plant.
The nuclear way is an untorgiving way.
Once the unanticipated happens, it stays with us for generations.
Thirdly, it is time to tell. the public the truth regarding the "normal operational releases" from nuclear plants.
How much normaL" radiation wiLL be or is projected to be zeleased by the Serwick plant, how much normal" radiation is currently being released by the operating planes in this country, and who sets
- these, and how are these "normal" release ceiling levels set?
The current standards were initially set in order to justify atomic bomb testing.
Those standards were kept in order to justify nuclear power plants because the nuclear industry and our government recognizes that no plant operates without "normal" releases of radiation.
Recognizing that the A"<<C, NRC, and other scient'fic studies have proven that there is no safe level oz radiation exposure, negates the "normal" release standards currently used.
Normal may be normaL for a nuclear plant, but not for a clean environment and certainly not for the heaLth and safety oi the publ'c.
. Joseph H. Hendrie August 30, 1979 Page 2
- Moreover, the boiling reactor cores at the Berwick plant are untried and un-proven as to their overall safety and functioning. It does not matter how remote an accident of any kind may be, a chance is stiLL there, especially with a new design.
It onLy takes one accident to release dangerous radiat'on.
The safety equipment and men at the Berwick plant are untried and unproven just as they were at TisI.
Lastly, let us use honest, straightforward language and tell the truth.
"The temporary loss of habitat may have significant adverse impacts on the aquatic community in the vicinity of the site," really means that it would killall fish and wildlife currently living near the site.
In summary, the Berwick plant is another threat to the Susquehanna River Valley, an added burden and danger not needed by the people of Central Pennsylvania.
The plant as a nuclear facility, should not be Licensed and operated.
Lt is not safe to the normal environment of the people in Central Pennsylvan'a.
I I
1 l
I It is incumbent on the VRC in its charge "to protect the health and safety of the public" to tell us the truth about the Ber&ck plant and the other nuclear power plants.
Please inform me in whatever scientific or non-scientific terms you wish:
2.
On what basis do you calculate the "anticioated" occurrences?
The Rasmussen Report nas already been proven to be incorrect.
3.
How do you define "normal" ?
!formal operational levels of radiation.
emission are quite different and separate from normal background levels of radiation already existing in the environment.
Also, because of bomb testing and power plants
=the "normal" levels of background radiation have increased over the past 30 years.
4.
What individuals, by name, set these "normal" levels?
5.
How much normaL" radiation will be expected to be released in Berwick?
6.
~hat are the NRC's recorded, documented levels of normaL" radiat" on releases from the operating plants in the United States?
~w. Joseph M. Hendrie August 30, 1979 Page 3
Thank you for your anticipated prompt response to the above.
Sincerely, Warren L. Prelesnik cc:
Richard T. Kennedy, Commissioner John ". Ahearne, Commissioner Peter A. Bradford, Commissioner Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner Richard S. Schweiker H. John Heinz, IIX Allen E. Ertel George W. Gekas Rudolph Dininni Stephen R.
Reed Pennsylvania Power 6 Light
I )l e
%5