ML19262D014
| ML19262D014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1980 |
| From: | Bevel K AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004220418 | |
| Download: ML19262D014 (2) | |
Text
i April 15, 1900 Director Tnree Mile Island Support NRR Uuclear Regulatory Commission
'dasnington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
I am noping that this letter gets to your office in tine. Wnen I first read the small article in the local newspaper about your addendum to vent in five days instead of sixty days, I did notning because the nechanics of it all just didn't Decome clear to me.
However, my husband and I were discussing it anc nave come to a layman's conclusion tnat Kr/pton gas venteu over five days will not cisperse as easily as gas ventec over a sixty day period. It seems it would be concentrated and thus more detrimen-tal to the public than if vented over a longer time.
I mignt make it cleal now tnat both my huscand anc I oppose venting of any Kr/pton gas. Apparently Met-Ed has indicatec tnat other metnous woulu ce less safe. However, their explanation is so vague it lacks credibility.
As to why cryogenics can't be used, tney exclain that it is a fairly new un-tried method and has only a " 5 to 995 chance of success.
I assume that percentage refers to the Krypten gas released. It would seen obvious, tnere-fore, that if that occurred, only 25% to 1% of the Krypton gas would nave to be released as opposed to 100L Maybe I nisunderstcoc ne gentleman. As to being un-tried, your average nuclear plant coesn't lose coolant water ever;-
day, therecy damaging the core and causing radioactive gases to be releasec.
It was a new, un-triec accident. Met-Ec didn't even mention entembnent wnien is the eneapest nethod of all. However, thcugn sc=e pecple claim it ic :ne safest, I have my doubts. Tne point I am trying to.ake is that Met-Ed nas toic the public that venting is the Oni;s way and I don't believe tnen. Had they researenec all metnocs and presented an intelligent explanatic<. for eacn and every metnod anc :nen opted for the venting, I might feel differently.
Tneir vague reasons for using the venting and not otner metnocs were only cre-sented after puclic prodding. Met-Ed's public briefings were neld to tell' the public that they were going to vent. Now tney wtli not nolc public crief-ings on venting because they think erroneously tnat we the public are hysterical.
"aybe you feel the sane way.
In conclusion, I mignt say that wnen the esteemec gentlemen in public office decided back in the 19h0's and 50's that nuclear power wculd te our mocern-day panacea, they neglected to project far enougn into One future.
Tney assumed the highly radioactive wastes would take care of itself.
Tney assuned accidents just woulcn't happen.
They failec to realize tnat nuclear power isn't something that you wean frem govern =ent in,o private incustry's
- r. ands making it sucject to profit and production.
forst of all, they cter.'t A@,
h 8 0 0 4 2204ts
Page 2 and still don't realize that low-level radiation can slowly affect future generations of mankind. Why compound the background radiation we all ready receive with " minor releases from nuclear power plants? I propose that a
until the great minds of the world research safer ways of operating nuclear power plants and ways of dealing witn radioactive wastes, we have no business operating them and using ours and future generations as unwitting guinea pigs.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely yours,
'/'
0* ' ;!. u l.
t.
_a Mrs. Kathleen A. Sevel 1155 Turnpike Rd.
Elizabethtown, Pa. 17022 (within the 5-mile radius)