ML19322A505
| ML19322A505 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1979 |
| From: | Pollock R Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project |
| To: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322A503 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911070205 | |
| Download: ML19322A505 (2) | |
Text
.
f U
CRITICR.L MASS ENERGY FROJECT c,
RC. Scx 1538. Wa:ning::n. D. C. 20013 P ccr (202) 96-1790 8
4 Y '
p ~7 D
.< hgg,e 5 August 22, 1979 qqi ga g
-A p.
o% 9'V+
G
\\
Chairman Joseph M. Hendrie M 'db
($. '
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission
!8p."
1717 H Street, N. h'.
Wa shing ton, D.C.
20555
Dear Chair =an Hendrie:
e blic Citi:en's Critical Mass Energy project hereby petitions the u
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coc=ission to convene open public hearings on the General Public Utilities pro:osal to " vent" radioactive gases into the environment from ~hree Mile Island Unit 2.
The Project also requests that the decontamination nethod be approved by the Co=missioners in open session, and not left to the NRC staff.
On the basis of information available to CME?, the Pro ject find s the oroposed schere of venting radioactive gases into the air to be an objection-able and unnecessary method for decontamina tion o f O!I-2.
According to the 3echtel Cor7 oration consultant's report for the licensee, " controlled" venting of rsdioactive gases could lead to contamination levels for persons at the boundary site re4ching.14 millirems of gamma radiation and 14.3 millirems o f beta radiation during a 30-day period. NRC criteria sets the yearly naximum dosages for the general population at 10 millire= for gn==a radiation and 20 millire= for beta counts.
/10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix I(II)
(3.1_)7
~
Assuming that the 3echtel figures are accurate - a point still in contention - the licensee thus proposes to expose the surrounding population to nearly an entire year's beta contamination in a 30-day period. %'hile such a r.aneuver is technically legal, CvE? finds the procedure fraught with unneces-sary risk to the general public's health and safety.
Moreover, if there was an accident during venting, the TMI-2 area residants conceivably could receive euch larger dosages than those contemplated by 3echtel and CPU.
In light o f the management history o f Metropolitan Edison Company, TMI-2 's licensee, and of its parent company, C?U, CMEP has little faith or confidence that t! e utility would be able to successfully carry out this plan without hu=an error or coc onent failure.
The general :ublic deserves to be spared further risk of radiation contamination.
The residents in central ?cnnsylvania have suf fered real harm since March 23, and their daily routine vill be further dis: :pted with renewed fears of still additional health risk.
7911070(og
9 page 2 This risk is clearly unnecessary in light of the licensee's own admission that there are alternatives to venting o f gas.
Bechtel has described :hree at:ernate methods for the early s: ages o f decontamination of the containment building where there is intense radiation. Conde nsation, low teeperature cooling to liquify the radioactive gases and absorption have been cited by the licensee as potentially accentable methods for reducing the level of radioactive gases -- especially Iodine 131 and Krypton 85 - in the contain-ment building.
khat is particularly treubling is the fact that the licensee apparently prefers to release gases into the environment because it would require fewer workers to be utilized for this stage o f decontamination. Thu s the savings enjoyed in this venting scheme are for the Metropolitan Edison Company, not for the general public.
It is unfortunate that at this late date Metropolitan Edison would propose a plan which puts financial savings above public health and safety considerations.
?rior to a final determin'acion by the NRC sta ff, CMEP hereby petitions the Conmissioners to hold public hearings on this =atter in both central Penn-sylvania and in k*ashington, D.C.
All potentially af fected or interested earties should have ample opportunite to coc=ent on the deconta=ination nroposals.
Given the stress and anxiety experienced by the residents of this area, and the general concern expressed by public sources that NRC will not thoroughly examine all the possible options in this issue, we also urge the Co=sissioners to approve the method for decontanination in an open session. This would certainly give greater assurance to the oublic that decisions of such import were not rele-gated to the staff on an ad-hoc basis, but was thoroughly investigated and weighed in a comorehensive =anner by the Coc=:issioners themselves.
The oroblems at TMI-2 are far from resolved. Accidents at the site could still cause considerable harm to surrounding co== unities. And a wary public is concerned that its health and sa fety is being sacrificed for cost-cutting considerations and regulatory expediency.
Ne therefore hope that your o ffice and those of your fellow com=issioners will adopt a policy encouraging openness and full public participation. All members of the public need to be assured that their health and safety concerns will be strongly - and fairly - weighed during the decision =aking process.
An early reply to this recuest is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely, r,
~
Richard ?. Follock Direc tor Critical Mass Energy Project i
i f