ML19331C553
| ML19331C553 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1980 |
| From: | Colman B, Elsasser T, Smith P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0686, RTR-NUREG-686 NUDOCS 8008190038 | |
| Download: ML19331C553 (3) | |
Text
\\
yy.
L e,,. g o M 0 % wo'SI m e
A' N T EtsAc, SEA.,
M, bgc rowJ fcd Once again, the IE is dicregarding the viishes of the people of Middletown and the surrounding area.
Clear cit-izen opjosition has bean voicc'1 to the venting of I'rypton.
Even clearer opposition has been voiced to long-term venting, should venting in fact be necessary.
!al what does the 150 say it is n'cout to decide?
Long term venting, over 30 to 60 days.
This is outrageous.
The Imc says it hasn' t yet decided--but it 's been doin; a pro-venting public opinion campaign for months--in closed groups with selectel leaders.
Tac IEC says it is concerned.
about psycholo ;ical stress among the people here, but proposes venting over one to two months--a long time to be disrupted if you're worryed about venting ard a lot of peoplo here are.
This is outrageous.
The irony is that we wouldnt t have to be talking about venting now, if the ?aC had atarted Iroving on alternatives last year, soon af ter the accident.
Instead, they didn't even start on an Environmental Assessment, yet, until Novem-ber of 1979.
Ani they blame us for delayinfj; the venting?
This is outrageous.
A couple of points to make qttite clear.
l?irst, we are not trying to tie up the clean up, to create delays unnec-essarily.
We agrea v:ith some of our see.~.ingly pro-nuke friends that a speedy, responible clean up is exactly what is called for.
S, ec.ty, and responsible.
Seconi, fura r.ro scod c1.tions.
--nore -
IHIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS
@ALITY PAGES 8 008190 0 St
2 If venting is indeed called for, there are at least tv;o alternatives that could be usei in a short time frar.e.
One is the " fast" venting, over 5 to 14 days.
The other is one of the UC3 alternabives--heatin; the gas inside containment with an incinerator, so that it t;ould rise farther than other-wise viaen released, anl v!ould therefore reduce the radiation dose to us, the people near the plant.
l!either of these alt-ernatives would cause the considerable economic dislocation which the lon2 -60 day--venting.lould.
Irajine vonlering if V Ac.uH u you can a_Cford a forcel of up to tvlo cont,hs with your family, A
or being a motel ov.ner, anl.condering about your busincas over Oe t;/o best tourist vouths of tha year.
I!cither the fast venting nor the heatei fast ventirG rouli create those probleas.
They ::ould, most likely, 'arte to be i
c urial out in the Fall--because of wind patterns, or with the hot alternative, the need to put in an incineratcr.
This is a short delay, and any problans the delay ni-ht cause p20ple could be counterbalancel by r.aking a clear sche 11ua for releares, so that p30ple could rake plans, couli cope.
And the short delay would be :nore than counterbianced by reducing the priod of i,hreat from the intolerable 30 to 60 days the I!LO is pro-posind.
'~o hear that the IIRC doesnt t li%e the fast venting alt-crnatives we're backing here because they might have to have a public hearin, so T, hat thq could v;aive technical specifi-cations cn daily radiar, ion releases.
An1 they are terrified
-::.o: :-
s.
~
3 of public hearin;o.
Co they'll subject us to up to 60 days of ventinrj threat, becauce they're afraid -of the public?
Uell, that really is outra3couc, ar;l that's V hy tre're briri;in{;
the fablic t,o tha., inrc, today.
S Jime 1930, 'ldilater.n y____.
auts11..,,,. 2 6, L, u. a
.tv..
i
Contact:
Pat S:nith 938-6923 Bob Colcan 238-44F2 shclly 5ttc_lers 397-5314
__ -.