ML18031A230

Opposes Issuance of Facility Licenses Until Problems of Waste Disposal Have Been Solved & Assurance Can Be Given That Low Level Radiation Will Not Be Harmful to Population or Environ

ML18031A230
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	08/11/1979
From:	Hershey M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7908160406
Download: ML18031A230 (5)

Text

M eche?'y Mvtsiea of Site Ssfett ace

~imameata1 3~sia Paclea RegxLatozg Ccaaiss ion

%as~~ 3 C 20/55 tug~ 11'979 cela~

E Pe~lveniz

~ Maa lZce 'o ccaaant on .he dM envi~nta3 mcXsa- Susqneha:ma Stave XLeetWc Station~

sta~at Lua~

cca Comzty,

.ho eascdahle

~let yon ~ ee ver ~ hayeseave Kore~ it vas eqaaXXF

~

~

I feeL that ~ ha+

~yL41Kts g Snscgaehazma I

~ ia Penasylvaefa

~mph ~aaX ~%fans le

~

al~ have too aaag meQear alake ~cata IZce 25Z can't st see d~ MTO

'e bema sakL %hat M ~c thD aee plant vQl oc+t~d eng8glvan

~h~ to ~ heel~~ +g loca of mLLat,ice is an aveekcse, so 2 Also cane&~~ Mao fact Ja@t ~ IZC as of'ee has no fhusl yLuus for vesta ves4da ~ ~~eel~ X 4ea't fee1 Meat Ae ~4~~

M beaaCieta3. to Mao ~ideate cf ca-ac~Mticee of these state I stmcq~~ 4&sype~ ~ mr~~ of ~ XS

~~~~maK

~ ~40~~~e to We vzgrtda oaf'~

the pI4Jzt vithcltd'kLccL+ ~~~ Xco Isvo3. ~coLctiv

~~

to

~~

awe sn=e thmaSh ~eyeaCmt ~Lee the ef+eees cf viII mat, ~ the gem~~

Si~~,

%Q to Xichael L Rem~

626 X Kze St.

~

Laeastez, 2a 908160 gdP

O0Cyg tgUMBB PRUU. g UTlf FRU

~d'%7. '5+

gO gl

~e August 3p, lg79 b

424 Laurel Drive Hershey, pA 17p33 Nr. Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Hendrie:

I note wi.th much apprehension, that the NRC has recommended licensing of the environmental impacts ara antic-sated from normal operational releases of radioactive materials ."

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 are significant as has been admitted and proven, even by the old AEC and the bbRC's own studies. There is no safe level of radiation exposure. How can you say then that releases are of "no significance?"

Secondly, you "anticipate" no environmental impacts. May I remind you that Three Mile Island was not "anticipated" or planned for either. Where man is in-volved, there vill never be a safe nuclear power plant. The nuclear way is an unforgiving vay. 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 vill be or is projected to be released by the Berwick plant, how much "normal" radiation is currently being released by the ooerating plants 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 AZC, KC, and other sc'ent'fic studies have proven that there is no safe level of radiation ezposure, negates the "normal" release standards currently used. Normal may be normal for a nuclear plant, but not for a clean environment and certainly not "or the health and safety of the public.

iver. Joseph H. Hendrie August 30, 1.979 Page 2 Moreover, the boiling reactor cores at the Bezwick plant are untried and un-proven as to their overall safety and functioning. It does nat matter how remote an accident of any kind may be, a. chance is still there, especial1.y with a new design. It on1.y takes one accident to release dangerous radiation. The safety equipment and men at the Berwick plant are untried and unproven just as they were at THZ.

Lastly, let us use honest, straightforward 1.anguage 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 and wildlife current1y living near the site.

it would kill all fish 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. It is not safe to the normal environment of the people in Central Pennsylvania.

It is incumbent on the NRC in its charge "to protect the health and safety of the pub1.ic" to tell us the truth about the Berwick plant and the other nuclear power p1ants. Please inform me in whatever scientific or non-scientific terms you wish:

i'>

2. On what basis do you calculate the "anticiaated" occurrences?

The Rasmussen Report nas already been proven to be incorrect.

3. How do you define "normal" ? Normal 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 oz 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 e~ected to be released in Berwick?

6. What are the NRC's recorded, documented levels of normal" radiation releases from the operating plants in the United States?

Nr. Joseph N. 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 F. Ahearne, Commissioner Peter A. Bradford, Commissioner Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner Richard S. Schweiker H. John Heinz, III Allen E. Ertel George W. Gekas Rudolph Dininni Stephen R. Reed Pennsylvania Power 6 Light