ML18004A267
| ML18004A267 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1986 |
| From: | Ferrell C AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18004A266 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607010425 | |
| Download: ML18004A267 (5) | |
Text
Mr. Harold Denton Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 (301) 492-7000
Subject:
Shearon Harr1s nuclear plant, Carolina Power 8 Light, Emergency Plan
Dear Mr. Denton,
I Carol1na Power 6 Light Company has not conducted a full participation test of the present emergency plan for-the Shearon Harris nuclear plant as required by federal regulation, 10 CFR Part 50.
This is most significant since Chatham
- County, by formal action of the Board of Commissioners, has withdrawn from the emergency plan.
- Thus, no plan which could actually be implemented if the plant were to operate has been tested.
In addition, citizens and officials in other count1es are considering withdrawing from the present emergency plan.
- Clearly, any such action would further complicate this matter.
G At least until such time as state and local governmental participation in an emergency plan for Shearon Harris is fully resolved, no exemption(s) from the requirement of a
full participation test with1n one year prior to the granting of any full power license should be considered or approved.
Sincerel 8b07010425 8bOb24 PDR ADOCK 05000400 H
mao l
4 l
Y I
CONN& klE~ON N
~GO g RE~LZRD 21 IIKELHOZ IMIIIII Just as the hidden costs of nuclear power plant construction have come to light, the nuclear industry is beginning to discover the hidden co sts of decommi ssioning, the shut down and monigoring costs, of nuclear plants.
Following a nuclear plants closure there are three courses that can follow.
All include removal of spent fuel, draining all liquids and flushing out the pipes Dism ntlement-decontaminate and dismantle the facility immediately after shut down, shipping all radioactive debris to a waste facility.'o thb 11in -putting facility in storage and placing under surveillance for approm.ma e y 50 years to undergo raChoactive decay prior to, dismantlement.
Entombment-covering the reactor with reinforced concrete and erecting barriers to keep out intruders, Although once viewed as the cheap and easy way out, entombment is no longer considered a realistic option by environmental organ-izations because several radioiso top es remain lethal for 80, 000 years or more-The protective stzucture would decay long before the radioactivity within. ( 1)
General estimates for decommissioning suggest costs of up to 50$
of construct'osts or more. ( 1,3)
The costs of decommissioning and radioactive waste dispo sa, are paid for by consumers in their rates. (3)
Carolina Power 8 Light ( CPE L) made decommissioning cost estimates for their Brunswick and Robinson nucl ear plants in December 1981.
The Robinson (1 reactor) plant will cost consumers 5924 mi11ion and the Brunswick(2 reactor plant wi13. cost consumers S?
8 billion to decommission by entombment, the lea-cost method of decommissioning (2,3)
The decommissioning cost of the Shearon Harris nuclear plant( SH ) will be se t at a rate h earing within a year af ter activation and it' probable that the estimate will be higher than the co st p c reactor estimate for Robinson and Brunswick This cost would then be set into the rate base, po ssibly raising CPS L rates even higher. ( SH will cause a 25;o ra'ncrease upon opening, according to CPRL
)
( 2, $ )
1'n comparison, estimates to convert to a saf er, non-nucl ear fuel or even build another non-nuclear generating plant seem minimal~ For example, the Midland nuclear plant (85~a complete) has estimated conversion cost to gas fired plant at
$434 million
( The Bech tel Power Corp., a major nuc1 ear industry company, studied the issue and has assured technical feasibility)
( 5) Bui1ding 900 mega-matt coal burning plant with scrubbers for environmental pro-
<<ction has been estimated at
$1 55 billion.(? ) This estimate is high because it includes the cost of turbines and generators which are already available as part of SH.
It is also estimat ed that radioactive wast e dispo sal for SH will cost at least S4 5 million a year
( 4) This cost could go up as mounting political resistance to radio activ e wast e dispo sal may increase the expenses involved These hidden costs of decommissioning and waste disposal 1 end strengh th to the argument of converting SH to a saf er, non-nucl ear fuel. Although the cost of nuclear fuel is less than gas or coal, the operating expenses of nuclear pl'anI.
are higher because of changing regulations requiring net alterations for safe" higher insurance payments> legal litigation costs, and higher pay for worke s-( Not to mention the serious hidden costs of human suffering, financial and economic loss, or damage to the environment in the event of accidents involvir operation of the plant, transportation, or storage of the additional 1,000 tons of hi@ level radio ac tive waste produced)
Conversion to a non>>nucl ear fuel offers a new option for CPK stockholders, wouldn' create any nucl ear waste, and would prevent the threat of a nuclear accident that SH would present as a
nuclear planta The operating life of a non-nucl ear p1ant can be substantiall 1 enthened, compared to the approximate g0 year life of a nuclear planta by "refurbishing" or replacing parts as they wear outa This wou1d postepone replace SH. (2,5) sto ckholders and ratep ayers having to invest in bui1ding ano th er plant to Footnote": (1) Irt; ( l))by,sucldeatoh faper ¹bg Doco&inniOnlngtNuoleat'oeet'e Nia:inc I in' ': U.c. Utilitton connie;:ion (UctDcpt. of Encineerinc (3)
Uc Dept of Aecvunting
(
)Uc Fiectrio Dieiaion ($)Tne santnne Noes.Apt'll 7 19Lb Mlthacen
~gORO
~
'c JUNE Isss
.8/~
~5.
AC'5/g
~ 1
~
~
I I
lf