ML18017B411

Comments on Opposition to Nuclear Power & Const of Facilities,Per

ML18017B411
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	06/09/1981
From:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Carmelita Adams AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
NUDOCS 8106170331
Download: ML18017B411 (5)

Text

s DccLet tees.:

JUH L 6 19S) ~-

iL4.~ta% ~tstsss!~

ggsk&tRKCN

. /p 4e!I/(7Q 4 50-400/401/402/403

~ee l.

PasQI3 ~ Cfl 4 ~ s>>s

~ ! state

\\+Qe Qt'~

>UN 09

~@'"'r.

Christcpher John Adams, Secretary The Orange Ccu..ty Democratic Party Bcx 142 Chapel Hill, tscrth Carolina 27514

Dear t'ir. Adams:

By letter, dated Ysay 8, 1981, you sent tc the Office of the Chairman of the Nuclear Pegulatory Commission a resolution passed by the Orance County Derccratic Party in opposition to nuclear po~er and to the construction of the Shearcn Harris t'uclear Po;!er Plan Ve appreciate the concerns raised in the resoluticn and would like to provide the following coments relating to them.

The resolution states that a nuclear power plant threatens the public health and safe y.

The liuclear Pegulatory Cor;-...ission

()!RC), in its review of applicaticns for licenses to cons ruc. and operate nuclear po~er plants, is required to consider, ar;:ong other things, those

~erasures necessary for the protection of the public's health and safety.

Td carry out this responsibility, th WRC s aff conducts d tailed reviews of each nuclear power plant application in a twc stage licensing process.

The first stage is co...pleted prior to the granting cf a constructicn permit and the second stage is completed prior to authorizing an operating license.

In the case of the Shearcn Harris Plant, such a detailed review was performed and cnr:;pleted prior to cranting the construction per7..its for the plant.

The plant is curren+ly under construction and the Carolina Power 8 Light Company (applicant) has ss'brsitte6 an applicaticn for operating licenses.

The t/PC staff will perfcrr,'. the se ond stage of its de.ailed review prior tc authorizing operating licenses for the plart.

This process will start after a deter,sination has been made that the applica.icn is sufficiently co. ple+e to initiate the detailed review.

The resoluticn states that a nuclear power plant produces radioactive waste materials for which no safe disposal exists.

Operation of a nuclear pc<<er plant does result in radioactive tzterials which require safe storace or isposal.

These can be ca.egorized into high-level (e.g.,

spent fuel) and low-level (e.g.,

protective clcthing and cleaning rags) radioactive materials.

Storace facilities or lcw-

'level uastes current1y do exist and include those located at Beatty, l!evade ange Barnwell, South Carolina.

y5~s O

For high-level wastes, the Department of Energy has the responsibili ~y for providinc facili ies for the storage and/or disposal of this material.

Based on current plans, a permanent nffsi.e storace facility for spent fuel will nct be available prior to 1990.

In order to accommodate the nurber of spent fuel elements that will accurulate until a permanent offsite storage facility is available, various utilities are increasing the capacity of. their onsite spent fuel storage facilities.

However, nsx 0

ssors 1

CTIO n

aci tv must be revi ewed ard accrnved b

the

!.nc.s 1 0

It If t

tf

Christopher John

Adams,

>UN 0 )

~<~'he applicant for the Shearon Harris Plant is planning on expanding the capacity of the onsite spent fuel storage facilities for the plant and has described the desicn of the expanded facilities in its application for operating licenses.

The tlRC staff will review this design as part of its derailed review of the app1 ication.

In the resolution, reference is made to alternative sources of energy in place of nuclear power.

The resolution also states that a nuclear plant poses an unnecessary burden on the customers of a utility.

This is a natter that was evaluated during our review of the Shearon Harris Pl ant prior to authorizing construction At that time, the tJRC staff determined tl at when the total

costs, including the operating costs as well as the construction costs, of a plant at Shearon Harris are considered, the total costs of a nuclear plant would be lower than for other alternatives.

This evaluation was included in the staff's Final Environmental Statement and was presented to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board during the hearing process.

Following the hearing, thc Board issued a decision in which it concluded tha the total costs of a nuclear plant would be lower than for other alternatives.

This decision was later affirmed by the Atomic Safe.y and Licensing Appeal Board.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity to respond to your letter.

S i nce rely, Darrell G. Eisenhu", Director Division of Licensing Office of Huclear Reactor Pegulation SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE.

FEICEF

~:+~EP

. ATE)

'DL LB-"

~ ~ ~

FALP~f.~ra:..i

~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ F I ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

DL~l B43

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ '

l'

~..

~..F.@isa gl i a 5D,'/81 DL

/L

..L esco

/ j /81 DL'r' t;isenhut g/7/81

MQ.

C --L J~

j t

. DXSTRXBUTION:

Docket Fi1 e 50-400/401/402/403 LPDR PDR NSrC TERA LB83 Files HRDenton ECase DEisenhut FHiraglia ELicitra S

JLee

Attorney, OELD GErtter (881-0688)

SCavanaugh (10490)

EHughes LBerry BPaul Cotter, ASLB rE (3}

SECY ($81-0688) pg HSHapar PPAS SHanauer RMattson THurley RVollmer BSnyder JUX X lt98~~ ~

Ui5 1EICLEA1 IEGU~)

C0ANIEI82N I/

OFFICE)

SURNAME/

0AVEf>

NRC FORM 318110/80) NRCM 0240

~

~ ~

~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~

~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~

OFF)CIAL RECORD COPY

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

o USGPO; 198~29 824

~ ~

q ~ lr

~

nr

~

I