ML18025A697
| ML18025A697 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1979 |
| From: | Warden W Bucknell Univ |
| To: | Ahearne J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML18025A697 (14) | |
Text
FROM:
H)))a@5. kct8an IV erfabmgPA TO; ACTIONCONTROL DATES COMPL DEADLINE
$g PQ jg ACKNOWLEDGMENT INTERIM REPLY FINALREP FILE LOCATION
't k R>>:..
'Jt
~ JJd 079SO DATE OF DOCUMENT PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OF:
Q CHAIRMAN Q EXECUTIVEDIRECTQR OTNER:
DESCRIPTION Q LETTER Q MEMO Q REPORT Q QTHER 0- GAts wd QvcklUBCLOA af t% DiS fQF 5H sy~ehanaa Mean Electric $tatjon, mod re QNAUCIl k~F'ds Of AQC)88F'04%P> QFfC8 4~Ccrma Act, iaste @spasm, etc.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS Pfkp@vs @8fc l%pjg fol.8RFM~ s s'isa~
tQM>>
DOCUMENT/COPY IVO.
CLASSIFIED DATA CLASSIFICATJON NUMBER OF PAGES POSTAL REGISTRY NO.
ASSI ED TO:
'DATE CATEGORY Q
NSI QRD Q FRD INFORMATIONROUTING SECY 79-3265 LEGALREVIEW Q
FINAL 0
COPY Gessfck MCh Rehm ASSIGNED TO:
DATE NO LEGALOBJECTIONS NOTIFY:
Q EDO ADMIN8 CORRES BR EXTv COMMENTS, NOTIFY:
EXT NRC I=ORM 232
{11-75)
JCAE NOTIFICATIONRECOMMENDED:
Q YES Q NQ r
EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS DO NOT REA/OI/E THIS COPY PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL
FROIIII:
it)ltd~ G. I,srde; SV GPF$ 5h4lggg GA, TO:
QM~ss'fOBGF kIQlf'AQ ACTION CONTROL COMPL DEADLINE ACKNOWLEDGMENT INTERIM IIEPLY FINALREPI Y~ I FILE LOCATION DATES
.07990 DATE OF DOCUMENT PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OF:
CHAIRMAN Q
EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR OTHER:
DESCRIPTION Q LETTER Q MEMO Q REPORT Q OTHER 0".-"%ps F8 0&)Qsii'IL) 08 448 GLS f41 t'P~
" sqa~her:0 S~>>"'3ectÃc Matfcn M>
fe 84400Il kQZr~f45 5f QQC)CC4'QRPII P')CG
&=-rse<> Act, ~ste @spousal. etc.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS PMp&8 tdtgfc. Peplos fQf'Ã8&iQ'8 8'igloo O'QI i.e DOCUMENT/COPY NO.
NUMBER OF PAGES POSTAL REGISTRY NO.
CLASSIFIED DATA CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY Q
NSI QRD Q FRD PiQGRDV NxI.
ASSIGNED TO:
DATE INFORMATIONROUTING LEGALREVIEW Q
FINAL Q
COPY Z
9 QSS C
a>)ted RCI~
ASSIGNED TO:
DATE NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS NOTIFY:
Q EDO ADMINA. CORRES BR EXT.
COMMENTS, NOTIFY:
EXT.
JCAE NOTIFICATION RECOMMENDED:
Q YES Q
NO NRC FORM 232 i = ~
(11 IS) i EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS PRINCIPAL CORRESPON DENCE CONTROL DO IVOTREIIIIOVE THIS COPY
FROM IV Lmis~aw>, f4-TO:
$g(0;t;v Kng ACTION CONTROL COMPL DEADLINE ACKNOWLEDGMENT INTERIM REPLY FINALREPLY FILE LOCATION DATES fi 6) j9 07990-DATE OF DOCUMENT-
)PQ/T3 PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OF:
P CHAIRMAN Q
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OTHER:
DESCRIPTION Q LETTER Q MEMO Q REPORT P OTHER Ka-'eatS re exa)~btfCa Of h" I;ES fm'a
. SQG@QI'..MM P~~AI~ BCCtFfC Sist'4."I> GQC f racijatieh kaMFQs 5f gpctaat'a~P, pic@
P9~wf'SING zgCp BGSCQ 4)SPQMl ~ 84Ca CLASSIFIED DATA SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS Pf'CjNQ@ 44f@ O'Cfire f4V'INBfA~+8 84/@5~
CUFF
&RfQ,"~LB"~%It.
DOCUMENT/COPY NO.
NUMBER OF PAGES POSTAL REGISTRY NO.
ASSIGNED TO:
DATE CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY Q
NSI Q RD-Q FRD INFORMATIONROUTING LEGALREVIEW Q FINAL, p COPY 4%85 CL =
. Mfh:
PiGPN ASSIGNED TO:
DATE NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS NOTIFY:
Q EDO ADMIN&c CORRES BR
- EXT, COMMENTS, NOTIFY:
EXT. ~
JCAE NOTIFICATION RECOMMENDED:
Q YES Q-NO NRC FORM 232 (11-75)
EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS PRINClPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL DO NO7 REMOVE 7HIS COPY
'J 4
I n
'I t
1I 4
lt II h
I"hBVI>>.
W A"i%'
Bf 4e-wi5hae-"> fh TO:
C~ -~-l"$fI"~ 'l" '~-"C N'<
ACTION CONTROL COMPL DEADLINE ACKNOWLEDGMENT INTERIM REPLY FINALREPLY F I LE LOCATION DATES j ZQ/JI'<
CONTROL NO.07990 DATE OF DOCUMENT
)dII4'f79 PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OF:
Q CHAIRMAN Q EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR OTHER:
DESCRIPTION Q LETTER Q MEMO Q REPORT Q OTHER F;"~>R4. f4 cv@)QAcf9-"f Qf 4 =~ MS fbi'~~
SVSqpa~1~ Otea~ -P~r fC Sf44$ ea W'e r~~40 <<6&~RF4'f" "vacf@kt g wd "Ptc4.'A44N4~i>>
4~~CCg VQSCQ 48p&S/9 y CRCe CLASSIFIED DATA SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS Pf'wgwf'8 ~f8% v4'pig 'f44'>>NGM~~ $ 5$ <<~~so 4@Fk.
i'Bk@BV l~4)K.
DOCUMENT/COPY NOi NUMBER'OF PAGES POSTAL REGISTRY NO.
ASSIGNED TO:
CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY Q
NSI QRO Q FRD INFORMAT OPJ ROUTING
$Kf79 m+ "65 LEGAL REVIEW Q
FINAL Q COIV
$~)Q ReI+
ASSIGNED TO:
DATE NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS NOTIFY:
Q EOO ADMIN8 CORRES BR EXT.
COMMENTS, NOTIFY:
EXT.
JCAE NOTIFICATIONRECOMMENDED:
Q YES Q NO NRC FORM 232 (11-75)
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL DO NOT RE//IOI/E THIS COPY
tp,uo e
NRC SECRETARIAT-Commissioner'
.. KEkxec. DiyJoper.
. 0 Cong. Liaison O Public Affairs 0
e, 12/6/79 Date 0- Gen. Counsel 0 Solicitor O Secretary Incoming:
.From:
To:
re the ros 8
Date
'g Prepare reply for signature of:
0 Chairman
)5]> Commrssioner 0 EDO, GC, CL.SOL, PA, SECY 0
Signature block omitted D.
Oate due Comm:
Dec 20
~
" 0 Return original of incoming with response CI For direct reply-0 For appropriate action D
For information
'0 For recommendation Ree'd Off SOO Date s.. '...
~;
nzemx d g..'7-./.
Time.. [ /i:..;...:...;..
Remarks:
For the commission:
Billie Send three {3) copies of reply to Secy Mail Facility NRC42 ACTION SLIP
52 St. Anthony Street INewisburg, PA 1 7837 December 5,'-1979 Mr. John P. Ahearne Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vashington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Ahearne,
I am.a student at Bucknell University and I'.m writing to you in order to express me views on nuclear power.
I'm addressing this letter specifically to you because we met ":..'-.:
last April at Clarie Nader's Institute for Public Awareness.
The occasion was an information exchange between yourself and.
a small group of scientists-ance public interest groups.
Before Three Mile Island I was unaware, and admittedly, largely unconcerned about the existence of nuclear power.
Since that time I'e spent some time looking into the facts concerning this issue.
Unfortunately, these "facts" are often difficult to come by as they. are usually put out by either the "pro" or the "anti" groups which have their own special inter-ests as to the development of nuclear power.
For this reason
e found that there is very little-objectivity in this sort of information, and persons like myself must fry to synthe-size as much truth as possible from the complicated and often contradictory information available.
I am currently enrolled in an environmenta1 science course which has spent some time evaluating the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
This involved evaluating the Draft Environmental Statement as well as visiting.the plant. I am writing this letter in order to voice my. concerns about as-pects of this plant in particular, but many of these concerns carry over to the nuclear industry in general.
The D.E.S. addresses a wide variety of issues in its consideration of'he S.S.E.S.
Impressive amounts of data are presented to substantiate the findings of the D.Z.S.
3ut it is the ouality, not the quantity of data which must be scru<<
tinized.
One of the major concerns involved with nuclear power is obviously that of radiation hazards.
The D.E.S. presents a
great deal of information as to the risks associated with the use of radioactive material, but I question the validity of
~
such data.
Ny suspicions arise because of conversations I'e had with Dr. Hans Veening who is currently professor of chemistry here at 3ucknell.
Dr. Veening spent more than a year at Oak Ridge studying radiation and he has told me that the scientific community is still very unsure as to both the long and short-term effects of radiation exposure.
- The diverse opinions and the contradictory findings of the scientific
+ v
~ I (+
+v
~ ~
~
~
~ 4
+ >)
~
community over the past several years documents thi,s uncert-tai'nty.
Por this reason I seriously question the presenta-tion of'adiation hazards in the D.Z.S. as being fact.
Such a presentation of'nformation may have the reassuring appear-ance of documented fact, but once one looks to the lack of'onsensus in the scientific community, serious questions arise
. as to the truth of'uch data.
Another problem which the D.Z.S. brings to light is the inability of the nuclear industry to plan for the future.
This is a time when we must begin to look farther ahead than the next few years.
The short-sighted approach of the nuclear industry is well documented. in section 7<<1 which concerns electrical demand.
The S.S.Z.S.
was planned over a decade ago when electrical demand was increasing by 7% annually.
Present demand.,
however, is increasing by only 1% annually, which supports the fact that there is no electrical shortage in the U.S.
The D.O.Z. has released data showing that there is between thirty and forty percent excess generating capacity above peak load.
Vith this sort of excess capacity, all but six of the seventy-two licensed reactors could. be shut down immediately with no shortage of electricity. I question the wisdom of pouring hundreds of'. billions of dollars into the ninety plants under construction, when future electrical de-mand is mery uncertain.
Another section of the D.Z.S. which requires revision is".section 6-2 which deals with "Postulated Accidents and.
Occurrences."
In this section, class 9 accidents aren'0 even considered.
because
~~the probability of their occurrence is judged.
so small that their environmental risk is extremely, low." I remind you that Three Yd.le Island was ruled a class 9 accident.
This requires the H.R.C. to fully.consider the implications of such an accident, and the worst - case esti-mates of the MASH-1400 report must be standard.
consideration of all future Draft Znvironmental Statements.
So far my concerns have been directed at the D.Z.S.
One of my major concerns about nuclear power, however, is that its just not an economical method of generating electricity.
33efore looking into the issue, I thought that the construc-tion and generating costs represented the total'ost of nuclear power.
I found, however, that",these costs are only a part of the total cost of nuclear power, and. the public :
must ultimately bear the burden of all these costs.
Why weren'0 insurance companies willing to insure nuclear power?
Prom what I'e seen, insurance companies are among the most prudent assessors of risk, yet they weren't willing to accpet the risk of insuring utilities which used nuclear power.'he Price-Anderson Act.has been used to protect the utilities against the risks which the insurance companies found, too uncertain to deal with.
Vhy can't the nuclear industry be treated. like all other industries and be forced to insure themselves against the risks inherent in-'.their
3 industry?
The Price-Anderson Act appears to be a ouite mas-sive form of federal subsidy, with the public paying for expenses which should be paid for by the nuclear industry.
Other expenses which are being paid. f'r by the public include research and development, and enrichment.
without these subsidies, the nuclear industry would be unable to function, yet they aren't required to pay for any part of these subsidies.
Disposal of wastes will be extremely expensive and once again, the public will end up paying the bill for procedures which should be accounted for by the industry.
Decommissioning is yet another area to which but scant
-attention has oeen paid.,
and this cost will certainly be quite expensive.
Retrofitting and security are still more consid-erations which will significantly add to the total cost of nuclear power.
All these "hidden~ expenses",are not presently taken into account by the industry, yet no'body can deny that they all must eventually be paid for. I believe that
- once, the public realizes how much money is being spent on nuclear power, this form of generating electricity will be viewed as extremely expensive and inefficient.
Perhaps my greatest concern of all Im. Ahearne, is the way the growth of nuclear power has proceeded.
The public has all but been excluded from the decision-making processes which greatly affect their lives.
As I started looking at government documents, I'became extremely disturbed about the way.major decisions were being made by small groups of people.
Many of these decisions involve basic health issues, and these sorts of issues should never be decided, by groups isolated from the public.
As an example, I refer to a 1968 A.Z.C. re<<
port on "The Genetic Zffects of Radiation."
10Ã increase in mutation rate, whatever it might mean in personal suffering and public expense,, is not likely to threaten the human race with extinction or even serious degradation....
(It) is bearable if we can convince ourselves that the al-ternative of abandoning radiation technology will cause still greater suffering.
If the number of those affected is in-creased,,
there would come a crucial ~oint,'"
or threshold.,
where the slack could no longer be taken up (by these not affected).
The genetic load might increase to the point where the species as a whole wou1d degenerate and fade toward extinction - a sort of
'racial radiation sickness.'
don't know what gives any commission the right to decide such issues.
,.I hope I'e been able to convey some of my concerns about the use of nuclear power.
As stated. previously, I'e only just begun to look into this complex issue, but
~
~ <<r
4
~
~
~
lie ps I am appalled by the lack of lmowledge in an industry which by "its very nature demands near perfection.
I am also dis-turbed by the apparent lack of concern regarding the future.
Hidden costs and dangers seem to be disregarded, while only the short-term benefits are considered.
I hope you will realize that this letter is written by someone-who is ouite concerned.
about the future of our country, and I believe my sentiments are shared. by many others.
Sincerely, William G. 3farden IV
,I
/TED