ML19323C114

Comments on Water Discharge Permit.Impacts of Discharge of Radioactive Matl Into Water Due to Plant Accidents or Accident During Transport Have Never Been Studied.Before Permit Is Granted,All Risks & Danger Should Be Evaluated

ML19323C114
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	03/05/1980
From:	Pleasonton A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19323C104	List: ML19323C114
References
NUDOCS 8005150042
Download: ML19323C114 (1)

Text

_ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

80051500ld t>

1000 Ads.:s Street New Crlesne, Louisiana 701 Esrch 5, 19c0

'J.r . Jo s e ph M. H e nd ri e , Chaircan Nuclcar Regulatory Commission 9

'ashin6 ton D.C. 20545 D

(' fD N;I E)ljgj}h/dLH y

Dear Mr. Hendrie:

On !'cbruary 28th, I attended an EPA hcaring on Louisiana Fower end Lirht's epplicetion for a water pollutant discharge pcr11t for its nuclear power plant Waterford III, on the X1ssissippi some 24 miles north of New Oricans (Fer. tit no, LA0007374).

It is likely that this permit will be granted, since all the objections raised by the participants in the hearing dcolt with the one issue which EPA will not consider, the radioactive pollution which may result from this disc'hsrge.

't ater ford III will not use cooling towers. It will use the Xississippi River instead. The .dseissippi River provides the drinking water for the communities south of the plant, involving soac onc-and-a-half million people. Louisiana Power and Light has no contingency plan for an accident which would contaminate this drinking water, New Orlcans is Senerally considered itpossible to evacuate due to its geographical location and the limited nu;bt r of exits from the city. Furthertore, under inter:p:etetion of the Cltan Air (or Water) Act, Wsterford III is considered an old source, axcmpt fr om the need for an Envir or.tental Impact Statement.

So far, the impacts of a discharge of radioactive mater ials into the water due to accidents at the plant, or to accident dprin6 tiansport of spent fuel have never been studied. We fear that cnce the EFA discharSepermit is granted, the NRC will use the existence of this permit to prevent fur ther discussion of water pollution.

The plant could thus Eo on-line without the risks ever teing eveluated.

You have the responsibility to protedt .he hcalth of the public.

So has EPA, but in this case, it passes the buck to your agency.

Flesse see to it that all the risks and danEers are evaluated befor e a per: cit is gr anted, and that a pertit be denied if thos e risks are too hi E h, as I believe thea to be.

Those of us who must drink end use the contaninstion produced by this plant for the rest of our lives have a right to voice our objecticns and to heard. So far, this right has "ceen denied us.

Sincerely, ,

n .- ,

's'sA AJ & (.Q Anna E. Plecsonton, IhD