ML19331A382
| ML19331A382 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 10/13/1971 |
| From: | Protz C AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Mccool W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331A383 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007160947 | |
| Download: ML19331A382 (6) | |
Text
., u,
>4.-
M
.A:
py _
. ', 7,,;f, f; :,
1,<
<p
,,_.. c, f,,
g-
.,yn:n.,
SIGNATURE MAIL ROUTING SLIP (Director's Office)
Mr. Huntzing Mr. Bloch Is notification the Dr. Beck JCAE reconunended?
A Mr. llenderson cnn u are,,
I' v
Concurrences received from:
Compliance
(
)
Materials Licensing
(
)
Nuclear Materials Safeguards
(
)
Radiological & Environmental Protection
(
)
Reactor Licensing
( 12/7/71
),..
Reactor Standards
( 12/7/71
)
State & Licensee Relations
(
)
Office of General Counsel
(
)
Others
(
)
Remarks:
Ltr to Protz fm Case replying to ltr of Oct. 13, 1971 to McCool, perta'ining to the safety of nuclear power plants (Al k
? d ? <*dsb.,*--
_,.w,
.c:+.
s J
<\\
Date 12/8/71 Originator Telford 80.0723o g
, g,
4.
'j.
t r*
L A U. s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970 - 356 -
f.
~
~
~
CONTROL NUMBER.
FILE LOCKilON.
'- -*.. y, amar s.
gig o
I Mish D ATE OF DOCUMENI ACilON COMPLEllON DE ADLINE
.6 1'
. Steadia Preta 10/13/y1
.f, ACllON PROCESSING DATES PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OF..
s 4
/IO y
,-(,o.y Act o-i.an _
C hoi,.. -
gl.g,,,,,,g,,,gy e
" ' ' ' * ' * ' " * ' " ' ' ' ' * ". jf T. M h m
}
I
<s ri,,oi r
5l 3
% 1 F<"
IbhCalPTIOil 2 EtB
@,iginal
& Copt O Oi/.'
,', ; g.
y 8
w c'.. -
I Begneste response te
- + -- listed concerning b1th and W espoets of mueleer poser se accidents se operetteest
[
Uk C' M', T 4
- h. radiation leake, MCS, ete.
]li y w,.
j) !g,.
l 9,:.. m.
=
j
, { 1,t.
/y
)
- . ; l.'. ; >l;k :Q:.
ii i
&l.;-l.
- Q tj
- ' 'rf c
I2
^L,,ur.f,,*.e e~f,s
' REFERRED 10 DATE IS NOTIFIC AllON TO THE JCAE
!).
, ' ' {.
RECOMMENDED ?
-'.,,",,, x e, y.,
..g f/estion 10/21/71 j
/
~. E' ? f:l X, '
'w
'.1 he;j f ;} l* ]~'
J 8. M 7)e.ii'!gE E
,'. a 47..3 %
- v. u. a.:.,'N L;-
h.I (v;+kh 7 ef;.,,-
k'/r.") M k b30) g ;.
I c.. n.i
?,E ;.,: (50-330)
'i..:
-- u,,,..
- 3..7.,,
p$pb 7..'9.,7., -
g, 1.3.
- 4
- 3. e
- s. r ~
ri yy. '
- Forwr HQ.32 (6 70) b '00 NOT DEIACH THIS COPY DIRECTOR OF REGUL Aff0N USA EC COMMUNICATIONS CONIROL g.
i i
i l
I 1
i i
1 I
? %,
J I
UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON 20545 L'
Oct. 15, 1971
?
To: Chrie Henderson l'g
Subject:
L$r. from Midland Daily News A copy of the attached letter is submitted for your response.
The letter has been acknowledged and a ecoy placed in the Public Docur.ent Recm
~'.
(
y-f, 2
/
/ L(bf Q.A Stant.Robihsen,Jr!
q cc: Kartaliaw/ encl.
Engelhardtw/ encl.
1.-
O e ef *
- t e
.,,/ s #,..,
. a n..m P
2, s
--e y-y v
w r y
-.--,m--,,r e
~.e-
\\
Q q
l Midland Daily News Published by Midland News, Inc.
90X 432 MIDLANO, MICHt0AM 48He Phone (517) 835J171 1
October 13, 1971 Mr. W. B. McCool i
Secretery U.S. Atomic Energy Commirsion Washington, D.C.
20545
Dear Mr. McCool:
In Midland, Michigan', there currently is much 1
concern--both favorable and neg? tive--over 9 proposed dual-facility nuclear power gener9 ting tlant to be built here.
Consumers Fewer. Company of Jackson, Mich.,
is the applicant.
Bechtel Corporation is the archi-tect-engineer, and Bebcock end Wilcox Company is sup-plying the reacter.
T e public hearing for this plant's construc-h tion permit is recessed now, pending clarification of environmental and 2005 matters.
From a journalist's standpoint, there appears to be considerable misunderstanding about nuclear power, the health and safety aspects in particular, and we propose to solicit information from the Atomic Energy Commission and fabricators of light water cooled rese-tors to help clear up some of the public's confusion.
We would appreciate your response to the fol-lowing questions:
1.
This statement ha's been made here:
"The Atomic Energy Commission, the Jefnt Committee and the nuclear industry have demanded and achieved a level of public dafety never before attained in any industry at any time at any place. "
What is the factual basis for such a-statement, specifically for the nuclear industry?
What accidents or operational failures have occurred in commercial nuclear plants since the first was constructed?
2.
It also has been stated here that no member of the public has ever been killed or even injured as a result of designing, building or operating these commercial plants.
Is this a true statement?
I am,
interested in any accidents relsted to radiation re-lease or any other type at commercial plants or at ca?- 3818 e
e
,-,a
,m
,,,m.
e--
e
-ev
,-m-o
,,o,
O Midland Daily News m.a w m.a u i
MX 4M MIOLANO, At4CHIGAN 48440 Pfieme (517) 835-7171 2.
facilities operated by the AEC, including Oak Ridge National Laborstory.
3 Please detail what malfunctions and break-downs have occurred in commercial nuclear facilities.
Are such breakdowns more hazardous to the public because of the use of atomic energy and radiation than in, for instance, a chemical company's operations?
4.
Do the built-in safety features of a plant still permit small radiation leaks?
5 Despite the restrictions on radiation re-leases which a plant may emit, recently made more conservative by the AEC, can inductry or the AEC (or, perhaps, EPA) now, at this time, assess the long-term effects of any radiation leaks from plants, whether minimal or major?
Effects such as physical illness, genetic damage or death.
6.
In light of the recent model ECCS test failures, do AEC and the industry still have confidence in safety features of nuclear plants?
Are there other mora important safety features than ECCS?
7 Does industry or the commission feel it is necessary to come up with the best design for safety features and then require that design for all plants, or are others acceptable?
If the answer is.ney, ho'w is it possible to justify not seeking the best, when less than the best would appear to be 'second rate?"
8.
Many people are c'oncerned that the problem with nuclear plants is the possibility they may " blow up."
Is this the fundamental concern, or is it core meltdown or some other?
9.
The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards has urged the AEC to slow down promoting and building nuclear plants until additional research is completed.
(In communications to Dr. Glenn Seaborg,619-22)
AEC Authori-zing Legislation, 1969-70, Pt. III, P. 1 What are your comments?
10.
From a safety standpoint (not economics or geography) would you rather site two 800 mwe plants side-by-side at one location or separate, within 10
a o
~
Midland Daily Nowo e.ww.a w mm.a % i BOX 432 amouwo. unewooam 4mee m (sm uwm 3,
to 15 miles of each other?
In other words, is the safety factor a function of megawatts of electricity produced at one point?
Or, what are the advantages of siting two plants together?
We appreciate your cooperation in our search for information which, I'm sure you realize, can be an arduous and frustrating task for the concerned laymen.
Any additional comments you wish to make would be welcome.
Sincerely, (Mrs.) Claudia Pretz Reporter, Midland Daily News l
l l
l
~... -
e-
- - -