ML20062C271
| ML20062C271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1978 |
| From: | Mccaughan D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811070354 | |
| Download: ML20062C271 (4) | |
Text
.,.
~~
-]'): ' *rg 37_
3 Secretary of the Commission o
j U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' '-
/g r l is,
?
1 Washington, D. C.
20555 c
l Attention: Docketing and Services Bra (ch -
g gt g
i 1
s\\Bp a S;
\\\\Y
~'0 cphh I
t m
Madam:
I am petitioning for leave to intervene late in the operating permit hearings for the " South Texas Project" with the following contentions:
(
.o 4
f 4
i I
1 l
781107 o 35Y er l
a>
g The South Texas Project Ato mic Plant will cost 25-30% more to build than a coal, oil or gas burning plant. It will cost utility rate payers more than
$2 billion.
i A
II i
It will not perform close to its promised ability. The Council on Economic priorities reported that in 1976 forced shutdowns of nuclear powe plants cut their capacity for generating electricity.
III A major nuclear accident at this site could cause more than $14 billion in property damage; contaminate an area the size of Pennsylvania, and cause tens of thousands of deaths and illnesses.
IV
('
This plant will spur the nuclear arms race. In 1974 India exploded its first atomic bomb with " heavy water" and technical help supplied by the United States and Canada.
V This plant will dramatically increase the risk that groups or individuals will be able to acquire nuclear weapons. Only 5 kilograms of enriched uranium or 2 kilograms of plutonium is needed to make a crude nuclear device. A commercial-size nuclear fuel recycling plant can recover enough plutonium to build more than 1,000 weapons a year.
VI
(
The fuel and radioactive waste transportation system to and from this plant will be vulnerable to sabotage and theft.
VII Safeguarding the fuel and radioactive waste for and from this plant could require Garrison-State measures which would threaten our civil rights. The U. S.
Government has already admitted that it cannot locate 6,200 tons of weapons-grade uranium it once had.
VIII The main reactor safety system - the emergency core caoling system (ECCS) for this plant has never been tested, even though 71 commercial plants are on line in the U. S.
t 1
4
- - = -.
._. ~.
+=
1x i
This plant will produce highly dangerous and toxic radioactive waster like plutonium - 239. There is no proven technology availabla to isolate these wastes.
i-i X
1 I
i This plant will add radiation to our environment. All radiation releases i
affect living tissue. The risk of cancer not only affects exposed individuals, i
but also their future offspring.
J XI t
i j
The safety standards for this industrial plant have been determined by Corporate ;
Industry elite individuals. These standards should not be set by industry.
XII This plant will produce plutonium 239, W1ich is the deadliest material known
(_T to science.
i l
XIII The utility rates charged for this energy from this plant on a " cost-plus"
~
formula. The more this plant costs to build, the more profit it will yield its owners.
XIV r
The cost of the waste disposal for this plant is still a mystery.
.i XV ij
(~
Alternative forms of energy production, (i. e. garbage, solar,. conservation) i-i would create more jobs and growth. Than this plant.
i XVI t
l l
-1 Tax dollars are used to subsidize this plant.
i l
i XVII i
This plant will be too dangerous to insure by private enterprizes.
l XVIII t-There isn't enough uranium to reasonably fuel this plant.
i 1
i i
1
~, -,
XIX Decentralized solar photovoltaic cell energy in place of this plant would be less hazardous, cheaper over there comparative lifetimes, and infinite.
XX These types of plants have a history of regulatory failure.
L XXI I
The "right of eminant domain" powers used to acquire this land are unconstitutional.
4 XXII The A. E. C. -Rasmussen " study"has been relied upon for its safety k...
Rasmussen " study" has been found invalid and its integrity question-contentions for this project But, after reevaluation, the A. E. C. -
able, certainly not a dependable source for support of atomic power production safety.
XXIII A Portion of a reactor caseing has had to be dismantled in order for a reactor to be placed. It is my contention that this will reduce the support, integrity, and prctec: tion of the core, thus reduce the safety of its operation.
1 i
~
(i n
./
D. M chael McCaughan Member The Environmental Task Force KPFT ~ Pacifica Radio Free Houston 3131 Timmons Ln. Apt. 254 Houston, Tx.
77027 l
l t
I
-.mi--r-
,