ML20080A373

Requests Review of Concerns Expressed in Encl Aw Ogden Ltr Re Facilities

ML20080A373
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	12/08/1983
From:	Bentsen L SENATE
To:	Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA)
Shared Package
ML20080A370	List: ML20080A373
References
NUDOCS 8402030489
Download: ML20080A373 (28)

Text

~

8 e'

e LLOYD (ENTR EN

• • .'-["1*-

TEXAS Co****rr7E as; FINANCE l

ENVIRoa* MENT AND PUSUC WORMS JCMNT ECONOMIC og g g

i JOINT CouMITTEE ON TAX ATION CIICIIO SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTGUGENCE UIEC A, O&OM

+

WASHINGTON. D.C.

20510

{

December 8, 1983 I

t

[ygpQ h l

Mr. Carlton C.

Kammerer, Director Office of Congressional Affairss.

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20555 l

Dear Mr. Kammerer:

I Mr. Alvin W. Ogden has contacted me concerniiig 'tihe'u's~

'" * ^'"* N'# " 7 s

of nuclear energy and the South Texas Nuclear Project.

A copy of this correspondence is attached for your reference.

In view of the concerns expressed by Mr. Ogden, I would appreciate your thorough review of this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely, U

/

L1 d Bentsen l

Enc 16sure l

l PLEASE REPLY TO:

912 Federal Building l

Austin, Texas 78701 1

1 1

I l

r402030487 840124

{DRADOCK05000

L967 Lare Lane Ear Antenio, Texas Never.ter 11, '953 The Honorable Lloyd Bentson 240 Russel Senate Office Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Bentson:

As a citizen of Texas and of San Antonio, recent events involving the South Texas Nuclear Powerplant and other p2 ants scattered throughout the United States have made me concerned.

We are gambling, sir, with both the money and lives of our citizenry.

I would like to express my concerns to you point by point, in hope that you may do something to remedy the situation.

Point one.

The vast amount of money being spent on on these projects cannot and never have been justified.

j Every year more money is appropriated for the co'nstruction of these plants, and every year the construction drags on for another year.

Construction delays, faulty design, inflated cost of materials, and inept contractors are draining our pockets with cost over-runs.

One power plant in the north west has already been irreversibly mismanaged into bankruptcy.

We cannot tolerate such a financial burden.

Point two.

It seems that part of the problem with these plants is faulty design.

Construction nearly all-ways has to be stopped so that design changes can be made inorder to correct a safty problem or some other flaw. This tells me that the people that are building these, plants don't know much more about building them than I'do. You wouldn't let a plant that I built go into opperation, and so, you would.be right. You shouldn't let the plants that the current contractors build operate until the technology is proven and standardized.

[

+,,,. :l. ;

2.

Point three.

This is a partic';1erly important point.

Safety.

The previous points established leave doubts as tc

~

the safety of these plants.

These plants are built under constant financial pressure.

Short-cuts are and have to be taken, approved or not.

A cheap valve or faulty weld could spell future disaster.

I speak not only of public health I am also concerned with the fiscal wisdom of issues here, building these plants. A resatively inexpensive component in the inner workings of one of these plants could mal-function and cause the plant to become inoperative for ever.

Three Mile Island is a case in point, and much worse is I believe that we are doing too much too fast possible.

with these projects and a great deal'of thought needs to be given to a halt in construction until the technology

's The threat to human health is also a concern. We proven.

worry about nuclear attack from outside our borders but Ten russian place these time bombs in our back-yards.

missiles detonating simultaneously in the same area could not equal the damage caused by the melt-down of one these An enemy could not pick a better place for a plants.

The waste products are perfect for y

terrorist attack.

illicit nuclear weapo'ns.

These wastes, for all practical

~'

purposes, are parmanent and.need to be stored.

You know that west Texas has been proposed as a storage site. Un-fortunatly, we don't know how to store these wastes Stored improperly and they may spontaneously properly.

detonate or leak and contaminate our valuable water suply for hundreds of thousands of years.

not a complete nay-sayer in the. subject of nuclear I am energy but until the builders prove that they know what they are doing, I-cannot suport their projects.

I am also not one to Texas is a criticize without offering an alternate proposal.

fortunate state in that it has an abundance of natural resources that have warmed and fed ;ha entire United States.

Texas, however, has another natural resource that is being fiscally ignored by state, federal, and i rivate 19 searchers.

This

r

['.

J Yd. -

3, primary resource is the sun.

All forms of energy that we now use come from the sun and an effort needs to be made to glean l

this resource more efficiently.,We reed to harvest the sun's energy to replace the stored solar energy that we have used for Even the the devices that are now available are i~

so many. years.

by far more beneficial than the nuclear alternative. I really believe that if the money and resources that are wasted on i

nuclear plant development were to be diverted to, tapping the sun's output then we would be providing for all the future generations energy needs.

In closing,I would like to ask you personally to consider.

the options and weigh the long term advantages of concentrating on solar energy development against the q'uick fix that nuclear plants are providing.

Even though there are current technological problems involved with solar development a mistake will not threaten the existence of the generations that the projects were-designed to help.

With Sincere Regards,

/

(

//

- l+- ("

v.

l W.Lv

[i Alvin W. OgEbh I

l AWO:cb

\\

I (/

-J FROM: bi "*

ACTION CONTROL MOATES CONTROL NO.

_r/ Mas 13884 see. uord m sent.o.

DATE OF DOCUMENT INTER;M PCPLY TO PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE CHAT 6 MAN i

MN 3 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FILE LOCATION il

// 7/rq OracR DESCRIPTION b ET1ER O ucuo O RcPoRr O OTHER SPECIAL INSTRdCTIONS OR REMARKS L

tact Itr fle Alvin W. Ogden concerning the Asply to:

use of nuclear ener5Y end the South 912 Federal Bu11 ding Texas Project Austin. Tomas 78701 ASSIGNED TO DATE INFORMATION ROUTING Denten,NRR 12/16/83 Cell 1as. M Y Eisenhut 12L19/83 1"" ~

' Case /tiinifen v,.;

1.

PPAS I

2.

Spets l

3.

httson 4.

Vollmer SECY-83-2625

~

5.

Thompson

./

l 6.

Grace d

E'

7. A der EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS NRC FORM 232 PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL (W

I 1

l l

l

SECY-83-2625

, go, Logging Date F

NRC SECRETARIAT

/"}*

i F

18:" C Commissioner Date XO Exec. Dir$/Oper, s

Gen. Counsel '

I Cong. Liaison Solicitor

. Public Affairs Secretary inspector & Auditor Policy Ewetuation /

den Lloyd BentSen ConSE Fei incom.ing:

From:

Alvin Ogden

~

To:

OCA 12/8/83 o t.

uSe of nuclear energy and the South Texas Sube.ct-nuc project o

O prep.,.,eply for sign.ture of:

O Cn.irm.n i

Commissioner l'

E DO, GC, CL, SOL, PA, SECY, I A, PE Signature block omitted ID&R-5 South Texas l

O Return origin. of incoming with response l

r

@XFor direct reply' Suspense: Dec 27 0 For appropri.te.ciion Ree e off, tog Tirn e,,,, N.-[N:<b.nm.,,

i For information

• • -,k l

OCA to Ack Remeeks:

i l

For the Commission:

hillin

' Send three (3) copies of reply to Secy Cos respondence and Records Branch a ropw saA ACTION SLIP (Han.

i l

l

.k*

s k.. *,

9 LLOYD BENTSEN L e C c

• M +J.?

'N,,

,,,.,4 texas co-Treat 4;

FtNANCE ENviseONMENT AND PUBLIC D80ftMS L

JCMN1 ECONOMIC g g NUOgO JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAX A TION '

CN $&F 60 s OM SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE WASHINGTON. D.C.

20510 1

December 8, 1983

/

.w Mr. Carlton C. Kammerer, Director

/

Office of Congressional Affairs,.

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20555

.k

Dear Mr. Kamme re r :

s' i._,..-a.."*'"..*,

i

-+...%.

4 Mr. Alvin W. Ogden has contacted me concerning the us of nuclear energy and the South Texas Nuclear Project'e,"Qg A copy of this correspondence is attached for your

,nh reference.

-j

+

In view of the concerns expressed by Mr. Ogden,: I would appreciate your thorough review of this matter.

I lookJ

\\

forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely, v

J d Bentsen Enclusure PLEASE REPLY TO:

's 912 Federal Building Austin, Texas 78701 w

..nm s.

'r L967 Dare Lane San Antenio, T:xas Hovember 11, 1983 The Honorable Lloyd Eentsen 240 Russel Senate Office Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Bentson:

As a citizen of Texas and of San Antonio, recent events involving the South Texas Nuclear Powerplant and other plants scattered throughout the United States have made r..e concerned.

We are gambling, sir, with both the money and lives of our citizenry.

I would like to express my concerns to you point by point, in hope that you may do something to remedy the situation.

Point one.

The vast amount of money being spent on on these projects cannot and never have been justified.

Every year more money is appropriated for the construction of these plants, and every year tne construction drags on for another year.

Construction delays. faulty design, inflated cost of materials, and inept contractors are draining our pockets with cost over-runs.

One power plant in the north west has already been irreversibly mismanaged into bankruptcy.

We cannot tolerate such a financial burden.

Point two.

It seems that part of the problem with these plants is faulty design.

Construction nearly all-ways has to be stopped so that design changes can be made inorder to correct a safty problem or some other flaw. This tells me that the people that are building these. plants don't know much more about building them than I do. You wouldn't let a plant that I built go into opperation, and so, you would.e right. You shouldn't let the plants that b

the current contractors build operate until the technology is proven and standardized.

~

2.

Point three.

This is a ptr ticularly important point.

~

Safety.

The previous points establ_shed leave doubts as to the safety of these plants.

These plants are built under constant financial pressure.

Short-cuts are and have to be taken, approved or not.

A cheap valve or faulty weld could spell future disaster.

I speak not only of public health I am also concerned with the fiscal wisdom of issues here, building these plants. A resatively inexpensive component in the inner workings of one of these plants could mal-function and cause the plant to become inoperative for ever.

Three Mile Island is a case in point, and much worse is possible.

I elieve that we are doing too much too fast with these projects and a great deal of thought needs to be given to a halt in construction until the technology is The threat to human health is also a concern. We proven.

worry about nuclear attack from outside our borders but Ten russian place these time bombs in our back-yards.

missiles detonating simultaneously in the same area could not equal the damage caused by the melt-down of one these plants.

An enemy could not pick a better place for a terrorist attack.

The waste products are perfect for illicit nuclear weapons.

These wastes, for all practical are parmanent and need to be stored.

You know

purposes, that west Texas has been proposed as a storage site. Un-fortunatly, we don't know how to store these wastes properly.

Stored improperly and they may spontaneously detonate or leak and contaminate our valuable water suply for hundreds of thousands of years.

I am not a complete nay-sayer in the subject of nuclear energy but until the builders prove that they know what they are doing, I-cannot suport their projects.

I am also not one to criticize without offering an alternate proposal.

Texas is a fortunate state in that it has an abundance of natural resources that have warmed and fed tha entire United States.

Texas, however, has another natural resource that is being fiscally 16nored by state, federal, and private ~ researchers.

This

... m, 3,

~

primary resource is the sun.

All formc of energy that we no~

use come from the sun and an effort r.eedc te be made to glean this resource more efficiently. We r.eed to harvest the sun's energy to replace the stored solar energy that we have used for so many years.

Even the the devices that are now available are by far more beneficial than the nuclear alternative. I really believe that if the money and resources that are wasted on nuclear plant development were to be diverted to tapping the sun's output then we would be providing for all the future generations energy needs.

In closing I would like to ask you personally to consider the options and weigh the long term advantages of concentrating on solar energy development against the quick fix that nuclear plants are providing.

Even though there are current technological problems involved with solar development a mistake will not threaten the existence of the generations that the projects were designed to help.

With Sincere ReEards,

.9-A

/

/

. d b (-

1 f s_

6 tLa Alvin W.

Og' den AWO:cb F

e mM

GREEN TICKET N0. 13884 DISTRIBUTION *w/ incoming Docket Control 50-498/499*

NRC'PDR*-=

L PDR*

PRC System

• LB#3 Reading GWKnighton AVietti JLee*

JLJordan, IE JMTaylor, IE Attorney, OELD TMNovak MBridgers, EDO (EDO#13884)*

MGarver,NRR(ED0#13884)*

4 SECY (3)

HRDenton ECase Collins, Region V LUnderwood PPAS TSpeis RMattson RVollmer HThompson Grace l

l l

l 1

I 1)w -

c

JAN 2 41984 Docket Nos.:

50-498 50-499 The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen United States Senator 912 Federal Building Austin, Texas 78701

Dear Senator Bentsen:

This is in response to your letter of December 8,1983 to Mr. C. Kamerer and the letter of your constituent Mr. Alvin W. Ogden which expressed his views on nuclear pnwer plants, including the South Texas Pro.iect.

Mr. Ogden addresses three points of concern:

1) cost, 2) faulty design, and 3) safety.

The Commission is aware of the concerns about escalating costs expressed by Mr. Ogden. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the NRC prepares environmental impact statements in connection with the Commission's licensing and regulatory activities. The NRC's policies and procedures for the preparation and processing of environmental impact statements and related docunents are contained in 10 CFR 51.

Included therein is a requirement for a benefit-cost analysis that considers cost in its assessment of alternative energy sources when an applicant applies for a construction permit. The benefit-cost analysis of alternatives for the South Texas Project can be found in Chapter 9 of the Final Environmental Statenent (FES) related to the proposed South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 dated March 1975 (See Enclosure 1).

With respect to the concern about faulty design of nuclear power plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) conducts a detailed review of all nuclear power plant applications to ensure that components, systems and structures important to safety are designed, fabricated, erected, and tested to quality standards comnensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be performed. The safety review is conducted in accordance with NRC established rules and regulations.

An application is reviewed to detennine whether the plant design is consistent with the Standard Review Plan which describes in detail how the safety review of a Light Water Reactor (LWR) application is accomplished and which criteria are applied in the acceptance of systems, components and structures important to safety. Design methods and procedures of calculations are examined to t

ie i

l l

The Honorable Lloyd bentsen

.2 -

establish their validity.

Checks of actual calculations and other procedures of design and analysis are made by the staff to establish the validity of the applicant's design. The staff performs a substantive review and inspection of the applicant's quality assurance program covering design and procurement.

Through its inspection and enforcement program, the NRC maintains surveillance over construction and operation of a plant throughout its lifetime to assure compliance with Commission regulations for the protection of public health and safety and the environment.

In addition to the safety review for a specific nuclear power plant license application, the NRC technical staff conducts many generic safety review efforts, the results of which are continually fed back into specific plant reviews. These include the reviews of operating reactors' experience and data obtained from industry research and development programs and from the Commission's safety research program.

The staff also conducts engineering audits of reactor vendors and architect-engineer design calculations and procedures to assure conformance with safety design practice.

All of the processes mentioned above are mechanisms used to ensure that when errors occur, they are detected and corrected.

Mr. Odgen expressed his concern about the safety of nuclear power plants over a wide range of issues. We have included as enclosures information on several of these issues: describes the NRC role in Ensuring Safe Design of Nuclear Power Plants; Enclosure 3 describes the Quality Assurance applied to nuclear power plants; Enclosure 4 describes the Safeguards and Security at Nuclear' Power Plants; Enclosure 5 addresses High Level Radioactive Waste Management; and Enclosure 6 addresses the Disposal of Radioactive Waste.

We trust that this is helpful' to you and your constituent.

Let us know should you need further information on any of these issues.

Sincerely, is1gned)T. A.R'eh5 William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated

• See previscus concurrence.

DL:LB#3 DL:LB#3*

DL:AD/L* DL:DIR*

NRR NRR E00 AVietti/yt GWKnighton TMNovak

_DGEisenhut ECase HRDenton WJDircks 1/ /84 1/ /84 1/ /84 1/ /84 1/ /84 1/ /84 1/ /84

a.

,1 <.e

-. /-

95.

........m...,

.........,, m i.....i....i

.y }.

4/

.t he, w&w ~~

ACTION CONTROL MDATES MNTROL NO.

FROM:-

- u~c 1 m 84 13884 Sen. Lloyd Bidiidd Bentsen DATE OF DOCUMENT i,m aiu aErty 12/8/83-PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE TO:

FtNAL REP [Y w.

M OCsAiRuAs Kammerer..

s FILE LOCATION g EXECUTIVE D' ECTOR,,

j R

u,

't OTHER: '

.. ' * " ~

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR, REMARKS.

p,.

DESCRIPTION. O LETTER O uEuo O REPORT C oTwER..,.

.c....

...... r ;_ c... n.,~c

,t 1 m,,

.....,,c.,,v.

w -

m.. 1 e

f 4.. ;,' '

J Encl ltr fm'Alvin W. 0gden concerning.thei

. Reply'to:

-?. '..

^... ' ' ~

L...,

N

.'~

y tS., ' ?

912' Federal B_uilding G...O..

'use of nuclear. en.e...f.gy and th;e.;S..outh.

..: 4,.

..e.

~

.e.-

w.

Austi.

.T.exas: ;78701:

J.

.... 9tc Tgxas Project.4..,; vet.

.m n,...

..n..

. ~ =.. +.

?

p

-x a..-

.. = :.

.y -

9

.f..,=.. 7...

w :-. ;;

.-., 3.,

_... - y_.

,w g

AssiowEn To oATE -

suroRuaTion w wo....' '

..'?."'

i

.. /

m..

t.

~~.%

. - _ ' _. H I

.u, 2,,

.Denton, NRR 12/16/83 Col l i ns, s RI.V.a

.m...

s i-J.

4" Eisenhut 12/19/83 'LUnderviood'ir ' -

L

~: '.e {.

. y~-

CaselDento

~. - -

A(0(A4 d' tzfv

^.

l.

PPAS-

2..Speis

~

3.

Mattson SECY-83-2625 /

4.

Vollmer 5.

Thompson.

6.

Grace'.

~

7.

Snydor sJ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS DO NOT REMOV'

'/

NRC FORM 232 N640)

PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL j

.\\

SEC'Y-83-2625 12/15/83 iNA-Logging Date t

NRC SECRETARIAT 7'

TO:

Commissioner Date g

XU Exec. Dir./Oper.

Gen. Counsel Cong. Liaison Solicitor Public Affairs O Secretary 0

' a******' 8' A ud a' Policy Evolustion den uoyd bentSen Co.sSt Kei incoming:

{

From.

Alvin Ogden i

s To:

OCA o,i, 12/8/83 Suweet- '

uSe of nuclear energy and the South Texas

-nuc project e

. C ** '.

0 er. pare repiy ror s;gnature ov:

i O Casirman i

v-

/

Commissioner j

s E DO, GC, CL, SQL, PA, S ECY, I A. PE O Signature siock omitteo O

ID&R-5 South Texas O Retum originai or incoming with response i,

@XFor direct reply

• Suspense _: Dec 27 R5'd Off. EDO l

For appropriate action MN Time...., g.g..~.b...~

For information

\\

OCA to Ack Remarks:

i l

4 i

l For the Commission:

hil1io I

' Send three (3) copies of reply to Secy Correspondence and Recoros Branch NRC FORM Sa ACTION SLIP (3 82) i l

(

. e i.*.

• I" "

L YD C D(TCEN TENAS consumers:

FIN AmeC E ENylRONMENT AND PUBUC WOR *S

.oNT reo ouic dj gt s

s JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAR ATCN MLntICD ictics CHC*te scorcTeo==iTrrroNiNTetuorNcr WASHINGTON. D.C.

20510 December 8, 1983 1

Mr. Carlton C. Kammerer, Direc. tor 1

office of Congressional Affairs"..

1 The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

I Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Kammerer:

~

Mr. Alvin W..Ogden has contacted me concernihg the'uSE^ ~~ ~ * # 1 of nuclear energy and the South Texas Nuclear Project.

A copy of this correspondence is attached for your reference.

l In view of the concerns expressed by Mr. Ogden, I would appreciate your thorough review of this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely, j

u

/

d Bentsen Enchsure l

PLEASE REPLY TO:

912 Federal Building Austin, Texas 78701 t

l l

.~.

~

6967 Lare Lane Sar. Antenio. Texas McVember 11, '.963 The Honorable Lloyd Bentson 240 Russel Senate Office Washington,ED. C. 20510

Dear Senator Bentson:

As a-~ citizen of Texas and of San Antonio, recent events involving the So'uth Texas-Nuclear Powerplant and other p2 ants scattered throughout the United States-have made me concerned.

We are gambling,-sir, with both the money and lives of our citizenry.

I would like to express my concerns to you point by point, in hope that ycu may do something to remedy the situation.

Point one.

The vast amount of money being spent on on these_ projects cannot and.never have been justified.

Every year more money is appropriated for the construction of these plants,.and every year the construction drags on

.for another year.

-Construction delays, faulty design, inflated _ cost-of materials,-and inept contractors are draining our pockets with cost over runs.

One power plant b

in the north-west has already.been irreversibly mismanaged into bankruptcy.

We cannot tolerate such a financial i

burden.

Point two.

It seems that part of the problem with

~

these plants is faulty design.

Construction nearly all-l ways h'as to be stopped so that design changes can be made inorder to correct a safty problem or some other. flaw. Th'is t

tells me that the people that are building these plants don't know ach more about building them than I'do. You i:

H wouldn't let a plant that I built go into opperation, and

(

-so, you would.be right. You shouldn't let the plants that the current contractors build operate until tne technology is proven ~and standardized.

I i

L

2..

Point three.

This ic a particularly important point.

Sn.fety.

The previous points established leave doubts as to the safety of these plants.

These plants are built under constant financial pressure.

Short-cuts are and have to be taken, approved or not.

A cheap valve or faulty weld could spell future disaster.

I speak not only of public health issues here, I am also concerned with the fiscal wisdom of building these plants. A resatively inexpensive component in the' inner workings of one of these plants could mal-function and cause the plant to become inoperative for ever.

Three Mile Island is a case in point, and much worse is possible.

I believe that we-are doing too much too fast with these projects and a great deal' of thought needs to be given to a halt in construction until the technology is The threat to human health is also a concern. We proven.

worry about nuclear attack from outside our borders but Ten russian place these time bombs in our back-yards.

. missiles detonating simultaneously in the-same. area could not equal the damage caused by the melt-down of one these plants.

An enemy could not pick a better place for a terrorist attack.

The waste products are perfect for illicit nuclear weapons.

These wastes, for all practical

'~

You know purposes, are parmanent and.need to'be stored.

that west Texas has been propose.d as a storage. site. Un-fortunatly, we don't know how to. store these wastes S'ored improperly and they may spontaneously t

properly.

detonate or leak and contaminate our valuable water suply I

l for hundreds of thousands of years.

not a complete nay-sayer in the subject of nuclear I am l

energy but'until.the builders profe that they know what they are i

doing, I.cannot suport their projects.

I am also not one to Texas is a criticize without offering an alternate proposal.

fortunate state in that it has an abundance of natural resources

Texas,

-that have warmed and fed tha entire United States.

l however, has another natural resource that is being fiscally This i6nored by state, federa1, and private researchers.

p l

~

3,

- primary resource is the sun.

All forms of energy that we no '

use come from the sun and an effort needs to te made to glean this resource.more efficiently. We r.eed to harvest the sun's energy to, replace the stored solar energy that we have used for so many y' ears.

Even the the devices that are now available are by far more beneficial than the nuclear-alternative. I really believe.that if the money and resources that are wasted on nuclear plant development were to be diverted to tapping the

-sun's output then we would be prov d ng for all the future ii generations energy needs.

In closing I would like to ask you personally to consider.

the options and weigh.the long term advantages of concentrating on solar energy development against the quick fix that nuclear plants are providing.

Even though there are current technological problems involved with solar development a mistake will not threaten the existence of the generations that the projects were designed to help.

With Sincere Regards,

-lp fff l$ u-ll L

i

-/

v.

Alvin W.

OgHen l

I AWO:cb e

i e

o l

f i

1 i

CREEN TICKET NO. 13884 DISTRIBUTION *w/ incoming Docket Control 50-498/499*

NRC PDR*

't-PDR*~

PRC System

• LBf3 Reading GWKnighton AVietti 4

JLee*

JLJordan, IE JMTaylor, IE Attorney, OELD TMNovak MBridgers,EDO(ED0#13884)*

MGarver, NRR (ED0#13884)*

SECY (3)

HRDenton ECase Collins, Region V LUnderwood PPAS

.TSpeis

-RMatts'on RVo11mer HThompson Grace l

l l

NfC

(

Docket Nos.: 50-498 50-499 The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen United States Senator 91? Federal Building t

Austin, Texas 78701

Dear Senator Bentsen:

This is in response to your letter of December 8,1983 to Mr. C. Kamerer and the letter of your constituent Mr. Alvin W. Ogden which expressed his views on nuclear power plants, including the South Texas Proiect. Mr. Ogden addresses three points of concern:

1) cost, 2) faulty design, and 3) safety.

The Comission is aware of the concerns about escalating costs expressed by Mr. Ogden. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the NRC prepares environmental impact statements in connection with the Commission's licensing and regulatory activities. The NRC's policies and procedures for the preparation and processing of environmental impact statements and related documents are contained in 10 CFR 51.

Included therein is a requirement for a benefit-cost analysis that considers cost in its assessment of alternative energy sources when an applicant applies for a construction permit. The benefit-cost analysis of alternatives for the South Texas Project can be found in Chapter 9 of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) related to the proposed South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 dated March 1975 (See Enclosure 1).

With respect to the concern about faulty design of nuclear power plants, the Nur' ear Regulatory Comission (NRC) conducts a detailed review of all nuclear power plant applications to ensure that components, systems and structures important to safety are designed, fabricated, erected, and tested 1

to quality standards commensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be performed. The safety review is conducted in accordance with NRC l

established rules and regulations.

t l

An application is reviewed to determine whether the plant design is consistent with the Standard Review Plan which describes in detail how the safety review of a Light Water Reactor (LWR) application is accomplished and which criteria l

are applied in the acceptance of systems, components and structures important to safety. Design methods and procedures of calculations are examined to i

l l

I l

l l

The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen !

establish their validity.

Checks of actual calculations and other procedures of design and analysis are made by the staff to establish the validity of the applicant's design. The staff performs a substantive review and inspection of the applicant's quality assurance program covering design and procurement.

Through its inspection and enforcement program, the NRC maintains surveillance over construction and operation of a plant throughout its lifetime to assure compliance with Commission regulations for the protection of public health and safety and the environment.

In addition to the safety review for a specific nuclear power plant license application, the NRC technical staff conducts many generic safety review efforts, the results of which are continually fed back into specific plant reviews. These include the reviews of operating reactors' experience and data obtained from industry research and development programs and from the Commission's safety research program. The staff also conducts engineering audits of reactor vendors and architect-engineer design calculations and procedures to assure conformance with safety design practice.

All of the processes mentioned above are mechanisms used to ensure that when errors occur, they are detected and corrected.

Mr. Odgen express'ed his concern about the safety of nuclear power plants over a wide range of issues. We have included as enclosures information on several of these issues: describes the NRC role in Ensuring Safe Design of Nuclear Power Plants; Enclosure 3 describes the Quality Assurance applied td nuclear power plants; Enclosure 4 describes the Safeguards and Security at

~

Nuclear Power Plants; Enclos'ure 5 addresses High Level Radioactive Waste Management; and Enclosure 6 addresses the Disposal of Radioactive Waste.

We trust that th'is is helpful to you and your constituent. Let us know.should you need further information on any of these issues.

Sincerely,

%igne6)T. A gshm William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

As. stated

• See previscus concurrence.

DL:LB#3 DL:LB#3*

DL:AD/L* DL:DIR*

NRR NRR ED0 AVietti/yt GWKnighton TMNovak DGEisenhut ECase HRDenton WJDircks 1/ /84 1/ /84 1/ /84 1/ /84 1/ /84 1/ /84 1/ /84 r

'/..

• * /

.4,

]

9T e u. a. s oyg nenut est painttons CFFICLI 1980-31S*901 o

?)-

J,

. At

=

1, w&w 9

y' g ACTION CONTROL XDATES DNTROL NO.

- o-o~e w rfe4 13884 Sen. L1oyd 5d###dd Bentseri oxTE Or oOCouENT mTEa= acnv 12/8/83-PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE TO -

FWAL REPLY Kammerer ALE LOCATION '

L3cw=auAN g EXECUTIVE D[ RECTOR

[

c s

.. ~

OTHER:

~

DESCRIPTION s O LETTER O uEuO O RE, ORT O OTHER '

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS.OR, REM ARKS : - '

^'

.4:: y w : :.~ g... ;. : ^ c y, Reply to;.::r..,.,~;.~ T ;'.q d.. ;. 6

. s..

n

,. - ~..

S Encl -ltr fm Alvin W.; Ogden con'cerning the:

,s J

'. ' jg '};.;.

S ou th.,...~.

912 FederaldBuilding- -

.c Austin @TExa's'. (78701 'f.'. 7~ J'f,3..

fTpxasProjectjc5M.rgyandthe: _

f;

.'use of nuclear ene j

y l' b

.C~

?!. 7

a-

r..

,,,~,m.m.

.*4,.,

4

,.."--sv.....

y s.

e

.u.

_g

.v.

g u.

m.

.,. s

'y

- ' 5,_" * #

',I

.'?**

~

7.

• * *

• As :GNED TO DATE "

8NFORuATION ROUTING f/

.e.,

. 3:

e J

.S'i.

~. Col l i ns. R. I,V x e_ c. c h... A..

Denton,.NRR.

12/16/83 ab. _..

a u

Eisenhut 12/19/83 LUnden' woods.

',.g* * *":

~ C i,. '~.,. [.

jeG-

.,.. c.;;...

1. 2

. -' ;:. _ % c A(0(/M

/z/ zs Case /Denton';

W.

1.

PP.AS

'^

'-t. s.

2;.Speis N

.e a.

/

3.

Mattson

^ ;-

e 4.

Vollmer-..

SECY-83-2625. /.

~

5.

Thompso.n.

~

3.

6. 'Gra.ce' -

.v -

-"^-

7.

Snydor y

~

,J EXECUTIVE oIRECTOR FOR OPERATK)NS DO NOT REMOV'

'/

NRC FORM 232

)

PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL

• 4 e

SECY-83-2625 12/15/83 3 N s.

Logging Date NRC SECRETARIAT j

TO:

Commissioner Date X 1 Exec. DirJOper.

O cen. Counsei Cong. Liaison Solicitor O Public Affairs O Secretary Q

inspector & Auditor O Poiiev e iu. tion den.Lloya bentSen conSt Her incom..ng:

prom.

Alvin Ogden

~ '

12/8/83 To:

OCA o,i, uSe of nuclear energy and the South Texas

%,et. -

nuc pro]ect w-i l

Prepare reply for signature of.

3 1

Chairman Commissioner E DO, GC, CL, SOL, PA, SECY, l A, PC Signature block omitted ID&R-5 South Texas O R.iurn originai of incoming ith response

@XFor direct reply' Suspense: Dec 27 For appropriate action R5'd Off. EDO M-Tline,,,,, k.g./.6-8. m' O. For information j

o OCA to Ack Remarks:

For the Cornmission:

hi1lio

' Send three (3) copies of reply to Secy Correspondence and Records Branch knc rona s2A ACTION SLIP (kaa) 2 1

e LLOYD C ENTE EN t-l

- 1M

• Tru As,

co== mess:

FINANCE ENVsRONMENT AND PUBUC WORKS JosNT ECCNOMIC A9 to L

a i

JCsNT COMulTTEE ON TA AATiON X)VITI{CO 1Ct1CS C1TC*IC scorCT CommiTTer ON iNTztuccNCr

+

WASHINGTON. D.C. 10510 December 8, 1983 l

Mr. Carlten C. Kammerer, Direc_ tor Office of Congressional Affairs'..

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission l~37 H Street, N.W.

i Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Kammerer:

~

Mr. Alvin W. Ogden has contacted me concernifig 'tihe uSE

~ "'* W of nuclear energy and the South Texas Nuclear Project.

l-A copy of this correspondence is attachcd for your reference.

In view of the concerns expressed by Mr. Ogden, I would appreciate your thorough review of this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

i I

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely, L/

/

d Bentsen Encl 6sure l

PLEASE REPLY TO:

912 Federal Building l

Austin, Texas 78701 i

l i

i i

t

77,, -

- ? :'

L967 Lare Lans San Antonio, Texas I;cvember 11, 19E3

-The Honorable Lloyd Bentson 240 Russel Senate Office

. Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Bentson:

o As a citizen of Texas and of San Antonio, recent events Linvo3ving the South Texas Nuclear Powerplant and other plants scattered throughout the United States have made me concerned.

We are gambling, sir, with both.the money and lives of our citizenry.

I would like to express my concerns to you point by point, in hope that you may do something to remedy the situation.

Point one.

The vast amount of money being spent on on these projects cannot and never have been justified.

V Every year more money is appropriated for the construction of these. plants, and every year the construction drags on for another year.. Construction-delays, faulty design, inflated cost of materials, and inept contractors are draining our pockets with cost over-runs.

One power plant in the north west has already been irreversibly mismanaged into bankruptcy.

We cannot tolerate such a financial burden.

Point two.

It seems that part of the problem with these plants is faulty design.

Construction nearly all-ways has to be stopped so that design changes can be made inorder to correct a safty problem or some other flaw. This tells me that the people that are building these, plants don't know much more about building them than I'do. You wouldn't let a plant that I built go into opperation, and

,so, you would be right. You shouldn't let the plants that the. current contractors build operate until the technology is proven and standardized.

[

2.

i Point three.

This it a particularly important point.

Safety.

The previous points estat11shed leave dcubts as'to the safety of these plants.

These plants are built under constant financial pressure.

Short-cuts are and have to be taken, approved or not.

A cheap valve or faulty weld could spell future disaster.

I speak not only of public health issues here, I am also concerned with the fiscal wisdom of building these plants. A resatively inexpensive component in the inner work,ings of one of these plants could mal-function and cause the plant to become inoperative for ever.

Three Mile Island is a case in point, and much worse is possible.

I believe that we are doing too much too fast with these projects and a great deal'of thought needs to be given to a halt in construction until the technology is The threat to human health is also a concern. We proven.

worry about nuclear attack from outside our borders but Ten russian place these time bombs in our back-yards.

missiles detonating simultaneously in the same area could not squal the damage caused by the melt-down of one these plants.

An enemy could not pick a better place for a v

l<

terrorist attack.- 'The waste products are perfect for These wastes, for all practical illicit nuclear weapons.

You know purposes, are parmanent and.need to be stored.

that west Texas.has been proposed as a storage site. Un-fortunatly, we don't know how to store these wastes properly.

Stored improperly and they may spontaneously detonate or leak and contaminate our valuable water suply for hundreds of thousands of years.

I am not a complete nay-sayer in the. subject of nuclear eneldy but until the builders prove that they know what they are I am also not one to doing, I-cannot suport their projects.

Texas is a criticize without offering an alternate proposal.

fortunate state in that it has an abundance of natural resources L

that have warmed and fed tha entire United States.

Texas, however, has another natural resource that is being fiscally This i6nored by state, federal, and private' researchers.

l

._..,_m.,..

m......r

- = _ - _...

3, primary resource is the sun.

All forr.s cf energy that we now use come from the sun and an effort needs to be made to glean

~

this resource more efficiently.,'.'ie need to harvest the sun's energy to replace the stored solar energy that we have used for

~

Even the the devices that are now available are so many years.

by far more beneficial than the nuclear alternative. I really believe that.if-the money and resources that are wasted on nuclear plant development were to be diverted to tapping the 3

sun's output then we would be providing for all the future generations energy needs.

In closing I would like to ask you personally to consider.

the options and weigh the long term advantages of concentrating on solar energy development a' gainst the quick fix that nuclear plants are providing.

Even though there are current technological problems involved with solar' development a mistake will not threaten the existence of the generations that the projects wsre i

designed to help.

With Sincere Regards,

.h

'7 y npu lL l

!,. ~

, W: _

i L 'Lv L.

,',./

t Alvin W.

OgHeb

^

AWO:cb b

1 6

e I

y

,,_.--m--esw---3,,ww

...-ee~.

m - - -.,,-

-e,,,,r.,

..,-,w

,e n

-w w.e,

,..._,.,-.--.--r,-

-w,*-v

d' 2.

GREEN TICKET NO. 13884 DISTRIBUTION *w/ incoming N "Sen W W 9f9499f499**

NRC PDR*

L PDR*

PRC System

• LB#3 Reading GWKnighton AVietti JLee*

JLJordan, IE JMTaylor, IE Attorney, OELD TMNovak.

MBridgers, ED0 (E00#13884)*

MGarver, NRR (ED0#13884)*

SECY(3)

HRDenton ECase Collins, Region V LUnderwood PPAS-TSpeis RMattson RVollmer HThompson Grace a