ML20148F320

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Petition for Leave to Intervene in Site Suitability Analysis Hearings Re Subj Facils.Alleges,Inter Alia,That Facils Will Not Perform Close to Promised Ability,Will Spur Nuc Arms Race & Will Be Too Dangerous to Be Privately Insured
ML20148F320
Person / Time
Site: 05000510, 05000511
Issue date: 10/25/1978
From: Mccaughan D
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
NUDOCS 7811070352
Download: ML20148F320 (4)


Text

!

o h

r ;;,;it :'" ':*. ~~

nc9 L:mt oc.ide M E / /;'(.,i,,f?!I't i

e su <

Secretary of the Commission . g ggi.67 II~9 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E- 90;, .

' b,,e Washington, D. C. 20555 eg ,t *g jg Attention: Docketing and Services Branch $

N/fIgn EO PUBLIC DOCIngs ROM Madam:

I am petitioning for leave to intervene late in the sight suitability analysis hearings for the " Blue Hills Project" with the following contentions:

781107o352

, v 7

The JBlue HillsiProject Atomic 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.

II

.o It will not perfoYm close to its promised ability. The Council on Economic priorities reported that in 1976 forced shutdowns of nuclear power plants cut their capacity for generating electricity.

III d

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 cooling system (ECCS) for this plant has never been tested, even though 71 commercial plants are on line in the U. S.

~ y IX This plant will produce highly dangerous and toxic radioactive wastes like plutonium - 239. There is no proven technology available to isolate these wastes.

3 X

a This plant will add radiation to our environment. All radiation releases affect living tissue. The risk of cancer not only affects exposed individuals, but also their future offspring. '

XI 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, wh ich is the deadliest material known to science.

XIII

. The utility rates charged for this energy from this p; ant on a " cost-plus" formula. The more this plant costs to build, the more profit it will yield its owners.

XIV The cost of the waste disposal for this plant is still a mystery.

XV Alternative forms of energy production, (i. e. garbage, solar, conservation) would create more jobs and growth. Than this plant.

XVI i

Tax dollars are used to subsidize this plant.

XVII This plant will be too dangerous to insure by private enterprizes.

XVIII There isn't enough uranium to reasonably fuel this plant.

t v XIX Decentralized solar photovoltaic cell energy in place of this plant would l be less hazardous, cheaper over there comparative lifetimes, and infinite.

These apes of plants have a history of regulatory failure. -

XXI The "right of eminant domain" powers used to acquire this land are unconstitutional.

XXII The A. E. C. - Rasmussen " study" has been relied upon for its safety contentions for this project. But, after reevaluation, the A. E. C. - Rasmussen

" study" has been found invalid and its integrity questionable, certainly not a dependable source for support of atomic power production safety.

,. /

M '

Tpank you,  ; /

Qw

/i ' /

D. Michael McCaughan -

Member The Environmental Task Force 3131 Timmons Lane Apt. 254 Houston, TX. 77027 O*1.10l5~

__