ML20148K820
| ML20148K820 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1978 |
| From: | Loe L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811200004 | |
| Download: ML20148K820 (2) | |
Text
F WWC DOCUMENT ROOM ON DMT fF@
NCQL@LJht,S N O "
+
4 s$
The Secretary o fthe Commission y4 U.S.N.R.C.
1 lQ'g []
Washington, D. C.
20555 q
l Attentions Docketing and Services Branch h
s Dear Sir of Madams N
e l
This is to comply with your request that I file a contention as an intervener; I do so with the complaint that there has been very little time allowed for this to be done well This is to comply with your request that I file a contantion as an intervener in the Allen's Creek Nuclear Power plant request by Houston Lighting and Power Plant. I do so under duress a I have been given insuf ficient time to prepare the indepth report but will do the best I can. Please do not fault any of the interveners if these contentions do not stand up to the legal criterior you seem to demand. If an ordinary citizen with an ordinary
&ncome i s to have some voice in a matter of life and death, as this is, you have no right to demand.
legal expertise as a prerequisite for validity in this suit.
I also feel that a person's inability to afford 24 copies of each communication to the NRC should not mean a person could not be an intervener in this suit.
N 4
I shall try to address 'to the complaint that interveners did not mention items which took place after 1975, although I do not feel that the timing of an event has anything to do with whether or not it applies in a case.
In my original letter I mention the " proven dangers to life- "
Early in 1970 a series of hearings wa's conducted by the House of Papresentatives subcommittee on healthand the environment showing that low levels of radiation may be quited harmful as shown by the followings 1) a 14-year study showing a significant incidence of cancer of the lung, pancreas and bone marrow among workers exposed to low-level radiation in nuclear weapons plantst 2) a study showing a high mortality rate from cancer, especially leukemia, for werkers exposed to radiation at the Portsmouth, New Hampshire Naval Shipyard, 3) a study finding a significant incidence of cancer among workers at the Hanford temporary disposal facility in Washington; and 4) a study finding a significant rise and decline in infant mortality in Illinois as compared to all neighboring states correlating directly with the rise and decline of radioactive emissions from a nuclear power reactor near Chicago.
The radioactive waste produced, transported from and stored as a result of the Allen's Creek plant will be high-level, not low-level waste. Added to this is a study reported in 1974, I believe, by a renowned British epedmeologist, Dr. Alice Stewart that documents the grave cancer risk associated with low levels of radiation, suggesting, while not yet allowing for any scientific conclusion, that women are more susceptible to radiation contamination than are men.
I also mentioned the necessity for no human errors, and pure human and corporate motivation-Because of the potential danger represented by nuclear power, workers must make no mistakes, equipment must not misfunction, and worker safety and community wil-being m must take presidence over personal and coporate " money in the posket." Recent history j
makes this highly unlikely. hn April 26, 1976 Dr. Karl Z. Morgan commented on the case of Karen Silkwood, a worker for the Karr-McGee Plant in Oklahoma (although this i
original action took place before 1975, much information has cop $ne of the worst cases to light since that time). He said "I consider (Karen) Silkwood's contamination to with which I am familiar, of body contamination to plutonium with wespect to the consistency, repetition (of exposurel, and contamination of the home.
.I have never known of an operation in this industry so poorly operated f rom the standpoint of radiation protection."
Information uncovered by the prosecution in the Silkwood case (The Environmental Policy Center, tne National Organiaztion of Women, the ACLU are all parties in this litigation as are.
Karen's parents) include the following which are significant to the health and safety of the workers and the communlty, and which indicate that the Plant was lax 1y runs the existence of large amount of un-accounted-for peutonium in the Karr-McGee f acility; faulty plutonium fuel rods were produced and passed off through falsification of quality control records, radioactive waste was dumped by the management into the local river where citizens swam and fished; i
insecure and improper storage was provided for plutonium,and resulted in leakage and the consequent contamination of workers and the local peoolet a poor quality mixture of plutonium wast and acid was transported in unprotected tru:ks, increasing the risks of leakager there was inadequate education of workers about the dangers of plutonium; unskilled and untrained non-nuclear workers for the plant were hired which resulted in increased accidents and contaminations Kerr-McGee officials were warned in advance of inspections by the AEC which places a lack of concern for the citizens of Ck1&homa, U. 3. A.
in the laps of the federal agency wri r.,
at the time, was to protect them f rom nuclear prcblems of health and safety.
7811200004
I i
Lee Loe (Ms.)
pg. 2 Nov. 2, 1978 One need search through recent files on the asbestos industry, the agriculte e industry, the oil industry to find examples of the lack of concern for workers and their health, safety and general well being a yes, the coal industry, too A coal worker cannot take black lung disease haue to his f amily or with him to the grocery store and give it to those who come near him or who sit whs;e he has i
sat--but a worker from a nuclear power plant cantaminates others with his own f
contamination.
f one problem area I mentioned is that of disposal of nuclear wastes generated by power plants.
i In April,1978 the U. S. House committee on government operations made a report which stated:
"Af ter 30 years of atomic power, neither the federal government nor the nuclear industry has managed to produce a safe and cost-effective solution to the problem of radicactive waste disposal, thereby threatening the future of nuclear i
3 powere in the United States."
In their report of May 1,1978 the U. S. Geological Survey wald, " Geologists can indicate sites which have been relatively stable in the past, but they cannot quarantee future stability. Constructio n of a repository 1
4 and emplacement of waste will initiate complex processes that cannot, at present, i
be predicted with certainty."
According to an article in the June 9,1978 issue
)
of The Texas Observer " Federal Encargy Research and Development Administration i
officials predicted last fall that 23 of the country's 67 operating nuclear power l
plants may have to shut Bown by 1979 if a ' permanent' solution to nuclear wasee I
I disposal is not fo und. The President's Council on Environmnetal Quality has called for governmental action hhat would ef fectively ban construction of new nuclear power plants until the waste disposal problem is solved. The Natural Resources I
Defense Council and other environmnetal groups have gone to court seeking a morat'orium on nuclear power espansion until wastes can be safely contained."
And again I quote from a GAO report to the congress. This one was in September of 1977 and said, in part, "When it publicly announced its waste repository program objectives and goals, ERDA may have promised more than it can deliver. There are, we believe, formidable socAal, geological and regulatory problems which must be solved......ERDA should take the necessary time in developing the earth science data required to demonstrate aceptably low risks--the key point in gaining public and political acceptance." The U. S. G. S. pointed out in their May 1 report "significant potential stumbling blocks that need critical attention." This report called for mere research "on the behavior of salt, focusing on its characteristic high solubility," and " urged that a study be made of the flow of ground water around potential repositories, and recommended more research on the 'short and long term ef f ects of the repository structure and the waste on the envircnment around the repository, (The Texas Observer of June 9,1978)
(ERDA is now Dept. of Energy [
Dut this will cost so much money and the public will pay for it through taxes or utility bills or both.
In April 1978 the U. S. House committet on government operations made a report on the costs of nuclear powerd as compared to other dorms of energy; it is the most costly of them alls Basides this consideration as utility payments, the cost to the federal government for the massive program necessary to handle existing and anticipated wastes is from $1 billion to $2 billion per year for the next 20 years, according to buther J Carter in the rol 1977 issue of Science magazine.
Then, too, the studies being done regarding possible storage sites for nuclear wastes are costing millions of dollars 48d/tHW each years the U. T. Bureau of Economic Geology is studying a 28 county area in the Texas Panhandle's Palo Duro 24 and Dalhart basias and 30 or so counties in Deep East Tesas for possible sites; j
the bureau researchers contend that it will take five years to do the massive engineering and scientific studies needed for presentation to the NPC.
Since we have only enough uranium for 30 or so years and a power plant Jadf/ produces only 30 years, and solar wind, geothermal and other sources of energy are more cost effective and not lif e and universe threatening, the urden of proof is en the Nuclear Power Industry to convince wo Texans that nuclear power will be anything but bad for the people, the stata and the nation.
This is my contsntion.
' hava mero, but have run out cf time, 03per and patience.
31n:erely, l
-.