ML20197B159

Objects to Issuance of SNM License to Duke Power Co for Transport of Nuclear Waste Matl from Oconee to Mcguire. Situation Creates Unacceptable Hazard to Residents Due to Inadequate Storage Facilities

ML20197B159
Person / Time
Site:	07002623
Issue date:	10/11/1978
From:	Wiesner P PALMETTO ALLIANCE
To:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 7811010249
Download: ML20197B159 (4)

Text

NRC PlTPt m nn r, TEN"? H. onV.

, 90 - Xo 13.

N.

m 9

Q.

9p Greenville Chapter of the M

r gO Palmetto Alliance j#

d 4 Powell Drive

_p[

1 g%hg,clI/

Greenville, S.C.

i c.p Y

/

M J"

A w

October 11, 1978 i

r Mr. Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission l'

1717 H Street Northwest Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Hendrie,

j

i The members of the Greenville South Carolina Chapter of the

j Palmetto Alliance wish to state their objections to the granting of a Part 70 license to Duke Power Company for the transporta-tion of nuclear waste material from the Oconee to the McGuire plants.

The proposed transport of 420 truckloads through Greenville on Route 85 creates unacceptable hazards to residents of this area.

Since the McGuire station can be used only for temporary storage and the material will have to be moved again, the transportation risks will be doubled.

These dangerous materials should not be randomly shifted but should go to a permanent safe disposal site.

If no such site exists, the production of these materials should be strictly limited to the amount that can be stored at the location of their origin until permanent disposal is available.

Sixty-nine private atomic fission plants have been licensed over a period of many years and are operating with no provision ever made for permanent waste disposal.

The quantities of highly dangerous waste in temporary storage has reached monstrous proportions.

We call your attention to recent statements by Governor Edwards about the problems that nuclear waste and its transportation are causing in South Carolina.

On the other hand, we call your attention to the recent state-ments of Carl Horn, Jr. of Duke Power Company asserting "We are totally committed to nuclear power

" and giving the following schedule of 7 plants coming into service:

/

g u

\\

n l

$U v)

....6

i h

Mr. Joseph M. Hendrie President b

Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

i October 11, 1978 i

Page 2 McGuire I

1979 McGuire II 1981 i

n Catawha I

1981 l

Catawha II 1983 Cherokee I

1985 Cherokee II 1987 Cherokee III 1989 *

• (Public Utilities Fortnightly April 13, 1978 We believe it is irresponsible for the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission to continue licensing nuclear plants when the waste l

problem is so severe that wastes must be shifted here and there and temporary storage facilities are filling up in many areas.

tj The Palmetto Alliance requests denial of this transportation I) license and further requests denial of licenses for the reckless expansion of nuclear power.

Representatives of the Alliance plan to attend the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearing in Charlotte on October 24.

Please send information.

Yours truly,

'f ll?;,,~, / M l}')

/

I '; A -

'c<..

/

i 4

312..L 'l

. 'c M ': a -

f.,

~

\\

~

}f A[

--- M, %

,L' i

/

1C N 5 %

bde_% M,.. la W 4 (Nuclear waste transportation study group of the Palmetto

?

Alliance, Greenville Chapter) l 4,bm

l j

I e

t I

p The Genenwelle News-3 0 l

Friday. Dr.. venhm 1,1973

, g,,

--m m

7 I hue <f iy, Seg..

r4(,,*,, n,,, I

[

i t

6, f.4 p\\

md w

g ti "U s h a,aq m o h

q u f. i d V'CM i

'4 o-x 0

(

>lGM dde

. 's 4-

,s_

m 5 \\

kl(

i,) j

, (,,hp,,' [Y f

h t p. ~

Colt'\\1let \\ iAl').. The

(.

it l

festev al rmrnimoni ' hould p 8

9" he conung f at t tt with a.

/

g N

i.

d' Q

. \\

polwy paper for. national c,,,, p[*#

{

/'j l

nuclear wie manage.

ment. sintar.e amt trans.

y E

/.

l pnr1 plan within the nest

\\,

"b I

few mnsiths. J state offs.

Ih

.ha C

N 8

nai s.ud Thursday.

Edwards l' O' 4

8 I amar Pneuar. deputy

(

4 ar rom mrou.in"r for envinm.

. chasred panet si %s e

menial braish.ind safety tt ow at.se Dep.irtm nt of nearly two thirds of all

• W' ' Wi l -

tie soh ma i nurimmental low. level radioactive I """ U N * "I

• l'om rol s.uit fe'i+*rol of f s.

wastes produced in the esii... i r iakmg this U.S. are stored at the P " T N N?"' d "'nn 8

1. "d i 3 "d a l P"I'ee wen un.nimous ap.

Chem Nuclear facility in

' M "' 8"" M I '"" "I "

+SF

.+

girnt al by the NJimrial Barnweff.

""""NouH"i Catena <nve e. 9' ' f9a7

{

8

'"4 W "" h?

amnors Msnrianon of a About 0.534 million --

INat i

m ?ar nower report as cubic feet of waste was re-h e Mum) *%rn' M

't vid oc for ar' inn."

ceived at the Ilve C0mmer, t

and a ant.nnmated r irroi' am (

$ o ce-9 Edw1rds cial waste storage sites n

g #r i

I fdd*SCl3V" Sumlamas envs i i ?a e.. niid e.1 r currently in nperation.

"shirtwf mm ihe state.

..h

, nw. r mm.-e nouer that Some I r.44 milhon cubic "3'"i'""*"'f"

.. ; i. it inc report and free of stus waste was sent IIV" ^ 3 m 3 "1 F" f"' " I

.u, Mn. iw. n m advncate - to Barnwell.

and miinactive meterials 4, uts.u nm imr waste Low level wastes are p

4

' M"'3"" *"" ara sia. i in.

I".mL those prnduced by mictear ru wr4 LJ'I ""U""J"*C'9C"'

31J '

iir repor t, reactur$ and medical sour-

) *.r e;ia -

' " ' " " I 't x.t ret i n

e nt*

• nv Cd 4ard9 ces. Prianer saul speeit

"'#'"- "' 4 I"' " ' '"'"

" l" im 4 etna s f rom 11 nuclear fuoi si not consid-

• '"' H+ d"'.* ul W.131H M p s t o, on t he cred a waste product smce k'*fd "

• u

" ent ni to it can be reprocced.

tr u a a n..n for man.

The quantity of this rn.

- M" f "' ' ' "I

• we r 4 i n.mactive dioacuve waste stored in

','* ' tit of f

d'" ' " '" v 0"' ' r n-mimime senrate South Carniina has more

..a s

1"!

I" i

't-v1 *.n port hm of the than donhled smee 1974 If

"h' 1'

e-when f JJ.000 cubic feet

.s i

• dona wuh en-wie buried it Chem Nu-

' '+~

i r-u ros of f o ct. ir.

"m i."mh e of The NRC report sitro l'

I'

"' h -

n od s hates W incro:ise to the

+ *

• i. Im cron clomnig of a enmmeret al ai '

G rin,i P n irt-sor, ige f acility in Wess

• h r 554 fie ia.

V.illev. N Y. and the im.

b' a 'er i - h' D' W posunn of a U)-cent.per.

• f e +4 4-

< ui - > "

a of act isnund esci c tan nn ra-

".'*d"'

'H m

'

• in

" s era ors' dinactive wastes coming

' "' '4 v min Etxey Flats in Ken.

F '

I' ' "'

tti:C Tor Tuly shows

"*'M"p"'"*4' HM 1 1

"niv iwn that emoet half 'uf rhetc

' # i' ' ' ' ' "

' " - j' s

.d."

• i nn n the y;gellHac tik P wits t P4 esme

• "1"'

"*4' r'

1 P ' as e r

I h

fa ts'ri Nenw 'i erit. %l4 srih 9. jr.

f',"r * !11 R

• "ed olma..onnsylvama and 11 I 'I ' " ' Y '

o8

.itm i

%8I* * '

1 is e

uit I g ib

.ti cr ginoge wh,, h h,.gwg;pyg gypm dv"

' r.:

2

n n a ir.tord.

accounir's for simost <?..

O "

'H8'i b

%i nr bH 0016 runtc feet of UIC J uly I

- "* '*d

"W "I la s

I tes

-i ihr '4 u -

17G.ftiD wnic foot volume dh I*

I !"I '

On h

8 ttmis-South L,3gnung rgnked

'. le d h 3: " how lhat Ilfth with ((,1$2 cubic feet, n,',,...i

{

db hnip fem.

,g 4O" I'r p.n

't i: -

in t h

..g l,

r1 o* I h-I si.

.i.,,

Hor ti O** 'e r s in t ho

, g.. g..

pi.C'i l"'t '.4 *1" in"

• Et l

be. r fte u

,m.,.. m.., s b' t ot -

isr 't gr W r r

3 gg, h

Comriu n.on and.Ite 0 - ^ irm t..

j

\\ i t.

l

'I I

o 9

4 I

i

s m

.A,5 h

.i 0..W.U.

's r

i t

Cc"' e 7 h1 awer to cut best nuC'aar UnilS. These inciudad Mdi-reee f'nanc*al heath 8" '

t or

l; cuer!:en sery sInctly to the com.

stone lit which was postponed from thn rUCA grant.'d only 3 U. n. 'oin f

cany with which he has been long 1982 to 1986 and two units in Mas-of the $90 mdhon requ~ wt inn l

asscc/aled is our next conInbutor, sachusetts, again for financial authority inrficated such ra'o ard.ni a

i Here is whit Cnri Horn, Jr., has to reasons.

would be enounh to affow fl~n - i.!

say:

To recount recent history, in Utiht'es to incrnasa it t <!m

~ f.

1974, the two Connecticut com.

bonq the marknt prir:n r.f !N

." o Duko I'ce.or Cempany has never panics '- The Connecticut Light mon.tock ahnvr' book m ir m-deviateil from it, nrunnat generating and Power Company and The Hart-crease interest coveral"-

i o

plant esp PNon plan adopted in the ford Electnc Light Company - ap-adnnuato finanonq to early 1970M c(LeDt to Dostpone the plied to the public utilihes commis.

Millntene lli t>y in82. aW i j

{l in-servicc i!aten of some plants. due sion - the predecessor to the nx.

the n Miing trare m" to constraint on our ability to raise isting public utilities control dntriboMn con-aructine n.

capital and a lowenng of our annual authority - for a total of $60 mdlion Our nnaly,es confirmed s i r. - n 4

r peakload forncast. Our current in rate relief. The PUC granted po'Au l

j plans are to bring into service the some $48 million, and these rates Even af t's reflectare; ei McGuire No. I nuclear unit with a were put into effect January,1975, from the We of our Sen rr I

a j

capacdy of 1.1 milhon kilowatts in (A controversy followed the 1974 terest. W9 concluded it w,r n-1979, and the McGuire No. 2 unit decision involving htigation.) Yet, hal to rnduce CL&P's torr.

n

[

hdentican, in 1981, at an estimated the financial condition of the cnm.

struclon budget by abot 75^ mo ccnstruchon of $468 por kdowatt.

panies made it necessary, in 1976, lion, including Ibo postomi w -

We also plan to bnng into service to press another rate case. this time tha Mdistono 111 in-servirM '

'n

.j tne Catawba No. I nuclear unit of before the newly formed PUCA.

1982 to l'M6 In totgt. f r

-1 1.145.000 kdowatts in 1981 and an Despite the obvious financial cordi-struction precram. le s me '

)

identicai Umt No. 2 in 1983, at an tion of the companies, the PUCA in for IN five Uurs 1978 t >

i estimateo cost of $593 per kilowatt.

December of that year, ordered a be reduced from acout i!

3 Further piani include bringing in

$14 million net rate reduction. By to about $900 mdhen.

Inree idenhcal nuclear units at our this time, the revenues we had col-Our knoings and cc" a Cnerokeo station (1,280,000 lected subject to refund from the old concerning the como 1 ief kdcwatts nach) in the years 1985, 1974 case exceeded $200 mdhon.

cia: condition in tha - w ro-1967. and 1989, at an estimated Alihough we were confident no program are si.pportec %

i cast of $N6 cer kdowatt. We re-significant refunds would be recected authcoties i c""

ma.n tctal committed to nuc! ear ordered, it was imperative to Smith, Jr., a partner o' pov.er cecause we are convinced remove this revenue refund cloud.

Stanley & Co. Or David B h"

tnat 'n:s :s tne most economical and Further, we hoped that by resolving director of the managemt i

environmentally acceptable source the htigation. the regulatory climate suitir.g brm of Mer0r.sey & 'D of the nat.on's future power supply, woufd be improved so that more tha former chairrran of m" i-rational consideration would be Power Comrmsynn ar l it -

/Te!! c o: "a scecial achieve-given to urgently needed rate rehef York Pubhc Service C.rn" mets tara some caritcularly stub-in 1977. Thus, last spnng, we set.

Josenh C Swidter ccrn cDstac'cSJ of more than one tied the cases involving bnth the How uo uf ri twc r nc e

$lectne vtary and escecially those 1974 and 1976 rate decisions.

rosconran orcanizatie u!'ht es of a wncle geographic Under the se(tlement, NU and me PUCA reach,.a ti.

regten - New fogland - is this implemented the lower rates and, conclomond The ans/.nr s' ate' rent by Lelan F. Sillin, Jr.

with respect to the 1974 decision, conese, in Ibc PUCA-kVhve it,s erbrely a narraftve of the paid some $6 million in refunds and test-year procesr. Chu "

recent nistcry cf one ut!lity system, it expense reimbursements, the PUC A locum t n ".

.s fasemating and loaded with in the 1977 case, CL&P and prch.cita me intrmct n ocse'vascos.vnich rave pertinence HELCO requested a total of 390 wn ch clurv orenr i to..

1 lor those engaged in the manage.

mdhon which would have meant an a com'nq yn1r it cr<nt-ment and regulat:en ol other utilities average monthly increase of $3 to damnntal if an in the < W

- procaciv from one coast to (he

$4 for residential customers. We process Es on v,orse, me emer. Here is Ine statement:

went to great lengths to descrioe the test. ear et:Mt is u nrid d

o-weakened financial condition of the by "'e fur A wim ac-

"a z

8ccause of inadecuate rate relief comoanies and to indicate the cuts justmcrt, md deaHov. rv a '

g in recent years. Northeast Utihties in the companies' construction is net even a decent r., rr i

<* e l

unfortunately was 'orced to defer program that would be necessary if of nistory. For exampie na

'j construction of several planned rate relief were not adequate to CL&P's oparating income 'n

/

?

66 PUBLIC UTILITIES FOATNIGHTLY-APmL 'i

+

t

..