ML20198Q897

Expresses Concerns Re License Renewal of Duke Energy,Oconee Nuclear Station,Units 1,2 & 3.Commends NRC on Steps Agency Has Undertaken to Conclude Renewal Process.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990107

ML20198Q897
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	12/17/1998
From:	Clyburn J, Graham L, Hollings F, Sanford M, Spence F, Spratt H, Thurmond S HOUSE OF REP., SENATE
To:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20198Q891	List: ML20198Q887 ML20198Q897
References
LBP-98-33, LR, NUDOCS 9901080024
Download: ML20198Q897 (4)

Text

_

Congregg of tI)c %Initch Stateg

'["

ulastjington, DC 20515 00CFEial US{tc

'99 JAN -7 NO :55 December 17,1998

C'D BY SECT G

Shirley Jackson k

Chair E"

E

• U delear Regulatory Commission

?

11555 Rockiville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 M E D m - 7 1999

Dear Ms. Jackson,

We are writing with regard to the license renewal of Duke Energy's Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1,2, and 3. Oconee has been an environmentally clean and efficient provider of energy to the Upstate of South Carolina since 1975. As you evaluate Duke's application there are a number ofissues we believe you should consider.

Duke is a leader in all phases of nuclear energy generation and currently operates a number of efficient nuclear facilities across the region. Since the station began supplying electricity, it has safely generated more electricity than any other nuclear power plant in the country and has broken world records for continuous operation. Unit I was the first unit to generate more than 100 million megawatt-hours of e?ectricity. We believe these successes are a direct result of Duke's high level of commitment to excellence in its nuclear operations and facilities.

Duke's dedication to excellence is well documented at Oconee; as it provides numerous benefits to the surrounding communities and to the ratepayers. The electricity produced at Oconee would require a fossil fuel plant to burn 137 rail cars of coal per day for 25 years.

Avoiding the emissions associated with such a fossil fuel plant is of great environmental benefit to the entire state and the region. There is no feasible way to replace the energy provided by the Oconee station without significantly increasing the amount of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide to which the region is exposed. We believe the environmental benefits of avoiding these emissions are obvious, and that these benefits are relevant to any site specific review your agency makes.

- Spent fuel management should be a significant consideration in any environmental review of nuclear facilities. As members of Congress who have worked for years to solve the nation's spent nuclear fuel disposal challenge, we have confidence in the ultimate success of the l

repository program. We believe that the NRC should be able to express confidence in the program and that it should be considered under Oconee's site specific evaluation. Furthermore,

' due to Duke's forward outlook and commitment to excellence in its nuclear facilities and operations, they are leaders in on-site interim storage. Anticipating the Department of Energy's failure to accept spent fuel in 1998, Duke made the regt isite investment in safe on-site interim storage, so as not to disrupt the energy supply. on whiel our constituent's depend.

i 9901000024 990107 i

PDR ADOCK 05000269 l-G PDR I

,,A Finally, we would like to commend you for the steps the agency has undertaken to conclude the renewal process. It is of the utmost importance that the process remain focused on the question: Can the Oconee Station continue to operate safely in the renewal period? We believe that the agency should be able to answer that question within the time frame that you have set.

We appreciate your time and your attention to our concerns and ask that they be included in the nnal docket.

Sincerely, Sen#ar Fritfollings O

Senator Strom Thurmond h

JHC Floyd Spene K.C.

G Jo pratt, M.C.

A

(~

'Lindsey O Grdham M C..

J Clyburn, h uau Mark Sanford, hW cc:

Commissioner Greta J. Dicus Commissioner Niles J. Diaz Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, Jr.

Commissioner Jeffrey S. Merrifield

________.____m.

_.m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION Docket No.(s) 50-269/270/287-LR i.

. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3) l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing 7 SECY LTRS W/CONG. INCOMING..

have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except j

as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.

Administrative Judge Office of Commission Appellate B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chairman Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Peter S. Lam Jttomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 v.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Marian L. Zobler, Esquire Robert M. Weisman, Esquire Paul R. Newton, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Lisa F. Vaughn, Esquire Mail Stop 15 B18 Duke Energy Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 422 South Church St. (Mail Code PB05E)

Washington, DC 20555 Charlotte, NC 28202 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esquire David A. Repka, Esquire Norman

" Buzz" Williams Winston & Strawn 190 Mountain Cove Rd.

1400 L Street, N.W.

Mountain Rest, SC 29664 Washington, DC 20005 L

,e:

Docket No.(s)50-269/270/287-LR 7 SECY LTRS W/CONG. INCOMING..

(

- William

" Butch" Clay W. S. Lesan P.O. Box 53 P.O. Box 66 Long Creek, SC 29658 Long Creek, SC' 29658 Chattooga River Watershed Coalition P.O. Box 2006 Clayton, GA 30525 t

Dated at Rockville, Md. this 7 day of January 1999

.g Office of the Secretary of the CglHmission i

L.

L h

l i

t l

_ _ _