NUREG-0437, Responds to Jul 1979 Ltr Opposing Nuclear Energy.Forwards NUREG-0437 & NUREG-0365.W/o Encl
| ML19210B741 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yellow Creek  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1979 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Taylor L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911120221 | |
| Download: ML19210B741 (11) | |
Text
NkG IDA
..e :...
o.
II"h. ED STATES 8 'ip s.<g( k NUCLE / *t REGL LATORY COMMISSION
/
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 October 25, 1979 g,
v ' y
'Q~}
m m.
m e Ju
, S.
- 2 es Mr. Lee Taylor P. O. Box 6 Lummi Island, WA 98262
Dear Mr. Taylor:
You mailed to the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in July 1979 a tan-page discussion opposing nuclear energy.
As examples of the analyses that are done by the NRC for each nuclear power plaat, eacksed are the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0437) of December 1977 and the Final Environmental Statement (NUREG-0365) of November 1977 related to construction of Yellev Creek Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2.
You may be particularly interested in 5ection 15 of the Safety Evaluation Report and Section 5.4, 7, 9.1, and 10.3.3.3 of the Final Environmental Statement.
The NRC also prepares such documents related to operation of nuclear power pl a nt s.
He would like to assure you that every effort is being made to ensure the continued orotection of the public health and safety at all nuclear power plants that are currently operating or that may begin operaiton in the future.
Sincerely,
/
A Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated
) b '\\ S b
?
7911120 2 & /
Lee Tayler I
qm 9
'3' P.O. Ecx 6 0
Lu=mi Is, Na 95262
'J~"
758-7290 758-2130 66 (206)
'1!CL'U,P. EERGY :
THE VI2r LW OF THE 1980'S 3hortly before the American public was nade aware that US involvenent in Viet Nam had been an internationally recognized perpetuation of barbarism in the interest of governme't infallibility and corporate profits, resistance to this " war of liberation" had been decried as " unpatriotic," " irresponsible,"
"cutless" and "Comnunistic." While the U3 6overnment and defense industrf carefully created and sold the desired war effort image to the American pcople, a few unpopular and unconvinced Americans stubbornly resisted. The confusion of motherhoor!, apple pie a d patriotism with the emerging truth and consequences of U5 irvolvocent in Viet Man failed to pmduce its desired effect in the initially tirtr band oPdisorganized doves.
3carcely had a blushing US government evacuated the last of its r.ilitarf
.achine from the rooftops of Saigon than the long-suffering, ptriotic advocatos of UL liberating efforts began preaching the "I-told-you-so" gospel of hindsight;
"'.e had no business there in the first place." And like a cat in a chicken coop, e.increetly trf ng to cover it all up, the normally vociferous hawks frantically i
souent ways to align themselves with a suddenly awakened American conscience, a sho@ed, angry and disillusioned American public. While carefully avciding the ambarrass:ecnt of 7A hospitals and Monorial Day services in the local cemetery, these once shining epitones of " responsible patriotism" began sportine longer hair and peace pendants while sniffing flowers in the prk and hiding their winnines l' rom the Viet Lim jackpot.
As American confusion polarized, sprouted and took roots in the seemrio of a var as officially recorted and a war as described by those who survived, the chilling energing facts were withheld by those for whom the war 1312 D6
~
D**D T
D T
, h.L cw c
a had become an economic windfall. This same conflict between crivate, federally subsidized profit, and responsible governnent leadership, has taken on a new dimension in the once secluded arena of nuclear energy. Unlike the breezy 9
patriotism which corrupt government leadership found so effective in selling the Viet ! Lam 'dar to an apathetic American public, goverment leadership is now being confronted by a more enlightened patriotism, one which has not forgotten the price it oaid for blind consent.
Twenty-one years before Three Mile Island climbed fren Fennsylvanir.
obscurity to world infa:;y, an explosion of buried nuclear waste in the southern Ural Mout:tains north of the Aral Sea had emptied numerous villages by fire and radiation, an area which, for mary years, remained lifeless and uninhabited.
Althoud. isolated accidents in nuclear power plants have been reported in ' dest Gemany, India, Japan and America, the facts concerning nuclear energy have traditionally been withheld tnd distorted by both goverment and industry.
During the Viet "am era of goverment subsidised corporate profits, the Anerican people ue-e called upon to fulfill their patriotic duty by financing and fighting for a "cause" which existed, not in Viet ::a=, but in the highly profitable defense industry of the IE.
During the present era of the goverment subsidized
.uclesr ocuer industry, the American public is being counselled ty govarment and ccel in the heat of potential.eltdemi, to la encr,t can;lcmcrates to 4-"4-4+-
reasonable and objective in its appraisal of nuclear energy, and to give.due consideration to role of nuclear energy in the prevention of socio-econonic chaos.
Eaving tragically failed to cive due consideration to the chaos carpetrated "e tne 7iet ::an War, goverment leadership presently advocates the risk of nuclear power as a better het than the risk of socio-eccno-ic chaos.
'.to has deter-ined such chaos to be the only alternative to nucleat power, ard by what
\\),.n
.! ] 7 m7
. \\{
I
I s
curious criteria has such a conclusion been " established"? Eolstered Ly heavy defense industry lobbying, the prime concern ddring the chaos of Viet Nam appears to have been the proliferation of fat government defense contracts under the cover of " patriotic" var propaganda. Industry more than adequately demonstrated its ability to risk not only social chaos but the lives and dismemberment of hundreds of thousands of Americans and Vietnamese in the pursuit of profit.
And goverment leadership proved more than cooperative in disguising this hideous process in the cloak of " patriotic duty." The continued economic windfall of the nuclear power industry is presently contingent ucon the success of goverment leadership in weaving a new cloak from the hypothetical alternative to nuclear energy--conplete socio-economic chaos. Americans have in the past have made far greater sacrifices for less worthy causes than the health and welfare of present and future generations, and they have the capacity to make eve?rvreater sacrifices if they are offered something nore rewarding than the shabby cloak of enerr; dictatorship now being peddled by goverment leadership. ilhile monopolistic, highly profitable, tax-supported, nuclear conglo=nrates invent imaginative lies to make the risk of nuclear power appear le,ss threatening and more saleable, and while a defense preoccupied aluminum industry consumes vast amounts of energy at wholesale rates, the residential eensumer and taxpayer is forced to pick up the tab for hoth the risk and cost of nuclear power, neither of which he can afford.
Colunnist R(chard Cohen of the 'dashincton Fost may have hit the hot button:
"They lied, they lied, they lied.....They told us it was safe. What a lie. They told us it was clean. Did you ever hear such a lie?....As i nation we are like people who hava been told the check is in the mail. This is the one wher? we grow up and get the bad news and learn that never again are we going to listen and believe the garbage we've been getting from the utility co=pinies."
l '3 i 2 B B
mm m
9 9
9 b.
wo o
s The Union of Concerned Scientists warns:
"A typical nuclear power plant contains an amount of radioactive material equal to the radioactive fallout from thousards of Hiroshina-size weapons. The fear is not that these plants will explode like a giant atomic bomb. But much of this radioactive material is gaseous and could easily be carried by the wind for riagy miles if accidentally released....The history of the 63 nuclear plants now operating in the U3 shows many malfunctions of major equipnent, operator errors and design defects, as well as evidence of shoddy construction practices such as' poor welding, upside-down installation of critical components...."
Milton Shaw, former director of the Atenic S.cr;./- Co:-mission's Division of Reactor Develotrient, states:
"Look at the procl=: in the light water reactors today. Some of them are falling apart and they come from simple things like defects in the steam generating systems or vibrations in the core."
s Robert D. Pollard, Federal Safety Engineer for nuclear reactors at Indian Point in New York, following his resignation, made his position quite clear:
"If I had the authority, I would close down Indian Point No. 2 at once.
It's almost an accident waiting to happen." He further indicated that he could no t, "in conscience, remain silent about the perils associated with the Ud nuclear-cower program."
Dr. Walter H. Jordan, former assistant director of Oak Ridge "ational Id oratcry, warned: * " Deaths in future generations due to cancer and genetic effects resulting from the rador. from uranium recuired to fuel a single reactor fo. one year can mn into the hundreds....Since the radon continues to seep fren
.he tailings pile for a very long time, the total dose to people over all future generations could become very large."
Awarded the 1970 "obel Prize in the field of physics, Dr. Hannes Alfen cautioned:
"In a full-scale fission program, the rtdioactive waste will soon l,'.
y : q
)I2.J/
D*
D
- D'3
.h..
m cw c
become so enormous that a total poisoning of the planet is possible."
In a recent declaration to Congress, more than 2,000 biologists, chenists,
.....the country c:ust engineers and other scientists advised the government:
recognize that it now appears imprudent to move forward with a rapidly expanding nuclear power plant construction program. The risks of doing so are altogether too great.
We, therefore, urge a drastic reduction in new nuclear power plant construction starts before major progress is achieved in the required research and in resolving present controversies atmut safety, waste disposal, and plutonium safeguards. For similar reasons, we urge the nation to suspend its program of exporting nuclear plants to other ecuntries pending resolution of the rational seer.rity questions associated with the use of these countries of the bv-pred"#
plutonium fron United States nuclear reactors."
Leadership in the nuclear power industry and its fervently lobbied
~
Washington counterpart stand in no irminent danger of being i"mortalized for candor in the halls of energy developeent. Critical flaws in rajor nuclear safety studies, cover-up of huma error, neglect and sabotage, elevated cancer levels, precarious unreported geologic faults, the danger of nuclear proliferatic 1, and deliberate disrecard for huran safety ard welfare have christened the thoughtless and thriving nuclear power industry.
Colu~.nist Tom Wicker of the New York Times writes:
"In its thcee decades of existence, the Aherican nuclear p,wer program--pushed with too nuen scal ard too little concern for the consecuen es--nay have created a Frankenstein's monster that threatens to slip out or antrol.....The necessary teci nology and reculations to deal with these matters hrve not been developed....The Co.~.ptroller General has criticized lack of concern by both the Energy Ad.~:inistration and the Nuclear Regulatory Com :ission....The long-abused public faces unacceptable safety 1312 240
mo o
D 2.
m oe o
and environmental hazards, the prospect of zooming utility rates, and the
- essibility of loss of an energy source it has been encouraged to think of as a solution rather than a problem."
Three years before Governor Brown closed the door to nuclear power plant construction in California, Georgia's Governor Jimny Carter, on May 13,19%,
addressed the United Nations:
"All of us must recognize that the widespread use of nuclear oower brings may risks.
Power reactors may calfunction and cause videsuread ecological damage, unless stringent ;sfety requirements are met.
Radioactive wastes may be a menace to future generations and civilizations, unless they are effectively isolated within the biosphere forever. And terror'.sts or other crininals may steal plutonium and nake weapons to threaten society and its tolitical leaders with nuclear violence, unless strict security measures are developed and implenented to prevent nuclear theft. Eeyond these dangers, there is the' fearsome prospect that the spread of nuclear reactors will mean the spread of nuclear weapons to mag nations."
'"he economic journal, Dollars & Sense, warns:
"At stake fm the banks, corpo ations, universities ard thinktanks which plan, build, supply and invest in nuclear plants are billions of dollars worth of profits, contracts, govern: cent subsidies and research grants--as well as control over energ policy.
" Tris conplex and its hired experts will continue to try to pass the cost (and the dangers) of nuclear oower along to consuncrs and taxcayers. The battle will be fought not only over Federal safety regulations and energy colicy, but ever state reculation of utility prices as well. The utilities still star.d to prefit handsonely if they can get public utility co: nissions to consider their expensive nuclear plants as sound investments on which they are entitled to
' fair' rates of return."
Contrary to its original pror-ise of t ap civilian nuclear pcwer in supeort of continued nuclear weapons production, t'.e "Atons for Fence" pror.otion
}
2 20)
_7_
f of tne Eisenhower Administration failed to deliver cheap, safe and clean nuclear Since its inception, expensive and dangerous nue'. car energy has been promoted, power.
pushed and lobbied by an econonia combine with extensin political clout in ~.;ashington.
With only 7% of the Energy Department's Sidget allocated for renewable resources, the effect of this political clout is reflected in the federal energy policy as reported ty the Nation:
" Nuclear energy did not develop because of its natural competitite advantage in an open narket. It is wholly and conpletely a product
- lithout that active rupport the of gover.~.ent desigr., pronotion and subsidy.
e nucl ar indust.j would not exist, and even now it would not survive....:y us; the public transurj to nake nuclear energy artificially competitive, the ge Ornment har nade it appear that the only choice is to 'go nuclear. '"
.-Taile utilities exact escalating rates to firance nuclear plant construction, the cost oflhis construction has more than doubled that of equivalent coal-fired plants and has skyrocketed 10 times that of oil-fired plants. Increasing cver 10 times the rate of the Consuner Frice Index, nuclear energy costs Fave :. ore than doubled the combined cost of energy conservation atxi solar energy develo3rient.
Friorities in the 1979 carter budget reflect the conglonerate clout of ener:/ cartels as an artificial attempt to rake nuclear energy competitive called for 1.25 billion as compared with 3350 million for solar, wind and ocean ther.al 3c towering costs of uranium enrichment, nuclear materials security, and rot:er.
nuclear waste disnosal, none of which are a factor in the develoirient of solar ener j, reflect only a s.all proportion of the growing croblems in America 's nuclear energy progran.
' he US Geoloncal Survey and the Natioral Acader;y of Science has indicated that domestic uranium reserves will be depleted in the very near future, uossibly as early as the nid-1980's. The prospect of imported uraniun pronises to drastically increase the cost of nuclear power as interratioral energy cartels dictate both rational nuclear uolicy and prices. The handariting i)11
~)j*}')
l.
l /.'
- s..
e-j gw 9
T}
ks 6 JU. SL 3
is on the vall. The ;ew York Times reported in September of 1975 that tne
':uclear Regulatory Comnission had awarded construction permits for "more than c
known domestic uranium reserves will support, if au these nuclear plants are conpleted."
A marvelously successful marriage between an aggressive nuclear energy industry arvi its receptive governnent proponents has exacted heavy goverment subsidy from the taxpayer and skyrocketing rates from the residential consumer.
The neaviest industrial consumer of energy, the aluminun industry, a big winner in the~ defense budget jackpot, is directly subsidized by the power industry and indirectly subsidized by the taxpayer through a wholesale rate schedule. 3e illuvion ercated through the mutually profitable efforts of gover".ent and nuclear energy conglomerates, not unnke the illusion created by the Viet .am curria. e of government to a highly profitable def ense industry, is that we have investud too :cuch in nuclear energy to tack out now. Bis appeal to connon sense economics remains convincing if candor and fact., are not allowed to confuse the Anerican public. But when the chilling facts begin to emerge fron a carefully designed camouflage of the truth, the conspiracy between goverment aid industry will be retired as usual in the sackeloth and ashes of " innocent nistakes," " frail judgment," and " human error." Meanwh4.le, back in Washington, the :E awards its stamp of approval for the construction a'more nuclear swer plants than our entire uranium reserves will support.
Jno controls the uranium industry? Who domirates the uranium narket?
A yebruary 26, 1979, r/A reoort, "The Structures of the Energy Market," provides an alarning and ominous answer. The uraniun market "is highly coneontrated and is de.inated by nine of the ::ation's largest oil cenpanies, eight of whom also hav?.ajor coal interests.....*,ie have listed 50 uranium ececanies..... Eighteen of the firns are owned Ey najor t.i.1 companies, 2 are cwned by reactor manufacturers, tj newer systems, including T/A, and 12 are owned by other conglenerates.
a Cnly 14 of the companies are iniependent.
lbl2
?d3
D*f D
- D 3'
A
,b.
x s t, w
"The uranium firns include each of the nine largest donestic oil conpanies, and the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th largest corporations in America. The owners of th: 7,ranium cominnies include 21 companies a=ong the top 100 conestic firms.
"The energy companies also dominate the uranium market. They own about 700 million aounds of uranium reserves and control about 72% of the uranium industry s rilling capacity.... Exxon, the largest and most diversified enersy i
~
ec. y-rf, -' 3 the lart,3st oil compag....the 4th largest uranium reserve e :ner, and tne 4th largest uranium miller.... Gulf 011 Corp., the 5th largest energy con 3nny, is tne second largest uranium reserve owner.... Atlantic Richfield, the seventh largest donestic oil compag.... owns Anaconda, one of the Eation's larzest uranium ecmeanies...Kerr-Me"ree is another conpay with multiple fuel interests.
It is both-the largest uranium producer and the largest uranium reserve owner.
It also owns 1.5 billion tons of coal reserves and is an oil compag."
Regarding conglonerate dictatorship of nuclear poLicf-and prices, the TIA report continued:
"'Ihis uncompetitive structure.....can adversely affect both fuel prices and supplies. Eecause the fuel narkets are oligopolies, and since oligopolies price their goods above mnpetitive market price, coal and uradum r-ices are likely to be higher than necessary. ' dors e, since the sane croup of enert y companies which deninate the ccal markets also derinate the uranium narket, consumers are even deprived of the potential benefits of price and supcly concetition between those two conpeting fuels.....
"Although ~"/A was able to enter into contracts for uranium supplies at base prices of 36 to 39 per round in 1970...narket price settlements for 1977 ura.dum deliveries averaged $41.50 per pound and $43.95 for 1978 deliveries,"
a factor in both towering utility prices and inflation.
.. 1 d.
?/
i?J } 'l'
3' g**9
- ]g 4 w Ju o J\\lU
\\.
m
'dhile state and federal goverments reject alternatives to neclear rower in thinly disguised prophecies of socio-economic chaos should our present nuclear energy course be abandoned, they refuse to examine the portentious consecuences for all of hunanity should this present treacherous course not be abandoned.
and for the few, The callous indifference of a government of the few, by the few, in a fading Anerican denocracy, shortsi6hted and out of touch with the Anerican
- mblic, will find no little challenge in creating political success from nuclear Its political consea$ences would be tantarount waste in the coning elections.
to another invasion of Viet Nan. hhen natioral enerEY Poli 7 is dictated by nonocolistic profiteering, heavily wbsidized by the federal goverment, and paid for twice ty the Anerican public as taxpayer and consuner, at the risk of both present and future generations, the tine has cone for the American people to restore don 5tracy to a Nation which has a future.
b s-