ML19305B128: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) Created page by program invented by StriderTol |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:. | {{#Wiki_filter:. | ||
9 Wendell H. Marshall Route 10 Midland, MI 48640 January 28, 1980 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C. | |||
20555 | |||
==Dear Sir:== | ==Dear Sir:== | ||
Over the past ten years many hearings have been held, first by the now defunct Atomic Energy Commission, and then by the Nuclear Regulatory Authority on the Midland Nuclear Power Plant. | Over the past ten years many hearings have been held, first by the now defunct Atomic Energy Commission, and then by the Nuclear Regulatory Authority on the Midland Nuclear Power Plant. | ||
In spite of the fact that the plant location was in violation of the AEC rules and regulations and congressional intent on the location of Nuclear Power Plants in densely populated areas, a building permit was granted to Consumers Power Co. to construct a nuclear power plant within the confines of the city of Midland. | In spite of the fact that the plant location was in violation of the AEC rules and regulations and congressional intent on the location of Nuclear Power Plants in densely populated areas, a building permit was granted to Consumers Power Co. to construct a nuclear power plant within the confines of the city of Midland. | ||
During those hearings the spent fuel storage was not an issue because of insurances by the Atomic Energy Commission and the Power Co. that the spent fuel would be shipped out of Midland after six months cooling period. | During those hearings the spent fuel storage was not an issue because of insurances by the Atomic Energy Commission and the Power Co. that the spent fuel would be shipped out of Midland after six months cooling period. | ||
Within the United States today there are very few Nuclear reactors that are shipping their spent fuel, in fact, to my knowledge, most operators of Nuclear Reactors are requesting permission to expend the spent fuel pool capacity so that they can store the spent fuel. | Within the United States today there are very few Nuclear reactors that are shipping their spent fuel, in fact, to my knowledge, most operators of Nuclear Reactors are requesting permission to expend the spent fuel pool capacity so that they can store the spent fuel. | ||
In view of the above two subjects, I again requect that the facility | In view of the above two subjects, I again requect that the facility that is being now built at Midland be closed down because they are in violation of congressional intent of the rules and regulations and of the apparent desire by the Consumets Power Co. to store spent fuel beyond the six months. | ||
Sincerely, jh.hwM }} | |||
eLoM Wendell H. Marshall WHM/kmt 80031 90209}} | |||
jh.hwM }} eLoM Wendell H. Marshall | |||
WHM/kmt 80031 90209}} | |||
Latest revision as of 06:13, 2 January 2025
| ML19305B128 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1980 |
| From: | Marshall W AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305B124 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003190209 | |
| Download: ML19305B128 (1) | |
Text
.
9 Wendell H. Marshall Route 10 Midland, MI 48640 January 28, 1980 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Sir:
Over the past ten years many hearings have been held, first by the now defunct Atomic Energy Commission, and then by the Nuclear Regulatory Authority on the Midland Nuclear Power Plant.
In spite of the fact that the plant location was in violation of the AEC rules and regulations and congressional intent on the location of Nuclear Power Plants in densely populated areas, a building permit was granted to Consumers Power Co. to construct a nuclear power plant within the confines of the city of Midland.
During those hearings the spent fuel storage was not an issue because of insurances by the Atomic Energy Commission and the Power Co. that the spent fuel would be shipped out of Midland after six months cooling period.
Within the United States today there are very few Nuclear reactors that are shipping their spent fuel, in fact, to my knowledge, most operators of Nuclear Reactors are requesting permission to expend the spent fuel pool capacity so that they can store the spent fuel.
In view of the above two subjects, I again requect that the facility that is being now built at Midland be closed down because they are in violation of congressional intent of the rules and regulations and of the apparent desire by the Consumets Power Co. to store spent fuel beyond the six months.
Sincerely, jh.hwM eLoM Wendell H. Marshall WHM/kmt 80031 90209}}