ML19211D371: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:'.#EE*CRE THE AT0"IG SATE"'Y & LICENSIt'G AFFEAL 30ABD 12/19/79''Re: Hope Creek Docket Fos. 50-354
{{#Wiki_filter:'
& 5G-355 Response of David A. Caccia to AIA3-W footnote V2"y participatior ir 'he Rador issue has consisted of two br e's, the latest one dated 1/3/?9, a copy of which is enclosed.
.
  #
EE*CRE THE AT0"IG SATE"'Y & LICENSIt'G AFFEAL 30ABD               12/19/79
    '
                                                                '
Re: Hope Creek         Docket Fos. 50-354   & 5G-355 Response of David A. Caccia to AIA3-W           footnote V2 "y participatior ir 'he Rador issue has consisted of two br e's, the latest one dated 1/3/?9, a copy of which is enclosed.
i Essentially I take issue with the Boards conclusion that the few deaths due to the radon released in con.iunction with Perkins is insignificant.
i Essentially I take issue with the Boards conclusion that the few deaths due to the radon released in con.iunction with Perkins is insignificant.
If the cost / benefit relation between a nuclear Fenerator and another source of power is at exact equipoise, then any adverse health effects of nuclear would shif t the balance against nuclear.
If the cost / benefit relation between a nuclear Fenerator and another source of power is at exact equipoise, then any adverse health effects of nuclear would shif t the balance against nuclear.
A recent study done by the Environmental Defense Fund, comparing nuclear power with the energy alternatives of solar, conservation, etc., found nuclear to be less cost-efficient than the energy alternatives.
A recent study done by the Environmental Defense Fund, comparing nuclear power with the energy alternatives of solar, conservation, etc., found nuclear to be less cost-efficient than the energy alternatives. From this, I conclude that a sinilar study for Hope Creek would show similar results. But assume such a study fer Hope Creek should find nuclear and the energy alternatives to be in exact equipoise.         Then even one death due to radon would tip the balance aGainst nuclear. In all probability the balance is arainst nuclear already, so the radon effects only tips'the balance further.
From this, I conclude that a sinilar study for Hope Creek would show similar results.
The Board has not responded to my brief of 1/3/79 It would be difficult for me to attend the upcomming evidentiary hearines. If any of the other intervenors would be willine to incorperate my contention with their case. I would be Flad to work with them. Please contact me at the address below.
But assume such a study fer Hope Creek should find nuclear and the energy alternatives to be in exact equipoise.
Respectf lly submitted, oA&-5.
Then even one death due to radon would tip the balance aGainst nuclear.
David A. Caccia RD#2 Sox 70-A Sewell, N.J. 08080
In all probability the balance is arainst nuclear already, so the radon effects only tips'the balance further.
        /* * ,
The Board has not responded to my brief of 1/3/79 It would be difficult for me to attend the upcomming evidentiary hearines.
        *'' Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Troy Conner Richard Black Chauncy Kepford
If any of the other intervenors would be willine to incorperate my contention with their case. I would be Flad to work with them. Please contact me at the address below.
              - Ecology Action                                       i   t ; 'i Edward Luton                                    d               ' O,
Respectf lly submitted, oA&-5.David A.Caccia RD#2 Sox 70-A Sewell, N.J.
                                                                                  ''
08080/* * ,*'' Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Troy Conner Richard Black Chauncy Kepford- Ecology Action i; 'i t d' O, Edward Luton
Docketing & Service Section                 g        ,
''Docketing & Service Section
                                                                                      .
.g , AN i'L-f ' O gf ,S , ' , 9 *g 0-efb 9-b ,.p;*.V N~6(W. .-;*yY on 1765 301 3/2 (8001180 C-}}
AN 90 *g i 'L-
                                                          -
9-
                                                          ~
f b' O         efb gf ,S   N  ,',
                                                                          ,.p;*.V
                                                                      -
                                                                                      ;
* yY 6(W.           .
on 1765 301
(  8001180 3/2 C-}}

Revision as of 11:57, 19 October 2019

Response to ALAB-566,Footnote 2.Takes Issue W/Aslb Conclusion Re Insignificance of Deaths Due to Radon Releases.Alleges That Nuclear Energy Is Less cost-efficient than Energy Alternatives
ML19211D371
Person / Time
Site: Hope Creek, 05000355  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 12/19/1979
From: Caccia D
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19211D372 List:
References
NUDOCS 8001180312
Download: ML19211D371 (1)
v • d • e


Text

'

.

EE*CRE THE AT0"IG SATE"'Y & LICENSIt'G AFFEAL 30ABD 12/19/79

'

'

Re: Hope Creek Docket Fos. 50-354 & 5G-355 Response of David A. Caccia to AIA3-W footnote V2 "y participatior ir 'he Rador issue has consisted of two br e's, the latest one dated 1/3/?9, a copy of which is enclosed.

i Essentially I take issue with the Boards conclusion that the few deaths due to the radon released in con.iunction with Perkins is insignificant.

If the cost / benefit relation between a nuclear Fenerator and another source of power is at exact equipoise, then any adverse health effects of nuclear would shif t the balance against nuclear.

A recent study done by the Environmental Defense Fund, comparing nuclear power with the energy alternatives of solar, conservation, etc., found nuclear to be less cost-efficient than the energy alternatives. From this, I conclude that a sinilar study for Hope Creek would show similar results. But assume such a study fer Hope Creek should find nuclear and the energy alternatives to be in exact equipoise. Then even one death due to radon would tip the balance aGainst nuclear. In all probability the balance is arainst nuclear already, so the radon effects only tips'the balance further.

The Board has not responded to my brief of 1/3/79 It would be difficult for me to attend the upcomming evidentiary hearines. If any of the other intervenors would be willine to incorperate my contention with their case. I would be Flad to work with them. Please contact me at the address below.

Respectf lly submitted, oA&-5.

David A. Caccia RD#2 Sox 70-A Sewell, N.J. 08080

/* * ,

  • Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Troy Conner Richard Black Chauncy Kepford

- Ecology Action i t ; 'i Edward Luton d ' O,

Docketing & Service Section g ,

.

AN 90 *g i 'L-

-

9-

~

f b' O efb gf ,S N ,',

,.p;*.V

-

  • yY 6(W. .

on 1765 301

( 8001180 3/2 C-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19211D371&oldid=1902227"