ML19206A851
| ML19206A851 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1976 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Schweiker R SENATE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904210539 | |
| Download: ML19206A851 (5) | |
Text
. _. _
O,h r To.320 s,~ ~
DISTRIBUTION:
KRGoller CCA (3)
NRC FDR e,
Docket (50/289/320/171) VStello idAR 2 4 ~." EDO Rdg W
LVGossick NRR Rdg TJCarter ORB Rdg DJaffe EGCase TVerdery DDavis OELD BCRusche Ghrtter
!!ono; able P.ichard S. Schweiker JMiller MGroff United States Senate FIDenton EPeyton REHeinemen CParrish
Dear i.cnator Schweiker:
RSBogd GLear I na pleased to respond to your note of()') arch 1,1976 whica nasHSilver OISE been re?crred to ne for reply. Your noto forwarded a letter written ny Mr. Richard !M. Brown to Jcnator Jackson on February 15, 1976, and subsequently referred to you. The Ictter states Mr. Brown's concerns regarding activities at the Peach Bottom and Three Mile Island nucicar power facilitics.
I have addressed ifr. Brown's concerns in Enclosure 1 and hope that this reply is responsive to your request for our consideration of Mr. Broun's letter.
Sincercly, w a > t.+ 1 M Lee V. Cossick Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
"1.
" Response to the February 15, 1976 letter from Richard M. Crown" v2.
Responsibilities of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement 3.
Reactor Safety Stuuy C.ASil-1400) 4.
Amendacnt to Peach Bottca Unit 1 license 5.
Regulatory Guide 1.P6 v 6.
Correspondence fron :r. Richard H. Brown c '.' qq v:
.~. s n.
t SEE PREVIOUS YEiJ.n'c, FOR C0"Cumi'm ru iT" I
orrecs *
.u m-s *
. 730421053 7 f
. 4.2
%cket a 50 W DISTRIBtTTION:
NRC FDR KRGoller OCA(3)
Docket (50-2S9/ 320/171)VSte11o EDO Rdg
, LVGossick NRR Rdg TJCarter ORB Rdg DJaffe EGCase TVerdery DDavis OELD BCRusche GErtter Honorable Richard S. Schweiker JMiller MGroff Senate Office building HDenton EPeyton
\\
REHeinecen CParrish
Dear Senator Schweiker:
RSBoyd GLear 1
HSilver OIpE,!a(rc)h 1,1976 which nas
\\
I am pleased to respond to your note om been referred to me for reply. Your note forwarded a letter written by '!r. Richard M. Brown to Sonator Jackson on Tae letter February IS,1976, and subsequently referred to you.
states !'r. Eres.it's concerns regarding activities at the Peach Botton and Three Mile Island nucicar power facilities.
I have addressed Fr. 2roun's concerns in Enclosure 1 and hope that this reply is respoasive to yot.r request for our censideration of Mr. Brown's letter.
Sinc ~:a1y, 3
\\
r NN Lee V. Cossick Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
" Response to the Foruary 15, I??6 Ictter from Richard M. Brown" 2.
Responsibilities
<>f the Office of Inspection tnd Enforcenent 1
3.
Reactor Safety.: study (llASii-100f 4.
Arendrzent to Pcach Dotten Unit 1 license S.
Regulatory Cuide 1.86 6.
Correcpondeace from Mr. Richard M. Brown
\\
N OCA
_ DPM DBM.;
AD.OR HSilver GLear KRGoller SEE PREVIOUS YrLL0i! FOR CONCURRENCE CT!iTN 3/
/76 3/
/7o 3/
/70 3/
/;
ORB?3 UES D:IOR
.DD.:NRP-D:ONRR
_E DO. _...._
a
'e = *
.u....*
DJa f fe.; acr.
VStello ECCase BCRusche
_LVCossict 3/
/76 i/..
/76 3/
/76.
3/
/16,g....,m,g76..
3/.......... f ear.,
W v. s. ouvs===sar reeminne oa rIca[ ev4.o2e-use
" ~^
Form AEC.)!M (Rce. 9 $)) AFC.M 0240
i
)
DISTRIBUTION:
NRC PDR KRGoller Docket (50-2S9/320/171) VStello EDO Rdg LVGossick NRR Rdg JTCarter ORB Rdg DJaffe EGCase TVerdery DDavis OELD BCRusche GErtter Senator.ichard S. Schueiker MGroff JMiller i
Senato 0 " ice Building HDenten EPeyton t'ashington D. C.
20510 CParrish REHeinemann RSBoyd GLear
Dear Senator Schuciker,
OISE (1)
HSilver I aa pleased tq respond to your note of I'. arch 1, 1976 which has been referred t'q rc for reply. Your :iote ic:.vardcd a letter written by !!r. Mc' lard M. Bro *n to Senator Jackson on T'te letter February 15,197G(and subsequently referred to ycu.
states 25. 3rc n's scenceras reprding activities at the Peach Bottou and Threc ; fib Island nucicar power facilitics.
I have addressed Mr. irown's cencerns in Enc 1csure 1 and hope that this reply is resp,asive to your request for our consideration of !.r. Brown's letter.
Sincerely, t
Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
l.
" Response to the February 15, 1976
~
Ictter from Richar.i M. Ercun" 2.
Responsibilities of the Cffice of Inspectica and Er.forconcnt t
3.
Reactor Safety Study (~,l/.SH-1400) 4.
Anendrent to Peach Botto'a Unit 1 license 5.
Rc';ulatory Guide 1.EG 6.
Corrdspondence from Mr. Richard M. Brown r
,s &?., \\p
/, \\, ' 7 b y
v y%
U.g N"
I is N
. ORB #3 AD:0R llSilvabi -- GLear 6/
KRGoller i
,q cg% $ <s 3/
/n 3/ - so M ;; /. ';
/m :/
~
l m' a i Q.
s s
,s 7
,-..\\
_...... g /,I, :
D.:.,?J!, Vg rf.i_i)D : S. "R/
D:0N.RR/. / - EDO
..\\
JISE g..p.g.,g e On !!3 i
,,,,,c, DJa hQ VS.ty(Io EGCdge /
BCRus ch e__
LVGossi,cL 3/ Y/)./76 3 /....) )#..-
f/. '...h b*
/76
/76 3/ \\...- -- / 7 C@-=.,. 4.g f h.76 3/
/
pas s.)-
g To,ma MC.)lts Utre. 9 53) MC.M 0:40 W v. s. oov a a = = E N T *asatia e o r r ec t s s e r e.e ae.s e e
1
_k J,
~
ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSE TO THE FEBRUARY 15, 1976 lei'TER FROM RICHARD M. BRONN 1.
Concern "Recent incidents at the Three Mile Island and Peach Bottom nucicar power plants near my home here in Lancaster County, Penna hive convinced me that these plants are not safe.
I think there should be an immediate moratorium on all construction and planning for these plants or there is going to be a major disaster."
Resnonse At the present time Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 and Three Mile Island Unit 1 are operating units while Three Mile Island Unit 2 is under construction. Our Office of Inspection and Enforcement (OIE), Region I, has responsibility to inspect the Three Mile Island and Peach Botton facilities on a regular basis to assure that activities are conducted without hazard to the health and safety of the public or operating personnel and that there are no unacceptable adverse effects upon the environment.
(A further description of OIE responsibilities is provided for your information in Enclosure 2). The results of recent OIE inspections and review of licensee event reports
^
l from the facilities have revealed that no occurrences have taken place at either facility that would require termination operation or construction activities at these units. The s
conclusions of OIE were confirmed by members of our Division of Operating Reactors who munitor the operation of these facilities.
i With regard to Mr. Brown's concern about a " major disaster" associated with operations at the Peach Botton and Three Mile Island facilities, an NRC report, " Reactor Safety Study - An g
Assessment of Accident Risks in U. S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants", has been recently published to address such concerns.
A copy of the report is provided (Enclosure 3) for your informa-tion.
2.
Concern j
please investigate the withdrawal from service Ph'ila g
Electric's #1 reactor (SIC) at Peach Bottom, Pa."
Response
Peach Bottom Unit 1 was a 40MW High Temperature, Gas-cooled e
Reactor (UTGR) located on the west bank of the Susquehanna River
' E5I,'.I [Edl in
.y
approximately four miles from the Pennsylvania - Aaryland border i in York County, Pennsylvania.
The Peach Bottom site also contains two 1095 MWe Boiling Water Reactors (Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3) which are currently in operation.
Peach Bottom Unit 1 is currently being decommissioned. The licensee, Philadelphia Electric Company (PFC0;, intends to remove all fuel and contaminated fluids from the site and retain the facility intact.
We refer to this form of decenmissioning as "mothballing". represents an amendment to the operating license which allows PECO to possess, but not operate, Peach Botton Unit 1.
Enclosure'4 also contains our safety and environmental reviews and findings regarding the decommissioning.
5
^
3.
Concern "Are there any Federal Regulations on this (decommissioning of Peach Bottom Unit 1)".
Response
In reviewing PECO's plans for decommissioning Peach Bottom Unit 1, i
we considered the applicable sections of Title 10 of the Code f
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The most significant se lons wi'b egard to Peach Bottom Unit 1 are Section 20.106, Part 20; Seew.on 50.59, Part 50; and Section 51.5, Part 51.
I Section 50.59, " Changes, tests, and experiments", describes the i
l flexibility which a licensee may exercise in making changes to l
a licensed facility without prior Commission approval and conversely what types of changes must be submitted to the 1
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for review. We have assured j
PECO's compliance with this regulation during the review of j
their decommissioning plan.
Section 20.106, entitled " Radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas", is significant in that it limits the concentrations of radioactive materials in the effluents which result from the decommissioning process.
PECO's discommissioning plan was reviewed to assure that appropriate measures would be taken to assure that any release of materials would be in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20, Section 20.106 and the conditions of the operating license and would not result in ha:ard to the health and safety of the public.
4 i
I
~
4,~C 3 CC J.
i s.
9
)
~
Section 51.5, " Actions requiring preparation of environmental impact statements, negative declarations, environmental impact appraisals; actions excluded", requires the Commission to consider the environmental effects of " License amendments or orders authorizing dismantling or decommissioning oi nucicar power reactors...". contains our Negative Declaration and Environ.cntal Impact Appraisal associated with the decommissioning of Peach Bottom Unit 1.
These documents conclude that the decomnissioning of Peach Ecttom Unit 1 will not adversely affect the quality of the the health or safety of the public or environment.
4.
Concern "They (PECO) should be required to remove the whole thing (Peach Botton Unit 1)".
Response
NRC Regulatory Guide 1.S6, " Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors", (Enclosurc 5) addresses the various options availabic for decommissioning.
Complete removal of a facility is one such option.
The decision as to which decommissicaing option will be used is made by the licensee based upon the safety and economic factors involved.
PECO elected to " mothball" Peach I
Bottom Unit 1 based upon the following consideratiens:
(1) by retaining the facility intact and removing it after approximately 50 years, the expense and potential for radioactive exposure to personnel during removal would be reduced, (2) the remaining two units at Peach Bottom require that security be naintained and thus, the additional security provided for Unit I adds a relatively small incremental cost, (3) part of the facility, specifically the office spaces, can be utilized and (4) it is the most econcaical option.
In our Safety Evaluation Report dated July 14, 1975, we have precented our review of the PECO plan to " mothball" Peach Botton Unit 1.
h'c
'~
conclud:d at that time that the deccumissioning would not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
i i
i l'
a 4!
I
.I h
p
. - =
. =.
s ENCLOSURE 2 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OFFICE OF l
INSPECTION AND ENFORCE"ENT The Office of Inspection and Enforcement consisting of the Divisions of Materials Inspection Programs, Fielo Operations, and Reactor Inspec-tion Prograns, is responsible for the development and administration of programs and policies for (a) inspections and investigations necessary to determine whether licensees are cceplying with their license provisions and rules, and to ascertain whether licensed operations are being conducted safely- (b) establishment of bases for the issuance or denial of a construction permit (CP) or operating license; (c) investigation of accidents, incidents, and theft or diversion of special nucicar materials; (d) enforcement actions; (c) evaluation of licensed operations as a basis for recommending changes to standards and license conditions.
In addition, this office performs an acceptance review, following the tendering of a CP or standard p' ant application, of the implementation of the applicant's quality assurance program for design and procure cat activities.
The Office of Inspectica and Enforcement has a range of enforcement actions available for obtaining compliance with NRC requirements, including assesstent of civil penalties.
s I
l f.
I t
9 YW,
({
d '
s.
-r-