ML19254D583
| ML19254D583 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000463, 05000464 |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1979 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ahlfeld J LANCASTER COUNTY, PA |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254D584 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910290118 | |
| Download: ML19254D583 (4) | |
Text
-,, s -
- ) er
~
/ -..
M pARIOg jo UNITED STATES g
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
Docket Nos. 50-463 OCT 9 1979 and 50-464 Mr. John Ahlfeld Planning Director Lancaster County Planning Commission 50 North Duke Street P. O. Box 3480 Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17604
Dear Mr. Ahlfeld:
Your letters of April 12, 1979 and May 23, 1979, addressed to Chairman Hendrie have been referred to me for reply.
It would not be appropriate for Chairnian Hendrie to respond directly, because he may be called upon to review rulings of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on some of the issues brought up in your letter.
Let me first apologize for our long delay in answering your letters.
The NRC staff resources have been strained in recent months because so many staff members have been assigned to high priority task forces working on a number of aspects of the accident at Three' Mile Island (TMI). Also, in answering your questions related to TMI, we wished to have at hand more of the information being developed by these task forces.
With regard to your request that the application for an early site review
~
for the Fulton site be denied, HRC regulations do not provide for the staff, on its own initiative, to decline to conduct an early site review for which proper application has been made. To do so would amount to prejudging an application before all of the facts about it were known.
We believe that a fairer assessment of the suitability of a site for a nuclear plant can be made by following the normal review procedure.
In the normal staff review, we give due consideration to the views of local governing and advisory bodies on matters such as were brought up in your letter. You will have further opportunity to present your views at the early site review hearine, Sefore an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. (ASLB).
the present time, the NRC staff is reviewing the Fulton application for an early site review to determine whether it is sufficiently complete to be docketed.
1221 337 7910290 // 8
Lancaster County Planning Commission,
' Your concern about construction of a nuclear plant at Fulton "at this time under current engineering and safety standards" is somewhat premature.
The result of an early site review would be an ASLB decision on the suitability of the Fulton site for a nuclear plant of the general size and type proposed by the Philadelphia Electric Company.
It would not provide the Company authority to comence any construction. At the present time, even the type of plant to be built has not been decided. The NRC would not issue a construction permit until our safety staff has thoroughly reviewed any future proposed design according to the engineering and safety standards in force at that time.
The present safety standards are being intensively reviewed by a number of NRC task forces as a result of the accident at Three Mile Island.
In addition, several other groups, including Congressional committees and the President's Commission are investigating the accident. The results of these studies will provide a basis for actions which will reduce the likehood of future accidents of the type which occurred at Three Mile Island. The necessary changes in plant design, operator training and operating procedures will have been determined long before any safety review for the Fulton plant would begin.
With regard to your comment on the land use plan around Fulton, we note that your position opposing a nuclear plant. at Fulton is similar to those communicated to us by other local governing bodies and government representa-tives. While local zoning laws and ordinances are beyond the legal purview of the NRC, the early site review procedures set forth in 10 CFR 2.605 do, in fact, provide that the objections of cognizant state and local govern-ment agencies be considered in early site reviews.
Such" objections can, subsequent to the staff review, result in the Commission's decl.ining to hold an early site review hearing or declining to render an initial decision on the early site review application.
Concerning the concentration of nuclear plants in your area, this is clearly related to three significant factors: (1) the availability of cooling water from the Susquehanna River, (2) the low population density near sites such as Fulton, and (3) the proximity of the lower Susquehanna to existing transmission lines and electrical load centers. An important element in our review of the Fulton application will be a thorough examination of alternate sites to be sure that superior sites for a nuclear plant have not been overlooked.
In the past, however, we have not found the number of nuclear facilities in a region to be a sufficient basis for rejecting an application for a nuclear plant.
Your second request was that the NEC shut down the TMI facility "until the wastes are removed and all issues of safety, low-level radiation, waste and storage of waste are resolved." There is no question that the TMI-2 facility will not be started until it is decontaminated and all radioactive wastes are removed or safely stored. As was indicated above, the lessons learned from the TMI accident will be applied to improve safety at all nuclear plants, including TMI-l and TMI-2.
1221 338
- u. _ _
Lancaster County Planning Commission ' Regarding low-level ionizing radiation, it has not been demonstrated that this is a significant problem either in connection with the TMI accident or with the operation of other nuclear facilities. Most scientific workers in the field agree that the somatic and genetic effects of low-level radiation will be proportional to radiation dose, at most. On this basis, the effects of operating nuclear power plants and of the TMI accident itself are small compared to the effects of natural background radiation on the populations living near these facilities.
The matter of long-term storage of radioactive waste is being vigorously pursued by both the Department of Energ/ and the NRC. The Department of Energy has primary responsibility for developing and constructing waste disposal facilites. The level of these activities has markedly increased in the past year.
The NRC has the responsibility to license such facilities and to regulate their operation so as to protect the health and safety of the public. The NRC has recently published for comment in the Federal Register (43 FR 53869, November 17,1978) proposed procedures for the licensing of high-level waste repositories.
The final report of the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management was issued in March of 1979.
This group was charged by President Carter to develop a government-wide strategy for dealing with the waste management problem. These activities indicate the level of effort which is being exerted to determine the most feasible way to dispose of nuclear wastes.
It is expected that tnis problem will be essentially resolved by the time that wastes would be generated by a proposed plant at the Fulton site.
It is difficult for us to respond in a specific way to your question on accidents at Peach Bottom because no specific accidents were identified.
We are not aware of any major or significant accidents which would affect the public in the last several years of plant operation at Peach Bottom. There were no reported accidents involving unresolved safety questions.
Minor failures of plant equipment (valves, gauges, relays, etc.) are frequent occurrences at large power plar.ts, usually with no safety consequences. The NRC requires those events with potential safety consequences, even though they may be minor, to be reported by the utility. These monthly reports (Licensee Event Reports) are available to the public.
In each case, the cause of failure is analyzed and corrected, or provision is made to prevent future recurrence. The principal health effects of these events are associated with some degree of radiation exposure to the nuclear plant workers.
There were no incidents leading to offsite exposures larger than routine effects from normal operation, amounting to a small fraction of the dose from natural background radiation. Therefore, these events at Peach Bottom could have no significant effect on the residents of Lancaster County.
1221 339 m
Lancaster County Planning Commission.
8 Your question as to the safety actions being taken as a result of the TMI accident was essentially answered above.
A sizable list of short-term and long-term recommendations by the TMI task forces are being implemented at all nuclear plants, principally in the areas of equipment design, operator training and supervision, and operating procedures.
Finally, you express concern about the Licensee Regulatory Performance Evaluation of the Peach Bottom plant reported in the New York Times of May 6, 1979.
The performance evaluations consisted of three parts:
(1) a statistical method involving the numbers and types of non-compliance items (Licensee Event Reports), (2) a.: rend analysis method, evaluating the responsiveness of management in reacting to Licensee Event Reports, and (3) a compilation of qualitative judgments of regional managers, inspectors and NRC contractors.
The performance evaluations are a trial program intended to improve and standardize the NRC inspection process and to help identify and correct the causes of poor regulatory performance. A staff assessment of the value of the trial program is expected to be completed by December 1980.
The reports on 1978 di2ta and 1979 data issued before the 1980 assessment should not be considered official statements of NRC positions.
The subjective ratings by different individuals in 1973 often varied consider-ably. You may note that the qualitative comment cited in th.e Times was not consistent with the statistical safety ratings of " average" for Unit 2 and "above average" for Unit 3.
In any case, a relatively low' performance evaluation does not mean that a plant is not safe to operate. A plant judged by the NRC to be operating with inadequate safety would be ordered to shut down.
I trust these comments have been responsive to your concern,s. -
Sincerely, Original sigacd 4
/\\
E. G. Case /
x Harold R. Denton, Director N
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation S
1221 340 m-m
__