ML19259B457
| ML19259B457 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Eagleton T SENATE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902130206 | |
| Download: ML19259B457 (3) | |
Text
a..
pm FEf; The Honorable Thomas Eagleton United States Senate hh h
Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Senator Eagleton:
This is in response to your letter of January 3,1979, which forwarded the concerns of Mr. David Haenke regarding both the Callaway plant and nuclear power plants in general.
In the enclosed copy of its Final Environmental Statement for the Callaway Plants, the Nucicar Regulatory Commission estimated the cost at about
$1.9 billion (1982 dollars).
Any one of a variety of cventualities like unanticipated delays during construction, rate of inflation, or design changes could result in the actual cost being higher.
This capital cost represents about 10 mills per kilowatt hour of tne electricity that will be generated by the Callaway units over thirty years, which is less than about 20" of the cost of delivered electric power.
Cost projections are based on an assumed economic lifetime of 30 years.
This means that in about 30 years a variety of circumstances may make it economically attractive for the utility to substitute newer generating capacity for Callaway.
Such circumstances might include technological innovation and increased operating and maintenance costs for Callaway.
It is likely that the Callaway plant will actually operate longer than thirty years.
Retired generating units (either fossi'l or nuclear) would eventually be demolished and removed.
In the case of nuclear generating units demolition and removal is complicated both by the fact that some parts of the plant become radioactive during its operating life and by the presence on site of radioactive materials which were necessary for plant operation.
Two necent, independent, detailed engineering studies of demolition and removal estimate the cost to be about $40 million per generating unit (1978 dollars).
That amounts to a cost of about C.2 mills per kilowatt hour of electricity.
Since dismantling and removal of generating units is one aspect of power generation, its cost will be borne by the users of the power.
The method of payment is controlled by the State government rather than the Federal government.
Radioactive wastes are classified as low-level, high-level, and transuranic.
Low-level wastes will be disposed of at land burial facilities so that there will be no significant radioactive releases to the environment.
High-level and transuranic wastes will be buried at a Federal Repository 20/2 258
+
7902.13 M
/}
The Honorable Thomas Eagleton 2
D""D D l' Y $
,b.
.A a oo w
so that thre vill be little likelihood of any sienificent rcieror to the biosphere After about 4,000 years, nuclear wastes are less radioactive than the original are.
After 500,000 years the level of radioactivity would be so lcw that even if the waste were to be dug up there is virtually no chance that exposure could r esult in either chronic or latent f atalities.
Postulated nuclear power plcat accid:nts include a wide spectrum in terms of severity and probability of consequences.
These postulated accidents are considered design basis accidents, which means that the plant is designed to reduce the likelihood and/or consequences of such accidents so that there is little risk to public health and safety.
Occurrences beyond the design basis accidents involve sequences of successive failures rore severe than thore required to be considered in tho 7 ion ba",ns of nrotection sustem cnd engin a ring safety featurac.
im ir consecuerices couid be seve.
H0..ever, tne likelihoco of their cccurrence is judged so srall th:t th;ic r f s: is entremiy ic',
i.e.,
it is extru ely unlikely thn such an event. iiil occtr during tk operating lifetime of the plant.
Defense in depth (multiple physical barriers),
quality assurance for design, manufacture and operation, continued surveillance and testing, and conservative design are all applied to provide and maintain a high degree of assurance that potential accidents of this type will not represent a significant risk to public health and safety.
As indicated above, the likelihood of accidents exceeding the dr,1gn basis accidents is very small.
In the unlikely occurrence of ouch an accident, extent of contamination could range from very loc al to some tens of miles, depending on the nature of the accident
.id other considera-tions.
However, even if such an accident were to occur, it is highly improbable that there would be contamination beyond a radius of fifty miles that would be significant enough to warrant any special protection measures.
The incident in 1966 at the Fermi 1 plant near Detroit occurred during power ascension.
A high activity signal on the monitors indicated to the operators that something was wrong.
They isolated the containment building, reduced power, and then shutdown the reactor.
There was no significant release of radioactivity to the environment nor was there any difficulty encountered in shutting down the plant and maintaining it in a safe shutdown condition.
A two year period was needed to determine what had gone wrong, renove the fuel assemblies, redesign them to prevent a.
rcenro, and fiorlly to w ify th5t nc d mage had occurred to the 20/2 259
I?.e Mence1ble Tnomas Eccleten 3
The fire which eccurred on March 22, 1975, at the Brown's Ferry nuclear
- r pruer clant was significant bera_
- ,e it ende-ed cert;in 5:'rty feat ures of t!.c p?cr.t. nape. ca h.
t.;-e. e r,
- e..t. ons c c.o. c :.e a nd -e r e ta se n oy plant perscnnel to snutdown and safely maintain both units 1 and 2.
Inere was at all times suf ficient water available to cool the core anc, because of redundancy and flexibility in design, there were alternate reans for raintaining a safe shutdown condition even though the fire caused a less of capability for autcmatic actuation of the cmergency cooling equipment.
'ie are enclosing a copy of a response f rom the Departrt-nt of i r.ergy to Congressman Ichord concerning an identical letter from Mr. Haenke.
I 'spe the above rerpends to Mr. Haenke's questions.
SincerelyI p.
L V. Gossick Faecuure Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
NUREG 75/011
- 2. "Ltr to Honorable Richard H. Ichord
~
~
fr. John M. Deutch, DOE, d td 1/11/79 2.
"=0 to NRC fr' Th as F. Eagl e ton dtd 1/3/79 w/ encl.
s t +
1i o v 13' 20/2 260 A
.1 m
_e r
M[
b Department of Energy jay Washington, D.C. 20585 y y 579 Honorable Richard H. Ichord House of Representatives-Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Ichord:
This is in response to your December 19, 1978, referral of a letter that you received from Mr. David Haenke of Caulfield. Your constituent expressed concern about nuclear power reactors being built in Missouri and posed a series of related questions. We regret that we cannot fully respond to Mr. Haenke's questions because they center mainly on the operation, decommissioning and rate setting process for nuclear power reactors, principally in Missouri.
These commercial power reactors are under the operational and regulatory control of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
For that reason, we are, by copy of this letter, requesting the NRC to provide you with information on those points.
We do not consider it true that no one knows what to do with the radio-active vaste generated as a result of nuclear power reactor operations.
In this context, we assume that your constituent is referring to high-level waste.
Handling of other than high-level waste from nuclear power
,(
plants has been pretty much a routine commercial activity for quite a j
number of years.
These wastes have been packaged and transported according to regulations established by the NRC and the Department of Transportation and have been disposed of in land burial facilities operated by commercial companies under the regulation of the IGC or by individual States under the State Agreement Program of the NRC.
The disposal of high-level radioactive waste (which may include spent reactor fuel) is receiving the highest level of attention in the Administration and the Department of Energy (DOE). While it is true that we have yet to develop a Federal repository for the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste, there is a well-planned program underway to develop such repositories.
This development program was substantially expanded with Congressional approval in 1976, and has just been extensively reviewed by a Presidentially established Interagency Review Group, composed of representatives from 14 Government entities. We are planning to have storage facilities for spent fuel by 1983/1984 and a geologic repository by the early-to-mid 1990's.
20/2 261
t t
a
%f i
e p
%S e
0 O
+
9 e
a 5
0, 9
7 O
9 e
9
-.,. / W 0
3
-'i ;,.
r.
. _.
. _ -.. =. ;
- =?
~~~
e.a-:.3:
- :w -
e
+ = _. -
..-...=:.s_.-...
- ...
- ;TE
- ::... :--+---..... -
?JCnifeb Siafen Senafe T~ - MiGIE+ -- =--- =-- -----=
======-+:r^---
==
=:
f
_ : :.= a;. :.=.=.. '.=.....: -~;;-
-~~
"~~
- -J.%.
=
" ' =
Jan. 3, 1979 z=
=
"-~:
z-
= ===- ::.
. :- =
" ~ " '
.. =.. _.
- ..=..
- ._c i2 pectfully referred to
2'M
==
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
~~ ~
~
Congressional Liaison
~
+~+
Washington, D.C. 20555
.._"z.
~~
~~"
.--........r.-
...I.......b.b-....
- =
ause of the desire of this office to be
~4.
pensive to all inquiries and communications, L:
r consideration of the attached is uested.
Your findings and views, n
....f licate form, along with return of the losure, will be appreciated by I.._
TFE:rb Ne: Eaenke David
~~'
, ;; =
Dirksen 1209
.. 5~_~
"M+=
=
THOMAS F. EAGLETON
~
...J-
== ry
...._2
... =.
':I"~E-?.T D
D D '9~ N f
' - =
.b d...
- D:.
.,..E...
a..
i..
r a
'~"
'"~'
? \\
..].jj _
~\\ '
. 1..
David Haenke l '"r [: -
Dor. 67 -2 Caulfield, Fo. 65626 Dec. 12, 1978 Senater Thomas Eagle. ton Senate Office Building
'lashington, D.C.
20510 Dear Sirs Recently I have ben reading same disturbing things about the nuclear pwer plants being built here in Missouri.
I was wondering whether the following things are true or not, in your opinion.
'Is it true that the Callaway nuclear reactors are going to cost $2.6 billion and be used only 30 years?
Io it true that in 30 years the reactors will be just piles of radio-activo junk and that nobody knows how meh it will cost to dismantle them?
~
Is it true that the power users and/or the people of I".ssouri will 'r2ve to pay for dienantling the reactore, since this cost has not been figured into the initial cost of the reactors?
Is it true that no one knows what to do with the tons of radioactive waste from the plants, ca this waste vill have to bo stored near the plants indefintely?
Is it true that those vastes renidn deadly for at least 500,000 years 7 Is it true that a nuclear accident would conta.inate a 100 mile radius around the plant, and that ouch catastrophic accidente nearly happened in Detroit in 1966, and in Brown's Ferry, Alabama in 1975?
If these things are true, why are we allowin ; tl.ese reactors to be built in our state, and what possible benefit could be worth this enor=ous cost and danger? If these things are not true, what are the correct facts, so that the fear I feel from what I have read be put
+.o rest? laat is your position on nuclear power in Missouri?
- Yours,
.j hW l
David liaenke 2072 264 ooca ogggq
,