ML19261A267

Responds to 781020 Referral Ltr Re of H Wolch by Forwarding safety-related Design Repts Explaining Safety Exemptions of 21 Reactors W/Ge Mark I Containment.W/Encl 781117 NRC Ltr to Wolch & Congressional Correspondence

ML19261A267
Person / Time
Site:	Vallecitos, 07000754  File:GEH Hitachi icon.png
Issue date:	11/29/1978
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Hayakawa S SENATE
Shared Package
ML19261A268	List: ML19261A267 ML19289C170
References
NUDOCS 7812140297
Download: ML19261A267 (23)

Text

.

i-E. A. HAYDEN s

(MAIL STOP MNBB 5715) uNiTro sTAtts 3

4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e

\\...../

The Honorable S. I. Hayakawa United States Senator 1390 Market Street Fox Plaza, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Senator Haya M a:

This is in response to your referral of October 20, 1978, re-9arding an October 18, 1978 inquiry by your constituents Dr. and Mrs. Hiram Wolch.

In their letter, Dr. and Mrs. Wolch expressed several concerns regarding nuclear power.

The memorandum referred to in the insert to Dr. and Mrs. Wolch's letter was prepared by Dr. Hendrie in 1972.

It was in response to an internal memorandum, written by Dr. Hanauer, regarding the overall effectiveness of pressure suppression containments. This memorandum was not actually directed to any conclusion that pres-sure suppression containments were ur. safe, but rather that the increased complexity of the concept, compared to " dry" contain-ments, made the staff review correspondingly more complex. The lack of safety in pressure suppression containments was not the motivation for Dr. Hanauer's memorandum, rather it was one of cost effectiveness due to the technical complexity of the pres-sure suporession systems.

Dr. Hendrie viewed Dr. Hanauer's thoughts as being of interest, but declined any staff action on the basis that the regulatory staff should not be in the business of deciding what was economical for applicants, especially when he and the staff were convin ed that the pressure suppression concept was acceptable from a safety viewpoint. Thus, the Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS) statement in this regard about Dr. Hendrie withholding reactor safety information is not accurate.

As a result of similar inquiries, the staff has prepart.' detailed responses to each of Dr. Hanauer's concerns which are contained in NUREG-0474, "A Technical Update on Pressure Suppression Type Con-tainments in Use in U. S. Light Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants" (Enclosure 1).

The safety-related design aspects of pressure suppression containments proposed by applicants have been carefully reviewed by the NRC staff

\\ c c

WI2N f299 2162 054

D The Honorable S. I. Hayakawa and have been discussed in staff reports on individual projects using this containment concept. As operating experience has accumulated, and as further test and safety research work has been completed, sev-eral problems in the detailed designs of these systems have been iden-tified.

In each case, the staff has reviewed the pertinent design features of the affected operating plants and has required changes in operating procedures and equipment modifications to maintain adequate safety margins. For new plants, design changes have been required as necessary.

Exemptions were issued by the staff in March of this year for 21 oper-ating units with GE Mark I containments. The staff has prepared the enclosed statement on the background for these exemptions (Enclosure 2).

The safety analysis supporting the exemptions is given in NUREG-0408,

" Mark I Containment Short Term Program" (Enclosure 3).

With respect to the question of whether or not to cease licensing nu-clear reactors until high-level wastes can be disposed of safely, the views of the Comission are contained in Enclosure 4.

With respect to the comment regarding "the serious shortcomings of the Rasmussen Report," enclosed for your infonnation is a copy of NUREG/CR-0400, " Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the U. S. Nuclear Regu-latory Comission" (Enclosure 5). The introduction to that document describes the purpose and scope of the Risk Assessment Review Group.

The Comission has undertaken an evaluation of the findings and recom-mendations expressed in the Review Group Report. A statement by the Comission based on the results of this evaluation will be issued

' shortly.

x A response to Dr. and Mrs. Wolch's letter to Chairman Hendrie (attached to their letter to you) regarding the Vallecitos Nuclear Center has been sent and a copy is enclosed for your infonnation (Enclosure 6).

It is hoped that this infonnation is responsive to your request.

Sincerely, uf 2162l055

~

n...

as NRR:PSS*

NRR:PSS*

b4

• SEE PREVIOUS YELLOW 5 DMCrutchfield DFBunch h

FOR CONCURRENCES.

Enclosures:

11/ 16 /78 11/ 16 /78

//g

,,,,,, [ "NR'R:TST*

OELD*

%Df NRR:Ek EDO OCA

^

FDMiraglia:dr DTSwanson EGMg fn so....

11/ 16 /78 11/ 17 /78 11/q/78 11/

V78 11/

/78 11/

/78 NRCPORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 W u. a. oov,nmess=v ementens orracas sete-eae saa

The Honorable S. I. Hayakawa P00R

Enclosures:

1.

NUREG-0474, "A Technical Update on Pressure Suppression Type Conta:nannts in Use in U. S. Light Water Reactor nuclear Power Plants" 2.

Exemption Statement 3.

NUREG-0405, " Hark I Coatainment Short Tern Program" 4.

Federal Register, Vol. 42, No.128 dated Tuesday, July 5,1977 - Denial of Petition for Rulemaking 5.

NUREG/CR-0400, " Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission'.'

6.

Response to letter dated October 15, 1978 frcm Dr. and Mrs. Hiram Wolch to Chainnan Hendrie 7.

Letter to NRC from Senator S. I. Hayakawa dated October 20, 1978 with attached letters from Dr. and Mrs. Hiram Wolch DISTRIBUTION:

Docket Files (50-70)

PSS Rdg. File i'

NRCPDR(2)

Local PDR

\\

OCA (3)

SECY 78-1502 (3)

's EDO Rdg. File

\\\\

HShapar HDenton ECase DBunch CSmith RDenise CNelson OELD GErtter(ED0-04767)

MGroff BHayden 2162 056 DCrutchfield FMiraglia orric s >

ov==am e >

eeya >

NRC FORM SIS (>76) NRCM 0240 h us e. oovsmauswv enownmo orrecas seve-ame.ese

~

I

\\

tua.osuat 1 NUREG-0474 i

A TECHNICAL UPDATE ON PRESSURE SUPPRESSION TYPE CONTAINMENTS IN USE IN U.S.

LIGHT WATER REACTOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS I

July 1978 pe nucoq, s.'

j 2162 057 i

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

.i

ENCLOSURE 2 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIO?i D1 VISION OF SYSTEf45 SAFETY AND OPERATING REACTORS July 31, 1978 Exemption For Operating Boilina Water Reactors from Portion of Containment Design Requirements Contained in NRC Regulations

~

During the conduct of a large scale testing program in 1974 for an advanced design pressure-suppression containment system (. Mark III) for Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs), new suppression pool hydrodynamic loads associated with a postulated loss of coolant accident (LOCA) were iden-tified which had not been explicitly included in the original design of the Mark I containment system for 25 existing BWRs (22 operating, 3 under construction). These additional loads result from the dynamic effects of drywell air and steam being rapidly forced into the sup-pression pool (torus) during a postulated LOCA event.

After the NRC staff had concluded that there was no immediate safety problem for these facilities, it was determined in April 1975 that a complete reassessment of the Mark I containment system design by the affected utilities should be conducted. This reassessment was divided in two phases, (1) a short-tem program (STP), designed to confirm the adequacy of the containment system for each operating Mark I BWR facility to maintain its integrity and functional capability during a postulated LOCA event, and (2) a long-term program (LTP), designed to establish design basis loads appropriate for the intended life of 2162 058

each Mark I BWR facility and to restore the originally intended design safety margins for each Fhrk I containment system.

Task Action Plans (A-6 and A-7) which describe and document the NRC staff's prograts for the conduct of the Mark I STP and LTP evaluations were developed in June 1977 and included in NUREG-0410, NRC Program For the Resolution of Generic Issues Related to Nuclear Power Plants.

NUREG-0410 was reviewed and approved by the Commission before being sent to the Congress and made publicly available on January 1,1978.

On October 12, 1977 representatives of the NRC staff briefed the Commissioners on the status of the staff's review efforts related to the Mark I, II, and III BWR containment systems.

Staff review of the results of the Mark I STP had been completed, except for documentation, at that time and the technical results and conclusions were presented to the Commission.

In December 1977, the Task Action Plan for the Mark Mark I STP was completed by the issuance by the staff of the I Containment Short Term Program Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0408, which documented the staff's technical conclusions.

Copies of NUREG-0408 were distributed to the Commissior.ers and made publicly available at that tice.

The staff has recently published a report that provides a technical status on pressure suppression type containments; NUREG 0474, A Technical Update on Pressure Suppression Type Containments in Use in U.S. Light Water Reactor Nuclea. Power Plants; July 1978.

2162 059

As documented in NUREG-0408, the NRC sta'ff concluded on a generic basis that licensed Mark I BWRs could continue to operate safely dur-ing an interim period of approxinately two years while the Mark I LTP was being completed, because a safety factor to failure of at least two existed for the weakest structural or mechanical component in the containment system for each Mark I BWR facility. Although this minimum safety factor is considered adequate by the staff for the two year period, it does not meet all of the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code which is one of the bases used by the staff to detemine conformarce with the NRC requirements.

The generic conclusions and conditions set forth in NUf1EG-0408 were implemented by the staff in February 1978 for each operating BWR having a Mark I containment.

Since the safety margins in por-tions of the containments were less than ASME Code requirements, the staff concluded that the containment design of those facilities did not fully satisfy the " sufficient margin" requirement of Generic Design Criterion 50, included in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50.

Thus, an exemp-tion to NRC regulations was necessary for each of these operating facilities to pemit continued operation.

Exemptions were issued and published in the Federal Register for these operating facilities in March 1978.

Each exemption was made effective only for the interim period required for completion of the Mark I LTP (approximately two years), and was subject to the additional provision that the conditions specified in NUREG-0408 and any resulting Technical Specification requirements were satisfied by the licensee.

2162 060

ENCLOSURE 3 NOREG-0408 MarkIContainment ShortTermProgram Safety Evaluation Report

[3

' y s,,

"((

\\

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Q.

• b Office of Nuclear Reactor Th Regulation 7II'fi Division of c,,d?

Operating Reactors Division of

,u i

Systems Safety 3;ili.

December 1977 j7

~

I X /

\\

I N

X /

\\

/

\\ A xl r.c.f% '

in :

2162 061

9'@

f m

gs y

ENCLOSURE 4

" }J d a

34.% 1 anake a finding that "there is reasonable presently being accornplished. Under assurance that the activities authorized these circumstances a halt in licenshig by the operating license can be conducted of nuclear power plants is not required without ende n terug the health and to protect public health and safety.

safety of the public" and that "the issu-STA7tTony RromarwrxTs ance of the license will not be inimical to the health and safety of the public" As petitioner states, the Atomic En-0 50.57(a)(3) and (a)(6)) and from ergy Act clearly requires that some kind these requirements argued that the NRC of safety finding be ufade prior to is-must make a finding, prior to issuing an suance of an operating license for a operating ljcense for a reactor, that,per-nuclear power reactor. (NRDC Petition, manent d2sposal of high-level radjoactive at 4-3). SecUon 103d of the Act provides wastes

• generated by that reactor can be that no license for a production or utill-accomphshed safely.

J:ation facility may be issued if, in the In contrsst, those comments which opinion of the Commiuion, the issuance favored denial of the petition argued that of tbe beense would be intmtml to the long-term storage or disposal of high-health and safety of the public.It seems level wastes is beyond the scope of 11 clear, however, tha.t the statutory find-censes for reactors and, therefore

• bat ings required by section 103 apply spe-no finding need be made regarding safe ciScally to the " proposed activities" and disposal of high-level wastes until the " activities under such 11ea m a " (42 NRC licenses an actua' facility to handle USC. 2133). These activities include such disposal The two comments sup-some interim sicrage activities for spent porting the petition stated that such fuel'Iley do ziot include the permanent wastes could not be disposed of safely but disposal of high-level wastes though gave no evidence to support this conclu-wastes are, in fact, generated by opera-tion of the reactor, s sion. -

After thorough study of the petition That detailed questions regarding the MFrM'.Y2.'

hMDocket No. PRM-60-18]

and *Mits subnutted therewith and safety of permanent disposal of.these analysh of the comments,2e Commb wasW are to be addressed in connecuc.n-NA with the bcensing ef an actua3 high-level

"$g.TURAL RESOURCES DEyENSE -. sion bas concluded that it is not obli-T

.m-COUNCIL h.hW5.,

gated to make a "deSnitive" findmg, nor waste disposal facility. rather than in gpoial of Petition for Rufemaking is it appropriate to make the "deSnathe" connection wtth licamfne of rec.ctor op-cration,is clear from the stautory treat-bNo'ticeis hereby given that the Nuclear. finding requested by NRDC, the safe ment of radiosettve wastes? Historicall3. * -

wthods of hjgh-level waste disposal are

" Regulatory Commission (hereinafter now atallable prior to the beensing of the Atomic Energy Act ha.s provided that "NRC*.or " Commission") has denied a a reactor. Because the petition seeks a nuclear materials licensing proceedmgs -

pection for nGemaking submitted by let-finding that sa.fe waste disposal can be involving possession or use of nuclear ter d:ted November 8,1976 by the Na-accomplished immed2ately, the Commis. materials o2-site from the facility.

r.tural Resources Defense Council. Inc., sion has determined that the rulemaking which include shigh-level radioactrve

' 91715th Street, NW., Washington. D.C.

petition should be denied..The Com-waste disposal proceedings. are to be i

%.ATotice of the Slingh the petition, treated as separate and d2stinct imm the IDocket No. PRM-50-18, was published in.mhsion notes that prior to any Ucens, JacHity licenenc proceedmg itself? The ing of high-level waste disposal facilities,

• theF:nraAt. RrczsTtn on January 13,1917 a detailed finding conceming the safety Act provides for two-step f acility licens-Mt2 FR 2730) and interested persons were of W proposed facilities will be snade. ing proceedings in sections 101-106, and

-2nvited to comment on the petition by There is, we believe, a cJear distinct'on 185 of the Act in sharp contrast to the

-Pebruary 14,1977. The comment period between permanent d2sposal of wastt.s one-step licanting provisions relating to Usar subsequently extended to February and their interim storage. The Commis. byproduc( source, and special nuclear

' 22.51977 (42 FR 9735, February 17,1977).

material covered by sections 53, 64. 57,

, Eighteen letters were received which ree-.sion must be assured that wastes gen-62. 63, 81, and 82. (42 UAC. 2131.213c; crated by licensed power reactors can lemmended denial of. the petition while be safely handled and stored as they 2235; 20'G-74; 2077; 2092-93: 2111-12).

' troletters supported the petition. Copies Section 182 of the Atomic Energydet.

Y the comments are available for public -are generated. As part of the Ucensing which sets forth the information which process for an individual power reactor

'Ic:pection in the Commmion's Public facII!!y, the Commission does review the Inust be supplied by an applicant for a qDermnant Room at 1717 H Street' NW.,

- W"Mnfton, D.C facility in question in order to assure facility license gives further support to that the design provides for safe methods the preposition that on safety findmg Natural Resources ' Defense -Council for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel. regarding ulhmaf* disposal of high-level j

.<bereinafter* "NRDC") petitioned the wastes is required in a reactor operating to But it is neither necessary nor reasonablefor the Commission to insist on proof 11 cense proce Nuclear Regulatory Commktion (1) butt a rulemaking proceeding to de-that a means of permanent waste dis-section sets forth in some detail sbat

' termine "wbether radioactive wastes can posal is on hand at the time reactor an applicant for a license to operate a ibe tenented in nuclear power reactors operation begins, so long as W Comrnis-

.andsubsequentlydisposed of withoutun sion can be reasonably confident that

.nts potut was raleed in several of the 4De Tisk to the public besith and safety, permanent disposal (as distinguished conunents. See comments of 14Boeuf, umb.

. and (2).to refrain from acting Snally to from continued storsge under surveil-utby a; u.,he, at 6-7; shaw. P2ttman.

EMDt Dending or future requests for op-lance) can be accomplished safely when Potts a: Trowbrsage, at 4-e, and 23-25; and trating licenses until such time as this

,de3nitive finding of safety can be and is it is likely to become necessary Rea-westtachouse, at 2-3.

sonable progress towards the develop-c3 ma als cuo aM fargue'.? ANRDC Petition, at 15). NRDC ment of permanent dispost! facilities is the Act (42 UE.C. Soldaa) and covered in i

nad d that the Comniission is required scetions a1-68 of the Act (c UE.C. 2071-hy the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2011 2078), source matertal which ta desned in

' 8852q. (19721) and the Energy Reorgani-a The commission's det.nttson of higb-levet Itz of the Act (42 UE.c. 20142) and corered

tation -Act -(42 U.S C. 5801(a) (1972) to wa8tes for Purposes M this nouce. ta the in secuons 61-69 of the Act (t2 UE C. 2091-Amt that the public health and safety sama as pettuoner's definition which includes 2099), and brproduct material whJc.h is de.

l

- areww The petitioner cited the high-levet wastes as deaned in to cm Part aned in meetton ite of the Act (c U s c.

I ts found in the Commiulon's

60. App. r, spent fuel rods, s.nd tra.nsuranse-2016.) and eo,ered in si a2 of the Act (42 t,h, regulations that the Commission must conte ated wastas. (Petsuon, at 2).

U.s c.21:1-2112).

nen, BER.'.

2162 062

.rb..-e- ' -

FIDERAt REGistit, VOL 42 NO. Its-Tut 5 CAY, JULY 3,1m

O

' 'O D

D 6 bq

-w o..#7 $0 b

NOTICES 31392

'~;::,W production or utilization facility must disposal. Congress has permitted con-high-level waste disposal problem as one supply to enable the Commission to tinued !! censing of reactors and the of several problems which in his opin' make the required sVety finding. This Commission has been given broad dis. lon marranted a moratorium on cont:3' ued construction of nuclear power reac information includes "the place of use cretion in developing criteria for h-tors " and another Mtness stated tha (of special nuclear material). (and) the censees. Such conduct constitutes im.

specific characteristics of the facility" as plicit ratification of the Commission's many people have come to beheve that well as information regarding the tech-handling of the high-level waste dis-present nuclear power plant construc-nical and financial qualiScations of the posal question.'

tion plans which imply accumulatiog As early as 1959, Congress held hear-more radioactive wastes.should be haltee applicant.

The ernphasls on information pertain-ings on waste disposal problems? Stx until a proven method for safely stortg ing to the facility and applicant to be days of hearings were held and the radioactive wastes is avaliable.mt gg, licensed is especially sign 1 Scant. No such printed hearing materials totaled over AEC in response described the existeg information is required regardmg high-3,000 pages. The hearings were followed proposals for long-term waste %

level waste disposal facilities. Such in-by a detailed Joint Committee survey ment and disposal, but made no claim formation would be necessary were the analysis. At that tirne, development of a that methods for permanent disposalhad Commission to make the detalled safety permanent high-level waste repository been developed." Instead of ordering a finding regarding high-level waste dis-was further from completion than it is snoratorium on heensing, the Congress posal activities requested by petitioner, today, Congress was made aware of the provided for NRC licensing of ERDA fa-Indeed, an applicant for a reactor oper-fact that the problem of permanent dis-cilities for waste disposal in section,.

ating license will have no responsibility posal of high-level waste had not been 202 (3) and (4) of the Energy Reorgang for permanent disposal of high-level solved and that several years of research zation Act.

, a g;. / -

waste. ( Appendix F 10 CFR Part 50). and testing would be required before en-Thus, almost from the beg %iW This responsibihty has been assumed by gineering practicality could be demon-the reactor licensing program the basic

' ssue presented by the NRDC petitin,%

i

~

the Federal government..which. through strated.

ERDA. will research, design, build and During the hearing, the AEC described whether nuclear power reactors shocld.

operate high-level waste -. disposal generally its regulatory program for be heensed in the absence of sotnefde-facilities.

radioactive waste dispmal.' Comments finitive" finding or conclusion thathigh.'.

The statutory provisions cited above regardmg regulatory aspects of the high-level wastes can b'e safely disposed ~cfc.~

make it clear that no statutory regulre-level radioactive waste disposal problem was also presents! to the Congress. Oc6 /-

ment exists that the Commission deter-were conAned to the brief statement that gress is and has been aware of the h!ah"'

mine the safety of ultimate high-level "for the foreseeable future, all high-level leve1 waste disposal problem, aware of its waste disposal activities in connection wastes resulting from processing of spent connection to reactor operations; and'.

fuel elements from licensed reactors will aware that the Commission does'not.

with, licensing of individual reactors.

be returned to the Commission for pro-plan to defer licensing until the proble:n~-

. Rtc'ULTonY RzdeinzutwisI.. -

is resolved.-

Wg The question of con'tinued brensb""

cessing and handling. -

e

.s With regard to'the petitioner's conten-Witnesses who testified in 1959 com-tion that the Commission's regulations mented upon the Commission's handling the f ace of continued tuicertaintfres" v

require a findmg regarding the safety of of waste disposal problems, and one peCMg uhak hposal technoW ta, ultimate disposal of. high-level wastes, witness was questioned about whether he #

while the Commission's regulations do felt that the Commission had been meet-t ongre. It must r a e its -hdg,,

deallrith the handling of spent fuel and ing its responsibilities in the area of snents, as we do, with an eye.to,. known,

other high-level wastes, they do so only high-level waste disposal. He stated in Dr Spects for the future, programs for -

to the extent that such activities are re-response that the Commission had han-lated to on-site activities carried on by died the problem quite well, but pointed

• 'g*g y

P ma eu en

. the licensee as an laterral r' art of opera-out that. temporary containment and likely to succeed will in fact 32 creed.-.

. stion of the reactor.This scheme of re::u- ' custody was the only presently available This Commission recognizes its rewnc lations has been in effect for some time. method of handling high-level wastes sibility to keep the Congress aware qf 1:4.

- and the CommMion's findings have been -and that a final and permanent solution -ini rmati n and projections on*these.,

limited to those findings required by the to the problem might not ever be. de-matters and has done so in the<pasty The Commission has conndencefgtven; Act and the Commission's regulations-- vised?-

M "that there is reasonable assurance that In later hearings, in 1978 and 74. some the activities authorized by the operat-witnesses' urged that a moratorium on be o p a

t is ensing be imposed until a solution to solved. 'ntis confidence was supported by, the Congress when it passed majorlegS lation dividing the Atomic Energy Cak; ~

a ond e ithout e a en the high-level waste disposal question the health and safety of the public" and "the issuance of the license will not be.. was reached." One witness cited the Inission into separate agencies and: pro g P..

inimical

• C C to the health and safety of the public.*' (10 CFR-50.57(a)(3) and e.rhis'potat was made r'e'peateday in the ag en fa s~

t tl-(a)(8)).These findings.havernot in-comments. See commenta by LeBoeuf. Lamb-did o

a moratorium on MactM chtded findings-with regard to safe per Leiby and hiacRae, at 7-8; Shaw, Pittman, licensing and did not require thatdht; manent disposal of high-level radioac-Potta, and Trowbridge. 6-7, 15-28; and Troy

s. Conner, at 3-4.

. Commission make specific findingsyith, tive wastes

• and, as is pointed out below, e '* Industrial Radioactive Waste Disposal, regard to high-level waste disposal'1n -

have been implicitly approved by.* Hearings before the JCAE Speetal Subcom-reactor, licensing proceedings._ Ailtbe mittee on Radiation. Jan. 28,3o. Feb. 2-3, Supreme Court said in Poteer Redefor Congress. -

Concarssionar RAMFICA7IoM or NRC. and July 29, 1959, 86th Cong., 1st Sess, Developmertt Corp. v. Electrical Unfou" (1

g Acnow

,t,_lo.

Operations. 93rd Cong 2d Sess.. (1974)', test!-.

The scope of the Commission's safety -. Id. at 2515.

mony of Dr. Edward P. Radford. Johns Hopf,

• Id. at 11-13.

fiadings is well known to Congress, as

" Hearme on s. 2h4 before the Senate sub-klas University, at 139, and prepared state..

is the extent of the development of sys-comm. on Reorg.. Research and Int 1 Org. of ments submitted by Sam Iove. Envirodt 141 and ;

tems for high-level radioactive waste the Senate Comm. on Government Opera-mental Ac tion Foundation, at ; s(e c tions. 93rd Cong.,1st Sess., (1973), see partt-Anthony Rotsman, at 212.

• See General Criteria for Nuclear Power cularly the prepartd statement of Daniel P.

u td testimony of Sam Love at 141 = '

7, teattroony of Daniel P. Ford, at 213. 7, 58 Henrings on S. 2135 and 2744. supra no Ford. Union of Concerned Scientista, at 21o-Plants. Appendix A.10 CPR Part So. See also 215; Hearings on S. 2135 and S. 2744 before J

comments by LeBoeuf. Lamb, Leiby, and the Subcomm. on Reorg Research, and Int'l

' 'S Hearings on S. 2135 and S. 2744l.suprs hiacRae, at 1o-12; and Shaw, Pittman. Potts, and Trowbridge,*at 7-9.

Org. of the Senate Comm on Govemment note 7, at 336-47.

yi

..CMJ, w..

. -M

~

16 33 d

FIDEeAt BECs5T11, VOt. 42, NO.128---TutSDaY, JULY 5.19rr hk

P[.~[TlW D3# DF

• rg

• n fJ

.'MJ d

. J' O !:P,:

'.t@T, '

NOTICES l2

%'with regard to Congress' failure to act

.% ?

e 7

all high-level waste management pro-its osT: program to set the regulatory

.yegarding the Cr.mmiuion's safety find-gram is sat 1.t. factory and provides a res-mutrements for such an operstion. The y at the construction permit and sonable basis for continued licensing of NRC is presently developing a set of rcg-ope: sting license stages:

facilities sbose operation will produce ulations to govern licensing of federal re-nuclear wastes. Even if, contrary to the posito-fes to insure that permanent dis-MaEy - often be shaky bu.su.iess to at-

• M stgatacance to the inacuon of Con. Commission's view, some kind of prior posal of high-level radioactive wastes but under these circumstances, and finding on waste disposal safety were will be accorndished safely,

.heering espectany the pecu:.:ar respon-required under the statutory sch eme. _ The NRC is also involved in several

.issmy and place of the Joint commtttee on such a finding would not have to be a waste management tilated programs.

.. gomte Ingrgy in the statutory scheme, we defnith e eccelusion that permanent, The Commission recentJy completed an

.thtny it fair to read this 51 story as a de iscto disposal of high-level wastes can be ac- "Envircnmental Survey of the Reprocess-

-Acpeseence ls and ratt1 cation of the Com-cornphshed safely at the present tirne. ing and Waste Aianagement Pcrtions of 32'd""Is teen 11ng pictedPre by Congress." There is Do question that prior to au-the LWR Fuel Cycle". NUREG-0116.

.h,' phlPaw. instant case. Ccngress was inM2e' thorir.ing operation of a reactor the Com-which was published in October 1970.

art 'of the Commission's ac-mission must find punsuant to section and a companion document NUT.EG-

qtiois-snd 1be-high-level waste d

sposal 182 that ~ hazards which become fully 0216, published in March 1977. In the

".jpestfin.7et though major revisions of mature inth start-up will be dealt Mth survey the light water power reactor

-9tbe legislation relating to the Commis-safely from the beginning. But the qual-ura.n.hm fucI cycle was taken as includ-were made Congress ity of this reactor safety finding can be ing alternatively (1) no reprocessing of

'.$sforfs authority neither' amended the statutes to require readily distmguished fro:n the quality spent fuel and follow-on interim andtcr

. Jsuch a-finding nor dd it direct the Com-of findmgs regardmg impacts on public long-term storage or disposal oLapent

% nission to stop licensing reactors pend-health and safety which will not mature fuel or (.2) recroemirig spent fuej for i%ngresolution of the waste disposal prob-until much later, if ever The hazards purposes other than recycle of plutonium, Glem/Such'a course of conduct reinforces associated with permanent disposal will with follow-on interim and/or long-term 1-21be conclasion reached above, based on become acute only at some relatJvely dis-storage or d'sposal cf plutonium and dtbe'c. lear language of the statute, that tant time when it might be no longer wastes from reprocessing. with plutonium Mithe Commiuion is not required to make feasible to store radioactive wastes in eitber separated from or included with -

. '.s finding that radioactive wastes can be facilities subject to surveillance. The the wastes. This survey served as the disposed of safely prior to the issuance Cornmission would not continue to Lcense basis ior an interim naje - (hereinafter

.ptnnToperating license for a reactor. It reactors if it did not hate reasonable "S-3").promcJeated on March 14,1977 9 presupposes, as well..a continuing dia-conSdence that the wastes can and will (42 FR 13803) which quantiSed the en-

logue between the Congress a.nd the re-in due course be disposed of safely. The vircnmental 1:rpacts fro:n the reprocess-TsponsibleJ federal" agencies--a dialogue accumulating evidence as discussed be-ing andaadioactive waste management

l;-Mich has in fact been vigorous os er the low contmues to support the Commis-portions of the nuclear. fuel cycle alter-er'bastmonths and promises to remain so. sion's impbcit finding of reasonable as-natives described above.The survey gen-L 'Jhe' Congress is entitled to the Commis-surance that methods of safe permanent crally concluded that these impacts were G,aion) continuing asse<sment of this issue. disposal of high-level. wastes can be not significant. A Snal rulemmrit pro-

~

- available when they are needed. Given ceeding will be held abortly.'

, tand rill have lt.;,.x,, -

m

,WW4,7..._ CoKermsrow this, and the fact that at present safe

'In' addition. the Commmion has'been

-Q.!,$'[dtes several court cr.ses in its. storage methods are presently available involved in a rulemaling proceeding on NRDC and highly likely to remain so until a ' its fmal Generic Environmental State-

' %' petition. in support of the proposition permanent disposal system can be dem. ment on the Use of Recycle Plutonium in

'*'thaT the ' Commission musFmake a full onstrated and licensed, the Commissica Mixed Oxide Puel in Light Water Cocled *

safety finding prior to reactor licensing." sees no reason to cease bcensing reactors. Reactors. NUREG-0002 -(hereinaf ter

.yThe' Commission agrees with NRDC that The technology for disposal is reason-. "GESMO"). While the CommNion has 3 these-cases interpreting the statute in-ably available and the studies done to recognized that President Carter's state-p., Ccite..that.a. definitive safety finding' date, while not conclusive. are neverthe--ment of Aprl) 7,1977 regartling reproc-6-Jegard.ng operation of the facihtv must less promising for timely erid safe im-essing raises signiScant issues requiring a 4.be'made Mior to licensing a reactor.. plementation of the technology. Most reassessinent of the course of the GESMO

- Hourver..NRDC gives no support for its importantly, ERDA has dramatically ex-proceedings 142 FR 22964, biay 5,19771 y,'(ecnclusion that this finding must extend panded the U.S. program for davebn these proceedings to date havefurnished 7,to safe permanent disposal of high-level ment of a permanent high-level waste the Commi" ion with information -on repository. ERDA has issued a report on waste gnanagement suScient e convince

@.pstes?as activity not performed by thencihty. To the contrary,'the previous te:hnologv for high-level waste reposi ' the Commi W discussidn demonstrates that there is no tories (ERDA-76-431. and has a pro-disposal does exist. More detaDed infor-y statutory requirement that the Commis-grammatic EIS on high ~ level waste mation on NRC and ERDA programs is manageme' t in preparation. ERDA has available in Appendices B and C of the

'g-slon <!etermine that high-level radio-n 3,yactive-wastes can be permanently dis-greatJy expanded its program for selee. S-3 Survey (NUREG-Oll6). It succes to

--t. posed of safely prior to ie issuance of tion of sites for geologic disposal and is state bere that these programs are de san operating license for a reactor. The expected to apply to the NRC for a 11-signed to permit the NRC to racet its rer-Seg'islative materials cited above support cense for such a facihty in early 1980 or ulatory responsibihties in the field of

,the view that Congress did r.ot and does before. In addition. ERDA is involved in waste tnanagement to protect the health got require that the Commission make programs to consider the eMeets on dis-and safety of the public. Of course. the ythe. finding requested by NRDC. Accord Tosal of emplacement of spent fuel rods additional work that is underway will

%)ngly,' the Commission has decided to in - a repository. Fu-thermore, it is in-produce more information on the tech-

'Q* deny WRDC's petition for rulemaking.

volved in extenstre program to develop nology and rists of high-level wa4e d:s-g methods of stabihzing te g., solidifymg) posal and the momentum of the Federal

j,g,Ilcr CowstoERArloNS-scope or A high-level wastes to provide for optimum prograrn may change.

g re,RI.AsoNAsti SAFErY Prxome safety during transportation, storage Beyond this, the selection and demon-G Die Commission believes that the di-and disposal should reprocessing be stration of an actual disposal site will Srection and proFress of the pre =ent over-commenced sometime in the future. likely be highly controversial.. and a strong and continued national commit-

..W Fmally, ERDA is engered in developing

• ment to "get the job done~ wtil likely be interim storage sites in case federal Cus-hhEI.UE 396 4o9 (1961)'pment tody of wastes bacomes necessary be-necessary. We see in the recent state

-% " her Realtor Devero Corp.

v.

fore a working repository is ava11able. ments and actions of the Executive b-Electried tinton, rupra note 13; Neder v.

r #2C.'513 P.2d 104s (D C. Cir.1975) and Thus, there is now a coordinated Federal Branch regarding nuclear power and na-E Qfuens for gefe Forer v. NRC, 524 7'. 2d progrum to develop an actual disposal tional energy policy, a firm commitment

.12s t (D C. Cir.1975).

facility. Similarly, the NRC is expanding to carry through to completion a com-W.-

M, e.

f rof e At ef G15f f e, WOL. 4 2, NO.128-WMDAY, JUtY 5,1977

34394 h

prehensive high-level waste manage-U j

ment program. Further, the Commission fully intends to press for vigorous pur-y' suit of programs aimed at developing and implementing sound and timely ar-

.rangements for high-level waste disposal Dated at Washington D.C., this 27th day of June,1977.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion.

Brutrzt J. C m ix.

Secretary of the Commission.

Ira Dec.77-taats Filed 7-1-77,s:45 am]'

2162 065

ENCLOSURE 5 NUREG/CR-0400 RISK ASSESSMENT REVIEW GROUP REPORT TO THE U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION H. W. Lewis, Chairman R. J. Budnitz W. D. Rowe H. J. C. Kouts F. von Hippel W. B. Loewenstein F. Zachariasen Ad Hoc Review Group Prepared for U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2162 066

ENCLOSURE 6

[p,,

UNITED STATES

.*\\

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM:sSION y

5.. e WASHIN CTON, D. C. 20:55

=1

,g NOV 17197g Dockets Nos.:

50-70 and 70-754 Dr. and Mrs. Hiram Wolch 18313 Pepper Street Castro Valley, California 94546

Dear Dr. and Mrs. Wolch:

This is in response to your letter of October 15, 1978, regarding the Vallecitos Nuclear Center (VNC),.

You note in your letter that the General Electric Test Reactor.(GETR) has been shut down by the Commission's Order to Show Cause issued October 24, 1977.

Further-more, you contend that "this Order should be made permanent unless it can be shown that the present reactor and all its operating facilities are, or can be made, proof against the maximum seismic activity expected for the area." The Order requires that General Electric Company show cause why the susperision of GETR operation should not be continued and that such showing must address the issues of the Order as follows:

(1) What the proper seismic and geologic design bases for the GETR facility should be; (2) Whether the design of GETR structures, systems and components important to safety can be modified so as to remain functional considering the seismic design bases determined in issue (1) above; and (3) Whether activities under Operating License No. TR-1 should be suspended pending completion of the foregoing.

Therefore, we believe that the existing requirements of the Order agree with your position.

In addition this matter and the posi-tions of admitted parties will be considered by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

2162 067 p e.em-ems-ow.

es-

Dr. and Mrs. Wolch With respect to your concern about the release of radioactive isotopes to the environment, some release of radioactivity is anticipated from the operation of nuclear facilities. These releases are limited by the facility license and federal regulations (10 CFR Part 20) to assure a minimal environmental impact. The limits have specifically been estab-lished for the purpose of protecting the public health and safety.

These regulations also consider the non-threshold effect of radiation exposure and therefore include the "as low as is reasonably achievable" concept discussed in 10 CFR Part 20.l(c).

This concept is in addition to the maximum exposure limits of 10 CFR Part 20.

There is an ongoing scientific effort devoted to examining the effects of low level radiation.

To date, a need for further reduction in the limits to assure protection of the puolic health and safety has not been demonstrated.

With respect to the VNC operations, effluent monitoring has illustrated that releases including tritium ' ave been routinely kept to a small fraction of the maximum exposure limits of 10 CFR Part 20.

If these releases are converted to an environmental dose and compared to the natural background radiation dose in the San Francisco area, the impact due to effluents is demonstratively small.

NRC Region V Inspection and Enforcement Office has and will continue to evaluate the effluent discharges frem 'he VNC site.

This will assure that all potential environmental radiation doses from the discharges are within the acceptcble limits.

In connection with your concern regarding the activities covered under NRC License No. SNM-960, the NRC's Office of Nuclecr Material Safety and Safeguard (NMSS) has reviewed and evaluated these activities with respect to the current geological picture.

In its evaluation NMSS has shown that continued operation of the current activities do not pose a signif-icant safety hazard to the public.

A copy of the preliminary safety evaluation rmort concerning this subject is enclosed for your information.

NMSS has and will continue to monitor the special nuclear material activities.

The primary activity with respect to plutonium is experimental work per-formed in the mixed oxide fuel development area. This includes develop-ment of clad fuel elements, material and property studies on compounds of plutonium and uranium, scrap recovery and nitrate conversions.

Further information regarding special nuclear material and activities at VNC can be obtained at the local public document room at:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V Office of Inspection and Enforcement 1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 202 Walnut Creek, California 94596 2162 068

~

Dr. 'and Mrs. Wolch The basic philosophy behind the NRC licensing process is the demonstration that the licensed activities are not inimical to the common defense and security and do not constitute an unreasonable risk to the health and tafety of the public. The degree to which activities serve the national interest vs free enterprise is not germane to the regulatory process.

As requested you will be placed on the service list of those to receive notice of hearings regarding the Vallecitos Nuclear Center.

We trust that ce information in this letter is responsive to your request.

Sincerely, G

ipau h Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Feactor Regulation 2162 069

re. s e,s...

S. 8. H AY AK AW A.

..y..

ENCLOSURE 7 Ac alCULTum C. Nuv a s t aoN.

,., o,, c S,,,,

MUh4 AN m[ SOURCES sasfC PRAT 9JCru.feb Sf afes Sennic

+.........

i,",e [*rv s WASHINGTON. D.C.

20510 r.. r s....

s r.

.c4 s.ies his)ssa.esas October 20, 1978 To: Mr. Carlton C.

Kammerer Director Office of Congressional Affairs Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street NW Washington, D.C.

20555 Enclosure from: Dr. and Mrs. Hiram Wolch, 18313 Pepper Street, Castro Valley, CA 9h5h6 Re: Vallecitos Nuclear Center Please' review the attached matter' and provi de me with a complete report, in duplicate and with t'ae return

~

of the enclosures,to'the attention of Ste.e Johnson

~

of my San Francisco office ( 820 Fox Plaza, 1390 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 9h102).

If you need more information, or.if you have 'any que stions, please con-tact him at (bl5) 556-8686..

I woul'd appreciath either a written response or a final rep 37,.vithin two weeks.

Thank you very much for your help.

Sincerely,

/

S. I '. Hay va United' States Senator SIH:sdj

~

epelosures.

O e

p 18313 Pepper Street Castro Valley, CA 94546 h@s s

October 18, 1978 Hon.

S.

I. Hayakawa 820 Fox Plaza ghh

}

San Francisco, CA 94102 dear Senator Hayakawa:

Please read the attached letter which we have sent to the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, J7seph Hendrie.

The reprint reproduced on this page concerning Mr. Hendrie is taken from the August report of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

We don't know what information Mr. Hendrie is trying to sup-press, but evidently it is information detrimental to vested nuclear power interests.

Does Mr. Hendrie represent these interests or does he represent the interests of the people as a whole?

We wish that in addition to releasing information that might reveal shortcomings in nuclear safety standards, Mr. Hendrie and other proponents of nuclear power would reveal to us the information (which they surely possess?) which makes them so confident that radio-active wastes can be safely disposed of for thousands of years; that nuclear power plants are safe not only during the 30 years of their productivity but the 200+ years after-UCS Request for

' wards, during which th poisoned struc-ture must be guarded; or even that NRC Documents nuclear gower (all costs beins con-sidered) is affordable.

We would Brinos Extraord.inary sureiv aggreciate beins ab1e to share O

,in the peace of mind such knowledge InfOrmat, ion would give us.

to Public Attention In the ebsence of such essur-

'";9 ances it would seem absolutely insane The Union of Concerned Scientists routinely uses the to build more and more nuclear power Freedom of Information Act (FOI A) to obtain governrnent documents relating to nuclear issues'and regulations.'

plants.

We would like to believe that the people who are determining the fate Last month the Chairman o.fith'a Nuclear Regulatory of our children and grandchildren are Commission. Joseph M. Hendrie,; attempted to suppress the sane and rational.

'FOl A" release of a memorandum he wrote in 1972; when he was an official of the Atomic Energy Cor6 mission.t n that i

memorandum / Hendrie contended}thdPa' plan to' solve an Please use your influence to important1 reactor safety' problem (cid!d{well be the end of bring these and all facts concerning nuclear power." The meisoEnMm7ak'reate more turmoil nuclear power into the open, including stated that if the plan was adopted, it "wouldVriaEshyi the serious shortcomings of the Rasmusse than I can stand thinking about.".1-[Itri, the~ government took Report.

In 1972 when the memo w'as wrl}t,,

no action. Earlier this year, the NRC ex,knpred 21 of the 70 Sincerely, reactors operating in the U.S. from fgdWernment safety rule g

requiring a " sufficient marg'n of safe'y,"SAhiuse of continuing t

concern about the same problems that'.had been raised in the original discussion.

'.' (( ',Q p-

/

M UCS is critical of the attempted sup$-[$ 1Y:1 r,

o pressp o,f the rnemo-randum and feels that t'he nuclear regulatory process has been perverted by officials who are'rnors intererted in protectmg qggg qIjg the nuclear industry from crlticistn'tWf'r'o"m"[ rot'ecting the (l0f V

I

~

~

UCS will contmue to monitor the${gQQ$Q public health and safety.

. [1l..$

Iss.uei,%

's 18313 Pepper Street Castro Valley, CA 94546 October 15, 1978 Joseph Hendrie, Chairman United States Nuclear Regulatory D<>)

' 4D' Commission i

dL.'

Washington, D.C.

20555 a

J wv w

Re:

Vallecitos Nuclear Center (Docket Nos. 50-70 and 70-754)

Dear Mr. Hendrie:

Operation of the General Electric Test Reactor at the Vallecitos Nuclear Center near Pleasanton, California, has been shut down by order of the Commission.

We contend this order should be made permanent unless it can be shown that the present reactor and all its operating facilities are, or can be made, proof against the maximum seismic activity expected for the area.

In the absence of evidence acceptable to the general public, seismic safety experts and seismologists, we urge - we demand - that the GETR be permanently shut down.

Regardless of the outcome of preceedings to close GETR permanently, it is imperative that G.E.

be prohibited from further discharging tritium gas, triticated water or any other radioactive isotope into the environment.

There is mounting evidence that there is no threshold, in humans, for tolerance of ionizing radiation.

Tritium is objectionable since it readily exchanges with hydrogen of water and organic materials.

We are at a loss to know why Vallecitos has a License (No. SNM-960) to store up to 150 kg. of plutonium.

We, the residents of this part of California, have a right to knew what is being done with plutoniur at the Nuclear Materials Laboratory, and if this activity is in the naticnal interest or solely of ccamercial i.terest to G.E.

Please advise us of all Hearings to be held regarcing the Vallecites Nuclear Center.

Sincemely.

J W[ '

M c e

\\

Lw..L Dr. E Mrs. Hiram Welch cc:

Senator Alan Cransten Senator S.I. Hayakawa Congressman Tortney ?. Stark Calif. Assemblyman S. Floyd Mori 2)b 072 Calif. Assemblyman Wm. Lcckyer Senator John Holmdahl Congressman Don Edwards