ML19263E336
| ML19263E336 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1979 |
| From: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Montanadurn B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263E337 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906130140 | |
| Download: ML19263E336 (12) | |
Text
_
[$
4 UNITED STATES 3,,l,)Afl._tj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20S55 Wvf-s,+...+/
_ MAY 9 19 /9 Docket tb.: 50-322 Ms. Barbara Montana-Durn 3 Trappers Path Rural Route #2 Wading River, New York 11792
Dear Ms. Durn:
We have received your letter of April 3,1979 to Mr. Hendrie, Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, on the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. The Shoreham application is currently in the hearing process and will be considered by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Since j
the decisions of the Board are subject to review by the Commissioners, j
it would not be appropriate for the Chairman to comment on the details of the Shoreham application at this time. Accordingly, your letter has
~,
l been referred to me for reply.
In your letter you raised concerns about accidents and the storage and disposal of nuclear wastes.
Our review of the Shoreham plant, including the ability of the plant to withstand postulated accidents, is still in progress. A description of how we insure the safe design of nuclear power plants is enclosed for your information. It is the primary re-t sponsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission to assure adequate i
protection is provided for the health and safety of the public. As
~
part of this responsibility, we are performing a detailed review of the operating license application for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
Let me assure you that we will not permit commencement of operation of the Shoreham Station until an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has rendered a decision and we are satisfied that the plant can be operated safely.
With regard to your second concern, I have enclosed information on spent fuel storage and the disposal of radioactive waste.
In addition, I have also enclosed information on public participation in nuclear power reactor licensing hearings.
Although the period for timely intervention on the Shoreham application has passed, a late petition seeking leave to intervene may be filed if good cause is shown.
In 790613011 2357 092
Ms. Barbara Montana-Durn MAY 9 1979 i
any event, you may want to make a limited appearance at the Shoreham hearing.~ -
The procedure for this is discussed in Enclosure 4.
I trust you will find this information responsive to your concerns.
Sincerely, Domenic B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
1.
" Insuring Safe Design of Nuclear Power Plants" 2.
" Spent Fuel Storage" 3.
" Disposal of Radioactive Waste" 4.
"Public Participation in Nuclear 1
Power Reactor Licensing Hearings" 2357 093 I
D
J"N 2 5 1979 l
INSURING SAFE DESIGN OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS The Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission (NRC) crnducts a detailed review of all' nuclear pcwer plan't applications to insure that comconents, systams and structures inportant to safety are designed, fabricated, erected, and tested to quality standards commensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be perfomed.
These reviews are conducted by scme 50 different technical disciplines organized into 30 sections in 17 functional branches within the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
The safety portion of the application for a nuclear power plant is organi:ed in accordance with a Regulatory Guide, the Standard Format and Centent of Safety Analysis Reports, which describes the infomational needs of the NRC staff in reviewing these applications.
The conduct of the safety review is in accordance with the Standard Review Plan which describes in some detail how the safety review of Light Water Reactor (LWR) applications is accomplished and which criteria are applied in the acceptance of systems, components and structures important to safety.
The criteria used in the review process include NRC Regulations and Regulatory Guides, and industry standards developed in conjunction with the NRC.
When a nuclear power plant application is submitted, it is first subjected i
to a preliminary review to determine whether it contains sufficient infor-l mation to satisfy the Comission requirements for a detailed review.
If l
the application is not sufficiently complete, the staff makes specific requests for additional infomation.
The application is formally docketed only if it meets certain minimum acceptance criteria.
In addition, when l
the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) is submitted, a substantive review and insnection of the applicant's quality assurance program coYering i
design and procurement is conducted.
Guides for the preparation of the documents, detailing the kind of infomation needed, have been developed by the staff to aid applicants in preparing acceptable applications.
The staff reviews a construction permit apolication to determine among other i
things, if the public health and safety will be fully protected.
If any portion of the application is considered to be inadequate, the staff requests the applicant to make appropriate modifications or provide needed additional information.
The application is reviewed to determine that the plant design is con-sistent with NRC rules and regulations.
Cesign methods and crocedu es of calculations are examined to establish their validity.
Checks of actual calculations and other procedures of design and analysis are made by tne staff to establish the validity of the acplicant's design and to determine that tne acclicant has conducted his analysis and evaluation in sufficient depth and breadth to supcort required findings in respect to safety.
2357 094
' Jh 2 5 mg With regard to accident evaluation, there are specific design featur's which must be an integral part of nuclear power plan" and whose design basis assumes that there is a release frca the reactor pressure vessel of the fission products contained in the nuclear core. This assumption is made on a deterninistic bas;s (i.e., ne rational mechanism is assumed to be required to obtain this release) so as to impose extremely cc -
servative design conditions on the engineered safety measures which are physically incorporated in the power plant to mitigate tne consecuences of any postulated accident.
However, this assumption imolies that there is a ccmplete failure of the safety systems which are specifically de-signed to prevent this release of fission products frem the reactor core.
This method of designing safety systems to withstand postulated worst case accidents, then assuming a failure of these systems and designing physically separate backup systems, which are diverse in principal, is known as "defenss-in-depth."
Some of the engineered safety systems which are typically incorporated into the plant design and which mitigate the consequences of the postu-lated accident are the primary containment, the secondary containment, containment sprays, and charcoal filters.
Prior to licensing a nuclear power plant, the NRC staff must be satisfied thac the individual doses received by the public at specified distances from the facility following j
the design basis accident (i.e., the fission product release frcm the i
reactor pressure vessel) are within the guideline values contained i
in 10 CFR Part 100.
These specified distances are identified as the i
radius of the exclusion area and the radius of the low population zone.
Typical values of these distances are about 1/2 mile for the exclusion area and about 3 to 5 miles for the low population zone.
These i
distances vary with plant site and are dependent on the power level of a facility, the engineered safety features, and the pertinent meteorological j
conditions of the plant site.
In addition to the safety review of nuclear power plant applications, the NRC technical staff conducts evaluations of potential safety problems that may apply to many reactors of a given design type. The detailed review and independent analyses of emergency core cooling system (ECCS) per-I formance, anticipated transients withe ' scram (ATWS), and containment pressure are examples of this type of 3eneric study.
The staff also conducts engineering audits of reactor vendors and architect-engineer design calculations and procedures to assure ccnformance with safety de-sign practice.
The safety review of problems of operating reactors are another means of insuring safe design by applying tne findings reached in these reviews to the licensing process.
2357 095
n.
amie 2 5 1975 The licensing process includes'the consideration of programs proposed by an applicant for a construction permit to verify plant design fea-tures and to confinn design margins.
Data obtained frcm research and development programs on particular facilities and frcm the Commission's safety research program are factored into these licensing reviews.
When the review and evaluation of the application progresses to the point that the staff concludes that acceptable criteria, preliminary design information and financial information are documented in the application, a Safety Evaluation Report is prepared.
This report represents a summary of the review and evaluation of the application by the staff relative to the anticipated effect of the proposed facility on the public health and safety.
When the construction of the nuclear facility has progressed to the point where final design information and plans for operation are ready, i
the apolicant submits the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) in support i
of an application for an operating license.
The FSAR sets forth the pertinent details on the final design of the facility, including final containment design, design of the nuclear core, and waste handling sys tein.
The FSAR also supplies plans for operation and procedures for coping with emergencies.
Again, the staff makes a detailed review of i
the information.
Amendments to the application and reports may be submitted from time to time.
The staff again prepares a Safety Eval-uation Report (re the operating license) as in the construction permit i
stage.
Each license for operation of a nuclear reactor contains Technical Specifications, which set forth the particular safety and environmental protection measures to be imposed upon the facility and the conditions of its operation that are to be met in order to assure protection of the health and safety of the public and of the surrounding environment.
Through its inspection and enforcement program, the NRC maintains sur-veillance over construction and operation of a plant throughout its lifetime to assure compliance with Commission regulations for the pro-tection of public health and safety and the environment.
2357 096
J4 51979 SPENT FUEL ST0pAGE Fuel assemblies used to generate heat in the reactor have a finite life and must be replaced periodically due principally to depletion of fissile fuel material and accumulation of fission products.
In the past, electric utilities planning to construct and operate light water nuclear power reactors contemplated that the used or scent fuel dis-charged frem the reactors would be chemically reprocessed to recover the residual quantities of fissile and fertile materials (uranium and plutonium), to be recycled back into fresh reactor fuel.
It was also contemplated that spent fuel would be discharged periodically frem operating reactors, stored in onsite fuel storage pools for a ceriod of time and periodically shipped offsite for reprocessing.
Typically, space was provided in onsite storage pools for about 1-1/3 full nuclear reactor cores. Assuming a 3 to 4 year reactor fuel reload cycle, the onsite storage pools were planned to hold an average of one year's dis-charge with sufficient remaining capacity to hold a complete core should unloading of all of the fuel frcm the reactor be necessary or desirable for normal maintenance or because of operational difficulties. Under normal operating conditions, about 5 years' spent fuel discharge could be accommodated before the pools were filled.
The early expectation that the reprocessing phase of the fuel cycle would reach a state of successful ccmmercial development never material-1:ied.
For a time one such facility actually operated, the Nuclear Fuel 9ervices (NFS) plant at West Valley, New York.
However, after a shut-l cown for extensive alterations and expansion in 1976, the conclusion was l
eached that these changes were ccamercially impractical and the facility e,ot reopened for reprocessing.
A second facility, the General Electric 1y's Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant at Morris, Illinois, has never t
-d as a reprocessing plant and is now licensed for spent fuel I
sto only.
A third proposed plant, the Allied-General Nuclear Service (AGNS, plant in Barnwell, South Carolina, has been the subject of hearings before the Comission, but a license to operate has not been issued.
A geologic repository is expected to be constructed by the Federal Government, and the Cornission has supported the position that permanent disposal of l
spent fuel is a viable fuel cycle alternative.
In March 1973, the NRC released its draft Generic Environ ental Imcact Statement (GEIS) on Handling and Storage of Scent Licn: Water Pcwer Reactor Fuel (NUREG-0404).
Inis document projected tne magnituce of scent fuel storage cacacity througn the year 2000 and assessed the en-virormental imoaccs associated with the various ways of storing s:ent fuel.
Three boundinc alternatives were considered:
a reference case utilizing storage technologies to increase at-reactor (AR) and away-frem-reactor (AFR) storage capacity; transshipment of spent fuel freely 2357 097
- A 2 5 1979 from facilities with full pools to pools with available storage capacity; and ceasing to generate spent fuel by allowing reactor shutdown as storage capacity decreases and using another energy source to generate replacement electrical power, i.e., coal.
The above study concluded that to date the lack of sufficient spent fuel storage capacity at nuclear power plants had been alleviated by redesigning fuel racks and making more efficient use of available pool floor space. This method could increase spent fuel storage cacacity by a factor cf approximately 2.5.
It also concluded that the amount of spent fuel requiring AFR storage would not be great, assuming that the national cbjective of an operational geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste and possible disposal of spent fuel is not substantially delayed.
Both of these alternatives, AR and AFA spent fuel storage methods, were found to be environmentally acceptable, as well as technically and econcmically feasible.
The third alternative, curtailment of the generation of spent fuel by ceasing the operation of existing nuclear pcwer plants when their spent fuel psols beccme filled, was found to be undesirable and the prohibition of construction of new nuclear plants unnecessary.
f 2357 098 O
-~+----e--w....
JAN 2 5 1579 DISPOSAL OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE Radioactive materials which result from the nuclear fuel cycle can be separated into two main categori.es:
1.
Effluents - those materials discharged to the environment as gaseous or liquid effluents (the radioactive content of these effluents must fall within established NRC and EPA limits and must be as low as reasonably achievable) - and, 2.
Wastes those materials which are of sufficient potential radiological hazard that they require special care.
Radioactive wastes (the second category) are separated into two broad classifications:
"high-level wastes" and "other than high-level wastes."
High-level wastes are radioactive wastes produced in the first solvent extraction cycle of fuel reprocessing operations and spent fuel elements should they be discarded.
They are hichly radioactive and require shielding and remote handling.
NRC regulations (Appendix F of 10 CFR Part 50) require that the inventory of high-level liquid waste at a fuel reprocessing plant be limited to that produced in the prior five years and that it be con-verted to solid form and transferred to a federal repositor.y within ten years of its separation from the irradiated fuel.
Wi*h the reorganization of the Atomic Energy Ccmission into the Energy Resec cch and Development Administration (now the Department of Energy [00E])
and the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC), NRC was given regulatory authority over storage and disposal of all ccmercially generated wastes and those DOE generated high-level radioactive wastes which are subject to long-tem storage and which are not used for, or as part of, research i
and development activities. 'To implement this authority and to provide prompt guidance to 00E, the industry and the public, the NRC is new or revised regulatory standards and guidelines for such storage ano disposal. The regulations will require confomance with a fixed set of minimum acceptable performance standards (technical, social and environ-mental) for waste management activities while providing for flexibility in technological approach.
These standards and guidelines will be designed to assure public health and safety and protection of the environ,
ment.
Facilities for storage and/or disposal of high-level wastes licensed by NRC will be designed and operated in accordance with NRC standards.
DOE was pursuing a program designed to accomodate the anticipated need for disposal of high-level waste or spent fuel that is expected to accumulate as the nuclear power industry continues to grow.
This pro-gram included, among other things, plans to develop severai operations for disposal of high-level wastes in stable geological fomations.
The purpose of these facilities would be to demonstrate the acceotability of a specific geological formation for permanent disposal of hign-level and 2357 099
j JAN t 51979,
t transuranic wastes.
These facilities will be treated as pemanent disposal repositories.
COE is.now awaiting a Presidential direction of policy and plans which will occur folicwing completion of studies recommendad by an interagency task force formed by the President, There are several methods of high-level waste disposal which are technologically feasible.
00E is expected to continue to investigate options to determine whether superior disposal alternatives can be developed.
For specific information concerning plans and programs, contact the Director, Division of Waste Management, Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
20545.
In parallel with COE's research and development activities, NRC is developing performance criteria for solidified high-level wastes. These criteria are being developed based on a systems analysis medel which considers the nornal and potential accident environments to which high-level solid matrices could be exposed during interim storage, transpor-tation, handling, emplacement and post-emplacement.
Repository site i
selection criteria are being developed and will enccmpass a 90ad spectrum of concerns including earth science, geographic, demographic and socioeconomic factors. A study to determine the design and operating requirements for high-level waste repositories will provide a basis for j
the development of standards and staff review methodologies.
l l
Radioactive wastes other than high-level are buried in near-surface shallow trenches, usually in the containers in which they are shipped.
There is no intent to recover the wastes once they are buried. There are presently six ccmmercial facilities in the United States licensed i
to bury low-level radioactive wastes.
They are located in West Valley, New York; Morehead, Kentucky; Sheffield, Illinois; Beatty, Nevada; Hanford, Washington; and Barnwell, South Carolina.
At the present time, only the latter three sites are receivino waste for burial, The West Valley and Maxey Flats sites are closed. The Sheffield site is filled to its licensed capacity. A contested application for expansion of the Sheffield site is currently under review. Burial of transuranium nuclides is limited at all but one of the sites.
i l
Five of the six commercial burial grounds are located in Agreement States and are regulated by the states.
However, at two sites, the NRC licenses special nuclear material because the quantities authorized for posses-sion by the commercial operator exceed those which the Agreement States may license under their agreements.
The Sheffield, Illinois site, located in a nonagreement state, is regulated by the NRC althouch the state licenses and controls activities at the site concerning naturally occurring and acceleratcr-produced radioisotopes which are not subject to NRC control.
The sites are all commercially operated.
The states nave assumed responsibility for long-tenn care of the sites.
2357 100 s_-
JAN 2 51979 Since the formation of NRC's waste management program in mid-1975, efforts have been underway to identify regulatory needs for low-level waste management and to perform technical studies to support those regulations.
This effort was accelerated in mid-1977 with the creation of a low-Level Waste Branch (LLWB) within the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) ar.d increased resources throughout NRC.
The LLWB was assigned responsibility for technical analyses to prepare a regulatory base, review license applications and coordination of NRC's technical and policy efforts for icw-level wastes.
A preliminary low-level waste management program plan, NUREG-0240, was issued in October 1977.
The NRC staff has continued to refine our concept of the icw-level waste In addition, a number of supporting technical studies have been program.
initiated and preliminary results are being considered in program plan-ning. Additional studies have been defined to support ou" regulation development efforts and these have been initiated or will be in the near future.
The principal objectives of the low-level waste (LLW) program are to l
develop a framework of criteria and regulations for long-term management
^
of commercial lcw-level waste disposal sites and to provide the tools l
for applicant: tc prepare license applications and for NRC to make j
uniform, timely licensing decisions.
4 1
2357 101
.. ~... -.,.... _. -
JW. 2 5 1979 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR LICENSING HEARINGS i
Scon after an application for a nuclear power plant construction permit is docketed, the Commission issues a notice of hearing which designates an Atemic Safety and Licensing Board to conduct the hearing, the issues to te considered and how members of the public may participate in the hearing. After an application for an operating license is docketed a Notice of Opportunity for hearing is issued.
A hearing on an operating license application is held only if an interested member of the public's petition for leave to intervene is accepted by the Comission.
Prior to a specific application being docketed and a notice of hearing issued, interested members of the public should write the Secretary of the Ccmission, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission, Washington, D. C. 20555, Attention : Docketing and Service Section, identifying as specifically as possible the proposed plant name and utility and requesting that their name be added to the list to receive the Notice of Hearing when it is published in the Federal Register.
Members of the public who wish to participate in the hearing may do so in one of two ways:
l (1) Any person whcrse interest may be affected by the proceeding who wishes to participate as a party must file a petition for leave to intervene in accordance with 10 CFR 2.714 of the Comission's regulations and the Notice of Hearing issued on the specific application.
The petition must identify the specific aspect or aspects of the proceeding as to which intervention is desired and specify with particularity the facts on which the petitioner relies as to both his interest and his contentions with regard to each aspect on which intervention is requested. The petitioner's contentiens with respect to the proposed licensing action must be filed at least IE days before the special pre-hearing conference. The petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Ccmission, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission, Washingten, D.C., 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Section. A copy of the petition for intervention should also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C., 20555, and to the applicant's attorney who is identified in the hearing notice.
(2)
They may make a limited appearance.
A person making a limited appearance does not beccme a party to the proceeding but may state a position and raise questions which they wculd like to have answered to the extent that the cuestions are within the scope of the hearing and are permitted by the Licensing Board, Persons cesiring to make a limited appearance should write a letter, referencing the scecific acclication and docket number, to the Secretary of the Ccmmissicn, IJ. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Section, by the date soecified in the Nocice of Hearing. The Office of the Secretary will add tne individual's name to the list which is forwarded to the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board designated to concuct the hearing.
2357 102
I 2-JAN 2 5 1979 1
Following the first pre-hearing conference (it is not necessary that a limited appearee attend in person), the Board will issue an Order identifying who has been admitted as a party to the proceeding (intervenor) and when limited appearance statements are to be presented.
Perscns making limited appearances may submit a written statement to the Boarc Cnairperson, through the Secretary of tne Commission, or may appear in person on the designated day and make an oral statement.
The Board Chairperson may limit the time granted for an oral statement - usually five to ten minutes.
The Secretary will send the individual copies of the Board's Orders scheduling dates for pre-hearing conferences and hearing sessions.
2357 103 4
i
-w e..~
+..--
-