ML19269F415

Responds to Re Alleged Failure of Util to Comply W/Federal Regulations on Plant Siting.General Criterion Re Population Levels Were Met.Regulations Were Not Violated by Facility Siting Near Bethlehem Steel Plant

ML19269F415
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	10/29/1979
From:	Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Benjamin A HOUSE OF REP.
References
NUDOCS 7912210002
Download: ML19269F415 (3)

Text

,

4 bd_

[pa alcug

,o,,

UNITED STATES y

3e g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

' E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o

?

\\... + f' OCT '

The Honorable Adam Benjamin, Jr.

United Stai.es House of Representatives Washington, D. C.

20515

Dear Congressman Benjamin:

This is in response to your letter of August 9, 1979 regarding alleged failure of Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) to comply with Federal regulations on plant siting and other matters relating to the Bailly nuclear plant.

At the time the Bailly nuclear plant was. licensed for construction, the NRC regulation governing siting policy was 10 CFR Part 100 (Enclosure 1).

A further guideline used by.the staff at that time was that the oopulation density in the vicinity of.a proposed site should not exceed the highest value for previously approved and licensed sites.

The population levels around the Bailly site met this general criterion. The special considera-tions pertaining to the nearby Bethlehem Steel plant were detailed in Sections 34 and 35 of the Initial Decision (Enclosure 2) of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on April 5,1974, which led to the issuance of the construction permit-for Bailly:- In. light.of the facts brought out in this hearing and Initial Decision, our regulations were not violated by the siting of the Bailly plant near the Bethlehem Steel plant and other low population centers.

Subsequently, the Commission staff has given increased attention to population distribution criteria for siting nuclear plants.

In October 1975 (more than a year after the Initial. Decision), the URC staff published Regulatory Guide 4.7, " General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations".(Enclosure 3). This guide contains the following language relative to population in the vicinity of a proposed site:

"If the population density, including weighted transient population, projected at the time of initial operation of a nuclear power. station, exceeds 500 persons per square mile averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles (cumulative population at a distance divided by the area at that distance), or the projected population. density over the lifetime of the facility exceeds 1,000 persons per square mile. averaged over any radial. distance out to 30 miles, special attention should be given to the con-sideration of alternative sites with lower population densities. As indicated by the staff criteria, a site 2166 027 0

2 9os00

The Hor.o. able Adam Benjamin, Jr. which exceeds these population density guidelines can nevertheless be selected and approved, if, on balance, it offers significant advantages as compared to available and alternative sites by considering all the environmental, safety and economic aspects of the selected site and the alternative sites."

These criteria have not been retroactively applied to previously approved sites such as Bailly.

With regard to the comment that fraudulent maps were used in the siting of the Bailly plant, a similar issue was raised by an intervenor at the Bailly construction permit hearing. The contention was that a faulty method was used in determining the " population center distance." The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board found otherwise in its Initial Decision for the construction permit for the Bailly plant, issued on April 5, 1974 (7AEC 557 at 565). The reasons for this finding, taking into consideration maps of the area, are detailed in Sections 24 and 25 of the Initial Decision, reproduced in Enclosure 4. These findings have been upheld in further court actions up to the U. S. Supreme Court. (423 U.S. ~ 2 (1975)).

The general requirements for emergency plens are described in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 (Enclosure 5).

The ASLB's consideraticn of NIPSCO's emergency plan is discussed in Enclosure 2.

Its finding was that ilIPSCO's plan satisfies the requirements of-Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.

In recent months, there have been several developments of interest in the area of emergency plans.

The Commission has released a proposed rulemaking on evacuation plans (Enclosure 6).

A joint EPA-NRC proposal for emergency plans (NUREG-0396, Enclosure 7) is pending for approval.

Another' action plan (SECY-79-450, Enclosure 8) has been proposed which would extend the operational range of emergency plans to a radius of 10 miles from each nuclear plant.

It is expected that present-day emergency plans will be upgraded in the near future as a result of these recent developments.

With regard to arrangements for the disposal of nuclear waste from the Bailly plant, the NRC does not require definite arrangements to be specified at the construction stage.

However, we do have requirements that such wastes be disposed of only at licensed waste repositories.

In additien, NRC has amended licenses to pemit the storage of spent reactor fuel in expanded spent fuel pools at specific reactor sites until long-term repositories away from the reactor sites become available.

2166 028

The Honorable Adam Beniamin, Jr. The matter of long-term waste storage is being vigorously pursued by both the Department of Energy and the NRC at the present time. The Department of Energy has primary responsibility for developing and constructina waste disposal facilities.

The level of these activities hasmarkediji.:rs.o361inthepastyear. The f;RC has the responsibility to license such facilities and to regulate their operation so as to protect the health and safety of the public.

The f;RC has recently published for comment in the Federal Register (43 FR 53869, November 17, 1978) proposed prucedures for the licensing of high-level waste repositories.

The final report of the Interagency Review Group on fluclear Waste Manage-ment 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 'avel of effort which is being exerted to determine the most feasible way to dispose of nuclear wastes.

I trust that the above comments have been responsive to your concerns relating to the Bailly plant.

Sincerely, orwaat sigted by IL G. Smith Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1.

10 CFR Part 100 2.

Sections 3a and 35 of Bailly Initial Decision dtd April 5, 1974 3.

Regulatory Guide 4.7 4.

Sections 24 and 25 of Bailly Initial Decision 2166 029 5.

Appendix E of the 10 CFR Part 50 6.

Proposed Rulemaking on Evacuation Plans 7.

fiUREG-0396 8.

SECY 79-450

ADAM DENJAMIN. JR.

sHsmcT e mcas.

a.T p,.

.cv..l

gg,p,=

Hawnecom. Imo.ama 46320 cs surrttc.

(219) 932-5500 Cart. 241 Congress of ti,)c Unitch States

.,/ =, =. :..,

SELECT COM M ITTEE ON CONG RESS ION AL CPLM ATICNS Gaarv. 4=otAma 464C2 (2 3) 846-1411 Drv. 304 E)ouse of Representatibts

-......,-,c,,

o., _., _....

dio ci.<>. Havic omer ami.e MasfjingDn, D.C.

20515

( 2 ") ' ^^"

• wasa=,w. o c. Sesis Tew.==.c. (2:2) 22s-24s:

August 9, 1979 James M.

Hendrie k

Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, NW Washington, D.C.

20555 i

Dear Mr. Hendrie:

Enclosed please find a copy of an article which appeared in the Hammond Times on June 14th regarding the Bailly nuclear power plant.

The article alleges several

~

inadequacies in the Northwest Indiana Public Service Company's (NIPSCO) plant and the company's non-compliance with e>:isting federal regulations.

The June 14th article alleges that NIPSCO did not use accurate maps in the si ing of the Bailly plant..

Please apprise me of., the current regulations regard.ing the siting of nuclear plants and if those regulations have been violated by NIPSCO's siting of the Bailly plant near Bethlehem Steel and other low population centers.

The article also states that NIPSCO has not developed an evacurtion plan nor have they made any arrangements for the disp.isal of nuclear waste from the Bailly plant.

Please apprise me of any statutory or regulatory provisions that would be applicable and if ::IPSCO has complied with these requirements.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

/ $hQ f

Adam Benjamin, Jr.

Member of Congress,)

ABJ/kdk M

[

Inclosure d%

2166 030 (0

u. "u N

THIS STATsCNCRY PT41NTED CN PAPER M ACC WITH PEOYCLED FIDEFZS

[

i.,

~.m.,..... %:.

,. s,....,r.

n 1

7

=.tl:)". "T T +V,<..f.... :V,... g:c. -

l n

s.n ;1 Cen, n. I p.

c.

HI b.r nir u.

l "h4'** Y *.

'e.

t m.<: i

..'6y:r-- Y b h"e Y$?%f.:.'.:.a.[

w..

i m..~.

L} *. -; c,-

r

..... --sst  % 't a.f.. <.l

'~

. : e. * :.-...

.. ~..

'J.\\tr';;;;gw&~ W.%n,RM:.ui...ftt:= t::-

-^ s. - -..

~e..c.

,: a..y. ::

n

sen m.w. ~

~

sO

~-

' ' #ccEyJ'ELICUiG AYLE.4.'M-W,-.

'"b*kd5W.TihTeiStaiiyrfleiHT$$$

4 j' p.y;5f MMONI$.The San!! AlliaocQ -

ap;;:.':'ctted:p1*,to~b?anch 6at:ammen'd+."couf3-its esthK' ishedd'.t 1nto.

~.'

/

-;" '/ e, '

@$h.i.lifS~.c'ast'Lb.k,'e..iC6{u..ntyt.p.syed ;

r$

rp

.e

' 72."

L-t one ofits acesWednes. day.t* e WfA,.y.G

.=

?? Tijd alli,an~ce'deTv hbbut?5%1'e'to.N j

~.

H. th 'Tiammond? Library..:when9..t*

~ $s. e -.ied.the. fil. -m ;"Th..ue.Powersy a

occsc ITh'at Be *'idienmc,3%bTenelehr

',c'

.. h,},pb.Terpr,o. b~ce'd byNBC in371Fc pf.d.

-i=

.E d

$ailacYL,emmcc,CtIniq@lhdiemes$.

,-iNairatedEbdy

.l YreDecrsd sceptic 1Ci.6e'bour-l,o::gfilmy ~.. -,,

l sb'out the safety.

'.ch5cTcupbjet.y&JENQto :).. ~ '..

i.~~.',

? f.Alllance. members;p;cre.

~

Er:'cour; aged by the tumoutilhe: largest e Agroup ye!' assembled by'-the Ham;i t.:mond ! Area Residents.:Opposedito.

W BaHly:(lfQ.MMcq '7cq.@'.c.:'JC

..W.!!cr.the. film; two speakers pre 'f

.. sen'.ed their ca'ses acabst nuclear.

• pcwerI.1.:f ::-'c*;'r? 4.:25.1i.M.;

f' Herbert ; Read,f y.111ance. members R 8 cand c'onstructich entineer, discussed-%

.. f dthe ".inade'quaefes.ldi,1the.!Nc'rthern.$1

~

-ra

i l-tin'dfins-Bublic Service'Co'.'s;ir6 posed $'

~ '.

t.'B a tlly iiu'elear po'we'r pl and r'.+:W /)

f."mO.nly'.l..i.w.d en.,_then.B_e.sigdI;i.e.Nern4...

h

.. {yjlant,t.' he :ald/1The' ultimate safety;fthey. n<. sign,s a s

1...... -

.. pecp.leTan.,.p.er. fect.

.ccuclcarepcwer.

C device"is i;iace'- distance between?

j l the,(pla'nt)and,pegle."'5-%3Whj

.s. Lock o! space isra: major.safetye.

p%!!all ~of the prop;osed plant, he said.' ].

.. Read also said

h/T.Pcfi> 'ijiM.'.f I g.. NIPSCO used fraudulent mans tc.[s k:.,@pulatid3 c.' plast s2'distanE5'dtbi+ 5 i

I ' sh"o('.!he!enters' A% @h7-h--t.'.

T*.po

@ a->.:Mk.'M;MSkh-.d:*d,

.%. The site of fie proposed plant is: son g.(clE*e'.tii B'chifehim' Steel to~an'd' thiD.

~

1 F 5 In'dianP'Ddribi<NatioEil)Lakesifofe,'

f. effectrie~dvacliationih th'e evenfor ah

g. accident would be b90ssiblee..c-. -

a Construction of the plant destroys r6 y,

~

th'E. uhi de chir'acist of. the dunes !.n 9

~-

l

.the a ea...=-

w;.~'

• lAl.e 7 n e r.,, w e.;, y e g g " 3 g._ <. ~g :: -

re j

i

/

. N1PSCO wil1~nol say ' where

ed nucleir waste from the proposed.

}2 plant would be disposed oLQj;:Pj ?..

c ' Read said the ;nomentum.-o!

@hy"hucicaf. forces er,ill.Wbrokc5. pro-.;o:ily s F

..w'ncn citi:das put pressiire'on the!iiG P

cdZ p3:itjcians,'generatini;'oppositics to5f

'i he. ndcicarpswerp? ants' develop:nenGe

')144

~

n7 EIUU U.),I

.f.. s q...: M.- '

'- - l-- ' :

t[. '@- ~'. ': 'r' = * ' -

8 L.

- - - ~ '

t.