ML19294A567
| ML19294A567 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Marble Hill |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1978 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Martin G HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812210326 | |
| Download: ML19294A567 (6) | |
Text
-
- f#
UNITED STATES O\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E')Af.fi S
WASWNGTON, D. C. 20555 7}g gc Docket flos. STN 50-546 and STN 50-547 Mr. George Clarke Martin Box 23456 Anchorage, Kentucky 40223
Dear Mr. Martin:
Your letter of October 16, 1978 to President Carter concerning the storage of radioactive wastes from the Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station has been referred to me for reply.
Construction permits were granted by the NRC on April 4,1978 to construct the Marble Hill plant. These permits were granted after comprehensive reviews of the design of the plant relative to radiological health and safety and of the impact of the plant on its environs. The design of the plant was reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and subsequently both the design of the plant and its environmental impacts were considered during a public hearing held by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. The decision of the Board was reviewed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. We believe these multiple reviews constitute a thorough coisideration of the safety and environ-mental impacts of the plant and provide ample opportunity for review at the highest Federal administrative level. The storage of spent fuel and disposal of radioactive wasce from the Marble Hill facility will again be considered as part of the normal staff review process when the Applicant applies for an operating license.
There will be opportunity for contentions to be raised and heard before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board at that time.
The construction permits authorize the construction of the nuclear plant which includes a spent fuel pool with the capacity to store a total of one and two-thirds cores of spent fuel.
We have not received official notification from the Applicants of plans to change this design.
However, the NRC has previously appraised the environmental impact of building and operating such an expanded spent fuel pool for each of about 36 operating plants to date. He have concluded that there were no significant increases in environmental impacts as measured by radiological effluents, thermal releases, community impacts, or use of material resources. A detailed study was also made of the possible effect of the pool alteration on safety-related matters.
We found no significant 78122'03N d
Mr. George Clarke Martin hazards considerations and concluded that there was reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public would not be endangered.
The flRC has specified no maximum period, within the effective term of the operating license, for the storage of spent fuel elements in onsite fuel pools.
For a number of pools whose alteration was approved, the increased storage capacity is enough to hold spent fuel from reactor operation for more than 10 years.
In response to your comment regarding long term plans, President Carter established an Interagency Review Group on fiuclear Waste Management in March of 1977, and charged it with developing a strategy for dealing l
with the waste management problem. The draft report of this group, incorporating a broad range of inputs and views from many governmental, scientific and public groups, was issued for public comment in October 1978. When these comments have been received, reviewed and incorporated, as appropriate, the report will be forwarded to the President for further action.
You expressed concern about the leakage of radioactivity from three types of storage facilities. The leak at Turkey Point was due to faulty welds in the stainless steel liner of the spent fuel pool. The leaking liquid was collected in the pool drain system and was processed through the plant radwaste system. tio radioactivity reached the ground water or leaked outside the plant.
The faulty welds were repaired and inspected before the pool was put back into operation.
There are two nuclear facilities in the vicinity of Aiken, South Carolina -
the DOE's Savannah River Plant, near Aiken, and the Allied-General fluclear Services' Barnwell iluclear Fuel Plant (BriFP) at Barnwell. With regard to their Savannah River Plant (SRP), the Department of Energy (DOE) has advised us that any reports of major ground leakage of high-level radio-active waste or shutdown of facilities there for that reason are inaccurate.
The DOE adds, however, that in the 24 years of operation at the SRP there have been 2 instances where small amounts of high-level radioactive waste have leaked to the ground.
On one occasion 2 when a storage tank was inad-vertently overfilled, some waste escaped through a spare fill line. On a second occasion 3 a small amount of high-level waste leaked from a tank (no longer in use) into a surrounding vault. A small amount of waste escaped from the vault before corrective action was completed.
Neither of these instances caused any harmful effects to plant employees or the public.
Mr. George Clarke Martin The BUFP has never operated as a reprocessing complex, and, therefore, has never generated high-level radioactive waste.
At present commercial spent reactor fuel is not stored there, although it has the capacity to store about 400 metric tons of spent fuel. The use of this facility to store spent fuel has not been authorized by the NRC.
About 30 tons of spent fuel result from the operation of a 1000 Mw reactor for a year.
With regard to the closure of low-level nuclear waste storage facilities, three such facilities, including Kentucky's Maxey Flats, have been closed.
However, three other facilities are available to store low-level wastes The nearest to the Marble Hill Plant is the Barnwell facility in South Carolina.
Regarding long term safe storage of radioactive wastes, it is the basic mandate of the NRC to regulate nuclear facilities so as to assure the health and safety of the public.
Under present circumstances, it is true that the quantities of stored spent fuel will continue to increase.
However, our experience to date does not indicate that the storage of increasing quantities of spent fuel will lead to significant radiological impacts on the public.
On the question of transportation difficulties, the NRC staff has determined that the cumulative dose to the public from the transporta-tion of fuel and waste to and from the Marble Hill plant would amount to about 6 man-rem per year. To place this figure in perspective, the average annual dose from natural background radiation to the population within 50 miles of the Marble Hill station would be 170,000 man-rem.
In summary, on the basis of our evaluation of the impact of building and operating 36 expandcd spent fuel pools, we have concluded that there are no significant safety or environmental consequences to the public from increasing the storage capacity of spent fuel pools at individual reactor sites nor from the transportation of the spent fuel to other repositories for longer-term storage.
The report of the Interagency Review Group indicates that significant progress is being made to provide such reposi-tories.
For your information, a copy of the report of the Interagency Review Group is enclosed. We shall be happy to respond to any further questions you may have on the complex problem of radioactive waste disposal.
Sincerely, Crigir " '
'ty H. E. t..El Harold R. Dentw, Director Office of Nucl?ar Pm ctor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated
Mr. George Clarke Martin References I TID-28817 (Draft), Interagency Review Group Report on Nuclear Waste Management, October 1978.
2ERDA-1537, Environmental Impact Statement on the Savannah River Plant, September 1977, Page III-85.
30P-1358, Leakage from Waste Tank 16, J. W. Fenimore, et al., Savannah River Laboratory, November 1974.
e s
._c i f/ *'4 GEORGE CLARKE MARTIN y -
]N.
-O-DEMOCRAT Y
- )
(m x.
p.;
,i U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
=,
FoR KENTUCKY FOURTH CoNGRESSloNAL DISTRICT
-f.
(502) 245-4871 - Box 23456 - Anchorage, Kentucky 40223
,G : l Ii I'
October 16, 1978 3 f, u
President Jimmy Carter The White House Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. President:
A recent development has occurred in connection with the construction of the Marble Hill Nuclear Power Plant that warrants attention at the highest level. The power company has announced within the last month that spent fuel will be stored on site in water pools.
To the extent that this constitutes a change of plans since the environmental in-pact statement was filed and evaluated, this announcement appears to make a mockery of the process by which environmental decisions are made.
The seriousness of the matter is aggravated by public statements of the utility.
These officials have given assurances that:
(1) Storage of spent nuclear fuel in their water pools is en-tirely safe, and L
(2)
That, af ter a 10 year maximum period of such storage, per-manent repositories will be developed at other sites for such spent fuel, or the nuclear waste from such fuel if it is reprocessed.
'- These assurances are inaccurate at best.
All known types of nuclear i
waste fuel storage facilities have already shown waste leakage pro-blems.
More specifically -
A.
The system now pinnned for Marble Hill is an exact model of Og the system used at other major reactor sites.
These sites 4
Q have already shown leakage.
The most publicized leakage is g,, ~ >,,
g s'
at the Turkey Point plant in Florida.
it s
,,1,
~m O
.-r, B.
The only large high level nuclear waste storage facility
(/
-(
(at Aiken, S. C.) has developed major ground leakage and D3, has been shutdown; and Committee to Elect Martin - Mrs. James Barton, Treasurer
~EM
}
a Page 2 4
d C.
Most of the low level nuclear waste storage facilities, in-cluding Kentucky's Maxey Flats, have been closed.
,gg a#
Thus, it cannot now be truthfully stated by the utility or anyone else, that long-term safe nuclear fuel and waste repositories are being de-veloped. Furthermore, as you know, adequa.e fuel reptocessing does not exist in this country and may not exist for quite sometime, if ever.
This, together with the White House ban on plutonium recycling, will in-crease fuel storage time and quantity.
These circumstances vill prc5-ably be complicated further by transportation difficulties which have just begun to surface.
My_ request to,you is that the ent ire, process by which the Marble Hill construction permit is to be issued, be - _ reviewed at the highest _ Fed-eral Administrative level -- before the permit is. finally. issued..Since
'the' issuance is scheduled'foisometime in November, time for action is short.
Such a course of action is drastic but justified in the interests of the health and safety of the people living in the Fourth Kentucky Con-gressional District and their neighbors in Southern Indiana.
This action could avoid a serious set-back a the power company at a later date should the administrative process be invalidated by judicial action.
A yincerely, g
bb George C arke Martin GCH:Jb