ML19305D195
| ML19305D195 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1980 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Simon P HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305D196 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004140169 | |
| Download: ML19305D195 (5) | |
Text
/j(
j)L7 o u c go, UNITED STATES p
{
.ecf'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gg#.
E W ASHING TON. D. C. 20555 l
Docket No. 50-10 p agg The Honorable Paul Simon United States House of Representatives Washington D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Simon:
This is in response to your February 5,1980 request to review a January 23, 1980 letter to you from Mr. Edwin R. McCullough.
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is fully comitted to satisfying all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Our regulations which implement the NEPA requirements are contained in Title 10, Part 51.5, of the United States Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations are in conformance with guidelines issued by the President's Council on Environmental Quality which were in effect prior to July 30, 1979. They identify the types of actions for which NRC nust prepare an environmental impact statement. The Comission is presently in the process of modifying our Environmental Protection regulations to take into account, voluntarily, the regulations pronulgated by CEQ which became effective July 30, 1979.
We have concluded that this action is not one of these actions requiring an environ-mental impact statement under current Comission regulations.
While our regulations do not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement, we are evaluating the environmental impact of the proposed action to determine whether an environmental impact statement should be prepared because of specific circumstances related to this particular action.
If it is determined that an environmental impact statement neec'. not be prepared, a negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal will be prepared in accordance with Sections 51.7 and Sl.50(d) of our procedures for environmental protection. We will complete our review and issue the appropriate statement or appraisal prior to the Dresden decontamination.
8004140 Q
3,
4 The Honorable Paul Simon 2-Mr. McCulloagh has identified several ::pecific concerns related to the Dresden decontami nation.
These concerns and our response to them are enclosed for your i nf ormation.
I hope that this letter is responsive to your request.
Sincerely,
'(Signed) E. Kevin Cornell William J. Dircks iv Acting Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
i As stated i
i l
4 I.
f
ENCLOSURE DISCUSSION OF_THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY MR. EDWIN McCULLOUGH RELATED TO IHE DRESDEN UNIT 1 DECONTAMINATION Concern 1.
"This experimental procedure is the first of its kind."
Response 1.
The chemical decontamination of nuclear reactors is not an experimental process. Over the past twenty years, extensive experience has been obtained in the decontamination of reactor components such as pumps, valves, heat exchangers, and pipes.
This experience has demonstrated that radioactive contamination can be removed from reactor components and significantly reduce the occupational radiation exposure to personnel who require access to these components for purpcses of repair, inspection or modification. Such components have been cleaned, inspected, and returned to service without any evidence of damage caused by decon-tami nat ion.
In addition to the decontamination of reactor components, at least eighteen reactor primary cooling systems or parts of those systems have been decontaminated in the United States since the early 1960's. Table 1 identifies these and other major decontaminations that have taken place to date throughout the world:
TABLE 1.
Plutonium Recycle Test Reactor 1962 Shippingport PWR 1964 Plutonium Recycle Test Reactr e 1965 Hanford, N Reactor 15 major decontam.
1964 to present SENA Power Plant Chooz, France 1967 Rheinsberg PWR Rheinsberg, Germany 1968 Douglas Point Canada 1970 NPD Canada 1973 Gentilly Canada 1973 Douglas Point Canada 1975 Dresden Unit 1 Test Loop using 1976 DOW NS-1 Solvent Peach Bottom Regenerative Heat 1977 Exchanger using DDW NS-1 Concern 2.
"NRC has not conducted adequate studies of the environmental consequences of tnis prototype decontamination project."
Response 2.
The NRC has reviewed all aspects of the environmental impact of the Dresden Unit No.1 decontamination. The decontamination will not result in any in-crease of gaseous or liquid effluents from the plant. The solid waste that will result from the decontamination will be <!isposed of in the same manner as other solid wastes generated at Dresden station.
The radioacive content
2 Response 2. Cont'd and chemical nature of the solid waste is.similar to other waste that has been routinely packaged and shipped from Dresden Station since the first plant began operating in 1960.
Concern 3.
"NRC has not conducted any independent tests of the clean up process including waste transportation and disposal."
Response 3.
The NRC has contracted with the Brookhaven National Laboratory to carry out independent confirmatory research related to waste disposal ship-ping container integrity and the compatibility of the Dow solidification process with waste shipping containers. NRC's technical reviewers have evaluated the DOW solidification process and have concluded that the waste form produced by this process satisfies our requirements for ship-ping and disposing of low level waste.
The state of Washington has re-cently revised the license for the Hanford, Washington commercial waste burial site to explicitly authorize the disposal of waste soldified by the Dow Chemical solidification process.
Our review has concluded that the solidified waste is compatible with the shipping containers, and that the health and safety of the public will not be adversely impacted hy the shipment of these solidified wastes to the burial site.
All waste will be packaged and shipped in conformance with all applicable NRC and Department of Transportation requirements.
l
e Y
PO n
C y
a S
c s
p m
o r
c s n
T n
nt Oo o xy EV F_r i
f n
t C
i T
O E
o c
M m.on
/
r t
v E
N C
1 n
R I
. s.
o u i
e
._t r
A n
t t n bg i
^ A ^._ n O
r N,
n O
N
_e.v F
m c, y o 7,
M "t
3 0
I. U e,, o 0
^ve 8
.u 9
r trr 8n "u [{ )x N u O.o "r
A9C DO O
.c
/O 6O
'c 3 D. 5 r 8.L 2l "x"~
n
^t
/E l
.M n"_CL b, /
Cr A
'l ' X n
_f n
f e'
e i
r N
_A A
WL O
_O o_
C W
N' 0j/. 7 / '
dM,
c L
E O
I T
2 V
_K R
S 8 5
r-8 E t /
2 H
~
T
,z'J s
i 2 o
SN 0 L i
A T
N 2
t 6i 0
A, OO D
/
f
)
8 c o, t
IT C 2
c r
~i J
t n A
T i
Y o
nE N
N n
C C
i r
L r E
O s
t v
I i
E s
eN O mMy A_ _
sT S
O n
E
- r e tT t
i
)
A 7
nD io f
e a
N
^
F n
r C A
k o N
_n O'L c
O L
r i
l C nWvim_aF r
M nO
~
o n i
o o~
N t OP mti Ts n
N e m~
Otr. wV T S e
r cE i
t F
C r
Ou r
n o"
k0mR A oA h
I r
oR i n o n n'
l O
t e
f o
t d N
n O 'k b w f. rvC n
o si i
~Oo a s OIT Ao K
uA Oi6 bel iL i
e r
n ra r A v
.vC c
pD C n i
Om~__h~
rP t
l n 'T.
n e
IFI GO s
xI o
eC olIr f n
e po S E r
N r
S T
~
I AA A h gn n
R o
T L C
O gn A C
~
P i
ui D
ogt 0
. _ -y o
r a D
c8 v lu n I
T /_
E lu,im n
4 F
T_
ev C t
a S
e OcMc n t
S A
.a o C
n L
c o
n Ri e o
u :
A e
l r
d T
nl N S v o g
A E
M Q, 2 nT a i n
Y G t
w P A so T
Odyo oP ro n
"m o
EgrS C
m
/f ot c I
T i
menE N
ai S
at s C
N o E
s
~n O rE n M E A A u
B r l
i f
a U A u
t e
a e
C f
s rf nU o i
P n taf A
c So D N c s L C
t e
- p O
M e O'
o s
OR T
R F
g h