ML19309G997
| ML19309G997 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1980 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Proxmire W SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309G998 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005080134 | |
| Download: ML19309G997 (3) | |
Text
4
(
TERA 8{p nog [o, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
APR L lWO.
Docket No. 50-409 The Honorable William Proxmire United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Senator Proxmire:
This is in response to your memorandum dated February 19, 1980, which forwarded a letter dated February 1,1980, signed by several of your constituents concerning the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) located near Genoa, Wisconsin.
The construction and initial operation of LACBWR was funded by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC).
That part of the AEC which provided this funding as part of the Nuclear Power Demonstration Program is now part of the Department of Energy (D0E). Upon completion of this program, LACBWR's operational responsibilities were traderred to Allis Chalmers and Dairyland Power Cooperative.
In 1973 the AEC sold i.he LACBWR facility to Dairyland Pcwer Cooperative. The questions relative to Federal funding of LACBWR should be referred to DOE, since the NRC is not involved in the promotion of the nuclear industry and does not have this information.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has found in the LACBWR spent fuel pool proceeding that the cost of not operating the reactor exceeds the cost of operating LACBWR. For further details pertaining to the Licensing Board's position on this issue, see Page 97 of its Initial Decision dated January 10, 1980, in the matter of the above proceeding (Enclosure 1).
In regard to your constituents alleging that certain financial information remains undisclosed, Dairyland Power Cooperative continues to file with the Comission annual financial reports in accordance with Section 50.71(b) of 10 CFR Part 50. Dairyland's 1978 and all other preceding Annual Reports are available for public inspection. The 1979 report has not yet been received. The Comission normally receives most of these reports during the spring and summer of the following year.
l l
The Honorable William Proxmire Concerning the implementation of the requirements of the "TMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force" (NUREG-0578), the NRC issued. a Show Cause Order (Enclosure 2) dated January 2,1980, and the NRC's followup to the Show Cause Order (Enclosure 3) dated February 1,1980. The NRC has concluded that the modifications which have been or will be conpleted satisfy the NUREG-0578 requirements.
There is no departure from NRC's regulations which would preclude sc#e operation of LACBWR. As you may be aware, LACBWR is one of eleven (11) older plants currently undergoing a "e-evaluation in our Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) to determine the significance of any deviations from the criteria being used for current constnJction and operating license application reviews.
With respect to the seismic concerns expressed by your constituents, on February 25, 1980, we issued an Order (Enclosure 4) which requires Dairyland Power Cooperative to show cause why it should not submit by May 27, 1980, a detailed design proposal for a site dewatering system and why it should not implement such system, after the NRC approves it, or shut down the LACBWR facility by February 25, 1981. Because the seismic hazard associated with the LACBWR site is relatively low, the Order does not require shutdown of the LACBWR during the development and implementation of the site dewatering system. As discussed in the Order, the NRC staff has made an initial estimate of the probability of exceeding a range of peak accelerations at the LACBWR site in order to make an estimate of the hazard associated with the liquefaction potential.
I am enclosing for your information NRC's Regulatory Guide 1.60 which is the guidance utilized for Safe Shutdown Earthquake reviews (Enclosure 5).
Regarding the lack of an Environmental Impact Statement for LACBWR, the Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has begun a proceeding to consider the 1974 application by Dairyland Powe-Cooperative for conversion of its provisional operating license to a full term license. The Commission issued in 1976 a Draft Environmental Statement of all environmental factors to be considered in the proposed license conversion. The Draft Statement was circulated to appropriate Federal and State agencies for coment and was also made available to the public. The Final Environmental Statement is scheduled to be issued March 1980.
A hearing will be held in the La Crosse area by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the near future to consider evidence addressing several environmental contentions submitted by the Coulee Region Energy Coalition for hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing the Licensing Board will decide if the envir inmental impacts of granting a full-term license for the LACBWR would preclude issuance of the license by the Comission.
l
The Honorable William Proxmire With resmet to the meeting cancelled by Dairyland, Mr. Richard Vollmer of my staff, during a telephone discussion on January 15, 1980, advised Ms. Ann Morse, an intervenor in the LACBWR proceeding, that if the meeting on the projected operating lifetime of LACBWR is rescheduled, the NRC staff would hold such a meeting in the La Crosse area. Please be assured that if such a meeting is rescheduled it would be held in your state and notice will be provided so that interested persons will be aware of the date, time and location.
We do recognize that it can be advantageous for the NRC staff to meet with intervenors and interested groups. Such informal meetings can be arranged on an ad hoc basis to allow these persons or groups to connunicate their concerns so that the staff can consider them in their review process and keep these interested persons aware of relevant staff activities involving the plant. This also assists in the public's understanding of the NRC's role in regulating nuclear power plants. However, the technical meetings conducted routinely on all nuclear plants are a necessary and desirable means of connunicating during the course of a review or evaluation of a technical problem.
It is not our procedure to systematically invite public participation during these meetings because the exchange of useful information between technically qualified individuals could be seriously encumbered if such meetings were used to air individual grievances.
Moreover, the cost and time associated with sending all of the NRC's review staff and its consultants to Wisconsin for routine meetings would be excessive.
Policy relative to decor:rnissioning costs is in the formative stage.
I hope that this letter is responsive to your constituents' concerns.
Also, I am enclosing your constituents' correspondence as requested.
Sincerely, (Signed) E. Kevin Cornell William J. Dircks Acting Encutive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Initial Decision - 1/10/80 2.
Shw Cause Order - 1/2/80 3.
NRC Followup - 2/1/80 4.
Show Cause Order - 2/25/80 5.
Constituents' Ltr. dtd.
2/1/80 l