ML19321A992
| ML19321A992 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/10/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Brooks J HOUSE OF REP., GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19321A983 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007240497 | |
| Download: ML19321A992 (5) | |
Text
c> ? 4 0
t UNITED STATES g,
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
W ASHINGTON,0.C. 20555 p
V(
h*****+0
^\\
July 10, 1980 OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Jack Brooks Chairman, Committee on Government Operations United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On April 1,1980, the Comptroller General of the United States issued a report to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, and the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce entitled " Existing Nuclear Sites Can Be Used for New Power Plants and Nuclear Waste Storage." The report contains several recommendations to the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Section 236 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 requires the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to submit to your Committee a written state-ment on action taken on General Accounting Office recommendations within 60 days af ter the date of the report.
Actions taken to date along with future actions relating to the report are described in the enclosure to this letter.
I am glad to have the opportunity to report to you on this subject.
Si ncerely, John F. Ahearne Chairman
Enclosure:
Actions Taken and Planned Regarding the Use of Existing Nuclear Sites for Locating New Power Plants and for Storing Nuclear Wastes cc:
Representative Frank Horton 80072.40h1>
ACTIONS TAKEN AND PLANNED REGARDING THE USE OF EXISTING NUCLEAR SITES FOR LOCATING
[
l-IIEW70VfR FOiNTS AND FOR STliRTNG_ NUClXKRTAYTE'S
~
~
~
GA0 Recommendations to the Chairman of NRC on Power Plants 4
The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission should specify in NRC 's alternative site evaluation regulation that utilities must include available existing sites among their alternative sites for new nuclear power plants, i
l The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission should also:
I detennine if there are inherent advantages to limiting the number of nuclear power plant sites by locating new power plants at existing sites, determine the weight any such advantages should receive in environmental cost / benefit balancing, and in conjunction, i
develop a policy on the use of existing sites for new nuclear i
power plants which recognizes environmental advantages and potential constraints on practical implementation.
NRC Response Siting of nuclear power plants requires consideration of a number of concerns and objectives, many of which are competing.
There are advantages to locating new nuclear power plants on sites already hosting another nuclear unit; there are also l
disadvantages to that action.
The NRC staff has provided guidance to applicants concerning specific considerations when proposing to add a nuclear unit to an existing generating station.
I l
l
~
Z.
B'ost of the advant aqes relate t o litiiting the nur,ber of s i t es and la n '. ' 4 co:aaitted to nuclear generation and confining the assoc'at ed it tport s t o ' b
.e fewer locations.
haong t he no'.t frequently nentioned i nt ential d, ant. "
.> r e :
easing of the problem of decoinissioning, reduction of
- he runher und h o ;' h of transmission 1ines, t educt ion of visual, ecological.nd socioecen4.ir wr t,
easier licer sing process and higher quality of operatien as a result of ncentra-tion of operation within fctter uore experienced utilities.
The raost coxonly identified pot ential disadvantages are-inequitable di st rihu-tion of societal rists, negative ef fects on national security of concent ration of gencrating caracity, overload of wat er bodies, negatis e ef fect on grid st ability and systen reliability, conflict.s wit h local and state regulations, ant itrust laws, and the concept of rerot e siting.
The technical and nnn-technical nerit s in each case are dif ferent, very site specific, and only upon a caref ul exanination of case specific f acts can the f;RC staff draw conclusions as t a s,hich course of actien to tate.
NRC is calui Lted to exploration of site at tribut es t hrough an impartial co,parison of alt ernat ives conducted as part of a NiTA process.
The ' regulations provide an opport unity for a there..gh revier of t he rela t ive r:arits of alternative sites in each case, including the detennination of all inherent advantages exist.ing sit es night have and the veight such advant ages should receive.
The NRC is presently in the fornal precess of receivino public coments on the proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 51 rule providing "Iicensing i
1.
and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection; Alternative Site Reviews," published in the Federal _ Register on April 9,1980.
The proposed rule would not require specific consideration of existing nucicar sites, although it would not prevent it.
The GA0 report and the recoarendation that the rule specify that utilities must include available existing sites among their alternative sites will be considered by the NRC in the context of this rulemaking activity.
In addition, the NRC is engaged in a major rulemaking effort to review its basic siting policy.
The effort is broad in scope and will emphasize the goal of siting new nuclear power plants away from densely populated areas and the capability for taking effective emergency actions.
It will consider the colocation of nuclear facilities. The GA0 report also will be considered by NRC in this rulemaking activity.
GA0 Recommendations to the Chairman of NRC on Nuclear Waste Before permitting utilities to store low-level waste at nuclear power plant sites the Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission should require the utilities to provide specific plans for eventually disposing of these wastes, including assurances that funds will be available for disposal costs.
'NRC Response The NRC supports this GA0 reconnaendation.
This recommendation is consistent with current.NRC efforts toward requiring NRC licensees to have plans for eventually disposing of these wastes in disposal facilities.
Several policy papers are presently in preparation addressing issues such 'as the waste volume minimization, waste volume reduction, and licensing requirements for long term wl--
+
n
,. (defined as life-of-the-plant) onsite storage.
The papers explore the major available options.
The NRC staff is also undertaking a review of the broad question of decommissioning nuclear power plants which includes the question of obtaining frun licensees the assurance that funds will be available to carry out the prescribed methods of decommissioning in the future.
Plans to decommission nuclear reactor sites must include plans for ulti.nate disposal of related low-level nuclear wastes.
Simil a rly, the method of providing assurance of funding for deconmissioning must include the necessary funding for disposing of nuclear wastes fran the sites.
The staff 's efforts will result in rulemaking proceedings related to decommissioning in general, and the funding of decommissioning specifically.
Present schedule calls for the publication of a generic environmental inpact statement in January,1981, a decommissioning policy statement in September,1981 and a proposed rule in January,1982.
Additionally, we wish to point out the President 's message of February 12, 1980, on radioactive wastes management.
In that message the President stated that by Executive Order he was establishing a State Planning Council.
The Council will advise the Executive Branch and work with the Congress to address radioactive waste management issues, such as planning and siting, construction, and operation of facilities.
Ile also stated that the Department of Energy is preparing a detailed National Plan for Nuclear Waste tiangement.
The Plan will include specific program goals and milestones for all aspects of nuclear waste management.
,