ML20003A053

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to 801201 Request for Info on Nuclear Plant Locations,Waste Dumps & Safe Distances from Nuclear Plants. Excerpts from 1979 Annual Rept & from Rept of Presidents Commission on TMI Encl in Response to Inquiries
ML20003A053
Person / Time
Issue date: 01/06/1981
From: Zech G
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Dupler L
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
NUDOCS 8101290348
Download: ML20003A053 (26)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:b...v.. mm J UNIT ED ST ATU i i NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COf.WISSION {, ' j . WASHWCTOV D C F555 x b. ~ ~ .m < ( N h.l'.' - '*i ~, . @g 09 .\\ U^Q'. p ~ Mrs. L. D. Dupler s u 7S0 Fulling Mill Road e Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057

Dear Mrs. Dupler:

This is in reply to your letter of December 1,1980, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requesting infomation on nuclear plant locations, waste du :ps, and safe distances from nuclear plants. Enclosed is a map of the United States showing the sites of nuclear power reactors. This was issued in 1980 by U.S. Geological Survey. Also enclosed is an excerpt from the 1979 Annual Report of the Nuclea'r Regulatory Commission listing nuclear power plants in operation, under construction, or planned as of September 30, 1979. These are arranged by States, and the town nearest to each site is indicated. Since September 1979, utilities have requested withdrawal of applications for construction pemits or have announced cencellation of construction for the following nuclear power plants in this list: Davis-Besse Units 2 and 3 (Ohio), Erie Units 1 and 2 (Ohio), Forked River (N.J.), Greenwood Units 2 and 3 (Mich.), Haven (Wis.), New Haven Units 1 and 2 (N.Y.), North Anna Unit 4 (Va.), and Sterling (N.Y.). No new applications for NRC construction pemits for nuclear power plants have been received since 1978. With regard to radioactive waste, enclosed is a chapter on " Waste Management" from the 1979 Annual Report of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On page 150 there is given the location of the previous six commercial waste disposal operations, of which only three are currently in operation. With regard to safe distances from nuclear plants, in selecting a site for a nuclear power station it is necessary to provide for an exclusion area where there are no residents and a low population zone in which the popu-lation is sufficiently limited in number and distributed in such a way that there is a reasonable probability that appropriate measures could be taken in the event of a serious accident. In addition, the site must also meet certain requirements as to the distance from the nuclear reactor to the nearest boundary of a densely populated center contai'ning more than about 25,000 residents. Furthemore, if the population density averaged out to 30 miles from a nuclear power station exceeds certain limits, special attention is given to the consideration of alternative sites with lower population densities. l s t///Jd-

"'P# Mrs. L. D. Dupler :.7 Once a site for a nuclear power plant has been approved and the plant has been constructed and put into operation, two Emergency Planning Zones are established around the plant for coping with a serious accident. One is concerned with the exposure from a radioactive plume in the atmosphere and has a radius of about 10 miles. The other is concerned with radioactivity deposited on the ground and finding its way into food and water and has a i radius of about 50 miles. Predetermined protective actions plans are required to be established for these Emergency Planning Zones. Tne crobability of an accident at a nuclear power plant causing any signifi-cant radioactive doses to the off-site general population is very small. Even the accident at Three Mile Island did not cause such doses, as indicated by the attached excerpt on " Health Effects" from the Report of the President's Commission on that accident. Sincerely, Gary. Zech, Chief Technical Support Branch Planning & Program Analysis Staff, NRR Encl osures: As stated

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e .9/9 2 I i Annual Report A PPEND/y f f F ,c -. ! -~ p, .n - , q'S;Q:::ef[

2

,, s.$. ^ h.' ~, ' - - - ~ m.,+ ...,Dh% f.

  • ,w.1

'u f[.Id' h T. " \\ ,. 4.; c'.k E, ' M.,t.' % ' th '. - j l .ua... r- ,q ~, q ap ' ?,-l ^....,,- - - w! N %my. ,3 < Q ' A ' * '.' A aiu * >. 3 g... 'l. m W f .%

  • s' 1._

mac mu0} i ...ir,g 2 " 2 '/ v.-s n.. M] ... E ::.::.T.T; & :*Ls....... f% C .7."r:: 1 2 j,y* ~ .- u e e.~~.. <,h*f;. j 3.py/,y.g,. g. , fa s - s- ~ _ _ i, s.,3? o r a 7cq m i I I %e i i. 7 l-1 f 8 I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~ 301 Appendix 6 Nuclear Electric Generating Units in Operation, Under Construction or Planned (As of September 30,1979) The fa!!auing listing includes 192 nuclear power reactor electrical generating units which were in operation, under NBC review for construction permits, and ordered or announced by utilities in the United States at the end of September 1979, representing a total capacity of approximately 167,000 MWe. TYPE is indicated by: BWR-boiling wat r reactor. PWR-pressurized water reactor, HTGR-high temperature gas-cooled reactor, and LMFBR-liquid metal cooled inst b reactor. STATUS is indicated by: OL-has operating license, CP-has construction permit UR-under review for cormtruction permit. NO-announced or ordered by the utility but application for construction not yet docketed by the NRC for res c dates for operation are either actual or those scheduled by the utilities (N/S-not yet scheduled). This hsting includes 20 few er units San a year ago, reflecting cancellations cf plans for future facilities. In addition. dela planned completion dates have been indicated during fiscal year 1979 for 47 other units. The reasons ested for cancellations include (1) lower demand for electricity, (2) financial problems, (3) construction delays, (4) concerns for reactor safety, and (5) regulatory delays. Commercial Capacity Site Plant (Net MWe) Type Status Utility Operation ALABAhiA Decatur Browns Ferry Nuclear Power 1,065 BWR OL 1973 Tennessee Valley Authority 1974 Plant Unit 1 Decatur Browns Ferry Nuclear Power 1,065 BWR OL 1974 Tennessee Valley Authority 1975 Plant Unit 2 Decatur Browns Ferry Nuclear Power 1,065 BWR OL 1976 Tennessee Valley Authority 1977 Plant Unit 3 Dothan Joseph M. Farley Nuclear 829 BWR OL 1977 Alabama Power Co. 1978 Plant Unit 1 Dothan Joseph M. Farley Nuclear 829 PWR CP 1972 Alabama Power Co. 1950 Plant Unit 2 Scottsboro Be!!efonte Nuclear Plant 1,235 PWR CP 1974 Tennessee Valley Authority 1951 Uritt 1 Scottsboro Be!!efonte Nuclear Plant 1,235 PWR CP 1974 Tennessee Valley Authority 19S1 Unit 2

= 302 l Coinmeru.1 l Capacity Site Plant (Net MWe) Type Status Utiht3 Operation t ARIZONA War.terburg Palo Verde Nuclear Centrating 1,270 PWR CP 1976 Arizona Pubbe 5cruce Co. IN Station Unit I Winterburg Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 1,270 PWR CP 1976 Anzona Pubhc Sersiec Co. 1954 Station Unit 2 M ir.:erburg Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 1.270 PWR CP 1976 Anzona Pubhc 5cruce Co. 19M Station Unit 3 ( ARKANSAS Russelville Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1 850 PWR OL 1974 Arkansas Power & Light Co. 1974 1 Russchille Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 912 PWR OL 1978 Arkansas Power & Light Co. 1975 CALIFORNIA Eureka ilumboldt Bay Power Plant 65 BWR OL 1962 Pacific Cas & Electric Co. 1963 Unit 3 San San Onofre Nuclear 436 PWR OL 1967 So. Calif. Ed. & San Diego 1965 Clemente Generating Station Unit I Cas & Electric Co. San San Onofre Nuclear 1,140 PWR CP 1973 So. Calif. Ed. & San Diego 1950 Clemente Generating Station Unit 2 Cas & Electire Co. San San Onc!re Nuclear 1,140 PWR CP 1973 So. Calif. Ed. & San Diego 1951 Clemente Generating Station Unit 3 Cas & Electric Co. i Diablo Diablo Canyon Nudear 1,084 PWR CP 1965 Pacific Cas & Electric Co. 1950 Cany on Power Plant Unit 1 Diablo Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power 1,106 PWR CP 1970 Pacific Cas & Elec. Co. 1979 Canyon Plant Unit 2 Clay Rancho Seco Nuclear 917 PWR OL 1974 Sacramento Municipal Utility 1975 Station Generating Station Unit I-District Stanislaus Unit 1 1,200 BWR NO Pacific Cas & Elec. Co. Indef. Stanislaus Unit 2 1,200 BWR NO Pacific Cas & Elec. Co. Indef. COLORADO Platteville Fort St. Vrain Nuclear 330 HTCR OL 1973 Public Service Co. of 1975 Generating Station Colorado CONNECTICUT I Haddam liaddarn Neck Generating 575 PWR OL 1967 Conn. Yankee Atomic Powr Co. 196S I Ned Station i Waterford Millstone Nuclear Power 660 BWR OL 1970 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. 1971 7 Station Unit 1

  • Site not selected.

t . __ _ A

303 Commercial Capacity Site Plant (Net Muel Type Status Utility Operation CONNECTICUT-Continued Waterford Millstone Nuclear Power 630 PWR OL 1975 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. 197: Station Unit 2 Waterford Millstone Nuclear Power 1.159 PWR CP 1974 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. 1955 Station Unit 3 FLORIDA Ronda Turkey Point Station Unit 3 693 PWR OL 1972 Morida Power & Light Co. 1972 City Rorida Turkey Point Station Unit 4 693 PWR OL 1973 Morida Power & Light Co. 1973 City Red Level Crystal River Plant Unit 3 825 PWR OL 1977 Morida Power Corp. 1977 Ft. Pierce St. Lucie Plant Unit ! 602 PWR OL 1976 Morida Power & Light Co. 1976 l Ft. Pierce St. Lucie Plant Unit 2 842 PWR CP1977 Morida Power & Light Co. 1953 CEORGIA Baxley Edwin 1. Hatch Plant Unit 1 786 BWR OL 1974 Georgia Power Co. 1975 c Baxley Edwin 1. Hatch Plant Unit 2 795 BWR OL 1978 Cecrgia Power Co. 1976 Waynesboro Alvin W. Vogtle, Jr. Plant 1,100 PWR CP 1974 Ceorgia Power Co. 1964 Unit 1 Waynesboro Alvin W. Vogtle, Jr. Plant 1,100 PWR CP 1974 Coorgia Power Co. 1955 Unit 2 ILLINOIS Morris Dresden Nuclear Power 200 BWR OL 1959 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1960 Station Unit 1 Morris Dresden Nuclear Power 794 BWR OL 1969 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1970 Station Unit 2 Morris Dresden Nuclear Power 794 BWR OL 1971 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1971 Station Unit 3 Zion Zion Nuclear Plant Unit 1 1,040 PWR OL 1973 Commor.wealti Edison Co. 1973 Zion Zion Nuclear Plant Unit 2 1,040 PWR OL 1973 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1974 Cordova Quad.Citia Station Unit 1 789 BWR OL 1972 Comm. Ed. Co.. lown.111. Cas & Elec. Co. 1973 Cordova Quad-Cities Station Unit 2 789 BWR OL 1972 Comm. Ed. Co.-Iowa.Ill. Ces & Elec. Co. 1973 Seneca LaSalle County Nuclear 1,078 BWR CP 1973 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1979 Station Unit 1 Seneca LaSalle County Nuclear 1,078 BWR CP 1973 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1950 Station Unit 2 ]

304 Commernal Capacity $ste Plant (Set MWe) T ype Status Utility Operation II).!NOIS-Continued byron Byron Station Unit 1 1,100 PWR CP 1975 Commonwealth Edison Co. 1952 b,sron Byron Station Umt 2 1,100 PWR CP 1975 Commonwealth Ednon Co. 1983 Br.id u ood Braidwood Urut 1 1.100 PWR CP 1975 Commonwealth Ednon Co. 1952 braidw ood Braidwood Unit 2 1.120 PWR CP 1975 Commonwealth Ednan Co. 1%3 Ch-ton Cimton Nuclear Power 950 BWR CP 1976 Ilhnois Power Co. 195: Plant Unit 1 Chnton Chnton Nuclear Po" er 950 BWR CP 1976 lilinois Po*er Co. 1955 Plant Unit 2 Sasannah Carroll County Station Unit 1 1,150 A/O Commonwealth Edson Co. 1955 Sasannah Carro!! County Station Urdt 2 1.150 A/O Commonwealth Edson Co. 1959 INDIANA Westchester Bailly Generating Station 660 BWR CP 1974 Northern Indiana Public Senice 1984 Co. Town Afaduon Af arble 1111] Unit 1 1,130 PWR CP 1978 Public Service of Indiana 1982 Afadnon Af arble 11111 Unit 2 1,130 PWR CP 1978 Public Senice of Indiana 1954 IOWA Pala Duane Arnold Energy Center 535 BWR OL 1974 lowa Elec. Light & Power Co. 1975 Unit 1 KANSAS Burhngton Wolf Creek 1,150 PWR CP 1977 Kansas Gas & Elec. Co. 1983 LOUISId.NA Taft Waterford Steam Electric 1,165 PWR CP 1974 Louisiana Power & Light Co. 1951 Station St. River Bend Station Unit 1 9 34 BWR CP 1977 Culf States Utilities Co. 1984 Franetsville St. River Bend Station Unit 2 934 BWR CP 1977 Culf States Utihties Co. NIS [ Franetsville MAINE Wiscasset Maine Yankee Atomic Power 790 PWR OL 1972 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. 1972 Plant MARYLAND Lusby Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 845 PWR OL 1974 Baltimore Cas & E ec. Co. 1975 Plant Unit 1 Lusby Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 845 PWR OL 1976 Baltimore Cas & Elec. Co. 1977 Plant Unit 2

l 305 8 f Capacity Commerdal e Site Plant (Net MWe) Type Status Utility Operation i MASSACIIUSETTS ( Rowe Yankee Nuclear Power Station 175 PWR OL 1960 Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. 1961 I l.. mour.t Pilgnm Station Unit i 655 BWR OL 1972 Boston Ednon Co. 1972 Plymouth Pilgrim Station Unit 2 1.150 PWR UB Boston Edaan Co. 1955 Turners Montague Urut 1 1,150 BWR UR Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. NIS Falls Turners Montague Unit 2 1,150 BWR UR Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. N'A Falls MIClllGAN Big Rock Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant 72 BWR OL 1962 Consumers Power Co. 1963 Point South Haven Palisades Nuclear Power 805 PWR OL 1971 Consumers Power Co. 1971 Station Lagoona Enrico Fermi Atomic Power 1,123 BWR CP 1972 Detroit Power Co. 1960 Beach Plant Unit 2 Bridgman Donald C. Cook Plant Unit 1 1,054 PWR OL 1974 Indiana & Michigan Elc. Co. 1975 Bridgman Donald C. Cook Plant Unit 2 1,100 PWR OL 1977 Indians & Michigan Elec. Co. 1978 Midland Midland Nuclear Power Plant 492 PWR CP 1972 Consumers Power Co. 1952 Unit 1 Midland Midland Nuclear Power Plant 818 PWR CP 1972 Consumers Power Co. 1981 Unit 2 St. Clair Creenwood Energy Center 1,200 PWR UR Detroit Edison Co. N/S County Unit 2 St. Clair Creenwood Energy Center 1,200 PWR UR Detroit Edison Co. NIS County Unit 3 t i MINNESOTA i Montrello Monticello Nuclear Generating 545 BWR OL 1970 Northern States Power Co. 1971 Plant Red Wing Prairie Island Nuclear 530 PWR OL 1973 Northern States Power Co. 1973 Cenerating Plant Unit 1 Red Wing Prairie Island Nuclear 530 PWR OL 1974 Northern Stater Power Co. 1974 Cenerating Plant Unit 2 5 MISSISSIPPI Port Gibson Crand Culf Nuclear Station 1.250 BWR CP 1974 Mississippi Power & Light Co. 1982 Unit 1 Port Cibson Grand Culf Nuclear Station 1,250 BWR CP 1974 Mississippi Power & Light Co. 1984 Unit 2

30G Capacity Commercal Site Plant (Net MWe) Type Status Utility Operation MISSISSIPPI-Continued i ellow Yellow Creek Urut i 1,255 PWR CP 1976 Tennessee Va!!cy Authonty 1955 Creel Yellow Yellow Creek Unit 2 1,2S5 PWR CP 1976 Tennessee Valley Authority 1991 Creek MISSOURI Fulton Callaway Plant Unit 1 1,150 PWR CP 1976 Union Elec. Co. 1952 Fulton Callaway Plant Unit 1 1,150 PWR CP 1976 Union Elec. Co. 19S7 NEBRASKA Fort Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1 457 PWR OL 1973 Omaha Public Power District 1973' Calhoun Brownulle Cooper Nuclear Station 778 BWR OL 1974 Nebraska Public Power District 1974 NEW I!MiPSIIIRE Seabrook Seabrook N.aclear Station Unit i 1,194 PWR CP 1976 Public Senice of N.H. 1983 Seabrook Seabrook Nuclear Station Unit 2 1,194 PWR CP 1976 Public Senice of N.li. 1985 NEW JERSEY Toms River Oyster Creek Nuclear Power 650 BWR OL1%9 Jersey Central Power & Light Co. 1969 Plant Unit 1 Forked River Forked River Generating 1,070 PWR CP 1973 Jersey Central Power & Light Co. 1954 Station Unit 1 Salem Salem Nuclear Generating 1,090 PWR OL 1976 Public Senice Elec. & Cas Co. 1977 Station Unit 1 Salem Salem Nuclear Generating 1,115 PWR CP 1968 Public Service Elec. & Cas Co. 1979 Station Ur.it 2 Salem flope Creek Generating Station 1,067 BWR CP 1974 Public Service Elec. & Gas. Co. 19S4 l Unit I Salem flope Creek Generating Station 1,067 BW" CP 1974 Public Service Elec. & Cas Co. 1986 [; el Unit 2 1l') NEW YORK Indian Indian Point Station Unit 1 265 ' PWR OL 1962 Consolidated Edison Co. 1962 Point Indian Indian Point Station Unit 2 873 PWR OL 1971 Consolidated Edison Co. 1973 Point Indian Indian Point Station Unit 3 965 PWR OL 1975 Consolidated Edison Co. 1976 Point Scriba Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station 610 BWR OL 1969 Niagsra Mohawk Power Co. 1969 Unit 1 4 P

I6 In 307 i f Capacity Commercial Site Plant (Net MWe) Type Status Utility Ope ation NEW YORK-Continued Scriba Nine N1ile Point Nuclear Station 1,050 BWR CP 1974 Niagara Mohawk Power Co. 1954 Unit 2 Ontarm R.E. Cinna Nuclev Power 490 PWR OL 1969 Rochester Cas & Elec. Co. 1970 Plant Unit 1 Bronkhasen Shoreham Nuclear Power 854 BWR CP 1973 Long Island Lighting Co. 1950 Station Scriba James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear 821 BWR OL 1974 Power Authority of State of N.Y. 1975 Power Plant Lonc Jamesport Unit 1 1,150 PWR CP 1979 Long Island Lighting Co. 195S Island Long Jamesport Unit 2 1,150 PWR CP 1979 Long Island Lighting Co. 1990 Island New Ilaven 1 1,250 PWR UR N.Y. State Elec. & Cas Co. Indef. New Haven 2 1,250 PWR UR N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Co. Indef. Sterling Sterhng Power Project Unit 1 1,150 PWR CP 1977 Rochester Cas & Elec. Co. 1958 NORTH CAROLINA Southport Brunswick Steam Electric 821 BWR OL 1974 Carolina Power & Light Co. 1975 Plant Unit 2 Southport Brunswick Steam Electric 821 BWR OL 1976 Carolina Power & Light Co. 1977 Plant Unit I Cowans Wm. B. McGuire Nuclear 1,180 PWR CP 1973 Duke Power Co. 1950 Ford Dam Station Unit 1 Cowans Wm. B. McGuire Nuclear 1,180 PWR CP 1973 Duke Power Co. 1982 Ford Dam Station Unit 2 Bonsal Shearon Harris Plant Unit 1 915 PWR CP 1978 Carolina Power & Light Co. 1983 Bonsal Shearon Harris Plant Unit 2 915 PWR CP 1978 Carolina Power & Light Co. 1985 I Bonsal Shearon Harris Plant Unit 3 915 PWR CP 1978 Carolina Power & Light Co. 1989 Bonsal Shearon Ha-ris Plant Unit 4 915 PWR CP 1978 Carolina Power & Light Co. 19S7 Davie Co. Perkins Nuclear Station Unit 1 1,280 PWR UR Duke Power Co. 19SS Davie Co. Perkins Nuclear Station Unit 2 1,280 PWR UR Duke Power Co. 1991 Davie Co. Perkins Nuclear Station Unit 3 1,250 PWR UR Duke Power Co. 1993 01110 Oak Harbor Davis.Besse Nuclear Power 906 PWR OL 1977 Toledo Edison. Cleveland Elec. 1977 Station Unit 1 Illum. Co. Oak Harbor Davis.Besse Nuclear Power 906 PWR UR " Toledo Edison. Cleveland Elec. 1955 Station Unit 2 tilum. Co.

  • Site not selected.

30S Com nercial Capacitt Site Plant (Net 51%c) Type Status Utility Operation t i i I11110-Continued Oak Harbor DavtvBesse Nuclear Pov er 906 PWR UR " Tolede Edison. Cleveland Elee. 1990 l Illum. Co. Station Unit 3 Perry Pern Nuclear Power Plant 1.205 BWR CP 1977 Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. 1952 Unit 1 Perry Perry Nuclear Power Plant 1.205 BWR CP 1977 Cleveland Elec. Illurrf Co. 1954 Unit 2 hiosm= Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear 810 BWR CP 1972 Cincinnati Cas & Elee. Co. 1979 Power Station Unit 1 Berhn Hgts. Erie Unit 1 1,260 PWR UR Ohio Edison Co. 1959 Berhn Hgts. Erie Unit 2 1,260 PWR UR Ohio Edison Co. 1991 I OKLAllO3fA Inola Black Fox Unit ! 1,150 BWR UR " Public Senice Co. of Oklahoma 1953 Inola Black Foz Unit 2 1,150 BWR UR " Public Senice Co. of Oklahoma 19S5 OREGON Prescott Trojan Nuclear Plant Unit 1 1,130 PWR OL 1975 Portland General Elec. Co. 1976 Arlington Pebble Springs Unit 1 1,260 PWR UR Portland General Elec. Co. 1956 Arhngton Pebble Springs Unit 2 1,260 PWR UR Portland General Elee. Co. IW9 PENNSYLVANIA Peach Peach Bottom Atomic Power 1,065 BWR OL 1973 Philadelphia Elee. Co. 1974 Bottom Station Unit 2 Peach Peach Bottom Atomic Power 1,065 BWR OL 1974 Philadelphia Elec. Co. 1974 Bottom Station Unit 3 Pottstown Li:aerick Generating Station 1,065 BWR CP 1974 Philadephia Elec. Co. 19S3 Unit 1 Pottstown Limerick Generating Station 1,065 BWR CP 1974 Philadelphia Elec. Co. 1955 Unit 2 I Shippingport Shippingport Atomic Power 90 PWR Duquesne Light Co. & DOE NA Unit 1 Shippingport Beaver Valley Power Station 852 PWR OL 1976 Duquesne Light Co. 1976 Ohio Edison Co. Unit 1 Shippingport Beaver Valley Power Station 852 PWR CP 1774 Duquesne Light Co. 1983 Ohio Edison Co. Unit 2 " Limited work authorization issued. l I ' Operable but OL not required. I i

309 Commercial Capacity Site Plant (Net MWe) Type Status Utility Operation PENNSYLVANIA-Continued Coldsboro Three Mile Island Nuclear 819 PWR OL 1974 Metropolitan Edison Co. 1974 Station Unit 1 C o dsboro Three Mile Island N aclear 906 PWR OL 1976 Metropolitan Edison Co. 1978 Station Unit 2 Berwick Susquehanna Steam Elcetrie 1.052 BWR CP 1973 Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. 1950 Station Unit 1 Berw ick Susquehanna Steam Electric 1,052 BWR CP 1973 Pennsylvania Power ac Light Co. 195: Station Unit 2 EllODE ISLAND No. Kingston New England Unit 1 1,150 PWR UR New England Power Co. 19ST No. Kingston New England Unit 2 1,150 PWR UB New England Power Co. 1959 ? ? SOUTil CAROLINA J Hartsville II.B. Robinson S.E. Plant Unit 2 700 PWR OL 1970 Ct.rolina Power & Light Co. 1971 Seneca Oconee Nuclear Station Unit 1 887 PWR OL 1973 Duke Power Co 1973 i I Seneca Oconee Nuclear Station Unit 2 857 PWR OL 1973 Duke Power Co. 1974 l Seneca Oconee huelear Station Unit 3 8S7 PWR OL 1974 Duke Power Co. 1974 Broad River Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 900 PWR CP 1973 So. Carolina Elec. ac Cas Co. 1950 Station Unit 1 Lake Wylie Catawba Nuclear Station Unit i 1,145 PWR CP 1975 Duke Power Co. 1983 Lake Wylie Catawba Nuclear Station Unit 2 1,145 PWR CP 1975 Duke Power Co. 1985 Cherokee Cherokee Nuclear Station Unit i 1,280 PWR CP 1977 Duke Power Co. 1956 County .f Cherokee Cherokee Nuclear Station Unit 2 1,280 PWR CP 1977 Duke Power Co. 1988 County Cherokee Cherokee Nuclear Station Unit 3 1,280 PWR CP 1977 Duke Power Co. 1988 County TENNESSEE Daisy Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant 1,140 PWR CP 1970 Tennessee Valley Authority 1979 Unit 1 Daisy Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant 1,140 PWR CP 1970 Tenne:see Valley Authority 1980 Unit 2 Spring Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1 1,165 PT"9 CP 1973 Tennessee Valley Authonty 1979 City

310 Commercia! Capacity 5.te Plant (Net MWe) Type Status Utility Operation TENNESSEE-Continued Spring Watts Bu Nuclear Plant Unit 2 1,165 PWR CP 1973 Tennessee Valle) Authonty 1950 City Oak Ridge Clinch River Breeder Reactor 350 LMFBR UB U.S. Covernment Indef. Plant liartrulle TVA Plant A Unit 1 1.205 BWR CP 19~7 Tennessee Valley Atithoney 1952 Hartsville TVA Plant A Unit 2 1,205 BWR CP 1977 Tennessee Va!!cy Authority 19S3 Hartsville TVA Plant B Unit 1 1,005 BWR CP 1977 Tennessee Va!!ey Authority 1955 liartsville TVA Plant B Unit 2 1,205 BWR CP 1977 Tennessee Valley Authority 1959 l Phipps Phipps Bend Unit 1 1,220 BWR CP 1978 Tennessee Valley Authority 1953 Bend Phipps Phipps Bend Unit 2 1.223 BWR CP 1978 Tennessee Valley Authority 1956 Bend TEXAS Clen Rose Comanche Peak Steam Electric 1,150 PWR CP 1974 Texas P&L, Dallas P&L, Texas 1951 Elec. Service Station Unit 1 Glen Rose Comanche Peak Steam Electric 1,150 PWR CP 1974 Texas P&L, Dallas P&L, Texas 1953 Station Unit 2 Elec. Service Wallis Allens Creek Unit 1 1,150 BWR UR Houston Lighting & Power Co. 1955 Bay City South Texas Nuclear Project 1,250 PWR CP 1975 liouston Lighting & Power Co. 19S3 Unit 1 Bay City South Texas Nuclear Project 1,250 PWR CP 1975 Houston Lighting & Power Co. 1985 Unit 2 VEIBIONT Vernon Vermont Yankee Generating 514 BWR OL 1972 Vermont Yankee Nuclear 1972 Power Corp. Station i, VIRGINIA I Cris e! Surry Power Station Unit 1 822 PWR OL 1972 Va. Electric & Power Co. 1372 l Neck Grasel Surry Power Station Unit 2 822 PWR OL 1973 Va. Electric & Pawer Co. 1973 Neck Mineral North Anna Power Station 907 PWR OL 1976 Va. Electric & Power Co. 1978 Unit 1 Mineral North Anna Power Station 907 PWR CP 1971 Va. Eledric & Power Co. 19*9 f i Unit 2 e i m

i -- 311 Commercial Capacity Site Plant (Net MWe) Type Status Utility Operation VIRGINIA-Continued Mmeral North Anna Power Station 907 PWR CP 1974 Va. Electric & Power Co. 1955 1 Unit 3 Mmera! North Anna Power Station 907 PWR CP 1974 Va. Electric & Power Co. 1956 Unit 4 Central Virpnia 1 1,150 ArO American Electric Power Co. 1990 Central Virginia 2 1,150 A/O American Electric Power Co. 1990 l t WASHINGTON Richland N. Reactor /WPPSS Steam 850 CR 8 Wash. Public Power Supply System Richland WPPSS No.1 (Hanford) 1,267 PWR CP 1975 Wash. Public Power Supply 19S3 System Richland WPPSS No. 2 (Hanford) 1,103 BWR CP 1973 Wash. Public Power Supply 1981 System Satsop WPPSS No. 3 1,242 PWR CP 1978 Wash. Public Power Supply 1954 System Richland WPPSS No. 4 1,267 PWR CP 1978 Wash. Pubhc Power Supply 1954 System Satsop WPPSS No. 5 1,242 PWR CP 1978 Wash. Public Power Supply 1985 System Sedro Skapt Nuclear Power Project 1,277 BWR UR Puget Sound Power & Light Co. 19S5 Wooley Unit 1 Sedro Skagit Nuclear Power Project 1,277 BWR UR Puget Sound Power & Light Co. 1987 Wooley Unit 2 WISCONSIN Genoa Ce$os Nuclear Generating 50 BWR OL 1967 Dairyland Power Coop. 1969 Station (Lacrosse) Two Point Beach Nuclear Plant 497 PWR OL 1970 Wisconsion Michigan Power Co. 1970 Creeks Unit 1 Two Point Beach Nuclear Plant 497 PWR OL 1971 Wisconsin Michigan Power Co. 1972 Creeks Unit 2 Carlton Kewaunee Nuclear Power 535 PWR OL 1973 Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. 1974 Plant Ft. Haven Nuclear Plant 900 PWR UR Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. 19S7 Atkmson

  • Site not selected.

8 Operable but OL not required.

9 IQ "l H L a is Annual Report vHAPTER 6

  • 4 e

l o .;W[.' 4 . 41 l,,Bim.u.~1; p.:.-- -- ~v m f i ff : l .3 ? 1 L:L.. t* ~

'. L:~ l

\\ ~' L.... - [, ; $ ~ ~ .y g ..ua - r unn ywu ,e w ? h SM5b55M6,:ed:.. i

h. P*

Le* 'a h l i } 7 i i i: \\ U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

N c-e f< ~ j i 2 .a ( - nui2gbl&

_ d-9 gep e ngw m% -,N ;9T G W aSte

=.g ~ Management i - c o~ -u m. w M aste shipments are clearly identified by SRC-approve I placards. The NRC waste management function was elevated the entire NRC program is well focused and pro-to divisional status in 1979 under the NRC Office of ceeding on established schedules. Nuclear hiaterial Safety and Safeguards (NhtSS). The new Division of Waste hianagement consists of five Overview of 1979 Activity branches which carry out a number of functions that The main focus of NRC effort in 1979 for the high-were formerly among those of the Dmston of Fuel level waste program was in regulatory development. Cycle and hiaterial Safety: The NRC is developing a comprehensive regulation for

  • The High-Level Waste Technical Development high-level waste repositories-to be Part 60 of the Branch-responsible for high-level waste NRC regulatory code-in two parts, procedural and regulatorv development and development of the technical. The procedural part was published as a pro-technical' bases for high-level waste licensing and Posed rule for comment in December 1979. The tech-regulation.

nical part is expected to be published in early 1950 pursuant to an advance notice of proposed rule-

  • The High Level Waste Licensing Management making.

Branch-responsible for licensing high level The main focus of NRC work in 1979 for the low-waste commercial repositories. level waste program has also been in regulatory development. The NRC is developing a comprehensive

  • The Low-Level Waste Licensing Branch-regulation for low-level waste disposal. This regula-responsible for low-level waste licensing and tion will be Part 61 of the code. A preliminary draft of regulation.

the regulation has been completed and sent to various

  • The Uranium Recocery Licensing Branch-rganizations for review. The draft will be made responsible for licensing and regulation of available to the public in 1980.

uranium riiills, heap-leach operations, commer. A large part of NRC effort under the uranium cial scale solution mining operations, and recovery program has been concerned with the 'icens-research and development (R&D) uranium ing of uranium recovery facilities, and a significant number of licenses wm ismed, renewed, and recovery operations. These types of operations represer'it the first step of the nuclear fuel cycle. amended. In addition, a draft regulation for uranium Since large amounts of waste are generated as a mills (Amendment to Part 40) was issued for pubhe result of these operations, especially uranium e mment in August 1979. The supporting generic en-milling, it was decided that these operations vir amental impact statement (GEIS) on uranium should come under the Division of Waste milling was issued for public comment in April 1979. A number of notable events in nuclear waste hianagement. disposal took place in 1979. There were only three

  • The Licensing Process and Integration low-level waste disposal sites in operation at the begin.

Branch-responsible for coordinating and in-ning of the year, all of them located in Agreement tegrating the entire NRC waste management pro. States. Two of the sites closed and then reopened, and gram. In order to do this, the branch works with a curtailment was placed on the amount of waste that elements within NhtSS, with other NRC offices, could be received at the third site. These actions fur-and with other governmental agencies having ther demonstrated the large regional imbalance in waste management responsibilities, to ensure that low-level waste disposal locations and induced a

i = 146 1 I . q mmc.;.- Interagency Review Group. As reported in the 19 s W. Pg.'k/M. CCrf-W* 'k . I NRC Annual Report (pp. 93 and 94), the NRC staff b participated in the IRC study on Nuclear %ste DM%J L t ) Management. (Because of NRC's status as an indepen. y.' f dent regulatory agency, the agency participated as a ' e %., y M.(., -e o.- .gM non-votmg member.) The IRG draf t report was issued y~ ~,l V" , -p I in 1975 and the final report was issued in 1979. Man 'p 9 : d; b of its recommendations affect the NRC, which hai WA % g reviewed the impact of these recommendations on its 1 n- ., h-..'/ ~#k.g. Program in 1979 and will continue to do so m 1950. g. m M %.. mU G6 S-:5"'-E' d. Federal Radioactive W aste Studv. The NRCi .ar,0 ' Shh, '

  • M 14, '

Authorization Act for fiscal year 1979 [P.L. 95 601) re-quired the NRC to prepare a study on the regulation of e g -%

,d,

Federal radioactive waste activities. The study was .f e D @' ~ completed in 1979 and it was issued as NUREG- 0507 -- jf 7 entitled" Regulation of Federal Radioactive Waste Ao j-%^ @ -{J C !" tivities." Two principal recommendations came out of ( 'G the study. The first was that NRC licensing authoritf j- 'N9%g.,y) 3,I, p, ' ' q should be extended to cover all new Department of L.v.eM" C y cr g3 Energy (DOE) facilities for disposal of transuranic ' "----N, f - -""*e' i t. #, y sk.4y waste and non-defense low-level waste. This recom. ~. W%,[b S .1 mendation was consistent with one of the IRC recom. ' y:n.:. J.ag:--g e.jm ' ~ mendations. The second was that a pilot program 5(#PNMd, should be established to test the feasibility of extending .! fC ^M*f1Mm # -W. NRC regulatory authority on a consultative basis to MicY"4 YN.S DOE waste management activities not now covered by r 7. e M *" - s-i NRC's licensing authority, or to the new facilities cited in the first recommendation. The pilot program would 0"edrIgbr l'oo 'mNoN! Ion"s*'ofa'd'"Ee'tiNie,M',h;. focus on a few specific DOE waste management ac. ment into the Rio Puerce. Flow from the break reached into tivities and would result in a report to Congress on the Arizona. some 75 miles down river. The break occurred as efforts feasibility of an NRC consultative role in existing DOE were bem; made to remform the dam, and hean equipment on waste disposal and storage activities. The decision on site for that purpose enabled workers to stop the llow in a few hou whether to extend NRC regulatory authority and to establish the pilot program and on what waste management activities the program should include was considered one for the Congress to make. If the number of States to seriously consider the desirability Congress decides that the NRC should implement of regional burial sites. Also, on July 16,1979, a tail-these recommendations, it will significantly affect ings impoundment failure occurred at the United NRC's current and future waste management pro-Nuclear Corporation uranium milling operation at grams. The exact impact cannot be assessed until Church Rock, N.M. (New Mexico is also an Agreement specific legislation is proposed and implemented. State.) A major effort was undertaken by the NRC to assist the State in correcting the situation. (See discus. Improving State Participation. The NRC's sion under " Technical Assistance to Agreement Authorization Bill for fiscal year 1979 (P.L. 95 601) States,"later in this chapter.) also required the NRC to prepare a study on means for it is important to note three studies which have af. improving the opportunities for State participation in fected and will affect the course of the NRC waste the process for siting, licensing, and developing management program. These studies are the Inter. nuclear waste storage or disposal facilities. The study agency Review Group (IRC) Study on Nuclear Waste was completed in 1979 and it was issued as NUREG Management, the Congressionally requested NRC 0539, entitled "Means for Improving State Participa-Study on Regulation of Federal Radioactive Waste Ac. tion in the Siting, Licensing, and Development of tivities; and the Congressionally requested NRC study Federal Nuclear Waste Facilities." on Means for Improving State Participation in the There were a number of recommendations as a Siting. Licensing and Development of Federal Nuclear result of the study. The Commission recommended the Waste Facilities. Also of potential importance to the establishment of a planning council consisting of NRC waste management program is the " confidence Federal and State representatives, to be supported by a hearing" on radioactive waste disposal to be held by small administrative staff and Federally financed. A the Commission in 1980, review capability should be established under the .. am

147 direction of the planning councilin order to enable the sion's degree of confidence that radioactis e wastes pro-States to make technical evaluations of waste manage-duced by nuclear facilities will be safely disposed of, and to determine when any such disposal will be ment technolorv and Federal waste management ac-tivmes. The review capability should aho be Federally available, and whether such wastes can be safely funded. These recommendations were consistent with stored until they are disposed of. Notice of the pro-the IRC recommendations. In addition, the Commis-ceedmg appeared in the Federal Register in October sion recommended that measures be taken to involve 1979, and the hearing will take place in 1950 and the States throuchout the process for planning. siting, 1951. The proceeding has been initiated in response to the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the dn elopm;. and licensing nuclear waste storace District of Columbia Circuit in State of Mmnesota t. disposal f acahties. It is also recommended that the NRC,602 F.2d 412,but is also a continuation of pro-Concress establish a grant program to allow the States to participate more fully in the Federal Waste ceedings previously conducted by the Commission in this area. The notice described the procedures the Management program. Federal agencies should con-Commission will employ and how members of the sider such transportation related issues as shipping public can participate. The results of the hearing and routes, emergency planning, enroute liability, ship-pmg containers, and the like, in their overall waste any rules issuing therefrom may have an effect on management activities and should develop institu-NRC's current and future waste management pro-tional arrangements as appropriate for consulting with gram. (See also " Commission Decisions," in Chapter 13.) 9 The three sections which follow describe the 1979 .d, t %+ S~^ n accomplishments of the NRC waste management pro-S .. g ' grams dealing with high-level waste, low-level waste, t G ,'x-a .s. and uranium recovery. Each section discusses near-9.' term objectives of the program and activity during the h' report period in regulatory development, licensing, Cp q%, Y / -9 f '( and associated matters. .A e,.. ' D',$'h..r '. f e s. G 4 P HIGH-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT /. p M s fd 1.. Regulatory Development %j < 'g' M L.d n, I. g 6 NRC continued its high level waste regulatory , My..d p

  • 7 / Ei 1

?-N { [- development effort in 1979 with_ the objective of ! Q h** &p q;% ?'h'4 gg ]d developing and publishing a draf t regulation (10 CFR i fd;Mg,,.[1 E ?T M Part 60) and supporting environmental impact state-g j! ment (EIS). The regulation as currently en isioned J 'A Will be Published in two parts: the procedural require-NRC continued to study ways to iN. rove Federal / State coopera-tion in waste storage matters in 19 as vis ts to Agmment-State ments and the technical requirements. The procedural NmNErE*Nn7ek"7u5"aYfIg5n**lo'Nevf1 Ct, portion would contain sub-parts covering general pro-visions, licenses, and participation by State govern-storate monitonng techniques by officials of the Barnwell, S.C., storage site and South carouna state offices. ments. The technical portion would contain sub-parts covering performance objectives and technical criteria, physical protection, quality assurance, and emergency plans. Particular emphasis is being placed the States in a timely manner. Lastly, the Commission on waste form performance requirements and geologic recommended that legislation for improving State par-site characterization issues. Ja December 1979, the ticipation in the Federal Waste Management Program procedural portion of the regulation was published as should provide recognition of the legitimate concerns a proposed rule for pu'.c comment. The technical of host States; considerations affecting a State concur-portion of the rule is expected to be published in early rence or veto, if authorized by law, were identified. 1980 pursuant to an advanced notice of proposed if the Congress elects for the NRC and other Federal rulemaking. Work is also continuing on a supporting agencies to implement any or all of these recommenda-environmental impact statement which would be tions, these actions will affect NRC's current and published with the proposed technical rule in 1980. future waste management programs. The exact impact Work began in 1979 in developing regulatory guides cannot be assessed until specifie legislation is proposed to support the regulation. These include format and and implemented. content guides for the safety analysis report, the en-vironmental report, and reports detailing DOE plans Confidence Hearing. The NRC decided in 1979 to for site characterization work. These guides will be conduct a generic proceeding to reassess the Commis-published for public comment in 19S0.

14S \\ = Aditional regulatory guidance will be provided to assessing radionuclide transport in bedded salt was DOE m the form of technical directives. The technical continued and is expected to be completed in 1950. A directives that were under development in 1979 and model for assessing the safety and erwironmental risks which will be issued in 1950 will cover generic topics of a repository after sealing was delivered to the NRC addressing site selection and characterization, by the contractor so that NRC could test and evaluate repository design, and waste form. Work also con-the model. tinued in 1979 on identifying research needs. In 1979, work was begun on outlining license review Assessment of DOE High-Level procedures both to aid the staff in establishing Waste Management Prograrn priorities for research and regulatory guides and to provide DOE with guidance on how NRC will con. The NRC has continued its assessment of the DOE duct its review. high-level waste management program in 1979. The NBC reviewed and provided comments to DOE on the Licensing draft EIS for the proposed Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and the draft GEIS on the management of NRC continued its efforts in 1979 to develop a commercially generated radioactive waste. capability to rev ew a license application for a high-The NRC initiated in 1979 a program to critically level waste repository. The development of models for assess the DOE high level waste management pro'. COMPUTER STORAGE CABINETS/A/ BARRIER WALL / \\$ A / LINEAR b 4 N N ACCELERATOR BARREL '\\s \\ W %z MECHANISM [ h SCANNEA s N N/ \\ TELETYPE g l LINAC CONTROL 7 J_ g CONSOLE w+ y s A -4 b' 'q.fp J + \\ g k / Y. BREMSSTRAHLUNG V O BEAM COLLIMATOR NEUTRON d ELEVATOR CAGE DETECTORS "1" BE AM CYLINDR: CAL WATER TANK One of NRC continuing objectives is the improvement of nuclear of metal w aste drums. Tbc barrel scanner at rear (lef t) of the material inventory and accounting techniques. This cutaway draw-mobil unit remotely places, lif ts and " reads" the container. and ing shows the rnam features of a mobile measurement system used transmits readings thre anahtical devices to the recording in-to identify, measure and record uranium and plutonium contents stru.nents in the m area of the trailer. A

._..-_i_L-_. l 149 gram. DOE and its contractors have made formal waste classification contractor is characterizing presentations to NRC on various phases of the DOE wastes, waste forms, and wete sources ir addition to procram. On November 15-16, a meeting was held recommending requirements for safely disposing the with the Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation and other wa<te. The volume reduction contractor is in. DOE contractors at Columbus, Ohio, to formally in-vestigating various volume reduction techniques in-aucurate NBC's assessment program. Arrangements cluding compaction and incineration. The contractor are bemg made to maintain an overview of all DOE is also performing economic analysis for the various activities in hich les el waste management by techniques. systematically receivinc and reviewing all documents Other contractual efforts are planned to develop generated by the DOE program. Task groups have specific technical criteria for disposal of wastes in been established to perform an initial, limited assess-mined cavities and engineered structures, and to in-ment of DOE activities in waste packaging, repository vestigate in detail requirements for disposal of waste siting, and repository design. Compr.risons will be generated as a result of decontamination and decom-made between needs identified in NRC's draft regula-missioning of nuclear facilities. tion and information expected to be generated by iA " r/ DOE programs. Finally, plans have been prepared for ""e-- N conductinc a comprehensive critical assessment of the -~ DOE repository siting and in-situ testing programs. jMll' m LOW-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT I 1 Regulatory Development NRC continued its low-level waste regulatory development effort in 1979 with the objective s,. [, publishing a draf t regulation (10 CFR 61) on low-level ,p waste disposal. An environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared to support the rulemaking ac-tion. Work was also continued on supporting b W,- regulatory guides and staff positions.

)

n Ch The draft regulation as currently envisioned will l ((nl" as " j in bn-consist of basic performance objectives applicable to ' [e ia eu d the disposal of low-level waste on land by various ches prior to burial. containers have just been delivered and methods. These objectives will be met by establishing dumped by trucks in background and will be covered by earth. " ' " " ' ~ * ' ' ' ' "'**"" """h'" '"""!,c"or"8d eppropriate requirements for siting a disposal facility bae r and assuring adequate operations site closure and decommissioning and adequate institutional ar-rangements. Technical details specific to the in-dividual disposal techniques of shallow-land burial NRC's work in regulatory development in 1979 has and other alternative disposal methods will be con-been focused on development of requirements that can tained in appendices to the regulation and in apply to a broad range of disposal alternatives. It has regulatory guides!)A preliminary draft of the regula-become increasingly clear to the NRC during 1979 that tion was completed in 1979 and made available to a alternative disposal methods are critically needed and wide cross section of persons for informal review. The a regulatory base should be put in place in timely man-draft will be made available to the public in 1980. ner* The regulatory guides associated with the regulation are also under development and are currently emi-Licensing sioned to cover waste form and content; site design and operations; site monitoring and surveillance; site NRC continued its licensing activity in low-level closure, stabilization, and post-operational care; waste management in 1979. The NRC license for standard contents for license application and environ-disposal of special nuclear material (SNM) at Hanford, mental report; records and reports; and funding. Wash., was renewed in November 1979. This license in addition to the above work, NRC has contracts was closely coordinated with the State of Washington c with various organizations to develop a base of suppor-and contains many upgraded requirements for opera-ting technical information. Contractual studies are tions at the site. underway in such areas as systems analysis, waste An environmental assessment was continued in 1979 classification, and volume reduction. The systems for decommissioning of the Sheffield,111., facility and analysis contractor is developing models for analyzing should be completed in 1980. The licensee applied for radioactive waste disposal by shallow-land burial. The an expansion and continued operation of the site. ~,

150 ~ u e m,1 2 3 7-hog.

  • 3 tu

,,g 9 h.5 p. R.! f $ i?, T; < > e..., N" kih $

  • W h.

~ r a wsn _ y q.m [ k',ff Yl Nn -[ f, l ,P y s ,y 'ar,W

  • K-4 f

-s; p y - 'l 8e h o.".. ? J -c hFG,ya,y( kE 1 s. l E y y. se

'. Q l

'? a 1 - 1 l . S.P h _j Low-level waste containers that tontain higher activity materials shielding. Two types of such containments are shown here: (left) a (or that emit higher leveh of redactivi ) than those dumped in reinforced concrete lined pit, and (right) a narrow, dwp trench standard low lesel dispod trenches are 'ted ir trenches or shielded by the filled barrels along the top. Both such con-containment holes uhich offer greater dep and heavier tainments are in protected, postei areas at a supervised site, flowever, the li ensee subsequently petitioned to Some of these activities pose unique problems, such as withdraw the renewal and expansion application. The the TMI waste and the waste from the decontamina. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board approved the tion of the Dresden I reactor. It also became obvious withdrawal of the expansion request but the re-thu further work is required for liquid scintillation newal will be subject to hearings. The applicant's waste. The State of South Carolina decided in 1979 withdrawal of the operating / expansion application not to accept any more shipments of this type of waste, was based on recognized technical problems for which and the waste must presently be shipped to the the solution proposed by the licensee was not accept-disposal operations in the West. NRC is investigating able to the NRC. In addition to the above, five license various alternatives for the treatment and disposal of amendments were granted for existing sites. this type of waste. [ Since two of the previous six commercial disposal Lastly, it became obvious that NRC must take a operations have closed, (West Valley, N.Y. and Maxey more active role in upgrading packaging requirements l Flats. Ky.) and the Sheffield, Ill., disposal operation is and waste form for certain types of waste and increase l effectively closed, only three commercial operations. inspection and enforcement of existing regulations currently exist (Barnwell, S.C.; Beatty, Nev.; and covering the shipment of waste. For example, a fire Richland, Wash.). Thus the present disposal capacity occurred on a truck containing waste packages at the is primarily located in the West and Southeast and Beatty, Nev., site and large volumes of free-standing represents an undesirable regional imbalance. The liquids were found upon inspection of packages of waste from reactors and other waste generators solidified wastes received at various low. level waste located in the Northeast and Midwestern United States disposal sites. As a result of such events, the governors must be transported either to the Southeastern United of the three States having commercial low-level waste States or to the West, disposal operations sent a joint communique dated Ju-A number *of significant events occurred in 1979 that ly 10,1979, to NRC demanding action by NRC and affect low level waste disposal operation. It became the Department of Transportation to improve packag-obvious that more attention should be paid to decon-ing requirements and increase inspection and enforce-tamination and decommissioning wastes, from the ment of existing regulations. In response, NRC issued a viewpoint of low-level waste disposal operations. bulletin to all licensees stressing the need to give t

~. 151 careful attention to the packaging and transportation pact statement (CEIS) in April 1979 covering the U.S. of waste and instituted action, with the cooperation of uranium milling industry to the year 2000, with par-the States and the DOT, to inspect shipments on a ticular emphasis on mill tailings. In addition, NRC more frequent basis and take more stringent enforce-published draft regulations in August 1979, deriving from the erwironmental statement, and conducted ex. ment actions. (See also Chapter 4.; As mentioned above, a severe regional imbalance tensive public meetings on the proposed regulations. has emerced from the locations of today's low-level The final CEIS and the final regulations are expected waste burial grounds. This imbalance was aggravated to be published in 1960. in 1979 when two of the sites closed and then reopened The proposed regulations cover radioactive airborne and a curtailment was placed on the amount of waste emissions during operation, mill tailines disposal, that could be received at the third site. As a result, decommissioning of mill structures and sites, sup-NRC went on record to state its judgment that low-plementary institutional and procedure requirements, level waste disposal is the responsibility of the States, implementation of proposed requirements at existing for the States receive the benefits of the operations sites, and heap leaching and small processing sites. which generate the waste. NRC has worked with a number of States in 1979 and will continue to do so in Licensing 1950, to help the States explore the possibility of NRC continued its licensing effort in 1979. Twelve ~ establishing new sites. The NRC effort took the form new uranium recovery facilities werelicensed and one of assistance in settmg forth licensing and regulatory fadlity license was renewed. In addition, five major requirements; however, h'RC cannot promote the amendments were issued based upon licensee requests pening f new sites. This is a responsibility of the for facility modifications. There were 15 uranium States, with assistance available from the Department mills, 5 heap leach / ore buying stations, 2 solution min-of Energy should the States request such assistance. ing operations and 16 research and development (R&D) operations under NRC license in 1979. Similar facilities exist in Agreement States. All these Technical Assistance to types of facilities are expected to grow numerically in Agreement States the future. It is currently projected that in 1981 there NRC has provided technical assistance to Agree-will be 22 operating mills, 8 heap leach operations and ment States in the licensing and regulation of low-level ore buying stations,6 commercial scale solutien min-ing operations, and 23 R&D operations under NRC waste disposal operations in their jurisdiction. NRC jurisdiction. A similar growth is expected in the has provided in 1979, assistance to the State of number of these types of operations in Agreement Washington as part of their renewal action for the States. Thus, the NRC and Agreement State workload State disposal license at Richland. In addition, NRC in this area will experience a substantial powth in the has provided.and will provide in 1980, assistance to the State of Kansas in evaluating an application for a next few years, new disposal site license at Lyons. Technical assistance was also given to the State of Nevada in 1979, and Technical Assistance to Agreement States NRC is expecting to provide further assistance to Nevada in 1960 regarding renewal of the State license During 1979, NRC provded technical assistance to for the Beatty site. The NRC technical assistance sup-the States of Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New piements the State's resources and assures that the Mexico, Arizona, California and Nevada in the licens-technical criterif used to license and regulate a low-ing and regulation of uranium recovery operations level waste disposal operation in an Agreement State under Agreement State jurisdiction. A total of six pro-are compatible with the criteria used to 1; cense and ject reviews were completed. These reviews covered regulate a low level waste disposal operation under uranium mills, heap leach operations, solution mi ting NBC's jurisdiction. In 1979, NRC worked with the operations, and R&D operations. The NRC assistance States of South Carolina, Nevada and Washington to assures that the technical criteria used to license and regulate uranium recovery operations in Agreement develop and implement new requirements at existing States are compatible with those criteria used to sites to upgrade and define acceptable waste forms. license and regulate similar operatius under NRC jurisdiction [Ium MillTailings Radiation Control Act of URANIUM RECOVERY MANAGEMENT The Urar 1978 was amended in 1979 to provide further clarifica-Regulatory Development tion of the NRC/ Agreement States interface with NRC continued its uranium recovery regulatory respect to the licensing and regulation of mill tailings. development effort in 1979 with the objective of The Commission will continue to license tailings in upgrading its regulations for uranium milling in 1950. non-Agreement States and the Agreement States will The NRC published a draft generic environmentalim-continue to license the mill tailings under State

152 Technical assistance to the Agreement States by mw NRC will continue to cover non. routine safety and en. Q F." M vironmental assessment. For example, a taihngs im. bg poundment failure occurred at the United Nuclear ,' 'Q.. ', \\.. l, ,,,T ~ ~ M ~.,TL 3; Corporation uranium milling operation at Church .g Reck, N.hi., on July 16, 1979. New Niexico is an %~ A..l! Agreement State and the milling complex was licened t'.;d_ T'? . ~~QA _ -M Ah:,'g a? ?' b A*

2,;

bv the State in hiav 1977. Estimates of the amount of 6# n ~~ V taihngs released have varied, but it appears that about '?!h [I #h 4 GpC-[,.,'.'f,g;' K 100 million gallons of acidic tailings solutions and j 1,100 tons of tailings solids escaped from the tailines 4 ',, k. f,.." ' .Vj/ impoundment area before the break in the dam could T-be closed. The State of New hiexico requested p,,r 4.' e. t g-1.- technical assistance from NRC and NRC personnel f s .p y j g">j' gI were dispatched to the site to aid the State. Extensive Q' ! !?, s'e technical studic: and analyses were also performed by

  • )hy

((E'l1 - / Q t.ra Y Y NRC. Technical assistance to the State of New hiexico !,'f; :;'jn,.f l',...t,-[7p~il ~ .,T Y.. will continue to be provided by NRC in 1950. .-M ' 1q\\ '. s (* O.h((j. ? j bit-M ' '! u... ',/ r e i f 4. &." ty & 'h a. 7.: $/ 1 - NRC Assessment of f MpJ bpj.E{ DOE Remedial Action Plans [. NRC initiated m. 1979 its evaluation of DOE A State irupector and a state Arnements krogram reviewer en-.C. Low. level radioac. arnine a wute burial trench at Barnwell, remedial action plans for inactive sites. This will be a ane wastes are deposited in such trenches and covered with five year program which implements NRC's part of b tern i th drute[ States. TitleI of the Uranium hiillTailings Radiation Control a well is t on1 si e the countn. The other two site (are at Hanford, Washington and Act of 1978. DOE is responsible for remedial action at Beatt). Nevada. 21 inactive mill tailings sites and one other former ore processing site as specified in the Act. NRC is required to review DOE's proposed remedial actions and jurisdiction. NRC will provide technical assistance to determine whether the remedial action plans are the States in carrying out their responsibilities under the Act. acceptable.

PCl3 323N$~L Reta10f_ ThePrecdent?GAmhianOn r >, n >,, wL 's 3' l'" T 1 i 1 p DC _ ? / d;_\\, - \\', l f lf i,iH3., - j r

, c 4

1 -l i > 3 t A11a d 23 's. J5 MKND cXCER-PT i t F i I '1heNeedForChange: I ~ '1heLewiOf'IWI October 197)Y "Vaihingon.DC.

i c_ : ssia,1 n,dn:cs D % D

  • D T

b. s u a B. EEALTH EFFECTS 1. Based on available dosimetric and demographic information: It is estimated that between March 28 and April 15, a. the collective dose resulting from the radioactivity released to the' population living within a 50-mile radius of the plant was approxi-mately 2,000 person-rems. The estimated annual collective dose to this population from natural background radiation is about 240,000 Thus, the increment of radiation dose to persons person-rems. living within a 50-mile radius due to the accident was somewhat less than one percent of the annual background level. The average dose to a person living within 5 miles of the nuclear plant was calculated to be about 10 percent of annual background radiation and probably was less. b. The maximum estimated radiation dose received by any one individual in the off-site general population (excluding the On the basis plant workers) during the accident was 70 millirems. of present scientific knowledge, the radiation doses received by the general population as a result of exposure to the radioactivity released during the accident were so small that there will be no detectable additional cases of cancer, developmental abnormalities, or genetic ill-health as a consequence of the accident at TMI. During the period from March 28 to June 30, three TMI c. workers received radiation doses of about 3 to 4 rems; these levels exceeded the NRC maximum permissible ' quarterly dose of 3 rems. d. The process of. recovery and cleanup presents additional sources of possible radiation exposure to the workers and the general population. 2. There were deficiencies in inst.amentation for measuring the radioactivity released, particularly Juring the early stages of the accide..t. However, these deficiencies did not affect the Commission staf f's ability to estimate the radiation doses or health effects resulting from the accident. 34 I l =

>0 TT m;0 3 Tf, c:'.:7 :or I n p;ce OOJ o$.j d j( ) . it a rt c: ra 1:r: aare Ir.1;r - - s.e .. of Est n N ;; of ti.c potential tw...: as. :.

are r.v are based on extrapolations f rom Lt.c hnsun health t!

I!:I accident effects of higher levels of radiation. The major health effect of the accident appears to have

l..

rre:. en the cental health of the people living in the region of Inree ".ile Island and of the workers at TMI. There was 2=ediate, 3 short-lived mental distress produced by the accident among certain The groups of the Feneral population living within 20 miles of TMJ. of distress were found among adults a) living within 'i rm r t Jovcis ci T;, e r 11 with preschool children; and amonr _ teenagers 5 c-le.+ a) living within 5 miles of TMI, b) with preschool siblings, or c) shose f amilies lef t the area. Workers at TMI experienced more distress than workers at another plant studied for comparison This distress was higher among the nonfapervisory + purposes. employees and continued in the months following tne accident. e e = l P 4 I A 35 c. ..}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20003A053&oldid=4682636"