ML20009F204

Forwards Comments on Des for Facilities.Nrc Should Expand Discussion on Operation of Radwaste Treatment Sys in Fes. Areas of Concern Expanded in Encl Technical Comments

ML20009F204
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	07/22/1981
From:	Hagan J ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
To:	Martore J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
4SA-EIS, NUDOCS 8107300139
Download: ML20009F204 (2)

Text

_

l y

l C db 9 I

y UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY b

REGION IV 345 CoURTLAND STREET ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3o3 65 July 22, 1981 s, & AI1 4SA-EIS 3

Mr. Joseph A. Martore Grand Gulf Project Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Martore:

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) related to the operation of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 in Claiborne County, Mississippi. Our review suggests that most of the environmental concerns we raised in our comments or. the Draft EIS for the construction of the Grand Gulf-facility have been adequately addressed in either the Final EIS on the construction of the facility or the DEIS on the operation of the facility.

The discussion of the environmental and societal impacts of a core melt down accident included in the current DEIS greatly enhances the credibility of NRC's environmental review procedures. However, there are three areas under review that we feel need to be improved or expanded, These are: (1) treatment and/or storage of radioactive vaste; (2) quantification of the design basis accidents, and (3) quantification of the economic risk of the cost of de-contamination of the reactor building and the purchase of reple :ement power after an accident. These areas of concern are expanded in the attac :d tech-nical comments.

We have rated the DEIS LO-2, i.e., we do not object to the project on environ-mental grounds but request that the FEIS be improved in those areas we suggested.

Sincerely your,

hn E. Hagan III, P. E.

Chief, EIS Branch

Enclosure:

A Technical Comments 6

f l

'B u%.s?'/

,,p 0

~

~c,a..

PDR ADOCK 05000416 D

PDR

TECHNICAL COMMENTS:

RADIOACTIVE W.STE TREATMENT SYSTEM (p. 5-14)

The Draft EIS does not contair a description of the radioactive waste treatment system or the NRC's evaluatior. of this treatment system. Instead the DEIS references the Safety Evaluation Report (SER), which is not currently available for review by EPA or the general public. While we are cognizant of the intent of Section 1502.21 of CEQ's Regulation to encourage the incorporation of ma-ter' i by reference in*.o the DEIS for those " materials that are reasonably ava iable for inspection by patentially interested persons", we do not believe

.that your referencing the unp 2blished SER suf fices in the regard. Additionally, if past experience proves correct, the SER will not be made available to the general public. Therefore, we suggest chat NRC should expand the discussion in the FEIS on the operation of the radioactive waste treatment systam. Special emphasis should be placed on the solid radwaste system and its capability to accomodate the solid waste from the facility during its expected operational life.

ACCIDENT RISK AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT (p. 5-26)

When discu : sing accident risk and impacts of design basis accid ents, the Draf t EIS addresses probabilities of occurence qualitatively.

Yet, when discussing more severe core-melt accidents, the probabilities of occurence are quantified (table 5.7).

For consistency in the presentation of all environmental riaks, we believe the probabilities of occurence of infrequent accidents as well as the limiting fault design lasis accidents should be included in the FEIS.

ECONOMIC RISKS (p. 5-31)

As the Three Mile Island accident demonstrated the cost of reactor building de-contamination and replacement power following an accident are sizeable. Economic risks are addressed in considera~ e detail in the Draft EIS and based on low probability of occurence annualized risk is shown to be in Figure 5.6.

However, we believe these risks should be quantified and mentioned specifically in the benefit-cost summary in the FEIS.

i v