ML20030B099
| ML20030B099 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/27/1981 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108050434 | |
| Download: ML20030B099 (2) | |
Text
,
f.C y 4
THE-REGULATOR: ARBITER:BETWEEN ' TECHNOLOGY S_,
s AND'PUBLIC OPINION' N
J h
my N
. r:
In the' Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization Act of-1974, one of the' responsibilities assigned by Congress to the Nuclear '
Regulatory Comission was to assure that there is no undue risk to the health and safety of the public from the operation of nuclear. power plants and relMed activities..Through implementation;of the National Environment >'. Protection Act, the NRC is further required to assure that the human.:nvironment is protected against7significant impacts caused by licensed activities regulated by the Comission.
..o In discharging these responsibilit.es, the Comission must assure that the public be permitted to interact with the licensing process-as pro-vided in the legislation and in implementing regulations.
The decontam-ination of nuclear power reactors and the disposal of the wastes generated by decontamination activities has been the object of consider-able NRC interaction with members of the public and their representa'tives in states which are impacted by these regulated activities.
In particular, the decontamination of the Dresden primary cooling system and the uncertainties related to the availability of Low Level Waste disposal sites are two relevant examples of issues that have resulted in the Commission carefully weighing expressions of public opinion in making its regulatory decisions. The Dresden decontamination, first proposed by Comonwealth Edison in 1974, has been under continuing review by the NRC.
The NRC staff's primary concern 'in this action has been the assurance that the rse of decontamination chemicals does not degrade the integrity of the primary cooling system boundary and increase the possibility of accidents when the reactor is returned to operation.
Additionally, the staff reviewed the proposed action to assure that the decontamination and associated activities would not adversely impact the environment.
During our review of the proposed cction.the Commission received significant expressions of concern from members of the public and their elected representatives both in the State of Illinois, and in Congress requesting the preparation of hn Environmental Impact Statement.
Based upon the public interest in the proposed action, the Dire.ctor of Nuclear Reactor
. Regulation. determined that an. Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.
In general, the requests indicated concern over the presence of certain chemicals in the decontamination solvents and the impact that
. such chemicals would have on the environment if released at Dresden or at the burial site.
The requestors contended that the presence of these chemicals would cause effluents and wastes to migrate through natural barriers into the food chain.
/(
I A ' L) v1
?
{
&L 2 71gy
~
, "h**"at I
s v
SW,6 B108050434 810727
/3 PDR MISC r
PR a
u m-
.m
-m.-
e-
... +.-u
~
a
- h^.~ l
. -l'
~
i 1/
... ~
. j' ~'
- 9 R
The Draft Statement was published in May 1980 for public coment and the Final Environmental Impact Statement incorporating the NRC staffs response to public coments was published in October 1980.
s l
The Comission was petitioned by six intevenors on July 1980 to hold public hearings on. the Environmental Impact Statement. ' The decontamination
_.J cannot be authorized by.the NRC staff until the Comission completes its review of this pending request for hearing.-
I Another related example of the impact of public opinion on NRC's regulatory i
activities is found in our response to requests for NRC action by y
governors of states where low level waste burial sites are located.
The Governors of the Agreement States of South Carolina, Washington, and Nevada, notified the NRC of the repeated disregard for the Federal Transportation rules and at various times closed or limited access to the l
facilities at Barnwell, Hanford, and Beatty to certain shippers.
The NRC in conjunction with the DOR determined that the Federal government should i
improve its assurance that such shipment would meet appropriate Federal
(
regulations and took steps to assure compliance.
These examples of NRC response tc public opinion are indicative of the manner in which the agency is required to carry out its mandated respon-sibilities. The NRC will continue to represent the publii interest and respond to public opinion.
l l
L l
l
..)
g.
33
.