ML20041A358
| ML20041A358 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001113 |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1982 |
| From: | Page R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Vaughan C GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202220026 | |
| Download: ML20041A358 (2) | |
Text
.-
DISTRIBUTION:
- tJo D e 5 Yd/is'>
/_Qg;ketFile 70-1113 PD
~
g e
$, Q h
/ 1,p. n y,z ng 4
p l
FCUP:WTC FCUP rf 70-1113 FEB 2 1982 WTCrow SNM-1097 LTyson RGPage GHBidinger co T
Mr. Charles H. Vaughan, Acting Manager p
Licensing and Compliance Audits RECEIVED FEB 4 1982> 16 General Electric Company 2
Nuclear Energy Products Division 2-Castle Hayne Road ammma g
P.O. Box 780 EC
\\.
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 kTfiB
Dear Mr. Vaughan:
We are pleased to see, by your letter dated January 14, 1982, that General Electric (GE) is moving forward with the installation of the incinerator and that GE is actively pursuing a program that will lead to waste volume reduction.
There appears to be some confusion about the environmental information needed.
In December 1979, GE applied for two major amendments; one was for an increase in capacity using two additional GEC0 lines and the other was for the processing of combustible materials by incineration.
In order to reduce costs, the Commission decided to prepare one environmental impact appraisal which evaluated the impact of both proposed amendments.
In August 1981, the Comission was ready to issue the combined environmental impact appraisal and the negative declaration. When the staff informed GE that the GECO amendment would incorporate the environmental monitoring program that GE had submitted in support of the applications, the staff was informed that GE did not intend to follow that program. Subsequently, GE submitted, by letter dated September 1,1981, a modified environmental monitoring program which requires clarification and or modification as discussed in our letter to you dated January 8,1982. The staff does not feel that the environmental impact appraisal can be completed until the differences in the two GE submittals are reconciled.
If GE wishes to withdraw the modified environmental monitoring program, the environ-mental impact appraisal could be issued imediately.
Aside from the environmental issue, it may not be possible for us to approve use of the incinerator facility by March 1,1982. Although the amendment application was submitted in December 1979, the safety information supporting this application was not submitted until December 1981, and, even though we have comenced our review, we will SURNAMEh 8202220026 820202 PDR ADOCK 07001113 C
"""'l CeRC FORM 318 stO.809 NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
'uSc#o"8o-**"j
w Mr. Charles M. Vaughan FEB 2 1982 probably not complete the review for several weeks. As indicated to Mr. Hendry, we already see a need to send you a letter with questions on the information under review. Also it is surprising to us that GE would wait until a facility is built and essentially operational before submitting the safety information for review and expect us to take inmediate action to authorize the use of that facility.
Sincerely, Oiiginal Signnd by Ralph G. Page R. G. Page, Chief Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, INSS i
b A
.../..M.....".......... M...././d...
ornce>.F..C.U..P...[0....
......F.C.l]E.,. (),.....
sum me) WTC. r.o..w.: r..a. d..
...L. T. y.s.o..n.....
.g........E.. y. 5..h. #.3.l.....
.G/./S..m...m... C,A.....
onc>../.1/. 82 2
...../...(.. /. 82
....... /..p... /. 8 2... a...... f.. 2 1-/ - pp 2
2
/
NRC FORM 318110,801 NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
'""o '*8o-329 24
_