ML20055B237
| ML20055B237 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1982 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Hancock D SOUTHWEST RESEARCH AND INFORMATION CENTER |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049A616 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-231 SECY-81-446, SECY-82-165, NUDOCS 8207210043 | |
| Download: ML20055B237 (2) | |
Text
.
PDt-Of h a uc p
u,(o, a
UNITED STATES
+
E,'* 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
/
~
o b
A bb h.' \\
WASHING T ON, 0. C. 20555 o....."
50-310 July 8, 1982 Mr. Don Hancock Southwest Research and Information Center P.O. Box 4524 IN RESPONSE REFER Albuquerque, NM 87106 TO F01A-82-231
Dear fir. Hancock:
This is in final response to your letter dated May 11, 1982 in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, documents relating to the decision by the Department of Energy (D0E) to accept the core of the TMI-2 Nuclear Reactor.
A copy of the documents listed on the appendix are enclosed.
The attachment to the letter, appendix item 5, has been referred to the Department of Energy for release determination and direct response to you.
This completes action on your request.
Sincerely,
/
. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated F207210043 820708 PDR FOIA HANCOCK82-231 PDR
Re:
Appendix 1.
1/26/82
. Letter to W. V. Roth from N. J. Palladino.
2.
10/20/80 Letter to C. W. Duncan from J. F. Ahearne.
i 3,
7/23/81 SECY-81-446, NRC-D0E Memorandum of Understanding Concerning i
the Removal and Disposition of Solid Nuclear Wastes from Cleanup of the Three Mik Island Unit 2 Nuclear Plant.
4.
4/19/82 SECY-82-165, Revision of SECY-81-446.
5.
2/19/81 Letter to J. F. Ahearne from M. E. Gates.
Attachment:
October 1980, TMI Zeolite Vitrification Demonstration - Program Plan i
y L
l l
L,_,__---.___
It e l
(:3 "k
'., */ '. *
- q$'t, gg UNITED STATES
,, ? h *
'?A.iCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSittrl E
WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 j/
'SECRETARIKT RECORD COPY CHAIRMAN January 26, 1982 The Honorable William V.
Roth, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate
'Ja s h i n g t o n,
D.C.
20510 L ar Mr. Chairman:
This letter responds to the recommendations.made by the General Accounting Office (GA0) in its report entitled,
" Greater Commitment Needed to Solve Continuing Problems at Three Mile Island."
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in response to the first GA0 recommendation to NRC, notes that it has published a proposed rule which would require power reactor licensees to maintain the maximum amount of commercially available onsite property damage insurance.
A voluntary imsurance program may be available within the next several months that would cover cleanup costs for damage comparable to that suffered at Three Mile Island -- that is, about $1 billion.
If this level of coverage is not obtained through the volun'ary actions of the industry, the Commission believes that such action should be mandated.
In response to the second GA0 recommendation to NRC, the Commission has directed its staff to develop the scope of guidelines to facilitate recovery efforts in the event of nuclear-related accidents. After evaluating the proposed scope, the Commission will decide whether to proceed further.
Specific comments on the GA0 recommendations to the NRC'are presented in Enclosure 1.
In addition, Commission comments relating to other findings of the GA0 study are presented in.
With respect to the present situation et Three Mile Island, the Commission will assure that NRC attention to TMI-2
$/)k-
-~,
nief n n.v., m n.
r ie4 Y,
W W
. p..
aj._
a
- 3...
- g..
4.x m
g
_j l
l l
Honorable William V. Roth, Jr. !
cleanup efforts remains at a high level of priority until the problem is solved.
j 1
i Sincerely, F1 1nal signed b 8
N W10J.Palladbo i
Nunzio J. Palla no
Enclosures:
1.
Responses to GAO Recommendations to the NRC 2.
Commission Comments on Other GA0
" ~.
Recommendations cet Sen. ThomasJ.- Eagleton i
Identiaal letters to:
The Honorable Jack Brooks The Honorable Alan Simpson The Honorable Morris K. Udall The Honorable Richard L. Ottinger The Honorable Toby Moffett The Honorable Charles:Bowsher The Honorable David A. Stockman i
l l
F G
0 k,,,
j.
- i. r.~.~
[.~.Y.7"~*
.. - ~ - - -
~
g.
= 3;;.' =..
.N.jj,:fjjdY...
~
' ~ ~ ' '
.== =g3 rg. _g.=
.--~-
j-1
=
==
W
~~~- A
.-m.
=.w n = __ - ===m.au ;w - -
= = =. _ _=
=.
=;
3.g.y.;.;
7 0
}
5
g LQ RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS TO NRC Item 1.
GA0 Recommendation:
"Because another nuclear accident at an under-insured utility company could seriously affect public health and safety, we recommend that NRC closely follow the current efforts of the insurance and utility industries to increase insurance coverage to what it determines to be an acceptable level.
We further recommend that no later than December 31, 1981, NRC assess the progress being made.
This assessment should include an evaluation of.the insurance available in the private sector and a determination as to whether a mandated insurance coverage program is necessary."
NRC Response:
NRC has been and continues to
~
monitor progress being made by the insurance and utility industries to increase insurance coverage that would pay onsite nuclear accident cleanup costs.
While we expect to be able to provide an assessment of such progress, we suggest that the December 31 report due date be extended.
The timing of developments and progress toward increas-ing this insurance coverage on a voluntary basis is dependent largely on actions in the insurance market worldwide and is not determined by NRC.
Concerned about the ability of a licensee to finance the cleanup costs resulting from a nuclear-related accident, the Commission has proposed adoption of an interim rule which would require all licensees for generating power reactors to maintain the maximum amount of commercially available onsit,e property damage insurance or an' equivalent amount of protection.
Based on what we have learned thus f ar f rom the insurers, we expect tha t a vol unta ry insurance program will be avail.-
able within the next several months that would cover cleanup costs for damage comparable to that suffered at Three Mile Island -- that is, about
$1 billion. The increased capacity of the property and cleanup insurance is based to a major extent on utilities agreeing to a retrospective assess-ment of premiums in the event of a need for pro-perty insurance funds greater than that available from the insurers' own reserves. If capacity of some $1 billion or more cannot be developed vol-untarily, the Commission believes that the retro-spective layer for such insurance should also be made mandatory and the. Commission would seek legislation to accomplish this.
)
6 wu s.
ww Item 2.
GA0 Recommendation:
"To mitigate future regulatory constraints on nuclear accident cleanup activities, we recommend that NRC establish a set of guidelines that would facilitate the development of recovery procedures by utility companies in the event of other nuclear reactor accidents.
The preparation of t'e guidelines should be initially based on the lessons learned and experience gained from the TMI-2 clea'nup and recovery efforts at other nuclear installations.
Because a number of years may pass before another comparable accident occurs, NRC should periodically assess the adequacy of its guidelines and standards and evaluate the state-of-the-art technology for decontaminating air and water effluent produced by a nuclear accident to ensure that it can quickly respond to the needs of
~
the regulated utility and adequately protect the public health and safety."
NRC Response:
The Commission has directed the NRC staff to proceed with an effort to develop the scope of guidelines which could facilitate recovery efforts in the event of nuclear-related accidents at other operating power plants. A review of this initial effort will be made to determine whether to proceed with further development of appropr.iate guidelines.
1 l
l
[
m
(j (Q
~
COMMENTS ON OTHER GA0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS
~
The Commission supports strongly the objective of a safe and expeditious cleanup at TMI-2.
To further this objective, we support the following GA0 recommendations and findings involving other agencies:
Department of Energy (DOE):
The Commission believes that DOE should take custody of the radioactive waste generated during the TMI-2 cleanup which is unsuitable f,or commercial shallow land disposal.
The Department should ensure that the TMI waste is not commingled with military wastes so that the issue of NRC regulation of military wastes need not arise.
The Commission also supports the current Executive Branch position that it is in the public interest for DOE to provide significant funding to be expended at TMI-2 on research and development.
Also, if the DOE were to take
~
r.esponsibility for the removal and disposal of the entire damaced reactor core as well as the radioactive wastes, it could aid one element of the cleanup that at present contains great uncertainty.
There is much to be learned from the conditions of the TMI-2 core that has safety ramifications appropriate for DOE study.
Furthermore, only DOE (and its contractors) has the technical capability to carry out investigations of the TMI core.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI): We would support EPRI's use of utility and reactor manufacturers' funds for research and development at TMI-2.
If these funds are contributed to EPRI, the. industry would gain valuable insight into the effects of accidents and the behavior of reactor equipment.
Electric Utility Industry:
The Commission supports the formation of a property damage insurance pool to cover the cost of cleanup and repair of nuclear plants in the event of an accident in the future. We would not object to allowing GPU to borrow from this insurance pool, with repayment to be made over a multi-year period.
The recent recommendation of the Edison Electric Institute that the utility industry l
provide about $190 million toward cleanup as part of the proposal advocated by Governor Thornburgh could provide another important increment in cleanup funding.
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and GPU:
While recognizing that it is discussing areas within the jurisdiction of the states, as.part of a cooperative effort to provide for cleanup-9 w
fu'nding we would 'have no objection to measures such as allowing recovery of some portion of THI-2 cleanup costs in the rate base.[1]
Summary:
With respect to financing the costs of the THI-2' cleanup, the Commission agrees tha,,t the options set forth by GAO represent a reasonable range of choices and that some combination of sources of. funds is probably the most viable and.. equitable approach to' take (see also the options dis-cussed by the NRC staff in its report " Potential Impact of Licensee Def ault on Cleanup of TMI-2," litfREG-0689, flovember, 1980).
However, the Commission does not recommend any specific mix of funding sources.
Irrespective of the ultimate form that TMI-2 cleanup funding take's, 11RC is prepared to support expeditious actions consistent with ensuring public health and safety.
Currently, we maintain professional staffs, located at both headquarters and the TMI site, who are dedicated to quick reviews of cleanup proposals made by the licensee.
The Commission.will ensure that this kind of HRC attention to TMI-2 cleanup efforts remains a high priority in this agency throughout
,the cleanup.
..~
7-l
[1] Mr. ' Ahearne would also have no objection to appropriate l
agencies continuing to allow GPU to defer dividends on common stock.
He believes that both actions would be necessary l
and should be strongly supported, i.e.,
allowing some por'. tion df TMI-2 clean-up costs to be recovered in rates and a reduction in stockholder retu'rn to help fund the clean-up.
l s
e w
7 3
r NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- g.. ;
g
- n ' t 7
g m.smu m u..c - s 6gCRETARRT ret 0RD COPY
.c.
% %.* /,
October 20, 1980 CHAIRMAN
,L 4
l' The Honorable Charles W. Duncan Secretary of Energy
,ashington, D. C. 20545 W
Dear Mr. Secretary:
2 As prooress is made in the cleanup of TMI 2, additional infomation becomes available about.the nature of the radioactive wastes involved.
Through this learning process, it has become evident to the NRC staff that some of the high specific activity wastes resulting from ths clean-up operations will be unsuitable for routine disposal at comercial licensed burial grounds.
It has been apparent for some time that the spent fuel in the damaged core will have to be considered as high-level waste.
In addition, it now appears that other wastes will T> ave some characteristics very similar to high-level waste; typical materials that 1,ikely will fall into this category are some of the wastes that will result from processing the reactor building sump water and the reactor ccolant system water.
The NRC.3taff considers disposal of these wastes t
at comercial licensed burial grounds, even with very special provisions, to be unfeasible or unacceptable.
The only short-term avenue available
'for removal of these wastes from the site is transferral to suitable DOE facilities.
The NRC staff believes that the handling and processing of wastes at the TMI site should be limited to well-established operations, such as immabilization of low-level wastes. The site..shbuld not become a research, development, and demonstration facility for handling and processing high specific activity wastes which are quite different from normal reactor plant wastes, but which in many ways resemble wastes handled frequently by DOE facilities. Attempting any such advanced operations on site would seriously overburden tha utility's technical and management capabilities and could cause unnecessary delays in com-l pieting the cleanup. Accordingly, the NRC staff has been working closely with the DOE staff in establishing both short-term and long-term i
programs to develop information and technology of generic value for radioactive waste, management from the TMI-2 cleanup operations.
In addition ~, two meetings have been held with the DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy.
However, all activities presently being considered by DOE appear to be limited in scope to DOE performing research and development work on limited quantities (10%-20%) of the wastes involved in order to characterize waste processing problems or t'o develop po-tential solutions. We understand present DOE planning assumes that the j QN L' F r D.1 O
}
y.
y
~
S Q, ',.
2 w
responsibility for actual waste handling, processing into final disposal forms, and disposal of the bulk of the waste remains with the licensee.
If they are not transferred to DOE facilities, we anticipate that the high specific activity wastes which are unique to TMI-2 may have to be retained.at the TMI-2 site for tens of years until suitable waste im-mobilization processes, containers, and facilities are available for the disposal of such wastes.
The staff has serious concerns about the long. term stability of 3
the high specific activity (i.e., > 1000 Ci/f t ) wastes anticipated to
.be generated at the Three Mile Island site from future cleanup activities.
This waste may be in the form of high specific acitivity spent resins or evaporator bottoms from the processing of reactor building sump water.
(This waste will also include damaged fuel elements or pieces of fuel elements which will require storage in specially designed sealed con-tainers to preclude the p>tential spread otradioactivity outside the _.
storage container.)
The staff has reservations whether suitable storage containers for spent resins or evaporator bottoms will be able to with-stand the macroscopic effects of corrosion, pH change, and gas forma-tion during extended storage (i.e... tens of years).
We do not believe that long term onsite storage of loose resin' materials or evaporator bottom slurries..is comparable to routine storage of undamaged spent fuel in a fuel pool of a normally operating reactor.
In the staff's view, it would be necessait to~imobiTize the. contained-activity in the collected-solid waste into a. solid monolithic fom as expeditiously as practicable to eliminate the potential for onsite ex-
.posure due to subsequent container failure.
This immobilization can best be carried by experienced personnel in a facility designed for that purpose, namely, at one of~ the existing DOE high level waste handling and processing facilities.
The NP.C presently believes -that-it may-be-undesirable foruradioactive wastes in the forms likely to be produced as.a result of cleaning up THI-2 to be stored 'at the TMI site for 'long periods. We are concerned that certain key options for the handling, storage, treatment, or dis-posal of such wastes are precluded from consideration by the limited scope of activities presently being considered by the DOE staff.
In order to further the resolution of the scope of DOE's participation in the managevent of these wastes, I suggest that we' meet in the near future to address these issues in the context of the House Appropriations Committee recent position:
"[T]he Department [of' Energy] has an over- ~
riding pualic responsibility to assist NRC, the State of Pennsylvania and the utility, as necessary to resolve as quickly as possible an ac-ceptabir. process to isolate and remove the wastes to a safe disposal site."
sin erely,
/
l
/ Q l. x l
L
)JohnF.Ahearne
.