ML20062A974

Summary of 780921 Meeting Re Proposed Installation of Radwaste Incinerator at Facility.Agenda Encl

ML20062A974
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	10/05/1978
From:	Barrett L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Grimes B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7810180187
Download: ML20062A974 (25)

Text

- -

S0 f

k1 *

• UNITED 5TATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J

'* E *

. ' wasmucTow,o.c.sosas

'E

~

'.. 50- Dh6 S p..OTf ...

OCT 5 1978 50-$6 ?

l l

. EMdRANDUM FOR: B. Grimes, Assistan'tT1 rector for Engineering and Projects, 00R FROM: L. Barrett, Section Leader Environmental Evaluation Branch, DOR THRU: G. Knighton, Chief Environmental Evaluation Branch

SUBJECT:

MEETING WITH OSWEGO COUNTY (NY) LEGISLATURE ENERGY

~

FACILITIES C0!9tITTEE The Oswego County Legislature Energy Facilities Comittee requested that the -

(..' 2'NRC~ staff appear before the Comittee to address various general issues, e.g.,

waste management, decomissioning, radiation standards, and specific issues on the proposed installation of a radioactive waste incinerator at the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Facility. These requests were made in letters from tne Comittee to H. Denton, NRx, and T. Elsasser, State Liaison Officer, Region I, in letters dated July 19, 1978 and August 8, 1978, respectively. This meeting was held on September 21, 1978 in Oswego with the NRC staff represented oy T. Elsasser.

OSP (Region 1) and B. Grimes and L. Barrett, DOR. The agenda for the meeting was provided by the Comittee and is attached. The meeting was attended oy ap-proximately 80 people with press and television coverage.

The Com1ttee was very concerned with the safety and environmental impact of nuclear power because of the anticipated concentration of up to six power re-actors in the Oswego vicinity. Additionally, they were very concerned with the proposed installation of a first-of-a-kind radioactive waste incinerator by l Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation at Nine Mile Point. They asked numerous ques-l; , tions regarding the administrative and technical procedures to be taken by the NRC in"its~ review of the Niagara Mohawk proposed incinerator. They were espe-cially interested in what opportunities were available to uve their input on the matter considered and the mechanics of intervention.

We responded to their general questions informing them of the NRC positions on tne v rious generic 1ssues, e.g., waste management, radiation standards, and i accident risks. In responding to questions on the incinerator, we informed them of the following:

1) The Niagara Monawk request for approval would be treated as a 10 CFR Part 50 license amencment.

2) The staf# was presently evaluating the suomittal to detennine if prenotic-Ing was appropriate. The decision to pre-notice or post-notice would be 6-2 groItm?7 l ___

L

~ _ _ . , --

. 's. Grimes ,

- 2

- .. DCT 5 1978 N e-ande in the next few weeks.

he be infomed if the decision was not to pre-cotice.Mr. Deyle, Senior Plan would be notified. He was told he o.

~ 3)

~

Riagara Mohawk would be allowed to start construction of the incinerator at their own financial risk, without the radiological safety review be-ing coglete as long as the staff determined that construction activities '

did not have a significant environmental impact. The the incinerator with radioactive materials, however, yuntil could ournotsafety operate re-view was satisfactorily complete and apprirval granted. ,

The Casuittee requested to be kept inforsud of the general progress of the NRC's action on the proposed incinerator. The Cosaittee appeared satisfied with the verbal responses (the meeting was taped by the Comittee) to questions in their August 8.1978 letter such that they did not request formal written responses.

('s Subsequent to the meeting the Committee prepared a sunnary of the meeting.

copy of this docunent is attached for information. A

/s Lake H. Barrett, Section t. ender Envirotunental Evaluation Branch Divis1or. of Operating Reactors

Enclosure:

As stated 3

~ _ .. _

i ,

• w 9

..-__.s . . . , . _ _ _ _ . , - . . . , . , _ - . . . _ _ _ - _ . _ . . . . . - , _ , , , - , - _ , _ . - . - . _ . _ . _ . _ . . .

f

. , *=-

.. j 7

ENERGY FACILITIES COMMITTEE A

Sansnary - Session with U.S. -

Nuclear hgulatory Consnission .

September 21, 1978 l

Consmittee Members Present:

Herb VanSchmack, Ed FrawleyJim Best, Chaiman; Bob Jones, John Coakley, County Staff: Bob Deyle, George Brower U.S. N.R.C.:

Brian Grimes, Assistant Director, Division of Operating h actors; Lake Barrett, Project Supervisor, Environmental Evaluation -

Branch; Thomas Elsasser, State Liaison Officer, hgion 1.

s I.

Background on Role and Structure of NRC (Grimes) 1.

Role - to evaluate safety and environmental impacts of nuclear reactors and all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle B. Structure and Staffing

1. Independent consnission of 5 members

2. Support staff of about 2500

3. Division of Operating Reactors - staff of 180 solely concerned with regulation of operating nuclear reactors

4. Environmental active Evaluation Branch - concerned with radio-vaste disposal systems of all operating nuclear

' power plants

5. Regional Offices (Region 1 Office is in King of Pmssia, Pa. ) -

provide inspection teams to evaluate individual  : lear facility cordomance with license technical specificatio.. ,

II.

DisposalofSpentNuclearFuel(Elsasser)

A.

Status of Federal Government's efforts to develop retrievable geologic storage and teminal geologic disposal facilities l 1. Agency roles

{

a. Federal Departznent of Energy (DOE) has responsibility for I developing storage and disposal facilities for spent nuclear fuel

b. NRC evaluates public health and safety impacts of specific proposals; NRC provides:

~ '-

s

, o ,

i. Standards by which to evaluate lic'ense applications ii. Tools to measure compliance with those standards

2. Basic goal '

t

a. DOE is pursuing development of deep geologic disposal sites from which wastes and spent fuelivould'be retrievable for only a few tens of yearsi and for health 'or safety reasons only. '

l b. NRC ' staff not aware of any DOE effort to develop retrievable' geologic storage facilities.

3. Faderal Policy S

a. President Carter appointed an interagency task force on s

, nuclear waste in Spring 1978 to fomulate federal govern- -

ment program for radioactive waste disposal.

.' s

b. Draft report is now being reviewed by federal agencies.

c. Report is due to be published in mid-October 1978 and abould provide more direction on many as yet unanswered l questions.

t

4. Status of DOE F J Vevelop Deep Geologic Disposal Site'

a. NBC espects to receive license application from DOE l

sometime in late 1979 for a prototype deep geologic

' disposal facility: WIPP - Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

'b.,Yac'ility will be located near Carlsbad. N.M. and will be.

d'e monstration project for disposal of high-level military l .

vastes and transuranic wastes.

! g c. Not known yet whether this pilot program will also handle spent nuclear fuel.

d. George Brower as' 2 ed if other sites were being evaluated since he had read that problems of water infiltration had been encountered at Carlsbad. Elsasser answered that another acceptable site is located near Hanford, Washington in a basalt fomation (igneous rock of volcanic origin).

B. Estimated Need for Away-Froa-Reactor Water Basin Storage During Interim Prior to Operation of Geologic Disposal Facility

1. DOE also has responsibility for developing these facilities which will probably be similar in design to the spent fuel stonge pools already on-site at nuclear power plants. 3

) '

i e *

2. DOE will probably be asponsible for the interim storage .

facilities.

3. Projected Need

a. DOE expects deep geologic disposal facility to be opera-tional sometime between 1988 and 1993.

b. By 1984 some nuclear power plants will have readed capa:ity of their spent fuel storage pools and inte:-in storage facilities are predicted to be necessary for 1400 metric tons of spent fuel.

c. By 1988 up to 3900 metric tons of spent fuel are predicted to require away-from-reactor stirage facilities and by 1993 the amount is estimated at 8600 metric tons.

,s i d. DOE estimates the need for one 5000-metric ton facility to cover needs thzough 1989 when anticipated need is 4600 metric tons.

e. If geologic disposal facility is not ready until 1993, a second 5000-metric ton interim storage facility will be needed after 1989.

f. Diese estimates assume the utilities vill use compact spent fuel storage arrangements in on-site spent 1%1 storage pools, but that they will maintain room in those pools for complete removal of the active fuel core.

g. Howwver, utilities are not required by regulations to maintain the spare capacity for the active core. But there are economic incentives to do so.

4. Probable location

a. Decision of which of two available options to follow in handling spent fuel may have some effect on decision of where to locate interim storage facility (s). Two options are:

i. reprocess spent fuel and concentrate vastes ii. do not reprocess, and dispose of entire spent fuel assembly

b. No particular reason vny facility should be located near geologic disposal facility, but most probably location vould be somewhere along east coast vbere greatest con-centration of reactors is,

c. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has publically expressed -

interestfor facility in the constructing DOE. and operating an interim storage

. ~~y

5. Transfer of ownership of spent hiel

a. DOE will decide at what time federal government should take possession of spent fuel.

b. het cost-effective procedure appears to be for ntilities to store spent fuel rods on site until capacity of their storage facilities is reached.

6. " Progress - DOE is awaiting passage of enabling legislation by Congress for construction and operation of away-from-reactor storage facilities which will fulfill previously announced federal policy of accepting spent fuel from utilities for a one-time storage and disposal fee.

C. Begulations Which Will Apply to Utility Participation in Federal

,s Government Waste Disposal Program (Grimes) m

1. Apparently no law is being contemplated that will require utilities to participate in government's waste disposal program. Mr. Grimes had no idea who would have jurisdiction to do so.

2. NRC standards governing storage of spent fuel will not be relaxed as storage capacities of spent fuel storage pools are reached.

3. NRC criteria governing amount of spent fuel that can be stored are based on health and safety impacts only. No economic considerations are made.

4. There is no specific limit by weight, volume, or curies to the amount of spent fuel that can be stored on site.

V

5. Each request for expanding capacity is evaluated on a site basis in tems of accident potential, radiation release, worker exposure, etc.

6. Existing regulations cover expansion of capacity using existing storage pools. New regulations are being developed to cover construction and operation of new on-site storage fael'.ities.

III. Proposed Radwaste Volume Reduction Incinerator (Mostly Barrett)

A. Background Infomation

1. High-level versus low-level wastes

~

N

a. High-level wastes: include military vastes andqp_ent aucleu fuel. Characterized by long half-lives (tens of thousands of years).

5 r

_,m.. ., , , - - , , - - , - - - - -

b. Low-level vastes have shorter half-lives (tens of years long) and only require several hundred years to decay }

to safe levels. Include air filters, resins from water filters, and contaminated clothing.

c. Historically low-level wastes have been disposed of in shallow trenches 10 - 30 feet deep.

d. Trans-Uranic wastes are a separate category. None are included in low-level wastes. Are a product of fuel reprocessing.

2. Situation -

a. Has become increasingly expensive to handle, transport, and dispose of low-level wastes, in part because of large volumes..

b. Technological experience in calcination of liquid wastes has already been obtained through incineration of Idaho.high-level wastes at national testing facility in

c. Proposed radwaste voltuse reduction incinerator would reduce volumes of low-level wastes and reduce rate at which low-level veste disposal sites are filled up.

d. Possible problems which require evaluation are potential for accidents and release of radioactivity,

e. Radioactive substances involved

i. Particulate matter such as isotopes of Cesium and Cobalt.

ii. Semi-gaseous material such as isotopes of Iodine.

3. Barrett sn==arized major funct' ions and components of rystem as designed by Newport News Industrial Corporation B.

l NRC Review of Newport News Industrial Corporation's Topical Report 1.TopicalReport(Generic)ReviewProcess

a. Vendor who develops a nuclear facility such as a new

! reactor or, as here, a waste incinerator, may submit technical information on the basic design to the NRC for a safety analysis.

b. Specific utilities can then reference the technical information in the generic report when =*ing an application for a site-specific use of such a facility.

O -

, , - 1-- , , , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - , c- ,, --

. .h.

c. A copy of a susssary of the NRC Topical Report Program is on file at the County Pl=aMng Board offices.

'

• 2. NRC is presently reviewing health and safety aspects of

., generic design which include analysis of radioactive effluents, potential accidents that could result in radioactive releases, occupational radiation exposure, fire protection, and security.

3. Analysis of radwaste incinerator's interphase with an existing system, for example an operating power reactor, would be done in the course of reviewing a specific operating license application.

4. Once NBC has concluded its safety analysis of the generic report, vill issue a letter saying they approve the report.

The utilities may reference the report in specific license .

applications.

5. NBC has sent several rounds of questions to Newport News Industrial Corporation and has required testing of the prototype system, located in Idaho, with radioactive tracer materials.

6. NBC believes ase of tracers and very sensitive monitors will provide adequate evaluation of the system's capacity to remove radioactive substances from the gaseous effluents as claimed

, in the generic report.

a. Monitors for tracer study will be more sensitive than

! those used in regular operational monitoring of the system.

b. NRC can extrapolate from tracer study results to determine i

t decontamination efficiency with actual radioactive vastes.

I' C. NRC Review of Niagara Mohawic's Application for a Permit to Install and Operate a Radwsste Incinerator at Nine Mile One (mostly Grimes)

1. Sequence of events to date

a. NRC sent letter to NiMo in July 1978 reminding them that a specific application vould be required to install and operate a re.dwaste incinerator,

b. NiMo sent a letter to NRC dated September 1, 1978, requesting permission to install and operate such a facility in com-pliance with 10 CHt 20 305

2. SRC Procedure

a. Will review NiMo application as if it were an application -

l __ . - . . . . . _ . 1 -*.~C _ _. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ , r ,- 1___...:..-- _ . _ _ . _ . . _ - f -- _ . __ _ . . _ _

for a license amendment under 10 CPR 50 and will follov

, Part 50 procedures.

b. According to Grimes the "... exact legal language may be

~

amendment to the license which refers to an approval under Part 20, or it may be some changes to the technical specifications in addition to those words, but procedurally we will handle it sa if it were a license amendment under 10 CHL Part 50."

c. NRC will probably request information from Niagara Mohawk in addition to that already contained in Final Safety Analysis Report for Nine Mile Unit One. NRC will make use of information in the Topical Report, but will probably need some site-specific data as well.

d. NRC has not yet determined need for modification of existing .

technical specifications or for additional " tech specs."

i. NRC may require additional monitors for gaseous effluents.

ii. Even though NiMo is proposing additional gaseous effluent renitors, these would not be covered by tech specs unless NRC determines they are necessary for health and safety reasons.

iii. Baissions from radwaste incinerator would have to be within the existing limits set for the Nine Mile One site boundary.

e. NRC maintains that careful review of topical report and results of tracer study on prototype incinerator in Idaho will be adequate review to assure system will -function properly with actual radioactive wastes.

'" f. NRC can deny application if analysis of worst possible accident situations indicates too great a risk to public health and safety.

g.ReviewofTopicalReportneednotbecomplet['aeforeNRC acts on NiMo application, NRC can obtain needed information during specific site review process.

h. NRC will publish its safety analysis of the application.

3. Fccus of NRC Review - two major areas

a. Public health and safety impacts

b. Environmental impacts G

W 6

, - - , , , . . , , - - , - . . , . _ , - , - - , .,r. ,, , , . , m, , ---. , - - , , - , - - - _ - - - - . -

-~ -

4. Opportunities for Public and County Participation

a. Participation in technical meetings ,

' ~

o. 1. After NBC receives complete application vill schedule meetings with NiMo to discuss additional technical questions.

ii. Public can attend these meetings to express concerns and ask questions.

iii. NBC would try to hold some of these meetings locally to facilitate public participation.

b. Pre-noticed Opportunity for Public Hearing

1. NBC may decide to pre-notice its decision to grant NiMo pemission to operate the facility. ~

11. If NBC does so, will issue notice in Federal Register which would allow 30 days for public request for hearing.

iii. In order for hearing to be held some party with standing

must present a contention concerning a relevant technical issue which is not adequately addressed.

iv. If someone intervenes with contention, County, other municipality, or State may intervene without contention and have right to cross -mine.

v. Hearing would be conducted by independent hearing board (onelegalandtwotechnicalmembers).

vi. Would hear testimony by NBC staff, licensee, and intervenors.

vii. Licensee could not begin action until hearing

. completed.

c. Petition for Public Hearing Under Atomic Energy Act

i. This procedure may be followed at anytime.

ii. Petitioner must show standing and have relevant contention (s).

iii. NRC staff would review petition and also decide whether or not action can proceed before conclusion of hearing.

d. All correspondence between NRC and Niagara Mohawk is available to pulbic and should be filed in the Public Document Room. Proprietary infor: nation can be made available to participants in a public hearing if one is held.

_8

. .. 1 l

, 3. MtC's Present Position on Public Hearing

a. As not decided yet whether or mot to pre-notice, should

~

. decide within next two weeks.

b. Main criterion f9r this decision is whether or not "significant ha eds considerations" are involved.

c. For example, if proposed action would significantly increase liklihood of an accident, or consequences of an accident, NBC wuld probably pre-notice.

d. " Accident" includes any occurrence that would result in a radioactive release significantly greater than nomal releases.

e. Public interest is also a factor in this decision.

6. Ptblic Awareness of NRC Decision Not to Pre-Notice

a. Nomally public would not get advanced notice if NRC decided not to pre-notice.

b. Public would have to petition under Atomic Energy Act after NRC announced in Federal Register that application had already been approved.

c. In this particular case Grimes promised to keep Oswego County infomed of NRC decision regarding pre-notice.

7. Limits to storage of incinerator ash on site -

a. As with spent fuel storage, there is no specific limit to weight, volume, or curies of ash that could be stored on si te.

b. Detemination of any limit would be based on amount of

{ radiation released to outside environment and level of worker exposure.

D. Level of Regulation and Monitoring to be Enacted to Ensure Safe Operation of Radwaste Incinerator at Nine Mile Point (Barrett)

1. Barrett sm-avized monitoring systems which vill be part of the proposed radwaste incinerator syster:

a. Monitor gaseous effluent prior to discharge into reactor stack.

b. Existing stack monitor system.

c. Monitors for radvaste building ventillation system.

2. Nine Mile Point Unit One must continue to meet existing standards for radiation levels at the site bounda:7 No change in these.

l

_a_

l~ ~(- ..

~ '

3 1hus no changes are proposed to the existing monitoring system, although, as indicated in C.2.d.i. above, NRC may develop tech specs for the off-gas system monitors

, . proposed by NiNo. -

'4. NRC policy on radiation releases

a. In addition to actual standards, NRC policy requires that radioactive releases be kept as low as reasonably achievable.

b. Determination of " reasonably achievable" includes economic considerations.

5. Standard is no greater than 5 milliram per y:nr (Myr) for a person standing at the site boundary.

6. Perspective on radiation s+= 4med a.Nationalaveragebackgroundradiationlevel-125mres/yr.

b. Cross-country airline flight exposure 5 arem c.Erickhouseexposure-25 area /yr

d. Colorado background level - 225 mram/yr (higher altitude andbedrockcomposition).

e. Chest x-ray - 100 aren.

f. 71uoroscopic exam - 20,000 arem/annute E. Environmental Analysis (Grimes)

1. This will be site specific. . Evidently no environmental review is done on the Topical Report.

l 2. If environmental impact of proposed facility in NiMo's application is found to be significant by the r ~, an

• EnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)willbe . .ared.

3. Generally such facilities are not found to have a significant environmental impact, in which case the NRC files a negative declaration and prepares an " environmental impact appraisal" which quantifies the impacts and states why they were determined not to be significa.t.

4. If public hearing is held after pre-notice, the EIS or the negative declaration can be a subject of the hearing, also true if public hearing held after petition under the Atomic Energy Act.

5. If no public hearing held otherwise, negative declaration would be filed at time of final NRC approval and could then be the basis far a petition for public hearing under the 4tomic Energy Act.

6. NRC indicated would keep Oswego County infomed of its 1

decision on a negative declaration.

F. Time Table for Eeview of NiMo Application

1. If NBC finds no significant problems with NiMo application, could have radwaste incinerator in operation by late 1980 (Barrett).

2. Any construction begun by NiMo before final NRC approval is

c. done at NiMo's own risk. (Grimes) s G.

NRC - NiMo Meeting of September 19, 1978 ir. Psthesda, Md.

i

1. Mr. Grimes maintained that NiMo first requested the meeting i

en Friday, September 15, indicating they wished to convene -

it prior to NRC's September 21 meeting with the Energy Facilities Committee.

2. Grimes indicated NiMo requested the meeting to discuss technical questions on the radweste incinerator and to provide the NRC staff with their views on tue questions submitted in advance to the NRC by the Energy Facilities Committee.

3. Grimes said the NBC requested the meeting be held in g

%' Bethesda because of the large number of NRC staff required to attend.

i 4.NRC(Elsasser)notifiedDeyleofthemeetingonFriday, September 15

5. Evidently, NiMo maintains they did not specifically request the meeting timimr or location ...

IV.

Who Made the Initial Decision that Nuclear Fission Was a Safe Means ofProducingElectricPower(Elsasser)

A. Who Made the Decision?

1. U.S. Congress in Atomic Energy Act of 1946 and 1954 i

i e - , - - - , . - - - - . ..,.y_ . - , ,__,_....- _.-" ' ' * ' 59 e - . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

^

2.1946 Act established the Atomic Energy Cossaission (AEC) i to put control of military application of atomic energy  !

into civilian hands.

• 3 1954 Act as smended provided for peaceful uses of atomic energy. Quote Section 1: " Atomic energy is capable of application for peaceful as well as military purposes. It

• is therefore declared to be the policy of the United States that ... development, use, and control of atomic energy shall be welfare."

general directed so as te make the maximum contribution to  :

B.

Question of Safety of Nuclear Fission Never Directly Addressed by Congress - '

1. Question implicitly addressed since Congress authorized AEC to issue commercial nuclear power plant licenses. .

2. Section 103 of Atomic Energy Act says: "The Commission is authorized to issue licenses to persons applying therefor to transfer or receive in interstate cosmerce, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, process, use, import, or export under the terms of the agreement for cooperation . . ."

3. This authorization was transferred to NRC in Energy

• Beorganization Act of 1974.

• f V.

Monitoring of Radiation Releases From Multiple Reactors (Barrett)

1. NRC Regulations

. 1. Sese apply to individual reactors' site boundaries

, t,

2. Thus at Nine Mile Point monitoring and technical specifica-tions are separate for Nine Mile Unit One and the Fitzpatrick plant.

B. EPA Regulations

1. EPA also has regulations that apply to the general public rather than at the site boundary specifically (see VI below)

2. EPA's regulations apply to the entire uranium fuel cycle including mining, milling, fuel manufacture, energy production, fuel reprocessing, and vaste disposal.

3. EPA regulations cover effluents and direct radiation.

4. NRC actually implements the EPA regulations. ~

VI. Iow-Invel Radiation and Exposure Standards (Barrett) ~

A. Extent to which Biological Effects of Iow-Level Are Being

< - Re-Evaluated.

1. Quite a bit, but not directly by NRC

2. President has appointed interagency task force headed by HEW to examine biological effects of low-level radiation; includes DOE, Bureau of Radiological Health, NRC.

3. National Academy of Sciences also has special consnittee on biological effects of ionizing radiation (ETR Conunittee) which is examining historical data on worker exposures in naval shipyards while working on naval atomic reactors n

4. The Goflin and Tamplen report on biological effects of radiation was reviewed by ETR Committee and discounted.

Derefore NRC took no action on that study's findings. (Grimes)

5. De Mankuso study has not yet been reviewed by the 3EIR Connaittee, and NRC action awaits that review. (Grimes)

B. Liklihood of Change in Standards

1. National Resources Defense Council has petitioned NRC to lower radiation industry worker exposure standards to 500arem/yr.

2. NRC staff has recommended hearings on this and related issues; no action as yet.

~

("'

3. Present NRC standard is no more than 3000 mrem / quarter or nomorethan12,000 mrem /yr. NRC staff has reconsnended that limit be reduced to 5000 arem/ year.

4.Averageindustryworkerexposureispresently700 mrem /yr.

5.NRCsiteboundarylimitis5 mrem /yrforgaseousemissions and3 mrem /yrforliquidemissions.

6. EPA limit is 25 mrem /yr from all sources in the uranium fuel cycle.

7. Site boundary levels are function of prevailing wind direction and other site conditions, therefore unlikely that any one person would receive maximum 5 mrem /yr from more than one _.

reactor.

l j

. ~ - - - - -w,- - ~ . -

VII. Risk of Major Accident (Grimes}

A. Risk of Major Accident at an Individual Nuclear Power Plant 2

1. Risk usually defined to include probability and consequences of major accident.

2. According to Grimes, the recent WASH-1400 Beactor Safety Study (October 1975) is the best study available on reactor ace.ident risks.

3. WASH-1400 says not likely to have a major accident at any individual reactor site anymore often than once every 20,000 reactor-years.

4. Have been many criticisms of WASB-1400, especially of its applicability to other reactors, since model is based on '

only 2 reactors which were taken as representative of all nuclear power reactors.

5. However, on basis of nuclear power plant safety history in the U.S. and abroad, liklihood of a major accident with major off-site consequences is very slight.

B. By What Amount is Risk Increased by Additional Plants in a Belatively Small Geographic Area

1. If assume identical plant on same site, risk is doubled by addition of second plant, but this depends on what particular consequences are being evaluated.

2. Por a given individual this exact doubling does not apply since person cannot be equi-distant from two reactors under the same canditions.

3. Study of feasibility of energy park concept indicates that risk does not continue proportionately beyond 10 reactors l because of degree of physical spearation of plants on outer.

edges of park.

C. Level at Which Increased Risk Becomes Unacceptable

1. Risk from as many as four or five plants at a single site is well within the acceptable range.

2. Energy Park study has evaluated acceptability of as many as i

40 reactors on one site.

l k s

,- ,v-

~

J. Copy of Nuclear Energy Center Site Surver - 1975. Sn rv

.and Conclusions is on file at County Pl==aing Board Offices.

, VIII. , Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants (mainly Elsasser)

A. Status of NRC Efforts to Set Standards for Decomunissioning Procedures 1.ThesearecoveredinMarch1978NRCdocument(NUBEG0436) titled " Plans for Reevaluation of NRC Policy on Deconsnissioning of Nuclear Facilities." A copy is on file at the County Planning Board offices.

2. Also on file are copies of reports on procedures for deconsnis-sioning a Pressurized Water Reactor and a Puel Reprocessing Plant.

3. Susanary of NRC's intended review of its decomunissioning policy (FederalRegisterVol.43,No.49,Nonday, March 13,1978):

a. Need for more definitive decomunissioning criteria beyond those already covered by NRC regulations.

b. Form of these criteria:

1. Potential exposures to individuals ii. Numerical con +==ination units 111. Other

c. Need for detailed deconunissioning plans prior to licensing

d. Need for funding or other surety arrangements prior to (y licensing l e. Acceptable criteria for residual levels of radioactivity l- on materials to be released for unrestricter',:se.

f. Acceptable length of time for mothballing pr

or to decomunissioning

g. Ertension of deconmissioning criteria to non-radioactive structures, buildings, and components.

4. Procedures for NRC review of decommissioning policy:

a. Regional workshops in August 1978 and July 1979 to get

) states' views.

! b. Actual rule-making not scheduled until Nove=ber 1979 l

-ts-

5. lac's ma' jor concerns

a. Standards for acceptable levels of radiation after

. decommissioning

b. Permissible modes of decommissioning

.'., 1. Mothballing and guan.ing .

ii. Entombment iii. Dismantling

c. Funding of decossaissioning

6. Experience with deconnaissioning (Grimes)

a. Since 1960 have decomunissioned, by various methods, 5 licensed nuclear power reactors, 4 demonstration reactors, and 6 licensed test reactors.

b. However, no comunercial reactors of the size of those p at Nine Mile Point have been decommissioned.

c. Major difference is volume of material to be handled.

d. All radioactive material involved in deconunissioning, once fuel elements are removed, emits only low-level

, radioactivity.

7. Availability of adequate space for disposal of dismantled nuclear facilities

a. Elsasser indicated there is not presently adequate space for the dismantled pieces of reactors to be disposed of

b. Barrett clarified this statement by saying that there is adequate space at federal government facilities,but that under present procedures, comunercial low-level vaste is disposed of by conunercial enterprise, and they presently lack adequate space for dismantled reactor parts.

B.

Standards That Would Apply If A Utility Chose to " ; ade a Nuclear Power Plant at the End of its Useful Life s : rimes)

1. Would have to meet standards for health, safety, and environmental impacts in effect at that time.

2. At present no utilities are faced with this situation, although two reactors have been shut-down because of inability to meet current safety standards.

3. Key problem in evaluating economic feasibility of rehabilita-ting a nuclear reactor is the condition of the reactor pressure vessel. -

.-..,.v .- --- -,,,,y-.---,,- , , - - - - - ,,--,_,,-.4 - y * , _.--- ,4-,. - - - , .- .,. - -- - - - -- ____---

, l I

a. At 30+ years vessel becomes brittle because of radiation damage. l I

b. Becomes necessary to either replace the vessel or anneal '

, . it by heating

4. Turbine generators also are expensive to replace and have limited lifespan.

5. May also prove to be more economical to produce electricity by some other means by the time this decision must be made.

II. CoolingTowrs(Barrett)

A. EPA is the agency that requires use of cooling towers under the Clean Water Act.

B. NBC evaluates environmental impact of cooling towers in its evaluation of total environmental impact of a proposed nuclear power plant.

I. PriceAndersonAct(Elsasser)

A. How Was the Liability Limit Determined?

1.19% legislative history of the Act indicates that members of the Joint Consmittee on Atomic Energy were concerned that provision of nniimited liability could have a severe impact on the federal budget.

2. Therefore they set 4 500 million as the limit to the federal government's part of the indemnity. E2is coupled with $ 60 million in insurance gave the total maximum coverage of

$ 560 million.

3. According to Elsasser: "This figure appears to be based on collective judgment that this amount was adequate to cover the ==v4==e conceivable damages that could result from a nuclear incident at that time."

4. In 1965 and 1975 when Act was before congress for renewal this upper limit was not changed. Havever in 1975 the system of funding was changed.

B. Present Funding Stnicture

1. Now most of funds used to pay public liability claims vill come from the private sector, and ultimately the federal government will not hold any specific liability. -

l -- - -- --

l _. _

2. Insurance indemnity was increased in 1975 from 8 60 million to 4 140 million.

~

.' 5. In addition, each operating reactor is indemnified for 8 5 million and federal government covers the difference to maintain total coverage of 8 560 million.

4. As number of operating reactors increases from present . level of 68 to 84, governn=nt share will decrease to zero.

• 5. Beyond 84 operating reactors, the limit of liability will be; extended by 8 5 million for each additional operating reactor.

6. At present there are approz2mately 140 nuclear reactors under construction.

C. Other Means Available to Pchlic to Cover Losses

1. Navinnne claims predicted in WA E-1400 exceed $ 560 million (Gr2 men).

2. However, Act provides for Congressional review and action where$560millionlimitisexpended(Elsasser)

3. No other nuclear accident insurance is available other than coverage provided by health and life insurance policies II. Additional Subjects

1. Use of Carbon-Steel Tanks for High-Level Waste Storage at

, Hanford - In Response to Question from Brower  !

1. Carbon-steel +mnks were built instead of more corrosion-resistant stainless steel because of economic e -siderations and material shortages at the time, end of Wor. -

ar II.

(Barrett).

2. Borings around the tanks indicate no off-site migration whereleakshaveoccurred(Grimes).

B. NRC Accountability - In Response to Question From VanSchaack:

Grimes indicated he feels responsible to U.S. citizens as their expert representatives.

C. Transportation Accidents - In Response to Questions from Deyle (Barrott) '-

l

, + - + - - - - ._w, - -.- ,, m,e W y------- m - m' pew - -T--'*- - - - - -

, . ~ . * * * "

~

1. NBC does analyze potential transportation accidents involving nuc3eer fuel and radioactive vastes.

2. Vaste containers are designed to withstand conditions of

. worst-possible accident situation.

3. Both U.S. Deparhent of Transportation (dot) and NRC have regulations governing transport and have done annronmental impact statements on those regulations.

4. However these regulations apply at both ends of transporta-tion process. No specific permit given to carry radioactive substances (dot pemits are exclusionary), and no actual list of radioactive substance transporters.

5. (Jay Dunkleberger of the N.Y. State Energy Office indicated

, after the meeting that there is some regulation at the state (i level.)

1

i. , ,,.

4

. . . -.- \

1. Local Goverzment Participation in NBC Actions

~

.' A. NRC Presentation in Response to Question 16 B. Additional Questions from the Comunittee and Staff ,

II. Additional Questions from the Conamittee and Staff L

Observers: Please note that this is a legislative consnittee meeting.

You are most welcome to observe the proceedings, but _

participation is limited to members of the connaittee, the planning staff, and the representatives of the N.R.C.

l l

1

'(,

i l

l

/

• Eubsas AGENDA -

Energy Facilities Committee Meeting With U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comunission September 21, 1978 I. Disposal of Spent Nuclear Puel A. NBC Presentations in Response to Questions 1-3 B. Additional Questions from the Comunittee and Staff II. Proposed Badwaste Volume Reduction Incinerator A. KRC Presentations in Response to Questions 4-7 B. Additional Questions from the Consmittee and Staff li III.

Nuclear Pission as a Source of Electric Power A. NBC Presentation in Besponse to Question 8 B. Additional Questions from the Connaittee and Staff IV. Monitoring of Radiation Releases A. NBC Presentation in Response to Question 9 B. Additional Questions from the Commaittee and Staf.f V. Iow level Radiation and Exposure S+=ndm*

• l l A. NBC Presentation in Response to Question 10 l 3. Additional Qusstions from the Conamittee and Staff VI. Risk of Major Accident l A. NBC Presentation in Response to Queetion 11 B. Additional Questions from the Conunittee and Staff I

VII. . Deconnaissioning A. NBC Presentations in Response to Questions 12-13 f B. Additional Questions from the Committee and Staff I

VIII. !CoolingTowers A. NRC Presentation in Response to Question 14 B. Additional Questions from the Connaittee and Staff IX. Price Anderson Act A. NBC Presentation in Response to Question 15 B. Additional Questions from the Conunittee and Staff f

l

.__ _ ._ _ _i,______ _

. t QUESTIONS

1. ht is h status of the Federal Govemsent's efforts to develop

.l, retrievable geologic storage and terminal geologic disposal facilities?

2. ht is h estimated need for away-from-reactor water basin storage during the interim prior to operation of the geologic storage and disposal facilities?

3 ht regulations will be applied to nuclear power utilities governing on-site storage of spent fuel and participation in the Federal Government's storage and disposal programs?

4. ht are the status and scope of the NBC's review of N rt News Industrial Corporation's topical report on the R.W.R.-1 radwaste m g volume reduction incinerator?

5 ht procedure vill be followed by the NRC in reviewing Niagara Mohawk's application for a license amendment to install and operate such an incinerator at Nine Mile Point?

6. ht level of regulation and monitoring vill be enacted to ensure safe operation of such a facility at Nine Mile Point?

7. ht is h scope of the review of the topical report in relation to N.E.P.A.?

8.

b made the initial decision that nuclear fission was a safe means of producing electric power? h t were the major factors in that decision?

(, 9 Are NRC standards and regulations governing the monitoring of radiation releases from nuclear power plants specifically designed to account for the cumulative effects of multiple reactors in 9 area, such as the shoreline of lake Ontario in Cayuga and Oswegs 90t ties.

10.

To what extent are the biological effects of low-level radiation being re-evaluated? Is there any likelihood that exposure limits for nuclear industry workers and the general public will be reduced from their presentlevelsof5000arem/yrand500 mrem /yr?

11. ht is the risk of a major accident occurring at an individual nuclear power plant 7 % what amount is that risk increased for a given geographic area the size of Oswego County by the addition of a second plant? How much is the risk increased by the addition of the third, i

l fourth, fifth, etc.? At what level does this increased use become un-acceptable? .

.,y _ _ - ._ . . . , , , . . _ , . . _ . ._ r,. _ . - , , , -

a.p O

12. Wat is the status of the NRC's efforts to set standards for procedures in decomissioning of comunercial nuclear reactors?

13 Wat standards vould apply to a utility if it wanted to consider up-grading and rehabilitating a plant at the end of its initial operating license period?-

i

. j 14.

Is the U.S. E.P.A. the sole Federal agency responsible for requiring the use of cooling towers at specific power plants?

15 How was the liability limit of the Price Anderson Act determined? Are there any other means available to the public for protection against the losses which might be experienced in the event of a major nuclear power plant accident?

16.

Can a county or other local amnicipality intervene in an NBC proceeding without contentions, e.g. as where a utility applies for an amendment to its operating license?

(..

O 4

%g i

l l

6

• • - * * * * * 'N. mess eee gem enume+ ae em e o.- , , , , , , , , , , ,