ML20140E068

Requests Info Re NRC Decision to Allow Util to Double Nuclear Waste Storage Capacity at Facility

ML20140E068
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	12/07/1984
From:	Fascell D HOUSE OF REP.
To:	Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA)
Shared Package
ML20140E060	List: ML20140E046 ML20140E068
References
NUDOCS 8501100077
Download: ML20140E068 (1)

Text

Cs4RLES e crREGAN DANTE 8. FASCELL aoemensfaaftvt AS$t$f ANT 1dru Distascv. 7tonsea FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Eonartss of the Snited $tates

'=i='=^~

c "^'""^"

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ANO y

CHAIRMAN RCENTWIC ANAIRS SUSCOMMITTEC h 0 3 5 C O f E tpftS tntatiD CS

'"^'a"^"

NOaTN =Nx A$uMetv Ce*ArRMAN HOUSE DELEGAYlON ashm. t0n, BE. 20511 g

SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL CANADA 411TED STATES MEMBER INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUP MEMSER. U 3 DELEGATION December 7, 1984 Hr. Carlton Kammerer, Director Office of Congressional Affairs Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Hr. Kammerer:

I have received several telephone calls to my District Office in Miami from seme constituents of mine opposing the recent NRC decision to allow Florida Fower and Light Company to double its nuclear waste storage capacity at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant in my Congressional District.

I would very much appreciate your looking into this matter and T.roviding me with the benefit of a response.

Many thanks.

S cerely D TE B. FASCELL Hember of Congress DBF/rt KOhhohko PDR EDO --- 000188 L

i

~T

/

4

, &c L--

Docket Nos. 50-250 Distribution

< ocket file 50-250/251 M

2 R6

_vu poaj an,u tp _,,3 and 50-251

' -EMTTU8 ED0 RDG HDenton ORB #1 RDG OELD SECY(j)84-2052 The Honorable Dante B. Fascell WDircks Glainas-United States House of Representatives KBowman ED0#188 OCA i

Washington, D.C.

20515 DEisenhut DMcDonald CParrish JPartlow

Dear Representative Fascell:

Green ticket file /0RB#1 I am pleased to respond to your December 7,1984, letter requesting information relating to the issuance of amendments to the Turkey Point Plant Unit Nos. 3 and 4 Operating Licenses which permit the increase in the licensed storage capacity from 621 spent fuel assemblies to 1404 spent fuel assemblies for each of the two Turkey Point spent fuel pools.

The Comission issued Amendment No.111 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-31 and Amendment No. 105 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-41 on November 21, 1984, for the Turkey Point Plant Unit Nos. 3 and 4, respectively. An Environmental Assessment related to this action was

-issued on November 14, 1984. The Notice of Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact was published in the Federal Register on November 16, 1984 (49 FR 45514).

I have enclosed copies of the amendment issuance and the Environmental Assessment. The amendment issuance includes the Safety Evaluation and Notice of Issuance-and Final No Significant Hazards Consideration.

The request for these amendments was individually noticed on June 7,1984 (49 FR 23715) followed by a monthly notice on July 7,1984(49FR29925).

Coments, request fcr a hearing and petition for leave to intervene were initiated on July 9,1984, by the Center for Nuclear Responsibility and Ms.

Joette Lorion.

The coments and concerns relevant to these amendments are addressed in the Safety Evaluation.

Under NRC regulations, the Comission may issue and make an amendment imediately effective, notwithstanding a request for a hearing, in advance of holding the hearing where, as here, it has determined that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.

Such issuance is also consistent with Sectior.132 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 which requires the Comission to encourage and expedite the effective use of available storage at civilian reactor sites.

I will briefly describe fuel reprocessing history, the need for increased storage capacity and alternatives considered in assessing the acceptability of increasing the storage capacity for spent fuel assemblies

~

at Turkey Point and other nuclear power reactor sites.

Currently, spent fuel is not being reprocessed on a comercial basis in the United States. The Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) plant at West Valley, New York, was shut down in 1972 for alterations and expansion; in

a m

- C' Mri Fascell-.g

[

^

September 1976, NFS informed the Comission that it was withdrawing from 7y the nuclear. fuel reprocessing business. The Allied General Nuclear Services (AGNS)' proposed plant.in Barnwell, South Carolina, is not licensed 4

< to operate.

s v

President Carter issued a policy statement on On._ April c17,1977, commercial' reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel which effectively eliminated reprocessing as part of the relatively near term nuclear fuel cycle.

2 g

The General Electric Company '(GE) Morris Operation (formerly Midwest:

Recovery. Plant) in Morris, Illinois, is in a decommissioned condition.

i l Although no plants are licensed for reprocessing. fuel,- the storage pools at West Valley are not full, but the licensee

• is presently notiaccepting any additional spent fuel for storage even from' those power generating.

facilities that'had contractual arrangements with West Valley.** On May 4

.~1982, the license held by GE for spent fuel storage activities at its

- Morris operation was renewed for another 20 years;' however, GE is committed 1

to accept only limited quantities of additional spent fuel for storage at; this facility from Cooper and San Onofre Unit 1.

'When originally licensed, the spent fuel pools for'each of the Turkey ~ Point-Units had the capacity to hold 217. fuel assemblies. 1This represented the requirement for one refueling of each unit with reserve capacity to receive a full core. At that time it was expected that the spent fuel would be removed from the site shortly after it was discharged to the spent fuel pools.

The Turkey Point Licenses were amended to allow modifying'the fuel pool -

racks to eccomodate 621 fuel assemblies which would be adequate to retain the' reserve capacity for full core unloading (157 assemblies) until about 1986. ; Since this date is earlier than the date a Federal depository is...

expected to be available for spent fuel [1998 - Nuclear Waste Policy. Act of -

1982,-'Section 302(a)(5)] the rack modifications were essential to allow o

continued operation _beyond 1986. These current amendments allow expanding the storage capacity of each unit-to accomodate ~1404 assemblies which would ~

extend the full core discharge capability for each generating unit to the 4

,yearJ2005 for' Unit 4 and the year 2006 for Unit 3;

^

Comercial: reprocessing of spent fuel has not developed as had been

originally anticipated.

In.1975 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission directed

>the staff to prepare a Generic Environmental Impact. Statement (GEIS) on

.spentifuel storage. :The Consnission directed the staff. to.' analyze -

alternatives for. the handling and~ storage of spent light water power reactor-y fuel:with particular emphasis on developing long range policy. The Statement was to consider alternative methods of-spent fuel storage as well-

..;as nuclear, power plant shutdown.

~

A final, Generic Environmental. Impact Statement on Handling and ~ Storage-

1. ~

of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel (NUREG-0575), Volumes'l-3-(the FGEIS)wasissuedby;the,NRCinAugust1979. The finding:of the FGEIS is v

. The: current licensee is New York Energy Rt. search and Development Authority.

• • In fact, spent' fuel is being removed from NFS and returned to various utilities.

i I

)

^

-c w ee-*-.w

- w -w m + r

,e-,~ ms-e-m.

+,y-,.+-w-r,.

~.

Mr. Fascell that the environmental impact costs of interim storage are essentially negligible, regardless of where such spent fuel is stored. A comparison of'

.the impact costs of various alternatives reflects the advantage of continued generation of nuclear power versus its replacement by coal-fired powar generation.

in the bounding case considered in the FGEIS, that of

. shutting down the reactor when the existing spent fuel storage capacity is filled, the cost of teplacing nuclear stations before the end of their normal lifetime makes this alternative uneconomical.

In the FGEIS, consistent with long range policy, the storage of spent-fuel is considered to be interim storage to be used until the issue of pemanent disposal is resolved and implamented.

One spent fuel pool storage alternative considered.in detail in the FGEIS is the expansion of onsite fuel storage capacity by modification of the existing spent fuel pools. Applications for approximately 108 spent fuel pool capacity increases have been received and over 100 have been approved. The remaining ones are still under review. The finding in each case has been that the environmental impact of such increased storage capacity is negligible. However, since there are variations in storage designs and limitations caused by the spent fuel already stored in some of the pools, the FGEIS recomends that licensing reviews be done on a case-by-case basis to resolve plant-specific concerns. The enclosed Safety Evaluation and Environmental Assessment provide details and resolution of the plant-specific concerns related to the Turkey Point site.

-Your constituents may be concerned with public exposure resulting from the increased storage capacity approved by the Comission.

The staff has completed an analysis of radiation exposure experience, based on estimated source tems and assessment of public doses resulting from 38 prior spent fuel pool modifications at 37 plants.

' Estimated doses to a hypothetical maximally exposed individual at the boundary of a plant site, during such modifications, have fallen within a range from 0.00004 to 0.1 millirem per year, with an average dose of 0.02 millirem per year. Similarly, estimated total doses to the population within a 50-mile radius of these plants have fallen within a range from 0.0001 to 0.1 person-rem per year, with an average population dose of 0.006 person-rem per year. Doses at these levels are essentially unmeasurable.

Based on the manner in which the Florida ~ Power and Light will perfom the modifications; their radiation protection /as. low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) program; the radiation protection measures proposed for the modification tasks including radiation, contamination, and airborne radioactivity monitoring; and relevant experience from other operating reactors that have perfomed similar spent fuel pool modifications, the staff concluded that adequate radiation protection measures have been taken to assure worker protection and the Turkey Point spent fuel pool

. modifications can be performed in a manner that will ensure that doses to workers and the general public will be ALARA.

+

f r. Fascell M Based on this; review of historical. data (" Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States," Donald T. Oakley,.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

' Office of-Radiation Programs (ORP/SID 72-1, June 1972)) relating to the storage of spent fuel, we concluded that for the spent fuel pool expansions; at. Turkey Point the additional dose to the total body that might be received by an individual at the site boundary and by the population within a 50-mile radius, respectively, would be less than or equal to 0.1 millirem

'and 0.1 person-rem per year, respectively.. These doses are very small-compared to annual exposure to natural background radiation in the United States which varies frem. about 70 millirems per year to about 300 millirems.

per year depending on geographical' location.

I trust'you find this responsive -to your request and of assistance in assuring your. constituents that the Comission's decision was based on sound technical judgement by the. staff. This decision is consistent with the Comission's policy of ensuring that operating-facilities, such as Turkey Point, achieve and maintain adequate levels of protection of public health and safety.

If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, (S!!c:d E!Iiaa L D!:2 William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated

~

f' s

• See previous white for concurrences g

[

• See previous white for concurrences i4

~

ORB #1:DL* -

ORB #1:DL BC-ORB #1:DL*

OELD*

AD:0R:DL*-

CParrish DMcDonald/ts SVarga Glainas-12/20/84 12/ /84 12/20/84 12/21/84 12/26/84-D:DL*

'D:

R EDO DEisenhut H

on WDircks 12/26/84-12 84 12/Ji/84 i

i>

L.

.L L

'Mr..Fascell Based on this review of historical data ("Netural Radiation Exposure n the United States," Donald T. Oakley, U.S. Environmental Protection Age cy, Office of Radiation Programs (ORP/SID 72-1, June 1972)) relating the storage of spent fuel, we concluded that for the spent fuel pool expansions

^ at Turkey Point the additional dose to the total body that mig be received by an individual at the site boundary and-by the pop ation within a 50-mile radius, respectively, would be less than or equal o 0.1 millirem and,0.1~ person-rem per year, respectively. These doses ar very small compared.to annual' exposure to natural background radiat n in the United States which varies-feom about 70 millirems per year to about 300 millirems 3 2 per year dep'ending on' geographical location.

I trust you find this responsive to your request a of assistance in assuring your. constituants that the Commission's cision was based on sound technical judgement by the staff. This d ision is consistent with the Commission's policy of ensuring that opera ng facilities, such as Turkey Point,' achieve and maintain adequate vels of protection of public health and safety.

If we can be of further assistance, plea do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, William J. Dircks

~

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

.As stated 4

• See previ is white for concurrences ORB #1:DL*

ORB #1:DL' BC-0RB#1:DL*

OELD*

A

.DL

CParrish ~

DMcDonald/ts' SVarga

.G a s

112/20/84 12/ /84.

12/20/84 12/21/84 12/g 84' D$4h D:NRR EDO DE Jdhu HDenton WDircks-12/$/84 12/_ /84 12/ /84 1

r-

+

Mr. Fascell

-4 Based on this review of historical data (" Natural Radiation Exposure in e

United States," Donald T. Oakley, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs (ORP/SID 72-1, June 1972)) fuel pool expa sion relating to the g

storage of spent fuel, we concluded that for the spent at Turkey Point the additional dose to the total body that might be received by an individual at the site boundary and by the populati within a 50-mile radius, respectively, would be less than or equal to 0.

millirem and 0.1 person-rem per year, respectively. These doses are very small compared to annual exposure to natural background radiation in he United States which varies from about 70 millirems per year to about 00 millirems per year depending on geographical location.

I trust you. find this responsive to your request and #.L% of assistance g

in assuring your constituants that the Commission's decipion was based on sound technical judgement by the staff. This decision s consistent with the Commission's policy of ensuring that operating fa ities, such as Turkey Point, achieve and maintain adequate levels of protection of public health and safety.

If we can be of further assistance, please do no hesitate to contact us.

Sincere y, 1111am J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated ORB #1:DL ORH 1:DL DL EL AD:0R:DL 3

,CParrish cDonald/ts c a J(,@1 Glainas 12/p84 2/20/84 34 12/2 /84 12/ /84 D:DL D:NRR ED0 DEisenhut HDenton WDircks

. 12/ /84 12/-/84 12/ /84 4

4

nj

'*'i "I' /g.cer UNITED STATES 8*

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

g

.E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 kg*****,/

EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL FROM:

DJE: 12/28/84 EDO CONTROL: 000168 DOC DT: 12/07/84 REP. DANTE FASCELL FINAL REPLY:

'TO:

OCA FOR SIGNATURE OF:

GREEN SECY NO: 84-2052 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DESC:

ROUTING:

CONSTITUENTS' CONCERNS RE INCREASE IN WASTE DAVIS STORAGE CAPACITY AT TURKEY POINT GCUNNINGHAM O'REILLY ASSIGNED TO: NRR DATE: 12/14/84 CONTACT: DENTON

'SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

Received NRR: 12/17/84 contact:

Eienhut-cc: Case /Denton PPAS c

N

.x 1r

8%iseEEKrWm6C72ros a uGp N aucetru y

" -lNUMBIP,:.

84-2052.

LOGGING DATE:

12/13/84 0FFICE OF THE SE?.ETARY ACTION OFFICE:

EDO A0 THOR:

Rep Dante B. Fascell U.S. House of Representatives AFFILIATION:

Lt i i:.R DATE:

12/7/84 FILE CODE:

IS&R-6FP&L(Turkey)

ADDRESSEE:

OCA

~

SUBJECT:

Opposes the recent NRC decision to allow FP&L to double nuc waste storage capacity at Tur'.ey Point

.. ACTION:

Direct Reply... Suspense: Dec 24 DISTRIBUTION:

OCA to Ack SPECIAL HANDLING:

None Billie SIGNATURE DATE:

FOR THE C0!ESSION:

l Date..../4.7/ Yv1./

Rec'd Off. EDO I

7 T;m......n.E.y./...

l l.

l I

ll-E:

(.

y i

DANTE B. FASCELL * '

CHARLES R. O'REGAN C.i oistnict. FLon.oa

^ou'a'sist.Trvs s.ssi:Tsait F;RE!GN AFFAIRS COMMITTE2 X^L"E^",TT ANO Congress of the finited $tates

' = = = = ~

R

.NTER, CHAIRMAN SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE b

NORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLY CHAIRMAN HOUSE DELEGATION SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS gi g

ASUSE AND CONTROL CANADA-UNITED STATES MEMBER INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUP MEMSER. U.S. DELEGAi%N December 7, 1984 Hr. Carlton Kammerer, Director Office of Congressional Affairs Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Kammerer:

I have received several telephone calls to my District Office in Miami from some constituents of mine opposing the recent NRC decision to allow Florida Power and Light Company to double its nuclear waste storage capacity at the Turkey Poin't Nuclear Power Plant in Icy Congressional District.

I would very much appreciate your looking into this matter and providing me with the benefit of a response.

Many thanks.

S cerely D TE B. FASCELL Hember of Congress DBF/rt D tA9e_

o EDO - 000188 pjf M g

b L./ I ' -~i W

-n t-t-w,_ _ _

w w-