ML20211P059
| ML20211P059 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/11/1986 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Kriesberg J Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 8607180072 | |
| Download: ML20211P059 (2) | |
Text
- ___________ _ _______ _
e
~/ UNITED STATES 1( 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
o $ VVASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
..... July 11, 1986 Mr. Joseph Kriesberg Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project ,
_ 215 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D. C. 20003
Dear Mr. Kriesberg:
This letter responds to your May 20th letter on behalf of the Critical Mass f, Energy. Project and others in which you requested pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 that j the NRC imediately revoke the construction permits for all commercial nuclear i _
power plants in the United States which have not received full power licenses.
p You base your request on general assertions concerning the inherent problems and dangers of nuclear power, including disposal of nuclear waste and the potential dangers and costs of decommissioning nuclear plants.
In its recent Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants (50 FR 32138, August 8, 1985), the Commission concluded in the context of evaluating severe accident issues for plants in operation and under construction that these plants rose no undue risk to public health and safety. In its statement the Commission also found that no basis j currently existed to require immediate actions with respect to these facilities by generic rulemaking or other regulatory means for these plants because of severe accident risk. The Commission noted a number of ongoing programs to evaluate potential safety issues and stated that if significant new safety
~ information, from whatever source, should bring into question its finding of no undue risk from existing plants, then the specific issues would be handled
- under existing mechanisms for issue resolution.
! Evaluations of the Chernobyl accident may be the source of such information.
J The Commission, as well as other agencies of the United States Government, is e interested in learning as much as it can about the accident at Chernobyl and determining whether the accident has implications for nuclear power facilities in this country. The Chernobyl facility is, however, significantly different from reactors licensed by the NRC. I am not aware of any information concerning
~
the accident which suggests that public health and safety mandates an end to further licensing or operation of facilities in the United States. To the extent that our review of information about the accident, as it is made available to us, indicates the need to take measures to adequately protect the public, you may be assured that the Commission will take those necessary actions.
The Commission addressed the availability of safe disposal of nuclear waste in its Waste Confidence decision. 49 Fed. Reg. 34658, August 31, 1984. It concluded that it had reasonable assurance that safe disposal of high level radiological (,
x\)
noriroor &
waste was technically feasible, that it would be available on a timely basis and that spent fuel could be managed in a safe manner until sufficient repository space is available. The agency's guidance on decommissioning criteria are under development and final action is scheduled for October 1987. See Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, 51 Fed. Reg.14899, April 21,1986. The cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant placed in operation in 1987 is anticipated to range from
$27 to $60 million per unit (1984 dollars).
Your petition asserts that many of the plants under construction are not needed because they are located in regions with significant excess capacity and that any remaining demand can be met by conservation and alternative energy sources.
The Commission's regulations governing the consideration of need for power for a plant which already has a construction permit are set forth in 10 CFR 551.21 and 551.23. The Commission has made a generic determination that in all cases to date and in all foreseeable cases, there will be some benefit from operation of a nuclear plant in terms of either meeting increased energy needs or replacing older less economical generating capacity. Thus, once need for power and alternative energy source issues are resolved in the construction permit proceeding, absent special circumstances shown in accordance with 10 CFR 2.758 or as otherwise required by the Commission, need for power and alternative energy source issues will not be considered in operating licensing proceedings for nuclear power plants. Your petition has not identified any specific information or special circumstances which would cause us to ignore the Commission's generic findings on this issue for plants which have not yet received full power licenses.
Because your letter provides no specific information which provides a basis for consideration of revocation of existing construction permits for facilities in the United States, I am denying your request for action under 10 CFR 2.206.
You are, of course, free to make future requests for action under section 2.206 should you become aware of specific information, as opposed to general concerns about nuclear safety, that you believe warrant particular action concerning facilities regulated by the Commission.
Sincerely, original Signed 4 H.R. Den M ;
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION: (EDO 001780) gpg entral C File HRDenton RHVollmer 0GC JFunches JLyons SBlack JTaylor DMossb rg EDO TOSB R/F MBridgers
- See previous concurrences TOSB:PPAS* TOSB:PPAS* OGC* DIR:PPAS* DDI -
DIR:1 SBlack:sd JLyons JFunches RH ollmer HRD on 7/ /86 7/ /86 7/ /86 7/ /86 7/[o/86 7/q/86
.. -. - . .