ML18082A381
| ML18082A381 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1980 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18082A380 | List: |
| References | |
| DD-80-19, NUDOCS 8005140346 | |
| Download: ML18082A381 (6) | |
Text
. '~
. \\
In the Matter of UNITED STATES OF AME RI CA '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC
& GAS COMPANY, et al.
(Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Uni ts l _& 2) -
~
~ )
)
Docket No. 50-311 50-272 (2.206)
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 DD-80-19 By petition dated March 25," 1980, Samuel E. Donelson, requested the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to: 1) s_tay issuance of the.operating license for Salem, Unit 2 until conclusion of a hearing currently being conducted on a li-I
- cense amendment for Salem, Unit l to pennit expansion of the spent fuel pool storage capacity; 2) stay issuance of the operating license for Unit 2.and the license amendment for Unit 1 until anenvironmental impact.statement on storage of spent fuel at Salem Units 1 & 2 is completed or until a generic environmental impact statement on the national policy of the temporary or permanent storage of spent fuel at nuclear facilities is completed.
Mr. Donelson's petition has been treated as a request for ~ction under 10_ CFR 2.206 of the Ca!TITiission's regulations.
For the reasons set forth below, I have detennined Mr. Donelson's petition should be denied.
I As the basis for his request that environmental impact statements be pre-.
pared, Mr. Donelson asserts that the enlargement of the spent fuel pool at Salem 1 and the potential long tenn de facto storage of spent fuel at Salem 1 & 2 have not **
received the environmental analysis, i.e., consideration in an environmental im-pact statement, which he feels is required under the Nati_onal Environmental Policy 1'wq:ae
S-1 tf-0 '3 'f.6
~~~--~**°T'----... ***-*- - ~*...,*.-- --*..
J
. '. Act (NEPA).
His central concern appears to be that the "NRC has taken a position that enlargement of spent fuel storage capacity and storage of spent fuel at reactor sites throughout the country does not require a NEPA type of analysis."
Petition at 2-; -
First, to the extent that Mr. Donelson's petition requests any action with regard to the proposed expansion of the Salem Unit l spent fuel -pool, it will not be considered here. -The license amendment to µennit such expansion is currently the subject of a proceeding before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of this C0111Tiission.
M-r. Donel.son states_*_ that he is an iriterveQor in that pro-ceeding. Petition at 1. _Any questions or issues he wishes to raise regarding the expansion of the Saleu 1 spent. fuel pool properly lie before that Board.
With regard to Mr. DOnelson's central premise that the NRC has taken the position that enlargement of spent fuel pools throughout the country does not require a NEPA analysis, his assertion is incorrect.
In 1975, the Comnission, recognizing a developing shortage of spent fuel storage capacity, announced its intention to prepare a Generic Environmental "Impact Statement on Handling-and-Storage of light Water _Power Reactor Fuel.
40
- Fed. Reg. 42801_(Septeinber16, 1975). In that notice the Corrrnission recognized that licensing actions intended to ameliorate a possible shortage of spent fuel storage capacity would take place during the time the generic EIS was in prepara-tion. 40 Fed. Reg. 42802.
In response to the Licensee's request to modify and expand the spent fuel pools for Salem Units 1_ & 2. the Staff. in accordance with the Commission's regu-lations implementing NEPA's requirements (10 CFR Part 51}; issued an Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) on January 15, 1979. An appraisal was prepared for the pro-posed licensing action of amending the Operating License No. DPR-70 for Sal~~
Unit 1 to modify the storage capacity of its spent fuel pool. However, recognizing that the Licensee had indicated it also intended to make identical. modifications to Salem 2, and in view of the fact that the Final Environmental Statement (FES) for the Salem Station addressed both facilities, the Staff addressed the cumula-tive environmental impacts of the expansion of both spent fuel pools in the EIA.
The Staff concluded that proposed modific.ations would not s*ignificantly affect the quality of the human environment and that there would be no significant en-I vironmental impact attributable to the modifications oth~r than those which had already been predicted and described in the. Cornnission's FES for the facility)/
In August 1979, the CoT1111ission issued its generic EIS on spent fuel storage. 2/
On the basis of that analysis, the Comnission concluded that increasing the capa-cities of individual spent fuel storage pools was environmentally acceptable.11 It is clear the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has addressed, both generically and for the Salem facility specifically, the environmental effects of expansion of the spent fuel pool.
Mr. Donelson has not provided any infonnation which
]/
11Environmental Impact Appraisal by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to the Modification of the Spent Fuel Pools; Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 Construction Pennit"No. CPPR-53 Public Service Electric
& Gas Company; Salem Nuclear Generating Stations Unit 1 Docket No. 50-272 11 at 27.
Y Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling & Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel, NUREG-0575, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C~-nmission, August 1979.
ll NUREG 0575, Vol. l, supra, at 8-1 to 8-3.
J
- would suggest a major cha~ge in facts which would warrant any further considera-tion of this issue.ii To the extent that Mr. Donelson's concern about "the potential long tenn de facto storage of spent fuel at Salem Unit l & 2 11
, represents a concern about the ultimate disposal of the spent fuel, that concern is currently being addressed in the Commission's Rulemaking Proceeding on the Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste.
See 44 Fed. Reg. 61372 (October 25, 1979). The purpose of that proceed-ing is to:
(l) reassess [the Commission's] confidence that safe off-site disposal of radioactive waste from licensed facilities will be available; (2) detennine when any such disposal or off-site storage ~ill be available; (3) if disposal or off-site storage will not be available until after the expiration of the license of certain nuclear facilities, determine whether the wastes generated by those facilities can be safely stored on-site until such disposal is available.
The Comnission, in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, also noted that licensing practices need not be altered during this proceeding nor should the issues being considered in the rulemaking be addressed in individual licensing proceedings.
All licensing proceedings currently underway, however, would be subject to whatever final detennination is reached. Y While the Commission's limitation on consideration of these issues is addressed only to licensing pro-ceedings, I can perceive no reason why a different course should be followed in consideration of a request for action under 10 CFR 2.206. Whatever rule is promulgated following the conclusion of the generic rulemaking proceeding will° apply to all nuclear reactor facilities, including Salem 2. §!
Director's Decision Under 2.206 in Public Service Company of Indiana, et al.
(Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 & 2, 00-79-21, 10 NRC 717-,-
719 (1979).
44 Fed. Reg. 61372, 61373.
Id.
. ; *'... t In summary, the Corrunission has adequately addressed the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage at Salem Unit 2.
I II Mr. Donelson also asserts that in view of the fact that a licensing board is currently conducting a hearing on the proposed expansion of the spent fuel pool at Salem Unit 1, which involves consideration of various questions of safety and health, it*would be "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable to issue the operating license for Salem Unit 2 which would permit the same enlarged spent fuel pool... prior to the conclusion of the hearing on SaJem Unit 1 11 P.etition at 2.
The Commission Staff prepared a safety evalua.tion on the modifications pro-posed for the spent fuel pools at Salem Units 1. & 2._]j On the basis of that.
evaluation, the Staff concluded that there was reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation with an expanded spent fuel pool and that such activity can be conducted in compliance with the CoITVTiission 1s regulations.~ That analysis is set forth in Section 9.4 and Appendix D to Supplement No. 4 to the Safety Evaluation Report for Salem Unit 2. 9/
Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to the Modification of the Spent Fuel Storage Pool; Facility Operating License No. DPR-70, Public Service Electric & Gas Co., Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1, Docket No. 50-272 (January 15, 1979).
Safety Evaluation Report, supra, at 3-1, 4-1.
NUREG 0517, Supplement No. "4 to the Safety Evaluation Report by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In the Matter of Public Service Electric & Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2) Docket No. 50-311, April, 1980.
...... !' The Staff has concluded that the modifications to the Salem Unit 2 spent fuel pool are acceptable from a health and safety and an environmental stand-point.
The Licensee has advised, however, that it will not need, and presently does not plan, to use the modified high density racks for storing* spent fuel until the end of the first fuel cycle of Unit 2.
The NRC Staff will carefully examine the Commission's ultimate disposition of the ongoing proceedings regarding the re-racking of the spent fuel pool at Salem, Unit 1.
If the Staff determines, on the basis of that examination, that further action is appropriate at the Unit 2 spent fuel pool, it will take such action.
Consequently, Mr. Donelson 1s request to stay the issuance of the operating license of Salem Unit 2 is denied..
A copy of this decision will be placed in the Corrmission 1s Public Document Room at 1717 H Street~ N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 and in the local Public Docu-ment Room for the Salem Unit 2 facility located at Salem Free ~ublic Library, 112 West Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08079.
A copy of this decision wi11-a1so be filed with the Secretary for review by the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the regulations of the Corrrnission.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), this decision will constitute the final action of the c~rrnission twenty (20) days after the date of issuance, unless the ColTlllission on its own motion institutes the review of this decision within that time.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of April, 1980.
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation