ML18086A624
| ML18086A624 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1981 |
| From: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18086A623 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106050130 | |
| Download: ML18086A624 (11) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-311 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF FACILITY OPERATING LICE~SE The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connnission (the Commission) has issued Facility Operating License No. DPR-75, issued to the Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Philadelphia Electric Company, Delmarva Power and Light Company and the Atlantic City Electric Company, which authorizes operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 at reactor core power levels not in excess of 3411 megawatts thermal (100% power) in accordance with the provi-sions of the license and the Technical Specifications.
The Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 is a pressurized water nuclear reactor located at the licensees' site in Salem County, New Jersey.
The license is effective as of its date of issuance.
The application for the license complies with the standards and re-quirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Connnission's regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Cammi ssi on 1 s regul ati ans in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license. Prior public notice of the overall action involving the proposed issuance of an operating license was issued in the Federal Register on October 20, 1972 (37 F. R. 22637).
The Commission has determined that the issuance of this license will not result in any environmental impacts other than those evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement since the activity authorized by this license is encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement.
- ,.. For further details with respect to this action, see (1) Facility Operating License No. DPR-75, complete with Technical Specifications; (2) License for Fuel Load and Low Power Testing dated April 18, 1980 and amendments thereto; (3) the reports of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards dated February 15, February 22 and August 14, 1979; (4) the Commission's Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0517) dated October 1974, Supplement 1 dated June 1976, Supplement 2 dated August 1976, Supplement 3 dated December 1978, Supplement 4 dated April 1980, Supplement 5 dated January 1981, and Supplement 6 dated May 1981; and (5) the Final Safety Analysis Report, docketed August 1971 and amendments thereto; (6) the Environmental Report prepared by Public Service Electric & Gas Company dated June 30, 1970, as supplemented and amended; (7) the Commission's Final Environmental Statement dated April 1973, (8) the NRG Flood Plain Review of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Site dated April 18, 1980; and (9) the Discussion of the Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cyc;le dated May 20, 1981.
These items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. c. and at the local public document room in the Salem Free Public Library, 112 West Broadway, Salem, New Jersey. A copy of item (1) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Copies of Supplements 3, 4, 5 and 6 of NUREG-0517 may be purchased at current rates from the National Technical Information Service, Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, and through the NRG GPO sales
I L_
/
J 't-program by writing to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attention:
Sales Manager, Washington, D. C. 20555.
GPO deposit account holders can call 301-492-9530.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryl and this 20th day of
- May, 1981.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~~fl7fbr;_J~
Frank J. ~aida:*~ief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
~.. ~,,.. : *...
1' I
I '
-~
ti_
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE ACTIVITIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO OPERATION OF THE SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 2 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-311 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION The proposed action is the issuance of Facility Operating License No. DPR-75 to the Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Philadelphia Electric Company, Delmarva Power and Light Company, and Atlantic City Electric Company authorizing operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 at reactor core power levels not in excess of 3411 megawatts thermal (100% power) in accordance with the provisions of the license and the Technical Specifications.
The purpose of this Discussion of Environmental Effects is to consider the contribution of the uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of operating this nuclear power facility. Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle' Environmental Data, 10 CFR Part 51, of the Commission's Regulations provides the basis for considering the significance of the uranium fuel cycle impacts resulting from operation of the facility.
-.2 -
In November 1972, a docum~nt entitled "Environmental S.urvey of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle" (hereinafter referred to as "Survey") was published by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), predecessor agency of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Comments on the Survey were solicited, and an informal rulemaking hearing was held on February l and 2, 1973.
Written comments were received in response to the Federal Register notice, and recommendations for improvement were offered during the hearings.
The environmental impact of the nuclear fuel cycle was not addressed in the cost-benefit analysis presented in the Final Environmental Statement (FES)
Related to the Operation of Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units l and 2, issued April 1973.
The FES did note in the discussion of comments received on the Draft Environmental Statement that this matter "is being considered on a generic basis and will be subject to a rule-making proceeding, notice of which was published in the Federal Register on January 3, 1973 (38 FR 49)."
After consideration of the written comments and the hearing record, the AEC
{
promulgated the final fuel cycle rule (th~ so-called Table S-3) on April 22, 1974 (39 FR 14188).
It was intended that, with the inclusion of environmental impacts from Table S-3, the environmental impact statements for individual light water reactors would set forth a full and candid assessment of costs and benefits consistent with the legal requirements and spirit of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
'"*Al_ --
--*-- On January 19, 1975, the AEC was abolished and its licensing and regulatory responsibilities transferred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission).
On July 21, 1976, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided Natural Resources Defense Council v. NRC, a case involving judicial review of the fuel-cycle rule, and Aeschliman v. NRC, a related case involving the exclusion of fuel cycle issues from an individual power reactor licensing proceeding.
The court approved the overall approach and methodology of the fuel cycle rule and found that, regarding most phases of the fuel cycle, the underlying Environmental Survey represented an adequate job of describing the impacts involved.
However, the court found that the rule was inadequately supported by the record insofar as it treated two particular aspects of the fuel cycle - the impacts from reprocessing of spent fuel and the impacts from radioactive waste management.
In response to that court decision, the Commission issued a General Statement of Policy (41 FR 34707, August 16, 1976) announcing its intention to reopen the rulemaking proceeding on the environmental effects of the fuel cycle to supplement the existing record on waste management and reprocessing impacts to determine whether the rule should be amended and, if so, in what respect.
The Commission thus indicated its intent to handle the question of the environ-
mental impacts of waste management and reprocessing generically rather than in individual licensing proceedings.
The Commission directed the NRC staff to prepare on an expedited basis a well-documented supplement (NUREG-0116) to the Survey (WASH-1248) to establish a basis for identifying environmental impacts associated with fuel reprocessing and waste management activities that are attributable to the licensing of a model light-water reactor.
The revised survey was completed in October 1976, and the Commission issued the October 18, 1976 notice regarding the proposed interim rule.
The comments received in response to that notice and the Commission 1s responses to those comments comprise NUREG-02169 Supplement 2 to WASH-1248.
On March 14, 1977, the Commission published in the Federal Register (42 FR 13803) an interim rule regarding the environmental considerations of the uranium fuel cycle. It v1as to be effective for 18 months (it was extended several times, the final extension being to September 4, 1979) and revised Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51.
A rulemaking hearing was held to consider whether the interim rule should be made permanent or, if it should be altered, in what respects (42 FR 26978); this proceeding began on May 26, 1977.
The Hearing Board took extensive written and oral testimony from more than twenty participants.
On August 31, 1978, the Hearing Board submitted to the Commission a detailed summary of the evidentiary record, followed on October 26, 1978, by its Conclusions and Recommendations.
(
After studying the Hearing Board 1 s Conclusions and Recommendations and receiving written and oral presentations by rulemaking participants, the Commission adopted as a final rule the modified Table S-3 recommended by the Hearing Board (44 FR 45362 dated August 2, 1979).
The modified Table S-3 became effective September 4, 1979.
The impact values in this table differ only slightly from the values in the interim rule.
With two exceptions, these values will be taken as the basis for evaluating in individual light water power reactor licensing proceedings, pursuant to requirements of the NEPA, the contribution of uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the reactor in question. The exceptions are radon releases, 1/
presently omitted from the interim rule (43 FR 15613, April 14, 1978),-
and 2/
technetium-99 releases from reprocessing and waste management activities.-
1/
- With regard to radon releases, the matter of appropriate values is under consideration before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in the proceeding derived from ALAB-480 which involved a consolidation of numerous proceedings.
The staff 1 s testimony in this proceeding presents the staff 1 s assessment that impacts from radon releases are not significant.
2/
- With regard to technetium-99 releases from reprocessing and waste management activities, in 44 FR 45362 the Commission found:
11 In view of the Hearing Board 1s conclusion that the conservative assumption of complete release of iodine-129 tends to compensate for the ommission of technetium from Table S-3, the Commission finds it unnecessary to reopen closed proceedings or to disturb consideration of environmental issues in presently pending pro-ceedings to provide for consideration of technetium-99 releases.
11 Thus, consideration of technetium-99 releases in connection with the licensing of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2 is unnecessary.
... The rulemaking record makes clear that effluent release values, standing alone, do not meaningfully convey the environmental significance of uranium fuel cycle activities. The focus of interest and the ultimate measure of impact for radio-active releases are the resulting radiological dose commitments and associated health effects.
To convey in understandable terms the significance of releases in the Table, the Hearing Board recommended that the modified Table be accompanied by an explanatory narrative promulated as part of the rule.
The recommended narrative would also address important fuel cycle impac,cts now outside the scope of Table S-3, including socioeconomic and cumulative impacts, where these afe appropriate for generic treatment.
Pending further treatment by rulemaking, the Commission--Cifr'ected the NRC staff to address the environmental dose commitments and health effects from fuel cycle releases, fuel cycle socioeconomic impacts, and possible cumulative impacts in the environmental analysis accompanying a proposal to issue a limited work authorization, construction permit, or operating license for a power reactor. The Commission directed the NRC staff to prepare such a narrative. The staff prepared narrative was published on March 4, 1981 in the Federal Register (46 FR 15154-15175).
The narrative is of an explanatory nature, providing a discussion of the environ-mental dose commitments and health effects, socioeconomic impacts, and possible cumulative impacts associated with the urani.um fuel cycle activities representative*
of a fuel cycle for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2.
). "l_J
]. -
"'The fuel.. cycle effects presented in Table S-3, as discussed in the explanatory narrative are sufficiently small so that, when they are superimposed upon the other environmental impacts assessed with respect to operation of the reactor, the changes in the overall environmental impact from operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 are not substantial. Giving.due consideration to the values given in Table S-3 and the information set forth in the explanatory narrative, the NRC staff concludes that the overall cost-benefit balance previously developed in the Salem Final Environmental Statement remains unaltered.