ML19029A391
| ML19029A391 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1977 |
| From: | Conner T Law Offices of Troy B. Conner, Public Service Electric & Gas Co |
| To: | Mike Farrar, Quarles L, Rosenthal A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| Download: ML19029A391 (9) | |
Text
- ..
- e.
LAW OFFICES TROY B. CONNER, JR.
1747 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N;W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 TROY B. CONNER. JR.
KARKJ.WElTERHAHN J. ROY SPRADLEY, JR.
UITH H. ELLIS Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
- u. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
- 20555 Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Atomic Safety and* Licensing*
Appeal Board
- u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. c.. 20555 (202) 833-3500 CABLE ADDRESS: ATOMLA W.
Michael C. Farrar, Esq *..
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. c.
20555 In the Matter of Public Service Electric & Gas Company (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit~ 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50~311 Gentlemen:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company, licensee in.the
- captioned* proceeding, in reliance upon the Atomic Safety. arid Licensing_Board's letter of May 4, 1977 in Union Electric Company (Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2), will not submit an opening brief in response to ALAB-392.*
However~ as requested by the Appeal Board of all parties, attached hereto is Licensee's.
Submission Regarding Footnote 7 of ALAB-3 9.2..
'l'BC:kf cc. Per service list Sincerely, d facnJ g. "c;, v.W?~ -
Troy a. conner,. Jr. * *.f L
Counsel for the Licensee. * *
- e:TED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC &
GAS COMPANY
)
)
)
)
. Docket Noe 50-272
)
50-311 *
(Salem Nuclear Generating
- Station, Units 1 &.2)
)
)
)
)
LICENSEE'S SUBMISSION REGARDING FOOTNOTE 7 of ALAB-392 1/
In ALAB-392, relating* to the Appeal_Board's considera-tion of the effect of the inclusion of the revised values asso-ciated with the uranium fuel cycle on individual cost/benefit
- analyses for a *number of reactors, the Appeal Board noted that 2/
"[s]ome of the members of the panel are concerned about the
.*implications, in terms of the application of the numerical values.
contained in.the revised Table*s-3 of an observation in the Statement of Considerations which accompanied the ~roposal of the Interim Rule."* Specifically, the Appeal Board listed its areas of concern as follows:
y Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), et al., ALAB-392, 5 NRC~-' Slip op. at 14 (April 21, 1977)
- For purposes of ALAB-392, the various panels of.the Appeal Board were consolidated.
- -2~
"uncertainties in areas such as the effect of waste presence on repository stability; the probabilities and con-sequences of various types of intrusive acts by humans; the availability of data to be used in modeling studies; the de~ign and regulatory actions needed to.minimize possibilities of repository failure; pro-jection of future societal habits and demography, and, finally, the relative importance of the various potential
- _initiating events.'.' 3/
While the panel stated that the. above expressed concern was riot necessarily-shared by a majority of. the Appeal Board members, it requested the parties "to include iri their-sub-missions a discussion of the significance ~hich, 'in light of the Commission's notation, should be deemed to attach to the.
value placed by the Interim Rule upon the newly-established.
4/.
category of 'transuranic and high level wastes (de-ep). 111 -
The Appeal.Board continued:
3/
"In other words, given the uricertainties
- to which the Commission has referred
. with regard. to the possible release of '
'the buried high level wastes, what weight*
should be attributed {in striking the cost/benefit balance for each individual reactor) to the value assigned to the solidified waste.which would be generated during that. reactor's op.eration.?".5_/
41 Fed. Reg.
45850~1. It should.be noted that in the next paragraph the Commission stated that II [w] here data necessary for a complete quantitative assessment of impact is lacking, the Commission's expert judgement must be brought to bear on the information available." **
4/ ALAB-392, n. 7, Slip op. at 14 *.. see 41 Fed. Reg. 45849,
. 45850-51 (October 18, 1976).
5/ ALAB-392, n. 7.,.Sl:i:-P op. at 14.
_.3-If there were any questions remaining based upon a reading of the proposed interim fuel cycle rule,, the Commission has already addressed and disposed of these questions in its' State-.
ment of Considerations published with *the effective interim fuel cyc*1e rule.* Moreover, as fu:z;:ther indicated in its charge to the Appeal.Board,* the Commission has.itself made the.deter-mination that "the values in the old rule and those in the interim rule are not substantially different. *
- II CLI 10, 5 NRC at __, Slip op. at 3 (April 1, 1977) **
In *its Statement of Considerations accompanying the interim rule; the Commission weighed uncertainties in its interim rule and the risk of proceeding "on the basis of information which.
may later be-called into question in.a. final rulemaking pro-d '
II h
- 1 *
. 6/
cee ing. against. a ia tus i.n LWR icens ing. -
The Commission concluded that the underlying Task.Fqrce Report contained _and documented numerou~;. conservatisms applied to the analysis of environmental impacts and waste management
- and reprocessing activities. *With regard to those few cases 6/ 42 Fed. *Reg. 13804. *
.(
- e.
where detailed estimates could not be niad.~*, the Commission found that:
"the Task Force exercised its expert judgment to reach a best estimate.
Since a calculation could not be made, the conservatism of these few judg1nents cannot absolutely be established.
How~ver, it.is
- the Commission's view that the impacts estimated on expert judgments are quite small in any case and that adequate con-servatism has been applied."7/
The Conunission stated it would be*"reluctant to proceed if it believed the values in Table S-3 and the information from which they are derived, were called into question to any significant degree by substantial evidence, but this is not
!!_/
the case **** "
The Commission elaborated on *its 4ecision-making process as follows:
"To some extent, as noted above, the setting
- of.values in Table. S-3 involved making*
'policy judgments where no.factual certainties exist or where facts alone do not provide the.
answer. '*"
Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO
- v. Hodgson, 499 F.2d 467, 476 (D.C. Cii. 1974)'.:
"In such.cases--especially where the evidence.
is 'difficult to come by, uncertain, or con-flicting because it is on the frontiers of scientific knowledge'--it is appropriate for*
the Commission to proceed to apply its exper-tise; its conclusions must be rationally justified, not based on hunches or wild guesses, but conclusions may be drawn 'from
..]/* Id. at 13805.
~ Id.
-s-theoretical projections from imperfect data, from probative preliminary* dat_a.not yet certi-fied as *'fact', and the like." Ethyl Corp. v.
EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 28 (D.C. Cir. 1976); see also Amoco Oil Co. v. EPA, 501 F.2d 722 (D.C. Cir. 1974). "The Commission may, as to some extent it has done here, make probabilistic assessments that must suffice until data becomes 'sufficiently quanti-fiable to yield to meaningful analysis."
Union of Concerned Scientists, supra, 499 F.2d at 1093. 9/_
It concllJ.ded that there wa*s "no. perceived n~ed for the*
- commission to wait for site specific information or to wait f~r ERDA's generic envirorunental impact statement on high level waste management."
The situation was summarized as.
follows:
Id.
Id.
"In some areas-'-including critical areas where a substantial measure of expert judgment had to be.applied--it is un-likely that substantial new information
- of a quantitative nature will be avail-able for years. _As the Court said in Citizens for Safe Power v.*NRC, 524 F.2d 1291, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 1975):
'Absolute or perfect assurances are not required by (the A.tomic. Energy
. Act), and neither present technology nor-public policy admit of such a standard. It was for the Commission**
to arrive at a rational, practical and*
principled conclusion upon the basis of reason~bly available evidence.'" 10/
I, i
I I.
I*,.
- . The interim rule does not deal with a safety question, but rather attempts to quantify the environmental impact of re-processing and waste management.
In the Statement of Considerations, the Commission.quoted from Union.of Concerned.*
Scientists v. AEC, 499, F.2d 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1974) that
"'[C]onservative analysis based on available.expert information' is even more appropriate in.such a case where the goal is not*
to reach a conclusion whether.* a level of safety has been made, but rather to develop values for use.in environmental cost/
11/*
benefit analyses." -. -
We 1.therefore,.submit that for purposes *Of striking the.
cost/benefit balance in inP.ividUal cases, the Appeal Board may not go outside*the table contained the Comrnissiun's.interirn fuel cycle rule; no a,dditional account for "uncertainty" need be factored in the individual cost/benefit analyses,.inasmuch as such uncertainties were considered by the Commission in 11/ Id *.
f' I. '
~ : : :..
- . ~*
.e.the development of the rule.
However, if doubts remain as to correct application of *the rule, we would suggest
- .. that the question be *certified to. the *commission.
May 23, 1977 Respectfully submitted, CONNER AND MOORE.*.
. *~*
cJ**
ii~-*_
Tro~onneri Jr. *.
- ~*.
~~tLn<*.
Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Licensee.**.. *
.1*
__ *2__ ___
.TED STATES OF NUCLEAR REGUµ\\TORY AMERICA COMMISSION
. )
)
)
)
)
.(Salem Nuclear Generating *)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
'. In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC
& GAS COMPANY
. Docket Nos. 50-352 50-353 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of i'Licensee' s
- Submission Regarding.
Footnote 7 of ALAB 392, 0 dated May 23, 1977, in the capti.oned matter, has been served upon the following by deposit in the United.States mail this 23rd day of May,_ 1977:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq~
Chairman, Atomic Safety and.
Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C~
20555 Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles
- Atomic Safety and* Licensing :..
Appeal Board
- *. u.s. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Washington, D. c.
20555 Mr. Michael C~ Farrar Atomi*c Safety and Licensing Appeal Board*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D~C.
- 20555.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and*
Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Washington,*. D.C.
20555 **
- chairmari,*Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S~ Nuclear Regulatory Commissiop Washington, D.C~
20555 Counsel for the NRC Regulatory
.
- Staff.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Washington, D.C.
- 20555
.. Richard Fryling,
- Jr.,. Esq.
.. Assistant General *Solicitor
- .*:*Public Service* Electric &
- Gas Company
- * : 80 Park Place. *
- .. Newark, New Jersey*.* 0710L*.
...,; ~--.
.. Mr. Chauncey Ke pf ord
- .; 2576 Broad Street..
York,*Pennsylvania
- 17404 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section
.Office of the Secretary
, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission
- *Washington,* D.C.
20555
._*.*.*