ML19210D551
| ML19210D551 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/05/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Roisman A National Resources Defense Council |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19210D552 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911270284 | |
| Download: ML19210D551 (3) | |
Text
.e
@R RIG d
o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION bMh g(fg j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g(l.f2 -
%,*****gl' November 5, 1979 CHAIRMAN Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
917 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005
Dear Mr. Roisman:
This responds to the request of the NRDC dated July 10, 1979, that the Commission, in response to the decision of the D.C.
Circuit in Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (1979), halt further licensing of nuclear facilities and spent fuel storage expansions.
The Commission is al so in receipt of your supplementary letter of July 13, 1979, regarding the concurring opinion of Judge Tamm.
Our examination of the Court's opinion in Minnesota v.
NRC does not lead to the result urged in your letter.
In our view, the Court did not intend to impose a halt on power plant licensing or spent fuel expansions.
That we think is clear from the face of the opinior. itself.
...we think it appropriate in the interest of sound administration to remand to the NRC for further consideration in light of its S-3 pro-ceeding and analysis.
In particular the court contemplates consideration on remand of the specific problem isolated by petitioners--deter-mining whether there is reasonable assuranca that an off-site storage solution will be available by the years 2007-2009, the expiration of the plants' operating licenses, and if not whether there is reasonable assurance that the fuel can be stored safely at the sites beyond those dates.
We neither vacate nor stay the license amendments, which would effectively shut down the plants. (602 F.2d at 418; emphasis supplied)
The majority opinion, in footnote 10, indicates that the Commission "may integrate the [ remanded) issues with the pending S-3 proceeding, designate a follow-on generic proceeding, or follow such other courses as it deens appro-priate."
(Id at 419)
The court expressly " confine [d] its action at tees time to rejection of certain contentions by petitioners, notably the claim of need for an adjudicatory proceeding."
(Id at 419) 1396 270 7 9112 70 bl
Anthony Z. Roisman 2
The Court was aware, of course, that a generic proceeding on a complex issue such as spent fuel storage cannot be com-pleted rapidly, and that while the proceeding is in progress, further licensing amendment requests for the expansion of spent fuel pool capacity will be received and acted upon by the NRC.
The Court, however, gave no indication that licensing should be halted while the generic proceeding is in progress.
Had the Court intended the result you have suggested, we think it would have clearly indicated that that was its intended course.
The cases you have cited in favor of a licensing moratorium are distinguishable from Minnesota v. NRC.
In both Calvert Cliffs' Coord. Comm. v.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 449 E.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971), and NRDC v. NRC, 547 F.2d 633 (D.C. Cir. 1976), rev'd and rem'd sub nom. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corooration v. NRDC 435 U.S. STF7 98 S.Ct.1197, 55 L.
Ed. 2d 460 (1978), it was found that the Commission had not fulfilled the mandate of NEPA.
Issuance of further licenses following these decisions was necessarily delayed until the Commission had responded to the Court's interpre-tation of NEPA, in the former case by adopting Appendix D to CFR Part 50, and in the latter by preparing the " Interim S-3 Rule". 1/ In Minnesota v. NRC, 'lowever, the Court specifically refrained from finding that the Commission was in violation of its statutory responsibilities and instead remanded the case to the NRC "in the interest of sound administration
" The Court explicitly refused to decide that licenses issued followir.;, its decision would be invalid under NEPA or the Atomic Energy Act.
Moreover, we do not read Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Union, 367 U.S. 396 (1960),
as requiring the Commission to refuse licenses while a generic problem common to all nuclear plants of any design is under study. The Commission's views on the linkage between reactor licensing and waste disposal are set forth in detail in letters written to Senator Glenn this past March.
I am attaching those letters for your convenience.
-]/
The D.C. Circuit also stayed issuance of its mandate in the S-3 proceeding.
1396 271
Anthony Z. Roisman 3
Finally, I would call your attention to the Commission's recent announcement of a generic proceeding in response to Minnesota v. URC.
(Docket copy attached) I refer specifically to the following statement in that announcement (At pp. 5-6 of the attachment):
During this proceeding the safety implications and environmental impacts of radioactive waste storage on-site for the duration of a license will continue to be subjects for adjudication in individual facility licensing proceedings.
The Commission has decided, however, that during this proceeding the issues being considered in the rulemaking should not be addressed in individual licensing proceedings. These issues are most appropriately addressed in a generic proceeding of the character here envisaged.
Fur thermore, the court in the State of Minnesota case, by remanding this matter to the Commission but not vacating or revoking the facility licenses involved, has supported the Commis sion 's conclusion that licensing practices need not be altered during this proceeding.
However, all licensing proceedings now underway will be subject to whatever final deter-minations are reached in this proceeding.
This statement should serve to clarify the relation between the generic proceeding and individual licensing actions, including the expansion of spent fuel storage pools.
For the reasons outlined above, the Commission denies the request of the NRDC to impose a moratorium on reactor licensing or spent fuel pool expansions during the pendency of the generic proceeding on safe disposal of nuclear wastes.
' Sincerely, IW x1 f
'~30seph M. Hendrie 1396 272
ed e.
a.
E "S
" ^d J, S
..)i Wr SHINGToN. o. C. 20555
~
5
~
/
.s,
.;.m /
P.aren. 9, 1979
~~
- H al R t.*aN n
I The Honorable John Glenn, Chairman' Sub:ommittee on Energy, Nuclear l
Froiiferation and Federal Services i
Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate b'a shington, D. C.
20510
Dear Sena*wr Glenn:
?
Thank you for your letter dated February 6,1979, in which you reouested I-the Commission's views on certain specific aspects of nuclear waste
[
ma r.:gemen t.
The responses to your cuestions are enclosed.
I would like
[
- o coint out that while the answer to Question 2 is collegial, the answer to Question 1 expresses my views as weil as those of Commissioners Kennedy and Ahtarne.
and Bradford may be forwarding their views on this question underIt ~isi i.
E separate cover.
If you have any further cuestions concerning this subject, please let me k n oW.
5 Sincerely, f
f Q a\\
i.
e w.
.u.
e-J:seph M. Hendrie En:les ure :
F.egp:nse to Questions
-[
n Senator Glenn s j 396 //}
B e
itr to Chairman Hendrie dtd 2/6/79 C'
cc:
Sen. Jacob K. Javits DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously entered into system under:
ANO N o. of pages:
h
" ~ ' - " ~ " ' '
~~
I,,
.s.. J >.:q _. :.-. M,.1 usw.c cx. c. c. 20:ss
.. a"/ 3
%+ *
- f j
cr;:cs c= wt March 13, 1979
- .:.w.w c::s a 1
s I
The Honorable John Glenn, Chairman D**
' 9f Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear 1-m i
Proliferation and Federal S'ervices Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate
~
Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Senator Glenn:
(
. This is my response to the first questio'n in your letter dated February 6, 1979 to the Commission.
That question concerned the Commission's state of confidence at the present time that nuclear ' waste materials will be safely cared for, the basis f or this confidence, and any steps the Commission intends to take in its reactor lice ns ing p.
process to refl'ect its present thinking on this matter.
t I am not satisfied with the basis for the Commission 's state of confidence set out in the response transmitted f-on l'. arch 9, 1979.
The fact that the classic tenets of E
waste management are being questioned more heavily today
[
than when the Commission firs t issued its statement that it had reasonable confidence that vaste can and will in due p
t ime be disposed of saf ely indicates g
prching of the diverse viewpoints en thisthe need for a thorough i
issue bef ore the k
Commission again expresses " reasonable" confidence.on the matter.
f5 My own present willingness to continue reactor licensing
[I rests on four points.
First, the bulk of th e summaries of Fi technical information that I have seen suggest a generalized though incomplete consensus to the ef f ect that long-term disposal is technically possible.
Second and very much related, similar evidence sugges ts that temporary storage of current wastes and those likely to be produced while we are verifying the first hypothesis to the e.xtent possible is within our capabilities.
Third, and this is the most tenuous of the four, the little that I know about the oossible errors that we might make af ter more extensive analysic suggests that the risks involved in long-term discosal add very little to my sense of the sum of the
~
Y 1396 274 D
' *d d.
u ff/W
,m.b a
i I
a
[
B
?
Honorable John Glenn March 13,1979 j
societal risks that people presently f ace.
Fourth, given the first three points, the costs of abruptly refusing to generate more waste or to build more plants in those regions that still choose to count on them seem to me to be excessive.
Having made those four points, I must cuickly add three qualifiers.
First, I must~ reemphasize that the con-clusions are tentative, both in light of my own non-technical background and in light of the surprisingly large amount of research still to be done in this field.
Second, I intend no disparagement of any state or region that has chosen to do without nuclear power until the.
uncertainties are resolved to the satisf action of its ci tiz ens.
Local cost-benefit balances, alternatives, and tolerances for uncertainty will vary, and the nation can both af f ord and benefit from diverse approaches.
Third, nothing that I have'said cuts against setting a reasonable set of " deadlines" f or the " solu tion" of the wasre problem and cutting of f licensing and perhaps even operation if those. deadlines go unnet for unacceptable reasons.
I am not talking about a guillotine, but abou t a management plan that would contain reasonable planning and licensing deadlines af ter which some combination of Presidential exemption and/or Congressional review would be recuired for business to centinue as usual.
S ince r ely,
W" ] 7) /[,'/
&L
/
Peter A. Bradf ord Commissione.
cc:
Senator J acob C.
Javits g**D
"]D'T}1
'I o Ju
. A j < "
2 00 b
'f S
-..F...
.'.'.'".;;