ML19242B779

Forwards 790523 Decision of Court of Appeals in State of Mn Vs NRC & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Vs Nrc.Requests NRC Clarify Finding in Denial of Petition for Rulemaking by NRDC

ML19242B779
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	06/01/1979
From:	Gray J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
NUDOCS 7908090391
Download: ML19242B779 (19)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. / DISTRIBUTION: JRGray t te r: MUlman m umm mmm-men - SATreby HShapar I* TEngelhardt EChristenbury JCrews - Region V ELD FF (2) Mr. Samuel J. Chilk ~ CTrammell-316-Phil Secretary of the Commission HSmith - Rm. 314 Phillips U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DVassallo - Rm.110 Phillips Washington, D. C. 20555, NRC Central File Ylferring - Rm. 440 Phillips MMal.n rec, In the Matter'of Portland General Electric Company, et al. ASchwencer-316-Phil (Trojan Nuclear Plant) Docket No. 50-344 ~~ XX (2) (Proposed Amendment to Facility Operating License Chrun NPF-1 to Permit Storage Pool Modification)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

On May 23,1979, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued the enclosed decision in Minnesota v. NRC and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution

v. NRC, This decision involves the Appeal Board's Prairie Island / Vermont Yankee spent fuel pool decision (ALAB-455) whic h was directly relied upon and followed by the Appeal Board in its Trojan ~ spent fuel pool decision (ALAB-531) now pending before the Commission. While the Staff assumes that the Commission is fully aware of the Court of Appeals' opinion we are forwarding copies of that opinion to the adjudicatory boards and parties in the referenced proceeding in accordance with the Staff's continuing duty to keep the boards and parties informed of relevant new information and devleopments.

i The Court of Appeals' decision requires that the Commission clarify its finding in its denial of a petition for rulemaking by the Natural Resources Defense Council (42 Fed. R_eg. 34391, 34393, July 5,1977) of " reasonable assurance that safe permanent disposal of high-level wastes can be available when needed." The Court expressly rejected a claim that the matter need be considered in individual licensing cases. In addition, the e Commission has not indicated eny change in its position. In these circumstances, the Staff believes itself bound to foL:x the current guidance of the Commission. Should the { Commission issue any policy statement or guidance in response to the Court cf Appeals' decision, the Staff will promptly furnish the information to the adjudicatory boards and parties in this proceeding. Sincerely, e, Joseph R. Gray Counsel for NRC Staff hr.efe,t.ra... Aa. stated ..CQ.. 8 LD- { JRG[#,g: as SAThhv - cc w/er c1: Service l ist 06// /79 06/ j ' /79 urs = .. +.. +

nac romu 34s (S.74) Nacu e

• w.* **v ===='a =v a-'g]P8' 4e F 3P. s e s. m 7008 090 g

/ {

. u.__ _., -- ' ' ~_T ;;g ; :. : -"

r. ~ r - ---.-_-

,.a- ~ g _ __ :. _.. _ n _. : = L= : --.... - Notice: This erinica is cubject to formal revision brore pubUcation 1----- In the Federal Ibporter or U.S. App.D.C. Ecports. Uccrs c.re rmuested =_ 3 _- -r :---M :7-to notify tie C!crk of any formal errors in order that corrution: Inay be --)----- ? _~ 7. _ T' - r ade befne the bound volumes go to press. -E N-'-' --" ~ E - 2 : r-

.- : L. 5. = :..^.;. ^.. - : s

- - - ^ - - - - - - - ~..:-....._:--- Etitrh Staten Gant af Apura!s 5rW5MM L.-^ --.Q- ~ ~ : _.. FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMELt CECCIT _ _"..i =T - -'-- U ",.i~..U -.- i :. '".T - =. _ _.. _ ..:- n.=.- =_

==_

E '"' '~ _. ~. _ ^ .~~=.='=.---'_::'=-:.E.-& =.- No. 78-1269 - 1 : = l= :

===. _=i --- iCZ T1 f7"M=C--L- -_ 7 T =.c-r=r._:. = _. _..._.. STATE OF MINNESOTA, BY THE MINNESOTA r-- n r =.:-.- -::_-= =.====: ::_-- POLLun0N CONTROL AGENCY, PETITIONER _: __ _.2- -.- r--.. 2 - : -~ - - 2.:._.__ d_= - ' _ = =_.. :. =_:.2::_-:= =. ^ ' V. .__._=;;_; _ -.-_.__m__._. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR EEGULATORY COM'JIESION -W- -b > - AND UNITED STATES OF A'JERICA, EESPONDENTS N...-.._N___ _.... __._:5_h_-. ___ D..---.. NORTHERN STATES POWER CO:JPANY, INTERVENOR ..Z._ _~ % _;_ _. J.. _~i.._..c...

u. _ -__.._."_..

,,_[,_,,e p.. -+-.9--

r_._"-"Z_----.~._..T'_____"--.___..

g No. 78-2032 -- --~~a-.. - - -...... - _ _.a-~ Z. _.ZE . --M _. -:_....:.a = - ":._2 _..=-- : NEw ENGLAND COALm0N ON NUCLEAR POLLun0N, 7 _ ;_- _ __:4=;_.4._' E_;-.- 7 -___ _:_.--.__.._:..--_---..-.T----' PETITIONER _..... =. _.. _ ' _ _ _. ". _ _ _ - ---= = = = -._:_ =.r V. .. - _ ~ -. :_ : - : _- - =- =. _ -- _ 5 - N Y-f b-3._b_2-UNITED STATES NUCLEAR P.EGULATORY CO:JMISSION f_U_Z.__ 2 _.-._.__ __. - ~ ~- - -- AND UNrrED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS

==T-_:.=-_-.===.:=-- ~ - ~ ~ ~ =~ _ h ',,; _.._..~.7 i S ~- - 1 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION,

.E ::===

= " =5e_E _.:r INEVENOR = = ~ = - - - ~. _ ' _

=_;2:_ _

W^~~_5'? -- ?-?55?. ~ =_=_=._=_...._-:=.2-.=_=__-. - = 2._. _.= =_.. 2-Li_ _ :- := -i T 2:E E 1-:=~:~.--?hh : -:_.- .'2-- U5.- _.. " #h 5#i.* Eills of ecsts t=ust be fded within 14 days after entry of Judrment. The .=o _=_.- - 1._. _ ~.' =:=i 1 -. -. ee:rt kks with disfavor up: =ctions to Sie biUs of costs cut of time. _.... - -.n....-g..-.---- - = - .._ ' T. -~ ' T:&. :. :'--'. --L '. f - ~

==.- __..__-=.--.-._:. 1 =:==.-.._.=-._=.==- 5'-[----._._P.'-N----"*1'--"b.'". g. 7 _...}-=.c==j =1_ "=7 _ --J. _ =. =. = = = - - - - =_=z '.' i... - -~- . ' ' ~.. .=--==....=.:_ .=_:

.._._.--~_..- -... -... _. _ _.

..._u '.__....-:L-._a_:-- ^ "=..=.~a. . = - -

. _: z w.... = :_=.:.

_===......:.:_=.:=-_._-- ' _.---....___.:==._.=_.. :._^ a. . _.=. --._..==.:=:_:==-.==:.._:.=_===. ... : c ;. -.. :.' : :.. _:..'_.:--r._.::.:..L_.,_,--*...

=.__,....

.:.==.- .. = _. - _ 3 _.~. - 3_.: .==5;_... ..__: y y m;_ y,, __..__.]-._....__.._...-_..-_ ..__;-_-__--._._..a...____._. =;,_,.,_;_.;._.,___._._.__________.. _ =_ = -3_3 .A m..lh _$_= 5.____ 3._- _;y& x. i: = 3.=~.-==--: _ __.----=:-- _===_. ___-,g.-. -- = _ - - =. - ,Q A.__;Q -;==.-_3:==.:.-==.:===.==:=~=_-51._==.==.--. . =. -. - _.. yg -- -

__m._. .-_._:~ ...__.n 2 -. 5. of__ f_... . =- Petitions for Review of Orders

.gy -p_~ - _ m

..p. -- of the Nucicar Regulatory Commission -; H C f z i.... ;. 6. l ?.

-:.==_===_.....==i--,=_

t==#=; Y ;.:-/ 'i=.2 / ~ ~

i~_==7 ?.M_

7-i;-

_71. Argued May 2,1979 -[=- hh5:[__hh -. -=- = _. = _ _+ = m.._;. - - - - = = = = = . _=_ :. Decided May 23,1979 ag _... 9..=._. g=_;;_ - _ _. _. -..=_==:_2.__ r_==- __: =..-:..Y__ : Anthony Z. Roisman with whom Karin P. Shcidon was

_= = - _. =

~ E-ZG Z_~ir F = =EZ_ on the brief, for petitioner in No. 78 2032. = Jocelyn Furtwangler Olson, Special Assistant Attorney N58_(M.$~C__f Genera!, with whom Wcrren Spanncus, Attorney General, _;=-f;_"===== =r: 1 _ State of Minnesota, was on the brief, for petitioner in

_ n r m__ a_.-.z..; r.._. m.._. __;;-

No. 78-1269. m==-E.=== = + s:+- 5== e =_== - .O* a 41. "........-- 4. Stephen F. Eilperin, Solicitor, United States Nuclear g- gg.;2 _;_.__A ...._A Regulatory Commission, with whom Wiuicm M. Shields, _.d= -f-== ===7 =.7.p _i.._ _... Attorney, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, EZ- _. _- =.~5.JJ.~._- Z - Edward J. Shawaker and Michcd A. McCord, Attor-u - X~E :: Q 2.-=- neys, Department of Justice, were on (the brief, for J======95 Z h-respondents. Robert E. Zahler with whom Wm. Bradford Reynolds ~ R l- ? [ R [ f l; was on the brief, for intervenor, in No. 78-1269. A== @ E _=.;_ % =_ f &$j=l_ __ Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. with whom R. E. Gad Ill and

== Fcith S. Hochberg were on the brief, for intervenor in ._. _ = = - J - T.cz. _. _ E %. No. 78-2032. _I_ _ ..'_[f[---{ T '-] % Also Jcmcs W. Moormen, Assistant Attorney General, y -7 :c;---7 = :====m= = Department of Justice, entered an appearance for re-5==- _Z-- spondent, United States of America. 2 - - - __ g _ _.7: _ = = _ Before TA:,t:.1, LMNThL and MAcIONNON, Circuit _N_...-b._=._ 5s_N_ _S__ ~ ~ = = = = - L :- -__ _= = Judgcs.

==.==.=_=._=.:==:

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge LEVENTHAL.

==_=_= g _ll-'-[J_T -"' f g {~- iff Concurring statement filed by Circuit Judge TA:.::r. =- ]r {_}2py};lp7 LEvrNTHAL, Circuit Judge: Petitioners challenge an x = ===r - --= ~.;;-C ll ~ -9 2T~ 5_..y.._.--..-. order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board

. : -.- - 5 = =:_ -._ _

=r--:~~- = = = :.:' = ~--"

T - - - 5:LU.~ -.l ~.Y-

A.: =.' - =

f- # - -~ s. 7___.__ . J_' - i._ - ".7 _ E- _--== ==== =- - - ~ }..-_._..-.f.: - '!:._..~. ~ ~_..~~

_==_-:_=_==:-=---=-

T;:.N~5=~~'5 ?:? - D0;.5::..._ _: .c.l. ' -. ~:-^.-:.----_..---T.._.

: * =~~~=i~=.'.~===_=~~-~.... ~ ~ -- ".~. 5?W _^ ".-."_ ~~ p..

. '. =~?... _ _ ^_3._.:.[_:__:_:___=.._=_.:_=_.p.--_-.=.=_-=..".=_.---^__=__=.._.._=... ... _... _. _ _. =.. = _.. _ _. _ _..

-"==---'-.-- _

=: .. = =.. _.. .. _. _ _ _. _. _ _. _ _. _ _.___m_..._.. --_-...___.____...._.__._-.[ 'i_.___..._.%.,y,.,, e.. .W-. .? .l. 2 L =.. ' _ ' ' ^ '. * - ~ - --

• 5:.. *- ~. :

.=.=w--._--; g._-- ;__ ; = _'. -

?.~'Ll:' *~.^.-'

..i*~- _.~ 3=3.=

._q ;.'.:

.g .==:.===.____._ _ ;- - - = = - : :. _=- - z:.-.._ =;:_ ~ .=.._=.=--=:----:.9=.=_. -_~..=_:;==_-.;=.==_.-._==-:----;_-=_: _ _, - - - z=_=_=. _ _ _..... ~

3 ( Appeal Board), a unit of the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission (NRC). The Appeal Board amrmed initial de-d;~~i_.3. ~ ~ ~ _ fc cisions of Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (Licens-3=ff - T - i =T H ing Boards) granting two operators of nuclear power 9=:;=_- _.. g =_:M ; _t f plants amendments to their operating licenses to permit J.= r-r R -l.= X T. ~ expr.n: Ion of on-site capacity for the storage of spent 94_~ rpEZEM"_= f -.

== r.uclear fucl assemblics. -. =,5= "._ g="._. 9 _ : r. __... :...-3 _ The crux of the case is current uncertainty about the X T_= Z"T-z:ti :. W - ~~- ~ 2 J55~E--z====.~1-E prospects for developing and impicmenting safe methods =- - for the ultimate disposal-or even long-term storage M=EM ;-M--i=Mcc= of the highly to/ic radioactive wastes created in the LT.__=.y..__=_ 7 2 3 _ ;; L-' process of nue! ear power generation. t=:-_

t7=.===G E =--

' = ' - * - '..... =: *.;:,. = 6 ':..: ^ In this opinion, we do not set aside or stay the chal- = r ~ji=E=EJ5?==== __" lenged license amendments. On certain aspects of the ~J;.E :.g g:@~~Q_ M 7. Q case, we issue rulings approving the agency's procedural ._..J - 2_=_=1 = ;=:n=_ 2._ _ position. However, we conclude by remanding these cases 1M-TR= ~':_M to the agency for clarification and consideration in the =.= J _; f_~~ E _ U Z _ = E E. light of a related proceeding and other current de-7 _% =M-. -= :-J= i., _ Q_ _.. g _7__-p=n,t. T. ~_j M= velopments. t I. BAcKcnot ND AND DECISION UNDER Rrvmw

=====-.-_a===-======~--

-.;;;._ _..; 1.;n. m..__

. ::. a

- ;... ;. r _.

A nucicar reactor core contains a number of fuel as- -~n 2F~ 333.- =-+ T - semblies, bundles of thin tubes (or " fuel rods") contain- . Mt i== -- - - -- - ing pellets of enriched uranium. The build-up of neutron-r;r;- i---~ 1l W___- absorbing " poisons" during the chain reaction reduces the U~~- - - -GS555-~ - ability of the fuel to sustain an eScient chain reaction. i;~.T l-~~I=~=[5 ..n1 " Spent" fuel assemblies must therefore be removd per- - =~~ 7~ = i n _...; ; s~ = i = Z iodically from the reactor core and replaced with fresh

==._ C =" =_ H. 3 -E E _: f_. fuel. When removed from the core, the assembbes gene- - =. _.._ _ =._:_=o r r m -r- = = = =.. - -

== rate enormous heat and contain hignly rac,icactive ura-em =5 =- =-- 7.=_s = =.. niu:a, actinides and plutonium. Under current practice,

=- f 7_ r i:k i- = ~ C the assemblies are placed vertically on racks in a " spent

'~-f -f f = l:f # " - 5' i-~~Z.__.. fuel pool" adjacent to the reactor and within the con- = 15~7.=57:M=_ i-C tainment vessel. The spent fuel pool is a large basin M = M r = t--T. M T=J= - i=~~ l E constructed of ccncrete, lined with stainless steel and ?L_JJ K~ 1i L_7 ZQ"Z a : y.. 3.= = 9 _ =-:= =_ = =_ =_:=:.a-n.-_: = rc ;_.:.-:_;_ ..--. -- : : - -.. = ~~:: -- _ _ ~_. - -.. : -:- -- = :- - ..-[- ~.~-i- --~ ~i '. -7.9_f. h2=~. :.^..

=_- - - =-(

......f. -- l -

~_ t ---I =- i E- ~ - - '- - - ~

= -.. : ~.=.' := ~

~

:: -.. :. =:- :=-.::-.:...::. :.= : : =. m

.......-...;;..n-^. '. -.. ~ ...-.:^'...6......... ..... ~.,. _......_....... - -...-.-_.~...:.... - .=--..2.- ,.4^26.'._=_.,,_. --.m e ..+ -...... + ....w. ---e -.e... ....eem ee ..e,- ..-.==.:_-==--- -.: =. ..-=.-_=...=_===.:..=-..------__:.c.=.===-.--. = = _. =.==.. ::= : ;= =.- -- - - ...b :=. ~.. . J, b.~.-' . ::... _ :*:: -b. W{?. - ? : ~. - -'?. $ d!.:.s:~~5.N -.5.-5 Y.: ^-.. n: - '~ -~. h N,. ~...b ~ * = '? .~ 3 ; -.. =. : : - - - _ __ _ - : - = -- :- :: -_. 3 =_':: pr.a. n yy :5._;= _ _- _ - _-==.._-_.-:=_=-=.:=_=; -= _;=.; -.. .._.w.__-- .--==_.w& wi.k-- ..= - :..; _ -.-.. =-

--.._====-=====-.-_==.:s=-_--=_=

.-.= =, ..-_----..:-.;_..=_;.-..

4 =3_ = _. _.. 7 7-g filled with water to dissipate the heat generated by radio-active decay and to absorb radiation. ~~~ { r E m ; - q. -L - -

==. ..._=.5 _;=.- ;- 25;;=... m._ __ =j _ g It was anticipated, when most of the nuclear power 4= =pir==_ _= :==- : plants now in operation in the Lnited States were li- ~ A r ~~ TI ~ censed, that sp'ent fuel would be stored at the reactor E E f :_i. E =.-d i_ h i site only long enough to allow the fuel assemblies to cool 6% ---- -- r-~ ' r suf!iciently to permit safe shipment off-site for re- . l~.5-.. _ ~~ '_ __J_-"7j; - processing (the extraction from the rods of usable ura-nium and plutonium) or permanent disposal. Spent fuel =-== 1 7; - g *= E 2 storage capacity at these plants is therefore limited. -T f " ?.E. M,i-~~ C....~" =.._=_~._ _.;_ _ 7-7 - =_z==__=q :. ;+ =::E-.=_..li-;_- Plans for off-site reprocessing or storage have not ma-

. g. 7 ;;',s._i_; =

=..

g =.. - _. _ = - -s.:_- - terialized. No facility for reproces::ing of commercial .C;1_ = WC77- ~ "- = = = nuclear wastes is currently licensed; indeed, in 1977 isZ;;G;g President Carter suspended indefinitely all commercial its=I&M====e=-5E _=:.._ reprocessing, because of security concerns about plutc- {_ _{ ] f M f== i -1=- nium proliferation. The availability of off-site storage facilities, not involving reprocessing, is limited, and no = d p = = 5 - m i ::_ = L.2. _..._...=_' i additional capacity is currently projected. 7ff=9=M= N -===e=* 25577 ~I ~. Operators of nuclear plants have sought from the Nu-E ~~~~=1 ~ * - ~5Ein-. clear Reguatory Commission license arnendments per-mitting expansion of on-site spent fuel storage capacity. d5 g=J;-=--;==_ Otherwise, as is evident from the foregoing description, =:s.E ~E.F.L-=--_x. - n these nuclear plants, which were designed in contempla-tion of oE-site shipment of spent fuel, would be forced 7:U*E --. -H 7---" =.. :.

._'f- ]- f

=-~=d'_ to shut down when the limited on-site storage capacity e -- --. :.m._.. _ r_ = =. was filled. _ _._ 1 1 7 - _= B = - = __ More specifically, these consolidated appeals involve f-Zg== =; = 5 Z_Z-- ~ two applications for license amendment. Vermont Yankee _.=g;{.j.gGip ' 7 Nuclear Power Corporation, the intervenor in No. < S-

- =-.3 =g 7 2032, operates a nuclear

;enerating facility at V,ernon,

.p g g.- r; x; 7 Vermont. Its spent fuel pool had an original capacity of

==-=e_:. z..s===, f ; 600 fuel assemblies. Scheduled refuelings would nave 5;==ggy==;==_----7 filled the pool by 1977, and forced Vermont i,ankee to jg.__ g._r g g _ n ; g 7 - : cease operation in August 1978. On November o,1976, I=== =p= = = =EF -; Vermont Yankee apolied to the NEC for an amendment

n....;=Z =5....=_. -- __=.f. r 7.; -

.. = - _

.. : c c-7. : -- j 7 =.

.. C '.#~-f~2 T i E ' ,-~--..----:. .~ .s.:.5 '.^.. __. ?^ --~~ ^^ = _. _.. _ _ _. ^^ ~ ...-===.--.==:z":==:-- = . ~.E.;;? -23.~ : --i...- - :-'. f-.:i:... ~fl.. ......... -.."-- = ^ ' ~... ~ ~ ' ~ ~ .~ ... ~ ^ ~ " ~ f... f ':... :...... T.... :.- " ..~.~.-"~~_~Z'.. " " ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~[5 -...p:==:.=:..r..[ ........ - -.. _ " :.= :.. ~ ^ -.= ~ : {:-. ;;-} :=~ ~ "..=.. _ -..- = [ b_ I-"~ I..__5d...-.......b. _...... _ ". ~ ~.. "..I._. l. _.. 5... L. _ _. I....T"_ [ " ~... " _. ...._...-i...-[~

- b.-

.1' .'.=:.="2...i."".~.'.C'~~' .= ..~..-......b:.... "7 ...i 7 ....-..h "k',.... ~ =l^.. -j]: -W._. =~- =5[;-l=.-^.;.i'_l~:_ -l[:5&-$ ~=.&_?k=D_;_ S.'_E-~&= ~::W -h.::?-- -. f ~_. ~ 5 ...._ __= _=_ _.9D3,_ _.33~: n - 7 ::_;r-4 m::r- _ =;::.=_ _ . =MG-Gn;1===T= _mgE~.;T ; =a: ~~ -;.;.;-y-- = _ rr 7 _ ___ -...... _. -.... = _. _ _

>. :.....~..T . ?. l ~~ * ... ~ I ~.. - -... ~. _.. -... .:.= ::...: ; ) " ~=- _. _... :. :_ :. : ~ 7 =; 2.:- to its operating license to permit expansion of the pool's 10 d.==. . -= M J b 1- ~ capacity from 000 to 2000 assemblies, thereby permitting on-site storage through 1987. The application contem-5H= ' = "J-F :- =t==D = = plated no increase in the physical dimensions of the pool, -[= d. =. - -1_ E. but rather the installation of new racks that would per- =EE:=.==== n n _.. _ =_ =: =. .. =. gg. - - -. _... _7n . -.;m mit closer spacing of the fuel assemblics in the pool. The ~ New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (petitioner = =._ Z _ 7 " 7 2..T ...._=.-= =. .=, - here) and others intervened.

r_m = a

..cn _.. n-- - -

=== ; --- - :_ -.. - -

Northern States Power Company, intervenor in No.

;;Z_ mg_= ;;---M-~

78-12C9, operates the Prairie Island nuclear facility in 5 ~~~- = =M ;_.-s_i - Goodhue County, Minnesota. That facility has two 9===s ~~= J.;-e==.=E=_ reactors, which would have exhausted the 19S-assembly Z - T k.; Z "=~. 5 i= '; capacity of their shared spent fuel pool by the spring .~~_~~ i - - - = = __. = J 1. of 1978, forcing the shutdown of both reactors by the 1-i=F- - E===.F :,. =7 - - - spring of 1979; On November 24, 1976, Northern States ~~ ~1__ 7_jC.:_.Tf=i -2====== === S. - =s= s e requested that NRC grant an amendment to its operat-ing license to permit expansion of the pool capacity to GS7 .;;r-[E-f - W =r : g 7 assemblies, n!!owing storage through 19S2.2 Like Vermont

== =ss U.:- ; lJi-3 ~~~ Yankee, Northern States propcsed to accomplish the ex- =[ f=- =E===O

!==.

pansion through closer macing of racks within the pool. -EEE--Z.Z--- Z =E -. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency intervened.

===_ =. = m p-2 g y.: In ceparate proceedings on each application, the NRC _ = = =se .===2: _em== Staff undertook evaluations of the safety of the proposed C==t.1;M=M E"--r" pool modifications and their environmental impact. The ~~i Zl~$2-~"~~ ~ j.[_i evaluations extended only to the safety and environ- = = = = = - ~ . _ _ = _.. _ _. _ _ _ - - ~2"- ""~?f-~=ff- ~ mental effects of the proposed modifications themselves; m =-.-.;.=_=_==E..e-s._:g_, E the Staff did not consider any implications arising from _= __ ...- _. f _- ], 2=.'_-~~0-$-.CZZ_T_. 1 The projected dates for Vermont Yankee and Prairie Is-land assume retentien of sufficient capacity in the pool to per-39E== = = - - MZ- -.= ~ =~~==== f =- + W mit the tempcrary removal of all fuel assemblics from the """=""=9:_-- reactor core to facilitate core maintenance. Use of this "c:T-loaci" capacit~ fnr storage of spent fuel assemblies, while un- {_= d-[ - 2'_"]_ _{ _ - desirable frem an engineering perspective, would extend the - L..m.._. T-~ ~ '-_ 7 ;- ;_ _-_ ___ period of availat:e storage caps ity another two or three - -- Z _ g -- 5 7 _. p years. -~- - Z-~ T-. = :..:_ = -- - =. r n._ - c L = = = 5.'.E. E. -==: -.- - - - ~ - _ _.__ _ ~ ~~bb [--h-2--- = - - - = z -- = - =:: =::=. Tr{i. ~ ~~~r~...i ~_[.[ i J-~_-- z s. --":----=_....== - =:n : ..di_.:

---

_e-....-~._

= ::==.: = = =. - =. ~~ " T - ~:: ...[.:- .= =-. =[ f-.c .[' \\-[,_ ~ ~ ~ ~... ..-....:-~--".- 1. ..._..=.!~-~-

• - -. ". :I

. -"~".;'"~" ~ - ~ X ?.. -."5.. = ~. ~_-Y.'.- ~.^_..l'.T.'.~l ~ ~.... E..TT.. .X. N'~~~~ -... _. T... l ' T._g5Qf5M T..T~'.~ -. ~ ~ .. -........ ~ m y - y -_- - z:=-...=.===-.-.~...==--=..:= .:.:.==.==_.. - n.- = = ::. = -.. .. = = .-.::-=--=--- ...,=.0 ,5 _. ~ ~ ~ 2:

.~.:.. b-. ' = - -.

L .L... ?:-. ' -^ ... e' - - 5^ -- ~ ~. ~.:'~. : = = _ =. - .:.=====..======-.===--------=_ -_. =.-- =.-_ ======:.===_== ~ I -- 5 5 ?:n-l.._

~.T 1--

' -~ ? : ?: 5 -5 5 '~~ -- :.? =~. ~ ~ ~ ~ '.... ' * ~ - ~ ~ _ - - ' ' -. 5.. :'.52

-^.

~~ ....; __ g_.. = _.... _ '.Id.i / 0 .-i_'.~_... ^ ._--.~_:_:-. _. _ _... _..... + _....,. _. the possibility that the unavailability of a permanent =.T[=F 1 517 :,:12:-v ~ nuclear waste dispocal solution might cause the plant l'E := ~ ~ = E 9"? _= = =-__:.2- _-;=+ sites to become permanent storage facilities, or even to continue on as stoinge beyond the expiration dates of the 3f"=--Z.;., 7_f-;. n-f =i - licensees' operating authority (for Vermont Yankee and

.~.~_..";; -.=J== -= =bi Prairie Island, during the years 2007-2009).

EE f=- ~~ = -ME - ~ ~f =. =: -_

===._=-..-.__7..- Noting that the modincation wou!d entail no increase =E=====.g y_.: --f ;. r in the amount of wastes annually generated by the re- = 'Z~-X.Lii;. _;fffh ' actor, the Staff found " reasonable assurances" that the ~-~ ~Z ~~ - ---EKW-E3; l_-(-).j " jll~~ -j.N -5=='i-l 7 modifications would not endanger public health and safety, and hence satisfied the standards of the Atomic _- 37== 5. =_ _..4__. = Energy Act and NRC regulations,: and concluded that r"=E= 1 __ 7- =:. _-.. = the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) did not - '.h- = GEE.Z__;=== ;T-d E E:; 5 ~~ T 5 =- s= = M E T _ require the preparation of environmental impact state-ments because the mediOcations would not "signincantly d.-i =.:i-Z Z =-= ? + E ir - affect the quality of the human environment." 8 h_;$~N~]_;); :;j The initial decision of the Licensing Board in each MzCll-((i.!;~j.[

========.-z=<=5.- proceeding essentially adopted.the Staff's safety and en- . 5=E._Ei_ f===E=,5x-vironmental findings and approved the requested amend-ments. G N.R.C. 43G (1977) (Vermont Yankee); 6 - ~ ~ ~ ~ N.R.C. 265 (1977) (Prairie Island). Each Board ex- ~=- T-J-'.2 cluded from its determination any consideration of the M.[2. ._ 3 M M " safety and environmental effects' of long-term storage ~5M5.~=Z_%_.C - =- : p-. = g

== 2J at 16 (Vermont Yankee); id. at 216 (Northern 1__ _ ____ _ _ _. r :-- = _ l_. Stat a ; ccc 42 U.S.C. s 2123(d) (1976) (no license may be 7-- u - 7 g "L ;-. { { issued, if, in the opinion of the Commission, issuance would be " inimical to the common defense and security or to the = 2__.===._.. = = - - - - -._._ _._: = 5=. ; - health and safety of the public") ; 10 C.F.R. s 50.57(a) (3) -.~~_-- f_ Z==1

==1:- (1973) (hcense may be issued upon finding that "[t]here is

---

;-==---__----~--

reasonable assurance (i) that the activitics authori2cd by the ].;_~ ggi--gg'.... ~ license can be conducted witncut encangering the healta and ..m. --. m,_z __. g_ _ _. = _=. -. _ _- 1 EI =_. _= _ _ J safety of the public") ; ccc c!so 10 C.F.R. s 50.91 (1973) (Commission guided in granting amendments to license by ____.== = =2sr- ] g:l.]_ ] { { f p considerations entering into initial approval). s_.._;.; xx:._.; M._l~-.T.Z_Z 8 J.A. at 43 (Vermont Yankee), id. at 243 (Prairie Island) ; see National Environmental Policy Act, s 102(2) (C), 42 .._.7====-=_= _ ;= _. U.S.C. s 4222(2) (C) (1976). 7-:-- m rr-- -7 = _ =__.5=.-. = = -. =_-. _;:. = z; _ - v===--==_:_. .. bi _ _. b---~E' b=.N.~ : bI ~ ~~

:: ^.-'_ - [ -.2 =r _ ".- -. = _

^~ ~ ' i _. ~ 2;-- r-E!! nn--- a.:-- r. T.-- ..._.~_.[ . 2..h : - ~ ._;. 5= i=.r Ed=: ' -- d:_...E

-d:.._..i.E

=i--.i.f- - 1.f. = u ~ ; ' =-_ _.., - _ _. _.. ..._,[ll..~...._. t.H - E f7QS ML... ..= -&w M.1[_.:2?_ := ..[1.i -i . m. - =.....w -... = _. -.. _.... e=.1-: m+ _ _t- = =- zim.:_=_: _= = = e=i.. =._=w.5 r..:.^ =..._ = :. 3.. 7s2 3--[ -- = [==.. __. [ = :-3 _ - = y 3 =g = _... 3._=.; _..i..=~ _-s=_ = _ = =.. = =_ - - - - = = _ _ = - - - -

=

- - _. = = =. = = = _ = =.. = =. _. _ = - _ _. _ -. - = _ - -~5.Uh. h._h .. "d i__- ' Jf.;hi. 52 S.. LE21=N.[..~ ~ = .b--d b = h [ ~_ 5.U h[.1Y...U.L._ _. D =. -)[f_T__lU-5-b2 N 2 5 s [ '~ [')-U N_b 1S:-1E[r C _G[NN2 f,;_[_ h

I.[hd_-_.

g....

=..,.; _ _ - _ _...]-i 2.-. : 7 - 222:- : -~

=

-~ . 2_ -& 1- :==. l=:7-of nuclear wastes on the site. 6 N.R.C. at 40S (Vermont ' . M } M ~i _ h,, 2 M E Yankee) ; J.A. at 172 (Prairie Island) (order following --EE== .2=- ". _.9- { - prehearing conference). -.._ =_ . _ - - m z.m Petitioners appealed. The Appeal Board consolidated 7[ 5 =l-M 5=-N ZT=;=f - =-=-_ p: = _ E-:=- 7=_:- cc - the appeals and affirmed. 7 N.R.C. 41 (Jan. 30,1978). rM The Appeal Board first noted that there was no serious 7==_= = =M p=p===== _..- challenge to the evidence supporting the StaE's and M==- _~_=_ ;.;; Z===;--~ = Licensing Boards' safety and environmental conclusions. 5== - --(TjsE ?=-==.--Z It then addressed the diEerent issue raised by the inter-E- ~ ~~==~ 2-- ~==ZT _ "= - - venors 2(petitioners here). Those parties contended that f - =r 7:r i _.=;=13 4 the uncertainty as to the feasibility of ultimate solutions =- = _- _ = Z==. -.:.- -_..7.=. :.= s i for the disposal of commercial nuclear wastes raised the = _ = ' w w _.-------;== ~

== possibility that the reactor sites might become long-term iEEGE--il=, and possibly indennite storage sites, persisting subse- _ T.T - _--)){7"- "i--- =- quent to the expiration of the plants' operating liccases. __ --- 7_; ;_ g33 Before any expansion of on-site storage capacity could E_._--- - = - - ~== =-e= be approved, they argued, the Commission must consider f_jM W-F ((C the safety and environmental. implications of indefinite i=====EZi= L_. ~ ~-~ ~~ storage on-site after decommissioning of the reactor. In deciding to what extent it was bound to take into r "r-r account these long-term implications, the Appeal Board g____.=f:,__tg g M M began with NEPA's " rule of reason" as to the possible

=-

= =E===c consequences of an action that must be considered. That Z f_ f - doctrine was first enunciated in NRDC v. Mort <m,148 =. _ ---.- - d r r ~~ --':_=_; g. U.S. App.D.C. 5, 45S F.2d S27 (1972), gnoted with cp-21 7-~ _ _ . _ _ _ ~ JJ - proval, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, - _(_=_=_ ~ 435 U.S. 519, 551 (1978) ; Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 - - - =_ -G.s ~_ _ U.S. 390, 410 n.21 (1976). The Board denned its in- _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _;r= c quiry not as whether it was " theoretically possible" that {..TJ_ 2= 1-C- ;~-X=T={ no off-site fuel repositories would be available at the = - - - - 'O - 3_t - expiration of the license; rather, it denned the question

== _ _== r- - T_X.--?= - as whether that event was " reasonably probable." 7 =-= f Z T _= =- =.9 N.R.C. at 49.

========:-.

_=_=__= m i_x r r 2 N___= = ..._ _ _ _ _..s37 Although evincing uncertainty as to the conclusion it 3 -- - - - = = - - - might reach on its own, the Board believed the question '--M __ N_-~ : H:=-. --- = =, - - - - = = = = = - - - ~ .-_ = = M :ll = = ;_=;-

-..__ - -.

q33..

... - - - - -__ ___ : :..;=. _: : =_ __. ib.. '.".'b b."

==:.=a.=:::.==:=:._=L . =.: '.:.: =.: a ::: -- - ~ * ~ ~' .:. * :*.,_ 2. : _ .7 .J.' ,--.-....--...._"*C J T T.- ; :--~ .=.._?. - G TT-~ :T. -'.C .=_: .:.:=.-...=..-.-=. -e_____ u_ = .==a .:.=.-.... _.. =. _. _ =.. -..a:.='_':. '2..._.7/'... --'*-'-';-..l*T4_".a.-. '.N. '-.b= ..7' -' l = IT I T.:.' **L T'...'- 'J......... h T a :.:.'-. L. L'.~"= . :* l .L. .a_ a =L.g.-r.===== m....g =. = = = =

====y_ _w-g -- = : = = =c:==_ _ _ - _ - - =:=_ = =c__._ = = _ -.=== _ ; _ ;:-...=== a_. _.. = ;_ - -:.= ..=.=-_=n-- 59 = -- 3=.,-=== = :_ _ _.;- : = = = = = =-- -. = :.= : -. _ _.;. z 3 =;: 3:3 :.- _. = _=- 3. c== :- - - - --... _: 3 _ - -_ :=- === = :.= = ;;_.. =. -. 3- - = =.. =.;_- =-. =: 2-=- .=-.=a.-.._.--;-....-.._..-__._._=_...=.- _._.._._.=.;._--_.- - -... _ _ _. = _ _ _ _ _.

a. = _ _ ___ 3 _--y-... - 7, -_3... =.. .._..7...__..-.... g 7nr;j.?M"-t. 7."--] G.';z -. - F.e. d. -..- -.E..- i...l..-J.i_TE..=._a =.. 2.:.Z.-.. foreclosed by an earlier determination of the N R C.* s==s_+ =.e.5.....= _-.-,._s_ The Board invoked an NRC decision denying a petition [ C==- M g g = g g _ of the Natural Resources Defense Council that it initiate -R~g.= 3.f.7=Ep. ~-2=-.=--=======a_ a rulemaking to determine "whether radioactive wastes Z5f.;;;,.g=.=cg ;-[ f-can be generated in nuclear power reactors and subse- - = E=_ quently dispcsed without undue risk to the public health - n_ _ 1 and safety" and that it refrain from granting further [_'-[~~]{l] "_T;_1_ L. cf ~ _=i operating licenses until sucn a "dennite finding of safety" . _ = - _ - -. .g n --

= = = -

was made. 42 Fed. Reg. 34,391 (1977). The Commis-sion premised its d5nial on its " reasonable conddence ] _.c. '~ ~ M].2=h -3 =" 2 that wastes can and will in due course be disposed of --=== =ZZIC T_-- ~ Z C _ _1 =2 f =f== =- safely." Pointing to what it called "a coordinated Fed-a==u n-_ -.JZ-3 T eral prcgram to develop an actual disposal facility," the ' 27 = 1 - E==s-ei_ _:-==- Commissien noted its " implicit nnding of reasonable as-t.E-[ [ [.._- [ - T " = "1 l= T surance that methods of safe permanent disposal of high-diEEE'~c=====-- E T level wastes can be available when they are needed."

..__==-

s5__z=

Id. at 34,393. The Appeal Board recognized that the T - T ~- 5.. r --J 9 -:+ ; NRC's conclusion did not stem from p formal record ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~C developed in a rulemaking or adjudicatory proceeding. But it nonetheless gave effect to the ruling as "a policy

_f r- ~==f M_

'iT - declaration that, for the purposes of licensing actions, =E.296===Eh_ -..y. l f it both can and should be presumed that there will be -- ~== T _ j R 3 =t spent fuel repositories available 'when needed' i.e., well ~ " - = before the termination of the Prairie Island or Vermont "1.iE3__- - 2EE Z[ -=- Yankee operating licenses." 7 N.R.C. at 51. E The NRC itself entered a simple order declining to re-Z f.- ~-[ _ _ _- =Z - :- =: E~~ -._ view the Appeal Board's decision and providing no fur- =.x 2T~~' A--~.1 ther reasoning or comment. In a separate statement, 3~ Commissioner Bradford attacked the Board's reasonable WM -{ JMWE probability nnding, because the conclusion of the NRC M.i_MKJ =J[ J f - = -~ = -- - z=_e== denial of rulemaking from which it was derived "was --=.=.:==_:-..===__-=_._.. - - - r :-- g --

• Had we been compe!!ed to come to grips with that ques-

.__-,, M.f 5_ _ y T =2 - 2_r: 1 ~rzI:GL=':_r_;rc._ _.5 tion unaided, it is not certain what result might have been reached. It has turned out, however, that Me Commis-3~.TG E.F - ~ ~-- ~;Z T ~7 . :..:.. rs -+ --3.g= _ "-l { = sion has epoken on the subjeet. NNNF5' "h::T=-- .._.._. = = = _.-_ =-...=.. _----. 7 N.R.C. at 49. ..-.--.._N. m ((.-- Q E~~@~_M: - ===. ' " ~^ k. -^.*$.. :" :.?- -.__..___.....~S.175..i*..----. N ib...U.N[ _... '---:..._..,-"'".1-3.5.-~;... f.i".. _ =...d.$.[3. _..:.Ai_~._.d...'..--~..-- '..:...".Z bi d E " " =5..--i.. -== === =b.5 ; '=-- ti?E.ihC.=&:t = f = = =---- ^== = =.2=:[K=.~. -..==ib i=i.. fh ~ ......I'*- I~ ... ~ - 'K'i:...;_5k_ ' ~ ^ ~-- '..=::*:..... !~~ = 5-'_*::E5h'. f^ 'b !. 2-'::.. $:::'.A. -...: - ^ .- :55.1. --.- *. 5.? ' _T'

== b=i- -.. -...- g.- =. i.=-

==.=..a . ag= . =. = .=2_7=-.. . &g.w-g. _ :_.,. _

_=--:3_.-.-.:.=-.-==._===..:=----==_.,==...c:--====_

.=====

==.=:_- ..; ~;.. ----;;_.--

--.----------..------...-..y;

- -. - _ _; ; ;;. ;. ;_ ;-. -- ; _,,_-.. -. =- _.;;.u : ;_; z;; ; _ ;.- _.

-=- l__._._..---... (j._..:. _..=,. =-. :: 9

.- r ~

_ _ ~ ~ _ 7 ~2 z-i le.__~.PX -? ~ - t.. not based on or tested by any evidentiary hearing." J.A. T r;7r E _ g g.;z.g_;. g at 121. Petitioners then sought review in this court. a -a = =:= === u= =.. _ t~~"j-MM T~=r-Er II. ANALYSIS U~ U TIM 5U. -

==:-~: _ - : : _ _. _-.- =.=_'::..- - - ^ ^=:_:- ' - Petitioners renew the claims they advanced before the E J. 1. 5 ; r f l 1 _ R ;7 --- ~ Appeal Board and the Ccmmission.5 They submit: Prior = = = = =..= Z E.Z; 2 f_ to the issuance of a license amendment permitting ex- ~1-- =sa===c =E :'-t =1-_ pansion cf on-site storage capacity, the NRC must make Z--='=r fz1 M a determination of probability that the wastes to be __ :a== -- =Ai i=5~$~~ ~ generated by the plants can be safely handled and dis-Z.i.... _..._Z._. _ ~1 Zl-~= E _,,g.,- " 5:.- _-!=~_ "--- ~.- ~ N = - * = - 5 The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency makes an addt- . __._.; xrn r -... _.r r - tional argument. L contends that NRC violated NEPA by im- =r; - 2:1 Mf5 E~ ...._M-- _J. ;_.;; _.v;; properly "segme ting" its consideration of the environmental ~-- L - impact of expmmn of onsite storage capacity at Prairie Is-

_ _nx-227 ===.=-= L = c -

land. The theory is that because the present expansion of the = = = ~--Esi==E

F= +=.

spent fuel pool wi;l accommodate the spent fuel assemblies pro- ~~IM E _1

--9"--"~=

duced at Prairie Island only until 1952, a request for further

= =T= =f U - ~ _;; ;-

expansion is inevitable. Citing Kleppe v, Sierra Club,427 U.S. m- = = - - 390 (1976), Minnesota argues that the NRC was required.. to take into account the environmental impact of this "un- "7_-'~ '" 'u' ' --" T e r-avoidable censequence" of the current expansion.

=== =-55

":551=J -- -E_T.- -.._ ".:_=- =:- :=_=-__..--._

==.:

We find tlis argument withor substance. Minnesota has -- iT_ ~-l 1- =_z_ not pointed to any consequence of 'ature expansion that could n-:'-~ ..._._...s-+- not be adequately considered at the time of any requests for

===.: _ _ ---E.___:= + further expansion. Indeed, the NRC Staff in its er.vironmental ~ f --~ ~ ~ T =_= :==- t-l=_=- 7 -- impact analysis of the proposed e.xpansion expressly con-1._ _.._. _ _. T.. E -- _. _ 9-sidered five factor s articulated by the NRC for consideration 3~.=.__r- -- - _ ZZ_^_ZZ_T of individual licence amendment applications pending prep- "-. r TZ ---- { sj ____ __ f araticn of a generic EIS on the questien of interim on-site --- --j=

==i=-r=1 storage of spent fuel assemblies. Sec 40 Fed. Reg. 42,502

=l==l;_.y.: 2.;J.1 erm. :.a:.5 -

(1975). The Start specifically found that the licensing action [-[=;=- __- -;E ' = - =29 - - - here sould not foreclose alternatives available with respect z-- 7.-==ff = ;_- 7c = --- Z$5.E..T=h[;"r " ~ ~l-~ {=- -i=~3 to other licensing actions designed to ameliorate a possible N.:.-5 shortage of spent fuel capacit'/ (noting that "taking this ac-tion would not necessarily commit the NRC to repeat this E_W..~Z~2==:_=2T-(iET~f action or a related action") and that addressing the enviren- ._; n c. 2.5=- === =;.._ z _ = mental impact associated with the propcsed licensing action =~ L=.=.L - '- +ir = " = = - would not overlook any cumulative envircnmental impacts. +="_.. _ _ __ e= -EM"9-- -- ~ J.A. at "3 9-4 2. = f=.=2===-- - -== =f - =- .---.-___--===:::=- -h.1 5._h_.2._.__.$..d '-i c'~~_-~ ~ - - -.1.-. [. l - -I.=- --. -~ ~-~ - - ~=======+---1=E- ^ t ..._=__=..-- =.. : _.+ - -=-i...== -

== = ..-....=-.r . =.....

=2. n.1 =_=W w e===

= = - -._ __, = = =;= w v g =d=.. u_: :i _==?: d5. =...._ _ _ .-..? - ":r:.-- : f:.. i._... ~.. -.. _ : -J-...- _ l==-.. " _ U :-iz..... J ' Z =:.. : = 0.f* ' ^ ~ ' '~ =i ' = '!= =.:.ib:12' :::2.-h= i h " .?_E

:= =::i= : - i== "==.E.' = ~= - =I:-E

~ ~ ~.... ~.:R:n h - - ~ * - b~i= - = ^ _. ~. = _. = - " 2.

2 __.=^=- =- = i=.

. -

'~ = ~_... L1. = - - -.. :2= =~~ = = ; ~' '- = ~ - = " =l:.. 2-.-- ' " 2=h T:i=_..

.-E:~i.TE.2--.-.._ '- -. - ~5

E==? _ i:=== ' = = =' : = =:. ^ = -- =^:===^: ~ = &^=F:.. ~l' l=-^

^ . = - -.. _=========_==..=.-=-======_==-.~:=-.:=--_=_;=:-E_ 3=-:=._.=..=---:=--~.._. ^ = - = - _ _ _ _ ;;._ ' '. - _-

---

===2.2=.=..:.'.-_.;.:--~~

-~====------=-=.: z; _q -_:=L

r,..._.-.._..._ .. =.... -... f . _. :p....... ~ -=.__a...... .. = _ 5 =l= =_:: -4_g y-3.g--- siL5ML 5:~~;1-Ep.17 posed of. If no "off-site" solution (either an ultimate J 1 E= -~" d=:= ~ = = ~ solution to the problem of waste disnosal, or some interim is5]~_ N_1 ;- ~ solution involving storage facilities olf the reactor site), f =.E = - . s = =.. 5 5 is projected as probably available, the NRC must take U C " M g_=-[ 5 5=.h~. C = - 4 into account the safety and environmental implications E5=':'C.-Z.Z_- ~~ ~l~ft:-M of maintaining the reactor site as a nuclear waste dis-7-#fJ -:__= 9" - = /EI~ ~ pesal site after the expiration of the license term. -=== = .=:-s:_:= = - =.:

===:

==_ =f=~=N-9=;=-_ _ _ Petitioners do not take issue with the Appeal Board's E-GE U 57'c=#Y N conclusion that all that is required is a reasonable prob-ME=~ f_.. ms.1.5 se=3EE-~ z ability that a solution will be available when peeded. They claim the Appeal Board erred in making its de-72"====.Lj.M==7_r = =-==lE_; si _... .[_~ termination of reasonable probability not on the basis

==.1===- ":: Z 9 =[=~" Y.l f of evidence adduced on the record in the adjudicatory ~~.12.=g_li Z._l E :a=4 proceedings, but on the basis of the NRC's " declaration - J=?==s =-: of policy" in its denial of rulemaking on the NRDC y-_..rs;s;E-.=;_. +--.= sew.__ 2 _ petition. 55 _".57~-RT2- ?f _- No one disputes that solutions to the ecmmercial waste = = = - = = = = ~. dilemma are not currently av~ailable. The critical Issue is the likelihood (or probability) that solutions, either., ultimate or interim, will be reached in time. Petitioners __.__; -g- ._..=.-...==e== = = +._ propound a number of theories for why the " fact" of this Z.Z,=~1_ 2E"===- - likelihood must be tested within the context of an ad- .- =- Z-sMf__ C.;._ judicatory precceding and its evidentiary procedures. We do not consider these contentions in detail. We agree 2 "= = = 1. ~ ~

=..w = - -

- ] -g.g;;2;;1 ~ ~ i Z-with the Commission's position that it could properly

==.3_1 consider the complex issue of nuclear waste disposal = = = = = - - - in a " generic" proceeding such as rulemaking, and then 1., _ZE 7 "'l 'M"--== apply its determinaticns in subsecuent adjudicatory pro- ._;:x.n. ; ;...._jg _ g._..._ _ E5 E-r_E =-==== _..;_m ceedings. Where factual issues do not involve particu-larized situations, an agency may proceed by a ecm- - dC.@-9 f5 s Z. - ~== 7 f ~3~ E N -- 7-prehensive resolution of the cuenions rather than re- ="i5-fr 1 " GE: = =_ _. litigating the questicn in each proceeding in which it is j{g-@ 12 fMS raised. Ecology Action v. AEC, 492 F.2d 99S,1002 (2d

_== s rez _ = W E ;s_c_ E 1 Cir.1974) (Friendly, J.) ; scc Amencan Amines, Inc.

~~~

==E========__

v. CAS,123 U.S. App.D.C. 310, 359 F.2d 624 (en banc),

- - -." ~ f 5. = " =1 -. - ccrt. dc=cd, 3S5 U.S. S43 (1966). Petitioners hn.n- = = = _ I.1- _

. ;. -~.

1- .. - -. --- =-- =- : : - ^ d-. :==- -- = = ===. _.=.. ...~ 1. : & = - = ? & = i -- -- - - .;-9. : ;-{..jf. _f {.

""_ d' p. =.E=

._.=_==_r--:--...._c-.c- .[_.. =.__: = = =.. = =.. = - r. 7 ~ T T~~" ~.... r ggt). ...--...==.:==.==.=._.==-==..=.-...==-.-2.-_-...

_.-_..-:=.'

c=.=w = E= = +=g ex _ :-w-swa.= _:wea a m

=._.... _.:=

_':_";7._ ~..~._.:._-...

L

' T^: Q_ a:.: - * : } -[; - -:._-._ _ _ _ ;-3 ; : -. _ _ ___ _ Q._ - j-}: -.. __ g _;-- 5 3 ;_. _ _.=..=3 3 3 _ _g._. 3 =, .= _=: _;_, =, -..:::..::--i::=__:-__,,:.-.-.=.----_:_.--.._..;.-;_:_.=_...-. .........r_~._;21,.:;.--=r.... ~_~ [ _, ~ ~ =._- ((. _.__q^r;----' _...__=__....._37..;._=_. & _ :-.=:--- - _ =_._ -;._..-- .-=_.-.._;.

.l... I t )....- i. .=..Z...._... W-i-i 9-SE i - 11 i: 1*'h:~ r "....~

:.... ': T.

...;

..- [ " ---....

thesize the need for individualized determinations, but we J. -f.=_"4 l._;f. Z....-l.._ T... = think it c! car that the central issue posed by petitioners -. _ g g._ _._ _..._.. -the feasibility of interim or ultimate nuclear waste dis-g-]~M. ]-[__ iy 7 posal solutions-is one essentially common to all nuclear w 7 -gr_ _ 3.- facilities. }.f. 3 f~4.:1-1.~ _ Petitioners frir that determination of the question in T{92~- ~i;_1.m.j=i__1 a " generic" procwJing, which would proceed as a rule-TTZ E RE:ZE EZ =

==.-- := v =.. _. making rather than adjudication, will deprive them of ...__~=.==1= = r._::= = = - T ~~' procedures, such as cross examination, to test the evidence y underlying the probability determination that would be "== -EE==-...-. r..._. -.-. 7. = - afTorded by an adjudication. We do not dictate the pro-mr =7. j.=.=. cedures of the " generic" proceeding. Fermont Yankee

== = ;= ~... g.7..._;g= Nudcar Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978).

y._. ~T...._.T. =.f ~

..L==. - -.

The breadth of the questions involved and the fact that _.xt.m.4=-5.... 1. =s..._

=.. _

the ultimate determination can never rise above a pre-5.M7[ _.I _ =f diction, suggest that the determination may be a kind .__s, l.s?- 57Z.. - E cf legislative judgment for which rulemaking would c J - ~ = *= 2 E h - c - __-. 6 sutlice. . ~ 32.m z..___:p: g_gp gr gcn In its decision, the Appeal Board relied on the NRC's = = = = - ._z-.-==_ rulemaMng request. The NRC's decision was one of j --~ (_ h j==~ = -=.-Eb G TW-.2 1. statutory interpretation, concluding that Congress did ____._ m-H= r.r__n_.1 not intend in enacting the Atomic Energy Act to re-quire a demonstration that nuclear wastes could safely =_ g.- i 7 7-~ ~ _ - 7_ _... i be disposed of before licensing of nuclear plants was

== ~ - .._._=5 permitted. The Second Circuit afiirmed on this basis. 7.z;- =M M M M-= NRDC v. NRC, 5S2 F.2d 166 (2d Cir.1978). Thus, the

==---.... _.:52 NRC in its denial of rulemaking chose not to undertake f.5.==..5_. 5-h@U.. s. jM. _h=.7._

the kind of ecmprehansive incuiry into the question o: m -M :_.;--_ __ - - ~ f.. M....-f Wf ;_ - = l = c dispcsal soluticns that would be required to give content ~ ~ l7-5M~ ~f. -_.. - to a " generic" determination. NRC did state its "rea-sonable confidence" that solutions would be available when =-ig=- -g.-;=-9 g. = =1 = _..= g -~ Z fjj'2_; ---- f_G; _~f-]-~--~ needed. While based on a description of current federal %...4 Z efTorts in the area, NRC's " assurances" are not the 2. product of a rulemaking record devoted express!y to cen-i"-MM. M=o.--==.._..--:.===_---. y 9 :__ f. __;:- = =. y =- r =. -. =. =.. - - ~ = =. = - - - - -. - _

9-9

y..-

..:.=._. .:==--_--.----..._.._...:.-__. TJ .._..E- ~.2 :=..:.=- m _. ...~N.'.'...'"...-.~...._ . ~ ~ ~ - " _ ~ ..'f.. ;.. _... 59 -.. _.. ' ~ h..._.. ricih~;-- n:.. _ --i _._ .=--::- M b k ~ h' 2._. - ".:gyfV'Q. . i.-2:.2 _.hf:=ir i = ,.... ::i:!

==- 3E..=...=---:=-

r=m =...-

35:-- e L..si-..:. = -- -.... = ~ ...[: [.... i_ _. - [ ; _ _=.. - -.[_.:.._:_ 2 _ .-.--G.: f. =:=i..:. - J =; -... - - -

lEL

}- _ =. ~ T~; F.._= J...^ -'.._.- R..= J T ?_.=..- =_.-.'^T-...-..T-^--~ ~ T ; : T...._L. r :X.; T Q.~:= - = .e.e. e... ..e.- .m -..-.-e' i..h ..s-

=..:... 1: ". xi .;rrn.. u ' "C=_ ~ r.~'"-'-i.._ f.~ 12

..- -.=:5 7 ;. _ ;y. : 5; 5 l=_ g = =+.== s.2.s..,.=g T = =: v - L:_:

sidering the questions.* Further, that proceeding did not l.Z L _-.; E- =i z - =5 address the particular problem focused by petitioners- ~- nz =.,_ftf= 7 that even if ultimate disposal solutions will be found, they 7 _ _ f :. =7E' 725=.

=== g: will not be available before the expiration of the plants'

= r. g -

~- =. T. = ----

- =-

= _ - - - -. nr.. operat.mg h.eenses. = = = =......

r-m_q_M=f c-We need not consider what course we would have

=E=sr-- -= __.Z_T 7 followed if this were all that were before us. As is clear ~ Z"-l[]g :i= - from the records of this court, and as connrmed by

==A = REszX.- _f= counsel, there is now pending before the Commission a 3.. 1 2 3=="__~1 % _ related generic proceeding-the so-called "S-3" proceed- "tT7

c. g - _..

ing, in which the issues of the storage and ' disposal cf - -f[~~

=====g-"fl 1;;-t==p_. - commercial nuc! car wastes are of central concern. That;._i -C proceeding commenced in 1972 when the Commission's predecessor (the Atomic Energy Commission) proposed ~ =r 3. =~ ~ ~ ~-~ _ ~~ Z ZT;g. - =- rulemai:ing to reconsider whether the environmental ef- '-[ ~ ti _ 2=== =c - fects of we uranium fuel cycle should be included in the ))@[~C7 H= analysis prepared in licensing each nuclear cost /benef;t E-W==" = =

==- g_ plant. Although concluding that the environmental effect's the. -- mmpc of the fuel cycle were "relatively insignincant," 2:" " " Commission found it preferable to take them into account.

== === 1 . J"====5Q' ' It promulcated its rule as " Table S-3,"' which specified a series of numerical values intended to represent the _$ $ [ =.-[. [...1._, ..==-. - 2,.__.

• Cf. NRDC v. NRC,178 U.S. App.D.C. 336, 361, 547 F.2d "7 px;

=-5.-. AZ_ (Tamm, J., concurring in result) ("NEPA f ==="===== = 5 - __. 633, 658 (1976) requires the Commission fully to assure itself that safe and adequate storage methods are technologically and economic- ' _- ___ l-i _ ~. _ _. J _ _ _ Z 3rli ally feasible. It forbids reckless decisions to mortagage the m,_- - -- _r Y.- =ra c _m future for the present, glibly assuring. critics that techno-

==-.. - iz' N Z_ D N.f_ logical advancement can be counted upon to save us from the '==~= _r=_===:.:Z Z consequences of our decisions"). As appears below, the Su-2== ===a preme Court, in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. =--=i LEE ~ EZ__.::.. _ _. NRDC, c5 U.S. 519 (197S), reversed the ruling of the ma-further procedures but remanded . i_. 7 ( j;= 2 = M : 5 D 7 T r,__= T r C.=~7 = rr joritf opinion requiring for the kind of inquiry called for in Judge Tamm's concurring "q_

======n.:.__.. opinion. - a __7. r _._._ __5-- q__-- p 7 The current, " interim," Table S-3 appears in 10 ._=- g: { 51.20(e) (197S). =_. =.-1=u=.==..__ =__.g.-- .-. _ _ = _ - .... ~.. -. ~.. :

- =7E. E

_._1... =E r - - =. _ '.. _ = = - 2 H i ~.""..~.- Y.. :...'#f.-I -[7... ~~" ~ '.f',?... I'.l'$. - _.~ -: f.. .. ~.... = - =...==- -

=== : = _.. "==== onq[.". ' ~ .;... ~.^' .L ? ^~~..: :.^ ?~.C.: l.- ~ ~ - " q . =... =. = = = _. =... = - - = = = = = =... = = = = =.. _ =EE * ". w.....==.i i.~E:2t.:E==== d2...i-3:i _.-.. :::=.T.h=~. = =E=_ =.== = --s.. - :== : =_=E:l.W2h.? =_ _ ~ =E _.. : ~. 55i.'?h.= 4== =-. = = = = = ~-h.-.. : .=-5== h : 1.=:-.1== ~== ^ = - = = '.-..?E... ::= \\ i=~=-~~.^=2 = =~ i -.i - : -- =. ~==.-. _ _ t....:_=.-_2 5 =.?. _.. "=---_C'~"== _ - _ _. = ~ - '=~~i=~^=.=...===-':-======~..==,='==_=.i==-~- ' ^ ' - ~-

=

=: - .:===.==_----=..==.:--- - .:=_===.=u__=.:_-=-=====--

- ~ -... l 13

MW-T X

-! T;L ~ .=. G.f U ~ ;_'_=_E incremental contribution of one nuclear reactor to the LEffi=E total environmental impact of the uranium fuel cycle. -M -*1_" ;d=i-+ E==? - See NRDC v. NRC, 17S U.S. App.D.C. 336, 345, 54< ' MZi;[i, _ _ _ i_.. F.2d 633, 642 (1976-), rercrced ab nom. Fcrmont Yankce _ Ec.y[ 2==J. M __ Nuclear Powcr Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978). i;;h a = : ; - : =;_ J. " - D ;e n---~' .=;E

.:e.

In reaching its conclusion that the environmental im- ~EEZ.gs jgG6f-Z.T Z. pact was "relatively insignificant," the Commissica re-M=E===9=E- ~===H = - - _. ___=...n.._Z._ _- l_=_~=5. _;. ;; -~

l..

lied substantially on testimony of agency personnel that the as-yet unsolved problems of ultimate disposal of 7.; = = E = = - = = =. 7 1; 7=. 7 nuclear wastes would be resolved. Id. at 349-56, 547 ....J.- 7 _ ; ;r:f=~=_= F.2d at 646-53. This reliance was challenged on judicial __ - =;EE=== - J-G review. While the Supreme Court reversed this court's

H M 15_-f"

holding tht NRC's procedures were inadecuate, Vennent rg==. "1.?:=_55:f 5 Yanhec, supra, 435 U.S. at 539-48, it did not disapprove i g 59-i==5 - M - the view expressed by Judge Tamm in his concurring

y -i fQg l_ff __3 opinion, NRDC v. NRC, aprc,17S U.S. App.D.C. at 361-

= "==e. __r.s==>:s 64, 547 F.2d at 65S-61, and remanded to this court to M - [ _ 7 = - f- = f _= ; M permit a determination whether the administrative record - - ~ ~ - - - - ~ ~ - = - contained su0icient evidence to support the NRC's find-ing. 435 U.S. at 549. -EzzE = Z====G On remand, this court has held in abeyance its review .== x..:....:: =.. - __-;q..._. ~~-l j ;.;__ of the original S-3 rulemaking, as well as that of an e= =

t-~ ; --.=.

" interim" rule now before the court, pending completion =_ ;-ll7.g n - of NRC proceedings to promulgate a new fuel cycle rule.

= =

.--~ ~ : _. '~= At oral argument, NRC counsel informed the court that [-]~:1 ;__- l M =~ ?- this new final fuel cycle rule is pending before the Com-ZZEE =----- T= ZJ-mission. Counsel also told the court that the current E==-?=M-.5 E%=- - feasibility and likelihood of imp!ementation of nuclear ~Z._.Z.._ ZZ.2...-E__ 5.. 3. 5_ E...E T_ _-~. waste dispcsal solutions was a matter contested in the = =f ]== = - _- - - hearings on the new final rule. _1 T T-. Ji===f tTJ = = =.... =. = =.. = = =. =. =. - It would be inappropriate for this court to ignore the M NM=Mifi

=== __=E __._. _=-Z 52 - relevance of proceedings in which some of the br. sic ques- = tions raised now are the subject of current exploration. --- i==1?-T

= === --

Since the disposition cf the S-3 proceeding, though it has f N f_L_f M-) E-T =5 =--g-E = ~ = --E ^

=

.===.=;=____. ~ ~ ~ ' - --:.'~.~~-^:.-~ & ~'- I.'.-.. - :. L.. : '-^ W-h : ^ ' _.. = = ---.. _.._ ? =T.F - T- & ...=-h.'..I".....":'--- __...4.=._..:._:. f =.E=.:-+ - :. qdqy.T.g _ _ = = _. _. _ _ 3 -

2. _

_ 3 3..:. _.

_.. 9--

p _

g._p.2.1_

. -. u..

_.3_. - -5.......__. _ 3.. 3 __ 3.....m._. _=:.._. --.:.=::..._.:.=-.====:..=:==.==-.=:=-;=.=._.==:---.-_--....._=:_....=2..==-..._.. . -.... =.. ? - [". I.

=_=.. ;;_=.. = r

__ - _ _ =_ =. _

__ z.=a_._,..a__r. 7.= - =r ._==._. -

..y2 s ..v _ l.~. _..;. .[. '_ ~., ^- L ,... - -^ ~" [. '- ~ "~'T._ ~ ^ ' " h; '... h... O---. ~... _ _... _. _. -

_3-- = - = ~. _.

14 q =.. :::..=.=.r:. _ g=_ A a-QM-ig_ _ _;-ff a somewhat different focus,' may have a bearing on the (- z:=:=i +sM.E=G pending cases, and being advised of recent deve!opments * =:mE-that raise new. issues about the feasibility of disposal Kf..-jl=~[]isf 5: - s s=_ E ; Z E n e solutions, we think it appropriate in the interest of sound I~~ ~r5 r -.===cri.'- administration to remand to the NRC for further con-sideration in the light of its S-3 proceeding and analysis. h."Zl E l_! 7 = E ~Er E:t = r - = = In particular, the court contemp!ates consideration. on YC[5 ~:J=='==r T S remand of the specific problem isolatcd by petitioners--- -==.s s==GE===_dT=f-determining whether there is reasonable assurance that "="2='E=E==5=" T an ofi-site storage solution will be available by the years er--S C h ? :=- - the expiration of the plants' operating licenses, ~~~~ N _-f ~ 2007-09, M.c n ; and if not, whether there is reasonable assurance that the 51~.~.75f =Eqs 7: = =_- fuel can be stored safely at the sites beyond thosa dates. " G E g.;_;_ y j~= f We neither vacate nor stay the license amendments, which s_53g_ _ r =.g_.=;.1_. would eficctively shut down the plants.

s :i.z;= M ' E -

' =. ~... - ~.. _ =::. ::::. _ -- =E===- At oral argument intervenors Vermont Yankee and MC753"== -- = - Northern States stressed the argument that the court has ____r= CP.C[ no legitimate basis for concerningtitself with issues of = i _ _. _.,33""..^ T 8 The on-going 5-3 proceedings have focused only on tl e =__-..._ _ r rz-issue arising under NEPA, as to the enriconmental impact Effs.l.:-1j~~55 =: of nuclear waste disposa!, and not on the ciIcet of the un-ZC.L_; q - -~3"-- certainty as to solutions under the public health and safety J-___.-' 2 ~~G Z. standard for licensing under the Atomic Energy Act, which d Z__ '-= m-mE. __.- NRC counsel acknowledged is more rigorous than NEPA standards in certain aspects. And the S-3 proceedings may . _ _ l ' ~ ~" _" "=5 =ff

==== - _ _. i' _ -- not be concerned with the more limited issue identined in . = _. - ~ rr --. .. _. _ _ _ _ = = - the pending cases of whether offcite storage solutiens will

==== =_r5'_5 = ; -- be available prior to the expiration of the operating cer- ' ~-- ~ - - =a =_ _ G. 1

- :7 --

=-=--:-

~Es-T- =s _ _ _ _ __C tincates. ' At oral argument counsel for petiticner New England Z ; : ;r Coalition told the court of a fmal Report to the Presicent by - - a==.c E.Z

==~====- Group on Nuclear Waste Manage- " ; 'F:Z= isza.._;... the Interagency Review ment, issued March 19,1970, that casts some doubt on whether = 7:- : ===.-~=3:=.:=Es =j==. _- current proposed soluticns to the permanent waste disposal Z = ~~~~8M=2= prob!cm are technologically feasible. Id. at 42. The Report also. Z.=,== Ji.,. -- J- - - pointed to gathering instituticnal prchle:ns, c.g., the resistance --n_.cg. _5-jim --- -'] of localities to s'orage of wastes within their jurisdictions, -. J=t _ __ -._1 Z-that "may well be :nore di5 cult than :inding solu:fons to re- = '- n : - :: M J Z. - -- - -~ maining technical problems." Id. at S7-SS. ..==_._=_;--=-~'.==::=. _ 7 ___ z ~~E-.

+ :._-+--}

...=:-.=====.=,-_:. 7.$5) ' [b._.

=.J.N -ib.

..... - ":==: =;;= = -- .E.b- _ - ~ ~.5 2 " _~hi.~ iI... _ ~ a=====_..=.. _.-.....:. '.. J Y: -- ~- ..-_....-2"*~~~~'L.=.--~;-'--:b=~~.A.. ^ ?. .5~.....? ~ ~.~.= : - ~ ~^ . ~.. S: $ ?'

==a--.....====-=..:=---:===+=..c=.' .===. :.= = - 2s =m-E

== = _+.= -....:= =..- =%&_:; - L..._- - - -==+e. _..-.21. 2== :. -.-- =-2 = =2. =.. 1=P... =b==-zY=L=.5L.. ~ - _ :H=- = ..=2.L.=~=....=d=

=: :...- := -

= :i= :hi4==h^~m.-::.-.=:5.

.=^ - = = === i= -. - - "="~~: =-~ = ?1.=. 1= = = -

== ^ =. = ;-. l. -h.=i= i== &

-

- ' - = - ='===~~=~=:=== =-" = ~ ~ ' = - =-==' = =~.;..===- ,;-.=-:-- -- --

==:===----.-:----'=".:.==-._..=_".r.==.=;._-_=.-

:-=

_=-_:.- ~=? = _- f =2^ ^ -htt d=- -.5...i. l~

( -..... {.. -. = _ T::- I e : : =.:_=.. =.. - 15 ..._r

== l -.=m -g... ultimate.easte disposal in the context of the public health fri='tr"...rrx:r urn - and safety standard of the Atomic Energy Act The H_L 7 TIE._:JE W= WF - Appeal Board did not deem these concerns irrelevant, but -qT E 2-H:- % !" t= it held that an analysis was required only where it was

--~~JTZMi

=- T ~ be E =9 =iz =- =- = d ===. " reasonably probable" that solutions would reached. The question is whether there has been an ARC i-5 :r = r= Et?. l. __-l _=r disposition in generic proceedings that is adequate to 5~E5 M f TN.N dispose of the objections to the licensing amendments. ._ f Z._ -.1.. -.. 3 _ _ _ - Z-x 1 Intervenors rely on NRDC v. NRC, 552 F.2d 166

==~ =_====:= =f== :- = 5 (2d Cir.1978). The Second Circuit found that Congress ~~~-+== T[ L.M_-i-M M was well informed that disposal solutions were not cur- '.. _ -.. =. = = = = =.. =.. = = rently feasible, yet it permitted continued licensing of ~==u _ ~ ;.. ._..-- - - - ;.7 nuclear plants. We do not read that opinion, however,

_g _.-~.7=_====..=-..=-e to hold as a matter of law that st_ rage and disposal ij._%

_i _ Z1_ f = ~-

concerns are never relevant to the licensing of nuclear ~Q -.. ji?=-TfQ[ plants. Rather, as the NRC itself recognired, Congress !:=- -- ;.:::._;_x ;=== has chosen to rely on the NRC's (and its predecessor's) - ~ il- ?- _ lM=j -2 assurances of confidence that i solution will be reached. 7.2G1. E;r- :--- 3 =..f__m-J~ " s======e :- - Sec 42 Fed. Reg. at 34,392. b re is no implication that ~~~ = =- =- Congress intended that the NRC ignorcinew knowledge or analysis in its licensing decisions. As the Supreme Court implicitly recognized by remanding for a review 7=~=~ f=I~'-=5fE1 of the sufiiciency of the S-3 evidence in Fermont Yani.ce, M; ;g :--- -j.L _-)) suprc, 435 U.S. at 549, this court does not exceed its - -== -.._ = = = =_.-- = judicial province by inquiring into the basis of those . i. 1 Z E - L E = = - = = ~ ~"-~ ~ l-T_- _-Z ~~~'- assurances of confidence. As Commission counsel rightly - = = notes, it is for the Commission to decide the ultimate --~~ -

---

=====-==12.---

question of certainty implicit in health and safety judg-j=.5 "_5 %d--~~- Z- -- T -;.~s ments and to resolve technical disagreements, but that is not to say that these matters are totally immune frcm ..=.'====...:."="__.:- - ~ - ~ ' " " - = = = = =E~~ = -. _ - i

_gxxgr._. _rx7;.-

judicial review. - ~ =-- G $ U ~ = - [ III. CoNCIESION E-~ ~_=f_55 = --~ _^ L.T-T=fi =-_- The court confines its action at this time to rejection _ _ _ M_.t. =..-.;=_ 7_...= X.._ D. -.. =. - -- of certain contentions by petitioners, notably the claim

===. s=====- =E-- _-s of need fcr an adjudicatory proceecing. We agree with f__ Z_22=-E=- =~='l _E i the Commission that it may preceed in these matters by .._-.___._-.__.._:.~.1_.. _ - -.. - - - t,. = K:-- _ [ _~. _ ' \\ &ze --%-^=:^V-:~- ^

=== =.r :=. _==.:- r.._=.._ _ --2-._. - ':...Y: -'.. '

s li:-Ali$--.~:^2 ~ -

...=.:E H [ - ..' ' 'M ;.- 2H-5.: -3.1.... =- - - ..r-a..~.._ E. - -i.=..---: r. =4-.-~ = ~ .1=:.:.t.': - - :: -" f=kl.. : - '~} --- - l ~-

_ :7 u.-f:-...=.====-'..._.=....

. =..... .-. = -- ~ '^~

==~_....= : ::-

...-- * ::....._ =:: ::. ::::

==..... :.

=r- ~:.12." = -.5_... ='. ri--.-~_=:!.. _~_ ! =' .._..._:-=.... f "-- =

5. 1...

= -....

2. _f.:_ :.bc.;

r

'n.if..._

"

,.... :.:- -._ : ;;.4 f

-? -~ ~^ =. 3.gs6.r,G.) f:. :... ~., ~..;.i:-f :=.?: ;~;. [ b :"...... ~~ '1- :-'., =: :.- :L.:_:::..;j=:..

S:. h;.. **- "=,. L=. :f~'" -^ - - ~ ~ '

-".=..-.. 3 aa:... ...-5; _.;._.._ - =.; :.."..; =:= :-. 4.g_*L _L -.... _._=.;.;.: :3.;.7_..-.;;= _;.-; i== =:i _::s:..-. K.

==iE =1 =? 15.. = = = - ~.

-' = ~ =

1.5-E..:2-i :.:..:

==E+: =~E=1 = ~. '_-... F.=: =. .. m '=. :: -- : = : ^ ': 2...;.=.... T ;_ . _._ __;;- =;.;.;---_ _y.. - _ = = _ - - = _ - -._ :.;=-..__' .;._:_-q::;.:.. - --

[. '-

_.:.-_---.. : T ;-}5_ : -m : ,=;-==_.---.--_.-_,.'^ .2 2. :. -. -... ...:=.:._.--..-.-.

1 2_= ~ -

---

=_-_-:---

-._ - - --- 2. i F .....'52..... ~ ' ' L. des - =~ E5 --=.-:=_.---.. -- generic geterminations. The complex and vexing ques- [MVT-E-Mr9

d-tion of the disposal of nuclear wastes is a matter that f

is currently before the Commission in a related proceed- -_=5 ~ f Mff ing, and is characterized by continuing evclution of the D ~5= =25 5 state of pertment knortledge. Accordingly we remand the $5hf~--5fMD -- balance of these cases, and issues raised, for further FW ~== " ~ consideration by t,ne Commission with such procedure as p.=s 5 E-- f >: M =?= :-~-~ lt may deem appropriate." -. -... _E-J Z.. _. J"- =. =.;._== x._ r 4 So ordered. 2 " E _. ;. :; u-====n..= =- '=---=.;r- '~ ~ .,.... '. ~ '...... _ ~ ~ _ ~?..~.~_...._..__._._.. g N...h :- i=_._.=.::.. ~.5.?:.. _...... ~'5.. ",~."... N.: _ -a...;.. '.1T:..5?.l.~.~.'.? -'-~:'- "~" N.. .".._DE.'.._.... N _.. ~ ~ " ' ' ". }"_-'" = '.=:.. r._ - : :.. _ _.. - - ..-.i.r**SN.'._- :N ~25N..' '"'~j "' -".~.._... ^ . :.: =- -- ::: -==. ___ "=- -. _ _ 2: --"~~"','"'.*::.'.~.".:'7:'....-:...::.- 2'

= : a::

( ._~['~~~_._ . _.. _"~~___._._"~.~[i'~--m_. -[-.":..;1_ f .4?." f2":N * ' ~ -}

. m '.:.. ;:.=.- ::..:. -.f: _. _ _

-.:.'.'K.ir. ~ ~ f = =~;tCi '..-+f .......;--.:; ::;-z.-.;:.:._; 2.: :- =. a..__.. z; _; ' 7_,_,

---

__...~'.........._..:::--=_'~~~ ~

' - ~ ^ * ~ ~. .~ ~~ ~~'.'.;.;._'_ _. _ _. ', ~ ' _ ~[.

=E=F.._=. N-55..= ~.5 ~.. f=_'5.

e j _-. _ _... _. ^ ..,,_..~~~'"~-'._.:.:-:."'7:-*'..,'-. 1 -':1-'..-;a.-..;.':.-.--'" 5-" C. :.~37.b[. ..i_.. " Vermont YanLee NucIcar Power Corp. v. NRDC,435 U.S. i~ MUM 59W 5L, 5b4 (1973). The Com:rissien may ate rate the is-5~l~~5E-5 5~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = - - ' ~ - '"- ~ = " ' ~ = sues with the pending S-3 prc<e"-***e, d CSlgn M" a fCUOW-On " N

= ; = u- =:n - :---.=-

KCDeric procecc..;ng, or foHow gue Cther Courses as it deCCS

_.W:5 -- - __.. _T _ ;_

a 1 "ppropriate. .2 _g _.. __ ;_._ " _.{ E." " {.. ~_ _ _}.~...'. "= i.~.. - T =: " --- -- .=:.~.-".... ' ' _ '. .. - ~. _ .2'~............

--m +. : +.- =-->.===. = u = -2.

..-j=-j{[.~.:......-}[_I~. ^ .... = =...=== ::.:.--. =.. ...^.:..:.. .......z==..z... "7=.- -'3.:a'...._..-.._.;;...-..;- -____m.,u,,,y,_,_m,____ ' ~ - -. -. '~ [ . ~ ~,. ' ', _.. ~ ~ e .. : -' ~LF

==.:. ..? :.h?:2.=.^ ;5. - :.. ~- : n 1.=, " ".. & ~~ ^ _ :.i.- =.. _.=..~. ~.. [ ^. =.... = & : 1.W" ' - - [. ^= ; _ _ -- - -"- =. l "':.--?==':! " -- ..-t' J=:.f _-i L:... + .:...._.h.=.......- -"- -. =h u.. z. _. h =- - ~ ~ - ' ^ '

r ' :- _-...; _ -

-. = :' ; r'; =._- _ - ' L : :-. : :-'- -..;',-[~.:_.:----'"--.__;__.-}. f-.._'____._-._--..:-'A._.... _ _ _ ~ _ - _ 2.3. ri _.__ -' Z_._ r. __ =

( 2 7;; ~ ;r E _ 59 ;f==-~

r_ _-

- - '-

- ~r r 2_'3'

= J'1 - ; ----... : - 3." _- "- E .z-:==------=_=--:._=---_-

-

_= u---

- =- : : :.=

-:- =-=.:;_..-

I Tauu, Circuit Ju ge, concurring: The Nuclear Regu-l f *X- ~ps f ~ _ latory Comm!= ion ruled that prior to approval cf a l 7 ff, g _.Z 1 license amendment permitting expansion of a nuclear p=si

2.. +_.

plant's spent fuel pool capacity, there must be a determi-f=5== a..

==~ nation concerning future spent fuel storage. Specifically, %. _._Z_2K__f__E there must be a determination whether it is reasonably f}l.: p ]_----- 3 2 h j a J - probable that nn ofisite fuel repository will be available . =.J_ m;g.__ i-- when the operating license of the nuclear plant in ques- _.g_79 =;=f 7=-s -- 7=_ tion expires. We remand this case to the Commission for (= Mr- ;_7:- =~ _= _ ;= - - appropriate proceedings devoted to determining w: ether E g J_?_ E E-E 2. W 5:- ? ; such a reasonable probability exists.

---

-- 7; 7

= N - 7 =

Although I concur in the court's opinion, I write sepa- -EE-EE====7 _ = 7-rately to emphasize my belief that section 102(2) (C) of "7 ;:ff=EZ3.T_= -f.5'_-. the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,2 and sec- ~MTa=====e =uU i :a tion 103(d) of thn Atomic Energy Act of 1954,2 mandate . _i =i -E=M=J9 :5. ;- ~ the determination that the Commission identified in this ~~5fM_]-1~}.g=_.((-- [-l case. In addition, if the Commission determines it is not __7=gE=- =z=n=E = =5-reasonably prcbable that an 0:Tsite waste disposal solu-T7.3 C = g== =._ j t i-~ tion will be available when the. licenses of the plants in E..i_ _g : = _ =_. =_%_ question expire, it then must determine whether it is ren-sonably probable that the spent fuel can be stored safely --.--g_,_. ___.z.= onsite for an indefinite period. Answers to these mquiries

==== =3_ ear: - = = _ -. are essential for adequate consideration of the safety and =~=W t ? =E5= 77--- -i - environmental standards of the relevant. statutes. It is ~Ri352-. __if 7::.f i 3_ -- .._.I..~$. _-3 undisputed that questions involving storage and disposal _-. a_.. _ of nuclear waste pose serious concerns for health and the J; Z _

- ;====.r- --. _

environment. Scc Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. __ ;. 5 -g = _ 5 =.5-g = _;.; __ L

v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 53S-39 (1978).

2- =.x:====== 5.s:== -. =. _. _. = This interpretation of the relevant statutes is con-7__. 7 7_7 - -. _. 7 =;=_:f.- sistent with the recent decision of the Seccnd Circuit in f_=M." _5 9f.E=.;Z_ L E j.. g.r__.__; 7_ H NRDC v. NRC, 5S2 F.2d 166 (1978). The court of ap-r 1

== _ _ _g _ :. - _ = 2 The decision was rendered by the Commission's Atomic = = C :l RJ = - = f i f.r_ = = = - Safety and Licensing Appcal Board. _ : ;=?_ -- i.' :=:1=f_ := = ~ =:--.~==_==-=:=-- 2 42 U.S.C. s 4332(2) (C) (1976). ..cz:_. xx5Ee-s_c ::._._..J=-

-__-=_==--=_=._..

e n=,__; =-w- __.g..,= m 8 42 U.S.C. 5 2133 (d) (197G). -= ^~. _1 ' = ~ - } _ h'- _ -. = ' ~_[._.~ ~ = ~ i:2 =.*

==..':2 _.2 7.-'.-

~. - - - -

====E-q= - .== 3

= = =.___._ ====

_ = =-m==:w._._

- = _ = _.'-"'--'--:-~ ..-e ..Y,.... e.._. ^55.N.

7. -

• - ~ - - ' ~

~~ '--~# " T!.. - l:,".. _'^:...,.... _.

h. 5 _, =;;. _ :. l"_..-

5-..- - :..C. _*'W:-

._:-5====--.= .==..._.=.+x---.---- = _..=_..2 _.....e==- i...._ :. =. --.-

-~ =._ =.====- + _.._... _ _._ _. = z.._ _ _ :_ _ 5 5 0 M 0 _-

- L _ :._:_b _....:E=L. =E :..... =._ _ : =5:i'~.: r~ ..n. :.d..d._ _._ _ --i_;_ ~ '.__~-d===__._=Z'_.~=._"=-:_=.=_..-~ _=~i c__ 2.. _ 1;._-.-_.. . n. _.. :._ Z -E _.... -. _ = = '.i.: _ _.. _.i__.. _. i _ f.-'_ _1 ? =- i E= _ : _= i... _. _ _ _Z . _ _ : _ _=:_ _ _.;- -

. 1

= _.. =. _ _ _ =. _ ' _ _ _. =. = =. _ = _ _ _ ~=:- . = - -

..._._ n - - - ~ - w _g g_._..___..._......-.:-. n-- " ~ ~ ~ ~ '. _ ^ ' ' "~" 2 ' 5s=.t ?.~-. :... z.y = peals in that case held that the Commn: mon need not ha1+ b ~ b

• =~f= = - =. ~

~= ~

w=

=u -

3icensing of nucIcar p! ants pending a determinatio= U ' 5 2:-- ~;~ ~ ~ " * =E -n -Pproved metnod of

===: = ^+ - - :- h+ =: ~.=- o,- exists. The Second Ci c t ded "S**' "2I ~ ~ intent is " tis 1"20d b"y a rer mable assurance that a ' cafe dE--~i~ Z2~ Z-T---i~~ ~- ~ "~ 22 ~~ met od for permanent discosal of wa~chs ;vll ' " "" 'I-5=h H~~ - -T -9 5"- f -- = zz i -- able when needed. See id. at 171-70. Our opinion me1- ^ i ' = = = = ' - ~ ~ remands this case to the Commiccion ~% sue' ~= ~ ~ ~ n proceed-ings as it daams appropr; ate to cetermine whether the e I== =E' =5n is reasonable assurance that an offsite stora e so]s" r r:r====- 7;~ Z -- ~~ ^

• ' " " ~ ~ '

-F = -C t-- mil be available when needed-in this case, by the years 2007-2009. e.E g _ 1 _._. 7- = - = - -- -"-~ - - - ::..::r- ._. -- -.:r ::.

--..=_...:::.[

.2.

T.-- .. = ~~~~~ ::_ D..:-!= ~ ^ [ ' ~~- - ..- :::: = "::::. ::: ._.-...-.... t d -2:-- ^ r:.::r:. ~~

.~.=----..=".---_':::

.._.:-.:..".-_"-.:..:=--:.55;&?&h.?-i. T.'. '... Or..: - ~~ ~i. j. =::= :..-i- - ' 4::::

1. n i;i_'.- C2

...~ridi.-f:.=. _[ _~_i_5_i "~]-{ g " - " ~ .-'T '-~~1.__ "_...... .__.._.1 "_~- r___ ~."."-.'_"."2___"_.'

.::--. _.j. : :.

.=---

--- :. :. :=...:.:rz.-._.. - : Y.: _. -. " ' ^ ~ ~ ".-.....__:-:- N.'.$. .__I _b N~~~~.r ~. ~~ ~ r - = = -.. -======: ~ ~ ~ 4 '~ ~-....,~. f 5."~? ' -'- " ; i: ^-- -.:.==.=.=.- '~~~Y'.~...~..'-:-.-_~~~"' L5. ~ =--------;'.=___ N.. S... - b. N Y_5_..; _.. II; N_.. _._ ._::5._

~ ~ ;- - - : -. _. _ _

L. ~ - ~... _. - ~ --} -~5-~=..__~.._ ~ Ir_.]. ~5 '.?.-

:5.15.~A::-...-.~_'.

p.

===:=.-

2.:'T.T-.=:2...::.:-*_

...._._=.:_._..;_-_-.:._- ^ ^ - - ..: : _ _- _.. - :: j- _ .__-".=:.:=2.:.....~.'--- -.-c._._ -_.-.._._.2_ ( AA OA. _-?_ $. _I._. Y _r.. 3.___._.;

- _.. y ; __-.-.--

I.'. ~ [ _._2 ~~.J_.. .......~5 ~--

==:h-

L

.:: :. = =:

2. -i. Ti-.. -..i.*L... _1.- . -.. =. _.... .- -ne m :. -...S h:' ' -.. -.. 4::=.ll.tT. ~~ ~=~:-.' ~- tr.. ^: 2.:. :.t"- --..~ :' z."_:. _' :- . -.. 2:-'

.::.=.

--!:" ~- ~~f - - - - 2 ^" -. -.......".h; ~. l~~ ~~.~.:- ~:' r.. = :. :. --E.f..r .... ~. : - ~-.. ::::....._ h - = E... _.- i.h '.... :.~ -

• ;;; i ~ = -i:,. ~ A:.z

. : = -.

--.-......__xr-.-':-..._.-i_.:'-- _.ir:: _. i.- ~ ~ -- _I:: c. __ _- - r;._2.. Z_ 2 ' ~ ' 1" . _r-5 -:_b . 31'iv. -... d - - 5 2 = f.h...:1 1-- _ _..-.'l -'^' ' : h-. : ' ~-- ' " ~ :. : ~-~~ =^ '_._ __.... k -..:.1. - ~~ -... _ - -1.~~5'b _.-l...... . _,~L --~~-..:l---:- 1' .=:- =: - s .. --. :_ = : '- -. -

• : =. - =.

12 -..... -. _ -.:- -

==:_:_..:.=::-.:--==.-.-----_..=.::---- - -,..-.:.... :n:. r - - - ;_ -- ::. =:= :. z. ..:=.:.2_...--..- ..: - _. = -}}