ML19254D527
| ML19254D527 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Green County  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1979 |
| From: | Fitzgerald J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254D524 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-WASH-1400 EDO-5597, NUDOCS 7910260241 | |
| Download: ML19254D527 (9) | |
Text
-
+
a
'~,
..:/~
- 9.,
ya 7
LNITED STATES
{y t** "8 C0
'[f 4[C, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p.
s
- m a-WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 ll e (" c;. e e
y
- 4
~
, =%' :.f
%g b,.. e'C July 16, 1979 FEI:OEA','03' F0E:
Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky DDDD noou
Commissioner Kennedy I UUll R'l D b'"
Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Ahearne Wd I
sames A. Fitzgerald FROM:
Assistant General Counsel SUEJEC:;
FROFCSED RESPONSE TO FRIENDS OF EARTH LETTER ON NRC'S FOLICY STATEMENT ON k' ASH-140C In an April 25, 1979 memorandum OGC commented on the proposed respcnse to the incoming letter from the Friends of the Earth regarding the WASH-1400 Policy Statement and its effect cur:'ent environmental impact statements.
Your offices approved ou" comments and made additional suggestions.
The attached revised response incorperates the Commissioner and OGC comments in the penultimate and final paragraphs.
The new material is underlined.
Since ycu have previously approved sending of the letter as modified by Commissioner and OGC comments, unless a Cocnissioner obj ects, we have asked the Chairman to sign the letter c.o. b.
Friday, July 20, 1979 A::schnents'.
1.
Inccming Letter Farnes to Hendrie 2.
Draf
Response
3 April 25 OGC Comments 4
Eevised Draft Response e:
SECY OPE EDO G G.,
~~0 241 C.
act:
St erhen,.S. Ostrach, OGC oc
.22~
,-o 7 9102602f/ )
ED o-5^5T~)
r
/ y:.*'tq,S.
utitTED STATES h""
4 ef
~ f.y,,
- *p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM!ssioN I
2..y p. t pa/.p.
wasmaion. c.c.usss p.gj Dc:ket No. 50-549 P00R ORlGlML 1
Mr. Mark Parnes Legal Researcher Friends of the Earth 124 Spear San Francisco, California 94105
Dear Mr. Parnes:
Thank you for your letter of March.8,1979 to Chairraan Hendrie regarding the Statement of Policy by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission en tfie Reactor-Safety Study, dated January 19, 1979, and its effect on the adequacy of ine recently issued FES on the Greene County Nuclear Power Plant, as well as eight othe.r nuclear power. plant EIS' listed in your letter.
You state that it appears that, under NEPA, the Greene County FES is in-adecuate.
You requested that we respond to the criticisms of the Review Grcup Report on WASH-1400 as they apply N the FES on Greene County fiuclear Plant.
In fact the FES on Greene County does discuss thec Review Grcup Tseport and the Cornission's subsequent policy statement (page 7-2 and 7-3).
You also argued that,~in view of the Comission's ' remarks about the reliability of the WASH-1400 numerical estimates of the overall risk of reactor accidents, the Greene County FES must discuss in cietail the effects of the occurrence of a Class 9 accident. We do not agree with your view.
rirst you should recognize that t.:e Review Group did net identify any new cr p eviously unknown risks per se.-
What the Lewis Group has told us is that the "measuremn;" of our reggiatory system, as reflected in the overall risk estimaas of the k=. ctor Safety Study, is m.ich less precise than had been asserted.
The Lewis Group did not conclude that the overalT. risk estimates were higher or: lower than reported in WASH-1400, althou:gh they speculated on possible factors in.both directions', but only that they
-hought the error bands on those estimates were substantially larger than had been reported.
On that account, they recomr. ended to us that the overall risk estimates of WASH-1400 should be used with great caution -
"should not be t. set uncritically" were their words.- in the regulatory process or fos-ocblic policy purposes.
We have accepted and are implementing with vigor r.a-sco mendation, as well as the other findir.gs anc reconnendations of the Lewis Group.
0 242
6yt
-gh
- r.."trk ?arnes 1
~ d a
i n
/
Finally, it should be noted that the basis for not discussing
[ %, /
Class 9 accidents' in the NRC's environmental state.ents has been affimed in Carolina Environmental Study Group v. AEC. 510 F.2d 795 (CA DC 1975).
~
Accordingly, we do not acree with your prer.ise that the G eene County FES has a fatal defect under the law, and trust that the e.bove dis-cussion adequately explains this view.
1 Sincerely.:
orisim] 52cucT -
er s. ret ton, Di re'-" or Harold R.
e t
Of fice of Nuclear React:ar Regulation -.
DI51RIBUTION
.l-4'..
~
~
Cocket File (EhdRON) h?.C PDP.
VStello ~.
~
LD'R..
RDeYoung
!ER Reading VMoore E?-2 Reading OELD LVGoesick k'4egan/SBajwa XCornell MDun~an c
TRehm GErtter - f5597 Kshapar MGroff - f5597 FJenton PlaGrange E3 Case SECY 79-0417 (3)
C=?unch T.5cyd *
- ..F.E::s on i
c
{N. t.
NRR':PSS:DIR E i" #
i
.c*
DF Ei um.f./a.""*
./
cb CVGossi
-5EE PREVIOUS YELLOW FOR C0i!CURRE; ICES (REWRITTE'i I;; tiRR:7-SS) 3/
/79 d'/g/75
! * :. ::. 2...........
D..S..E..:.A..D..E.P..........
.....O..E..L..D...........,...D..S..E..:..D..I..R.........l..I E. 2 9 I f*C.
'I n
..- -.:.-c..
.u-
..E.g.. C..a.._._.......
F... _. c c.
G
-.. r !,t:ie ce n : a. i*........VI.'.c o..r..e..*..................11.X..a.r..m..a..n*
...R..D.e..Y.o u..n. n."......j T,...../ /.7
[.r./.pu/.7. 0..........,3../.2 2./.7. 9............... 3. /. 2. 6. /. 7. 9......
.. 3. /. 2 7./. 7 9.-...... -..5../..*.E../.7 9.'...
).....
-. m m m a cua
- ,........-----.---e...:...........
_. g.-; +,
. :- y---.- - q.; _ _...
.. g.
. _ ::y...g
- =.e
..... = -
. { ;$ 4 3
.. +
-u,
r
./
r.
UNITED sTATsi h " b ef F.e 1
f *0 CLEAR RiiGULAToRY COMMisslON q
4 n..Ei 0
0
-g
- g WASHINGTON, D. C. ;c555
- t','@:*=.m'.
f 4(rt /
r e
,+:W:
P00R ORGINAL
~
Docket No. 50-549 J'
Mr. Mark Parnes Legal Researcher Friends of the Earth 124 Spear San Francisco, California 94105
Dear Mr. Parner:
Thank you for your letter of Harch'8,1979 to Chaiman 14endrie regarding the Statement of Policy by the Nuclear Regulatory Cornissicn en the Reactor Safety Study, dated January 19, 1979, and its effect on the adequacy of the recently issued FES on the Greene County Nucleer Pswer. Plant, as well as eight othe.r nuclear power plant EIS' listed in your letter.
You state that it appears that, under HEPA, the Greene Courity FES is in-adequate.
You requested that we respond to the criticisms of the Review-Group Report on WASH-1400 as they apply to the FES on Greente County Nuclear Plant.
In fact the FES on Greene County does. disctuss the Review Grcup Report and the Cornission's subsequent policy stateme:nt (page 7-2 and7-3)..
You also a gued that, in view ~of the Cc:anission's remarks about the reliability of the WASH-1400 numerical estimates of the ove:rall, risk of reactor accidents, the Graene County FES must discuss in detail the effects of the occurrence of a Class 9 accident.
We do not agree with your view.
First you sliould recogni e that the Review Group did nct identify any new cr previously unknown risks par se.
What the Lewis Group has told us is that 'the "maasurerr,ent" of our regulatory systec,. as reflected in the overall risk astimates of the Reactor Safety 5tudy, is much less precise than had been asserted.
The Lewis Group did not conclude that the overall risk estimates were higher or iower than ' reported in WASH-1400, although they speculated on p'ossible factors in both directions, but only that : hey thought the error bands on those es' imates were substantia]Iy larger than t
had been reported.
On that account, they recomended to us that the overall risk estimates of WASH-1400 should be used with great caut-ion -
"should not be use:' uncriticaily" were their words -- in the reculatcr.y process orsfor pudiic policy purposes.
We have accepted and are impienen-ting with vigor
- na recomendation, as well as the other findings and rec.c:nr.endations of the Lewis Group.
~~0 244 s
e e
-7. : ~ Mr. Mark Parnes 2
It ehould be noted 'that the Commission's views on consider ation of Class 9 Peridants are not necessarily irrevocably set It is possible that the results of the analvses of the Three Mile Island accident that are now underway may aff act the Commission's thinkino about the manner in whien the licensino orocess should consider the environmental risk of Class 9 accidents.
Furthermore, I want to note that the Connission currently has before it an adiudicatory oroceal-ino which directly presents the cuestion of how to consider the environmental risk from a Class 9 accident at.a floating nuclear plant.
However, it should be noted that the rational'e for the Corrmission's current Doliev of not discussing Class 9 accidents in the NRC's environmental statements has been affirmed in Carolina Environmental Study Group v AEC 510 F.2d 796 (CA DC 1975).
Accordingly, we do not agree with your premise that the Gr.:ene County FES has a fatal defect under the law.
Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Direc: tor Office of Nuclear ! Reactor Regulation 8
8
~ 0 245 9
e
./ pnnc u
UNITED STATES
'o,,
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
(
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o
'+9 * * * *
- g o
CHAIRMAN Mr. Mark Parnes Legal Researcher Friends of the Earth 124 Spear San Francisco, California 94105
Dear Mr. Parnes:
Thank you for your letter of March 8,1979 regarding the Statement of Policy by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the Reactor Safety Study, dated January 19, 1979, and its effect on the adequacy of the FES on the Greene County Nuclear Power Plant, as well as impact statements for eight other nuclear power plants listed in your letter.
As you are undoubtably aware, the request for the construction permit for the Greene County facil~ity has 5.en withdrawn. This development, of course, obviates your concern in regard to Greene County.
The Commission believes, however, that the general question you have raised regarding consideration of Class 9 accidents during licensing of nuclear facilities deserves discussion.
First you should recognize that the Review Group on WASH-1400 did not identify any new or previously unknown' risks.
What the Lewis Group has told us is that the " measurement" of the ef.fectiveness of our regulatory system, as reflected in the overall risk estimates of the Reactor Safety Study, is much less precise than had been asserted.
The Lewis Group did r.ot conclude that the overal'1 risk estimates were higher or lower than reported on WASH-1400, although they speculated on possible factors in both directions.
Rather, the Group concluded that the error bands on those estimates were substantially larger than had been reported.
Da that account, they recommended that the overall risk estimates of WAS':-1400 should be used with great caution -
"should not be used uncritically" were their words -- in the regulatory process or for public policy purpose-We have accepted and are implement-ing with vigor that recommendation as well as the other findings and recommendations of the Lewis Group.
'~0 246
Because it is usually not reasonably possible to determine totally the impact of all actions which affect the environment, the implementation of NEPA has been governed by a " rule of reason."
NRDC v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
Consistent with the rule of reason, the Commission may find that~the probability of some occurrences is so minimal that they do not warrant the detailed discussion otherwise required by NEPA. The Commission believes, based on information presently available, that a Class 9 accident is such an occurrenca.
The rationale underlying this position has been affirmed in Carolina Environmental Study Group v.
AEC, 510 F.2d 796, 799 (D.C. Cir.1975).
The Commission's views on consideration of Class 9 accidents are not, however, irrevocably set.
It is possible that the results of the analyses of the Three Mile Island accident now underway may affect the Commission's position on how-the licensing process should consider the environmental risk of Class 9 accidents. The Commission also has before it an adjudicatory proceeding which directly presents the issue of possible consideration of Class 9 accidents in connection with environmental analysis of floating plants. The Commission's Siting Policy Task Force is considering_whether the possibility of Class 9 accidents suggests the need for change in the Commission's overall policy on siting of power reactors.
Also, the joint NRC/ EPA Task Force on Emergency Planning is considering the Class 9 accident from the perspective of emergency planning.
Should any of the above activities lead to a major change in the NRC policy regarding environmental consideration of Class 9 accidents, we shall inform you promptly.
Sincerely, Joseph M. Hendrie s
'0 247
p %q UNITED STATES k
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON WASHINGTON, D. O. 20555 5
E
\\...../
Mr. Mark Parnes Legal Researcher Friends of the Earth 124 Spear San Francisco, California 94105
Dear Mr. Parnes:
.J Thank you for your letter of March 8,1979 regarding the Statement of Policy by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the Reactor Safety Study, dated January 19, 1979, and its effect on the adequacy of the FES on the Greene County Nuclear Power Flant, as well as impact statements for eight other nuclear power plants listed in your letter.
As you are undoubtably aware, the request for the construction permit for the Greene County facility has been withdrawn. This development, of course, obviates your concern in regard to Greene County. The Commission believes, however, that the general question you have raised regarding consideration of Class 9 accidents during licensing of nuclear facilities deserves discussion.
First you should recognize that the Review Group on WASH-1400 did not identify any new or previously unknown risks. What the Lewis Group has told us is that the " measurement" of the effectiveness of out regulatory system, as reflected in the overall risk estimates of the Reactor Safety Study, is much less pre-cise than had been asserted. The Lewis Group did not conclude that the over-all risk estimates were higher or lower than reported on NASH-1400, although they speculated on possible factors in both directions. Rather, the Group concluded that the error bands on those estimates were substantially larger than had been reported. On that account, they recommended that the overall risk estimates of WASH-1400 should be used with great caution - "should not be used uncritically" were their words -- in the regulatory process or for public policy purposes. We have accepted and are implementing with vigor that recommendation as well as the other findings and recommendations of the Lewis Group.
Because it is usually not reasonably possible to determine totally the impact of all actions which affect the environmqnt, the implementation of NEPA has been governed by a " rule of reason." NRDQ/. Morton, 458 F.2d 827 (D.C. Cir.
1972). Consistent with the rule of reasoi, the Commission may find that the probability of some occurrences is so minimal that they do not warrant the detailed discursion otherwise required by NEPA. The Commission's policy has been to treat a Class 9 accident as such an occurrence. The rationale under-lying this position has been affirmed in Carolina Environmental Study Group
- v. AEC, 510 F.2d 796, 799 (D.C. Cir.1975).
TO 248
2 The Commission's views on consideration of Class 9 accidents are not, however, irrevocably set.
It is possible that the results of the analyses of the Three Nile Island accident now underway may affect the Commission's position on how the licensing process should consider the environmental risk of Class 9 accidents.
The question of whether the Three Mile Island accident should te considered a Class 9 accident has been raised by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the matter of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool Expansion. The Commission also has before it an adjudicatory proceeding which directly presents the issue of possible consideration of Class 9 accidents in connection with environmental analysis of floating plants. The Commission's Siting Policy Task Force i; considering whether the possibility of Cless 9 accidents suggests the neea for cha'.3e in the Commission's overall policy on siting of power reactors.
A'.so, the joint NRC/ EPA Task Force on Emergency Pianning is considering the Class 9 accident from the perspective of emergency planning.
Should any of the above activities lead to a major change in the NRC policy regarding environmental consideration of Class 9 accidents, we shall inform you promptly.
Sincerely,
\\
.T e e
g Adm
~'O 249