ML19291B570
| ML19291B570 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley, Susquehanna, Callaway, Vogtle, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1977 |
| From: | Trowbridge G DUQUESNE LIGHT CO., GEORGIA POWER CO., METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, UNION ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911080608 | |
| Download: ML19291B570 (8) | |
Text
'
^'.
Ma) 3, 1977
/
' 2], L'~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards In the Matter of:
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al.,
)
Docket Nos. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
N 0
Station, Units 1 & 2),
)
)
and
)
)
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-334 (Beaver Valley Power Station,
)
50-412 Units 1 & 2),
)
~
)
and
)
)
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-387 (Susquehanna Steam Electric
)
50-388 Station, Units 1 & 2),
)
)
and
)
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50- 424 (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear
)
50-425 Plant, Units 1 & 2),
)
)
and
)
)
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. STN 50- 483 (Callaway Plant, Units 1 & 2)
)
STN 50- 486 LICENSEES' RESPONSE TO QUESTION RAISED IN ALAB-392 CONCERNING UNCERTAINTIES IN INTERIM FUEL CYCLE VALUE In ALAB-392 (April 21, 1977), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel invited submissions with respect to the facilities covered by that order 1583 280 T91108 0 fog C
.s '
confined in scope to an assignment of reasons why, in the light of the interim [ uranium fuel cycle]
rule, the cost / benefit balance for the facility or unit in question tips, or might tip, in favor of abandonment of the facility.
1/
Slip op. at 13-14.
Footnote 7 of ALAB-392 reflected a concern by some members of the Appeal Panel with the implication of certain language in the Statement of Considerations which accompanied the proposal of the interim fuel cycle rule, 41 Fed. Reg. 45849, 45850-51 (1976).
That language, quoted in footnote 7, identified uncertainties which the Commission recognized in its consideration of the " risks from long-term repository failure."
The parties filing submissions favoring abandon-ment of a facility in light of the interim fuel cycle rule were requested by footnote 7 to include in their submissions a discussion of the significance which, in light of the Commission's notation, should be deemed to attach to the value placed by the interim rule upon the newly-established category of " transuranic and high level wastes (deep)".
In other words, given the uncertainties to which the Commission has referred with regard to the possible release of the buried high level wastes, what weight should be attributed (in striking the cost / benefit balance for each individual reactor) to the value assigned to the solidified waste which would be generated during that reactor's operation?
1/ Since this opening brief is required only from parties asserting that the values in the interim fuel cycle rule will tilt the balance against Commission approval of the facility, the Licensees filing this response do not intend to make any such filings.
Licensees of course reserve the right to reply to any submissions made which argue that a 2acility or facilities should be abandoned.
1583 281
~
Footnote 9 of ALAB-392 indicated that the members of the Appeal Panel particularly interested in the question posed in footnote 7 "would appreciate receiving the views of all parties on that question."
Without knowing which, if any, of the Appeal Board members assigned to their proceedings are "particularly interested in the question discussed in 2/
fn.
7",
the Licensees filing this response-submit the following discussion.
The Commission in proposing its interim fuel cycle rule recognized that uncertainties existed in some areas and that in other areas information necessary for a complete quanit-tative assessment of environmental impacts was lacking.
41 Fed. Reg. at 45850, 45851.
One of these Commission caveats is quoted in footnote 7 of ALAB-392.
However, notwith-standing these caveats the Commission found that the infor-mation was adequate to serve as the basis for an interim fuel cycle rule.
The Commission's present belief is that the supplemental survey can serve as an adequate foundation for such a rule.
The supplement is based on a thorough survey of the available data on waste management and reprocessing impacts, and states to the extent now possible the uncertain-ties and risks associated with these impacts.
The Commission explicitly stated that the uncertainties have been considered as a part of the 1583 282 Commission's judgment.
2/ Metropolitan Edison Company, et a'l.; Duquesne Light Company, et al.; Pennsylvania Power & Light Company; Georgia Power Company, et al.; and Union Electric Company.
Where data necessary for a complete quantitative assessment of impact is lacking, the Commission's expert judgment must be brought to bear on the information available.
Id.
In promulgating the interim rule, the Commission age.in recognized that while it did not have complete information, it had adequate information on which to base the interim rule.
The Commission has observed that there are gaps in the information needed for detailed assessment of waste management and disposal technology.
While there is a need to obtain additional data and to consider from time to time any new findings that would have a bearing upon the values set forth in Table S-3, the lack of some relevant data in certain areas by no means excuses the Commission from making an informed and reasoned judgment now regarding the environmental impacts which may flow from waste management and reprocessing activities.
42 Fed. Reg. 13803, 13805 (March 14, 1977).
The Commission again clearly recognized that the interim rule was being issued notwithstanding the use of "' policy judgments where no factual certainties exist or where facts alone do not provide the answer'", the absence in some cases of " detailed assessments", and the need in some instances to "make prob-abilistic assessments
. until data becomes 'sufficiently quantifiable to yield to meaningful results'".
Id,.
Despite all these limitations, and after it had " looked at the un-certainties and unknowns identified in the Supplement 1583 283
(to WASH-1248]",id., the Commission nonetheless published the revised Table S-3 to be effective March 14, 1977.
Once promulgated, the interim fuel cycle regulation is as binding on the Appeal Board as it is on the parties.
ALAB-392 fn.
8.
The regulation itself states that the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle shall be as set forth in Table S-3, Summary of environmental considerations for uranium fuel cycle.
No further discussion shall be required.
10 CFR S 51.20(e).-3/To give less weight to the value assigned to the solidified waste which would be generated during the reactor's operation than to other values would clearly constitute a challenge to the Commission's regula-tion.
Doing so would directly attack the Commission's rule that the fuel cycle impacts "shall be as set forth in Table S-3.
." It would also constitute "further discussion" of the environmental consideration of the uranium fuel cycle.
Permitting this type of examination of the values specified in the rule could reopen all of the values to consideration 3/ Section 51.20 (e) applies to applicants' environmental reports.
It is incorporated in the Staff's environmental impact statements by SSI.23(a) ("The draft environmental impact statement will include the matters specified in S 51. 20 (a), (e) and (g) and 551.21, as appropriate") and S51.26 (".
. the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
. will prepare a final environmental impact statement in accordance with the requirements of 551.23 for draft en-vironmental impact statements").
1583 284
..- in individual hearings, in direct opposition to the intent of the Commission's rule.
The Licensees therefore believe that the value placed by the interim rule upon " transuranic and high level wastes (deep)" must not be given any greater or lesser weight because it may have uncertainties associated with it.
The cost / benefit balance itself obviously involves the weighting of the entries on either side of the equation (e.g., is the removal from agricultural production of X acres of farm land of greater or lesser importance than the generation of Y kilowatt hours of electricity).
However, to inflate or discount this one value of Table S-3 because the Commission recognized some uncertainties affecting it, would challenge the Commission's judgment in selecting the value incorporated in the rule.
The mechanism for such a challenge is, of course, in the rulemaking arena, not in the performance of a cost / benefit balance for individual facilities.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By ADLvl
~ orge F. Trowbridge rald Charnoff Jay E.
Silberg 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Dated:
May 23, 1977 1583 285
May 23, 1977 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards In the Matter of:
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al.,
)
Docket Nos. 50-269 (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
50-320 Station, Units 1 & 2),
)
)
and
)
)
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-334 (Beaver Valley Power Station,
)
50-412 Units 1 & 2),
)
)
and
)
)
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50- 387 (Susquehanna Steam Electric
)
50- 388 Station, Units 1 & 2),
)
)
and
)
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50- 424 (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear
)
50-425 Plant, Units 1 & 2),
)
)
and
)
)
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. STN 50- 483 (Callaway Plant, Units 1 & 2)
)
STN 50- 486 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing " Licensees' Response to Question Raised in ALAB-392 Concerning Uncertainties in Interim Fuel Cycle Value" were served, by deposit in the U. S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 23rd day of May, 1583 286
to all those on the attached Service List.
\\'/
/ f7 bb4 W k
--1 Ja Silberg
,g
(, /
y' E.
j Dated:
May 23, 1977 1583 287