ML19291B708
| ML19291B708 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley, Peach Bottom, Salem, Catawba, Hope Creek, Susquehanna, Limerick, Callaway, Vogtle, Hartsville, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1977 |
| From: | Du Flo M, Duflo M NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | DUKE POWER CO., DUQUESNE LIGHT CO., GEORGIA POWER CO., METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., NRC COMMISSION (OCM), PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC, PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO., Public Service Enterprise Group, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, UNION ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| ALAB-426, NUDOCS 7911110206 | |
| Download: ML19291B708 (10) | |
Text
',
/
UN.CTED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLE.TR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEFSING P.PPEAL BOARDS *
<3 Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman jg%h.Chgh y
Dr. John H. Buck 6
Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles 2
9 fj Michael C. Farrar Yp %ey
.}
Richard S. Salzmar, I
/*
Dr. W. Reed Johnson Jerome E. Sharfman 9
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS
)
Docket Nos. 50-272 COMPANY
)
50-311 (Salem Nuclear Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-277 (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,
)
50-278 Units 2 and 3)
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY et al.
Docket Nos. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear St3'tIo'n,
)
50-320 Units 1 and 2)
)
)
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-334 (Beaver Valley Power Stat 13n,,
)
50-412 Units 1 and 2)
)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-352 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
50-353 Units 1 and 2)
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS
)
COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-354 ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
50-355 (Hope Creek Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
- /Every Appeal Panel member is on one of more of the Boards hearing the captioned proceedings; their collective designation is simply a convenience in issuing this joint order.
1583 054
.3 4
PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT
)
Docket Nos. 50-387 COMPANY
)
50-388 (Susquehanna Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-413 (Catawba Nuclear Station,
)
50-414 Units 1 and 2)
)
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-424 (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant,
)
50-425 Units 1 and 2)
)
)
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-483 (Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
STN 50-486
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
Docket Nos. 50-518 (Hartsville Nuclear Plant,
)
50-519 Units lA, 2A, 1B and 2B)
)
50-520
)
50-521 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER August 8, 1977 (ALAB - 426) 1/
By its order of April 1, 1977,--
the Commission directed us to determine the impact of its just promulgated interim uranium fuel cycle rule on the environmental cost-benefit balances which had been struck for each of ten nuclear fucili-ties specified in that order.
As the first step in the carrying out of that direction, we entered our own order three 3/
-~
weeks later in which, inter alia, we announced that we would entertain further submissions by a party or parties with respect to any of those ten. facilities or three other facilities which still had uranium fuel cycle questions
_1/
_2/
The interim rule issued on March 14, 1977.
42 Fed. Reg.13803.
_3/
ALAB-392, 5 NRC 759 (April 21,1977).
1583 055
~
- pending before us.
The submissions were to "be confined in scope to an assignment of reasons uhy, in light of the interim rule, the cost-benefit balance for the facilit' or unit in question tips, or might tip, in favor of abandonment of the facility."
5 NRC at 765.
In response to this invitation, an intervenor in two of the thirteen proceedings filed a memorandum in which it urged, inter alia, that the application of the interim rule would tip the cost-benefit balance against both of the facilities there involved.~
This memorandum and the responsive memoranda of other parties were considered by the appeal boards assigned to those two proceedings.
Each board rejected the inter-venor's assertion.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-421, 6 NRC (July 18, 1977); Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-422, 6 NRC (slip cpinion, pp.
5/
152-156 and concurring opinion, pp. 177-78) (July 26, 1977).~~
What still remains for consideration is the effect of the interim rule (and, more particularly, the numerical values assigned in revised Table S-3 for the spent fuel reprocessing
_4/
An intervenor in a third proceeding also filed a memorandum in response to ALAB-392.
We discuss it later in this opinion, infra, fn. 8.
In addition, the staff and licensees filed papers setting forth their views on certain questions relating to the application of the interim rule which had been posed in ALAB-392 on behalf of some Appeal Panel members.
5/
In a concurring opinion in ALAB-421, Mr. Farrar addressed
~-
the questions raised in ALAB-392 (see fn. 4, supra).
All members of the Appeal Panel are in substantial agree-ment with the views expressed by Mr. Farrar in that opinion.
1583 056
. and waste disposal phases of the fuel cycle) upon the cost-benefit balances for the other eleven facilities.
On the basis of the analysis of the interim rule contained in Seabrook, ALAB-422, supra -- an analysis which' is accepted by all members of the Appeal Panel -- we conclude that the balance for none of those facilities is tipped by the placement of Ji/
fuel cycle environmental impacts on the scale.
We need not rehearse the entire discussion on the point contained in ALAB-422.
It suffices for present purposes to re-eat the conclusion there reached: "the effects assigned by the interim rule to the uranium fuel cycle are * *
- extremely small * * *.
This being so,they could not possibly serve to call for the abandonment of any particular nuclear facility unless the cost-benefit balance for that facility was otherwise in virtual equipoise." 6 NRC at (slip opinion,pp. 155-56).
In the application of this conclusion, the Seabrook Appeal Board found it unnecessary "to establish the precise margin of difference between Seabrook benefits and costs";
that Board was" totally satisfied" that, in any event, it was "large enough that the placing on the scales of the revised Table S-3 values would have no operative significance".
_6/ This conclusion does not extend to Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island facility, as to which we have left it to the Licensing Board to decide the matter in the first instance.
See ALAB-407, 5 NRC (June 1, 1977). Nor, for similar reasons, does it extend to the Midland facility.
See ALAB-396, 5 NRC (May 4, 1977).
1sRT 05Z
. Id. at (slip opinion, p. 156).
The same can now be said respecting each of the eleven facilities now under considera-tion.
As noted in ALAB-392, several are either fully con-stru:ted and operational or well along the road to completion.
5 NRC at 764.
As to them, there would not be room for any serious suggestion that the revised Table S-3 values might be weighty enough to dictate abandonment of the project.
What is left,then,are those units which -- in common with the Seabrook units -- are still in an incipient stage of
_7 /_ Ibid.
A review of the adjudicatory record construction.
pertaining to each of them leaves us in no doubt that, as in Seabrook, the cost-benefit balance (fuel cycle impacts aside) is not so close to " virtual equipoise"that the addition of the quantified values set forth in Table S-3 of the interim rule could be of decisive significance.__8/
This order brings to fruition the discharge of the responsibilities placed upon us by the Commission's April 1 order, CLI-77-10, supra.
In addition, it terminates the reser-vation of jurisdiction over fuel cycle questions contained in several of our decisions over the course of the last year.
7/
Beaver Valley 2, Hope Creek 1 and 2, Callaway 1 and 2,
~~
Hartsville 1A, 2A, 1B and 2B, and Vogtle 1 and 2.
_8/
In the Hope Creek proceeding, one of the intervenors, David A. Caccia, filed a brief memorandum in response to ALAB-392, in which he opined that the " cost of Hope Creek will be greater than the benefits when the entire environ-mental costs of the fuel cycle are included."
It appears, (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 1583 058
See Union E'lectric Co. (Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2),
9/
ALAB-347, NRCI-76/9 216, 219-20 (September 16, 1975T; Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-355, NPCI-76/10 397, 417-18 (October 29, 1976); Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units lA, 2A, 1B and 2B),
ALAB-367, 5 NRC 92, 105-07 (January 25, 1977); Georgia Power Co.
(Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAD-375, 5 NRC 423, 424 (February 16, 1977).
Unless otherwise 8/
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) however, that he is not contending that the differences between the 1974 fuel cycle rule and the interim revised rule are such as to invalidate the Licensing Board's determination in late 1974 that, taking into account the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle, the cost-benefit balance favored the plant.
See LBP-74-79, 8 AEC 745, 759, 768, affirmed on this point, ALAB-251, 8 AEC 993.(1974).
Rather, Mr. Caccia seemingly wishes to re-litigate, without regard to the extent of differeace between the original rule and the interim revised rule, the question of resort to altetnate energy sources.
Specifically, he would have us direct a further explora-tion into (1) the unit cost of the electric power to be generated by Hope Creek; (2) the cost of conserving an amount of electricity equivalent to the total Hope Creek generation; and (3) the cost of generating "a like amount of electricity by another method."
Manifestly, such an inquiry would be well beyond the ambit of the Commissicn's April 1 order -- which, as applied to the Hope Creek proceeding at least, calls upon us to determine only "the incremental effect, if any, that the use of the values in the interim rule would have" on the cost-benefit balance for the facility.
5 NRC at 717b.
9/ There, the Callaway Appeal Board deferred until com-
-~
pletion of the Commission's new fuel cycle study (and any new regulations which might flow from it) various fuel cycle contentions.
Among these was the propriety (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 1583 059
. indicated in those opinions, the Licensing Board decisions under review therein now stand affirmed in their totality.
_9/
(FOOTNOTE CONTIN 0dD FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) of the Licensing Board's exclusion of intervenors' contention that the radiological hazards of criminal acts and sabotage during the transportation of plutonium from the reprocessing plant had not been adequately con-sidered in the environmental impact analyses of the staff and applicant.
These hazards were not among those evaluated in preparing the former Table S-3.
Be that as it may, it is certain that the new Table S-3, promulgated as part of the Commission's new interim fuel cycle regulation (42 Fed. Reg. 13806-07 (March 14, 1977)),
does encompass the subject.
The new survey was completed in October 1976 (NUREG-Oll6).
Public comments on that survey and the staff's responses to those comments were published in March 1977 (NUREG-0216).
These " provide detailed narrative explanation of the new values in Table S-3 and give greater illumination to the back-ground and context of the revised values", according to the Commission's Statement of Considerations ac-companying the adoption of the interim regulation.
42 Fed. Reg. 13803, 13804 (March 14, 1977).
The new survey conciders two fuel cycle options: no recycle and uranium-enly recycle; the uranium-plutonium recycle option is not considered because it is treated in the Commission's Generic Environmental Statement for Mixed Oxide Fuel ("GESMO").
NUREG-0116, pp. 3-1 to 3-5.
Under the uranium-only recycle option, plutonium is handled, treated and disposed of as a waste.
Id. at 4-100.
The survey considers the transportation of high-level wastes (including plutonium) from the reprocessing plant to the interim storage facility.
Id. at 4-28.
It also considers the environmental effects of that transportation.
Id. at 4-28 and 4-144 to 4-152.
The survey also evaluates the environmental effects of sabotage, including sabotage aimed at transportation.
Id. at 4-153 to 4-163.
NUREG-0216 (at p.
3-96), in (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 1583 060
_g_
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS
%uniu Marggtet E. Du Flo Secretary to the Appeal Boards Dr. Quarles participated in the consideration of the matters decided in this opinion and concurs in the result insofar as it pertains to the proceedings to which he is specifically assigned.
He was unavailable, however, to review the final version of the opinion.
_9/
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) response to the California Energy Resource Conserva-tion and Development Commission's inquiry whether sabotage impacts have been included in the revised Table S-3, answers:
"The risks of sabotage are judged to be negligible and therefore no entry is given * * *."
Intervenors' contention is thus without merit because the environmental impacts it seeks to have considered have already been weighed in the formulation of the new Table S-3.
1583 061
UNITED STATES OF ABERICA NUCLEAR PICULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY,
)
Docket No.(s) 50-320
-~
)
)
(Three Mile Island Unit No. 2)
)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing docur.ent(s) upon each person designated on the official service list coepiled by the Of fice of the Secretary of the Cor nission in this proceeding in 2-accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Cor:lission's Rules and Regulations.
Da* dj t 7ashingto, D.C. this j
b k.
197'
[,
day of
~~
/ Cu +
V~
ila U cu g\\
a Office of'6he Secretary of the Co.
i.s s io n t.
1583 062
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.TIISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-320 -0L
)
(Three Mile Island Unit No. 2)
)
5 :.-
SERVICE LIST Edward Luton, Esq.
Dr. Chauncey R. Kepford Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Citizens for a Safe Environment &
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Con =rission York Cc sittee for a Safe Environ =ent Washington, D. C. 20555 2586 Broad Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Honorable Karin W. Carter U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Attorney General 8
Washington, D. C.
20555 Office of Enforcement Department of Environmental Resources Dr. Ernest O. Salo 709 Health and Uelfare Euilding Professor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Fisheries Research Institute, WH-10 College of Fisheries Miss Mary V. Southard University of Washington Citizens for a safe Environ ent Seattle, Washington 98195 P.O. Box 405 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Shaw, Pite=an, Potts, Trowbridge Govern =ent Publication Se: tion S tate Library c f Per u '_.- 7.ir
10 17 t!- S t:22t, :'.
Id.::a: ice 1 11cir:. ~. - ~
.nhin;com P. C.
20:^
trrif:..
? :-,
~
.-r: "..
~
,0-
. ~.. ;
1583 063