ML19320D723

Summarizes Veiws on Early Site Review Proposed Regulations. Supports Idea in General But Opposes Application to Reprocessing Facilities & Expresses Concerns Re Certain Technical Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19320D723
Person / Time
Site:	05000599, 05000600
Issue date:	04/27/1977
From:	Speth G COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
To:	Rowden M NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19320D724	List: ML19320D723
References
NUDOCS 8007220121
Download: ML19320D723 (5)

Text

. - - Attachment A EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT COUNCIL QN ENVIRONMENTAL QU ALITY 722 JACKSON PtACE. N. W WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006 April 27, 1977 Honoi.ble Marcus Rowden Chairman .

. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Mr. Chairman 21s letter suunnarizes our views on the Commission's proposed regulations for early review and approval of siting issues respecting nuclear facilities, and reflects the results of discussions between our staffs.

We support the idea underlying the proposed early s he review regulations, namely, that genuine consideration of alternative nuclear facility sites is more likely to occur if an applicant has not invested substantial amounts in site-specific design at the time of site review. Separating site review from design review provides an opportunity to achieve a thorough, objective consideration of alternative sites without the prospect of imposing substantial economic penalties on an applicant if its preferred site is rejected. Our concerns stem fr the manner in  :

which the proposed regulations implement this idea. f First, we strongly object to making reprocessing facilities eligible for early site review under these regulations. Whether " wide-scale" com-mercial reprocessing is permitted in the United States is a complex, controversial, and extremely significant issue that remains unresolved by the Commission. The proposed early site review regulations, however, would appear to authorize applicants to obtain review and approval of sitas, or site related issues, before the Coumission resolves the generic issues concerning reprocessing. With GESMO pending, we believe it would ,

be highly inappropriate for the Conmission to adopt a policy which would i

• . appear to authorize review and approval of sites or site related issues j or the issuance of limited work authorizations for reprocessing facilities, j It is our understanding that the NRC staf f is giving serious consideration  !

- to reconumending that the scope of the proposed regulations be changed to 1 climinate their application to reprocessing facilities. {

h Second, we are concerned that the proposed regulations could lead to a fragmentation of the review of site related issues. D e regulations [

wouH authorize an applicant to define the scope of site related issues l I

l it wanted the Consnission or staff to consider. If water availability or seismic stability were likely to be the limiting factor for a possible {

nl '

0 4

u 8007220 g[

E m

)

. u l L F

i site, for example, an applicant could seek to restrict its application for site review to the water or seismic issue alone. This approach may  ?

have two undesirable effects. Since a decision by a licensing board on

• a site related issue would bind the staff and the board for up to five years in the absence of new information, the balancing that NEPA requires '

anong all relevant environmental, economic and technical factors could be skewed at a later time by a binding previous decision on a specific site related issue. In addition, the prospect of an applicar.t " stringing out" consideration of a variety of site related issues over a number of  ;

years could undermine the ability of interested citizen groups and intervenors to participate effectively in the site review process. We i understand that the NRC staff is sympathetic to these concerns, and will not proceed with early site reviews on limited issues in cases where the later NEPA review on the full range of alternative siting issues might be prejudiced, or where, because of the limited nature of the issues, the conduct of the review would not be in the public interest.

We understand that the NRC Staff is giving serious consideration to recommending that the rule specifically prohibit applicants from seeking more than one early site review on limited issues prior to the full construction permit review.

We understand further that the views of NEPA commenting agencies would be solicited on any " fragmentation" problems in individual limited site review cases.

Third, the relationship between the site review process and NRC's environ-

- mental review process in connection with limited work authorizations et construction permits is unclear in the proposed regulations. As our staffs have discussed, integrating NEPA review with early site review presents a number of practical difficulties which are difficult to j resolve in the abstract; the "piecemealing" problem discussed above is one example; coordinating EIS review with EPA under the Second Memorandum of Understanding is another.  ;

In view of the intricacies involved in integrating these two sets of procedures, we suggest that the relationship between them be made more explicit in the early site review regulations.

For examnin- the renulations shotrid indicate explicitly that no construction permir or NEPA review.

limited work authorization will be issued without a complete ~

We also suggest that the regulations offer guidance on which NEPA iscus;

' will normally be considered at early site review and which ones will be left until design review, and which types of design assumptions the Commission would maka at the site review stage in order to enable EPA to

• make judgments on cooling and intake structure issues where EPA is issuing an early site permit. We understand that the NRC staff feels that these matters should not be included in the regulations at the present time because of a nesd for some additional case-specific experience l l

on site reviews. We nevertheless urge that consideration be given to including a listing of NEPA issues suitable for early site review and j design assumptions at the earliest practicable time. '

1

5 -

1 f .

MM Af3 i

/

3 i*

4 I hope th.,se comments are usetid.  %

please 3ct me know. If we can he of further ataistance, 7 7

Sincerely, v

~. 6 pf ,b z-Gus Speth .,

Member ,

=

?

)

'~

b N

O I

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0'1 MISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, et~ al. Docket Nos. S50-599 S50-600 (Carroll County Site) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' APPEAL FROM LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER DENYING PETITION TO INTERVENE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 18th day of July,1980.

Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Philip P. Steptoe, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensin9 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Appeal Board One First National Plaza, 42nd Floor U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Chicago, Illinois 60603 Washington, D. C. 20555 Thomas J. Miller Dr. John H. Buck Attorney General of Iowa Atomic Safety and Licensing State Capitol Complex Appeal Board Des Moines, Iowa 50319 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 Jan L. Kodner, Esq.

230 W. Monroe Thomas S. Moore, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite 2026 Appeal Board Chicago, Illinois 60626

. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. John W. Cox, Jr.

Washington, D. C. 20555 Jo Daviess County Ad Hoc Comittee on Nuclear Energy Information John F. Wolf, Esq., Chairman 906 Campbell Street 3409 Shepherd Street Galena, Illinois 61036 Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 Mr. James C. Schwab, Executive Director

• Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Iowa Public Interest Research Group, Inc. ,

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Activities Center; Iowa Memorial Union U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission University of Iowa Washington, D.C. 20555 Iowa City', Iowa 52242 Dr. Robert L. Holton Nancy J. Bennett School of Oceanography Assistant Attorney General l Oregon State University Environmental Control Division Corvallis, Oregon 97331 188 West Randolph, Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 1

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. James L. Runyon Board Panel 1316 - Second Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission P. O. Box 307 Washington, D.C. 20555 -

Rock Island, Illinois 61201

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Edward Gogol Appeal Board Panel 6105 W. Winthrop U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Chicago, Illinois 60660 Washington, D.C. 20555

• Docketing and Service Section c/o Iowa Socialist Party Office of the Secretary 280113 West Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ames, Iowa 50010 Washington, D.C. 20555 David N. Howarth, Esq. Mr. Tom Sorg RFD 2, Box 115 111 Broad Street Elizabeth, Illinois 61028 Mt. Carroll, Illinois 61053 i

Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff

.