ML19344E848
| ML19344E848 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000510, 05000511 |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1980 |
| From: | Little L, Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | GULF STATES UTILITIES CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-ESR, NUDOCS 8009110803 | |
| Download: ML19344E848 (6) | |
Text
"/
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O
4h U
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7
Sgp N'f op.
'9
-a 3-I
~~ D:l*er[ "ec,SQ5!
In the Matter of
)
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. STN 5
)
STN 50-
/a.
(Blue Hills Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
Wp ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFS AND gb ADDITIONAL INFORMATION y O (September 9,1980) fg An early site review hearing was conducted on May 8-9, 1979 in Jasper, Texas on the suitability of a site for the proposed Blue Hills Station, Units 1 and 2, to be located in Newton County, Texas.
Pro-posed findings were submitted by Gulf States Utilities Company (Applicant) on June 7,1979 and by the NRC Staff (Staff) on July 5, 1979.
Applicant replied to the Staff proposed findings on July 20, 1979.
Following completion of the hearing on suitability of the site, the NRC has issued additional siting-related pronouncements which may be applicable to the Blue Hills proceeding.
As a consequence, the Board hereby requests statements of position in the form of briefs 6
and supplemental infermation from Staff and Applicant on the appli-cability or potential applicability to this early site review of the rules, proposed rules, and other documents described infra.
Bases for the positions taken should be adequately explored and described, whether the conclusions indicate relevance or lack of relevance to this proceeding.
8009 no 8o 3, otey G
//o
. I.
Siting
" Report of the Siting Policy Task Force," NUREG-0625 (August 1979) contains nine recommendations aimed "1.
To strengthen siting as a factor in defense in depth by establishing requirements for site approval that are independent of plant design consideration....
2.
To take into consideration in siting the risk associated with accidents beyond the design basis (Class 9) by establishing population density and distribution criteria....
3.
To require that sites selected will minimize the risk from energy generation.
The selected sites should be among the best available in the region where new generating capacity is needed...."
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has subsequently issued " Advance Notice of Rulemaking:
Revision of Reactor Siting Criteria" (July 23, 1980), which requests comments on seven of the nine recommendations, among them Recommendation 1 (NUREG-0625, pages 46-50 and 64-65) which would "[r]evise Part 100 to change the way protection is provided for accidents by incorporating a fixed exclusion and protective action distance and population density and distribution criteria."
Subsections of this' recommendation refer to "a fixed minimum emergency planning distance of 10 miles" with
" reasonable assurance that evacuation of persons, including transient, would be feasible..." and the " incorporation of specific population density and distribution ibnits outside the exclusion area that are dependent on the average population of the region."
While the present and proj ected permanent densities in the vicinity of the Blue F. ills
. nuclear plant are low, transient population resulting from recreational activities near the Toledo Bend Reservoir occurs at a distance between four and five miles, and reached a total of 23,000 during 1973.
The m
transient population has been estimated to reach 63,000 by the year 2020 (PSAR 52.1.3; ESR $2.1).
Concerns over the high population densities were expressed during the lLaited appearance portion of the proceeding (Tr. 286-287).
The Board therefore requests briefs and statements by Staff and Applicant on relevance to the Blue Hills site review proceeding of NUREG-0625 and the proposed rulemaking, particu-larly in regard to "Recocmendation 1."
II.
Emergency Planning On September 19, 1979 and December 19, 1979, the Commission published for public comment proposed amendments to its emergency planning regulations for production and utilization facilities (44 Fed. Reg. 54308 and 44 Fed. Reg. 75167).
Comments received and Staff evaluation of comments, were presented in NUREG-0684 and NUREG/
CP-00ll (April 1980).
The final rule on emergency planning, to be effective November 3, 1980, was published August 19,1980 (45 Fed.
Reg. 55402).
The Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) Concept incorporated in this regulation was endorsed by the Commission in a policy state-ment published October 23, 1979 (44 Fed. Reg. 61123).
Each light-water nuclear power plant will be required to establish an EPZ for airborne exposure with a radius of about 10 miles and an EPZ for contaminated food and water with a radius of about 50 miles.
The l
i
\\
. concept of the low population zone (LPZ) applicable at the time of the hearing appears to be no longer in effect, and the present status of these matters should be addressed in the briefs.
III.
Accident Considerations Under NEPA The NRC issued a Statement of Interim Policy on " Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969" (June 9,1980).
This statement withdraws the proposed annex to Appendix D to Part 50, on which Staff evaluation of the Blue Hills site relied (Final Site Environmental Statement,
- p. 7-1), and states the Commission's " position that its Environmental Impact Statements shall include considerations of the site-specific environmental impacts attributable to accident sequences that lead to releases of radiation and/or radioactive materials, including. sequences that can result in inadequate cooling of reactor fuel and to melting of the reactor core... attention shall be given both to the probability of occurrence of such releanes and to the environmental consequences of s2ch releases."
The Interim Policy is stated to apply in on-going NEPA reviews, "i.e. for any proceeding at a licensing stage where a Final Environmental Impact Statement has not been issued."
The Board notes that in the instant proceeding a " Final Site Environmental Statement" (FSES) has been issued, but not a " Final Environmental Impact Statement" (FES).
IV.
Apolicability In August 1980, the NRC published for comment the draft report " Proposed Licensing Requirements for Pending Applications for l
. Construction Permits and Manufacuring License" (NUREG-0718).
Section II.A.2, Site Evaluation of Existing Facilities (at D-5), notes that "At such ti=e as the proposed rule of siting is issued for comment m
(scheduled for October 1980), applicants will be required to assess their sites against the criteria contained in the proposed rule."
Further, recent Ccngressional action directed NRC "to use such sums as may be necessary to develop and promulgate regulations establishing demographic requirements for the siting of utilization facilities."
Among other matters, the Commission is directed to provide information and recommendations to State and local land use planning authorities, designed to assist such authorities in " making State and local land use decisions which may affect emergency plan-ning in relation to utilization facilities."2/
Apparently regulations promulgated under this section shall apply to facilities for which an application for a construction permit was filed after October 1, 1979.3/
V.
Other Matters I
The Board notes that possible transfers of water from the Sabine River and its tributaries and reservoirs to other portions of the State were alluded to by the Applicant (Environmental Report, at 2.2-49, Suppl.1) and in a limited appearance statement at the hearing
' / ublic Law 96-295 [S. 562], June 30, 1980; 94 Stat. 780, 782-3, P
Sec. 108.
1/ Id., Sec. 108(b).
1
. (Tr. 259-260).
The Board assumes that the referenced potential transfers are in so=e way re. lated to the " Texas Water Plan:
S"-"ary" (Texas Water Development Joard, November 1968).
The Board requests e
briefs by Staff and Applicant as to whether this assu=ption is correct, and if so, how the Texas Water Plan will bear on the i= pact of the proposed plant on water quality and on the population at risk from possible accidental releases of radioactivity or from routine releases from the proposed plant.
Finally, the Board notes that the Staff has not responded to Applicant's reply to its proposed findings, and requests the Staff to do so.
The parties are also requested to furnish an appendix listing all exhibits proffered in this proceeding.
Mr. Lester Kornblith, Jr., retired from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel on June 29, 1979, and consequently has not participated in this proceeding since that date.
It is anticipated that a third menber of this Licensing Board will be appointed shortly.
It is so ORDERED.
THE ATOMIC SArr.ti AND LICENSIG 30ARD l
r Dr. Linda W. Litrie, Member C'
t far J & }h Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of Septenber 1980.
l t