ML19345D387

Requests Public Hearings on Draft Programmatic EIS Re Decontamination & Disposal of Radwaste from 790328 Accident. Ltr to President Carter Encl

ML19345D387
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	09/22/1980
From:	Sholly S THREE MILE ISLAND PUBLIC INTEREST RESOURCE CENTER
To:	Snyder B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19345D386	List: ML19345D387
References
RTR-NUREG-0683, RTR-NUREG-683 NUDOCS 8012120657
Download: ML19345D387 (8)

Text

_ _ _

-f Y

2 0..; ~

,O

3. W Steven C. Sholly 304 South Market Streeth / /A/260 l

Mechanicsburg, PA 17055

• 22 September 1980 4/[1 Dr. Bernard J. Snyder U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission S*//[c/kj, etir+f *,

Washington, D.C.

20555 m y1Mf"

Dear Dr. Snyder:

1 In a letter to you dated 8/27/80, I indicated that public hearings should be held on the Commission's Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement related to Decontanination and Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Resulting from March 28, 1979, Accident, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2_ (Craft, NUREG-0683).

I also requested that the public comment period on that document (the PEIS) be extended to 90 days from the previously-announced 45 day comment period.

The latter action was taken by the Commission shortly after the Governor of Pennsylvania filed a similar request.

I have received no response to the suggestion that public hearings should be held on the PEIS.

I must conclude that a formal request for such hearings is necessary to move the Commission in that direction.

It is unfortunate that the NRC Staff has pre-empted a Commission decision on public hearings on the PEIS in NUREG.0698, a document published shortly before the PEIS was issued.

In NUREG-0698, there is a flow-chart diagram on page 7 which takes the reader through the decision-making process to be used by the Commission regarding the cleanup of THI-2. That diagram, in a double-asterisked footnote appearing at the very last step in the process, notes that no public hearings are anticipated. This conclusion is se clearly in error that it should not appear in a Commission document.

Regarding a public hearing on the PEIS itself, there can be no doubt that a series of public hearings is called for under the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, regulations which are binding on all Federal Agencies, including NRC.

CEQ regulations, at 40 CFR 1506.6(c),

hold that agencies shall:

" Hold or snonsor public hearings or public meetings whenever appropriate or on accordance with statuatory requirements applicable to the agency.

Criteria shall include whether there is:

(1) Substantial environmental controversy concerning the proposed action or substantial interest in holding the hearing."

I breifly discussed the NRC regulations concerning public hearings with Mr. Cutchin (0 ELD) who informed me that the new Part 51 of 10 CFR had not been made final.

I therefore searched the copy of 10 CFR Part 51 which was served on intervenors in the THI-1 Restart Proceeding (Docket No. 50-289) for language reflecting the CEQ regulations quoted above.

s on n oW

+

Dr. Bernard J. Snyder 22 September 1980 I find no provisions in NRC regulations which parallel the CEQ regulations noted above.

The NRC regulations do not provide for a hearing on an EIS except for conditions occurring when an EIS is prepared to support a request for construction permit, operating license, or license amendment. No provisions exist, as far as I can determine, for an independent hearing so'ely on an EIS.

Mr. Cutchin informed me that it is flRC's position that regulations promulgated by the executive branch (an therefore by CEQ) are not binding on an " independent" agency such as NRC.

He further related to me that NRC had implemented in its regulations "most" of the CEQ regulations; I find that the provisions for public hearings on EIS's are clearly missing from NRC regulations.

I fail to see how the NRC can take such a position since the CEQ was created by Congress via the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, a law which is clearly binding on the NRC.

There is clearly controversy about the subject matter contained in the PEIS (NUREG-0683).

This is evidenced by a request for hearing contained in a letter to President Carter, dated September 17, 1980, which was endorsed by numerous organizations in the Pennsylvania-Maryland-Washington, D.C. area and some beyond this area.

Four specific examples of problems with the PEIS are cited at page 1 of that letter, a copy of which is attached to this letter as Appendix A.

The letter to the President also clearly evidences a substantial interest in holding hearings on the PEIS.

Both of these conditions meet the requirements noted in the regulations of CEQ at 40 CFR 1506.6(c)(1).

I am therefore petitioning the Commission to hold a series of public hearings on the PEIS, to be held in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., prior to the end of the public comment period on the PEIS on November 20, 1980.

I base this request in the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1506 6 (c)(1) and in the Commission's inherent authority to hold such i urings at its discretion.

I believe that there is substantial benefit in holding such hearings, l

both to the public and to the Commission.

There are many people who can l

much better express themselves in person than by a written communication; these people will be better served by hearings at which they can make known to the Commission their views on the PEIS and the cleanup of TMI-2.

Secondly, such hearings would be a formal step in the decision-making process which would establish a record on which the Staff could base-changes to the PEIS in final form and on which the Commission could base its decisions on the cleanup of THI-2.

Thirdly, and perhaps most important.

[

the holding of such hearings would be a signal to the public that the NRC intends to open up the decision-making process to the public, rather than excluding the public as so obviously occurred during the krypton venting issue.

l l

l

[1..-..

7

~

5 Pr. Bernard J. Snyder 22 September 1980 There is a substantial body of evidence that the Commission has slipped back into its old attitude,. The President's Concission on the Accident at Three Mile Island concluded that a major change in the attitude of the NPC was necessary to prevent future accidents similar to TMI-2.

I_ find tne old attitude to be present and in some ways reinforced since the Kemeny Commission report was issued.

Continuance of this attitude that the Commission "knows best" can only, in the end, cause a severe backlash of the public against the Commi ssion.

Continual avoidance.by the Commission of public input on critical decisions affecting their health and safety and peace of mind will surely cause the potential for significant delay in the cleanup process.

Specifically, I nean that if the Commission insists on hiding behind its regulations to avoid public hearings when they are clearly mandated by law and so clearly needed, the Commission will find that at every juncture where a hearing is, required, it will be requested and pursued.

Surely the Commission is cognizant of the backlog of decision-making and adjudicatory cases which this would cause.

In a recent letter to Met-Ed's Robert C. Arnold (dated 9/15/80) you pointed out that the proposed SDS system for decontaminating the highly radioactive containment sump water would possibly require a license amendment. Certainly, many other cleanup processes could require license amendments. With the license amendments come the opportunities for public hearings.

If all of these hearings are requested and pursued to litigation, it is obvious that cleanup will be delayed for waars.

This is certainly not my goal nor do I believe it is the goal of most of the citizens in Central Pennsylvania.

I believe that it is generally accepted that a timely cleanup is in everyone's best interest. What I am seeking (and I believe that many others are seeking) is a clear signal from the Commission that the public will be involved intimately in the decision-making processes that will accompany the cleanup of the TMI-2 accident.

The first and most important step remaining

!., that process is the PEIS and its contents.

If the public is effectively precluded from this first step, the mes:: age will be quite clear.

I am anxious to discuss the conduct of public-hearings on the PEIS with you, your staff, and/or the Commission.

I believe that it is clearly in the public interest to hold hearings on the PEIS at several locations prior to the adoption of the final PEIS.

The hearings need not, in my opinion, take the form of adjudicatory hearings.

Such hearings would by their nature preclude the sort of cpen and free exchange of views which I envision public hearings on the PEIS fostering. Rather, legislative-style hearings would be appropriate to this instance.

Your attention to this letter and response to the views set forth herein will be appreciated. A timely response is necessary to get the hearing process in motion so that it can be completed coincident with the completion of the public comment period on the PEIS.

This will avoid

Dr. Bernard J. Snyder 22 September 1980 further delay in the cleanup, while at the same time, affording the pubite every reasonable opportunity to participate in the decision-making process on cleanup.

Sincerely, f

.61 Steven C. Sholly V

cc: Commissioner John Ahearne Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Commissioner Joseph Hendrie Commissioner Peter Bradford Steven Eilperin, OGC Harold Denton, NRR Samuel Chilk, SECY Leonard Bickwit, General Counsel William Dircks, EDO Howard Shapar, OELD Mack Cutchin, OELD Gus Speth, CEQ Nicholas Yost, CEQ Sanford Sagalkin, Justice Department Ellyn Weiss, Counsel for UCS Richard Pollock Critical Mass Energy Project John Kabler, !!aryland Ad Hoc Committee on THI Daniel Sheehan, CHRISTIC Institute Betsy Taylor, NIRS Donald Konkle, TMI Legal Fund Beverly Hess, Tltl Public Interest Resource Center l

Donald Hossler, PANE Judith Johnsrud, ECNP Daniel Pell, ANGRY Jordan Cunningham, NTSC William Jordan, PANE Judith Dorsey, PILCOP/SVA Joel Roth, Ti1IA Theodore Adler, THIA Amy Kelchner, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Karin Carter, Assist

• Attornay General, Commonwealth of Pa.

Governor Richard Thornburgh, Pennsylvania Governor Harry Hughes, itary!2r.d George F. Trowbridge, Counsel for lietropolitan Edison Company i

,e-

+3 m

,,, - - -y

,-e

1536 16th St., N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 September 17, 1980 President Jim:ny Carter The White House Washington, D.C.

20500

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing on behalf of fif teen national organizations and thirty-one Mid-Atlantic groups which are distressed about your administra-tion's h'andling of the damaged Three Mile Island Nuclear power station.

As you yourself have accepted the responsibility to protect the pub-lic health and safety of the citizens in the area affected by TMI, we be-lieve that it is incu= bent upon your office to take steps to end the ex-clusion of the public in decidinE how the radioactive decontamination of TMI-2 will proceed.

The Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission (NRC) has consistently and effec-tively precluded the public from adequate partic,ipation in the analysis, and subsequent decision making process, concerning the cleanup of TMI-2.

Examples include:

1.

The purchase and installation of the'Epicor-II system by Letropolitan Edison before the method was approved by NRC.

2.

Time constraints imposed in the decision making for the purging of krypton-83, in spite of a majority of comments opposing the purging alternative.

3.

NRC's f ailure to follow up on its pro =ise to form a citizen -

advisory co==ittee with funding for independent scientific review.

On August 14, 1980, the NRC released a staff report entitled, " Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) related to decontami-nation and disposal of radioactive vastes resulting from March 28, 1979, accident Three Mile Island Nuclcar Station, Unit 2 (NUREG-0683)".

This is perhaps the-most imp.; tant health and environment-related document the U.S. Government has issued about decontaminating the crippled reactor.

It is essential that a sufficient period of time be permitted for both the public and independent scientists to exa=ine and analy=c the cleanup options dealing with ultinnte disposal of contc=inated water, decontamination n

w 4-w w-m, w a r,, w -

,v w-

-,evw v

v---n v

w-e

.of the facility, rc= oval cud dispos'al of tha da= aged core, cod storsga, pro-cessing, and transportation of radioactive wastes.

The public co==ent period on this extensive draf t is limited to 45 days.

In our view, the co==ent period should be extended to a mini =u= of 90 days to allow thn public and

• scientific co== unity time to respond in a mecaingful manner.

There are basic flaws in the PElS which cannot be properly addressed through the public co=nent process and must, instead, be resolved thrcush fur-ther studies by the NRC with subsequent public review and co==ent.

Some basic flaws in the PEIS which might require separate environ = ental k

impact state =ents:

1.

The proble= of hev and where te dispose of the vastes resultine from the accident and cleanun process is inadecuatelv censidered.

There is no as-surance that any waste site will accept the low-level waste in the a=ount postulated by the NRC staff and ulti= ate disposal of high-level waste re-

=ainc au unresolved question.

2.

The NRC staff disnisses the question of whether TMI-2 will be deco==is-sioned or prepared for restart by stating that it is not within the scope of the PEIS.

In reality the nethods of cleanup are verv deoendent on the decision to rectart or to dece==issien the unit.

Certain processes could siverely da= age the equip =ent, making the final disposition question es-sential in selecting the proper =cthods to be used.

Thus the question of restart or deco==issioning of the plant =ust be considered in depth within 1

the PEIS.

4 I

~There is a total lack of cost esticates in this evaluation shase of the 4

3.

PEIS.

The NEC staff has prc=ised that the cost f actors vill be provided in the final pEIS (af ter the period for public co=nent has passed).

The lack of opportunity for public ce==ent on econo =ic aspects of the cleanup provides an exa ple of how the public is being excluded from the decision 3

making process.

In view of the precarious financial condition of Metro-politan Edison, the NRC's assertions that costs are not a limiting factor can hardly be viewed as realistic.

4.

In the PEIS the NRC nakes the assu=otion that cesien and strontiu= from the planned release 6f erocessed water (which will contaminate Chesaucake Sav ceafeed as far south as the Forc=ac river) vill not affect the market-ability of the seafood.

A separate IIS that includes =arket research data on radioactivity in Chesapeake Bay seafood =ust be perfor=ed prior to =aking cny determinations as to the effects of radioactive contamination of Eay seafood on the seafood industry.

The Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission has stated that a public hearing is net anticipated and not indicated in this =atter.

We f eel that this position is l

indefensible and.that public hearings =ust be held on this in accord with the Council on Environ = ental Quality Reguletions, which call for such hearings when there is " substantial enviren= ental controversy concerning the proposed action or substantial interest in holding the hearing.

40 GFR 5 1506.6(c)(1).

We ask that your Office of Consu=er Affairs convey to the NRC the fact that it is in the public interest to extend the public co=nent period and hold public hearings,in this matter.

The hearings should be held in Harrisburg or Middletown,

.e Me

. euk= empe emp em. alspee e

=..eim gir ee = e = eemuswe.e ea e mamm geum m,..

,,w y.

~,, - - -. - - - -,,

^

1. ~

~

P

.,s p)

,o

. l!.

T PA, in Baltimora, MD, a5d i$ Washingtcn, D.C'., cdd chould b'a rscordsd and in-corporated into th'c NRC's. final evaluation of'the PEIS.

We further request that funds be appropriated to' enable us to' hire inde-pendent scientists to review the proposed cleanup nethods.

This "critica'l re-view and public assessment will assist the NRC in evaluating the safety' and.

feasibility of the TMI-2 cleanup, and will provide for public review of this lengthy and difficult process.

Requests outlined:

1.

Meeting with you to discuss your role in protecting the p'ublic during the decontarenation of TMI-2.

2.

Extension of the public ce=:nent period on the PEIS to a minianzm of 90 days!

3.

,NRC (legislative) public hearings to be held on the radioactive decontam-ination of TMI-2.

4.

Funds allocated for independent scientists (selected by our citizens' group) to review the PEIS on 'LMI-2.

We '.look f orward to your response.

Respectfully, Am Steven C. Sholly, Directer '

TMI-Public Interest Resource Center Earrisburg, PA

'./

t.

John Kabler Maryland Ad Noe Cv - ittee on *?.I Baltimore, MD (f $}

Richard P. Pollock, Director Critical Mass Energy Project Washington, D.C.

'b~u, W

Betsy Taflor, Director Nuclear Information & Resource Service Washington, D.C.

Representatives of the following _-

endorsers' (names : attached) cc:

TMI Prograr Of fice, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co ission bec:

U.S. N3C Corn'.ssioners U.S. Envircanent l Protection Agency U.S. Departuent of Energy Governor Dick'Thornburg of Pennsylvana Governor Ear-y Hughes of Maryland Pennsylvania State Departnent of Environnental Resources Mar:yland State Depart =ent of Natural Resources s

,e,

4

• C:. i '

September 17, 1980 President Carter Endorsers of the preceding letter:

ThreeMileIsland-PublicInterestResourcebenter,Harrisburg,PA Three Mile Island - Legal Fund, Harrisburg, PA Three Mile Island Alert, Harrisburg, PA People Against Nuclear Energy, Middletown, PA Environ = ental Coalition on Nuclear Power, State College, PA Anti-Nuclear' Group Representing York, York, PA Newberry Township TMI Steering Co==ittee, Newberry Town, PA Susquehanna Valley Alliance, Lancaster, PA Indian Point New York Public Interest Resource Group, New York, New York Creater New Yor*. Council on Energy, New York General Asse=bly to Stop the Pouer Lines, Minneapolis, Minnesota Citizens Hearings for Radiation Victims, Washington, DC L

I Chesapeake Eay Youndation, Ar.napolis, MD

,f Maryland Conservation Council, Maryland Maryland Waterrans Association, Annapolis, MD

.I i

Baltbnore Chapter of Sierra Club, Baltinore, MD I

Clean Water Action Project, Baltimore, M3 Coalition of Pennisula Organi=ations, Balti= ore, MD Upper Chesapeake Watershed Association, Cecil County, MD j

Chesapeake Energy Alliance, Ec1timore, M3 Bay Alliance f or Safe Energy, Ann Arundal County, MD Peachbotto= Alliance, Hartford County, M3 p

Political Avareness Co -i ttee, Baltimore Friends School, Baltimore Ecrylacd Patuxent Alliance, Cclu=bia, ED 1,

Hovard County Peace Action Co---+ ity, Hovard County, MD Auduben Naturclist Society of the Central Atlantic States, Chevy Cnase' MD DC Public Interest F.esearch' Group. Washington, DC Physicians for Social Responsibility, Washington, DC(chaptet) y Alliance, Washington, DC Poto=3 Washingten, Area of Clergy and Laity Concerned, Washington, DC i

Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA f

Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC Environ = ental Action Founiation, Washington, DC Environmental Policy Center, Washington, DC Priends of the Earth, Washington, DC Citizens Energy Project, Washington, DC Clean Water Action Project, Washington, DC Institute for Ecological Policies, Washington, DC Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Washington, DC Mobilization for Survival, Washington, DC Karen Sillsood Fund, Washington, DC and Christic Institute, Washington, DC Washington Peace Center, Washington, DC Women Strike For Peace, Washington, DC Environnentalists For Full E=ployment, Washington, DC

?

e-m-

,e-eve =-

-y a.

>f--

p.

9:.

ee r--9e - mu---

.e-

-9 w-9y up-w,,qep -ei-.g g

e+-ge14--+y

- 9 P

+

-w

+-9-