ML20008G245
| ML20008G245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1981 |
| From: | Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107020525 | |
| Download: ML20008G245 (12) | |
Text
.
LIC 5/5/81 p.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/-
[t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMI*'*SION e
S$(' * +'Y bY 6 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAI 6c n4Q! 5,N'r a
dl,
/
In the Matter of
)
(*
y METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO COMMONWEALTH'S RESPONSE TO SHOLLY MOTION TO REJECT NRC STAFF'S ENVIRONMENTAL _ IMPACT APPRAISAL on April 22, 1981, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a response to Mr. Sholly's motion, dated April 9,
- 1981, to reject the NRC Staff environmental impact appraisal (EIA) in this proceeding.
The Commonwealth response comments on juris-dictional, substantive and procedural issues, some of which were not addressed in the Sholly motion.
Licensee responds below to the Commonwealth's comments.-
A.
Commonwealth's Jurisdictional Comments Applicability of NEPA.
Licensee does not consider I
it profitable to discuss further ahether or not an EIA is required in this proceeding.
The Staff has in fact prepared l
an EIA and presumably will offer the EIA in evidence in this proceeding.
Under these circumstances Licensee agrees that l
the EIA should conform to the requirements of NEPA and of the S
l Commission's regulations.
,N_ g D 5
t o
( -._
l l
D07010525 g
Board Jurisdiction.
In Licensee's view the Board has and should exercise jurisdiction over the application of NEPA to this proceeding.
In particular, an EIA having been prepared by the Staff, the Board should decide the question of its adequacy.
Licensee recognizes that the Commission's August 9, 1979 Order and Notice of Hearing is not explicit on the Board's NEPA responsibilities.
Licensee agrees, however, with the Commonwealth that the Board's jurisdiction over NEPA matters is fairly derivable from Part 51 of the Commission's regula tions.
In addition, support for the Boardis jurisdic-tion is to be found in NEPA itself, which requires that where an environmental statement is required it must " accompany" the proposed Federal action through the existing agency review process. (S 102 (c))
It is arguable that the Board must pass on the need for an FES to determine compliance with this re-quirement.
Scope of Jurisdiction.
While differing with the Commonwealth on certain substantive matters concerning the
~ content of the EIA (see Part B below), Licensee is otherwise in agreement with the Commonwealth's formulation of the gen-eral principles which should guide the Board in exercising its NEPA jurisdiction, appearing as follows on page 3 of the Commonwealth's response:
[T]he Board should assume its responsibility to ensure compliance with NEPA with respect to all environmental issues that have a rea-sonable nexus to the TMI-2 accident.
- Thus, the Board has jurisdiction over all environ-l mental issues that have changed as a result i
of the TMI-2 accident, or new environmental issues resulting from the TET-2 accident.
i
. i
B.
Commonwealth's Substantive Comments Licensee addresses below the Commonwealth *= substan-tive comments in the same order, and using the same subtitles, as in the Commonwealth's response.
Class 9 Accidents.
The Commonwealth states, without explanation or discussion, that it " concurs in Mr. Sholly's interpretation of the Commission's statement of Interim Policy on Class 9 Accidents."
The Commonwealth response does not indi-cate whether it had observed any of Mr. Sho11y's misquotations of that statement or whether they influenced in any way the Commonwealth 's position.
In these circumstances, Licensee can only refer to its position on the inclusion of Class 9 acci-dents in the EIA as contained at pages 5-7 of Licensee's reply to Mr. Sholly's notion dated April 20, 1981.
Plant Separation.
Licensee agrees that it would be technically more correct to include in the EIA a summary of the Staff's conclusions, already reflected elsewhere in the record of the proceeding, with respect to the impact of TMI-2 clean-up on the operation of TMI-1.
While we regard the matter as a technicality, we would suggest to the Staff that the EIA be supplemented with a summary section on plant separation.
1.
The Commonwea'cn's first allegation is that no analysi', has been performed of potential fuel drop analyses, citing testimony of Licensee witness McGoey (Tr. 10,057-59) and Staff witness Stoddart (Tr. 10,205) to the effect that full drop accident could not be made until the configuration of the f
L _
damaged TMI-2 fuel is better known.1!
The Commonwealth ignores, however, evidence in the record that even if the configuration of the TMI-2 fuel prevents full analysis of the impacts of a TMI-2 fuel drop accident, those impacts would have an insignif-icant effect on public health and safety.
Thus, the Staff SER explains that insignificant amounts of fission gas are now present in the TMI-2 core (SER at C4-2).
Licensee witness McGoey also testified that the short-lived radioisotopes have already decayed away and that the only nuclide of concern in terms of potential off-site doses is Krypton-85.
If the TMI-2 fuel has been ruptured, the Krypton-85 has already escaped from the fuel and has been purged.
If the TMI-2 fuel is still intact, and should it hereafter be damaged in handling, the off-site dose to the whole body from the release of Krypton-85 would be less than 1 mrem, and there would be essentially no dose to the thyroid from iodine.
(Fuhrer and McGoey, ff. Tr. 10,020, at 43-44)
Beyond this, the Staff SER explains the ventilation and other measures which have been taken by Licensee to avoid impacts on TMI-1 operation from TMI-2 clean-up acri'.lilus in the fuel handling building. (SER at C4-8) 2.
The Commonwealth's second complaint is that the EIA does not contain an analysis of the projected total dose from Unit 2 clean-up and Unit 1 restart.
The EIA does, of course, deal with proj ected doses from the operation of TMI-1.
In Li-censee's view, there is no requirement (and none has been spelled
-1/ The only inference which Licensee can draw from the Common-wealth's comment is that the Commonwealth would have the
~-
Staff hold up the TMI-l EIA until TMI-2 has been sufficiently decontaminated to allow inspection of the TMI-2 core. _
~
-~
out by the Commonwealth) for adding the TMI-2 releases to an impact appraisal covering TMI-l restart.
Licensee does, how-ever, understand the Commonwealth's anxiety to make sure the public is informed about release levels from both units. (Tr.
10,189-90)
This purpose has been served by NRC's publication of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for TMI-2 clean-up. (NUREG-0683)
Section 10 in Volume 1 of that statement covers radioactive releases from TMI-2 clean-up, which can simply be added to the projected TMI-l releases con-tained in the TMI-1 EIA.
At most it might be helpful from the standpoint of public information to add to the TMI-l EIA a cross-reference to the TMI-2 PEIS.
3.
As a third item, the Commonwealth notes that as a result of limitations on storage in existing licensed burial facilities, Licensee has a contingency plan for storage of TMI-l solid wastes along with wastes from TMI-2 in new on-site storage facilities.
For this reason, the Commonwealth would have the TMI-l EIA include analysis of the environmental effects of additional onsite interim waste storage.
The Commonwealth's proposal violates its own criteria for the scope of the TMI-l restart EIA.
The limitations on offsite burial capacity for TMI-l wastes have no reasonable nexus to the TMI-2 accident.
Socioeconomi Impacts.
Unlike Mr. Sholly, the Common-wealth does not suggest that psychological stress impacts be addressed in the EIA.
It does suggest, however, that other socioeconomic impacts be considered.
Before addressing the specific impacts mentioned by the Commonwealth, Licensee reminds the Board that the NRC has
already issued an Environmental Assessment (NUREG-0 6 85) covering the impacts associated with the Commission's new emergency planning regulations.
This 4.ssessment covers among other mat-ters the costs to State and local governments of emergency planning and preparedness.
Licensee also points out that ex-panded emergency planning requirements were already well under-way before the TMI-2 accident and that, while the TMI-2 accident undoubtedly gave impetus to the development of the NRC's emer-gency planning requirements, it is somewhat arbitrary to assign the impacrs of emergency planning to the accident.
1.
Costs to State and local governments.
Since this subject has already been addressed in NUREG-0685, Licensee sees no need to repeat the assessment in the TMI-l EIA.
At most a cross-reference to NUREG-0685 might be added to the EIA.
In this connection the Board should note that many of the costs enumerated in NUREG-0685 (e.g. the alert-notification system, evacuation transporta-tion studies and assistance to municipalities in preparing emergency plans) have in fac.
i been borne by Licensee.
2.
Environmental effects of alert-notification system.
While the warning sirens being installed by Licensee may properly be con-sidered as having more of a nexus to the Commission's emergency planning regulations
-.- 1
than to the TMI-2 accident, Licensee agrees that it would be prudent to add to the EIA a section on their environmental impacts, i.e. noise during testing.
Such impacts were not addressed in NUREG-0685.
3.
Potential adverse effects of evacuation and other protective actions.
The impacts of a whole range of protective actions which might be required in an emergency is remote and speculative and need not under well-established law be considered in environ-mental assessments.
- See, e.g.,
Environ-mental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Hoffman, 566 F.2d 1060, 1067 (8th Cir. 1977); Sierra Club v. Hodel, 544 F.2d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir.
1976).
Construction and Site Development.
The Commonwealth complains that the EIA does not address the environmental effects of the construction of an interim waste storage facility and other unidentified construction "that may be required to achieve adequate plant separation."
We have already pointed t
out~ that as to TMI-1 wastes the waste storage facility is a product of limitations on offsite burial facilities and not of the TMI-2 accident.
Beyond this, Licensee believes that it is incumbent on the Commonwealth to identify which of the minor modifications to achieve plant separation, which have already been described in the proceeding, could ree.sonably be
expected to have an adverse impact.
It is not incumbent on ticensee to prove the negative as to every conceivable but improbable environmental impact.
See Ver:nont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S.
519, 553-54 (1978) ; Concerned About Trident v.
- Rumsfeld, 555 F.2d 817, 828-29 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Trout Unlimited v.
Morton, 509 F.2d 1276, 1283-84 (9th Cir. 1974).-
C.
Commonwealth's Procedural Comments The Commonwealth complains that the EIA is deficient in that the public and other interested government entities have not had an opportunity to submit their views.
The short answer is that the Commission's regulations do not require solicitation in advance of public or agency comment on environ-mental impact appraisals leading to negative declarations.
It is sufficient that the negative declaration be published in the Federal Register and that the supporting environmental impact appraisal be made available for public inspection at designated locations.
(10 CFR 51. 5 (c) (1), 51.7 and 51.50(d)).
While the NRC has on a few occasions where special public interest was involved (e.g. in connection with its decision to vent the TMI-2 containment) called for public comment on environmental assessments resulting in negative declarations, the normal NRC practice with respect to other licensing actions has been simply to follow its own regulations.
It needs to be remembered that the main potea'ial impacts from the restart of TMI-l which have been of interest to the public are radio-logical impacts, and as to these the Commission has gone out
~.
of its way to provide not just for comment but for extensive public hearings and opportunity for public participation.
Neither the Commonwealth nor any other party has suggested that there are non-radiological impacts of sufficient public interest to justify a departure from the NRC's normal practice with respect to environmental assessments and negative declara-tions.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITPMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By M/
_ M
/
AQitorgy'l for Metropolita5 F. TrFwbridge
/
Gounse Edison Company 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 Dated:
May 5, 1981
.y.,
.. + _,, -.. -
y,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's R5sponse to Commonwealth's Response to Sht.,11y Mction to Rejact NRC Staff's Environmental Irrpact Appraisal" were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 5th day of May, 1981.
M/ ' ~ M
/
yorge/F. Trowbridge
/
Dated:
May 5, 1981 i ii
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISCN COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Pastart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esquim John A. Ievin, Esquire Caiman Assistant Counsel Atxic Safety and licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Ccr:m'n Board Panel Post Office Bcx 3265 U.S. Nuclear Beculatory Ccmrission Harrisburg, Perrsylvania 17120 Washingten, D.C.
20555 Ksrin W. Carter, Esquin Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Attorney General Atcmic Safety ard LicensiM 505 Executive Ecuse Board Panel Post Office Bcx 2357 881 West Cuter Drive Harrisburg, Perrsylvar.ia 17120 Cak Ridge, Terr.essee 37830 John E. Mirr.ich Dr. Linda W. Iittle Chai=an, Dauphin County Board Atxic Safety and Ilcersing of Carissicners Board Panel Dauphin Ccunty Court.5xmse 5000 Herritage Drive Front and Market Streets Paleigh, Tcrtli Carolira 27612 Earrisburg, Perrsylvaria 17101 James R. Tourtellotte, Esquire Walter W. Cchen, Esquire Cffice of the Executive !agal Director Censur:er Mm'a D. S. Nuclear Pegulatory Canissien Office of Cesuner Mxcate Washington, D.C.
20555 14th Floor, St.awbery SqJare Harrisburg, Perrsylatla 17127 Decketing and Service Secticn Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Pegula*A'I Ccmrissicn Washing::en, D.C.
20555 t--w 1
- -*7r
- e-,-r e
a-y v um+ + n ce m ~*- -
-~vre--et--
e.m-e-er,4-i---+---ve-' ehe rwm w-g e-
+e--meew--We-w--grwu-.
av 9
- rv=tre -- sr FMw-**ee*-=S--
i 2-Jorfar. D. Cur:J.ngham, Esquire Gail Bradford Attorney for Neserry 'D:wnship Ar:ti-Guclear Group Peprese: ting York T.M.I. Steering Ccanittee 245 West Philar'elphia St. vet Fox, Farr & Cunrdngham York, Perr.sylvarla 17404 2320 North Second Street Earrisburc, Perr.sylvania 17110 Wi114 =, S. Jordan, III, Esquire Attorney for Mcple Iqainst Nuclear Ms. Icuise Bradford Energy l
I DE ALER' Har.ron & Weiss 315 Peffer Street 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Earrisburg, Nnnsylvania 17102 Washingten, D.C.
20006 i
l Attorney General of New Jersey Rabe n Q. Pollard Atta: 'Ihcras J. Ger:rine, Esquire 609 Montpelier Street Deputy Attorney G w m1 Saltimore, MarrlaM 21218 Division of Law - Rocm 316 1100 Rayrced aculevard Chauncey Kepford l
Newark, New Jersey 07102 Jdith E. Jchnsrd l
Emrirutnental Coalition on Nuclear Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Pcu r Attorney for the Unien of Concerned 433 OrlaMo Avenue Scientists State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Harren & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Marvin I. Iewis Washingte.n, D.C.
20006 6504 Bradford 'Darrace Philadelphia, Pennsylvania M149 l
Steven C. Sholly l
Union of Concerted Scientists Marjorie M. Amodt l
1725 Eye Street, N.W., suite 601 R. D. 5 Washingten, D.C.
20006 Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 l
t l
l i
J m...
.~..
_ _ _. -.... _. -