ML20032D547

Forwards Commission 811106 Second Prehearing Memorandum & Order

ML20032D547
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	11/13/1981
From:	Goddard R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Fitzgibbons R, Miller R, Romic R CITIZENS FOR SAFE ENERGY, ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE, QUAD-CITY ALLIANCE FOR SAFE ENERGY
References
FRN-44FR61372, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-51 ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8111170243
Download: ML20032D547 (1)

Text

3.

November 13, 1981 i

i Quad-Cities Alliance for Safe Citizens for Safe Energy Energy and Survival ATTN:.Mr. Robert Miller Mr. Robert Romic P.O. Box 23 1628 Grant Street Hillsdale, Illinois 61257 Bettendorf. Iowa 52722 Robert G. Fitzgibbons Jr., Esq.

Isham, t.incoln and Beale Gl_.l. \\

One First National Plaza 9

g[

[Q 3 Chicago, Illinois 60603 In the Matter of i$

6 1987 5 D Commonwenith Edison Company Q g g ill (Quad Cities Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Hos. 50-254-SP and 50-265-SP g

,tT r (Spent Fuel Pool Modification)

Gentlemen:

The enclosed Commission Order in the Haste Confidence Rulemaking is for-warded for your information.

Sincerely, Richard J. Goddard Counsel for NRC Staff

Enclosure:

As Stated DISTRIBUTION Chron cc:

(w/ enclosure)

F F (2) (w/o enclosure)

Pr. Nicholas J. Chrissotimos Goddard Reis Shapar/Engelhardt Christenbury/Scinto Olmstead Lessy I

NRC Docket File: PDR/LPDR i

I O

nN I

I

~

.,,,0AQ........

g.

OFFICE 8111170243 811113 SURNAM L

PDR ADOCK 05000254

...... 7, /...

R JGoddar p op... ~.,

... gggg;..~ a

~.~~.

g g

.. 11//3/.81..

NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

3.7n SLAleTon

.v o 9 UNITEu STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUl.MLRY COMXf 55 ION y.f.EL COMISS10NERS:

E Y

Nunzio J. Palladino, Cnairman Victor Gilinsky

.:r.1 F OECr.E1 J' Peter A. Bradford

.MfjjMg[ERY'CE i

John F. Ahearne Thomas M. Rober ts

)

SEP.VEC NOV 9 1981 In the Matter of

)

)

. PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON THE STORAGE AND

)

pg.50, 51 (44FR61372)

DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE

)

)

'(Waste Cor.fidence Rulemaking) 5_EC_0ND PREHEARING MEMORANDlN AND ORDER

.I.

Background

On May 23, 1979 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded two nuclear plant licensing amendnent actions to the Comission, to consider whether an off-site storage or disposal solution for nuclear wastes will be available by the expiration dates of the nuclear platit liceases in question.

If not, the Comit tion

.was to consider whether spent. fuel can be safely stored at those sites past those expiration dates and until an off-site solution is available (State of Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d Al2). A generic rulemaking proceeding was initiated on October 25, 1979 by the Cormiission, both in response to that judicial decision and also as a continuation of previous proceedings conducted by it in this area

~('44 Fed. Reg. 61372).

In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking the Comission stated that the

" purpose of this proceeding is solely to assess generically the degree of assurance now available that radioactive weste can dh

(({ (D

.p.

be safe,1y disposed of, to determine when such cisposal or off-site storage will be avo'L=hle, and to determine whether radioactive wastes can be safely stored on-site past the expiration of existing facility licenses until off-site disposal or storage is evallable."

44 Fed. Reo. at 61373.

s In undertaking the above generic reconsideration the Commission chose "to employ hybrid rulemaking procedures" j_lj!.). Members of the public were permitted to file notices of intent to participate as a " full participant" in this proceeding. Such notices of intent were filed by 56 persons and organizations.

Statenents of position were to be filed by full participants as their " principal

~

-contributiontothewasteconfidenceproceeding"1_ld.). Such e...

statements of position were filed by 32 participants before June 9, 1980, after the Department of Energy (DOE) as the lead agency on waste nanagement filed its statement of position on April 15, 1980.

In accord'ance with the schedule er.tatil'ished by the First Prehearing Conference Order, cross-statements of

~

position discussing the statements fileo by other participants

.were filed by 21 participants on August 11, 1980.

.The Presiding Officer by a May 29 ceder off(red cil pcrticipants an opportunity to file before October 6, 19f,0 their suggestions as

~

to further proceedings, additional areas of inquiry cr further 3

e e

s 3

data or studies. Twenty-three participants in fifteen submittals 4

availed themselves of this opportunity.

By i.s Mem.orandum and Crder dated January 16, 1991, the Commission t

observed that with the filing of the participants' statrc.ents and cross-statements the opening stage of the proceeding as envisioned in the original notice of proposed rulemaking has been completed.

however, it noted that the Working Group was preparing a summary of the record so far compiled, and felt that the conterd of the record.would be a major consideration affecting the choice of further proceedings. Accordingly, the Commission decided that a firm decision on further proceedings should follow rather than e[*'*"

' precede the Commission's opportunity to review the 'Jorking Group's summary of the record and identification of issues.

The Working Group filed its report on January 29, 1981. The participants were allowed to submit connents regarding the accuracy or the working

. Group's summary of the record and its identification and description h

of the issue'i.

Such couments were made by 20 participants by March 5, 1961.

.II.

NRDC's Motion for Jedgrent 0n August 28, 1981 the Natural

' sources Defense Coaccil (MRDC) filed a motion requesting a pror.'pt ruling that on the basis of the i

present record,there is not recsonable assurance that off-site m

J

~

a.

s

' storage or disposal will be available by the year 2007-2009.

In

t

~

. support of this motion NRDC asserted that the Ad.,inistration has

/

' changed its policy with respect to reprocessing of spent fuel.

. NRDC contended that, based upon a policy shift by the Administration favoring reprocessing, NRDC was entitled to a ruling now of no reasonable assurance in the availability of of f-site spent fuel s

st6 rage by 2007 because the schedules and timetables analyzed.In the DOE position statement were based on storage and disposal of

' spent fuel, not reprocessed waste, Seven other participants have filed answers arguing that this motion for judgment stculd be denied. The American huclear i

Society, Niagara f4ohawk et a_1, the Atomic Industrial Forum, the

~ ~.

Tennessee Valley Authority, the Department of Energy, Utility Nuclear k'aste Managercent Group - Edison Electric Institute (Um.y.G.

'EEI), and Consumers Power Company have filed responses. 00E cor.tends -

that the policy shift towird reprocessing should not af'fect the

~

Commission's ultimate decision in this proceeding since a purpose of the proceeding is to determine that there is at least one safe means of disposal and nucn of DOE's progran is not dependent upon the waste form.

Niagara Mohawk ar,d others stress thet the record already compiled in this proceeding cdequately demonstrates that

[

reprocessed wastes as well as spent fuel can be safely stored and disposed of. On Octcher 5, 4RDC submitted a Request to File Consolidated p

e e

b-

,' I Reply to Responses to NRDC Motion for Judgment and Reply to Motion to Strike.

In this tiling they reiterated their central point stated above and continued to urge a decision now of no confidence

~

that safe waste disposa! will be achieved by 2007-2009. On Octooer 8,

~

1981, the UN'aMG-EEI filed a response in opposition to the NROC Request to File Consolidated Heply.

~

Because this is a rulemaking proceeding, the connission may consider Information from many sources. Tne Commission notes that the

~

August 28 NRDC motion was directed to the Presiding Otticer of tne Waste Confifence proceeding.

The October 5 NRDC reply was addressed to the Presiding Officer, but urged the Commission to tino no

.w o -

~

~

confidence in the event that the Presiding Otticer did nJt have the authority to grant their August 28 filing. The Prestoing

- Officer does not have the authority to make sucn a juogment in this proceeding.

Determinations at cont toence are to be mace by the Commissioners themselves.

The Commission believes that the issue raised in the August 28 NRDC motion 'is one of several recent developnerits which may bear on.the Commission's ultimate decision.

Accordingly, the Comnission eccepts and will consider the NRDC filings and the responsive

,99.. +,

,,+%

-,_,_..-.,c.

6

[

. filings by other participants as a part of the record in the Waste

?

.I..

. Confidence proceeding and will seek participants' views concerning

. the applicability of recent developments to its decision in this proceeding.

~'

III.; Next_ Phase of the Proceedings t.

h'hile most participants indicated in the.ir recommendations for further proceedings that they believe the record is adequate for a decision,.the Commission believes that limited further proceedings

.- ' will be useful to allow the participants to state their basic

, positions directly to the Comnissioners and to enable the Cocmissioners

.i to discuss with the participants some specific issues including

' ' '~ ~ ' i i

those described later in this order and others based on participants'

~

positions or statements. Therefore, the followthg procedures are

.s.

~

hereby adopted.

s The next phase of this pro'cceding will provide for oral' presentations to the Commissioners addressing first the issues already raised in

' this proceeding, or other significant information which participants

[-

believe should be brought to the Commission's attention. Second, presentations should address how the recent de',elopments enumerated below may bear on a' Commission decision in this proceeding.

~

e w -,

4 -

w.

O e

r

~,c

,m.,..._ _

v

~

7

~

~

To conduct oral presentations on a manageable basis, it is necessary

'i

.to have a consolidation of participants holding similar views.

4 Consequently, for purposes of this order participants are consolidated s

~

into the following groups. The statements already submitted by the participants suggest that the groups listed belcw constitute a reasonably representative consolidation. The consolidation and j-sequence of presentations is as follows:

1.

Department of Energy 2.

Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and United

~

e States Geological Survey.

3.

California Department of Conservation, California Energy Commission.

s,

Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ocean County and Lower Alloways Creek Township (New Jersey),

Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

4.

American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Amrican Nuclear

. Society, Association of Engineering Geologists, Atomic Industria!

Forum, Bechtel Corp., Consumers Power Co., General Electric, Neighbors for a safe Environment, Scientists and Engineers for e-e e.

e,.,

-e-

-S-Secure Energy, Tennessee valicy Authority, Utilities Group -

(Niagara Mohawk, Omaha Pubile Power Dist., Public Service Co.

[,-

of Indiana), and Utilities Nuclear Waste Mac.agement Group--

eel.

S.

Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power, Marvin Lewis, Mississippians Against Disposal. Natural Resources Defense Council, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, Safe Haven, Ltd., Sensible Maine Power, William Lochstet.

~

~..

Each consolidated grouping may file a single written statement prior to the oral presentations within 45 days of the date of this m.-

order. These written statements should succinctly outline the

" ~ ' ~

[

grouping's arguments and views on the merits of najor issues that s

i have been identified in the proceeding, with particular reference to those key points to be addressed orally.

Page citat, ions to source documents in the record must be included.

These statecents may also include suggestions of key questions for the Conmission

~

in its discretion to ask of other participants.

In any case statements should not exceed 20 pages in length.

In addition, each grouping should designate to the Presiding Officer its spokesperson to make

.the oral presentation on behalf of the groupins. Groups may wish to h' ave technical experts available to answer questions or offer

~~ ~~

' supporting statements.

D0': should plan for a presentetion of no

r.

s O

.. c..,-

t.

more than one hour.

Each of the other proposed groupings should plan foi a presentation of their views on the issues before the Coonission not to exceed thirty minutes. However, additional time will be provided as necessary to answer questions posed by the Commission in the course of the presentations.

At the conclusion of the oral presentations, the Commission will allow a brief period for rebuttal.

t

'At the oral presentations, the participants may assume that the Commissioners are f amiliar with their original position and cross statements, the Working Group's summaries, the participants' comments

.. i on the summaries, and the statements filed by consolidated groupings, The Commissioners reserve the right to atk questions at any time e.Ctrb.

~

n

'during the oral presentations.

The participants should be prepared to answer technical as well as nere general questions.

e

'2,. ~

.In addition to the procedures outlined above for oral presentations

.and the associated statements to be filed by consolidated groups, individual participants may file written supplementary statements

~

.containing their views on how the recent developments outlined lbelow may bear on a. Commission decision in this proceeding. Participant supplementary statements should not exceed 20 pages in length and

c..

~

~

should be filed 45 days after the date of this order.

s e

a

. ~-

10-

~

IV. Recent DeveJ_opments Participants are requested to address in their written statements as well as their oral presentations the signif'cance of recent developments listed below to the Commission's decision in this proceeding.

(1) Reprocessing and other wa,s,te management program changes On October 8,1931, the President issued a statement outlining a policy favoring connercial reprocessing.I In that statement

r.

he also instructed the Secretary of Energy, working closely with industry and state governments, to proceed swif tly toward

.i deployment of means of storing and disposing of commercial

• • • • '[

high-level radioactive waste. He said that the steps nost be e

c taken now to demonstrate to the public that the problems associated with management of nuclear waste can be resolved.

5 i

i In addition, as NRDC pointed out, the Deputy Secretary of Energy testified that, "The waste management program that we are proposing differs markedly with the previous Administration's program... We believe that the cornerstcne of the waste manege-ment program should be that the reference waste form. as it was prior to the Carter Administration and as is in concert with

~

. II residential Nuclear Policy Statement, October 8, 1981.

P 9

e S

=

p

.~

n 11 T

.., - s the rest of the world, is reprocessed high-level waste (insteadofspent]."I

. i'

. [

Also, the President has proposed to dismantle the Department of Energy and place its functions in other Federal agencies.2 a.;

Since this may bear upon the waste management program organization and management issue, participants may wish to cocrent on the

. implications of this potential development.

Recent congressional testimony 3 by DOE's Assistant Secretary for nuclear energy indicated that the Department's current plan for high-level waste disposal will emphasize development '

~ ~ ~ ' '

of a test and evaluetion (T&E) facility for the testing of disposal concepts which could affect the schedule for repository development and construction reported in the DDE Position s

Statement.

The Commission is also interested in participants' n

views on this matter.

s-(2) Away-from-reactor storage policy

.sj,.. Ii.

On March 27,19S1, the Department of Energy (00E) submitted information to the Presiding Officer concerning a change in l.lduly 9,1981 statement of Kenneth Davis, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy before the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Committee

.on in.t,erior and Insular Affairs at 4-5.

2 residential address to the Nation, " Program for Economic Recovery,"

P

. September 24, 1981.

3 etober 6,1981 statement of Shelby T. Brewer, Assistant Secretary for

' D

-Nuclear-Energy, U.S. Departnent of Energy before the Senate Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and Environnent and Public Works.

12

.c the DOE program wherein thty hove discontinuc[d] [their]

efforts ~to provide federal government-owned or controlled a*ay-f rom-reactor {AFR) [ spent t'uel) stor age f acilities.'

The submittal explains that this change is a result of a

" change (reduction) in DOE's projections of the quantity of spent fuel that may require interim storage" and a later time frame for need for such storage.

The sub:nittal states that the previously planned Federal AFR storage is only one of several possible approaches to satisfying storage needs.

The letter suggests that the Coristiission should

. assume any additional storage requirenents will be e,atisfied

.,}'

by any one or riore ways described in the letter.

The participants are asked tu cotment on the signit f cance to

- ^

the proceeding of issues, particularly institutional concerns.

r resulting from this pblicy change and to corrnent on the merits

'? ' ': ].,:

-[

of DOE's new projet: tion of spent fuel storage requirenents and on the technical arid practical feasibility of DOE's sus 5esterf alternative storage methods.

Y.'. Schedule _

. The senedule below shall be followed.

l O

(3

,' [ Note: Assumes order aoprosed by the Comission un Never..oer 6.). A i.'I 2

s November 20 (1) Participants shall file any objection to the

. Order with the Presiding Officer.

..,~

(2) Participants may file individual or consoMdated December 21 written staternents prior to oral presentations.

..(3) Tentative date for oral presentations to the January 11 Cormtission.

Following the oral presentations, the Comission will decide what additional steps, if any, are necessary and will notify the parti-cipants as appropriate.

8'. $

, ~It is so ORDEPEO.

For the Cormis ion i

j,r.

tce f

,9.y 1

.:.- -- r., %

,(:

c Q

it i Samuel J. Chi h;

~,, ~',;'

Secretary of tHe Commission

.r..% i rig.,. -ton, D.C.

We Date

'thi.

4y of November 1981.

M I"

..P t

4*

ueW 4

O

,- - r - -,

-- - -, - - - _~