ML20045G961

Environ & Resources Conservation Organization Contentions on Staff Environ Assessment Findings of No Significant Impact & Safety Evaluation.* Urges ASLB to Admit Foregoing Contention Per 10CFR2.714(b)(2).W/Certificate of Svc

ML20045G961
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	07/12/1993
From:	Mcgranery J ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCES CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION, MCGRANERY, J.P., JR.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#393-14104 DCOM, NUDOCS 9307160193
Download: ML20045G961 (8)

Text

_ _ _.. _._

S lQ/l0) r IPXr.E i L D UNC BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'93 JUL 13 P5 :15 Before The Atomic Safety And Licensina Board 1

t

) Docket No. 50-312-DCOM In the Matter of

)

) (Decommissioning Order) j Sacramento Municipal Utility District )

(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating

)

Station)

)

)

ECO'S CONTENTIONS ON THE STAFF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, AND SAFETY EVALUATION i

Pursuant to the Commission's Memorandum and Order in 4

Sacramento Municioal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear l

Generating Station), CLI-93-3, 37 NRC (March 3, 1993) l

("CLI-93-3") and 10 CFR 5 2.714 (b) (2) (1993), Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization ("ECO") hereby contends that the Environmental Assessment ("EA") and resulting Finding Of No Significant Impact ("FONSI") are inadequate and issued in violation of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"),

42 U.S.C. 5 4321 21 122 (1988), the regulations and other j

guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ")

including, but not limited to, 40 CFR Parts 1500-17 and the 3

CEQ 40 most-asked questions (46 Fed. Reg. 18026 (March 23, 1981))

as well as being issued in violation'of the substantive and procedural' requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's

("NRC") own regulations as set out in 10 CFR Part 51 (1993).

f )Y 9307160193 930712 PDR ADOCK 05000312 0

PDR.

Before setting out brief explanations of the bases of these contentions and concise statements of the alleged facts j

and/or expert opinion, which support the contentions and on which ECO intends to rely pursuant to 10 CFR $ 2.714 (b) (2) (i) & (ii)

(1993), ECO will address the so-called " lateness factors" at 10 CFR 5 2.714 (a) (1) (1)-(b) (1993) in general pursuant to the Commission's Order.M Egg CLI-93-3 at 31-32.

In fact, ECO contends that factors (ii)-(v) may be addressed in general and completely for all of the contentions and their bases.

ECO also recognizes that factor (i) may, in appropriate cases, be supplemented in ECO's statement of its brief explanations of the bases and concise statements of the allege facts or expert opinion provided below.

The Lateness Factors i

ECO states that factor (i)

(" good cause for failure to file on time") is satisfied in most cases by the fact that the information in the Staff environmental documents was otherwise unavailable for ECO's review previously, including the fact that the principal " staff environmental document" is the EA which was previously unavailable.

The commission has ruled that this unavailability may possibly satisfy the good cause for 1/

'Since the adequacy of NEPA consideration is to be determined on the basis of the agency document and not the applicant's document, ECO contends that the NRC requirement that the five

" lateness" factors be addressed in the context of ECO contentions with respect to the adequacy of the NRC's staff EA and FONSI is arbitrary and capricious and in violation of well established case law under NEPA.

m;

. lateness factor.

CLI-93-3 at 32.

ECO respectfully suggests that j

such unavailability does satisfy factor (1).

Factor (ii) raises the issue of whether other means are available to protect ECO's interest.

There are no other petitioners or intervenors in this proceeding to protect ECO's interest under NEPA.

Factor (iii) addresses the issue of the extent of ECO's a

participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.

The credentials of the persons whom ECO represents are on the record and show not only a generalized expertise in nuclear power plants but a specialized expertise with respect to Rancho Seco.

Also, ECO's President, Dr. A. David Rossin, has placed his credentials on the record and those credentials, including his experience as Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy for Nuclear Energy and President of the American Nuclear Society, indisputably established him as an expert whose participation would more than reasonably be expected I

to assist in developing a sound record.

As to factor (iv), there are no other existing parties to this proceeding which can be expected to represent ECO's interest.

Factor (v) requires ECO and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") to consider the extent to which ECO's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.

It is clear that without ECO's participation on these issues there will be no issues and no proceeding.

However, the issue of

l 4

i i

I 4_

i

~

delay should receive little or no weight in a consideration of l

the adequacy of the NRC's staff's performance of its NEPA obligations since the predominant consideration under NEPA is j

}

whether the agency has taken the required "hard look" at the environmental alternatives and consequences of its proposed action.

Under NEPA, the need for such a "hard look" far out-i weighs the unavoidable delay in satisfying NEPA's purposes.

i Erief Exclanations and Concise Statements 1.

In preparing its environmental assessment, the NRC l

staff is required to consult relevant agencies and persons.

Es.g 10 CFR S 51.30 (a) (2).

The EA at 5 6.0 indicates only that the

" staff consulted with the State of California regarding the i

j environmental impact of the proposed action."

This constitutes inadequate compliance with the NRC's own regulations because (a) there is no indication what the State of California's views were l

nor any reference to where those views may be found, (b) there is j

no reference to any consultation with any other relevant authorities such as the Council on Environmental Quality or the U.S.

Department of Energy, both of which had previously expressed I

strong views as to the adverse environmental consequences of l

i decommissioning Rancho Seco and the need for an environmental impact statement ("EIS").

2.

The staff document violates 10 CFR $ 51.119 (1993) because it does not indicate whether it is a draft or final

{

finding at EA 1 7.0.

• 3.

The Staff document violates 10 CFR 5 51.33(b)

(1993) because it does not consider whether circumstances exist requiring the publication of a draft FONSI.

4.

If the FONSI is intended to be final, it violates 10 CFR 5 51.34 (b) (1993) since a hearing is currently in progress on the proposal and that regulation bars the NRC Staff from issuing a final finding of no significant impact.

5.

If it is intended to be a draft FONSI, the Staff document violates 10 CFR 5 51.119(a) because it does not include a request for comments, specify where comments should be submitted, or when the comment period expires.

6.

The EA's consideration (at para. 5.0) of postulated accidents is totally inadequate because it does not consider non-radiological accidents during the decommissioning process.

7.

The EA's consideration of the radiological impacts of decommissioning at para. 3.2 is without sufficient factual basis because there is not an engineering analysis of an independent spent fuel storage facility on which to base any of 1

the conclusions with respect to normal emissions or accidental i

emissions.

8.

The EA's non-radiological impact findings are inadequate because there is no discussion of the activities anticipated to be performed by SMUD.

There is no discussion, much less qualification, of the environnental, including economic and socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action and there is no

@.sw w =

t er y

m w.

e e

m

---

m

++

i i

i o ;

discussion of the changes that have taken place in the 20 years r

since the issuance of the Staff Reference 18.

9.

The EA erra in finding that the only relevant demographic and socioeconomic effects that are relevant are within a 13 mile radius of Rancho Seco.

Egg EA at para.

3.1.3.

The relevant radius is 50 miles as demonstrated by both the SMUD submissions and general NRC practice.

10.

The EA's consideration of decommissioning alternatives at para 1.4 is inadequate since it does not consider the alternative of preserving the plant in operable status for possible future use.

The Safety Evaluation Similarly, ECO contends that the NRC Staff lacks a sufficient technical basis to conclude in its Safety Evaluation that there is either reasonable assurance of health and safety or j

an adequate finding plan because the engineering design, schedule and cost of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage facility are unknown at this time.

ECO's discussion of the 10 CFR 5 2.714 (a) (1) factors above in the context of the EA applies equally to this Safety Evaluation contention.

d 1

l' Wherefore, ECO urges the ASLB to admit the foregoing contentions on the basis of the explanations and concise statements provided above pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.714 (b) (2).

Respectfully submitted,

,f July 12, 1993

a

'N em i,

James P. McGranery,[/Jf i Sud'te 500 4

1255 Twenty-Third St., N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20037 (202) 857-2929 Counsel for Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization l

i i

l

.I

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD o

a.n

) Docket No. 50-312-DCOM In the Matter of

)

) (DecommissiOhidd d2d[E)35 I

Sacramento Municipal Utility District )

(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating

)

tiu.

,,,u Station)

)

d r:

v.

s"i

)

'b 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that one copy of Environmental and i

Resources Conservation Organization's Petition for ECO'S CONTENTIONS ON THE STAFF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS OF NO j

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, AND SAFETY EVALUATION is being served upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid on this 12th day of July, 1993:

Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 t

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Richard F.

Cole Thomas D. Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.

Charles A. Barth, Esq.

David R.

Lewis, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Shaw, Pittman, Potts &

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Trowbrige Commission 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C.

20037

(

k

.~s w

Jatpes P. McGranery, J,r'. //