ML20050C493
| ML20050C493 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1975 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050C484 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204080558 | |
| Download: ML20050C493 (8) | |
Text
_ _ _
o c
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR P2GULATORY CO CIISSION COMMISSIONERS:
William A.
Anders, Chairman Edwa'rd A.
Mason Victor Gilinsky l
Richard T. Kennedy
)
In t Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-155
)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AMD ORDER We earlier ordered this proceeding temporarily sus-pended and invited com ents from the parties on the question whether the requirements of the National Environ-mental Policy Act (NEPA) ~for the Big Rock facility's use of I
up to 150. kilograms of plutonium in mixed oxide fuel, as set i
t forth in License Amendment No. 4, could be met fully through
.3 preparation of a discrete environmental impact statement for d
the facility, in lieu of awaiting completion of the generic
']
environmental impact statement on mixed oxide fuel (GESMO).
NRCI-75/3, 161.
The Licensee subsequently filed with the J
)
Commission a petition for a declaratory order, A.
requesting
)
that we state whether Amendment No. 4 is currently effective l
and whether it may be used in a planned September 1975 I
. 8204080553 820402
'PDR ADOCK 05000155 C
PDR rvvTurm n
2 reloading.
We offered the parties an opportunity to comment on the Licensee's petition.
All of the parties have sub-mitted comments on both issues.
We have, therefore, two matters before us.
For the reasons stated below, we find that:
(1) NEPA's requirements apply to the use of mixed oxide fuel at Big Rock as author-
.4 ized by Amendment No. 4, which requirements can be met fully 1
g!
by a discrete environmental impact statement in lieu of
/
j awaiting completion of GESMO; and (2) Amendment No. 4 may not be used until NEPA's re'quirements have been met and a decision reached in the pending hearing.1[
These issues have not been decided heretofore either by
~
us or by the Atomic Energy Commission.
Amendment No. 4 was originally issued by the AEC staff in December 1972 pursu~ ant
]
to delegated authority.
When the AEC issued a notice of a
opportunityforhearingfconcerningtheamendmentinApril N
1!
Neither matter arises in the context in which we nor-1 mally exercise our adjudicatory functions, typically including a developed record on relevant issues, with initial and final decisions by a Licensing Board and an
?;
Appeal Board.
In this proceeding, we appointed a 1
Licensing Board which identified the relevant issues
.j and announced a discovery and hearing schedule.
We reluctantly impinged on that process when we suspended this proceeding and invited comments on the NEPA J
issue.
Our action has been triggered by the unique circumstances of this case and not by disagreement with any action taken by the Licensing Board.
j I
~
Q Q
3 1973 (39 Fed. Reg. 9104-9105), at a time when the Licensee had no immediate plans to use plutonium in excess of the former limit, it was contemplated that all relevant issues, including NEPA issuos, would be determined de novo.
l Th'e Big Rock facility is one of the smallest (70 MWe) of the currently operating reactors.
The facility has been e
q using mixed oxide fuel in amounts of less than 50 kilograms since 1969, under Amendment No. 3 to its license.
No
/
challenge has been made to Amendment'No. 3, and use of 4
plutonium-enriched fuel under it has continued without incident.
No new construction is associated with increased use of mixed oxide fuel in this instance.
Nevertheless, cuestions have ceen raised concerning the effect on reactor
~
performance and safety of trebling the effective plutonium j
core load.
Moreover, events following the original issuance aj of. this amendment have cast the matter in a somewhat different
.1 light.
Shortly after the issuance of Amendment No. 4, the fj AEC undertook GESMO for the purpose of assessing the environ-V j
mental impact of wide-scale use of mixed oxide fuel.
We recently announced our provisional view that a NEPA cost-i benefit analysis of alternative safeguards programs should j
be completed before the Commission reaches a decision on 4
wide-scale use of mixed oxide fuels, and we proposed
1
.1 o
q v
i 4
1 guide.
for individual licensing actions related to the wide-...," itse of mixed oxide fuels (40 Fed. Reg. 20142, May 8, 3.,
i).
- t.,,s"w of these circumstances, we believe that sound exerc!.,,
"f discretion favors NEPA review.
Tr s.
j
" holding, we wish to be explicit that we are not forec.',,:,i h'1 any of the options available to the Commission in the
'\\'lingGESMOproceedinIs.
In particular, we do not 1
a core-loading of mixed oxide fuel, in itself, consti...i"' a " major federal action" requiring NEPA review Our den),,'"n in.this case rests upon our judgment that th e potentini "Cfects of the increased core loading proposed
~
for thin g " actor raise questions which,whenVIewedagainst i
the oa%,p Hund of present unresolved concerns about the u l
se
.l of tiix<:q "Nide fuels,
~
favor NEPA review.
l.Cipate that many of the Conclusions reached in i
the co'J r 4"
'.' j of the GESMO proceedings will be directly appli-b cable te,
"Y future uses of mixed oxide fuel.
Thus, we do not dectit" Whether NEPA assessments will be appropriate for
~
similar n"tLons once the Commission has decided how to bring a
the periet i,
.i 4
generic inquiry to a conclusion.
I 1
= _ - -
U O
O O
s The NEPA review we require in this case need not avait completion of the safeguards studies and GESMO, or cover ti same-ground being covered there, where the concern is with the wide-scale use of mixed oxide fuel.
Use of Amendment i
No. 4 in this case would not in any sense give rise to wide scale use of mixed oxide fuel.
j The increased use.of mixed oxide fuel at Big Rock would not require the construction o 1
licensing of any other facilities to support it pending
{
completion of GESMO, and thud /would result in no unnecessar; "grandfathering".
Nor would the use of Amendment No. 4 foreclose fut' ure safeguards options or future operational alternatives at the Big Rock facility, since it can readily be converted to use either uranium or mixed oxide e.
Compare Scientists' Institute for Public Information, Inc.
- v. AEC, 481 F.2d 1079 (C. A.D. C. 1973).
i We. find, therefo're, i
that 'NEPA's requirements for the Big Rock facility's use of mixed oxide fuel as set forth in Amendment No i
? fully through a discrete environmental review.
e u
d p"q
)
The scope of the NEPA review in this case should
, of course, be tailored to the possible environmental impa t j
c resulting from increasing the amount of plutonium in this 1
4 one reactor.
As noted above, Amendment No. 4 will not forecl,ose future safeguards options or future ope f
rational
_a
- ~ - _. - - _ _ _ - - - -
6 alternatives, either at Big Rock or elseuhere.
Discussion of possible adverse environmenta{ effects and alternatives to the proposed action can be limited accordingly.
The statement need not, for example, discuss alternatives to plutoni,um recycle and other generic matters properly treated in GESMO.
1 L
i If the Licensee chooses to prepare an environmental report, the NRC Staff will then prepare draft and final I
..y environmental impact statements, and the Licensing Board may resume the' hearing on the issues identified in its pre-hearing order dated August 7, 1974 (LBP-74-6, RAI-74-8-317, 320-322).E/
Two final matters should be noted.
First, although we conclude here that Amendment No. 4 may not be used until s
NEPA's requirements have been met and the associated hearing 2
j concluded, we would not consider the taking of the steps
"]
required to perfect the amendment in this case as giving 4
Y E[
NEPA itself does not require an agency hearing.
The hearing requirement in this case is based upon the AEC's determination to consider the entire matter de novo and upon the Licensing Board's subsequent inte?-
Tocutory determination that a hearing should have been held prior to issuance of the license.
Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), RAI 3-297, 298.
While that interlocutory order is tech-nically not before us at this time, it will contribute to the orderly progress of this proceeding to note our agreement that a hearing is required.
i
9 q
rise to an " additional license" as that term is used in our provisional statement on GESMO (40 Fed. Reg. at 20143).
We so conclude because of the unique circumstances of this case:
mixed oxide fuel has been used at the Big Rock facility since 1969; an increase in authorized amounts will not cause unnecessary grandfathering; nor, as noted above, A
l will it foreclose future operational alternatives or safe-1 guards options.
.//
Second, the Licensee also seeks a declaratory order concerning 'the effectiveness of a technical specificatiens change originally issued simultaneously with the amendment.
The specifications change permitted use of fuel rod bundles in arrays of 11 x 11 instead of the previously utilized s
array of 9 x 9.
The greater number of fuel rods per bundle 1
increases the surface area for cooling purposes, with the I
result that the core temperature is substantially redu'ced and safe operation enhanced.
The record before. us does not
~
,.,. j
..f show the extent to which Amendment No. 4 and the specifi-x
.j cations change may be interdependent.
But nothing in the l
present record suggests that the specifications change in question should have been subjected to NEPA review or that 1
j the change raises any significant hazards considerations.
As reflected in the submissions of the parties, increased 1
1
\\
Q o
8 I
use of plutonium is the real focus of concern.
For present purposes, then, the specifications change is effective, although"it remains a possible issue before the Licensing Board in this proceeding.
ktiissoORDERED.
'I By the Commission.
=
1 J
75/ Samuel J.
Chilk SALIUEL J.
CHILK Secretary of the Comm.ission Dated"at Washington, D. C.
this lith day of August, 1975.
M I
1 i
A A
- 9 3
2
.3 3
.3 h
i 3]
1 i,
i 1
4 6