ML20053C408
| ML20053C408 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, Limerick, Zion, 05000000, Bailly |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1980 |
| From: | Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Christenbury E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20053C401 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-416 NUDOCS 8206020075 | |
| Download: ML20053C408 (2) | |
Text
-
YttYLE f
May 30, 1980 4
Note to: Edward S. Christenbury, Chief Hearing Counsel From:
Colleen P. Woodhead, Attorney, OELD Subj:
Considerations of the NRC Approach to Requiring Risk Assessment of Facilities in High Population Areas The subject discussed in the May 27 meeting with H. Denton and the subsequent meeting called by R. Vollmer concerned possible legal and/or public perception cr ~.equences to the Staff plan to ask risk assessment for plant sites near high pc ulation areas.
Tw'o issues were identified in the discussions, namely:
(1) Would the NRC requirement for risk analysis of these plants allcw or cause a reopening of construction permit issues?
(2) On what regulatory or policy basis can the Staff require a risk assessment of plants near high population areas?
As backgrcund for the preseni discussion, I learned that because of the UCS 52.206 petition, the Staff began a risk assessment of Indian Point and Zion.
This led to Staff interest in other plant sites which were near high population The obvious implication here, is a question of the reliability of areas.
10 C.F.R. Part 100 and an ipso facto revocation of that standard on a case-by-case basis.
The Staff has begun preparation of a list of plants (now numbering about ten) near high nopulation areas.
A numerical categorization has been used to quantify the possible risks, based on a Part 100 site analysis of nearby pooulation density and meteorology.
Thus, the present high risk list is, based on an assunption of a significant accidental release, and consequences for the nearby population.
It was decided that although the Baillv 62.205 petition and CP extension are of imediate concern regarding a risk analysis requirenent, that the Bailly site is too unique (because of the steel plant nearby) to use as a standard for an overall approach by the Staff.
6 75 811106 DORSEY81-416 PDR r-- - - - -
- i. '
,# I researched all the NEPA cases and found only one (the Bailly case) which cerely inplied that " changed circumstnaces" would support a remand to consider revision of an EIS where it was alleged that power need had changed.
- This, of course, was during judicial review of the acency's decision and does not provide basis for invalidating an EIS after time for judicial review has lapsed. All other flEPA cases are focused on issues of (1) the full compliance with NEPA requirenents by the agency at the time the EIS is prepared, or (2) deternining whether the NEPA EIS requirement applied to " ongoing" federal projects begun prior to enactnent of NEPA and continuing afterwards.
Thus, there is no basis for interpreting NEPA to require a continuing reassessment of environmental impact statements, since the intent of the Act is to require procedure for agency decisions where the environment will be affected.
Once the decision is made to approve a proposal, NEPA requirements are no longer applicable.
Although the legal finality of the construction permit decisicns by the Commission was of some help in clarifying the situation, the significant problem that arose was the lack of criteria with which to approach the risk assessment project.
Although the Staff has devised a formula of sorts, this has no basis in any regulation, and no defined standard with which to judge which sites should or should not be assessed.
The plants determined to pose the greatest risk are:
Indian Point, Zion and Limerick. After these plants, the risk drops considerably.
It was decided that criteria should be developed and perhaps an interim revision of Part 100 issued while the Office of Standards prepares the final rule (approximately one year) or to await the proposed new rule (Part 100) which is promised for November of 1980.
The Connission's proposed new rule for emergency planning (10 C.F.R. 550, Appendix E) and the revised policy on Class 9 accident assessment were proposed as reasonable explanations for the Staff's new approach to risk analysis, since evacuability of nearby population is a significant concern in energency planning for plants near large populations.
Unfortunately, the proposed Appendix E has no concrete criteria on which to base a risk analysis requirement.
fiy understanding of the final conclusion reached by the group assembled in R. Vollmer's office, was to recommend to H. Denton that no more requests for risk assessnents be issued until new Part 100 criteria is develooed.
I believe SECY-80-131_l] is quite clear except for criteria to identify cases of " adverse sites."
f Colleen P. Woodhead Attorney, OELD S uclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental N
Policy Act of 1969.
~
e
((Tj)]Tji A.1)ons1:Y LAW OFFICES 1315 WA1.Nt'T ST SUITn 1632 l'J!!LADI:1.I'JIIA. l'A.1910" 215 735.1200 October 13, 1981 J.M.
Felton
- Director, FREEDDI. OF INFORMATION Of fice of AdministrationDivision of Rules and Records
/sCT REQUEST Nuclear Regulatory~ Commission
[O M -[/- ((
Ua shi ni, t on, DC 20555 cc 'd /d -/6-P/
Dear Mr. Felton,
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request a copy of each and every document 5 USC 5552, or routed through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to, from, Risk Assessment for therelating or referring in any way to the scope of
, regarding, Limerick Generating Station, stic and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-3 52 and 50-353).
Units 1 I will assume received a response within 10 working days.that my request has bee Sincerely,
(({bl l\\ M
~ udith A. Dorsey, Esq.
f d b'
u
-