ML20054E654
| ML20054E654 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1982 |
| From: | Goldberg J, Wagner M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206140034 | |
| Download: ML20054E654 (23) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES'0F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CON 11SSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket No. 50-289
) (Restart)
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1) )
NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO LICENSEE'S MOTION WITH RESPECT TO PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH ISSUE Jack R. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Mary E. Wagner Counsel for NRC Staff s.
June 10, 1982 DESIGNATED ORIGINAL Certified By > O --
U 820614o034 820610 DR ADOCK 05000
e UNITED STATES'0F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
BEFORE THE COMMISSION I
In the Matter of ) i
)
METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, ET AL. Docket No. 50-289 I
)
(Restart) l
) ,
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1) ) i NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO LICENSE. ..JTION WITH RESPECT TO PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH ISSUE I
Jack R. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Mary E. Wagner f .,
Counsel for NRC Staff June 10, 1982 i
i
i .
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION.............................................. 1 II. DISCUSSION................................................ 2 A. Licensee's Motion Concerning a Prompt Determination of the Significance of the Psychological Health Effects of Operating TMI-1 and the Preparation of a Supplemental SEIS.................................... 2 B. Licensee's Motion that the Commission Itself Decide the Restart Matter Without Further Trial-Type Hearings............................................. 3
- 1. It is Not Necessary to Decide Whether NEPA Requires a Hearing on the Psychological Health Effectc of Operating TMI-1...................... 4
- 2. NRC Regulati6ns, in the Absence of an Exemption, Permit Parties to the Restart Proceeding to Offer Evidence on the Psychological Health Effects of Operating TMI-1...................... 9 .
- 3. It Is Premature at this Time to Decide Whether to Grant Licensee an Exemption from the NRC's Regulations Permitting the Parties to Offer Evidence on the Psychological Health Effects of Operating TMI-1.............................. 11 III. CONCLUSION................................................ 15 i
l .
l I
i.
'11 TABLE OF CITATIONS PAGE CASES: ,
Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Co. v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures, 422 U.S. 289 (1975).............. 5, 6 Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. AEC, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971)................................. 6
- Como-Falcon Community Coalition, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, 609 F.2d 342 (8th Cir.1979),
cert. denied, 446 U.S. 936 (1980) ............................. 5 Greene County Planning Bd. v. FPC, 445 F.2d 412 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 409 U.S. 849 (1977J.............................. 6 Hanley v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1972),
cert. denied, 412 U.S. 908 (1973).............................. 5 Harlem Valley Transportation Ass'n. v. Stafford, 500 F.2d 328
( 2 d C i r . 19 7 4 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Morton, 471 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir.
1973).......................................................... 5 Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976)..................... 7 Mobil Oil Corp. v. FTC , 562 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 New England Coalition on Nuclear Power v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st Cir. 1978)................................................ 7 PANE v. NRC, No. 81-1131 (D.C. Cir., May 14,1982)(slipop.).. 4, 5, 11 PANE v. NRC, No. 81-1131 (D.C. Cir. , April 2,1982)
(Amended 3udgment)............................................. 2 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS:
1
- In The Matter of Mixed 0xide Fuel, CLI-78-10, 7 NRC 711 (1978)......................................................... 5 l
l l
l i
I l
l
iii .
PAGE STATUTES:
42u.S.C.94332(2)(C)......................................... 5 REGULATIONS:
10 CFR Part 2, Subpart B....................................... 11 10 CFR 5 2.718(i).............................................. 14 10 CFR 5 2.785(d).............................................. 14 10 CFR Part 51................................................. 4, 10, 13 10 CFR 9 51.4.................................................. 1, 3, 11, 13 10 CFR 5 51.5..................................................
9 10 CFR % 51.5(a)............................................... 9, 10 10 CFR S 51.5(b)............................................... 9, 10 10 CFR 5 51.5(c)............................................... 9, 10 10 CFR Q 51.5(d)............................................... 9, 10 10 CFR S 51.5(d)(1)............................................ 11 10 CFR 5 51.52................................................. 1, 9, 14 10 CFR $ 51.52(b).............................................. 11 10 CFR 6 51.52(b)(1)........................................... 9, 10 10 CFR Q 51.52(d).............................................. 10, 11 89 t
- i:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the fiatter of METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, ET AL. Docket No. 50-289 (Restart)
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1) 1 NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO LICENSEE'S MOTION WITH RESPECT TO PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH ISSUE I. INTRODUCTION On May 24, 1982, Licensee moved the Commission to promptly:
(a) determine whether, sinc,e the preparation of the original environ-mental impact statement (EIS) for Three Mile Island, Unit No.1 (TMI-1),
significant new circumstances or information have arisen with respect to' the potential psychological health effects of operating TMI-1, and, if so (b) prepare a supplemental EIS (SEIS) which considers the effects of TMI-1 restart on psychological health and the well-being of communities surrounding Three Mile Island. Licensee suggested June 15, 1982 for the significantcircumstancesdetermination((a)above)andJuly 15, 1982 for the completion of a draft SEIS ((b) above). Licensee further urges that
. if the Commission finds significant new circumstances or information to exist, it decide for itself the restart matter after completion of an SEIS without further trial-type hearings. In its motion, the Licensee also requested an exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR Q 51.4, from any further trial-type hearings which arguably may be imposed by 10 CFR 6 51.52. The NRC Staff hereby responds to Licensee's motions.
I II. DISCUSSION A. Licensee's Motion Concerning a Prompt Determination of the Significance of the Psychological Health Effects of Operating TMI-1 and the Preparation of a Supplemental EIS Licensee urges the Commission to set "a firm, early date (June 15, 1982, for example) to make the detennination called for by the Amended Judgment" of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in PANE v. NRC, No. 81-1131 (D.C. Cir., Amended Judgment filed April 2, 1982); i.e., a determination whether, since .
preparation of the original EIS for TMI-1, significant new circumstances or information have arisen with respect to the potential psychological health effects of operating TMI-1. Licensee further urges that, if the Commission determines that an SEIS is required, the Commission should "fix a firm, early date (July 15, 1982, for example) for completion of a draft SEIS, and initiation of the circulation and comment process".
See Licensee's Motion at 4. Because of the importance of this issue to both the Commission and the parties, the Staff agrees with Licensee's suggestion for a prompt determination of the significance of the psychological health effects of operating TMI-1. And, if an SEIS is required, the Staff will work expeditiously to complete a draft SEIS as promptly as possible.
The Staff believes, however, that the dates proposed by Licensee do not adequately reflect the magnitude of the work required in reaching this determination. In response to the Court's original Judgment in PANE which was filed on January 7, 1982, the Staff has been working to assess the effects of the proposed restart of TMI-1 on the psychological health of neighboring residents and on the well-being of the surrounding
+
communities. The Staff's efforts in that regard have included consultations with various experts in this field, the conduct of several workshops and meetings, and frequent contact with the Pennsylvania Department of Health.
As a result of the Court's Amended Judgement filed April 2,1982, however, it is now apparent that, in part, a different and in some respects more specific evaluation is needed in order to provide a basis for a determination of the significance of any potential psychological hec.ith effects of operating TMI-1. The Staff is presently consulting with experts for the purpose of developing an appropriate survey which will provide the needed additional information. At this time the Staff believes that its evaluation of the relevant data can be completed in August, 1982. The Staff also believes that if a supplemental EIS is determined to be required, a draft could be complated in September,1982.
B. Licensee's Motion that the Commission Itself Decide the Restart Matter Without Further Trial-Type Hearings _
Licensee requests that the Commission, if its finds that significant new circumstances or information exists, itself decide the restart matter after completion of an SEIS without further trial-type hearings. The Licensee also requests that it be granted an exemption pursuant to 10 CFR Q 51.4 from any trial-type hearing requirements which arguably may be imposed by 10 CFR Q 51.52. In support of these requests, Licensee argues that (1) the National Environmental Policy Act
. of 1969 (NEPA) does not require hearings on environmental issues and NEPA requirements will be fully satisfied if the Commission itself considers the results of any supplementary environmental review in making its
- ~
restart decision; (2) a hearing is not required by the Comission's
~
regulations in general or 10 CFR Part 51 in particular; and (3) even if NRC regulations arguably require a hearing, the Commission should exempt the restart hearing from any such trial-type hearings.
For the reasons set forth below, the Staff believes that the question raised by the Licensee as to whether NEPA requires a hearing in the circumstances of the TMI-1 restart proceeding is a difficult one which cannot and indeed should not be determined prior to the completion of the Staff's analysis and a determination on the question of a need for an SEIS.
Moreover, it is also premature, we believe, for the Commission to now decide whether to grant Licensee's request for an exemption from the NRC regulations permitting the parties to t,his proceeding to take a position and offer evidence on the psychological health effects of operating TMI-1 or to determine what further procedures for considering psychological health effects are necessary since the relevant facts necessary for such a decision are not presently known.
- 1. It is Not Necessary to Decide Whether NEPA Requires a Hearing on the Psychological Health Effects of Operating TMI-1 Licensee argues that neither NEPA nor the Atomic Energy Act requires any hearings on environmental issues. Licensee's Motion at 7-8 and Appendix A. Licensee states.that the Court of Appeals in PANE did not require the Commission to hold a hearing on the psychological health effects of operating TMI-1 and that the Court of Appeals expressly left the Commission with " discretion to choose its procedures for studying the significance of the alleged psychological health imracts arising from the proposed restart of TMI-1" (PANE, supra,slipop.at8).
i:
Licensee further points out that the Court remanded the record to the [
Comission "to determine what procedu'esr NEPA requires in light of its l evaluation of alleged psychological health effects." Id_. at 19, n.12. j In considering Licensee's argument that no hearing is
. required under NEPA, it is instructive to first .:onsider the express requirements of that Act. Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA states that "[A]11 agencies of the Federal government shall. . .
(C) include in every recomendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on --
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action . . . .
Copies of such statemeht . . . shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency review process.
42 U.S.C. 5 4332(2)(C). Several cases which have considered this provision of NEPA have concluded that NEPA per se does not require a hearing I on environmental issues. See e.g. , Como-Falcon Cemunity Coalition, Inc. v.
United States Department of Labor, 609 F.2d 342, 345 (8th Cir. 1979),
cert. denied, 446 U.S. 936 (1980); Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Morton, 471 F.2d 1275, 1284-87 (9th Cir. 1973); Hanley v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 908 (1973); In the Matter of Mixed 0xide Fuel, CLI-78-10, 7 NRC 711-729 (1978).
At the same time, section 102(2)(C) provides, "such [ environmental impact] statement shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency review process." The Supreme Court has considered this requirement in Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Co. v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures, 422 U.S. 289, 320 (1975) (" SCRAP II"), and held that this
.~.
section of NEPA did not require the ICC to consider an EIS in an oral hearing held prior to any agency proposal for action. 422 U.S. at 320-21. As the Supreme court explained:
NEPA provides that "such statment . . . shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency review process" (emphasis added). This
, sentence does not . . . affect the time when the " statement" must be prepared. It simply says what must be done with the " statement" once it is prepared -- it must accompany the " proposal." ... the time at which the agency must prepare the final " statement" is the time at which it makes a recommendation or report on a pro)osal for federal action. Where an agency initiates federal action ]y publishing a proposal and then holding hearings on the proposal, the statute would appear to require an impact statement to be included in the proposal and to be considered at the hearing.
Here, however, until the October 4,1972 report. the ICC had made no proposal, recommendation, or report. The only proposal was the proposed new rates filed by the railroads. Thus, the earliest time at which the statute requrired a statement was the time of the ICC's rr. port of October 4, 1972 -- some time after the oral hearing.
Id.(emphasisinoriginal;footnotesomitted).1/
Post-SCRAP II cases have expanded on the SCRAP II reasoning that an EIS need not be considered in a hearing held prior to an agency 1/ The Supreme also Court stated:
To the extent to which Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee
- v. AEC, 146 U.S. App. D.C. 33, 449 F.2d 1109 (1971); Greene County Planning Bd. v. FPC, 445 F.2d 412 (CA2), cert, denied, 409 U.S. 849 (1972); and Harlem Valley Transportation Assn. v.
,Stafford, 500 F.2d 328 (CA2 1974), read the requirement that the statement accompany the proposal through the existing agency review processes differently, they would appear to conflict with the statute.
422 U.S. at 321, n.20.
i:
proposal for action. In New England Coalition on Nuclear Power v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st Cir. 1978), a case i'nvolving other Atomic Energy Act and NEPA issues, the Court stated that the NRC proposal for action is not made until the Licensing Board's initial decision. H.at94. See
- also Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 405-406 (1976) (agency
" contemplation" of a major federal action and accompanying study thereof do not require an EIS, rather an EIS must be ready only by the time the agency makes a recommendation or report on e proposal for federal action);
Mobil Oil Corp. v. FTC, 562 F.2d 170, 173 (2d Cir. 1977) (FTC adjudicatory hearings prior to initial decision by a hearing examiner do not constitute an agency proposal under NEPA). Accordingly, under both the NEPA statute and NEPA case law, it is only when an agency is ready to propose a course of action that it must prepare and consider an environmental impact statement. An EIS need not be prepared "during the germination process of a potential proposal." Kleppe v. Sierra Club, supra, at 406.
As can be seen from the above discussion, the application of NEPA and the NEPA case law to this TM1-1 Restart Proceeding requires the resolution of several difficult questions. Specifically, it must be determined in the l
first instance: (1) whether or when the Commission has proposed agency action with respect to the restart of TMI-1 and (2) what the " existing l
agency review process" requiring preparation and consideration of an SEIS, if any, is in this case.
.. Licensee argues that the Commission has not proposed any action with respect to the restart of TMI-1 but rather has ordered hearings
( for the purpose of allowing the Licensing Board to develop conditions
and a recomendation on restart and that, therefore, the earliest there will be a " proposal" in the NEPA sense, and, consequently the earliest there will be a need for a supplemental EIS, if any, is when the Comission is considering its own decision on restart. Licensee's Motion at A-8 through A-11.
Ontheotherhand,initsresponsetoLicensee'sMotion,U PANE argues that the Comission already has proposed the restart of TMI-1, although not the conditions for restart. PANE's Response at 12-13.
PANE argues, therefore, that the SCRAP II decision relied on by the Licensee is irrelevant and that, consequently, the restart hearings are an existing agency review process through which any EIS supplement must accompany that Comission proposal.
PANE's Response at 11-17.
While the conflicting views, set forth above, clearly do not lend themselves to easy solutions, it is even more apparent that these difficult legal issues simply cannot be resolved in the abstract. However, notwith-standing the diffculty of the legal issues presented, their resolution will, we believe, be far easier when considered in the factual context which will exist when the Staff has completed its analysis of psychological health effects and more information is available. Indeed, the resolution of the questions concerning whether or when there is an agency proposal for action and what is the "exis. ting agency review process" in this case need not be resolved unless it is determined that an EIS is required. Thus, the significance of the psychological health effects and, based on that, t$e
-2/ People Against Nuclear Energy Response to Licensee's Motion with respect to Psychological Health Issue, June 3, 1982 (PANE's Response).
i
i i:
.g. -
Comission's determination of whether or not to prepare a supplemental EIS, are essential facts necessary to the ' determination of what procedurt.s NEPA requires in this case, since under NEPA it is the environmental impact stat. ment which must acccmpany the agency proposal through the existing agency review process. Accordingly, the Staff strongly suggests that it would be premature for the Comission to attempt to decide what NEPA procedures are required in this case without hraing first considered the Staff's evaluation and decided whether a supplemental EIS is required.
Moreover, irrespective of the resolution of this issue, the Comission's own NEPA regulations set forth procedures and requirements, as discussed below, which must also be considered in a factual context, and thus also counsel against premature c,onsideration of the issues raised by Licensee.
, 2. NRC Regulations, in the Absence of an Exemption, Permit Parties to the Restart Proceeding to Offer Evidence on the Psychological Health Effects of Operating TMI-1 In Section 51.5 of the Comission's regulations, the Comission has classified its actions for NEPA purposes into three categories: (1) those actions for which an EIS will be prepared (% 51.5(a)); (2) those actions for which a determination will be made either to prepare an EIS or else to issue a negative declaration supported by an environmental impact appraisal (5 51.5(b), (c)); and (3) those actions for which no EIS, no negative declaration and no environmental impact appraisal will be issued (@ 51.5(d)).
Section 51.52 of the Comission's regalations, entitled "Public
.. Hearings", specifies when parties to NRC proceedings will be permitted to take a position and offer evidence on environmental issues.
Specifically,10CFRQ51.52(b)(1)provides:
.~-
In a proceeding in which a hearing is held for the issuance af a permit, license, or order, or amendment to or renewal of a permit, license, or order, covered by Q 51.5(a), and matters covered by this part are in issue, the staff will offer the final environ-mental impact statement in evidence. Any party to the proceeding may take a position and offer evidence on the aspects of the proposed action covered by NEPA and this part in accordance with the provisions of Subpart G of Part 2 of this chapter.
10 CFR % 51.52(d) provides:
In any proceeding in which a hearing is held for the issuance of a permit, license, or order, or amendment thereto or renewal thereof, where the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards or their designee, as appropriate has determined that no environmental impact statement need be prepared for the particular action in question, any party to the proceeding may take a position and offer evidence on the aspects of the proposed action covered by NEPA and this part in accordance with the provisions of Subpart G of Part 2 of this chapter. In such proceedings, the presiding officer will decide any such matters in controversy among the parties.
Thus, NRC regulations ' provide that parties may "take a position and offer evidence on" environmental issues in any proceeding involving any action for which an EIS is prepared (sections 51.5(a) and 51.52(b)(1))
and in any proceeding involving any act' n for which a determination is madenottoprepareanEIS(sections 51.5(b),(c),(d)and51.52(d)).
Therefore Licensee is not correct when it states: "Certainly it cannot be argued that a hearing is required by the Commission's regulations in general or Part 51 is particular. Part 51 deals only with NEPA procedures when a hearing is otherwise required." Licensee's Motion at 9, n.1, and at A-6, n . 3. To the contrary, Part 51 permits parties to "take a position
. and offer evidence on" environmental issues whenever a hearing is held on any action for which an EIS is prepared or for which it is determined not to prepare an EIS.
t
_ 11 .
As a result of the Court of Appeal's Amended Judgment in the PANE case, either an SEIS will be prepared or a determination will be made that none is required. If an SEIS is prepared, section 51.52(b) would, in the absence of an exemption, require the Comission to permit the parties to this restart proceeding to take a position and offer evidence on the psychological health effects of operating TMI-1. If an SEIS is determined not to be required, then section 51.52(d), in the absence of an exemption, also requires the Comission to permit the parties to the restart proceeding to "take a position and offer evidence on the aspects of the proposedactioncoveredbyNEPA."E
- 3. It Is Premature at this Time to Decide Whether to Grant Licensee an Exemption from ths NRC's Regulations Permitting the Parties to Offer Evidence on the Psychological Health Effects of Operating TMI-1 10 CFR 5 51.4 provides that the Comission may grant exemptions from Part 51 "as it determines are authorized by law and are otherwise in the public interest." Licensee has requested such an exemption to those parts of the regulations that provide for trial-type hearings on environmental matters. Licensee's Motion at 8-9.
An exemption from Part 51 under 10 CFR % 51.4 can be granted only if an exemption is authorized by law and the Commission finds that an exemption would be in the public interest. The Staff believes that it
-3/ The Commission argued in PANE that the TMI-1 restart proceeding is an enforcement proceeding under Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 2 and there-i fore a section 51.5(d)(1) action not requiring an EIS, a negative
. . declaration, or an environmental impact appraisal. The Court was not persuaded by that argument. PANE v. NRC, No. 81-1131 (May 14, l 1982), slip op. at 20, n.14. The Comission's position on this and other issues decided in PANE are still subject to appellate review.
is premature at this time to decide whether either of these requirements are satisfied in this case.
With respect to the question of whether an exemption is authorized by law, we have discussed above the difficult legal issue that question presents and why we believe it most appropriately should await resolution of the question of whether a supplemental EIS is required.
Consequently, we believe it would be premature for the Commission to attempt to determine whether an exemption from NRC regulations concerning a hearing on environmental issues is authorized by law.
With respect to the parallel requirement that the exemption be in e the public interest, Licensee argues that the psychological stress associated with delayed cle,an-up of TMI-2 outweighs the psychological
, stress associated with the restart of TMI-l (Licensee's Motion at 5),
that prompt operation of TMI-1 will provide revenues for a more speedy clean-up of TMI-2, and that avoiding the delay in a determination on TMI-1 restart that would attend hearings on psychological health impacts would, therefore, be in the public interest. (Id. at 3-4).
Licensee points out that there already has been considerable participa-tion in the Staff's work on psychological health effects by the public in general and the parties to this proceeding in particular, and there will be further opportunity for additional input. Licensee's Motion at 2-3.
Licensee further argues that elimination of the possibilities of a trial-type hearing is consistent with the Court's failure to grant PANE's specific request that the Court order the Comission to admit PANE's psychological stress contentions in the restart proceeding and the Court's leaving to the Comission the choice of procedures required by NEPA to consider the psychological health effects. Licensee's Motion at A-1,-2.
i:
~
The Staff believes that the question of whether the public interest favors the granting of an exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR 6 51.4, from the hearing requirements of Part 51 is likewise not ripe for consideration.
4 Until the evaluation of the significance of the, potential health effects of operating TMI-1 is completed, the Connission certainly cannot conclude, as Licensee requests, that the potential psychological health effects associated with a potential delay in the clean-up of TMI-2 " greatly outweigh (s)" the potential health effects of restarting TMI-1. See Licensee's Motion at 5. While it is not clear that such a balancing is even appropriate, any conclusion on whether the public interest favors an exemption should be based on data and evaluations not yet completed. ,
In addition, as pointed out above, it is premature to decide now whether there will be a hearing when there has yet been no determination whether a supplemental EIS is required. Neither has there been--nor could there be--any contentions by any of the parties, either based on the content of an SEIS, if one is prepared, or, alternatively, concerning a decision not to prepare an SEIS. At this point, it is not known whether an SEIS will be prepared and if so, what its content will be, and what, if any, contentions will be proposed by the parties. These factors, as well as the actual evaluation of the significance of the potential psychological health effects of operating TMI-1, are all important ingredients in a sound decision on whether to grant Licensee
.. an exemption from the hearing requirements of 10 CFR Part 51 or provide other procedures whereby the parties' positions on the matter of
psychological health effects may be heard. Furthermore, it is not known at this time whether other TMI-1 matt'ers, such as the steam generator repair and any delays which may be associated with that problem, will bear on the "public interest" determination in deciding whether an
- exemption is warranted.
The Staff, therefore, believes that a decision on Licensee's request for an exemption should await the further developments discussed herein. If, as a result of the content of an SEIS (if one is prepared) or as a result of a decision not to prepare an SEIS, the parties submit contentions on psychological health effects, the Commission can then decide, on the basis of a more complete record, whether an exemption is warranted. Furthermore, at,that time, there may be other options avail-able to the Commission which it may wish to consider. For example, the Commission could decide, pursuant to 10 CFR 66 2.718(i) and 2.785(d),
that it will rule itself, in the first instance, on contentions and determine what procedures are appropriate for the resolution of any admitted contentions on psychological health.SI Such procedures might be fashioned to provide the parties their rights under 10 CFR 5 51.52 to i
- "take a position and offer evidence on" psychological health effects while at the same time not necessarily involving a new proceeding att initio before a licensing board. .
i
-4/ It appears that any proffered contentions on the potential psychological health effects of operating TMI-1 would involve
" major or novel questions of policy, law or procedure." See 10 CFR 52.785(d).
- ,,n. - _ . . . . . - . - - , - , - - - -
i:
III. CONCLUSION The Staff believes that the ques' tion of whether NEPA requires a hearing on psychological stress is a difficult one which should not be determined now in the absence of a determination on the need for an SEIS.
In addition, the Staff believes it is also premature at this time for the Comission to decide whether to grant Licensee an exemption from the hearing requirements of Part 51 or to othemise determine now what procedures would be appropriate to allow the parties to be heard on the matter of psychological health until a determination is made on the need for an SEIS.
Respectfully submitted, v s vJack R. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff AU
, g 0h$
ary Wagner Couns for NRC Sta(ff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of June, 1982.
e, 9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, ET AL. Docket No. 50-289
) (Restart)
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO LICENSEE'S MOTION WITH RESPECT TO PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH ISSUE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 10th day of June, 1982: -
- Samuel J. Chilk (12) -
Dr. Linda W. Little Secretary of the Comission Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 5000 Hermitage Drive Washington, DC 20555 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
- Leonard Bickwit, General Counsel George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Washington, DC 20555 1800 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036
- Ivan W. Smith Administrative Judge Robert Adler, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel 505 Executive House U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission P. O. Box 2357 Washington, DC 20555 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Honorable Mark Cohen Administrative Judge 512 D-3 Main Capital Building 881 W. Outer Drive Harrisburg, PA 17120
. Oak Ridge', Tennessee 37830' Ms. Marjorie Aamodt
. Gary L. Milhollin, Esq. R.D. #5 1815 Jefferson Street Coatesville, PA 19320 Madison, WI 53711 -
Mr. Thomas Gerusky
- Dr. John H. Buck Bureau of Radiation Protection Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Dept. of Environmental Resources Board Panel P. O. Box 2063 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Harrisburg, PA 17120 Washington, DC 20555
y
? .
Mr. Marvin I. Lewis William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
6504 Bradford Terrace ,
Harmon & Weiss Philadelphia, PA 19149 1725 I Street, NW Suite 506 Mr. C. W. Smyth, Supervisor Washington, DC 20006
- Licensing TMI-1 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station John Levin, Esq. .
P. O. Box 480 Pennsylvania Public Utilities Comm.
Middletown, PA 17057 Box 3265 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Ms. Jane Lee R.D. 3; Box 3521 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
Etters, PA 17319 Fox, Farr and Cunningham 2320 North 2nd Street Gail Phelps Harrisburg, PA 17110 ANGRY 245 W. Philadelphia Street Louise Bradford Ycrk, Pennsylvania 17401 Three Mile Island Alert 1011 Green Street Thomas J. Germine Harrisburg, PA 17102 Deputy Attorney General .
Division of Law - Room 316 Ms. Ellyn R. Weiss 1100 Raymond Boulevard .
Harmon & Weiss Newark, New Jersey 17102
- 1725 I Street, NW
. Suite 506 Allen R. Carter, Chairman Washington, DC 20006 Joint Legislative Committee on Energy Post Office Box 142 Mr. Steven C. Sholly Suite 513 Union of Concerned Scientists Senate Gressette Building 1346 Connecticut Avenue, NW Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Dupont Circle Building, Suite 1101 Washington, DC 20036 Robert Q. Pollard 609 Montpelier Street
- Judge Gary J. Edles Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Chauncey Kepford U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Judith Johnsrud Washington, DC 20555 Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue
- Judge Reginald L. Gotchy State College, PA 16801 Atomic Safety & Licensing l
- . Appeal Board Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Washington, DC 20555 -
Postponement 2610 Grendon Drive
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Wilmington, Delaware 19808 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 l
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 l
.3 - , , ,
- Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTH: Chief, Docketing & Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Henry D. Hukill Vice President GPU Nuclear Corporation .
, Post Office Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057 .,
- Christine N. Kohl Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal .
Board Panel l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
Washington, DC 20555
- Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
Washington, DC 20555 I
kg/bg ?
" Jack R. Goldberg
/[
V Counsel for NRC Staff O 4
.