ML19344F421

Revised Pages 7-10 & 13 to Response in Opposition to Tx Pirg Class 9 Motion

ML19344F421
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	09/10/1980
From:	HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19344F420	List: ML19344F419 ML19344F421
References
NUDOCS 8009150256
Download: ML19344F421 (5)

Text

,.-

REVISED k)

.e The Statement of Interim Policy represents a change of. policy from the interim guidance provided by the Proposed Annex. The Policy Statement reflects concern regarding the impact of this change upon the progress of ongoing licensing proceedings and outlines the course to be followed by the l

Staff in preparing Class 9 accident analyses in future NEPA

reviews. In an attempt to minimize the disruptive poten-tial of the change in policy, the Commission established a carefully delineated timetable to govern the transition:

l

1) Only those environmental reports submitted on or after July 1, 1980 must include the 1/

~

requisite concideration of accidents.

l 2) Only those final environmental statements issued on or after June 13, 1980 must include i a consideration of accidents.-2/

3) The Staff is not normally required to initiate a consideration of accidents in ongoing pro-ceedings during the time between the issuance of the FES and the~ issuance of the initial 3/

decision unless special circumstances exist!

l L/. 45 Fed.~ Reg. at 40103.

2/' 45 Fed. Reg. at 40103. ,

3/ 4 5 " Fed. Reg. a's 4 0103.

1 t

1B 0 0f 915 0 N6dm i D _

i

m ~~ ,

REVISED e.

4) Absent "special circumstances," the Statement of Interim Policy cannot be used as the basis for reopening or expanding previous or ongoing 1/

~

proceedings.-

5) For those plants for which an FES has been issued at the construction permit stage but for which the operating license review stage has not been reached, the Staff is directed to take steps to identify those plants that might 2/

warrant early consideration.-

6) Plants for which an FES has been issued at the construction permit stage will be subject to an accident consideration at the operating license review stage based upon a consideration of Class 9 accidents in the Environmental Report prepared at the OL stage.-3/

1,/ 45 Fed. Reg. at 40103.

2,/ 45 Fed. Reg. at 4 0103.

jh/ 45 Fed. Reg. at 40103.

I i

l l

m

REVISED e

As can be seen, the Statement of Interim Policy estab-lishes a carefully drafted structure governing the timing of the consideration of Class 9 accidents. In specifying at what point Class 9 accidents will be addressed in ongoing NEPA reviews, it instructs the Staff to initiate the consideration of such acci-dents in a construction permit proceeding only "where a Final Environmental Impact Statement has not yet been issued" by the 1/

Staff.

~

Since the Staff has prepared and issued an FES for ACNGS, it need not consider Class 9 accidents'in this proceeding. Thus, the explicit direction contained in the Statement of Interim Policy provides a clear and straightforward basis for denying TexPirg's motion.

TexPirg suggests that the Statement of Interim Policy re-quires the Staff to consider Class 9 accidents unless a " complete" or " final" final environmental impact statement has been issued.

Such a suggestion is without support in the Staff's proposed 2/

Statement of Interim Policy- or in the Statement of Interim Policy itself. If the Commission had intended the issuance of an initial decision or a supplemental FES to constitute the cutoff point beyond which the Staff need not indertake a consideration of Class 9 accidents, it would have simply and explicitly so pro-vided. Instead, the commission chose to establish the issuance of

' the FES as the cutoff point.-3/

1/ 45'F'ed.. Reg. at'40103.

.2/ " Accident Considerations Under NEPA," SECY-80-131, March 11, 1980.

3/

~ '

An FES is.that document issued in response to comments received on:the' draft environmental' statement. A supplement to a FES is termed a " supplemental FES" and is a different document than the FES.--See 40.C.F.R. S 1502.9.

.m REVISED

- o, fa lc L i

i Moreover, the Statement of Interim Policy itself, be-lies the argument that the issuance of-an intial decision or a_ supplemental FES is the appropriate cutoff point. Often a supplemental.FES is not issued until late in a proceeding, and an. initial decision cannot be rendered until hearings are completed. The designation of either of these eventr, as the cutoff point would not provide for the nondisruptive transi-tion, desired by.the Commission, since the prepartition of a Class 9. accident analysis at either of these timos would pose the potential for a severe disruption of a proceeding. The l Staff estimates that:the initial preparation of an accident )

. analysis pursuant to the Statement of Interim Policy will

_- require four to six man-months.-1/ If the further delay caused by the admission of new. contentions regarding Class 9 accidents is taken into account, this proceeding could be substantially disrupted by the granting of.TexPirg's motion. The Commission obviously_ desired to avoid such a result and expressly so stated:

Thus, this change in policy is not to be construed as any lack of confidence in conclu-sions regarding the' environmental risks.of accidents' expressed in any previously issued

' Statements, nor, absent a showing of similar special circumstances, as a basis for opening, 1/ SECY-80-131; Enclosure 3, p.2 (March 11, 1980).

t

.w ~

REVISED t

a e the plant will escape such consideration, since the Staff will be obliged to consider Class 9 accidents in the supple-mental FES for the ACNGS operating license review based upon Applicant's amended Environmental Report.~1/ Thus, there is no compelling reason to order the Staff to consider Class 9 accidents at this stage of the Allens Creek proceedings.

C. NEPA Does Not Require a Consideration of Class 9 Accidents TexPirg claims that the FES for ACNGS will not L. An compliance with NEPA unless it contains a consideration of Class 9 accidents. TexPirg derives such a requirement from three sources:

(1) NEPA's " full disclosure" requirement which mandates the con-sideration of Class 9 accidents; (2) CEQ regulations which require a " worst case" analysis in environmental stataments; and (3) a letter from CEO Chairman Gus Speth, dated March 26, 1980, recommend-ing consideration of such accidents in the Commission's environ-mental impact statements.

1. Apparently, TexPirg believes that NEPA requires the Staff to consider Class 9 accidents even in those proceedings in which an FES has been issued prior to the effective date of the State-ment of Interim Policy. Clearly, this interpretation does not comport with that of the Commission, since the Statement of Interim Policy loes not authorize the Staff to consider Class 9 accidents in such r.rceedings. In fact, the Commission had considered substantially the same arguments at the time it adopted 1/ 45 Fe'd. Reg. at 40103.