ML20070N347

Proposed Findings of Fact.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20070N347
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	01/21/1983
From:	Pearigen M TENNESSEE, STATE OF
To:
References
NUDOCS 8301250482
Download: ML20070N347 (8)

Text

$hef UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '83 JM 24 A11:44 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD M' In the Matter of ]

]

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ]

ENERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT ]

CORPORATION TENNESSEE VALLEY ] Docket No. 50-537 AUTHORITY ]

]

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor ]

Plant) ]

[

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The State of Tennessee, by and through the Tennessee Attorney General, is participating in the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant (CRBRP) licensing proceedings as an " inter-ested state" pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.715. (See Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, March 31, 1982). (Position Paper of the Tennessee Attorney General, dated November 10, 1982, at 1, docketed as part of the Record) [ hereinafter referred to as Position Paper].

2. In Proj ect Mgmt. Corp. , (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-354, NRCl-76/10, the Appeal Board affirmed the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's denial (LBP-76-31, NRCI-76/8 153 (Aug.

26, 1976) as untimely of the petitions for leave to intervene of fourteen Tennessee counties and municipalities.

8301250482 030121 PDR ADOCK 05000537 G PDR ]g

O O

l In the course of its opinion, however, the Appeal Board recog-nized that "the interests of the late petitioners both can and will be represented by [the State)." NRCI-76/10, supra, at 393

& n.16. (Position Paper at 1-2).

3. The issue of socio-economic impacts was placed in

issue in these proceedings by Roane County's contention that

The socio-economic impact of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor on the area in which the Clinch River Breeder Reactor is to be located, is not ade-quately assessed in the application.

Impacts on schools and demands for local services during the construction of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor are under-stated in Chapters 8 and 11 of the applicant's environmental report.

(Petition to Intervene on Behalf of Roane County, Tennessee, Aug. 29, 19 75) . See NRCI-76/8, supra, at 157). (Position Paper at 2).

4. Although Roane County subsequently withdrew as a party (See Order of the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board, Dec.

, 13, 1976), the Appeal Board had previously addressed this event-uality in NRCI-76/10, supra at 392, n.L3, stating:

It is clear that, even if Roane County should withdraw from the pro-ceeding, the socio-economic impact of Clinch River construction and operation on neighboring communities will remain an issue-albeit not a contested issue except as to Oak Ridge proper - in the proceeding.

S e

The Draft Environmental Statement addresses that impact (Section 4.5) and we understand that the yet-to-be-issued Final Environmental Statement

. will also do so and in greater detail.

, And the Licensing Board has an indepen-dent obligation, of course, to consider the subject in the discharge of its NEPA responsibilities. Among other things, the Board must determine whether there is likely to be such impact and whether there are means at its disposal to require the applicants to take measures to lessen the burdens which will be imposed upon the local governments and the communities served by them.

5. The Attorney General submitted comments on the Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement which indicated the State's dissatisfaction with the adequacy.of the monitoring and mitigation proposal, Draft Supplement S 4.6.2(c) at 4-28, made by the NRC Staff. '(Supplement to Final Environmental Statement, App.N. at N-184 to N-186),

f

6. The State has not chosen to contest the Applicant's or the Staff's analysis of possible socio-economic impacts.

(Position Paper at 3; Tr. at 3346).

7. However, the Board finds,.as noted by the Attorney General, and uncontested by the Applicants or Staff,"that these impact forecasts are merely predictions of what might occur. The ,

state of the art is not such that accuracy can be guaranteed; these predictions are instead surrounded by a veil of uncertainty."

(Position Paper at 3).

,,a w - ,- ~-s-

.- - - - , , - + , , - . , , ,

.,- .g, - , - . -- , , . - - - - . . , , , . , - - m---, - -, - -

m

8. The Staff has also recognized that:

[1]ocal costs for additional public ser-vices needed by construction workers and other proj ect personnel and their fami-lies would probably not exceed the local i

benefits from the proj ect. The Staff's

. opinion is that the only reliable way to establish the balance between local costs and benefits caused by CRBRP construction is for a monitoring program to be established.

Draft Supp. S 4.6.2(c) at 4-28 and Supplement to Final Envir. Statement S 4. 6. 2(c) at 4-29. (Emphasis added) .

9. Funding for the CRBR has been approved by very close margins in recent years, (Position Paper at 5, n.1) , thus , term-ination of the CRBR is not so speculative that it can be ignored.

Rather, it is evident that the future of the CRBR hangs in pre-I carious balance in Congress and the prospect of a mid-construction termination of the project is not so farfetched that it can be ignored. Thus , any monitoring and mitigation program should extend to cover such an eventuality.

10. The Tennessee Attorney General has expressed concern that Applicants have not addressed the socio-economic effects of a possible mid-construction project shutdown or other premature plant closure. (Position Paper at 4-5; Supplement to Final Environmental Statement, App.N. at N-185). These concerns are warranted.

11. The Staff has proposed two license conditions l (Supplement to Final Environmental Statement, items 7(e) and (f) t

4 at vi.), as to which, the Board agrees, "will assure continuing Applicant responsibility for the identification, evaluation, and mitigation of any unanticipated impacts resulting from CRBR con-struction." (NRC Staff Response to Position Paper, at 9).

12. The Board would note, however, that the above items do not, by their terms, expressly apply to mitigation of impacts caused by premature CRBR construction termination, which, as the Board has found, supra, is not so speculative a possibility that it can be ignored. These irems should address this possibility.

Respectfully submitted, s

.J 7

• WV~

MICHAEL D. PEARIGEN Assistant Attorney General Q

450 James'Robertson Parkway Nashville, Tennessee

~

37219 (615) 741-7085

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )

ENERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT ) Docket No. 50-537 CORPORATION TENNESSEE VALLEY )

AUTHORITY )

)

)

(Clinch River Breeder )

Reactor Plant) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the following via expedited mail where indi-cated by an asterisk and otherwise via first-class U.S.

mail, postage prepaid on this the bMayofJanuary,1983:

Marshall Miller, Esq. George L. Edgar, Esq.

Chairman Frank K. Peterson, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Gregg A. Day, Esq.

l Board Thomas A. Schmutz, Esq.

t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Irvin A. Shapell, Esq.

' Commis s ion Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 4350 East West Highway 1800 M Street, N.W.

Bethesda, MD 20814 Washington, D.C.

j (2 copies) 20036 i

o

(

l c

• Gustave A. Linenberger, Esq. Herbert S. Sanger, Jr.,

. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory James F. Burger, Esq.

Commiss ion Lewis E. Wallace, Esq.

4350 East West Highway Edward J. Vigluicci,. Esq.

Bethesda, MD 20814 W. Walter LaRoche, Esq.

Office of General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue Knoxville, TN 37902

• Dr. Cadet H. Ha nd , J r . Warren E. Bergholz, Jr. ,

Director Esq.

Bodega Marine Laboratory Leon Silverstrom, Esq.

University of California L. Dow Davis, Esq.

P.O. Box 247 Michael D. Oldak, Esq.

Bodega Bay, California 94923 R. Tenney Johnson, Esq.

Office of General Counsel U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave.,

S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20585

• Scott W. Stucky, Chief Barbara A. Finamore, Esq.

Docketing and Service Section S. Jacob Scherr, Esq.

Office of the Secre tary Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Thomas Cochran Commiss ion Natural Resources Defense 1717 "H" S tree t, N.W. Council, Inc.

Washing ton, D.C. 20555 1725 Eye Street, N.W.

(3 copies) Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 Atomic Safety & Licensing Eldon V.C. Greenberg Appeal Board Panel Galloway & Greenberg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1725 Eye S tree t, N.W.

Commission Suite 601 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washing ton, D. C.- 20006 Atomic Safety & Licensing Joe H. Walker, Esq.

Board Attorney at.*.aw U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 401 Roane Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Harriman, TN 37748

, Daniel T. Swanson, Esq. Lawson McGhee Public Stuart A. Treby, Esq. Library Geary S. Mizuino 500 West Church Street Office of Executive Legal Knoxville, TN 37902 Director Maryland National Bank Bldg.

7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda , MD 20814 William E. Lantrip, Esq. Oak Ridge Public Library City Attorney Civic Center Municipal Building Oak Ridge, TN 37830 P.O. Box 1 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 William P. Snyder Dean R. Tousley U.S. Dept. of Energy Harmon & Weiss Office of Chief Counsel 1725 "I" Stree t, N.W.

Oak Ridge Operations Suite 506 P.O. Box "E" Washington, D.C. 20006 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Mr. Percy Brewing ton, Jr. ,

Acting Director Mr. Ken Yates Mr. Dick Baker CRBR Project Office Dept. of Energy Oak Ridge Operations P.O. Box U Oak Ridge, TN 37830 M

Assistant Attorney General Q ICHAEL'D. PBAR'IGEN Date: January,2/58, 198 3 Nashville, Tennessee