ML20044B715
| ML20044B715 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1980 |
| From: | Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290F683 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-A-80-066, SECY-A-80-66, NUDOCS 9303030191 | |
| Download: ML20044B715 (17) | |
Text
a,,
UNITED STATES
/)/' J
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20535
- 1 ADJU DICATOR'i 45 S'.ay 13, 1980
~
SECY-A-80-66 COMMISSIONER ACTION
)$M For:
The Commissioners YNp From:
!!artin G.
!!al sch Deputy General Counsel
Subject:
REVIEW OF DIPECTOR 'S DECISIO!! ON 2.206 h
REQUEST (PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS CO.)
-O DD-80-19 e
H Facility:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 1
Purpose:
To infc,rm the Conrission of a Director's d
Denial of a request for enforcement action at f
Salem which, r>'
Z Y
Review Time Expires:
May 27, 1980 (as extended).
Discussion:
On April 29, 1980 the Director ef the Of fice g6 of Nuclear Feactor Eegulation denied a request from Samuel E.
Donelson, Mayor of Lower Alloways Creek, to (1) stay the issuance of L
the operating license for Selem Unit 2 until i
the current hearing on the anendment to allow J
expansion of the spent fuel pool at Unit 1 is completed; and (2) stay die issuance of Unit 2's operating licerise and Unit l's operatinc license amendment pending the preparation of an environnental impact statenent on spent 1:tratr. in in:; i::d us CC J:d fuel storage at Salem or completion of a
]
in a:cordance v,ith th rc cda:n M !nigmation generic impact statement on spent fuel storage.
kt, exempti"~
FOR - p' gyg In so far as the petition recuests actier. on 1
the Unit I spent fuel pool, the Director q'
properly ruled that Mayor Donelson r.cy raise issues relating to that subject ir. the current j
amendment proceeding to which he is a carty.
W If not satisfied by the outcore of th a t proceeding, Mayor Donelson may seek Cen-4._
rnission review of the decision at th a t tine.
GILINSK92-436 PDR
l
?,
I.
i 2
5-
[
As the basis for his request, Mayor Donelson
{
challenges the NBC's compliance with NEPA in so far as its assessment of the environmental i
impacts of the storage of spent fuel at' Salem and nationwide is inadequate.
In response, the Director relies upen the Environmental Impact Appraisal for the spent fuel pool modifications at both units issued on January 15, 1979, which found the impacts insignifi-cant. 1/
In addition, the Commission issued a generic environmental impact statement i
l (EIS) on spent feel storage nationally in -
August, 1979, concluding that the planned expansion of spent fuel pools was environ-mentally acceptable.
Finally, in its current i
Rulemaking Proceeding on the Storage and Dispocal of Nuclear Waste, the Commission is i
evaluacing' the feasibility and' safety of long-term storage of nuclear waste, including spent fuel pools.
In its announcement of the rulemaking, the conmission ruled that licens-ing proceedings now underway would be subject to the outcome of the generic rulemaking.
In response to the instant petition, the Director i
went one step further by rulina that Obe i
result of that rulemaking will apply to all
- I reactor facilities, including those where no separate spent fuel proceeding has been held.,
l i
The petitioner also asserts daat "it would be arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable" to issue the operating license for Salem Unit 2 prior to completion of the hearing on a spent fuel pool of the same design at Unit 1.
In the Director's view, the Safety Evaluation j
Report prepared - for the spent fuel pools at Units I and 2 provides adequate support for l;
his conclusion that use of the modified pools will not_sndanger the public health and i
F y, f{
safety.
1/
10 CFR Si.5 provides that a negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal in support thereof nay satisfy HEPA requirements if the proposed action will not significantly-l af fect the quality of the human environnent.
I f
i
j b
i 1 8.-
3 l
4 j
1 f,
ll
{
i The Director plans to examine the outcome of the Unit 1 i
i proceeding and will take any further action I.
called for as a result of his examination at i
that time.
j i
j' I
t iL 8v {
i l
i J
/v, y e
i i
Reconmendations i
J.
s,
]f I}#*
I l!p C' I I. ' ',i'w' Mr.rtin G. Malrch li
-Deputy Gent rol Counsel 7
,3 Attachments:
q 1.
Petition from Mayor Donelson
{
Director's Cenial, dtd 4/29/80 2.
?
Comissioners' coments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by i
c.o.b. Tuesday, May 27, 1980.
Comission Staff Office co ments, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NLT :'
with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper May 19,1980, is of such a nature that it requires additional tire for analytical review and coment,;
the Comissioners and the Secretariat should be soprised of when coments r.ay be exoectd 1'
e.
~'
C a
DISTRIBUTIO.y Comissioners i
Comission Staff Offices j
Exec Dir for Operations l
Secretariat
)
P s
m 4
3--
+A T
I
'4
?
?
i
- b 0
b f
I i
'l i
.. e 5
- E 6
4 9
I ATTACHMENT 1 k
f]'.!
/ -'
.. s y
t
,f t
{
i g
O W
"* W SE'e-wr t
i k
k t
L 4
e 4
1 l
i l
1 t
- l
g,'
UNITED STATES OF NiERICA
([
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
V f
BEFORE -THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD s
'IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY'S
- SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT 42 PIQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OR MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE *
- ON THE OPERATING LICENSE FOR SALEM UNIT 12 A
1 2
)
TO:
Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1717 H. Street, N.W.
yl Washington, D.C.,
20555 1
1.
The Petitioner, Samuel E.
Donelson, is the I
....y.ayor.of the Township of Lower Alloways Creek, a municipal 1
{
unit of government in Salem County, N.J.,
and an intervenor in the matter of Public Service Electric & Gas Co., Salam s
P Nuclear Generating Station, Unit il - Docket 150-272.
The i.
aforementioned intervention involves the application by the
)
utility to place dense storage racks in the spent fuel 8
I
(
pool at Salem Unit il and similar racks in Salem Unit 12.
l The practical effect if the application for reracking is 2
t i
granted will be to increase spent fuel storage frcm 264 i
spent fuel asse bliss to 1,170 spent fuel assemblies.
If the operating license for Salem Unit (2 is granted the enlarged spent fuel pool will pemit 1,170 fuel assemblies e
d to be stored at Salam Unit #2.
5
\\,
\\
Oh f-Scossao
p..
2.
The Atomic Sefety & Licensing Board in tho-f r
(
Salem Unit' il proceedings - Docket 150-272 has prepounded various questions predicated on concerns of safety and healt
[{
The hearing is scheduled on April 28, 1980 and testimony u
. is to be submitted on the following question:
5th Question:
e.)
F
- In the event of a gross loss of water I
from the spent fuel storage pool at Salem
[
1, what would be the difference in-consequences between those occasioned by t
the pool with the expanded storage proposed
}
by the Licensee and these occasioned by the present pool?'
j 3.
The Petitioner verily belie,ves it would be j
arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable 'to issue the operatinrg i
j license for Salem Unit 62 which would permit the same 1
i i
enlarged spent fuel pool that is subject to an ongoing hearia I
at Salem Unit il prior to the' conclusion of the hearing on.
lt the Salem Unit il application for spent fuel storage
~
enlargement.
4.
The enlargement of the spent fuel poel at Sales j
Unit il and the potential long term - defacto storage of f
spent fuel at Salem Unit-il and 12, has never received 1
i 1
environmental analysis as required under the National 1
i Environmental Policy Act.
The Nuclear Regulatory Ccesission i
I has taken a position that enlargement of spent fuel storage capacity and storage of spent fuel at reactor sites through,
out the country does not require a NEPA type of analysis.
l I
r
- ] l 4
h Instead, negative declarations of environmental impacts f
N i i
f pursuant to the Code of Federal regulations have been l
l 1
~)
filed in each license procedure by the NRC.
The Petitioner s,
]
' contends the NRC has f ailed to comply with the National l
!d ;
Environmental Policy Act on the impacts of nationwide storagG d
i 1
I 2
of spent fuel at reactor sites and particularly at Salem s
i Unit il and 12.
The operating license for S,alen Unit #2 i
{$
f should net be issued until this National Environnental l
h Policy Act.nvironmental impact statement is prepared and i
w
} (
issued by t:
- N9C.
1 t
d 5.
10 CFR 2.200 permits any person to request
- t requirement.' or such other action has may be proper in T
respect to a license for a nuclear f acility.
ThePetitionerj has ~ attempted to raise,,this issue in;the matter of Township f of Lower Alloways Creek v. The United States Nuclear Pegula-E tory Co.vmission, Civil Action, #79-1129 and in the Spent Fuel Confidence Rulemaking Proceeding, ( PR-50,51 ( 4 4FR613 72).
i 3 )
The United States District Court Action was dismissed and at j
j the first prehearing conference in the waste confidence
? :
proceeding the Petitioner was advised by legal counsel for the NRC on the record that a NEPA type analysis of spent fues storage at reactor sites would not be undertaken by the d
NRC in that proceeding.
l 2
6.
This request specifies the following requests f
of actions:
i I
E
(
3 t
j g.
A I
A.
The operating license for Salem Unit j
4 f2 not'be issued until conclusion of
[
the hearing before the Atomic Safety a Licensing Board on Salem Unit 41,. Docket l
f'
$50 -272 is concluded, and B.
the operating license for~ salem Unit 42 g
not be issued and any amendment to the 3
1 l
license for Salem Unit il not be issued j
to permit enlargement of the spent. fuel.
pool until an environn,ntal impact statemenG
)
e for sto: age of spent fiJel at Salem Unit 'il i U
and Unit 92 pursuant to the National 1
3 Environmental Policy Act be completed by the NRC.
Alternatively, a generic f
environmental impact statement dealing with f
' storage of spent fuel as a national policy of temporary or pemanent storage of spent I
fuel which has been and is being accomplishe I
at nuclear power f acilities throughout the f
[
United States.
t f
t SAMUEL E. DCrid.XL
~
l DE
. SON, MAYOR i
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEK l
i SALIM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Dated:
March 25, 1980 c
i t
E f
~
E i
W UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
[b l
BEFORE THE ATCHIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD fj
.ag f
2 3
IN THE MATTER CF PUBLIC i
SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CCMPANY'S SALEM NUCIZAR NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CN fj GENERATING STATIM UNIT (2 BEHALF OF PETITIONER f:; j is SAMUEL E. DOELSW
- 1 9
3,*
fdn es
.k*[
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that Carl J. Valore, a merber of the firm of valore, McAllister, Aron, Westmoreland &
p)h f
Sc
- Vesper, P.A., 535 Tilton Road, Northfield, N.J.,
08225, membe t
of the bar of the State of New Jersey and. a_dm._i_tted to practiG s
i$
b6 fore 'the Unitied States Supremem Court and the' United 5
~
te A
District Cotirt, District of New Jersey, appears as Attorney i of Record for the Petiticner, Samuel E. Donelson, Mayor l
i of Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey.
3 E
+
.J Res full
- uhmitted,
,$.r.,
- )
ALORE i
- u
.flh
$9 March 25, 1980 d
E
.M,
.Cc E
Rh
I
' 6:n.
?i+5 3
.i.. :
t
.$ ;~
^*o s-1 r
- e hk yy.
t
.t 5 I
/
n
?
$,1f,I.
f' f ATTACK'4ENT 2
)
y $gl E
t i
c'
[
g).
is?
96 I
~,h sc
,4 4
.e
- (-
t d
t 4
e t
-,?
c (i
m 0
.?-.
I kkk fYi W?
age g,
g.
5:a;J A
c*
O *E 8
r b
In.n
- M76, j
E9 ps a
u.vestsaemata e'
g i
,8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
e g
s g
- 3 8
W ASHING TON, O. C. 20555 c
e
%,.... /
v APR 2 91080 t
i Mayer Samuel E. Donelson Lower Alloways Creek Township Municipal Building l
Hancock's Bridge, flew Jersey 08038 j
Dear Mayor Donelson:
~6 This letter is written in response to your petition, dated March 25, 1980, l
i requesting that I take certain actions with respect to the storage of spent fuel at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2.
Your petition y
has been considered under 10 CFR 2.205 of the Comission's regulations. For the reasons set forth in the enclosed ' Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.205' g
your request is hereby denied.
A copy of this decision will be placed in the Comission's Public Document s
Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C.
20555 and at the local public
(
documsr.t room for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 at the Salen Free Public Library,112 West Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08079. A ccpy will also be filed with the Secretary for the Comission's review in i
t accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c).
Sincerely, lp/Y w
[
(
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation d
Erclosure:
As stated i
v s
cc w/ enclosure:
Carl Valore, Jr., Esq.
r 535 Tilton Road Northfield, New Jersey 08225 Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Conner, Moore & Corber l
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
r9 Washington, D. C.
20006 w
t I
s f
?n LNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
?,
In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC Docket No. 50-311
& GAS COMPANY, et al.
~
50-272 (Salem Nuclear Benirating Station, (2.206) 4 Units 1 & 2)
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206_
h.
14 By petition dated March 25, 1980, Samuel E. Donelson, requested the Direct 0 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to:
- 1) st[y issuance of the operating license fo; Salem, Unit 2 until conclusion of a hearing currently being conducted on a 11-h,f cense amendment for Salem, Unit 1 to pemit expansion of the spent fuel pool storage capacity; 2) stay issuance of the operating license for Unit 2 and the g
license amendment for Unit 1 until an environmental impact. statement on storage; of spent fuel at Salem Units 1 & 2 is completed or until a generic environmenta
}
impact statement on the national policy of the temporary or pemanent storage o g
?
spent fuel at nuclest facilities is cccpleted. Mr. Donelson's petition has bee g
treated as a recuest for action under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Comission's regulati h
for the reasons set forth below, I have detemined Mr. Donelson's petition shoa b
[j be denied.
I l
As the basis for his request that environmental impact statements be pre pared, Mr. Donelson asserts that the enlargement of the spent fuel pool at SalG p#i and the potential long tem de facto storage of spent fuel at Salem 1 & 2 have M
received the environmental analysis, i.e., consideration in an environmental is (kf pact statement, which he feels is required under the National Environmental Pol
$(
8 g
'$w
s.
Act (NEPA). His central concern appears to be that the hRC has taken a posi a
that enlargement of spent fuel storage capa:ity and storage of spent fuel at reactor sites throughout the country does not require a NEPA type of analysisi 3
Petition at 2.
First, to the extent that Mr. Donelson's petition requests any action h.I with regard to the proposed expansion of the Salem Unit I spent fuel pool, it will not be considered here. The license mendment to pemit such expansion 1:
i currently the subject of a proceeding before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Bo p
)'-
of this Commission.
Mr. Donelson states that he is an intervenor in that pro--
}
ceeding.
Petition at 1.
Any questfor.s or issues he wishes to raise regarcing-the expansion of the Salem 1 spent fuel pool properly lie before that Board.
With regard to Mr. Donelson's central premise that the NRC has taken the
'l$; N position that enlargement of spent fuel pools throughout the country does not W
require a NEPA analysis, his assertion is inccrrect.
Ifgf In 1975, the Commission, recognizing a developing shortage of spent fuel hO storage capacity, announced its intentien to prepare a Generic Environmental T[Y Impact Statement on Handling and S orage of Light Water Power Reactor Fuel.
46 Fed. Rec. 42801 (September 16,1975).
In that notice the Commission recogni:ec that licensing actions intended to ame11 crate a possible shortage of spent fuel-storage capacity would take place during the tirne the generic EIS was n prepar tion. 40 Fed. Reg. 42802.
h in response to the Licensee's request to reedify and expand t'he spent fue!
Nk pools for Salem Units 1 & 2, the Staff, in accordance with the Commission's reg.
lations implementing NEPA's requirements (10 CPR Part 51), issued an Environment w
E6-E M:
Impact Appraisal (EIA) on January 15, 1979-An appraisal was prepared for the pro-posed licensing action of amending the Operating License No. DPR-70 for Salem Unit 1 to mocify the storage capacity of its spent fuel pool. However, recognizing that the Licensee had indicated it also intended te rake identical modifications to Salem 2, and in view of the fact that the Final Environmental Statement (FES) s for the Salem Station addressed both facilities, the Staff addressed the cumula-tive environnantal ir, pacts of the expansion of both spent fuel pools in the EIA.
The Staff concluded that proposed modific'ations would not significantly affect the quality of the bran envirentent and that there would be no significant en-viron. ental impact attributable to the modifications other than those which had already been predicted and described in the Comission's FES for the facility.M In August 1979, the Comission issued its generic EIS on spent fuel storage.U '
On the basis of that analysis, the Comission concluded that increasing the capa-cities of individual spent fuel storage pools was environmentally acceptable.M It is clear the Nuclear Regulatory Comission has addressed, both generically and for the Salem facility specifically, the environmental effects of expansion of the spent fuel pool. Mr. Donelson has not provided any information which y "Envirorcental Impact Appraisal by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to the Modification of the Spent Fuel Pools; Facility Operating Licen$e No. DPR-70 Construction Partnit No. CPPR-53 Public Service Electric
& Gas Company; Salem Nuclear Generating Stations Unit 1 Docket No. 50-272" at 27.
2f Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling & Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel, HUPIG-0575, Office of Nuclear Material Safety.7; and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, August 1979.
8 NUREG 0575, Vol.1. supra, at 8-1 to B-3.
would suggest a major change in facts which would warrant any further considera-tienofthisissue.N To the extent that Mr. Donelson's concern about "the potential long term de facto storage of spent fuel at Salem Unit 1 & 2", represents a concern about the ultimate disposal of the spent fuel, that concern is currently being addressed in the Coccission's Rulemaking Proceeding on the Storage and Disposal of Nuclear k'as te. See 44 Fed. Rg. 61372 (October 25, 1979).
The purpose of that proceed-ing is to:
(1) reassess [the cc -dssion's1 confidence that safe off-site disposal of radioactive waste from licensed facilities will be available; (2) determine when any such disposal or off-site storage will be available; (3) if disposal or off-site L
storage will not be available un".il after the expiration of the license of certain nuclear facilities, determine whether the wastes generated by those facilities can be safely stored on-site until such disposal is available.
The Co rnission, in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, also noted that licensing practices need not be altered during this proceeding nor should the issues being considered in the rvlemaking be addressed in individual licensing proceedings. All licensing proceedings currently underway, h: wever, would be subject to whatever final detemination is reached. M While the Cc=1ssion's limitation on consideration of these issues is addressed only to licensing pro-l ceedings, I can perceive no reason why a different course should be followed in consideration of a request for action under 10 CFR 2.206. Whatever rule is promulgated following the conclusion of the generic rulemaking proceeding will apply to all nuclear reactor facilities, including Salem 2. M 3;
Director's Decision Under 2.1J3 in Pubif e Service Company of Indiana, et al.
I ff (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 & 2, DD-79-21,10 NRC 7T77 719 (1979).
Sj 44 Fed. Reg. 61372, 61373.
f/
Id.
}
In sm: mary, the Comission has adequately addressed the environmental ir; acts of spent fuel storage at Salem Unit 2.
III Mr. Donelson also asserts that in view of the fact that a licensing board is currently conducting a hearing on the proposed expansion of the spent fuel pool at Salem Unit 1, which involves consideration of various questions of safety and health, it would be " arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable to issue the operating license for Salem Unit 2 which would pennit the same enlarged spent fuel pool... prior to the conclusion of the hearing on Salem Unit 1*.
Petition at 2.
The Co rnission Staff prepared a safety evaluation on the modifications pro-posed for the spent fuel pools at Salem Units 1 & 2.2 n the basis of that
~
O evaluation, the Staff concluded that there was reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation with an expanded spent fuel pool and that such activity can be conducted in ccepliance with the Comission's regulations.I That analysis is set forth in Section 9.4 and Appendix 0 to Supplement No. 4 to the Safety Evaluation Reoort for Salem Unit 2.U
_7f Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to the Modification of the Spent Fuel Storage Pool; Facility Operating License No. DpR-70, Public Service Electric & Gas Co., Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1. Docket No. 50-272 (January 15, 1979).
_8f Safety Evaluation Report, supra, at 3-1, 4-1.
J NUREG 0517. Supplement No. 4 to the Safety Evaluation Report by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CorTnission.
In the
--n Matter of Public Service Electric & Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2) Docket No. 50-311, April,1980.
i
The Staff has concluded that the modifications to the Salem Unit 2 spent
~
fuel pool are acceptable from a health and safety and an environmental stand-i point.
The Licensee has advised, however, that it will not need, and presently does not plan, to use the modi'*ed high density racks for storing spent fuel until the end of the first fuel cycle of Unit 2.
The NRC Staff will carefully examine the Comission's ultimate disposit,fon of the ongoing proceedings regarding the re-racking of the spent fuel pool at Salem, Unit 1.
If the Staff determines, on the basis of that examination, that further action is appropriate at the Unit 2 spent fuel pool, it will take such action.
Consequently, Mr. Danelson's request to stay the issuance of the operating license of Salem Unit 2 is denied.
A copy of this decisien will be placed in the Comission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street. H.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 and in the local Public Docu-i ment Room for the Sale:n Unit 2 facility located at Salem Free Public Library, 112 West Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08079. A copy of this decision will also
~
be filed with~the Secretary for review by the Comission in accordance with f
10 CFR 2.205(c) of the regulations of the Comission.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), this decision will constitute the final action of the Comission twenty l
(20) days after the date of issuance, unless the Comission on its own motion institutes the review of this decision within that time.
Af//f n
Harold R. Denton, Director i
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
i Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of April,1930.
i
,