ML19331A850
| ML19331A850 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1972 |
| From: | Woodard W NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007230885 | |
| Download: ML19331A850 (15) | |
Text
,' h d)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING A??EAL 3 CARD:
Sidney G. Kingsley, Chair:an Dr. John H.
3uck Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos.50-32s
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
)
~
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a proceeding on an application 'for construc- -
tion permits for two pressurized water nuclear power reactors, each with an initial power rating of 2452 thermal megawatts, to be located on the shore of the Tittabawassee River adjacent to the city limits of Midland, Michigan.
An atomic safety and licensing. board presiding over the hearing has referred to us, pursuant to 10 CFR 2. 7 30( f),
its order of March 10, 1972 concerning the extent to which all aspects of the fuel cycle "from the mining of uranius to the ulti= ate storage of high lev el was tes" are to be considered in this proceeding.
The referral raises th e question of the scope of the Commission's duties in conducting the environmental study required by S ection 10 2 ( 2) ( C) 480'07230 D I
~
G
2 of the National Environmental ?clicy Act, 42 U.S.C.
4 332( 2) (C).
The order _of the Ato=ic S af e:y and Licensing Board is that the environmental ef f ects of the mining, produc-tion and fabrication of nuclear' fuel and the handling of spent fuel, including its chemical reprocessing and waste storage, are at issue in this proceeding only with respect to:
(1) transportation of fuel elements from a fuel fabrication plant to the reactor site;
~ (2) transportation of spent fuel elements from the reactor site to a fuel reprocessing plant;
~
~~'
( 3)
' transportation of packaged radioactive material from the site to low level waste burial grounds; and (4) radioactive discharges at the site and any other environmental ef f ects directly associated with the handling and use of fuel at the site.
The Board's referral arises primarily from the con-tentions of several groups of intervenors.
The State of K ans as is particularly concerned with the possibility that certain wastes from nu;: lear power reactors in general might l
l b e stored in the State of Kansas, but it has associated I
itself generally with the objections of the intervenors.A i
I 1/
The possibility of underground s torage of nuclear wastes in abandoned salt mines in Kansas has been considered by the Commission, but other alternatives are now being explored.
See H.
Rept. No. 92-1066, 92d Cong. 2d. Sess. 11-12.
1 J
The 36ard's refe'rral is phrasec in tarms of the entire m.
tuel cycla, as are :,a e,n:ervenors, con:ancions.
iaa.aas:e position of the incarvenors is subs:an:ially similar cc cha; of the in:ervenors in M2::cr $f v2rt:n: Y z. F< 2 e ;ucl2;r
?cver Cre; ara: ion (L.;a: Xo. 50
.71,2 ch.ca vcs : t. c r. c. ; e...
of our memorandus and
- ar ci Jun. 5,
- 1972,
--A2C-The Ccar.issien's re3ulacory s caf f has filed a /alucinces-final datailed statament ca anvironmental considarc:icns after ::calac of cccccats Jrc: :he public,.
he Connel. an
~
Znvironmen:al Quali:y, and ochar Govarnman: agencies as required by che Co::issicr.'s ragulacions, 10 CFR-Far: 35, Appendi:t D.'l The Licensing Scard ass raccamended that, under :cs authority of 10 CFR 2.785(d), we refer i:s rulings to the Commiasion as raising novel questions of law and policy.
de declina to do so on the grounds on which we rested auca a decision in Matter of Verman: Yankee. Nuclear Fower Corporation,
--AEC--(June 6, 1972), and on the additicaal ground that, as to portions of the fuel cycle concerned with the reprocessing of irradiated nuclear fuel anc che' disposal of wastes after irradiation of fuel in a reac:or,
- he Commission has permitted that decisica to stand.
See 10 CFR 2.786.
2/
36 F.R.
180 71, S e p temb e r 9,_19 71.
See also 36 F.R.
15'1:
September 21, 19 71 ; -3 6 F.R. 1915 3, S ep t emb e r 30, 1971; 36 F.R.
21579, November 11, 1971; 36 F.R.
23900, De ccch s 16, _1971; 37 F.R.
364, January 20,.1972; 37 F.R.
- 9619, May.13, 1972; 37 F.R. 9 7 79, May -17, 1972.
4 bn the basis of our decision in Vermont Yankee and for the reasons expressed there, we hold that the order of the Licensing Board is affirmed as to the environmental effects of the handling of spent fuci, including chemical reprocessing and waste storage.
And we now extend that interpretation of the National Envircamental Policy Act to earlier stages of the fuel cycle.
The issue as to the part of the fuel cycle before the irradiation of fuel in a reactor raises the q u e s c i o'n
~
which we considered in Vermont Yankee:
the definition, for the purposes of the Environmental Policy Act-r of the
" project" or " action" of the agency under Section 102 of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
4332, and the Commission's regulations, 10 CFR 50, Appendix D.
Again the question is identification of the "maj or Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" (National Environmental Policy Act, Section 10 2 ( 2) ( C), 42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)) w e. ; c c this agency is now undertaking.
What this agency is undertaking is consideration of the issuance of permits to construct two individual power reactors.
The fuel to be used in these reactors will be of a common type:
an array of fuel rods each of which consists of uranium dioxide sealed la cylindrical zirconium alloy containers.
The uranium is mined as are which is later
S pulverized at uranium mills.
It is then dissolved by chemical means at procassing plants, and the dissolved uranium is recovered and calcined to yield uranium oxide powder.
This powder is refined at various plants to yield essentially pure uranium oxide.
By successive chemical processes, the oxide is converted to crystalline uranium fluoride.
The fluoride is converted to a gas, uranium hexafluoride.
The gas is enriched at gaseous diffusion
'~
plants: the diffusion process separa:es it into a product having a concentration of the isotope eranium-235 higher than in normal uranium, and a depleted f raction-having a uranium concentration lower than normal, The enriched uranium is converted by chemical processes to uranium dioxide (or some other solid compound), is prepared in an appropriate physical form.and is then elad in zirconium alloy (or stainless steel) to produce fuel elements.
After irradiation in a reactor, the fuel is reprocessed in a reprocessing plant by chemical solution of the fuel elements and the separation of useful uranium and plutonium for recycling for future use.
Under current practice these successive processes of mining, milling, refining, enrichment, conversion, f ab rication, irradiation,
fuel cycle.3/
and reprocessing constitute the
.3/ See Hogerton,-Atomic Fuel (U.S. Atomic Energy Commissica
,1967); Singleton, Sources of Nuclear Fuel (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 1965).
6
~
There are over 200 uranium mines in this country alone, some underground and some of the open pit type, as well as other sources of uranium.4/
Twenty mills are in operation or scheduled to go into operation during the current calendar year; four plants are engaged in-the conversica of feed materials to uranium hexafluoride, and there are competing foreign plants; thare are three-gaseous diffusion plants operated for the Commission; nine plants are engaded in later stages of processing, and fourteen plants
~~
cre engaged in f ab ricating nuclear fuel -5/
The facilities engaged in preparing f u e l f o r -us e in power reactors.are either operated or licensed'by the Commission.
From the time when the raw uranium ore is pulverized at the mill, uranium is source material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act, and its possession or other dealing with it is required tc be licensed under the Act. /
Enrichment in the gaseous diffusion plants /
6 7
4/
S tatistical Data of the Uranium Industry, January 1, 1972 (USAEC 1972, Report No. GJ0-100).
5/
The Nuclear Industry 1971 (USAIC Report No. WASH-ll74-71, p.p.
5, 18, 20, 23, 26-7, 39).
6/
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Secs. 11( ),(6 2), 42 USC 2014 ( z) ; 2092; 10 CFR 40.
An exemption for unrefined and unprocessed ore is based on the Commission's finding that there is no need to license it from the standpoint of either public health and safety or the national security.
S ee 10 CFR 40.4(h), _40.13(a) (b).
7/
The gaseous diffusion plants are owned by the Commission and operated for it by operating contractors.
See Hics tand and Florsheim, The Atomic Energy Co= mission Management Contract Concept, 29 7ed.
3.J. 67(1969).
9 7
creates special nuclear material as defined 'oy the Act, as to which such activities are also required :o be licensea.5 Facilities dealing with scurre asterici are thus opera:ec.
license,9/
under and 7 hose inf:1 red wit: special.uciaar material are licensed as ai har production facih:ies or as utilization facilities.1S When in Decemb er of 19 70 the Commission published amend-ments of Appendix 0 of ? art 3C of its regula:icns, implencating the Environr. ental Policy Act (35 F.R.
18 t 6 9, D ce=:er '4, 1970; ~
see also 35 F.R.
5463, April 2, 1970), it-defined the scopa of the procedures thus prescribed as extending To power reactors and fuel reprocessing plants (Appendix D, par.
1, ' _
35 F.R.
13473).
It also directed that compliance wach the Environmental Policy Act be extended to other facilities handling source material and special nuclear material in the various stages of the fuel cycle:
"?rocedures and measures similar to those described in the preceding paragraphs of this appendix will be followed in proceedings o th e r than those involving nuclear power reactors and fuel reprocessing plants when the Commission determines.that the proposed action is one significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The Commission has determined that such proceedings will ordinarily include proceedings for the issuance of the following 8/
Atomic Energy Act o f 19 5 4, Secs. 11 aa.,
53, 42_USC 2014-(as), 2073, 10 CFR 70.
9/
10/
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Sees. 11 v.,
11 cc.,
42 U.S.C.
2014(v), 2014 ( c e) ; 10 CFR 50. 2(a),
- 50. 2(m), 50.2(b).
8 types o f m'at erials licenses: (a) Licenses for possession and use of special nuclear material for fuel element f ab rica ttan, scrap recovery and conversion of uranium hexafluoride; (b) licenses for. possession and-use of =aurce material for uranium milling and production of uranium hexafluoride; and ( c) licenses authorizing commercial radioactive waste disposal by land b uric 1."
(Appendix D, 35 F.R.
18474, now par.
A. 14.)
The Commission soon acopted regulations explicitly requiring that an application for a license to process and use source material which will significantly affect the quality of the human environment be accompanied by an environmental report under Appendix D, imposing co=plidn~ce with Appencix D as a prerequisite for a license, and imposing similar requirements'for special nuclear material licenses.51 The consequence is that each significant' licensed activity at each successive stage of the fuel cycle requires a separate environmental statement complying with the Environmental Policy Act and with Appendix D.19/
2 There is no material dif ference between this reactor licensing proceeding and any other, and the intervenors do not appear to claim that there is.
What they assere is that, no twi ths t anding the exis ting elaborate pat tern of compliance with the mandate of the Environmental Policy Act at the various stages of the fuel cycle, it is the 11/ 10 CFR 40. 31( f), 40. 3 2(e), 10 CFR 7.21(f), 70.2i(a),
~
36 F.R.
12731, July 7, 1971.
12/ An exemption for unrefined and unprocessed ore is based on the Commission's findings that there is no-need to license it-from the standpoint of eitner public health and safety or the national securicy.
See 10 CFR 40.4(h), 40.13( a) (b).
~
9
~'
Commission's duty in this (and in every other) individual reactor licensing proceeding to take evidence upon and to consider the environmental consequences of every aspect of i
cycle.13/
the whole fuel The intervenors' suggested extension of the environ-mental study to uranium mining and tailings illustraces the extent of the remoteness and generality of what they contend must be analyzed in this proceeding, its lack of any specific relatica'to the project before us, and its departure from what we believe to be re, quired by the Environmental Policy Act.
The health aspects ni uranium mining and.the problem o i tailings have been the s ub j e c t of extensive consideration by Congress and by other public authorities.14/
We recognize of course that an agency's 13/
As the so-called Mapleton intervenors put it:
"In general, Maple ton believes that all adverse environmental effects and s ocial 'and economic costs associated with th e nuclear fuel cycle, to wit, mining, milling, feed material prepara:1on, fuel enrichment, fuel f ab rication, reactor opera-tion, transportation, fuel reprocessing, and ultimate high-level radioactive was te storage and disposal should be considered in this proceeding."
Counsel for the intervenor Environmental Defense Fund and for the intervenors Saginaw Valley Nuclear Study Group and others explicitly concur in such an all-embracing view o f the s tudy to be undertaken.
14/.See Hearings, Useuof Uranium Materials for Con-struction Purposes, October 23-29, 1971, and Summary Analysis of Hearings, 39-44, 12-13; see also P.L.92-314, Title II, approved June 16, 19 7 2 ; H. Rept. No. 92-1066, 92d Cong., 2d Sess.)
7-8, 47-49.
10 duty to conduct an ~environmen tal s tu:y is not _imited by s tatu tory authority,-5 /
1 its but the-un varsality of what the intervenors claim anc 1:s r;matana;s from en env roa-mental study of the specific pro;c:: before us -- the li:2: sing of the;a ts; raaetors
.s perfac:ly plain.
The intervenors avan seek to extend the environmental study in this proceeding to such subj ects as the production of aranium by means not presently developed, such as the liquid metal fast breeder reactor.16/
~~
The development of this type of reactor is in its early stages,_and is a nat ter of national policy 7/ which has 1'
no speciffe relation-ship to the subj ect matter of this proceeding.
The Commission has already published an environmental s tudy of a demonstration fast b reeder proj ect.- /
Undertaking 18 to weigh here its probable environmental consequences by the standards of the Environmental Policy Act and under 15/
See Natural Resources Defense Council v.
- Morton, 458 F.
2d 827, 834-5 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
16/
The Saginaw Valley intervenors argue: "Since the proposed plant may rely upon nuclear fuel created by a 3reeder, the risks and costs of the development and operation of 3reeders must be analyzed against any alleged or asserted benefite, if any, that may be gained by construction anc operation of the proposed Plant."
17,/
See Message from the President of the United S tates Transmitting a ?rogram to Insure an Adequate Supply of Clean Energy in the Future, June 4, 1971, 92d Cong.,
1st Sess., H. Doc. No.92-118.
18/
Environmental S tatement, Liquid Metal Fast 3reeder Reactor Demonstration Plant (April 1972, Report No.
WASH-1509).
11
~~
the procedures of Appendix D 'wo ul d 'o e an exercise in f utility which would be cuplicitous, premature anc lar beyond th e re as on ab le scope ai cha ;tecen: case.
That would 'e even more truc of seen a stucy of c her saans o
under davelopment.
We are deeply conscious :h a c, in enacting che Environ-mental Policy Act, Congress intended that the phrase "to the fullest extent possible" in Section 102 should not be understood as authorizing the av o id an'c e cf the cuties -
~~
imposed by that Section, and that Congress intended that an agency comply with the directives in Section 202 unless existing law.makes full compliance impossible'.
(See Conference Report, H.
Rept.91-765, 9-10).
But, as we pointed out in the Vermont Yankee case, our duties under the Environmental Policy Act are defined by the proposed
" project" or " action" before the agency.
We cannot accept that it was the purpose of Congress, in adopting the Environmental Policy Act, to inpose such a remote, con-jectural and multiplicitous requirement on this proceeding as the intervenors assert, and as an inference to do sc n
every reactor licensing proceeding.
There is no way of ascertaining in the present pro-ceeding what plants in the various earlier stages of.the fuel cycle will be engaged in one secge or another of cha
.1 produccion of. fuel fOr this plan" 20033 C her2.
There 10 no way.In which one.can ncw avan :anza:ively ica..:;i/,
over the. prospective lifa of :ha pr: posed ins:alla:::n spanning parhaps four dacacas, :n2 : pacific ninas, clils,
refining and convarsicn plan:2, sac fia ;cs:ica f ac;11:14; which wi3~. from t; e to :i=a ce involved in furnishing :h e fuel for these reactors.
In any case, we :snnet imi;cve ths: Ccagress la:ende that in the proceecings :cr
.ne l i c e n s,. n g o f e c c.~.
i.. ;, ; v i c c a A power reactor there ha conduc:ed an envircn:catal s:.dy of the presen: and future operations of an entire incustry.
including co= plex and perhaps unidentifiable opera:isnp performed by unidenti,able persons at unidenti., cole locations undar unidentificble conditions.
To embark on such a venture would plunge us into a labyrinth of indeterminacy.
What we regarded in Vermont Yankee as impossibic would here be enormously compounded.
We held in the Ver=on: Yankee case that, under the principles enunciated by the Court of Appeals for the Dis:rict of Columbia in Natural Resources Defense Council v.
Morton, 458 F.
2d 327 (1972), the Environmental Policy Acr is to be construed in the ligh t. o f reas on, 'and that the environmental study required by that Act for an individual power reactor does not extend to reprocessing
e
~
13 and the ultimato disposal of wastes.
-ie now conclude that,_ for the reasons expressed in the V e_rpp_n t f a aj e e c a:, e and in this'momorandun, the order of :Me
~.l e e.v a n ;
lo a rd Jac.o. March 10, 1972.snoulc
.e atfi:
/#
'thercioce 03DCA20:
.L ac
( 1)
Certification t'o the' Commission of t h o ' o r'c e r of~the Atomic Safety and Licensing, 3 card dated March' 10,,1972 is denied; (2)
Jh e order,of the Atocic Safety.ad Licensing Soard dated March 10, 1972 is affirmed.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICZNSING APPEAL BOARD 4
b[S/"A
/
s By
{'.'j [' ;b i" y}oocId f C5 nA Dated:
k)f4/n /f / M f.
/
1
kP I
e
- h)>,
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
~
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket
- o. 329,330 oc!st!ERS PnWER COMPANY
)
'idland Pt.m:, Units I and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF Si :'*:CE I hereby certify that copies cf MEM0PMDDI A::D OEJER dated July 19, 1972 in the captioned matter have been served on the followinz by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 20:h day of July 1972:
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman Richard G. Smith, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Smith & Brooker, P. C.
C >1umbia 'Jniversity School of Law 703 Washington Avenue 433 West ll6th Street, Box 38 Say City, Michigan 13706
- .cw York, ::ew York 10327 Harold P. Graves, Esq.
Dr. Clark Goodman Vice President and General Professor of Physics Counsel University of Houston John K. Restrick,_Esq.
3801 Cullen Boulevard Consumers Power Houston, Texas. 77004 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201.
Dr. David 3. Hall Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Mr. R. C. Youngdahl P. O. Box 1663 Senior Vice President Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Dr. Stuart G. Forbes Jackson, Michigan G9201 100 Tennessee Avenue, Apt. 37 Redlands, California 92373 Honorable Frank Olds, Chairman Midland County Board of Supervisors Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq.
623 St. Char'es Street David E. Kartalia, Esq.
Midland, Michigan 48640 Robert Newton, Esq.
Regulatory Staff Counsel Honorable Jerome Maslowski U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C.
20545 State of Michigan Seven Story Of fice Building Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
525 West Ottawa Jerome E. Sharfman, Esq.
Lansing, Michigan 48913 Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newman & Reis Honoratie Curtis G. Beck 1100 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C.
20036 State of Michigan Seven Story Office Building 525 West Ottawa Lansing, Michigan 489L3
50-329,330 page 2 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
William J. Ginster, Esq.
Suite NOS Merrill Building, Suite 4 109 North Dearborn Street Saginaw, Michigan 48602 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Anthony Z. Rotsman, Esq.
RFD No. 10, Mapleton Berlin, Poisman and Kessler Midland, Michigan 43650 1712 N S t ree t, N. W., 4th floor Washington, D. C.
20036 Irving Like, Esq.
Reilly, Like and Schneider James A. Kendall, Esq.
200 West Main Street Currie and '<endall Babylon, New York 11702 135 North Saginaw Road Midland, Michigan 48640 ilonorable William !!. Ward Assistant Attorney Cencral Milton R. Wessel, Esq.
State of Kansas J. Richard Sinclair, Esq.
Topeka, Katsas 66612 Allen Kezsbom, Esq.
Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Mr. Karl Berg, Director and Handler Gracc Dow Memorial Library 425 Park Avenue 1710 West St. Andrew Road New York, New York 10022 Midland, Michigan 48640 William A. Groening, Jr., Esq.
~
~
James N. O'Connor, Esq.
The Dow Chemical Company 2030 Dow Center Midland, Michigan 48640 s1!)AA' L<- 3 c
Offipf of the Se<(retag of the Commission cc:
Mr. Murphy Mr. Engelhardt ASLBP N. Brown Reg. Files
.