# Joint Appendix — United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Sholly > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_1552%3A03 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1981 - **Citation:** 451 U.S. 1016 ## Text JUL 31 1961 ALEXANU<:? L STEVAS, . Nos. 80-1640, 80-1656 In the Supreme Cuurt uf the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1980 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioners V. STEVEN SHOLLY, ET AL. METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL., Petitioners v. PEOPLE AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY, ET AL. ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO JHE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT JOINT APPENDIX PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI FILED MARCH 30, 1981 AND APRIL 2, 1981 CERTIORARI GRANTED MAY 26, 1981 In the Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1980 No. 80-1640 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioners Vv. STEVEN SHOLLY, ET AL. No. 80-1656 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL., Petitioners V. PEOPLE AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY, ET AL. ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Docket Entries (D.C. Cir. No. 80-1691) ......................... 1 Docket Entries (D.C. Cir. No. 80-1783))))))))) 8 Docket Entries (D.C. Cir. No. 80-1784) 15 10 C.F.R. Part 50, at 27 Fed. Reg. 5491 et seq. (June 9, 1962)—Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities—Technical Specifications 20 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Statement of Policy and Notice of Intent to Prepare a Program- matic Environmental Impact Statement, November 21, 1979, published 44 Fed. Reg. 67738 (1979) ......... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Order dated Feb- ruary 11, 1980, in Metropolitan Edison Co. et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), Dkt. No. 50-820 at 45 Fed. Reg. 11282 (1980) .................. Excerpts from NUREG-0482, Three Mile Island Nu- clear Station, Unit 2, Technical Specifications, Ap- pendix A to License No. DPR-7 333 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission “Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of CLJ-80-25 and Order for Temporary Modification of License,” dated June 26, 1980, in Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), Dkt. No. 50-320 Excerpt from General Public Utilities, Inc. “Planning Study for Containment Entry and Decontamination,” July 2, 1979, Sections 6. 0-6. 1.2 Excerpts from Three Mile Island Cleanup,“ Hearings before the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, November 9, 1979, Transcript pages 1-2, 5-7, F nn .... Excerpts from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Response to Letters from Senators Hart and sal son, January 2, 1980, pages 2-3 sis Excerpts from General Public Utilities, Inc.’s Response to Questions from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com- mission, January 4, 1980, page ..................22-...--..<--+- Excerpts from Report of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com- mission’s Special Task Force, “Evaluation and Clean- up Activities at Three Mile Island,” February 28, 1980, pages IV-5, IV-9, and IV-22nd!˖e.mn! eee 36 39 48 55 70 78 79 80 TABLE OF CONTENTS iii Page Excerpt from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Response to Questions from Senators Hart and Simp- ESCA SARE ̃ ¾ 0. 84 Excerpt from Transcript of Public Hearing Conducted by tke U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March D ¼ TTT. 85 Excerpt from Transcript of Public Hearing Conducted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March e ̃ TI.... 86 Excerpt from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff’s “Final Environmental Assessment for Decon- tamination of the Three Mile Island Unit 2, Reactor Building Atmosphere,” NUREG-0662, May, 1980, seen RAO rl 88 Memorandum from Donald P. bin to William M. Regan, Jr. of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff regarding telephone call from Dr. Bruce P. Dohrenwend, May 1, 1980 Ue De a 90 Excerpt from Transcript of Public Hearing Conducted by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 5, RLU NEE SS TM RO EOS 93 Excerpt from Transcript of Meeting of Advisory Com- mittee on Reactor Safety, June 10, 1980, pages 5-7.... 94 “Measurement of Strontium 90 Released in Venting of the TMI Unit 2 Containment Atmosphere: June 28- July 11, 1980,” by Joan Harvey, Ph. D., Richard Piccione, Ph. D., and Daniel Pisello, Ph. D., reprinted in Final Programmatic Environmental Impact State- ment related to decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from March 28, 1979, accident, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, March 1981, pp. A-178 to A-180 _ oo... 97 Order Granting Petition for a Writ of Certiorari a“ 80-1640) 109 Order Granting Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (No. 80-1656) 110 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (The opinion (Pet. App. la-27a) and judgment (id. at 47a-48a) of the court of appeals, the statement dis- senting from the denial of rehearing en banc (id. at 29a-46a), the June 12, 1980 “Memorandum and Order” of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (id. at 49a-Gla) and the Commission's June 12, 1980, “Order for Temporary Modification of License” (id. at 62a-67a) are printed as appendices to the petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 80-1640) COURT OF APPEALS DOCKET ENTRIES D.C. Cir. No. 80-1691 STEVEN SHOLLY, DONALD E. HOSSLER, PETITIONERS V. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, ET AL., and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL., INTERVENORS DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 06-23-80 Petitioners’ petition for review of an order of the NRC 06-24-80 Certified copy of petition for review was mailed to the NRC & Attorney General 6-24-80 Petitioners’ motion for injunctive, declaratory and other relief 6-24-80 Petitioners’ motion requesting expeditious consid- eration of petition for review of final NRC orders 6-24-80 Petitioners’ motion for argument and hearing on motions 6-25-80 Motion of Metropolitan Edison Company, et al. for leave to intervene 6-26-80 Respondent’s (USA) response to petitioners’ motion for injunction pending appeal 6-26-80 Respondent’s (NRC) opposition to petitioners’ mo- tion for injunction pending appeal (Volumes I and II of a blue book attached) 6-26-80 Certified Index to Record 6-26-80 Clerk’s order - granting the motion of Metropolitan Edison Company, et al. for leave to intervene (1) DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 6-27-80 Intervenor's opposition to motion for an injunction pendente Lite and other relief 6-27-80 Per Curiam order denying the motion for oral argu- ment and denying the motion for injunctive, declaratory and other relief, and granting motion for expeditious consideration. The certified index to record and briefs of the parties shall be filed under a schedule to be developed by the parties provided only that the final brief is filed no later than August 29, 1980; CJ Wright, Tamm (who did not participate) and MacKinnon, CJs 6-27-80 Petitioners’ petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc 6-27-80 Petitioners’ motion requesting expeditious consider- ation of petition for rehearing 6-27-80 Per Curiam order denying petitioners’ petition for rehearing; CJ Wright and MacKinnon, CJ 6-27-80 Per Curiam order, en banc, denying petitioners’ suggestion for rehearing en banc; CJ Wright; McGowan, Tamm, Robinson, MacKinnon, Robb, Wilkey, Wald, Mikva and Edwards, CJs 6-28-80 Petitioners’ motion to amend petition and motion for 5 day injunction pendente lite to allow oral argument on petitioners’ motion for an order of mandamus direct- ing the holding of public nuclear regulatory hearing, etc. 6-28-80 Petitioners’ formal demand for an adjudicatory hearing prior to venting gases from Three Mile Island Unit 2 6-28-80 Petitioners’ motion for 5 day TRO stopping the effectuation of the NRC’s two 6/12/80 orders until 7/3/80 at 5:00 PM 6-28-80 Per Curiam order denying petitioners’ motion to amend petition, etc; petitioners’ formal demand, etc; and petitioners’ motion for 5 days TRO, etc.; CJ Wright; Mac- Kinnon and Wilkey, Cs DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 7-2-80 Intervenor’s notice of filing of executed affidavit of Michael P. Morrell 07-16-80 Intervenor’s motion to consolidate Nos. 80-1691, 80-1783 & 80-1784 7-17-80 NRC's motion to consolidate Nos. 80-1691, 80-1783 & 80-1784 and opposition to request for emergency relief 7-28-80 Clerk's order consolidating Nos. 80-1691, 80-1783 and 80-1784 7-81-80 Clerk’s order that the following briefing schedule is approved : Petitioners main brief—8/1/80; Respondents’ brief— 20 days after petitioners’ brief; Intervenors’ brief—5 days after respondents’ brief; Reply brief—8/29/80 07-81-80 Petitioners’ brief 07-31-80 Appendix 07-31-80 Exhibit 08-08-80 Intervenors’ motion to dismiss petitions and to suspend briefing and oral argument schedule 08-15-80 Petitioners’ opposition to intervenors’ motion to dismiss and suspend briefing and oral argument schedule 08-18-80 NRC’s response to motion to dismiss 08-19-80 Clerk’s order granting intervenors’ motion to sus- pend briefing and oral argument and all briefing and oral argument are held in abeyance pending consideration by the Court on the pending motion to dismiss 08-20-80 Intervenors' reply to petitioners’ opposition to mo- tion to dismiss 08-20-80 Respondent’s (NRC) brief 08-21-80 Clerk’s order, sua sponte, that the order of 8/18/80 is vacated; the briefing will proceed on the previous schedule and oral argument will be heard on 9/8/80; Oral argument on intervenors’ motion to dismiss will also be heard on 9/8/80 DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 08-22-80 Respondent’s (US) motion for leave to file brief in typewritten form, pending printing 08-25-80 Clerk's order granting respondent’s (US) motion to file brief in typewritten form 08-25-80 Respondent’s (US) brief in typewritten form 08-25-80 Clerk’s order, sua sponte, that the following times are allotted for the oral argument of these cases: Peti- tioners—30 minutes; Respondents—30 minutes (Vacated 9-5-80) 08-26-80 Intervenors’ brief 08-26-80 Intervenors’ appendix 08-27-80 Respondent’s (NRC) brief 08-27-80 Respondent’s Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement—Lodged for convenience of Court 08-29-00 NRC’s motion for leave to file reply brief 08-29-80 Petitioners’ reply brief to respondents’ brief 08-29-80 Petitioners’ reply brief on mootness 09-02-80 NRC’s motion to re-allocate time allotted for oral argument 09-03-80 Petitioners’ opposition to NRC’s motion dated Au- gust 29, 1980 and September 2, 1980 09-04-80 Clerk’s order granting respondent’s motion for leave to file reply brief 09-04-80 Respondent’s reply brief 09-05-80 Clerk’s order that this Court’s order of August 25, 1980 is vacated and that the following times are allotted for the oral argument: Petitioners—30 minutes; NRC— 20 minutes; USA—20 minutes 09-08-80 Argued before CJ Wright, Mikva and Edwards, CJ’s DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 09-10-80 Respondent’s (USA) brief (memorandum) 11-19-80 Opinion Per Curiam 11-19-80 Judgment by the Court, that the Court declares that NRC acted unlawfully in refusing to hold a hearing in connection with requested Venting Order, all in ac- cordance with the opinion of this Court filed herein this date 12-01-80 Petitioners’ motion for award of attorneys’ fees 12-03-80 Petitioners’ bill of costs 12-05-80 Intervenors’ (Metropolitan Edison, et al.) motion for leave to file petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc with attached affidavit 12-09-80 Respondents’ opposition to raotion for award of at- torneys’ fees 12-10-80 NRC’s motion for leave to file response to petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc filed by Metropolitan Edison, et al. 12-10-86 NRC's motion for leave to file petition for rehear- ing out of time 12-10-80 NRC’s motion for leave to file motion for issuance of stay of mandate 12-11-80 Petitioner's motion to award costs as penalty for frivolous petition for rehearing 12-19-80 Intervenor’s (Public Utilities) opposition to peti- tioners’ motion to award costs 01-06-81 Per Curiam order that the Clerk is directed to file the petition for rehearing of the NRC; and that the Clerk is directed to file the petition for rehearing and sug- gestion for rehearing, en banc, of the Public Utilities; and that the Clerk is directed to file the NRC’s response to Public Utilities petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing, en banc; CJ Wright, Mikva and Edwards, CJ’s ; 6 DATE FILINGS PROCEEDINGS 01-06-81 NRC’s petition for rehearing—filed per above order 01-06-81 Intervenor’s (Public Utilities) petition for rehear- ing and suggestion for rehearing, en banc—filed per order of 1-6-81 01-06-81 NRC's Nsponse to intervenor’s (Public Utilities) petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing, en bance—filed per order of 1-6-81 61-06-81 Per Curiam order that the Clerk is directed to file the motion of the NRC for stay of mandate; and that the Clerk is directed to stay the issuance of this Court’s mandate through February 10, 1981; CJ Wright, Mikva and Edwards, CJ’s 91-06-81 NRC's motion to stay issuance of mandate—filed per above order 01-06-81 Petitioner's opposition to NRC’s motion to stay is- suance of mandate 02-08-81 NRC’s motion to extend stay of mandate 02-12-81 Per Curiam order granting NRC’s motion to stay mandate and Clerk is directed to stay issuance of man- date for a period of 30 days after disposition of the pending petition for rehearing and suggestion for re- hearing en banc; Wright, Mikva & Edwards, CJs 03-08-81 Per curiam order by this Court amending the opin- ion for the Court filed on 11/19/80 as follows: (see or- der for details). 08-04-81 ORDERED by the Court, en banc, that the sugges- tion for rehearing en banc of the Public Utilities is hereby denied. 03-04-81 Circuit Judge Tamm, MacKinnon, Robb and Wil- key would grant rehearing en banc. Their statement is attached (Opinion form). 08-04-81 Per Curiam order on consideration of the petitions for rehearing of the NRC and Public Utilities; the afore- said petitions are denied. DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 02-12-81 Intervenors' motion to stay issuance of mandate pending applications for certiorari 08-18-81 NRC's motion for further extension of stay of mandate 03-23-81 Per Curiam order that petitioners’ motion for an award of attorney’s fees is denied; and that petitioners’ motion to award costs as a penalty is denied; Wright, Mikva and Edwards, CJ’s 04-08-81 Notice from Clerk, SC that petition for writ of cer- tiorari was filed on 8/30/81 in SC No. 80-1640 04-06-81 Certified copy of notice from Clerk, Supreme Court that a petition for writ of certiorari was filed on March 80, 1981 in SC No. 80-1640 and is now pending 04-09-81 Per Curiam order that the motions to stay the issuance of mandate (filed by intervenors Metropolitan Edison Co., et al. and respondent) are granted and the Clerk is directed not to issue the mandate herein prior to May 5, 1981; CJ Wright, Mikva and Edwards, CJ’s 04-09-81 Notice from Clerk, Supreme Court that a petition for writ of certiorari was filed in SC No. 80-1656 on April 2, 1981 04-29-81 ORDERED, by the Court that the opinion filed on 11/19/80 is hereby amended as follows: (see order for details). 04-29-81 ORDERED, BY THE Court that the Statement on Denial of Rehearing En banc filed 3/4/81 is amended as follows: (see order for details). 06-08-81 Certified copy of order from Clerk, Supreme Court granting petition for writ of certiorari in SC No. 80-1640 on 05/26/81 06-08-81 Certified copy of order from Clerk, Supreme Court granting petition for writ of certiorari in SC No. 80-1656 on 06/26/81 8 COURT OF APPEALS DOCKET ENTRIES D.C. Cir. No. 80-1783 (Transferred from the Third Circuit) PEOPLE AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; JOHN AHEARNE; VICTOR GILINSKY; RICHARD T. KEN- NEDY; JOSEPH M. HENDRIE; and PETER A. BRADFORD, in their individual capacities; and the UNITED STATES, RESPONDENTS METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, and PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INTERVENORS DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 07-11-80 Original proceedings transferred from USCA for the Third Circuit (with 2 black binders) 07-11-80 Petitioner's motion for temporary stay or sus- pension of the operation of two 6/12/80 NRC orders pending the hearing on petitioner’s application for stay pending review, and for early hearing thereafter (filed in 8rd circuit) 07-11-80 Petitioner’s motion for stay (filed in 3rd Circuit) 07-11-80 Petitioner’s motion for an order setting aside the NRC’s two 6/12/80 findings (filed in 8rd Circuit) 07-11-80 Petitioner’s motion for an order setting aside the NRC’s 6/12/80 order making final its 6/12/80 order (filed in 3rd circuit) 07-11-80 Petitioner's motion for entry of declaratory judg- ment (filed in 8rd Circuit) DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 07-11-80 Petitioner’s motion for an order granting request for expedited briefing, oral argument, etc. (filed in 3rd Circuit) 07-11-80 Petitioner's motion for an order directing that briefs be submitted within 3 days and that hearing be held in 5 days (filed in 3rd Circuit) 07-16-80 Intervenor's motion to consolidate Nos. 80-1691, 80-1783 & 80-1784 07-17-80 NRC’s motion to consolidate Nos. 80-1691, 80-1783 & 80-1784 and opposition to request for emergency relief 07-17-80 Intervenor’s opposition to petitioner’s requests for emergency relief 07-28-80 Clerk’s order consolidating Nos. 80-1691, 80-1783 and 80-1784 07-31-80 Clerk’s order that the following brief schedule is approved: Petitioner’s main brief—on or before 8/1/80; Respondents’ brief—20 days after petitioners’ brief; In- tervenors’ brief—5 days after respondents’ brief; peti- tioners’ reply brief —8/29/80 07-31-80 15-Petitioners’ brief 07-31-80 7-appendix 07-31-80 4-Exhibits 08-08-80 4-Intervenors’ motion to dismiss petitions and to suspend briefing and oral argument schedule 08-15-80 4-Pelitioners' opposition to intervenors’ motion to dismiss and to suspend briefing and oral argument schedule 08-18-80 4-NRC’s response to motion to dismiss 08-19-80 Clerk’s order granting intervenors’ motion to sus- pend briefing and oral argument and all briefing and oral argument are held in abeyance pending consideration by the Court on the pending motion to dismiss (vacated 8/21/80 order) 10 DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 08-20-80 Intervenor’s reply to petitioners’ opposition to mo- tion to dismiss 08-20-80 Respondent’s (NRC) brief 08-21-80 Clerk’s order, sua sponte, that the order of 8/19/80 is vacated; The briefing will proceed on the previous schedule and oral argument will be heard on 9/8/80; Oral argument on intervenors’ motion to dismiss will also be heard on 9/8/80 08-22-80 Respondent’s (US) motion for leave to file type- written brief, pending printing 08-25-80 Clerk's order granting respondent’s (US) motion to file brief in typewritten form 08-25-80 7-Respondent’s (US) brief in typewritten form 08-25-80 Clerk’s order, sua sponte, that the following times are allotted for the oral argument of these cases: Peti- tions—30 minutes; Respondents—30 minutes. (Vacated per 9-5-80 order) 08-26-80 Intervenors’ brief 08-26-80 Intervenors’ appendix 08-27-80 Respondent’s (NRC) brief 08-27-80 Respondent’s Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement—Lodged for convenience of Court 08-29-80 NRC’s motion for leave to file reply brief 08-29-80 Petitioners’ reply brief to respondents’ brief 08-29-80 Petitioners’ reply brief on mootness 09-02-80 NRC’s motion to re-allocate time allotted for oral argument 09-08-80 Petitioners’ opposition to NRC’s motions dated August 29, 1980 and September 2, 1980 11 DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 09-04-80 Clerk’s order granting respondent’s motion for leave to file reply Lrief 09-04-80 Respondent’s reply brie* 09-05-80 Clerk’s order that this Court’s order of August 25, 1980 is vacated and that the following times are allotted for oral argument: Petitioners—30 minutes; NRC—20 minutes ; USA—20 minutes 09-08-80 Argued before CJ Wright, Mikva and Edwards, CJ’s 09-10-80 15-Respondent’s (USA) brief (memorandum) 11-19-80 Opinion Per Curiam 11-19-80 Judgment by the Court, that the Court declares that NRC acted unlawfully in refusing to hold a hearing in connection with requested Venting Order, all in ac- cordance with the opinion of this Court filed herein this date 12-01-80 Petitioners’ motion for award of attorneys’ fees 12-08-80 Petitioners’ bill of costs 12-05-80 Intervenors’ (Metropolitan Edison, et al.) motion for leave to file petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc with attached affidavit 12-09-80 Respondents’ opposition to motion for award of attorneys’ fees 12-10-80 NRC’s motion for leave to file response to petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc filed by Metropolitan Edison, et al. 12-10-80 NRC's motion for leave to file petition for rehear- ing out of time 12-10-80 NRC's motion for leave to file motion for issuance of stay of mandate 12-11-80 Petitioner’s motion to award sts as penalty for frivolous petition for rehearing 12 DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 12-19-80 Intervenor (Public Utilities) opposition to peti- tioners’ motion to award costs 01-06-81 Per Curiam order that the Clerk is directed to file the petition for rehearing of the NRC; and that the Clerk is directed to file the petition for rehearing and the sug- gestion for rehearing, en banc, of the Public Utilities; and that the Clerk is directed to file the NRC’s response to Public Utilities petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing, en banc: CJ Wright, Mikva and Edwards, CJ’s 01-06-81 NRC’s petition for rehearing filed per order of 01-06-81 01-06-81 Intervenor’s (Public Utilities) petition for rehear- ing and suggestion for rehearing, en banc—filed per or- der of 1-6-81 01-06-81 NRC's response to intervenor’s (Public Utilities) petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing, en banc, filed per order of 1-6-81 01-06-81 Per Curiam order that the Clerk is directed to file the motion of the NRC for stay of mandate; and that the Clerk is directed to stay the issuance of this Court’s mandate through February 10, 1981; CJ Wright, Mikva and Edwards, CJ’s 01-06-81 NRC’s motion to stay issuance of mandate—filed per above order 01-06-81 Petitioners’ opposition to NRC’s motion to stay issuance of mandate 02-08-81 NRC’s motion to extend stay of mandate 02-12-81 Per Curiam order granting NRC’s motion to stay mandate and Clerk is directed to stay issuance of man- date for a period of 30 days after disposition of the pending petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehear- ing en banc; Wright, Mikva & Edwards, CJs 13 DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 02-03-81 Per Curiam order by this Court amending the opinion for the Court filed on 11/19/80 as follows: (see order for details). 08-04-81 ORDERED by the Court, en banc, that the sugges- tion for rehearing en banc of the Public Utilities is hereby denied. 08-04-81 Circuit Judge Tamm, MacKinnon, Robb and Wilkey would grant rehearing en banc. Their statement is attached (Opinion). 03-04-81 Per Curiam order on consideration of the petitions for rehearing of the NRC and Public Utilities, the afore- said petitions are denied. 03-12-81 Intervenors’ motion to stay issuance of mandate pending application for writ of certiorari 08-18-81 NRC's motion for further extension of stay of mandate 08-23-81 Per Curiam order that petitiop ers“ motion for an award of attorney’s fees is denied; and that petitioners’ motion to award costs as a penalty is denied; Wright, Mikva and Edwards, CJ’s 04-03-81 Notification from Clerk, SC that petition for writ of certiorari was filed on 08/30/81 in SC No. 80-1640 04-06-81 Certified copy of notice from Clerk, Supreme Court that a petition for writ of certiorari was filed in SC No. 80-1640 on March 30, 1981 and is now pending 04-09-81 Per Curiam order that the motions to stay the is- suance of the mandate (filed by intervenors Metropolitan Edison Co., et al. and respondent) are granted and the Clerk is directed not to issue the mandate herein prior to May 5, 1981; CJ Wright, Mikva and Edwards, CJ’s 04-09-81 Notice from Clerk, Supreme Court that a petition for writ of certiorari was filed in SC No. 80-1656 on April 2, 1981 14 DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 04-29-81 ORDERED, by the Court that the Opinion filed on 11/19/80 is hereby amended as follows: (see order for details). 04-29-81 ORDERED, by the Court that the Statement on Denial of Rehearing En Banc filed 3/4/81 is amended as follows: (see order for details). 06-08-81 Certified copy of order from Clerk, Supreme Court granting petition for writ of certiorari in SC No. 80-1640 on 05/26/81 06-08-81 Certified copy of order from Clerk, Supreme Court granting petition for writ of certiorari in SC No. 80-1656 on 06/26/81 15 COURT OF APPEALS DOCKET ENTRIES D.C. Cir. No. 80-1784 (Transferred from the Third Circuit) IN RE: PEOPLE AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY, PETITIONER DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 07-11-80 Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus—trans- ferred from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 07-17-80 NRC’s motion to consolidate Nos. 80-1691, 80-1783, 80-1784 and opposition to request for emergency relief 07-23-80 Clerk’s order consolidating Nos. 80-1691, 80-1788 and 80-1784 07-81-80 Clerk’s order that the following briefing schedule is approved: Petitioners’ main brief—on or before 8/1/80; Respondents’ brief—20 days after petitioners’ brief; In- tervenors, brief—5 days after respondents’ brief; peti- tioners reply brief—8/29/80 07-31-80 Petitioners’ brief 07-31-80 Appendix 07-81-80 Exhibit 08-19-80 Clerk’s order granting intervenors’ motion to sus- pend briefing and oral arguments and all briefing and oral argument are held in abeyance pending considera- tion by the Court on the pending motion to dismiss (vacated 8/21/80 order) 08-20-80 4-Respondent’s (NRC) brief 08-21-80 Clerk’s order, sua sponte, that the order of 8/19/80 is vacated; The briefing will proceed on the previous schedule and oral argument will be heard on 9/8/80; Oral argument on intervenovs’ motion to dismiss will also be heard on 9/8/80 16 DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 08-22-80 4-Respondent’s (US) motion for leave to file type- writen brief, pending printing 08-25-80 Clerk’s order granting respondent’s (US) motion to file brief in typewritten form 08-25-80 Respondent’s (US) brief in typewritten form 08-25-80 Clerk’s order, sua sponte, that the following times are allotted for the ora! argument of these cases; Peti- tioners—30 minutes; Respondents—30 minutes (Vacates per 9-5-80 order) 08-27-80 Respondent’s (NRC) brief 08-27-80 Respondent’s Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement—Lodged for convenience of Court 08-29-80 NRC’s motion for leave to file reply brief 08-29-80 Petitioners’ reply brief to respondents’ brief 08-29-80 Petitioners’ reply brief on mootness 09-02-80 NRC’s motion to reallocate time for oral argument 09-03-80 Petitioners’ opposition to NRC’s motions filed Au- gust 29, 1980 and September 2, 1980 09-04-80 Clerk’s order granting respondent’s motion for leave to file reply brief 09-04-80 Respondent’s reply brief 09-05-80 Clerk’s order that this Court’s order of August 25, 1980 is vacated and that the following times are allotted for oral argument: Petitioners—30 minutes; NRC—20 minutes ; USA—20 minutes 09-08-80 Argued before CJ Wright, Mikva and Edwards, CJ's 09-10-80 15-Respondent’s (USA) brief (memorandum) 11-19-80 Opinion Per Curiam 17 DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 11-19-80 Judgment by this Court, that the Court declares that NRC acted unlawfully in refusing to hold a hearing in connection with requested Venting Order, all in ac- cordance with the opinion of this Court filed herein this date 12-01-80 Petitioners’ motion for award of attorneys’ fees 12-08-80 Petitioners’ bill of costs 12-05-80 Intervenors’ (Metropolitan Edison, et al.) motion for leave to file petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc with attached affidavit 12-09-80 Respondents’ opposition to motion for award of attorneys’ fees 12-10-80 NRC’s motion for leave to file response to petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc filed by Metropolitan Edison, et al. 12-10-80 NRC’s motion for leave to file petition for rehear- ing out of time 12-10-80 NRC’s motion for leave to file motion for issuance of stay of mandate 12-11-80 Petitioners’ motion for award of costs as penalty for frivolous petition for rehearing 12-19-80 4-Intervenor’s (Public Utilities) opposition to peti- tioners’ motion to award costs 01-06-81 Per Curiam order that the Clerk is directed to file the petition for rehearing of the NRC; and that the Clerk is directed to file the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing, en banc, of the Public Utilities; and that the Clerk is directed to file the NRC’s response to Public Utilities petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing, en banc; CJ Wright, Mikva and Edwards, Cl’s 01-06-81 NRC’s petition for rehearing filed per above order 18 DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 01-06-81 Intervenor’s (Public Utilities) petition for rehear- ing and suggestion for rehearing, en banc—filed per order of 1-6-81 01-06-81 4-NRC’s response to intervenor’s (Public Utilities) petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing, en banc—filed per order of 1-6-81 01-06-81 P Curiam order tnat the Clerk is directed to file motion ? the NRC for stay of mandate; and that the Clerk is directed to stay the issuance of this Court man- date through February 10, 1981; CJ Wright, Mikva and Edwards, CJ’s 01-06-81 NRC’s motion to stay issuance of mandate—filed per above order 01-06-81 Petitioners’ opposition to NRC’s motion to stay issuance of mandate — 02-03-81 NRC's motion to extend stay of mandate 02-12-81 Per Curiam order granting NRC’s motion to stay mandate and Clerk is directed to stay issuance of man- date for a period of 30 days after disposition of the pending petition for rehearing and suggestion for re- hearing en banc; Wright, Mikva & Edwards, CJs 8-8-81 Per curiam order by this Court amending the opinion for the Court filed on 11/19/80 as follows: (see order for details). 3-481 ORDERED by the Court, en banc, that the sug- gestion for rehearing en banc of the Public Utilities is hereby denied 8-4-81 Circuit Judges Tamm, MacKinnon, Robb and Wilkey would grant rehearing en banc. Their Statement is attached (Opinion). 8-4-81 Per Curiam order on consideration of the petitions for rehearing of the NRC and Public Utilities, the aforesaid petitions are denied. 19 DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS 03-12-81 Intervenors’ motion to stay issuance of mandate pending application for certiorari 03-18-81 NRC’s motion for further extension of stay of mandate 03-23-81 Per Curiam order that petitioners’ motion for an award of attorney’s fees is denied; and that petitioners’ motion to award costs as a penalty is denied; Wright, Mikva and Edwards, CJ’s 04-08-81 Notification from Clerk, SC that petition for writ of certiorari was filed in SC No. 80-1640 on 8/30/81 04-06-81 Certified copy of notice from Clerk, Supreme Court that a petition for writ of certiorari was filed in SC No. 80-1640 on March 30, 1981 and is now pending 04-09-81 Per Curiam order that the motions to stay the issuance of the mandate (filed by intervenors Metropoli- tan Edison Co., et al. and respondent) are granted and the Clerk is directed not to issue the mandate herein prior to May 5, 1981; CJ Wright, Mikva and Edwards, CJ’s 04-09-81 Notice from Clerk, Supreme Court that a petition for writ of certiorari was filed in SC No. 80-1656 on April 2, 1981 4-29-81 ORDERED, by the Court, that the opinion filed on 11/19/80 is hereby amended as follows: (see order for details). 4-29-81 ORDERED, by the Court, that the Statement on Denial of Rehearing En Banc filed 3/4/81 is amended as follows: (see order for details). 06-08-81 Certified copy of order from Clerk, Supreme Court granting petition for writ of certiorari in SC No. 80-1640 on 05/26/81 06-08-81 Certified copy of order from Clerk, Supreme Court granting petition for writ of certiorari in SC No. 80- 1656 on 05/26/81 20 TITLE 10—ATOMIC ENERGY Chapter I—Atomic Energy Commission PART 50—LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES Technical Specifications Statement of considerations. The following amend- ments are designed to clarify the extent to which licensees may make changes, and conduct tests and experiments, which are not specifically provided for in their facility licenses. The amendments reflect consideration of com- ments received following publication of an earlier draft of these amendments in the FEDERAL REGISTER on April 8, 1961. The amendments substantially revise § 50.36 Designation of technical specifications, add a new § 50.59 Authorization of changes, tests and experiments; and add on Appendix A, “Contents of Technical Specifica- tions”. The revisions for §§ 50.36 and 50.59 are based upon the provisions incorporated in License No. DPR-1 pursuant to the Commission’s Memorandum and Order dated November 2, 1960 (in the matter of General Elec- tric Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor, Docket No. 50-18). Basically the amendments provide that: (1) Certain significant design and operating limita- tions and procedures will be designated as technical spec- ifications which must be adhered to in the absence of specific authorization from the Commission. The tech- nical specifications will reflect in such form limits in design and procedures approved by the Commission. They will represent in essence those parameters which define the boundaries of licensed activity which the Commission has evaluated and approved from a safety standpoint. (2) The licensee may make changes in the facility, make changes in the procedures described in the hazards summary report, and conduct tests or experiments, unless the proposed change, test or experiment involves a change 21 in the technical specifications or “an unreviewed safety question”, as defined. Records of changes, tests and ex- periments which do not involve a change in the technical specifications or “an unreviewed safety question” must be kept and included in those made available for inspec- tion by authorized representatives of the Commission and summarized in reports to be periodically submitted to the Commission. (3) If a proposed change, test or experiment involves a change in the technical specifications or an unreviewed safety question, it may not be carried out unless author- ized by the Commission. The request for such authoriza- tion must include an appropriate hazards analysis. (4) Except as noted in paragraph (5), the Commis- sion may authorize any proposed change, test or experi- ment upon finding that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered. (5) With respect to power and testing reactors, the Commission may authorize a proposed change, test or experiment and a change in technical specifications upon determining that it does not present significant hazards considerations not previously described or implicit in the hazards summary report and upon finding that there is reasonable assurance that the public health and safety would not be endangered. If the proposed change in- volves significant hazards considerations not previously described or implicit in the hazards summary report, the proposed change, test or experiment must be referred to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for re- port and must be scheduled for public hearing. In conjunction with the adoption of these proposed amendments, the Commission plans to delegate app, opri- ate authority to the staff to determine whether proposed changes, tests and experiments involve a significant haz- ards considerations [sic] not described or implicit in the hazards summary report and to issue authorization for changes which the rules does not require be referred to the ACRS and to public hearing. All reports, requests, determinations and authoriza- tions will be made part of the public record of the li- censing proceedings. In order to provide guidance to licensees and appli- cants, the proposed amendments would add an Appendix A to Part 50 containing a list of matters which are typical of those the Commission would generally expect to be covered by technical specifications in operating licenses. It is emphasized, however, that considerable variation from the subjects listed in Appendix A may be warranted in any particular case. The wide varia- tions found in facility design and operation prevent any listing from being complete. Conversely, it is anticipated that some of the items listed would not be covered in specific operating licenses because of the nature of the particular design or proposed operation. The proposed amendments would apply to all reactor operating licenses. With respect to existing licenses which do not designate particular portions of the hazards summary report as “technical specifications”, the entire report would be designated as “technical specifications”. The proposed rules permit amendment of the license upon application by the licensee, or on the Commission’s own motion, to designate as “technica! specifications” appropriate portions of the hazards summary report. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Adminis- trative Procedures Act and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the following amendments are pub- lished as a document subject to codification, to be effective 80 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER. 1. Section 50.36 is amended to read as follows: § 50.86 Designations of technical specifications. (a) Each applicant for a license authorizing opera- tion of a production or utilization facility shall, and each applicant for a construction permit may, designate those provisions of his hazards summary report which he pro- 23 poses be incorporated as technical specifications in the license or construction permit. (b) Each license authorizing operation of a produc- tion or utilization facility of a type described in § 50.21 or § 50.22 will include technical specifications. The tech- nical specifications incorporated in a license will be de- signed to include those significant design features, operat- ing procedures and operating limitations which are con- sidered important in providing reasonable assurance that the facility will be constructed and operated without un- due hazard to public health and safety. Appendix A is provided as a guide to the type of matters which the Commission would generally expect to be covered by the technical specifications. The Commission may include technical specifications on such additional matters as the Commission finds appropriate to provide reasonable as- surance that the facility will be constructed and operated without undue hazard to public health and safety; and may omit items listed in Appendix A if such omission is consistent with the protection of the health and safety of the public. (e) This section shall not be deemed to modify the technical specifications included in any license issued prior to the effective date of this section. A license issued prior to the effective date of this section in which tech- nical specifications have not been designated, shall be deemed to include the entire hazards summary report as technical specifications. At the initiative of the Com- mission or the licensee, any license may be amended to include technical specifications of the scope and con- tent which would be required if a new license were being issued. 2. Add the folljowing new § 50.59: § 50.59 Authorization of changes, tests and experiments. (a) The holder of a license authorizing construction or operation of a production or utilization facility may (1) make changes in the facility as described in the 24 hazards summary report, (2) make changes in the pro- cedures as described in the hazards summary report, and (3) conduct tests or experiments not described in the hazards summary report, unless the proposed change, test or experiment involves a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unre- viewed safety question, as defined in paragraph (c) of this section. If the proposed change, test or experiment involves a change in the technical specifications or an unreviewed safety question, it shall not be carried out unless authorized by the Commission pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section. (b) The licensee shall maintain records of changes in the facility and of changes in procedures made without prior Commission approval pursuant to this section, to the extent that such changes constitute changes in the facility as described in the hazards summary report or constitute changes in procedures as described in the haz- ards summary report. The licensee shall also maintain records of tests and experiments carried out without prior Commission approval pursuant to this section. The licensee shall furnish annually to the Commission, or at such shorter intervals as may be specified in the license, a report containing a brief description of such changes, tests and experiments. (c) A proposed change, test or experiment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question if (1) the probability of occurrence of an accident previously analyzed in the hazards summary report may be in- creased; or (2) if consequences of an accident previously analyzed in the hazards summary report may be in- creased; or (3) if a possibility for a nuclear accident of a different type than any analyzed in the hazards sum- mary report may be created. (d) The licensee shall file a request for authorization of a change in technical specifications or of any change, test or experiment which requires authorization by the Commission pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. 25 The request shall include an appropriate hazards analy- sis. Each such request shall be filed with the Atomic Energy Commission, Attention: Director, Division of Licensing and Regulation. The licensee shall file three signed originals and 19 additional copies. (e) With respect to request for changes, tests or ex- periments or for changes in technical specifications for a facility of a type described in § 50.21 (b) or § 50.22, or a testing facility: (1) If the Commission determines that the proposed change, test or experiment presents significant hazards considerations not described or implicit in the hazards summary report it will refer the request to the Ad- visory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and will order a public hearing in accordance with applicable proce- dures. The Commission will promptly notify the licensee of any referrai to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (2) If the Commission determines that the proposed change, test or experiment does not present significant hazards considerations not described or implicit in the hazards summary report, it may authorize such change, test or experiment, without referral to the Advisory Com- mittee on Reactor Safeguards for a report and without a prior public hearing, upon finding that there is reason- able assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered. (f) With respect to requests for changes, tests or ex- periments or for changes in technical specifications for a production or utilization facility which is not of a type described in § 50.21 (b) or § 50.22 or a testing facility, the Commission may authorize the proposed change, test, or experiment upon finding that there is reasonable as- surance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered. (g) Any report or request for authorization submitted by a licensee, and any determination by the Commission, or authorization issued by the Commission, pursuant to 26 this section, will be made a part of the public record of the licensing proceeding. An authorization issued by the Commission will ineiude appropriate changes in the tech- nical specifications. 8. Add the following Appendix A: APPENDIX A—GUIDE TO CONTENTS OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR NUCLEAR REACTORS 1. This Appendix is a guide to matters which are typical of those the Commission would generally expect to be covered by technical specifications in operating li- censes for nuciear reactors. The generalized form of the guide results in inclusion of items not common to all reactors, and should be used in preparation of technical specifications for a particular facility only to the extent the matters listed are applicable. Conversely, technical specifications are expected to include items other than those listed if such matters could have an effect on the safety of operations comparable in significance to the effect of the following items: A. Site. 1. Physical location of the reactor plant. 2. Minimum distance to boundary of the exclusion area. 8. Principal activities carried on within the exclusion area. B. Containment. 1. Design pressure and maximum total leakage rate at design pressure of the containment vessel (including penetrations). 2. Overall dimensions, materials of construction and approximate free volume of containment barrier. 8. Principal types of containment vessel penetrations, and for each type, the approximate number and methods of closure and sealing (including piping, duct work, and access openings). 4. Shell maximum design pressure under minimum temperature conditions and methods of protection against the cold. 27 5. Frequency, pressure, and methods of testing of the containment vessel and penetrations. C. Primary coolant system. 1. General system speci- fications, and major primary system components in- cluding: (a) Number of loops. (b) Number of isolation and check valves per loop. (e) Number of steam generators per loop. (d) Method of coolant circulation and heat removal. (e) Number of pumps per loop. (f) Reactor coolant piping material and size. (g) Volume of primary coolant. 2. Principal reactor vessel design features including: (a) Temperature and pressure rating (design and operating). (b) Materials of construction (base metal and clad- ding). (c) Overall dimensions. (d) Types and locations of nozzle connections with re- spect to core. (e) Number of and types of penetrations. (f) Type of closure and any limiting features. 3. Primary coolant specifications: (a) Materials. (b) Method of pressurization. (e) Coolant chemistry limits. (d) Impurity limits. 4. Operating variables, including: (a) Minimum core inlet pressure. (b) Maximum and minimum flow rate through the core. (e) Maximum core exit bulk temperature. (d) Maximum heat up and cool down rates of major components. (e) Reactor vessel pressure limitations as a function of temperature and integrated neutron flux. 5. Principal design features of major components, in- cluding: (a) Primary heat exchanger type and rating. (b) Type of pump and pump drive. (e) Isolation valve type and modes of operation. (d) Check valve type and pressure design. 6. Materials and general configuration of primary sys- tem shielding. D. Primary plant auxiliary systems. 1. Principal de- sign features of major components including: (a) Relief valve types, minimum capacity, relief set- tings, points for pressure discharge. (b) Demineralizer type and product specifications. (c) Pressurizer type and surge capacity. (d) Coolant charging pump, number, charging rate and pressure design. (e) Core water injection and containment spray sys- tem pumps, number, capacity, injection rate and design pressure, (f) Reactor plant component cooling system pumps and heat exchanger, number, capacity and pressure de- sign. (g) Reactor plant control air design pressure, com- pressor type and rating. 2. Operating limitations, including: (a) Water chemistry. (b) Minimum reserve capacity of core water injection and containment spray systems. (e) Maximum and minimum ambient operating tem- perature of reactor room. (d) Minimum level of primary shield tank water level. E. Secondary coolant system. 1. General system de- sign specifications, including: (a) Coolant. (b) Maximum pressure, operating and design. (c) Maximum temperature, operating and design. (d) Coolant flow rate—maximum and minimum. (e) Minimum makeup coolant temperature. (f) Maximum differential temperature and pressure between primary and secondary systems. (g) Coolant chemistry limits. 2. Principal operating limitations established from considerations of nuclear safety, including: (a) Loading. (b) Turbine control. (e) Steam dumping or bypassing. (d) Power network interconnections. (e) Maximum radioactivity. F. Reactor core. 1. Principal core design features, including: (a) Moderator material. (b) Reflector material and thickness. (c) Fuel material, enrichment, and melting or boiling point. (d) Minimum number of fuel thermocouples, where provided as a safeguard. (e) Clad material and method of bonding. (f) Minimum number of clad thermocouples where provided as a safeguard. \g) Brief fuel element description including nominal ditaensions, overall and internal element supports and ori eing. (h) Maximum total mass of core and of fuel in the core. (i) Maximum number of fuel elements in the core. (j) Maximum fuel burnup (MWD). (k) Meximum or minimum void coefficient of reac- tivity, and maximum operating void fraction. (1) Temperature and pressure reactivity coefficients, ambient to operating. (m) Form of burnable poison and method of attach- ment. (n) Maximum and minimum reactivity worth of burn- able poison. (o) Brief description of source including minimum initial «trength and type. (p) Number of passes and flow direction through the core. 2. Principal design core temperatures and thermal characteristics, including: (a) Maximum thermal power. (b) Maximum local core heat flux (maximum with re- spect to all variables at rated power). (e) Minimum burnout safety factor (on heat flux) and correlation method used. (d) Maximum fuel surface and central temperatures at designated points. G. Control and safety systems. 1. Reactivity control system design and operating limits, including: (a) Number installed and minimum number of op- erative control elements and drives. (b) Principal design features including control ele- ment materials, control rod guides, minimum operating clearances, use of followers, limits on allowable operating temperatures and pressures and rod coupling method. (c) Maximum reactivity worth of automatic control systems and of entire control systems for both operating temperatures (hot) and cold plant conditions. (d) Maximum reactivity worth of any individual con- trol system component or gang, for hot and cold con- ditions. (e) Minimum shutdown control margin for hot and cold conditions. (f) Minimum number of least reactive control ele- ments corresponding to minimum shutdown margin. (g) Maximum reactivity addition rate by control ele- ments. 31 (h) Maximum excess reactivity above cold clean eriti- cal. (i) Automatic modes of reactivity insertion and shut- down and maximum total scram delay time and safety element insertion time. (j) Type, minimum reactivity worth, conditions of use, and principal design features of auxiliary poison systems. (k) Rod position indication method and minimum ac- curacy limits. (1) Minimum worth of safety control elements cocked during startup, fuel loading and other core manipula- tions. (m) Minimum reactor power for automatic control. 2. Nuclear instrumentation system design and oper- ating limits including: (a) Brief description of the system including ranges, types, and sensitivities of instrument channels and de- tectors, their degree of independence of operation, and use of redundancy or coincidence circuitry. (b) Mirimum number and ranges of operative level safety and period safety channels during startup and power operation. (c) Setting of scram points. (d) Automatic control system inputs. 8. Characteristics of safety control systems auxiliary to the reactivity control and nuclear instrumentation sys- tems including: (a) Emergency power supply availability, and total loading with respect to minimum capacity. (b) Devices which are activated on automatic build- ing closure. (c) Type, functions, and conditions of use of inter- locks. (d) Items which may be bypassed, method of bypass- ing, and conditions under which bypassing will be used. 32 (e) Conditions which would automatically cause re- actor scram or building closure and activation points for these actions. (f) Devices causing scram or partial insertion of rods and scram point settings. (g) Instrumentation primarily or solely provided for analysis of conditions following an accident. H. Monitoring systems. General design features and specific operating limits, including: 1. Stack activity discharge rate averaged over a year and minimum number and sensitivity of operating moni- tors. 2. Maximum instantaneous stack activity discharge rate. 3. Fuel element failure detection equipment sensitiv- ity, localization and sampling interval (if not continu- ous). 4. Minimum number and sensitivity of monitors for radiation level detection in accessible areas. 5. Minimum number and sensitivity of monitors of liquid radioactive effluents including primary coolant leak detectors. 6. Criticality monitors in fuel storage areas. I. Waste disposal systems. Design and operating fea- tures including: 1. Principal features of equipment for removal of gases or other materials from primary and secondary coolant, moderator, reflector, or shield; equipment ca- pacity and mode of use (continuous or intermittent). 2. Stack height. 3. Minimum waste holdup capacities, storage and processing methods and maximum radioactivity inven- tories during normal operations, maintenance and refuel- ing. J. Ventilation systems. 1. Brief description of prin- cipal features of systems providing safeguards functions, including: 33 (a) Fans used, capacities and approximate numbers. (b) Direction of atmospheric pressure gradient across walls, doorways, and other important barriers of the facility and minimum atmospheric pressure differentials across principal barriers where pertinent to contamina- tion control. (c) Minimum ventilation rates where applicable. (d) Provisions for ventilation system closure. (e) Provisions for relief of positive or negative pres- sures within the enclosed areas upon ventilating system closure. (f) Location of ventilation system inlets and outlets. (g) Location, type, and procedures for maintenance of filtering or other air cleaning systems. K. Emergency cooling and decay heat removal sys- tems. 1. Principal system design features. 2. Minimum capacity of emergency heat exchangers. 3. Type, minimum coolant supply, flow rate, and power requirement of emergency cooling systems. 4. Total cooling time made available by emergency cooling systems. 5. Conditions which would automatically cause emer- gency actions. 6. Source and availability of emergency power. L. Fuel storage. 1. Brief descriptions of physical means by which fuel elements are to be transported with- in the facility, and conditions under which they are stored. 2. Amount and arrangement (spacing) of special nu- clear material to be stored. 8. Basic method or methods by which nuclear safety against inadvertent criticality is assured (mass, geome- try). 4. Procedural limitations on quantities to be removed or inserted in storage area at any one time. 5. Means of providing personnel protections against radiation hazards from spent fuel. 34 M. Experimental facilities including. 1. Brief descrip- tion of principal design features of experimental facili- ties. 2. Maximum excess reactivity allowed for experiments. 8. Maximum individual reactivity increase to be al- lowed for any experiment or experimental facility by flooding, draining, poison removal, fueled experiment ad- dition, or other method. 4. For each loop or other experimental facility: (a) Types of sensors for process variables, output ac- tions, and redundant or coincidence provisions. (b) Minimum cooling capacity to each experiment, method of cooling, and emergency cooling provisions. (e) General geometry, minimum pressure resistance, and maximum leak rate of experiment containment bar- riers. (d) Significant controls, signals, or other safety mech- anisms by which experiments or experimenters (manu- ally or automatically) may shutdown the reactor. (e) Types of experiments to be conducted and limits on experimental programs, considering such effects as corrosion, explosion, and instrument shadowing. 5. Argon and other activation product limitations. N. Administrative and procedural safeguards. 1. Brief coverage of the following: . (a) The availability of detailed written procedures for operations that might affect nuclear safety and for emergencies. (b) The manner whereby operating procedures are re- viewed and approved for use. 2. Brief description of the following controls proce- dures and tests: : (a) Administrative organization and controls to the extent that these have potential effect on safety. (b) General operating principles having a potential effect on safety, including those for initial startup, rou- tine operation, maintenance, refueling, conduct and oper- 35 ation of experiments, power escalation from criticality to full design power, and emergencies; minimum staffing requirements for such operations where applicable. (e) Posteritical schedule of maintenance and recali- brating tests of safety system components, monitors, and other equipment having a potential safeguards function including items such as reactor control instruments, con- trol rod systems, effluent release monitors, personnel pro- tection monitors, portable detectors, building leakage and emergency systems. (d) Procedures for the review within the licensee’s organization of proposed modifications in the facility or in operating procedures, and of the design and conduct of experiments. (Sec. 103, 68 Stat. 936, sec. 104, 68 Stat. 937, sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, sec. 182, 68 Stat. 953, sec. 183, 68 Stat. 954; 42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233) Dated at Germantown, Md., this 31st day of May 1962. For the Atomic Energy Commission WooprorD B. McCoo., Secretary. [F.R. Doc. 62-5615; Filed, June 8, 1962; 8:45 a.m.] 36 STATEMENT OF POLICY AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE A PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION: Statement of Policy SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has decided to prepare a programmatic environmental im- pact statement on the decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from the March 28, 1979 accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2. For some time the Commission’s staff has been moving in this direction. In the Commission’s judgment an overall study of the decontamination and disposal process will assist the Com- mission in carrying out its regulatory responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to protect the public health and safety as decontamination progresses. It will also be in keeping with the purposes of the National Environ- mental Policy Act to engage the public in the Commis- sion’s decision-making process, and to focus on environ- mental issues and alternatives before commitments to specific clean-up choices are made. Additionally, in light of the extraordinary nature of this action and the ex- pressed interest of the President’s Council on Environ- mental Quality in the TMI-2 clean-up, the Commission intends to co-ordinate its actions with CEQ. In particu- lar, before determining the scope of the programmatic environmental impact statement the Commission will consult with CEQ. The Commission recognizes that there are small areas o“ uncertainty regarding the clean-up operation. For exam- ple, the precise condition of the reactor core is not known at this time and cannot be known until the containment has been entered and the reactor vessel has been opened. For this reason, it is unrealistic to expect that the pro- grammatic impact statement will serve as a blueprint, detailing each and every step to be taken over the com- 87 ing months and years with their likely impacts. That the planned programmatic statement inevitably will have gaps and will not be a complete guide for all future ac- tions does not invalidate its usefulness as a planning tool. As more information becomes available it will be incorporated into the decision-making process, and where appropriate supplements to the programmatic environ- mental impact statement will be issued. As the decon- tamination of TMI-2 progresses the Commission will make any new information available to the public and to the extent necessary will also prepare separate environ- mental statements or assessments for individual portions of the overall clean-up effort. The development of a programmatic impact statement will not preclude prompt Commission action when needed. The Commission does recognize, however, that as with its Epicor-II approval action, any action taken in the absence of an overall impact statement will lead to argu- ments that there has been an inadequate environmental analysis, even where the Commission’s action itself is supported by an environmental assessment. As in set- tling upon the scope of the programmatic impact state- ment, CEQ can lend assistance here. For example should the Commission before completing its programmatic statement decide that it is in the best interest of the public health and safety to decontaminate the high level waste water now in the containment building, or to purge that building of its radioactive gases, the Commission will consider CEQ’s advice as to the Commission’s NEPA responsibilities. Moreover, as stated in the Commission’s May 25 statement, any action of this kind will not be taken until it has undergone an environmental review, and furthermore with opportunity for public comment provided. However, consistent with our May 25 Statement, we recognize that there may be emergency situations, not now foreseen, which should they occur would require 38 rapid action. To the extent practicable the Commission will consult with CEQ in these situations as well. With the help of the public’s comments on our proposals we intend to assure, pursuant to NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act, that the clean-up of TMI-2 is done con- sistently with the public health and safety, and with awareness of the choices ahead. We are directing our staff to include in the programmatic environmental im- pact statement. on the decontamination and disposal of TMI-2 wastes an overali description of the planned ac- tivities and a schedule for their completion along with a discussion of alternatives considered and the rationale for choices made. We are also directing our staff to keep us advised of their progress in these matters. Dated at Washington, D.C. this 21st day of November, 1979. For the Commission /s/ Samuel J. Chilk SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Commission 39 [Docket No. 50-320] Metropolitan Edison Co., et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2) ; Order I Metropolitan Edison Company, Jersey Central Power and Light Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company (collectively, the licensee) are the holders of Facility Operating License No. DPR-73, which had authorized operation of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2) at power levels up to 2772 megawatts thermal. By Order for Modification of License dated July 20, 1979, the licensee’s authority to operate the facility was suspended and the licensee’s authority was limited to maintenance of the facility in the present shutdown cool- ing mode (44 FR 45271). The facility, which is located in Londonderry Township, Dauphin County, Pennsyl- vania, is a pressurized water reactor used for the com- mercial generation of electricity. II On March 28, 1979, an accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 resulted in substantial damage to the reactor core and to certain reactor systems and components. The facility is not capable of normal operation and is in a shutdown condition with fuel in the core. Although many systems were damaged or have subsequently failed, the facility is being maintained in a safe and stable cooling condition. The July 20, 1979 Order directed that the licensee maintain the facility in a shutdown condition in accordance with approved op- erating and contingency procedures with decay heat being removed by natural convection circulation of primary coolant through the core with heat rejection through the “A” steam generator. Some of the systems and components currently being used to maintain the facility in its present mode of op- 40 eration were not originally included in the facility’s Technical Specifications. In fact, in the present post- accident status of the facility, the license itself does not include explicit provisions or Technical Specifications for assuring the continued maintenance of the plant in a safe, stable condition or for coping with foreseeable off- normal conditions. Moreover, certain portions of the facility’s operating license relate to or govern power operation of the facility, the authority for which was suspended by the Order of July 20, 1979. These pro- visions are now simply inapplicable to the facility in its present post-accident condition. Consequently, the fa- cility’s operating license’ should be modified so as to: (1) Define operating parameters for the current safe, stable, long-term cooling mode for the facility (defined as the recovery mode), and delete all other permissible operating modes so as to assure that operation of the facility in other than the stable shutdown condition of the recovery mode is precluded: (2) Impose functional, operability, redundancy and surveillance requirements as well as safety limits and limiting conditions with regard to those structures, sys- tems, equipment and components necessary to maintain the facility in the current safe, stable shutdown condi- tion and to cope with foreseeable off-normal conditions. (3) Prohibit venting or purging or other treatment of the reactor building atmosphere, the discharge of water decontaminated by the EPICOR-II system, and the 1 Tho existing Appendix B Technical Specifications imposed for the protection of the environment upon issuance of the TMI-2 oper- ating license would be unchanged and would remain in effect, except that Appendix B Technical Specifications 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3, which identify the licensee’s pre-accident management organization for activities addressed by the Appendix B Technical Specifications, are deleted since those requirements will now be performed in accordance with proposed Technical Specifications 6.1, 6.2 and 6.5 which will set forth the current requirements for the licensee’s management organization for all licensed activities. 41 treatment and disposal of high-level radioactively con- taminated water in the reactor building, until each of these activities has been approved by the NRC, consistent with the Commission’s Statement of Policy and Notice of Intent to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Im- pact Statement (44 FR 67738). III For the above reasons, the Facility Operating License has been reviewed and a new set of Technical Specifica- tions has been developed to account for the present con- dition of the facility and to assure the continued main- tenance of the current safe, stable, long-term cooling con- dition of the facility. The Staff’s safety assessment ad- dressing the requirements of the proposed Technical Specifications is set forth in the concurrently-issued Safety Evaluation. The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has also per- formed an environmental evaluation of the requirements that would be imposed by these proposed Technical Speci- fications as reflected in the Environmental Assessment, also issued concurrently. It vas determined that since the limits on effluent releases and discharges contained in Appendix B to the Facility Operating License are not being changed and remain in effect, and the proposed Technical Specifications attached to this Order do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level that the proposed Tech- nical Specifications will not result in any significant en- vironmental impact. Accordingly, a negative declara- tion is being issued concurrently pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5 (e) (1) of the Commission’s regulations. Proposed Technical Specification 6.8.1, regarding Ad- ministrative Controls, requires that written procedures implementing certain requirements of the modified Tech- nical Specifications be prepared by the licensee. Pro- _ posed Technical Specification 6.8.2 provides that these written procedures are to be svbmitted to, and are sub- ject to approval by the NRC prior to implementation. Since these written procedures will implement certain re- quirements of the proposed Technical Specifications, some period of time will be required after its effective date for the licensee to prepare the appropriate written proce- dures. Based on discussions with the licensee and an evaluation of the scope of the written procedures re- quired, it has been determined that a period of 30 days from the date of this Order will be sufficient for the licensee’s preparation of the written procedures required by proposed Technical Specification 6.8.1. Incorporation into the license of the proposed Tech- nical Specifications would both impose necessary require- ments on the licensee to reflect the present condition of the facility and to assure continued maintenance of the current safe, stable, long-term cooling condition of the facility, and facilitate the Commission’s enforcement pro- gram by providing a single and readily available com- pilation of enforceable requirements. For these reasons, it is proposed that the license be amended so as to in- clude the Technical Specifications set forth in Attach- ment 1 hereto. The formal license amendment incor- porating these proposed Technical Specifications will be- come effective on the expiration of the period specified below, during which the licensee or any other person whose interest may be affected may request a hearing or, in the event a hearing is requested and granted, on the date specified in an order made following the hearing or other disposition of such proceeding. As indicated above, the July 20, 1979 Order directed the licensee to maintain the facility in a shutdown con- dition in accordance with approved operating and con- tingency procedures. This Order is still in effect. The operating and contingency procedures referred to have evolved over the course of the past several months and are now reflected in the requirements that have been included in the proposed Technical Specifications set forth in Attachment 1. 43 a order to eliminate any possible uncertainty as to the nature and requirements of the operating and contin- gency procedures referred to in the July 20, 1979 Order, the public health, safety and interest require that that Order be amended effective immediately, as set forth below, pursuant to section 161.b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to include the requirements in Attachment 1. When the proposed Technical Specifi- cations become effective as a result of the formal amend- ment of the Facility Operating License, they will super- sede the July 20, 1979 Order, as amended, since there will be no need to maintain a duplicate set of legal re- quirements on the licensee. IV Accordingly, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, it is ordered that (1) Effective im- mediately, the Director’s Order for Modification of Li- cense of July 20, 1979 is amended by deleting paragraph (2) and substituting the following: (2) Pending further amendment of the Facility Op- erating License, the licensee shall maintain the facility in accordance with the requirements set forth in Attach- ment 1 to the Director’s Order dated February 11, 1980. (2) Effective March 21, 1980 or, in the event a hear- ing is requested and granted, on the date specified in an order made following the hearing or other disposition of the proceeding, all Appendix A Technical Specifications and Appendix B Technical Specifications 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-73 in effect on March 28, 1979 and all changes thereto issued between that date and the date of this Order are superseded by the propcaed Technical Specifications set forth in Attach- ment 1 hereto. (3) The written procedures required by proposed Technical Specification 6.8. in Attachment 1 hereto shall be completed and submitted to the NRC 30 days after the date of this Order. Pending approval of the written 4d procedures by the NRC, the licensee shall follow the previously approved procedures. V The licensee or any person whose interest may be affected may, on or before Merch 21, 1980, file a request for a hearing with respect to this Order, pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.714. As indicated, a request for a hearing with regard to paragraph (2) of this Order shall op- erate to stay the effectiveness of that paragraph. Ac- cordingly, any such hearing regarding paragraph (2) shall be conducted prior to the adoption of the formal license amendment incorporating the Technical Specifica- tions set forth in Attachment 1 hereto. However, a re- quest for hearing with regard to paragraphs (1) and/or (3) shall not operate to stay the effect of those para- graphs. In the event a hearing is held with regard to paragraph (1) and/or (3), however, such a hearing shall be consolidated with any hearing that may be requested pursuant to paragraph (2). In the event a hearing is held, the issues shall be: (1) whether the requirements set forth in Attachment 1 hereto (summarized in Part II above) are necessary and sufficient for the main- tenance of the facility to protect health and safety or to minimize danger to life and property; and (2) whether the provisions of this Order would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. A request for a hearing must be filed with the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Serv- ice Section, by the above date. A copy of the request for a hearing should also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wash- ington, DC 20555 and to George F. Trowbridge, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, 1800 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20086, attorney for the licensee. Any questions regarding the contents of this Order should be directed to the Chief Hearing Counsel, Office of the 45 Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com- mission, Washington, DC 20555. For further details respect [sic] to this action, see (1) Operating License DPR-73, as amended, (2) NUREG- 0557, “Evaluation of Long-Term Post-Accident Core Cool- ing of Three Mile Island, Unit 2.” NRC Staff Report, dated May, 1979, (3) Memorandum to R. Vollmer from A. Ignatonis, “TMI-2 Plant Modifications for Cold Shut- down, Rev. 2,” dated June 8, 1979, (4) letter to R. Vollmer, NRC, from R. C. Arnold, Metropolitan Edison Co., “Reactor Containment Building Atmosphere Clean- up,” dated November 18, 1979, (5) the Commission Staff’s related Safety Evaluation and Environmental Assessment (NUREG-0647), and (6) the Director’s Order for Modi- fication of License dated July 20, 1979. All of the above documents are available for inspection at the Commis- sion’s Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Wash- ington, DC and at the Commission’s Local Public Docu- ment Room at the State Library of Pennsylvania, Gov- ernment Publications Section, Education Building, Com- monwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsyl- vania 17126. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 11th day of Febru- ary, 1980. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. HAROLD R. DENTON. Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 46 [Docket No. 50-320] Negative Declaration Regarding Proposed Technical Specifications for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has deter- mined that the public health, safety and interest require Modification of Facility Operating License No. DPR-73, issued to Metropolitan Edison Company, et al. for opera- tion of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 located in Londonderry Township, Dauphin County, Penn- sylvania. This action would modify the Technical Specifi- cations of the Facility Operating License to more accu- rately reflect the present condition of the facility result- ing from the March 28, 1979 accident. Some of the sys- tems and components currently being used to maintain the facility in its present mode of operation were not originally included in the facility’s Technical Specifica- tions. In fact, in the present post-accident status of the facility, the license itself does not include explicit provi- sions or Technical Specifications for assuring the con- tinued maintenance of the plant in a safe, stable condi- tion or for providing for foreseeable off-normal condi- tions. Moreover, certain portions of the facility’s operat- ing license relate to or govern power operation of the facility, the authority for which was suspended by Order for Modification of License of the Director, Office of Nu- clear Reactor Regulation, dated July 20, 1979. These provisions are simply inapplicable to the facility in its present post-accident condition. Consequently, by Order dated February 11, 1980, the Director (1) amended the Order of July 20, 1979 effective immediately, to require that the licensee maintain the facility in accordance with the requirements set forth in Attachment 1 to the Order, and (2) proposed to formally amend the Technical Speci- fications accordingly, in the following areas: Nuclear Safety; Core Cooling, Water Inventory and Reactor Cool- ant System Pressure Control; Instrumentation; Contain- ment Systems; Fire Detection and Fire Suppression; 47 Electrical Power; Control of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents; and, Review and Audit Functions. The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation prepared a combined Safety Evaluation and Environmental Assess- ment (NUREG-0647) in connection with this action. It was determined that since the limits on effluent releases and discharges contained in the environmental Technical Specifications for the Facility Operating License (Ap- pendix B) are not being changed and remain in effect, the actions encompassed by this Order do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant en- vironmental impact. In addition, the Technical Specifi- cations include prohibitions against the purging or other treatment of the reactor building atmosphere, the dis- charge or other disposal of water decontaminated by the Epicor-II system and the treatment and discharge or other disposal of the high-level radioactively contaminated water now in the reactor building without further Com- mission approval. Thus, in accordance with this finding, no Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. The Safety Evaluation and Environmental Assessment (NUREG-0647) and the Director’s Order issued Febru- ary 11, 1980 are available for public inspection at the Commission’s Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Three Mile Island Unit No. 2 Local Public Document Room in the Govern- ment Publications Section, State Library of Pennsyl- vania, Education Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Copies may be ob- tained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regu- latory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Richard Vollmer, Director TMI-2 Support, NRR. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 11th day of Febru- ary, 1980. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. HAROLD R. DENTON. Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 48 NUREG-0432 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2 Technical Specifications Appendix “A” to License No. DPR-73 INTRODUCTION On March 28, 1979, an accident occurred at the facility which resulted in damage to the reactor core and to certain reactor systems and components. The reactor is being maintained in a stable cooling mode removing decay heat by natural convection circulation of primary coolant through the core and the “A” steam generator. The “A” steam generator is producing steam which is condensed in the condenser and recirculated to the “A” steam gen- erator. An alternate means of removing decay heat from the primary coolant is through the “B” steam generator. The steam side of the ‘B” steam generator has been modified to provide a water solid, closed loop cooling system which is in turn cooled by the secondary services closed cooling water system. Either steam generator cool- ing mode is adequate to remove decay heat from the primary coolant. As a result of the core and equipment damage, various requirements set forth in the Technical Specifications governing operations are no longer appropriate. For example, certain equipment required to be operable is no longer operable as defined in the technical specifications. Other systems not generally relied on for safe shutdown of the reactor are being used to maintain the facility in the stable mode of heat removal. High radioactivity in containment and in the reactor coolant and radioactivity in certain auxiliary areas have limited access to certain 49 components or have limited the ability of certain systems or components in their original design mode. A number of systems and components have been modified in order to respond to the initial emergency condition. These revised Technical Specifications are to provide as- surance that the facility in its present status will provide adequate safety while certain additional work activities are carried out at the facility during the forthcoming period of core cooling. In addition to continuing to maintain core cooling, cer- tain work is planned for the period during which these revised specifications will be applicable. (1) Systems and components presently functioning to maintain core cooling may be modified to en- hance their operability and reliability, and new systems may be added to maintain recovery func- tions. (2) Presently non-functioning systems or compo- nents useful to enhance safety are being re- stored to operable status or modified to function appropriately. (3) Activities to maintain control over radioactive effluents from the facility will continue with modifications as necessary to enhance such con- trol. (4) Decontamination and cleanup of areas to reduce exposure and to control radioactive materials will continue. These activities and modifications will be performed dur- ing the period in which these revised specifications are effective. The revised Technical Specifications have been prepared to cover the functional capability or performance levels of systems or components required for the safe operation of the facility. The revised Technical Specifications shall 50 however, in no way medify the obligation of the licensee to take all appropriate steps needed to assure public health and safety in connection with the facility at all times; and shall not be deemed to prohibit or restrict the licensee from taking any emergency action necessary to protect the health and safety of the public in the event of any emergency conditions that may arise during the period governed by these revised Technical Specifications. Detailed surveillance requirements for implementing these specifications are set forth in the Recovery Opera- tions Plan. The specific plant operating procedures which are subject to review and approval by the NRC staff are identified in Section 6.8 of the Technical Specifications. These revised Technical Specifications will remain in effect until superseded, and may be supplemented, amended or modified from time to time. * * * * * page 3. 6-1] LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION 8.6 CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS 3.6.1 PRIMARY CONTAINMENT CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY 3.6.1.1 Primary CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY shall be maintained and all containment penetrations, includ- ing at least two OPERABLE containment isolation valves or a double barrier in each penetration, shall be closed when not required open per procedures approved pursu- ant to Specification 6.8.2. Purging or other treatment of the containment atmosphere shall be prohibited until ap- proved by the NRC. 51 APPLICABILITY: RECOVERY MODE. ACTION: With one containment isolation valve per containment penetration open or inoperable, maintain the affected penetration(s) closed with either: a. At least one deactivated automatic valve secured in the isolation position, and b. At least one closed manual valve, or a blind flange. CONTAINMENT AIR LOCKS 3.6.1.3 Each containment air lock shall be OPERABLE with: a. Both doors closed except when the air lock is be- ing used for transit entry and exit through the containment, then at least one air lock door shall be closed. b. An overall air lock leakage rate of less than or equal to 0.05 L. at P., 56.2 psig. APPLICABILITY: RECOVERY MODE. ACTION: With an air lock inoperable, maintain at least one door closed and restore the air lock to OPERABLE status within 24 hours. — — = 7 7 52 BASES FOR LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION AND SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS NOTE The summary statements contained in this section pro- vide the bases for the specifications of Sections 3.0 and 4.0 and are not considered a part of these technical specifications as provided in 10 CFR 50.36. @ * * * * 53 Ip ge B 8/4-6-1] 3/4.6 CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS BASES 3/4.6.1 PRIMARY CONTAINMENT 3/4.6.1.1 CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY Primary CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY must be maintained to ensure that the radioactive materials which were released to the containment atmosphere dur- ing the March 28, 1979 incident will not be released to the atmosphere. On November 21, 1979, the Commission issued a State- ment of Policy and Notice of Intent to Prepare a Pro- grammatic Environmental Impact Statement addressing the overall decontamination and cleanup activities at TMI-2, including, among other things, the purging or other treatment of the containment atmosphere (44 F.R. 67738). The Commission recognized in its Statement that it may be in the best interest of the public health and safety to purge the containment during the develop- ment of the programmatic statement. If the need to take such prompt action arises the Commission has stated that it will consider the advice of the Council on Environ- mental Quality (CEQ) as to the Commission’s NEPA sponsibilities [sic], and moreover, will not take such action until the activity has undergone an environmental review with opportunity for public comment. The Commission further recognized that there may be emergency situa- tions, not at this time forseen, which could require rapid action. In these situations, the Commission has indicated its intention to consult with CEQ to the extent practic- able. Accordingly, the purging or other treatment of the containment atmosphere is prohibited until approved by the NRC consistent with the foregoing. 54 8/4.6.13 CONTAINMENT AIR LOCKS The containment air locks must be maintained OPER- ABLE to provide CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY. These air locks will be used during future entries into the con- tainment to ensure that the containment atmosphere will not be released to the environs. 3/4.6.1. 4 INTERNAL PRESSURE The negative pressure limit provides assurance that the containment will not exceed its design negative pres- sure differential. The positive pressure limit provides assurance that leakage from the containment will be limited for dose considerations. 55 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Commissioners: John F. Ahearne, Chairman Victor Gilinsky Richard T. Kennedy Joseph M. Hendrie Peter A. Bradford Docket No. 50-320 IN THE MATTER OF METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CLI-80-25 AND ORDER FOR TEMPORARY MODIFICATION OF LICENSE On June 12, 1980, the Commission issued a Memo- randum and Order, CLI-80-25, which approved purging of the TMI-2 reactor building atmosphere as proposed by the NRC staff. The staff’s proposal was described in detail in the “Final Environmental Assessment for Decontamination of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 Reactor Building Atmosphere,” NUREG-0662, May 1980. This purging can be carried out in such a manner (a “slow purge”) that the release of radioactive effluents, pri- marily krypton-85, will lie within the limits allowed by the technical specifications which are part of the TMI-2 operating license. A faster rate of purging is advan- 56 tageous, however, for reasons discussed in the Memoran- dum and Order. To permit a faster purge the Commis- sion issued an accompanying Order for Temporary Modification of License, which temporarily imposed dose limits in place of the noble gas instantaneous and quar- terly activity release limits contained in the TMI-2 tech- nical specifications. Purging of the TMI-2 containment is presently expected to begin on June 28, 1980. The Commission received on June 23, 1980 a “Joint Motion for Reconsideration of CLI-80-25 and Order for Temporary Modification of License,” submitted by Steven C. Sholly, the Newberry Township Three Mile Island Steering Committee, and People Against Nuclear Energy (“PANE”). The Commission has also received a study entitled “Radiation Exposure Due to Venting TMI-2 Reactor Building Atmosphere,“ prepared by Bernd Franke and Dieter Teufel of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Heidelberg, West Germany, for the Three Mile Island Legal Fund, and dated June 12, 1980. The Franke/Teufel study, which arrived too late to be included in the administrative record for the Memorandum and Order, takes issue with the Commis- sion’s conclusion, otherwise widely supported, that the 1 For the period of the purge the modified license will control releases of radioactive gazes to the atmosphere by limits on the radiological dose which car, result from such releases, in particu- lar by requirements that doses to maximally exposed individuals as a result of purging not exceed 15 mrem skin dose, 5 mrem total body dose, or 20% of either of those limits over any one-hour veriod. These offsite dose limits are in effect equivalent to the objectives set out in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I, which implement the Commission’s policy that radiation doses from nuclear power plants shall be kept ‘‘as low as reasonably achievable” (“ALARA”). The Commission’s Order for Temporary Modification of License thus aimed at achieving the same level of health protection intended by the superseded release limits while at the same time permittirg a rapid completion of the purging process. 2 The Commission received a very brief handwritten summary of the conclusions of this study on June 5, 1980 but was not given the full report until June 16, 1980. 57 physical health impacts of purging the TMI-2 contain- ment as proposed will be negligible. This study is cited in the Joint Motion as evidence of the need for the Commission to reconsider its decision to permit purging. In view of the importance to the public of having ac- curate information on the health risks of purging, the Commission believes it desirable in the short period 12 maining before the purging begins to make a prompt though necessarily brief response to the Franke/Teufel study as well as to the motion for rec~nsideration. Accordingly, we are attaching to this order a review of the Franke/Teufel study prepared by the NRC tech- nical staff. The staff’s review confirms that all radio- nuclides potentially in the containment atmosphere, not just krypton-85, were considered by the staff in its as- sessment of the environmental impacts of purging the TMI-2 reactor building. Radionuctides other han kryp- ton-85 will not contribute significantly to offsite doses from purging. As the staff’s review explains in detail, the Franke/Tuefel study erred by selecting a single erroneously calibrated measurement of the radionuclide concentrations in the containment. This measurement was clearly inconsistent with previously and subsequently measured radionuclide concentrations and gave values too large by factors of ten thousand to ten million. The corresponding dose calculations made by the Franke/ Teufel study are thus gross over-estimates. Further- more, the study’s concern about meterological uncertain- ties and possible inadequacy of monitoring appear to re- flect unawareness or misunderstanding of how the purg- ing program is to be carried out. In sum, the Commis- sion has found that the Franke/Teufel study provides no reason to modify the conclusion that the proposed venting of the TMI-2 reactor building involves negligible impacts on physical health. Turning now to the motion for reconsideration, we find that the discussion above deals adequately with the first reason offered for reconsideration, tat “[t]he Orders do not consider in any detail the possible presence of 58 radionuclides other than Krypton-85 in the TMI-2 con- tainment atmosphere.” The environmental assessment, as well as the staff’s review of the Franke/Teufel report, confirm that krypton-85 is by far the dominant radio- nuclide. In any event, it should be noted that the purg- ing will be conducted so that the dose limits established by the Commission’s Order for Temporary Modification of License will not be exceeded. A continual monitoring of release activity levels and meterological conditions will be conducted to assure that this requirement is met. Thus if radionuclide concentrations should exceed presently ex- pected values, this fact would become quickly apparent and releases would be controlled or, if necessary, stopped so that doses will remain within the allowable limits. The Joint Motion criticized what it terms a “radio- logical assessment” of the health risks of venting as dis- tinct from a “public health assessment” by “public health professionals.“ The joint petitioners also appended to their mction a letter from Irwin Bross of the Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, New York, to the effect that the genetic damage and cancer risk estimates used by the Commission in assessing the risk of krypton vent- ing are out of date and far too low. The short answer to the joint petitioners’ concern about the Commission’s assessment that purging presents ne significant physical health risks is that there was broad agreement with this assessment by groups with expertise oriented toward pro- tection of public health, including the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the U.S. De- partment of Health and Human Services, and the Penn- sylvania Departments of Health and Public Welfare. The controversial views of Dr. Bross regarding radiation health risks are known to the Commission from previous occasions. To the extent that Dr. Bross would conclude that purging the TMI-2 containment involves a signifi- cant physical health risk, his views are clearly at odds with the spectrum of scientific opinion cited here and in the Commission’s Memorandum and Order in support of the contrary conclusion. 59 The Commission thus finds that the Joint Motion pre- sents no reason to alter the Commission’s key determi- nation that the proposed purging of the TMI-2 contain- ment will have a negligible impact on physical health. The benefits of prompt purging were discussed at lengti in the Memorandum and Order. To risk these benefits by selecting an alternative process, which necessarily would involve significant delay and uncertainty, in order to re- duce already negligible radiological impacts still further does not strike the Commission as reasonable. Accord- ingly, the Commission finds the proposed purging entirely consistent with the ALARA principle of keeping radia- tion exposure “as low as reasonably achievable.” The Joint Motion also urged that the psychological aspects of purging “should be examined more closely” but cited no evidence to contradict the Commission’s be- lief that prompt purging will remove a significant source of psychological stress related to the presence of the dis- abled TMI-2 facility. The Commission has admitted its lack of expertise in psychology and recognizes that more review and study might further clarify the situation with respect to psychological stress at TMI-2. We remain confident, however, that stress is likely to be minimized by proceeding promptly with a plan that poses no threat to physical health. The Joint Motion offers no reason to believe that further study would change that conclusion. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that purging be de- layed for further examination of pychological stress. Finally, the Joint Motion criticized our finding that the temporary license modification involves “no significant hazards consideration” and therefore may be made im- mediately effective. We believe the joint peti‘ioners have misunderstood the scope of this finding, which pertains only to the question whether changing the TMI-2 technical specifications from release limits to dose limits involves a significant hazards consideration. The dose limits aim at achieving the same level of protection of public health and safety and, in fact, do so more directly, since it is 8 See note 1 above. 60 the associated doses rather than the radioactive releases themselves which are the focus of concern. Accordingly, the Commission reaffirms its determination that the tem- porary license modification involves no significant hazards consideration and may therefore be made effective im- mediately. With regard to purging itself, the unmodified techni- cal specifications which allow for purging were adopted as part of the licensing proceeding for TMI-2 after full opportunity for a public hearing. There has been ex- tensive public participation in the purging decision through public meetings and comments on the environ- mental assessment. There has thus been ample oppor- tunity for members of the public to raise any issue which might have been brought up in an adjudicatory hearing and to present evidence contradictory to the positions of the NRC staff or Metropolitan Edison. The joint peti- tioners complain that there has been no public hearing specifically devoted to purging, but they have not indi- cated that any relevant evidence exists which they have somehow been prevented from bringing to the Commis- sion’s attention. Accordingly, since the procedures by which the Commission’s orders were developed met the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and have pro- vided for a thorough consideration of the issues, we re- ject the suggestion that these orders should be withdrawn on procedural grounds. For the reasons discussed above, the Commission de- nies the motion for reconsideration of CLI-80-25 and Order for Temporary Modification of License. It is so ORDERED. For the Commission /s/ Samuel J. Chilk SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Commission Dated at Washington, DC, this 26th day of June, 1980. 61 REPORT BY THE INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH HEIDELBERG, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY The NRC staff has made a preliminary review of the findings presented in the report titled “Radiation Ex- posure Due to Venting TMI-2 Reactor Building At- mosphere” submitted by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, dated June 12, 1980. The staff believes that the major conclusions of this report are in error and misleading, primarily because they are based on a highly inflated estimate of the maximum rate at which radionuclides will be released during the venting and an apparent lack of understanding of how the vent- ing will be carried out and controlled. Heidelberg Finding No. 1 Previous discussion of the venting of radioactive gases from TMI-2 has concerned only the noble gas krypton-85. Besides krypton-85, the atmosphere of the reactor build- ing includes a great number of other radionuclides, some of which would be released into the environment during the blow off of the gases. This could lead to radiation exposures significantly higher than those caused by kryp- ton-85. The most important radionuclides, which have not been sufficiently considered so far include: C 14, Co 60, Sr 89, Sr 90, Ru 106, Cs 134, Cs 137, Pu 239, Pu 241 and others. Even allowing for high filter efficiency, a model calculation for only three of these nuclides showed that population doses would be high enough to cause about three additional cancer cases and an equivalent amount of genetical damage. Staff Comment The NRC staff’s analysis (NUREG-0662) of the en- vironmental impacts associated with purging the TMI-2 62 reactor building atmosphere is based on consideration of all radionuclides including noble gases, transuranics, tritium, cesiums and cobalts and other particulates. Air samples are periodically collected and analysed [sic] to identify all measureable forms of radioactivity. The domi- nant and controlling radionuclide is Kr-85. Relative to Kr-85, all other radionuclides in the reactor building atmosphere are insignificant contributors to calculated offsite doses from a postulated purge. The reactor building particulate samples taken during January through April of this year indicated Cs-137 con- centrations ranging from 1.2 X 10* to 2.7 X 10° Ci / ce. The particulates Co-58, Co-60, Cs-134, Sr-89, and Sr- 90 were measured at levels on the order cf 10 to 10™ pCi/ce or were below minimum detectable levels (10 Ci / ee) for the instrumentation. Gross measurements of samples of the reactor building atmosphere taken in April of this year indicate transuranic concentrations no higher than 2.0 X 10° Ci/ ec. It should also be noted that, during the postulated purge, the reactor build- ing atmosphere will be passed through HEPA filters with a measured filtration efficiency of at least 99.97%. The Heidelberg group based its particulate source term (primarily Co-60 and Cs-137), and the resulting dose calculations and health effects predictions, on the highest reported values for the concentrations of these isotopes, ignoring a number of other values listed on the same table (Table 2.1 of the Met Ed reference). Unfortu- nately, these single highest values, which were a factor of 10* to 10’ higher than other reported values, were erroneous. Particulate concentrations are determined by measuring the total radioactivity in a sample of air passed through the particulate sampler, and then divid- ing by the sample volume. In the case of the erroneous values, Met Ed personnel failed to record the sample volume. (Volumes typically were 10* to 107 ce.) A volume 63 of 1 ce was arbitrarily assumed by the licensee yielding artificially high concentrations of Cs-137 and Co-60 (1.4 X 10° and 7.9% ,»Ci/ce, respectively). This resulted in calculated dose values which are a million too high for these isotopes. It is unfortunate that these erroneous values were re- ported. Nevertheless, the NRC staff believes that the Heidelberg group used poor judgment in using these values and ignoring the many other, lower values avail- able to it. In estimating potential exposures and doses, it is properly conservative to use the highest reasonable source term. However, it is unreasonable to use a single value or set of values when the numerous other reported values, determined both before and after the highest values are consistently so much lower. Additionally, the Heidelberg group ignored the staff’s discussion of the most recent reactor building sample data (i.e., sample data through February 1980) which was available to them in the staffs draft Environmental Assessment for Decontamination of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 Reactor Building Atmosphere, NUREG-0662 (March 1980). This discussion (see Section 5.0, Reactor Building Airborne Activity) indicates that the latest particulate activity levels are on the order of 1 X 10 pCi/ ce. Finally, since the Heidelberg dose calculations are based on a fallacious source term, they, too, are fallacious. Heidelberg Finding No. 2 Uncertainties inherent in the meteorological models and dose calculations mean that it is impossible to exclude that in the proposed purge program individual skin doses due to krypton-85 could exceed the 100 mrem limit. Staff Comment The Heidelberg group’s assertions regarding the uncer- tainty of predicting dose from meteorological dispersion 64 characteristics at TMI are compensated for by the con- servatisms incorporated in the actual purge conditions. Purging the reactor building atmosphere at TMI will be carried out using real-time meteorological measurements, containment atmosphere sampling, radiological effluent measurements, and an elaborate environmental monitor- ing program. Operators will control the release rate, and hence the dose rate, based on actual meteorological con- ditions and these other measurements. Purging would be stopped at any time that these combinations of meas- urements and calculations indicate possible dose values that begin to approach limiting values which themselves are well below the imposed release limits. Thus the Heidelberg group’s statement (p. 11 of the 6/12/80 report) that, given releases of Kr-85 during unfavorable meteorological conditions, “skin doses could reach 320 mrem at a distance of 0.5 miles from the stack,” is incorrect and appears to have been made with- out knowledge of how the purging will actually be carried out. Purging the TMI reactor building atmosphere will be monitored and controlled to assure that the dose limits specified by the Commission are not even closely ap- proached, thus accommodating the discussed uncer- tainties. Heidelberg Finding No. 3 Estimates of health damage should consider not only regional but also global population doses which are an indication of all health effects caused by the release of radioactivity. Both can be estimated only with great uncertainty. The dose effect relation is subject to wide scientific discussion. We cannot exclude that venting Krypton-85 alone could cause at least one additional can- cer case (probably skin cancer) plus one case of genetic damage within the next century. However, nothing is known about a potential synergism between krypton-85 beta and ultraviolet radiation. 65 The results calculated in NUREG-0662 do not exclude the possibility of one cancer case in the world population within the next 100 years as a result of purging. The staff has used the most widely recognized radiation risk estimates to determine the probability of cancer or genetic effects in the 50 mile population surrounding TMI as a result of purging. The average risk of radiation induced fatal cancer to individuals in the 50 mile TMI population was estimated to be 5 chances in 100 billion. Within the world’s population, the average risk to individuals, be- cause of further Kr-85 dilution in the earth’s atmosphere, would be even smaller than the already negligible risk to people within 50 miles of TMI. The global collective dose of 100 person-rem whole body dose due to Kr-85 (in the Heidelberg estimate) is minute compared to the annual global background radiation dose of 300 million person-rem. It should be noted that several independent organizations, including the National Council on Radia- tion Protection and Measurements, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, have also concluded that purging would result in negligible public health risks. Because of the conservatism to be used in controlling and limiting doses, even a possible synergism between beta radiation and ultra violet radia- tion in skin cancer induction would not be expected to change the health effects picture markedly. Heidelberg Finding No. 4 The environmental monitoring program cannot ensure that all significant radiation doses to the community as a result of decontamination of the atmosphere of the TMI-2 reactor building atmosphere will be detected. Most measurements are not frequent enough and are not made at all in some important localities. Important pathways and radionuclides are neglected. 66 Staff Comment The environmental monitoring program for the postu- lated reactor building purge is one of the most compre- hensive programs ever developed for monitoring gaseous effluents from a domestic commercial nuclear power plant. The program incorporates the expertise and resources of the EPA, DOE, NRC, State of Pennsylvania (including trained community monitors), and the licensee. The pro- gram includes the availability of 6 mobile (3 EPA and 3 licensee) monitoring units as well as the DOE At- mospheric Release Advisory Capacity (ARAC) which will provide independent predictions of the dispersion patterns of the krypton gas. A detailed description of the monitoring program is contained in Section 8.0 of NUREG-0662 (final report, May 1980) including the number and type of radiation monitoring and sampling devices, their frequency of analysis, and the location of the measurements. An even more detailed report is given in the EPA report, “Long-Term Environmental Radia- tion Surveillance Plan for Three Mile Island,” March 17, 1980. From the comments in the Heidelberg finding and in the body of their report, it is apparent that they had considered neither the EPA report nor the final NUREG- 0662. Most, if not all of the Heidelberg group’s comments and criticisms are addressed in those two reports. The radiological environmental monitoring program will be supplemented by direct measurement via the stack monitor of all gaseous radioactive materials discharged during the purge as well as real time meteorological dis- persion measurements (taken at least hourly) from the onsite meteorological tower. Additionally, the reactor building atmosphere will be periodically sampled during the conduct of the purge to verify the releases measured directly by the stack monitor. In order to verify that no significant amounts of radionuclides other than Kr-85 are released to the environment during purging, samples from the established network of eighteen operating stations will 67 continue to be collected. Samples in the downwind sector will be cullected' every day, rather than the three times per week under normal conditions. In addition at least one sample from “control” stations in each quadrant not in the downwind trajectory will be collected and analyzed on a daily basis. Heidelberg Finding No. 5 As considerable health damage could be caused by vent- ing the atmosphere of the TMI-2 reactor building, we strongly advise against this procedure. The report of the Union of Concerned Scientists concludes that decontami- nation is not as urgent as stated by Met Ed and NRC. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the alternative methods for decontamination proposed by UCS and Prof. Morgan be used. Staff Comment The NRC staff disagrees that purging the TMI-2 reactor building atmosphere could result in “considerable health damage.” NUREG-0662, “Final Environmental Assess- ment for Decontamination of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 Reactor Building Atmosphere,” provides an extensive technical basis for the NRC staff’s recommendation to purge the reactor building atmosphere. 68 EXCERPT FROM GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES, INC’s, “PLANNING STUDY FOR CONTAINMENT ENTRY AND DECONTAMINATION,” JULY 2, 1979 6.0 CONTAINMENT ATMOSPHERIC FILTRATION AND PURGING 6.1 Existing Situation and Design Objectives 6.1.1 Containment Atmosphere Conditions The release of large quantities of reactor coolant to the containment coincident with significant fuel failure has led to extremely high airborne levels within the contain- ment. These levels must be reduced as much as possible to minimize operator exposures during containment de- contamination activities. Table 6-1 presents a summary of results from numerous containment air samples and the MPC which is allowed in the air in controlled spaces to indicate the magnitude of the problem. The primary contaminants are miscellaneous fission products, noble gases, iodine, cesium, and tritium, all of which must be treated and/or released in a controlled manner to assure the minimum impact on the public health and safety. It is apparent from analysis of Table 6-1 that the actual value of the specific activity of each of the primary con- taminants is not accurately known. A reasonable con- sistency in the order of magnitude of the primary radio- isotopes does exist and this information was considered sufficient for preliminary planning. More accurate and precise knowledge of the containment atmosphere will be essential prior to the start of and during cleanup opera- tions so that an accurate evaluation of the impact of these releases can be made. Although the bulk of the containment atmosphere radio- activity would be removed prior to containment entry there will still be levels of airborne contamination inside 69 the containment throughout the decontamination activi- ties. This additional airborne activity is expected from resuspension of radionuclides which had plated out and from the dislodging of radioactivity during remote and manual decontamination activities. 6.1.2 Design Objectives To evaluate and compare various system designs and operating alternatives for cleanup of the containment atmosphere, it is first necessary to establish objectives. The following objectives are considered appropriate for this aspect of the containment decontamination: To minimize the impact on public health and safety from containment atmosphere cleanup To assure that operator exposures are ALARA To comply with the established release technical specifications To minimize the impact of containment atmosphere cleanup operations on the decontamination schedule 70 HEARINGS ON | THREE MILE ISLAND CLEANUP FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1979 United States Senate, Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:37 a.m., in room 4200, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Gary Hart (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Randolph, Hart and Simpson. Senator Hart. The hearing will come to order. Yesterday, this subcommittee ventured into largely un- charted territory. We explored the many unknowns of recovering from a major commercial nuclear accident. The trip into ths [sic] new regulatory terrain was not ex- actly a reassuring one. For example, we learned that nearly eight months after the Three Mile Island accident there are still no guidelines, regulations or technical specifications from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to guide the cleanup and recovery operations at Three Mile Island. We also learned that without such regulatory guidance the ultimate costs and duration of the operation remain very much in doubt. Further, the utility’s ability and willingness to bear these costs, and to assure the continuity of this operation also are in doubt. We became familiar with the intricacies and the hazards of each step of the clean- up operation—from the initial step of decontaminating the auxiliary building water to the final crucial step of dismantling and removing the highly radioactive core. The major lesson of yesterday’s hearing, for me at 71 least, was the understandable nervousness of the nearby neighbors of the Three Mile Island plant. To quote the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Newberry Township: “Met Ed’s present piecemeal approach,” re- ferring to the cleanup process, “is driving Newberry Township residents batty.” Chairman Bruce Smith fur- ther stated: “A long-range, step-by-step plan could better prepare the community as well as the community leaders with the problems and dangers to be confronted with the cleanup process.” However, testimony yesterday from utility and NRC officials indicated that each side is, at least to some de- gree, waiting for the other to make the first move. * * * * * * * * [pages 5-7] : Senator Simpson. Senator Simpson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair- man. Yesterday, we heard expressed the sincere concerns of the residents of the local population around Three Mile Island regarding cleanup and recovery operations at the site. As Senator Hart has quoted, we had a most refresh- ing witness who said that up there, the piecemeal ap- proach was driving them batty, and everyone understood what he was saying when he said that. It was certainly precise. The testimony, on balance, underscored my belief that a new and more candid planning approach is needed by the utility and especially by the NRC to manage the re- covery situation. The utility witnesses stated that a general plan for recovery and cleanup was under devel- opment, but that much of the detail would have to be developed as the recovery effort proceeded and as new and possibly changing regulatory requirements were im- posed. The NRC witnesses testified that flexibility was needed to develop regulatory requirements as the recov- ery process moved forward. To be sure, I think some 72 flexibility on the part of the utility and NRC may be needed to tailor the cleanup program to the situation at the site, particularly as that situation becomes more fully known. Nevertheless, I feel that a greater sensitivity to the needs of the local community is essential here. We are not dealing, as the Commission normally does, with a new ap- plication to built [sic] a facility. Rather, we are faced with a severely damaged plant that is now in stable condition but which poses continuing risks to the local population and to the workers at the site. And we are certainly faced with a community which is already anxious as a result, of the accident and highly skeptical of the two organizations directly involved in the cleanup; that is, the NRC and the utility. Given this situation, it seems to me prudent, if not essential for the NRC to lay out in detail for full public review the standards it expects the utility to meet and the means it will use to ensure the com- pliance. Mr. Chairman, we will have the Commission with us today, and I would be very interested in hearing reasons why the agency cannot say definitively what it is and is not willing to allow in terms of releases into the atmos- phere and river during the cieanup operation, what th:: impact of those release [sic] is likely to be and what limit should be imposed for the workers and wh it insurances we should use to ensure the applicable standards are met. I understand that the NRC stafi prepared a package of new regulatory requirements somewhat along those lines several months ago and forwarded them to the Commis- sion. I hope that we might know the status of those pro- pose [sic] requirements and what the Commission plans to do concerning them. As I see it, such a set of regulatory requirements properly validated through public review and comment, followed by the preparation of detailed recovery plans to meet those requirements, again sub- ject to public scrutiny, would do much to ease the legiti- mate local concerns. 73 Mr. Chairman, the second issue of our hearing today, and one we will review carefully, is how the Commission intends to discharge its responsibilities under the Na- tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Again, the question seems to be whether the Commission plans a piecemeal approach to recovery or whether a more com- [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_1552%3A03. Public record. Not legal advice.