ML19291B710
| ML19291B710 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley, Peach Bottom, Salem, Catawba, Hope Creek, Susquehanna, Seabrook, Limerick, Vermont Yankee, Callaway, Vogtle, Hartsville, Crane File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1977 |
| From: | Du Flo M, Duflo M NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | DUKE POWER CO., DUQUESNE LIGHT CO., GEORGIA POWER CO., METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., NRC COMMISSION (OCM), PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC, PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO., PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, Public Service Enterprise Group, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, UNION ELECTRIC CO., VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| ALAB-392, NUDOCS 7911110207 | |
| Download: ML19291B710 (17) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS
- co Ch Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman 4
Dr. John H. Buck Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles
- 1 T
Michael C. Farrar SL
'h N
/j T
Richard S. Salzman
. 2 fD
/2 Dr. W. Reed Johnson
-I Jerome E.
Sharfman l-
)
4 4
In the Matter of
)
)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER
)
CORPORATION
)
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
)
Docket No. 50-271 Station)
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS
)
COMPANY
)
)
(Salem Nuclear Generating Station,
)
Docket Nos. 50-272 Units 1 & 2)
)
50-311
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
)
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,
)
Docket Nos. 50-277 Units 2 & 3)
)
50-278
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Docket Nos. 50-289 Units 1 & 2)
)
QO-323
)
- As appears from the caption, this memorandum and order embraces a number of separate proceedings.
Every member of the Appeal Panel is assigned to the Appeal Board for at least one of those proceedings.
The Panel members unanimously agreed that the proceedings should be consol-.
idated for the limited purpose of the preliminary action f which is being taken herein with respect to the common #[d -
question presented.
See 10 CFR 2.716.
It should be note that, although in the interest of convenience the Chairman of the Panel is being designated as the Chairman of the collective Appeal Boards, he is not in fact the Chairman (or indeed even a member) of every individual Board.
1911110NO 1583 064
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY, ET AL.
)
~
)
(Beaver Valley Power Station,
)
Docket Nos. 50-334 Units 1 & 2)
)
50-412
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
)
(Limerick Generating Station,
)
Docket Nos. 50-352 Units 1 & 2)
)
50-353
)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS
)
COMPANY and
)
ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
)
(Hope ~ Creek Generating Station,
)
Docket Nos. 50-354 Units 1 & 2)
)
50-355
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT
)
COMPANY
)
)
(Susquehanna Steam Electric
)
Docket Nos-50-387 Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
50-388
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
)
(Catawba Nuclear Station,
)
Docket Nos. 50-413 Units 1 & 2)
)
50-414
)
~
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
)
)
(Alvin W.
Vogtle Nuclear Plant,
)
Docket Nos. 50-424 Units 1 & 2)
)
50-425
-)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
50-444
)
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
)
D~cket Nos. STN 50-483 o
(Callaway Plant, Units 1 & 2)
)
STN 50-486
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
Docket Nos. 50-518
)
50-519 (Hartsville Nuclear Plant,
)
50-520 Units lA, 2A, 13 and 2B)
)
50-521
)
1583 065
di tg 4 M ORANDUM AND ORDER g
- /
April 21, 1977 2
%g\\ g"'.
=
9
$9
- f-(ALAB-392) spr/g.i 9
T/
\\
b j.ri In April 1974, f'ollowing an extended rule-making pro-ceeding, the then Atomic Energy Commission promulgated a regulation dealing with the matter of how the environmental effects associated with the uranium fuel cycle were to be considered in the individual NEPA cost / benefit analyses for light water reactors.
10 CFR 51. 20 (e).
As summarized by us in Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-349, NRCI-76/9 235, 238-39 (September 30, 1976), vacated on other grounds, CLI-76/17, NRCI-76/ll 451 (November 5, 1976):
Reflecting the Commission's conclusion that the environmental effects of the fuel cycle, including reprocessing of spent fuel and waste di'sposal, wcre "relatively insignificant" but nonetheless should be taken into account, the regulation in substance required the introduction of quantified environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle into the cost / benefit analysis for each individual reactor -- and went on to stipulate that "[n]o further discussion of such environmental effects shall be required".
The particular numerical values to be factored into the analysis for various stages of the fuel cycle (including reprocessing of spent fuel and waste disposal) were set forth in an acccmpanying Table, identified as S-3.
These values were derived from the " Environmental Survey 1583 066
. of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle" issued by the Commission's staff in November 1972, as sub-sequently revised in a staff document entitled
" Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle" (WASH-1248, April 1974) which incorpor-ated comments and recommendations offered during the course of the rule-making proceeding.
[ Footnote omitted.]
Last July, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held invalid so much of the regulation as was concerned with the epent fuel reprocessing and waste disposal phases of the fuel cycle.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. NRC, 547 F.2d 633 (1976), certiorari granted sub nom. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, 45 U.S.L.W.
3570 (February 22, 1977).
The Commission's response to this decision was the institution of procedures looking to, in the first instance, the promulgation of a new interim rule
. to replace those portions of the existing rule which had been struck down by the court.
Such a rule issued on March 14, 1977.
On April 1, 1977, the Commission entered an order 1/
encompassing ten facilities.
In essence, that order directed us to determine the impact of the interim rule on the cost /
benefit balances which had been struck for each of those
--1/ CLI-77-10, 5 NRC 1583 067
facilities.
Additionally, we were instructed te perform the same function with respect to any other facilities as to which we might now have the issue of the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle before us.
By way of guidance, the Commission said:
- *
- without desiring to prejudice the Appeal Panel's findings in particuler cases, we wish to restate our belief, expressed in the state-ment of considerations accompanying the interim rule, that the values in the old rule and those in the interim rule are not substantially differ-ent and, therefore, although conceivable, it appears unlikely that use of the interim rule values rather than those in the original rule could tilt a cost / benefit balance against a facility, thus requiring suspension of an out-standing license or permit, or denial of a permit that would otherwise have been approved.
The Appeal Board involved in each case should take appropriate action to secure the information necessary for it to act.
In particular cases, the board may choose to request the parties to address themselves to this issue.
In most cases this may not be necessary in view of the lack of substantial differences between the interim and original rules.
5 NRC at A.
1.
The necessary starting point in the carrying out of the task which the Commission has assigned to us is -
an examination of the status, in terms of the extent to which construction has been completed, of each of the facilities which must be considered.
In Seabrook, ALAB-349, supra, we 1583 068
. were confronted with the question whether the Seabrook construction permits should be suspended to await the prom-ulgation of the interim rule.
One of the factors which had to be taken into account in determining that question was the " possibility that the cost / benefit balance [would] be tilted through increased investment."
On this score, we noted the ob'servation in Union of Concerned Scientists v.
AEC, 499 F.2d 1069, 1084 fn. 37 (D.C. Cir. 1974) that " sunk costs are not appropriately considered costs of abandonment, although replacement costs may be if construction of a sub-stitute facility could reasonably be expected as a conse-quence of abandonment".
We took this observation (later repeated in Aeschliman v. NRC, 547 F.2d 622, 632 fn. 20 (D.C. Cir. 1276)) 1! to mean that
- *
- in undertaking a comparative cost / benefit analysis of Seabrook and possible replacement generating facilities once a new uranium fuel cycle rule has been put in place, the Commission will be free to consider the relative economic cad environmental costs associated with (1) completing the construction of Seabrook and (2) substituting for it an alternative facility the construction of which has not as yet been commenced.
And the further advanced Seabrook constructiu is at that time, the more probable it will be that the comparison will inure to the
_2/ Certiorari granted sub nom. Consumers Power Co. v.
Aeschliman, 45 U.S.L.W.
3570 (February 22, 1977).
1583 069 benefit of that facility from the standpoint of both economic considerations and environmental protection -- no matter what the magnitude of the environmental effects which might be attrib-uted to the uranium fuel cycle in the new rule.
Indeed, just as the applicants have relied upon the monetary and environmental expenditures involved in construction activities to date in arguing that the balance of convenience requires that constru~ction now be allowed to proceed, so too they well could be expected to stress any additional incremental.' expenditures along that line when the time comes to rebalance (in light of the new rule) the benefits and costs of con-tinuing with Seabrook instead of pursuing some other alternative.
NRC-76/9 at 261 (footnotes omitted).
Applying this analysis to the facts before us in that ca,se, we came to this conclu-sion:
The situation e.t hand, then,is one in which there is more than a mere theoretical possi-bility that the outcome of a rostriking on a comparative basis of the cost / benefit balance for Seabrook (following the issuance of a new interim or final fuel cycle rule) will hinge upon whether construction does or does not go forward in the interim.
It need be added only that, as earlier suggested (p. 252, supra), that possibility is enhanced because Seabrook c'onstruc-tion has not as yet progressed very far.
In the case of a facility which is in an advanced stage of completion --
i.e.,
as to which the major portion of the economic, and perhaps all of the environmental, costs of construction already have been incurred -
- .he additional expense attendant to going ahead with what remains to be done could be expected to have much less impact upon a cost / benefit balance struck for the pur-pose of deciding whether to substitute another kind of facility for it.
Id. at 262 (footnotes omitted). _
1583 070 In vacating the result reached in ALAB-349 (i.e., a suspension of the Seabrook permits), the Commission did not manifest disagreement with our conclusion that the greater the investment in a particular facility, the smaller the possibility that the numerical values assigned to the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle could have the effect of tipping the overall cost / benefit balance against the facility.
See CLI-76-17, supra, NRCI-76/11 at 458-63.
Rather, the Commission's acceptance of that conclusion seems reasonably apparent from its more recent decision dealing with another aspect of the Seabrook NEPA review.
CLI-77-8, 5 NRC (March 31, 1977).
At issue there was, inter alia, our determination in ALAB-366 3./
that the Licensing Board's alternate site analysis had been deficient in some respects and that further proceedings were required to rectify the deficiencies.
The Commission affirmed that determination but went on to instruct the Licensing Board regarding the basis upon which the compar-ison between the Seabrcok site and other potential sites should be made.
Of particular relevance here, the Board was told that, in striking its cost / balance between use 3__/ 5 NRC 39 (January 21, 1977).
1583 071 of the Seabrook site and resort instead to an alternate site, it should take into account the time and resources that had already been invested at the former.
The Commis-sion justified this direction in part on the basis of the statement in Union of Concerned Scientists quoted above.
As had we in ALAB-349, it took the statement to reflect a belief on the part of the District of Columbia Circuit that moneys already spent are irrelevant only where the NEPA comparison is between (1) completing the proposed facility and (2) abandoning that facility and not substituting another facility for it.
Thus, because "in the context of alternate site analysis, abandonment of Seabrook means building ancther plant somewhere else * *
- we may properly consider the fact that at another site, reviews and work already completed at Seabrook will have to be duplicated."
S NRC at As recognized by us in ALAB-349 (see pp, 6-7:,-supra),
the same considerations apply where an S-3 analysis is involved.
If, because of the environm_ ental effects asso-ciated with the uranium fuel cycle, the cost / benefit bal-ance fbr a particular facility were to be struck against completing that facility (i.e., in favor of abandoning it),
it would not follow that no generating station at all should 1583 072
s
- 10 _
be built.
Instead, given the already demonstrated need for the power to be produced by the facility, the conse-quence of its abandonment would likewise be " building another plant somewhere else".
It is possible, of course, that the substitute generating facility would be non-nuclear;,e.g., a coal-fired or oil-fired plant.
But the construction of a fossil fuel plant has its own environ-mental impacts -- and the costs attendant upon delay in the availability of the additional generating capacity are equally present (although perhaps in different degrees) no matter what kind of replacement facility is chosen.
In this connection, in holding that comparative time to com-pletion was an appropriate ingredient of the decision whether to require on envir,onmental grounds the substitu-tion of another facility for the proposed one, the'Commis-sion referred in Seabrook (5 NRC at
) to Porter County Chapter v. AEC, 533 F.2d 1011 (7th Cir.), certiorari denied, 430 U.S.
50 L. Ed. 2d 316 (1976).
There, the Seventh Circuit was confronted with the claim that the Commission had erroneously factored into its NEPA approval of construc-tion of the facility on the selected site (Bailly) the con-sideration that transfer to another and allegedly superior site would occasion delay.
The claim was expressly rejected 1583 073 by the court: "we conclude that [the Commission] did not abuse its discretion in deciding to consider this factor, having in mind the public interest in avoiding future shortages of power and the estimates as to when the addi-tional power to be generated by the nuclear facility would be needed".
533 F.2d at 1017 n.
10.
2.-
The ten facilities specifically encompassed by the Commission's April 1, 1977 order involve a total of nineteen units.
Six of those units (Vermont Yankee, Salem 1, Peach Bottom 2 and 3, Three Mile Island 1 and Beaver Valley 1) are fully constructed and operational.
An addi-tional six units (Salem 2, Three Mile Island 2, Limerick 1 and 2 and Susquehanna 1 and 2) have been under construc-tion for some time and have now reached stages of completion ranging from 19% to 91%.
The remaining seven units (Beaver Valley 2, Hope Creek 1 and 2, Seabrook 1 and 2 and Callaway 1 and 2) all have construction permits but none is more than 4% completed. d!
We are also concerned here with Catawba 1 and 2, Hartsville 1A, 2A, 13 and 2B and Vogtle 1 and 2.
With
--4/ This status information has been derived from official Commission reports: NUREG-0030-03, Construction Status Report, Data as of February 28, 1977; NUREG-0020-3, Operating Units Status Report, Data as of February 28, 1977.
1583 074
. respect to each of these facilities, we rendered decisions in recent months which, although disposing of other environ-mental matters, specifically reserved judgment on all uran-imm fuel cycle questions to await the promulgation of an interim rule.
See Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-355, NRCI-76/10 397, 417-18 (October 29, 1976); Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units lA, 2A, 1B and 2B), ALAB-367, 5 NRC 92, 105-07 (Jan-uary 25, 1977), Georgia Power Co. (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-375, 5 NRC (February 16, 1977).dL/
The two Catawba units are each 10% completed; the others in this group are in the very early stages of construction (i.e., no more than 3% completed). b/
B.
It seems quite clear that the possible impact of the interim rule on the ultimate NEPA cost / benefit balances for the various nuclear units in question will not be the 5 / A similar course had been followed by us in the Callaway
~~
proceeding, which is embraced by the Commission's April 1, 1977 order.
See Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-3 4 7, NRCI-7 6/9 216, 217-220 (September 16, 1976).
6/ As a result of Aeschliman v. NRC, supra, fuel cycle issues are also present in a pending proceeding involv-ing Midland 1 and 2, portions of which are now before an Appeal Board.
Because of its unusual procedural posture, we have decided not to bring the Midland pro-ceeding within the scope of this order.
Instead, the fuel cycle issues in that proceeding will be independ-ently dealt with by the Appeal Board assigned to that case.
1583 075 same in each instance.
For one thing, as we have jus',
seen, there is a wide variation in the quanta of sunk costs -- some of the reactors are already fully built and in operation and the construction of others has just barely ccamenced.
Beyond that, there may be important differences from case to case respecting the extent to which the bene-fits to be derived from the facility outweigh the totality of the other (i.e., non-fuel cycle) costs attributable to its construction and operation.
Although all members of this Panel are not necessarily in agreement respecting the degree of likelihood that Table S-3 as revised by the interim rule might tip the balance against any particular facility, we have decided to provide an opportunity to the parties to be heard on the matter.
For this reason, we will entertain further submissions by a party or parties with respect to any of the facilities covered by this order.
Any such submission is to be filed (and served on all other parties to the proceeding involving that facility) no later than 30 days from the date of this order and shall be confined in scope to an assignment of reasons why, in light of the interim rule, the cost / benefit balance for the facility or unit in question tips, or might tip, in 1583 076
' favor of abandonment of the facility.--!
All submissions should take into account the circumstances obtaining with regard to that specific facility and, further, should assume the validity of both the interim rule and the Com-mission's recent Seabrook holding regarding sunk costs.8/
7 / Some of the members of the Panel are concerned about the implications, in terms of the application of the numerical values contained in the revised Table S-3, of an observation in the Statement of Considerations which acccmpanied the proposal of the interim rule.
41 Fed. Reg. 45849, 45850-51 (October 18, 1976).
Speci-fically, the Commission pointed out that "with respect to risks from long-term repository failure," there still exist uncertainties in areas such as the effect of waste presence on repository stability; the probabilities and consequences of various types of instrusive acts by humans; the availability of data to be used in modeling studies; the design and regulatory actions needed to minimize possibilities of repository failure; projection of future societal habits and demography, and, finally, the relative importance of the various potential initiating events.
Although this concern is not necessarily shared by a majority of the Panel members, the parties are requested to include in their submissions a discussion of the significance which, in light of the Commission's nota-tion, should be deemed to attach to the value placed by the interim rule upon the newly-established category of " transuranic and high level wastes (deep)".
In other words, given the uncertainties to which the Com-mission has referred with regard to the possible release of the buried high level wastes, what weight should be attributed (in striking the cost / benefit balance for each individual reactor) to the value assigned to the solidified waste which would be generated during that reactor's operation?
--8 / Commission regulations are binding upon us.
So too, of course, are determinations of law made by the Commission in adjudicatory proceedings.
1583 077 Within 20 days of service upon it of any such submission, a response to the submission may be filed by any other party.
No response is required, however, in the absence of an order directing that one be filed. 1/
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS wo u.A f ki, I th!,
Margaret E.
Du Flo
" Secretary to the Appeal Boards 9/ The members of the Panel particularly interested in the question discussed in fn.
7, supra, would appreciate receiving the views of all parties on that question.
1583 078
UNITED STATES OF A> ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO}D:ISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY,
)
)
)
(Three Mile Island Unit No. 2)
)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served tr e foregoing document (s) upon each person designated on the official service list c w. piled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CER Part 2-Rules of Practi(', of the Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this dayoff
.k/ /
197 6
/
( >OvLLdnuw A CLL1(Cu.DL Of fice of the'jSecretary of Nhe Commission kl
~1583 079 6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
) Docket No. 50-320 -0L
)
(Three Mile Island Unit No. 2)
)
SERVICE LIST Edward Luton, Esq.
Dr. Chauncey R. Kepford Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Citizens for a Safe Environment &
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission York Committee for a Safe Environment Washington, D. C. 20555 2586 Broad Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Honorable Karin W. Carter U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C.
20555 Office of Enforcement Department of Environ = ental Resources Dr. Ernest O. Salo 709 Health and Welfare Building Professor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Fisheries Research Institute, WH-10 College of Fisheries Miss Mary V. Southard University of Washington Citizens for a safe Environment Seattle, Washington 98195 P.O. Box 405 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts, Troubridge Government Publication Section State Library of Pennsylvania 910 17th Street, N. W.
Education Building, Box 1601 Washington, D. C.
20006 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126 Stuart Treby, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 1583 080