ML19309C012
| ML19309C012 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/11/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309C013 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004080037 | |
| Download: ML19309C012 (6) | |
Text
..
~
,5
- 4
/%
(CMf%
4 UNITED STATES E
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CDN k I
wAssincrow, o. c.aosss
%...../
f60)
March 11, 1980 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs U. S. House of Representatives Washington, D.,.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The enclosed material is in response to your letter of August 1,1979 requesting updated information concerning Nuclear Regulatory Comission need for power determinations (Enclosure A).
On July 19, 1978, former Chairman Hendrie wrote to Congressman James Weaver and provided him with some informa-i' tion on this subject (Enclosure B). There have been no substantive changes in the Comission's legal authority governing need for power determinations that would alter the responses in that letter.
The Commission is, however, continuing its efforts to improve electricity demand forecasting techniques and the body of case law and agency practice concerning the need for power issue itself is developing constantly.
Improved electricity demand forecasting is an area that the NRC will examine once we have worked through the higher priority issues related to the safety of l
operating plants and plants for which new operating licenses are under consideration.
I should note that predicting power needs 10 to 20 years in i
price rises, conservation measures, etc.)g outside influences (e.g., oil the future is very difficult. When stron drastically change load growth, 1
such long-range predictions often turn out to be different from the actual power needs.
Although the Comission is now considering amending 10 CFR Part 51 to accommo-date the new NEPA procedures set forth in the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations, it does not appear that the CEQ regulations will have any significant effect on the NRC's interpretation of its responsib'.ity to determine need for power. This responsibility will remain an ir tant part of the Comission's cost-benefit analysis under NEPA.
Comissioners Bradford and Gilinsky do not join in endorsing the information-contained in Enclosure A.
They would not send what they believe to be so reassuring a -letter concerni.ng this issue, but would indicate that this is an area which would undergo a detailed review in hopes of improving what they see as the NRC's apparently unsatisfactory past record. The basis for i
i their concern is-a report done by a consultant to Commissioner Bradford
~
(Enclosure D) on NRC procedures for assessing need for power. The con-sultant recomended that NRC:
j i y 8004080 g
The Honorable Morris K. Udall 2-1.
Establish a policy on the tolerable margins of error in need-for power forecasting; 2.
Develop sufficient inhouse capabilities to perform need for power and alternative energy scurces reviews without having to use the national laboratories; 3.
Initiate a Comission rulemaking on how the need for power and alterna-tive energy source questions should be addressed in future environmental impact statements; 4.
Initiate a Comission rulemaking proceeding to establish guidelines and standards for delegation of NEPA reviews to qualified States; and 5.
Identify these concerns to Congress.
The Comission intends to proceed toward reviewing the options for rulemaking in the areas identified above.
I trust this information is responsive to your needs.
Si
- cerelv, l
f
/
1J )hn F. Ahearne
Enclosures:
A.
Responses to questions B.
Letter of July 19, 1978 to Congressman Weaver, with enclosures C.
Part 8 of Environmental l
Standard Review Plans for the Environmental Review of Construction Permit D.
"A Study of NRC Procedures for Assessing Need for Power and Alternative Energy Sources in Fulfillment of the NEPA Requirements for Environmental Impact Statements" i
cc: Rep. Steven Syms j
e
r
. c...
es 4.
7 vp...;;cp
. 4a;.y _ y,, 33. 9..
,g
.. g.
q..,7 7 -
u 3... pip;,
- r..
g-
. c.
4 y
- >;.-r::.
, j:.;f.r?y nu.
-..g*p;=--*i = ~
y a -vg,.,4% -
~
'. e W : r s..a d. s.^Q
- t,
.N.
ue
.g'~
,'. 4.. :4 - 9' s,u
- i., _
' g-p *.
- t c
, e, _..
RESPONSES TO CHAIRMAN UDALL'S QUESTIONS QUESTION 1.
Have there been any changes in statutes, regulations or guide-lines from those noted in the July 19, 1978 respons'e?
RESPONSE
There have been no substantive changes in the sources of legal authority for the NRC's need for power determinations.
This authority is based on the requirement found in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) that the Commission balance the costs (including environmental costs) against the benefits (such as the power produced) of a proposed nuclear power plant.
9 This. basic NEPA requirement and the statutes, regulations or guidelines relating to it have not changed substantially over the past year.
The NRC.
staff has, however, prepared draft amendments to 10 CFR Part 51 that will modify NRC NEPA procedures to accommodate the new regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality.
(See Question 3)
The Commission has continued over the past year to improve its electricity demand forecasting techniques.
For example, NUREGICR-0250, " Regional Econo-metric Model for Forecasting Electricity Demand by Sector and by State, was,
'ublished in October 1978 and work is continuing on review and-validation of p
the foiecasting techniques.
The procedures for incorporating the electricity demand analysis into the NRC's NEPA review have. been published in part 8 of NUREG-0555, " Environmental Standard Review Plans for the Environmental 8
Enclosure A
(
l
- 'w*-..l. +
, ~$. r.$u.,
-.......W G n p. a.....; % :a r
~..-
..r-w
- cb p
- :ym -. ~.... we, 2 -
.: =g.,.
. Review of Construction Permit Applications for Nuclear Power Plants," dated May 1979.
(Enclosure C.)
QUESTION 2.
Have there been any new legal or policy interpretations of these?
2
RESPONSE
There have been no major legal or policy changes during the past year in the Commission's interpretation of its authority to make need for power deter-minations. Thus our responses to Congressman Weaver in the letter of July 19, IS78 are still valid.
I The body of case law and administrative practice concerning the need for power issue is, however, devel' ping constantly.
For example, the Atomic o
Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in Rochester Gas and Electric Corooration (Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit No.1), ALAB-502, 8 NPC 383 (Oct.19, 1978) observed:
"In its Vennont Yankee decision last April, th'e Supreme Court noted
.that '[t]here is little doubt that under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, State public utility commissions.or similar bodies are empowered to make the initial decision regarding the need for power.'
435 U.S.
at
, 55 L.Ed.2d at 4 Although,- to be sure, this Commission's responsibilities in this sphere have their primary roots in the National Environmental Policy Act rather than the Atomic Energy Act, we even more recently expressed the view that NEPA does not foreclose 'the placement of. heavy reliance upon the judgment of local reculatory bodies j.-
which a charged with the duty of insuring that the utilities within j'
their jurisdiction fulfill the legal obligation to meet customer demands.'
Carolina Power & Licht Comoany (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2,.3, 4), ALAB-490, 8 NRC 234, 241 (August 23,1978)." 8 NRC l
383 at 388-389 (footnotes omitted).
R
~ gr e
- e -
- . 2 5 %.Pl,.$.j.;
-. z.
s..-=-
.g.,
.~d
-a ;
m
.; ;-m ;.
~
Q *~
.. } r ~ '
- I ;*nf*f12.-
. r..t.L ee '.i..;,... 3,- : :
~
Z:,46KR '9 2 X
- =.
- -c.. - s'_~ 3
~..
'. ~ -
+~
' 2% -
QUESTION 3.
What effect have the new Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, and specifically, the Environmental Standard Review Plan, had on the NRC's interpretation of its NEPA mandate?
RESPONSE
Although the Commission is now in the process of amending 10 CFR Part 51 to accomodate the new NEPA procedures set forth in the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations, it does not appear that the CEQ regulations will have any significant effect on the NRC's interpretation of 1.ts responsibility to determine need for power.
Such determinations will remain an important part of the Commiss' ion's cost-benefit analysis under NEPA.
If anything, the amendments to 10 CFR Part 51 will serve to highlight this issue, for the draft amendments prepared by the staff for Commission consideration specify
' at environnmental impact statements will contain a statement of the pur-th pose of and need for the action, including, "[i]n the case of nuclear power plants, consideration [of] the potential impact of conservation measures in determining the demand and consequent need for additional generating capacity."
The Environmental Standard Review Plans' for the Environmental Review of Con-struction Permit Applications for Nuclear Power Plants constitute instructions for the NRC staff in performing the environmental analysis required under NEPA.
l As such, they merely reflect, rather than determine, the.NRC's interpretation of its NEPA mandate, including the need for power issue.
They are designed to
e..
a
, ?.,
\\
^
_z_
improve all aspects of the Commission's NEPA analysis by providing soecific instructions to the staff and giving detailed descriptions of the manner in which the NRC reaches judgments in the NEPA process.
. QUESTION 4.
Do the Commissioners believe any changes in the statutes,
- regulations or guidelines 'tp be valuable at this time?
Should NRC's need-for-power consideration be more noma-tive? What are the suggestions of the Commission?
RESPONSE
~
We believe that existing legal authority is acceptable to permit the NRC to perfom a full and adequate need-for-power assessment, and more impor-tantly, is sufficiently flexible so that we can easily adapt to changing circumstances (substantive issues) inherent in the need-for-power review.
~
We do not believe the NRC's need-for-power assessment should be more norma-tive in nature.
The NRC views its charge as assessing need for a particu-lar system given its expected rate of growth in electricity demand and i.ts scheduled long-range capacity plans.
These major elements of the analysis can and are impacted by normative policies fomulated by Federal and State kegislatures and State public utility commissions.
These legal bodies have the authority to set policy an'd' implement rules that can alter energv con-sumption patterns on the part of utilities and.end users.
As legislation and rules are implemented, their impact on electricity-demand and the com-
.parison between nucl' ear and alternative energy sources is assessed and incorporated in the"NRC's environmental review.
l l'
.. -::. - ~ v. 1 4..
.v
. c. ; :.
... ~...,,......,.....
a.? f. g'". P K g.~,. w W g =..'Y.;
W
-W *~~n _.
u k.-M.*
-w -
.w-
.: - p-
...... ::=
gy_
-y g w g g g,.s,-p4,gg..
. g.
a s
y..
c.u _
- -.::= =_=. ra w....__ _.
pg m.
= l ? %w :._: %:> &,.:. $,.
l Y.P *'- f' V f~,. M, r -
-.r. -r
~:
n v.,
..m. - v r ?st e. ht t 4 *--
.==::
.,, ~ s~ r,
-,+
y
. t:
. y.
.,r
.., ~. -. -
.e...
......=....v.
a.
. a.=.
9
~ o'?.
.==
'-_ ' *.T. f r-
=- = :
- m.,
..r.
. -... = =
v u... -,%
=. n. ;-
w' t.:
.:==
a..
~,. - ~..
% : y.. q.~. ;
e...>
..w u r::....
, - + -
. v.r s.
- .t.
... rw* - -- -
.e u.
4 ~:.+u..,-,r. g::.. w..,: =-m..m..%--a,-
- ~
.;.=~m-u.,.t.......EN CLOS URE '.B ' '. '...
..~
. '~:n:.=. -
a.
,..w.
.. -n
-s
- e.
..w
.~.r.-
M-
.s.
..o s?.h. '.l:x.~ wy;w 5.L X. =,'. m e. t:* *..
r.4 ':i15:.
%'k.i;
,.m,- ;_',=A.s
.i.M e
v.~
-. g.,
g:
z.
a a.
, -- m-f. ~.....---
.-.-w
.~ m 4,,,3gp -
.? $_.,..,;--
g,. '-
-g,',-,;..
-r e
..y.-
t *.,e -
- 7
.. r,.v,-5.y;.
- ' v.;;%.,,.
2::.5.~.
.c>.~..
.- - ' - +
... - ~...
\\
..y w. -,...=.,;
. -s-y..-.
..r.. ;
..- -" c.".-
..,.b.
'-e-
...,9
=
......,l
"=::
~.
~
D" "O ~3~5
~
Q O
l
.'.r_.
- . =.....
- -~~:....
a
.;;t:
. ~.
s s
l l
i n-- -----...........
- -...+-
s