ML19309C035

Forwards Excerpts from Decisions Re Need for Power

ML19309C035
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/29/1978
From:	Mann M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19309C013	List: ML19309C012 ML19309C027 ML19309C035 ML19309C036 ML19309C038
References
NUDOCS 8004080059
Download: ML19309C035 (8)

Text

.

3. _m....

r -- _.

t,..

)*...y%%st *

• L

,.7.,

M,. -

2.:

.. L e-

. age.%. '&.-n.

..g.,, ay;fyg. ~p,',

+..

w,asg'.s --.. g.u---

:me

.w.:...

-~

t

a. e.

. 'nse g

. 3.;- -: ;-

s F

J.. 6

---a.._,.W.wrE.4 JUNITED STATES D$Wd -

g!-ggg:;;g.ggjy ~ it)lj~ LEAEREGULATORY. COMMISSION - _ _

C t '-

i j m -+

ATOMIC SAFETY AND 1.lCENSING BOARD PANEL

' ~

O ', ' % ;J **.

WASHINGTOrJ. D. C. 20555 4,,

F

%9 **

June 29, 1978 I_s..i

^

MEMORANDUM FOR:

.Toseph M. Hendrie, Chairman-

{.j.j

~

FROM:

Marvin M. Mann, Technical Advisor to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel nrr

= =

SUBJECT!

NEED FOR POWER

~

==f g+h I was very pleased and encouraged during Monday and y.g.ir Tuesday's se=inar to note your interest in the issue of

.!h

= =\\

- "Need'for Power."

Some of us on the Licensing Board Panel

=..,

....L have been interested in the issue for some time.

Two jj..;;;

Boa'rds on r#nich I.have served have considered it i=portant

~~

5%...

enough'that we haye, set down a few thoughts on the subject

}$i.W in our decisions.

With the hope that you may find these 9El remarks-of some interest and possible aid in further develop-

......[.

. =

nent of your thoughts and actions, I am attaching a few excerpts from a couple of our earlier decisions.

To draw TE ee-

.your special' attention, I have underlined certain remarks.

Ei N

/ / W - w 7.-:.-

hi6..

~

Marvin M. Mann hi[l.5

~

Technical Advisor to the F"

Atomic Safety and Licensisig Board Panel

=

r Attachaient '

-E Excerpts from decisions

[

F ;rg cc:

James R. Yore, C.na2.rman

=r -

' Atomic Safe-ty and Licensing Board Panel

=.

55 U.i oS9 =

800408n

... 3-'

+

E...

.. ATT. ACHMENT

.o.-

.u.

~y[f i_

e. e.-.

m..

Ni

' I.

~, - ~,. '.,. -....6,..... :.. _

.~<,..

.s -

m::

33..,

..,,y

- ; r -. m, -

,g.,

. y ~.,:

.._ syk

.g.

~.*".:

'r..'*:

c "TCERPTS OF RDIARKS ON NEED FOR POWER

==

... = - - -

3Ei=

In~ accord with the requirements of 10 CFR 51 and with

}lg:-;

x=:..

prior rulings of the Conriission and the Appeal Board,- we

--- =

have fully considered and made findings on the broad issue

'".-~:.

of need for power and its sub-issues.

Nevertheless, we

-]... z

~

wish to point ot3t certain ' problems the Board finds with

((((.

E..

the nature of' the issue and the diffi'culties that it F.E

= =

E #=

imposes on parties and Licensing Boards.

t=;;;.

. =.

First of all we suggest that the question of need,

' [=

=..

or lack thereof, for a specific power plant is, or should

!=~

his-i:

be, merely one snall facet of an overall policy in regard

=..- --

to energy needs, re. sources, and considered allocation of i.

.. H resources to their bes.t uses.

There being no official

.3

1. lki-national policy, or regional policies, with respect to

, energy and allocation of resources, the decisions of

=. 5 :

[

licensing boards in individual cases have, it seems to

.i l us,'the effect of setting energy policy to a. substantial

(...

degree.

The question in our view is whether an individual E=s=-

ij;;

i licensing proceeding is the proper fo-,2c in which to decide-an i'ssue which is.really national in scope.

.=

5 In' this connection we note with interest the following

.,.;..f =

~

rer. arks of the Licensing Board in the Nine Mile Point 2 proceeding (Niagara.Mohenk Power Corporation, PAI-74-6,

.'EC 7, 1074-75, 1974)

.~

- -~'-- ~ ~ ~ ---

o --

i 4 ' N- +

,y. M**.

y :.. Qge.,. g. :.g3 -

y F M, ;-

w-mc 1.

. v v.,. ' ).~.:.u= ;*S.N.d...Md D.*..

--. : q.' D. "y [g,..

m g'

.f.f,y.

'Y Dr.

. )p-'

~

- ri *

• .:15 --- : = '. '

.t. 45--,., =

p,.

M.

. Q;-. w -"~a, _.o.' A9*3.%%-man.wY:,x ' s.Y

.. ee s.j. - <

• c;

,r:.. :#F*.a :

3... A

' ~~

3.t. ~ni,,;.Q,

,,,i s

-g

^ * 'c.4cy,-

joi-

2.,9 _

- -= -..

qL-

.==:

• t'..~

In view of the complex issues involving the need for power and energy conservation, it

~~~~'

- is warranted to comment on-the ramificata.ons of the application of NEPA in these areas.

Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA provides that a-shall prepare a detailed

.., =

federal agency' alternatives to the proposed

" ~ - ~

statement on action" and Section 102(2)(D) states that

• federal agencies shall " study, develop, r....

and' describe appropriate alternatives to i===

recommended course of action in any pro-si;*;;E posal which involves unresolved conflicts Iz-concerning" alternative uses of available p==

resources.

In addition, Section 102 of NEPA has been interpreted as requiring the 9iM environmental costs against the economic

~ ll.~1 federal agency to weigh, the economic and 1

~

and the environmental benefits of the pro-J.F?i posed action in determining whether to go

.....g

. ~.

forward with the action.

Calvert Cliffs

..'.T

~

Coordinatinz Cc=m. v. AEC, 449 F. 2d 1109

~ ~=

(D. C. Cir. 1W 1)

Inis is-the so-called

.!!E cost-benefit analys2.s.

.;:g1

=..:.:.=:.

~

==

The need-for-power review in impact statements j#79g apparently became a general practice because meeting

- ?M

=

the rising demand for power could be used as a dominant

- E:-

u.+1=

'"*--;i The difficulty

.="

factor in the cost-benefit analysis.

..ii

.. with this reasoning is that this benefit does.not re-

~

~

E=

late to the need -for power from the specific plant but

' r' elates. to the need for power on the company's system.

..g

.Cl In.other words, establishment of a need for power on

. -55

!#if the system does not dictate that a particular type

-:jjg picnt be used to meet the need.

Moreover, if the utility 1.

. nu.

fails to establish,a need for power on its system, then g.:

g e

s 2:'""...

. l.R

> *g.

..g.

w

..s 2 +y:p.+.f..

g-.

3.ge

y+jg

^

G ^ ' -:.Q;J.4%g -g.3: -'- - M sr

~ +..w.-:+= '.. e #[ r...* %

-1

+M- % %u..,

W.;;r~9y.

'. 3..

5

. r.. j..< :.

=. = =,

~

==::

the logical conclusion of the need-for-power rationale

s =

'is that the construction permit should be denied.

This, however. ignores the fact that there cav be other valid

l.1

.5. 5.5.b

~

reasons for construction.- such as generating costs,-

... -l

.4 availability of.various fuels and conservatio'n of versatile p=-.

' resources.

-.i

.:.1 IEEEE In light of the above, a question can be raised of L.

x. = -

whether it is appropriate for the Agency to consider the KL.i need for power on a utility's system in an individual licensing proceeding.

In this connection,. determinations

=

cif the need.for power and need for the plant could be

'.I_.

viewed as matters t7Aich.shotild be left to the utility's

gg m=x.

canagement, tfnich must ' exercise its business judgment to

==

discharge its obligation to provide reliable electrical

.;.....l

.... 11

' service.

It nicht be procer if there was a national or

f.d N

regicnal energy policy, to determine in a licensine

- ~~i

.u

~

sy

~'

croceedinz if a ut'ility is comolving with such oolicy.

=

however, the Board dces not know of any energy polir-

..on these matters, and it does not seen appropriate for

' EMt.!

=...

licensing boards, in ruling on permits for construction

].

==

and operation of individual plants, to set energy policy

.g

• • .*.-'*\\

on'a case-by-case basis.

g'lll;.

.ki. I =. =.. l-r H

..+....

2nM.m;.syim _ -

g m n

..-w... ~ 4.. F L. .. ;, a R....

• y - 4 *hliy* 4

.c '.:g,..'- 4. .,g + M = ;.7$. p,'."".{4.a :J *. '. s **~4 -.y~ *'.{ (j V-g y= ....,c.- -.- w .,.n.. E$A.5$5yh'.r Ss'% Q]?'=MkfL%d:4!J:d$h: b?,.... ^^ T:*5h:fQY

• :.D C@ ~A.G,$i&2y, Q:.n.

' '3 .~ ~- -. ff.-x4 G.a:x. In consideration of the remarks above, we distinguish t.'. =.5 e== e betteeen detercination of the broad "need for power" issue i and two distinct categories of "alterziatives" to the pro-

==- T:::::.7- $~~ posed action, (1) " alternative energy sources" and (2) slternative sites and other alternative design measures E with. respect to environmental impact of the plant. The E.' p....... first category clearly is closely related to the need [g ~ l(=s=.: for power issue in that certain energy sources such as j:.. i l solar power or other emerging technologies might in some { circumstances be found capable, if provided, of supplying at least a portion of the power for which the proposed =." plant is intended. But, short of governmental action beyond.

-J

7 Es=

the Board's power, if a Board should decide that such =Er alternative sources could supply sufficient power that the

m==

proposed plant need no't be built, it has no power to assure -..g. that the alte: native sources will indeed be made available.

.u.=.

In such a case, the Board would be ccepelled to make a r}{.{ ,. business and economic judgment that the alternate sources EU{ l ~ uill appear, a judgment t(nich might best be left to other [ "" unn ( entitie.s.. In other words, is a licensing proceeding the . nug wp:.. proper forum for business judgment or detemination of

.. 551.-

'.C...=m energy policy? We respectfully suggest that it is'not.

• E(

l .. ~ m LT... ~ . ~... _r___'___, ":-?:~ w n.;u.g.L; ;*,;;y.::#;;;;,,, La.

-pp .J., ,c, f... ^' ?7.C W a ;.- d,

• 4

.. < r, \\ ~ ~~ g, ' *, ' 3;Q t,. t jKg.R ~, y _**; Q ' ,,Q .,s,L*,

&~~. * %

./* ' f.*Gii... .j 3. 3: 'j.Jp. '; s .;t. ., g*

• g.

~ 4 k.?Q ~~ ^"

• • T$k-k- =

g.%LQo.. T ~~f. 'r- - '..VN.."' " k,,,.,. ]~~ ~ -~. d' i? '.? ^ 5 14$~.- ~ _. '- :, u.e:--- .A ' e ='a--m ~ ;~ c,..y. - - ~::!::.

==.V --== As for the second category, it seems clearly intended EM m:r

to provide a mechanism whereby the environmental impact of t:=..-

w-a. proposed plant can be evaluated and' appropriate measures [ to minimize the impact can be considered. Consideration'of

==

r ~ i :cuch matters in *a licensing proceeding is in our opinion =.i=. proper and consistent with the _ spirit and intent of NEPA. Sii In view of the foregoing, it may be useful to consider es y...

h..l

[, whether a " major federal action," for tfnich NEP1 requires detailed: environmental statements, might.for federally

.=

managed-and/or financed proje, cts be treated differently ., g than federal licensing actions. E5E:. - For a federally managed or financed project more or . g:: less co=plete control is in the hands of the government. 25=

== After full environmental review and evaluation, the 23 = =:. government.can decide on and implement such measures, in - fi:1! .==:..- cluding any alternatives 'of either catego: y, as it deems .g = =. ._ appropriate and consistent with the overall cost-benefit ~ ~ '.Z. ..=:- .=: balance of the project.

=:

... ?::= In sece. contrast, a licensing proceeding involves = =.. envircnnental review and evaluation of a project proposed ~~ ~ @ !=5 and financed by private persons, and which in addition to = ecen: ic.and business constraints also is subject to varicus y i_^,.";, _ .e..N " :"...;;~* "' .M : ""*"ll ~ t.

m ;w y y. g ge=s .w. !;..==. .c 2: ...d.. 3.. .w, m. ule. n_..t af.2rviv > b =..a,.2 u..,u. c : w." ' .o m :. :.- -. a... 4 45:55'-Ind nis % ;& d*jdE5 E s siFyi.f.f~+;.z- +.32W93W 2. c. +15tp~~..;.@:sf%.. -r-.; Wy;e---fa ~ ,.y:n. gwu.;._. -

m.. ^

~ '

• 6 * =*

'..~

..::==

i.ti

1 '

forms of regulatory control by other federal, state, and

==. local bodies. In deciding on need for power and/or alternative energy sources, a Licensing Board inevitably ] =....: \\ would be deciding some points over which other bodies j...... have control anc,1 may be in contradiction to' their policies - -l or' procedures. Of course, this is not so for issues which .;g the~ Board is required to address and rule upon-under the a... ;.; Atortic Energy Act. ii=a $!!. 55bi.

== In short, it appears that a Licensing Board has the

="

liii=s power to deny a license, but not to order alternatives t= !E91: such as other modes.of generation or modes of conservation. In other words, a 3oard's power appears to be essentially [... ; =, a negative power insofar as the issues under discussion $.!.E

am are concerned.

This would appear to raise the question, is it, therefore, useful to go through the exercise, '~;; ..E which often i,s lengthy, tedious, complex, and expensive, '.;li! mereh.y to affirm an otherwise, licensable plant or to offer in denial conclusions that have no effect other than to

5Es 1/

'T.d. veto a plant.?- ye -1/ T.ae rut:.lity or the issues ciscussed,nere in a licenstng ~.= El proceeding for an individual plant is highlighted by the fact that a utility can build a different type plant if .ze its application for a nuclear facility is denied. ~ " ' 4 ...l' 1 ---,7,*-_ essen. L.

~ eg. -....y r e, W.m

, w,_,

, :... n ; w,=.;a -_-+~ : G Q. ; ~Q - L yip,. - ____..,,._ . ~ :. s, c .s..;gp

• • ~ ~

,.,;_7 7 w wt...-

.a a u, a p ; =

-1 & {.-h.. T!ry.

..,n...: -r-r.-e:,...,

a. nw wu.

~ ' *

n~. :,..'.

=~- m.s . a,. ....g =.c. .~. - ~ 7.

== =. -In raising the foregoing questions this Board is. aware g!g of and syw thetic to the difficulties of all agencies in a the responsible interpretation and implementation of NE?A. l..._ We suggest no subversion whatsoever of the spirit and -"~T intent'of NEP.A.. Our sole objective is to stimulate '.L._..

.==

thous:htful consideration of the subject by those 2.n better ocsition to take such action as seems acoropriate.

== V.:me

u. =. =

q:.. = b5

=

n. m= w.- =:: "E .:= e. ..e e-e e e h-e .-}}