ML20031C586
| ML20031C586 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1981 |
| From: | Hiestand O DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-FTOL, NUDOCS 8110070324 | |
| Download: ML20031C586 (21) | |
Text
-
o 4"
A/
LV 5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
}
gg y j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0
In the Matter of
)
, v/c/71
)
D
' -4 DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
)
Docket No. 50-40 gj j 'S,
)
(FTOL Proceedi f (La Crosse Boiling Water
)
e n(
n h.,
Reactor)
)
d nL1.
.J o
OCT G 1991*
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE
(
,,,,w,,
IN SUPPORT OF STAFF'S
\\ 4,* co u n5 u AMENDED MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION 4.x Ax4 l'j ;,,, d Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.749, Dairyland Power Coopera-tive (Dairyland), the holder of provisional operating license No. DPR-45 for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) and the applicant for a full term operating license (FTOL) for LACBWR in the above-captioned proceeding, hereby submits its response in support of the NRC Staff's Amended Motion for Summary Disposition of the environmental contentions (Nos. 2A, 2B, 8, 9, 19, and 22) filed by the Coulee Region Energy Coali-tion (CREC).
Dairyland fully supports and endorses the position and reasoning of the NRC Staff in its Amended Motic,n for Summary Disposition.
Dairyland further supports and endorses the posi-tion and reasoning contained in the Affidavits of members of the NRC Staff submitted in support of the NRC Staff's Amended Motion.
Dairyland is currently preparing its own Motion for Summary Disposition for filing in the near future.
D 5
)1 8110070324 811005 PDR ADOCK 05000409 0
> O The Board, in its Memorandum of September 11, 1J81, requested the parties to comment on the effect in this pro-ceeding of the adoption by the NRC of its proposed rule (46 Fed. Reg. 39440 (Aug. 3, 1981)) to eliminate consideration of the issues of the need for power and alternative energy sources in operating license proceedings.
Dairyland submits that if the NRC adopts its proposed rule, this Board should not consider the need for power and alternative energy issues in this pro-ceeding for the reasons stated below.
Need For Power In balancing the costs and benefits of the operation of the nuclear power plant pursuant to NEPA, the NRC has found that there is a need for the power of completed nuclear power plants.
In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the NRC states:
In all cases to date, and in all foreseeable 1
future cases, there will be some benefit in terms of either meeting increased energy needs or replacing older less economical generating j
capacity.
Experience shows that completed plants are in fact used to their maximum avail-ability for either purpose.
Such facilities are not abandoned in favor of some other means of generating electricity.
LACBWR has been operating as part of the Dairyland system for eleven years during which time it has provided power for the Dairy-land system.
It has produced power to meet both baseline and peak l
power demands.
In addition, energy consumption in Dairyland's l
system has grown, especially in rural areas, the major segment of l
l Dairyland's service area.
LACBWR's eleven-year record of experience clearly establishes the need for the power produced by LACBWR.
The l
l l
_=
, NRC's prcposed rule is intended to make it clear that this satisfies NEPA.
In addition, because LAC 3WR is fully constructed m
and presently operational, it is vastly superior to investing in new capacity or purchasing power from alternate sources.
Not only is need for power recognized by the NRC simply becarse LACBWR is fully constructed or operational, the issue of the need for power has been fully resolved by LACBWR's eleven-year operating experience.
Therefore, in evaluating the benefits of a full term operating license for LACBWR under NEPW, this Board should accept as given that there is a need for the power produced by LACBWR.
Alternative Energy Sources In excluding consideration of alternative energy issues after a nuclear plant is fully constructed the NRC's proposed rule is directed at eliminating consideration of alternative energy issues after they cease to be viable.
As the NRC stated:
Prior to the start of construction there has been little environmental disruption at the proposed site and only a relatively small capital investment has been made by the license applicant.
Hence, real alter-natives to the construction and operation of the proposed facility exist, including no additional generating capacity at all if no "need" exists or generation of the needed electricity by some non-nuclear energy source.
Moreover, the NRC indicated that in deciding whether to license a nuclear power plant, the NRC is guided by its experience that:
There has never been a finding in a Com-mission operating license proceeding that a viable environmentally superior alterna-tive to operation of the nuclear facility exists.
Therefore, past experience suggests that rarely will an alternative energy source
O
- s.
including use of an existing fossil-fixed unit as a substitute for a nuclear plant be found environmentally superior to the nuclear plant.
The NRC found that even alternatives which are mar 5 nally environ-1 mentally superior are not viable compared to a completed nuclear facility because of the clear cost advantages of nuclear power generation:
Therefore, given the apparent economic advantages of the operation of existing nuclear plants, the Commission believes that even an alternative which is shown to be marginally environmentally superior in comparison to operation of a nuclear facility is unlikely to tip the NEPA cost-benefit balance against issuance of the operating license.
As stated above, LACBWR is fully constructed and has been operational for over eleven years.
The major environmental and financial costs of construction have already been incurred.
LACBWR is currently used to its maximum availability at a cost far below the cost of investment in an2 development of alternate sources of energy.
NEPA requires consideration of viable alternatives to particular projects.
It does not require the consideration of the abandonment of a fully constructed and operational plant in favor of the development and construction from scratch of substitute capacity. -1/
Therefore, when performing the cost-benefit balance under NEPA, the NRC's proposed rule would make it clear that Boards 1/
The NRC's proposed rule would permit petitions for a vaiver of the rule in the event " unexpected and significant" environ-mental impacts are shown.
This would permit consideration of need for power and alternative energy issues when the assessment of environmental costs changes between the construction permit and operating-license stages.
~.
O case of fully constructed and operational nuclear plants.
The 1
NRC's proposed rule is intended to make this clear.
Therefore, i
LACBWR submits that the NRC's proposed rule would preclude this Board's consideration of the need for power and alternative energy issues in this proceeding.
1 1
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons contained in the NRC Staff's Amended Motion far Summary Disposition, Dairyland respectfully requests that the NRC Staff's Motion be granted.
Respectfully submitted, f
(
N
(
'.)
dw_)
i O.
p Hiestand Attorney for Dairyland Power Cooperative 4
l 0F COUNSEL:
Irvin N. Shapell Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 872-5000 l
l L
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
In the Matter of
)
)
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
)
Docket No. 50-409
)
Full-Term Operating License (La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICS Service has on this 5th day of October, 1981, been effected by personal delivery or first class mail on-the following:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Docketing & Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Ralph S. Decker Board Panel Route 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Box 190D Commission.
Cambridge, Maryland Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. George C. Anderson Atomic Safety and Licensing Department of Oceanography Appeal Board University of Washington U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Seattle, Washington 98195 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Colleen Woodhead, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Richard J. Goddard, Esquire Director Office of Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard Shimshak Plant Superintendent Fritz Schubert, Esquire Dairyland Power Cooperative Staff Attorney La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor Dairyland Power Cooperative Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 2615 East Avenue, South La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 l
e
. a, Coulee Region Energy Coalition P.O. Box 1583 La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 I
f-i, w s,m.-.)
l' c n.r 0.t Hiestand
\\
I
3 7
/s'g
%oto
,po gg*/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m
In the Matter of
)
)
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
)
Docket No. 50-409
)
(FTOL Proceeding)
(La Crosse Boiling Water
)
Reactor)
)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF STAFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
$ 2.749, Dairyland Power Coopera-tive (Dairyland), the holder of provisional operating license No. DPR-45 for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) and the applicant for a full term operating license (FTOL) for LACBWR in the above-captioned proceeding, hereby submits its response in support of the NRC Staff's Amended Motion for Summary Disposition of the environmental contentions (Nos. 2A, 2B, 8, 9, 19, and 22) filed by the Coulee Region Energy Coali-tion (CREC).
Dairyland fully supports and endorses the position and reasoning of the NRC Staff in its Amended Motion for Summary Disposition.
Dairyland further supports and endorses the posi-tion and reasoning contained in the Affidavits of membe s of the NRC Staff submitted in support of tha NRC Staff's Amended Motion.
Dairyland is currently preparing its own Motion for Summary Disposition for filing in the near future.
. The Board, in its Memorandum of September 11, 1981, requested the parties to comment on the effect in this pro-ceeding of the adoption by the NRC of its proposed rule (46 Fed. Reg. 39440 (Aug. 3, 1981)) to eliminate consideration of the issues of the need for power and alternative energy sources in operating license proceedings.
Dairyland submits that if the NRC adopts its proposed rule, this Board should not consider the need for power and alternative energy issues in this pro-e ceeding for the reasons stated below.
Need For Power In balancing the costs and benefits of the operation of the nuclear power plant pursuant to NEPA, the NRC has found that there is a need for the power of completed nuclear power plants.
In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the NRC states:
In all cases to date, and in all foreseeable future cases, there will be some benefit in terms of either meeting increased energy needs or replacing older less economical generating capacity.
Experience shows that completed plants are in fact used to their maximum avail-ability for either purpose.
Such facilities are not abandoned in favor of some other means of generating electricity.
LACBWR has been operating as part of the Dairyland system for eleven years during which time it has provided power for the Dairy-land system.
It has produced power co meet both baseline and peak power demands.
In addi tion, energy consumption in Dairyland's system has grown, especially in rural areas, the major segment of Dairyland's service area.
LACBWR's eleven-year record of experience clearly establishes the need for the power produced by LACBWR.
The
3-NRC's proposed rule is intended to make it clear that this satisfies NEPA.
In addition, because LACBWR is fully constructed and presently operational, it is vast 1y superior to investint in new capacity or purchasing power from alternate sources.
Not only is need for power recognized by the NRC simply because LACBWR is fully constructed or operational, the issue of the need for power has been fully tesolved by LACBWR's eleven-year operating exp?rience.
Therefore, in evaluating the benef cs of a full term operating license for LACBWR under NEPW, this Board should accept as given that there is a need for the power produced by LACBWR.
Alternative Energy Sources In excluding consideration of alternative energy issues after a nuclear plant is fully constructed the NRC's proposed 1
rule is directed at eliminating consideration of alternative, energy issues after they cease to be viable.
As the NRC stated:
Prior to the start of construction there has been little environmental disruption at the proposed site and only a relatively small capital investment has been made by the license applicant.
Hence, real alter-natives to the construction and operation of the proposed facility exist, including no additional generating capacity at all if no "need" exists or generation of the needed electricity by some non-nuclear energy source.
Moreover, the NRC indicated that in deciding whether to license a nuclear power plant, the NRC is guided by its experience that:
There has never been a finding in a Com-mission operating license proceeding that a viable environmentally superior alterna-tive to operation of the nuclear facility exists.
Therefore, past experience suggests that rarely will an alternative energy source l
. including use of an existing fossil-fixed i
unit as a substitute for a nuclear plant be found environmentally superior to the nuclear plant.
The NRC found that even alternatives which are marginally environ-mentally superior are not viable compared to a completed nuclear facility because of the clear cost advantages of nuclear power generation:
Therefore, given the apparent economic advsntages of the operation of existing nuclear plants, the Commission believes that even an alternative which is shown to be marginally environmentally superior in comparison to operation of a nuclear facility is unlikely to tip the NEPA cost-benefit balance against issuance of the operating license.
As stated above, LACBWR is fully constructed and has been operational for ov9r eleven years.
The major environmental sad financial costs of construction have already been incurred.
LACBWR is currently used to its maximum availability at a cost far below the cost of investment in and developrent of alternate sources of energy.
NEPA requires consideration of viable alternatives to particular proj ects.
It does not require the consideration of the abandonment of a fully constructed and operational plant in favor of the development and construction from scratch of substitute capacity. -1/
Therefore, when performing tha cost-benefit balance under NEPA, the NRC's proposed rule would make it clear that Boards 1/
The NRC's proposed rule would permit petitions for a waivar of.the rule in the event " unexpected and significant" environ-
. ental impacts are shown.
This would permit consideration of need for power and alternative energy issuea when.the assessment of environmental costs changes between the construction permit and operating license stages.
. case of fully constructed and operational nuclear plants.
The NRC's proposed rule is intended to make this clear.
Therefore, LACBWR submits that the NRC's proposed rule would preclude this Board's consideration of the need for power and alternative energy issur in this proceeding.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons contained in the NRC Staff's Amended Motion for Summary Disposition, Dairyland respectfully requests that the MRC Staff's Motion be granted.
Respectfully submitted, I
i' L
) /{,}'~ ~ v%)
O.
p Hiestand Attorney for Dairyland Power Cooperative OF COUNSEL:
Irvin N. Shapell Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202.) 872-5000 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
)
Docket No. 50-409
)
Full-Term Operating License (La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Service has on this 5th day of October, 1981, been effected by personal delivery or first class mail on the following:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Docketing & Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Ralph S. Decker Board Panel Route 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Box 190D Commission Cambridge, Maryland Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. George C. Anderson Atomic Safety and Licensing Department of Oceanography Appeal Board University of War,hington U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Seattle, Washington 98195 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Colleen Woodhead, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Richard J. Goddard, Esquire Director Office of Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard Shimshak Plant Superintendent Fritz Schubert, Esquire Dairyland Power Cooperative Staff Attorney La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor Dairvland Power Cooperative
^
Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 2615' East Avenue, South La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601
Coulee Region Energy Coalition P.O. Box 1583 La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601
(
m-0.
S. Hiestand i
m
Q-cP,x.
i*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
(p, d^
e6 W
5; 5
-h 4
Y In the Matter of
)
-k
)
50-40NL.1 DAIRYLAUD POWER COOPERATIVE
)
Docket No.
)
(FTOL Proceeding)
(La Crosse Boiling Water
)
Reactor)
)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF STAFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749, Dairyland Power Coopera-tive (Dairyland), the holder of provisional operating license No. DPR-45 for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) and the applicant for a full to:m operating license (FTOL) for LACBWR in the above-captioned proceeding, hereby submits its response in support of the NRC Stsff's Amended Motion for Summary Disposition of the environmantal contentions (Nos. 2A, 2B, 8, 9, 19, and 22) filed by the Coulee Region Energy Coali-tion (CREC).
Dairyland fully supports and endorses the position and reasoning of the NRC Staff in its Amended Motion for Summary Disposition.
Dairyland further supports and endorses the posi-tion and reasoning contained in the Affidavits of members of the NRC Staff submitted in support of the NRC Staff's Amended Motion.
Dairyland is currently preparing its own Motion for Summary Disposition for filing in the near future.
4
. The Boa in it.a Memorandum of September 11, 1981, requested the parties to comment on the effect in this pro-ceeding of the adoption by the NRC of its proposed rule (46 Fed. Reg. 39440 (Aug. 3, 1981)) to eliminate consideration of the issues of the need for power and alternative energy sources in operating license proceedings.
Dairyland submits that if the NRC adopts its proposed rule, this Board should not consider the need for power and alternative energy issues in this pro-cceding for the reasons stated below.
Need For Power In balancing the costs and benefits of the operation of the nuclear power plant pursuant to NEPA, the NRC has found that there is a need for the power of completed nuclear power plants.
In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the NRC states:
In all cases to date, and in all foreseeable future cases, there will be some benefit in terms of either meeting increased energy needs or replacing older less economical generating capacity.
Experience shows that completed plants are in fact used to their maximum avail-ability for either purpose.
Such facilities l
are not abandoned in favor of some other means of generating electricity.
LACBWR has been operating as part of the Dairyland system for 1
eleven years during which time it has provided power for the Dairy-land system.
It has produced power to meet both baseline and peak i
power demands.
In addition, energy consumption in Dairyland's system has grown, especially in rural areas, the major segment of Dairyland's service area.
LACBWR's eleven-year record of axperience clearly establishes the naed for the power produced by LACBWR.
The
=.
. NRC's proposed rule is intended to make it clear that this satisfies NEPA.
In addition, because LACBWR is fully constructed and presently operational, it is vastly superior to investing in new capacity or purchasing power from alternate sources.
Not only is need for power recognized by the NRC simply because LACBWR is fully constructed or operational, the issue of the need for power has been fully resolved by LACBWR's eleven-year operating experience.
Therefore, in evaluating the benefits of a full term operating license for LACBWR undar NEPW, this Board should accept as given that there is a need for the power produced by LACBWR.
Alternative Energy Sources i
In, excluding consideration of alternative energy issues after a nuclear plant is fully constructed the NRC's proposed rule is directed at eliminating consideration of alternative energy issues after they cease to be viable.
As the NRC stated:.
Prior to the start of construction there has been little environmental disruption at the proposed site and only a relatively small capital investment has been made by
~ the license applicant.
Hence, real alter-natives to the construction and operation of the preposed facility exist, including no additional generating capacity at all if no "need" exists or generation of the needed electricity by some non-nuclear energy source.
Moreover, the-NRC indicated that in deciding whether to license
~
e nuclear power plant, the NRC is guided by its experience that:
There has never been a finding in a Com-mission operating license proceeding that a, viable environmentally superior alterna-tive to operation of the nuclear facility exists.
Therefore, past experience suggests that rarely will an alternative energy source i-
.... ~,
. including use of an existing fossil-fixed unit as a substitute for a nuclear plant be found environmentally superior to the nuclear plant.
The NRC found that even alternatives which are marginally environ-mentally superior are not viable compared to a completed nuclear facility because of the clear cost advantages of nuclear power generation:
Therefora, given the apparent economic advantages of the operation of existing nuclear plants, the Commission believes that even an alternative which is shown to be marginally environmentally superior in comparison to operation of a nuclear facility is unlikely to tip-the NEPA cost-benefit balance against issuance of he operating license.
.is stated above, LACBWR is fully constructed and has been operational for over eleven years.
The major environmental and financial costs of construction have already been in urred.
LACBWR is currently used to its maximum availability et a cost far s
below the cost of investment in and development of alternate sources of energy.
NEPA requires consideration of viable alternatives to partic:ular proj ects.
It does not require the consideration of the abandonment of a fully constructed and operational plant in favor of the development and construction from scratch of substitute uupac! y. ~1/
Therefore, when performing the cost-benefit balance under NEPA, the NRC's proposed rule would make it clear that Boards 1/
The NRC's proposed rule vould permit petitions for a waiver of the rule in the event " unexpected and significant" environ-mental impacts are shown.
This would permit consideration of need for power and alternative energy issues when the assessment of environmental costs changes between the construction permit and operating license stages.
. case of fully constructed and operational nuclear plants.
The NRC's proposed rule is intended to make 2:his clear.
Therefore, 4
j LACBWR submits that the NRC's proposed rule would preclude this Board's consideration of the need for power and alternative energy i
issues in this proceeding, Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons contained in the NRC Staff's Amended Motion for Summary
~I Lisposition, Dairyland respectfully requests that the NRC Staff's Motion be granted.
~
Respectfully submitted, j
____b
'w.
O.
L Hiestand Attopneyfor Dairyland Power Cooperative 1
OF COUNSEL:
4 l
Irvin N. Shapell Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 872-5000 1
I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ir the Matter of
)
)
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
)
Docket No. 50-409
)
Full-Term Operating License (La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor)
)
CE"TIFICATE OF SF.RVICE Service has on this 5th day of October, 1981, been effected by personal delivery or first class mail on the following:
Ivcn W. Smith, Chairman Docketing & Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Ralph S. Decker Board Fanel Route 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Box 190D Commission Cambridge, Maryland Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. George C. Anderson Atomic Safety and Licensing Department of Oceanography Appeal Board University of Washington U.S. Nuciear Regulatory Seattle, Washington 98195 Commission Colleen Woodhead, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Richard J. Goddard, Esquire i
Direc~or Office of Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard Shimshak Plant Superintendent Fritz Schubert, Esquire Dairyland Power Cooperative Staff Attorney La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor Dairyland Power Cooperative Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 2615 East Avenue, South La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601
. i Coulee Region Energy Coalition P.O. Box 1583 La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 I
kyl.j.w.l%_ I_)
O.
S. Hiestand
-a
-