ML20041E034

Unofficial Transcript of 820225 Public Affirmation/ Discussion Session in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-7.Marked-up Final Rule Re Need for Power & Alternative Energy Issues in OL Proceedings Encl

ML20041E034
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/25/1982
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8203100001
Download: ML20041E034 (27)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.- .e p"""%,, Transcri t of Proceedin

s. ~:.,.:, ".z.

..r F ' s, .. ~ .. -... W.:

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t,4,e**,

t .Tc. l

• i,'.

..c..,.'. : ? :..e., ' - " ' * ~ - 3 4.,... + s .. 1:. ;< .;. 7, '.a . ?....,.

7.,

,

G....,,"i u : ' ~:^',.- 9 2 ...,s., .. c...

m...... '.... ~.......

.. :. c. idey 4,. as; s 2, -i l ' % G;.. _.: L.R;3.* -

:.:.s.;y ;.,; a. ;,.

'c - x,. xt ::; . : 4...c ;. l l y ...v., AFFIRMATI0t'/ DISCUSSION SESSION T ... ~,,, PUBLIC MEETING '~

.. :J

. s; .r.- t 4 t 4 Thursday, February 25, 1982 n 3*- l i ( i e t Pages 1_7 Prepared by: Lynn Nations Office of the Secretary I B203100001 820225 PDR 10CYR ~ -- ~ ~ ~ - - " ~ ~ ' ~ --- s

• =

PT9.7 PDR

P 1 I i 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i ( 3 i l 4 l l 5 AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION SESSION J 6 7 PUBLIC MEETING 8 9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioners' Conference Room 10 Room 1130 1717 "H" Street, N.W. 11 Washington, D. C. Thursday, February 25, 1982 12 13 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to notice, 14 at 4:13 o' clock p.m., NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission, 15 residing. 6 l 17 BEFORE: 18 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 19 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner PETER BRADFORD, Commissioner 20 THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner 21 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE: l 22 SAMUEL J. CHILK LEONARD BICKWIT 23 FORREST REMICK 24 25 l t

} =:. :.? e-, us:- J .==g .....i ,g m =w.

===.a. """"***C DISCLAIMER

=

This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Thurs., Feb. 25, 1982 in the ~ Commission s offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript f.E.Gl has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

g

..=

The transcript is intended solely for general infomational purposes. 9) As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or infomal ="- record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final deteminations or =5E beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument H-- .sg.t contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize. t:.:32::: = :~:n ; ..g'.: bl5bl.. ? .:.z.. l lta - ' 2il:-

==:-

9 =E ...??$

==.

=5s ... :==::: . 3$5I ..._.N.;

.*..y...

"Ess.: .'sl.i.

==:

555 5 [, 5- ..\\. .m::.

====

,_y

== l l l l =:::.;-

2 _P _R _0 _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: The meeting will please come to 2 order. This is an affirmation / discussion session and I will ask 3 the Secretary to walk through the items on the agenda. 4 MR. CHILK: Mr. Chairman, the first paper is 82-15 and S that paper has been put on in less than one week's notice, and I 6 wonder if we could have a vote on that. CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: May I have a vote to hear this on 8 short notice? 9 (Chorus of unanimous ayes.) 10 MR. CHILK: This is a petition for reconsideration and 11 request for immediate suspension of new safeguards information 12 regulations implementing Section 147. 13 Chairman Palladino and Commissioners Gilinsky, B~radford 14 and Ahearne have approved the order which denies reconsideration 15 and an immediate suspension of the rule. Commissioner Roberts 16 would disapprove the order and suspend the effective date of 17 requirement until the Commission had received presentation from 18 other people. Would you please affirm your votes? 19 (Chorus of unanimous ayes.) 20 MR. CHILK: The second paper is SECY-82-43 which is an 21 F0IA Appeal. The Commission is being asked to respond to an 22 appeal f a de.nial of an F0IA request from Mr. Leventhal, President 23 of the Nuclear Club. The Chairman and Commissioner Roberts and Commissioner 25 I i

3 1 Ahearne have approved a r.esponse which would deny access to the 2 requested documents. Commissioner Gilinsky has abstained and would 3 release the report. Commissioner Bradford, I understand, although 4 I have not received a vote, will vote for the release. 5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes. I am not at all sure that 6 this document is properly classified so I would vote against. MR. CHILK: So a majority of the Commission votes to deny 7 access to the requested documents. Would you please affirm your 8 votes? g (Chorus of unanimous ayes.) 10 MR. CHILK: The third item, Mr. Chairman, which was listed is 82-8 and 82-8A which is a final rule for eliminating the need for power and alternative energy sources as issues in 01. proceedings. 14 .The Commission has not been able to close on 82-A and 15 therefore, I would suggest that we not consider it at this time. 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: There is no chance of settling it 17 in a brief discussion? 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: We were trying to do it before we 19 got started and it seemed impossible. 'O ~ MR. CHILK: It didn't seem to work. Commissioner Ahearne 21 is gone and he had some problems with it. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think rather than try to do it 23 sitting here in body that we should try to get it done early next 24 week. 2S C0FMISSIONER GILINSKY: Who was it who added this

4 1 underlying message? 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: This was a revision submitted by 3 OGC. 4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Staff sent it up, I think, in 5 response to a request from John, Tom and me. John and Tom liked 6 it and I didn't or at least I didn't like the way it was. MR. CHILK: The underlined line which appears in 82-A 7 is a request of the Commission and then there'was a further modi-8 fication from Commissioner Bradford to it on which we haven't been g a e to close. 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I wonder if someone who wants to have the full text can explain why that is the desirable thing to do? 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: How about first explaining why you 14 want to cross it out? 15 (Laughter.) 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I don't know if there is anybody 17 who is wedded to the full text. It may just be that I circulated 18 the changes this morning and the various offices haven't had a s 19 chance to go back and forth on it. What the rule essentially does is that it addresses the 21 need for power which is an economic matter and there is a part of 22 the full text that deals with environmental considerations 23 I was just trying to potentially other than the need for power. 24 get it narrowed back down to economics. 25 I don',t mind in the eighth line down on the page where j l t t l l' i

5 1 the word, " environmental," appears, leaving that in, and just 2 making it, "environmenta11y or economically superior," but I 3 wouldn't put the language in that,is two lines before that. 4 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: Actually keeping the word, 5 " environmentally" in that line, I think, takes care of the part 6 that was crossed off before. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I guess what surprises me 7 is that I thought there would be two sides, o'ne side saying - 8 you don't consider it under any circumstances and the other 9 n some very limited circumstances. 10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All I was trying to do was to give time for us to discuss it af ter everyone has seen it. It came to my attention late and I think it came to Commissioner Roberts' 13 attention late. 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Here, Peter and I.were trying to 15 streamline the process -- 16 (Laughter.) 17 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: You have made me nervous' That 18 is something y'ou don't ordinarily do. 19 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: Let me ask Tom. 20 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: If you are going to begin line 21 eight in its entirety, "an environmentally and economically superior alternative exists." ~~ 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I was going to say, " environ-2- nentally or economically." 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why just not say, " economically?" ,4hy do you want to bring the other in? l k

6 1 1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Because they tell me that I can't i get three votes. 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Don' t you want to narrow the 4 grounds? COMMISSIONER ROBERTS-But this is going to be a 5 6 requirement anyway. It is not going to be removed as a consider-ation. 7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I am not so sure. I don't think 8 so. g CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: The whole thing comes in in an O environmental impact statement if you read the whole paragraph, "The Commission does not intend that these issues be reexamined in 12 every environmental impact statement prepared at-the operating 13 license stage. Accordingly, to avoid possible confusion, the 14 final rule has a conforming change to generally exclude treatment 15 of these issues in the EIS by modifying paragraph 51.23.

However, 16 in very unusual cases, such as where it appears that an 17 environmentally or economically superior alternative exists, 18 the Commission'would be obligated," et cetera.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Do you think we could settle on 'O that? 21 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: What was John's position on' this? 22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: John hasn't caught up with my 23 Changes. 24 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: He has not seen them and that is why 25 I was suggesting to defer it. l L i

7 1 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I would prefer to wait until he is 2 here. 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It is another day's delay. 4 (Laughter.) 5 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Are you really counting the days? 6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It will be next Thursday. I 7 suggest that we do delay it. I don't think we are hurting anything '8 in the process. 9 MR. CHILK: That concludes the affirmation. 10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you. We will stand adjourned. I 11 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 o' clock P.m., to reconvene at the Call of the Chair.) 12 ~~~ 14 15 16 l 17 18 19 20 r l 21 l l 22 23 24 25 i

s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of: AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION SESSION .Date of Proceeding: Thursday,' February 25, 1982 ~ Docket Number: 4 Place of Proceeding Room 1130,1717 "H" St., N.W. Washington, D. C. were held as herein appears, and'that this is the original transcript thereof fo'r the file of the Commission. LYNN NATIONS Official Reporter (typed) 'Off(cial Reporter (Signature) i S e

-- v \\' O NUCLEAR REG'ULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 { l Need for Power and Alternative Energy Issues in Operating License Proceedings AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1 I ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Commission is amending its regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, " Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental t 1 Protection," to provide that, for NEPA purposes, need for power and alternative energy source issues will not be considered in operating license proceedings for nuclear power plants. In addition, these issues need not be addressed by operating license appl'icants in environmental reports to the NRC, nor by the staff in environmental impact statements (EIS), in operating license proceedings. This rule affects applicants for operating licenses for nuclear power plants. EFFECTIVE DATE: (Insert 30 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER.) l l FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darrel A. Nash, Office of State Programs, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission, Washington, D. C. 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-9882. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Enclosure "A" ~

r i l ' g l Backaround of the Rule j i i On August 3,1981, the Comission published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (46 FR l 39440) for public coment, proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 51 of its ) regulations. As discussed in the statement of considerations which accompanied the proposed rule, the purpose of these amendments is to 1 avoid unnecessary consideration of issues that are not likely to tilt i i the cost-benefit balance by effectively eliminating need for power and i alternative energy source. issues from consideration at the operating license stage. In accordance with the Commission's NEPA responsibilities, the need for power and alternative energy sources are resolved in the construction permit proceeding. The Comission stated its tentative I conclusion that while there is no diminution of the importance of these l issues at the construction permit stage, the situation is such that at-the time of the operating license proceeding the plant would be needed to either meet increased energy needs or replace older less economical generating capacity and that no viable alternatives to the completed nuclear plant are likely to exist which could tip the NEPA cost-benefit i balance against issuance of the operating license. Past experience has j shown this to be the case. In addition, this conclusion is unlikely to change even if an alternative is shown to be marginally environmentally superior in comparison to operation of a nuclear facility because of the economic advantage which operation of nuclear power plants has over available fossil generating plants. An exception to the rule would be made if, in a particular case, special circumstances are shown in accordance with 10 CFR 2.758.of the Commission's regulations. Enclosure "A"

- Comments were invited particularly on the following issues: 1) Whether two articles, one by Amory and Hunter Lovins and the other by Amory Lovins, Hunter Lovins, and Leonard Ross, correctly. state' that a mixture of conservation and alternative sources would usually cost less than operating a nuclear plant, and therefore a newly completed nuclear plant should be written off; and r 2) Whether the rule, if adopted, should be applied to ongoing licensing proceedings. Fifty-three letters of public comment were received on the proposed rul e. Twenty-nine commenters supported the proposed rule change, and twenty-four were opposed. There were a few relatively minor modifications propo' ed for the promulgation of the final rule. The more significant s comments and the Commission responses are given below. Comments and Responses Comment Eight commenters, all of whom favored the rule change, expressed-views on the articles b'y Lovins and Ross which state that conservation plus other energy forms usually result in lower cost than operation of a Enclosure "A"

I .g. nuclear plant.1/ The comments were directed to various aspects of these l articles which in the commenters views contain errors and omissions. , Significant deficiencies mentioned were that the analysis is. far from i compl'ete, it contains questionable costs figures, fails to discuss the. j rate at which conservation and alternative energy sources could be employed, fails to discuss the institutional measures that might be necessary to implement these changes, and fcils to discuss the environmental ( consequences and societal costs of these actions. Some commenters stated that the approach in these articles would require coercion of f utilities or final customers to achieve the energy use mix advocated. Mr. Amory Lovins was a commenter on the proposed rule and reiterated the conclusions stated in the two articles. He stated that the details of his argument had not been worked out, but that his engineering / economic analyses made him confident this finding would be supported.

Response

i The Ccamission has evaluated these comments and further reviewed the two articl es. The Commission does not necessarily agree with the varied comments on these articles. However, the Commission finds the articles -1/ Amory and Hunter Lovins, Enercy/ War: Breaking the Nuclear Link, Friends of the Earth,1980, pp. 48-49 and footnotes 109-111, and Amory B. Lovins, L. Hunter Lovins, and Leonard Ross, " Nuclear Power and Nuclear Bombs", Foreign Affairs 58-1137-77, (Summer,1980). Enclosure "A"

5 4

• I lack sufficient analysis and documentation to support the arguments made.

Moreover, the Comission is not aware of any other reliable and documented infomation which confirms that the Lovins-Ross conclusions are valid. On the other hand substantial information exists, such as - that cited.in the Supplementary Information of the proposed rule, which shows that nuclear plants are lower cost to operate than fossil plants.2/ l If conservation lowers demand, then utility companies take the mos.t expensive operating plants off-line first. Thus a completed nuclear plant would be used as a substitute for less economical generating capacity. Therefore, the Commission concludes that studies such as those cited in the proposed rule should be relied on to reach conclusions on comparative energy costs, rather than the Lovins-Ross articles. Comments Ten comenters addressed the issue of whether the rule change, if adopted., should apply to ongoing licensing proceedings then pending and to issues or contentions therein. Three comenters who opposed the rule comented that changing conditions since the CP should warrant not making' the rule 1 applicable to pending OL proceedings. The commenters who favor the l -2/ See Steam-Electric Plant Construction Cost & Annual Production Excenses - 1978, December 1980, 00E/ EI A-0033(78); Draf t Environmental Statement Relating to the Operation of Grand Gulf t4uclear Station l Units I and 2, t1UREG-0777, May 1981, pp. 2-1 to 3-1; Cost & Ouality l of Fuels for Electric Utility Plants - December 1980, DOE /EIA-0075 980/12). l Enclosure "A" 1

o 6 _6 proposed rule made comments which can be summarized as arguing that the e reasons for eliminating the review at the OL stage were no less valid. i i for ongoing cases than for future proceedings. l

Response

i The Commission believes that there is no compelling reason why pending i operating license proceeding should be treated differently than future proceedings. Since need for power and alternative energy source issues l were considered at the CP

• stage for all pending OL proceedings, in the absence of special circumstances, there is no more reason to believe that these issues would tip the NEPA cost-benefit balance against issuance of the operating license in pending cases than in future cases.

Accordingly, the rule, when effective, will apply to pending operating license proceedings. Comments Th'ree comments were made on the provision allowing need for power and alternative energy sources to be raised under 10 CFR 2.758. An' example of how 82.758 could be used to raise need for power and alternative energy source issues was given in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule: --- special circumstances could exist if for example, it could be shown that nuclear plant operations would entail unexpected and significant adverse environmental impacts or that an environme'ntally and economically superior alternative existed." The commenters stated Enclosure "A"

q that the requirements for raising these issues under 52.758 as written in the Supplementary Information should be modified because they believe the example would defeat the purpose of the rulemaking by making it as f easy to require these issues to be treated as is the case under current f rul es.

Response

The Comission does not agree. Section 2.758(c) requires the petitioning party to make a prima facie showing that application of the regulation to a particular aspect of the proceeding would not serve the purposes for which the rule was adopted. This is a much stricter standard than the current requirements for raising need for power and alternative energy sources in OL proceedings. Comments Four commenters noted that no mention was made of whether need for power and alternative energy sources needed to be addressed in NRC's operating license environmental impact statements (EIS's). The expressed concern was that silence on these issues may be interpreted to mean that they must still be treated in EIS's. Resoonse_ The Comission does not intend that these issues be reexamined in environmental impact statements prepared at the operating license stage. Accordingly, to avoid possible conf.usion, the final rule ha.s a conforming change to Enclosure "A"

Response _ The Comission does not intend that these issues be reexamined in every environmental impact statemente prepared at the operating license stage. Accordingly, to avoid possible confusion, the final rule has a confonning change to spec 454ea44y generally exclude treatment of these issues in However, in very unusual the EIS by modifying 5 51.23.end-i-64,26, cases, such as where it appears that nuclear plant operations would_ entail unexpected and significant adverse environmental impacts or tha_t t an environmentally and economically superior alternative exists, the Comission would be obligated under NEPA to address these issues in its In such cases the Commission would I environmental impact statement. address the issues in the environmental impact statement and would _ require the license applicant to address these' issues in its environmen Accordingly, 5 51.21 and 51.23 have been revised ~to l report as well. i make clear that while discussion of need for power and alternative j energy source issues is generally not needed in environmental statements l f and reports at the operating license state, discussion may be required i by.the Comission._* The purpose of ihfs' c'h'ange "is To g'ive th n the same latitude to consider environmental issues in special circumstances I l where no hearing is involved or before a hearing as it has under 2.758 where a hearing is involved _. Coments_ The Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) stated that the pro l NRDC!s belief that the proposed rule is legally impermissible under NEPA. rule is legally impermissible under NEPA is grounded on its s l

• Additions to existing language are uncre scofed, deletions are lingd out.

~ } _g_ assertion that the Comission's interpretation of Calvert Cliff's Coordinatino Comittee, Inc. v. A.E.C., 449 F.2d 1069 (D.C. Cir.1971) and Union of Concerned Scientists v. A.E.C., 499 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1974) in the Supplementary Information which accompanied the proposed rule.is overly broad. In addition, NRDC asserts the rule does not comply with the Comission's duty under NEPA to consider alternatives at the -operating license stage. I

Response

The Comission disagrees and continues to believe that those cases support the proposition that NEPA does not require the Comission to duplicate at the operating license stage its review of alternatives absent new information or new developments. This is made clear in Union of Concerned Scientists wherein the Court explicitly stated "we expressly said in that opinion [ referring to Calvert Cliffs] that full i l Enclosure "A"

[ . NEPA consideration 'need not be dup;icated absent new information or new developments, at the operating license stage. '",3] UCS at 1079. Alterna:ive energy source issues receive and will continue to receive extensive consideration at the CF stage. However, judicial precedent makes clear that NEPA requires agency decisionmakers to only consider reasonable alternatives. Friends of the Earth v..Coleman, 513 F.2d 295 (9th Cir. 1975); Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827 (D.C. j Cir.1972). Moreov'er, it is well settled that environmental issues.need . not be continually relitigated in individual adjudicatory proceedings, but may be resolved on a generic basis thmugh rulemaking without violating NEPA. See Ecology Action v. A.E.C., 492 F.2d 998,1002 (2nd Cir.1974), Union of Concerned Scientists v. A.E.C., 499 F.2d 1069 (D.C. Cir.1974) and Natural Resources Defense Ccuncil v. N.R.C., 547 F.2d 633, 641 (D.C. Cir.1976), rev'd on other grounds and remanded sub nom. Yemont Yankee Nuclear Power Coro, v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978). This rule, -in the absence of a showing of special circumstances, resolves need for power and alternative energy source issues in OL proceedings on a generic basis. Accordingly, the Comission believes that the rule complies with the requirements in NEPA. -3/ See also 40 CFR sl508.28 of the NEPA regulations of the Council of Environmental Quality. That regulation encourages agencies to " tier" l envircnmental impact statements when it " helps the lead agency to focus on the issues ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided..." (emphasis added) This comment was also j made by one of the comenters. l l Enclosure "A" 1 O M We

t -it-Comment Four commenters noted that the propored rule change did not mention the elimination of alternative site analysis at the OL stage, even though this has already been eliminated by rule change (46 FR 28630).

Response

The omission in the proposed rule of the language in 10 CFR 51.21 and 54,53 which eliminates the consideration of alternative sites at the OL stage has been reflected in the final rule. In addition, a reference to the elimination of consideration of alternative sites in environmental imoact statements has been added to 51.23(e). 10 CFR 51.53(b) which eliminates consideration of alternative sites at the OL hearing process is already a part of the Commission's rules. Comments l Three commenters who favored the rule change stated that Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards may be able to initiate consideration of need for j power and alternative energy sources, [sua sponte) even though parties l l to the proceeding may not. l

Response

l The Commission does not believe that it is necessary to prohibit licensing boards from bringing up issues on their own initiative, since 10 CFR ~ l 2.760a limits this action to serious' safety, environmental or co=moh m

[ ? Coment i Seventeen of the comenters who were opposed to the rule change stated generally that changed conditions between the time of the construction pemit proceeding (CP) and the operating license proceeding (OL) such as increased costs, lower demand, new infomation, and new technologies l J 1 warranted a consideration of these issues at the OL stage and a new detemination made on need for power and alternative energy sources. l

Response

j i l While it is true that certain factors may change between the CP and the l .I OL proceeding, the notice of proposed rulemaking sets forth why it is I unlikely that these changes would tip the NEPA cost-benefit balance against issuance of the operating license [ As more fully set forth in the notice, experience shows that completed nuclear power plants are used to their maximum availability and that there-has never been a j finding in a Conniission OL proceeding that a viable environmentally I superior alternative to operation of the nuclear facility exists. The Comission expects this to be true for the foreseeable future and hence, l in the absence of a showing of special circumstances, consideration of i these issues in individual OL proceedings is not necessary. 1 l l Enclosure "A" l

Regulatory Flexibility Statement In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Comission hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule eliminates certain reporting requirements for owners of nuclear power plants licensed pursuant to Sections 103 and 104b of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134b. Owner., of nuclear power plants are not within the definition of small business found in Section 3 of the Small Business Act,15 U.S.C. 632, or within the Small Business Size Standards set forth in 13 CFR Part 121. 1 l i Acco~rdingly, the Comission is amending its regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 % provide that need for power and alternative energy source issues will not be considered in operating license proceedings for nuclear-power plants and need not be addressed by operating license applicants in environmental reports submitted to the NRC nor by the staff in environ-l mental impact statements (EIS's), at the operating license stage. An l exception to or waiver of the rule will be pemitted in particular cases if special circumstances are shown in accordance with 10 CFR 2.758 of the Comission's regulations, " Consideration of Comission rules and regulations in adjudicatory proceedings." Tne rule will'be applieda to ongoing licensing proceedings then pending on its effective date and to issues or contentions therein. Enclosure "A" i

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the National Environmental Policy Act, of 1969, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and Section 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, notice is hereby given of the adoption of the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 51. PART 51 - LICENSING AND REGULATORY POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1. The authority citation for Part 51 is revised to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Sec.161b., h, i and o. 68 Stat. 948, 949 and 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b), (h), (i) and (o); secs. 201, 202, 88 Stat.1242-1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842). National Environmental Policy Act of i 1969, secs.102,104 and 105, 83 Stat. 853-854, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332, 4334, 4335). l 2. Section 51.21 is revised to read as follows: l 151.21 Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Stage. Each applicant for a license to operate a production or utilization facility covered by 151.5(a) shall submit with its application l the number of copies, as specified in 5 51.40, of a separate j document, to. be entiitled " Applicant's Environmental Report-Enclosure "A"

Operating License Stage," which discusses the same matters described in 151.20 but only to the extent that they differ from those discussed or reflect new information in addition to that discussed in the final environmental impact statement prepared by the Comission in connection with the construction permit. The " Applicant's Environmental Report-Operating l License Stage" may incorporate by reference any information contained in the Applicant's Environmental Report or final environmental impact statement previously prepared in connection with the coristruction permit. With respect to the operation of nuclear reactors, the applicant, unless otherwise required by the Commission, shall submit the " Applicant's Environmental Report-0perating License Stage" only in connection with the first licensing action that would authorize full power operation of the facility. No discussion of need for ocwer or alternative energy sources or alternative sites for the proposed plant is reouired in the report, unless otherwise-required by the Comission. 3. Section 51.23 paragraph (e) is revised to read as follows: l 5 51.23 Contents of draft environmental statements. (e) Other considerations. A draf t environmental impact statement prepared in connection with the issu'ance of an operating Enclosure "A"

m ( p , license will cover only matters which differ from, or which reflect new infortnation in addition to, those matters discussed in the O final environmental impact statement prepared in connection with the issuance of the construction permit. The draft statement may incorporate by reference any information contained in that final ~ environmental statement. With respect to the operation of nuclear reactors, unless otherwise determined by the Commission, the draft statement will be prepared -' ' 4 in connection with the first licensing action that authorizes full power operation of the facility. I_n_ n the case of environmental impact statments orepared in connection 0 with operating licenses for nuclear reactors no discussion of need for power or alternative energy sources or alternative sites is reouired, unless otherwise required by the Commission. l l 4v---Seet4en-54,26i-paragraph-{b-)i-4s-revised-te-read-as isilews+- E-51,26-F4Ral-eRVireRmeRtal-4RpaEt-StateRORt5r { s s s s s (b.)--The final-environmental i= pact-state: ::t will make a meaningful-reference-to the-existence-of any responsible opposing v 4 ew-n o t-a de q u a t e ly -d i s cu s s e d-4 n - th e-d r a f t - e n vi ro n m e n t a l-s t a t em e n t., 4adisating-the-response te-the-issues-raised,--Any-cs:sents-en-a r

• eft-envihe-1--ifnpect-st-ettmeM.- W 4-re Ndon-wi-th y.

ENh UOh hh

. l powe r-e r-a l t e rn a t 4 ve-e n e r gy-s e u r e e s - mu s t-b e-re s p e n ded-te-e n 4y -wi th l an-explanat4en-why-these-4ssues-are-net-germaner--All-substant4ve cements-rese4ved-en-the-dFaf t-(er-summaF4 es-theFeef-whePe-the res po n s e-h a s-b e en-ex s e p t 4 e n a 14y-ve l vm4 ne ws )-w(14-be-a t ta e h ed-te-th e fin a l-s ta temen t,-whe th e F-e P-ne t-e a Eh-EOPRen t-4 s - 4 R d4 v 4d W ally d4sswssed-4n-the-text-of-the-statement, w i s 1 5. Section 51.53 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows: 4 51.53 Hearings-Operating licenses. (c) Presiding officers may shall not admit contentions proffered by any party concerning need for power or alternative energy sources for the proposed plant in operating license hearings. Dated at Washington D.C. this day of , 1982. For The Nuclear Regulatory Comisson Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Comission. Enclosure "A" .}}