ML20043A838
| ML20043A838 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1989 |
| From: | Schori J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| To: | Parler W NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005230181 | |
| Download: ML20043A838 (21) | |
Text
.
413 943 3755.
10/29/1999 07:53 REA0 TOR SVETY & PROJ RS-415 943 3753 P.02
",e' y
a g
. +.
4isuun r..,
.. - - u wrv e,.o.s..i.
3..s....
.....u...i.s......, 9 Ah %EC TRIC SYSTE M SERV!NG THE HEART OF CALIFORNlp g
NGestfg,.
1 December 22, 1989 William C.
Parler, Esquire General Counsel i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
Washington, DC 20555 Re:
Ranaho saae muelaar Generating stakian gggkat me. so-s u_
Dear Mr. Parler Rancho seco Nuclear Generating station is closed pursuant to a
June 7,
- 1989, referendum of District
- voters, and on Saptember 11, 1989, the District's Board of Directors terminated efforts to sell the plant. for operation as a nuclear generating station.
Defueling of the reactor vessel is complete.
Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Director of the office of N'uclear Regu'ation, in a letter of November 27, 1989, to the Reactor l
District's General Manager, summarized the NRC's understanding of
^
the District's-plans for the closure and decommissioning of Rancho
- Seco, and outlined the associated NRC regulatory processes..
Discussions between SMUD and HRC staff members and attorneys have i
raised the possibility of some differences between the NRC and the l
District in the interpretation of Dr. Murley's letter and the application of the National Environnental Policy Act (NEPA) to NRC review of our closure and decommissioning proposals.
The District has asked its outside
- counsel, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, to advise us on the applicability of
^
NEPA to the NRC's review of our future activities at the plant.
[
9003230181 691222 DR. ADOCK 0000 2
/ yp,g g
. DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS D 62o1 S @rCOQ8Q@DEGEMNWYY inEn 1
r._ y OMUJW bt*J U.tB r
7,e
- WillsCm c. Parlor E quir3 De00mber 23, 1939
'4 7
offort to advance the NRC-SMUD dialogue on these issues, I am providing you with the attached, memorandum which represents SMUD's analysis of the NEPA review standards which should apply.
If you or your staff have any questions with respect to the District's position, please telephone me or Mr. Raxter of shaw, Pittman (202-663-8000).
Sincerely, R
3an schori General Counsel Attachment ces chairman Kenneth M. Carr commissioner Thomas N. Robertsi commissioner Kenneth C. Rogersi cor.onissioner James R. curtiss commissioner Forrest J. Remick Mr. James Taylor, Executive Dire: tor for operations Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Requintion Mr. Jack B. Martin, Regional Administrator Thomas A. Baxter; Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge o
l L
i 1
i L,
i2/29)i999 ~~07i54 REACTOR 58FETY & PROJ RS
"'415 943'375.1 Q.Th)~
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~
SwAw, P TTM AN, POTTE & TQOWOQloct e
- t... gg Tot Jan Schori, Esquire General Counsel sacramento Hunicipal Utility District TROM:
Thomas A. Baxter David R. Lewis Edward C. Schweitzer, Jr.
Subject:
Application of the National Environmental Policy Act to the closure and Decommissioning of Rancho Seco 5
Date:
December 21, 1989 On November 27, 1989, the NRC Staff sent SMUD a letter regarding the closure of the-Rancho Seco Nuclear Ger.erating Sta-tion.
The letter states, among otner things, that "NRC requia-tions do not permit segmented decotnissioning of the plant by a process that bypasses regulatory requirements to evaluate the full scope of the proposed action" and that "(blefore initiating irreversible steps toward decommissioning, you (SMUD] will be required to submit a decommissioning plan pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
l l
50.82 and a supplemental environmental NRC review and approval of f
the decommissioning plan."
i
- ~ -^
- 6 OMLJ/inrebGl T.19 j
1' SwAw, P.TTM AN, PoTTS 8. Taowc Alost 4
......e e.,m.3% e. e.+,.
Depending on what is considered an " irreversible step toward decommissioning' (the first irreversible step toward decommis-sioning was taken in 1974 when the operating license was issued for Rancho seco), these statements. appear to us to be inconsis-tent with the NRC regulations, with NRC practice, and with NEPA.
In particular, SMUD intends to apply for a " possession-only" license before submitting a decommissioning plan.
This submittal is consistent with past practice and current regulations, and it should be promptly acted upon and granted by the NRC.
As part of 1
this application, SMUD intends to seek relief from the require-ments to inspect and maintain certain systems and other program-matic requirements that are no longer required, again in complete accord with NRC practice and requf.rements.
The NRC should evalu-ate and grant this relief without first requiring a decommission-ing plan or' performing a NEPA review ci decommissioning.
A refusal by the NRC to consider or act upon SMUD's appilcation for a possession-only license and relief from superfluous equipment and programmatic requirements would be arbitrary and capricious, t
and contrary to law.
The basis for these conclusions is pre-sented below.
I...
i S,NAW..PITTM AN, POTTO & Taowamo3t
,.......cwown c-see m e e e The NRC's Ree0!ations and' Practice The NRC's long standing and unchallenged practice has been to grant a possession-only license when a licensee decides to permanently cease r,eactor operations.
Decommissioning plans have been submitted later.
As explained in NRC Regulatory Culde 1.86 When a licensee ' decides to terminate his nuclear reactor operating license, he may, u a first steo in tie erect 11, request that his operating license be amended to restrict him to possess but not operate the facility.
The advantage to the licensee of converting to such a possession-only license is reduced surveillance requirements in that periodic surveillance of equipment important to the safety of reactor operation is no longer required.
Once this possession-only license is issued, reactor operation is not permit-ted.
Other activities related to cessation of operations such as unloading fuel from the reactor and placin on. site or offsite)g it in storage (either may be continued.
(Emphasis added.)
This procedure has been consistently followed at the plants that are no longer operating, including commercial reactors such as Indian Point 1, Dresden 1, and La Crosse.
Possession-only licensing has not been predicated on a decommissioning plan or a NEPA review of closure or decommissicning.
The NRC prepared no EIS for the closure or license conversion of either Indian Point 1, Dresden 1, or La Crosse.
3
.m.
w
,, l 12/29/19e9 87853 REACTOR $AFETY & PROJ R5 413 943 3755 P.07 l
I
~
Dwh.., PafTMAN, PCTTS &i TRDWSRIDGE l
.......m 6
n.
s The NRC's new decommissioning rule codifles this consis-tently followed, past practice-ine explanatory statement accom-
-panying the rule. states:
Normally.an amended Part 50 license will be issued nrier to the deccg!gissionine order to confirm the non-operating status of the plant and to reduce some requirements which are important only-for operation erior to final-saation of decommis.slonine plans.
liubsequent-license amenciments will be issued t'
as appropriate.
- 53. Fed. Reg. 24,018, 24,024 (1988) (emphasis added).
As further explained, there has been no change in the prac-tice of issuing amended possession-only licenses.
In the past,:the period of safe storage or that following entombment has.been covered by an amended " possession-only part 50 license-which does not authorize facility' operation with-the term " order" used only in the ease of a dismantling order, due to the more active nature of this stage of decommission-ing.
Except for the use of the term "decom-missioning order," there has been no chance from opst oractice.
The term " decommission-ing order" has been used in lieu of "disman-tling o dar" because, a:ccrding to the amend-ments, the overall approach must now be approved shortly after the end of operation rather than an amended " possession-only" Part 50 license being issued without plans for ultimate disposition. l 4
08bG a l M es V.td SwAw. PlTTMAN. POTTS & TQOWQQlD3C
.......e w....
n.... co v.,.
3 1d. (emphasis added).
Thus, in'the past, possession-only licens-ing has been used to reflect the non-operating status of the L
plant, and a separate (and in practica, sub' sequent)
- dismantling order" has been used to authorize decommissioning.
The only l
change is that, rather than issuing a " dismantling order" cover-i ing only DECON,- the Commission will now issue a " decommissioning order" encompassing SAFSTOR or ENTCNB as well.
This change does not affect the basic dichotomy. preserved by the rule -- the ini-tial amendment of a licehse't~e authorize possession only, and the subsequent issuance of an order dealing with decommissioning.
We do not suggest that the new decommissioning rule has done nothing.
The last sentence in the quote above indicates that SAFSTOR and ENTOMB are net authorized automatically by possession-only licensing, but must nowbeaddressedinde$ommis-sioning plans which are submitted within two years after opera-tions permanently cease, which include ultimate disposition of the plant, and which vill-be approved by the NRC in a decommis-sioning order.
This sentence does not indicate that possession-only licensing and-the activities permitted under a possession-only license in preparation for SAf'STOR or ENTOMB must await the dwi.unuui 1vniny vi des ( v s' ever. the subn.ittal of decommissioning plans). -To the contrary, the explanatory statement explicitly states that possession-only licensing occurs crior to the I
12/29/1999 07:56 RE40 TOR SAFETY & PROJ RU 413 943 3755 P.09 3;
.c L*,,
- $naw, PdTM AN PoTTE & TmoweniDGE
. w w.....
w...
on... ~
decommission 1no order and crior to the finalization of decommis-s_lonino_olans, and it further indicates that in this respect there has been no chance in onst ots.Illg.t.
53 Fed. Reg. at 24,024.
Consistent with these pronouncements, new I'0 C.F.R. 55 50.82 and 51.53 require that an application to terminate a license, j
-accompanied or preceded by a decommissioning plan and an environ-
~
L mental report, be submitted within two years following permanent l
cessation of operations.
As the comnission has stated, *The decision as-to whether a shutdown vill be permanent is, of course, the 3icensee's."
50 Fed. Reg. 5,600, 5,605 (1985);
NUREG-1221, " Summary, Analysis and Response for Public Comments" at C.3.
Thus the rule gives the licensee two years after perma-p nent cessation of operation.(which is determined exclusively by I
the licensee) to submit an application for license termination, decommissioning plan and environmental report.
This application for license terminction is distinct from the application to amend 1
a license to possession-only status submitted as the "Iirst step" in the process and before the finalization of plans.
The NRC's decommissioning order vill be issued even later (perhaps a year
.or more after the application for license termination).
This scheme is entirely inconsistent with any suggestion that a decom-missioning plan must be provided immediately or that such plans E
12/29 1989 B7:57 -REACTOR SW ETY & PROJ R5 413 943 3755' P.10
\\
- $%W, PrrmAN, Po Ts & Tmowsmioon
+
........w
.... m.. u c.....
and/or a decommissioning order must precede issuance of a possession-only license.
When a licensee permanently ceases operation of its plant, it must make plans for the ultimate dis-position of the plant but has two years to do so.A/
~
It would be not only inconsistent with the regulations, but absurd, to require a licensee t,o expend millions of dollars to maintain all of the systems in its plant (systems that have no present or future use) in an operational condition and to main-tain staffing and preparedness programs necessary only for power operations for years until a decommissioning order is issued.
It is, of course, a'so contrary to the NRC's mandate to the public health and safety to allow a licensee to retain the authority to conduct power operations at a permanently shut-down and defueled reactor; and it is equally inconsistent with the public health and safety to require a licensee to divert and dilute its resources, attention, and maipower by expending them on activi-ties with no benefit whatsoever.
1/
Nothing in the regulatory guide.nce issued by the NRC to date on meeting the decommissioning regulations even remotely would suggest that the possession-only step has been ellmi-nated, or that a plant must remain operational until a decommissioning plan is approved, or that justification for (and alternatives to) the closure decision must be su? plied.
In fact, the NRC states, "This plan must be approved :oy the NRC before maior decommissioning procedures are started."-
Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1005 (Sept. 1989) at v.
(Emphasis supplied.)
l
a.
- $wAwi PITTM AN. pCTTs & TQQWDRIDGE
.' m
.....e w e........ ec a.o.
NEPA's Recuirgren's t
NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statements before taking " major federa1 actions" (includ-ing major licensing decisions) "significantly affecting the qual-ity of the human environment." 42 U.S.C. S 4332(2)(C)._ The per-manent cessation of operations,does not invoke this requirement.
The decision not to operate a plant is the plant operator's, not 4
the NRC's, and so is not a federal action at all.
The absence of NRC involvement in and lack of authcrity over shut-down decisions are acknowledged by the Commission in its statement that "[t]he-decision as to whether a shutdown will be permanent is, of course, the licensee's."
50 Fed. Reg. at 5,605.
The-Commission's lack of authority in this matter is also indicated-in Supreme, Court cases delimiting the NRC's j'urisdiction.
The Supreme Court has observed:
There is little doubt that under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, state public utility com-missions or similar bodies are empowered to make the initial decisions regarding the_need for pcwer.
42 U.S.C. 5 2021(k).
The Commission's prime area of concern in the licensing context, on the other hand, is national security, public health, and safety.
SS 2132, 2133, 2201.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Core.
- v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 550 (1978).
Similarly, in P_acific
.e.
i
, ; 4T F I
'12/29/1999 07:58 REACTOR SAFETY & PROJ RS' 415 943 3755 P.12
_1 h
- 'HAN, PITTM AN. PO Ts & Tmowentoot S
......u
... m.....u.
t Gas & Electric Co. v. State Enercy Resour_ces conservation &
Development Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190, 218-19 (1983), the supreme Court pronounced that NRC *does not and could not compel a util-ity to develop a. nuclear plant."
The NRC determines "enly that it is safe to proceed with such plants, not that it is economi-cally wise.to do so "
It follows that it is equally inappropri-ate for the NRC to attempt to cbmpel a utility to operate a nuclear plant (except in a few emergency situations not-relevant
'here /), or to determine that a shutdown after 15 years of opera-I tion is economically unwise.
The f ederal actions that will be before the NRC to decide, -
therefore, consist solely of proposed license amendments to con-t t
vert the' facility license to a possession-only license and to i
eliminate certain equipment requirements, and the subsequent and separate license amendment dealing-with decommissioning.
Obvi-L ously,_ possession-only licensing is not an action significantly 2/
Section 108 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. S 2138, par-mits the NRC to order the operation of a nuclear plant when L
l Congress has declared a state of war or national emergency L
'and the NRC finds such operation necessary to the common defense and security.
In addition, under sections 186 and 188 of the Act, 42.U.S.C. SS 2236, 2238, wherc the NRC has revoked a license because of regulatory violations but con-tinued operation is of extreme importance to the national defer.se and security or public health and safety or required by the public convenience and necessity, the NRC may take possession and operate a facility, paying just compensation.
i
. '9 _
l i
l l
1
. ~.
12/29/1989 07858-~ REACTOR SAFETY t. PROS R5 489 943 3755 P.13 I
SHAW, PITMAN. POTTS & Trows Riogg;
. ~
s.s.. m. a o,ssm ses.o.e,o e affecting the' environment'because, in the words of the NRC, it merely " confirm (s) the nonoperating status of the plant and...
reduce (s) some requirements which are important only.for operation...."
53 Fed. Reg. at 24,024.
With respect.to proposed decommissioning, the NRC has already' evaluated the environmental impacts associated with per-missibla methods in a Generi: Environmental Impact Statement pre-pared-in connection with the decommissioning rulemaking-and has found those impacts to be insignificant.
NUREG-0586, " Final i
Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities," $ 15.1.5 (Aug. 1938) ("GEIS").
The NRC has therefore determined that it will make findings of no significant impact and r.o additional EIS will'be prepared in connection with the decommissioning of a particular site unless the impacts for a L
particular plant are significantly different from those studied L
generically because of site-specific considerations.
53 Fed.
L Reg. at 24,039.
There is no basis to suppose that Rancho _Seco falls outside the scope of the GEIS.E 1
l I/
The fact that Rancho Seco operated for 15 rather than 30 to 40 years does not affect-the environmental impacts of the decommissioning activities or place Rancho Seco outside the scope of the GEIS.
If anything, the environmental impacts from a plant that has operated for only 15 years vould be less than those estimated in the GEIS. i L
/
~~33,w19es.07:59' REACTORSWETY& PRO.hR[
415 943 3753 P.14 s
<F S' HAW, PiTTM AN POTTS ScTROWBRioGC.
mme n...
ew...
cs..~% w.
4 Despite these facts, the November 27, 1989 letter suggests n
that licensing actions such as issuar.ce of a possession-only
' license and relief from equipment maintenance and surveillance requirements are barred because of the remote possibility that an EIS would be required and such actions'would improperly " segment" the environmental review. _This suggestion is incorrect.
Neither NEPA, the case law on segmentation, nor the NRC's regulations preclude such preliminary licensing actions.
" Segmentation" refers to an agency's consideration of a project in a piecemeal fashion that avoids recognizing the envi-ronmental significance of the pro;ect as a whole.
"Piecamealing" or " Segmentation" allows an agency to avoid the NEPA requirement that an EIS be prepared _for all major federal actions with significant environmental impacts by dividing an overall plan into component parts, each involving action with less sig-nificant environmental effects.. West Chi-gago. :11, v. U.Sm_ Nuclear Re_quiatory Comm'n,
~
701 F.2d at 650.- The rule against segmenta-tion was developed _ to insure that interre-lated projects, the overall effect~of which is environmentally significant, not be frac-tionalized into smaller, less significant Actinns.
Sag gaaerally, Piedmont Heicht_s Civic Club. Inc. v. Morela.nd, 637 F.2d 430 (5th Cir. 1981), Ewain__v. Brinecar, 542 F.2d 364 (7th Cir. 1976) (gn ];g s ).
.Taxcavers Watchdoc, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 298 (D.C. Cir.
1987).
It is obvious that neither the issuance of a possession-.
1 F29/1999 88800 REACTOR SAFETY & PROJ R!; -
415 943 3753 P.13 -
- v.. -
.c
- $w Aw.. PITTM AN POTTE. & TROWORIDGE
.......eu..
o..4%
only Jicense nor the granting of relief from equipment mainte-nance and surveillance requirements vould circumvent NEPA requirements by reducing the significance of the overall impacts of decommissioning to the point where no EIS is required.
Not only are there no impacts associated with possession-only licens-ing, but the NRC has already determir.ed generically that the total impacts from all decommissioning activities are insignificant.
Further, the courts have recognized that it is not improper for an agency to proceed with a segment of a prefact if it is discrete, has independent utility, and does not foreclose the oppo tunity to consider alternatives.
Egg Piedmont Heichts Civic Club. Inc.
v.
Moreland, 637 F.2d 430, 439 (5th Cir. 1981), and ceses cited therein.
Both the Guidelines of the Council on Envi-ronmental Quality-and the NRC's regulations codify the "indepen-dent utility" cases.
They provide that no action on a proposal may be taken before an agency issues a NEPA record of decision if the action (1) has an adverse environmental impact, or (2) limits the choice of reasonible alternatives.
10 C.F.R. 5 51.101(a); 40 C.F.R. S 1506.1.1/
By clear implication, these regulations 1/
Even if the action has a significant envirer.mantal impact, it may be taken if it is justified independently, is evalu-ated in an EIS, and does not prejudice the ultimate deci-sion.
10 C.F.R. 5 $1.101(b); 40 c.r.R. 5 1506.1(e). :
12/29/1989-818:00 REACTOR SAFETY & PROJ R5 415 943 ar:>3 P.16
< J. !
M Aw'. PITTMAN. PoTTS & TRowsmioot
. 9:......c..
.c permit an action if it does not have an adverse environmental impact and does not limit the reasonable choice of alternatives.
West Chb ggp v. NRC, 701 F.2d 632 (7th Cir. 1983) illus-trates these principles.
In that case, the NRC was reviewing plans to decommission a facility and was preparing an EIS.
The NRC, however, permitted the licensee to proceed with the demoli-tien of several buildings.
The Court held that this was permis-sible because there were no significant impacts and the demoli-tion would not prejudice any disposal alternatives which might later'be selected.
Isl. at 64 8-45, 653-52.
Again, neither the granting of a possession-only license nor the relief from equipment ~ maintenance or surveillance require-ments for equipment no longer needed once a reactor-is defueled has an environmental impact.
No release of radioactivity or other degradation of the environment :s associated with these actions.
Further, such actions do not limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.
In this respect, the " reasonable alternatives" that must be considered are the methods of decommissioning, directly analogous to the " disposal alternatives" in the Wgal Chicaco case.
Neither possession-cinly licensing nor relief from maintenance and surveillance and programmatic requirements 13
v:y.
i' 7.-
1R,1ikva989. 06:01 REACTOR SAFETY & PROJ N 485 943 3755 P.87
'r
=. V..
o.
~ $ MAW. PlTTM AN, PoTTS 6 TmowmRIDGE
. w n c.....~ew... er...c. co w.
pertaining to power operattsas limits the choice among the three permissible-methods of' decommissioning ---SAFSTOR, DECON, and ENTOMB.
Sinilarly, neither possession-only licensing nor relief from equipment maintenance and survei'11ance and other program-matic requirements limits the choice of the no-action alternative
-- the alternative of not applying SAFSTOR, DECON, or ENTOMB to the already shutdown plant.
Only if the NRC improperly interprets NEPA as requiring the NRC to decide whether Rancho Seco should return to operation could possession-only licensing and relief from equipment preser-vation requirements even arguably have an effect on the consider-ation of alternatives to decommissioning.
But resumed operation is not a cognizable alternative.
It is not the "no-action alter-
. native," which courts have uniformly recognized as the 'do noth-ing" or " status quo" alternative.
Rancho Seco has already perma-nently ceased operation, and "no action" would simply constitute a-continuation of its present, permanently shut-down but not yet decommissicned state.E/
And except for the no-action alterna-tive, an agency's consideration of alternatives is limited to E/
The NRC recognized in its GEIS on decommissioning that the no-action alternative is the alternative of not decommis-sioning a facility after operations have ceased.
The GEIS concluded that this alternative was not viable.
GEIS S 2.4.1.
14 -
g-: e
'^
E12/29/1989 00101-REACTOR SWETY & PROJ R5 415 943 3753 P.18 -
m :e, s -
=
g SHAW PITTMAN, POTTs 8. TMOWSRIDGE m
..- w.... ew o,.
.,c... % ec those which further the objectives o'f the proposal.N P_r_g_qgig Gas consumers Grouc v. U.S. Deo't of Auriculture, 694 F.2d 728, 769 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denie4 3.ub h Louisiana v. PERC, 461 U.S. 905 (1983) ("The range of alternatives need not extend beyond th(o]se reasonably related to the purposes of the project."); Trout Unlimited v. Mortos, 509 F.2d 1276, 1286 (9th Cir. 1974); Sf_t 1112 City of Ancoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 1986), cert, gg/1Ltd, 484 U.S. 870 (1987) ("When the purpose is to accomplish one thing, it makes no sense to consider the alternative ways by which another thing might be achieved.");
C_i_tv of New York v. U.S. Dep't of__Transo., 715 F.2d 732, 742-43 (2nd'Cir. 1983)', ce_rt. penied 465 U.S.
1055 (1984).
In our case, the'only project before the NRC is SH'JD's proposal tb decommis-sion Rancho Seco safely, and the NRC may only consider alterna-tives that' serve this objective.
Resumed operation does not.
Viewed another way, the courts have held-that an agency is not required to develop an alternative that is essentially an entirely different project.
Miller v. United States, 654 F.2d 513, 514 (6th Cir. 1981).
Thus, for example, in' Sierra Club v.
1,vnn, 502 F.2d 43, 62 (5th Cli. 3974), cuiL. denied Lyb nstL, 5/
The NRC's GE!S on decommissioning correctly recognised that the alternatives to be considered are alternative methods of accomplishing decommissioning.
See GEIS 5 1.3. -
8
10/29/1999 08:02 REACTOR SAFETY 8. PROJ RU 415 943 3755: P.19 '
=L'.
e t
S* Aw,'PITTM AN, PoTTs & Tmowsmiose M
......... c o....on..
.. co..
Sierra Club v. Hills, 421 U.S. 994 (1975), the Court held that-where an agency was considering approving the funding of the development of a:new community, there was no need-to consider alternative uses of the land, such as acquiring it for a park.
Again, in our case, resumed operation is undeniably a project entirely different from the decommissioning.
Resumed operation 1
of Rancho Seco is not a project'being preposed by SMUD and should not be considered by the NRC.
This same conclusion is also compelled by the rule of reason which governs the consideration of alternatives under NEPA.
In Vermont Yankee, supra, the Supreme Court held that an agency's decision should be judged by the information then available to it.
435 U.S. at 553.
The Court. admonished that NEPA was not
-meant to require consideration of alternatives that are " deemed E
only remote and speculative possibilities, in view of basic changes required in statutes and policies of other agencies --
-making them available, if at all, only after protracted debate L-and-litigation not meaningfully compatible with the time frame und needs to which the underlying prcposal is addressed."
142 at i
551, ouotino. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d.827, 837-38 (D.C. Cir. 1972). L I
L
12/29/1989 08:02 REACTOR SWETYlt PROJ RU 415 943 3755-P.?O
[*
b SM Aw,- PITTM AN. POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
.....-. w wo.~a..es..e % ce.. o..
The teaching of vermont Yankee is clear.
Federal agencies performing evaluaticns under NEPA should generally accept the policies and determinations of other branches or units of govern-ment and evaluate proposals in this perspective.
Agencies should deal with circumstancos "as they exist or are likely to exist."
Carolina Environmental Study Grouc v. United States, 510 F.2d 796, 801 (D.C. Cir. 19?S); Estural Resources Defense Council.
Inc. v.
Hodel, 865 F.2d 288, 295 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
While legis-lative action does not automatically justify excluding an alter-native, such an siternative must be reasonably within reach, City of Ancoen v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1021-22 (7th Cir. 1986).-
Ege also Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 837 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (Congress did not intend agency to devote itself to discussion of the environmental impact o'f alter-natives as remote from reality as to depend on, say, the repeal of antitrust laws);
Kilrcy v. Reckelshaus, 738 F.2d 1448, 1454 (9th Cir. 1984) (EIS need net cor. sider.an alternative that Con-gress recently prohibited).
Thus, NEPA does not require consid-eration of alternatives which could only be implemented after significant changes in governmental policy or legislation.
Natu-ral Resources Def_ense Council v.
Callavav, 524 F.2d 79, 93 (2nd Cir. 1975); Farmland Preservation Ass'n v. Goldschmidt, 611 F.2d 233, 239 (8th Cir. 1979) (no need to consider an alternative not 17 -
I
'-c c
12/29/1989 OS 03 REACTOR SAFETY t "ROI R5 415 943 3753 P.21 g
- C..
SHAW, PITTMAN. POTTE & TROWBRIOc t
..,.....ew.......m.-.,.
meeting regulatory requirerrents): Eity__of New York v. Deo't of Transo.,_715 F.2d 732, 743 (2nd Cir. 1983), calla A1D.Ltd, 465 U.S. 1055-(1984).
Here, a referendum has been passed calling for the closure of Rancho Seco, and SMUD, an agency of the State, has taken the action offectuating the referendum.
The decision to permanently shut down Rancho Seco has therefore been made by Sacramento vot-ers and a California agency, and the NRC has no authority to
' interfere with this decision and no obligation under NEPA to sec-ond' guess it.
l i
In summe.'y, while an agency may ec.. sider alternatives beyond its jurisdiction, it should do so gnly when such ali.ernatives
'further the purposes.of'the proposed federal action and-are res-sonably within reach.O Renumed operation does not further the ob;ective of decommissioning the plant and will not occur.
An agency is simply not required to consider alternatives when such consideration would serve no purpose.
Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc.
v.
SEC, 606 F.2d 1031, 1054 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
l 1/
For example, when a utility applies for a construrti6n per-mit, the NRC may properly consider alternative sources of generation and conservation, since they further the purpose of the proposal (to satisfy the demand for electricity). 9
-(-g
- p 12/29/1989 08
- 03 - REACTOR SAFETY & PROJ R5 415 943 3755 P.22-L=.i.. S..'
'e s
U 4 maw, Prrm AN, PoTTs & Tmowsmioac a
.m..-..
c
......n. 7ternative does not implement the pur-on a poses of the. project, it certainly is not
~
reasonable and no purpose would be served by requiring a detailed discussion of environ-mental effects since the alternative will never be adopted.
3,g.1 Crosby-v. Younc, 512 F. Supp; 1363, 1373 (E.D. Mich. 8.D.) ("I cannot perceive of a more useless requirement than one that would require an agency to con-sider alternatives in detail that are not workable.").
t-35E v.
Dolg 583 F. Supp. 653, 659 (D.
Residents in Protest Mn. 1984), citina Trout Unlinited and Vermont Yankee, $UDrg.
This judicial sentiment is apposite to Rancho Seco.
Rancho
.Seco is permanently shut dovn, and the NRC must recognise this reality.
Any evaluation by the NRC of the wisdom or economics of this decision would be an exercise in futility, because SMUD will not operate the plant again.
For this same reason, ariy disincli-nation or refusal by the NRC to amend the Rancho Seco lic,ense to possession-cily status and grant relief from useless equipment maintenance, surveillance and programnatic requirements in order to preserve the option of plant operation would be arbitrary and capricious, and would interfere with the authority and sover-
-eignty of the state.
It would also do great disservice to the-public, since it would require the needless expenditure of mil-lions of dollars and divert resources that could otherwise be-devoted to the safe and expeditious maintenance and decommission-ing of the facility.
,r.atur.u s.e, l TOTAL P.22 m