ML20114F833
Text
,
~m o
o-mm. g
$b@.((h}O M
f
' g' Ut41TED STATES l
}
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION L
3.irY
'p i
wasniwavow, o.c.
os4s n
(
JUl. 2 7 1gn
/N
/
thairman Seaborg Commissioner Ramey
/
g /#
Commissioner Johnson Commissioner Lerson
"~"~~~~ ~
If;PLEP.ENTAT10N OF COURT DECISION ON tlEPA In response to the Commission's request, we have reviewed the licensing cases that are affected by the Calvert Cliffs' decision in order to determine those actions that would be required to conform AEC policy, procedures and environmental statements.
Specifically, Ne have attempted to assess the manpower rec,uirements that would be needed to come in craformance with the decision, the impact or time delays in pending cases, aia ehose cases nearing completion.
Briefly, there are 60 reactor cases involving 83 units affected by decision. Of these,10 cases (7 Ols and 3 cps) are presently in the hearing process or nearing issuance.
There are 20 cases (9 OLs and 11 cps) that are nearing completion of their safety reviews and are expected to be cleared through the ACRS within the next six months. The remaining 30 licensing cases are in varying stages of completion ranging i
from recently received applications for construction permits to those
' hat are more than six months from consideration by the ACRS.
In
.addition to the 60 cases still in review or hearing process there are an additional five reactors that have been issued operating licenses since January 1,1970.
With respect to material licensing, we have environmental statements in preparation for three reprocessing plants, one of which is expected to begin operation within the next six months, two fuel fcbrication plants, and two uranium mills.
In addition, two final detailed statements which have been issued since January 1970 will have to be reviewed in light of the Court decision.
Policy, Procedures and Actions 'to be Considered tjecessary in Implementina NEPA Obvi?usly one of the first actions that would have to be undertaken is the revision of Appendix 0 for Commission consideration. The revision wo. ult l set forth the Commission's new procedures with respect to the implementation of tiEPA in conformance with the Court decision.
Staff is reviewing Appendix D in this regard.
i tf,j)]e R
f-9210130331 920S20 o/
PDR ORG NRCHIST P DR.a,
~,.
s o
o..
t Commission In our review,. we have assumed that the full implementation of the Court decision may require introducing the is5 Je of NEPA in all cases now in hearing (10) and all future cases for 'Jll consideration of all environmental issues.
In add tion @ may be necessary to reopen hearings for those cases for which (a) construction permits or operating lir:enses have been issued since January 1,1970 (16' cases), and (b) construction permits were issued before January 1,1970, for which operating licenses have not been issued (11 cases of which Calvert Cliffs is an example).
Our' review also is based on the assumption that it will be necessary to revise all draft and final detailed environmental statements that have been issued to date. These revised environmental statements would have to be completed and available as evidence prior to the reopening of the hearings.
It is noted that the Court's decision requires the AEC to evaluate environmental effects independently of existing water quality or other applicable Federal and State standards; that is, the AEC is now required to go behind the standards and evaluate ensironmental effects for each plant irrespective of whether or not they meet the standards.
It is difficult to. estimate with any degree of certainty the actual amount of manpower and time that will be required to revise the environmental statements that have been issued and those that are in pregration. The availability of information in existing final statements and draf t statements varies considerably.
In addition, the environmental issues that may be involved vary from plant to plant; accordingly, in some cases the revisions may involve a substantial expansion of the statement to include more factual inforntion on environmental impact, particularly in the water quality crea (thermal).
More importantly, each of the major envtronmental effects must be reviewed and a discussion included on the cost-benefit balance with re.spect to feasibility of reducing significant environmental effects.
Our present regulations implementing NEPA require that Federal agencies be provided a period of 45 days and State agencies 75 days to comment on draft detailed environmental, statements.
We are still reviewing with Counsel the possibility that the revised statements will not have to be recirculated for comment on the assumption that Federal and State agencies already have been provided an opportunity to comment on the substantive environmental issues when the draft statements were previously circulated.
Summary of Manpower Requirements We have attempted to assess, on the basis of our review of the C5 cases, what manpower requirements and time woulo.iac. required in order 10 come into conformance with.the Court's decision.
Our assessments hava been
_s
_-_a
c.
o o..
.=
Commission made on the as'sumption that time is of the essence and that every effort would have to be made to c6me into conformance as quickly as possible and to minimize further delays in the hearing and licensing process.
In developing these estimates we have not sttempted to factor in the time and costs that would be involved during the hearing.
The enclosed listing of cases is by priority and shows the status of each nuclear facility with respect to its stage of licensing and preparation of environmental statements, as well as some indication of.
the possible environmental issues.
Priorities 1 & 2 list those cases that are in the hearing process now; priorities 3 & 4 are those cases which are expected to be ready for hearing within the next six months.
(In this regard, Calvert Cliffs is listed in Priority 4; however, we would expect to treat this case as a
\\
3 Priority 1 since it was the case in the Court decision.) The remaining cases, Priorities 6 through 8 are not urgent in the sense of their licensing schedule but, neverthaless, will require prompt action with respect to preparation of environmental statements, It is estimated that the regulatory staff will need on the order of 60 additional technical personnel over the next six to nine months if' we are to proceed on prompt implementation of the Court decision. This is in addition to the existing staff (7 AEC staff presently assigned to the Division of RadiCogical and Environmental Protection, and 18 contractor personnci at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, and Pacific-Northwest Laboratories).
The requirement for 60 additional technical personnel is based on the immediate assignment of two men to each of the cases in priorities 1 through 4.
It is estimated that each case will require three to six months to gather available information and revise the environmentai statement. This, of course, assumes that wc would not require any new information _ to be developed in research programs.
Of the remaining 30 cases we would expect to assign one man to each case. The total inanpower commitment would be about 90 people over the next six to nine months, at which time we would hope that the backlog of cases would have been reduced and that regular staff would be able to continue at a more normal pace, it is noted, however, tr.at the present 1972 manpower projections do not allow increases in the present complement and that consideration will have to be given for the remaining part of FY 1972 and in FY 1973 to adequately staff this function to reflect the e:qanded-responsibilities of the Commission in the environmental area.
Impact on Lij:ensing Schedule Even with the effort o'utlined above, we do not believe we can avoid delays in most of the cases currently in hearings and those that are nearing the hearing or licensing action s,tage (Priorities 1 through 4).
We would hope by the above actions, if approved by the Commission, to hold these delays to the absolute minimum which may range in some cases to six months. Additional delays may be occasioned by prolonged hearings.
' 4 l
o-o.
t Commission Cost impact on the Licensee A request was made by the Commission for an assessment of the probable or possible cost impact of the Court decision on the licensee. While we have not had time in this review to consider this factor there are certain costs which will be unavoidable.
Any delay in issuing an operating license whdre the reactor is ready for operation can range in the order of $50,000 to $100,000 a day.
Considerably more information may be required in evaluating and assessing the environmental impact of the propose,d facility.
Prolonged hearings will also add to the applicant's costs.
oric.n 1 Signed by Chris L. Henderson
) Harold L. Price Director of Regulation Enclosures cc:
Secretary (2)
General Manager (2)
/
OGC (2)
Algie Wells, AS&LBP J. J. D1Nunno, OEA e
9 4 1;
{..
h@b w a. ZhNdSh 1
pt "ghggp i
Q..,
' YQy,i r
NV p ww;.
t N:
f[ l #[
[
t c o,
?Y kn p, o hU. [ :Rf((
}
m-s_ m 1 i
J 03 i
'![ 1,
'r.
a t
Mp
(
-8
+
4 i
t,
,4-Priorities for Review of Environmental 11atters
+
Priority # 1 - Operating Licenses in Hearing and/or Nearinq Issuance Design Power Plant Name ~~'
_ _ Utility fal(e)
Statement Status Cooling-Remarks 1
- 1. ' Palisades Consumers Power Co.
700 FES issued S/71 Tower Low power license issued. 607, power requested. Heat ing continuing. Themal and radwaste resolved with intervenors.
4 I
- 2. 'Quud Cities 1 & 2 Comenvealth Ed. Co.
'809 ea FES issued 7/71..
Once thru No hearing requested. Fuel loading expected in Uctober 1971. Thermal issue..
(
3.
Point Beach 2
'497 FES issued 3/71 Once thru Hearing scheduled. Platt essentially ready for fuel Power Co.
loading. Themal issae; 4.
Oconee 1 Duke Power Co.
836 ea FES issued 2/71 Once thru No hearing requested. -Unit I ready for fuel loading?
Ocon, < : 2&3 tii September. Units 2 & 3 to be ccepleted in late "
1972 and 1973 respectively.
}
5.
Indian Point 2
' Consolidated Edison Co.
873 FES issued 11/70 Once thru Hearing.in progress. Plant essentially complete.
Order issued for sub-critical loadino. Thermal isso.
l
. Fish kill.
1 6.
Pilgrin Station Boston Edis:
- Co.
654 FES being pre-Once thru Hearing scheduled. Construction to be completed in pared November 1971. Thennal and radiological issues.
7.
Vemont Yankee Vemont Yaf.e huclear
- 564 FES issued 6/71 Tower Hearing to commence Aug. 10, 1971. Plant expecter Power Corp.
to be complete-in Cover.ber 1971. Thermal and radiological issues.
i Priority # 2 - C.nstruction Permits in Hearing 1..'Hidland 1 & 2 Consumers Power D.
492 FES being pre-Pond Hearing in progress. Radioloolcal and fog issues.
i
, 818 pared
. Long Island Lighting Co.
85, FES issued 9/70 Once thru Hearing in progress. Environmental issues.
2.
Shoreham 3.
Femi2 Detroit Ediscri Co.
1171 FES issued 7/71 Tower Uncontested hearing in progress.
n
..J.FES,'.= Fi_na,l_Env.i__ro,nm.en,ta_.l..S_tatement _,. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.._,___ __. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _
't
+
f i
t T.
t
~
Priorities for Review of Environmental Matters 1
i Priority # 3 - Operatinq Licenses Under Revies (ACRS ' approval expected within 6 months) t Design Power
~ ~ Plant Name
~ i Utility MW(e)
Statement Status Coolinq Remarks 1.
Turkey Point 3 & 4 Florida Power & Light Co.
760 ea FES being Pond ACRS review complete. Notice of Issuance not pub-prepared Proposed fished. Environmental issues.
- 2. ' Fort St. Vrain Public Service Co. of 346 DES issued Tower ACRS review complete. Radioloqical issue.
Colorado 6/71 3.-
Maine Yankee Maine Yankee Atomic 860 FES being p.epared Once thru Hearing requested. ACRS review uncertain. Plant canpletion expected Jan.1972. Thermal issue.
Power Company 4.
Sorry 1 & 2' Virginia Electric and 812 ea DES issued.
Once thru Hearing requested on welding. ACRS review expected Power Company 3/71 Sept. 1971.
5.
Prairie Island 1 & 2 Northern
- States Power Co.
555 ea DCS being prepared Tower ACRS review expected March 1972. E9vironmental issue.
6.
Kewaunee Wisconsin Public Service 550 DES being Once thru ACRS review expected March 1972. Thermal issue.
Co.
prepared 7.
Peach Bottom 2 & 3 Philadelphia Electric Co.
1152 ea DES being Tower
'ACRS review expected March 1972. Thermal issue.
prepared
- 98. Calvert Citffs 1 & 2 Baltimore Gas & Electric "
875 ea FES being Once thru ACRS review expected Feb. 1972. Thermal issue.
Cn.
prepared 9.
Browns Ferry 1, Tennessee Valley Authority 1117 ea TVA - DES Once thru ACRS review expected Nov. 1971.
2, & 3 FES = Final Environmental Statement DES = Draf t Environmental Statement Will be treated as priority-one item.
r a
y w.+-
w wu-,,.,
-w n-ew m.v:
.n-,-
-,w,,
w-
,,,,-~,-o.,
...g,w.,p.
3 a.,.
e%,.
,%m.,,
.e 4,
e swv.,.
.,--..n 3
g-
t hf h
e
.)
{
.E i.
$1 4
l i
4
[
Priorities for Review of Environmental f4atters Priority' #' 4 - Construction Permits Under Re' view (ACRS Expected in 6 months)-
p Design' Power Pemarks Plant Name Utility I4W(e)
Statement Status.- Coolinq
.p 1.
Newbold Island 1 12 Public Service Electric 1088 ea FES under review Tower ACkS review expected in Aug. 1971. Environmental isus
{
and Gas of H. J.
2.
Limerick 1 & 2 Philadelphia Electric 1100 ea DES in draft-Tower ACRS review expected in Aug. 1971. Environmental issm Co.
3.
McGuire 1 & 2
. Duke Power Co.
'1150 ea DES in draft Once thru ACRS review expected in Aug.1971.
4.. San Onofre 2 & 3 Southern California 1140 ea DES in draft '
Once thru ACRS review uncertain; seismic desig,1 matters un-resolved. -Environmental issues.
Edison - San Diego Gas l
and Electric 5.
Mm.' Zinner Cincinnati Gas &
810 DES issued Tower
-ACRS review expected in Sept.1971. Environmental
[
issues.
Electric Co.
6.
Farley 1 & 2
. Alabama Power Co.
866 ea DES in draft Tower ACRS review expected in Sept.1971.
7.
Bailly Station Northern Indiana Public 713 DES in draft Tower ACRS review expected in Oct. 1971. Environmental and radioloq1 cal issue.
Service Co.
4
~
ACRS review expected in Nov. 1971.
8.
Itatch 2 Georgia Power Co.
786 DES in draft Tower (incluks Unit 1) 9.
Arkansas 2 Arkansas Power & Light Co.
9 50 DES beinq prepared Tower ACRS revicw expected in floy. 1971.
(includes Unit 1)d Once thru ACRS review expected in Nov'.1971. Environnental isst DES being prepare
- 10. Aguirre Puerto Rico viater Resources
$83 s
Authority
- 11..LaSalle 1 & 2 Commonwealth Edison Co.
1078 ea No report Pond ACRS review expected in flov. 1971. Radioloqical and environmental issues'.
4 i
i 4
DES = Draf t Environmental Statement FES = Final Environmental Statement :
jt 6
i
W..
3'
[
1
^ & $5 -
- :ia
)..,-e e g :.
,&f
~.I WT "3%~ '"'***
g:
?.g*
g}h[i E
.s.
.f spM5e*
m4
,, j
.?
u-
+
z y.
4,
,3-e i
b t
.I Priorities for Review of Environmental Matters' Priority #5 -~ Construction Permits Issued Since January 1,1910 h
Design Power
^
Coolinq Remarks
. Plant Name.
Utility f1W(e)
- dtatement Status 1
1.
Brunswick 1 & 2 Carolina Power & Light Co.
821 ea No Statement Once thru Not contested. Issued 2/7/70.
Prepared-2.
FitzPatrick Power Authority, State of 821 DES Being Once thru Not contested. Issued 5/21/70. Thermal issue.
New York Prepared t
3.
Sequoy=h 1 & 2'.'
Tennessee Valley Authority' 1124'ea lj Once thru Not contested. Issued 5/27/70.
4.
Duane Arnold Iowa Electric Light and 545 DES Being Tower not contested. Issued 6/22/70.
Power Company Prepared S.
Beaver Valley Ocquesne Light - Ohio 847 2/
Tower Not contested. Issued 6/25/70.
. Edison Co.
s Hutchinson Island 1 Florida Power and Light Co.
813 3/
Once thru Contested. -Issued 7/1/70. Environmental issues (Green turtle).
)
Diablo Canyon 2*
Pacific Gat. and Electric Co. 1060 4]
Once thru Contested. Issued 12/9/70. Environmental issues.
f.
Millstone 2 Northe,ast Stilities
.828
' Issued FES 9/70 Once thru Contested. Issued 12/11/70. Environmental issues.
9.
Trojan Portland '.as and Electrir Co.1130 Issued FES 11/70 Tower Contes ted. Issued 2/8/7.1. Environmental issues.
- 10. Nerth Anna 1 & 2 Virginia Electric and Power 845 Issued FES 11/70 Pond Contested. Issued 2/19/70.' Environmental issues.
Co.
- 11. Davis Sesse Toledo Edison - Cleveland 872 Issued FES 11/70 Tower Contested. Issued 3/24/71. NEPA court case pending.
Electric Illuminating
~ DES = Draf t! Erivironmental Statement FES = Final E vironmental. Statement
- 1/ ' Short St'atement Preparej from available licensing infonnation at construction permit stage. TVA now preparing BES under "soon as practicable" quidelines l/ Short Statement Prepared from available licensing information at construction permit stage. AEC now preparing DES under "soon as practicable" guidelines '
3f Short statement prepared from available. licensing information at construction permit stage. - AEC now preparing DES for Units 1 and 2 under "scon as practicable" guidelines..
' 4/. Short statement prepared from available ifcensing information at construction permit stage. AEC now preparing DES for units 1.and 2 under "soon.as
. racticable" guidelines.
p
T l
e t
?
1 2
~?.T f
4
~
k Priorities for Review of Environmental Hatters Priority #6 '- herating Lice ses Under Review. -(ACRS review more than 6 months away)
. 1 Design Power Plant Name-Utility Ph(e)
Statement Status Cooling _
. Femarks 1.
Zion 1 & 2' Comonwealth Edison Co, 1080 ea DES being pre-Once thru.-
Thermal issue pared Indiana & Michigan 1093 ea DES being pre-Once thru Thennal issue. Applicant suit against EPA on towers.
- 2.
D. C.' Cook Electric pared
- 3.. Cooper Station Febraska Public Power 813 DES being pre-Once thru Dist..
, Iowa Power and -
pa<ed
-, ' l.ight Co.
4.
ft. Calhoun Omaha Public Power Dist.
'475 DES being' reviewed Once thru
. Thermal issue.
4.
Indian' Point 3 Consolfdated Edison Co.
'1080 DES being pre:
Once thru
- Thennal issue.
pared 6.
Three Mile Isl'and tietrcoolitan Edison Co.
871 FES being pre-Tower Radiological ' issue (airporg.'
' pared 7.
Crystal River Florida Power Corp.
885' DES being pre-Once thru l
pared
- 8.
Rancho Seco Sacramento itnicipal' Utility 913-DES being pre-Tower District pared 9.
Salem 1 & 2 Public Service Electric 1093 ea DES being pre-Once thru
& Gas Co.
pared DES = DraYt' Endronmental Stateinent
. FES = final Environmental State.?cnt 4
T' 4-
=r
,w y
7 g
w 9 y-
+
y 3y 1
een y-sc-
+---
age--ie.y-y, gr 4
y e-g+gi.w--h--**-'wi "e'gw.-, eau =
m,mm, wee. au-we--
v,w
- Siwe
-ew
++
.-m s----
l i
5 i
1 5
i 3,
t a
i 1
(
PRIORITIES FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS Prior.ty 6 - Construction Permits Under Review (ACRS Review Nore Than 6 Months Away)
\\
Design Power Utility -
tW(e)
Statement Status Cooling Remarks Plant Name.
f 1.
Susquehanna 1 & 2 Pennsylvania Power 1052 DES being prepared Tower
- and Light j
~ Louisiana Pwer &
1165 DES being prepared
- Once thru i
- 2.
- Waterford 3 & 4 Light Company 3 Watts Bar 1 & 2 TVA.
1219-TVA - DES issued Tower i
~
- 4..Verplanck l'& 2
-Consolidated kdison 1115 Report not yet submitted Once thru Envi ronmen tal issues (applicart 1
considering towe rs)
~
4 5.
Forked River Jersey Central Power 1205 OES b ing prepared
.Once thru Envi ronmen tal issues
& Light
- 6.
Virgil Sunner 1 & 2 South Carol,ina Electric 900 DES being prepared Once thru
- & Gas e
t DE - Draf t environnental stathment.
W e
-*naya y
-,yy
+-%g g--
+ - -
gy..mie,
--yg-wg-p.
.,n pg.,
,ynw ime 1
wp p g,gi' gg gg ye g
u v e.w--eygow~,gw+m,
,g.-
"***ew 4-
'F
-t+'F
- 1h^'
'gy-a.g g -r w i-y+ g m
gW=w-m, w-up--=.-w-g+
g-++gw-+y-
-g-m-
w
N l
L.
l!
ji = '
[
w s
v y
(
q k
PRIORITY FOR REVIEW 0F EilVIR0ilMErtTAL tMTTERS -
Priority #8 - Operating Licenses issued Since 1 January 1970 Design Power Utili ty tide) '
Statement Status Cooling System :
Remarks
! Plant flane
'I M
Once thru
- 1.
H. B. Robinson 2 Carolina Power & Light 700 Short staternent i
Short statement M Tower '
Tower used on 2.
Monticello fiorthern States Power 5 15 occasion.
ll 3.
Pt. Beach I Wisconsin Electric Power
.497 Short statement Once thru I
M Once thru 4.
HillstoneI Millstone Point Company 652 Short statement
- 5.. Dresden 3 -
Conraonwealth Edison 809 TES issued 12/31/70 Once thru Environmental issue.
will install pend 1
'lPq ared from available licensing infonnation. Environmental report not submitted by Applicant.
'N 9
t a
Ig.
-m-
-, -, -.,,. _...,..,,..,, ~
,-,s,,,
w.-
,s w.,
,.,... ~
n...,,.%....
. = -,,,,
...-,..m..,
-y,,
.,.,,u-
.o...,,
,,s.
=-
4 i
- 3
' $D 1M. 3
- Qd7p[;' f i
.=y mwA i
l
.i ie 097 E i
i f,
- M i.;gtfr +.
L n u ie w s 4.
['
--~" M j y i g. '
.t
}
m:4 W v5;
,,' !; 3 4
y A
)
- 'i
'Y t.:i m
. {h
- t M
, [
l l
i 4
At
'7-
'{
{
a
~
?!. :-[ fj
[
PRIORITIES FOR REVIEW CF ENVIR0rd'4 ENTAL MATTERS
- [
}
f j
Fuel Reprr' cessing
-}
F.cility Compan Statement Status Remarks l
8.idwest Fuel Reprocessing General Electric,
rES belag p epared. -
- Probable'en+'ronmental and NI
. Plant (CP 12/28/67) r-diological issues.
d
?
]
Barnwell Nucl.rar Fuel
' Allied-Gulf (ES issued Oct. 15, 1970 to Additional information re aquifer
{
4 Plant (CP 12/18/70) f, for construction permit.
- drawdown needed for operating Mcense j-stage.
j Atlantic-Richfield Co.
- Atlantic-Richfield Ene ronmental report from Probable environmental and l
Reproc?ssing Center (Application for Atietic-Richfield expected -
radiological issues.
I CP 10/29/70)
Jar.uary 1972.
.i 1
i Fuel Fabrication
.l Coreany Location Tyr,e of Plant Statenent Status Remarks Jersey Nuclear Co.
Richland Washington
. Enricned uranius fuel Tinal environmental License issuance planned for fabrication plant statesnent issued.
Augus t 17. 1971.
6
}
Nuclear Fuel Service. Inc.
West Valley. New Yorit Mixed oxide (Pu0 -UO-) fuel DES being prepared.
' Initiation of construction planned i
1 fabrication plaa$
for August 1971.
j 1
l Jersey Nuclear Co.
Richland Fashington Mixes 4 nxide(Pu0,-q) fuel No es viron::iental Date for initiation of construction
]
f8ric.' tion plant report filed yet.
not established.
4 q
Uranium Mills I
facility Company Statevent 5tatus Remarks Shirley Basin Uranium Utah Construction 1 ACC Final Envircnmental State.nent i
MiJ1 Shirley Basin.
Mining Coupany issued 1/6/71.
Wyon: Igg
'.. i t
<?
Highland Uranisan Mill Emble Oil & Refining Environmental report to be filed Mill and mine under constru -ion.
[
Douglas. Wyoming Company August 1971.
Hill start-up' planned for 9/1/72.
8' 3
tisneca Urar.ium Mill
. Rio Algom Corporation
- Enviror.sent'ai report to be filed Will and mine under construction.
j.
San Juan County. Utah mid-August 1971.
Mill start-up planned for Spring 1972.
i
~
LES - Draf t environmental statement.
TES - Final environmental statement.
t
=.
-