ML20114F851
| ML20114F851 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1971 |
| From: | Price H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Johnson, Ramey, Seaborg US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093631134 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9210130337 | |
| Download: ML20114F851 (18) | |
Text
....
n
' e,*
s I'5 UNITED ST ATES
),'
ATOMIC ENrRGY COMMISSION
- I J
snswuorou o c m es m
,dE' July 30, 1971 f
Chairm n Sc9 berg Ccmi n ni one r Ra-ey C,i s t.ione r Jchn son Ca ninstoner Larson PHii>0"ED LEI ER TO FACILITY LICENSELS AND APPLICANTS RE CALVERT CLIFFS COURT DECISION I
1 an enclosint f o r t he Comi s s i on ' s inf ormat ion and censidera tion a propo=ed letter to all facility licensees and applica.nt s affected bv the Calvert Cliffs court decition and a proposed pubite announcement on this matter.
I would like ta discuss this with the Ccenission at an early I n f orma t ion Mee t ing.
Il /'
-' Harold L. Price D
p irect'r of Regulation Enc los ure s :
1.
Proposed letter
?.
Proposed public announcement 2-9210130337 920520 PDR ORG Nf(CH I ST PDR
. - _ _ _ - _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
DRAFT - CLHendernoa 7/30/71 l
l l
letter tn All racilitf Licenseen and Applicanta Affected by Calvert Cli f f a i
Decision l
i
==Dear
- ==
On July 23, 1971, tM '/nf tvo testes Court of Appeals for the District of 4
Columbia Circuit decided the consolidated caseg of Calvert Cliffe Coordinating l
Commi t tee. Inc., e t a l. v. U. S. (Case Nos. 24,839 and 24,871) (copy encioned). I am enciming for your information the public announcement which I
i the Comission issued ccncerning the actions it is taking in regard to the Court decinton. As the public announcement indicates, we are presently reviewing the environmental statements that have been issue / and thone that are in preparation in order to determine what modifications may be needed to come in conformance with the Court's decision.
I We vill be in comunication with you concerning the additional information l
that will be required with regard to your environmental report and the possible effect that this decision may have on your licensing schedule.
j In the interim, we believe it is in your interest to review the infomation previously submitted in light of the Court's decision. In thia regard, we are enclosing for your une " Interim Culdance on Modification in Applicant'e l
Environmental Report s and AEC Statements Under NEPA".
Also, we suggent the
" Guide to the Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plants",
i l
which van transmitted to you in March 1971, be used in your review. Since i
it may be a few weeks before we vill be able to issue more definitive guidanc we urre that you ft. vard to un such additional information that you may have i
developed as a result of your own review as soon as it is available.
Sincerely, Harold L. Price j
Director of Regulation l
Enclosures:
l 1
Calvert Cliffs Decision 1
2.
Public Announcement j
3.
" Interim Guidance.
---.~.~w-,
c.,-~ ~ ~ -
.--,....-~,------n,--,-,--n,,---,-
a nn n
., n.,.
. w_ u -
~~
STATEMENT BY Ti(E ATOMIC ENERGY COMMIS$10N JN COURT OF APPEALS DECISION IN CALVERT CLIFFS LITIGATIO The Atomic Energy Commission today issued the following statement concerning the July 23 decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Cojumbia Circuit in litigation involv-
}
ing ti e Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant of 11altimore Gas and i
Electric Company, and the Cc.mmis sion 's implemen t a t ion of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. (NEPA)
The Court directed the AEC to revise in four respects its rules governing consideration of non-radiological environmental i
issues i
in the licensing of nuclear facilities.
i These rules had j
been issued by the AEC in implementation of NEPA.
In its state-t ment, AEC said:
i l
I The Commission is considering the possibility of requesting further appellate review of the Court of Appeals decision.
At the same time, the AEC is studying how best the decision can be implemented in the interim in pending licensing case, i
Based on present AEC estimates, the Court's decision will 1
C/
j directly a f fect he license applications FV t
involving &4 nuclear power reac tors.
Ten of these applications, seven for operating licenses and three for construction permits, are presently pending before licensing boards.
Trenty other applications, nine operating licenses and eleven crenstruction permits, are nearing the conipletion of the AEC review process.
The remaining thirty applications are in stages of the AEC review process 4T i
l ranging from those recently filed to those some six months from I
review completion.
In addition to these sixty applications there are five nucicar power reactors for which operating licenses 1
issued after the January 1, 1970, ef fective date of NEPA which were l
are affected by the decision.
/.lso affected will be three fuel t
reprocessing facilities.
The nuclear power reactors which will be directly affected r
{
by the court's decision represent total electrical generating a
t capacity of about 80 million kilowatts.
The current electrical generating capacity of the United Gtates from all types of power i
l plants is approximately 340 million kilowatts.
Full implementation of the Court's decision may require j
a signit'icant increase in the present staff which handles the I
{
preparation of environmental impact statements and the review of non radiological environmental matters.
As to possible courses of action implementating the decision, i
the Coraission is considering the following s teps:
(1)
Proceeding with those hearings now in progress, placing the immediate hearing focus on radiological health and safety
- issues, (2)
Pursue the same course with regard to facilities to be i
scheduled for hearing in the near future.
i
{
The objective in both of these steps is to do as much as can be done in these hearings before undertaking consideration of non-l l
radiological environmental issues in the hearing process.
5-1.
i
-my-.rw.v-,
--pr,-rv=+
m, m e-w ww.m. _
=,w w ww
- r -
-ew,-e---+---
--m.-_-----------------,-------------i----+-------------
(3)
Begin immediately the re evaluation of the NEPA environmental statements prepared for these hearing cases and proceed with the preparation of supplemental NEPA statements which meet the requirements of the Court's decision.
l (4)
Defer the issuance of any full power operating license l
or construction permit in those hearing cases until the expanded NEPA review is completed.
Certain fuel loading and less than 3
full power operating licenses may be considered for iss Jance under established Commission procedures.
t' (5)
Begin, as promptly as possibir, the NEPA environmental review called for by the dec. ion with respect to (a) facilities whit.h were licensed af ter January 1,1970 (the effective date of NEPA) and (b) pre-January 1, 1970, construction permits, such as the Calvert Cliffs facility.
(6)
Begin immediately the preparation of appropriate regu-lations tc implement the Court's decision.
These regulations, l
as earlier indicated, might be issued on a provisional basis.
AEC is providing interim guidance to licensees and applicants ef fected by the decision concerning possibic modification that may he required in environmental reports.
The principal e.,vironmental e ffect s associated with nuclear i
power facilities are the potential radiological effects and, as is the case with all large steam power plants, the thermal ef fec ts ci heated condenser cooling water discharges.
To a lesser degree there i
1 l h
l i-i l
can be other environmental effects such as those involving noise, j
aesthetics and recreation.
Matters of radiological safety teceive thorough consideration I
j by the AEC under the licensing provisions of the Atomic Energy t
Act of 1954 Water quality matters are presently covered by the i
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Water Quality
]
Improvement Act of 1970, and also by the permit program of the 1
'1 Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Administration f
under the Refuse Act.
As to secondary areas of possible environ-4 mental impact such as noise, aesthetics, and recreation --
sont are the subject of standards and requirements established by Federal, State and regional bodies, while others are not.
Those areas of environmental impact tot covered by standards of other agencies have been covered by AEC in its licensing impicmentaticn of NEPA.
l l
B,
l
~
July 30, 1971 INTERIM CUltANCE ON MODIFICATION IN APPI,ICANT'S ENVIROhMNTAL REPORTS AND AEC STATEMENTS tWDER NEPA e
b i
a in l i r.h t of the recent "Ca lve r t Cliffs Court Decision" AEC applicante and l i c e n:. a c t for nuclear f acilities should review their environmental reports with regard to the following respects:
J l
1.
A detailed analysis of the need for power which will i'
be rencrated in the nuclear units subject to licenstnp mr t se includec Alte rnat ive nethods if generating the power wi th a dir, cuss i on of potenttal envi ronment a l c os t for each method of ( eration should be discunned, i,
Complete information must be included on therral and other affecta with respect t o wa t e r qua li t y, Ari in-depth analvgis of potential rrol eical effects of the facility nugt be included in each report and
'in ement.
lo the extent noe niSle, ecological e f fect
- from t he rna l re l ea <.e,
wt Se eh.;1oed and a monetary value assigned to r.uc h e f f ec t s.
3.
In thone c a t e r.
ence thru cooling is used, a lt e rna t ive methods of hent dissipation, inc luding cos t, nust be discunsed. Where cooling tnwers and pondn are used the potential environmental ef fec ts from forring and aesthetica nust be fully diset imed.
The recreational value of cooling ponds thould he considered.
4 The completenens of infennation on environnental ef fects other than radiological and water quality such am land une, recreation, and secthetics should be reviewed and all relesa t in f orma t i on i nc l uded.
n s.
The ma int e lement s thet should be considered in the benefit cnst 'alance (emphasired by the court) are che benefits of the power produced at the facility sub}ect to licensing, the capital and opera ting costs of the tactitty, any significant cnvironmental cos ts incurred in producing the p&.er and the alternatives available (inc luding cost) for reducing or avoiding the envi ron. men t al c os t s. The differences in the benefits and environmental entts from implementation of the various alternatives should be di=cus sed.
l l
~
~
~
- i. -
.. ~ <
a, y
~
. de.
igr,_
=
e v,,,e u
a,--.a_
-.1,-m,
,ww,
---,e,,
,,,. ~
W ;"g ci b @O n @
O i
Q[ g)
- W
}D Autuct 4, 1971 g(,b}a 4E)4h.5 4d Gs
%~ ) WINTERIM C'JIDANCE ON PSDIPICATION IN APPLICANT'S D;VIRONFENTAL REP 0ETS A';D AEC STATDiENTS UND;R NEPA In its det.ision of July 23, 1971, the Court of Appeals for the District of Colunc.. Circuit in litigation involving the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant directed the Atonic Energy Comisnion to revise in several respects itc rules 1:plementing the National Environrental Policy Act of 1969.
The Co nission is presently preparing anpropriate regula-tions to iepicecnt the Court's decision. The Co mission vill be reeval-unting the NEPA envirencental statceents previoucly issued in connection with its licensing activitics and those in preparation in order to preparc nupplemental NEPA ctatenents which nect the requircecnts of the Court's decision.1/
In the ~nantiec applicants for construction permits a-d their environmental operating licenses fer nuclear facilities should review reports previously suititted in light of the Court decision and develop supplemental information, vncre indicated, to conforn to the Court decision.
~
In this regard the " Guide to the Preparation of Environnental Reports for Nucicar Power Plants" which the AEC issued for interin use and cennent in February 1971 chould be caref ully f ollowed.
Specific enpharis should be given to the folleving in your review.
1.
Cc=plete infermation nust he included on thernal and other ef fects of the facilit; with respect to water quality as discussed in Sections Guide.
2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.5 and 2.3.6 of the Draft In those cases where once thru cooling is proposed, alternattve 2.
octhods of heat dissipation (including costs) raust be discussed as outlined in Section 2.5, Paracraph 4, of the Draft Guide.
The conpleteness of information on environnental cffects of the 3.
f acility such as land use compatibility (Section 2.3.1 of the Draf t Guide),
aesthet ics (Section 2.3.9 of the Draf t Guide), and recreation should be reviewed and all relevant information included.
A detailed analysis of the need for pever which will be generated 4
in the nucice unit *ubject to licencing must be included in each environ-(Section 2.1 of the Draft Guide).
Alternative eethods of mental report generating the power as discussed in Section 2.5 of the Draf t Guide should be discussed and analyzed.
\\
1 nterim guidance f or holders of operating licenses issued since January 1, I1970, vill be issued at a later date.
e
o 0
2 5.
In the Court decision, there is a discussion of the ecst-benefit balancing which enust be carried out in each detailed statement issued by the AEC, To ar.sist the AEC in naking this balanco, detailed information thould be provided on the need for the power produced at the facility subject to licensing, any sfgnificant environmental impact incurred in producir.g the pwer and the alternatives availabic (including cost) for reducing or avoiding the environmental inpact. The differences in the balcnce between benefits and environmental impact of the various alternatives identified above should be discussed 4.nd cnnlyt.ed.
n a
O h
.S t
4 e
m
'k I
~
o O
J,.
4 UNITED STATES
~
[N ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION l *l '@ 7 1i' l w AvaiwaTo w. o.c. sesas s
E
==Dear
,==
On July 23, 1971, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the consolidated cases of Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Comnittee, Inc., et al. v. U. S. (Cases llos. 24,839 and 24,871) (copy enclosed).
I am enclosing for your information the public announcement which the Connission has issued concerning the actions it is considering in regard to the Court decision. As the public anr.ouncement indicates, we are presently reviewing the environ-nental statements that have been issued and those that are in prepara-tion in order to determine whSt modifications may be needed to confon-with the Court's decision.
We will be in communication with you as soon as possible concerning the additional information that will be reouired to supplenent your environmental report and the possible effect that this decision may have on your licensing schedule.
In the interim, we believe it is in your interest to review the information previously submitted in your environmental report in light of the Court's decisior, to determine what additional information should h submitted and ie are enclosino for your use " Interim Guidance on Modification in Apalicant's Enviroamental I',eports and AEC Statements Under flEPA." Also, t'e " Guide to thn Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," which was transmitted to you in March 1971 should be followed carefully in your review. We urae that you forward the additional information developed as a result of your review as soon as it is available in the form of a supplement to your environnental report.
Sincerely, Harold L. Price Director of Regulation Enclosure
" Interim Guidance..."
(Decision not enclosed)
k NEPA l4ll3%
3 y/
DRAFT j*/ j/ d f.3 4 - 2 7/b(/4-g-
l17/
[
FIT :LRogers:sf l
August 4, 1971
~
E. J. Bloch, Deputy General Manager WORKLJAD A!10 MA!iPOWER REQUIFIMEliTS TO IMPLEMEf1T THE JULY 23, 1971, CALVERT CLIFFS COURT DECIS10:10.1 IiEPA In regard to the Calvert Cliffs Court Decision on I EPA the following is an analysis of the projected workload and manponer requirements to fully implemnt the decision and to the extent possible minimize licensing delays.
WORKLOAD BY PRIORITY FOR POUER REACTORS Attached is a summary of the status of each licensing case affected by the Court Decision.
Briefly, them are 66 mactor cases involving 95 units affe'cted by the decision. Of these,10 cases (7 operating licenses cnd l
3 constructior i rmits) are presently in the hearing process or nearing issuance.
There are 20 cases (9 operating licenses and 11 construction permits) that are nearing completion of their safety l
l reviews and am expected to be cleamd through the ACRS within the next 6 months. The remaining 31 licensing cases, such as the Calvert l
Cliffs case, are in varying stages of completion ranging from recent 1
j mceipt of applications for construction permits to those that are l
mom than 6 months from consideration by ACRS.
In addition to the l
60 cases still in review or hearing process, there are an additional l
1 5 cr es that have been issued operating licenses since January 1,
.1 1970..
'j ss
't i
,if i
I i
l
,..-m.-
j i
i 4,
1 In estimating workload we have assuned that the full lalenuntation i
)
of the Court Decision may require intmducing the issue of IEPA in all cases now in a hearing (10) and all future cases for full consideration of all environnental issues.
In addition it may be necessary to reopen I
hearing; for those cases for which (a) construction permits for operating licenses have been issued since January 1,1970(16 cases)and(b) construction permits issued before January 1,1970 for whit.h operating i
licenses have not been issued (11 cases, of which Calvert Cliffs is-I an exanple).
4 i
Our analysis is also based on the assumption that it will be j
necessary to revise all draft and final detailed environnental statenents that have been issued to date.
These mvised t.m/ironnental statements would havc to be conpleted and available as evidence prior
)
to the reopening of the hearings.
Fi rs t pri ori ty_
i
[
The refinement of priorities for cases is being worked on, i
howeve'r we are tental.ively assigning first priority to a myiew and revision of environnental statenents for the Calvert Cliffs case, the 7 cases where operating licenses are now in hearing and/or nearing issuance, f
l 3 cases for which construction permits are in hearing,-9 cases-for which operating licenses are under review and ACRS review is expected within 6 months and 11-cases hor which construction permits are 4
I e
?
l
i 1
I 4
}
i 3-i under review and ACRS rev'ew is scheduled with'n 6 months. This is 4
a total of 31 cases in the first priority category.
For these
{
3 31 cases, 8 final environet,tal statenents have been issued, 6 final j
j l
envirorjrental statements are in preparation, 4 draf t environmental stetenents have been issued 11 draft environnental statemnts are 1
l in various stages of preparation end for 1 case no environrental report i
i has been received from the applicant and no work is underway on a draft
\\
environnental s ta%nenc.. TVA is taking the lead in preparing 1 case.
i To review a' 9 vise all FES's and DES's, that have been irsued or that are in va.ious stages of preparation to conform with the t
caurt Decision, we estimate that it will require assignnent of two-4
]
non to each case imaediately and that' the review and revision could 1
i be completed in from 3 to 6 months.
The time required for each case will, of course, depend on the completeness of the information i
i submitted Sy the applicant in the environnental report.
This varies greatly from case to case For work to begin. imnediately on all i
l Of these cases'would require the availability of 62 qualified people.
t t
l' Second Priority Tentatively we propose to give second priority to those. cases l
for which construction permits have been ~ issued since January 1,1970,-
operating licenses under review for which ACRS review is more than 6 i
months away (13 cases), and those cases forWiich construction-permits are under review but ACRS review is more than 6 months away (7 cases)'.
i l
l 1-n,, men _e,.,,r,--w.s,
--+.-w,-,-,,,,,.wr-4
--,,, -,, =, -,, - -
,,,m,,-
,-v--
.--,--y.~-#--
.., - ~,,,.gr
,y--
--y,..,-.y.-
,,,,e,w-,,,.v-,,
,-,,-r,.
...,,.,vg,y,,,g,.,
s
--wq, r
~ _. -. _. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _.. _.. _.. _. _.
I With respedt to the 11 pases for which construction permits have been l
issued since January 1,1970, we must iri accordance with the Court
{
Decision make an irmediate review of the environnental reports and j
statenents to determine whether then; an: potential significant l
)
environnental effects that might require suspension of the construction pennit pending resolution of the environnental issue. With respect tu those cases fw which operating licenses and construction pennits are undcr eview but ACRS consideration is more than 6 months away, l
the environnental reports should be reviewed to icentify additional infoimation that must be developed and submitted by the applicant.
j perhaps make a site visit, and initiate work on the draft environnental s tatenen t.
We ertimate that these cases require assignnent of 1 non per case with a total conrnitnent of 30 nen for the second priority
- category, i
,Tjhi rd P riori ty i
j The myiew and pr.:paration of. environmental statenents for j
l operating licenses issued since January 1,1970 (5 cases)would be assigned priority three.
For. 4 of these cases only short statenents
[
went pmpared from available licensing infunnation and environnental reports have not been submitted by the applicant. We would propose-to assign 5 nen to these cases.
t 4
4
......, _,.,.,,.......... ~. _
-.--a
i 1
-S.
}
Summary.
In summary full and prompt implenentation of the Calvert i
1 Cliffs Court Decision for all nuclear power plant licensing cases l
j affected by the decision would require an estimated manpower commitnant e
of 90 to 100 qualified people over the next 6 - 9 months.
This number could, of course, be substantially reduced after work on the backlog of cases has been completed.
7 s
WORKLOA0 BY PRIORITY FOR REpR9 CESSING AND FUEL FABRICATION
~~
FACILITIES 4
l There are three fuel reprocessing plant licensinn cases, three fuel fabrication plant licensing cases, and three uranium j
l mill cases, that are affected by the Court Decision.
i In the case of the fuel reprocessing applications, one final
(
~
- nvironnental statement has been issued, one draft environnertal statenant is being prepared and an environmental report is expected
~
from the applicant in January 1972 for the third case.
In tha case 2
of the fuel fabrication plant applications, one final environnentc1 statenent has been issued, o,e draft environmental statenent is n
being prepared and no environnental report has beca filed in the third case, With respect to the uranium mills, one final environmental i
statenent has been issued and enviror.nental reports are expected to f
l be filed 'by the applicant in August 1971 for the ot' r two.
e e
1 li
.r.
i First priority will be given to the Middest fuel Peprocessing l
Plant which is scheduled to start operation within abuut 6 months.
i The applicant's environmental report has only recently been received S
a l
and has been assigned to OPAL to prepare the statenent. With 1
l respect to the otner cases, priorities have not been established but will be arranged to minimize licensing delays. We estimate-l that these cases require a manpower assignnent of 10 manycars
{
over the next 12 months.
i-l SPECI AL ASSI G'lMENTS In addition to the manpower required to review environnental I
reports and prepare enviror. mental statements, there 'will'be a j
j requirement for small task groups to deal with specific problems.
i Sone of the specific areas are as follows:
l.
Develop an overall model'on the content of environmental 1
j statements to coitform with the Court Decision and in particular l
define the scope and elenents of the benefit-cost balance.
2.
Develop guidance on water quality standards as specifically i
j related to thermal, criteria for estimating' environmental-impact from thermal' releases and cos't of alternative cooling' systems.for i
various environnents.
7 3.
Establish a final review group _for environnental statenents-i i
j to expedite processing of draf ts to completion, p
5 I
?
p
.i 4
4
a i
1
- _ 7.. -
1 j -
J We expect that we may want to call on outside expertise
[
(such as Dr. Eugene Odum, University of Georgia) to assist in dealing with some o' the special problem areas.
There is also 1
expertise in these areas in the national laboratories that we may
?
J j
want to draw upo,n.
i i
PRESENT MANPOWER AVAILABLE T0_ PROCESS ENVIR0flMENTAL I
~
STATDENTS 1
f-At the present time the responsibility for reviewing environmental f
reports and preparing environnental statenents ft / all licensing cases is being carried out by a small sta'f.of 10 people within the
=
regulatory staff and by a commitment of 15;- 20'<nanyesrs at Oak Ridge flational Laboratory, Battelle Pacific Northwe.' + Laboratory, l
and Argonne flational Laboratory.
This is a-total commitment of e
j approximately 30 people.
It is cicar that the large t.ddi ti ona' -
commitment of manpower required to implement.the CourtDecision-j must conu from within the AEC and the national laboratories if i
i major licensing delays of nuclear power plants are to be avoided.
l l
The Headquarters regulatory staff would necessarily have to be fully ccmmitted to the managenent of the projects.
This would
+
L j
include establishing work schedules and priorities, liaison with the national laboratories working on the statements, liaison;with the licensee, arranging trip visits, coordination-of cases with the licensing divisions, dealing withL comments from'other Federal and l
State agencies, etc. - This nuans iat we should look for an t
i ADDITI0ilAl., manpower commitment of from 60 - 70 people within the -
AEC and the flational 1,aboratories.-
i I
L c e _,., + ~ ~, e -,r 2
r.,_,m.,r~-,---
..,w.,
,,,._r_,,..-,,,,_,,m.*ww,.....m.e_,w,,
2 _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _... _.. _ _ _ _ _.. _ __. _. _ _. _ _ _ _ -.._ _ _
4 i
14 j.
i 2
4 i
8-
, Attached are draf t nemoranda to ORNL, Argonne, and Battelle f
j Pacific Northwest requesting that-a-assessment be made of these laboratories' capability to' provide additional manpower.
In addition, o
L:
it, of course, rnay be that sone of the other laboratories should be I
called on to assist.
1.
I I will be glad to discuss this with you, i.
I 4
i j.
1 I
k i
?
i i
l i
N i
!=
l 4
4 g :-
t 4
j i
4 e
$'j.
l Ie
_...._.,..___._._...,_......__..a,.._..;.._