ML20134B318
| ML20134B318 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/19/1993 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9302250123 | |
| Download: ML20134B318 (98) | |
Text
ff%%%%%%Ad% M n%%%%%%7t% Mfr%%% NUN 4AANUNh$kihY$$NN N M M [g 4
3 e
~ 4!SM IT' At. T O : d' :ocument Control Cest. 016 Thillips 3 E
f iCVANCED COPY TO: The Public Occument Dnem h
! : ATE: 4d,
,/ 9.5 -
!g g
GCM: SECY Correspondence & Records Branen !
c-3 3 Attacted are c Dies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting h jg Oc t'J.me n t( s ) . They are being forwarded for entry on the Oatly Accession List and
- lacement in the Public Cocument Poem. No otrer distribution is recuested or j
c recu1rto, d g N *eeting Titie: SkEI hu 7
J'telu U r/Adeu 4 Sp Atw4. N h N U l KN+L uluue, /et /b.ot A
5 AGl f/
0 b "eeting Cate: # //<//%5 } ( Open X Closed #
E C d Copies -
3
' tem Cescriptien**
$ Advanced OCS E
,8
$ to POR Cg g
e 2 1. TEANSCRIPT 1 1 7 i::
lo! !'tu.t a w u g lO 5
)
s in cA /
k 2. f decen.- 9 3 - 4 3cA 5:: ./ g
- c C 53 3
i.
s 3
e C
s N
h
- 5. !
~
9302250123 930219 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR a- -
ig g I t
k-
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper, C1R Branch files the original transcript, with attacnments, withcut SECY g ',
'(
03Ders.
a_ st;-
h - - m m m - - om m m w wo h n ni
I UNITED STATES OF AMERIC A:
N U C L E A R R E G U L A T O R Y C O M M I S.S I O N, l t
Titl3 BRIEFING ON STATUS OF-ISSUES AND= APPROACH TO ,
GEIS RULEMAKING FOR PART 51 6
LOCatiOII - Rocxv1LLE, MARYLAND ,
h3k6 FEBRUARY 19, 1993 .
PagGS:
76 Paces q
NEALR.GROSSANDC0.,INC.
l l' COURT REPORTERS- AMD TRAWSCRIBEks
- - 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest
-Washington, D.C. -20005 (202).234-4433 5
1 $, .
. , . . . , . . E , .- :- - _- , . .,,;,,-.,--..;,
i l
l DISCLAIMER i
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of r i
the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Pobruary 19, 1993 in the Commission's office at One ,
White Flint - North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This. transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may l contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of :
the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be -filed with +
the Commission in any proceeding as the result _of, or addressed to, any statement or argvment contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize. ,
1 4
HEAL R. GROSS .
Couti StMMtits5 AND TRANSCaletal =
1333 RHost ISLAND AVINUE. H.W.
(202) 234-4433 _
WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 _( 202) 732 4 600
._,.u... *
. _ . . ~ . - . _ - . . _ .. -___..._.c. _ . _ _ _ , . _ . . - . . . , _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . - . . . _ _ _
1 U141TED D'4 ATED or AMERICA HUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIDDIO11 liRIEri!4G 011 STATUS OF ISSUES AflD APPROAC}l TO GEIS RULEMAK111G l'OR PART 51 PUBLIC MEETI!1G fluclear Requlatory Commincion One White Flirit 11 orth Rockville, Maryland Iriday, February 19, 1993 The Comminnion .ne t in open session, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., Ivan Selin, Chairman, presiding.
COMMISS10!iERS PRESEliT:
lVAN SELIll, Chairman of the Commionion K E N i1 E T il C . ROGERS, Commissioner-FORREST J. REMICK, Commissioner JAMES R. CURTISS, Comminaioner E. GAIL de P LAt1QU E , Commissioner NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEHS AND TRANSCPIDER$
1373 RHODE ISL AND AVENUE N W.
(20?) R344433 WASHINGlON, O C. 20005 (202)2344433
. - . . . - - - - . . . . - - . - - . - . - - . ~ . - . . ._ . . - - . - - . . - - . - - - - . - . . -
2 STAFT SEATED AT Tile COMM7SSIO11 TABLET i S A!4UEL J . Cili LK , Secretary 1
WILLI Ali C. PARLER, General Counsel ,
JAl4ES TAYLOR, Executive Director !or Operations ,
ERIC DECKJORD, Director, RES i
, MARTIti MALScil, Deputy General Counsel, Licensing and Regulations TilOMAS KI!1G, Deputy Director, DCIR, RES
- Doll CLEARY , Senior Tank .lianager, RPSIB, RES i t
e L
j
?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS
-1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. ,
- (202) 2344433' _ WASH:NGTON, D C. 2000$. _(202) 2344433
., , , . - . . . . ,_, ~ . , . , _ _ . . _ , . . . . = , _ . . - - . _ ..,,,, . . . . . _ . . . . _ . _ . ~ , . , . . _ , . , . . . _ . ~ . . _ . . . _ _ - . _ , _ . . . _ . . . _ _ . . . . .
3 1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S ,
2 2:30 p.m. -
i 3 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Good afternoon, ladies 4 and gentlemen.
. l 5 Today we are to receive a briefing from -!
6 the staff on where they stand with- the generic 7 environmental impact statement and the relationship of -
8 the generic part to whatever site-specific work might -
9 be' done in support of the license renewal ,
10 applications.
11 Mr. Taylor, Mr. Parler, as you might-12 remember when this document was first--briefed to the 13 Commission, I was mightily impressed with both the 14 quality of the work and the imagination and I still 15 am. I think it's really quite'a good picco of work 36 and the questions it has elicited are very interesting 17 questions. I 'think the basic concept has held up 18 pretty well and the discussions are quite interesting.
39 The one set of issues that I'd' be "
20 particularly interested in your addressing was one 21 that wasn't very clear in my mind the first. time,.- but - .
22 it's become clear now and that is the following. EISs 23 generally are. written in such a way that the I
, 24 environmental and the economic issues are_ settled once' 25 and for all'at the time of the EIS and therefore quite NEAL R. GROSS-COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 ~ WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
. _ . - - . . . , . _ . . . _ . . - . . . , ._ - - . . . , . . - , , _ . . _ , _ _ , _ , .,__._,_..___..u, _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . , , , _ . , ,
~ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . ~ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ - _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ ,
4 1 a bit'of work is put on the need for the facility in J
l 2 the first- place, the economic argument, et cetera. ]
3 We're faced here with a situation where at the federal . J l
4 level we are looking at the environmental issue and, i
5 of course, the justification has to be looked at. But !
6 there's also a state scrub through the public utility
[
7 commissions that will look at the need for the- t 8 f acility at all and the economic arguments in much 9 more detail than was perhaps conceived when the EIS !
i 10 concept first came up. ,
l 11 So, insof ar as your comments can shed some -
12 1ight on the appropriate degree of economic analysis _- {
t 13 and an analysis of alternatives in the GEIS itself, I 14 would appreciate that. I'm sure my colleagues would.. ,
s 15 Commissioners? +
16 Mr. Taylor? l 17 MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, good af ternoon. -
18 With me at the table, Don Cleary, Tom King, Eric 19 Beckjord from the office of Research, and- Marty- ,
20 Malsch, Office of General Counsel. ;
21 -As the Commission knows, the primary 22 objective of this rulemaking - has - been to increase 4 23 regulatory of ficiency by-treating generically as many 24 environmental issues associated with license renewal ,
25- as possible. This will certainly continue-to be the i NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS .
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. [
(202) 234-4433 - WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (204 2344433 -
, ---- -, ,, m-. - , . . , . , . ,-,..__.__c.._.
. . _ . - _ , - _ . _ . - _ . - - . _ _ _ _ - . , _ - . - . . - . _ . . . . _ . . - - . . _ _ _ _ . . . ~ - -
5 l focus that the staff han in responding to public l
2 comments and to revising the generic environmental 3 irnpact statement ancociated rule.
4 This briefing will cover matterc as 5 follows: firnt, resolution of comments raised by the 6 Council on 1:nvi ronmental Quality, Environmental 7 Protection Agency on the procedural aspects of the 8 proposed rule; two, policy innues resulting from 9 public commentu on !JRC's treatment of need for 10 generating capacity alternative energy cources, 11 economic conto and cost benefit balancing in the 12 generic environmental impact statement and the 13 propoced rule; and then the e'erall status and 14 schedule of the nta t' f etforts to work to completing 15 this rulemaking.
16 With those thoughtc, I'd now ask Tom King 17 1com the Office of Research to continue, 18 MR. KI!1G : All right. Thank you.
19 (SIide) Let's begin with page 2 of the 20 briefing package, which shows the outline of the 21 briefing and the out1ine parallels the information 2? that was provided in SECY-93-032. I'm going to
?3 discuss the first three bullets of the outline, the
. J4 purpose, objective, background and comment summary.
25 Marty Malsch from OGC will talk about the agreement NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDER$
1323 RHODE ISL AND AVENUE. N W WASHANGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 (202) 234 4433
6 l 1 reached with CEQ and EPA,_and Don Cleary, our-project 2 ' manager on this rulemaking -in Research, will_ talk 3 about the policy issues. Then I'll conclude to' talk l 4 about our plans and schedule, as to where we're going 5 with this rulemaking. i 6 (Slide) The purpose and objective of tho 7 briefing are shown on page 3 and the information we're l B going to discuss today is really a follow-up-to-the
-9 plan and recommendations that we provided last May in 10 SECY-92-198.
11 That paper first reported on the comments ~
12 received on the proposed Part 51 rule change and on-a 13 proposed course of action to address the major '
14 concerns raised by CEQ and EPA. These concerns dealt 15 primarily with procedural issues related to the 16 conformance and consistency of the proposed rule with ;
17 NEPA in areas such as public participation and 18 exclusion of site-specific information. In that SECY 19 paper, 'several options for the rulemaking were 20 discussed and the staf f recommended a course of action 21 which involved as a first step discussions Vith CEQ 22 and EPA on their procedural concerns.
23 As Mr. Taylor mentioned, the purpose of
-24 this briefing is to inform the Commission of the .i 25 results of the agreements with CEQ an.) EPA and to NEAL R ' GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 -
,. - _ - - .~ _ . , , . . . _ - - . , , , . , . . . _ - . - , . . . _ . ~ . _ . . . _ . - . . , . _ . . - ,
7 i
I solicit Ccmmission approval of the agreements, to 2 provide an overview of the entire set of comments 3 received on the proposed rule, and to discuss in more 4 detail those with a policy nature, and to inform the 5 Commission of the plans and schedule for completing 6 the rulemaking.
7 (S1ide) Going to page 4, let me take a 8 couple of minutes to refresh everyone's inemory with 9 regard to the proposed rule that was published for 10 comment back in September of 1991. I'll focus on the 11 approach used, the major assumptions and key 12 provisions of that rule.
13 The purpose of the proposed rule was 14 directed toward defining the scope of environmental 15 issues which individual applicants would need to 16 consider at the time of license renewal. As Mr.
17 Taylor mentioned, regulatory efficiency as a key 18 consideration in selecting the approach taken and in 19 developing the proposed rule. To achieve this 20 efficiency, the staff, with the support of Oak Ridge 21 National Laboratory, did a generic analysis of as many 22 environment 1 issues as possible. This generic 23 analysis took the form of a generic environmental
, 24 impact statement which was published as a draf t NUREG-25 1437 and which was used to support the rule. Such a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN$CRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W R02) 2344433 W ASHINGToN. D C 20005 (202) 2344433
. . _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ ~
8 1 gencric analysis was considered reasonable given the 2 f act that the plants covered by the proposed rule were 3 already built or nearly built and in aany cases _had-4 extensive operating experience which provided real 5 data on environmental impacts. In addition, the=
6 refurbishment activities associated with license 7 renewal and their environmental impacts- were 8 considered reasonably well established and known.
9 The key ground rules and provicions of the 10 GEIS were that it analyze the same scope of issues as 11 the more recent plant-specific environmental impact 12 statements it analyzed, and it included ' consideration 13 of new information where such new information had 14 become available since the plant-specific EISs. For 15 example, BEIR-V risk coefficient information'.
16 The analysis of the GEIS.was applicable to 17 118 plants and was based upon a single -- looking at l 18 a single ad'ditional.20 year period of operation with-
_19 some bounding assumptions on the scope and: timing-of l 20 the plant refurbishment activities that would need to 21 he done to support the- 20 years of additional 22 operation. The GEIS-included analysis of 104 issues 23- which.were put into three categories, category'1, 2 24 and 3. Category I were issues where we could reach'a ,
25 generic conclusion for all plants. Eignty of the 104 l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 L WASHINGTON, D C,20005 - . (202) 2344433 l
. . _ _ _ _ .- . = . _- _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - . . _ . _ . -
9 1 issues were put in category 1. Category 2 was the 2 category'Where we could reach a generic conclusion on ]
3 plants that fell within certain bounds. Twenty-two 4 issues fell within category 2. And category 3 were
~
5 strictly site-specific or plant-specific issues and l
6 two issues fell within that.
7 Along with identifying the categories' for 8 category 1 and 2 issues, we identified whether the 9 impacts were small, medium or large. _The-proposed i 10 rule than codified the category 1 ar.d _2 impacts _and_a 11 conditional cost benefit conclusion and required site-- l 12 specific analysis only on the remaining issues which--
13 were identified in the rule. The rule also allowed an 14 environmental assessment to be used to document the 15 site-specific analysis in lieu of an EIS if the site-16 specific issues had no significant impact.
17 The entire- rulemaking -package, which 18 consisted of the rule, the'GEIS, the regulatory guide, 19 a standard review plan and regulatory analysis was put-20 out for comment, 180 day comment period which started
- l. 21 back in September of '91. We held- a workshop in l-22 November of '91 to allow people to have discussions 23 and ask questions on the. package to help facilitate 24 the comment process. ,
25 (Slide) Out of the workshop and out of NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. -i (202) 2344433 - WASHINGTON, DC 20005 ' (202) 2344433 r-.--..--..-.~.---_.-._-,.._.. .. -. , .- .. . - - - .
_ ._ . _ _ . - ~ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ . . .~ _ - . _ . . , . - - . _ _ _ _ .
110
- l' the. comment period came a-lot of comments'.- Pagesf5 +
2 and 6 provide an--overview of the; comments received.=
g i 3 In the final breakdown of the comments, both the -
4 written and - the workshop comments, there - were 133 5 organizations or individuals that commented. They're 6 shown on page 5, the breakdown-of those. Basically; 3 7 the comments from the nuclear industry,- from~
8 Department. of Energy and from about half o" the states i
9- were supportive of the approach we took. The po~.nments ;
10 from the other half of the states,- from the pub 1'ic 11 interest groups, from individuals and f rom-: EPA,- CEQ 12 and Department of Interior had some strong concerns 13 associated with the approach we took, 14 There were substantial comments, there 1 l-
- 15 3re about 1,000. When you grouped those together
?
26 int' '.s comments or concerns, they came= out to about
~
^
17 347 a.. 4 then we organized those according to ~ 16 -
18 specific topic areas which are shown on page 6.
19 (Slide) Out of these concerns, those that -
20 we think--are of a policy-. nature we're' going'to talk--
g 2 1- about in more detail today. The procedural concerns 22 that came from CEQ and EPA are really covered under-23 the second bullet down, compliance tith NEPA and Part
- 24 51. At this point I'll turn it over to Marty Malsch ,
l 25 to talk in more detail-about.what those were and what l
l NEAL R. GROSS
~ Co0RT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1223 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
-(202) 234-4433 - WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 _(202) 234 4433
- - , - . . _ . . _ . - -- . . ~ . .. - - _ . - __ - - -
.. . . . ~ ~ , - - -. . - - . - . - - . - - . . . _ . _ - - -. .. --
7-l 11. -
l' the agreements were that were worked out to . address' ;
2 -those.
3 MR, MALSCH: Okay.-- What we've done is in 4 response to the . comments. of - EPA and CEQ- and some-5 others, raising concerns about- the se -
of basic -
6 approach we were taking here, we reexamined that-7 approach- and esper.ially with respect to .both- .
8 consideration of nev and site-specific -information as 9 individual renewal decisions came up and with respect (
10 to provisions for public participation in the decision 11 making process on NEPA issues. -
We've made- some
- 12 adjustments in the overall approach, although I think 13 the essential elements of the overall approach are 14 preserved. -That is to say we will still be. resolving 15 by rulemaking generally some -issues to the extent they l
16 can be resolved generically.
, 17 Let . me- explain -basically what-- the . new 18 approach is'and then come back and let me nummarize
(
19 for you what I think are-the essential difIerences 20' from the approach set- forth j n' detail in their 21 proposed' rule.
22 First-of all, we: are now-proposing that c 23 the final rule would require preparation of a 24 supplemental site-specific environmental impact 25 statement for each license renewal proceeding. Now, NEAL R. GROSS COURT .REPC,RTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
-(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C- 20005 - (202) 234 4433 Il
12 1 this is in contrast with a proposal in the proposed 2 rule to do this by to not issue environmental impact 3 statements on each renewa1, but instead discuss 4 environmental issues in an environmental impact 5 appraisal.
6 This supplemental environmental impact 7 statement which would be done for each renewal case 8 would be a supplement to the generic environmental 9 impact statement which we're working on. We would 10 then publish this supplemental environmental impact 11 statement for comment for a minimum 45 day comment 12 period. We would make it clear in the rule that the 13 public may file comments in response to the 14 supplemental environmental impact statement and that 15 all commerts received both with respect to whether the 16 generic evaluations should apply here and with respect 17 to site-specific factors left unresolved in the 18 generic evaluation, all comments would be considered 19 and addressed, but they would be addressed in 20 different ways.
21 First of all, in all cases we would 22 evaluate the comments to determine whether they 23 contained signi.ficant inf ormation, new information not 24 evaluated in the generic environmental impact
.25 statement. If the commenter did provide new i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
13-1 information :which .was relevant .to .the -plant, j i
2 sign.ificant new information'not co.nsidered which was- -
1 3 _ relevant tc the plant, but to other plants as:well, --
1 4 that is to say it raised generic implications for all-5 plants or.a class of plants, then the staff would at ,
6 that point feel the need to reexamine the generic rule 7 we had promulgated- earlier. based upon; the generic 8 environmental impact statement and_we would' ei.ther' _
9 amend the. rule and then proceed with license renewals 10 or suspend the rule, consider the new information on 11 a case by case basis and proceed with renewals in the 12 meantime. In either case, we would r e s o l v e - t h a t --
13 matter by rulemaking. If an -interested member of the 14 public were dissatisfied with our resolution, he, she .
15 or it could petition for rulemaking andlget resolution.
16 that way.
17 If the significant new information dealt 18 really with site-specific matters, that.is to say .it T
19- had no broad generic - - application, then we _would.
20 consider it in that 'particular case . by waiving' the 21 rule. The staff agreed that the information was-22 significant and demonstrated there was a mistake, an.
23 error in the' prior generic. evaluation as applied to 24 this plant, and-the Commission would seek Commission 25 approval to waive the rule as applied to that-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCR10ERS 1323 RHOOE SLAND AVENUE. N W, (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 _(202) 2344433
14 i 1 particular case. If the rule is waived, the staff 2 would then consider the information as if the rule 3 didn't exist. They would consider it on its own .
4 merits. If the rule is not waived and a member of the 5 public were dissatisfied with that, then the 6 organization or person could petition for a waiver as 7 under the usual Commission procedures.
8 Now, as before in the proposed rule, the 9 analysis and impacts for unbounded category 2 and 3 10 issues would be discussed in the supplemental 11 environmental impact statement and there's nothing new 12 here. Although the GEIS analysis and impacts for 13 category 1 and bounded 2, they would not be discussed 34 in any detail in these supplemental environmental is impact statements. Instead, we would reference the 16 earlier evaluation. This is fairly consistent with 17 the earlier proposal. Obviously in the final 18 supplemental environmental impact statement, to the 19- extent we received comments, then the final would have 20 to reflect consideration of those comments along the 21 lines that I previously discussed. But going into the 22 process, we would rely upon the GEIS under normal 23 circumstances.
24 Now, the final rule and the generic ,
25 environmental impact statement would not include under I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234 4433
..15 ,
1 this proposal'any conditional cost benefit conclusions 2 and that's'a change. Instead, we'would only-reach -
3 conclusions on.the overall environmental impacts:andf 4 the overall course of action to be taken in ea'ch sito-
~
5 specific supplemental environmental impact statement.
6 'So, we'd reserve on the ultimate questions until we.
7 had a look at all of the environmental evaluations.
8 This would only be done- in the ' . site-specific --
9 supplemental EISs.- >
10 Finally, we'd modify the rule to make it 11 clear that NRC woulc' review the rule and update it as-12 necessary every ten years at a minimum.
13 Now, that's the outline of the proposal 14 that we have made to EPA and CEQ as the exchange of u
.I 15 correspondence with them as attached to the SECY paper 16 indicates, the review of this proposal' has--'been 17 favorable and we are proceeding along these lines.
18 .Now, looking back on it, I think there are:
19 the following important differences from the' earlier I .
20 approach. First, think the .most -important
( I i.
j 21 dif ference, and I think this is really~ the only really l +
22 important difference, is. that we- will be doing 23 supplemental site-specific -environmental -impact'
. 24 statements and publishing them for comment. That's a 25 significant dif ference. Now, that contrasts'wich the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 -(202) 234-4433 l ,_ ..
. . - . - -. .. . - - . . -.~ .- - -_.-.- .-_.. ~ , ~ ..-
16 1 proposal earlier to do.-
~
environmental impact: j 2 -appraisals. Now,~one-can quibble aboutEthe' scope of _
- 3 an appraisal ' a's - opposed to.an environmental- impact .
4 statement, but I.think it is important that we're 1
~
5 going out for comment on the document.
6 Now, the significance of this change- is' 7 mitigated somewhat by the f act that even under the-8 proposal the Agency had the option-to publish - the'- -
9 appraisal for comment. In a' highly contested renewal .
10 proceeding, it remained to'be seen whether NRC would, 11 in fact, under those circumstances insist on going 12 f orward _ with appraisals - without getting any. prior 13 public comment. To the extent.we would have.gotten 14 prior public comment and solicited prior public 15 comment anyway, then the significance- of. this 16 difference diminishes.
17 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Are you saying there's a 18 big-difference between environmental assessment =and 19 the EIS' requirement for public' comment?
20 MR, MALSCH: An environmental impact Li 21 statement must be published in draft form for public 22 comment. An appraisal need not, but may be.
23 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Okay. Are there other 24 major differences other than format? ,
25 MR. MALSCH: There are some dif ferences in-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTbN. D.C. 20005 - (202) 2344433
_- _ _ . . . _ _ _ , . . . , _ , ua. . ;;. .
. . - . . . . - -- . . ~ ~ ,.- - -. - . - . . ~ . ..
17-terms of scope. There is still required tol be': a- ,
discussant of environmental impacts in both documents..
3 Both documents: require a discussion of alternatives- -
4 and I guess the dif ferences would be primarilylperhaps:
5 in terms of level of detail, obligation to solicit 6 comments, not only from the public but federal, state 7- and local agencies, and perhaps the obligation to draw -
8 some overall cumulative conclusions about the risks
+-- 9 and benefits of the action and environmentally-10 preferable alternatives. In some circumstances, at i
11 least the scope of the two documents can be somewhat ,
12 comparable.
CHAIRMAN SELIN: Do state agencies such as-I 13 14 public utility commissions lose their options;to do.
15 their review . independently or completely in either--
16 case?
17 MR. MALSCH: Nothing - in NEPA ~ has .any :
18 affect at all and nothing,we would-do under NEPA can 19 have any affect on the jurisdiction of4 authority of:
20 state and local agencies to do either-environmental
.21 evaluations; issue environmental _ permits or .do 22 . economic evaluations,- set . rates .
or--_ make - need ' for _
23 quality determinations. The two operate in parallel.,
, 2. 4 Our actions can no ef fect whatsoever on -their actions 25 as a legal matter. So, to the extent that there were.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE,. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C,20005 (202) 234 4433
.. . . .~. .-_.. _ _ . _ . .
18
- 1 comments suggesting- that we were preempting or i
2 precluding them from doing their -- exercising their 3 own judgment, those comments are misplaced. .
4 Now, they do have a practical etfect in 5 the sense that here is the federal government speaking 6 to an issue which they must also speak to. So, what
? we do may have an influence on what they do, but it 8 certainly has no preclusive effect. -
9 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Thank you.
10 SR. MALSCH: And that would be true 12 whether we're ,loing an EIS or an appraisal.
12 CHAI WAN SELIN: Commissioner Curtiss?
13 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Is the standard for 14 judicial review the same in either case, an 15 environmental assessment accompanied by a finding of 16 no significant impact by an environmental impact 17 statement supplemental EIS?
18 MR. MALSCH: I think that they're pretty 19 much equivalent. In both cases, I think the essential 20 question is has the Agency taken a hard look at NEPA 21 environmental factors.
22 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Okay.
MR. MALSCH: Now, the type of challenge is
~
23 24 different. If you don't write an environmental impact ,
25 statement, then you can raise as a challenge the issue NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 2344433
. . - .. _ _ . _ . ~. - - _ . - . . _. . __ . .
19.
l' whether the. Agency - has - not M taken ai hard look and.
2 _ whether_ the -action, in fact,. is~ a major federal action _ _.
3 with the significant environmental consequences. Now,,
j I
4 the significance per se of!the environmental effect.s 1
5 is irrelevant _ if you're L writing an environmental 6 impact statement because 'you 've already overcome:that -
'7 hurdle.
8 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Right.
9 MR. MALSCH: So, the standard is the- same.
J 10 You raise an additional issue if.you decline.to do an 11 environmental impact: statement. 1 12 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:.. Okay. -Passing on .
13 to other -- let me just mention _ two other what I- think 14 are at least somewhat significant dif ferences. One is 15 the decision not to do a conditional or._ tentative cost 16 benefit-evaluation. Now,'we can still-do under this 17 proposal generic evalu'ations of = the various. pieces in .
j 18 the overall cost-benefit conclusion, assuming-we'.re-
~
g -- 19 going to do one,-'but the overal-1Jconclusion would not 20 be reached. Now, I ~ think that's sort of a --
I 21' wouldn _' t call it insignificant,L but'I think that's-not -
22- an' immensely significant change.
23 The-third thing I would going to mention
. 24 is that all this- discussion about comments and:
-25 considering on their' merits conments which are raising; NEAL R. GROSS
- COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D CJ 20005 _ (202) 234-4433 ~
4 (202) 234 4433
20 l
l 1 significant new information and the varicus f rameworks 2 we've laid out in the proposal for handling those 3 kinds of comments, i.e. rule waiver, rulemaking and sc ,
4 forth. I think what we've done here in those terms 5 could fairly be derived from the proposed rule 6 considered in context with other Commission rules.
7 for example, the rule on waivers. But what we've done 8 here is thought it through more carefully and fully 9 and laid it out in much more detail. But I think it 10 always would have been the case that persons could 11 file petitions for rulemaking raising significant new 12 information. It always would have been the case that 13 they could have asked us to suspend renewal proceeding 14 pending completion of the rulemaking, and it was 15 always the case that if someone had site-specific new 16 information, they could have challenged it through the 17 rule waiver provision and asked us to consider it.
18 What we've really done here is laid the process out 19 clearly a little more thoroughly so it's there for 20 everyone to see.
21 COMMISSIO!!ER CURTISS: Marty, could I ask 22 you a question on a couple of points that you covered 23 so far? In the case where after publication of the 24 generic environmental impact statement information is -
25 brought to our attention through the comment process NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
21 1 on the supplemental EIS for a specific application 2 which goes to an issue addressed in the GEIS, the 3 generic evaluation, and which the commenter argues 4 poses significant new informatica and hence we ought 5 to reopen the GEIS in that respect or take one of the 6 other procedural options that you've outlined, is it 7 wholly within the staf f 's discretion to determine the .
8 significance of the new information or once the utaff 9 makes that determination? And assume for the sake of 10 discussion that the staff says, "This is not 11 significant new information," is that kind of issue 12 subsequently one that can be or you intend to be 13 cognizable before the board?
14 MR. MALSCH : Well, it would depend. If 15 the inf ormation is -- the basic answer is they have to 16 come to the Commission first. If the information is 17 considered significant by the interested party and 18 staff says, " fl o w , this is not significant." If it's 19 generic inf ormation, then the remedy is a petition for 20 rulem king and that usually comes to the Commission.
21 Before the Cammission would grant a petition for 22 rulemaking, it would consider the merits of the 23 information. If the information is site specific, 24 then they'd need to petition for a wa ~. Mr. But after 25 being screened by the board, the board is referred to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANC TRANSCR!9ERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHnNOTON, D C 20005 (202) 2344433
-22 1' the comrission- -and - - only _ - the Commission can : grant 2 waivers. So, again-it comes before the Commission..
3- So, the procedural route - is somewhat ,
4- different, -but no matter - how it gets there, the-5 Cc maission would be:looking at-the-staff judgment,;
6 looking at what other parties say about it, ~ and making-7 its own determination about-significance.. :l 8 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: And-we would be ,
9 exercising that-authority-in our capacity as, among--
10 other things, an adjudicatory panel, I take it, 11 binding on -whatever licensing board considera' tion-12 might be undertaken? -
{
13 MR. ' MALSCH: -Yes.
14 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: So, there's no_
l 15 circumstance, in other words,: where you envision that ~
16 once a. determination is made under the procedures that - ,
17 you've described with regard to the significance,ofL ,
18- .the information by L the _ Commission .upon the staff's a
19- recommendation, that_we would then -in turn need to-20 litigate before the board- the- significance of ? lthat d' information, whether it was or wasn't significant?
21
-22 MR. MALSCH: Not without--the--Commission's 23 approval.
24- COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Okay.
25 MR. MALSCH: Now, I suppose the Commission NEAL R. GROSS- '
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS -
132? RHOCE ISLAND AVENUE N W. -
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 2344433
- . _ ._ . _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ ._. _. . . _ _ m._ .. . . _ _
I23' I could - .in theory they could defer on--the-issue and.- -
2- esk the Board for'a judgment on isignificance, but' -
3 again- that- would involve the Commission's own .
4 judgment.
. F 6 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:- . Okay. -
6 C05C'.'SSIONER de PLANQUE: Marty, backyto 7 the preemption 1- .ue . 'I think I understand it'. in the'>
8 direction in whic discussed it.- But suppose you 9 have the state coming up with one conclusion based-on >
10 a set of information, say _in the _ cost benefit or 11 alternate energy area, and we.have the same set of 12 information and.come up with a.different conclusion, 13 assuming that's possible. What, if. any, are the legal 3
14 ramifications of that?
15 MR. MALSCil: I~just think you have two 16 dif ferent agencies coming to dif forent conclusions and .
17 our conclusion is not binding on them and _ their l
18 conclusion:is not_ binding on us. :
19 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: And that's--the
-20 end of.it? e i- 21 MR. MALSC11: That's'the end of it. It's
-2 2 - -sort of-an awkward situation. -
l- '
! 23' COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Yes.
j .. _ 24 MR. MALSCil: 'Now, hopefully, one of.the:
l ic 25 obligations we have in doing _ _ environmental -impact u ,
I NEAL R.' GROSS L COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 . (202) 234-4433
_ , _ s m_ . . ._ _ . . . , _ . _ . . _ = . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ -___ _ . - _ . . .. _ ._
.t
- 24 I statements or supplemental -impact statementsi:is ;
solicited comments from interested federa'1, state and
~
2 ,
3 local; agencies. Hopefully we would know about-the- .
4 agency's conclusions in the context of having received :
5 their comments and taking it into account.- There is 6 lots of case law, NRC case law, involving us writing.
~
7 environmental impact statements - yea rs _ ago on 8 construction permits in which we say _ we give ' great 9 weight to the views of state agencies, particularly on 10 such questions as economics and need for power. We're -
11 going to look at that question again. 'ut when'we did 12 those statements the case law was pretty clear that _
13 while we could give great weight to.their conclusions,.
.P 14 ultimately we had to reach our own conclusions-.and
. 15 there was no way_ to avoid that- . But ultimately, if we 16 disagree, then you have two-agencies disagreeing and 17 that's awkward,-but that's the'way it is.-
18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Could I ask -a-19 question now on that?-' I'm 'a little puzzled about your 20 point of view there in the light of Part 1506 of NEPA -
21 which directs, in 1506.2, elimination of-duplication 22 with state and local procedures. It directs agencies 23 to jointly participate _ with the states.- "Except for- -
24 cases covered under paragraph - A of this section, such' ,
25 cooperation shall to the fullest extent 'possible _
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
..(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 - (202) 2344 433
+ . . . . . - - . - . - - - . - - . .- .- . __.. - ~ .- - _ ,
25- .
-ID include," .and-f then ' there 's, " joint planning, 'j oi nt-l2 environmental research, .-joli1t public hearings,-joint-3 environmental assessments,- and agency shall. cooperato 4 with state and local agencies to the-fullest extent
?
5 possible to reduce duplication' between' NEPA .and
.6 comparable state'and local requirements."
7 How does that square with ' the point- of - I 8 view that you just expressed that these are'=just two 9 separate activities?- In reading this it sounds _as if' 10 NEPA is saying that a federai ' agency, in doing an EIS, 11 should cooperate fully with .the states ~and-to whatever 12 extent possible they should do it together, jointly.
13 MR. MALSCH: Well, let me just montion, we 1
14 have had -- when we're doing full environmental impact -
15 statements, we had a number of proceedings 'in which-we 16 had actually worked out . joint arrangements with
- 17. cognizant : state agencies, ln one case that I'm 3
~
18- f amiliar with we, in fact, work out an arrangement 19 whereby we were going to ptcpare -a _ jointienvironmental 20 impact statement and participate in joint 21- environmental hearings in.which-both we and the state-22 would preside in the same hearing at theisame-time.
8-
~2 3 I:think that's a..Very nice thing if.you can work it 24 out. I'think in some cases-it'can be -- arrangements 25 along those_1ines can be worked out. But there-was
. NEAL R. GROSS CoORT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
- 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 , WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
- .. - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - . _ - __--_--.;-~.. - -
26 1 lots of-' case: law, and again we-have to ---one of our-2 proposals'here is-to reexamine the casellaw over the'-
3 past- several-years to_ see if there's:any change in it.
4 But the case law was very clear-at the-time we were- -
5 writing these environmental- impact statements that 6 ultimately the content of an environmental impact 7 statement was the federal agency's-responsibility. It ,
8 had to take responsibility for all that was written in 9 it. So, for example, while we could rely upon, let's 10 say, the conclusions of a state-agency on, let's say, 11 economics and need .for power, we had to take <
12 ultimately -- since it was our environmental impact 13 statement, we had to take responsibility for their.
14 conclusions and stand by them in the review process as 15 if they were ours.
16 Now, 11. the past, that had led the NRC:to conclude that it had to do at'least some measure'of 17 18 independent evaluation in these areas. .It couldn't 19 just stand by and let the other- agencies sort of 20 control the contents of its EIS. That's where things
. 21 stood as of-probably the last., time we wrote. ~ a full .
22 environmental impact statement on a nuclear . power-23 plant. Now, what I think we need to do- is go -back 'andl
- 24 look and see whether the law has changed-at all in= ,
25 that field. I don't know whether -it has or not. It's NEAL R. GROSS CoORT REPORTERS AND TRANSCPIDERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 ' WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
I e
- 27
)
l Ja difficult area to research. >
2 MR. PARLER: 'I think that the remarks lthat 3 Marty macie earlier that you were trying to -- or asked -
4 the question abort squaring with the 1506,-Marty was 5 talking.about the-legal _effect of-one system'having 6_ one objective on another completely separate system.-
7 I think it is clear that certainly for;_ systems which 9
8 are respective of federal or state or try to deal- with 9 environmental problems that are the goal'.of.the'NEPA -
10 or federal' statute or similar state statutes that 11 clearly the- federal government and- the ' state 12 governments would work together very closely and_try 13 to coordinate their efforts.
- _ 14 _ But in any event, even if we are operating _
15 in the same area but under separate' authorities, but 16 try to-achieve separate objectives, it would-be our 2 ~17 _ purpose to try to cooperate, coordinate as much-as:we 1B can to avoid problems such as _ the ones that were 19 raised in these comments. You can take as a given 20 _that there is no preemption on our part._ ~ There's1a1 21 Supreme Court decision that in effect;says the'only-22 preemption that'has'been exercised in these areas' ace 23 ' radiological health and safety.
)
- , 24 Now, we have followed the-approach here-25 for plant' life extension that we have followed in the NEAL R. GROSS
' CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS _
' ~
1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
, (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
~... . . . - - - - - - - --~~- _ - - - . . . - . .-
28 We:have in our
~
- 1. past, in: individual licensing cases.
2 ' regulations or operating licenses a- provision- that if.
3 you have done. these NEPA-related things at the ,
4 _ construction permit stage, since' they 've-. already 'been :
5 done, you don'.t have to_ do them again. At first 6 impressions it would appear that. if that is the-case, 7 if that is-the' policy for an. operating-license, that 8 probably could also be sound policy:for a plant life 9 extension. What we are relooking-or examining _very 10 closely is the extent for plant life extensions we can 11 comply with the - procedures and objectives -of NEPA 12 without raising these issues that are i of 13 understandable concern to the states in view of their r 14 economic responsibilities. even though there is no- ,
15 preemption on our part. That's what_we try to do.
16 MR. MALSCH: Incidentally, the rules, as 17- Bill mentioned, we do have a rule which says that in i
18 supplemental environmental impact statements at-the l-19 ' operating license stage. Where there :had been - an
~
20 environmental impact statement at the construction 21 permit stage which h aked:at need and alternatives, we T 22 wouldn't reexamine need'and' alternatives. -
That was based upon a kind of -- actually;a generic conclusion-23 24 much like the conclusion that we're.:looking at in'a .
25- draft GEIS here, namely that once- a plant. is-NEAL- R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS _
t
-- 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 -WASHINGTCN, D.C 20005
. - (202) 2344433 ~
_ _ _ _ , , . . . , .,,_._,m,_ , . ,
29 1 completed, it is almost ce rtc. i nl y either needed to 2 answer new power demands or more economical than other 3 alternatives and that even if there were other 4 alternatives to the plant at that stage which were f
5 environmentally preferable, the economics of the 6 nuclear power plant were almost certainly favorable 7 and it would outweigh these environmental advantages.
8 Now, that's the generic basis for that 9 earlier OL rule. So, it's somewhat like the generic 10 basis offered up for this rule, but it has to be 11 looked at.
12 In addition, we have to look at whether 13 and how we actually got -- I know we can reconstruct 14 it, but to reconstruct how we became involved in 15 economics and need f or determinations and look to see 16 whether in a renewal context that's absolutely 17 required and it's worth reexamining. I don't want to 18 advertise that it's for sure we'll reach different 19 conclusions. We may very well af firm that the earlier 20 approach we followed in the '70s and '80s is the one 21 we'll have to follow here, but it's worth looking at.
22 MR. PARLER: Certainly in that regard, 23 whether the bottom 1ine could be expressed in 24 qualitative terms rather than quantitative terms.
25 MR. TAYLOR: We'11 now continue --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEHS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344 433
. .. . . - . - . - . ~ - . ~ _ . -. .. - . . . , . - - . . - . . - - - . ~ .
. 3 0 '-
e 1 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: . Are you on page 10' 2 'yet?
3 . MR. TAYLOR:- We ' re giving you the. numbers. - ,
4 We're on page 10. ,
5 MP ; LEARY: (S1ide) Page 10. . During the 6 next several minutes, I'd like to summarize'for you r
7 the comments. that we received during the.. public
-i 8 workshop and written comments in several topical areas 9 that raise what we consider potentially important 10 policy issues. These are the very topics that we've 11 been talking about for the past several minutes.: We-L 12 bring these to the Commission's attention at this time 13 to give advance notice of these issues and that we may.
14 be coming back, will likely come back to the 15 Commission and ask for guidance.
16 Also, after.this discussion'and' based on 4
17 the Commissien paper, the Commission' may wish to make -
h-18 its views known to the staf f to give us early. guidance 19 as we proceed with developing an options paper and 20 coming up with proposed recommendations on-how thesey 21 issues should be handled.
i 22 The public' comments raised potential-23
' policy issues in four areas. .These-pretty much track-h f 24 major sections -in - the generic environmental; -impact ,
25 statement. These are the need for generatin'g NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 - -.- WASHINGTON, DA 20005. - (202) 234 4433 -
_ . - , - - - - ,. - - . - -. . -- ~~ - - . , . .- ,
I
.l il L1 capacity, -alternative - sources; of- energy,- l economic 2 costs and; cost benefit balancing.
3 The_ policy issues raised involve the scope 4 and the focus- of NRC's - environmental review for.
5 license renewal. Specifica31y the = central - question ]
6 raised in each of these areas -is 'what role should each l l
7 of the. topical areas-have in the NRC environmental 8 review and in the licensing decision process.
9 Although these issues are raised in the context >of 10 license renewal,- they are also applicable ' to all 11 licensing-actions and must be treated-consistently in L
12 10 CFR Part 51. The staff will.be.providing options 13- and a recommended position :on each .of these issues to 14 the Commission and'the schedule will' be discussed'in 15 the final part of today's presentation.
~
16 (Slide) Pags 11.
-Beforo discussing / the issues raised -in '
-17 4
18- each of these topical areas, I'dvlike to provide a 19 framework ry highlighting certain_ of the basic. "
~
20 requirements of an EIS. An EIS must-include: one,.a 21 description of the proposed J federall action; two, a=
~
22 . discussion'of the purpose of the action,.that is'the 23 undarlying ' need that is met by the' proposed action;
. 24' and. three, a discussion of the- environmental e
, 25 consequences of the proposed action and alternativc NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
- 323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202} 234 4433 WASHINGTON: D.Ci 20005 (202) 234 4433
_ _ . . ._._.m. - . . - _ _ . - . __ _ .. .. . - - _ .
'3 2-actions.- The alternative actions-mustialso meet'the
~
1- +
2 underlying nee.d.
3 In the need for generating capacity,_NRC. _
d 4 has chosen to define' the need for-its-licensing action
, 5 in terms of the need served by - the facility . being; 6 licensed. This is consistent 1 with past. licensing 7 practice. A number of states have commented that.
8 NRC's inclusion of need forecasting in-the GEIS-and 9 rule has the practical effect of interfering with the lo state's regulatory authority to determine need.
11 Several industry commenters have expressed similar 12 concerns.
13 A majority of commenters-addressing the 14 need for generating capacity are concerned that-15 accurate forecasts of need cannot be made so far in-16 advance of license renewal- . Thus, the need- for 17 generating capacity in their view should be made a 18 category 3 rather than a category 1 issue. Many.
19 commenters also recommend that need'be changed-from-20 category 1 to category 3 to ' allow for- meaningful 21 public participation.
22 Several states and- several industry _ _ _
23 representatives have recommended that' -if NRC is.to-
- i 24 consider need in its environmental review, need? for- ,
7 __
L '
25 generating capacity in its environmental review, that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TBANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
l 33 1 the NRC should use the state's determination of need 2 in that review.
3 (Slide) Slide 12.
4 These comments on need for generating 5 capacity raise the question of to what extent should 6 NRC continue to address need for generating capacity 7 in its EISs for license renewal. In addressing this 8 question, we must consider the Agency's definition of -
9 proposed federal action and need for that action.
10 rederal agencies appear to have a wide latitude in 11 defining the proposed action and the need being met by 12 that action. A basic question that also must be 13 considered is the role that need should have in 14 determining whether to renew an operating license.
15 Specifically, would a license be denied based on 16 generating capacity considerations? Current practice 17 seems to imply that a license could be denied.
18 Ilowever this issue is resolved, there needs to be a 19 consistent treatment of need for licensing renewal at 20 other stages of licensing.
21 Finally, whatever the treatment of need 22 for generating capacity is in the GEIS, the 23 supplemental EISs, we need to ask the question to what 24 extent can NRC adopt the state's determination of 25 need. Thesc are issues that we'll be considering in
! NEAL R. GROSS
! count nEpostEns ANo TnANscamcas 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 234-4433
N 34?
1 developing-'our_ options 7 paper, 2 COMMISSIONER REMICK ' Is it possible that
~
3 a state definition of what is a~ need and our- .
4 definition of a need could-be different?-
5 MR. CLEARY: I think that we could reach-6 a common definition with the states. I know that'in 7 analyzing the comments, for example, several states-8 tie in the economics. There's a need for the optimal-9 way of meeting an energy demand and that optimal way 10 folds in economics, it-folds in alternatives. But'I- -
11 think that in terms of the federal-definition of need, 12 I suspect that we could reach a common agreement.-
13 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Could there be'a timing 14 problem where the stata information just- isn't 15 available with these long lead times you're talking 16 about?
17 MR. CLEARY: That's certainly a - maj or-18 consideration. '
~
19 CHAIPRAN SELIN: Because it's-not just a 20 formal question of what does the GEIS look like or the 21 EIS, there's the practical question of can-you get 22 from here to -_ there , can -- you _ have the - information.
4-23 We're pushing the utilitiesJto: start-quite:early-so 24 that the issues could :be addressed and remedial. .
25 actions'could be taken if necessary. There's the risk NEAL R. GROSS-COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 HMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 - - (202) 234-4433'
35 1 that they'll commit themselves so early in terms of 2 alternatives or costs or needs and ,that they'll spend 3 a great deal of money on assumptions and then find out 4 that the state assumptions are either not available or 5 very different.
6 MR. CLEARY: I think you're correct, 7 particularly with the great lead time that may be involved in license renewal.
8 9 COMMISSIO!1ER CURTISS : If you treated this 10 issue as a category 1 issue, the implication of that 11 is that it would be addressed in the GEIS in a generic 12 fashion and absent significant new information would 13 not subsequently reopen the individual proceedings?
14 MR. CLEARY: That's correct and that's the 15 way it stands in the GEIS right now.
16 COMMISSIOt1ER CURTISS: Okay. And that was -
17 what was proposed in the approach that we took?
18 MR. CLEARY: Yes.
19 COMMISSIOt1ER CURTISS: A category 3 20 designation would lead to that issue being addressed 21 on a case by case basis for individual license renewal 22 applications?
23 MR. CLEARY: Yes.
. 24 COMMISSIOf1ER CURTISS: And so, at least 25 insof ar as the timing, among the other considerations NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4 33 W ASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
. . . ~. . . - - . ._ - . - - - - - - . - . . .
l l
36 l 1 that are relevant, the timing of those two options-2 would have you in one case prepare.:and evalua'te'the
-3 -information- far in advance- of; any. specific .
4 application. The other one would tied to atspecific-5 application and then presumably.what ever. attendant 6 state evaluation goes on at that t'ime, i
7 MR. CLEARY: Correct.
8 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Okay.
9 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Just off the top of 10 my head, a question comes to mind. In the case of-Il construction permits, I guess we define-need.as need 12 for power or need for generating capacity. Has.any 13 thought been given to whether the need for license 14 renewal should be the same need- when you have:an 15 existing plant? In other words, continuing need for-16 generating capacity, is that automatically the 17 definition of our need? Has any thought-been given-18 to --
19 MR. PARLER: I think that's an example of 20 one of the-things-that is associated with -the --hard 21 relooking that we are doing in o'rder to address these 22 issues and to make sure that =we have a sound reason if 23 there 'is any dif ferent treatment-here for it to be.
24 consistent with- the approach ; that we have takee ,
25 elsewhere. For example, if the purpose of the federal NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS
'1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
-(202) 234 4433 .. W'ASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 2*.4 4433
G.
37 '
-1 action is one thing,-- then ;certain L results follow.
2 Certainly if the purpose -is. a broader purpose, if the-3- _-purpose 'of the -- f ederal action is narrower in scope,.
4 -perhaps some-of these types' _of . issues become more 5- manageable.
6 MR. MALSCH: For example,~an early_ issue 7 that was encountered in writing: early environmental 8 impact statements at the construction- permit- stage .
9 dealt just with this issue. Let us suppose-that you ,
10 have a plant proposed to be cited in the -State ofi 11 Maryland and you say, -
"Well, the benefits of this 12 action that would counterbalance - and justify ' any.
13 bdverse environmental impacts would - be satisfying 14 power demand." Well, where? If.it!s' power' demands 15 only in the State of Maryland, then the alternatives 16 you would examine would be alternatives to -supply 17 power = demands in the State of Maryland.- If itts-to-18 supply power demands in the PJM- grid, then yot,have a 19 broader scope. If.-it's power demands 'in the Eastern 20 United States,-the-scope becomes still broader.
21 CHAIRMAN SELIN: But how is that af fected 22- by the fact that-this really a-very-gentle test that 23! we ' re trying_ to undergo? All we're trying to do in
. - 24 -this case is'say, "Is there enough reason to believe 25 that . there 's need that we should proceed with the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS -
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 ' WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
i l
38 1 analysis of the environmental pointn?" 7 still 2 will have to go back to the state once the EIS is done 3 and then go through a much tcugher economic analysis ,
4 of need and cont in order to get whatever costs are 5 necessary to get licenso renewal, to get these costs 6 put into the base. It's niore like a hospital permit 7 than it is a normal construction permit ir that 8 environmental issue, the economic need test is a 9 gentle one in the environmental issue because you're i 10 still going to have a full review at the public 11 utility --
! MR. PARLER: Well, of course, all along, 13 Mr. Chairman, we've had a full public review :a ,-
14 separate review before the state PUCs, but we havo-15 gone about, at least for the initial licenses and the j.
16 construction permits, our NEPA responsibil'ities in a 17 certain way. Now that we're dealing not with an 18 initial license but something which has boon operating 19 c.nd generating electricity at a - particular site, 20 presumably safely and successfully and acceptable to 21 the environment over a period of years, what does NEPA ,
22 require that the- focus be for NEPA purposes under 23 those circumstances?
24 MR. MALSCH: One problem we encounter is- ,
25 it's hard 'o sort of dip your toe into the need for ,
NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 - (202) 234 4433
. ..-n._____.-._....~-~.._.__,. . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ , _ . - . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ , , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. . . _ _ _ _ _ , ,
l 39 1 power and water without getting completely drowned. . !
2 Let me give you an example. Once we embark upon the l
3 process of saying, "We'll -look at environmental l
)
4 impacts and we'll endeavor to justify them in light of j 5 the perceived benefits," and' we open the llRC licensing 6 proceeding into a forum for plant opponents to a
7 challenge the plant on any number of grounds including .
l 8 it's not needed, by the very nature of- the i
9 proceedings, since it's being contested, it drives [
10 people to.do even greater and greater and more and 11 more detailed analyses, until you end up in- a r
12 situation in which you could do exactly.the kind of' =
13 analysis which you might except the PUCs to try to do 14 later on and it gets to be difficult, especially when ,
15 you're operating very far in advance.
16 CHAIRMAtl S ELI N: This in the Malsch-tar 4 17 baby theory. I assume you're going to have answers to 18 all these questions for the document.
19 MR. MALSCH: Oh, of course.
20 MR. PARLER: We have them under advisement- -j 21 and in due course, with great expedition, we will try. _
22 to have the results of our efforts, yes.
23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Yes. Could I ask
,- 24 two questions about the relationship of--what you're' .;
25 describing to the state process? Setting aside.for a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS
- 1323 RHODE ISLAf*D AVENUE, N W.
. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20000 -(202) 234 4433
- _...-. -.~..- _. - , - - . _ , - - - , . _ - _ ~ . - ~ _ , . _ _ . _ _ - . - , _ - . _ ~ . - .. . ,. -
40 1 minute- the possibility the states believe that i 2 whatever we do here would preempt their decision 3 making authority and perhaps not just setting it aside .
4 but recognizing that we tried to address that issue in j 5 the letter to Governor Dean about a year ago by 6 saying, "Nothing here is intended to prec,.2pt the 7 decision that you reach." To put it differently, a -
8 state has unfettered discretion and latitude to reach- >
9 whatever conclusion it wishes to reach through,- let's 10 say, its PUC process irrespective of the conclusion 11 that we reach. What is the state concern here? With 12 respect to all these issues, I'm not sure I 13 understand, unless it is preemption, what it is, i 14 MR. CLEARY: As I see it, there are three 15 areas of concern that the untes and others have. One ,
i 16 is the preemption and it's - not just on the strict 17 legalities. The comments, the detailed comments that 18 do a meaningful job of addressing this concern lay out 19 examples of where weight is given to the federal 20 agency having spent resources and' analyzing an issue.
21 and making a decision, going through an adjudicatory 22 hearing that weight has been given at the state level 23 -to the federal agency's findings. So, it's not 24 strictly that -- some of the states have told us, "We ,
25 know you know the law and we know that you know we NEAL- R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 2344433
-m-W-M?---+vFrM 9'W- 4 gt_- q q ww-+g. ,,,e qn we s- g- yh 't-'u-m-mme-
41 i
1 know the law, but it'n not as simple as that."
2 COMMISSIO!11'It CUltTISS : Let me just pick up 3 on that point betore you go on because I want to 4 follow-up on that theme. I could understand how that 5 concern would arise in your typical CP evaluation 6 where the 11RC would go through an environmental 7 evaluation prior to the CP and the ntate PUC might not 8 get involved in a prudency determination, particularly 9 it conntruction work in progreen is not allowed until 10 much later. That in to nay when the plant comen in 11 operation and the rate case in presented, in which 12 case you've got a preceding f ederal determination that 13 I think you're naying the courts might attach great 14 weight to and thereby in some recpect, I don't think 15 preempt is the right word, but perhapn nuggest the 16 conclusion that the state should reach.
17 In this case, by contrast, my cense in in 18 watching what't. happened with the utilities that are 19 evaluating licenne renewal, we've got a very dif ferent 20 nituation. You've got a cace where I nee one of two 21 possible scenarios coming to pans. One would be 22 before we even get an application a otate public 23 utility commission and its, in our case, licensee, its
. 24 nuclear utility goes through a detailed evaluation,
?L maybe a leant coat planning type evaluation in order NEAL R. GROSS CoV3T REPOn1ERS AND TRANSCRIBLRS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE, N W (202) 234 4433 W ASHINGTON, O C 20005 (20?)2344433
42 1
to determine whether the state believes, the PUC j
2 believes. Utility X ought to pursue renewal, in which 3 case we haven't rendered a determination at that point 4 at all. They've got essentially a blank slate upon 5 which to write. Even to the point where if they 6 believed based upon whatever evaluation they wish to 7 undertake of need for power, source of supply, 8 environmental effects, cost benefit balancing, the 9 t our issues that you have here, 11 the answer to that 10 is negative, presumably we'd never have a license 11 renewal application. The state PUC woul d say, "We ' re 12 not going to allow you to pursue renewal." That one 13 seems to ne to be a pretty clear case where the state 14 is not preempted in any way because we haven't even 15 acted and they can carry out their evaluation in any 16 fashion that they wish.
17 14 ow , the llorthern States Power situation, la as I have come to understand it, is slightly 19 different. There, what they sought to do, what I 20 understood their objective to be was to come in first 21 and pursue license renewal from a technical 22 standpoint. That is to say to get their license 23 renewed here at the agency so that they could then at 24 some point as they got closer to the actual expiration ,
25 of their license then go through with the PUC the l
NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS )
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344433
i 43 !
i 1 evaluation of all the considerations that the pUC ;
2 might wish to take into account, but'being able to ;
3 hold up the license renewal application saying, "The :
4 technical questions have-been addressed. You should I 5 not be swayed by the fact that there's a lot of ;
6 regulatory instability in this precess. " There it 7 seems to me, even though-the state evaluation might ft 8 follow o m. ,
strikes me that it's a context in 9 which there'a going to be much less potential for- _;
10' preemption.
5 11 -So, in socing the_way it's done in~ the 12 past in the typical Cp case and.-comparing how '
13 evaluation would be undertaken here, I just don't 14 grasp at this point what the preemption concern is.
15 MR. CLEARY: Well, I think it 's . Very !
16 closely tied in with our attempt to make this area a 17 category 1 in the GEIS at this point in time. -
18 MR. MALSCH : And that would be now. ,
-19 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Category I binds' 20 the federal government, it doesn't bind the state- PUC.
21 MR. MALSCH: No, but the' comment that it 22 has a practical significance in terms of the federal 23 government has spoken and has said,_ "All plants are
, 24 needed," has a practical impact in' then future i
25~ proceedings.
NEAL R. GROSS-COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE t$ LAND AVENUE, N W. >
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
.-r n,-. -6._,-,,_--.-e., , ~ . - . - . . . , . . . - . . +_,._.4 .,.4 # -, ... m:.._,~..u.-_--.-...-._:--.
44 1 MR. 1%RLER : I think a lot of people are 2 using preemption here in thene commentr rather loosely 3 to mean really synonymous with practical concern. ,
4 COMMISSIOllER CURTISS: I'm not proposing S this, but if you change thin to a category 3, the 6 concern would go away?
7 MR. MALScil: It might go away depending 8 upon the timing of the nice-specific cupplemental EIS.
9 It could very well go away.
10 MR. CLEARY: 1 think to a great extent it 13 would and it would also take care of the other two 12 arcan or greatly alleviate the problemn rained in the 13 other two arean. The second area in public 14 participation. IJEl% is banically a process law and 15 the timing of public participation in thic exercise in in f ound unacceptable by many of thene commenters. They 17 would feel much more at ease if the participation 18 would take place at the tirae of the licencing action.
19 Then the third area is that there's a whole hont of 20 technical concerno that have been rained about 21 forecanting so many years in advance.
22 COMMISSIO!1ER CURTISS : I must say I'm torn 23 between, on the one hand, what seems to me the great 20 value in having the evaluation done as close to the ,
25 time and as related to the specific license renewal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 Rt40DE ISuND AVE NUE, N W, 902) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 902) 234 4433
l 45 ,
1 application that we had before us, on one hand, which 2 would suggest a category 3, versus on the other hand- l 3 the point that the chairman has made in previous 4 context 3 and that is-that it is a va.tue in looking at-S these cecisions. Here we're talking about need-for .
6 power to look at them-in a much broader way and not in -
7 isolatt d specific cases. When you come back with your [
8 recommendations here on _whatever schedul_e you present 9 them, that might be an issue that would be worth evaluation.
10 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Mr. Cleary; could/I!just 11 follow-up on Commissioner Curtiss' point? Does it 12 follow that if Lit's a category 1 question it. is [
13 settlei by the rules by which we make rules and if-14 it's a category 3 it's subject to all of the questions 3 15 of adjudication, discovery, cross examination,- et-16 cetere?
17 MR. CLEARY: Yes.
18 CHAIRMAN SELIN: So, there's a. big-19 practical impact other than timing about whether it's 20 a category 1 or category 3?
23 MR. CLEARY: -There's very large! resource 22- impact. <
23 COMMISSIONER 'CURTISS: Significant new
. 24 information.
i 25 MR. MALSCH: Yes; In terms _ of public >
!- ~t NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTURS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
_ (202) 234 4433- _ WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 234-4433
46 1 process, I think our restructured utfort here has a -l i
2 major impact in addressing that concern _because we are 1
3 now very clear, we will consider- significant new l
)
4 information and we explain how we will consider it. l 5 CHAIRMAN SELIN: But a category 1-would .l 6 say it's $1250.00 a kilowatt to build a - clean coal-7 plant without looking at all kinds of specific-A 8 questions, how it dif fers a little bit f rom 'one state 9 to another, and a category 3 would tay you'd have to 10 take a look at transportation costs to get coal to 11 that state and a whole lot of specific things in a 12 very detailed sense.
13 MR. MALSCH : Right. And, in fact, one P
14 consequence of doing generic broad evaluations is they. I 15 end up being premised upon a lot of assumptions. That-16 means that --
17 CHAIRMAN SELIN: As opposed to specific 18 evaluations? ,
19 MR. MALSCH: When the assumptions :are ;
20 stated, then they are the basis for request-for real 21 waivers because the argument is the assumption'isn't: -
22 applicable.
23 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Okay.- '
24 MR. PARLER: I think, Mr. Chairman, this .
25 may be obvious, b'ut this-is the way that I understand
. NEAL R. GROSS.
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 , (202) 2344433 -
~ _ _ . _ _ _ . - ~ ._ _ . _ . _ ____. . . _ _ _ . . _ , . _ _ _ _ _ ... _ .
47 1 it. The more things you put into the category 3, the 2 less significant for those things the generic 3 environmental impact statement --
4 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Dut also the greater the 5 total cost for preparing and processing renewal.
6 MR. PARLER: Right.-
7 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Mr. Cleary, that was an l 4 i I
8 illuminating point that you brought up, i
.I 9 MR . - CLTARY : (Slide) We're ready f or page )
l 10 13, to discuss alternative energy sources.-
11 The discussion of alternatives to the 12 proposed federal action is referred to as the heart of-l 13 the EIS. Alternatives to the proposed federal action 14 must meet the same underlying need as the proposed 15 federal action. In this_ rule and the GEIS, the 1 16 alternatives to renewal of an operating license are 17 alternative energy sources that can replace the need -!
18 f rom the generating capacity of the plant in question.
19 This definition of alternatives is the same as used in 20 previous power plant licensing actions.- State and 21 industry commenters have stated that states have-the 22 authority to determine energy mix relative to the ,
23 utilitles they regulate. However, various states have
.. 24 expressed concern that NRC's treatment of alternatives ~ ,
25 has the practical effect of interfering- with _ state NEAL R. GROSS cot)RT REPORTER $ AND TRAtNCRIBERS 4323 RHODE 15 LAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 - WASHtNOTON, D.C 2000$ (202) F344433
~. ,, _ _ - . ,__.__.___.-..___...._..___m__
48 j 1 regulatory authority, the same issue really as in i
2 need.
3 Various commenters have stated that the .,
1 4 comparison of alternatives should emphasize ;
5 environmental consequences rather than economic costs.
6 Federal, state and industry commenters expressed 7 concern that an economic threshold test.to trigger a ;
8 further consideration of alternatives is inappropriate 9 in the NEPA analysis. The last two poin%-are that we 10 have basically put too much emphasit. in the NEPA 11 review on economic information and economic criteria, 12 CHAIRMAN SELIN: I assume that our ,
t 13 position is that it's not that we want to look at- ,
14 alternatives or the cost, but that if it really were 15 our druthers, we would agree with these points that 16 our main question is what actions have to be taken to 17 keep this plant safe if it's going-to operate another 18 20 years. The question is what does the law call for, )
19 not what from a policy point of View do we wish the -
i l' 20 law would call for for a --
I' 21 MR. CLEARY: Well, this point specifically 22 goes to the comparison with alternatives.. They're not 23 questioning our'need to know the cost of regulatory 24 requirements on that specific plant. ,
25 MR. PARLER: But the answer to your- -
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCA10ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W, j 902) r3444M WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344M l
L+, . _ . = . - . . . - . . - . . . - := _.=___;_- -. -
49 1 question, Mr. Chairman, is the reason why we're doing
? this is to comply with 11 EPA procedures and one of the 3 linchpins of 11 EPA, the case is, as I say, has been to 6
4 look at alternatives.
5 CHAIRMA11 SELI!1: I mean we would be, from 6 a question of policy, probably reasonably comfortable 7 to say from an environmental point of Viuw and from a 4 8 safety point of view the plant is solid and then let -
9 the public utility commission decide from an 10 alternative point of view and an economic point of 11 view. Given whatever we require and given whatever is 12 required economically, I mean environmentally, does it 13 nect the economic needs of the state, but we still 14 have to read the law and see what is required of us.
15 MR. CLEARY: We do and it's possible that 16 in the CEIS we could hold back a bit on the economics 17 without changing the basic approach. But this is one 18 of the things that we're looking at.
19 COMMISSIOllER CURTISS Just a point of 20 historical reference here. In the context of 21 licensing nuclear plants, there was a time when the 2? Commission, f or reasons largely related to ef ficiency 23 and to avoid duplication of effort, felt that these 24 responsibilities, although coquired under 11 EPA, ought 25 to be passed on to the states since they do this kind NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 W ASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
i 50 i i
1 of evaluation anyway, and in a version of the 2 licensing reform legislation that was submitted at a E 3 time when Marty and Bill might recall, proposed that t
4 the statute be changed to accommodate that.
5 MR, PARLER: We were similarly 6 unsuccessful in getting any of them reported out of
- 7 csmmittee, as I recall.
8 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Right.
9 MR. PARLERn You drafted most of them. [
10 COMMISSIO!1ER ROGERS: Maybe that's why.
11 CllAIRMAN SELIll: On a purely speculative 12 basis, did any of the commenters-propose to try to'do 13 a parallel analysis so that the federal government 14 would concentrate on the strict environmental and 15 safety questions and the states would look at - the 16 economic and alternative questions in parallel?
17 MR. CLEARY: There are several states that '
18 made that very point, that if whatever need we had for -
19 the economics should go to the state.
20 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Am 1 correct in my-21 understanding, we-look at alternatives to see which 22 are -- what alternatives might be environmentally more 23 suitable,.less impact. We don't look at' alternatives 24 .to see which would be the-lower cost. But when we ,
25 look at the alternatives from an environmental NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 234 4433- _. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 . (202)2344433
.. _ - - . - . . - . . - - - _ - . . . . - - _ . - . _ . _ . . , _ , _ . _ . . - - . . . _ . . _ ,,,-.,,...~.: - . , . . , . . +
. . - . _ - . . - _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ . - . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . ~ . . . __ - _.___ m._
t I
'i 51 ;
1- standpoint of what would be more environmentally 2! acceptable, we have to look'at the costs because in I i'
3 the end we have to make an overall cost benefit 4 balance. Am I correct?
5 MR. MALScil: That's essentially it. The !
6 issue arises in -two parts -of the alternative 7 evaluation issue of economics. The first part arises ,
8 -in considering what alternatives are oven feasible and ;
, 9 deserve further evaluation. Ir. that context, I think l t
10 we have and I suspect- we still may rule- out-11 alternatives on purely economic grounds. One can i 12 imagine alternatives which aro wonderful,-have minor ;
13 environmental impacts, but the costs are so exorbitant ,
14 they're not even feasible and worth considering 15 further. That's the first time in which economics 16 poses a question. -That's the very scope of the 17 alternative evaluation.
la The second time it arises is in- a 19 situation.in which you actually identify a feasible 20 alternative which from a purely. environmental-21 standpoint .is preferable to the course of action which 22 you' re proposing, and the question is, :what do you do 23 at that point? Traditiona31y what we have done is 24 then gone on and looked at the economics and determine 4
25 whether the environmental advantages were offset by NEAL-R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W,-
(202) 2344433 .W ASHINGToN, D C. 2000$' .(202)2344433 a.,..._,. _.--.L.._..~....._ _ -. -- L._.L..___.u.._____._._- . .-.:_. o __ -- - - -
-)
52 1 possible economic disadvantage.
2 COMMISSIONER REMICK: But we are not 3 -looking for least cost alternatives. .
4 MR. MALScil: No.
5 COMMISSIONER REMICK: We're looking at l 6 environmentally improved and the cost of GEIS.
7 MR. MALSCH: That's correct. The thrust ;
)
8 of the evaluation is looking for environmental: .I 9 proferences.
10 COMMISSIONER REMICK: -And states, aren't ;
they generally looking at things like least cost, not ;
11 l'
12 necessarily most environmentally preferable? {
13 MR. MALSCH: I'm sure it depends.on how 14 the state statute is formulated.
15 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Yes, I'm sure too.
16 But in general.
17 COMMISSIONER- ROGERS: Well, they're 18 grappling with this issue ~1n terms of what they' call 19 externalities.
20 MR. MALSCH: Right.
~21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: How to include' 22 environmental effects or a cost -basis analysis and ,
23 there's no uniformity I know of so far:in'how that's 24 to be done.
?
25 MR. MALSCH: That's a very difficult-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 ' WASHINGTON, D C. 2000$ (202) 234-4433 -
, _, . . _ _ , _ . ~ . . - - _ . _ . . , - . . . , _ . . . - _ . . . . _ . . . . - . . , . . . _ . . . _ - , , . , .. . _ _ _ . _ . - - . , . . .
_ _.~.__.._...__m___.__ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _. ._, _
53 ,
t 1- question which even the NRC faced in doing cost--
2 benefit analyses in CP cases. How do you reduce the 3 various costs and benefits to a common denominator so i
4 they can be compared in any kind of quantitative 5 sense? In fact, our regulations still'on.the books i i
6 require you to reduce all-environmental impacts-and ,
7 cost to a quantitative basis to the extent feasible.
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Yes. The_ point I 9 was trying to make, if I'm correct, that our approach l
10 to considering alternatives and then the- costs-11 probably are-dif ferent than the typical PUC's approach -
12 to alternatives. I could be wrong.
13 MR. MALSCH: And to the extent that's the i
14 case, it is very easy to explain how the two agencies 15 might reach different conclusions.
16 COMMISSIONER REMICK: That's-right.
17 MR. CLEARY: The last point to be made on 18 alternatives that we've had comments that if we are 19 going to use cost benefit _ analysis we're using it 20 inappropriately. That cost benefit analysis should be l 21 used-for the alternative analysis-and not'to make'a
- 22 determination on just the proposed action.-
r 23 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Did CEQ make that !
l-
- . 24 comment?
l
! NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
'f~
$02) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 L.
,,,---.x-. - - . . , = . - . . . , . . . . . . . .~-- - -- - - - - -,a.. :..
-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _. . _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ - . _ _ - . _ . . ..._...._m.___-_..._.___.
b 54
~
1 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I'm not sure I 2 understand.- Could you elaborate a little bit?
3 MR. CLEARY: The way we do the cost o
4 benefit analysis now, it's cn the proposed action'._ !
5 Wrack up the costs and the benefits of the proposed ,
6 action with only incidental consideration of some o_f 7 the considerations about the alternatives. What the 8 comment says is that we should --be doing the same 9 analysis to select the optinal alternative.: >
10 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Which the states-would- r 11 never say. They don't want to select the optimal --
12 MR. CLEARY: No. No. _In the workshop i
13 transcript you can find, I believe, statements to,the
- 14 effect if you insist on doing the cost -benefit 15 analysis, do it this way. We've been told -- we have .
16 been told by CEQ and the EPA that it's not required _ ,
17 under NEPA.
18 COMMISSIONER REMICK: HOw'does this sit 19 with - - don ' t we have to strike an overall cost 20 benefit balance of the proposed action? Is that the 21 _ final thing we do in an EIS?
?? MR. MALSCH: That's how we -__ have always l
23 done it.
l-24 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Yes. .
l 25 MR. MALSCH :. Now, the question _ is-:is there'. .
L NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS _
1323 RtCOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 - (202) 234-4433-
_ , . _ _ . _ . . _ - . _ . - . - . . _ . _ _. , . ---_ , _ - . . . _ _._;_.,_,..-,_-u_..
55-1 - ant. ,her way to do it. tiow, - clearly there is if you' re 2 talking about ways that are different from cost !
3 benefit analyses which attempt to ' woigh and balance ,
l 4 all considerations by reducing them to one l 5 quant t'ative measure. liow , clearly, that is not j i
6 req. .s d , although we've tried. to do it' and- our 7 regulations tell us to do it to-the extent that we <
8 can. Clearly that is-not required. The issue we're 9 grappling with is whether even assuming we don't do ,
10 that, whether we still - have to do some sort of-i 11 generalized weighing and balancing-in consideration of 12 cconomics and --
13 MR. PARLEla You certainly have to do that q I
14 because that's the objective of liEPA for the decision 15 maker to be aware of that balance even ..though the 16 decision maker is not bound by that balance in making 17 their decision. ;
18 MR. CLEARY: For a . point of historical 4 19 perspective, what I see is that back in the early '70s .
20 when the' Agency was developing its approach to doing 21 a fiEPA analysis, it adopted the model: that was' used by 22 federal- agencies that are undertaking their own P3 project. That is we adopted the applicant.'s proposal,
. 24 the applicant's _ project and then proceeded to 25 determine what analysis we needed to do relative to x
NEAL R. GROSS >
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS -
1323 MHODE ISI.AND AVENUE. N W-
- (202) 2344 433 : WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 234-4433 - .2
_ . . ~ . - . , . . , - ...;.,._.,__.....__-,,..,_,.-,_,,-._, - , - . . . - - - . ~ , _ , , _ ,
-_ . ... . - - - -- - - - . - . . - . . . - . - - _ . . - ~ . . ~
56 ,
I that project. That's one of the things that we're 2 looking. at now, whether there-aro some alternative 3 approaches rather than putting ourselves in the place ,
4 of the applicant or society at large.-
L '
5 (Slide) Slide 14. '
6 The comments on alternative energy sources ,
7 raised a question of what should be the. role and the-8 scope of review of alternative'onergy sources in the 9 EIS. Remember that alternatives are defined by the 10 underlying need for the proposed federal _ action. A 11 basic question that must be considered is should 12 renewal of an operating license be denied on the basis 13 of identification of an environmental preferably
- 14 alternative energy source? Current practice seems-to 15 imply that a license could be denied. 1 16 The next issue is that of economic costs.-
17 Economic cost is given considerable weight in the GEIS 18 as we've discussed. The question'is what role should.
19 economic cost play _in the evaluation of alternative ;
20 energy sources. Another issue is whether a full 21 scoped cost benefit analysis is required.to support 1 l
22 -our decision, licensing - decision. And finally, to-23' what-extent.can NRC adopt a' state's determination of 24 license renewal relative .to alternative energy .
25 sources. Not license renewal, but continued operation NEAL R. GROSS- - -
CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433. WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 '. (202) 2344433
- _ . . _ . . . . , _ . . . _ . . _ -a.__.._... .c~...._,,,..~.2,.:,..-...
57 1 of the proposed plant relative to alternative energy 2 sources.
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Don, before you go j 4 off that, on the second _ bullet. the denial of an 5 operating license renewal based on an environmentally 6 preferable a3 ternative energy source, how do you deal !
7 with conserv0 tion?. I mean there are some people who 8 like to cell conservation an alternative energy 9 source. To me they're not the sme, but there are 10 many who_are arguing that basically theylshould be, 11 conservation should be included along with- other i
12 sources of eaergy, even though it's not a source. !i 13 :fow do you deal with that? Who's to 14 really determine how much conservation can be carried ;
15 out? You could always, it would seem.to me, do a 16 calculation that would show that'you could conserve 17 away any plant, la MR. MALSch : That-was actually in almost 19 all relatively modern environmental impact statements 20 done by the NRC on construction permit cases. There-21 was an evaluation of energy conservation, not in the ..
22 context of doing it as an alternative, but in _.the -
23 context of is this plant really needed. In, I.think, ,
. 24 every case. the NRC managed to conclude that energy.
25 conservation not be substituted for-the plant.
NEAL R. GROSS COUR1 REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
~ WASHINGTON, O C. 2000$ '
{202) 2344433.. (202) 2344433-
--..- _ ~ _..._.._.,.,____ _ _..__ _ _a._ _ . _ . , . , _ _ _ __,u.2__a._--.._.,.-..-...__,~ . . . . _ , _ . . . . n. . .
58 1 MR. KING: That's where it's treated in j 2 the GEIS, the need for power section and assumptions 3 were made v.. conservation as well as increased demand.
I 4 COMMISSIONER ROG1RS:- - Well, suppose 5 somebody tried to bring it .in here on the basis of 6 environmentally preferable sources. Ilow-do you keep ,
7 it out?
8 MR. MALSCH: I don't think-you can,. at:
9 least not using our traditional NEPA. approach. In 10 fact, there were many contected hearings- involving 11 energy -- some contested hearings involving energy - l 12 conservation. [
13 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Also,- on thel 14 same bullet, could you expand ut on what you said? You 15 said current practice would indicate that the answer 16 to that is yes. Did I hear ti.st correctly? -
17 MR. CLEARY: Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER de PLAT;QUE: Could _you expand 19 upon that?
i 20 MR. CLEARY: Yes. Tne Part 51, -for staf f l-i 21 purposes, is interpreted in the Environmental Standard i
L 22 Review Plan, NUREG-0555. In that document, it's
+
23 specific,- you do thei alternative analysis. If there's 24 :an environmentally preferable alternative, you-go-on: ,
25 to'look at other considerations. Then, if those other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 - WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 - -(202) 234 4433 --
- z. -- . . . . - . . . . - . . . .- ,.-..-.. ,
59 1 considerations don't tip the balance or give you
} reject the environmental preferably 2 reason to 3 alternative, then the decision -- the recommendation t
4 and the question as to what do we mean by decision, 5 but the staff recommendation then is that the 6 applicant go look at the other alternative.
7 COMMISSIO!1ER de PIA!1QUE: llave we ever 8 done that? -
9 MR. CLEARY: 110t that I'm aware of.
10 MR. MALSCH: We have, I think, in a few 11 cases insisted on adoption of not an environmentally 12 preferable source of energy, but an environmentally 13 preferable system of alternatives. For example, 14 alternative transr'ssion line corridors or alternative 15 locations for intake structures and things of this 16 sort. -
17 COMMISSIO!1ER de PIA!10UC: Ah, but that's 18 not an alternative energy source.
19 MR. MALSCH: flo , no, no. I don't believe 20 we've ever actually proposed to deny an application on 21 the ground that the plant was in need to do an 22 alternative source.
.23 COMMISSIO!1ER de PLAliQUE : I'm still not 24 sure I understand what the current practice is that 25 would indicate the answer to that is yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHnHGTON, O C. 2000$ (207) 2344 433
. _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ m__.. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ - . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - . . _ . . _ . . _
i i
-60 1 MR. CLEARY: Well, the way the ;
2 requirements in the standard review plan would ,
3 indicate, that if we did and if we could not find the 1
4 reason that an alternative were preferable, then the 5 recommendation would have to be that the utility i 6 should go with that alternative and by implication the 7 license would be denied. Fortunately as far as I.
8 know, we've never faced that.
9 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: So, in current 10 practice, you're referring to the way in which the 11 regulations are spelled out, not what we have actually ,
12 done or what has been done. .
13 MR. CLEARY: That's right.
14 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Okay. +
15 MR. CLEARY: The way _ the -analysis is 16 structured and the decision process and how you do 17 your analysis and how you.get to the bottom line and i
18 the implications of that bottom line, that has been l
-19 spelled out in Reg. Guide 4.2 since the Revision-2, l
20 since 1976 and in the stiandard review plan since 1979.
~
21 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: But we've never 22 denied a license on that basis?'
COMMISSIONER CURTISS : Marty, just a point 23 24 of clarification. Does the obviously superior ,
25 standard-that applies _to alternate sites apply here?
- NEAL R. GROSS -
CoVRT RCPOATERS AND TRANSCRIDERS _
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
902) 234-4433 W
. ASHINGTON,0 C,20005 - (202) 234 4433
61 1 MR. MALSCH: I see no reason why it 2 wouldn't.
3 COMMISSIO!JER CURTISS: So, it would have 4 to be an obviously superior alternative as it would 5 for sites foc alternative energy sources?
6 MR. MALSCH : Right.
7 MR. PARLER: If the Commissior would 8 decide in a particular case to adopt the -
9 recommendation that probably would be made that it 10 should be extended irom sites to energy sources --
11 COMMISSIO!;ER REMICM: I'm on the same 12 second bullet. We all seem to be attracted to that.
13 I'll give you two examples, one that appears obvious 14 to me and the other I'm not quite sure. Remembering lb that we're talking to need here, or the purpose is the 16 renewal of a license of an existing facility, but in 17 the analysis suppose that it was proposed that another 18 alternative was more environmentally acceptable. Let 10 re must hypothenize. It may be a dam, if the utility 20 built a dam. Let's hypothesize that they could say 21 that that's more environmentally acceptable. I 22 assume, however, if it was not cost beneficial, that 23 would not be the basis to deny the renewal. In other
?4 words, if this was building a new dam, obviously 25 presumably would be very expensive and so forth. So, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE (SLAND AVENUE, N W G2) 2344433 WASH 6NGTON, D C 20005 (202)2344433
62 1 1 assurae we wouldn't automatica11y' deny the license 2 just because we'd have=to admit that hypothetically 3 environmentally this was more acceptable. ,
4 Now, the second one is not:no clear to me.
5 Suppose that once again we have ,the dam, 6 environmentally preferable, maybe even from a cost 7 1- tefit marginal and so forth. But the company'will 8 not build a dam. They just aren't interested in 9 building a dam, for whatever reason. They might have 10 sound technical reacons. What do we do in a case like 11 that? Let's hypothesize it's environmentally 12 acceptable.
13 MR. MALSCH : Actually, that scenario was.
14 thought about_ years ago in terms of what would we 15 actually do. I'm not sure what we would actually do, 16 but what was suggested was a proposed denial that 17 would site for awhile to determine whether the 18 applicant would change positions or pressure would be 1 19 brought to bear by other relevant agencies to.get the l 20 applicant _to change positions and_then-reexamine'the. - ,
21 question. But we never actually had to confront'it.
22 COMMISSIONER REMICK: And it is a
-23 different -situation when you have an existing i
24 generating ~ plant compared _ to - construction permits._ ,
25 Thank you.
L NEAL R. GROSS '
count nerontens ANo inANsenietns l: 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. -
(2C2) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D:C. 20005 (202) 2344433 .,
- . ._ c.._- - . - _ _ ~ . . - . _ . . - _ , _ . ,. u . . n-,__--.--.,.-,-
63 I
1 MR. CLEARY: (Slide) 1 believe we're on i 2 page 15, economic costs. Actually we've talked quite 3 a bit about economic costs so far in this discussion.
4 So, I'll see if I can just skip through this and make 5 a few major points.
6 The regulatory authority over utility 7 economics resides in the states. We've had comments 8 that we've had too heavy emphasis on economic analysis -
9 in that we should not be using economic decision lo criteria. The issues are how are we going to handle--
11 what's the role of economics in the alternative 12 analysis and in the cost benefit analysis.
13 CilAIRMA!4 SEL111: You have an interesting 14 statement here, but I'm not sure I agree with it, that 15 there must be consistency in the use of economic costs 16 at the license renewal stage. I assume meaning 17 compared to other stages of licensing.
18 MR. CLEARY : Other licensing actions, yes, 19 CHAIRMAN SELill: Because the uncertainties 20 are so much less at this stage than in any other type 21 of licensing in that you -- you know, to quote our old 22 Marxist f riends, the dif f orence in quantity eventually 23 becomes the difference in quality. You really know 24 what the environmental impacts are, you know what it 25 would cost to continue. You don't know any of those NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRtDERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(20 ) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 2344433
64 1 things about the alternatives.
2 Take Commissioner Remick's case. We don't 3 know anything about building dams. We don't know what 4 it would really cost to build a dam and what the S environmental impact is. To compare a real concreto-6 alternative like this with a bunch of theoretical onen 7 is different from what we would do in construction a licensing or some other situation. I wonder if that 9 statement really should go without some consideration.
10 This is a process which is qualitatively different 11 from the other processes in which we do licensing.
12 14R . CLEARY: I think it was intended in 13 the context of overall approach to complying with HEPA 14 because NEPA applies to a whole variety of federal 15 actions. If we were to decide hypothetically we will 16 not consider economics in any environmental impact 17 statement because NEPA doesn't require it, then that-18 raises the question of whether that shouldn't be the 19 same principle that we'd follow in running impact 20 statements for fuel cycle plants. That's the - only 21 issue we're raising. There are obviously dif ferences .
.22 in terms of how you go about doing that.
23 (Slide) Going to page 16.
24 The fourth topic to cover is cost benefit ,
25 analysis. I'll point out once again that the approach NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT AEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
.(204 234443) WACHINGTON. I C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
, - , . . . - . . _ . . . _ . _ . - - _ . , _ , , . . . _ , . - . _ . . - _ . . . = _ . . _ _ _ . . _
_ . . . . . _ _ . _ _ . . ~ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
65 l 1 to cost benefit analysis used in the GCIS is j 2 consistent with the way we've been doing cost benefit ,
3 analyses in EISs for nuclear-power plants since at [
t 4 least the mid '70s. The comments that were raised j
+
b relative to 14RC's use of cost benefit analyses that 6 were raised by federal, industry, state, and other-7 commenters, we got quite a few comments on how We do
- 8 cost benefit analyses.
~
9 There's a basic question of whether NRC. [
10 should be using cost benefit analysis as a-decision 11 tool arid there were many comments going to the methods 12 employed and the information deficiencies in our cost i 13 benefit analyses. There was also a point that I
{
14 previously made that cost benefit analyses, if used, 15 should be done across the board on alternatives and 16 not just to the determination of the. proposed action.
17 And then an example of a methodological 18 observation is that there is some double counting in 19 the way we've racked up the table, anu that was-l- 20 pointed out to us. We were taking credit both for the i-21 direct net economic benefits of license renewal on one 22 hand and on the other hand taking credit for the cost 23 avoided by not replacing with a coal _ fired option and ,
24 both use much of the same costs for the calculation.
25 And finally, the major point is that.-cost NEAl. R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 2344433.
l
'. --+-,e. -,.~..,w -wwc,-,g..e. ,,n,--,-
,,_ . . ~ . - - - - - . . - _ _ , , . -. . . . - _ . - . . .
66 benefit balancing 1 is _not required - by- NEPA.- CEQ 2 regulations say that, if an agt.ncy 'does use cost 3 benefit analyses in its planning and decision-making ]
4 process, that the environmental NEPA consideration l 5 should be put.on top of t' hat, but nowher'e is cost 6 benefit analysis required.
7 And that concludes my - comments _ on the j 8 issues.
9 CHAIRMAN SELIN: I really need to go back 1
10 to something Mr. Malsch said. The situation with fuel ;
,- 11 plants is just not the same in the sense that in broad 12 terms you really have three questions to answer.
13 One is, have the safety ' considerations 14 been taken into account outside the EIA?
15 The second is, have the environmental 16 implications ~been taken . into account? Is there 17 another way roughly comparable economically to get the-18 required emergy that can be done in a less harmful 19 environmental way?
20 And.then the third is, have the economic-21 considerations been taken into account, both whether 22 the energy is needed and whether it's provided 23 economically through life extension which will be 24 dealt with by the public utility? In a facility, ,
25 ther e ' is nc public utility commission a t- the end.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT R.2 PORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 - WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 - _ (202) 734-4433
-67; 1 Those costs are not directly passed to ratepayers.
2 They're. passed to the customers. ;
3- ~ So, if you look-at1the w - 111 process,: ;
4 this is'different from a f acility _ p.ecoas. It.is .
- i 5- comparable to an_ electrical generationiprocess'. ,
6 MR. MALSCH- You still can have economics -
7 enter into the picture. For example, let'_s suppose 8 you identify- an environmentally preferable process in I 9 fuel processing. What would your basis be for 10 projecting that? Well,- traditionally it has been, 11 well, let's-look at the economics of-the process as 12 opposed to the economics _of the proposed process.
13 CHAIRMAN SELIN: The point..is that in.the- !
i 14 fuel plant you have to look at the economics. There's- -
15 no back-up state-regulatory process.
16 MR. MALSCH: That's' correct. 'There is no 17 recourse.
18 CHAIRMAN SELIN: ' Commissioner de Planque?'
19 COMMISSIONER de l PLANQUE:- In Lthe SECY-20 -paper-on'page 7 on the cost benefit -balancing,_ the 21 last item, item 4, can you explain that one? I'm not-:
22 quite sure what thef're'saying~there.
23 MR. CLEARY: Item 4 says that cost _ benefit i 24 balancing goes beyond the requirements of NEPA and
. -25 beyond the requirements laid out in CEQ's regulations.
- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCdlBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 . (202) 234-4433
-- _.- -..____ _ _. _ _ ._ ._ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ . _ . . _ .._._-___.m. .._
7 68-i
-1 COMMISS3ONER de PLANQUE:. What's- the
'2 cumulative effects part? .l 3 MR. CLEARY: The cumulative, that is- ..
4 required under NEPA and the CEQ regulations that we're 5 supposed to look at the total cumulative environmental t
6 effects of a proposed action and . the . alternatives. -
For. example, cumulative offects would be with regard _
7 8 to a certain type of effluent over time.
9 eOMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Yes, but are we 10 talking about a single license renewal _and therefore ,
11 a single plant or are we talking . about nationwide?-
12 What does the " cumulative" refer to?-
13 MR. CLEARY: In the context of this 14 rulemaking, it would be for single plants.
15 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Okay. -
16 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Thislis such a thought 17 provoking briefing that your best advice is to keep 18 talking until you're specifically interrupted and_not 19' look around to see-if there are more questions. '
20 MR. KING: All right. Well, let.me wrap this up then.
- 22 Talking about the schedule which is shown 23 on page 18, the first two bullets shown on~page 18 24 really are near-term milestones. ,-
25- The first one deals with our plan to meet i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.-
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
69 1 witt 1:PA on their tecimical comments during March and 2 April. EPA had about 30 pages of technical comments 3 which they submitted on the Rule and the GEIS.
l 4 Because of their experience and expertise in 5 environmental reviews, we feel it's important to reach 6 agreement with them on the technical issues. In 7 addition we feel it's important to do this early so 8 that the results can be reflected in subsequent work 9 in completing this rulemaking, so that's the reason 10 we're going ahead and concentrating on the EPA 11 technical comments first as f ar as the remaining work 12 to be done.
13 The second bullet talks about our schedule 14 for getting back to the Commission with Ib recommendations on the four policy issues we talked 16 about today That's scheduled for May right now. In 17 doing that, we also plan to have discussions with CEQ 18 and EPA because we would 1ike to get their views 19 factored into the paper before it comes back to the
?O Commission. In conjunction with that, the e's an open 21 question that we have in the Commission paper. Since 22 the policy issues result mainly from state comments, 23 we' re asking f or guidance on whether you would like us
. 24 to go get some feedback from the states on these 25 policy issues and f actor that into the paper before it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS At40 TRANSCH BERS 1323 HHODE ISLAND AVENVE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234 4433
70 1 comes to your desk. It's currently not in our plans.
I 2 If you would like us to do that, it will add some time 3 to the schedule. We estimate three months at this 1
4 point.
5 The other bullets on page 18 are the 6 longer-range milestones which complete revision of the 7 Rule and the GEIS and consider the rest of !the 8 comments. As we discussed in SECY-92-198 last year, 9 we're planning to provide CEQ and EPA an opportunity 10 to review the final product, rulemaking package and 11 GEIS, prior to sending it to the Commission for final 12 approval. Right now we've scheduled for December of 13 this year to get that package to EPA and CEQ. They've 14 indicated it will take three or four months for them 15 to review it and get back to us. -That would then put 16 providing the package to the Commission in April of 17 '94.
18 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Have we actually 19 committed to sending them the next package before it's 20 published for general comment?
21 MR. KING: We have asked them if they 22 would be willing to do that and they have said they 23 would. I don't think we're locked into a commitment 24 to do that. ,
25 And then as we had said, again in SECY NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCalBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 734 4 433 W ASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202)2344433
. . . - - . . _ , _ _ ._. =_ _ -
-f 71 -
1- 198, the work on- the - reg, guide and ;- the standard 2 review . plan-we are - going 'to . defer: until af ter: the; *
-3 final rulemaking is-published. We're estimating that-4 will be completed about six months.after publication ,
5 of the final rule.
6 With that, that completes the briefing.
7 Any further questions? .
8 CHAIRMAN SELIN: .I have one legal question:
9 for General Counsel. It's sort of hypothetical andJ 10 you may decide you don't want to answer it'at-this--
11 point, but.is the rule thats-likely'to come out,of-'
12 this close enough-to-the-rule we published-that the.
13 next step could actually be to publish a final rule ~org 14 are we going to have to ask for cemments again?
15- MR. PARLER: I coul'dn_'.t z answer -that~ ,
16 question until I see what the rule is that:-is proposed 17 to come out. The _ genera 1 guidance is, -if the-proposed:
18 rule that we put out was-adequate to put people on'. .
19 notice to what turns out to be the final product --
~ ~
20- and.we have looked at that very carefully in 'other _
- 21~ areau, some of which have been-controversial - then 22 we would not have to.-notice it. But if-not,-thenlwe-23 - would. And that's something that I or whoever or- ,
, 24 Marty will advise you on at the appropriate' time.
25 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Commissioner-Rogers?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT FIEPORTE9S AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 HHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W_
. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 -(202) 234 4433
- x. . . . --. . . ..- - _ . .-
72 1 COMMISSIOt1ER ROGERS: I have nothing.
2 CHAIRMA!1 SELIti: Cornissioner Curtiss?
3 . COMMISSIOliER CURTISS: I don't have any ,
4 other questions. I had a suggestion maybe just in the 5 spirit of a presage as to what I'll speak to more 6 formally when we act on the paper that's before us.
7 It does seem to me that the discussion 8 here, at least my own perspective, is none of us has 9 been through, recently at least, a process where all 10 of these t1 EPA questions have come before the 11 Commission. We've got a -- at least, I don't have a 12 good understanding of how we've done things in the 13 past and it would be useful, I think -- my own 14 preference would be for you to come back to the 15 Commission in May of '93 prior to going to talk to the 16 states with your recommendations on the policy issues 17 and-at that time include some descriptive primer type 18 material on how these issues have been handled in the 19 past in various contexts to give us some context to 20 address the kinds of c;uestions that we've had here.
21 It seems to me that that background 22 together with the fact that the options are of great 23 interest to the Commission might argue in favor of 24 coming to the Commission first and, in my own personal ,
25 view, I think that would be the way to go if at that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
73 1 point based on what we have it looks like a round of 2 state comment either to further elucidate what it is 3 that they're suggesting or to get further reactionc 4 from them on the options that you'll be proposing, if S that would be appropriate. Of course, that wouldn't 6 be foreclosed by coming to the Commission first, but 7 my own purposes would benefit from that discussion, .
8 not only the background hat then of the 9 recommendations on each of the four policy issues.
10 Other tha'1 that, I thought it was a good 11 briefing and a fascinating issue.
12 CHAIRMA!1 Sl:LIII: Commissioner Remick?
13 Commissioner de Planque?
.14 COMMISSIO!1ER de PLAT 1QUE : Yes, just 15 another question on going to the states. Is there any l f, obvious down side other than a three month delay, 17 whether you were to do that now or to do that in the 18 order that Commissioner Curtiss was suggesting?
19 MR. K1 tlG : I don't think we've identified 20 any down side other than in schedule at this point.
21 COMMISS1011CR de PLAT 1QUE: And if you went 22 back to them at this point, would you expect to get 23 comments that are much different or more extensive 24 than you've already gotten?
25 MR. KI t1G : Well, we would go back to them i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W WASHtMGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4 33 (202) 234 4433
74 1 on what our proposal is to deal with the four policy 2 issues and see if that's --
3 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: And get 4 specifics on those.
5 MR. KING: Yes, and see if our 6 recommendation is consistent with their concerns and 7 be able to f actor that into our recommendation to you.
8 We wouldn't go back and tell them to comment again on -
9 the whole GEIS routine.
10 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Right. Okay.
11 Thanks.
12 MR. KING: Let me offer one point of 13 clarification, Mr. Chairman, on your point on whether 14 we're locked into going back to CEQ and EPA. The 15 answer is no, but Don reminded me that EPA will review 16 this final rule package. If we wait until it's 17 approved by the Commission and published, they by 18 statute are obligated to review it and comment on it, 19 so I think the question is --
20 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Before it's published?
21 MR. KING: After it's published.
22 CHAIRMAN SELIN: After it's published.
23 MR. KING: Then the question is, do we 24 want to get that before it's published and get some 25 feedback from them or do we want to wait until the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) i'34-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
. ~_. - - .. - - . ~ . .. . .. . . . . .
4 75 1- end?
2 CHAIRMAN SELIN: I-just,would like to, in J 3- wrapping up, attach myselffto Commissioner. Curtiss' 4 commants. This is a very-good. presentation, very good -
4 --
5- pitch, but-I would just like to emphasize the simple:
6 things that we're trying-to do and not lose track of:
7 these as we get into these legal _ and procedural .
8 complexities.
9 -One is trying to make sure, not-just in-
- 10 the Els, that the safety l'ssues and.the environmental 11 issues are addressed -- and those are issues-that, if -
12 they're not addressed at our-level, are not likely to 13 be addressed -- and to try to avoid crazy things from-4-
14 an economic or- a requirements point of view, knowing 15 that those will-be addressed elsewhere. - I hope.that 16 when you look at these things you will come back to-17 basic principles,_not_say "How-close is;this to the 18 way we would handle a 1 construction - permit 1 or ' some- ,
19 other piece?" but what are weitrying to do and are we 20 consistent with the law in the way we're doing it or 21 are we so different f rom either the. law or - past '
22 practice that we're just setting up _a highly 23 challengeable piece, i c 24 The second is- there 's been an enormous 25 amount of comment on these already. If you do decide NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
- 1323 RHODE ISMNO AVENUE, N W. s (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433-
, - .. __- - . . . _ . . _ . - , . , , . , , , - . . - ....,, .m_ _ _ . , _ . _ . .
76' I
-1 that.you-want to go-back to the~ states,:I hope it's 2 because-you really think that there's something that l 3- they're going to tell us that : we don't expect _ as _
.s ,
4 opposed to just good manners-that it's nice to get :3 5 people to tz.ke a look at it, similarly-with CEQ=and-6 EPA.
7 This has been extensively discussed and we-8 sort of know already in general what people's 9 positions will be and, you know, we do have:to get on:
10 with the work. -So, if there's good reason - .I.mean,-
11 it we really need to know what people's reactions are,-
12 there are some choices that are certainly-open - You-13 Know, I'm certainly amendable to the discussions,-- but i
14 we ' re - trying to co a fairly simple ~ thing with the .
15 environmental impact statement and I hope we don'_t get t
16 ' distracted from what that simple thing is.
17 With that just sort of? simple admonition,-
18 thank you very much for the presentation an'd of coursei 19 we'll . be very interested in what happens - from here on.
20 in.
21 (Whereupon, at 3:41 .p.m.,- the .above-22 entitled matter was' concluded.)
23 24 ,
L NEAL R. GROSS -
court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N WL
.(202) 234 4433 ' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 .(202) 234-4433 '
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting i
of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING: BRIEFING ON STATUS OF ISSUES AND APPROACH TO GEIS RULEMAKING FOR PART 51 PLACE OF MEETING: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING: FEBRUARY 19, 1993 were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events, 6aad Au4 V Reporter's name: PETER LYNCH NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTIR$ AND TRAH$CR19tR5 1323 RHODE t$ LAND AYINUE, N.W.
WASHtHGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6 (202) 234m
~
1 a
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY- COMMISSION LICENSE RENEWAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RULEMAKING COMMISSION BRIEFING BY THE
. OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH THOMAS L. KING DONALD P. CLEARY t
. AND' THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL t
- MARTIN G. MALSCH FEBRUARY 19,1993 t
1
.~. _ - . . . . , , _ , . . . . _ , , _____.__.___________1_._._______________
I ;
~ .
l.
. . . ~-
OUTLINE OF BRIEFING o PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE'OF BRIEFING .
o BACKGROUND o COMMENT
SUMMARY
o AGREEMENT WITH-CEO AND EPA o POLICY ISSUES :
o SCHEDULE
, i.
j 3
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE-
, o TO lNFORM THE COMMISSION OF COMMENTS!
L RECEIVED--AND-TO IDENTIFY THOSE WITHL POTENTIAL POLICY lMPLICATIONS I
o TO INFORM THE COMMISSION OF THE RESULTS-OF AGREEMENTS WITH THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTALLQUALITYl(CEO) AND THE1 :
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION? AGENCY-(EPA)-
REGARDING CONSISTENCY-OF THE-PROPOSED. -
ACTION WITH NEPA AND TO-SOLICIT 1 COMMISSION APPROVAL-OF THE AGREEMENT-o' TO INFORM THE COMMISSION OF THE STAFF'Sl
-PLANS AND-SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION;OF THE RULEMAKING
~
t i
I
,w E- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.__'.__.______
l L4 e .A %
BACKGROUND L
o PROPOSED PART 51 RULECHANGE IN. SUPPORT.
OF LICENSE. RENEWAL ISSUED FOR COMMENT L ON SEPT. 1-7,1991:.
180 DAY COMMENT PERIOD
- WORKSHOP - 11/91 o PROPOSED: GENERIC TREATMENT OF AS MANY.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH-LICENSE RENEWAL AS POSSIBLE:
GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT L STATEMENT )
SAME SCOPE OF ISSUES AS THE MOST:
L RECENT PLANT SPECIFIC EISs FOCUSED ON THE IMPACT OF PLANT REFURBISHMENT AND.20 YEARS:OF-JADDITIONAL OPERATION.
L IMPACTS CODIFIED IN RULE ENVIRONMEI'TAL ASSESSMENT ALLOWED -
5 COMMENT SUMMAPY -
o COMMENTS FROM WRis IEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE TRANSCRlPT OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON .
RULE AND GEIS o TOTAL OF 133 ORGANIZATIONS AND ;
INDIVIDUALS HAVE COMMENTED
- 5 FEDERAL AGENCIES
- 24 STATES j
- 5 REGIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORG :
l
- 36 NUCLEAR INDUSTRY )
19 PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS
- 44 INDIVIDUALS o 1,021 INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS o GROUPED-INTO 347 CONCERNS o UNDER 16 SPECIFIC TOPICS
6 COMMENT - CONTINUER l
- CONCERNS # COMMENTS TOPlc ,
o GEIS 26 80 l
L o COMPLIANCE WITH NEPA AND 10 CFR 51 19 144 i o LICENSE RENEWAL SCENARIO 14 23 o AQUATIC ECOLOGY 19 37 o AIR QUALITY 2 3 8 11 o GROUNDWATER o SURFACE WATER QUALITY 16 26 l o TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY !
AND: LAND USE 19 42 o HUMAN HEALTH 48 78 l
o POSTULATED ACCIDENTS 32 70 o DECOMMISSIONING 13 26 l o SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 46 138 o SOCIOECONOMICS 16 42 o NEED FOR GEN. CAPACITY 20 73 o ALTERNATIVES TO L.R. 42 202 o REGULATORY GUIDE 7 26 l
347 1,021 l
1
d 7 .
AGREEMENT REACHED WITH CEQ AND EPA y
MODIFY CERTAIN PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THEL PROPOSED RULEL o SUPPLEMENTAL SITE-SPECIFIC EIS o NO CONDITIONAL COST-BENEFIT: CONCLUSION L
IN RULE AND GEIS--CONCLUSION ON '
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:WILL BE;MADE INL INDIVIDUAL LICENSE RENEWAL REVIEWS i o DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS WILL BE ISSUED FOR PUBLIC: COMMENT:
r o ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS-WILLLBE REVIEWED l o- COMMENTS ON UNBOUNDEDLCATEGORY -
ISSUES' AND CATEGORY $3 ISSUES.'AND:
FACTUAL CHALLENGES:TO BOUNDING CRITERIA 1 FOR A CATEGORY.2 ISSUE:WILL1BE ADDRESSED IN FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIS
' b, i - , -,. m. - , _. ,-,
-)
=8 ,
. ~. !
AGREEMENT - CONTINUED- j o COMMENTS ON CATEGORY 1 lSSUES AND BOUNDED CATEGORY:2 ISSUES WILL BE REVIEWED-AND IF THEY CONTAIN NEW AND.
SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION WILL BE ADDRESSED:
IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIS (IF PLANT SPECIFIC) WITH A WAIVER OF THE RULE L
BY- RULECHANGE-OR SUSPENSION (IF-l GENERIC) o IF DISSATISFIED WITH-A STAFF DETERMINATION '
THAT INFORMATION IS NOT NEW AND -
SIGNIFICANT, A COMMENTER MAY-FILE AL PETITION FOR RULEMAKING UNDER 10 CFR-L 2.802 OR SEEK WAIVER UNDER 10 CFR 2.758-L l
j ..
z.!, - ,. -m._.-..._... ,_,s. , _
}
9- ,
4 i
AGREEMENT - CONTINUED . ,
o A HEARING WILL BE LIMITED:TO UNBOUNDED- !
CATEGORY 2 AND CATEGORY!3 ISSUESJUNLESSL THE RULE IS SUSPENDED OR WAIVED.
L o GEIS- AND RULE WILL BE REVIEWED AND L
UPDATED EVERY 10 YEARS:USING EXISTING- o PROCEDURES .
o UNDER EXISTING 10:CFR 2.802, A PETITION FORL RULEMAKING TO AMEND RULE AND GEIS'MAY L BE SUBMITTED AT' ANYTIME-L a
n
_ , . - - _ , - . _ , - , . _ - - r.w
10 POLICY ISSUES
~
o ARE BEING HIGHLIGHTED NOW TO GIVE ADVANCE NOTICE OF AREAS WHERE THE COMMISSION MAY BE ASKED TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE o FOUR AREAS WITH POTENTIAL POLICY ISSUES IDENTIFIED:
NEED FOR GENERATING CAPACITY ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY ECONOMIC COSTS COST-BENEFIT BALANCING o THE ISSUES IN THESE AREAS INVOLVE THE SCOPE AND FOCUS OF NRC'S NEPA REVIEW FOR LICENSE RENEWAL o THESE ISSUES MUST BE TREATED CONSISTENTLY IN 10 CFR PART 51 FOR ALL NRC LICENSING ACTIONS .
o STAFF WILL BE PROVIDING A RECOMMENDED ,
POSITION ON EACH OF THESE ISSUES i
=
g-11-NEED FOR GENERATING CAPACITY.
o COMMENTS RAISING POLICY ISSUES:
s NRC's INCLUSION OF NEED' FORECASTS IN' GEIS AND RULE HAS PRACTICAL EFFECT OF INTERFERING WITH STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE:NEED ACCURATE FORECASTS OF NEED:CANNOT o
. BE MADE SO FAR lN ADVANCE OF LICENSE j RENEWAL- i CHANGE FROM CATEGORY 11:TO CATEGORYi 3 TO ALLOW FOR MEANINGFULtPUBLIC-PARTICIPATION NRC SHOULD USETHE STATE DETERMINATION OF NEED IN ITS NEPA-REVIEW--
a 0
, I 1
i 12 NEED FOR GENERATING CAPACITY ICONTINUED) -
o PRIMARY ISSUE: TO WHAT EXTENT SHOULD NRC CONTINUE TO ADDRESS NEED FOR GENERATING CAPACITY IN EISs?
RELATED TO DEFINITION OF " PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION" AND "NEED" FOR THAT ACTION WHAT ROLE SHOULD "NEED" HAVE IN THE DETERMINATION WHETHER TO RENEW AN OPERATING LICENSE--WOULD A LICENSE BE DENIED BASED ON NEED FOR GENERATING CAPACITY CONSIDERATIONS?
TREATMENT OF "NEED" AT LICENSE RENEWAL STAGE AND OTHER STAGES OF LICENSING WHATEVER THE LEVEL OF TREATMENT OF NEED FOR GENERATING CAPACITY IN THE GEIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL EIS, TO WHAT EXTENT CAN NRC ADOPT A STATES DETERMINATION OF NEED? -
j 13 ,
^
e ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES ,
COMMENTS RAISING POLICY-ISSUES:
o STATES HAVE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE ENERGY-MIX COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES:SHOULD-EMPHASIZE ENVIRONMENTAL -
CONSEQUENCES RATHER THAN ECONOMIC COSTS AN ECONOMIC THRESHOLDLTEST TO TRIGGER A-FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF
-ALTERNATIVES IS INAPPROPRIATE.IN AL .
I NEPA. ANALYSIS- ,
IF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IS USED IT SHOULD BE USED1TO. COMPARE ALTERNATIVES RATHER'THAN JUST TO-MAKE A DETERMINATION ON THE PROPOSED ACTION:
+
4 1 E
14 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES (CONTINUED) ,
.. ~
o PRIMARY ISSUE: WHAT SHOULD BE THE ROLE AND THE SCOPE OF REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES IN EISs?
RELATED TO DEFINITION OF "NEED" FOR THE PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION SHOULD RENEWAL OF AN OPERATING LICENSE BE DEN!ED BASED ON IDENTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCE?
WHAT ROLE SHOULD ECONOMIC COSTS PLAY IN THE REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES?
IS A FULL COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES REQUIRED TO SUPPORT AN NRC LICENSE' RENEWAL DECISION?
TO WHAT EXTENT CAN NRC ADOPT A STATES DETERMINATION OF THE ROLE OF .
CONTINUED OPERATION OF A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT RELATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES?
l
15 ECONOMIC COSTS. m o COMMENTS RAISING POLICY ISSUES::
REGULATORY- AUTHORITY-OVER: UTILITY '
ECONOMICS RESIDES IN THE STATES--AND:
TO.SOME-EXTENT IN THE FEDERAL ENERGY-REGULATORY COMMISSION i
NRC'S HEAVY l EMPHASIS ON; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND ECONOMIC DECISION: -
CRITERIA HAS-THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF ;
INTERFERING WITH STATE-AUTHORITY :
FOR A NEPA REVIEW,-UNDUE EMPHASIS IS-GIVEN TO ECONOMIC COSTS .
o PRIMARY ISSUE: TO WHAT EXTENT _.SHOULD;
-NRC CONTINUE TO ADDRESS ECONOMIC: COSTS- ^
IN EISs?
WHERE IN THE LICENSE RENEWAL DECISION-l PROCESS SHOULD ECONOMIC COSTS BE:
CONSIDERED?
THERE MUST BE CONSISTENCY.IN-THE USE .
OF ECONOMIC COSTSTAT THE! LICENSE: '
RENEWAL STAGE AND'OTHER STAGES OF LICENSING
- - _ ~ - - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _-.________.__-_____-________1__
.16 .
k COST-BENEFIT BALANCIN_G o COMMENTS RA1 SING POLICY ISSUES:
'NCOMPLETE COVERAGE OF BOTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND ECONOMIC COSTS ,
SHOULD BE USED TO COMPARE ALTERNATIVES RATHER THAN JUST TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ON THE-
- PROPOSED ACTION THERE IS DOUBLE COUNTING IN THE ITEMS l INCLUDED IN DIRECT COSTS AND AVOIDED COSTS l
l -
A COST-BENEFIT BALANCING IS.NOT l
REQUIRED BY NEPA
l 17
?
4 6
_CO__ST-BENEFIT BALANCING (CONTINUED) o PRIMARY ISSUE: SHOULD NRC CONTINUE TO PERFORM BROADI.Y SCOPED COST-BENEFIT BALANCING IN EISs?
SHOULD IT BE PERFORMED TO EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES RATHER THAN ONLY THE PROPOSED ACTION?
ANALYSIS WOULD BE INFLUENCED BY ANY CHANGE IN THE DEFINITION OF "NEED FOR THE PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION"
18 SCHEDULE '
o MEETINGS WITH EPA ON THEIR TECHNICAL ,
CONCERNS - 3/93-4/93 :
o PAPER TO COMMISSION.ON PROPOSED ;
RESOLUTION OF POLICY ISSUES (INCLUDdS-TIME FOR DISCUSSION WITH CEQ*/ EPA) - 5/93** .
o FINAL DRAFT OF RULE PACKAGE TO CEO AND EPA FOR REVIEW - 12/93 o FINAL LETTERS FROM CEQ* AND EPA - 3/94 L o FINAL RULE PACKAGE TO COMMISSION - 4/94 :
l .
~
o PUBLISH FINAL REGULATORY GUIDE AND STANDARD REVIEW PLAN - 12/94 L :
l
" THE ROLE OF CEQ IN FUTURE' DISCUSSIONS AND l ,
REVIEWS IS YET TO BE DETERMINED DUE TO :
THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO ABOLISH CEQ L AND INCORPORATE ITS FUNCTIONS IN.THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF -
- COULD SLIP 3 MONTHS IF DISCUSSION WITH 1 L STATES IS DESIRED. .
L
% 4 -. .-r.. .--g- - -, ,y,_, , , - - , . , . , , , , . , , . , , ,, . , , ,e, ,.,4., _ , , , ,, ,, , . _ . _. p_,__,,_