ML20148D288
| ML20148D288 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/21/1978 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148D293 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-78-485, SECY-78-485-ERR, SECY-78-485-ERR-01, SECY-78-485-ERR-1, NUDOCS 7811020294 | |
| Download: ML20148D288 (9) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _
AA o
September 21, 1978 C 0 R R E C i I 0 N N 0 T I C E l
l TO ALL COPYHOLDERS OF SECY-78-485 - PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ON GENERAL POLICY FOR RULEMAKING TO IMPROVE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSING (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM) i THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS HAS REQUESTED THAT THE ATTACHED PAGES BE SUBSTITUTED IN THE ENCLOSURES TO THE SUBJECT PAPER.
THE PAGES HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO BETTER PRESERVE THE STAFF'S FLEXIBILITY IN RESPONDING TO A PENDING RULEMAKING PETITION PRM-51-4.
PLEASE REPLACE PAGES 8 AND 9 IN ENCLOSURE A AND PAGES 1 THROUGH
' 7 ISSUE NO. 7 IN ENCLOSURE D WITH THE ATTACHED PAGES.
HANGES.
SECRETARIAT
,e
.e NhPAdecisioncriteriafo'rcoeratinglicense(OL) reviews-Current o
NRC regulation's regarding OL licensing review proceduras (10 CFR 51.23-e) declare.that "a draft environmental impact statement prepared in connection with the issuance of an operating license will' cover only matters which differ from or which reflect new information in addition to those matters discussed in the final environmental impact statement prepared in ' connection with the issusnce of the construction permit." This instructs n'makes no
,y differentiation in the relevance of individual cost-benefit considerations to licensing decisions at the OL versus the Construc-tion Permit (CP) stage.
For example, the staff believes the need for constructing new baseload generating capacity, a '. tor considered
~
in a CP decision, normally is no longer a significant factor in the OL dects1on because the plant has already been constructed. The staff h11 eves that in order to be forward-looking, the OL decision should ignore investment costs and the controlling cost-benefit criterion at this stage is whether the operation of a nuclear plant once constructed is a less expensive option for society in terms of incremental system and environmental costs than the use of any equivalent baseload capacity
- available within the system or the purchase of energy from other utilities in the power pool..Likewise, construction of new alternative energy sources and construction of the plant proposed in the application on an alternative site do not appear to be significant to an OL decision.
Also, external and irretrievable impacts on the environment or community-level and socioeconomic effects that have already occurred after having
' Enclosure A
.g.
been found acceptable at the time of the CP decision do not appear to be relevant to an OL decision.
Rulemaking would improve licensing effectiveness at the OL stage through:
(1) establishing for some issues a clear differentiation between impact issues admissible for review at the CP and OL stages of licensing ' decision; and (ii) developing for others acceptance criteria as to whether new information on impacts germane to an OL decision are sufficiently significant to societal interests to require review at the OL stage.
Currently, there is under review r. petition for rulemaking in this area (PRM-51-4).,While the staff believes that rulemaking in this general area would b productive, this Interim Policy Statement should not be considered as impacting the Commission's decision relative to the legal and technical merits of the petition.
Occuoational radiation exposure control - Analysis of occupational radiation exposure data has identified activated corrosion products (crud) as the principal source of worker exposures at nuclear power plants.
Man-rem exposure, plant down-time, and operating and maintenance costs may be substantially increased without appropriate exposure control of these depositional, processes.
The industry has been. exploring m,ethods of reducing occupational radiation ' exposures.
due to these sources.
At such time in the future as information becomes sufficient to justify specific regulatory requirements in this area, rulemaking could achieve a specific annual radiation Enclosure A
HEPA DECIS10!i CRITERIA TOR OL REVlEWS
'I.
_ Discussion of the Issue NRC currently reviews' the environmental impact of operation of a nuclea'r steam electric generating station in conjunction with the review of an application for a CP.
A second review is performed at j
the time of the OL application.
The current regulations do not clearly distinguish between the information which will 'be reviewed a'c
,the OL stage and the information which will be reviewed at the CP stage.
The regulations do address additional information require-ments at the OL stage (10 CFR 51.21 says the applicant's '0L stage ER i
shall address the same material as the CP stage ER "but only to the extent that they differ from those discussed or reflected new infor-mation in addition to that discussed in the final environmental irh-pact statement prepared by the Commission in connection'with the constructionpermit.")
The regulations further provide (10 CFR 51.23 (e)) that "a draft environmental impact statement prepared in connec-tion with the issuance of an operating license will cover only matters which differ 'from or which reflect new information in addition to those matters discussed in'the final environmental impact statement prepared in connection'with the issuance of.the construction permit."-
While this guidance in some cases substantially eases the OL stage review process it has one major deficiency; i.e., some issues are Enclosure D (Issue No. 7)
2 very relevant.at the CP stage but at the OL stage are inappropriate.
L Others likely could not tilt the cost-benefit balance in a reasonable i
analysis regardless of new information.
For example, issues in one category or'the other might be:
(a) need for power /nced for facility (b) alternative fuels j
(c) alternative sites (d) impacts of construction
, g) physical layout and design of facility, including impart mitigating devices.
A second opportunity for review and litigation of any issues that have no relevance or could not reasonably impact the, previous decision is not co'st effective nor in the public interest.
At the time of an OL review there has been a substantial commitment of 8
resources in constructing the approved design at ! he approved site.
t Therefore, the balance in favor of many alternatives that were available at the CP stage willhave tilted against those alternatives by the, time an OL decision is required.
The issues at the 0L review stag'e should logically focus on whether new information warrants specifically identifiable changes in mitigative structures or operating character-istics.
It is, therefore, proposed that the scope of OL review be better defined by rulemaking.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 7)
s.
.. II.
Likely Scope of Rulemaking Rulemaking would serve to clarify the scope of revie'w at the OL stage.
Rulemaking should have as a second objective the exposition of criteria for determining where re-review of an issue is appropriate and permissible at the 'Ot stage.
The rulemaking process should methodicall.y consider each and every issue or type of issue covered in the NEPA review.
This should include, as a minimum, the following:
t 1.
need for' power /need for faci'4ity 2.
alternative energy sources 3.
alternative sites 4.
alternative impact mitigating structures:
'a.
intake structure b.
condenser coolinc system c.
discharge structure (IssueNo.7)
5.
alternative operating procedures 6.
housekeeping practices (e.g., construction cleanup transmission line right of way maintenance).
7.' monitoring and surveillance programs e
IIZ.
NRC and Other Resources Expended in Case Reviews and Hearings The cost of the OL stage environmental review is great in proportion to benefits.
An accurate up-to-date cost estimate is not available, but it is estimated at about half'to two-thirds of a CP review.
The' estimate of-the cost of the lab participation in CP reviews was c.
placed at $319,000 as of August 1977.
This cost included hearings.
The OL review often does not include an environmental hearing.
To the lab cost must be added the NRC staff cost.
A November 1976 estimate of time expended by two branches (Environmental Specialists andCost-BenefitAnalysis)wasaboutsixman-months.
The Hydrology /
Meteorology, Radiation Assessment, and Accident Analysis Branches also' provide substantial input to the OL review, as does the Environ-mentd1 Projects Branch.
The total NRC staff cost is estimated as '
i rcughly equal to the cost of lab participation, or about. $200,000 for the OL review.
Enclosure D (IssueNo.7-)
.s.
Tha applicant's cost for the environmental review at the OL stage is estimated to be in the range of 0.5 to.l.5 millior dollars.
The estimated savings.in NRC staff effort per case through rule-making.is about 100 to 200 man-days with a total budgetary savings to NRC'of about $100,000 to $210,000 per case.
The estimated savings ~ to the applicant is about $500,000 per case.
t IV.
Information Recuired for Rulemakina Both a legal review and a technical r,eview will be necessary.
The legal review should provide recommended procedures to assure com-pliance with NEPA.
The technical review would consider case histories where both CP and OL statemen'ts have been prepared.
The technical review would identify those areas where OL stage review is essential and cannot be avoided by more thorough treatment at the'CP stage.
The technical review would also provide the basis for an environmental impact appraisal or statement of the proposed rulemaking, if required.
The NRC staff effort for this rulemaking is estimated to be roughly 400 man-days at a total cost of $320,000 inc'luding rulemaking workshops.
Th'e industry cost of rulemaking is' estimated at roughly $500,000.
Enclosure D (Issue No. &)
h u
V.
Major Policy Considerations As a matter of policy, NRC Las the primary responsibility to assure that the. nuclear power industry adhere to environn.entally sound practices. Modifications to our OL review process should be made only if they do not weaen our assurances that our NEPA responsibil-ity will be reasonably discharged.
However, any changes in this area are likely to be controversial as to whether we will still be' pro-viding reasonable assurances.
There will be serious potential chal-1enges regarding the legal requirements on NEPA.
Currently there is vnder review a petition for rulemaking in this area (PRM-51-4).
While the staff believes that rulemaking in this general area would be productive, this Interim Policy Statement should not be considered as impacting the Commission's decision relative to the legal and technical merits of the petition.
'e t
e Enclosure D (IssueNo.7)
.