18 United States Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. STATEMENT BY THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION ON COURT OF APPEALS DECISION IN CALVERT CLIFFS LITIGATION The Atomic Energy Commission today issued a statement concerning the July 23 decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in litigation involving the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, and the Commission's implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Court directed the AEC to revise in four respects its rules governing consideration of non-radiological environmental issues in the licensing of nuclear facilities. These rules had been issued by the AEC in implementation of NEPA. A summary of the Court's rulings is attached to this announcement. In its statement, AEC said: The Commission is studying how best the Court of Appeals' decision can presently be implemented in pending licensing cases. At the same time AEC is considering the possibility of requesting further appellate review or clarification of the decision. The AEC has initiated action to: (1) Re-evaluate the NEPA environmental statements prepared for pending cases and proceed with the preparation of supplemental NEPA statements which meet the requirements of the Court's decision. (2) Begin, as promptly as possible, the NEPA environmental review called for by the decision with respect to (a) facilities which were licensed after January 1, 1970 (the effective date of NEPA) and (b) pre-January 1, 1970, construction permits, such as the Calvert Cliffs facility. (3) Issue as soon as possible appropriate regulations to implement the Court's decision. While regulations are being developed to implement the Court decision, the Commission is taking steps to proceed as far as possible, on matters not affected by the Court's decision, in those hearings now in progress, and in those cases to be scheduled for hearing in the near future. AEC is providing interim guidance to licensees and applicants affected by the decision concerning possible modification that may be required in environmental reports. Based on present AEC estimates, the Court's decision will directly affect 61 license applications involving 88 nuclear power reactors. Ten 68-699-72—13 of these applications, seven for operating licenses and three for construction permits, are presently in the hearing process or nearing issuance of a license. Twenty other applications, nine operating li censes and eleven construction permits, are nearing the completion of the AEC review process. The remaining thirty-one applications are in stages of the AEC review process ranging from those recently filed to those some six months from review completion. In addition to these 61 applications, there are five nuclear power reactors for which operating licenses were issued after the January 1, 1970, effective date of NEPA which are affected by the decision. Also affected will be three fuel reprocessing facilities. The nuclear power reactors which will be directly affected by the Court's decision represent a total electrical generating capacity of about 80 million kilowatts. The current electrical generating capacity of the United States from all types of power plants is approximately 340 million kilowatts. August 4, 1971. SUMMARY OF RULINGS OF COURT OF APPEALS The Court's decision required, in summary, that the Commission's rules make provision for: (1) review by its licensing boards, in uncontested as well as contested nuclear facility licensing cases, of the NEPA environmental statement prepared by the AEC staff and an independent consideration by the boards of the staff's balance of conflicting factors; (2) consideration of NEPA environmental issues in connection with all nuclear power reactor licensing actions which took place after January 1, 1970 (the effective date of NEPA); (3) an independent AEC evaluation and balancing of certain environmental factors, such as thermal effects, notwithstanding the fact that other Federal or State agencies have already certified that their own environmental standards are satisfied by the proposed licensing action; and (4) NEPA review, and appropriate action after such review for construction permits issued prior to January 1, 1970, in cases for which an operating license has not as yet been issued. Such steps would take place prior to the normal time for operating license review and determination. UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C. DEAR On July 23, 1971, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the consolidated cases of Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee, Inc., et al. v. U. S. (Cases Nos. 24,839 and 24,871) (copy enclosed). I am enclosing for your information the public announcement which the Commission has issued concerning the actions it is considering in regard to the Court decision. As the public announcement indicates, we are presently reviewing the environmental statements that have been issued and those that are in preparation in order to determine what modifications may be needed to conform with the Court's decision. We will be in communication with you as soon as possible concerning the additional information that will be required to supplement your environmental report and the possible effect that this decision. may have on your licensing schedule. In the interim, we believe it is in your interest to review the information previously submitted in your environmental report in light of the Court's decision to determine what additional information should be submitted and we are enclosing for your use "Interim Guidance on Modification in Applicant's Environmental Reports and AEC Statements Under NEPA." Also, the "Guide to the Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," which was transmitted to you in March 1971 should be followed carefully in your review. We urge that you forward the additional information developed as a result of your review as soon as it is available in the form of a supplement to your environmental report. Sincerely, Enclosure Director of Regulation. "Interim Guidance . . ." (Decision not enclosed). AUGUST 4, 1971. INTERIM GUIDANCE ON MODIFICATION IN APPLICANT'S ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS AND AEC STATEMENTS UNDER NEPA In its decision of July 23, 1971, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in litigation involving the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant directed the Atomic Energy Commission to revise in several respects its rules implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Commission is presently preparing appropriate regulations to implement the Court's decision. The Commission will be reevaluating the NEPA environmental statements previously issued in connection with its licensing activities and those in preparation in order to prepare supplemental NEPA statements which meet the requirements of the Court's decision.1 In the meantime applicants for construction permits and operating licenses for nuclear facilities should review their environmental reports previously submitted in light of the Court decision and develop supplemental information, where indicated, to conform to the Court decision. In this regard the "Guide to the Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plants" which the AEC issued for interim use and comment in February 1971 should be carefully followed. Specific emphasis should be given to the following in your review. 1 Interim guidance for holders of operating licenses issued since January 1, 1970, will be issued at a later date. 1. Complete information must be included on thermal and other effects of the facility with respect to water quality as discussed in Sections 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.5 and 2.3.6 of the Draft Guide. 2. In those cases where once thru cooling is proposed, alternative methods of heat dissipation (including costs) must be discussed as outlined in Section 2.5, Paragraph 4, of the Draft Guide. 3. The completeness of information on environmental effects of the facility such as land use compatibility (Section 2.3.1 of the Draft Guide), aesthetics (Section 2.3.9 of the Draft Guide), and recreation should be reviewed and all relevant information included. 4. A detailed analysis of the need for power which will be generated in the nuclear unit subject to licensing must be included in each environmental report (Section 2.1 of the Draft Guide). Alternative methods of generating the power as discussed in Section 2.5 of the Draft Guide should be discussed and analyzed. 5. In the Court decision, there is a discussion of the cost-benefit balancing which must be carried out in each detailed statement issued by the AEC. To asist the AEC in making this balance, detailed information should be provided on the need for the power produced at the facility subject to licensing, any significant environmental impact incurred in producing the power and the alternatives available (including cost) for reducing or avoiding the environmental impact. The differences in the balance between benefits and environmental impact of the various alternatives identified above should be discussed and analyzed. [Note: The following Guide, particularly the foreword and introduction, should be read in light of the July 23, 1971 decision of the United States court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee, Inc., et al. v. U.S.] 1. 0 GUIDE TO THE PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS [DRAFT*] Contents; INTRODUCTION.... Page 1 92 2. 6 2.7 3.0 201 202 202 Short-Term Uses versus Long-Term Productivity. Foreword: Under the Commission's regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix D), applicants for nuclear power plant permits and licenses are required to submit an Environmental Report at the time they file an application for a construction permit and, at the time they file an application for an operating license, they are required to update the Report to the extent that environmental considerations differ significantly from those discussed in the earlier Report. In addition, the regulations provide that each holder of a permit to construct a nuclear power plant who has not yet submitted an Environmental Report is required to submit such a Report as soon as practicable. This draft guide has been prepared by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission as an aid to applicants in the preparation of Environmental Reports. The information presented in this guide provides a comprehensive discussion of the environmental impact associated with the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant: however, the scope and detail of the draft guide are such as a discussion of all topics may not be applicable or appropriate concerning any particular nuclear plant. With respect to those Environmental Reports which are prepared in the transitional period before the adoption of a final guide, it is recognized that the Environmental Reports may not be as complete as they will be after there has been an opportunity to develop and analyze the types of information suggested in this draft guide, and it is further recognized that some period of time may be required to achieve full compliance even after a final guide is adopted. All interested persons are invited to submit by May 1, 1971, written comments and suggestions concerning the material contained in the draft guide to the Director, Division of Radiological and Environmental Protection, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. 20545, and a final guide subsequently will be prepared which will take into consideration the comments received. *U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Issued for comment and interim use: February 1971. |