"D. Early public access to application information

"Intervenors in several proceedings for the licensing of nuclear power plants have stated the need for and made extensive use of 'discovery procedures both before the AEC public hearing commenced as well as during that hearing. The stated basis for this has been that the amount of material filed by an applicant in the course of AEC's review is extremely voluminous. Intervenors have claimed that, whereas AEC has on the order for a year or more to review this information, the intervenors cannot in the short period of time between publication of the notice of AEC's hearing and the start of the hearing, thoroughly examine this mass of material. Thus, they are forced to engage in extensive 'discovery' procedures in the hope of reducing the amount of time required for their review.

"It was also suggested by several witnesses that the public be given early and easy access to the application and other key documents generated during the course of the regulatory review as a means of providing potential intervenors with sufficient time for thorough examination of the documents and thus helping to eliminate what was purported to be the principal cause for the use of extensive discovery procedures. This appears to be an eminently sensible suggestion and the AEC should be urged to develop procedures, including a general description of the documents to be so treated for accomplishing this objective.

"E. Possible limitation of on-site construction prior to determination of site suitability

"Under present AEC regulations, determination of site suitability is made by the Commission as part of its review of the application for a permit to construct the nuclear power plant. Some work on the proposed site is permitted under AEC regulations before an AEC construction permit is issued; and additional work can be authorized under an AEC exemption from the requirements of a construction permit (10 CFR 50.10 and 50.12). By the time a utility has applied to the AEC for a construction permit, it could have constructed foundations for the nuclear plant and made a substantial investment.

"An objective of the Commission's early site authorization legislative proposal is to provide for a regulatory review of site suitability, including opportunity for public hearing, before there is an irrevocable change in the landscape at the proposed site. During such early site review all environmental matters would be considered and the public would have full opportunity to participate in the site authorization proceedings. The important objective is also one of the goals of overall power plant siting legislation now before other committees of both bodies.

"It would appear that this objective, which is consistent with the policy objective of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, could be achieved in large measure under existing authority. As noted above, the existing pre-construction permit activities are authorized pursuant to Commission regulations issued under the rule-making authority bestowed by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended."

38

CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING HEARINGS HELD BY COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

Hon. JAMES R. SCHLESINGER,

Washington, D.C., October 12, 1971.

Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As you are aware, pursuant to S. Res. 45, the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee is conducting a National Fuels and Energy Policy Study.

One of the areas of policy concern involves the scheduling of construction of new electric generating capacity and the reliability of electric generating capacity and the reliability of electric power generating and transmission capacity. In this regard the recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee, et al. v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, et al., has both immediate and long-term public policy implications.

The Committee intends to explore these implications in a public hearing on November 3, 1971. I would like to extend an invitation to you or a designated representative of your agency to appear before the Committee at 10:00 a.m. in Room 3110 of the New Senate Office Building. In preparing your statement, would you emphasize the following areas:

(1) additional environmental requirements for inclusion in impact statements required under the National Environmental Policy Act;

(2) revisions in current permit and license procedures required to implement the court's recommendations;

(3) potential conflicts between the court's recommendations and the requirements imposed on licensees and permitees under the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970;

(4) anticipated delays in construction and operation of specific nuclear electric generating plants resulting from additional requirements;

(5) States or regions expected to experience problems in meeting anticipated 1971 or 1972 energy requirements; and

(6) manpower and funding requirements necessary to comply with the courts interpretation of NEPA.

The Rules of the Congress as revised by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) require copies of the prepared testimony to be made available prior to your appearance. In order to pro

vide time for evaluation of your statement, I would appreciate receiving a copy by Tuesday, November 2, 1971, and 100 copies at the time you appear.

Sincerely yours,

HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman.

[Excerpt from the Congressional Record, Oct. 19, 1971, p. S. 16425]

NOTICE OF HEARING ON NATIONAL FUELS AND ENERGY POLICY

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, the potential conflict between material progress and the preservation and maintenance of environmental quality is perhaps best exemplified in our Nation's quest for the energy resources necessary to fuel our economy and to provide the comforts and conveniences of modern society. Achievements of both these social objectives is intertwined and interdependent, affecting the social and economic fiber of this Nation.

Recent court decisions, notably the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee against Atomic Energy Commission, have dealt directly with this interface between public policies on energy and the environment. In a major interpretation of congressional intent regarding the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the court required the Atomic Energy Commission to revise their licensing procedures. First, an independent substantive review is required of all environmental factors by the Atomic Energy Commission hearing board on construction and operation permits and licenses;

Second, an independent assessment of environmental factors by the Atomic Energy Commission is required, although such a review is conducted by other Federal and State agencies regarding compliance with applicable environmental and effluent standards; and

Third, environmental impact statements are required to consider economic factors in the performance of cost-benefit analyses on all actions affecting the environment.

Perhaps the most significant effect of the court decision is the requirement that the cost-benefit analysis consider and balance the environmental effects of a facility against the alternatives available for avoiding or reducing adverse environmental effects, as well as the environmental, economic, and technical benefits of the facility. This cost-benefit analysis also is to be performed by the Atomic Energy Commission.

This requirement, as I understand the decision, is retroactive, applying to all permits and licenses issued since January 1, 1970. Additionally, these new requirements arise during a period of regional energy shortage and potential energy crisis. The court's decision reportedly will directly affect some 63 pending licensing applications, involving 91 nuclear powerplants. Also affected will be five nuclear powerplants for which operating licenses were issued after the January 1, 1970 effective date: facilities which were being relied upon to meet energy demands this winter and next summer.

Mr. President, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs is actively engaged in a study of our national fuels and energy policy. This study is concerned with the principle elements of a long-term

energy policy which is consistent with environmental concerns and requirements. The court decision is of immediate importance with respect to both environmental and energy policy formulation. Yet, the long-term implications may be even more significant. The effect is to place an increased Federal enforcement responsibility in the Atomic Energy Commission at a time when the trend of environmental legislation is to strengthen Federal-State enforcement capabilities. This expanded responsibility also occurs during a period when Federal policies are emphasizing the separation of promotional and enforcement responsibilities, as exemplified by the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. President, on November 3, in room 3110 of the New Senate Office Building, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs will convene an informational hearing to explore the short- and long-term energy policy implications of the Calvert Cliffs court decision. The committee will explore

Any potential immediate reduction in the adequacy and reliability of electric service;

Any reduced capability for carrying the electric loads of dependent industrial, commercial, and residential users;

The economic implications of requiring those facilities with operating licenses to delay operation;

The effect of new requirements on overall licensing procedures; and,

The potential long-term conflicts between licensing procedures and other statutory policies regarding energy, the environment, and powerplant siting.

This hearing will be convened as part of the national fuels and energy policy study authorized by Senate Resolution 45.

39

STATEMENTS PRESENTED AT HEARING

NOVEMBER 3, 1971

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER WILLIAM O. DOUB, U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with you certain recent developments in nuclear power plant licensing in connection with your ongoing National Fuels and Energy Policy Study Hearings.

Your letter of invitation to appear states the Committee's particular interest in the recent Calvert Cliffs decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,' and the immediate and long-term implications of that decision regarding the scheduling and reliability of electric generating capacity.

Before turning to the specific matters raised in your letter, I believe it will be useful to recapitulate, very briefly, the holdings of the Court of Appeals' decision of July 23, 1971, with respect to the AEC's implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The court directed, in summary, that the Commission's rules make provision for the following:

1. Independent evaluation and balancing of certain environmental factors, such as thermal effects, notwithstanding the fact that other Federal or State agencies have certified that their own environmental standards are satisfied.

In each individual case, the benefits of the licensing action must be assessed and weighed against environmental costs; and alternatives must be considered which would affect the balancing of values.

2. Independent substantive review of environmental matters in uncontested as well as contested proceedings and issues by presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards.

3. 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.

4. NEPA review, and appropriate action after such review, for construction permits issued prior to January 1, 1970, in cases where an operating license has not as yet been issued.

5. Court's opinion also states that the Commission should consider the temporary suspension of those licensed activities for which a supplemental environmental review is required pending the completion of that review.

Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, et al. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission, et al.