to issue an amendment 1 to Operating License No. DPR-20 to authorize the operation of the Palisades nuclear power reactor at steady state power levels not to exceed 440 MWt (which is 20 percent of rated power for the plant) and to add to the Technical Specifications as required by the record.

Since the commencement of this proceeding and after the intervention therein by several groups who asserted environmental concerns respecting the proposed operation of this plant, the Applicant and those groups have executed a stipulation providing for certain modifications in the plant design and operation. That stipulation provided that if all the terms thereof are effectuated, the intervenor groups asserting environmental concerns would not thereafter participate in the proceeding. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) will consider the entire record in this proceeding for the initial decision later to be issued, within the scope of the issues prescribed by the Commission for determination. This Order regarding 20 percent of operations is an interim determination which will be subject to change as directed by the Commission or after further data are received in subsequent sessions of hearings in the proceeding.

The facility involved herein, which is on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, has been adequately described in the low power testing order issued by the Board. Those tests have now been completed and Applicant seeks authority for further operations based upon the showing made of satisfactory performance of the plant during those tests. Two principal intems have been reviewed by the Board since its order for fuel loading and low power testing and they involve data respecting compliance with the Commission's emergency core cooling criteria, as enunciated by the June 19, 1971, interim policy statement and the environmental considerations set forth in the Commission's Revised Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 Regulations, as that revision was issued on September 3, 1971.

Applicant presented data and calculations respecting the emergency core cooling criteria and the expected compliance in performance of its nuclear power plant with those criteria. In view of the stipulation by intervenors herein, no party to the proceeding made any challenge or attack upon the sufficiency or adequacy of the criteria and the Board's determination herein is limited solely to whether a satisfactory showing has been made by the Applicant in that regard. The evidence presented by the Regulatory Staff supported the position of the Applicant that a satisfactory showing had been made. The Board concludes that Applicant's evidence shows that the Commission's criteria have been applied in the manner directed by the Commission, and upon that basis only, the Applicant's emergency core cooling system is found acceptable.

Applicant and the Regulatory Staff presented evidence on environmental matters at two separate sessions of hearings.2 Applicant's evidence was presented by two principal witnesses, one of whose data largely concerned plumes of heated water, i.e., measurements of width

1 On March 22, 1971. the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board by an Initial Decision authorized the Director of Regulation to issue a license which provided only for fuel loading and low power testing.

2 A further hearing is scheduled for December 7, 1971 to provide for the submission of data for a request for 60 percent of rated power, so that the record thereof may be submitted directly to the Commission for its determination, as provided by Revised Appendix D.

and depth, temperature gradients, location, expected course of travel and variations thereof depending upon winter or summer conditions. These data were of a general nature, without any specific study at the location of the Palisades Plant, but were of particular application to the plant now under construction by Indiana and Michigan Electric Company, known as the Cook plant, which is involved in litigation with the Environmental Protection Agency respecting thermal releases. The witness expressed the opinion that thermal plumes would not have a significant adverse effect upon the environment. He also expressed opinions that noxious blooms of algae or bacteria will not appear in the Palisades Plant plume, that the oxygen content of the water will be substantially the same as that of surrounding waters, that the water of the plume will be as clear as that received at the intake, that there will not be a significant effect from the plume on benthic organisms, that there will not be any interruption to the food chain in the lake, that there will not be any observable increase in dead fish or benthic organisms in the vicinity of the plume, nor any significant adverse effect on the ice barrier. He concluded that there would be no significant adverse impact on the quality of the aquatic environment with a 7° F thermal increase due to liquid effluents.

3

The second principal environmental witness for Applicant was the Executive Secretary of the Michigan Water Resources Commission who testified regarding several studies made by personnel assigned to that Commission. The studies were of Lake Michigan in general and the witness concluded that there would be no significant adverse impact on the environment due to the proposed 70 increase in thermal releases. In addition, he stated that while there were increasing algae problems along the shorelines of Lake Michigan, the increases were due to the level of nutrients in the lake and not thermal releases.* The Regulatory Staff presented evidence, which was indicated as preliminary while pending the completion of the detailed environmental statement needed for a full power operation. The Staff evidence was mainly reflected in a document entitled "Discussion and Conclusions... Supporting the Issuance of a License to Consumers Power Company, Inc., Authorizing Limited Operation of the Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant", and therein the Staff did not express a conclusion whether or not the proposed 7° rise in temperature in the thermal releases would have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The Staff determined that it did not have sufficient data in this regard, their position was that, recognizing that there would be some injury or damage to aquatic organisms, in a balancing of factors of need for

3 This witness also presented a statement at a public hearing held by the Michigan Water Resources Commission on June 24, 1971. At that time, Dr. Edward C. Raney, one of his associate witnesses for Indiana and Michigan Electric Company stated (page 61) that a 5° thermal increase in liquid effluent, and certainly a 1° rise in temperature would have no ecological meaning for aquatic organisms. He later added: "So this matter of 1000 feet (mixing zone) and 3 degrees, it is reasonable.. ." (Parentheses added)

The main thrust of all of the environmental evidence is that the effects of the operation of the Palisades Plant will be local in nature and for the short term, the original character of the lake will be restorable.

5 The Staff summarizes its statement as follows: ". there will be changes in preexisting ambient conditions. Primarily, these will result from: (a) the discharge into Lake Michigan of approximately 400,000 GPM of water heated approximately 7° above the temperature at which such water is taken into the plant; (b) the discharge into Lake Michigan of residual chlorine resulting from the addition of sodium hypochlorite to the circulating cooling water in order to eliminate slime or algae from condenser tubes; (c) the discharge into Lake Michigan of trace chemicals utilized in plant processes and trace radioactivity resulting from facility operation."

electric power and costs of delay that the requested authority for 20 percent operation should be granted.

6

One of the Staff witnesses had had fairly extensive experience in studies of aquatic data and described in some detail a procedure for securing data in bodies of water, such as "wiping" out the bottom of a water course to ascertain the kind and number of organisms who were there, and to subject them to experiments to determine their survivability. There were no such data respecting the location of the Palisades Plant. Applicant, early in this proceeding in October of 1970, submitted an environmental report that described studies (pages 49-58), which had been underway since 1969, which would disclose the data in detail that would provide specifics on what is present in Lake Michigan in the vicinity of the Palisades Plant, and how that may be affected by thermal and chemical releases. Applicant did not indicate the amount of data presently available from those studies, although a Staff witness mentioned he had reviewed some of the data. The Staff emphasized that its review was limited at this time because the full environmental statement was not near completion.

The Board ascertained through the parties that both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Michigan Water Resources Commission were of the view that Lake Michigan should not receive a heat load which would warm the receiving water more than 3° F above the existing natural temperature at the edge of the mixing zone. The Board concludes that the evidence presented in the record to date is lacking in specific facts, as would be derivable from studies made at the Palisades Plant site which would assist the Applicant to adequately present its view that there will not be a significant adverse impact upon the environment if thermal releases up to 7° F are permitted for the operation of the 20 percent of power which is requested. The Board does not believe that Applicant should be denied that opportunity to present further facts, possibly at the scheduled December 7th hearing, or at any later time respecting that view. Such a presentation may include both qualified Federal and State witnesses, possibly from both EPA and the Michigan Commission. As an interim determination, however, the Board, lacking the adequate and substantive evidence needed for a determination respecting a 7° F risein thermal releases, will adhere to the recommendation of the Michigan Water Resources Commission, the State agency having primary jurisdiction in determining water standards, that the heat load added by thermal releases should not exceed 3° F above the existing natural temperature at the edge of the mixing zone, provided that if the State agency modifies its release limit, the Board will change this Order accordingly. Upon this basis, the Board concludes that any thermal release above that 3° F limit may have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. Applicant has agreed with the Staff recommendation that chlorine releases shall be limited to one-half part per million rather than one part, as first proposed by the Applicant.

Appendix D of Section 10 of the Commission's Regulations further provides that there may be circumstances where with appropriate regard for environmental values, limited operation of a nuclear plant may be authorized during the period of the ongoing environmental

Such a procedure applied for this proceeding might resolve the uncertainty in the evidence whether there are any fish spawning grounds adjacent to the Palisades Plant, or nearby to where the heat plume may travel along the lake bottom.

review and that a balancing of enumerated factors should be undertaken. The Board has considered and balanced the factors, including costs of delay in operation, the need for electric power, the availability of alternative measures, and has determined that Applicant should be authorized to operate the Palisades Plant at 20 percent of rated power or 440 MWt (equivalent to approximately 125 MWe), provided that Applicant limits its thermal releases not to exceed 3° F above the existing natural temperature at the edge of the mixing zone.

Wherefore, it is ordered, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and the Rules of Practice of the Commission, that the Director of Regulation is authorized to make appropriate findings on the issues set forth in 10 CFR 50.57 (a) and to issue an amendment to License No. DPR-20 authorizing operation of the Palisades Plant at power levels not to exceed 440 MWt provided thermal releases from the condensers shall not add a heat load which would warm the water of Lake Michigan more than 3° F above the existing natural temperature at the edge of the mixing zone.

In addition, there shall survive the issuance of this Order all rights of intervenors which are to be preserved pending final disposition of this proceeding by virtue of the settlement agreement, as amended, and the stipulations of the parties filed in this proceeding, as well as the Board's Order in this proceeding dated March 22, 1971.

The Director of Regulation is further authorized to issue an amendment to Operating License No. DPR-20 authorizing such operation and adding to the Technical Specifications incorporated in License No. DPR-20 the "Special Technical Specifications Pursuant to Agreement" filed in this proceeding by Amendment No. 24 to Applicant's license application.

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD. By SAMUEL W. JENSCH, Chairman.

Issued: November 9, 1971, Germantown, Md.

D. TROJAN*

AEC APPROVES CONTINUATION OF CONSTRUCTION ON TROJAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN OREGON

NOVEMBER 12, 1971

The Atomic Energy Commission's Director of Regulation has determined that construction activities at the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant in Columbia, Oregon, should continue pending completion of the broadened environmental impact review required under recently revised AEC regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The construction permit for the Trojan Plant was issued on February 8, 1971, to Portland General Electric Company, the City of Eugene, Oregon, and Pacific Power and Light Company.

Under the revised NEPA regulations, the Trojan project is one of the facilities for which the licensees were required to submit information for consideration by AEC's Director of Regulation in de

*The Trojan proceeding is illustrative of the AEC actions which allowed utilities to continue construction or operation pending completion of NEPA environmental review. The AEC has received a request for a hearing on its show cause action involving the Trojan, Brunswick, Indian Point 3, Diablo Canyon, and Monticello plants.

termining whether the construction permit should be suspended during the period of the further environmental review. The Trojan determination is the first one to be made. This is due to the completeness of the information submitted by the applicants.

In reaching the determination on the Trojan Plant, the Director of Regulation considered (1) whether it is likely that continued construction during the review period would give rise to a significant adverse effect on the environment; (2) whether continued construction would foreclose subsequent adoption of alternatives in design that could result from the environmental review; and (3) the effect of delay in construction upon the public interest taking into account the power needs to be served by the facility, the availability of alternatives to meet those needs on a timely basis, and costs of delay to the licensees and to consumers.

The details of the findings leading to the determination that suspension of the permit for the Trojan Plant is not necessary at this time are included in the attached document entitled "Discussion and Findings by the Division of Reactor Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Relating to Consideration of Suspension Pending NEPA Environmental Review of the Construction Permit for the Trojan Nuclear Plant, AEC Docket No. 50-344, November 11, 1971." Copies of this document also are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C., and will be available at the Columbia County Courthouse, Law Library, Circuit Court Room, St. Helens, Oregon. Additional copies may be obtained by writing to the Director, Division of Reactor Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. 20545.

This action does not preclude the AEC, as a result of its ongoing NEPA environmental review, from modifying or terminating the construction permit or appropriately conditioning it to protect environmental values.

Any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding may file a request for a hearing within 30 days after publication of the determination in the Federal Register. Such a request should include the matters, with reference to the criteria in the regulations, alleged to warrant a determination other than that made by the Director of Regulation and should show the factual basis for the request. If the Commission finds that the matters stated in the request warrant a hearing, a notice of hearing will be published.

DISCUSSION AND FINDING BY THE DIVISION OF REACTOR LICENSING, U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF SUSPENSION PENDING NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR THE TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT

(AEC Docket No. 50-344, November 11, 1971)

1.0 Introduction

On September 9, 1971 the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) published in the Federal Register a revised Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 setting forth AEC's implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Paragraph E (3) of revised Appendix D generally requires a holder of a construction permit issued after January 1, 1970 but before September 9, 1971 to