the ecological concerns, methods and problems of performing non-site-specific ecological assessments of energy development. The workshop which was attended by prominent ecologists and government planners deliberated for three days on the possible ecological and human environmental impacts of energy development alternatives. Concerns about additions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides to the atmosphere and widespread acid rainfall were among the serious problems identified and discussed. Although nuclear plants produce none of these atmospheric pollutants, the impacts of generating electricity from fossil or other organic fuels include such pollutants and fall within the scope of NRC reviews of the comparative impacts of alternative sources of energy for baseload generation of electricity. Third Conference on Water Chlorination-Environmental Impact and Health Effects. The NRC has joined the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Cancer Institute, The Tennessee Valley Authority, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in sponsoring the Third Conference on Water Chlorination. The intentional use of toxic substances to control biological growth within power plant condenser cooling systems is carefully examined during NRC's review of a power plant license application and the preparation of an environmental impact statement. The series of conferences on chlorination provide current information necessary for the better understanding of environmental effects and of alternative "bio-fouling" control practices. COOPERATION WITH STATES During the past year, NRC and the State of New York took steps which led to the signing of an agreement that allows State participation in the preparation of NRC's environmental impact statements. By terms of the agreement the technical staff of the New York State Public Service Commission will write specific sections of the Draft and Final Environmental Statements. The sections involved are mainly concerned with environmental description and impact, alternatives to the proposed action, and the need for the facility. In the past, these sections have been prepared through environmental assistance agreements with the Department of Energy's National Laboratories. In addition to the staff of the Public Service Commission, the technical staff of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has agreed to provide technical support to the Public Service Commission in the form of review and comments on the write-ups for the environmental statements. State participation of this kind in the preparation of NRC's Environmental Impact Statements will require close coordination with the relevant review functions of the NRC regulatory staff. IMPROVING THE LICENSING PROCESS Generic Rulemaking to Improve Licensing In June 1977, an NRC study group seeking to identify ways to improve the effectiveness of NRC Nuclear power plant licensing procedures recommended, among other things, that rulemaking should be considered for the generic resolution of certain major issues that are presently litigated in individual licensing proceedings. The study groups recommendations are presented in a report, "Nuclear Power Plant Licensing: Opportunities for Improvement" (NUREG0292). In response to a Commission directive, the staff prepared an interim statement of general policy and plans for rulemaking, which the Commission approved for publication in the Federal Register (December 14, 1978). This interim policy statement fully supports Executive Order 12044 of March 23, 1978, requesting improvement of existing Federal government regulations, so as to make them as simple and clear as possible and to avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on the economy, on individuals, on public and private organizations, or on State and local governments. The interim policy statement and supporting discussions are presented in an NRC report, "Preliminary Statement on General Policy for Rulemaking to Improve Nuclear Power Plant Licensing" (NUREG-0499). Ten candidate issues were identified by the staff for generic rulemaking: (1) future availability and price of uranium, (2) alternative energy sources to the nuclear option, (3) need for adding baseload generating capacity, (4) methodological and information requirements in the analysis of alternative sites (5) criteria for the assessment of nuclear plant impacts and mitigative measures; (6) generic procedural criteria to define more concretely NRC responsibility in assessments and decisions regarding certain waterrelated impacts in relation to the statutory authorities of EPA and permitting States, (7) NEPA decision criteria for OL reviews, (8) occupational radiation exposure control, (9) generic radiological impact for normal light water reactor radionuclide releases, and (10) threshold limits for generic disposition of cooling tower effects. Criteria developed by the Steering Committee on Reactor Licensing Rulemaking to aid in identifying suitable candidate issues for rulemaking include the following: the issues must be generic; there must be a likelihood that a useful, definitive rule can be formulated and there must be a likelihood that a stable rule can be formulated. Value-impact criteria for appraising the desirability of, and the priorities associated with, specific proposals for generic rules include: • Achievement of more effective public input and improved public understanding of NRC's analytical procedures and decision criteria in treating potential environmental and safety issues in the licensing process for nuclear power plants. • Improvement of the stability and predictability of the licensing process, including the provision of orderly and clear procedures for State-Federal cooperation in treating generic licensing issues. • Accomplishment of an overall savings of manpower and financial resources of the NRC, the public, the utility industry, and other local, State, and Federal agencies involved in the nuclear licensing process. • The short-term increase in dollar costs of the various participants in the rulemaking action, including contractual support. • The additional impacts (i.e., opportunity costs) of diverting manpower and other resources to the rulemaking process and away from other productive uses for a temporary period. Public comment was invited on the merits of the candidate issues for generic rulemaking and related decisions criteria, and additional suggestions for candidate subjects for generic rulemaking were solicited. Fifty-eight comments were received but, except for Issue No. 4 on alternative siting methodology, further NRC activity on generic rulemaking was temporarily suspended because of the diversion of staff effort to studies related to the Three Mile Island nuclear accident and related remedial measures. Evaluation of Alternative Sites As noted above, one of the ten issues identified for possible generic rulemaking was that of alternative site methodology and information requirements. In order to refine and clarify this issue, the staff, on December 14, 1978, issued for comment a report entitled, "General Considerations and Issues of Significance on the Evaluation of Alternative Sites for Nuclear Generating Stations under NEPA" (NUREG-0499, Supplement 1). In addition to receiving public comments on the report, the staff conducted a three-day public workshop in March 1979 to actively seek comments and ideas on rulemaking for alternative sites. Representatives from industry, State and Federal government, public interest groups and others participated. Utilizing public comments and the results of the workshop, the staff drafted proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 51 which pertain to the evaluation of alternative sites. These amendments were submitted to the Commission in July 1979 for their consideration. The results of the staff deliberations on generic rulemaking and public comments received in response to the Federal Register notification of December 14, 1978 as well as the March workshop have already yielded benefits in staff review practices and the revision of environmental standard review plans to deal more effectively with alternative siting issues. Siting Policy Task Force The essential elements of nuclear power plant siting policy are derived from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and are contained in 10 CFR Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," and in 10 CFR Part 100, "Reactor Site Criteria.' These regulations were promulgated by the Atomic Energy Commission in 1962 and have remained essentially unchanged since that time. The authors of Part 100 recognized that experience with siting nuclear power plants was at that time limited and, in anticipation of subsequent changes as experience was gained, included in Paragraph 100.1 the statement that: “(b) Insufficient experience has been accumulated to permit the writing of detailed standards that would provide a quantitative correlation of all factors significant to the question of acceptability of reactor sites. This part is intended as an interim guide to identify a number of factors considered by the Commission in the evaluation of reactor sites and the general criteria used at this time as guides in approving or disapproving proposed sites." In the time since Part 100 was promulgated, the NRC has issued additional siting-related pronouncements in the form of siting decisions on specific cases, General Design Criteria, Regulatory Guides, Standard Review Plans, Licensing and Appeals Board decisions, and advice from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). All of these sources have contributed to the formulation of the Commission's current siting policy and practice. During this evolutionary period, the nuclear industry experienced a rapid expansion, the use of nuclear power plants became commonplace, and the size of such plants increased significantly. As a consequence of this expansion, some in staff practice and in the implementation of the siting regulations have evolved. In addition, the Commission's implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) has added new dimensions to siting policy. In August 1978, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission directed the staff to develop a general policy statement on nuclear power reactor siting and a Task Force was formed for the purpose. The Report of the Siting Policy Task Force (NUREG-0625) was issued in August 1979. The report provides a review of current NRC policy and practice and recommends a number of changes to achieve the following goals: • To strengthen siting as a factor in defense-indepth by establishing requirements for site approval that are independent of plant design consideration. The present policy of permitting plant design features to compensate for unfavorable site characteristics has resulted in improved designs but has tended to deemphasize site isolation. • To take into consideration in siting the risk associated with accidents beyond the design basis (Class 9) by establishing population density and distribution criteria. Plant design improvements have reduced the probability and consequences of design basis accidents, but there remains the residual risk from accidents not considered in the design basis. Although this risk cannot be completely reduced to zero, it can be reduced by selective siting. • To require that sites selected will minimize the risk from energy generation. The selected sites should be among the best available in the region where new generating capacity is needed. Siting requirements should be stringent enough to limit the residual risk of reactor operation but not so stringent as to eliminate the nuclear option from large regions of the country. This is because energy generation from any source has its associated risk, with risks from some energy sources being greater than that of the nuclear option. Nine changes were recommended by the Siting Policy Task Force for consideration by the Commission (NUREG-0625, pp. 46-63): (1) Revise Part 100 to change the way protection is provided from accidents by incorporating fixed exclusion and protective action distances and population density and distribution criteria. (i) Specify a fixed minimum exclusion (iii) Incorporate specific population density sion area that are dependent on the average population of the region. (iv) Remove the requirement to calculate radiation doses as a means of establishing minimum exclusion distances and low population zones. (2) Revise Part 100 to require consideration of the potential hazards posed by man-made activities and natural characteristics of sites by establishing minimum standoff distances for: (i) Major or commercial airports (iii) Large propane pipelines (v) Large quantities of explosive or toxic (vi) Major dams (vii) Capable faults. (3) Revise Part 100 by requiring a reasonable assurance that interdictive measures are possible to limit groundwater contamination resulting from Class 9 accidents within the immediate vicinity of the site. (4) Revise Appendix A to 10 CFR 100 to better reflect the evolving technology in assessing seismic hazards. (5) Revise Part 100 to include consideration of postlicensing changes in offsite activities: (i) The NRC staff shall inform local authorities (planning commission, county commissions, etc.) that control activities within the emergency planning zone (EPZ) are the basis for determining the acceptability of a site. (ii) The NRC staff shall notify those Federal agencies, as in Item (i) above, that may reasonably initiate a future Federal action that may influence the nuclear power plant. (iii) The NRC staff shall require applicants to monitor and report potentially adverse off-site developments. (iv) If, in spite of the actions described in Items (i) through (iii), there are off-site developments that have the potential for significantly increasing the risk to the public, the NRC staff will consider restrictions on a case-by-case basis. (6) Continue the current approach toward site selection from a safety viewpoint, but select sites so that there are no unfavorable characteristics requiring unique or unusual design to compensate for site inadequecies. (7) Revise Part 100 to specify that site approval be established at the earliest decision point in the review and to provide criteria that would have to be satisfied for this approach to be subsequently reopened in the licensing process. (8) Revise Part 51 to provide that a final decision disapproving a proposed site by a State agency whose approval is fundamental to the project would be a sufficient basis for NRC to terminate review. Such termination of a review would then be reviewed by the Commission. (9) Develop common bases for comparing the risks for all external events. Early Site Reviews Utilities are continuing to use the early site review process adopted by the NRC in 1977 to improve reactor licensing. Two additional applications have been tendered under these procedures-the Carroll County Station (Ill.) and the Fulton Station (Pa.). The Fulton application is an amendment to the utility's previous application for construction permits. In addition, the staff has completed site environmental and safety documents for the North Coast (Puerto Rico) application and submitted these documents to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. The review is being delayed awaiting notification from the utility as to whether it wishes NRC to continue the review. Three other applications are in various stages under the early site procedures-Blue Hills, Texas; Douglas Point, Maryland; and Fort Calhoun, Nebraska. Environmental Standard Review Plans Environmental standard review plans (ESRPS) constitute a series of instructions developed for the NRC staff's environmental review of applications for nuclear power plant construction permits. Their main purpose is to improve the quality of staff reviews of environmental issues. The plans also provide guidance to applicants regarding the information and criteria considered essential to the staff's environmental review process. The ESRPS, 93 in number, were issued throughout 1977 for draft review and public comment as NUREG-0158, Parts I, II and III. In May 1979 the revised Environmental Standard Review Plans were issued as NUREG-0555. As internal procedures and positions or Commission policies change, the ESRPS will be modified to keep them current with these changes. Environmental Impact Statements During 1979, the staff had undertaken to revise the format used for the Commission's environmental impact statements for the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. This effort was performed within the framework of the requirement to revise the Commission's regulations covering licensing and regulatory policy and procedures. Such revision was undertaken in compliance with new regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the National Enviromental Policy Act: Implementation of Procedural Provisions (Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 230, November 29, 1978). Social and Economic Issues Forecasting Socioeconomic Impacts. Hearing issues on socioeconomic impacts have led to a heightened appreciation of the importance of empirical studies of these impacts at regionally and environmentally diverse locations of nuclear power plants as an aid to improving the analytical basis for forecasting such impacts in new licensing actions. The first of these retrospective studies analyzed socioeconomic impacts on the communities surrounding the Pilgrim I Nuclear Station (Massachusetts) and the Millstone I and II Nuclear Station (Connecticut). Performed for the NRC under contract by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), it was issued in September 1977 under the title, "A Post Licensing Study of Community Effects At Two Operating Nuclear Power Plants" (ORNL/NUREG/TM-22). A continuation of this type of post-licensing study of socioeconomic impacts has led to two additional NRC-funded studies, the first focusing on the nuclear plant sites at Brunswick 1 and 2 (North Carolina) and Hatch 1 and 2 (Georgia), and the second at the Trojan plant (Oregon): (1) "Socioeconomic Impacts of Nuclear Power Plants: A Paired Comparison of Operating Facilities" (NUREG/CR-0916), ORNL, July 1979. (2) "Social and Economic Impacts of the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant: A Confirmatory Technology Assessment" (NUREG/CR-0973), University of Washington, Program in the Social Management of Technology, October 1979. A socioeconomic study of specialized scope was performed for the NRC by the Pennsylvania State University on the " Effects of Nuclear Power Plants on Community Growth and Residential Property Values" (NUREG/CR-0454). Issued in April 1979, this study concluded that the four northeastern plants (Pilgrim, Millstone, Oyster Creek, and R.E. Ginna) demonstrated no significant influence on the price of housing and that growth rates for the years following plant construction were higher than the period prior to construction. Contract research is continuing in the development of analytical tools to evaluate visual esthetic impacts of alternative closed-cycle cooling systems and to improve the forecasting of the number of incoming con struction workers, their family characteristics and probable residential location, in order to assess the likely degree of stress on community services and housing. A new contractual effort was initiated with Mountain West Research, Inc., in late 1978 to study the social and economic consequences of siting, constructing, and operating nuclear power stations in the United States. Fourteen stations at 13 sites were selected for study: Surry 1 and 2 (Va.); Three Mile Island 1 and 2 (Pa.); Peach Bottom 2 and 3 (Pa.); Zion 1 and 2 (Ill.); Cook 1 and 2 (Mich.); Oconee 1-3 (S.C.); Rancho Seco (Cal.); Fitzpatrick/Nine Mile Point (N.Y.); Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2 (Md.); Crystal River 3 (Fla.); St. Lucie 1 and 2 (Fla.); Arkansas 1 and 2 (Ark.); and Diablo Canyon 1 and 2 (Cal.). Selection criteria prescribed that plant sizes be in excess of 800 MWe, with an expected operating period of at least 12 months; regional diversity and an appropriate spectrum of variations in the rates of population growth in the host county were provided for in the selection, as were plant locations at varying distances from population centers of 50,000 or more. Specific socioeconomic effects at the local and regional level being studied include: employment, retail sales, public services, housing, public finance (especially tax benefits), community participation and conflict, and community perception of social well-being. Work on the methodology phase of the study was completed in June 1979, and detailed case study work was undertaken at four sites in July 1979, with completion of the study of all 13 sites expected by December 1980. As would be expected, the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) on March 28, 1979, substantially affected the study plan underway at that time. Not only was TMI one of the case study sites, but there was conjecture that TMI might affect the way in which other stations would be evaluated by local residents. The original design had to be modified, therefore, to include four analytic time periods: siting, construction, operation, and the post-accident period. For TMI there was yet a fifth period, the two-week period following the accident, that must be studied. In order to be able to document both the accident and the postaccident social and economic effects at TMI, it became clear that primary data would have to be collected from area residents. This data requirement led to the Three Mile Island Telephone Survey, which included 1500 households within 55 miles of the plant site. The scope of the survey included: evacuation behavior; the decision-making process regarding evacuation; the evaluation of the quality of information resources; general attitudes about nuclear power and the community's economic and social outlook following the accident; the direct and indirect social and economic costs of evacuation; and demographic descriptors. In October 1979, a preliminary report, Three Mile Island Telephone Survey (NUREG/CR-1093), was published which presented procedures and findings of the survey. The magnitude of community anxieties raised by the TMI accident is evident in the report's estimate that about 144,000 persons temporarily moved out of the zone within 15 miles of the plant site, travelling an average distance of 100 miles to a total of 21 States, mainly to stay with friends and relatives. A separate contract study is in the planning stages within NRC that would seek to determine the effect of the TMI accident on property values as a function of distance from the plant and of time through 1982, not only for the TMI site but also for the four sites studied in NUREG/CR-0454. Independent Analysis of Need For Facility. Progress has continued in 1979 in improving the analytical tools for independent assessment by the staff of need-forfacility. In October 1978, the NRC published the contract study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) on "Regional Econometric Model for Forecasting Electricity Demand by Sector and by State" (NUREG/CR-0250). The sectors for which total electrical energy demand are forecasted by the model include residential, commercial, industrial, and other. The model provides flexibility for deriving separate forecasts for comparative purposes by making different scenario assumptions regarding such basic causal factors as population growth, per capita income and value added in manufacturing. Related contract studies underway by the ORNL are expected to be published in 1980 which will extend, update, and improve the model for staff reviews in dealing with a variety of controversial hearing issues associated with the need-for-power issue. The titles of these studies reflect the added dimensions of model improvement: • Comparison and Projection of Electricity Cost by State. • Econometric Model for the Disaggregation of State-Level Electricity Demand Forecasts to the Service Area. • Peak Electricity Demand Predictions Using Hourly Variations. An additional improvement not reflected in these titles is the disaggregation of the industrial demand through the use of 2-digit Standard Industrial Classification Codes (SICS). Economic Comparison of Coal and Nuclear Energy for Generating Electricity. Controversial hearing issues in the licensing of nuclear power plants frequently involve the question as to whether coal or nuclear energy is the more economical method of generating electricity at a particular location. To improve the basis for the staff's independent analysis of the comparative economic evaluations provided by the applicant for a construction permit, the NRC issued a |