ML19260D046
| ML19260D046 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook, Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1980 |
| From: | Kinder E NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF |
| To: | Grimes B NRC - EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TASK FORCE |
| References | |
| FRN-44FR75167, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8002070292 | |
| Download: ML19260D046 (4) | |
Text
,
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE arronary osssaar.
MS.STAW MTORNEYS GENERAL THOMAS D. RATI!
TliOM AS B. WINGATE JOHN T. PAPPAS ctetrry ATTonNEY crNanAL g. pP,w EDWARD N. DAMON GREGORY H. SMITH
,p*- Qk JAMES E. MORRIS kh WILBUR A. GLAHN. I!!
[(M J"r_'f,h-[.
, j*s PETER W. HEED a rronssys ck W Q-E. TUPPER KINDER (h A 2'i.r-JEFFREY It COHEN DEBORAH J. COOPER PAUL W. HODES E((g@:'
ANDREW R. GRAINGER MARTIN R. JENKINS PETER W. MOSS 3AU
" tim '
DAVID W MARSHALL BETSY S. WESTOATE EDWARD W. STEWART. JR MICHAEL A. P!GNATELLI JAMES E. TOWNSEND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THOMAS P COLANTUONO WILLIAM B. ROBERTS STATE HOUSE ANNEX STEVEN J. McAULIFFE 25 CAPITOL STREET DAVID W. JORDAN DAVID I. HARRIGAN CONCORD. NEW HAMPSHIRE C101 MARK H. PUFFER ANNE R. CLARKE February 1, 1980 MARC R. SCHEER Mr. Brian K. Grimes, Director Emergency Preparedness Task Group Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Proposed Rule Change 10 CFR Part 50 Emergency Planning Emergency Preparedness Workshop, January 15, 1980
Dear Sir:
By this letter, I submit the formal comments of the State of New Hampshire to che proposed rule change which would upgrade NRC emergency planning regulations.
The State of New Hampshire is affected by two nuclear power plants, Vermont Yankee located in Vernon, Vermont, which is presently operating, and Seabrook Station located in Seabrook, New Hampshire, which is presently under construction.
As we have previously indicated in pleadings filed with the NRC, in light of the Three Mile Island incident and other new information developed over the Icst several years, we do not feel that the emergency planning undertaken to date with regard to the Vernon and Seabrook facilities is adequate to fully protact the public health and safety.
(See Docket Nos. 50-W3, 50-W14, Statement of Position With Respect to the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Request for Show Cause Order, filed October 11, 1979.)
Therefore, we feel that additional review by NRC of state and local government emergency response plans is necessary and we support the proposed regulation, which would require NRC concurrence in such plans.
Frankly, we feel that it makes sense to conduct a more extensive review of the feasibility of emergency response plans in connection with siting proceedings. However, given the status of the Vernon and Seabrook plants, an alternative forum for review of emergency response plans is necessary and should be provided as soon as O
possible.
%0 (6
V b 1938 080 s
80 0 2 07 0 eMd hd H
J k --,
- m.,
c_-.r -.
-c m
c
.m_.
_ m._,
e.,_.r_.
utstrust S.ction (603 271.J640 Emanent Domain (603) 271-Jef'?5
/
r OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 2
r4cr Mr. Brian K. Grimes, Director Emergency Preparedness Task Group February 1, 1980 Before making specific comments on the proposed rule, I would like to express some reservations with the approach NRC has taken on this proposed rule change.
The Comnission has recognized that this proposal departs from its prior regulatory approach and now views emergency planning as equivalent to, rather than secondary to, siting and design in public protection. This is obviously a major change and should be treated as such.
The proposed rule, and the presentation at the workshop, indicates that Nh0 has not given in-depth consideration to the impact of this change on the permit and licensing process, but rather is treating the change as a minor procedural amendment.
While I understand that the proposed rule making has been prepared on an expedited basis, I believe that it is unwise to ignore the broad impact that the change will have on the process as a whole.
The best emergency plan will come from a coordinated effort of state, local, utility and federal officials.
However, it is crucial to have an effective plan in place prior to operation of nuclear facilities, regardless of the level of participation of each of the above-mentioned groups and officials.
In other words, the rule must avoid the situation of one community, unable to commit resources to the preparation of an emergency plan, preventing the operation of a nuclear facility.
If one community is unable to prepare a plan, then state, utility, or federal officials must take up the slack.
Concurrence should be based on the adequacy of the plan as a whole, and not on who prepared it.
During the workshop, there was much discussion concerning the cost of preparation, exercise and updating of emergency response plans.
Local officials may not have access to the resources necessary for the above responsibilities.
Philosophically, we believe that the preparation, exercise and updating of the plan must br viewed as a part of the business of nuclear power generation.
Thus, the utility should bear the burden for these costs, which should be reflected in the actual costs of the production of nuclear power.
The proposed rule appears to have the effect, somewhat indirectly, of placing the burden on the utility, since without concurrence, a facility would be unable to operate.
Thus, as a practical matter, the utility w uld have to " invest" in the preparation of an adequate plan.a order to ensure itself of obtaining an operating license.
Although suggestions were made at the workshop for collection of funds at the federal level to be distributed locally, we would prefer a mechanism which would accomplish collection and distribution of funds at the state level.
I understand that some legislation might be necessary to accomplish this.
I938 081
3 OFFICE OF THE ATFORNEY GENERAL ncE Mr. Brian K. Grimes, Director Emergency Preparedness Task Group February 1,1980 As I indicated at the workshop, the State prefers Alternative A of the proposed rule change which would not automatically require suspension of operations for lack of concurrence in emergency response plans. Although NRC does not appear to favor one alternative over the other, it seems to me that Alternative B (the exemption alterna-tive) could require a different standard of review on both the administrative and judicial level.
I suggest that some consideration be given to that possibility.
In any event, it seems reasonable that if a deficiency comes to light, whether it be significant or insignificant, the Commission should have the opportunity to determine whether or not the deficiency should result in plant shutdown before shutdown is required.
Perhaps the most important impact of the proposed rule change will result from the procedure by which concurrence is granted or denied.
If concurrence is to have the desired effect, that is to upgrade emergency plans to the extent necessary to protect public health and safety, the procedure must have a formality which reflects its importance in the licensing process.
If concurrence is treated casually (the impression I got of the workshop), one can expect that compliance will be casual, and the rule will not accomplish the desired result.
Therefore, I feel that NRC should set forth with clarity the procedure which will be followed for concurrence determinations.
This should include:
(1)
Opportunity for public comment on the issues raised in the concurrence proceeding, that is:
(a) whether a deficiency exists; (b) whether the deficiency is significant for the power plant in question; (c) if a deficiency exists (significant or insignifi-cant), what alternative compensating actions will be taken; (d) the compliance schedule for such compensating actions; (e) what other compelling reasons for license issuance or licensee operation. exists; and (f) what compensating actions can be taken consistent with compelling reasons for issuance or continued operation; (2)
A concurrence determination or a determination for license issuance or continued operation, despite deficiencies, should be accompanied by a formal statemen+ of findings and reasons supporting the determination; 1938 082
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PAGE II Mr. Brian K. Grimes, Director Emergency Preparedness Task Group February 1, 1980 (3)
Procedure for administrative review should also be set forth.
In summary, while the State supports the proposed rule change, we feel that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should approach the proposal as a significant regulatory change.
We understand the need for flexibility in the concurrence determination procedure and agree that such flexibility is necessary.
However, the procedure deserves the commitment and attention necessary for an issue equivalent to siting and design in public protection.
Failure by NRC to provide that commitment and attention, will result in procedural confusion and in an ineffective rule, which will not accomplish the desired result of adequate protection of public health and safety.
Very truly yours, E. Tupper inder Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division jih cc: Bruce B. Beckley, Project Manager Public Service Company of New Hampshire Eileen Foley, Director N.H. Civil Defense 1938 083