ML19290F057

Transcript of 800227 Morning Hearing Re Siting Policy Issues in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-15

ML19290F057
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/27/1980
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8003180019
Download: ML19290F057 (16)

Text

9 pf "*%,

~

s U NITE D STATES N UCLE AR REG UL ATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:

CONTINEATION OF DISCUSSION OF SITINf2 POLICY ISSUES PIace: washington, c. c.

Date:

February 27, 1980 P a g es:

1-15 INTERNATIONAL VERsATiu REPCRTERS. INC.

499 SCUTH CAPITCL STREET, S.W. SUITE 107 WASHINGTCN. D. C. 20002 202 484-35%

g 9 0 3 i R "O19

', AY" g av l

naz :<c.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

l F

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.x A

In the Matter of:

t 5

CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF l

3 SITING POLICY ISSUES

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 3

9 to i

Room 1130, Eleventh Floor 1717 H Street, N.W.

I

7 Washington, D.C.

Wednesday, February 27, 1980 i i

I 13 14 The Ccnsission met, pursuant to notice, for 13 presentation of the above-entitled matter, at 10:07 a.m.,

l ta BEFORE-I i

17 JOHN F. AHEARNE, CHAIRMAN l

I I

73 i

RICHARD T. KENNEDY, COMMISSIONER PETER A.

BRADFORD, COMMISSIONER

9 LEONARD BICKWIT, GENERAL COUNSEL i

0 I

i II l

l i

4 j

!arTT,opmarh VO*aa1*ne 4 w-=

ee M Car *31. ff3rtI*. A e. AJr*T '87

.... _ _... ~. _ _.

AEN

AY g av

,,cx yc, 7

l

_P _R _0 _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

This meeting this morning will end l

I at 11:00 in order for us to move on to another subject.

This I

I A

is a continuation of the meeting on siting policy.

The meeting j

l I

3 that we had last time we were working through an OPE memo i

3 su=marizing a number of the siting issues facing the Commission i

i i

7 and I think where we ended last time was such that it is i

apprr riate to now beg'.m picking up the alternative sites 3

paper.

That's as I recall it.

MR. SEGE:

Right, Mr. Chairman.

,d i

The alternative sites paper is in the form of a proposed rule recommended for Coc=ission approval for publica-l,.s 1:3 tion subject to whatever co=ments the Commission elects to l

make at this point.

There is one significant issue in 4

i controvers y concerning that rule, and that is the role that

-l i

l 15 safety issues should play in our consideration of alternative t

14 l

sites.

That issue was toe ad on quite heavily in connection 17 with general siting policy on Monday.

It is essential to this j

la particular rulemaking effort.

19 The view reflected in the proposed rule is that 20 I

safety issues need not in their comparisons on the grounds that j 21 I

absolute standards of safety acceptability would be set f

conservatively enough that residual risks could reasonably be

~

presumed to be negligible enough in all cases to avoid the

• s need for taking them into account in site comparisons.

OPE

~~

and OGC, and they are somewhat in a direct way ELD also --

1 i

twrowurous. vwsww :,..

f c.

i me Sl'MT'be C,apTillg, 37eg3?, & e, agrTT *e7 i

-mu-

" =.AY e av I

ancz sc.

3 I

i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

As is their want.

I MR. SEGE:

The ir want.

i I

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Indirectly.

l 4

MR. SHAPAR:

We try to give the Commission as much I

l 3

flexibility as possible.

4 MR. SEGE:

--have indicated a differing view with l

7 respect to these safety issues.

w'e feel that safety issues to the extent that residual risks in their attempt attend the 3

selection of any site should not be excluded from site compari-sons even when standards of minimum acceptability are met by g

the proposed site.

There is a tie in in this respect between the proposed t,s rule on alternative sites and the general siting policy.

The l,

a decisions that you made concerning the general siting policy la leave open for Co= mission consideration both of these options.

l 1.5 i

i In the event that the Co= mission's final decision should act

4 for the three tier approach that OPE has suggested, that would l

17 require also accepting the OPE view in this rulemaking.

18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Isn't that also consistent --

!?

MR. SEGE:

Otherwise --

o CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes, but isn't it aisc consistent 21 that if we end up accepting the Siting Policy Task Force's view that that would be very consistent with the alternativa j

~

sites approach of not taking safety into consideration as we i

1

~

would now?

MR. SEGE:

It would be consistent with either.

It i

encom.% vo sar em,xw i

88 6 W 77TR*. L e. M 'O 3

- ~ N 1 ~~ N.

,. AY :

av 4

i 2nGK N C.

i I

could be consistent with either view.

The establishment of the I

firs limits would be consistent either with the view that once those firs numerical limits are met safety issues should play I

A or should not play a role in site comparisons both of these j

views would be consistent.

l e

3 MR. ERNST:

I have no prepared presentation for this 7

corning, but I am prepared to briefly go over the rule.

C'4A TW MAN AREARNE :

Well, would you agree with the 3

i, point that George just made --

9 MR. ERNST:

Yes.

)

CHAIRMAN K4EARNE:

that it would be consistent to 11 either go to taking it into consideration or excluding it if t

we were to buy the fixed exclusion limits of the Siting Policy Task Force?

1.4 MR. ERNST:

Yes.

f.!

,i MR. BICKWIT:

I'm surprised to hear you say that.

I l

14 i

would think that the philosophy is such that if you're saying 17 that a site is acceptable for a safety standpoint that you

!8

• auld not want the issue litigated and you would not want 19 cocpatisons between sites debated even with respect to NEPA 20 stand.

• 1 MR. ERNST:

Maybe I misunderstood George's statenent.

l

~

Could you clarify me, please?

i

=

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Let ce ask Len to go a little bit further, because I thins I agreed with Len that's why I was a little puccled.

Ga ahead.

~

w w m.=~.

se n w.m. m. s... me m

4. AY-c-

3

__ q -

5 sacz.we.

t 1

MR. ERNST:

Okay.

r MR. BICKWIT:

Well, if you adopt the philosophy to meet the safety criteria to do enough in the way of siting I

then it would seem ph.losophically you would be enTMeted to a j

i i

3 notion that you don't want to start taking residual risks into i

l 3

account when you're looking at alternatives in the NEPA process. I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

I would have thought so.

I 7

MR. ERNST:

Okay, maybe I misunderstood George's position.

Let =e try and articulate this somewhat differently.

I think it's the position of the Siting Policy Task t

Force and also on the alternative sites paper that one should describe criteria such that if these criteria are met by a I:

proposed site and let's say also by candidate sites that there i

would be a reasonably safe site that would have small 14 radiological residual risks due to the siting aspect.

If that were the case, then these residual risks would be sufficiently l

id small that they would not weigh heavily on the NEPA balance.

17 CHAIFF.AN AREARNE:

Are you using the microphone?

18 MR. ERNST:

I thought.

19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Jim, can you hear back there?

O Okay.

• 1 MR. ERNST:

Okay.

That these residual risks would

~

weigh sufficiently small on the NE?A balance that they would be l

i 22 i

indiscernible.

In other words, the proposed site and the candidate sites would all be essentially look alike from the

'l standpoint of residual radiological risks.

In that case they

! syvtpuna f*omma. 4 cena Mme O.,-,

' = <.

r_i, ms 33tfbe C prPCs. ffDG*. & W. SJFT '87

=

AY :

av

= sat s c.

I i

I i

I would not tip perceptibly any balance and could be therefore, I

eliminated.

I i

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Well, isn't that then consistent l

I A

with saying that then you do not use safety considerations i

in the comparison of alternative sites?

3 l

l 3

MR. ERNST:

That would be correct.

I CHAIRM..di AHEARNE:

George, I think you disagree.

MR. SCGE:

Yes, I do.

I would like to restate my 3

view perhaps in a way that would avoid what I d6n't think is 9"

"

• P * "U to I support the establishment of firm numerical limits on population density and distribution.

I wouldn't want the 1,4 OPE comment that after those limits are met any large 13 differences in population density should still be available for 14 consideration in site comparisons.

I wouldn' t want that to be interpreted as undoing of our inducement of the firm limits.

14 i

But rather, that once the exclusionary limits are met so that 17 we view the site as being acceptable in an absolute safety 18 sense, that we recognize that if conditions permit doing much

!?

better in a particular area of the country.

For example, in f

20 I

an area where population density is quite low that we ought net l 11 to forego such a possible atte=pt.

i 1

Or, in another context if there's an airport that's

~

half a mile beyond the exclusionary stand off distance at one

~L

~

site and another site is available that doesn't have that problem where the nearest airport is much further away, to et s2f7W CarTtA TriptI*, L e. sJtTT -97

__ **dka8atit>t &'

m

.- -- l

, AT av 7

=saz sc.

i a

i 1

exclude considerations of that kind a priori from site compari-I I

sons in which human envirotsental factors of lesser moment I

necessarily play a role does not seem sensible to me.

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

I wasn't saying that when I i

A i

i said you disagreed I'm not saying that I misinterpreted OPE's view, but the impression I had was that if we end up accepting 6

I the Site Task Force's approach completely that it then leads i

to the alternative Site Task Force studies approach of nonsafety 1

consideration.

r MR. SEGE:

Oh yes, to that extent that is correct, 10 i

i Mr. Chairman.

11 l

CHAIRMAN AREARNE:

Yes.

12 MR. SEGE:

That is correct.

I may have misinterpreted

7 your apparent simplification.

I4 l

F.. HANRAHAN:

I think clearly the philosophy of that l 14 approach links the two together.

id CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes, yes.

17 MR. HANRAHAN:

I mean the idea is to have fixed

!3 limits and a high degree of certituce at those limits.

19 MR. BICKWIT:

I think to avoid litigation beyond that.

0 MR. HANRAHAN:

Beyond that.

I think they are

• 1 philosophically going to.

l MR. ERNST:

It's still not completely clear to me 22 how far apar George and I are on this issue of the Siting 3

Policy Task Force, because I think until you start talking the specific limits, you know like George talks diminimous D@4 NDU v7 i N se 53tme CW'fCs. IT*EZ? E e.

surr,

• Th & L maat _ _,

• 2-

f AT av

=

sacz we.

8 i

(phonetically spelled).

I 2

I'm not sure how his diminimous lower level would l

f compare to the Siting Policy Task Force criteria if, for i

example, if they' re one of the sa=e --

f CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Oh. I doubt they're the same.

~i e

t MR. ERNST:

Okay.

f 4

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

At least I don't.

l 1

MR. SEGE:

The Cc= mission left open both alternatives pending the development of specific numbers, that's probably 7

a good way to leave it.

MR. HANRAHAN:

I.think the practical application of both approaches is perhaps where they eventually come t-together --

l i

f3 l

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

There is a significant practical 14 difference which ends up being what could or could not be an te I

issue in the Board.

id l

MR. ERNST:

My personal perception is that lower 17 limits should be reasonably set so that in each region of the is country you stay sufficiently far away from people that it 19 i

does not make much sense and you can settle this problem l

j I

generically and not have to settle it case-by-case.

l 1

I CHAIPS.AN AHEARNE:

Well, I think as we spent a lot I

i of ti=e talking about what is a distance in one region of the

~,

l country =ay not at all be a feasible distance in another.

So,

~

I' once you say that you do want to retain the ability in each region of the country, depending on how you define region, l

2 nm, ro w

r.

=~ _ %

me M C.p'Tth ITWPt27. L g.

tr?T '87 1

• ^-

Tm 1

• Juzt

f

=

AY :

av 9

.cz.se.

i I think you would end up with a significant difference in these 1

two approaches.

2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Moreover, I keep thinking j

t about the discussion we had briefly last time.

'4 hen we're i

t 3

looking at these questions, we're looking at a site and on day i

3 A or 1, but we're talking about a site which is going to be 7

of interest for a period secething in excess of 50 years, half g

a century.

Are we to assume -- Can we reasonably assume that the demography of the region in which that site happens to exist is going to remain constant?

The answer, of course, is no.

t 11 So, it seems to me somehow we have to be able to think in terms of a mixture of those specific population limits on the one hand and additional safety features on the 14 i

other if we're going to look at such a long period of time.

IJ!

i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Jan?

l M

i MR. NORRIS:

Jan Norris.

I would like to just co==ent 17

}

on when considering the likelihood of being able to, we're 8

talking about the practical aspects of it.

Ona needs to consider i

19 i

that there are actually two things that we're talking about 20 here.

21 One is being able to discriminate among sites based on satety aspects alot.6 site suitability aspects. In other i

t

~

words, the plus de=ography by itself and being

• s

~

to derive at basis for comparisons and trading off those itva ele =ents in order to arrive at the most desirable site.

u se 2: ante C.ar*Di. fTwCr". & e. SJwt'M e2 m :. :.===

f AY d av

=

10

,.cx ye.

l.

1 That is one thing.

It's another thi-.g to be able to do the l

l same thing putting all of those things t,ogether with other l

NEPA issues and being able to balance the safety aspects i

A along with the other NEPA issues.

j i

I 3

So, I guess what I'm saying is that there are three l

3 possible ways of doing it.

Doing the balancing on the safety

{

i

side, then doing balancing on the environmental side and the 3

third way would be to balance all of them together.

Put all of i

the issues into one hamper.

So, when you're through keep that in mind. And all those scenarios would be very difficult to arrive at basis on which to discriminate between those 11 parameters.

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Peter, have any --

l w

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Not at this point.

14 I

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Dick any other --

f 13 i

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

No.

j i

CHAIRMAN AREARNE:

Well, I guess I would come out with:

f 17 adding the note and going out for the alternative sites rule to

!8 add a note to pointing out this alternate approach that we are 19 already asking for cccment or will be asking for comment on in f

0 I

the siting policy rule which is the OPE version apprcach.

That 21 would attract with your number three down here.

~

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Three or four?

MR. SEGE:

That would be the third item fr m the

~*1 bottom of Page 16.

Direct frcm the botecci in the 3.3 checklist.

~~

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

The fourth frca che top, the

..m,,

m i r : _.<

me s:3tf% Cur *CE. N. A e. SJf71 '87

~. _ -

., AY.

3 av 11 sacz.we.

i l

i third from the bottom.

CHAIFF.AN AHEARNE:

Let's see, okay.

l i

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

They're asking for public l

A ccc: ment on this --

l 1

3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes, yes asking.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I would agree with that.

3 i

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

All right.

7 MR. SEGE:

Is it correct then, Mr. Chairman, that as 5

far as the proposed rule is concerned the Ccamission sees no problem with publishing it as a proposed rule?

CHAIRMAN AREARNE:

Do you see?

MR. SEGE:

No, no, I don't.

12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Any other?

l 1:

Yes.

14 i

MR. ERNST:

I would like to bring up one point on I

IJ j

rereading the rule.

There are several areas where I think some id small changes need be made before publishing.

These have been 17 discussed with OPE and EOD and Standards.

l 18 CHAIRMAN AFIARNE:

What kinds of changes are these?

l 19 MR. ERNST:

There are several places where there to are specific dates mentioned and.these dates need some j

i correction, dates of effectiveness of various parts of the rule.l There is one place where there is a portion in the rule that would inherently require one to go back and review the entire site selection process inadvertently.

We have a state =ent in there that states that if all candidate sites

% % ve

.m. % %

age e M fN. L e.

marTT '87 Tm 2.

• m, e"-

• AY

..cz sc.

12 f

'c 4V l

1 I

I meet the threshold criteria establishing the rule, then you t

don't have to go back and look at the process by which these f

I sites were brought forward.

There's another place in the rule j

i A

that does permit a candidate site to have a deficiency if indeed,'

I l

all sites within that region would reasonably have the same l

6 deficiency.

There's a third part of the rule that really makes 7

you consider sites with deficiencies if it has a different 3

water source and so forth.

So, you're almost required to have i

a site ansng the candidates that likely would have a deficiency in which case you have to go back and look at the site selection g

process.

Se, to make a conforming change, we would just say g

except in the case where all sites within a particular area

+

I would have the same deficiency.

That's just a conforming change.i 1

It sounds confusing, but it is not.

14 i

There's one other small change--

IJ I

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Of course, if said deficiency j

was sufficiently significant then all sites would be rej ected.

17 MR. ERNST:

I think a specific example may be of 18 help here.

For example, most sites in Texas that are on a i

19 river site would have a problem with water quality.

Yet you 20 would have river sites in Texas as a legitimate candidate i

21 i

site.

i CHA7.RMAN AHEARNE:

You mean the --

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

of it.

~1 MR. ERNST:

Yes.

So, if that is indeed the case you'd be forced to go to the site selection process and take w ro.s<a.ur

= -.

e au 1tatfM CAFT'3. N. & e.

28T2 27 i

.-.. _.. *^^

'" L L M

, AY av 13 t

,,,g y e, l

a look at it even though that's the kind of problem that There's a third place where --

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Now, when you say you'd be forced j

to go to the site section process and take a look at it, A

i 3

could you explain a little bit what that means?

i 3

MR. ERNST:

Okay, the rule has two ways that one may 7

proceed.

The applicant may proceed with a slate of candidate sites that are proven or judged to be the best reasonably 3

I available if they meet certain specific environmentally based criteria as set forth in the rule.

If they do this, you don't g

have to get involved with how the applicant discovered these sites.

12 CHAIMfAN AHEARNE:

I see, all right.

MR. ERNST:

A third small change is on which we la as a matter of -- well the rule permits any other parties to I

1.5 introduce a candidate site into the proceeding if they meet t4 certain requirements for introduction of that site.

We say 17 philosophically in the rule that the party should not have

!S any stricter requirements for entry of another candidate site 19 than did the applicant.

They should meet the same requirements for entry of a candidate site.

21 Taking a look at the rule, th.ere is a slightly higher l C

i

hreshold for a party than for the applicant in one particular We were going to propose a small rectifying change such area.

4

~

tha: the threshold would not be hired.

~~

CHAIRMAN ART.A?SE:

Fine.

Any prc'olems?

Peter?

m m w a m. = ~.u <

es e t".hF"3. fMEZ*. & g.

DJMT TF 7

~

~

3[

I

= AY u

av

~

msaz sc.

t I

MR. SHAPAR:

As long as we're talking about minor I

I I

changes.

I noticed that throughout the Federal Register Notice 5

there are repeated phrases like the staff believes that as if it I f

A were a submission to the Ccamission.

Of course, when the Cocnission adopts this document I would suggest that a e

3 phraseology like that not be included.

7 j

As a specific example to get you to get a feel for it, i

the staff believes that a requir=ent for the use of service 3

l areas coupling with performance criteria for ' expansion --

9 COMMISSIONER KF"NEDY:

What page is that on?

i l

MR. SHAPAR:

That's Enclosure 1, page 17, the bottem

,1 s

of the page, rationale and discussion.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

How would you correct it?

Just strike the staff believes that?

14 MR. SHAPAR:

Yes, it would appear that or the 15 i

Ccmmission believes that, either way.

But, it ought not to f4 I

appear in my opinion as a submission from the staff to the 17 Cccmission in the documents the Cecaission's approved.

18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

If we're putting it off for 19 com=ent, then we ought to be co==enting on the doctrine.

o i

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Well, we're putting it off j

'l for co= ment.

We've approved putting it off for co==ent.

i

~

CHAIRMAN AREARNE:

So, I think it would be appropriate, to strike the staff believes that and j us t say a require =ent for use of.

That kind of a state =ent which is right.

All right.

i

~

With that, I think we have given the direction to go ahead on

-% vo n es_ x se E1tDe W ffWt17. L

• Rerft '87 3

=^Z 5% a t am

e

• LT 4

15 l

2.cz sc.

r.

l that.

All right.

l

?

I The Cer: mission is adjourned until 11:00.

l t

1 (Whereupon the hearing adjourned a 10:28 a.m.)

I i

1 4

b 6

i l

7 9

i 10 l

ii s.

e h

6 u

13 I

t Id l

l 17 18 19 1

20 I

.)

O f

est I

h I

i

• • 9 me I

s i

me I

!6M '8 ODSAMES IMe i arv.m N

P w m n. m. s.. m m n e -

-. - a-

==mme

.__