ML19309C709
| ML19309C709 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/26/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309C710 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8004090179 | |
| Download: ML19309C709 (71) | |
Text
h
~
g 5
l
\\,**,*/
l l
UNITED STATES N UCLE AR R EG UL ATO RY COMMISSION In the matter of:
BRIEFING ON POLICY ISSUES IN THE EMERGENCY PLANNING RULE P1 ace:
Washington, D. C.
Date:
March 26, 1980 Pages:
1 - 70 t
(
INTERNATIONAL VEnsArtM REPonTras. INC.
499 SOUTH CAPITCL STREET. S. W. SUITE 107
~
WASHINGTCN. D. C. 20002 202 484-3550 8004000 lTf
I 11 l
g9h 2
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIO11SSION g.
5
________________________________________x D
In the Matter of:
1 7
BRIEFING ON POLICY ISSUES IN
[
a THE EMERGENCY PLANNING RULE
________________________________________x g_
3 10 11 Room 1130, Eleventh Floor 1717 H Street, N.W.
12,
Washington, D. C.
13 Wednesday, March 26, 1930 1
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, for 16 j-presen'tation of the above-entitled. matter, at 10:00.
l' i
4 a.m.,
John F. Ahearne, Chairman of the Commission, t7
.i presiding.
BEFORE:
'l 9
VICTOR GILINSKY, COMMISSIONER O
3 PETER A. BRADFORD, COMMISSIONER L
22.
1
- 24 25:
1
s t
9
(
3
- , LY ay nox sc.
~
y _
_P _R O_ _C _E _E _D _I _N _G:S CIIAIRMAN AllEAR:lE:
We are meeting this morning
- l for a subject which I'm sure at least part of the-titic is 1
cme.lancy and the remaining section of the meeting has had 4
I 3
a var'iety of descriptions.
As-such, I guess I would scy I
i' that those that are from this side are prepared and willing-5 to hear what' aspects you intend to discuss.
At least at
~i i
some stage I trust that you will review some of the results i
I i
i l
7 of the public meetings.
I gather frca your slides you l
to l
intend to go on to cover some other aspects of comments i
.' l ?
received on emergency planning rule.
I, 11 t-Lets see, Kevin, I guess you are the ranking t
individual sitting opposite us.
- 4 MR. CORNELL
Thank you.
The thrust of what l
12 we'd like to talk about today is the issues.that have 14 been raised concerning the emergency planning rule.in the 1
17 context of.the public meetings and the written comments l
!2 that came in subsequent to those meetings.
i-I-
19 j
)
There are a variety of issues we'd like to just y
lay out wh'at-the significant. issues are that'have been
-r
,J
" dentified in that process,-outline uhat. current staff i
thinking is'regarding some of those issues, with-i
?"
an attempt to.get some. Commission guidance-where we'can 2
as to where'.the-Commission: thinks the staff ought-to be i
i.m no v-amm e j
s:
4 3
. cz we, q ' AY '
ov gfp N I:
headed.
~
2-CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well I would guess since two 3
members of the Commission aren't here today, I do-not-think that we.can give you any specific guidance on A
1 3
directions.
5 MR. CORNELL:
Fine.
CH' AIRMAN AHEARNE:
Not particularly since that,-
3 as you know, was not, I think, the understanding at least 1
i
~
of several members of the purpose of the meeting.
I i
!C i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Lets see, what's the i
1; I
understanding now?
10 CHisIRMAN AHEARNE:.Now the original understanding' was it was going to be a summary of the. material from the..
i 14 ucrkshops'.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Material and other things 14 in the workshop.
17 i
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
14 MR. CORNELL:
It's our contemplation-that this j
19 O
~is -- that there are a'large number of issues.
It's going to take.more than one meeting to walk through those.and.
,1 1
describe them in detail.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'm glad.to see that you
. list-these as' policy issues-so that the: Commission can
- 4
,3-
.~ continue: to get~ information outjof them if1 the - reorgarization s.;m, mr*w x-
..~
4
-o-f.
3 AY _::
Av I
4-3
,,4 g,,,,
i plan passes.
I' MR. CORNELL:
One thing --
3-CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I'm glad that my colleague
-f
. i.
4 is glad.
f,
[
1 a
I MR. CORNELL:
One specific item I'd like to note is th,at the NRC has received communication from FEMA
~
6 I
with raising'some significant comments on the proposed
'~
rule.
The staff has been in contact with FEMA's staff I
about those comments.
'We've arranged a, staf f meeting I
next Monday to work out what our differences are and 1
i 11 l
where they can be resolved.
I:
FEMA through staff in many cases specifically i
l recuested to meet with the Commission sometime in the i
14 future.
We would recommend that such a meeting be set'up 12 I
subsequent to a staff resolution of some issues.
I 14 wanted to' contemplate perhaps --
C' Why don'.t you let us:knos --.
h
~
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
13 i{
MR. CORNELL:
--several weeks downithe road i
19 that would be appropriate, j
i i
i
.:0
.I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Let.us'know who 4
. that Monday-
-l
,1 1
meeting works out or perhaps a summary paper-immediately.
p 4
i following the meeting:would-bcLappropriate.
'MR. CORNELL: TYes. we certainly.canido that.
- 3 What'ILplan to'do is to.let Karl'Goller~ walk lthrough some.'*
3 th % vc=r. w pe.,
n9 5
I'
, AY av n a z ~ec.
F i
of the slides that we - prepared and answer any-questions.
We are prepared with the slides.
I'd be happy to answer some specific questions about the~ avenues ue are exploring 3
i to deal with the whole-question of public-meetings and f
A i
~
f I-how that's approached by;the Commission.
We have scme a
6, preliminary thoughts, though they aren't in the slides, i.
I we are prepa' red to get'into~that issue as you like.
l I
CHAIRMAN A!!EARNE:
One question.
Brian, in I
9-what capacity are you sitting there?
Since you-seem to 10 have a variety of capacities.
11 I
i MR. GRIMES:
I guess-as co-chairman of the t
II FEMA NRC Steering Committee this morning.
I 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:. Fine.
Karl?.
i 14 MR. GOLLER:
Well, I thank_you.
At the. risk 12
~
of some repetition we would appreciate a discussion-_that.
to could take place this morning.to try to get the sense of 17 the Commissioners that are present.
Thir would help us j
I in ---
l 19.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, now I recognize-that.
':0 i
But11 want to reiterate that on these -- as Commissioner 21 i
i Gilinsky has~ pointed'out:on these policy matters,_it's the collegial Commission that han to make. the -decision.
Two
-:g;
.of the members are not-here..
t
~
3-
'MR.
GOLLER:
lYes,. sir, we understand that.
1 I,
IN'DM) C - - k fC~% 5
__I
-.. ~
.~
- -.. ~ -.
4-I I
k A l
- c.
0 l
0 nac l
j l
If I could have the next slido, Barbara.
You 4
- will recall, gentlemen, that in early December '79 after
}'
providing us with certain directions, including several i
i pairs of alternative items to be included, you authorized-l 4
l 3
us to publish the proposed rule changes on emergency
)
I L
planning.
I would also like to remind you that the t
proposed rule was prepared and-you approved it before the f
3
)
President's statement assigning FEMA lead responsiblity l
J 9
l for offsite emergency planning.
[
i CHAIRMAN AHEARNB:
You're saying that although i-it t
it was published 12/19 that you're pointing out that it-i t
took sometime between our approval and the publication.
j i
1 announced his on 12/7.
l 1
The President
- 4 MR. GOLLER
Yes, sir, but there was that time 13 lag.
I mentioned-it because this will help tof explain l6 some of the comments that were received, ~ and the - f act that !
17 some of these comments have actually been overtaken ~by i
la j
[
that announctsnent and subsequent arrangements.' that have ~
i i
19 i
been developed between the two agencies.
Essentially.
l comments and. problems.thatlexistedrat that l time don' t
- }
y*
exist today.
This'slido.then sets.forth the portinent
- 4 milestones past,1present, and future relative;to this
~
{_
3-rulemaking. _The workshopsLwere conductcd in January.
,...u_
IG
s f
e noz we, 4
4 CIIAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Thosc were three, four?
MR. GOLLER:
There were four workshops in i
I 2
various locati'ons throughout-the country.
A proceedings A
document on those workshops is well'along and an advance 3
~ draft of the report was recently sent to you for informa-I i
tion as backup information for'this meeting this morning.
i We have sign'ificantly increased the level of detail on the t
comments in that report.
We-hope to submit that to the i
f 9
printer within the next few days.and copics of that report
- o 1
will.then be sent to all of the registered attendees to the workshops.
I t
.i l*
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You're going to new small-print document?.
- 4 MR. GOLLER
I'm not1 familiar with-that'.
~
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, it's just an aside-can't 14 we' assume.
2, D'
MR. GOLLER:
I'm told.that we will, yes,_ sir.
18 t
I'd also like to observe that the.last fcur 19.
items on this clide which are ' future milestones will, of course, be1somewhat,-dependent on the'results-of-todays l
,1 4
' discussion and ' other ' developments in 'the rulemaking;-
process as we go along.
i 3
If-I;could have-theEnext. slide, please?'
l
~
t
/,3 A great'.many comments have been. received.. I have before'
~
i b
-O
o-f
,.w h
~
- G*
"C f.
-me'here a pile representing a cingle copy of all the i-L l'
comments that have been received to date.
I'd lika'to i
-emphasize that comments.are still coming-in.
We received t
i, 2
l
~4 more this morning and we expect that this will continue.
}-
3 CHAIRMAM AHEARNE:The camient period ended,'though,i 3
I 5
as your previous slide indicated in the middic of --
l t
{
MR. GOLLER:
On~ February:19th.
But as is our L
I policy to the extent that we can accommodate late submittals' s
.t of comments,. we will do so.
However, as -indicated 'on the
[
+'
10 clide many of the. comments that are coming are,duplicative, ;
i 3
- lThere'ra great deal of repetition, and, as a matter of fact, l-;
.i
- j i
issues were i
it is quite true that _ all significant I
1:
identified at the workshops.
I'm.not. aware ofiany-really l
l 4
s significant issues that have been raised subsequent to i
i f
that in the-written comments.
id I
There has-been a great deal more of detailing.
2 17
-j g
b and basis.for the comments and a lot of repetition of the 13 comments.
But nothing really_new has surfaced.
.l 19
.y
.I'd also like tol observe.at this time -- if
- Q I can have. the next slide
-- that included. in these l
.,1 t
4 f
s
+
l comments'three petitions have been received relative to 2
this1rulemaking process.
The~first one received at about j 4
the same time we initiatedLthelNRC. staff Task Force review $
4
, ;3 of emergency Lplanning was shortly after the Three Mile -
Wno *g a *===W-c i
_ _ _ a.,
Island accident.
2 It is the staf f's current opinion that the i
emergency planning rulemaking underway should be essentially ful]y responsive to this petition and will serve as an e
i adequate response to it.
The second tool will be brought 4
up again in connection with specific policy issues which 7
we hope to discuss this morning.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now is the last one a law firm?
13 MR. GOLLER:
Yes, sir, the last one is a law 11 firm representing a number of utilities in making this l
petition.
There is some question, I'm told, of whethcr these last two petitions are and will be found to be
.6 fully petitions in a legal sense of the word or that they l'
are not more nearly comments on this rulemaking and can 16 be treated as such.
U
-C!! AIRMAN AllEARNE:
What is the legal status of a pe tition cubmitted in association with the rulemaking?
3 What does it do with respect to the rulemaking?
MR. COLLER:
I'd like to defer that question to 4
our legal representatives.
MR. '/OEGELI:
Cur view is that once you go out
- 4 for a proposed rule, section 2.204,I think it is, calls
. *J for comments on the proposed rule.
2.202 which is twh
f i
r a
yy nog s e, in c
,b b
l petitioninc. for rulacaking addresses itself to people who want to petitica for amending rules, proposing new rules, f
so that really..; think these petitions are misleading; i
i because both in form and in substance they are comments I
on the proposed rule.
I think the course that we're i
5 going to take and I think OGC and ELD agree with us as i
I does Rules and Records that we're going to probably not challenge that, but simply recommend to you people for I
a a
your consideration denying the petitions on the grounds
'O that there's no need for separate rulemaking and indicating, I:
i that they will be considered comments and consider in I
1:
r connection with this proposed ruling.
So technically, they're mislabeled, but rather than fight that battle,
- 4 it's probably the casiest and cicanest way to simply is dismiss them and treat them as comments.
Ib u
MR. BICF. WIT:
I agree with all of what you said 17 except for your citations to the rules.
l 13 f
MR. GOLLER:
I'd like to say again that these i
19 will come up again in the discussion this morning and I think will give you a better --
j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It's not the substantive point I want to ask.
Are you going to reraise the procedural aspect?
3 f
a MR. GOLLER:
Well they will give you a better
IA 2
a scx se c.
3 (P '~g 3
~ )[
A a h\\ b.
a
,a focus of what the substance of the petition is and how I
they relate --
2 CIIAIRMAN A!!EARNE:
But I was really trying to i
get to is the word hearing.
One of these petition says l
s I
that they are requesting a hearing.
Do you envision --
6 I thought the gist of your comment was since they are comments on the rule and will be processing comments and 3
addressing comments you saw no need for them to be treated 3
as a petition.
But if one of the petitions was for a 10 hearing, do you also' envision holding a hearing on the 11 l
1 rule?
10 MR. VOEGELI:
I think that would be a decision for the Commission to make.
I think when Rules and Records 14 sends down their recommendations to you, I would envision 12 that their version of it would indicate, also deny, 14 their request for a hearing.
MR. GOLLER:
But, Mr. Chairman, on that point i
,3 the substance of the petition is significant, beccuse their request for a hearing is applicable only if the 3
15-minute notification is included in the rule making 1
and that is one of the issues that we'll be discussinc later.
- 4 If I could have the next slide, please?
This 2
next slide lists the uajor policy issues which we would
'l 0
0 pagg N C.
12
=>
i like to discuss this morning.
I presented as a list, though you will note that we do have quito a few that we would like to cover this' morning.
We've tried to put I'
s 4
a them in the order of greatest policy significance and 3
consequences of the decision made thereon.
Now also in 6
some cases the decision reached could on any one, preempt j
constrain', the options available on' subsequent issues.
l or 3
If I could have the next slide, please?
As i
was already previously mentioned by Mr. Cornell we do C
i want to make.the Commission aware that we did receive i
11 1
i j
formal written comments from FEMA.
Copics of these were, made available to you by OGC under SECY 8145.
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is this from FEMA or la a
is this from our staff working with FEMA?
I.!
MR. COLLER:
These comments were ---
~
M MR. CORNELL:
These were by the General Counsel's'l a
office of FEMA and then transmitted to us.
I 18
.I MR. GOLLER:
I'm not sure understand the i,
19 question.
i 1
t CHAIRMAN'AHEARNE:
Many of us~do.
I
,1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well we've detailed quite a number of people who work over thero._
t og
-MR. CORNELL:
ThisLis from_the General Counsel's
{
of fico and ~ cur people' cro not detailed in that offico.
_a-
~
l M d 'h AA a
I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I'm sure he answered your question.
MR. GOLLER:
The comments were assigned by j
4 the General Counsel's office.
We understand that these are formal comments from the FEMA agency.
As indicated 5
on the slide, the general comment is to, delay the NRC I
rulemaking until certain problems can be resolved.
These 3
problems are identified.
Most of these problems are included in one or more of the policy issues which we 10 would like to discuss with you this morning.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What's a due process --
i:
MR. GOLLER:
Excuse me, sir.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What is a du2 process
- 4 problem in this context?
12 MR. COLLER:
Roy, would you like to explain that?
id The question is what is meant by the due process question 17 and the two subheadings that we have on the slide?
13 MR. VOEGELI:
I can answer that, because I 19 think I understand Mr. Jett's point, but I would raise 20 the question but I believe he's here.
46 MR. JETT:
I'm here.
MR. VOEGELI:
ilould you prefer for him to --
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Probably the most straight 3
forward.
n
.M
95 14 gfg $, d,,, gi A\\
r,
=
WN nce sc.
l I
I MR. JETT:
The concern we had is the fact that
~
the process by which state plan will in fact be reviewed, state and local plans, is in a state of flux.
I think Kevin made note of that as did Karl that since the rule I
was published the President did make a new assignment 6
to FEMA to take the lead in tho offsite planning, to 7
work with state and local governments to set criteria 3
for how those plants should be evaluated, and to really overhaul the whole process, I think, for how state to i
planning would be considered in the industry.
That 1:
?
I process is in a state of flux.
We arc making modificctions i
I to the interagency assignments at the Federal level.
I:
We are making modifications as to
'.ow we're going to be I4 i
l looking at states, how'that process is going to proceed.
13 I think our concern was that that process needs to get more in concrete form.
The substance of how that l
t, procedure will be carried out needs to be clear before t
we would suggest that you would take a sanction -- tha i
g 6
kind of sanctions outlined in the rule -- that the process 3
that is going on now for state plan and concurrence in i
MRC will have some modifications to it based upon FCMA's input and leadership.
24 COMMISSIONER BRASFOPD:
Well now due process i
2 to me means the constitutional language that you shant m
15 i
D z.cz ~c.
i i
deprive anybody of property without due process of law.
Are you saying that the proposed rule would violate the 4
l
}
Constitution?
j 5
4 MR. JETT:
No.
I think it would raise questions.!
I f
I 3
1 I think there could be some challenges.
I don't know 1
i 6
how successful those challenges might be.
I think that i
I in orderly p'rocess is imperative --
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Orderly process is something else.
rhe concern you're making here has f
to i
to do with the orderliness of the process rather than with the Constitution?
J i
MR. JETT:
Yes.
Well I would say generally it e
1*
j is tne orderliness of the process.
The clarity of how 14 l
the plan will go more in the issue of due process.
I think our comments raised a -- made a note about an issue 14 of c,ue process in passing.
I didn't prepare this chart 17 is which decides that the comment was basically a due i
l process comment.
But our comment went to the' fact that i
!?
the orderliness of'the process had not yet'been clarified. y i
- 0 It is in a major state of overhaul.
So'that was our i
- 1 4
t-concern.
~MR.
GOLLER:
As Kevin JCornell -mentioned before,
3 we are scheduled to meet with FEMA at'the staff level
[
3 next Monday afternoon.
We think that we will'be able to
.i k
p
saca ec.
resolve at least some if not all of these problems and hope to come back to the Commission at some time in near future 0
to appraise you of what kind of conclusions and resolu-
{
4 tion we're able to develop.
I 3
CilAIRMAN A!!EARNE:
As I have mentioned to Kevin, 5
I think you ought to try to prepare a very rapid summary I
of that meet'ing for us.
3 MR. GOLLER:
We will do that.
COMMISSIO:iER GILINSKY:
Ilow long of a delay is FEMA proposing?
1; i
CHAIPJ1AN AllEARNE:
Well what they had proposed i
1" is could we treat this as just a continuation of that advanced notice.
14
~MR.
BICKWIT:
Mr. Chairman?
g CllAIRMAN Al!EARNE:
Len?
!4 MR. DICKWIT:
I'd just like to say that I I<
don't really see any basis for a legal challengo just so i
long as it becomes clear in the final rule exactly hcw l
17 t
these responsibilities are apportioned and that those
- o responsibilities are apportioned consistent with the f
statute.
MR. JETT:
I think that's a good point.
I just don't think those responsibilities are yet clear.
I'm a
not sure that when we talk about a delay we're not
.~.
i
=
asaz uc. 1T g.('
I I
- t i
talking about necessarily a delay in the final date.
4 2
we ro talking about a deferral of a decision to go final e
now until this process is clear and various inouts can 2
be brought into the process that are not yet in place.
I Just to prove one point the President asked FEMA to review :
4 t
all the state plans and give him a report by the end of l
7 i
June on how state planning is going on.
I would hope that g
review would bring us information on further adjustments t
I that might be necessary areas that may need particular to i
g attention in the review and concurrence process.
All L
11 i
of that is ongoing, whether the ultimate time of placing 10
- I i
i the rule into effect, that is the date that the rule would '
i begia, would slip or not, I don't know.
I don't know ts that wouldn't be necessarily the case.
I think finalizing.the rule as it was published j
at this time prior to the time that-the rule could be ji 1
18 adjtsted by these ongoing things, it would be premature.
j.
e CHAIRMAN AllEARNE:
Kevin?
I g
i MR. CORNELL:
In that regard, one of the 3
23 options which we discussed.at the staff level and l
n certainly will' reach a'n opinion-is possibly going out with another, proposed rule.for public comment.
If we
'i determine af ter a thrashing through a-lot of these. issues l,
'that'significant changes need to-be made, it's certainly.
l o
O norsc.18 0
I an option that we have.
~
CHAIRMAN AHEARSE:
Well I guess -- tell me, l
2 i
isn't it correct that if you make fundamental sweeping changes don't you have to go back out again?
But as long i
as they're not fundamental sweeping changes.
l t
6
,j MR. BICKWIT:
Also the issue of responsibility i
I 7
with respect to NRC and FEMA was raised when we considered the proposed rule.
As I remember the Chairman at that time was concerned that if we did not specifically j
10 designate how this was going to be apportioned we might l
fi have to go out for another proposed rule.
We assured i
l the Commission that that would not be necessary just so IO i
r long as the area was designated in the proposed rules.
l i
!4 1
So as far as the legal matter is concerned I don't think 15 l
you'rc going to find yourself in a position where you l
I4 have to go out for another proposal.
1,,
MR. GOLLER:
Mr. Chairman, I could point out
,a s
again that a number of these isnues and certainly the ones that have been discussed in the last few minutes I
,0 t-1
-21 we do intend to bring up with some more detailed discussion.
I think it might be wiser to postpone any
.further discussion on'this until that entire issue was-
- 4 laid out and could be discussed in full context.
l
- 3 If I could have the next slide, please?
h(
Dhi 0
g a
LU sacr sc.
Several law firms representing licersceu and severa1 li.cenceca the:aselve s, the states submitted comments qucEtioning the legality and/or the constitutionality of a
the rule or at least certain key features of the rule.
3 Their primary bacis for this challenge are the third party voto, that is the possibility that an uncooperative 6
stat e or local jurisdiction could block or veto licenso i
3 issuance or plant operation.
I t
CHAIRMAN AllEARME:
Wnich law did they quota 10 which says that -- which law would we be viol.a*ing?
ti I'
MR. GOLLER:
They quoted the (bustitutici and I
I the Atcmic Energy Acts specifically.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In what sense?
Is COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In what order?
COMMISSION BRADFORD:
The last half you just--
16 MR. GOLLER:
The challenge was largely a legal 17 cne, though I would prefer for one of the attorneys I3 present to answer that specific question.
t y
MR. VOEGELI:
Actually I haven't had the oppor-0 t
tunity to go over the specific comments on those things.
MR. BICKWIT.:
I haven't either.
I could guess i
what the objection might be.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So you're raising the point,
- 4 but we don't really have anyone here to speak to the
-. j
4 -
.I saca "c.
2n O
jg I
I point, is that correct?
I MR. GOLLER:
I think as I understand it as 9
t a non-attorney --
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, no, we don't have an 5
attorney here that has --
f t
MR. VOCGELI:
Mr. Chairman, I think can be i
said that there is a memo in-existare addressing 3
these things prepared by the OGC.
j i
CHAIRMAN A!!EARNE:
Fine.
I was asking the l
!O i
question whether this morning in raising this issue i
11 j
whether we have someone here who's familiar with the I2 l
points and legal issues raised.
The answer is no.
l i
Thank you.
I 14 All right, go ahead.
- 5 MR. COLLER:
As indicated on the slide cmoth2r I4 basis for the challenge was NRC placing requirements on
[
state and local governments through~ licensees-the indirect regulation.
g CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I suppose the same points l-
.g i
- j as previous.
MR.'GOLLER:
Yes.
The indirect requirement on, applicant licensees to fund state and local j
04 emergency planning.-
i i
23 CHAIF>lAN AHEARNE:
They were' concluding that as' langgune 4
6 e
4 3
sect as c.
latent?
I MR. GOLLER:
As latent?
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Are they concluding that it's f
latent in our proposed rule? I don't recall it explicitly a
3 saying that.
I 5
MR. GOLLER:
Yes.
It's not explicit, but they're '
i concluding that it is inherent in the -- both of these --
3 as a matter of fact, all three of these points are ' intended ;
l' 9
to be discussed in further detail later this morning.
I I
1' MR. GRIMES:
I believe we did say in the rule on it i
one point on the notification system that the means why i
that system should be by licensees.
So it's not entirely i
dislatent.
la MR. GOLLER:
I think there will be some more 13 information on that question coming out when we get to 14 thirt point a little later.
37 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Aron't there some states, j
13 t
Illinois isn't it, that has levied requirement on i
19 utilities?-
-:0 MR. JAMGOCHIRN:
Yes, sir.
There are four j.
.,1 l
states
-thus far to approve legislation to requirc
~
i direct funding from the licensees.
i j
CHAIRMAN. A!!EARNE:
Have these law.' firms-filed 3-suits quesEloning the legality of the state action?
Just J
i 22 l
tj i
curious.
MR. J AMGOCIIIRI :
I have no _ dea.
~
MR. GOLLER:
I don't think we're kno.iledgeable 4
on that point.
I If I could have the next slide?
Several A
congreasional statements or actions relate to this issue.
I The first tw'o listed are supportive of this comment.
I The third, however, would --
CliAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Wait, wait, unit.
The first i
q cna was actually addressing what?
I thcught frem the l
l t
report that I have here in front of me, I thought it was I
I
{
addressing the h'eaver Amendment.
MR. GOLLER:
That could well be the case.
I'm
- 4 not familiar one way or the other, but I think the point f.!
they're trying to make is that we get the sense of at 14 least a portion of Congress on this point.
17 Cl! AIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well it might not be exactly
!3 the same point.
I
!?
MR. BICKWIT:
It would appear that it's the same issues.
Again, I have not seen the specific comments
,1 and I'm hesitant to summarisc comments that I haven't seen.;
But I think the issue rhat's being raised both in the 4
report and as I read your summary is that it's a t
3 ddprivation of due process to shut down a plant or not t
OSIN%
M "L-.w'WM J
l
.- ~
~ _ -
j I
D b
0 0
"Y ncz sc.
g i
1 allow it to be operated because of an action that someone I
{
i j
other than the licensee takes.
The action is beyond the f
6 j
i licensee's control; therefore, it deprives the licensee
. I
[
i
+
4 of some element of fairness to take some action ~against
'f f
I i
him with respect to a matter he can't control.
Now I'm l
i 6
prepared-to speak for that.
I don't see any legal b
F problem associated with that.
l 3
There are ex~amples within the law of the Federal i
i G0vernment doing just that.
In fact, the NRC's laws and to
[
practice allow the doing of just that in other areas.
So t
11 l
l I don't regard it as a legitimate legal complaint with
'~
tha cavent that I haven't actually seen the complaint.
l t
i i
MR. GOLLER:
The third bullet on the slide, t
14 i
however, would preempt tae issue by legislatively recuiring' 13 all these features claimed to be illegal by these 4
!6 I
4 coma.ents.
q If I could have tho'next slide?
In summary then )
13
.f
.the issue is still under-debate in the Congress.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Len,-isn't that still the
-:0 4
[
' fundamental ~ issue?
,1 4
MR. BICKWIT:
I gather-that's right.
4
{
~ CORNELL:
They are still in conference'and-
{
MR.
t
~
are scheduled.to~ meet-within the next week oriso.
This;
.a-
.}.
- is'one of the major insnen_in'_ controversy is'this IN Ph '/N N N
L:
M.
,M
l 24 o
,1
..c : y e, Tb' I
particular point.
I MR. GOLLER:
The issue could be decided by 1
2 legislation --
I MR. BICKWIT:
Although I assume some would i
I I
argue that fou'd still have a constitutional problem t
6 with respect to that legislation.
The legislation j
i i
can't cure a due process problem.
i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right.
Now if -- when you i
~
I.
=
say it could be decided by legislation is the implication 10 that if the Senate view prevails that you would basically i
i-conclude it has been decided whereas if the House view i
prevails what would be your conclusion?
MR. COLLER:
I think that would be a serious i
I' i
legal question whether these commentors are not correct.
Il MR. BICKWIT:
I seriously disagree with that.
CHAIRFJsN AHEARNE:
Yeah, I think you have to really draw a distinction.
My concern about quoting i
IS i
those -- I think much of the comments were raised i
certainly in many of the forms with respect to the House g
action were focused upon a certain set of amendments j
g which were really viewed as a moratorium set of amendments.'
I think you have to think carefully about what the
- 4 conclusion is tied'into that --
i
~
U i
MR. COLLER:
Ue do'have an interim conclusion I@e PM64 Y N P4 Is-6 !%
\\)
osaz sc.
I l
an indicated on the slido.
OGC has performed a preli:uinary ascuasment of the basic underlying legal issues and i
~
concluded that :;nC's proposed regulations are proper.
CIIAIRMAN A!! CARNE:
That was one of the issues t
discussed I thought back before we went out and you had l
}
reached that conclusion.
l M R'.
BICKUIT:
That's right.
As examples, the 1
l FAA doesn't allow the siting of an airport in an area s
wharo there isn't an approved state or local plan with 10 respcct to safety that it considers to be adequate.
ii j
'j CI! AIRMAN A!!EARNE:
I guess the question would be c
j does the FAA remove the authorization for an airport?
O MR. BICKNIT:
That is ny understanding.
Further
!.t with respect to third party vetoes within our own sphere, 13 if a public utility commission were to make things
!4 difficult for a utility so that we could no: find the financial qualifications were adequate.
We would in i
essence be taking action against the licensee based on scme activity of the state over which that licensco would have no control.
1 MR. CORNELL:
I think aside from the legal t
queotion the coint we're trying to make in that this issuo
~
4 of the tie betweed the concurrence and the ability of the 3
operation of a plant is a question that's being eddressed 12 M h 4P OBA4 / W P
c o
usac nc.
?C Congresa and we could be preempted, whichever way we want I
to go depanding on how that legislation comes out.
CHAIRMA!! AHEARNS:
Well preempted, supported, i
modified.
t 3
MR. GOLLER:
!!ay I have the next s lide ?
We l
received a great many comments directly and indirectly on this next issue, the FEMA /NRC relationship which we have f
1~
had some discussion on already this morning.
To a great extent these comments imre the result of timing in that to this relationship had not been worked out when the proposed-1 1:
I j
rule was published.
But it has, at least to a much greater c: stent been developed now.
He now have a memoran-dum of understanding and we have jointly developed criteria u
for state and local plans and have issued these in a form 11 of a joint NRC NUREG and FEMA document for public comment.
id Of the two alternatives --
9 i
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Wait, Karl, could I ask a 18 1
couple of questions on the comments?
The commentors
,9 i
who refer to your second point, a redundant review, were
,0 i
they under the impression that FE!!A and NRC would do i
- 1 duplicative reviews?
MR. COLLER:
Yas, I think they were and perhaps
- 4 justifiably so at the time.
CHAlff;'ll AME.uRNE:
I see, okay.
FEMA veto and i
E D Of @.h 4
i[$
s c.c a
o
'ijj
\\
ai naz na l
licensing were those both for and against or mostly on one side.
2 MR. G)LLER:
Well there was a concern as to a
whether that coald be the case or not.
There were comments, 3
yes, for and against that that should be the case.
There I
were others that said that should not be possible.
7 Cl!A' IDMAN AIIEARNE:
Okay.
3 MR. COLLER:
Of the alternatives indicated a 7
prenent staff thinking is that by providing greater 10 I
definition of the relationship in the final rule and 11 l
nse,cciated supplemental information to the rule definition l
which would follow the menorandum of understanding and division of responsibility that have been worked out, that l4 this should be responsive to these comments and resolve it this problem.
I4 CIIAIR".AN Af!EARNE:
Do you -- let me pass it 17 over to Brian ir. his co-chairman role.
Do you think that I
we are getting to the stage where at least between FEMA and NRC there's a possibility or probability of working out a clear understanding of the relationship?
MR. GRIMES:
The MOU did describe a process whien could, we believe, work and avoid duplication.
I
- 4 think we.need some~ actual pilot cases.
f Cl! AIR"?,N AHPARNE:
Of course, the MOU expires.
3 W
A @ebY W PU kNM !N l
D\\ gp w
_\\
D\\;.% {b \\\\ { lh f
f iSL
, cD
.l g 6v.
\\a @
28 i
g ac: s c.
In Septe:2;cr, yes.
I think befor' that time we'11 have rm/iews frcm FEMn on particularly l
the full power licensed cases for the new OL's.
Hopefully 2
some other plants as well.
W2'll find out if that is a I
viable procedure.
It should be, it will depend on the extent FEMA's abic to out resources on the oroblem.
i CI! AIRMAN A!!EARNZ:
What is the status of.c.y I
possible legislation that '.;ould give FEMA the legislative authority?
- 0 MR. BICI WIT:
I don't believe that's being I
j i,
concidered in the conference.
I know of no serious effort
.i underway, although the Senato Nuclear Regula; ion Subcommittee asked this Commission just two days ago 14 l
for some suggestions along those lines --
I
- S CHAIRMAN Id!EARME:
Which I presume we will
!J draft.
17 8
MR. BICKWIT:
-- which we'll be happy to draft.
18 i
t MR. COLLER:
In summary then the staff's think-gg I
ind is that the final rule would be based on c.nd the 6
supplemental information would explain that FZMA would
,1 4
make findings and determinations relative to the offsite l
~
preparedness and NRC would make a final determination of the overall state cf emergency preparedness.
4 CHAIRMAN AIIEARNE:
As well as the onsite.
I e
iettye=a ec a6 Vtotarse A =3efEPs !*C t
t-
X Ib
(
0 h
U 20 c
s
=ac 9c.
e I
MR. GOLLER:
Yes.
So that would include oncite and offsite an overall determinaticn and it's acceptability.
CIIAIPJIAti Al!EldulE:
Of course, the question --
4 the phrases sound fine.
I sure what the commentors will 3
be looking for is an explanation to what extent do we revisit the FEMA determination of the offsite and how do
~
t we incorporate that in that overall assessment.
I would 3*
think that's what has to be made clear.
9 MR. GOLLER:
I'm sure -- 1 think that perhaps 10 the m0st direct approach to that will be what is actually being done today in the ongoing reviews for operating i
plants in which we will have demonstrated what our intent 1
is in that regard.
I might add have used that as a
- 4 workshop to develop what that procedure and relationship 12 should best be.
4 CIIAIRMAN AIIEARNE:
Then you would expect to than summarize and describe that and put that into the rule ?
MR. GOLLER:
Yes.
If I could have the next 19 slide, please?
Many comments were also recieved on the
,0 Tapc 2 MRC FEMA criteria to be used in determining adequacy of state and local plans.
Many of these comments such as the criteria not being availabic at the time the proposed rule 4
was i ssued and no oppo.: : nit /, therefore, for review were valid at the time.
I i
i _.n..
w...~,, d.
I
i b'
\\
30 asaz.se
@ c,5 {D
'h i
~ $3 l,
C!O.IRMAN AHEARNE:
They went out in January?
MR. GOLLER:
The criteria went out in Januar'.
t That followed the publication of the rule for comment and 4
actually folicwed the workshops by a short period of time.
i f
Although it was explained to the atendees at the workshops 6
that firstly the critoria were not going to La very dif-forent from the previous criteria that were available and l
what differences there were to be were explained, that a
did not stop these comments and probably properly so.
10 l
Cl! AIRMAN AHEARNE:
But did many of the written i
1 comments fccus upon the criteria since the criteria were cut for a while after and then the comments would come in after that?
- 4 i
MR. GOLLER:
Not in any great ificity, only 11 I
in general.
Comments are coming in on the criteria 14 document itself.
As was previously mentioned, we very recently 13 received a petition.
This was a third petition that was on the listing before to defer rulemaking until these
,0 criteria could be reconsidered.
Aside fron considering
.i the comments on the critoria a major related issue is l
.hether the criteria should be set forth in the rule or j
- 4 not.
Coq =ents were recaiced in this regard and in general l
I think the majority of them were in favor of indicating n
i i.m ac.o o r- %m i.c n
2
C
~~
1 the comments in the rule in someway.
CHAIRMAN AllEARNE:
All of the criteria?
That's a fairly substantial --
A MR. GOLLCR:
I don't think the comments was 1
3 specific on that point, but the present staff thinking s
would be that we should include a list of the planning objectives as set forth in the MUREG document in the rule.
j s*
These than would act forth in general what the objectivea 9
are, but not all of the detailed criteria.
These are, i
10 I believe, some 13 in number.
Whereas the sub parts i
ti l
to this or criteria are over a hundred in number.
At
~
l Icas: the present staff thinking is that these should no:
be repeated in the rule.
M l
Nov an alternative to this would be to
!J reference the document.
It would also be possibic to ia remain silent on that.
I think that, though, we would certainly welcome any guidance that we could get from i
ta the Commissioners on this point.
i 19 If I could have the next slide, please?
CIIIsIMIAN AHEARNE:
As I mentioned, two of them
.i aren't here who I'm sure would be very attenti/c if they i
l
'-te re.
l
- 4 MR. GOLLER
This next insue is really a special j
case of the criteria issue that we've just discussed.
l
'.,n, nc,... v c. - a-m : <
_na.~,.,
r
\\\\ h 3 -
,c t
y 32 9
nez c.
I f'
It's being-treated special because of the many comments I
that were roccived on it and because it is one of the most 2
controversial issues in the rulemaking.
This is the~15-1 1
minute notification requirement.
i e
t l
I'd like to remind the Commissioners that this --i 1
f i
CIIAIRMAM AllEARNE:
Someone refer me tc what 7
i I
~
i page in the rules so that I can -- this I realize has been I-3 l
a very --
g 1
9 l
MR. JAMGOCHIRN:
Ilere it is here on the Federal
{
i 10 j
Register.
l 11 MR. GOLLER:
It is a footnote in the rule on
~
4 1:
I i
this page -- it's on the top.
i i
1 MR. JAMGOCHIRN:
Right on the bottom, first l
is 4
column.
.i j
MR. GOLLER:
Again to try to tie this-j 14 together as much as possible, I'11 remind-you.that this.
1 was the point that we have a petition on'from a group 3
t representing some 17 utilities.
A petition to delete 19 this specific requirement from the rule and to have a-l 3
hearing on this point--the request is for a-hearing on thisj i
i point,.not on the rule.
i 2
't
( '
i l
If this requirement were included in the rule,
[-
- 4 then I personally, at Jenst; vould-think that i't-is'
- 5 reascnable to incorpre; their petition as requesting'a I
fmfussener cm '4suseah asemingiseg M -
l.
' es sIIwfee CAN N. E o ht?T ?9?
V o
33 nas uc.
.j i
hearing on that point and thereby extending to the rule 2.
itself.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could you remind us what 2
the precisc 15-minute notification requirement is?
I MR. GOLLER:
Well the 15-minute notification as 6
it was set forth in the proposed rule was a footnote.
It
~
read.that it'is expected that the capability would be 3
+
provided to essentially complete alerting of the public 7
within the plume exposure pathway, that is the EPZ, within j 10 15 minutes of the notification by the licencee of local 11 l
and state officials.
Now there is some misunderstanding cf this requirement.
It was during the period that this f
rule had been published for conment and that the workshops I'
I were going on that the Chairman was developing some is further explanation of the intent.
If this requirement is is included in the final rule, then the staff's thinking 17 i
is that this should be clarified in that actually two 15-minute periods are envisianed as indicated on the slide.i 19 The first 15 minutes applying;to a licensee,
,.0 t'
g whereby he would have to have the capability to notify j
state and local government agencies within 15 minutes af ter!
The'has decided and declared an emergency.
Then.a second~
n 4
15-minute. period whereby a capability would have to
[
- 3 exist:for state and-local governments.to' essentially'
~
f
~~
mor
- m. % sc i.
I
)\\
y i
complete notification of the public vithin this second 15-minute period.
i I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is ccmplete a
notification of the public?
MR. GOLLER:
Well it is understood and statements' a
have been made both at the workshops and in other times that staf f acknowledges that it's not possible to notify 100 percent of the population, but the intent ic that
,~
an effort be made to notify essentially all of the peopic 10 within the EPC area.
It COMMISSIONER GILIMSKY:
Would notices on the l
tadio satisfy that?
f MR. GOLLER:
I think the most common resolution
'a in mind is the siren system cr some other alerting 15 system which would have been understood or it's relation id would have been com:aunicated to the public in advance le that this would be a messaae for them to tune in certain n
radio stations and get further guidance on what to do.
I
,,sr The 15-minute paried would require having i
given people that message to turn on their radios or to g
take whatever steps they would have been advised to take in advance.
Sirens nre
'.c rest common thinking.
You l
- 4 j
want to add something to tha' Drian?
I i
u i
COMMISSIONER GII.INSKY:
Are sirens in place now l
(%%O f @Ob 9 EY
[
QNc
n 'i\\
p_ r, pfj
'k d e '
"CZ: " c-3 i.
- f. -
h\\
or are you talking about a new system -- a new dedicated 2
system.
MR. GRIMES:
There are a limited number of b
2 civil defense type sirens in place, but we're primarily f
looking at a new capability.
6 COMMISSIOMER GILINSKY:
Covering a ten mile radius?
i 3
MR. GRIMES:
Covering the population within a ten mile radius.
Surveys have been done with both 13 sirens systems and with tone alert systems similar to it that used for tornado alert in midwest homes which is essentially an alarm unit set off by a radic signal.
CliAIRMAN AIIEARNE:
Those are on telephones cr 11 radios?
11 MR. GRIMES:
No.
They're independent of the 14 telephone system.
Then there's another system which 17 is being looked at which would be activated by pulsing i
t t
a pulse signal through the telephone.
i 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask you, what
,0 is the experience in other sorts of accidents, for example,'
chlorine tanks that are leaking or railroad accidents involving such tanks, how is notification generated?
4 j
MR. CRIMES:
Generally door-to-dcor operation a
as i has been or as it is right now.
. vv
.n
. %n- =m.m i c j
9 I
[
.a,q0 " *
~
\\
36 l
d-c,(
U maa ec.
..,r.
?
V g
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Ly the police, firemen?
MR. GRI!C::
Yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
liow long does that take?
4 MR. GRIMES:
Well it varies with the size of i
the area.
For a significant size community it could be l
1 t.wo to three hours to go door-to-door.
l COIGIISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do you know how long
{
1 it took up in Canada when they had that large evacuation?
l i
f MR. GRIMES:
They did it in stages.
I don't l
l know what the notification portion of that was.
I t
ti i
i l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think it was about six
~
hours.
l
?!R. GRIMES:
I think the notification and i
- 4 i
A movement of the large portion of the population was done 1,5 in about six hours, but I don't know what the notification 4
!d i
portion was.
We have asked for evacuation time estimates
's
i and received them on almost all operating plants.
l 18
}
CHAIRMAN AliEARNE:
But that's the licensee i
17 I
estimate?
00 I
MR. GRIMES:
Yes. Licensee estimates, but reviewed and commented on by state and local officials.
COteISSIONER BRADFORD:
When you ask for an 1
estimate like that, Brian, do you ask for a hundred 3
I l
percent evacuation?
What do you define as being what 3
te re ayo.ur.=m - in
.o 3 0 g y' ' \\
\\ UI
" " * " C' k
they should have to do?
t l
l MR. GRIMES:
In the estimates we've asked for the various sectors to be looked at not smaller than 4
90 degrees.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
A hundred percent 5
evacuated?
i MR. GRIMES:
In thosc sectors, yes, and divided i
3 between general population and institutions also.
l' i
9 MR. COLLER:
But not in 15 minutes.
'O I
MR. GRIMES:
This is notification --
- T l
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Just notifying.
I:
MR. GRIMES:
-- was the initial discussion point.!
On evacuation time estimates the time to notify now l
I4 turns out to be comparable to the travel time.
In other 12 words, a typical situation might take two hours to notify id people and two hours travel time to move people.
By j
17 having some kind of a notification system one can cut i
that reaction time in half essentiallv.
l 17
)
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Incidentally, what
,0 provision is made for people who don't have their own
.)
transportation or their own cars?
i MR. GRIMES:
Well that requires some specific 3
attention in each of tho emergency plans for schools there maybe arrangernts for school buses.
i ec 6 n~, -.- <
geottT% % C. fl O. M O2
I 38 I
l D{
j e
n cz
.c.
)
I i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What about just for I
peoplc in residential areas?
}
MR. GRIMES:
For handicap people it requires I
l a list of handicap individuals, probably a provision for l
4 1
I people to register if they would desire --
f l.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What about people just i
~
living in cities and not having a car?
i 4
3 MR. GRIMES:
We don't have that problem to a j
l 1'
i great degree around the nuclear plants, but where that is 10 4'
true you have a predesignated point at which proper 11 transportation would be available.
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is that dealt with in
{
1*
present plans?
i 14
(
MR. GRIMES:
Yes, it must be depending on the l
13 i
local situation.
It's usually not a significant problem.
l 14 The.more significant problems are the institutions for 17 i
movement of individuals in nursing homes, this-kind of ta tning.
I M
i COMMISSIONER'GILINSKY:
I think-there would be 3
20 a fair-number of elderly persons without cars living say a small town --
i t
4 (l
MR. GRIMES:
As I say the handicapped,.this type 5
of thing -- a typical situation would be a list of people- '.
- 4 i
.;(
in the community who required special attention.
y r
39 g 6,g h+O a
c act
.c.
t MR. COT,LER:
Commissioner Gilinsky, this is a very real problem.
I'd like to mention that it was one f
that was pointed out by a great many of the commentors i
2 representing the general public, individuals, public f
interest groups and so on at the workshops.
In some 6
cases in great detail.
There are a great many special i
I cases, but those have to be considered in the plans l
3 that arc to be developed to provide for these.
i COMMISSIONER GILINSIY:
My mother docan't to happen to live next to a plant, but she doesn't have a car.,
i 11 l
t MR. GOLLER:
There were, I dare say, all possiblei problems of this nature were considered, including peopic that don't speak English, pecple that don't hear well,
'4 ihvalids and so on.
U CIIAIRMAN IdIEARNE:
I;arl, when you have a to capability exists for state, local governments, et cetera, within another 15 minutes, does that make an automatic l
13 presumption that the state and local governmeats are not i
i 19 allowed to decide whether or not to continue the notifica-0 I
tion that they must automatically do it or is it that
,1 the capability exists for the state and local governments-once they have decided to do the notification that thef
~
mus be able to complete it within.15 minutes?
2 MR. GRIMES:
The intention was to have the 3
i.ro
.r e w ve..n norm i <-
~
i
,.,ot
'U) 0 i
'g
,.cc yc, facision proceso and notification process in that 15 minutes.
Most of the notification process is done by pressing a button so that it's a small fraction, but J
it was desired to not allow c long decision change.
f CHAIRMAN A!!EARNE :
Well I guess --
i MR. GRIIES:
For example, ssme plans have pre-I viously called for a long 10 or 12 calls before the I
authority for local officials to do something when they j
arrive.
We wanted a prearranged --
i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So tahat you're saying is that
.h to I
the capability should be there, but once they have l
i' I
I received the notification that at least it eculd be feasible for them to go through that?
I I4 i
l MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
II MR. GOLLER:
Not only to make the decision to
!4 i
do so, but to have done so.
?:v'll notice the requirement 17 would be to complete the notification within the 15-minute 13 period.
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now, if we were to make that 20 decision?
1 MR. GOLLER:
Yes.
MR. CRIMES:
But it's always their decision to i
i make.
4 th't's what I was --
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
- Yeah, a
3 s
s i
w=a r:ce.. vc-s.t 4- !<
,nt
)O ID'
.; l a
\\
g t
nce sc.
=-
t i
.a :
We have fairly strong comments from tha u n tc id le-
_overnments that they have problems 1
vith t h.: 15-binute notification.
I was recently last week at an organizational advisory cor.,2aittee meeting 4
I which is a unit of state and local emergency preparedness people and there was a fairly good consensus that 8
-l system was desirable to notify.
But there were signifi-a i
3 cant problems with the specification of 15 minutes.
I
~
asked them to provide alternative wording that would assure a short decision change and a provision of a ti i
system to --
CIIAIPOIAN IJIEARNE:
Mh, I.las just wondering it is possible to interpret sometimes the words that we
- 4
]I use as that we do not intend to give the state and local if officials any opportunity to decide that it is not la app':opriate yet to push that buttcm.
Our approach is u
that once the site has declared the emergency then the v
ta i
state official is just a performer review.
That's not 11 what we're --
20 MR. GRIMES:
Well in very serious situations we would like prearranged predecisions to be made to the extent that we can answer rho final implencntctior c f I
4
]
that is always the state and loca l agency.
CllAIP11AN AIIEARNE:
That was my --
m es.s,umnr n m
9 naz
<c.
I'd like to highlight that there are really tNo inherent policy decisions involved under this question of heading.
One is the details whether 15 minutes is the I
a right time period, what's to be done in that 15 minutes 3
and by who, and so on.
But the second one is wnether it 5
includas this kind of specificity in the regulation or 4
I J
whether it might not be better to 1 cave that for the l
3 l
MUREG document where it could be revised or interpreted --
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well do vou intend to make i
~
the NUREG doctrine part of the rule?
8 I
MR. GOLLER:
That is essentially the second t'
question whether that s:wt ld be the case or not.
II i
CHAIRMAN AHEA.7.:E:
Where the time resides i
I
'4 l
doesn't seem to me to be as important as whether or not t
you decide that the time has to be parc of the rule.
If is you decide that it has to be part of the ruin, where you 17 put it doesn't make that much difference.
j 18 MR. GOLLER:
Yes.
But the first question in the !
9 one I speak to is whether the time period and the other 20 things that go along with it should be part of a rule.
j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right, as clearly one of the issues.
MR. GOLLER-The no::t slide, please.
Now a key 3
feature of the proposed rule was to make NRC concurrence.
3 I
- vt
.re. vc
.r
=
i c
O O
nc:
.c.
I want to emphasize that word, a condition of licensing and/or plant operation.
This concurrence concept provokes many comments.
The term concurrence was somewhat of a A
carry over from the previous NRC. voluntary system of l
emergency planning by statcq and local governments.
Also I
i 1
0 the recognition that NRC could not place requirements on i
state and lo' cal government.
l 3
The pres.2nt NRC/ FEMA relationship which we've a
discussed previously makes this term unnecessary and misleading.
Therefore, of the alternatives indicated 11 i
the staff's present thinking is that the term'should be i
deleted or not used in the final rule and instead to provide i3 for the fact that FEMA would conduct a review and make i4 general findings.
The NRC would make a finding of overall state of preparedness.
to If there are no questions on this we could move 17 1
onto the next issue.- The subject of local-veto ' power l
I3 i.
was discussed somewhat earlier.
There is no direct t
I 19 provision-for a veto power in the proposed rule.
But this 20 i
was a colloquialism-that was used by commentors for the i
,1 s
-concern that a non-cooperative state or local jurisdiction ;
could block licencing or ' operation of a plant by ' refusing to provide or implerant emergenc3 t'.ans.
3_
CHAIRMAN AHEARelE:
Now.what are.the. announcements.
i m.n
..ve
%-=re.y
i 44 c
0 j
nec sc.
of intent to do this that you refer to?
l 1R. GOLLER:
There was at least one newspaper article relative to the Marble Hill plant, wherein the 1
2 government officials in a adjacent county indicated their intent to do this and to do it for that purpose to 6
block operation of that facility.
I think, at least as indicated in the article, the one remaining thing tor e
i 4
those officials to go ahead with that plan was to get a positive support -- indication of support from the citizenr'q in that county.
The indications as presented in the i!
I i
article were that they would probably get tl.a t.
l My impression that. ' :.c re was a similar unof ficial but, nevertheless, possibility or threat theroof relative
- 4 to the Shorham (phonetically spelled) plant in Iong if Island.
Of the alternatives indicated --
id MR. GRIMCS:
Karl, I would like to also comment
!7 i
on this point with respect to operating plants.
So far l
1a it's been our experience that for existing plants the 19 state and local authorities have been cooperative and where local authorities have raised problems of this nature to which it has been principally with regard to funding.
a l
Once funding arrar.jemant.4.re made the cooperation is there.
Howevnr, the - s e en. 3 Lo to a comewhar dif ferent 4
l problem for plants not yet underway.
e i.m.. ec. w
- e. mwn.,. u
~.-
4 I
U 45
-o g
eacz.nc.
l
[
'I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In your public meetings, Karl, you went to all four is that correct?
,f MR. GOLLER:
Yes, sir.
i A
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Did you detect from the state and local officials there this kind of.an intent or s
J 6
were they more concerned about what F;nds of emergency i
i plans ought 'they develop,and how ought they to be funded, I
and how ought they to go about this 15-minute notification [
l i
et cetera?
j i
10 MR. COLLER:
Well my personal recollection is i
11 i
.that there was no representative of local governments i
10 that made that threat.
However, there ware a considerable i
j number of them that raised this possibility and a real i
-14 concern about it,. action coming to pass.
I 12 i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Isn't it up to the state f.
-to deal with this situation?
i 17 MR. GOLLER:
I think also many of them raised I
18 l
I i
the point that although it-wouldn't bc done with this i
i 19 intent that it could come to pass because of conditions i
j
- 0 E
that:they might not have any control over.
l
,1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Isn't it up to the state.
to deal with this situation'that we are -- make sure-o 4
there.is some other wayfto-protect the p,ublic.if certain
.:3 local of ficials _ decide not1to carry. out their u,,m
,- w ie m. e, n m x
E e.
L{
.I b
4 h
O O( h 46 sace sc.
i i
i responsibilities or they' don't.
If there's not a plan-I then you can' t have the plant there.
[
2-MR. GOLLER:
Well that could be, but the,
l
-t e
l' Commission could~ find itself in the situation that thel plant' 4
1 i
{
3 is ready'to operate.
There is a town or a county in the-t 4
area which has refused.to cooperate and the state has E
i 7
been unsucco'ssful in providing any compensatory measures j
I it's difficult to envision what those compensatory measures j
might even be.
If it were a jurisdiction of any size.
l l
to i
Then.the Commission would be faced with the question of j
it
'I whether sufficient compensatory measures exists as to whether the plant should be licensed and should operate
-i 0.
or not, j
1s t
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well'you've assumed
}
II
~
that the state is not able to compensate for any. fail'ure j-14 i
on the part of some locality to plan and prepare.
In I
i 17 l
- r that case we've'said in this statement that we believe l
l 13 I
j that. people of the outside has got to be protected or:
-i 19
.i i
else plants can't operate.
j i~
20 l
MR. GOLLER:
Well that brings us to the alterna- [
l
' Il l
tives, but they're indicated on~the slide._ There are
~
great many-variations and permutations possible.
The'
!l' staff believes that it would be: desirable for the Commis-
.4-3 sion to declare itself in advance what'it would.doLin I
i
..'?"~*' " "*"'!, " " !?,
h(
~0
\\D naz
<c.
~ n 9
i that eventuality.
This could be that as you've suggestcd,
~
Commissioner Gilinsky, that'we will not issue an OL if 2
that should happen or that we will issue if compensating i
i 2
measures can be provided.
I I
Another possibility that has been suggested by l
5 some at least is that we would issue -- we would declare 8
5 t
I in advance t' hat the NRC would do all in it's power'to l
l 9
publish the situation, explaining ~the situation to the f-3 citizenry in that jurisdiction with the intent that f
4 10 public pressure would be brought to bear to require their I
i 11 e
i local representatives to protect them and to provide t'
i i
se t
i-the emergency planning that would be appropriate.
i -
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Karl, I thought the current I
i 14 rule, though, as you say the current language allows M
i if the deficiencies aren't significant or.their alternative; j
g i
compensating actions that gives the. provision and.the e
l-Commission could allow the plant to operate, but-it
.l.
is e
r-l l
does take the stand that we believe, as we've-said, that i
~
19 emergency plans are part of the' essential feature required for the' safe operation of the~ plant. ~That seems 'to be l
~
,1 the fundamental thrust of the-rule'..
j MR. GOLLER:
That is absolutely-~ correct.
I i
^
3
. COMMISSION 82.GILINSKY:
Well L was commenting I
a;
' on your cace that you were laying _out where there.was.not.
IN N"*6 '# N."k E.-
I'*C
I
'?'
\\
[\\g.h\\
g
]
.; g
,2 t 3~ 'ya) g-b nca: s c.
\\.
l an adequate plen You said that the state eas not able to compensate for the deficiencies that we:c in local f
2 planning.
In that case, there's not an adequate plant
}
A and the public is not protected and the facility can't operate.
If there are compensating measures and overall f
5 5
we've decided that the public is adequately protected by virtue of emergency planning that's taking place 3
at whatever level, then it would pass and would be i
I acceptable.
I MR. GRIMES:
There also may be a difference II comething that could be distinguished between an inherent f
capability of a ccmmunity to respond and a written i
4 agreement that they would cooperate in a particular d
14 situation.
In other words, the capability to respond --
IJ COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You're saying even if 16 they say they won't they probably will?
i 17 i
MR. GRIMES:
Well one can take recognition la i'
that there are extensive police forces in a particular i
thereisadifficultyinsomecasesingetting; place.
But
,0 absolute written agreements to do so and whether that
,1 would fulfill the intent of the capability without an t
expressed written agreefaent,.I don't know.
3 t
Cl! AIRMAN MMARNE:
Kevin?
4 j
l MR. CORNELL:
As I recall there's one section I
i-. m.
n.
o 4
\\
g-pR
"\\
~
asaz nc.
s, of the rule says that if -- has a number of options the Commianion has.
If they can require compensating measures.
There's also language which talks about other compelling a
reasons for granting a license.
In my own mind, though 3
I was not at these workshops, is some question as to what l
i is the intent of including the language other compelling reasons.
It'seems to me that could be construed to say i
3 if we determine the need for power was great not withstand,
I ing deficiencies in emergency planning that Commission i
would let the reactor relicensed or continued to operate.
l 11 I-guess in my own mind there's some question as l
- I to what the thrust of that part.icular --
i l'
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Where is that in the I4 statement?
11 MR. COLLER:
The other compelling reasons is
!4 part of the alternatives A and B in each case.
In the I7 early part of the rule referring to the requirement for it i
I concurrence -- NRC concurrence for a licensa to be incued 19 or a plant to operate.
20 MR. DICKWIT:
It's on page 75168, the third
,I column.
MR. GOLLER:- It appears in several places, that t
is cru.
7, MR. BICKWIT:
About a Lhird or half way down.
l s n. ec
.s y t~ e. anrm e e
df i 3 }D
.G9 k$
50'
'I 4
3 by 74C2 NC.
i 9
I MR. GRIMES:
There's also one other compensatory l
measure which was not originally considered, at least in 2
my mind as a compensatory measure.
That would be an 1
extraordinary design' feature such as the filtered vent containment which might reduce the distance, for example, 5
on the particular case for which plants must be made.
k We'll have t'o think that through, but --
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I' guess it was put in-I
~
- l to take account of things we hadn't thought of.
i MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
I think our office f
suggested it for that reason.
MR. GOLLER:
I think thcre's somewhat of a I'
philosophical question at thic' point. Whethcr the l
- 4 Commission wants to send the message in the wording of
[
'I
- this rule that the acceptance of compensatory measures ~
g of compelling. reasons is going to be a very unusual i
situation or whether it'is so inclinedito do that.
I
~
u.
?
think.a-message can be sent in this rule as it is worded.
I?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The resistant te n 20
-t message I think I understand what you mean..
I think we-L
,1 should.make it absolutely clear that'we'mean what'we say f
about emergency planning.
Conceivab1yfa's you put it, 4
if there's seme.e::traordinary circumstances. we might' consider operation,[but I wouldn't want to put it. under
. im. e 6 vgm. =-j c
C Q
h 4
0 b
bI
- AGE NC.
D I
the table message that we don't really mean what we say I
hero.
Furthermore, it seems to me that either the Congress,
2 or the_ state legislature has the power if it seems i'
4 necessary to. require the preparation of emergency plans l
l around sites and then local officials who don't prepare-5 plans would be subject to whatever sanctions that statutory l 7
j provision carries with it.
We don't have that power.
But 3
i in fact, this becomes a serious problem I there are at least two jurisdictions that do.
I think, in fact, the state i
10 l'
or the Federal Government feel that this is a problem 11
]
that it shouldn't stand in the way of giving plants.
l 1
There are ample measures to deal with.
I:
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I can't see us getting hung-
- 4 up on that.
I thought we made it very clear when we put-out the proposed rule.
We're very serious about this and I dcn't see there's an issue.
f-MR. BICKWIT:
I'd just like-to say one thing in response to that.
I think the state legislature j
3 g
does have that power.
I do not believe the Congress, i-21 has-that. power to compel a state to construct it's own-i cmcrgency plan.
20 CIIAIRMAN A!!EARNE:
But I guess fundamentally-
[
N I would still-como'out.-
But-it's up to the1 state,~if they 2-really' don't want to have the plan..
I 4
.l n
13 9
i O
s D
- AGE NC.
~
D h
i i
MR. GOLLER:
Well the' question was also raised 2
at the workshops in the context of a state -- an adjacent t
i state, possibly across the river which has no nuclear:
.j i
4 plants, which gets no benefit from this nuclear plant,.
I t-3 and we could lus uncooperative in this regard.
That was a specific comment.
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well it seems to me it's' l 3
up to the state in which the plant is sited to work I
something out with the adjacent state.
l 10 CHAIRMAN AIIEARNE:
It might have to be if rene 11 i
of the electricity is given across the state border, it t
i.
may be necessary for the state that is getting all of j
10
-l the electricity to make some sort of. alTangrent to 14 provide funding to the state across the border.
IJ l
MR. GOLLER:
I recall, for example,.that.at one is of the workshops where the representative from the State i
l7 8
of West Virginia pointed out that although he was.not l-18 suggesting that his state would do this that being a
.j coal producing state ' t might be in their best. interests.
i to'not have a nuclear power. plant across the river.
I
,1 I just want to'make-the point that this'was i
i a problem that was.soriously raised by'a great many commentors.
It[was certainly pointed: out 'that -it' was not I
3 d
entirely hypothetical, that the Commission could: find e-rm v
~ %w c
=.
69
'if a
1
'h 9
a O
'O 3
3 paGZ N C.
~).
23 itself with this situation before it in the future.
~
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But, it is certainly probably f
the most constant point brought up in any of the 4-
+
congressional hearings that we've had on that issue.
MR. GRIMES:
I'd like to add for the record with b
i respect to West Virginia that subsequent remarks show West Virginia was one of the most cooperative states j
3 in this regard.
F j
MR. GOLLER:
May I have the next slide then?
10 iTape 3 Initial comments in the workshop and to a less l
II i
I extent subsequent written comments were that the proposed rule requirement of implementation within 180 days or' i:
January 1, '81 is not reasonable.
However --
+
la CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What aspects of it?
Do they 15 focus s,pecifically on some aspects orfis it-just a blanket i
14 comment?
17 MR. GOLLER:
It:was made as a blanket comment;
?
however, I think it did come out in the discussion they' I
were most concerned,about the notification provisions, g
.y
.the mechanics of demonstrating. capability for notifying 4
- 7 particularly within 15 minutes, the procurement and installation
- of sirens and so on.
- 4 You.want to add 'anything to that, uMike?
~
3~
MR. JAMGOCHIRN: 'That's correct.
At the work-i.,o
. o..svs n % % %
-h t
g<
_u e<
l,
=
4o f
I' shops there was a great deal of complaining, a ' blanket i
complaint that we're rushing too quick and doing roo much j
i i
l too fast.
But as the people received more explanation-l j
l l
l 2
as to what the regulation talked to the specifics of the v
i regulation there wasn't thatmuchofaproblemwith'gettingl i
4-concurred in emergency plans.
Through the comments
{
t i
7 we've received in writ ing, they've-primarily focused 1
3 on the hardware problems, the installation problems of
.i 1
putting together the 15-minute notification requirement by i
i l'
- o January 1, 1981.
Almost unanimous or a great many people 4
said that this just can't be done.
It's physically n
impossible.
4 i
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But it's your sense that if i '
14 that portion of it were given a longer time that most of i'
i the concern about the date would go away?
f
!4 i
MR. JAMGOCHIRN: That's my opinion, yes, sir.
I, MR. GOLLER:
Most probably not all.
I think i
j
'a
?
the experience with the ongoing reviews for operating l
n plants which is a real experier.cc is that except for a few
- 0-r items and some of these are dependent.on local problems --
4 21 i
local or state legislative p.roblems that they are able to develop - the necessary plans with the e.iception of I
i the-notification system.
To that extent, present staff 3
thinking is 'that-we should stay with the schedule L set A
2 i
.~.
\\
=*cz sc. 55 O
O D h\\ l '
[
i forth, but provide addit' onal time only for certain j
requirements.
One example identified so far would.be that 2
notification requirement.
2 CHAIPMAN AHEARNE:
In a way that links with the i
other issue you raised, though, as to how explicit are' Li 5
e you and for what time in the rule.
For example, I I
I
^
imagine it l't.uas prompt notification or some loose phrase !
3 that much of the concern might go away because they would t
9 feel they wouldn't have to put in place any specific l
system.
11 MR. GOLLER:
That would help but --
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well I'm not sure help, but I':S f3 just saying that but that would be their conclusion.
'l 14 1
MR. GOLLER:
I'd like to ca11 attention to the
~
15 t
fact that this'is onc,f the' points that ?EMA raised, it's to I
concern of this implementation schedule and having i
17 everything in place to enable this kind of requirement I
!s l
by January 1,'of next~ year.
I i
i 19 The next slide.
Throughout-the workshop ~s and'in r
,1 many of the comment letters a basic concern' expressed was
..who is
_ag'to pay for the-implementation of this
~
regula. ion?
Again experience with the ongoing reviews 4
y of operating plants is that the resources are somehow=
l made available generally from the licensees in one ^ form i
. ~,
w._,-
a I
~.
- *cc sc.
l
,4 l
or another, either as a tax by the local jurisdiction or i
l in some cases as a gift, I guess is the word from the 2
licensees.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In the cases where the i
I local jurisdictions are receiving utility tax is there i
any sense on the local jurisdictions that part of that 1
I ta:: money ought to be used to develop those emergency i
1 plans or have they already earmarked the taxes for so f
a many other purposes in their budgets?
They look at it 10 l
as there's no money available.
i t'
MR. GOLLER:
I think 'a ;. m could respond to that l better than I.
I suspect ti, ns.;er is that you've got a complete spectrum of situations.
l U
MR. GRIMES:
There is a spectrum, I haven't i3 really looked into that particular point.
I get the 14 feeling that it's difficult to earmark funds which were
- 7 previously planned for some other purpose to divert i
those funds.
+
I?
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Has any state utility
,0 commission taken a position on whether or not this kind of funding can be put into a rate base?
MR. GRIMES:
I don't know of any specific 3
4 cases.
We've heard general concerns that it might be 2-a problem, but I haven ' t heard of any specific case
'.ro.no. mo r~ ar-vm x O
W-
f i
N
=
M na:
c.
t where the rate has been denied for this purpose.
We have for one plant in particular which has indicated they do-t l
not want to go forward at all with the accruing'their 4
plans until their rule is final.
It may be that'this is' f
i
)'
3 part of their rationale.
I i
t i
CHAIR!AN AHEARNE:
Peter, do you know of.any j
utility comm'ission rulings that would either say this 3
_1 kind of thing could go to be charged to the rate fares
)
3 7
or cauld not?
10 i
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
Intuitively it j
11 I
seems to me that most states would allow it, that is I
g:
o i
consLderable lea'd way is always given to management l
I:
judgement as to what is necessary.
The criteria for-14 disallowing an expenr3e somehow has to go beyond what i
II prudent management would have done.
If it's essential 16 to have an emergency plan it's pretty hard to argue l
g-e.
that prudent management to support it.
)
13 i
I MR. GOLLER:-
You'll. note again'that this is one
]
-19 c
of the problem areas that were identified by FEMA ~ in
- o l-their comments and ' for that reason and also because this -
21 1
- is really in FEMA's area ~of responsibility, we-' intend.to i
. discuss this with them when1we meet with them next week.
Hext slide.
You'll recall that-three pairs 3-of alternatives which'were designated A and B were t====.
=v
58 I
s O
nas sc.
1 included in the proposed rule at the Commiusion'sLrequest.
2 Or actually several pairs of alternatives, but the first i
i three related to the effect of inadequate state and local.
I 4
plans.
Alternative A basically required a Commission-I I
f decision whether to shut down.
Alternative B required j
I automatic shutdown unless the Commission granted an 2
I 2
exemption.
I 3
i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Another way of saying it is 3
that Alternative B required Commission decision to stay 10 up.
1:
MR. GOLLER:
I guess that would be another way f.
that it could be interpreted.
I'm not sure that's le i
completely true in all cases, but the difference'is
-- [
i u
~
basically whether the Commission would have to t'ake an-II l
Overt action for the' plant to shut down or to continue i
M I
operation or not to shut down.
17 On the comments received on this point, it's 13 generally true that the states and local governments and 19 the licensees almost all favor Alternative A and so state.
- 0 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
There are some that favoro
'I i
Alternative B?
Or is that almost all just a hedge:
l
.becauso you aren't sure?-
-f MR.:GOLLER:
I think it's a. hedge.
If there 3
were:any at all it'.would lxt very few and it vould not
'I 4
-l @ fh4 N"8 r
n, -e i g-m
!N
h' p@
g g
s a cz
.c.
39 e
+
)
i.
I 4.
4 be a straightforward recommendation.
It might ce i
f I
caveat.
- (
i I
MR. JAMGOCHIRN:
There are a few county
+
}
I a
governments that again many state level governmut_.
{
i
~!
3 focused on.the word shutdown.
Some of the county people
- did like immediate shutdown.
As I recall, a few did I
~
but almost all of them.
f like Alternative B, j
3 I
l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Brian, were you about to say you recall the utility that.liked Alternative S?
10 MR. CRIMES:
I'm quite sure there were no 11 utilities.
I don't think -- I'm equally much sure' I
there were no states that -- I want to go on to sayLthat I
the reverse is also true with few exceptions.
- Again, la there were a few.
In this case'I know there were.
i II Almost all of the general public or public interest. groups l 14 favered Alternative B.
l i
L i
t
. CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now you qualified that or l-j 18 i
i added to it, you said general public and public interest
~
i 19 t
t s
J,
. groups.
In your comments can you just briefly say on this f I
large stack of comments, do you'have a sense of>the j
,1 distribution of government-official or state or local r
guess you are splitting 3
govenrmnt licensees, and A i
4 a ' characterization public interest-groups, general 1 public ?'
i 2
- Do you haveza rough idea of how those; percentages would i.,,
, v
=-m i<
t
[
h 60 o
u s
ucz.yc 3
n 9 \\T ngD Q %' A
)
0 t
i fal'?
l MR. JA'4CDCHIRN: A third of licensees, a third j-1 t
of state and local governments, and a third of a public.
f.;
f 4
Now that's simply a number count.
It's sort of not 7
3 very fair.
You look at a licensees or a legal firms t
6 comments ab 30 pages thick where many public commentors l
l 7
was simply a postcard 'we-hate you' or you know, very-3 j
straightforward type of a comment.
j
+
MR. GOLLER:
I want to counteract that.-
On e
.a the other hand some of the comment for some of the public
'}
jl 11 woro very colorful and maybe it was a sign of --
3 CHAIBMAN AHEARNE:
It is pr:etty. Colorful.
{
i j.
j MR. GOLLER:
Well on the other hand, a sign I4 of the times perhaps Valentine's Day we received'several l
12 i
in the form of hearts and the heart shapes and poetry I4 related to Valentinos Day.-
i II I
' COMMISSIONER GILINSKYi Ardent readers of the l
Federal Register.
i 19 l-CIIAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But it'is one-third the
- 3 i
general public, Mike,.could~you separate-it between j
publ interest, groups and individuals?.
I..
I
~
f MR..JAMGCCHIRN:
I~really didn't-focus cn that
'dif ferentiation. -
4-m MR. GOLLER:.But also iffyo want'to.get a-feel.
.3' g
1 I.s legu_se.am Vepent'es Menomm 14.
a b
':d gifd h,. 'b h
01 9
~
. ca sc, 1
(o t
g e.g~ ~.2 u
ff&)iu r
g d
for the kind of comments and where they were ccming from, it's also true that the two-thirds from licensees and states and local governments tended to be much more
]
focused on the rulemaking and on the issues at hand.
A 4
3 large fraction of the comments, both at the workshops and i
even those that came in writing from the other third from the public a't large, individuals, public interest groups I
and so on, many thnes are only very peripherally related i
to the rulemaking issues in some cases but not in all.
10 In some cases as Mike has already said general to the i'
i
.j point of
'I'm against nuclear power, all nuclear plants should be shut down' and that's the extent of the connection.
I I4 i
MR. GRIMES:
I would say, though, I have not T1 had a chance to look at thase, but we have been getting
- 6 similar comments on the IUREG documants 0610 and 0654.
17 There are a few comments from the general public is which reflect the fact that they have actually read the
!?
documents and have constructive type ccaments.
MR. GOLLER:
If there's no fin =her discussion 21 on these first three pairc of alternatives which were generally always takun as a group, I might add thr.t in many cases they were taken as the only pair of alternatives.
2 That was referred to an a single pair of alternatives or i
m i.vr.-.rc ~ v - r a - e i c
I 62 f
e
)
naca: y e.
- W A and B.
There /as some misunderstanding on that.
The t orkshops and the comraents amongst ourselves.
There were other alternatives you recall.
Now another two pairs of alternatives in the proposed rule were whether to require 4
I licensees to provide protective measures -- if I could 5
have the next slide -- to provide protective measures to prevent damage to onsite and offsite property.
The two i~
pairs of alternatives related to this requirement for 9
the information to be submitted by licensees for the PSAR 13 and the FSAR.
There are two only because of that.
I I
l I'd like to note that the present Appendix E in our current regulations does include the requirement for measures to prevent 6 mage to property.
It does not specify, however, onsite and offsite property.
It 11 has always been interpreted and accepted by the staff
- 4 to mean only onsite property.
t g
The present regulation in this regard is not i
clear as to what the intent is.
The present rulemaking i9 would clarify this; however, although very few comments i,
were received on this particular pair.
Those that were j
received generally from licensees support Alternative B which would delete the reference to property.
The 4
primary reason indicated was that the intent is not clear what the rulemaking intends that licensees do to t e. c. ve o e.- m %
\\
(
\\
M' nce ec.
9 --
3 t -
i 1
protect either onsite or of f site property.
Itlso they feel that this is sonawhat open ended and could lead to requirements that go even beyond radiological protection 4
of offsite property.
If there's no further discussion 3
on this point then I'd like to move on to the next slide.
1 6
Another pair of alternatives and the last of 7
the seven alternatives concern the requirement or frequency 3
of exercises.
This Alternative A would require participa-tion uith Federal Governments, then exercise every three I
Alternatis;e b would require that participation years.
I?
evcry five years.
Although comments were received from the public, not a great many but some, an important consideration on this is that the NRC staff itself
'4 primarily Office of Inspection Enforcement has noted 12 that a rcquirement for exercise every three years involving
!.6 NRC and other Federal agencies because of the large number 17 of facilities would mean their participation in such 18 an exercise on a very frequent scale and; therefore, 19 the dedication of facilities and persennel involved in 20 this on how something that would almost approach a con-
,1 4
tinual of --
t CilAIRMAU A!iEARNE:
Now, of ccurse, if they were done on a regional basis though it would spread it somewhat.
MO f@eb NN4
u g
l
,Rh qQ \\
u a
,p s gy i
4 0
._s /r J-if-
-J sG2: N C.
arpgg4 8d o
MR. COLLER:
That would be one other option.
CilAIR:GU All;;AEU:
As you know, f or c:< ample,
~
on the URC's thinking we are moving more and more towards 5
the regional director being the individual to have a 4
i 3
major role in responding to energenciec, sending the i
l 6
regional director to the site, tran"arring the authority to the site when he gets there.
i I
!!R. GOLLER:
Yes, sir, thst would be cae i
I possible help.
I'm not sure we'd want to mcVe completely in that direction because if it were you would still
?
- 1 i
want some participation, sume trading for the --
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
l' Tat kind of comments shond t
'W we get from the stato and local governments?
- 4 l
MR. GOLLER:
Very few on this point, with the possible c::ceptica of a few of the states that themselves 4
have quito a fcw plants within their borders and they 17 would run up against the name problem within their rtates.
In the State of Illinois, for c:: ample, has quite a fcw
!?
P ants and their full participation in on annual drill l
l of this kind and that is the requirement hanua}
would require state participation rather frequently.
C!! AIRMAN AHCAEUC:
7.ny comments frcn any Federal agencies?
- 4 3
l MR. GOLLER:
I'n not aware of any, although --
!@APMak YMP kPM S% 'N
_y a
49+%'
$Ay 9+
%'*s
,M eE ev <e 1,em TEST TARGET (MT-3) l.0 SEB DM
'yEE s
I.I l 5 lillla
\\
~
pa l.25 1.4 1.6 h9 6"
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART
++A 4
h$+{V,%?//
- $6>$w f
w 07/
- c:. -g 5 3 <$p$
5;,:. n 7;g O.
/
f 4
.v..
s
..,g-L,,....--
a..:a ~ ia_ _. a L ' &n. -
~
9 i
N
't 3
i n cz ec.
g l
MR. GRIMES:
I think I recall a problem expressed I
by the Department of Energy, I'm not sure if it was in these particular comments that they would --
I A
MR. GOLLER:
I'm not sure that they expressed I
it, but they would be one of the other Federal agencies 5
that would find itsel'f with the same problem the NRC I
Thou'h at least for the present the staff thinking l would.
g 1
.is that this requirement should be relaxed to the_fi.ve 3
l year Alternative B.
to I want to note that there would still be an j
i 11 annual exercise on the part of every licensee or everv
,l t
j plant with participation by state and locals with possibly i i.
some exceptions as we previously indicated.
j I
I4
. This May I have the nent to the last slide.
12 is a point that we just wanted to make the Commission ;
l4 aware of.
A comment-is apparently to be submitted by the
.i 17 l
Atomic Industrial Forum that the staff's --
i 18 li CIIAIRMAN AIIEARNE:
Time of period'has expired.
19 l
MR. GOLLER:
Yes, it has, but as I indicated beforo.we're still accepting comments as they're being-i submitted;by essentially anyone.
Apparently a special situation developed here in that..it-was their intent to submit comments earlier and there was some kind of an 4
-administrative mistake made and-the comments were.
i
...s v
~ m o,. g -
e
I
(
naz ve.
66 l
O l
?
I misdirected.
To my knowledge they either have only very-f 2
recently or way still not have been officially submitted.
2 We have received a copy other than that in which we will I'
now submit if it did not come in a more usual train.
1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Misdirected?-
9 1
MR. JAMGOCHIRN:
Excuse me, I'd like to' clear l
l 7
it up.
As I understand it, there's a problem in SECY's 3
office relative to combining the comments on the draft j
?
negative declaration'and the proposed rule.
I think 10 t
that's where the problem is.
6 11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I see.
Okay now, does AIF 1
1.
make a statement in there that they are now going to 1.
t take the position _that complete environmental statements j
is should be written by the NRC on all our actions?
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You say the potential i
14 is intriguing.
I i
MR. COLLER:
In this comment letter they. address !
,3
~l only this rulemaking, it's not that general.
They do g
i list a number of basis --
j.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What are the points on which l
- g 3
they believe that?
.i I
MR. GOLLER:
They. indicate that the alternr.cives -;
24 to the proposed action are not adequately. addressed.
It's t
actually quite:aDiengthy list, eight specific points that 1
t MN
~
\\
\\h 67 c
9 nacc
.c.
h they make.
The impact of the planc shutdowns due to the rule are grossly underestimated. judgement that shutdowns 4
2 uill be few and of short duration is not substantiated.
Replacement of the generating capacity that might be A
i 3
required.
Plant shutdowns might, in fact, not exis*
i 6
at the time.
_But state and local governments may not l
cooperate as' a point that we discussed before.
l-Requirement for 15-minute notification has not been l
3 i
L i
4 g
l carefully considered.
I believe there are a few others.
l
~
10 i
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess obviously evidence i
i II is my lack.of full understanding of NEPA.
I'm not I
1:
sure where those are cutting.
I can understand there 1
I$
i 6
j being comments on inadequacies in the rule, but why-would i
J j
I4 j
they be in an argument that the declaration of negative 1
M j
assessment?
I4 i
MR. BICKWIT:
Well MEPA does require thai there i
17 be c.lternatives excmincd even in environmental assessment.
1 I3 l
l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But the environmental impact j-19 of the actions are minimal.
- 0 l
j MR. BICKWIT:
What the environmental assessment
[
.i
' characteristically does is discuss these alternatives and then come to a conclusion whether there-is or 'is not
]
3 a substantial environmental impact.
l 3
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But if the proposed action
.l
-l 1-..-~,--
~
I i
Nh
- b$
g(fs 68 ar o
nez..c.
I L
1
-- the conclusion is the proposed actions would have j
j f
diminimous affect on envira:nen:al impact.
That's.a i
4 2
negative declaration --
i L
3 i
MR. BICIG1IT:
If that's the conclusion and it's J
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Then docsn't one have to make i
j j
5 the argument to arguc~against that declaration that the r
proposed act' ions could have significant environmental s
t impact --
i I
i 9
MR. BICKWIT:
I assume that that's what they're i
e I
F 10 f
arguing.
i 1
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But those arguments don't 1
i i ~
1:
l sound like arguments of environmental impact of actions.
MR. BICKWIT:
I think one that I heard sounded ta j
a little like that that there might be a. greater. plant is i
shutdowns than had been anticipated by the staff in the i
16 I
draf t that would mean potentially greater environmental r
j 17 l.
impact associated with alternative sources of production
)
l l
18 o f power.
CIIAIRMAN AREARNE:
Yeah, you didn't say that, j
j that's what I expected.
You didn't.say that.
l
.I i
- t MR. BICKWIT:
I assume that's what they mean.
l t
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I'm sorry.
3 4
MR. MINOGUE:
That was the point I was going i
i I
to make.-
h** **' #-
"?
m-o N
0 0
D N{ D maar sc.
i
\\
l i
i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yeah, see but that's what'I was waiting'to hear and it didn't take that next step.
The' i
next step would have to say that coal is dirty.
I wasn't 2
sure they were at that stage and that's what I was --
j f
MR. GOLLER:
Well-as I said we did primarily i
1 5
want to make the Commission aware of this because of the 7
problems I mentioned before.
We in Standards at least 3
obtained a copy of this only yesterday.
We really 9
i haven't come to any --
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I see.
It's actually dated l
- i I
February 21st.
l t-i MR. GOLLER:
It is dated February 21 and who j
was apparently within the Commission's offices sometime la shortly thereafter.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Have you taken a look at id I
what else might be there on the negative declaration?
17 MR. GOLLER:
We intend to do that, That l
13 completes my prepared ccmments if the Commission has any 19 other questions or any other areas that it would like to
- 0 identify for discussion at this time we'll be happy to
,1 do so.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do you have any other-1 i
comments?
4 5
MR. GRIMES:
I had one other thought coming out t-n
.r 6 y r = - - i e
C I
x 70 paa:
<c.
of the workshops and that is in the high interests expressed; in some of these comments that the Commissioners might i
want to consider setting aside a half a day to hear i
i i
4
.1 directly some of these concerns from state and local l
3 officials, utilities, and the general public.
You might even pay the way of selected state and local officials, i
8 l
i that would be useful.
But you might want to consider I
3 1
rather than having a hearing on a particular point you i
might want to take that into consideration.
l 10 CIIAIRMAN AIIEARNE:
Fine.
1:
(Whereupon the hearing adjeurned at 11:45 a.m.)
4 I
$.L t
13 i
$7 I
la I
19 20 l
v I
a I
l l
l
- 4
[
i og
=
t-rrm..re.gve.u m W :es